Saturday, April 19, 2008

A Sorrow and a Pity

"Lord, have mercy on my son: for he is lunatick, and sore vexed: for ofttimes he falleth into the fire, and oft into the water."

Matthew 17:15, King James Bible

Today we call such sons epileptic. We do not kill them for epilepsy. We don't kill people for "being" anything.

Robert Spencer at Dhimmi Watch posts this today from Gateway Punidt:
In reality, 2007 was one of the hardest years for Iranian homosexuals. According to Amnesty ‎International, Iran had the highest number of execution of homosexuals in that year. Several ‎cases of executions of homosexuals were cited in cities such as Shiraz, Esfahan, Tehran, Rasht, ‎Ahwaz, Tabriz, Kermanshah and Mashhad. ‎

At Columbia University last year, Iran's Thug-In-Chief said there were no homosexuals in Iran. This would explain why.

Yeah? Well what about John Hagee? He says all kinds of nasty things about homosexuals and Catholics.

Uh huh. And the point is?

Moderate Muslims Go Home

David S. Margoliouth wrote in 1911 that "A German scholar who had the unlucky idea of demonstrating before an Algerian audience that the Koran was in vulgar Arabic was near causing a tumult."1.

Gotta love those English, huh? The German was speaking to an audience of Muslim intellectuals, and they wanted to kill the guy for him stating that the Koran is in a vulgar dialect of Arabic, itself a vulgar language:

3. Spoken by or expressed in language spoken by the common people; vernacular: the technical and vulgar names for an animal species.
4. Of or associated with the great masses of people; common.

But now, nearly a hundred years on, how things have changed.

Councillor shuts down committee for ex-Muslims

Politician Ehsan Jami says people are scared to join the organisation because of threats from Muslims.

17 April 2008

THE NETHERLANDS - Dutch politician Ehsan Jami is closing down his Central Committee for Ex-Muslims. He claims people are scared to join the organisation because of threats from Muslims.

Jami sits on the municipal council in Voorburg, formerly for the Labour Party, now as an independent. He presented plans for a committee for former Muslims last year. He was subsequently assaulted in the street and was provided with police protection.

Jami was planning to make a cartoon animation on the Prophet Muhammad, which was to feature explicit sexual scenes, but recently agreed to give up the idea in response to an appeal from Justice Minister Ernst Hirsch Ballin.

Jami is currently holding discussions with a political party on the possibility of his standing for a seat in parliament in the next election. However, he is not prepared to reveal which political party is involved.

One of the 19th century's weirder travel writers, Charles Montagu Doughty (1843 – 1926), known for his nearly unreadable Travels in Arabia Deserta, (1888) wandered more or less aimlessly around Arabia for a couple of years, managing to get himself beaten up and threatened with death on a regular basis because he was not a Muslim and wouldn't openly convert to satisfy the natives, a story well-described in Andrew Taylor's God's Fugitive: The Life of Charles Montagu Doughty.

So, one can be a myopic intellectual who unknowingly offends to the point of nearly being killed by a mob of Muslims, or one can be a knowing apostate Muslim in Europe who brings down the wrath of Muslim savages in Europe, or one can be a buffoon who pisses off Muslims to the point they simply attack and beat and rob and humiliate one. Yes, there is Pym Fortyun, killed by a Muslim sympathizer, or Theo van Gogh murdered by a Muslim, or any number of Muslims murdered in Europe and the West generally by other Muslims for not being Muslim enough or Muslim of a different sort. Regardless, I'm seeing a pattern here. Like
the Dutch politician Ehsan Jami, I see that former Muslim are afraid to join an apostates' organization because of threats from Muslims. What I don't see is any way of Islam changing from being a triumphalist poligion into anything other while remaining Islam. If Islam is a fanatic's "seventh century tribal code enflamed by ethnicity," as E.O. Wilson writes of it, who am I to suggest that what it is and has always been should suddenly change into anything else? What right does any so-called moderate have to challenge centuries of tradition and canon? Islam is what Islam is. It might move around a bit within the confines of its nature but if it moves too far it's no longer Islam, and folks should have some right to maintain a thing as it is if it's what they want. Obviously, Muslims want Islam to be what it's always been: a nasty and violent totalitarianism. Who am I to argue? Who am I to judge?

