From the Telegraph, a perfect and equable example of preserving genetic interests:-

Mixed-race babies ‘were sent to the US’

Thousands of illegitimate mixed-race children fathered by American GIs were given up by their British mothers and shipped across the Atlantic, according to newly released papers.

The issue of how to deal with the unwanted offspring of the illicit affairs divided the country towards the end of the Second World War and exposed the racial prejudices of the time.

The problem began to emerge in 1944, when increasing numbers of US servicemen were stationed around Britain.  Many of the women they fathered children with were wives of British soldiers fighting abroad.  The documents suggest that where the baby was white it was often possible for husband and wife to be reconciled and keep the child. However, this was rarely possible when the child was mixed race.

... The files, released today by the Public Records Office in Kew, include a letter from a Miss O. Clarke to her MP suggesting the babies be placed in West Indies mission schools.  However, a Whitehall official wrote to the MP in July 1944: “The proposed solution is high-handed and - if confined to coloured illegitimates - has a Herrenrasse (master race) flavour not now popular.”

By the end of the war pressure was mounting on the Government to take action.  In letters to the Ministry of Health in December 1945 and March 1946 Harold Moody, founder of the League of Coloured Peoples, said Britain and the US must treat each baby as a “war casualty” and warned: “Our anxiety is to forestall a social problem which might not only affect the life of this country but which might also affect Anglo-American relations.”

In response Aneurin Bevan, health minister, said his policy was to encourage mothers to keep their children, or failing that to tackle the shortage of places in homes.

The Home Office, however, differed and one official wrote: “Provided it is clear that the mother does not want the child and there is a reasonably satisfactory home in the US the child will have a far better chance if sent at an early age to the US than if it brought up in this country.”

Well, let’s be clear.  For my parents’ generation illegitimacy carried a stigma scarcely conceivable among the dozy and reproductive today.  Lives were completely ruined by it.  But ... for tens of thousands of girls the American military man was just too glamorous and exciting, and too much fun in some very grey times, to ignore.  It wasn’t as if there were thousands of English boys around anyway.

Even so, giving oneself to a negro - American or otherwise, soldier or not - brought into focus a swathe of other, painful moral issues.  Irrespective of the elitist sensibilities of the Whitehall official with his Herrenrasse fears, the public had what might be termed a “direct” understanding of negroes.  As understandings go, it was a rather better and more honest one than the so vibrant, so-so enriching official bilge that gets pumped at people today.

It was also too implacable to be blown away by a few cries of “racism”.  For the family to rally round a daughter who produced an illegitimate white baby was one thing.  It was completely another if that baby was black.  No tales of a loved father lost at sea or in battle far away could be spun to the curious and to the growing child.  A black father meant one type of relationship only, with no thought in the moment the deed was done for self-respect or responsibility.  It was simply too great a burden to bear through life if there was any half-acceptable alternative - and, it transpires, there was.

In fact, the alternative was a very good one from a perspective of English genetic interests.  In so far as was possible, thousands of carriers of African genes were distanced from the English genepool, while English genes travelled back to the segregated negro population of America.

I am, though, intrigued by the Home Office statement that runs: “Provided it is clear that ... there is a reasonably satisfactory home in the US ...”  Did the British government fund orphanages in America?  Did they pay American couples to adopt the children?  How were these reasonably satisfactory homes secured?

We are not told.  But it is interesting to reflect on what can be achieved when the political will exists, as one suspects it must exist again some day.

by David Hamilton

Robin Page,  former presenter of television’s “One Man and His Dog”, a farmer, columnist for The Daily Telegraph, and the chairman of the Countryside Restoration Trust, has set us an example by fighting the new Totalitarian state and winning £2,000 compensation for being wrongly arrested on suspicion of stirring up racial hatred.

He allegedly made a racist remark at a country fair in 2002, which led to him being held in a police cell, and he fought a five-year, one-man campaign to clear his name. He used the Data Protection Act and obtained official documents which showed that there had been no grounds for prosecution. “I believe I have scored a significant victory over the ludicrous and sinister politically-correct ‘hate crime’ culture that is currently doing so much to prevent free speech in this country,” he said.

