Sunday, 13 July 2008

Beyond the letter of the law

(originally posted 28 June 2008)

Harriet Harman the, (in the circumstances) somewhat ludicrously titled “Equalities Secretary”, admits that her proposed Bill to enforce equality in the workplace will in fact lead to discrimination against white males saying “You don't get progress if there isn't a bit of a push forward.". However, she fails to admit quite how far this nasty and maliciously motivated piece of legislation will actually push, and what it's true agenda is.

In addition to requiring employers to be transparent regarding pay rates, the new legislation officially now makes it “legal to promote a woman or a black person over a white man if they are equally able”, the same would apply when considering two “equally able” candidates for a new position, where one is a white man and the other is either a woman or a non white person.

Officially the intention is to encourage equality, however, given the woolly manner in which the legislation is drafted, the real intention is clearly to encourage employers to employ woman or black people instead of white males.

Those who cynically drafted the legislation in the way they did, did so in the knowledge that, when it comes to employment legislation, the majority of employers err on the side of caution. They are confident that, once this bill becomes law, human resources departments across the land will adopt a default “If in doubt don't employ the white guy” policy.

The last thing any employer wants is to be sued for discrimination, especially when it is easier and far cheaper to dump on a white man. How many employers are going to risk facing a tribunal and having to prove that the white male whom they employed or promoted was the most able candidate?.

I suspect the answer is very few. It doesn't matter how the law is 'officially worded', it matters how it will be perceived by businesses across the land, who instead of consulting a grand an hour employment lawyer will simply not take the risk. The result will be to force more and more white males out of the work force, which is exactly what Harman and her agenda driven minions want.

We have been here before, governments are very skilled at drafting legislation which will have a more wide ranging effect on society than the letter of the law actually provides for, and the current government is a past master at it. For instance the recent legislation banning violent pornography was officially aimed only at the really extreme material originating from Asia and parts of the old soviet union, in which serious injuries are inflicted or appear to be. However, as a result of the legislation dozens of dirty movie makers specialising in the “grey areas” of consensual S/M and bondage have either upped stakes and moved their operations to Holland and the Czech Republic or simply closed down. Hence, legislation, although officially aimed at a very narrow target, has achieved a more wide ranging social effect than the letter of the law actually permits.

In respect of pornography, many of you may approve of what is happening, however, I take the view that all censorship is dangerous, because you never know where it will end, and we, as a group are, after all no less censored than any dirty film maker. Furthermore, it is another example of legislation achieving an effect through the public perception of it means, which it would never achieve if tested in a court of law.

The most infamous of such laws was the 1976 Race Relations Act the effect if which has gone far wider than the law actually prescribes.

The Act forbids discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, nationality, ethnic and national origin in the fields of employment, the provision of goods and services. There is nothing in the 1976 legislation which forbids argued opposition to immigration or the creation of a multi racial society, however, the perception of the legislation has silenced or muted the voices of many thousands of their opponents.

The ban on “Stirring up racial hatred”, has stifled much non-hateful debate, effectively discouraged legitimate criticism of non-whites, and has been abused in attempts to suppress political comment, albeit not always successfully.

The ban on racial discrimination in the work place has unquestionably resulted in black people being promoted beyond their abilities often with disastrous results and to many a blind eye being turned incompetence and bad practice by non-whites, because employers have adopted an “If in doubt don't risk it” default position, which this new legislation will reinforce.

Harriet's law will not result in blacks and woman being treated equally to white men, it will result in more blacks and woman being promoted and less white males irrespective of ability.

As a woman I strive for advancement on my own merit and would be outraged were I to gain it on merely the basis of my gender or race, and I hold in contempt those woman or non-whites who would accept such an unequal advantage as a right. However, many will do so, and many employers will grant them unfair advancement rather that test the law, which is exactly the intention of this invidious legislation.

The 1976 Race Relations act became law because it's relatively modest wording disguised its true intent, however, it has been the main tool of social engineering which has been used to transform the face of Britain, to the significant disadvantage of her citizens, and Harriet's new regulations are in the same mould.
Make no mistake, what ever the media may say about the supposed benefit to women and older workers, the main beneficiaries will be non whites.

The forces of Common Purpose achieve their goals by deception, and this yet another set of regulations which were drafted to achieve more than they appear to. The target again is primarily young white males, because they are the group our enemies resent most, but do not be fooled, we are all in their sights. The programme continues and will do so unless or until the people of Britain wake up and realise what is being done to them.


Saturday, 12 July 2008

Grab 'em while they're young

(originally posted 07 June 2008)

I was recently speaking to a friend of my mother's who was educated in the late 50's and early sixties, partially at a convent school. Speaking of her school days, she recounted one history lesson, given my a middle aged, American nun. The lesson had been about Russian history, specifically the Bolshevik revolution, however, the nun soon strayed from the curriculum and began speaking about events which at the time were quite recent, the uprisings against soviet rule which occurred in Poland and Hungary.

According to my mother's friend, as the nun began describing the Russian response to the uprising in Hungary she became quite flushed, her eyes widened and her skin began to redden as she spoke, becoming more excised as she described the means by which the forces of the Soviet Empire crushed those who had attempted to throw off their rule. Finally the holy sister spoke of a huge mincing machine, which, she claimed, had been wheeled into Heroes Square at the centre of Budapest.

Once the mincing machine was installed in the square, hundreds of live, Hungarians were fed into it leaving the square flowing with blood and minced Magyars.

To an impressionable schoolgirl, the story horrified my mother's friend and was the source of nightmares for some years to come, also, as it was a “fact” she had been taught at school, by an authority figure, she admitted, with some embarrassment, that she had continued to believe well intyo her 20's that the Russians had actually minced Hungarians.

Her story struck a chord with me, as it bore significant similarities to an account I heard in a classroom some twenty years later.

However, by the time I was a schoolgirl, the politics of the classroom had undergone a 180 degree turn around, and few were the teachers who would think to speak ill of the Soviet Union or even Communist China for that matter, whatever, they got up to. The story had been updated and relocated significantly by the time it was told to me by a young male teacher with shoulder length hair, who insisted we address him as Andy. When Andy told us the story, he had replaced the grim faced Soviet troops, with sneering South African security servicemen, the Hungarian mincees' place had been taken by youths from Soweto, and the mincing machine replaced by a wood chipping machine.

Also, Andy was more subtle than the nun had been, or at least story telling techniques had been refined somewhat in the two decades since she had told her story. Unlike in the Holy sister's Budapest fantasy, which limited investigation, even in a pre-internet age could disprove, Andy did not suggest that the dismembering of live Africans took place in a public square, or was openly sanctioned by the Apartheid government, however, he assured us that it was happening daily behind closed doors in prisons across South Africa.

Not unlike my mother's friend had believed the nun twenty years before, I and, no doubt many in class that day, continued to believe what Andy had told us for quite a few years after we left school. For all I know, some of my old classmates may still believe it and that the woodchipping of Soweto residents was deliberately hushed up by South Africa's Truth and reconciliation commission.

Andy's target wasn't just South Africa, he was quite a buff on world affairs. albeit they had little to do with the subject he was supposed to be teaching us, which, as I recall was Biology. He was particularly interested in America, not her constitution or history, you understand, but rather more focused on alleged CIA involvement in Central America, indeed it is likely that some of Andy's ex-students left school believing that the United States defining moment was either the Iran Contra scandal or the overthrow of the Allende government in Chile (and they probably now read at the blog from whence our recent visitors came.).

A number of our other teachers has interests which were closer to home. Margaret Thatcher bestrode the world throughout my teenage years, much to the discomfort of those in the staff room, and it was a rare day which passed when the iniquities of the lady herself, or the her government in general, did not dominate at least one lesson. To this day Thatcher is still a divisive figure, however, we were not taught of a democratically elected leader with conservative social attitudes and stringent economic policies, but instead, those charged with forming our minds invariably portrayed her as if she were a cross between some right wing dictator and a serpent like Catherine De Medici plotting the massacre of St Bartholomew.

If it was, as appeared to be the case, that most of those who taught in schools during the 1980's, felt it their duty to ensure that that their pupils did not become part of Thatcher's constituency, some might ask if it is entirely appropriate for an educator to resort to the sort of political propaganda we saw at that time.

I have to admit that the propaganda seems to have worked on me, Thatcher fought her last election before I could vote for or against her, but ever since I could vote, the idea of voting Tory seems an anathema, and I actually moved straight from voting New Labour in the last three elections, to voting BNP last month, without even considering a flirtation with Mr Cameron.

