August 6, 2011

Self-parody?

I must confess that when I read articles from the mainstream media in Europe denouncing immigration restrictionists with angry rhetoric but little substance, I sometimes wonder if my leg is being pulled. For example, is this April 29, 2011 article from Spiegel on Denmark's decade-long success in implementing a more rational immigration policy a self-parody? Perhaps the reporter secretly wanted to laud the Danish government as thoughtfully reformist, but had to lather it in spiteful PC rhetoric to get it published  ... I don't know. (I particularly like the chosen photo, with the fat lout trying to look surly in the front and the youth with the "Soldier of Allah" sweatshirt.)

Immigrants in Copenhagen: The government has calculated their supposed cost to the country. 
Putting a Price on Foreigners 
Strict Immigration Laws 'Save Denmark Billions' 
By Anna Reimann 
Denmark's strict immigration laws have saved the country 6.7 billion euros, a government report has claimed. Even though Denmark already has some of the toughest immigration laws in Europe, right-wing populist politicians are now trying to make them even more restrictive.

Denmark's strict immigration laws have saved the country billions in benefits, a government report has claimed. The Integration Ministry report has now led to calls among right-wing populists to clamp down further on immigrants to increase the savings. 
The extremely strict laws have dramatically reduced the flow of people into Denmark in recent years, and many government figures are delighted with the outcome. "Now that we can see that it does matter who comes into the country, I have no scruples in further restricting those who one can suspect will be a burden on Denmark," the center-right liberal integration minister, Søren Pind, told the Jyllands Posten newspaper. 
Pind was talking after the ministry's report -- initiated by the right-wing populist Danish People's Party (DPP) -- came to the conclusion that by tightening immigration laws, Denmark has saved €6.7 billion ($10 billion) over the last 10 years, money which otherwise would supposedly have been spent on social benefits or housing. According to the figures, migrants from non-Western countries who did manage to come to Denmark have cost the state €2.3 billion, while those from the West have actually contributed €295 million to government coffers. 
'Restrictions Pay Off' 
The report has led to jubilation among right-wing politicians: "We now have it in black and white that restrictions (on immigrants) pay off," said DPP finance spokesman Kristian Thulesen Dahl. The DPP will almost certainly exploit the figures in future negotiations over the Danish economy. 
But the report has sparked outrage from opposition parties like the centrist Social Liberal Party, which dismissed it as undignified and discriminatory. The party's integration spokeswoman, Marianne Jelved, said: "A certain group of people is being denounced and being blamed for our deficit, being made into whipping boys." She added: "We cannot classify people depending on their value to the economy. That is degrading in a democracy that has a basic value of equality." 
Still, the announcement has not come as surprise. The right-wing populist DPP, which has been working with the ruling center-right coalition government of Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen since 2001, has in the past made its aims very clear: a complete halt to immigration into Denmark from non-Western countries. "A Somali who is no good for anything, that is simply not acceptable," said DPP leader Pia Kjærsgaard. Similarly, center-right liberal Prime Minister Rasmussen has also said anyone who would be a burden on Denmark is not welcome in the country. 
... The small Scandinavian country already has the strictest immigration and asylum laws in Europe. For example, foreign couples are only allowed to marry if both partners are at least 24 years old. The number of asylum seekers and relatives of immigrants seeking entry into Denmark dropped by more than two-thirds within nine years as a result of the tough laws.
A Decisive Issue in Denmark 
But things may soon get pushed even further. Elections are due to be held this fall, and the ruling parties apparently want to put forward even stricter rules, driven by the xenophobic rhetoric of the right-wing populists. In polls, the approval ratings of more liberal politicians have fallen, and the opposition center-left Social Democrats have promised not to change current immigration laws if they win the election. Immigration will always be a big issue in Denmark -- almost 10 percent of Denmark's 5.5 million people are migrants -- and the issue was a decisive one in the last election, in 2007. 
In November, the government agreed to stricter laws and made the entry of immigrants' spouses more difficult. Only those who collect enough "points" may come to Denmark in the future -- with points being determined by factors such as academic qualifications and proof of language proficiency. In addition, the equivalent of €13,000 must be deposited with the state in the form of a bank guarantee to cover any future public assistance. Socially deprived areas with a disproportionately high number of immigrants will be subject in future to a so-called "ghetto strategy" designed to prevent high concentrations of foreigners in public housing areas. Migrants will be assigned housing, and three-year-old children who do not speak Danish well enough will be required to attend state child care. 
Some immigrants have already turned their back on Denmark voluntarily. Increasing numbers of Somalis are moving away, especially to the UK, the Jyllands Posten reported on Thursday, because of discrimination.

In other words, leaving aside all the hate words used by Spiegel to spice it up, Danish immigration restrictionists have been thoroughly vindicated, with their opponents left with nothing but platitudes, while promising not to undo their reforms if they get elected.

95 comments:

IHTG said...

In polls, the approval ratings of more liberal politicians have fallen

Excellent.
I wonder what brought about this right-wing dynamic in Denmark. Is it in anyway related to 9/11 and other terror attacks?

Anonymous said...

If mass immigration were as popular and obviously beneficial as some claim then all political parties would outdo each other in trying to promise the largest levels of immigration possible.

Im not aware of anywhere that this happens.

After all we keep being told there are no downsides to immigration therefore more must always be better than less.

We know more must be better because no mainstream pol or party seems willing to even broach the argument about how less could be better.

Anonymous said...

I don't see why Europe needs immigrants. Especially visible alien ones from the third world.

Julian O'Dea said...

Steve, I suspect it is indeed a way of subtly expressing approval. I think it is a European diplomatic trick. I noticed somethimg similar in some commentary on the Breivik incident. The real opinion is conveyed under a smokescreen of the standard rhetoric. It allows for deniability.

Anonymous said...

I am not Danish.

Denmark does NOT need excuses to stay Danish. It really does not.

But nice to see this type of thing anyway.

Anony-Mickey-Mouse said...

All good policies except for this one:

"Socially deprived areas with a disproportionately high number of immigrants will be subject in future to a so-called 'ghetto strategy' designed to prevent high concentrations of foreigners in public housing areas. Migrants will be assigned housing...."

I can hear the property values dropping already.

Anonymous said...

In other news the chinese are at russian levels of fertility! And the lack of women means that only 1.3 kids per woman will be able to find a partner.

"Academics including Wang Feng, director of the Brookings-Tsinghua Centre for Public Policy, argued that China’s total fertility rate had declined sharply from 5.8 in 1950 to below 1.5."

