|
|
|
Like the Roman, forty years and ten million immigrants ago Here is the full text of Enoch Powell’s speech to the Annual General Meeting of the West Midlands Area Conservative Political Centre, at the Midland Hotel, Birmingham on 20th April 1968.
The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature. One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: at each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future. Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: “If only,” they love to think, “if only people wouldn’t talk about it, it probably wouldn’t happen.” Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the thing, the name and the object, are identical. At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after. A week or two ago I fell into conversation with a constituent, a middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our nationalised industries. After a sentence or two about the weather, he suddenly said: “If I had the money to go, I wouldn’t stay in this country.” I made some deprecatory reply to the effect that even this government wouldn’t last for ever; but he took no notice, and continued: “I have three children, all of them been through grammar school and two of them married now, with family. I shan’t be satisfied till I have seen them all settled overseas. In this country in 15 or 20 years’ time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man.” I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a horrible thing? How dare I stir up trouble and inflame feelings by repeating such a conversation? The answer is that I do not have the right not to do so. Here is a decent, ordinary fellow Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town says to me, his Member of Parliament, that his country will not be worth living in for his children. I simply do not have the right to shrug my shoulders and think about something else. What he is saying, thousands and hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking - not throughout Great Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history. In 15 or 20 years, on present trends, there will be in this country three and a half million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants. That is not my figure. That is the official figure given to parliament by the spokesman of the Registrar General’s Office. There is no comparable official figure for the year 2000, but it must be in the region of five to seven million, approximately one-tenth of the whole population, and approaching that of Greater London. Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population. As time goes on, the proportion of this total who are immigrant descendants, those born in England, who arrived here by exactly the same route as the rest of us, will rapidly increase. Already by 1985 the native-born would constitute the majority. It is this fact which creates the extreme urgency of action now, of just that kind of action which is hardest for politicians to take, action where the difficulties lie in the present but the evils to be prevented or minimised lie several parliaments ahead. The natural and rational first question with a nation confronted by such a prospect is to ask: “How can its dimensions he reduced?” Granted it be not wholly preventable, can it be limited, bearing in mind that numbers are of the essence: the significance and consequences of an alien element introduced into a country or population are profoundly different according to whether that element is 1 per cent or 10 per cent. The answers to the simple and rational question are equally simple and rational: by stopping, or virtually stopping, further inflow, and by promoting the maximum outflow. Both answers are part of the official policy of the Conservative Party. It almost passes belief that at this moment 20 or 30 additional immigrant children are arriving from overseas in Wolverhampton alone every week - and that means 15 or 20 additional families a decade or two hence. Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. So insane are we that we actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of founding a family with spouses and fiancés whom they have never seen. Let no one suppose that the flow of dependants will automatically tail off. On the contrary, even at the present admission rate of only 5,000 a year by voucher, there is sufficient for a further 25,000 dependants per annum ad infinitum, without taking into account the huge reservoir of existing relations in this country - and I am making no allowance at all for fraudulent entry. In these circumstances nothing will suffice but that the total inflow for settlement should be reduced at once to negligible proportions, and that the necessary legislative and administrative measures be taken without delay. I stress the words “for settlement.” This has nothing to do with the entry of Commonwealth citizens, any more than of aliens, into this country, for the purposes of study or of improving their qualifications, like (for instance) the Commonwealth doctors who, to the advantage of their own countries, have enabled our hospital service to be expanded faster than would otherwise have been possible. There are not, and never have been, immigrants. I turn to re-emigration. If all immigration ended tomorrow, the rate of growth of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population would be substantially reduced, but the prospective size of this element in the population would still leave the basic character of the national danger unaffected. This can only be tackled while a considerable proportion of the total still comprises persons who entered this country during the last ten years or so. Hence the urgency of implementing now the second element of the Conservative Party’s policy: the encouragement of re-emigration. Nobody can make an estimate of the numbers which, with generous assistance, would choose either to return to their countries of origin or to go to other countries anxious to receive the manpower and the skills they represent. Nobody knows, because no such policy has yet been attempted. I can only say that, even at present, immigrants in my own constituency from time to time come to me, asking if I can find them assistance to return home. If such a policy were adopted and pursued with the determination which the gravity of the alternative justifies, the resultant outflow could appreciably alter the prospects. The third element of the Conservative Party’s policy is that all who are in this country as citizens should be equal before the law and that there shall be no discrimination or difference made between them by public authority. As Mr Heath has put it we will have no “first-class citizens” and “second-class citizens.” This does not mean that the immigrant and his descendent should be elevated into a privileged or special class or that the citizen should be denied his right to discriminate in the management of his own affairs between one fellow-citizen and another or that he should be subjected to imposition as to his reasons and motive for behaving in one lawful manner rather than another. There could be no grosser misconception of the realities than is entertained by those who vociferously demand legislation as they call it “against discrimination”, whether they be leader-writers of the same kidney and sometimes on the same newspapers which year after year in the 1930s tried to blind this country to the rising peril which confronted it, or archbishops who live in palaces, faring delicately with the bedclothes pulled right up over their heads. They have got it exactly and diametrically wrong. The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and of resentment, lies not with the immigrant population but with those among whom they have come and are still coming. This is why to enact legislation of the kind before parliament at this moment is to risk throwing a match on to gunpowder. The kindest thing that can be said about those who propose and support it is that they know not what they do. Nothing is more misleading than comparison between the Commonwealth immigrant in Britain and the American Negro. The Negro population of the United States, which was already in existence before the United States became a nation, started literally as slaves and were later given the franchise and other rights of citizenship, to the exercise of which they have only gradually and still incompletely come. The Commonwealth immigrant came to Britain as a full citizen, to a country which knew no discrimination between one citizen and another, and he entered instantly into the possession of the rights of every citizen, from the vote to free treatment under the National Health Service. Whatever drawbacks attended the immigrants arose not from the law or from public policy or from administration, but from those personal circumstances and accidents which cause, and always will cause, the fortunes and experience of one man to be different from another’s. But while, to the immigrant, entry to this country was admission to privileges and opportunities eagerly sought, the impact upon the existing population was very different. For reasons which they could not comprehend, and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country. They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more voices which told them that they were now the unwanted. They now learn that a one-way privilege is to be established by act of parliament; a law which cannot, and is not intended to, operate to protect them or redress their grievances is to be enacted to give the stranger, the disgruntled and the agent-provocateur the power to pillory them for their private actions. In the hundreds upon hundreds of letters I received when I last spoke on this subject two or three months ago, there was one striking feature which was largely new and which I find ominous. All Members of Parliament are used to the typical anonymous correspondent; but what surprised and alarmed me was the high proportion of ordinary, decent, sensible people, writing a rational and often well-educated letter, who believed that they had to omit their address because it was dangerous to have committed themselves to paper to a Member of Parliament agreeing with the views I had expressed, and that they would risk penalties or reprisals if they were known to have done so. The sense of being a persecuted minority which is growing among ordinary English people in the areas of the country which are affected is something that those without direct experience can hardly imagine. I am going to allow just one of those hundreds of people to speak for me:-