No longer being a schoolgirl, I can not know for sure whether the classrooms of today are as openly political as they seemed in the 1980's. However as my son recently asked me about a great lost sub-Saharan civilisation which was far ahead of European civilisation in terms of education, health care and philosophy, but which was destroyed by white slave traders, and Voortrekkers, who killed all the great black scholars and claimed all their inventions for the West, I suspect they probably are. (Odd that Andy never taught us about that, but to be fair to him, it probably had not been invented when he was teaching my classmates and I.)

I think it unlikely that schools have become less political in the last twenty years, or that the political ideas being taught to our children are any less left wing. In my experience, the average youngster when leaving school is more open to left wing ideas that they generally are after a couple of years living in the real world.

I may be wrong, but it that is how it seems to me, what makes you think the same thought didn't occur to those panicking Labour MP's currently lobbying to get the voting age reduced from 18 to 16?

As the next election approaches, it may be that we see a growing number of odd looking individuals lurking at the school gates, if so, you need not worry, they are only after your kid's vote!

White boys in the jungle

(originally posted 01 June 2008)

Travelling home by train on Friday evening, I shared a carriage with a group of white teenage boys, probably aged between sixteen and eighteen, no longer children, but not yet men, they were average if quite nice looking boys, wearing street sports clothing and speaking in the acquired “Wot I done” ‘mockney’ accents which youths of their age tend to adopt, having reached that stage in their development where speaking “properly” is thought of as somehow unmanly. Contrary to the hysteria, like most such groups, they seemed essentially pleasant well meaning kids, and whatever the media may try to suggest, quite harmless.

They were however, members of the most vulnerable and at risk section of the community.

All statistics
show that young males are overwhelming the primary victims of violent crime, however, as must be patently clear to all, young white males are not amongst the primary perpetrators, especially not in the environment in which today's youth find themselves.

It is over twenty years since I was the same age as the boys on the train, but the 1980's were a different world to the one which they inhabit, the journey they are embarking on is a far more dangerous one than the boys I dated, danced with and had crushes on had to travel, and, if current trends continue, one which growing numbers of them will not survive.

It can not be easy being a young white male in modern society, these boys have few if any of the privileges earlier generations of white males are alleged to have had, but are held accountable for their grandfather's “sins”, including many, which, if analysed are no more than myths. However, they are myths which are widely claimed as truth, for we live in an age when new superstitions rule, and where new myths are believed as fervently as were any medieval tales of elves and witches. Fifty years of feminist writers have conspired to strip the young male of his once heroic status and cast him as the primary villain and oppressor, whilst other agendas have been at work seeking to narrow that focus onto the white western males who largely built the modern world.

We may no longer inflict corporal punishment on our young men, but in other ways we punish them as severely as in any previous age, and we do so mainly for no other reason than that they are young men. When exploring the way society views the young male, I would recommend to you the Excellent book “The war against boys” by that most enlightened of American feminist writers Christina Hoff Summers, in which she analyses the damage which misguided forms of feminism are having on young males.

However, what the excellent Hoff Summers fails to acknowledge is that, due to political correctness, the main targets of this war are white boys, whilst non whites are excused on account of long ago and often exaggerated or misunderstood injustices. There are sections of our community, mostly white liberals, but also including some people from ethnic communities who's desire to find fault with white boys goes beyond reason, and this phenomenon is an international one.

Anyone who spent time during 2006 and 2007 reading the legion of US message boards relating to false rape allegations made against three white members of the the predominantly white men's Lacrosse team at North Carolina's Duke University by a black stripper, will have been stunned by the visceral and totally irrational hatred revealed by seemingly otherwise intelligent people, who remained desperate to believe the boys guilty, even after their innocence was proven beyond doubt, the allegations shown to be baseless and the prosecutor disbarred for seeking to hide evidence exonerating the boys he had hoped to railroad in furtherance of his career ambitions.

North Carolina's top law officer took the unprecedented step of declaring that the defendants were "innocent", however, to this day hate fuelled message boards remain active providing a sanctuary for those who can not let go of their hatred to exchange bitter notes muttering that “something happened” or scrutinising the reports of the evening to find support for their belief that even if the team didn't rape the stripper, they were flawed human beings. All this whilst impatiently waiting for their tawdry heroine to write her promised book, in which they are sure the truth (their truth) will be told.

The Duke Lacrosse case was a fascinating revelation of the degree to which political correctness and anti-white racism has poisoned American society, and a warning to us as we follow the US down the same road.

Those wishing to know more about the Duke case will find interesting reading on the award winning Durham in Wonderland and Liestoppers blogs, both of which have followed the case since the false allegations were first made in 2006. There are also a number of excellent books on the subject, most notably Professor KC Johnson's much praised “Until Proven Innocent”.

However, Politically correct zealots and anti white racism are not exclusive to America, and who amongst us has not read the “Have your say” comments following the recent articles about the White victims of black crime and all but seen the venom dripping from those responses which bizarrely claim that whites kill more non-whites than blacks kill whites, or implying that the white victims somehow provoked their own deaths.

The comments tend to be more muted when the white victims are female, but when they are boys, the acid really starts to flow. As someone with a lifelong fondness for the male sex, I find that reaction hard to rationalise.

When I first started contributing articles to the Home of the Green Arrow, he (the Green Arrow) would from time to time suggest that I provide reports covering the killings of young white women who fallen victim to that failed social experiment which is HM Government’s immigration policy. The Green Arrow no doubt felt that, as a woman, I would feel an empathy towards female victims. He was certainly correct that I feel great sympathy for women such as Kate Beagley and American Eve Carson, both of whom I have written about in earlier articles.

However, I have always felt deep sympathy for white boys, who are seldom afforded the same degree of protection granted to girls and are frequently assumed to have contributed to their victimisation, irrespective of the evidence, or even more frequently are further victimised by politically motivated misreporting. (for example the disgraceful CNN, who dishonestly insisted in reporting that Harry Potter actor Robert Knox was involved in a “brawl”, rather than that he was was killed protecting his younger brother from an unprovoked and seemingly premeditated attack by a knife wielding black man)

This difference exists largely because society has a somewhat schizophrenic approach to boys, they are condemned if they show aggression, yet any who shy away from a fight are ridiculed and derided. Take for instance male victims of domestic abuse, most studies indicate that men account for around 19% of the victims of such abuse (although I have seen claims that the figure is closer to 30%) and in around half the cases the abuser is female. Although a much lower number than seen in male upon female violence, given that many male victims suffer repeated attacks even at a conservative estimate it means that, each year in the UK, there are around four million separate incidents where men are subject to physical violence by a female partner.

However, in this again, the double standards applied to males can be seen, any time a man complains of such abuse he is ridiculed and branded a “wimp”, that is unless he uses his superior strength to ward off the attack, in which case he usually becomes known as “the accused”.

Generally, within our communities white boys receive less protection than other groups, yet they are held to account far more severely. In our society boys are expected to swim in dangerous waters, where the government is releasing more and more sharks amongst them, but they themselves are portrayed as top predator.

At thirteen, my own beloved son still enjoys the relative safety of childhood pursuits, but in a few short years he will hear the call of the adult world, and I will have to watch him venture into the depths where danger dwells, it is a prospect which terrifies me.

As we see daily, white boys are the primary target of our new countrymen and yet we know that out courts hold their most draconian retribution in reserve for the first white boy to retaliate, because society has decided that whatever evil is done to a white boy, it is a greater evil if he does it back.

I do not seek to claim that there are no bad white boys or that white boy do not maim and kill, but in terms of parity white boys would have had to have amassed 252 teenage victims, in the first five months of this year, to achieve equality with non-whites in terms of head of population. Indeed Britain's streets would resemble those of Baghdad were the native population to start killing their fellow citizens at the same rate as those of foreign origin do. Remember that when some poor, stupid, white kid responds to the provocation and commits the crime which the press vultures are waiting for.

The media demands that white boys share the blame for spiralling lawlessness besetting our land, some pretend that they carry the greater share, indeed most images relating to the recent spate of knife crime on Britain's streets show white hands holding the knives, but, in the real world, it is seldom white hands which are doing the stabbing or firing the guns.

Despite the shrill claims of political correctness, white boys are not the main cause of the bloodshed on out streets, some may be anti-social, they may drink too much, commit acts of vandalism and (actually) get into brawls, but when it comes to the muggings, steaming, car-jacking, drug pushing, gang rapes, stabbings and other gang related murders carrying on all around them, they hardly feature, other than as a percentage of the victims.

