|
|
|
The death of a multi-racialist Should there be European populations in Africa, living alongside Africans? To Ian Smith, the former Prime Minister of Rhodesia who died yesterday, and the man who unilaterally declared independence from Britain on 11th November 1965, the question did not even arise. The 300,000 white Rhodesians whose cause he championed were almost all of British descent, and almost all enjoyed a pretty good life in their southern fastness of the continent of the negro. That had to be made to continue. The shining commercial success, the gentle settler culture, the ties of family, the imaginings of belonging ... it was inconceivable that these things could be allowed to be lost, simply be given up. But where are they now?
Smith, of course, was a remarkable man in many ways, and his obituaries will dwell upon that. Those in the conservative and nationalist spheres will laud him as a man of his people and, in the light of the Mugabe experience, someone not without wisdom and foresight. How his words, from the Declaration of Unilateral Independence, resound now:-
A little further on in the Declaration, Smith held out the possibility that the African would, one day, be ready for self-rule:-
He said it, no doubt, out of political pragmatism. But he could not have believed it. Indeed, elsewhere he is quoted as saying:-
Really ... rightly, Smith was, first and last, a believer in the white tribe of Rhodesia. He trusted to their independence of mind, their industry and determination, and their self-reliance. In an age when self-doubt and self-hatred scarred the European mind, Smith trusted wholly to these settler qualities. Now, it’s easy for us today to support what Smith and his tribe attempted to do. It was magnificent to stand against the moralising, liberalistic nonsense spouted by the global great and good. And there’s no sane reason to invite an African “nationalist” to tea. But that’s not enough. Even if the impossible had happened, and Rhodesia had survived the odds (of 22 Africans to every white Rhodesian), it’s just not enough. The question arises whether the shallow cultural roots and economic goods that white Rhodesians thought they were protecting were, in fact, worthwhile. But life is more than these things, no matter that history is littered with similar collective errors of judgement. There are secondary interests and there is a primary interest. Smith and his Rhodesians were fighting for secondary interests, and a truly wise leader might have ventured to look ahead and divine their destruction anyway. After all, others did: white South Africa considered the game lost across the Limpopo, and used its army at the end to keep the border crossings open for escaping whites. Looking at Smith and UDI from our blighted vantage point today, it is odd to think that a black or Indian or Pakistani Smith might arise one day in an England rent by ethnic conflict and, in due course, certain to see a reclamation of sovereignty by its native people. How will we view someone who refuses to repatriate, and steadfastly holds that seventy or eighty years of family history here ... weddings, births and funerals ... homes made ... taxes paid ... qualifies him and his kind to stay? As a tragic figure, perhaps, at war with the spirit of the times. But mostly, we will think him mistaken. We would think the more of him if he could divine the lowly value of his interests here, and choose the higher interests of a true homeland and a secure future far away. Ian Smith was not such a visionary. He was a good man living, like his and every minority immigrant tribe, in the wrong place. Comments:2
Posted by Red Baron on Thu, 22 Nov 2007 02:16 | # Here’s was equivocation get you: http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/parliament_square/mandela/index.jsp Now, lets add some deep perspective and editorial aloofness to that. 3
Posted by zusammen on Thu, 22 Nov 2007 02:39 | # Well presented, Guessedworker. Post-colonial guilt modified politics which changed policy allowing the hordes to flood in seeking reparations which the guilty sons of colonists gladly pay by funding their own race replacement. Liberals get to stroke their obsessive moralizing egos and capitalists get to line their pockets by exploiting a brand new unwary population. Imperialism into ethnically distant regions is invariably suicidal for the ambitious nation’s native folk. The Africans were well enough in huts and lion skins amidst lush forests and dried enemy skulls. What, by Woden, is wrong with that anyway? 4
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 22 Nov 2007 02:46 | #
It’s absolutely true that that is THE real problem as Red Baron says; no question whatsoever. But I fail to comprehend the reason for Red Baron’s strenuous put-down of this excellent obit: did the following fateful statistic included therein escape RB’s notice?
RB, how does a British colonist in Africa disregard a stark statistic such as that, finally? Knowing it, how will he slumber soundly at night? I agree that London’s and D.C.‘s roles in Smith’s destruction and the hand-over of Rhodesia to the insane Negro butcher Mugabe will go down indelibly inscribed in the annals of historical infamy. But even without those two stabs in the back what future could Smith realistically look forward to for his people in that godforsaken Negro hellhole? You don’t think GW has a point? 5
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 22 Nov 2007 02:50 | # Red Baron, you’re posting from the U.K., I believe ... Do you have any Rhodesian family connection perhaps? 6
Posted by req on Thu, 22 Nov 2007 04:37 | # ”. . . it is odd to think that a black or Indian or Pakistani Smith might arise one day in an England rent by ethnic conflict . . . a true homeland and a secure future far away.” Which is it? England’s future is secure? More universalistic morality will solve our problems? Interesting quote by H.G. Wells (via Dawkins in “The Ancestor’s Tale”, so some context may be lost):
A semi-relevant study I recently stumbled across:
7
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 22 Nov 2007 11:59 | # I am, frankly, puzzled that my reasoning is offensive to Red Baron, and that Required completely misunderstands the point I am making. It isn’t complicated. The world, meaning the liberal Establishment, had called time on white Rhodesia. The proper place for white Rhodesians was not clinging to the dreams and memories of the past, but in the ancient homeland where “Smiths” are ubiquitous and will be better employed in a much greater and more worthwhile struggle. 8
Posted by Shangani on Thu, 22 Nov 2007 12:06 | # A confused piece of writing - immigrant tribes, wrong place, shallow cultural roots, etc. Is the author aware of the fact that neither Mugabe’s tribe, nor that of Nkomo, are indigenous to the region that used to be Rhodesia? Both were colonists, the Matabele only a short time before the Whites… Was Rhodesian culture worth protecting? Today the Africans seem to think so, with a majority wishing fervently that they could return to the “good old days” of Smith’s rule, when they had food, education, transport and jobs, AND, incidentally, the right to vote. Jan Raath, Harare correspondent for The Times, wrote: “It was better under Ian Smith,’ say Zimbabweans “The death of Ian Smith, the former prime minister of Rhodesia, was marked by “He will be remembered for being a racist, and for killing thousands of The view was different for Ambrose Madzovha, sitting in a crowded minibus on Ambrose was born in 1977, three years before a seven-year civil war ended “One thing I can tell you, Ian Smith was never corrupt. Mugabe is corrupt,” Twenty-seven years of relentless propaganda demonising Mr Smith as a To many young black Zimbabweans, though, the man who rebelled against the Unlike most deposed African leaders, Smith did not have to live behind a He drove himself to and from his farm, Gwenoro, in Shurugwi in the country’s Several times he found himself being saluted by police officers. Soon after Mr Mugabe’s violent invasions of white-owned land led to food It was not just Smith’s unconscious ordinariness or people’s memories of Smith was admired for his blunt speaking and for openly defying Mr Mugabe. 9
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 22 Nov 2007 13:13 | # Shangani, It’s not exactly news that Africans benefit under white rule. But that’s irrelevant. Life’s purpose is genetic continuity, not altruisitic “goodness”. All human behaviours are beholden to whether they are adaptive or maladaptive from the perspective of fitness. But behaviours that have been (even highly) adaptive do not necessarily remain so. The attempt to preserve white Rhodesia beyond the point that it could guarantee a stable environment for white genetic continuity was a case in point. Whatever sentiments of attachment existed, the overiding fact of survival was greater and more pressing by an order of magnitude. The difficulty, it appears, is not just that an extraordinary leader - more extraordinary than Ian Smith - is required to lead his people to safety in this way. All manner of historical figures from Moses to the Voortrekker leaders have done so. No, it’s that perceiving the values at work in it is still difficult and unfamiliar for some people. But, as I said, it isn’t complicated. If you are drowning it’s a good idea to let go of that pot of gold. Some people would prefer to drown, I suppose. 10
Posted by Duncan Tyyne on Thu, 22 Nov 2007 15:34 | #
I occasionally wear a Rhodesian Army T-shirt. It would show show the Negroes in Daleygrad exactly what I think of them - if they knew what Rhodesia was.
