Like the Roman, forty years and ten million immigrants ago
Here is the full text of Enoch Powell’s speech to the Annual General Meeting of the West Midlands Area Conservative Political Centre, at the Midland Hotel, Birmingham on 20th April 1968.
The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature. One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: at each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future.
Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: “If only,” they love to think, “if only people wouldn’t talk about it, it probably wouldn’t happen.” Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the thing, the name and the object, are identical.
At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after.
A week or two ago I fell into conversation with a constituent, a middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our nationalised industries. After a sentence or two about the weather, he suddenly said: “If I had the money to go, I wouldn’t stay in this country.” I made some deprecatory reply to the effect that even this government wouldn’t last for ever; but he took no notice, and continued: “I have three children, all of them been through grammar school and two of them married now, with family. I shan’t be satisfied till I have seen them all settled overseas. In this country in 15 or 20 years’ time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man.”
I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a horrible thing? How dare I stir up trouble and inflame feelings by repeating such a conversation?
The answer is that I do not have the right not to do so. Here is a decent, ordinary fellow Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town says to me, his Member of Parliament, that his country will not be worth living in for his children. I simply do not have the right to shrug my shoulders and think about something else. What he is saying, thousands and hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking - not throughout Great Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history.
In 15 or 20 years, on present trends, there will be in this country three and a half million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants. That is not my figure. That is the official figure given to parliament by the spokesman of the Registrar General’s Office. There is no comparable official figure for the year 2000, but it must be in the region of five to seven million, approximately one-tenth of the whole population, and approaching that of Greater London. Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population.
As time goes on, the proportion of this total who are immigrant descendants, those born in England, who arrived here by exactly the same route as the rest of us, will rapidly increase. Already by 1985 the native-born would constitute the majority. It is this fact which creates the extreme urgency of action now, of just that kind of action which is hardest for politicians to take, action where the difficulties lie in the present but the evils to be prevented or minimised lie several parliaments ahead.
The natural and rational first question with a nation confronted by such a prospect is to ask: “How can its dimensions he reduced?” Granted it be not wholly preventable, can it be limited, bearing in mind that numbers are of the essence: the significance and consequences of an alien element introduced into a country or population are profoundly different according to whether that element is 1 per cent or 10 per cent. The answers to the simple and rational question are equally simple and rational: by stopping, or virtually stopping, further inflow, and by promoting the maximum outflow. Both answers are part of the official policy of the Conservative Party.
It almost passes belief that at this moment 20 or 30 additional immigrant children are arriving from overseas in Wolverhampton alone every week - and that means 15 or 20 additional families a decade or two hence. Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. So insane are we that we actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of founding a family with spouses and fiancés whom they have never seen.
Let no one suppose that the flow of dependants will automatically tail off. On the contrary, even at the present admission rate of only 5,000 a year by voucher, there is sufficient for a further 25,000 dependants per annum ad infinitum, without taking into account the huge reservoir of existing relations in this country - and I am making no allowance at all for fraudulent entry. In these circumstances nothing will suffice but that the total inflow for settlement should be reduced at once to negligible proportions, and that the necessary legislative and administrative measures be taken without delay.
I stress the words “for settlement.” This has nothing to do with the entry of Commonwealth citizens, any more than of aliens, into this country, for the purposes of study or of improving their qualifications, like (for instance) the Commonwealth doctors who, to the advantage of their own countries, have enabled our hospital service to be expanded faster than would otherwise have been possible. There are not, and never have been, immigrants.
I turn to re-emigration. If all immigration ended tomorrow, the rate of growth of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population would be substantially reduced, but the prospective size of this element in the population would still leave the basic character of the national danger unaffected. This can only be tackled while a considerable proportion of the total still comprises persons who entered this country during the last ten years or so.
Hence the urgency of implementing now the second element of the Conservative Party’s policy: the encouragement of re-emigration. Nobody can make an estimate of the numbers which, with generous assistance, would choose either to return to their countries of origin or to go to other countries anxious to receive the manpower and the skills they represent. Nobody knows, because no such policy has yet been attempted. I can only say that, even at present, immigrants in my own constituency from time to time come to me, asking if I can find them assistance to return home. If such a policy were adopted and pursued with the determination which the gravity of the alternative justifies, the resultant outflow could appreciably alter the prospects.
The third element of the Conservative Party’s policy is that all who are in this country as citizens should be equal before the law and that there shall be no discrimination or difference made between them by public authority. As Mr Heath has put it we will have no “first-class citizens” and “second-class citizens.” This does not mean that the immigrant and his descendent should be elevated into a privileged or special class or that the citizen should be denied his right to discriminate in the management of his own affairs between one fellow-citizen and another or that he should be subjected to imposition as to his reasons and motive for behaving in one lawful manner rather than another.
There could be no grosser misconception of the realities than is entertained by those who vociferously demand legislation as they call it “against discrimination”, whether they be leader-writers of the same kidney and sometimes on the same newspapers which year after year in the 1930s tried to blind this country to the rising peril which confronted it, or archbishops who live in palaces, faring delicately with the bedclothes pulled right up over their heads. They have got it exactly and diametrically wrong. The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and of resentment, lies not with the immigrant population but with those among whom they have come and are still coming. This is why to enact legislation of the kind before parliament at this moment is to risk throwing a match on to gunpowder. The kindest thing that can be said about those who propose and support it is that they know not what they do.
Nothing is more misleading than comparison between the Commonwealth immigrant in Britain and the American Negro. The Negro population of the United States, which was already in existence before the United States became a nation, started literally as slaves and were later given the franchise and other rights of citizenship, to the exercise of which they have only gradually and still incompletely come. The Commonwealth immigrant came to Britain as a full citizen, to a country which knew no discrimination between one citizen and another, and he entered instantly into the possession of the rights of every citizen, from the vote to free treatment under the National Health Service. Whatever drawbacks attended the immigrants arose not from the law or from public policy or from administration, but from those personal circumstances and accidents which cause, and always will cause, the fortunes and experience of one man to be different from another’s.
But while, to the immigrant, entry to this country was admission to privileges and opportunities eagerly sought, the impact upon the existing population was very different. For reasons which they could not comprehend, and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country.
They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more voices which told them that they were now the unwanted. They now learn that a one-way privilege is to be established by act of parliament; a law which cannot, and is not intended to, operate to protect them or redress their grievances is to be enacted to give the stranger, the disgruntled and the agent-provocateur the power to pillory them for their private actions.
In the hundreds upon hundreds of letters I received when I last spoke on this subject two or three months ago, there was one striking feature which was largely new and which I find ominous. All Members of Parliament are used to the typical anonymous correspondent; but what surprised and alarmed me was the high proportion of ordinary, decent, sensible people, writing a rational and often well-educated letter, who believed that they had to omit their address because it was dangerous to have committed themselves to paper to a Member of Parliament agreeing with the views I had expressed, and that they would risk penalties or reprisals if they were known to have done so. The sense of being a persecuted minority which is growing among ordinary English people in the areas of the country which are affected is something that those without direct experience can hardly imagine. I am going to allow just one of those hundreds of people to speak for me:-
Eight years ago in a respectable street in Wolverhampton a house was sold to a Negro. Now only one white (a woman old-age pensioner) lives there. This is her story. She lost her husband and both her sons in the war. So she turned her seven-roomed house, her only asset, into a boarding house. She worked hard and did well, paid off her mortgage and began to put something by for her old age. Then the immigrants moved in. With growing fear, she saw one house after another taken over. The quiet street became a place of noise and confusion. Regretfully, her white tenants moved out.