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/04/declining-chinese-birth-rate.html

Anonymous said...

[Marianne Jelved] added: "We cannot classify people depending on their value to the economy. That is degrading in a democracy that has a basic value of equality."

Oh but they do this all the time...when they're bashing the natives, telling us that immigrants 'are crucial to our economy' or 'have a better work ethic' or 'have better family values.

They do this All. The. Time.

A co-worker, during a discusssion about illegal immigration, once told me that "Americans are lazy." My immediate response was "Mexicans are lazy." He seemed aghast for a second, until he realized the point I was making - that it's become OK to speak derogitorily about Americans but not Mexicans, or anyone else.

Don't hold out hope this will ever happen in the US, however. We've all set sail on the USS Insolvency.

8 said...

Steve,

You may find this Chinese article on the Norway shooting interesting, from the Economic Observer. I don't think I've come across a more detailed or balanced article in the English-language press. The Google translation is so-so.
http://www.eeo.com.cn/2011/0806/208186.shtml

elvisd said...

The Danish kid who stayed with us for a month comes from classic metro-socialist family, and even he could barely contain his anger about being constantly attacked by Muslim gangs trying to cleanse his neighborhood. He expressed disbelief about how the imms seemed to hate the liberal welfare state that feeds them.

Steiner said...

Spiegel has lead the pack in pretending that Herr Sarrazin never wrote his book, and if Germans and other Europeans just pretend hard enough and shut up about it already, all those third-world immigrants will start up their hi-tech industries any day now.

Anonymous said...

Steve, those young gentlemen are staging a civil rights march. I might also add that all of them are honors students and on their way to becoming doctors and lawyers. Unfortunately, bigotry from you and your big media allies is stopping us from realizing the potential of all this vibrant diversity.

The "surly" fellow you are referring to is actually a local community activist. Through awareness and grass roots involvement, he's helping to promote the vibrancy of the community.

Anonymous said...

A few years ago, Danish biker gangs went to war with Muslim immigrant gangs. The bikers benefited by recruiting, as associates, a lot of local ethnic Danish kids who were sick of the Muslims. Anybody know what ever happened with that war?

Anonymous said...

According to the fool Anna Reinman very loose liberal immigration laws is " always very restricted". Bite me.

Kai Carver said...

Why do you see this as self-parody? It seems like a rather neutral, here-are-the-facts article.

And how do you see it as "lathered in spiteful rhetoric"? I don't see the "hate words" you are talking about.

Yes if anything the article seems mildly sympathetic to, or slightly envious of, Germany's northern neighbor's policies.

europeasant said...

Europe for Europeans, middle east for Muslims!There is a reason for the Biblical Tower of Babel story!

Anonymous said...

When liberals get alarmed by certain trends or realities, but their own ideology forbids them to do anything about it, they prefer to punt the problem to the Right and make the Right do the dirty work, all the while making all the PC noises about how wrong it is.

In NY, crime got out of control in the late 80s and 90s. Liberals didn't know how to fix the problem using liberal means, and so they got Rudy the tough cop-friendly mayor to do the dirty work and clean up the city--all the while, making token criticism of Rudy as mean-spirited.

It's like having the cake and eating it too. Have the Rightist do the dirty work to make the place more livable/pleasant for liberals AND make all the liberal noises about it's too 'draconian' and 'insensitive'.

Anonymous said...

I think the Zionists did much the same with Bush in the Middle East. They used him as the tough cop with the big stick to clean up the place and make it better for Jews, all the while blaming him for being too brutal and nasty.

I think it's like the general in Paths of Glory. He uses another general to do the dirty work, but when things get hot, he admonishes the latter for having 'carried it too far'.

Anonymous said...

Even if Denmark stops immigration, what about the ones alreadyh there who are having too many babies? If they're 10% now, how long before they're 20% and then 30%?

Anonymous said...

If RESTRICTING immigration saves Denmark money, then wouldn't ENDING immigration save it even more?

Michael Bloomberg said...

lather it in spiteful rhetoric

Are you kidding? This sounds positively dispassionate and even-handed compared out our US MSM treatment of such issues.

A more interesting question is why are Danes to different than their cousins in Norway & Sweden on such issues.

Anonymous said...

Who in the US could/would do the similar analysis for the US? CIS? Borjas? Haven't heard much from Borjas recently?
Robert Hume

Anonymous said...

I have the same question as IHTG. How did the Danes become so sane?

Daybreaker said...

Europe needs emigrants. Especially visible alien ones from the third world.

Anonymous said...

There is absolutely no upside whatsoever for mass immigration into Europe, for ordinary white people, or in fact for almost any white people, rich or poor.

The only upside is for anybody or organization who got bribed, and for those who get the immigrant vote. The fact that immigrants generally work for lower wages will be offset by the high costs of housing them, health care, jails, etc.

The Left thought they would gain immigrant votes while not losing their own traditional working class. But immigrants hate the promotion of homosexuality, premarital sex, disempowerment of parents,feminism, abortion, childlessness, atheism etc, which also is key to Leftwing philosophy.
And the working class whites have, in most European countries, finally woken up to the extent of the treachery.

So in the end, the Left made a huge miscalculation on that score as well.

This whole thing has been a monumental catastrophe for Europe.

We have only just started to pay for it.

Anon.

CJ said...

Perhaps the reporter secretly wanted to laud the Danish government as thoughtfully reformist, but had to lather it in spiteful rhetoric to get it published ... I don't know.

I wonder the same way about a lot of media reports, and not only about immigration or other hot-button race-related topics. It seems to occur most often in lengthy newspaper stories, whereas television news rarely deviates from the party line. Perhaps visual media are simply not as suitable for the technique. I'm living in Canada now, and here the technique seems to be most often applied to stories about supposedly oppressed victims of some government cutback or police action. Ostensibly the story is sympathetic to the "victim" but the reporter manages to include details about the victim (or victim group) that most people would find objectionable.

That said, there do seem to be more and more issues and stories where left/liberal commentators are simply out of touch with the public -- that is, the media genuinely expect sympathy for their pet victims, but most readers/viewers react otherwise.

Anonymous said...

"Some immigrants have already turned their back on Denmark voluntarily."

Amazing self-respect.

Now is the time for "immigrants go home" slogan, shifting the goalposts, etc.

eh said...

