Friday, 31 August 2012

London Met U in trouble with UKBA

The last time the London Metropolitan University (LMU) was in the news in a big way it was because the vice-chancellor was proposing to establish muslim-friendly no-alcohol no-talk-about-sex zones on campus; blogged about here.

Now they are back in the public for a less salubrious reason. The UK Border Agency has lost confidence in them for the purposes of issuing "Tier 4" visas which are intended for adult students. (The media is generally reporting they have lost the power to issue visas. This is rubbish, only the Home Office can issue visas - what they have lost is their "trusted" status; ie a letter from London Met no-longer carries weight with the UKBA.)

Somewhat surprisingly the UKBA announced that all existing visas sponsored by the LMU were to be cancelled; this on the strength of a quarter of LMU's overseas students being deemed bogus - not attending lectures, not really students. Surprising, because it rather inconveniences the remaining 75% (about 1950 students) part-way through their courses who now have 60 days to find another alma mater or quit the country. With the academic year starting next week this could be a challenge for them. If any are obliged to leave full-time education they would likely have a good case in the High Court for restitution of their course fees to-date; especially given that the government has placed the entire blame on lax procedures at the LMU.

Some suspect that the LMU is actually running an institutional scam as an immigration backdoor - taking the course fees in return for turning a blind eye to whether students are actually attending lectures or instead have got themselves a black-market job. But since the course fees for overseas students start at £15,000 a year that really makes no sense - no illegal immigrant could get a job that would justify such an overhead.

Nope, if there is a scam here, it is not leaving the UK after graduation; not failing to get the degree in the first place. A University of Exeter study estimated that as few as 20% of overseas graduates actually leave the country when their student visa expires.

After bravely firing its big guns at the LMU there are already signs that the government is back-pedaling. The Education Department is setting up a task-force to place affected students in other institutions, and the 60-days-to-get-gone letters have not actually been posted yet. The government may have belatedly realised the problem is real but the target was wrong.

Obviously this blog applauds the use of the big stick on illegal immigrants. However the government's aim must be improved. They need a way of ensuring that 1) students remain on their courses or leave the country, and 2) students leave the country on completion of their course. These are difficult things to achieve.

One way to keep students on their courses would be to require them to pay the full fees (£45,000 minimum) upfront, before entry to the UK. This would be a large burden on the student, but would at least ensure only a high class of foreign student came to the UK.

Perhaps more reasonably some sort of bond should be required. For example £50,000 should be paid into a local embassy or consulate before the visa is issued; then after graduation it can be reclaimed from the same place when the visa expires. Interest should be paid, eg 3% pa so that if the student has to borrow the money it is largely cost neutral for them.

What this country really does need is a database of people who should not be here; basically the palm-prints of all deported persons, plus all persons with expired visas. This blog, like Nationalists generally, is opposed to ID cards (which would solve this kind of problem once and for all) but a database of the disallowed would not affect British citizens and is not controversial. Such a database could be used to vet foreigners entering the UK from Asia and Africa where most illegal immigrants come from. To avoid the "insult factor" citizens of the Anglosphere and Western Europe should not be scanned unless a border official has reason to suspect them.

Also the police could use the database to check arrested persons. This would catch a surprisingly large number of illegal immigrants as they seem to get arrested far more often than the general population.

Wednesday, 29 August 2012

Tom Holland, the antidote to Faisal Islam

Finally we have an antidote to Faisal Islam's Channel 4 programmes on Mohammed and the birth of the Islamic religion. Faisal spoon-fed us the oral tradition of Islam over the course of several programmes covering the birth of the Prophet in Mecca, his divine revelations in a nearby cave, his falling out with local polytheistic priests who felt that many gods were better for business than one god, his flight to Medina and his eventual return after triumph in battle.

And last night (28-Aug-2012) ancient historian Tom Holland demolished the whole thing in a single 75 minute Channel 4 programme called Islam: The Untold Story.

The programme was effectively a spin-off of a book, In the Shadow of the Sword, that Holland has spent the last five years researching and writing. In it he demolishes the oral tradition of Islam both by pointing out that there is no evidence for it, and that there is quite a lot of evidence against it. For example muslims pray facing Mecca because that is where Mo was born. Oops - early mosques actually faced lots of different directions.

In fact there seems to be very little evidence that Mo even existed until about 60 years after he is supposed to have died. He probably did not come from Mecca (mentioned only once in the Koran) but from further north. Holland suggests Azdat in the Lebanon as a possibility.

