Archive for October 2009

He was the only major British politician to try to stop it! He attempted to introduce a bill to control immigration in 1955. He also wanted the Conservative Party to adopt the slogan “Keep England White.”

There were no records kept of numbers entering, apparently because the immigrants were, as Commonwealth citizens, British subjects, nor did they give practical support, leaving it to local councils and voluntary organisations.

Throughout the 1950s many delegations from local councils of areas affected went to 10, Downing Street, to ask for practical help and funds. On the 21st of November 1952 the Town Clerk of Brixton asked for regulation of immigration.

Churchill first discussed immigration in Cabinet on 25th November 1952 when he asked if the Post Office employed large numbers of “coloured workers.”

“If so, there was some risk social problems would be created.” The workers were from India, Nigeria, the Gold Coast, Sierra Leone, Uganda, Mauritius, West Indies, Ceylon, British Guiana and Malaya.

Churchill asked his staff to find out about problems in Lambeth, Brixton and Cardiff. B.G.Smallman, PS, to the Colonial Secretary, produced a paper on “The Coloured Population of the UK”. This estimated the numbers to be 40–50,000 which included about 6,000 students.

Churchill’s Private Secretary Montague-Brown to Civil Servant Johnston 2/11/1954 comments on an article in The Telegraph of 19 October in which the Jamaican Minister of Labour said he would not attempt to stop mass immigration. The P.M. thinks this should be brought up in Cabinet.

The Cabinet Secretary’s Notebooks released to the public in August 2007 are the handwritten notes of Cabinet Meetings. They record that on 3 February 1954 under the item “Coloured Workers”, Sir Winston stated, “Problems which will arise if many coloured people settle here. Are we to saddle ourselves with colour problems in the UK?  Immigrants are attracted here by the Welfare State. Public opinion in UK won’t tolerate it once it gets beyond certain limits.”

Florence Horsbrugh, Minister of Education and MP for Manchester (Moss Side), added that the problem was ‘Already becoming serious in Manchester.’ David Maxwell Fyfe, the Home Secretary, gave a figure of 40,000 compared to 7,000 before the Second World War and raised the possibility of control.

He said: “There is a case on merits for excluding riff-raff. But politically it would be represented and discussed on basis of colour limitation. That would offend the floating vote viz., the old Liberals. We should be reversing age-long tradition that British Subjects have right of entry to mother-country of Empire. We should offend Liberals, also sentimentalists.”

He added: ‘The colonial populations are resented in Liverpool, Paddington and other areas by those who come into contact with them. But those who don’t are apt to take a more Liberal view.”
Another referred to an “increasing evil” and principles “laid down 200 yrs. ago are not applicable to-day. See dangers of colour discriminn. But other [Dominions] control entry of B. subjects. Could we present action as coming into line…& securing uniformity?”

Mr Churchill said the question was whether it might be wise “to allow public feeling to develop a little more — before taking action… May be wise to wait … But it would be fatal to let it develop too far.”  Mr Churchill concluded: “Would like also to study possibility of ‘quota’ – no. not to be exceeded.”
[Read more]

Sweden Democrat leader Jimmie Åkesson

An opinion piece by Sweden Democrat leader Jimmie Åkesson in which he labels Muslims a major threat has been reported to Sweden’s highest legal official by the Centre Against Racism (Centrum Mot Rasism).

• Islam ‘Sweden’s biggest threat’: far-right leader (19 Oct 09)
• Four in ten back far-right cooperation: poll (16 Oct 09)
• Sweden Democrats gain in new voter poll (23 Aug 09)
• Sweden Democrat leader joins white power singsong (6 Apr 09)

The anti-racism organization called on the Chancellor of Justice (Justitiekanslern - JK) to examine whether claims made by the head of the far-right party were tantamount to agitation against an ethnic group (hets mot folkgrup).

Åkesson’s article, published in Aftonbladet on Monday, has provoked a furious reaction following the Sweden Democrat chief’s assertion that the spread of Islam represents the country’s “greatest external threat since World War II”.
[Read more]

There have been a number of articles written since Thursday, covering the infamous edition of Question Time featuring BNP Chairman Nick Griffin, so I am sure that most of those reading this already know what took place, and how the controlled media, in the form of the tax payer funded BBC, attempted to undermine Griffin and his party. For the first time in the thirty odd years during which Question Time has been broadcast and without warning, or, at least without warning Nick Griffin, the format was entirely changed so that, instead of each panellist answering questions on current events and recent news stories, Griffin was subjected to an hour long inquisition by his four hostile panellists, an even more hostile audience and an extraordinarily biased moderator, David Dimbleby, who far from acting as moderator actually joined in the attacks himself.

Every question asked bar one, was effectively a condemnation of the BNP and its leader, each requiring Griffin to defend himself against a baying mob. In fact the only one which wasn’t about the BNP and related to the tragic death of Boyzone singer Stephen Gately, was clearly chosen as a trap designed to enable Griffin to be accused of homophobia, which he inevitably was, even though his response was far more moderate than those who chose the question no doubt hoped.

