The Accidental Immigrants

Posted by James Bowery on February 09, 2010, 05:05 PM | #

Liberal democracy is a tyranny of the majority limited only by a vague laundry list of selectively enforced “human rights”.

Understood in that way, it is difficult to imagine democratic stability. Someone will always end up in the cat-bird’s seat determining the interpretation and priority of the “human rights” and they will use the tyranny of the majority as the “bad cop” to their “good cop” support of “minority rights”. They will always import “minorities” so as to have a constituency for the “good cop” “protector of the oppressed minorities”.

It simply cannot be made to work.

What _can_ be made to work is a polity founded on the philosophy of science:

Turn the technologies currently geared toward transporting “minorities” into “majority” territories in service of “liberal democratic” elites, instead toward assortative migrations creating mutually consenting human ecologies. Vote with the ballot is replaced with vote with the feet.

You get two benefits from this:

1) You bring the social sciences out of the Dark Ages and into the Enlightenment by giving experimentation authority over argumentation.

2) You stop the pervasive, indeed institutionalized, non-consentual experimentation on human subjects.

Now, how does this relate to “globalization”? It simply supplants uniform global law founded on theocratic imposition of pseudo-scientific beliefs about the social sciences, with truth and freedom.

In other words, both “democracy” and “globalism” are both founded on a theocratic pseudo-science that operates without benefit of controlled experimental results let alone scientific ethics. Both of them are incompatible with reality itself.

Posted by Bill on February 09, 2010, 05:34 PM | #

One big cock up.

They cocked it up in Australia, they cocked it up in France, they cocked it up in Canada, they cocked it up in Germany, they cocked it up in America, they cocked it up in New Zealand, they cocked it up in Denmark, they cocked it up in Holland, they cocked it up in Sweden, they cocked it up in Belgium, they cocked it up in Spain, they cocked it up in Greece, they cocked up in Italy, they cocked it up in Finland, they cocked it up in Ireland, they cocked it up in Switzerland, they cocke it up in Norway, it was one mother of cock ups in Great Britain. (LO effin’ L)

Posted by Dan Dare on February 09, 2010, 06:14 PM | #

Just staying with the UK for the moment Bill, where do you find the flaws in Goodhart’s reasoning and his conclusion?

We have to note that even Andrew Green back-pedals somewhat from the claims he made at the time of Neathergate about mass immigration being a Labour conspiracy to advance its multicultural agenda and electoral base.

Here’s what he said on October 23rd:

... Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the Migrationwatch think tank, said: “Now at least the truth is out, and it’s dynamite.

“Many have long suspected that mass immigration under Labour was not just a cock up but also a conspiracy. They were right.

“This Government has admitted three million immigrants for cynical political reasons concealed by dodgy economic camouflage.”

Source

... and this is what he said yesterday on Radio 4:

... GOODHART: But they were not trying to engineer a new Britain.

GREEN: I don’t think you can generalise to that extent. I think it’s at least possible that some people had that intention. I don’t say the entire Labour Party had that intention, but I think it’s at least possible that a significant and active element on the left had that in mind as being a way of undermining, if not destroying, a traditional England to which they’re strongly opposed.

Has he been nobbled?

Posted by Desmond Jones on February 09, 2010, 06:14 PM | #

A cock-up it is then. Or a cover-up?

Neither. Self-interest, capital and organized Jewry. But damn the Yanks were so close. An amendment that explicitly entrenched restrictive covenants (free association), even after Corrigan v. Buckley, would have made a world of difference.

Posted by Desmond Jones on February 09, 2010, 06:53 PM | #

the demand for cheap labour from employers

According to data Master Dare posted on another thread this assertion, by Blunkett, is false. There was no demand for cheap labour from British industry during that time.

Posted by Dan Dare on February 09, 2010, 07:20 PM | #

Curiouser and curiouser ...

According to a report in today’s Telegraph, Migrationwatch has obtained an unexpurgated version of the ‘Neather Report’ from 2000, which is said to shed further light on NuLabor’s immigration objectives.

It has yet to appear on the MWUK website but Andrew Green’s reported comments indicate that he has swung back towards the conspiracy camp. It is of course entirely possible that the Goodhart interview did not include Sir Andrew’s remarks in full.

Interesting development.

Labour’s ‘secret plan’ to lure migrants

...The document released yesterday suggested that Labour originally pursued a different direction. It was published under the title “Migration: an economic and social analysis” but the removal of significant extracts suggested that officials or ministers were nervous over references to “social objectives”.

The original paper called for the need of a new framework for thinking about migration policy but the concluding phrase — “if we are to maximise the contribution of migration to the Government’s economic and social objectives” — was edited out.

Another deleted phrase suggested that it was “correct that the Government has both economic and social objectives for migration policy”.

Sir Andrew Green, the chairman of Migrationwatch, said the document showed that Mr Neather, who claimed ministers wanted to radically change the country and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”, had been correct in his account of Labour’s immigration policy.

“Labour had a political agenda which they sought to conceal for initiating mass immigration to Britain,“ he said. “Why else would they be so anxious to remove any mention of social aspects?

“Only now that their working-class supporters are deserting them in droves have they started to talk about restricting immigration.”

Posted by Dan Dare on February 09, 2010, 07:37 PM | #

I suspect you may be quoting me out of context Desmond, just to be mischievous. You can be very naughty sometimes.

Was it no demand, or no requirement? There is a difference.

Posted by Captainchaos on February 09, 2010, 07:47 PM | #

Dare, if you accept that Neather is being honest then the conspiracy explanation is pretty well a slam dunk.  Those at the top with the power to either curtail or encourage mass immigration did the latter.  What really else is there to say?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 09, 2010, 07:58 PM | #

What follows is a log entry posted today at The Occidental Observer Blog ( http://theoccidentalobserver.net/tooblog/?p=768 ):
_____________________________________

Jews and Other Minorities

In this video [go to original TOO Blog entry for this video link and other links], Ann Schaffer, director of the American Jewish Committee’s Belfer Center for American Pluralism, states the basic philosophy of Jews in America:

”The Jewish community has always worked on the premise that as a minority, our security, our strength, our well being in America is interdependent with those of other minorities.  This is a Jewish issue.  It’s very much a Jewish issue.”

This is quite correct, but it’s nice to see it so explicitly and baldly expressed. 

The following is from Culture of Critique [ http://www.amazon.com/Culture-Critique-Evolutionary-Twentieth-Century-Intellectual/dp/0759672229/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265756511&sr=1-1 ];

the quote is from Jewish activist Earl Raab:

”The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European.  And they will all be American citizens.  We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country.  We [Jews] have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about half a century.  That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible — and makes our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever.” (Raab 1993b, 23)

Positive attitudes toward cultural diversity have also appeared in other statements on immigration by Jewish authors and leaders.  Charles Silberman (1985, 350) notes,

“American Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their belief — one firmly rooted in history — that Jews are safe only in a society acceptant of a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, as well as a diversity of religious and ethnic groups.  It is this belief, for example, not approval of homosexuality, that leads an overwhelming majority of U.S. Jews to endorse ‘gay rights’ and to take a liberal stance on most other so-called ‘social’ issues.”

The [Culture of Critique] footnote is as follows:

Moreover, a deep concern that an ethnically and culturally homogeneous America would compromise Jewish interests can be seen in Silberman’s (1985, 347–348) comments on the attraction of Jews to

“the Democratic party . . . with its traditional hospitality to non-WASP ethnic groups. . . .  A distinguished economist who strongly disagreed with [Walter] Mondale’s economic policies voted for him nonetheless.  ‘I watched the conventions on television,’ he explained, ‘and the Republicans did not look like my kind of people.’  That same reaction led many Jews to vote for Carter in 1980 despite their dislike of him; ‘I’d rather live in a country governed by the faces I saw at the Democratic convention than by those I saw at the Republican convention,’ a well-known author told me.”

I recall reading that in the 1930s well-meaning Whites advised Jews not to ally themselves with Blacks — obviously to no avail.  The Jewish-Black alliance, although a bit shaky at times, has been remarkably strong over the last century, and now the alliances are expanding to other non-White groups.  Shaffer goes on to discuss current projects aimed at making alliances with non-Whites, claiming disingenuously that it’s good for “all Americans.”

I think this is going to result in huge management problems down the line for Jews — not the least of which is White anger at the role of Jews in these transformations when they find themselves as a minority surrounded by an alliance of hostile non-White minority groups.

[end of TOO Blog entry]
____________________________________________

Scroob note:  After reading the above, reflect on the fact that Jews are an extremely influential élite in all the ways everyone here knows only too well.  Then reflect on the question of whether Euros are “doing it to themselves.”

Posted by Guessedworker on February 09, 2010, 07:58 PM | #

Benign neglect is also malign attention.  It is inconceivable that the active agents in the decision-taking process, including all those who tendered advice as officials or third sector advocates, were unaware of their own ethnic interests in the case of Jews and other minorities, or were unaware that the highest moral value in the liberal faith - that of acting against the ultimate exclusionary Establishment, the race of the Britons - was richly served by a race-replacement model.  But there was never any operational need to formulate the fact, and it was not in anybody’s interest to do so.  Naturally, they would prefer now to be seen as a bit confused, perhaps ... a bit mistaken sometimes ... but essentially well-meaning and very determined to do what was best for business and “jobs”.

The cock-up reading is a cop-out.

Posted by PF on February 09, 2010, 08:03 PM | #

“We love this nation” is written on the sign in the photo.

Geographical piece-of-land interpretation of that word. I imagine someone playing the board-game Monopoly, talking about how cool it is to have a hotel on Boardwalk.

If they were inspired to be more descriptive they might have said:

This particular piece of ground is full of all the amenities we need to thrive:
hospitals, roads, places of worship, markets and business places, recreational parks, and lavatories. We love each of those things, and we love being able to use them. We love easy transportation and access to water; we love the system of government protection of our rights and state-support such as Welfare. We love the restaurants and we love the city centers which we inhabit. We love the functioning electric grids and networks of petrol stations where we refuel our cars; we love the libraries where our children can study; we love the soccer fields where our youth can play in the evening.

Conspicuously absent here is the mention of their particular emotional relationship to the element within the concept-sphere “nation”, which by its work, has generated each of the other elements contained in that concept-sphere. We all know its a problematic relationship.

A more emotionally honest inscription on the sign would read: “We love your stuff.”

Posted by Desmond Jones on February 09, 2010, 08:06 PM | #

Was it no demand, or no requirement? There is a difference.

The question is easily settled Dan. Re-post the comment / data.

Posted by Desmond Jones on February 09, 2010, 08:12 PM | #

Interesting that the “We love this nation” sign is held by what appears to be (OZY?) the only white and smiling face in view.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 09, 2010, 08:24 PM | #

To comrades in European countries that don’t have lots of Jews and who think therefore that their nations’ immigration policies aren’t under Jewish influence (and therefore are the result of “whites doing it to themselves”):  no.  As regards immigration, open borders, and race-mixing you are very strongly influenced by the United States — and therefore by U.S. Jews since they essentially control U.S. immigration policy, just as they essentially control U.S. policy toward Israel.  Do Jews control everything here in the States?  No.  Do they control those two things here, 1) open-borders immigration and 2) Israel?  Yes.  Do they view their ideas on immigration and race-mixing as for the U.S. only or for exporting as much as possible around the Eurosphere?  For exporting as much as possible around the Eurosphere.  Are they working hard both within and outside of the U.S. government to use U.S. power, prestige and influence to export those ideas to the rest of the Eurosphere?  I’ll give you three guesses.

Next time you think your country is “doing it to itself,” think harder.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 09, 2010, 08:38 PM | #

There is no economic reason the several Eurosphere nations of the world can’t all be the equivalent, immigrationwise, of so many Japans.  That they aren’t all the equivalent of Japan, immigrationwise, is analagous to the situation of the pre-1989 Soviet satellite countries all of which could in principle have been capitalist but none was.  Suddenly in 1990 they all were.  If the U.S. were to collapse tomorrow you’d see a lot of Eurosphere countries suddenly tighten up their immigration and restoring their national demographies to ones approaching 1950s-style white-race sanity more closely.

Posted by Captainchaos on February 09, 2010, 08:40 PM | #

MacDonald from a recent blog:

The only reason the organized Jewish community would really get behind White advocacy in a quid pro quo for support of Zionism would be if White advocacy already had substantial power — which it does not. Jewish power and influence will be directed at supporting their own ethnostate of Israel and dispossessing Whites in the Diaspora for exactly as long as that strategy continues to work. If White activism makes headway, Jews will certainly attempt to participate in order to promote Jewish interests within that new environment.

If this is the case, then it certainly makes sense for at least some factions of White advocacy to continue to document and critique the role of Jewish power and influence in the dispossession of Whites, if only in the interest of historical accuracy. But I also think that Whites who understand Jewish influence are simply more aware of how things work and therefore less likely to succumb to Jewish ideologies like neoconservatism as a solution for White dispossession.

Did you catch that?  At least some Whites should continue to document the results of genetically ingrained Jewish subversion.  Not even MacDonald has a full grasp of the problem or the will to see done what must be done.  I am left with no other explanation than to call his manhood and his loyalty to his race into question. 