The Story of Mo would appear to have grown with the telling. When the Arabs moved East after the fall of the Roman Empire they needed a monotheistic religion to put up against the prevailing religions of Christianity and Judaism and so Mo was co-opted; his book the Koran was written (previously it had been an oral story only) and the dogma fleshed out. With the Roman and Persian empires having fought themselves to a standstill the Arabs were able to move into the resultant power vacuum and expanded across the Middle East and Maghreb. Naturally, the new religion, being an instrument of conquest, said that its believers were the finest of peoples and fully entitled to help themselves to the land and property of the unbelievers.

Tom Holland can probably expect a fatwa in the post.

Friday, 24 August 2012

Anders Behring Breivik: Sane and guilty

The verdict is in - Breivik has been declared sane and guilty and sentenced to a possible 21 years in jail with a minimum of 10 years - minus the 445 days he has already served. So it's only the sentence which is insane.

The correct sentence for murdering 77 people is death by hanging.

This is the outcome Breivik wanted. Check out the little smile as the sentence is pronounced.

Breivik: As sane as you or me

His plans now involve a lot of writing. All Norwegian prisons are connected to the internet and all prisoners have some entitlement to use the connection. (All prisoners are entitled to education, and these days that requires internet access.) Breivik was a prolific internetter so perhaps we will see him popping up in his usual haunts such as

Inevitably he will have followers. Although nationalists generally abhor his methods - they share his concerns. Some of them will agree that the executing of 'traitors' is a necessary and meritorious act. There is a danger that Breivik will become 'Leader-in-jail' of a significant movement. (Nelson Mandela is also a mass-murderer and was 'spiritual leader' of the ANC during his 27 years in jail. Somehow being inside adds credibility.)

The hope by many that Breivik will now not be heard of for a couple of decades is likely to be forlorn.

Thursday, 16 August 2012

Ecuador, land of the free!

Wikileaker-Supreme, Julian Assange, for these last two months closeted in the embassy of Ecuador in London, has been granted permanent refuge in Ecuador. Of course to take advantage of this offer Assange would have to leave the embassy and travel to an airport, and he would be arrested as soon as he stepped out of the front door.

Assange visited Sweden in 2010 where he  had consensual sex with two women who worked for Wikileaks. The two women approached the Swedish police to see if it would be possible to compel Assange to have an HIV test. Assange was questioned in Sweden but allowed to leave the country.

The real problem seems to be that Assange had sex with TWO women during his visit and when each woman found out about the other they decided to kick up a fuss.

Eventually an arrest warrant alleging rape was issued and extradition proceedings started. (In Sweden having sex without using a condom can constitute rape even if both parties are consenting.)

Most likely Assange has nothing to fear from a trial in Sweden. The two women no longer want to pursue any sort of action against him (if he had infected them, they would know it by now) and it would probably embarrass the Swedish authorities if they had to try him. So far no charges have been laid, and the official position is that the Stockholm police just want to question him some more. Assange has offered them the opportunity to question him in the UK but they have declined. All the indications are they do not want this case to proceed. It would show Sweden in very bad light.

Assange's true fear is that once in Sweden he would be taken to the USA. Senior politicians in America have already taken to calling him a terrorist. Newt Gingrich called him an "enemy combatant" - which means he could be taken off to Guantanamo Bay. In the USA Assange fears the prospect of a life sentence in a super-max prison where he would basically never be heard from again. Hence his rather desperate attempts to avoid going to Sweden. (The Swedes would certainly make it a condition of his extradition that he would not be subject to the death penalty - regardless of what he was convicted.)

This does raise the question: would it really be easier for the Americans to extradite him from Sweden than from the UK? The answer has got to be no. The Americans fairly easily extradite even British citizens from the UK on very flimsy evidence. And Assange is an Australian.

So in fact, the Americans do not really want him either. The reason being: it would be difficult bordering on impossible to convict him of any crime in a US court. There is no Official Secrecy Act in the USA. The 1st Amendment (Right to Free Speech) makes it incredibly difficult to convict someone for leaking an official secret unless they are actually employed by the government. And Assange is not even an American, let alone an employee of Uncle Sam. Hence no extradition request from the Americans has been received.

Assange's fears of authority are largely groundless. His over-reaction is more to do with his character than any genuine prospect of conviction. He is a constant fugative; needlessly moving from country to country, forever fighting the governments of the world. His upbringing was in this vein: demos against the Vietnam War, fleeing across Australia rather than facing some imagined legal action. Even setting up WikiLeaks is totally in character. The kind of person who would set up WikiLeaks is the kind of person who will never submit to any form of judicial process.