I have read descriptions of the program which compared what happened to a show trial, bear baiting and a kangaroo court, all of which are fair comment. To some degree it was expected, one commentator at my blog last week, on hearing that Nick Griffin was to appear on Question Time said “they will be around him like piranha” and they were. However, I doubt many expected the BBC to actually go so far as to change the format of its flagship political program, established over three decades, for the soul purpose of disadvantaging one guest. Indeed they went much further than that, the BBC set out to pillory and humiliate Nick Griffin, and may well have unintentionally gained him a lot of sympathy in the process.

To achieve their aim, the BBC were prepared to sacrifice any pretence of impartiality or the long vaunted claim that the audience for such shows are “representative of the public at large”, a claim we always knew was false but now irrevocably exposed as a lie. The vast majority of the audience were clearly hand picked BNP opponents. Advanced publicity claimed that there would be BNP supporters in the audience, but they were vastly outnumbered and largely ignored by Dimbleby when selecting contributions from the floor.

I may be wrong, and certainly have no evidence to support this, but it seemed that many in the audience not only shared a view but actually knew each other judging from the conspiratorial grins and winks which many appeared to be exchanging whilst the camera was directed at them.
[Read more]

[...]

This is not new, of course, as politicians have been playing their electoral bases for suckers since at least the Roman Republic. But, despite all that, loyal Democrats are stepping up to defend their guy just as viciously as loyal Republicans went to bat for W. It is almost as if they are unable to recognize that they are backing policies which are exactly opposite of what their guy promised in order to get elected.

What gives with that, anyway? I’ve pondered that question for years, but finally got some inkling of an answer from a study done during the 2004 presidential election cycle. Researchers at Emory University did a study on both Democrats and Republicans to determine how hyper-partisan individuals processed information.

Researchers asked staunch party members from both sides to evaluate information that threatened their preferred candidate prior to the 2004 Presidential election. The subjects’ brains were monitored while they pondered.

What did the researchers find? Essentially, partisan Democrats and Republicans are completely unable to see contradictions on their own side of the fence.

The tests involved pairs of statements by the candidates, President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry, that clearly contradicted each other. The test subjects were asked to consider and rate the discrepancy. Then they were presented with another statement that might explain away the contradiction. The scenario was repeated several times for each candidate.

The brain imaging revealed a consistent pattern. Both Republicans and Democrats consistently denied obvious contradictions for their own candidate but detected contradictions in the opposing candidate.

Overall, here were the results:

* Partisan beliefs are calcified, meaning partisan people can learn very little from new data
* Partisans spin data in their minds until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones. They literally feel a rush from ignoring facts which contradict their desired outcomes.

Partisan politics isn’t about facts or issues or policies. It’s about identity. In other words, it isn’t about what a member of my tribe says or does, what matters is that they are part of my tribe. So if a Democrat sells out totally on issue after issue, the Democrats simply ignore that fact and keep on vilifying the opposition. The Republicans do the same thing. In fact, partisan minds even reinforce this process by giving their owners a rush from ignoring contradictory data.

There is no logic to this. Which is why rational policy debate is out the window. How can you have a rational debate when you are totally blind to the contradictory nature of the policies emanating from your own side, and are incapable of learning from new data? In fact, how can you even begin to argue rationally if you are incapable of evaluating your own side’s ideas?

[...]

The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”, according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

He said Labour’s relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to “open up the UK to mass migration” but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its “core working class vote”.

As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants.

Critics said the revelations showed a “conspiracy” within Government to impose mass immigration for “cynical” political reasons.

Mr Neather was a speech writer who worked in Downing Street for Tony Blair and in the Home Office for Jack Straw and David Blunkett, in the early 2000s.

Writing in the Evening Standard, he revealed the “major shift” in immigration policy came after the publication of a policy paper from the Performance and Innovation Unit, a Downing Street think tank based in the Cabinet Office, in 2001.

He wrote a major speech for Barbara Roche, the then immigration minister, in 2000, which was largely based on drafts of the report.

He said the final published version of the report promoted the labour market case for immigration but unpublished versions contained additional reasons, he said.

He wrote: “Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.

“I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn’t its main purpose – to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.”
[Read more]

Crossing the sea to a stormy welcome, African immigrants strike Malta. The Maltese feel stretched to their limits, sensitive to allegations of racism. The government in Valletta is responding, urging more solidarity from EU partners.

Video linked here.

Oct. 23 (Bloomberg) — British National Party leader Nick Griffin called for an investigation into the British Broadcasting Corp.’s staging of a debate involving him and other political leaders last night, saying he faced a “lynch mob.”

Eight million people tuned in to see the first appearance of the whites-only party leader on the BBC’s Question Time debate show. Audience members jeered Griffin as he said the U.K. should curb immigration and send foreigners home.

“The British public — millions of extra people who tuned in last night — are aghast by the display of bias from the BBC, the venom from the political class, the sheer unfairness,” Griffin told broadcasters today. “That was a lynch mob.”