It was his humorous comments at a country fair in September 2002 that led to his persecution by the police. To gain the attention of the audience at Frampton-upon-Severn, Gloucestershire, he began in a “light-hearted fashion”. “If you are a black, vegetarian, Muslim, asylum-seeking, one-legged lesbian lorry driver, I want the same rights as you.” A complaint was later received by police, and another person wrote to say he disagreed with Mr.Page’s remarks. He was arrested the following month, and then five months later was contacted at his farm in Cambridgeshire and asked by two officers from Gloucestershire to attend an interview at a police station. At the station he declined to answer questions without a lawyer and was arrested. He was put in a cell and told that he would have to stay overnight if he wished to wait for his solicitor, but after 40 minutes agreed to be interviewed without legal representation.

Mr Page said: “I was told I had committed a ‘hate crime’, interviewed under caution and given police bail.” The BBC claimed that he had been arrested for a “race speech” and he felt the incident was potentially damaging to him professionally and as a district councillor for 30 years. He was neither charged nor given an explanation. Under Freedom of Information disclosures he discovered that the Attorney General had given the opinion “no crime committed”. His name was secretly put on a “Homo-phobic Incidents Register”. He was due to go to on a journalistic trip to Kenya and requested a change of bail renewal date, and in an internal email from the arresting officer the sergeant wrote: “Let’s hope he gets eaten by a crocodile.”

READ MORE...

Although not on “Oprah’s book club” list, Ron Paul’s new book “Revolution: A Manifesto” still managed the #3 Amazon best seller position. 

The contents of this book could become quite important as the corrupt Old Media further demonstrates its strangle hold on self-determination over the course of this election cycle.  Ron Paul’s commitment to nonviolent civil disobedience notwithstanding, the use of the word “revolution”, particularly in conjunction with the word “manifesto”, does have real meaning and consequences.

Here are two video reports on immigrant Africans’ perfectly shameless demand for racial integration in Ireland, and the response from Ireland’s very modern politicians.  All at once it’s tardy, piecemeal, submissive and just plain ethno-masochistic.

The first video documents an African immigrant demonstration outside the Dáil.  Speakers from the political forces opposed to, one must suppose, the callous, head-in-the-sand policies of the Irish government included some nameless old lady who must be the light and life of Residents Against Racism, Ciaran Cuff of the Green Party, Seamus Healey (described as an Independent), Joe Costello of Labour, Arthur Morgan of Sinn Fein and his party president Gerry Adams.

The second video is an Al-Jezeera report on the Irish government’s tardy response to the integration and, specifically, education issues.  It features an Emergency School in north Dublin set up by an uncharitable body of unCatholic, school-building Marxists named Educate Together.  Ninety-five per cent of the children in the Emergency School are black, bro.

Actually, that should be brá.  But there’ll be no lilting brogue for lil Obi unless the damned, racist Dubliners can understand how happy diversity will make them.  Educate Together says that they will.  Galloping secularism is the key.  In a country where 98% of the schools are Catholic, the 48% of parents that are non-Catholic or non-practising Catholic have no condign educational choices open to them.  As so often, it’s the clever traitors who spot the gap in the market.  Educate Together has applied to open twenty new schools in the next year alone, and fully, naively expects its green, green la-la land to materialise and the rainbow peeps to skip happily over the peat bog and far away.

Among the talking heads in this second video is a gentleman named Jeanne-Pierre Eyanga Ekumeluko from Congo.  Sorry, make that Integrating Ireland.  He is sufficiently unsubtle in his pleading “to be one” with the good citizens of Dublin that he promises them another Clichy-sur-Bois experience if said oneness is delayed.  But that would only be the fault of the damned, racist Dubliners, of course.

READ MORE...

