What will a white-minority US look like?
By Daniel Nasaw
BBC News Magazine, Washington
18 May, 2012
Future generations of Americans could look increasingly like mixed race baseball player Derek Jeter. The US has reached a demographic tipping point, with most babies born now belonging to minority groups.
According to the US Census Bureau, black, Hispanic, Asian and mixed race births made up 50.4% of new arrivals in the year ending in July 2011.
Much of the change is driven by high birth rates among the Hispanic population.
The official notice foreshadows the day, expected in the 2040s, when non-Hispanic whites - like the group that founded America - will be in the minority. [Emphasis added].
[End of extract]
It should be noted that, true to form, the BBC cannot bring itself to mention the English. It has to perform a peculiar feat of circumlocution in order to airbrush the greatest nation the world has ever known out of American history, by referring to us as "non-Hispanic whites", thereby avoiding acknowledging the reality of our distinct ethnic identity by including us in a general category of "whites", which itself they define only in contradistinction to their favoured ethnic groups, blacks and Hispanics.
Why is New England called New England? Why isn't it called New non-Hispania? You see how absurd the BBC's hateful, anti-English racism is? How vile and odious are the hate-mongers who show their hatred for the English through their hate-filled propaganda? And your money, which you pay for a TV licence, finances this hate speech. A good reason to stop watching television, to turn off the set, unplug it at the wall and to stop paying to finance racist anti-English propaganda.
With an estimated thirteen million illegal immigrants living in the country, almost all of whom are not of English ancestry, the first step towards halting and then reversing the demographic trend towards a non-white majority is to deport the lot, without exception. The second step is to strengthen border controls, particularly along the Mexican border. The third step will be to ban any further non-white immigration. The fourth step will be to institute a publicly funded scheme of voluntary, financially assisted repatriation of non-whites to their countries of ethnic origin, or any others willing to accept them.
Tuesday, 14 August 2012
Saturday, 11 August 2012
"Decisions, decisions..."
Bite the bullet time for Brons
If Mr Brons agrees with his PA and Constituency Office Manager, Mr Beverley's condemnation of the BNP then, as a BNP MEP, it is his duty to resign from the party, thereby setting a good example for the remaining decent members of the party to follow.
If, on the other hand, Mr Brons wishes to remain a member of the BNP (and get his money's worth from his Life membership), then presumably he disagrees with Mr Beverley's defamation of the party. If he disagrees with Mr Beverley then he should say so publicly and give his reasons.
Regardless of whether Mr Brons agrees or disagrees with the substance of Mr Beverley's censure of the BNP, if he takes no action against Mr Beverley, then he lays himself open to the suspicion of conniving at his public attack on the party. He puts himself in a false position and appears to be a hypocrite.
Turning to Mr Beverley, one would put the following questions to him. If the BNP is as bad as you say, then what are you doing working full time supporting Mr Brons, the BNP's senior MEP? Does your right hand know what your left hand is doing? Does the money you receive for supposedly helping Mr Brons to perform his duties as an MEP outweigh your antipathy to the BNP? Should you not consider your own position and resign, before you compel Mr Brons to dismiss you?
If Mr Brons agrees with his PA and Constituency Office Manager, Mr Beverley's condemnation of the BNP then, as a BNP MEP, it is his duty to resign from the party, thereby setting a good example for the remaining decent members of the party to follow.
If, on the other hand, Mr Brons wishes to remain a member of the BNP (and get his money's worth from his Life membership), then presumably he disagrees with Mr Beverley's defamation of the party. If he disagrees with Mr Beverley then he should say so publicly and give his reasons.
Regardless of whether Mr Brons agrees or disagrees with the substance of Mr Beverley's censure of the BNP, if he takes no action against Mr Beverley, then he lays himself open to the suspicion of conniving at his public attack on the party. He puts himself in a false position and appears to be a hypocrite.
Turning to Mr Beverley, one would put the following questions to him. If the BNP is as bad as you say, then what are you doing working full time supporting Mr Brons, the BNP's senior MEP? Does your right hand know what your left hand is doing? Does the money you receive for supposedly helping Mr Brons to perform his duties as an MEP outweigh your antipathy to the BNP? Should you not consider your own position and resign, before you compel Mr Brons to dismiss you?
