The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Emperor Palpatine Explains the Supreme Function of Statesmanship
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the New York Times:

BBC to Resurrect Full ‘Rivers of Blood’ Speech, Spurring Outrage
By CEYLAN YEGINSU APRIL 13, 2018

LONDON — It has been widely denounced as one of the most divisive and racist public addresses made by a British politician in modern history.

Enoch Powell, a Conservative member of Parliament, gave what became known as the “Rivers of Blood” speech in 1968. In it, he attacked racial integration as a “ludicrous misconception” and “a dangerous delusion,” and predicted that “in 15 or 20 years’ time, the black man will have the whip hand over the white man.”

On Saturday night, the BBC will broadcast the entire text on radio for the first time — read by the actor Ian McDiarmid, who is famous for playing the “Star Wars” character Emperor Palpatine — as part of a program analyzing the speech and its impact 50 years after it was delivered.

The BBC’s decision has sparked widespread criticism and has been denounced as an “incitement to racial hatred” at a time when far-right nationalism, xenophobia and racism are on the rise in Britain and other parts of Europe.

To see why Powell’s speech still elicits so much hate, just read the opening paragraphs:

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.

 
Hide 275 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Anonymous[336] • Disclaimer says:

    “[He] predicted that “in 15 or 20 years’ time, the black man will have the whip hand over the white man.”

    Outright misrepresentation. Powell didn’t predict that. He was repeating the words of one of his constituents, and he used them as an illustration of the kinds of concerns he was obligated to take seriously.

    Read More
    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon, NickG
    • Replies: @Peter Johnson
    I agree that was a shocking misrepresentation and such a blatant example of mainstream media lying to create propaganda.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Lot says:

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KsljBj3UEI
    , @MikeatMikedotMike
    And that guy will step over a dozen English teens getting gang raped in order to arrest you for tweeting mean things.
    , @Anonym
    That's horrible. Those are the symptoms of the poz, entities like this are the cause.

    http://news.images.itv.com/image/file/418389/image_update_img.jpg
    , @Anonymous
    The look on that poor copper's face says it all.
    , @Dieter Kief
    Isn't it provocatively racist to police such a beautifully diverse group of clearly peaceful men by a white official?
    , @Corvinus
    http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-anti-immigration-cartoon-entitled-unrestricted-immigration-and-its-32393339.html

    Indeed, a similar situation occurred in the United States by the late 1800's.

    A proud, lone American of Protestant British descent (the real, true American), surrounded by invading non-Protestant, non-British stocks of people. From Germans to Assyrians, to the Chinese and Slavs. Just sickening.

    So, my friends, unless you can prove that you come directly from Great Britain (from your mother's and father's side) AND are of the Protestant faith, you must go back.
    , @ThreeCranes
    What's that bobby doing in Addis Ababa?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Ok, I’m sorry for being slow on the uptake and not keeping up with the controversy, but as Powell’s Rivers of Blood speech is on Youtube, with Powell himself supplying his own voice, why doesn’t the BBC simply replay Powell’s speech with Powell in his own voice reading it? What’s the deal with an actor reading it? Did the Brits lose the original audio with Powell reading his own speech?

    Or am I wrong about that?

    Read More
    • Replies: @LemmusLemmus
    As I understand it, only a part of the speech was filmed.
    , @The Alarmist
    The point would be to make it sound more sinister and menacing ... if you've ever heard old video soundtracks, Powell's own voice on a tinny track would almost sound a bit comical.
    , @Saxon
    The entire speech exists in full and in servicable quality but to the propagandists, it's kind of like any other material from anyone else they hate, whether it be current-day badthinkers or even the magic German mustache man. If they were to just present it as-is then of course they couldn't spin what he was saying and lie about it, and he would be supremely reasonable.

    So instead they need a spooky-sounding actor to do it, they need to edit in evil-sounding music and if possible and necessary provide onscreen cues to what the audience should think in the form of people making sour faces.
    , @Jack D
    When the Emperor Palpatine reads it, it sounds more evil. Duh.
    , @John Greer
    Only part of the speech was recorded at the time.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. syonredux says:

    The BBC’s decision has sparked widespread criticism and has been denounced as an “incitement to racial hatred” at a time when far-right nationalism, xenophobia and racism are on the rise in Britain and other parts of Europe.

    And, of course, all of those nasty things are in reaction to a “preventable evil” : mass immigration by Muslims into Christian Europe…..

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dr. X

    And, of course, all of those nasty things are in reaction to a “preventable evil” : mass immigration by Muslims into Christian Europe…..
     
    Post-Christian Europe.

    When Europe was actually Christian, it didn't tolerate Muslims invading it... like Vienna in 1683.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. syonredux says:
    @Lot
    https://i.imgur.com/aXa1e0w.jpg

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peter Johnson
    Very powerful video -- we have not seen this video on the BBC yet!
    , @Old fogey
    Thank you very much for this video. It is sobering, and rings true.
    , @Dube
    Precisely. "My gripe is: We were never asked."
    , @byrresheim
    2 late.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. In general I don’t think people really care about the future. Politicians want to get re-elected. People want their immediate lives to go smoothly. Whether or not multiculturalism brings about hell on earth isn’t of deep concern to almost anyone. And probably far more people fervently wish a hellish outcome for our planet than don’t, anyway.

    I’m glad this small race-realist corner of the world exists on places like unz.com, but far too little attention is being paid here and everywhere to “designer humans” and the ultimate replacement of mankind by machines. In a few hundred years, at most, all of this “race realism” debate will have been triviality because we’ll have seized control over the genetic make-up of our successors.

    I think the best and smartest intuitively know this and are hoping this comes about before race-realism becomes undeniable. In this way, they hope to avoid mass murder or global civil unrest.

    Me, I just hope we don’t nuke ourselves into oblivion before then.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Saxon
    Who will have seized control of anything related to genes when the savages who don't even really read anything have populated your land thoroughly and your descendants are at best huddling in fear of extermination at their hands, with no excess energy to spend researching any such fanciful ideas any longer.

    You're one of those transhumanist true believer types who imagines magical technology will save everything. It's a real Harry Potter mindset. It's childish and unrealistic. You don't have three hundred years. You don't even have one hundred the way things are going.
    , @ben tillman

    I’m glad this small race-realist corner of the world exists on places like unz.com, but far too little attention is being paid here and everywhere to “designer humans” and the ultimate replacement of mankind by machines. In a few hundred years, at most, all of this “race realism” debate will have been triviality because we’ll have seized control over the genetic make-up of our successors.
     
    "Our" successors? What makes you think "we" will be around in a few hundred years?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. theMann says:

    “The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils”

    Such as?

    “Statesmen” couldn’t even stop Prohibition. Or Vietnam. Or Jim Crow. Or abortion – talk about a preventable evil!

    But massive civil disobedience, that does work on occasion.

    Uhm, a national strike by every White man in this country………..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. BenKenobi says:

    Right in the feels…

    It didn’t have to be this way.

    We coulda had a moon base, but instead got diversity.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. Clyde says:

    Enoch Powell’s Wolverhampton district is diverse these days — https://www.ft.com/content/6c55ce92-babe-11e4-8447-00144feab7de

    Enoch Powell – the great British Parliamentarian – developed a maxim after decades of experience: “All political careers end in failure.”

    https://tinyurl.com/y9d325w3

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/13/row-enoch-powell-plaque-racism-wolverhampton

    ... “But almost 50 years on, the people of Wolverhampton voted for me, a black woman, to represent them – and that speaks volumes. Powell would be turning in his grave. It’s poetic justice."
     
    watchu gonna do about it whiteboi?
    , @WowJustWow
    I felt like that maxim may be specific to Britain. Consider:

    The bar for a US President to not be generally considered a failure is pretty low: Win a 2nd term, even if you go lame-duck soon after; sign one major piece of legislation — even if nobody likes it, it’s still an “accomplishment”; have only a few major scandals; don’t get humiliated on the global stage by some pissant third world country; don’t screw things up too badly, or if you do, make sure the worst effects don’t become visible until after you’ve left office.

    The *expected* outcome of a UK Prime Minister’s tenure seems to be: get into office by some complicated shifting of party coalitions that makes nobody happy, and bumble around until you’re shamed into calling for an election that will take you out of office immediately — no time to even host “A Very Special Christmas from Washington DC” with Special Olympics kids as you sail off into the sunset with a bunch of goodwill PR before Inauguration Day.
    , @Anonymous

    Enoch Powell – the great British Parliamentarian – developed a maxim after decades of experience: “All political careers end in failure.”
     
    It's a variation of Boyington's Dictum:
    "Just name a hero. I'll prove he's a bum."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. TheJester says:

    Enoch Powell, where is he when we need him?

    Instead, we got Merkel, Macron, May, Trump … and Pope Francis. There is something fundamentally wrong with Western Civilization when the most serious affairs-of-state affecting hundreds of millions of people devolve into comic operas … albeit without happy endings.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. Ivy says:

    Who are, or were, the Enoch Powells in other European countries, and will their speeches or columns be remembered? Start with Sweden, or maybe Italy or Hungary.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Is not Thilo Sarrazin a very good German counterpart to Powell. Also sacked!

    Interesting that his name suggests Muslim ancestry.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Selvar says:

    Personally, I find Enoch Powell’s speech to be quite tame compared to what actually happened. Even he could not imagine something as horrendous as Rotherham taking place. Even he could not predict that London would become majority non-white British within only a few generations. Even he could not foresee the kind of Orwellian, farcical multiculturalism that sends a man to jail for teaching his pug to do a “nazi” salute.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. Polynices says:

    I’m one year younger than that speech and I find it somewhat depressing that the insanity I’ve watched grow worse my entire life was pretty much predicted before I was even born.

    I guess he was a real Cassandra — saw the future *and* was scorned and disbelieved.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    I'm in exactly the same position, give or take a few months. The response to Enoch Powell's warning proves our current political system doesn't work and its fatal flaws go back at least 50 yrs.
    , @Anonymous
    As Christopher Hitchens said of Chomsky (before he became his enemy when Hitchens turned neocon, of course):


    The more right you are the more disdain you'll receive from those in power.

    The odd thing -- and I wonder why it didn't occur to me more forcefully then -- was that, the more Chomsky was vindicated, the less he seemed to command "respect." To the extent that I reflected about this at all, I put it down to shifts in fashion ("Chomsky? -- a sixties figure"), to the crisis undergone by many superficial antiwar commentators when the American war was succeeded by Spartan regimes (of which more later), and to the fact that Chomsky had started to criticize the Israelis, seldom a prudent course for those seeking the contemplative life.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:

    Hopefully the entire staff of the BBC will be arrested, convicted and imprisoned for thinking about inciting to racial hatred after the speech is broadcast.

    The streets of London at least are daily showered with the blood of Whites stabbed by Muslims. These are not stabbing v because of fights. These are not stabbing a during robberies.

    These are stabbing a of random Whites, usually men by Muslims in benefit who have the time and money to roam about town stabbing random Whites in a display of arrogance, supremacy and to show the infidels who is in charge of Britain and its major city.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    These are stabbing a of random Whites, usually men by Muslims in benefit who have the time and money to roam about town stabbing random Whites ...
     
    Yeah, but that's an evil easily preventable by the UK statesment via common-sense knife control, as after all, there is nothing that's in their Constitution about it, since they don't have one, and it would only be referering to the state-run national guard if they did. [/Mason]

    It's time the formerly-Great formerly-British government, especially the one in bloody London, where lots of these stabbings "occur", to start chipping away at the carrying and use of knives ... nothing drastic, just some common sense chipping away. Leave the Moslem criminals with nothing left but ice picks and ice axes, and then you'll see the knife stabbings greatly reduced ... [/Wizard]
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. “Edward Norman (then Dean of Peterhouse) had attempted to mount a Christian argument for nuclear weapons. The discussion moved on to ‘Western values’. Mrs Thatcher said (in effect) that Norman had shown that the Bomb was necessary for the defence of our values. Powell: ‘No, we do not fight for values. I would fight for this country even if it had a communist government.‘ Thatcher (it was just before the Argentinian invasion of the Falklands): ‘Nonsense, Enoch. If I send British troops abroad, it will be to defend our values.’ ‘No, Prime Minister, values exist in a transcendental realm, beyond space and time. They can neither be fought for, nor destroyed.’ Mrs Thatcher looked utterly baffled. She had just been presented with the difference between Toryism and American Republicanism.”

    Helluva guy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enoch_Powell

    Read More
    • Replies: @Excal
    Enoch Powell was a truly great man. If the world passes out of this growing darkness, his name will be remembered with reverence.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Lot says:

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot
    http://shoebat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/2rzxrih.jpg

    http://shoebat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/france-muslims.jpg
    , @istevefan
    Stop it. You're killing me.
    , @Luke Lea
    Truly scary.
    , @Dr. X
    When I did some roofing work over summers during graduate school, my boss used to say "This is E&A Day... I don't want to see nothing but elbows and assholes."

    The Muzzies look as if they're nailing shingles, when you think about it...
    , @Eustace Tilley (not)
    May mine eyes, ever-chaste, swiftly pass
    O'er the tasteless, the vulgar, the crass.
    En masse et vetu
    With no sinful see-thru:
    Thus would I gaze upon ass.
    , @Corvinus
    https://churchpop.com/2016/01/11/16-old-time-anti-catholic-cartoons-to-put-things-in-perspective

    Indeed. When believers of Roman Catholicism began to infiltrate our borders by the mid and late 1800's, there were calls by WASPs and nativists to purge these invaders. What happened to our steel, our resolve thereafter? Why were Roman Catholics eventually given a seat at our national table?

    Perhaps the menu will give us a clue.

    Appetizer--Separation of church and state.
    Main Course--Freedom of religion.
    Dessert--Thomas Jefferson's ideas.**

    **Despite Jefferson's criticisms of Islam, he wrote in his private notes about drafting legislation about religion for Virginia, paraphrasing John Locke’s 1689 “Letter on Toleration” --> [he] says neither Pagan nor Mahometan [Muslim] nor Jew ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the commonwealth because of his religion. The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom proclaims "Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions.”
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. @Lot
    https://i.imgur.com/aXa1e0w.jpg

    And that guy will step over a dozen English teens getting gang raped in order to arrest you for tweeting mean things.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    And that guy will step over a dozen English teens getting gang raped in order to arrest you for tweeting mean things.
     
    Yep. That's the mission-critical role of the super-state in the West now--to prevent the nations' citizens from exercising their right of self-defense, which they'd easily self-organize to do absent the state.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Anon[294] • Disclaimer says:

    To anyone who says that this soup can’t be unsalted because it would be too draconian: Wrong. Just halt further immigration and put in place policies which boost fertility among the native British and discourage fertility among the non-ethnic British. Encourage younger immigrants to emigrate with financial incentives. In two generations you’ll have reversed most of the demographic change of the last sixty years.

    It’s completely doable and humane (but you’ll 1st you have to get control of the media). Wait another generation and the only solutions become necessarily more draconian, like in Israel.

    Read More
    • Agree: ben tillman
    • Replies: @SteveRogers42
    "Refugee" females get mandatory Norplant as a condition of asylum.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. Lot says:
    @Lot
    http://media.breitbart.com/media/2015/10/image2-21.jpg



    https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/JViNN9JO-QwjJ_bvOxuncq_jgJw=/0x37:3000x2287/1200x800/filters:focal(0x37:3000x2287)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/52977787/Muslim_prayer_white_house.0.0.jpg

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    I never knew you had a cleft palette.
    , @bored identity
    bored identity has to notice that all those postcards of the Oriental Ostrich Farming would be quite impossible without the existence of Occidental Quisling Ostriches:

    https://s14-eu5.startpage.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.consciouspioneer.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F09%2Fhuman-ostrich-resize-a1.jpg&sp=77e3202a46ebfc357b2503286f3de177
    , @Mr. Anon
    Muslims mooning western civilization.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. p s c says:

    I’ve always wondered why the Brits could crush the world from the 1700′s through early 1900′s with little regard for anything such as humanitarianism, decency or just plain sense not to subjugate other peoples. Yet by the 1960′s there were huge parades for anti-nukes, anti-apartheid, anti-Vietnam war, and all other lefty stuff.

    But concerning the Irish question, the Brits remained iron-willed. During the hunger strikes of the early ’80′s, Margaret Thatcher and the people of Britain were determined not to yield an inch to the IRA.

    Yet if these same men were black or brown and were resisting Mother England for some other type of nationalism beside Irish Republicanism, millions of white Britishers would have been on the streets protesting on their behalf.

    Cucks of the highest order.

    The British treatment of Irish Catholics compared to their treatment of new arrivals from Africa, the Indies and the Sub-Continent is amazing. Just like the Puritan types from New England (Harriet Beecher Stowe, Emerson, etc…) despise the Irish and love the African.

    Read More
    • Agree: Buffalo Joe
    • Replies: @Millennial
    In 1979 the IRA blew up a Royal - Lord Mountbatten. That's largely the reason for the vicious response in the 80s.

    The British Armed Forces (and their police and security services, etc) swear oaths to protect and obey the Monarch - not to their country or their own kindred.

    In fact, the British people have invested virtually all of their sense of national identity into the Royals. Immigrants from old Imperial territories are "Subjects of Her Majesty" and therefore are British.

    London demographics? Who cares! There's an upcoming Royal wedding! And a Trooping the Colour! See - traditional Britain still exists!
    , @jim jones
    No one believes in the economic policies of Socialism any more so the Left has had to switch to identity politics. Only mass migration can save the peoples of the Third World, they will never build functional societies by them selves.
    , @Desiderius
    Whites are competition, and, more to the point, not just competing with the protesting class but also kicking their collective ass.

    Progtardism is for (literal) losers.
    , @PV van der Byl
    The Tories often depended on Ulster Union MPs for their parliamentary majorites. That is where the steel came from.
    , @songbird
    I agree, but I'd add that the opposite is also true. The old factionalists in Ireland seem to care nothing about Ireland after all. It is really quite startling. Some people have tried to explain it by saying they were really all far-leftists. Could be so.
    , @Curtis Mouser I
    Absolutely. As a Fenian in Londonistan I'm aware of what a bunch of sanctimonious, ducked puccies the Brit scum are. Terrified of being called racist. They bend over for as all the swarthy third Worlders, yet ban us from jobs or NHS treatment.

    Look at the drunken cuckrf chavs of Leeds & Luton in Russia. Carry their pimps' red fist and pale blue star & abusing their fellow Whites. All the while taking it bent double from Debbi Abraham's Empire XI. Tho I've heard most are too scared to go to Russia. Like all bullies Btit puccs are cowards and would fall down the stairs without their pimps' to hold their skirts with their firm red fists.

    Dumb prostitutes even believe crazy cat Lady May that this uber powerful drug wouldn't kill a woman & old man. ALPHABET TEAM IN RUSSIA

    Anyone
    But
    Cucked
    Dupes
    England

    Dogs yes
    Blacks yes
    Fenians no

    , @Excal
    Having finally cut itself away from the Church, the ancient Kingdom withers and dries up, and its people perish.

    But there are a few left, and all is not yet lost.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Jake says:

    A common sense person would point to the Mohammedan pimp crews as proof of Powell’s point. But then again, a common sense person should ask: but when did WASP Elites ever care even a jot about the poorest half, or two-thirds or three-fourths or perhaps even four-fifths, of the poorest whites of the British Isles?

    And then the common sense person with knowledge would point to the ‘rent boy’ fad of the 19th century, when the Brit Elites made a semi-public sport of collecting poor white trash boys for use as sex toys. It did not begin during the Victorian era, and it certainly did not end then.

    So the UK WASP Elites hear about the Mohammedans getting poor whits trash girls to run as prostitutes, and they can relate – to the Mohammedans.

    Read More
    • Agree: sayless, dfordoom
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  22. istevefan says:
    @Lot
    http://media.breitbart.com/media/2015/10/image2-21.jpg



    https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/JViNN9JO-QwjJ_bvOxuncq_jgJw=/0x37:3000x2287/1200x800/filters:focal(0x37:3000x2287)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/52977787/Muslim_prayer_white_house.0.0.jpg

    Stop it. You’re killing me.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. Powell was fluent in Urdu, and hence Hindi, so he likely knew a lot more from observation and experience than any of his detractors.

    He was once called out of his office to face a Paki protest, and stunned them by addressing them in their own language. What he should have done was to address his native critics in Sanskrit… or even just Latin or Greek.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Red Little Smurf
    He was Greek scholar, actually. He translated New Testament.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. @Lot
    http://shoebat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/2rzxrih.jpg

    http://shoebat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/france-muslims.jpg

    I never knew you had a cleft palette.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. I have an idea. Have some one with a sonorous voice read, on NPR, Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s paper, The Negro Family: A Case for National Action. The truth always comes back to haunt.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Gary in Gramercy
    How about James Earl Jones?
    , @Mishra

    The truth always comes back to haunt.
     
    More often than not, the truth is thoroughly erased from the historical record.

    The few times it comes back to haunt, it is attacked without mercy.

    , @Reg Cæsar

    I have an idea. Have some one with a sonorous voice read, on NPR, Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s paper, The Negro Family: A Case for National Action. The truth always comes back to haunt.
     
    In murder cases, they call this "the smoking gun". And evidence of premeditation.
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    That's a splendid idea, Joe. Of course it'll never happen, but I'd listen at the risk of being put into a deep, deep sleep by those soothing NPR folks. Alas, Nina Totenberg is no longer a young lass, so I don't think her reading of a Patrick Moynihan paper would get me hot and bothered ... well, maybe bothered.

    It's really something to think that the name Patrick Moynihan seems like someone from the recent past to me!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. songbird says:

    What I find funny in a very macabre way is that, if you give a literalistic interpretation to the phrase – well, it has nearly come true.

    In 2017, a Romanian tourist, trying to jump to avoid being killed, was knocked into the Thames. She was unconscious in the water. She was pulled out, but later died. Were there any other bodies in the river? If not, it was angle of the attack and the rails that kept them out. And Powell is still mocked!

    You know what they should be doing on the anniversary? The presenters on the BBC and the elites like May should be making the same jump that woman was forced to make. I don’t mean violently – just from the same spot and height. I don’t think there is one who would do it without being pushed though.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  27. AndrewR says:

    Enoch Powell will go down as one of the greatest Britons of the 20th century. Certainly better than that obese warmonger Churchill whom too many people still worship.

    Read More
    • Agree: L Woods
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  28. Luke Lea says:
    @Lot
    http://media.breitbart.com/media/2015/10/image2-21.jpg



    https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/JViNN9JO-QwjJ_bvOxuncq_jgJw=/0x37:3000x2287/1200x800/filters:focal(0x37:3000x2287)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/52977787/Muslim_prayer_white_house.0.0.jpg

    Truly scary.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. Dr. X says:
    @syonredux

    The BBC’s decision has sparked widespread criticism and has been denounced as an “incitement to racial hatred” at a time when far-right nationalism, xenophobia and racism are on the rise in Britain and other parts of Europe.
     
    And, of course, all of those nasty things are in reaction to a "preventable evil" : mass immigration by Muslims into Christian Europe.....

    And, of course, all of those nasty things are in reaction to a “preventable evil” : mass immigration by Muslims into Christian Europe…..

    Post-Christian Europe.

    When Europe was actually Christian, it didn’t tolerate Muslims invading it… like Vienna in 1683.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Nigerian Nationalist
    Arrant nonsense, the greatest ally of those Muslims were the Catholic French.

    Skipped your History class there mate?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. 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.”

    A perfect example of what Powell is referring to would be Peter Hitchens, who blames Powell for Britain’s immigration invasion:

    …British Tory politician Enoch Powell who, in a stupid and cynical speech in 1968, packed with alarmist language and sprinkled with derogatory expressions and inflammatory rumour, defined debate on the subject of immigration for 40 years.

    Thanks to him, and his undoubted attempt to mobilise racial hostility, the revolutionary liberals have ever afterwards found it easy to accuse any opponent of being a Powellite.

    See? Everything would have been fine if he hadn’t noticed it too soon.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    And again:

    https://twitter.com/Jacob_Rees_Mogg/status/985180625656254464
    , @WowJustWow
    And yet: “I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended - even if this wasn't its main purpose - to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.” — Andrew Neather

    Don’t underestimate what people are capable of doing out of spite.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    I recall some recent comment that Powell actually did have the effect of slowing the invasion till Tony Blair took the lid off in 1997.
    , @AndrewR
    Good god. I have even less respect for Peter Hitchens than I did before.

    Another example of this phenomenon was me, in another forum, predicting that John Paul Stevens' attack on the second amendment was the opening salvo of what will become an all-out war by the left to repeal it. Subsequently, I was accused of hoping for such an outcome even though I obviously had not implied anything to that effect. I had even used the term "gun-grabbers" non-ironically to refer to... gun-grabbers.
    , @Cagey Beast
    Yes, if only Powell had played the public relations game properly, Britain could have been spared wave after wave of race riots, stabbings, sex abuse gangs and bombings. Unfortunately, he didn't use the finesse and fine wrist motions you need when dealing with the media machine, so he ruined it for everyone.

    The mass media and political machine isn't rigged, dear boy, it just takes the proper technique to work it! Enoch Powell came in here and buggered it all up for the rest of us! Thank him if you get blown up at the next pop concert!

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Dr. X says:
    @Lot
    http://media.breitbart.com/media/2015/10/image2-21.jpg



    https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/JViNN9JO-QwjJ_bvOxuncq_jgJw=/0x37:3000x2287/1200x800/filters:focal(0x37:3000x2287)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/52977787/Muslim_prayer_white_house.0.0.jpg

    When I did some roofing work over summers during graduate school, my boss used to say “This is E&A Day… I don’t want to see nothing but elbows and assholes.”

    The Muzzies look as if they’re nailing shingles, when you think about it…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    You, possibly inadvertently, bring up a good comparison, Professor. If it weren't in such massive doses as to change the culture of large parts of the country, the Chicano immigration that WE have would still beat all hell out of the Moslem brand. At least they are all assholes/elbows on the roofs (albeit, with the externalized costs being paid via taxes and health insurance costs). The Moslems feel themselves too good for that sort of work, in general.

    It's not just that they pray with their asses in the air - not a good look for anyone - but what's a big point of contention is whether the good British folks in the pictures are actually praying in the right direction. There will soon be non-preventable tensions between the true Moslems and the magnetic Moslems, and later on, after they've all gotten through their forms and "maths", the Euclidean and non-Euclidean Moslems. Hopefully, it should not end in violence, well, so long as knife control is implemented properly.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Anonym says:
    @Lot
    https://i.imgur.com/aXa1e0w.jpg

    That’s horrible. Those are the symptoms of the poz, entities like this are the cause.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Things would be somewhat different in the UK if there was an equivalent of a Second Amendment tradition.
    Sometimes the good move is to change the subject to one you can win and then hammer it down on the table.
    From Canada to Australia to New Zealand to the USA – everywhere it seems – gun laws are more relaxed for Anglos than they are in the home country. Some normalization of the mother country to her former colonies seems in order.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  34. wren says:

    It would be so much better if it were video.

    Powell’s words juxtaposed with modern London — more dangerous and violent now than New York.

    Even with gun control and knife control and cameras on every corner, London under Khan knows rivers of blood.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  35. Anon[395] • Disclaimer says:
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  36. Anon7 says:

    ’Enoch Powell was no racist,’ says actor who played Emperor in Star Wars (September, 2017)

    “A row has broken out between Black Country MP Ian Austin and the Hollywood actor portraying one of the West Midlands’ most famous politicians – Enoch Powell.

    “Mr Austin hit out at Ian McDiarmid, who portrayed evil Emperor Palpatine in the Star Wars films, after the actor claimed Powell was not a racist.

    “Mr McDiarmid is portraying Powell in a play called What Shadows, running in Edinburgh and London.

    “It looks at Powell’s famous “Rivers of Blood” speech in 1968. Birmingham-born Powell, MP for Wolverhampton South West, told an audience in a Birmingham hotel that allowing high levels of immigration from Commonwealth countries was “like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre”.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Romanian
    Dunno whether the actor is a crimethinker, but his reading of the speech was terrible. I just listened to it on the BBC website http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09z08w3

    I was afraid it would be sinister, but that would have made it better - it just sounds limp-wristed. Did Enoch Powell sound like that back then? Frankly, the actor should have done a Palpatine voice. I cannot imagine the newer generations being awed by the speech when read in this way.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. @Lot
    http://media.breitbart.com/media/2015/10/image2-21.jpg



    https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/JViNN9JO-QwjJ_bvOxuncq_jgJw=/0x37:3000x2287/1200x800/filters:focal(0x37:3000x2287)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/52977787/Muslim_prayer_white_house.0.0.jpg

    May mine eyes, ever-chaste, swiftly pass
    O’er the tasteless, the vulgar, the crass.
    En masse et vetu
    With no sinful see-thru:
    Thus would I gaze upon ass.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    https://www.vdare.com/articles/can-we-judge-people-by-what-they-look-like-in-fact-yes

    Another study, involving 95 male subjects, found that men who like small breasts tend toward being religious and depressive, and men who like larger buttocks are ordered, dependent, and “self-blaming.”
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. MEH 0910 says:

    Enoch Powell’s ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech read by Ian McDiarmid

    Ian McDiarmid’s full reading of Enoch Powell’s 1968 speech ‘Rivers of Blood’ without commentary.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Is this a joke? Was McDiarmid drunk? Was he doing an impression of Powell? If so, was Powell often drunk when he gave speeches?

    They need to get the British version of Christopher Walken to read this.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Anonymous[241] • Disclaimer says:
    @Harry Baldwin
    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.”

    A perfect example of what Powell is referring to would be Peter Hitchens, who blames Powell for Britain's immigration invasion:

    ...British Tory politician Enoch Powell who, in a stupid and cynical speech in 1968, packed with alarmist language and sprinkled with derogatory expressions and inflammatory rumour, defined debate on the subject of immigration for 40 years.

    Thanks to him, and his undoubted attempt to mobilise racial hostility, the revolutionary liberals have ever afterwards found it easy to accuse any opponent of being a Powellite.
     
    See? Everything would have been fine if he hadn't noticed it too soon.

    And again:

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    It's striking to note that the "conservative" party hasn't tried to conserve anything in more than fifty years. One wonders if it ever did.
    , @AnotherDad

    My father’s view which has stood the test of time about Enoch Powell’s famous speech
     
    Could the "test of time" more thoroughly vindicate someone as it's done for Enoch Powell?

    These cucking "conservative" twits like Rees-Mogg are the lowest form of life. At least our enemies--the Stephen Jay Gould types--are pretty openly lying, white-gentile hating, super-state loving, anti-republican scum.

    And apparently--looked him up--this Jacob Rees-Mogg is actually supposed to be a "reactionary" "conservative" twit. He's supposed to be "right wing" ... and yet is unwilling to stand up and admit that immivasion is destroying his own nation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Goatweed says:

    NYTimes
    Pakistan
    Drug resistant typhoid strain

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kylie
    Yes, I saw in the Daily Mail about the drug-resistant strain of typhoid in Pakistan. I'm suprised the left isn't out in full force demanding that Westwrn countries take these sick people in. What could go wrong?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says: • Website

    Perhaps, one reason why former imperialist nations became so pro-immigration was a subconscious desire to justify past imperialism. After all, Imperialism increased diversity around the world, and the anti-imperialist impetus was essentially anti-diversity.
    Algerians and Vietnam didn’t want the diversity of European colonizers, just like Palestinians didn’t want the diversity of Zionist colonizers and Tibetans don’t want the diversity of Han Chinese demographic flooding.

    By welcoming demographic imperialism from non-white nations, former white imperialist nations could be subconsciously defending their past imperialist record of imposing diversity on subject nations that couldn’t say NO to the diversity of European colonizers and their collaborators… like Africa had to take not only white colonizers but HIndu agents of the British.

    Diversity = imperialism. Homogeneity = nationalism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    Diversity = imperialism. Homogeneity = nationalism.
     
    This is dead on.

    However, i think you're overall point is so-so. I think it applies to the Brits and French a bit. "Look we're so wonderful everyone from our empire wants to flock here ... we're all Britons!"

    But the US is the diversity pusher in chief, and was pretty much at the bottom of pile in terms of imperialism, getting to the game late and picking up just a few tiny colonies in the wake the Spanish-American War. You could say we did the neo-imperial thing during the Cold War and tried to be open to all and sundry to propagandize for our side. (Ex. Obama's dad.) But overall, doesn't really fly.

    Then you to the truly weird cases like Sweden. And then Merkel destroying Germany in one fell--and foul--swoop.
    , @bomag

    former white imperialist nations could be subconsciously defending their past imperialist record ...
     
    One problem is that countries with scant history of colonization are being flooded.

    If one is interested in fairness, this reverse colonization looks highly unfair: compare the British presence in Pakistan with the Pakistani presence in Britain.

    Was past imperialism even a net negative? The countries received infrastructure; technology; and access to a trading network. The new imperialism doesn't have much positive to offer.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. @Harry Baldwin
    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.”

    A perfect example of what Powell is referring to would be Peter Hitchens, who blames Powell for Britain's immigration invasion:

    ...British Tory politician Enoch Powell who, in a stupid and cynical speech in 1968, packed with alarmist language and sprinkled with derogatory expressions and inflammatory rumour, defined debate on the subject of immigration for 40 years.

    Thanks to him, and his undoubted attempt to mobilise racial hostility, the revolutionary liberals have ever afterwards found it easy to accuse any opponent of being a Powellite.
     
    See? Everything would have been fine if he hadn't noticed it too soon.

    And yet: “I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn’t its main purpose – to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.” — Andrew Neather

    Don’t underestimate what people are capable of doing out of spite.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JackOH
    "Don’t underestimate what people are capable of doing out of spite." (Emphasis mine.)

    Spite, that pettiest of malice, is underrated as an animating force in public policy. Ditto, moral or mental exhaustion, as at the end of protracted labor negotiations.

    The "diversity" that's glowingly touted for its alleged virtues is, I suspect, rhetorical cover for leftish Democrats' civic self-esteem, their unwillingness to admit that the civil rights laws of the 1960s have been massively destructive, as in the ethnic cleansing of Whites from America's once great cities, and those same laws offer no hope of achieving a color-blind society, because those laws rely on the permanence of grievances.
    , @Pericles

    Don’t underestimate what people are capable of doing out of spite.

