Shadow Minister for Public Health. That is the position held by Diane Abbott. I can think of nobody better qualified for this office other than perhaps that other exemplar of healthy living, ‘Lord’ Prescott.
Diane loves the Guardian and the Guardian reciprocates this tender affection. It truly is wonderful to behold such sentiments, for love is a fragile thing in the volatile worlds of politics and journalism. Love though, as they say, is blind, which is just as well when your object of affection is Diane, and this past week the Guardian has proffered its full support to her and her twittering. If only those nasty white people would understand that Diane is simply doing her professionally black best to advance the interests of her ‘people’ groaning under the yoke of English colonial oppression.
For Diane this is after all 1912, and so far as slavery goes it’s 1712. Time and space constitute no barrier for Diane and the Guardian, for the historical ‘ills’ suffered by a fraction of the global black population at the hands of a controlling minority of the English elite would appear to suffice as a pretext for browbeating all English people and all whites for the rest of eternity. The fact that blacks routinely enslaved each other and that Arabs viewed (and often continue to do so) them as akin to sub-humans but nonetheless worthy as enslaving registers neither with Abbott nor the Guardian. Do not such crude generalisations and projections of ‘guilt’ and ‘responsibility’ furnish clear evidence of their deeply ingrained anti-white racism?
I do hope that Diane appreciates the cartoon of her as ‘victim’ penned by Guardian cartoonist Gary Barker. In this she has been somewhat ‘whited up’ and portrayed as an innocent garnering unwarranted attention from a hostile press in front of a memorial to the recently beatified St Stephen. She is you see, such a morally upstanding woman. Oh yes, quite a remarkable woman my dear friends. What will Aardman Ed Miliband do? “More cheese Gromit? Oh, sorry, I meant to say Diane.” Someone call a taxi!
The Guardian’s publication last Saturday of allegations made by a number of trade unions about the EDL was nothing short of slanderous; a piece of baseless malicious black propaganda; ideologically motivated, and indicative of a fear of the appeal of a genuine grassroots working-class movement that has come of age. As neither the Guardian nor the trade unions wish to acknowledge and confront the ugly reality underpinning the necessary rise of the EDL, they resort not to debate, but to defamation. Thus it was that the paper ran an article using slurs fed to it by Unite, Unison and the TUC, in which it claimed that the EDL was looking to broaden “out their attacks to focus on leftwing organisations” and to seek to target “striking public sector workers” on 30 November.
What evidence have they of this assertion? I see none; I know of none. Who would benefit from the threat of such a deeply stupid action? Not the EDL. The unions? Of course! It gives them a mythical bogeyman to fight; the phantom of a non-existent ‘far-right’ in their parlance; how cosy and warm it makes them feel to be united in their struggle against ‘fascism’. The EDL, ladies and gentlemen of the trades union movement, wishes to draw your attention to Islamisation and its unbidden ‘gifts’ to this country and its people. Will you not open your eyes and your ears to this admittedly highly disagreeable reality? Must you forever let dogma render you incapable of reason?
It is interesting, is it not, that the Guardian and the trades unions should adopt this tack on the day that the EDL announced that it would be collaborating with the British Freedom Party, in pursuit of a popular democratic political solution to the problem of Islamisation? That such a fevered denunciatory text should have been published at this juncture, underscores their fear that the edifice of multiculturalism will come tumbling down. It brings to mind Metternich’s quote concerning the Austrian Empire:
‘My realm resembles a worm-eaten house. If one part is removed, one can never tell how much will fall.’
The EDL is evolving, and will be acting in a much more focused and intelligent manner in future. In this change of tactics, and its endorsement of British Freedom, there lies hope for a genuine breakthrough, and ultimately, success. When the Independent Labour Party emerged in tandem with the fledgling trades union movement, these two represented the genuine concerns and interests of England’s working class, but today, history points us in a different direction. Now, it is the British Freedom Party in tandem with the English Defence League, which is in tune with and articulates the concerns of the English working class. This is why the trades union movement has stooped so low as to engage in defamation.
Over the past few days, the number of British Freedom’s Facebook followers has increased by more than 700. The English Democrats have failed to gain that number of additional followers over six months. Which of these therefore, would you adjudge to be en route to emerging as our much-needed credible moderate nationalist party? I know where I’m putting my money.
