Moslem migration a tool of the elites By David Hamilton The rulers try to build a multi-racial society from mixed motives: some have high-minded ideals, others are out to exploit cheap imported labour. They invite immigrants and legislate us into sharing everything we have with them, while the global elites living here and multi-national corporations who are present too pay derisory taxes. Our shameless politicians are no better, claiming vast and deceitful expenses. If they want immigrants they should put them up at their houses - they can certainly afford to. But it is not as if the imports are all needy or in danger, though we pretend they are because, in our folly, it makes us feel wanted and righteous for offering aid. The message conveyed to them is that we are weak and scared and this makes them despise us for not standing up for ourselves. When immigrants arrive they are welcomed by hordes of do-gooders - they can tell any lie and it is accepted. The elites hope there is no threat from them, and pretend they are essentially good. They appeal to their good-will by being fawningly nice to them, hoping they will reciprocate by being nice back. This mentality was expressed neatly by Jens Orback, Sweden’s one-time Minister of Democracy, “We must be open and tolerant towards Islam and Muslims because when we become a minority, they will be so towards us.” The Government is cunning and manipulative, and allows things to happen through a negligence that is quite intentional. It does not want to be in control in certain key management areas. The inadequacy of its positions is the best and, importantly, least blameworthy way to bring about its objectives. In a normal time in a normal country these objectives would automatically focus upon strengthening our peoples, and that would include strengthening our national character. But our rulers strive to achieve the opposite, constantly blaming us and using us as scapegoats (racists) if anything goes wrong in the utopian plan. It affects our everyday lives because social relations now have to be regulated and, post 7/7, restrictive anti-terrorist laws are imposed on everyone, not just the likely suspects. We used to be homogenous and trusted one another. In general it was peaceful. We queued. We relaxed with each other, and sought to get along by using good manners and showing consideration. Is the breaking up of that life through uncontrolled mass immigration an accident? No, the importation of cheap labour and new voting constituencies is wholly intentional. In November 2006 the Government were advertising for immigrants and doing it by deceit. A Foreign Office pamphlet ‘Multicultural Britain - A Land Of Immigrants’ encouraged immigrants to come here because of the Human Rights Act and well-paid jobs. It was placed in embassies across the world. Cherie Blair, the former Prime Minister’s wife, is a human rights lawyer. No wonder immigration increased so much under Blair! In June 2004, while Conservative leader Michael Howard was campaigning against immigration to win the General Election, he was an investor in communications firm Incepta. A subsidiary company Citigate Lloyd Northover won two Home Office contracts to develop websites and communications technology to speed up applications from immigrants to enter the UK. The company also profited from the Immigration and Nationality Directorate website for the Government which eases the entrance and settling of asylum seekers. The Sunday Mirror of May 1, 2005 revealed that as Home Secretary in 1993 Michael Howard had given nearly 15,000 failed asylum seekers “exceptional leave to remain” It is, of course, completely unprecedented in the West for elites to attack their own peoples in this way. It must look pretty strange to the beneficiaries from abroad. But how do they perceive us? “You can chase their women and the men look the other way, even their fathers and brothers don’t mind! There is nothing they can do because their government and media are against them.” This is all too true, and applies to newcomers and settled ethnic community members alike here. They think of our women as only good for one thing, which is at the heart of the widespread Muslim grooming of our young girls. One example was in the Times of August 11th 2007 which reported a 42 year-old Muslim man from Burnley. He gave one 14 year-old white girl the first of five Ecstasy tablets at a motorway service station before having sex with her on the back seat of the car while a group drove back to Lancashire. The court was told that the two men later took the girls to an address in Blackburn where Hussain, from Blackburn aged 42, had sex with the second 14 year-old white girl and gave her ten Ecstasy tablets. Judge Andrew Gilbart, QC, jailed them under new laws to protect young girls being groomed for sex. Parents warned that white girls as young as 12 are being screwed by older Muslim men, but Police and groups with responsibility to protect women pretend it is not happening or that this grooming of our youngsters is not racial. Parents claim that there are networks to use our young girls, while the authorities are too frightened to do anything. The issue is not that they are having sex with under-age girls but that they are using our women for gratification when they have their own women. The elites present white women as only worth one thing. In early August 2007 on a Big Brother programme, within 5 minutes of arriving in the house, the role model for young white women was announcing that she loved to “swallow” and performed a lap dance for two people she’d only just met. Around the same time I accidentally turned on Hollyoaks at 5.15 and was greeted with two blokes snogging, tongues and all. How is our culture transmitted now? The wonderfully garbled David Beckham: “I definitely want Brooklyn to be Christened but I don’t know into which religion yet”. There is a predatory element among the newcomers, and they see us differently from the way they look at their own people. So they do not feel guilty about exploiting us. They view us in a similar way to how we viewed them when we went into their countries: as pushovers and a source of advantage. They are doing what comes naturally to humans while we are being surrendered by our elites. The whole process is encouraged by TV which sells its programmes to foreign countries, and these act to incite people to come here. For years traditional liberals would argue, “We did it to them… now they can do it to us.” It was, of course, us who had to do their suffering for them. They live in good areas! The elites are softening us up for ethnics to take over! An editorial in the Birmingham post of 18th March 2006 asked: Is there anything intrinsically wrong with whites becoming a minority in Birmingham? Well, then, why not look at what is happening in practice? Take the Pride of Spitalfields in Heneage Street, off Brick Lane. This beautiful, traditional East End pub was fire-bombed by an Asian gang in 2003, and some staff were injured. Two weeks later the landlady was threatened with a replica gun by Asians in Brick Lane and warned: ‘You don’t belong round here’. She stood her ground and told them to shoot if they were going to. The Bangla gang ran off. The same courage has enabled her to continue - and it’s still a great pub. The Exmouth Estate was a completely white estate but because of Labour’s plan to enrich the entire East End with Bangladeshis so that the BNP don’t get re-elected - it’s full of Asians. John Cruddas MP stated that they would beat the BNP by demography. In Tower Hamlets recently it was revealed that police raids on suspected terrorists would have to be cleared with local Muslim religious leaders to prevent civil disturbance. Check with the local Imam before trying to raid a terrorist suspect’s flat! At one level, Asians are constantly pushing for more political power, and the Tower Hamlets council is now 60% Asian and changing our ways to their own. In the council chamber recently a memo was sent round exhorting non-Muslims to observe fasting practices during council meetings. Two years ago, a traditional Guy Fawkes Night usually subsidised by the council was abandoned for a public enactment of Bangladeshi folk tales which were funded by local council taxes. There was a proposal to alter the name of Aldgate East underground station near Brick Lane to Banglatown. Last year, because of a shortage of cemetery space for Muslims it was proposed by one Muslim councillor to relocate the graves in Tower Hamlets Cemetery elsewhere in order to construct a multi-faith burial site - a Muslim burial site, in other words, since dead Muslims cannot be buried alongside Christians and other infidels. There are some relatives of those buried in that cemetery still living. The dead include victims of the famous Bethnal Green tube disaster of 1943, but the memories and feelings of native Londoners count for nothing. At other times Muslim youths have kidnapped animals from one of the local farms on the Isle of Dogs. Small goats and pigs have been driven around for about a mile