... living in the home of the British people.

In his announcement of the new national lock-down this evening, which comes into force this Thursday, Boris Johnson informed us that there is a reasonable chance of a Covid-19 vaccine for a UK-wide inoculation programme during the first quarter of next year.  Never let it be said, however, that black lives do not matter.

People could be prioritised for a coronavirus vaccine depending on their sex, ethnicity and wealth under proposals being discussed by the government.

The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), the body charged with devising the UK’s vaccine strategy, is considering the best way to decide who is most at risk from becoming seriously ill from COVID-19.neptune

It may even use an algorithm developed by academics at Oxford University which factors in a wide range of variables including “age, sex, ethnicity, deprivation, smoking status, body mass index, pre-existing medical conditions and current medications”.

...

According to Public Health England (PHE), twice as many working age men diagnosed with Covid have died compared to women; mortality rates in the poorest areas are double those in the wealthiest; and BAME communities have between a 10 and 50 per cent higher risk of death even once age, sex and social deprivation are taken into account.

Low skilled workers have a death rate almost four times that of professionals. For security guards - the hardest hit of all in the first wave - recorded deaths were almost twice that of men working in social care.

I do not care what happens to other peoples in places that are not my own people’s place.  I do not care what sadness or joy they find in life, for that life is their life, and my care is for the life of my people.

There are, however, educated, white, middle-class people who are paid to care and demand that we care too.

Ellen Ackroyd, a field manager for the aid organisation Help Refugees/Choose Love, based in Calais, said: “In Calais, these people face daily violent evictions from their makeshift shelters and there is a total lack of information about their legal rights.

“At the same time, people seeking protection in the UK can only do so once on UK soil yet no safe and legal routes are made available for this purpose.

“So long as the hostile and exclusionary treatment of people seeking protection continues, people will continue to attempt these dangerous journeys, which no one should ever have to undertake.”

Beth Gardiner-Smith, the chief executive of Safe Passage, one of a number of humanitarian groups that have long called for safe and legal routes for asylum seekers, said: “Nobody should have to risk their life to reach safety and today’s tragic news is the direct consequence of a lack of safe alternatives for those seeking sanctuary.

“Just this year, the government closed the Dubs route designed to give children safe passage to the UK. And now the only legal route left available to children – family reunion – will end in less than 10 weeks’ time unless the government acts now.

“Rather than speculating about ever more inhumane ways to push back and prevent refugees seeking asylum, the government should act now to protect family reunion and expand safe and legal routes for refugees.”

Mariam Kemple Hardy, the head of campaigns at Refugee Action, said: “No one wants to see people make dangerous crossings but the government’s hostile rhetoric does nothing to help. It must stop trying to look tough and urgently create more safe and legal routes for people to seek sanctuary in the UK.”

It goes without saying, of course, that these educated, white, middle-class people are not paid to care about us; and they don’t.

It was back in late May that little Lewis Hamilton, supported by the global corporations whose sport Formula 1 motor racing is, began virtue-shaming his fellow drivers into taking the knee.  The industry stampeded itself into a virtue-programme mis-named “We Race As One”, which is, of course, the complete opposite of the truth; and the whole shabang disappeared up its own intellectually pathetic fundament.  Enter sturdy Vitaly Petrov, the ex-FI driver and the first Russian to race in the formula.  At the Sochi GP in September he let it be known that, among other things:

“For me, a Black Lives Matter t-shirt is superfluous, as is calling on everyone to kneel,” Petrov said. “That is a personal matter for every adult.”

“I don’t understand the kneeling because, according to our traditions, a man kneels only in two cases – in a place of worship before God and when you propose to your future wife.”

“You can speak out on your social networks, you can give interviews, you can create some kind of social movement, you can contact the government. But for Formula 1 itself to call on everyone… I think half of the fans didn’t understand.”

Petrov then attacked Hamilton’s Breonna Taylor T-shirt, which he wore at Mugello.  Apparently, that was a political statement, and drivers were promptly banned from such stunts at subsequent races.  Petrov 1 Hamilton 0.