Our leaders who should protect our children have placed them at risk and willingly sacrifice growing numbers of them to their cruel and ever demanding god. White boys now inhabit a world where successive governments have stolen their inheritance and forced them to live with a far more dangerous rival who wants to kill them and then blame them for what is done to them. Is it surprising they are confused?

In earlier ages boys were sacrificed in war, in our age they are sacrificed to an ideology, albeit in lower numbers. However, the numbers are growing as the floodgates are pushed wider, and who knows what numbers the establishment would tolerate in furtherance of their aims.

Its a jungle out there, and our boys are forced to live in it.

Broken News

(orriginally posted 27 May 2008)

It has been a violent holiday weekend in London, following the tragic death of budding actor Rob Knox in Sidcup on Friday, two black teenagers were wounded after shootings in Camden and Archway, North London. A 19-year-old man was in a critical condition in hospital after being found stabbed outside East Ham Underground station on Sunday night, and a second man, also aged 19, was arrested after he was found near by with head injuries. In addition, two youths suffered knife wounds after gangs clashed outside a restaurant in Nottingham on Sunday evening, and on Friday night James Graham, 29, was beaten to death in Hendon, north west London.

Then yesterday the badly beaten body of 17 year old Amar Aslam was found in a park in a Dewsbury park, clearly the victim of a violent homicidal attack.

Whatever the circumstances, all such violent deaths are a tragedy and I have the deepest sympathy for young Amar's friends and family.

However, I would like to concentrate on the news coverage following the discovery of Amar's body, particularly on the 24 hour rolling news broadcasts given by BBC News24 and Sky News, because it was very enlightening.

Shortly after the news broke, reports started coming in of earlier racial tension in the Dewsbury area, including alleged clashes between Asians and whites. The effect on the newsrooms was electric, the killing suddenly became the main news story, with bright eyed and flushed reporters gushing excitedly, as they gripped their microphones just that little bit more tightly, that this might be a ..... racially motivated attack.

It was clear the Fourth Estate believed they had their prize, a racial crime with a white perpetrator, which could be used as a counterbalance against the endless stream of street murders and assaults, which have made the news over the last few years, in which the perpetrators have all been so inconveniently non-white.

It has been many long dry years for the media, since the killings of Stephen Lawrence and Anthony Walker gave them the opportunity to falsely portray race hate crimes as a white on black phenomenon. There are only so many shrines which can be built in the memory of the blessed Stephen, a new totem is required, and press have been growing progressively more disparate for an up to date non-white victim and white villain combo to splash across their front pages and lead their news broadcasts.

Frustratingly for the eager news hounds white thugs have so far been uncooperative, unlike non-whites who have been assaulting all and sundry with gusto in resent years, leaving the media struggling to find new and inventive means of describing the crimes, which did not include the word “racial”, or even mention the race of the attackers.

However, this time it seemed their long wait was over and they would soon be able to say and write those magic words “A racially motivated attack by a white gang” and be actually referring to events in this century. The newsrooms buzzed as Dewsbry residents were interviewed about racial tensions, and indeed one even quoted the legendary “white boy who stabbed an Asian” myth which so often mentioned in these circumstances, and then quietly dropped, when it is found on to be untrue.

But it was not too be, and to the obvious crushing disappointment of anchor men and on sight reporters alike, the show stopping news was revealed by Dewsbury MP, Shahid Malik, that the police had arrested and were questioning non white suspects, at which point one reporter appeared close to tears. The grim expressions in the newsrooms across the airwaves exposed quite clearly what a blow this revelation had been to those newsmen and women who, moments before had truly believed their wait was at an end.

To quote John of Gwent's comment on the Home of the Green Arrow article about this subject: “A fascinating BBC News 24 bulletin not an hour ago revealed that three men have been detained in connection with this and all are Asian. In a half hearted attempt to put out the flames that various sources were wetting themselves after fanning, the BBC News Link Man asked their woman on the spot if she had any comment on the "clearly now discredited" reports that this was a racist murder.

The journo on site suddenly wore a face that suggested a lemon had just materialised in her throat, from thin air, minus its peel. 'Well, such matters are now best left to the police to report on as they continue their investigations' she said. Funny how a white kid whose neck was slashed by a Turk doesn't deserve the truth being told.”

Later, Channel Four News broadcast started by trumpeting accounts of the racial tension, before reluctantly admitting that this murder probably wasn't racially motivated, suggesting that they had prepared the item before news of the arrests broke, and could not quite let the fantasy go.

And so the media's long vigil continues, they carry on waiting, because they know one day their wait will be over, indeed it may be quite soon as tensions continue to rise, one day, maybe tomorrow, next week or next year, a white boy will kill a non white boy, and the press will have their prise.

No matter that they may have to clamber over the bodies of a hundred white boys, or even a thousand, they will grasp their trophy and, as with Johann Nel that in blood spattered centre of black crime South Africa, they will make it the definitive example of a race hate crime, and by constant repartition, use it In the hope of obscuring the daily toll of bloodshed which mass third world immigration has wrought upon our streets. They will use it as they have used Stephen Lawrence for the last fifteen years, and it will be no less of a lie, when they do.

However, the world has moved on, and we are all wiser now, so I wonder, when it happens, as it surely will, will the public buy the same old lie again?

A bloodstained fantasy

(Originally posted 17/05/2008)

I make no apology for returning to the subject of violent, gang related, street crime, as this is a phenomenon which even the most blinkered amongst us must now realise is becoming a bigger and more dangerous threat to our communities by the day. Despite government and police attempts to distort the figures by such tricks as highlighting falls in non-violent crime, redefining certain types of crimes, or simply not reporting others, even they can no longer remain deliberately blind to the bodies of dead and injured children littering our streets, whilst, internationally, London becomes known as Europe's capital of knife crime.

As the nation's eyes gradually begin to open, even some of the most outrageous dissemblers in the media have been forced to allow a small trickle of truth to creep into their writings. In Thursday's London Evening Standard for instance, even that stout standard bearer for the multicultural dream, the honour rejecting poseur, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown came close to admitting who the primary perpetrators of violent crime are when she wrote that today the “absolute injunction against stop-and-search make less and less sense” and that many within the black community are expressing support for more proactive policing of their own children.

However, Yasmin would not be Yasmin without the untruths and one can only marvel at her bare faced dishonesty when she writes “Times have changed. Race is no longer as clear a marker between victim and perpetrator or criminal and law enforcer” It may be true that there are now a small number more non-whites in the police force, however “the racial marker” in respect of the perpetrator's of street crime is now more marked than it ever was.

That the perpetrators now also victimise their own is no consolation their battered hosts and their blooded children.

The truth which dare not speak it's name, for fear of the "r" word, was exposed in all its enriching glory in the Evening Standard on the same day as Yasmin's column, in the front page report on the over 100 stabbings which have occurred in London so far this year and also by the previous day's report from that most enriched of areas, Peckham from which together with any list of the over 200 separate London gangs shows that the problem we face is most certainly not “white boys stabbing white boys”

Recent reports, towards the end of last year, revealed that one in every five crimes in Britain was perpetrated by “foreigners” however, these revelations in themselves were misleading and downplayed the truth about immigrant related crime, particularly that from outside Europe, by excluding from the list of “foreigners” all immigrants who had committed crimes after being granted British citizenship or any British born children of immigrants who commit crime (that is to say the majority of gang members). Can anyone doubt that if figures had been published including those groups, and exposed the true level of immigrant crime, even the most complacent native Briton would be outraged, and terrified, by what is going on.

True as ever to her agenda driven heart, Alibhai-Brown's article also evokes the old spectre of “racist white policemen” using stop and search powers to intimidate innocent black youths, and she urges the authorities to restrain their racist instincts in future. This cant is not only laughable, but it is the deliberate and cynical lie it always was. It was a lie in the 1970's and 80's and it is a lie again today, no less so than the dishonest con trick played on us by the travesty which was the Macphearson report when it invented the ludicrous and much exploited term “institutional racism”.

The entire premise behind the allegations of “institutional racism”, which were thrown at the police force and virtually every other “establishment body” in this country, is flawed and dishonest, not least as it suggests that attitudes, subconscious or otherwise, result from prejudice rather than experience, and the same implication applies to the alleged “discriminatory” use of stop and search.

