By Kasredin:
The Conservative MP Nadhim Zahawi has recommended that the government should restrict child tax credits and child benefits to only the first two children in each household. This is not yet government policy, and the Liberal Democrats are unlikely to give it their wholehearted support, but the public reaction in the comments section of at least one national newspaper is very strongly in favour.
The coalition government is in trouble. As I have noted before, an analysis of parliamentary by-elections results since the last general election suggests that the Labour Party will win the next general election. The Liberal Democrats could even face wipeout, and that in turn would almost certainly allow the Labour Party an overall majority.
I cannot think of anything which could happen in the next sixteen months which could realistically salvage the LibDems, but Tory Party is in a stronger position. If it can force some serious reductions in welfare payments through parliament, then their popularity – at least among middle class voters – could surge.
We cannot therefore rule out the possibility that some restriction of child benefits and child tax credits is on the cards. While such a policy would impact on inidigenous British families and immigrant families alike, it might nevertheless be possible to turn the situation to the advantage of the patriotic community.
The threat to Britain and its way of life is not merely from immigration, but also from breeding within the immigrant community. As long as the host population can outbreed the immigrant population, then all is not lost.
So let us consider a scenario in which the government has limited tax credits and tax benefits to just two children in each family. Many families will go down the route of having only two children, which in many cases might be a reduction. Nevertheless there are many families at the moment which are not breeding because of the need to have two incomes, and the failure of tax credits to cover the costs of childcare and of buying a larger home. If income tax were to be reduced as a result of cuts to welfare, then at least some families would probably have two children where they might otherwise have had none or maybe just one.
The challenge for patriots would be to encourage British families to breed, and to have not two children but preferably three or more children. In theory we could establish a charity to provide financial assistance to British families with three or more children, but such a charity would almost fall foul of the law. If it did not, then the government would probably create such a law before long.
We would need to be cautious therefore. The simplest approach would be for every patriot who knows a British family with three or more children to offer them assistance. (It would make sense not to talk in terms of financial assistance at first, as people can often be proud where money is concerned.) Another approach would be to create an information network about British families with three or more children, so that families who feel that they need financial assistance can be put in touch with people who are willing to help out.
There is no point addressing this matter further at the moment, because we do not know yet that any change in the law is imminent. If the law does change, then we need to have a game plan up and running in a matter of months. I for one would be happy to play my part.
By Kasredin © 2013
# # # #
frederickdixon
- Edit
I entirely agree. The restriction of benefits to the first two children has been floated more than once but has been rejected by the Prime Minister, or so we are told. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if it surfaced again in the Tories manifesto for the next general election. If it happens it would be a step in the right direction, helping to counter the dysgenic effect of the present benefits culture which encourages the excessive breeding of the unfit. In any properly organised system, though, it would go much further and limit child benefits to UK citizens only, but that would fall foul both of the EU and race relations legislation.
I also agree that it is crucial that racially aware White British families should have more than two children if at all possible. Although it is unlikely that we will ever be in a position to offer direct financial help to such families, much can be done within a community of the like minded by organised child minding, clothes exchanges etc.
For an example of what can be achieved with higher levels of child bearing, look at the Haradim, the ultra- orthodox Jews. There are 45,000 in this country, 15% of the Jewish population, yet they have more than 40% of the children. While other sectors of the Jewish population dwindle away through low birth rates and mixed marriages, the Haradim – who never, ever, marry out – are redefining what it is to be a Jew. We too can redefine what it is to be White British.
Steve
- Edit
It’s interesting that a moslem MP puts this forward, I’m sure someone will scream discrimination & that this won’t get off the ground.
Under a future government whites could be encouraged to breed but no incentives or subsidies for others.
Steve
- Edit
Also a future Labour government will probably go back to its policy of lifting those in poverty which probably means large Asian families & the like will get some sort of help.
AAA
- Edit
I’m glad to see that the author is making suggestions to compliment the article. I at times feel that generally we might be in danger of preaching to the converted in the Cause or else simply highlighting issues without offering solutions to the general public.
.
