The Last Ditch

Giving an unattractive nation a makeover

Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser - Telegraph.
This story proves the Labour Party knows no ethical boundaries to state power. A government should serve the people, not seek to manipulate them. Social re-engineering of the people in the interests of the governing party is no part of a government's remit. Labour cannot even deny this particular exercise was against the peoples' will. Why else did it manipulate the data? If it had thought there was popular support for re-engineering the nation to make it "more attractive and cosmopolitan", it would have campaigned for election on that basis.

Let's face it however; what nation would elect a government that despised it as unattractive and parochial? In deliberately flooding our islands with millions of unnecessary immigrants, Labour concealed its "driving political purpose" and "concentrated instead on the economic benefits". Those benefits have proved illusory, but they were never what mattered to Labour.

I feel sorry for the immigrants concerned. They have been used as political weapons to attack the people they came to live among and can hardly expect to be loved for it. Yet this was not their fault. They sought, as sane humans do, to improve the lives of their families. They disrupted their lives; removed themselves from their communities; made huge efforts in many cases to come to a place they hoped would offer more life chances. Many with strong religious and cultural beliefs came because they were encouraged to believe they need not adapt in order to live in Britain. Now we know why. They were being deliberately imported in order to modify Britain; to adapt it to them. They have been cruelly used in a campaign not of their making. It is impossible to imagine any party but Labour being so cynical and arrogant.

This was about importing Labour voters, dramatically changing the country Labour has long despised and taking a mischievous chance to "rub the Right's nose in diversity." It was, in short, a betrayal of the nation. Labour has today been exposed as not merely unfit to govern, but unfit to live among the people it so hates. All involved in this exercise should emigrate to a country sufficiently "diverse" to be "attractive" to them. Perhaps Cuba?

The Boys Who Cry Racism

The Boys Who Cry Racism by Harry Stein, City Journal 15 October 2009.

The linked article is an excellent piece about how the once-serious issue of racism has become a casual political smear.

...the charge of racism is invariably a crock; indeed, that more than simply an expression of (often contrived) liberal moral outrage, it’s intended to be the ultimate conversation stopper. Ward Connerly, long the leader of the fight against racial preferences in America, observes that he’s had the experience more times than he cares to count of speaking before an audience, knowing that 99 of 100 people agree with him. “But if there’s one angry black person in the audience who disagrees,” he says, “that person controls the room. He’ll go on about the last 400 years, and institutional racism, and ‘driving while black,’ and the other 99 will just sit there and fold like a cheap accordion.” And Connerly is black himself. For the liberal opinion makers and trend setters who’ve set themselves up as America’s racial referees, the accused racist is always presumed to be guilty of at least something.

Do read the whole thing. What's true in America may be even more true in Britain, where the equality industry has a vested interest in finding racists under our beds. If the BNP is constantly in the news, it's not because its paltry ragbag of idiots represents a threat; it's because banging on about it keeps Trevor and his team in their sinecures.

What is the point of blogging?

Why am I still here? As I watched the British prisoners suck down to the murderous pixie who leads Iran, my reasons for political blogging died. Britain’s educationalists, for so long more dangerous than any external enemy, have triumphed. Those young sailors and marines displayed the cultural cringe that must now betray us all. Faced with a deadly enemy, they saw an equally-valid culture as worthy of respect as our own.

They  probably, as one of my readers commented,  "don't know who Nelson was". However, I am sure they know all about Britain’s “wicked” imperial past. They will know everything of her role in the slave trade, save for abolishing it within her empire (only the second country to do so) and then using her navy to suppress it elsewhere. They will not know that the Anti-Slavery Squadron of the navy in which they now serve liberated 160,000 slaves between 1811 and 1867 off the coast of Africa.

They probably don't know the history of people abducted into slavery by Muslim rulers from British ships and English coastal towns. They will know, however, of every time their country has fallen short of the high standards set by Ghana, Nigeria or the Islamic world. They will also know, in their guts, that Islamophobia is a terrible thing, though they will not be able to explain why. Frankly, they will have been so brainwashed that you could stick “ophobia” after anything you liked and they would be automatically unmanned.

Why then should they risk a beating - or even the indignity of being mocked for their resemblance to Mr Bean - for a country they have been taught to despise? A country which suspects anyone who respects its flag of being a fascist?

If (happy fantasy) we could now purge our Ministry of Education, Universities, teacher training colleges and the staff rooms of our bog-standard schools, where could we find the people to replace those we defenestrated disinfiltrated? Generations have been lost to this self-loathing indoctrination. As Show of Hands sing in their song Roots;

We learn to be ashamed before we walk,

Of the way we look and the way we talk

The great public schools now teach to the same National Curriculum and even independent-minded teachers tell pupils not to lose marks by, for example, critiquing the poems from different cultures added to the GCSE English curriculum.

“Yes I know it’s technically poor dear, but there are no marks for saying so.”