These claims do not stand up to the minimum of scrutiny. It was not prejudice which led to the setting up of Operation Trident to deal with the growing problem of gun crime in the black community, it was the fact that black men are statistically more likely to carry and use guns. The same applies in relation to carrying knives and committing street crime, hence it is experience and not prejudice which made the police pay extra attention to black youths.

To suggest that they should behave otherwise because some white youths commit street crime is the equivalent of using the 1970's case of Joyce McKinney and her manacled Mormon to argue that the police should devote equal resources to tackling female rapists as they do to male.

Yes, it happens, but considerably less often.

Each crime is unique, and criminals differ so I don't (much)doubt that there are a small number of nuns and old age pensioners who commit acts of vandalism, however, the next time a brick is thrown through you window, I am sure you would expect the police to question the local teenagers before they raid the nearest rest home or convent in a crowd pleasing display of political correctness.

Profiling has been given a bad name, however, that is largely due to politics, and much to the chagrin of those who criticise it, the fact is we have yet to see a Norwegian grandmother, rather than a young Asian male, sitting in the dock at the Old Bailey on terrorism charges.

Despite all evidence, and the growing number of young victims of this predominantly black crime, Alibhai-Brown can still not resist playing politics and repeating the discredited claims about racist policemen targeting innocent black youths, which made it so difficult for the police to do their job, and, as such may have led in some measure to the deaths we have seen.

Yasmin sees no contradiction between admitting that stop and search could save lives, whilst, in the face of so many death which stop and search might have prevented, proudly trumpeting her earlier opposition to it. Likewise, no doubt she sees no connection between the open door immigration policy which she has for so long championed and London's new found status as the knife crime capital of Europe, however, the one led to the other as surely as night follows day.

Alibhai-Brown is by no means uniquely to blame, she is a well known supporter of the campaign to change a white nation into a multicultural social experiment, and by her own admission, hers was one of the voices opposing police efforts to keep our streets safe, but she is just one of the many who's actions brought us to this point.

We now face the bloodstained consequences of a multicultural fantasy for which an entire army of establishment and media have lied and conspired for decades, even though they must have known it would never work. Not only did they open the door and let the beast in, but they took away our defences against it by calling them racist, but it is we, not they who will pay the price.

Those who have done this to us will never admit their guilt but I wonder if they will ever be held to account.


Mogadishu on our streets

(Originally posted 10 May 2008)

Friday's news included two separate, but almost identical, stories regarding the sentencing of the gang member killers of teen aged murder victims. The cases, which were depressingly similar. featured two more of the rapidly growing number of of teenagers murdered on British streets in recent years. The victims, 14 year old Paul Erhahon and 16 year old Kodjo Yenga had a lot in common, they were both much loved young men, who's families claim that they had rejected gang culture and had bright futures, also, in each case five young men were convicted in relation to their deaths. Pictures of the victims and their killers are at the top of this page.

Today's papers are full of quotes from the judge, Christopher Moss QC who sentenced Kodjo Yenga's killers and called the crime “part of the gang culture that casts a dreadful influence over the youth of our cities”meanwhile, whilst sentencing Paul Erhahon's killers, Mr Justice Keith commented that "There is self-evidently a culture among boys of your age to do with the carrying of knives which needs to be changed."

Across the media, commentators continue to bewail this escalating slaughter of youth “society is to blame” they cry, “Our children are killing our children”. To a man, (and woman) the talking heads claim that they want to find the cause of this ongoing teenage massacre, and yet, to a man they persist in pretending that it is a problem which besets wider society rather than one which is restricted to one small section of the community.

The one aspect of these crimes which the newspapers and TV report about them studiously fail to acknowledge is that the one thing, apart from their age and sex, which both victims and all their killers share in common is that they are all non-white.

This fact is no aberration, we need only to look at the list of the victims of gang related murder in London last year, which included Kodjo and Paul, to see that the vast majority were black or Asian. This year we are only into May and already the death toll looks set to exceed 2007, and so far every single London victim is non white.

Furthermore, as each successive trial shows us, all the perpetrators are non-white as well. Even with the cases that have not yet come to trial, following the media volcanic reaction to alleged racial murder of the blessed Stephen of Eltham, given neither the Guardian or Channel four newsrooms have yet been declared slip hazard zones, we can be certain that there are no white boys suspected of killing black boys.

To my knowledge the only white suspects in any gang related killing carried out in Great Britain in either 2007 or 2008 are those charged with the death of Rhys Jones in Liverpool (If anyone knows of any others and writes to the comments section with details, I will correct this statement).

However, the facts clearly demonstrate that, although non-whites make up just over 10% of the population, they account for the vast majority of all victims of gang related murder and almost all the perpetrators, certainly over 90%.

This phenomenon is not unique to Britain, a study of the most violent cities in America show that the highest rates of violent crime occur in those cities which have large black and ethnic populations.

The figures speak for themselves:

Detroit – 81% black
Baltimore - 64% black
New Orleans - 70% black
Washington DC - 60% black
St Louis - 51% black
Atlanta - 59% black
Newark NJ - 53% black
Philadelphia - 43% black
Buffalo NY - 37% black
Oakland Calif - 30% black

I believe that blacks account for 43% of the population of Cincinnati, - No:8 on the list - but could not find a reliable source for that figure)

African Americans make up around 13% of the overall US population, however, in those areas where they make up a larger percentage the level of violent crime inevitably also increases.

Some may argue that one can not compare the situation in America to that here as the two societies are so different, and maybe they have a point, the black community in America has existed for around 300 years and have lived as free men for almost 143 years, or some five generations depending upon one's definition, more than enough time, one would have thought to adopt the culture of their new homeland, however as events following Katrina showed us, culture is more ingrained than that.

Those coming to our shores on the other hand have not had generations to adopt our culture, they have had 40 or 50 years at the very most, and they are coming to us from some of the most dangerous, and crime ridden and unstable places on Earth, Somalia , Jamaica, Pakistan, Kenya, Algeria, and Nigeria to name just a few of the crime and murder hot spots from whence our new next door neighbours hail.

Our government welcomes them and says that they have left their dangerous and violent lands behind them, and that is true, however, it is not a location which causes people to act with violence, it is not soil which creates a propensity for crime, it is culture and mindset and those two travel with the migrant.

If I travel to France I do not instantly become French, I do not lose my Englishness as I alight from the train at Gare De Nord, or leave my culture behind at Charles De Gaul. As we see in British ex-patriots across the world most retain their essential culture and mindset to the bitter end.

The same applies to incoming cultures, they do not undergo colonic irrigation at Heathrow, they arrive as they left Karachi, and they stay that way. The Guardianistas acknowledge that when they claim that new and different cultures enrich ours and that we should embrace them. However, immigrant culture is not just beads and Bollywood, it has an underbelly, and it is naive to express surprise when the culture of Kingston, Johannesburg or Mogadishu appears on our streets.

The spate of Gang related teen aged murders on our streets are not “White boys stabbing white boys” as the dishonest, and thankfully now unemployed, Ken Livingstone tried to claim it is black boys stabbing black boys, Asians stabbing Asians and sometimes either group stabbing white boys if they get in the way.

What we are seeing on our streets is imported, it is a direct result of the uncontrolled immigration which successive governments have encouraged with criminal indifference to the well being of the native population they were elected to protect and serve.We are faced with a situation which was imposed upon us without democratic vote or accountability, it is a situation which is getting worse by the day and with which, we, our children and grandchildren will be dealing with for many years to come, however, we will not be able to deal with it until we call it by its real name.

The Enemy Within

I recall that, as a teenager, during the early 1980's, I, like many others was a huge fan of an American TV series called “V” where malevolent Aliens sought to take over the Earth, and consume its current inhabitants (literally). Initially, these ill intentioned space beings seemed kindly and benevolent, and indeed they looked so like us it was heard to tell who was earthling and who alien.

That was until some accident would rip away a section of their false skin revealing the green reptilian scales beneath, and exposing the invaders true monstrous intentions.

“V” was in a genre of mostly 'B' Horror movies, such as “The invasion of the Body Snatchers” They Live” and “The Thing” where mankind is either threatened or ruled over by creatures which look like men, behave like men but are actually extra terrestrial invaders intent on the destruction of humanity.

It is a compelling and terrifying thought to believe that dreadful beasts walk amongst us disguised as us and indistinguishable from our own, but committed to our demise. Indeed the idea of alien creatures, or different species, taking on the form of humans in order to achieve their wicked aims is an evocative one and exists in many cultures and legends.

