Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Sandwell's Yvonne Davies and our Tribal Excitement!!!

'It is not only the parade which is the problem, but the tribal excitement it creates.'

Hello, all you naughty tribal types in Sandhill. At last, the long-awaited and deeply anticipated expose on the ever lovely Yvonne Davies. Ooh, I'm feeling tribal, I say!

Yvonne Davies' Sandwell Spankies: Come Ye Hither, Naughty-Boys.

Yvonne Davies, Sandwell City Councillor, has some strong words for you, naughty boy. And if you're one of those who likes to dress up in nappies and get your sagging bottom paddled, you might be in luck. In Sandwell, think a racist thought or exhibit a sign of tribal excitement, and, ooh-la-la, you might get swished in that special way. Naughty! you naughty, naughty thing, you.

Daniel Bates, "Axe falls on St George: Parade is halted after council says it attracts racist thugs," Daily Mail.co.uk. 12 Feb. 2009

In a letter to the organisers, one councillor, Yvonne Davies, ["My Politics: the Labour Party;

Working hard for the people of Sandwell;] said the [St. George's Day] parade created an 'unhealthy atmosphere' and inspired young boys to be racist.

She wrote: 'It is not only the parade which is the problem, but the tribal excitement it creates.'

Dare I say it? Yes, I must. I'm feeling "tribal" already.

Sandwell, in the news for it's daring attempt to bring not-naughty-behaviour to little boys no matter how old they might be.

One might cage the naughty, but the tribal excitement builds in the savage breast regardless.

Councillor Davies wrote in her letter: 'I am sure most are very respectful and law-abiding, however some are distasteful in the extreme and wish to divide and separate people from each other.'*

She said she had once been abused by youths who 'had been emboldened by the parade and thought racist chants were funny'.

'I have seen first hand how the parade (albeit unintentionally) creates an unhealthy atmosphere.'


Yes, dear reader, you have just read the immortal words of Yvonne Davies, Labour Party Councillor from Sandwell. " Working hard for the people of Sandwell."

Sandwell is a metropolitan borough of about 286,000 people in the heart of the post industrial West Midlands of England. The area is culturally rich with 1in 5 from an ethnic minority. It is one of the most materially deprived areas outside London with high long term unemployment and about 100,000 people live in households which receive income support. The problems faced by many of the poorest people in deprived areas of the UK have similar root causes and similar solutions to those faced by poor people and poor countries around the world.

Translation time for all you ignorant Yanks:

  • A metropolitan borough: A working-class backwater in the middle of nowhere.
  • Post industrial West Midlands of England: People had jobs there in the nineteenth century.
  • Culturally rich: Lots of immigrants.
  • 1 in 5 from an ethnic minority: Lots of Pakistani tribesmen who beat their wives.
  • One of the most materially deprived areas outside London: Think inner-city Detroit.
  • With high long term unemployment: Grandma on welfare takes care of grandkids on welfare.
  • 100,000 people [out of 285,000] live in households which receive income support: Just about anyone you meet there will be on welfare.
  • The problems faced by many of the poorest people in deprived areas of the UK have similar root causes and similar solutions to those faced by poor people and poor countries around the world: The socialist parties have turned large parts of Britain into the Third World.

Yvonne Davies, the head of Sandwell council’s anti-poverty and welfare rights unit says abject poverty is still faced by many inhabitants of Britain’s inner cities. Many do not receive their full benefits entitlement. Many are unable to afford every day health maintaining items such as transport, decent food, a warm coat for the winter, leisure, which are taken for granted by most of the health audience. The average gain possible for the Sandwell clients of the welfare rights service is £62 per week. Health services and local strategic partnerships in inner city areas need to promote specialist welfare rights to get people their entitlements to a healthy living income. PCTs need to make hard choices when considering investing in health visiting or health advisory services or in welfare rights advisers who could put money directly into people’s pockets- creating healthier and more independent citizens. An injection of cash is ‘better than penicillin.’


A Sunday-school teacher without a church. Boys who won't sing with the choir. A massively failed city with over one in three on welfare and demanding more cash. The locals get their parade rained on. Thanks, Yvonne. And thank you, too, Big Bill Thomas.

What a deal, though, for them that gots. Them that gots shall get, and them that ain't shall not. God bless the child that's go it own. Or, move to Sandwell and go on the dole. One can be sure that at least more than one in three will vote Labour in Sandwell. That doesn't include the folks like Yvonne Davies and big Bill Thomas who also collect the dole by working for the government. You can be sure that it'll stay that way. If it looks like the natives are restless, that they might vote non-Labour, then one can be sure Labour will import more voters from -- who cares where! It's called vote-buying. It's called gerrymandering.* For all the sanctimonious drivel from the likes of Yvonne Davies and Bill Thomas, it's corruption. If you're not on the dole there, the only reason for liking it is because you really get off on being spanked by a middle aged lady. Naughty you.