1. David S. Margoliouth, Mohammedanism. London: Thorrnton Butterworth; 1911; rpt. 1928; p. 243.

Friday, April 18, 2008

Scottish Warman Loses Nazi Hunt

Britain's Richard Warman must be kicking the walls over losing this one. Imagine a Nazi like this getting away with a brutal racist assault on a girl of color, a boy walking away laughing, and this version of a warman not making a damned penny from it. Well, dear reader, feel no pity, for this warman might well sue you instead. Someone must pay, and everyone is guilty, so it might be you, hand in pocket. Thank God for the warmans going after these Nazi racists.

How can my son be racist, asks mother of Down's boy charged after playground spat with Asian girl

By NATASHA COURTENAY-SMITH - More by this author » Last updated at 23:33pm on 17th April 2008

Until recently, Fiona Bauld thought her 18-year-old son Jamie had not fully grasped the gravity of the situation he found himself in.

It brought her solace that her child, who has Down's syndrome and the mental age of a five-year-old, hadn't fully comprehended the charges of racism and assault against him, let alone begun to contemplate the consequences.


The events which have brought her such anguish in recent months begun with what was effectively a playground spat between two individuals with special needs.

It soon escalated into a seven-month criminal investigation that could have resulted in Fiona's son being hauled before a court and left with a criminal record.

Last September, Jamie - who is 18 but cannot even tie his own shoelaces, needs help on the lavatory, mustn't be left alone in the house and still relies on his mother to tuck him up in bed at night - had an altercation with an Asian girl of a similar age, also a pupil at the special needs department of Motherwell College in Lanarkshire, where Jamie is a student.

Put quite simply - girl irritated boy, boy pushed girl and told her to go away. Then, girl responded by telling her teacher.

The two were sent their separate ways and their parents informed about the falling out.

Given their mental ages, it was no more significant than a playground spat between two five-year-olds. That should have been the end of it.

Instead, a notice was placed in the local newspaper - it is not known by whom - asking for witnesses to a "racial assault" at the college on the day in question.

Whether this notice led to the police investigation, or whether the family of the girl contacted them directly is still not clear. Either way, just over a week later, Jamie was charged with racism and assault.

It was an insane example of overzealous political correctness; a local zero-tolerance policy on racism taken to its extremes without any common sense being applied, let alone consideration for the unusual circumstances of the individuals involved.

After months of stress and fear, the Baulds' ordeal came to an end yesterday when, in a remarkable climbdown, the Crown Office issued a formal apology to the family for any distress caused over the past seven months.

All charges have now been dropped, but this, says Fiona, is not enough.

Not only have they encountered confusion, red tape and a lack of compassion in their dealings with the Scottish legal system, they are left fearing that Jamie will forever have a blot on his reputation as a result of being charged at all.

"Our family has been put through a terrible ordeal over nothing," says Fiona. "It is utterly ridiculous that the authorities brought adult charges against our son, who was not only innocent, but clearly unable to comprehend why he was in trouble.

"For instance, when the police arrived to interview Jamie, he welcomed them with a big smile and a handshake. As they read him his rights, he said thank you for coming to see him, and agreed with everything they said."

Those with Down's syndrome often agree with whatever they are told simply to please other people.

Fiona continues: "I said: 'Do you realise he doesn't understand what you are saying?' while the police officers shifted uncomfortably and admitted they had no training in dealing with anyone with special needs.

"But the official process had by then swung into action. From that point on, it seemed there was nothing my husband or I could do to halt it."


"Jamie has got through school, and is now doing a life skills course at Motherwell College, which makes me burst with pride," she says. "He has friends, he's sociable and chatty.

"He's a very loving, kind person. He dotes on his sister, and if she is out, he refuses to go to bed until she gets in."


"Before this incident at college, Jamie had told us on a couple of occasions that this girl kept following him, staring at him and putting her face really close to his without saying anything," says Fiona.

"We told him just to ignore her, and she'd soon get bored.

"Then, on September 4, we got a call from the college saying they'd had a falling out and Jamie had hit her. I talked to him, and he was adamant he hadn't hit her, but had pushed her away when he was eating lunch.


The family went away on holiday, putting the incident behind them. But on their return, they were notified by the college that the girl's family had contacted the police, who had taken it upon themselves to question other students and staff at the college.

They now wanted to talk to Jamie about allegations of racism and assault.


However, the police interview a few days later, Jamie was charged with racism and assault.

"I was panicking and saying it was crazy, that Jamie doesn't even understand things like upstairs and downstairs, whether a door is open or shut, but Jamie stood up, shook their hands and said: 'Thanks very much'," says Fiona.


The officers, says Fiona, were pleasant enough and advised the family "the case probably wouldn't come to anything".

