Free Media Training Workshops (but not for You)!

Feel tempted? You could even attend a free media summer school in Sweden! Sorry, but they are not for you, but for ‘migrants’, for which read immigrants. Friday 22 June will witness the Free Media4All Conference (a nasty example of sub-literate titling if ever there was one) which will be hosted at London Metropolitan University. As you can see from the programme reproduced below, it is aimed squarely at providing yet more opportunities for immigrants to tell us why our country is their country, and why we are all the better for their being here. Of course, the fact that many immigrants will wish to say such a thing is only natural, but why should this initiative be sponsored and who is behind it? What benefit accrues to the indigenous population?

The Migrants Resource Centre turns out to be the driving force behind the conference, and it may come as a surprise (or not) to some readers that this organisation possesses charitable status (registered charity number 291789) and is also registered as a limited company (number 191162). Why has such an obviously political group been given charitable status? Also backing the conference and Swedish summer school is the website www.thenewlondoners.co.uk which is also devoted to propagandising the immigrant message that London is now theirs, and another body called Migrants and Media whose web address www.migrantsandmedia.eu no longer seems to be functioning. As to the aim of the Migrants Resource Centre, it is best stated in its own mission statement: 

‘Migrants Resource Centre has a vision of a British Society in which migrants and refugees are empowered and valued for their contribution to society.’ 

Interesting, is it not, that it has specifically chosen to substitute the term ‘migrants’ for ‘immigrants’, thus displaying its deep commitment to the ‘no borders’ movement and the concomitant assertion that we possess no right to political self-determination in our own country.

The conference programme reads as follows:

The MEDIVA project at London Metropolitan University invites you to an exciting and free media conference for migrants – a day of media related discussion, knowledge sharing and workshops in partnership with the Migrants Resource Centre

Register for this free media conference for migrants and learn practical skills and improve your confidence in journalism, radio, photography and engaging with the media.

Programme

9:30 – 10:00     Registration and refreshments

10:00 – 10:15   Welcome (Migrants Resource Centre)

10:15 – 11:00   Diversity in the Media: presentation and discussion on the MEDIVA testing of diversity indicators (London Metropolitan University)

11:00 – 13:00  Workshops running simultaneously:

‘Journalism: Telling your story effectively’

‘Practical skills in radio journalism’

‘FOCUS ON THE EDGE: digital story telling with photography’

‘How to be a media spokesperson’

13:00 – 13:45   Lunch

13:45 – 15:45  Workshops running simultaneously:

‘Journalism: Telling your story effectively’

‘Practical skills in radio journalism’

‘FOCUS ON THE EDGE: digital story telling with photography’

 ‘How to be a media spokesperson’

15:45 – 4pm     Closing remarks

Pat Condell blasts Suppression of Free Speech Across Europe

Watch Pat in his latest video letting off a salvo against politicians across Europe for betraying our liberties and values by facilitating Islamic mass immigration and then limiting our freedom of expression so as not to offend aggressive members of this imported minority. Shamefully, the President of the Free Speech Society Lars Herdegaard is on trial in Denmark for highlighting the disproportionate number of rapes committed by Muslim males in that country, bringing to mind the recent story in England demonstrating the predominance of Pakistani Muslim males in the on-street grooming and systematic sexual abuse of underage ethnic English girls. Alas, not only is Herdegaard on trial for speaking out against the unsavoury manifestations of Islam in European societies, but individuals are also currently being tried in Austria and Holland for daring to bring this unpalatable reality to the attention of the public.

Panorama on Population Growth in the UK

A General Election is approaching so the BBC decides to run a Panorama episode entitled "Is Britain Full?" Given that we have a severe housing shortage that grows worse by the day, continuous mass unemployment and underemployment, a virtually gridlocked road network and overloaded public transport system, schools where English is the minority language and areas of many of our towns and cities where you could quite readily believe yourself to be in Pakistan, Somalia or Nigeria, it is astonishing that the BBC has to arrange these three words in that particular order. My preference would be "Britain is full."

Granted, at least this immigration-driven issue was given an airing, but what was unspoken in the report was as telling as that which was said. It did touch upon the additional strains upon housing, the NHS, schools, transport and water supply, but not once did it mention the social problems caused by the de facto colonisation of a significant part of our urban landscape, and the resultant Islamisation and violent gang culture introduced by different immigrant groups. It did not mention the negative impact on the schooling of native British children caused by these factors and the influx of large numbers of non-English speakers. It did not mention the settlement of asylum claimaints (officially referred to as "seekers" irrespective of whether or not they are genuinely seeking asylum) or illegal immigration and people trafficking.