The other dangerous delusion from which those who are wilfully or otherwise blind to realities suffer, is summed up in the word “integration.” To be integrated into a population means to become for all practical purposes indistinguishable from its other members. Now, at all times, where there are marked physical differences, especially of colour, integration is difficult though, over a period, not impossible. There are among the Commonwealth immigrants who have come to live here in the last fifteen years or so, many thousands whose wish and purpose is to be integrated and whose every thought and endeavour is bent in that direction. But to imagine that such a thing enters the heads of a great and growing majority of immigrants and their descendants is a ludicrous misconception, and a dangerous one. We are on the verge here of a change. Hitherto it has been force of circumstance and of background which has rendered the very idea of integration inaccessible to the greater part of the immigrant population - that they never conceived or intended such a thing, and that their numbers and physical concentration meant the pressures towards integration which normally bear upon any small minority did not operate. Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population. The cloud no bigger than a man’s hand, that can so rapidly overcast the sky, has been visible recently in Wolverhampton and has shown signs of spreading quickly. The words I am about to use, verbatim as they appeared in the local press on 17 February, are not mine, but those of a Labour Member of Parliament who is a minister in the present government:-
All credit to John Stonehouse for having had the insight to perceive that, and the courage to say it. For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish. Here is the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organise to consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided. As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see “the River Tiber foaming with much blood.” That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century. Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal. Comments:2
Posted by Nux Gnomica on Fri, 18 Apr 2008 17:38 | #
This is from his obituary in the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/0098/feb/09/obituaries.mikephillips A decade earlier than his speech in Birmingham, that is. 3
Posted by pope's frexameter on Fri, 18 Apr 2008 22:38 | # Thanks to snax and Nux for pointing those things out. I suppose he has to be removed from the Pantheon of heroes. I distrusted him already because of some things he said, you can tell how he is playing the game of I tried to write in another place against the use of history to erect a respectable mysticism on the basis I’ve known a German philosophy student who wants to go back to Goethe’s time, a schoolteacher who would prefer to have lived in the 1800s, young men with romantic difficulties who would apparently have preferred life in the 1950s, and I’m not sure if committing yourself to whipping the present out of love for a mental model of the past doesn’t ipso facto remove you from the ability to actually shape and participate in the history that is unfolding around you. Advocates of the past perhaps have their place– but it never really seems to be at the helm, as the disdain they feel for things going on around them has removed them from getting their hands dirty and jumping in with both feet. The great fact of their life was to have enjoyed a moment of clarity and resonance while being a spectator of a past era, which identification with that epoch defines them and confines them in the role of spectator. It’s this disconnect which I think runs through Powell’s character and that of a number of other people, is that the sheer overwhelming, compelling, storied significance of 3000 years of history is something they cannot square with a present that inevitably presents itself to us as tedious, fleeing, ephemeral and not yet blessed with a thousand years of selective forgetting. The contrast is too much to bear; the answer is to secretely side with history while conceding that one will live in the present as a compromise. One escapes the feeling of inferiority upon comparison with the looming amplified shadows of Caesar through self-stylization and cloaking onesself in their glory while attempting to attain similar ‘accomplishments’. Viceroy of India, a speech laced with classical references to explain the dispossession of the man-in-the-street. He couldn’t consistently advocate in the interests of the English perhaps because he was too interested in grand gestures, high position and then later, on coming out on the ‘right’ side of history, i.e. decolonization. Powell was of Welsh immigrant background, yet represented the Midlands. 4
Posted by onetwothree on Fri, 18 Apr 2008 23:38 | # It is standard politics to advocate X when you are aiming for Z, if X is on the way to Z. Why do you think liberals get in a tizzy everytime the *slightest* bit of racism is manifested…? Because it’s the trend they fear. Racism itself? Eh. The power structure, rather, 100 steps removed from such silliness. 5
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 18 Apr 2008 23:48 | # As Peter Brimelow has so rightly said, Powell’s “Rivers of Blood” speech was one of the greatest political speeches ever in the history of the English language. Three commentators over at BrusselsJournal.com remember Powell on this important anniversary of his Birmingham speech, each putting his own “spin” on what he represented: here, here, and here. I don’t agree with everything that’s said, but it’s significant that people are acknowledging the momentous importance of this landmark political speech, a speech delivered forty years ago which will still be studied one-hundred-and-forty years hence. The men present at that speech were eye-witnesses to history as privileged as were the men present at Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address or Second Inaugural. Ted Heath’s name will be forever tarnished for the appalling way he reacted to these prophetic truths uttered on that day by this prophetic man, this prophet. 6
Posted by Lurker on Sat, 19 Apr 2008 03:21 | # So Powell was Welsh, represented an English seat and then became an Ulster Unionist, that still makes him way, way more of a nationalist than any of the ratbags we have representing us now. 8
Posted by snax on Sat, 19 Apr 2008 09:16 | # The Guardian calling his Mau-Mau speech an irony and his ‘most brave’ says so much about that rag. 9
Posted by Nux Gnomica on Sat, 19 Apr 2008 13:16 | #
It does, but the Guardian had to admit he wasn’t the monster its side portrayed him as for so long. I admire him for what he said about British behaviour in Kenya. Simon Heffer has a good piece today on the immigration speech:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/04/19/do1902.xml Not that Heffer is my ideal conservative. 10
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 19 Apr 2008 13:47 | # I don’t know what the Guardian writer meant in calling it “ironic” that Powell, be it ten years earlier or ten minutes earlier, had risen in parliament to denounce British maltreatment of Mau Mau suspects in Kenya. No I didn’t read the article Nux linked, because it was a mile long and I don’t have that long a portion of my life to utterly waste, utterly flush down the toilet, reading something published by the Guardian filth. Had it been a paragraph or two I’d have held my nose and skimmed through it to see what it said. Is there anyone here who can tell me why it would be viewed as “ironic” for Powell to do that? Just to pre-empt all the assholes, I’ll state that opposing both excessive incompatible immigration and mistreatment of African Negro terror suspects or any other suspects isn’t inherently contradictory. Not in the slightest. I oppose both. Powell apparently did. No one I respect wouldn’t oppose both. Steve Biko, a young Negro activist in excellent health, died while in custody of the South African police. I join a great many others in thinking he was murdered by those same police and in denouncing it absolutely. Is there anyone here who (knowing my opposition to forced race-replacment) sees that as “ironic”? Snax: do you feel non-white immigration into the U.K. has been excessive? If you disagree with U.K. immigration policy of the past decade would you mind stating your reasons for opposing it? Do feel what’s done is done and the changes wrought by immigration should be left in place or do you favor, in principle, the undoing where possible of the changed demographics of Britain brought about especially by non-white but even by white (Polish, for example) immigration? Mind you, I said “in principle,” so if you please, don’t answer me with, “that’s impossible.” 11
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 19 Apr 2008 13:55 | #
It’s more than that, of course. It’s the most significant speech made by a European since the Trojan War, inclusive. 12
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 19 Apr 2008 14:21 | #
Snax, of course, is the weirdo, as is amply proven beyond any shadow of a doubt by his extremely weird, extremely strange comment of 1:19, first in the thread. 13
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 19 Apr 2008 15:10 | #
extremely weird, extremely strange, and extremely wrong 14
Posted by threefiveseven on Sat, 19 Apr 2008 16:06 | # No matter how great, moving, and true a public speech is, e.g., “Rivers of Blood” ... experience clearly informs us that if ‘white-preservation’ is the central message of the text, it is always smothered with a massive, endless, avalanche of countervailing leftist propaganda attacks. What’s so strange and perverse about this phenomenon is that it’s whites doing the attacking! If we are ever going to get serious about surviving as a race, our first action needs to be the crushing of white liberals “by any means necessary.” Eloquent rhetoric has gotten us nowhere. The means of dispensing propaganda is solely in the hands of our anti-white enemies. The sooner we learn that, the better. 15
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 19 Apr 2008 16:22 | #
Be careful, it’s not the generality of whites doing the attacking. The generalityh of whites have always been on Powell’s side. It’s the people who control the press and the electronic broadcast and cable media doing the attacking. It’s the people who control the press and the electronic broadcast and cable media who “create reality.” The internet is challenging them right now as we speak. They’re going to try to shut off our internet access on grounds of “hate.” We must never let them. 16
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 19 Apr 2008 17:35 | # Not only do Britons think Enoch Powell was right, two-thirds fear there’s going to be racial violence ... if nothing’s done, that is — the linked article didn’t say “if nothing’s done” but that obviously goes without saying. By “nothing’s done” I refer to humane repatriation of racial incompatibles coupled with an immigration halt. In a situation where excessive entry of a race (excessive entry thanks largely to [fill in the blank] _______ ) is the problem, you eliminate the problem by undoing the excessive entry of the race. To paraphrase Stalin: No race, no problem. And yes, yes, it can all be done humanely: don’t worry about that part. It’s fine. Just set the political wheels in motion. 17