Libertarians, for instance, who see nothing wrong with damning their progeny to a world where Wal-Mart is the new General Motors and McDonald’s is considered fine dining, so long as it’s all an outcome of the “free” market. 11
Posted by norman lowell on Thu, 22 Nov 2007 18:08 | # Re: R.I.P Ian Smith, The Rhodesian Leader Ian Smith was a good man - sound and simple. Unfortunately, as SED Brown, Editor of the SA Observer had told me: Ian Smith did not realize, until too late - that the forces of international finance: I visited the Rhodesian parliament - an exact replica of the The House of Commons. Smiths secretary had traced me in order to grant me an appointment with him. Smith and brave Rhodesia finally succumbed to the enormous pressure applied by the USA. In today’s struggle against The Hidden Enemy, with his implacable hatred towards us - Imperium 12
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 22 Nov 2007 19:31 | # Mugabe’s men once shot down a civilian airliner using a Russian missile they’d obtained (maybe they did it more than once? probably did; I only remember this once). In a guerrilla war you deliberately shoot down a passenger airliner full of civilian travelers?? Beyond imagining, right?? Wait. There’s more. The pilot was skillful enough (white Rhodesian pilot; white airline passengers) to make it that the stricken plane didn’t just nose-dive into the ground but crash-landed, and miraculously there were survivors, including children. It took the Negro guerrillas many hours — most of a day, I think — but they got to the crash site in a remote area, and found the survivors in various states of grave injury. Imagine those miraculous survivors of that airline crash seeing help arrive after hours of, for some, staggering around trying to do what they could; for others, just lying there waiting. How happy they must have been! Then imagine them, some men, some women, and some children, realizing they weren’t about to be rescued. They were about to be executed. All survivors were gunned-down on the spot. I was living in Europe at the time and used to listen to reports about Rhodesia on the BBC World Service. I remember being unable to understand why there wasn’t great outrage at this. It was reported matter-of-factly and beyond that seemed to go more or less unnoticed. Why didn’t the Brit negotiators turn against Mugabe, the guerrilla leader whose men did it, and toward Joshua Nkomo, Mugabe’s more moderate and reasonable rival for power? I used to ask myself that. But I was in my twenties, just a kid. Didn’t know anything. And pure as the day is long. Full of ideals. Had difficulty understanding people who weren’t equally pure and full of ideals. Lots of difficulty. Used to ask others to explain it to me. Baffled at stuff like this. Couldn’t stop wondering about it, trying to figure it out. Let’s just say I’ve come to understand better since then how the world works. “Thousands of innocent young Zimbabweans”? That’s Mugabe’s vicious guerrillas he’s talking about? I can think of some other names for them. “Blood-drenched,” maybe? “Demons from hell”? That’d do. “Positively the sickest most terrifying Negro nightmare one can imagine”? That also. “Murdering savages, filthy animals”? That fits. But .......... “Innocent”? ........ Nah ........ I don’t think so ............... From where I’m sitting typing this I can smell the turkey roasting in the oven! We’ve got lots of people here, adults, teenagers, all chatting busily around the house. The room I’m in is quiet. It’s a little after one in the afternoon. Outside the window next to me the ground is blanketed with a few inches of snow. Two of the people who are here drove all night two nights ago to beat the snow (from nine hours away and six, respectively) that was starting to fall heavily just as they arrived and were walking in the front door at breakfast time. They quickly found warm beds and caught some sleep till noon. More arrived yesterday bringing wines, pies, cheeses, fruits, liqueurs, cookies, pastries, chocolates. Through the window a pair of cardinals (red male, reddish-brown female) and a pair of chickadees (black “caps” on top of their heads) are hopping around the bare branches of a plum tree. That tree gives the most delicious yellow plums in high summer. I’m watching a squirrel searching through the snow on top of an old wood-pile fifty feet away across the snow-covered lawn. Happy Thanksgiving, Americans! We know what we have to be thankful for this day. Let us solemnly remember it, let us humbly thank God for it, and let us ask for the strength and wisdom to defend and preserve it. Forever. And may God remember this day the innocent white Rhodesian farmers and the decent, brave white South Africans, the Boers, good folk, keeping them from harm at the hands of those who would harm them, and may a permanent solution be found for the undeserved plight that evilest, evilest men have brought upon them. 13
Posted by Duncan Tyyne on Thu, 22 Nov 2007 19:45 | # Good to see you around again, Mr. Lowell. Do you have any comments on the collapse of the ITS bloc in the EU parliament? Great post above by Fred Scrooby. I second: Happy Thanksgiving to all American comrades. 14
Posted by BGD on Thu, 22 Nov 2007 20:21 | # What a shame Ivor Benson is no longer around to write an obit and comment as ever (Behind The News) on these times. He was there at the time, intertwined and lost faith with Ian Smith 15
Posted by norman lowell on Thu, 22 Nov 2007 21:13 | # The usual story : petty nationalists fighting amongst themselves. Petty Nationalism at its best. So, to untangle the whole sordid mess, all across the present EU - Gypsies will be expelled or sterilised - for they can never change. The Squallid Socialists with their obnoxious spokesman, cheer wildly. That is why The New Right have got to be in Brussels. We of IE will be in Europe - and will lead a new group : Nova Europa. Imperium 16
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 22 Nov 2007 22:18 | # Very well, Norman, let us suppose that the existential European crisis reaches such extremis - and it will - that a re-galvanised right could seize the moment and offer a path to salvation through unity. This is means, not end ... the end being, obviously, the maximisation of European genetic interests (all other considerations being servants to that end). After creation of Imperium and the work of racial purification, do you see the maintenance of the power structure as necessary in perpetuity? Does it have another purpose after the “work”? What about the Actonite factor, which has applied to every power structure in the history of Mankind? And what about the fact that Nature already provides perfectly valid means to maintain racial purity (ie natural selection, notwithstanding the unhelpful latterday interventions of liberalism and the unfettered will, a traitorous elite, and Jewish ethnocentrism)? 17
Posted by Santa Ana on Fri, 23 Nov 2007 11:53 | # Smith’s trail of valour and righteoussness came to an end when South Africa stalled in support of his struggle. The fate of Rhodesia was heavily dependent on his neighbors to the south and east. With the collapse of Zalazar;s regime , Vorster saw the writing on the wall. The calculations on Vorster’s mind was to throw Rhodesia to the wolves, in order for SA to live for a few days more. The forces ranged against them were superior in materiel and resources - America , the UK, Russia, Europe) - ( the black armies had a nuisance value only) the whites lost the spirit to preserve themselves by continuing the struggle. The question will always be asked if it would have been more honorable to fight to the bitter end, or to have cowed in as it was the case ? Had they had the will and resolve to struggle for the preservation of white civilization , matters could have had a different outcome. 18
Posted by Wilthsire on Fri, 23 Nov 2007 12:06 | # Norman’s cosmovision and the future of Imperium are commendable and of utmost merit. It is the right solution, the correct one. However, how does one propose to take over Brussels ? By electoral shenanigans ?, circus type elections ? The forces occupying Europe have ring fenced these options. If a political party participates in elections, first it would have been sanitized by the liberal-leftists-judaic- globalist - multiracialist cabal, then infiltrated by their cohorts and think alike collaborationists, and then given the license to participate in the burlesque show of elections. The basic plan , is sound and practical, but getting to the station and becoming a station master to put it into execution , can not be carried out under present rules of the game. I don’t believe that anyone from within the system can topple the system. 19
Posted by Amalek on Fri, 23 Nov 2007 16:21 | # Cecil Rhodes himself was theoretically colour-blind, foreseeing “equal rights for every civilised man south of the Zambesi”. His supporters later opposed the relegation of non-whites to separate electoral rolls or votelessness in South Africa if they met educational and property-owning criteria, when many Boer voters were illiterate. Smith inherited that tradition. Southern Rhodesia had never been an apartheid polity. In 1967 there was not yet conclusive evidence that a very slow, evolutionary move towards black enfranchisement was sucidal for the builders of the nation. In any case, Smith had to find a path that was tolerable to his own people and not so provocative as to bring the wrath of the liberal universe down on tbeir heads. He bought them useful time. To castigate Ian Smith in the hour of his death for not telling his people to up sticks and move “home” (to a land many had not been born in) is perversely provocative. It makes about as much sense as calling for compuslory repatriation of British-born non-whites from the UK today. Guessedworker, you’re becoming a crank… with a whiff of impossibilist defeatism about you. The Wolfie Smith of white nationalism. 20
Posted by stari_momak on Fri, 23 Nov 2007 17:38 | # I agree with Amalek. While it might be nice imagining the indigeneous population of the UK and other European states rising up to expel recent immigrants and their descendents, just as the Africans expelled Europeans, the situation just doesn’t bode well for this possibility. Rhodesia—22 Blacks to 1 white, UK 10 or fewer whites to 1 non-white 21
Posted by Duncan Tyyne on Fri, 23 Nov 2007 20:13 | #
I suppose it was too much to hope that the very existence of such a bloc inside the EU parliament was a sign that we were moving out of the age of petty nationalism. The question remains: what were they fighting over? Is Mussolini so dense that she doesn’t know the difference between a Romanian and a Gypsy, or was she deliberately trying to stir up trouble? Either way, my previously high opinion of her has dropped dramatically. The Romanians are not entirely blameless either. They did not have to sink the whole bloc over such transparently ridiculous comments from a single politician (I understand the overall crime rate within Romania itself is actually quite low, Gypsies notwithstanding). Perhaps something even better will eventually arise to replace the ITS, but I fear that episodes like this will be par for the course, even among “nationalist” and “far-right” politicians, for as long as the “burlesque show” described so well by Wilthsire above continues. 22
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 23 Nov 2007 21:24 | # I wonder what Amalek’s solution is for heading off the Jew-approved proportions of “60-40, advantage ‘groids, ‘gloids, ‘loids, ‘ttoids, and ‘mmoids” (which, make no mistake, is coming, absent humane repatriation)? [‘mmoids = just general unidentified mystery meat] Sorry, repatriation is going to have to be worked out at some point or the game’s up. It’s that simple. Amalek, you can put that in your “Wolfie Smith” pipe and smoke it. 24
Posted by Proofreader on Fri, 23 Nov 2007 22:31 | # GW does have a point however, in pointing out that the likes of Ian Smith and his followers were sorely missed in the home country, during the infamous sixties. What a pity that the fighting, ethnocentric and bold English character was only alive in the outposts of the British Empire, not on its native soil. Just when the battle for survival was being fought home. And sadder still that White Rhodesians are being wiped out as we speak. Or that native Britons are leaving the Isles in droves, to be replaced by the dregs of the earth. There are days when I just cannot bear reading the papers. What is wrong with Europe? I suppose we Euros can afford to lose the USA, but our native lands? Never! Over my dead body. 25
Posted by Tommy G on Fri, 23 Nov 2007 23:51 | # Why I HATE white-liberals more than negro-welfare queens. 26
Posted by Al Ross on Sat, 24 Nov 2007 02:43 | # Amalek writes rubbish when he claims that many Boer voters were illiterate. Literacy and Christianity were the community’s cultural hallmarks, with the latter’s requirement of Bible-reading driving the former’s standards. 27