Some years ago, when visiting big cities in Europe for the first time, I was a bit surprised to see the very large numbers of non-Europeans. For a while afterward, when asked 'Have you ever been to England?', I would answer 'No, but I've been to London several times.' as kind of a pointed joke about it. You more or less accept it though, because you've heard about it -- like I said, I was only a bit surprised by how large the numbers are, especially in e.g. London and Paris.

But upon seeing the same thing, albeit on a much smaller scale, in Scandinavian cities like Stockholm, Oslo, and Copenhagen, I felt sad and troubled, maybe a little angry, which was a different kind of emotional reaction. Because I'd imagined that this corner of Europe would somehow be spared -- maybe because of the less hospitable weather.

Anonymous said...

There is a similar phenomenon regarding environmental research / data in relation immigration. There are forces within the movement that would rather be ignorant and ineffectual than hand anyone on the right a potential weapon. About fifteen years ago the Sierra Club, the countries oldest and most respected environmental group, put a gag order on anything related to immigration. Given a choice between supporting the environment or the Democratic Party, liberals, and multiculturalism they chose the latter. Although they are the clearest example the same political correctness runs though the entire movement.

The consequence of this cowardly abrogation is that it is very difficult to use science to back up what everybody knows is a problem. In my home state of California, it is obvious that the quality of life is far lower than a generation ago. Yet the lack of official support from environmental groups makes it far easier to paint someone who wants less immigration as a racist. I am sure there are “environmentalists” that would prefer to see every fish dead, every tree cut, every river dry than get a Republican elected to office.

Anonymous said...

Susan Sher, executive vice president, University of Chicago Medical Center
(August 2, 2011)
Susan Sher is returning to the University of Chicago Medical Center as executive vice president for corporate strategy and public affairs and senior adviser to the president of the University of Chicago, Robert Zimmer. In the latter role, she will advise Zimmer on national health care issues and on building the university's relationships with Chicago corporations, according to a university press release. From 1997 to 2009, Sher was general counsel at the medical center. Michelle Obama worked for her as a vice president for community and external affairs. She most recently has been a top aide to the First Lady after working for President Barack Obama as White House associate counsel. Sher left the White House in January.

Whiskey said...

Immigration and mass immigration certainly DOES have some support in the West. Principally among White Professional women (without kids or with the means to send their kids to private schools). Whole new classes of subjects for "Nice White Ladies" (tm, Steve Sailer) to "uplift" and such. Plus the macho posturing is a hit with professional White women who are plagued with too many beta Males around them.

That "Soldier of Allah" shirt? Gold. Nice White ladies of all ages eat that stuff up.

Immigration sucks if you are the White working class, a Middle Class White guy, or a taxpayer. Everyone else benefits (Steve's Hi-Lo team up). That's why it is so powerful.

Note: no one is saying, "lets send all these guys home. We don't have any money." Because ... well they can't. Euros disarmed and could not fight their way out of a paper bag. They're basically eunuchs at this point.

Anonymous said...

Muslims with attitude, or Muslims into Rap culture. They are like the combination of Third Worlders and the Ugly African-American(whose culture is disseminated around the world by Jewish global media).

Anonymous said...

Whiskey, give it up. Any respectable looking white guy with reasonable standards can easily get laid. Just go to a bar, or a dance club, or a gym or, for that matter, a church. Women are everywhere. Bozos wearing "Soldier of Allah" shirts have to drop their expectations by about 73% compared to bozos without said shirts. If they do get white women, it's either white trash, or the occasional crazy pseudo-intellectual (e.g., Stanley Anne Dunham).

Dennis Dale said...

"Some immigrants have already turned their back on Denmark voluntarily."

I think the elite (especially its young) is still made up of far more true-believers than cool deceivers, but this sentence has to be a sub-textual wink. She concedes the economic argument without a fight (as having no bearing on policy!)--then writes as if Denmark should be competing for these net-draw porch-squatters.
I refuse to believe anyone is so lacking in self-awareness as that. This is some sort of kinky German satire. Sprockets-like sh*t.

Anonymous said...

"Yet the lack of official support from environmental groups makes it far easier to paint someone who wants less immigration as a racist."

Just look at them with a quizzical stare and inquire,"Racist? That's an illogical conclusion on your part. I'm a rationalist, aren't you? I mean, you are a person who believes in applying reason, aren't you? Then why on earth would you suggest we keep importing poverty? The Mexicans ought to stage a rebellion and take over their own nation. You should help them."

Anonymous said...

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t728813/

The fertility rate for non-Western immigrants has dropped below that of ethnic Danes. One benefit to cutting welfare is that it stops giving Muslims and other immigrants an incentive to have too many children.

Good for Denmark.

Anonymous said...

I think Whiskey might have a point. One of Breivik's complaints was that immigrant men made passes at Norweigan women and also saw them as targets for rape. For a more marginal European, immigrants could represent competition.

Jack Aubrey said...

"I think Whiskey might have a point."

But at any given moment there are enough available women to satisfy any man taking reasonably good care of himself who is looking for a mate. I can't vouch for sub-90 IQ dumbshits, and I can't vouch for obese couch potatoes, and I can't vouch for professional moochers. I also can't vouch for those unfortunate souls who were born really, really ugly. All I know is that I see plenty of white betas, omegas, gammas, lamdas, zetas, psis, chis, kappas, mus, nus, or whatever walking around with at least passable looking wives and (fully white) children.

Women tolerate immigration and diversity mostly because they are innately the "caring sex" and they can't see turning down anyone presented to them as a compassion case. I doubt their views on reducing legal and illegal immigration are sharply divergent from those of American men. They don't support immigration for the sexual options because, for the most part, they aren't embracing those options. If Anders Breivik had come to the United States he would've had an infinitely better chance at scoring a white woman than just about any random Muslim or African immigrant, even ones with graduate degrees and 6-figure salaries.

Seriously, for a smart guy like Whiskey it's a pathetic hang-up. Get a treadmill and a soloflex, for God's sake.

Anonymous said...

But of course, if the immigrationists actually had at hand a concoted 'report' by some sh*t-for-brains left-wing 'economist' that 'proved' that immigrants are 'net contributors' to Denmark, then you'll be certain that they'll be crowing about it and quoting the paper non-stop with a self-satisfied smirk.
Now the leftists and immigrationists keep parrotting the line 'we shouldn't judge human beings by cents and dollars'.
Funny that, a few short years ago they used to shout from the rooftops that immigrants were 'necessary' to 'save social security and pensions'.

