Here is the full text of Enoch Powell’s speech to the Annual General Meeting of the West Midlands Area Conservative Political Centre, at the Midland Hotel, Birmingham on 20th April 1968.

The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature. One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: at each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future.

Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: “If only,” they love to think, “if only people wouldn’t talk about it, it probably wouldn’t happen.” Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the thing, the name and the object, are identical.

At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after.

A week or two ago I fell into conversation with a constituent, a middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our nationalised industries. After a sentence or two about the weather, he suddenly said: “If I had the money to go, I wouldn’t stay in this country.” I made some deprecatory reply to the effect that even this government wouldn’t last for ever; but he took no notice, and continued: “I have three children, all of them been through grammar school and two of them married now, with family. I shan’t be satisfied till I have seen them all settled overseas. In this country in 15 or 20 years’ time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man.”

I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a horrible thing? How dare I stir up trouble and inflame feelings by repeating such a conversation?

The answer is that I do not have the right not to do so. Here is a decent, ordinary fellow Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town says to me, his Member of Parliament, that his country will not be worth living in for his children. I simply do not have the right to shrug my shoulders and think about something else. What he is saying, thousands and hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking - not throughout Great Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history.

READ MORE...

A study by Professor John-Dylan Haynes, who is the Bernstein Professor of Computational Neuroscience at the Max Planck Institute, has cast fresh doubt upon the existence of free will.

Unconscious decisions in the brain

Already several seconds before we consciously make a decision its outcome can be predicted from unconscious activity in the brain. This is shown by a study of scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences in Leipzig, in collaboration with the Charité University Hospital and the Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience in Berlin. The researchers from the group of Professor John-Dylan Haynes used a brain scanner to investigate what happens in the human brain just before a decision is made. “Many processes in the brain occur automatically and without involvement of our consciousness. This prevents our mind from being overloaded by simple routine tasks. But when it comes to decisions we tend to assume they are made by our conscious mind. This is questioned by our current findings.”

... In the study participants could freely decide if they wanted to press a button with their left or right hand. They were free to make this decision whenever they wanted, but had to remember at which time they felt they had made up their mind. The aim of the experiment was to find out what happens in the brain in the period just before person felt the decision was made. The researchers found that it was possible to predict from brain signals which option participants would take already seven seconds before they consciously made their decision. Normally researchers look what happens when the decision is made, but not what happens several seconds before. The fact that decisions can be predicted so long before they are made is a striking finding.

This unprecedented prediction of a free decision was made possible by sophisticated computer programs that were trained to recognize typical brain activity patterns preceding each of the two choices. Micropatterns of activity in frontopolar cortex were predictive of the choices even before participants knew which option they were going to choose. The decision could not be predicted perfectly, but prediction was clearly above chance. This suggests that the decision is unconsciously prepared ahead of time but the final decision might still be reversible.

... Haynes and colleagues now show that brain activity predicts even up to 7 seconds ahead of time how a person is going to decide. But they also warn that the study does not finally rule out free will: “Our study shows that decisions are unconsciously prepared much longer than previously thought. But we do not know yet where the final decision is made. Especially we still need to investigate whether a decision prepared by these brain areas can still be reversed.”

READ MORE...

From “Discerning the Ancestry of European Americans in Genetic Association Studies”:

From Kevin MacDonald’s Blog:

Campaign Against Me by the SPLC

April 12, 2008

The Southern Poverty Law Center has been conducting a campaign against me since September, 2006. As part of this campaign, academic departments at CSULB are being pressured into releasing negative comments on my work. The History Department has complied with this pressure and has released a statement on my work:

CSULB History Department Statement of April 4, 2008

 

Reply #1 on Jewish involvement in influencing U.S. immigration policy

 

Reply #2 on Issues in European social history.

Jews are a classic case of what is called “market dominant minorities” and have been instrumental in importing from Mexico and Latin America the gross centralization of wealth so characterizing those states—a centralization of wealth from which Jews derive great power and benefit.  Defending such a market dominant minority—which is decreasing the lot in life of lower class Americans—doesn’t seem to be a proper activity for some organization calling itself “The Southern Poverty Law Center” unless we are to assume that their charter is to promote poverty among southerners—in which case it is a perfectly reasonable moniker. You can support Prof. Kevin MacDonald by purchasing his latest book, hot off the press:  Cultural Insurrections: Essays on Western Civilization, Jewish Influence, and Anti-Semitism. UPDATE: And they just never seem to learn:

‘PHOENIX - The mayor wants the FBI to investigate whether the local county sheriff has violated any civil rights laws with his recent high-profile crackdowns on illegal immigrants.’ ... ‘In an April 4 letter to U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, Mayor Phil Gordon asked the agency and the Justice Department’s civil rights division to examine what he called discriminatory harassment and improper stops, searches, and arrests by sheriff’s deputies in Maricopa County, which encompasses the metropolitan area.’ ... ‘Last week, the Arizona Ecumenical Council and American Jewish Committee issued a joint letter saying the patrols “evoked a ‘police state’ atmosphere” and led to “detainment on the basis of a racial profile and dehumanization of innocent people.”’ ‘They were joined Friday by the Arizona chapter of the Anti-Defamation League, which echoed calls for a Justice Department investigation.’