Friday, 10 August 2012
'Infanta' by Ken Slaarg
There are some books one just cannot put down. Not because one does not want to, mind. But because to do so might be regarded as mocking the afflicted.
Fortunately, Infanta, by the noted anti-fascist performance artist Ken Slaarg, is not such a book. It is very easy to put down, in all sorts of highly entertaining ways - for those who enjoy pleasantly sauntering through the narrow lanes of literary self-indulgence, as who does not?
To say that this is a book that appears once in a generation might sound like the hyperbole of a literary agent, but it's worth saying nevertheless, since there are are always a few punters who will be taken in by a blurb like this.
Infanta documents, in a highly emotional yet dispassionate way, the life-long personal struggle of one woman to come to terms with the fact that she is really a man, inside a woman, inside a man, while at the same time objectifying and reifying the inner struggle in the broader fight against all forms of societal oppression.
The book is full of pathos, of amusing vignettes and anecdotes of well-known and some less well-known people and places. A flavour of the book can be acquired by looking at its title, Infanta. Ken Slaarg, a dyslexic, originally meant to entitle the book 'Antifa', but wrote 'Infanta' instead, serendipitously.
For all those who take seriously the international struggle against fascism and what it represents, especially the latter, this book is the perfect antidote. It should make a wonderful stocking-filler.
Infanta by K Slaarg, published by Harridan Press, 220pp, £14.99
Fortunately, Infanta, by the noted anti-fascist performance artist Ken Slaarg, is not such a book. It is very easy to put down, in all sorts of highly entertaining ways - for those who enjoy pleasantly sauntering through the narrow lanes of literary self-indulgence, as who does not?
To say that this is a book that appears once in a generation might sound like the hyperbole of a literary agent, but it's worth saying nevertheless, since there are are always a few punters who will be taken in by a blurb like this.
Infanta documents, in a highly emotional yet dispassionate way, the life-long personal struggle of one woman to come to terms with the fact that she is really a man, inside a woman, inside a man, while at the same time objectifying and reifying the inner struggle in the broader fight against all forms of societal oppression.
The book is full of pathos, of amusing vignettes and anecdotes of well-known and some less well-known people and places. A flavour of the book can be acquired by looking at its title, Infanta. Ken Slaarg, a dyslexic, originally meant to entitle the book 'Antifa', but wrote 'Infanta' instead, serendipitously.
For all those who take seriously the international struggle against fascism and what it represents, especially the latter, this book is the perfect antidote. It should make a wonderful stocking-filler.
Infanta by K Slaarg, published by Harridan Press, 220pp, £14.99
Wednesday, 8 August 2012
English Democrats not the answer
Chris Beverley, the BNP MEP Andrew Brons' Constituency Office Manager (for Yorkshire and the Humber) and his Personal Assistant, as well as a prominent member of the quasi-nationalist English Democrats, has this to say about the party of which Mr Brons remains a Life Member:-
"For years I was a member of the BNP. I held a variety of positions and stood in many elections for them at all levels. I also served a full four-year term as a BNP councillor on Leeds City Council.
"Over time I came to realize that the BNP, whilst undoubtedly succeeding in recruiting some decent and well-meaning members over the years, is a thoroughly rotten organization which can best be thought of as a cross between a criminal gang and a religious cult.
"The English Democrats offer a complete contrast in that they are a moderate and democratic party which stands up for England and opposes all forms of political correctness without ever betraying their membership by engaging in the kind of careless extremism, thuggery, sexual scandal and outright criminality which the public rightly associates with the BNP."
England Awake! [Magazine of the English Democrats] # 2, p 6
While entirely agreeing with Mr Beverley's appraisal of the BNP, at least as it has been for the last few years, his assertion that the English Democrats oppose political 'correctness' is self-evidently false. One has only to visit their web site in order to satisfy oneself that, far from opposing political 'correctness', the English Democrats are, in fact, all claims to the contrary notwithstanding, one of the most abject exponents of that particularly repellent ideology.