More fantastically, the one time sports presenter and sometime, self proclaimed. son of God, David Icke has from time to time taken the legend (or fact?) of The Illuminati quite a few steps further down the evolutionary chain and claimed that the world is ruled by shape shifting reptiles, capable of adopting human form. According to Icke's version of reality, many prominent people, and all world leaders, from George Bush, Hillary Clinton to members of our own dear royal family are, when viewed in their natural form, huge Komodo dragon like lizards.

Why is it I wonder that this same concept is repeated so frequently in our entertainment, our myths and legends and in our conspiracy theories? What attracts us to this much repeated scenario where people who look like us, but who are out to harm us are, in truth, aliens who bear no similarity to us whatsoever physical or otherwise.

Could it be that it is altogether more comfortable to imagine that our foes are scaly green aliens or shape shifting lizards, than it is to accept that there are people within our own community, people who not only look like us, but who are like and yet who are working tirelessly towards the aim of our destruction, and that so many of these people are in positions of power and influence?.

In fact such people now so dominate positions of power and influence, and have such control over the media and of most means of communication, that they can all but silence any dissenting voice. I am sure that many BNP voters were over the moon with delight to see that for almost the first time ever someone they had voted for was allowed a tiny amount of coverage, when Richard Barnbrook won the BNP's first ever seat on the London assembly.

Usually anyone who does not share the politically correct ideology favoured by our masters in the nations newsrooms finds access to any public platform is barred to them, and it is almost impossible to get their message heard.

Don't be fooled, you can be assured that the status quo will be resumed shortly. Our media overlords had no option other than to give Richard air time after Thursday's election, but he would be a fool to believe that aberration will continue, or that he will not shortly find that his speeches, policies and initiatives will join the blooded legion of racially battered white boys in the news exclusion zone.

The media is not alone, all 24 of the other Assembly members have already decided to deny the almost 131,000 Londoners who voted for the BNP the representation to which our democracy allegedly entitles then, by agreeing to “shun” Richard Barnbrook. Which apparently is their idea of democracy!.

It seems that democratic rights extend only to those who voted for politicians with a Common Purpose stamp of approval on their behinds.

Why is the establishment so desperate to silence the voices calling out against mass immigration and for the fair treatment of the native British population?, why do they try and portray BNP voters and members as hate filled, jackbooted, fascists when a single visit to the BNP's website shows that could not be farther than the truth?

If, the BNP's message is so vile, and if, as is often said, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant” why are they so reluctant to shine any on the BNP and other white nationalist groups, surely if what they say about the Nationalists is true then the more they are exposed for what they are the more the public will reject them.... surely?.

In fact the reverse is true, just like the leaders of North Korea or the old Soviet Union knew that their subject peoples would no longer be so compliant if they learnt the truth about the outside world, the fat controllers who steer public perceptions have no wish for the public to know the truth about alternative viewpoints.

It is a cliché to say that they fear the truth, however, it is also a fact. They fear the truth because the truth would get in the way of the project (or Common Purpose), if the public knew the truth they might be less willing to accept the lies, and that would not suit the purposes of those who control our destiny. This very fact alone exposes their plan for what it is, if to succeed in their aims they must hide the truth from us, then their aims can not be in our best interests, and they know it.

There can be no question that they have defined aims, this is not about conspiracy theory, it is obvious to all that there is a project under way which is determined to change this country and this continent beyond recognition. The native peoples of Britain and mainland Europe are white, however, day by day they become less so, and it is our own governments, our own leaders, cheered on by our home grown press who are doing it, and not one of them has a slimy green scale under their skin (much as some may appear to have)

The only possible outcome from that campaign is that Europe's once proud status as the home of the white race will be gradually diminished and quite probably destroyed.

It is no coincidence that it is only our continent this is being done to, and there are no plans to change Africa's position as the (main) home of the black race, or Asia's much prized racial integrity. Those cultures will be preserved because it is they who are the vehicle of our abolition.

It is only the lands of the white race which are under siege, and it is white politicians who are primarily responsible.

Our establishment are doing this to us only half consciously, they are doing it because they are the product of a radical ideology designed for an entirely different purpose. They and the generation before them were created and indoctrinated by people who hoped to see the West overthrown by a Communist East. Although that purpose no longer exists the mindset has long been fixed, Western Culture must be destroyed, and if the Soviet Union is no longer there to do it, Islam and mixed marriage will work well enough. So, although the aims have changed, they carry the project forward, and indoctrinate new generations because they have been programmed to do so.

Nobody but a fool is ignorant of the threat we face from Islam, and yet, despite playing lip service to a war on terror, our white European leaders cheerfully preside over the, not so gradual, Islamification of Europe and plans are in place to speed up the process as the descendants of the vicious Ottoman empire lurk again at out gates.

We are kept in in ignorance of the truth of the racial violence being inflicted on our own people, and lied to be by politicians and journalists who do not care about their own people, worse, they actively campaign against their own people.

These same people encourage interracial relationships, in the full knowledge of their failure rate and the huge numbers mixed race children living in single families due to the disproportionately high numbers of absent black fathers not to mention the increased risk of violence and the inevitable genetic effect miscegenation has. It is not racist to point out that once a child is born of a mixed race couple, a genetic line is changed irretrievably. Given that the promotion of mixed race unions is just one of a vast series of assaults upon the racial integrity of white Europe, only those deliberately and stubbornly blind to what is going on can not detect a deliberate common purpose.

That purpose is most certainly not the survival of a safe majority white Europe, and again it is our own politicians from our own main stream stream political parties, and not extra terrestrials in human guise, who are behind it.

Like the embattled earthlings in “V” we, as a people, are under threat from people who seek to destroy us and our entire way of life but they are not green skinned aliens or poor David Icke's nine foot lizards, they look like us, because they are like us and hate us for it. They are the enemy within.

A vote against the liars

(originally postsed 29/04/2008)

During the last century, the Russian people believed a lie for seventy years, and the citizens of those Eastern block countries, such as Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and the various Baltic and Balkan states which were handed over to Russia in 1945 were lied to for almost 50 years. Although the soviet Union has since crumbled, and those nations are now free, there remain many countries in today's world where the people are fed lies by malevolent governments.

Obvious examples spring to mind, such as Cuba and North Korea, where the public are locked away from the world and told to believe every new fantasy dreamed up by the Dear leader

However, it is not only in isolated dictatorships or behind totalitarian iron curtains where governments deliberately, and persistently, lie to their public. Most Western European governments lie to their electorate on many issues and particularly on the subjects of immigration and race relations, and amongst the worst offenders, supported by a politically biased media, has been the governments of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of all political shades.

Most do not realise it but the British public had been subject to a campaign of disinformation for a period of almost half a century. We have been lied to, repeatedly and deliberately for a variety of motives, none of which had anything to do with the best interests of you or your country . They lied to hide the fact that they were allowing the largest alien invasion of this country in our Island's history and in order to keep you placidly obedient whilst they changed our country beyond all recognition.

They lied when they told you that immigration brought great benefits to Britain, whereas in truth its main benefit was to Labour's electoral support, and to their (and the Tories') unscrupulous chums in big business who want to exploit cheap immigration in order to keep wages artificially low.

Both labour and the Tories lied to for selfish and party political motives, and the Lib Dems went along with it because they are do infected with political correctness that they would rather be raped than admit the colour of their rapists.

Governments of all political parties lied to you when they said that the NHS would collapse without immigration, whereas in truth it is the third world's health service which is collapsing because of immigration,whilst ours is groaning under the strain. Anyone with eyes to see, and who lives in any major city, knows that whenever they use the health service, at least half the patients in the queue in front of them are Immigrants, many very recently arrived. It will only get worse, even if the Eastern Europeans may eventually go home as their countries' economies start to grow (IF you believe the Independant and the BBC's suspiciously timed reports), one can be sure that the Africans, the West Indians, and Asians are far less likely to leave our generous shores, and an ageing immigrant population will put even further pressure on our infrastructure.

The lies did not stop there, they lie when they pretend that that the main victims of racial violence are non-white immigrants, when any fair analysis of the figures shows that non-whites are in fact the main perpetrators, to a massively disproportionate degree, and that indigenous white population are the primary victims .

They lie when they build shrines and hold repeated commemorations of the death Stephen Lawrence for the sole purpose of hiding the truth about race crime in this country, and that, if indeed he was the victim of a race crime, their poster boy victim is in truth a rare exception.

They lie when they tell you Islam is a religion of peace they lie about our imperial past and our central role in ending the slave trade and they lie about everything which was once great about Britain. They lie because they know they can not tell us the truth and be forgiven.

