Have you ever seen a scorpion try to sting a stone? Me neither. But I’ve seen something very like it. It was an article in the Guardian with the headline: “‘They’ve brought evil out’: Hungary’s poll on migration divides a nation.” The article excoriated the Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán for “whipping up xenophobic sentiment,” “spreading hate,” “sowing tension,” “spreading poison,” and making “Hungary’s small minority population even more uncomfortable.”

Foot-soldiers in the War on White

With articles like that, the Guardian has been trying to inject verbal venom into Hungarian politics. It wants to paralyse Hungary’s natural and healthy desire to put its own people first and preserve its unique ethnic character, culture and history. But the Guardian is a scorpion trying to sting a stone. Its verbal venom dribbles harmlessly away, because shrieking about “racism” and “divisive politics” simply doesn’t work in Hungary. Why not? Well, the article itself mentioned one central reason: the “small minority population” there. Thanks to its sensible refusal to accept Third-World immigrants, Hungary doesn’t have large numbers of resentful outsiders ever-ready to condemn native White Hungarians for their ideological sins and to demand harsh laws against hate speech and discrimination.

Sadly, Western nations like Britain, Australia and the United States are no longer like Hungary. They all have fifth columns of resentful outsiders imported by the hostile elite to serve as foot-soldiers in what might be called “The War on White” – on White people, culture, history, traditions, self-confidence and self-worth. Sometimes the foot-soldiers are literally violent, like the Pakistani Muslims who stabbed and burned a 15-year-old White boy to death in Scotland or the Blacks who raped, tortured and stabbed a 16-year-old White girl to death in England. But sometimes the foot-soldiers are ideological, like the Korean SJW Sarah Jeong, whom the New York Times has happily accepted onto its editorial board despite her long history of spreading “hate and poison” against Whites.

The Brown Baroness

Another ideological foot-soldier in the “War on White” is the vacuous but vindictive Muslim peer Sayeeda Warsi, who was once appointed by David Cameron to serve as nominal co-chair of the British Conservative party. The real boss was the Jewish businessman Lord Feldman. Like Cameron’s meddling in Libya, the appointment of Warsi backfired spectacularly. She did not meekly accept her intended role of ethnic token and tried to get the Tories to follow Muslim interests. That was unacceptable: like Labour under Blair, the Tories are a wholly owned subsidiary of Zion Incorporated. Warsi noisily resigned in a dispute over Israel and began to wage a guerrilla campaign on the Tories from the House of Lords. In June 2018 she claimed that the party is “poisoned by Islamophobia at every level.” In August she joined the chorus of execration that greeted an “Islamophobic” newspaper column by the Tory politician Boris Johnson. He wrote that, while he did not agree with a ban on burqas recently imposed in Denmark, he thought that women who wore them looked like “letter-boxes” and “bank-robbers.”

The Brown Baroness, Sayeeda Warsi

Read more

 “Yo blud, wot you mean?”

All of this is a direct result of mass immigration, as the journalist Mary Wakefield has admitted in the cuckservative Spectator:

In the [London] Evening Standard, Wayne, an ex-gangster from Plumstead, gave an interview in which he explained that the resettled kids from war zones had upped the ante in gangland. ‘In the last ten years, since the Somalis and the Congolese came to London, they taught us a whole new level of violence. These people had seen family members mutilated, so when they said, “I’m gonna smash you up”, us guys would be shouting, “Yo blud [i.e., blood-brother], wot you mean?” and they would just pull out a blade and juk [stab] you in the chest. It upped the speed and level for us British-born guys. We had to arm up to protect ourselves. It created an upward spiral.’

Not Amber Rudd, not Sadiq Khan nor Theresa May would ever speak publicly about this, for fear of seeming racist. But isn’t that in itself racist? It implies that the problem is somehow to do with skin colour, when any poor kid forced into a civil war might well be brutalised by it. We absolutely have a duty to offer asylum to children fleeing horrific circumstances, but we also have a duty to acknowledge the increased dangers the police face as a result. If we don’t, these multiply. (An odd new feeling has crept up on me — sympathy for the police, The Spectator, 21st April 2018)

Why do we “absolutely have a duty to offer asylum to children fleeing horrific circumstances”? In fact, we don’t have any such duty at all. To suggest otherwise is mawkish virtue-signalling that would have been dismissed with contempt not only by that great conservative hero Winston Churchill, but by all mainstream politicians well into the twentieth century. Somalia and the Congo are a very long way from Britain and the “children fleeing horrific circumstances” passed many safe places en route to this country. Now that they are here, they are reproducing the savage and barbarous culture of their homelands.

Virtue-signalling and vibrancy

Is that a surprise? Not to anyone with eyes in their head and brains between their ears. But in the Land of Lies, the wilfully blind are King. And I’m sure that the virtue-signalling Mary Wakefield and her family rarely, if ever, encounter that Somali and Congolese culture at first hand. They will live at a safe distance from the enriched areas of London, allowing the “absolute duty” of welcoming enrichers to fall on other people.

But let’s give the Spectator some credit: it also publishes the Islamophobe Douglas Murray, who has criticized Muslim immigration and even gone so far as to mention the Jewish role therein. He has recently asked a very important question: “Why do politicians refuse to tell it how it is on immigration?” Sadly, his answer was wholly inadequate. The subheading to his article ran: “It is the one issue where our leaders deny the wishes of their citizens.”

That’s like saying that food is the “one issue” where a dog-owner denies the wishes of his dog. If the dog wants food and doesn’t get it, then the owner proves that he is unfit to own a dog. He is failing to meet the dog’s most basic and important need. Similarly, if politicians “deny the wishes of their citizens” on immigration, they prove not only that they are unfit for office but that they are acting with conscious treachery. Immigration is not just “one issue” among many: it is, as Enoch Powell pointed out half-a-century ago, of vital, existential importance, altering a nation and its future in the most direct and intimate way. Read more