‘The day after the last one left, she was awakened at 7am by two Negroes who wanted to use her ‘phone to contact their employer. When she refused, as she would have refused any stranger at such an hour, she was abused and feared she would have been attacked but for the chain on her door. Immigrant families have tried to rent rooms in her house, but she always refused. Her little store of money went, and after paying rates, she has less than £2 per week. She went to apply for a rate reduction and was seen by a young girl, who on hearing she had a seven-roomed house, suggested she should let part of it. When she said the only people she could get were Negroes, the girl said, “Racial prejudice won’t get you anywhere in this country.” So she went home.
‘The telephone is her lifeline. Her family pay the bill, and help her out as best they can. Immigrants have offered to buy her house - at a price which the prospective landlord would be able to recover from his tenants in weeks, or at most a few months. She is becoming afraid to go out. Windows are broken. She finds excreta pushed through her letter box. When she goes to the shops, she is followed by children, charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies. They cannot speak English, but one word they know. “Racialist,” they chant. When the new Race Relations Bill is passed, this woman is convinced she will go to prison. And is she so wrong? I begin to wonder.
The other dangerous delusion from which those who are wilfully or otherwise blind to realities suffer, is summed up in the word “integration.” To be integrated into a population means to become for all practical purposes indistinguishable from its other members. Now, at all times, where there are marked physical differences, especially of colour, integration is difficult though, over a period, not impossible. There are among the Commonwealth immigrants who have come to live here in the last fifteen years or so, many thousands whose wish and purpose is to be integrated and whose every thought and endeavour is bent in that direction. But to imagine that such a thing enters the heads of a great and growing majority of immigrants and their descendants is a ludicrous misconception, and a dangerous one.
We are on the verge here of a change. Hitherto it has been force of circumstance and of background which has rendered the very idea of integration inaccessible to the greater part of the immigrant population - that they never conceived or intended such a thing, and that their numbers and physical concentration meant the pressures towards integration which normally bear upon any small minority did not operate.
Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population. The cloud no bigger than a man’s hand, that can so rapidly overcast the sky, has been visible recently in Wolverhampton and has shown signs of spreading quickly. The words I am about to use, verbatim as they appeared in the local press on 17 February, are not mine, but those of a Labour Member of Parliament who is a minister in the present government:-
The Sikh communities’ campaign to maintain customs inappropriate in Britain is much to be regretted. Working in Britain, particularly in the public services, they should be prepared to accept the terms and conditions of their employment. To claim special communal rights (or should one say rites?) leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society. This communalism is a canker; whether practised by one colour or another it is to be strongly condemned.
All credit to John Stonehouse for having had the insight to perceive that, and the courage to say it.
For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish. Here is the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organise to consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided. As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see “the River Tiber foaming with much blood.”
That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century.
Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
Comments (105) | Tell-a-Friend
The trackback URL for this entry is: Trackbacks are disabled for this entry
Trackbacks:
Comments:
Powell hadn’t objected to the British having the ‘whip hand’ over Africans and Asians. And while later he came to think Africans and Asians had a right to boot out the British, he never seemed to get around to saying the British had a right to boot them out. I can’t see why he’s such a hero to some nationalists.
He once wanted to be Viceroy of India, but by the early seventies he was begging Indians to vote for him as a Midlands MP (look at that ‘smile’ - what a wierdo!), and by the late seventies he was an Ulster Unionist. No nationalist he.
Powell hadn’t objected to the British having the ‘whip hand’ over Africans and Asians…
This is from his obituary in the Guardian:
Ironically, his bravest and most passionate speech at Westminster had demanded the exposure of British maltreatment of Mau Mau suspects in Kenya, a decade earlier.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/0098/feb/09/obituaries.mikephillips
A decade earlier than his speech in Birmingham, that is.
Posted by Nux Gnomica on Friday, April 18, 2008 at 04:38 PM | #
Thanks to snax and Nux for pointing those things out. I suppose he has to be removed from the Pantheon of heroes.
I distrusted him already because of some things he said, you can tell how he is playing the game of
self-stylized polymath-renaissance man a la Nietzsche (whom he apparently tried to “beat” by becoming a professor of Greek at 25, according to Wikipedia), and similarly emulating the grandiose statesmen whose
biographies he no doubt drooled over during his classical education, being Viceroy of India would no doubt
put him in league with Alexander and Caesar. *sigh*
I tried to write in another place against the use of history to erect a respectable mysticism on the basis
of selective filtering and the ‘pathos of distance’– everything about the past is selectively forgotten and what remains is the distillate of what was significant, which gives it this awesome stylized character. But nothing will stop traditionally minded men from viewing past epoches as populated with Supermen and torturing themselves
because of their grandfather’s distinctions in war which are unattainable to them. So many people of conservative persuasion are high on this, sniffing the dust of history books like it was a line of blow on a mirror being passed around at a party.
I’ve known a German philosophy student who wants to go back to Goethe’s time, a schoolteacher who would prefer to have lived in the 1800s, young men with romantic difficulties who would apparently have preferred life in the 1950s, and I’m not sure if committing yourself to whipping the present out of love for a mental model of the past doesn’t ipso facto remove you from the ability to actually shape and participate in the history that is unfolding around you. Advocates of the past perhaps have their place– but it never really seems to be at the helm, as the disdain they feel for things going on around them has removed them from getting their hands dirty and jumping in with both feet. The great fact of their life was to have enjoyed a moment of clarity and resonance while being a spectator of a past era, which identification with that epoch defines them and confines them in the role of spectator.
It’s this disconnect which I think runs through Powell’s character and that of a number of other people, is that the sheer overwhelming, compelling, storied significance of 3000 years of history is something they cannot square with a present that inevitably presents itself to us as tedious, fleeing, ephemeral and not yet blessed with a thousand years of selective forgetting. The contrast is too much to bear; the answer is to secretely side with history while conceding that one will live in the present as a compromise. One escapes the feeling of inferiority upon comparison with the looming amplified shadows of Caesar through self-stylization and cloaking onesself in their glory while attempting to attain similar ‘accomplishments’. Viceroy of India, a speech laced with classical references to explain the dispossession of the man-in-the-street. He couldn’t consistently advocate in the interests of the English perhaps because he was too interested in grand gestures, high position and then later, on coming out on the ‘right’ side of history, i.e. decolonization.
Powell was of Welsh immigrant background, yet represented the Midlands.
Posted by pope's frexameter on Friday, April 18, 2008 at 09:38 PM | #
It is standard politics to advocate X when you are aiming for Z, if X is on the way to Z. Why do you think liberals get in a tizzy everytime the *slightest* bit of racism is manifested...? Because it’s the trend they fear. Racism itself? Eh. The power structure, rather, 100 steps removed from such silliness.
Posted by onetwothree on Friday, April 18, 2008 at 10:38 PM | #
As Peter Brimelow has so rightly said, Powell’s “Rivers of Blood” speech was one of the greatest political speeches ever in the history of the English language.
Three commentators over at BrusselsJournal.com remember Powell on this important anniversary of his Birmingham speech, each putting his own “spin” on what he represented: here, here, and here. I don’t agree with everything that’s said, but it’s significant that people are acknowledging the momentous importance of this landmark political speech, a speech delivered forty years ago which will still be studied one-hundred-and-forty years hence. The men present at that speech were eye-witnesses to history as privileged as were the men present at Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address or Second Inaugural. Ted Heath’s name will be forever tarnished for the appalling way he reacted to these prophetic truths uttered on that day by this prophetic man, this prophet.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Friday, April 18, 2008 at 10:48 PM | #
So Powell was Welsh, represented an English seat and then became an Ulster Unionist, that still makes him way, way more of a nationalist than any of the ratbags we have representing us now.
Posted by Lurker on Saturday, April 19, 2008 at 02:21 AM | #
That’s mis-use of the whip hand in Kenya, Nux.
Posted by snax on Saturday, April 19, 2008 at 08:12 AM | #
The Guardian calling his Mau-Mau speech an irony and his ‘most brave’ says so much about that rag.
