Lee John Barnes “… a strange and complex character” – Nick Griffin

Posted by Guessedworker on March 25, 2010, 09:58 AM | #

I’ve posted the following comment on Dale’s blog.  It is awaiting moderation.  A bit of a test for that, one has to say.  But what the hell.

Nick Griffin did well.  He is too authoritarian, perhaps, but overall I think he has proved to be a skilful transitional leader for the BNP, and has done a more than adequate job of bringing ethnic survival for the English into the realm of political possibilities.

Personally, I would like to see him expand on our existential crisis, and on the non-right of post-1948 immigrant populations to take our ancestral homeland away from us.  This is the correct response to unthinking innocents like Ian who are all caught up in the humanistic ethno-masochism and anti-European racism of advanced liberal ideology.

As for the Holocaust it is, as many of my generation can recall, a publicity campaign which began in the 1970s.  The numbers of the dead and the causes of death are not known.  The official narrative is religious in character, but it is an extremely useful religion for Jews.  It achieves four ends:

(i) It justifies Zionist Israel.

(ii) It facilitates financial parasitism.

(iii) It ascribes guilt to Europeans generally, and prevents them from a nationalist defence against race-replacement immigration by Africans and Asians.

(iv) It puts Jews beyond criticism and gives their intellectual leadership a free hand to institute a destructive critique of European culture, as evinced in such wonders as Classical Marxism, revolutionary internationalism, Critical Theory, Postmodernism, Freudianism, second-wave Feminism, second-wave Libertarianism, Gay Rights/LBGT Rights, Human Rights, White Privilege/White Abolitionism, Agitation for open borders and mass immigration, academic race-denial, encouragement for white race-mixing, promulgation of hate speech law, internet pornography ... among others.

No other ethnicity is implicated in the authorship and practise of these diverse goods.  They are not Icelandic specialities.  They are not Zulu.  They are Jewish, sadly.

None of this Griffin can say.  It very rarely gets said at all.  But when it is, it is never denied on the basis of fact.  It is simply written off by whatever illegitimate means comes to hand, while the speaker is smeared and silenced.

My advice to anyone of European descent who reads this list and is shocked - shocked, I tell you - that it should ever be even thought about, never mind said in public, is to ask yourself how you came to be rendered unable to defend your own people and our culture.  Because you are no use as you are.

Posted by Søren Renner on March 25, 2010, 10:54 AM | #

http://www.toqonline.com/2010/03/the-psychopathology-of-judaism-2/

John de Nugent translated this essay by Herve Ryssen.

Posted by Guessedworker on March 25, 2010, 11:49 AM | #

It is a clear-sighted statement of the Jewish interest and role in our racial dissolution.  But I don’t buy the motherfucker angle.  Herve has a nerve to come out with that!

Jewish hysteria seems to me to be a product of the conscience and of the closeness to the surface of the fear of getting caught.

Also, I don’t buy Herve’s lerve:

The question is whether the aggressiveness of Judaism can be neutralized in order to save humanity from its evils, evils that could prove even more serious than Marxism such as psychoanalysis and the ideology of globalism. First of all, we must face the facts: After all these centuries of mutual misunderstanding, the antisemitic Christians, the Muslims, and Hitler have all failed to resolve the Jewish question. The fact is that the Jews feed on and grow off the hatred they have engendered among all the peoples of this world. This hatred, it must be said, is vital for their survival and for their spiritual genetics. It has allowed them for many centuries now to close ranks within their community against an external enemy, while other civilizations have disappeared.

For their part, the rabbis spare no efforts to keep their gene pool Jewish. And so even a renegade Jew remains a Jew, and therefore it is perfectly useless to attempt to leave the Jewish prison community. Judaism is indeed a prison. Claiming that a Jew cannot ever stop being Jewish works in favor of Jewry’s survival.

Our mission must be to accommodate these sick among us, because the Jews are not “perfidious” people as much as they are sick people to be cured.

Jews are to be loved individually and sincerely in order to free them from the prison in which they are locked. Only then will they become free from the cult’s grip – and from the threat they pose to themselves and to all humanity.

Only then we will become free from this grip, and at the same time, they will free themselves from the evil inside them that threatens all mankind.

These people don’t deserve love.  That “Yitzhak Attia, director of French-language seminars at the Yad Vashem Holocaust institute in Tel Aviv”, could write this in something called Israel magazine:

“Even if reason tells us, even shouts with all its force the very absurdity of this confrontation between the small and insignificant people of Israel and the rest of humanity… as absurd, as incoherent and as monstrous as it may seem, we are engaged in close combat between Israel and the Nations – and it can only be genocidal and total because it is about our and their identities.”

... offends against every sensibility.  By Attia’s own standard, Jewish cultural and ethnic dissolution is the only way out of this horror story.

Posted by Wandrin on March 25, 2010, 01:08 PM | #

I thought Griffin’s comments re LJB were pretty good. He was much less defensive than when talking about Duke for example and more combative on a general freedom of speech tack without being ranty.

I think that’s definitely the way to play it - politely combative instead of constantly defending.

Posted by Dan Dare on March 25, 2010, 02:16 PM | #

Strange and complex indeed. An extract from Lee John Barnes’ blog entry discussing the Dale-Griffin converstation:

... The fact is that the most dangerous war mongering Zionists in history have all been non-Jews - Hitler, George Bush and Tony Blair are the most dangerous Zionists in history.

Hitler hated Jews, but WORKED WITH THE ZIONISTS to deport all the Jews out of Europe and into Palestine. Hitler is the true founder of Israel, as without WW2 then there would be no Israel. The Holocaust began when the British government refused to allow more European Jews to enter Palestine as the Nazis over run Europe and so Hitler began to round them up and hold them in concentration camps which then turned into death camps. Churchill did not want more Jews to enter Palestine as he knew they would then fight against the British in Palestine in order to create a Jewish state. This was proved to be correct as the Irgun terrorist gang even offered to fight alongside the Nazis against the British in Palestine, even as the Nazi death camps were busy burning millions of Jews all over Europe.

Hitler was a Zionist, and an anti-semite.

I thought it was Madagascar not Palestine?

And then there’s this

... As for the statement of Nick on Zionism, I disagree with him. I believe that the evidence that the Zionist media controls politics is indisputable, both in the UK and US.

Nick may disagree, but thats okay. I dont know a single person on the planet who I agree with 100 % on everything.

First Dale and now Barnes. Nobody seems to want remind Nick about ‘The Mindbenders’. I wonder why.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 25, 2010, 04:44 PM | #

I’ve been debating whether to keep my mouth shut or speak up.  I’ll speak up:  I don’t like attacks on the BNP.  I view this entry as one (along with portions of this comments thread), and I viewed this other recent entry, here,

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/who_needs_the_bnp/ ,

as one.  I was shocked when I saw that other one, and totally baffled as to why in the world it was posted.  And now this posted by DD (making the second time in a row Dan has posted a really lousy log entry, incidentally — considering defecting to Harry’s Place, Dan?  or Perry de Havilland’s maybe?). 

If this site, for whatever reason that I simply cannot even begin to fathom, is going to make a habit of knocking the BNP, or undermining it, or laughing at it, or trying to embarrass it — especially at this most critical of all moments when the BNP has hopes of winning a seat in Parliament — I’m outta here.  I’m not going to stick around a site that takes part in that.  I’d like to ask whomever thinks the BNP should be attacked, ridiculed or embarrassed, which party he views as the alternative?  Right, there is none and we’re in deep trouble unless a party with our general views gets off the ground.  Some seem to think there are a billion alternatives waiting in the wings ready to take off.  Earth to that person:  there aren’t.  Right now the BNP is the only game in town.  And a damn good one as far as I’m concerned. 

Case closed.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 25, 2010, 05:09 PM | #

Dan Dare’s priorities right now are, in order starting with what Dan sees as most important: 

1) anti-Americanism (and for all the wrong, brainless, Euro-lefty reasons), by far and away Dan’s number one priority;

2) ridiculing, attacking, opposing anyone who mouthes the word “Jews” in discussing the race-replacement crisis;

3) ridiculing, attacking, opposing Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich;

4) very mildly, very tentatively, very cautiously, more or less timidly addressing race-replacement.

So sorry we can’t see eye to eye Dan — the list of my own priorities reads somewhat differently.

Posted by Dan Dare on March 25, 2010, 05:09 PM | #

Fred, apparently unlike yourself, I don’t consider the BNP - or more correctly, its present leadership - to be immune from criticism. I don’t actually consider that blind sycophancy of the type that you espouse is particularly helpful to the cause anyway.

If the party’s policies are daft (as some of them certainly are) and some of the people in the hierarchy of the leadership are not simply useless but actually destructive, there is nothing to be gained by remaining silent.

I say this as a party member and long-time financial supporter.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 25, 2010, 05:20 PM | #

I’m sure you’re going to lead this blog from triumph to triumph, Dan.  Sayonara.

Posted by Guessedworker on March 25, 2010, 05:39 PM | #

Lee knows where to place his wheels in the tracks, politically.  He is wholly onside with the Griffinite push for electability, for instance.  But I am not sure his face would ever fit at Westminster.  Perhaps that’s what Nick Griffin meant.

In any event, I think Lee’s edginess is actually a good thing for the party, and I still intend to get him on the end of a microphone when Gordon Brown presses the button for the general election.

Posted by PM on March 25, 2010, 07:16 PM | #

The fact is that the Jews feed on and grow off the hatred they have engendered among all the peoples of this world. This hatred, it must be said, is vital for their survival and for their spiritual genetics. It has allowed them for many centuries now to close ranks within their community against an external enemy, while other civilizations have disappeared.

So there is a Jewish civilization? Where?

Posted by Guessedworker on March 25, 2010, 07:35 PM | #

And what on earth are “spiritual genetics”?

Posted by Englander on March 25, 2010, 08:43 PM | #

Fred, I’m sure we all wish the BNP great success in all elections, and that success is not going to be impacted by criticisms of the party in far flung corners of the internet like this one. I know that Dan is less critical of the BNP in venues with a greater ‘anti’ presence.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 25, 2010, 10:39 PM | #

Englander, if you understood the scope of the problem as we do here in the States — and I don’t think you do — you would understand you do not have the luxury of criticizing the BNP.  Your problem is coming from here, from the States, and it’s going to come at you full force, which it hasn’t done yet.  When it does you won’t know what hit you.  It’s going to dismantle your whole society with a rapidity that will stun you.  Right now you’re getting a sort of peripheral version of it like someone living on the edge of a hurricane.  When the full force hits you it will be way more difficult to confront and you’ll wish you had confronted it better, sooner, without playing the kind of “make fun of the BNP” games this blog has played.  The BNP has to get off the ground and you have to help it or leave it the fuck alone and at least don’t actively hinder it.  You do not have another thirty years to develop an alternative from scratch.  You have to work with what’s in front of you and work fast.  If you think what we’re going through over here won’t come to you, think again.  The forces that engineered it here will engineer exactly the same onslaught there, in fact are working on it right now as we speak.  If you think what you’ve seen is bad you haven’t seen anything.  You have to stop it and you do not have the luxury of more time.  There is no site or blog on the internet that I will participate in if it knocks the BNP, none.  Period, full stop, end of story.  Your friend Dan Dare is a kind of arrogant moron who has three or four pet preoccupations he places above race-replacement in importance, one of them a mentally-retarded form of anti-Americanism that’s very common among leftish-oriented Europeans who are pig-ignorant.  Don’t tell me about anti-Americanism, I may be the most anti-American guy on the planet but not his kind.  It’s not the new & improved multiculti version of Amerikwa he hates.  Everyone normal hates that.  It’s the ones there’s nothing wrong with he hates, good solid white American folk whom Dan loathes.  With that moron lighting your way you’re going to stumble into every ditch out there but where that obnoxious imbecile is concerned, suit yourself.  Let him publish entries knocking and trying to harm the BNP all the way to Election Day.  He’ll marginalize the blog.

Good luck.

Posted by jamesUK on March 25, 2010, 10:53 PM | #

With the recent failure of the Orange regime and historical review of the conflict between the nation states of Europe especially Germany and Poland which started WW2 conflict nationalist government is the most destructive of them all. As Sunic has made a point before national identity is defined as being negative towards someone else. The same can be said of non-nationalist regimes like the USSR and US. 

I think the racial NS was more of a hindrance than a blessing for Germany and like Israel would collapse under its own dogmatic weight and today is totally impossible in today’s world so I don’t know why people keep on harping on about the Nazis. 

How old does Mr Barnes think Zionism is?

Control of the media had strong Jewish influence and invoked themes of Marxist Troskyite in Hollywood, TV and academia of themes of immigration and the American dream and racism before the state of Israel was created.
In fact Israel just highlights the hypocrisy of Jewish activists who can support independent Islamic regimes around the world and open immigration while supporting a government which does neither. 

Both even the bulk of US support for Israel and the Neocons were not heavily focused on Israel until the 67 war.

There ultimate demise is the US State department and Jewish think tanks like AEI, Jamestown and Heritage foundation pushing for historical review/revisionism of WW2 and Communism for there push against Russia given the current deteriorating global economic and political situation which will inevitably back fire on them

Posted by Gorboduc on March 26, 2010, 06:34 AM | #

From the current website for the BBC’s TODAY programme.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/listen_again/default.stm

0733
Immigration has become a major issue for voters but many election candidates will be concerned about the dangers of turning it into a divisive issue. It is predicted that immigrants will be the majority in eight of London’s 32 boroughs by 2026. Andrew Hosken reports from Newham, east London, where immigration remains one of the top three concerns raised by potential voters.

Catch it when the Listen Again facility comes online.
Scary stuff: it’s as if an old isue of an NF paper from 25 years ago had come to life, illegal immigrants living 24 at a time in a 4-room house, hiding in filthy kebab parlourse etc. One hapless white lad bemoans the situation, but his main moan is having his wages undercut, and of course, predictably he’s “not a racist”. Whites are leaving the area in droves, so this is the sort of place where the jury has been packed by the powers-that-be, and there probably won’t BE a chance of electing even a white candidate much longer in many places, let alone a WN one.
The BNP propaganda will simply have to be of a quality that eclipses anything from UKIP.

@Fred: you and I have clashed in the past, and I’ve been a bit critical of the BNP and LJB before, but on this one I’m now supporting you whole-heartedly. You’re quite right, there ISN’T any other party over here except a few crackpots whose purpose may well be to divide the Nationalist vote.

@James UK: how old do YOU think Zionism is?

@GW: I was going to ask YOU the question about ‘spiritual genetics’.

Posted by Gorboduc on March 26, 2010, 08:01 AM | #

Sorry, forgaot to include this: same URL as above.

0841
Immigration has become a major issue for voters but many election candidates will be concerned about the dangers of turning it into a divisive issue. It is predicted that immigrants will be the majority in eight of London’s 32 boroughs by 2026. Robert Anderson, Labour Councillor and leader of Slough Borough Council, and Dr Louise Ryan, a reader in migration at Middlesex University, consider how national and local governments should plan for changes to the make-up of communities.

Dangerous to whom, one may ask?

Perhaps the future changes to communities should include the restoration of a white hegemony?
Don’t expect the Middlesex University girl to be very bright: fairly recently the Uni. “sensitively” changed ” the name of one of its campus buildings from The Piggery to The Warren to keep the Moslems happy.

“Of course, I am a million miles from being a racist . . .”

Posted by jamesUK on March 26, 2010, 01:41 PM | #

@Gorboduc

Beginning in the late 19th Century so it is over a hundred years old. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism

Most Jews up until I wiould say the 80’s were left wing and involved in left wing activist causes. So what is your point?

Posted by Dan Dare on March 26, 2010, 02:30 PM | #

Gorbo, I should have thought that you of all people who contribute here would be able to take a more nuanced view towards the BNP and in particular its current leadership.

You are entirely correct in stating that the BNP is the only viable political entity that stands for the interests of indigenous Britons and for that it deserves our complete support. However, the other side of that coin is that, being the exclusive holders of that particular franchise brings with it a responsibility to maximise the political returns.

We know from polling surveys that the BNP’s political platform has far more popular support than does the party itself, and it is legitimate indeed necessary to question why that is the case. There is no question that the BNP is underperforming, particularly given the absence of any competition for the space it occupies on the political spectrum. The question is why it is underperforming and what changes are necessary to enable it to realise its full electoral potential.

Posted by Gorboduc on March 26, 2010, 05:45 PM | #

Dan, I agree.
There are many questions I’d like to ask NG.
But just at the moment I don’t want to “do nuance” as a 60% solution is better than none…
We can’t build without bricks, and the BNP is at least providing the beginnings of a wall.
Let’s hope that the misplaced Churchillian patriotism a lot of them display can be re-defined and re-focussed… I’ve decided not to quench the burning flax, but to try and help it burst into flame.

James, I wasn’t making a point but asking a question.
I think there’s evidence that it was known in Europe by 1850…

Another non-Jew reportedly espousing the Jewish nation was Napoleon Bonaparte, who launched his campaign to conquer Palestine in 1799 with a pledge to “restore the country to the Jews.”[69] While Napoleon was unsuccessful in his attempt, some believe he was a catalyst for

  a distinguished gallery of writers, clerics, journalists, artists and statesmen [who] accompanied the awakening of the idea of Jewish restoration in Palestine. Lord Lindsay, Lord Shaftesbury (the social reformer who learned Hebrew), Lord Palmerston, Disraeli, Lord Manchester, George Eliot, Holman Hunt, Sir Charles Warren, Hall Caine-all appear among the many who spoke, wrote, organized support, or put forward practical projects by which Britain might help the return of the Jewish people to Palestine. There were some who even urged the British government to buy Palestine from the Turks to give it to the Jews to rebuild.[70]

Sir George Gawler, who had fought in the battle of Waterloo, wrote in 1845 that “the most sober and sensible remedy for the miseries of Asiatic Turkey” was to “Replenish the deserted towns and fields of Palestine with the energetic people whose warmest affections are rooted in the soil.” Gawler published a series of pamphlets on the theme, one on “the emancipation of the Jews,” and in 1849 he made a pilgrimage to Palestine with his friend, Jewish leader Sir Moses Montefiore. [71]

Holman Hunt’s famous painting The Scapegoat which he went out east to paint is thought to be inspired by his Zionism.

