|
|
|
Griffin on Question Time - reaction thread This entry is for MR readers who would like to post their reactions to Nick Griffin’s QT performance. The programme, which was recorded earlier this evening, was reported as the lead item on BBC News at ten this evening. Edited highlights on the BBC website are here. It looks and sounds very like a lynch party, which is perhaps not surprising. Whether there were any BNP members in the audience to support Griffin I don’t know. I suspect that there were, and that none of them were permitted to ask searching questions of the other panellists. Anyhow, it’s time for the real broadcast. So, see you after that! UPDATE: QT AND THE BNP BELOW THE FOLD Thanks to Dan’s find and to Dasein, we can now embed all parts of the programme so readers outside the UK can see exactly what it is we are talking about! And the BNP’s formal riposte: Comments:2
Posted by Roger Gray on Thu, 22 Oct 2009 23:55 | # I think it’s time to concede that Nick comes with too much historical baggage. Although he got in a good blow against Jack Straw early in the show, the next several minutes were devoted to Nick having to fend off questions about past statements of his, and I’m disappointed in the quality of his responses. He really has to lose that sickly smile and comporting himself in that unbecoming clowning manner. Nick especially blew the opportunity to say something coherent about the Holohoax, neatly checkmated by Straw on his attempt to evade it by invoking legal consequences. On the other hand, it would have been impossible in the circumstances to counter Straw’s bathos about Auschwitz with a closely reasoned argument on what the evidence suggests took place there as opposed to the generally held view that mass gassing for the explicit purpose of killing was routine. Most revealing to me was the evasiveness of the audience and the panel on the question of what constitutes an indigenous Briton, and Nick’s point that English as an ethnic category has been effectively abolished. Nick got into his stride on this question, and made some good points, but the liberal consensus is evidently still too strong for ordinary people to be gripped by a good dose of cognitive dissonance, the essential first step to seeing through the bull. Not the BNP’s finest moment. 3
Posted by Matra on Thu, 22 Oct 2009 23:58 | # Their no-show, just as they rarely show up in on-line debate, should worry their white advocates. They don’t care. Non-whites are just props to them. I didn’t look at pictures of the protesters but my first thought was of pale skinny middle class art school students who listen to ‘hip underground’ music. 4
Posted by BGD on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:07 | # Well the best that might be said is now that it is over he won’t cause the hairs on the back of liberal’s necks to rise and therefore might get to be a more familiar face on television because of it - if only occasionally. I thought him a little too keen to ingratiate (nodding along to comments by the BNP detractors and smiling at people who attacked him) I thought he got a few jabs in but spent most of his time on the ropes. That said everyone was well prepped against him and it was blatantly an unfair fight. The psychological pressures both from the audience negativity and the hopes invested in him by supporters must have lain very heavily. I hope that many regular Britons who watched it and who saw the odds stacked against him sided with the underdog - a supposed British trait after all. Do the bulk of people who currently make up the bulk of BNP voters watch QT anyway. Otherwise maybe a few hundred viewers who were watching might now be looking on the website for more information and an enquiry pack - if it wasn’t blooming down again.. 5
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:12 | # Well, a few first impressions. 1. The audience appeared to contain no uncommitted voters and all of three or four BNP supporters - one of whom managed to ask a question about employment and immigration which was not put to the panel. 2. The overall impression created by the programme, and aided by the mad-dog types outside attacking the gates of the building, was that no one has ever thought to raise a sound against the wonders of “diversity” except a few totally illegitimate racists ... oh, and the million BNP voters who, of course, are completely anti-racist in all their thoughts and deeds and really only need to “have their concerns listened to” by the mainstream parties we all trust so much. 3. Griffin’s performance was patchy and it sometimes betrayed nervousness, and I don’t think he is to be blamed for that. But I was willing him to eloquence, and it only came once. I was pleased that he made the, to my mind, very powerful point that for the political Establishment the English do not exist. He also dared to use the word “genocide”, which was good. He did not use the term, “race-replacement”, though - without which “genocide” has no contextual meaning. 4. Griffin’s past assessment that he has too much baggage to take the party the whole length of the journey was certainly proven. He was attacked tellingly for his past in the NF and as an anti-Holocaustian, and all he could do was to take shelter under the nearest rock. He’s had a long time to work out an effective strategy of dealing with these attacks, and he has not done so. Talking about the BNP’s support for Israel and pretending that he cannot explain his past statements about the Holocaust do not cut it. 5. Of the other panellists only Chris Huhne raised his profile. The other three were awful. 6
Posted by Orion Blue on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:17 | # I saw this episode of question time and to be honest, it looked like a total hatchet job. Packing the audience with base-appetiate white females and aggrievied ethincs does very little for credibility. Also, it has to be said that Jack Straw’s self-confessed provenance does little to strenthen his line of argumentation. I agree wholeheartedly that the show seemed to be about putting Nick Griffin on trial for comments he may have made earlier in his career, but let’s face it, if politicians of today were forced to confront their undergraduate maunderings, how many would stand up credibly? One only has to think about the subersive left/communist sympathies of the current political establishment. One point I found very noticeable was the sheer number of aggrieved black and brown “minorities” chiming in with their own opinions, as though they are supposed to count for anything. More ominously though, was the threat from one darky that the English Indigenous (who have a right to be here), might be happy being deported to the South Pole by these repulsive invaders who seem to have claimed this country for themselves. All in all, I would say that if NIck Griffin has not garnered support for the BNP, then he should at least have brough in to sharp relief the very real and tangible antagonisms that exist between the races in this country; something I experience almost every single day of my life thanks to the reality of living among so many of these “people”. 7
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:27 | # Based on watching the highlights linked in the entry, which was all I saw, Orion’s comment makes good sense. If the whole show was like the highlights it almost serves no purpose to even discuss it, as it was a total pre-planned and orchestrated hatchet job which nobody, not Plato, not Socrates, Aristotle, not Jesus Christ could have walked away from looking anything other than sheepish at best, bad and defeated and put in his place at worst. I wouldn’t even pay attention to this sort of hatchet job. I’d ignore anything that was not fair, which qualifies this for consignment to utter oblivion as far as I’m concerned. Hatchet jobs mean exactly zip. 8
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:28 | # You can subject anybody to a hatchet job like this, absolutely anybody. It means zero. 9
Posted by AunDoorback on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:29 | # Sorry but I could have done better after a skinful. But baby steps and all that. I’ve just had to sit through an entire day of “equality and diversity” training. I won’t bore you. But the sheer feebleness of the arguments advanced and the subdued rebellion among my co-suferrers (sic?) has re-ignited my faith in myself. The fear I saw in my “instructor’s” eyes when I dared to dissent from the orthodoxy was quite something. Can I suggest that some of you could do worse than re-visit Buchan? And also, if any of you need a summary of all things right and beautiful, try Eomer’s speech to Aragorn and his companions at their first meeting on the fields of Rohan. “we wish to live free in our own lands, in kinder days etc… Never, ever, give up. Ever. I won’t. My blood and its path are all that really mean anything at all. I am a well educated man of low ambition. But my high, even Olympian ambition is to set aside all else for the welfare of MINE. 10
Posted by Lurker on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:30 | # Matra, sorry I should have been more specific. I didnt mean in the current context, from a tactical standpoint of defeating the BNP. I meant from a more long term p.o.v. How will their cheerful, multiracial utopia remain viable when the majority of the population belong to groups who dont give a toss. If they dont care now, why are they going to be bothered when they are the majority and not threatened by the scary BNP? I would like to think some (whites) on the left reflect on that and come to some uncomfortable conclusions. 11
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:32 | # AunDoorback: The fear I saw in my “instructor’s” eyes when I dared to dissent from the orthodoxy was quite something. I, for one, would be interested in a proper account of that. 12
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:52 | # My favorite catchphrase about the BNP: “To vote for the BNP is to vote for yourself. To vote for someone other than the BNP is to vote for your self destruction.” Love that! 13
Posted by cladrastis on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:54 | # The problem is that Griffin is trying to rationalize the BNP’s politics and his own behavior (unfortunately, he sometimes has trouble being consistent). Although there are many rational arguments (from our side) to support the BNP’s political (and presumably social) agenda, there are equally rational arguments from the other side. All that is needed to concoct a rational argument is to start with some premise and maintain internal consistency while logically deducing conclusions. Unfortunately, as many here and elsewhere have commented, the “right” has cut itself off from its intellectual and historical roots, which sometimes makes it difficult for us to fully exploit the logic underpinning our political agendae. I imagine Griffin got nervous because the questions came close to revealing some of that reasoing (which is probably close to S. Renner’s “bleeding edge of the radical right”). The amusing thing about the QT debate is that if any one of the other panelists had been forced to rationalize their own political ideas they would have looked every bit as foolish as Griffin. Politics is about power, and power is not rational. Power is a spiritual force. Watch the old videos of NS Germany. Spritual power does not have a problem when confronted with contradiction (which is inevitable in logical thought). It plows directly through contradictions in pursuit of its goal. 14
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:55 | # Covington videos: Northwest Migration - The Brigade Northwest Migration - Decay and Democrazy Northwest Migration - Duty Northwest Migration - 4 Phases to Victory Northwest Migration - Tradition Northwest Migration - Amerikwaa Northwest Migration - Solidarity Northwest Migration - Atrocity 15
Posted by cladrastis on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 01:07 | # To provide an example: Biologists argue constantly about the “biological species concept.” This argument sounds a lot like the arguments racialists and anti-racists have about the existence of human races (albeit usu. less polarized). A precise definition cannot be created b/c there are arguments for and against the existence of discrete species. All the biologists I’ve met, however, do agree that the “species concept” is useful… 16
Posted by AunDoorback on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 01:22 | # GW I sat through that tiresome “a class divided” video set in that appalling, crime infested hell that was Riceville, Iowa in 1972. I was among a group that was encouraged to reflect on how atrocious it was that said hell remained - against all decency - entirely white and Christian [the horror]. Being invited to comment upon such, I lost the restraint that befits someone reduced to seek work in the UK civil service and asked: What exactly the problem was with said community as against, say, an all Muslim Yemeni community (whose rights to self determination I support in all entirety)?
My observation that in Communist Yugoslavia, all such exhortaions to universal brotherhood had - if you’ll pardon the expression - gone to shit, was greeted by my betters with - I kid you not- a whispered shuffling of papers and a gesture that I should go on my break. Along with those who had dared to listen and express the remotest gesture of agreement. 17
Posted by Rhys on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 01:22 | # I’m also glad he got in the word ‘genocide’. I must admit though that I can remember back before I had awakened, and when I first heard that word in the context of what is being done to our people I automatically rejected it. Still, the word needs to be said, because it is the truth. Does anyone (Roger, GW etc) have any suggestions on what he could have said about the holohoax? What about the appearance with David Duke (whom most viewers will probably not have heard of)? Some of the nonsense from the panel was so extraordinary that it would have been almost impossible to prepare for (“there’s no such thing as a bogus asylum seeker” for instance). Still, I thought he could have made the point (as he has made many times) about how Britain is only obliged to accept as asylum seekers people facing persecution in neighbouring countries. It would have been good to see the panel answer the question “since there is mass unemployment, why do we need immigration?” but I don’t think many of the people in the room even heard it. Perhaps I’m being naïve, but I think his comments about supporting Israel might have surprised at least some non-BNP-supporters. I think there are several sleepers out there who don’t even realise that the BNP oppose Britain’s wars in the Iraq and Afghanistan. 18
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 01:22 | # cladrastis, I trust reason and don’t agree that it is relativistic. On the other hand, I certainly don’t trust emotion. And spirit simply does not exist - attempts to force it into existence invariably end up with dead people somewhere. I have spent some little time courting attacks on leftist media. One of the interesting and stable aspects of the game is that I never find myself unable to operate from a rational basis, while the antis can resort very quickly to emotional attack. Even the most able of them go that way. A few days ago one particular playmate at CiF who goes by the name of Olching, and who is a sociology type who insists on the absoluteness of his right to screw non-white women, wonderfully, totally and most satisfyingly lost it with me. Spluttering incoherence all over his keyboard, he was. When they blow, they blow, and this one really made my day - though I got banned very shortly afterwards! 19
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 01:32 | # Rhys: Does anyone (Roger, GW etc) have any suggestions on what he could have said about the holohoax? Perhaps something like:
Maybe that would do, I don’t know. 20
Posted by Rhys on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 01:34 | # AunDoorback, good on you. 21
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 01:45 | # Thanks, AunDoorback, and well done. Politeness to strangers is the British way. The rest is covered under Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide:
22
Posted by BB Wolfe on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 01:54 | # After watching the first 20 minutes of bear-baiting on Question Time, I felt too embarrassed to watch the rest of this Kafkaesque fiasco, although I did catch bit more of this media mugging. It was like a bad dream (after eating too much cheese) where Afro-American feminist pseudo-historian zombies, squinty Jewish zombies, Wog trolls and dribbling corpse-like White liberals all crawl out of the swamp en masse and lay siege to your home while you’re in bed. And if you get your axe to chop them up you’re arrested. It was a stitch-up, of course, but I can only imagine Griffin was led into a false sense of security. But then again he did say he expected it to be “political blood sport”. Using the Question Time format as an excuse to bear-bait the BNP. Covering Nick Griffin in chocolate and throwing him to the lesbians. Can it get any worse? Now Channel Four weighs in with a season of coloured television: http://raceandscience.channel4.com/ 23
Posted by AunDoorback on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 01:56 | # Rhys As I see it right now the problem is that the order and normality that most of us take for granted (if we have the good fortune to live in a predominantly white, or white - ordered - neighbourhood) is our comfort zone. If anyone doesn’t understand this, they are not in my sphere of understanding. 24
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 02:00 | #
Hilarious, I can just see that as a scene in a British satirical comedy film making fun of what’s going on. 25
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 02:09 | # BB Wolfe gets my vote, hands down, for “most technically-accurate characterization of the other side”:
Perfect snapshot of the event! 26
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 02:14 | # Just going by the highlights I thought Griffin did pretty well. His remark about Jack Straw’s father’s activities during WWII was a well-placed bit of ad hominem and his reaction to the barking curs in the audience was one of low-key bemusement. Not bad. 27
Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 02:19 | # If that believer in airborne Hebrew spirits (and self-righteous prig) Reis is looking for support of the underdog there is no better place than Communism’s Jewish source - book from which Acts4, 32-35 provides an sterling sample of his beloved Christianity’s maladaptive essence. 29
Posted by AunDoorback on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 02:20 | # Hilarious indeed Fred. But I was part of the joke and didn’t hugeley appreciate it. 30
Posted by Dan Dare on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 02:30 | # Be back later with my own impressions, but in the meantime this damage control arrived in the last few minutes from the BNP:
32
Posted by Lurker on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 03:08 | # BB Wolfe mentioned this: Channel Four weighs in with a season of coloured television Follow that link. There is a small comment box there allowing you a quick precis of what you think race is. Get stuck in, I have, it wont take many extra comments to dominate the thread. 33
Posted by john on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 03:33 | # What was said wasn’t important. Nick could have told a few jokes then dozed off. That would have been fine. It sets a precident, that’s all that matters. 34
Posted by cladrastis on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 03:35 | # GW, When you stick your hand in a flame or suck on a lemon, are you being reasonable? Are you apprehending those things through the power of reason? Don’t get me wrong, reason is damn useful, especially in terms of predicting events in the natural world. On the other hand, emotionalism is an evolved trait too, perhaps more evolved in the human species than in any other (as is reason). And emotion is by its nature completely irrational. Is there a “reason” why emotions exist in the human species? Do they serve some function, which has aided our selection in the course of time (if not, why don’t isopods and fish and lizards exhibit the human range of emotions)? I do think that reason is a finer or subtler form of intelligence than gross sensorimotor experience or emotionalism, but that does not make it any more valid. And who is to say that other forms of intelligence are not in nascent stages of evolution within Homo sapiens? My use of the word “spirit” is a semantic artifact. If one believes in a “god of the gaps” (of reason) then perhaps spirit is the force that permits us to surmount those gaps. And, of course, the gaps will always exist. Also, things die; it’s the blessing of life. Bodies pile up everyday. And “they” (who are apparently completely irrational) are winning. 35
Posted by Selous Scout on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 03:37 | # Well done. It could have been worse. Nick is not the most articulate of speakers, but I reckon he did rather well under the circumstances. I really liked his jibes at Straw. I’m glad he didn’t fall the Holocau$t bait, because, whatever we may think, the vast majority of the public are repulsed by Holocau$t deniers. I’m not entirely sure this won’t backfire on the Left. The audience was obviously packed with foreign hostiles (and white traitors), but I think their hateful preformance will have turned off many Britons. It was painful to watch pretty white girls whoop it up and clap whenever some negro or mystery meat mud in the audience directed an insult at Nick. It was shocking to watch the hatred expressed by politicians and BBC reporters, who were quite direct in their anti-BNP bias. But, this will not have gone unnoticed. Likewise the white hipsters rioting outside the studio will have opened people’s eyes. I expected a larger Muslim presence, but it did not seem to materialise. In the end, I think appearing on QT, though it was a blatant hatchet job, will have backfired on the power elites at the same time it legitimises Nick and the BNP, whilst exposing their ideas to a larger audience. Was the Muslim militant Tariq Ali in the audience? 36
Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 03:37 | # There’s a scene in “The Untouchables” where the Sean Connery character says something like “if they bring a knife then you bring a gun, if they send one of yours to the hospital, you send one of theirs to a morgue.” Griffin needs to stop trying to appear like a respectable mainstream politician. They’ll never allow it. he needs to treat them like they’re the enemy that they are, hone counter-attacks that hurt and use them constantly. If he can make his counter attacks worse than the attack then they’ll try something else.
“There’s an official version of that particular piece of history and if you question even the slightest detail of that official history you can go to jail so i don’t question it.” They won’t like him making people wonder “why?” Keep repeating it if they keep asking. It’s not a friendly chat.