The author raises some interesting points in this quagmire issue.
.
If such a measure is to be passed then it might indeed, in the main, benefit the host nation –as families in the immigrant population have more children than the indigenous nation’s 2.4. Therefore such a measure ought to be more detrimental to the immigrants.
.
But even if the indigenous nation will too suffer, is this not, perversely, beneficial to the Cause insofar as the measure being yet another attack on our people, yet another straw that might go some way in breaking the camel’s back?
.
As I said, this issue is a quagmire and it is not easy to adjudge the affects as favourable or unfavourable to the Cause. For apart from the possible suffering of our people, will such a measure compel the immigrant communities to have fewer children? At first sight I think not, because the main source of the demographic time bomb (Muslims) are a strong close-knit community that sticks together –and this suggests that their social and economic structure and networks is such that they could outride such new laws until their sugar-daddy Labour Party returned to the crease.
.
This community and networking is what the author seems to be trying to emulate –and it is as well he is, because we are alone and disparate in the war that the System has enacted upon us. We cannot defend ourselves by playing its game.
.
However, while cuts in welfare payments could in theory result in a reduction of Income Tax the reality proves otherwise. While there might be a cut in Income Tax or VAT of, say, one or two per cent in order to placate the People in time for the next General Election, the only cuts so far have been in the Public Purse by dint of ‘austerity’ measures. That is to say, just because the State can save itself a few quid here and there does not mean that such savings are passed on to taxpayers.
.
The Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) and the privatisation of infrastructure are two examples of this. The LGPS, of course, has been introduced because the ‘government’ is broke. If you do not opt out (and I strongly suggest all do because you won’t see a penny of it returned to you –it is a scam) you are effectively paying twice for the one pension all those under 50 years of age will not be seeing. Do not our stamps pay for pensions? Was not the pension pot raided by Gordon Brown around the same time he sold the nation’s gold reserves for pittance?
.
And what of the privatisation of infrastructure? Has it resulted in lower taxes (as is the case in the U.S. where the State in minimal)? Of course not. The contracts, responsibility, and management handed out to –to name but a couple– G4S and Serco has saved the ‘government’ a considerable sum of YOUR money. But has YOUR money been passed back to YOU?
.
We must beware of thinking that cuts in welfare equal savings for taxpayers. The State is an omnipotent parasite and will find plenty of other areas (primarily bank bailouts and political adventures abroad) in which it can pass on the blood (wealth) of we the Host.
.
The State cannot and will not be reformed –not unless we have over 300 MPs in Parliament and over 600 Civil Servants to replace the present slavish aficionados who have over time been politicised and are now thus well-inured to, and supportive of, the present System.
.
Either way, the source of our predicament is beyond reform –the System is too well entrenched– and so we would be much better off cutting lose of it by dissenting non-co-operation, socio-economically, to starve and flush out the parasite.
.
This is, I hope, part of the plan B we all are, in Western Spring, hopefully facilitating.
.
Thank you to the author for sharing his ideas –possible solutions that ought to be worked out amongst us in a private capacity.
Steve
- Edit
“But has YOUR money been passed back to YOU?”
Ah that reminds me of the con where a company kills a few taxpayers in a crash or some such thing & gets fined by the government, so they get paid for us getting killed & then the company charges us to make up the loss.
Or you get thumped in the street & the perpetrator gets fined but most of the money goes to the government & lawyers.
We suffer, they get paid!
We have to pay green taxes, carbon credits but London continues to expand & produce more pollution & we pay for that too.
Unrepentant
- Edit
Whilst at school contraception was strongly encouraged and promoted. It was taught in both my biology and Personal Social Education lessons, and in sixth form we were subjected to a slide show of images of people suffering from the effects of various venereal diseases. In addition to these unpleasant and often disturbing images, we were told that free condoms were available at various clinics and that we could have as many as we liked. Having children young, we were told, would ruin our lives. Of course this was justified as an attempt to prevent teenage pregnancies.
Since the 1960s when abortion was legalised, I believe there have been some six million aborted foetuses in the United Kingdom. Obviously the vast majority will have been white, and I imagine very few Asian women would have had abortions as it is socially unacceptable amongst their communities.