They said they would explain to the Procurator Fiscal (a public officer in Scotland who prosecutes in petty cases) that Jamie had Down's syndrome.

They revealed that the girl had also admitted to scratching her own face - either to her family or to police officers.

But shortly after the visit, a letter arrived from the Procurator Fiscal saying the authorities had enough evidence to charge Jamie.

That was when all hell broke loose for us as a family," says Fiona. "I read the letter with shaking hands, and I was crying my eyes out. I phoned the Procurator's office five times and asked if they knew Jamie had Down's syndrome, but no one would talk about the case with me.

"I went to the police, and no one there seemed to know what was going on. I would have been able laugh at the total chaos and incompetence were it not for the fact that I knew that, at 18, Jamie is technically an adult.

"I was genuinely terrified that he would end up in the dock on trial for something he didn't do."

During December, Fiona asked the family lawyer to write to the Procurator Fiscal's office explaining the situation. They did not receive a reply.


It was only a fortnight ago - seven-and-a-half months after the initial incident - that the family received a brief letter from the Procurator Fiscal saying he would not be proceeding with the prosecution. There was no apology.


"Jamie has said he's happy it's all over, and he is back to being his usual sunny self," says Fiona.

From Jihad Watch.

People have no say in the E.U. but Britain's parliament is still a more or less electoral system. The question is whether the political parties will buy block votes to subvert the will of the people till there is no hope of democracy from parliament anymore. Or if there is a democracy, maybe it'll be lead by the BNP. Wonderful.

Till such time as times change, we can count on the warmans to git them Nazis. Ye-ah, git 'em, Warman. Git 'em. Git them Nazis.

Sharia yes; Jerusalem, no.

Those looking at the banner at No Dhimmitude will see I like William Blake, as an illustrator and also as a poet. Many do. But that don't much matter in this day and age in Britain. Blake is too nationalistic and he discriminates against city dwellers. Enough of him, then. Ban the bastard from church.

By Hannah Strange

It is one of the nation's best loved hymns and a favourite of Gordon Brown's. But William Blake's "Jerusalem" will no longer ring from the spires of Southwark Cathedral after it was banned by the church's dean on the grounds that it was unchristian and too nationalistic.

Regarded by many as a paean to Englishness, it has over the centuries become an unofficial national anthem, sung at the last night of the Proms and by England rugby and cricket fans. It is such a favourite of the Women's Institute that a recent BBC drama based on the group was titled "Jam and Jerusalem."

But the Very Reverend Colin Slee believes it is not "to the glory of God" and as such should not be sung by choirs or congregations at the South Bank cathedral, one of Britain's foremost churches.


"The Dean of Southwark does not believe that it is to the glory of God and it is not therefore used in private memorial services."

The words of the hymn are a poem by William Blake, which starts: "And did those feet in ancient time/ Walk upon England's mountains green?"

The verses, written in 1804 as a preface to Blake's epic poem "Milton", are said to be based on a legend that Jesus Christ came to England as a young boy and visited the Somerset town of Glastonbury. It is linked to a section in the Book of Revelation describing a Second Coming in which Jesus establishes a new Jerusalem.

The idea of Jerusalem is often used as a metaphor for Heaven by the Christian Church, particularly the Church of England. Though interpretations of the poem differ, it is often seen as suggesting that Jesus briefly created heaven in England and that we should strive to re-establish this once more. The reference to "dark Satanic mills" is usually thought to allude to the early industrial revolution and the damage it wreaked on nature and the poorest sections of society.

The words were set to music by Sir Hubert Parry in 1916, as an anthem for the suffragettes' movement.

It is not the first time the hymn has been deemed unchristian by the clergy.

In 2001 it was banned from a Manchester wedding ceremony because the vicar thought it overly nationalistic and inappropriate to the occasion.

Meanwhile the parish church of Parliament, St Margaret's in Westminster, has excluded it from services in the past on the grounds that the "dark satanic mills" discriminated against city-dwellers.

For much of the 1990s it was banned by St Paul's Cathedral but the church has now relented.


I think this would be a directive from the same Church of England that recently announced the inevitaility of sharia in Britain and the need for British accommodation with it. Fine that, but none of that Blake.

For Blake's oem and a lovely backdrop by Bruegel, click HERE.

Thursday, April 17, 2008

Rattle and Chain: Night of the Death Hippies

I picked this up from Terry Glavin:

On Wednesday, April 16, Canada-Afghanistan Solidarity Committee co-founder Lauryn Oates will be debating co-chair Derrick O'Keefe. The proposition: "THE CANADIAN MILITARY SHOULD LEAVE AFGHANISTAN AT ONCE".