Indeed, it is no accident that Mr Beverley, in the third paragraph of the extract quoted above, states that the "English Democrats...are a...party which stands up for England..." The English Democrats may stand up for England. They do not, however, dare to stand up for the English.
Furthermore, one questions whether they are really as democratic as their name and the enthusiastic Mr Beverley, would have us believe. The party is in hock to its founding leader, Mr Tilbrook, to the tune of approximately one-quarter of a million pounds. Doubtless, he who pays the piper calls the tune.
The English Democrats' ten-man National Council determines all of its policies. The party's National Conference is merely a rubber stamp and must either take or leave the manifesto presented to it by the National Council. It can make no amendment to it whatsoever. How democratic is that?
Mr Tilbrook claims a membership of nearly 3,000. Well, if 1,500 may be regarded as nearly 3,000, then I suppose he might be said to be right.
Trusted sources indicate that membership is actually in a steep decline, rather than growing, as Mr Tilbrook claims.
Accompanying the magazine referred to above, in a mailshot to potential donors and members, is a four page 'begging letter', written in the Dowson style, with which former BNP members will be only too familiar. Is this a sign of desperation? It certainly looks as if the English Democrats may be drowning, rather than waving.
In view of Mr Beverley's, entirely justified, remarks about the political party of which his Principal, Mr Brons, remains a prominent member and elected representative, one wonders what Mr Beverley feels about having as a colleague Mr Adam Walker, currently awaiting sentence for serious crimes. Is it a good working relationship?
If Mr Walker is gaoled later this month, as he richly deserves, will he continue to do the jobs of National Organizer (for the BNP) and Constituency Caseworker (for both Griffin and Brons), from his prison cell? The BNP really has become nothing more than a bad joke, under the corrupt and incompetent 'leadership' of Mr Griffin.
Perhaps all of Mr Beverley's criticism of BNP thuggery and criminality is really just for show. Could it be that, behind the scenes, prominent BNP and prominent (former BNP) English Democrat members, find that they have much more in common with one another than they have with the decent grass roots of either party?
"For years I was a member of the BNP. I held a variety of positions and stood in many elections for them at all levels. I also served a full four-year term as a BNP councillor on Leeds City Council.
"Over time I came to realize that the BNP, whilst undoubtedly succeeding in recruiting some decent and well-meaning members over the years, is a thoroughly rotten organization which can best be thought of as a cross between a criminal gang and a religious cult.
"The English Democrats offer a complete contrast in that they are a moderate and democratic party which stands up for England and opposes all forms of political correctness without ever betraying their membership by engaging in the kind of careless extremism, thuggery, sexual scandal and outright criminality which the public rightly associates with the BNP."
England Awake! [Magazine of the English Democrats] # 2, p 6
While entirely agreeing with Mr Beverley's appraisal of the BNP, at least as it has been for the last few years, his assertion that the English Democrats oppose political 'correctness' is self-evidently false. One has only to visit their web site in order to satisfy oneself that, far from opposing political 'correctness', the English Democrats are, in fact, all claims to the contrary notwithstanding, one of the most abject exponents of that particularly repellent ideology.
Indeed, it is no accident that Mr Beverley, in the third paragraph of the extract quoted above, states that the "English Democrats...are a...party which stands up for England..." The English Democrats may stand up for England. They do not, however, dare to stand up for the English.
Furthermore, one questions whether they are really as democratic as their name and the enthusiastic Mr Beverley, would have us believe. The party is in hock to its founding leader, Mr Tilbrook, to the tune of approximately one-quarter of a million pounds. Doubtless, he who pays the piper calls the tune.
The English Democrats' ten-man National Council determines all of its policies. The party's National Conference is merely a rubber stamp and must either take or leave the manifesto presented to it by the National Council. It can make no amendment to it whatsoever. How democratic is that?
Mr Tilbrook claims a membership of nearly 3,000. Well, if 1,500 may be regarded as nearly 3,000, then I suppose he might be said to be right.
Trusted sources indicate that membership is actually in a steep decline, rather than growing, as Mr Tilbrook claims.
