What Mrs Hodge said.

White voters are deserting us for BNP,” says minister

Well it’s not the sort of headline you ignore, is it? I’d be interested to know how many others bought yesterday’s (16/04/06) Sunday Telegraph on the strength of its front page; my guess is sales would be up.

Employment Minister Margaret Hodge had told the paper of her concern at the growth in support for the BNP in her Barking and Dagenham constituency where, she said, eight out of ten white people were considering voting for the BNP in the forthcoming local elections. Naturally it made the front page.

I wonder if anyone else felt an initial tinge of pity as they read the Employment Minister’s words - I almost felt sorry for the woman. She seems so much out of her depth, like she was overwhelmed by the seriousness of the situation yet at the same time unable to say just how serious it was.

But then I began to wonder what her real concern is. Is she concerned that her constituents are suffering because of the immigration policies of past and present governments, or is she concerned that because of that suffering they are turning to the BNP?

Is she concerned about her constituents or about herself?

She is after all Employment minister. Her responsibilities include: The Labour market and the economy; Ethnic minority employment (she’s Chair of the Ethnic Minority Employment task force); Migrants, refugees and asylum seekers; Disadvantaged areas and regional issues; and Adult disadvantage. Yet she appears surprised that her constituents are upset at the effects of Labour immigration policies. If she doesn’t know how and why mass third world immigration impacts on traditional British communities, what the hell is she doing in the job?

Let them eat cake

Margaret Hodge has been a Labour MP since 1994 and an Islington councillor for 20 years before that - she’s a champagne socialist. But you’d expect even a champagne socialist to be able to string a few coherent sentences together, especially when she’s also a government minister. Mrs Hodge shows us how wrong we would be to make such an assumption.

Nothing she said was clear and unambiguous. It was as if she’d had to keep one eye on the escape hatch - she didn’t want to be too precise in case at some later date she may be tied to her words. So she fogged everything up.

For instance, although she started by talking about the situation from the perspective of her white constituents, “They can’t get a house for their children, they see black and ethnic minority communities moving in and they are angry..in 1994 it was a predominantly white working class area.Now.you could be in Camden or Brixton,” she stopped short of actually defining the problem.

Mrs Hodge got caught in a trap. It’s one that establishment politicians are frequently finding themselves in, and it’s a result of them serving two constituencies - that of the ethnic minorities and that of the white majority. The problem in Barking and Dagenham is that government-sponsored mass third world immigration is in the process of destroying the white community, materially, spiritually, and morally. And the problem for establishment politicians is that an increasing number of white people are coming to that conclusion and are no longer afraid to say so.

But of course Mrs Hodge couldn’t articulate her constituents’ problem so precisely. If she had done she’d have had to counter it with the pro-multiculti mantra in order to keep her sizeable, and increasingly significant, immigrant constituency happy - and even she must know by now that whites are tired of the politician’s bullshit about the so-called benefits of multiculturalism.

So she twisted the argument and tied it in knots so as to arrive at the convenient solution that what was needed to solve Barking and Dagenham’s problem was more affordable housing - there, that’ll stop ‘em from voting for the BNP.

Between the lines

But Margaret Hodge says also that we “. need very much stronger leadership nationally to promote the benefits of the multicultural society.” Ah yes, those people of Barking and Dagenham, if only they could learn to appreciate the benefits of diversity maybe they’d not need affordable housing after all!

Mrs Hodge patronises her constituents; you see, “It is fear of change.” It’s not the change that’s the problem, it’s the ‘fear’ of change - it puts you in mind of the nonsense argument that it’s not crime that’s the problem; it’s the fear of crime. If only the people of Barking and Dagenham weren’t so terrified of change, if only they learnt to embrace the difference that thousands of third world immigrants have brought to their community, then they’d be truly happy.