“America has the same problem as the rest of the western world. The political left is anti-nationalist and wants to use mass immigration to destroy national identity. The political right wants to use mass immigration to drag wage levels down to the same level as China and India. The only people trying to fight this are parties like the BNP and individuals like David Duke. I will meet and discuss tactics with any nationalist who might have useful insights that could help the BNP.” Use every question to repeat the most closely relevant of a set of talking points that hurt them and then segue into the actual brief answer. 37
Posted by Lurker on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 03:47 | # The mob* outside were much whiter than the invited audience inside. It could be that non-whites were told to stay away, after all a vibrant baying mob would have played directly into Griffin’s hands. I dont think it was that well organised though. It tells us something about the way the BBC picks its audience and, as I said, tells us that non-whites just arent that interested, they really dont care much. *Even so that mob was a political gift, their words and behaviour where broadcast will only have bought the BNP more votes. 38
Posted by jamesUK on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 04:05 | # He should have used Kosovo as an example when talking about immigration and tolerance and racism and the Bosnian war when the British government during the 90’s was letting the radical “nutcase” Abu Hamza with the compliance of MI5/MI6 to openly recruit British Muslims in the Finsburgh Park mosque to fight with other international Jihadists in the Bosnian war. Sky News report British citizens involved in terrorism given Bosnian citizen. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lSRFC-jVPw He could have also mention that one of those was the lead mastermind of the London bombing who through his connections in the Balkans got the explosives used for the attack smuggled into Britain from explosives in Kosovo. He should have made Kosovo an issue like Le Pen does when talking about immigration when in 39 Serbs where a majority in the region and due to state terror, ethnic cleansing and mass illegal immigration from Albanian Serbs and other non-Albanians are a persecuted minority.
http://www.kosovo.net/default2.html Overall he made a pretty poor performance. 39
Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 04:18 | #
Most of them don’t really feel part of Britain or British poliitcs. They show up at elections to vote for their community leaders so those community leaders get public money and spread it among their group. That’s about it. 40
Posted by Lurker on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 04:37 | #
Exactly! And in several recent on-line spats with middle class white liberals, I always aim to point this out. Where are their non-white brothers in the fight? Why dont they care? 41
Posted by Lurker on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 04:44 | # Here is a Guardian thread on the Question Time show. Perhaps some of us could go and join there? I have. Perhaps even Reis could be persuaded to go there and put the boot into some liberals, though I would hate for it to distract him from his more useful pastime of posting divisive comments here. 42
Posted by Kennie on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 05:46 | # As I live abroad I only saw the highlights of last nights QT, but I have to agree with those commentators who said that Nick Griffin lacks eloquence. Maybe it was the blatant hostility, I don’t know. It’s easy to criticise, but I could’ve thought of better replies than those he gave. For instance, to the black man who asked him why he doesn’t speak more about the contribution made by his parents and the parents of other blacks in Britain I would’ve said; “I’m sure your parents were decent, hard-working people, you seem intelligent and articulate. But how would you explain the massive disproportion of blacks in prison to those in society (40% to 10% respectively)? And why does the Metropolitan police need an organisation like Trident, which combats black gun crime? In Britain, as elsewhere, the main ‘contribution’ of blacks seems to be crime.” Answer that Sambo! As for “Baroness” or is it now “Lady” Warsi (God help us) with her remark that “people now see you for what you are” a reply such as; ” And what are you? An affimative action peer with a remit to promote “community cohesion”. If not for people such as yourself we would still have a coherent community. Insted we have a divided society.” To be honest, I think Lee Barnes would have done a better job. 43
Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 07:09 | #
A couple of things i’ve seen online suggest he was ambushed. Maybe they told him it was going to be a normal QT with questions on the week’s big stories and then they hit him with all their pre-prepared attack questions. I doubt many politicians could deal with that. On the other hand though i think they could only trip him up like that because his mind is set around a media strategy that can’t work. There’s no way he can draw a line under anything. There’s no way they’ll ever be non-hostile. If they’re not being hostile then it’s almost certainly a trap. So basically he can’t retreat on anything. He has to find arguments to defend all of it without restating it e.g “you were a nazi, member of a nazi party, blah blah” “When i first realised the damage being done to this country by mass immigration i wanted to try and do something about it. However the political left then as now was rabidly anti-nationalist and wanted to use mass immigration to destroy Britain as a nation while the political right wanted to use mass immigration to drag wage levels down. The only people who were prepared to try and defend this country were in ultra-nationalist parties so i joined an ultra-nationalist party. Thirty years later millions of people can now see the damage caused by mass immigration caused by this unholy alliance between the internationalist left and the internationalist right and if they vote for the BNP we’ll try and stop it before it’s too late.” His defenses should both not give an inch and contain lots of attacks. Then again, easy for me to say sitting here safe from the chemical warfare of mobs of unwashed hippies. 44
Posted by the Narrator... on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 07:11 | # Everything I see on the BBC looks oddly fake to me. Maybe it’s just the British personality, but in the highlights even Griffin came across as somewhat anxious in a staged looking kind of way. And I’m not suggesting it was sagged, it’s just that the way BBC shows do everything they tend to look either outrageously mundane or outrageously and bizarrely aggressive. At least Britain has an actual elected official who will speak up for his own in public, though. Kind of. I still think it is beyond ironic and somewhat self-defeating that a nationalist party gets elected to an international governing body. .... 45
Posted by Dan Dare on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 07:17 | # Full Question Time programme for those without live TV or iPlayer access available here 46
Posted by Cooper on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 07:35 | # OT, but Steve Sailer’s blog, and the Race/History/Evolution Notes (n/a’s blog) blog, are both down. Blogspot however isn’t, and other blogs are loading fine. I checked beginning around 2:15 am. Sailer’s and the Race/History/Evolution notes blog’s most recent posts were on counting Jews in the Fortune 400 and the broader topic of Jewish wealth and power. Definitely not a coincidence. 47
Posted by Norman Lowell on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 09:56 | # The pressure on Nich Griffin must have been tremendous. Griffin scored his best points when he tackled Islam. Griffin’s lowest point was when he attackerd D Duke - “I was trying to save those youngsters he led astray”. Above all else, the programme demonstrates that the way of success of “The Right” is through Brussels. As Regions press and obtain autonomy (Basques, Lombardy, Flemish and Walloons) etc., This Imperium will be launched in Dec 2012. Norman Lowell 48
Posted by Lurker on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:20 | # Steve is back online, as of 9:08 Zulu. Anyhow Im going to ramble on in the same vein again. QT was certainly useful in one respect, in one of those unintentional ways those who manipulate the media cant , well, manipulate.. The audience in the studio was more diverse than the protest outside. The audience were invited by the BBC (from amongst people who wanted to be in the audience). The demo outside was pretty much self-selected I assume. Given the heated nature of the affair one would expect non-whites to be interested yet as we can see from the the demo, they arent. Nothing to stop them showing up to a demo - they didnt. We would, not unreasonably, expect the demographics of the studio audience then to be similar, of course it wasnt. Given the lower average interest levels of non-whites in general politics, a representitive audience should, right from the get go be whiter than the outside demo. A form of AA is clearly in force, I presume that the chances of being selected are much higher if you belong to a priviledged group and lower if you are white, given that many times more whites would want to appear. So its a rare insight into the selectivity of the BBC producers, one we can infer exists but its rarely so glaringly illustrated. In fact the BBC were at pains to point out that the audience were selected from applicants prior to NG being raised as a possible guest. Therefore we would be expecting even lower non-white participation, thus throwing the demographics of the audience into even sharper relief. 49
Posted by Bill on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:36 | # I didn’t watch it! I decided long since that I would not watch this show, firstly because I do not watch television (especially Question Time) and secondly, I could guess what the outcome would be. I must admit, I did silently ask myself would I at the last moment surrender and switch on the television? I retired to bed. My last post on the subject was upbeat.
Ah well, what a difference a day makes. The BBC (media) is a rigged organisation, it is one of the big boyz at the top who have been charged by the Globalists with maintaining the illusion of the matrix. The economy is recovering, crime is falling, immigration is good, swine flu is coming, global warming, the boogieman is coming to getcha! And so it goes on. The whole success of maintaining the illusion of the Matrix is the Raison d’etre of the Western media. The BBC is a rigged organisation. Question Time is a rigged programme with a rigged audience, with rigged questions with a rigged panel of ‘experts’ and a rigged Question Master and a rigged agenda. My gut instinct should have told me (perhaps deep down it did) that the BBC being the treacherous traitorous fifth columnist agitprop of the Globalists it is, with it’s motto of no enemy to left and no quarter to the right - an ambushed massacre would be the only outcome. Was it wise of Griffin to partake? He must have guessed there was a good chance he was being ‘set up’ and on a hiding to nothing, - so why did he do it? He sure is a two edged saw for the BNP. I often ask, does it matter? The die was caste long ago and the trajectory of this story is destined to run its ordained path, for it has long gained a momentum all of its own 50
Posted by Norman Lowell on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 11:07 | # “Norman, why 2012?” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7fNEzt2W20&feature=PlayList&p=38E1A2DE8742FE22&index=0&playnext=1 NL 51
Posted by BGD on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 11:25 | # The BNP should have a bear-pit style debating group that NG as with all other party officers should be put through every quarter. A hot seat and ten interlocutors. Also (and I shudder to suggest a Mandelson type role)a political warfare department to second-guess answers to attacks on the party from various quarters at which key personnel appear as well as to devise answers to attacks on the party from those in the media and political parties. Also to have a book of standard answers to key lines of attack that anybody who goes in front of the press is conversant with. At certain key points NG stumbled remebering certain facts he’d obviously half committed to memory and failed to get out. Test, grill and rehearse. 52
Posted by Lurker on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 11:26 | # I thought that the BBC might have overplayed their hand fielding Greer. A black American who is not an elected politician. Wtf is she doing pronouncing on what white British people vote for? 53
Posted by Barry on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 11:29 | # Too early to say what effect the programme will have. Reading comments on diverse websites, a recurring theme is that the BBC did all it could to make NG’s performance as difficult as possible. This, combined with the fact that he didn’t resort to violence, foam at the mouth or storm out, may resonate with members of the non-metropolitan white population who are beginning to realise that they are being pushed out. I’m sure he never expected to win over the studio audience in any case. The best he could ever hope to achieve was to survive the evening with his composure intact. He did. Some listeners may reflect over time on the fact that Bonnie Greer (Dep Chairman of the British Museum trustees) evidently believes that native Brits have no special claim to their homeland. That’s the sort of future whites have unless they wake up pretty damn quick. 54
Posted by the Narrator... on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 11:40 | # One thing to keep in mind is that when the establishment goes to such lengths to attack an individual who is representative of a movement, they are revealing their own lack of fortitude and general doubt in the certainty of their cultural victory. With every disproportionate act of aggression The Left reveals that they are more certain of our inevitable victory than we are! ... 55
Posted by Bill on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:16 | # This was a maximum effort by the establishment, I cannot recall such an all out concentrated media attack on anything approaching this intensity of vitriol. This morning’s tabloid press are in unison, headlines are really hate filled against Griffin. On balance, as with every media offensive, their efforts have proved counter productive, why else does the vote count for the BNP keep increasing. I’ve heard tell, that it is proven that out of any given audience, 20% will unquestioningly accept the word of authority as being true, if this is correct, any opposition party has a mountain to climb to counter the prevailing media bias being espoused. Is it possible we shall see such a ramped up media campaign surpassed in the future or was yesterday a one off never to be repeated? Personally, I wouldn’t bet on it, perhaps we ain’t seen nothing yet. As I said the other day, the British have an innate sense of fair play, and what they saw last night was anything but, it was bullying beyond the pale. (I didn’t see it but I know what the BBC are capable off) I gather the place was seething cauldron of hate for the Man. This behaviour and its connotations for the future will not be lost on the British people. Stored up anger has a short fuse. 56
Posted by Armor on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:55 | # It would be interesting to have a transcript of the program, so we can have a look at the list of questions without having to watch the whole thing. 57
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:15 | #
Right. Once you up bring race-replacement the other side’s only rejoinder is to deny there are such things as races, which is of course exactly what they do and exactly why Jewish college professors in an unbroken line all the way from Franz Boaz to Noël Ignatiev to this man Goldstein lately at Duke University and virtually every one of them in between play race-denying Jewish word games which they themselves don’t believe and are only intended for tricking the goys (and boy do those word-games work!!). They play them because as Jews they passionately want race-replacement to go to completion and they know once someone refers to the race-replacement process their sole recourse is to deny race. There’s no other way to counter explicit mention of the race-replacement process. So to prepare for that, they come up with these sophistries to deny race, ones transparently nonsense to anybody without the goyische Kopf gene but the Euros all have that gene so they’re mesmerized by these word games that wouldn’t fool a Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Arab, Jewish, or Hindu Downs patient but fool all the biggest Euro professors like See the Boring Disgrace (C. Loring Brace) (of course in Brace’s case all the publicity the Jews gave him for his book and all the television gigs they handed him on National Geographic TV Specials helped considerably to “close his mind off to what every Down’s patient knows,” …….. hey when Jews want something, they know how to grease the skids, and when they’re dealing with a pig feeding at the pig trough they throw in plenty of pig slop, there’s nothing wrong with that …..)
This process has already begun, the start of what is going to be a long genetic bottleneck for the Euro peoples. It can’t really be prevented: we are going to have to go through it. That’s why if you as an individual want to be part of the ancestral line of the Europeans to come, just don’t miscegenate — otherwise you won’t. Whatever you do, and no matter what the Jews say, don’t miscegenate. And teach your children not to miscegenate. The Heidi Dumb-as-a-Post genes that made her do it are going to be eliminated from the race. That is the good part. The bad part is some pleasant Euro genes may also have to go, such as for example a certain inborn absence of guile in Euro peoples compared to other races: the dodo bird was guileless and ended up extinct. Guilessness is nice to be around, it’s nice to live among populations that are guileless, but it may not be compatible with survival and may therefore have to go. If it does have to go, then “by definition” it will, since “by definition” any survivors won’t have it.
Prediction: if it turns out this is possible, 1) the discovery will be pioneered in Israel and 2) the first ones to put it to large-scale practical use will be the Jews worldwide in order to thwart outmarriage.
Riiiiiight, so can we expect to see him cite that as an argument for persuading Israel to open its borders to Third World immigration, beleaguered as it is on all sides by enemies and in need of help? Answer: No. Race-replacement is only for goys, dummy. Goys like you. Learn to love it because you’re going to be getting lots more of it, if the Jack Straws of this world have anything to do with it. But not Israel, don’t be silly. Only your country: http://www.vdare.com/letters/tl_102209.htm . 58
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:33 | # Meanwhile, Auntie informs us that:
59
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:42 | # Thanks Das, the extra two parts are embedded as requested. 60
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:50 | #
Yes of course, so do I. 61
Posted by Red Mercury on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:22 | # Any ideas on how I can donate to the BNP? And join? My understanding is the party ins ‘on hold’ until January 2010. 62
Posted by BB Wolfe on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:26 | # From the BBC Complaints division. Verbatim. No comment necessary? Question Time, alleged bias against BNP, BBC One, 22 October 2009 Complaint We received complaints from people who felt that Question Time’s studio audience and chairman David Dimbleby were biased against the British National Party and their leader Nick Griffin. The BBC’s response As ever, this edition of Question Time saw tough questioning from the studio audience and chairman David Dimbleby, putting all the panellists on the spot on a range of subjects. As with every edition of Question Time, the audience themselves wrote the questions and therefore guided the topics chosen. The audience was, as always, selected to reflect a variety of backgrounds and a broad range of views right across the political spectrum and included supporters of the BNP. Clearly Mr Griffin himself and the British National Party were the subject of intense questioning, but all the panellists were given the opportunity to respond to the points raised and to have their voices heard thus allowing audiences to come to form their own views. 63
Posted by Matra on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:44 | # jamesUK, In what virtual world do you live in that you think the masses even remember Bosnia/Kosovo never mind care about what happened there? He also dared to use the word “genocide”, which was good. Based on the reactions I’ve had when using the word “genocide” with Englishmen and Anglo-Canadians I think that will just reinforce the belief that he’s a nutjob. Keep in mind that the masses are clueless watchers of soaps and reality TV. Their biggest thought this week revolved around the death of some Irish pop singer. Britons can’t imagine that the nice coloured person who smiles and serves them at the local shop would ever dream of throwing them into gas ovens. They have virtually no knowledge of history, other than the Second World War, so they assume the permanence of the nice safe world they and their parents grew up in. The question is how do we speak to these people and help them to realise the danger ahead? 64
Posted by Bill on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:45 | # Nick Griffin’s Greys interview. Nick Griffin came out swinging today as complaints pour in over the furore of his treatment in the bear pit hate fest that was BBC’s Question Time last night. Griffin is talking tough, he’s back in the politically incorrect mode as when criticising British Generals. Incredibly the media are reporting this firework display by Griffin, London no longer represents Britain he syas, hundreds of thousands of whites have moved out (steers clear of white flight). Griffin is throwing down the gauntlet to Jack Straw, calling for a rematch on a level playing field - all great stuff. Griffin is as mad as hell and landing some good shots, the media seem cock a hoop and think Griffin is toast, Boris Johnson chimes in with multicult PC rubbish - Great stuff again. Will Griffin continue the momentum in this fashion or will some one call him to heel? The people of Britain are behind him all the way, he’s got to tell it like it is and get the media on the ropes, once there, sock it to ‘em. It is imperative to call the media to account and make them defend their cheer leading of race replacement for English whites. Seconds out - Round Two. 65
Posted by Bill on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:09 | # Guido Fawks blog nearly 800 comments. Just come off this site after a quick flip down the comments. http://order-order.com/2009/10/23/told-you-so-2/#comments Who are these people GW? 66
Posted by jamesUK on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:22 | # @Matra
He could have used it to highlights Straws and the other party’s representative’s hypocrisy and lies and well as that of the BBC’s you fool. 67
Posted by Frank on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:31 | # That debate reminds me of CC condemning selling out to win votes. That series just makes me sick… As The Narrator said, it does appear fake, though I had to laugh in the first one when the black man was nearly overwhelmed with emotion… 68
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:44 | # They are the detritus of metropolitics, Bill. They are all looking for somewhere to belong, and the poor little sheep have washed up at BNP-hater Paul Staine’s smug little blog - little, of course, in the sense that it is concerned with nothing. 69
Posted by John on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:49 | #
Griffin took on three prizefighters, the referee, one of their girlfriends, some ‘roided up Asian chick and nearly the entire audience, all of whom fought no-holds barred while Griffin followed Marquess of Queensbury rules to the letter. He did unbelievably well considering. 71
Posted by Frank on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:57 | # I love how the politicians back stab each other - white trash reveals its quality. Griffin did well in the first part of vid 5. 72
Posted by Frank on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:06 | # One point he could have used: if Britain takes the best from the world (which it isn’t), then the third world will be without its doctors, engineers, heroes, etc. 73
Posted by Lurker (Mk II) on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:36 | # The BBC talkboards are COLOSSALLY sympathetic to Griffin’s complaints about a lynch mob, and have been so ever since the programme went off air. Those comments that condemn it for packing the audience and for the compere’s bias are getting hundreds of reccs. 74
Posted by Bill on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:44 | # Guessedworker on October 23, 2009, 04:44 Guido Fawkes Blog. Thanks for that - Thought as much. 75
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:02 | # Frankly, I want to know only one thing: the ethnicity of the man ultimately responsible for what was obviously a decision to pack the audience and orchestrate the whole think as a hatchet job. If his ethnicity doesn’t fit my very strong suspicion (I’m not talking about the lower-downs, I’m talking about the one ultimately responsible), then his sexual orientation: is he a queer? Because queer will fit too (not much else will but those two, ethnicity and queer). That’s all I need or want to know. Everything else I already know and understand. I don’t believe in liberalism. I don’t believe it even exists. Used to believe it. Woke up. I believe in ethnicity, race, tribe, tribal warfare. I believe in blood and so do our tribal enemies, which is in large part why this is all happening. 76
Posted by Matra on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:19 | # Fred - The Executive Producer is Steve Anderson. I can’t find any other names for the programme. jamesUK - He could have used it to highlights Straws and the other party’s representative’s hypocrisy and lies and well as that of the BBC’s you fool. As if highlighting such hypocrisy and lies requires obscure references to Balkans countries nobody in Britain cares about! 77
Posted by jamesUK on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:39 | # Could be worse they could have got someone like Matra to appear on QT to represent the BNP. At least Nick Griffin didn’t do a Ted Danson.