This debate is part of the Langara Dialogues series, held at the Vancouver Public Library's central branch.

I came, I saw, I conked out. I left the Vancouver Public Library debate this evening after ninety minutes of what moderator David Berner called "a muscular debate," on 'The presence of Canadian armed forces in Afghanistan: Should they stay or should they go?' and I found myself thinking of the political theorist so popular in the 1960s, C. Joseph McDonald, well-know author of thesis and synthesis on war and conflict in Southeast Asia. McDonald wrote, if I recall it properly; "One, two, three, four; what the hell are we fighting for? Five, six, seven, eight; open up the Pearly Gate. Who pee we are all going to die." It was a profound experience I can tell you.

One of Canada's leading intellectuals, Derrik O'Keefe, of Stop War, spoke in favor of Canadian troops leaving Afghanistan immediately or so. He was really really convincing. He said, for example, that the whole imperialist venture is because the Americans, (meaning Bush and his cabal of neo-cons,) are really really greedy and they want to capture Afghanistan so they can control a copper mine. They tried to get it but the Chinese got it instead so it's OK. Americans are bad because they bomb villagers and kill really big numbers of innocent civilians and stuff and the people don't like it and Canada should stop listening to Steven Harper who only does things because Bush tells him to and that's because of the neo-cons. They are bad. And torture? Americans do that to nice people who don't deserve it because they are nice. It's imperialism because some corporations are pulling the strings that-- I don't know-- maybe rip out the fingernails of babies or something, just like typical American war-mongrels do.

War is bad. One might say war is poopy.

We should get out of Afghanistan because America made the Taliban up and now it supports war-lords who sell lots of opium that causes medical problems for the socially marginalized on the streets of Vancouver who don't have homes though they have a right to them and more buses at night too.

Well, I'm bored to tears. I suffered through 90 minutes of puerile nonsense that was supposed to pass as -- What? Wind? I have no idea. Like most of these events, the level of debate was on a level with a Ralph Bakshi cartoon but not as entertaining.

Yes, Ralph Bakshi came to mind as I took mental notes on how to be cool like the award- winning journalist who tried to come across like Dan Brown, author of the DaVinci Code. I'm never going to be cool like him. I must seek counselling, consulting, or consoling or constellations or something. I think I'm hopeless. When I say "Imperialism," I laugh. This evening someone said: "It's an old fashioned word but..." I Am Not Cool. Not fashionable. Why do I even bother to live?

If you missed this important event, well, I ne'vah! Shame on you!

This is an indication of what you missed when you went to the hockey game:

"Whichever way you look at it, nothing changes the fact that between now and 2011, Canadians will be maimed and killed in Afghanistan because the Liberal Party of Canada does not think this is an opportune moment for a federal election and the Conservative Party of Canada insisted on this being a confidence motion. Canadians and Afghanis will die because of partisan politics in Canada. It is tragically shameful."

Now, am I the heartless prick who wrote recently that something or other is shamefully twagic? Hmm. I think maybe yes. Did I have occasion to pick on some pretend-concern about The people! from a Death Hippie? I think again maybe yes. I think I didn't have much sympathy for whoever it was who used the lives of people he doesn't know to make some cheap political statement about something that his pre-fab ideology finds for him offensive. I think maybe yes I get pissed right off when people in the West use peasants in far-off and unknown places as tragically shameful victims who aren't accorded status as or understood as real people. I think really maybe yes I get disgusted by poseurs who show off by talking about how upset they are about "suffering" and the evils of capitalism. I think they make me puke. I think if spoiled fat kids in the West want to promote "social justice" they should find some dark place and go fuck themselves.Cause, cause, cause? Cause there are real people suffering from real injustice that has not a thing to do with fat kids in the West emoting in public.

My vote for the evening's best line goes to Canada-Afghanistan Solidarity Committee co-founder Lauryn Oates who spoke on behalf of charity workers in Afghanistan, of which she is one and has been for 12 years, taking some genuine courage, and more. She condemned the "concerned" as having a morality of the "Do these jeans make my ass look fat?" type.

That was excellent. Even better was the kid who asked if I'm Terry Glavin. I confessed that I am indeed, and that my car had been towed and I needed $20.00 to get to the airport, and if he'd lend it to me he could go to the office tomorrow and the receptionist would pay him back -- and a bit extra for his trouble. GEE zuz. I thought if people are gullible enough to take in Derek's spiel I could get a quick twenty off the kid. Money is worth more than ideas, it seems clear now.