Accompanying the magazine referred to above, in a mailshot to potential donors and members, is a four page 'begging letter', written in the Dowson style, with which former BNP members will be only too familiar. Is this a sign of desperation? It certainly looks as if the English Democrats may be drowning, rather than waving.
In view of Mr Beverley's, entirely justified, remarks about the political party of which his Principal, Mr Brons, remains a prominent member and elected representative, one wonders what Mr Beverley feels about having as a colleague Mr Adam Walker, currently awaiting sentence for serious crimes. Is it a good working relationship?
If Mr Walker is gaoled later this month, as he richly deserves, will he continue to do the jobs of National Organizer (for the BNP) and Constituency Caseworker (for both Griffin and Brons), from his prison cell? The BNP really has become nothing more than a bad joke, under the corrupt and incompetent 'leadership' of Mr Griffin.
Perhaps all of Mr Beverley's criticism of BNP thuggery and criminality is really just for show. Could it be that, behind the scenes, prominent BNP and prominent (former BNP) English Democrat members, find that they have much more in common with one another than they have with the decent grass roots of either party?
A dish best served cold?
"The DCLG and Barrow Cadbury currently fund HNH or more accurately its charitable arm Searchlight Educational Trust (as part of the separation of Searchlight magazine and HNH, they have promised to rename Searchlight Educational Trust by 31 December 2012, though a similar promise to rename Searchlight Information Services Ltd, the company behind HNH, by 30 June 2012 has been broken). We wonder how HNH will account to DCLG and Barrow Cadbury for the use of their grants."
This is an extract from a very interesting article by Mrs Gable, on the Searchlight magazine web site, entitled 'A meagre dish served lukewarm'. In the course of exposing the lamentable (or laughable, depending on one's point of view) shortcomings of the 'anti-fascist' competition, Hope Not Hate, Mrs Gable reveals that the Department for Communities and Local Government, a government department and hence a publicly funded body, provides grant aid to HNH.
Now, HNH is a 'third party' organization that publishes hostile propaganda aimed both at the ethnic majority, English and other indigenous peoples of Britain and more specifically at the political parties that claim to represent the legitimate interests of these ethnic groups, including most notably the BNP.
HNH was responsible for mobilizing hundreds of volunteers in Barking, during the 2010 General Election campaign, who delivered tens of thousands of anti-BNP propaganda leaflets. HNH subsequently claimed much of the 'credit' for twelve BNP councillors losing their seats on the Borough Council and for Mr Griffin's disappointing result in the constituency.
How can a government department, like the DCLG, possibly justify misusing public money by providing a grant to this parti pris organization, whose main purpose is to campaign against political parties of a particular persuasion? It is an insidious subversion of the democratic process, when the apparatus of the state is used by the parties in government, for the purpose of diverting public monies into the pockets of the enemies of those parties' political opponents. It is also a waste of taxpayers' money, which would be scandalous at any time, but is doubly so at a time of financial stringency and enforced cuts in vital public services.
The British electorate deserve better than this. But should they really be surprised at the self-seeking corruption of governing parties that are largely led by ethnically alien millionaires, who are not only completely out of touch with the needs and concerns of ordinary people, but also lack any feeling of solidarity with the ethnic majority population of the country they misgovern?
Looking at the published list of recipients of the taxpayers' largesse, courtesy of the DCLG: amongst the dozens of grants to Muslim, Sikh, Hindu and Jewish groups, to help to assuage their "grievances", I noticed one of £30,000 to the Searchlight Educational Trust - for the purpose of making a DVD! Was this DVD made of solid platinum?
What about grants to members of the downtrodden English community, to help to assuage their genuine grievances? The only one I could find was to a project designed to dissuade young Englishmen from turning to "parties of the extreme Right" [sic].
Now why on earth should they want to do that?
This is an extract from a very interesting article by Mrs Gable, on the Searchlight magazine web site, entitled 'A meagre dish served lukewarm'. In the course of exposing the lamentable (or laughable, depending on one's point of view) shortcomings of the 'anti-fascist' competition, Hope Not Hate, Mrs Gable reveals that the Department for Communities and Local Government, a government department and hence a publicly funded body, provides grant aid to HNH.