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 24 Nov 2007 03:30 | # Tommy, what the newspaper is doing in the article you link is deliberately pushing zero birth rates for white people in order to hasten the racial transformation which the immigration policies it also touts are aimed at. No it doesn’t say “this is intended for white people only” but it doesn’t need to: only white people can be reached by this sort of “green-trumps-having-babies” propaganda. Negroes, Subcons, Orientals, Mexicans, and so on are one-hundred percent impervious to it. It goes in one ear and out the other. The newspaper knows this. What the owners of that newspaper are doing is exactly like pumping poison gas into a room full of Negroes, Subcons, Orientals and whites, the latter the only ones who don’t have gas masks to put on: three guesses as to the aim of the one pumping the gas. That newspaper story isn’t something you happened to see on your walk around the neighborhood. It didn’t fall from the sky. It was carefully crafted and presented to you. For what purpose? Furtherance of a particular goal: driving white birth rates through the floor so non-whites can take over. The newspaper is hyping white childlessness when it could’ve put a zillion other articles in that space or taken a zillion other approaches to the issue than the one it took promoting zero white reproduction. Unfortunately some good whites will be influenced. Let’s hope not too many. If the newspaper were spouting low white birth rates together with zero immigration that would be one thing. But it’s not. It’s spouting low white birth rates together with non-white immigration rates that are through the roof. The newspaper itself thus gives the lie to its own “green” pretensions. What it’s really after is race-replacement: and Ziv-like, it’s not even hiding the fact. That’s how brazen they’ve become on the other side. 28
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 24 Nov 2007 06:08 | # Rhodes and his “supporters”, it appears, were interested in undermining Kruger and the independence of the Transvaal. Divide and Rule: The Partition of Africa, 1880-1914 Book by H. L. Wesseling, Arnold J. Pomerans; Praeger, 1996
29
Posted by stari_momak on Sat, 24 Nov 2007 18:21 | # Here you go Fred, combat this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=495495&in_page_id=1879 Regarding Amalek’s post, I feel it is necessary to face facts. The fact is the trend is not our friend. The trend was the Africans who expelled the Rhodesian whites, the Ugandan subcons (so many of who found their way to the UK), the ‘French’ (actually many Italians and Spanish) of Algeria and so on. The demographics are unpleasant to look at, but hiding from them is not helpful. 30
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 24 Nov 2007 19:17 | #
I commented on that, Stari, three posts above. It’s nothing but an artificially created “trend” the media want to see come true for real. See how it’s aimed at women. They create it the way they create trends for some new shoe style or make-up style. That’s all that is. Now have a go at this:
Repatriation hard? It’s funny, the Arabs don’t seem to think so. They just see what’s needed and then get on with it. So it’s all pretty simple actually (of course they don’t have legions of entrenched Jews methodically throwing the monkey wrench into things every step of the way, finally thwarting the whole deal, as we do here, but still — I think with determination the Jews can be overcome, and in any case they’re going to have to be — overcome, ignored, circumvented, vanquished, added to the list for expulsion themselves, whatever, otherwise Euros will go extinct in their own homelands, their “reward” for welcoming Jews in the first place and endeavoring to treat them fairly). How hard can it be? And who doesn’t remember the Malaysians getting rid of their illegals a couple of years back by simply hiring thousands of out-of-work civilians as temporary deputies to fan out in the cities and towns, find illegals and, by literally whipping them along in the streets using switches, canes, and bamboo rods, drive them to police stations whence to be ignominiously kicked out of the country? You saw photos of them actually being whipped along in the streets by deputies using four-foot bamboo rods. Malaysia straightened out its illegals problem in a matter of days. No agonizing over it, just doing it. So the Arabs and Malaysians are doing without batting an eye that which we find impossible. What do the Arabs and Malaysians know that we don’t? In fact every country in the world does it, except the Eurosphere. (Hat tip) 31
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 24 Nov 2007 21:24 | # I don’t see Amalek as fully aware of race. I suspect he thinks that with enough “environment” and “nurture” other races can be made, in their aggregates, the same as whites in theirs. I have news for Amalek: they can’t. And that’s the crux of the whole thing. Get hip to that, Amalek. Otherwise we’re talking past each other. 32
Posted by Amalek on Sat, 24 Nov 2007 21:35 | # Jawohl, Fuhrer Fred. When’s your Wannsee Conference? “White nationalism” is an oxymoron. I’m English, not “white”. There has never been a white nation, and attempts to lump people from the same major race together as “Europe” (no newer than Oswald Mosley post-WW2) are complete non-starters, as doomed as the USA. When MR started, I hoped it would become a meeting place for British folks of the following kinds: (1) Monday Clubbers, Promenaders, Rugby Union and MCC fans, Enoch supporters of old—solid Middle England bourgeois who don’t like the blackening and browning of the country. (2) The incipient sub-intelligentsia of the Right who would once have been relfexively Labour and leftish, but who have learned from experience. Some are already in the BNP: teachers whose schoos are jungles, local government administrators whose towns are being swamped with immigrants and so forth. it is striking how quickly their numbers are growing and their views being openly preached on the Guardian’s talk boards, for instance. (3) Cutural patriots and conservationists: folk singers, smallholders, local historians. (4) Ex-service people from the British Legion and the like, who have a keener sense of what is wiorth defending about England than most counterparts in Civvy Street and retain it after their service. (5) A sprinkling of political deep-thinkers, scientific racists and disillusioned anti-Cameroonie Tories to raise the brow level and chasten the inanities of the BNP. But what we have- and why I only drop in now and then to find it hasn’t changed- is a narrow forum dominated by a succession of overseas characters with axes to grind—JJR, Scrooby, Bowery, that von fellow who’s so boring one falls asleep typing his name. GW presides over a playpen for grumbly men with hobby horses such as “race replacement”, EGI, whether half-caste women look ugly, etc etc. These are often founded on defective historical understanding and dodgy demographic extrapolations, and in any case are miles away from the pressing priorities of Britons. You do not have a prayer of breaking out of the Grumbly Gated Community unless you get diown and dirty with day-to-day debate and drop most of the Occidental Review stuff. As for forced repatriation of British-born non-whites, I wouldn’t want to live in a country that did that. More to the point, neither would 99pc of the fellow Brits you must convert if you stand a chance of getting what you want. I’m more optimistic about old England. I suspect that most of you have given up and just enjoy lamenting the vices of the age, like the bleating, sneering eunuchs at AmRen. 33
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 24 Nov 2007 23:35 | # Amalek, Let me tell you how a successful group blog works. It is an exercise in the free market. It is not top-down diktat. The people involved, who include highly committed commenters, shape the discourse, and the blog owner should be grateful for it. Now, the offer to blog here was made to the esteemed William J Phillips, thence to Effra, thence to yourself. None have had the good grace even so much as to acknowledge the fact. Well, I have rhinoceros skin so here it is again ... You are a talented, engaging, wise but, on occasion, quite rude operator, and you probably don’t deserve the considerable respect I have for you. But I don’t mind being turned down by you a fourth time because we have fought a few battles elsewhere on the same side, and you have earned the merits. So, put up and shut up. Shape the blog ... attract the readers you desire as a writer on the sidebar, making your offerings in perfect editorial freedom as and when it pleases you. I cannot, as they say, be fairer than that. How about you? 34
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 24 Nov 2007 23:59 | # Amalek informs us that: “ ‘race replacement’ and EGI” [...] “are miles away from the pressing priorities of Britons” Boy, if he takes GW up on his offer I wonder what “pressing priorities” he’ll blog about then. Gee, somehow the “priorities” the Harry’s Place regulars find “pressing” don’t seem exactly the sort that’ll fly over here ... but ... if Constantin’s name puts him to sleep and his Harry’s Place stuff does the same for us, I guess we’re even all around so it’s OK, he can come ... 35
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 25 Nov 2007 00:25 | # The other thing about Amalek is he wants to give the appearance of race-awareness while striving to give the appearance of looking down his nose at race-awareness. When you get right down to it, I don’t think he’s race-aware. What Amalek is is a kind of snob, sort of like that Guardian editor interviewed in one of GW’s log entries, the son of a bitch who sent a spy out to destroy that ballerina from Yorkshire. Amalek talks about getting down and dirty with day-to-day debate. Sorry, but the schoolgirl-level tea parties which he favors, known as the Harry’s Place threads, aren’t exactly my idea of “getting down and dirty.” 36
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 25 Nov 2007 00:31 | # Fred, W J Phillips is a professional journalist and, as regards his many faces on the internet, a very good script-writer. What you see is a production called Amalek or whatever. The real WJP is elusive. 37
Posted by Tommy G on Sun, 25 Nov 2007 00:50 | # “I’m more optimistic about old England. I suspect that most of you have given up and just enjoy lamenting the vices of the age, like the bleating, sneering eunuchs at AmRen.”—Amalek Amalek, you forgot to include: Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!!! 38
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 25 Nov 2007 01:01 | # Not only is the Rhodes’ colour-blindness comment utter rubbish, the reference and change from all whites, to all civilised men is clearly intended to be inclusive, but not of blacks but of Jews, it is also evident from the writings of Albert Schweitzer, in 1961, that blacks could never be the equal of whites. “If you befriend them and treat them as equals they will destroy you”, said Schweitzer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKmVZ8iLYYo In 1967 there was not yet conclusive evidence that a very slow, evolutionary move towards black enfranchisement was sucidal for the builders of the nation. Utter tripe and nonsense. Amalek: “Pre-war writers such as Spengler, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Madison Grant, Lothrop Stoddard and Julius Evola are often mocked for their fears that the North European peoples were in danger of extinction. They feared that the civilisation Northern Europeans had spread across the earth could not be inherited and sustained by other races whose larger numbers were largely facilitated by our medicine. Maybe the shrinking white majority will awaken in time and find some way either of slowing its marginalisation or of forming a nation-sized stockade within North America. But the USA is caught on the horns of its own rhetoric. Ever since 1776, with increasingly goofy and self-destructive sincerity, the Founders and their descendants have been telling the incomers how welcome they are and how easily they’ll fit in. With other whites, it worked after a fashion, as long as foreign enemies could be found to keep the country together under arms and orders. With blacks, colour-blindness and individual opportunity never clicked; they’re not like that. With browns, the incomers don’t even want to fit in. So it’s a tough one.” Which is it Amalek? Either there is a bounty of evidence, available to Smith and the Rhodesians, that black enfranchisement was suicidal for whites or you’re a stupid senile git. 39
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 25 Nov 2007 01:06 | # GW thanks for that info on him but you know, all he ever seems to do is snipe. Back when he was “Effra” he was more helpful. His posts always had content then. No more.