Yeah, actually, there is a real world. It affects real people. Even those in Afghanistan. It's a real nasty world that takes some real nasty bastards to keep it from going to the dogs in-all. And when the good guys walk away, who walks in? George Bush and the neo-cons are bad? Nope-pers; that'd be me, among others. Bush and the neo-cons are bending over back-asswards to be so nice to the Afghanis in power that this is what "imperialism" brings to the Afghan people:

KABUL (AFP) - An Afghan legislative committee has drafted a bill seeking to introduce Taliban-style Islamic morality codes banning women from wearing make-up in public and forbidding young boys from wearing female fashions.
The draft, a copy of which was obtained by AFP, needs approval by both chambers of the Islamist-dominated parliament and President Hamid Karzai signature to become a law.
"Women and girls are obliged to not wear make-up, wear suitable dresses and observe hijab (veil) while at work or classrooms," said one article of the draft.
It also aims to ban women dancers performing during concerts and other public events as well as on television.
"The mass media including television and cable networks must avoid broadcasting programmes against Islamic morals," it said without giving details.
In a similar move the parliament, which is dominated by former anti-Soviet Islamist warlords, called earlier this month for a ban on dancing and Indian soap dramas on private television networks.
Men and young boys must avoid wearing bracelets, necklaces, "feminist dresses," and hair-bands, the draft reads.
The proposals also demand an end to dog and bird-fighting, pigeon-flying, billiards and video games, all past times favoured by many Afghans.
It demands separate halls for men and women during wedding parties, while loud music is banned at such gatherings. Afghans hold big and costly get-togethers for weddings, usually in a public hall with music.
If the proposals are passed, violators could be fined 500 Afghanis (10 dollars) to 5,000, according to the draft.
The plans mirror many of the laws introduced by the extremist Taliban regime, which ruled the country from 1996 to 2001 with strict Islamic Sharia law.
From Dhimmi Watch: Agence France-Presse

What we have here is a failure to communicate. We have in a formerly hostile sharia state-- a currently hostile sharia state. Bush and the neo-cons and such are so afraid of upsetting the Muslim world that they allow and even pay for more sharia. Courageous and dedicated people like Lauryn Oates will spend 12 years in Afghanistan or even 120 years and not make a bit of good difference so long as there is no force to affect good change. All the well-intentioned school teachers on Earth can camp out in Afghanistan with freezing peasants while U.N bureaucrats whinge and dine in five star hotels in Kabul, and it will do not a speck of good. School teachers without guns to back up themselves and to save their students from the culture of violence and sharia might as well go to Bahamas' Club Med and have a good time.

So, at the end of this you find me, dear reader, siding with the Death Hippies, in this case. If we invaded a sharia state to reimpose a sharia state we should pack it in and let the real work of real revolutionaries reign. Copper mines in Afghanistan? Give me a break. They have lapis lazuli. That's worth some bucks, and some daring. But you can't mine it in a war zone. That war has to stop. And you can't mine it in a sharia state. That has to stop too.

So, what do you do? Sigh-igh. Death Hippies clappering at the library. All them, rattle and chain.

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Enoch Powell, "Rivers of Blood"

Like the fool I often am, I listened to the opinions of others rather than finding out for myself and asking of my own considered opinion based on my own life, this or that. I didn't until too long sit down and read Hegel. I brushed off Feuerbach. I dismissed with contempt G.K. Chesterton. I despised the hateful Enoch Powell. Often I am a fool. I find that is often truest when I rely on the opinions of others to make my own. Today I read and read about Enoch Powell.

Powell would appreciate this quotation very much, and it's certain he knew it well:

Chorus: "Gods of our City, let it not be destroyed with our houses and our hearths.... O ye who have dwelt therein so long, will ye betray this land?"

Aeschylus, Seven against Thebes

Will we, from assumptions of the Good, foolishly destroy ourselves through moralistic hubris?

The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature. One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: at each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future.

Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: "If only," they love to think, "if only people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't happen." Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the thing, the name and the object, are identical.

At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after.

A week or two ago I fell into conversation with a constituent, a middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our nationalised industries. After a sentence or two about the weather, he suddenly said: "If I had the money to go, I wouldn't stay in this country." I made some deprecatory reply to the effect that even this government wouldn't last for ever; but he took no notice, and continued: "I have three children, all of them been through grammar school and two of them married now, with family. I shan't be satisfied till I have seen them all settled overseas. In this country in 15 or 20 years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man."