Somehow, Petrov then got himself chosen to serve as a steward for the Portuguese GP running on Sunday.  So, of course, Hamilton, the oppressed Monaco resident and half-billionaire, rushed to let his intolerance of different opinions be known.  He said:

“I would say it’s a surprise to see they would be hiring someone that has those beliefs, and is so vocal about things that we’re trying to fight against,” said Hamilton.

“So you should take it up with them really, there’s nothing I can particularly do about it.

“But we should definitely be including people here who are with the times, who are understanding of the times that we are living in, and sensitive to the matters that are surrounding us.

“I don’t really understand what their goal is or why particularly he’s here. It’s not like they don’t have any other good options.”

Today Hamilton has been joined by a bunch of rainbow letter people, who no one has ever heard of, but who are obviously considered important by the very woke motor racing media, who report that:

“Racing Pride wishes to express its concern at the appointment of Vitaly Petrov as an FIA Driver Steward for this weekend’s Portuguese Grand Prix in light of his recent, widely reported public comments relating to the #WeRaceAsOne initiative, which were both racist and homophobic in nature.”

On can only assume that the industry doesn’t give a damn about its fan base who, by definition, are not a bunch of weedy, pencil-neck sociology students or blokes in dresses who expect to use the ladies loo.  They’re petrol heads.  They’re not equality fanatics.  F1 is not about equality.  When Hamilton began whining about BLM the consensus of opinion among fans was “Stick to the racing, mate”.  Sadly, the FI media responded with lock-step wokery.  Not much dissent was visible.  On the Autosport readers forum one forum member well-known to the author of this post did manage to opine as follows:

I am an avid reader of Autosport.  I do not participate in the forum, after a brief flurry of doing so some years ago.  But today, with Luke Smith’s opinion piece titled “Why Lewis Hamilton’s “stick to racing” critics are missing the point” Autosport ventured into racial politics, and that I cannot allow to pass without the following mild protest.

Luke’s presumption is that F1 and, in particular, the media personnel covering F1, must have fewer white people.  By extension, white people everywhere, and most especially white men, may not exercise hegemony in any sphere of the life we have, by the genius and adventure of our forebears, created ex nihilo.  Apparently, our moral obligation is to get out of the way for the sake of “diversity” - something imposed upon us, as upon all Europeans, by the violence of the state and the deceit of politicians   It is an imposition to which we are, as much as is possible in Western society, denied dissent.  Apparently, speaking freely and dissenting on the matter ... arguing for the interests of our own people in our own home ... is so immoral for white people, it can only be met with a ritual public dehumanisation.  In our schools and universities the lock-step lesson our children have to learn is that because they are white they have “privilege”.  They are lesser beings than the oppressed innocents of the immigrant populations.  Yet the diversity-mongers like Luke meekly and mechanically presume that justice and fairness is a one-way, anti-white street.  It really isn’t.

In America half a century of vastly expensive efforts to lift African-Americans out of their lowly estate have not produced the perfect human equality which the liberal mind requires.  Puzzlingly, Chinese-Americans and Indian-Americans require no such aid.  The great bugbear “white racism” does not seem to hold them back at all.  It is an inconvenient fact which few black commentators besides Michelle Malkin or the brave social theorist Thomas Sowell will discuss.  It is something that Lewis could profitably think about.  Perhaps he might then attend not to his fellow racers, seeking to enlist them in the equality delusion, but to Africa’s children everywhere, urging them to examine themselves for the causes of their discontents.

But, please Autosport, don’t report it.  Stick to the racing.

The comment lasted 15 minutes.  The forum member was banned.  The F1 wokery don’t just fail to understand the soul of motor racing.  They have no souls.  They also have a sporting spectacle which has become painfully boring to watch and is haemorrhaging fans.  You would think they have better things to worry about than Hamilton’s tedious whining.  But at least we have to thank the little coloured boy for bringing a bit of excitement to this race weekend.  Never mind the even greater tedium on track.  Will Petrov remain in situ in Portugal until the race on Sunday afternoon?

