The Green Party (“Green” as in Naïve)

Widespread disaffection with mainstream political parties appears to have caused many people to despair of party politics altogether, but for some, they have posed themselves the question: “Where can I find a new political home?” Many have yet to move beyond this stage, for they have not seen anything that appeals to them; but, at a guess, a natural political home for some grassroots Liberal Democrats, disgruntled at their party’s partnership with the Conservatives, could lie with the seemingly cuddly Green Party. Not only are members of the two parties said to share a penchant for sandals, but also a passion for open borders, multiculturalism and reducing our standard of living through radically increasing the cost of the one thing upon which modern life and conveniences are dependent: energy.

This weekend sees the Green Party hold its annual conference in Bristol, its yearly opportunity to enjoy a fleeting moment in the media spotlight (or preferably, candlelight derived from non-tallow based sources), following its canny move of changing Leader one week in advance of the gathering and thereby providing an extended period of media coverage. Gone is Caroline Lucas, replaced by former Guardian Weekly editor and ex-Aussie Natalie Bennett. It is therefore unsurprising to find that her former employer is offering the Greens - a 'new force on the radical left' - considerable coverage and support, in which it becomes evident that most of Bennett’s political flak seems to be directed towards the LabourParty, whose voters she seeks to court.

Although the Green Party is still relatively small, possessing in 2010 a membership of 12,768 (I hesitate to refer to “national membership”, for as you will see below, Greens really don’t like the word “national”, considering it to be a ‘nasty’, ‘bigoted’ and ‘racist’ term), it did manage to win two seats in the EU elections in 2009, and Caroline Lucas succeeded in taking the party’s first Westminster seat the following year in Brighton Pavilion. In 2009, its size and degree of electoral success were roughly on a par with that of the BNP (which subsequently went into terminal meltdown), but unlike the BNP, the party has always enjoyed a degree of sympathetic media coverage, which, owing to the radically destabilising nature of its policies were they ever to be implemented, it really does not merit.

The Greens, somehow, have come to be thought of as the ‘nice’ party, and their general philosophical stance – anti-Western, anti-national and anti-science – has for some inexplicable reason been deemed to be acceptable; an acceptance indicative of a strong current of generalised cultural masochism and misplaced ethnic and national ‘guilt’ that has polluted mainstream thought and discourse in Britain today. If one song could be said to encapsulate Green Party sentiment, it would be John Lennon’s tuneful but rather sickly Imagine; a song justly parodied, owing to Lennon's and Ono’s lifestyle, by a certain Reg Dwight, who was moved to write:

Imagine six apartments

It isn’t hard to do

One is full of fur coats

The other’s full of shoes

Anyway, I digress. Returning to the Green Party, it would be a great pity if voters were to remain ignorant of its actual policies rather than its cuddly-sounding name and image, and were thus to mistakenly lend its candidates their votes. People need to be made aware of what it actually stands for, which really is not very pleasant at all; moreover, in reality it is not very “Green”, for the policies that it advocates would lead to a significant deterioration in our environment at home, as well as our general standard of living.   

There are many things deeply wrong with the Green Party’s approach and policy platform, but two key aspects of its policy work strongly against preserving the environment: its advocacy of an open borders policy and ongoing mass immigration coupled with an unwillingness to recognise that only the economically undeveloped peoples of Africa, Asia and elsewhere can solve their own problems of overpopulation and resource depletion through the widespread use of contraception. The Green’s immigration policy for Britain would be a disaster. Taking into consideration the massive strains already placed upon national infrastructure, housing, social services, water and food supplies and our countryside by our ineffective immigration regime, consider the implications of the following statements taken from the Green Party website:

Statement on the Coalition’s Immigration Cap, Party Conference, Sheffield 2011

The Green Party reaffirms it's commitment to a liberal immigration policy. Everyone is equal no matter what the colour of their passport. The Coalition's policy of introducing an immigration cap restricts people's rights based purely on their nationality, harms the economy and is not conducive to a free and happy society. The Green Party is in favour of a real review of border controls that takes in the full benefits of immigration and stops treating those who are not native to the UK as a problem.