What say you, GW?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 09, 2010, 08:43 PM | #

Moral of the story:  keep yourselves as racially intact as possible while waiting for the U.S.‘s collapse — which may not be that far off.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 09, 2010, 09:09 PM | #

“Tim Finch of the IPPR [‘The most dangerous organisation in Britain’ [...]”  (—from the log entry)

Just want to make sure everyone is aware the IPPR is a Jewish founded and run outfit similar in its aims to such U.S. Jewish outfits as the ADL, the $PLC, the ACLU, and so many other Eurochristian-loathing organizations here that were founded by and are run by the Jews.  They are all dedicated to the destruction of Euro society and the Euro race out of motives of Jewish tribal competition, jealousy, fear, and ordinary garden-variety ethnoreligious hatred.  Anyone doubting this characterization needs to get out more.

Posted by Guessedworker on February 09, 2010, 09:51 PM | #

Just want to make sure everyone is aware the IPPR is a Jewish founded and run outfit similar in its aims to such U.S. Jewish outfits as the ADL, the $PLC, the ACLU

Steady on, Fred.

Here’s the Wiki page for IPPR, which you might have seen:

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

It’s the usual mix, not overly Jewish at all.  It’s aims are impeccably progressive, which dovetails perfectly with Jewish interests no doubt.  But correlation is not causation, as they say.

CC,

Just because he is a peerless scholar of Jewish ethno-activism, a good psychologist and a loyal white American, it doesn’t mean that KMD is a good political thinker.  However, he has accepted the role of front man, and until A3P succeeds or fails there probably isn’t much that can be done about it.

Posted by Dan Dare on February 09, 2010, 09:55 PM | #

The cock-up reading is a cop-out.

That being the case the stage is now set for the Conspiracy Theorists to strut their stuff.

I’d suggest that, while ethnic minorities and Jews, numerous and vociferous as their various pressure groups unquestionably are, might represent a necessary element in the formulation of a race-replacement model,they are not a sufficient one. To implement such a strategy requires either a compliant political establishment, or a society that is so atrophied and apathetic that it doesn’t care what sort of country their children inhabit, or both.

I’m perfectly willing to contemplate the possibility that NuLabor might have had a nefarious plan, one which carried the imprimatur of the party leadership, to use immigration as a tool to secure an electoral advantage. That Labour has been dependent on the ethnic vote since at least the mid-70s is certainly no secret. The importance of the ethnic vote has become even more imortant in recent years as large numbers of its traditional support in the WWC have either drifted off to the BNP or simply stopped voting.

However I see no evidence whatsoever to confirm that a conspiracy was afoot to displace the indigenous population. That may well be the effective outcome of Labour’s stance on immigration but to sustain such a serious charge much more is needed than innuendo, hearsay and tenuous extrapolations of what has happened in other countries, usually with radically different political and social systems to Britain. In my view unintended consequence and cock-up are far better explanations for what has unfolded.

So, how about it?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 09, 2010, 10:20 PM | #

“It’s the usual mix, not overly Jewish at all.”  (—GW)

What is the ethnicity of he who, all the way up the chain of command, has the final say on which goys are hired/appointed, promoted, and sacked?  I have no doubt it’s Hollick or a trusted co-ethnic.  The use of goys to front Jewish organizations is common.  The Jewish neocons have their stable of goys whom they trot out with regularity for ethnocamouflage.  The IPPR is a Jewish-created Jewish-controlled tribal organization serving Jewish tribal ends.

Posted by Captainchaos on February 09, 2010, 10:28 PM | #

America is dead.  Gaining sufficient political power to make a difference would entail so many compromises as to make it self-defeating in the extreme.  Moderating one’s writing, and thereby misleading White people, in the hope of achieving political power within the confines of the existing order is therefore not helpful.  What is needed now is a mass movement that demands nothing less than racial separation and as such seeks the abolition of the existing order.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 09, 2010, 10:43 PM | #

“I see no evidence whatsoever to confirm that a conspiracy was afoot to displace the indigenous population. That may well be the effective outcome of Labour’s stance on immigration but [...]”  (—DD)

First, insertion of the word “conspiracy” is a strawman tactic which you should stop doing, Dan, if only to strengthen your own argument:  a collection of the like-minded very simply all agree on what to aim for.  “Conspiracy” bears a sense that goes beyond “men in agreement,” a sense that doesn’t apply yet we keep seeing the word.

Second, in the absence of the wish that a particular outcome transpire there would have been retreat from certain policies once their undesirable effect and future portent became clear, effect and future portent which in this case have been crystal clear for decades.  Therefore we’re right back to wish, since there’s not only been no retreat, we’ve been subjected to imposition with all the more force and stern warning-off of even thinking about opposition.  That’s not a sign of a well-meaning innocent bungle.

Posted by Captainchaos on February 09, 2010, 10:51 PM | #

The ship is sinking and irretrievably lost.  The only option is for those who choose life is to come with us in building something new - this way is the lifeboat.  We cannot compromise in affirming that the presence of non-Whites, which includes Jews, amongst us in wholly illegitimate.  All else is chimera.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 09, 2010, 10:52 PM | #

What has to be acknowledged is they see the race being replaced as well as we do.  They see it yet forge ahead with all the more energy, bluster, threat, slander of questioners, and so on, clearly speeding to see it to completion as quickly as possible.  Does that look like an innocent bungle?  They see it the same as we do, Dan!  Yet they keep methodically, aggressively forcing it!  Bungle????  That’s not what bungles look or act like.  No, we’re talking deliberation and the carrying out of plans.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 09, 2010, 11:03 PM | #

Some on the other side deny race, as Dasein rightly noticed OZK doing:  those are the other side’s dupes.  The smarter ones on the other side, the ones running the show, know there is race and know they’re replacing this one.  It has to be understood that the ones on the other side who are running things are perfectly aware they’re engaged in government-enforced race-replacement.  There’s your starting point, Dan.  Now proceed.

Posted by Dan Dare on February 09, 2010, 11:10 PM | #

Fred, I believe you are crediting the venal nonentities who populate the contemporary political class with far too much intellectual ability.  For even the most gifted amongst them, their visionary horizon encompasses little beyond the hope of a ministerial post for the time they survive in Parliament, followed perhaps by a directorship with a City bank and, the Holy Grail, a life peerage or even a K. As for planning, well it’s plainly obvious that few of them could plan their way out a wet paper bag.

Just who should be numbered amongst the visionary intellectual giants who have collectively conspired plotted our demise? Tony Blair? David Blunkett? Jack Straw? Even if they could conceive of such a momentous project, what would be the motivation?

Give me a break already.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 09, 2010, 11:24 PM | #

By the way, I consider taking a white population and, by means of unwanted importation of nonwhites coupled with promotion of miscegenation, changing its folk to new folk who are ten percent Negro — I consider that to be race-replacement.

People say

Morons and congenital retards say, “Calm down, nobody’s being race-replaced or genocided; white people are simply mixing in such a way that will see them acquire slightly darker skins and be better-looking and healthier for it.”  First of all, not “better looking” or “healthier,” and second, sorry but that’s changing the race.  It’s race-replacement.  The new ten-percent-Negro race isn’t white.  It’s North African, or Brazilian, or whatever but not white.  A race has disappeared.  Genocide has been perpetrated.  It’s genocide.

Posted by Armor on February 09, 2010, 11:24 PM | #

“their visionary horizon encompasses little beyond the hope of a ministerial post for the time they survive in Parliament, followed perhaps by a directorship with a City bank and, the Holy Grail, a life peerage or even a K.”

What you are describing is how easy it is to manipulate them. They are conformists.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 09, 2010, 11:29 PM | #

You got one right, Dan:  Jack Straw.  Another is Hollick.  And the list can be lengthened in like fashion.  Let’s start with all the Jewish founding members and present honchos of the IPPR.  That’s as good a place as any to start.  They all know what they’re doing even if filth like Blair hasn’t a clue — which he doesn’t.  He takes his orders.

Posted by Drew Fraser on February 09, 2010, 11:38 PM | #

“Even if they could conceive of such a momentous project, what would be the motivation?”

As a matter of criminal law, intent, not motive, determines guilt.  Every person intends the natural and ordinary consequences of his action.  Whether or not politicians were motivated by a desire to destroy their own civilization and to dispossess their co-ethnics, they ought to be found guilty of criminal conspiracy in the court of public opinion. They have persisted in their destructive course of conduct well past the point where they can credibly claim to be innocently unaware of the catastrophic biocultural consequences of unrestricted Third World immigration into the Anglo-Saxon countries.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 09, 2010, 11:38 PM | #

Since Armor is here, I’ll mention that the corresponding Jewish organizations in France include LICRA and SOS Racisme, both odious in the extreme.

Posted by Dan Dare on February 09, 2010, 11:39 PM | #

Blair’s manipulators don’t appear to have done him much good. They couldn’t even fix a sinecure appointment as Presdient of the European Union, a post which has gone to a nondescript Belgian. In the meantime he continues to haunt the transatlantic after-dinner circuit, like a low-rent version of Bill Clinton.

Sic transit gloria!

Posted by Robert Reis on February 09, 2010, 11:47 PM | #

Sarkozy news:

http://www.vosizneias.com/48387/2010/02/02/paris-france-bris-performed-on-french-president’s-first-grandchild/feed/atom/

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 10, 2010, 12:01 AM | #

“Blair’s manipulators don’t appear to have done him much good.”  (—DD)

That depends on what his potential was in the first place.  They’ve taken him from their nobody tennis-partner to ex-prime minister.  Not bad for a sniveling twittering little toady the likes of Blair.  As for low-rent version of Clinton, Slick demands and gets enough per ghost-written speech for even a low-rent version to be making out like a lord.  No, Blair has ascended I’m sure beyond his wildest dreams, certainly way beyond his abilities, and as for his ... tennis partners ... they’ve gotten what they came for too, in spades — no pun intended, I’m sure.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 10, 2010, 12:05 AM | #

Everyone catch the headline right there in the “Sarkozy news” link posted by Robert Reis just above?  No need to click on the link, just look what it says.

Starting to see a pattern by any chance?  Need more time?  It’s OK, I’ll wait ...........

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 10, 2010, 12:10 AM | #

By the way, GW, 9 out of 10 of those Blair-created life peers with such Anglo-Saxon-sounding lordly titles who were associated with IPPR’s creation and/or present administration are Jews.  You can’t go by the names.  You have to look each one up.

Posted by Dan Dare on February 10, 2010, 12:26 AM | #

Unlike his two immediate predecessors at No. 10, Tone has not even been elevated to CH status, let alone a KG.

A curious slight for somebody said to be so closely connected to the powers-that-be. You’d think the first at least would be due recompense for a ‘job well done’.

Something isn’t quite gelling here.

Memo to Fred: once the bank account has been suitably stuffed, it’s the gongs and titles that count in good old Blighty. That’s why all those tribalists and assorted darkies lust after the cachet of a life peerage and will hand the riches of Croesus to snag one.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 10, 2010, 12:52 AM | #

“Unlike his two immediate predecessors at No. 10, Tone has not even been elevated to CH status, let alone a KG.”

Does that usually happen this soon?  Maybe it’ll come but a bit later?  In any case I can’t imagine why it wouldn’t — he’s served faithfully in the degradation and dismantlement of Britain, as faithfully as any.

Posted by Dan Dare on February 10, 2010, 01:31 AM | #

Well he seems to have blotted his copybook somewhere along the line, no matter how dedicated his service to the cause of race replacement.

Mrs. Dare says it’s all to do with Diana, and since I defer to her in all matters royal, that’s really all I can add.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 10, 2010, 01:55 AM | #

The two most outstanding comments of the thread:  Bill 9:34 PM and Professor Fraser 3:38 AM.

Posted by Dan Dare on February 10, 2010, 02:27 AM | #

As a matter of criminal law, intent, not motive, determines guilt. - Drew Fraser

Quite so, but given that motivation has to precede intent, the question still stands.

In other words, what might have propelled Blair & Co. to embark on such a course of action? Fred and others claim that it was simply the lure of filthy lucre, while others suggest that ideological convictions were at the root of it.

What is your view?

Posted by Bill on February 10, 2010, 03:41 AM | #

Dan.

You are beginning to sound like OZKT29B aka Ozy.

Posted by Bill on February 10, 2010, 04:03 AM | #

Labour’s ‘secret plan’ to lure migrants

Something is gaining traction.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/7198329/Labours-secret-plan-to-lure-migrants.html

Posted by Desmond Jones on February 10, 2010, 04:30 AM | #

It’s not the first time this strategy, immigration for votes, was applied.

Later, in the mid-60’s, an assistant to Lester B. Pearson, Tom Kent, allegedly was thought to have advised the Liberal leader on how to break-up the Progressive Conservative’s political grip on “Tory Toronto”. The solution was quite simple. Open up the immigration flood gates to non-traditional immigrants.