78
Posted by jamesUK on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:49 | # @Matra
It does when the leadership of that state controls 90% of the sex trafficking/illegal prostitution in Britain in London, Soho as well as the major transit and distribution networks of Afghan heroin into Europe through Albanian crime networks. 79
Posted by Dan Dare on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 20:04 | # What a slithy tove Jack Straw is! And what a real shame that nobody was on hand to take him apart for his claims about the ‘millions of blacks and Asians’ without whose particpation we would not have won either the second world war, nor the first. Since Strohski chose to dwell on the first war with his mention of the military cemetery at Péronne, on the Somme, I’ll focus on that conflict too. It’s true that are 577 graves in that cemetry (I checked the CWGC database) and that around half of those buried there were of subcontinental origin. What Jaacov S did not not disclose, however, is that unlike the example he gave of Mohammed Khan of the 18th King’s Own Lancers, around three-quarters of suncontinentals buried there were not fighting troops, but rather members of the Indian Labour Corps. These men were recruited to perform necessary yet menial tasks behind the lines such as laundry, tailoring and catering. And of course Péronne is only one of hundreds of British cemetries on the Western Front, the vast majority of which contain no Indians whatsoever, let alone any blacks. By the time of the first Somme offensive in July 1916 the Indian Army presence on the Western front had been reduced to two brigades of cavalry (about 2/3 of a division). The Indian Corps itself, consisting of four divisions, had been progressively withdrawn from Europe during 1915 for reasons which are not widely discussed today for PC reasons. For comparison the British Army order of battle on the eve of the Somme offensive list 55 divisions, nine of which were from the white dominions. Listening to Mr. Straw one would get the impression that half the army consisted of darkies which is course a complete fiction. And I’m still getting over the shock of learning that, according to David Dimbleby, Bonnie Greer is deputy chairman of the British Museum. I thought my ears were deceiving me so I went straightaway to the BM website to check. It turns out that Ms Greer is deputy chairman of the Board of Trustees, a 24-strong body of worthies who provide advice and counsel to the people who actually run the show. It turns out that it was a Blair appointment, as might have been suspected. There’s also a Nigerian chief on board as well as a quorum of Jews. All in the spirit of inclusiveness I suppose. As for the show itself, well of course it was a total stitch-up, Griffin never stood an earthly. He certainly didn’t cover himself with glory and the inane gurning and tittering didn’t help. Under the circumstances though I don’t think he acquitted himself too badly except when trying to ingratiate himself with the moderator and the harridan to his left. Speaking of the moderator, I though Dimbleby’s was conspicuously the worst performance, closely followed by Straw. Dimbleby should be ashamed of himself, not just for his blatant partisanship, but also for allowing the event to descend in low farce. Hopefully lessons have been taken on board and next time will be better. 80
Posted by Rhys on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:16 | # The Torygraph, just like every other paper, had an anti-Nick-Griffin piece on the front cover today. Meanwhile, inside the same paper was the following story: “Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser” No surprise to anyone here, I’m sure, but probably “news” to many a modern Torygraph reader. 81
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:43 | #
Careful Matra, in saying that you will only trigger JUK’s moralistic (I do not say moral) outrage at the inveterate insouciance (I do not say alleged) with which the British leader-class treat other peoples whom wish to affirm their peoplehood as pawns to be moved about ‘geo-strategically’ without concern for the welfare of the latter by the former. What JUK fails to see - and this is a result of his own intellectual limitations - is that the British people are also treated with patrician disdain by that same leader-class, which is at least nominally their own. Their sin is his sin, that of being a lemming. 82
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:49 | # The most multi-racial of all the WW2 services was the RAF, since it not only recruited from the white Commonwealth andacquired trained pilots from countries in the European theatre overrun by the Wehrmacht but also, for want of a better word, aerial mercenaries from all over the place. One of them - only one - was a black American who washed up in England looking for some action and the chance to fly. He didn’t get as far as the cockpit, and was sent to train as an air gunner. He went FTR, but I don’t know how far into his tour of operations. There were no other black or brown aircrew whom I am aware of. I know it’s easy to see these things in retrospect, but had BDG’s suggestion at 10.25 AM of a BNP political warfare department been up and running, the Straw line of attack could have been identified, research undertaken, and defences put in place. I have a strong feeling that Griffin does pretty well everything himself, and he has plainly got to the point where that is no longer viable. He needs to recruit strategists from outside the party faithful - they just don’t have the horsepower for that kind of work. The Establishment and the crazed-left believe they did a good job last night, and “exposed” Griffin as whatever it is they need to label him. They calculate that the public can be trained by further exposure to revile him the same way they do. They will keep on with what they have begun. In other words, “no platform” is finished, and the thesis that “exposure” will out-perform “publicity” is about to be tested. Today’s avalanche of vile headlines across the entire MSM was just a banging in of the nail. This is how it’s going to be now. If Griffin does not realise that he will never be free of the stain of the past ... of the H-denial, of his Adolf period, of Collett’s Nazi-boy, and so on ... merely by smiling nicely to show he’s not such a bad bloke and ingratiating himself to Jews and “settled immigrants”, then he will be condemned to eternal repetition. He has to break the cycle. 83
Posted by Dan Dare on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:06 | # Re Rhys’ very interesting link to the revelations in the DT, reporting on what Andrew Green of Migrationwatch UK says is “dynamite ... not just a cock up but also a conspiracy”.
84
Posted by Dan Dare on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:20 | #
Do you see any way to do that besides stepping down in favour of someone with no personal baggage? Not that there seems to anyone taking on the role of heir apparent, Simon Darby is notionally the 2nd in command, but he seems so terminally lightweight. It’s hard to see how Griffin can ever really deflect the H-denial charges. It’s not as though he was a callow teenager at the time and can claim to now know better. Evrything else he should be able to control but H-denial is the killer. 85
Posted by Excellent! on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:35 | # <a href=“http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6417906/One-in-four-would-consider-voting-BNP.html”>Yougov poll: 23% would vote BNP 86
Posted by Trainspotter on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 23:21 | # I haven’t watched the show in its entirety, but from what I have seen so far, I don’t think Nick did too badly. Under the circumstances, I think he did better than most. And, Nick’s performance aside, I think there is a real chance that this farce of a showtrial may well backfire on the anti-white establishment. As a “colonial”, I don’t have access to the average British dude in the streets. For those of you who are Brits, what’s the typical guy at the watercooler saying today? What follows are just suggestions. Nick has accomplished a great deal, far more than most, and those tremendous accomplishments are worthy of our respect. Monday morning quarterbacking (as I’m about to do) is easy, what Nick has accomplished is not. “True enough. But who can doubt that many of those Asian and black soldiers backed independence for their own lands, for their right to maintain their own people and culture? They resisted to the fullest attempts by other peoples to swamp their homelands with foreigners. And you know what, they were right to do so. All peoples are entitled to maintain themselves and control their own destiny. It’s just the right thing to do. Colonisation of any people was wrong then, and it’s wrong now. Fair is fair.” Then a potentional follow up/reinforcement paragraph, as needed: “Nobody claims that whites should be able to swarm over Pakistan, discriminate against Pakistanis and reduce them to a minority in their own country. Nobody claims that whites should be able to do this to the black nations in Africa. And they’re right, these things shouldn’t be done. This shouldn’t be done to us any more than it should be done to them. And the BNP says, because nobody else will say it, that the indigenous people of these islands should be able to keep their own country, and not be reduced to a minority and bred out of existence. We don’t seek to deny the ability of Pakistan to stay Pakistani, or of Kenya to remain Kenyan. They opposed colonisation, and so do we. We are the only party in Britain to do so. Again, colonization was wrong then and it’s wrong now. Fair is fair.” Something like that, though this is a “first draft” that could certainly be polished up. It could be shortened or lengthened as appropriate. Saying what I wrote above clocks in at about a minute. Whatever. The theme is, basically, fair is fair. Maybe that should be a party motto - Fair is Fair. Key words like colonization are repeated. It is simultaneously an appeal to fairness and justice, while also being a damning indictment of those who would genocide us. It’s a strong and tough position, but one made in a spirit of fair play. Let the average Brit see the lies and the hypocrisy of the establishment position. Let him see the anti-white haters froth at the mouth in response to Nick just saying “We have a right to our own land.” Look into the camera and just say “What these people are saying is quite clear. Black Africans have a right to their own homelands, Asians have a right to their own homelands. Only you, the white British, are denied this. This is what we are up against. This is what we fight against.” In other words, speak past the anti-white haters in the studio, and instead speak directly to the white Brits at home. The impression should always be left in the viewing publics mind that the BNP is not only tough and dedicated, but also committed to fair play. That theme needs to be repeated over and over again. Some variation of “We seek nothing more than what every non-white nation aspires to: a land of our own. A home of our own.” Basically, this is a version of Bob Whitaker’s “mantra” tailored somwhat to the British situation. Again, Monday morning quarterbacking is easy. Nick’s path to get this far was not. Congratulations to him for standing tall in the lion’s den, however we might critique it. 87
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 23:37 | #
It is still harder to not deflect, but confront, the “moral” accusation implicit in Hoaxoco$t denial, especially when said acts as a set piece in the mental landscape of traitors to our race that allows them to affect “moral” “superiority”. Here is how I might be inclined to respond to Jack “The Jew” Straw:
But I confess that may be a tad too strong, as only “Nazis” protest so vigorously, certainly in deed, if not in thought and word. 88
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 23 Oct 2009 23:56 | # The Evening Standard article needs a real research effort. We have the “why” the conspiracy arose. We don’t have the “how”. There is, of course, the temptation to look only to the simple answer: up to June 2001 the Home Office line of command was Jewish, being Straw > Roche. How many other Jews were in the Cabinet Office and in Blair’s immediate coterie at the time? Neather reveals that the report recommending what the Roche woman later called a “loosening” of immigration controls came from the Performance and Innovation Unit. Judging from Neather’s tone. the PIU was instructed to reach the “right” conclusion, and of course did. It reported to Sir Richard Wilson, who was Cabinet Secretary. Wilson is Welsh-born and looks like this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1166197.stm Moving on, however, the report is very difficult to find on the Cabinet Office website. It may have been withdrawn, I don’t know. One suspect is this: http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/cabinetoffice/strategy/assets/migrationreport.pdf It is, though, utterly bland and does not recommend anything that would merit the nervousness that Neather claims people felt about it. These were, though, busy boys: http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/search.aspx?search=ethnic+minority+communities ... and the dirty deed may lie somewhere here, awaiting discovery. All this needs to be brought out into the open, and its provenance in the psychological and political particularities of the principal actors demonstrated. 89
Posted by Dan Dare on Sat, 24 Oct 2009 00:41 | #
Yes that’s it GW. It’s the same as the Home Office RDS Occasional Paper No. 67 which Neather references in the Standard as being the ‘massaged’ version with the political dynamite excised. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/occ67-migration.pdf It may take a FOI request to turn up earlier versions if they even still exist. I will drop a line to MWUK asking them to see if they get it from Neather. Andrew Green certainly seems to be quite animated about it and as a regular donor I’m pretty sure they’ll reply. 90
Posted by Yosemite on Sat, 24 Oct 2009 00:57 | # Say what you want about Nick Griffin’s performance—it has yielded fruitful results. Consider the following: * The BNP enjoyed a 30% increase in membership interest following the Question Time show * Last night’s Question Time peaked had around 8 million viewers, far higher than the usual 2.5 million. * 20 percent of the British population, polled an hour after Question Time, say they are “seriously considering” voting for the BNP * Griffin vs Straw is a draw, according to The Times * Even Nick Griffin’s opponents have admitted that Griffin was treated unfairly. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/23/bbc-viewers-reaction-nick-griffin-questiontime] 91
Posted by Trainspotter on Sat, 24 Oct 2009 00:58 | # I’m not entirely sure of Nick’s “Holocaust History,” so I can’t get into specifics. In general, however, a mantra needs to be developed, it needs to be repeated, and then followed up with something like, “Everybody knows my position on that, I’ve said it a thousand times…now, what I really want to talk about is the postal strike/getting our boys out of foreign wars/the banker theft/etc.” Nick has done this before, and I think it comes across quite well. He needs a strong position, but he also needs to convey that he is attempting to address the other issues of concern to the British people. He needs to make it clear that he is not a one trick pony. Once he does this, it doesn’t matter that his interviewer/accuser doesn’t allow him to discuss these other things, the point has been made to the white viewer nonetheless. Nevertheless, I might make this my mantra on the Holocaust, before attempting to move on: “You know, it is illegal to dispute the Holocaust. It is a gross violation of free speech and human rights. Right now, there are people jailed all across Europe just for having an OPINION that the powers that be don’t like. It’s atrocious. It is very hard to discuss an issue rationally when one side can put the other side in jail for disagreeing. It’s atrocious. So, I’m not going to talk about the Holocaust anymore. Whatever did or did not happen, happened over sixty years ago. That doesn’t mean it’s not important, but it does mean that it can’t be honestly discussed with the threat of a jail sentence over one’s head, and it has nothing to do with the real issues that face the British people today.” Then a second support/reinforcement paragraph if needed: “What really concerns me is the race replacement of the indigenous people of these islands. That’s what I’m going to talk about. That’s happening today, not sixty odd years ago. And then I want to talk about the postal strike/banker bailout/etc. I’m not going to waste time discussing something when you people can jail those who disagree. When you people stop jailing people who disagree with you, I’ll be willing to rationally discuss the Holocaust. Until then, I’m not dignifying your accusation with an explanation. It would be disrespectful to the men and women who have been jailed by you people. I will say this, though: I oppose the genocide and race replacement of ANY people, and that most certainly includes the indigenous peoples of these islands. You people seem to be far more concerned with historical atrocities that have happened to other people, and not at all about current atrocities happening to your own people.” Third support line, if needed, while expressing some degree of passion and irritation: “You people are amazing. You cover up the race replacement of the white indigenous people of these islands. You cover up the rapes, the discrimination, the sex grooming of young white females, the beatings. You cover up the horrible beatings of whites that happen EVERY DAY in this country. And then you have the unmitigated gall to fixate on a historical event of sixty odd years ago, with all of the horrible things that happen in the here and now. Amazing. Let me tell you something pal: I don’t support the genocide of any group, including jews. Don’t try to pin that on me. Everybody knows that all you are doing is trying to take the focus off of the real things that you are covering up, the murders and the beatings and the rapes that you are covering up, and shouting down anybody who tells the truth about these things. Well, I am going to tell the truth about these things, the BNP is going to tell the truth about these things, because nobody else will. You’ve got blood on your hands, I don’t. So let’s leave the subject, eh?” Point is: always make your answers such that they make the other guy look worse than you. Every answer should not be merely a defense, but simultaneously a damning indictment of the other guy. 92
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 24 Oct 2009 01:42 | # Excellent comment, Trainspotter. This is the quality of shotgun-riding that I don’t think Griffin can be getting at the moment. Dan, I’m just looking at the authors of that fateful migration report. A very mixed bunch. Here’s one, somewhat tribal: http://www.employment-studies.co.uk/profiles/ext_profile.php?contact_id=jportes Here’s a clueless female: http://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/people/staff/sarah-spencer/ An Indian woman: http://www.ohcrn.org/member/index.cfm?memberID=69 A French bird (I think): http://www.unesco.org/en/efareport/about-the-report/report-team/loizillon/ Possibly the Stephen Glover we are interested in: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/ios-1000th-issue-19901991-stephen-glover-1673067.html But then again possibly not. Carole Willis died in 2006: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2006/dec/06/obituaries.mainsection Richard Price is an academic studying politics of international relations and whatnot: http://www.politics.ubc.ca/index.php?id=2509 http://www.politics.ubc.ca/index.php?id=2509 And someone called Ceri Gott, about whom I can find nothing very interesting. 93
Posted by Calvin on Sat, 24 Oct 2009 03:08 | # On Holocaust denial you’d have to settle for damage limitation:
I think Griffin stumbled (understandably) on the immigrant posed question, “I was born in Britain, where am I supposed to go?”
94
Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 24 Oct 2009 08:58 | # Bill
I think so. They obviously set him up and he obviously under-estimated how low they’d go to damage him but if he learns the lesson that the BBC is the heart of the beast and will *never* be anything except 100% hostile then it might turn out to be a good experience. Even if it did damage him it also showed to millions that the BBC will actively use it’s power against a political threat so i think it damaged them more.
