Posted by Dan Dare on Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:17 | #

Do you have a Neathergate post coming together, Dan.

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.

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.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:30 | #

Sub-cons advancing their EGI.

A bit, Desmond.  But not like the other two.

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.

http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/tfh/

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. 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/10/25/nick-griffin-s-mother-in-law-brands-him-a-work-shy-racist-who-lives-in-the-dark-ages-115875-21770809/

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.

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.)

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 27 Oct 2009 04:32 | #

The impact of chain migration on English cities

Posted by Wandrin on Tue, 27 Oct 2009 05:11 | #

Guessedworker

instead of identifying (and dating) Jewish causality, identify (and date) the long, slow emergence of European Man into an atomised individualism.

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

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.

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

The over-the-top anti-Griffin mania must strikes all observers as quite deranged, no?

Yes, it’s fantastic and perfect.

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.

The Letter of Ten

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.

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.
In his article Neather tried very hard to play the part of the ‘smart post-modern ironist’ who by the use of ‘cutting, witty, sarcastic’ prose and a sense of ‘off-beat, clever detachment’ shows off what a clever little boy his is.
Only to pull of this trick one needs verbal dexterity and a flair for the nuances of language - Neather has neither (Boris Johnson, curiously posesses the ‘gift of the gab’ in spades), hence Neather’s clumsy article full of metaphors that don’t merely drop flat but incriminate (‘rubbing the nose in (shit) diversity’, ‘at the drop of a chapati’ etc).Basically he’s fucked up his own career by his need to look ‘clever’ and ‘with-it’ and thusly not regarding the gist of what he actually wrote.
Curiously this pedantic and ham-fisted writer was employed as one of New Labour’s top speech writers.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:19 | #

Anyone know if he’s Jewish?

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.
This doesn’t prove anything of course, as many Englishmen (including Griffo) are dark of eyes and hair.
Portes has an obvious Semitic cast of countenance, I tend to the view that Neather’s physiognomy isn’t quite English, can’t put my finger on it, but there’s something foreign there Semitic or not Semitic.
Anyway, I’ve never come across the surname ‘Neather’ before, if it is of old English provenance, then I honestly don’t know.

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.

Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con): Over the weekend, we have heard some pretty controversial reported comments by a former adviser to the Government about their immigration policy. May I invite the Minister to put the record straight? What was the motivation behind the very rapid increase in immigration under this Government?

Mr. Woolas:  If one takes a responsible and reasonable look at the statistics, one will see that it was an earlier Act that brought about significant increases in immigration in this country. The most significant milestone in the history of migration policy since the second world war, in my view, was the abolition of border controls in 1994. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I throw the question back at the hon. Gentleman: does he now support the border controls that we have put back into place?

Chris Grayling:  I think a lot of people will notice that the Minister has made no attempt to answer my question. What Mr. Neather, the former adviser, said was that the policy of rapid expansion was done to put pressure on the right. Would it not be utterly disgraceful for any Government to decide immigration policy that was in the interests not of the country, but of a political party? Was that what happened?

Mr. Woolas:  I do not know to whom or to which reports the hon. Gentleman refers. If he wants to take the views of someone with a political motivation, that is up to him, but I repeat that the Government have reintroduced border controls—electronic borders—despite opposition from the hon. Gentleman.

Chris Grayling indicated dissent.

Mr. Woolas:  It is no good the hon. Gentleman shaking his head and smirking about it. The facts are that his party abolished border controls, that we have reintroduced them and that he opposes them.

[Hansard, 26.10.09]

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):

May I invite the Minister to put the record straight? What was the motivation behind the very rapid increase in immigration under this Government?

Mr. Woolas:

If one takes a responsible and reasonable look at the statistics, one will see that it was an earlier Act that brought about significant increases in immigration in this country. The most significant milestone in the history of migration policy since the second world war, in my view, was the abolition of border controls in 1994.

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?

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.

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).
In these days of fiscal retrenchment can’t you think of a more useless waste of money?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 27 Oct 2009 22:35 | #

“Actually, I doubt that Andrew Neather is Jewish - he hasn’t got either the intelligence or the cunning to be Jewish.”

I see you’ve never heard of Johan Hari .....

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…

Whoops sorry about that not PC is it. You see Tarquin all this propaganda so readily suck up is for a reason . The same reason labour has swamped us with foriegners over the last 12 years. The white race as a whole and the English specifically are earmarked for extinction. Maybe other races to as the rush for us to mix blood and produce a completely different race altogether.

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.

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.

This does not include illegals, asylum seekers, students, work permit holders and dependents etc etc.

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?

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:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23390589-tory-goes-to-a-fancy-dress-party-as-mandelaand-ends-up-in-racism-inquiry.do

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.

Posted by BGD on Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:24 | #

Posted by Lurker on October 28, 2009, 04:03 PM | #

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?

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.

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:
I wonder if Labour know the dilemma they have now placed many people in. They are faced with voting BNP as the only method of undoing this ridiculous policy. I could not countenance it before but having viewed all of the parties policies I can only conclude that they offer the only way of redressing this imbalance.
I guess one form of extremism breeds another!!!!!!

Jacqui T wrote:
Anyone with half a brain would be able to ascertain for themselves the deliberate and gross social engineering that has been taking place for years, with I might add the conivance of all the three major polital parties. They do not represent the nationals of this country in either respect of immigration or the EU. It is not only white working class that are defecting to the BNP. Upper, middle and the lower classes have had their noses rubbed in for far too long. The tide is definately changing as everyone is becoming aware of the absolute treachery of their so called ‘leaders’. Traitors the lot of them.

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

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.

Posted by Bill on Sun, 01 Nov 2009 14:20 | #

From Simon Darby’s blog.

Harbi says 6 days ago

What I don’t understand is why all these Labour left-wingers hate, despise and fear the working class so much. Until Andrew Neather’s revelations I didn’t believe the ‘conspiracy theory’ that Labour were deliberately using immigration to destroy us, I thought it was just incompetence. Now I can see that the ‘conspiracy theorists’ were right all along.

But this leaves the $64000 question - WHY?

Why has the party of the working man become more anti-working class than the Tories ever were? I don’t understand it.

Can the BNP join up the dots and tell us what’s happened to the Labour Party? We need to see the big picture. More information on this subject would help to make the most ingrained habitual life-long Labour voter think again.

Assuming the question to be genuine, what would your reply be - to Harbi?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 01 Nov 2009 15:26 | #

”Many others describe the Labour government as traitors and say, in all seriousness, that they should be executed.”  (—Phil)

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.

Posted by Euro on Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:44 | #

An interesting reaction:

http://europeanaction.blogspot.com/

Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:25 | #

Bowden’s thoughts:

Thanks. Always interesting to hear what he thinks.

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 .