It is well known that the [European Catholic] immigrants who came to Canada in the early 20th century after Laurier’s Liberal government adopted a wide-open immigration policy became loyal Liberal supporters, possibly as a show of gratitude for the ones who welcomed them in their new country. More than sixty years later, Pearson’s Liberal government did not seem to have forgotten this lesson when it relaxed its immigration policy: deputy minister of immigration Tom Kent was heard saying increased immigration would help break up “Tory Toronto”. For a generation, these hopes would prove not to be misplaced: a paper on the 2000 federal elections presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Association for Canadian Studies in the United States found that “70 percent of Canadians of non-European origin voted Liberal”. Another paper of the Association for Canadian Studies also noted that “during the 2000 federal election Liberal candidates tend to have exceeded 50% of the vote in those Ontario ridings where the immigrant population exceeded 20% of the riding and in Quebec where the non-francophone electorate exceeded 20%.”

Posted by Bill on February 10, 2010, 05:51 AM | #

A site for the discussion of issues affecting Western societies.

I really don’t get it, the only reason this blog exists is to enquire and discuss the future of European Man, whose very existence is under dire threat due to mass immigration from the Third world.

This discussion has, and still is, confined to a select few in the blogosphere, this is mainly due to the determined and expert efforts of the BBC (Media.)  Very little conversation of consequence reaches the public sphere, thus condemning the mass of population to sublime ignorance.

To me, this has been an unbelievably successful operation by the forces of evil, their programme of eliminating the Euro white race to extinction has progressed without let or hindrance from day one.

As I have said many times before, why our people have allowed it to happen is the mystery of our age.

I have long since been convinced that the upper echelons of our society have failed to grasp what is behind the facade of mass immigration, I can only conclude it is Camp of the Saints paralysis that is at work here.

Public rumblings and stirrings break out spasmodically, to the effect that mass immigration is threatening the cohesion of our nations, but the media administer the soma and the nation returns to comatose.

And yet there are those here who deny that such a programme of unimaginable magnitude is being enacted out before their eyes.  To deny that a deliberate programme of engineering of extinction for Euro man exists is wishful thinking.

Perhaps this latest public outbreak of rumblings of concern (see above) of a Labour conspiracy will tease out to election time - and prove most interesting.

Footnote.  During the compiling of this comment I lost a substantial portion to the ether, this is a hastily cobbled repair job, which has lost much essence.  Apologies.

Posted by Lurker on February 10, 2010, 06:16 AM | #

The EU president issue - the EU has progressed by stealth, by being dull, by utterly boring people to death. Putting a ‘name’ politician like Blair at the head would conflict with this general policy. Hence some total non-entity that fewer than 1 in 100,000 (I’m being generous, maybe its 1 in a million?) can name getting the job is much more in keeping. Without looking him up, Ive no idea who the EU placeman even is. Which makes me wonder why there was a ever a push to make Blair prez. I cynically believe that he was never meant to get the job, that the apparent process was all a sham, something we should always expect from sham NWO institutions like the EU.

Posted by Guessedworker on February 10, 2010, 06:18 AM | #

The Daily Mail today:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1249797/Labour-threw-open-doors-mass-migration-secret-plot-make-multicultural-UK.html

The Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/7198329/Labours-secret-plan-to-lure-migrants.html

The Daily Express:

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/157191

Posted by Dasein on February 10, 2010, 07:30 AM | #

A more emotionally honest inscription on the sign would read: “We love your stuff.”—PF

Or “We love your bitches.”

The other sign (“We Bless This Nation”) says it all.  This is a religious mass for left-racists.  The woman Desmond points out is in a state of religious ecstasy.

Posted by Dasein on February 10, 2010, 07:40 AM | #

  … GOODHART: But they were not trying to engineer a new Britain.

  GREEN: I don’t think you can generalise to that extent. I think it’s at least possible that some people had that intention. I don’t say the entire Labour Party had that intention, but I think it’s at least possible that a significant and active element on the left had that in mind as being a way of undermining, if not destroying, a traditional England to which they’re strongly opposed.

Dan, I wouldn’t consider this to be back-pedalling on the idea of a conspiracy.  If anything, it moves in a more conspiratorial direction (it’s a select group within Labour, not the whole party).  And what he say is, of course, true, as this was never conceived of nor endorsed by your average Labour member.  Saying it is not a Labour conspiracy, per se, is just like saying that not every Jew is working for open borders.  It’s just common sense, even if it does in fact appear more like conspiratorial thinking.

Posted by Dasein on February 10, 2010, 07:57 AM | #

I’m perfectly willing to contemplate the possibility that NuLabor might have had a nefarious plan, one which carried the imprimatur of the party leadership, to use immigration as a tool to secure an electoral advantage. That Labour has been dependent on the ethnic vote since at least the mid-70s is certainly no secret. The importance of the ethnic vote has become even more imortant in recent years as large numbers of its traditional support in the WWC have either drifted off to the BNP or simply stopped voting.

However I see no evidence whatsoever to confirm that a conspiracy was afoot to displace the indigenous population. That may well be the effective outcome of Labour’s stance on immigration but to sustain such a serious charge much more is needed than innuendo, hearsay and tenuous extrapolations of what has happened in other countries, usually with radically different political and social systems to Britain. In my view unintended consequence and cock-up are far better explanations for what has unfolded.—DD

These paragraphs seem to contradict one another.  Do you not think anyone in Labour would recognize this non-scecret and make an an effort to push policy in a direction that would favour its long term interest?  Do you really think they’re that stupid, and that Neather was just making stuff up? 

It might have been a cock-up in the very early days, when the Empire Windrush had just docked, but I don’t see how anyone could hold that position now.

Posted by Dasein on February 10, 2010, 08:14 AM | #

I don’t understand why the BNP didn’t make a bigger deal of the Neather revelations at the time.  And I noticed that on the Telegraph front page this newest story is not even shown now (except in the ‘most read’ section), and, whereas this morning it was top story on the News page, it has now been replaced by the story of some Negro tortured in Guantanamo.  This is more important than the race-replacement of the native British?

Posted by Dasein on February 10, 2010, 08:18 AM | #

Damian Green, Tory immigration spokesman, said: ‘This is a very significant finding because it would mean that Labour’s biggest long term effect on British society was
based on a completely secret policy.

‘This shows Labour’s open-door immigration policy was deliberate and ministers should apologise.’

LOL

Posted by Dasein on February 10, 2010, 09:39 AM | #

Andrew Green says the following (at 20:30):

Now, in the 12 years they’ve been in power, we have an extra 3 million foreign immigrants who have come to Britain.  Now, it’s just not possible for that to happen by accident.

Dan, I don’t see much evidence that he’d backed off what he said when Neathergate came out.

As for the choice of cock-up or conspiracy, I reject it and second what Desmond said.

Posted by Bill on February 10, 2010, 09:45 AM | #

New Labour are not and (with all probability) never have been the author of immigration, not even back in Attlee’s days immediately post WWII.

This stuff emanates from America, Fred seems to know who the authors are.

After WWII a whole host of ideas took off.  The world was split between Soviet Communism and Western capitalism, Britain began the long descent and America assumed the mantle of hegemony.

The resultant cold war strangely produced a balance of stability not seen for generations.  Swords were melted for plough-shares, undreamed of prosperity allowed the boomer generation to indulge in whatever turned them on.

In Europe it was a much slower process, much damage had to be made good, but by the fifties it was proclaimed Britain had never had it so good.

Life was good, governments in Britain came and went, the revolving door of reds and blues alternating, seemed to make little difference, Britain was booming.

During this period, Britain had to rely on cinema newsreels for the occasional glimpse of America’s news.  American culture however was amply catered for in the form of Hollywood movies, of which I readily confess to being addictive.  Jimmy Stuart, Glenn Ford, John Wayne, Burt Lancaster, Alan Ladd and many more were my heroes.

It must have been the early ‘60’s before we here started receiving pioneer video footage of civil rights battles, later it was the hippie culture war, flower power and all that, the the Vietnam war, Cassius Clay shook the world by becoming a Muslim (what the heck was a Muslim) later he went to jail for draft evasion.

I knew nothing of drugs, (or sex) Rock’n Roll (yes) Buddy Holly, Elvis, Little Richard, Fats Domino, and the rest.

The only reason I am key-stroking these things is because at the time, as a young man, none of it had any sinister connotations, it was just life flowing as it should.  It wasn’t until 50 years later, on something called the Internet, did I learn the significance of it all and how it had shaped and affected all our lives.

Was the European Union intended to become what it is?  Was the exporting of American culture, warts and all, liberalism, pornography, promotion of homosexuality, feminism, intentional?

The BBC (media) picked up the batten with relish, our culture has become completely transformed.

New Labour, in tandem with the media, have made my Britain unrecognisable.

The Britain of the end of the WWII has been deliberately destroyed, incrementally by some hidden hand over years.

To sum up, Britain has finally become what it is today by absorbing the relentless onslaught of American postmodern liberal values, (through modern technology) of which Blair and new Labour fully took on board during the Clinton Years.

The very idea that Blair or Brown, could have authored mass immigration to overthrow the status quo is risible in the extreme, they couldn’t run a raffle.

No, the architects of what we are witnessing today come from America via the UN and the EU.

Blair and new Labour are nothing and never have been anything but useful idiots, rubber stamping and facilitating orders that arrive on their desks from these sources.

There is not even any pretense anymore.

What happens here in Britain is being replicated in every Western white nation.

To those who say rhetoric like this is hysterical hyperbole, I can only offer the path which I have laboured this last few years, start Googling, hundreds of hours of it.

Suggested beginning. Blair, new Labour, Clinton, Fabianism. (Fabian Society)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 10, 2010, 10:36 AM | #

Bill’s thoughtful comment of 1:45 PM just above is true and excellent as his always are (Bill is one of the wisest commenters posting in the blogosphere today), but I find it incomplete in this sense:  Bill, what descended upon the United States in the Sixties was as alien to Americans of that era as its version that spread thence to your shores like the Black Death was to post-WW-II Brits.  It came to us from elsewhere too.  It was not indigenous to American people.  But where did it come from?  Well, in my view it started in earnest exactly a hundred years earlier in the 1860s Russian Empire (there had been brief glimmers of it further west, in 1830 and 1848), a manifestation of the five or so million Jews living there who’d begun coming out of the Pale of Settlement — where they’d been kept bottled up for so long precisely because of the sort of destructive mischief that tribe tended to cause when allowed freedom of circulation.  For over forty years it hammered away at the Russian society and state, making its best efforts to overthrow both, culminating in the attempted revolution of 1905 then the successful one in 1917.  At the same time as it was coming out of places like Lithuania, Latvia, Byelorussia, and the Ukraine and descending on unfortunate Moscow it was spreading elsewhere far and wide including the German and Austrian Empires and the U.S.  In the U.S. it incubated eighty years starting in the 1880s then exploded in a successful revolt known as the Sixties which was a seizure of hegemony.  “Modernity” is not modernity, there’s nothing modern about “modernity,” it is none other than this thing, whatever you want to call it.

Posted by Q on February 10, 2010, 11:02 AM | #

It’s just silly to think Jews have behind the scenes influence over British politicians. Here’s more proof we are doing it to ourselves:-

* Sabbath Goy- Originally, a non-Jew who does work on Sabbath that a Jew cannot do. In modern times, it is a non-Jew who toadies to the every wish and whim of the Jews, especially in politics, or a non-Jew who is heavily supportive of Israel.

Britain, You Better Wake Up by Gilad Atzmon

Monday, February 8, 2010 at 9:07AM Gilad Atzmon

The more I read about the Chilcot inquiry the more disturbed I am. The fallacy imbued in the heart of British ‘democracy’ is staggering. While some commentators are concerned with questions to do with the legality of the war, the most crucial issue here is actually the disappearance of ethical judgment from our public and political life. Rather than being concerned with morality and ethics British politicians are concerned with legalism. In other words, if someone would manage to prove that the war was ‘legal’ then the murdering of a million and a half Iraqis would be well justified. Let’s all face it, our politicians are corrupted to the bone.

In fact the Chilcot inquiry is in itself a pretty disturbing concept. As George Monbiot pointed out a few days ago in the Guardian CIF, in the world of British ‘official inquiries’, it is the government that appoints its members and sets its terms of reference. “It’s the equivalent of a criminal suspect being allowed to choose what the charges should be, who should judge his case and who should sit on the jury”. As if this is not enough, none of the Inquiry members is an attorney. None of its member are qualified in the art of questioning. Consequently, the inquiry doesn’t have any legal ability, capacity or teeth. It is a farce. It is there to release some public steam. It is there to convey a false image of openness. I believe that the most pathetic statement was pronounced last week by Tony Blair, “People didn’t think that al-Qaeda and Iran would play the role that they did”, announced the unchallenged genocidal man in front of inquiry. Basically we are now blaming the so-called ‘enemy’ for not performing according to ‘our plans’. I guess that even an illiterate burglar would refrain from using such an argument in the court. Blair obviously got away with it.

But there is one positive side to it all, as sad as this Chilcot Inquiry seems to be, its team members are also revelatory. The panel is there to suggest who the government is inclined to appoint when it needs a whitewash.