then taken out of the car and stoned to death - they have also been tortured in other ways. The Muslim cruelty to animals, particularly dogs, is disgusting. There are educated Muslims who would never behave in this sort of way - attacking white people or homosexuals, or torturing animals. I doubt that this behaviour is directly inspired by the Koran, yet there is a wholly unnecessary sense of fear which is felt by those who live there - not only working class people. There is a parallel of sorts in India, but the Indian Government is direct while ours is manipulative and deceitful. West Bengal is in the hands of Communists - the ruling party is the Communist Party of India (Marxist), and they have destroyed everything that was good among the Bengalis. From 1977 till now the CPI(M) had destroyed even the last traces of Bengali culture - the Viswabharati, the university of Rabindra Nath Tagore, the Asiatic Society of Sir William Jones, the works of 19th Century Bengali writers. But now Communism is declining in India. In the 1980’s and 1990’s, the Communists in West Bengal took control of the properties of the Anglo-Indians, the Bengali Nationalists and Conservatives of British Period. Thousands of Bengalis have been displaced from West Bengal to settle in other countries, UK , USA, and Canada. In Kolkata on 10th September 2008 activists of Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) staged a protest against Bangladeshi immigrants. They chanted slogans about their resentment at the large numbers of illegal Bangladeshi immigrants flooding in. They carried placards and banners and marched down the streets demanding deportation. They want Bangladeshi immigrants to be stripped of the benefits that they get in India, and repatriated. There are about 30 million Bangladeshi immigrants in India: “ ... we are staging an agitation against them. We demand that these immigrants should be identified and they should be deported from this country. Detect, delete, and deport, these are our three demands”, said Sunil Kumar, an activist. These illegal immigrants work in low-paid jobs - maids, servants, labourers etc. They are usually naturalised after being issued with ration cards and identity cards (a model for how our elites might use ID cards here, if they can get us to accept them). On September the 27th 2008, during a two-day Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) conference, former Union law minister Subramanian Swamy described the Bangladeshi infiltration as a national issue and said that either Bangladesh should hand over one third of its land to India or take back the illegal immigrants. In India, too, immigration is an opportunity for the elites. Our elites, meanwhile, cannot face the possibility that immigrants here might want to take revenge upon us. Our pretence that they are harmless undervalues their humanity and leads our rulers into dangerous absurdities such as police chiefs alerting community leaders before they raid for terrorists or explosives! Implicit in our conduct is we have no fight in us. We are easy. The crimes committed by ethnics are not the same as those committed by our people, they are how people invade by demography - raping, stealing and assaulting us - they are here to take. Their body language shows it as they swagger through our streets. As soon as we wake we put on the TV, or sit at our PCs, to prevent thinking about what is going on around us. We accept broadcasts from our elites telling us what to think and how to interpret news events without question. We are encouraged to be tolerant, which is to be passive and to allow others to take everything off us. The media treated the Muslim bombings as if they were a natural disaster and no one was to blame. To excuse it is to encourage others. It does not question the bombers’ cultural background, but exports the blame to “preachers of hate” and to their visits to the middle east. But these people have learned all about us, decided they do not like us or our ways, and reject us. This is a blow to our rulers who, in the very same moments they are promoting tolerance for vastly different cultures, like to pretend that these middle-class lads just happen to be third generation immigrants but, really, behave just like us. It is fearsome to look at where we British did it to others. The list includes Ireland, Uganda, Ghana, Sri Lanka, Figi, Ceylon, among others. Rubber came from South America not Malaya. But we planted it there and, because the Singhalese were not cut out for the work, imported Tamils with a different language and religion. It caused mayhem and misery which is still going on. The elites think it is normal to mingle. But people have deeper loyalties, as was the case in Sarajevo where, superficially, it seemed that everyone was uniting. Likewise, on independence the divided populations of India collapsed into civil war. Nigeria, Rwanda, Iraq and Iran were all like that. It happens regularly and is happening here. Everyone needs somewhere to belong. Is it simply guilt that motivates the elites? Guilt is remorse … you naturally seek to make amends. But if that’s what is going on the elites are not making amends themselves. They use us for that by bringing immigrants into our communities, not their own. They live safely in lovely areas or in gated communities, and this shows their real motive - loathing of their own people and fear of offending other ethnic groups. The profession of guilt is egotistical and makes them feel virtuous. The political, intellectual and corporate elites think only of themselves. One gets cheap labour, the other looks magnanimous and great. They do not care how much we suffer as long as they feel good. Many illegals work unlawfully long hours for almost nothing and have their liberty restricted by their masters. If anything makes me want to vomit it is the sickening hypocrisy of Western elites who publicly apologise for historic slavery while importing wage slaves from the third world and, now, Eastern Europe! Although, the elites allow Muslim immigrants to do what they like to us and our communities, they are callous exploiters of these people in their native lands. Ignored and over-ridden, sweated labourers in Bangladesh … Recommended reading ABVP 3,Marble Arch SenapatiBapat Marg, Opp.Matunga Road (W.R) Mahim, Mumbai-400016 Email .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) BBC NEWS | England | London | Asian men jailed over race attack http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7184166.stm BBC NEWS | England | London | Estate with an ethnic majority http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7183465.stm For Eurabia see Mark Steyn http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/11/08/do0802.xml http://awarforeurabia.blogspot.com/2005/07/mark-steyn-wake-up-folks-its-war.html David Hamilton’s website is here Comments:2
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 05 Oct 2008 01:48 | # Notice there are no announcements as to why it’s being done, only threats not to resist, warnings not to be “intolerant,” “racist,” “xenophobic,” etc., in response to it. 3
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 05 Oct 2008 01:50 | # only <strike>threats</strike> orders not to resist 4
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 05 Oct 2008 02:01 | #
That which is being subjected to genocide, “Anonymous,” is more than just the culture. It’s the race too. You understand that, don’t you? Of the two, in fact, race is more important. Worlds more. There’s literally no comparison. What’s more important, whether your child be raised a Frenchman, Dutchman, or German, or whether or not your child will live? What we’re talking about is analagous. 5
Posted by silver on Sun, 05 Oct 2008 04:26 | #
The only people who welcome them are the green-haired lesbians with eyebrow rings set. Normal people are horrified and disgusted. The immediate problem this causes is that the people making up the welcoming committee are the type most despised by the immigrants. (Who’d want his daughter to become a green-haired lesbian marxist?) When the immigrants begin causing mayhem, there’s no respite in turning to the authorities, because the institituions that might help are manned (“personed”) by the same deluded set as the geen-haired lesbians, like this overweight police commissioner The same set which takes upon itself to set up “diversity commissions” which function to quash any avenue of redress, often manned by the self-interested, eg That’s Peter Herbert, who’s currently the chair of the Society of Black Lawyers, but has sat on various other committess and panels which serve the aforementioned function. He doesn’t look particularly black, though. Herbert’s a Jewish surname and he does have that Jewish look to him. One thing I can unequivocally agree with Scrubby on is you give free reign to women and you can kiss your country, your culture, your race, near everything good-bye, since the Irrational Woman will quickly adduce everything which came before her as the reason her quest for Personal Freedom falters and frustrates her, never pausing to consider that the quest itself was false. Even at this late date, with all the havoc thus far wreaked, for the love of God, even at this late date, the Empowered Slut still reacts with all the fury of a Woman Scorned at the mere suggestion the quest was false. 6
