Home Secretary John Reid has called for a mature debate on the immigration challenges facing Britain.

Mr Reid said: “We have to get away from this daft so-called politically correct notion that anybody who wants to talk about immigration is somehow a racist.”

Home Secretary and Scots tough guy Dr John Reid, trying to sound responsive and responsible today.

The problem is that the only discussion worth having is not really about immigration.  It is about the rights and interests of the natives.  It is about determining what they really want, and the practicalities of delivering that.  It is about John Reid’s own politics and the treachery of the political class to which he belongs.

None of that is on John Reid’s radar, of course.  Nor ever will be.

Meanwhile, he is showing a willingness to throw us one or two scraps of something like a public debate.  So here are a few basic suggestions that, if I could, I would make to his face, and which I am confident would shape the debate to be mature as he could possibly wish:-

1) Exclude the voices of immigrants, whose interests always lie in encouraging more immigration.

2) Debate not just on the basis of economics but on ethnic interests.  Project the demographics into the future, and tell us how things are going to be for our children and grandchildren.

3) Eliminate all the usual, rubbishy pieties about the “skills” of immigrants and the precious gifts of diversity.  They only signal your lack of seriousness.  Instead, be honest about racial mean IQ’s, propensities for criminality, black sexualisation etc.

4) Take your time.  The English majority has been subjected to a racist official campaign of some decades longevity.  Give them however long they need to recover their tongues and their sense of self-interest.

5) Be humble and penitent before the will of the people, even if you will never bring yourself to agree with it.  And you won’t.

What a coup the Adnan Hajj affair has been for the alternative media.  LGF and Power Line have emerged as winners, and LGF has had to put up an apology to readers for its difficulty in handling the increased traffic.  While they were no doubt motivated merely by a pro-Bush-Israel agenda, they nevertheless struck another blow for journalistic integrity.  The pity is that the real lack of integrity in the liberal media only interests majority rightists, to which estate neither LGF nor Power Line aspire.

Still, it’s been fun to see Reuters snap to attention and the The Guardian drone on about proportionate representation of the facts.  As if.

I’m taking a quick break from pondering WN so I can reply to a very interesting question which Desmond Jones makes something of a habit of raising here, and to which I referred in my “Prelude” post.

Desmond’s question, essentially, is this:-

If the unique and dangerous level of out-group sympathy which European peoples exhibit today is an evolved trait, is it not more powerful and harder-wired than our instinct for group survival?

READ MORE...

“Everything is Illuminated” is yet another “let’s bury the Ukranian Famine in Holocaustian myths” movie.  It’s not the worst such atrocity.  That distinction belongs to “Harvest of Despair: Life and Death in Ukraine under Nazi Rule” by Karel C. Berkhoff which was published after the _only_ motion picture _ever_ made about the Ukranian Famine, “Harvest of Despair: The Unknown Holocaust” by Slavko Nowytski (contrasted with over a hundred different Holocaustian Passion Plays shown at a theater (and video store and TV) near you).

So what if it is hard to top Berkhoff’s Holodomor Denying Chutzpah.  That doesn’t keep Holocaustian Passion Play producers from trying.  Now we all know why they do this: The year of the Ukranian Famine (aka Holodomor) directly preceded Hitler’s rise to power in Nazi Germany with a popular vote.  Why, if people realized that Stalin’s willing executioners were primarily Jewish, chosen by Stalin, precisely because they were Jews and therefore harbored little sympathy for native Ukranians, for the job of starving to death several million Ukranians, and that they did this just prior to the rise to popular power of the most infamous antisemite in history in nearby Germany, people might start getting heretical ideas, and then their souls would be eternally damned or something worse like becoming *gasp* “Holocaust Relativizers”.  (Under Holocaustianity we don’t need reminding that the root word of “rational” is “ratio” since all we need to know is how Jews are now feeling, have in the past felt and are going to in the future feel.)

One of the more amusing features of many movies about Jewish people, particularly Holocaustian Passion Plays, is the casting.  Frequently the casting directors act like they have a positive aversion to casting Jews or even Jewish looking actors as Jews.  “Everything is Illuminated” is this genre of Holocaustian Passion Play.

No need to go into it.  It is a button-pushing arty film, as are most Holocaustian Passion Plays.  See it at your own risk.

This opinion piece by Zef Chavets - titled “Anti-Semitic comments aren’t kosher, Mr. Gibson” - first appeared in the Los Angeles Times.  But yesterday it was syndicated by our good friends at the San Jose Mercury News.  It contained the word, “goyish”, which places it well within range of the RD artillery …

TO: George Riggs, Publisher, San Jose Mercury News (MediaNews Group)

TO: Stephen E. Wright, Editorial Page Editor, San Jose Mercury News (MediaNews Group)

ON: August 4, 2006

RE: Editorial Page Essay (Page 14A) by Zev Chafets (Written for Los Angeles Times)

We strongly protest your endorsement of a derivative of “goy” in the Chafets essay today. The words “goy,” “goyish,” and “goyim” represent such a packet of hatred that we feel it necessary to object loudly and clearly to Chafets’ effort to name us with this ugly and divisive label.