Genocide, under its original definition, includes any deliberate anti-nation program, such as that intended by the American Jewish Congress’s support of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.  Since immigration is now the primary tool of anti-national interests, we can get a rough idea of the magnitude of genocide by examining the rate of immigration to various countries—immigration driven by sentiments similar to those promoted by the American Jewish Congress:

Admittedly, it would be better to adjust the map for the degree of loss of ethnic genetic interests but, since we no longer have “academic” institutions that qualify for the name, we must make do with proxies like “immigration”.  Another problem with this sort of map is it emphasizes distortions on a per land area basis rather than on a percapita basis.  For instance, Australia looks like it is suffering less genocide than it is, and Japan looks like it is suffering more genocide than it is.

A translation by Fred Scrooby of an interview with Yves-Marie Laulan, author of Les Nations Suicidaires (1998).  Yves-Marie Laulon, economist and banker, has had a varied career that has taken him from French government cabinet posts to such international institutions as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and NATO, as well as positions with Société Générale de Banques and Crédit Municipal of Paris.  He has taught in a number of universities, including the Institute for Political Studies in Paris.  He has published a dozen works on economics and geopolitics in France and abroad.

The interview was conducted by Xavier Cheneseau, and was published Dec. 28 at Robert Steuckers’ Euro-Synergies website.  The original entry doesn’t give the interview’s date.  (Judging by certain details in the text, it may be a few years old.)

Xavier Cheneseau:  With regard to demographics you seem willfully pessimistic …

Yves-Marie Laulan:  It isn’t the author’s comments that are violent but the situation that is violent.

In fact it’s already nearly too late.  Demographic phenomena — the ones I’m dealing with, at any rate — have this special characteristic, that they are slow and they proceed largely unnoticed, precisely until it is too late.

Wartime ravages can be repaired in a few years — Germany and France managed it.  Recovery from the consequences of an economic crisis doesn’t take long.  But demographic damage can take decades, even centuries, to recover from — when recovery is possible at all. […]

But you’re partly right:  I’ve deliberately taken a provocative tone, because you need to make a loud racket to awaken the deaf.  And look at the dumbed down, dullened public opinion we are dealing with, anesthetized by daily bombardment with mass media!  Where filtering of information is concerned, today’s France resembles Ceaucescu’s Romania, only a more efficient version. 

Faced with this situation, a dissident having ideas that are out of the ordinary, such as myself — Soviet Russia’s Samizdat, as Pierre Chaunu calls it — humbly cherishes the hope, perhaps, of being, if possible, the watcher at dawn spoken of in the Bible (Isaiah), the one who remains alone at his post all night waiting for the dawn to break.

READ MORE...

On Saturday the little big men of the World Economic Forum checked out of their Davos hotels and made the hop home in the company Gulfstream.  Along with the customary hookers and political whores, the high-powered networking and, doubtless for some, the plain high, our heroes left behind all that damned public caring - at least, for another year.

Actually, the caring thing was pretty well done this year.  They concocted a public relations exercise involving a somewhat bland question:-

What one thing do you think that countries, companies or individuals must do to make the world a better place in 2008?

There was a lot of hot air vented about knowledge and poverty, climate change, and water.  But the hot button issues among the real players were the decline of the dollar as the world currency and the threat of a US recession.  These merely reflects the corporate-heavy interests of the Davos “community”.  Of the issue of the rights and interests of real people and peoples there was, of course, no sign.  Or almost no sign.  This report appeared this morning in the lower middle-class rag, the Sunday Express:-

EUROPEANS THINK ISLAM IS DANGEROUS

AN “overwhelming majority” of Europeans believe immigration from Islamic countries is a threat to their traditional way of life, a survey revealed last night.  The poll, carried out across 21 countries, found “widespread anti-immigration sentiment”, but warned Europe’s Muslim population will treble in the next 17 years.  It reported “a severe deficit of trust is found between the Western and Muslim communities”, with most people wanting less interaction with the Muslim world.

Last night an MP warned it showed that political leaders in Britain who preach the benefits of unlimited immigration were dangerously out of touch with the public.

