I have not been able to interest myself in the Super-League debacle, largely because I would have preferred the game of African kick-ball which English professional football has become to die out, to be honest.  But here, anyway, is a pretty good, historically-grounded and factually accurate analysis by NativistConcern of the attempt to take the Big Six truly global, and destroy the rest of African kick-ball in the process.

It’s just a pity that the video-maker is another one lost to the poetic lie of heroism and the life of glory - and more a pity because, actually, he has a real feel for the life and culture of the old working-class.

Not much.  But it’s a win and it appears to be unusual.

However, is it unusual that a case like this appears on the front age of the Telegraph website, or are these cases unusual?  Is it that the media have not really reported them or do indigenous Brits simply put up with arrogant big mouthery from non-whites in positions of authority over them?

Worker told ‘English people are lazy drunks’ wins discrimination claim
A transport company employee who was an ethnic minority at his workplace has won a discrimination claim after his colleagues jeered that the English were lazy drunks.

James Heeley, an administrator at Birk Holdings, was repeatedly teased about his nationality by his co-workers, who asked whether he was “still drunk” when he came to the office.

His boss, Gurvinder Singh Birk, was overheard saying English employees are “lazy and only interested in claiming benefits”.

Mr Heeley was one of five white British employees at the company of 16 - making him a “minority”, the employment tribunal in Bury St Edmunds heard.

... Mr Birk was ordered to pay Mr Heeley £2,500 in compensation for injury to feelings, and a further £961.74 for breaching employment law.

Mr Heeley began working at Birk Holdings in Peterborough in October 2017 and was sacked in March 2019 by Mr Birk, who cited concerns about his performance, attendance and time keeping.

The tribunal panel, chaired by Employment Judge Jennifer Bartlett, found that he was subjected to numerous derogatory comments.

Senior employees said “English drivers do drive slowly” and accused Mr Heeley of not working hard because “he’s English”, the tribunal heard.

On one occasion, two colleagues sneered: “Can tell you’re British as you don’t have your coat on. Are you still drunk from last night?”

After Mr Heeley took a few days off sick, an employee said: “Oh, the lazy English worker has decided to come back to work”. The same employee commented: “Lazy English workers are always off sick”.

Mr Birk was said to have told a senior employee not to hire British workers because they “can turn you down easily and claim benefits”.

The tribunal panel agreed that Mr Heeley had suffered race discrimination and harassment.

It concluded: “We consider that the comments are serious such that they create a hostile and/or intimidating environment because they are by a number of reasonably senior individuals, over a period of time, repeated and in a workplace in which the claimant was a minority.

“We do not accept that the fact that he called some of the comments jokes undermines their effect on him. Many extremely unpleasant behaviours can be dressed up as jokes but it is no excuse.”

Will the controlled media be as callous and disinterested as it is with the murder of Ashli Babbitt?  Will it be a case of “Race? What race?”

Since its inception in 2005 Conservative Home has become an “indispensable read” for Tory party members and MPs, particularly those of a centrist persuasion.  These days it is edited by Paul Goodman, who maintains a rigorous guard against any suggestion (and I mean any suggestion) of nationalist critique among the commentariat, while allowing hating lefties free range to attack all and sundry for any backsliding on ethnic suicidalism.  It is not entirely clear how Mr Goodman would feel, say, should ethnic suicidalism ever grip the gentlefolk of Israel.

But today someone let Richard Ritchie, not a Jew but Enoch Powell’s archivist, to post an abridged version of a 16,000 word paper he has authored.  Its subject is the parliamentary history of immigration.  Cue a deadly bunfight below the line, but a bunfight which has lacked the usual viciously partisan moderation.  One can’t help wondering what all those so so respectable centrists are thinking as they peruse the thread.  How to survive the conniptions, probably.  No doubt order will be restored tomorrow.

The Telegraph reports:

Nigel Farage quits politics - and this time he means it
The Reform Party leader is stepping back after almost three decades. But he’s still got the woke brigade in his crosshairs

Mr Farage announces he is resigning as leader of the Reform Party and turning his back on politics after three decades of political street fighting.