Posted by Bo on Sat, 19 Apr 2008 18:30 | # threefiveseven on 4/19 at 3:06 PM says, “No matter how great, moving, and true a public speech is ... experience clearly informs us that if ‘white-preservation’ is the central message of the text, it is always smothered with a massive, endless, avalanche of countervailing leftist propaganda attacks. What’s so strange and perverse about this phenomenon is that it’s whites doing the attacking! If we are ever going to get serious about surviving as a race, our first action needs to be the crushing of white liberals ‘by any means necessary’....” While his pen name tells us the writer has a grasp of at least one branch of mathematics, his posting is all too familiar. After reciting the problem, he advocates an unlimited first response toward those doing the smearing. What’s so bad about examining the propaganda bubble we live in for opportunistic ways to start unraveling the incredible tissue of lies that informs our daily lives, and devising ways to implement that unraveling? What is it about an all or nothing approach (”...our first action needs to be the crushing of white liberals…”) that is so attractive? It’s like telling 14-year-olds that, to drive a car, all they have to do is jump behind the wheel. What possible basis exists in history for going from zero to 80 miles an hour instantly? It seems to me that we need to take careful thought to determine what we can do locally and immediately at hand to commence to attract more support and to provide more education. On the West Coast of North America, we have devised a way of reaching out and touching people painfully to encourage them to change, and to attract supporters. If you can manage a computer keyboard, you can get busy in your neighborhood to commence the necessary changes. A good suggestion on blogs would be for the commenters to begin with a 10-12 word sentence about their activities in their neighborhoods as a way of demonstrating credentials in this medium-level conflict we find ourselves engaged. 18
Posted by threefiveseven on Sat, 19 Apr 2008 19:24 | # Bo, I meant “crushing” our enemies with love and kindness. LOL BTW, How long has AmRen been “examining the propaganda bubble we live in for opportunistic ways to start unraveling the incredible tissue of lies that informs our daily lives, and devising ways to implement that unraveling”? 17 years? And how much progress has been made? Answer: LESS than ZERO—another branch of mathematics. Look at the situation whites were in 40 years ago compared to now. Are we better off today then we were 40 years ago? NO WE ARE NOT! We need to change right now! Let’s all face it, the same old WN politics ain’t gettin ‘er done! P.S. I am familiar with your work, Bo. Your efforts for the cause are quite creative and commendable. Thank you. 19
Posted by Bo on Sun, 20 Apr 2008 00:51 | # Thanks to 3-5-7 for his compliment. By the way, AmRen has never pushed for tactics in neighborhoods. It seems primarily geared for a five-minute anxiety attack on a weekly basis, but I’ve never seen it promote knowledge about activities on the ground, ie, how to fight in this combat. It’s a handy sounding board for some purposes, but has wasted every one of those 17 years in terms of devising ways to implement that unraveling of the tissue of lies. So here are some ideas for work on the ground. 1. As the economy gets tougher, and groceries get more costly, make up a little form and get your friends to save receipts for grocery purchases for a month, then go in to apply for a refund from the store for that portion that reflects religious privilege. Maybe a penny per can or roll of aluminum foil, but a lot more for meat. After several rejections, the news will travel widely. Then go to small claims court. 2. Run for the school board on an explicitly Americanist platform, and against an implicitly globalist platform. That gets us half the way where we want to go. Who knows who might be attracted to such a platform. 3. Criticize book clubs, libraries, etc., about their anti-white themes. I don’t believe there has been a children’s book published since 1973 that discusses race that allows whites any measure of diversity within the family of indigenous white Europeans and their descendants. A well-phrased critique can generate action, and can bring people to you. 4. Strongly oppose the use of any slurs against the diverse white peoples in newspapers, books. I know about freedom of speech, but sometimes freedom of association and the right of contract have to trump freedom of speech. We are being beaten up in print & text & electronic & entertainment media every day. Extremely sharp and accusatory denunciations work wonders. 5. Strongly oppose the use of “categories of discourse” (conservative, liberal, populist, constitutionalist, citizenist, moderate, etc.) wherever you see them as misleading, tainted, and inaccurate. Oh, go ahead and attack them for the real reason—that they are dishonest in their implicit claim to describe reality. Extremely sharp and accusatory denunciations work wonders. 6. Don’t confuse the principles of the white liberation movement with the appropriate tactics on the field. This confusion is rampant, and will kill you. Tactics on the field that work best are those that use the snarky tools of the left-wing racialists against them. Demand the right to name yourself and to describe yourself; demand that white diversity be recognized. In the proper tone, a great deal can be done. Pretend to be one of those hissing and spitting people (while abjuring the use of slurs and slander against others) and you can make quite a few changes. In fact, I have come to believe that the most progress in deconstructing our histories and cultures has been accomplished with just one vigorous hissing and spitting complaint. You’d be surprised. It’s the tactic of the sole complainant we hear about so often when the Christmas Tree is dismantled at the airport or the capitol building. Well, there you go 3-5-7 with ideas for action. Remember, people don’t learn without pain. And remember, don’t call other people names if you denounce the names you are called. 20
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 20 Apr 2008 04:23 | # By chance, a letter in tonight’s Saturday Forum over at Vdare.com describes exactly the approach recommended by Bo above, in this case applied to a master’s degree project conducted by three graduate students. (The letter states they got an A on the project!) 21
Posted by Riley DeWiley on Sun, 20 Apr 2008 04:56 | # If you are waiting for The Perfect Man to step down from the heavens, declare himself the saviour of all white mankind, and lead us to victory, then you are a fool. Enoch Powell took the ball and ran with it for a while, before he was taken out of the play. Now someone else needs to pick it up and run some more. If you want to win, get in the game. Grab the ball, or just run interference for whomever is carrying it at the moment. Know he will go down, but not before the cause has advanced. But pissing on heroes because they are not gods does us no good at all. Riley 23
Posted by skeptical on Sun, 20 Apr 2008 05:38 | # I agree with Riley. It seems to me that Enoch did what he could during the last significant societal inflection point (another branch of mathematics) where things could have gone either way. Those of us in the U.S. experienced several near misses of our own. 24
Posted by 2R on Sun, 20 Apr 2008 07:41 | # I found a website with free documentaries. I think you guys might like it. Here’s one on the Israel lobby, made by a Dutch film maker. 25
Posted by threefiveseven on Sun, 20 Apr 2008 14:10 | # Good suggestions, Bo. I know many here aren’t to fond of Ian Jobling’s ‘Inverted World’ due to his downplaying of organised Jewry’s culpability in causing white-race-replacement; however, he provides a good service with his “Action Alerts.” We need to use all the services available to us even if we don’t totally agree on every point with the provider of those services.
__________________________________________________________________________ Bo, Please help me out on your No. 1 suggestion; I’m a unclear as to what you mean. “1. As the economy gets tougher, and groceries get more costly, make up a little form and get your friends to save receipts for grocery purchases for a month, then go in to apply for a refund from the store for that portion that reflects religious privilege. Maybe a penny per can or roll of aluminum foil, but a lot more for meat. After several rejections, the news will travel widely. Then go to small claims court.” Can you elaborate on that strategy? Can you give specific examples of what products that reflect religious privilege we should protest by applying for a refund? Can you provide for us the form you use with some of the products listed on it? Sincerely. Threefiveseven 26
Posted by Nux Gnomica on Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:26 | # Latest news from the Land of Trevor-Trevor:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/20/nenoch120.xml The Telegraph claims that “Mr Phillips has been an outspoken critic of multiculturalism”. It fails to add: “insincerely, self-servingly and for the past five minutes.” 27