     

    For example, it seems clear that the disastrous migrant policy of Sweden was prompted by PM Fredrik Reinfeldt's personal spite against the Sweden Democrats.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. @Lot
    http://shoebat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/2rzxrih.jpg

    http://shoebat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/france-muslims.jpg

    bored identity has to notice that all those postcards of the Oriental Ostrich Farming would be quite impossible without the existence of Occidental Quisling Ostriches:

    https://s14-eu5.startpage.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.consciouspioneer.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F09%2Fhuman-ostrich-resize-a1.jpg&sp=77e3202a46ebfc357b2503286f3de177

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. @Buffalo Joe
    I have an idea. Have some one with a sonorous voice read, on NPR, Daniel Patrick Moynihan's paper, The Negro Family: A Case for National Action. The truth always comes back to haunt.

    How about James Earl Jones?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    Gary, Yes a perfect voice if you showed his face.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. tanabear says:

    Thus spoke Enoch:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  46. Mishra says:
    @Buffalo Joe
    I have an idea. Have some one with a sonorous voice read, on NPR, Daniel Patrick Moynihan's paper, The Negro Family: A Case for National Action. The truth always comes back to haunt.

    The truth always comes back to haunt.

    More often than not, the truth is thoroughly erased from the historical record.

    The few times it comes back to haunt, it is attacked without mercy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. syonredux says:

    Janelle Monáe and Tessa Thompson Made It Clear That Not All Women Have Vaginas In “PYNK”

    “PYNK” is a glorious, pink-hued celebration of female sexuality and empowerment. And while the video is laden with vaginal imagery, Janelle Monáe and Tessa Thompson went out of their way to acknowledge that there are women without that anatomy.

    https://www.themarysue.com/janelle-monae-tessa-thompson-pynk/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    Janelle Monáe and Tessa Thompson Made It Clear That Not All Women Have Vaginas In “PYNK”
     
    In the immortal words of John Cleese to his colleague Eric Idle (Stan, aka Loretta:), "What's the point?!"

    Just like Enoch Powell, way, way ahead of his time:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c

    "I want you all to call me Loretta." "Whaaaa?" "It's my right as a man."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. JackOH says:
    @WowJustWow
    And yet: “I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended - even if this wasn't its main purpose - to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.” — Andrew Neather

    Don’t underestimate what people are capable of doing out of spite.

    “Don’t underestimate what people are capable of doing out of spite.” (Emphasis mine.)

    Spite, that pettiest of malice, is underrated as an animating force in public policy. Ditto, moral or mental exhaustion, as at the end of protracted labor negotiations.

    The “diversity” that’s glowingly touted for its alleged virtues is, I suspect, rhetorical cover for leftish Democrats’ civic self-esteem, their unwillingness to admit that the civil rights laws of the 1960s have been massively destructive, as in the ethnic cleansing of Whites from America’s once great cities, and those same laws offer no hope of achieving a color-blind society, because those laws rely on the permanence of grievances.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Spite is the only manifestation of free will. When confronted with the theory of predictability of behavior and actions a human can falsify it only by acting out of spite.
    , @utu

    America’s once great cities
     
    You got carried away. American cities were never great.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. @Ivy
    Who are, or were, the Enoch Powells in other European countries, and will their speeches or columns be remembered? Start with Sweden, or maybe Italy or Hungary.

    Is not Thilo Sarrazin a very good German counterpart to Powell. Also sacked!

    Interesting that his name suggests Muslim ancestry.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Romanian
    It might, but it could also be that one of his ancestors was nicknamed the turk or saracen because he was darker than others in the community. An important source of European peasant family names, after occupational names (thatcher, fletcher), is a nickname. He did not necessarily have to be swarthy, just with dark hair and maybe a bit darker coloring, like the Black Irish. Such variations are natural - men are often darker than women, babies are lighter in color than adults, both in skin and hair etc.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. @Harry Baldwin
    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.”

    A perfect example of what Powell is referring to would be Peter Hitchens, who blames Powell for Britain's immigration invasion:

    ...British Tory politician Enoch Powell who, in a stupid and cynical speech in 1968, packed with alarmist language and sprinkled with derogatory expressions and inflammatory rumour, defined debate on the subject of immigration for 40 years.

    Thanks to him, and his undoubted attempt to mobilise racial hostility, the revolutionary liberals have ever afterwards found it easy to accuse any opponent of being a Powellite.
     
    See? Everything would have been fine if he hadn't noticed it too soon.

    I recall some recent comment that Powell actually did have the effect of slowing the invasion till Tony Blair took the lid off in 1997.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. anon[146] • Disclaimer says:

    A true prophet. How much better, safer and happier Britain would be today had Enoch Powell only been listened too.

    Note how today JUST REPEATING his speech is considered “racist”, let alone acting on his actual suggestions, stopping non-whites from coming to the U.K. and repatriating those already there. See how the goalpost has moved!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  52. @Buffalo Joe
    I have an idea. Have some one with a sonorous voice read, on NPR, Daniel Patrick Moynihan's paper, The Negro Family: A Case for National Action. The truth always comes back to haunt.

    I have an idea. Have some one with a sonorous voice read, on NPR, Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s paper, The Negro Family: A Case for National Action. The truth always comes back to haunt.

    In murder cases, they call this “the smoking gun”. And evidence of premeditation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    Reg, nicely stated, thank you for the reply.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. @syonredux
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KsljBj3UEI

    Very powerful video — we have not seen this video on the BBC yet!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @Reg Cæsar
    Powell was fluent in Urdu, and hence Hindi, so he likely knew a lot more from observation and experience than any of his detractors.

    He was once called out of his office to face a Paki protest, and stunned them by addressing them in their own language. What he should have done was to address his native critics in Sanskrit... or even just Latin or Greek.

    He was Greek scholar, actually. He translated New Testament.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. Enoch Powell’s ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech read by Ian McDiarmid:

    Very good and sympathetic reading by McDiarmid.

    I would quote from a review of Peter Hitchens book, “The Abolition of Britain”

    I’m weary of conservative jeremiads that don’t offer any constructive recommendations on what to do. After all, as my mother used to tell me, “if there’s no solution, there’s no problem.” Conservatives who bemoan how bad things have gotten (and they have gotten very much worse in Britain since this book was written, 1999, or even since it was re-issued with a new Introduction, 2008) need to offer real alternatives and solutions, or they might as well not bother.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    After all, as my mother used to tell me, “if there’s no solution, there’s no problem.”
     
    This is generally good advice. There is no point dwelling on situations that can't be fixed, except that it can be fixed, with a great deal of effort now. In addition, we can at least demand that they stop heaping.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. Mr. Anon says:
    @Lot
    http://shoebat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/2rzxrih.jpg

    http://shoebat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/france-muslims.jpg

    Muslims mooning western civilization.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. Mr. Anon says:

    It’s a pity that Ian McDiarmid is primarily known as the Emperor in George Lucas’s sophmoric dorm-room bullsh*t-session/morality tale Star Wars movies, rather than being known as Michael Caine’s butler in the far superior movie Dirty Rotten Scoundrels.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  58. Only parts of the original audio and video of the speech have survived.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  59. But somebody had a sound-alike voice read out the whole speech and put it up on YouTube…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  60. Anonymous[127] • Disclaimer says:

    He was too extremist in railing against all immigration. As long as the numbers of Muslims were limited, even an immigration as wave as large as the one followed Blair’s election, would have been received without huge problems and brought enrichment. The left should adopt the position that diversity is good but Muslims are bad.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ali Choudhury
    Brexit was primarily a vote against unlimited white, Christian, Central European immigraton to the UK. They are very obviously competitors for jobs and business with much of the local population, Muslims not so much.
    , @L Woods
    No thanks.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. AndrewR says:
    @Harry Baldwin
    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.”

    A perfect example of what Powell is referring to would be Peter Hitchens, who blames Powell for Britain's immigration invasion:

    ...British Tory politician Enoch Powell who, in a stupid and cynical speech in 1968, packed with alarmist language and sprinkled with derogatory expressions and inflammatory rumour, defined debate on the subject of immigration for 40 years.

    Thanks to him, and his undoubted attempt to mobilise racial hostility, the revolutionary liberals have ever afterwards found it easy to accuse any opponent of being a Powellite.
     
    See? Everything would have been fine if he hadn't noticed it too soon.

    Good god. I have even less respect for Peter Hitchens than I did before.

    Another example of this phenomenon was me, in another forum, predicting that John Paul Stevens’ attack on the second amendment was the opening salvo of what will become an all-out war by the left to repeal it. Subsequently, I was accused of hoping for such an outcome even though I obviously had not implied anything to that effect. I had even used the term “gun-grabbers” non-ironically to refer to… gun-grabbers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. DFH says:

    The worst part of the program was when they had Matthew Parris, a journalist and failed Tory MP, (who one would think would have learned something about racism from seeing his female travelling companion raped in front of him when he was travelling across Africa as a teenager) call Enoch Powell, the youngest professor in the Empire who spoke 15 languages, stupid.

    A funny part was when one of the academics said that obviously everyone knows now that it’s wrong to prefer people of your own ethnicity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lurker
    Matthew Paris - a journalist and failed Tory MP. And gay, in case there was any doubt over his progressive credentials.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. Anonymous[817] • Disclaimer says:

    It is remarkable that just weeks after the most terrible spate of bloody knife attack murders that London has ever witnessed – perpetrated entirely by the descendants of third world immigrants – certain quartets still – straightfacedly – proclaim the ‘success’ and ‘joy’ of multiracial Britain.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    An interesting turn in this discussion in Germany goes on like this: It's true, stabbings happen, BUT, what a shame: Lots of the victims are immigrants!
    , @Harry Baldwin
    What alternative do they have? To admit that they and their worldview have been proven disastrously wrong? To acknowledge that their ideological enemies, opposition to whom is the foundation of their virtue, have in fact been right all along?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. AndrewR says:
    @Anonymous
    And again:

    https://twitter.com/Jacob_Rees_Mogg/status/985180625656254464

    It’s striking to note that the “conservative” party hasn’t tried to conserve anything in more than fifty years. One wonders if it ever did.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Perspective
    While the situation all across the West is pretty dire, it seems to be especially pitiful in the UK at the moment. It's refreshing though when dissidents speak out:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbXdytNrtwY&t=536s
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Anonymous[817] • Disclaimer says:

    It’s pretty obvious that certain prominent political figures in the UK have zero respect for the concept of ‘free speech’ and are totally in favor of censorship by state controlled bodies.

    Ironically, the BBC , Britain’s state broadcaster is funded by a compulsory tax levied on all owners of a TV receiver.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  66. NYT article about SJW refugees from Trumpism: Some Said They’d Flee Trump’s America. These People Actually Did. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/14/style/moving-to-canada-jk-traveling-until-2020.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jason Liu
    You'd think it'd be minorities fleeing Trump's ovens but no. White leftists are the most retarded of leftists.
    , @Autochthon
    Here are the set-ups (I leave the punchlines as an exercise for the reader...):

    Ms. Quain, who is in her forties, owned a children’s play cafe and preschool near Seattle before she renounced her American middle-class existence in August 2016, fed up with what she described as a stifling, consumerist culture.

    “Once I get my business up and running,” she said, “I’ll hire people to teach [my children] how to do things.

    Jessica and William Swenson are financing an eleven-month, around-the-world trip with their three small children through a mix of savings, inheritance, a severance package and the income from renting out their four-bedroom house with a pool in Livermore, California.

    Matthew Gillespie ... works remotely full time as a Web designer.

    “It was an opportunity to take a midcareer break,” said Mr. Jernstrom, who quit his job in investment management; Ms. Jernstrom is a former environmental scientist. The family is financing their travels with savings and income earned renting out their four-bedroom house…."
     

    Fight The Man, you feisty, downtrodden rebels, you!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. Anonymous[817] • Disclaimer says:

    Powell’s claim to greatness and fame can be judged thus:

    Fifty years own, his speech is still controversial. It is, right now, being discussed, studied and being read. At the time, Powell was merely a junior opposition minister.
    How many people, at this moment, recall or are even interested in the names of the big political figures in UK politics from that era? Wilson, Heath, Callaghan, Jenkins, George Brown, Crossman, Crosland, Tony Barber, Geoffrey Ripon etc etc?
    Who’s reading *their* speeches?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonym
    Heck, Rivers of Blood is more prophetic than anything Churchill wrote, IMO.
    , @Not Raul
    Good point. All of those other guys, except Heath, have been largely forgotten. And Heath only comes up in conversation when his pedophilia is discussed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. It was a rather bloodthirsty and bombastic speech which racist thugs up and down the country took as a signal to attack anyone with non-white skin they did not like the look of. So it is not surprising a section of the public does not wish to see it being given an airing by the state-owned broadcaster. Especially since Powell did not think it necessary to speak out against racist attacks. He was more concerned about the impact it would have on his party leadership prospects. As David Goodhart says it had the rather counter productive impact of making it impossible to talk about immigration policy sensibly. It also resulted in the bar for successful integration into UK society being set too low.

    Read More
    • Disagree: Harry Baldwin
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Pure nonsense.

    Here's a little context.

    Powell made the speech contemporaneously with the riots which set many an American city ablaze in the aftermath of Martin Luther King's assassination. That was no accident, Powell very wisely and perceptively knew of the *inevitable* and *ultimate* outcome of multi racialism.

    Closer to home, for you Mr. Choudhury, Enoch Powell served as an officer in the British Indian Army during the independence/partition period of 1947/8.
    He personally witnessed the aftermath of atrocities and the effects of sectarian violence/hatreds.

    All he wanted to do was to stop his beloved homeland from following that path to self a destruction.

    For that, certain quarters can never ever forgive him.
    , @The Anti-Gnostic
    It was a prescient and sensible speech.

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/05/23/article-2329458-19F1FAAA000005DC-303_634x347.jpg
    , @Saxon
    "Integration" is a fantasy. What does it mean to "integrate" That I intermarry and interbreed with people who've essentially invaded me and destroy my own people in the process? If not, then what. Land and carry capacity as well as resources is limited, and the constant demand for more resources than these people can contribute to the system is in any case, a net burden that is quite literally preventing births within the native group.
    , @Almost Missouri
    This comment interests me. I've read the speech. I don't recall it being "bloodthirsty and bombastic". Which parts of it were so?

    Also,

    "racist thugs up and down the country took as a signal to attack anyone with non-white skin they did not like the look of"
     
    Who? When? Where?

    "Especially since Powell did not think it necessary to speak out against racist attacks."
     
    Um, he specifically spoke out against racist attacks in the speech. But maybe those racist attacks don't bother you.

    "It also resulted in the bar for successful integration into UK society being set too low."
     
    How so? Is this just another version of he-shouldn't-have-noticed-too-soon-and-too-publicly?
    , @AnotherDad

    It was a rather bloodthirsty and bombastic speech which racist thugs up and down the country took as a signal to attack anyone with non-white skin they did not like the look of.
     
    Utter and complete nonsense. Utter and complete.

    His speech is not "racist" by any reasonable (negative) definition of the term. The only thing even racially particular in the speech is relating the experience of the white boarding house owner. His speech is not fundamentally about the immigrants but about the rights of Britons and about the duty of their leaders to them. In fact, Powell had generally been seen as a racial liberal--especially after his speech on the massacre in Kenya. His basic outlook is that every citizen needs to be treated fairly as a fellow citizen, so it was imperative not to allow immigration to build up foreign communities and have communalism and contention. Which is exactly what's occurred. Furthermore, there's zero evidence of any upsurge in racial attacks. (If there was we'd have heard about it in all the denunciations.) You're just lying.

    It's strange to me, that on Steve's blog--HBD focused--where differences among peoples are frankly discussed, you nonetheless find a bunch of commentators utterly unable to get outside of their own little tribal identity and assess the world with any degree of objectivity.

    You've got a Chinese-American guy, who surveying the entire American scene thinks the really important racial issue is the essentially non-existent "discrimination against Asians". I kid you not! You've got an Indian who thinks that HBD is great and all, but anyone who would just as soon live their live in their nation without an invasion of Indians is just some sort of pathetic little cretin--rather than simply a normal rational human being. You've got a few of the Jews who think the old Ivy League Jewish quotas were "illegal", the Golfocaust some sort of abomination, and who just--despite their high IQs--just can't conceive of any reason other than irrational "hate", why someone would not have love in their heart for a tribally-endogamous, exploitive middle-man minority living in their midst. Anti-semitism!

    I'm a flyover country white-gentile. I think--predictably--that flyover country white gentiles are really pretty great. Build nice nation! (High trust, rule of law, etc.) That's the sort of nation i inherited and that i damn sure want to live in. But that said, i don't think we white gentiles don't have issues or that the world ought to revolve around us. And if i have a particular ethnicity beyond white-American, it's Irish-Catholic. You won't find me whining about the "Know-Nothings". The Irish Catholics had all sorts of issues that would make Anglo-Protestants not want to have them around. And beyond that Anglo-Protestants could legimately not want to have the Irish around simply because they weren't Anglo-Protestants! "Foreigner" is a perfectly legimate reason for not wanting someone around.

    I have my opinions on the "right way" to organize life. Basically i think my people--white gentiles--have done the best work, and created--before the disaster--the best nations with the best life. But if i was off trying to live in China or India or Japan or Israel or Dubai or Mexico, i wouldn't be whining about they didn't do things the proper white-gentile way, expect them to treat me as a native or expect them to allow my fellow white-gentiles to flood in because we're just so damn much better.

    Seriously. Poke your head up and view the world honestly--you aren't special and neither is your ethnic group. And no one else is under any obligation to like you or tolerate you hanging around.

    Powell is a hero. Not because there's anything "wrong" with whatever Commonwealth immigrants were coming in. But because their comming in would displace Britons, ramp up social contention and make life for the British people much worse and ultimately destroy Britons being able to live comfortably as Britons. This a real British leader can not sugarcoat or ignore, so Powell--a hero--spoke up to tell the truth.

    , @J.Ross
    Yeah, military-age Anglo and Scottish-descended Protestant men with a little alcohol and national pride in them never hurt a fly until Enoch Powell flipped the magic Pavlovian switch -- Powell knew football hooligans watch Parliamentary speeches religiously.
    , @J.Ross
    sensibly
    Has this pseudo-subtle namecalling ever been used honestly? It is this word and not Nazi fetishism that is the true tell of totalitarianism. When Charles II attempted to grab the guns prior to the English Civil War, his proposal literally included the phrase "common sense."
    , @Clyde

    It was a rather bloodthirsty and bombastic speech which racist thugs up and down the country took as a signal to attack anyone with non-white skin they did not like the look of.
     
    I am in USA so don't have an exact fix on this "racist thuggery" but it must have mild. Otherwise how do you account for the millions of Indians, Pakistanis, Hindus, Muslim who have immigrated to England since Enoch Powell's immortal speech. These days Muslim Pakistanis manipulate marriage and immigration laws to bring in brides and grooms from India/Pakistan. Thousands of Pounds are paid by the Pakistan family patriarch to the English family patriarch in these immigration marriages that are half business deals. The payoff to get a foothold in the UK and to one day set up their own cash (tax dodging) businesses such as chips shoppes.
    , @DFH
    If Britain had been a little bit more racist, then tens of thousands of girls wouldn't have been raped, so swings and roundabouts.

    Please go home, you'll never ever be British.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Anonymous[817] • Disclaimer says:
    @Lot
    https://i.imgur.com/aXa1e0w.jpg

    The look on that poor copper’s face says it all.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @Anonymous

    "[He] predicted that “in 15 or 20 years’ time, the black man will have the whip hand over the white man."

     

    Outright misrepresentation. Powell didn't predict that. He was repeating the words of one of his constituents, and he used them as an illustration of the kinds of concerns he was obligated to take seriously.

    I agree that was a shocking misrepresentation and such a blatant example of mainstream media lying to create propaganda.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @Anonymous
    He was too extremist in railing against all immigration. As long as the numbers of Muslims were limited, even an immigration as wave as large as the one followed Blair's election, would have been received without huge problems and brought enrichment. The left should adopt the position that diversity is good but Muslims are bad.

    Brexit was primarily a vote against unlimited white, Christian, Central European immigraton to the UK. They are very obviously competitors for jobs and business with much of the local population, Muslims not so much.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Not true.

    It was the inevitable backlash against the Blair/Economist open-door immigration policy.
    During the period 1997-2010 more non EU migrants than EU migrants entered Britain.

    Amongst the very first acts of the Blair government on election in 1997 was to ease restrictions on subcontinental 'arranged' spouse importations.
    , @TheUmpteenthGermanOnHere
    Do you have supporting data from polls etc.? As such, the argument is not exactly obvious. Competition for welfare resources may not be as intense as competition for jobs, but is real nonetheless.
    You also probably significantly underestimate the element of cultural opposition to diversity. In that regard, Muslims may not only rank below Eastern European immigrants in the eyes of Brexit voters, but also below blacks.
    , @Perspective
    In part, yes. Though much of it had to do with the very real concern that "refugees" (including Merkel's million) would over time relocate to the UK.
    , @Lot
    If Pakistani and Jamaican immigration were put up to a national vote in the UK, what do you think the results would be? I'd put it at 70% or better for Third Worldexit.
    , @Romanian
    Aside from the wage suppression that can happen with groups that actually work (90% labor force occupation for Polish in the UK, 10% for Somalis), and the very real crimes that take place with Eastern Euros (violent ones, not just fraud, though not many), the main reason was the fact that it is not illegal to hate on fellow Europeans. It has been allowed as a safety valve. You will end up in prison if you say something bad about a Muslim who is also a British subject, but a Polish Plumber is fair game from the perspective of the law. This is especially interesting when it comes to Gypsies, many of whom are visibly non-European yet are, from the perspective of the Western anarcho-tyranny regimes, honorary Euros. This explains how the French reveled in sending Gypsies back to Eastern Europe, indulging in the borderline un-PC hostility towards racial foreigners as a sort of catharsis when they are stuck with all of the Maghrebians they took in. Back in Eastern Europe, the Gypsies are the African-Americans of the local progressives, who must be pampered and elevated for their past slavery, even as everyone except a few nobles was essentially a slave through the institution of serfdom, which ended roughly around the same time as actual Gypsy slavery.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. @Anonymous
    It is remarkable that just weeks after the most terrible spate of bloody knife attack murders that London has ever witnessed - perpetrated entirely by the descendants of third world immigrants - certain quartets still - straightfacedly - proclaim the 'success' and 'joy' of multiracial Britain.

    An interesting turn in this discussion in Germany goes on like this: It’s true, stabbings happen, BUT, what a shame: Lots of the victims are immigrants!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. utu says:
    @JackOH
    "Don’t underestimate what people are capable of doing out of spite." (Emphasis mine.)

    Spite, that pettiest of malice, is underrated as an animating force in public policy. Ditto, moral or mental exhaustion, as at the end of protracted labor negotiations.

    The "diversity" that's glowingly touted for its alleged virtues is, I suspect, rhetorical cover for leftish Democrats' civic self-esteem, their unwillingness to admit that the civil rights laws of the 1960s have been massively destructive, as in the ethnic cleansing of Whites from America's once great cities, and those same laws offer no hope of achieving a color-blind society, because those laws rely on the permanence of grievances.

    Spite is the only manifestation of free will. When confronted with the theory of predictability of behavior and actions a human can falsify it only by acting out of spite.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Not clear at all. I don't know the main points of this theory, or what exactly it pretends to explain. But I lay down the gauntlet that you're wrong. Free will is the human ability to say 'yes or no' to good or evil. Why some people do so can ultimately be a mystery or a scandal. Being spiteful of, say, another's intelligence is common, but speaks more of our human chains than of our free will.

    And I liked you post about received wisdom on Karlin's thread. You didn't call it that, but the one about Evolution Theory as article of faith. Of course we accept many ideas without thoroughly understanding them, we would never get out of the house otherwise. And when living in a sane society, or learn science astride the shoulders of giants, that would be the sane way to live.
    , @WowJustWow
    It’s also the mentality of a child. I’ve learned that the hard way dealing with my nephew. Telling him specifically not do something, especially by explaining the potential bad consequences, only gives him a clearer picture of possibilities that had scarcely crossed his mind and guarantees he’ll do it for a week straight until he gets bored of it.

    For another example in politics, see same-sex marriage. In the wake of the Supreme Court ruling, people let out their pent-up bloodlust on Facebook and cheered for bakers, photographers, and pizzerias going into financial ruin, then promptly got bored of it. Even gays became less interested in marriage once it wasn’t something to fight for anymore. I live in Manhattan and I can’t remember the last time I even heard about anybody in a same-sex marriage (although straight people are obsessed with talking about their own relationships with gender-neutral words like “partner”, “spouse”, “S/O”, “they”, etc. so I mistakenly assume they’re gay at first. Real gay people don’t give a crap about all that).

    But if and when the left gets bored of rubbing the right’s nose in diversity, they can’t just pretend it never happened and move on to their next obsession. Diversity doesn’t just wind up in a box in the garage alongside the Beyblades and fidget spinners.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. @Lot
    https://i.imgur.com/aXa1e0w.jpg

    Isn’t it provocatively racist to police such a beautifully diverse group of clearly peaceful men by a white official?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. utu says:
    @JackOH
    "Don’t underestimate what people are capable of doing out of spite." (Emphasis mine.)

    Spite, that pettiest of malice, is underrated as an animating force in public policy. Ditto, moral or mental exhaustion, as at the end of protracted labor negotiations.

    The "diversity" that's glowingly touted for its alleged virtues is, I suspect, rhetorical cover for leftish Democrats' civic self-esteem, their unwillingness to admit that the civil rights laws of the 1960s have been massively destructive, as in the ethnic cleansing of Whites from America's once great cities, and those same laws offer no hope of achieving a color-blind society, because those laws rely on the permanence of grievances.

    America’s once great cities

    You got carried away. American cities were never great.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. Anonymous[241] • Disclaimer says:
    @Clyde
    Enoch Powell's Wolverhampton district is diverse these days -- https://www.ft.com/content/6c55ce92-babe-11e4-8447-00144feab7de

    Enoch Powell - the great British Parliamentarian - developed a maxim after decades of experience: "All political careers end in failure."
    https://tinyurl.com/y9d325w3

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/13/row-enoch-powell-plaque-racism-wolverhampton

    … “But almost 50 years on, the people of Wolverhampton voted for me, a black woman, to represent them – and that speaks volumes. Powell would be turning in his grave. It’s poetic justice.”

    watchu gonna do about it whiteboi?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    Yep, guess she has the whip hand now.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. @Anon
    Hopefully the entire staff of the BBC will be arrested, convicted and imprisoned for thinking about inciting to racial hatred after the speech is broadcast.

    The streets of London at least are daily showered with the blood of Whites stabbed by Muslims. These are not stabbing v because of fights. These are not stabbing a during robberies.

    These are stabbing a of random Whites, usually men by Muslims in benefit who have the time and money to roam about town stabbing random Whites in a display of arrogance, supremacy and to show the infidels who is in charge of Britain and its major city.

    These are stabbing a of random Whites, usually men by Muslims in benefit who have the time and money to roam about town stabbing random Whites …

    Yeah, but that’s an evil easily preventable by the UK statesment via common-sense knife control, as after all, there is nothing that’s in their Constitution about it, since they don’t have one, and it would only be referering to the state-run national guard if they did. [/Mason]

    It’s time the formerly-Great formerly-British government, especially the one in bloody London, where lots of these stabbings “occur”, to start chipping away at the carrying and use of knives … nothing drastic, just some common sense chipping away. Leave the Moslem criminals with nothing left but ice picks and ice axes, and then you’ll see the knife stabbings greatly reduced … [/Wizard]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. Don’t forget to upload the cut, thanks Steve.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  79. @Buffalo Joe
    I have an idea. Have some one with a sonorous voice read, on NPR, Daniel Patrick Moynihan's paper, The Negro Family: A Case for National Action. The truth always comes back to haunt.

    That’s a splendid idea, Joe. Of course it’ll never happen, but I’d listen at the risk of being put into a deep, deep sleep by those soothing NPR folks. Alas, Nina Totenberg is no longer a young lass, so I don’t think her reading of a Patrick Moynihan paper would get me hot and bothered … well, maybe bothered.

    It’s really something to think that the name Patrick Moynihan seems like someone from the recent past to me!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    AEN, Thank you. Most NPR hostesses were perfect for the visuals of radio. For those too young to remember what Moynihan wrote decades ago, search out "The Negro Family: A Case for National Action."
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    Nina Totenberg is no longer a young lass,
     
    When your name is 'dead city' you are neither young, nor a lass. And you thought the Grim Reaper (tm) had no offspring. And we see that GR's spawn has her lucrative career on PBS.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. @Dr. X

    And, of course, all of those nasty things are in reaction to a “preventable evil” : mass immigration by Muslims into Christian Europe…..
     
    Post-Christian Europe.

    When Europe was actually Christian, it didn't tolerate Muslims invading it... like Vienna in 1683.

    Arrant nonsense, the greatest ally of those Muslims were the Catholic French.

    Skipped your History class there mate?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. @Dr. X
    When I did some roofing work over summers during graduate school, my boss used to say "This is E&A Day... I don't want to see nothing but elbows and assholes."

    The Muzzies look as if they're nailing shingles, when you think about it...

    You, possibly inadvertently, bring up a good comparison, Professor. If it weren’t in such massive doses as to change the culture of large parts of the country, the Chicano immigration that WE have would still beat all hell out of the Moslem brand. At least they are all assholes/elbows on the roofs (albeit, with the externalized costs being paid via taxes and health insurance costs). The Moslems feel themselves too good for that sort of work, in general.

    It’s not just that they pray with their asses in the air – not a good look for anyone – but what’s a big point of contention is whether the good British folks in the pictures are actually praying in the right direction. There will soon be non-preventable tensions between the true Moslems and the magnetic Moslems, and later on, after they’ve all gotten through their forms and “maths”, the Euclidean and non-Euclidean Moslems. Hopefully, it should not end in violence, well, so long as knife control is implemented properly.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. Anonym says:
    @Anonymous
    Powell's claim to greatness and fame can be judged thus:

    Fifty years own, his speech is still controversial. It is, right now, being discussed, studied and being read. At the time, Powell was merely a junior opposition minister.
    How many people, at this moment, recall or are even interested in the names of the big political figures in UK politics from that era? Wilson, Heath, Callaghan, Jenkins, George Brown, Crossman, Crosland, Tony Barber, Geoffrey Ripon etc etc?
    Who's reading *their* speeches?

    Heck, Rivers of Blood is more prophetic than anything Churchill wrote, IMO.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. Is not Thilo Sarrazin a very good German counterpart to Powell. Also sacked!

    Thanks to the heavens above, Sarrazin ranks pretty high on the list of most important intellectuals (No. 5).

    He just initiated the “Declaration of 2018″ protesting the open borders policy of the govenment. This declaration has now being signed by more than 130 000 people and therefor can be brought foward to the parliament in Berlin.

    Interesting that his name suggests Muslim ancestry.

    People were once called all kinds of names – “Scotts” for example were simply those, who had come from across the sea up north and the term was therefor applied to name the Irish as well.

    Same with Sarrazenen/Sarrazins: From the 15th century on, this name was often used for people who looked strange – for whatever reason. So – it could be used to name muslims, but it was also used to name all kinds of strangers (gypsies too…).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  84. @syonredux

    Janelle Monáe and Tessa Thompson Made It Clear That Not All Women Have Vaginas In “PYNK”
     

    “PYNK” is a glorious, pink-hued celebration of female sexuality and empowerment. And while the video is laden with vaginal imagery, Janelle Monáe and Tessa Thompson went out of their way to acknowledge that there are women without that anatomy.
     
    https://www.themarysue.com/janelle-monae-tessa-thompson-pynk/

    Janelle Monáe and Tessa Thompson Made It Clear That Not All Women Have Vaginas In “PYNK”

    In the immortal words of John Cleese to his colleague Eric Idle (Stan, aka Loretta:), “What’s the point?!”

    Just like Enoch Powell, way, way ahead of his time:

    “I want you all to call me Loretta.” “Whaaaa?” “It’s my right as a man.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. Anonymous[817] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ali Choudhury
    It was a rather bloodthirsty and bombastic speech which racist thugs up and down the country took as a signal to attack anyone with non-white skin they did not like the look of. So it is not surprising a section of the public does not wish to see it being given an airing by the state-owned broadcaster. Especially since Powell did not think it necessary to speak out against racist attacks. He was more concerned about the impact it would have on his party leadership prospects. As David Goodhart says it had the rather counter productive impact of making it impossible to talk about immigration policy sensibly. It also resulted in the bar for successful integration into UK society being set too low.

    Pure nonsense.

    Here’s a little context.

    Powell made the speech contemporaneously with the riots which set many an American city ablaze in the aftermath of Martin Luther King’s assassination. That was no accident, Powell very wisely and perceptively knew of the *inevitable* and *ultimate* outcome of multi racialism.

    Closer to home, for you Mr. Choudhury, Enoch Powell served as an officer in the British Indian Army during the independence/partition period of 1947/8.
    He personally witnessed the aftermath of atrocities and the effects of sectarian violence/hatreds.

    All he wanted to do was to stop his beloved homeland from following that path to self a destruction.

    For that, certain quarters can never ever forgive him.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. Anonymous[817] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ali Choudhury
    Brexit was primarily a vote against unlimited white, Christian, Central European immigraton to the UK. They are very obviously competitors for jobs and business with much of the local population, Muslims not so much.

    Not true.

    It was the inevitable backlash against the Blair/Economist open-door immigration policy.
    During the period 1997-2010 more non EU migrants than EU migrants entered Britain.

    Amongst the very first acts of the Blair government on election in 1997 was to ease restrictions on subcontinental ‘arranged’ spouse importations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ali Choudhury
    If the referendum had been run in 2004, it would probably have resulted in a vote to Remain. Opposition to EU membership grew substantially from the 2008 financial crisis onwards and the weak Eurozone recovery. There was a growing feeling that having one of the few successful economies while having no legal means of restricting the flow of people from a political entity covering half a billion people meant immigration would continue with no end in sight. Immigration from Poland and other central European countries (the EU8) rocketed up such that people from there went from 200k of the population in 2004 to 1.4m by 2015.