Oh yes. The most extreme will be before the first MP. Dasein
Yes, Reds won’t care, supporters will be annoyed and neutrals will vote BNP despite that sort of thing if they think the BNP is their only choice. I think he has to avoid using keywords that trigger people’s programming but retreating too much from his past sounds weak. The Narrator
Yes. They’re a lot weaker than they might appear from the outside because their whole control structure is so heavily dependent on filtering information. Matra
One point of the genocide meme isn’t to persuade people but to put the idea in their head. Then over time when they come across evidence in their daily life (which they will because it’s true) they’ll remember the meme and it’ll gradually seep in. I agree it doesn’t suit every occasion but i think it’s important to try and build it up for eventual Nuremberg reasons. BGD
GW
Definitely. He has to find a way of turning his baggage into a strength. It’s odd and counter-intuitive but i think it could actually be an advantage with the right mantras. I think finding the right mantras and then harsh practise could work a treat. Trainspotter
Spot on. I’ve become a big fan of Whittaker’s approach. I keep being reminded of a scene in the HBO series “Rome” where legionary Pullo is teaching the young kid how to sword-fight in the legionary style with the huge shield. The way the shield is used as a shield but also as a weapon to knock the opponent off balance and create an opening for a strike with the sword sums it up for me. Dan Dare
This is the killer given people’s brain-washing but at the same time wheedling looks weak. Long-term i think the best way to undermine the holocult is through shifting the start of the narrative to the Bosheviks, making them the root cause and thereby making everything else a chain of events that followed on as a consequence of what they did. However that doesn’t help direct questions about denial. I think one approach is to use the German law: “I don’t deny the jewish holocaust (never call it THE holocaust - imply more than one - if they press then that gives a segue into the Ukraine etc). I did at one point question some aspects but as you know it’s illegal to question any of it so i don’t. (I don’t actually know what Griffin said about it in the past but if possible try and make it sound like he didn’t deny it completely. ) I think a simple stressing of the legal aspect is quite good as it will stick in people’s minds how odd it is that you can’t question it at all. “I don’t deny the Nazi holocaust. I did at one point question some aspects but as you know it’s now illegal to question any of it so i don’t.” Another approach is the visionary taken a wrong turn: “I realised a long time ago that the anti-British element in the Labour Party and the cheap labour element in the Conservative Party would between them eventually destroy this country with mass immigration. The only people back then who were trying to fight this were ultra-nationalist parties so i joined an ultra-nationalist party. I’m not ashamed of it and don’t regret it but i did end up going along with some views that were too extreme. Since becoming Chairman of the BNP i’ve brought both myself and the party to a more moderate nationalsit position.” I think the idea of ultra-nationalists being the only game in town for many years is a good way of explaining away a lot. Also the line: “With the three wings of the political class the question the voters have to decide is ‘are they serious about slowing mass immigration down by even the tiniest amount’ and the sensible answer would be no. With the BNP the question for voters isn’t ‘are they serious about halting immigration’, it’s ‘are they too serious about halting immigration’. For the first time in a long while at least there’s a real choice.” 95
Posted by Barry on Sat, 24 Oct 2009 09:22 | # The quality of some of the comments and suggestions here is outstanding. I hope NG reads it. QT was always going to either break NG or make hime stronger. I thinker he’s stronger now, and wiser. 97
Posted by Angry Beard on Sat, 24 Oct 2009 10:41 | # That Andrew Neather ‘Evening Standard’ article was a real eye-opener. 98
Posted by Bedford Forrest on Sat, 24 Oct 2009 10:48 | # I posted this at the Guy Fawks site: “What a bunch of worthless jackasses you leftists are! Traitors every one of you! I am a proud American without a drop of British in me, but I recognize the very first element in British identity: the English, Scots, etc are racially WHITE. In anthropological argot, ‘Europoids’. How could any of you, even Marxist fools, possibly be so pathetically dumb as to deny the obvious? How have you come to be brainwashed into denying your own national identity, your very cultural heritage? A person who is not purely, racially white cannot be British. They are merely alien colonists, and need to be expelled from Britain forthwith. You idiots – leftist traitors, ‘conservative’ cowards – have created the conditions for future race war on your once beautiful ‘Sceptered Isle’ (soon to be renamed ‘Sharia Isle”?). I would love to have an intelligent English conservative explain how this “anti-racist” mental pathology has become so prevalent amongst the citizenry of a white country. To all Brit patriots may I suggest you begin discreetly compiling lists of any race traitors you encounter, at work, in school, at pubs, etc. Just jot their names down as you discover them. Then when the war for British survival finally comes, make sure you kill them first. Bad as the aliens are, most of them deserve only to be expelled. It is the traitors who must be eliminated, if Britain is to be free and civilized again.” 99
Posted by Bedford Forrest on Sat, 24 Oct 2009 10:50 | # Posted on a Guy Fawkes site: What a bunch of worthless jackasses you leftists are! Traitors every one of you! I am a proud American without a drop of British in me, but I recognize the very first element in British identity: the English, Scots, etc are racially WHITE. In anthropological argot, ‘Europoids’. How could any of you, even Marxist fools, possibly be so pathetically dumb as to deny the obvious? How have you come to be brainwashed into denying your own national identity, your very cultural heritage? A person who is not purely, racially white cannot be British. They are merely alien colonists, and need to be expelled from Britain forthwith. You idiots – leftist traitors, ‘conservative’ cowards – have created the conditions for future race war on your once beautiful ‘Sceptered Isle’ (soon to be renamed ‘Sharia Isle”?). I would love to have an intelligent English conservative explain how this “anti-racist” mental pathology has become so prevalent amongst the citizenry of a white country. To all Brit patriots may I suggest you begin discreetly compiling lists of any race traitors you encounter, at work, in school, at pubs, etc. Just jot their names down as you discover them. Then when the war for British survival finally comes, make sure you kill them first. Bad as the aliens are, most of them deserve only to be expelled. It is the traitors who must be eliminated, if Britain is to be free and civilized again. 100
Posted by Angry Beard on Sat, 24 Oct 2009 10:51 | # Furthermore, prior to new labour’s immigration bonanza (never published in the 1997 prospectus incidently), the BNP had largely withered on the vine and in all probability would have died in due course if the stsus quo prior to 1997 was maintained (which is not to say that covert mass imigration - perhaps modest compared to Labour’s deluge - did not occur). 101
Posted by Bedford Forrest on Sat, 24 Oct 2009 11:10 | # Please excuse the double copy above. Now to my real point. Do any of you think that the white race in general, or any unique European ethnoculture in particular, will still exist in Year 2100? Do you agree that the reason the survival of such is so problematic is the unholy combination of mass non-white immigration, plus the prevalence of the mental pathology I refer to above (eg ‘anti-racism’)? Do any of you think the white race will still exist in Year 2200 if present levels of non-white residents of Western countries are merely stabilized (ie, if immigration is completely ended, but there is no racial cleansing)? Do any of you think that alien racial repatriation from Western lands can be effectuated without civil warfare, which will be intraracial for whites, as well as interracial? Here is the bottom line. For the West to survive, we must return to unitary racial states (that is only the beginning of the survival of the West, but it is its sine qua non). To return to such racial homogeneity, we are going to have to kill at least tens of thousands, and possibly millions, of white race traitors, as well as millions of non-white resistors of deportation. Are you prepared to do so? If not, then these discussions, the BNP’s political activities, arguably all political activities other than anti-tax, and other narrow issue, advocacy, are simply a waste of time. 102
Posted by Angry Beard on Sat, 24 Oct 2009 11:11 | # If Andrew Neather had made the the real, true Marxist defence of uncontrolled immigration (ie universalism), ie that he accepts no distinction whatsoever between any human being on earth on the grounds of his nationality, I would have respected him. 103
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 24 Oct 2009 12:00 | # Bedford Forrest, In Europe, at least, politics has until, in my estimation, 2025 to produce the revolutionary change required. Again, my expectation is that if it has not done so by then, the five years after 2025 will see an irreversible switch to military means, commencing with acts of terrorism and escalating to full-scale civil conflict. The war will be won by military means if it cannot be won by political means. We are, therefore, engaged upon a political warfare which, at blogs like this, involves the production of ideas rather than simple responses to the news of the day. The question you pose about whether we are willing to fight, kill and die for our cause is not now relevant. Let us hope it never will be. On the ideas thing, everyone here should understand that are three levels of political warfare. The front-line troops carry the fight onto the doorsteps and to the ballot boxes - think George W Bush, just to take one example. Behind them are the party policy-makers - those who conceive and enact war strategy - think Carl Rove. Behind them are the enunciators of truths and the makers of causes which all others internalise and, in their struggles, express - think Irving Kristol. What we are saying with respect to the BNP is that there are either not enough Carl Roves or, possibly, none at all. They are out there, of course. A damned fine War Room could be put together just from half-a-dozen of the commenters here, together with some from elsewhere (such as Laban Tall). But I don’t think anybody at the top of the BNP would want to lose face. Just the other day on another thread I said that the old nationalist guard will have to step aside one day and allow others to make their contribution. It may well be that the pride of the former prevents the progress the party could make with the latter. We shall see. 104
Posted by Norman Lowell on Sat, 24 Oct 2009 12:33 | # Well, not exactly Nick Griffin on Question Time, but… 105
Posted by Mement O'Mori on Sat, 24 Oct 2009 12:44 | # Guessedworker:
I suggest that the following is clearer and more accurate:
Attack the holohoax for what it is - religious dogma - and you attack it at its weakest point. Make use of the anti-religious pride that has been fed to people and mix it with latent attachment to and understanding of christianity in order to expose what is being done. Don’t compromise. And don’t dally with the enemies weapons. 106
Posted by Angry Beard on Sat, 24 Oct 2009 13:15 | # Andrew Neather rather stupidly, (for a senior Labour Party politician), let slip the fact that he employs a small coterie of in-house domestic staff and then waxes lyrical that mass uncontrolled immigration has enabled him to employ cheap, reliable in-house maids and body-servants (let’s not get too carried away with semantics here, the words ‘nanny’ and ‘au-pair’ are merely dishonest modern euphemisms for people who can’t stand the truth loaded into words like ‘servant’, ‘governess’ and ‘housemaid’). 107
Posted by Silver on Sat, 24 Oct 2009 13:36 | # I think the idea of ultra-nationalists being the only game in town for many years is a good way of explaining away a lot. It can also be turned to your advantage, eg: “And it simply must be born in mind that virtually all of the “so-called far right’s” [pronounced sneeringly] predictions have been proven correct. Almost everything they [or we, but they for distance] warned us against has come to pass: we’ve got a divided polity; we’ve got an incoherent culture; we’ve got a failing economy; and we’re seeing everywhere the replacement and oppression of the indigenous British population.” 108
Posted by Bill on Sat, 24 Oct 2009 14:08 | # Cometh the hour cometh the man I do believe that there is such a thing as a defining moment. In the context of the BNP and Britain’s increasing awakening, such a defining moment is almost upon us. I would opine the last defining moment as being the Barking and Dagenham (B&D;) affair. It was at B&D;where the BNP became of age and began to flourish under the stewardship of Nick Griffin, it was also the time (2006?) when I began to follow the fortunes of the BNP. From that moment on, the BNP have steadily progressed to the political mainstream. We here at MR are fortunate inasmuch that this tight rope journey of the BNP has been chronicled at some length, A grandstand view as it were. In Britain the English people are becoming increasingly disturbed at the culmination and implication of the steady drip drip of decades of immigration. For years, the people of this nation have been denied any say in the matter. Establishment bullying in the form of political correctness has effectively reduced them to passive spectators. They have been forced to watch on the sidelines, impotent as their cherished land is being taken from them. Parallel to all of this - it is now dawning on our people that something else has been afoot, it is a slow awakening to the realisation that through back door stealth, their country has been hi-jacked by an alien regime of hostile coercion, and that this regime is slowly corralling them into a marginalised, disenfranchised people. For what reason they have no idea, but for the moment, this unease manifests itself instinctively as a whiff of menace on the prevailing wind. It is high time the public learned that Britain is now living under a welfare state communist regime. The BNP is opportunistically channelling these feelings into a fast growing political resistance, which needless to say is being countered with all the legitimate (and not so legitimate) coercion of the nation state machine. As I see it, most of the low fruit of resistance has been picked, IOW’s the bedrock of the former working class Labour party support has seen the light and have linked arms and are marching behind the banner of the BNP. But like the rumbling of distant thunder, there is an untold mass on the brink of following the pioneers, these people could possibly numbered in their millions and they are angry and want their country back. Almost undetected by most in this optimistic setting, is the questioning of who is to lead this surge to what will be the next defining moment, the upcoming next years 2010 general election. The burden of spearheading the BNP to these undreamed heights has not come without price, the effort and commitment of MR Griffin of battling against untold odds, (by the forces of an ideological totalitarian nation state,) it appears, is taking its toll, the strain is beginning to show on its leader. Nick Griffin’s record of turning around the fortunes of British Nationalism under the banner of the BNP during this period is stuff of legend, even so, there are voices who are raising concern that the ever increasing growth of the party in the coming years will require speculation as to whether Mr Griffin is the right man to be at the helm of the good ship BNP? To be blunt, is the moment approaching when Nick should thinking of lightening his load? Some are saying Nick has reached the limits of being the public face of the BNP, has the tipping point been reached whereby handing over the reins to someone with a less coloured past would be beneficial to the cause? Nick Griffin’s secret weapon is he has a gut feeling for English soil and English folk, you won’t get Nick Griffin scratching his head and casting around, questioning what does it mean to be English? His instinctive gift of gauging the English mood, aspirations and desires is his secret weapon over his foe, for they will never, ever, understand what it means to be British. This doesn’t mean of course Nick departing from the scene, far from it, his precious gift of sensing the English people’s mood will not be lost if he were to retire to behind the scenes, masterminding the cause from the party’s central command? We are living in momentous times, the hopes and aspirations weighing on the shoulders of the BNP will be become almost unbearable. Is it time, as some are hinting, for Nick Griffin to step down and spread the load? No matter, as things are, the wind of good fortune is blowing in the sails of the good ship BNP, win-win is the currency of the moment. Fortunately, the liberal establishment cannot comprehend why this is so, but this extreme good fortune will not always be, and so it is for this moment, the leadership must prepare. 110
Posted by Red Mercury on Sat, 24 Oct 2009 14:53 | # Again, my expectation is that if it has not done so by then, the five years after 2025 will see an irreversible switch to military means, commencing with acts of terrorism and escalating to full-scale civil conflict. A war of liberation. I hope it starts sooner than 2025! I’m ready to act, but I can’t do it alone. Nationalists must start getting our people used to this eventuality. We need to start talking about it. We need to demonstrate to our people the morality of just force and violence against our oppressors and their occupying troops. 111
Posted by Angry Beard on Sat, 24 Oct 2009 15:12 | # I have to amit that I found Old Nick’s performance in Question Time distinctly unimpressive.Griffo came across as nervy, weak-willed and not displaying the mental toughness and semi-bullying, pompous, wog and oik contempuous ‘British army major’ self-confidence that I’d like to see a BNP leader display - the late John Tyndall was of that hard-boiled,amost inhuman, anal-retentive, public-school, ‘bottom spanking at dawn’ mould however. 112
Posted by Gorboduc on Sat, 24 Oct 2009 15:40 | # Dang it, couldn’t keep away! Re the Straw family: i) on his brother:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/916179.stm ii) on his son:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/46890.stm I expect this may have been the Straw boy who had such a reputation as a dealer at Oxford a few years ago, - or is there another crimunal amongst the poisonous brood? Glad someone picked up the Neather story. 113
Posted by Armor on Sat, 24 Oct 2009 16:00 | # How Calvin would put it if he was Griffin: “I also bitterly regret having being lured into lending credence to what later has been exposed as pseudo-scholarship. Holocaust denial has no place in British nationalist politics…” Why would you say more than what the law forces you to say? Even the simple phrase “holocaust denial” is dishonest and deliberately ambiguous. There is no need to sink to that level. I think Griffin should not answer questions about the holocaust. He should say he keeps his personal opinion to himself on that subject because : If the BBC keeps pressing him with questions about the holocaust, he should just refuse to answer, or in the last resort, walk out. There should have been an agreement with the BBC that no discussion of the holocaust would be allowed during the program. 114
Posted by BB Woolf on Sat, 24 Oct 2009 16:07 | # Griffin’s an excellent speaker (when the floor is his alone, i.e. at BNP meetings), and he’s pretty astute it comes to national and global politics, but his repeated foul-ups do lead One to wonder what on earth he thinks he’s doing. Griffin needn’t be paralysed by his past — he’d do better just admitting to it with a shrug of the shoulders (the general public don’t understand metapolitics anyway) and just hammering on the real issues — but he hasn’t the charm or focus of a Geert Wilders and, in a fixed match like Thursday’s Question Time, he looks like a tubby public schoolboy on the rugger pitch who drops the ball every time it’s thrown in his direction. I think Griffin just sees the BNP (more pressure group than political party) as his pet project and his retirement plan and will let no-one take it away from him. And I’m sure the BNP has many uses as a political tool for various interest groups, which I feel sure is the whole reason Nick got on Q.T. in the first place. At any rate, whatever we may think of Gri££in, we’ve seen a prime example of how the shoals of ‘progressive’ piranhas in the media can suddenly combine to attack as soon as they detect the first drop of blood. Meanwhile, ex-Wizard David Duke is moved to offer Nick a few helpful tips: And it’s worth watching this telling two-part excerpt from Griffin’s speech at Duke’s EURO Conference in 2005, if you’ve not yet seen it: 115
Posted by BB Woolf on Sat, 24 Oct 2009 16:18 | # When Bonnie Met Nick . . . “It was the strangest thing because as I came out of my dressing room prepared for combat, it was as if he’d been waiting for me in the corridor,” she says. “I was the last to emerge and when he saw me, he turned and smiled his greasy smile and clumsily half extended a hand. I ignored it and thought to myself: what are you about? Are you forgetting I’m black? Are you forgetting you called me a black history fabricator? Are you trying to show me you aren’t racist?” http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23760044-when-bonnie-greer-met-nick-griffin.do 116
Posted by Armor on Sat, 24 Oct 2009 16:30 | # BB Woolf: “Griffin’s an excellent speaker (when the floor is his alone, i.e. at BNP meetings)” How would Jonathan Bowden fare, if instead of making a brilliant speech, he was asked to argue with a stupid mob ? 117
Posted by Norman Lowell on Sat, 24 Oct 2009 16:33 | # The actual full interview on Euronews of Norman Lowell. 118
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 24 Oct 2009 16:57 | # Assuming that Neather piece is genuine, I must thank you, Fred, for posting it. That is the single most disgusting piece of raw, selfish treason I have ever read. Period. I subscribe to The New Republic and The New York Review of Books, in bookstores I sometime glance at The Nation, and I even occasionally link my way to Afrocentric websites, just to be reminded of how much the ingrates hate us - and to rile up the ‘groids with some unwanted facts. Never have I encountered anything like this. Usually, pro-multiculti pieces are based on either white guilt (for racism, ‘family reunification’, tolerance, etc), or the joys of an unaccounted for diversity. This is the first time I’ve seen a frank admission by a traitor that he and his govt deliberately sought to destroy the fabric of a society through mass immigration ... because the traitor thought it would make his country “more interesting”, or “ministers passionately wanted a more diverse society” - and were prepared to impose their beliefs IN SECRET on societies they apparently knew did not share them. Always, the justifications are either utilitarian (“the economy/agriculture/healthcare etc needs immigrants”), or ethical (“they have just as much right ...”; “we can’t keep families apart”; “...fleeing persecution…” , etc ad nauseam). To reiterate: I have never encountered anything so sheerly evil in my whole long life. “Bedford Forrest”: you are right. We should all be keeping lists, and traitors like Neather should go right to the top of them. Day of the rope, comrades. 119
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 24 Oct 2009 17:02 | # We should think of Neather and the ministers who secretly imposed mass immigration on Britain as treasonous war criminals. My British history on this point is weak, but were any Englishmen executed for treason during WW2? I believe the answer is yes. How many, and who? Anyone famous? 120
