0 comment Monday, November 10, 2014 | admin
This story and a later one are interesting in a couple of ways. First, though, we all knew, those of us who care about these things, that this was a deliberate plan. We knew that it was being carried out contrary to the wishes of the people of the UK, just as the same kind of thing is going on here and in all Western countries. An excerpt:
Official figures to be published on Thursday will confirm that foreign immigration under Labour added more than three million to our population.
At the same time nearly one million British citizens voted with their feet, some saying that they were leaving because England was no longer a country that they recognised.
How could all this have happened in the teeth of public opposition? Even the Labour government�s own survey last February showed that 77 per cent of the public wanted immigration reduced, including 54 per cent of the ethnic communities, while 50 per cent of the public wanted it reduced 'by a lot�.
[...]
The strongest evidence for conspiracy comes from one of Labour�s own. Andrew Neather, a previously unheard-of speechwriter for Blair, Straw and Blunkett, popped up with an article in the Evening Standard in October 2009 which gave the game away.
Immigration, he wrote, didn't just happen; the deliberate policy of Ministers from late 2000...was to open up the UK to 'mass immigration.'
But the fact that this is being discussed so openly is the interesting thing. Can any American reading this blog imagine one of our large daily newspapers acknowledging such a thing? I can't. The Washington Times is the only thing approaching a 'conservative' major daily paper, and it is politically correct in its way. I confess I have not read the Washington Times lately, because it is so predictably Republican and 'safe.' But though stories about border violations (Border Patrol agents shot by illegal immigrants or drug gangs, etc.) they did not address immigration policy, or the very fact that our country was being transformed, even though it may be the biggest story of our lifetimes.
So, the British media is sometimes more open and frank than our own media on this issue, at least. And given the fact that the UK overall seems to keep a much tighter control over people's speech and behavior, this is not what we would expect.
A commenter says:
''Immigration has utterly ruined this country. Our homogenous British population gave us a stable society to which everyone belonged to, with everyone sharing the same culture and values. Mass immigration of foreign people and their cultures has thrown a very large spanner in the works, one which is rapidly eradicating the cultural and ethnic identity of our country. I really fear for the future of our country. It's the British people who made this country great, but they are now being replaced.
- Oliver, Surrey, G Britain
This is a very civil and factual comment, but I think in some of our papers, the moderators would delete it. The first sentence alone would probably doom the comment to deletion.
Most such articles in the Telegraph seem to elicit hundreds of comments, so there are obviously strong feelings on the part of many people in the UK, where immigration is concerned.
We here in the States have some latitude as to freedom of expression, but politically incorrect comments on newspaper websites are often deleted or heavily moderated, and usually are met with obnoxious responses from leftist readers -- who may in fact be people who are paid to shout down politically incorrect comments on the Internet, or they may just be true believer leftists. In any case, I would say that outside the blogosphere, viewpoints that are politically incorrect are just not heard, not allowed to be heard. Some news websites are more lenient than others, but a great deal of censorship goes on.
This is also true of talk radio, which used to be considered a bastion of conservatism. So other than blogs, these issues are pretty much ignored.
Most Americans on 'conservative' blogs jeer at the British for being too passive and supine when it comes to the transformation and ethnic cleansing that is going on, but I question whether that is an accurate impression; it may be that there are things going on beneath the surface.
Before someone tells me that I am imagining this to be true, just indulging in wishful thinking, I think that one advantage that the people of the UK have is that they are not afflicted with this national neurosis regarding slavery, racial amends, and proving our lack of 'racist' inclinations. While American 'conservatives' are scouring the landscape, searching the farthest horizons for 'conservative blacks' to promote to leadership, the British, French, et al seem relatively free of this strange affliction, thus enabling them to think more clearly about the situation. Until we Americans can disentangle ourselves from this obsession, we will forever be spinning our wheels.
