“Big Issue! Cross my palm with silver, or my children will pick your pockets!”

"Here to do the jobs that British people won't do" are they? Tres amusant! It would now seem that they are also “here to sell the Big Issues that British homeless people won’t sell”, or so the owners of the magazine would have you believe. Astonishingly, it was revealed on Radio 4 earlier today that in some areas of the country 80% of Big Issue vendors are Roma immigrants from Romania or Bulgaria who, moreover, use this status as a scam to claim a number of benefits including housing benefit. Now, whereas I can understand that Romanians and Bulgarians must be delighted to be rid of them, I’m really not sure what benefit we gain from them being here. Well, I suppose that their presence adds to the ‘diversity’ of our grumbles and grievances, but other than that . . .

A spokeswoman for The Big Issue has stated:

"Anyone who is self employed or working is entitled to certain benefits, In the case of A2 nationals this is housing benefit and working family tax credits. Selling The Big Issue in the North is genuine self employment and we would defend anyone’s right to claim a benefit if they are legally entitled to it regardless of their race.

When Roma come to The Big Issue in the North they have few ways of earning an income and therefore securing and maintaining a roof over their and their families heads.

As a country we believe it is unacceptable for families to live in poverty – our benefits system supports this – and this support must reach every person and family which we allow to live and work here regardless of race."

Owing to indoctrination the poor woman is unable to disentangle the concepts of nationality, citizenship rights and obligations and racial ‘discrimination’. Don’t buy The Big Issue from Roma; we, sadly, have enough homeless people of our own.

Although the BBC loves to try and put an anti-European spin (i.e. anti-European as in anti-indigenous European not anti-EU) on stories connected to mass immigration, today it couldn’t quite writhe out of the fact that of the 371,000 current benefit claimants of foreign origin resident in the UK, the majority of them hailed from such countries as Pakistan, Somalia, Bangladesh, Iraq, Iran and India. Indeed, owing to this fact it was left to the Daily Telegraph to reveal their countries of origin, as for some reason the BBC came over all coy about discussing this matter: “258,000 were from outside the European Economic Area.” One suspects that given these countries of origin a goodly proportion of these claimants could well be Muslim ‘single’ mothers i.e. wife number two, three or four of bigamist Muslim males. They form a wonderfully ‘valuable’ complement to our long-term Roma visitors, little Pakistans and Nigerias etc that have sprouted across England in recent decades.

In practical terms, the Conservative Party will do nothing about mass immigration because in reality it likes it; its upper echelons actually couldn’t give a damn about the origins of those who live in the UK providing that they’re a productive little work unit whose labour can be harnessed by unscrupulous companies unwilling to pay a living wage. The immigrant labour that such companies employ is not so much here to “do the jobs that British people will not do” as to “do the jobs for which unscrupulous employers are unwilling to pay a living wage.” Yes, many immigrants from Poland, Lithuania and other post-Communist European countries are highly educated, work hard, are motivated and willing to work long hours for little money (Roma excepted from all of these observations of course), but the influx of this labour has had an overall effect of driving down wages to such an extent that nobody can hope to support a family on them, especially when taking into account the current state of the housing market and rental sector.

Young Poles and Lithuanians without family responsibilities may be willing to rough it for a few years, even going so far as to share rooms and a bed, but that is no way for anyone to live in the long term. Blame the globalist politicians and businesses and not our Polish cousins for this state of affairs. Moreover, although the EU has effectively made our borders thoroughly porous, it is predominantly non-European immigrants who create problems for our society, and most of those problems reported by the media as connected to ‘eastern European immigrants’ are actually connected to Roma. NUJ guidelines on race and religion however, cause reporting to be systematically distorted and this fact to be omitted.

All in all, what new does this story about 371,000 foreign-born benefits claimants tell us? After all, it is just one in a seemingly endless stream of stories all reinforcing the message regarding the ongoing dispossession of the native British and English. The story duly ran in The Telegraph and The Guardian with predictable emphases, with the latter of course claiming that this was really rather a small number of people and that all immigrants are lovely, vibrant and enriching. Thus ends another day in the asylum that is the contemporary United Kingdom. What difference will today's 'revelation' make? Not much. A couple of opportunistic Tories will make some populist noises in an effort to curry favour with voters disgruntled with the open-door mass immigration policy, but they will possess neither the will nor the power to do anything about it. Voters will thus be duped and continue to vote for a party that in reality has no intention of changing policy in this area.