And as if to reassure themselves, the establishment makes a big play about it being a working class thing, this objection to mass third world immigration. That’s the line in the Daily Mail, the Times, and the Telegraph - it’s not a race thing, it’s not even a culture thing, it’s a class thing. I suppose it helps them sleep at night. The working class, well, they’re a bit lumpen aren’t they? They lack the sophistication required to appreciate the finer points of diversity. “It’s the poorest whites who feel the greatest anger because there is no way out for them,” Mrs Hodge explains. What she doesn’t explain is why they would want a ‘way out’ if diversity is as marvellous as we’re told.

I don’t know about you, but to me this smacks of desperation. Who are they trying to kid that this growing objection to enforced diversity and mass third world immigration is restricted to the working class. It’s true that the greatest impact has been borne by working class communities because that’s where Britain’s elite in all its arrogance decided to dump third world immigrants. But the divide between working class and middle class isn’t what it was and now there are few urban communities irrespective of their average income level that haven’t felt the consequences of mass third world immigration. The objection isn’t a working class thing, it’s a white thing.

Of course neither Mrs Hodge nor the Labour Government accept responsibility for the devastation that mass third world immigration has visited on traditional white communities like those in Barking and Dagenham, “Were we to blame for the change?” she asks rhetorically. “No,” she replies, “it happened on the back of Right to Buy.” You gotta laugh!

Surely all of us that oppose the establishment and its equality cult and the consequential invasion of our homeland by third world immigrants must be pleased whenever we hear liblabcon politicians seeking to avoid responsibility for the mess that Britain has become - it shows they’re getting worried.

Cry for help

Margaret Hodge’s statement follows a familiar pattern, and it seems to be one that most establishment people use when discussing the immigration/race/culture issue. It begins with something close to recognition of the problem and then via a tortuous route it concludes that what we need is more of the same.

In fact I wouldn’t put it past these people to set up a programme of compulsory multiculturalism appreciation classes, along the lines of the wine appreciation classes held at community colleges up and down the country - where people could learn all about the various characteristics of the various communities now resident in the country and how best to enjoy their ‘immense’ contribution.

I don’t know whether eight out of ten whites in Barking and Dagenham will vote for the BNP in this May’s local elections; I hope it’s ten out of ten. But almost as important as the vote is the establishment’s fear of that vote - because the fear tells us that the establishment is aware of the problem and that it is expecting a reaction to it. And the encouraging thing for the BNP and its supporters is that there’s not a damned thing the establishment can do about it, other than multiculturalism appreciation classes and the like.

The problem is mass third world immigration and its consequences. But because the establishment is the sponsor of mass third world immigration it cannot admit to the problem without accepting responsibility for it. Britain’s political establishment has failed in its duty of care to those it purports to represent, it has failed to plan, it has failed to anticipate, and it has failed to rectify. And given this, the only avenue open to it is to shift the blame. It’s the old communist line: Communism isn’t working because the people aren’t trying hard enough; Multiculturalism and multiracialism aren’t working because white people aren’t embracing them with sufficient gusto. It’s not the fault of the ideology; it’s the people that are to blame.

So it would be naïve in the extreme to believe that the liblabcon set will do anything of any consequence to sort out the awful mess it has spawned. The best it can do is blame the rest of us for not doing whatever it was that we were supposed to do in order to make the grand scheme work. Anything else and it takes the blame and ultimately suffers the consequences - and it’ll not do that willingly.

Margaret Hodge’s fear that eight out of ten voters in Barking and Dagenham will vote for the BNP, and the Rowntree Foundation’s fear that 25% of white voters nationally are considering supporting the BNP are like cries for help that nobody will hear.

What these statistics mean is that there is a growing objection to mass third world immigration and its effects; in other words there is a growing objection to the political status quo. Margaret Hodge et al; the Rowntree Foundation et al; the Times, Telegraph, and Mail et al; all are integral elements in the status quo which in the final analysis is dependent upon the support of the population. And now that that support is beginning at long last to evaporate, just who is it that Hodge and company think will come to their aid?