Posted by snax on Saturday, April 19, 2008 at 08:16 AM | #
The Guardian calling his Mau-Mau speech an irony and his ‘most brave’ says so much about that rag.
It does, but the Guardian had to admit he wasn’t the monster its side portrayed him as for so long. I admire him for what he said about British behaviour in Kenya.
Simon Heffer has a good piece today on the immigration speech:
Enoch Powell: the Great Lie survives
Sunday is the 40th anniversary of perhaps the most significant speech made in British politics since the Second World War: Enoch Powell’s “Rivers of Blood” speech. It is also, therefore, near to the 40th anniversary of one of the greatest lies in British politics since the Second World War: that this remarkably accurate prediction of the dangers of enforced multiculturalism has “prevented” a rational debate on immigration, since anyone who seeks to engage in it will be branded as a “racist”. advertisementIt would be a comfort if this position were merely ignorant. It isn’t. Powell is used by the Left - and that includes many people in the Conservative Party - as a cynical excuse to conceal their own failures in imposing proper immigration controls and maintaining social cohesion.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/04/19/do1902.xml
Not that Heffer is my ideal conservative.
Posted by Nux Gnomica on Saturday, April 19, 2008 at 12:16 PM | #
I don’t know what the Guardian writer meant in calling it “ironic” that Powell, be it ten years earlier or ten minutes earlier, had risen in parliament to denounce British maltreatment of Mau Mau suspects in Kenya. No I didn’t read the article Nux linked, because it was a mile long and I don’t have that long a portion of my life to utterly waste, utterly flush down the toilet, reading something published by the Guardian filth. Had it been a paragraph or two I’d have held my nose and skimmed through it to see what it said.
Is there anyone here who can tell me why it would be viewed as “ironic” for Powell to do that? Just to pre-empt all the assholes, I’ll state that opposing both excessive incompatible immigration and mistreatment of African Negro terror suspects or any other suspects isn’t inherently contradictory. Not in the slightest. I oppose both. Powell apparently did. No one I respect wouldn’t oppose both. Steve Biko, a young Negro activist in excellent health, died while in custody of the South African police. I join a great many others in thinking he was murdered by those same police and in denouncing it absolutely. Is there anyone here who (knowing my opposition to forced race-replacment) sees that as “ironic”?
Snax: do you feel non-white immigration into the U.K. has been excessive? If you disagree with U.K. immigration policy of the past decade would you mind stating your reasons for opposing it? Do feel what’s done is done and the changes wrought by immigration should be left in place or do you favor, in principle, the undoing where possible of the changed demographics of Britain brought about especially by non-white but even by white (Polish, for example) immigration? Mind you, I said “in principle,” so if you please, don’t answer me with, “that’s impossible.”
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Saturday, April 19, 2008 at 12:47 PM | #
“perhaps the most significant speech made in British politics since the Second World War” (—Simon Heffer, quoted by Nux)
It’s more than that, of course. It’s the most significant speech made by a European since the Trojan War, inclusive.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Saturday, April 19, 2008 at 12:55 PM | #
“what a wierdo!” (—Snax)
Snax, of course, is the weirdo, as is amply proven beyond any shadow of a doubt by his extremely weird, extremely strange comment of 1:19, first in the thread.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Saturday, April 19, 2008 at 01:21 PM | #
“his extremely weird, extremely strange comment” (—from my comment)
extremely weird, extremely strange, and extremely wrong
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Saturday, April 19, 2008 at 02:10 PM | #
No matter how great, moving, and true a public speech is, e.g., “Rivers of Blood” ... experience clearly informs us that if ‘white-preservation’ is the central message of the text, it is always smothered with a massive, endless, avalanche of countervailing leftist propaganda attacks. What’s so strange and perverse about this phenomenon is that it’s whites doing the attacking! If we are ever going to get serious about surviving as a race, our first action needs to be the crushing of white liberals “by any means necessary.” Eloquent rhetoric has gotten us nowhere. The means of dispensing propaganda is solely in the hands of our anti-white enemies. The sooner we learn that, the better.
Posted by threefiveseven on Saturday, April 19, 2008 at 03:06 PM | #
“it’s whites doing the attacking!” (—threefiveseven)
Be careful, it’s not the generality of whites doing the attacking. The generalityh of whites have always been on Powell’s side. It’s the people who control the press and the electronic broadcast and cable media doing the attacking. It’s the people who control the press and the electronic broadcast and cable media who “create reality.” The internet is challenging them right now as we speak. They’re going to try to shut off our internet access on grounds of “hate.” We must never let them.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Saturday, April 19, 2008 at 03:22 PM | #
Not only do Britons think Enoch Powell was right, two-thirds fear there’s going to be racial violence ... if nothing’s done, that is — the linked article didn’t say “if nothing’s done” but that obviously goes without saying. By “nothing’s done” I refer to humane repatriation of racial incompatibles coupled with an immigration halt. In a situation where excessive entry of a race (excessive entry thanks largely to [fill in the blank] _______ ) is the problem, you eliminate the problem by undoing the excessive entry of the race.
To paraphrase Stalin: No race, no problem.
And yes, yes, it can all be done humanely: don’t worry about that part. It’s fine. Just set the political wheels in motion.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Saturday, April 19, 2008 at 04:35 PM | #
threefiveseven on 4/19 at 3:06 PM says, “No matter how great, moving, and true a public speech is ... experience clearly informs us that if ‘white-preservation’ is the central message of the text, it is always smothered with a massive, endless, avalanche of countervailing leftist propaganda attacks. What’s so strange and perverse about this phenomenon is that it’s whites doing the attacking! If we are ever going to get serious about surviving as a race, our first action needs to be the crushing of white liberals ‘by any means necessary’....”
While his pen name tells us the writer has a grasp of at least one branch of mathematics, his posting is all too familiar. After reciting the problem, he advocates an unlimited first response toward those doing the smearing.
What’s so bad about examining the propaganda bubble we live in for opportunistic ways to start unraveling the incredible tissue of lies that informs our daily lives, and devising ways to implement that unraveling? What is it about an all or nothing approach (”...our first action needs to be the crushing of white liberals...") that is so attractive?
It’s like telling 14-year-olds that, to drive a car, all they have to do is jump behind the wheel. What possible basis exists in history for going from zero to 80 miles an hour instantly? It seems to me that we need to take careful thought to determine what we can do locally and immediately at hand to commence to attract more support and to provide more education.
On the West Coast of North America, we have devised a way of reaching out and touching people painfully to encourage them to change, and to attract supporters. If you can manage a computer keyboard, you can get busy in your neighborhood to commence the necessary changes. A good suggestion on blogs would be for the commenters to begin with a 10-12 word sentence about their activities in their neighborhoods as a way of demonstrating credentials in this medium-level conflict we find ourselves engaged.
Posted by Bo on Saturday, April 19, 2008 at 05:30 PM | #
Bo,
I meant “crushing” our enemies with love and kindness. LOL
BTW, How long has AmRen been “examining the propaganda bubble we live in for opportunistic ways to start unraveling the incredible tissue of lies that informs our daily lives, and devising ways to implement that unraveling”? 17 years? And how much progress has been made? Answer: LESS than ZERO—another branch of mathematics. :-) Ironically the only people that are effectively advocating for white civil rights are non-whites, e.g., Ward Connerly, et al.
Look at the situation whites were in 40 years ago compared to now. Are we better off today then we were 40 years ago? NO WE ARE NOT! We need to change right now! Let’s all face it, the same old WN politics ain’t gettin ‘er done!
P.S.
