Given the choice, I would rather feel like a Dragon than be a Maggot; alas, for comforting illusios. But what else is there?
Sunday, October 29, 2006
If you want an example of Double-Speak, then take heed of the following:A spokesman said: "We are treating this as a racial incident, but the murder was not racially motivated."
So 'racial incidents' which culminate in murder do not necessarily indicate that the murder was 'racially motivated' now? I wonder what the consensus would have been, had it been an 'Asian Youth' who had been 'killed in a hit and run incident' (note, let's not use emotive
language such as 'murdered with a vehicle used as the weapon of assault', for that would be emotional and irrational, no matter the extent to which language is nuanced by The BBC and The Guardian in their dishonest and unscrupuolous attempts to
, err sorry, 'diffuse potential for racial tensions'.
Links to the treatment of this incident by at least three sections of the media follow. Note that although The Telegraph
does not repeat verbatim, that laughable quote highlighted above, it is somewhat reticent in terms of wholly rebutting such absurdities, as can be seen from the following:
A Greater Manchester spokesman said: “As the disturbance involved people of white and Asian ethnic origin, there is a racial element, but the motivation for the attack is still being investigated.”
Here are the links (in descending notoriety order):news.bbc.co.ukwww.manchestereveningnews.ruwww.telegraph.co.uk
Below is a comment I wrote to the Manchester Evening News (which of course will not be published)
A spokesman said: "We are treating this as a racial incident, but the murder was not racially motivated."
This seems to be a surprisngly prescient conclusion to jump to, in view of the fact that the investigation is just underway.
Do the police know something they are not yet ready to reveal, or have they arrived at an a priori conclusion
based on the basis of political reasons?
Or is it simply Establishment (Government/Judiciary/Police) Policy to fail to register certain murders as non-racially
motivated, whilst deciding in advance that murders going the other way are always and without exception, racially
Apathay and indifference towards the killing of working class people who do not have a voice is one thing; insulting our
intelligence takes the insult to the next level.
Something else of note to consider in all this of course, is to ask that if a 'racial incident' can culminate in a murder that is deemed not to be racially motivated, doesn't that put the whole Stephen Lawrence debacle into a different light. I say this particularly in reference to the fact that fairly recent allegations of drugs-dealing has been impugned to both the prior defendents and relatives of the prior defendents. These former defendants are perhaps, due in some measure to the ambiguity afforded by changes in Double Jeopardy Law, are frequently referred to as 'suspects' in most mass media coverage of the story. I wonder whether it is the ambiguity brought about by recent changes in double jeopardy law, or could it be outright partisanship on the part of the mass media journalists who, as we know, are bound by the Trades Union to take a given line in most areas of reportage.
I could be wrong about that last point of course, as journalists probably have the same strengths and weaknesses as the rest of us, which includes both a willingness to swallow what they are spoonfed, as well as a willingness to put their careers and reputations on the line by dissenting with orthodox policy.
If we were to see the problem as originating solely from one quarter, a likely candidate could be the jittery and nervous police who have been condemned as racist in their handling of cases involving white on black killings and are therefore, desperately keen to prove themselves free of such allegations.
The McPherson report and its condemnation of the Police rather strongly resembles the concept of Original Sin.
Perhaps the disingenuous scheming and manipulations are symptomatic of a perceived need for perpetual atonement, guilt without end.
Why Are The White Working Classes So Roundly Despised?
Andrew Gimson's Daily Telegraph
(London) article touches upon a few unanswered questions that are usually kept out of the public debate, as evidenced by the introductory paragraph below.
Our politicians are so obsessed by race that they have forgotten the importance of class. They agonise about racial segregation, while generally ignoring the exclusion of the white working class from our politics.
Gimson continues his line or argumentation with the following lines:
[W]hile ethnic divisions are certainly deep in some areas, they are nothing like as widespread – and in many respects nothing like as pernicious – as the scornful treatment by our overwhelmingly bourgeois political establishment of the white working class. While a brilliant campaign has been waged against racial prejudice, prejudice against the white working class has flourished as never before.
They say "you can't have one without the other. Gimson goes on to offer an explanation if not as to why this might possibly be so, then certainly offers a tentative explanation as to how this aporia (accidental or deliberate), may have come into being. While doing so, he gives some indication as to the extent to which smug complacency and conceit on the part of our cosmopolitan 'elite' has contributed to bringing about this state of affairs.