An equal and opposite reaction

Consider the enormity of what has happened to Britain and the British people since the end of WWII; we have gone from relative homogeneity to Babel. Just think of the massive effort that must have gone into this transformation of Britain from community to chaos, in just sixty years.

It really amazes me that the television networks, which more often than not lead the attack on British tradition, have the gall to broadcast programmes like ‘The Way We Were’ that illustrate so starkly just how much we’ve lost over such a short time. If there was any justice in this world the vast majority of Britain’s political and social elite would spend their remaining years behind bars.

But as we know, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Now consider an equivalent amount of energy to that spent on the destruction of Britain, but where this time the energy is spent constructively. That will be the magnitude of the British people’s reaction to the establishment’s action of imposing chaos on order.

The establishment’s fears are real - dogs don’t bark at ghosts. Each of us knows how he and his family feel, and how his neighbours feel, and his community. The establishment knows this too, and it has the added advantage of knowing, with much more precision than the rest of us, how the country feels also.

Our ruling elite know exactly how the rest of us feel - that’s why they don’t want to know! As Mrs Hodge admitted, “The Labour Party hasn’t talked to these people. This is a traditional Labour area but they are not used to engaging with us because all we do is put leaflets through doors.” Of course that’s all they do - they no longer dare face their constituents on the doorstep because they know all too well what sort of a reception they’ll get. So they hide behind glossy leaflets.

The growth in support for the BNP will advance at a corresponding pace to the growth in disenchantment with the status quo, and to the intensification of the adverse effects of mass third world immigration. It’s obvious isn’t it?

And how is the establishment going to turn things round - it will do what it always has done because that’s all it can do. It will blame everyone else for the misfortunes it has brought upon itself, it will continue to act as though the multicultural/ multiracial model was the ideal, in spite of all the contrary evidence, and it will seek to silence dissent. And in carrying out each of the above actions it will further encourage the growth in disenchantment with itself, and in so doing will encourage yet more people to consider the BNP.

You see, the establishment can’t save itself. It has lost the argument and so everything it does from now on only draws attention to its shortcomings. Its great plan has reached fruition - the only problem is it’s turned out to be less a Garden of Eden and more of a 21st Century Dagenham and Barking.

Share

The establishment right and immigration

Sir Max Hastings - clapped-out Tory

I’ve read a couple of Max Hastings’ books, Victory in Europe (1992) and Armageddon: The Battle for Germany 1944-5 (2004), and they were interesting enough reads, but he lacks the ‘unputdownableness’ of such writers as David Irving and Antony Beevor. Hastings is a journalist turned historian. He comes over as a bit of a stuffed shirt, or maybe my impression of him is coloured by his pompous and self-satisfied air, and his over-the-top plummy accent that betrays a too-privileged background.

Sir Max Hastings is an establishment man through and through. Privately educated at Charterhouse School followed by Oxford University and a career in the media, he made his name on the back of the Parachute Regiment in the 1982 Falklands war where he became the first man with the task force to enter Port Stanley. For this he received a couple of journalism awards, and the rest, as they say, is history.

After ten years as Editor and then Editor in chief of the Daily Telegraph, in 1996 he edited the Evening Standard until his retirement in 2001. He was knighted in 2002. He currently subsidises his pension with occasional comment articles for the Daily Telegraph and more frequently for the Daily Mail.

Class warrior

Hastings’ conceit comes over in almost every article he writes, particularly those that appear in the Mail. You see Hastings is like the rest of the establishment ‘right’, they both want their cake and eat it too - and nowhere is this better illustrated than in the issue of immigration. The title of his latest comment page piece (Daily Mail 30/03/06) says it all: ‘Immigration - the left perceives a prospect of destroying for ever a traditional middle class white Britain which they hate and despise.’