Greece’s Golden Dawn leaders sentenced to 13 years in jail

Financial Times, 14 Oct

Neo-Nazi party heads ran criminal organisation responsible for murder and attacks on migrants on trade unionists.

The leaders of Greece’s neo-Nazi party Golden Dawn received 13-year jail sentences on Wednesday for running a criminal organisation responsible for the stabbing to death of a Greek rap artist and violent attacks against migrant workers and leftwing trade unionists.

       
        Nikos Michaloliakos

A special appeals court on Wednesday sentenced Nikos Michaloliakos, the party’s founder, and six other ex-lawmakers who formed its core leadership following a five-and-a half year trial. None of the seven was present in court as all had boycotted the proceeding in protest except when they were called to testify. 

Giorgos Roupakias, a Golden Dawn supporter found guilty of stabbing Pavlos Fyssas, a popular leftwing rapper, in a street brawl in 2013 in a low-income Athens suburb, received a life sentence for murder.

Ioannis Lagos, a member of the core group who was elected to the European parliament last year after founding his own political party, dismissed his conviction in a series of tweets, saying he intended to “continue on the same [political] path”.

The group’s requests for leniency on grounds that none had a previous criminal record were rejected by the three judges who presided over the marathon criminal trial which included the examination of some 250 witnesses and frequent delays caused by procedural objections from the defendants’ lawyers. 

“This was a political trial . . . the leadership of Golden Dawn received heavy sentences while not being accused of specific crimes. The party is not a criminal organisation, it is a one of national resistance,” Mr Michaloliakos said after the sentences were handed down.

Another 49 Golden Dawn members and supporters were sentenced to between five and 10 years for belonging to a criminal organisation. It was not immediately clear how many of those sentenced would remain free pending appeal.

“Golden Dawn is finished but what they represented continues, whenever attacks occur against refugees or there is discrimination or bullying in neighbourhoods and schools,” said former prime minister Alexis Tsipras, leader of the leftwing party Syriza. 

Mr Michaloliakos started his political career as the leader of a pro-junta youth group during Greece’s military dictatorship in the 1970s. After years on the fringes of Greek politics he led Golden Dawn into parliament at the height of the country’s economic crisis in 2012, winning almost 7 per cent of the vote in two successive elections that year.

He rapidly became the country’s most controversial politician because of Golden Dawn’s extremist rhetoric, fascist-style rallies and tolerance of violence by its members.

Yet the governing right-of-centre New Democracy party considered co-operation with Golden Dawn as it struggled to counter a surge in support for Syriza.

The New Democracy government arrested Golden Dawn’s leaders and party bosses in Athens immediately after Mr Fyssas was killed. Mr Michaloliakos spent 18 months in pre-trial detention before being allowed to resume his role in parliament — until the party lost all its seats at a general election last year.

Despite its neo-Nazi ideology, Golden Dawn has not been banned. An opinion poll published after the convictions were announced last week showed that 20 per cent of respondents believed there was a place in Greek politics for a “sober and serious” far-right party.

Nationalism: Understanding Our Struggle by Keith Woods

Kemi Badenoch, a Nigerian immigrant and Tory post girl for diversity, now serving as Equalities Minister in Boris Johnson’s government, has been in the news for her response in the Commons two days ago to a demand from Dawn Butler, Labour MP and the daughter of Jamaican immigrants, for the decolonisation of the school history curriculum.  Here is the guts of her reply:

Of course, the media are very excited about a black woman minister tearing into BLM; and it is good to see.  But the interesting thing is this passage at the end of the recording:

“Any school which teaches these elements of critical race theory as fact, or which promotes partisan political views such as defunding the police without offering a balanced treatment of opposing views, is breaking the law.

No doubt she is referring to one of the Education Acts.  But from a nationalist perspective it is simple racism to speak of, in Ms Badenoch’s words, “whiteness as oppression”.  Any generalised, race-based accusation directed at our ethnic kind is simple racism.  The practise of anti-racism itself is racism.

There is a primary and universal principle at issue here, which is that all peoples grouped by kinship naturally self-identify, and naturally express self-interest and self-concern.  In fact, British law does not disqualify any ethnic or racial group from so doing.  It is silent on the matter, seeking only to defend all groups defined by their “protected characteristics”, one of which, importantly, is national origin.

