Leftarded Fallout | They cannot make up their mind

9 01 2011

With the media circus that has flared up around the issue of certain sections of society preying on defenceless children, the Left do not know where to look.  As Rod Liddle points out…

A bizarre report on the Asian child abuse court case on the BBC last night, which spent most of its time attempting to exonerate the Pakistani community as a whole, including clips of Pakistanis saying “actually, we probably shouldn’t abuse kiddies” and a white child abuse campaigner saying hey, look, it’s not Pakistanis who are the problem, etc etc.

This was broadcasting as a form of crowd control; undiluted propaganda. The fact is that some Pakistani men think it perfectly ok to abuse white girls and there are still gangs out there right now doing so. When Nick Griffin mentioned this fact, many years ago, they tried to prosecute him. When Radio Five covered the story five years ago they were eviscerated for it.

The praise the Left give towards Wikileaks verges on Sainthood, yet God damn those who expose any non-approved fact.  The indignation they display to the public to counter distasteful information stresses the concept of Controlled Media.  All this fallout amongst them shows just how vain and contradictory their ideals are.  And so, they are lashing out at anyone who might try to make political capital out of it, be racist, even the beloved Stooge of Labour, Straw Jack!

Most telling though is the one man you’d think the Controlled Media would be trying to hose down would be Nick Griffin, currently lending a hand to Derek Adams campaign in Oldham.  Instead, we have his views regurgitated, twisted and manipulated by those apologists and appeasers.

A recap of what has so upset the meeja darlings from the spectrum I’ve found are running with; Former home secretary says gangs of Pakistani men see young white girls as ‘easy meat’ (Independent);  Jack Straw, the former home secretary, has sparked a fierce row over his claim that some British Pakistani men regard white girls as “easy meat” for sexual abuse (Telegraph);  Labour MP Vaz says it is wrong for former home secretary to stereotype entire community over sexual assault case (GulfNews)

This is where I despair at all the criminologists.  The majority of crime victims, no matter what the crime, be it robbery or rape, are usually chosen for their perceived weakness and wrongs.  And the ones doing the choosing are by a large, opportunistic degenerates whose only resemblance to bravery happens when in a gang (or getting the Police or Armed Services to do it).

However, with rape and other sexual offences, it doesn’t help if the Koran advocates treating non-believers as fair-game.  Nor does if help with the constant promoted degradation of women by the Satanic Gods in the Meeja Industry (From Hollywood to Fleet Street).

It would be wrong to isolate this as an immigrant problem, yet the biggest immigration problem is that whenever they have a problem, it’ll be oppressive to point it out.

See where I’m going.  The problem is POLITICAL CORRECTNESS in a MULTICULTURAL environment.

They keep going around and around in circles asking is this the result of one thing when it is a combination of many aided by Cultural Marxism disguised as Political Correctness.

(((Click image to enlarge)))

Never forget what Harriet supports!

Never forget what Hodge was head of!

The enemy is not outside the gates no more.  They were imported here by the Enemy to divide us, making it easier to destroy Our Heritage and replace it with a New World Perversion.

Just say NO!

Advertisements




Third-way | Drinking Charities

29 08 2010

WARNING:  THIS POST CONTAINS LANGUAGE THAT SOME/MANY MAY/WILL FIND OFFENSIVE.

Don Shenker (Alcohol Concern), Victor Adebowale (Turning Point), Simon Antrobus (Addaction), Nick Barton (Action on Addiction), Sally Scriminger (Foundation66) and last but not least Brian Watts (Equinox Care) have had a letter supporting higher alcohol taxation published in the print version of yesterday’s Telegraph.

These organisations would not exist if it wasn’t for the generous grants from government so why the fuck should I listen to them?  The simple reason people do any form of drugs is to escape from the shite we call civil society.  Stop being a bunch of toffee-nosed cunts and people may not sulk away into drugs.  It’s not fucking rocket science you stupid cunts.

We’ll end up with ration books the way our busy-body cunting governmentals and their co-conspirators are carrying on.

I fucking hate charities.  I actually physically despise them.  Even the good ones won’t be safe from my scorn no more, so sorry Help for Heroes, you lose too sadly.

You know the saying, guilty by association, and if anyone who announces a tendency to vote for a nationalist cause can be painted as xenophobes, then I will deem every charity as a waste of time and space, and most importantly, an infringement of my God damn Right to be left to my own devices.

And yes, I have been selective in my links for the simple reason there is so much bullshit on the internet concerning the above FAKE charities that’d it take me a week plus to separate the wheat from the chaff.

So, if by chance any of the deluded CEOs of the charities above read this, YOU’RE FUCKING WITH MY LIFE, STOP IT OR I WILL START FUCKING WITH YOURS.