How many people are going to continue to put up with being scolded and spanked by not very attractive middle aged fat ladies? Lots, probably, particularly in Sandwell. But not all. And not forever. Even Leftist gerrymandering and the resultant probable defeat of the people's choice won't stop the surge to freedom among Europeans. Elections and seats will still come by ridings, balkanizing the nations, but also dividing them into armed camps of "Us and Them" by party and faction, clearing the way for those who live by rule of law and those who live by perfidy, force, and violence. Sides will have to be taken, and in time, actively rather than passively. The choices will be clear in that the district ridings will have representatives or they won't, according to the ruling party fiat. When the native population finds itself a majority without a say in government, and the alien, including the Left dhimmi fascists, precluding the opposition from power, then there is already a constituency in the rough for rebellion. Elections will be too obviously non-representative for the people to indulge further.

There is one glaring problem with this scenario: that we tend to think of our divide as being between Left dhimmi fascists and jihadis on one side and an opposing conservative Right on the other. I think it's flawed.

I see the division as between those who will act and those who will not, i.e. between activists and passivists. I make my conclusions based on the work of Joanna Burke, An Intimate History of Killing, (2000) who writes that of the 100 percent involved in combat, only 15 percent will fire their weapons even under enemy fire. The remainder will "assist" those involved in firing. Look too at Primo Levi's essay, "The Drowned and the Saved," Survival at Auschwitz, in which he claims that only ten percent of those entering the death camp were engaged in surviving the routine, hence "the drowned." If this is correct, and it seems so intuitively and empirically according to my life to date, of the 100 percent of the European people, ten percent will struggle to survive, and of those only 15 percent will engage the enemy directly. One must also consider that the active among that 15 percent of ten percent will mostly be those who are the enemies of freedom. I make that last claim based on the nature of the battle in the first place, that it is not between Left and Right but between those who are "activists," which is generally the people one finds on the "Left" as opposed to those one finds on the "Right." Conservatives, by which I mean Liberals such as Locke, J.S. Mill and F.A. Hayek, as a few examples, democrats, are not those who will rush out to change much of anything. The Right, on the other hand, will be those activists to the right of the Left, i.e. those we might not wish to represent us.

If by parliamentary chicanery we find ourselves cheated of our representation in the public political sphere, my conclusion is that few people will care, and fewer still will dare. H.L. Menken puts it clearly when he writes that most people do not want freedom, they want security. Of those who will dare to struggle, we might find that many of them are not exactly democrats. If this is reaching someone who cares, I would hope s/he understands that the number of supporters will be small even in a large nation, and the number of activists will be tiny. With a tiny vanguard, as we see from history, much can be done.

Yvonne Davies. She's a fool and a silly old lady who, 50 years ago, would have been a finger-wagging Methodist busy-body scolding rambunctious boys for misbehaving. Today she's picked up the post-Methodist socialist cliches of the day and still wags her finger. But not everyone will tolerate it forever. When people finally sicken of this parody of government, something is going to blow. [Not Yvonne, you naughty boy.] The question is, will there be enough people in England still who love freedom? And if not, if they've been replaced by Labour-voting immigrants and lay-abouts, what will the natives do? The government can gerrymander the locals right out of power forever. Until the people find themselves in a country that used to be their own and ain't no longer. How much spanking will people put up with before they get sick of it? What if people lose faith in the bogus religion that is post-Methodism? What if they find some serious "tribal excitement"?

So I'm naughty. Try spanking me.

*Elbridge Gerry, a former governor of Massachusettsa state noted for its varied, often colorful political fauna. Gerry (whose name, incidentally, was pronounced with a hard g, though gerrymander is now commonly pronounced with a soft g) was immortalized in this word because an election district created by members of his party in 1812 looked like a salamander. According to one version of gerrymander's coining, the shape of the district attracted the eye of the painter Gilbert Stuart, who noticed it on a map in a newspaper editor's office. Stuart decorated the outline of the district with a head, wings, and claws and then said to the editor, "That will do for a salamander!" "Gerrymander!" came the reply. The word is first recorded in April 1812 in reference to the creature or its caricature, but it soon came to mean not only "the action of shaping a district to gain political advantage" but also "any representative elected from such a district by that method." Within the same year gerrymander was also recorded as a verb.


1 comment:

Dag said...

I'm interested in getting comments fro our many Sandwell readers. Please feel free to have your say.

To clarify one thing before we start: I don't like poor people for a simple reason: I can never borrow money from them. I ask you, dear reader, what good is hitting on a fellow for ten pounds if he's never got it to lend? Poor people suck. Rich people are no better if they have it and lend it to me, but at least with them I stand a chance of meeting someone who doesn't know me well enough to know I won't be back to repay for... well, a while anyway. but, hey, I'm good for it. Really. I am. I mean it. Fer sher.