Majorityrights News > Category: Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests

NPR, “An Anti-Immigration Speech Divided Britain 50 Years Ago. It Still Echoes Today”, 20 April 2018:

Heard on Morning Edition

Britain’s Conservative Party politician Enoch Powell, right, listens to two demonstrators in Canada in April 1968, reading a petition that describes him as a “racist.“AP

The woman who never was? Dr Burgess said, “boiling down the 200 names that we arrived at and managed to find one individual who matches most of the essential points in the letter. And I can actually put a name to the face by saying that she was Drucilla Cotterill.” Just like the pensioner Powell quoted, Drucilla Cotterill owned her own home, lost her husband in the Second World War and stopped letting out her rooms to lodgers when immigration increased. Other former residents of the street, which is now Brighton Mews, have confirmed to Document that excrement was pushed through a letterbox in this street and that nearly all those living here were black in the late 1960s.

Mr Powell said the woman lived in his Wolverhampton constituency. By 1968 it was almost entirely populated by immigrant families, except for a 61-year-old white woman living at number 4.

How we got here: Millennial Woes goes over the history of Powell’s speech from a native nationalist position.

Related: London Street Scenes 1967

Related: BBC, “The woman who never was?”, 22 Jan 2007

Ibid. In April 1968, the United States was grieving. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated by a white nationalist. Cities burned with riots.

Across the Atlantic, Britain was debating the Race Relations Act, which made it illegal to deny a person employment, housing or public services based on race or national origin.

The law was intended to protect immigrants from Commonwealth nations, especially former colonies in the Caribbean, India and Pakistan. The first of these immigrants, 492 Jamaicans, had arrived 20 years earlier. Hundreds of thousands followed.

“The immigrants were called over,” says Sathnam Sanghera, an author whose Sikh parents emigrated from India during that time. “There was a labor shortage. There weren’t enough people to run the factories after the war.” Sathnam Sanghera’s Sikh parents emigrated from India. “There came the idea that white people would be crushed by the rights that black and Asian people demanded,” he says.

The immigrants were granted British citizenship and helped rebuild Britain after World War II. But they faced racism. Landlords wouldn’t rent to them. Some employers turned them away.

Tarsem Singh Sandhu, then a 23-year-old bus driver, lost his job when he refused to remove the turban he wore as part of his Sikh religion.

The Race Relations Act was intended to protect immigrants like him.

“But there came the idea that white people would be crushed by the rights that black and Asian people demanded,” Sanghera recalls.

The tension was especially obvious in Sanghera’s hometown, Wolverhampton, in England’s West Midlands, which he calls “one of the first cities in Britain to experience mass immigration.”

“A match onto gunpowder”

Enoch Powell, who represented Wolverhampton in Parliament, feared a race war coming because of mass immigration.

On April 20, 1968, he took the stage at a Conservative Party event at the Midlands Hotel in Birmingham and gave an incendiary speech that would come to define him — and divide his country.

Even now, 50 years later, there was outcry in the U.K. when BBC Radio 4 decided to broadcast an actor’s reading of the speech last weekend.

In the speech, Powell warned, “That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic ... is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect.”

He attacked the bill that outlawed discrimination. He said it was whites who were facing deprivation and that Britain “must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting” large numbers of immigrants to enter.

“The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and of resentment, lies not with the immigrant population but with those among whom they have come and are still coming,” he said. “This is why to enact legislation of the kind before Parliament at this moment is to risk throwing a match onto gunpowder.”

Smithfield meat porters march to Parliament to hand in a petition backing British politician Enoch Powell, on April 25, 1968, five days after Powell’s “Rivers of Blood” speech.

He quoted a constituent — “a middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our nationalized industries” — who was encouraging his children to leave England.

“In this country,” Powell quoted the man as saying, “in 15 or 20 years, the black man will have the whip hand over the white man.”

“I can already hear the chorus of execration,” Powell continued. “How dare I say such a horrible thing? How dare I stir up trouble and inflame feelings by repeating such a conversation? My answer is that I do not have the right not to do so.”

Powell said inviting mass immigration was akin to “watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre.”

An “evil speech” with repercussions

A classics scholar, Powell also quoted Virgil’s Aeneid. “As I look ahead,” he said, “I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see ‘the River Tiber foaming with much blood.’ “

Powell’s address became known as the “Rivers of Blood” speech.

The Times of London immediately labeled it an “evil speech.” Conservative Party leader Edward Heath dismissed Powell from the party leadership.