Posted by Gorboduc on March 26, 2010, 05:49 PM | #

The URL to the quoted passage above is:

http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~peters/oriental.html

Posted by Guessedworker on March 26, 2010, 08:10 PM | #

Lee having a good time at the New Statesman:

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/03/bnp-barking-racists-british#reader-comments

Posted by Grimoire on March 27, 2010, 03:13 AM | #

LJB: It has allowed them for many centuries now to close ranks within their community against an external enemy, while other civilizations have disappeared.
————————————————————

  This reminds of a scenario from that American television series ‘Sopranos’ where a jew refuses to pay for services rendered. The crew slap him around, but he still refuses to pay,,,,

Pauli Walnuts: This guy is nuts…..sheesh!
Jew: We have been around since before you came out from living in caves…and we will be around long after you are gone! Where is the Roman empire now?
Tony Soprano: You’re looking at it, asshole. Pauly, hand me da boltcutters….

For those who haven’t seen the series. The Jew pays + +.

——————————————————————
@Fred Scrooby
     
Btw, I agree with your assessment on support for the BNP. However, you must understand these English chaps have a different psychology. They don’t get all freaked out about things…and they look askance at agitation.  A reserved approach, and a aloof scrutiny is their way….as well as out and out ridiculous, unfathomable satire.  Don’t ask me what the last signifies, but if you think about it honestly,  there is something to learn from it.

———————————————
Posted by Guessedworker
And what on earth are “spiritual genetics”?

the new trance club scene…....
——————————————————
@jamesUK
      The Americans are bashed for hailing Nazism probably because the British historical analysis is regurgitated propaganda.  I wonder if the two views cancels each other out?
How old do you think Zionism is? - ever read the Booble? Has something to do with Jews, the fate of mankind and eretz Israel. Obviously the idea didn’t start 100 years ago.
———————————————————

. I started to write an article on the need to support the BNP and political strategy (which I ‘presumed’ to be unhappy with). Doing research on it, I emailed contacts in Britain, many who in the past regarded the party as dangerous.
I was shocked. Every single response I got was positive, even if guardedly so. On every left wing page I reviewed bashing the BNP…..the comments are 85% pro BNP….and the comments are written by thoughtful co-respondents, not trolls. The trolling is done by the left….this has great significance.  Support for the BNP is swelling exponentially.

I don’t want to frighten any British here. But the same thing is happening in Germany with the NPD. I think also BNP contacts with the NPD has helped NG a lot. The NPD strategy is very advanced and they have very much nailed what needs to be done some time ago in terms of managing the present day political environment…which in Germany is very oppressive and very dangerous. In the ‘bullet behind the ear’ sense.

I’m not surprised by the overall advance - just by the fact the British people are more advanced in outlook than the BNP. Their political strategy has been (to my mind) lacking - no matter the British people respond anyway to the fundamental truth of their argument, and are not swayed by gamesmanship or agitprop.
As they start to gain success - their political conduct will mature. NG, and the BNP whatever their faults, has risen to the challenge. Britain, will rise to the challenge also.
I respect British reserve, but I suspect there is enough in reserve to make allowances for the BNP. Now might be the time to dust some reserve off and pitch in as a team.

Posted by Grimoire on March 27, 2010, 03:40 AM | #

@Guessesworker
     
The comments below that article are hilarious.

Posted by Retew on March 27, 2010, 07:37 AM | #

@Englander

Some of us from “venues with a greater anti presence” read this blog too :(

However, I can understand where Dan’s coming from. When I’m posting on SF or other sites whose members by and large dislike the site I help to run (MSF) and would like to see the back of it, my instinct is to defend it come what may. The same when I’m on the Phora and people like Cheesypie attack us. It’s a bit like defending your family; people row within families and later defend the very family members they rowed with from attacks by outsiders. Privately (especially in the admins’ forum) I may be quite critical of certain things about MSF and have disagreements about MSF policy, but I’m not going to tell my board’s enemies that.

I know from talking to people privately on SF that some of them feel Nick Griffin should have achieved a lot more than he has done, but faced with people who would gladly see the party put out of existence by legislation, they’re going to defend it and that’s how it should be. It’s simple loyalty.

Sorry if this makes me sound snobbish, but the basic problem the BNP’s got IMO is that its members disproportionally tend to come from those sectors of society who have done less well out of multiculturalism than other sectors of British society, i.e. the white working class who have suffered from competition for jobs, housing etc. from the influx of immigrants and economic migrants especially post-1997. The net and probably inevitable result is that they make more mistakes and also present themselves less well than parties with a higher level of middle class graduates (though the BNP website’s clearly had a makeover recently and got rid of those garish primary colours).

I think sites like HopenotHate which chronicle the howlers committed by BNP councillors who can’t understand what they’re expected to do in council, make a hash of Jean Marie Le Pen’s visit to the UK etc. are largely telling the truth.

BTW, GW were you drainonresources in the Guardian’s CiF recently? I thought I recognised your style.

Posted by Retew on March 27, 2010, 07:52 AM | #

P.S. I know my English went to hell in that post; “disproportionally” instead of “disproportionately” etc. (The frown, :(, smiley at the top was also supposed to be a smile, ). It’d be nice to have an edit function here.

Posted by Guessedworker on March 27, 2010, 09:06 AM | #

I couldn’t possibly comment, Retew.  There are so many people posting stuff at CiF that I approve of, I’m beginning to wonder whether, in the fastness of the night, I sleep-walk down the flights of stairs to my basement office and rattle out liberal-killing commentary under a dozen identities.  There’s even a female commenter with the handle GW100 who is a flat-out BNP supporter.  It’s great.

I have pretty well stopped posting at CiF.  None of the Jew-tool liberal classes has anything interesting to say about The Great Issue beyond “waycist”.  They are truly, utterly ignorant, pathetic, shameful specimens of our people.  But they are also religious in their attachment to anti-waycist dictat.  Argumentation does not touch them.  I am beginning to think that real verbal violence, intelligently done, is necessary to crush the stupidity out of them.

They don’t deserve our tolerant explanations, anyway.  They offer only a projection of their own blind self-hatred in reply.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 27, 2010, 09:56 AM | #

Grimoire, I guess people have their limits.  For A Finn it was the pro-Stalin propaganda poster CvH posted.  Finn took one look at that and left and never came back.  For Rnl and Kubilai it was the north-south thing.  When Desmond and “n/a” pushed that beyond what they were willing to tolerate they took off.  For good.  And there’ve been others here who’ve seen their limits breached, and left.  I suppose for me it’s this site’s attacks on the BNP.  I won’t hang around a site that does that.  When I see something the BNP does that merits attack I’ll be sure to join in.  So far I’ve seen nothing.  Any Britisher who attacks today’s BNP does not see the danger facing Britain, otherwise he’d keep hands off till there was a damned good reason and I mean a damned good reason.  There isn’t.  As for my differences with Dan Dare (whom I clashed with here a couple of years ago, he using different pen names at that time — clashed with mainly as a result of his being a rabid anti-American, exactly as now), those are on a different level and not what I’m talking about.  I don’t think I’m betraying confidences to mention I e-mailed GW the morning he posted the previous attack on the BNP, titled “Who Needs the BNP?”, to express my astonishment and question the wisdom of such an entry, especially given the BNP’s present difficulties and efforts to gain a seat in Parliament.  In my e-mail to GW I toned down my language and kept it light and simple, so highly do I respect him, but I was shocked at that entry and still do not understand why it was posted.  And now this second attack, gratuitous and sickening, by Dan Dare who is no GW but a brazen second- or third-rater.

Sorry, Grimoire, and thank you for offering your thoughts, but as much as I love this blog I have my limits.

Posted by fellist on March 27, 2010, 10:07 AM | #

For the record, some information I came by recently, in a review of Maisie J. Meyer, From the Rivers of Babylon to the Whangpoo: A Century of Sephardi Jewish Life in Shanghai (Lanham, MD; New York; and Oxford: University Press of America, 2003.):

While at an early stage in the book Meyer mentions Baghdad’s long-serving (1859-1909) ecclesiastical authority Hakham Yosef Hayyim, she does not involve him in her discussion of Shanghai Zionism (pp. 171-190). She sees that phenomenon as largely the creation of N.E.B. Ezra between 1903 and 1936, when Ezra led the Shanghai Zionist Association (SZA) and edited Israel’s Messenger. However, prior to Ezra, Hayyim was a powerful force inculcating pre-Herzlian Zionism among Baghdadis in India, Burma, the Straits Settlements, Hong Kong, Shanghai, the Philippines, the Dutch East Indies, and elsewhere. He urged his brethren to visit and settle the Land of Israel long before Theodor Herzl’s establishment of the World Zionist Organization (WZO) in 1896, with which the SZA was affiliated, and even before the founding of the WZO’s predecessor organizations, Hovevei Zion and BILU. (8)

Note:
8. See David S. Sassoon, History of the Jews in Baghdad (Letchworth, U.K.: S. D. Sassoon, 1949), p. 217.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 27, 2010, 10:14 AM | #

By the way, I can out-anti-American anyone on the planet so don’t anybody come on here and start telling me all the ways in which America deserves to be hated.  I know all about them, I agree with all of them, and could give you lessons, trust me.  But righteous anti-Americanism is different from the Euro-lefty DD-style wrongteous indignation vis-à-vis all things American that is so extremely common among Europe’s dullwits, know-nothing morons, EU-symps, clueless “political females,” assorted race-replacement advocates, and other pathetic specimens one sees over there.

Posted by Guessedworker on March 27, 2010, 10:44 AM | #

Fred writes:

I don’t think I’m betraying confidences to mention I e-mailed GW the morning he posted the previous attack on the BNP, titled “Who Needs the BNP?”, to express my astonishment and question the wisdom of such an entry, especially given the BNP’s present difficulties and efforts to gain a seat in Parliament.

To which mail I answered,

it is important to remember that we are an independent medium.  We are not a de facto organ of the BNP.  Accordingly, we retain an interest in critical journalism.  Our function is to promote discussion and, through that, the discovery of truth.  It is not to cheer the BNP leadership from the sidelines.

“Who Needs the BNP?”, btw, was written by Alexander Baron.  Alexander is one of a large body of loyal-hearted nationalists who view the party critically.  Others include the members of the National Front, the long-time nationalists still involved in the even smaller splinter groups that have populated non-BNP nationalism for the last thirty years, and some of those associated with Troy Southgate.  Even within the party itself there is a very great deal of suppressed dissent.  Just how great one could intimate from the EiE debacle of two years ago.  It tends to grow over time, not fade away.

Of course there will always be disagreements in every party in the way that it is managed.  Sometimes the loyalty to the British people - which is the one that really matters - gets the better of disloyalty to the party leadership, and conflict spills out.  Is it always a bad thing?  No.  But sometimes it is, and in so much as that is the case with Al’s article, or Dan’s, then Fred has a point.  It was not wasted on me.

But that first point remains.  We are an independent medium, and critique is not of itself a bad thing.  I would never allow us to degenerate into an annoying echo chamber like The Home of the Green Arrow.  Our views are not singular, and are not faultlessly represented by Nick Griffin, Arthur Kemp, et al, nor by the lead articles we publish here.  On the contrary, we think.  We debate.  We retain the ability to learn and change.

Who would want it otherwise?

Posted by Wandrin on March 27, 2010, 11:55 AM | #

Practically speaking, given some of the topics discussed here, an occasional thread about how the BNP are wimps, moderates and sell-outs isn’t too bad an idea.

Posted by Dan Dare on March 27, 2010, 01:28 PM | #

That’s not of a course a position that I have taken, although there are of course many dedicated nationalists that have. At the risk of sounding like a broken gramophone record, my point is that, given its unique opportunity, the BNP’s performance continues to be sub-optimal.

To ascribe that simply to establishment and media hostility is facile, the Labour Party experienced just as much reactionary opposition during its formative years, yet within ten years of its formation it had MPs in Parliament and after a further twenty-five it became the majority party. The difference between Labour then and the BNP now is that the former was able to connect to its natural constituency, whereas the latter hasn’t.

The responsibility for that failure does not rest with the rank and file but with the party leadership. In order to move from its present plateau change is needed, starting at the top.

Posted by Dan Dare on March 27, 2010, 01:56 PM | #

As for my differences with Dan Dare (whom I clashed with here a couple of years ago, he using different pen names at that time

Just for the record Fred, I have never used any other pseudonym on this site. Your imagination is getting the better of you.

Your other charges are of course equally baseless so I will not dignify them with a response.

Posted by Desmond Jones on March 27, 2010, 02:41 PM | #

Rnl had nothing to do with n/a, Fred. Sheesh.

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/the_last_norwegian_patriots/

Posted by Captainchaos on March 27, 2010, 03:03 PM | #

I am beginning to think that real verbal violence, intelligently done, is necessary to crush the stupidity out of them.

I’m inclined to throw White American liberals to the wolves when the time comes, unless they come to us, hat in hand.  The people who we can convince, and in a way have always been with us, are starting to wake up.

Today I was outside for a cigarette and the paper guy happened along to deliver the local newspaper.

“Nice day, eh?” he says to me.

“Yeah, in every way, except for the fact that the road is obstructed.”

“You mean them?”  he said, pointing to the two negoes walking in the middle of the street reciting violent rap lyrics to themselves.

“Yup.”

“I know, they’re trash.  If you know what I mean.”

“I know what you mean.”

“They harass this handicapped boy that works with us, but if you say anything that’s ‘discrimination’.”

“It won’t stop until we stand up for ourselves.  Until then, we get what we deserve.”

“Yup.”

For all the vaunted ‘compassion’ of liberals, it is nothing to them that the weakest of their own people suffer terribly.  I hope they reap the whirlwind.

Posted by jamesUK on March 28, 2010, 01:01 AM | #

@Grimoire

Zionism is I think rather unique in all the Jewish political in that it is an overtly Jewish nationalist political movement unlike other Jewish political movements like Communism or Neo-Conservatism where they recognise growing cultural trends and political movements and subvert them creating an elite radical offshoot even with some similarities.

And can we really say the British media (all of it) is pro-Zionist like in the US? TV news media certainly isn’t.

@jamesUK
The Americans are bashed for hailing Nazism probably because the British historical analysis is regurgitated propaganda.  I wonder if the two views cancels each other out?
How old do you think Zionism is? - ever read the Booble? Has something to do with Jews, the fate of mankind and eretz Israel. Obviously the idea didn’t start 100 years ago.

The idea of a mass nationalist political movement called Zionism originated in Europe and is based on the Babylonian Talmud of the Pharisees written after the time of Jesus and the New Testament.

Posted by Jewish BNP member on March 28, 2010, 01:29 AM | #

Long live Dan Dare! He brings sensibility to this blog. I have nothing but the highest respect for him.

Posted by Captainchaos on March 28, 2010, 01:44 AM | #

Long live Dan Dare! He brings sensibility to this blog. I have nothing but the highest respect for him.

Take yourself an English wife, then, and cement the bond.  I’m sure all the English here fully support the right of Jews to procreate with English women.  And, no doubt, you’ll not find German women to your liking, died-in-the-wool genocidal anti-Semites that they are.  You won’t want to breed with them.

Posted by Grimoire on March 28, 2010, 01:57 AM | #

@jamesUK
                I take your point. My point is the tenets of Zionism are an unbroken line from the Pentateuch to the Talmud to Zionism.

As for the British media, I concur that honesty and integrity still exists in the British media. Contrary to the American media, where it is extinct. But this is media, the American people as a whole are very open minded and hesitant to judge without a grasp of the facts.

Oh look!  A Dan Dare fan! Hee Hee.

Posted by Gorboduc on March 28, 2010, 07:02 AM | #

Dan, here’s a bit of nuance for you: but it’s not addressed to you, but to:

Jewish BNP Member: glad you support Dan Dare.

He has, however, just stated that the BNP’s performance is “sub-optimal”, i.e., “not very good”.
Well, some of us others may suspect that you are happy with that too.
Perhaps your presence within the party’s ranks may explain the attitudes of Dan, you, and we others.
Although I said that I was prepared to support the BNP as the 65% solution, this is conditional on my hope that within the party there are several cadres of traditionalist WNs who are biding their time.
It’s one thing to be a White European that’s converted to Judaism: I have heard of such things, with desire for money, accruing as the result of a miscegenating marriage, providing a sufficient motive.
It’s another thing to be an actual Jew who is posing as someone of genuine English, Welsh, Irish or Scottish ancestry.
Sometime in the history of you or your ancestors there was a point at which a name like Wolff or Roth or Kaufman or Janner was changed to Ramsay or Webster or Reed.
It’s likely that when you survey what you know of the history of your adoptive country, you root for Cromwell more than for Edward I.
Enough said for the moment.

Posted by Q on March 28, 2010, 08:39 AM | #

Posted by Jewish BNP member on March 28, 2010, 05:29 AM | #

Long live Dan Dare! He brings sensibility to this blog. I have nothing but the highest respect for him.

LMAO!

What’s next? Paki Islamofascists for DD?

Ha-ha-ha!

Dan Dare ho akbar!

P.S.

No offence to you Dan, but ‘Jewish BNP member’ struck a funny bone. Obviously he is a put on.

Posted by Dan Dare on March 28, 2010, 12:39 PM | #

I bet it’s one of Fred’s sockpuppets.

Posted by Gorboduc on March 28, 2010, 01:54 PM | #

Seriously, chums, there ARE Jewish BNP members, and a chosen councillor.
Nick boasts about them.
Anyone remember Albert Elder of Eastbourne, I think, and Gerry Viner, who were quite well-known in the late 70’s?
No new thing.

Posted by Wandrin on March 28, 2010, 02:28 PM | #

The responsibility for that failure does not rest with the rank and file but with the party leadership. In order to move from its present plateau change is needed, starting at the top.

The “present plateau” in terms of MEPs is only a few months old. There is no failure. Things are bubbling nicely.

The comparison with Labour is bogus. The causes behind the growth of the Labour party didn’t act to hinder the growth of the Labour party. Immigration leads to a growth of BNP support but at the same time limits and weakens that support. The people most inclined to vote BNP are minorities in already colonized areas - areas in which the BNP couldn’t even organize now except by stealth and anyone actually standing would likely be stabbed at least.