Immigration | Promises, promises, promises

29 04 2010

During Election Season, with so much vote-begging to be done, every subject becomes valid, various perspectives listened to, then the inevitable Party-endorsed action plan is presented to the punters as the Holy Grail to Blighty’s woes.

Then as soon as the election finishes, opposing immigration becomes racist while highlighting the European relationship becomes xenophobic (or as ‘Flash’ Gordon put it, “Bigot”).

The Blue, Red and Yellow teams are all EU stooges.  And so long as we are in the EU, our own National Parliament will be nothing more than the rubber-stamper of European dictated directives.  Case in point, African becomes French citizen and is then directed to one of the newly formed EU-approved English Regions.  And there is nothing our elected officials can do about it!

When the Subversives busy themselves informing us that WE need quotas to ensure people of a different persuasion have the same representation as Whitey, citing the reason that Whitey cannot truly represent those who are different, doesn’t that same logic apply poor Whitey?

How can a newcomer truly represent me?  How can those with split loyalties truly represent Britain?  How can we trust our NuBritons to put British interests before their land of origin?

Too many paper citizens that have little care for Britain’s traditions is bad for the general wellbeing of the nation.  The people make the nation, not the other-way round.  Import the turd world and we will become the turd world, with all the prejudice and scorn that comes with it.

In striving to make us equal, the Establishment are achieving the exact opposite.  They are entrenching positions of differences that if not tackled now, will only lead to further national fragmentation.  Or perhaps this is the fuse that will destroy democracy as we know it.  For if an Islamic Party forms and make headway, what better excuse for the Bastards that Be to dismantle our democratic rights.

More encouragement comes from the NuBritons themselves, who actually believe the Establishment has their best interests at heart.  Immigration is a means to an end for Earth Plc’s owners, not some deep philanthropical ideal but driven by greed and power.

The end will be the devolution of democratic nation states and foundations prepared for a post-democratic supranational one.

Save your Nation and vote Nationalist, it is as simple as that.

The Establishment Political Media Complex do not like local issues.  Everything with our National Governments the world over is global this, global and all with a thick sauce of global tax smothered on top.  Nearly seventy years we have collectively been falling for their tripe.  Let’s not make the same mistake again.





OBV | Black Britain Decided?

29 04 2010

From my previous posting regarding the supremacist organisation Operation Black Vote, have finally got some news of the event.

And just like the National Black Policeman’s Association and Operation Trident, this is another racist front organisation supposedly supporting Equality yet working towards the opposite and enforcing the need for Race Relations.

Parties woo black voters at rally

(UKPA) – 1 hour ago

Labour, the Tories and the Liberal Democrats attempted to woo black voters at a lively rally on Wednesday night.

Hundreds packed the Methodist Central Hall in Westminster, central London, for the Black Britain Decides event organised by Operation Black Vote.

The campaign group said the votes of black and ethnic minority people could have a “defining impact” on the outcome of the General Election.

Harriet Harman, Labour deputy leader, shadow chancellor George Osborne and Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman Vince Cable addressed the rally, while Tory leader David Cameron and Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg both recorded messages which were broadcast in the hall.

Actor Kwame Kwei-Armah hosted the event, fielding questions from a vocal audience and using humour to keep control of the crowd.

The politicians were grilled on issues such as police use of stop and search powers and the DNA database, with those attending the event expressing concerns about disproportionate targeting of black people.

During the three-hour event they also spoke of their parties’ beliefs and pledges to make British society more equal and described personal experiences and motivations to bring home their message.

Asked what would be done to deal with a situation where a black man was five times more likely to be stopped by police than a white man, Ms Harman said: “I think that there is great concern, including in the Metropolitan Police, to make sure that there is not a sense of unfairness about the way stop and search is happening. I know there is a great deal of concern about that.”

She said it was important to balance the public’s desire to feel safe in the knowledge knives were not being carried on the streets with the need for fairness.

Kwei-Armah prompted cheers and applause when he ended the exchange by saying: “I think it’s very clear to Harriet and the Labour Party that people feel very strongly about the DNA database and it’s something, if you are elected, they would like to see reviewed.”

Copyright © 2010 The Press Association. All rights reserved.

And major kudos goes to Federica Cocco for covering the event and providing photos that can be found HERE.  Also provided the following blurb which I thought needed highlighting.

Harriet Harman, George Osborne and Vince Cable attended the Black Britain Decides rally organised by Operation Black Vote (OBV) in the Methodist Hall in Westminster. The rally was organised in partnership with Peace Alliance, church leaders, business leaders, activists and many other eminent members of the British community of black and ethnic minorities (BEM).

Up to 120 marginal seats could depend on the black vote, organisers say.

As prominent members of the three main parties spoke of their policies in favour of enhancing equality and justice, they faced tough and challenging questions from the audience, particularly on stop & search and on the national DNA database.