Anonymous said...

'Increasing numbers of Somalis are moving away, especially to the UK'.

That just about says it all.

Londoner said...

Vibrant riot in north London leaves areas of Tottenham in burnt-out ruins. It was a reaction to the shooting of a local gangster by police (he had shot at the police first). This was unacceptable to the locals, who have proceeded to destroy their own (already quite crappy) neighbourhood. A "community" representative on the radio just now has talked about the "collective memory" of said "community" with regard to supposed police heavy-handedness. No comment to offer on probable collective memory of police, one of whom was butchered like an animal in a similar riot in 1985.

Everywhere they go it's the same, and it's always, always our fault.

Anonymous said...

'Whipping boys...'.
If only.
GP.

Peter A said...

"For a more marginal European, immigrants could represent competition."

I would not be surprised to discover that some of Brevik's Muslim friends from his high school days had been casually screwing pretty classmates Breivik probably desired but couldn't get. That's probably a deep seated part of his rage.

In America immigration mostly lacks the sexual anger element it has in Europe. Most Mexican or Asian men are less of a threat to white males than the Blacks and Italians we already have, and immigration of Latino and Asian women might actually be making life easier for white males. But in Northern Europe the sexual element is huge - confident Alpha mediterranean and African males generally do very well competing with buttoned up English, Norsemen or Germans, or even Frenchmen (as embarassing as that is for French to admit). And their women are made definitively off limits to Europeans, while the immigrants screw white girls whenever they can. Sadly I am sure we have not seem the last sexual rage fuled Breivik type massacre.

MQ said...

the macho posturing is a hit with professional White women who are plagued with too many beta Males around them....That "Soldier of Allah" shirt? Gold. Nice White ladies of all ages eat that stuff up.

Passages like this make you wonder about the extent of Whiskey's actual, in-person experience with "nice white ladies".

Interesting to see commenters starting to refer to Breivik sympathetically...predictable development.

Jack Aubrey said...

With any luck the Tottenham Riot takes Breivik out of the news, and puts the consequences of mass immigration back front-and-center, at least for Great Britain.

According to Wikipedia, "South Tottenham is reported to be the most ethnically-diverse area in Europe, with up to 300 languages being spoken by its residents."

But contra the peace, hope and love that all this diversity should have brought... Tottenham "has also been one of the main hotspots for gangs and gun crime in the United Kingdom during the past three decades."

Gangs and gun crimes in a Multiculti paradise? No way!!!

Ahhh, the joys of diversity...

JSM said...

"Most Mexican or Asian men are less of a threat to white males than the Blacks and Italians we already have, and immigration of Latino and Asian women might actually be making life easier for white males."

Thanks.
I've tried multiple times to get this point through to Whiskers.

He occasionally tries to make the laughable assertion that White women want mestizos. First he said it's because it increases the number of dark Alphas.
I pointed out that it's a silly argument because mestizos are too short (and dumb, and poor, and did I mention short?) to be Alphas.

He then switched and said, well, ugly, fat mestizas make White women look better, by comparison, to White Alphas. I pointed to Arnold Schwarzenegger. How did the presence of Mildred Baena make Maria look better? All the immigration of that fat, ugly mestiza accomplished was dilution of her kids' inheritance.

Looks to me like it's Alpha males importing mestizas for sex and mestizos for cheap labor, with the benefit accruing to the Betas of increasing the supply of women who might make boom-boom with 'em.

So back atcha, Whiskers.

The only benefit to Whiteprofessionalcollegeeducatedbetahater women of immigration is for cheap housekeepers and gardeners. Which is of small benefit if her kids lose inheritance money as a result of the hanky-panky it inevitably brings from Alpha daddy. She knows she's better off to make Son put down the joystick and go mow the lawn.

Women, by and large, do not favor immigration of Mexicans, save for a small population of young, (therefore foolishly overly sympathetic and vulnerable to propaganda), single, childless, women still suffering the lingering effects of her university indoctrination.

But, hoo-hoo, being young, such women rarely vote, as the young rarely vote.

Meanwhile back in reality-land, billionaires DO vote, and billionaires ALSO buy off politicians and pay for campaigns. They also have a vested interest in both cheap labor for themselves and in preventing the upstart White middle class from producing any competitors to their own spawn for plum positions in society.

And 40% of billionaires are Jews.

But Whiskey pronounces that it just CAN'T be the Jews. He assures us that a mere 2% of the population couldn't *possibly* make a significant impact on the political landscape.

It MUST be all the fault of White women. It just HAS to be. Everything in the universe is caused by female hypergamy. Roissy said so.

(Never mind that the population of White women that actually might vote for mass immigration is probably, at best, 2%).

Heh.

Anonymous said...

Note: no one is saying, "lets send all these guys home. We don't have any money." Because ... well they can't. Euros disarmed and could not fight their way out of a paper bag. They're basically eunuchs at this point.

Whiskey, scratch the surface of any European and you will find a warrior underneath. It's in their DNA from Alexander to Rommel. Despite their recent pussy-like demeanor, the events of last month should convince you that when pushed to the brink, you should never count them out.

DanJ said...

The article in der Spiegel was about as fair as it gets from a mainstream media outlet. The German version was perhaps a bit more scornful than the English one, but not much.

The reporter did let the study itself,on the cost of immigration, go unchallenged. Had she wanted a critical angle, she would have called the esteemed professor X from the famous university of Y, and have him explain why the study and its conclusions are rubbish. Thus it appears (correctly) as a Danish political dispute, rather than a Huge Moral Question.

Besides, this is a Scandinavian government making a U-turn on immigration issues, and they are successful and popular for it. Even the leftist opposition has promised to uphold the stricter immigration rules, should they be voted back into power. All of this would have been completely unthinkable ten years ago. In the real world, this is as good as it gets.

Anonymous said...

I would not be surprised to discover that some of Brevik's Muslim friends from his high school days had been casually screwing pretty classmates Breivik probably desired but couldn't get. That's probably a deep seated part of his rage.

You're a loon.

If we're going to ban any "crazy extremist talk" from right wing blogs, let's start with this particular piece of idiocy - the idea that pretty white women are spreading their legs for furreners while well-off and good looking white boys sit at home and masturbate.

Anonymous said...

You gotta love people's need to pathologize affections they don't share. Danes who are in favor of restrictive immigration, or none at all, are "xenophobic.". Really? I would say maybe they are Danes who love Denmark the way it is and the Danish people the way they are.

