Year: 2009

Labour hate, detest and fear the the English working class

‘The English are potentially very  aggressive, very violent” - Jack Straw

So this is what they’ve been doing for the past twelve years…

“…..replacing traditional pride with inherited guilt: all of this could be facilitated by a large influx of migrants whose presence in the population would require the wholesale deconstruction of the country’s sense of its own identity.”

“New Labour tide brought with it in the beginning: the contempt for history and the Year Zero arrogance with which they set about “modernising” the nation’s institutions.”

“But the subtext was always self-examination and personal guilt: the indigenous Briton must be trained (literally, by the education system) always to question the acceptability of his own attitudes, to cast doubt on his own motives, to condemn his own national identity and history, to accept the blame even for the misbehaviour of new migrants – whose conduct could only be a reflection of the unfortunate way they were treated by the host population.” - Green Arrow 

Hidden agenda

When the Labour control freaks came to power twelve years ago they had a secret agenda to destroy British identity and national pride, with Englishness as public enemy number one.At the time of their election victory, anyone who suggested that Labour were setting out on a deliberate campaign of nation-wrecking would have been regarded as a loony conspiracy theorist. But recently overwhelming evidence has emerged showing that this was their intention all along.

Politically motivated attempt to radically change the country
The first revelation of their hidden agenda came from Andrew Neather, a former government adviser

Secret policy paper proposed a cultural jihad against Britishness
Then, confirmation came from the release of the full text of the draft policy paper composed in 2000 by a Home Office research unit – the gist of which had already been made public by a former Labour adviser – released under Freedom of Information rules. It is political dynamite.What it states quite unequivocally was that mass immigration was being encouraged at least as much for “social objectives” as for economic ones. Migration was intended specifically to alter the demographic and cultural pattern of the country: to produce by force majeure the changes in attitude that the Labour government saw itself as representing.

Connecting the dots

Knowing what we do now, we can also make sense of a number of apparently disconnected events such as Jack Straw’s anti-English ravings and the demonisation of St George’s Day.

We can now see that the campaign to destroy our identity had (and still has) the following components:- Import huge number of Labour voting Muslim immigrants.

– Muslim immigrants are especially favoured because they areunassimilable and fast-breeding.

– The resultant population explosion will eventually destroy the countryside and much of Britain’s heritage, again helping to erode national pride and sense of identity.

– Give preferential cheap social housing to Muslims, while allowing the cost of commercial housing to rise astronomically. This makes finding a home and starting a family very difficult for the British working class.

– Denigrate all British achievements and history. Brainwash students with a sense of guilt about colonialism, slavery and the British Empire and completely airbrush British achievements out of history. This willultimately produce a nation obsessed with guilt and self-loathing.

– Wreck the educational system (while ensuring Labour MP’s own kids go to the best schools)

– Destroy all non-state controlled institutions where proles can meet and exchange unauthorised opinions (eg use of taxation and licensing legislation to destroy community centres such as pubs and village halls)

- Humiliate and demoralise the British working class by allowingaggressive Muslims unrestricted rights to attack and rape British children without risk of prosecution.

– All tensions are the result of inadequate community cohesion, which is the fault of the indigenous proles and must be remedied by vigorous brainwashing.

– Get the BBC (the Labour Party propaganda machine) to tell the British working class that they are worthless, while Muslims are the people of the future.

Cultural enrichment
Despite all the hype about cultural enrichment, this was never the intention. Tony B. Liar intended immigration to produce cultural impoverishment and inflict a very unpleasant experience on the hated indigenous proles, who would have ‘their noses rubbed in diversity’ like a puppy gets its nose rubbed into its doings – except that our noses are being rubbed into Tony B. Liar’s doings, and so will our chidren’s and grandchildren’s.

The government predicted that crime would rise, but nevertheless went ahead with their scheme of importing millions of implacably hostile jihadist predators and parasites.

Weak horse, strong horse
But what do Labour intend to do with the Muslims once they have outnumbered the British? Do they really think they can secularise them into good socialist citizens?

As Osama bin Laden said, if people have to choose between going with the strong horse or the weak horse, they will choose the strong horse. In Britain today Islam is the strong horse, and Labour’s Politically Correct Marxism is the knackered old nag. The Muslims are now getting numerous enough to know that Britain will soon be theirswithout the need to co-operate with a bunch of clapped out Marxist creeps.