Okay for the Establishment to pander to the NuBritons to further the Internationalist Agenda yet evil for the Nationalists to oppose it on behalf of TruBritons.  Reminds me of High Street Banks, will bend over to gain your custom but once you’re in the vault, will move straight onto the next sucker.

The Western World hoovers up citizens like the Devil collects Souls.  Saints or Sinners, all are welcome to toil for the Internationalist Dream of Financial Salvation.

Some novel advice from myself regarding the ‘dissprotianate’ Stop & Search policy that so oppresses the yooth.  Tell your yewts to cease dressing and acting ‘Gangsta’, drop the South Central slang and STOP becoming one-man crime-waves.  Damn, not only do the Policeman get their own grouping but also the crooks!!!

Operation White Vote – for one day, we may just well regret it.





GE10 faux pas | Bigots and Racists

28 04 2010

Pensioner who claims she was a life-long Labour voter asks Brown how he would tackle the country’s record deficit, east European immigration, pensions, university tuition fees and anti-social behaviour.  ‘Flash’ Gordon reels off some tractor-stats, lessons learned and how the EU relationship is so beneficial to the economy which currently resides in the gutter.  So far, so Brown.

Then thinking he is out of earshot but forgetting the Sky microphone still attached to his jacket, labels the questioning granny as a ‘bigot’.

The delusional monkeys that call themselves Parliamentarians just do not get it.  Opposing the invasion of ones’ ancestral homeland by economic migrants is not bigotry or racist, it is common sense.  How would any of these Stooges like their home transformed into Little Lagos, Little Warsaw or Little Pakistan?

To bleat on about fairness and equality then deem it racist and xenophobic to oppose mass immigration and Eunification is one thing.  To do so while pandering to the Government ‘sanctioned’ and ‘approved’ Black Minority Ethnic groups is just plain hypocritical.  How can we achieve equality when the EU stooge Establishment are attending a supremacist Black Britain Decides event organised by Operation Black Vote?

Leaders to vie for black votes at London rally

(Reuters) – The three main party leaders will appeal to over 1 million black voters on Wednesday in a bid to woo ethnic minorities who may hold the balance of power in some parliamentary seats.

They will speak at a rally in central London organised by Operation Black Vote (OBV), who say the event is the largest of its kind in recent history and could make a “defining impact” on the election outcome.

The three leaders will address an invited audience of 2,500 voters by video-link at the Methodist Central Hall in Westminster at 6 p.m, but will reach a broadcast audience of well over one million.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown and opposition leaders David Cameron and Nick Clegg will each have 15 minutes to speak.

Their respective deputies, Harriet Harman, George Osborne and Vince Cable, who will attend the event in person, will then field two questions each.

“Never before in British history has the black and minority ethnic vote been so crucial,” said Simon Woolley, OBV Director.

Woolley said ethnic minorities in Britain were not a homogeneous block and that tackling race inequality within education, employment and the criminal justice system were paramount.

“Which leader can best provide the solutions for these important challenges will be closer to winning this election,” he added.

OBV’s own pre-election research into the power of the black vote shows there are 113 seats in which the black and Asian voting-age population is bigger than the 2005 election notional majority.

It says 54 of those seats would now be considered very marginal due to the “Clegg factor” during the election campaign but that all 113 could be won or lost by an active black vote.

Other speakers at the event, called “Black Britain Decides,” will include black leaders from faith groups, business, politics, the arts and education.

(Reporting by Stefano Ambrogi; Editing by Steve Addison)

The joys of cultural enrichment, brought to you by the Establishment for the simple reason of keeping YOU in your place.





Dr Rankin | Antifascism and Vested Interests

28 04 2010

A rather lengthy read from Dr Aidan Rankin expanding my earlier post regarding the Government-financed, Union-supported, Third-Party rent-a-mob in the Unite Against Fascism Freedom brand.

Although I do not agree with it all, there are plenty of interesting points made.  More importantly, it is from someone who has the Dr moniker.

‘ANTI-FASCISM’ IS THE NEW FASCISM

When I hear the word ‘fascist’, I do not think of the assorted pub bores or the few full-blooded bigots who are the stereotypical activists of the ‘far right’. Nor do I think of half-drunk, testosterone-driven skinheads in tight-fitting jeans or combat trousers, bawling out anti-immigrant slogans richly spiced with obscenity. Least of all do I think of the thousands of disgruntled Labour supporters, ordinary men and women in working class enclaves, who have given the British National Party its newfound electoral clout. None of these people are fascists, in any meaningful sense of the word. They are victims rather than aggressors – victims of failed liberal social experiments, heartless economic programmes and, above all perhaps, of betrayal by a Labour movement that was set up specifically to defend them.