Griffin is doing fine.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 28, 2010, 06:38 PM | #

“I bet it’s one of Fred’s sockpuppets.”  (—DD)

I don’t use any.  Since 2004 I post solely as “Fred Scrooby” no matter where.  Scrooby is the town where the Pilgrim Fathers chiefly had their congregation (along with nearby Bawtry and Austerfield) before moving to Leiden then America.  It was chosen as my pen name in a spirit of resistance to the the Jewish perennial needlers and nation-destroyers who’ve been putting out the lie that this nation was not Anglo-Saxon in its foundation and for centuries thereafter.

Posted by 'Strange and Complex' Lee John Barnes on March 30, 2010, 12:21 PM | #

Dan Dare asks why the BNP are ‘underperforming’.

Its called ‘Media Conditioning’ in that the public support our policies, but they are conditioned to reject us due to the continual bombardment of negative stories about us.

Its like a hungry dog will love dog biscuits, but if you beat him each time he goes to eat a biscuit sooner or later he will learn to avoid the biscuit, even though he wants it.

If Media Conditioning didnt work, then the Advertising industry would not exist, nor propaganda.

Until the system reaches crisis point and the public experience reality for themselves, as opposed to believing media lies and the false ‘social consensus’ peddled to them by the media, then the public will believe the media.

As for Zionism - it has existed as long as Israel hasnt. And it will continue until Israel no longer exists again, when it will be destroyed by its own zealots and lunatics in the name of Zionism.

The circle turns, and turning anew, returns from whence it began.

Posted by Dan Dare on March 30, 2010, 02:08 PM | #

Its called ‘Media Conditioning’ in that the public support our policies, but they are conditioned to reject us due to the continual bombardment of negative stories about us.

Establishment and media hostility certainly play a role, but far more important in my view is the party’s inability to connect to its natural constituency in Middle England. The ‘real’ Lee John Barnes himself has acknowledged as much in his recent missive to party activists.

A second, crucial, missing element is the complete lack of any intellectual support for the BNP. Even those media commentators and other public figures on the ‘radical right’ who have some natural sympathy with the BNP’s overall platform recoil in horror at the thought of any direct association. Peter Hitchens and Andrew Green come immediately to mind. Others like Roger Scruton and Derek Turner remain non-committal. I’d hazard a guess that even the sainted Enoch, if he were to return today, would spurn the party just as he did the NF.

Students of political history will recall that it was the influence and prestige of the Fabian Society in the late 1890s which enabled the Labour Party to transcend the establishment hostility of the day. The BNP appears to have no interest in attracting, or any ability to foster, support from the intellectual right.

Thoughtful members and other supporters will continue to ask themselves why this should continue to be the case.

Posted by Lee John Barnes on March 30, 2010, 03:39 PM | #

What is intellectual or radical about peter Hitchens - he is just another media whore dressed in right wing robes.

Andrew Green needs the media in order to promote his agenda, and to associate with or support the BNP is to invite attack and to be barred from the corporate media.

We live in an age of gutless idiots, who would rather be shot than be called a ‘racist’.

Cowards cringe and make excuses, true Nationalists fight.

Scruton and Turner need to media to sell their books, to associate with the BNP is to invite a media blackout = poverty.

There is no ‘intellectual right’, just a collection of individuals as cowed and frightened as the dissidents on Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia were.

The reason why this is , is because we do not live in a democracy we live in a tyranny.

Take you Dan Dare .

You talk big but hide behind a pseudonym.

If you want to set an example - then walk the walk as well as talk the talk.

Use your real name, get active and get public - but instead you hide behind a keyboard and a fake name.

It appears that for all your bravado your as much of a coward as most of the rest of the cowards in this country.

When you use your real name, get active and get public then give us a lacture - until then shut the fuck up and stop sniping from the sidelines at those who are trying to act to save our people, nation and culture.

Cowards hide behind a keyboard and snipe - real Nationalists are public activists who do the real work of saving our future.

Posted by Dan Dare on March 30, 2010, 03:55 PM | #

Thank you helping to make my point Mr. Barnes. As long as the BNP continues to entertain twerps like your goodself amongst its leadership cadre it will continue to go precisely nowhere.

It’s a crying shame. Such an important opportunity, such a valuable franchise, so mindlessly squandered in the cause of misplaced loyalty and myopic careerism.

Posted by Gorboduc on March 30, 2010, 04:04 PM | #

LJB: for what it’s worth, I’ve decided to support the BN, as a 65% solution is better than nothing.
Earlier on, on this site I criticised you, then a bit later I found that I was really in agreement with what you’d later posted, and said so.
But you do yourself and your party no good with this sort of hysterical shouting.
I’d recently got a local Labour Party activist, a person of some education, to think again about NG.
Were I to show her this undisciplined rant, her question would be “How can I support this man who talks about culture, but who can’t or won’t spell, who swears and insults so freely and who seems, frankly, to be a mite unbalanced?”
She was prepared to invite me into her front room, but your approach wouldn’t get you past the front gate.
I took the old line “Well, the BNP isn’t racist in the supremacist sense” and that went down fairly well.
And of course, seeing NG’s latest appointment, it’s quite plain that the BNP is hardly racist in any sense at all.
I suppose Mr Singh is a Sikh or a Hindu: what does he think about those Indian-run pubs in the UK where whites aren’t served?

Posted by Lee John Barnes on March 30, 2010, 04:09 PM | #

You are a coward ‘Dan Dare’, a pseudo-nationalist that attacks real nationalists from behind a fake name and a keyboard.

Why the hell would we want gutless slime like you in our party.

People like you are as much the enemy as the enemy, for your cowardice, cant and hypocrisy is used to attack real nationalists.

Fuck off and hide behind your keyboard, firing off your farts of wisdom to anyone foolish enough to listen.

I dont listen to cowards who hide behind a fake name.

I suggest all real nationalists regard all those ‘experts’ and critics who hide behind a fake name as either enemies of cowards - and treat their bullshit with the contempt it deserves.

Nationalism needs men and women, not snakes that crawl on their belly and hide behind a fake name attacking real nationalists.

Wanker.

Posted by Lee John Barnes on March 30, 2010, 04:12 PM | #

Sorry, but I have a new policy.

I dont debate with people who do not use their real names.

We as a movement have wasted enough time on the ‘wisdom’ of cowards and keyboard warriors.

If you want to talk to me - use your real name.

Otherwise I will hold you in the contempt you deserve.

Whilst real nationalists are in public and being attacked, I have no respect for those that hide behind a pseudonym or a keyboard.

You know where my blog is - if you want to come and talk to me then e mail me and I will do so.

Just dont use a fake name.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 30, 2010, 04:26 PM | #

Gorb, in the give-and-take of the present MR.com thread he’s not making a formal speech before the TV cameras or out on the campaign hustings.  He’s replying to a person on an informal, sometimes rough-and-tumble blog where participants are well-known to let their hair down and have at one another when the convo gets heated and everyone here understands that, a person moreover who is sniping from the sidelines in exactly the way he said.  Do you see Pim here in this video in an informal meeting with members of his former party, literally exploding in anger, with “god damn” this and “god damn” that?  Watch it:  http://majorityrights.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/232/ .  Does that explosion disqualify Pim?  It certainly ought to have, had it taken place in a formal public venue.  It didn’t, and neither does this comments thread notwithstanding that it’s open to the public.  We have to be able to let our hair down here.  If not here, where?  I’m sure the gent from the BNP is more than capable, in terms of education and every sort of refinement (not to mention dotting all the i’s and crossing all the t’s in his spelling), of “rising to” whatever occasion may be called for in any other venue, from being welcomed into Mrs. so-and-so’s front room for a political get-acquainted chat to being formally interviewed by the Times or the BBC to giving a formal speech at wherever, complete with formal question-and-answer afterward.

Posted by Guessedworker on March 30, 2010, 04:42 PM | #

Sorry, but I have a new policy.

... If you want to talk to me - use your real name.

Oh Lee, that way you would eliminate 99% of your own party members on-line.  Think before you type.  And put away the chippiness - respond to criticism as a serious national politician would respond.  This is a growing process you are engaged upon in more senses than just votes and membership.

Posted by Guessedworker on March 30, 2010, 04:56 PM | #

Fred,

Explosions per se are not required.  Fortuyn’s anger was the anger of the Dutch people, as he himself said.  But what cause is Lee’s anger serving?

Let’s get one thing absolutely straight.  In due course, the present generation of nationalists (actually, they are not nationalists, they are nativists - right now there is no racial nationalism that is not nativism) will have to quit their positions of party control, all of them.  Getting the party up and running in an impossibly hostile atmosphere took guts, as Lee says.  But the kind of personalities that can undertake that operation are not the kind that can operate at the higher levels of electoral engagement.  A serious party - any serious party - requires intelligent, educated, articulate and savvy people, and it requires a properly intellectualised basis (such as, for instance, UKIP does not possess).

The BNP will grow significant if its leadership understands this.

Posted by Gorboduc on March 30, 2010, 05:29 PM | #

@ Fred: point taken: but LJB doesn’t seem to have a “persuasion” button on his control panel. His party has won some acceptance from the folks here, but I think a little more light wouldn’t do any harm: at the moment it’s just heat. And I have seen people in a similar angry state “lose it”, disastrously, in a public context
Sunday I was in a ticket queue at a London station, and things were moving slowly. An American gentleman just behind was obviously afraid of missing his train, and after surveying the people waiting and the ticket staff, said “No wonder! None of these people probably speak English!”
At once we fell into animated conversation and I gave him MR’s address.
I just hope that he didn’t hit on Lee first time!

@Lee: regarding names.: I am not claiming to represent the views on anonymity of anyone who posts here. Some MR people post on more sensitive matters than you appear to.

As your party has no official policy on the unreality of the “Holocaust” you are probably unlikely to post anything very “unorthodox” on that topic under your own name.
Please correct me if you DON’T toe the party line on this one, and forgive my presumptuousness.
I myself don’t see why I should advertise my identity to the German police.
They are unlikely to worry about your accusing someone of self-abuse.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 30, 2010, 05:38 PM | #

GW be careful not to demand the impossible, because whoever you are, literally no matter how “elevated,” they’ll demonize you for nothing, just because they’re fighting this war.  What did they do to Professor Watson, Nobel Prize laureate and one of the world’s most eminent scientists, founder of the whole discipline of molecular biology, creator and longtime head of one of the world’s top biology/genetics laboratories, Cold Spring Harbor Labs in Long Island?  They demonized him so fast, so furiously, he almost never knew what hit him and he was utterly crushed, shamed, ruined, dismissed from his position, and for what?  For speaking some of the tamest and most obvious truths, not to mention some of the most helpful, constructive truths, a man could possibly speak.  If every man in current BNP leadership acquired the sort of “stature” you demand, or if all were replaced with men of that “stature,” they’d be demonized in five minutes anyway.  All their “stature” would make not a shred of difference, would count for nothing, to the powers that be.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 30, 2010, 05:43 PM | #

Besides, I see no deficiency of “stature” in NG.  Not one bit.  The man ranks alongside anyone in politics today in any country on Earth.  He has no “stature” problem, zero problem in that regard as far as I’ve ever been able to discern.  He has nothing, zero, to envy any other man in politics.  Anywhere.

Posted by Guessedworker on March 30, 2010, 06:19 PM | #

Fred,

It is vital to understand that blokes are governed in England.  They do not govern.  The middle-class is the political class, as it is the bureacratic and diplomatic class, the academic class, the professional class, the managerial class, even the priestly class.  The present liberal ascendency is proof positive of that.  Blokes aren’t liberal, and it is blokes who have paid the highest costs for liberalism, which is why resistance to it started there.  But a true revolution - one replacing liberalism in toto - cannot be achieved from there.  A revolution in politics is a middle-class affair.

Posted by Desmond Jones on March 30, 2010, 06:36 PM | #

Its like a hungry dog will love dog biscuits, but if you beat him each time he goes to eat a biscuit sooner or later he will learn to avoid the biscuit, even though he wants it.

It’s not because people mark a ballot anonymously. No one knows if they are taking the biscuit. No one is beating the 1% who vote BNP every time they mark their ballot BNP. It’s not the party, it’s is the British people who refuse, for some reason, to walk into a ballot booth, and anonymously, without fear of retribution, or reprisal (because no one knows how they voted) make a mark beside the name of a BNP candidate.

Posted by Dan Dare on March 30, 2010, 06:49 PM | #

A few days ago I received an email from Chairman Griffin which included a press statement announcing the appointment of the first ethnic minority party member as Special Advisor on Islamic Extremism to Nick Griffin.

...“Mr Singh has personal experience of the consequences of the Islamification of his home country and is thus in a perfect situation to point out all the tell-tale warning signs,” Mr Griffin said.

“His first assignment is to prepare a comprehensive overview of the Islamic presence in Britain and the extent to which that community has been radicalised.

“Topics which will be covered include identifying the ‘tipping point’ at which Muslim numbers become an overwhelming influence; how the Labour and Tory-supported wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have played into the hands of the Islamic fundamentalists; and the use of ‘Islamic centres’ as a means for creating de facto mosques,” Mr Griffin said.

Now I’m sure that Mr. Singh is a splendid fellow and sincerely wishes to assist the cause, but it is something of stretch to assert, as Mr. Griffin appears to, that his experiences as a teenager in the Punjab during the period of post-Independence partition sixty years ago have can any real relevance for the challenge of dealing with contemporary radical Islam.

It would be interesting to hear Mr. Barnes’ perspective on this development, and whether he feels that such media stunts resonate particularly well with the blokes who take the Mail on a daily basis. It strikes me that they might murmur a little more appreciatively if it were the likes of a Hitchens P., a Green A. or even a Littlejohn R. who were to be featured in a photo-op receiving their membership card and a handshake from the Chairman.

I’d suggest that showcasing Mr. Singh quite so prominently merely adds to their confusion as to what it is the BNP is actually about.

Posted by CFE on March 30, 2010, 07:49 PM | #

Its like a hungry dog will love dog biscuits, but if you beat him each time he goes to eat a biscuit sooner or later he will learn to avoid the biscuit, even though he wants it.

It’s not because people mark a ballot anonymously.

Last year I was talking to an acquaintance, a farmer, a “Man of Kent”. He was complaining about the various sins of nu-Labour, including letting in so many immigrants. Naturally I explored this, and after a while he told me that he had voted BNP.

He is not a huge bloke, but has that solidity about him, and you would not think him easily scared. I will never forget him telling me how in the voting booth he was “shaking - I could hardly mark my cross”.

“Media Conditioning”, “Brain washing”, “manipulation of the public mind”, call it what you will, it’s power and reach can hardly be overstated, and it’s much more complex and subtle than spreading “negative stories”.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 30, 2010, 07:53 PM | #

You keep mentioning Peter Hitchens, Dan, as if to imply somehow the present BNP leadership is responsible for his not being on board.  Earth to Dan:  Hitchens will never in a million years question or even acknowledge the existence of race-replacement.  It has nothing to do with the present BNP leadership.  Furthermore, no one wants this enemy of white people on board.  But it’s a moot question, as he’d sooner join the ANC or Mugabe than be on board.  So I don’t get what you’re on about, Dan.  Hitchens ain’t on board, doesn’t want to be on board, never was on board, and never will be, any more than his younger brother Christopher will be.  If you think otherwise you’re dreaming.

Posted by Captainchaos on March 30, 2010, 07:59 PM | #

Dare, the task of the BNP is revolutionary, not CONservative.  CONservatism is for race traitors who “crawl of their belly.”

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 30, 2010, 08:05 PM | #

Same goes for Scruton.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 30, 2010, 08:09 PM | #

Good point by CC which it is well to remember:  the BNP is not “conservative.”  P. Hitchens is conservative.  Scruton is conservative.  On this side of the ocean, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh are conservative.  Conservatives want race-replacement.  The BNP, like MR.com, is something orthogonal to both liberal and conervative.  It’s in another dimension entirely, completely out of the plane of the other two.

Posted by Captainchaos on March 30, 2010, 08:34 PM | #

Hitchens (and his ilk) occupies the role of gatekeeper on the ‘right’ side of the artificially narrow, enforced spectrum of ‘respectable’ political discourse.  That is his non-formalized role, that is what the men who pay him expect from him.  If he stops doing it, he stops getting paid.  Do you expect he wants to stop getting paid, Dare?

He reminds me of Bill O’Reilly, who complains about the left’s attack on the “white male power structure,” yet supports “comprehensive immigration reform” and advocates for inter-racial proms (and so too obviously supports furthering inter-marriage).  So then, he brings attention to the attack on the former, whilst on the other hand exhorts everything which will expedite that attack.  What a transparent hack and conman.  Those are the people we can expect to come over to our side before our power has been consolidated?  LOL!

Posted by Desmond Jones on March 30, 2010, 08:38 PM | #

“Media Conditioning”, “Brain washing”, “manipulation of the public mind” was probably never more evident than in the run-up to WWII. From the initiation of the boycott in 1933 until the declaration of war in 1939 never had the world seen such manipulation. Hitler was easily the most reviled man of his time. Yet despite this unswerving onslaught of pre-masticated drivel (which still resonates today with the retrospective masquerading as the prospective) the British people when asked why they fought, 46% answered…freedom, liberty and democracy. This is what frightened your “Man of Kent”, his ontological Englishness.

Posted by Dan Dare on March 30, 2010, 08:47 PM | #

Cap’n, I am not carrying any particular torch for Peter Hitchens, but rather putting him forward as an exemplar of the type of public intellectual that the BNP might find it profitable to be associated with. Given his extremely rude comments in the past about the Chairman I realise this is not likely to happen in the near future, but if the BNP (or some successor organisation) is to prosper electorally in the future it is the Hitchens’s of the political landscape who they will need to woo. Whether you and Fred (or Mr. Barnes) care for him is really neither here nor there. The point that you appear unwilling to grasp is that he has his finger on the pulse of Middle England, unlike Mr. Griffin who appears to feel that making friends with the Mr. Singhs of the world carries a higher priority.

Britain doesn’t do revolution, by the way, and hasn’t done since around 1688.

Posted by Captainchaos on March 30, 2010, 09:29 PM | #

Britain doesn’t do revolution, by the way, and hasn’t done since around 1688.

Luckily that is not the case is America, the founding act of our nation was revolution.  Time for another crack at it.

Posted by Silver on March 30, 2010, 10:29 PM | #

Desmond,

It’s not because people mark a ballot anonymously. No one knows if they are taking the biscuit. No one is beating the 1% who vote BNP every time they mark their ballot BNP. It’s not the party, it’s is the British people who refuse, for some reason, to walk into a ballot booth, and anonymously, without fear of retribution, or reprisal (because no one knows how they voted) make a mark beside the name of a BNP candidate.

