Posted by martin_uk on Wed, 02 Jul 2008 01:12 | #

The family could not have been a member of the chattering classes, or liberal establishment types, as there is no way on Earth that one of their children would have gone to a school as ethnically diverse as Holloway Road school. They always send their own children to much whiter places in Camden such as Parliament Hill or Haverstock.

Although they were an ordinary working or middle class English family, and therefore the likes of Cherie Blair and her cronies would normally not give a sh*t about them, this has hit too close to home, and young whites in the area are being mugged and assaulted all the time by blacks. Cherie Blair, and her like minded friends who live in the area know that this might easily have been one of their own children.

The reporting has, of course, been oblivious to the racial angle, and those interviewed dare not bring it up, or if they did it was not shown on telly, but everyone in that crowd knows. The pictures show an almost all white demonstration (and the cameramen did not even bother blonking), so the racial dimension has not been hidden from the wider public either. One ought to view the march as a pro-white pro-civilisation and anti-black anti-chaos one.

All those liberal delusions about race busted, yet again. But it takes a promising young white man to die horribly before these stupid white liberal/lefty types understand.

One of the most rewarding and most frustrating things about being a race realist and knowing (note “know”, not “believe”) is BEING RIGHT ALL THE BL**DY TIME. Race realists are right all the time. Liberal/lefties are wrong all the time.
(Zimbabwe is another example.)

Here is my prediction. More black on white killings. The media and politicians continue to talk about the “knife” problem and not about the “black” problem. More and more white people come to hate black people. More and more whites move away. but those that remain become racially conscious at least when it comes to monitoring their children’s movements late at night. They will have learnt that even if they affect not to be interested in race. race is interested in them. But some of these people have neighbours who work in the media and have influence in the corridors of power, so we might have a bit more honesty and more candid reporting and journalistic comment. Who knows, a “White Defence Force” might spring up.

The ST GEORGE banner on the march is a curious and very welcome sign.

Posted by 2R on Wed, 02 Jul 2008 01:58 | #

I’ve said it in the past, but when white liberals start feeling multiculturalism like the white working class does, then we might see some real change?  In fact, it might get a little scary?  We see how hateful these people are towards their own kind, think about the hate they’ll display if and when they wake up?  We might find that it is us, who are required to calm the situation down?  We must remember that liberals are totally controlled by their emotions, imagine if what we know is right via intellectual thought, is found to be right by the emotions of the liberal masses?  The explosion of emotion after this realization might be rather ugly? I’m just waiting for the corporations to start feeling the heat of diversity, that’s when the ball will really start moving.

Posted by snax on Wed, 02 Jul 2008 02:16 | #

I read the Kinsella family home is worth £2million. They had the money to get away from the jungle, but chose to stay - no doubt lying to themselves and their son about the people around them.

Posted by Bert Rustle on Wed, 02 Jul 2008 08:01 | #

Guessedworker wrote ... Much more of this sort of frankness and a certain question will slowly formulate in the national consciousness.  The right to ask it is being paid for in the blood of white children. ...

Asian women in the UK are also paying the ultimate price Colluding with ‘Honour’-based violence.

Reality Denial continues with The Daily Hate is outraged… again!, where who is killing who is discussed in the comments.

martin_uk wrote ...Here is my prediction. ... More and more white people come to hate black people. More and more whites move away. but those that remain become racially conscious ...

White victims of black violence of my acquaintance do not hate black people. However those that can vote with their feet and relocate to indigenous areas. Remarkably, these same individuals continue to vote for the Establishment Party which caused their relocation.

Furthermore, those forming the front-line cannon fodder for this great experiment either abstain or vote for the Establishment Party.

I would hazard a guess that this demonstrates that the framing by the Drive-By Media of acceptable opinions to the mindset described in Reporting Diversity has been largely successful.

Posted by Bill on Wed, 02 Jul 2008 08:43 | #

The Last Battle

Bert’s post above encapsulates the battle ground that is ours, the battle of the media.

External strands of events are converging rapidly, the media is shortly to face a crisis of credibility which they will surely lose.

It is the final battle before those events sink the media, and by extension political stability.

It is only the media which is propping up the whole house of cards.

The beat goes on.

Posted by Hey you on Wed, 02 Jul 2008 09:28 | #

We need less sob-stories about individual black-on-white crimes and more macrostatistics in order to make a real impact on people’s minds.