Even if net immigration were to be reduced to zero, if significant numbers of native Britons were to be replaced by Pakistanis, Somalis and Nigerians etc, this would still have a very negative impact upon the composition of our society and the quality of life of indigenous Britons.

What this Panorama episode did was afford spokesmen from the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties the opportunity to talk about their policies on immigration three weeks in advance of a General Election whilst not interviewing representatives of the BNP or UKIP. Thus the Tories were afforded the chance to proffer their bogus 'tough' stance on immigration which allegedly involves an annual "cap" on numbers although they will provide no figures; Phil Woolas was able to lie again and claim that immigration was falling, and Chris Huhne of the Liberal Democrats was able to talk about his party's hare-brained scheme of settling immigrants in areas of the UK that they consider to be relatively underpopulated ('unenriched' in their dreadfully euphemistic parlance). Surely the electorate, who cite immigration as the second most pressing problem, will not be stupid enough to vote for Clegg's bunch will they? Well, alas, this is what the controlled media would like to see happen, and what looks increasingly likely.

As with all BBC documentaries on immigration it contained an obligatory swipe at the BNP and a trip to Barking to speak to a token white working-class mother whose family have to live in housing blighted by mould and damp because social housing is being taken by immigrants. Her children were all suffering from asthma as a consequence. That any of our people have to live in such conditions is a scandal, and whilst any of our own have to live in squalor no immigrant should have any entitlement whatsoever to social housing. What is for certain is that none of our mainstream political parties (the Greens are even worse incidentally) are willing to tackle the immigration issue.

If you desire a peaceful future with a good quality of life for your children, there is no alternative but to shut the door to further immigration. We do not owe the world a living, and those from other parts of the globe should possess no right to settle here. Anyone who is admitted to our country should be given the right to residence only in exceptional circumstances. It should not be the norm as it is now. Think nationalist, vote nationalist. Vote BNP on 6 May.

Labour Manifesto Pledge: Civil War for Your Children

Today, the Labour Party launched its latest manifesto, and judging this 'book' by its cover you could be forgiven for thinking that it was touting for the blue-, red- and mauve-skinned vote looking at the stylised  family staring into the bright light of Labour's tomorrow. Presumably, this group of alien beings felt at home in their psychedelic-tinged landscape of symbolic fields illumined by a Sun that bears an uncanny resemblance to a detonating hydrogen bomb. If you think that the cover looks bad, delve into the contents and amidst the sloganeering sludge you will be able to divine that their intent is to completely snuff out the last vestiges of our national statehood, social cohesion and identity.

In the section entitled Meeting the challenges of the new global age the Labour Party demonstrates once again that it is intent on nurturing the preconditions for civil war in the UK by importing millions of hostile aliens. As I have written before, these will not be our culturally close cousins from Eastern Europe who generally speaking came with only positive intent, but the Muslim hordes from Turkey and the wider Middle East. Take a look at the following excerpt, and open your eyes:

"We support the enlargement of EU membership to include Croatia, and believe that all Western Balkan states should open negotiations on EU accession by 2014 – one hundred years after the start of the First World War. Turkey’s future membership is a key test of Europe’s potential to become a bridge between religions and regions; there must be continued progress on its application to join the EU. In its foreign policy, Europe should play a key role in conflict resolution and the promotion of security, and work bilaterally to achieve its goals with the leading global powers in each region of the world."

You have been warned: the Labour Party is intent upon implementing policies which unchecked will bring war to its own people. If its plans eventually come to pass, we will be forced into a situation where we either submit to a new Islamic political elite and live a squalid unequal life of persecution, or we take up arms and take our country back. This, I hope, will be a choice with which we are never confronted, for such an eventuality is neither desirable nor inevitable. We can choose to follow the policies necessary to restore social cohesion now (i.e. withdraw from the EU, ban Muslim immigration and encourage resident Muslims to leave), or we can watch our world fall apart and our children and grandchildren be reduced to a state of dhimmitude. If war were to come, the bloodshed would dwarf that which was witnessed in the former Yugoslavia. I am a peaceful individual who abhors war and conflict. I never want to see this happen, but if a Muslim elite were to take control, we would have little option but to fight or be murdered in the manner that millions of Jews and Poles were murdered by the Nazis.

Vote for peace and for hope on 6 May: vote BNP.

