|
|
|
The slow-motion ethnic accident in Ireland  Here are two video reports on immigrant Africans’ perfectly shameless demand for racial integration in Ireland, and the response from Ireland’s very modern politicians. All at once it’s tardy, piecemeal, submissive and just plain ethno-masochistic. The first video documents an African immigrant demonstration outside the Dáil. Speakers from the political forces opposed to, one must suppose, the callous, head-in-the-sand policies of the Irish government included some nameless old lady who must be the light and life of Residents Against Racism, Ciaran Cuff of the Green Party, Seamus Healey (described as an Independent), Joe Costello of Labour, Arthur Morgan of Sinn Fein and his party president Gerry Adams. The second video is an Al-Jezeera report on the Irish government’s tardy response to the integration and, specifically, education issues. It features an Emergency School in north Dublin set up by an uncharitable body of unCatholic, school-building Marxists named Educate Together. Ninety-five per cent of the children in the Emergency School are black, bro. Actually, that should be brá. But there’ll be no lilting brogue for lil Obi unless the damned, racist Dubliners can understand how happy diversity will make them. Educate Together says that they will. Galloping secularism is the key. In a country where 98% of the schools are Catholic, the 48% of parents that are non-Catholic or non-practising Catholic have no condign educational choices open to them. As so often, it’s the clever traitors who spot the gap in the market. Educate Together has applied to open twenty new schools in the next year alone, and fully, naively expects its green, green la-la land to materialise and the rainbow peeps to skip happily over the peat bog and far away. Among the talking heads in this second video is a gentleman named Jeanne-Pierre Eyanga Ekumeluko from Congo. Sorry, make that Integrating Ireland. He is sufficiently unsubtle in his pleading “to be one” with the good citizens of Dublin that he promises them another Clichy-sur-Bois experience if said oneness is delayed. But that would only be the fault of the damned, racist Dubliners, of course. Aside from setting up the Emergency School, the Fianna Fáil government has reacted by appointing Conor Lenihan TD to the newly created post of ... wait for it ... the Minister of State at the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform with special responsibility for Integration Policy. Naturally, his special responsibilities include the rather busy, race-treacherous Department of Irish Naturalisation and Immigration. But it’s not just those all-too-natural Africans that will push the Irish towards minority status in their own land. The 2006 census showed 63,276 Poles living permanently there, up from 2,124 four years earlier. In some districts of Limerick and Cork, as well as Dublin, over half of residents were non-Irish. In all, fourteen per cent of Irish residents were foreign-born. Considering the staggering speed of racial change, one would expect that little in the way of political activism could have sprung up among the vibrant and the Polish yet. But here’s a quickly-googled list of human rights, anti-racist and minority organisations additional to the ones already mentioned, all of them grappling to get a hold on public policy while Irish eyes smile politely and Irish lips are sealed. That way the Irish are doomed, of course. And in Sinn Fein (“Fáilte Welcome Bienvenidos Rafiki Willkommen Ongi Etorri Bienvenue”) they don’t even possess a genuine nationalist party to defend them - unless one counts as nationalistic its support for immigration reform in America. To my mind, it might as well be listed in this company:- The Immigrant Council of Ireland:-
UCD Confucius Institute for Ireland:-
SPIRASI:-
Sport Against Racism Ireland:-
Integrate Ireland Language & Training
Association Of Refugees And Asylum Seekers In Ireland:-
And yet more, as if they were fed on growth hormone and funded by the Fox Man himself. Comments:2
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 31 Jan 2008 03:41 | # By the way, about that song the Africans are singing right at the close of the first video in the log entry — I did a search and found the original lyrics. 3
Posted by Matra on Thu, 31 Jan 2008 04:28 | # Galloping secularism is the key. In a country where 98% of the schools are Catholic, the 48% of parents that are non-Catholic have no condign educational choices open to them. Change has been rapid but it couldn’t possibly be as high as 48% non-Catholic. Even if nominal Catholics stated “no religion” when asked I find that difficult to believe. 4
Posted by Matra on Thu, 31 Jan 2008 05:31 | # I don’t know about primary schools but the state is required to fund minority (Protestant) secondary schools but also often gives even exclusive private Protestant schools extra student funding that Catholic private schools do not receive. This is due to the assumed additional cost to Protestant parents in Catholic areas where there are no “free” Protestant schools and to safeguard the minority’s interests in general. (Although, many Catholics also attend these schools for various reasons. These include status conscious well-off Catholics eager to distinguish their own children from the nouveau riche and mainstream middle class by sending theirs to the more rarefied private Protestant schools). Given that the Rep. of Ireland, like all EU states, is required to adhere to various anti-discrimination laws surely the Irish state cannot legally fund Protestant and Catholic schools and not those of other religions? Maybe they already do (Hibernia Girl?). But if they don’t rest assured it won’t be good enough for the parents of non-Christians to only have the option of sending their offspring to non-denominational schools. They’ll also want subsidised private religious schools. If it isn’t practical to set up other religious schools due to their small numbers I can see the leftist activists for integrated non-denominational schools arguing that since all religious schools aren’t being funded none should be as that would make Ireland an unequal society. After all their long term goal is not to add religious schools for Muslims, etc., but to have none at all as that way it’ll be easier to indoctrinate and forcibly integrate the next generation into a multicultural mosaic. 5