Our decline and fall will not even feature the fun and games with which Ancient Rome distracted itself at its end. If you Google for examples, it becomes hard to argue that England is hopelessly decadent. Puritanism is still a powerful negative force and every description of a pleasure, even in the advertisments for spas and resorts, is accompanied by a ritual justification to do with how hard we all work. The English don't feel they deserve pleasure. We are unlikely even to fiddle as London burns.

When our time comes, I fear that as a nation we will submit as meekly to dhimmitude as the 15 submitted in Tehran. Perhaps one day, from the ashes of an Islamic Republic, a new England will rise.

Until then, is there any point in wasting breath, ink or bandwidth?

TO BE CONTINUED.

"You, the Queen, should be ashamed!" | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited

Link: "You, the Queen, should be ashamed!" | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited.

Why draw the line at this? If the Queen should be ashamed of Britain's role in slavery, how ashamed should she be of the conduct of her own direct ancestors; the feudal masters of German serfs? Why don't we Britons apologise, or even pay compensation, to modern Germans for her family's past conduct? It would be every bit as logical as this man's demands.

If a racist is someone who feels morally superior because of the colour of his skin, then that is exactly what Mr Agbetu is. But who cares? His ideas don't diminish us, they diminish him. Why would any self-respecting man ever want to live the pathetic, shrivelled apology for a life of someone who cannot define himself by anything better than his ethnic origin? Why would anyone but a loser have such a hunger to be a victim?

Try Googling Toyin Agbetu. His every public utterance appears to have been an accusation of racism, or some  nonsense about the correct way to describe black people in Britain. He favours "African British" apparently. According to his organisation's website:

African  British is the term now used to describe the community previously mislabelled [by whom?] as Afro-Caribbean, Black British,  UK Black, Coloured and Black. It embraces all British nationals with antecedents originating directly from  Africa or indirectly via African diasporic communities, such as those in the Caribbean and South America

Good for him. We are happy for him to be British, but if that's not good enough, he can be whatever he likes. He has written and is in the process of directing a couple of movies at present, apparently. I can take a good guess as to the subject matter, but if anyone can prove me wrong, I would love to see a copy of the scripts.

How about this for a programme (again from his organisation's website):

We believe that the key to European progression is European people creating and evolving solutions for and by themselves. While we feel there is a need for certain non-European institutions to acknowledge their exploitation and degrading practices towards European people with a view to rectifying their moral wrongs, we believe it is even more essential that European people construct their own destiny. This essentially means that European people need to be enterprising and establish their own businesses, organisations, educational institutions and material, media, artistic outlets and ultimately a European centered approach to working with and for European people.

Except - you've guessed it -  for "European" you must read "African"

How much better if Mr Agbetu was to win respect by doing something useful, rather than just demanding it for the colour of his skin. I thought that's what anti-racism was about. Evidently, I was mistaken.

Europe must be united in criminalizing racism, EU lawmakers say

Link: Europe must be united in criminalizing racism, EU lawmakers say - Europe.

Assuming that there has been "...a strong increase in racist acts..." (and leaving aside for a moment who is responsible for most of them) what - properly viewed - is the evil to be addressed by law? Is it the racism, or is it the act?

If someone is attacked, their property damaged or their family's graves desecrated then what does it matter why? It is the evil act that should be illegal, not the evil thought behind it. Of course, the evil act already is illegal. So the "EU lawmakers" are indulging in that filthy vice of lawmakers everywhere; perverting the legislative process to make a political point. They are not proposing necessary laws. They are just yelling "Look at us. We are good people. We are not nasty racists."

I should bloody well hope not, so why don't you just shut up and do something useful?

Kenyans are not black. Discuss.

For the benefit of the thousands working drawing salaries in Britain's race relations industry, here are two free people - black and white - debating racial issues. Columnist Debra Dickerson defends the ludicrous contention that Barack Obama is not "black," taking in good part the deserved oral fisking she gets from the show's host, Stephen Colbert.

The most magical moment is when she accuses him of racism. Assuming any British TV presenter had the balls to put himself in this position in the first place, that's the point he would have to end the joke or curl up and die. Not this guy.

When Britain gets to this point, we may have a free country on our hands again. In the meantime, just watch and enjoy. H/T FreeBornJohn

How to make my child feel like a black sheep - Comment - Times Online

Link: How to make my child feel like a black sheep - Comment - Times Online.

I am so sick of Trevor Phillips. The man has never done an honest days work in his life, moving without pause from student politics to allegedly "grown-up" politics. He is a parasite, living on fears that he works tirelessly to promote. This article by Jamie Whyte at Times Online therefore, made me whoop with delight. Forgive me for quoting extensively. I can't take the risk that, having come this far, you won't click through (as you really should) to read the whole thing.