On 22 November 2009, as the Chilcot inquiry was preparing to convene, former British ambassador, Sir Oliver Miles, expressed concerns over the fact that two out of the five members of the inquiry’s committee (40%), Martin Gilbert and Lawrence Freedman, were “strong supporters of Tony Blair and/or the Iraq war”. He also mentioned that both Gilbert and Freedman were Jewish, and that Gilbert is a devout Zionist”. ?Richard Ingrams wondered a week later in The Independent whether the Zionist links to the Iraq invasion would be brushed aside.”

[...]

But Sir Gilbert is just one symptom of a far deeper and concerning phenomenon. In recent years, Israel and its lobbies have managed to gain extensive control over British political life. Just a few months back UK Channel 4’s Dispatches revealed that a “Pro-Israel lobby group is bankrolling the Tories. 50% of MPs in the shadow cabinet are Conservative Friends of Israel members”. One may wonder whether we still need an election in this country. At the end of the day, the vast majority of British political elite is practically bought by the Israeli lobby.

As we all know, for Zionist power to prevail a Sabbath Goy* is needed. A Goy that would support the Neocon wars,  a Goy that would Vote “very strongly for the Iraq war”, a goy that would vote “very strongly against an investigation into the Iraq war”,  a Goy that would fight anti Semitism, a Goy that would be corrupted enough to spin for the Zionist cause. Naturally such a person would be a shady character. He would also fail to resign once exposed.”

[...]

Full article:

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/britain-you-better-wake-up-by-gilad-atzmon.html

Posted by Dasein on February 10, 2010, 11:10 AM | #

At this moment, the top 3 stories on the Telegraph front page are:

Release documents on CIA torture of Briton [Negro muslim], say judges

Hindu wins the right to open air funeral pyre

Jealous woman killed lover with poisoned curry

And Labour’s race-replacement program is not mentioned (except in the most read section).

Conservatism is bankrupt (does that even need saying?)

Posted by Guessedworker on February 10, 2010, 11:26 AM | #

Blair supported Bush in invading Iraq for his own personal messianic reasons, imo.  However, the British Establishment behind him, chiefly the Foreign Office, considered it absolutely and completely necessary that, in an age otherwise of decline, Britain remain a player in the geopolitics of oil - and that was why Blair’s messianism was not nipped in the bud.

It is a childish mind that refuses to accept complexity in matters of international politics.  There is never a single cause, Jewish or otherwise.

Posted by Selous Scout on February 10, 2010, 11:33 AM | #

Years ago when I first started rerading MR, I believed (as I still do) that “worse is better” and that economic collapse, social conflict, and increasing instability would be the best things to happen to Britain and the US. Well, the way things are going, it looks as if it’s finally happening. I’m living the dream. In the coming months we’re going to see and experience events that we could only imagine just a few years ago.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 10, 2010, 12:04 PM | #

“There is never a single cause, Jewish or otherwise.”  (—GW)

Is there ever a predominant cause, Jewish or otherwise?

Lacking that, are the Jews ever merely a significant cause?  One of many, perhaps?  Moscow, October 1917, for example?  Or 1848, according to Benjamin Disraeli himself, another example?  Or the Sixties in the U.S. according to innumerable sources, for a third example?  The list goes on.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 10, 2010, 12:19 PM | #

“If they’re merely a significant cause, one of many, why are you always dwelling on them to the exclusion of all the others, Scrooby, you dull, tiresome bore?”

Because I see them as a predominant cause and if I’m right there’s no solving the problem without taking that into account.  I’m far from alone — many say the same and many agree privately without saying it.

Posted by Bill on February 10, 2010, 12:23 PM | #

Fred. February 10, 2010, 02:36 PM

Thanks for adding that vital element of history, without which, a perspective cannot be gained en route to where we are.

Trouble is for me, I do not possess the resolve or staying power to put it all together.

This a vast subject we’re dealing with, justice cannot be done in short burst posts, hence one has to develop a sort of shorthand.

With regard to Goodhart’s piece in Prospect magazine, he make no mention of the Frankfurt school, or Gramsci’s idea of the long march, nothing, nada, zilcheroo.

One has to believe that Goodhart is familiar with Gramsci and his ideas which have so successfully transformed Western civilisation, which only leads me to calling him out as being a complete fraud.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 10, 2010, 12:31 PM | #

Where dealing with this overall issue is concerned, if you have nothing to say about the Jews you have nothing to say — you’re a background hoverer, a peripheral participant.  That goes for Ian Jobling, CvH, Jared Taylor, James Kalb (whom I love), Guillaume Faye, Paul Gottfried, Lawrence Auster, and the list goes on.

Can you talk about the Russian Revolution without talking about the Jews?  No.  This is no different.  It’s part of an ongoing Jewish rebellion that began in earnest over a hundred-and-fifty years ago.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 10, 2010, 01:42 PM | #

Look at moneybags Hollick (Jewish) and the extreme-radical-leftist pair he’s lining up to be recipients of funding from his network of wealthy Jewish businessmen as these two are generously groomed by the Jews (the way Obama and Slick were) for future prime ministership:

”He is a supporter of the 2020 Vision political campaign run by Charles Clarke and Alan Milburn, and currently co-ordinating funds for the campaign.”

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Hollick#Current_activities_and_other_interests ]

Anyone think that before promising them so much as a penny the Jews haven’t thoroughly vetted these two guys as to their pliability/”willingness to see the light”/or (what is least likely) “genuine commitment” on 1) Israel, and 2) open borders race-replacement?  Are you kidding?  You’ve got to be dreaming.

So, does Jewish money and Jewish activism skew the whole damn system in a Jewish direction?  You be the judge.

Posted by Q on February 10, 2010, 01:54 PM | #

Let’s split those who support massive immigration into two camps.

1.) Those who benefit economically.

2.) Those who can’t stand the thought of a homogeneous, all-white, Britain.

In the case of the first group, It makes perfect sense from a money making standpoint.  Bring in a bunch of third world misfits and you get cheap labor. Also it triggers white flight, thereby creating a market for new housing, consumer goods, the need for new structures and infrastructure such as roads, utilities, bridges, hospitals, schools, etc. Of course the bankers and brokerage houses make a fortune lending the money and selling bonds to fund such projects. In the short term, it makes, or keeps, a few people rich. But the longer term effects result in economic collapse and the eventual genocide of the native Brits. But greed blinds these evil people, they refuse to see that inconvenient truth.

In the case of the second group (Those who can’t stand the thought of a homogeneous, all-white, Britain.), they can be divided into at least two subgroups:

a) Jewish supremacists and their tribal war against Euro-Christians.

b) Self-hating white-guilt-ridden multicultist-kool-aid-drinking-anti-racist brainwashed lemmings. They feel absolved; they feel good about themselves if they support open border policies. They think it’s a good thing to let non-whites overrun their own country.

But in order to understand how subgroup “b” got in their pathetic condition, you have to closely examine the powerful influence that subgroup “a” has on them.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 10, 2010, 02:17 PM | #

Damn good analysis by Q there.

Posted by NEATHERGATE. on February 10, 2010, 03:17 PM | #

Further Revelations from the NEATHERGATE Affair.

Sir Andrew Green managed to get a senior Labour Party policy briefng paper released under the Freedom of Information Act (as DD would say NuLabour was ‘hoist on its own petard’).Only trouble was that key paragraphs on the ‘social’ mpact of immigration were excised from the document - thus invalidating the whole ‘freedom of information’ ideal.
- The whole business stinks of the Nixon administration (ie deleting great chunks of tape evidence) at its worst.Hopefully the case will run and run, but Britain’s bullshit and celeb based media won’t be interested.
Anyhow one juicy passage condemned immigration ‘control’ (or such vestige of it that actually existed to con the mugs) as being, wait for it, “socially divisive” - now f*ckfaces isn’t that the whole point, the whole name of the game by definition? Another passage revelled in the fact that the outward policy of “reducing immigration to the uttmost minimum” (ie the consensus policy supposdly followed by all British administrations since 1971, but in reality only a conning of the mugs), would be overurned by the new, trendy WSJ approved ‘liberal’ policy (ie destroying workers’ wages a ine achievement for the party of Keir Hardie).

Posted by Dan Dare on February 10, 2010, 03:33 PM | #

Bill remarked earlier that I am beginning to sound like our recent new friend OZK+, and I can see why that might be the case. He, like I, has questioned something that has become an article of faith here.

That race replacement is the consequence of shadowy forces pursuing an ideological conviction aided and abetted by a willing managerial elite who implement an intentional and orchestrated long-term plan, rather than the unintended outcome of a ramshackle system that has gone haywire, has attained quasi-religious status here. I view it in the same way as I do similarly unsubstantiated declamatory pronouncements from the other side, which are often accompanied by slogans such as “Diversity is our Strength”,  “Race is merely a social construct’, and “Migration is good for you”.

We have little trouble placing such mantra under critical scrutiny and, when found wanting as they always are, rightly denouncing those who mindlessly parrot them.

I think we should be just as analytical about our own beliefs and be prepared to accommodate them to the actual evidence as it exists. Otherwise we run the risk of falling into the same trap as adversaries so often do: that of seeking facile answers to complex questions.

Each position that we choose to take has to be absolutely bullet-proof otherwise it will succumb to the withering fire that it will be inevitably exposed to. In the final analysis, it is not other believers like ourselves who need to convinced of the truth of our argumentation, nor our implacable enemies, who for reasons of ethnicity or membership of some other ‘oppressed’ group will never be able to accept any case for Majority Rights. It is the waverers, fellow Europeans like OZK+, who need to be convinced that our case is both rational and just.

I don’t believe that present claims about race-replacement conspiracies, based upon the flimsiest of circumstantial evidence, assist in that respect at all, in much the same way that strident noises about the JQ in general tend to alienate rather than attract the type of person we need to rally around the cause.

Posted by torgrim on February 10, 2010, 04:10 PM | #

Q, posted on Feb. 10 @5:54 pm

Well written, to the point, easy to understand, and most importantly, the main reasons we find ourselves in these dire straits.

Posted by Dan Dare on February 10, 2010, 04:15 PM | #

@Dasein:

You’re probably correct, I was perhaps a little unfair to Andrew Green in my earlier remarks, although in mitigation I did hold open the possibility that he had been selectively quoted by the BBC. As today’s press reports confirm, his comments today are very similar to those when Neathergate first broke last October. He does come down firmly on the side of a Labour conspiracy.

But a conspiracy to do what?

If he is being quoted correctly, this self-penned piece in the Telegraph indicates that Andrew Green believes, as I do, that Labour’s motivation in promoting mass immigration was political, not ideological. He talks about the electoral advantage that would accrue to Labour in what have become increasingly closely fought elections. Race replacement is not mentioned. Is Andrew Green simply being polite, as he accuses the rest of the public of being? I don’t think so.

Sir Andrew Green: the public are too polite on immigration

... So why take such a big risk with their traditional supporters? Could there have been a political prize to justify it? Here, I suspect, is the key.

According to research conducted for the Electoral Commission in 2005, the ethnic communities vote heavily in favour of Labour. Labour gets about 80 per cent support from the African and Caribbean vote, compared with 2-3 per cent for the Conservatives. For Asian voters, it is about 50 per cent to 10 per cent.

Since 1997, new Commonwealth immigration has reached nearly one million, almost all of it in England. Even if only half were to vote, this would mean roughly an extra 325,000 votes for Labour.

At the 2005 election, the two main parties were neck and neck. The new Commonwealth voters would, to some extent, go to Labour-held constituencies but even so, extra votes on this scale are not to be sniffed at – especially if you can get away with it.

Posted by Dasein on February 10, 2010, 04:33 PM | #

Bill remarked earlier that I am beginning to sound like our recent new friend OZK+, and I can see why that might be the case. He, like I, has questioned something that has become an article of faith here.

Dan, Ozy thinks it an article of faith that ethnicity could be a basis for political action and philosophy because he doesn’t believe that race exists.  You want to compare yourself to Ozy?  So that means that you don’t believe that race-replacement is happening, or that it’s not the direct result of government action (and non-action)?  That’s sort of what you’re starting to say, so I can understand the criticism.  I find it hard to believe you really think this, though, and I rather suspect you’re just pushing for more evidence to back up claims, which is fine.

That race replacement is the consequence of shadowy forces pursuing an ideological conviction aided and abetted by a willing managerial elite who implement an intentional and orchestrated long-term plan, rather than the unintended outcome of a ramshackle system that has gone haywire, has attained quasi-religious status here.

Do you honestly believe that it’s an unintended outcome?  If you know that your policies will result in race replacement, how can it be unintended?  If someone pushes for open borders, meaning immigrants will displace natives (they have to live somewhere), is this unintended?  Is everyone this hopeless at maths?  Self-interest, capital and Jewry (especially in America) are forces driving race-replacement.  How much you want to weight those variables is a matter of debate.  To say it’s the unintended outcome of a ramshackle system is absurd.