Our defining characteristic is not solely that we possess the physical trait of white skin by way of our northern European descent.  Our identity as the native ethny of the land which bears our name is also our defining characteristic of origin.  It is a proving point of difference to every other group in our home, white and non-white, for it automatically orients our self-interest and self-concern as qualities of a people equipped by Nature with the right, unique to us here, of defence of life and land.  It cannot be otherwise.  British law, in protecting our national origin, cannot but protect that orientation or it is to void it of meaning.  Nowhere does British law void our native status of meaning.  The principle of non-discrimination itself cannot void the native status of its meaning, for that would be discriminatory and therefore fall foul of itself.

British law does not void our native ethnic self-interest and self-concern of its meaning.  Therefore, attacks on our nationalism as the expression of that meaning (ie, as defence of our people against non-national groups colonising our home) cannot be lawfully made or communicated.

Discrimination against our native status is possible only because of a quite unexamined and one-eyed presumption that our act of self-defence is illegitimate merely because it expresses in opposition to the other groups who have come into our home over the past seven decades.  Those groups, by their acts of colonisation, initiate the oppositional relationship.  No native people, ensconced in its own home, can be held uniquely responsibly for the oppositional character of the relationship between coloniser and colonised.  It is the party which is offended against.

The moment is nearing when we must establish if the existing protections under law, ie, those parts of legislation dating from the 2010 Equalities Act back to the 1986 Public Order Act which are relevant and have force, apply equally to all.  If so, we must recover our right to speak and act in our own group interest, free of untrue and hateful accusations, like any other group.  The fact that, as the natives here, our people’s ethnic interests run contrary to the interests of non-native groups and to government policy on race, immigration and population is completely immaterial, and cannot constitute a lawful basis for discrimination against advocacy of our ethnic interests.

If action is taken one day and succeeds, the results will be felt across the polity, turning the tables completely on anti-racists, breaking their one weapon into small pieces, making us respectable at a stroke, and leaving them to stew in their own inexpressible hatreds.  The press will also be unable to mechanically employ the use of the same hateful and untrue terms, and could additionally be in breach of libel law if it does so.

I understand that the following is reported by the DT, raising the question as to whether the Met is rowing back on its persecution of David Starkey and Darren Grimes:

Police set to review investigation into Darren Grimes and David Starkey over YouTube comments
Scotland Yard has said a senior officer would be looking at the investigation to see if it was “proportionate”

The Metropolitan Police is reviewing its investigation into Darren Grimes and Dr David Starkey in connection with allegations of stirring up racial hatred, it can be revealed.

Scotland Yard has contacted both the conservative commentator and the historian to inform them a senior officer would be looking at the investigation to see if it was “proportionate” and that they are not required to attend a police station at this time.

The decision to investigate Mr Grimes for broadcasting an interview with Dr Starkey has led to widespread condemnation since it was revealed by the Daily Telegraph last week.

In the interview published on Mr Grime’s Reasoned UK YouTube channel on June 30 the historian said: “Slavery was not genocide, otherwise there wouldn’t be so many damn blacks in Africa or in Britain would there?”

... Mr Grimes told the Telegraph: “This vexatious claim against me should never have been investigated. At a time when many have been propelled into misery, it is a gross abuse of taxpayer cash and police time.

“I will be requesting a copy of the CPS advice that led to the intervention irrespective of whether they proceed or not, the dangerous precedent of broadcasters and journalists facing arrest and up to seven years imprisonment for ‘stirring up’ racial hatred as a consequence of what a guest said during an interview must not stand.

“We need an urgent review of the unprecedented use of this legislation to attack press freedom.”

A source close to Dr Starkey said “David’s supporters are delighted that common sense has at least temporarily prevailed”

One suspects that conservatives, along with reactionary historians, will sleep safer in the knowledge that the Metropolitan Police will probably not come knocking on their door because some slimy little pencil-neck in a Liverpool bedsit has exercise his citizen’s right to complain about “racism”.  Nationalists, however ...