Posted by Bill on Sun, 05 Oct 2008 06:43 | # The bottom line is that it is a terminally sick society (civilisation) that allows all this to happen, the most basic instinct in any living creature is survival, the fact that Western society is so passive in the face of such aggression must tell us something. Is Western civilisation terminally ill? This state of resigned acceptance of its fate has been engineered over many years, was it intentional or is it just a natural conclusion brought about by the unnatural way we live? (High - tech civilisation) Take your pick. Remember it is early days, I repeat, this situation is unique in the history of man, it’s not all over till the obese lady sings. 7
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 05 Oct 2008 13:03 | # When the normal societal channels for honest appraisal of a new situation and for changing course are blocked, the “activation energy” of effecting a change rises, going from whatever energy input is involved in the normal process of the people getting mad and the rulers listening, to whatever energy input is needed for a violent explosion. Because violent explosion is at present the only course open to us (the overlords having blocked all other, more normal avenues), and because we don’t want to violently explode, we absolutely abhor the idea of violently exploding and place it dead last on the list of options (which is precisely what makes its activation energy, the activation energy of a violent explosion, so high: we absolutely don’t want to do it), nothing changes. Now the question as I see it is the one asked by Steven Palese: Something’s blocking the democratic process. What, exactly is it, and DON’T give me vague miasmas such as po-mo liberalism and managerialism. A real flesh-and-blood hand is on the levers of power. Whom, exactly, does that hand belong to? What are the normal avenues by which redress of political-social problems comes about? 1) For one thing, new leadership arises in response to the new needs when the old leadership shows it can’t think straight on certain issues and is getting nowhere from making all the wrong decisions. But where this present problem is concerned new leadership can’t arise because the instant it so much as stirs it gets nipped in the bud by means of systematic demonization for being “racist,” “intolerant,” and so on. Who exactly is chiefly responsible for that demonization (not solely responsible but chiefly)? 2) Redress comes about by candidates for office listening to what the people dearly want. But where the problem under discussion is concerned, no candidates listen: again, as Steven Palese said, “Something is blocking them from listening.” What is that something? Again, DON’T give me miasmas. No ghostly miasma is blocking them from listening, but a flesh-and-blood hand which says to them, whether they be Tory or Labour, Democrat or GOP, “See all this money I’ve raised for your campaigns? See all this favorable press I’ve gotten for you through my press and media brethren who are my network of contacts? All that, ALL of it, will dry up the INSTANT you don’t support open borders or talk of creating any kind of hindrance whatsoever to the flourishing of racial/cultural aliens in this country, their well-being, their ability to advance. Every penny will disappear and you can kiss your political ambitions good-bye. Oh and the other thing that’ll bring about that result is if you EVER breathe one word to Israel’s detriment. Do we understand one another?” That’s no miasma that gives that warning to John McCain, Tony Blair, or David Cameron behind closed doors. It’s not po-mo liberalism or managerialism but a real flesh-and-blood person. 8
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 05 Oct 2008 13:09 | # Excuse me, I neglected to say my comment just above was a reply to the following idea presented in Bill’s post which came right before:
If something’s got a man by the throat and keeps squeezing, that man can be brought to the verge of dying but can’t be said to be “sick.” The question of course is exactly what is it that has him by the throat and DON’T give me miasmas as the answer. 9
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 05 Oct 2008 13:26 | # The absolute demonization of recognition of race didn’t have to come about. It was chosen in the aftermath of WW II. There’s nothing whatsoever uncivilzed or evil or even just “not nice” in the recognition of race as it affects a nation’s identity and other aspects of society and ordinary everyday life and in setting immigration policy accordingly. It’s normal to recognize race, and needless to add, every race outside the Eurosphere does it automatically as a matter of course, has absolutely no plans to ever stop doing it, and simply couldn’t conceive of not doing it. Why have we demonized it? Answer: maybe it wasn’t “we” who have demonized it. Maybe something’s gotten control over parts of our nervous system? Who controls certain parts of our nervous system, us? Someone not “us” but who loves us? Of maybe someone not “us” who .... doesn’t particularly love us? If Turkish Cypriots got control of the Greek Cypriot nervous system, does anyone suppose the “Greek Cypriots” (now under control of the Turkish Cypriots) would continue espousing policies favorable to themselves and antithetical to the Turkish Cypriots? Or is it possible such policies would start .... getting demonized? 10
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 05 Oct 2008 13:33 | # And if the Turkish Cypriots did get control of part of the Greek Cypriot nervous system (via monopoly control over its press and other media for example) would they trumpet the fact or try to hide it? Might they even try to demonize anyone who blew the whistle on them (together with their demonization of pro-Greek-Cypriot policies)? Any of that sound familiar? Hey I’m just trying to use common sense, guys. Just opening my eyes, looking around, and trying to use common sense. 11
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 05 Oct 2008 14:34 | # Speaking of the threat of violence from our side, when a relatively staid blog on the order of BrusselsJournal.com starts hinting at the possibility of full-scale violence erupting from our side,
you know that folk are starting to get ....... more than a little annoyed, shall we say? ...... OK, let’s use that word: more than a little annoyed .............. You’d think at this stage the powers would start listening to the people. You’d think wrong. 12
Posted by a Finn on Sun, 05 Oct 2008 15:25 | # First silver lowers the standards, making the site repulsive to outsiders: “... like this overweight pig of police commissioner.” “Herbert’s a Jewish surname and he does have that ratlike Jewish look to him.” Then he uses his usual divisive methods; any division will do: “... you give free reign to women and you can kiss your country, your culture, your race, near everything good-bye, since the Irrational Woman ....” It is nice to notice that trolls are given free reign in Majority Rights. 13
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 05 Oct 2008 16:15 | # There you go, Finn. Silver’s trollish hallmarks have been erased. 14
Posted by Tom Morris on Sun, 05 Oct 2008 16:31 | # Speaking of the threat of violence from our side, when a relatively staid blog on the order of BrusselsJournal.com starts hinting at the possibility of full-scale violence erupting from our side… I’ve noticed it too. And I welcome it, as I believe the time for debate, dialogue, and reform is over. Violence works. The paradigm is shifting. Fjordman has also broached the subject in his recent columns. 15