Brown's Immigration Speech: Hearing, not Listening

As has become customary Labour practice, selections from Gordon Brown’s speech on immigration today have been fed to the press in advance. As the BBC notes, this is his third such speech since becoming Prime Minister. Its content is wearisomely, depressingly familiar. He says that he must “listen” to and “engage” with public concerns on immigration, yet he knows not the meaning of the word “listen”; he does not “listen”, he merely hears. “Engage”? What does this word mean? It means ignoring what he hears; what we see, feel and think. What we know counts for nothing. It means telling us again, and again and again, that we are wrong.

Tellingly, he says: “How we conduct this debate is as important as the debate itself.”

My answer to this is no, it is not. It is not the manner in which it is conducted, but the substance itself – the issue of mass immigration - that is of such importance. Moreover, it is the question of the deliberate engineering of this human tide, and the annulment of national sovereignty that needs to be addressed and answered. These matters are portrayed as being of no importance by the likes of Brown, Cameron and Clegg, yet they are the very bedrock of our liberties and national democracy. These, it has been their intent to remove, and mass immigration, combined with absorption into the EU, have been their means of achieving this. Our sovereignty and national being have been stripped away, leaving what?

If you gradually replace the contents of a bottle of wine with water, does it remain a bottle of wine? It does not. If you replace the native British with myriad ethnic groups from around the world, does Britain remain Britain? No. It has become a Balkanised colony.

It is Brown’s belief, shared by all but a handful of Westminster politicians, that mass immigration is a good thing. Good for whom? Cui bono? Not us. Not the ordinary people of Britain.

When they, the advocates of this unbidden policy, cannot convince us, they hate us, and bring to bear a battery of fearful abuse: “extremist”, “racist”, “xenophobe” and “fascist”. Yet we are none of these. We are men and women of an independent cast of mind, who cannot and will not yield to the lies that we are fed from on high. We demand nothing more, than a return to a state of normalcy in our daily lives; a state in which we are free to speak our minds without fear of sanction or violence, in which we are sovereign; where our birthright is upheld. Today, sadly, this is not the case. Brown’s speech, and the cross-party consensus that it embodies, should be seen as nothing more than a cynical ploy to gull the electorate, an anodyne administered to a confused dying patient – the British people – to keep them quiet as they pass out of this world.

The BBC’s report on his speech is reproduced below:

PM urges united immigration front
Gordon Brown is to urge all parties to show a "united front" against those opposing immigration out of prejudice.

In a speech in London, the PM will say it is right for politicians to talk about the issue and address people's concerns about immigration levels.

But he will say debate must be measured and talk that immigration is "out of control" plays into extremists' hands.

The speech comes as a number of leading politicians challenged the main parties to toughen pledges on immigration.

The parliamentarians, including Labour MP Frank Field, have written an open letter challenging all the main parties to toughen their manifesto pledges.
The British National Party (BNP), which wants a stop to all immigration, except in exceptional cases, and to deport all illegal immigrants, won its first seats in the European Parliament last year.

Some Labour and Tory politicians blamed the BNP's breakthrough on the failure of their parties to address concerns about the impact of immigration on jobs, housing and social services.

'Right to talk'

Labour says the points-based system governing the amount of people that can come to work in the UK based on different criteria - introduced in 2008 - is fair, flexible and has contributed to a fall in immigration.

But the Tories say the current system is not working and have urged an annual cap to be set on immigration to reflect the UK's economic needs.

“ How we conduct this debate is an important as the debate itself ”

Gordon Brown on immigration

Conservative leader David Cameron has said net immigration levels - the difference between those coming into the UK and those leaving - have been too high in the past 10 years and need to be reduced.

In his second major speech on immigration in the past six months, Mr Brown will say people have a right to talk about the issue.

"As politicians in the mainstream of British politics, we have a duty to listen and engage with them - because if we don't people will listen to whoever does," he is expected to say.

"When we talk of fairness, it is right to talk of immigration and address people's worries and concerns.

"The question of who comes to Britain, and what they have to do to earn that privilege - it is something that should be the subject of open and responsible debate.

"But how we conduct this debate is an important as the debate itself."

'Standing together'
Mr Brown will say there is a consensus among mainstream parties in favour of immigration as a positive force in British society and a necessary contributor to economic growth.

"So I call on all those in the mainstream of our politics to stand together in the coming weeks and present a united front against those who don't value the diverse and outward-looking Britain that we stand for."

In November, Mr Brown announced plans for a points-based test for permanent residence and citizenship and more recently pledged to tighten the rules on student visas.

The Lib Dems have said immigrants should be encouraged to go to parts of the UK with specific skills shortages and which have the "will and resources" to accommodate them.