Then you’ll live in a country no one wants to live in including Englishmen, who are leaving in fricking droves or haven’t you been keeping up? People talking about race-replacement and EGI right now are all that’s standing between your “Old England” and “Brazil-on-the-Channel.” Besides, you talk about old-style Enoch sympathizers while it couldn’t be clearer that you, you hypocrite and snob, you would have opposed Enoch forty years ago as you oppose those today who take his notions to their logical conclusions. You’d have looked down your nose at him and called for “Old England.” You don’t have the right to side with him now, we do. You’re not a gentleman of the old school, you’re a plastic imitation who goes for appearances not substance. Anyway the proposal isn’t “forced repatriation.” It’s a push-pull agenda including, on the pull side, generous financial reimbursement packages raised to a level a great many will jump at the chance to accept (yes the money can be found if they put their minds to it and tell Bush to go to hell next time he wants them to spend their money fighting his crimes-against-humanity wars for oil and Israel) and, on the push side, elimination of all welfare, laws, rules, regulations, and directives having as their effect to favor the well-being, birth rates, prospects for advancement, and so on, of non-whites over Brits, rescinding of all restrictions on freedom of association, lifting of all “hate” laws, and so on. What will begin thereby is a process of slow but sure diminution of non-white advantage and restoration of the original circumstances and racial proportions prevailing when things were sane. And it goes without saying all non-white immigration immediately brought to zero and all non-white illegals ejected without questions, delay, or appeal of any kind. 40
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 25 Nov 2007 01:16 | #
Although I could damn well go for some “forced repatriation” around here, and make it Malaysia-style, complete with whipping them down the street with bamboo rods to the detention centers. Get some of that going in the Eurosphere countries and I’ll dance a jig, film it, and post it on YouTube. Hell, I’ll break-dance, complete with moon-walking, Michael Jackson style. Then I’ll fly to Australia and do some waltzing with Melba Peachtoast’s wallabies, all filmed for YouTube. 41
Posted by Proofreader on Sun, 25 Nov 2007 01:36 | # Amalek cannot be serious when he says 99 pc of Brits are against forced repatriation of alien UK passport holders. The real figure must be around 50 %. But he does have a point in a way when he says the discussion here at MR does not always address genuine UK concerns. “Act locally, think globally” is a wise course of action, provided the word is also spread locally. Now, please, Amalek, accept GW´s offer or shut up. 42
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 25 Nov 2007 01:39 | #
Well that’s so but this blog isn’t supposed to be exclusively about the U.K.‘s concerns. Is it? I thought it was more general in scope. 43
Posted by Proofreader on Sun, 25 Nov 2007 02:11 | # Fred, How to turn, e.g., EGI and Horizontal Transmission into workable concepts that the average man -and I count myself as one- can use to make a difference in the real world? 44
Posted by GT on Sun, 25 Nov 2007 02:12 | # W J Phillips is a professional journalist ... Therefore, financial interests define his positions. 45
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 25 Nov 2007 02:42 | # What preferences? On one hand, as Phillips, he opines that the Wannsee Conference is a crock; http://lipstadt.blogspot.com/2005/03/balance-of-absurd.html#c111096682609369232
and then as a re-incarnated desert nomad tribesman, Amalek, allegedly smiting the feeble Hebrews in the ancient Sinai, he feeds us this jive trash about forced repatriation. Will the the real preferences please stand up. 46
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 25 Nov 2007 02:54 | # More of Amalek’s preferences at GNXP.
47
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 25 Nov 2007 04:03 | # Off the subject of race but on the subject of U.K. affairs, in 2003 or 2004 a commenter at GnXp signing as WJ Phillips stubbornly defended sending that English farmer to jail who shot and wounded a burglar who’d broken into his home for the Nth time at night in order to rob him for the Nth time (the farmer had been robbed so many times by this same robber that he decided to lie in wait for him through the night with a shotgun). That farmer got sent to prison for seven years I think, for wounding that dangerous intruder who repeatedly entered his home during the night with the intent to rob or possibly worse. The commenter signing as WJ Phillips was totally in favor of jail time for the farmer. I know this because I was the one principally arguing against him. 48
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 25 Nov 2007 04:12 | # I think if WJ Phillips/Amalek “got his druthers” a lot of things in the U.K. would be better, a lot would be appallingly worse, and a lot would stay appallingly the same. The soundness of his judgment varies exceedingly from topic to topic (something which makes him perfectly suited to be a regular at Harry’s Place, a blog which, if they awarded Pulitzer Prizes for Sheer Dullness, would win one hands down). 49
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 25 Nov 2007 05:23 | # Norman Lowell refers, in his comments above, to the five Rs. The five Rs stand for those things which we are, in his view: we are radical racialist right revolutionary reactionaries. I think that’s a pretty good summary of our side’s characteristics in five words, though I myself am partial to the term “Progressives” for us. (Yes, I know the left has taken that word; no, I don’t care in the slightest. That word describes us, not anyone or any group on the left. They’re all properly and most accurately described by the word degenerate and should be known collectively as the Degenerates.) Lowell is a very good speaker, I find. Here he’s speaking two years ago in London: part 1, part 2, part 3. 50
Posted by skeptical on Sun, 25 Nov 2007 05:39 | # The U.K. seems unwilling (and unable) to repel the non-White invasion (and restore Old England) for the same reasons that apply to just about every other Western country. This same psychological disease is shared by the varying U.K., Sweden, Germany, USA, Australia, Canada, etc. There’s very little these countries share except for a relatively similar racial heritage. Ergo, the problem must be psychologically addressed and dealt with at the racial level (since it’s not a problem unique to the U.K. or some other country). 51
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 25 Nov 2007 05:57 | # Desmond’s last comment above, incidentally (1:54 AM), proves that at least in the year 2003 Amalek was not race-aware. I’ll go further and say, based on Amalek’s comments, he’s still not. Amalek is one of these people who do not see race as being genetic, but think it’s an acquired trait. 52
Posted by Lurker on Sun, 25 Nov 2007 07:00 | # A few years ago (pre MR) in various comments on other sites I became aware of WJP/Amalek etc being very race aware. In fact, at that time, Id never seen anyone write about it so explicitly (still being a good little wooly liberal I assumed that ‘racists’ were skinheads - probably with horns and pointy tails). I find it somewhat hard to believe this is the same person writing now. WJPs list of concerns sounds all very well but without a halt to immigration its going nowhere. Everyone knows that once the population of the UK (or any of our countries) is 50.000000001% non white, all bets are off. We know thats the point the race replacers are waiting for. Theyve probably got a Sasco year planner with a sticker on the exact day, the day they can stop lying and take the kid gloves off, after all once whites are a minority they wont have a right to complain, the wishes (carefully directed) of the majority will predominate. Multiculturalism, plurality and ‘tolerance’ will fly out of the window faster than a rock stars TV and it will be welcome to South Africa/Rhodesia at worst, Brazil at best. 53
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 25 Nov 2007 07:26 | # Well then, Lurker, he’s a schizo, literally a split personality. That, or there are two or more different individuals signing as “WJ Phillips”/“Amalek.” You can’t be race-aware and write what Desmond quotes him (above) as writing in 2003. That’s not possible. I think schiz may in fact be what fits him best, thinking back on a few things. He’s a very smart guy — too bad he can’t act normal or be consistent. But he can’t. 54
Posted by Proofreader on Sun, 25 Nov 2007 10:00 | # Whatever his shortcomings, Fred, it’ s always a pleasure to read Amalek’ s provocative and witty comments. And his writing style is simply superb. 55
Posted by Duncan Tyyne on Sun, 25 Nov 2007 14:39 | # Amalek wrote:
The USA is certainly doomed, and it might have been doomed from the very beginning, but it obviously wasn’t a “complete non-starter.” A case can be made that the USA was permanently altered by the addition of Slavs and Italians to the previous 100% northwestern European population, but not in a destructive way - the country became a superpower after absorbing waves of such immigrants. The federal system, with its separation of powers, allowed for the USA’s various peoples to “observe necessary general and common laws without abandoning the culture which was their very own,” to paraphrase Alain de Benoist. This is why even today we notice differences between various regions, i.e. New England, the South, the Midwest, the Pacific Northwest, etc. The USA has not been the only entity to practice something like this: The Austro-Hungarian Empire was a long-lived attempt at what we might even call a “proto-Imperium Europa” on the old continent. It failed for a variety of reasons, among them the lack of agreement on a lingua franca and (obviously) WWI. However, while it did not last nearly as long as the USA has thus far, it experienced similar healthy economic growth and “liberal” social reformation. I could go on about how England itself is a product of several different white peoples, but the main issue is this: both England and the USA are being destroyed by the same enemies. They are under attack by non-white aliens from without and by the liberal establishment/organized Jewry from within. In the case of the USA in particular, the nation’s doom was sealed not when the Founders limited citizenship to “freeborn white persons,” but when the 1965 Immigration Act effectively reversed this limitation. 56