I am familiar with your work, Bo. Your efforts for the cause are quite creative and commendable. Thank you.
http://www.resistingdefamation.org/
Posted by threefiveseven on Saturday, April 19, 2008 at 06:24 PM | #
Thanks to 3-5-7 for his compliment. By the way, AmRen has never pushed for tactics in neighborhoods. It seems primarily geared for a five-minute anxiety attack on a weekly basis, but I’ve never seen it promote knowledge about activities on the ground, ie, how to fight in this combat. It’s a handy sounding board for some purposes, but has wasted every one of those 17 years in terms of devising ways to implement that unraveling of the tissue of lies. So here are some ideas for work on the ground.
1. As the economy gets tougher, and groceries get more costly, make up a little form and get your friends to save receipts for grocery purchases for a month, then go in to apply for a refund from the store for that portion that reflects religious privilege. Maybe a penny per can or roll of aluminum foil, but a lot more for meat. After several rejections, the news will travel widely. Then go to small claims court.
2. Run for the school board on an explicitly Americanist platform, and against an implicitly globalist platform. That gets us half the way where we want to go. Who knows who might be attracted to such a platform.
3. Criticize book clubs, libraries, etc., about their anti-white themes. I don’t believe there has been a children’s book published since 1973 that discusses race that allows whites any measure of diversity within the family of indigenous white Europeans and their descendants. A well-phrased critique can generate action, and can bring people to you.
4. Strongly oppose the use of any slurs against the diverse white peoples in newspapers, books. I know about freedom of speech, but sometimes freedom of association and the right of contract have to trump freedom of speech. We are being beaten up in print & text & electronic & entertainment media every day. Extremely sharp and accusatory denunciations work wonders.
5. Strongly oppose the use of “categories of discourse” (conservative, liberal, populist, constitutionalist, citizenist, moderate, etc.) wherever you see them as misleading, tainted, and inaccurate. Oh, go ahead and attack them for the real reason—that they are dishonest in their implicit claim to describe reality. Extremely sharp and accusatory denunciations work wonders.
6. Don’t confuse the principles of the white liberation movement with the appropriate tactics on the field. This confusion is rampant, and will kill you. Tactics on the field that work best are those that use the snarky tools of the left-wing racialists against them. Demand the right to name yourself and to describe yourself; demand that white diversity be recognized. In the proper tone, a great deal can be done. Pretend to be one of those hissing and spitting people (while abjuring the use of slurs and slander against others) and you can make quite a few changes. In fact, I have come to believe that the most progress in deconstructing our histories and cultures has been accomplished with just one vigorous hissing and spitting complaint. You’d be surprised. It’s the tactic of the sole complainant we hear about so often when the Christmas Tree is dismantled at the airport or the capitol building.
Well, there you go 3-5-7 with ideas for action. Remember, people don’t learn without pain. And remember, don’t call other people names if you denounce the names you are called.
Posted by Bo on Saturday, April 19, 2008 at 11:51 PM | #
By chance, a letter in tonight’s Saturday Forum over at Vdare.com describes exactly the approach recommended by Bo above, in this case applied to a master’s degree project conducted by three graduate students. (The letter states they got an A on the project!)
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sunday, April 20, 2008 at 03:23 AM | #
If you are waiting for The Perfect Man to step down from the heavens, declare himself the saviour of all white mankind, and lead us to victory, then you are a fool.
Enoch Powell took the ball and ran with it for a while, before he was taken out of the play. Now someone else needs to pick it up and run some more.
If you want to win, get in the game. Grab the ball, or just run interference for whomever is carrying it at the moment. Know he will go down, but not before the cause has advanced. But pissing on heroes because they are not gods does us no good at all.
Riley
Posted by Riley DeWiley on Sunday, April 20, 2008 at 03:56 AM | #
I agree with Riley.
It seems to me that Enoch did what he could during the last significant societal inflection point (another branch of mathematics) where things could have gone either way. Those of us in the U.S. experienced several near misses of our own.
Posted by skeptical on Sunday, April 20, 2008 at 04:38 AM | #
I found a website with free documentaries. I think you guys might like it. Here’s one on the Israel lobby, made by a Dutch film maker.
http://freedocumentaries.org/film.php?id=173
Posted by 2R on Sunday, April 20, 2008 at 06:41 AM | #
Good suggestions, Bo.
I know many here aren’t to fond of Ian Jobling’s ‘Inverted World’ due to his downplaying of organised Jewry’s culpability in causing white-race-replacement; however, he provides a good service with his “Action Alerts.”
We need to use all the services available to us even if we don’t totally agree on every point with the provider of those services.
http://inverted-world.com/index.php/activism/archive/
Also, for the USA citizens, let’s make full use of http://www.numbersusa.com/index
__________________________________________________________________________
Bo, Please help me out on your No. 1 suggestion; I’m a unclear as to what you mean.
“1. As the economy gets tougher, and groceries get more costly, make up a little form and get your friends to save receipts for grocery purchases for a month, then go in to apply for a refund from the store for that portion that reflects religious privilege. Maybe a penny per can or roll of aluminum foil, but a lot more for meat. After several rejections, the news will travel widely. Then go to small claims court.”
Can you elaborate on that strategy? Can you give specific examples of what products that reflect religious privilege we should protest by applying for a refund? Can you provide for us the form you use with some of the products listed on it?
Sincerely.
Threefiveseven
Posted by threefiveseven on Sunday, April 20, 2008 at 01:10 PM | #
Latest news from the Land of Trevor-Trevor:
Enoch Powell ‘paralysed immigration debate’
Britain’s equality chief, Trevor Phillips, is to return to the hall where the late Enoch Powell made his infamous “rivers of blood” speech to deliver a damning verdict on British immigration policy. The head of the Commission for Equalities and Human Rights will tell an audience at the Midland Hotel in Birmingham that Powell’s speech “paralysed” the debate on immigration and made it virtually impossible for Britain to have a proper policy on it for nearly half a century.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/20/nenoch120.xml
The Telegraph claims that “Mr Phillips has been an outspoken critic of multiculturalism”. It fails to add: “insincerely, self-servingly and for the past five minutes.”
Posted by Nux Gnomica on Sunday, April 20, 2008 at 02:26 PM | #
Regarding Nux’s comment on Trev: Critic of multiculturalism maybe (and, as Nux points out, only insincerely, self-servingly, and when absolutely forced into it), but not of race-replacement. Race-replacement comes with excessive incompatible immigration, which Trev supports.
As for “a proper policy on immigration,” that’s simple: there’s only one (so, no “debate” is needed, and Trev’s call for “debate” is solely an obfuscation tactic): it is for all racially/ethnoculturally incompatible immigration to be kept to volumes so minimal that no danger, zero danger, of race- or culture-replacement be posed for the existing population/nation. The volumes of racially incompatible immigration we’re talking about — those which would be acceptable under “proper immigration policy” — aren’t zero but nevertheless exceedingly tiny. They’re almost zero. (Some would say literally zero, JWH for example, and maybe they’re right: maybe literally zero. That can be debated but that’s the only thing that can.)
What would a proper immigration policy call for in regard to racially-incompatible illegal immigrants? Expulsion, obviously — with punishments for any who knowingly employ, rent to, or assist them.
What about racially incompatible immigrants admitted legally?
Although it can be argued that their admission in such numbers was illegitimate, that is, not legal (because the existing population was not adequately consulted, as it surely ought to have been before such an epochal demographic change was embarked upon), they can be given the benefit of the doubt provided they’re willing to accept a generous financial compensation package in return for leaving. This can be coupled with the rescinding of all racial preferences and quotas accorded non-whites, all non-native welfare eligiblity, all affirmative action, all laws, rules, and directives infringing complete racial freedom of association on the part of whites in terms of whom they hire, promote, rent or sell to, admit to their organizations, admit to their schools, and so on, and so forth, which would bring about a situation in which racial incompatibles would gradually pack up and leave of their own accord, bound for greener pastures (bound for Israel, I have no doubt ........ Yes I’m sure, I feel absolutely certain, that Israel would let them all in ......... with Abe Foxman watching to make sure that it did, on pain of being accused of racism ........ Who could doubt that? .......).