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 20 Apr 2008 16:54 | # Regarding Nux’s comment on Trev: Critic of multiculturalism maybe (and, as Nux points out, only insincerely, self-servingly, and when absolutely forced into it), but not of race-replacement. Race-replacement comes with excessive incompatible immigration, which Trev supports. As for “a proper policy on immigration,” that’s simple: there’s only one (so, no “debate” is needed, and Trev’s call for “debate” is solely an obfuscation tactic): it is for all racially/ethnoculturally incompatible immigration to be kept to volumes so minimal that no danger, zero danger, of race- or culture-replacement be posed for the existing population/nation. The volumes of racially incompatible immigration we’re talking about — those which would be acceptable under “proper immigration policy” — aren’t zero but nevertheless exceedingly tiny. They’re almost zero. (Some would say literally zero, JWH for example, and maybe they’re right: maybe literally zero. That can be debated but that’s the only thing that can.) What would a proper immigration policy call for in regard to racially-incompatible illegal immigrants? Expulsion, obviously — with punishments for any who knowingly employ, rent to, or assist them. What about racially incompatible immigrants admitted legally? Although it can be argued that their admission in such numbers was illegitimate, that is, not legal (because the existing population was not adequately consulted, as it surely ought to have been before such an epochal demographic change was embarked upon), they can be given the benefit of the doubt provided they’re willing to accept a generous financial compensation package in return for leaving. This can be coupled with the rescinding of all racial preferences and quotas accorded non-whites, all non-native welfare eligiblity, all affirmative action, all laws, rules, and directives infringing complete racial freedom of association on the part of whites in terms of whom they hire, promote, rent or sell to, admit to their organizations, admit to their schools, and so on, and so forth, which would bring about a situation in which racial incompatibles would gradually pack up and leave of their own accord, bound for greener pastures (bound for Israel, I have no doubt ........ Yes I’m sure, I feel absolutely certain, that Israel would let them all in ......... with Abe Foxman watching to make sure that it did, on pain of being accused of racism ........ Who could doubt that? .......). If excessive numbers remain, they can be made to understand that a case can be made for expelling them without compensation — can be made by arguing that the legality under which they were admitted was only a semblance of legality, the existing population not having been adequately consulted as it ought to have been in such a matter — and therefore they’d better think twice before turning down a generous financial “citizenship-buy-out” package lest the offer be withdrawn and balkers expelled anyway, without compensation. There’s your “proper immigration policy,” Trev. In, what — three paragraphs? All right, four. All else is deliberate, calculated obfuscation by people who know exactly what they’re doing. All else. 28
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 20 Apr 2008 17:08 | # Where’s the money for the generous financial compensation package to come from? Well, for starters from pulling out of the Bush-Neocon-Haliburton War for Oil and Israel. Next, from all the money saved from reduction of crime, welfare rolls, and other race/ethnoculture-related social pathologies, as race-replacement winds down and freedom of association on the part of whites fully restored (and, it is to be hoped, made iron-clad so that the (fill in the blank) ________ can never again tamper with it by buying politicians and the political process along with them). Those are just for starters: come see me once those are implemented and we’ll go on from there. The money can be found. Easily. Any shortfall can be borrowed: a better government investment or one surer to pay off in the long run was never made in history, than restoring a Euro country’s original Euro race. 29
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 20 Apr 2008 17:26 | # I would still like “Snax” to respond to my questions. Will you respond please, “Snax”? 30
Posted by snax on Sun, 20 Apr 2008 18:01 | # Enoch Powell observed ‘the ball’, and predicted its trajectory, he didn’t run with it. And he lost interest in the game altogether when the other boys called him names. There was nothing heroic about him Riley deWiley. PF may well be right about Powell’s motivations, onetwothree and RdW surely aren’t. Heffer is a clue as to where Powell would be today: a reluctant ‘English nationalist’ passionately certain that the English nation includes millions of Africans and Asians. This is consistent with Powell’s preference for Britain’s widest and most diverse rule, and his accomodation to opposing trends. 31
Posted by threefiveseven on Sun, 20 Apr 2008 18:08 | # Fred Scrooby, in his above comments, laid out a excellent practical plan to solve the entire immigration problem. There is only one thing standing in its way: The absence of people in power that share our EGI. In order for Fred Scrooby’s plan to become reality, it is imperative we elect charismatic politicians/leaders who share our EGI. People on our side must capture control of the levers of power in order to implement the policies Fred Scrooby outlined. But is that even possible in this current PC enviornment? All I can add is pray for leadership, and keep your powder dry. 32
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 20 Apr 2008 18:21 | # Also miscegenation should be outlawed. The state has a vested interest in (and in fact part of its legitimacy rests upon) protecting the racial health of the dominant ethnic group. 33
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 20 Apr 2008 18:30 | # Threefiveseven, have you also signed as “Onlooker” and “Tommy G”? 34
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 20 Apr 2008 18:47 | # Captainchaos is right. Israel does it, so there’s precedent for it in the modern world. But with sane demographic policies (immigration; repatriation where needed; tax policy that doesn’t discourage marriage and family formation; other means of maintenance of adequate birth-rates of the native population; etc.) miscegenation is less of an issue. I notice Snax chooses not to answer my questions. 35
Posted by Seven looker G on Sun, 20 Apr 2008 19:30 | # “Threefiveseven, have you also signed as “Onlooker” and “Tommy G”?” What relevance does that have when discussing these issues? The pressing issue is the preservation of the white-race. We’ve already diagnosed the fatal diseases (plural) that infected the white-race. That was the easy part. Now the comes the hard part. We need to acquire the means to administer the proper antidote. 36
Posted by snax on Sun, 20 Apr 2008 21:33 | # Fred, your interrogation is idiotic, as well as arrogant. From my comments in this thread it’s clear I’m closer to your position in regard to the quiz you constructed than to Powell. Why else would I write that Powell wasn’t nationalist enough for me? If you can’t be civil you don’t deserve a response. 37
Posted by threefiveseven on Sun, 20 Apr 2008 22:28 | # “Fred, your interrogation is idiotic, as well as arrogant.” Oh, that’s just Fred being Fred. Sometimes he takes it upon himself to assume the ‘bouncer’ role at MR. I don’t think he means any harm? 38
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 21 Apr 2008 00:55 | # Your comment was bizarre in the extreme, Snax, and self-contradictory. I read that thing about ten times and came away still unable to understand it and unable to shake the impression you were radically on the wrong side of the issue and attempting to hide the fact. “Closer to my position”? Whose position you’re closer to, Snax, mine or Ted Cantle’s, will tell in due course, as it always does. Tommy, my apology to you was tentative and is withdrawn. 39
Posted by threefiveseven on Mon, 21 Apr 2008 01:36 | # “Tommy, my apology to you was tentative and is withdrawn.” Oh no, not that! I’m devastated .... 40
Posted by Nux Gnomica on Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:19 | # Sense at last from Trevor Phillips:
http://www.therockalltimes.co.uk/2004/05/10/fearless-phillips.html She’s worth every penny for the work she’s done, and will do, for her people’s cause:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/21/nbbc121.xml 41
Posted by snax on Mon, 21 Apr 2008 12:45 | # Fred, the first post which baffled you was a straightforward statement of various Powell positions that are incompatible with nationalism. Nothing more, and certainly no self-contradictions on my part. threefiveseven: that’s just Fred being Fred. Sometimes he takes it upon himself to assume the ‘bouncer’ role at MR. The cheerleading is tiresome, the ‘bouncing’ is offensive. It’s a defensible position, that Powell is a hero and this speech is something special; it’s also a defensible position that Powell oughtn’t be a hero to nationalists and that this speech doesn’t change that. That’s what the debate should be about - not Fred’s status, or his suspicions of other’s motives. It keeps on happening. And it’s dull as well as divisive. 42
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:03 | # Snax sounds just like Nux. Are you two the same guy? 43
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:14 | # As others have observed in the past, there is a certain dishonesty, even offensiveness, to constantly changing thread-handles. It is better for all concerned if we can avoid it. After all, are we not all propogators of connectedness and mutuality among our own people? As good a place as any to start with that is here, on-line. 44
Posted by threefiveseven on Mon, 21 Apr 2008 14:32 | # “Sunday is the 40th anniversary [...] Enoch Powell’s “Rivers of Blood” speech. It is also, therefore, near to the 40th anniversary of one of the greatest lies in British politics since the Second World War: that this remarkably accurate prediction of the dangers of enforced multiculturalism has “prevented” a rational debate on immigration, since anyone who seeks to engage in it will be branded as a “racist”.It would be a comfort if this position were merely ignorant. It isn’t. Powell is used by the Left - and that includes many people in the Conservative Party - as a cynical excuse to conceal their own failures in imposing proper immigration controls and maintaining social cohesion.”—Simon Heffer “Enoch Powell took the ball and ran with it for a while, before he was taken out of the play. Now someone else needs to pick it up and run some more.”—Riley DeWiley ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Our culture is so consumed with liberal-fascism, I’m not sure a “ball” even exists to pick up and run with? If there is one to be picked up, it surly is an act of political self mutilation to do so, i.e., one slip of the tongue and your career is toast. Just two of countless examples: 1.) Remember what happened to Trent Lott, a “conservative Republican” when he praised Strom Thurmond at his 100’th birthday party? He was forced to step down as Senate Majority Leader even after he publicly groveled before every leftist-pimp and black organization in the country. What’s worse, his own “conservative” team (the Republicans) sided with the opposition! Why even grab the ball a run with it when you can’t even trust your own team to support you? http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/12/lott.comment/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 2.) George Allen’s Macaca moment: http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/003683.html
GW, please allow me to use Threefiveseven or 357 from now on. 45
Posted by Nux Gnomica on Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:43 | #
First, he doesn’t sound just like me. Second, we’re not the same guy. I know it’s easy to believe that Scroobophobia is confined to two or three devious and disturbed individuals hiding behind a variety of pseudonyms in a desperate attempt to give some legitimacy to their vile and hateful ideology… but etc.