Posted by Steve Edwards on Sun, 25 Nov 2007 16:53 | # The mistake, though it could not have been forseen at the time, was for the white man to go into Africa in the first place. Because today the continent would still be a complete disaster, but it would not be possible to blame it on colonialism. 57
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 25 Nov 2007 16:56 | # In Europe there’s a commonly-encountered sort of liberal — personally very pleasant, very gentle, means well, but who understands nothing whatsoever about what’s going on in the world, who smugly blames everything that’s wrong anywhere on the planet on a certain type of “appalling American.” Everything. No exceptions. Absolutely none. This type of European doesn’t hate all Americans. Not a bit. For him, there are good Americans, such as Martin Luther King, Teddy Kennedy, and Bill & Hillary — most of all, Martin Luther King. No, the ones he hates are the appalling variety, like Ronald Reagan. They’re the ones who’ve caused all the evil that exists in the universe and keep on causing it. This type of European always takes a stand opposite to what he imagines the appalling type of American would take. It’s a reflex: he doesn’t need to think about it, since the appalling type of American is what’s causing all the evil in the universe, so whatever’s the opposite must be good. Plain as day! For example, if the appalling type of American warns against letting too many Negroes into a white country this sort of European favors letting lots of Negroes into his country: the appalling Americans oppose it, so it’s right. If the appalling type of American opposes jail for a farmer burglarized umpteen gazillion times who shoots the intruder next time, this sort of European favors jail. The appalling Americans oppose jail for this farmer, so jail is right. They’re bad, so whatever’s the opposite is good. If the appalling type of American talks about race-replacement, EGI, repatriation, and so on, this sort of European rejects and disdains all of those notions which must be appalling since the appalling Americans, the ones who’ve brought all this badness upon us all, talk about them. For this sort of liberal-lefty European the solution to all Europe’s, nay all the planet’s problems is to do the diametrical opposite of what the appalling Americans want. Do that, and everything will go swimmingly. Just do it automatically. Don’t even think about it. The Americans are pure evil. WJ Phillips, I suspect, is exactly this sort of liberal-lefty European (or originally started out as one, then had to be dragged kicking and screaming into a more nuanced view of things). As a group their most basic orientation is a unthinking anti-Americanism which trumps all other considerations and all logic. If the appalling Americans say white they’ll say black, and vice-versa, and so on, and so forth — it’s as simple as that. That’s fundamentally the whole of their outlook. They see nothing beyond opposing the appalling Americans. Viewing WJ Phillips/Amalek in that light certainly would explain a number of things. Because, clearly, he’s not quite that simplistic at present, I think what likely happened is he started off that way years ago, yes exactly that simplistic because it still shows in him unmistakably, then got “mugged by reality” numerous times in the course of things, such that over time he had to make exceptions to his fundamental left-liberal anti-Americanism-trumps-all Weltanschauung, so now he’s kind of a mixed bag, BUT still 1) fundamentally a bitter anti-American as his general unwavering approach to things, and 2) is all the more anti-Yank because he’s resentful that reality has forced him to stray somewhat from the pure anti-Americanism of his early days which he liked far better, and felt far more comfortable with, than his present mixed-bag position which he finds an awkward “fit” and dislikes. So he hates Americans doubly: once for being Americans and once because reality has forced him to slightly adjust his views about them. I suspect the above may sum up WJ/Amalek. And no, Amalek definitely would not have supported Enoch at the time. He’d have felt horror at what he’d see as this intrusion of appalling Americanism into Old England, and would’ve joined the others in condemning Enoch for “creating a problem by talking about it. That’s something appalling racist Americans do. Men of Old England don’t do that! Stop it, Enoch! There’s nothing wrong with those of different race, now stop introducing horrid Americanism here! You’re going to create a problem where none exists. If only people like you, doubltess influenced by those horrid Americans, wouldn’t talk aobut it, it wouldn’t happen and everything would continue as is and be fine!” 58
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 25 Nov 2007 17:03 | # I’ll add that I’m one of the biggest anti-Americans around. But for the right reasons, not the supremely stupid reasons motivating the above sort of liberal-lefty European. 59
Posted by skeptical on Sun, 25 Nov 2007 17:07 | # Duncan Tyyne, “The USA is certainly doomed, and it might have been doomed from the very beginning, but it obviously wasn’t a ‘complete non-starter.’” I’d like to hear a reasoned justification for this kind of bold pronouncement. And, more specifically, from what kind of personal experience with the U.S. do you draw this conclusion? As a country, the USA is very difficult to understand both in its complexity and magnitude, even to the native born (and of native stock). The USA is not without a few advantages: - An extensive history of mass race awareness and conflict. If I remember correctly, it was in colonial outposts like the U.S. that the moniker “White” was first adopted to distinguish between the racial other. And don’t forget that our most bloody conflict was not WWI or WWII but the Civil War. In fact the state flags of Mississippi, Georgia, and Texas still carry some of the symbols of the Old Confederacy. - Many parts of the U.S. have preserved elements of a more traditional Western society that seem to have been abandoned by Europe’s denizens. To the dismay of elites both in the U.S. (and abroad) the current acceptance of racial dogmas is only skin deep (if that) in certain areas. - Secessionist movements have a history in the U.S. If people felt it was needed to secure their way of life from a tyrannical government (and to stop the spread of the polyglot other) then the tool of secession could gain regional widespread acceptance as a method of racially separating America. - Parts of America are armed to the teeth. All households in my neighborhoods own 2-4 guns per house and at least one person in each household knows how to use them. If people ever wizened up (en masse) to what the non-White invasion is all about I am sure that where would be many who would be willing to resist forcefully. Of course, Europe’s great advantage over the U.S. (and Australia) is that it’s not prone to the same “nation of immigrants” propaganda that works over here. Being the ancestral homeland of much of the White race brings a unique advantage. However, of all the White people I see in multicultural, multiracial America it’s the Europeans working here who seem the most prone to miscegenation and a general lack of race awareness. They look down upon those of us who carry guns and think us crazy when we rail against the tyrannical federal government. In many ways I have less hope for Europe if the continent is comprised of people that are anything like these in America. 60
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 25 Nov 2007 18:00 | # When I went to Zimbabwe in the summer of 2000 to see the situation for myself (this was before I realized that my career had been destroyed by the H-1b visa program, so I thought I had the luxury of self-financing some activism) I went to the offices of the other Common Wealth countries to obtain immigration information. The response was a sheepish expression of resignation on behalf of those Rhodesian whites who were of pioneer stock. You see, if your ancestors had all been pioneers of Rhodesia from Great Britain - the people who did the real work and made the real sacrifices to build that nation’s economy and infrastructure—you did not qualify to escape Zimbabwe because none of your ancestors were from Great Britain recently enough. Yes, I meet some people of that heritage who couldn’t escape. 61
Posted by Duncan Tyyne on Sun, 25 Nov 2007 23:25 | # skeptical, I did not mean to say that the white peoples of America were doomed in the same way that the Rhodesian whites were, only that America, in its present existence as a globalist “hyperpower,” cannot possibly continue to provide a life worth living to these white peoples. America is living far beyond its means and causing a deflation of its currency, while waging insane foreign wars and welcoming wave after wave of non-white immigrants, both legal and illegal. Its middle class, which James Bowery equates (correctly in my opinion) with the white populace at large, is being squeezed into lower and lower standards of living. When things finally come to a head, the advantages you listed above, insofar as they remain, will come in handy as the various peoples of America struggle to rebuild. I’m not sure this struggle would be so massive and violent as to justify calling it “Civil War II” (as does Tom Chittum, in a book which I have not read), but it obviously will involve great unrest and will require huge sacrifice and effort. As for my personal experience with the USA: I live in Chicago. Allow me to repeat what I’ve posted on another thread about that city here.