Posted by Bedford Forrest on Sat, 24 Oct 2009 17:44 | # GW: First, let me state that I had no intention to engender any trouble for anyone connected to this site by my inflammatory posts above. I understand that Europeans enjoy much less protection of free speech than we Americans do (a particularly shameful fact for your great nation, arguably the birthplace of the idea of protected political speech). Of course, we are following the trail the Euros have blazed, perhaps with greater ferocity now that we have our first Third World government. Second, my points, however, are serious and were made in earnest. I recently had a similar conversation with a friend here stateside. My friend is conservative and even racialist (he fears and therefore dislikes blacks because of their criminal savagery, and he resents both mass immigration and the multiculturalist aggressions it feeds), but overall apolitical. He really wishes he didn’t have to think about politics (much preferring to dwell on his business, girlfriend, and golf game), but minority depredations and general unpleasantness keep intruding upon his consciousness. He is intelligent, but certainly not an intellectual. In nostalgically remembering the better America of even our own not-altogether-too-distant youths, as well as that of our parents, my friend couldn’t help being bitter, both at the wasted and unnecessary loss of America for our race, but even more, for what he correctly perceives to be the finality of it. To my possibly long-winded diatribe on various racialist arguments, how they mesh or don’t with traditional conservatism, why racialism is not simply neo-Nazism, and many related matters, my friend merely noted that my arguments should have been made - and accepted! - 30 or 40 years ago, and that even though we should of course end immigration immediately, and get a racial nationalist movement up and running to defend our people’s political and especially economic interests in a now racially diversified America, he was dismayed that that was the best we could do; in other words, that we could hope for nothing more than stabilizing what is already an extremely unappealing status quo. That is depressing, I admit. But I think realistically there is nothing we can do about it, for two reasons. First, there is no likelihood of a white American-initiated racial rebellion any time in the foreseeable future. Revolutions may usually be led by persons from the middle class, sometimes even by renegade elites, but they are made by masses of persons with little to lose - and what constitutes “little” in this context is absolute, not relative. Despite recent immiserating trends, white Americans as a whole still have way too much to lose in situations of violence, from physical assets to extended educations and even mere future ambitions. Moreover, there is, as we all know, tremendous ideological dissensus amongst whites on all questions, but especially on racial matters. Worse, legions of whites are passionate racial idealists (and a smaller but even more committed number are actual race traitors) who would gladly and idiotically not only refuse to support, but would actually physically resist, any white nationalist rebellion. These foolish white liberals (many of whom are Jews, but many of whom aren’t) are the ultimate reason for America’s real, if transitory, racial and therefore political stability. Their vocal and indeed disproportionately influential presence amongst whites prevents (at least until now, and for a few more decades, I suspect) the development of even the necessary nationalist consciousness which must precede any commencement of physical hostilities. Putting the matter simply, white race patriots today are too weak even to start a race war, let alone win it. Whites in general will only - possibly - win a race war on American soil if they are the attacked, and not the attackers, and thus are forced to rally together to defeat an external threat. While I believe that WNs are growing more numerous, so are the “new Americans” we wish to repatriate. By the time a majority of white Americans awaken to nationalism, we will either be outnumbered by or at least fairly evenly numbered with the non-whites and their white-traitor allies. To move aggressively against them would indeed unleash a continent-wide civil war, the favorable outcome of which in racial terms cannot be presumed, but whose destructiveness can be foretold with certainty. And that guaranteed destruction would preclude most whites from supporting an initiatory war of racial cleansing - even if most by that time were to be so fed up with the horrors and costs of the multiculture as to morally support the idea of forced removal. Second, the moral case (by ‘moral’ I mean something like ‘justifiable in Christian theology’) for coercive repatriation of non-whites is not at all clear (of course, this is not a problem for atheists, who, if they are clearheaded and strong, must either reject all ethics, or at least confine their ethics to intratribal reciprocity; but most Americans are Christians, and especially most right-of-center white Americans are genuine (ie, not merely nominal or cultural) believing Christians). I’m too lazy now to delve into why this might be, but it is the key to my earlier queries re Europeans and the strength of their commitments to reclaim their fatherlands from the immigrant invaders. Bluntly, Europeans have a vastly better moral claim to demand non-white removal, including those non-whites born on European soil, than we Yanks do. And, you have a more favorable population ratio for actually achieving it. Of course, your people seem much less martial than a large subset of gun-owning whites here in the US ,so I’m not sure who would make the more effective race-warriors. But whites need to believe in the ethicality of their wars, and that puts you Euro-rightists in a stronger position initially. 121
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 24 Oct 2009 18:59 | # Another thing the BNP needs if it is to ascend to the next level is profession, comprehensive polling, focus group and market research data which is consistently updated. It is something all major and successful political parties have. Just how much can you get away with saying and who and how many of them will be receptive to hearing varying levels of explicitly? 122
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 24 Oct 2009 20:03 | # Is that your stuff, Calvin? Very impressive! 123
Posted by Dan Dare on Sat, 24 Oct 2009 20:08 | #
I am one of those Bill, having long felt that Griffin is far more accomplished as a political strategist than he is as a public frontman where his delivery often seems strained. While watching QT I couldn’t help wondering why Griffin didn’t just ask himself ‘How would Enoch handle this googly I’ve just been bowled?” before blurting out some of the nonsense he did. It’s a sign of the times unfortunately, but somebody more telegenic and even parliamentary is needed to be the messenger and mouthpiece. I actually think Andrew Brons might be a better choice but unfortunately he also comes with inconvenient baggage. I don’t see anyone else within the current leadership with the articulacy and charisma necessary to do the job. Are there any renegades from the old Monday Club still kicking their heels in the wings? 124
Posted by Bill on Sat, 24 Oct 2009 20:28 | # And on a lighter note. I’m not a racist but….is now history. I wouldn’t dream of voting for the odious BNP - but Nick Griffin does have a point. I wonder what will be next? LOL 125
Posted by Bill on Sat, 24 Oct 2009 20:37 | # Posted by Dan Dare October 24, 2009, 07:08 PM
And there’s the rub. 126
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:18 | # Leon, Only William Joyce, I think. Bill, Yes, that is perceptive. There has been a quite seismic shift in that respect. The conclusion of a broad swathe of the political left - which means the political everywhere - is that No Platform was allowing the British National Party to lead the debate and get elected. Obviously, the price of remaining aloof is non-participation in history. The left had to participate. Thus the huge concentration on Griffin and the BNP both on QT and in the media before and immediately after the programme. It is simply the left’s very clumsy attempt to most definitely and entirely dictate the debate itself, with not a sliver of doubt as to that anywhere. At all. The debate, therefore, becomes all about what a fascist-who-denies-the-holycorst-and-hates-the-whole-world Nick Griffin is. The nutjobs in the media have been so completely detached from reality by all this, they failed to notice that their readers don’t actually like having their thoughts so blatantly dictated to them. Result: “I wouldn’t dream of voting for the odious BNP - but Nick Griffin does have a point.” Plus three thousand folk who got in touch and said they would dream of not just voting for the party, but joining it. The left is a thoughtful place and they will quickly suss out that “Dictating the Debate” with such overkill is counter-productive. More subtlety will be called for, starting with not letting the hugely powerful hatreds inside leftist heads get the better of them. Some of the most subtle thinkers might realise that the “hate” and “violence” that the “far right” perpetrates - or would perpetrate if it ever won power - is actually a projection of their own very, very obvious hatred and violence. Thus, the left has to struggle with itself to escape from the trap it is in, and find a formative logic for the “decency” and “fairness” of an English race-replacement that it can package up and present to the people through the media and the political Establishment. So we come down, finally, to the MR debate. One side must try to explain to the public why the ultimate value in life is a religious attachment to an abstract “good” or, at the very least, to not doing harm to negroes and Moslems who are doing harm to you. The other side must explain that the ultimate interest in life IS life itself, and without it there is nothing. In postmodernity everything is new and different from the past. The nationalist debate cannot be religious as before, and about a heroic rebirth out of the ashes of a judaically debased culture. It must be ontological. It must be Heideggerian yet Salterian, essentialist yet reasoned, revolutionary yet conservative. It must be about Man and tribe, about Nature, about love. All this heavy stuff I understand to be not a process in train now but one that still requires to be developed. But if it is developed, will our means of transmission into the public discourse - the non-Establishment media, the political parties - be listening? Will they comprehend? 127
Posted by Dan Dare on Sat, 24 Oct 2009 22:33 | # Actually William Joyce wasn’t British, but American. He did have a British passport but it had been obtained ubder false pretences and was therefore invalid. The prosecution was able to get the court to overlook that awkward fact, so instead of being acquitted as an American, he was hanged as a Briton. Another who was topped was John Amery, son of Leo, and to whom Enoch Powell’s aphorism “Großmutter nicht in Ordnung” could have applied. Had he had German nationality, Amery Jr. would have been classified as Mischling zweiter Grad. 128
Posted by Bill on Sat, 24 Oct 2009 23:10 | # GW October 24, 2009, 08:18 PM From the outset of awakening, I have clung to the belief that they won’t get away with it, at times I have been found wanting, but deep down there has always been a spark, a spark that flares now and again according to how I perceive things. I’m a half empty man by nature. The nature of this beast is so pedantic, so slowly, slowly, catchee monkey, insidious, deceitful, and loathsome. This has been in the making for a very long time, the architects have been in no hurry, generations have been fashioned, engineered, honed and now the moment is upon us when the whole thing is to be unleashed. As a result, they have the advantage of decades start over us, whilst we have been engaged in in the normality of our lives they, like termites, have been gnawing away at the very foundations of our civilisation. I’ve led a sheltered life, and when I discovered (and am still discovering) what it’s all about, it blew my mind, there’s not a day goes by without me thinking about it. All looks so normal out there. As an observer, I scrutinise people’s faces, my neighbour, the postman, my local shopkeeper my better half and my grandchildren, everything is so normal, they haven’t a clue, I’ve stopped asking the odd searching question, all I get is a puzzled stare and furrowed brow as they back away. My take on the left (at this level) is they appear to have a natural disconnect in their hard wiring, at one level they are highly intelligent, but this intelligence is accompanied by a sort of childlike naivety, they also seem to be overly interested in things lavatorial and bodily functions, on BBC 3 children’s programmes they are constantly belching and farting, interspersed with sketches involving poo and smelly things. All very weird to someone of the right. All to do with giving my grandchildren a new culture or destroying the existing one more like. The hardwired disconnect has great consequences for them, or should I say unintended consequences, the whole liberal bag of tricks is littered with them, someone here depicted a liberal sawing of a branch upon which he was sitting. That sums it up for me, very clever but cannot change a light bulb. I think this childishness accounts for the mindless chanting and labelling, the snarling invectives, the propensity for violence to shut us up, as you say, strange really, that everything they accuse us of is a mirror image of themselves. Hence the intolerance of the BBC and Question Time. I once asked the question here had there ever been a study of the leftist? I wouldn’t be a bit surprised to find there is some inherent biological reason for their bizarre thinking. At the highest level, they are genius I suppose, inventors of the atomic bomb, rocket scientists and the like. It is these people who are the inventors and responsible for our plight. I think the right should secede to north of Watford and have nowt to do with the left. LOL 129
Posted by AunDoorback on Sat, 24 Oct 2009 23:11 | # None of it matters http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8323638.stm The rub of it is that 22% (my poor maths makes that 30% of proper British people) would now “seriously consider” voting for the BNP (i.e. a propoer nativist party). Oh frabjous day! Calloo! Callay! 130
Posted by White Advocate on Sat, 24 Oct 2009 23:14 | # “Does anyone (Roger, GW etc) have any suggestions on what he could have said about the holohoax?” Well, I’m not Roger or GW, I’m a first time poster here, but I would have said that I used to doubt the conventional holocaust story, but I do not anymore. However, I think it is outrageous that we put people in jail for thinking heterodox thoughts and for proposing alternative viewpoints. A major reason for my suspicion have to do with the hysteria over unconventional ideas of the Holocaust, I wondered why there was such great effort put towards punishing people for promulgating these allegedly ridiculous theories, I thought perhaps there might be something to them!” I must say I’ve looked into the matter in more depth and I must acknowledge there is a tremendous amount of evidence for the traditional story. But this being the case, why must we engage in Stalinist oppression towards those who in my view honestly raise questions, questions that in fact can be easily addressed?” In summary: acknowledge what happened and change the topic to a lack of free speech about anything controversal. 131
Posted by Selous Scout on Sat, 24 Oct 2009 23:28 | # Alex Kurtagic has posted over at Occidental Observer what to my mind is the best account so far of Griffin’s QT appearance: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/ “This issue transcends British politics, because the same applies everywhere else across traditional White homelands. Utopian liberals dream of cohesive communities of multicultural diversity where very different groups live in splendid, impossible harmony, followed by a homogenized brown world were everyone looks the same, earns the same, and thinks the same. For utopian liberals equality is the ultimate goal, the key to happiness and human progress. If the price is the destruction of genius, the suppression of individuality, and the irrecoverable loss of beauty, so be it. It is monstrous, perverse, insane. Yet they are absolutely determined to realize their vision. If we are to stop them, if we are to survive them, we have embrace the Nietzschean maxim and dare to be ourselves. To be assertive and devoid of qualms in the pursuit of glory — of glory defined by us, for us, and in our terms. To not care what they think, to scorn their friendship, and be prepared to eat them, lest they eat us first. Let us hope Mr. Griffin’s appearance has cured the hopeful of any illusions that this is anything but an all out war to the finish.” 132
Posted by Armor on Sat, 24 Oct 2009 23:40 | # “My take on the left : (...) they also seem to be overly interested in things lavatorial and bodily functions, on BBC 3 children’s programmes (...) “ It is probably a Jewish thing. 133
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 25 Oct 2009 00:21 | # Selous, Alex K is a talented writer and trench-fighter, and he was doing fine blazing away at the enemy until he got to the defining moment, and concluded:
When I read this sort of ultra-masculine rubric I always wonder what glory the writer could possibly mean. What? I’ve asked many times, and never received a coherent reply. Glory is not a human purpose. It anoints the worthy. But the nature of worthiness precludes a keeness to be so anointed. Keeness for glory is already inglorious. 134
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 25 Oct 2009 01:02 | # A few more details from the ultra-hypocritical Daily Mail on Neathergate:
Straw, Roche and Portes (who was team-leader on the PIU report) are all tribalists, though Straw would protest the fact. It was Blair who, on both occasions, accused Tory leaders Hague (2001) and Howard (2004) of “playing the race card”. 135
Posted by Calvin on Sun, 25 Oct 2009 02:08 | # “Is that your stuff, Calvin? Very impressive!” Desmond Jones Ha! Cheers Desmond! All mine, I go straight past reason and right for the reptilian brain now. I’m pretty optimistic. The liberal establishment blatently tried to “duff up” Griffin. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you and then they fight you. 136
Posted by Dan Dare on Sun, 25 Oct 2009 02:18 | #
It’s hard to divine GW simply because it’s alien to the British psyche. It stems out of the full-frontal balls-to-the-ball all-American attitude towards conflict. Throw enough hot lead at it and you’re bound to prevail. It’s the same mentality that sent the WW II battleships USS Missouri and New Jersey into action during the 80s, lobbing Volkswagen-sized shells into the Bekaa Valley in the confident expectation that Hezbollah would simply cave in. 137
Posted by Thunder on Sun, 25 Oct 2009 02:37 | # AunDoorback, I know what you mean about the look you got from that ‘facilitator”. In 1984, while working for the Australian public service, I sat through a training session on equal employment opportunity. Some of us guys called it EIEIO training. The facilitator was a woman, as were all of the other attendees. The guys never showed up because I think they intuitively understood it was not for them. I got a ‘look’ on taking my seat and as the training proceeded the facilitator constantly looked at me to check my reaction. I am sure she considered me the enemy. Anyhow near the end I asked how they planned to initiate quotas without actively discriminating against some guy. (Anyone but a white male, heterosexual etc. male qualified for EIEIO consideration of course.) The look I got was very telling. I interpreted it as “He’s onto us watch out.” But maybe it was just hate. The problem was that unless, on every application, you did not acknowledge your agreement with EIEIO you were marked out on a crucial criterion and had no chance of promotion. 138
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 25 Oct 2009 04:43 | #
That does it, I’m going to tell my college-age sons to go to the north of England to find brides when the time comes. I’d been reassuring them they could still find feminine girls all through the former communist bloc countries of Central and Eastern Europe but now that I know there are people in the north of England who would vote for the BNP even had Nick Griffin called for the slaughter of the first born that’s where I’m going to tell them to go to find the best bride material from the best families in the Eurosphere sight unseen. I didn’t know the north of England was that rich in the sheer genetic quality of its people. Sounds like some kind of paradise on Earth! 139
Posted by Bill on Sun, 25 Oct 2009 05:48 | # Nick Griffin attacked by his own BNP supporters over Question Time Grasping at straws? http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/25/nick-griffin-question-time-bnp 140
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 25 Oct 2009 06:10 | # That was a pure hit-piece, Bill (I read about half; simply couldn’t stomach any more of it). They’re alarmed worse than ever now, and are going to lash out in the most vicious ways they can think of. That piece wasn’t even “yellow journalism,” it was cesspool level, no other terms could describe it. Excrement, the only word for it. All professional standards, every one, jettisoned. Out the window. Now, there’s also, don’t forget, the need for them to quickly get the spotlight off the Neather revelations spilling the beans that race-replacement was indeed the deliberate plan all along, which we’ve been saying at this blog for five years now and had people calling us loons for it. Who’s a loon now? The man who attended all the key meetings, was on intimate terms with all the key <strike>Jews</strike> players, actually himself wrote the key speeches, now comes straight out and tells us that explicit race-replacement was the goal and the only real goal, and the supposed “economic benefit” and all the rest of the “justificaitons” were lies from the get-go: who’s the conspiracy theorist now, pray tell? Yes they have to keep the spotlight off the Neather article, damn right, and what better way than to up the ante in their delusional, all-journalistic-standards-abandoned coverage of the aftermath of the BBC set-up of Nick Griffin. It’ll only get worse, not better — because they’re starting to get scared. The son of a bitches are starting to get scared. Good. That means we’re doing our job. 141
Posted by Bill on Sun, 25 Oct 2009 06:38 | # GW October 25, 2009, 12:02 AM Neathergate. I could be way off here but I don’t buy this package. It doesn’t tie in with the fact that the whole of the white Western world has gone down the same path - mass third world immigration. At some point since (possibly?) the mid ‘90’s, the order went out to open the floodgates. I often wonder and still do, as to why I get the impression that Britain, under new Labour, have, been targeted for special treatment (maybe along with the US,) Both the US and Britain appear (no evidence for any of this of course) to have been selected for special treatment in the immigration stakes. My guess is, the order went out to open the floodgates round about 9/11, I say this for no other reason than everything that has been thrown at us has been since 9/11. I know it doesn’t make sense but what does in this business. Perhaps Blair baulked at admitting even more migrants, because he felt already he was going over the top, as he was already taking in more than his allotted share. (to please Murdoch?) Britain and Europe receive their instructions via the EU, (via UN and maybe CFR?.) The rest of the white world get the same orders from directly from the UN. (via CFR?) Something like that anyway. Blair continues to be well rewarded for his services to the cause. (and to think I used to think he was a bit player in all of this) Maybe he is. 142
Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 25 Oct 2009 07:56 | # Bedford Forrest
No we don’t. I’m not going to get into it, especially at this stage, but if we get a nationalist government before the point where the invaders themselves start a civil war then there are more subtle ways of doing things. If things are left until the invaders themselves start a civil war then yes it will obviously get very nasty. 143
Posted by Bill on Sun, 25 Oct 2009 08:33 | # On my early Sunday morning trawl through the print media the seismograph is still registering the fallout from the Question Time massacre, the rumbling continues. Here’s a beauty from the pen of Minette Marrin of the TImes. The BBC lynch mob proved BNP leader Nick Griffin’s best recruiters Straight in she says…
The smirking face of racism… They deny there’s such a thing as an indigenous Brit but hey there is a such a thing as a smirking face of racism. She follows with…
The obligatory bowing and scraping at the alter of political correctness immediately prior to revealing there true feelings is hilarious. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/minette_marrin/article6888961.ece 144
Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 25 Oct 2009 09:22 | # Silver
I liked that addition. Bedford Forrest Under peaceful circumstances you can only get numbers if you pick a position that is within a certain distance of the mainstream. There is no conflict between being purist or radical and taking a more moderate position as long as the moderate position is still unacceptable to the enemy because, as shown by this recent event, the enemy will attack any position that aims to prevent, or even slow down the genocide of white rabbits, and it’s the enemy attacks that provide the radicalization. There are multiple options, particularly in the states, but militia type talk before the white rabbits are organized in large numbers is just what the enemy wants. Numbers first. Bill
There’s Neathers all over the western world who’ve been brain-washed by the holocult that Aryan ethno-centricity is original sin. I think Griffin’s baggage can be turned into an advantage. His basic plan has been sound but his being overly defensive about his earlier views sounds weak. He just needs to devise stronger sounding responses. Also i’d suggest, those points where he has actually changed his views less than others are the ones that most need a simple response, as those are the ones that will cause the most stress in situations like QT. I think this is critical. He’s been thrown a lifeline by the BBC overplaying its hand. Hopefully he’ll learn from it and come back. 145
Posted by Angry Beard on Sun, 25 Oct 2009 09:24 | # I’m stll smirking at GW’s choice phrase to descibe the great unwashed screaming their marxist little heads off outside BBC TV centre ‘mad-dogs’.Not Noel Coward’s cute mad-dogs mind you, but real snarling, rabid, flesh-tearing beast. 146
Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 25 Oct 2009 09:37 | # The link Fred posted from Sean Gabb also contains another possible answer to the holocult question: http://www.vdare.com/gabb/091024_griffin.htm I’m particularly liking personal narrative type answers. 147
Posted by Angry Beard on Sun, 25 Oct 2009 09:43 | # ‘Jonathan Portes’. Neathergate strongly reminds one of the Zinoviev affair of the 1920s that destroyed Ramsay McDonald’s pioneering Labour government. 148
Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:00 | #
No we won’t. Before things got anywhere near that point there would be multiple occurrences of white stooges who were trying to show solidarity with the invaders getting attacked, raped or killed by those invaders at various events. The crowd outside QT are mostly white now but White Antifa activity at the street level will fade long before things ever came to a head because if things keep progressing then the other ethnic groups will eventually get involved and on the way home from an event like that in the dark there will be attacks, robberies, stabbings, rapes and killings. 150
Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:56 | # Bill From Barne’s blog:
This is another interesting angle of attack that fits in with the personal narrative idea (and may even be true). The line could be that the Nazi holocaust is used as an anti-nationalist weapon and a tool of psychological warfare against the indigenous white rabbits and it’s that that leads nationalists to attack it. Then saying he [Griffin] finally realized that the holocult acts like a red rag to a bull - nationalists attack the rag and not the matador.