This prejudice is all the more dangerous for being unselfconscious. Our rulers do not think of themselves as being in the slightest bit prejudiced. They know they are the most open-minded people since records began. That is part of their armour of self-righteousness, which enables them to believe that the world would be perfect if everyone was exactly the same as themselves.
The article continues in pretty much the same vein and is well worth reading through to its entirety.
Gimson does cover himself by referencing aspects of immigration he considers to be positive; he is after all, writing for a mainstream newspaper that must maintain respectability.www.telegraph.co.uk
My (unpublished) comment to the Telegraph Blog are set out below: Note: I offer emollouments of concession to the prevailing orthodoxies in the (vain) hope of getting published, a mistake on my part as their Editors must have decided they could 'see through' my comments.
A very interesting article and as a member of the much-despised white working class, I can say that for the most part, the author is correct in his assertions.
My gripe with government policy in regard to those of us who comprise the white working classes is that they have championed multiculturalism and diversity largely at the expense of the white working class. The government has effectively created a ‘split’ between what amount to competing client groups. I also suspect that the government have tended to cement their pro-muliticulturalism agenda by cariacaturing the behaviour, attitudes and beliefs of a very small minority and projecting those attitudes and behaviours onto the majority of us. This seems to be a case of double standards, especially in the context of the Government’s and much of the mass media’s attempts to bend over backwards to avoid indiscriminately attaching the ‘terrorist’ label onto Muslims.
I should also like to make the point that 'retrogressive' attitudes towards immigration are by no means confined to those members of the working classes that hold them; the middle classes simply possess better realtime mental filters to check what they are saying.
The points that Andrew Gimson makes with reference to the education curriculum are pertinent as well, since the emphasis is very much on university entrance. Such emphasis bears very little correlation to the skills and attributes that most employers need from potential workers, therefore many will go to university to study light-weight or ‘Micky Mouse’ degrees which may be interesting in their own right, but in an age in which everyone has at least a first degree, the transferrable skills learned at University are over-abundant.
I should also address that element of the article that mentioned the increasing ‘feminization’ of schooling and the effect this has on the males going through that system.
This is a comment I submitted to a web site that, while it has a moderated forum, is willing to publish opinions that go against not just the prevailing 'consensu', but also even their own. That's called a fair and balanced press. Too bad the 'mainstream' press fail to live up to it.
There is also more to it than that however: The White Working Class are often seen as co-conspirators in the oppression of Third World peoples and therefore, are deemed culpable, along with the “White architects of oppression”.
Some theorists on the Left seem to think that simply by virtue of being White, the White working classes benefit from what they call “institutionalised racism” and therefore, the White working classes are guilty as a class. This point is touched upon in an AmRen article dealing with the fate of the Kulaks under Stalin and there do seem to be echoes of this in the present day.
Also, as other posters have mentioned, this diversionary talk about “inclusivity”, “diversity”, “fairness”, “social justice”, etc is intended to put us all off-guard, in order that we fail to notice the very real ‘power grab’ that is underway.
I know of Leftists who think that all talk of Liberals having gone too far the other way in ‘addressing racism’ (ie, matters such as ‘affirmative’ action, quotas, etc), is a ‘straw man’, but that is more to do with their entrenched belief systems than anything else.
What is interesting about Gimson’s article is that he touches upon so many facets of the dilemma, yet fails to tackle any of them with sufficient rigour, such treatment deserving more of an essay than an article.
Finally, it is also telling that while an article such as this would not have appeared in the ‘mainstream’ media in the UK 10 or even 5 years ago, the emergence of a voice to the Right of the three main parties has necessitating this kind of toe-tipping into the muddy waters of such previously forbidden topics as immigration, integration, apportionment of social goodies, etc. This latter point is the rationale behind Gimson’s effusive remarks concerning immigration; if called out on his opinions, he can always offer them up as jeremiad on the ‘disappearing White working classes’, rather than as a tentative and circumspect criticism of immigration and multi-culturalism.
Following the link to the original article, you will see many comments that veer in the direction Gimson emphatically did not wish to go, though he left the field open for such extrapolations.
Double Standards and Double Jeopardy
At this blog
somebody has demostrated the double standards that apply when it comes to interracial murders. These crimes are predominantly committed by younger people, usually males and consist invariably of many against one, irrespective of whether the victim is black or white.