Now, HNH is a 'third party' organization that publishes hostile propaganda aimed both at the ethnic majority, English and other indigenous peoples of Britain and more specifically at the political parties that claim to represent the legitimate interests of these ethnic groups, including most notably the BNP.
HNH was responsible for mobilizing hundreds of volunteers in Barking, during the 2010 General Election campaign, who delivered tens of thousands of anti-BNP propaganda leaflets. HNH subsequently claimed much of the 'credit' for twelve BNP councillors losing their seats on the Borough Council and for Mr Griffin's disappointing result in the constituency.
How can a government department, like the DCLG, possibly justify misusing public money by providing a grant to this parti pris organization, whose main purpose is to campaign against political parties of a particular persuasion? It is an insidious subversion of the democratic process, when the apparatus of the state is used by the parties in government, for the purpose of diverting public monies into the pockets of the enemies of those parties' political opponents. It is also a waste of taxpayers' money, which would be scandalous at any time, but is doubly so at a time of financial stringency and enforced cuts in vital public services.
The British electorate deserve better than this. But should they really be surprised at the self-seeking corruption of governing parties that are largely led by ethnically alien millionaires, who are not only completely out of touch with the needs and concerns of ordinary people, but also lack any feeling of solidarity with the ethnic majority population of the country they misgovern?
Looking at the published list of recipients of the taxpayers' largesse, courtesy of the DCLG: amongst the dozens of grants to Muslim, Sikh, Hindu and Jewish groups, to help to assuage their "grievances", I noticed one of £30,000 to the Searchlight Educational Trust - for the purpose of making a DVD! Was this DVD made of solid platinum?
What about grants to members of the downtrodden English community, to help to assuage their genuine grievances? The only one I could find was to a project designed to dissuade young Englishmen from turning to "parties of the extreme Right" [sic].
Now why on earth should they want to do that?
Monday, 6 August 2012
I came not to send peace, but a sword
Christian Pacifism
Early Christian Views of War
Post Enlightenment Christianity often emphasizes the peaceful nature of Jesus, as opposed to the very numerous accounts of divinely sanctioned violence or warfare in the Hebrew Scriptures [Old Testament]. Proponents of the Christian pacifist position sometimes point to the early Church, the first three centuries of Christianity, and cite it as "pacifist" in arguing against Christian participation in warfare, under any circumstances. Such claims are often cited as a means of illuminating the supposedly un-Christian character of the crusades.This point was once brought up during an interview by Christianity Today with the highly respected crusades scholar Jonathan Riley-Smith. A partial transcript follows and the response by Dr. Riley-Smith is well worth reading.
Christian History Magazine: In the first three centuries, Christians were pacifists. By 1096, they had embarked on a holy war. What caused such a huge change?
Jonathan Riley-Smith: First, the early church was not entirely pacifist. In Romans 13, for example, Paul justifies the violence of the pagan emperor, for the emperor is yet a minister of God. And Christians served in the Roman army from the second century on. Following the conversion of the emperors, in the fourth century, the church became more open to using violence. Church leaders, after an initial shock, began supporting the use of force against heretics. Then Augustine formulated his theory of “just war,” but his terms effectively mean “holy war.” Augustine and the medieval world concluded that violence is not evil. Instead, violence is morally neutral. That makes a crusade possible. How did medieval Christians support their idea that violence was morally neutral? Augustine gave this example: Suppose a man has gangrene in the leg and is going to die. The surgeon believes the only way to save him is by amputating the leg. Against the man’s will, the surgeon straps him to a table and saws off the leg. That is an act of extreme violence.*
*Taken from "Holy Violence Then and Now : A historian looks at the causes and lingering effects of Christian warfare. an interview with Jonathan Riley-Smith ." Christianity Today, [Online] October 1, 1993 http://www.ctlibrary.com/3995 [Last viewed 12/22/2006].