151
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 25 Oct 2009 13:12 | # Bill, This was my take on the holithing in January 2007. It is still my take: http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/more_holocaust_coercion_and_a_word_of_advice/ 152
Posted by GenoType on Sun, 25 Oct 2009 18:04 | # Where is common sense, out-of-the-box vision, and courage? “Fighting” on enemy territory - territory controlled by the enemy - is insanity. This is the lesson Griffin should have learned long ago. So, there has been a 20% upsurge in interest for the BNP? On what is this based? Web page visits? Man on the street interviews? Polling “data”? The printed word? If I was the enemy, I would encourage hopeful thinking along those lines with a few strokes of the pen. “Come on back, Nick! Let’s do it again!” Despite fifty-five years of failure, faileocons remain gullible and always - always - repeat the same mistakes. 153
Posted by Frank on Sun, 25 Oct 2009 18:14 | # GT, publicity of this sort is good. People need to hear his name and see his face, surely? 154
Posted by BGD on Sun, 25 Oct 2009 18:29 | #
Yes and of course his father had actually written the wording of the Balfour Declaration and - as you suggest - was later revealed to be of Jewish extraction. Poor old John, did the rounds trying to get captured British soldiers to fight on the Eastern front. 155
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Sun, 25 Oct 2009 18:42 | # Labour let in migrants ‘to engineer multicultural UK’ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1222613/Labour-let-migrants-engineer-multicultural-UK.html You’d think that before engineering a multicultural Britain, they would’ve consulted the indigenous population first to see if they wanted to be so enriched. That would’ve been the democratic thing to do, no? 156
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Sun, 25 Oct 2009 18:54 | # BBC’s Question Time: A Shameful Spectacle Alex Kurtagic October 24, 2009
After much controversy, discussion, soul-searching, explanation, and legal posturing, BNP Chairman and Member of European Parliament Nick Griffin was allowed to participate in the BBC’s premier political television program, Question Time. The format of this show consists of a panel of politicians and public figures, sitting at a table, chaired by a moderator (David Dimbleby), and facing an audience inside a television studio. The purpose of the show is to perpetuate the illusion of a democratic society, whereby members of the public are given the opportunity to question politicians and public figures on current affairs issues in front of the nation. The show broadcasts from different cities every week, and average audience figures tend to be under the 3 million mark. Nick Griffin is not new to mainstream television, having appeared on various news programs broadcast by corporate networks, including the BBC, ITN, and Sky. Appearing in Question Time, however, was different, for this is a one-hour forum, intended for mainstream politicians only. And this being the first time that the leader of a pro-White party was allowed to contribute his views to the political debate alongside mainstream politicians, the unrepresentative liberal clique that staff the present British establishment was terrified that Mr. Griffin’s appearance would cast the BNP as a credible party, thus increasing the voting public’s level of comfort with admitting sympathy for the party’s policies on race and immigration. The BBC bosses, however, perhaps because they relished the boost in audience, perhaps because they feared exposing themselves as the organ of liberal fascism that we all know they are, felt that they had better allow Mr. Griffin into their studio, deciding to remember that they are obligated to fulfill a charter of due impartiality. I knew that the BBC would use every trick in the book to massively bias the program against Mr. Griffin, and ensure that he was properly and thoroughly humiliated. I knew that they would ensure that both the audience and fellow panelists were aggressively hostile. I knew also that they would focus their odion laserbeams onto Mr. Griffin for the duration of the program. I knew that they would make sure to keep the political discussion well away from relevant issues by dredging up the Nazis, the Holocaust, and the Ku Klux Klan. And I knew that Mr. Griffin would be interrupted at every possible moment and not given adequate opportunity to reply to accusations. And, of course, I was not disappointed. Caption from Mail Online: “On the offensive: Nick Griffin (right) left Jack Straw (left) speechless after attacking his father’s wartime jail spell.” The BBC hosted the program in heavily multicultural London, thereby ensuring a strong presence by ethnic minorities while avoiding, by only technically fulfilling, their moral obligation to host an audience representative of the British population. And the BBC then invited Jack Straw, the (Jewish-descended) Justice Secretary, representing Labour; Bonnie Greer, a Chicago-born ultra-liberal Black playwright, author, and critic; Muslim Conservative politician Sayeeda Warsi, Shadow Minister for Community Cohesion and Social Action (yes, we now need a whole ministry to try to keep communities from exploding); and Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat’s home affairs spokesman, a socialist. The set up was almost cartoonish in its tendentiousness, to the point where I could not help but imagine the program makers standing around the kettle in the BBC kitchen, doubled up in hysterical laughter, with tears running down their faces, as they dreamt up ever more outrageous ways to pervert the program. The resulting spectacle presented by the BBC was shameful. The panelists were childish, their arguments moronic, their ad hominems base, their sophistry unbelievable, their self-delusion even more so. And their fear, in the secret knowledge that their position in these troubled times is weaker and more precarious than the public realizes, glaringly obvious. As to the audience, it was apparent to anyone with detectable cranial cubicage that the BBC had comically contrived to fill the studio with all manner of hooting apes, pious liberals, rabid anti-racists, self-hating Whites, irascible Blacks, militant homosexuals, and politically agitated Muslims. The audience represented all manner of tricky demographics, including mixed-race British citizens, inter-racial couples, and descendants of Asian and Afro-Caribbean immigrants. Accordingly, Mr Griffin was barely given opportunity to express himself on behalf of the million who voted for him: He was systematically attacked, he was seldom allowed to respond, he was almost never allowed to finish his sentences, and every minor hesitation or draw for breath was rudely exploited by his pitiless opponents. Mr. Dimbleby, who happens to be the president of the Institute for Citizenship, which issues resource packs aimed at promoting diversity and (get this) educating people about media bias, studiously tolerated this chaos. So much for due impartiality! And, of course, all the while, an unwashed anti-White rabble of deranged, deformed, egg-pelting terrorists — sponsored by the government with tax-payers’ money — protested outside, having been frustrated in their attempts to prevent Mr. Griffin from entering the building or to have the BBC workers go on strike. Mr. Griffin’s performance was not excellent. He was nervous, he faltered, he sought to be liked, to refute his media image as a hater, a Nazi, a racist, and a potential mass murderer in a suit, and he even made absurd attempts to ingratiate himself with Bonnie Greer. It seems harsh to rebuke him for being nervous: This is, to a large degree, physiological, and it is easier said than done to perform brilliantly in a psychologically hostile environment, in a situation that poses as a great opportunity, yet has been so carefully engineered to embarrass and discredit. It also seems harsh to rebuke him for attempting to discredit the media portrayal of him as a nasty, hate-filled, and unpleasant hoodlum — no ordinary human wants to be perceived like that. Yet the nervousness is linked to what, to my mind, is the main weakness in Mr. Griffin’s position, so clearly exposed in the program, and to what motivated his attempts to make friends with those who despise him: As a politician, access to power and the media is a function of his being liked, and his being liked is a function of his perceived legitimacy as a politician, which is, in turn, a function of how much he is willing to conform to the liberal establishment’s ideological orthodoxy. In other words, Mr. Griffin’s position is dependent on the favors and toleration of a corrupt power structure that abhors him and is fundamentally inimical to the interests of those whom he was elected to represent. In the post mortem examination, Mr. Griffin will probably hope for sympathy and will re-evaluate his tactics. There is no question that his efforts to re-present the BNP to the public as a sensible party have yielded electoral results, and that, as a result, he has been able to reach a much wider audience. There is also no question that many voters know that the only way to motivate mainstream politicians to listen to concerns they would rather ignore is to scare them with the threat of a so-called ‘fascist’ party coming to power. It was the BNP ‘threat’, after all, that motivated the Conservatives to make immigration a campaign issue in the 2005 general election. Moreover, it is true that major movements have had marginal beginnings — one has only to look at the Labour Party itself. It is therefore possible that the BNP could continue to grow. Yet, the creeps that comprise the present establishment will never cede power voluntarily: they are absolutely ruthless and amoral, they are convinced of their own righteousness, and they will never permit a threat to their existence. If there is a lesson from Mr. Griffin’s appearance in Question Time, it is that, when dealing with the enemy, it is futile to be anything but perfectly frank in one’s hostility, vicious in one’s humor, and relentless in one’s aggression. However elegant the suit or polished the language, one has to be proud to be considered a monster, a beast, a demon, and never apologize for it, never feel one owes an explanation, never accept their terms, never empathize, never sympathize, and never issue an apology. One must encourage their fear, relish their discomfort, and revel in their demonizations. Some might not agree with unconventional opinions, but they all respect what they fear. It is painful to think of the opportunities that went unexploited in this program. In theory, it should have been easy to make the establishment politicians in the panel look like fools, for it is not as if their parties have not already supplied — through a lurid chain of failure, corruption, deception, embezzlement, and scandals of every stripe, all going back decades — ample ammunition with which to gun them down into the trench of discredit and professional embarrassment. They are vermin; a horripilating freak show of intellectual dwarves, equivocating slugs, fiscal leeches, snake oil salesmen, lying demagogues, pompous ideologues, toxic pedagogues, legal eels, media lice, economic burglars, political toads, crooks, cowards, traitors, cretins, weirdoes, academic fraudsters, and orangutanaceous buffoons. It should have been equally easy to ridicule their delirious utopian visions, for they have failed on every level, and the mess we are in is entirely of their making. No one else has been in power.
Peter Hain, Secretary of State for Wales, was furious Nick Griffin was allowed to appear on Question Time. Unfortunately, Mr. Griffin’s desire for legitimacy and acceptance, caused him to temper his aggression and offer amiability: Much time was wasted in the effort to appear moderate by explaining, denying, or qualifying alleged remarks and previous statements, and not enough was invested in vigorously attacking the corrupt politicians and mediacrats, their lies, their cravenness, their slipperiness, and their catastrophic policy failures. Mr. Griffin has performed much more forcefully on other occasions, and to his credit, he did go on the offensive several times, such was when he pointed out that during World War II his father had served in the RAF while Mr. Straw’s had been in prison for refusing to fight for his country. However, on the whole, despite presenting some sound arguments, he came across as defensive, almost obsequious, which hostile observers have smugly interpreted (for the ‘edification’ of fence-sitters) as evasion and as Mr. Griffin’s deceptiveness in the secret knowledge that he is wrong.
During World War II, Mr. Griffin’s father served in the RAF, while Mr. Straw’s father was in Wandsworth Prison for refusing to fight for his country. (Jack Straw could have fallen foul of the law as well, had he not acted before the recent MP’s expenses scandal broke out.) But he is not wrong. The aboriginals of the British Isles are White. They have never been, and will never be, anything else. They have a culture, a language, an identity, and a geographical space of their own. They are right to desire a White society. They are right to desire its continuity and prosperity. They are right to desire the ability to define themselves and to choose their own destiny. They are right to loathe and despise those who seek to take away what is rightfully theirs. They are right to wish the destruction of those who seek to destroy them. They are right to be vicious and ruthless in dealing with their enemies, because their enemies are vicious and ruthless too. They are right, and the Left is wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, forever wrong. This issue transcends British politics, because the same applies everywhere else across traditional White homelands. Utopian liberals dream of cohesive communities of multicultural diversity where very different groups live in splendid, impossible harmony, followed by a homogenized brown world were everyone looks the same, earns the same, and thinks the same. For utopian liberals equality is the ultimate goal, the key to happiness and human progress. If the price is the destruction of genius, the suppression of individuality, and the irrecoverable loss of beauty, so be it. It is monstrous, perverse, insane. Yet they are absolutely determined to realize their vision. If we are to stop them, if we are to survive them, we have to embrace the Nietzschean maxim and dare to be ourselves. To be assertive and devoid of qualms in the pursuit of glory — of glory defined by us, for us, and in our terms. To not care what they think, to scorn their friendship, and be prepared to eat them, lest they eat us first. Let us hope Mr. Griffin’s appearance has cured the hopeful of any illusions that this is anything but an all out war to the finish. 157
Posted by Rhys on Sun, 25 Oct 2009 20:13 | # Bill
I see what you mean. I am not as knowledgeable as most here, but I have been trying to tell people for a few years now to stop thinking so much in terms of left v right domestic politics and think in terms of Establishment politicians being mere tools of internationalism and the global elites. By the way, the BNP have picked up on the Neather story 158
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 25 Oct 2009 20:58 | # Both links in Rhys’s comment above are bombshells, especially the first one, dealing with the United-Nations-defined right of indigenous populations not to be deliberately genocided. As for the second, in which it is apparent the BBC are now frightened of being sued by the BNP and of potentially having to pay millions in restitution if the latter bring them to court, I’ll take the liberty of reproducing most of it:
The BNP should NOT be satisfied with being granted “a right of reply” but should sue them for every penny it can wring out of their hides and, if possible, sue the specific culprits personally as well, including Dimbleby. And try to get them hit with jail time. Didn’t they try to get Nick Griffin thrown in jail for seven years? Now it’s our turn: let’s do it to them. 159
Posted by Bill on Sun, 25 Oct 2009 21:38 | # Rhys October 25, 2009, 07:13 PM
At the risk of repeating myself I say again, what has happened here (UK) and is happening here, is being replicated throughout the European white civilised world. The white race is under attack by mass multiple migration from Alaska to New Zealand, from Spain to Norway, and from Britain forever Eastwards. For some reason, America and Britain have been singled out for special treatment, bad-bad boys? Why is this happening? Who is doing it? (Fred has some ideas on this one) What is the end game? What is the time scale? How are they going to achieve their goal? It is these questions and many more that is the reason why we are here at MR. Who is going to be brave enough to stand in front of the Question Time cameras and demand answers from the panel on these questions? Nick Griffin? The world-wide conspiratorial silence from our political elites is deafening, it’s pure science fiction. I call it the Invasion of the Body snatchers* Immediately prior to alighting on your post I had just finished skimming down this… Multiculturalism Is A Fraud http://elliotlakenews.wordpress.com/2009/10/25/what-is-multiculturalism-2/#respond I chanced upon it only a few minutes ago, it couldn’t have appeared at a more opportune moment to illustrate my point. 160
Posted by Bill on Sun, 25 Oct 2009 21:47 | # Fred Scrooby October 25, 2009, 07:58 PM
Sure did and came away with egg on their face - swearing revenge I would guess. Question Time was the BBC’s revenge - bigtime. 161
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Sun, 25 Oct 2009 21:50 | # Re: Labour let in migrants ‘to engineer multicultural UK’ Tell us, Fred, how it was all a conspiracy of devilish Jews working under Blair to flood the U.K. with migrants. Are you still peddling your anti-Semitism? 162
Posted by Bill on Sun, 25 Oct 2009 22:36 | # Mail reckons BNP leader Nick Griffin ‘could appear on Question Time again’, says BBC boss BBC’s ratings up, Mail circulation up, hey! - let’s have a re-match. Seriously though, waddya reckon? Should Griffin get down to serious training, get some of that flab off, don the track suit like Clinton and Bush. Simon in his corner with the towel (and smelling salts) Float like butterfly and tell it as it is. 163
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 25 Oct 2009 23:20 | #
Is U.S. policy toward Israel decisively influenced by Jewry? Or is claiming that the same as claiming they control the air we breathe because “no one’s that powerful.” U.S. immigration policy is decisively influenced by Jewry in the same or analagous ways as U.S. policy toward Israel is. If you counter that, FB, by saying “that’s the same as saying the Jews are so powerful they control the air we breathe,” you’re saying they control the air we breathe, since they decisively control our policy toward Israel. If they don’t control the air we breathe, on the other hand — and they don’t — there’s nothing implausible about the claim that they heavily influence our immigration policy. So, looking at how they control our Israel policy, it turns out to be plausible they’d be able to control our immigration policy. Why would they want to? Same as the reason they want to control the other: they deem it of tribal importance to themselves.