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 05 Oct 2008 16:49 | # There are two ways to look at proposed new explanations of the things that you see going on around you, things that have you puzzled. 1) You can rule out this or that new explanation right away as being too implausible, even impossible, and just forget about it, not giving it any more thought; or 2) without knowing whether or not it’s true you can deduce, in theory, the new characteristics of reality it would imply in the event it were true, see if those might be plausible, and if they might, go back and say the decision to rule out the new explanation might have been a bit hasty, since it may have merit when the new understandings of how things work, which it implies, are taken into consideration. In fact, the proposed new explanation can even function in that way as a tool (can so function before it’s known whether or not it’s true) for advancing one’s understanding of how things work. Example: Alfred Wegener looked at the way the coastlines of Africa and South America matched, and wondered if that meant they had split apart. Others rejected that idea, since continents don’t move. But another way to look at the proposed “splitting-apart” explanation was it might be teaching us something we didn’t know: continents do move. For this to be the case, you have to work out the science of the way continents move, which was done decades after Wegener’s proposal. Ernest Rutherford shot alpha particles at foil and was amazed that while most went through straight or only a little deflected, some bounced almost straight back. Rather than reject what he was seeing as impossible he used it as a tool to teach himself something: atoms, mostly empty, have extremely dense centers. Then the way in which those centers get to be extremely dense was worked out over the ensuing decades. Back to the subject of the log entry: When we look at what seems to some observers like a small hostile group strongly influencingi things, even controlling them in some degree, we can react to that thought by 1) deciding it’s impossible and discarding it, or 2) thinking up what it would mean about the way things work in society and in politics if it were true, then looking to see if those things it would mean can be made to come out seeming plausible, the way moving continents and dense atomic nuclei finally were. Example: You’d need overwhelming numbers, overwhelming strength, to get society to steer a suicidal course, so no small hostile group could accomplish it. That’s one way to look at it, followed by discarding the proposed explanation and not thinking about it again. But there’s another way to look at it: maybe that proposed explanation itself is telling us something we didn’t know about the way societies work, something we can learn if instead of discarding it we think about it some more: might the proposed explanation be true if, for example, it turned out that it only needed small pushes of a certain kind in order to effect certain kinds of drastic change in society, the way it only needs a small drop in average temperature to bring about an ice age? If so, perhaps the proposed explanation shouldn’t necessarily be rejected so fast, but thought about some more? Maybe in fact it’s teaching us something about the way societies work, something no one knew? Maybe lots of drastic shifts in societies down through history were determined by relatively small groups exerting pressures. This idea can be applied right down the line in looking at possible explanations of what’s going on: don’t always be so quick to reject an explanation that looks implausible or impossible. That explanation might in fact be telling you something new about the way things work. 16
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 05 Oct 2008 17:19 | # Rutherford’s experiment is one of the great stories in physics, for those who may not be familiar with it:
17
Posted by Old Raven on Sun, 05 Oct 2008 17:50 | # Dammit Scrooby! Your insights above are causing my computer to overheat! You’re making TOO MUCH SENSE! 18
Posted by Bill on Sun, 05 Oct 2008 19:30 | # From the the BNP website. 05.10.2008 Will the Media Admit That the BNP Has Been Right All Along? For decades, the British media has attacked and slandered the British National Party for warning that mass immigration was a danger to the continued existence of British society. The BNP was called all sorts of names and slandered in the pages of the press and on TV. Fictitious and made-up criminal charges were levelled against BNP leaders in an attempt to railroad them into jail. Personal smears and physical attacks were encouraged and even applauded in the media. But now, even the media has been forced to accept that the thing for which they pilloried and slandered the BNP so much, has come to be reality.Will the Media Admit That the BNP Has Been Right All Along? An article in The Spectator, reproduced in The Mail on Sunday, confirms everything about mass immigration which the BNP, and the BNP alone, has been warning. According to The Mail, “The influx of the past ten years has been the largest in Britain’s history, changing the country for ever.” “Immigrants now make up a ninth of our population, produce a fifth of our babies and fill (or create) most of our new jobs.” “The migration boom started long before those who govern us realised what was happening. In recent months The Spectator magazine has been assembling pieces of the statistical jigsaw to reveal the picture not only of immigration in Britain, but of the problems that the newcomers, through their industry, have inadvertently helped to cover up.” “Take, for example, the Prime Minister’s mantra-like boast that he has ‘created three million new jobs’.” “The Statistics Commission discloses that 68 percent of this increase can be attributed to immigrants. These new jobs were filled: but not by Britons.” “Even this figure includes pensioners returning to work. Narrow the field to working-age people, and immigrants account for 82 percent of the job increases.” “According to Office for National Statistics information obtained by The Spectator, there were only 300,000 more UK-born working-aged people in employment in June 2007 than there were in June 1997: a tenth of Mr Brown’s oft-repeated figure.” “And there is yet another layer to peel back: the Prime Minister’s substantial expansion of the public sector at huge expense.” “Strip away the growth of the state-as-employer, and the number of UK-born employed in the private sector actually fell over the decade — from 18.1 million in June 1997 to 18.0 million in June 2007, according to the ONS Labour Force Survey.” “The corollary is that shockingly little progress has been made with the great mass of home-grown British unemployed.” “Official figures provided to The Spectator show that there were 5.1 million people on out-of-work benefits when Labour took office.” “As of last February, that figure had fallen by just 867,000 — not much to show for what Mr Brown likes to describe as the longest period of uninterrupted economic growth in a century.” “It was Ken Livingstone who once complained that in all the time he was mayor he had never been served a cup of coffee by a Londoner.” “The capital is, as the current mayor says, a world city, and Rome to the empire of the globalised world.” “A full third of its citizens are immigrants, a greater proportion even than in New York City.” “But the grim fact remains that there are still 700,000 Londoners on benefits.” “Mr Livingstone’s cup of coffee conundrum illustrates perfectly Mr Brown’s failure to match the country’s unemployed to the country’s vacancies.” “So perhaps it was guilt which led Mr Brown to adopt his curious and mercifully shortlived slogan, ‘British jobs for British workers’ — given that the Prime Minister, a demon for statistical knowledge, would have known perfectly well that this motto is the precise opposite of what has happened.” “The truth is that foreign workers have taken most of the new ‘British jobs’.” “Much less attention is paid to a trend which, in truth, is no less striking: the number of British workers seeking foreign jobs.” “The quiet path out of Britain starts with the queues to the various emigration fairs popping up around the country, where the governments of Canada and Australia set out their stalls to lure Brits with the right skills.” “One company is preparing for an exhibition at Aintree Racecourse in Liverpool next month with the slogan: ‘Over 200,000 skilled workers and professionals turned their backs on the UK and left for good last year to start a new life abroad’.” “It is all true. Government figures this week showed in the year 2005-2006 that 75,000 ‘white British’ men and women moved out of the country but the population still rose because of an influx of ethnic minority groups.” “The Home Office argues that, through their tax and spending, immigrants contribute £2.5 billion more in taxes than they cost in public services.” “Professor Robert Rowthorn of Cambridge University has shown how this utterly changes depending on what’s included in the calculation.” “Add the full costs of those services to which they are entitled (NHS treatment, schooling, welfare etc) and immigration incurs a £5.6 billion loss.” “One of the few times I have seen David Cameron lost for words was when Eileen McCloy, a Glaswegian mother who had come down to London to hear him talk, asked him what he could do to help her husband, a joiner, who had been put out of work by Polish competitors who worked for £6 an hour.” “Mr Cameron told her about his plan for an Australian points-based system to bring order to immigration, but admitted that, under European Union law, this would not apply to Poles.” “He had no answer for her.” “When the general election is finally called, Mr Cameron will meet many more people like Mrs McCloy on the campaign trail.” “At the back of Mr Cameron’s mind will be the fear that the immigration debate — which Westminster has had on ‘mute’ for years — may soon start blaring.” Indeed. Now that the first chinks in the media’s assault on the BNP’s political position have appeared, we look forward to their final admission: that the BNP was right, all along.