Posted by Hibernia Girl on Thu, 31 Jan 2008 06:12 | # Thanks for the post on Ireland, guessedworker. “SLOW MOTION ethnic accident in Ireland”?—from my vantage point, it feels like it’s been a fast moving bullet-train immigration ride to God-knows-where. As Kevin Myers @ the Irish Independent—pretty much only Irish journalist who’s tried (in vain) to raise a debate on immigration—pointed out back in Sept: “No country has ever accepted, never mind assimilated, the volumes of foreigners now present in this state. We have some 400,000 legal immigrants; but everyone knows that the army of illegals, especially Africans and Chinese, is vast, and probably tops 200,000. In all, Ireland has received at least 600,000 immigrants, most of them within the past five years. It could be many more. No one has the least idea. In the US, such immigration would translate into an inward population movement of 45 million. In the UK, the figure would be nine million. Needless to say, neither state would be so idiotic or feckless as allow such vast numbers to enter.” The 2006 (and, presumably, the 2002) Irish Census is grossly inaccurate as our Minister of Integration himself has admitted. The census says there’s ca. 63,000 Poles in the country—the Minister of Integration’s guess is that it’s more like 160,000-200,000. The official figures say there are 20,000 Lithuanians in the country—but some estimate 100,000. The census records 11,000 Chinese in the country—but official guesstimates, again, say the number is prolly more like 100,000—off by an order of magnitude! Almost all EU citizens are, of course, free to move to Ireland (some of the newer member countries are barred from entry for now). As far as non-EU citizens go, Ireland shares an open border with the UK, so any illegal immigrant in the UK can just roll in at anytime. Immigrants also arrive here sometimes as students (often at bogus “language colleges”) and then just stay on after their visa expires. The government has just this week announced a new immigration law which will supposedly reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the country. We’ll see what happens. The Africans in the first video above—mostly Nigerian probably—are asylum seekers. Under a ridiculous scheme which ran from Jan-Mar 2005, parents of Irish Born Children (IBCs) were given amnesty. (Can you say “anchor baby”?) Under that scheme, ca. 17,000 people were granted amnesty to stay in Ireland. Some were not. Presumably these women protesting were some of the women who didn’t make the cut. Nigerians are at the top of the list of asylum seekers in Ireland—ca. 23,300 Nigerians applied for asylum since 1997. How they manage to do that is still a mystery to many since—up until this past December—there have been no direct flights between Nigeria and Ireland and one is supposed to apply for asylum in the first country in which one lands. ?? Needless to say, 90% of all asylum applications are turned down because they simply have no merit. And according to one news report, “in regard to some nationalities, this figure can be much higher.” Unfortunately, the report doesn’t say which nationalities. As I said on the “Race trumps gender in South Carolina” thread: “So many Irish today—in particular those who subscribe to all the modern, PC, multicultural nonsense—like to point to all the hard treatment and discrimination that the Irish experienced (experience) in places like Britain and the States when they want to make an argument for why we (Ireland) should welcome in hoards of immigrants from around the world.” We see Arthur Morgan of Sinn Fein make that very argument in the first video above. I’m still amazed every time I hear it. It makes absolutely no logical sense, and yet so many people use it. ?? To end my ramblings here—so many people in Ireland also support our government’s efforts to persuade the American government to give amnesty to the illegal Irish immigrants in the US. Let me say I am not one of them and actually wrote a post a few months ago on the topic. I’m truly embarrassed that so many in the country and in our government have such a view point. Nothing like not getting the idea of the sovereignty of nations. Cheers, 6
Posted by Hibernia Girl on Thu, 31 Jan 2008 06:41 | # Matra: “Change has been rapid but it couldn’t possibly be as high as 48% non-Catholic. Even if nominal Catholics stated “no religion” when asked I find that difficult to believe.” No, that number cannot be right. From the 2006 Census (which is inaccurate, but not THAT inaccurate—I hope): Total = 4,239,848 Total non-RC = 558,402, so something like 13% of the population is something other than Catholic. 7