Posted by ... on Wed, 02 Jul 2008 09:42 | #

Look at the gutter news the Jew-infested AP is now feeding Americans:

“US politicians find ways to play on racial fears”

By EMILY WAGSTER PETTUS, Associated Press Writer

JACKSON, Miss. - A Republican congressional candidate in a majority-white Mississippi district runs ads trying to tie his Democratic rival with Barack Obama’s former pastor, seen by some as an anti-white firebrand. Democrats distribute fliers accusing the Republican of wanting a statue to honor the founder of the Ku Klux Klan.

The only black justice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court is defeated after his rival runs an ad with the justice’s picture next to that of a black convict. A watchdog group calls it a “disgraceful attack.”

In South Carolina, a Republican challenger for the U.S. Senate airs an ad with people stepping over wire fencing and protesters holding “Secure Our Borders” signs. It includes a man and woman saying, “Muchas gracias, Lindsey Graham,” the incumbent Republican.

In the first year a major party is poised to choose a black nominee for president, American politicians are still appealing to voters’ racial fears, with varying degrees of success.

“Racial fears and racial conflict are certainly not segregated to the South,” said Michael Dawson, a University of Chicago political scientist who has studied race in politics. “Certainly, I think we see it in most parts of the country.”

Republicans have a long — and often successful — history of trying to label local Democrats as national Democrats, even when the local candidate disagrees with the national party on some issues.

That happened a few weeks ago in special elections for open congressional seats in Mississippi and Louisiana, where the Democrats both ran as anti-abortion and pro-gun candidates — positions that put them at odds with their national party.

After both Democrats won, Republican campaign leaders immediately said they would re-evaluate their strategy because the tactic appeared to backfire by increasing black voter turnout for the Democrats.

Dawson, though, said that with a black nominee at the top of the Democratic ticket, the conservatives’ tactic of tying local Democratic candidates to the national party will be “doubly effective” in stirring up some voters’ fears.

Andra Gillespie, an Emory University political scientist, said candidates in the U.S. have long played to people’s fears and biases, but they’re now using more subtle methods than politicians did in the days of the Dixiecrats, the Southern segregationists who split from the Democratic Party in the mid-1960s.

“You cannot be blatantly racist anymore,” Gillespie said.

She said politicians now use tactics described by Princeton University political scientist Tali Mendelberg in her 2001 book, “The Race Card: Campaign Strategy, Implicit Messages and the Norm of Equality.”

Mendelberg wrote about the use of images and buzz words to appeal to people’s subconscious ideas about race. She called this “implicit priming.”

“You’re basically winking as you say ‘antibusing’ or ‘law and order’ — or ‘welfare queens’ as Ronald Reagan did in the 1980s,” Gillespie said. “If you can sort of tap into those internal prejudices ... you can have the same effect as if you straight up use the N-word.”

Mississippi, among the states with the highest number of black elected officials, still sees campaigns use race as a wedge, including a special election for an open congressional seat this year.

The Republican congressional candidate was Greg Davis, mayor of Southaven, a Mississippi suburb of Memphis, Tenn. He ran a TV ad that said Travis Childers had been endorsed by Obama. The narrator’s voice dripped with derision as he said, “when Obama’s pastor cursed America, blaming us for 9-11, Childers said nothing.”

Davis stands by the ad. Childers, who, like Davis, is white, called the ad “mean-spirited.”

“Rev. Chuck Hampton is my pastor at East Booneville Baptist Church,” Childers said. “You can put anything he does wrong squarely on me. But y’all are not holding me accountable for Rev. Jeremiah Wright.”

Days before the May 13 election, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee mailed copies of a flier with a photo of an exasperated black man next to the words: “Greg Davis wants to honor the founder of the KKK with a statue in Southaven.”

In defense of the mailing, congressional campaign committee spokesman Doug Thornell cited news reports from 2005, when Memphis officials decided against removing Confederate names and statues from two public parks. One park is named for Confederate President Jefferson Davis, the other for Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest, who founded the KKK but later spoke out against the group’s violence.

Greg Davis said recently that he offered in 2005 to take the Jefferson Davis statue for his city, and the mayor of nearby Hernando, Miss., offered to take the Forrest statue.

“As you go through a campaign a lot of facts are distorted and lies are told,” Davis said. “Unfortunately, I think that one had an effect in certain communities.”

His own ad about Wright raised legitimate questions about Democrats, Davis maintained.

Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler was defeated this year after his opponent, Michael Gableman, ran a TV ad that said Butler “worked to put criminals on the street.” It showed Butler’s photo next to one of Reuben Lee Mitchell, who was accused of rape in 1984. Both men are black.

“Butler found a loophole,” the ad says. “Mitchell went on to molest another child.”

Butler had once represented Mitchell as a public defender and won him a new trial, but that ruling was overturned and did not lead to Mitchell’s release. However, he was paroled years later and raped a runaway.