It is the waverers, fellow Europeans like OZK+

Ozy is hopeless.  Please quote one thing from Ozy that leads you to believe that he is a waverer rather than a true believer.  I suspect the only thing that would bring Ozy around would be a thorough hazing from CC, but he’s unlikely to want to hang around long in that event.  I think hardcore leftists need to be written off.  They can motivate good writing (GW’s work was top-notch), but winning them over is not something that’s going to happen via polite debate.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 10, 2010, 04:51 PM | #

Dan’s strong comment 7:33 PM was clearly aimed in part at me, saying my comments repel the kind of person MR wants to attract, and I should shut up, basically.  My mind works in the ways reflected in my commentary and I can’t change that — those happen to be the ways my mind apprehends the reality around me, ways that are different from Dan’s ways, obviously.  Therefore, as the last thing I want is to harm The Cause, I’ll have to shut up.  Anyway I’ve been commenting here almost 5½ years and that’s long enough.  Time to shut up indeed.  Good luck on getting to the bottom of things, Dan.  I will say that I suspect you know zip, absolutely zero, about Jews, and also I think you’re a plodder who has difficulty seeing the big picture, the broad outlines, and must await examination of every single little detail before being mentally capable of taking the next step along the way, because you cannot make out the larger patterns that emerge from details only half filled-in, allowing the mental filling-in of the remaining gaps by a kind of extrapolation, getting that pattern sorted out and going on to the next one.  You can’t do that.  Yours is a slow way of going about it, and I hope you get there — and I hope we’re fighting, you and I, for the same thing, namely the race first, then the ethnoculture as well of course but in any case the race, the sine qua non:  no nation of Nigerians is going to reproduce England, none of Chinamen Germany, or of Subcons France.  Anyone who does not understand that, who doubts it, has no business in this game.

Posted by Dasein on February 10, 2010, 04:55 PM | #

But a conspiracy to do what?

If he is being quoted correctly, this self-penned piece in the Telegraph indicates that Andrew Green believes, as I do, that Labour’s motivation in promoting mass immigration was political, not ideological. He talks about the electoral advantage that would accrue to Labour in what have become increasingly closely fought elections. Race replacement is not mentioned. Is Andrew Green simply being polite, as he accuses the rest of the public of being? I don’t think so.—DD

If you’re arguing that Labour didn’t push race-replacement just to get rid of Whites as a matter of principle, then I think that’s largely true (though I’m sure there are Jews in the party who are anti-White, as are 3rd Worlders, who are also happy to bring in more of their co-ethnics).  But whether their motivation was getting a new electorate or getting rid of native British, the effect is the same. 

Now, if you’re going to defend the ‘fit of absent mindedness’ position, why is it taboo to speak publicly about race-replacement?  You need to account for the same phenomena that we conspiracy theorists do.  My contention is that it’s because of the Big 3 mentioned above.  How do you account for it?

Posted by Dan Dare on February 10, 2010, 05:57 PM | #

If you’re arguing that Labour didn’t push race-replacement just to get rid of Whites as a matter of principle, then I think that’s largely true (though I’m sure there are Jews in the party who are anti-White, as are 3rd Worlders, who are also happy to bring in more of their co-ethnics).  But whether their motivation was getting a new electorate or getting rid of native British, the effect is the same. - Dasein

Of course the effect is the same, there is no dispute about that. What I am questioning is the notion that the race-replacement process serves an ideological purpose, a belief which seems to have become something of a cause célèbre hereabouts.

Now, if you’re going to defend the ‘fit of absent mindedness’ position, why is it taboo to speak publicly about race-replacement?  You need to account for the same phenomena that we conspiracy theorists do.  My contention is that it’s because of the Big 3 mentioned above.  How do you account for it?

I’m not sure that there is such a taboo, but am merely suggesting that, if we are to float the proposition that race-replacement is not just a real phenomenon but is happening by express design then, if we have an expectation of being taken seriously by an uncommitted audience, we bloody well need to doubly sure that we have all our ducks in a row. If our horizons are limited to preaching to the choir then all well and good.

I’m uncertain what Big 3 refers to so am unable to respond to that. As to accounting for the existence of the race replacement process, I thought I’d made my thoughts already clear on that. But to recap in brief, I would put it down to political short-termism, the creating of messes for narrow reasons of personal and political gain, with the clear understanding that you won’t be around at the time when someone else has to clean it up.

As for Ozy, I wouldn’t agree that he is a hopeless case. He is clearly a high IQ individual but is simply ignorant and untutored. As a fellow European he is certainly worth the effort in attempting a conversion. Believe it or not I was also a ‘rabid’ socialist in my younger days and voted Labour in every election until the age of thirty. At one point I was even on the verge of joining the CPGB. So, if I can be awakened, anyone can.

Posted by Dan Dare on February 10, 2010, 06:10 PM | #

Fred - my remarks weren’t directed towards you personally, rather a general comment on the wisdom of taking such an overtly antagonistic stance on the JQ. I’ll return with further clarification later.

Posted by danielj on February 10, 2010, 08:05 PM | #

If you’re arguing that Labour didn’t push race-replacement just to get rid of Whites as a matter of principle, then I think that’s largely true (though I’m sure there are Jews in the party who are anti-White, as are 3rd Worlders, who are also happy to bring in more of their co-ethnics).  But whether their motivation was getting a new electorate or getting rid of native British, the effect is the same.

The Jews and the other ethnics don’t ask themselves “What is bad for white people?” They do ask themselves what is good for them. This makes them more properly labeled as “pro-Jewish” or “pro-Pakistani” rather than “anti-white.” However, if being pro-Jewish creates a pattern of behavior in individuals acting toward furthering the Jewish cause that is indistinguishable from or typical of somebody who is consciously acting to subvert the advancement and good of the white race than pro-Jewish is anti-white in these instances. When this particular condition obtains in an individual, the Jewish activist has demonstrated his criminal intent and evidenced his mens rea thereby.

Pro-Jewish is anti-white in the same way that anti-racist is code for anti-white.

The system, well oiled machine that it is, operates at maximum speed with the well-heeled well-intentioned blokes of Parliament at the wheel driving civilization merrily down to Hell extending British values down the racial, cultural and economic hierarchy the entire way and expanding - the way hot metal tends to - the British people! Perhaps - and some may express concern - there will be some genotypic contraction of the “British” but imagine the gloriously expanding market for the BBC! So, in some sense now, being pro-British is being anti-British.

Good luck.

Posted by Guessedworker on February 10, 2010, 08:15 PM | #

Dan,

The full spectrum of motives are held.  That’s obvious.  But our point, which is simple enough surely, is that the wave of destruction is too vast, too simple to predict, too unnatural, too unwanted for it to be a political accident or wholly a business and jobs issue.

In fact, there are only two forces in this world with the muscle, the historical command, and the right kind of motive (albeit different) to initiate a process of white genocide in the West.  The second of those is the global elite class for whom the bond between European blood and European soil is the only barrier to the world state.

These people control discourse at the highest reaches of international politics.  They shape the dynamic which shapes the decisions of politicians.  The don’t give direct orders.  The politicians, meanwhile will have their own reasons to concur ... Jewish ethnic interest; the liberal-left’s point-blank, implacable loathing of white racial solidarity; economism and the thrall of GDP (growth-as-progress), and so on.  But mostly they are superficial, ambitious and conformist machine-politicians.  Obviously, it’s no use looking to them for confirmation of a heavy theory of conspiracy.  But that does not mean that the vital elements of conspiracy - cabalism, secrecy, decision - are not present in the process elsewhere.

I sense that you don’t really like the phrase “race-replacement”.  I don’t think we should mess around.  It may be shocking but it is true.  Let people know it.

Posted by Lurker on February 10, 2010, 10:24 PM | #

Point well made by Q. Ive been banging on a similar vein but never managed to put it so clearly.

The supreme political triumph of Q’s group 1 is how they have harnessed group 2 to their ends. Group 1 barely even have to defend their own policies, they have group 2 to do all their fighting for them. Even though by most other measures group 2 hate group 1 and sincerely believe themselves to be in conflict with 1.

We see groups 1 & 2 at work in the climate ‘change’ arena as well. Group 1 invents a non-existent threat and group 2 fight and strive to divert policy towards group 1’s ends, while all the while believeing they ar sticking it to The Man (group 1).

Posted by Armor on February 10, 2010, 11:05 PM | #

I feel a little like Dan Dare, not about the Jewish explanation, but about Q’s reason #1 for immigration. It seems no one will take you seriously unless you say that immigration is due to capitalist greed, but I don’t buy that explanation. I think only a very small minority financially benefit from immigration. Besides, plutocrats who financially benefit from immigration know they are destroying the future of their children by supporting immigration. Meanwhile, investors who lose money due to mass immigration do nothing to change things. In the USA, until one year ago, banks readily accepted to grant house loans to subprime clients, knowing they would lose money. I think investors and businesses are ready to lose huge amounts of money under government pressure. Firms will hire illegals if every one else is doing it, but I refuse to believe they exert much pressure on governments to open the borders. On the contrary, I think governments, the media, and other institutions exert pressure on businesses to hire non-whites.

What’s left is the Jewish explanation. Dan Dare refuses that explanation but doesn’t give another one. I can think of several reasons to be impatient with the Jewish explanation :
* it is too simple, it doesn’t sound cool and it makes us look like half-wits
* it doesn’t feel intellectually satisfying / logically convincing
* it’s wrong the blame the Jews, as it may hurt their feelings and create anti-Jewish resentment

My personal opinion is that anti-white Jewish activism is immoral whether or not it plays a crucial role in our predicament. We should not have qualms about denouncing it. It must be stopped. Nothing can justify the overrepresentation of Jewish race-replacement activists in Western central institutions.

Even if we accept that the main problem is Jewish, it doesn’t mean we cannot have really cool, intellectual discussions about why the white man has lost its nerve and will.

We know that most white people want immigration to be stopped and reversed. It means that the race-replacement policy is imposed by a small ideological minority. Even if we think Jews play only a minor part in it, it still looks somewhat like a conspiration. What should be rejected: the idea of a conspiration, or the idea of Jewish involvement in it? I think it makes more sense if Jews are involved, as I can think of no reason why white people would try to destroy their own race, but I know for a fact that many Jews are racially hostile to Whites.

The race-replacement policy has been made possible by a number of developments: better transportation, political centralization, bureaucratization, the replacement of traditional mutual help by the state-run welfare system, and so on. But none of this is a driving force that can explain why the government would decide to replace its own people, and why there would be so much intimidation against dissidents.

I think most non-Jews who defend race-replacement do not want it at all. Most politicians are afraid to speak against it. The leftists who defend race-replacement do not really want it to happen. They just want to call us nazis. They like to destroy things, but they wish white society would regenerate during the night so they can go on destroying it for ever. I agree with John Ray on that point: Leftists don’t have opinions. All they have is postures that can be changed as easily as one changes one’s shirt. I don’t think they can be a driving force in the current disaster. They are only followers. But the Jews are clearly not followers. We know they are deeply involved in immigration activism. I know if I say too much about them, I will have to pay a big fine. It is so dangerous to speak about them that most people would rather shut up. That’s why I didn’t realize the Jews played a crucial role until about two years ago thanks to the internet. It can be argued whether the Jews play an extremely crucial role or only a moderately crucial role, but it is hard to deny their crucial role as a driving force for race-replacement.

The best example is the one given by K.MacDonald. I think he says that the only activists who had been trying to change the immigration laws during the 20th century (I don’t remember the details) were Jewish. I think since the immigration law was changed in 1965, about 100 millions non-whites have been added to the USA. How can a minority have so much influence? It’s the same as asking how a tiny needle-prick can have such a big effect on a rubber balloon.

Posted by Dan Dare on February 10, 2010, 11:15 PM | #

You’re right GW, I don’t care much for the term. I’m agnostic about it here, amongst the cognoscenti, but elsewhere I tend to wince when I see it. It seems to smack of, well, fanaticism. It’s the kind of floridly overwrought expression you’d expect to hear from a Goebbels in full flight. Or worse, from a Stormfront costume Nazi on his training wheels. But that’s by the by. The rest of your post holds more real interest and merits a fuller response.

First I’d like to note that if I have given the impression that I believe that the immigration debacle has been the result of a political accident, then that was entirely unintentional. In fact I concur with Andrew Green that the addition of several million migrants can be anything but accidental. Perhaps I should have added a question mark to the title. 

But then we circle back around again to the nub of the matter. If it was unaccidental, then what was it for and why did it happen? Several different rationales have been aired, of which the following seem to be the most prevalent:

-  The economic argument that Britain’s economy was growing extremely fast and imported labour was necessary to maintain growth and control inflation.
-  In today’s globalised economy large-scale flows of labour migrants are both inevitable and irresistible
-  Human rights legislation has made it more difficult to get rid of illegal entrants
-  Labour sought to gain a political advantage by increasing the size of the ethnic electorate
-  Labour sought to make Britain yet more multiracial and multicultural, an act of ‘social engineering’ widely considered by the liberal elite to be a desirable end in itself

The first three together form the official Labour narrative, while the fourth has been denied yet still loudly denounced by the ‘Tory Press’ if not, somewhat curiously, by the other mainstream parties, nor by the fringe parties such as the BNP and UKIP.