If I come off as pessimistic, hopefully this will give you more insight into why. Here in the city I also like to call Shitcago or Daleygrad, I personally witnessed two massive illegal alien marches, one on the anniversary of the Senate ratification of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the other a short time later, corresponding with the communist celebration of May Day. Our white mayor very publicly and aggressively supported these invaders, and throngs of white liberals, mainly Irish who are proud to call themselves “the niggers of Europe,” turned out to support them as well. White liberals and clueless suburbanites have heaped praise on the aforementioned mayor for “beautifying” the city. What he really has done is add hideous modern structures to the downtown area which distract from the even more hideous ghettos. I do not see how the lauded “gentrification” of several of these ghettos can possibly continue, as long as the government keeps raising taxes to fund utterly useless road construction and multi-million dollar “community centers” for homosexuals. Even after “gentrification” has taken place, many areas still look filthy and run-down. Of course, shiftless Negroes roam almost all areas of the city at all hours of every day. I could probably go on for page after page about Chicago, but I hope I painted a rosy enough picture with what I’ve already written. I suppose I see Chicago as a microcosm of all America nowadays: multiracial, politically corrupt, addicted to (over)spending public moneys on garbage. Certainly, the establishment throws table scraps to those of us who voice dissent, as in Chicago’s “beautification” and “gentrification” and the Bush government’s occasional immigration raids, but all in all they continue serving us the same liberal/neocon Kool-Aid. With regards to Europeans, I would tend to agree that they are more liberal and less racially aware than white Americans, with the qualifier that we are talking about “western” Europeans: British, French, Dutch, Belgians, Germans, Austrians, and some Scandinavians, Spaniards, and Italians. One of the few advantages I’ve had living in Chicago is the opportunity to become acquainted with many native Poles. Old-time American masculinity seems to resonate well with the Polish men I know, who excel at manual labor, keep their daughters away from Negroes, and even hunt and go to gun ranges. I once saw a Polish woman make a huge scene at a party when she intervened to stop her daughter from flirting with a Negro. In fact, if I’m not mistaken, public officials in England have castigated Eastern European migrants for failing to accept their non-white counterparts. This is not to start another argument over whether Slavs or Anglo-Saxons tend to be more in favor of race-replacement, but to show some of our European kinfolk in a more positive light. Furthermore, a friend of mine who recently traveled in France observed that the much-ballyhooed rudeness, anti-Americanism, and liberalism of the French is highly exaggerated. Thomas Fleming seconds in his latest post on the Chronicles Magazine website: http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=409. All in all I think I agreement with you about America, although I have a more “glass is half empty” perspective. This makes sense, given that you say you live in a place where there are 2-4 guns per household. That certainly isn’t Chicago! 62
Posted by Lurker on Sun, 25 Nov 2007 23:52 | # Its a shame about those Irish folks siding the invaders. Im sure the non-white brothers will remember that when they are in charge </irony> Re French rudeness. I think thats mainly Parisians, and of course US tourists disproportionally go to Paris. Out in other parts of the country its different. Thats what French people (yes, they think that about Parisians too!) and Brits have told me and from my personal experience. 63
Posted by skeptical on Mon, 26 Nov 2007 00:20 | # Duncan Tyyne, Oh, I certainly agree that the current ruling power structures and accepted political discourse, which dominate and control the USA, will run it straight into the ground. It’s unfortunately true that much of the U.S. is lost (and from your account that would include Chicago) and if the hellhole that is multicultural, multiracial, metropolitan America was all I knew then I would certainly share your pessimism. I am sad to hear that you’ve probably never experienced the White traditionalist remnant that is (to me) the real America. To share a story, my family was sharing Thanksgiving mealtime conversation when the topic came to Europe. One of the older women in the family voiced her sadness that White peoples in Europe were giving away their continent to anyone that would show up. Everyone agreed and expressed dismay over what was happening both to us and to our “brothers” across the pond. And while I am probably the only explicit WN in the family it’s hard to feel alone amongst such as these. Again, this is getting back to the point that the U.S. is difficult to understand. But a strong White traditionalist remnant remains. They’re still having large families while the white liberals are not (and consequently dying out). It stands to reason that in time they’ll be all that’s left of the White race in America. That thought always brings a smile to my face. You’re correct, I was referring to predominantly Western Europeans earlier. I would imagine that Eastern Europeans (from everything I’ve read) are a different kettle of fish when it comes to these matters. 64
Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 26 Nov 2007 00:21 | # Sadly,James Bowery’s observations regarding immigration are exactly right and the reason that such an insane situation obtains is because the social-Marxists running the EU dictated policy to Britain whereby the ‘right of abode’ of ‘Overseas Brits’ must cease after the third generation. This piece of nonsense on stilts was to appease the EU bureaucracy’s ubiquitous ‘anti-racists’ who could’nt bear the thought of Australians, Rhodesians etc gaining exclusive entry to their forebears’ homeland under what they saw, through the twisted prism of racial egalitarianism, as the banner of ‘White privilege’. The sensible Chinese government policy on immigration was pointed out to me by a Singaporean IT guy of Indian extraction who complained of delays in obtaining his China work permit while his fellow citizens of Chinese descent got theirs immediately along with a reminder from the Shanghai immigration officer that, as Oversea Chinese, they were eligible for a China passport. 65
Posted by Another Lurker on Mon, 26 Nov 2007 00:38 | # WJP seems much less willing to take up the fight than he once did, when he extolled the folk of Majority Fights into flame wars with whichever liberal blog he had taken up residence as troll in chief. The Guardian Talk (not comment is free) boards attract a surprising cross-section of views, and are (even more surprisingly) very lightly moderated. There are discussions of James Watson thousands of posts long, yet the latest incarnation of our man in fleet street will post only on classic television. 66
Posted by Duncan Tyyne on Mon, 26 Nov 2007 01:26 | #
I confess, sometimes I despair too much and come off like a whiner. I do have the advantage of coming from a large, hard-working white family, and I have close extended family who live in Indiana who are probably even closer to what you describe. I actually was not exposed to the full force of the Chicago shitstorm until I was in my early twenties, when I was pulled there by economic forces (that is to say, I had to work where jobs were available after finishing college). I think it was my early positive experience with my own relatively healthy white family that made me despise it all the more. I, too, have had discussions like the one you had at Thanksgiving, mainly with my father and uncle. And your point about white liberal vs. traditionalist birthrates definitely hits home with me. A sure sign that the “gentrification” of Chicago will be short-lived is the yuppies’ preference for Hummers and Range Rovers over children. All my complaints about my home city may lead to questions over whether I plan to leave it. I have already tried twice to relocate, unfortunately without success. I am going to continue, though: Chicago is a tiger I’m not willing to fight. 67
Posted by Lurker on Mon, 26 Nov 2007 01:45 | # I meant to refer to the right of abode business that Al mentions. Its many a Guardian readers pornographic fantasy to be at passport control one day and witness white Rhodesians being turned away (preferably by a non-white official) while a party of black asylum seekers are cheerily waved through. 68
Posted by Duncan Tyyne on Mon, 26 Nov 2007 01:53 | #
I’m of Irish descent myself, so I’ve given the phenomenon a lot of thought. The Irish have produced many, many arch-liberals over the years, not the least of which include Ted Kennedy and Mad John McCain, and its young people seem especially prone to become wiggers. I like to think this is just the result of their suffering at the hands of the English establishment for so long (earlier on) and the modern obsession with victimhood (now). I’ve heard young Irish-Americans wax on about how they were “persecuted” when the opportunity arose to get in good with Negroes and other “victim” groups. Ironically, it’s probably these people who today would be most indignant if they knew about the recent genetic study which showed the Irish, English, and Welsh to be essentially one people! 69
Posted by Lurker on Mon, 26 Nov 2007 02:52 | # Duncan - Im assuming with a name like McCain, Mad John (like that name!) is more likely of Scots-Irish origin, though with interbreeding over the years… About ten years ago I was watching daytime TV (in the UK) some sort of audience debate type of thing (for any Brits reading this it could have been Kilroy, cant remember). Debate was Racism, discrimination etc. An Irish woman got up and was giving vent to what you referred to, Irish victimhood, persecution and so on, its just as bad for the Irish as the blacks - in effect a plea for resources, special treatment, ethnic preference whatever you want to call it. The non-whites in the audience were having none of it and shouted her down! 70
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 26 Nov 2007 03:22 | # The Irish are going to pay for their stupidity: Ireland is going to be one of the first European countries, maybe THE first, to be effectively totally race-replaced. As things now stand they’re not too far from the point of no return in that regard, and no voices whatsoever are being raised to question what’s going on or slow it down. None. Not one. You’d think they’d wake up. You’d think wrong. What you’re seeing now, Euro races going willingly out of existence, has never been seen before. Whenever it happened before — the Visigoths, the Ostrogoths, the Old Prussians, the Vandals, many others all now extinct — they complained, they worried, they struggled, they fought for lands, they killed, they wanted to survive. You should read how the Old Prussians, a Baltic not a Germanic people, fought for survival against the Teutonic Knights who finally extinguished them. They didn’t want to go out of existence as a people. In these Euro nations of today who go out of existence willingly you’re witnessing a first, never before seen by human eyes. And all the micks ... oops, excuse me ... all the Irish can do is whine about the English, how badly they were treated; meanwhile you can’t find an Irish face in Dublin for the ocean of Negroes, Chinamen, and assorted mystery meat that’s been brought in. But rather than see the doom all around them they’ll whine about the English till Doomsday (which for them can’t be too far off now ...) 71
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 26 Nov 2007 03:41 | # Oh, excuse me, Amalek, I should’ve been more cognizant of the fact that talking about it is the problem: if only everyone, especially those appalling Americans like me, would stop talking about it there’d be no problem, none, and immigration continuing as it’s been would turn out just fine. OK everyone, let’s just stop talking about it — Amalek has a point ... And no more talk of EGI either: Amalek says that’s the furthest thing from what’s most important to the English nation today. He wants to get back to Old England and the way to do that is to STOP TALKING ABOUT IMMIGRATION, RACE REPLACEMENT, AND EGI, EVERYONE! SO JUST EVERYONE SHUT UP ABOUT IT, LET THE E.U. DO ITS THING — IT KNOWS WHAT ITS DOING — AND ALL WILL BE FINE, AND WE’LL BE BACK TO OLDE ENGLAND QUICKER THAN YOU CAN SAY PROFESSOR FERDINAND VON WHATISNAME! GUARANTEED! 72