The damage that Labour has inflicted is irreversible. They have planted a demographic timebomb which will only wreak its full devastation when the Muslims now being born (25% of all births in Britain and rising) reach adulthood:

To appease their post-colonial guilt and self-loathing, the Metropolitan Marxist Elite have allowed millions of jihad-crazed supremacist predators into the country. But it isn’t Tony B. Liar, Jack Strawman or Harridan Hormone who are getting their ‘noses rubbed in diversity’ – it’s the long-suffering English working class.

From the Salisbury review… 

“When one of my old Labour Party acquaintances expressed anxiety over Islamic terrorism, I asked him why he had always been so keen on getting as many immigrants here as possible. A case of foreigner good: Brit bad, immigrants had all the desirable qualities and every one of them would be a great asset to this country. He told me that he had been ‘trying to make the revolution’. So, while it had not been possible to storm Buckingham Palace and set up Soviets in Westminster, you could still change the population and supplant the hated ‘other’. Ironically, it happened that the flesh and blood other was not made up of filthy capitalists or parasitic aristocrats, but the ordinary working class people we had grown up among, and for and with whom, socialism would create a new world. […]

Throughout the decades of mass immigration the claim has ever been that migrants just take the jobs we do not want or cannot fill. In the ’60s and ’70s it was also the houses; I recall teenagers in a civics class shouting at a teacher who was trying to counter their toe-curling racism by saying that the Caribbeans moving into their streets were simply occupying houses nobody wanted. ‘We want them’, ‘we live in them’, ‘what’s wrong with them?’ the boys yelled.

What may have been wrong was that the indigenous population was not being divested of them fast enough in reparation for the sins of Empire. Labour MP Frank Dobson spoke to a mainly Bangladeshi audience in Tower Hamlets a few years ago and urged them to help themselves to benefits, education, services, housing and much, much more. All we had was rightfully theirs and we could never compensate enough for our past oppression. Dobson is one heir of that political alliance of the new left with minorities which became active in local politics from the mid 1970s. This alliance enabled white radicals to portray themselves as part of the international movement combating imperialism, with the world’s black and brown people, the downtrodden proletariat.

The New East End by Kate Gavron, Geoff Dench and Michael Young (Profile Books, £15.99) shows how life has changed over the last half century in the area of Family and Kinship in East London, since 1957. It is a dreadful story of dispossession. […]

Cooperation between the local authorities and ethnic leaders led to blocks of flats being set aside for Bangladeshi occupation, along with a substantial proportion of new and renovated housing. Provision has come to depend upon housing associations and co-operatives, through which the local authorities collaborate with central government and local residents. Attuned to cultural sensitivities, these provide six-bedroomed houses for men with multiple wives and many children; despite angry rants to the media about housing requirements being ignored.

Strong family connections, including ties to others in Bangladesh, are useful to demonstrate a need for housing that does not apply to existing citizens. These are hard-pressed to make any case for housing at all, and are said to ‘choose’ to move out. Unless, that is, they resort to ‘strategic single parenting’. Having a child unwed may be the only route for whites to the grail of council housing. Many engage in undisclosed cohabitation which they do not want to discuss in case they lose benefits; married couples live apart to maximise entitlements and families must make their offspring ‘homeless’ if they are to stand any chance of accommodation. Not only has there been decisive support for indigent outsiders, but antipathy to married, two-parent families.

The loss of local housing-control produced sink estates along with a crescendo of applications to enter the county. In one of the most rapid settlements ever to take place in Britain, wards of Tower Hamlets where Bangladeshi occupation was virtually nil in 1991 had 40 per cent or more in 2001, as population replacement spread to neighbouring boroughs like Newham and (now) Ilford and Barking. Bangladeshi children made up one third of primary school pupils in 1981 and two thirds by 2004, as extra resources were pumped into schools with names like Bangabandhu to help minority children.

Bangladeshi respondents in The New East End recount how nobody in London has to worry where the next meal is coming from, how if you do not have a job ‘they give you money’, how you ‘can have somewhere to live, without any rent’, how your ‘children can go to school’ and, even then, they still ‘give you money’. Omitted from the text is a further observation that you are paid to have as many children as you like.

When means-tested welfare benefits increase with the number of children, they produce a very high worklessness rate. Nationally, the proportion of working age people living in workless households is highest for Pakistani and Bangladeshi groups, at 27.4 per cent in 2004, compared with 10.9 per cent for whites (where lone motherhood is concentrated). Muslims have the highest male unemployment rate at 13 per cent; three times the rate for Christian men at 4 per cent. Add to this an ‘inactivity’ rate of 31 per cent. These men are purportedly ill or disabled, as are a high proportion of Bangladeshi women, who also draw disability benefits for various mental problems. Such disparities in benefit receipt by ethnic groups raise many questions about collusion and validation, and just how much assessment is possible through the burka and in the face of ethnic awareness and anti-discrimination strictures.