The last is the one which has engaged most commentators here and it has been claimed that an amorphous coalition, if not an actual formal conspiracy, has set about dismantling Britain’s immigration controls* to facilitate not just the admittance of many millions of third-world migrants but also the demise of the indigenous population. Your post above, GW, sets out a possible framework within which this coalition/conspiracy could have operated and which, on the face of it, appears quite plausible.

But that’s really all it is; a possible framework. To move from that state to one in which there can simply be no doubt about who is responsible and why they have set this process in motion, we need to populate the framework with names, dates and places. Failing that, the argument has to rest necessarily upon innuendo, supposition and yes, an element of uncorroborated belief based on what only be described as articles of faith.

Would you feel comfortable walking into into your local pub and striking up a conversation with a group of mild acquaintances about the relevance of these revelations armed only with your framework as presented here? Of course, it could be fleshed out with references to the Bilderbergers, the Boys from Bohemian Grove, International Jewry, the UNO, the EU and all the other bogey-men but it would not be long before the funny looks start and the conversation drifts back to the footie. I certainly wouldn’t.

And so we come, inevitably, to the JQ. I think that what I find most troubling about dwelling on what I believe to be chimera is that it deflects our attention away from the root causes of our affliction. Yes Jews will always be Jews and will, if presented with the opportunity, attempt to do what Jews do best, but was it ever not so? But they are only able to breach our defences because we allow it. A healthy host will soon rid itself of the attention of unwelcome parasites. That shysters like Lord ‘Cashpoint’ Levy are able to operate at the highest political levels in all the mainstream parties is indeed a systemic weakness but one which is easily corrected through electoral reform. That is what we should be highlighting for the great unwashed, not retailing yarns about conspiracies that may or may not actually exist. At least not, that is, until we are able to describe them in rather more detail than we are able to do today.

We also need to ask ourselves what, if anything, was remarkable about the Labour leadership, Blair especially, that made them so vulnerable to the blandishments of the erstwhile manipulators? The answer is, of course, nothing. Blair is a completely unremarkable end-product of the system of social conditioning which has been in place since the mid-60s. He’s not evil, he just doesn’t know any different.  That’s the enemy. That’s the Gorgon that has to be slayed to reverse the Long March and return us to the path of sanity. Everything else is simply fog and shadows.

*In truth there wasn’t much dismantling necessary. Every one of the channels through the extra migrants streamed already existed long before NuLabor came to power. All that was necessary was to order somebody to fully open the stopcocks, it wan’t even necessary to consult Parliament.

Posted by Tanstaafl on February 10, 2010, 11:38 PM | #

Drew Fraser writes:

They have persisted in their destructive course of conduct well past the point where they can credibly claim to be innocently unaware of the catastrophic biocultural consequences of unrestricted Third World immigration into the Anglo-Saxon countries.

Dan Dare writes:

That race replacement is the consequence of shadowy forces pursuing an ideological conviction aided and abetted by a willing managerial elite who implement an intentional and orchestrated long-term plan, rather than the unintended outcome of a ramshackle system that has gone haywire, has attained quasi-religious status here.

I think we should be just as analytical about our own beliefs and be prepared to accommodate them to the actual evidence as it exists. Otherwise we run the risk of falling into the same trap as adversaries so often do: that of seeking facile answers to complex questions.

Our adversaries are more in the habit of deliberately complexifying what are otherwise simple questions. Has immigration resulted in catastrophic biocultural consequences or not?

If those consequences - the violence, the crime, the transfer of wealth, the depression of birth rate, the displacement, dispossession, and destruction of indigenous people - were inflicted on any Third World people no politician or “human rights activist” in the West would hesitate to label it genocide and call loudly for it to stop. The precedent and standards have already been set. People in a position of power and responsibiliy who fail to act against genocide are complicit in that genocide.

A ramshackle system that produces genocide, whether by cock-up or conspiracy, is still genocide.

Posted by Dan Dare on February 10, 2010, 11:42 PM | #

Armor - I have acknowledged elsewhere the critical role that Jewish activists played in the creation of the 1965 Immigration Act in the USA. KMD has documented that beyond any possible doubt.

The same is not true in the UK, however, nor in the rest of Europe. Their immigration disasters are almost entirely self-inflicted. That is also well documented by Joppke et al.

In the specific case of the UK we need to carefully distinguish between the development of immigration legislation and race relations legislation. Jews played a leading role in the latter but not the former.

Posted by PW on February 11, 2010, 01:16 AM | #

The Canadian city where the Winter Olympics are about to be held, Vancouver, became over 1/2 non-White a few years ago:
- http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=418641
- http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=417736

We have to do something soon or White-Western cities will continue to fall like dominoes to the non-White hordes.

“The visible minority [non-White] population grew by 89% here between 2001 and 2006, and that is on top of the 63% growth in the previous census period—an incredibly rapid pace of demographic change.

“Basically we’ve been pushed out by the minorities,” Rob Moodie said…”

Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=418641#ixzz0fCXh7xxl

Posted by Dan Dare on February 11, 2010, 02:03 AM | #

A ramshackle system that produces genocide, whether by cock-up or conspiracy, is still genocide. - Tanstaafl

Perhaps so, but does that lead you to conclude that the necessary corrective action is the same in either case?

In other words, should we proceed differently in the event it is a consequence of (a) a cock-up or (b) a conspiracy? If the answer is affirmative, would that not indicate the importance of being able to distinguish between the two?

Posted by Tanstaafl on February 11, 2010, 03:24 AM | #

In other words, should we proceed differently in the event it is a consequence of (a) a cock-up or (b) a conspiracy? If the answer is affirmative, would that not indicate the importance of being able to distinguish between the two?

We should proceed by making the case that this is genocide. We cannot expect the full details of who did what and why to come to light until after that understanding has spread and investigations and prosecutions can run their course.

My opinion is that there has been conspiracy, because otherwise the endeavor would never have gotten as far as it has. The conspirators will make themselves plain by trying to criminalize opposition to this genocide or even to immigration, probably on the absurd basis that such opposition constitutes “incitement to race hate”.

Posted by Bill on February 11, 2010, 03:57 AM | #

Another slant.

This whole ‘It’s a Cock Up’ business is news to me.  Until Dan’s comment here, I had never heard of it.

Is it mainstream conversation among the chattering class?

Who is saying it’s a Cock Up?  Sounds to me it’s a liberal thing, a sort of code for ‘Oh my God what have we done?’ moment.

The idea that race replacement is the intended consequences of a forced mass immigration policy is, even for a liberal, a tolerance too far.

Here’s something from Laurance Auster’s VFR 09-02-2010.

The real (but almost never spoken) conservative message about liberalism.

In reality, the Zinn-type cartoonish reduction of the world to guilty oppressors and virtuous victims is the dominant idea of modern liberal society. It’s what forms our educational curricula, our entertainment (with the biggest grossing movie of all time, Avatar, expressing that precise theme). It’s what drives feminism and the diminishment of men. It’s what drives Global Warmism. It’s what drives the surrender of the white West to Third World immigration and Islam.

http://amnation.com/vfr/

Posted by Dasein on February 11, 2010, 08:27 AM | #

In the specific case of the UK we need to carefully distinguish between the development of immigration legislation and race relations legislation. Jews played a leading role in the latter but not the former.—DD

So, they play a leading role in ensuring that race-replacement cannot be opposed or undone by legal means.  If you just formulated this in stronger language, it wouldn’t be much different from what Fred says.

BTW, for your discrimination series it would be very nice if you created a timeline that listed the major events and players (and yes, please identify the Jewish names!).

Posted by Dasein on February 11, 2010, 08:32 AM | #

The answer is, of course, nothing. Blair is a completely unremarkable end-product of the system of social conditioning which has been in place since the mid-60s. He’s not evil, he just doesn’t know any different.—DD

Whence came this social conditioning?  Why does Ozy believe that race doens’t exist.  There’s much more to CoC than the 1965 Immigration Act.  To me, the key question is: how did the Westen racial immune system die?  Jews played a leading role in that, through academia (e.g. Boasian anthropology), and the media (e.g. Archie Bunker).  I don’t think GW, or anyone who is Jew aware, would have any trouble making the case to a bunch of people in a pub that Jewish malfeasance is a big part of why we’re in this position.

Posted by Dasein on February 11, 2010, 08:35 AM | #

You’re right GW, I don’t care much for the term. I’m agnostic about it here, amongst the cognoscenti, but elsewhere I tend to wince when I see it. It seems to smack of, well, fanaticism. It’s the kind of floridly overwrought expression you’d expect to hear from a Goebbels in full flight. Or worse, from a Stormfront costume Nazi on his training wheels. But that’s by the by. The rest of your post holds more real interest and merits a fuller response.

Race-replacement doesn’t imply any specific motivation for why it’s happening.  It describes the facts on the ground.  South London has undergone race-replacement.  The alternative term, genocide, which I feel is also appropriate, would strike the average bloke as even more overwrought.  What term would you suggest to describe what’s happening in England?

Posted by Dasein on February 11, 2010, 08:44 AM | #

I’m not sure that there is such a taboo, but am merely suggesting that, if we are to float the proposition that race-replacement is not just a real phenomenon but is happening by express design then, if we have an expectation of being taken seriously by an uncommitted audience, we bloody well need to doubly sure that we have all our ducks in a row. If our horizons are limited to preaching to the choir then all well and good.

But we know our case is effective because it can’t be aired.  GW doesn’t get banned at CiF because he doesn’t make sense or because his ducks aren’t in a row.  We have enough straight ducks now (your discrimination series being another good example) that we can convince the average honest White person about what is happening and why it is moral to fix it.

Posted by Dasein on February 11, 2010, 08:56 AM | #

I’m uncertain what Big 3 refers to so am unable to respond to that. As to accounting for the existence of the race replacement process, I thought I’d made my thoughts already clear on that. But to recap in brief, I would put it down to political short-termism, the creating of messes for narrow reasons of personal and political gain, with the clear understanding that you won’t be around at the time when someone else has to clean it up. —DD

My Big 3 are, as Desmond said, self-interest, capital, and organized Jewry.  What you’re describing would fall under the rubric of my first category.  It’s a bit of a catch-all, could be someone who wants to bring over a family member and/or bride from Pakistan, someone who wants a foreign nanny, etc.  If I were to create a model to describe what’s happening, these 3 variables would be included.  Depending on how much I stuff into that first variable, I could come up with a very good fit.  And the model would be different for various countries and times.  But those, to my thinking, are the 3 big variables for explaining race-replacement.  How much people want to weight them is a matter of opinion.  Some, like Fred, will weight the last one more strongly.  To say that people are building models without evidence is unfair.  It might not be the ‘slam dunk’ that some would like, but such will likely not be available until commissions and trials take place.  We likely won’t find signed copies of the Protocols, but I think an honest record would surprise even some of us here.  Have you seen Defamation?  If I just gave the transcript of that film to people, I bet over 90% of them would think it’s a hoax.

Posted by Dasein on February 11, 2010, 09:18 AM | #

As for Ozy, I wouldn’t agree that he is a hopeless case. He is clearly a high IQ individual but is simply ignorant and untutored. As a fellow European he is certainly worth the effort in attempting a conversion. Believe it or not I was also a ‘rabid’ socialist in my younger days and voted Labour in every election until the age of thirty. At one point I was even on the verge of joining the CPGB. So, if I can be awakened, anyone can.—DD

I think intelligence alone plays a minor role in someone’s waking up.

Can I ask what brought about the change for you?  Was it the result of independent study, or did you meet someone who exposed you to these ideas?  My own awakening was triggered by a quite minor assault by a Negro a number of years back, followed by lots of reading (relatively little of it on the Internet).  I only found MR several years after my journey began.

Posted by Dasein on February 11, 2010, 09:25 AM | #

Depending on how much I stuff into that first variable, I could come up with a very good fit.

a near exact fit

Posted by Charles M on February 11, 2010, 09:30 AM | #

Hello - new to this site today.

At the risk of rolling eyes can i throw in a couple of points that seem to be absent on this thread.

1. If the Jews are behind mass immigration - how does that square with the fact that most immigrants are Molem?

2. The immigration appears to be a EU wide plot. Ref: “The Barcelona Declaration” and “The Eurabia Project” among others.

My apologies if this is old hat.

Posted by Guessedworker on February 11, 2010, 09:30 AM | #

Dan,

But that’s really all it is; a possible framework. To move from that state to one in which there can simply be no doubt about who is responsible and why they have set this process in motion, we need to populate the framework with names, dates and places.

Well, I thought I would take a quick peak at this task, and googled the first name that came into my head: the Council for Foreign Relations.

Here’s the Board of Directors:

Carla A. Hills
Co-Chairman; Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Hills & Company

Robert E. Rubin
Co-Chairman; Former Secretary of the U.S. Treasury
 
Richard E. Salomon
Vice Chairman; Managing Partner, East End Advisors, LLC

Richard N. Haass
President, Council on Foreign Relations

Peter Ackerman
Managing Director, Rockport Capital, Inc.