Yasmin Alibhai-Brown: Londoners would be mad to vote for Boris
46
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 21 Apr 2008 17:10 | #
Sorry, 1) the “good manners” were the social obligation of those who launched the genocidal onslaught knowing full well what they were doing (in other words, “good manners” called for their not launching it, genocide being, ya know, kind of “bad manners,” wouldn’t you say?), “good manners” are not the social obligation of those on the receiving end of a genocidal onslaught: if the latter wax righteously indignant and make no secret of the fact, it’s generally not viewed as a social no-no; 2) in any case, while truth-telling in regard to certain subjects can be bad manners, in regard to others it’s not. Truth-telling by the aggrieved party in a case of attempted genocide comes under “not.” 3) Truth-telling isn’t “racism.” “Racism” is a Jewish-Marxist code word, a shibboleth, that allows one Jewish-Marxist to recognize another. It has no meaning other than that and none whatsoever for a normal person. I have nothing whatsoever to do with “racism,” which does not exist in my universe. We’re being viciously, deliberately genocided, not attending a tea party. Now, all pantywaists — Gongstar/Nux/Snax being one such — who can’t stand that, can’t psychologically handle it, who haven’t got the balls for facing it, frankly, and would very much prefer this site to be Harry’s Place, already have that option elsewhere. It’s called Harry’s Place. MR.com is for men whose testosterone flows naturally — not the kind who get it by daily injection prescribed by their doctor. Speaking of which, you sound like your doctor needs to up the dose, Gongstar. Go for it. (And think of how much more satisfied it would make your wife, poor thing!) 47
Posted by threefiveseven on Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:15 | # “We’re being viciously, deliberately genocided” Let’s not keep repeating ourselves. The subject of our genocide has already been deliberated. The conclusion has been reached; that is, the white-race is being deliberately subjected to an insidious, indirect genocidal process designed to ethnically cleanse us off the planet—first and foremost the Nords. We already understand what motivates our enemies. We are well aware of the processes they are employing to accomplish their goal. Our enemies are cleaver, they’ve built plausible deniability into their plan. We know who the perps are (they invariably reside in the left spectrum of politics). We must give them their due respect; they are devilishly cleaver and devious and greedy. They’ve perfected the art of throwing rocks without ever having to pull their hands out of their pockets. 48
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 21 Apr 2008 21:59 | #
If only your IQ were higher, Tommy, you’d serve as a guide to how the problem should be discussed. Others would listen to you. As things stand, unfortunately, you’re useless in that regard. Do you plan to keep up your sniping at me? Let’s make a deal: I won’t snipe at you despite the fact you’re an imbecile if you won’t snipe at me despite the fact I repeat myself. Deal? 49
Posted by threefiveseven on Mon, 21 Apr 2008 22:32 | # “Do you plan to keep up your sniping at me?” Listen, psycho. My post wasn’t meant as a snipe. I was making a general statement. Nothing personal. Got it !?!? 50
Posted by threefiveseven on Mon, 21 Apr 2008 22:56 | # Well, “psycho” may have been the wrong term. Narcissistic Personality Disorder Here: read about yourself, Fred. 52
Posted by threefiveseven on Mon, 21 Apr 2008 23:26 | # “Looks like it’s no deal.” The deal is I’ll be deep sea fishing off the coast of Florida for the next week or so. Color me gone! 54
Posted by threefiveseven on Tue, 22 Apr 2008 00:16 | # “Look for the Alexa ratings to plummet.” You’re probably right. 55
Posted by weston on Tue, 22 Apr 2008 00:54 | # I find it humorous that Fred is continually ranting about the “testosterone level” of other posters here when his own posts have a very chatty, unserious, and feminine quality to them. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
56
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 22 Apr 2008 01:10 | #
Not continually, Weston, only where it applies. Come to think of it, it probably applies to you, along with an abysmally low IQ. (How’s that for “internet name-calling”? Will that do? Or does it need more work?) 57
Posted by threefiveseven on Tue, 22 Apr 2008 01:14 | # Yes, Fred does have feminine traits. Good observation, weston. In addition to his Narcissistic Personality Disorder: http://www.mentalhealth.com/dis1/p21-pe07.html He repeatedly demonstrates a maniacal obsession with Jews. A very odd man, indeed. Have a good night, Freddy. LOL 58
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 22 Apr 2008 01:15 | # One pair of assholes are starting to draw the flies. 59
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 22 Apr 2008 01:23 | # GW, is this pair of assholes going to continue to disrupt the threads? Tommy G needs to be banned, in my humble opinion. Gongstar manages for the most part to stay in his box but the retarded Tommy keeps getting out. I certainly don’t mind replying to these morons but I sort of doubt that’s what the readership want to see when logging onto the site. Obviously that’s not what I come to the site for either. However, when Tommy’s off his medication and is at it every five minutes I can’t simply ignore it. I humbly think Tommy has had his chance and should be outta here. 60
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 22 Apr 2008 01:24 | # Gongstar too if he can’t shut up and stick to topic. 61
Posted by Bo on Tue, 22 Apr 2008 01:32 | # 3-5-7 asked for help on 4/20 at 1:10 PM in understanding my first suggestion for on-the-ground neighborhood work. He repeats it for me: “1. As the economy gets tougher, and groceries get more costly, make up a little form and get your friends to save receipts for grocery purchases for a month, then go in to apply for a refund from the store for that portion that reflects religious privilege. Maybe a penny per can or roll of aluminum foil, but a lot more for meat. After several rejections, the news will travel widely. Then go to small claims court.” 3-5-7 asks for specific examples of what products reflect religious privilege. The answer is that any product which costs more because of religious privilege is meant for inclusion. It’s not our job to sort that out. 3-5-7 asks about what we should protest by applying for a refund. The answer is that this is not about a protest, it is to educate the community that something with their grocery bill is not copacetic and the best way to try to get their money back is to save receipts and apply for it back, going to small claims court later if that fails. 3-5-7 asked about the form we used—it was a simple homemade form which certified that the receipts attached were from the store they claimed to be from, and reflected actual expenses. No products were listed. It’s not up to the victims of payments for religious privilege to do the book-keeping. Our claim was for one penny for canned goods and supplies, and 25 cents for every pound of meat products. We got some folks their money back, but we didn’t have the means to promote the project all over the city. But remember, this is only a sample of the kinds of things that 3-5-7 can do on-the-ground in his (or her) neighborhood. Enough theory, just get her done. And help the old people eat, okay? 62
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 22 Apr 2008 01:33 | # Tommy’s problem of course is intellectually he’s way out of his depth at this site, and doesn’t know how to react to that so runs around making an ass of himself. I don’t know what Gongstar’s problem is. 63
Posted by threefiveseven on Tue, 22 Apr 2008 01:43 | # Fred, you started your all too frequent obnoxious act in your post on Monday, April 21, 2008 at 08:59 PM | # I simply responded to it. “Don’t start no crap and there won’t be no crap.” You can understand that, can’t you? Or it it a case of Freddy can dish it out, but can’t take it? 64
Posted by threefiveseven on Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:15 | # Bo writes: “Enough theory, just get her done.” Agreed. That slogan (or a slight variation thereof) should to be emblazened in large bright red letters across the top of this web page. Right next to Majorityrights.com 65
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 22 Apr 2008 11:37 | # But I like theory, Tom. Can I ask the parties to the disagreement above to respect the normal rules of civilised discourse. Please do not use personal insult, nor rise to it if someone else does. All our people are welcome here, and I do not want the atmosphere poisoned by these stupid rows. Enough. 66
Posted by Bill on Tue, 22 Apr 2008 12:06 | # GW - Question from Bill. Would you care to hazard a guess as to how many regular posters are blogging here? There is an obvious a mix of regular American and others. I suppose what I would really like to know is, how many British do you guess are regularly posting here? 67
Posted by threefiveseven on Tue, 22 Apr 2008 12:11 | # “But I like theory, Tom.” Don’t get me wrong, GW. Theory is the most interesting aspect of this site. It is the keystone. But we also have to put that theory into acually work on the ground, yes? C-ya, I’m goin’ fishin for a while. 68
Posted by Nux Gnomica on Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:13 | #
Don’t drag me into it. Your megalomania and paranoia are the problem.