The left, and many being present liberals and Tories with them, would like us to visualise fascists as aggrieved, poorly educated working class whites – white males in particular, since they are a double negative for the Politically Correct. Such progressives (as they invariably call themselves) use accusations of racism and fascism as excuses to bully and oppress impoverished white communities and isolate them in racially based ghettos. For white liberals, anti-racism becomes a form of auto-racism, directed at members of their own race who are deemed to be socially inferior. It is, in other words, a new type of snobbery and social exclusion. Likewise, the true heirs to fascism are not skinheads, bigots, or BNP-voting former socialists. They are the BNP’s sworn enemies, the ‘anti-fascist’ shock troops of the left, whose slogans of contrived defiance, melodramatic gesture politics and emotional blackmail reach far beyond the Marxist coteries where they originate.

At Burnley, where the BNP made its strongest local government gains this year, the paradox of anti-fascism was apparent in a demonstration by the Anti-Nazi League, images of which were widely disseminated in the press. Piously anti-racist and inclusive, the protesters were overwhelmingly white and middle-class. Proclaiming the virtues of tolerance, their eyes shone with the purity of hatred that is the prerogative of extremists the world over. In that almost archetypal left-wing demo, the chants and clenched fists of the scruffy young men, the screams and hot tears of the even scruffier women, the banners calling for political parties to be suppressed (in the name of tolerance, presumably) expressed something larger than a Lancastrian quirk. For anti-fascists base their campaigns on a sense of outrage that anyone, anywhere should dare to disagree with them. In their appeal to feeling over reason, force over argument, such activists resemble most those phantom Nazis they are claiming to ‘fight’. This is why, in a stroke of post-modern irony, anti-fascism is the new fascism.

There is, in British – and especially English – political culture, a rich vein of sentimental radicalism, to which anti-fascist slogans appeal. It is from this section of politics and society that anti-fascist campaigners derive emotional (and, crucially, financial) support. Unlike working class communities, they do not see the violent, arrogant face of anti-fascism, any more than most of Germany’s Mittelstand witnessed directly the violence of the Brownshirts. This strand of radical thought, ironically, has its origins in the imperial epoch, amongst a burgeoning middle class influenced strongly by evangelical Christianity, which believed that it had a duty to ‘save’ benighted natives. The missionary impulse usually placed concern for the Empire’s subject peoples, and their material or spiritual well-being, well above concern for the indigenous working class. Typical of such philanthropists is Mrs Jellyby in Dickens’s Bleak House, whose eyes ‘had a curious habit of looking seeming to look a long way off, as if they could see nothing nearer than Africa’. Like many a modern liberal, Mrs Jellyby neglected those around her, including notoriously her own children. Her thoughts were directed instead towards the (fictitious) African possession of Borrioboola Gha and her idealistic plans for its ‘development’.

The world of Non-Governmental Organisations is replete with Mrs or ‘Ms’ Jellybys. But in a post-colonial age, the phenomenon of immigration has brought their concerns closer to home. Today’s Ms Jellyby is just as likely to work for the race relations unit of a local authority as for a Third World NGO. For ‘ethnic minority communities’ have become the new Borrioboola Gha. They are to be patronisingly helped and pitied, even given special rights, but their members are not to be treated as individuals and the reality of their cultures is to be ignored or scorned. As the white liberal person’s burden, the black or brown skinned citizen is supported as long as he reads from a Politically Correct script and shows gratitude and obeisance to those pressure groups that ‘care’ about him. It is into this Jellyby Syndrome, a legacy of the missionary age, that anti-fascist groupings successfully tap. Guilt-ridden liberals confuse the violent cant of anti-fascism with humanitarian concern, much as the violent cant of fascism was once confused with appeals to tradition and order.

But the missionary impulse does not end with ethnic minorities. In anti-fascist campaigns, there are vestiges of earlier evangelical missions, aimed at the indigenous population, with a view to controlling and pacifying it. Working class communities are treated by anti-fascists, and their liberal apologists, as benighted white tribes to be civilised and subdued. The evangelical fervour present in anti-fascism accounts for the lachrymose quality of its activists, whose tearful appeals are often a prelude to acts of violence or demands for censorship. This is a characteristic they share with fascists, who were the most emotional and least reasoning of political campaigners. Like evangelical temperance campaigners of a bygone age, anti-fascists appear to be trying to save working class people from themselves. Their particularism, expressed through opposition to large-scale immigration, is labelled as ‘racism’ and treated as a new form of vice. Their patriotic gut instincts, and their wish to preserve the traditional character of their neighbourhoods, are dismissed as ignorant prejudices, from which white working class men and women must be emancipated just as their forebears were emancipated from drink.