Posted by Hibernia Girl on Thu, 31 Jan 2008 06:58 | # Matra: “Given that the Rep. of Ireland, like all EU states, is required to adhere to various anti-discrimination laws surely the Irish state cannot legally fund Protestant and Catholic schools and not those of other religions? Maybe they already do (Hibernia Girl?).” To be honest, I don’t know what the government’s plan (if there is a plan) on education is. Back in November, applications for 5 Islamic schools were (thankfully) turned down. The gov’t seems to be favouring these multi-denominational schools being touted by these Educate Together multiculti people. Maybe that’ll be their way of getting ‘round the EU regulations. ?? 8
Posted by Matra on Thu, 31 Jan 2008 07:00 | # Hibernia Girl, Thanks for the information. Nevertheless 13% non-Catholic up from only 3 or 4% (almost all Protestants who were born there) in just over a decade ago or so is dramatic to say the least. Also, if lots of Poles were counted in the census and included in the Catholic category then Irish Catholics are not even 87% of the population. 9
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 31 Jan 2008 13:37 | # Hibernia Girl, I defer to your judgement re: the 48%. I found the figure in a Washington Post article. Could it have referred to non-practising Catholics as well as non-Catholics? In other words is 52% of Ireland attending Mass? 10
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 31 Jan 2008 14:00 | # In regard to Hibernia Girl’s comment of 5:12 AM (its 4th and 5th paragraphs quoting Kevin Myers), I commented on those figures in another thread: you’re seeing the genocide of an ancient European nation, perpetrated right in its homeland, unfold right before your eyes, and the other side is even trying to accelerate it lest the targeted folk wake up and put a stop to it. Of course there are native Irishmen on the ground trying their best to force race-replacement on the Emerald Isle, such as the extremely weird (not to mention criminal) Sinn Feiners and of course our old and dearly-beloved friend Professor Ferdinand von Whatshisname of Dublin University (the good professor is a prod, by the way) but what’s really gotten race-replacement of Ireland galloping over the past decade is the E.U. The E.U. is run, in its innermost core, by explicit race-replacers — one-coffee-colored-worlders — and its member states have to get together and collectively decide to remove the abscess’s core if they want to come out of their E.U. experiment in any sort of still-recognizable Euro-race condition. That should be abundantly clear by now to everyone: the whole E.U. enterprise is not just political, or economic, or monetary, but racial and aims at forcing the demise of the Euro race on the Euro home continent. No the other side aren’t actually coming out and publicly admitting the nature of their program, but let any doubters carefully observe the absolutely unerring way the other side moves its pieces on the chessboard, and all doubts will evaporate. 11
Posted by Salopian on Thu, 31 Jan 2008 19:39 | # Does anyone remember the episode of Father Ted when Craggy Island overnight Chinese? Not so funny now… 12
Posted by Bert Rustle on Thu, 31 Jan 2008 22:04 | # Why were thousands killed and maimed in “the troubles” for one historical group of colonisers to be dwarfed by a new one and most political power transferred to foreign capital other than London? 13
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 31 Jan 2008 22:32 | # Hatred of the racial unbermensch, Bert. It was all for that. 14
Posted by Matra on Fri, 01 Feb 2008 01:57 | # I defer to your judgement re: the 48%. I found the figure in a Washington Post article. Could it have referred to non-practising Catholics as well as non-Catholics? In other words is 52% of Ireland attending Mass? According to Catholic World News 48% of Irish attend Mass on a weekly basis. 15
Posted by Hibernia Girl on Fri, 01 Feb 2008 05:37 | # Matra: “According to Catholic World News 48% of Irish attend Mass on a weekly basis.” Yes, that’s prolly where the 48% figure comes from, thanks. So, while something like 86-87% of the population is still Catholic, only half of them are attending mass on Sunday. 16
Posted by Hibernia Girl on Fri, 01 Feb 2008 05:42 | # Salopian: “Does anyone remember the episode of Father Ted when Craggy Island overnight Chinese?” Yes! I actually linked to part of that episode in one of my “Sunday Silliness” posts (have to lighten the mood sometimes!). Toward the end of the episode it’s pretty funny where Father Ted tries to prove he’s not a racist during a “diversity slideshow” that he’s put together. He offers as proof things like a photo with himself with a black fellow who visited the island once several years beforehand—he doesn’t remember the name of the fellow, mind you—but he seemed like a nice bloke at the time. 17
Posted by Hibernia Girl on Fri, 01 Feb 2008 05:48 | # Fred Scooby: “Of course there are native Irishmen on the ground trying their best to force race-replacement on the Emerald Isle, such as the extremely weird (not to mention criminal) Sinn Feiners….” The parties on both sides in Northern Ireland (never mind the Republic of Ireland) have definitely been bought and paid for by the EU—2.5 billion Euros from the EU to NI over the past 20 years. 18
Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 01 Feb 2008 07:42 | # RC Church attendance in Ireland was traditionally as much an expression of oft-forbidden Nationalism as it was an indication of religiosity, so it’s no surprise that pews are emptier these days. 19
Posted by Uncle Jim on Fri, 01 Feb 2008 11:36 | # Is it racist to point out that many of these people are the ones who boasted about how they kicked the racist colonialist British/French/Belgians out of their countries and won their freedom? I am old enough to remember the slogan they used at the time it was “Go home white man!” it seems they should have added -“But take me with you.” 20