As above. 69
Posted by palmer on Wed, 23 Apr 2008 04:10 | # Trevor Phillips is softening us up for some enlightened social engineering - especially with regards to schools. He has seen what wonderful fun certain parties have had in the US for the last 40 years. Will keep a commissioner very busy indeed. In terms of overall strategy - my understanding is that Guessedworker has mooted putting together an overarching philosophy utilising the discussions that have taken place here. (If I’m wrong apologies). 70
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 23 Apr 2008 04:27 | # “1. As the economy gets tougher, and groceries get more costly, make up a little form and get your friends to save receipts for grocery purchases for a month, then go in to apply for a refund from the store for that portion that reflects religious privilege. Maybe a penny per can or roll of aluminum foil, but a lot more for meat. After several rejections, the news will travel widely. Then go to small claims court.” Been there, done that. All you get is people screaming in your ear that you are a f**king anti-semite. You want to see the real power of the extended Jewish phenotype, just mention the “kosher” tax. 71
Posted by Bo on Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:32 | # Desmond Jones has it right, and that’s why no one of intelligence would characterize a religious privilege fee as a “kosher” tax. As a matter of fact, certain Arab Muslim organizations are making moves in the same direction with food manufacturers to create a new mark for canned goods and other products with a fee paid to their councils. Yes, Muslim Arabs have the same food laws as others do. Are we going to willingly pay a religious privilege fee to Muslim Arabs, too? But, Mr. Jones, your hasty rejection of this concept based on fear of hearing shouts is short-sighted. First, it’s a real problem when one’s food budget is reduced to support a religious privilege fee for someone else. Second, the whole thing is wonderfully educational. And third, this is no game. Whatever makes you think shouting is the worst thing that can happen? Ask the dead 10,000,000 Ukrainians who were starved to death by the Bolsheviks in the 1930s. I wonder if someone shouted at them. Oh, that’s right, they’re not here to tell us about it. Maybe there was just a lot of hissing and spitting. And Mr. Jones, you are missing the point that things need to be done in the neighborhood and on the ground. If you don’t like helping oldsters have food to eat, there are lots of other, lower profile things to do as mentioned in this series of postings. Jones is a proud, old Welsh name—don’t let your people down. 72
Posted by Nux Gnomica on Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:50 | #
The Enoch myth: Sunder Katwala Yes, we want a sensible debate: the left tells us immigration is great and we all have the good sense to agree. Elsewhere, YAB ponders the tricky question of whether whites are completely to blame for Muslim terrorism or only mostly to blame:
Yasmin Alibhai-Brown: We must learn more about these murderous men 73
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 23 Apr 2008 20:22 | # Desmond Jones has it right, and that’s why no one of intelligence would characterize a religious privilege fee as a “kosher” tax. Sure Bo, just like the bright sparks in the Canadian Conservative Party suggesting that shifting the immigration origin, by calling for reform of a broken system, or a need for the best and the brightest, will “fool” everyone, will “disguise” your real intent. What nonsense. Once you start explaining about what the K in a circle or COR in Canada, means, and what’s its origin is , your so-called neighbours and supporters eyes start to glaze over, like a deer in the headlights. Try explaining it to the pompous peremptory judges in small claims court and see how far it goes. Hell, these people don’t even know about the 10 million Ukrainians or have never heard of Bolshevism. All you’re doing is setting up people to get whacked and then you lose them forever. It doesn’t take a huge IQ to understand that fact. 74
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 23 Apr 2008 21:11 | #
But with levels of racially incompatible immigration reduced to zero there’ll be nothing to “deal with, control, or manage” (other than humanely re-settling those already here), so aren’t we putting the cart before the horse there a little, Sunder?
Enoch’s “shadow”? The only “shadow” of Enoch’s we ought to be talking about is the one cast by the fifty-foot heroic-style bronze statue of him that badly needs to be erected in Trafalgar Square. Oh and let’s have a Statue-of-Liberty-size copy erected overlooking New York Harbor. What is the ethnicity of whoever is ultimately responsible for hiring Sunder? Sunder didn’t walk in and hire himself. He’s a messenger and is told to go out and deliver a certain message. Who, exactly, is sending us these messages through Sunder? 75
Posted by Bert Rustle on Wed, 23 Apr 2008 21:41 | # Enough already. British National Party Radio Broadcast. Four minutes. http://www.bnp.org.uk/Broadcast final-01.mp3 In my opinion, a whole nine yards, hole in one bullseye by Nick Griffin, and it probably cost peanuts. Bert Rustle 76
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 23 Apr 2008 22:14 | # The was excellent, Bert. Any Brit who knows the score, knows the sort of thing we discuss at this web-site, who doesn’t vote BNP and only BNP at every opportunity that presents itself — or even has the slightest hesitation — is in my view criminally insane. People have to understand: 1) this race-replacement isn’t happening by itself but is being done on purpose; 2) plans call for it not ending until whites are eliminated and the nation Brazilianized. (You can read in Ashley Montagu’s UNESCO statement on race 58 years ago how he comes right out and says he wants white countries to become racially like Brazil. He actually names Brazil as a model for white countries to emulate racially! He’s telling you in plain terms what he wants for your country, and people with the same mentality are running immigration today.) The only way it’ll stop is if you the voters go out and make it stop, and the right way to go about that at the moment is by voting for the only party that explicitly opposes it. The opportunity to do something peacefully is there. Don’t squander it, lest your children have no alternative to achieving it by violence. When your children are dying in a future civil war, please don’t let the last thought in their minds as they breathe their last breath, be the anguished question why their parents didn’t do all they could peacefully, in the voting booth, when they had the chance. Your chance is there, now, May 1. DO NOT SQUANDER IT. PLEASE! 77
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 24 Apr 2008 00:02 | # Well, I ought to note in passing that today has been the most interesting St George’s Day I can ever remember. Rising English national consciousness was the flavour in all sorts of places. Something is on the march, and it isn’t only the demand for an English parliament. Next stop May 1st and the local elections. 78
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 24 Apr 2008 04:18 | #
... Right and I’ll bet it’s also not the demand to “permanently overcome old borders.” (Demanded or not, though, it looks like that’s exactly what you’re going to get.) 79
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 24 Apr 2008 08:01 | # Fred, That story appeared in the Mail and the Telegraph. It refers to the arrangements for an EU cohesion programme that ran across the community between 2001 and 2006. They didn’t tell you that, though, did they? I notice that the BNP explained this to its website readers, rather than run with the story like a dog with a stolen bone. It put the appearance of the story down to sloppy journalism. I am more suspicious. Hpw can sloppy journalism about the same dead story arise in two places on the same day? To my mind it looks like a coordinated attempt to safely divert “something on the march” away from any suggestion of genuine English ethnic nationalism and into standard europhobia. 80
Posted by Bill on Thu, 24 Apr 2008 11:52 | # ” Something is on the march, and it isn’t only the demand for an English parliament.” - GW Anything particularly striking - or just upbeat generally? 81
Posted by Nux Gnomica on Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:21 | #
I’m suspicious about what happens to BNP votes, because I’ve felt the breakthrough should have happened some time ago. How easy is it to divert them or miscount them? 82
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:44 | # Bill, Lot’s of good indicators, really. The left’s hate words are slowly losing their power to stigmatize - perhaps very slowly, but it is happening. And only Livingstone and Boris Johnson actually have the brass neck to talk about how wonderful diversity is. That goose is cooked. Brown & Co are wonderfully unpopular. Cameron may benefit, but he is already terminally distrusted. I just think that there is movement. Nux, I expected a better show in last year’s council elections. There was improvement, but below the water-line - lots of second and third places in the poll, but no breakthrough with firsts. Certainly, there are some fine diversions available for use by the ruling class. Ethnocentrism can be effectively stalled, I fear, by talking up constitutional nationalism (English parliament, anger with Holyrood, and the Scots in Brown’s cabinet, the Barnett formula, West Lothian etc). Or it can be diverted into the usual rage at the left - read any Daily Mail thread. Or, as a last ditch, it can be diverted into Islamphobia - standard Strategy of Tension stuff. “They” simply hold most of the cards. 83