He says: “There is no going back - Brexit is done. That won’t be reversed. I know I’ve come back once or twice when people thought I’d gone, but this is it. It’s done. It’s over.

...

He adds: “Now’s the moment for me to say I’ve knocked on my last door. I’m going to step down as the leader of Reform UK. I’ll have no executive position at all. I’m quite happy to have an honorary one, but party politics, campaigning, being involved in elections, that is now over for me because I’ve achieved the one thing I set out to do: to achieve the independence of the UK.”

The 56-year-old insists that he had no plans to retire, saying: “I’m not packing up. I’m not off to play golf four afternoons a week and have half a bitter afterwards. That’s not happening.” Instead, he will be trying to influence the national debate on China’s influence in the UK and the battles over the so-called culture wars.

He says he wants to “do battle” on two “very big” issues: “One is the extent to which the Chinese Communist Party is taking over our lives and certainly has undue influence in our country. And the other thing [is] the ‘woke agenda’ - literally the indoctrination of our children from primary school all the way through university with now a completely different interpretation of history.

Farage, of course, has form for resigning and returning, and a lot of people in possession of a memory will greet his retirement news with some cynicism.  After all, it’s only five minutes since he relaunched The Brexit Party as Reform UK, supposedly focussing on lockdown and Covid strategy.  Now he’s thrown that over completely, invented an anti-Chinese cause to talk up, and returned to flirting with the culture war agenda currently in the hands of Laurence Fox and his Reclaim Party (who announced today that he will stand in the London mayoral election, which sounds like a bad idea to me).  Farage the great communicator was, it seems, a terrible political manager to the last.

One should, of course, give him his due for his role in freeing this country (excluding Northern Ireland, obviously) from the EU project.  That achievement alone secures his place in British history.  The patriotic right will be poorer for his absence from party politics.  Nationalism, however, may gain substantially from it.

This is very good news:

English nationalists can be protected from discrimination under equality laws, judge rules
People with firm political views regarding the culture, identity and politics of England potentially qualify to sue under equality laws

English nationalists can be protected from discrimination in the same way as followers of a religion or those who hold philosophical beliefs, a judge has ruled.

People with firm political views regarding the culture, identity and politics of England potentially qualify to sue under equality laws if they believe they have suffered as a result of their opinions.

However, publicly expressing anti-Muslim sentiments disqualifies them from protection because it infringes on the rights of others.

These conclusions were reached by employment judge Christiana Hyde at a London tribunal involving the political figure Steven Thomas, who was attempting to sue the NHS for discrimination.

Mr Thomas, who has campaigned for the English Democrat Party, claimed he was sacked as a consultant from Surrey and Borders NHS Trust in July 2018 after just three months due to his political views.

...

The 56-year-old from Kent claimed his nationalistic views are equivalent to a philosophical belief and should therefore be a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010.

Judge Hyde concluded that Mr Thomas was entitled to claim for discrimination under the Equality Act as his nationalistic views could qualify as a philosophical belief, but his opposition to multiculturalism and Islamification undermined his claim.

To qualify as a protected characteristic, a philosophical belief must be: genuinely held; a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint; a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour; attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance; and be worthy of respect in a democratic society, compatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.

Judge Hyde ruled that while Mr Thomas had succeeded on the first four points, his anti-Islamic views meant he had failed on the fifth.

...

“He clearly had a very static and somewhat simplistic view of what constituted all things English.

“(His) belief included views about the way in which a society in which those of varied racial origins, religions and cultures should be ordered.

So, some thoughts ...

Potentially, the judge introduced two important caveats.  First, the relentless and pointless anti-Islam garbage one encounters so frequently among Britain First members, civic nationalists such as For Britain, and Tommy Robinson fans is disqualifying.  But criticising what has become known as Muslim grooming ... criticising the criminality of that part of the Muslim male population which has groomed, trafficked, and abused or prostituted for abuse underage girls ... cannot be so.  It really does require only a modicum of intelligence to stay the right side of the law.