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 01 Feb 2008 14:22 | # “Uncle Jim” actually touches on an excellent point I hadn’t thought of: probably one of the biggest factors touching off the end-of-century Third-World stampede toward the Eurosphere was the across-the-board decolonisation of the 1960s. Were Euros still running all those African colonies the people there wouldn’t be literally starving to death today, their prospects for any sort of life other than dining on mud-cookies and swinging from trees wouldn’t be so non-existent, and their desperation to get out wouldn’t be a tenth what it is. ‘60s decolonisation certainly helped drive the post-‘60s innundation. (Consult your doctor before trying to hold your breath waiting for the Jewish-controlled MSM to mention this. Public health warning brought to you by your Department of Health and Human Services, the American Medical Association, and the Ad Council.) 21
Posted by ROBERT CROSS on Fri, 01 Feb 2008 19:45 | # Yes we got to follow de white man,cos we cant make it on our own,like a dog that knows that you will feed him if he hangs around long enough. 22
Posted by Blue Balls on Fri, 01 Feb 2008 23:33 | # Irish retailers better start stocking hair straightener… looks like you’ll need it by the gallon… er uh liter:
24
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 02 Feb 2008 08:59 | # Fred, one really has to wonder though about the revolution in Rhodesia hence Zimbabwe which was, in a sense the first domino in subsaharan Africa. What was the excuse for capitulation to Mugabe’s forces? 25
Posted by Proofreader on Sat, 02 Feb 2008 11:28 | # Fred, the standard explanation for decolonization is the Cold War. The USA and the USSR were fighting behind the scenes for power in Africa and Asia. IMHO the USA, after Lincoln, became an imperialist power and was all too eager to destroy European influence all over the world. In doing so, they put an abrupt and premature end to the spread of civilization in Africa and other parts of the world which would have been better off with say 2 more centuries of European rule, as you point out. 26
Posted by Proofreader on Sat, 02 Feb 2008 12:39 | # To stay on topic, the situation in Ireland is dire indeed. With a native population of less than 4 million, they can quickly become a minority in their own country faster than you can say EU. How long does it take to fill such a small country with 5 million “refugees” (translation: human waste from Third World sewers)? Probably less than 2 years of chartered flights landing in Dublin. I visited Ireland over 15 years ago and it was a paradise! It was thoroughly Irish and enjoyable. 27
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 02 Feb 2008 13:18 | # I see no other way out than massive deportations all over Europe. But the first step is to prevent anchor babies and instant or easy naturalization processes. You can only deport/repatriate non-citizens. Unles you want to contemplate even more strict measures. I do contemplate stricter measures. The invasion of Europe is genetic, and Europe’s reclamation cannot be other than the same. Stricter measures, however, require not merely political change but philosophical change. One must begin with accreting a philosophy of the right to reclamation before the first deportation order goes before a judge. 28
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 02 Feb 2008 13:25 | #
James, you’re completely right, the case of Rhodesia took the insanity to a whole new level but I was talking about the continentwide African decolonisation of twenty years earlier beginning, if memory serves, with Belgian King Baldwin’s decision, earthshaking at the time, to cut the Congo loose in I think 1959 or ‘60, followed in rapid succession by the other European powers doing likewise one-by-one over the decade (spilling over into the following decade in some cases such as the Portuguese if I remember right). In every case the living standard plummeted overnight to not even the neolithic but more primitive than that, along the lines of how hunter-gatherers were subsisting a hundred-thousand years ago, inevitable since true Negroes are a species incapable of sustaining civilization (yes I wrote species not race, for they qualify as a species distinct from Euros but politics keeps scientists today from taking an honest taxonomic look — lots of the best scientists had it right prior to 1900 though, just before the rise of the race-denying Boazian school — Louis Agassiz for example). Africa is none other than a giant Haiti (gee I wonder what characteristic the two have in common, that that should be so? ...) possessing all Haiti’s prospects for betterment (... yes, every last one ...). To say Rhodesia wasn’t the first former colony to be saddled with a criminally insane tyrant, as witness “Emperor” Bokassa of the Central African Republic (which he re-dubbed “the Central African Empire”), Idi Amin Dada of Uganda, Joseph Mobutu of the former Belgian Congo (which he re-named “Zaïre”), any number of instances of this type of Negro leader in places like Ghana, Liberia, Cameroon, Togoland, etc. (everywhere in the whole damned continent, essentially) may be to wrongly apply our species’ criteria to a different species: that sort of behavior may simply be normal for their species. There are ways in which gorilla behavior and chimp behavior, right-whale behavior and gray-whale behavior, grizzly-bear behavior and polar-bear behavior seem mutually insane but aren’t, they’re simply behavioral differences between species.
