Source: Bigstock
Suffering from the worst approval ratings for the nation’s leader since numbers were invented, Britain’s malfunctioning android of a prime minister, Sir Keir Starmer, went into last week’s Labour Party conference staring glassy-eyed into the political abyss. Other polls showed that, if a General Election were held tomorrow, the start-up anti-immigration Reform UK Party of Nigel Farage would win an outright majority with 373 MPs, while Starmer’s pro-immigration left-wing Labour Party would gain under 100, its weakest result ever.
Desperate for salvation, the Keir-bot’s cogs whirred into gear, pumping out the following defective computation: To put voters off Farage, he would claim Nigel’s proposed restrictive new immigration policies were racist. What Sir Keir did not realize is that this is precisely what rather a large proportion of fed-up voters actually want!
Ripe for Reform
All the main established parties in Britain pretend they want to stop mass immigration, but they clearly don’t, because they’ve spent the past thirty years actively encouraging it. Then, once the immigrants have been here for five or so years, they qualify to apply for something called Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR), which is a bit like what the British themselves once claimed from the Aboriginal authorities over in late-18th-century Australia, and look how well that turned out for the native boomerang botherers.
“Sir Keir’s chosen line is that it is somehow fundamentally ‘un-British’ to want Britain to remain British.”
Now the Aborigines to be colonized are all white, however, providing Sir Keir’s Labour Party with what they naively presume will be a perpetual subservient left-wing client vote, and what the supposedly right-wing pseudo-Conservatives (currently led by a Nigerian, previously by an Indian, before that by a rotting green lettuce, and not long beforehand by a blond albino Turk) fondly imagine will be a perpetual source of cheap labor for the economy. Farage therefore wishes to modify and abolish many aspects of ILR, hopefully leading to the mass deportation of hundreds of thousands of alien settlers.
Speaking to the BBC, Starmer described Reform’s scheme as both “a racist policy” and “immoral”:
“It’s one thing to say we’re going to remove illegal migrants, people who have no right to be here, I’m up for that. [No, he isn’t, this is a total lie.] It’s a completely different thing to say we’re going to reach in to people who are lawfully here and start removing them. They are our neighbors, they’re people who work in our economy, they’re part of who we are. It will rip this country apart.”
I don’t know if he’s noticed at all, but the country is already being “ripped apart” by these very same people’s mass unwanted presence here, hence all the intermittent riots, etc. Yet Sir Keir’s chosen line is that it is somehow fundamentally “un-British” to want Britain to remain British.
Earlier in September, following a 150,000-strong “Unite the Kingdom” anti-immigration rally in London, at which marchers had carried British and English flags, the PM had shown his clear disapproval, explaining with typical inversion of the truth that, rather than representing England or the English people as such, the Cross of St. George actually represented “our diverse country,” as in one that was full of Pakistanis, Nigerians, Syrians, Afghans, Indians, Martians, etc. So, by waving the flag in the name of the ethnic English, the ethnic English marchers were only using it as a symbol of “division,” he said.
“Britain is a nation proudly built on tolerance, diversity, and respect,” Sir Keir continued—except for tolerance and respect of those who don’t want any “diversity” here at all, of course.
Patriot Games
The idea of calling Reform UK racist because it wishes to act in accordance with the wishes and rational interests of native white British people for once, like British political parties are supposed to do, was clearly a predecided PR line for speakers at the Labour Party conference to have to adopt, given the number of other Cabinet members who made reference to a curiously identical notion before the party faithful. Most notable was this week’s current Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, who, as her name suggests, is a Pakistani Muslim who just happens to have been born here, like a dog in a stable or a pig in a hospital.
Asked whether she agreed with her boss’ assertion that Farage’s policy on ILR was racist, Mahmood, as a believer in “a greater Britain, not a littler England,” argued that in fact Farage’s plan was “worse than racist” because, technically speaking, the policy would apply to white immigrants as well as non-white ones, thus giving handy cover allowing Nigel to argue it wasn’t racist at all. It is just that, as there have been far more non-white incomers allowed into the country and given undeserved leave to remain over recent decades than white ones, in practice it would mostly mean booting people of her own ethnicity back home to Islamabad, not arranging a mass prison ship back to Melbourne for fully assimilated white Australians named Bruce and Sheila.
This, she said, would have “sent a very clear signal to every racist in the land that those who have made their homes in this country, have come from other places, might one day have their status ripped off [away from them].” Yes, that’s certainly what I was hoping for myself.
Just as Keir Starmer had arbitrarily redefined the Cross of St. George and the Union Jack as somehow being symbols of black Jamaicans and brown Arabs, so Mahmood sought to equally spuriously redefine patriotism as a deep and abiding love for other people coming into your country and ruthlessly occupying it from outside:
“Patriotism, a force for good, is turning into something smaller. Something more like ethnonationalism, which struggles to accept that someone who looks like me, and has a faith like mine, can truly be English or British.”