Given that the UK is supposed to have a demographic crisis, in which the proportion of elderly people is ever increasing, one has to wonder why contraception has been so vehemently encouraged and abortion on demand has been made available. After all, mass-immigration is ostensibly the solution to this problem. The state cannot afford the burden of so many economically inactive people, they say; indeed the SNP have promised to ‘grow Scotland’s working population’. I also believe ethnic minorities are statistically more likely to be claiming unemployment benefits.
I appreciate that conspiracy theories are frowned upon by many, but it strikes me that there has been a deliberate attempt to curtail indigenous population growth, whilst encouraging immigrants with high fecundity rates. Indeed the latest census findings show that the number of ‘white British’ people has actually fallen.
Steve
- Edit
I would agree, but a lot of pundits on TV are pushing the same line of propaganda about how we welcome hard working immigrants & that they pay more taxes & claim less benefits.
Even if the government gets tax out of them, a lot of the more temporary ones send most of the money home, so it benefits another country more.
I’m sure a lot those big families are receiving benefits of one sort or another.
I think the whole situation has been manipulated in the way that you say, first create a shortage of white British so as to provide an excuse to bring in immigrants to fill the gap.
I think a lot of this is probably done on borrowed money with the end result of the state collapsing under the weight of demands & debt, which was the desired end result all along, to destroy the nation state & deliver it into foreign hands.
Max Musson
- Edit
The figures used to justify immigration on the basis that immigrants work hard and pay taxes are specious in that they ignore the fact that for every immigrant in work and paying taxes, there is an indigenous British person, who would otherwise have that job, out of work and claiming benefits. Every individual immigrant working in this country equates to one more indigenous British person on benefits.
.
The figures also ignore the fact that the immigrants don’t generate more wealth for our nation as a whole, they simply acquire some of the wealth that would otherwise be shared solely among the indigenous British. In other words, the national ‘cake’ is shared between more people, and that means we each have a smaller share of that ‘cake’.
.
Advocates of mass immigration claim that immigrants make the ‘cake’ bigger, but that is not so. Unless immigrants are inventing products that never existed before, or creating industries that never existed before, thereby creating a field of economic endeavour that we would not have had in this country without them, then they are, by their presence in our country, simply acquiring a share of the same national ‘cake’ that we would have otherwise had without them. That is, their presence in this country is making every one of us a little poorer than we would otherwise be. This is the simple message that we must constantly hammer home.
Steve
- Edit
I saw a programme awhile back about Bradford & it mainly showed “Asians”, the whites largely didn’t seem to exist.
It clearly showed that these people lived in a bubble that provided jobs for itself, a self contained economy that the government might get some tax from but doesn’t benefit the rest of us.
To those that think that the tax that was collected is necessary, I think not, look how much is wasted & squandered, we would gain far more by stopping that.
There was one solitary white person who was doing well out of it in the programme about Bradford & he had adapted to the Asians not the other way about. He was doing the dirty job they didn’t want to do, which was burying their dead at the drop of a hat.
He made himself the go to guy.
Is that what the rest of us have to do?
I hope not.
Steve
- Edit
I would agree the cake is being shared out amongst more & more people or at least a section of it is & that section is getting smaller.
Obviously the rich keep a large slice for themselves.
As I said elsewhere, I notice TV pundits are all echoing the same propaganda line about hard working immigrants being welcomed.
I think a lot of the cake is borrowed money & that collapse of the nation state is the planned result of all this, along with the destruction of white culture, which will get the blame for this.
Weard
- Edit
Benefits aren’t for whites – we are capable enough of earning our own money.
Steve
- Edit
If we’re allowed to & increasingly it’s being made difficult to do that.
A lot of us have been turned into beggars in our own country.
heechee
- Edit
A bit late to the discussion but I might like to add two further disadvantages our people face with this two child cap. Polygamy among our great unwanted.would allow them to further outstrip our own, and these extra wives, being classes a single parents, give them distinct financial advantages over our indigenous population.