If excessive numbers remain, they can be made to understand that a case can be made for expelling them without compensation — can be made by arguing that the legality under which they were admitted was only a semblance of legality, the existing population not having been adequately consulted as it ought to have been in such a matter — and therefore they’d better think twice before turning down a generous financial “citizenship-buy-out” package lest the offer be withdrawn and balkers expelled anyway, without compensation.
There’s your “proper immigration policy,” Trev. In, what — three paragraphs?
All right, four.
All else is deliberate, calculated obfuscation by people who know exactly what they’re doing. All else.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sunday, April 20, 2008 at 03:54 PM | #
Where’s the money for the generous financial compensation package to come from? Well, for starters from pulling out of the Bush-Neocon-Haliburton War for Oil and Israel. Next, from all the money saved from reduction of crime, welfare rolls, and other race/ethnoculture-related social pathologies, as race-replacement winds down and freedom of association on the part of whites fully restored (and, it is to be hoped, made iron-clad so that the (fill in the blank) ________ can never again tamper with it by buying politicians and the political process along with them). Those are just for starters: come see me once those are implemented and we’ll go on from there. The money can be found. Easily. Any shortfall can be borrowed: a better government investment or one surer to pay off in the long run was never made in history, than restoring a Euro country’s original Euro race.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sunday, April 20, 2008 at 04:08 PM | #
I would still like “Snax” to respond to my questions. Will you respond please, “Snax”?
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sunday, April 20, 2008 at 04:26 PM | #
Enoch Powell observed ‘the ball’, and predicted its trajectory, he didn’t run with it. And he lost interest in the game altogether when the other boys called him names. There was nothing heroic about him Riley deWiley.
PF may well be right about Powell’s motivations, onetwothree and RdW surely aren’t.
Heffer is a clue as to where Powell would be today: a reluctant ‘English nationalist’ passionately certain that the English nation includes millions of Africans and Asians. This is consistent with Powell’s preference for Britain’s widest and most diverse rule, and his accomodation to opposing trends.
Posted by snax on Sunday, April 20, 2008 at 05:01 PM | #
Fred Scrooby, in his above comments, laid out a excellent practical plan to solve the entire immigration problem.
There is only one thing standing in its way: The absence of people in power that share our EGI.
In order for Fred Scrooby’s plan to become reality, it is imperative we elect charismatic politicians/leaders who share our EGI. People on our side must capture control of the levers of power in order to implement the policies Fred Scrooby outlined. But is that even possible in this current PC enviornment? All I can add is pray for leadership, and keep your powder dry.
Posted by threefiveseven on Sunday, April 20, 2008 at 05:08 PM | #
Also miscegenation should be outlawed. The state has a vested interest in (and in fact part of its legitimacy rests upon) protecting the racial health of the dominant ethnic group.
Posted by Captainchaos on Sunday, April 20, 2008 at 05:21 PM | #
Threefiveseven, have you also signed as “Onlooker” and “Tommy G”?
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sunday, April 20, 2008 at 05:30 PM | #
Captainchaos is right. Israel does it, so there’s precedent for it in the modern world. But with sane demographic policies (immigration; repatriation where needed; tax policy that doesn’t discourage marriage and family formation; other means of maintenance of adequate birth-rates of the native population; etc.) miscegenation is less of an issue.
______
I notice Snax chooses not to answer my questions.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sunday, April 20, 2008 at 05:47 PM | #
"Threefiveseven, have you also signed as “Onlooker” and “Tommy G”?”
What relevance does that have when discussing these issues? The pressing issue is the preservation of the white-race. We’ve already diagnosed the fatal diseases (plural) that infected the white-race. That was the easy part. Now the comes the hard part. We need to acquire the means to administer the proper antidote.
Posted by Seven looker G on Sunday, April 20, 2008 at 06:30 PM | #
Fred, your interrogation is idiotic, as well as arrogant. From my comments in this thread it’s clear I’m closer to your position in regard to the quiz you constructed than to Powell. Why else would I write that Powell wasn’t nationalist enough for me? If you can’t be civil you don’t deserve a response.
Posted by snax on Sunday, April 20, 2008 at 08:33 PM | #
"Fred, your interrogation is idiotic, as well as arrogant.”
Oh, that’s just Fred being Fred. Sometimes he takes it upon himself to assume the ‘bouncer’ role at MR. I don’t think he means any harm?
Posted by threefiveseven on Sunday, April 20, 2008 at 09:28 PM | #
Your comment was bizarre in the extreme, Snax, and self-contradictory. I read that thing about ten times and came away still unable to understand it and unable to shake the impression you were radically on the wrong side of the issue and attempting to hide the fact. “Closer to my position”? Whose position you’re closer to, Snax, mine or Ted Cantle’s, will tell in due course, as it always does.
Tommy, my apology to you was tentative and is withdrawn.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sunday, April 20, 2008 at 11:55 PM | #
"Tommy, my apology to you was tentative and is withdrawn.”
Oh no, not that! I’m devastated ....
Posted by threefiveseven on Monday, April 21, 2008 at 12:36 AM | #
Sense at last from Trevor Phillips:
Fearless Trevor Phillips slays yet another PC shibboleth
Campaign for Racial Equality supremo dismisses positive discrimination
Iconoclastic gadfly Trevor Phillips has startled the nation with his latest social policy pronouncement.
This intervention of the leader of the Commission for Racial Equality follows on from his dismissal of multiculturalism and the damming of government policies that are non-British — after years of arguing the polar opposite. Phillips has now turned his fecund brain onto yet another area of social concern: the necessity, or otherwise, of letting people progress as far as their talent will let them without fear or favour if they are millionaires. Phillips was speaking on his latest pet topic to an enthusiastic crowd of his office support staff and a delivery man from a nearby dry cleaners who variously punctuated his address with calls of “tell it like it is dude” and “right on Philly” before leaving with £9.95 and a two quid tip.
The speech allowed Phillips to explain why he feels that positive discrimination towards the less well off from ethnic minorities is no longer needed. Speaking at his modest mansion in Stanmore, Phillips made it clear that “there was a time that people of colour should have been recognised as needing extra assistance” but that “that time is gone”. Luckily, the time during which such “extra assistance” was needed coincided with the period that Philips was growing up in Britain following his arrival at Southampton as the captain of the Empire Windrush.
People paid to be friends of Phillips say that the curiously enigmatic leader has been buoyed by his success in gaining publicity for the CRE in recent months. While not quite achieving anything, those who have met the dynamic head say that with his public persona boosted by all those Halifax adverts he is now ready to move into “cross-over” territory. However, Phillips have vowed not to stray from one commitment that the CRE has always stood for: namely the payment of a sizeable salary to whoever is running it.
http://www.therockalltimes.co.uk/2004/05/10/fearless-phillips.html
She’s worth every penny for the work she’s done, and will do, for her people’s cause:
BBC boss retires with £4m pension
One of the BBC’s longest-serving employees is leaving the corporation with what is believed to be the biggest individual public sector pension pot, worth almost £4 million. Jenny Abramsky, 61, who is stepping down as the director of audio and music, has worked for the BBC for almost 40 years. Under the terms of her final salary scheme, she will be able to draw more than £190,000 a year when she leaves to become chairman of the Heritage Lottery Fund.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/21/nbbc121.xml
Posted by Nux Gnomica on Monday, April 21, 2008 at 08:19 AM | #
Fred, the first post which baffled you was a straightforward statement of various Powell positions that are incompatible with nationalism. Nothing more, and certainly no self-contradictions on my part.
threefiveseven: that’s just Fred being Fred. Sometimes he takes it upon himself to assume the ‘bouncer’ role at MR.
The cheerleading is tiresome, the ‘bouncing’ is offensive.