If Britain is to survive and have a chance of being great again, the lies have got to stop, and that will only happen when we as a nation stop voting for the liars and start voting for the truth. Maybe we can start this Thursday.

Persecuting the truth - the silencing of an icon

At the 1960 obscenity trial of the D H Lawrence novel Lady Chatterley's Lover, the chief prosecutor, Mervyn Griffith-Jones, asked if it were the kind of book "you would wish your wife or servants to read". Griffith- Jones, was much ridiculed for the statement, however, establishment figures such as he, and indeed much of the establishment, have long believed that there are various details which should be kept from the public, because such knowledge might lead them astray.

However, it is an indictment of the times that something else has joined Mellors' unusual uses for daisies in the list of things of which the masses must be kept in ignorance lest it affects their behaviour, and sadly, that thing, is any truth which clashes with the politically correct, multi-culti mantras of our age.

As John of Gwent pointed out in a recent post at the Home of the Green Arrow, organisations such as the UAF (Unite against Freedom) and SearchLite, are so afraid of free speech that they will do anything to silence those who refuse to chant the politically correct lies which they are desperate to present as a form of truth, despite all evidence to the contrary. If they had their way, they would demand that the government, behave like the one party states which are their natural home, and ban parties such as the BNP from speaking out at all

However as the 2006 attempted political trials of Nick Griffin and Mark Collett showed us, Governments face particular problems when they seek to use legislation to punish people for speaking the truth.

This is not the case everywhere and it is not only in Britain where so called “Race hate” legislation is used in attempt to silence those who come too close to revealing the truth and elsewhere in the world the forces of political correctness are having more success. The outrages of the likes of the vicious Canadian Human Rights tribunal in its attempts to stifle all dissent have been well documented elsewhere, however, successful attacks upon free speech can be observed much closer to home, on the other side of the channel for instance.

Right now in France, a one time super star who is also a great lady and a French patriot, is facing yet another in a long string of establishment attempts to silence her from speaking out against the ongoing Islamic colonisation of Europe.

In the last eleven years, the one time French Movie star and word acclaimed sex symbol Brigitte Bardot, who retired from movies in 1973, and who has since worked tirelessly for animal welfare charities, has been sued in the French courts four times on charges of “inciting racial hatred” against Muslims.

In 1997 Bardot was dragged to court on account of an interview she gave to le Figaro and said that France was becoming over-run by "sheep-slaughtering Muslims."

1n 1998 she was again found guilty of incitement, over comments she made about the killing of civilians in Algeria. She had also complained about the growing number of mosques in France, "while our church-bells fall silent for want of priests."

A further conviction followed in June 2000 and resulted from statements she had written in 1999 in a book called "Le Carre de Pluton" (Pluto's Square). Here she complained about sheep slaughter by Muslims. Here she penned a section entitled "Open Letter to my Lost France". She wrote: "my country, France, my homeland, my land is again invaded by an overpopulation of foreigners, especially Muslims."

In 2003 she published a book called "A Scream in the Silence" which landed her in court once again. On June 10, 2004, a French court ruled that she "presents Muslims as barbaric and cruel invaders, responsible for terrorist acts and eager to dominate the French to the extent of wanting to exterminate them."

In the introduction to that book, she wrote "I do not hold religious Muslims in high esteem." She also wrote: "For 20 years we have submitted to a dangerous and uncontrolled underground infiltration. Not only does it fail to give way to our laws and customs. Quite the contrary, as time goes by it tries to impose its own laws on us. We were disturbed by their barbaric practices; we went to court; we condemned their unacceptable behaviour which left homes covered in blood, and filled rubbish chutes with skin, bone and oozing brains. To no avail!"

Given her love of animals it was not surprising that the formidable Mme Bardot railed particularly against the cruelty involved in the sacrifice of sheep at Eid celebrations and the wider issues of Halal slaughter.

However, she also called the 9/11 attackers "monstrous, satanic men" and wrote: "All those 'youths' who terrorise the population, rape young girls, train pit-bulls for attack ... spit on the police -- they are the ones who at the smallest signal from their chiefs will suddenly put us through the same kind of thing that happened in a Moscow theatre." statements which, many of us may view as fair comment.

This month (April 2008) Bardot is back in Court facing a possible prison sentence and a fine of nearly $24,000 on account of a letter she wrote to the current French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, in which she wrote: "I am fed up with being under the thumb of this population which is destroying us, destroying our country and imposing its acts."

The outcome of this, the fifth instalment of the Gallic persecution of one of their few remaining patriots is expected shortly, however, whatever the result I doubt it will force the excellent Mme Bardot to stop speaking her mind, or persuade the authorities to give up their attempts to gag her.

Let us salute Brigitte Bardot, at 73, her once stunning beauty may have long faded, but she retains a beautiful soul and the heart of a lion. Would that there were more like her.

However, let us also not forget that what is being done to Brigitte Bardot in France is exactly what the real fascists in the government funded UAF and SearchLite would love to see happen here, and is exactly what our government would be doing here had home grown heroes such as Nick Griffin and Mark Collett not stood up to them in 2006, and defeated them.


UPDATE 4 June 2008

As an update on the above post regarding the prosecution of the one time Screen Icon Brigitte Bardot resulting from some observations she made about Muslims in France it will come as little surprise to any of us that she was found guilty and has been fined €15,000 ($24,500). Once again we see evidence not only that, in much of Europe, is a faint memory, but also that telling the truth is no longer a defence.

My friend the Green Arrow comments on the case here.

A hoary old stereotype - sold to us as new

It's the same image we see over and over again in magazines, in TV adverts and in so many different situations, the mixed race couple which is always, always, always a black male and a white female (BM/WF), but almost never the other way round. I wonder why.

Frequently they will go out of their way to pick the blackest man they can find, and pair him with the blondest woman, so they are clearly making a statement, but it is the same one they have been making for almost two generations.

Incredibly they still attempt to portray it as somehow, fashionable, trendy and new. NEW? Give me a break! The BM/WF combo is becoming almost the oldest racial stereotype in the book, it has been around for decades, and is probably older than a lot of the people reading this blog (it is older than the one writing it). Lets not forget that it was Sidney Pottier who was taken home for dinner in 1967, not Dorothy Dandridge, and that was deliberate.

Yet still the young and impressionable fall for it. Young girls are not genetically more stupid and easily led than young boys, but it is they who tend to end up as women living in poverty as single mothers raising a disproportionately high number of mixed race children, if they have not suffered an even worse fate.

I am sure anyone living in Britain has seen the series of adverts encouraging people to become teachers, including the one with the white girl holding hands with a black boy, with the commentary which says something to the effect that children are free thinking beings who don't think the way they are supposed to think. What a joke, what a lie! by snogging a black man the poor deluded little twit is doing exactly what her teachers, the TV and the magazines she reads have been telling her what to do and what to think.

The wannabe opinion formers have been trying to sell this hoary old combo as modern and cutting edge for over 40 years now. When they first started Enoch Powell was still thought of as a potential future Prime minister, TV came in two channels, both black and white, Ronnie and Reggie ran the East End and Vesta beef curry was considered exotic and sophisticated, surely there comes a point when something ceases to be innovative and becomes a failed and discredited dogma.

However, this dogma only preaches a single orthodoxy, and in all those years, the number of instances where the unending bombardment of images of interracial sex appearing in the media have included a white man and a black woman have been negligible. In fact I suspect that most of us would be hard pressed to think of a handful, other than those involving poor old Boris Becker

So why is this? Why does it only go one way?, if interracial sex is a good thing, why is it so seldom promoted between black women and white men, and why is that on those rare occasions where an ad agency generated mixed race couples is made up of a white man and a black woman they are invariably selling organic tomatoes or lounge furniture, never anything romantic, or, perish the thought, erotic.

Why is that, and what is the difference?

After some consideration I have come to the conclusion that there are at least two main reasons why the cheerleaders for interracial coupling are so much fonder of the black man/white woman combo than they are of the virtual taboo of depicting interaction between black women and white men.

Firstly, the PC brigade view BM/WF images as “provocative”, they know that pictures of white women with black men, piss off quite a number of white men, which, from the perspective of the PC marketeers is just fine, in fact they probably view pissing off white men to be a bonus. However, by the same token, pictures of black women with white men really piss off black men, (I mean REALLY) and no guardian of the multicoloured flame would ever intentionally piss off a black person.

More importantly, any public acknowledgement that blacks or Asian men might object to “their” women mixing with other races, would not support the cause of diversity, so why risk it?.