This is psychologically naive.  Psychological naivety is a big problem for racialism/nationalism.  What is required is psychological profundity, at least in order to reach a critical mass, but probably even after that point too, because people can (have and will) backtrack.  (See our good friend Robert Lindsay, for example.  For a while he threatened to cross over but after assimilating the shocking new information he decided to hell with it, you can’t change it and if it means a ‘decline’ then a decline let it be—that sort of thing just isn’t a problem for a drug-addled commie (who doesn’t care if the trains don’t run on time as long as no one starves).  By about the time of the Haiti quake he was right back to his old ways, blaming the crisis of its aftermath on the American government just not giving a damn about black people.) 

I have an Italian friend who has a middle-aged Australian friend.  Every so often my Italian friend likes to bring up ‘the issues,’ so to speak.  His Australian friend gazes at him hesitantly, almost uncomprehendingly, utters not a word in reply and immediately changes the subject.  It’s made more curious by the fact that this fellow isn’t averse to tossing around ‘wogs’ and ‘dagos’ (in reference to ‘highly visible’ southern europeans) in the folksy, endearing way it’s often done down here (particularly in regional areas).  But actual discussion of the effects of what is going on—by now clearly a complete demographic transformation—simply cannot be commenced with this man.  Now, I, perhaps, in my hypersensitivity, tend to believe it’s something like, “Well, keep pushing to me to tell you what I think and I’ll tell you what I think all right!  I’ll tell you what I think of them and of the whole bloody lot of you!  Now we either make this work for everyone or we make it work for no one and you can all piss off back where you came from!”  As a policy objective that’s neither really here nor there, but that I think it tends to be underlying sentiment, the psychological disposition in play here. 

That fellow whose hand was shaking, as related by cfe, in his mind he probably felt he was crossing the Rubicon.  True, no one else would know what he had done, but he’d know it, and he’d have to be able to justify it to himself; that is easy enough if you really do hate all the other races (but you’d rather no one knew it), but it’s not so easy if your feelings are ambivalent—not hatred, but a realization that it’s all but impossible to get along well with the great bulk of the racially unlike (particularly the greatly unlike).  (Anyone can ‘get along’ with racial others.  That’s pathetically simple. But getting along well with racial others, experiencing genuine social warmth with them, that’s difficult, and, I believe, rare.  And because it’s so rare, for me that alone justifies undoing what has been done.  Your reasons for undoing it, Desmond, and this blog’s, naturally go well beyond that.  Obviously I would like for you to contend with the reasoning I’ve outlined here, and you’d do well to, because at present you NF types continue to present a real stumbling block.  If what needs to be done is to be done you’ll have your moment in the sun.  But it’s not now.)

After the deed was done you notice he had little problem revealing it in conversation with the like-minded.  It’s the need to win over these hesitant types that sees NG teaming up with Tamils and bantering with bantus—that’s not what racists do, so hmm, he can’t quite be the devil they say he is.

Oh, and that (southern) Italian friend of mine’s an idiot.  I always cringe when he brings up these things in front of your kind. I’d rather people like he and I discussed these issues among ourselves, in order that we realize what the long-term implications are for people like ourselves.  Your one master stroke so far has been to recruit this type (he’s no online racialist; he’s come to it all on his own) into your movement as equal partners.  Disingenuous to the hilt but a master stroke nonetheless.  It doesn’t matter though, they’ll all come around to my way of thinking eventually.

Posted by Grimoire on March 30, 2010, 11:44 PM | #

well, the BNP is a political party. Anyone can join, even blacks…....haha. They have made plain what they would do if they attain power. I don’t see how anyone can do anything but offer their support. What more do you want ?

It seems almost traitorous to not do one’s utmost to advance this party.

Posted by Desmond Jones on March 31, 2010, 02:42 AM | #

True, no one else would know what he had done, but he’d know it, and he’d have to be able to justify it to himself; that is easy enough if you really do hate all the other races (but you’d rather no one knew it), but it’s not so easy if your feelings are ambivalent—not hatred, but a realization that it’s all but impossible to get along well with the great bulk of the racially unlike (particularly the greatly unlike).  (Anyone can ‘get along’ with racial others.

Still the same old mendacious S.O.B It never was about hate. It was/is about survival.

the most seriously injured BNP activist attacked with a claw hammer by anti-BNP protesters turns out to have a Chinese wife;

Posted by Dasein on March 31, 2010, 06:05 AM | #

It’s not because people mark a ballot anonymously. No one knows if they are taking the biscuit. No one is beating the 1% who vote BNP every time they mark their ballot BNP. It’s not the party, it’s is the British people who refuse, for some reason, to walk into a ballot booth, and anonymously, without fear of retribution, or reprisal (because no one knows how they voted) make a mark beside the name of a BNP candidate.—Desmond

Depending on how long it had been conditioned, I think it would take a long time (if ever) for the dog to try taking the biscuit again.  It’s like Baby Elephant Syndrome.  I find myself, each election cycle, having to explain to the same people again why voting NPD (or a similar far-right party) is the right thing to do.  Most people won’t escape their conditioning quickly or easily.  And for the working class, which is most likely to have been exposed to conditions that could wake them up, being ‘non-racist’ is an overwhelming status reward.  It provides absolution from any alcohol-fueled despicable behaviour—just mark that X in the confession booth.  Being able to call anyone a racist is a great societal equaliser.  At the moment, only a fraction of whites have the moral courage to resist the behaviour rewarded by our liberal/Jewish priestly class.

Posted by Dasein on March 31, 2010, 06:17 AM | #

Trumpeting the signing-up of a Sikh to the BNP, to those who have sufficient character to reject the dominant ideology, seems like a sell-out.  I see it as merely a tactic.  If the media has invested so much ink, and so many electrons, into making the BNP appear as ‘racists,’ and teaching that only whites can be racist, why not turn that investment against the establishment?  Cognitive dissonance, for some, will be the catalyst for greater awareness.  I would only expect that no one in the BNP leadership seeks to excommunicate those who try to keep them from sliding down the slippery slope to the mudstream.

Posted by Dasein on March 31, 2010, 06:22 AM | #

One could ask whether the e-mailing of this type of propaganda piece to BNP members suggests that the BNP leadership wants people to believe this is more than a tactic.  Maybe they are hoping that members will forward it to their e-mail contacts who are not BNP members.

Posted by Guessedworker on March 31, 2010, 06:35 AM | #

silver,

that is easy enough if you really do hate all the other races (but you’d rather no one knew it), but it’s not so easy if your feelings are ambivalent—not hatred, but a realization that it’s all but impossible to get along well with the great bulk of the racially unlike (particularly the greatly unlike).

You truly do not comprehend.  You would do well to recognise the fact, and speak not.

Posted by Gorboduc on March 31, 2010, 06:51 AM | #

Britain doesn’t do revolution, by the way, and hasn’t done since around 1688.

1688 wasn’t a revolution, but an invasion. A REAL revolution at this time and place could only have been effected by James II, who, if he’d had a bit more time and not been hustled out by the Dutch regiment that invaded London, should have seen off the alien financiers already active in the background, and restored a few more civil rights to the beleagured community of English Catholics.

The Brits accepted “The Glorious Revolution” but with a certain amount bad grace: the Scots didn’t like it, but reacted more aggressively.

See Alexander Baron’s post on the National Debt for one of the wholesome innovations it won for us.

Those who enthused about 1688 were the ones who’d had their heads turned by ultra-protestant propaganda from Amsterdam financiers, and monstrosities like the vile Titus Oates with his invented and utterly incredible “Popish plots”.
These propaganda techniques are still used today by the establishment, but with different fear-rousers, “the spectre of Fascism” and “the threat of intolerance”; unfortunately a certain amount of toxic residue from the original fraudulent inventions of the 17th century is still working on the minds of today’s so-called “Loyalists”, vocal protestants in general, and a few “Churchillians”. Unfortunately, Enoch Powell was completely wrong-headed on this one!
I do hope that a refusal to debate these things isn’t going to lead to the cementing-in to the BNP of a certain ideological self-contradictions, or a deliberately-adopted distorted view of history, or the nailing of standards to a few masts that turn out to be rotten . . .

Posted by Silver on March 31, 2010, 08:31 AM | #

Desmond, please, save the ‘our survival!’ spiel.  The desire to ‘survive’ only arises from being aghast at the thought of who/what you’re being replaced by, which occasionally informed by understanding heredity/IQ and civilizational attainment, but far more often than not it’s basic physical revulsion .  I’m not saying any of this to trip you up, but if that’s not ‘racial hatred’ then geezus what the hell is it?  Now, you might say (just between the two of us; for everyone else it’s “because we have a right to be us and only we can be us”) well okay if it’s hatred then so be it, but it’s not hatred to the point where I wish to do these people harm ‘just because’ or from a desire for retribution; I just want them out of my country/territory. 

I’m just reiterating the above because you (rather unaccountably) accused me of being ‘mendacious.’  Mendacious nothing.  Hatred abounds, and since it does one can’t help but occasionally refer to it in the process of discussing these issues.  Keep your hair on, feller.

GW,

Yeah, okay.  What I said clearly has nothing to do with real world thought processes.  It’s all just because people are ‘estranged from themselves’ and when they find themselves and work out how to just ‘be White’ then it’ll all work itself out—at that moment cultural, linguistic, familial and economic ties will all just wither and die and cease to be a matter of the slightest concern for anyone, ‘cos that’s just the Way of European Man.  Well, hey, maybe.

Posted by Dasein on March 31, 2010, 09:13 AM | #

The interview with Nick Griffin is worth reading in its entirety.  This bit made me laugh:

ID: Just because you want to send them somewhere, doesn’t mean that the state you want to send them to has to accept them. What do you do if they say no?

NG: Well… we’ll find some silly European liberal state which will happily take them. Someone will take them.

ID: You reckon?

NG: Yes, someone will take them.

Just this week, a German delegation visited Guantanamo to decide which of the prisoners Germany is going to adopt.  Wouldn’t it make for great TV if they set up a Guantanamo Big Brother, and Germans could text in their vote at the end to decide who comes over.  Their being taken in could be made conditional on them taking part in new season of Dancing with the Stars or Germany’s Next Top Model.

Posted by Wandrin on March 31, 2010, 12:57 PM | #

Its called ‘Media Conditioning’ in that the public support our policies, but they are conditioned to reject us due to the continual bombardment of negative stories about us.

I think it’s similar but deeper than that.

Over the centuries how many young women sitting on church pews had sex fantasies about their priest and then subsequently had nightmares of fear worrying they’d burn in hell because of it?

Political correctness is a religion and acts exactly the same way - it’s a morality that makes people feel bad if they go against it.

is the party’s inability to connect to its natural constituency in Middle England.

I think this is both right and wrong. The self-conscious working class may well be too small to make a revolution with however initially the BNP has to take root among the people on the frontline of the genocide. Yes, at some point the centre of gravity will probably have to start sliding more towards the middle class but personally i don’t believe it will work until the roots are sunk. As a guess i’d say that point might be reached when the BNP was regularly polling somewhere in the region of 5-8% (assuming latent support is 3-4 times greater than the nominal support).

I’d also suggest UKIP has its uses as a softener-upper.

A second, crucial, missing element is the complete lack of any intellectual support for the BNP.

I don’t think that’s crucial yet. Don’t forget we’re in a strange phase where the political class and anything that looks like them is very unpopular. Also, there’s nothing to stop people creating what they think should be the intellectual basis and making it available online for use.

Posted by Wandrin on March 31, 2010, 01:01 PM | #

Britain doesn’t do revolution, by the way, and hasn’t done since around 1688.

Britain does pre-revolution. The British ruling class (almost) always had the sense to compromise before things got out of hand.

Posted by Armor on March 31, 2010, 03:16 PM | #

“The British ruling class (almost) always had the sense to compromise before things got out of hand.”

Sometimes, things get out of hand precisely when a government tries to compromise, as happened in Paris in 1789. I think the French revolution was made possible by the political liberalization. Violent leftists took advantage of it. They started chopping heads, stealing public and private property, attacking other countries, and boasting they had toppled tyranny.

Posted by Desmond Jones on March 31, 2010, 05:07 PM | #

The desire to ‘survive’ only arises from being aghast at the thought of who/what you’re being replaced by

Right dude. The guy who takes a hammer to the head is there defending the right of the indigenous English people to persist/survive in their homeland because he hates the yellow bitch he married. Why don’t you practice what you preach? Take your sorry ass back to the Serbian homeland. Lead by example. Leave the Aussie alone. But no that’s not good enough. You want a fight. The Aussie has no place to go. The Anglo-Saxon dominions/diaspora/homeland vary little in anything but the potential date of their demise.  You know that but you and your friends prefer to poke him with a sharp stick. You want him to suffer, you want an outburst, ‘cause that way it affirms your theory. He’s a hater.

Alfred Deakin,

It is not the bad qualities, but the good qualities of these alien races that make them so dangerous to us. It is their inexhaustible energy, their power of applying themselves to new tasks, their endurance and low standard of living that make them such competitors.”

Posted by Al Ross on March 31, 2010, 07:07 PM | #

Silver, I see, is still sitting at key board simultaneously typing with one hand and launching his genetic future skywards with the aid of the other.

Desmond, the Alfred Deakin quote is a favourite of mine but, sadly and unsurprisingly, the commonsense of Australia’s second Prime Minister does not extend to the university which bears his name :

http://www.deakin.edu.au/arts-ed/icg/youth08conf/

Posted by Vince on March 31, 2010, 07:57 PM | #

Fred I can’t believe you support the BNP, they are the most watered down Nationalist party I’ve ever seen. They are about as Shabbos Goy as Dan Dare. The BNP isn’t concerned with keeping Britain white, they are concerned with keeping people watching footie, drinking a pint, eating a shepherd pie, etc. The only thing they oppose is Al-Islamiyyah and the Muslimeen. That Sikh chap they let in the party has more in common with a Paki then he does any “British.” The Muslims shouldn’t be the main focus in the UK, for race mixing purposes the British women are much more likely to be mixing with a Christian Negro.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 31, 2010, 08:48 PM | #

Vince, can’t you see they’re going as far and as fast as they can in the direction you want to go, and if you yourself were heading the party it wouldn’t be able to go any further or faster in that direction given present circumstances? 

There’s an expression, “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”  That applies here.  They’re not perfect.  Nobody is.  Don’t let that — don’t let an insistence on perfection — turn you into their enemy.

Steady as she goes, Vince.  By taking a series of the only kind of steps possible at the present time, we’ll get there — provided we do take them.  And they’re taking them.  I don’t see the BNP taking any steps backward other than the ones it’s forced to take by John “Mr anti-waycist” Wadham and his ilk.  Other than that they’re only going forward with sometimes an unavoidable little side-step to get around an immovable object in their path.

Be patient. 

And “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 31, 2010, 08:53 PM | #

You’re absolutely correct, Vince, in your closing sentence.  One-thousand-percent correct.  I’m with you.  Race is the ultimate issue, the bottom line, the deal breaker.  Not Islam.  Race.  I’m with you, comrade.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 31, 2010, 09:02 PM | #

I’ll add that a sprinkling of non-whites, like this Sikh BNP member — a sprinkling mind you, not millions, Vince, a sprinkling — is not going to change the race of Britain or of England, and therefore our side should have no objection to this man.  I don’t think that in warmly welcoming this man, Nick Griffin means to warmly welcome millions more like this man.  That would change the race and Nick Griffin opposes that.

Posted by Dan Dare on March 31, 2010, 09:21 PM | #

The Muslims shouldn’t be the main focus in the UK, for race mixing purposes the British women are much more likely to be mixing with a Christian Negro.

Likely or not, the probability of either happening is tiny. Only 1% of white British women have a partner of a different ethnicity; the figure for British men is slightly higher at around 1.1%.

Lookee here.

Sorry to have to let boring facts get in the way of a good yarn.

Mazel Tov!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 31, 2010, 10:26 PM | #

Well we can all go home.  Dan says (like JamesUK) there is NO race-replacement threat.  None.  Zero.  What in the hell are we all wasting our time here for then?  London’s fine, it’s all white, Birmingham’s fine, as white as ever was, Manchester, white as the driven snow, and it’s the same all over the U.K. — you name it, if it’s a U.K. city, it was never whiter.  Not to mention Dublin, a hundred percent Irish, Paris, a hundred percent French, Stuttgart, a hundred percent German, Rotterdam, a hundred percent Dutch with not a Moslem or North African or Surinam Negro in sight, Malmo, was never more Swedish in its history.  What fools we’ve all been.  Good thing Dan’s around to show us it’s all a lie, all blessed a false alarm!

Posted by Dan Dare on March 31, 2010, 10:35 PM | #

Fred, surely you’d agree that miscegenation and mass immigration are two separate things. While the latter can (and does) lead to the former, pointing out that miscegenation is not occurring on as large a scale as is commonly supposed - or as establishment propaganda would wish us to believe - is not indicative of complacency about the overall damage that mass immigration can do to a society.

I do wish you would actually pay more attention to what I actually write before leaping to unwarranted conclusions and casting aspersions.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on March 31, 2010, 11:02 PM | #

Dan you’re right, I typed out and posted my comment in haste and made a mistake, the one you point out.  But you’re not entirely right or I entirely wrong — it was your needling way of bringing up the statistic, flagrantly ignoring the main issue, which is race-replacement, that prompted my careless haste.  Don’t nickel-and-dime the main issue, Dan — when you do that, people may take it the

wrong way about you

the right way about you.

Posted by Vince on April 01, 2010, 12:48 AM | #

Dan, like it or not, the fastest growing segment of the UK population is mixed race people, not Muslims. They are predicted to be the largest minority in the UK by the year 2020.  Something like half of the black men in the UK have a non black partner. In 2005 3% of the children born in England were mixed race, but you can keep harping on the Muslims, like the shmucks in the BNP. The BNP just wants the Muslims to assimilate into the British culture, like they’ve done with the Sikhs, Hindus, and Carribean and African blacks.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/articles/hsq/HSQ39Birthwt&Gest;_ethnicity.pdf

Mixed race ‘fastest growing minority’

Seventeen-year-old Seeder is from Manchester. She said: “I actually expected mixed raced people to be the biggest ethnicity.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/the_p_word/newsid_10000000/newsid_10000900/10000910.stm

Freddy, you’re wasting your time with the BNP, they are so watered down now they’ve become a parody. When they tried to be a white only group the Jews smacked them down, and they started allowing in Indians. They already have a bunch of Jews in the party. The British don’t get the fact they are run by Jews, even after being in Iraq and Afghanistan they still don’t get it. The “English” boys are going to Afghanistan to get killed, while the Pakis and other Muslims in the UK are sitting back having healthy families and building strong institutions. The Jews got the “English” so focused on the Muslims, they are waving Israeli flags on the Streets of Britain! I kid you not, checkout the EDL. You don’t see the EDL boys protesting against black crime in London do ya?