Excellent question. I’d love to know the answer. 29
Posted by Prozium on Sat, 02 Feb 2008 15:47 | # You have the sequence wrong. The collapse of Rhodesia into Zimbabwe happened late in the game. Ghana was the first African country to be given its independence. 30
Posted by silver on Sat, 02 Feb 2008 16:49 | # An equally interesting question is how, in the face of such plummeting standards, Africa’s population almost quadrupled? Has the aid really been that insane? So insane it didn’t just prevent death and maintain numbers, or otherwise reasonable growth, it spurred an explosion? Was aid all it was? The African population is predicted to reach two billion by mid-century. How many will be going to Europe? Sweet Jesus I don’t want to hate these people. But two billion! I can’t help but pale at what that portends! And I have one in the family. By God I think svigor was right, I am so beginning to resent that cousin of mine. I think it was intentional, too. Her hard-drinking ex-husband reviled blacks and would routinely launch drunken tirades against them. What a way to hit back. Women! That’s a swarthy S. Euro, of little interest to anyone here. Today I saw an Australian girl (Anglo, ie, real Australian) walking with one through Greensborough, an eastern Melbourne suburb. It would be one thing to see it in the degenerate western suburbs, where the remaining Anglo youth have largely gone hip-hop, but this was Greensborough, decidedly middle and predominantly Anglo. You can go days, even weeks (if you’re busy), without seeing an African here, staring when you do. A couple of African girls ordered pizza from a friend’s takeaway there and, it being a sunny day, were sitting outside waiting for their order. I walked in and my friend, a Lebanese Maronite (who, following European racialist norms, despises anyone to the east or south of him) rolled his eyes at me. When their order was done, he asked three workers to take it out to the girls before one would do it. Two were Anglos. They were terse but non-confrontational no’s. Some uncertain smiles appeared, and some glances were exchanged, but nothing more was said, nothing at all (perhaps because it was a multiracial scene, with the Lebanese, myself, and the anglos). These people know, I thought to myself. They have to know, or at least sense—after all we’ve endured, wogs, Asians, Indians, now <u>Africans?</u>; this is too much. And yet here was this white girl, slim and attractive, walking past a popular restaurant strip with this black. She had two hands resting on his right shoulder as they walked, her head turned toward him, gazing admiringly into his face. The black looked straight ahead and walked with shoulders thrust back, almost kicking his feet out in nonchalance, an air of arrogance about him. I was driving and didn’t have the opportunity to gauge the reaction of the bystanders, but I wish I did. Probably for the first time I was gripped by a sensation that this is plain wrong, and for the first time I felt an impulse to honk my horn and wave my fist at them. Would that achieve anything? Probably not. Perhaps I could have mocked the Australian men there: “Good goin’ guys. Give ‘em your women!” Or maybe, “Tell ‘er to keep that shit in Dandenong!” 31
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 02 Feb 2008 17:27 | # Silver, the scene you describe:
Is the result of a binary toxin that has been released: 1) The instincts, otherwise healthy, of young women to play “let’s you and he fight” with the men around them. 2) The government’s intervention to stop white men from taking the young white women up on their challenge to their manhood. Naturally the young women, not being instinctively attuned to the government’s unfair intervention in the fight, instinctively see the nonwhites as genetic winners and the whites as cowards. They demand victory in violence for their mating choices. Its not what they think they are doing but it is. This is also the explanation for why so many young women are attracted to criminals. The criminals have reacted “properly” to the challenge to their masculinity but then the young women saw this strange, incomprehensible monster called “government” come in with gangs of men and chain the individual man up. That’s just not fighting fair! So the young woman’s instincts are frequently properly attuned to detect the unfairness of the situation only after the white man, who must be more attuned to it by now, has proven to her more base instincts that he isn’t a “coward”. 32
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 02 Feb 2008 18:34 | # Prozium, was there a Euro-minority, agrarian-based resistance to African takeover of the government in Ghana as there was in Rhodesia? 33
Posted by Prozium on Sat, 02 Feb 2008 20:01 | # No, Ghana was the first African colony to be granted its independence. As for European minorities in Africa, they also existed in Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Kenya, Congo (Kinshasa), Mozambique, and Angola. The first group of European colonials to “take a stand” in Africa would be the pied noirs in Algeria who were backstabbed by Charles de Gaulle. The whites of Katanga (a southern province of the DRC) backed an aborted secession that was put down by a U.N. military intervention. 34
Posted by Matra on Sat, 02 Feb 2008 20:04 | # There were hardly any whites in Ghana. In Kenya the white settlers talked of “going it alone” until that is the Mau Mau started committing atrocities in 1952. The Belgian Congo had a significant white population - around 100,000. There was some resistance there, particularly in Katanga, to black rule. 35