Lucky Charm Anyone?

Anti-English Demonstration plugged by Leicester Mercury

The general tenor of journalism in the UK today can be perplexing for rational beings. For example, the Daily Mail and Daily Express put out a constant stream of stories bemoaning the negative impact of multiculturalism and mass immigration, thereby frequently getting their readerships hot under the collar about these issues, but then promptly instruct them that they should vote for the Conservative Party, a party that is committed to multiculturalism and mass immigration. It’s all heat and no light with these papers. Now, if they were actually to do the logical thing and say to their readers: “If you don’t like multiculturalism and mass immigration, then vote for a party that opposes these phenomena, i.e. not Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat” then I might possibly accord them a little respect. As they do not, and instead keep herding their readerships towards what amounts to collective mass self-harm by voting Conservative, I hold them in hearty contempt.

The politicisation of the press is of course largely a consequence of the guidelines on race and religion issued by the National Union of Journalists, which demand a systematic distortion and misrepresentation of any story that touches upon these themes. Thus, turning to today’s Leicester Mercury we are confronted with two contrasting headlines: one concerning the EDL’s forthcoming Leicester demonstration on 4 February, the other covering a predictable reactive protest by UAF. Before revealing the headlines, it is worth reminding ourselves that the EDL has chosen to demonstrate in the city on this day because of the lenient sentences handed out to a gang of female Somalis who engaged in an unprovoked anti-White race attack against Rhea Page and her boyfriend, and the failure of the court to acknowledge a racial element to the crime.

The Daily Mail, unsurprisingly, made a huge noise about this case and its injustice. One would therefore think, looking at things logically, that the Daily Mail and other papers would be keen to back a protest against the judiciary’s wilful discounting of a racial motive in this instance. Why wouldn’t they be keen to champion a popular, grassroots democratic expression of discontent on this score? There could be no grounds, surely, for the Mail and the rest of the press ostensibly enraged by the Page case, not to back such a demonstration? Well, the Daily Mail has to date (correct me if I’m wrong) remained mute on the EDL’s forthcoming demo, whereas the Leicester Mercury has chosen to cover it. Is the Leicester Mercury sympathetic? Hardly.

• Headline number one from today’s Leicester Mercury: ‘Street attack used as reason for EDL demo in Leicester.’

• Headline number two from today’s Leicester Mercury: ‘Anti-facism group bids to counter proposed EDL march in Leicester.’

Do you notice anything telling about the manner in which the two stories have been prefaced? What of that first phrase – “used as a reason for EDL demo”. What does the paper mean “used as a reason”? This phrasing seems to imply that the Rhea Page case is simply being used as a pretext to demonstrate in Leicester rather than being the real reason for the demonstration. Journalists are generally assiduous in choosing the words that they employ in headlines, so whoever wrote headline number one would have carefully structured it in such a way as to generate a particular intended impact and insinuation in the minds of readers. Whilst not being supportive, the headline also failed to be neutral: it was hostile to the EDL and their cause on this occasion.

The words in headline number two may also have been carefully chosen, but they were not carefully checked for spelling errors. What is ‘facism’? Is it some species of ‘lookism’? Discrimination against people with less than average, that is to say, ugly faces? Are the ‘anti-facists’ thus a group of ugly people with a chip on their shoulder regarding their looks? Leading ‘anti-facists’ such as Weyman Bennett and Martin Smith? I couldn't possibly comment. The author of the second headline was evidently attempting to write ‘anti-fascist’, which, to be fair is also another mistake. Let me correct their headline for them so that it is both correctly spelt and factually rather than politically correct: ‘Anti-English group bids to attack proposed EDL march in Leicester.’ That is what the leaders of UAF are planning to do: mount an anti-English, anti-White march in the hope that they will manage to generate a violent confrontation with supporters of the EDL and other people marching against anti-White racism.

UAF is a deliberately provocative and violent campaigning organisation whose followers have in recent years staged a number of anti-English attacks, but scandalously these have not been highlighted by the mass media and the objects of their attacks – the EDL – have been vilified in their stead.

Unlike the idiotic and unnecessarily aggressive stance of UAF, the Leicester Mercury mentions the rather more level-headed reaction of the Leicestershire Federation of Muslim Organisations which the paper states:

“is advising people not to participate in counter demonstrations or to attempt to tackle the EDL.