The study, whose authors include the former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey, was commissioned for leaders at the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland.  It reports “a growing fear among Europeans of a perceived Islamic threat to their cultural identities, driven in part by immigration from predominantly Muslim nations”.

Now, I’ve been all over the WEF’s brave new website and I can’t find a trace of the former Arch-Songster’s study.  Which is odd.  The only half-useful mention of migration which crops up via a word search on the site concerns this curious working session:-

READ MORE...

Perhaps a reader with a better memory than me can name the late John Tyndall’s only work of fiction in which, I seem to recall, British shoppers carried home plastic bags bearing the injunction, “Remember the Holocaust”.

From a propaganda perspective, that dulling degree of ubiquity still awaits us.  But the same tawdry mechanicalness, the same tendency to glaze the eyes attends the words penned for Gordon Brown in yesterday’s Daily Telegraph:-

We must not forget the Holocaust

Imagine, Remember, Reflect, React: together, these words define tomorrow’s Holocaust Memorial Day. Why imagine? Because the sheer scale of the Holocaust numbs us to its individual realities: the captivity, suffering and death of six million people, 1.5 million of them children, each with family, a history and unique emotions.

... As a boy, I was well aware of the struggle and sacrifices of the Jewish people. My father, a Church of Scotland minister, led parties of visitors to Israel twice a year for more than 20 years and wanted me to understand what the Holocaust meant.

Why remember? Because, more than 60 years after the liberation of Belsen, Treblinka and Auschwitz, and as the last of the survivors now grow old, we simply cannot afford to forget.

... Each generation must learn and understand the dark forces and culpable failures that allowed prejudice, discrimination and persecution to lead to a vast programme of mass slaughter that spanned a continent.

And as we reflect again on these events, we must react to them too, to ensure that “Never Again” is not just a slogan, but a reality.

Only by systematic efforts - such as the Holocaust Educational Trust’s Lessons from Auschwitz programme and compulsory teaching about the Holocaust in secondary schools - can we maintain a common knowledge of what happened, celebrate the courage of the few who fought it and learn the lessons for the future.

That is why we have provided funds to encourage hundreds of pupils from every school in the country to visit Auschwitz and learn of the tragedies that follow when people do not stand up. Last year 3,000 pupils travelled to Auschwitz, this year 4,000 - every secondary school offering at least two pupils the chance to see its dark truths.

Well, for one, I would not permit my daughter to be propagandised in this way.  She won’t be visiting Auschwitz.  As a father I do all I can to explain to her the strategic value of the Holocaust narrative for Jewry, and to protect her from the libel on her blood and on the blood of all Europe’s children in those unjust words: “Each generation must learn and understand the dark forces and culpable failures that allowed prejudice, discrimination and persecution to lead to a vast programme of mass slaughter that spanned a continent.”

I suppose it is probable that, being a politician, Brown is lying about his awareness as a boy of the “struggle and sacrifices of the Jewish people”.  After all, Jewish donors keep his party afloat and, of course, “befriend” it (as they “befriend” the Conservatives).  Brown has no alternative but to be an enthusiastic Judeophile and devotee of the “magnificent” Jewish homeland (as Cameron has to be, too).

Realpolitik - mere moral or intellectual weakness - would, then, be some kind of fig-leaf for the man.  But if he is sincere ... if he really believes that the hearts of English children hold “dark forces” - some original sin of hate of the semite - then we are faced with something quite different.  We are faced, in Brown, with a Judaised soul in which the normal empathy for kind, and even for the children of kind, has been perverted.  It’s true, of course, that at this level, the level of foundational loyalty, one cannot serve Jewry and kind.  Jewry’s profound unwillingness, as expressed in the exploitation of the Holocaust, to act peacefully towards our children simply does not leave that possibility open.

The moral of the story, on this Holocaust Memorial Day in Britain, is that we should cooly explain the hateful uses to which the narrative is put.  We owe Jewry and Mr Brown and the political Establishment only that.