    Half of the non EU migrants were students on study visas who have to go home if they do not secure a job by the time they graduate. The spouse importations are about 20% of the total.Half the EU8 migrants are those who came because they had a job lined up.

    https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-migration-and-uk/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. @p s c
    I've always wondered why the Brits could crush the world from the 1700's through early 1900's with little regard for anything such as humanitarianism, decency or just plain sense not to subjugate other peoples. Yet by the 1960's there were huge parades for anti-nukes, anti-apartheid, anti-Vietnam war, and all other lefty stuff.

    But concerning the Irish question, the Brits remained iron-willed. During the hunger strikes of the early '80's, Margaret Thatcher and the people of Britain were determined not to yield an inch to the IRA.

    Yet if these same men were black or brown and were resisting Mother England for some other type of nationalism beside Irish Republicanism, millions of white Britishers would have been on the streets protesting on their behalf.

    Cucks of the highest order.

    The British treatment of Irish Catholics compared to their treatment of new arrivals from Africa, the Indies and the Sub-Continent is amazing. Just like the Puritan types from New England (Harriet Beecher Stowe, Emerson, etc...) despise the Irish and love the African.

    In 1979 the IRA blew up a Royal – Lord Mountbatten. That’s largely the reason for the vicious response in the 80s.

    The British Armed Forces (and their police and security services, etc) swear oaths to protect and obey the Monarch – not to their country or their own kindred.

    In fact, the British people have invested virtually all of their sense of national identity into the Royals. Immigrants from old Imperial territories are “Subjects of Her Majesty” and therefore are British.

    London demographics? Who cares! There’s an upcoming Royal wedding! And a Trooping the Colour! See – traditional Britain still exists!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. Jason Liu says:
    @Johann Ricke
    NYT article about SJW refugees from Trumpism: Some Said They’d Flee Trump’s America. These People Actually Did. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/14/style/moving-to-canada-jk-traveling-until-2020.html

    You’d think it’d be minorities fleeing Trump’s ovens but no. White leftists are the most retarded of leftists.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. @Ali Choudhury
    Brexit was primarily a vote against unlimited white, Christian, Central European immigraton to the UK. They are very obviously competitors for jobs and business with much of the local population, Muslims not so much.

    Do you have supporting data from polls etc.? As such, the argument is not exactly obvious. Competition for welfare resources may not be as intense as competition for jobs, but is real nonetheless.
    You also probably significantly underestimate the element of cultural opposition to diversity. In that regard, Muslims may not only rank below Eastern European immigrants in the eyes of Brexit voters, but also below blacks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    There are claims that Brexit voters were more concerned about non-European immigration than one would expect from the official narrative:
    http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/06/05/uk-voters-including-leavers-care-more-about-reducing-non-eu-than-eu-migration/

    Of course this can't be admitted in Britain since one has to pretend the post-war Commonwealth immigration was a fantastic success. Whereas bashing continental Europeans is still within the window of legitimate discourse.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. Anon[233] • Disclaimer says:
    @MEH 0910
    Enoch Powell's 'Rivers of Blood' speech read by Ian McDiarmid

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0nyZdi1atE

    Ian McDiarmid's full reading of Enoch Powell's 1968 speech 'Rivers of Blood' without commentary.
     

    Is this a joke? Was McDiarmid drunk? Was he doing an impression of Powell? If so, was Powell often drunk when he gave speeches?

    They need to get the British version of Christopher Walken to read this.

    Read More
    • Agree: Romanian
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. jim jones says:
    @p s c
    I've always wondered why the Brits could crush the world from the 1700's through early 1900's with little regard for anything such as humanitarianism, decency or just plain sense not to subjugate other peoples. Yet by the 1960's there were huge parades for anti-nukes, anti-apartheid, anti-Vietnam war, and all other lefty stuff.

    But concerning the Irish question, the Brits remained iron-willed. During the hunger strikes of the early '80's, Margaret Thatcher and the people of Britain were determined not to yield an inch to the IRA.

    Yet if these same men were black or brown and were resisting Mother England for some other type of nationalism beside Irish Republicanism, millions of white Britishers would have been on the streets protesting on their behalf.

    Cucks of the highest order.

    The British treatment of Irish Catholics compared to their treatment of new arrivals from Africa, the Indies and the Sub-Continent is amazing. Just like the Puritan types from New England (Harriet Beecher Stowe, Emerson, etc...) despise the Irish and love the African.

    No one believes in the economic policies of Socialism any more so the Left has had to switch to identity politics. Only mass migration can save the peoples of the Third World, they will never build functional societies by them selves.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. It’s okay everyone, I’ve just received a phone call from Mary Beard saying that Enoch Powell was a black man, as were many Britons of that era. BBC listeners shall revise their opinions of this speech to reflect: “So Brave, thank you.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    Andrew Ferguson comments on Mary Beard's remake of Civilization; short version is that Kenneth Clark is a racist white guy.

    https://www.weeklystandard.com/andrew-ferguson/the-end-of-civilisation
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. Anonymous[225] • Disclaimer says:

    OT:

    Just getting around to listening to Ezra Klein on Sam Harris’s podcast talking about Charles Murray.

    Klein seems to accept an IQ gap, but attributes it to slavery because ???, so a scientific discussion of racial IQ gaps must always include a discussion of slavery.

    At any rate, what I want to say is VOCAL FRY!!! Ezra Klein is a guy, yet he has the most VOCAL FRY of anyone, guy or chick, that I’ve ever heard. AHHHHHHHHIIIIIYYYAAAAHHHH! Is this the future? Is guy vocal fry just a New York media thing, or is it going nationwide?

    I thought that the Silicon Valley sentence-initial, “So, …” was the worst thing every, but it doesn’t hold a candle to male VOCAL FRY for fingernails-on-the-chalkboard repellancy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  94. @Polynices
    I'm one year younger than that speech and I find it somewhat depressing that the insanity I've watched grow worse my entire life was pretty much predicted before I was even born.

    I guess he was a real Cassandra -- saw the future *and* was scorned and disbelieved.

    I’m in exactly the same position, give or take a few months. The response to Enoch Powell’s warning proves our current political system doesn’t work and its fatal flaws go back at least 50 yrs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Ok, I'm sorry for being slow on the uptake and not keeping up with the controversy, but as Powell's Rivers of Blood speech is on Youtube, with Powell himself supplying his own voice, why doesn't the BBC simply replay Powell's speech with Powell in his own voice reading it? What's the deal with an actor reading it? Did the Brits lose the original audio with Powell reading his own speech?

    Or am I wrong about that?

    As I understand it, only a part of the speech was filmed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. L Woods says:
    @Anonymous
    He was too extremist in railing against all immigration. As long as the numbers of Muslims were limited, even an immigration as wave as large as the one followed Blair's election, would have been received without huge problems and brought enrichment. The left should adopt the position that diversity is good but Muslims are bad.

    No thanks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. @Harry Baldwin
    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.”

    A perfect example of what Powell is referring to would be Peter Hitchens, who blames Powell for Britain's immigration invasion:

    ...British Tory politician Enoch Powell who, in a stupid and cynical speech in 1968, packed with alarmist language and sprinkled with derogatory expressions and inflammatory rumour, defined debate on the subject of immigration for 40 years.

    Thanks to him, and his undoubted attempt to mobilise racial hostility, the revolutionary liberals have ever afterwards found it easy to accuse any opponent of being a Powellite.
     
    See? Everything would have been fine if he hadn't noticed it too soon.

    Yes, if only Powell had played the public relations game properly, Britain could have been spared wave after wave of race riots, stabbings, sex abuse gangs and bombings. Unfortunately, he didn’t use the finesse and fine wrist motions you need when dealing with the media machine, so he ruined it for everyone.

    The mass media and political machine isn’t rigged, dear boy, it just takes the proper technique to work it! Enoch Powell came in here and buggered it all up for the rest of us! Thank him if you get blown up at the next pop concert!

    Read More
    • LOL: The Anti-Gnostic
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. dearieme says:

    I attended a speech by Powell in my Student Union. He was magnetic – by far the best speaker we had that year.

    After his speech what struck me was his way of taking questions. He’d listen to the question; repeat it in clearer, usually shorter, form; ask the questioner whether that was a fair paraphrase of the original; and when he had his assent, answer it.

    We were a cocky, articulate bunch, but even we were highly impressed. Looking back I can say he was intellectually streets ahead of any politician I’ve ever heard in English (or French).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    dearime, How unusual, a politician who actual answers the question.
    , @Hunsdon
    dearieme: Lucky you!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. @Ali Choudhury
    It was a rather bloodthirsty and bombastic speech which racist thugs up and down the country took as a signal to attack anyone with non-white skin they did not like the look of. So it is not surprising a section of the public does not wish to see it being given an airing by the state-owned broadcaster. Especially since Powell did not think it necessary to speak out against racist attacks. He was more concerned about the impact it would have on his party leadership prospects. As David Goodhart says it had the rather counter productive impact of making it impossible to talk about immigration policy sensibly. It also resulted in the bar for successful integration into UK society being set too low.

    It was a prescient and sensible speech.

    Read More
    • Replies: @BenKenobi
    Remember what our blood-soaked pickaninny friend pictured here said:

    "Remove your governments, they are not for you."
    , @Anon
    Most of the population thinks "rivers of blood" means a civil war on the scale of Syria, Yugoslavia and Somalia. As the civil war has not happened yet, Powell has therefore been "proven wrong". The text of the speech seems to predict rioting, rather than insurrection, but the popular imagination is what it is.

    There is also the problem that perhaps half of the UK genuinely likes multikult despite the police state. London might be more violent than New York, but not yet at the level of New Orleans. The major metropolitan areas should probably be steered in the direction of becoming city-states.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. Svigor says:

    Ok, I’m sorry for being slow on the uptake and not keeping up with the controversy, but as Powell’s Rivers of Blood speech is on Youtube, with Powell himself supplying his own voice, why doesn’t the BBC simply replay Powell’s speech with Powell in his own voice reading it? What’s the deal with an actor reading it? Did the Brits lose the original audio with Powell reading his own speech?

    Or am I wrong about that?

    I was going to ask the same thing.

    Obviously they want Emperor Cuckatine to perform a more sinister reading.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  101. Svigor says:

    As David Goodhart says it had the rather counter productive impact of making it impossible to talk about immigration policy sensibly.

    Bullshit.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  102. @Ali Choudhury
    Brexit was primarily a vote against unlimited white, Christian, Central European immigraton to the UK. They are very obviously competitors for jobs and business with much of the local population, Muslims not so much.

    In part, yes. Though much of it had to do with the very real concern that “refugees” (including Merkel’s million) would over time relocate to the UK.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. Anonymous[915] • Disclaimer says:
    @Polynices
    I'm one year younger than that speech and I find it somewhat depressing that the insanity I've watched grow worse my entire life was pretty much predicted before I was even born.

    I guess he was a real Cassandra -- saw the future *and* was scorned and disbelieved.

    As Christopher Hitchens said of Chomsky (before he became his enemy when Hitchens turned neocon, of course):

    The more right you are the more disdain you’ll receive from those in power.

    The odd thing — and I wonder why it didn’t occur to me more forcefully then — was that, the more Chomsky was vindicated, the less he seemed to command “respect.” To the extent that I reflected about this at all, I put it down to shifts in fashion (“Chomsky? — a sixties figure”), to the crisis undergone by many superficial antiwar commentators when the American war was succeeded by Spartan regimes (of which more later), and to the fact that Chomsky had started to criticize the Israelis, seldom a prudent course for those seeking the contemplative life.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. “Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the thing, the name and the object, are identical.”

    It should be noted that much of the current race-grievance mongering is cloak in words like, “healing”, “reconciliation” and “justice.”

    See: http://fosterspeak.blogspot.com/2018/04/monuments-museums-and-racial.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  105. @AndrewR
    It's striking to note that the "conservative" party hasn't tried to conserve anything in more than fifty years. One wonders if it ever did.

    While the situation all across the West is pretty dire, it seems to be especially pitiful in the UK at the moment. It’s refreshing though when dissidents speak out:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. @Anon
    Perhaps, one reason why former imperialist nations became so pro-immigration was a subconscious desire to justify past imperialism. After all, Imperialism increased diversity around the world, and the anti-imperialist impetus was essentially anti-diversity.
    Algerians and Vietnam didn't want the diversity of European colonizers, just like Palestinians didn't want the diversity of Zionist colonizers and Tibetans don't want the diversity of Han Chinese demographic flooding.

    By welcoming demographic imperialism from non-white nations, former white imperialist nations could be subconsciously defending their past imperialist record of imposing diversity on subject nations that couldn't say NO to the diversity of European colonizers and their collaborators... like Africa had to take not only white colonizers but HIndu agents of the British.

    Diversity = imperialism. Homogeneity = nationalism.

    Diversity = imperialism. Homogeneity = nationalism.

    This is dead on.

    However, i think you’re overall point is so-so. I think it applies to the Brits and French a bit. “Look we’re so wonderful everyone from our empire wants to flock here … we’re all Britons!”

    But the US is the diversity pusher in chief, and was pretty much at the bottom of pile in terms of imperialism, getting to the game late and picking up just a few tiny colonies in the wake the Spanish-American War. You could say we did the neo-imperial thing during the Cold War and tried to be open to all and sundry to propagandize for our side. (Ex. Obama’s dad.) But overall, doesn’t really fly.

    Then you to the truly weird cases like Sweden. And then Merkel destroying Germany in one fell–and foul–swoop.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. Escher says:

    IMO BBC is resorting to sensationalism to boost its sagging ratings.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    The BBC is the reason for the infamous "TV license" tax and there has been much discussion on the chans about witnessing that expire as everybody abandons TV altogether. There was a fight I didn't see resolved about whether you still need to pay if you do not download and use the BBC's proprietary media player for online content. There were also many who insisted that British police are as serious about breaking into an old lady's house over a TV fee as they are about protecting young women from getting raped or bombed, that you can essentially just not answer the door and ignore the letters, but BBC has actually hired a private security firm to do collections. One guy said he let the fuzz in to see that he didn't have a TV, they opened no doors or drawers and left in minutes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. @Anonymous
    It is remarkable that just weeks after the most terrible spate of bloody knife attack murders that London has ever witnessed - perpetrated entirely by the descendants of third world immigrants - certain quartets still - straightfacedly - proclaim the 'success' and 'joy' of multiracial Britain.

    What alternative do they have? To admit that they and their worldview have been proven disastrously wrong? To acknowledge that their ideological enemies, opposition to whom is the foundation of their virtue, have in fact been right all along?

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    This is a very important point.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. @Anonymous
    And again:

    https://twitter.com/Jacob_Rees_Mogg/status/985180625656254464

    My father’s view which has stood the test of time about Enoch Powell’s famous speech

    Could the “test of time” more thoroughly vindicate someone as it’s done for Enoch Powell?

    These cucking “conservative” twits like Rees-Mogg are the lowest form of life. At least our enemies–the Stephen Jay Gould types–are pretty openly lying, white-gentile hating, super-state loving, anti-republican scum.

    And apparently–looked him up–this Jacob Rees-Mogg is actually supposed to be a “reactionary” “conservative” twit. He’s supposed to be “right wing” … and yet is unwilling to stand up and admit that immivasion is destroying his own nation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. Read More
    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    Ozy, I guess he couldn't find a magnifying glass big enough to do the task. Of course solar as an alternate fuel in his case would require him to act in bright sunshine. However, this was the act of a mentally unstable person.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. The start of his speech, is just pure unadulterated gold. I’ve heard no finer opening line, that gets at the heart of what “statesmanship” is than Powells:

    The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils.

    Having read something like that, the sheer clarity of thought in Powell’s speech, i find myself even more sad and depressed to be surrounded by the abject mediocrity we find in the “conservative” movement. When you have to settle for the confused muddle that is Trump because … that’s all we got!

    Not as powerful, but nontheless his wrap up, with allusion to the American experience is quite good. America was born with the cancer of diversity–the inevitable result of the usual grasping for “cheap labor!” But Britain went out and *chose* to inflict this cancer upon itself. Crazy.

    And he found it incumbent upon himself as a man of honor to stand up and say it.

    That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century.

    Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius

    the abject mediocrity we find in the “conservative” movement. When you have to settle for the confused muddle that is Trump because … that’s all we got!
     
    Trump is not the conservative movement. Trump is the reaction to the utter impotence of the conservative movement.
    , @L Woods
    I don’t know how you can call them “mediocre.” In terms of moral cowardice and useless parasitism, movement conservatives are nothing short of outstanding.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. As a counterpoint, the BBC plan to air a reading of Martin Luther King’s “I have a Dream” speech by the voice of Jar-Jar Binks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  113. Corvinus says:
    @Lot
    https://i.imgur.com/aXa1e0w.jpg

    http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-anti-immigration-cartoon-entitled-unrestricted-immigration-and-its-32393339.html

    Indeed, a similar situation occurred in the United States by the late 1800′s.

    A proud, lone American of Protestant British descent (the real, true American), surrounded by invading non-Protestant, non-British stocks of people. From Germans to Assyrians, to the Chinese and Slavs. Just sickening.

    So, my friends, unless you can prove that you come directly from Great Britain (from your mother’s and father’s side) AND are of the Protestant faith, you must go back.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Peter Stuyvesant's Amerikaner revenge. Every Dutch President we had was a disaster.
    , @Perspective
    Disingenuous and spurious.
    , @Faraday's Bobcat
    Boy, that's a really interesting argument. There were non-British immigrants? And some of us might be descended from them? Gosh, I didn't know that. This changes everything! Clearly, America should grant citizenship to anyone who shows up. Otherwise we're just a bunch of hypocrites!

    Next you'll be trying to tell me that America used to discriminate against blacks. Why, if that were the case, we'd have to destroy the country to properly demonstrate our regret.

    , @Rosie

    So, my friends, unless you can prove that you come directly from Great Britain (from your mother’s and father’s side) AND are of the Protestant faith, you must go back.
     
    This is why nobody should bother engaging you. Any concession is exploited as a binding precedent for all time and for all persons anywhere on the planet.
    , @ThreeCranes
    Well, there have been studies that place the IQ of early American settlers from Europe as being higher than that of the average IQ of Americans today.

    In other words, what you, Corvinus, regard as the base level IQ of European-Americais is already a hybrid of the later, lesser gifted with the highly gifted original English and Dutch settlers. Proof of this is to be found in some IQ studies which have placed the native German and Dutch as among the highest in the world. Of course the USA will not score this highly since its average IQ is dragged down by the inferior minorities, as you point out.
    , @donut
    Gee Corvinus I never really paid much attention to your posts but you do seem to rile people up . Anyway the oldest farmhouse still standing in NYC was built by an ancestor of mine . Will that do ?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Ok, I'm sorry for being slow on the uptake and not keeping up with the controversy, but as Powell's Rivers of Blood speech is on Youtube, with Powell himself supplying his own voice, why doesn't the BBC simply replay Powell's speech with Powell in his own voice reading it? What's the deal with an actor reading it? Did the Brits lose the original audio with Powell reading his own speech?

    Or am I wrong about that?

    The point would be to make it sound more sinister and menacing … if you’ve ever heard old video soundtracks, Powell’s own voice on a tinny track would almost sound a bit comical.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. Saxon says:
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Ok, I'm sorry for being slow on the uptake and not keeping up with the controversy, but as Powell's Rivers of Blood speech is on Youtube, with Powell himself supplying his own voice, why doesn't the BBC simply replay Powell's speech with Powell in his own voice reading it? What's the deal with an actor reading it? Did the Brits lose the original audio with Powell reading his own speech?

    Or am I wrong about that?

    The entire speech exists in full and in servicable quality but to the propagandists, it’s kind of like any other material from anyone else they hate, whether it be current-day badthinkers or even the magic German mustache man. If they were to just present it as-is then of course they couldn’t spin what he was saying and lie about it, and he would be supremely reasonable.

    So instead they need a spooky-sounding actor to do it, they need to edit in evil-sounding music and if possible and necessary provide onscreen cues to what the audience should think in the form of people making sour faces.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. ic1000 says:

    > Those who knowingly shirk it deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after.

    Those who knowingly shirk it deserve, but infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after. Because who remembers anything from decades ago, anyway.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  117. Saxon says:
    @Ali Choudhury
    It was a rather bloodthirsty and bombastic speech which racist thugs up and down the country took as a signal to attack anyone with non-white skin they did not like the look of. So it is not surprising a section of the public does not wish to see it being given an airing by the state-owned broadcaster. Especially since Powell did not think it necessary to speak out against racist attacks. He was more concerned about the impact it would have on his party leadership prospects. As David Goodhart says it had the rather counter productive impact of making it impossible to talk about immigration policy sensibly. It also resulted in the bar for successful integration into UK society being set too low.

    “Integration” is a fantasy. What does it mean to “integrate” That I intermarry and interbreed with people who’ve essentially invaded me and destroy my own people in the process? If not, then what. Land and carry capacity as well as resources is limited, and the constant demand for more resources than these people can contribute to the system is in any case, a net burden that is quite literally preventing births within the native group.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. Lurker says:
    @DFH
    The worst part of the program was when they had Matthew Parris, a journalist and failed Tory MP, (who one would think would have learned something about racism from seeing his female travelling companion raped in front of him when he was travelling across Africa as a teenager) call Enoch Powell, the youngest professor in the Empire who spoke 15 languages, stupid.

    A funny part was when one of the academics said that obviously everyone knows now that it's wrong to prefer people of your own ethnicity.

    Matthew Paris – a journalist and failed Tory MP. And gay, in case there was any doubt over his progressive credentials.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. Saxon says:
    @another_underground_man
    In general I don't think people really care about the future. Politicians want to get re-elected. People want their immediate lives to go smoothly. Whether or not multiculturalism brings about hell on earth isn't of deep concern to almost anyone. And probably far more people fervently wish a hellish outcome for our planet than don't, anyway.

    I'm glad this small race-realist corner of the world exists on places like unz.com, but far too little attention is being paid here and everywhere to "designer humans" and the ultimate replacement of mankind by machines. In a few hundred years, at most, all of this "race realism" debate will have been triviality because we'll have seized control over the genetic make-up of our successors.

    I think the best and smartest intuitively know this and are hoping this comes about before race-realism becomes undeniable. In this way, they hope to avoid mass murder or global civil unrest.

    Me, I just hope we don't nuke ourselves into oblivion before then.

    Who will have seized control of anything related to genes when the savages who don’t even really read anything have populated your land thoroughly and your descendants are at best huddling in fear of extermination at their hands, with no excess energy to spend researching any such fanciful ideas any longer.

    You’re one of those transhumanist true believer types who imagines magical technology will save everything. It’s a real Harry Potter mindset. It’s childish and unrealistic. You don’t have three hundred years. You don’t even have one hundred the way things are going.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. Corvinus says:
    @Lot
    http://media.breitbart.com/media/2015/10/image2-21.jpg



    https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/JViNN9JO-QwjJ_bvOxuncq_jgJw=/0x37:3000x2287/1200x800/filters:focal(0x37:3000x2287)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/52977787/Muslim_prayer_white_house.0.0.jpg

    https://churchpop.com/2016/01/11/16-old-time-anti-catholic-cartoons-to-put-things-in-perspective

    Indeed. When believers of Roman Catholicism began to infiltrate our borders by the mid and late 1800′s, there were calls by WASPs and nativists to purge these invaders. What happened to our steel, our resolve thereafter? Why were Roman Catholics eventually given a seat at our national table?

    Perhaps the menu will give us a clue.

    Appetizer–Separation of church and state.
    Main Course–Freedom of religion.
    Dessert–Thomas Jefferson’s ideas.**

    **Despite Jefferson’s criticisms of Islam, he wrote in his private notes about drafting legislation about religion for Virginia, paraphrasing John Locke’s 1689 “Letter on Toleration” –> [he] says neither Pagan nor Mahometan [Muslim] nor Jew ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the commonwealth because of his religion. The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom proclaims “Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hunsdon
    I continue, of course, to give your contributions to this website the merit, weight and consideration which they deserve.
    , @Lot
    Do you believe Salvadorian and Somali migrants have the same future time orientation, IQ, and creativity of Italians, Irish, and European Jews?

    Your argument is of the form:
    Some people belived X is Y, and that turned out to be false. Therefore, Z is not Y.

    See the problem?
    , @Lurker

    neither Pagan nor Mahometan [Muslim] nor Jew ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the commonwealth because of his religion. The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom proclaims “Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions.”
     
    I'm pretty sure he didn't intend that to mean: import them by the million.

    Right now I hear similar arguments deployed - that religious tolerance and freedom of religion eg for Muslims = mass immigration of Muslims.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. Anon[302] • Disclaimer says:
    @utu
    Spite is the only manifestation of free will. When confronted with the theory of predictability of behavior and actions a human can falsify it only by acting out of spite.

    Not clear at all. I don’t know the main points of this theory, or what exactly it pretends to explain. But I lay down the gauntlet that you’re wrong. Free will is the human ability to say ‘yes or no’ to good or evil. Why some people do so can ultimately be a mystery or a scandal. Being spiteful of, say, another’s intelligence is common, but speaks more of our human chains than of our free will.

    And I liked you post about received wisdom on Karlin’s thread. You didn’t call it that, but the one about Evolution Theory as article of faith. Of course we accept many ideas without thoroughly understanding them, we would never get out of the house otherwise. And when living in a sane society, or learn science astride the shoulders of giants, that would be the sane way to live.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. @p s c
    I've always wondered why the Brits could crush the world from the 1700's through early 1900's with little regard for anything such as humanitarianism, decency or just plain sense not to subjugate other peoples. Yet by the 1960's there were huge parades for anti-nukes, anti-apartheid, anti-Vietnam war, and all other lefty stuff.

    But concerning the Irish question, the Brits remained iron-willed. During the hunger strikes of the early '80's, Margaret Thatcher and the people of Britain were determined not to yield an inch to the IRA.

    Yet if these same men were black or brown and were resisting Mother England for some other type of nationalism beside Irish Republicanism, millions of white Britishers would have been on the streets protesting on their behalf.

    Cucks of the highest order.

    The British treatment of Irish Catholics compared to their treatment of new arrivals from Africa, the Indies and the Sub-Continent is amazing. Just like the Puritan types from New England (Harriet Beecher Stowe, Emerson, etc...) despise the Irish and love the African.

    Whites are competition, and, more to the point, not just competing with the protesting class but also kicking their collective ass.

    Progtardism is for (literal) losers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. @AnotherDad
    The start of his speech, is just pure unadulterated gold. I've heard no finer opening line, that gets at the heart of what "statesmanship" is than Powells:

    The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils.
     
    Having read something like that, the sheer clarity of thought in Powell's speech, i find myself even more sad and depressed to be surrounded by the abject mediocrity we find in the "conservative" movement. When you have to settle for the confused muddle that is Trump because ... that's all we got!


    Not as powerful, but nontheless his wrap up, with allusion to the American experience is quite good. America was born with the cancer of diversity--the inevitable result of the usual grasping for "cheap labor!" But Britain went out and *chose* to inflict this cancer upon itself. Crazy.

    And he found it incumbent upon himself as a man of honor to stand up and say it.

    That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century.

    Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
     

    the abject mediocrity we find in the “conservative” movement. When you have to settle for the confused muddle that is Trump because … that’s all we got!

    Trump is not the conservative movement. Trump is the reaction to the utter impotence of the conservative movement.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. Hunsdon says:
    @Corvinus
    https://churchpop.com/2016/01/11/16-old-time-anti-catholic-cartoons-to-put-things-in-perspective

    Indeed. When believers of Roman Catholicism began to infiltrate our borders by the mid and late 1800's, there were calls by WASPs and nativists to purge these invaders. What happened to our steel, our resolve thereafter? Why were Roman Catholics eventually given a seat at our national table?

    Perhaps the menu will give us a clue.

    Appetizer--Separation of church and state.
    Main Course--Freedom of religion.
    Dessert--Thomas Jefferson's ideas.**

    **Despite Jefferson's criticisms of Islam, he wrote in his private notes about drafting legislation about religion for Virginia, paraphrasing John Locke’s 1689 “Letter on Toleration” --> [he] says neither Pagan nor Mahometan [Muslim] nor Jew ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the commonwealth because of his religion. The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom proclaims "Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions.”

    I continue, of course, to give your contributions to this website the merit, weight and consideration which they deserve.

    Read More
    • LOL: Anonym
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. @Ali Choudhury
    It was a rather bloodthirsty and bombastic speech which racist thugs up and down the country took as a signal to attack anyone with non-white skin they did not like the look of. So it is not surprising a section of the public does not wish to see it being given an airing by the state-owned broadcaster. Especially since Powell did not think it necessary to speak out against racist attacks. He was more concerned about the impact it would have on his party leadership prospects. As David Goodhart says it had the rather counter productive impact of making it impossible to talk about immigration policy sensibly. It also resulted in the bar for successful integration into UK society being set too low.

    This comment interests me. I’ve read the speech. I don’t recall it being “bloodthirsty and bombastic”. Which parts of it were so?

    Also,

    “racist thugs up and down the country took as a signal to attack anyone with non-white skin they did not like the look of”

    Who? When? Where?

    “Especially since Powell did not think it necessary to speak out against racist attacks.”

    Um, he specifically spoke out against racist attacks in the speech. But maybe those racist attacks don’t bother you.

    “It also resulted in the bar for successful integration into UK society being set too low.”

    How so? Is this just another version of he-shouldn’t-have-noticed-too-soon-and-too-publicly?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. Jack D says:
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Ok, I'm sorry for being slow on the uptake and not keeping up with the controversy, but as Powell's Rivers of Blood speech is on Youtube, with Powell himself supplying his own voice, why doesn't the BBC simply replay Powell's speech with Powell in his own voice reading it? What's the deal with an actor reading it? Did the Brits lose the original audio with Powell reading his own speech?

    Or am I wrong about that?

    When the Emperor Palpatine reads it, it sounds more evil. Duh.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Which Star Wars Emperor? From episodes IV-VI, or from the new trilogy installment? The new and improved emperor? Ok, that one does sound a bit spooky to say the least.

    Because Powell's own voice really isn't all that scary much less sinister. Sounds a bit more in line with the traditional Eton, Cambridge/Oxford, Old Vic Theatre, etc. There was an early 20th century actor C. Aubrey Smith, who was like 6'4", and then became an actor and migrated to Hollywood in his 70's. He was in the famous 1939 version of The Four Feathers, by Alexander Korda. "There's no place in England for a coward."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. @Lot
    https://i.imgur.com/aXa1e0w.jpg

    What’s that bobby doing in Addis Ababa?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. BenKenobi says:
    @The Anti-Gnostic
    It was a prescient and sensible speech.

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/05/23/article-2329458-19F1FAAA000005DC-303_634x347.jpg

    Remember what our blood-soaked pickaninny friend pictured here said:

    “Remove your governments, they are not for you.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. Off Topic:

    So this will be the big domestic (non-Trump) white racism news story for the next week or so.

    http://www.philly.com/philly/news/starbucks-philadelphia-police-viral-video-investigation-race-20180414.html

    Think anyone will be impolite enough to point out that Andrew Yaffe–President of American Investment Partners LP–is obviously lying about knowing those guys?

    He’ll be quite the hero at Temple this week!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  130. L Woods says:
    @AnotherDad
    The start of his speech, is just pure unadulterated gold. I've heard no finer opening line, that gets at the heart of what "statesmanship" is than Powells:

    The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils.
     
    Having read something like that, the sheer clarity of thought in Powell's speech, i find myself even more sad and depressed to be surrounded by the abject mediocrity we find in the "conservative" movement. When you have to settle for the confused muddle that is Trump because ... that's all we got!


    Not as powerful, but nontheless his wrap up, with allusion to the American experience is quite good. America was born with the cancer of diversity--the inevitable result of the usual grasping for "cheap labor!" But Britain went out and *chose* to inflict this cancer upon itself. Crazy.

    And he found it incumbent upon himself as a man of honor to stand up and say it.

    That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century.

    Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
     

    I don’t know how you can call them “mediocre.” In terms of moral cowardice and useless parasitism, movement conservatives are nothing short of outstanding.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. bomag says:
    @Anon
    Perhaps, one reason why former imperialist nations became so pro-immigration was a subconscious desire to justify past imperialism. After all, Imperialism increased diversity around the world, and the anti-imperialist impetus was essentially anti-diversity.
    Algerians and Vietnam didn't want the diversity of European colonizers, just like Palestinians didn't want the diversity of Zionist colonizers and Tibetans don't want the diversity of Han Chinese demographic flooding.

    By welcoming demographic imperialism from non-white nations, former white imperialist nations could be subconsciously defending their past imperialist record of imposing diversity on subject nations that couldn't say NO to the diversity of European colonizers and their collaborators... like Africa had to take not only white colonizers but HIndu agents of the British.

    Diversity = imperialism. Homogeneity = nationalism.

    former white imperialist nations could be subconsciously defending their past imperialist record …

    One problem is that countries with scant history of colonization are being flooded.

    If one is interested in fairness, this reverse colonization looks highly unfair: compare the British presence in Pakistan with the Pakistani presence in Britain.

    Was past imperialism even a net negative? The countries received infrastructure; technology; and access to a trading network. The new imperialism doesn’t have much positive to offer.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. @p s c
    I've always wondered why the Brits could crush the world from the 1700's through early 1900's with little regard for anything such as humanitarianism, decency or just plain sense not to subjugate other peoples. Yet by the 1960's there were huge parades for anti-nukes, anti-apartheid, anti-Vietnam war, and all other lefty stuff.

    But concerning the Irish question, the Brits remained iron-willed. During the hunger strikes of the early '80's, Margaret Thatcher and the people of Britain were determined not to yield an inch to the IRA.

    Yet if these same men were black or brown and were resisting Mother England for some other type of nationalism beside Irish Republicanism, millions of white Britishers would have been on the streets protesting on their behalf.

    Cucks of the highest order.

    The British treatment of Irish Catholics compared to their treatment of new arrivals from Africa, the Indies and the Sub-Continent is amazing. Just like the Puritan types from New England (Harriet Beecher Stowe, Emerson, etc...) despise the Irish and love the African.