Posted by Silver on April 01, 2010, 03:06 AM | #

Desmond,

Right dude. The guy who takes a hammer to the head is there defending the right of the indigenous English people to persist/survive in their homeland because he hates the yellow bitch he married. Why don’t you practice what you preach? Take your sorry ass back to the Serbian homeland. Lead by example. Leave the Aussie alone. But no that’s not good enough. You want a fight. The Aussie has no place to go. The Anglo-Saxon dominions/diaspora/homeland vary little in anything but the potential date of their demise.  You know that but you and your friends prefer to poke him with a sharp stick. You want him to suffer, you want an outburst, ‘cause that way it affirms your theory. He’s a hater.

The attack dog here is you.  I never said it was “all about hate.”  I simply said that that sentiment abounds; it does, and it characterizes you perfectly.  That’s why it’s impossible to have a straight discussion with you. 

There you were wracking your brain trying to figure out why, despite there being no need for fear of reprisal, people who noticed what was going on and had private misgivings about it refused to simply mark a ballot, and I came along and merely attempted to elucidate (some of) the psychological aspects the process.  Well, that and I called you psychologically naive, which you certainly are, because, come on, what’s going on here is that you’re so intensely racially identified you find it incredibly difficult to understand how everyone can’t be seeing the same things you are.  It seems to me you feel certain that they’re seeing it all and feeling much like you about it but somehow refusing to so much as vote for change, let alone do anything more drastic.  That’s why I described the example of someone who isn’t so much motivated by hatred of racial others (nor by some internal ‘drive to survive’), but by a feeling that multiracialism (or perhaps in his mind ‘multiculturalism,’ since the BNP is the only way to protest against only that also) is ‘not really working out so well.’

Now, that fellow with the Chinese spouse who took the hammer to the head, that, my good man, is called having your cake and eating it too.  Obviously he’s not motivated by outright hatred (racial disgust) the way you and your pal Ross here are.  He’s a ‘numbers’ man (like Scrooby): We could have this much mixing, but not that much, and hopefully something called ‘the British’ will still ‘survive’—but whatever the case, if it means he can’t keep his Asian bride, he won’t have a bar of it, of that you can be rather sure. 

As for me taking my sorry ass ‘back’ to Serbia, you clearly haven’t been paying attention.  I’ve tried that.  I really expected to like it better around my own kind, and I wasn’t concerned about the economic factor.  But ‘kinship’ turned out to be rather underwhelming stuff, mostly because those people felt so culturally alien.  So, realistically, there isn’t going to be much leading by example in this manner.  If we were to all go back together, however, now that would be quite an attractive proposition.  You know, I’ve said all this dozens of times before, clearly to no avail.  Frankly, I’ve never encountered someone as freakishly obtuse as you, Des; someone just completely convinced the entire world is against him, and all because of the call of their ‘EGI’ demanding they settle for no one less than utterly vanquishing your kind. 

Oh, and as for ‘provoking’ your good Anglo-Saxon, how the hell I can control what my friend brings up?  I said I cringe when he does it, and I cringe because the pathetic little simpleton does it in a way that suggests he thinks he and the Anglo-Saxon are on the same side here.  You and I both know that’s not the case.  On the occasions I bring it up, I do it in a way that would be quite to your liking, you fucking fruitloop. 

And why would I do it in a way that would be to your liking?  Because I’m a ‘self-hater’ or from some sort of undying love for the Anglo-Saxon breed?  Of course not.  Because I see an intersection of interests.  You want your own country and I want somewhere for people like me, be it via mass repatriation or partition.  It’s all very simple.  It gets complicated because the racial disgust your side promotes gets taken up by seemingly everyone in racialism; that’s why you see the Rienzis blowing their lids at any suggestion they’re not ‘white enough’—because they’ve invested a lot of mental energy in convincing themselves how disgusting they find everyone else and they can’t handle it that someone thinks that way of them (‘racial insecurity’).  This, in turn, turns people into the most appalling assholes.  (Show me a racialist who isn’t an appalling asshole.)  And so potentially sympathetic obstructionists feel they’re doing the right thing by obstructing, because, come one, why set the world on fire over something as trivial as racial features?  As they see it, since it’s something that can be gotten over, it’s something that should be gotten over, particularly considering the price that refusing to get over it seems to exact.

Again, the above is merely a description of various factors.  If there’s anything in it you disagree with, let’s hear it.  If there isn’t, I don’t see what purpose your hostility toward me serves, except maybe as a mental defense against thinking positively of a racial other weakening your resolve.

Posted by Wandrin on April 01, 2010, 04:52 AM | #

Freddy, you’re wasting your time with the BNP, they are so watered down now they’ve become a parody

Zero immigration (exception right of return) - good.
Removal of all illegals - good.
Removal of all alien criminals - good.

Using state resources to help nationalist parties and groups in other countries - priceless.

Posted by Dasein on April 01, 2010, 08:32 AM | #

In 2005 3% of the children born in England were mixed race

Just a minor correction- it was actually 3.5% according to that ONS report.  There were also 10.8% of births for which ethnicity was not stated.  If we were to assume that this 10.8% is distributed equally among the different ethnicities (although the report suggests, without showing the figure, that this might be predominanty White British), then the % of mixed race births in 2005 is almost 4%.

Posted by Dasein on April 01, 2010, 08:46 AM | #

There is also a category ‘Any other ethnic group,’ which makes up 2% of births.  It would not suprise me if some mixed race babies ended up in that category.  And I don’t know who assigns the ethnic category to the baby.  If one of the parents was already of mixed race, they might consider their baby to be white, Nuremberg Laws-stylee.  The real % of mixed-race births is probably at least 5%.

Posted by Vince on April 01, 2010, 12:37 PM | #

Thanks for the corrections Dasein. I heard from Brit on the Pravda forum years ago that even the Polish girls in London are prone to mixing blacks, same for other Euro ethnics who went there to work. I doubt the Muslims are race mixing with the British the way the blacks are. The Muslims come from conservative backgrounds, and are more likely to marry a cousin then a native British.

I just found another article from 2009 claiming 10% of the children born in the UK are from mixed race families, don’t know how true it is. Race mixing is a much bigger threat to a country then some silly Semetic religion where the people are most likely to marry their cousin then race mix!

10 Percent of Children in Britain born to Mixed Race Families

A study by the Equality and Human Rights Commission finds young people are 6 times more likely than their parents to be mixed race. In Britain, one in ten children live in mixed raced families.

The result of the increase in mixed raced families could mean that smaller ethnic groups could disappear.

The report, entitled Ethnicity and Family: Relationships Within and Between Ethnic Groups, was written by Lucinda Platt, from the University of Essex.

She said: “There is clear evidence that across groups inter-ethnic partnerships tend to be increasing.

“There has been a dramatic shift over the last 10 years and what we mean when we talk about minority groups is changing.”

The report also stated that ethnic minorities who were born in the UK were more likely to find themselves in mixed race relationships.

“Consistent with our expectations, men tended to have higher rates of inter-ethnic partnerships than women from the same group,” said Miss Platt.

“Black Caribbean men and women were the most likely of any group to be in an inter-ethnic partnership and this increased between first and second generations.

http://www.thedailydust.co.uk/2009/01/19/10-percent-of-children-in-britain-born-to-mixed-race-families/

Posted by Guessedworker on April 01, 2010, 12:48 PM | #

Vince,

On the products of race-mixing, as well as other things:

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/to_do_what_we_must_to_remain_who_we_are/

Posted by Gorboduc on April 01, 2010, 01:19 PM | #

Is it true that NG has suspended Collett?
Looks like it.
http://www.nwn-forum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=3827

Posted by Dasein on April 01, 2010, 01:49 PM | #

This 10.8% of births for which ethnicity is ‘Not Stated’ is handled in a somewhat misleading manner in the BNP reports on this issue.  For example, they say:

Yesterday’s ONS figures also claimed that nearly 25 percent of all births in England and Wales in 2008 were to foreign-born women.

This figure is however at odds with a 2005 report on live births, also issued by the ONS, which claimed that 36 percent of all births in England and Wales were not “white British.”

This is repeated in an article put out today:

- In 2005, the ONS issued a separate report which said that 36 percent of all births in England and Wales were not “white British.”(3)

But this is not what the ONS has claimed.  They say that 64.4% are White British, and they in fact suggest that the 10.8% unclassified may be mostly White British:

The maternal age distribution of the births with ethnicity not stated (not shown) is similar to that of the White British group.

The report does not show the data for this, nor do they show the curve for the mothers of mixed-race babies.  Without seeing the data, or having results of statistical tests that compare the distributions, I think it’s reasonable to work under the assumption that this 10.8% is evenly distributed across the different ethnic groups.

Here is the table from the report:

[IMG]http://i760.photobucket.com/albums/xx249/Aletheia14/births.jpg[/IMG]

So, if we assume this 10.8% is evenly distributed across ethnic categories, then ~22% of births in 2005 were non-whites, which still portends a demographic catastrophe. 

The BNP article also says:

- This 2005 birth rate figure does not include births to second and third generation immigrant mothers.

But this does not make much sense- I can’t imagine ethnicity being marked differently based on length of time in the country.  Perhaps they are confusing that report with something like this one, which shows the percentage of live births based on the mother’s country of origin:

[IMG]http://i760.photobucket.com/albums/xx249/Aletheia14/births3.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i760.photobucket.com/albums/xx249/Aletheia14/births2.jpg[/IMG]

If we assume that those who came from the Canada, the US, Australia/NZ, South Africa, and anywhere in Europe were white, then non-white births have increased by 0.9% of the total since 2005 (most of the increase in births- 2.4%- due to foreign-born mothers has been from EU nationals, presumably mostly Poles).  It is likely that some of these immigrants are non-white, since the % of ‘White non-British’ in the 2005 report was 4.8 % (corrected for unclassified, 5.3%), while these categories had 6.6% in this table above.  (it’s all made a bit difficult, though, by the fact the ethnicity of immigrants from countries like South Africa is hard to predict- or maybe someone knows the breakdown?).  This 0.9%, of course, does not include the increase due to the non-white population within the UK, which has a higher birth rate than whites.  And the 2005 ONS report will, as mentioned before, likely include some babies with a mixed-race parent who considers the baby white, and West Asians who consider themselves ‘Any other White Background.’  I think that a very conservative estimate for the % of non-white babies being born now in the UK is 25%.

Posted by Dasein on April 01, 2010, 02:06 PM | #

Vince, you’re welcome.  Too bad it couldn’t have been in the other direction.  I haven’t read the report from the EHRC, but I’d be curious as to how they defined ‘born to a mixed race family.’  If one were to include first and second cousins, 10% even seems low.  Sometimes it seems the establishment would like to present race-replacement as a fait accompli, and other times hide the extent of the damage.  We’re lucky to have reports like that 2005 ONS one; who knows, maybe they will stop presenting this type of data if people show more active resistance.

Posted by Dan Dare on April 01, 2010, 03:08 PM | #

Dasein, the only quibble I would have with your analysis is that the statistics cited apply to England and Wales only, not the UK. Given the low ethnic populations in Scotland and NI (which comprise about 10% of the population), I’d expect the overall figure to be nearer 20% than 25%, but obviously even this level does as you state portend ominously for the future. It would be interesting to see similar data for other EU countries with similar levels of non-white population, Germany and France especially. I think we can probably assume that the corresponding figures for North America make for even more depressing reading.

However, I wanted to turn to the article presented by Vince above with its claims about the number of children living in mixed-race families. We have seen this pop up on previous occasions and I think some additional commentary is again in order, which I will add in a little while.

First, the report itself is available in full for download from the EHRC here and I would recommend that anyone wishing to comment should read it first – at least the summary findings and the key tables – and not take the regurgitated EHRC press release quoted above at face value.

Posted by Dasein on April 01, 2010, 03:59 PM | #

Dan, thanks, you’re quite correct, I shouldn’t have said UK.  And it’s cropped out of that last table I showed, but those figures, like the 2005 ONS report, are restricted to England and Wales. 

As regards North America, Vdare predicted back in 2007 that in 2011 the majority of births would be to non-whites (where whites includes West Asians).  I don’t think this calculation considers illegals, so presumably it’s already happened.

Posted by Dasein on April 01, 2010, 04:03 PM | #

That Vdare prediction is for the US, of course.  I don’t know what Canada’s exact situation is.  I believe Canada’s importing third worlders equal to ~1% of its population every year, so it’s also in bad shape.

Posted by Gorboduc on April 01, 2010, 04:14 PM | #

As LJB sparked off this thread, and as:
He captured this story from the Guardian’s CIF before it was quickly removed, and put it on his site, and as:
The BNP has received a certain amount of support at MR recently, and as:
That party appears to be the subject of a new storm just at present:
I thought I should interrupt all the demographical stuff to put this where it seemed most relevant.
I hope it doesn’t commemorate a missed opportunity . . .
It’s by Mark Seddon

HAS LABOUR HANDED STOKE TO THE BNP?
1st April 2010
With the BNP on the march in Stoke-on-Trent, why has Lord Mandelson parachuted in his chosen Labour candidate?
When New Labour was in its pomp and Peter Mandelson memorably remarked that those Labour supporters who didn’t much like the new order would still back Labour because they “would have nowhere else to go”, I wonder if he had the good city of Stoke-on-Trent in mind?
Somehow, I doubt it, for in recent years many working-class Labour voters in Stoke have been going somewhere else – notably to the British National party. Before a local defection yesterday, the BNP had eight councillors. Ten years ago, Labour held the city with 60 councillors. Today there are barely 13 – and only two of them in the cauldron that is the Stoke Central constituency.
Now, with an election barely weeks away, the BNP are standing their deputy leader, Simon Darby, in the constituency. Flush with European parliament money and smarter in his campaign techniques, the city is a key target for Darby, who not so long ago was pictured taking the fascist salute in Italy.
So what has been Labour’s answer to the serried ranks of the far right? Why, it has been to hand them a gift they can only have dreamed of – a gerrymandered selection of a new Labour candidate. For when the respected local MP, Mark Fisher, decided to step down on health grounds a few weeks ago, instead of drawing up a broad-based list of candidates for local Labour members to choose from, Lord Mandelson, ever the plutocrat, simply made the choice for them.
I doubt that Mandelson’s chosen son, Tristram Hunt, will much thank him for this. Indeed the poor fellow has publicly pronounced his regret that tomorrow night’s hustings in the city will comprise him, and two other outsiders no one in the city has ever heard of. I think he is genuine. Labour’s NEC panel did what was asked of it. There are no locals on the list, no women and the trade union frontrunner, Byron Taylor, mysteriously didn’t make it onto the final shortlist. I should declare an interest. Against my better judgment, and believing that somehow things had miraculously changed in the post-Blair era, I applied. I was rejected on the grounds that “Since he is/has been working in New York, he cannot be seen as local”.
I left New York two years ago. Coincidentally, my old New York friend Peter Gerry, whose antecedent, the US vice president Elbridge Gerry, famously put the “gerry” into “gerrymandering”, by rigging the New York state electoral boundaries a couple of hundred years back, would take his hat off to Mandelson and those who went along with the fixing of Stoke. Party insiders claim that Harriet Harman played a role too, in return for Mandelson’s support for one or two of her favoured sisters in the last-minute flurry of resignations to come. She was supposed to be part of the NEC’s “special selections” panel, but didn’t make the meeting.
Stoke-on-Trent has of course been Labour for almost as long as anyone can remember, returning three MPs at the last election. But as Newsnight’s Paul Mason incisively reported a few evenings ago, the city is a classic example of all that went wrong for traditional industries and working people during the Thatcher years, while the sticking plaster of the Blair years is beginning to peel. Very few skilled, relatively well-paid jobs followed the closure of the pits and the potteries, and the disastrous attempt to install directly elected mayors in the city was local Stoke Labour’s undoing – ably assisted by some asinine interventions by the party’s Midlands region to discipline members for not wanting one in the first place. It is hardly surprising that the BNP are on the march in Stoke – a dark portent of what may come in similar towns that are increasingly coming to resemble the rotten boroughs of old.
And Stoke is beginning to follow in a line of grim local political fixes – both major parties are at it. If one were cynical, it might also be possible to discern another pattern – of the old discredited political class replicating themselves. Even if the Stokies don’t rebel at tomorrow night’s hustings, and they find themselves with the candidate ordained by his lordship, the real battle, to halt the BNP, will have to be joined – hopefully by people of all parties and, increasingly, those of none.

Posted by Dan Dare on April 01, 2010, 05:00 PM | #

Mandy’s meddling in the selection process for the Labour PPC in Stoke has been a matter of open discussion on th’internet and in the MSM for weeks now so it is curious that the Guardian should have yanked this piece which seems fairly innocuous as it goes. Especially so since it does include the prescribed quota of pro-forma BNP bashing.

Posted by Dan Dare on April 01, 2010, 05:25 PM | #

PS the mention of Paul Mason in the above post but one reminded me to post links to his two Newsnight segments. Quite good, especially the first.

Part 1 - What’s wrong with Britain?

Part 2 - What is being done to fix Britain?

Posted by Desmond Jones on April 01, 2010, 06:40 PM | #

Even if it does characterize me, so what? Extrapolating from my position to the general public is a mug’s game. I’ve said it before and others have said it about me, I’m a remnant, a dinosaur that hearkens back to the dark ages of the 1930s, and soon to be extinct. There was no ‘brain-wracking’ going on. It was intended to test the theory. IMO, Fraser’s insights are pretty damn close.

The hammer man theory is pure speculation on your part. And thank you, I am honoured to be placed in a class with the inimitable Mr. Ross, although he may not feel the same.

Better freakishly obtuse than a sanctimonious mendacious bastard who cares didly-squat about his own because they’re ‘culturally alien’....eeeeeew. Hey, well join the club, dude.