Posted by Duncan Tyyne on Mon, 26 Nov 2007 04:05 | #
You are absolutely correct, McCain is Scots-Irish. It would be a big mistake on my part to not make the distinction, because I too am Scots-Irish. I wonder, though: does Ulster produce people who are any less prone to suicidal behavior? Interesting story about the TV debate. I always thought that the Irish claims to victimhood were exclusively an American phenomenon - unfortunately this isn’t the case. Perhaps native Irish and Irish living in the UK, such as the woman you mention, are inspired in these matters by Irish-Americans. I understand St. Patrick’s Day used to be a solemn, holy day in Ireland, before the drunken revelry known here was imported. Fred, I do not follow goings-on in the Republic of Ireland and had no idea things were that bad. It’s especially awful given that Ireland is one of the most unique countries in Europe, with a people who rival Nordics in their distinctiveness and an incredibly beautiful (if rugged) physical landscape. 73
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:56 | # Amalek said: “As for forced repatriation of British-born non-whites, I wouldn’t want to live in a country that did that.” When the invasion occurred due to government military and police (ie: gang) protection of the invaders from the young British men who would have fought them, man to man, and kept them out, then you have position without moral foundation. The government does not and cannot speak for the people when it denies them their territory. 74
Posted by Lurker on Tue, 27 Nov 2007 02:30 | # Duncan - I should say that this woman was very much Irish born & bred judging by accent, not an nth generation descendant. I dont think its a common attitude, she was very much an outlier. There may be anti-Englishness amongst recent Irish immigrants or their children but that doesnt seem to translate, usually, into demands for special political treatment. (Aside from Northern Ireland) This is purely anecdotal from me; you dont hear people over here saying they are 3rd generation (or more) Irish very often. ‘Irishness’ and embittered victimhood do seem to fizzle out within a generation or two. You can certainly meet people who have Irish names and even look Irish yet self-identify as English, never mind British. I feel that the situation is different in the US. Close proximity to Ireland a factor maybe? Ive taken a friend to the local airport before and theyve been back home in Dublin with their feet up having a cup of tea before Ive even finished parking the car back here. 75
Posted by Alex on Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:45 | #
Quite a post there Desmond Jones. The people of the Transvaal seemed to have been fortunate in having a government that indeed cared about their interest. The highlighted parts of the brief excerpt has all the ingredients of Multi-culturalism. ‘Cheap labor’, typically acquired by ‘mass immigration’, is a variant of slavery, and is the basis of the ideology of Multi-culturalism. Its origin when traced is straight out of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, which all too many a a West European elite sad to say was taking part in. With huge numbers of people being purposely allowed by elites to pour into a country, much against their own peoples’ will generally it has to be said, to be exploited in that manner, it becomes very difficult, if not impossible, to retain the integrity of a people. Hence the ideology of multi-culturalism is pushed. * Slavery, truly a scourge upon humanity, is at its basis the systematic theft of someone’s labor. With cheap labor, the ‘overhead’ cost the slaver used to pay for and deal with, ie ‘cradle to grave’ care of a slave, is largely dumped on the overall society to pay for. Once the modern slaver uses the ‘immigrant’ (up) in this manner, and lets them go to either ‘make it’ or not, they simply replace him or her with another one. This variant of slavery is far more profitable than chattel, but is also exponentially more socially destructive due to the huge numbers of persons exploited in this manner. It literally destroys everything about a people…which just after profits, is the very idea those who promote cheap labor and its ideology of multi-culturalism have. 76
Posted by Alex on Tue, 27 Nov 2007 20:00 | # Not entirely dissimiliar with the Boer War as Hobson described it, the US Civil War was a war primarily between elites over cheap labor and chattel variants of slavery. The vast majority of the American people, the ones who did the actual fighting for the most part, neither owned slaves nor exploited people as cheap labor. They weren’t told that was what the war was about as they wouldn’t have fought, but were instead lied to, being told it was about ‘states rights’ or ‘preserving the union’, etc. Six hundred thousand would die, and many hundreds of thousands would be horribly wounded and maimed, in that ghastly war. At the point things got violent in 1861 the guns ought to have been turned on the elites to overthow both them and their slave systems, but alas, that did not happen. The background of the Civil War gets back to the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, as mentioned of which all too many West European elites were taking part in, at the expense of most everyone else. In what would be the United States this translated as elites of the northern colonies being in many instances slave dealers, not for the North generally (though they did have slaves) where this was not too practical due to climate, but for other places. Southern plantation owners were in many instances slave owners (buyers). As has been mentioned the superior profitability of ‘cheap labor’, typically acquired by ‘mass immigration’, had been realized in the 17th and 18th centuries by those involved in slavery and its trade. Accordingly cheap labor (again euphamistically referred to as ‘free labor’ ) was made US federal policy starting in the 1780’s, the idea being to replace the chattels with the new streamlined system of slavery. Immigration, initially from Europe, was encouraged by law. States in the North where chattel slavery was less entrenched fairly rapidly banned the practice (‘grandfathered’ it in essence) and put a halt to its trade. However, in the South, chattel slavery had become an entrenched institution, and this transition from one variant of slavery to another (known as ‘abolition’ ) therefore hit a snag. Hense the series of ‘Compromises’ between about 1820 and 1850. In the 1850’s this system of compromises started to break down, and territories seeking statehood were allowed to determine if they were to be ‘slave’ or ‘free’ by vote of their residents. In Kansas, from the mid to late 1850’s this turned into open warfare, something of a micro-cosm of the US Civil War (1861-65) a few years later. Northern industrialists and Southern plantation owners privately funded guerilla armies in Kansas to fight it out, complete at times with their own artillery and gunboats. In his March 3, 1858 speech to the US Senate entitled ‘Freedom in Kansas’, the US Senator and future secretary of state Henry Seward outlines this history, and called the fight over cheap labor and chattel slavery ‘a dynastical struggle’. Many people quite correctly saw the error of slavery in the late 17th and 18th centuries, but rather than bringing about a true abolition, they instead bought the snake oil of ‘cheap labor’ the slavers were selling, and merely traded one system of slavery for another. Bottom line, if a people wishes to retain their peoplehood in the physical and cultural sense, there is no free lunch. They must do their own work themselves. Japan is a good modern example, amongst others, as has been much of Europe till recently. Note again that ‘free labor’ is simply a propaganda term for ‘cheap labor’. “The [Civil] war was essentially an industrial struggle - a struggle between free labor and the masters of slave labor.” Harper’s New Monthly Magazine - January 1897
“It is our conviction that monopolies are as destructive as competition is conservative of the principles and vitalities of republican Government; that slave labor is a monopoly which excludes free labor and competition; that slaves are kept in comparitive idleness and ease in a fertile half of our arable national territory, while free white laborers, constantly augmenting in numbers from Europe, are confined to the the other half and are often distressed by want; that the free white laborers of the North has more need of expansion into the Southern States, from which it is virtually excluded, than slavery had into Texas in 1846…” Excerpt of Proclamation by US Brigadier-General Phelps to the loyal people of the Southwest, Ship Island, Mississippi, December 4, 1861 ...the rise of the modern industrial system made wage slavery a more efficient agent of production than chattel slavery. Excerpt of the 1907 foreword to the book The War-Time Journal of a Georgia Girl, 1864-1865 (published in 1908) * The former US Treasurer and slave speculator Robert Walker, utilizing US census data for 1860, compared Massachusetts and South Carolina. Mass, the center of US industry at the time, and indeed, where it had gotten started, was heavily reliant upon ‘cheap labor’ imported from Canada and Europe…while meanwhile South Carolina was heavily reliant upon chattel slaves. In doing so he effectively calculated that cheap labor was four times more profitable than chattel slavery. Harper’s New Monthly Magazine - January 1897 ‘American Finances and Resources’ - March 1864 Imperial Washington pg 51-52 (1922)
77
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 28 Nov 2007 00:14 | # Great post Alex. However, folks like Scimitar and southern historian Ulrich Bonnell Philips argue, and rightfully so, that southern whites not invested in slaving supported slavery because it was a means of social control; i.e protecting whites against black criminality and potential insurrection. Whites were a minority in many states. Southern whites were fully aware of Dessaline’s excesses in Haiti and had no desire to see it repeated in the South. Still it can be argued that southern white elites would have served their countrymen better if, like the Transvaal Boers, they had established a white only South, repatriating or segregating blacks, transfering them to a western territory, or encouraging them to move north to New York or Boston. Jeff Davis’ revenge. 78
Posted by Alex on Wed, 28 Nov 2007 18:21 | #
I hope neither is attempting to self identify with the slavers as that’s just what was desired then and now by those doing the slaving. If they are I’d have to ask why? Due to the greed and self-centeredness of a relative few, the Southerners had to be concerned about safety…though the vast majority did not own slaves This is much similar with today and the ‘importation’ of ‘cheap labor’, the vast majority not exploiting people in that manner, but havng to be concerned about personal safety directly as a result all the same, and paying the ‘overhead’ expenses of many of those exploited that the slavers used to pay as well. Those doing the exploiting in each instance did everything they could to get the general public to identify with the exploiters. Slavery is indeed truly a scourge. It would seem better, then and now, to advocate a true abolition of slavery unlike the faux one that took place in the 19th century, which merely exchanged one variant (chattel) of slavery for another (cheap labor) far more profitable for a few , but exponentially socially destructive to most…ie that a people did it’s own work. And then work out an arrangement between the various peoples in North America where they could have sovereignty, self determination, and retain the integrity of their people. Some additional information about what is at the core of the ideology of Multi-culrualism…ie ‘cheap labor’. Note the September 30, 1851 London Times editorial regarding the US textile factory magnate and Ambassador to the UK Abbott Lawrence and his visit to Ireland. While in that instance it spoke of the Irish people, who then being exploited as ‘cheap labor’ it was said would ‘mix’ and soon be ‘known no more’, to be replaced within Ireland by a new people said to be ‘more mixed’, more ‘docile’, and ‘which could submit to a master’, in otherwords all the ingredients of modern multi-culturalism…it could just as easily have been said of any people having the misfortune to be touched by that terrible ideology…now largely European peoples..but in time likely most every people. God forbid that this situation should continue!