    The Tories often depended on Ulster Union MPs for their parliamentary majorites. That is where the steel came from.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. @Ali Choudhury
    It was a rather bloodthirsty and bombastic speech which racist thugs up and down the country took as a signal to attack anyone with non-white skin they did not like the look of. So it is not surprising a section of the public does not wish to see it being given an airing by the state-owned broadcaster. Especially since Powell did not think it necessary to speak out against racist attacks. He was more concerned about the impact it would have on his party leadership prospects. As David Goodhart says it had the rather counter productive impact of making it impossible to talk about immigration policy sensibly. It also resulted in the bar for successful integration into UK society being set too low.

    It was a rather bloodthirsty and bombastic speech which racist thugs up and down the country took as a signal to attack anyone with non-white skin they did not like the look of.

    Utter and complete nonsense. Utter and complete.

    His speech is not “racist” by any reasonable (negative) definition of the term. The only thing even racially particular in the speech is relating the experience of the white boarding house owner. His speech is not fundamentally about the immigrants but about the rights of Britons and about the duty of their leaders to them. In fact, Powell had generally been seen as a racial liberal–especially after his speech on the massacre in Kenya. His basic outlook is that every citizen needs to be treated fairly as a fellow citizen, so it was imperative not to allow immigration to build up foreign communities and have communalism and contention. Which is exactly what’s occurred. Furthermore, there’s zero evidence of any upsurge in racial attacks. (If there was we’d have heard about it in all the denunciations.) You’re just lying.

    It’s strange to me, that on Steve’s blog–HBD focused–where differences among peoples are frankly discussed, you nonetheless find a bunch of commentators utterly unable to get outside of their own little tribal identity and assess the world with any degree of objectivity.

    You’ve got a Chinese-American guy, who surveying the entire American scene thinks the really important racial issue is the essentially non-existent “discrimination against Asians”. I kid you not! You’ve got an Indian who thinks that HBD is great and all, but anyone who would just as soon live their live in their nation without an invasion of Indians is just some sort of pathetic little cretin–rather than simply a normal rational human being. You’ve got a few of the Jews who think the old Ivy League Jewish quotas were “illegal”, the Golfocaust some sort of abomination, and who just–despite their high IQs–just can’t conceive of any reason other than irrational “hate”, why someone would not have love in their heart for a tribally-endogamous, exploitive middle-man minority living in their midst. Anti-semitism!

    I’m a flyover country white-gentile. I think–predictably–that flyover country white gentiles are really pretty great. Build nice nation! (High trust, rule of law, etc.) That’s the sort of nation i inherited and that i damn sure want to live in. But that said, i don’t think we white gentiles don’t have issues or that the world ought to revolve around us. And if i have a particular ethnicity beyond white-American, it’s Irish-Catholic. You won’t find me whining about the “Know-Nothings”. The Irish Catholics had all sorts of issues that would make Anglo-Protestants not want to have them around. And beyond that Anglo-Protestants could legimately not want to have the Irish around simply because they weren’t Anglo-Protestants! “Foreigner” is a perfectly legimate reason for not wanting someone around.

    I have my opinions on the “right way” to organize life. Basically i think my people–white gentiles–have done the best work, and created–before the disaster–the best nations with the best life. But if i was off trying to live in China or India or Japan or Israel or Dubai or Mexico, i wouldn’t be whining about they didn’t do things the proper white-gentile way, expect them to treat me as a native or expect them to allow my fellow white-gentiles to flood in because we’re just so damn much better.

    Seriously. Poke your head up and view the world honestly–you aren’t special and neither is your ethnic group. And no one else is under any obligation to like you or tolerate you hanging around.

    Powell is a hero. Not because there’s anything “wrong” with whatever Commonwealth immigrants were coming in. But because their comming in would displace Britons, ramp up social contention and make life for the British people much worse and ultimately destroy Britons being able to live comfortably as Britons. This a real British leader can not sugarcoat or ignore, so Powell–a hero–spoke up to tell the truth.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hunsdon
    Hear him, hear him.
    , @Anonym
    This is the double edged sword of the internet in bringing people together to discuss topics on the internet. It would be too easily fooled for a computer-based ethnicity assessment (face scan or DNA sampling) to prevent the various parasitic chowderheads of the world in signing up to such a forum. And supplying personal details and interviews would be too risky from the perspective of some anti-White agent doxing everyone.

    On the plus side, you have enough anonymity to be useful and the ability to draw the better, maybe the best minds on the subject, and discuss them if you can ignore the chowderheads. For the most part I ignore them, I don't expect them to argue on good faith, I mean, you can't expect North Western Euro levels of altruism or lack of corruption, or honesty.
    , @Ali Choudhury
    I would not call the speech racist, references to grinding picaninnies aside, and Powell himself was not a racist. Saying racial civil wars were inevitable and blacks were going to rule over whites was offering a rather apocalyptic prediction of Britain's future. I live in the UK and know plenty of Commonwealth immigrants, a fair proportion of whom are Conservative voters, who were witnesses of and victimis of racist attacks and hostility which skyrocketed in the wake of the speech. I see no reason to doubt their testimony, they have no political axe to grind.

    I don't know if the reference to the Indian who posts here is to me, I don't believe I have called anyone who wants restrictive immigration policies a cretin. It is a justifiable position to take. The most I have said on the subject is that I don't see how allowing Polish tradesmen and Indian IT workers into the UK would result in the destruction of the country. As far as Yan Shen goes, his concerns are a bit more nuanced than that.

    Thank you for the personal perspective. There are likely plenty of white gentiles, as you call them, who would dispute that the unskilled Irish Catholics who emigrated to the US contributed much of worth to a nation that was already successful and well on the way to becoming a superpower. The nativist reaction to them was probably not helped by Dagger John declaring the aim of Catholicism was converting all pagan and Protestant nations to the true faith when he was bishop of New York.
    , @3g4me
    @131 AnotherDad: "It’s strange to me, that on Steve’s blog–HBD focused–where differences among peoples are frankly discussed, you nonetheless find a bunch of commentators utterly unable to get outside of their own little tribal identity and assess the world with any degree of objectivity . . . You’ve got a Chinese-American guy, who . . . thinks the really important racial issue is the essentially non-existent “discrimination against Asians”. . . You’ve got an Indian who thinks that HBD is great and all, but anyone who would just as soon live their live in their nation without an invasion of Indians is just some sort of pathetic little cretin–rather than simply a normal rational human being. You’ve got a few of the Jews who think the old Ivy League Jewish quotas were “illegal”, the Golfocaust some sort of abomination, and who just–despite their high IQs–just can’t conceive of any reason other than irrational “hate”, why someone would not have love in their heart for a tribally-endogamous, exploitive middle-man minority living in their midst. Anti-semitism!"

    I've noted that same point before in various comment threads. It's quite simple, unfortunately: They each claim to support HBD to the extent that they believe it vindicates their belief in their native group's intellectual superiority. They challenge HBD when it is, logically and factually, linked to culture. They reject HBD out of hand when asked why they're all residing in White gentile countries and commenting on White gentile bogs.

    Therefore we see that: HBD + magic dirt + magic papers = Kato is American, Ali is British, and Jack D is all American.
    , @Lot
    I don't recall anyone saying the old Harvard College Jewish quota was illegal. It wasn't at the time.

    I think it was justified as a temporary measure at the time, and it was ended because of social pressure, not lawsuits.

    The sudden demographic change in the young native English-speaking high-IQ population that occured as the first cohorts of the children born to the mass Russian Jewish immigration reached college age does not obligate colleges to suddenly change too. And the quota still allowed Jews to be over represented at about four times their share of the white population.

    Those who were admitted also benefited from assimilation that may not have happened if the college were 40% rather than 20% Ashkenazi. It also served to help assimilate the rejected Jews who would have been admitted without the quota. A lot of them ended up going to Midwestern flagship public colleges. That isn't a bad result either and allowed for a different sort of assimilation, as well as some spreading out of the Jewish population away from the Northeast as many of them stayed after college.

    Harvard Medical School's Jewish quota though is harder to justify, the same arguments apply, but more weakly because it is less culturally influential than the college, and lowering the mean IQ of doctors ultimately kills people.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. @Clyde
    Enoch Powell's Wolverhampton district is diverse these days -- https://www.ft.com/content/6c55ce92-babe-11e4-8447-00144feab7de

    Enoch Powell - the great British Parliamentarian - developed a maxim after decades of experience: "All political careers end in failure."
    https://tinyurl.com/y9d325w3

    I felt like that maxim may be specific to Britain. Consider:

    The bar for a US President to not be generally considered a failure is pretty low: Win a 2nd term, even if you go lame-duck soon after; sign one major piece of legislation — even if nobody likes it, it’s still an “accomplishment”; have only a few major scandals; don’t get humiliated on the global stage by some pissant third world country; don’t screw things up too badly, or if you do, make sure the worst effects don’t become visible until after you’ve left office.

    The *expected* outcome of a UK Prime Minister’s tenure seems to be: get into office by some complicated shifting of party coalitions that makes nobody happy, and bumble around until you’re shamed into calling for an election that will take you out of office immediately — no time to even host “A Very Special Christmas from Washington DC” with Special Olympics kids as you sail off into the sunset with a bunch of goodwill PR before Inauguration Day.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    Good comment WJW. Being an American i hadn't given it too much thought.

    The salient issue, i think, is just the lack of fixed terms or term limits on being Prime Minister. A lot of American presidencies come to sort of drooping end even if seen as "successful". (Reagan's is example, i'm too young to remember Eisenhower's.) The next guy(s) are getting all the attention that fall during the election and one of them wins and is the bright shining focus.

    But in the UK, unless you have the wisdom to up and leave, all the ambitious young wannabes are out gunning for you, chomping at the bit to give you a shove. So even a "successful"* PM like Thatcher ends up getting a challenge to her leadership and leaves as "rejected".

    ~~

    * I quote "successful" on Thatcher because despite standing up against the socialist decline of Britain and being part of the successful Cold War winning team, she like Reagan failed to do anything about the most existential threat to their nations, demographic transition through immigration. Both Thatcher and Reagan for whatever successes, failed the Powell test of grappling with--the most serious--preventable evils.
    , @Stan Adams

    The *expected* outcome of a UK Prime Minister’s tenure seems to be: get into office by some complicated shifting of party coalitions that makes nobody happy, and bumble around until you’re shamed into calling for an election that will take you out of office immediately
     
    Is it true that prime ministers have to pay their own moving costs?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. @MikeatMikedotMike
    And that guy will step over a dozen English teens getting gang raped in order to arrest you for tweeting mean things.

    And that guy will step over a dozen English teens getting gang raped in order to arrest you for tweeting mean things.

    Yep. That’s the mission-critical role of the super-state in the West now–to prevent the nations’ citizens from exercising their right of self-defense, which they’d easily self-organize to do absent the state.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. Anon[395] • Disclaimer says:
    @The Anti-Gnostic
    It was a prescient and sensible speech.

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/05/23/article-2329458-19F1FAAA000005DC-303_634x347.jpg

    Most of the population thinks “rivers of blood” means a civil war on the scale of Syria, Yugoslavia and Somalia. As the civil war has not happened yet, Powell has therefore been “proven wrong”. The text of the speech seems to predict rioting, rather than insurrection, but the popular imagination is what it is.

    There is also the problem that perhaps half of the UK genuinely likes multikult despite the police state. London might be more violent than New York, but not yet at the level of New Orleans. The major metropolitan areas should probably be steered in the direction of becoming city-states.

    Read More
    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    "perhaps half of the UK genuinely likes multikult despite the police state"

    That's why 500,000 white Brits left London in a decade, and why they are building houses as fast as they can in every small country town (i.e. white British places) over all of England and Wales. What people tell an interviewer and what they do in the real world are very different things.
    , @Yak-15
    I would contend that insurrection is on the docket for Western Europe. It has not occurred yet because the Islamic populations are too small. Once critical mass is reached it will be a monstrously horrid civil war.
    , @dfordoom

    There is also the problem that perhaps half of the UK genuinely likes multikult despite the police state.
     
    Or they understand that they live in a police state and therefore it's wise to pretend to love multiculturalism.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. Anon[395] • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus
    http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-anti-immigration-cartoon-entitled-unrestricted-immigration-and-its-32393339.html

    Indeed, a similar situation occurred in the United States by the late 1800's.

    A proud, lone American of Protestant British descent (the real, true American), surrounded by invading non-Protestant, non-British stocks of people. From Germans to Assyrians, to the Chinese and Slavs. Just sickening.

    So, my friends, unless you can prove that you come directly from Great Britain (from your mother's and father's side) AND are of the Protestant faith, you must go back.

    Peter Stuyvesant’s Amerikaner revenge. Every Dutch President we had was a disaster.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. Rosie says:
    @Massimo Heitor
    Enoch Powell's 'Rivers of Blood' speech read by Ian McDiarmid:
    https://youtu.be/T0nyZdi1atE

    Very good and sympathetic reading by McDiarmid.

    I would quote from a review of Peter Hitchens book, "The Abolition of Britain"

    I’m weary of conservative jeremiads that don’t offer any constructive recommendations on what to do. After all, as my mother used to tell me, “if there’s no solution, there’s no problem.” Conservatives who bemoan how bad things have gotten (and they have gotten very much worse in Britain since this book was written, 1999, or even since it was re-issued with a new Introduction, 2008) need to offer real alternatives and solutions, or they might as well not bother.
     

    After all, as my mother used to tell me, “if there’s no solution, there’s no problem.”

    This is generally good advice. There is no point dwelling on situations that can’t be fixed, except that it can be fixed, with a great deal of effort now. In addition, we can at least demand that they stop heaping.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. @Corvinus
    http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-anti-immigration-cartoon-entitled-unrestricted-immigration-and-its-32393339.html

    Indeed, a similar situation occurred in the United States by the late 1800's.

    A proud, lone American of Protestant British descent (the real, true American), surrounded by invading non-Protestant, non-British stocks of people. From Germans to Assyrians, to the Chinese and Slavs. Just sickening.

    So, my friends, unless you can prove that you come directly from Great Britain (from your mother's and father's side) AND are of the Protestant faith, you must go back.

    Disingenuous and spurious.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Disingenuous and spurious."

    In what specific ways? See, if you are going to make that charge, back it up.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. @Corvinus
    http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-anti-immigration-cartoon-entitled-unrestricted-immigration-and-its-32393339.html

    Indeed, a similar situation occurred in the United States by the late 1800's.

    A proud, lone American of Protestant British descent (the real, true American), surrounded by invading non-Protestant, non-British stocks of people. From Germans to Assyrians, to the Chinese and Slavs. Just sickening.

    So, my friends, unless you can prove that you come directly from Great Britain (from your mother's and father's side) AND are of the Protestant faith, you must go back.

    Boy, that’s a really interesting argument. There were non-British immigrants? And some of us might be descended from them? Gosh, I didn’t know that. This changes everything! Clearly, America should grant citizenship to anyone who shows up. Otherwise we’re just a bunch of hypocrites!

    Next you’ll be trying to tell me that America used to discriminate against blacks. Why, if that were the case, we’d have to destroy the country to properly demonstrate our regret.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Clearly, America should grant citizenship to anyone who shows up. Otherwise we’re just a bunch of hypocrites!"

    No, that's not what I am saying at all. I have made it known repeatedly that we ought to limit immigration. The point is the same arguments used now by those white people whose ancestors were targeted as being utterly incapable of assimilating because of their ethnicity had been exactly the same arguments used by WASPs and nativists. So, were the WASPs and nativists wrong in their assessment?

    "Next you’ll be trying to tell me that America used to discriminate against blacks. Why, if that were the case, we’d have to destroy the country to properly demonstrate our regret."

    Now you are just hyperventilating. Here is a virtual brown paper bag.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. Rosie says:
    @Corvinus
    http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-anti-immigration-cartoon-entitled-unrestricted-immigration-and-its-32393339.html

    Indeed, a similar situation occurred in the United States by the late 1800's.

    A proud, lone American of Protestant British descent (the real, true American), surrounded by invading non-Protestant, non-British stocks of people. From Germans to Assyrians, to the Chinese and Slavs. Just sickening.

    So, my friends, unless you can prove that you come directly from Great Britain (from your mother's and father's side) AND are of the Protestant faith, you must go back.

    So, my friends, unless you can prove that you come directly from Great Britain (from your mother’s and father’s side) AND are of the Protestant faith, you must go back.

    This is why nobody should bother engaging you. Any concession is exploited as a binding precedent for all time and for all persons anywhere on the planet.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    This is why nobody should bother engaging you. Any concession is exploited as a binding precedent for all time and for all persons anywhere on the planet.
     
    Well, to be fair, that is only one of many reasons not to bother engaging with Corvinus.
    , @Mishra
    His main purpose is to try to divide and demoralise white people.

    I agree that engagement is pretty much without purpose.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. Hunsdon says:
    @AnotherDad

    It was a rather bloodthirsty and bombastic speech which racist thugs up and down the country took as a signal to attack anyone with non-white skin they did not like the look of.
     
    Utter and complete nonsense. Utter and complete.

    His speech is not "racist" by any reasonable (negative) definition of the term. The only thing even racially particular in the speech is relating the experience of the white boarding house owner. His speech is not fundamentally about the immigrants but about the rights of Britons and about the duty of their leaders to them. In fact, Powell had generally been seen as a racial liberal--especially after his speech on the massacre in Kenya. His basic outlook is that every citizen needs to be treated fairly as a fellow citizen, so it was imperative not to allow immigration to build up foreign communities and have communalism and contention. Which is exactly what's occurred. Furthermore, there's zero evidence of any upsurge in racial attacks. (If there was we'd have heard about it in all the denunciations.) You're just lying.

    It's strange to me, that on Steve's blog--HBD focused--where differences among peoples are frankly discussed, you nonetheless find a bunch of commentators utterly unable to get outside of their own little tribal identity and assess the world with any degree of objectivity.

    You've got a Chinese-American guy, who surveying the entire American scene thinks the really important racial issue is the essentially non-existent "discrimination against Asians". I kid you not! You've got an Indian who thinks that HBD is great and all, but anyone who would just as soon live their live in their nation without an invasion of Indians is just some sort of pathetic little cretin--rather than simply a normal rational human being. You've got a few of the Jews who think the old Ivy League Jewish quotas were "illegal", the Golfocaust some sort of abomination, and who just--despite their high IQs--just can't conceive of any reason other than irrational "hate", why someone would not have love in their heart for a tribally-endogamous, exploitive middle-man minority living in their midst. Anti-semitism!

    I'm a flyover country white-gentile. I think--predictably--that flyover country white gentiles are really pretty great. Build nice nation! (High trust, rule of law, etc.) That's the sort of nation i inherited and that i damn sure want to live in. But that said, i don't think we white gentiles don't have issues or that the world ought to revolve around us. And if i have a particular ethnicity beyond white-American, it's Irish-Catholic. You won't find me whining about the "Know-Nothings". The Irish Catholics had all sorts of issues that would make Anglo-Protestants not want to have them around. And beyond that Anglo-Protestants could legimately not want to have the Irish around simply because they weren't Anglo-Protestants! "Foreigner" is a perfectly legimate reason for not wanting someone around.

    I have my opinions on the "right way" to organize life. Basically i think my people--white gentiles--have done the best work, and created--before the disaster--the best nations with the best life. But if i was off trying to live in China or India or Japan or Israel or Dubai or Mexico, i wouldn't be whining about they didn't do things the proper white-gentile way, expect them to treat me as a native or expect them to allow my fellow white-gentiles to flood in because we're just so damn much better.

    Seriously. Poke your head up and view the world honestly--you aren't special and neither is your ethnic group. And no one else is under any obligation to like you or tolerate you hanging around.

    Powell is a hero. Not because there's anything "wrong" with whatever Commonwealth immigrants were coming in. But because their comming in would displace Britons, ramp up social contention and make life for the British people much worse and ultimately destroy Britons being able to live comfortably as Britons. This a real British leader can not sugarcoat or ignore, so Powell--a hero--spoke up to tell the truth.

    Hear him, hear him.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. Mr. Anon says:

    RT was recently required to register as a foreign agent (which it clearly is).

    Why isn’t the BBC required to register as a foreign agent (which it clearly is)?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  144. @utu
    Spite is the only manifestation of free will. When confronted with the theory of predictability of behavior and actions a human can falsify it only by acting out of spite.

    It’s also the mentality of a child. I’ve learned that the hard way dealing with my nephew. Telling him specifically not do something, especially by explaining the potential bad consequences, only gives him a clearer picture of possibilities that had scarcely crossed his mind and guarantees he’ll do it for a week straight until he gets bored of it.

    For another example in politics, see same-sex marriage. In the wake of the Supreme Court ruling, people let out their pent-up bloodlust on Facebook and cheered for bakers, photographers, and pizzerias going into financial ruin, then promptly got bored of it. Even gays became less interested in marriage once it wasn’t something to fight for anymore. I live in Manhattan and I can’t remember the last time I even heard about anybody in a same-sex marriage (although straight people are obsessed with talking about their own relationships with gender-neutral words like “partner”, “spouse”, “S/O”, “they”, etc. so I mistakenly assume they’re gay at first. Real gay people don’t give a crap about all that).

    But if and when the left gets bored of rubbing the right’s nose in diversity, they can’t just pretend it never happened and move on to their next obsession. Diversity doesn’t just wind up in a box in the garage alongside the Beyblades and fidget spinners.

    Read More
    • Agree: utu
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. res says:
    @Rosie

    So, my friends, unless you can prove that you come directly from Great Britain (from your mother’s and father’s side) AND are of the Protestant faith, you must go back.
     
    This is why nobody should bother engaging you. Any concession is exploited as a binding precedent for all time and for all persons anywhere on the planet.

    This is why nobody should bother engaging you. Any concession is exploited as a binding precedent for all time and for all persons anywhere on the planet.

    Well, to be fair, that is only one of many reasons not to bother engaging with Corvinus.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. Lot says:
    @Corvinus
    https://churchpop.com/2016/01/11/16-old-time-anti-catholic-cartoons-to-put-things-in-perspective

    Indeed. When believers of Roman Catholicism began to infiltrate our borders by the mid and late 1800's, there were calls by WASPs and nativists to purge these invaders. What happened to our steel, our resolve thereafter? Why were Roman Catholics eventually given a seat at our national table?

    Perhaps the menu will give us a clue.

    Appetizer--Separation of church and state.
    Main Course--Freedom of religion.
    Dessert--Thomas Jefferson's ideas.**

    **Despite Jefferson's criticisms of Islam, he wrote in his private notes about drafting legislation about religion for Virginia, paraphrasing John Locke’s 1689 “Letter on Toleration” --> [he] says neither Pagan nor Mahometan [Muslim] nor Jew ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the commonwealth because of his religion. The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom proclaims "Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions.”

    Do you believe Salvadorian and Somali migrants have the same future time orientation, IQ, and creativity of Italians, Irish, and European Jews?

    Your argument is of the form:
    Some people belived X is Y, and that turned out to be false. Therefore, Z is not Y.

    See the problem?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    See the problem?
     
    Sure he does, but he won't admit it.
    , @Corvinus
    "Do you believe Salvadorian and Somali migrants have the same future time orientation, IQ, and creativity of Italians, Irish, and European Jews?"

    When it comes to IQ, no. But is that because of genetics, environment, or both? I say both, and more leaning to environment. In other words, what political, economic, and social factors are involved here? Furthermore, IQ scores are not the end all and be all of a civilization. IQ scores have a moderate correlation with success, but it does not dictate it, and is not the "measure of the person".

    When it comes to future time orientation and creativity, we need to clearly agree to what those terms actually mean and lend support as to how and why we perhaps differ when it comes to comparing groups. Remember, it was also argued by WASPS and nativists that the Irish, the Italians, and European Jews distinctly lacked or were absent of those two traits.

    "Your argument is of the form: Some people belived X is Y, and that turned out to be false. Therefore, Z is not Y."

    Let's start here first. Were the WASPs and nativists wrong in how they characterized other ethnic and religious groups as being undesirable and unassimilable? Why?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. Rosie says:
    @Lot
    Do you believe Salvadorian and Somali migrants have the same future time orientation, IQ, and creativity of Italians, Irish, and European Jews?

    Your argument is of the form:
    Some people belived X is Y, and that turned out to be false. Therefore, Z is not Y.

    See the problem?

    See the problem?

    Sure he does, but he won’t admit it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot
    I always check your comment history when you pop in. Eloquent and interesting all around. Six kids, wow!

    The far right has a serious woman problem. It isn't that the MRA/Roissy/Whiskey groups are completely wrong and lacking in insight, but that they attempt to draw lessons about all women and the female psyche generally from the behavior of a small promiscuous subsection of the population. They end up saying things that are wrong, absurdly in contradiction to the women in our everyday life, and repell women from the non-mainstream right.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. Lot says:
    @Ali Choudhury
    Brexit was primarily a vote against unlimited white, Christian, Central European immigraton to the UK. They are very obviously competitors for jobs and business with much of the local population, Muslims not so much.

    If Pakistani and Jamaican immigration were put up to a national vote in the UK, what do you think the results would be? I’d put it at 70% or better for Third Worldexit.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Ok, I'm sorry for being slow on the uptake and not keeping up with the controversy, but as Powell's Rivers of Blood speech is on Youtube, with Powell himself supplying his own voice, why doesn't the BBC simply replay Powell's speech with Powell in his own voice reading it? What's the deal with an actor reading it? Did the Brits lose the original audio with Powell reading his own speech?

    Or am I wrong about that?

    Only part of the speech was recorded at the time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Well, then BBC should play that segment in Powell's own voice and let the audience decide for themselves. The segment's on Youtube, and Powell's voice isn't sinister in the least. More in line with stereotypical Rudyard Kipling, The Empire, etc. and all that. But in this day and age, listening to a woke white man, and with the calm, cool confidence of a healthy Christian, perhaps that is a bit scary.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. @WowJustWow
    I felt like that maxim may be specific to Britain. Consider:

    The bar for a US President to not be generally considered a failure is pretty low: Win a 2nd term, even if you go lame-duck soon after; sign one major piece of legislation — even if nobody likes it, it’s still an “accomplishment”; have only a few major scandals; don’t get humiliated on the global stage by some pissant third world country; don’t screw things up too badly, or if you do, make sure the worst effects don’t become visible until after you’ve left office.

    The *expected* outcome of a UK Prime Minister’s tenure seems to be: get into office by some complicated shifting of party coalitions that makes nobody happy, and bumble around until you’re shamed into calling for an election that will take you out of office immediately — no time to even host “A Very Special Christmas from Washington DC” with Special Olympics kids as you sail off into the sunset with a bunch of goodwill PR before Inauguration Day.

    Good comment WJW. Being an American i hadn’t given it too much thought.

    The salient issue, i think, is just the lack of fixed terms or term limits on being Prime Minister. A lot of American presidencies come to sort of drooping end even if seen as “successful”. (Reagan’s is example, i’m too young to remember Eisenhower’s.) The next guy(s) are getting all the attention that fall during the election and one of them wins and is the bright shining focus.

    But in the UK, unless you have the wisdom to up and leave, all the ambitious young wannabes are out gunning for you, chomping at the bit to give you a shove. So even a “successful”* PM like Thatcher ends up getting a challenge to her leadership and leaves as “rejected”.

    ~~

    * I quote “successful” on Thatcher because despite standing up against the socialist decline of Britain and being part of the successful Cold War winning team, she like Reagan failed to do anything about the most existential threat to their nations, demographic transition through immigration. Both Thatcher and Reagan for whatever successes, failed the Powell test of grappling with–the most serious–preventable evils.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot
    Maggie could have done even better, but the bad periods for third world invasion of the UK was the 1960s and then again starting in 1997. Migration was quite low between 1972 and 1997, so she held the line her entire tenure.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Figure-1.png
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. Whiskey says: • Website

    The solution for White men is to fight. Fight all the time, be feared, but never fight in ways that provoke the female and conqueror alliance.

    Mass third world immigration is White women wanting to move up with violent non White alpha s. There will be no closing of borders. No limits on invasion any more than limits of hypergamy . So White men have to fight on an eternal frontier where the cavalry rescues the indians.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  152. Lot says:
    @Rosie

    See the problem?
     
    Sure he does, but he won't admit it.

    I always check your comment history when you pop in. Eloquent and interesting all around. Six kids, wow!

    The far right has a serious woman problem. It isn’t that the MRA/Roissy/Whiskey groups are completely wrong and lacking in insight, but that they attempt to draw lessons about all women and the female psyche generally from the behavior of a small promiscuous subsection of the population. They end up saying things that are wrong, absurdly in contradiction to the women in our everyday life, and repell women from the non-mainstream right.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yak-15
    You can equally apply that idea on women to most of alt-right’s findings on race, etc. Some ideas that may have weight, but lots of stupidity in their application. It’s why the alt-right will never be much of a political power going forward.
    , @L Woods
    Cool concern troll bro
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. Lot says:
    @AnotherDad
    Good comment WJW. Being an American i hadn't given it too much thought.

    The salient issue, i think, is just the lack of fixed terms or term limits on being Prime Minister. A lot of American presidencies come to sort of drooping end even if seen as "successful". (Reagan's is example, i'm too young to remember Eisenhower's.) The next guy(s) are getting all the attention that fall during the election and one of them wins and is the bright shining focus.

    But in the UK, unless you have the wisdom to up and leave, all the ambitious young wannabes are out gunning for you, chomping at the bit to give you a shove. So even a "successful"* PM like Thatcher ends up getting a challenge to her leadership and leaves as "rejected".

    ~~

    * I quote "successful" on Thatcher because despite standing up against the socialist decline of Britain and being part of the successful Cold War winning team, she like Reagan failed to do anything about the most existential threat to their nations, demographic transition through immigration. Both Thatcher and Reagan for whatever successes, failed the Powell test of grappling with--the most serious--preventable evils.

    Maggie could have done even better, but the bad periods for third world invasion of the UK was the 1960s and then again starting in 1997. Migration was quite low between 1972 and 1997, so she held the line her entire tenure.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. Anonym says:
    @AnotherDad

    It was a rather bloodthirsty and bombastic speech which racist thugs up and down the country took as a signal to attack anyone with non-white skin they did not like the look of.
     
    Utter and complete nonsense. Utter and complete.

    His speech is not "racist" by any reasonable (negative) definition of the term. The only thing even racially particular in the speech is relating the experience of the white boarding house owner. His speech is not fundamentally about the immigrants but about the rights of Britons and about the duty of their leaders to them. In fact, Powell had generally been seen as a racial liberal--especially after his speech on the massacre in Kenya. His basic outlook is that every citizen needs to be treated fairly as a fellow citizen, so it was imperative not to allow immigration to build up foreign communities and have communalism and contention. Which is exactly what's occurred. Furthermore, there's zero evidence of any upsurge in racial attacks. (If there was we'd have heard about it in all the denunciations.) You're just lying.

    It's strange to me, that on Steve's blog--HBD focused--where differences among peoples are frankly discussed, you nonetheless find a bunch of commentators utterly unable to get outside of their own little tribal identity and assess the world with any degree of objectivity.

    You've got a Chinese-American guy, who surveying the entire American scene thinks the really important racial issue is the essentially non-existent "discrimination against Asians". I kid you not! You've got an Indian who thinks that HBD is great and all, but anyone who would just as soon live their live in their nation without an invasion of Indians is just some sort of pathetic little cretin--rather than simply a normal rational human being. You've got a few of the Jews who think the old Ivy League Jewish quotas were "illegal", the Golfocaust some sort of abomination, and who just--despite their high IQs--just can't conceive of any reason other than irrational "hate", why someone would not have love in their heart for a tribally-endogamous, exploitive middle-man minority living in their midst. Anti-semitism!

    I'm a flyover country white-gentile. I think--predictably--that flyover country white gentiles are really pretty great. Build nice nation! (High trust, rule of law, etc.) That's the sort of nation i inherited and that i damn sure want to live in. But that said, i don't think we white gentiles don't have issues or that the world ought to revolve around us. And if i have a particular ethnicity beyond white-American, it's Irish-Catholic. You won't find me whining about the "Know-Nothings". The Irish Catholics had all sorts of issues that would make Anglo-Protestants not want to have them around. And beyond that Anglo-Protestants could legimately not want to have the Irish around simply because they weren't Anglo-Protestants! "Foreigner" is a perfectly legimate reason for not wanting someone around.

    I have my opinions on the "right way" to organize life. Basically i think my people--white gentiles--have done the best work, and created--before the disaster--the best nations with the best life. But if i was off trying to live in China or India or Japan or Israel or Dubai or Mexico, i wouldn't be whining about they didn't do things the proper white-gentile way, expect them to treat me as a native or expect them to allow my fellow white-gentiles to flood in because we're just so damn much better.

    Seriously. Poke your head up and view the world honestly--you aren't special and neither is your ethnic group. And no one else is under any obligation to like you or tolerate you hanging around.

    Powell is a hero. Not because there's anything "wrong" with whatever Commonwealth immigrants were coming in. But because their comming in would displace Britons, ramp up social contention and make life for the British people much worse and ultimately destroy Britons being able to live comfortably as Britons. This a real British leader can not sugarcoat or ignore, so Powell--a hero--spoke up to tell the truth.

    This is the double edged sword of the internet in bringing people together to discuss topics on the internet. It would be too easily fooled for a computer-based ethnicity assessment (face scan or DNA sampling) to prevent the various parasitic chowderheads of the world in signing up to such a forum. And supplying personal details and interviews would be too risky from the perspective of some anti-White agent doxing everyone.

    On the plus side, you have enough anonymity to be useful and the ability to draw the better, maybe the best minds on the subject, and discuss them if you can ignore the chowderheads. For the most part I ignore them, I don’t expect them to argue on good faith, I mean, you can’t expect North Western Euro levels of altruism or lack of corruption, or honesty.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. @Gary in Gramercy
    How about James Earl Jones?

    Gary, Yes a perfect voice if you showed his face.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. @Reg Cæsar

    I have an idea. Have some one with a sonorous voice read, on NPR, Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s paper, The Negro Family: A Case for National Action. The truth always comes back to haunt.
     
    In murder cases, they call this "the smoking gun". And evidence of premeditation.

    Reg, nicely stated, thank you for the reply.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. Not Raul says:
    @Anonymous
    Powell's claim to greatness and fame can be judged thus:

    Fifty years own, his speech is still controversial. It is, right now, being discussed, studied and being read. At the time, Powell was merely a junior opposition minister.
    How many people, at this moment, recall or are even interested in the names of the big political figures in UK politics from that era? Wilson, Heath, Callaghan, Jenkins, George Brown, Crossman, Crosland, Tony Barber, Geoffrey Ripon etc etc?
    Who's reading *their* speeches?