It isn't just the horror of the crime itself, but the politicisation by the police, courts, and government (all ostensibly separate entities, but such tight binding exists that they might as well be the same department).
In summary, all interracial crimes with white perpetrators and black victims are deemed racist whereas all interracial crimes with black perpetrators and white victims are distorted and manipulated to appear as being non-racist by motive.
What this amounts to then, is a wilful misrepresentation of events for entirely political reasons, so that when the 'hate crime' statistics are publisehd (a dubious category, since somebody is effectively being tried for what they were thinking
rather than what they were doing
- a dangerous precedent to my mind), these statistics will perpetuate the fiction that 'hate crimes' are predominantly perpetrated by whites against blacks; a state of affairs we all know to be false, but many in the political ranks would like to believe to be true. That last point would make an interesting area of psychological inquiry in its own right, but that should perhaps be held off until after
something has been done to rectify this grotesque parody of justice.
An edited version of my comment on that posting referenced above is available below:
I do not yet suppose that the Authorities are actively collusive with black on white killings, but they certainly do their best to cover up crimes of that nature.
Our 'leaders' are survivors of the Civil Rights movement in the 1960's and they at some levels at least, believe that black on white crimes are somehow 'justified' due to 'historical injustices'.
It is their own sense of guilt that is at work here, because they are the beneficiaries of unearned (or at least, easily earned) privilege and they cannot reconcile themselves to this.
I refuse to believe that those at the very top of the hieararchy are innately stupid, even though their actions all too often seem to be. I suspect the problem goes much deeper than the mere difference between intelligence and stupidity; I think it is deeply psychological. Not only is it counter our survival, it is also counter their survival too.
The multicultural lessons which result in stoking resentment, a desire for revenge and a will to dominate means that anyone in the 'dispossessed class' as vulnerable to 'retaliation' or 'revenge'.
What is perhaps most peculiar is that even recent immigrants are encouraged to feel aggrieved at 'institutional racism' when logically, they can have had no direct experience of such maltreatment.
Where Religion Meets Secular Humanism
I have been unforgivably remiss in keeping my promise of trying to make a go of this blog. My apologies, but I have been working on another web site that touches upon many of the issues discussed here, so I have not been entirely 'out of the loop', so to speak. In honour of that then, there will be two posts today.
First, a quick overview of a 'spiritual, faith-based' radio programme that offers not just a view of some of the horrors of the world and hopes of redemption, but is also cleverly larded with the contemporaneous pieties that are closer to the secular humanism 'religious' ideals of our ruling 'elites' (please do not infer connotations of superiority or excellence here).
The eponymous title (of the page, not the article), is a BBC Radio 2 effort and fluffy-wuffy, non-denominational Christianity that seeks to offer hope and redemption in a cruel world.
Unsurprisingly perhaps for the BBC, the show was focussed heavily upon global matters such as Genocide, displacement of faraway peoples and their eventual salvation by finding a sinecure in the West.
The mettlesome little cliches of redemption are tiring, but it is easy to see why people would be such easy prey for such easy answers.
The dominant messages of the moment are those of a one-world inclusivism, preached from the top down to us imoverished lowlives at the bottom of the heap. Quite why we should welcome our own displacement in the name of Christian ethics remains largely beyond me, but clearly, the secular humanists both within and without the Church clearly seem to think we should.
Many of these Church people have been ‘on a mission’ of one sort or another throughout the history of the Church and it comes as no surprise that they would ignore the problems closer to home in favour of those in faraway lands. They remind me of Aiden Rankin’s observation of the Mrs Jellybys of this world, those who’s gaze is oriented toward the middle distance, ignorning the very real want and privation much closer to home.
Ironically perhaps, the next record to be played in the subsequent show was Fleetwood Mac’s Little Lies which I find rather amusing.
You can hear the show for the week or so here
though it is in the last hour or so of the show.
Monday, July 24, 2006
Knaves & Rogues
The gerrymandering of the political constituency by importing vast swathes of immigrants into the country is not a problem that is unique to America, however America does potentially have that safeguard of 'Jeffersonian and Madesonian constraint' that is sorely lacking in Britain's unwritten constitution.
In the UK, we have a political elite that while not originally of the elite, have now become that elite. European and British elites are accustomed to ruling by a sense of divine entitlement, so they are further along the path than America's legislature. The choke-hold of the elites in Europe are tighter and interestingly, while individuals may face disgrace (and heaven knows, enough of our leadership deserve to be disgraced), the elite as a body politic remains intact and largely unaffected by minor turmoil.