They have also called for improved border controls and for exit checks at all ports to be reinstated.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk_politics/8595973.stm

Gordon Brown Lies about Immigration (again)

Gordon Brown cynically attempted to pull the wool over voters’ eyes today by pretending that he was doing something to regulate mass immigration. However, he is fully aware of the fact that he and his party have deliberately engineered mass immigration and that they remain totally ideologically convinced of its merits. The measures that Brown announced today were, as  Sir Andrew Green of Migration Watch noted, “trivial”. They will do nothing whatsoever to stem the rise in our skyrocketing population, and in reality they are not intended to do so.

Brown, and dishonest fellow Labour Party member Alan Johnson, are pretending to listen to ordinary Britons’ concerns about immigration and making soothing noises about this matter purely because they know that people utterly disagree with their policy and are considering voting for the BNP. This is the sole reason that Labour has even bothered to introduce meaningless and completely ineffective ‘controls’ on immigration. The Labour Party remains committed to the very core of its being to the destruction of our national fabric.

Nobody should be gulled into thinking that Labour is for one moment sounding a genuine note of contrition vis-à-vis the immigration scandal. It is a party of globalist internationalists. They lied about the Lisbon Treaty and they have presided over our national absorption into the emergent EU totalitarian super-state. Miliband and many others now wish to swiftly facilitate Turkey’s entry to the EU, which will hasten the Islamisation of Europe and our country. They prostrate themselves before Islam, and use the pretext of the “war on terror” to gag and monitor us all. They hate England and the English with a particular vehemence, and thus give it and its people no recognition either institutionally (in the form of an English parliament), or even on the census form. Frank Field should leave the Labour Party, for he does himself no favours by remaining part of this morally, intellectually and literally bankrupt entity.

Gordon Brown. We have heard what you said today and we know you for a liar. Your time is coming to a close, and someday I hope that you are brought to account for your deliberate destructive assault upon my nation.

Reference: "PM to 'tighten' migration rules', BBC, 12 November 2009, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8356226.stm

An Earlier Windrush?

Hat tip to Sir Henry Morgan http://wiganpatriot.blogspot.com/2009/11/says-it-all.html for this cartoon.

ICM Poll on Immigration: News of the World puts the Cart before the Horse

In today’s News of the World, columnist Ian Kirby claims that the most recent ICM poll for the paper has issued “a shock wake-up call to politicians – with a majority declaring they share the BNP view that Britain has too many immigrants.” Does it really come as “a shock” to him that a majority of the British population know that there are “too many immigrants”? Where has this man been for the past twenty years?

Although only 54% of those sampled concurred with the reality of the UK possessing too many immigrants, we must of course remember that there are now so many immigrants or people of recent immigrant decent resident in the country, that this figure will almost certainly have underreported the proportion of indigenous Britons unhappy with the ever-growing size of the immigrant population.

Where Kirby inverts the natural order of things is in his interpretation of the poll’s findings on the attitude of the mainstream political parties towards the indigenous working class:

“But it is clear the BNP message IS getting through, with 44 per cent saying the white working class has been abandoned by the mainstream parties.”

What he should have written is “But it is clear that the 44 per cent who say the white working class has been abandoned by the mainstream parties recognise that the BNP is responding to this situation.”

Strangely, Kirby makes no mention of Andrew Neather’s revelations in yesterday’s Daily Telegraph, where he reveals that Labour under Blair deliberately planned to “open up the UK to mass immigration” with the express goal of undermining our national identity and cohesion. The report recommending this policy was written in 2000, of which the Telegraph reports him saying:

"Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural. I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn't its main purpose – to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date."

Why is Kirby mute about this scandalous revelation, yet shocked by ICM’s findings that 54% of those polled thought that our immigrant population is too high? After all, Labour continues in making the case for unrestricted and unlimited mass immigration, as do the Liberal Democrats. Nor do the Tories have any real plans to concretely address this issue. They may well be willing to raise the question of immigration, but they will not provide any actual policies to deal with it. Only the BNP has policies that sensibly address the question of mass immigration in a moderate and humane manner.

References: “Voters issue a wake-up call to politicians”, Ian Kirby, The News of the World 24 October 2009, http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/566088/Shock-poll-shows-majority-share-BNP-views-on-immigrants.html

“Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser”, Tom Whitehead, The Daily Telegraph, 23 October 2009, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html

BBC blithely contemplates a UK Population of 71.6 million

Following today’s release of ONS projections suggesting that current trends will lead to a total UK population of 71.6 million by 2033, the BBC has run one of its regular television news items emphasising how we “need” mass immigration to support an ageing population. The News at Ten predictably showed footage of East European immigrants, which it almost invariably does when any potentially “sensitive” facts emerge about this issue, rather than the more representative sample of Pakistanis, Somalis, Afghans and sundry other undesirables from Africa and the Middle East who somehow manage to make it to our shores.