The second caveat is that the law is indeed crafted to defend multiracialism and multiculturalism, as we all know.  But it does not state that the English people are in any part a non-white people.  On the contrary, government itself confirms the specificity of the English people in its ethnicity choices for the 2011 Census form for England and Wales:

White: Total Š English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish/British Š Irish Š Gypsy or Irish Traveller Š Other White Š Mixed/multiple ethnic group: Total Š White and Black Caribbean Š White and Black African Š White and Asian Š Other Mixed Š Asian/Asian British: Total Š Indian Š Pakistani Š Bangladeshi Š Chinese Š Other Asian Š Black/African/Caribbean/Black British: Total Š African Š Caribbean Š Other Black Š Other ethnic group: Total Š Arab Š Any other ethnic group

So the judge’s comments conceding Mr Thomas’s supposed “very static and somewhat simplistic view of what constituted all things English” cannot reasonably extend to the question of English ethnicity.  Her further remark that Mr Thomas’s “views about the way in which a society in which those of varied racial origins, religions and cultures should be ordered” likewise is at odds with the law’s support for Jews in Jewish organisations, say, to advocate for the import of more and more refugees and impose stricter and stricter hate speech laws.  The fact that the interests of a native people must differ in multiple ways from those of non-native peoples, and that will impact upon “the way in which a society ... should be ordered” cannot reasonably be held as grounds to exclude advocacy of the former from legal protection.

To expand on this point, 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.

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.

This urgent call to protest by a very beautiful young lady named Thaïs ...

https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/065/824/051/original/12f953fd1da2963f.mp4

... is in response to the imminent closure of her movement Génération Identitaire, as explained here:

French government launches procedure to dissolve Génération Identitaire
On Friday, February 12, four police officers officially notified the president of Génération Identitaire of the government’s intention to initiate the dissolution of the association

This announcement was not based on any facts. The group is firstly accused of forming a “private militia”. The Minister of the Interior criticized their action “Defend Europe” in the Alps, even though they have not been charged with any misdemeanour. Also, their action in the Pyrenees to stop illegal migrants were cited even though it did not cause “any disturbance to public order” according to the prefect of the region.

French Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin also accused them of “inciting hatred”, a vague concept which only aims to criminalize any opposition to the migratory invasion and for which the group has never been condemned.

In a statement, GI said they would use all legal channels to invalidate this iniquitous decision which violated their basic freedoms.

The issue seems to be that the French Establishment has to crack down on nationalists because it is attempting to reform Islam.  It’s the way the bureaucratic mind functions.  GI’s great crime is that it is effective while defending genuine French ethnicity and culture.  If it loses this battle it will doubtless rise again like the proverbial phoenix.

The population of London has declined by 700,000 over the course of the lockdowns.  Bad news for neoliberals and Treasury officials who need to borrow against GDP.  Good news for the native Brits but also for BAME race hucksters.

There seem to be no official figures on it, but the assumption is that the two main components in that reduction are middle-class natives who have moved to quieter and safer towns, and East European migrant workers who have returned home (not only from the UK - there has been an exodus from Holland too, and probably the rest of Western Europe).  Population rises across Eastern Europe attest to that fact.  Bogdan and Yana will have to find something else to do, although both of them doubtless have been given the right to remain here under the Brexit deal, and will hustle back if the cab business and the nail-bar open again.

Long-term, London’s economic future depends on whether the middle-class exodus is permanent, ie, whether home-working is now a fixture and the office is expensive and superfluous.  If the middle-class does not return to office work it won’t need leafy, gentrified streets on which to live, and if it doesn’t need those it won’t partake of the city’s cultural and gastronomic pleasures.  The city itself will morph by degrees into a cross between Kinshasa and Chittagong, which will drive the multiculti-minded pols totally nuts.  Queue bussing policies, rural public sector housing policies, and endless ministerial anxiety over the “racist” British countryside.

Meanwhile, yesterday the Telegraph ran a photo essay on London in the 1960s.  Was it really better than today, they asked?