Tell your friend to either shut the fuck up or better yet take it on back to Italy where 95% of the girls are beautifully Italian and the living is easy. My liking? It’s what you said you wanted. Jump on a plane and take it home brother. Whiteness? I don’t give a shit about whiteness.

Your buddy McCulloch is a racialist. Is he an appalling asshole and by extension are you an appalling asshole for buying into his appalling assholian doctrine?

Save your people bro. Go home.

Posted by Dan Dare on April 01, 2010, 09:20 PM | #

Continuing on with discussion of the EHRC ‘Ethnicity and Family’ report ...

The first point to note is that the report was sponsored (paid for) by the EHRC and so, while the integrity of the compilers is not in question, it should be obvious that the authors will not have been oblivious to the EHRC’s objectives in commissioning the report. While there is no evidence that any fiddling of the data occurred, there is a strong suspicion that some key facts have been suppressed, a theme I’ll return to in a moment.

That the EHRC itself was delighted by the report’s appearance (if not its actual conclusions or the underlying data) was confirmed by this report which appeared in the Daily telegraph on its publication:

… A spokeswoman for the Equality and Human Rights Commission said the results of the study were “remarkable”.

“The old, polarising debate about black and white is changing and the next generation will not see race in the same way we see it,” she said.

“This is hugely positive and we can afford a moment to celebrate: Britain’s diverse culture is becoming all the more fascinating and inter-connected.”

The report is published on the same day as the Commission’s chairman Trevor Phillips delivers a speech on Race and Britain: Ten Years on from the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry.

To have the MSM mindlessly parroting its propaganda, especially notionally ‘right wing’ outlets like the Telegraph, must be especially gratifying for Trev and the gang. It serves to reinforce the message that race-mixing is not only inevitable, but it is natural, healthy and cool, a message which is also subliminally transmitted by pictures like this one which appeared in the annual report of the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust.

Everybody’s doing it, so why don’t you? No need to hold back!

It is the very insidiousness of pro-miscegenation propaganda that makes it so effective. All the more reason for us, of all people not to be taken in by it. The message is particularly subtle in its unspoken implication that only white people do it, which is far from the truth. In fact, as the report confirms, white British are less likely to be married to someone of another ethnic group than any other ethnicity.

… Rates of inter-ethnic partnership were lower among the majority White population (three per cent for men and four per cent for women) than among minorities (where they ranged among couples from the non-mixed groups between seven per cent for Bangladeshi men, to 48 per cent of Caribbean men, and between five per cent of Bangladeshi women, to 39 per cent of Chinese women). [6 and Tables 4&5;]

Now, even the 3% and 4% figures given for White inter-ethnic partnerships require further examination, which brings with it the recognition of the single most glaring deficiency of the report. This is the omission of any data defining the ethnicity of the ‘other partner’ of a mixed-ethnicity couple. We are given one side but not the other. For white British males, for example, we are told that 4% have a partner of a different ethnicity, but we are not told what that ethnicity is.

This omission is particularly salient for white British since for them having a ‘white other’ partner is considered for the purposes of the report to be an inter-ethnic relationship. The tens of thousands of Anglo-Irish marriages, or the increasing number of Anglo-European marriages are simply included in the total along with the Anglo-Indian, Anglo-African and all the others.

Whether or not this omission was deliberate we can only speculate, but it does serve the purpose of making the number inter-racial marriages involving white Britons appear larger than it really is. The confusion between inter-racial and inter-ethnic as propagated by the EHRC, the Telegraph and Vince’s source cannot be entirely accidental. I would actually wager that the overwhelming majority of inter-ethnic marriages involving white British are to white Other and not to non-whites.

Support for this contention comes from this research paper produced in 2004, using the same Labour Force Survey as the EHRC-sponsored report. The following figure summarises the inter=ethnic marriage rates for different groups, and here the White British and White Other categories are combined. As can be seen only slightly over 1% of white men and women (whether British or Other) married non-whites, which tends to confirm the suspicion that the 3%-4% inter-ethnic rates for white Britons cited above do indeed reflect principally unions between persons of European descent.

I for one do not get particularly excited at the prospect of a British lad marrying a Polish lass, nor for that matter at that of a British lass marrying a Polish bloke. Nor do I particularly care about exogamy between non-white ethnic groups, so long as they don’t involve whites which they don’t appear to any great extent, establishment propaganda and frequent scare-stories notwithstanding.

The article cited by Vince is pure claptrap, beginning with the headline “10 Percent of Children in Britain born to Mixed Race Families”, a conclusion which appears nowhere in the report. It is a complete fabrication. Whoever wrote the piece compounds the folly by writing in the first paragraph that “In Britain, one in ten children live in mixed raced families.” Again, no such conclusion could be drawn from the report.

Such a claim fails the most basic bullshit-o-meter test. According the ONS mid-2008 population estimates there were of the order of 10.5 marriages in the UK, and around 11.5 million children up to age of 16. Muttarak (above link, p.1) indicates that around 1.3% of all heterosexual partnerships in the UK are inter-ethnic so, assuming for present purposes that partnership = marriage, that means that each of the 137,000 inter-ethnic partnerships would need to include an average of 8.4 children to reach the claimed 10% figure, while each ‘non-mixed’ partnership would include only slightly under 1.

In fact, if we return to the original report, we can see how the ‘10% figure’ is derived, and how it became distorted. Table 16 shows that for White British children, only 5% live in a household headed by a couple of different ethnicities and, as we have already seen, it is overwhelmingly likely that the non-White British partner is White Other rather than non-white. So the number of white British children living in a household in which one parent is non-white must be in the order of 1 to 2%, probably tending more towards the former than the latter.

Table 20 provides us a clue about the genesis of the magic 10%. Here, the bottom line figure is that 8.9% of children (per the LFS) ‘have some experience of mixed ethnicity’, by either being of mixed ethnicity themselves, or by having a parent of mixed ethnicity, or by having parents of different ethnicity. As far as white children are concerned (which is all we really care about), the overwhelming proportion of them will ‘experience mixed ethnicity’ through having one White British parent and one, say, Polish, Irish, Australian or other non-British White parent.

What all this really goes to show is the danger in swallowing enemy propaganda without making an effort to determine if any basis in fact or reality. Often, as here, the propaganda message takes the form of a Big Lie, camouflaged with a veneer of truth. So we should be careful particularly to avoid unwittingly aiding the enemy by passing it on unexamined and unchallenged.

Posted by Al Ross on April 01, 2010, 09:38 PM | #

Desmond, I am delighted to share with you the taxonomical status of dinosaur. I’ve always regarded silver as being a petty little anti - Nordish propagandist with altogether too much belief in his extremely modest ability to write good sense on White racial matters.

Posted by Vince on April 01, 2010, 11:37 PM | #

Marriage statistics are kinda of pointless in this discussion, they don’t tell the entire story. Outside of the Muslims, many British have children out of wedlock, especially blacks and native British. I’ve also read on a few Muslim forums that lot of second and third generation Muslims from EU countries like France are moving to the UK because it is more Muslim friendly. So some second generation Algerian or Senegalese Muslim might be considered “French” or “Belgian.”

Posted by Dan Dare on April 02, 2010, 02:14 AM | #

Marriage statistics are kinda of pointless in this discussion, they don’t tell the entire story.

Perhaps not, but they tell enough of it for us to be able draw intelligent conclusions. The principal one being that very, very few white Britons of either gender are involved in inter-racial relationships and for you to ignorantly claim otherwise only plays into the hands of the enemy.

Your obsession with Muslims, like that of the BNP, is becoming a little tiresome; it is the incursion of darkies in the round that is objectionable. Muslims are actually only a part of the overall problem.

And, Senegalese or Algerians no matter what sort of passport they hold do not qualify as White Other.

Posted by Dasein on April 02, 2010, 03:12 AM | #

Dan,

I think Vince is referring to the bottom table (from the second report) that I showed, which recorded births by nationality.  And indeed, there was evidence there that some of those who one may think are white by virtue of their country of origin, are in fact non-white. 

And for the 2005 report, it states:

A key limitation of this analysis is the uncertainty surrounding the recording of ethnic group in the NN4B dataset. The ethnic group information recorded is likely to be a mixture of reports by mother and reports by health care professionals. Although the ethnic group of the baby is requested in NN4B, it is not possible to know whose ethnic group was actually recorded, the mother’s or baby’s. This is a consideration as the ethnic group of a mother and her baby can differ. A further consideration is that identification to an ethnic group is not always straightforward and individual responses, whether self-reported or not, may vary according to the circumstances and over time.

I imagine that some parents or hospital staff would mark a baby who was half Algerian, half White British as White British or White Other.  I said above that I thought 5% mixed race was a conservative estimate (4% after correction for unclassified, plus 1% for these types of cases), but I think the actual number is likely somewhere between 5 and 10%.

Posted by Dasein on April 02, 2010, 03:39 AM | #

Although for the phenomenon to which Vince is presumably referring, it doesn’t even have to be second or third generation.

Posted by Dan Dare on April 02, 2010, 02:02 PM | #

On reflection I can see that my remarks were too harsh and I was wrong to talk about banning. I have modified them.

Perhaps Vince could explain the context in which his remarks were made.

Regarding secondary migration in the EU, I agree that is a growing issue which could result in some miscounting. An African who is a naturalised French citizen could move to the UK and would not even appear in the migration statistics since these do not count EEA citizens.

However, it seems unlikely that a “French” Senegalese would classify himself as ‘White Other’ when it came to census time (or on admission to hospital). I agree though that if his white partner had a child that might present officialdom with a quandary, although there are ‘mixed’ boxes in the standard 16+1 classification scheme, which I reproduce here for information. The 2010 Census will include additional categories which will presumably then become the standard for bureaucratic ethnic monitoring purposes.

Census 16-point classification “16+1”

White [W]
White British [W1]
Irish [W2]
Any other White background [W9]
Mixed: [M]
White & Black Caribbean [M1]
White & Black African [M2]
White & Asian [M3]
Any Other mixed background [M9]
Black or Black British: [B]
Caribbean [B1]
African [B2]
Any other Black background [B9]]
Asian or Asian British: [A]
Indian [A1]
Pakistani [A2]
Bangladeshi [A3]
Any other Asian background [A9]
Chinese or Other ethnic group: [O]
Chinese [O1]
Other [O9]
Not stated

Posted by Dasein on April 02, 2010, 03:22 PM | #

Dan, I thought the threat to ban was meant as a joke.  I didn’t realize you were serious!

Posted by Dasein on April 02, 2010, 03:47 PM | #

I’ve found another problem with that recent article from the BNP.  It says:

- According to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), legal Third World immigrants made up 14.7 percent (7.5 million) of the population of England in 2004.(1)

But the report they reference actually says:

People of a non-‘White British’ ethnic group comprised 14.7 per cent of the population of England at mid-2004

So this 14.7% includes non-British whites, whom I assume the BNP does not consider as ‘Third World immigrants.’

In fact, looking at the data from the ONS website, we see that in mid-2004, 89.5% of the population was white.

Now, I’m not saying that the British should be unconcerned with mass immigration of whites from other ethnicities, but these figures should be presented as accurately as possible.

Looking at the data from mid-2005, we see that non-whites made up 10.4% of the population of England and Wales.  Now compare that to their % of births, as described in my comment above (22-25%).  This more than 2-fold over-representation in births would make for a good shock statistic in a future BNP article.

Posted by Vince on April 02, 2010, 04:01 PM | #

Dasein I was talking about the bottom table. France for example doesn’t ask an individual their race when they are taking census. So an Algerian with a French passport is considered “French.” So Dan is wrong when he says an Algerian or some other kind of non white is never considered white in the UK. If their nationality is French or Belgian they won’t be considered Algerian or Turkish in the UK, when you think of a French person you think of them being white, but that is not always the case. I brought this up because I was recently reading an Islamic forum and a Muslim originally from DR Congo with “French” citizenship was looking to move to Birmingham, UK because it is more tolerant of Islamic values than France. With the crack down on the niqab in places like Netherlands, France, and Belgium more Muslims with the EU passport are looking to move to more Muslim friendly countries within the EU.

Posted by Dasein on April 02, 2010, 04:26 PM | #

If JamesUK is around, I’d also like to point out the following figures.  This is the % of whites in Britain from 2001-2007 (measured in the middle of each year).

2001 91.2%
2002 90.8%
2003 90.4%
2004 89.9%
2005 89.6%
2006 89.2%
2007 88.7%

source

JamesUK, you’d said that until the new census results were published for 2011, it is too early to say that whites are being replaced.  Do you still think that?

Posted by Dasein on April 02, 2010, 06:55 PM | #

Here’s a table that shows the under or over-representation of the different ethnic groups for births in 2005 (for England and Wales).  I calculated population percentages using the mid-2005 totals (source).  I took the 2005 birth percentages from the ONS report.  I applied a correction for the 10.9% of births where ethnicity was not stated (10.8%), or there was no link to the NN4B record (0.1%).  I assumed that this 10.9% applied equally across all ethnic categories.

(note that this is German number format, so decimal places are marked by a comma)

[IMG]http://i760.photobucket.com/albums/xx249/Aletheia14/pop-1.jpg[/IMG]

The White Irish proportion is very low.  I assume what’s going on here is that they are mostly having babies with White British and assigning that ethnicity.

Posted by Vince on April 02, 2010, 07:42 PM | #

I’m surprised the black African - White British mix is as big as it is in the UK. Aren’t black Africans rather new to the UK? White UK’ers are more likely to mix with blacks (African & Caribbean) than they are Asians. That’s why I think race mixing should be a bigger issue then Muslims. The Jews are known for promoting white women with black men.

Posted by Silver on April 03, 2010, 01:57 AM | #

Final reply to Desmond.

Even if it [hate] does characterize me, so what?

Sigh. Round and round we go.  So nothing, Des.  Hate away all you like.  Just know that it’s the foremost reason it’s impossible to have a straight discussion with you.  (I just said exactly that in the last reply to you, but once is never enough for Des.)

Extrapolating from my position to the general public is a mug’s game.

True, if by that you mean the extremity of your position, but not true if we’re discussing the underlying sentiment that often leads to it.

I’ve said it before and others have said it about me, I’m a remnant, a dinosaur that hearkens back to the dark ages of the 1930s, and soon to be extinct.

If that’s so half the pity of it will be because you’ll do so never having grasped your own contribution—yours, the dark ages dinosaur’s—to your demise.

The hammer man theory is pure speculation on your part.

The only speculative aspect of it was, if it came down to it, the likelihood of his choosing his Asian spouse over his race.  That he’s wanting to have his cake and eat it too cannot be logically contested.  If it were just that one case it’d be immaterial, but you know very well that every man in his position would claim the same right and thus defeat the whole cause.

Better freakishly obtuse than a sanctimonious mendacious bastard who cares didly-squat about his own because they’re ‘culturally alien’....eeeeeew. Hey, well join the club, dude.

That’s not the first time you’ve leveled that ridiculous charge at me.  It was groundless then and it’s groundless now.  Are you really so blinded by ‘EGI’ that normal human reactions to various human environments have become incomprehensible to you?  ‘Peoplehood,’ I discovered, wasn’t all it was cracked up to be; since I still have the choice it’s only natural I’d choose environment I feel more comfortable in. 

Tell your friend to either shut the fuck up or better yet take it on back to Italy where 95% of the girls are beautifully Italian and the living is easy.

Well, since you put it that way, I’m going to tell him to ramp it up: provoke the crap out of them.  Ironically, that actually works in your favor…no need to thank me.

My liking? It’s what you said you wanted. Jump on a plane and take it home brother.

There you go being freakishly obtuse again.  How is it that the question of strategy doesn’t enter into the equation?  What possible good does it do to go it alone when instead I can be making the case for it here?  Pretty obvious, isn’t it—so obvious I can really only put your missing it down to hate how thoroughly hate-ridden you are.

Whiteness? I don’t give a shit about whiteness.

Where did that come from?  Go take a nap or something, Desmond. 

Your buddy McCulloch is a racialist. Is he an appalling asshole and by extension are you an appalling asshole for buying into his appalling assholian doctrine?

He’s not my buddy.  You don’t have to like someone in order to work with him.  To answer your question, yes, I do think he could be described as an appalling asshole.  Racialism isn’t a universal cause.  It’s a response.  It’s a response I regard as reasonable for Europe and the Anglo-New World, but I wouldn’t advocate it for a county like, say, Brazil.  (Northern) European and New World problems are better resolved with racialism; L. America multiracialism works fine by adhering to the implicit bargain multiracial society strikes: You pretend the differences between us are unimportant; I’ll pretend you haven’t noticed them.  McCulloch’s universal claims interfere with L. American (and other) multiracialism by insisting on revulsion, so in this sense yes, I would call him an appalling asshole.  And yes, I could also be described as an appalling asshole based on certain statements I’ve made.  But I don’t want to be an appalling asshole so I’ll withdraw those and apologize for them.
 
Save your people bro. Go home.

Save yours, Des.  Shut the fuck up and get out of their way and let them save themselves.  As it stands you’re a hindrance, not a help.

Posted by Armor on April 03, 2010, 09:48 AM | #

how thoroughly hate-ridden you are. (—Silver)

On a different thread, Fred Scrooby wrote yesterday that “there are no such things as “racists” in the sense meant by that Jewish term”. He is right. Jewish psychologists claim they can read into the European soul. What they have found so far is an oedipal complex, an authoritarian personality, hate, racism, antisemitism… In fact, they make up false charges (according to them, opposing race-replacement makes you a “hater”), and they use childish non-explanations to describe a fuzzy mental process like “hate”. I think it is silly to talk about love and hate in a magical way, as Silver, the Bible, and anti-white activists do.

A normal person will simply say that Jewish anti-white activists are trouble-makers. We don’t claim to know what’s going on in their minds. But a Silver or a Jewish activist will claim that they have discovered what is wrong with us: the hate nerve in our brains is overheating! I’m sure Silver could write whole books on the subject.

Silver, you should try to collaborate with Jeffrey Imm (“Choose love, not hate”).
Big intellectuals of the world, unite!

Posted by Q on April 03, 2010, 11:04 AM | #

Jewish psychologists claim they can read into the European soul.

