29
Apr
09

When did the BNP get in?

Lots of commentators have watched Labour chase the nasty vote as it watches its “middle class” vote collapse in the face of rising anger at what the government has done during its time in power. In fact, the commentators are too late. We already have a racist government.

In the last few years (and especially since the 2004 accession of Eastern European states to the EU, which I support strongly) hundreds of thousands of white people have come to Britain under the freedom of movement aspect of the EU treaty (which I support strongly).

In the same period 1,300 people from Nepal who have fought for Queen and Country have applied to settle here. Many have been turned down on the basis that they have “no connection” with Britain. Gordon Brown’s government says that only heroes with medals may settle. Gordon Brown says that only heroes who retired before 1997 may settle. Gordon Brown should hang his head in shame. In order to appear “tough” on brown people, Gordon White is prepared to treat a tiny number of the greatest people on Earth like they are chewing gum on the bottom of his shoe.

Gordon Brown: racist
Jacqui Smith: racist
David Miliband: racist
Britain: be ashamed of the government you allowed to take power in your name.


11 Responses to “When did the BNP get in?”


  1. 1 Pavlov's Cat
    29 April, 2009 at 9:15 am

    Ah but Blue , to Nu Labour they are the wrong sort of brown , they are independant , prideful and honourable. they won’t come on their knees begging for a hand out. They just want to come here, settle down , get jobs and pay their way. They will assimilate, but keep their own culture and traditions and not try and force them on anyone else.
    They will have no need for out-reach workers, social workers and all the other ‘cuddling the immigrant’ jobs required by the others that keep the Guardianistas in jobs.
    I am sure that security firms would fall over themselves for Gurka staff and a few Gurka PCSO’s would make our town centres a bit quieter on Saturday nights.
    Also most of them will have got their British values filtered down from their Sandhusrt trained officers and so be naturally old conservative in outlook. Add to this no need to rely on the state for handouts.
    Chances are they won’t vote Labour, so they can’t come in.

  2. 29 April, 2009 at 12:20 pm

    I don’t mind immigration so long as:

    A) No benefits

    And a proper points system such as Canada or Australia.

  3. 29 April, 2009 at 12:38 pm

    I think that’s a bit harsh – on the BNP! As far as I understand it, the BNP support the right of Gurkhas to settle in Britain.

    As for the general thrust of the post – Hayek warned us in “The Road To Serfdom” that socialism will always lead, eventually, to authoritarianism and explained the reasons why.

    As for immigration – managed, limited immigration linked to implied integration into a monocultural nation is welcome, unrestrained immigration coupled with cultural relativity and multiculturalism will eventually lead to the nation – any nation – splitting into factional sub nations and, ultimately, to the break up of that nation.

  4. 29 April, 2009 at 1:08 pm

    Pavlov’s Cat – spot on!

    EK – This is not a post about whether immigration is a good or bad thing! This is how Brown wants you to think.

    Stan – Good point, Labour are *even less pleasant* than the BNP.

  5. 29 April, 2009 at 1:42 pm

    Clegg hit the right note today – “No principles and no courage”.

  6. 6 Blue Eyes
    29 April, 2009 at 3:22 pm

    It’s worse than that, Mr P. This is quite deliberate.

  7. 29 April, 2009 at 6:37 pm

    Pavolv’s Cat & Electro-Kevin, it is worth noting that many asylum seekers are only on benefits because the government places restrictions on their working. A lot of them would be in well-paid jobs, paying far more tax than BNP/Labour voters, were this not the case (they are also natural conservatives in just about every regard).

    Amongst asylum seekers there are a lot of lowlife & morons who just want to live off welfare, but a lot who are the exact opposite. They cannot be lumped together. Accordingly I advocate that the distinction between asylum & other forms of immigration be blurred & we frankly discriminate between those we want & those we don’t want. The Gurkhas would of course go straight into the former category alongside other people who, while their lives are not in danger & who do not thereby qualify for asylum, should be admitted as they can be an asset to this country (among them secular Muslims who are fleeing from Islamist theocracies who will join me in my quest to tell Rowan Williams & pals to **** off).

    Now, I also think that many would-be immigrants will contribute sod all to this country & shouldn’t be allowed in. It is my view that we need to close the door to most of those who want to come here & we should have less immigration than we now have with some form of points-based system.

    I do not trust the state to do the right thing, certainly not on immigration, especially after watching the Home Office deport some top of the range people of my personal acquaintance whilst admitting utter turds. I think the Home Office will get it wrong so many times. But a points-based system is still better than uncontrolled immigration or just a blanket ban on everyone.

  8. 30 April, 2009 at 3:01 am

    “it is worth noting that many asylum seekers are only on benefits because the government places restrictions on their working.”

    They can’t lose by coming here and crossing the borders of many safe countries to do so.

    The vast majority are ripping us off.

  9. 30 April, 2009 at 3:05 am

    Blue. I don’t believe that Brown is racist. He is anti service-ist.

    The gum on the bottom of his shoe is in fact the British serviceman. Fed shit food, billetted in shit accommodation sent to fight shit wars, given shit equipment and shit pay …

    The Gurkhas are just getting the usual leftist contempt that all soldiers do.

  10. 10 Blue Eyes
    30 April, 2009 at 9:32 am

    Asquith – you and I are at one on this. Totally agree.

    EK – I think he is anti-service, anti-British tradition, and anti-brown. How Brown loved tightening the purse-strings while Tony sent our brave boys and girls to their death. If there is a hell, Gordon Brown should head there now. No passing go.

  11. 11 Chalcedon
    30 April, 2009 at 5:27 pm

    I never voted for a Labour candidate. I have never done so. I have seen the damage they have done before when voiters got fed up with the Conservatives and just wanted a change. It was high taxes and a bankrupted economy. Same again. And it will be the same again in 15 years when the bastards have enough young voters who don’t know their history voting the next bunch of wasters in.


Leave a Reply




Email me!

mail behind blue eyes co uk

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Twitter

Archive