Cue an appearance by Immigration Minister Phil Woolas, a man who had he been living in Troy during the Trojan War would not have inconvenienced the besieging Greeks by keeping the gates shut, but would instead have invited them in to sack the city. He told the usual lies about the new governmental policy of a “points-based immigration system”, which is, as we all know, completely toothless, for not only does it have no impact upon the right to asylum granted to charlatans from way beyond our shores (if Geert Wilders ever needed asylum he would be genuine as he’s from a neighbouring country, unlike all of those who claim asylum today), but it also does nothing to constrain the flow of illegal immigrants that is facilitated by our lax border regime. Furthermore, Woolas himself and most of our political and media class (with a few notable exceptions such as Frank Field) wish to increase our population, for they can see no further than a parliament or two into the future and guaranteeing their own incomes and positions. They therefore adopt the pyramid scheme logic of importing workers to increase the size of the economy so that the elderly can be supported.

Immigrants and their descendants in turn grow old and need care. Are we then supposed to import ever more people to support them in turn? How, when we have a chronic housing shortage, our power generation, transport and other infrastructures are overloaded, are we supposed to accommodate such an influx? We are supposed to be pursuing a reduction of 80% in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, whilst simultaneously greatly increasing the population. How? Do these powerful fools who sit in Whitehall and the editorial suites of the mass media not understand, or, more likely, do they simply not care, as it won’t be their problem?

Two years ago food inflation displayed a notable spike, as a number of poor harvests in different parts of the world conjoined with a burgeoning population to cause a bottleneck in supply. The world is overpopulated, and the UK (England in particular) more so than most countries. Despite using current energy-intensive agricultural technologies and systems, we are still unable to feed ourselves. Our economic productivity is declining, and our power on many levels is declining compared to that of many other more populous nations. What then will we use to purchase food in the future, as our relative decline continues and the populations of other states continue to spiral? From where will we obtain sufficient foodstuffs?

We urgently need to adopt a policy of zero net immigration, and to ensure that the immigration that does take place, is genuinely beneficial to the UK, and thus consists of individuals and families from peoples who share our traditional indigenous British values. Cultural compatibility must be paramount, which means that Muslim immigration should be choked off completely, and for good. I would sooner work until I dropped, than have my country concreted over and occupied by hostile foreign colonists.

For the BBC's online take on this story visit http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8318010.stm

The Ostrich and the Nationalist

Almost a week has passed since the BNP made a significant political breakthrough, and today, the Times and the Daily Mail have published some interesting pieces which go beyond the anti-BNP smear routine and search instead for some explanations. Some commentators it would seem, are beginning to acknowledge an unpleasant reality that only nationalist politics can change for the better.

Michael Collins and Max Hastings both recognise the core reasons underpinning the rise of the BNP:

• Mass immigration on a scale and at a pace hitherto unknown
• Enforced multiculturalism
• A lack of a political voice in the mainstream political parties for the white working class, which has gone from being portrayed as "the salt of the Earth" to "the scum of the Earth"
• The ability of much of the middle class to shield itself from the negative aspects of immigration which have been painfully experienced by the indigenous working class

Collins and Hastings look at this question from what I would term respectively traditional Labour and Conservative perspectives, but it is Michael Collins who truly understands and empathises with the ignored and demonised element of the indigenous population; for he, like myself, hails from such a background, and thus understands its culture and ways of thinking. Collins has perceptively written: "With multiculturalism came heavy-handed anti-discrimination laws and the McCarthyism of a race industry that appears to attach no value to a racist crime when the victim is white." Unlike Hastings, he is willing to acknowledge and name an ugly phenomenon in which many otherwise respectable and humane individuals feel free to invest their emotions and pent-up frustrations.

Collins is right to single out the necrotising influence of "race industry" McCarthyism on the national body politic, for it is something that increasingly permeates our working lives and acts as a poisonous influence in politics and the mainstream media, leading to the deliberate neglect of pressing and deeply difficult problems because people fear the stigma of being branded a 'racist'.