The media is abuzz with anticipation that the Sweden Democrats Party may make history in this Sunday’s national elections by breaking through the 4% threshold required to gain representation in Parliament (the Riksdag). This is significant insofar as the party’s strong anti-immigration and anti-Islamisation stance has led it to being classified as ‘far right’ by its detractors which has resulted in predictable attacks from the media and leftist groups. Some of these attacks have not been limited to the written and spoken word, but have taken the form of physical assault and violent protest by leftist demonstrators.
As one would expect, the UK’s Guardian newspaper is alarmed not by the Islamisation of Sweden, which it is intent upon portraying in glowing terms (echoing Orwell’s characterisation of England in its description of Malmö’s suburb of Rosengård with its 'well-signposted cycle paths on which stately middle-aged women in headscarves pedal their groceries home'), but by the rise of the Sweden Democrats. The tone of the Guardian’s Andrew Brown belies the newspaper’s actual lack of tolerance and respect for individual freedoms and personal safety in its casual and offhand description of a violent leftist attack upon a Sweden Democrats member:
In this passage Brown thus implies that it is ‘respectable’ to ignore acts of extreme political violence if such acts enforce the multicultural dogma that the biens-pensants of the Guardian see as being the only one to which people should subscribe. To deviate from this ideology of decadent ‘liberal’ self-hatred is deemed beyond the bounds of decency by the Guardian. It is a million miles away from the self-assured, self-respecting, pro-Western liberalism espoused by Geert Wilders whom the Guardian deliberately misrepresents as some sort of neo-Nazi.
Other articles in the New York Times, the Economist and the EU Observer ponder the rise of the Sweden Democrats and see it as a sign of growing dissatisfaction with some of the less savoury aspects of the country’s long-established model of social democracy amongst a section of the Swedish electorate. As in other European countries, Sweden has witnessed a large influx of Muslim immigrants in recent decades, many entering as refugees and asylum seekers, and as elsewhere they have adhered to their Muslim identity which they see as being superior to the culture of their host society. Muslim rape of indigenous Swedish women has become an issue, and certain areas of Malmö have become Muslim enclaves where non-Muslims would rather not set foot. Even Swedish ambulances won’t enter such areas without police escort. These problems are illustrated in the two videos below, the first of which is a Fox News report on Islamisation in Sweden (it starts in Swedish but switches to English after 15 seconds) whereas the second contains footage of the Muslim riots that hit Malmö in December 2008 (this starts off as a series of stills, but moves onto video footage just after a minute in).
The Sweden Democrats under the leadership of the youthful Jimmie Åkesson (he is only 31) wish to tackle such problems by cutting immigration by 90% and rejecting multiculturalism in favour of strong assimilationist policies. Opinion polls are currently showing that the party enjoys the support of more than 4% of the Swedish electorate, but Åkesson is bullish and thinks that the party could win as much as 8% of the vote tomorrow.
Are the Sweden Democrats responsible for the Muslim rapewave perpetrated against indigenous Swedish women? No. Are the Sweden Democrats responsible for Muslim riots and no-go areas in Swedish cities? No. Have the Sweden Democrats been behind the soft asylum laws, pro-mass immigration and multiculturalist policies that have facilitated Islamisation and the marginalisation of Swedish indigenous interests? No. Have the Moderate Party and other Swedish parties that have formed governments in recent years supported and facilitated all of the above? Yes. So, who has created real “turmoil and chaos”: the Sweden Democrats or the country’s mainstream political parties including the Moderate Party? The responsibility clearly lies with the latter. The Sweden Democrats wish to deal with the problems created by Islamisation and multiculturalism, whereas their opponents pretend that such problems are a fiction created by unprincipled ‘far-right’ populists for their own putative nefarious political objectives.
The Sweden Democrats have managed to further offend the multiculturalist sensibilities of the Swedish Establishment by producing an imaginative election broadcast depicting burqa-clad mothers racing for benefits ahead of an indigenous Swedish pensioner. Despite it being a fair representation of an unpleasant reality in contemporary Sweden, the broadcast was banned. View it below and see what you think. Let’s hope that tomorrow the multiculturalist consensus in Sweden lies in tatters as the Sweden Democrats return members to the Riksdag.
Readers may also be interested in an enlightening article entitled 'Sweden: Banana Monarchy or Kretinostan?'written by a Swedish pensioner and posted at the Gates of Vienna blog.