——

Yes sir. Whether they, the Jew shrinks, beleive it or not is an open question; but one thing for sure is most of the crap that emanates from the Jewish-shrink-mind is based on pseudo-science. In fact most everything on the left cannot withstand the test of critical thinking. Postmodernism is a prime example of how the left constructs a philosophy which turns reality on its head. Its effect is analogous to an octopus squirting ink; it allows them to obscure reality so as to confuse and disorient their prey (read:euro-Christians). The problem is too many—perhaps the majority of—euro-Christians buy into the Jew crap and firmly beleive they are “the enlightened”. The damned fools haven’t a clue that they’re being tricked into participating in their own extinction.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on April 03, 2010, 01:52 PM | #

As I commented not long ago somewhere, Christopher Hitchens, Robert Lindsay, and Silver are what they are politically because they cannot stand the idea of anyone having unflattering thoughts in regard to race or social class.

To arouse their ire — and we’re talking Lazar Kaganovich-level ire — one need not do anything, but only have thoughts, unflattering race or class thoughts. 

If Silver suspects a white person of privately disdaining something about Negroes — their looks, let’s say — or if Hitch or Robert Lindsay suspect a middle- or upper-class person of privately disdaining, on a class basis, something about working class folk — their behavior, let’s say — they’ll boil over with rage of genocidal proportions and if in power will actually proceed to commit genocide.  All because someone harbored unflattering thoughts about someone else on a race or social class basis.  (With Hitch it’s mainly social class; with Silver, race; with Lindsay, both.)

Silver can’t grasp that what an individual privately thinks of Negroes (may substitute gypsies, dagoes, Mexicans, Arabs, Greeks, Subcons, Orientals, non-specific mystery meat, etc.) on a race basis is none of his business.  He can’t grasp that, and flatly rejects that it’s none of his business:  according to him, what I privately think of Papuans, Tibetans, and Australian Aborigines is his business — not what I do to them, what I think of them.  He’s going to rid the world, you see, of unflattering private opinions of other races, as Hitch and Lindsay are going to rid it of unflattering private opinions of lower classes and if certain people won’t stop holding certain private opinions, Hitch, Lindsay, and Silver are going to genocide those people. 

Silver’s going to heal the world in that way; it’s his own personal version of Tikun Olam.  It’s why he sympathizes with the Jewish version of Tikun Olam.

No one ever taught Silver to mind his own business.  People have tastes in people, Silver, and mine are none of your business so get your nose out of my business and back into yours where it belongs and keep it there.  When I want to discuss my tastes in people with you I’ll contact you.  (I wouldn’t recommend holding your breath.)

”The only speculative aspect of it was, if it came down to it, the likelihood of his choosing his Asian spouse over his race.  That he’s wanting to have his cake and eat it too cannot be logically contested.  If it were just that one case it’d be immaterial, but you know very well that every man in his position would claim the same right and thus defeat the whole cause.”

Here Silver touches unwittingly on the fundamental nature of the crime of forcing open borders without the informed consent of the people (informed means thoroughly informed in plain language minus all PC propaganda):  populations may well oppose open borders precisely from an aversion to things like having lots of mixed-race couplings and the resulting “new racial loyalties” on a large scale.  This sort of threat to the racial identity of the community, population, or nation may be precisely part of why there would be opposition to open borders in an honestly-worded referendum.  So, why were the wishes of the people overridden?  Why, exactly, were open borders imposed from the top?

Let me explain that better.  In other words, where Silver says,

“you know very well that every man in his position would claim the same right and thus defeat the whole cause,”

that only happens — that is, “the whole cause” is only “defeated” by “every man in his position claiming the same right” — where the numbers of men “in his position” are big.  Where borders are closed they’re small.  They get big once borders are opened.  The people opening them know this, obviously.  Their intention in opening them is to create new facts on the ground, to get around the wishes of the people and place before them, after it’s too late and new facts on the ground have been created, a fait accompli they won’t be able to undo.

“Well, so what?” one might ask.  “The Jews have once again outsmarted the whites.  So what else is

jew

new?  They’ve only been doing it for three thousand years.  If the whites can’t get their act together in the most elementary ways they deserve to be treated like what they are, Negroes with white skin.”

Well, that’s sort of true …. no, not “sort of,” it’s true.  It’s true.  In fact it goes without saying:  if whites are going to act like Negroes they’re going to be enslaved by Jews.  No one denies that.  It’s called “Reality 101.” 

But … it doesn’t hurt to point out exactly what’s been going on, in case … just in case …. enough whites may start to stir out of their stupor and begin acting like sentient beings for once.

Just for once, whites.  Try.  Act like men, like sentient beings.  You can do it, I know you can!  (Maybe it’s too much to ask.)

Posted by Vince on April 03, 2010, 04:31 PM | #

Here is another discouraging tale of race mixing coming out of the UK today. The youth of the UK are so brainwashed by the Jewish establishment it is really sad. This is what the BNP must counter, not Muslims. This is the kind of filth the Jews in the media and Universities promote and push on white youth.

My Masai Mr Right: Why is this middle-class woman giving up a life of luxury to live in a mud hut with an African warrior?

By Kathryn Knight

Like many young women in love, Colette Armand believes she was hit by a coup de foudre when she first saw her future husband. ‘The attraction was instant,’ she says. ‘We had an immediate connection.’

Photographs testify to the strength of their bond, showing a beaming young couple clearly delighted by each other’s company.

That, however, is where the conventional nature of their romance ends. For Colette’s intended is a Masai warrior whose home is a mud hut on the vast African plains.

You can read the rest here.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1262574/My-Masai-Mr-Right-Why-middle-class-woman-giving-life-luxury-live-mud-hut-African-warrior.html#ixzz0k0OMdk27

Posted by Dasein on April 03, 2010, 05:41 PM | #

The one encouraging aspect of the story is that she has (at least for the moment) joined him in Africa.  Hopefully she’ll stay there with whatever mullatoes she produces.

This bit, from the end of the article, sums it up:

Living with the tribe has taught me to live in the present. It taught me what matters.

She’s an evolutionary zero.  Without care for the consequences to her descendants, she’s pissed away the evolutionary history endowed to her by her European ancestors.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on April 03, 2010, 05:49 PM | #

She’s done exactly what the Jews and the Catholic Church say Euros must do (I assume she’s Catholic, from a typical French family background).  At the University of Paris her Jewish professors taught her that she must become a Negro, and all her life from childhood on her Catholic education taught her she must become a Negro, and so now she’s doing it, applying to the letter the education she received and turning herself into a Negro.

Imagine how her poor parents must feel.  (That’s if they’re normal.  If they’re “liberals” they deserve every bit of this disaster and much worse.)

Posted by Q on April 03, 2010, 08:45 PM | #

Dasein pretty much hit the nail on the head.

The sad side of the story is the white women is flushing hundreds of thousands of years of evolutionary progress down the drain by mixing her genes with a primitive.

The good side of the story is she is moving to Africa to do it. Let’s hope and pray she stays there.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on April 03, 2010, 09:44 PM | #

“The good side of the story is she is moving to Africa to do it.”  (—Q)

Yes, that is the one good side of the story.  So far.  My money says she gets sick and tired of living in a mud hut pretty quick and brings her husband back to France to live.

Posted by Vince on April 03, 2010, 10:08 PM | #

Fred she isn’t French, she just went to school there. She happens to be a British girl, not sure what religion she was born into.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on April 03, 2010, 10:35 PM | #

OK so when she gets sick of the mud hut she’ll be bringing her Masai husband back to Britain, not France.  Oh the French are going to be soooooooo jealous.

Posted by Vince on April 03, 2010, 10:55 PM | #

The Masai are known to practice female circumcision, I wonder if she will get “cut” to show her devotion. The funny thing is she is probably a feminist and rebukes white guys back home for every little thing she considered sexist. Over/under on how long she last being a pricess in the bush?

Posted by Silver on April 04, 2010, 04:15 AM | #

Armor,

You’re another good example of an individual so irate and hate-ridden he can’t see straight.  Those emotions (regardless of how ‘fuzzy’ they are they’re real enough to invoke intelligently) have caused you to misinterpret numerous statements of mine.  In the quoted instance I accused Desmond of missing an obvious example of tactical expedience for no other reason than his overwhelming hatred of people like me.  My statement was restricted to the impact his emotional state has on proceedings with what realistically could and should be allies-in-cooperation; rather clearly I wasn’t whining that he feels that way about me or (in this instance anyway) that such feelings exist out there in the world.

Q,

I flicked through my copy of Al Ross’s Big Book of Zingers and came up with,

There once was a man named Q
Who reduced everything to The Jew,
He went hell for leather
And didn’t care whether,
Anything that he claimed wasn’t true.

Scrooby,

If Silver suspects a white person of privately disdaining something about Negroes — their looks, let’s say — or if Hitch or Robert Lindsay suspect a middle- or upper-class person of privately disdaining, on a class basis, something about working class folk — their behavior, let’s say — they’ll boil over with rage of genocidal proportions and if in power will actually proceed to commit genocide.  All because someone harbored unflattering thoughts about someone else on a race or social class basis.

I won’t deny there isn’t a little something to what you’re saying here.  But so what?  I’m hardly alone in feeling that way, in understanding that those opinions, left uncontested, have been the cause of a great deal of misery.  It’s not particularly of any great interest to me what anyone thinks in the privacy of his own mind; it’s when those opinions become the basis of social policy and are accepted as folk ‘knowledge’ that reasonable fears are aroused.  Rather than worrying about my genocidal rage—and who needs physical genocide when one can just call to Mix ‘em! Mix ‘em good, and mix ‘em now! **—you should take heart from the fact that despite feeling this way I’ve come around to racial separatism.

No one ever taught Silver to mind his own business.  People have tastes in people, Silver, and mine are none of your business so get your nose out of my business and back into yours where it belongs and keep it there.  When I want to discuss my tastes in people with you I’ll contact you.  (I wouldn’t recommend holding your breath.)

Scrooby, your side has made race my business.  I was out there calmly minding my own business, quite content, as a matter of fact, with knowing that racial hatreds exist in society but that so long as they were legally proscribed from manifesting themselves to an excessive degree it wasn’t something to be concerned about.  Two things changed that.  The first was the realization that your side was agitating for a racial revolution, and that the cause of racial preservation required such a thing.  The second was that you were reaching into my (ancestral) part of the world and attempting to influence it with your ideology.  Far from merely minding your own business Freddy, you assholes have seen fit to export your rubbish where it was never requested nor, I’m happy to report, is it particularly wanted. 

**  If I know you, Scrooby, that line just added a few more holes to your wall.  That’s the problem with you people.  You’re so angry, so agitated, so—it must be said—hate-ridden you just don’t make any sense to anyone.  You can blame ‘the Jew’ all you like but that doesn’t change the fact that when you hit people up with your ideology all they can see is the flecks of spit and all they can hear is the strained pleading (see Hunter’s friend, that tosser Drew Sylvan’s pleas with the missionaries for an example) for them to consider every other human a piece of shit fit only to be shipped far, far away out of sight and—God forbid—physical reach.  If four decades of failing to get the bulk of the population to feel anywhere near that level of racial disgust hasn’t convinced you that maybe you’ve misread human beings I don’t know what will.

Posted by Al Ross on April 04, 2010, 05:47 AM | #

Silver married a girl name of Sophie,
Who then won the Kraft - Ebbing Trophy,
For undergoing pain,
Yet again and again,
And all this for such a damn low fee.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on April 04, 2010, 09:08 AM | #

Silver, when I lived in Europe I had a friend who could eat anything but chicken-and-mushrooms.  Show him a plate of chicken-and-mushrooms and he just could not touch it. 

There’s nothing wrong with chicken-and-mushrooms.  It’s a fine dish.  But when this guy was a child in Germany in the fifties, for a few years it was all he had to eat.  (He was, incidentally, a German count and lived in a castle but there was no money after the war and they ate their own chickens which they kept for eggs, and gathered mushrooms in the woods.  Every day.) 

I’m sure this guy would have had nothing against chicken-and-mushrooms had that particular dish not been forced down his throat for years in early childhood.  But it was.  And he got sick of it. 

For life.

Now, that story is not wholly à propos because while there’s not a thing wrong with chicken-and-mushrooms there is with some races — I trust I don’t need to spell out the details.  And while chicken-and-mushrooms is just a dish, race is, well, everything. 

But even where questionable races are concerned, few here would dwell on the subject were the Jews & Co. not methodically forcing those down everyone’s throat. 

Capiche?( * )

That was in response to your “hate” charge.  Stop forcing what someone doesn’t want down his throat and he may stop hating it (and you).  He’ll likely stop even thinking about it. 

And if you won’t stop, who’s respoinsible for his “hate,” he or you?

Question for Silver:  Why are the Jews forcing Negroes down everyone’s throat?  I should think even the Negroes would start to be embarrassed, at the rate it’s going. 

What’s the Jews’ game?

“It’s not entirely the Jews.  They have allies.  Alex right here at MR.com has copiously illustrated how the capitalists were doing it in the 1840s, exactly the same thing as now and not a Jew in sight.”  Yeah, I know.  But what’s the Jews’ game today, Silver?
______

[ *  Word Origin & History
   
    capiche
   
    1940s slang, from It. capisci? “do you understand?” (also coppish, kabish, capeesh, etc.).]

Posted by Ag on April 04, 2010, 09:09 AM | #

Silver:

I shouldn’t gloat, as I’m you’re suffering, but what the hell, it IS fun to watch; keep it up.
Can I heap it on or would that be in bad taste?  Ah, why not: your own women are lost to you, you know that, don’t you?  Even now.  Especially now.  They’ve always preferred the duskier man, though they’ve preferred him to have Caucasian features along with the dusky skin.  Even though the swarthies of today don’t always precisely fit the bill, they do possess enough “mystique” to steal away the white girl.  But think of the progeny of such unions.  Darker skin AND more caucasian features.  Subsequent generations of white girls will MELT.  Face it white boy, your end is nigh. 

Here’s to keeping you awake at night.
Y
ou cannot have failed to note the reluctant acceptance of racialism (as understood by its typical advocates, such as yourself) on the part of your racial kin.  Many will explore any alternative, no matter how great their dissatisfaction with the status quo, before coming to terms with your views.  And this even though there exists a paucity of refutations of racialism on the internet; at least of the sort that grant the racialist some of his premises.  That is because there is for now little point in or need for engaging them.  Should racialism ever threaten to become more widespread than the fringe movement it currently is—one beset with contradiction and internal bickering—there are a great many counter-arguments that could be employed against it (quite devastatingly, imo

Well, no, dammit; I won’t sit idly by and watch the genuine humanistic progress made since the war evaporate in an orgy of white phenotypomania.  I *am* heartened that their efforts—*your* efforts*—are coming to naught and I am determined to do my best to ensure that they do. 

Having said all that, yes, I say again, there is a glaring weakness in your position that I see unadressed. 

No, I am not in any particular hurry to draw your attention to it because there’d be little in it for me, expect perhaps a flurry of excitement in noting the exasperation of bunch of dehumanisers whom I despise.  But that’s a pleasure I can reserve for a time of my choosing.

Furthermore, where will the facts be disseminated?  On obscure fora such as WM or Vdare?  Big deal.  Fact is, most whites will barely get a whiff of them.  And of those that do, most will take a great deal of convincing, and skepticism will abound.  Few will maintain interest long enough to get to the bottom of matters; not with busy lives to lead and assurances that things will be “just fine” despite momentarily unpleasant facts.  Quite simply, the “paradigm shift” required is so large that there will be nothing like a mass movement towards WN.  In the meantime… tick tick tick…

How many whites does one miscegenation inure, and secure for anti-racism?  Certainly not just the white involved in the act.  My estimate is 3-5 people.  Tick tick tick.

“I’m on tenterhooks!  Let’s hear it, Silver!”

No guesses?  I can assure you, have at a minimum touched on it; perhaps there’s a more complete discussion of it on here (or elsewhere) but I haven’t seen it.  I know it’s childish to play games, but I honestly do consider it glaring and overlooked. 

This isn’t so much about being “right” or “wrong” as much it is me gloating over your demise, which I regard as nigh on inevitable.

I came on here to goad, not because I “hate Anglos”, simply because I detest the views sites like this propound.

I’m not averse to racial and cultural change, but the pace of it must be slow enough to be almost imperceptible.

I don’t consider myself “white”—never have and never will.  I originally came to goad and stir the pot a bit, and that’s not because I hate “whites”, but because I hate whites that insist on “defending” their race by slurring everyone else and seem intent on causing maximum feasible pain to those would “betray” there race by following through on their constitutionally

safeguarded heart’s desire and mating with non-whites.  I find it repugnant and morally indefensible.

Posted by Silver on April 04, 2010, 11:39 AM | #

Scrooby, I’m receiving your message loud and clear, pal.  But get this, at this point in time I’m not interested in what the “Jews’ game” is.  I’m interested in moving forward.  The nature of any opposition will become clear in time.

Now you can continue to dwell on what is way beyond your control, or you can elect to focus on what is within your control, part of which, as a grown man, I’d hope you realize is your reaction and that reaction’s (and those reactions’, plural) influence on events.  Simply, it’s not enough to be ‘right’ (or to have an eminently defensible point of view). If it were, neither you nor I would be today be here discussing any of this.  In itself it’s quite clearly incapable of winning over a critical mass.  Something more is needed.  Capiche?

(And, please, who the hell has been shoving niggers down your throat, Scrooby?  Half of it’s your imagination run wild. Niggers merely existing in the same country as you is their being shoved down your throat to hear you tell it.)

Ag, gimme a break.  You people go out of your way to give race the very worst, the most dehumanizing interpretation possible, and then your nose—the cheek of it!—gets put of joint over something distasteful?  Grow up.  And if it’s in you, start making a real difference.  What’s done is done and what’s been said has been said.  Just get over it and move on. Okay?  Once more, for it seems you’re a little hard of hearing, it’s not just lil ole Silver here who has some, let us say, reservations about the whole race thing, it’s…well, it’s bloody formidable opposition you’re facing isn’t it?  If you can’t kiss and make up with someone who—hello, earth to Ag—was (and is) willing to relocate to another country (even if only to test the waters) even when only a handful of inchoate racial ideas were only swirling around in his mind, for God’s sake man, you sure enjoy making it as difficult as is humanly possible for you, don’t you?

Posted by Q on April 04, 2010, 12:49 PM | #

But get this, at this point in time I’m not interested in what the “Jews’ game” is.  I’m interested in moving forward.