Posted by Matra on Sat, 02 Feb 2008 20:08 | # The whites of Katanga (a southern province of the DRC) backed an aborted secession that was put down by a U.N. military intervention. The Irish army were a part of that intervention. There was considerable anti-Irish sentiment among whites in the Congo. 36
Posted by Uncle Jim on Sat, 02 Feb 2008 21:34 | # It’s a big subject and the history of European colonialism in Africa could not be covered in a post but the important thing is that in most places it lasted less than 80 years. The boundaries of African countries were largely decided at a conference in Berlin in the 1880s when the British, French, Belgians, Germans and Italians carved up the Continent between them. Nobody thought this wrong at the time after all the British, French, Portuguese and Spanish had carved up North and South America. Either way the Africans themselves decided to allow them to stand. With the exception of South Africa, the Rhodesia’s and Kenya the British never attempted any serious colonisation and even there it was the professional rather than the working class who went to fill gaps in the market. They just installed a white run civil administration whose members were selected from a handful of private schools. This was backed up by a couple battalions of British troops and local locally recruited troops with British officers and the people were taxed just enough to pay for the administration. Even at the time serious questions were asked as to whether this was a good idea and most sensible people concluded it was not – for the record Hitler thought Germanys lost African colonies were a political and strategic liability and did not want them back. In the late 1940s after Britain had been ruined by the war it looked at the possibility of exploiting the African colonies economic potential and it was reported that they consisted mainly of “Pullulating n****** living on the edge of subsistence.” Please note that n***** was not considered a term of abuse in Britain until the black immigration of the 1960’s and pullulate - I had to look it up – is an interesting word. Most European powers were prepared to stay on to around the 1990s to allow the government institutions of what were artificial states, time to become secure. But they were no longer prepared to impose their rule by force particularly when the Russians and Chinese could make the price unacceptable by donating a few hundred tons of small-arms to freedom fighters so they got out as soon as they could. This is said to have p****d off a lot of African politicians who thought they had been cheated out of the obligatory “War of Independence”. They need not have worried because as we know they have had every other type of war since. Anyway someone mentioned the French in Algeria and them being stabbed in the back by De Gaulle. I remember the offer the Algerians made to the million or so French settlers “We give you a choice - the suitcase or the coffin”. Interesting because an Algerian President is on record as saying that the wombs of Muslim women would conquer Europe. The answer to Africa’s problems is of course quite unacceptable to liberals as that would mean admitting most Africans were not really up to the job of governing themselves in a reasonable manner. Nevertheless someone in Europe did say in the last year that the only way to sort out the genocide in the Sudan and Rwanda was to go back in and impose a colonial government. If you weren’t prepared to do that you may as well shut up because otherwise you could do nothing. By the way the Chinese have moved into several former British colonies, Nigeria and the Sudan to name but two and in greater numbers than the British ever did. As long as they get the oil they don’t give a s*** what happens to the natives but you can bet your bottom dollar they will not be seeking refuge in China. 37
Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 02 Feb 2008 21:46 | # Prozium, the reason I used the phrase “agrarian-based resistance to African takeover of the government” is because the increase in carrying capacity in Africa due to Euro technology is a strong basis for making Euro presence defensible both practically and ethically. Under circumstances such as those clearly present in Rhodesia, there appears to be no ethical or practical reason the Mugabe government should have ascended to power and taken the land “back” from the Euro-agrarians. I’m not as interested in extractive economic development as a basis for settlement because it isn’t sustainable in terms of carrying capacity. 38
Posted by Uncle Jim on Sat, 02 Feb 2008 22:23 | # Interesting detail I just remembered. The Irish government of circa 1956-61 was thanked by the Algerians for their considerable diplomatic help at the UN. What goes around comes around? 39
Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 03 Feb 2008 00:07 | # During the 1960’s as African decolonization continued apace, the UK’s Labour Government employed, not one but two Hungarian Jew Economic Advisers, viz., Balogh and Kaldor, known to irreverent senior British civil servants as Buddha and Pest. These two crypto-Communists also ‘advised’ newly independent Tanzania’s Julius Nyerere who followed the Jews’ advice faithfully and via, inter alia, farm collectivization, succeeded in bankrupting the (by Nigger standards) prosperous country to which the British had granted independence. Balogh and Kaldor repeated this feat in several other African countries but it was in Britain that the Jew pests’ economic advice to the Labour government really paid off in terms of Aryan humiliation when, having been led by the nose on a halter held by their natural enemies, the Cabinet decided to call in the IMF to rescue the British economy. As a reward for their sterling service to the sagacious British people and their country’s erstwhile colonial subjects, Thomas Balogh and Nikolas Kaldor were enobled and took their seats in the House of Lords as British Barons. 40