The Wisconsin Judicial Campaign Integrity Committee compared the ad to the one used against Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis in 1988, with a photo of black convict Willie Horton, who had committed crimes during a weekend furlough program that Dukakis had supported as Massachusetts governor.

Gableman’s campaign adviser Darrin Schmitz defended the spot as a “comparison ad.”

The political scientists Gillespie and Dawson both pointed to the 2006 U.S. Senate race in Tennessee as an example of advertising that plays on people’s fears about interracial dating. Democratic U.S. Rep. Harold Ford Jr., who is black, lost the contest to Republican Bob Corker.

A TV spot paid for by the Republican National Committee used a bare-shouldered white actress who chirped, “I met Harold at the Playboy party!” It apparently was a reference to Ford’s attending a 2005 Playboy Super Bowl party in Jacksonville, Fla.

Ford responded by telling reporters: “I was there. I like football, and I like girls.”

Gillespie said a candidate who’s the target of a racial jab — either subtle or flagrant — should publicly call the attack what it is. She said that changes the way viewers evaluate the ad because they are forced to deal more openly with their own biases about race.

“The Ford campaign’s response was the textbook wrong thing to do,” Gillespie said. “They demurred (rather than) ... call it racist.”

- http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080702/ap_on_el_ge/racial_politics

Posted by Foxbark on Wed, 02 Jul 2008 11:28 | #

Snax,
      A £2 million house in Islington actually equates to a rather modest dwelling.
The surname ‘Kinsella’ is Irish - I’m purely guessing here, but it is very plausible that the forbears of Ben Kinsella came over sometime in the 1950s or 60s (when property in Islington was actually affordable), and worked in some capacity in the construction trades (and worked damned hard too in ome unpleasant or dangerous occupation), during the post-war rebuilding of London, as most Irish emigrants did.
  Lest we forget it was Irish labour that provided the back-bone of the Britidh post-war building boom.

Posted by Alex on Wed, 02 Jul 2008 15:49 | #

A Kriss   

A little farther on a crowd are gathered, who suddenly start and fly for their lives.    A stalwart Malay, whose face is so malignant with all evil passions that it would make a capital study for Gustave Dore in his next picture of Satan, and who is maddened with vile liquor and opium has rushed out and is running amok, striking and stabbing with his gleaming Kriss, everyone in his way…

   
It continues on as the narrator takes the reader on a walk through the ‘Great City’....

Yet farther on the Hindoo, sleek, graceful, and eminently handsome in form and feature, but treacherous and deceitful, bows very humbly and obsequiously, but it would not surprise us to know, that in one of his fits of jealousy against Englishmen and Americans, he had assassinated some friend of ours to whom he had been equally obsequious and polite.”

And so, if this extremely violent and unstable world was foreseen, why did they go foreward with it?    The reason being is in large part, as others have observed, there are a relative few who place their money first in importance, and then their physical selves, in that order, and that’s all they care about, and were the price right would likely be prepared to sell their own mothers, not to mention their own families and peoples.    The profits these relative few are making from exploiting others as ‘cheap labor’ are incredible and are provide plenty motivation that explains their amoral behaviour.  And then too, too many people are following these powerful elements of the elites that are of that thinking.    A break needs to take place with these persons which hasn’t taken place as of yet.

Posted by Alex on Wed, 02 Jul 2008 16:04 | #

The above post should follow this portion, for some reason it did not all post…

Mr Rae said: “We know that there was a number of people in the club when there was a disturbance. This disturbance spilled out into North Road, Islington and up the road.”

He said the incident climaxed at the junction of North Road and York Way with the fatal stabbing of Ben.

This is very sad and tragic.    There was at the demonstration in response to this young man’s death a large sign which asked ‘Why Ben?’, and while it may not be possible to answer why this happened specifically to young Ben, the how of it happening can be explained

For his type of thing was foreseen by those who have created the conditions that allow it.    Compare the emboldened excerpt above from the article with the quotes below taken from a book published in 1870, centering upon a North America of one hundred years in the future (ie 1970), the title of which GW has quite correctly subtly altered to ‘Crimes Our Grandchildren Will See’.    As the writer clearly demonstrates, it was well understood that artificially bringing radically different peoples and their cultures together, either as cheap labor and or as the 95% plus bogus asylum seeker acting as a flimsy cover for the same, would not likely fare well.    Indeed, the resulting unstable world described is one where the random act of ultra-violence is common place, and where one can easily find themselves ‘assassinated’ for being at the wrong place at the wrong time in one of the ‘great cities’ of North America.