It reminds me of the old trope that gay men hate women. We don't; we just like other men.

Anonymous said...

Also, to the guy despairing that Denmark is ten percent non-Danes, half of those immigrants are European, which may make a difference.

Camlost said...

And in other important news, the NBA has its first Hispanic owner:

http://meruelogroup.com/

Take a look at the guy, of course he looks just like any of those short, squat, dark ooompaloompas you'll see huffing it in front of your local Home Depot.

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

A co-worker, during a dicusssion about illegal immigration, once told me that "Americans are lazy." My immediate response was "Mexicans are lazy." He seemed aghast for a second, until he realized the point I was making - that it's become OK to speak derogitorily about Americans but not Mexicans, or anyone else."

Excellent point. I'm going to try this myself next time the opportunity presents itself.

Daybreaker said...

Peter A: "And their women are made definitively off limits to Europeans, while the immigrants screw white girls whenever they can."

And that's how winning is done.

Peter A said...

"[women] don't support immigration for the sexual options because, for the most part, they aren't embracing those options."

Jack, you are looking at it from an American perspective. Go to Germany and notice how many white women you will see with Middle Eastern and African immigrants. And even if they don't marry them, they do sleep with them first before marrying some German beta provider.

Anonymous said...

"And their women are made definitively off limits to Europeans, while the immigrants screw white girls whenever they can."

Middle eastern women except for Turkish and Persian don't tend to be attractive. Not a huge loss.

Anonymous said...

There's another side to this. How much of the radicalization among European/American Muslims is a product of their sexual frustration?

Anonymous said...

The situation in Britain and France is not neccessarily that bad.

The British are roughnecks and not
that intimidated by the Muslims. There was even a time when white thugs used to beat up Muslims and burn their stores down.

The French are more effeminate, but there is actually a decently high intermarriage rate between French men and Muslim women. It seems French Muslims, for whatever reason, have absorbed some of the liberal French values. People like Whiskey and the other neoconservatives tend to exaggerate the situation of French Muslims and not understand that, socially, the integration is not that bad.

The worst situation is in the Nordic countries. The men are weak and timid, but the immigrants are aggressive and keep their women off limits.

Anonymous said...

Muslims are the equivalent of our trailer trash. They tend to pick up the women that other guys don't want. The problem is that there are a fair number of marginal men that would've been happy with the fat, unattractive girl and now have to be celibate.

The mating market is a zero sum game. If Muslims come onto it, somebody is going to lose. The people that lose tend to be obese, ugly, socially akward/submissive, unemployed guys that live in their mom's basement. You can blame them for being losers, but there will always be losers in a society. Immigrants just make their life harder by taking their women, their job, and real estate (council flat).

It's like getting angry at Mexican illegals for stealing jobs in fruit picking. Yes they stole crappy jobs that a native-born America should be skilled/educated enough to avoid (this is one reason elites tend to look down on immigration restrictionists), but better our delinquents/Okies do this stuff than foreigners.

Anonymous said...

A western country free of Somalis?

Simon in London said...

"Increasing numbers of Somalis are moving away, especially to the UK"

Thanks Denmark. I guess after the way we betrayed you in the Mohammed Cartoon Crisis, we deserve every Somali we get.

Anonymous said...

"Middle eastern women except for Turkish and Persian don't tend to be attractive. Not a huge loss."

Arab women are actually attractive, though for those weaned on western standards of beauty, it may be an acquired taste.

Anonymous said...

No one points out that the single most driving force behind the immigration restrictionist movement in Denmark, for more than 10 years now, has been a woman--Pia Kjaersgaard of the Danish People's Party.

I guess that blows a hole in Whiskey's retarded theory.

Mark said...

"It seems French Muslims, for whatever reason, have absorbed some of the liberal French values."

My impressing (from across the pond) is that the French are in control of their culture and their country and they know it, like WASPs used to be in this country, back when white ethnic groups were still anglicizing their names to get ahead. Which I think is too much, incidentally, but you get my drift. Everyone bets on the strong horse, or something like that.

Mark said...

"In America immigration mostly lacks the sexual anger element it has in Europe. Most Mexican or Asian men are less of a threat to white males than the Blacks and Italians we already have"

Last time I checked Italians were white...

Anonymous said...

"Vibrant riot in north London leaves areas of Tottenham in burnt-out ruins."

The British coverage of this is downright hilarious. The emphasis is on being 'fair', 'civil', 'understanding', and all that gentlemanly stuff. No sense of outrage.

This desire for balance and form is a kind of British virtue, but it can prevent Brits from waking up and seeing the truth for what it is. It's just soooo vulgar to be outraged and say what may upset people.
Same thing during the 30s with the rise of Hitler. Brits tried everything to be understanding, fair, and etc with a man one could not be rational with.

Anonymous said...

"A western country free of Somalis"

Somalia is quite possibly the most miserable, least tolerable country on the planet. There are plenty of black, Muslim countries standing between Somalia and any Western white country. So why the frack are any of them taking in Somali immigrants?

The Western experience with Somali refugees has been uniformly miserable.

Resettle "refugees" in countries culturally and geographically close to home.

Anonymous said...

In a way Anglo modesty and form can be seen in Sailer himself. His blog site is toned down and basic. No show-offy graphic and visual stuff. He has no avatar for his facebook page and only posts his twits. You'd think he's Cotton Mather of the networld or something.
That's how wasps lost to the pushier and more colorful Jews.
Though Sailer lives in the West Coast, he's kinda into East Coast puritan virtues of old.

Anonymous said...

Exposing their enemies and quashing damaing info on their allies is the secret to the SPLC power. They have finagled themselves in to being one of the few de facto arbiters of what is racist and what is not. Then they simple label their political opponents as racists to help along their cause. In the absence of contrary facts or voices they function quite effectively which is why the fist people they go after are everyone in the media. As Archimedes said, “that what gets measured, gets done.”

Anonymous said...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2011/08/06/hollywood-mogul-katzenberg-rails-against-tea-party-s-extremism

Guys like Katzenberg should indeed be made to pay more. But before he rails about taxes, shouldn't he rail about the fact that Jews are making so much money than the rest of us? Let's put taxes aside for a a sec. The main reason for income inequality is not taxation--since the rich do pay more while bottom 50% pay next to nothing. No, the real cause for income and wealth inequality is that some people make a lot more than others. People making the most are Jews like Katzenberg. If Katzenberg and his ilk are worried about wealth inequality, shouldn't their main concern be "Why Are We Jews Making Much More than Others Combined?" If Jews didn't make so much more than the rest of us, there would be far less income/wealth inequality.