A nationalist of the level-headed sort, in other words, someone who attaches positive worth to membership of their own national community and wishes to advance the common weal of his or her compatriots whilst maintaining friendly relations with other nations, sees what is happening in the UK today and does not shy away from identifying and naming the unwelcome phenomena generated by mass immigration. On the other hand, we have people of an ostrich-like disposition, who when confronted with the facts choose to close their eyes, cover their ears and bury their heads in the sand. Alas, there is only so long that any creature can survive without drawing breath and leaving itself vulnerable to predators, so the poor ostrich will one day have to extract its head from the ground or die from oxygen starvation or predation.

Elements within the middle class are particularly prone to fall victim to the appeal of race-industry McCarthyism, and I was horrified this week to hear an otherwise friendly and seemingly rational colleague launch into a vitriolic attack on the "working-class scum" who had contributed to the election of a BNP MEP. Tellingly, he will never attack anyone else upon the basis of race or religion. We live in a society which sanctions and encourages self-hate. In officially endorsed demonology, only members of the white working class may be stripped of their humanity and declared personae non gratae in their homeland.

Michael Collins acknowledges the resonance of Enoch Powell's message amongst the older members of the working class, and although I was but a babe in arms when Powell made his most famous speech, I grew up in a Labour-voting family which always concurred that "Enoch was right". Such sentiments were of course declared beyond the pale at university, and it was there that I first encountered the middle-class guilt and national self-loathing that I found completely alien, and to which I have never been able to reconcile myself. As was the case for dissidents in the former Soviet Union, I have of necessity had to hide what I think to avoid losing my job and, in many instances, friends who have drunk deep of the well of national self-loathing. Such is the nature of the "world turned upside down" which has been created by the political elite over this past 40 years or so.

Will the age of the ostrich pass? I hope so, but I have my doubts; for nurturing the ostriches are the predators: the pullulating masses of the burgeoning Islamic colonies and the powerful globalist interest in the mainstream media. The Labour Party seems content to import voters from overseas to replace the indigenous working class from which it is increasingly alienated and, as Collins notes, "[i]t will take more than new homes and jobs to bring them back." Hopefully, Labour will have lost them for good, for it is unworthy of their support. Given that the Labour Party appears so intent upon governing a nation of Pakistanis, Somalis, etc, why don't its MPs and ministers seek office overseas, and leave us to mend our broken and ailing society?

Links: "The BNP rise is about identity", Michael Collins: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6488799.ece

"BNP in power - immigration and this insidious conspiracy of silence", Max Hastings: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-1192687/Immigration-insidious-conspiracy-silence.html

For a sympathetic treatment of the white working class detailing its marginalisation and demonisation read "The Likes of Us: A Biography of the White Working Class", Michael Collins, Granta Books, London, 2005.

TUC Pushing for Turkish EU Accession

An email arrived today from Unionlearn entitled "Working Together Trade unions in Turkey and the European Union" (inconsistent capitalisation and dodgy grammar preserved from the original). It made no attempt to hide that its intent is to facilitate the accession of Turkey to the EU, and to thereby open up the British labour market to limitless numbers of Turkish Muslim immigrants. The email is relatively short, so I shall quote it in full with original grammatical errors preserved, for its contents are highly revealing re the anti-democratic intentions of the TUC and its desire to mould the opinions of affiliated union members to enable the implementation of a plan that evidently has already been decided upon. The following italicised text is reproduced verbatim:

The European Trade Union Confederation is supporting an important and ambitious project Civil Society Dialogue: bringing together workers from Turkey and the European Union through a shared culture of work, and your trade union organisation is one of the project partners.

The aim of the project is to reinforce contacts and mutual exchange of experience between the trade unions of Turkey and trade unions of EU Member States, with a view to ensuring better knowledge and understanding of one another.

One way of assisting this process is to identify and address existing impressions and prejudices that Turkish and EU workers may have of each other.

This is why the ETUC and your organisation are interested in your opinion and would like you to dedicate a few minutes to filling in this questionnaire.

Download questionnaire: http://www.unionlearn.org.uk/extrasUL/Education/questionnaire_EN.doc

If you should be so moved, visit the above site, complete the questionnaire and send the completed item to Sean Bamford at Congress House. However, I daresay that you may well be branded by the researchers as possessing certain prejudices that need to be dispelled and corrected by orthodox thinking (i.e. doublethink). "Prejudice" is a peculiar term to employ with respect to Islam, for the more I have learned of it in terms of its core texts, philosophy and practice over many years, the more I have come to find it utterly repellent. My attitude should therefore be more accurately rendered as post-judice, for I have made up my mind having examined the evidence. The TUC however, is not interested in promoting truth; it is interested in promoting politically correct ideology.