Its spokesman, Suleman Nagdi, said: "Our message will be the same as last time. We are urging people, particularly the young, to refrain from going into the city centre to oppose the English Defence League out of some misguided idea that they are protecting their city.

"We are best to leave everything to the experts – in this case the police.””

Mr Nagdi has offered some sensible advice and evidently has a sounder head upon his shoulders than either the luminaries of UAF or its supporters. There’s no reason why there should be any violence at this protest, and I hope that it is both peaceful and successful. Good luck to the police in containing the thuggish element within the emotionally overwrought ranks of UAF. Readers may view an EDL video highlighting the reasons for their Leicester demo here.

English Defence League to hold Static Demonstration in Bradford

Following the announcement that the Home Secretary has granted a ban on marches in Bradford over the August bank holiday weekend, the English Defence League (EDL) has announced that it will seek to stage a static demonstration. No powers exist to ban static demonstrations, so hopefully the EDL will be able to peacefully make its point without the violent interference of Unite Against Fascism (UAF). However, quite how the police will choose how to define a 'static demonstration' remains to be seen.

On a number of previous occasions, UAF supporters have deliberately fomented violence and attacked the police and the EDL, although mainstream media coverage of demonstrations in Birmingham, Leeds, Bolton and elsewhere has sought to portray the EDL as perpetrators of violence and has not highlighted the deliberate violence of UAF. An example of such distorted reporting was provided by Look North (Yorkshire BBC) in its treatment of the ban earlier this week; the reporter parroted the line that the EDL march had been banned to preserve public order and prevent an outbreak of violence which the ‘far-right’ (note the obligatory use of this stigmatising tag) group was said to encourage.

Whilst this ‘warning’ about the menace of EDL violence was delivered, footage of the Leeds EDL demonstration was shown but, and this is important to note, although the reporter was blaming the EDL for violence, the footage clearly showed members of the UAF attacking the police. This footage however was passed off as if the attackers were members of the EDL, and was thus either an example of exceptionally sloppy reporting or deliberate misrepresentation. Being cognisant of the content of the NUJ code on the reporting of ‘minority’ racial and religious issues, I am of the opinion that the second explanation is the correct one.

The mainstream media has deployed its standard stigmatising linguistic arsenal in dealing with the EDL’s attempt to demonstrate in Bradford, describing the EDL as ‘far-right’, ‘racist’, ‘controversial’ and ‘divisive’. It is strange how the Government, local authorities and mainstream media are happy to refer to ‘communities’ (thus illustrating the Balkanised ethno-confessional reality of Britain today) in their general discourse, yet refer to ‘community cohesion’ (note the use of the singular noun ‘community’) and some putative threat to its existence whenever the EDL seeks to demonstrate. The fact is, as they are perfectly aware, there is no ‘community’, for there are plural ‘communities’, and the population of Bradford most certainly does not constitute a ‘community’ in the singular. Bradford has become a bicultural city in which a cohesive Muslim colony stands against the rest of the population. It was not the so-called ‘far right’ that rioted in Bradford in 2001, but volatile members of this colony. There is no such thing as ‘community cohesion’ in Bradford. The reality is an ethno-confessional divide, so there is no ‘cohesion’ to disrupt.

As many people know, UAF is effectively run by the Trotskyist Socialist Workers’ Party (SWP), and the SWP by its own definition is a ‘revolutionary’ organisation that is willing to use violence to achieve its ends. It is therefore planning to gather its activists in Bradford on the same day as the EDL and has used inflammatory language specifically designed to whip up an atmosphere of fear in the hope that it will polarise opinion and lend them support. Thus their website states:

The EDL's aim is to intimidate and terrorise Bradford's Muslim community.

Therefore the We are Bradford celebration of unity, backed by Unite Against Fascism will be going ahead.

The use of the terms ‘intimidate and terrorise’ is not intended to calm the situation. What the SWP would desire above all else would be another Muslim riot such as the city witnessed in 2001 owing to their unquestioning belief in the legitimacy of ‘revolutionary violence’ and their selection of the Muslim population as a surrogate revolutionary proletariat. I wish the EDL success next weekend and hope that their demonstration goes without a hitch and without violence. If you see or read any reports of violence, examine them with a forensic thoroughness and seek to discern the actual course of events and who perpetrated any violence.