19
Posted by Bill on Sun, 05 Oct 2008 19:41 | # Re -above BNP post Will the Media Admit That the BNP Has Been Right All Along? It’s like I’ve been saying all along - where’s the Beef? Someday, they’re going to have to start fleshing it out and tell it like it is. (not easy I know) 20
Posted by Bill on Sun, 05 Oct 2008 20:32 | # The followingwas posted onthe above BNP website. It is posted underthe the moniker ‘stringbag’ who I think is on the website payroll. “From around the late seventies the liberal left intellectuals seemed to turn their backs upon the working class - particularly the English working class. Previously they had eulogised them, though now it is obvious they never liked them, despised indigenous working people at bottom. They just used them in the mad effort to create a Marxist society. When they decided the working class had failed, they had no further use for them - and they moved from class to race base politics; as the basis for another go at a revolutionary transformation of society. These liberal lefties obviously hate Britain, England particularly - and especially its history. Whether they set out deliberately to destroy us, or to fashion a new society which would factor us out, and destroy us as a consequence, I am not very sure. It doesn’t make much difference, it’s an academic point really. I do know that our enemy is evil incarnate however, managed to work that bit out” —————————————————————————-”———————————————————————————————————- Out of something numbering 40 posts, this is the only enlightened piece among them - still, it’s a start. 21
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 05 Oct 2008 21:15 | # Stringbag’s got it essentially figured out, Bill. Bravo to him! It took me years to get where he is now. Good job! Guy’s got a head on his shoulders! 22
Posted by Glyn Roach on Sun, 05 Oct 2008 23:18 | # The quote from Strinbag is similar to this from Sir Alfred Sherman. In a book review for the Salisbury Review of Spring 2003 Sir Alfred Sherman, former senior advisor to Mrs Thatcher, recalled a friend in race relations had asked him to take a look at the reception areas of Deptford and Southall in the mid 60’s, “ I was horrified. My natural vague sympathies for the immigrants, strangers in a foreign land, was replaced by strong but hopeless sympathy for the British victims of mass immigration, whose home areas were being occupied. I was made aware of a disquieting evolution in “Establishment” attitudes towards what they called immigration or race relations and I dubbed “colonialisation.” The well-being and rights of immigrants and ethnic minorities had become paramount. The British working classes, hitherto the object of demonstrative solicitude by particularly the New Establishment on the left, had acquired new status as the enemy, damned by the all-purpose pejorative “racists.” 23
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 05 Oct 2008 23:27 | # The (fill in the blank) _______ want more of exactly this for your schoolchild. They love it, love when it happens, love seeing it. How do we know? Because it’s easy to stop but they won’t let anyone stop it. How do you feel about it? Do you love it? No? Had enough, then? OK, if you’ve had enough, DON’T, as in DO NOT, forget next time you’re in the voting booth. 24
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 05 Oct 2008 23:38 | # That white boy, who was beaten up by the Negroes for no reason (they showed what his face looked like; they didn’t show the doubtless cracked ribs, internal injuries, and concussion he must have received, plus who knows what else in the way of injuries and lasting chronic pain) didn’t figure in a two-page centerfold spread in the Jewish press (the Jewish press is the NY Times, the LA Times, the Washington Post, Newsweek, Time, U.S. News & World Report, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and LOXNews) the way he would’ve had he been a 13-year-old Negro boy or a 13-year-old Jewish boy instead of a 13-year-old Euro boy. The 13-year-old Euro boy got what he deserved in the eyes of the Jews who run the Jewish press. Why did he deserve it? Because Euros, in the eyes of the Jews, are born anti-Semites. It was sweet payback for his innate anti-Semitism. 25
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 01:00 | # The Pope basically admits, I suspect, the Church isn’t saying anything against race-replacement because non-Euro races are showing greater interest in Catholicism than Euros are currently, so the Church is siding with the former. That was my tentative interpretation of one line in the excerpt posted here but if anyone can shed additional light I’d be interested (there must be an English translation posted — it was apparently a speech given today). 26
Posted by Dave Johns on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 01:23 | # “there must be an English translation posted — it was apparently a speech given today.”
27
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 01:53 | # Here are the passage in French (see the link I posted above), and what I make of it in English:
Knowing that adherence to Catholicism has been on the decline in Europe for decades, do you make anything of that last sentence, along the lines of its being perhaps an oblique reference to immigration and the Church’s welcoming thereof? 28
Posted by Z on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 01:55 | # Rampant, non-sustainable, and ultimately destructive Jewish-hypercapitalism along with the ‘culture of mass consumerism’ which the Jew-laden media strongly promotes is what’s behind much of the immigration invasion…Whites in America and Europe simply do not breed fast enough to produce the kind of profits the Jewish plutocrats and Jewish businesspeople desire, so in order to increase their profit margins they seek to flood the most economically advanced (i.e., White majority) countries with more and more and more super-consumer slaves with which to further fill their coffers and keep the millions of paper-pushing Jewish middlemen and bureaucrats busy/distracted from the utter misery and futility of their money-driven lives. Think about the Soviet Union—it was completely dominated by urban-dwelling Jewish bureaucrats during the first few decades of its existence until other ethnic groups became urbanized, educated, and networked enough to compete with them, at which point the Soviet Union became increasingly anti-Jewish; but for decades these bureaucratic Jews basically leeched off of the work, raw materials, and productive capacity of the native peoples in the small/medium towns and, of course, the countryside. The same thing is now happening in America, the UK, and other countries. The fact is that the capitalist systems in the UK and the USA would have stagnated long ago if it wasn’t for masses of new (non-White) super-consumers who show up every year in these countries. This ridiculous obsession with “GROWTH-GROWTH-GROWTH” is most vigorously promoted by delusional urban-elite (managerial) Jews in business/finance, the media, law, academia, etc. along with a veritable army of (middle-tier) Jewish bureaucrats who always toe-the-line of their more elite co-ethnics because their salaries depend on it. 29
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 01:58 | # I made a mistake: make that, rather, “there will always be other peoples who will welcome it [or who will receive it].” 30
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 01:59 | # What the Pope seems to be saying there is, “You dropped us, so we’re getting others to take your place. Too bad for you.” 31
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 02:03 | # If the Catholics are intent on pulling that stunt it’s high time for everyone to leave the Church. Let it be all-Negro from now on, with all the Catholic-Moslem ecumenism and genuflexion to the Jews it could want. God I wish the Vatican weren’t run by a bunch of elderly fairies! 32
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 02:08 | #
That sounds right. Good analysis. Good post. 33
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 02:10 | # Notice the culprit Z implicates is different from po-mo liberalism and managerialism. It’s something tangible, definite, remediable. 34
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 02:43 | # Fjordman’s got a book coming out. It should be a good read. I hope he mentions race in it. 35
Posted by Gudmund on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 02:45 | # @ Z, I’ve said many a time that capitalism and communism are pretty much mirror images of one another. After your post I’ve come to see that I was right all along. The West has become the USSR, and we will share a similar fate. This may be a strange time for optimism, but after the collapse of Russia, good things have slowly emerged there. Could the same be true for us one day? If we have the “will to power” then yes. 36
Posted by Armor on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 03:04 | # What the Pope seems to be saying there is, “You dropped us, so we’re getting others to take your place. Too bad for you.” The Pope is only saying that Christian faith will not die everywhere in the world. It has nothing to do with immigration. In the same text, he says it is sad that nations are losing their particular identities due to a certain form of modern culture. When he says that national identities should be preserved, it doesn’t sound like an encouragement to immigration. Note to Guessedworker: Silver put up the picture of a policewoman and said she was an “overweight pig of police commissioner”. It is a good thing that you cleaned up his rude and trollish message. But you forgot to clean up Finn’s message where he quotes Silver’s ungracious statement that the pictured policewoman was an “overweight pig of a police commissioner”. 37
Posted by Montherlant on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 15:00 | # I’m looking forward to Fjordman’s book too. But in my conversations with him, he seems particularly determined, to the point of paranoia and rudeness, to distance himself from those he wrongly perceives as “fascists” or “neo-nazis”. I fear he’s a triangulator trying to suck up to the globalists, Jews, and Antifa. We’ll see. 38
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 15:22 | # See my quotes from the Pope’s speech yesterday, several comments above. Here, quickly translated (I’m rushing to get to the office), are a couple of letters from the Fdesouche.com thread (I zipped through; hope I didn’t make any mistakes): http://www.fdesouche.com/?p=4679#comment-201874
http://www.fdesouche.com/?p=4679#comment-202264
These letters are appraising the situation correctly: the Vatican is saying to whites, “Drop dead” on the immigration issue, and siding openly with non-whites. Let this fact be understood by all, especially by Catholics. 39
Posted by Dave Johns on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 16:11 | # I think the Vatican is saying: if Europeans keep embracing “The Culture of Death” in lieu of Christianity, they will inevitably end up extinct. It’s all up to the Europeans to choose which direction they want to take. It’s about free choice and all that… The Church is offering a path to survival, both corporal and eternal, but the people are rejecting it. The Left is kicking our asses ... right into extinction! 40