Posted by snax on Thu, 03 Jul 2008 06:10 | #

Brian Beutler, race-blind blogger has been shot by a mugger in DC.

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/usa/2007/11/on_bold_racism.html
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/07/brian-beutler.html

Is the mugger Black? Almost certainly. But even if he isn’t, I can happily say that if it were only Beutler and his kind who suffered the effects of their propaganda, I wouldn’t mind.

Posted by Weston on Thu, 03 Jul 2008 12:44 | #

Is the mugger Black? Almost certainly.

  Shot for his cell phone in Washington, D.C.? I think you can safely drop the “almost”. 

I can happily say that if it were only Beutler and his kind who suffered the effects of their propaganda, I wouldn’t mind.

    Indeed, I daresay that I’ll have an extra skip in my step today after hearing this news.

   

‘

Posted by Bill on Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:23 | #

Simon alludes to black perpetrators thus: “where the race relations industry calls any attempt at police prevention “racism”

And has the cheek to title the piece ” How many will die before we get serious? ”

Getting serious means accepting black sociobiology for what it is, and accepting that we English will never be free of the fear of black mayhem while the MultiCult is preserved.

link
Posted by Guessedworker on July 5, 2008 4:55 PM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/07/05/do0503.xml

Bravo GW.

It will never come to pass (voluntarily) - it’s a religion we’re dealing with here.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 05 Jul 2008 19:03 | #

In the article linked by Bill, Simon Heffer says, “we know what’s wrong.” 

Do they? 

What’s wrong is the government has let too many people of the wrong race in.  Negroes in large numbers are the wrong race.  So are North African mulattoes in large numbers, mainly because they’re part-Negro but even if they weren’t they’d be wrong.  So are Pakistanis in large numbers.  Poles too, in large numbers.  In fact any race in large numbers is wrong for Britain except the British race. 

Members of the wrong race need to be gotten back out, together with members of the right race who oppose getting them back out.

Since Heffer doesn’t mention any of that, I’d say he’s incorrect in claiming “we know what’s wrong.”  He doesn’t know.  Either that, or he does know and is deliberately not speaking up.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 05 Jul 2008 19:39 | #

“Getting serious” also includes bring miscegenation to a screeching halt by dint of law and instituting a crash program to increase White fertility.  None of this is for the squeamish, but neither is the task of saving our race.

Posted by Alpha on Sat, 05 Jul 2008 20:44 | #

I found this site through Guessedworker’s DT post and I agree with the sentiment displayed in many of these comments. I find it terribly frustrating that my people are deluded by egalitarian lunacy. I see a white man walking on the moon while the black man is left scratching his head at the concept of digging a hole and planting a seed. I see immigrants from East Asia effortlessly prosper in our society, placing emphasis on a strong family unit and education while the Africans are ludicrously overrepresented in every area of crime, sub-standard educational achievement and so on. It’s the same wherever they are; Africa is a continental disaster, the Caribbean is the most dangerous area in the world that isn’t a designated war zone and every African diaspora has brought nothing but misery and destruction to their adopted communities across America/Europe. I don’t hate them, I just think their existence is incompatible to a successful (ie. high educational attainment + low crime) society.

Unfortunately, I don’t believe this is a problem that will be solved any time soon. Somebody mentioned the sub-replacement fertility level above; Do you have any idea how bad it is in London? London is the last place where we need more third world parasites but there isn’t a beacon of hope anywhere.

The fertility rate of white women is 1.3 in London - This includes the seemingly endless line of disgusting chavs who either breed for benefits with third worlders or those who are impregnated by their ‘rude boys’ and then subsequently abandoned. This is endemic in Africa, Brazil, the Caribbean and the US and now they’ve imported their savagery here, only now our women are included.

In contrast to the 1.3 figure, just look at the amount of inbred muslims born.

Record rates of immigration persist with no signs of slowing down. The majority of immigrants come to London. Property prices are irrelevant because they cram ten people into a three-bed semi.

Record rates of emigration to white suburban enclaves or to other white countries. These are typically young grads who we desperately need or retirees whom are taking capital out of the country.

Within a generation or two our London is going to be inhabited by africans/mongrels/inbred pakis/bangladeshis. I see no hope for a reversal. Governmental policies to encourage Britons to breed? That’d be great if the modern definition of a ‘Brit’ wasn’t anybody who just got off the boat and straight on to the council housing list.

I am a mere pup at 18. I don’t know a single person who isn’t shackled by cognitive dissonance and I certainly don’t see a future here for my children’s children. Please convince me otherwise :(

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 05 Jul 2008 23:59 | #

Alpha,

You are welcome here, and I’m glad you followed that trail from the DT.