Posted by Bill on Thu, 24 Apr 2008 21:03 | # London Elections - and where we’re going. It is two years ago since the BNP really became noticed. (Margaret Hodge B&D and all that.) You know, it is truly amazing the speed of events that have taken place during this time, who would have predicted two years ago the political scene would be as it is today? The political scene has been transformed in the last two years, who was it who said a week is a long time in politics? Blair is long gone (but still in the shadows) Brown has gone too, from being a political genius to Mr. Bean in only a few months. The wheels on the New Labour project have spun crazily off, and yet the whole demented bandwagon careers onwards, leaving clouds of debris in its wake. Cameron is still there posing and puffing like his clone, peacock Blair. Firing blank salvoes at Quasimodo over the dispatch box, how long can this crazy farce continue? Yet it is the BBC and the tabloid press that continue to roadblock the BNP, over time, the (MSM’s) efforts have taken on new slants, tweaking, fine tuning their nuances to the evolving situation. I won’t go on about EU immigration other than to say it has thrown a wrench in their tactics, and haven’t found a successful strategy to deal with it. The BBC (MSM) is, from now on, on a hiding to nothing. Ever growing numbers of our people are now becoming aware of the peril of their plight, not the majority by a long chalk, but significant numbers will be added as the days and months pass, and it is this inexorable swelling of numbers the BBC will have to continually face and deceive. How are they going to keep telling us that we’re racist and all the other tired nonsense? How are they going to be able to keep up the biggest scam in the history of mankind? The answer is, of course, they will not, in the end they are simply going to be exposed like the Wizard of Oz, a pathetic bunch of sniffling liberals, cowering behind the curtain - bring it on. So, where are we at now? The answer to that question is exactly where it was predictable we would be. Out of the blue, our enemy did a Pearl harbour on us and overwhelmed us with their political correctness, screams of racism, the tolerance scam, the cultural enrichment scam, the diversity is strength scam, etc. whilst all the time ushering millions through the gates, spreading like ants in a kitchen during summer, is it any wonder we were dazed, gobsmacked, in denial, clinging on to the ropes with no referee to throw in the towel? - All that has now but gone! There is something about all of this that defies my imagination, and that is, how on earth did these people think they could get away with it ? When you come to think of it is crazy, did they think we wouldn’t notice millions of strangers of whom we have nothing in common were amongst us? Did they really expect us to believe that immigration was a natural phenomena and there was nothing we could do about it? Did they think with all their blatherings they could persuade us it was for our own good and we would welcome diversity, political correctness, affirmative action? Did they really think we would roll over and accept being shoved to the back of the queue, marginalized and reduced to a second-class citizen? Do you know? I think they did and what’s more there’s no plan B, so they will just carry on. You couldn’t make it up! AS GW says, something is now on the march, and that something is the people of Britain are on the march, they must number in their hundreds of thousands, not millions yet, but they will keep coming, and will continue to keep coming until there are millions of them - but I suspect long before that happens our elites will have caved. Meanwhile, the London elections are looming, let’s hope the BNP give them another bloody nose 84
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 24 Apr 2008 21:36 | # Another absolutely first-rate comment by Bill. Great comment! 85
Posted by Nux Gnomica on Fri, 25 Apr 2008 19:03 | #
No, I was thinking of physical diversion of votes, miscounting, etc. I doubt that it’s difficult to do and that many counters will be drawn from outside the cosy Lib-Lab-Con circle. Interesting stuff at the BNP:
86
Posted by James on Sat, 26 Apr 2008 00:28 | # Yes, and the blame for England being destroyed is the British themselves. It’s time for them to reclaim their colonies, move into foreign countries, and attempt to assimilate the natives into BRITISH customs, like they used to, in the good old days. 87
Posted by Bill on Sat, 26 Apr 2008 16:55 | # BNP: The CST, Gerald Ronson and Red Ken Posted by Nux Gnomica on Friday, April 25, 2008 at 06:03 PM Anyone care to disentangle this lot? 88
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 26 Apr 2008 18:30 | # “James” who posted right before Bill’s comment just above is the piece of foul stinking dreg also posting in other threads as “John,” “Manly,” and some others, who’s here to try to disrupt discussion and waste our time by alternately 1) posing as “an ally who has reservations about our positions” and 2) under various pen names, revealing himself as the rabid foaming-at-the-mouth race-replacing degenerate he is. 89
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 26 Apr 2008 18:35 | # Make that: 1) posing as an ally but “one who has reservations,” 2) acting as an agent provocateur with commentary that makes no sense to us but in his mind succeeds in imitating “over-the-top right-wing racist thought,” doing this in an effort at both ironic sarcasm and actual provocation, and 3) commenting as himself, a rabid Euro-hating genocidal race-replacer. I think it was in the Peter Hitchens thread that I mentioned several of the names he’s been commenting under. 90
Posted by James on Sat, 26 Apr 2008 19:30 | # Now, at one point did I say I hate Europeans? I happen to be European myself, and I don’t see much point in eliminating myself and my family. 91
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 26 Apr 2008 19:48 | # Nothing wrong with a little joking “James”, but we do take the issue of being driven into minority status and thereby being stipped of political sovereignty (within a democratic context) in our traditional lands seriously. It may not be a conspiracy but the policies of our governments is indisputably enabling this. Do you oppose this? If you do, what would you do to stop and reverse it? 92
Posted by James on Sat, 26 Apr 2008 20:06 | # Well, I don’t think we can be on the same side of this debate. I am European, but apparently not from the certain parts of Europe that you deem acceptable. So evidently, for me to join with you would mean I would have to immigrate to a country I have never set foot on just because my great-grandparents were born there. For the record, I am against ILLEGAL immigration, as I don’t think anyone has the right to take the law into their own hands. Perhaps, what I am willing to do about it, is find a way that I can help to improve conditions in certain parts of the world so that people don’t need to immigrate en masse just for the chance to give their children a future. 93
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 26 Apr 2008 20:28 | # “James” is not being honest. If all he wanted to get across was his Silver-like concerns of being rejected by “nordics” he wouldn’t have signed trolling comments on a dozen issues using a dozen different pen names. No, he’s here the way Robert Lindsay comes to sites like this, in order to needle and play the troll. For his, James’, benefit, I add this: DAGOES LIKE YOU, JAMES, ARE NOT WANTED HERE. 94
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 26 Apr 2008 20:29 | # Neither are nordics like you or anyone else of your filthy stripe. 95
Posted by James on Sat, 26 Apr 2008 20:46 | # “Earliest racial theories When the lighter ancient Egyptians were in power they called the darker group the “the evil race of Ish” while when the darker ancient Egyptians were in power they called the lighter group the “the pale, degraded race of Arvad”.[2] For example, the Ancient Egyptian sacred text called Book of Gates identifies four ethnic categories that are now conventionally labeled “Egyptians”, “Asiatics”, “Libyans”, and “Nubians” (see Ancient Egypt and race), but such distinctions tended to conflate differences as defined by physical features such as skin tone, with tribal and national identity. Classical civilizations from Rome to China tended to invest much more importance in familial or tribal affiliation than with one’s physical appearance (Dikötter 1992; Goldenberg 2003). Nevertheless, attempts were made to equate physical characteristics such as hair and eye colour with psychological and moral qualities. These sometimes took a form comparable to ideas of racial hierarchy. A comment made by the historian of the 3rd century Han Dynasty describes barbarians of blonde hair and green eyes “who resemble the monkeys from which they are descended.”[2](Gossett, pp. 4). Ancient Greek and Roman authors also attempted to explain and categorize visible biological differences among peoples known to them, claiming that visible differences such as nose-shape and skin color were related to differences in temperament.[3] Such categories often also included fantastical human-like beings that were supposed to exist in far-away lands. Some Roman writers adhered to an environmental determinism in which climate could affect the appearance and character of groups (Isaac 2004). Greek Hippocrates in 5th century BCE considered racial temperament to be the product of the environment, (Gossett, pp. 6).[2] He considered Greeks to be warlike and brave because they lived in a barren soil, (Gossett, pp. 6).[2] On the other hand, the Asians (Near East/Middle East Asian) were weak and peaceful because they lived in a luscious vegetation, (Gossett, pp. 6).[2] Aristotle, a Greek, distinguished his race as the Hellenic race which had both spirit, the ability to govern and intelligence whereas Europeans had spirit but lacked intelligence and the ability to govern due to the cold climate, (Gossett, pp. 6).[2] He considered the Asians to be intelligent but lack spirit and be in a constant state of slavery, (Gossett, pp. 6).[2] A Native North American racial theory in the form of a legend held that American Indians were superior to blacks and whites, (Gossett, pp. 7).[2] The legend said that in God’s first attempt to make a human he cooked him too long, making blacks, (Gosett, pp. 7).[2] In God’s second attempt, he didn’t cook them enough, making whites, (Gossett, pp. 7).[2] In God’s third attempt he realized the golden brown perfection of the American Indian, (Gossett, pp. 7).” 96
Posted by D.E. Johnson on Sat, 26 Apr 2008 21:18 | # And in God’s fourth failed attempt, James was created. 97