    Good point. All of those other guys, except Heath, have been largely forgotten. And Heath only comes up in conversation when his pedophilia is discussed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. Tro11 says:

    Corvinus,

    You ignorant slut. Germans were invited by Gov. Spotswood of Virginia and the proprietors of Pennsylvania. Many were also settled in the colony of NY. They were considered desirable settlers because of their farming skills. You make it sound like they all showed up around 1860 and were in gangs in the 5 Points.

    Honest question here. If the Irish weren’t white, pray tell why Andrew Jackson felt it necessary to intervene in the O’NEILL-Eaton affair on behalf of Peg O’NEILL? One would think that if Irish= a type of colored folk, Andy J. would have avoided that situation like the plague.

    You and people like Joan Walsh myopically confuse Northeastern WASP snobbery with systemic, nation-wide racism against the Irish and Germans. There was more to America than Boston or the opinions of Horace Greeley and H.P. Lovecraft. Irish and Germans voted, held political office and married who they wanted. Anti-Irish bigotry was a class-based phenomenon similar to anti-Okie bigotry encountered by Anglo-Saxon Protestants.

    Look on Google books for local histories from the 19th century for Southern or Midwestern locales and counties. Lots of biographical data about local, prominent citizens. Plenty of people claimed Irish or German descent. People who were assimilated into the larger Anglophone culture. If Irish or German= something like a Gypsy or a Turk, wouldn’t they have avoided such appellations? In 1889, Theodore Roosevelt claimed the Scotch Irish had a component of the “old Milesian Irish” ancestry. How could he say such a thing! To hear Corvinus and similar sorts talk, the Irish were a sort of Asian or Tunisian until circa 1950.

    I would say Noel Ignatiev also confused class snobbery with racism, but that scoundrel had an agenda of promoting identity politics.

    In short, Germans and Irish were always white.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    I am a direct descendant of this Irish gentlemen, who was orphaned but found his way to America long before the famine. He eventually ended up in the House.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Russell_(Ohio_politician)
    , @Anonymous

    Corvinus,

    You ignorant slut.
     
    Sums that up, eh?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. @Corvinus
    http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-anti-immigration-cartoon-entitled-unrestricted-immigration-and-its-32393339.html

    Indeed, a similar situation occurred in the United States by the late 1800's.

    A proud, lone American of Protestant British descent (the real, true American), surrounded by invading non-Protestant, non-British stocks of people. From Germans to Assyrians, to the Chinese and Slavs. Just sickening.

    So, my friends, unless you can prove that you come directly from Great Britain (from your mother's and father's side) AND are of the Protestant faith, you must go back.

    Well, there have been studies that place the IQ of early American settlers from Europe as being higher than that of the average IQ of Americans today.

    In other words, what you, Corvinus, regard as the base level IQ of European-Americais is already a hybrid of the later, lesser gifted with the highly gifted original English and Dutch settlers. Proof of this is to be found in some IQ studies which have placed the native German and Dutch as among the highest in the world. Of course the USA will not score this highly since its average IQ is dragged down by the inferior minorities, as you point out.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Well, there have been studies that place the IQ of early American settlers from Europe as being higher than that of the average IQ of Americans today."

    So what studies? By whom? What were their conclusions?

    "In other words, what you, Corvinus, regard as the base level IQ of European-Americais is already a hybrid of the later, lesser gifted with the highly gifted original English and Dutch settlers."

    What proof do you have here?

    "Proof of this is to be found in some IQ studies which have placed the native German and Dutch as among the highest in the world."

    What studies exist detailing the IQ's of those immigrants who came to the U.S. in the 1600 and 1700's?

    "Of course the USA will not score this highly since its average IQ is dragged down by the inferior minorities, as you point out."

    If we are to assume that IQ scores are the end all and be all in a society.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. Mishra says:
    @Rosie

    So, my friends, unless you can prove that you come directly from Great Britain (from your mother’s and father’s side) AND are of the Protestant faith, you must go back.
     
    This is why nobody should bother engaging you. Any concession is exploited as a binding precedent for all time and for all persons anywhere on the planet.

    His main purpose is to try to divide and demoralise white people.

    I agree that engagement is pretty much without purpose.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. J.Ross says: • Website

    “Execute order ten sixty-six!”
    Powell is at pains to specify that these views are those of his constituents, implies that he disagrees with much of it, but is unapologetic and explicit about his obligation as an elected representative to bring his constituents’ concerns to the capitol. For this he has been posthumously punished by having all his care slimed over by sloppy critics. This is a lesson for falsely-”reasonable” pundits nattering about civility. But worse is the fact that out of hundreds of current representatives of the popular will in the US and UK, we cannot name ten that feel the same way about the racist crazies in sticksville. The best contrast to this speech is the abortive town hall meeting in a Minnesota suburb overrun by Somalis, where at one point the exasperated and disgusted politician snarls at mothers describing children spontaneously beaten bloody, “Well, what do you want me to do about it?”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  162. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Ali Choudhury
    It was a rather bloodthirsty and bombastic speech which racist thugs up and down the country took as a signal to attack anyone with non-white skin they did not like the look of. So it is not surprising a section of the public does not wish to see it being given an airing by the state-owned broadcaster. Especially since Powell did not think it necessary to speak out against racist attacks. He was more concerned about the impact it would have on his party leadership prospects. As David Goodhart says it had the rather counter productive impact of making it impossible to talk about immigration policy sensibly. It also resulted in the bar for successful integration into UK society being set too low.

    Yeah, military-age Anglo and Scottish-descended Protestant men with a little alcohol and national pride in them never hurt a fly until Enoch Powell flipped the magic Pavlovian switch — Powell knew football hooligans watch Parliamentary speeches religiously.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Ali Choudhury
    It was a rather bloodthirsty and bombastic speech which racist thugs up and down the country took as a signal to attack anyone with non-white skin they did not like the look of. So it is not surprising a section of the public does not wish to see it being given an airing by the state-owned broadcaster. Especially since Powell did not think it necessary to speak out against racist attacks. He was more concerned about the impact it would have on his party leadership prospects. As David Goodhart says it had the rather counter productive impact of making it impossible to talk about immigration policy sensibly. It also resulted in the bar for successful integration into UK society being set too low.

    sensibly
    Has this pseudo-subtle namecalling ever been used honestly? It is this word and not Nazi fetishism that is the true tell of totalitarianism. When Charles II attempted to grab the guns prior to the English Civil War, his proposal literally included the phrase “common sense.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @George
    Do you have a link to that attempt to grab the guns prior to the English Civil War, his proposal literally included the phrase “common sense.” I did not see the phrase “common sense.”

    The closest thing I could find was the Game Act of 1671

    http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/candp/crime/g04/g04cs6s2.htm
    Transcript:
    http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/candp/transcripts/g04cs6s2t.htm

    Possibly interesting too:
    England and Gun Control --- Moral Decline of an Empire
    http://www.haciendapub.com/medicalsentinel/england-and-gun-control-moral-decline-empire
    , @Ali Choudhury
    Do you mean Charles I? It was his pro Catholicism and belief in the divine right of kings to govern without calling parliaments that set off the opposition to him, I don't recall guns being a cause of the uproar.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. @AnotherDad

    It was a rather bloodthirsty and bombastic speech which racist thugs up and down the country took as a signal to attack anyone with non-white skin they did not like the look of.
     
    Utter and complete nonsense. Utter and complete.

    His speech is not "racist" by any reasonable (negative) definition of the term. The only thing even racially particular in the speech is relating the experience of the white boarding house owner. His speech is not fundamentally about the immigrants but about the rights of Britons and about the duty of their leaders to them. In fact, Powell had generally been seen as a racial liberal--especially after his speech on the massacre in Kenya. His basic outlook is that every citizen needs to be treated fairly as a fellow citizen, so it was imperative not to allow immigration to build up foreign communities and have communalism and contention. Which is exactly what's occurred. Furthermore, there's zero evidence of any upsurge in racial attacks. (If there was we'd have heard about it in all the denunciations.) You're just lying.

    It's strange to me, that on Steve's blog--HBD focused--where differences among peoples are frankly discussed, you nonetheless find a bunch of commentators utterly unable to get outside of their own little tribal identity and assess the world with any degree of objectivity.

    You've got a Chinese-American guy, who surveying the entire American scene thinks the really important racial issue is the essentially non-existent "discrimination against Asians". I kid you not! You've got an Indian who thinks that HBD is great and all, but anyone who would just as soon live their live in their nation without an invasion of Indians is just some sort of pathetic little cretin--rather than simply a normal rational human being. You've got a few of the Jews who think the old Ivy League Jewish quotas were "illegal", the Golfocaust some sort of abomination, and who just--despite their high IQs--just can't conceive of any reason other than irrational "hate", why someone would not have love in their heart for a tribally-endogamous, exploitive middle-man minority living in their midst. Anti-semitism!

    I'm a flyover country white-gentile. I think--predictably--that flyover country white gentiles are really pretty great. Build nice nation! (High trust, rule of law, etc.) That's the sort of nation i inherited and that i damn sure want to live in. But that said, i don't think we white gentiles don't have issues or that the world ought to revolve around us. And if i have a particular ethnicity beyond white-American, it's Irish-Catholic. You won't find me whining about the "Know-Nothings". The Irish Catholics had all sorts of issues that would make Anglo-Protestants not want to have them around. And beyond that Anglo-Protestants could legimately not want to have the Irish around simply because they weren't Anglo-Protestants! "Foreigner" is a perfectly legimate reason for not wanting someone around.

    I have my opinions on the "right way" to organize life. Basically i think my people--white gentiles--have done the best work, and created--before the disaster--the best nations with the best life. But if i was off trying to live in China or India or Japan or Israel or Dubai or Mexico, i wouldn't be whining about they didn't do things the proper white-gentile way, expect them to treat me as a native or expect them to allow my fellow white-gentiles to flood in because we're just so damn much better.

    Seriously. Poke your head up and view the world honestly--you aren't special and neither is your ethnic group. And no one else is under any obligation to like you or tolerate you hanging around.

    Powell is a hero. Not because there's anything "wrong" with whatever Commonwealth immigrants were coming in. But because their comming in would displace Britons, ramp up social contention and make life for the British people much worse and ultimately destroy Britons being able to live comfortably as Britons. This a real British leader can not sugarcoat or ignore, so Powell--a hero--spoke up to tell the truth.

    I would not call the speech racist, references to grinding picaninnies aside, and Powell himself was not a racist. Saying racial civil wars were inevitable and blacks were going to rule over whites was offering a rather apocalyptic prediction of Britain’s future. I live in the UK and know plenty of Commonwealth immigrants, a fair proportion of whom are Conservative voters, who were witnesses of and victimis of racist attacks and hostility which skyrocketed in the wake of the speech. I see no reason to doubt their testimony, they have no political axe to grind.

    I don’t know if the reference to the Indian who posts here is to me, I don’t believe I have called anyone who wants restrictive immigration policies a cretin. It is a justifiable position to take. The most I have said on the subject is that I don’t see how allowing Polish tradesmen and Indian IT workers into the UK would result in the destruction of the country. As far as Yan Shen goes, his concerns are a bit more nuanced than that.

    Thank you for the personal perspective. There are likely plenty of white gentiles, as you call them, who would dispute that the unskilled Irish Catholics who emigrated to the US contributed much of worth to a nation that was already successful and well on the way to becoming a superpower. The nativist reaction to them was probably not helped by Dagger John declaring the aim of Catholicism was converting all pagan and Protestant nations to the true faith when he was bishop of New York.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    Well for crying out loud. How're we supposed to work ourselves into a state of indignant, racial rage when someone comes across as reasonably as you do?
    , @Anon
    So Indians would be cool with Whites moving en masse into India, taking jobs of native workers, clogging roads and driving up real estate prices? How about if they started taking over key political positions and kicking the door open ever wider for their co-ethnics?
    , @Anonymous
    Sorry, but demographic trends show us that it is *inevitable* that 'blacks will rule over whites' , (that is form a majority of the UK population, and thus electorate), sometime this century.

    As for the bloodshed, the recent London stabbing spate, the Manchester bomb, the Borough Market attack, The Mark Duggan Riots, the 2005 Tube bombings etc etc, clearly show the future.
    , @Benjaminl
    Interesting that you mention Dagger John. If I were an old-stock 19th-century American in his heyday, I'd be wary of an alien ethnocentric rabble-rouser like Dagger John and would watch him closely. On the other hand, I'd be very grateful for his work in urging his flock to get their act together, shape up and conform to the expected norms.

    Today's Minority and Immigrant Community Leaders seem to have retained the same degree of ethnocentric tribal mentality and resentment as Dagger John, but have substituted a message of entitlement for that of personal responsibility.

    https://www.city-journal.org/html/how-dagger-john-saved-new-york%E2%80%99s-irish-11934.html


    With unerring psychological insight, Hughes had his priests emphasize religious teachings perfectly attuned to re-socializing the Irish and helping them succeed in their new lives. It was a religion of personal responsibility that they taught, stressing the importance of confession, a sacrament not widely popular today—and unknown to many of the Irish who emigrated during the famine, most of whom had never received any religious education. The practice had powerful psychological consequences. You cannot send a friend to confess for you, nor can you bring an advocate into the confessional. Once inside the confessional, you cannot discuss what others have done to you but must clearly state what you yourself have done wrong. It is the ultimate taking of responsibility for one’s actions; and it taught the Irish to focus on their own role in creating their misfortune.

    Hughes once remarked that “the Catholic Church is a church of discipline,” and Father Richard Shaw, Hughes’s most recent biographer, believes that the comment gives a glimpse into the inner core of his beliefs. Self-control and high personal standards were the key—and Hughes’s own disciplined labors to improve himself and all those around him, despite constant ill health, embodied this ethic monumentally. Hughes proclaimed the need to avoid sin. His clergy stated clearly that certain conduct was right and other conduct was wrong. People must not govern their lives according to momentary feelings or the desire for instant gratification: they had to live up to a code of behavior that had been developed over thousands of years. This teaching produced communities where ethical standards mattered and severe stigma attached to those who misbehaved.

    The priests stressed the virtue of purity, loudly and unambiguously, to both young and old. Sex was sinful outside marriage, no exceptions. Packed together in apartments with sometimes two or three families in a single room, the Irish lived in conditions that did not encourage chastity or even basic modesty. Women working in the low-paid drudgery of domestic service were tempted to work instead in the saloons of Five Points, which often led to a life of promiscuity or prostitution. The Church’s fierce exhortations against promiscuity, with its accompanying evils of out-of-wedlock births and venereal disease, took hold. In time, most Irish began to understand that personal responsibility was an important component of sexual conduct.

    Since alcohol was such a major problem for his flock, Hughes—though no teetotaler himself—promoted the formation of a Catholic abstinence society. In 1849 he accompanied the famous Irish Capuchin priest, Father Theobald Mathew, the “apostle of temperance,” all around the city as he gave the abstinence pledge to 20,000 New Yorkers.

    A religion of discipline, stressing conduct and the avoidance of sin, can be a pinched and gloomy affair, but Hughes’s teaching had a very different inflection. His priests mitigated the harshness with the encouraging Doctrine of the Sacred Heart, which declares that if you keep the commandments, God will be your protector, healer, advisor, and perfect personal friend. To a people despised by many, living in desperate circumstances, with narrow economic possibilities, such a teaching was a bulwark against anger, despair, and fear. Hughes’s Catholicism was upbeat and encouraging: if God Almighty was your personal friend, you could overcome.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. Clyde says:
    @Ali Choudhury
    It was a rather bloodthirsty and bombastic speech which racist thugs up and down the country took as a signal to attack anyone with non-white skin they did not like the look of. So it is not surprising a section of the public does not wish to see it being given an airing by the state-owned broadcaster. Especially since Powell did not think it necessary to speak out against racist attacks. He was more concerned about the impact it would have on his party leadership prospects. As David Goodhart says it had the rather counter productive impact of making it impossible to talk about immigration policy sensibly. It also resulted in the bar for successful integration into UK society being set too low.

    It was a rather bloodthirsty and bombastic speech which racist thugs up and down the country took as a signal to attack anyone with non-white skin they did not like the look of.

    I am in USA so don’t have an exact fix on this “racist thuggery” but it must have mild. Otherwise how do you account for the millions of Indians, Pakistanis, Hindus, Muslim who have immigrated to England since Enoch Powell’s immortal speech. These days Muslim Pakistanis manipulate marriage and immigration laws to bring in brides and grooms from India/Pakistan. Thousands of Pounds are paid by the Pakistan family patriarch to the English family patriarch in these immigration marriages that are half business deals. The payoff to get a foothold in the UK and to one day set up their own cash (tax dodging) businesses such as chips shoppes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. Pericles says:
    @WowJustWow
    And yet: “I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended - even if this wasn't its main purpose - to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.” — Andrew Neather

    Don’t underestimate what people are capable of doing out of spite.

    Don’t underestimate what people are capable of doing out of spite.

    For example, it seems clear that the disastrous migrant policy of Sweden was prompted by PM Fredrik Reinfeldt’s personal spite against the Sweden Democrats.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. George says:
    @J.Ross
    sensibly
    Has this pseudo-subtle namecalling ever been used honestly? It is this word and not Nazi fetishism that is the true tell of totalitarianism. When Charles II attempted to grab the guns prior to the English Civil War, his proposal literally included the phrase "common sense."

    Do you have a link to that attempt to grab the guns prior to the English Civil War, his proposal literally included the phrase “common sense.” I did not see the phrase “common sense.”

    The closest thing I could find was the Game Act of 1671

    http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/candp/crime/g04/g04cs6s2.htm

    Transcript:

    http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/candp/transcripts/g04cs6s2t.htm

    Possibly interesting too:
    England and Gun Control — Moral Decline of an Empire

    http://www.haciendapub.com/medicalsentinel/england-and-gun-control-moral-decline-empire

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    I might be misremembering it, it might have been in a communication and not in the law itself. To your request for a nice citation I give this two hour long video, but it's worth your time, because it is the best in class go-to video for the legal reasoning of the Second Amendment. It spends a lot of time on the history and makes clear that gun-grabbing actually follows a pattern closely, the attempts in past centuries were just like the ones in the present.
    tldr the Catholic King wanted England, which has always been very decentralized, to be more like France, and he planned to gradually eliminate the "militia" (which, there as here, means every single man over a certain age being a sort of ultimate military reserve, rather than a formal military body) by introducing hierarchic organization and incrementally tightening control.
    It blew my mind when I learned these philosophical aspects to the English Civil War -- many of them are very nearly the exact same questions our Founders wrestled with, laid out or "solved" by the same philosophers, and of course given the timing and language and possible family connections, this would surely be the biggest influence on our Founders, but liberals want to talk about the Iroquois Confederacy being some kin of influence.
    In Search Of The Second Amendment
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h5lKEodoQg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says: • Website

    Enoch was wrong.

    It’s fountains of blood.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  169. DFH says:
    @Ali Choudhury
    It was a rather bloodthirsty and bombastic speech which racist thugs up and down the country took as a signal to attack anyone with non-white skin they did not like the look of. So it is not surprising a section of the public does not wish to see it being given an airing by the state-owned broadcaster. Especially since Powell did not think it necessary to speak out against racist attacks. He was more concerned about the impact it would have on his party leadership prospects. As David Goodhart says it had the rather counter productive impact of making it impossible to talk about immigration policy sensibly. It also resulted in the bar for successful integration into UK society being set too low.

    If Britain had been a little bit more racist, then tens of thousands of girls wouldn’t have been raped, so swings and roundabouts.

    Please go home, you’ll never ever be British.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. @Aeoli Pera
    It's okay everyone, I've just received a phone call from Mary Beard saying that Enoch Powell was a black man, as were many Britons of that era. BBC listeners shall revise their opinions of this speech to reflect: "So Brave, thank you."

    Andrew Ferguson comments on Mary Beard’s remake of Civilization; short version is that Kenneth Clark is a racist white guy.

    https://www.weeklystandard.com/andrew-ferguson/the-end-of-civilisation

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. Anon[304] • Disclaimer says:

    The interesting thing is why the BBC is doing this at all. Liberals always try to bury anything that goes against their narrative. I suspect some higher-up at the BBC, who lives in London, is becoming fearful of his home turning into a hellhole, and he wants to pull the ladder up on immigration and subvert liberal politics clandestinely before it’s too late.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lurker
    I presume that they think Powell has been demonised sufficiently that this exercise will merely 'prove' how mad, bad and dangerous he was.

    But. . . I think in many bastions of liberal thought, like the BBC, they have lost touch with what a lot of people are actually thinking and thus this little BBC exercise may backfire.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Clyde
    Enoch Powell's Wolverhampton district is diverse these days -- https://www.ft.com/content/6c55ce92-babe-11e4-8447-00144feab7de

    Enoch Powell - the great British Parliamentarian - developed a maxim after decades of experience: "All political careers end in failure."
    https://tinyurl.com/y9d325w3

    Enoch Powell – the great British Parliamentarian – developed a maxim after decades of experience: “All political careers end in failure.”

    It’s a variation of Boyington’s Dictum:
    “Just name a hero. I’ll prove he’s a bum.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. @Ali Choudhury
    I would not call the speech racist, references to grinding picaninnies aside, and Powell himself was not a racist. Saying racial civil wars were inevitable and blacks were going to rule over whites was offering a rather apocalyptic prediction of Britain's future. I live in the UK and know plenty of Commonwealth immigrants, a fair proportion of whom are Conservative voters, who were witnesses of and victimis of racist attacks and hostility which skyrocketed in the wake of the speech. I see no reason to doubt their testimony, they have no political axe to grind.

    I don't know if the reference to the Indian who posts here is to me, I don't believe I have called anyone who wants restrictive immigration policies a cretin. It is a justifiable position to take. The most I have said on the subject is that I don't see how allowing Polish tradesmen and Indian IT workers into the UK would result in the destruction of the country. As far as Yan Shen goes, his concerns are a bit more nuanced than that.

    Thank you for the personal perspective. There are likely plenty of white gentiles, as you call them, who would dispute that the unskilled Irish Catholics who emigrated to the US contributed much of worth to a nation that was already successful and well on the way to becoming a superpower. The nativist reaction to them was probably not helped by Dagger John declaring the aim of Catholicism was converting all pagan and Protestant nations to the true faith when he was bishop of New York.

    Well for crying out loud. How’re we supposed to work ourselves into a state of indignant, racial rage when someone comes across as reasonably as you do?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. @Achmed E. Newman
    That's a splendid idea, Joe. Of course it'll never happen, but I'd listen at the risk of being put into a deep, deep sleep by those soothing NPR folks. Alas, Nina Totenberg is no longer a young lass, so I don't think her reading of a Patrick Moynihan paper would get me hot and bothered ... well, maybe bothered.

    It's really something to think that the name Patrick Moynihan seems like someone from the recent past to me!

    AEN, Thank you. Most NPR hostesses were perfect for the visuals of radio. For those too young to remember what Moynihan wrote decades ago, search out “The Negro Family: A Case for National Action.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. songbird says:
    @p s c
    I've always wondered why the Brits could crush the world from the 1700's through early 1900's with little regard for anything such as humanitarianism, decency or just plain sense not to subjugate other peoples. Yet by the 1960's there were huge parades for anti-nukes, anti-apartheid, anti-Vietnam war, and all other lefty stuff.

    But concerning the Irish question, the Brits remained iron-willed. During the hunger strikes of the early '80's, Margaret Thatcher and the people of Britain were determined not to yield an inch to the IRA.

    Yet if these same men were black or brown and were resisting Mother England for some other type of nationalism beside Irish Republicanism, millions of white Britishers would have been on the streets protesting on their behalf.

    Cucks of the highest order.

    The British treatment of Irish Catholics compared to their treatment of new arrivals from Africa, the Indies and the Sub-Continent is amazing. Just like the Puritan types from New England (Harriet Beecher Stowe, Emerson, etc...) despise the Irish and love the African.

    I agree, but I’d add that the opposite is also true. The old factionalists in Ireland seem to care nothing about Ireland after all. It is really quite startling. Some people have tried to explain it by saying they were really all far-leftists. Could be so.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. Anon[248] • Disclaimer says:
    @Tro11
    Corvinus,

    You ignorant slut. Germans were invited by Gov. Spotswood of Virginia and the proprietors of Pennsylvania. Many were also settled in the colony of NY. They were considered desirable settlers because of their farming skills. You make it sound like they all showed up around 1860 and were in gangs in the 5 Points.

    Honest question here. If the Irish weren't white, pray tell why Andrew Jackson felt it necessary to intervene in the O'NEILL-Eaton affair on behalf of Peg O'NEILL? One would think that if Irish= a type of colored folk, Andy J. would have avoided that situation like the plague.

    You and people like Joan Walsh myopically confuse Northeastern WASP snobbery with systemic, nation-wide racism against the Irish and Germans. There was more to America than Boston or the opinions of Horace Greeley and H.P. Lovecraft. Irish and Germans voted, held political office and married who they wanted. Anti-Irish bigotry was a class-based phenomenon similar to anti-Okie bigotry encountered by Anglo-Saxon Protestants.

    Look on Google books for local histories from the 19th century for Southern or Midwestern locales and counties. Lots of biographical data about local, prominent citizens. Plenty of people claimed Irish or German descent. People who were assimilated into the larger Anglophone culture. If Irish or German= something like a Gypsy or a Turk, wouldn't they have avoided such appellations? In 1889, Theodore Roosevelt claimed the Scotch Irish had a component of the "old Milesian Irish" ancestry. How could he say such a thing! To hear Corvinus and similar sorts talk, the Irish were a sort of Asian or Tunisian until circa 1950.

    I would say Noel Ignatiev also confused class snobbery with racism, but that scoundrel had an agenda of promoting identity politics.

    In short, Germans and Irish were always white.

    I am a direct descendant of this Irish gentlemen, who was orphaned but found his way to America long before the famine. He eventually ended up in the House.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Russell_(Ohio_politician)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. J.Ross says: • Website
    @George
    Do you have a link to that attempt to grab the guns prior to the English Civil War, his proposal literally included the phrase “common sense.” I did not see the phrase “common sense.”

    The closest thing I could find was the Game Act of 1671

    http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/candp/crime/g04/g04cs6s2.htm
    Transcript:
    http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/candp/transcripts/g04cs6s2t.htm

    Possibly interesting too:
    England and Gun Control --- Moral Decline of an Empire
    http://www.haciendapub.com/medicalsentinel/england-and-gun-control-moral-decline-empire

    I might be misremembering it, it might have been in a communication and not in the law itself. To your request for a nice citation I give this two hour long video, but it’s worth your time, because it is the best in class go-to video for the legal reasoning of the Second Amendment. It spends a lot of time on the history and makes clear that gun-grabbing actually follows a pattern closely, the attempts in past centuries were just like the ones in the present.
    tldr the Catholic King wanted England, which has always been very decentralized, to be more like France, and he planned to gradually eliminate the “militia” (which, there as here, means every single man over a certain age being a sort of ultimate military reserve, rather than a formal military body) by introducing hierarchic organization and incrementally tightening control.
    It blew my mind when I learned these philosophical aspects to the English Civil War — many of them are very nearly the exact same questions our Founders wrestled with, laid out or “solved” by the same philosophers, and of course given the timing and language and possible family connections, this would surely be the biggest influence on our Founders, but liberals want to talk about the Iroquois Confederacy being some kin of influence.
    In Search Of The Second Amendment

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. Altai says:

    Every 10 years they do this. And every 10 years they ignore that Powell’s speech in it’s own time was highly successful. It did help to lead to the restricting of commonwealth immigration. And it was understood that Powell and his sympathisers were able to effect this change. Now they pretend he howled across the universe promising ‘rivers of blood’ (I honestly don’t think any of them ever read the speech to understand the context) and that no changes were made to policy.

    It wasn’t until the late 90s early 2000s that things exploded again.

    Put another way, London in the 90s was almost 80% white, ~95% of whom were British. (The rest were almost all Irish)

    But it’s portrayed as if this massive increase kept on going through the 80s and it didn’t really, not like it had the years prior and not like today.

    Now in addition to the commonwealth immigrants, visa immigrants and various asylum seekers, there is EU immigration of which no legal mechanisms exist to control. (You could argue the same for asylum seekers but Denmark and Japan beg to differ) Between 2001 and 2011 the number of non-Irish EU immigrants nearly doubled from 594,854 to 1,033,981. (And having gone from the tens of thousands in 1991) And it seems not even Brexit will dissolve the freedom of movement and it’s likely the current EU migrants will be given some kind of pass even if it is.

    So due almost entirely to immigration and the effects of immigration the number of white Britons in London went from 4,287,861 (59.79%) to 3,669,284 (44.89%) in just the 10 years between 2001 and 2011 and who knows what it’s at now.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  179. @Ozymandias
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/15/david-buckel-prominent-gay-rights-lawyer-burns-himself-to-death-in-new-york-to-protest-global-warming.html

    Let us pray that this catches on. May it become a movement that sweeps the nation.

    Ozy, I guess he couldn’t find a magnifying glass big enough to do the task. Of course solar as an alternate fuel in his case would require him to act in bright sunshine. However, this was the act of a mentally unstable person.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. Anon[248] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ali Choudhury
    I would not call the speech racist, references to grinding picaninnies aside, and Powell himself was not a racist. Saying racial civil wars were inevitable and blacks were going to rule over whites was offering a rather apocalyptic prediction of Britain's future. I live in the UK and know plenty of Commonwealth immigrants, a fair proportion of whom are Conservative voters, who were witnesses of and victimis of racist attacks and hostility which skyrocketed in the wake of the speech. I see no reason to doubt their testimony, they have no political axe to grind.

    I don't know if the reference to the Indian who posts here is to me, I don't believe I have called anyone who wants restrictive immigration policies a cretin. It is a justifiable position to take. The most I have said on the subject is that I don't see how allowing Polish tradesmen and Indian IT workers into the UK would result in the destruction of the country. As far as Yan Shen goes, his concerns are a bit more nuanced than that.

    Thank you for the personal perspective. There are likely plenty of white gentiles, as you call them, who would dispute that the unskilled Irish Catholics who emigrated to the US contributed much of worth to a nation that was already successful and well on the way to becoming a superpower. The nativist reaction to them was probably not helped by Dagger John declaring the aim of Catholicism was converting all pagan and Protestant nations to the true faith when he was bishop of New York.

    So Indians would be cool with Whites moving en masse into India, taking jobs of native workers, clogging roads and driving up real estate prices? How about if they started taking over key political positions and kicking the door open ever wider for their co-ethnics?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ali Choudhury
    That already happened. It was called the British Empire.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. @dearieme
    I attended a speech by Powell in my Student Union. He was magnetic - by far the best speaker we had that year.

    After his speech what struck me was his way of taking questions. He'd listen to the question; repeat it in clearer, usually shorter, form; ask the questioner whether that was a fair paraphrase of the original; and when he had his assent, answer it.

    We were a cocky, articulate bunch, but even we were highly impressed. Looking back I can say he was intellectually streets ahead of any politician I've ever heard in English (or French).

    dearime, How unusual, a politician who actual answers the question.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. 3g4me says:
    @AnotherDad

    It was a rather bloodthirsty and bombastic speech which racist thugs up and down the country took as a signal to attack anyone with non-white skin they did not like the look of.
     
    Utter and complete nonsense. Utter and complete.

    His speech is not "racist" by any reasonable (negative) definition of the term. The only thing even racially particular in the speech is relating the experience of the white boarding house owner. His speech is not fundamentally about the immigrants but about the rights of Britons and about the duty of their leaders to them. In fact, Powell had generally been seen as a racial liberal--especially after his speech on the massacre in Kenya. His basic outlook is that every citizen needs to be treated fairly as a fellow citizen, so it was imperative not to allow immigration to build up foreign communities and have communalism and contention. Which is exactly what's occurred. Furthermore, there's zero evidence of any upsurge in racial attacks. (If there was we'd have heard about it in all the denunciations.) You're just lying.

    It's strange to me, that on Steve's blog--HBD focused--where differences among peoples are frankly discussed, you nonetheless find a bunch of commentators utterly unable to get outside of their own little tribal identity and assess the world with any degree of objectivity.

    You've got a Chinese-American guy, who surveying the entire American scene thinks the really important racial issue is the essentially non-existent "discrimination against Asians". I kid you not! You've got an Indian who thinks that HBD is great and all, but anyone who would just as soon live their live in their nation without an invasion of Indians is just some sort of pathetic little cretin--rather than simply a normal rational human being. You've got a few of the Jews who think the old Ivy League Jewish quotas were "illegal", the Golfocaust some sort of abomination, and who just--despite their high IQs--just can't conceive of any reason other than irrational "hate", why someone would not have love in their heart for a tribally-endogamous, exploitive middle-man minority living in their midst. Anti-semitism!

    I'm a flyover country white-gentile. I think--predictably--that flyover country white gentiles are really pretty great. Build nice nation! (High trust, rule of law, etc.) That's the sort of nation i inherited and that i damn sure want to live in. But that said, i don't think we white gentiles don't have issues or that the world ought to revolve around us. And if i have a particular ethnicity beyond white-American, it's Irish-Catholic. You won't find me whining about the "Know-Nothings". The Irish Catholics had all sorts of issues that would make Anglo-Protestants not want to have them around. And beyond that Anglo-Protestants could legimately not want to have the Irish around simply because they weren't Anglo-Protestants! "Foreigner" is a perfectly legimate reason for not wanting someone around.

    I have my opinions on the "right way" to organize life. Basically i think my people--white gentiles--have done the best work, and created--before the disaster--the best nations with the best life. But if i was off trying to live in China or India or Japan or Israel or Dubai or Mexico, i wouldn't be whining about they didn't do things the proper white-gentile way, expect them to treat me as a native or expect them to allow my fellow white-gentiles to flood in because we're just so damn much better.

    Seriously. Poke your head up and view the world honestly--you aren't special and neither is your ethnic group. And no one else is under any obligation to like you or tolerate you hanging around.