I never peddled it and am not an “anti-Semite.” Bill’s point is an important one: Neather’s gang didn’t open France’s borders, Belgium’s, Sweden’s, Holland’s, Canada’s, Malta’s, the U.S.‘s, or anyone else’s, just Britain’s, and they didn’t open Britain’s in the beginning, because those got opened before this bunch were in power. So who’s running around opening everyone’s borders? A combination of forces among which organized Jewry figures prominently along with individual Jews acting wherever they can in concert with the rest of their tribe, and they’ve been at it a hundred years and more (around six score — they started in the 1880s). So why do I blame Jews more? Because the others are part of whites, whites can’t get free of them (malcontents, retards, depressed women, and so on, who ally with Jews, they’re always a certain irreducible fraction of any white population and of all populations including Jewish populations: all populations have this irreducible fraction), while they can get free of Jews. If, say, there’s a defect in your right arm that exposes you to health problems when other factors come into play, your effort will be to separate yourself from those other factors, not from your right arm. It’s defective but it’s an integral part of yourself. You can’t do without it. 164
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 25 Oct 2009 23:30 | #
Yes he should. In all seriousness. During his first term Clinton’s handlers put him on a diet — no more McDonald’s cheeseburgers for one thing. Remember that? And as Bill mentions, they had him out jogging too. Without any doubt they were concerned about re-election prospects and were maximizing their chances for second term (they knew of course the women’s vote was crucial to them; less so for Bush). Joe Biden, Obama’s Vice-President (and the guy who once plagiarized one of Neil Kinnock’s speeches and got caught), got hair transplants for reasons of political appearance and viability. Griffin, a champion boxer at Cambridge, certainly knows how to go into physical training, get the weight off, get into physical shape. It’s what he should to, definitely. That and of course having training sessions on likely questions and the answers to give till he knows them like he knows his own name. All of those things. Leave no stone unturned, leave nothing to chance, Failure is NOT an option next time! 165
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 25 Oct 2009 23:32 | # I’m not saying he failed, I think he did pretty well, but he can do better next time! 166
Posted by Dan Dare on Sun, 25 Oct 2009 23:39 | #
We might also present a list of the principal private donors to the Labour Party during the run-up to the 2001 election, which would include a long list of prominent Jewish financiers and industrialists, not a few of whom now sit in the House of Lords having been ennobled for their services to the Labour Party. All coincidental? 167
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Mon, 26 Oct 2009 00:18 | # It’s the fault of two Labour Jews, DD? And nobody else raised an objection? What does a list of pre-election donors have to to with Labour deciding to make the U.K. a multiculti Orwellian shithole on ideological grounds? Again, it seems that it was a collective decision that implicates a great number of pols and civil servants working in tandem. 168
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 26 Oct 2009 00:52 | #
How much Jewish money went into backing Blair? These aspirants for high office are vetted years in advance by interested parties and groups, almost “scouted” for their potential like with scouts for baseball teams. Only ones with their minds right on certain issues or who are pliable enough to get their minds right once “shown reason” get any backing. How was Blair chosen for backing by those who backed him most? Why was Roche put into that sensitive potentially demography-changing position, a Jewish open-borders fanatic, mirror image of Doris Meissner over here who was put into the exact same position this side of the Atlantic, another Jewish open-borders fanatic — was that coincidence or were these Jewish open-borders fanatics slated more or less years in advance for the short lists for these positions? Who slated them years in advance? Are there interest groups with plenty of cash and influence who don’t leave this stuff to chance? What do you think about that, FB, are there? Or is this left to chance? What money behind the scenes stipulates only such and such an individual is acceptible for such and such position? Is there money behind the scenes stipulating that, for example, a Palestinian-symp guy or woman will never in a million years get any job that can influence U.S. Israeli policy? What’s your guess about that? By the same token, is there money behind the scenes maintaining short lists of acceptable candidates for filling such and such sensitive immigration-controlling position? Who’s behind that money? Who prepared Blair’s list of two candidates for Archbishop of Canterbury to present to the Queen, with one of them being Rowan Williams, one of the most far-out-there, wackiest, moronic radical leftists since Saul Alinsky? Do you think Blair selected those names or cared one tinker’s damn whose names were on it? He made something like fourteen thousand Jewish businessmen life peers not long after becoming prime minister, guys who .... who what? What did they do for him? ........... Half of them were his tennis partners since he graduated university — did he elevate them to the peerage because he was grateful for having tennis partners? What were their politics and what did they get out of helping him? What did they do for each other?
Who controls the mass media by means of which effective opposition could have been rendered either feasible or utterly impossible, the mass media through the normal functioning of which new leadership gradually arises when things are functioning normally, arises to mount a challenge for the reins of power? Who controls those media? Who thwarts any such new leadership, nips it in the bud instantly by media-controlled demonization, forcing the lid down on the pressure-cooker, keeping anyone from having the political standing to “raise an objection”?
By the fully-vetted-beforehand candidate they back and work for and their media cronies go out of their way to support, and by the lists of acceptable and unacceptable appointees they draw up to fill any positions with the potential to influence matters of great interest to them such as Israel and immigration policy in that order, lists which are obeyed to the letter by the opportunist candidate they’ve decided to back precisely because they determined beforehand he was either an extremist on immigration himself or malleable, in return for enough lucre.
As was U.S. policy toward Israel. That’s why Walt and Mearsheimer’s book was a total waste of the dead trees it was printed on, the Jews weren’t the decisive factor in determining policy toward Israel, it was combinations of goys determining that policy, the Jews playing a minor role not a major one. 169
Posted by Dan Dare on Mon, 26 Oct 2009 00:54 | # I’m uncertain how closely you’ve been following this thread FB, but the existence of the conspiracy that we’ve been discussing (“Neathergate”) only came to light this past Friday. Nobody raised an objection because nobody knew for sure what had been going on, although many had a shrewd suspicion.
Up until now we have just have a tiny peek behind the curtain and the full cast of the dramatis personæ has yet to be established. However we do know for certain that both Straw and Roche’s dabs are on the evidence, and Blair’s too. As for the congruence of the Jewish donors to Labour’s 2001 election fund and the contemporaneous background machinations which resulted in the loosening of immigration controls - which took place out of sight of both the public and Parliament - we don’t as yet have any conclusive evidence that the two are related. But given the previous form, it’s a reasonable supposition that the two could be closely related. As Andrew Green noted, this could be political dynamite. It will be interesting to see what the Tories make of it (if anything). 170
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 26 Oct 2009 01:29 | #
The Toris won’t make anything of it because the people who fund and fund-raise and work for them want the same thing: open borders and race-replacement, by stealth since the population if asked would vote to reject it overwhelmingly and they know it. They’ll make nothing of it, zip, zero, nada. Quite the contrary in fact, they’ll help Labour to bury the story. Very much so. 171
Posted by Armor on Mon, 26 Oct 2009 01:32 | #
In fact, most arguments to the effect that Jews could not possibly be the main culprits can also be used to argue that there is no conspiracy of the elites against the people. But it is difficult not to see that our leaders are conspiring to destroy us.
It is clear that most pols and civil servants are not political activists. They are simply going along with it. Our alleged leaders are really followers. They are puppets. 172
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Mon, 26 Oct 2009 01:43 | # The Tories won’t make anything of it, as they don’t want to appear racist. Isn’t David Cameron himself part Jewish and a member of some anti-fascist group? 173
Posted by Q on Mon, 26 Oct 2009 01:48 | #
Precisely. 174
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 26 Oct 2009 01:57 | # “Isn’t David Cameron himself part Jewish” (—FB) Fourteen thousand generations ago doesn’t make a guy part Jewish. A white-Negro one-drop rule makes sense, a Euro-Jewish one doesn’t. 175
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Mon, 26 Oct 2009 02:01 | #
That’s seems like an arbitrary decision based on personal circumstances. His Jewish blood is more recent than what you suggest; and I’ve heard him talk a length and with great pride about his Jewishness. When he says that it means a lot to him, I take him at his word. 176
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 26 Oct 2009 02:06 | #
Just further proof of who’s backing him, of whom he is absolutely desperate to please so the cash spigots will open and stay open provided he plays ball of course. Obviously a guy like this who’s whoring after Jewish cash and Jewish media support isn’t going to breathe so much as one word about closing the borders to non-whites. The instant he does that he’s toast with the Jews. 177
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 26 Oct 2009 02:35 | # He had a single Jewish ancestor in the year 1840 or something like that. Not exactly “part Jewish.” 178
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Mon, 26 Oct 2009 02:39 | # What is part Jewish, Fred? Does having Jewish grandparents on both sides of the family like you qualifies? Where do we stop to make you happy? How about when an individual says that he’s part Jewish? If Cameron feels part Jewish, who are you to tell him that he’s wrong. Get a grip. 179
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 26 Oct 2009 03:17 | #
It’s not about whose Jewish, it’s about who’s included. “Never accept a convert or a child born of a convert,” Kassin told me by phone, summarizing the message. “Push them away with strong hands from our community. Why? Because we don’t want gentile characteristics.” ... “It’s really a matter of statistics,” [Rabbi Elie Abadie ] explained to me. “Except for the Orthodox, the American Jewish community is shrinking, disappearing. In two generations, most of their grandchildren won’t even be Jews. But our community is growing. We have large families, five or six children. And only a tiny fraction of our kids leave. The Edict is what makes that true.” Kassin knows this from personal experience. His sister Anna ran off with a gentile. Naturally it was a great scandal in the community, but the chief rabbi didn’t bend the rules for his daughter. “We cut her off,” Jakie Kassin told me. “We didn’t see her for 25 years. But we never stopped hoping she’d come back. Finally, after all these years, she made contact. We told her she was welcome to come back, but not with her husband or kids. She’s not here yet, but we do talk on the telephone.” In addition to the strictures imposed by the Edict in instances of proposed intermarriage, any outsider who wants to marry into a Syrian family — even a fellow Jew — is subject to thorough genealogical investigation. That means producing proof, going back at least three generations and attested to by an Orthodox rabbi, of the candidates’ kosher bona fides. This disqualifies the vast majority of American Jews, who have no such proof. “We won’t take them — not even if we go back three or four generations — if someone in their line was married by a Reform or Conservative rabbi, because they don’t perform marriages according to Orthodox law,” Kassin said. Even Orthodox candidates are screened, to make sure there are no gentiles or converts lurking in the family tree. ...
180
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 26 Oct 2009 03:29 | # “Where do we stop to make you happy?” At the truth and common sense. Stopping there will make me very happy, thanks for asking. 181
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 26 Oct 2009 06:22 | # While Friedrich is busy working on his quiz, specially tailored to his needs, here’s Today’s Quiz for everyone else: Why is Steve Sailer’s list of two motivations in the above excerpt incomplete? What Jewish motivation(s) does he omit? 182
Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 26 Oct 2009 07:15 | # FB
Left-liberal anti-racist ideology promotes ethnic suicide for White people. My grand-parent’s generation didn’t accept a word of it but my parent’s generation did. Something happened in between. Something made them feel guilty about White ethno-centricity and that guilt lowered their immune system enough to allow the entry of the cultural marxist (aka left-liberal) virus. It seems self-evident to me that that guilt came from the mass media - Hollywood and then television, and that means it came from (and is now constantly reinforced by) jews. Now there’s a lot more to it. After decades of this process there’s swarms of self-hating white people (aka left-liberals) spreading the disease. You can see it on television every day. You can see it in schools every day - teachers taking healthy White children and trying to make them sick with guilt about the holocult and slavery. Once they’re sick with guilt the rest of the ideology can be pumped in. For the most part now the bulk of the people doing this are self-hating white people like Neather but it* started, in my view, with Hollywood and jews. *When i say “it” i mean the mass transmission of cultural marxism (rebranded as left-liberalism) into the Anglosphere and beyond. 183
Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:36 | # Genotype
I agree he messed up and i agree it must have been because he trusted them to be at least semi-honourable, which is always a mistake, but despite everything going wrong the tactic is still working because the BBC overdid it’s attack. Personally I think the whole episode proves the point - if a nationalist party picks a position just within the limits of reasonable to a currently mainstream voter but which at the same time is completely unacceptable to the enemy e.g zero immigration, then the enemy has to attack but because the attacks appear disproportionate they radicalize both supporters and onlookers. The trick is to make it appear disproportionate to that section of the voters you need. On the other hand he may not actually be doing that. He may be aiming at “respectable” but failing because of his baggage. Either way i think he’s performing a real-time experiment in nationalist politics that could potentially be helpful elsewhere. (The 22% was a poll of people who said they could potentially vote BNP which fits my impression of their maximum vote in the current conditions. There’s still a very long way to go to get anywhere near that percentage however.) ps I’m not knocking your tactic. I think it’s valid also. I’m just saying the BNP tactic is still working despite this stumble. 184
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:12 | # Wandrin, If you house Jewish ethno-aggression within the temple of the unfettered will, you have your answer. If that doesn’t hit the spot for you now, try thinking the other way round - instead of identifying (and dating) Jewish causality, identify (and date) the long, slow emergence of European Man into an atomised individualism. What Jews have wrought is a refocussing of Western philosophy, politics and the historical social trajectory generally, as they effect the formation of the Western psyche. They have crowded into the wheelhouse for that purpose, having come aboard with passenger tickets. But they didn’t build the ship, man the crew or arrange the voyage. 185
Posted by Svigor on Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:24 | # It’s mind-boggling what a sewer the BBC is. So, I goes and I rents the first Season of Torchwood. Chrrrrrist, did the “heterosexual” male lead REALLY need to French kiss the fighter pilot in a closeup? Gods, what is wrong with these people? (I did notice that both the characters were Yanks, maybe that’s their rationalization, for those that needed them) Classic culture-destroyer setup, too. Time warp back to the forties, nothing but white folks around…a nice, clean swimming pool to take a crap in. I ask again, what is wrong with these people? EVERY time I check out a BBC series I’m subjected to this obnoxious shit. I am fucking DONE with BBC. Even the Hebrew Box Office bows before the shit-in-hand-fling-it-around aesthetic of the BBC. The Tudors, I can tolerate; sure, they slip in way more buggery references than is acceptable to decent human beings, but I haven’t seen men tongue-kissing in closeup yet. Oh, and then there’s production values. Heard of those BBC? 186
Posted by Svigor on Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:27 | # Okay, so The Tudors is Showtime, not HBO, but the point’s roughly the same. 187
Posted by Gorboduc on Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:05 | # Neather has come back a bit in today’s Evening Standard - he was misquoted, or taken out of context, or something. Here he is: There’s an old maxim among journalists that you shouldn’t let yourself become the story. Back to Griffin - his poor performance was perhaps partly due to his lack of practise with a different audience. (The same goes of course for Irving’s courtroom fiasco.) 188
Posted by Dasein on Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:37 | #
Not surprising. It was either that, or people involved would deny what he wrote (they’ll save that for case it goes viral). I would not be surprised if Neather was partly drunk when he wrote this. Massive lapse in judgement. 189
Posted by Dasein on Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:41 | # If Friedrich Braun is so concerned about anti-Semitism, why is he promoting Harold Covington’s work? BTW, Covington’s novels are fantastic (I’ve read The Brigade and A Mighty Fortress). I recommend them very highly. 190
Posted by Dasein on Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:53 | #
Quite correct. Which might also explain why the Neathergate story is still not on the ‘News’ or ‘UK Politics’ page of the Daily Telegraph (Torygraph, as Rhys rightly renamed it). This is political nitroglycerine (forget dynamite). The system is very much hoping that no one picks up on this before it disappears down the memory hole. Top news stories viewed at the Telegraph 1. 191
Posted by Dan Dare on Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:44 | # I’ve left a comment on the Standard website suggesting that Neather has been got at, but don’t expect to see it printed. The Tory blogs were all a-twitter over the weekend with commentary and one self-appointed ‘insider’ claimed that Cameron would be making a statement today. Needless to say that hasn’t happened and questions are now being asked why he should ignore such an open goal. Other prominent anti-Labour bloggers like Iain Dale and Guido have mentioned Neathergate in passing, if at all. Why are they all shying away? I would have thought they’ve have been on like slavering hyenas. 192
Posted by Gorboduc on Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:20 | # Neather may not disappear down the memory hole - the Speccie’s on to it. http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5473823/the-neather-clarification.thtml Peter Hoskin’s later post at 6.57 or thereabouts is CRYING OUT for some more comments… go for it, I will, anyway. The redoubtable MELANIE is also on to it…. 193
Posted by Angry Beard on Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:05 | # This is what I cannot understand in the whole mad, addle-brained Neathergate affair: 195
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:59 | # Neather: But my sense from several discussions was there was also a subsidiary political purpose to it - boosting diversity and undermining the Right’s opposition to multiculturalism. Straw ... Roche ... Portes. Neather describes a classic Jewish purpose, spun as undermining “the Right’s opposition to multiculturalism” instead of “the host’s opposition to multiculturalism” so bah-bah-Blair and the rest could follow the <strike>tribe</strike> herd. Is that it? Probably not. The “skills shortage” may or may not have existed. But corporate greed for cheap labour certainly did, and was a substantial enough force to allow other forces for English race-replacement to operate in tandem. Next question. Who were the voices from the corporate world who were whispering in Blair’s ear for immigrant labour? 196
Posted by Dan Dare on Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:28 | #
Certainly there were very few of the FTSE 500 amongst them, as the following list of the top twenty applicants for work-permits from 2001 to 2003 demonstrates. The 8 that are bolded are Indian outsourcing operations. Tata Consultancy Services I don’t see any evidence in this list that British companies were experiencing any form of skills shortage.