That’s Hastings and the Mail through and through - they only ever half argue the case. It’s not that the left hates traditional middle class white Britain, or even that it hates traditional Britain; it’s that it hates traditional white Britain because it stands in the way of the multiracial utopia. Hastings and the Mail are so utterly gutless (or is it deceitful?) that rather than speaking the truth about immigration and race and their impact on the British people they prefer to hide behind the outmoded concept of class struggle. As if it’s a matter of left and right! If he’d shown as little nous during the Falklands conflict Max Hastings would be stumbling around Goose Green still, dressed in fatigues and wondering where the hell everyone had gone.

The evidence tells us that the establishment despises traditional white working class Britain even more than it does its middle class equivalent - politicians invariably choose white middle class neighbourhoods to set up home rather than the working class areas that their immigration policies have devastated. Yet Hastings bleats on about the middle class plight and how the left aims to do it down.

You see, Hastings and the Mail have nothing but contempt for the British working class, “Few people doubt that we need some immigration, not least to do jobs the British no longer care for.”

What Hastings means is that British working class people won’t do what immigrants will do for the price immigrants are prepared to do it - or rather what the likes of Hastings are prepared to pay. He doesn’t want a working class, he wants a serf class, and whether it consists of white British people or sub-Saharan Africans is of no concern to him and his ilk. The great historian is so transfixed by the events of 20th century Europe that he’s unable to work out what effect the destruction of the ‘white working class’ by mass third world immigration will have on his ‘white middle class’. So much for this great conservative intellect.

For and againstIt’s the same old establishment story - a barrel of contradictions. You can’t make any sense of it. Hastings argues both for immigration and against it. He is for it to maintain his place in the establishment, and he’s against it to maintain his conservative credentials. What dithering cowardice.

“Many menial and manual jobs are being done by immigrants because no amount of money will induce us to do them.” Get that, “no amount of money” - have you ever read anything so damned stupid in all of your life? And in any case, immigrants don’t do useful ‘menial and manual’ jobs - how often do you see them emptying the bins or sweeping the streets.

“Without foreign nurses, the NHS would grind to a halt, because our own people do not want to care for the sick and old.” Is this man a thinker or a parrot? Aren’t you just sick of hearing this worn out pro-immigration mantra? It’s about time the Lib, Lab, and Con set got themselves a new CD.

No job vacancy will remain unfilled if the money is right; it’s odd isn’t it that people like Hastings who worship at the altar of market forces can’t grasp this simple fact. And yet no doubt he’d be quick to quote the workings of the market place to justify the vast sums the Telegraph and Mail pay him.

His thinking about the NHS is just as shallow. Thousands of trained white British nurses are unable to find work because so many of NHS jobs have been filled by foreign nurses. He cites no evidence to back up his argument that we don’t want to care for our own sick and elderly - but whatever it is, doesn’t the surplus of trained nurses over job vacancies rubbish it?

I’m just waiting for someone to argue that because such a high proportion of immigrants are unemployed we need immigrants to do the jobs immigrants won’t do. Or that we need immigrant nurses because immigrants place a disproportionate demand on our health service and they need to be treated by people of their own culture and ethnicity - all in the cause of equality you know. Remember you read it here first.

What Hastings wants

Immigrants tend to vote Labour and that’s what irks Hastings and the Mail. If they voted Tory you can bet your last penny the Tories would be calling for open borders, with the only proviso that the immigrant hoards should be compelled to stay away from leafy middle class suburbs.

But as it is, the ‘right’ tells us we don’t need millions of (Labour voting) immigrants, but that we do need some, “.Polish decorators, Nigerian nurses and parking wardens, Pakistani office cleaners, because without these newcomers our public services and some of our private ones would grind to a halt,” bleats Hastings.

The man is a fool. If we’re short of decorators, which I doubt, then will not market forces remedy the situation? When demand outstrips supply price increases and attracts newcomers to the market which equalises demand with supply and reduces prices - that’s how the market works so we’re told. But just like the rest of the establishment, ‘left’ and ‘right’, Hastings prefers the short term fix and to hell with the future.