“I consider the speech he made in Birmingham yesterday to have been racialist in tone and liable to exacerbate racial tensions,” Heath said.

But polls showed a majority of Britons supported Powell. Many protested, saying, “Enoch was right.” The speech emboldened racists.

READ MORE...

  A glimpse of things to come in the USA…

SBDL, “A Glimpse of Things to Come in the USA: Blacks in America Support Black South African Government Confiscating White-Owned Land Without Compensation”, 5 April 2018:

Newsweek: “WHITE PEOPLE IN SOUTH AFRICA SHOULD STOP PANICKING ABOUT LOSING THEIR LAND: OPINION”, 5 April, 2018

Land reform is a key issue in South Africa, due to the long history of dispossession of indigenous populations by white settlers. Progress has been painfully slow over the past 24 years, but the question of land is now suddenly at the top of the political agenda.

A major controversy erupted at the end of February following a motion adopted in parliament, tabled by the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and modified by the ANC, which started the process of potentially amending the constitution to allow for the expropriation of (white-owned) land without compensation, and its subsequent redistribution (to black people.)

In March, the main opposition party, the Democratic Alliance, sent out phone messages stating: “ANC & EFF working together to take all private land and homes. You can only stop this if you’re registered correctly to vote! Check now.”

As a result, white South Africans are panicking that they will lose their land and their homes, and some white commercial farmers believe this is the beginning of Zimbabwe-style ‘land grabs.’ Australia’s minister of home affairs even offered to fast-track visas for white farmers.

In contrast, the motion was supported by many other political parties and has been greeted with approval by large numbers of black people. Given the bitter history of large-scale land dispossession, refusing to pay for stolen land is seen by many black South Africans as essential to restoring their dignity.

Parliament recently resolved to investigate whether or not the country’s constitution should be amended in order to allow for expropriation without compensation. A constitutional review committee is organising public hearings countrywide, and will report in August.

The ANC is clearly attempting to regain political ground lost to the small but vocal opposition party, the EFF. The unresolved land question, and in particular the issue of compensation, has been a key rallying cry for the EFF since it first emerged in 2013. It is sure to make land a central issue in national elections in 2019.

Chaser: what do Africans in America think about the black-controlled government of South Africa confiscate white-owned land without compensation?

“Do You Believe African Countries Like South Africa Have The Right To Take Land Away From Whites?”, The Seattle Medium, 3-29-18:

Anthony Spearmen: You know its delicate you have White people who were born in Africa, who believe they are native, and of course you have native born Black Africans who dispute this claim. The right to redistribute the land is an argument that is going to be decided by the people and as it looks they are up in arms about reclaiming it. Violence in my opinion is never the answer, but it was taken through violence and most likely it will have to be reclaimed by violence. Those White folk are not going to give up easily.

Charles Townsend: From my personal opinion anyone is justified in reclaiming property that has been stolen. I know if I had something of value stolen from me I am going to all that is in my power to retrieve it. I think South Africa has every right. Apartheid has been a stain in that country for a long time and it’s time to remedy that.

Shirley Johnson: As far as I am concerned it was never the Europeans’ land in the first place. I think it is a difficult task - the redistribution of land. But from a justification point of view, yes the native born Africans do have a right to reclaim what was naturally theirs. What they will have to be prepared for is the blowback both politically and socially.

Mike Pierce: I don’t think the violence is necessary, but I think from a theoretical perspective the people of South Africa are justified and have the right to redistribute the land stolen. White colonization has run it’s course as consciousness is rising and awareness is growing in terms of the wrongs of the past. Society is becoming more compassionate towards the victims of those wrongs and the victims are beginning to fight back.

Monique: South Africa has every right to claim what is theirs. White people have been robbing the resources of that continent for centuries and the chickens are coming home to roost. Karma is what it is. It looks like to me that the African has had enough and are fighting back, fighting for what’s theirs. I hope they succeed.

Peace? No peace.

Today, white-owned land in South Africa will be confiscated by the black-controlled government to rectify historical inequities; tomorrow, white-owned land in the United States will be confiscated by the multicultural government to forever end white privilege, deliver a fatal blow to implicit bias, and squelch once and for all systemic inequalities.

You didn’t think teaching an entire generation of non-whites to resent white people in the USA for their unearned privilege wasn’t going to have consequences?

Did you?