With their habitat gone, there are many fewer whites in family households; the average number of children in a Bangladeshi household is more than seven times that in a white household. This helped increase the population of Tower Hamlets by 45 per cent in twenty years (national growth rate, 6 per cent). The decline in white children is steeper in Tower Hamlets than anywhere else in the country. White families are in direct competition with immigrants for scarce resources and services, especially housing and education. Those who remain often last only to the point of school transfer at eleven. Fewer children mean fewer relatives generally. Family ties no longer give white people access to those who control local resources, or links to jobs and housing. Men are no longer organised into socially useful lives as husbands and fathers, so the proportion of unwed births and lone parents among whites is also among the highest in the country, when these were lowest in the first half of the twentieth century.

A double victory for leftists and a double whammy for the white working class, who have seen their family structure smashed and their locality colonised. Highly educated ‘yuppies’ can move around freely, occupationally and geographically, and can take a high-minded view, since they are not in competition with anybody for local resources, not least because they are usually childless. Instead they can enjoy the sense of belonging to a ‘vibrant’ cosmopolitan community without any demands being made on them. It is like being on ‘one big foreign holiday’ as you eulogise — like Richard Morrison in The Times — about the cheap labour and wonderful restaurants.

The whites who oppose the rhetoric of need and rights and resent the loss of their locality are mocked as pathological inadequates who are incapable of living alongside people different from themselves. Use of the racist card both suggests that there is something wrong with the people who feel hostile and avoids the real issues. Promoting cohesion is only ever understood one way: combating white racism. No adjustment is ever demanded of newcomers who live inward-looking lives organised around a religious culture which grants little respect or merit to anyone else’s. Unlike now, immigrants had to work hard to get full admission to the nation where incorporation meant forging ties with the members of the national majority.

Middle class leftists do not learn from history and have instead been drawn by their sympathies into consolidating the rights of minorities against indigenous whites. By 1998, more whites were reporting themselves as victims of racial incidents than were reported as perpetrators. Harassment on estates has been defined by council officials in ways which effectively condones any behaviour by Bangladeshis as ‘defensive’, while white tenants are threatened with the loss of their home or delays in dealing with their claims. The fear of municipal victiminisation prevented some respondents speaking fully to the New East End researchers. In education, the bulk of conflict management is directed at white parents. As schools have become more Bangladeshi, most entrants and their parents do not speak English.

These people have been disinherited and disenfranchised and go unrepresented in a way that contravenes the basic rules of our democracy. While an elected representative is supposed to represent all those in his area, many in Tower Hamlets make it clear that they are only there for the Bangladeshis who vote them in.

Funds from the European Union to build a community centre are used to build a mosque instead. There are provisions for ‘mother tongue’ teaching to make immigrants feel at home. But when one non-Bangladeshi councillor entered a classroom to an abusive reception, he found the lesson devoted — not to Bengali — but to the development of Muslim identity around Arabic. The Muslim boys’ secondary schools are bottom for the borough; not surprising because at east a third of lesson-time is devoted to memorising the Koran. The segregation and disadvantage imposed on pupils can be blamed on them being denied chances by white racism. […]

Galloway’s Islamofascism represents the growing identity of immigrants as members of the ummah or the worldwide community of Muslims. The old Bengali Islam, softened by local Hinduism and the Sufi tradition, is giving way to jihadist Iranian and Arab models. Its integration, not into mainstream British society, but into militant Islam, is increasingly accompanied by calls for autonomous Muslim areas governed by Sharia law. The mechanisms for government funding have already encouraged local councils to take in more immigrants than their boroughs could cope with and there is not the space for Banglatowns to expand at the same pace — whether in London or elsewhere. Yet, the influx continues, not least as spouses are brought in from the homeland — which sets integration back another generation. Many on the left still embrace untrammelled immigration and insist that the houses, education and benefits can always be found for the millions who would substantially improve their chances by coming here.

The implications for security, not just national cohesion, are terrifying. There is a growing drift into a welfare dependency shared with the lower reaches of the white population whose own lives are shrivelled by the rights culture. What opens up is the kind of prospect we see in the Middle East, where unoccupied, testosterone-fuelled young men, succoured on welfare, spend their time banging guns and making babies. Those antagonistic to their own people and society are eagerly fostering the emergence of a state within a state.

Yes, Mr Dobson, they came, they saw and they are taking it.

• Stop the rot – Support the English Defence League! 
• Everything you need to know about Islam
• Everything you need to know about Labour