Posted by Montherlant on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 18:25 | # ...the Vatican is saying to whites, “Drop dead” on the immigration issue, and siding openly with non-whites. Let this fact be understood by all, especially by Catholics. Well said, Fred, as usual. This is why, though educated at Jesuit prep school and a well-known Jesuit university, I’m an ex-Catholic now. Good riddance. 41
Posted by torgrim on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 18:58 | # “The fact that the capitalist system in the UK and the USA would have stagnated long ago if it wasn’t for the masses of new (non-White) super-consumers who show up every year in these countries”—(Z) Good post, “Z”. The thing is we really do not have a capitalist system, at least since 1913 in the US. It more resembles the old Charter System of the 18th century or more commonly known as Merchantile capitalism. Whereas, those that have access to capital are granted by, “charter”, as in a decree, from the Crown, in the past, only to be replaced, by the cabal of banking houses today. “The ridiculous obsession with GROWTH-GROWTH-GROWTH is vigorously promoted by delusional urban-elite (managerial) Jews in business/finance the media, law, academia, etc. alng with the veritable army of (middle-tier) Jewish bureaucrats who always toe-the-line of their more co-ethnics because their salaries depend on it.”(Z) So true, in fact, this delusional urban-elite, requires this sort of insane, unsustainable growth, it works for them. “Growth of growth’s sake, is the ideology of the cancer cell.” This is not a fit model, in the long run, for Euro folk, and we may see the US, repeat the scenario of the USSR. 42
Posted by torgrim on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 19:02 | # Pardon me, should read; Growth for growth’s sake is the ideology of the cancer cell. 43
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 22:34 | # Today’s Quiz Who said this in the 1950s? “The fate of the white races of the West will be decided at the century’s close, demographically. These races certainly aren’t innately superior to others but in view of the pre-eminent role they’ve played over the past four thousand years in the general evolution of civilizations their decline will weigh heavily on the future of mankind, and politicians will bear responsibility if they’ll have done nothing in time to reverse the fall in births.” (“Le sort des races blanches d’Occident se jouera à la fin de ce siècle, et ce démographiquement. Ces races ne sont sans doute pas supérieures aux autres génétiquement, mais en raison du rôle prééminent qu’elle ont tenu, depuis près de quatre milléaires, dans l’évolution générale des civilisations, leur déclin pèsera lourdement sur l’avenir de l’humanité, et nos hommes politiques en seront responsables s’ils n’ont rien fait à temps pour enrayer la chute des naissances.”) http://www.fdesouche.com/?p=4679#comment-202374 (Answer: Pope Pius XII said that during the ‘50s) Tomorrow’s Quiz Hey how come we get all the lousy popes, but in the fifties they got all the good ones??? (Answer will be posted tomorrow) 44
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:14 | # Come to think of it, isn’t Pius XII the one the Jews don’t like? Maybe now I can see why ... 45
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:20 | # “These races certainly aren’t innately superior to others”...and so it begins.”
In his first encyclical, Pius XII Summi Pontificatus, developed a main theme of his pontificate. Christianity is universal, and therefore opposed to racial or national hostility and superiority. He continues this theme in other encyclicals, such as Mystici Corporis, and Mediator Dei and in numerous speeches and addresses. There are no racial differences, because the human race forms a unity, for “from one ancestor [God] made all nations to inhabit the whole earth”.
46
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:26 | # Mystici Corporis Exclusion on the basis of race or nationality
47
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:30 | # Important announcement: It is with regret that I must announce that tomorrow’s Quiz will be canceled. (Something has come up, I’m not at liberty to say what.) The day after tomorrow’s Quiz question will be posted tomorrow. Sincere apologies for any inconvenience. —MR.com Today’s Quiz editor 48
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:42 | # Notice that there happen to be perfectly good grounds for classifying chimpanzees as human beings, making at least three distinct species of human alive today (True Europeans, True West-Central African Negroes, and chimpanzees). Does the Vatican have contingency plans for when this view gets widely accepted if it ever does? Will it be telling Catholics they have to accept chimps as their fellow men, Catholic women they must not reject chimp suitors for their hand in marriage solely out of prejudice, and so on? Or what if they clone Neanderthals and bring them back as a population? Will the Catholic Church be telling us likewise in regard to them? They’re humans after all, and prejudice is prejudice. (Right, we know what the Jews will be doing, but I’m talking about the Catholics here ....) 49
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:48 | # Incidentally, Koko the talking gorilla had her IQ tested a number of times and consistently scored around 70. This is the IQ of native Sub-Saharans. So gorillas and native Sub-Saharans have the same IQ. 50
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 07 Oct 2008 00:01 | # Koko’s IQ test results: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-444337/My-friend-Koko—22-stone-gorilla.html (Hat tip: TheCivicPlatform.com ) 51
Posted by Dave Johns on Tue, 07 Oct 2008 00:42 | # Re Fred’s post on Monday, October 6, 2008 at 10:42 PM Well, since Father Phleger is a Catholic Preist, and the world is becoming more bizarre by the day; I’m afraid the answers to your questions might someday be, yes. 53
Posted by EA (European American) Steve on Tue, 07 Oct 2008 21:12 | # That telegraph article is depressing, Bill! I want our specisis (or at least race) to continue evolving. Even more importantly, I don’t want the whole world to melt into a ‘Tan Everyman.’ The article is an example of the far-left’s way of thinking. It’s biased, and apparently in favor of the extinction of all distinct races. And yet, I am called a “racist” (even by close friends and family members) for not wanting Whites to become extinct, even when I want the other races and sub-specisises to exist. I want all of the races preserved, and yet somebody called me a skinhead. This is despite (the fact that), she knows I am not a member of any Skinhead organizations (or fan for that matter); and she knows I like the Jews, who are more hated by the Skinheads than even Blacks and Brown Hispanics are. 54
Posted by Armor on Wed, 08 Oct 2008 01:30 | # I think the Pope has made speeches both in favor and against immigration. This speech seems to be rather against immigration: “Unfortunately, from a demographic point of view, one must note that Europe seems to be following a path that could lead to its departure from history. This not only places economic growth at risk; it could also create enormous difficulties for social cohesion and, above all, favour a dangerous form of individualism inattentive to future consequences. One could almost think that the European continent is in fact losing faith in its own future.” I think the loss in social cohesion and the increasing individualism are caused by immigration, although the Pope does not say so clearly. This speech is clearly in favor of immigration: “Brother Bishops, I want to encourage you and your communities to continue to welcome the immigrants who join your ranks today, to share their joys and hopes, to support them in their sorrows and trials, and to help them flourish in their new home. This, indeed, is what your fellow countrymen have done for generations. From the beginning, they have opened their doors to the tired, the poor, the “huddled masses yearning to breathe free” (cf. Sonnet inscribed on the Statue of Liberty). These are the people whom America has made her own.” But unlike some Hispanic catholics, the Pope does not support population replacement as a way to increase the number of catholics in the USA. 55
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 08 Oct 2008 02:29 | # New three-part interview with Peter Brimelow just up. Both he and the interviewer talk a little fast part of the time, and also the non-studio acoustics have a very slightly muffled, indistinct quality, so you may have to listen closely in order to catch everything that gets said. But well worth it. 56
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 08 Oct 2008 04:51 | #
It’s like saying Genrikh Yagoda did not support genocide as a way to increase collectivization. What exactly does the Pope expect the outcome of mass Catholic migration from Mexico to be? What exactly did Yagoda expect the outcome of mass collectivization to be? Rome’s position, at least since Pius XII Summi Pontificatus, is that despite the preeminent role of European peoples for, according to Pius XII, the past four thousand years, “These races certainly aren’t innately superior to others”... In other words they’re interchangeable parts. Preeminent; Superior to or notable above all others; outstanding. What other conclusion can be drawn? The Roman Church recognises the superiority of the role Europeans played but deny it, in order to increase “the number of catholics in the USA.” 57
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 08 Oct 2008 06:32 | # Pius XII insisted that immigration is a natural right and duty. In 1946, he declared, that all people have a right to immigration, because the Creator himself demands access to material goods. In addition, compassion supports immigration rights. Conversely, no state which can support additional people, has a right to close its immigration doors without reason.[4]
1st Session of the 51st Legislature (2007) HOUSE BILL 1804 By: Terrill
Author Michael A. Scaperlanda writing in the Daily Oklahoman characterises the plight of illegal immigrants as the Jean Valjeans of Oklahoma, and the state as the relentless Inspector Javert on a mission to hunt them down. This, according to Scaperlanda, “offers the Church an opportunity to rise above partisan politics in a legally and morally complex situation” and offer Christian charity as given to the hardened criminal Valjean, in Hugo’s Les Miserables. The archbishop of Oklahoma City, Eusebius Beltran, and the bishop of Tulsa, Edward Slattery, have recently made attempts to do exactly that…Faithfully and courageously teaching Catholic social doctrine, each bishop has attempted to put a desperately needed human face on the “illegal alien.” Echoing the words of Pius XII, these two pastors remind us that “Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, living in exile in Egypt to escape the fury of an evil king, are, for all times and places, the models and protectors of every migrant, alien and refugee of whatever kind who, whether compelled by fear of persecution or by want, is forced to leave his native land, his beloved parents and relatives, his close friends, and to seek a foreign soil.” 58
Posted by Armor on Wed, 08 Oct 2008 12:06 | #
The Pope wants westerners to keep their Christian faith. He doesn’t believe in replacing Americans with catholic Mexicans, although this method is recommended by some people.