Green Party Policy Statements
MG300 We will work to achieve greater equity between the UK and non-Western countries. In step with this, we will progressively reduce UK immigration controls.

MG405 Migrants illegally in the UK for over five years will be allowed to remain unless they pose a serious danger to public safety.

MG420 We will resist all attempts to introduce a 'barrier round Europe' shutting out non-Europeans or giving them more restricted rights of movement within Europe than European Nationals.

MG102 We are aware that, in the 21st century, there is likely to be mass migration of people escaping from the consequences of global warming, environmental degradation, resource shortage and population increase.

MG430 We will produce and implement contingency plans for the future financial and other support of environmental migrants. We will encourage such planning by international agencies, non-governmental organisations, other countries, the European Community and local government.

MG103 The Green Party recognises the contributions made by many migrants to their recipient area or community. We value the cultural diversity and intercultural awareness resulting from both temporary residence and migration.

MG205 Migration policies should not discriminate directly on grounds of race, colour, religion, political belief, disability, sex or sexual orientation. Preference should not be given to those with resources or desirable skills.

When it comes to nationality policy, its objectives are chilling:

NY100 Over the last decades, British nationality law has been used to restrict the number of Black people having the right to live in the UK while maximising the opportunities for white non-residents with British ancestors to retain this right. The Green Party believes that such nationality laws must be reformed.

Objectives

NY300 We will work to create a world of global inter-responsibility in which the concept of a 'British national' is irrelevant and outdated.

The Green Party wishes to eradicate not only the nation-state, but also any natural common affective bonds of culture and kinship. Although it also portrays itself as being in favour of women’s rights, it, like the rest of the hard Left of which it is in reality a part, shows itself to be in league with a certain misogynist and anti-rational creed named Islam. Speaking at the Muslim News Awards in April 2007, Green Party Principal Speak Dr Derek Wall stated:

Islamic teachings work in a holistic system which recognises the interactions between the diverse areas of life and society such as economics and health, peace and conflict, within which environmental care is also integrated.

The emphasis on spiritual development, on our relationship with the world around us, means Islam has many things to teach the environmentalist movement.

There is a strong concern with environmental protection and sustainable stewardship in the Koran, which has something to teach all of us Muslim and non Muslim alike.

If you have ever considered voting Green, I hope that after reading this small selection of Green Party policies you will desist from doing so. If you are genuinely interested in conserving our environment, protecting our countryside and following a sustainable economic and demographic policy that does not entail destroying your standard of living, a new political party will be launching very soon that will have such concerns at the heart of its mission. For more information, return here in the weeks ahead. 

The Greens are waiting with arms wide open, just as in The Camp of the Saints.

The Green Party: recycling bad ideas

Muslim News Awards 2010

Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democratic submission to Islam was once again demonstrated at the Muslim News Awards earlier this month with Home Secretary Alan Johnson taking the opportunity to court the Muslim vote whilst smearing indigenous opponents of Islamisation. Interestingly, the host for the evening – Ahmed J. Versi (editor and publisher of Muslim News) – had some telling things to say about the deliberate Islamisation of the UK by the mainstream political parties. It is worth quoting his introductory speech at length to highlight the detrimental impact of these measures and attitudes:

“The incoming Labour government in 1997 was the first time that any Government made Muslims feel that their opinions were sought and valued.

Labour picked the first Muslim for a safe Parliamentary seat and appointed Muslim peers, as well as Muslim advisors for a host of initiatives.

There are now four Muslims in the House of Commons, all of them Labour. And we have the first Muslim minister attending the Cabinet, the Rt Hon Sadiq Khan.

The Government fulfilled many of our longstanding requests: A question on religion to be included in the national census of 2001; funding of Muslim schools; Shari’ah compliant financial products working within UK financial regulations; outlawing of religious discrimination at work place and in service delivery in public institutions and outlawing of incitement to religious hatred.

And the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, led the way in making senior cabinet ministers available for interviews with The Muslim News. His generous gestures ensured that the other parties followed suit.”