I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a horrible thing? How dare I stir up trouble and inflame feelings by repeating such a conversation?

The answer is that I do not have the right not to do so. Here is a decent, ordinary fellow Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town says to me, his Member of Parliament, that his country will not be worth living in for his children. I simply do not have the right to shrug my shoulders and think about something else. What he is saying, thousands and hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking - not throughout Great Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history.

In 15 or 20 years, on present trends, there will be in this country three and a half million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants. That is not my figure. That is the official figure given to parliament by the spokesman of the Registrar General's Office. There is no comparable official figure for the year 2000, but it must be in the region of five to seven million, approximately one-tenth of the whole population, and approaching that of Greater London. Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population.

As time goes on, the proportion of this total who are immigrant descendants, those born in England, who arrived here by exactly the same route as the rest of us, will rapidly increase. Already by 1985 the native-born would constitute the majority. It is this fact which creates the extreme urgency of action now, of just that kind of action which is hardest for politicians to take, action where the difficulties lie in the present but the evils to be prevented or minimised lie several parliaments ahead.

The natural and rational first question with a nation confronted by such a prospect is to ask: "How can its dimensions he reduced?" Granted it be not wholly preventable, can it be limited, bearing in mind that numbers are of the essence: the significance and consequences of an alien element introduced into a country or population are profoundly different according to whether that element is 1 per cent or 10 per cent. The answers to the simple and rational question are equally simple and rational: by stopping, or virtually stopping, further inflow, and by promoting the maximum outflow. Both answers are part of the official policy of the Conservative Party.

It almost passes belief that at this moment 20 or 30 additional immigrant children are arriving from overseas in Wolverhampton alone every week - and that means 15 or 20 additional families a decade or two hence. Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. So insane are we that we actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of founding a family with spouses and fianc├ęs whom they have never seen.

Let no one suppose that the flow of dependants will automatically tail off. On the contrary, even at the present admission rate of only 5,000 a year by voucher, there is sufficient for a further 25,000 dependants per annum ad infinitum, without taking into account the huge reservoir of existing relations in this country - and I am making no allowance at all for fraudulent entry. In these circumstances nothing will suffice but that the total inflow for settlement should be reduced at once to negligible proportions, and that the necessary legislative and administrative measures be taken without delay.

I stress the words "for settlement." This has nothing to do with the entry of Commonwealth citizens, any more than of aliens, into this country, for the purposes of study or of improving their qualifications, like (for instance) the Commonwealth doctors who, to the advantage of their own countries, have enabled our hospital service to be expanded faster than would otherwise have been possible. There are not, and never have been, immigrants.

I turn to re-emigration. If all immigration ended tomorrow, the rate of growth of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population would be substantially reduced, but the prospective size of this element in the population would still leave the basic character of the national danger unaffected. This can only be tackled while a considerable proportion of the total still comprises persons who entered this country during the last ten years or so.

Hence the urgency of implementing now the second element of the Conservative Party's policy: the encouragement of re-emigration. Nobody can make an estimate of the numbers which, with generous assistance, would choose either to return to their countries of origin or to go to other countries anxious to receive the manpower and the skills they represent. Nobody knows, because no such policy has yet been attempted. I can only say that, even at present, immigrants in my own constituency from time to time come to me, asking if I can find them assistance to return home. If such a policy were adopted and pursued with the determination which the gravity of the alternative justifies, the resultant outflow could appreciably alter the prospects.

The third element of the Conservative Party's policy is that all who are in this country as citizens should be equal before the law and that there shall be no discrimination or difference made between them by public authority. As Mr Heath has put it we will have no "first-class citizens" and "second-class citizens." This does not mean that the immigrant and his descendent should be elevated into a privileged or special class or that the citizen should be denied his right to discriminate in the management of his own affairs between one fellow-citizen and another or that he should be subjected to imposition as to his reasons and motive for behaving in one lawful manner rather than another.

There could be no grosser misconception of the realities than is entertained by those who vociferously demand legislation as they call it "against discrimination", whether they be leader-writers of the same kidney and sometimes on the same newspapers which year after year in the 1930s tried to blind this country to the rising peril which confronted it, or archbishops who live in palaces, faring delicately with the bedclothes pulled right up over their heads. They have got it exactly and diametrically wrong. The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and of resentment, lies not with the immigrant population but with those among whom they have come and are still coming. This is why to enact legislation of the kind before parliament at this moment is to risk throwing a match on to gunpowder. The kindest thing that can be said about those who propose and support it is that they know not what they do.