Indeed, there is a lack of coherence in what he says. 59
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 08 Oct 2008 13:57 | # Catholics who oppose stealth Jewish-and-Catholic-engineered genocide of whites effected throught the demography weapon (no longer “stealth,” actually — it was “stealth” in 1965, when it was, as now, a joint Jewish-Catholic project) will simply no longer be able to remain Catholics. It turns out the Ku Klux Klan, in bundling Catholics together with Jews as those who wished to harm Euros in this country, was right. 60
Posted by Armor on Wed, 08 Oct 2008 17:46 | # There may have been a time when Irish and Italian organizations were in favor of immigration so as to hurt American protestants, but it did not reflect the opinion of the Pope! The Pope would not have been in favor of immigration in the USA, and againt immigration in Ireland and Italy. 61
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 08 Oct 2008 18:49 | # Re: immigration to Italy. Pope calls for immigrant welcome But Northern League proposes points- based residence permits
62
Posted by silver on Wed, 08 Oct 2008 19:11 | # A simple explanation is the Catholic Church is happy to have one of its ‘doctrines’ be in accordance with liberalism for once.
Bit of a change from the days of Urban II. What a royal piece of excrement the pope is. 63
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 08 Oct 2008 19:21 | # In reply to Cardinal Martino’s comments just above, quoted by Desmond: I’m waiting for the Vatican to auction off all its art treasures and real estate, with the proceeds going to reimburse the tax payers who are being fleeced by government demands for money to fund immigration-related social programs and to pay for immigration-caused problems such as increased crime and so forth. When’s the big Vatican auction? Do these aging, self-interested, dishonest homos plan on putting their own property where their big mouths are? (And I’m not even talking about the most important hit Euro populations are taking because of the Vatican, race-replacement: they’re losing their race, something which cannot be reimbursed by all the money in the universe.) Until these narcissistic old fags put their own money, Vatican money, where their mouths are they need to STFU about immigration. 64
Posted by Matra on Wed, 08 Oct 2008 20:57 | # armor: There may have been a time when Irish and Italian organizations were in favor of immigration so as to hurt American protestants, but it did not reflect the opinion of the Pope! That was the case prior to the immigration restriction bill in 1921. The Knights of Columbus and organisations representing ethnic Catholics fought against the WASP restrictionists but there’s little evidence to suggest the Catholic Church itself participated in such battles. That changed in 1950s the Church under Pius XII declared (Exsul Familia) immigration and family reunification a human right. 65
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 08 Oct 2008 21:30 | # The Catholic Church also took a very strong position, in the 1950s, in favor of the forcible dismantling by the feds of segregation in the South. Catholic influence in this regard down there was felt mainly in Louisiana, Dixie’s Catholic state. 66
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 08 Oct 2008 21:34 | # The Protestants from the Know-Nothings of the 1850s on down turn out to have been right about the Catholics after all: Catholics never should have been let into this country in large numbers. And the reason is the same as the Prods have always said: their loyalty will be first and foremost to Rome and the Pope, not to the country itself. 67
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 08 Oct 2008 21:43 | # Which explains Catholic race-traitors like the Kennedys, John Zmirak and likely William F. Buckley, Jr., as well as explaining the bizarre total lack of concern about immigration on the part of Joe Sobran, Catholic, and John O’Sullivan’s insufficient concern, also Catholic. I could name tons of others. Needless to add, there are exceptions, just as with the Jews (Joe Guzzardi and Tom Tancredo, and tons of others I could name as well). But there’s a valid point in here which I think stands nonetheless, exceptions and all: Catholics are too little geared to the nation-state they live in, and too much geared to the Pope and Rome. 68
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 08 Oct 2008 21:50 | # Steve Sailer, Catholic, and James Fulford (one of the editors at Vdare.com), also Catholic, are another couple of exceptions I’ll hasten to name, and of course there are many more. The numerous exceptions do not invalidate the main point, though. 69
Posted by Matra on Wed, 08 Oct 2008 22:38 | # Which explains Catholic race-traitors like the Kennedys, John Zmirak and likely William F. Buckley, Jr., as well as explaining the bizarre total lack of concern about immigration on the part of Joe Sobran, Catholic, and John O’Sullivan’s insufficient concern, also Catholic. I disagree here, Fred. I think it is more a case of religion being an ethnic marker. That is, they are not old stock Americans and that is what matters more than how they worship. In the case of O’Sullivan he’s not culturally or politically Irish Catholic but a Brit who has lived in the US and Canada for a couple of decades. Sobran is of mixed ethnic background, possibly part Arab. Zmirak is half Croat, half Irish. Buckley was probably a pro-WASP Irish Catholic but he became successful at a time when Jews were taking over and he spent part of his childhood in Mexico. Besides, his worldview had more to do with maintaining his lifestyle than a genuine commitment to ideas. Needless to add, there are exceptions, just as with the Jews (Joe Guzzardi and Tom Tancredo, and tons of others I could name as well). Tancredo converted to Protestantism. Catholics are too little geared to the nation-state they live in, and too much geared to the Pope and Rome. Religious Roman Catholics perhaps. (Many religious evangelical Prods seem geared towards Israel!) But most of the open borders RCs in the US punditocracy are secular. 70
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 09 Oct 2008 00:02 | #
Secular or not, Matra, they still identify with their group, their tribe, no? Most open-borders Jews in the U.S. punditocracy are secular as well, but to me it’s clear as crystal Jewish motivation in this boils down to a variety of Jewish nationalism, exactly as it would boil down to Ulster-Catholic nationalism if Ulster Catholics kept supporting some policy that “stuck it to” Ulster Prods (or, mutatis mutandis, vice-versa). Same exact mechanism in the case of Jews resident anywhere in Euroland: by “sticking it to” Euros by supporting policies that damage them, weaken them, give them a hard time, make them look bad and decline, they’re fighting for themselves rather than going along with what’s “good for the non-Jews who are established in the place,” and thereby helping to support the ascendancy of “the other”, the non-Jews (us) over their own group, which they’ll naturally never do. 71
Posted by Armor on Thu, 09 Oct 2008 14:29 | # Unless the Pope takes a really strong stand against immigration (which he will never do), it makes little difference whether he says a few words in favor of or against immigration. I think the Catholic hierarchy in each country will continue to support or oppose immigration regardless of what the Pope says. Among European Americans in 2008, is there really more support for immigration from the Catholics than from other Christian churches? 72