Although seen as positive by Mr Versi, in my eyes, the above measure constitute a damning charge sheet that should be levelled against Labour, particularly the repression of free speech associated with measures against so-called “religious discrimination” and “incitement to religious hatred.” This demonstrates that without the Muslim colonisation of our islands, these measures to limit our liberties would not have been introduced. One can only conclude therefore, that our society would be a better place without Islam.

Versi also does us the service of summarising the moves of the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats to submit to Islam:

“As for The Conservative Party, it is not today the Tory party of old.

William Hague while Leader of the Party, made significant efforts to turn the Party around and began to demonstrate a greater understanding of Britain’s diverse faiths.

It was under William Hague that we saw Britain’s first Muslim member of the European Parliament.

This change has continued under the current leadership of David Cameron.

There are now two Muslim Tory peers and one of them Sayeeda Warsi, is a member of the shadow cabinet.

And the Liberal Democrats too have made strides in supporting Muslim issues and they have one Muslim peer.

They aptly reflected the society’s feeling on war on Iraq by taking a robust stand against it.

Nick Clegg demanded that our Government and the European Union halt arms sales to Israel during Operation Cast Lead in which hundreds of innocent Palestinian civilians, including many children were killed.

Whichever party comes to form the next Government, there is a pressing need for it to re visit policies that improve relations with the Muslim community and help rejuvenate community cohesion.”

Looking at this list of measures, changes, attitudes and demands, can you now doubt that our three main Westminster parties do not have the interests of the real British people – the indigenous British people – as their foremost priority? Versi’s last sentence is chilling, for once again it demonstrates the Muslim propensity to salami-slice away our liberties and values and replace them with their own. It shows that they will be persistently pushing for more privileges for Islam in this country to the detriment of everyone else. Will you vote for any party that accords special privileges to this bullying belief system and its followers, or will you express your desire for a peaceful country and society by voting for a party pledged to counter and reverse Islamisation? Why should some be made “more equal than others”? Why should we be increasingly made to feel “strangers in our own country”?

Alan Johnson’s speech reveals the prospect of a future intensification of persecution against those who oppose Islamisation. He stated:

“But tackling extremism does not define the relationship between government and Muslim communities. Nor does it mean that the responsibility for tackling extremism lies only with the Muslim community. Like the threat from far right racists, it affects us all and it requires a united response.”

Who are these “far right racists”? Although we know them to be phantoms of his febrile imagination, unfortunately Johnson thinks that he has identified them in the ‘demonic’ forms of the BNP, EDL, SIOE and those who rightly and robustly criticise Islam. Johnson continues:

“And we know that there are Muslim communities in the UK which are disproportionately affected by poverty and unemployment, who struggle to access services or face discrimination and harassment because of their faith or ethnicity.”

Yes, statistically speaking Muslims are “disproportionately affected by poverty and unemployment” but I would wager that my explanation of the reasons underpinning this situation is rather different to Johnson’s. It’s got nothing to do with “discrimination” or “harassment”, of which in reality Muslims are more likely to be perpetrators than victims. No. Their disproportionate poverty and unemployment are largely conditioned by a set of social attitudes and attributes arising from Islam. Furthermore, it is typical for neighbourhoods experiencing large-scale Muslim colonisation to experience considerable declines in property values, so even though Muslim and non-Muslim neighbourhoods may have the same type of housing stock and access to services, it is more likely that the Muslim one will be classed as “impoverished” simply because of the nominal lesser value of its properties. Benefit fraud is widespread amongst Muslim colonies, enabling restaurant workers and taxi drivers to support large families thanks to generous state subsidy. The indices of poverty are thus distorted and give an inaccurate measure of actual deprivation.

Internal causes of Muslim relative poverty include:

• poor English-language skills causing underperformance at school
• large family size arising from lack of contraception and the subordinate role of women
• chain migration, which imports poverty, social backwardness and a lack of competence in the English language which bolsters a sense of affiliation to their ancestral ethnic homelands and hostility to indigenous Britons
• female economic inactivity arising from women often being effectively imprisoned in the domestic environment by their menfolk and associated familial denial of educational opportunities

The existence of the Muslim News Awards and the reaction of the leading Westminster parties to its agenda shows that none of the latter, if you did not have your doubts for a host of other reasons, are fit to govern.