Why import Nigerian nurses when so many of our own nurses are unemployed? To turn Hastings’ idiotic argument around, what makes Nigerian nurses prefer to look after our sick and elderly rather than look after their own? Pay and conditions Mr Hastings, pay and conditions. Improve our nurses’ pay and conditions and any shortage in supply that exists will evaporate as people choose nursing over other careers. The argument applies to traffic wardens - it’s simple really, but apparently it’s too complicated for Tories to comprehend. Or is it that it’s all too easy for them to understand and that what they are really concerned about is cheap immigrant labour as an alternative to paying white British people what the job is worth?

And as for importing Pakistanis so they can clean our offices; the unemployment rate for Pakistanis in Britain is about 30%, need I say more?

The only difference between the establishment right and the establishment left is the pace of immigration that they favour. The left want to rush it along so that they can retain power forever (or so they fool themselves), whereas the right favours a more gradual approach - just high enough to provide a ready source of cheap labour and thus keep wages down. In the long run both amount to the same thing, the destruction of British culture and the British people.

Is this what Sir Max Hastings wants, or is it that he’s too cowardly to face reality because if he did he just might have to change tack - and that wouldn’t do his reputation any good, would it?

Share

The schizophrenic society

Cleft stick

A regular theme appearing in my articles is the fragility of the liberal consensus and the neurosis of its supporters. My argument is that the liberal elite’s hypersensitivity to criticism betrays its insecurity; those that are confident in what they believe look upon criticism as an opportunity to argue their case.

The difficulty for liberals is that they exist primarily in the realm of faith, and since the relationship between faith and logic is a bit like that of oil and water, and since logic is the language of argument, liberals have an aversion to argument - hence their tendency to seek refuge in dogma.

In my previous article on this website I examined the BBC’s response to the growing scepticism about the so-called ‘benefits of diversity’, and I concluded that the BBC (and the liberal establishment in general) finds itself in something of a cleft stick. In attempting to support its fundamental beliefs it exposes their weakness, which is that they are based not on fact but on sentiment and wishful thinking.

A month or so ago in a small circulation student newspaper Leeds University lecturer Dr Frank Ellis had criticised multiculturalism (multiracialism) as unscientific. But instead of ignoring Dr Ellis’s comments in the knowledge that hardly anyone reads student newspapers, like a moth drawn to a flame, the liberal media couldn’t stay away - even at the risk of singeing its wings. And as a result everyone who bought a newspaper, listened to the radio or watched TV was made aware of Dr Ellis’s well argued critique. Where’s the sense from the establishment’s point of view? Methinks these liberals do complain too much.

Off with his head

Before the media circus opened, protest was limited to the usual suspects. And although Leeds University had labelled Dr Ellis’s views “abhorrent”, officials had said they would not be taking any action against him because there was no evidence that he had discriminated against any of his students.

Frank Ellis has said what he’d said in the Leeds University student newspaper in a number of other journals a number of times, but only now has his employer seen fit to act. Whether it was in response to the student demonstration and petition calling for his head, or to the establishment’s outrage at Dr Ellis’s assault on its foundations, Leeds University changed tack. And in a statement to the media, university secretary Roger Gair said that, “Given the seriousness of the issues. the vice-chancellor, Professor Michael Arthur, has decided to suspend Dr Ellis from his duties while the disciplinary process is underway.”

And what were those issues?

According to the university, in publicising his personal views on race and other matters, Dr Ellis had acted in breach of its equality and diversity policy, “and in a way that is wholly at odds with our values”. Secondly he had “recklessly jeopardised” the fulfilment of the university’s obligations under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000. And thirdly he had failed to comply with “reasonable requests” to apologise for the distress which his remarks on race and other matters have caused to many people, or to give an undertaking he would make no further public comments suggesting one racial group is inherently inferior (or superior) to another “unless there is no possibility whatsoever that anyone hearing or reading his comments might reasonably associate him with the University of Leeds”.