The 'immigration debate' has been railroaded into obscurity, so much so that even mere mention of immigration in any but the most effusive and glowing of terms is regarded as the utmost racism and although that is the case, there is the inevitable windy rhetoric indulged by some political figures which acts more as a safety valve than a genuine effort to address the problems.
Our Labour Party leadership have never pretended to be anything other than fully paid up Internationalist Liberals with the concommittant belief in 'the free movement of labour and capital across the globe'. It is no accident that the 'flow of labour' is all one way and this serves the interests of the UK's political elite, much as it serves the interests of many Western political elites wherever they are.
A balkanised and fractious populous squabbling over government-bestowed alms is a useful way of manipulating matters so as to ensure that their tenure in power extends beyond reasonable terms. These knaves have been building up to this for a long time and I suspect that if we as a population roll over pliantly, this state of affairs can only get worse.
Thursday, July 20, 2006
HSBC - We're being Shanghai-ed
Wounded Pride: Ruby Schembri receives 'comepnsation' for a chance remark. Nice work if you can get it.
Villain of the Peace: Debbie Jones, replete with surprised scowl and that - horror of horrors - vice of the "white-trash-underclass" icon, the Cigarette (Let's forget the hypocrisy of the liberal elite's indulgence of illegal street drugs and all the 'social problems' that entails for the moment, shall we?)
As others have noticed; observe the manipulations with the Photography. Smoking is despised by our elites, being categorised with what in America would be called "White Trash" (I say this as a Smoker myself; still, I've been called worse things). The element of surprise in the photograph was deliberate too, we don't know what the photographer or an accomplice said to get Debbie's attention. The posed, nicely framed shot of Comrade Schembri works at a subliminal level too.
A subtler note in all this however, is that The Daily Mail
is often held up by the metropolitan elites as a "reactionary, right-wing, bigoted hate rag" due to the newspapers's editorial position on failed asylum seekers, excessive or illegal immigration, the manifest policy failings of Tony Blair's Labour Party government and the abysmal track record in leading political figures' demonstration of ethics and these individuals' suitability to hold public office.
The very absurdity of this case will not be lost on The Daily Mail's
readership and the online comements on their web site should reflect this attitude.
As usual, there is more to the news article than at first appears to be the case.
Linkswww.dailymail.co.ukCommentary at Amren
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
There is an insidious whispering campaign going on that seeks to undermine Japan's faith in its homogenous population base.
The same rationalisations are being advnaced for Japan's dropping of its borders to immigration as were proposed against the developed nations of The Westt. The same litanies: Ageing population, contracting work force, an alleged shortage of skilled labour (but no shortage of skilled unemployed labour at home), plus the usual excuses often trotted out by the neo-Marxists to further their One World Order. There will doubtless be the effusive espousals of multi-cultural diversity (but not the attendant consequences; witness Sweden's Cities, Belgian Cities such as Brussels, etc), together with attempts to manipulate an unwarranted 'guilt' response because Japan can thrive and prosper, recovering from serious adversity, while some other countries cannot.
Where the neo-Marxists might fall down however, is the imposition of a 'buren of guilt'. Sure, like all nations, Japan has had its regrettable moments, but the multi-culti, open border soothsayers would need to manipulate Japan in ways other than how it has led the West by the nose ring.
China is growing at a phenomenal rate, so it is unlikely that there would be much political payback in attempting to instill a guilt complex into Japan viz-a-viz its historical skirmishes with China. Similarly, it would require the means of finding a country in a state of absolute ruin that Japan had acted with hostility towards in the dim and distant past, so that they could be sold the idea of unwitting reparations. It would also be necessary to dope up the Japanese industrial/media/political elite, so that they could be depended upon to ventriloquise the same liberal pieties against their native populations.
This low-level, soft-cultural-warfare has probably been being assiduously waged against Japan for some time now. I expect that hidden threats behind closed doors will be utilised (predominantly trade agreement threats), to compel Japan into repeating the same sorry mistakes that Western Europe and America has had foisted upon them.
I suspect that, out of all the countries that could face ruination in the future, Japan is probably one of the countries that could use science and technology to clamber out of the hole that it was in.
A right-wing Blog that pulls no punches.
Expect to see a vast range of links, comments, observations and other important contributions to debate.