    Powell is a hero. Not because there's anything "wrong" with whatever Commonwealth immigrants were coming in. But because their comming in would displace Britons, ramp up social contention and make life for the British people much worse and ultimately destroy Britons being able to live comfortably as Britons. This a real British leader can not sugarcoat or ignore, so Powell--a hero--spoke up to tell the truth.

    @131 AnotherDad: “It’s strange to me, that on Steve’s blog–HBD focused–where differences among peoples are frankly discussed, you nonetheless find a bunch of commentators utterly unable to get outside of their own little tribal identity and assess the world with any degree of objectivity . . . You’ve got a Chinese-American guy, who . . . thinks the really important racial issue is the essentially non-existent “discrimination against Asians”. . . You’ve got an Indian who thinks that HBD is great and all, but anyone who would just as soon live their live in their nation without an invasion of Indians is just some sort of pathetic little cretin–rather than simply a normal rational human being. You’ve got a few of the Jews who think the old Ivy League Jewish quotas were “illegal”, the Golfocaust some sort of abomination, and who just–despite their high IQs–just can’t conceive of any reason other than irrational “hate”, why someone would not have love in their heart for a tribally-endogamous, exploitive middle-man minority living in their midst. Anti-semitism!”

    I’ve noted that same point before in various comment threads. It’s quite simple, unfortunately: They each claim to support HBD to the extent that they believe it vindicates their belief in their native group’s intellectual superiority. They challenge HBD when it is, logically and factually, linked to culture. They reject HBD out of hand when asked why they’re all residing in White gentile countries and commenting on White gentile bogs.

    Therefore we see that: HBD + magic dirt + magic papers = Kato is American, Ali is British, and Jack D is all American.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. @Anon
    Most of the population thinks "rivers of blood" means a civil war on the scale of Syria, Yugoslavia and Somalia. As the civil war has not happened yet, Powell has therefore been "proven wrong". The text of the speech seems to predict rioting, rather than insurrection, but the popular imagination is what it is.

    There is also the problem that perhaps half of the UK genuinely likes multikult despite the police state. London might be more violent than New York, but not yet at the level of New Orleans. The major metropolitan areas should probably be steered in the direction of becoming city-states.

    “perhaps half of the UK genuinely likes multikult despite the police state”

    That’s why 500,000 white Brits left London in a decade, and why they are building houses as fast as they can in every small country town (i.e. white British places) over all of England and Wales. What people tell an interviewer and what they do in the real world are very different things.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    Britain is discovering "White flight."
    , @Anon
    There revealed preferences won't matter until they start voting differently. And in the case of the UK, that means becoming Conservative Party members and deselecting globalist MPs.

    We've had no end of "liberals with politically incorrect thoughts". It's time for them to put up or shut up.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. @TheUmpteenthGermanOnHere
    Do you have supporting data from polls etc.? As such, the argument is not exactly obvious. Competition for welfare resources may not be as intense as competition for jobs, but is real nonetheless.
    You also probably significantly underestimate the element of cultural opposition to diversity. In that regard, Muslims may not only rank below Eastern European immigrants in the eyes of Brexit voters, but also below blacks.

    There are claims that Brexit voters were more concerned about non-European immigration than one would expect from the official narrative:

    http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/06/05/uk-voters-including-leavers-care-more-about-reducing-non-eu-than-eu-migration/

    Of course this can’t be admitted in Britain since one has to pretend the post-war Commonwealth immigration was a fantastic success. Whereas bashing continental Europeans is still within the window of legitimate discourse.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Diane Abbot and Sadiq Khan never integrated, but yet if you agree with Enoch Powell you will be locked up.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Eustace Tilley (not)
    May mine eyes, ever-chaste, swiftly pass
    O'er the tasteless, the vulgar, the crass.
    En masse et vetu
    With no sinful see-thru:
    Thus would I gaze upon ass.

    https://www.vdare.com/articles/can-we-judge-people-by-what-they-look-like-in-fact-yes

    Another study, involving 95 male subjects, found that men who like small breasts tend toward being religious and depressive, and men who like larger buttocks are ordered, dependent, and “self-blaming.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. @Anon
    So Indians would be cool with Whites moving en masse into India, taking jobs of native workers, clogging roads and driving up real estate prices? How about if they started taking over key political positions and kicking the door open ever wider for their co-ethnics?

    That already happened. It was called the British Empire.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    So you agree with his point.
    , @dcite
    When the British left India in 1948, someone from a village near Delhi was asked what she thought of this momentous event. She replied she had never known the British had ever been in India.
    The British never moved to India in huge numbers. They set up a banking and trade system, the British East India Company, and filled those jobs, numbering in the few thousands, not millions, with natives hired sometimes; but those jobs would not have been there if the Brits had not set them up.
    It would have been better if the British had never exerted any empire design on India, but Indians were never, ever, in danger of losing their own culture (although the English did pass laws against suttee and child marriage), or of being overwhelmed by the English. In any case, the Indians now would not allow it, I'm sure.
    , @Hunsdon
    If it was wrong to colonize then, is it somehow right to colonize now? Are you arguing, good sir, that two wrongs make a right?
    , @Saxon
    50,000 or so people among over one hundred million, who then mostly left isn't the same as up to a third of babies now being born in England and Wales not being English and Welsh.

    I would wager lots of people in India never knew they were even there at the time. The same cannot be said of visibly non-European populations in almost every European country today.

    , @Bill B.
    Interestingly India has for a long time been demanding much easier open borders as the price of a normal trading relationship with the UK.

    Is this not a category error - yes I will buy your old car but only if my cousin can live in your spare bedroom?

    Strange isn't it that the Indian establishment is so optimistic about India's prospects that it encourages, even demands, a brain drain!

    From the FT's news report on Modi's visit to London:

    "...the first item on Mr Modi’s agenda is likely to be visa liberalisation, something for which New Delhi has been campaigning unsuccessfully for years. The Indian government wants more student visas for Indians and for the process to be made easier for them to stay after completing their courses. 

    One British official said Mrs May is planning to offer a more relaxed regime for those working in the tech sector, but not the kind of broad-based reforms for which India has been campaigning.

    Britain, meanwhile, is hoping to advance its trade agenda during the visit, with a view to signing some form of trade agreement after the country has left the EU...

    “Trade has not really picked up in several years,” said Geethanjali Nataraj, professor of economics at the Indian Institute of Public Administration. “Britain is keen to sign a free-trade agreement eventually, but to do that it will have to offer easier visas.”

    Trade has not really picked up in several years. Britain is keen to sign a free-trade agreement eventually, but to do that it will have to offer easier visas...
     

    “Personal relations between the two prime ministers are not great,” one British official admitted. “She does not do basic things like calling him to update him after a terrorist attack. It is embarrassing really.”

    YK Sinha, the Indian high commissioner to London, recently complained that the British had a “very dated or very incomplete” knowledge of India, based on “nostalgia, the Raj or their connections”.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. @YetAnotherAnon
    "perhaps half of the UK genuinely likes multikult despite the police state"

    That's why 500,000 white Brits left London in a decade, and why they are building houses as fast as they can in every small country town (i.e. white British places) over all of England and Wales. What people tell an interviewer and what they do in the real world are very different things.

    Britain is discovering “White flight.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. @J.Ross
    sensibly
    Has this pseudo-subtle namecalling ever been used honestly? It is this word and not Nazi fetishism that is the true tell of totalitarianism. When Charles II attempted to grab the guns prior to the English Civil War, his proposal literally included the phrase "common sense."

    Do you mean Charles I? It was his pro Catholicism and belief in the divine right of kings to govern without calling parliaments that set off the opposition to him, I don’t recall guns being a cause of the uproar.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    I might have my royals confused, but nobody familiar with the Anglosphere could see an attempt to disarm the ordinary Englishman as irrelevant to a fear that a monarch is alien and hostile to national traditions, any more than was his religion. Free people are armed as a matter of definition.
    , @Anon

    Do you mean Charles I? It was his pro Catholicism
     
    Someone didn't pay enough attention in history class.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Escher
    IMO BBC is resorting to sensationalism to boost its sagging ratings.

    The BBC is the reason for the infamous “TV license” tax and there has been much discussion on the chans about witnessing that expire as everybody abandons TV altogether. There was a fight I didn’t see resolved about whether you still need to pay if you do not download and use the BBC’s proprietary media player for online content. There were also many who insisted that British police are as serious about breaking into an old lady’s house over a TV fee as they are about protecting young women from getting raped or bombed, that you can essentially just not answer the door and ignore the letters, but BBC has actually hired a private security firm to do collections. One guy said he let the fuzz in to see that he didn’t have a TV, they opened no doors or drawers and left in minutes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Eustace Tilley (not)
    If sanity would be preserved
    And civilization conserved,
    Please trash your TV
    To defund BBC
    And treat Minitrue just as deserved.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Harry Baldwin
    What alternative do they have? To admit that they and their worldview have been proven disastrously wrong? To acknowledge that their ideological enemies, opposition to whom is the foundation of their virtue, have in fact been right all along?

    This is a very important point.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Ali Choudhury
    That already happened. It was called the British Empire.

    So you agree with his point.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ali Choudhury
    I am not Indian so whatever happens there is of little interest to me.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Ali Choudhury
    Do you mean Charles I? It was his pro Catholicism and belief in the divine right of kings to govern without calling parliaments that set off the opposition to him, I don't recall guns being a cause of the uproar.

    I might have my royals confused, but nobody familiar with the Anglosphere could see an attempt to disarm the ordinary Englishman as irrelevant to a fear that a monarch is alien and hostile to national traditions, any more than was his religion. Free people are armed as a matter of definition.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:

    The TV Tax is one of the single most ridiculous things about the modern UK. (Which is saying a lot.)

    I think that they just tax everyone on the presumption that they probably do have a TV somewhere, and depend on those who d not wish to pay to indicate or prove otherwise, and they bust a few violators every once in a while to maintain the general terror.

    At first, I think they really did have legitimate detector technology in the notorious vans: the old TVs put out a lot of local oscillator signal as well as LF/ELF sweep signals both as M-field and as audio from talky caps and loose yoke wires. However, now I think it’s mostly bullshit because in the modern “electronic smog” environment of a city picking out one apartment or office would be impossible, plus while modern flat panel displays put out tons of crap from their switchmode supplies, actual TV-specific signals (as opposed to a computer monitor or retail display) are probably pretty well confined to the tuner board. I would bet the detector vans today are total fullashitskis and are for scaring the chumps.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  194. Corvinus says:
    @Perspective
    Disingenuous and spurious.

    “Disingenuous and spurious.”

    In what specific ways? See, if you are going to make that charge, back it up.

    Read More
    • Troll: YetAnotherAnon
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. Corvinus says:
    @Faraday's Bobcat
    Boy, that's a really interesting argument. There were non-British immigrants? And some of us might be descended from them? Gosh, I didn't know that. This changes everything! Clearly, America should grant citizenship to anyone who shows up. Otherwise we're just a bunch of hypocrites!

    Next you'll be trying to tell me that America used to discriminate against blacks. Why, if that were the case, we'd have to destroy the country to properly demonstrate our regret.

    “Clearly, America should grant citizenship to anyone who shows up. Otherwise we’re just a bunch of hypocrites!”

    No, that’s not what I am saying at all. I have made it known repeatedly that we ought to limit immigration. The point is the same arguments used now by those white people whose ancestors were targeted as being utterly incapable of assimilating because of their ethnicity had been exactly the same arguments used by WASPs and nativists. So, were the WASPs and nativists wrong in their assessment?

    “Next you’ll be trying to tell me that America used to discriminate against blacks. Why, if that were the case, we’d have to destroy the country to properly demonstrate our regret.”

    Now you are just hyperventilating. Here is a virtual brown paper bag.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    So, were the WASPs and nativists wrong in their assessment?
     
    Good question, because regardless of who the immigrants are, we have to accept them because nothing ever changes, right Corvinus? Analyze statically much? How many people do you suppose would subscribe to your false premises?
    , @Neil Templeton
    The assimilation argument you put forth is a red herring, an argument put forth at the time by your cherry-picked individuals, and today by those who may not get the mechanics of immigration. In measurement of assimilation, say 50 years after the point of immigration, one doesn't measure the difference between the immigrant and the average 50 years before, one measures the difference between the immigrant and the average in society in the current year. In this way, no notice is taken of the change in society between the point of immigration and the current year.

    This is one reason why your argument fails. The nativists in New York and Boston resisted Irish immigration, arguing that the Irish immigrants would change the environment for the worse. Some years later, a new assessment is made, and it appears that the Irish have largely assimilated, and society has not cratered. Yet, the initial claims of the nativists have not been addressed. The Irish did change the labor markets everywhere they went, and they did disturb the political and cultural balance with respect to religion and other institutions and values. Although the nativists were not in error, and although some nativists paid a steep price through the immigration of the Irish, other Americans, and some nativists, profited handsomely from the enterprise. In later years the entire episode was retconned as a rightly ignored expression of disgraceful xenophobic paranoia by thoroughly discredited racists.

    The current situation is much different of course. The genetic and cultural differences between native Americans and Germans or Irish in the 18th and 19th centuries were much smaller than the differences between primarily European-descended Americans today and immigrants from East Asia, the Subcontinent, Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and other locations that are far removed from Europe and America in many important respects. And of course the nation is already "full-up" in terms of pressure on many natural and social resources. In this sense, comparing the immigration question today to the question of allowing immigration to Irish and Germans is not legitimate.

    The main points, however, are that: 1) the nativists of yore were right to oppose immigration of the Germans and Irish, and their general fear that the Germans and Irish would induce instrumental change to the world they lived in was not unfounded; and 2) even if one is wholly Scots-Irish, German, or Irish, the fact that one's ancestors were immigrants that once faced resistance or persecution from American nativists in no way colors or corrupts the structure of the immigration decision faced by Americans today.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. @Anonymous
    Not true.

    It was the inevitable backlash against the Blair/Economist open-door immigration policy.
    During the period 1997-2010 more non EU migrants than EU migrants entered Britain.

    Amongst the very first acts of the Blair government on election in 1997 was to ease restrictions on subcontinental 'arranged' spouse importations.

    If the referendum had been run in 2004, it would probably have resulted in a vote to Remain. Opposition to EU membership grew substantially from the 2008 financial crisis onwards and the weak Eurozone recovery. There was a growing feeling that having one of the few successful economies while having no legal means of restricting the flow of people from a political entity covering half a billion people meant immigration would continue with no end in sight. Immigration from Poland and other central European countries (the EU8) rocketed up such that people from there went from 200k of the population in 2004 to 1.4m by 2015.

    Half of the non EU migrants were students on study visas who have to go home if they do not secure a job by the time they graduate. The spouse importations are about 20% of the total.Half the EU8 migrants are those who came because they had a job lined up.

    https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-migration-and-uk/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    No.

    Brexit was really down to one man and one man only - Nigel Farage - a charismatic 'successful Enoch Powell' who managed to galvanize a nation through sheer power of oratory, will, and force of argument. Farage's genius was to combine widescale rage and antipathy towards the Blair/Economist immigration surge with his own animus against the EU.

    Brexit was merely a backlash against Blair/Economism.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. @J.Ross
    So you agree with his point.

    I am not Indian so whatever happens there is of little interest to me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    What?
    >South Asians are or are not doing X, and it's deplorable!
    >well, consider reversing roles and seeing how that strikes you.
    >There's already an EMOTIONALLY CHARGED historical example of that.
    ...
    >Oh by the way you guys I totally don't care.
    ... What?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. Corvinus says:
    @ThreeCranes
    Well, there have been studies that place the IQ of early American settlers from Europe as being higher than that of the average IQ of Americans today.

    In other words, what you, Corvinus, regard as the base level IQ of European-Americais is already a hybrid of the later, lesser gifted with the highly gifted original English and Dutch settlers. Proof of this is to be found in some IQ studies which have placed the native German and Dutch as among the highest in the world. Of course the USA will not score this highly since its average IQ is dragged down by the inferior minorities, as you point out.

    “Well, there have been studies that place the IQ of early American settlers from Europe as being higher than that of the average IQ of Americans today.”

    So what studies? By whom? What were their conclusions?

    “In other words, what you, Corvinus, regard as the base level IQ of European-Americais is already a hybrid of the later, lesser gifted with the highly gifted original English and Dutch settlers.”

    What proof do you have here?

    “Proof of this is to be found in some IQ studies which have placed the native German and Dutch as among the highest in the world.”

    What studies exist detailing the IQ’s of those immigrants who came to the U.S. in the 1600 and 1700′s?

    “Of course the USA will not score this highly since its average IQ is dragged down by the inferior minorities, as you point out.”

    If we are to assume that IQ scores are the end all and be all in a society.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Tro11
    Corvinus,

    You ignorant slut. Germans were invited by Gov. Spotswood of Virginia and the proprietors of Pennsylvania. Many were also settled in the colony of NY. They were considered desirable settlers because of their farming skills. You make it sound like they all showed up around 1860 and were in gangs in the 5 Points.

    Honest question here. If the Irish weren't white, pray tell why Andrew Jackson felt it necessary to intervene in the O'NEILL-Eaton affair on behalf of Peg O'NEILL? One would think that if Irish= a type of colored folk, Andy J. would have avoided that situation like the plague.

    You and people like Joan Walsh myopically confuse Northeastern WASP snobbery with systemic, nation-wide racism against the Irish and Germans. There was more to America than Boston or the opinions of Horace Greeley and H.P. Lovecraft. Irish and Germans voted, held political office and married who they wanted. Anti-Irish bigotry was a class-based phenomenon similar to anti-Okie bigotry encountered by Anglo-Saxon Protestants.

    Look on Google books for local histories from the 19th century for Southern or Midwestern locales and counties. Lots of biographical data about local, prominent citizens. Plenty of people claimed Irish or German descent. People who were assimilated into the larger Anglophone culture. If Irish or German= something like a Gypsy or a Turk, wouldn't they have avoided such appellations? In 1889, Theodore Roosevelt claimed the Scotch Irish had a component of the "old Milesian Irish" ancestry. How could he say such a thing! To hear Corvinus and similar sorts talk, the Irish were a sort of Asian or Tunisian until circa 1950.

    I would say Noel Ignatiev also confused class snobbery with racism, but that scoundrel had an agenda of promoting identity politics.

    In short, Germans and Irish were always white.

    Corvinus,

    You ignorant slut.

    Sums that up, eh?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Brutusale
    For those too young to remember the origin:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c91XUyg9iWM
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. Anon[395] • Disclaimer says:
    @YetAnotherAnon
    "perhaps half of the UK genuinely likes multikult despite the police state"

    That's why 500,000 white Brits left London in a decade, and why they are building houses as fast as they can in every small country town (i.e. white British places) over all of England and Wales. What people tell an interviewer and what they do in the real world are very different things.

    There revealed preferences won’t matter until they start voting differently. And in the case of the UK, that means becoming Conservative Party members and deselecting globalist MPs.

    We’ve had no end of “liberals with politically incorrect thoughts”. It’s time for them to put up or shut up.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. Corvinus says:
    @Lot
    Do you believe Salvadorian and Somali migrants have the same future time orientation, IQ, and creativity of Italians, Irish, and European Jews?

    Your argument is of the form:
    Some people belived X is Y, and that turned out to be false. Therefore, Z is not Y.

    See the problem?

    “Do you believe Salvadorian and Somali migrants have the same future time orientation, IQ, and creativity of Italians, Irish, and European Jews?”

    When it comes to IQ, no. But is that because of genetics, environment, or both? I say both, and more leaning to environment. In other words, what political, economic, and social factors are involved here? Furthermore, IQ scores are not the end all and be all of a civilization. IQ scores have a moderate correlation with success, but it does not dictate it, and is not the “measure of the person”.

    When it comes to future time orientation and creativity, we need to clearly agree to what those terms actually mean and lend support as to how and why we perhaps differ when it comes to comparing groups. Remember, it was also argued by WASPS and nativists that the Irish, the Italians, and European Jews distinctly lacked or were absent of those two traits.

    “Your argument is of the form: Some people belived X is Y, and that turned out to be false. Therefore, Z is not Y.”

    Let’s start here first. Were the WASPs and nativists wrong in how they characterized other ethnic and religious groups as being undesirable and unassimilable? Why?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    Corny, you've made your essential silliness clear time and time again.

    But that's ok--your perogative. What's "not ok" is to destroy our race and civilization--the West.

    So how's about this: we agree to separate! You and folks like you get to have a nation of your own--unicornia? imaginatopia? rainbowa? And the sane, realistic folks who like their traditional nations get to have their traditional nations. You aren't imposing your (clueless) views on us. And we aren't imposing our (realistic) views on you. Win. Win.

    Again, what's going on in the West is that you utopians are *imposing* your views (ridiculous and anti-empiracle) on normal folks who just want to live normal lives in the nation of their birth. People like you are the aggressors.

    I don't begrudge you the right to "embrace diversity" if that's what you want. And am happy to work with you politically to set aside territory for you to do so. But i very much do begrudge you--people like you--destroying my nation and the larger Western civilization, for me and my descendants.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. Anon[395] • Disclaimer says:
    @German_reader
    There are claims that Brexit voters were more concerned about non-European immigration than one would expect from the official narrative:
    http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/06/05/uk-voters-including-leavers-care-more-about-reducing-non-eu-than-eu-migration/

    Of course this can't be admitted in Britain since one has to pretend the post-war Commonwealth immigration was a fantastic success. Whereas bashing continental Europeans is still within the window of legitimate discourse.

    Diane Abbot and Sadiq Khan never integrated, but yet if you agree with Enoch Powell you will be locked up.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. Yak-15 says:
    @Anon
    Most of the population thinks "rivers of blood" means a civil war on the scale of Syria, Yugoslavia and Somalia. As the civil war has not happened yet, Powell has therefore been "proven wrong". The text of the speech seems to predict rioting, rather than insurrection, but the popular imagination is what it is.

    There is also the problem that perhaps half of the UK genuinely likes multikult despite the police state. London might be more violent than New York, but not yet at the level of New Orleans. The major metropolitan areas should probably be steered in the direction of becoming city-states.

    I would contend that insurrection is on the docket for Western Europe. It has not occurred yet because the Islamic populations are too small. Once critical mass is reached it will be a monstrously horrid civil war.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  204. Yak-15 says:
    @Lot
    I always check your comment history when you pop in. Eloquent and interesting all around. Six kids, wow!

    The far right has a serious woman problem. It isn't that the MRA/Roissy/Whiskey groups are completely wrong and lacking in insight, but that they attempt to draw lessons about all women and the female psyche generally from the behavior of a small promiscuous subsection of the population. They end up saying things that are wrong, absurdly in contradiction to the women in our everyday life, and repell women from the non-mainstream right.

    You can equally apply that idea on women to most of alt-right’s findings on race, etc. Some ideas that may have weight, but lots of stupidity in their application. It’s why the alt-right will never be much of a political power going forward.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. dcite says:
    @Ali Choudhury
    That already happened. It was called the British Empire.

    When the British left India in 1948, someone from a village near Delhi was asked what she thought of this momentous event. She replied she had never known the British had ever been in India.
    The British never moved to India in huge numbers. They set up a banking and trade system, the British East India Company, and filled those jobs, numbering in the few thousands, not millions, with natives hired sometimes; but those jobs would not have been there if the Brits had not set them up.
    It would have been better if the British had never exerted any empire design on India, but Indians were never, ever, in danger of losing their own culture (although the English did pass laws against suttee and child marriage), or of being overwhelmed by the English. In any case, the Indians now would not allow it, I’m sure.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The reality was that the 'British' - The East India Company, The Colonial Office, The Civil Service, The Army, what have you, only 'took control' of India because of the connivance of the degenerate native ruling class.

    Anyhow, the aim of this post is not to knock the Mughal kings of old. I'm merely pointing out a parallel with today's west and its own degenerate wholly Economist-owned ruling class.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  206. @Johann Ricke
    NYT article about SJW refugees from Trumpism: Some Said They’d Flee Trump’s America. These People Actually Did. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/14/style/moving-to-canada-jk-traveling-until-2020.html

    Here are the set-ups (I leave the punchlines as an exercise for the reader…):

    Ms. Quain, who is in her forties, owned a children’s play cafe and preschool near Seattle before she renounced her American middle-class existence in August 2016, fed up with what she described as a stifling, consumerist culture.

    “Once I get my business up and running,” she said, “I’ll hire people to teach [my children] how to do things.

    Jessica and William Swenson are financing an eleven-month, around-the-world trip with their three small children through a mix of savings, inheritance, a severance package and the income from renting out their four-bedroom house with a pool in Livermore, California.

    Matthew Gillespie … works remotely full time as a Web designer.

    “It was an opportunity to take a midcareer break,” said Mr. Jernstrom, who quit his job in investment management; Ms. Jernstrom is a former environmental scientist. The family is financing their travels with savings and income earned renting out their four-bedroom house….”

    Fight The Man, you feisty, downtrodden rebels, you!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  207. @Anonymous
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/13/row-enoch-powell-plaque-racism-wolverhampton

    ... “But almost 50 years on, the people of Wolverhampton voted for me, a black woman, to represent them – and that speaks volumes. Powell would be turning in his grave. It’s poetic justice."
     
    watchu gonna do about it whiteboi?

    Yep, guess she has the whip hand now.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  208. @Achmed E. Newman
    That's a splendid idea, Joe. Of course it'll never happen, but I'd listen at the risk of being put into a deep, deep sleep by those soothing NPR folks. Alas, Nina Totenberg is no longer a young lass, so I don't think her reading of a Patrick Moynihan paper would get me hot and bothered ... well, maybe bothered.

    It's really something to think that the name Patrick Moynihan seems like someone from the recent past to me!

    Nina Totenberg is no longer a young lass,

    When your name is ‘dead city’ you are neither young, nor a lass. And you thought the Grim Reaper ™ had no offspring. And we see that GR’s spawn has her lucrative career on PBS.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  209. @Corvinus
    "Clearly, America should grant citizenship to anyone who shows up. Otherwise we’re just a bunch of hypocrites!"

    No, that's not what I am saying at all. I have made it known repeatedly that we ought to limit immigration. The point is the same arguments used now by those white people whose ancestors were targeted as being utterly incapable of assimilating because of their ethnicity had been exactly the same arguments used by WASPs and nativists. So, were the WASPs and nativists wrong in their assessment?

    "Next you’ll be trying to tell me that America used to discriminate against blacks. Why, if that were the case, we’d have to destroy the country to properly demonstrate our regret."

    Now you are just hyperventilating. Here is a virtual brown paper bag.

    So, were the WASPs and nativists wrong in their assessment?

    Good question, because regardless of who the immigrants are, we have to accept them because nothing ever changes, right Corvinus? Analyze statically much? How many people do you suppose would subscribe to your false premises?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Good question, because regardless of who the immigrants are, we have to accept them because nothing ever changes, right Corvinus? "

    Another strawman on your part. I have stated time and time again that our nation needs immigration reform, and should work to limit the number entering our nation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. Lurker says:
    @Anon
    The interesting thing is why the BBC is doing this at all. Liberals always try to bury anything that goes against their narrative. I suspect some higher-up at the BBC, who lives in London, is becoming fearful of his home turning into a hellhole, and he wants to pull the ladder up on immigration and subvert liberal politics clandestinely before it's too late.

    I presume that they think Powell has been demonised sufficiently that this exercise will merely ‘prove’ how mad, bad and dangerous he was.

    But. . . I think in many bastions of liberal thought, like the BBC, they have lost touch with what a lot of people are actually thinking and thus this little BBC exercise may backfire.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  211. Lurker says:
    @Corvinus
    https://churchpop.com/2016/01/11/16-old-time-anti-catholic-cartoons-to-put-things-in-perspective

    Indeed. When believers of Roman Catholicism began to infiltrate our borders by the mid and late 1800's, there were calls by WASPs and nativists to purge these invaders. What happened to our steel, our resolve thereafter? Why were Roman Catholics eventually given a seat at our national table?

    Perhaps the menu will give us a clue.

    Appetizer--Separation of church and state.
    Main Course--Freedom of religion.
    Dessert--Thomas Jefferson's ideas.**

    **Despite Jefferson's criticisms of Islam, he wrote in his private notes about drafting legislation about religion for Virginia, paraphrasing John Locke’s 1689 “Letter on Toleration” --> [he] says neither Pagan nor Mahometan [Muslim] nor Jew ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the commonwealth because of his religion. The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom proclaims "Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions.”

    neither Pagan nor Mahometan [Muslim] nor Jew ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the commonwealth because of his religion. The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom proclaims “Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions.”

    I’m pretty sure he didn’t intend that to mean: import them by the million.

    Right now I hear similar arguments deployed – that religious tolerance and freedom of religion eg for Muslims = mass immigration of Muslims.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Right now I hear similar arguments deployed – that religious tolerance and freedom of religion eg for Muslims = mass immigration of Muslims."

    No, the argument is that religious tolerance extends for all citizens, including Muslims.

    It is a separate issue regarding how many immigrants, including Muslims, ought to enter our shores.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  212. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Anon
    Most of the population thinks "rivers of blood" means a civil war on the scale of Syria, Yugoslavia and Somalia. As the civil war has not happened yet, Powell has therefore been "proven wrong". The text of the speech seems to predict rioting, rather than insurrection, but the popular imagination is what it is.

    There is also the problem that perhaps half of the UK genuinely likes multikult despite the police state. London might be more violent than New York, but not yet at the level of New Orleans. The major metropolitan areas should probably be steered in the direction of becoming city-states.

    There is also the problem that perhaps half of the UK genuinely likes multikult despite the police state.

    Or they understand that they live in a police state and therefore it’s wise to pretend to love multiculturalism.

    Read More
    • Agree: jim jones
    • Replies: @Anon
    No one is forced by the state to engage in pro-migration activism, but millions do. Millions of native Brits freely pay the BBC tax, they freely consume the trash pop culture. Very few (I fail at this myself) don't engage in buying local rather than from transnational corps.

    And what exactly would stop a far-right activist from putting on the clothes of a far-left activist to protest the Syria attack?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  213. Lot says:
    @AnotherDad

    It was a rather bloodthirsty and bombastic speech which racist thugs up and down the country took as a signal to attack anyone with non-white skin they did not like the look of.
     
    Utter and complete nonsense. Utter and complete.

    His speech is not "racist" by any reasonable (negative) definition of the term. The only thing even racially particular in the speech is relating the experience of the white boarding house owner. His speech is not fundamentally about the immigrants but about the rights of Britons and about the duty of their leaders to them. In fact, Powell had generally been seen as a racial liberal--especially after his speech on the massacre in Kenya. His basic outlook is that every citizen needs to be treated fairly as a fellow citizen, so it was imperative not to allow immigration to build up foreign communities and have communalism and contention. Which is exactly what's occurred. Furthermore, there's zero evidence of any upsurge in racial attacks. (If there was we'd have heard about it in all the denunciations.) You're just lying.

    It's strange to me, that on Steve's blog--HBD focused--where differences among peoples are frankly discussed, you nonetheless find a bunch of commentators utterly unable to get outside of their own little tribal identity and assess the world with any degree of objectivity.

    You've got a Chinese-American guy, who surveying the entire American scene thinks the really important racial issue is the essentially non-existent "discrimination against Asians". I kid you not! You've got an Indian who thinks that HBD is great and all, but anyone who would just as soon live their live in their nation without an invasion of Indians is just some sort of pathetic little cretin--rather than simply a normal rational human being. You've got a few of the Jews who think the old Ivy League Jewish quotas were "illegal", the Golfocaust some sort of abomination, and who just--despite their high IQs--just can't conceive of any reason other than irrational "hate", why someone would not have love in their heart for a tribally-endogamous, exploitive middle-man minority living in their midst. Anti-semitism!

    I'm a flyover country white-gentile. I think--predictably--that flyover country white gentiles are really pretty great. Build nice nation! (High trust, rule of law, etc.) That's the sort of nation i inherited and that i damn sure want to live in. But that said, i don't think we white gentiles don't have issues or that the world ought to revolve around us. And if i have a particular ethnicity beyond white-American, it's Irish-Catholic. You won't find me whining about the "Know-Nothings". The Irish Catholics had all sorts of issues that would make Anglo-Protestants not want to have them around. And beyond that Anglo-Protestants could legimately not want to have the Irish around simply because they weren't Anglo-Protestants! "Foreigner" is a perfectly legimate reason for not wanting someone around.

    I have my opinions on the "right way" to organize life. Basically i think my people--white gentiles--have done the best work, and created--before the disaster--the best nations with the best life. But if i was off trying to live in China or India or Japan or Israel or Dubai or Mexico, i wouldn't be whining about they didn't do things the proper white-gentile way, expect them to treat me as a native or expect them to allow my fellow white-gentiles to flood in because we're just so damn much better.

    Seriously. Poke your head up and view the world honestly--you aren't special and neither is your ethnic group. And no one else is under any obligation to like you or tolerate you hanging around.

    Powell is a hero. Not because there's anything "wrong" with whatever Commonwealth immigrants were coming in. But because their comming in would displace Britons, ramp up social contention and make life for the British people much worse and ultimately destroy Britons being able to live comfortably as Britons. This a real British leader can not sugarcoat or ignore, so Powell--a hero--spoke up to tell the truth.

    I don’t recall anyone saying the old Harvard College Jewish quota was illegal. It wasn’t at the time.

    I think it was justified as a temporary measure at the time, and it was ended because of social pressure, not lawsuits.

    The sudden demographic change in the young native English-speaking high-IQ population that occured as the first cohorts of the children born to the mass Russian Jewish immigration reached college age does not obligate colleges to suddenly change too. And the quota still allowed Jews to be over represented at about four times their share of the white population.

    Those who were admitted also benefited from assimilation that may not have happened if the college were 40% rather than 20% Ashkenazi. It also served to help assimilate the rejected Jews who would have been admitted without the quota. A lot of them ended up going to Midwestern flagship public colleges. That isn’t a bad result either and allowed for a different sort of assimilation, as well as some spreading out of the Jewish population away from the Northeast as many of them stayed after college.