Posted by Proofreader on Sun, 03 Feb 2008 01:55 | # GW: Stricter measures, however, require not merely political change but philosophical change. One must begin with accreting a philosophy of the right to reclamation before the first deportation order goes before a judge. Agreed. I just hope when that moment comes it´s not already too late. Yet I´ve seen so many changes during my lifetime that it´s not impossible we might see a complete reversal of the situation in a couple of decades. 41
Posted by An Englishman on Sun, 03 Feb 2008 20:13 | # Silver “Tell ‘er to keep that shit in Dandenong!” What does this mean? I assume you mean Dandenong just outside Melbourne? I have never been to Oz but I have relatives in the Dandenong that is just outside Melbourne. Whay would an Aussie say that? 42
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 03 Feb 2008 20:34 | #
Neither has Silver, I suspect. 43
Posted by silver on Mon, 04 Feb 2008 00:04 | #
Dandenong is in an outer region but is part of Melbourne itself. It has long been a heavily (non-European) immigrant suburb, known for crime and unruliness, and many of the recent African arrivals have settled there. There are many other suburbs I could have suggested “taking that shit” to. The inner west, I think, has the highest concentration of Africans. People living in the northeast are probably most aware of Africans in the southeast, which is why Dandenong came to mind. I could have also said Thomastown, which is the nearest not-so-great suburb to Greensborough, but I look exactly like the type who would live there (it remains heavily Italian, Greek and Macedonian, though quickly filling with new blood) so it would seem silly to inflict myself with an African, and I like to think Thomo is still a far cry from the Dandenongs and the Footscrays, ie, wogs can be trying, and on occasion hellish, but cannot be compared to Africans, Islanders, Arabs and Asians. 44
Posted by An Englishman on Mon, 04 Feb 2008 10:10 | # silver Thanks for that. That’s interesting. My maternal Grandmother’s sister moved there in 1913. she had married a stockbroker who had shares in German industry. He apparently sensed what was coming and sold his shares and changed his name (some dodgy dealing perhaps?) moved to Australia and bought a farm in Dandenong. As Melbourne expanded, they owned the land there and I gather did quite well out of it. I get the impression their descendents are loaded. I’ve never met them but my mother and her sister still write to them and have met them on a number of occasions when they’ve visited the UK. The English branch of the family weren’t so lucky. I grew up on a council estate. 45
Posted by John O'Rourke on Mon, 04 Feb 2008 11:41 | # Sadly, the Irish have been beaten at their own game. For years they have berated the “racist” pro-British Ulstermen, portraying themselves as happy-go-lucky open-armed Xenophiles. Come one, come all, enjoy the craic. Unfortunately too many people believed their propaganda and took them up on it. Now we’ll see if the Irish can take what they’ve doled out for years - minority rule, minority rights, and damn the evil oppressor! 46
Posted by silver on Mon, 04 Feb 2008 13:55 | # Englishman, if your relatives are loaded, perhaps it is Mount Dandenong they live in. That is a very lush, scenic, pleasant, very Anglo part of Melbourne. Your grand uncle was probably wise to change his name when he did. A German settlement near where I grew up changed its name from Germantown during that war, presumably not to excite suspicions. As for growing up on a council estate, what we make of ourselves is more important than whatever privileges we might be born into. I was fortunate enough to be raised well away from the immigrant areas, among many a well-to-do British settler—fine folks who took pity on and encouraged a poor immigrant boy who showed promise. For all the advantages that provided me, I managed to end up whiling away my latter youth cavorting with tramps and hoodlums, whilst my less endowed relatives went on to secure well-paid managerial posts. Your congenial tone is evidence of a very British tendency no lesser a racialist luminary than Richard McCulloch warned of: that among nordics to develop attachments to members of racial outgroups even to the extent of being prepared to sacrifice their own vital interests to safeguard those of others. I don’t accuse you personally of this, and I don’t suppose this tendency is as pronounced among MR readers, nor is it one shared by all nordics, yet it remains widespread among your people at large. Those feelings are often genuine. They require only trace amounts of reciprocity to foment and only slightly more to solidify. I suspect it is this as much as it is anything else which prevents those of your people in a position to know better from advocating on their own behalf; a fatal tendency not easily overcome. I hope my example can demonstrate that there exists among us foreigners some capable of dealing fairly and honourably with you to resolve a conundrum which imperils us both. PS Nevermind Fred Scrooby. His passion I can appreciate, yet his vituperative rhetoric I fear does more harm than good. 47