I don't count the British out just yet; we don't know what may happen. And there are signs of life in France as well, though now ''our'' government is presuming to teach the French how to have better rapport with their 'minority populations.' It would be laughable, were it not so tragic.
Somebody needs to teach the American people, particularly those of the colorblind Republican persuasion, how to shed their peculiar hangups so that this country might be able to see clearly again.
Official figures to be published on Thursday will confirm that foreign immigration under Labour added more than three million to our population.
At the same time nearly one million British citizens voted with their feet, some saying that they were leaving because England was no longer a country that they recognised.
How could all this have happened in the teeth of public opposition? Even the Labour government�s own survey last February showed that 77 per cent of the public wanted immigration reduced, including 54 per cent of the ethnic communities, while 50 per cent of the public wanted it reduced 'by a lot�.
[...]
The strongest evidence for conspiracy comes from one of Labour�s own. Andrew Neather, a previously unheard-of speechwriter for Blair, Straw and Blunkett, popped up with an article in the Evening Standard in October 2009 which gave the game away.
Immigration, he wrote, didn't just happen; the deliberate policy of Ministers from late 2000...was to open up the UK to 'mass immigration.'
But the fact that this is being discussed so openly is the interesting thing. Can any American reading this blog imagine one of our large daily newspapers acknowledging such a thing? I can't. The Washington Times is the only thing approaching a 'conservative' major daily paper, and it is politically correct in its way. I confess I have not read the Washington Times lately, because it is so predictably Republican and 'safe.' But though stories about border violations (Border Patrol agents shot by illegal immigrants or drug gangs, etc.) they did not address immigration policy, or the very fact that our country was being transformed, even though it may be the biggest story of our lifetimes.
So, the British media is sometimes more open and frank than our own media on this issue, at least. And given the fact that the UK overall seems to keep a much tighter control over people's speech and behavior, this is not what we would expect.
A commenter says:
''Immigration has utterly ruined this country. Our homogenous British population gave us a stable society to which everyone belonged to, with everyone sharing the same culture and values. Mass immigration of foreign people and their cultures has thrown a very large spanner in the works, one which is rapidly eradicating the cultural and ethnic identity of our country. I really fear for the future of our country. It's the British people who made this country great, but they are now being replaced.
- Oliver, Surrey, G Britain
This is a very civil and factual comment, but I think in some of our papers, the moderators would delete it. The first sentence alone would probably doom the comment to deletion.
Most such articles in the Telegraph seem to elicit hundreds of comments, so there are obviously strong feelings on the part of many people in the UK, where immigration is concerned.
We here in the States have some latitude as to freedom of expression, but politically incorrect comments on newspaper websites are often deleted or heavily moderated, and usually are met with obnoxious responses from leftist readers -- who may in fact be people who are paid to shout down politically incorrect comments on the Internet, or they may just be true believer leftists. In any case, I would say that outside the blogosphere, viewpoints that are politically incorrect are just not heard, not allowed to be heard. Some news websites are more lenient than others, but a great deal of censorship goes on.
This is also true of talk radio, which used to be considered a bastion of conservatism. So other than blogs, these issues are pretty much ignored.
Most Americans on 'conservative' blogs jeer at the British for being too passive and supine when it comes to the transformation and ethnic cleansing that is going on, but I question whether that is an accurate impression; it may be that there are things going on beneath the surface.
Before someone tells me that I am imagining this to be true, just indulging in wishful thinking, I think that one advantage that the people of the UK have is that they are not afflicted with this national neurosis regarding slavery, racial amends, and proving our lack of 'racist' inclinations. While American 'conservatives' are scouring the landscape, searching the farthest horizons for 'conservative blacks' to promote to leadership, the British, French, et al seem relatively free of this strange affliction, thus enabling them to think more clearly about the situation. Until we Americans can disentangle ourselves from this obsession, we will forever be spinning our wheels.
I don't count the British out just yet; we don't know what may happen. And there are signs of life in France as well, though now ''our'' government is presuming to teach the French how to have better rapport with their 'minority populations.' It would be laughable, were it not so tragic.