Like evangelicals, anti-fascists seek to liberate by a combination of moral pressure and legal force. Anti-fascism is, however, a radical secular ideology that allows no possibility of repentance or absolution. The evangelical Protestants who joined temperance or anti-vice campaigns were often oppressive and insensitive, but their zeal was frequently held in check by a concern for individual souls. Anti-fascists, by contrast, have no such concerns. They seek to save communities, by changing their collective consciousness or forcing them to conform. Their ideology allows for no concern for individuals, except for attack or denunciation. This contempt for the individual, the white, male worker in particular, allows the anti-fascist to reconcile two contradictory demands – for civil disobedience (including violence) and for the massive extension of state power.

Anti-fascist propaganda makes frequent address to the history and mythology of the left, to which the movement volubly lays claim. Searchlight, anti-fascism’s house journal, make frequent reference to the Spanish Civil War, carrying photographs of heroic resistance fighters and carrying interviews with stalwarts of the International Brigade, now elderly and impressive. Other photographs evoke the memory of ‘The Battle of Cable Street’ and similar events where in the 1930s when working class Jewish communities stood up to the Blackshirt followers of Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists. There is in these images an explicit and false assumption of continuity. It is false because in both the Spanish Civil War and Cable Street, a high level of working class self-organisation was involved, and with it a genuine aspiration towards a just society.

Searchlight, by contrast, bases most of its activities on accusation, smear and incitement to hatred – often class hatred directed at working class racists. This was not always so. Its founder, Maurice Ludmer, was a thoughtful ex-Communist Party member for whom the education of working class communities was important, and who believed in freedom and dignity for individuals of all backgrounds. Anti-fascist campaigners today, including Searchlight, refuse to concede to their opponents – especially working class opponents – any sense of human dignity. Working class racists are described routinely as scum or products of the sewer, in a curious echo of the Nazis’ twisted denunciations of Jews and other ‘enemies’ of the Volk. Searchlight still, on occasion, carries intelligent, thoughtful commentaries, especially on events abroad, but in its refusal to compromise with or attempt to win over its opponents, it perpetuates conflicts of a social and racial character.

This latter attribute it shares with the Anti-Nazi League, which is far more explicit in its advocacy of violence and its hatred of the white working class. At one level, the ANL sets itself up as a secular missionary organisation for anti-fascism. At another, its overwhelmingly bourgeois or petty bourgeois activists set out to create an atmosphere of intimidation and violence when they descend on areas such as Burnley. Like a fascist movement, the ANL is explicitly committed to the abolition of free speech. Its activities make it the heir less of the Cable Street battlers and more of the BUF interlopers. Like the Blackshirts, ANL protesters assume the ‘right’ to descend on working class areas, threaten and harass their inhabitants, incite and engage in violence.

The Anti-Nazi League is linked intimately to the Socialist Workers Party, the best known and most aggressive far left faction in British politics since the demise of orthodox Communism. Unlike the Communist Party, the SWP is opposed to the parliamentary road to socialism and advocates violent revolution. The SWP worldview regards all existing political institutions as outgrowths of ‘capitalism’. Neither capitalism itself, nor its institutions, can be ‘patched up’ or ‘reformed’. The party’s struggle, therefore, is as much against ‘reformist ideas and leaders’ as against the capitalist economy:

The state machine is a weapon of capitalist class rule and therefore must be smashed. The present parliament, army, police and judges cannot simply be taken over and used by the working class. There is, therefore, no parliamentary road to socialism.

This rhetoric of class warfare disguises a critique of parliamentary rule identical to that of the Italian Squadristi, Mussolini’s foot soldiers who closed the Italian parliament and installed a fascist state. To Mussolini, parliamentary rule was so corrupt – and, indeed, ‘bourgeois’, that it could not be patched up. The fascist ideal of the Corporate State was based on representation by trade. This policy finds strong echoes in the SWP, which seeks to replace Parliament with a series of ‘workers councils’. It also resembles the modern anti-fascist obsession with group rights, whereby racial minorities (and all ‘oppressed communities’) are represented collectively by activist pressure groups that claim to speak for them. Whilst resembling fascist politics, the SWP’s position differs dramatically from that of Marx, who especially in his later years strongly favoured the parliamentary road. Even Lenin, who was always a pragmatist, believed in the use of any expedient institutions, including parliaments. In ultra-left groupuscles he saw only an ‘infantile disorder’.

Another far left faction that has had a seminal influence on the anti-fascist movement is the International Marxist Group (IMG), whose luminaries included Tariq Ali. Long defunct now, the IMG played an important role in the student agitation and violent demonstrations of the late 1960s, many of which called to mind the behaviour of young Stormtroopers in the colleges of Weimar Germany. Crucially, the IMG rejected the white working class as hopelessly reactionary and saw the new revolutionary elite as students, ethnic minorities and feminist women. The ideology and tactics and ideology of anti-fascism today owe much to the IMG’s profoundly anti-working class and anti-white prejudices.