Fouad Ajami
M. Khadduri Prof. of Middle Eastern Studies, Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University

Madeleine K. Albright
Principal, Albright Stonebridge Group LLC

Charlene Barshefsky
Senior International Partner, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
 
Henry S. Bienen
President Emeritus, Northwestern University

Alan S. Blinder
Gordon S. Rentschler Memorial Professor of Economics and Public Affairs, Princeton University

David G. Bradley
Chairman, Atlantic Media Company

Tom Brokaw
Special Correspondent, NBC News

Sylvia Mathews Burwell
President, Global Development Program, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Frank J. Caufield
Co-Founder, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers
 
Kenneth M. Duberstein
Chairman and CEO, The Duberstein Group, Inc.

Martin S. Feldstein
President Emeritus, National Bureau of Economic Research

Stephen Friedman
Chairman, Stone Point Capital

Ann M. Fudge
 
J. Tomilson Hill
Vice Chairman, The Blackstone Group

Donna J. Hrinak
Senior Director, Latin America Government Affairs, PepsiCo, Inc.

Alberto Ibargüen
President & Chief Executive Officer, John S. and James L. Knight Foundation

Shirley Ann Jackson
President, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
 
Henry R. Kravis
Founding Partner, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.

Jami Miscik
President and Vice Chairman, Kissinger Associates, Inc.

Joseph S. Nye, Jr.
Distinguished Service Professor, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University

Ronald L. Olson
Senior Partner, Munger Tolles and Olson LLP
 
James W. Owens
Chairman & CEO, Caterpillar Inc.

Colin L. Powell
United States Army (Ret.)
 
Penny Pritzker
President & Chief Executive Officer, Pritzker Realty Group, L.P.

David M. Rubenstein
Co-Founder and Managing Director, The Carlyle Group

George E. Rupp
President and CEO, International Rescue Committee

Frederick W. Smith
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Federal Express Corporation

Joan E. Spero
Visiting Fellow, Foundation Center
 
Vin Weber
CEO and Managing Partner, Clark & Weinstock

Christine Todd Whitman
President, The Whitman Strategy Group
 
Fareed Zakaria
Editor, Newsweek International

Officers and Directors Emeriti:
Leslie H. Gelb (President Emeritus)
Maurice R. Greenberg (Honorary Vice Chairman)
Charles McC. Mathias, Jr. (Director Emeritus)
Peter G. Peterson (Chairman Emeritus)
David Rockefeller (Honorary Chairman)
Robert A. Scalapino (Director Emeritus)

The staff list is too long for me to copy and paste here.  But CFR is very kind, unlike Bilderberg, and let’s you can examine it here:

http://www.cfr.org/about/people/staff.html

Maseltof, incidentally.

Posted by Charles M on February 11, 2010, 09:51 AM | #

Makes more sense with the S in Moslem

Posted by Dasein on February 11, 2010, 10:08 AM | #

Charles,

Organized Jewry is one of the factors behind mass immigration, through promoting it (especially in the US in early-middle part of 20th century) and in preventing native resistance to it (as Dan’s series documents in England).  In Europe, 3rd World migration was initially mostly for economic reasons.  Many of the immigrants are Muslim because they came from former colonies (e.g. France and Algeria) or allies (e.g. Germany and Turkey).  That they are overwhelmingly Muslim is now worrying some Jewish groups.  Organized Jewry does not speak with a single voice, but the important thing to remember is that they represent Jewish interests.  The interests of native Whites are not important.  If the immigrants were all Christian Negroes, Jewish groups would not be concerned.

Posted by NEATHERGATE. on February 11, 2010, 10:24 AM | #

Dasein,
        You write that a minor assault perpetrated by a negro set you off on the journey of race realism.If you excuse my curiosity, did the assault occur in Germany?, I woud have thought that negroes are ather thin on the ground in Germany and those there would behave themselves.

Posted by Armor on February 11, 2010, 10:30 AM | #

I have acknowledged elsewhere the critical role that Jewish activists played in the creation of the 1965 Immigration Act in the USA. KMD has documented that beyond any possible doubt.

The same is not true in the UK, however, nor in the rest of Europe. Their immigration disasters are almost entirely self-inflicted. (—Dan Dare)

Then we can say the Jewish question has been examined and we need not dwell on that any longer. It’s hard to take this point of view seriously, though. I suppose what you mean is that Jews have been more directly involved in the USA in changing the immigration legislation.
Here is an example of a Jew taking charge of the French immigration law: the Cremieux decree, whereby all Algerian Jews were given the French nationality in 1870.

About the cockup theory :
Drew Fraser gave the obvious reply: politicians “have persisted in their destructive course of conduct well past the point where they can credibly claim to be innocently unaware of the catastrophic biocultural consequences”.

Bill: “Sounds to me it’s a liberal thing, a sort of code for ‘Oh my God what have we done?’ moment.”

There is a moment like that in the film The Bridge on the River Kwai. The English colonel Alec Guinness, in a prison camp, has been building a bridge for the Japanese army. He is a fanatical believer in hard work to maintain the morale of his men. But just before he dies, he finally sees his mistake: Oops!
Similarly, in today’s society, most people continue to do their daily work, and in the process, participate in their own displacement: Oops !

The race-replacement is being enforced with fanatical zeal. It doesn’t look like an honest, well-meaning mistake. We can debate how malevolent is the leftist mind. I think it’s a flawed mind. But the leftists have no real objective. They don’t really care about the well-being of third-worlders, they don’t really think diversity will improve white society, and they don’t really want to destroy white society either. They don’t care about the future or about the effect of their policies, they care about taking the right postures. So it is difficult to say if the mischief they do is intentional or unintentional. It is both. In any case, they attack anyone who tries to stop them.

By contrast, the Jews have a tradition of hostility to white people. Or maybe it is instinctual defiance. It’s not the same as having a clear objective, but it’s a start. I don’t think Jews really want to live in a whiteless world. It is certainly not in their interest. But Jewish organizations work as if they had that objective. They are a driving force in today’s disaster.

I remember reading something by Bill or Fred about the theory of the crazy switchman. If a railway pointsman becomes crazy, he may start sending trains every which way. Even so, some of the trains will be sent in the right direction, just by chance. But if every train is systematically set on the wrong track, it must be done deliberately. In today’s society, it seems our leaders are deliberately doing everything wrong. It doesn’t look like a cockup. The race-replacement activists may be crazy, but in a methodical, fanatical way.

Posted by Guessedworker on February 11, 2010, 10:34 AM | #

Charles,

Larry Auster, the eponymous Catholicised “Conservative” who unfailingly supports ethnic Jewish interests where it matters, wrote this article for David Horowitz’s Fontpage Magazine:

http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=12534

The real object of Jewish fears

First of all, as crazy as it may sound, there is something that many American Jews fear in their heart of hearts even more than they fear Moslem anti-Semitism, and that is white Christian anti-Semitism. Steinlight himself pointed to this phenomenon at a recent panel discussion hosted by the Center for Immigration Studies:

“Every high profile Jewish institution, whether it’s a national organization or a major synagogue, is surrounded by concrete barriers to prevent car bombs exploding too close to the buildings. If you go through the lobbies into those buildings you have to pass metal detectors and double-doors of bulletproof glass. You are then frisked by security guards, mostly retired New York City police or Israeli agents, and then are scanned again with metal detectors.

“What is truly comic about this—were it not an instance in the theatre of the absurd, and were it not so appalling an indication of the kind of mass denial that is still governing major American Jewish organizations, including the one I used to work for that’s currently meeting across the street—is that the staffs of these organizations pass the car bomb barriers, go through the double bulletproof glass lobbies, get frisked, then go upstairs into their offices and spend their days talking about the threats posed by evangelical Christians….”

... The self-protective instinct to divide and weaken a potentially oppressive majority population may have served Jews well at certain times and places in the past when they truly were threatened. Under current circumstances—in America, the most philo-Semitic nation in the history of the world—it both morally wrong and suicidal. Not only are the open-borders Jews urging policies harmful to America’s majority population, but, by doing so, they are surely triggering previously non-existent anti-Jewish feelings among them. The tragedy is that once a collective thought pattern gets deeply ingrained, as is the Jews’ historically understandable fear of gentiles, it takes on a life of its own and becomes immune to evidence and reason

Obviously, that is a kind way of putting it.  But Auster does not feel what we, as Europeans, as the offended party, feel.

Posted by Dasein on February 11, 2010, 10:45 AM | #

Neathergate,

Yes, it was in one of the bigger cities in Germany.  Many of the Negroes here are recently arrived from Africa and have that wild look about them.  I avoid them whenever I can.

Posted by Charles M on February 11, 2010, 11:52 AM | #

Dasein & Guessedworker
Thank you

This is a new angle to me. I and many others perceive the overwhelming threat to the UK and Europe as being Islamic immigration and reproduction.
I would have thought if there is one group in the world who would fear this more it would be the Jews!

Across Europe it seems that the alliance is Marxism + Globalism + hardline religeon.
I guess the Jews would fit into the Globalism part of that?

Posted by Dasein on February 11, 2010, 12:23 PM | #

Charles,

From their millenia of existence as a diaspora people, Jews have evolved a distrust of homogeneous (particularly White) societies.  Globalism is a way to turn every group into a diaspora people, a world where Jews will be safe and at a permanent competitive advantage, with Israel as insurance policy.  If you are new to the JQ (Jewish Question), I think the best place to start is Kevin MacDonald’s work.  The following book, the last in his trilogy on Judaism, examines the role of 20th century Jewish intellectual movements on Western culture:

http://www.prometheism.net/library/CultureOfCritique.pdf

Posted by Guessedworker on February 11, 2010, 12:30 PM | #

Charles,

Jewish influence is very wide-ranging indeed, and should be given its due.  For one thing, there is the schwerpunckt of long-running anti-European activism which has authored the following across our world:

Classical Marxism
Revolutionary internationalism
Critical Theory
Postmodernism
Freudianism
Second-wave Feminism
Second-Wave Libertarianism
Gay Rights/LBGT Rights
American Civil Rights
Human Rights
White Privilege/White Abolitionism
Agitation for open borders and mass immigration
Neoconservatism
Academic race-denial
Encouragement for white race-mixing
Exploitation of the official holocaust narrative
Israel Lobby
Promulgation of hate speech law
Internet pornography
Negative imagery of whites on film and TV
Anti-white bias in media reporting

For another, Jewish money power is absolutely key to finance capitalism, and the internationalism which flows from that.  You know, Rockefeller and the CFR ... Rothschild and the Bilders.  Jews in the power elites may not be expressing their tribal interests but their personal and family interests.  However, the effect on Europeans remains the same.

You mentioned that Marxism has a role in the Great Engine of Destruction, and I guess that’s because the formula is:

The Mundial future = neoliberalism + Marxism

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

If you have acquired the perception that Islam is the great foe - easily done in the UK because it’s the position of the BNP - you would profit from reading much more on the position in America, Canada, Australia and NZ, where different migrant sources arise but the same process of European race-replacement is in train.  Why so?  Because the causes are the same.  Islam is a tool, applicable only in Europe.  It is not a cause in itself.

Posted by Dan Dare on February 11, 2010, 01:09 PM | #

Well, I thought I would take a quick peak at this task, and googled the first name that came into my head: the Council for Foreign Relations.

Here’s the Board of Directors: - GW

Another list of bogey-men GW.

I could counter by listing the members of the Synod of the Church of England, which is generally in favour of universalist egalitarianism and recently voted to proscribe the BNP.

Does that mean that we should add the C of E and Anglicans in general to the list of suspects?

Posted by Dan Dare on February 11, 2010, 01:15 PM | #

@ Bill - the British approach to immigration and citizenship has been a total cock-up since the War. Under NuLabor the pre-existing shambles simply reached indusutrial proportions. What is under discussion here is why that came to pass. Blair & Co. invented nothing, everything was already in position for the looming disaster, thanks to the efforts (non-efforts really) of successive previous governments from Attlee to Major.

It’s a sorry tale which will be recounted in all its grisly detail in due course.

Posted by Guessedworker on February 11, 2010, 02:08 PM | #

Dan: Another list of bogey-men

These are the present golden generation, the hand-picked, whose function is to tell government, in the words of Hillary, “how we should be thinking about the future”.  They are still in the realm of managerialism.  But the directors, at least, are as close as anyone can get to the permanent interests that lie behind, and as far into the process as we mere untermenschen can see.  They are not bogey men.  They are all too real, and when you write “to move from that state to one in which there can simply be no doubt about who is responsible and why they have set this process in motion, we need to populate the framework with names, dates and places,” you have got to start the journey here, I think.  Or with any of the other principal elite bodies of discussion and planning.

But let’s play “switch”.  Do you believe that these bodies have nothing to say about the process of population transfer and racial change in Europe?  Do you believe that if they were aghast at it in just the way that ordinary European people are, they would still not urge governments to get it under control, and that urging would not be loud and persistent and known to the world?

But it is not, because it does not exist.  As far as the rest of the world is concerned, these bodies are virtually silent on the process, notwithstanding a few noises at Davos about making diversity a success, or whatever.  Is that silence also a “cock-up”?