Are you wrong about the future?  Perhaps that depends on whether “getting better” can ever be a product of “getting worse”, as the BNPers seem to believe.  At the moment, though, it does look to my mind like the real product of “getting worse” is more “getting worse”.  I see black faces in villages now.  It is a slow, soft, unrelenting genocide.

Still, we are proto-revolutionaries, all of us.  We have to recrudesce and refine our ideas in places like this, and take them out everywhere into the world.  That is all we can do today, in the hope and expectation that others will hear, and make the journey from self-estrangement and ethno-masochism to love of, and loyalty to, kind.

Good luck.

Posted by snax on Sun, 06 Jul 2008 00:59 | #

You met a moment GW when you recognised the problem, and if I’ve read you rightly it wasn’t in your first blush. The more obvious and inescapable the problem becomes, the more all shall see it. That’s all ‘worse is better’ means, and surely it’s true as far as it goes? Your work, as you’ve said, is at the other end.

I think the worse and the quicker it gets, those of us who choose to remain us, will best survive. The slow genocide is working because it’s slow.

Posted by Bill on Sun, 06 Jul 2008 11:12 | #

Lifestyle choice.

Our liberal elites exhort that among the many freedoms we enjoy under the umbrella of their benign gaze, is lifestyle choice.  Like their economic brothers, in the quest to lift all boats, there are no limits to lifestyle of choice.

So why does it come as such a surprise to our elites that some among us, who have a penchant for violence, the preferred choice is the knife style, after all, it is as much a logical choice as pornography is for the depraved, or as same sex marriage for gays.

Is this what Auster calls an unprincipled exception? (what is the difference between unprincipled exception and unintended consequence?)

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005864.html

Posted by weston on Sun, 20 Jul 2008 05:40 | #

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080720/lf_afp/britaincrimeyouth_080720025452

LONDON (AFP) - Britain is struggling to get to grips with a surge of fatal knife attacks, which analysts say reflects a growing sense of insecurity on the country’s streets.

  Do these knife attacks “reflect a growing sense of insecurity” or are they causing that sense?

  While some say young people are increasingly carrying knives as a fashion item, others say it is simply because they are scared of being attacked and so make sure they are armed.

 

  Ahh, it’s those “young people” again.  The author of this piece refers to unnamed sources who claim that the knife attacks are due to more “young people” carrying knives, which they are doing because they fear knife attacks.  Got it.  Elegantly circular. 

“They fear they’re going to be attacked themselves,” said Professor Gloria Laycock, from the Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science, named after a well-known BBC television presenter who was shot dead on her doorstep in 1999.

“I don’t think it’s got anything to do with some fundamental social cause like the economy, or poor parenting or anything like that, because it’s happened too quickly,” she added.

[emphasis mine]
 
  No fundamental social cause, says Prof. Laycock, an “expert” in crime prevention and an Officer of the Order of the British Empire. 

  On a happier note, Vox Day notes some positive news from Britain:

  Home owners and “have-a go-heroes” have for the first time been given the legal right to defend themselves against burglars and muggers free from fear of prosecution…. They will be able to use force against criminals who break into their homes or attack them in the street without worrying that “heat of the moment” misjudgements could see them brought before the courts.

The good news: Brits can use force to defend themselves. The bad news: They still won’t be allowed to own weapons permitting them to do so effectively. But at least if Granny Wivelscombe does manage to kill a hulking 19-year old hoodie named Jamal by stabbing him in the eye with her knitting needles, she probably won’t be prosecuted for it.

Posted by Nathan Bedford Forrest removed by night on Sun, 24 Dec 2017 09:00 | #

A private group paid $250,000 to remove the statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest that stood atop his and his wife’s grave in a Memphis park named after him (to date, the name is slated to be changed to “emancipation park”)

Forrest was perhaps the most commendable of the Southern Generals. Why?

Because he fought for Secession and States Rights in a way that might have had chance - by guerilla tactics - as opposed to marching line formation straight into enemy fire, as General Lee ordered General Pickett to do, having his troops proceed line formation straight into enemy fire at “Pickett’s charge” in Gettysburg.

Forrest carried-on in tactical concern after the war, as leader of the Ku Klux Klan, to defend Whites, particularly White women from Negro violence and the Federal government’s imposition of them upon the vastly depleted manpower of the South. They would fight a secret war through the newly founded K.K.K. At the time it was a novel and strategic concept. The sheets, “ghost costumes” to represent dead Confederate soldiers, also helped disguise Klan members from Fed detection as they went on their missions. However, when members got out of hand with uncontrollable, arbitrary and counter productive attacks on blacks, he was forced to disband the first permutation of the Klan.