It’s a defensible position, that Powell is a hero and this speech is something special; it’s also a defensible position that Powell oughtn’t be a hero to nationalists and that this speech doesn’t change that.
That’s what the debate should be about - not Fred’s status, or his suspicions of other’s motives.
It keeps on happening. And it’s dull as well as divisive.
Posted by snax on Monday, April 21, 2008 at 11:45 AM | #
Snax sounds just like Nux. Are you two the same guy?
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Monday, April 21, 2008 at 12:03 PM | #
As others have observed in the past, there is a certain dishonesty, even offensiveness, to constantly changing thread-handles. It is better for all concerned if we can avoid it. After all, are we not all propogators of connectedness and mutuality among our own people? As good a place as any to start with that is here, on-line.
Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, April 21, 2008 at 12:14 PM | #
"Sunday is the 40th anniversary [...] Enoch Powell’s “Rivers of Blood” speech. It is also, therefore, near to the 40th anniversary of one of the greatest lies in British politics since the Second World War: that this remarkably accurate prediction of the dangers of enforced multiculturalism has “prevented” a rational debate on immigration, since anyone who seeks to engage in it will be branded as a “racist”.It would be a comfort if this position were merely ignorant. It isn’t. Powell is used by the Left - and that includes many people in the Conservative Party - as a cynical excuse to conceal their own failures in imposing proper immigration controls and maintaining social cohesion.”—Simon Heffer
“Enoch Powell took the ball and ran with it for a while, before he was taken out of the play. Now someone else needs to pick it up and run some more.”—Riley DeWiley
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Our culture is so consumed with liberal-fascism, I’m not sure a “ball” even exists to pick up and run with? If there is one to be picked up, it surly is an act of political self mutilation to do so, i.e., one slip of the tongue and your career is toast.
Just two of countless examples:
1.) Remember what happened to Trent Lott, a “conservative Republican” when he praised Strom Thurmond at his 100’th birthday party? He was forced to step down as Senate Majority Leader even after he publicly groveled before every leftist-pimp and black organization in the country. What’s worse, his own “conservative” team (the Republicans) sided with the opposition! Why even grab the ball a run with it when you can’t even trust your own team to support you?
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/12/lott.comment/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2.) George Allen’s Macaca moment:
http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/003683.html
P.S.
GW, please allow me to use Threefiveseven or 357 from now on.
Posted by threefiveseven on Monday, April 21, 2008 at 01:32 PM | #
Snax sounds just like Nux. Are you two the same guy?
First, he doesn’t sound just like me. Second, we’re not the same guy. I know it’s easy to believe that Scroobophobia is confined to two or three devious and disturbed individuals hiding behind a variety of pseudonyms in a desperate attempt to give some legitimacy to their vile and hateful ideology… but etc.
Remember Boris the fearless columnist and forthright politician, when his jobs were on the line, delivered apologies like pizzas to the various groups he gratuitously offended. So how can we tell what he really believes today? Is he still bullishly sure that the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry report – which forced this nation to examine its own dark heart – was “Ceausescu-ish hysteria”, “Orwellian” and a “witch-hunt”? He has often (before this election, of course) denounced anti-discrimination policies and laws. Racism would not be a problem if we all had “good manners”, he claimed. Someone should ask him and soon.
Yasmin Alibhai-Brown: Londoners would be mad to vote for Boris
Posted by Nux Gnomica on Monday, April 21, 2008 at 02:43 PM | #
“Racism would not be a problem if we all had ‘good manners,’ he claimed. Someone should ask him and soon.” (—quoted by Nux)
Sorry, 1) the “good manners” were the social obligation of those who launched the genocidal onslaught knowing full well what they were doing (in other words, “good manners” called for their not launching it, genocide being, ya know, kind of “bad manners,” wouldn’t you say?), “good manners” are not the social obligation of those on the receiving end of a genocidal onslaught: if the latter wax righteously indignant and make no secret of the fact, it’s generally not viewed as a social no-no; 2) in any case, while truth-telling in regard to certain subjects can be bad manners, in regard to others it’s not. Truth-telling by the aggrieved party in a case of attempted genocide comes under “not.” 3) Truth-telling isn’t “racism.” “Racism” is a Jewish-Marxist code word, a shibboleth, that allows one Jewish-Marxist to recognize another. It has no meaning other than that and none whatsoever for a normal person. I have nothing whatsoever to do with “racism,” which does not exist in my universe.
We’re being viciously, deliberately genocided, not attending a tea party. Now, all pantywaists — Gongstar/Nux/Snax being one such — who can’t stand that, can’t psychologically handle it, who haven’t got the balls for facing it, frankly, and would very much prefer this site to be Harry’s Place, already have that option elsewhere. It’s called Harry’s Place. MR.com is for men whose testosterone flows naturally — not the kind who get it by daily injection prescribed by their doctor. Speaking of which, you sound like your doctor needs to up the dose, Gongstar. Go for it. (And think of how much more satisfied it would make your wife, poor thing!)
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Monday, April 21, 2008 at 04:10 PM | #
"We’re being viciously, deliberately genocided”
Let’s not keep repeating ourselves. The subject of our genocide has already been deliberated. The conclusion has been reached; that is, the white-race is being deliberately subjected to an insidious, indirect genocidal process designed to ethnically cleanse us off the planet—first and foremost the Nords. We already understand what motivates our enemies. We are well aware of the processes they are employing to accomplish their goal. Our enemies are cleaver, they’ve built plausible deniability into their plan. We know who the perps are (they invariably reside in the left spectrum of politics). We must give them their due respect; they are devilishly cleaver and devious and greedy. They’ve perfected the art of throwing rocks without ever having to pull their hands out of their pockets.
IMHO, the only thing we should be deliberating or strategizing on now, is what we can possibly do to stop THEM before it’s too late for US.
Posted by threefiveseven on Monday, April 21, 2008 at 07:15 PM | #
“Let’s not keep repeating ourselves. The subject of our genocide has already been deliberated.” (—Tommy G)
If only your IQ were higher, Tommy, you’d serve as a guide to how the problem should be discussed. Others would listen to you. As things stand, unfortunately, you’re useless in that regard.
Do you plan to keep up your sniping at me? Let’s make a deal: I won’t snipe at you despite the fact you’re an imbecile if you won’t snipe at me despite the fact I repeat myself. Deal?
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Monday, April 21, 2008 at 08:59 PM | #
"Do you plan to keep up your sniping at me?”
Listen, psycho. My post wasn’t meant as a snipe. I was making a general statement. Nothing personal. Got it !?!?
Posted by threefiveseven on Monday, April 21, 2008 at 09:32 PM | #
Well, “psycho” may have been the wrong term.
Narcissistic Personality Disorder
compounded with a bad temper is a better description of your mental disorder.
Here: read about yourself, Fred.
http://www.mentalhealth.com/dis1/p21-pe07.html
Posted by threefiveseven on Monday, April 21, 2008 at 09:56 PM | #
"Looks like it’s no deal.”
The deal is I’ll be deep sea fishing off the coast of Florida for the next week or so.
Color me gone!
Posted by threefiveseven on Monday, April 21, 2008 at 10:26 PM | #
Look for the Alexa ratings to plummet.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Monday, April 21, 2008 at 10:40 PM | #
"Look for the Alexa ratings to plummet.”
You’re probably right.
Posted by threefiveseven on Monday, April 21, 2008 at 11:16 PM | #
I find it humorous that Fred is continually ranting about the “testosterone level” of other posters here when his own posts have a very chatty, unserious, and feminine quality to them. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Note to Fred: calling people names on the internet is not “masculine” in any way. In fact, excessively emotional posts are another hallmark of the female mind.
Posted by weston on Monday, April 21, 2008 at 11:54 PM | #
“I find it humorous that Fred is continually ranting about the ‘testosterone level’ of other posters” (—Weston)
Not continually, Weston, only where it applies. Come to think of it, it probably applies to you, along with an abysmally low IQ.