You see, Jews like Katzenberg support raising tax rates because it doesn't get at the heart of why huge income/wealthe inequalities exist in the first place, i.e. it doesn't really threaten their economic power. They don't wanna discuss Jewish IQ and social networking. They'd rather pretend that superrich Jews too are victims of income inequality due to tax policies of the GOP. Golly wolly, Katzenberg is soooo eager to be more equal with the rest of us, but it's the Tea Party that won't make it possible. Never mind he's richer than others because of his higher Jewish IQ and his powerful Jewish friends in the business--law, media, government, etc. The tax rate issue is just a red herring played by rich liberals.
Of course, even if taxes were raised--by several points--, it wil hardly cause a dent on top earners who will keep raking in more from globalism and use all sorts of loopholes to pay less. Raising taxes will merely give the false impression to American sheeple that the rich--superrich Jews especially--are paying their 'fair share', and so we should stop being angry and go back to watching TV sitcom. And notice that Katzenberg wants the vast upper middle class and lower rich to pay, in percentage terms, as much as those raking imn 100s of millions per year. I wonder if Katzenberg would support a system that raises taxes by 3 pts for the low rich while raising it to 80% for people like himself. If he's for true equality, that's the policy he should support.

Though Katzenberg and his friends make far more than the rest of us, they want to act as though they are oh-so-worried about inequality. It is the Jewish way. Make more money than the rest--rake it all in--but then act like they, oh gee, wanna be equal with everyone else, and uh... the only reason for the inequality and injustice is the current tax rate, and the villains are the Tea Party nuts! Btw, I wonder if Katzenberg ever called for auditing of the Fed, Hollywood(the empire of creative accounting), or for Wall Street tycoons--many of them Jewish--to be brought to justice like Enron crooks. No, I think he was for massive bailouts for his tribal brethren on Wall Street.

In fact, raising a few percentages on the upper crust will not change anything. Also, even with current tax rates, whole bunch of rich people use all sorts of loopholes to avoid paying taxes; it's certainly true of liberals like Soros and Bill Gates(and guys at GE).

So, when rich liberals support tax rate hikes, they are just trying to hoodwink us.
If they are really worried about inequality, they should give away most of their wealth and pledge not to make over $200,000 a year. There!! I solved the problem. If smart Jews decided not to get too rich, there would be greater equality, and therefore no need to worry about taxes.
Instead, Jews wanna rake in billions and then blame GOP for the inequality by not taxing them enough. If Jews choose not to make billions--often through corrupt means--, there would be more equality.

poultry inspector said...

"We cannot classify people depending on their value to the economy. That is degrading in a democracy that has a basic value of equality.”

"A basic value of equality" regarding any of the world's seven billion people who might wish to come to Denmark; they're all equal to the indigenous Danes whose ancestry goes back to the Vikings and beyond.

K(yle) said...

Whiskey's rhetoric is OTT, but I wouldn't discount it entirely. Aristotle's lessons on Spartan women are instructive here. Spartan women were liberated, and trusted that their societal position was secure, and didn't actually work towards the commonweal as defined by Spartan law and tradition. Aristotle claims they had a kind of xenophilia for foreign men. That Spartan women collectively played a society-wide game of 'Lets you and him fight'

I don't agree that white American women are lusting after Mexican men, but that doesn't mean they don't benefit from an environment of tribal warfare conducted by males to pick out the strongest studs. It doesn't mean that since white American women individually live like decadent Empresses and are so absolutely certain in their social stations and the stability of their society that they are effective not invested in collective efforts to keep it strong. It's better to have the men of their tribe, the ones they prefer, go to war with their neighbors, for the women themselves to be in constant contact with men of various tribes outside of their male relatives surveillance, as a remedy for the boring life that is a well functioning and safe society, and as a constant test put on the men they wish to mate with by overcoming the increased competition. Not just for sex and mating of the women in question, but for navigating an increasingly difficult social system, which women as "minorities" will be more resistant to feeling pernicious influences they help create.

I don't discount JSM's idea that men push for immigration for reasons of 'Otherness' fetishization and paraphilia either. I think there are actually a lot of examples of that. The Bushs' obviously hedging their dynastic ambitions on their mestizo heirs, Paul Krugman's black wife, Wolfwitzs' Arab mistress, and on and on.

I think that the interracial dating/mating statistics being broken out by relative celebrity would be revealing in that regard.

Anonymous said...

We don't have much tribal warfare in America. Mexicans and whites get along fine. The problem is blacks v.s. everyone else.

Jack Aubrey said...

"A basic value of equality" regarding any of the world's seven billion people who might wish to come to Denmark; they're all equal to the indigenous Danes whose ancestry goes back to the Vikings and beyond.

Well choice is the essence of immigration policy. As The Derb likes to say, there are only two (entirely unrealistic) immigration policies which free you from the burden of choice: either you allow absolutely no immigrants in, or you allow in everyone who chooses to come.

Any policy in between those two extremes will require the act of choice, about who is and is not deserving of residence or citizenship. Having had their rotting, stinking, putrid "economic necessity" argument thrown right back in their faces, multiculti lefties are now claiming that the question of an immigrant's economic value is immoral to even consider.

I certainly agree that citizens should not be treated differently with regards to their economic contribution. That is the essence of democracy. Potential citizens are entirely another matter. We do not get to choose our children, and we are responsible for their upbringing whether we like them or not. We do get to choose our spouses, however, and a wise person makes such a choice only after considerable experience and reflection.

Jack Aubrey said...

I'm slightly sympathetic with some portions of Whiskey's sex competition theory. Immigrant men may be driving sexual competition for women and may cause a small number of white men to be without mates. But given the relatively low rates of interracial marriage between white women and Asian, black, and Hispanic men, it's hardly likely to be the driving force behind the open borders movement. Those forces are overwhelmingly economic, political, and racial, not sexual.

K(yle) said...

Mexicans and whites get along fine.

Just keep repeating it, if it makes you feel better.

Reg Cæsar said...

I wonder what brought about this right-wing dynamic in Denmark. --IHTG ["I hate their guts"? "I have terrible gout"? "I hump three girlfriends?" "I'm horny, thank God" "I have to go now"?]