Objections from white men can be easily dismissed as “more evil white racism”, and even sighted as a reason why race mixing should be encouraged. Objections from blacks or Asians, however, could not be dismissed in the same manner, without admitting that, what they call racism, exists in all communities, not just amongst those nasty whites.

The cowardice of our enemies is exposed by the fact that they seek to provoke only safe white discomfort, but not the more dangerous kind. The Single Muslim dating site used to be promoted by an advert featuring a grinning Asian man and a smug looking white woman in a hijab. I imagine the ad agency trendsetter who came up with that idea considered it to be brave and provocative, however, it was not that brave.

Imagine the howls of fury they would have provoked from amongst the ranks of the bearded and perpetually offended had the advert featured an Asian woman and a white male convert to Islam?. Now that would be brave and provocative, it would also be educational.

Again, as in so much else, what is presented as “diversity” is no such thing, it is a new set of rules, and those rules only go one way. A mixed race society is supposed to be the panacea for the alleged evils of racism, but whenever a torch is shone too brightly on the xenophobia and racism within the non-white community, it is invariably far more violent, bigoted and visceral than that exhibited by the whites. As the multicultural marketeers have not yet resolved that dilemma, they choose not shine their torches on it or provoke unwanted displays of real life diversity.

A second reason behind the favoured race and gender stereotypes is, I believe, a darker one, with its roots in a sexism and racism, the full implications of which those promoting it may not even fully understand, or at least they would deny it if confronted with it. However, at its heart it symbolises invasion.

Over the centuries, invading armies have habitually sought to possess, ravage and despoil the enemy's womenfolk, as a means of humiliating and breaking an adversary or celebrating a victory over him. This may sound far fetched, but just look around at the various conflicts which are happening at the moment, such as in Sudan, Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, in all of these horrors the invading armies invariably target the indigenous tribe's womenfolk. Rape has become a weapon of war, however, it is not just the act of rape which makes it such and effective and popular weapon, it is the psychology behind it which is so devastating.

I am not suggesting that all depictions of interracial sex is meant to symbolise rape, as such, the symbolism is more subtle than that. However, it amounts to something very similar to the manner in which armies use the subjugation of their enemies' woman as a means of achieving their war aims, and its motives are not dissimilar.

Although the balance of power may be more ambivalent in the Albion household, in general the act of sex between a man and a woman involves the submission of the female to the dominant male, which is why some feminists claim that, when it occurs in isolation from the affection and tenderness, which makes it an act of love, it becomes an expression of power, in which, in the symbolism at least, the man is the most powerful.

This, I think, is why the advocates of racial mixing are far less comfortable with the image a white male and a black woman, than they are with the reverse. What they are presenting is dominant blackness and submissive whiteness, and exploiting not only racial stereotypes but also gender in a manner which, as a woman, I actually find quite offensive.

However, the subliminal message is an offensive one, and it is meant to be. Why else are they so reluctant to present mixed race couples as anything other than a black male and a white female if they do not view it in terms of invasion and possession, which, as we know, they only approve of when it is blacks doing it to whites.

Make no mistake the promotion of interacial sex is an act of aggression, and is used as such by our media in the ongoing propaganda war against the integrity of our nation and our future as a race.

Lies, damn lies and statistics

If you were to ask a random selection of people in Britain, especially the young or those in the white community who do not live in heavily mixed race areas, which racial groups were the most likely to be the victims of racially motivated crime, in all likelihood the majority would suggest that most victims came from the black or perhaps Asian communities. Very few would guess that most victims came from amongst the indigenous white community.

Indeed, why would they? The media and any number of pressure groups regale us with images and editorials featuring large numbers of ethnic minority victims cowering before gangs of violent, racist, white thugs.

Furthermore, it is not just the media who present this image, it is the official image as presented by our elected government, and has been for at least the last decade and more. Back in 1999, the Home office published official statistics on race crime and stated categorically that “The highest risk was for Pakistani and Bangladeshi people at 4.2 per cent, followed by 3.6 per cent for Indian people and 2.2 per cent for Black people. This compared with 0.3 per cent for White people.”

Well that is what HM Government tells us, so it seems open and shut then .... or does it?

Those percentages are clearly not based on the total number of race crime victims, because, if that was the case, and they only amount to 10.3%, what groups make up the other 89.7%, Mexicans, Eskimos, the poor battered Fijians?

Oh no, these are not percentages based on the total numbers of race crime victims, they are percentages based on the number of each ethnic group who are the victims of hate crimes.

Clearly this is totally misleading, because calculated in this way, if there were only two Mongolians living in Britain, and one of them was the victim of a hate crime, Mongolians would immediately become the highest risk group, because a “staggering” 50% of them had fallen victim to hate crimes.

There can only be one explanation as to why the figures are presented in this bizarre and misleading manner, and that is that they are attempting to hide the truth. The manner in which the percentages are presented are meaningless because they ignore the vast differences in the sizes of various ethnic groups in Britain and how many people the various percentages represent.

According to the 2001 census whites made up almost 91% of the population, a total of approximately 53,462,666 of whom, according to the Home Office figures 0.3% were the victims of hate crimes (assuming the percentages had not changed in the two years since 1999) 0.3% may seem small, but it is actually 160,387 people (you do the maths)

As for Indians they were 1.8% of the population, totalling about 1,053,411 of which 3.6% were victims which amounts to 37,922

The Pakistani / Bangladeshi population was also around 1.8% or 1,030,348 people of which 4.2% or 43,274 people were race crime victims.

The total black population in 2001 was 2% of the total 1,148,738 of which 2.2% is 25,276 race crime victims.

According to my maths that makes the total 106,445 non-white victims which is 53,942 less than the total number of white victims of race crime.

That is to say that, according to the Home Office's own figures, in 1999 whites were over 90% of the population and yet they made up about 60% of the victims, put the other way round non-whites amounted to less than 10% of the population but were committing 60% of the race crimes (probably considerably more given the number of race crimes involving two different ethnic minorities and no whites.)

A survey of 2002 - 2003 racially motivated crimes, published in 2005, is less specific about white victims (I wonder why) and only refers to whites as being "less than 1%" of victims' to me that suggests that the numbers of white victims may have increased significantly from the 0.3% in 1999, (if the 2003 figure was less than 0.5% or still 0.3% they would certainly say so!!) - the figures for every other ethnic group apart from mixed race - a tiny group statistically - have fallen.

The discrepancy may be even greater given the levels of immigration over the last five years.

What makes these figures even more astounding is the hoops which white victims of black or Asian violence have to jump through (or what horrors they have to suffer ) in order to have the attacks on them treated as racist, whereas an ethnic minority victim only needs to have been attacked by a white person to be treated as the victim of a race crime.

There are various anecdotal accounts of police discouraging white victims from claiming the assaults on them were hate crimes, and there are certainly many cases where the lack of hate crime charges is hard too understand, for instance the hammer attack on Henry Webster or the murder of Christopher Yates in the latter case, can any one imagine a situation where an Asian man was kicked to death by a gang of whites, one of whom had shouted "We have killed the Asian. That will teach Paki to interfere in white business." and not have to face hate crimes charges because they had duffed up a white man, or indeed a white man and a black man, earlier that day?. No neither can I but that was the logic which applied in that trial.

Nick Griffin and the BNP have produced an excellent expose of the horrifying but hidden levels of anti white racial violence in Britain I hope that all of us make huge efforts to publish this as widely as possible, because the truth has been suppressed for far too long.

The Lost Boys

In his latest election broadcast earlier this week, Liberal Democrat London mayoral candidate Brian Paddick joined a long line of politicians and dug up the 15 year old corpse of Stephen Lawrence to use as a totem to support his political ambitions. By doing so, Paddick has succeeded in winning the rather dubious endorsement of Lawrence's “best friend" Duwayne Brooks who was showering Brian with praise in Wednesday's Evening Standard. This, following Stephen's mother Doreen Laurence's recent intervention on behalf of her old chum Ken Livingstone was evidence enough, if such were needed, that the Lawrence industry still retains significant grip on the balls of British politics.

Whilst watching the pantomime, I was reminded of another lost boy, but one who's name seldom if ever crosses the lips of and mainstream politician or Media pundit. A boy with a shy, but compelling, smile a loving family, and a life time of possibilities ahead of him, and one who, unlike Stephen Lawrence, has been proven by a court of law, to have been the actual victim of a brutal racially motivated murder.