Whatever the nature of the majority of the responses that this questionnaire elicits, you can be sure of the fact that they will have no influence whatsoever upon the intentions of the TUC and the wider ETUC. Their course is set upon Turkish EU accession and the further demographic destabilisation and Islamisation of our European homelands that this would be certain to engender.

As well as the socialist shibboleths about equality, international class solidarity, combating racism and Islamophobia (sic), the trade union leaders will employ the specious argument re the need for a young workforce to compensate for an aging European population. The UK, the Netherlands and many other European states already possess populations in excess of their long-term carrying capacity, and if the shock of Peak Oil finally arrives before a new source of readily usable and cheap renewable energy is harnessed, we will struggle to feed the population that we already possess.

The justification of mass immigration rests upon the logic of the pyramid scheme, for the young immigrants in turn will grow old and require younger carers. Even if they were culturally compatible, such as Poles, Czechs, Lithuanians and Serbs, the question of numbers alone would in the long term cause us all to sink into immiseration. Given that the proposed main source countries and regions of future mass immigration are Islamic (Turkey, North Africa, the Middle East and of course places with so-called traditional links such as Pakistan and Bangladesh) our future will not be one in which we are cared for in our dotage, but one in which we will be treated either as dhimmis (if we are lucky), geographically displaced or murdered.

If you are a trade unionist, please acquaint yourself with the reality of Islam: it is an imperialist creed of violence and implacable intolerance, not a religion of peace as its apologists claim. There are of course many secular Turks who care little for Islam, but they are fighting a losing battle in their homeland. Let us by all means provide such good people with our verbal and moral support, and co-operate in the international sphere with those Turkish representatives who embody positive non-Islamic values, but let us remain as independent nation-states. We must leave the EU and we must regain control over our national borders. The old political categories of Left and Right are redundant. The new primary axis of political moblisation and affiliation is that of nationalism versus globalism. In the UK, only one political party possesses positive nationalist solutions to the problems that the country faces: the BNP.

A Note on Terminology and National Identity

One topic that in recent years has never been far from the headlines has been a preoccupation with Britishness and the question of what it means to be British today. This debate of course has nothing to do with a putative “crisis of national identity”, for we native Britons do not possess an identity crisis, as we are perfectly well aware of who we are. No. It is only those who are UK passport holders but self-consciously not native British who are experiencing anything resembling a crisis of identity, together with our political leaders who claim not to understand the nature of the British and Britishness.

Jonathan Wynne-Jones, a religious affairs correspondent for the Daily Telegraph, last Friday penned a short piece entitled “How does Britain solve its identity crisis? ” The occasion for its writing was prompted by this week’s forthcoming debate on British identity being held by the Islamic Quilliam Foundation. As has become standard practice in the mainstream media when mentioning Islamism, Wynne-Jones attempted to stigmatise patriotic Britons and accord them a pariah status equivalent to that of the Islamists by stating: “It could not come at a more opportune time - right-wing extremism is on the rise and the threat posed by Islamic radicals is persistent and real .” [1]

The numerous comments left in reply to his piece made clear the preponderant opinion of his readers: multiculturalism and mass immigration are to blame for this mess. Correct.

However, this understanding of the situation is not permitted to be articulated by mainstream political and media figures. Gordon Brown himself stated in a Radio 4 programme entitled “Britishness” on 31 March this year that in the past too much emphasis had been placed upon institutions, race and ethnicity. For him, “tolerance, liberty and fairness” are the vagaries upon which modern British identity should be constructed. If we were to define ourselves by “race and ethnicity" he claims, "this would be a disaster” because of the multiethnic composition of the country [2]. Surely, by Brown’s own measures of “tolerance, liberty and fairness” he has sorely failed to live up to his own definition of Britishness?

A standard argument of relatively recent provenance employed by advocates of multiculturalism and mass immigration has been that there is no such thing as the British or the English because “we are a nation of immigrants.” This specious assertion is based on the fact that the country has experienced multiple waves of immigration over millennia. What the proponents of this argument conveniently overlook is that these separate streams of people have become organically fused into a set of indigenous national communities: the English, the Welsh, the Scots, the Cornish and the Irish.

Although Daniel Defoe rightly noted that the English are "a mongrel race", one salient fact about this "mongrelism" is always overlooked by the exponents of multiculturalism: the native English (excepting a few scions of the Norman aristocracy) know not whether their forebears were Angles, Saxons, Danes, Jutes, ancient British tribes or Romans etc, because all of these intermarried and fused to produce a common culture. The peoples who contributed to this fusion shared a number of civilisational and genetic commonalities, so to equate this native organic national development with the politically-directed demographic change that we are experiencing today is fundamentally flawed and dangerous. It is unlikely that these isles have ever undergone such a rapid transformation of their cultural and genetic stock since they were repopulated by humans at the end of the last glaciation.