Somebody needs to teach the American people, particularly those of the colorblind Republican persuasion, how to shed their peculiar hangups so that this country might be able to see clearly again.
Labels: Ethnic Cleansing, France, Free Speech, Globalism, Mass Immigration, Race Replacement, Tyranny, Uk
0 comment Monday, October 27, 2014 | admin
There is an interesting and informative exchange here on Daniel Hannan's blog on the Telegraph UK website.
I've posted a video or two of Hannan, or linked to articles of his. And readers have warned me that he is not on our side, a fact of which I am aware. But even knowing that I was appalled at his responses on the thread to commenter 'cotewood.'
From one of cotewood's comments:
''Yesterday, Daniel Hannan made a remarkable and fundamentally Marxist response to a question I asked him, and I want that comment front-of-house for a while, at least, so those many DT readers who admire him may understand what is really inside his head.
It is cowardice and careerism.
This was my question:
Do the English have the same right to life and land as every other people everywhere, or is there some strange thing about us which demands that we be race-replaced in England by Africans and Asians?
To this Daniel said:
I've already explained why I fundamentally reject your definition of Britishness, and why I am glad we define nationality in civic rather than ethnic terms. The more one thinks about your arbitrary cut-off point, the sillier it is. Why include the Dutch who came over with William III? Or the Hugueonots? Or the Flemish weavers? Or the Normans? Or the Danes? Or the Saxons? Or the Romans?
Now, "the cut-off point" for being one with the English nation is clear to me. With intent or by stupidity, our political class launched a war of word and deed against the English on 22nd June 1948 - the day the Windrush docked. In this war our natural rights and interests, our voice, the very fact of our nature and our existence have been denied.
For me, then, the English remain the true and only people of this land, and can be discovered today only in the descendants of those who were the English before this criminal enterprise began.
Notice that Daniel is saying the same as any Socialist Workers Party member. He says that the English, as they exist in kinship today, are no different to Somalis, Afghans, Albanians, Poles, Jamaicans, Pakistanis, Chinese, Iraqis, Iranians, Turks, Zimbabweans, Libyans ... You name it, that's what the English are. A capacious bag into which anything can be stuffed. Essentially meaningless.
Would he say that to a Jew? No. You can't tell a Jew he has no ethnicity, no collective being of his own that didn't belong to any African or any Arab. So why does he think the English are of so little account?
Why, because he is afraid of the party apparatus. He is afraid that he will be asked by some Pakistani constituent whose grandfather came here in 1954 "Why aren't I English?" He is afraid to tell him, "Because you're Pakistani. You can't be both"
Then we come to the second half of my question: why we English apparently have no right to a place of our own on this earth. With typical libertarian fatuity Daniel replies:
Who has the right to land? He who owns it in law, whether through inheritance, purchase or gift.
But territory is not debated at the level of house deeds and patio areas. This is a pathetic and unworthy evasion. Territory is the guarantor of a people's existence. The land of England is our guarantor. It is what our forefathers laboured to make and to pass down to their posterity - not to Africans and Asians. It is what they fought and died to defend.
The little Tory hides behind a piece of title paper while his people are dispossessed. Where is the true stature of the Englishman in that? I do not see it. And yet Daniel is not ashamed. He is proud to wag a finger at the hated BNP!
Really, this is where England ends, in the evasion and shamelessness of its politicians. God help us.''
Cotewood says it all very eloquently, and Hannan's responses seem irritable and shallow -- typical of the politician. I had the vague notion that Hannan might have some greater feeling for his country but it appears he is not much different than the rest. His point about regarding Britishness as a civic identity (which it is, actually, as contrasted to Englishness) tells it all. He is one of those proposition nation people, one of the melting pot advocates.
Here is a kind of encapsulation of the exchange between Hannan and 'cotewood', who is the person some of us know as Guessedworker at Majority Rights, apparently.