These far left groups have based their politics on interpretations of Trotsky’s ‘permanent revolution’, a purist doctrine of continual change akin to that of Mao’s Cultural Revolution – and Hitler’s Third Reich. To the Führer, the Nazi ‘revolutionary creative will’ had ‘no fixed aim, … no permanency, only eternal change’. On the left, anti-fascism has risen to prominence at precisely the time when socialism lacks permanency and continuity, whether as an ideal or a practical programme. In their strident emotionalism and ritualistic denunciation of opponents, anti-fascist campaigns act as a substitute for a coherent left-wing ideology. The same was true of fascist movements, which aimed to replace the left by appealing to more basic psychological impulses of fear, envy and hatred.

Anti-fascism shares with its alleged opposite a belief in the cleansing or redemptive power of violence. They share as well an obsessive preoccupation with race. Indeed it could be said that organisations like Searchlight and the ANL do more than even the BNP to keep racial awareness alive. Both fascism and anti-fascism are uncompromisingly modernist movements, concerned with narrow categorisation and so unsuited to a post-modern age of complexity and permutation. Searchlight, for example, was horrified when some Hindu and Sikh community workers refused to be classified alongside Muslims as ‘Asians’. Here were ethnic minorities daring to defy the pressure group definitions. In reality, the violence and nihilism of anti-fascist activists are almost laughably remote from the conservatism of most ethnic minority populations.

It is easy, and tempting at times, to dismiss anti-fascism as a peripheral fringe interest, irrelevant to our lives and thoughts. However its crocodile-tear appeals are in some ways more effective than those of the more traditional far left. Anti-fascists claim to be opposing a political evil. In so doing, they evoke memories of that evil and the wrong done to millions of our fellow human beings. Many people of good will, therefore, fail to see that they are being manipulated. This is why ritual denunciations and balkanising ‘group rights’ are in danger of pervading public life. The subjectivist definition of a racist incident in the MacPherson Report – any incident that the victim or anyone else ‘perceives’ as racist – has all the totalitarian characteristics of anti-fascism, yet few dare to describe it as totalitarian for fear that they might be smeared as ‘racist’. Likewise, the attempts of New Labour apparatchiks to unearth political ‘information’ about the Paddington rail crash survivors had all the furtive and perverse instincts of a Searchlight campaign. Such influences have touched conservative politics as well. In the interests of inclusiveness, the Tories tend increasingly towards reverse discrimination and group rights, forgetting that many black and Asian people want freedom from racial politics.

Anti-fascism, like its fascist precursor, is primarily anti-human and misanthropic. It despises its supposed constituents as much as its sworn enemies, and has a vested interest in promoting racial conflict. When we recognise that fascists and anti-fascists are as one, their rhetoric of hatred will lose its power.

Aidan Rankin is co-Editor of New European. His book, The Politics of the Forked Tongue: Authoritarian Liberalism was published in 2002 and is available from New European Publications, 14-16 Carroun Road, London SW8 1JT, price £9.

copies of this document may be obtained from

Cliff Edge Signalling Company
P.O.Box 36, Rye, Sussex, TN31 7ZE England
Tel/Fax: 01793 226397
Email: orders@cesc.net

And judging by this earlier article, actually expands the point further.

Gays should come to live in Yorkshire

Aidan Rankin, New Statesman. Published 08 May 2000

Aidan Rankin speaks up for the provinces where he can still be just “not the marrying kind”

In my Yorkshire market town, the greengrocers, a family from just across the Lancashire border, refer to me as “not the marrying kind”. That’s because I am in my mid-30s and have never been seen with a woman on my arm. They’d never call me “gay” or “homosexual”; but then, the worst encounter I have experienced in the three years I have lived here was with a middle-aged religious fanatic who wagged his finger at me in the pub and spat that “London was a hotbed of sodomites”. Then I bought him a drink and he quietened down.

In Yorkshire, we gays get on with our lives. We do not need to heed the activists who wish us to throw discretion to the wind and drop any form of restraint. We do not have to listen to gay rights organisations such as Stonewall, which see us as an “identity” rather than an individual.

That Yorkshire is a gay-activist-free zone may explain why I encounter practical tolerance there – a tolerance that would be more widespread were it not for the arrogant activists who threaten the tolerant compromise between majority opinion and minority preference on which civilised life depends.

You can see why Stonewall and similar groups must operate the way they do: if we stop thinking about “gay issues”, the need for professional lobbyists disappears. This is why they must codify everything, classify everyone, identify new forms of “prejudice” and “combat” them.

