Friday, 5 April 2013

Ceremonial Sacrifice
"When are you indigenous people going to have a piece of paper to say you are British, like us?"

It is a bit of a shame about Frank Field and his remarks in the newspapers today, which suggest that the 'white working classes' (and no doubt the rest of the indigenous/white hosting society) should also take up Citizenship Ceremonies in order to re-establish themselves a sense of identity in their own country. 

Perhaps he was being pithy and issuing a 'soundbite' to raise an issue, but perhaps he really meant it. 

I guess that is how bad it is getting. A nation so pumped full of foreigners and different hues, so detached from it's own sense of history and identity, so confused and dazed about what the hell has happened to the place since the second world war, that we need to be told who we are (and who we are supposed to be) in this new nation they still seem to call Britain.

To be fair, it was only a small comment and observation by Frank which seemed to grab the attention of the media. Stories have appeared in the Daily Mail, Birmingham Mail, Independent, Telegraph and elsewhere - all of which seemed to run with this thought.

(This is despite there being a whole conference given to journalists and others on subjects relating to the issues arising from this country which the talking heads and elites have thus far unnaturally manufactured for us).

Still, I am quite disappointed that Frank was entertaining these ideals - and the kinds of organisations who helped organise the event he spoke at. 

I am disappointed because when put into comparison with most of the others in politics, at least Frank seemed to be somebody who stood for his convictions and spoke as though it came from the heart - even though we may not entirely agree with what he was saying. 

I suppose he is doing the same thing now, but on this though he has irritated me and taken a little shine off my view of him.

It is for that reason of being a 'conviction politician' that I have previously held him in a little higher regard than the usual buffoons and berks who are truly out for themselves - and getting into all sorts of mischief against this nation as they go along. 

Out of a terrible bunch, he was, in at least appearance and some rhetoric, one of the less terrible.

Some recent comments by Frank include how, on the Bedroom Tax, "The government is introducing social and physical engineering on a scale that Stalin would have been proud of. The way they are doing it is so extraordinary."

 He has also called for "direct action" against the tax;

In many instances – we see it in older properties in our constituencies – landlords bricked up windows. I hope landlords will brick up the doors to spare bedrooms and, where appropriate, knock down the walls, so that the properties can safely fit the tenants. I have never before asked for direct action. I do so now because I feel the measures are grossly unfair.

He added: “Why do I advocate for the first time direct action? I do so because the tax is so grossly unfair and is levied on some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Wicked actions require a different response from parliamentarians.

You are right there Frank. 

However, the wicked actions of 'Bedroom Tax' are a mere speck on a fleas back when compared to other wicked acts enacted and enabled by politicians in this country (and their handlers). Things that have been against the true interests of the indigenous population. Things that have caused lasting and permanent damage.

Some of those actions against our interests require a different response from us all, in fact most would it is long overdue, but perhaps the point of return and redress has already been missed. We are not the nation we once were.

Whilst I looked around newspaper sites for what Frank had been saying, I saw that he has also made comments this week on human trafficking issues. This is a topic which I think should be a string to the nationalist bow - rather than being solely left to the opposition to take it up as an issue. 

On this, the opposition to us (who are in cahoots with internationalism, international socialism and backhandedly supporting corporate fascism) are the ones who have fostered this 'new slavery' by encouraging lapse border controls and opposition to all kinds of immigration to the point where these traffickers can operate quite freely and largely undetected. 

The black market is a lucrative business to be in - and even banks have been found to be knowingly laundering money from drug cartels and other underworld 'enterprises'. I am sure banking cartels are not alone in profiting from such dubious areas.

Such is the chaos and scale of human movement out there it is no doubt very hard to spot, never mind tackle. Our opposition are the last ones who should have any moral authority on it. 

In my opinion, only nationalists would have a serious crackdown on these kinds of abuses of humanity and border controls. It may be harsh, but I would guess it would be effective. It should be an issue of ours, set for both tight border controls and as a moral position on the plight of these people and what kind of degraded society these traffickers are importing here.

On these kinds of things, like human trafficking or 'Bedroom Taxes', Frank has always struck me as a kind of "Old Labour" stalwart - that is, generally 'socialist' in terms of many issues and policies, yet similarly old-school in terms of traditional liberalism and conservatism. (Do not forget that the old Labour party were once in favour of hanging and held other such 'socially conservative' positions).

This is probably why he no longer seems to have any real meaningful place and can hop between elements of the two parties. For he has roles in both the Labour party and in the Conservative Party, as their 'poverty tzar'. (Not that they are on the whole all that much different, but each one has a particular lean to it over that middle ground). 