The New York Times reports that:

Men in the prime of their working lives are now less likely to have jobs than they were during all but one recession of the last 60 years… The government breaks down the figures by race, and those figures show that over the last year almost all the jobs lost by men in the 25 to 54 age group have been lost by whites[emphasis JAB], with most of those losses affecting men ages 35 to 44.

The second sentence above was relegated to the end of the article.

Now we all know, from reading many articles about it in VDARE over the years, that this is old news.

The question for us to ask ourselves about the New York Times is “Why now?”

The most obvious answer is that in the absence of a “terrorist attack” on the US, Obama looks likely to be the next President and is cutting deals now to lock in that victory.

Might the New York Times authorities be saying to the next President: “See what we could do if we just changed the order of these paragraphs?”

Well, maybe.  Here’s something I picked up off the IHR circular, and thought might be worth posting if the advertising content on the original could be pruned.  It could.

So here is a four-minute presentation by Siegfried Woldhek, a newspaper illustrator with a sideline as a Third World techno do-gooder, on his research into “the true face” of Leonardo de Vinci.

 

Three weeks today Londoners elect their Mayor and Assembly members for the next four years.  Under the complex party list voting system, any party bettering 5% of first choice votes is thought likely to win one of the 11 indirectly elected seats on the Assembly.  No one doubts that the BNP vote will pass the 5% mark.  So this will be a significant first for them, and a step nearer to challenging for representation in parliament.

The leader of the London party of the BNP is Richard Barnbrook, and today he was accorded a Q&A interview by the BBC News website.  Considering this was the same BBC which sent in mole Jason Gwynne to “report” on the party in 2004, the questioning seems to have been pretty friendly.

This unfamiliar situation begs correction.  Accordingly, I have decided to report on the BNP’s steady progress towards electability, as it is expressed in Barnbrook’s bite-sized politics.  I’ve cheated a little, of course, by reconstructing the questions and answers from the BBC article.

The BBC: You have said that you want to give the real people of London a voice.  Who are real Londoners?

Barnbrook: I mean the indigenous population first, and the post-war immigrants who came over to rebuild Britain, such as Caribbeans who arrived on the Empire Windrush, second.

The BBC: You have said that immigrants arriving in the last 15 years are taking more from British society than they are putting back.  Who is to blame for that?

Barnbrook: It’s not immigrants that are at fault here.  Never has been.  It’s the establishment, our own governing powers and their greed or their ignorance or their simple gutlessness to do anything about it.  They feel if they try to look at immigration they will have the finger pointed at them - ‘racist’.  This is an easy get out clause - this is bullying people.

The BBC: Is the BNP a racist party?

Barnbrook: We’re not racist at all. We do not perceive one person’s religion, identity, culture or way of life as being better or worse than our own, we are simply different.

The BBC: Would you characterise the BNP as a far right party?

Barnbrook: Not at all - not far right, not far left, not too wrong.

The BBC: If elected to govern at Westminster one day what would your party do on the immigration question.  Would you like to repatriate the immigrant population?

Barnbrook: I would like to see a freeze on immigration, which I believe influences all aspects of our existence, from health and crime to water supplies.  Legal immigrants would stay, illegal immigrants would go - as would those being released from prison.

The BBC: What is Britishness?

Barnbrook: Britishness is the shake of a hand that is a guarantee, the humility, the honesty and the benevolence - all these elements are what make the British people British.  Language, religion, humour and law are around the periphery.

The BBC: Can there be British Muslims?

Barnbrook: The answer is yes, but on the grounds that you follow all of the identities being described of living in this country and benefiting this country.  You may have your religion behind your closed doors but you don’t bring it onto the streets. You can be gay behind closed doors, you can be heterosexual behind closed doors, but you don’t bring it onto the streets, demanding more rights for it.

The BBC: Can you win the Mayoral vote?

Barnbrook: Realistically it’s unlikely but who knows?  Immigration has moved up the political agenda and the mainstream parties have been adopting issues raised by the BNP.  Where we lead, they are following.

If the other parties had done their jobs properly in the first place, this party wouldn’t exist.  It’s as simple as that.

READ MORE...

News.com reports that:

“Risks from cyberattacks are increasing and the consequences are so great that the country needs a “Manhattan Project” for network security, Michael Chertoff, secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The government needs the “best and brightest…”

Why doesn’t Chertoff just bring in a bunch of Indians, Chinese, and Israelis on H-1b visas?

Oh, wait… he is:

“The Department of Homeland Security stepped up to the plate Friday for corporate H-1B visa interests as it changed immigration rules without notice to allow employers to hire an unlimited number of foreign students majoring in science, technology, engineering and math to work in the U.S. for 29 months after graduating with a bachelor’s degree or higher — longer if an H-1B visa is pending — provided they studied in the States for one academic year under an F-1 visa and their employer enrolls in the Department’s e-Verify program. ‘This rule will enable businesses to attract and retain highly skilled foreign workers, giving U.S. companies a competitive advantage in the world economy,’ said Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff in justifying the change, which the DHS made without notice or comment by exploiting a ‘good cause’ exception that allows procedural rules to be bypassed to prevent ‘serious damage to important interests.’ In explaining its motivation, the DHS cited testimony by Bill Gates (‘I don’t think there should be any limit’) as well as the Task Force on the Future of American Innovation, which counts major H-1B stakeholders Google, IBM, Intel, and Microsoft among its members.”