——

Silver,

If you are interested in moving forward, then isn’t it in your best interest to know who is blocking your way forward? Surely you aren’t denying the fact that organised Jewry, or Jewish Supremacists, are a major stumbling block in your path to progress, are you? Let’s get real here. No one is saying Jews are the sole cause of our demise, we’re saying they are a primary cause. Of course Alex enlightens us with another primary group whom are threatening our existence—that being global capitalists. However the global capitalists’ intent, IMO, isn’t racial genocide of the white-race; their primary motive is to gain weatlh and power, whereas the Jews’ open borders fanaticism is clearly meant to reduce whites to a powerless minority in their own homelands.

P.S.

I’m not someone who encourages people to go out to social functions and start talking about Jewish perfidy, of course that would immediately turn people off. They simply are unaware of how prevalent Jewish power is in the West, just as I was a few years ago.

I present the issue of race and race-replacement via three themes: 1) Immigration resulting in 50% of all newborns in America today are non-white—we will soon be a minority. 2) Whites are the only ethnic group being systematically discriminated against by our government, e.g., affirmative action. 3) The constant anti-white propaganda in ALL the MAJOR media outlets.

Posted by Silver on April 04, 2010, 01:50 PM | #

Q,

It’s important to understand the nature of the opposition, yes.  But the nature of that opposition isn’t quite what you appear to have convinced yourself it is (“Jewish Supremacism” and/or a desire to extinguish all whites)—well, I don’t doubt that some of that forms a part of it, but the main mass of it, particularly the non-Jewish portion, has nothing (directly) to do with either of those things. 

In my opinion racialism’s mistake was to go after the conservatives.  I wouldn’t have done that.  Enlightenment thought is…God, it’s almost impregnable.  I would have gone after the liberals.  If you had won the liberals over, if you had demonstrated how racialism can fit into an enlightenment worldview, the conservatives would have automatically fallen into place on the race issue.  These days, of course, the entrenched Jewish establishment presents an additional obstacle, and it’s one I don’t think there’s much to gain from confronting directly (unless you’re talking about exposing the hypocrisy).

Posted by Armor on April 04, 2010, 02:45 PM | #

In the quoted instance I accused Desmond of missing an obvious example of tactical expedience for no other reason than his overwhelming hatred of people like me.

(—S)

Thanks for the clarification. So, what you say is that we should make the most of our hateful energies, while avoiding any useless dispute between Nordics and Mysterics. That’s sensible advice.

However the global capitalists’ intent, IMO, isn’t racial genocide of the white-race; their primary motive is to gain weatlh and power

(—Q)

Who else than me believes that capitalism does’t benefit from race-replacement?

In my opinion racialism’s mistake was to go after the conservatives.

(—S)

It’s unfair to characterize opponents of race-replacement as “racialists”. What they are is normal people.

the entrenched Jewish establishment presents an additional obstacle, and it’s one I don’t think there’s much to gain from confronting directly (unless you’re talking about exposing the hypocrisy)

(—S)

Jewish anti-white activism is more than a simple “additional obstacle”. The problem with them is more than hypocrisy, it is racial hostility. That’s what needs to be exposed.

I think there’s much to gain from confronting them directly. What are the cons? If you don’t want to use free speech and do it directly, how do you think it can be done indirectly?

Posted by Wandrin on April 04, 2010, 03:51 PM | #

You can blame ‘the Jew’ all you like but that doesn’t change the fact that when you hit people up with your ideology all they can see is the flecks of spit…

There is a lot of truth in this from a tactical point of view. The reason i take long breaks from online sites such as this is i get too angry when i think too much about what is happening and when i get too angry i’m less effective at the fake moderate act i put on when talking to people.

I think it’s good to have a place to let off steam but it’s also important tafterwards o chill oneself out and get into a more moderate frame of mind if offline you’re working at bringing people out of mainstream thinking.

Posted by Armor on April 04, 2010, 04:21 PM | #

Q: “However the global capitalists’ intent, IMO, isn’t racial genocide of the white-race; their primary motive is to gain wealth and power”

Here’s what Trainspotter wrote today at Occidental Dissent :

White South Africans have paid for their cheap labor many thousands of times over. Cheap black labor has turned out to be the most expensive labor on the planet. Cheap mestizo labor will undoubtedly provide some competition in the near future.

This “cheap” non-white labor is a scam. In the short run, the society/taxpayer has to pay all sorts of costs that are going to more than cancel out the value of any savings in labor costs. It’s just the old privatize profit/socialize cost scheme. Employers gets to pocket extra cash, the taxpayer picks up the bill. Of course, in the long run, you lose your country, your culture, and your very bloodline.

“Cheap” labor, indeed.

If immigration was a result of economic forces, and of capitalists trying to cheat the system by hiring immigrants, the solution would be easy. The government would decide to use some of the taxpayers money to bribe the employers-investors-capitalists into no longer encouraging immigration. The employers wouldn’t lose any money. The white taxpayers would lose much less than they currently lose to immigration. Everyone would win. What prevents such a solution is the anti-white ideology. Besides, many immigrants do not even work. It’s difficult to argue that they are brought here by capitalism.

Posted by Gorboduc on April 04, 2010, 07:08 PM | #

On April 1, I posted on this thread that it looked as if NG had suspended Collett.

NO-one showed any interest.

Now it’s clear I was right.

NG and the BNP appear to have scored a spectacular own goal, which may be an absolute clincher in the coming contest.

All this marriage/demographics/Masai stuff will be absolutely irrelevant if there isn’t a POLITICAL PARTY - apart from the angry and triumphant folk over on NATIONALISTS ONLINE
http://www.nwn-forum.co.uk/index.php

to do anything about it.

Posted by Dan Dare on April 04, 2010, 08:53 PM | #

Gorbo, how do you read getting rid of Collett as an own goal? It’s probably the smartest thing Griffin has done this year. The only problem I see is that it was long overdue as is the purging of some other Prominenten whose continuing presence remains a mystery.

Posted by Gorboduc on April 05, 2010, 04:59 AM | #

Dan: the amounts of money supposed to have been “misrouted” by Collett are pretty big.
Didn’t NG notice this?
As you say, it’s all a “mystery”.
And “mystery” ain’t a vote winner.
Who’s the statist stooge? If Collett, how come NG has only just noticed?
If NG, ‘nuff said . . .
Some of the folks over at NATIONALISTS ONLINE are optimistically talking about getting rid of the rubbish, having a spring-clean, and so on.
They have a very few weeks in which to do this AND to get a good campaign going.
I dread to think of what I’d have to say if door-stepped by a BNP canvasser just now…

Posted by Guessedworker on April 05, 2010, 05:48 AM | #

Gorb,

I’ve looked at Nationalists Online and the BNP section at British Democracy Forum, and I have to say that these people appear to be by no means intellectually capable of running a long-term, viable challenge to the mainstream parties, never mind winning and becoming the new elite.  Do they know this?  Do they even care?  Where are the men of calibre required to lead a party of history?  Where are the intellectuals?

Posted by Dasein on April 05, 2010, 08:50 AM | #

Gorboduc,

I thought at first this was some sort of April Fools joke.  The Guardian, as far as I can tell, is the first major paper to report on it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/04/bnp-mark-collett-nick-griffin

Most of what I know of Collett is what I’ve seen in YouTube videos, and he didn’t make a good impression.

Posted by Gorboduc on April 05, 2010, 11:31 AM | #

Dasein: I sometimes indulge my satirical bent here, and sometimes have a go at certain manifeatations of “scientism” which I believe to be double-edged weapons, but after pledging support (admittedly limited support) for the BNP I’d NEVER try and put out a spoiler.
GW and Scrooby and I have had our differences, but I said days ago that these should be sunk for now. I said I hoped that there were a few cadres in the NF who might be biding their time, but I didn’t mean in this way!
I should like to know what Brons has to say on all this: he used to be a smart lad.

GW: Intellectuals may not be leaders. I hate to say it, but G.K Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc, who are among my household gods, couldn’t hold the Distributists together in the 20’s and 30’s. They simply couldn’t get the different factions, some led by dedicated men of imagination and ability, to agree on the important things, so some of the forums became little circuses of cranks: and despite their outstanding literary gifts, neither HB nor GKC ever ran any of their various papers and periodicals effectively.

Their movement suffered from financial mis-management and incompetence, but there doesn’t seem to have been any corruption: but heigh-ho, the allegations that are flying around now are almost exactly the same as those levelled at various NF officers in the 1970’s and 1980’s.

Great shame, especially as a few weeks ago, Martin Wingfield could quote Lord Carey, previous Archbishop of Canterbury, in support of his prediction of a BNP victory in Dagenham:

http://bnp.org.uk/2010/01/lord-carey-predicts-bnp-victory-in-dagenham/#idc-container

Posted by Wandrin on April 05, 2010, 03:38 PM | #

If immigration was a result of economic forces, and of capitalists trying to cheat the system by hiring immigrants, the solution would be easy. The government would decide to use some of the taxpayers money to bribe the employers-investors-capitalists into no longer encouraging immigration.

There is no debate to this. The owners of the textile mills in the the midlands brought Pakistani immigrants over to work the night shift the white workers wouldn’t work except for extra money. The same thing has happened all over for hundreds of years e.g see the recent post on this site about the Ludlow massacre.

International capitalists are just as bad as international marxists.

It’s why the enemy has been winning so easily for sixty years - both sides of the official political system are in favour of unlimited mass immigration - one side wants it for genocidal reasons while the other side wants to be richer.

When you say “the government would decide to” what is the government but a collection of individuals you assume will put their people first. There was a recent documentary in the UK about the jewish lobby. The way they work is to use their money to buy politicians through funding the campaigns of those who will blindly support Israel (and i assume mass immigration). A cabinet of 20 might have 4 jews and a futher 12 who’ve taken jewish money. An honest patriotic politician can’t compete with that.

Also politically it is neccessary to get people to believe they’re under attack from both sides of the political spectrum. The system is generally set up with a left and a right. If we just attack marxists and the left then people’s natural reaction is to move towards the centre-right. If we just attack the capitalists on the right then people will naturally move towards leftist parties. This is no use to us. We need people to think they’re under attack from the marxist left and the capitalist right so they start to look for a third position that is outside the normal left-right system. So even if you don’t believe capitalism has anything to do with the problem it’s still the best tactic (imo) to persuade people they are under attack from two separate directions.

It’s difficult to argue that they are brought here by capitalism.

It’s self-evidently not difficult at all - Indian IT workers as another recent example. However capitalism is only part of the explanation. The other part is the usual jewish-marxist genocidal tribal warfare.

Lastly it’s not so much capitalism as international capitalism. A nationalist capitalism would be one where a nationalist constitution forbade the import of cheap labor thereby fixing the problem. Personally i don’t care if it’s national socialist or national capitalist or a bit of both. It’s the national bit at the front that matters.

Posted by Wandrin on April 05, 2010, 04:09 PM | #

@Gorb

Some of the folks over at NATIONALISTS ONLINE are optimistically talking about getting rid of the rubbish, having a spring-clean, and so on.

No offense but this is a load of nonsense. Things like the Collet trouble were guaranteed in the run up to the election for what should be obvious reasons. The various tentacles of the enemy are guaranteed to have numerous assets inside the BNP and they’ll likely use them all up before the election trying to prevent a big increase in the BNP vote.

This is entirely to be expected and i’d assume maybe another 3-4 explosions before polling day.

It will probably have a negative effect but that’s life and depending on the media coverage there’s always a chance it will be percieved as the ruling class trying to prevent the BNP’s anti-immigration argument which could lead to an unexpected polling boost. Either way this kind of stuff is inevitable.

Secondly the nwn people seem to me to be a mixture of intelligent people who are in a sulk over Griffin making more progress than they ever have, idiots and lots of reds/jews.

It’s true that if you want a cup of tea you need boiling water.

It’s true that if the water isn’t boiling it’s no use (yet).

However you have to get the water from cold to lukewarm first, then lukewarm to hot, then hot to boiling.

Griffin is heating the water from cold to lukewarm.

If the nwn people believe the BNP will never be radical enough - which is quite possible - then what they should be doing is planning and preparing to be a kind of second stage. Instead of trying to stop NG taking people from cold to lukewarm they should focus on taking people from lukewarm to hot.

Look to NI for an example. Sinn Fein / IRA got to a certain point and now there’s a dissident IRA saying it’s not far enough and pushing for more.

Just carping from the sidelines and hoping NG fails is pathetic and useless.

Posted by Gorboduc on April 06, 2010, 04:21 PM | #

@Wandrin; very belatedly, but just what is a load of nonsense?

Did I report the matter inaccurately?

Are you attacking me or the attitude of some of the NO folks?

I’m NOT hoping NG (OR the BNP) fails. As I said before, he and it are all there are at present.

But if Collett had been a bad ‘un for such a long time, NG should have removed him earlier. You saw it coming.

NG’s 1986 pamphlet Attempted Murder: The State/Reactionary Plot against the National Front contains some incisive analyses of matters which must now be seen as remarkably prophetic of events now unfolding. Has he forgotten all that?

Posted by Wandrin on April 06, 2010, 10:41 PM | #

@Gorboduc

but just what is a load of nonsense?

I just meant the idea that the nwn people were going to spring-clean anything - apologies if unclear.

No doubt Griffin and others have many flaws but it doesn’t matter as long as they’re making progress and i define progress as radicalizing people - even if it’s only part-radicalization it’s progress in my book.

The catch 22 is that if a nationalist party has a positon that would fit my definition of success if they took power and implemented it then that position would be too extreme for mainstream people and so that party would never be able to get far off the ground e.g NF.

On the other hand if a nationalist party dilutes its position to the point where it could get a mass membership and a chance of being elected into power then its position would probably be so diluted it wouldn’t be enough.

The solution is, instead of carping from the sidelines, the more radical organisation should treat the moderate one as a feeder organisation. For every 100 people taken from the mainstream and part-radicalized by the moderate organisation 5-10 will eventually feel it isn’t radical enough and look for something else. The second organisation should be there to sweep those people up and not put them off by constant bitching.

If the NF types had had any sense they’d have themselves created a party like the BNP which was officially completely separate but in reality run as a feeder organisation. This is how the left has always done it.

Posted by Gorboduc on April 07, 2010, 09:46 AM | #

@Wandrin: sorry too!

I quite agree.

I think (though with some regret) the BNP’s position, moderate-to-soft by contrast to the older NF policies, IS the only tenable one at present.

It was difficult for the old NF to prevent WW II revisionism, hostility towards Zionism and the maintenance of a critical stance towards the workings of “international” finance from looking like a plea for a revived Nazism.
It required a strong stomach to be told, as a decent “patriot”, that the leadership of your country has, since the Napoleonic Wars, always represented an enemy government-in-occupation, rejecting the true interests of those governed.
Despite the fact that Chesterton was emphasising the essential similarities between Communism and Capitalism almost a century ago - a positon taken up enthusiastically by the NF - it required an amount of historical reading for which most people couldn’t spare the time, even to see that such a thesis could at least be plausibly argued, and the oh-so-many people who’d been brought up on a diet of Cold War propaganda weren’t disposed to make the effort.
I, for one, was able to subscribe to all those unpopular positions: but was not always able to secure much of a hearing from perfectly decent “moderates” among my own family and friends, the older of whom, despite their worries about the racial situation in the UK, liked to respond with a little bit of flag-waving Imperialist rhetoric, or a Churchillian quote.
The fact is, the old NF had become - racial policies apart - rather too esoteric. It was making too many innovatory demands at once on the unitiated mind, and many peoples’ perhaps limited understandings revolted against the demolition of so many traditional landmarks.
The BNP has, I think, got the policies for a populist success about right,  even as regards their revised position on race ( - after all, plenty of decent people applaud the attitude of those Sikh local Post Office managers who sometimes see off black raiders with their ceremonial swords - ) but I just hope the party has got a few more shots in the locker!

Posted by Wandrin on April 07, 2010, 11:05 AM | #

revolted against the demolition of so many traditional landmarks.

I think that’s the key point. People will only step so far in one go and if you need them to step further than that then you need to do it in stages.

I think (though with some regret) the BNP’s position, moderate-to-soft by contrast to the older NF policies, IS the only tenable one at present.

I’m slightly different in that i want both. I want the just-moderate-enough to succeed organisation taking people from mainstream to part-radicalized but i also want more radical organisations waiting in the wings and growing by feeding off that increased radicalization.

Like i say, if i was NF leader in the 70s i’d have created a BNP-style party to act as a feeder organisation.

I’m hoping the new A3P party will serve the same function in the states.

Posted by Frank on April 07, 2010, 10:35 PM | #

CC,

any Englishman who is OK with such marriages (where children are produced) has rendered his ethnicity forfeit.

LJB is an odd one - I’ll second that. I love the BNP btw - and the nascent A3P.

Posted by Gorboduc on April 08, 2010, 08:46 AM | #

@Frank: I’ve no idea what CC was suggesting, and I might well share your distaste for it, but, whatever your misdemeanour, you can’ t have your ethnicity confiscated any more than your hair-colour or date of birth.
Surely it’s a biological “given”, a scientific fact, not adecoration or a reward for obedience? Enforcemant would be difficult.
I believe some groups or tribes forcibly married dissidents to a tree, which was suppoosed to make any progeny unlikely.
The famed excommunication of Spinoza from his synagogue, and possibly from the entire human race (as the rabbis understood it), is full of fun and colour:
http://www.philosophyblog.com.au/the-excommunication-and-anathema-of-baruch-spinoza/

Posted by Captainchaos on April 08, 2010, 09:42 PM | #

George Washington did what he deemed necessary to clear the land of Indians so his people could inhabit it, and when the time came he did what he deemed necessary to clear the land of the British.

Posted by melvin spinoza on December 22, 2011, 08:04 PM | #

lee John barnes needs a one way ticket to Germany where they will put a green light on him as soon as he opens his mouth which is full of hate.(A hate which shows how much he hates himself and uses the Jewish race as a scapegoat,exactly as Hitler did;only Hitler took it to extremes and killed anyone he thought didn’t meet his aberrated image of a superior race when he himself was totally absent any superiority whatsoever.)Freedom of speech is not treasonous statements as Barnes uses.He belongs in a Chinese prison and fed rice 3 times a day;not in the USA expousing only hatred for others.He should not be allowed on the web either.Even God says “when you help the smallest of my people you do My work.”