What he says about the predicament of his kinsmen and his country applies to our situation, too.
And it seems that the politicians are the same all over the Western world; they owe their allegiances to someone other than their own people, their ethnic brethren.
I've posted a video or two of Hannan, or linked to articles of his. And readers have warned me that he is not on our side, a fact of which I am aware. But even knowing that I was appalled at his responses on the thread to commenter 'cotewood.'
From one of cotewood's comments:
''Yesterday, Daniel Hannan made a remarkable and fundamentally Marxist response to a question I asked him, and I want that comment front-of-house for a while, at least, so those many DT readers who admire him may understand what is really inside his head.
It is cowardice and careerism.
This was my question:
Do the English have the same right to life and land as every other people everywhere, or is there some strange thing about us which demands that we be race-replaced in England by Africans and Asians?
To this Daniel said:
I've already explained why I fundamentally reject your definition of Britishness, and why I am glad we define nationality in civic rather than ethnic terms. The more one thinks about your arbitrary cut-off point, the sillier it is. Why include the Dutch who came over with William III? Or the Hugueonots? Or the Flemish weavers? Or the Normans? Or the Danes? Or the Saxons? Or the Romans?
Now, "the cut-off point" for being one with the English nation is clear to me. With intent or by stupidity, our political class launched a war of word and deed against the English on 22nd June 1948 - the day the Windrush docked. In this war our natural rights and interests, our voice, the very fact of our nature and our existence have been denied.
For me, then, the English remain the true and only people of this land, and can be discovered today only in the descendants of those who were the English before this criminal enterprise began.
Notice that Daniel is saying the same as any Socialist Workers Party member. He says that the English, as they exist in kinship today, are no different to Somalis, Afghans, Albanians, Poles, Jamaicans, Pakistanis, Chinese, Iraqis, Iranians, Turks, Zimbabweans, Libyans ... You name it, that's what the English are. A capacious bag into which anything can be stuffed. Essentially meaningless.
Would he say that to a Jew? No. You can't tell a Jew he has no ethnicity, no collective being of his own that didn't belong to any African or any Arab. So why does he think the English are of so little account?
Why, because he is afraid of the party apparatus. He is afraid that he will be asked by some Pakistani constituent whose grandfather came here in 1954 "Why aren't I English?" He is afraid to tell him, "Because you're Pakistani. You can't be both"
Then we come to the second half of my question: why we English apparently have no right to a place of our own on this earth. With typical libertarian fatuity Daniel replies:
Who has the right to land? He who owns it in law, whether through inheritance, purchase or gift.
But territory is not debated at the level of house deeds and patio areas. This is a pathetic and unworthy evasion. Territory is the guarantor of a people's existence. The land of England is our guarantor. It is what our forefathers laboured to make and to pass down to their posterity - not to Africans and Asians. It is what they fought and died to defend.
The little Tory hides behind a piece of title paper while his people are dispossessed. Where is the true stature of the Englishman in that? I do not see it. And yet Daniel is not ashamed. He is proud to wag a finger at the hated BNP!
Really, this is where England ends, in the evasion and shamelessness of its politicians. God help us.''
Cotewood says it all very eloquently, and Hannan's responses seem irritable and shallow -- typical of the politician. I had the vague notion that Hannan might have some greater feeling for his country but it appears he is not much different than the rest. His point about regarding Britishness as a civic identity (which it is, actually, as contrasted to Englishness) tells it all. He is one of those proposition nation people, one of the melting pot advocates.
Here is a kind of encapsulation of the exchange between Hannan and 'cotewood', who is the person some of us know as Guessedworker at Majority Rights, apparently.
What he says about the predicament of his kinsmen and his country applies to our situation, too.
And it seems that the politicians are the same all over the Western world; they owe their allegiances to someone other than their own people, their ethnic brethren.
Labels: England, Mass Immigration, Political Classes, Race Replacement, Uk