Posted by Bob on Sun, 10 Feb 2008 02:55 | # I do not understand the obsession white people have with non-whites and jews. Why to white people fight so hard to allow non-whites and jews to live among them? Why do white people build civilizations and then hand them over to non-whites and jews without a fight? It’s very strange and I do not understand it at all. White people travel all over the world trying to feed, shelter, and educate non-whites and jews. White people freely hand over all of the technologies they have developed, outsource jobs, and so on. Where does this suicidal charitable mentality come from? 48
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 10 Feb 2008 03:29 | #
Didn’t realize I was known for that. At least I’m accomplishing something! 49
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 10 Feb 2008 11:52 | # “Where does this suicidal charitable mentality come from?” That’s a pretty good and nice, short formulation of the Great Existential Question. I will try to be as pithy. I think it comes from the religious impulse in a secular age. 50
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 27 Apr 2009 02:35 | # Ian Jobling (who has said he will be avoiding run-of-the-mill “everyday” log entries in favor of fewer but meatier, well-researched, more in-depth entries) has a new entry up on racial differences in moral reasoning: http://whiteamerica.us/index.php/articles/articles/racial_differences_in_moral_reasoning/ . Look at the entry’s first illustrative table: in formalized studies of moral reasoning comparing different groups Ireland doesn’t cluster with the other Euro groups studied (Australia, USA, Greece, Poland) but with the Sudan and the Arab average. A number of pieces of evidence appear to point to Irishmen (Irish Catholics, not Ulstermen) being some sort of outlier among the Euro races. That’s fine, I’m not complaining and, I hope it’s needless to say, I fully accept the Irish as my racial brethren, but it may need to be remembered when trying to understand their behavior and politics. 51
Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 27 Apr 2009 04:35 | #
Unfortunately, Ireland’s had a very different historical trajectory to most of Europe because of my lot practising empire on them before we knew better. Sinn Fein is less like a traditional Euro nationalist party and more like one of the African marxist anti-colonialist movements except they’re anti-British rather than anti-White. The bad anglo-irish history effects the whole Anglosphere with people like Ted Kennedy obsessed with old invasions while ignoring new ones.
White people used to act the opposite way until (roughly) the 1950s. Something happened to change them. With hindsight it seems obvious to me now that it was the jewish control of Hollywood initially and later their control of televison. If you’ve ever mixed socially with left-wingers of the post-war generation then you may have noticed how certain films were central to their political development e.g “Twelve Angry Men” where the “good” and good-looking White person goes against his sweaty and ugly co-ethnics to defend a latino killer or “To Kill a Mockingbird” where the “good” and good-looking White person goes against his sweaty and ugly co-ethnics to defend a noble black man falsly accused. I think that’s how it started. There’d always been a minority of White people who applied Christian morality universally but most people ignored that for practical reasons and only applied it within their kinship group. The jews took Christian and secularized Christian morality and used their media power to promote it’s extension beyond kinship groups, initially so it would include jews I imagine. Whatever the motive the end result was to change White morality so that (White) ethno-centricity was seen as morally bad and made people feel guilty and (White) race treason was seen as morally good and made people feel virtuous. Hence White suicide. In terms of inter ethnic competition White people unilaterally disarmed, or rather they allowed themselves to be unilaterally disarmed, because of jewish domination of the media, jewish understanding of themselves as non-White, and the subsequent attempt of jews to extend White morality to extend beyond kinship groups. McCarthy was right but he lost. 53
Posted by Mary Boyle on Fri, 30 Nov 2018 03:51 | # Mary Boyle How Ireland will end up a Third World state if citizens don’t destroy FFFG and useless opposition 54
Posted by Colin Flaherty talks to Irish about black crime on Sat, 09 Mar 2019 22:58 | # Irish guys interview Colin Flaherty on the reality of black violent criminality as opposed to the media propaganda being fed out of (((American media))) as opposed to the reality. Post a comment:
Next entry: Ron Paul’s “Revolution: A Manifesto” is #3 Best Seller at Amazon
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 31 Jan 2008 03:28 | #
I think the entry’s last sentence points, if not toward the explanation, toward a good portion of it: nearly always, Jewish money lurks behind these unnatural, extreme preoccupations with “anti-racism,” “inclusion,” and so on, preoccupations which go beyond the point of “reasonableness” and enter the world of pathological obsession. Non-Hebrew tribes don’t obsess over these particular things, only Hebrews. When you see it — when you see people obsessing over these particular topics — cherchez le juif. Nine times out of ten you’ll find him.
The other thing is, of course, What’s wrong with these Sinn Fein types? They’re supporting the full post-modernist agenda: forced race-replacement, extreme women’s lib, the full homosexualist agenda, everything. They leave nothing out. They’re more extreme than the Eastern European communists before the Wall came down. These Sinn Feiners are very strange birds.