    Harvard Medical School’s Jewish quota though is harder to justify, the same arguments apply, but more weakly because it is less culturally influential than the college, and lowering the mean IQ of doctors ultimately kills people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    In my opinion, Lot, your arguments regarding Jewish immigration and assimilation would be much more persuasive if you didn't buff them up with reference to Jews and IQ. If Jews faced significant discrimination in America, relative to the discrimination that most American ethnic groups faced, it wasn't because they were smarter, or perceived as such. Maybe it was because many Jews appeared to be inordinately fixed on the value of credentials. E.g. "brilliant" scholar X graduated from Harvard, studied under so-and-so, worked for such-and-such law firm or think tank, etc. It makes sense, at least initially, for cultural institutions to restrict entry to credentialists, in order to protect the integrity of their brand. Why admit someone to Harvard, if the primary motivation of the applicant is not to learn, inculcate, and propagate the philosophy of Harvard, but merely to become a graduate of Harvard for promotional purposes?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  214. L Woods says:
    @Lot
    I always check your comment history when you pop in. Eloquent and interesting all around. Six kids, wow!

    The far right has a serious woman problem. It isn't that the MRA/Roissy/Whiskey groups are completely wrong and lacking in insight, but that they attempt to draw lessons about all women and the female psyche generally from the behavior of a small promiscuous subsection of the population. They end up saying things that are wrong, absurdly in contradiction to the women in our everyday life, and repell women from the non-mainstream right.

    Cool concern troll bro

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  215. Hunsdon says:
    @dearieme
    I attended a speech by Powell in my Student Union. He was magnetic - by far the best speaker we had that year.

    After his speech what struck me was his way of taking questions. He'd listen to the question; repeat it in clearer, usually shorter, form; ask the questioner whether that was a fair paraphrase of the original; and when he had his assent, answer it.

    We were a cocky, articulate bunch, but even we were highly impressed. Looking back I can say he was intellectually streets ahead of any politician I've ever heard in English (or French).

    dearieme: Lucky you!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  216. @Jack D
    When the Emperor Palpatine reads it, it sounds more evil. Duh.

    Which Star Wars Emperor? From episodes IV-VI, or from the new trilogy installment? The new and improved emperor? Ok, that one does sound a bit spooky to say the least.

    Because Powell’s own voice really isn’t all that scary much less sinister. Sounds a bit more in line with the traditional Eton, Cambridge/Oxford, Old Vic Theatre, etc. There was an early 20th century actor C. Aubrey Smith, who was like 6’4″, and then became an actor and migrated to Hollywood in his 70′s. He was in the famous 1939 version of The Four Feathers, by Alexander Korda. “There’s no place in England for a coward.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  217. @John Greer
    Only part of the speech was recorded at the time.

    Well, then BBC should play that segment in Powell’s own voice and let the audience decide for themselves. The segment’s on Youtube, and Powell’s voice isn’t sinister in the least. More in line with stereotypical Rudyard Kipling, The Empire, etc. and all that. But in this day and age, listening to a woke white man, and with the calm, cool confidence of a healthy Christian, perhaps that is a bit scary.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  218. Anon[395] • Disclaimer says:
    @dfordoom

    There is also the problem that perhaps half of the UK genuinely likes multikult despite the police state.
     
    Or they understand that they live in a police state and therefore it's wise to pretend to love multiculturalism.

    No one is forced by the state to engage in pro-migration activism, but millions do. Millions of native Brits freely pay the BBC tax, they freely consume the trash pop culture. Very few (I fail at this myself) don’t engage in buying local rather than from transnational corps.

    And what exactly would stop a far-right activist from putting on the clothes of a far-left activist to protest the Syria attack?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  219. Hunsdon says:
    @Ali Choudhury
    That already happened. It was called the British Empire.

    If it was wrong to colonize then, is it somehow right to colonize now? Are you arguing, good sir, that two wrongs make a right?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ali Choudhury
    No and I don't see how the analogy applies. It usually isn't immigrants and their descendants who make decisions on immigration policy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  220. @Corvinus
    "Clearly, America should grant citizenship to anyone who shows up. Otherwise we’re just a bunch of hypocrites!"

    No, that's not what I am saying at all. I have made it known repeatedly that we ought to limit immigration. The point is the same arguments used now by those white people whose ancestors were targeted as being utterly incapable of assimilating because of their ethnicity had been exactly the same arguments used by WASPs and nativists. So, were the WASPs and nativists wrong in their assessment?

    "Next you’ll be trying to tell me that America used to discriminate against blacks. Why, if that were the case, we’d have to destroy the country to properly demonstrate our regret."

    Now you are just hyperventilating. Here is a virtual brown paper bag.

    The assimilation argument you put forth is a red herring, an argument put forth at the time by your cherry-picked individuals, and today by those who may not get the mechanics of immigration. In measurement of assimilation, say 50 years after the point of immigration, one doesn’t measure the difference between the immigrant and the average 50 years before, one measures the difference between the immigrant and the average in society in the current year. In this way, no notice is taken of the change in society between the point of immigration and the current year.

    This is one reason why your argument fails. The nativists in New York and Boston resisted Irish immigration, arguing that the Irish immigrants would change the environment for the worse. Some years later, a new assessment is made, and it appears that the Irish have largely assimilated, and society has not cratered. Yet, the initial claims of the nativists have not been addressed. The Irish did change the labor markets everywhere they went, and they did disturb the political and cultural balance with respect to religion and other institutions and values. Although the nativists were not in error, and although some nativists paid a steep price through the immigration of the Irish, other Americans, and some nativists, profited handsomely from the enterprise. In later years the entire episode was retconned as a rightly ignored expression of disgraceful xenophobic paranoia by thoroughly discredited racists.

    The current situation is much different of course. The genetic and cultural differences between native Americans and Germans or Irish in the 18th and 19th centuries were much smaller than the differences between primarily European-descended Americans today and immigrants from East Asia, the Subcontinent, Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and other locations that are far removed from Europe and America in many important respects. And of course the nation is already “full-up” in terms of pressure on many natural and social resources. In this sense, comparing the immigration question today to the question of allowing immigration to Irish and Germans is not legitimate.

    The main points, however, are that: 1) the nativists of yore were right to oppose immigration of the Germans and Irish, and their general fear that the Germans and Irish would induce instrumental change to the world they lived in was not unfounded; and 2) even if one is wholly Scots-Irish, German, or Irish, the fact that one’s ancestors were immigrants that once faced resistance or persecution from American nativists in no way colors or corrupts the structure of the immigration decision faced by Americans today.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ali Choudhury
    Well, the cultural differences must have been pretty stark. The opposition to Irish immigration saw a lot of electoral successful and keen to argue they were inherently unfit to enter the US. Post 1965 legal immigration has not engendered a similar response.
    , @YetAnotherAnon
    Corvinus - * long, reasoned, articulate post follows *

    You must have a lot of time to waste.

    , @Corvinus
    "In measurement of assimilation, say 50 years after the point of immigration, one doesn’t measure the difference between the immigrant and the average 50 years before, one measures the difference between the immigrant and the average in society in the current year."

    Who says we measure it must be measured in the manner you prescribe? Is it a think tank, a group of political scientists, a number of historians? What is their line of thinking? Please clarify.

    "This is one reason why your argument fails. The nativists in New York and Boston resisted Irish immigration, arguing that the Irish immigrants would change the environment for the worse. Some years later, a new assessment is made, and it appears that the Irish have largely assimilated, and society has not cratered."

    So it would appear that the nativists were wrong. The nativists, however, would probably not agree with assessment. Besides, who made this "new assessment"? What criteria did they use to determine that the Irish had largely assimilated? Could there not be a "new assessment" some years later in showing how non-white groups have also assimilated similar to the Irish?

    "Yet, the initial claims of the nativists have not been addressed. The Irish did change the labor markets everywhere they went, and they did disturb the political and cultural balance with respect to religion and other institutions and values."

    And that is no different than past or current immigration groups. There were be a change in the political and economic system. What type of change, the extent of it, and the benefits/detriments derived from it, however, will be debated.

    "Although the nativists were not in error, and although some nativists paid a steep price through the immigration of the Irish, other Americans, and some nativists, profited handsomely from the enterprise."

    They may have made money on this endeavor, but their attitudes toward the Irish as being other than assimilable had remained.

    "In later years the entire episode was retconned as a rightly ignored expression of disgraceful xenophobic paranoia by thoroughly discredited racists."

    Again, that would mean the nativists were in error, right?

    "The genetic and cultural differences between native Americans and Germans or Irish in the 18th and 19th centuries were much smaller than the differences between primarily European-descended Americans today and immigrants from East Asia, the Subcontinent, Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and other locations that are far removed from Europe and America in many important respects."

    Not according to WASPs and nativists of the mid to late 1800's. They argued that the gene pool would be significantly diluted by the infusion of undesirable elements. Except, the Germans, Poles, and Slavs at that time, like the Salvadorans and Kenyans now--along with white "race traitors"--say these genetic and cultural differences were overhyped.

    "And of course the nation is already “full-up” in terms of pressure on many natural and social resources. In this sense, comparing the immigration question today to the question of allowing immigration to Irish and Germans is not legitimate."

    The same attitudes existed then as do now--the nation at that time would endure significant hardships from the infusion millions of "alien ethnic groups".

    "The main points, however, are that: 1) the nativists of yore were right to oppose immigration of the Germans and Irish..."

    That is not the impression you gave earlier. Besides, I thought the Germans and Irish were white Europeans, so why would the WASPs/nativists be opposed to include their brethren with the gimmedats that America has to offer?

    "and their general fear that the Germans and Irish would induce instrumental change to the world they lived in was not unfounded"

    Change, certainly. Instrumental, maybe or maybe not.

    "and 2) even if one is wholly Scots-Irish, German, or Irish, the fact that one’s ancestors were immigrants that once faced resistance or persecution from American nativists in no way colors or corrupts the structure of the immigration decision faced by Americans today."

    It absolutely does color or corrupt the structure, my friend.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  221. Old fogey says:
    @syonredux
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KsljBj3UEI

    Thank you very much for this video. It is sobering, and rings true.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  222. @Lot
    I don't recall anyone saying the old Harvard College Jewish quota was illegal. It wasn't at the time.

    I think it was justified as a temporary measure at the time, and it was ended because of social pressure, not lawsuits.

    The sudden demographic change in the young native English-speaking high-IQ population that occured as the first cohorts of the children born to the mass Russian Jewish immigration reached college age does not obligate colleges to suddenly change too. And the quota still allowed Jews to be over represented at about four times their share of the white population.

    Those who were admitted also benefited from assimilation that may not have happened if the college were 40% rather than 20% Ashkenazi. It also served to help assimilate the rejected Jews who would have been admitted without the quota. A lot of them ended up going to Midwestern flagship public colleges. That isn't a bad result either and allowed for a different sort of assimilation, as well as some spreading out of the Jewish population away from the Northeast as many of them stayed after college.

    Harvard Medical School's Jewish quota though is harder to justify, the same arguments apply, but more weakly because it is less culturally influential than the college, and lowering the mean IQ of doctors ultimately kills people.

    In my opinion, Lot, your arguments regarding Jewish immigration and assimilation would be much more persuasive if you didn’t buff them up with reference to Jews and IQ. If Jews faced significant discrimination in America, relative to the discrimination that most American ethnic groups faced, it wasn’t because they were smarter, or perceived as such. Maybe it was because many Jews appeared to be inordinately fixed on the value of credentials. E.g. “brilliant” scholar X graduated from Harvard, studied under so-and-so, worked for such-and-such law firm or think tank, etc. It makes sense, at least initially, for cultural institutions to restrict entry to credentialists, in order to protect the integrity of their brand. Why admit someone to Harvard, if the primary motivation of the applicant is not to learn, inculcate, and propagate the philosophy of Harvard, but merely to become a graduate of Harvard for promotional purposes?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot
    "If Jews faced significant discrimination in America, relative to the discrimination that most American ethnic groups faced"

    I've seen no evidence Jews ever experienced significant discrimination in the USA. The left has made a major project of exaggerating the degree of discrimination against Gilded Age white migrants. Every American history textbook has that same photo of the "No Irish Need Apply" sign which suggests such signs were not too common. 19th Century America was, like England, very welcoming and accepting of Jews.

    "Why admit someone to Harvard, if the primary motivation of the applicant is not to learn..."

    I don't think there are significant ethnic differences in motivations to attend prestigious universities.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  223. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Ali Choudhury
    I am not Indian so whatever happens there is of little interest to me.

    What?
    >South Asians are or are not doing X, and it’s deplorable!
    >well, consider reversing roles and seeing how that strikes you.
    >There’s already an EMOTIONALLY CHARGED historical example of that.

    >Oh by the way you guys I totally don’t care.
    What?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  224. Dube says:
    @syonredux
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KsljBj3UEI

    Precisely. “My gripe is: We were never asked.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  225. @Neil Templeton
    The assimilation argument you put forth is a red herring, an argument put forth at the time by your cherry-picked individuals, and today by those who may not get the mechanics of immigration. In measurement of assimilation, say 50 years after the point of immigration, one doesn't measure the difference between the immigrant and the average 50 years before, one measures the difference between the immigrant and the average in society in the current year. In this way, no notice is taken of the change in society between the point of immigration and the current year.

    This is one reason why your argument fails. The nativists in New York and Boston resisted Irish immigration, arguing that the Irish immigrants would change the environment for the worse. Some years later, a new assessment is made, and it appears that the Irish have largely assimilated, and society has not cratered. Yet, the initial claims of the nativists have not been addressed. The Irish did change the labor markets everywhere they went, and they did disturb the political and cultural balance with respect to religion and other institutions and values. Although the nativists were not in error, and although some nativists paid a steep price through the immigration of the Irish, other Americans, and some nativists, profited handsomely from the enterprise. In later years the entire episode was retconned as a rightly ignored expression of disgraceful xenophobic paranoia by thoroughly discredited racists.

    The current situation is much different of course. The genetic and cultural differences between native Americans and Germans or Irish in the 18th and 19th centuries were much smaller than the differences between primarily European-descended Americans today and immigrants from East Asia, the Subcontinent, Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and other locations that are far removed from Europe and America in many important respects. And of course the nation is already "full-up" in terms of pressure on many natural and social resources. In this sense, comparing the immigration question today to the question of allowing immigration to Irish and Germans is not legitimate.

    The main points, however, are that: 1) the nativists of yore were right to oppose immigration of the Germans and Irish, and their general fear that the Germans and Irish would induce instrumental change to the world they lived in was not unfounded; and 2) even if one is wholly Scots-Irish, German, or Irish, the fact that one's ancestors were immigrants that once faced resistance or persecution from American nativists in no way colors or corrupts the structure of the immigration decision faced by Americans today.

    Well, the cultural differences must have been pretty stark. The opposition to Irish immigration saw a lot of electoral successful and keen to argue they were inherently unfit to enter the US. Post 1965 legal immigration has not engendered a similar response.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Disordered
    There was a stronger emphasis on nationhood and "blood and soil" back then, to the point that a country defined you. I think it was good for 19th century liberalism to de-emphasize that and point to the individual. However, Western thinkers, who came up with liberalism, assumed everyone everywhere would express individualism the same way they did. That was the mistake. They, in an access of Western superiority, thought other peoples would embrace the Western way of life naturally and painlessly, like taking a shower off the bad old cultural mores and taking in some recipes. It's been 200 years or so since the first nation of the Third World got its independence (Haiti)... and so far, all we do is try to excuse them for their failure by pinning it on the white man. Ironically, when Third World nations move as close to the West as possible, they do better. Will there be a merged global culture eventually? Who knows, but lots of time and strife will pass.

    Also, post 1965 immigration was fed by postwar capitalism, which was much bigger a machine than in the Gilded Era, lobbyists started being paid more and more. It was also a more taxed era than the robber baron era, ergo more incentives to try to find shortcuts to make more money; and since offshoring was getting started, why not globalize the labor pool as well? Therefore, the cheap labor could be brought in. Plus, internationalism and oppressed/oppressor-country talk was invented by Lenin and specially by Trotsky and later leftist Third Worlders (Mao, Che); by that time, the US had already shut the gates in the 20s, which led to full assimilation in the 45 years such policy lasted while also leading Americans to believe that assimilation was easier than expected. Perhaps that earlier experience got their hopes up too much...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  226. @Hunsdon
    If it was wrong to colonize then, is it somehow right to colonize now? Are you arguing, good sir, that two wrongs make a right?

    No and I don’t see how the analogy applies. It usually isn’t immigrants and their descendants who make decisions on immigration policy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  227. Anonymous[817] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ali Choudhury
    If the referendum had been run in 2004, it would probably have resulted in a vote to Remain. Opposition to EU membership grew substantially from the 2008 financial crisis onwards and the weak Eurozone recovery. There was a growing feeling that having one of the few successful economies while having no legal means of restricting the flow of people from a political entity covering half a billion people meant immigration would continue with no end in sight. Immigration from Poland and other central European countries (the EU8) rocketed up such that people from there went from 200k of the population in 2004 to 1.4m by 2015.

    Half of the non EU migrants were students on study visas who have to go home if they do not secure a job by the time they graduate. The spouse importations are about 20% of the total.Half the EU8 migrants are those who came because they had a job lined up.

    https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-migration-and-uk/

    No.

    Brexit was really down to one man and one man only – Nigel Farage – a charismatic ‘successful Enoch Powell’ who managed to galvanize a nation through sheer power of oratory, will, and force of argument. Farage’s genius was to combine widescale rage and antipathy towards the Blair/Economist immigration surge with his own animus against the EU.

    Brexit was merely a backlash against Blair/Economism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ali Choudhury
    Boris Johnson was seen as being more decisive in Leave winning which is why the Establishment is infuriated by him.
    , @Anonymous
    Nigel Farage reminds me of that Scottish religious reformer John Knox.

    As I have read, John Knox is personally credited for converting almost the entire Scottish population to protestantism due to the sheer force of his personality and the power of his oratory.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  228. Anonymous[817] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ali Choudhury
    I would not call the speech racist, references to grinding picaninnies aside, and Powell himself was not a racist. Saying racial civil wars were inevitable and blacks were going to rule over whites was offering a rather apocalyptic prediction of Britain's future. I live in the UK and know plenty of Commonwealth immigrants, a fair proportion of whom are Conservative voters, who were witnesses of and victimis of racist attacks and hostility which skyrocketed in the wake of the speech. I see no reason to doubt their testimony, they have no political axe to grind.

    I don't know if the reference to the Indian who posts here is to me, I don't believe I have called anyone who wants restrictive immigration policies a cretin. It is a justifiable position to take. The most I have said on the subject is that I don't see how allowing Polish tradesmen and Indian IT workers into the UK would result in the destruction of the country. As far as Yan Shen goes, his concerns are a bit more nuanced than that.

    Thank you for the personal perspective. There are likely plenty of white gentiles, as you call them, who would dispute that the unskilled Irish Catholics who emigrated to the US contributed much of worth to a nation that was already successful and well on the way to becoming a superpower. The nativist reaction to them was probably not helped by Dagger John declaring the aim of Catholicism was converting all pagan and Protestant nations to the true faith when he was bishop of New York.

    Sorry, but demographic trends show us that it is *inevitable* that ‘blacks will rule over whites’ , (that is form a majority of the UK population, and thus electorate), sometime this century.

    As for the bloodshed, the recent London stabbing spate, the Manchester bomb, the Borough Market attack, The Mark Duggan Riots, the 2005 Tube bombings etc etc, clearly show the future.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  229. @Anonymous
    No.

    Brexit was really down to one man and one man only - Nigel Farage - a charismatic 'successful Enoch Powell' who managed to galvanize a nation through sheer power of oratory, will, and force of argument. Farage's genius was to combine widescale rage and antipathy towards the Blair/Economist immigration surge with his own animus against the EU.

    Brexit was merely a backlash against Blair/Economism.

    Boris Johnson was seen as being more decisive in Leave winning which is why the Establishment is infuriated by him.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  230. Despite the somewhat creepy music, the below short documentary clip is actually a pretty fair assessment of Enoch Powell. I’ve bookmarked the clip at the point where Powell answers the question of whether he is a racialist.

    But it is worth rewinding to an earlier part of the clip, at 2m20s in which Roger Scruton, the philosopher, has a thumbnail assessment. About a minute before that, a couple of prominent older Conservative politicians voice their opinions of him.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  231. Anonymous[817] • Disclaimer says:
    @dcite
    When the British left India in 1948, someone from a village near Delhi was asked what she thought of this momentous event. She replied she had never known the British had ever been in India.
    The British never moved to India in huge numbers. They set up a banking and trade system, the British East India Company, and filled those jobs, numbering in the few thousands, not millions, with natives hired sometimes; but those jobs would not have been there if the Brits had not set them up.
    It would have been better if the British had never exerted any empire design on India, but Indians were never, ever, in danger of losing their own culture (although the English did pass laws against suttee and child marriage), or of being overwhelmed by the English. In any case, the Indians now would not allow it, I'm sure.

    The reality was that the ‘British’ – The East India Company, The Colonial Office, The Civil Service, The Army, what have you, only ‘took control’ of India because of the connivance of the degenerate native ruling class.

    Anyhow, the aim of this post is not to knock the Mughal kings of old. I’m merely pointing out a parallel with today’s west and its own degenerate wholly Economist-owned ruling class.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  232. Lot says:
    @Neil Templeton
    In my opinion, Lot, your arguments regarding Jewish immigration and assimilation would be much more persuasive if you didn't buff them up with reference to Jews and IQ. If Jews faced significant discrimination in America, relative to the discrimination that most American ethnic groups faced, it wasn't because they were smarter, or perceived as such. Maybe it was because many Jews appeared to be inordinately fixed on the value of credentials. E.g. "brilliant" scholar X graduated from Harvard, studied under so-and-so, worked for such-and-such law firm or think tank, etc. It makes sense, at least initially, for cultural institutions to restrict entry to credentialists, in order to protect the integrity of their brand. Why admit someone to Harvard, if the primary motivation of the applicant is not to learn, inculcate, and propagate the philosophy of Harvard, but merely to become a graduate of Harvard for promotional purposes?

    “If Jews faced significant discrimination in America, relative to the discrimination that most American ethnic groups faced”

    I’ve seen no evidence Jews ever experienced significant discrimination in the USA. The left has made a major project of exaggerating the degree of discrimination against Gilded Age white migrants. Every American history textbook has that same photo of the “No Irish Need Apply” sign which suggests such signs were not too common. 19th Century America was, like England, very welcoming and accepting of Jews.

    “Why admit someone to Harvard, if the primary motivation of the applicant is not to learn…”

    I don’t think there are significant ethnic differences in motivations to attend prestigious universities.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    "I don’t think there are significant ethnic differences in motivations to attend prestigious universities."

    Really? Let me put it differently. The influence of the prestigious universities is in part a societal understanding of the role they play in carrying forward the stories of the culture. Primarily, the stories of the ruling culture. Certainly students can be tested, or can signal, or can be separated by ethnic origin regarding their probable allegiance to the founding stories. Why would we not expect to see variation in the response of the varied tribes to the stories of the ruling culture? My argument is that Jews in the beginning were not particularly attracted to the founding stories but were attracted to the value of a diploma from a leading university. Perhaps this made Jews, in the beginning, less attractive to these institutions than a similar, but less scholastic gentile, providing incentive for quotas. I doubt the same relation would hold today, for the founding stories have been abandoned, for better or worse. And so the attraction of various ethnics to the replacement set of stories has likely changed.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  233. Anonymous[817] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    No.

    Brexit was really down to one man and one man only - Nigel Farage - a charismatic 'successful Enoch Powell' who managed to galvanize a nation through sheer power of oratory, will, and force of argument. Farage's genius was to combine widescale rage and antipathy towards the Blair/Economist immigration surge with his own animus against the EU.

    Brexit was merely a backlash against Blair/Economism.

    Nigel Farage reminds me of that Scottish religious reformer John Knox.

    As I have read, John Knox is personally credited for converting almost the entire Scottish population to protestantism due to the sheer force of his personality and the power of his oratory.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  234. @J.Ross
    The BBC is the reason for the infamous "TV license" tax and there has been much discussion on the chans about witnessing that expire as everybody abandons TV altogether. There was a fight I didn't see resolved about whether you still need to pay if you do not download and use the BBC's proprietary media player for online content. There were also many who insisted that British police are as serious about breaking into an old lady's house over a TV fee as they are about protecting young women from getting raped or bombed, that you can essentially just not answer the door and ignore the letters, but BBC has actually hired a private security firm to do collections. One guy said he let the fuzz in to see that he didn't have a TV, they opened no doors or drawers and left in minutes.

    If sanity would be preserved
    And civilization conserved,
    Please trash your TV
    To defund BBC
    And treat Minitrue just as deserved.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  235. Saxon says:
    @Ali Choudhury
    That already happened. It was called the British Empire.

    50,000 or so people among over one hundred million, who then mostly left isn’t the same as up to a third of babies now being born in England and Wales not being English and Welsh.

    I would wager lots of people in India never knew they were even there at the time. The same cannot be said of visibly non-European populations in almost every European country today.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  236. Bill B. says:
    @Ali Choudhury
    That already happened. It was called the British Empire.

    Interestingly India has for a long time been demanding much easier open borders as the price of a normal trading relationship with the UK.

    Is this not a category error – yes I will buy your old car but only if my cousin can live in your spare bedroom?

    Strange isn’t it that the Indian establishment is so optimistic about India’s prospects that it encourages, even demands, a brain drain!

    From the FT’s news report on Modi’s visit to London:

    “…the first item on Mr Modi’s agenda is likely to be visa liberalisation, something for which New Delhi has been campaigning unsuccessfully for years. The Indian government wants more student visas for Indians and for the process to be made easier for them to stay after completing their courses. 

    One British official said Mrs May is planning to offer a more relaxed regime for those working in the tech sector, but not the kind of broad-based reforms for which India has been campaigning.

    Britain, meanwhile, is hoping to advance its trade agenda during the visit, with a view to signing some form of trade agreement after the country has left the EU…

    “Trade has not really picked up in several years,” said Geethanjali Nataraj, professor of economics at the Indian Institute of Public Administration. “Britain is keen to sign a free-trade agreement eventually, but to do that it will have to offer easier visas.”

    Trade has not really picked up in several years. Britain is keen to sign a free-trade agreement eventually, but to do that it will have to offer easier visas…
     

    “Personal relations between the two prime ministers are not great,” one British official admitted. “She does not do basic things like calling him to update him after a terrorist attack. It is embarrassing really.”

    YK Sinha, the Indian high commissioner to London, recently complained that the British had a “very dated or very incomplete” knowledge of India, based on “nostalgia, the Raj or their connections”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sunbeam
    "Trade has not really picked up in several years. Britain is keen to sign a free-trade agreement eventually, but to do that it will have to offer easier visas…"

    What exact benefit does Britain get from trade with India? Of any sort really? Does Britain make any manufactured items that would benefit from being available in India?

    Free Trade with any nation like India seems like it only benefits India. A critic might say that the mature industries in Britain will swamp the nascent ones in India. But that's not the case. Anything like that, and the Indians are going to buy Chinese like everyone else anyway.

    Or Japanese or Korean or whatever. There are probably some well heeled types that'd love to have Jaguars to tool about in Bangalor with. But I have a feeling if they want Jaguars they'll find a way to get them, regardless of trade agreements.

    And the market for Toyotas or vehicles of the same utility is something that Britain just can't touch anyway.

    In short, any kind of Free Trade agreement between Britain and India is just a bad idea for Britain.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  237. @Neil Templeton
    The assimilation argument you put forth is a red herring, an argument put forth at the time by your cherry-picked individuals, and today by those who may not get the mechanics of immigration. In measurement of assimilation, say 50 years after the point of immigration, one doesn't measure the difference between the immigrant and the average 50 years before, one measures the difference between the immigrant and the average in society in the current year. In this way, no notice is taken of the change in society between the point of immigration and the current year.

    This is one reason why your argument fails. The nativists in New York and Boston resisted Irish immigration, arguing that the Irish immigrants would change the environment for the worse. Some years later, a new assessment is made, and it appears that the Irish have largely assimilated, and society has not cratered. Yet, the initial claims of the nativists have not been addressed. The Irish did change the labor markets everywhere they went, and they did disturb the political and cultural balance with respect to religion and other institutions and values. Although the nativists were not in error, and although some nativists paid a steep price through the immigration of the Irish, other Americans, and some nativists, profited handsomely from the enterprise. In later years the entire episode was retconned as a rightly ignored expression of disgraceful xenophobic paranoia by thoroughly discredited racists.

    The current situation is much different of course. The genetic and cultural differences between native Americans and Germans or Irish in the 18th and 19th centuries were much smaller than the differences between primarily European-descended Americans today and immigrants from East Asia, the Subcontinent, Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and other locations that are far removed from Europe and America in many important respects. And of course the nation is already "full-up" in terms of pressure on many natural and social resources. In this sense, comparing the immigration question today to the question of allowing immigration to Irish and Germans is not legitimate.

    The main points, however, are that: 1) the nativists of yore were right to oppose immigration of the Germans and Irish, and their general fear that the Germans and Irish would induce instrumental change to the world they lived in was not unfounded; and 2) even if one is wholly Scots-Irish, German, or Irish, the fact that one's ancestors were immigrants that once faced resistance or persecution from American nativists in no way colors or corrupts the structure of the immigration decision faced by Americans today.

    Corvinus – * long, reasoned, articulate post follows *

    You must have a lot of time to waste.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  238. http://www.salisburyreview.com/articles/whose-afraid-of-enoch-powell/

    “Multiculturalism since the 1960s has meant in practice that we have to surrender any long term concern for the future of this country. We can no longer reliably say that there will be some sense of historical continuity, that our grandchildren will live in a society which at least in its outward forms resembles our own.

    And this is why ultimately people fear Enoch Powell; he can’t be buried as some ‘reactionary’ relic of a bygone age because the concerns he raised are more relevant than ever. Recent revelations about the extent of Asian grooming gangs in places such as Telford and Newcastle, the sharply escalating homicide rate in London, and the ever prevalent terror threat, reinforce the fact that this is a nation in crisis. And in the left’s censorious response to Powell’s speech there is a tacit acceptance of the essential instability of multicultural societies. “

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  239. @Corvinus
    "Do you believe Salvadorian and Somali migrants have the same future time orientation, IQ, and creativity of Italians, Irish, and European Jews?"

    When it comes to IQ, no. But is that because of genetics, environment, or both? I say both, and more leaning to environment. In other words, what political, economic, and social factors are involved here? Furthermore, IQ scores are not the end all and be all of a civilization. IQ scores have a moderate correlation with success, but it does not dictate it, and is not the "measure of the person".

    When it comes to future time orientation and creativity, we need to clearly agree to what those terms actually mean and lend support as to how and why we perhaps differ when it comes to comparing groups. Remember, it was also argued by WASPS and nativists that the Irish, the Italians, and European Jews distinctly lacked or were absent of those two traits.

    "Your argument is of the form: Some people belived X is Y, and that turned out to be false. Therefore, Z is not Y."

    Let's start here first. Were the WASPs and nativists wrong in how they characterized other ethnic and religious groups as being undesirable and unassimilable? Why?

    Corny, you’ve made your essential silliness clear time and time again.

    But that’s ok–your perogative. What’s “not ok” is to destroy our race and civilization–the West.

    So how’s about this: we agree to separate! You and folks like you get to have a nation of your own–unicornia? imaginatopia? rainbowa? And the sane, realistic folks who like their traditional nations get to have their traditional nations. You aren’t imposing your (clueless) views on us. And we aren’t imposing our (realistic) views on you. Win. Win.

    Again, what’s going on in the West is that you utopians are *imposing* your views (ridiculous and anti-empiracle) on normal folks who just want to live normal lives in the nation of their birth. People like you are the aggressors.

    I don’t begrudge you the right to “embrace diversity” if that’s what you want. And am happy to work with you politically to set aside territory for you to do so. But i very much do begrudge you–people like you–destroying my nation and the larger Western civilization, for me and my descendants.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "But that’s ok–your perogative. What’s “not ok” is to destroy our race and civilization–the West."

    I'm not advocating the destruction of "our" (yours and mine) race and civilization. Moreover, most Americans look at it as being the American, rather than Western, civilization.

    "So how’s about this: we agree to separate! You and folks like you get to have a nation of your own"

    I have a nation--the United States. And it's not going to separate anytime soon.

    "And the sane, realistic folks who like their traditional nations get to have their traditional nations."

    Which includes me and you, together. Didn't you get the memo?

    "Again, what’s going on in the West is that you utopians are *imposing* your views (ridiculous and anti-empiracle) on normal folks who just want to live normal lives in the nation of their birth. People like you are the aggressors."

    That would be you projecting again.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  240. Sunbeam says:
    @Bill B.
    Interestingly India has for a long time been demanding much easier open borders as the price of a normal trading relationship with the UK.

    Is this not a category error - yes I will buy your old car but only if my cousin can live in your spare bedroom?

    Strange isn't it that the Indian establishment is so optimistic about India's prospects that it encourages, even demands, a brain drain!

    From the FT's news report on Modi's visit to London:

    "...the first item on Mr Modi’s agenda is likely to be visa liberalisation, something for which New Delhi has been campaigning unsuccessfully for years. The Indian government wants more student visas for Indians and for the process to be made easier for them to stay after completing their courses. 

    One British official said Mrs May is planning to offer a more relaxed regime for those working in the tech sector, but not the kind of broad-based reforms for which India has been campaigning.

    Britain, meanwhile, is hoping to advance its trade agenda during the visit, with a view to signing some form of trade agreement after the country has left the EU...

    “Trade has not really picked up in several years,” said Geethanjali Nataraj, professor of economics at the Indian Institute of Public Administration. “Britain is keen to sign a free-trade agreement eventually, but to do that it will have to offer easier visas.”

    Trade has not really picked up in several years. Britain is keen to sign a free-trade agreement eventually, but to do that it will have to offer easier visas...
     

    “Personal relations between the two prime ministers are not great,” one British official admitted. “She does not do basic things like calling him to update him after a terrorist attack. It is embarrassing really.”

    YK Sinha, the Indian high commissioner to London, recently complained that the British had a “very dated or very incomplete” knowledge of India, based on “nostalgia, the Raj or their connections”.

    “Trade has not really picked up in several years. Britain is keen to sign a free-trade agreement eventually, but to do that it will have to offer easier visas…”

    What exact benefit does Britain get from trade with India? Of any sort really? Does Britain make any manufactured items that would benefit from being available in India?