It seems that Leeds University’s commitment to “equality and diversity” is greater than its commitment to free enquiry in the pursuit of knowledge. In academia today in totalitarian Britain fact and truth are acceptable only in so far as they support the status quo. But then that’s what we’ve come to expect; in Britain emotion has replaced reason.

Paradox

On first impression you’d have thought that Trevor Phillips Chair of the CRE occupied the other side of the coin to Frank Ellis, for whereas Phillips sings in praise of equality, Ellis questions its validity. In fact the CRE has been critical of Frank Ellis and may have played a part in Leeds University’s decision to consider disciplinary proceedings against him.

Yet if we read between the lines of Phillips’ latest pronouncement, which came in advance of a speech he is due to give in Leicester, it appears that some of what he says actually adds weight to Frank Ellis’s argument.

According to Trevor Phillips, “Cities where ethnic minorities are in a majority pose a critical threat to tolerance and stability.” and, “Cities where whites are in a minority will bring a risk of mistrust and fracture between rival groups.” Am I alone in thinking these statements are incompatible with the notion of racial equality?

If cities where minorities are the majority pose a critical threat to tolerance and stability, then surely it follows that cities where whites are the majority promote tolerance and stability. Phillips seems to be saying that tolerance and stability are functions of race - which is precisely what Frank Ellis was saying. Yet Ellis gets suspended while Phillips is lauded. Work that one out!

Poor confused Trevor Phillips; he’ll never square the circle no matter how hard he tries. He fights for racial equality, yet he believes race is a social construct. He says all cultures are equal yet believes in a common set of beliefs to which we all should subscribe. He values diversity yet promotes the integration and unification of communities. Just what exactly is it that he believes?

Phillips’ contrariness could be a model for liberalism, and it illustrates perfectly why liberals hide from argument; as is the case with egalitarianism, there is no consistent thread running through Phillips’ thinking which binds his position on every issue. It’s as if Trevor Phillips and his fellow liberals have an inability to see the big picture and instead view each issue in isolation. Consider for instance Phillips’ support for integration with his support for educational apartheid for black males - what is it that prevents him from seeing one as the negation of the other? What logic does he employ that enables him to compromise these mutually exclusives?

Of course this schizophrenia isn’t peculiar to Trevor Phillips - it is common throughout the whole liberal establishment. They don’t have a coherent argument, and we have reached the situation where their every answer contradicts the preceding one!

Fasten your seatbelts

They say that those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad, and if the saying applies to individuals it must equally apply to societies. British society is insane and it is on course for a fall. Like a teetering building constructed on foundations of sand, where the props are supported by more props, and up there, on the top floor with their heads in the clouds, the liberal elite perform a balancing act rushing to and fro in a desperate effort to stop their crumbling edifice tumbling to earth.

It can’t work because it can’t answer the questions asked of it; that’s why liberals won’t lock horns with people like Dr Frank Ellis - they prefer to shut him up. Whereas his feet are planted firmly on the granite foundations of fact, theirs are sinking in the shifting sands of wishful thinking.

Their equality idea has run its course and has reached its logical conclusion, a jumble of contradictions. And I’m beginning to wonder who really believes in this nonsense any more. It’s as if the state structures set in place to further the egalitarian agenda are carried along by nothing but their own inertia, and that those involved are going along for the ride for the simple reason that as yet they can’t hitch a lift on anything else.

And surely the seemingly self-defeating drawings of attention to the arguments of Dr Frank Ellis (and Nick Griffin and the BNP) are a ‘guilt thing’ - like when someone can’t help but draw attention to something that they’d rather keep hidden.

This crazy society can’t last because, to use a favourite phrase of Karl Marx, its ‘inherent contradictions’ will be its undoing. And that undoing is going to happen sooner rather than later because those contradictions are now too obvious to ignore.

Share