A more interesting question is why are Danes to different than their cousins in Norway & Sweden on such issues.--Michael Bloomberg

I have the same question as IHTG. How did the Danes become so sane? --navnløs

It's simple. They watch the Swedes, then do the opposite.

A Dane once told me that Sweden was "Nordens Amerika"-- they liked big, flashy cars, like 'Vettes. Of course, then, the Danes went for Ladas and Skodas!

Anonymous said...

Whites and Mexicans do get along fine. I'm anti-immigration in general, but Mexicans are not threatening to the average American.

They do cost us a lot and lower our wages.

troll doll lego said...

Maybe it's a WWII thing. Denmark tried to put up a fight, Sweden collaborated and Norway (such as it was) capitulated.

Not sure where Iceland fits in.

Anonymous said...

My impressing (from across the pond) is that the French are in control of their culture and their country and they know it, like WASPs used to be in this country, back when white ethnic groups were still anglicizing their names to get ahead. Which I think is too much, incidentally, but you get my drift. Everyone bets on the strong horse, or something like that.

Yeah, my thoughts too. The main problem with Arab and black French Muslims is that they come from ethnic groups which are lower in IQ and higher in impulsiveness. Assimilation can't change that.

Despite that, French Muslims don't neccessarily get along badly with the white French. During the 2005 banlieu/suburb riots, poor whites rioted alongside the North African Arabs and West African blacks. Most of the rioters were non-white, but there were pictures of white French kids creating urban mayhem too.

The hatred in the banlieus isn't really religious or racial, but more about the underclass against the ordered/educated/refined society of the French middle class. The rioters were hip hop, not Islamic.

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

Whites and Mexicans do get along fine. I'm anti-immigration in general, but Mexicans are not threatening to the average American."

These gentlemen would seem to disagree:

http://www.tennessean.com/includes/publicus/projects/projects04/paper/photos.html

corvinus said...

You know what they say, a picture is worth a thousand words:

http://satwcomic.com/robots

Plastique said...

The discussion is getting off topic now but I feel a point needs to be made regarding women: Gender feminists have played a crucial role in introducing anti-White agenda into the US schools in the last couple of decades.

They identified White males as their number one enemy and oppressor. In their quest to eradicate what is in their minds a White-male centered culture they recruited other aggrieved groups, partly as allies but also to shield themselves from anti-feminist backlash.

Truth said...

"Whiskey, scratch the surface of any European and you will find a warrior underneath."

You sure, Sport?

http://l.yimg.com/l/im_sigg2KYLk5QG07.4U3CkqxFzJw---y626/tv/us/img/site/71/64/0000067164_20100521192540.jpg

Anonymous said...

Mexicans have been in Texas for generations and are submissive toward Anglo Texans. You do have tough Mexican gangs in some areas like LA county, but Mexicans as individuals are not scary to whites.

Whites stay away from Mexican areas mainly because Mexicans are downscale like white trash.

ATBOTL said...

"I have the same question as IHTG. How did the Danes become so sane?"

Many Danes started voting for what was a small anti-immigration party. They took enough votes away from the "respectable right" that they were needed as a coalition partner for the right to govern. They demanded and got immigration cut backs in exchange for this.

It's pretty simple really. The problem is that people in English speaking countries aren't voting for nationalist parties in enough numbers to have this happen, although the center right in the US and UK have shifted their rhetoric on immigration recently. We've seen over and over again that this means nothing and that working through the mainstream always end in failure.

ben tillman said...

If RESTRICTING immigration saves Denmark money, then wouldn't ENDING immigration save it even more?

And repatriation still more?

Anonymous said...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14443278

It's all relative. Spain, Italy, and Greece are the Mexifornia of Europe.

Anonymous said...

Leftists are saying, EVEN IF THE DATA IS CORRECT, IT IS STILL WRONG TO OPPOSE IMMIGRATION.
This proves that the so-called rational, secular, and materialist left is actually deeply emotional, spiritual, and irrational. What goes by the name of 'cultural marxism' should really be called 'spiritual marxism'.
The dogma of racial equality and 'social justice' is deeply ingrained in the psyche of many European liberals. You can show them all the data that proves that immigration from Muslim and African nations is bad for Europe in terms of GDP, welfare cost, crime, etc, etc. All of those factual material is secondary to the higher spiritual truth of WESTERN PENANCE FOR WESTERN GUILT, LIBERAL MORAL NARCISSISM OVER ITS SANCTIMONIOUS HOLINESS, and THE ETERNAL IMAGE OF BLACKS AS HOLY SCHMOLY SAINT FOLKS.
(Same goes for universal healthcare. Even if libs are persuaded that it will prove more costly and wasteful, they'll still support it cuz it's just more 'socially just'.)

And black/Muslim leaders know how to play on the elites of Europe, just as black Americans do likewise in the US. In America, most black elites will actually schmooze and act nice/kindly with white elites--Democratic and Republican--, and so the impression that white elites come away with is, 'gee, these black folks really respect me and want to be my friends and are just asking for my understanding and help'. Even black elites who personally despised George W. Bush treated him kindly person-to-person. So, white elites meet these happy smiley Negroes who only seem to want 'peace' and 'understanding'. Since elite negroes treat them rather nice, white elites think it must be the same all around, even among the poor folks, i.e. poor blacks simply want to be get along with poor whites. Of course, poor black don't treat poor whites like black elites treat white elites.
If black elites nudge white elites and ask for 'more pie' with smiley face, underclass black thugs just attack and rob poor white folks.

But, white elites don't see that reality. They just see members of the black elite respectfully asking for a 'fairer slice of the pie' and conclude that all blacks must be the same: nice people who just want a little fairness in life.
Besides, white elites grew up in an environment in which their primary moral pride comes from feeling compassion for negroes and the like. Also, it's an easy and convenient way to justify their own wealth, power, and privilege. This way, the Clintons and Bushes of the world can flatter themselvs that they should be rich cuz they care sooo much and wanna do so much.

Truth said...

"Even black elites who personally despised George W. Bush treated him kindly person-to-person. So, white elites meet these happy smiley Negroes who only seem to want 'peace' and 'understanding'."

And we would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for you meddling kids.

Anonymous said...

Those kids in the phot look more like rap hoodlums than Muslims. The problem isn't lack of assimilation but assimilation to American pop culture than to European culture.
Indeed, it seems like African and Arab Immigrants in France are culturally closer to American hip-hoppers than to European intellectual culture.
They are assimilating into the standards of American ghetto culture. In fact, devout Muslims are less likely to riot and loot in Europe. In many cases, African troublemakers in Europe who are steeped in rap culture are referred to as 'Muslim' since it sounds less 'racist' to badmouth Muslims than blacks or Africans(and hip hop culture).