Griffin took part in the debate in a bid to move his party, which bars all except “indigenous Caucasian” people from membership, from the political fringe. His appearance sparked violent demonstrations, and political leaders from the three main parties condemned the BBC’s decision to book him.

Last night’s discussion focused on Griffin’s views about the treatment of Jews in World War II and his suggestions that Islam isn’t compatible with British culture. Griffin said the “Holocaust was — is — used to avoid serious discussion” and that Winston Churchill, who led the fight against Adolf Hitler, would join the BNP “because no other party would have him.”

Issues Dodged

Today, Griffin said the show failed to probe his views on major issues, including the post office strike. The BNP along with the U.K. Independence Party has tapped into frustration about record rates of immigration into Britain since 2004 and perceptions that housing and welfare services favor minorities.

“Overall it was difficult for him to get a word in,” said Matthew Goodwin, research fellow at the University of Manchester and author of “The New Extremism in 21st Century Britain.” “Polling shows us there is an element of support for the BNP’s policies.”
[Read more]

Jeffrey Sachs is senior economist at the UN and author of the bestseller “Common Wealth” and the controversial Time essay “The Case for Bigger Government”. In a recent interview in the Brussels newspaper De Tijd Jeffrey Sachs blames “unbridled American market capitalism” for the financial crisis and pleads in favor of the Swedish social model as an alternative. His ideological argument is revealing for the dominant utopian-socialist mind at the top of the UN.

The Swedish social model, which Sachs would like to introduce, has not the only the largest Size of Government of Western World, but also the weakest economic performance of the OECD. In 1970, Sweden still was the fourth wealthiest nation in the world. Thirty years later, Sweden had fallen to rank 17 with catastrophic social consequences. In the meantime the U.S. consistently managed to remain the second or third for more than half a century. So there is not much socio-economic wisdom to be learned from the Swedish Social Model.

Sachs also argues that “unbridled capitalism” is the cause of the current crisis. The reality is that during the last twenty years central planning progressively intruded Western economies who now bear the burden of governments spending 40% to 55% of GDP. Entrepreneurs face ever more crippling restrictions, licensing schemes, quotas and price and quality controls. Businessmen endure tens of thousands of pages of new rules and regulations each year, all written in a lawyers slangy that totally undermines the legal certainty of the free market and which transformed business into a gamble on the next political caprice and on judicial interpretations of the legal jargon. Size of government, computerized control and dirigisme has now reached a level plan economists of the Soviet Union could only dream of. Not the capitalistic system failed, but excessive dirigisme is to blame for the crisis.

Monetary Policy
Sachs also fails to mention the role of monetary policy in the financial crisis. Still it was money printing that undermined our purchasing power, and heavily forged our means of exchange and saving, with massive distortions as a result. The reason why interest rate manipulation causes so much distortion is that the interest rates are the key factor in all spending and investment decisions. Not only in the choice between saving and consumption, but also in the investment calculus between capital intensive and labor-intensive production processes. Years of low interest rates lead to overinvestment in futuristic automation and nonsensical expulsion of low-skilled labor from production processes. The colossal waste of low skilled labor tumbles overall productivity resulting in lasting stagflation and heavily suboptimal living standards.
[Read more]

The term “social engineering” never fit an entity better than it does the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). This intrusive, tenacious organization has spent years attempting to recast and transform American society to fit its own peculiar ideals. Its directors are missionaries in the full sense of the word, in that they relentlessly work to stamp onto the hearts and minds of the public a distinctive belief system, which teaches what is evil and what is not.

This month, the Federation for Immigration Reform (FAIR) has published an excellent analysis of the SPLC’s attack on FAIR and other immigration reform groups, entitled, Guide to Understanding the Tactics of the Southern Poverty Law Center in the Immigration Debate. It offers much-needed insights. Besides giving the ordinary citizen an opportunity to view the insides of this “watchdog” group, the report should become a reference guide for members of the media, who generally take the easy way out when covering stories about race and/or immigration.

Reporters, editorialists, and feature writers are notorious for accepting, without further investigation, reams of data and materials disseminated to them by a cluster of self-appointed overseers of American society, among the most prominent, the B’nai B’rith Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the NAACP, and the Southern Poverty Law Center. [See also here and here.]

Thanks to the fawning acceptance granted them by the establishment media, these groups, and several more like them, have acquired an almost quasi-governmental status in the public mind. When they spread lies, there are few people who will risk inevitable public denigration and stand up to challenge them. In regard to the SPLC, FAIR’s new report does just that.

FAIR was founded in 1979, and is the country’s largest immigration reform group. It has more than 250,000 members whose aims are to improve border security, stop illegal immigration, and promote immigration levels consistent with the national interest. Sensible immigration reform would enhance national security, improve the economy, preserve our environment, and protect jobs for American citizens.

Such goals have earned FAIR the designation of a “hate” group by the SPLC.
[Read more]