********************************* Analysis and Comments on Statistics Provided by Work Permits UK Introduction Detailed statistics covering the issue of work permits for the two fiscal years 2001-02 and 2002-03 have been obtained in November 2003 from Work Permits UK (WP-UK), a division of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND). The original information request was for a breakdown of the work permits issued by employer name. This request was refused by WP-UK on the grounds that “This information is exempt from release under paragraph nine of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. The exemption applies because some employer’s names contain personal information and to disclose this would be a breach of the Data Protection Act.” A subsequent request for made for a breakdown of the total work permits issued for the commercial, public and voluntary sectors. This request was also declined on the grounds that “... we do not record data by these categories and therefore we are unable to provide this information.” A third request was made for a breakdown of the work permits issued by occupation. This information was provided, and the original data file is attached. A final information item was actually volunteered by WP-UK, this being a breakdown of the 100 employers granted the most work permits over the two years. The original data file is attached. Analysis and Comments 1. Occupation Data According to the information provided by WP-UK, 297,330 work permits were issued in the two fiscal years. It was confirmed through subsequent correspondence that this total included primary applicants only (no dependents), and did not include any applicants under the highly skilled migrant scheme, the seasonal worker scheme, or the sector-based scheme. The original data from WP-UK was transposed to a spreadsheet for further analysis. In this process, some editing was performed to eliminate duplicates. At the same time, the occupations were grouped into broad industry sectors to aid in analysis. The results are presented in the attachment. Some major points of interest arising from the occupations data include: - The largest single occupational group is healthcare with 77,896 permits issued, including 54,663 nurses. Another area of note is the sizeable number of permits issued in the hotel and catering sector (just under 17,000). It is possible that incorrect information was received from WP-UK, and that these permits were actually issued under one of the sector-based schemes. However, if the information is actually correct, then the issuance of permits for these occupations would seem to be at odds with the skills, qualifications and experience criteria as set out in paragraph 16 of WP-UK’s Guidance Notes for Employers. A final comment relates to the relative absence of permits taken up for the so-called ‘shortage occupations’ in engineering. Somewhat less than 300 permits have been issued in these fields, in pointed contrast to the very large number of permits issued for IT-related occupations. The contrast is particularly striking given that this latter sector was removed from the ‘Shortage Occupations’ category in 2001. 2. Employer data WP-UK provided a list of what they term the 100 largest employers in terms of work permits issued over the two fiscal years. According to WP-UK these employers were responsible for 17% of approved permits, however the figures indicate that the correct number is more like 19% (57,000 out of 297,000). The raw data files are attached. The employer data was transposed to a separate spreadsheet for consolidation and editing. There were a large number of duplicate entries where the same employer was listed under slightly different names. Where obviously the case, these have been combined into a single entry. The opportunity was also taken to consolidate totals for employers who have undergone a change in name during the period, in cases where this was known. An example is Arthur Andersen Consulting, now operating as Accenture. Some observations arising from the employers data: - The three largest employers overall are Indian-based companies in the IT software consultancy and outsourcing sector. The paucity of British commercial and industrial companies, as well as complete absence of US and Japanese industrial companies (other than Honda) in the top 100 leads to the obvious conclusion that these organisations are not looking to the work permit scheme as a way to close their skills gaps. On the other hand, the scheme has been wholeheartedly embraced by Indian IT contractors, even though it is not generally viewed to be the case that IT services in the UK were particularly understaffed once the Y2K-related activity had subsided. It would be interesting to learn how rigorously WP-UK has applied the ‘resident worker’ test for the many thousands of IT positions that have been filled by non-EEA applicants in the last two years. It is of course possible that organisations such as Tata and Wipro have used the Intra-company Transfer, or Tier 1, process to bring over many existing employees, in which case it is likely that the ‘resident worker’ criterion may have been waived. HCA International Limited 197
Posted by Captainchaos on Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:55 | # Perhaps now the purely rhetorical tack of ‘Jews are not a British problem, but an American one’ will be dispensed with? Doubt it. Goy: “I do believe in the Holocaust. How could I not? I am morally obliged to do so, as any decent man is. Will you spare us now?” Jew: “That is very good, but we never had any intention of sparing you.” Goy: “Then what’s in it for me to confess belief in your holy lies?” Jew: “Good question. But that isn’t my problem. Now be a good goy and go make me a sandwich.” Goy: “Yes master.” LOL! 198
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:57 | # What a mine of information you are, Dan. I am amazed. So the skills shortage wasn’t. That would leave only neo-Marxist politics of a Livingstone-strength self-hatred, and the eternal, inevitable ethnic warfare of our elder brothers in faith. Anything else? Don’t think so… not really. Do you have a Neathergate post coming together, Dan. I’ve kind of held back to watch the affair develop and see what you might want to do. But it really deserves a thread of its own. 199
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:09 | #
Sub-cons advancing their EGI. 200
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:49 | #
201
Posted by Dan Dare on Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:17 | #
I don’t have anything particular in the works GW, still awaiting a response from MWUK. My personal best guess is that it’s going to fizzle out, the only chance for it to take off again is if the Tories make it a political issue. It doesn’t appear that they are about to do that. 202
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:25 | # CC, The structures of power and politics in Britain are what they are, and are deeply ingrained. They pre-exist, surround and accomodate Jewish ethnic activism. As a consequence, the Jewish warrior acts opportunistically within historical phenomena he did not create. His paternity is on the diseased body politic today, but you will be hard-pressed to find corolloaries here of the social and political control by Jews in America. In fact, Jewry operated rather contentedly with the grain of British life until the 1945 - playing both sides of the political street, to be sure. But not leading the revolution. I once read that there was a vigorous debate that started in the 1930s and lasted through the war years between the established Jews who had done perfectly well out of Britain and Empire, and had no need to change things, and incoming European Jews who had lost everything and harboured much more aggressive sentiments towards the gentile host. The old British Jews were shocked by this untramelled aggressivity, but it was the newcomers who carried the day - no doubt because of the noise coming out of America by 1944 of “six million” already, already. Couldn’t argue with that. Still can’t argue with that. 203
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:30 | # Sub-cons advancing their EGI. A bit, Desmond. But not like the other two. 204
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:56 | # Jews also claimed that 6 000 000 Jews were exterminated some decades prior 1944. 205
Posted by Friedrich Braun on Tue, 27 Oct 2009 02:01 | # The over-the-top anti-Griffin mania must strikes all observers as quite deranged, no? It’s like the two minutes of hate that never end but relentless go on. It would be silly and infantile, if not for the fact that this type of demonization can easily lead to Griffin’s murder. We’ve seen it recently in the Netherlands. 206
Posted by Dan Dare on Tue, 27 Oct 2009 02:12 | # Further to GW’s remarks above, Jews in Britain have been further emboldened since the war by the ‘air-cover’ provided by their Landsmänner in the United States. They were particularly inspired by the leading role that activist Jews played in the Civil Rights movement and subsequently came to play a very significant role in the development of race relations and human rights legislation in Britain, as I hope will a forthcoming contribution here will clearly demonstrate. 207
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 27 Oct 2009 03:28 | # When a host society can be made to change from placid and stable to turbulent and unstable the Jews living in that host society are like bees in clover because all sorts of opportunities open up for them and they can be seen buzzing around everywhere taking advantage of those manifold opportunities. When living in host societies Jews naturally prefer social turbulence to social placidity largely for exactly that reason and will work to stir up turbulence. (They prefer it everywhere except Israel of course — in Israel they prefer placidity and stability just as we do here.) 208
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 27 Oct 2009 04:32 | # 209
Posted by Wandrin on Tue, 27 Oct 2009 05:11 | # Guessedworker
No doubt you’re right. As always with me it’s tactics. A lot of the people i talk to have no experience of the academic or intellectual world. However they do have a lot of experience of the broadcast media - in particular the promotion of white guilt in that media - so i use that. Also the timing fits with either their own, or reported impressions of their being a sea-change in the late 50s, early 60s
Yes, i’ve wondered about that. If their numbers in a particular country were definitely and obviously too few to take over it’s easy to imagine them settling down fairly amicably. It would only be once the numbers passed a threshold that they’d get more aggressive. Unfortunately the small number would always feel obliged to open the gates for a larger swarm who were in the process of fleeing some other country they’d been looting. FB
Yes, it’s fantastic and perfect. 210
Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 27 Oct 2009 06:55 | # Considering the level of crypsis in this society, was it really a vigorous debate or just a strategy derived to mitigate the potential impact of the rising tide of anti-Bolshevism and its association with Jews. 211
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 27 Oct 2009 14:47 | # Desmond, that book is an extremely interesting find. Thank you. Regarding your question, I wasn’t there and I’m not a Jew, so I cannot say with any certainty. But I would speculate that among the evacuees in the thirties and the declining flow of escapees thereafter there was a steely certainty as to the absolute necessity of destroying the European gentile which was present in neither the system-playing, Establishment Jews or the politically revolutionary Russian émigrés of the 19th and early 20th century. Jews, religious or secular, are simple and very singular in their motivation, but complex and sometimes conflicted in their methods. All three strands of Jewish secular methodology, the system-playing, the Bolshevik, and the New Destructionist, tread the same vulgar millenerian path to a collective material enthronement, resistance to which is anti-Semitic, of course. I will read more from the cached pages. 212
Posted by Angry Beard on Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:10 | # It was Neather’s (or should that be Neanderthal’s) downright lack of intelligence that got thim tinto trouble. 214
Posted by Angry Beard on Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:50 | # I’ve seen a photo of Neather - he has very dark hair and eyes and a sallowness of skin. 215
Posted by Dan Dare on Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:07 | # More re: Neathergate: Perhaps it might not be quite so dead as we’d feared. Another columnist in the Evening Standard has entered the fray (Mr. Neather appears to have disappeared, perhaps taking some well-earned gardening leave): Blair’s think tank airbrushed link between crime and immigrants And what to make of this curious exchange in the Commons yesterday between Conservative shadow home secretary Chris Grayling and Phil Woolas, the Home Office minister responsible for immigration. At around the same moment that Mr. Woolas was affecting not to know what Mr. Grayling was talking about (ie the Neather story) his cabinet colleague, former Home Secretary Jack Straw, would have been desperately attempting to craft a plausible blanket denial for the Evening Standard. Talk about joined-up government.
216
Posted by Bill on Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:28 | # I’ve supected for some time that it was possible the bog standard voting fodder in Westminster hasn’t had clue what they have been voting on. IOW’s immigration has been orchestrated by those at the top working on a strictly need to know basis. The rest of the dross are so paralysed by political correctness they just mouth pieties, shout down any opposition as racist and hold their hand up. Then wait for the paycheck. Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con):
Mr. Woolas:
In 1994 the Tories were still in control, new Labour was three years away on the horizon. I have no hard evidence but the figures for increased immigration didn’t start to ramp up until the early years of the new century. The reason for the increase was the order went out from the UN to all white nations to implement their NWO agenda. This was the beginning of the surge toward race replacement. This event didn’t occur on its own, it was part of an avalanche of measures introduced world wide after 9/11. How is it in Britain there are immigrants from all over the world? When did this policy start? Prior to this, our enrichers were from former colonies mainly Pakistan and West Indies Who put the word out to western white nations to start taking, Chinese, Somalis, Bangladeshis. and dozens of other nationalities? Why are these groups roughly in proportion within a few thousand of each other? (For future government by group identity, minus whites of course whose identity is stripped from them) Who decided these quotas? Who decided which group will go where? How were local authorities alerted to plan for the incoming numbers? Who over-sees the logistics of this vast operation? Thinking about it, the immigration industry must rank along the largest employer among the vast army of government workers. Apparently Brown has increased the public sector by nearly a million workers. To say that mass immigration is a natural phenomena and is random natural forces at work is total BS, it’s planned, it’s allocated, it’s controlled, only random asylum seekers trekking westward throw a spanner in the works occasionally - and then there is an outcry. Blair, Cameron and Brown have all been visited by Murdoch, what do think they talked about - the weather? No, Murdoch likes to check up on these guys to be reassured they are a safe pair of hands on continued immigration. Since new Labour came to power, Britain’s whole economy has been based on immigration. On arrival at their new destination every individual enricher requires the trappings of our modern way of life, from plasma TV sets, to a car, to a roof over their head etc. The boost to jobs has been mega, the boost to consumerism mega, and through white flight the price of property went through the roof thus facilitating credit to the masses of untold billions of pounds. Then pow! Along comes the crunch and capitalism implodes, Brown’s (and the West’s) house of cards collapses, the drama is still being played out. To what effect our economic conditions will have on the continuing programme of mass immigration and of race replacement is yet to reveal itself. It is clear to me, this economic down turn, whether deliberately engineered by Wall St. or no, is not going to return to pre collapse levels ever, whatever is blowing in the wind seems to be spinning out of control, and the matter of mass immigration, race replacement, and destruction of the nation state is at the eye of the storm. On the face of it, the effect on the numbers of immigrants entering Britain will be zero, for according to the latest forecast on population growth indicates Britain’s population is estimated to increase to 70 million by the middle of this century. I saw the term ‘joined up thinking’ somewhere above, but there doesn’t appear to be much of it on display by whoever is running the show, UN, EU, NGO’s, National governments, whoever, whatever? Do you know what? I think this immigration time bomb with it’s ever shortening fuse, when it explodes the political establishment will not have seen it coming, just like the economic collapse. they will stare wide eyed, how did this happen? 217
Posted by Angry Beard on Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:32 | # Actually, I doubt that Andrew Neather is Jewish - he hasn’t got either the intelligence or the cunning to be Jewish. 218
Posted by Angry Beard on Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:38 | # Talking about the immigration iindustry being big business - it must be the lawyers who are coining it big-time from this racket - just think of all the taxpayer cash wasted on legal aid when appeal follows appeal, follows appeal (with the end result the wog always stays 1o years later when the dunderheads at Lunar House finally give up the ghost). 219
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 27 Oct 2009 22:35 | #
I see you’ve never heard of Johan Hari ..... 220
Posted by Bill on Tue, 27 Oct 2009 22:46 | # I’m following a post by Peter Hitchens on his blog in the Mail, I see this comment (below) submitted by a poster under the name M. Barnes. It seems Mr Barnes is a regular resident contributor here, and perhaps more interestingly Mr Barne also appears to be a BNP supporter. In his comment he says this…
Things have moved on it seems since I used to post here, they wouldn’t have let this go through in my time there. The whole thing can be seen here http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2009/10/there-is-no-cure-for-this-disease.html#comments Hitchens really is getting in a tizz, his high wire balancing act is getting more precarious with each post. He’s being sussed by the faithful but they really cannot believe what they susupect - hilarious. 221
Posted by Dan Dare on Tue, 27 Oct 2009 22:47 | # Of course Phil Woolas is spinning like a dreidel, the Tories did not abolish border controls in 1994. What they did was eliminate counting people out, something which Labour has pledged to reinstate by 2014 or so, at least insofar as the code-jockeys now beavering away in Bangalore on the necessary systems can be relied on to deliver something that actually works. For Woolas to offer this in response to Grayling’s questioning was an obvious diversionary tactic that I hope will not be allowed to stand. And @ Bill, this shows the number of ‘Grants of Settlement’ (permanent residency, equiv to US Green Card) given out during the ten years 1995 to 2005.
222
Posted by Lurker on Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:03 | # If one wanted to check the value of Jewish input into the mass immigration plot, one way would be to check not exactly many put their names to it but to see how many were in vocal opposition to it. Where are all those prominent Jews arguing against immigration? 223
Posted by Gorboduc on Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:47 | # Lurker, there might be something of the sort in the biographies of Keith Joseph and Alfred Sherman. But if it happened, it wasn’t very effective ... And there’s always this: which took place in the context of a Purim party - but on second thoughts, Purim is when the Gentiles ALL come in for a bit of stick, not just the Africans. 224
Posted by BGD on Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:24 | #
Apart from those that Gorboduc mentioned I guess Ezra J. Mishan deserves a mention. From his perch at Right Now (and perhaps at in a more formal way through his LSE output) he did argue against immigration. 225
Posted by Phil on Sun, 01 Nov 2009 06:03 | # Here are some of the comments from the Sunday Times article on Minette Marrin concerning Neathergate- John Smith wrote: Jacqui T wrote: Many others describe the Labour government as traitors and say, in all seriousness, that they should be executed. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/minette_marrin/article6898174.ece 226
Posted by Bill on Sun, 01 Nov 2009 11:58 | # Phil November 01, 2009, 05:03 AM Interestingly there was no obligatory vilification of the BNP in this article…Hmmm? Why has Ms. Marrin been given licence to pursue this story when all others are consigning it to the memory hole. When are the people going to start connecting the dots? Presumably the Time’s readers comment section is graced by intelligent readers, but I see no evidence of them being half awake… Most commenters seemed surprised, nay even gobsmacked that what they have seen unravelling before their eyes has not been construed in any other terms than insanity gone mad, the notion that what had been occurring was deliberate policy - wasn’t even on their radar. These people have yet to understand it is the BBC (media) who are responsible for the mass deception that is preventing them from grasping what mass immigration is all about. They have yet to realise that it is the BBC who are at the cutting edge of the new Labour (NWO) race replacement programme which is specifically aimed at committing the suicide of the white British people. How are they going to feel when all is revealed? More importantly, who is going to be the next Mr. Neather to break cover and help them unravel what it is they are sniffing on the wind? The twists and turns of this unfolding real life drama is what makes the time we’re living in so interesting. 227
Posted by Bill on Sun, 01 Nov 2009 14:20 | # From Simon Darby’s blog. Harbi says 6 days ago
Assuming the question to be genuine, what would your reply be - to Harbi? 228
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 01 Nov 2009 15:26 | #
Needless to say, treason and genocide are serious charges. After arrests, fair trials, and convictions, yes, they should be executed. Every last one of them. This goes for the frontmen (those whom we see) and, more importantly, the ones we never see who are behind the scenes (these are the ones financing it, giving frontmen like Blair his daily talking points and his daily marching orders, dictating newspaper editorial policy, BBC editorial policy, etc.). Let everything be done strictly according the law — and the definitions of genocide as well as the laws for dealing with it are of course already well and clearly on the books, not to mention those for treason and Amery and Lord Haw-Haw who did far less treason than the least guilty of these others were hanged; all the more then should these others be, every single god damned one of their filthy hides no matter how many are caught and brought to justice be it fifty or a hundred or a thousand or ten thousand — with all legal protections for the accused in place: the right to counsel, the right to cross-examine witnesses, the right to refuse to answer lest it self-incriminate, the right to the presumption of innocence till proven guilty, all traditional legal protections. If this be done properly, if the investigations do not stop at the frontmen like Blair, who are the mere puppets, but dig deep to uncover those in the shadows who created the Blairs, created the Browns, created the Sarkozys, created the Chiracs, you’re going to see a lot of (fill in the blank) ______ in the dock, on capital charges, alongside their gentile cronies who for whatever criminal reason joined them and will now pay for what they did. So yes, I agree, they should be executed. All of them. 230
Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:25 | #
Thanks. Always interesting to hear what he thinks. 231
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 06 Nov 2009 15:12 | # Cannot praise that speech of Bowden’s too highly. Magnificent: http://vodpod.com/watch/2464167-government-in-radical-and-terminal-decline . Post a comment:
Next entry: The Ankara candidacy
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by Lurker on Thu, 22 Oct 2009 23:42 | #
I was interested to see the coverage of the protesters outside the Beeb. Virtually all white and middle class.
One would think those would with the biggest axe to grind would be non-whites, where were they? Their no-show, just as they rarely show up in on-line debate, should worry their white advocates. Otoh an angry non-white mass shouting outside the Beeb would only have played into the hands of the BNP.