Likely he will not be able to get from the Ecuadoran embassy to an airport. If by some miracle he does smuggle himself to Ecuador likely he would not stay there long. He would move on; get picked up by some other government - his persecution complex would grow as a result - and the whole cycle would start again.

He might as well give up and get it over with, but he won't.

Harry and Amelia

The BBC has reported that in 2011 the top name chosen for boy babies was Harry, probably inspired by Prince Harry and the boy wizard Harry Potter. The top girl's name was Amelia. The Guardian agrees almost word for word.

There were 7,256 boys called Harry born last year.

What neither the Beeb nor the Guardian found space to report is that if you add up all the variations on the muslim prophet's name (Mohammed, Muhammad, Mohammad, Muhammed and Mohamed) you get a total of 7,907.

Yes, Mo is the real top boys' name in 2011. The muslims are out-breeding everyone else. However the left-wing apologists for the colonisation of our country are having their treachery concealed by the fact that the muslims cannot spell their prophet's name in any consistent manner - at least in English.

Friday, 10 August 2012

Big-Headed Bolt

Jamaican runner, Usain Bolt, has won the gold medal for the 100m and the 200m sprints in the London Olympics, just like he did four years ago in Peking.

That is obviously a great achievement and entirely laudable.

However it seems his mouth runs just as fast as his legs. He has called himself "the greatest athlete" and a "living legend".

Bolt: Legend in his own lunchtime
These epithets are debatable but may be true, although as I indicated in the previous post the winner of the decathlon is traditionally regarded as the greatest athlete. "Living legend" is perhaps less deniable.

But the point is, it is not for anyone, in any field, to self-appoint as either greatest or a legend in their own lifetime. These accolades come from public consensus or not at all. To pin them on oneself seems like the boastfulness of a ten-year-old. I cannot imagine any (white) British athlete coming out with such arrogance, and there are many who have won more medals than Bolt. Nor can I imagine the media reporting this type of self-congratulation in such an uncritical manner for an athlete who was not black.

Thursday, 9 August 2012

Olympic skateboading

Are you looking forward to the Olympic skateboarding final? It should be quite a spectacle; probably lots of jumps and flips and the occasional broken neck.

If so, you have a few years to wait, skateboarding is not an Olympic sport yet.

Unlike BMX biking which is, also Keirin biking (chasing a motorbike) and Omnium biking (a six event biking equivalent of the heptathlon.)  In fact, in all, there are five cycling track events for men at the Olympics, eight track events for women, four road events for male cyclists, two for the woman, There is also mountain biking for men and women and BMX biking for both as well. Which raises the question: how many medals are up for grabs in just cycling alone? Not so fast with that answer though, some of those are team events!

There is the "team pursuit" with four riders in the male team, and three in the women's team. There is also the "team sprint" with three riders in the men's team and two in the women's team.

So, keeping in mind there is a gold, silver and bronze on offer for each event, put it all together and what have you got? How many actual physical medals are going to be handed out? The answer is: 78. Yes, seventy-eight medals are available to the cyclists. That is 78 medals to be shared between about 500 Olympic cyclists.

When the cyclists designed their sport they certainly made sure there were not going home empty-handed (or should that be bare-chested?)

Can we find a 'greedier' sport? Well, how many medals are available for Judo? Let us think. Gold, silver, bronze, male and female - is the answer 6? Nope, you forgot to account for the fact that there are seven different weight classes. So the actual answer is 42. The 'judokas' have made a big mistake though - they forgot to include any team events in their sport.

The shooters have also managed inflate the number of medals they can get. Firstly, all events are male or female. There is no obvious reason why men and women should compete separately in shooting - the gun does all the work. Next, you can shoot at static targets or moving targets, you can shoot with a rifle or a pistol or a shotgun, you can shoot standing or prone, and of course there is the ever popular shooting at multiple moving targets at the same time. Put it all together what have you got? Nine events, 54 medals.

Again the shooters do not seem to have been able to design in any team events; foolish, that is where the big medal hauls come from. The rowers have done better. They have team events, and also weight categories - that is clever. For the record the rowing events are for men: single scull, double scull, quad scull, coxless pair, coxless four, and eight-in-a-boat. There are separate events for 'lightweight' men: double scull and coxless four. The women have much the same except they do not have coxless fours in either weight category. (Only two weight categories in rowing! Room for improvement there.) In case you were wondering: scull means each rower has two oars while in the other boats each rower only has one oar. In "eights" there is a ninth person called a "coxswain" who steers the boat - despite not rowing the cox still gets a medal. Anyway, when we do the math, we find that the rowers will be taking home a fantastic 318 medals.