Forza Nuova USA, “‘EU laws forced Italy to pick up migrants and forbade them to send them back”, 20 Mar 2018:

French writer and political journalist, Eric Zemmour, talks about Europe’s East-West divide and the effects of World War II in an interview with French newspaper Le Figaro.

Later in the interview Zemmour explains how the European Union has prevented Italy from defending itself during the migrant crisis. According to him Italy (its natives and their land) wasn’t abandoned (by Italian coast guard), but European jurisprudence forced the country to take migrants and forbade them to send them back:

In his defense of group evolutionary strategy, KM has done better in articulating the biological aspect of out-marriage as part of the group systemic strategy - both in infiltrating and weakening other group’s cohesion. Jewish group evolutionary strategy uses both top down directives and (prescriptive) rule structures, and bottom up biological patterns and (descriptive) rule structures.

The Jewish group evolutionary system/strategy is characteristically that Cohen’s give Zionist and/or ultra loyalist directives and Ashkenazi (especially Ashkenazi) are more free and prone to out-breed, infiltrate, liberalize, weaken opposing groups in their evangelizing as “light unto the gentiles.”

According to Jewish convert, Luke Ford, Cofnas has presented the first serious challenge against Kevin MacDonald’s work, “so effective as to call its validity into question entirely.”

One does not have to have but a passing acquaintance with MacDonald’s work and his concern to know that to call its validity into question entirely or even in large part, simply is not possible. Nor do they have to look beyond the absurdity of Ford’s claim that Cofnas does such “irreparable damage” to MacDonald’s efforts to see immediately that Ford’s pro-Jewish bias is over-the-top; and examples cited of Nathan Cofnas’s supposedly detached analysis, indicate rather clearly a heavy pro-Jewish bias, motivated and prone to crude straw manning of MacDonald’s work.

Anyway, this is the first public defense by MacDonald of this “first serious academic critique of ‘The Culture of Critique.”

Me ne frego - episode 22, with Kevin MacDonald

Professor Kevin MacDonald joins the show to discuss Nathan Cofnas’s recent paper, ‘Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy: A Critical Analysis of Kevin MacDonald’s Theory’, which is the first ever academic attempt to refute Professor MacDonald’s theory as presented in his 1998 book, The Culture of Critique. The first 45 minutes are in English; after the music break we wrap it up in Swedish.

READ MORE...

Zsolt Bayer

READ MORE...

After beginning the “hang-out” with some faintly vulgar discussion of the process by which he’s fathered a child or two - a discussion apparently occasioned by a hit piece done by a Jewish writer at The Daily Beast, accusing him of nefarious natalist strategy with a “Hispanic woman”..

JF’s interaction and negotiation with the chats and “superchats” demonsrates the social consruction of knowledge - e.g., of the White race, in answer to questions, interlocutive by nature, as to who and “What is White?”

Jean-François Gariépy engages in social construction of the White race, though there is nothing wrong with that and although he might not be fully aware that he’s doing that…

For example:

43:59 (JF)...science, we’re doing science! Colby M: ‘superchat’ question, 2 dollars U.S. - “but are Italians White?” (JF sighs) They are ...Italians, you know, they’re ah, it’s like you can draw the line, you can exclude Italians if you want, but you would exclude me (JF). Because you know what I am? You guys don’t know right? You guys don’t know but I am essentially a Basque. I descend from the Basque. And so, if you cut-out Italians, you cut out the Basques, you cut out a great section of the French population; (shrugs) it’s your choice but it seems to me like its a restrictive definition. Then your White race would essentially be English people. You might even actually kick the Russians out.

45:32 (JF): Look at this. If you kick the Italians, well, ok, you could get the French, the Russian, the Basque in a group, and you still could kick the northern Italians specifically. Personally, I think that you’re better (better off) if you just include all of these in the White race.

Some really funny comments - ‘Eva Braun’: “We must secure the existence of nord-cucks.”

..with tags on the video…

Ignore the “Lucifarian” and “Creepy” tags that the Jews have added to this otherwise factually neutral discussion with Rothschild about the Balfour Declaration and his family’s involvement.

These tags were added to right-wingize the video and with that to divert with over-focus on Rothschild conspiracy - so that old man Rothschild can be used as a fall-guy as the YKW do with old man Soros.

It’s possibly the most famous document in modern Jewish history and it begins with three words…

I genuinely think that it’s one of the most extraordinary moments in the history of the Jewish people. When you think that it took 3,000 years to get to this. Then you say, how did this ‘miracle’ happen?

READ MORE...