Nothing is more misleading than comparison between the Commonwealth immigrant in Britain and the American Negro. The Negro population of the United States, which was already in existence before the United States became a nation, started literally as slaves and were later given the franchise and other rights of citizenship, to the exercise of which they have only gradually and still incompletely come. The Commonwealth immigrant came to Britain as a full citizen, to a country which knew no discrimination between one citizen and another, and he entered instantly into the possession of the rights of every citizen, from the vote to free treatment under the National Health Service. Whatever drawbacks attended the immigrants arose not from the law or from public policy or from administration, but from those personal circumstances and accidents which cause, and always will cause, the fortunes and experience of one man to be different from another's.

But while, to the immigrant, entry to this country was admission to privileges and opportunities eagerly sought, the impact upon the existing population was very different. For reasons which they could not comprehend, and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country.

They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more voices which told them that they were now the unwanted. They now learn that a one-way privilege is to be established by act of parliament; a law which cannot, and is not intended to, operate to protect them or redress their grievances is to be enacted to give the stranger, the disgruntled and the agent-provocateur the power to pillory them for their private actions.

In the hundreds upon hundreds of letters I received when I last spoke on this subject two or three months ago, there was one striking feature which was largely new and which I find ominous. All Members of Parliament are used to the typical anonymous correspondent; but what surprised and alarmed me was the high proportion of ordinary, decent, sensible people, writing a rational and often well-educated letter, who believed that they had to omit their address because it was dangerous to have committed themselves to paper to a Member of Parliament agreeing with the views I had expressed, and that they would risk penalties or reprisals if they were known to have done so. The sense of being a persecuted minority which is growing among ordinary English people in the areas of the country which are affected is something that those without direct experience can hardly imagine. I am going to allow just one of those hundreds of people to speak for me:

'Eight years ago in a respectable street in Wolverhampton a house was sold to a Negro. Now only one white (a woman old-age pensioner) lives there. This is her story. She lost her husband and both her sons in the war. So she turned her seven-roomed house, her only asset, into a boarding house. She worked hard and did well, paid off her mortgage and began to put something by for her old age. Then the immigrants moved in. With growing fear, she saw one house after another taken over. The quiet street became a place of noise and confusion. Regretfully, her white tenants moved out.

'The day after the last one left, she was awakened at 7am by two Negroes who wanted to use her 'phone to contact their employer. When she refused, as she would have refused any stranger at such an hour, she was abused and feared she would have been attacked but for the chain on her door. Immigrant families have tried to rent rooms in her house, but she always refused. Her little store of money went, and after paying rates, she has less than £2 per week. She went to apply for a rate reduction and was seen by a young girl, who on hearing she had a seven-roomed house, suggested she should let part of it. When she said the only people she could get were Negroes, the girl said, "Racial prejudice won't get you anywhere in this country." So she went home.

'The telephone is her lifeline. Her family pay the bill, and help her out as best they can. Immigrants have offered to buy her house - at a price which the prospective landlord would be able to recover from his tenants in weeks, or at most a few months. She is becoming afraid to go out. Windows are broken. She finds excreta pushed through her letter box. When she goes to the shops, she is followed by children, charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies. They cannot speak English, but one word they know. "Racialist," they chant. When the new Race Relations Bill is passed, this woman is convinced she will go to prison. And is she so wrong? I begin to wonder.'

The other dangerous delusion from which those who are wilfully or otherwise blind to realities suffer, is summed up in the word "integration." To be integrated into a population means to become for all practical purposes indistinguishable from its other members. Now, at all times, where there are marked physical differences, especially of colour, integration is difficult though, over a period, not impossible. There are among the Commonwealth immigrants who have come to live here in the last fifteen years or so, many thousands whose wish and purpose is to be integrated and whose every thought and endeavour is bent in that direction. But to imagine that such a thing enters the heads of a great and growing majority of immigrants and their descendants is a ludicrous misconception, and a dangerous one.

We are on the verge here of a change. Hitherto it has been force of circumstance and of background which has rendered the very idea of integration inaccessible to the greater part of the immigrant population - that they never conceived or intended such a thing, and that their numbers and physical concentration meant the pressures towards integration which normally bear upon any small minority did not operate.

Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population. The cloud no bigger than a man's hand, that can so rapidly overcast the sky, has been visible recently in Wolverhampton and has shown signs of spreading quickly. The words I am about to use, verbatim as they appeared in the local press on 17 February, are not mine, but those of a Labour Member of Parliament who is a minister in the present government:

'The Sikh communities' campaign to maintain customs inappropriate in Britain is much to be regretted. Working in Britain, particularly in the public services, they should be prepared to accept the terms and conditions of their employment. To claim special communal rights (or should one say rites?) leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society. This communalism is a canker; whether practised by one colour or another it is to be strongly condemned.'

All credit to John Stonehouse for having had the insight to perceive that, and the courage to say it.

For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish. Here is the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organise to consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided. As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see "the River Tiber foaming with much blood."

That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century.

Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.

There are many among us who automatically accept the Good as what all around them accept as the Good. To my loss, I do the same as well. Not always, and not with any enthusiasm. Betrayal, of the people or of the man, doesn't excite me. Crying rivers of sentimental tears is a betrayal. Mercy has a better chance in the Hands of Truth.

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

He Ain't Heavy...

In 1924, the first editor of Kiwanis Magazine, Roe Fulkerson, published a column carrying the title "He Ain't Heavy, He's My Brother". Dated September 1924, the article speaks of Fulkerson's inspiring encounter with "a spindly and physically weak lad"carrying a baby and "staggering towards a neighboring park".

" 'Pretty big load for such a small kid' I said as I met him. 'Why, mister,' he smiled, 'He ain't heavy; he's my brother.' "'t_Heavy,_He's_My_Brother#Origin_of_the_song

[Video added, 17 Sept. 2010]

The road is long
With many a winding turn
That leads us to who knows where
Who knows where
But I'm strong
Strong enough to carry him
He ain't heavy, he's my brother
So on we go
His welfare is of my concern
No burden is he to bear
We'll get there
For I know
He would not encumber me
He ain't heavy, he's my brother
If I'm laden at all
I'm laden with sadness
That everyone's heart
Isn't filled with the gladness
Of love for one another
It's a long, long road
From which there is no return
While we're on the way to there
Why not share
And the load
Doesn't weigh me down at all
He ain't heavy he's my brother
He's my brother
He ain't heavy, he's my brother

Composed by Bobby Scott and Bob Russell.

Sunday, April 13, 2008

By the Light of the Falcate Moon

Dante: In the Inferno section of Dante's trilogy The Divine Comedy, Mohammed is described as being one of the "Sowers of Discord," showing his entrails to Dante and Virgil in the Eighth Circle of Hell: Inferno XXVIII, 19-42.

Consistent with medieval Christian thinking, in which the Muslim world was viewed as a hostile usurper, Dante depicts both Mohammed--the founder of Islam--and his cousin and son-in-law Ali as sowers of religious divisiveness. One popular view held that Mohammed had himself been a cardinal who, his papal ambitions thwarted, caused a great schism within Christianity when he and his followers splintered off into a new religious community. Dante creates a vicious composite portrait of the two holy men, with Mohammed's body split from groin to chin and Ali's face cleft from top to bottom (Inf. 28.22-33). .

Muhammad in Hell; Dante's Inferno Canto 28

A cask by losing centre-piece or cant
Was never shattered so, as I saw one
Rent from the chin to where one breaketh wind.

Between his legs were hanging down his entrails;
His heart was visible, and the dismal sack
That maketh excrement of what is eaten.

While I was all absorbed in seeing him,
He looked at me, and opened with his hands
His bosom, saying: "See now how I rend me;

How mutilated, see, is Mahomet;
In front of me doth Ali weeping go,
Cleft in the face from forelock unto chin;

And all the others whom thou here beholdest,
Disseminators of scandal and of schism
While living were, and therefore are cleft thus.

A devil is behind here, who doth cleave us
Thus cruelly, unto the falchion's edge
Putting again each one of all this ream,

When we have gone around the doleful road;
By reason that our wounds are closed again
Ere any one in front of him repass.

- Dante's Inferno, Canto 28

Blazing Cat Fur's Smokin' Blog

This is what you might think you get at Blazing Cat Fur:

It's not "right wing" - it's pro-war, pro-U.S., virulently Islamophobic, McCarthyite - and that's just after 3 minutes of reading the front page...

Phrillie, how did you happen on that blog? It is truly repulsive.

In my own defense, I was once given an award as the Internet's worst blog. But I admit, I cannot compete with this photo:

See above for the heart-rending story. Hey, do it while you can. The way the Left dhimmi fascists are performing here we might all end up in jail -- with no Internet. Yoiks!