If for some reason your sport does not lend itself to teams or weight categories there is another option: put "synchronised" in the name. The divers have managed to (nearly) double their medal chances by diving from various height platforms, and then doing it all over again - synchronised.

The ultimate Olympic event is the decathlon. Ten sports are contested over two days. The winner is traditionally dubbed "the world's greatest athlete" and his gold medal is known as "the big G." He stands supreme; the Olympian other Olympians bow down to. So how many medals are available to these ultra-athletes? Answer: just three: gold, silver and bronze. There are no teams, no weight categories, no synchronised, and no women's event.

And if you are wondering why I am going on about all this consider the big picture. There are (approx) 10,900 athletes competing in the Olympics and 4,700 medals to be won. That means that almost half of the athletes could take home a medal. Of course some athletes will win several medals so it will not work out like that. The games are rigged; not rigged to make them easier, but rigged to hand out prizes to the most possible participants. The more recently a sport has been added to the games the more blatant the rigging. The traditional track and field events have been pushed to the side in the medal stakes by newer sports which are hogging the limelight. Sadly, the ultimate sporting prize, the Olympic medal, has become devalued.

Wednesday, 1 August 2012

Olympic opening ceremony

What is a nationalist to think of the £27 million Olympic opening ceremony held last Friday?

Well I suppose we should be glad it went off with no major disasters. The weather was the key variable - if it had rained hard all evening that would have completely ruined the event. But it did not - not a drop - phew!

The ceremony was grandiose, clever, humorous, and a technological tour de force. Other opening ceremonies have had fireworks; in the stadium, at the end. We were treated to fireworks from about halfway through, and not just in the stadium but along the streets leading to the stadium, in the stadium, around the stadium, practically shooting down into the spectators.

The part where James Bond went to Buck House, collected Her Majesty in a helicopter and they both parachuted into the stadium was clever and funny in equal measure. Obviously viewers were expecting Bond to jump, but the queen as well! (Actually neither of the stunt people in the chopper landed in the stadium. The place was riddled with wires - it would have been lethal.)

But juxtaposed with all this cleverness we had some down-right perplexing parts. What was it with all the blacks? Blacks have lived in the UK since 1948, other than in tiny numbers. They form a negligible part of our national history and yet were all over the opening ceremony in vastly disproportionate numbers; backs in top hats playing Victorians; blacks in the typical suburban house; black dancers - the main dance narrative was black boy hooks up with black girl by finding her phone and they both live happily ever after.

This was not subtle 'blonking'. (Blonking is a TV term for briefly focusing on black people in the audience. There is also 'plonking' which is picking out a pretty girl for no obvious reason - other than she is a pretty girl of course.)

TV people love a good blonk. They are mainly left-wing and think it salubrious to shove immigrants in our faces. They think we will start to consider it normal to have black people all over the place. They especially love to place them in inappropriate historical contexts as if to say, "blacks have always lived all over the British Isles. Of course there were black Victorians, and blacks at Agincourt, and Runymede and in Boudicca's army."

But the Olympic opening went beyond any sort of subtle brainwashing. It was very noticeable - it must have sent a very strange message to foreigners viewing the ceremony. "What are the Brits trying to tell us?", they must have asked themselves.

Maybe the luvvies who put the whole thing together thought that we have been blonked so much over recent years that the dose needed to be increased and they just overdid it. Maybe they themselves live in such a blonked world that it seemed normal to them.

Who are these luvvies anyway?

Well, everyone knows that Danny Boyle (director of Trainspotting, Slumdog Millionaire, 28 Days Later) was the Artistic Director of the event. (It had a name by the way: Isles of Wonder.) Less well known are the others in the creative team.

The scriptwriter was Frank Boyce; a long term collaborator with Danny Boyle and a former writer for the magazine Living Marxism. As Assistant Director there was Stephen Daldry, an Oscar nominated director in his own right and a former member of the Socialist Workers' Party. Also assisting was Catherine Ugwu - a writer on the subject of "Black Liberation".

Of course there were quite a few others in the production team, but they were mainly technical - there to implement the vision of the above 'creatives'.

So there seems to have been a Marxist capture of the event. They could not resist the urge to shove their dogma in our faces and as a result they tarnished the event. It should have been apolitical. However, it is perhaps a good thing they overplayed their hand. It makes it more obvious that there was a subtext - and it should prod people to look more sceptically at the output of TV and try to discern what message the magic lantern is trying to slip past their critical faculties and straight into the hind brain.

In a couple of weeks the same team will be bringing us the Closing Ceremony; more of the same probably.