Chafets used the ugly “goyish” term in this sentence:

“But after the film [“The Passion”] grossed more than $600 million, these execs raised Gibson on their shoulders and began optioning every goyish property from Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians to the Anglican Book of Common Prayer.” More than a little anti-Christian bigotry lurks in that sentence, but our concern is with “goyish.”

[And what an odd slur to publish on the Friday after the Wednesday when the San Jose Mercury News officially passed to the MediaNews of Denver. Are we going to have a new flood of bigotry and divisiveness under MediaNews?]

Chafets’ claim to name the rest of us in the world is obviously based on a claim to supremacy—after all, what is the claim to have the right to name the other than a claim based on supremacy? Members of all races and religions appear to have sought to impose their name for the other on the other, but it is astounding to see the San Jose Mercury News, on its second day under new ownership, privilege Chafets’ dream of lording it over others by naming them as he chooses.

It shouldn’t be news to the publisher and editorial page editor of the San Jose Mercury News that this kind of labeling is the ultimate in divisive talk—Chafets just divides the world into two chunks of humanity, and names the one he is not a member of!

And it shouldn’t be news to the publisher and editorial page editor of the San Jose Mercury News that it is the members of any group under discussion that have the unlimited right and privilege to name themselves. What part of “Our Names, Ourselves” don’t you understand?

The most remarkable thing about the evil triplets (goy, goyish, goyim) is that the use of these terms serves to suppress the diversity of every other group in the world except for the group with which Chafets identifies. This is a kind of ultimate arrogance that surprised us to see the San Jose Mercury News endorse by publishing Chafets’ piece.

While “goyish” is divisive, supremacy-driven, and anti-diversity, we do not claim it is offensive. We are not concerned about our feelings in this matter, only that the mean-spiritedness of Chafets (and his publishers) should be laid bare.

The Ninth Circuit spoke out on the “goy” word in Baballah v. Ashcroft, decided 7/11/03.

Here is part of what the court said in its decision about Baballah’s treatment in Israel, before granting him asylum in the USA.

Referring to treatment by employers, “Although Baballah had studied to be an accountant, bank official refused to hire him when they discovered his background. These officials told him that he would ‘follow in [his] father’s footsteps’ and called him a ‘goy’...and [he was] turned away.”

The San Francisco Chronicle published an excellent article (7/12/03) on this decision which also discusses “goy.”

Kindly cease and desist the pattern and practice of endorsing divisive, supremacy-driven, and anti-diversity labels for us on your editorial page and throughout your paper. Kindly update your “style book” to enforce the cultural and social rule that only members of groups get to name their own groups. Remember, “Our Names, Ourselves.”

Bo Sears
ResistingDefamation.org

It is my contention that a good dose of applied Salterism would do much to bind together white nationalist politics and concentrate them in the right place - which, in turn, would vivify them no end.  Ethnic genetic interest resides, for example, in the attachment of a people to its lineage and to its land, and to its own nature as expressed in its traditions.  These are the classic lodestars of nationalism.  But EGI is at its most imperative by far in the matter of perpetuation, and in that of homogeneity.  In an age as dangerously bereft of racial consciousness as the present, EGI makes the case for European preservationism on irrefutable scientific grounds.

This is the second of my three-part post on the vexing issue of white nationalism, the first being merely a Prelude.

Since the expulsion of the Moors, politics in Western Europe have never specifically been a repository of racial preservationism.  Even in the Germany of the 1930’s the politics were not purposively preservationist.  They were self-reverential, self-laudatory.  They were supremacist.  But they were not preservationist other than in an implied sense.

Preservationism is really nothing more than those active measures a people takes to defend itself against extinction or displacement.  Moorish invasions aside, in the long period since European populations became settled there has been little use for it.  The history of intra-European warfare demonstrates that kingly power and prestige, and greed, faith, history and freedom moved men to kill one another.  In such causes European nations sought conquest over one another and sometimes contested land.  But scarcely, if ever, was the goal to extinguish a European enemy’s population.

So for us racial preservationism is not as close to the surface as we think.  Yet the already impinging crisis in the West has to be answered much more out of this instinct than out of any political precedent.  What one might call traditional nationalist politics are near to silent on the issue.  Politically, we have to make this up as we go along.

READ MORE...

Breaking Fake News: The BBC(BBC Los Angeles, whoever that is) reports (with a greyed-out footer that says “This article may be faux. Please Remember to check the facts.”)  that according to sources from the Los Angeles FBI, Mel Gibson has been under investigation for months regarding allegations that he has been funneling money to groups in the middle east such Hezbollah and Hamas. He has now been arrested for terrorism according to the fake news story.  I’m not sure whether their site breaks any laws regarding trademarks but it certainly is a believable story given the police state mentality of the neocons.