Metropolitan liberals, who know nothing of quiet provincial tolerance, side with the activists because that is easier than thinking about real people. To them, “gays” who refuse to co-operate with the equality agenda are akin to those ungrateful poor relations who turn up their noses at token recognition in a will. Politicians, Tory as well as Labour, now proclaim that equality is more important without tolerance. But what is the use of equality without tolerance? What use is “partnership registration” at the town hall if such gestures break up friendships, or if they work against the grain of local life?

It is a moot point, anyway, if “equal rights” enforced by law work better than the many informal structures of tolerance. The uproar over the repeal of Clause 28 suggests otherwise. It is rumoured, too, that the Equal Opportunities Commission will issue guidelines for employers (written by Stonewall) recommending “gay and lesbian groups” at work. Such moves are vigorously supported by trade unionists and Labour politicians, who do not even ask us if we want such “groups”. Were they to do so, they would make an ideologically inconvenient discovery: most of us find the idea an intrusive nightmare.

In similar vein, an ex-RAF friend told me that he, and homosexual colleagues, opposed the presence of openly gay servicemen. They respected those officers who kept their sexuality to themselves far more than those who knowingly broke the law and “ran to Europe”. Group rights are like the Procrustean bed: comfortable only after the individual has been twisted and chopped to fit in.

I was barely a year old in 1967, when homosexuality was legalised between consenting adults. Yet I acknowledge this legislation as one of the civilising moments of 20th-century politics. Crossing the boundaries of party, it represented British liberalism at its most generous and humane. It was based on individual freedom under the rule of law. More than that, it reflected an ideal, Voltairean in origin, that freedom means the right to cultivate one’s own garden, to pursue one’s own interests in peace. It was the product of a tolerant society, secure in its values as rural Yorkshire is today, but as London is not.

Stonewall’s campaigning, by contrast, rejects this liberal ideal of privacy. It also shows the gay rights movement’s bossy, pedagogic tone. The current obsession with single-issue “rights” is rooted in the expansion of higher education and, with it, the triumph of simplified theory over accumulated wisdom, “professionalism” over practical expertise, and easy slogans over complex human problems.

Stonewall announces itself as working “for lesbian and gay equality”. In plain English, this simply means “equality” between male and female homosexuals. This is a meaningless concept, and does little except draw attention to the gay movement’s uni-sexism: the assumption, utterly unfounded in practice, that homosexual men and lesbians are part of a common culture.

Whereas consenting adult laws are about individual freedom, “gay rights” are about herding disparate individuals together into an ersatz ethnic minority with self-appointed leaders. There are genuine minority groups, based on shared ethnic origins, religion, region or even a shared hobby. But who would think of lumping together Tony Benn and Ian Paisley, or Ken Livingstone and Frank Dobson, as members of the “heterosexual community” and judging them accordingly? That is what homosexuals are expected to accept.

Just over a year ago, a disturbed young man placed a murderous nail bomb in a Soho gay pub. His action reminds us all that prejudice can kill. Yet there is also a fearful symmetry between the nail-bomber’s logic and that of “politically correct” liberalism. The violent bigot and the PC ideologue alike do not see individuals, only members of groups to be respectively reviled or given neatly packaged “rights”, whether they asked for them or not. To fight prejudice, we must go back to liberalism’s founding principles: freedom and privacy. Rights-conscious metropolitans should go to the countryside to learn about tolerance.

The writer is a research fellow in politics at the London School of Economics

Another article written by the good Dr also in the New Statesman is ‘Escape from UKIP‘ regarding his time as a member of said Party, and it isn’t good for Ukip.

As always, it is good to listen to different perspectives.  Bad to enforce them and too much trouble to bother unless we have everyone electronically monitored.

So we need to find middle-ground or keep our daggers sharpened, and I don’t fancy going through life looking over my shoulder.  Did that once already.






Camberwell and Peckham | Harriet ‘Horrid’ Harperson

28 04 2010

I could work for the Sun.  Shit, I’d take a job on the sun if it meant getting away from the International Corporatist Cartels that own the majority of shares in Earth Plc.

Damn, Peckham Plc has been electing Dirty Harry since 1982!  All these years me and mine have suffered under the tyranny of Frankfurt School-inspired Superwitch Harperson’s social engineering with a sprinkle of gerrymandering to increase her dependents.  In 1997 they even gave her the fiefdom of Camberwell.

And to think she did it all on the back of the scroungers with Sure Start centres and plenty of ‘extras’, giving the red carpet treatment to newcomers and the planting of deluded supporters in council non-jobs.

Can’t think of any other way she could have gotten in without fellow Camberwell and Peckham Plc stockholders.