The boy I was reminded of was one whom the media would prefer we did not mention, who's family do not have our nations leaders' private numbers on speed-dial, and who's tragic loss, although an embarrassment to those who wish to form our opinions, far more accurately sums up the truth about racial violence in this country, than does much exploited death of Stephen Lawrence.

That boy is Kriss Donald

Kriss Donald died on a cold March day in 2004, on a patch of waste ground, near a walkway, behind Celtic Supporters club in the Pollockshields area of Glasgow, and his last hours on this earth were not kind ones.

As was later described in court, this defenceless, slightly built, 15 year old schoolboy experienced extreme terror and pain, before his young life was snuffed out by the violent men who had randomly selected him the victim of their ugly racial hatred.

It was Kriss' fatal bad luck that he innocently crossed the path of racially motivated Asian killers Daanish Zahid, Imran Shahid, Zeeshan Shahid, Mohammed Mustaq, and their accomplice Zahid Mohammed (who later told the court that, seeing revenge for some earlier slight by a white person, the gang of thugs drove around the area looking for anyone young and white in order to "chop them up and take their eyes out and stab them"). Kriss was out walking with his friend Jamie Wallace, when a group of Asians leapt out of a Mercedes, attacked them both, dragged Kris into the car, and drove off. As Jamie escaped, he heard one the kidnappers say. "You'll be next".

As being driven away, Kriss, who was a mere child, was heard to call out “what have I done? I'm only 15!” and we can only imagine the terror that 15 year old youngster experienced whilst held captive, and presumably threatened and abused, over the following hours while he was taken on a 200 mile journey before being brought back to Glasgow. When his assailants were unable to find a suitable house to take him to, they pulled up on waste land where they would take his life. Dragging their slight and terrified prey put of the car, Kriss's killers beat him, causing internal injuries, before holding him over a log and stabbing him 13 times, dousing him with petrol, and then whilst he was still alive set him alight before leaving him to burn to death.

Kriss died a terrible death, apart from the internal injuries and stab wounds, his young body suffered 70% burns, and for no reason other than because he was white. It has been established beyond question that Kriss was an entirely innocent victim, chosen randomly because of the colour of his skin.

The racial motive was made quite clear in
when Advocate deputy, Mark Stewart, asked Mohammed, if it was it an Asian boy, a Chinese boy, a black boy they sought? Mohammed replied "A white boy".

Kriss Donald's death must rank as one of the most brutal in recent years, albeit certainly not the only one of its type . However, one other thing which makes Kriss's murder stand out is the muted and begrudging reaction it caused amongst the media and politicians. If we feel contempt and revulsion for Kriss's killers, what should we feel for elected politicians such as Gordon Jackson, the Member of the Scottish Parliament with responsibility for the area where Kriss was killed if he, as is alleged, sought to belittle the seriousness of the event by commenting that young men got into "bother" from time to time in every city.

The media is no different in it's indifference to white male victims, it has been mentioned before, but if you go to the BBC news web site and put the name of Kriss Donald, the victim of one of the most brutal, and sadistic race hate crimes to have occurred in Britain in recent decades, into the search engine, you will get a total of 4 results, put in the name of Stephen Lawrence, and you will get 122.

So silent has the media been about the killing of Kris Donald, that in all likelihood were you to ask ten randomly chosen members of the public who he was, you would be lucky if one out of the ten had ever heard of him. Yet ask the same ten who the most famous victim of racial violence in the UK, and almost certainly they will all say Stephen Lawrence.

However, let us be clear, apart from a coroner's jury, no court of law has ever found that Stephen Lawrence was killed by racially motivated whites. That Lawrence was the victim of a racist murder is mainly the verdict of the media, a bunch of politicians and the usual suspects in the race industry. They may claim it is true, because they say it is, but that is not the way justice works in this, or any other civilised country. Under British justice a person remains innocent until proven guilty, whatever Billy Bragg, Ken Livingstone or the editor of the Daily mail may think.

The verdict of an inquest jury is compelling, but, in law, it does not constitute a finding of guilt, and in the knowledge that their verdict will not convict, inquest juries have been known to arrive at some unusual and crowd pleasing decisions.

Likewise a newspaper headlines declaring “Murderers” may be dramatic, but they prove only that the Daily Mail wants to sell more copies. The Mail was particularly dishonest when they published the suspect photos under the headline, “Murderers” followed by the line “sue us if we are wrong”, given that even the most innocent would need at least a £million in the bank before they could even to think about suing a newspaper.

I hold no brief for the five men accused of murdering Stephen Lawrence, they may well be guilty, and they certainly do not seem very pleasant people. However, under British law being unpleasant is not evidence of guilt. Various trials and a private prosecution have failed to achieve a conviction and, even though the government gone so far as to abandon the double jeopardy protection we have had since Magna Carter (almost certainly with this case in mind) the verdict of racially motivated homicide remains nothing more that an allegation.

This is not so, in the case of Kriss Donald where that verdict of racially aggrivated murder was proven beyond reasonable doubt. Yet it is the alleged crime, not the proven one which is used to define racial violence in this country. Why could this be?. Let us consider the possibilities:

Cases often gain more notoriety because of the brutality involved, however, in this again the Lawrence murder does not even compare to the Donald killing in terms of the savagery involved. All accounts of the attack on Stephen Lawrence describe a swift and sudden attack, involving two fatal stab wounds, which was over very quickly. All three witnesses at the bus stop at the time of the alleged attack said in statements that it was sudden and short; none was later able to identify any of the suspects.

All murders are awful acts of barbarity, and nobody deserves to die, however, in terms of the cruelty of the act, Stephen's murder was over in moments, whilst Kriss's killing dragged on over hours and involved horrific suffering and torture.

Yet it is Stephen, not Kriss who is granted premier victim status, it is Stephen's family who receive the honours it is to Stephen for whom the shrines are built and it is the memory of Stephen Lawrence our cynical politicians evoke when they want to become elected.

The Murder of Stephen Lawrence resulted in national soul searching, countless enquiries and reports, not to mentions allegations of so called institutional racism (a condition probably best defined as being slightly more suspicious of black people because of their disproportionate involvement in crime) and the expenditure of many £millions of public money.

Meanwhile the name of Kriss Donald fades from the public conciousness.

Some might try to argue that it is the unsolved nature of the Lawrence case and indeed the acquittals which makes it a cause célèbre, but that can not stand up to scrutiny, given the number of other unsolved inter-racial murders there have been, or those with unexpected acquittals, such as in the case of 19 year old Terry Gregory who was murdered in Woolwich in 2003, for the crime of picking up a brolly, full details of which can be read, together very detailed accounts of race crime and race criminals in Britain over the last few decades on the excellent I am an Englishman blog.

No, Stephen Lawrence did not become the most famous British murder victim since Earl Mountbatten merely because his murder is unsolved, and politicians do not worship the shrine of St Stephen or grovel at the feet of the blessed Doreen because the cases against those accused of killing her son kept collapsing

The Lawrence case became the phenomenon it did for no other reason than the fact that he fitted the requisite profile of a politically correct race crime victim and his alleged killers were the media's wet dream stereotype white racist thugs. To put it another way, those accused of killing Lawrence are “Perfect offenders” ,to quote African American Duke University professor Wahneema Lubiano in relation to the wrongly charged, and very white, defendants in the Duke lacrosse false rape case which got PC America's knickers in such a twist in 2006 until they were exonerated the following year.

There are marked similarities between the way the UK media use the Stephen Lawrence case and the US media tried to use the Duke lacrosse case, until that pesky little word “innocent” spoilt all their fun, and the truth had nothing to do with it.

The murder of Kriss Donald on the other hand reveals a truth which those who shout most loudly about racial violence do not wish to admit, hence it is a case they try to hide and hope we will forget.

The truth which innocent young Kriss's murder exposes is the all too often the victims of race hate crimes are the young white males whom it is so fashionable to portray as villainous racists whilst the main perpetrators are those whom the community cohesion monitors would have us believe are the eternal victims.

It was not white Englishmen who tore a frightened 15 year old child from his friends and his loving family, it was Asian immigrants who did that and who put him through hours of terror and inflicted tortures on his young body which we can only start to imagine. To satisfy their hatred, his future was stolen, Kriss will never become a lover, a husband, a father, a grandfather or anything else that shyly handsome innocent young boy ever dreamed of or hoped to be, and they did it to him for no other reason than that he was white.

We must not allow the lies of political correctness to hide that truth, or as importantly, ever cause us ever to forget Kriss Donald.
Hat Tip: I am an Englishman