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 09 Oct 2008 17:24 | # Armor, the Catholic Church’s influence and moral authority are huge, far bigger than the Church of England, the Lutherans, the Mormons, and so on. They could be a powerful voice questioning the morality, justice, and wisdom of the current genocide efforts leveled against Euros. But they refuse to question that. (It can’t be an oversight, of course, because what’s happening immigrationwise and its inevitable genocidal outcome are crystal-clear.) Not only do they refuse, they are actually joining in the genocide, essentially telling Euros, “You guys dropped us. Now you expect us to come to your aid against the non-whites when those very same non-whites love us and want to join us and support us? Come to your aid when you spat on us and made fun of us while they loved us and embraces us? You’ve got to be joking. Here’s what you Euros can do: you can go take a running leap.” 73
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 09 Oct 2008 20:36 | # I think the number-one rule for whites at the present juncture is very simply “Don’t miscegenate.” Whatever else you do, that comes first: it comes before every other rule. 74
Posted by Armor on Thu, 09 Oct 2008 23:31 | # I agree that the Catholic Church has been encouraging “the genocide campaign against white peoples”, although the Pope has also said that the identity of European peoples should be preserved (it’s a shame he didn’t say the “racial” identity!). What is misguiding is that the Pope is supposed to provide moral guidance, and some people will expect that his advice about welcoming immigrants has been carefully thought out from a moral point of view, when in fact, he simply goes along with the dominant ideology on this issue. But the Pope has not named immigration as a means to maintain Christianity in the West. He did say that Westerners should welcome immigrants. He did say that Christianity would be embraced by other peoples if it died out in the West. But he kept the two issues separate. Some Hispanic immigrants will tell Americans that “we” (speaking for Americans) should welcome our replacement by Mexican catholics in order to preserve American catholicism. But I don’t think the Pope ever said anything of the kind. 75
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 09 Oct 2008 23:58 | #
We can welcome some, Armor, and to welcome some is assuredly the christian thing to do. But we can’t welcome race-replacement quantities of them if they’re racially too different from us. That’s NOT the christian thing to do. That’s misguided auto-natiocide and isn’t called for by any religion and never has been since the beginning of time. That Rome refuses to clarify that simple truth, when they’ve got theologians galore just sitting around with time on their hands and nothing to do, is a crime. It’s a religious crime, a crime against Christianity. This pope should be gotten rid of, encouraged to take early retirement, and a new pope chosen who’s not a hundred years old to begin with so senility doesn’t ensue within two years of his taking office as generally happens with popes nowadays, and he should have race-realist views on things and a decent respect for the racial as well as ethnocultural elements of healthy communities and nations. 76
Posted by silver on Fri, 10 Oct 2008 11:14 | #
That’s why I called him a piece of shit. There’s nothing in Christianity which requires welcoming immigrants. If there is, why wasn’t it enunciated 1500 years ago? Why did popes give their blessings to crusader armies which killed and expelled “immigrants” from lands they weren’t wanted? And how is welcoming immigrants even “moral”? The church supposedly enjoins that which leads to harmony, brotherly love, justice etc. Immigrants rip societies apart. If the pope cared about immigrants he’d tell them to go back home and help build their communities instead of abandoning them in search of the almighty dollar. That’s what a pope seriously concerned with morality (instead of power) would say.
The Church is finally on the liberal side of an issue and it’s milking it for all it’s worth. Maybe the great pontiff thinks he’s going to sneak his way back into moral legitimacyin in the eyes of liberals this way. But neither liberals nor greedy capitalists need him to cheerlead immigration. It’s the act of a desperate man, of a dying institution, nothing more. If the Church had any brains it would realize the only reason it still has European followers (apart from the tiny percentage of true-believing fanatics) is the cultural familiarity it provides and thus market itself as a “bastion of Western Civilization,” rationalizing the ploy with some of the reasoning employed by Pascal’s Wager—give people a reason to consider faith, then your faith, then practise the motions and hopefully have them eventually reach a full level of religious devotion. 77
Posted by EA Steve on Sun, 12 Oct 2008 10:51 | # I agree, Fred. Not race-mixing is rule number 1. On an individual level, we technically can’t change immigration laws, but we can avoid procreating our own non-Whites. Non-White immigraton adds one non-White person, per capita (of one individual, chain immigraton notwithstanding). Race-mixing adds a non-White person, and cuts off (unofficially killing) a White person, per capita (of one person); additional mulatto children notwithstanding. Another negative to race-mixing, is that it puts White genes into the non-White genepool, thereby making it even easier for non-Whites to pick off our impressonible. Immigration actually throws in more non-Whites, hypothetically for the other non-Whites to marry.
79
Posted by silver on Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:51 | #
FFS, it’s the whole point, not a point (Scrubby), not merely sage advice, an astute principle (“damage control”) or noteworthy appurtenance. 80
Posted by Guest on Mon, 20 Oct 2008 19:37 | # You must surely envy us in the States, we have been so blessed with CHRISTIAN immigration! It is NOT about religion, it is about race. Keep it in perspective. Post a comment:
Next entry: Desperate times, desperate measures
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by Anonymous on Sun, 05 Oct 2008 01:05 | #
One of the most intelligent articles I have ever read. Many think that in the end Europe will perish due to the low birth rates of its constituent nation-states. However, Europeans will overcome their problems as they resist waves of barbarians entering the continent. Already, Italy has dispatched its military to key cities in order to remove foreigners who’ve only provided misery and grief to native Italians. Austria is experiencing a resurgence in nationalism that will soon spread across the continent. Other nations like Greece and Germany are resisting Islamization and other forces that if left unchecked will herald a new Dark Ages in Europe.
Let the “multiculturalists” drown in their own hypocrisies. If Muslims tells you that they have the right to build massive mosques in Europe, then tell them to allow Christians to build huge monasteries (or Jews to build massive synagogues) in Mecca and Medina. If they disagree, then tell them to take their hypocritical bullshit back to wherever they came from.
Multiculturalism is in retreat, which is why the European pro-immigrant elites are accelerating their efforts towards destroying the native cultures of Europe by demographically drowning local communities with foreign elements from God knows where.
For every action, however, there is a reaction. If immigrants (legal or illegal) can be brought in, then I am sure they can be kicked out. This has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with the survival of European cultures and ethnic groups. If these self-righteous pro-immigrant elites are content in committing acts of cultural genocide, then they should not be offended when Europeans decide to brand them as hypocrites, fascists, racists, and traitors.
Good day and keep up the good work.