Posted by James on Sat, 26 Apr 2008 21:37 | # “17th century theories of racial difference The word “race”, along with many of the ideas now associated with the term, were products of European imperialism and colonization during the age of exploration. (Smedley 1999) As Europeans encountered people from different parts of the world, they speculated about the physical, social, and cultural differences among various human groups. The rise of the Atlantic slave trade, which gradually displaced an earlier trade in slaves from throughout the world, created a further incentive to categorize human groups in order to justify the subordination of African slaves. (Meltzer 1993) Drawing on Classical sources and upon their own internal interactions — for example, the hostility between the English and Irish was a powerful influence on early thinking about the differences between people (Takaki 1993) — Europeans began to sort themselves and others into groups associated with physical appearance and with deeply ingrained behaviors and capacities. A set of folk beliefs took hold that linked inherited physical differences between groups to inherited intellectual, behavioral, and moral qualities. (Banton 1977) Although similar ideas can be found in other cultures (Lewis 1990; Dikötter 1992), they appear not to have had as much influence upon their social structures as was found in Europe and the parts of the world colonized by Europeans. However, often brutal conflicts between ethnic groups have existed throughout history and across the world, and racial prejudice against Africans also exists today in non-colonised countries such as China and Japan. While the 17th century did not have systematic notions of racial difference, colonialism led to the development of social and political institutions, such as slavery in the New World, that were later justified through racial theories (cf. Gossett 1997:17). In a series of lectures, Society Must be Defended (1975-76), Michel Foucault proposed that the ““historical and political discourse”” of race struggle can be traced to the “Revolution of 1688” and the end of Louis XIV’s reign. According to him, this was one of the first examples of popular history (of the “race”), opposed to a history of the sovereign. The significance of this, for Foucault, was that “race struggle” functioned as a counter-history to the history of the sovereign. The strength of the nation or race supplanted the histories of the strength of the ruler. So, for example, in Great Britain, a history of the Saxon people was used by Edward Coke and John Lilburn against the absolute rule of William. William’s power was curbed because a history of Saxon laws were discovered and said to be the laws of nature, the laws of the race and hence the laws. It should be noted that Foucault makes the distinction between race struggle and state racism or racism in general. For Focault, “racism” does not appear until the 19th Century. In England, radicals such as John Lilburne emphasised conflicts between Saxon and Norman peoples. In France Henri de Boulainvilliers argued that the Germanic Franks possessed a natural right to leadership, in contrast to descendants of the Gauls. In the 18th century, the differences among human groups became a focus of scientific investigation (Todorov 1993). Initially, scholars focused on cataloguing and describing “The Natural Varieties of Mankind,” as Johann Friedrich Blumenbach entitled his 1775 text (which established the five major divisions of humans still reflected in some racial classifications). From the 17th through the 19th centuries, the merging of folk beliefs about group differences with scientific explanations of those differences produced what one scholar has called an “ideology of race” (Smedley 1999). According to this ideology, races are primordial, natural, enduring and distinct. It was further argued that some groups may be the result of mixture between formerly distinct populations, but that careful study could distinguish the ancestral races that had combined to produce admixed groups.” 98
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 26 Apr 2008 21:37 | # James, do you think it would be a good thing or a bad thing if I were to take every African elephant and every Asian elephant in the world and breed them together? You probably can see where I’m going with this, if preserving genetic diversity is a good thing for the rest of the animal kingdom why not also for distinct human groups? All we want is the ability to preserve our genetic heritage and live according to our own lights amonst our own. Is that so bad? 99
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 26 Apr 2008 21:54 | # I don’t see a reason a blog-site ought to put up with people who either are ill-intentioned or haven’t got the basics down. As a toilet has a flush-handle, so a blog-site has a delete button and an IP-banning button. They’re not there for decoration. 100
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 26 Apr 2008 22:03 | # Is there anyone who has the slightest doubt this turd is a conscious race-replacement advocate? I mean, come on, let’s not take blindness to new heights, shall we? You’ve got a rabid race-replacement advocate who cannot be reasoned with being given complete freedom to post whatever he wants on the threads. This walking-talking piece of disease is a one-man advertisement for Desmondism: you let dagoes (or spics, or bohunks, or whatever the hell this specimen is supposed to be) into your northern-Euro country and the goddamn son-of-a-bitch bastards’ll side with the Negroes and Jews every time, to race-replace you even if only out of pure spite, to get you back for imagined slights or because they’re jealous you’re whiter than they are. You let them into your white country, you sign its demographic death warrant. 101
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 26 Apr 2008 22:06 | # Silver’s another one, by the way: an outright race-replacement advocate trying to disguise the fact by means of his continual smoke-screen of faux-“anguished” and totally meaningless faux-“nuance.” 102
Posted by D.E. Johnson on Sun, 27 Apr 2008 01:56 | # I don’t see a reason a blog-site ought to put up with people who either are ill-intentioned or haven’t got the basics down. As a toilet has a flush-handle, so a blog-site has a delete button and an IP-banning button. They’re not there for decoration. Posted by Fred Scrooby on Saturday, April 26, 2008 at 08:54 PM | # GW (bless his heart) is unswayed by such argument. Maybe that’s a good thing. Looking back, under different circumstances you might have been banned some time ago, yet here you are. And me, too! Ain’t life grand? 103
Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 27 Apr 2008 07:33 | # At first I thought “James’” stuff was funny and decided to give him the benefit of the doubt. Then I decided to ask him a few questions, he so far has choosen not to respond. Then I read some of the drivel he posted about how race is just a social construct and blah blah blah. Now I’m prepared to pass judgement, “James” is a stinking race traitor. Screw you race traitor. 104
Posted by Nux Gnomica on Mon, 28 Apr 2008 19:19 | # Another liberal issues a “warning”:
Influx of migrants affecting grades of British pupils, warns Lib Dem leader Because migration is good! It enriches us!
Asian ‘village politics’ and its effect on postal voting And I wonder: when Boris Johnson calls himself part Turkish, does he mean part Turkish Jew? Or do the Jewish genes come via France or Germany?
105
Posted by David hamilton on Thu, 01 May 2008 03:57 | # He did not make one speech he campaigned against immigration and made lots of speeches on it. This is the greatest - http://www.actioninengland.gb.com/Enoch Powell’s Speech.htm Furthermore, in 1971 he said,” It is when he looks into the eyes of asia, that the Englishman sees those who will dispute with him the possession of his native land.” 106
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:35 | # France discovers Enoch Powell: readers of the blog, fdesouche.com, have inserted French subtitles into the BBC special program on the greatest English statesman since Queen Elizabeth I. (The videos are well worth watching again, by the way, even if you’ve seen them more than once. If you haven’t watched them, please do so.) 107
Posted by snax on Sat, 09 Aug 2008 00:57 | # David Hamilton,
So slimed the would-be Welsh-British Viceroy of India, and British loyalist MP in Ireland. GW, if Hamilton won’t reject English rule over Ireland - never mind the more important Jewish rule that reigns over England - screw him, don’t publish him, he isn’t on our side. Your indulgence proves that ‘conservatism’ is our problem. If that’s your plan, fine… Fred says the ‘Statesman’ who achieved nothing is the greatest Statesman ever. I’m surprised. This is the guy who said Jonathan Bowden is doing enough by doing nothing. 108
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 09 Aug 2008 01:36 | #
He did what he could, Snax. I told you, ideas count, and history’s most important ideas count most importantly. 109
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 09 Aug 2008 01:39 | # Don’t confuse imperialism with race-replacement, Snax. You seem to equate the British Raj with the West’s current existential crisis but in mirror image, or something. They’re two entirely different things. 110
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 09 Aug 2008 02:08 | #
Jean Raspail said the equivalent it at the same moment, but no sea wall was erected to keep the gathering tsunami from crashing over our lands, a catastrophe still completely preventable in 1971. Why were no steps taken then? I know the answer. It’s the same as the answer to why we can’t take steps right now to undo the mistake and set things to rights. There’s something specific (not a miasma) standing in our way. 111
Posted by Delay in Canada immigration on Wed, 03 Oct 2012 15:34 | # Wow that was strange. I just wrote an extremely long Post a comment:
Next entry: Peter Hitchens: Was WW2 pointless?
|
|
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) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
Ironically the only people that are effectively advocating for white civil rights are non-whites, e.g., Ward Connerly, et al.
Posted by snax on Fri, 18 Apr 2008 14:19 | #
Powell hadn’t objected to the British having the ‘whip hand’ over Africans and Asians. And while later he came to think Africans and Asians had a right to boot out the British, he never seemed to get around to saying the British had a right to boot them out. I can’t see why he’s such a hero to some nationalists.
He once wanted to be Viceroy of India, but by the early seventies he was begging Indians to vote for him as a Midlands MP (look at that ‘smile’ - what a wierdo!), and by the late seventies he was an Ulster Unionist. No nationalist he.