In London in the last few days, its black 'immigrant community' has been acting very much like American blacks.
One interesting difference. In America, so-called race riots are really race riots, i.e. usually blacks burning and looting entire blocks, and other races running and hiding.
In the case of London, it seems to be more diverse. Though it was triggered off in a dominantly black community, many white kids seemed to have joined in the mayhem. Why would that be?

Could it be that the huge numbers of blacks in the US have made the black/white division much clearer? So, whites stay in white world, blacks stay in black world. And when blacks go crazy, white people feel scared and shut the door and stay in their white world.

But since the black population in UK is much smaller and expanded gradually, stronger ties may have developed between blacks and certain whites--leftists, underclass, and/or those into black culture.

It could be British whites, as of yet, feel less threatened by blacks as a whole and find it kinda cool to join in with the blacks to loot and rob.
In contrast, whites in America know that if they joined a black riot, they themselves would likely get beat up.

Or, maybe a kind of stockholm syndrome operates among poor whites in London. Since they've been abandoned by rich whites and have been forced to integrate with fearsome blacks, they have no choice but to adopt the philosophy of "if you can't beat em, join them". Since tougher blacks control many of those neighborhoods, the only chance for poor whites to adopt to the new reality is by adulating and imitating blacks.

Two kinds of psychologies seem to operate among white people who side with blacks.
Among white elites, there's a sense of noblesse oblige and a kind of moral narcissism/superiority that comes with haute 'white guilt', which can actually be used to gain and justify even more power and privilege. The Blairs and Clintons seemed only to have gotten richer and more powerful by playing the 'compassion' card.

The other psychology is the Stockholm Syndrome dynamic, and this applies mainly to poor whites in US and UK. Too poor and dumb to move from blackening areas, they come under the power of blacks physically, sexually, culturally, and politically. Since it's depressing to think of themselves as oppressed and trapped in a black hellhole, they tell themselves that they are one with the brothas. They choose to see their bondage--or state of racial hostage--as a kind of tribal brotherhood with the coolest and badassest people on Earth. They become like Patty Hearst when she was abducted by the SLA.
And since many white trash really know nothing culturally but rap music, porn, and sports, they have no idea how much they've fallen or how much they've been abandoned by white people with money and power. Sad if you ask me.

Anonymous said...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2024001/UK-riots-2011-London-Birmingham-people-forced-strip-naked-street.html

"You're my bitch, white boy."

Who's reduced to the naked savage now? How ironic.

Anonymous said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7x7W-K0eMw0&feature=player_embedded

The most outrageous case of 'invade the world, invite the world'.

UK drops big bombs on Libya, killing 1000s, in the name of saving Libyans from Gaddafi, but it does precious little to defend its native population from black thugs.

Invade the world and be invaded by the world. I think Rome ended the same way. They were so busy invading the world that they forgot how to defend Rome itself. All roads lead to Rome, and all raods in London are burning.

Charlotte said...

"white women lusting after Mexican men..."

good gracious, have you seen those crews standing along the street waiting for a pickup truck to take them sernedipity? I'm a head taller than most of them, and I'm only average female height.
Lady Chatterly herself would not be tempted, I assure you. The virtue of middleclass American suburban women is relatively safe from their temptations.

There was a mass murder, though, in Bethesda during the 90s. Committed by an illegal from central America who got the hots for the 14 yr old daughter and then murdered his contract boss, the father (who was a dentist working at home), another daughter, and the 14 yr old. Only left from the family: mom and the son who didn't come home that day. Murders happened in the house: he bludgeoned them one by one as they came into the house. The contract boss, a white American, had told the "hispanic" guy to leave the 14 yr old alone after her mom complained he was looking spooky at the girl. I believe it was a Jewish family.
No, I don't think all Jews approve of illegal immigrants.

Anonymous said...

"It could be British whites, as of yet, feel less threatened by blacks as a whole and find it , maybe a kind of stockholm syndrome operates among poor whites in London. Since they've been abandoned by rich whites and have been forced to integrate with fearsome blacks, they have no choice but to adopt the philosophy of "if you can't beat em, join them". Since tougher blacks control many of those neighborhoods, the only chance for poor whites to adopt to the new reality is by adulating and imitating blacks."

Not so much, it's more of a nmbers game when it comes to who controls where. A lot of white criminals think blacks are upstart scum.

"Two kinds of psychologies seem to operate among white people who side with blacks.
Among white elites, there's a sense of noblesse oblige and a kind of moral narcissism/superiority that comes with haute 'white guilt', which can actually be used to gain and justify even more power and privilege. The Blairs and Clintons seemed only to have gotten richer and more powerful by playing the 'compassion' card.

The other psychology is the Stockholm Syndrome dynamic, and this applies mainly to poor whites in US and UK. Too poor and dumb to move from blackening areas, they come under the power of blacks physically, sexually, culturally, and politically. Since it's depressing to think of themselves as oppressed and trapped in a black hellhole, they tell themselves that they are one with the brothas. They choose to see their bondage--or state of racial hostage--as a kind of tribal brotherhood with the coolest and badassest people on Earth. They become like Patty Hearst when she was abducted by the SLA.
And since many white trash really know nothing culturally but rap music, porn, and sports, they have no idea how much they've fallen or how much they've been abandoned by white people with money and power. Sad if you ask me"

Incidently I live in one of London's outer boroughs that has been badly affected in the more errr contested (in racial terms) as a black led mob rioted, but so far in the Southern end of the borough there has been little trouble (one shop on the big council estate where I work got ransacked and burned out last night, probably by a few locals) but today it was promised that that same council estate's main shopping area would get smashed up at 1400, but the locals weren't interested and the mob that did gather were dispersed. Nonetheless the police seriously restricted public transport to stop people coming up here.

To set the scene this estate has got a lot of different races hanging around, but it's mostly white and not just the oldies like some estates most of the young folk are white and most of the crims are too, the estate even has a BNP councillor.

Apparently it's still supposed to be on for tonight *although it's a real trek for lazy criminals to get here with restricted buses and trams* nothing is happening and hundreds of locals are hanging around the shopping precicnt waiting for 'them' to get here so they cam make a show of commmunity solidarity (beat up the sooties basically).