I am white, my wife is black and our daughter, unsurprisingly, is brown. I think she is lucky. Her skin is almost golden and her hair falls in beautiful black ringlets that, thanks to my Celtic ancestors, reveal copper undertones when caught by the sun.

But according to Trevor Phillips, the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, my daughter may be in grave peril. In a recent speech he claimed that, as a person of mixed race, she is at risk of “identity stripping”. She may “grow up marooned between two communities”.

Like many others in the race industry, Mr Phillips is a racialist. He thinks that your race is the most important fact about you. It is so important that it determines your identity and your community. If you are mixed race, you will have neither.

Mr Phillips is mistaken. Despite her brown skin, my daughter is no harder to identify than her white father or her black mother. She is a no more vague, nebulous or otherwise indefinite creature than any other human being.

Nor is she marooned between two communities. For I do not live in the white community and my wife does not live in the black community. As far as I know, there are no such communities. Despite our different colours, all three members of the Whyte family live in the same community, a nice bourgeois suburb.

Hat tip to the indispensable Tim Worstall

Am I alone?

...in thinking that, once "hate speech" of any kind becomes a crime, we are doomed to tyranny by analogy? The advice given by a judge in a recent case exposes the idiocy of our present situation;

Next time, call him a fat bastard

Unless a Pakistani is inferior to an Australian or a Scotsman, why would it be worse to call someone a "Paki" than an "Aussie" or a "Jock?" There may (perhaps) be some argument for outlawing incitement to attack someone, but mere vulgar abuse should not be a crime.

Surely the only "racism" involved in the witch-hunts against some "Big Brother" contestants and Janet Street-Porter is the implicit assumption that the supposed "victims" are so pathetic as to need special protection from hurt feelings?

Are the people on the receiving end of naughty words diminished? Or are the people uttering them? The answer is obvious. So what evil is avoided by criminalising words? The "aggravated public order offence" with which Janet Street-Porter has been charged does nothing to protect anyone from anything. It only exists so that some politician can say he was "right on" on the subject of racism. A slight additional benefit is that a notable leftist prig has been hoist with her own petard.

Whatever happened to the advice we used to give crying children, to say;

sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me?

By protecting certain groups against hearing bad of themselves, we are making them into permanent victims. Call someone a racist, a homophobe or an islamophobe in Britain and you have effectively shut down all discussion. These accusations are now so serious that people will go to great lengths to avoid them - even if that means steering clear of all who might make them.

That's why I believe the race relations industry has made the situation worse. After all, whatever heated words were really uttered over Janet Street-Porter's back fence, they would not have led to an arrest had her neighbour been white. She claims she has been falsely denounced. Whatever the truth of her situation - once you have "thought crimes" - false denunciations are a serious risk. Ask anyone who lived through Communism in Eastern Europe.

I have been accused of racism in the past few days on the pages of this blog. My contempt for the weaklings who resort to such techniques is boundless. Shouting abuse does not constitute an argument, whether you cry "Paki!" or "racist!" Those who resort to it are at best to be pitied and at worst to be despised. Sadly, in modern Britain, these feeble-minded slogan-yellers must also now be feared.

The inarticulate "celebrities" who, to the delight of the baying mob, will now probably be arrested on leaving the "Big Brother" house have been set up. Ask yourself cui bono? and the answer is clear. Endemol has rescued the ratings of its contemptible TV show. The show's producers granted the actress alleged to be the victim in the "Big Brother" case special privileges. They matched a beautiful authentic film star with a bunch of D-listers. They well knew it would stir resentments. The actress (accurately) called those housemates "ignorant". Their response was predictable. Endemol could not be happier tonight and will milk this story for all it's worth. The "right on" MP's who are wasting the legislature's time with calls for debate are putting money in their pockets.

The British working classes are not, as a whole, racist. I grew up among them. Treat them right and they will treat you right too, whatever ethnic group you may belong to. Call them names and they will call you names back. What of it? The real tragedy is that these women are inarticulate because they are uneducated. They are not uneducated because they are working class. My working class ancestors may not have had money, but they were polite and read real books. My working class colleagues in Russia read very serious books indeed. These ladies are uneducated because Labour destroyed our education system. They have been held to no standards of any kind and are proud of their ignorance.

Be that as it may, none of us should be held accountable for words uttered in heat. All of us have said things to our loved ones, in anger, that we did not mean. Should we hold people to a higher standard when dealing with strangers? Of course not.

I fear that the current stories will be used to justify yet more ridiculous laws; yet more aggressive witch hunts. The white working classes of Britain will be further demonised to justify more restrictions on freedom of speech.

The humane and intelligent Jewish comedian Jackie Mason expressed my view of these matters recently when interviewed about Mel Gibson's alleged drunken anti-Semitic outburst;

Let's be honest about it -- anybody who makes a life out of fighting racism in effect has to blow up racism in order to justify himself in his job he has. Otherwise he'd have to go to work. Otherwise he'd have to get up in the morning and get a real job

Exactly.