Crusades - Encyclopedia
Early Christian Views of War
Post Enlightenment Christianity often emphasizes the peaceful nature of Jesus, as opposed to the very numerous accounts of divinely sanctioned violence or warfare in the Hebrew Scriptures [Old Testament]. Proponents of the Christian pacifist position sometimes point to the early Church, the first three centuries of Christianity, and cite it as "pacifist" in arguing against Christian participation in warfare, under any circumstances. Such claims are often cited as a means of illuminating the supposedly un-Christian character of the crusades.This point was once brought up during an interview by Christianity Today with the highly respected crusades scholar Jonathan Riley-Smith. A partial transcript follows and the response by Dr. Riley-Smith is well worth reading.
Christian History Magazine: In the first three centuries, Christians were pacifists. By 1096, they had embarked on a holy war. What caused such a huge change?
Jonathan Riley-Smith: First, the early church was not entirely pacifist. In Romans 13, for example, Paul justifies the violence of the pagan emperor, for the emperor is yet a minister of God. And Christians served in the Roman army from the second century on. Following the conversion of the emperors, in the fourth century, the church became more open to using violence. Church leaders, after an initial shock, began supporting the use of force against heretics. Then Augustine formulated his theory of “just war,” but his terms effectively mean “holy war.” Augustine and the medieval world concluded that violence is not evil. Instead, violence is morally neutral. That makes a crusade possible. How did medieval Christians support their idea that violence was morally neutral? Augustine gave this example: Suppose a man has gangrene in the leg and is going to die. The surgeon believes the only way to save him is by amputating the leg. Against the man’s will, the surgeon straps him to a table and saws off the leg. That is an act of extreme violence.*
*Taken from "Holy Violence Then and Now : A historian looks at the causes and lingering effects of Christian warfare. an interview with Jonathan Riley-Smith ." Christianity Today, [Online] October 1, 1993 http://www.ctlibrary.com/3995 [Last viewed 12/22/2006].
Crusades - Encyclopedia
Sunday, 5 August 2012
Da pacem, Domine
Da pacem, Domine, in diebus nostris
Quia non est alius
Qui pugnet pro nobis
Nisi tu Deus noster.
Grant peace, Lord, in our time
For there is none other
Who will fight for us
If not thou, our God.
Wednesday, 1 August 2012
It's all a giant conspiracy!
Mr Griffin's BNP (Bankrupt Nationalist Printers) has made a new video nasty, in which the scoundrel himself delivers a halting ("Can someone help me out here?") disquisition on the alleged financial backing of the English Defence League and its political add-on, the British Freedom Party.
According to Griffin, it would appear that a huge conspiracy has been uncovered.
Not only are 'Zionists' from across the pond allegedly involved, but perhaps even more shocking, these 'Zionists' are extraordinarily wealthy individuals and are very well connected to the United States' military-industrial complex. To the extent of owning much of it.
One can see Mr Griffin almost drooling as he describes the wealth of these plutocrats, not all of whom are Jews, to be fair, he hastens to add. Their wealth buys them access to politicians and well, politicians. And therein lies the problem. Because many of these multi-millionaire puppet-masters are in fact Jews, who promote a bellicose foreign policy which, while supposedly in the interests of Israel (whose government doesn't always see it that way), is certainly not in the interests of the waning Anglo-Saxon ethnic majority of both the US and the UK.
It would seem that the grass roots of the EDL have been conned into serving a 'Zionist' neo-con agenda on the streets of Britain, in much the same way that the grass roots of the BNP were conned into serving a Griffin family agenda, by helping to get him elected to the European pig-trough, or 'parliament'.
Conveniently forgetting about his support of Britain's military intervention in Aghanistan in 2001, Griffin now implies that Iran should be left alone to develop a nuclear strike capability, on the grounds that "they need it in order to deter would-be aggressors" and "it's none of our business, anyway". Griffin is to International Affairs what Clive Jefferson is to Book-keeping.
Throughout Griffin's performance at the lectern ("Next slide, please; no, no, go back a bit") one's olfactory sense detects two strong aromas. The first: fear. "Might this 'Zionist'-controlled nationalist operation just possibly knock me off my perch?" is one unvoiced question Griffin seems to be asking himself. The second: sour grapes. "Why didn't the 'Zionists' succumb to my earlier charm offensive?" is the other unvoiced question running through Griffin's mind.