Ask a Pakistani UK passport holder what they are and they’ll tell you that they’re a Pakistani. They like the UK passport though, because it gives them access to a better standard of living than they'd be able to access back in their true homeland. They, like many of the immigrant groups that have surged into the UK over the past 60 years, have been encouraged to retain their separate identities both from without (by British politicians and state agencies), and from within (by religious and social norms regulating exogamy and attitudes to people of other belief systems and races). Although there has been some intermixing between the indigenous population and the incomers, generally speaking we have witnessed the growth of de facto colonial outposts of external cultures and national groups. Those who have successfully assimilated have been from closely related peoples and cultures such as the Poles, Serbs, Ukrainians, Hungarians, etc who fled from Communism and Nazism.

As can be seen from the above, the traditional "mongrel nation" is something completely separate and distinct from the multicultural ersatz Britishness for which the Labour Party, the BBC and their ilk are constantly questing. Given that we are forever being force-fed multicultural Newspeak by the mainstream media and politicians, we need to be able to articulate a clear and unambiguous position that refutes the pseudo-concepts through which they wish to refashion public consciousness. The following are therefore some suggestions as to objective terminology that can be used in their stead:

Briton
A native inhabitant of Britain and its associated smaller isles, or one who has become fully assimilated culturally and biologically through intermarriage. A native inhabitant is a member of one of the native peoples of Britain, these being: the English, the Welsh, the Scots and the Cornish. Britons may also be resident overseas temporarily or permanently.

Britishness
That which is characteristic of native Britons and their territory, i.e. cultural, genetic and geographical

British Stock
This is defined through descent: the Britons and their direct descendants elsewhere in the world such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada.

Britain
The island of Britain, excluding the island of Ireland.

The United Kingdom
The legally defined political union of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The British Isles
Britain, Ireland and the associated small islands comprising this archipelago.

UK Citizen
Anyone who is entitled to hold a UK passport.

Colony instead of “Minority Community”
The preferred term for so-called “minority communities” that are geographically concentrated outposts of peoples and associated social and ideological structures not traditionally found amongst Britons, e.g. Pakistani colonies in Bradford, Dewsbury and elsewhere. Colonies seek to recreate the external national homeland or an idealised version of it in the UK. To this end, chain migration encourages the genetic expansion of established colonies and the displacement of Britons.

Population instead of “Community”
In the case of immigrant populations such as the recently arrived Poles and Lithuanians who do not wish to create colonies, the term ethnic minority population should be used instead of community, because “community” carries implications of permanence and group membership, leaving the way open for the articulation of group specific rights. Members of immigrant populations should possess individual rights, but not rights as legally recognised lobby groups.

Ethnic Minority instead of “BME – Black and Minority Ethnic”
This term is preferable to that of BME (black and minority ethnic), as it is the one employed in more objective scholarly literature dealing with such matters. BME is a New Labour neologism freighted with baggage, as it has emerged from the activities and ideology of ethnic minority political agitators. Ethnic minority can also be legitimately employed in those areas or cities (such as Leicester) where Britons are being threatened with ethnic minority status. In Leicester we will therefore shortly be able to speak of the English as an ethnic minority.

Familial Homeland
For Britons, this would be Britain. For UK passport holders descended from immigrant populations who have not fully integrated and assimilated as described in the definition of “Briton”, this would be whichever country their family had originally inhabited, e.g. Pakistan, Bangladesh, Somalia, etc.

Asylum Claimant instead of “Asylum Seeker”
Not all of those who claim asylum are actually seeking asylum, thus the suggested change in terminology to provide an objective appraisal of all who state that they are “asylum seekers” before the veracity of their claim can be ascertained.

Sectarian Affiliation rather than “Faith Community”
The former individualises a person’s choice about which faith or none they choose to affiliate to. The latter, containing as it does the term “community”, like the instances of this term mentioned above, carries within it the assumption that by dint of its existence its members should be accorded certain recognition. Take away the term “community” and we are left with a group of people agitating (e.g. Muslims) for special treatment, which can then be dismissed more readily as we will not have accorded them the dignity of a collective personality.


Sources:
[1] How does Britain solve its identity crisis? -http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/jonathanwynnejones/blog/2009/04/17/how_does_britain_solve_its_identity_crisis

[2] Gordon Brown in “Britishness”, Episode 1, Radio 4, 31 March 2009 - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00jcjjp