It seems a little inconsistent for a Pakistani to object to ethnonationalism. If Pakistanis repudiate the very concept so much, then how come they decided to violently split apart from India once the subcontinent finally gained independence from London in 1947, while millions on either side of the racial divide went about systematically beating, raping, burning, robbing, displacing, and killing one another on an industrial scale?
Comical Ali
And it’s not like this ingrained sense of Pakistani ethnonationalism has suddenly and magically disappeared now that so many of them are living over here in Great Britain. An excellent recent example came from a sitting Labour Party MP, Tahir Ali, who caused controversy by spending so much of his time this year lobbying for a new airport to be built in the Kashmiri province of Mirpur, as without one it was causing “significant issues to a number of my constituents who are having to drive over three hours to get to the nearest airport in Pakistan.” Maybe, if they really wanted to try cutting down on journey times, they could try living in Pakistan permanently?
Another thing causing “significant issues to a number of my constituents” at the time Ali spoke was an ongoing long-term Birmingham bin strike that was causing garbage to pile up in the streets and giant rats to swell to proportions not usually seen outside of a Karachi slum. But Ali appeared to care rather less about all that.
Justifying his actions to the people of Birmingham—who are no longer the people of Birmingham at all, really—Ali gave a press conference, entirely in Punjabi, boasting that “You will have seen in October when I asked [a parliamentary question about the airport] in Prime Minister’s Questions, which the right wing picked up, [and thereby] got it to 7 million views on my Twitter. The video about Mirpur Airport currently has over 9 million views. Because of this, Mirpur is now on the map and everyone knows of it.”
But why would a patriotic British citizen care about putting Mirpur “on the map” at all? Probably because said “British citizen” is in fact a Pakistani ethnonationalist after all, at the end of the day. “We will fulfill the demands of the Kashmiri people…. [All] of us are working for the same goal, for Kashmir,” Ali continued. But why, if you’re all actually “British”? Are the Kashmiris themselves “all of us working for the same goal, for the key inner-city ward of Birmingham Balsall Heath West”?
Amusingly, after being rubbished by opposition Conservative MPs for his actions, Ali then proved he was not a racist himself, like his bigoted white-skinned critics were, by claiming they were all just under the control of some shadowy “India lobby.” Makes a change from Muslims blaming the Jews for pulling everyone else’s strings, I suppose.
Conservative MP Robert Jenrick then proved he was definitely a mere puppet of New Delhi by asking the following query of the prime minister in Parliament:
“This Labour MP accuses Conservative MPs of being controlled by the ‘Indian lobby’ for telling him to focus on Birmingham, not Pakistan. He cannot fathom a politician putting Britain’s interests first. So he projects his sectarian tribalism onto us. Does Starmer condone this?”
The answer to which is, “Yes, he does, he just won’t publicly admit it yet. So he hides behind the lying word ‘diversity.’”
’Stan and Deliver!
But, as we all know, non-white people can never be racist, particularly not non-white Pakistani Labour Party politicians, so Shabana Mahmood herself has to heart-wrenchingly try to relate Nigel Farage’s sensibly harsh new policies to the fact that members of her family had lately been called “fucking Pakis” in Birmingham. She doesn’t say by whom. By Indians?
“You know, there’s some parts of Birmingham, I’m sort of second-guessing whether I can go back to again,” she added. There’s quite a few white people who think the exact same.
Within the current “racist” climate (that is, one in which increasing numbers of white British people are finally beginning to wake up and see the non-white colonization that is being imposed upon them in the name of “anti-racism”), the Home Secretary concluded that “The story of who we are is [becoming] contested.”
About bloody time! The “story” (re.: politically concocted fairy tale) of who “we” are is indeed today becoming contested, in the sense that millions of disillusioned white Brits now contest whether we are really all supposed to be a nation of imported brown Pakistanis like Shabana Mahmood is.
Responding to Starmer and his party’s slurs (or free advertisements, from another perspective) that Farage’s anti-ILR policies were racist, Reform UK’s chairman had this to say:
“Labour’s message to the country is clear: Pay hundreds of billions for foreign nationals to live off the state forever, or Labour will call you racist. Reform’s plan will ensure only British people can access welfare and that migrants contribute to society.”
And Reform UK’s chairman should know all about racism and ethnonationalism. Because Reform UK’s chairman is called Zia Yusuf. And he’s a Muslim. Not a Pakistani one, either, but of Sri Lankan subcontinental origin, so no doubt he’s had to suffer from these things at their hands himself on occasion too.
If you want to live in a country free of racism, then I would humbly suggest that the best method for achieving this noble aim is to live in a country with as few different races in it as is humanly possible. After all, that’s what the Pakistanis have tried to achieve back in their own homeland, isn’t it?
In the past few months alone, the country has just expelled tens of thousands of Afghan refugees, on the grounds that they are non-native, a drain on national resources, and therefore unassimilable. If Britain could only import the actual Pakistani Home Secretary instead of Shabana Mahmood to do something similar over here, maybe we could begin talking about at least one genuine Mirpuri immigration success story after all.
Why can Pakistanis be racist, but we can’t? Isn’t that just another form of racism?