(How’s that for “internet name-calling”? Will that do? Or does it need more work?)
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tuesday, April 22, 2008 at 12:10 AM | #
Yes, Fred does have feminine traits. Good observation, weston.
In addition to his Narcissistic Personality Disorder: http://www.mentalhealth.com/dis1/p21-pe07.html He repeatedly demonstrates a maniacal obsession with Jews. A very odd man, indeed.
Have a good night, Freddy. LOL
Posted by threefiveseven on Tuesday, April 22, 2008 at 12:14 AM | #
One pair of assholes are starting to draw the flies.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tuesday, April 22, 2008 at 12:15 AM | #
GW, is this pair of assholes going to continue to disrupt the threads? Tommy G needs to be banned, in my humble opinion. Gongstar manages for the most part to stay in his box but the retarded Tommy keeps getting out. I certainly don’t mind replying to these morons but I sort of doubt that’s what the readership want to see when logging onto the site. Obviously that’s not what I come to the site for either. However, when Tommy’s off his medication and is at it every five minutes I can’t simply ignore it. I humbly think Tommy has had his chance and should be outta here.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tuesday, April 22, 2008 at 12:23 AM | #
Gongstar too if he can’t shut up and stick to topic.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tuesday, April 22, 2008 at 12:24 AM | #
3-5-7 asked for help on 4/20 at 1:10 PM in understanding my first suggestion for on-the-ground neighborhood work. He repeats it for me:
“1. As the economy gets tougher, and groceries get more costly, make up a little form and get your friends to save receipts for grocery purchases for a month, then go in to apply for a refund from the store for that portion that reflects religious privilege. Maybe a penny per can or roll of aluminum foil, but a lot more for meat. After several rejections, the news will travel widely. Then go to small claims court.”
3-5-7 asks for specific examples of what products reflect religious privilege. The answer is that any product which costs more because of religious privilege is meant for inclusion. It’s not our job to sort that out.
3-5-7 asks about what we should protest by applying for a refund. The answer is that this is not about a protest, it is to educate the community that something with their grocery bill is not copacetic and the best way to try to get their money back is to save receipts and apply for it back, going to small claims court later if that fails.
3-5-7 asked about the form we used—it was a simple homemade form which certified that the receipts attached were from the store they claimed to be from, and reflected actual expenses. No products were listed. It’s not up to the victims of payments for religious privilege to do the book-keeping. Our claim was for one penny for canned goods and supplies, and 25 cents for every pound of meat products. We got some folks their money back, but we didn’t have the means to promote the project all over the city.
But remember, this is only a sample of the kinds of things that 3-5-7 can do on-the-ground in his (or her) neighborhood. Enough theory, just get her done. And help the old people eat, okay?
Posted by Bo on Tuesday, April 22, 2008 at 12:32 AM | #
Tommy’s problem of course is intellectually he’s way out of his depth at this site, and doesn’t know how to react to that so runs around making an ass of himself. I don’t know what Gongstar’s problem is.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tuesday, April 22, 2008 at 12:33 AM | #
Fred, you started your all too frequent obnoxious act in your post on Monday, April 21, 2008 at 08:59 PM | #
I simply responded to it.
“Don’t start no crap and there won’t be no crap.”
You can understand that, can’t you?
Or it it a case of Freddy can dish it out, but can’t take it?
Posted by threefiveseven on Tuesday, April 22, 2008 at 12:43 AM | #
Bo writes: “Enough theory, just get her done.”
Agreed.
That slogan (or a slight variation thereof) should to be emblazened in large bright red letters across the top of this web page. Right next to Majorityrights.com
Posted by threefiveseven on Tuesday, April 22, 2008 at 09:15 AM | #
But I like theory, Tom.
Can I ask the parties to the disagreement above to respect the normal rules of civilised discourse. Please do not use personal insult, nor rise to it if someone else does.
All our people are welcome here, and I do not want the atmosphere poisoned by these stupid rows. Enough.
Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, April 22, 2008 at 10:37 AM | #
GW - Question from Bill.
Would you care to hazard a guess as to how many regular posters are blogging here?
There is an obvious a mix of regular American and others. I suppose what I would really like to know is, how many British do you guess are regularly posting here?
Posted by Bill on Tuesday, April 22, 2008 at 11:06 AM | #
"But I like theory, Tom.”
Don’t get me wrong, GW. Theory is the most interesting aspect of this site. It is the keystone. But we also have to put that theory into acually work on the ground, yes?
C-ya, I’m goin’ fishin for a while.
Posted by threefiveseven on Tuesday, April 22, 2008 at 11:11 AM | #
Gongstar manages for the most part to stay in his box but the retarded Tommy keeps getting out.
Don’t drag me into it. Your megalomania and paranoia are the problem.
Gongstar too if he can’t shut up and stick to topic.
As above.
Posted by Nux Gnomica on Tuesday, April 22, 2008 at 03:13 PM | #
Trevor Phillips is softening us up for some enlightened social engineering - especially with regards to schools. He has seen what wonderful fun certain parties have had in the US for the last 40 years. Will keep a commissioner very busy indeed.
In terms of overall strategy - my understanding is that Guessedworker has mooted putting together an overarching philosophy utilising the discussions that have taken place here. (If I’m wrong apologies).
Posted by palmer on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 at 03:10 AM | #
“1. As the economy gets tougher, and groceries get more costly, make up a little form and get your friends to save receipts for grocery purchases for a month, then go in to apply for a refund from the store for that portion that reflects religious privilege. Maybe a penny per can or roll of aluminum foil, but a lot more for meat. After several rejections, the news will travel widely. Then go to small claims court.”
Been there, done that. All you get is people screaming in your ear that you are a f**king anti-semite. You want to see the real power of the extended Jewish phenotype, just mention the “kosher” tax.
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 at 03:27 AM | #
Desmond Jones has it right, and that’s why no one of intelligence would characterize a religious privilege fee as a “kosher” tax. As a matter of fact, certain Arab Muslim organizations are making moves in the same direction with food manufacturers to create a new mark for canned goods and other products with a fee paid to their councils. Yes, Muslim Arabs have the same food laws as others do. Are we going to willingly pay a religious privilege fee to Muslim Arabs, too?
But, Mr. Jones, your hasty rejection of this concept based on fear of hearing shouts is short-sighted. First, it’s a real problem when one’s food budget is reduced to support a religious privilege fee for someone else. Second, the whole thing is wonderfully educational. And third, this is no game. Whatever makes you think shouting is the worst thing that can happen? Ask the dead 10,000,000 Ukrainians who were starved to death by the Bolsheviks in the 1930s. I wonder if someone shouted at them. Oh, that’s right, they’re not here to tell us about it. Maybe there was just a lot of hissing and spitting.
And Mr. Jones, you are missing the point that things need to be done in the neighborhood and on the ground. If you don’t like helping oldsters have food to eat, there are lots of other, lower profile things to do as mentioned in this series of postings. Jones is a proud, old Welsh name—don’t let your people down.
Posted by Bo on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 at 05:32 PM | #
So Trevor Phillips is right that we must finally lay the ghost. Forty years on, we could have a sensible debate about how we should deal with, control and manage migration. But only if we can escape at last from Enoch’s shadow.
The Enoch myth: Sunder Katwala
Yes, we want a sensible debate: the left tells us immigration is great and we all have the good sense to agree. Elsewhere, YAB ponders the tricky question of whether whites are completely to blame for Muslim terrorism or only mostly to blame:
I am not here making a bleeding-heart case for violent anarchists. Those who commit such serious crimes must be punished. But we must build up a body of knowledge about what is driving this phenomenon. Some issues are no longer even considered in this narrative of the man-made bad. Racism, for example, is now excluded from any analysis. Some of the brightest young men in the networks are the angriest, partly a result of Paki-bashing when they were growing up. Patrick French, biographer of V S Naipaul, suggests racism may partly have turned the writer vicious, arrogant and monstrously cruel to his wife and his mistress, both white. The psychological hurt of racism is immense and deep. Did some of the convicted terrorists give up on this country because of the rejection they faced daily?