Our Southern States, being still in the agricultural stage, on account of our practical monopoly of the world’s chief textile staple, were the last of the great civilized nations to find chattel slavery less profitable than wage slavery, and hence the “great moral crusade” of the North against the perverse and unregenerate South. It was a pure case of economic determinism, which means that our great moral conflict reduces itself, in the last analysis, to a question of dollars and cents, though the real issue was so obscured by other considerations that we of the South honestly believe to this day that we were fighting for States Rights, while the North is equally honest in the conviction that it was engaged in a magnanimous struggle to free the slave.
The Lawrence Family of Textile Factory Magnates
“Amos A. Lawrence, of Boston, a man of wealth and honor and large influence, was prominent among those who gave the movement not only their sanction, but their active cooperation.”
Amos A. Lawrence’s father was Amos Lawrence, who like his son, was a Boston textile manufacturer and a person of great wealth. Amos Lawrence’s partner in business was his brother, Abbott, making him AA Lawrence’s uncle. Abbot Lawrence, like his nephew Amos, would have a city named after himself as well for which he was largely responsible for its construction, located in Massachusetts and devoted to textile manufacturing, it’s construction only having just concluded when Amos’s city was began in the mid 1850’s. Both the object of the building of Lawrence Kansas and Lawrence Massachusetts were the same ....the incredible profitability of cheap labor. Abbot Lawrence, besides being heavily involved with textile manufactures, was also the US ambassador to Great Britain during the years 1849-52, whose empire was a primary source of cheap labor for America, no doubt at least some of the ‘immigrants’ winding up in Lawrence’s textile mills. He visited Ireland in 1851 near the end of its famine and at a time when it was losing 250,000 of its people a year primarily to the US. While in Ireland Abbott gave many speeches as he toured the country. The London Times wrote an insightful report commenting as to this visit, of which an excerpt is below. The article speaks of the Irish people “soon” being “known no more” directly due to their exploitation as cheap labor in the US, while simultaneously within Ireland itself, the Irish were to be replaced by a people presumably seen to be cheaper yet. Strong allusions to chattel slavery are made…ie ‘serviceable’, ‘docile’, ‘submit to a master’, etc. and the willingness to even purposely mix away and replace entire peoples so as to achieve this state in man. This is the truth of what cheap labor and its accompanying ideology of multi-culturalism are about…it quite simply being a highly evolved, sophisticated, and genocidal slavery. “The prosperity and happiness he [Lawrence] speaks of may some day reign over that beautiful island. It’s fertile soil, its water-power, its minerals, and other materials for the wants and luxuries of man, may one day be developed; but all apearances are against the belief that this will ever happen in the days of the Celt. That tribe will soon fulfill the great law of Providence which seems to enjoin and reward the union of races. It will mix with the Anglo-American, and be known no more as a jealous and separate people. Its present place will be occupied by the more mixed, more docile, and more serviceable race, which has long borne the yoke of sturdy industry in this island, which can submit to a master and obey the law…” As for the textile mill city of Lawrence Mass it is still there. It’s nickname…‘immigrant city’....of course.
79
Posted by Alex on Wed, 28 Nov 2007 18:24 | #
“When machinery began to reach a stage thirty years ago that called for fewer skilled workers, the mill-owners congratulated themselves. They felt that they could afford to keep on good terms with what few skilled men they needed, because they could run their mills chiefly with unskilled labor, and no one had ever succeeded in organizing unskilled labor sufficiently to make it fight for a principle. Then they found that the peasants of Europe could run their looms and their foundries and could be had for less money than American workers. So they encouraged this immigration...”Bill Haywood’s description of US mill towns such as Lawrence The War-Time Journal of a Georgia Girl, 1864-1865 (1908) A History of Lawrence [Kansas] by Rev. Richard Cordley London Times write up of Abbott Lawrence’s 1851 visit to Ireland September 1851 London Times article regarding cheap labor City government of Lawrence Mass website Overview of Lawrence Mass http://www.answers.com/topic/lawrence-massachusetts 80
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 28 Nov 2007 21:07 | # Thanks for that Alex. You laid out brilliantly, a position I’ve tried to express for a very long time, but not nearly as eloquently. I hope neither is attempting to self identify with the slavers as that’s just what was desired then and now by those doing the slaving. It’s wrong to speak for them in their absence, however, IMO, regardless of whether you identify with the slavers or not, you must deal with the legacy. And that is the ongoing criminal war perpetrated by at least a portion of the black population, against whites. Thus whites identifying with the old days of slavery and Jim Crow look longingly on those periods because it was a time of safety and security. The other issue your assertion raises, if I may don my Darwinian hat, is that if elites pursued this chattel strategy, over so many years, it must prove beneficial for them; i.e. it must be adaptive. Yet it has always been argued on this site, that these same elites are deluded. In other words, the process you described, works against their ethnic interests. If you would be kind enough to expand your thesis, to explain how that apparent contradiction is incorporated, it would be greatly appreciated. 81
Posted by Alex on Sat, 01 Dec 2007 06:33 | #
There has been a severe problem of crime…which would be largely resolved by the allowing for self determination of peoples, and should they wish it, the establishment of sovereign viable nations, either in North America (there being a great deal of land), and or Africa depending, and is what ought to have been done at the end of the Civil War, but of course the ‘freeing of the slaves’ was not in reality the purpose of that war, anything but in fact, so that did not happen. As for those of European ancestry looking ‘longingly’ upon and ‘identifying with the old days of slavery and Jim Crow’ for ‘safety and security’ I would think those that do, whatever their number, are misplaced in their sentiment. Before and after the war wages were driven down by Blacks (and by many’imported’ as cheap labor Euros and others to be sure too) in the US being exploited as either chattel or ‘cheap labor’ variants of slavery, and is in fact how Blacks wound up in Northern cities, and to an extent Southern ones as well. As for ‘safety and security’, crimes still took place, albeit greatly reduced, despite the laws put in place. The enforcing of those laws was a great burden on those enforcing them (most of whom neither exploited people as cheap labor nor owned slaves, but were burdened with this enforcement by those relative few doing the slaving), just as it was pre Civil War, when they had the slave patrols (‘padirollers’ they were called) and ‘slave pass’ system. There being quite a lot of truth in Booker Washington’s statement to the effect ‘that when one holds another down [for whatever reason one would think] they keep themselves down as well. It would be better it seems that they ‘look longingly’ and work towards the allowing for peoples (or elements of peoples) that desire it, to have soveriegn and viable lands for distinct peoples.
It’s beneficial to them in the relative short term as they get quite rich from this slavery business. These elites have let money be the most important thing to them. And too many people are following these poorly leading elites. Also, it’ true that ultimately should they continue what they are doing, that is advocating the variant of slavery known as ‘cheap labor’ by way of ‘mass immigration’, it would seem that it would destroy themselves, but due to their great wealth, they are the last to experience the mass murder and rapine that their policies have brought about. So they continue on telling themselves and others (self deceit in many instances it appears) the fib that they are building a utopia. Sad to say, but…instead of taking the unpleasant chemo-therapy of a true abolition of slavery which was needed for the cure, people in all too many instances, and in all too many places, instead bought the snake oil of ‘cheap labor’ sold to them by the slavers, a fraudulent medicine whose seemingly soothing balm manages to cover up some of the worst of the outer eruptions, but meanwhile allows for the cancerous scourge of slavery and its effects to metastisize inwardly throughout the body politic, threatening the very life of the patient himself. Post a comment:
Next entry: Ron Paul Campaign Predicted in 1982—Now: Blind Poll Canvassing
|
|
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 Red Baron on Thu, 22 Nov 2007 02:10 | #
That’s utter tripe. Rhodesia was subverted by Great Britain herself. Fact is, the Rhodesians destroyed the African guerrillas. They were quite capable of governing themselves, and prospering well into the future.
The real problem resides with countries like GB and the USA which actively attack and destroy all opponents of liberalism. In fact, they are destroying their own people, on whose behalf they claim their legitimacy.
Frankly, I can’t believe the mealy mouth bullshit written in this obit What cowardice. Surely not measurable to a man like Ian Smith.