You are right that we need more than inferences of this sort, even if they do all point in the same direction.  But until some whistleblowers loyal to Europe’s people place evidence direct from the CFRs and Trilaterals and Bilderbergs on the net, where the whole world can download it and read it, we are not going to get much further.

Posted by Dan Dare on February 11, 2010, 02:48 PM | #

BTW, for your discrimination series it would be very nice if you created a timeline that listed the major events and players (and yes, please identify the Jewish names!). - Dasein

OK, no problem.

Whence came this social conditioning?

That’s what Germans call die Gretchenfrage!

Why does Ozy believe that race doens’t exist.

That’s probably what he was taught in school. Since when it will have repeatedly reinforced through a variety of channels.

There’s much more to CoC than the 1965 Immigration Act.  To me, the key question is: how did the Westen racial immune system die?

As I think you may be aware, I believe it is all part of Hitler’s Revenge. But it is the key question,  just how did the Gramscians manage to carry out their coup d’état and so stealthily too? If we can unravel that one we we will be well on the way to figuring out how to fix the system.

You may have seen me commenting previously about how the first thing we need to do come the revolution is to take back the teacher training colleges. That was only slightly tongue in cheek, but my remarks about studying closely how the NSDAP acceded to power were made in all seriousness.

You’ll recall, I’m sure, that the key electoral breakthrough came in the 1929 state elections in Thüringen. Now Onkel Alf played this one very cleverly I thought. There was nary a mention of jüdische Drahtzieher in the campaign, in fact anti-semitic strains were relatively muted throughout the entire period 1928-32. Anyway, the NSDAP captured enough seats in the Landestag to enable them to demand two ministries as their price for entering a coalition. Guess which ones Hitler chose? The Interior ministry, which controlled the police and civil service, and the Education ministry. A very smart move.

I don’t think GW, or anyone who is Jew aware, would have any trouble making the case to a bunch of people in a pub that Jewish malfeasance is a big part of why we’re in this position.

It’s not Jewish malfeasance as such that’s at question here, but rather whether particular Jews conspired to bribe or otherwise manipulated Tony Blair into genociding his own people. I’m sure I’d don’t need to tell GW or anyone else here that proseltysing to the unawakened on the JQ requires very careful footwork. Blurting it out in the pub is not likely to prove very productive.
?

What term would you suggest to describe what’s happening in England?

For an uncommitted or potentially hostile audience I would prefer to use ‘demographic transformation’. Otherwise it appears that we are only concerned about darkies and chinks and are quite relaxed about being invaded by Eastern Europeans.

We have enough straight ducks now (your discrimination series being another good example) that we can convince the average honest White person about what is happening and why it is moral to fix it.

I agree, in many areas we have more than enough to take the initiative.  The corrosive effects of mass migration in particular are obvious to any sentient being, even those nominally in favour of it. I believe though that most potential sympathisers will be more amenable to approaches that take the cock-up line of argument than the conspiratorial one.

My Big 3 are, as Desmond said, self-interest, capital, and organized Jewry.  …

OK. Got it now.

I would add a fourth: ‘liberalism’, for want of a better word. It’s probably the most important too, I should have thought.

To say that people are building models without evidence is unfair.

It might be unfair but far better than going off half-cocked I’d say. Best to keep the powder dry until the quarry is well within range.

Have you seen Defamation?  If I just gave the transcript of that film to people, I bet over 90% of them would think it’s a hoax.

No I haven’t, just watched the trailer on Youtube. Looks interesting. Is the whole film available online? But anyway your remarks tend to lend support to my position.  The default response of the unawakened when suddenly confronted with revelations about Jewish conspiracies will usually be “Oh. Come off it, you’re pulling my leg. Where’d you get that nonsense from?”

Can I ask what brought about the change for you?

If any one event provided the catalyst for the change in mindset it was when India refused to take any responsibility for the Asians being expelled from Uganda, and who were then subsequently dumped on Britain. The TV news pictures of planeloads of them disembarking had a galvanising effect. That’s when the real questioning started.

Later on, extensive travel in the third world, including several years residing in Singapore, cemented my racial ‘consciousness’ in place.

Posted by Dasein on February 11, 2010, 03:55 PM | #

I would add a fourth: ‘liberalism’, for want of a better word. It’s probably the most important too, I should have thought.—DD

In my framework, liberalism is the aether.

Is the whole film available online?

http://wideeyecinema.com/?p=7208

Don’t let the rest of the site put you off   I only had a chance to watch the first half, but it’s good stuff (I saw Kievsky mention it at OD).

Posted by What is happening at Occidental Dissent? on February 11, 2010, 04:12 PM | #

Interesting developments at Occidental Dissent.  Kievsky and Wikitopian seem to have taken over in Hunter Wallace’s abscence.  They appear to have instituted a new editorial policy, and Kievsky has been deleting comments.  Will Kievsky and Wikitopian attempt a coup d’état at Occidental Dissent?

Posted by Dasein on February 11, 2010, 05:13 PM | #

I could counter by listing the members of the Synod of the Church of England—DD

But they have almost no power, politically speaking.  It’s an apples and oranges comparison.

Posted by Captainchaos on February 11, 2010, 06:07 PM | #

Perhaps so, but does that lead you to conclude that the necessary corrective action is the same in either case?

Above Dare reveals the emotional orientation that predisposes him to prefer the accidental explanation for mass immigration as opposed to the conspiratorial explanation because were the conspiratorial explanation true it would entail more drastic corrective measures the kind of which make Dare queasy and go weak in the knees.  That is the emotional orientation of a extended phenotype of Jewry in that one’s emotions are bent towards protecting Jewry and away from enacting harsh measures against Jewry if it comes to it.

Posted by Dan Dare on February 11, 2010, 06:46 PM | #

Hey whassup Cap’n/ Why so grouchy?

Did Kievski take you to the woodshed as well?

Posted by Captainchaos on February 11, 2010, 07:18 PM | #

Did Kievski take you to the woodshed as well?

LOL!  Not even a possibility.

Posted by Al Ross on February 11, 2010, 10:28 PM | #

Kievsky did not delete my dissenting OD post on the subject of capital punishment but he seems to harbour an anti - Fred animus.

Posted by What is happening at Occidental Dissent? on February 11, 2010, 11:07 PM | #

Kievsky likes to lecture us and spout a Wall Street Journal-type line, telling us we’re a bunch of stupid idiots and the H-1B racket is our own fault because we’re just too dumb and lazy and unable to compete with Asiatic coolieism.  Earth to Kievsky: If Microsoft wants to hire an incompetent subcon on an H-1B visa, they’re going to do just that no matter how many certifications you have or how much more qualified you are.

Posted by Tanstaafl on February 12, 2010, 12:08 AM | #

I and many others perceive the overwhelming threat to the UK and Europe as being Islamic immigration and reproduction. I would have thought if there is one group in the world who would fear this more it would be the Jews!

The jewish golden age was in muslim-occupied Spain.

Some jews do indeed fear muslim immigration. You hear these fears because all jewish concerns get ample and respectful airing in Western media.

I think the jews who have some perspective and know something of jewish history are more confident that jews can infiltrate, co-opt, exploit, and thrive in any host, as they have many times before.

The vehement jewish opposition to the BNP and Swiss minaret ban, to cite just two recent examples, demonstrates that to whatever extent jews fear muslims they loath Europeans even more.

Posted by Charles M on February 12, 2010, 07:00 AM | #

Guessedworker @ 4.30PM 11/2

The BNP has nothing to do with my opinion of what is happening regarding Islam and other immigration.
It is just observation over the last 15 years and reading some history as to their methods.
If they are not a threatening force then they are a very good imitation of one. “butcher those who oppose Islam” etc.
If it is a Jewish conspiracy (lower case c) then obviously I am way behind and it is much more complicated and dangerous than i imagined. Two days ago i did not think that was possible.

I realise that it is not just Islamic immigration but they are probably the most vocal and sizable group.

I did mention yesterday that it is a EU policy to replace/mix the indigenopus populations of Europe.
Obviously with no regard to the opinions of those populations.
It is documented though not publicised.
Has that all been discussed on here before?

Re the Ugandan Asians mentioned earlier: each family arriving here was given a £10,000 grant to start a business. A lot of money in the early 70s. Hence the corner shops.

Posted by Guessedworker on February 12, 2010, 08:45 AM | #

Charles,

If this thread is useful in any way, it is to treat that word “conspiracy” with caution.  There are plural forces with different perspectives acting from different but congruent motives.

Jewish activism works through all of them, of course.  It does not bear its own name.  I would hazard a guess that, with rare exceptions, the non-Jews populating the groups and movements which flow from Jewish intellectualism, are funded or substantially funded by Jews, and are very often run by Jews, are unsighted as far as Jews are concerned.  After all we have the narrative of the brutalised, terrorised Jew who, as our eternal victim, we can never again “name”, never “see”, never resist or respond to.

But keep your perspective, Charles.  Do not discount the interests of the European elites, of the political and cultural Establishment, of the progressives and internationalists, of the liberal-left, of capital, etc.  If power did not reside in those quarters, but with those who love the people and serve the people, Jewish activism would spin its wheels.

Posted by 1997 on February 12, 2010, 02:58 PM | #

Babara Roche.

Posted by Armor on February 12, 2010, 06:57 PM | #

D.Dare: “just how did the Gramscians manage to carry out their coup d’état and so stealthily too? If we can unravel that one we will be well on the way to figuring out how to fix the system.”

A more interesting question is how the Gramscian subverters were eventually subverted by a new ideology that had a different agenda.
I know very little about Gramsci and the Jewish Frankfurt School, but I suspect they didn’t share the same ideals. As far as I know, both the Frankfurt School and the “Gramscian School” hoped they could topple Western bourgeois institutions. As a replacement, Gramsci was interested in promoting the workers’ interests, and the working-class culture and values… But unlike Gramsci, the Frankfurt School probably didn’t care at all about the culture of the European working-class.

According to wikipedia, Gramsci thought that “The working class needed to develop a culture of its own, which would overthrow the notion that bourgeois values represented ‘natural’ or ‘normal’ values for society, and would attract the oppressed and intellectual classes to the cause of the proletariat.”
Wikipedia doesn’t say how Gramsci thought the working class could develop a culture of its own. Did he think it could be done openly, through activism? Did he think it had to be done by secretly infiltrating public institutions?

Besides, I don’t know what are the typical working-class values according to Gramsci, but I can try to guess: the work-ethic, egalitarianism, simplicity, public libraries open to everyone, a small house and a garden for every family…

Rank and file communists were too stupid to notice that their movement was led or influenced by Jews who did not share the European working-class outlook. I think what happened in the end is that the Jewish class developed a culture of critique which overthrew the notion that European values represented ‘natural’ or ‘normal’ values for European society, and which attracted third-world immigrants to the cause of ending white oppression in Europe.

Today’s new values: race-replacement, gay marriage, race mixing, general stupidity, ugliness, political correctness…

The Gramscian “conspiracy” has been hijacked by something else.

Posted by Desmond Jones on February 12, 2010, 07:23 PM | #

For the working class bourgeois forces offered little of value, and mostly contempt.

For many, the most profound aspect of the communist threat was that it presaged the removal of racial instinct. Indeed, the prospect that the categories `European’ and `white’ would disappear, that they would become redundant in a racially hybrid, politicised, class-conscious, world, is implicit throughout the literature of white crisis. I suggested earlier that it was the idealised nature of whiteness that made its champions so sensitive to racial subversion. However, the virtues of whiteness sat uneasily with the fact that many Europeans were, in the eyes of the middle and upper classes at least, far from ideal specimens. Watching English soldiers washing during the Battle of the Somme, Lord Curzon is reported to have observed, `I never knew the working classes had such white skins’,. The widespread conviction that the metropolitan working class was degenerate—almost a race apart—meant that their association with whiteness was not always secure. Certainly, the fear that communism, as well as miscegenation, might be attractive to the lower orders becomes more understandable when it is realised that they were often regarded as having little to lose from `racial treason’. The whiteness of the working class in colonial contexts, or amongst the rural population and skilled `labour aristocracy’, was rarely placed in doubt. However, for several decades on either side of the turn of the nineteenth century, concerns about the culture of the urban poor were expressed in unmistakably racial terms. Thus in the 1880s and 1890s, although whiteness was not yet viewed as in the throes of a global crisis, considerable doubt was being expressed about some of its constituent groups. The founder of eugenics, Francis Galton, claimed he found it hard to distinguish `the nature of the lower classes of civilised man from that of the barbarian’. In similar vein, in In Darkest England (1890) William Booth warned that within `a stone’s throw of our cathedrals and palaces’ dwelt `similar horrors to those Stanley found in the great Equatorial forest’. The `human baboon’ and `handsome dwarf’ Booth found in such quarters were precisely the kind of people that white civilisation may have included but certainly did not embrace or need. The fact that this class was composed, in part, of Jewish and Irish immigrants added to worries about its racial reliability.

`Whiteness in Crisis’

Magazine article by Alastair Bonnett; History Today, Vol. 50, December 2000.