Yasmin Alibhai-Brown: We must learn more about these murderous men
Posted by Nux Gnomica on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 at 05:50 PM | #
Desmond Jones has it right, and that’s why no one of intelligence would characterize a religious privilege fee as a “kosher” tax.
Sure Bo, just like the bright sparks in the Canadian Conservative Party suggesting that shifting the immigration origin, by calling for reform of a broken system, or a need for the best and the brightest, will “fool” everyone, will “disguise” your real intent. What nonsense. Once you start explaining about what the K in a circle or COR in Canada, means, and what’s its origin is , your so-called neighbours and supporters eyes start to glaze over, like a deer in the headlights. Try explaining it to the pompous peremptory judges in small claims court and see how far it goes. Hell, these people don’t even know about the 10 million Ukrainians or have never heard of Bolshevism. All you’re doing is setting up people to get whacked and then you lose them forever. It doesn’t take a huge IQ to understand that fact.
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 at 07:22 PM | #
“Forty years on, we could have a sensible debate about how we should deal with, control and manage migration.” (—Sunder Katwala, quoted above by Nux)
But with levels of racially incompatible immigration reduced to zero there’ll be nothing to “deal with, control, or manage” (other than humanely re-settling those already here), so aren’t we putting the cart before the horse there a little, Sunder?
“But only if we can escape at last from Enoch’s shadow.”
Enoch’s “shadow”? The only “shadow” of Enoch’s we ought to be talking about is the one cast by the fifty-foot heroic-style bronze statue of him that badly needs to be erected in Trafalgar Square. Oh and let’s have a Statue-of-Liberty-size copy erected overlooking New York Harbor.
What is the ethnicity of whoever is ultimately responsible for hiring Sunder? Sunder didn’t walk in and hire himself. He’s a messenger and is told to go out and deliver a certain message. Who, exactly, is sending us these messages through Sunder?
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 at 08:11 PM | #
Enough already.
British National Party Radio Broadcast.
Four minutes. http://www.bnp.org.uk/Broadcast%20final-01.mp3
In my opinion, a whole nine yards, hole in one bullseye by Nick Griffin, and it probably cost peanuts.
Bert Rustle
Posted by Bert Rustle on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 at 08:41 PM | #
The was excellent, Bert.
Any Brit who knows the score, knows the sort of thing we discuss at this web-site, who doesn’t vote BNP and only BNP at every opportunity that presents itself — or even has the slightest hesitation — is in my view criminally insane. People have to understand: 1) this race-replacement isn’t happening by itself but is being done on purpose; 2) plans call for it not ending until whites are eliminated and the nation Brazilianized. (You can read in Ashley Montagu’s UNESCO statement on race 58 years ago how he comes right out and says he wants white countries to become racially like Brazil. He actually names Brazil as a model for white countries to emulate racially! He’s telling you in plain terms what he wants for your country, and people with the same mentality are running immigration today.) The only way it’ll stop is if you the voters go out and make it stop, and the right way to go about that at the moment is by voting for the only party that explicitly opposes it. The opportunity to do something peacefully is there. Don’t squander it, lest your children have no alternative to achieving it by violence. When your children are dying in a future civil war, please don’t let the last thought in their minds as they breathe their last breath, be the anguished question why their parents didn’t do all they could peacefully, in the voting booth, when they had the chance.
Your chance is there, now, May 1. DO NOT SQUANDER IT. PLEASE!
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 at 09:14 PM | #
Well, I ought to note in passing that today has been the most interesting St George’s Day I can ever remember. Rising English national consciousness was the flavour in all sorts of places. Something is on the march, and it isn’t only the demand for an English parliament.
Next stop May 1st and the local elections.
Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 at 11:02 PM | #
“Something is on the march, and it isn’t only the demand for an English parliament.” (—GW)
... Right and I’ll bet it’s also not the demand to ”permanently overcome old borders.” (Demanded or not, though, it looks like that’s exactly what you’re going to get.)
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thursday, April 24, 2008 at 03:18 AM | #
Fred,
That story appeared in the Mail and the Telegraph. It refers to the arrangements for an EU cohesion programme that ran across the community between 2001 and 2006. They didn’t tell you that, though, did they?
I notice that the BNP explained this to its website readers, rather than run with the story like a dog with a stolen bone. It put the appearance of the story down to sloppy journalism. I am more suspicious. Hpw can sloppy journalism about the same dead story arise in two places on the same day?
To my mind it looks like a coordinated attempt to safely divert “something on the march” away from any suggestion of genuine English ethnic nationalism and into standard europhobia.
Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, April 24, 2008 at 07:01 AM | #
” Something is on the march, and it isn’t only the demand for an English parliament.” - GW
Anything particularly striking - or just upbeat generally?
Posted by Bill on Thursday, April 24, 2008 at 10:52 AM | #
Next stop May 1st and the local elections.
I’m suspicious about what happens to BNP votes, because I’ve felt the breakthrough should have happened some time ago. How easy is it to divert them or miscount them?
Posted by Nux Gnomica on Thursday, April 24, 2008 at 02:21 PM | #
Bill,
Lot’s of good indicators, really.
The left’s hate words are slowly losing their power to stigmatize - perhaps very slowly, but it is happening. And only Livingstone and Boris Johnson actually have the brass neck to talk about how wonderful diversity is. That goose is cooked. Brown & Co are wonderfully unpopular. Cameron may benefit, but he is already terminally distrusted.
I just think that there is movement.
Nux,
I expected a better show in last year’s council elections. There was improvement, but below the water-line - lots of second and third places in the poll, but no breakthrough with firsts.
Certainly, there are some fine diversions available for use by the ruling class. Ethnocentrism can be effectively stalled, I fear, by talking up constitutional nationalism (English parliament, anger with Holyrood, and the Scots in Brown’s cabinet, the Barnett formula, West Lothian etc). Or it can be diverted into the usual rage at the left - read any Daily Mail thread. Or, as a last ditch, it can be diverted into Islamphobia - standard Strategy of Tension stuff.
“They” simply hold most of the cards.
Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, April 24, 2008 at 04:44 PM | #
London Elections - and where we’re going.
It is two years ago since the BNP really became noticed. (Margaret Hodge B&D and all that.) You know, it is truly amazing the speed of events that have taken place during this time, who would have predicted two years ago the political scene would be as it is today?
The political scene has been transformed in the last two years, who was it who said a week is a long time in politics? Blair is long gone (but still in the shadows) Brown has gone too, from being a political genius to Mr. Bean in only a few months. The wheels on the New Labour project have spun crazily off, and yet the whole demented bandwagon careers onwards, leaving clouds of debris in its wake.
Cameron is still there posing and puffing like his clone, peacock Blair. Firing blank salvoes at Quasimodo over the dispatch box, how long can this crazy farce continue?
Yet it is the BBC and the tabloid press that continue to roadblock the BNP, over time, the (MSM’s) efforts have taken on new slants, tweaking, fine tuning their nuances to the evolving situation. I won’t go on about EU immigration other than to say it has thrown a wrench in their tactics, and haven’t found a successful strategy to deal with it. The BBC (MSM) is, from now on, on a hiding to nothing.
Ever growing numbers of our people are now becoming aware of the peril of their plight, not the majority by a long chalk, but significant numbers will be added as the days and months pass, and it is this inexorable swelling of numbers the BBC will have to continually fac
Posted by snax on Friday, April 18, 2008 at 01:19 PM | #