He is also in cahoots with Nicholas Soames (the 'Conservative' grandson of Winston Churchill) in the "Balanced Migration" organisation, which they founded together. This also suggests that Frank might go with his true feelings on some issues, despite it not being convenient for the New Labour line. This is probably why he has previously been called a bit of a rebel - because he often refuses to toe the 'party line'.

I also seem to remember that Frank was interviewed for that BBC Enoch Powell documentary which was aired a few years ago. In it, he seemed to be quite plain how he felt that the English people were having their country taken from them with massive migration, where "whole tranches of the country no longer speak English". I thought he gave off a general impression of how he could see why much of the indigenous population no longer feel at home in their own communities.

This is probably why he is in the Balanced Migration organisation. He knows the situation is getting volatile. He fears what can be brewing, and in his own way, he perhaps tries to avert it. Unfortunately for us, his kinds of solutions are not acceptable any longer -  if we are to survive.

That is the trouble with Frank. He will not entertain the idea of what Nationalism is about.

He tinkers around with some of the comments he makes on this or that (although maybe that is my perception) but he is still woefully out of step to the real nature of it all.  

He still clings on to that Old Labour sense of 'egalitarianism', 'fairness' and 'inclusivity' - the kinds of things which drive the David Goodhart's and David Cameron's of this world to push their "Muscular Liberalism" and civic nationalism/civic pride platforms as being a solution to the mess they helped create in the first place.

This is probably why - according to the Mail report and others - Frank mentioned this "Citizenship ceremony" idea at "a symposium called ‘Diversity and the White Working Class: white flight, anti-immigration politics and integration’". 

It was hosted by Birkbeck at the University of London and was supported by the think-tank Demos. (We should all know by now what Demos is up to and what kind of people they are).

According to the Telegraph, the symposium was targeted around those who believed that 'There are growing concerns about the white working classes, who are seeking solace in the far right as immigration rises'.

Apparently, "The discussion also heard from Dr Rebecca Taylor, of Manchester University, who claimed that white working-class people have been put into two categories - the “chav” and the “beleaguered native” who is {in} danger of extinction."

A Dr Gareth Harris (at the University of London, who was present) seemed to suggest that 'they are also seen as a failing to keep up with multicultural Britain'.  He said that their studies pointed out that there 'is a strong link between the white working class and support for the far right'. 

(Really? Who knew?! I always thought it was those darned Afro-Carribeans who supported the "far right" in this country?......Thank goodness we have these University types to set us straight!)

He said:

 "Support for the far right [is] not just a response to changes in the demographic makeup of the UK but strongly coupled with a profound sense of distrust of the mainstream political process. People are becoming more and more disengaged and I think this is very dangerous."

So it seems to me that the idea is to now try and "engage with" and give sops to the indigenous people in order to create a "new sense of identity" - as discussed by David Goodhart (of Prospect Magazine) the other week in the Daily Mail - and as indicated by the "Muscular Liberalism" of David Cameron a few years ago.

They seem to be starting to fear what may result, should they not weave this new national story. 

They are, at last, perhaps starting to sense that there is a deepening void and much discomfort out there. 

But, of course, what they really care about is keeping a lid on it, ensuring a smooth transition, avoiding any trouble and conflict. That is natural, and some would say virtuous positions to have - as nobody really wants conflicts and wars. 

The trouble is though, is that these people like David Goodhart and Frank Field do not really care for the fundamental issues or the indigenous population and their continuance. 

They care about maintaining social order, keeping up social contracts, maintaining the NHS and welfare state (upon which a shared sense of allegiance is paramount to its continuance) and they still seem to push out opinions that immigration has been beneficial to this country (and that increases in 'mixed relationships' and so on are 'signs of harmony' and a nation of people comfortable with their own eradication).

The newspapers continue to be their mouthpieces and obfuscaters - and continue to keep lying about all sort of things, like this supposed "apology" from Edward Miliband about Labour's immigration track record, which has been mentioned umpteen times in relationship to this remark by Frank Field today. 

If anybody has actually read that "apology" speech by Ed Miliband, then they will know that it is the complete opposite of an apology! They are immensely proud of what they have done - and given the chance, they would do it all over again.

1 comment:

  1. How long until the govt make attending these courses a condition of receiving benefits? Of course they will claim something like "we're putting the long term unemployed on citizenship classes to teach them they have responsibilities as well as rights..." and that it's to socialise them. But guaranteed the reality will be indoctrination.