No doubt Griffin would have taken the Counter-Jihadist shekel in an instant, had it ever been offered him. Just ask Colonel Gaddafi.
According to Griffin, it would appear that a huge conspiracy has been uncovered.
Not only are 'Zionists' from across the pond allegedly involved, but perhaps even more shocking, these 'Zionists' are extraordinarily wealthy individuals and are very well connected to the United States' military-industrial complex. To the extent of owning much of it.
One can see Mr Griffin almost drooling as he describes the wealth of these plutocrats, not all of whom are Jews, to be fair, he hastens to add. Their wealth buys them access to politicians and well, politicians. And therein lies the problem. Because many of these multi-millionaire puppet-masters are in fact Jews, who promote a bellicose foreign policy which, while supposedly in the interests of Israel (whose government doesn't always see it that way), is certainly not in the interests of the waning Anglo-Saxon ethnic majority of both the US and the UK.
It would seem that the grass roots of the EDL have been conned into serving a 'Zionist' neo-con agenda on the streets of Britain, in much the same way that the grass roots of the BNP were conned into serving a Griffin family agenda, by helping to get him elected to the European pig-trough, or 'parliament'.
Conveniently forgetting about his support of Britain's military intervention in Aghanistan in 2001, Griffin now implies that Iran should be left alone to develop a nuclear strike capability, on the grounds that "they need it in order to deter would-be aggressors" and "it's none of our business, anyway". Griffin is to International Affairs what Clive Jefferson is to Book-keeping.
Throughout Griffin's performance at the lectern ("Next slide, please; no, no, go back a bit") one's olfactory sense detects two strong aromas. The first: fear. "Might this 'Zionist'-controlled nationalist operation just possibly knock me off my perch?" is one unvoiced question Griffin seems to be asking himself. The second: sour grapes. "Why didn't the 'Zionists' succumb to my earlier charm offensive?" is the other unvoiced question running through Griffin's mind.
No doubt Griffin would have taken the Counter-Jihadist shekel in an instant, had it ever been offered him. Just ask Colonel Gaddafi.
The Torch of Life
Vitai Lampada
There's a breathless hush in the Close to-night --
Ten to make and the match to win --
A bumping pitch and a blinding light,
An hour to play and the last man in.
And it's not for the sake of a ribboned coat,
Or the selfish hope of a season's fame,
But his Captain's hand on his shoulder smote --
'Play up! play up! and play the game!'
The sand of the desert is sodden red, --
Red with the wreck of a square that broke; --
The Gatling's jammed and the Colonel dead,
And the regiment blind with dust and smoke.
The river of death has brimmed his banks,
And England's far, and Honour a name,
But the voice of a schoolboy rallies the ranks:
'Play up! play up! and play the game!'
This is the word that year by year,
While in her place the School is set,
Every one of her sons must hear,
And none that hears it dare forget.
This they all with a joyful mind
Bear through life like a torch in flame,
And falling fling to the host behind --
'Play up! play up! and play the game!'
Sir Henry Newbolt (1862-1938)
There's a breathless hush in the Close to-night --
Ten to make and the match to win --
A bumping pitch and a blinding light,
An hour to play and the last man in.
And it's not for the sake of a ribboned coat,
Or the selfish hope of a season's fame,
But his Captain's hand on his shoulder smote --
'Play up! play up! and play the game!'
The sand of the desert is sodden red, --
Red with the wreck of a square that broke; --
The Gatling's jammed and the Colonel dead,
And the regiment blind with dust and smoke.
The river of death has brimmed his banks,
And England's far, and Honour a name,
But the voice of a schoolboy rallies the ranks:
'Play up! play up! and play the game!'
This is the word that year by year,
While in her place the School is set,
Every one of her sons must hear,
And none that hears it dare forget.
This they all with a joyful mind
Bear through life like a torch in flame,
And falling fling to the host behind --
'Play up! play up! and play the game!'
Sir Henry Newbolt (1862-1938)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