Back in the day when my family lived in Laburnum Close, my father had the pleasure of telling young Labour starlet Harry Harperson to “piss off”.  If she didn’t have two large coloured bodyguards standing beside the door, to think of all the agro we could have been spared.  An invite for a cup of arsenic, a couple of hours in the bathtub producing manageable packages, a quick drive along to the coast and then ‘feeding the fish’.  Saying that, we must be blacklisted for we haven’t had Labour knocking since.  Small blessings I suppose.

Once again, as it is election season thought I give the highlights of Peckham’s very own Feminazi in the hope of scaring 10 – 20 points of her majority, although I’d be happy to turn one Labour supporter away.

The one and only, Horrid Ms Harman, residing at an undisclosed address in Dulwich and West Norwood and was nominated by the following members of the public:

Seaton Martin

Squires Anthony J

Mills Victoria

Soanes Sharon

Situ Tayo A

Smith Althea

Thorncroft Dominic J

Mohamed Abdul

Ward Veronica M

Ahern Kevin V

Camberwell and Peckham UK Polling Report…

…and a sad indictment it is indeed.

Boundary changes: Previously undersized, Camberwell and Peckham gains parts of Faraday and Livesey wards from Southwark North and Bermondsey and South Camberwell and parts of Peckham Rye and The Lane wards from Dulwich and West Norwood.

Profile: Covers Peckham, Peckham Rye, Camberwell and Nunhead. This is one of the most poverty striken and deprived constituencies in the country. It has the highest proportion of afro-carribean residents of any constituency in the country and the highest proportion of social housing of any seat, with almost 6 in 10 homes rented from the council or a housing association.

Only Fools and Horses was never actually filmed in Peckham, but it continues to be the public`s perception of Peckham, and its reputation for desperate crime ridden sink estates was, in the past at least, not inaccurate. This is where Damilola Taylor was murdered in 2000 and, while the worst of the concrete estates (including the North Peckham Estate where Damilola Taylor died) have been demolished in recent years as part of massive regeneration projects, with more planned in coming years, the area continues to suffer from problems of high crime and gang violence.

This is one of Labour`s safest seats in the South of England and, while there is some gentrification in South Peckham, and pockets of Conservative support in the large Georgian houses in places like Camberwell Grove, there is presently no possibility of that dominance being challenged.

How Harriet Harman voted on key issues since 2001

  • Voted very strongly against an investigation into the Iraq war.
  • Voted very strongly for the hunting ban.
  • Voted very strongly for replacing Trident.
  • Voted strongly for equal gay rights.
  • Voted moderately for removing hereditary peers from the House of Lords.
  • Voted very strongly for a wholly elected House of Lords.
  • Voted strongly for introducing student top-up fees.
  • Voted moderately against laws to stop climate change.
  • Voted very strongly for allowing ministers to intervene in inquests.
  • Voted very strongly for introducing ID cards.
  • Voted moderately for a transparent Parliament.
  • Voted very strongly for introducing foundation hospitals.
  • Voted moderately for introducing a smoking ban.
  • Voted a mixture of for and against greater autonomy for schools.
  • Voted strongly for Labour’s anti-terrorism laws.
  • Voted very strongly for the Iraq war.

And the last set of recorded ‘sponsorship or financial or material support’ Harman helpers from 23rd April 2008:

  • Ken Follett, of Hertfordshire (personal donation). (Registered 20 April 2007)
  • Ken Follett, of Hertfordshire (personal donation). (Registered 11 June 2007)
  • Fiona Mctaggart MP (personal donation). (Registered 11 June 2007)
  • Vinod Popat, of West Hamilton (personal donation). (Registered 26 June 2007)
  • Michael V Sternberg, of London (personal donation). (Registered 28 June 2007)
  • Margaret Hodge MP (personal donation). (Registered 17 July 2007)
  • TGWU (Registered 18 July 2007)
  • UCATT (trade union) (Registered 18 July 2007)
  • Vera Baird MP (personal donation). (Registered 18 July 2007)
  • Stefanos Stefanou, of Hatfield (personal donation). (Registered 18 July 2007)
  • David Abrahams, businessman (through Janet Kidd, of Newcastle upon Tyne) (personal donation) (Registered 18 July 2007) (donation subsequently returned)
  • Nicky Gavron, of London (personal donation). (Registered 18 July 2007)
  • Baroness Ashton (personal donation). (Registered 25 July 2007)
  • Anthony Hayes, of Lancashire (personal donation). (Registered 5 September 2007)
  • Muslim Friends of Labour. (Registered 13 September 2007)
  • GMB (Registered 13 November 2007)

Information gleaned from TheyWorkForYou, UK Polling Report and YourNextMP.

Knowledge is power but I could sure do with some ignorance right now.

Vote Labour, get the EU.

Of course, Her Wickedness will be re-elected on the back of her base vote, which are single parents and hard-done by NuBritons.  God damn Labour’s gerrymandering ways.