    Free Trade with any nation like India seems like it only benefits India. A critic might say that the mature industries in Britain will swamp the nascent ones in India. But that’s not the case. Anything like that, and the Indians are going to buy Chinese like everyone else anyway.

    Or Japanese or Korean or whatever. There are probably some well heeled types that’d love to have Jaguars to tool about in Bangalor with. But I have a feeling if they want Jaguars they’ll find a way to get them, regardless of trade agreements.

    And the market for Toyotas or vehicles of the same utility is something that Britain just can’t touch anyway.

    In short, any kind of Free Trade agreement between Britain and India is just a bad idea for Britain.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  241. Brutusale says:
    @Anonymous

    Corvinus,

    You ignorant slut.
     
    Sums that up, eh?

    For those too young to remember the origin:

    Read More
    • LOL: donut
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  242. Corvinus says:
    @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    So, were the WASPs and nativists wrong in their assessment?
     
    Good question, because regardless of who the immigrants are, we have to accept them because nothing ever changes, right Corvinus? Analyze statically much? How many people do you suppose would subscribe to your false premises?

    “Good question, because regardless of who the immigrants are, we have to accept them because nothing ever changes, right Corvinus? ”

    Another strawman on your part. I have stated time and time again that our nation needs immigration reform, and should work to limit the number entering our nation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  243. donut says:
    @Corvinus
    http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-anti-immigration-cartoon-entitled-unrestricted-immigration-and-its-32393339.html

    Indeed, a similar situation occurred in the United States by the late 1800's.

    A proud, lone American of Protestant British descent (the real, true American), surrounded by invading non-Protestant, non-British stocks of people. From Germans to Assyrians, to the Chinese and Slavs. Just sickening.

    So, my friends, unless you can prove that you come directly from Great Britain (from your mother's and father's side) AND are of the Protestant faith, you must go back.

    Gee Corvinus I never really paid much attention to your posts but you do seem to rile people up . Anyway the oldest farmhouse still standing in NYC was built by an ancestor of mine . Will that do ?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  244. @p s c
    I've always wondered why the Brits could crush the world from the 1700's through early 1900's with little regard for anything such as humanitarianism, decency or just plain sense not to subjugate other peoples. Yet by the 1960's there were huge parades for anti-nukes, anti-apartheid, anti-Vietnam war, and all other lefty stuff.

    But concerning the Irish question, the Brits remained iron-willed. During the hunger strikes of the early '80's, Margaret Thatcher and the people of Britain were determined not to yield an inch to the IRA.

    Yet if these same men were black or brown and were resisting Mother England for some other type of nationalism beside Irish Republicanism, millions of white Britishers would have been on the streets protesting on their behalf.

    Cucks of the highest order.

    The British treatment of Irish Catholics compared to their treatment of new arrivals from Africa, the Indies and the Sub-Continent is amazing. Just like the Puritan types from New England (Harriet Beecher Stowe, Emerson, etc...) despise the Irish and love the African.

    Absolutely. As a Fenian in Londonistan I’m aware of what a bunch of sanctimonious, ducked puccies the Brit scum are. Terrified of being called racist. They bend over for as all the swarthy third Worlders, yet ban us from jobs or NHS treatment.

    Look at the drunken cuckrf chavs of Leeds & Luton in Russia. Carry their pimps’ red fist and pale blue star & abusing their fellow Whites. All the while taking it bent double from Debbi Abraham’s Empire XI. Tho I’ve heard most are too scared to go to Russia. Like all bullies Btit puccs are cowards and would fall down the stairs without their pimps’ to hold their skirts with their firm red fists.

    Dumb prostitutes even believe crazy cat Lady May that this uber powerful drug wouldn’t kill a woman & old man. ALPHABET TEAM IN RUSSIA

    Anyone
    But
    Cucked
    Dupes
    England

    Dogs yes
    Blacks yes
    Fenians no

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH
    The taigs are going downhill even faster than we have, both in demographic and moral terms
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  245. Nick Diaz says:

    Sailer salutes a speech where openly racist policies are praised and advocated, a speech from a man who was an openly racist misanthrope. What else is new? Sailer, the extreme right-winger who disguises his immense prejudices and hatreds with a varnish of “citizenism”.

    Sailer, the guy that glosses over the Nazi-like treatment of Palestinians by the Jews(qt.”personally, I don’t care if the Israelis push the Palestinians around.” Sailer, the guy that supports a clearly mentally-defective man with the emotional maturity of a 12 year-old(Trump), simply because he wants to build his stupid wall to keep hard-working Mexicans out, even though those same Mexican immigrants benefit Sailer and his minions every day. Sailer, the man that makes absurd comparisons, like comparing the border situation of Israel to that of the U.S, when there is literally no compárison between the two countries’ situation, to justify America building a border wall like Israel. Sailer, the guy that pretends that there was never any discrimination in America against non-Anglos other than blacks, and goes mute every time the obviously discriminatory 1924 Immigration Act is brought up, where southern and eastern European immigrants are discriminated against on the grounds that they are biologically inferior, based on the pseudo-science of eugenics.

    No, Sailer, I will tell you what the functions of statesmanship are: to protect people from the use of force by others, to provide a fair juridical system where the rules apply to all, and to uphold *individual* rights. Not racial or national rights. It is the most sacred cornerstone principle of Western Civilization that only individual have volition, and therefore agency before the state and the law. These are the principles of the Enlightenment, which allowed the West to become so far richer and more advanced than all other civilizations.

    Read More
    • Troll: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    >The important priority of governments is upholding government-granted legislature-recognized individual rights
    That's an interesting point, Nick, because my main anxiety about globalism is that it will mean the preclusion of God-given Constitutional rights, which only exist in our country as a result of severe ground-level restrictions, which are only known to North-West European whites as an accidental result of their inability to centralize power, and which largely do not exist outside of our country. How well do Mexico or the PRC protect individual rights?
    , @Neil Templeton
    Yes Nick, discrimination it is, has been, and will be forever, for to be human is to discriminate. To favor and reject, to allow and dismiss. The question before us now is not whether to discriminate, but rather which rules of discrimination will be allowed. The rules have changed mightily since the founding fathers, as new peoples with new values were admitted, and as existing peoples changed their minds, updating prior conceptions to conform to new information. Now Americans must face the question of admitting large and potentially unlimited numbers of new people, with likely very different modes of discrimination. Whether they contribute on net to the economic value of the country is a useful consideration, as in your testimony regarding hard-working Mexicans, but it is not the primary consideration for many if not most Americans. The primary consideration is whether the expected amended rules of discrimination and freedom of choice are in the interest of Americans. Nick, you appear to be stuck in a cycle of stale prejudice, wedded to judgments that are of little value to moral philosophers in the current year.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  246. Benjaminl says:
    @Ali Choudhury
    I would not call the speech racist, references to grinding picaninnies aside, and Powell himself was not a racist. Saying racial civil wars were inevitable and blacks were going to rule over whites was offering a rather apocalyptic prediction of Britain's future. I live in the UK and know plenty of Commonwealth immigrants, a fair proportion of whom are Conservative voters, who were witnesses of and victimis of racist attacks and hostility which skyrocketed in the wake of the speech. I see no reason to doubt their testimony, they have no political axe to grind.

    I don't know if the reference to the Indian who posts here is to me, I don't believe I have called anyone who wants restrictive immigration policies a cretin. It is a justifiable position to take. The most I have said on the subject is that I don't see how allowing Polish tradesmen and Indian IT workers into the UK would result in the destruction of the country. As far as Yan Shen goes, his concerns are a bit more nuanced than that.

    Thank you for the personal perspective. There are likely plenty of white gentiles, as you call them, who would dispute that the unskilled Irish Catholics who emigrated to the US contributed much of worth to a nation that was already successful and well on the way to becoming a superpower. The nativist reaction to them was probably not helped by Dagger John declaring the aim of Catholicism was converting all pagan and Protestant nations to the true faith when he was bishop of New York.

    Interesting that you mention Dagger John. If I were an old-stock 19th-century American in his heyday, I’d be wary of an alien ethnocentric rabble-rouser like Dagger John and would watch him closely. On the other hand, I’d be very grateful for his work in urging his flock to get their act together, shape up and conform to the expected norms.

    Today’s Minority and Immigrant Community Leaders seem to have retained the same degree of ethnocentric tribal mentality and resentment as Dagger John, but have substituted a message of entitlement for that of personal responsibility.

    https://www.city-journal.org/html/how-dagger-john-saved-new-york%E2%80%99s-irish-11934.html

    [MORE]

    With unerring psychological insight, Hughes had his priests emphasize religious teachings perfectly attuned to re-socializing the Irish and helping them succeed in their new lives. It was a religion of personal responsibility that they taught, stressing the importance of confession, a sacrament not widely popular today—and unknown to many of the Irish who emigrated during the famine, most of whom had never received any religious education. The practice had powerful psychological consequences. You cannot send a friend to confess for you, nor can you bring an advocate into the confessional. Once inside the confessional, you cannot discuss what others have done to you but must clearly state what you yourself have done wrong. It is the ultimate taking of responsibility for one’s actions; and it taught the Irish to focus on their own role in creating their misfortune.

    Hughes once remarked that “the Catholic Church is a church of discipline,” and Father Richard Shaw, Hughes’s most recent biographer, believes that the comment gives a glimpse into the inner core of his beliefs. Self-control and high personal standards were the key—and Hughes’s own disciplined labors to improve himself and all those around him, despite constant ill health, embodied this ethic monumentally. Hughes proclaimed the need to avoid sin. His clergy stated clearly that certain conduct was right and other conduct was wrong. People must not govern their lives according to momentary feelings or the desire for instant gratification: they had to live up to a code of behavior that had been developed over thousands of years. This teaching produced communities where ethical standards mattered and severe stigma attached to those who misbehaved.

    The priests stressed the virtue of purity, loudly and unambiguously, to both young and old. Sex was sinful outside marriage, no exceptions. Packed together in apartments with sometimes two or three families in a single room, the Irish lived in conditions that did not encourage chastity or even basic modesty. Women working in the low-paid drudgery of domestic service were tempted to work instead in the saloons of Five Points, which often led to a life of promiscuity or prostitution. The Church’s fierce exhortations against promiscuity, with its accompanying evils of out-of-wedlock births and venereal disease, took hold. In time, most Irish began to understand that personal responsibility was an important component of sexual conduct.

    Since alcohol was such a major problem for his flock, Hughes—though no teetotaler himself—promoted the formation of a Catholic abstinence society. In 1849 he accompanied the famous Irish Capuchin priest, Father Theobald Mathew, the “apostle of temperance,” all around the city as he gave the abstinence pledge to 20,000 New Yorkers.

    A religion of discipline, stressing conduct and the avoidance of sin, can be a pinched and gloomy affair, but Hughes’s teaching had a very different inflection. His priests mitigated the harshness with the encouraging Doctrine of the Sacred Heart, which declares that if you keep the commandments, God will be your protector, healer, advisor, and perfect personal friend. To a people despised by many, living in desperate circumstances, with narrow economic possibilities, such a teaching was a bulwark against anger, despair, and fear. Hughes’s Catholicism was upbeat and encouraging: if God Almighty was your personal friend, you could overcome.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  247. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Nick Diaz
    Sailer salutes a speech where openly racist policies are praised and advocated, a speech from a man who was an openly racist misanthrope. What else is new? Sailer, the extreme right-winger who disguises his immense prejudices and hatreds with a varnish of "citizenism".

    Sailer, the guy that glosses over the Nazi-like treatment of Palestinians by the Jews(qt."personally, I don't care if the Israelis push the Palestinians around." Sailer, the guy that supports a clearly mentally-defective man with the emotional maturity of a 12 year-old(Trump), simply because he wants to build his stupid wall to keep hard-working Mexicans out, even though those same Mexican immigrants benefit Sailer and his minions every day. Sailer, the man that makes absurd comparisons, like comparing the border situation of Israel to that of the U.S, when there is literally no compárison between the two countries' situation, to justify America building a border wall like Israel. Sailer, the guy that pretends that there was never any discrimination in America against non-Anglos other than blacks, and goes mute every time the obviously discriminatory 1924 Immigration Act is brought up, where southern and eastern European immigrants are discriminated against on the grounds that they are biologically inferior, based on the pseudo-science of eugenics.

    No, Sailer, I will tell you what the functions of statesmanship are: to protect people from the use of force by others, to provide a fair juridical system where the rules apply to all, and to uphold *individual* rights. Not racial or national rights. It is the most sacred cornerstone principle of Western Civilization that only individual have volition, and therefore agency before the state and the law. These are the principles of the Enlightenment, which allowed the West to become so far richer and more advanced than all other civilizations.

    >The important priority of governments is upholding government-granted legislature-recognized individual rights
    That’s an interesting point, Nick, because my main anxiety about globalism is that it will mean the preclusion of God-given Constitutional rights, which only exist in our country as a result of severe ground-level restrictions, which are only known to North-West European whites as an accidental result of their inability to centralize power, and which largely do not exist outside of our country. How well do Mexico or the PRC protect individual rights?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  248. Corvinus says:
    @Neil Templeton
    The assimilation argument you put forth is a red herring, an argument put forth at the time by your cherry-picked individuals, and today by those who may not get the mechanics of immigration. In measurement of assimilation, say 50 years after the point of immigration, one doesn't measure the difference between the immigrant and the average 50 years before, one measures the difference between the immigrant and the average in society in the current year. In this way, no notice is taken of the change in society between the point of immigration and the current year.

    This is one reason why your argument fails. The nativists in New York and Boston resisted Irish immigration, arguing that the Irish immigrants would change the environment for the worse. Some years later, a new assessment is made, and it appears that the Irish have largely assimilated, and society has not cratered. Yet, the initial claims of the nativists have not been addressed. The Irish did change the labor markets everywhere they went, and they did disturb the political and cultural balance with respect to religion and other institutions and values. Although the nativists were not in error, and although some nativists paid a steep price through the immigration of the Irish, other Americans, and some nativists, profited handsomely from the enterprise. In later years the entire episode was retconned as a rightly ignored expression of disgraceful xenophobic paranoia by thoroughly discredited racists.

    The current situation is much different of course. The genetic and cultural differences between native Americans and Germans or Irish in the 18th and 19th centuries were much smaller than the differences between primarily European-descended Americans today and immigrants from East Asia, the Subcontinent, Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and other locations that are far removed from Europe and America in many important respects. And of course the nation is already "full-up" in terms of pressure on many natural and social resources. In this sense, comparing the immigration question today to the question of allowing immigration to Irish and Germans is not legitimate.

    The main points, however, are that: 1) the nativists of yore were right to oppose immigration of the Germans and Irish, and their general fear that the Germans and Irish would induce instrumental change to the world they lived in was not unfounded; and 2) even if one is wholly Scots-Irish, German, or Irish, the fact that one's ancestors were immigrants that once faced resistance or persecution from American nativists in no way colors or corrupts the structure of the immigration decision faced by Americans today.

    “In measurement of assimilation, say 50 years after the point of immigration, one doesn’t measure the difference between the immigrant and the average 50 years before, one measures the difference between the immigrant and the average in society in the current year.”

    Who says we measure it must be measured in the manner you prescribe? Is it a think tank, a group of political scientists, a number of historians? What is their line of thinking? Please clarify.

    “This is one reason why your argument fails. The nativists in New York and Boston resisted Irish immigration, arguing that the Irish immigrants would change the environment for the worse. Some years later, a new assessment is made, and it appears that the Irish have largely assimilated, and society has not cratered.”

    So it would appear that the nativists were wrong. The nativists, however, would probably not agree with assessment. Besides, who made this “new assessment”? What criteria did they use to determine that the Irish had largely assimilated? Could there not be a “new assessment” some years later in showing how non-white groups have also assimilated similar to the Irish?

    “Yet, the initial claims of the nativists have not been addressed. The Irish did change the labor markets everywhere they went, and they did disturb the political and cultural balance with respect to religion and other institutions and values.”

    And that is no different than past or current immigration groups. There were be a change in the political and economic system. What type of change, the extent of it, and the benefits/detriments derived from it, however, will be debated.

    “Although the nativists were not in error, and although some nativists paid a steep price through the immigration of the Irish, other Americans, and some nativists, profited handsomely from the enterprise.”

    They may have made money on this endeavor, but their attitudes toward the Irish as being other than assimilable had remained.

    “In later years the entire episode was retconned as a rightly ignored expression of disgraceful xenophobic paranoia by thoroughly discredited racists.”

    Again, that would mean the nativists were in error, right?

    “The genetic and cultural differences between native Americans and Germans or Irish in the 18th and 19th centuries were much smaller than the differences between primarily European-descended Americans today and immigrants from East Asia, the Subcontinent, Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and other locations that are far removed from Europe and America in many important respects.”

    Not according to WASPs and nativists of the mid to late 1800′s. They argued that the gene pool would be significantly diluted by the infusion of undesirable elements. Except, the Germans, Poles, and Slavs at that time, like the Salvadorans and Kenyans now–along with white “race traitors”–say these genetic and cultural differences were overhyped.

    “And of course the nation is already “full-up” in terms of pressure on many natural and social resources. In this sense, comparing the immigration question today to the question of allowing immigration to Irish and Germans is not legitimate.”

    The same attitudes existed then as do now–the nation at that time would endure significant hardships from the infusion millions of “alien ethnic groups”.

    “The main points, however, are that: 1) the nativists of yore were right to oppose immigration of the Germans and Irish…”

    That is not the impression you gave earlier. Besides, I thought the Germans and Irish were white Europeans, so why would the WASPs/nativists be opposed to include their brethren with the gimmedats that America has to offer?

    “and their general fear that the Germans and Irish would induce instrumental change to the world they lived in was not unfounded”

    Change, certainly. Instrumental, maybe or maybe not.

    “and 2) even if one is wholly Scots-Irish, German, or Irish, the fact that one’s ancestors were immigrants that once faced resistance or persecution from American nativists in no way colors or corrupts the structure of the immigration decision faced by Americans today.”

    It absolutely does color or corrupt the structure, my friend.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    "Who says we measure it must be measured in the manner you prescribe? Is it a think tank, a group of political scientists, a number of historians? What is their line of thinking? Please clarify."

    I don't know why it is measured this way, but it appears to me that it is. This measurement discounts the loss to the prior inhabitants, as the cost of adapting to new circumstance is disregarded. The counterfactual in which the immigrants never entered is not considered.

    "So it would appear that the nativists were wrong. The nativists, however, would probably not agree with assessment. Besides, who made this “new assessment”? What criteria did they use to determine that the Irish had largely assimilated? Could there not be a “new assessment” some years later in showing how non-white groups have also assimilated similar to the Irish?"

    The nativists were not wrong. The Irish did not fully assimilate. They maintained their own neighborhoods until the outside temperature was to their liking. Depending upon the magnitude and character of immigration, the absorbing culture assimilates to the immigrants.

    "And that is no different than past or current immigration groups. There were be a change in the political and economic system. What type of change, the extent of it, and the benefits/detriments derived from it, however, will be debated."

    The "will be" is the important signal here.

    Maybe that's enough to get you started, if you care to get it. If not, so be it. Your arguments are not new to me Crow, nor is your thick reading of my own. You are not persuasive. I am done for now.
    , @Anonymous
    Corvinus, you lying sack of crap.

    Provide one solid piece of evidence that the Germans were not white in 19th century America. Provide one solid piece of evidence that Germans faced structural racism in expressing their political will in 18th century VA, PA, NC, etc.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  249. Anon[673] • Disclaimer says:

    Well you don’t want to embrace the Dark Side, that hatred leads to things like power, law and stability.
    The Republicanism of Jedis and diversity leads to the loving of terrorism, corporate trade federations and the wonders of slavery and Mos Eisley.

    Like Darth Hater might say, “There are unknown unknowns that nobody knows at all, and known unknowns that can be kept in the dark, but then there are unknown knowns that require deplatforming and being shouted down as hate, and known knowns that require censorship, job loss and outright arrests.”

    Why go and embrace the hate? You don’t know the Power of Darkseid.

    The Old Gods have died from the virtues of tolerance and apathy.

    The New Gods come to kick ass and chew bubblegum.

    The Bubblegum Crisis have arrived.
    The Mobile Tank Police and Mobile Infantry Needs Recruits.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  250. Corvinus says:
    @AnotherDad
    Corny, you've made your essential silliness clear time and time again.

    But that's ok--your perogative. What's "not ok" is to destroy our race and civilization--the West.

    So how's about this: we agree to separate! You and folks like you get to have a nation of your own--unicornia? imaginatopia? rainbowa? And the sane, realistic folks who like their traditional nations get to have their traditional nations. You aren't imposing your (clueless) views on us. And we aren't imposing our (realistic) views on you. Win. Win.

    Again, what's going on in the West is that you utopians are *imposing* your views (ridiculous and anti-empiracle) on normal folks who just want to live normal lives in the nation of their birth. People like you are the aggressors.

    I don't begrudge you the right to "embrace diversity" if that's what you want. And am happy to work with you politically to set aside territory for you to do so. But i very much do begrudge you--people like you--destroying my nation and the larger Western civilization, for me and my descendants.

    “But that’s ok–your perogative. What’s “not ok” is to destroy our race and civilization–the West.”

    I’m not advocating the destruction of “our” (yours and mine) race and civilization. Moreover, most Americans look at it as being the American, rather than Western, civilization.

    “So how’s about this: we agree to separate! You and folks like you get to have a nation of your own”

    I have a nation–the United States. And it’s not going to separate anytime soon.

    “And the sane, realistic folks who like their traditional nations get to have their traditional nations.”

    Which includes me and you, together. Didn’t you get the memo?

    “Again, what’s going on in the West is that you utopians are *imposing* your views (ridiculous and anti-empiracle) on normal folks who just want to live normal lives in the nation of their birth. People like you are the aggressors.”

    That would be you projecting again.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  251. Corvinus says:
    @Lurker

    neither Pagan nor Mahometan [Muslim] nor Jew ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the commonwealth because of his religion. The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom proclaims “Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions.”
     
    I'm pretty sure he didn't intend that to mean: import them by the million.

    Right now I hear similar arguments deployed - that religious tolerance and freedom of religion eg for Muslims = mass immigration of Muslims.

    “Right now I hear similar arguments deployed – that religious tolerance and freedom of religion eg for Muslims = mass immigration of Muslims.”

    No, the argument is that religious tolerance extends for all citizens, including Muslims.

    It is a separate issue regarding how many immigrants, including Muslims, ought to enter our shores.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  252. DFH says:
    @Curtis Mouser I
    Absolutely. As a Fenian in Londonistan I'm aware of what a bunch of sanctimonious, ducked puccies the Brit scum are. Terrified of being called racist. They bend over for as all the swarthy third Worlders, yet ban us from jobs or NHS treatment.

    Look at the drunken cuckrf chavs of Leeds & Luton in Russia. Carry their pimps' red fist and pale blue star & abusing their fellow Whites. All the while taking it bent double from Debbi Abraham's Empire XI. Tho I've heard most are too scared to go to Russia. Like all bullies Btit puccs are cowards and would fall down the stairs without their pimps' to hold their skirts with their firm red fists.

    Dumb prostitutes even believe crazy cat Lady May that this uber powerful drug wouldn't kill a woman & old man. ALPHABET TEAM IN RUSSIA

    Anyone
    But
    Cucked
    Dupes
    England

    Dogs yes
    Blacks yes
    Fenians no

    The taigs are going downhill even faster than we have, both in demographic and moral terms

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  253. Excal says:
    @Jim Don Bob
    "Edward Norman (then Dean of Peterhouse) had attempted to mount a Christian argument for nuclear weapons. The discussion moved on to 'Western values'. Mrs Thatcher said (in effect) that Norman had shown that the Bomb was necessary for the defence of our values. Powell: 'No, we do not fight for values. I would fight for this country even if it had a communist government.' Thatcher (it was just before the Argentinian invasion of the Falklands): ‘Nonsense, Enoch. If I send British troops abroad, it will be to defend our values.' 'No, Prime Minister, values exist in a transcendental realm, beyond space and time. They can neither be fought for, nor destroyed.' Mrs Thatcher looked utterly baffled. She had just been presented with the difference between Toryism and American Republicanism."

    Helluva guy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enoch_Powell

    Enoch Powell was a truly great man. If the world passes out of this growing darkness, his name will be remembered with reverence.

    Read More
    • Agree: Kylie
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  254. Excal says:
    @p s c
    I've always wondered why the Brits could crush the world from the 1700's through early 1900's with little regard for anything such as humanitarianism, decency or just plain sense not to subjugate other peoples. Yet by the 1960's there were huge parades for anti-nukes, anti-apartheid, anti-Vietnam war, and all other lefty stuff.

    But concerning the Irish question, the Brits remained iron-willed. During the hunger strikes of the early '80's, Margaret Thatcher and the people of Britain were determined not to yield an inch to the IRA.

    Yet if these same men were black or brown and were resisting Mother England for some other type of nationalism beside Irish Republicanism, millions of white Britishers would have been on the streets protesting on their behalf.

    Cucks of the highest order.

    The British treatment of Irish Catholics compared to their treatment of new arrivals from Africa, the Indies and the Sub-Continent is amazing. Just like the Puritan types from New England (Harriet Beecher Stowe, Emerson, etc...) despise the Irish and love the African.

    Having finally cut itself away from the Church, the ancient Kingdom withers and dries up, and its people perish.

    But there are a few left, and all is not yet lost.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  255. @Nick Diaz
    Sailer salutes a speech where openly racist policies are praised and advocated, a speech from a man who was an openly racist misanthrope. What else is new? Sailer, the extreme right-winger who disguises his immense prejudices and hatreds with a varnish of "citizenism".

    Sailer, the guy that glosses over the Nazi-like treatment of Palestinians by the Jews(qt."personally, I don't care if the Israelis push the Palestinians around." Sailer, the guy that supports a clearly mentally-defective man with the emotional maturity of a 12 year-old(Trump), simply because he wants to build his stupid wall to keep hard-working Mexicans out, even though those same Mexican immigrants benefit Sailer and his minions every day. Sailer, the man that makes absurd comparisons, like comparing the border situation of Israel to that of the U.S, when there is literally no compárison between the two countries' situation, to justify America building a border wall like Israel. Sailer, the guy that pretends that there was never any discrimination in America against non-Anglos other than blacks, and goes mute every time the obviously discriminatory 1924 Immigration Act is brought up, where southern and eastern European immigrants are discriminated against on the grounds that they are biologically inferior, based on the pseudo-science of eugenics.

    No, Sailer, I will tell you what the functions of statesmanship are: to protect people from the use of force by others, to provide a fair juridical system where the rules apply to all, and to uphold *individual* rights. Not racial or national rights. It is the most sacred cornerstone principle of Western Civilization that only individual have volition, and therefore agency before the state and the law. These are the principles of the Enlightenment, which allowed the West to become so far richer and more advanced than all other civilizations.

    Yes Nick, discrimination it is, has been, and will be forever, for to be human is to discriminate. To favor and reject, to allow and dismiss. The question before us now is not whether to discriminate, but rather which rules of discrimination will be allowed. The rules have changed mightily since the founding fathers, as new peoples with new values were admitted, and as existing peoples changed their minds, updating prior conceptions to conform to new information. Now Americans must face the question of admitting large and potentially unlimited numbers of new people, with likely very different modes of discrimination. Whether they contribute on net to the economic value of the country is a useful consideration, as in your testimony regarding hard-working Mexicans, but it is not the primary consideration for many if not most Americans. The primary consideration is whether the expected amended rules of discrimination and freedom of choice are in the interest of Americans. Nick, you appear to be stuck in a cycle of stale prejudice, wedded to judgments that are of little value to moral philosophers in the current year.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  256. Anon[673] • Disclaimer says:

    The blackbird welcomes Muslims for religious tolerance reasons. They thank him by cutting off his head for being tolerant of other religions. The circle of tolerance. Hamster wheel philosophy.

    If you want to see diversity in action, look at the Balkans. People of different race and religions living side by side in eternal war and conflict. The arms dealers are happy, the foreign arms dealers.
    All they needed was a police state like Tito’s Yugoslavia to keep ethnic cleansing and genocide from happening.

    Wouldn’t you accept a police state to have people who hate you and want you dead living next door?

    I wouldn’t…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  257. @Corvinus
    "In measurement of assimilation, say 50 years after the point of immigration, one doesn’t measure the difference between the immigrant and the average 50 years before, one measures the difference between the immigrant and the average in society in the current year."

    Who says we measure it must be measured in the manner you prescribe? Is it a think tank, a group of political scientists, a number of historians? What is their line of thinking? Please clarify.

    "This is one reason why your argument fails. The nativists in New York and Boston resisted Irish immigration, arguing that the Irish immigrants would change the environment for the worse. Some years later, a new assessment is made, and it appears that the Irish have largely assimilated, and society has not cratered."

    So it would appear that the nativists were wrong. The nativists, however, would probably not agree with assessment. Besides, who made this "new assessment"? What criteria did they use to determine that the Irish had largely assimilated? Could there not be a "new assessment" some years later in showing how non-white groups have also assimilated similar to the Irish?

    "Yet, the initial claims of the nativists have not been addressed. The Irish did change the labor markets everywhere they went, and they did disturb the political and cultural balance with respect to religion and other institutions and values."

    And that is no different than past or current immigration groups. There were be a change in the political and economic system. What type of change, the extent of it, and the benefits/detriments derived from it, however, will be debated.

    "Although the nativists were not in error, and although some nativists paid a steep price through the immigration of the Irish, other Americans, and some nativists, profited handsomely from the enterprise."

    They may have made money on this endeavor, but their attitudes toward the Irish as being other than assimilable had remained.

    "In later years the entire episode was retconned as a rightly ignored expression of disgraceful xenophobic paranoia by thoroughly discredited racists."

    Again, that would mean the nativists were in error, right?

    "The genetic and cultural differences between native Americans and Germans or Irish in the 18th and 19th centuries were much smaller than the differences between primarily European-descended Americans today and immigrants from East Asia, the Subcontinent, Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and other locations that are far removed from Europe and America in many important respects."

    Not according to WASPs and nativists of the mid to late 1800's. They argued that the gene pool would be significantly diluted by the infusion of undesirable elements. Except, the Germans, Poles, and Slavs at that time, like the Salvadorans and Kenyans now--along with white "race traitors"--say these genetic and cultural differences were overhyped.

    "And of course the nation is already “full-up” in terms of pressure on many natural and social resources. In this sense, comparing the immigration question today to the question of allowing immigration to Irish and Germans is not legitimate."

    The same attitudes existed then as do now--the nation at that time would endure significant hardships from the infusion millions of "alien ethnic groups".

    "The main points, however, are that: 1) the nativists of yore were right to oppose immigration of the Germans and Irish..."

    That is not the impression you gave earlier. Besides, I thought the Germans and Irish were white Europeans, so why would the WASPs/nativists be opposed to include their brethren with the gimmedats that America has to offer?

    "and their general fear that the Germans and Irish would induce instrumental change to the world they lived in was not unfounded"

    Change, certainly. Instrumental, maybe or maybe not.

    "and 2) even if one is wholly Scots-Irish, German, or Irish, the fact that one’s ancestors were immigrants that once faced resistance or persecution from American nativists in no way colors or corrupts the structure of the immigration decision faced by Americans today."

    It absolutely does color or corrupt the structure, my friend.

    “Who says we measure it must be measured in the manner you prescribe? Is it a think tank, a group of political scientists, a number of historians? What is their line of thinking? Please clarify.”

    I don’t know why it is measured this way, but it appears to me that it is. This measurement discounts the loss to the prior inhabitants, as the cost of adapting to new circumstance is disregarded. The counterfactual in which the immigrants never entered is not considered.

    “So it would appear that the nativists were wrong. The nativists, however, would probably not agree with assessment. Besides, who made this “new assessment”? What criteria did they use to determine that the Irish had largely assimilated? Could there not be a “new assessment” some years later in showing how non-white groups have also assimilated similar to the Irish?”

    The nativists were not wrong. The Irish did not fully assimilate. They maintained their own neighborhoods until the outside temperature was to their liking. Depending upon the magnitude and character of immigration, the absorbing culture assimilates to the immigrants.

    “And that is no different than past or current immigration groups. There were be a change in the political and economic system. What type of change, the extent of it, and the benefits/detriments derived from it, however, will be debated.”

    The “will be” is the important signal here.

    Maybe that’s enough to get you started, if you care to get it. If not, so be it. Your arguments are not new to me Crow, nor is your thick reading of my own. You are not persuasive. I am done for now.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    “Who says we measure it must be measured in the manner you prescribe? Is it a think tank, a group of political scientists, a number of historians? What is their line of thinking? Please clarify.”

    "I don’t know why it is measured this way, but it appears to me that it is."

    Appears to you. So you really have no clue. Would you be able to hazard a guess as to who says it must be measured this way--a think tank, a group of political scientists, a number of historians?

    "This measurement discounts the loss to the prior inhabitants, as the cost of adapting to new circumstance is disregarded. The counterfactual in which the immigrants never entered is not considered."

    You said it appears to you that it is measured this way, which means it may not actually be the way it is actually measured. Again, who says it is measured in this manner?

    "The nativists were not wrong. The Irish did not fully assimilate. They maintained their own neighborhoods until the outside temperature was to their liking.

    It would appear you are changing the goalposts. You had stated that "it appears that the Irish have largely assimilated, and society has not cratered.” Now you are saying they did not "fully assimilate". What does "fully assimilate" mean to you? How do you define it? There needs to be clarity here.

    Furthermore, it is natural for first and second generation immigrations to congregate in their own neighborhoods. Even the English, the Scots-Irish, and the Welsh had their own distinct communities when they came over in the 1600 and 1700's. But, in all cases here, these groups and the Irish, along with other groups, immersed themselves into the dominant culture.
    , @PV van der Byl
    Massive Irish immigration during the 19th century did pose the problems you describe.

    But, there were very important differences between the Irish-Catholics of 150 years ago and current Third world immigration.

    Led by the Irish among them, the Catholic churches and parochial schools implemented an extensive assimilation program (though not involving conversion to Protestant denominations) for Irish immigrants to adopt American values as they were generally understood at the time.

    Read this historical account of New York's Archbishop Hughes:

    https://www.city-journal.org/html/how-dagger-john-saved-new-york’s-irish-11934.html

    Alas, the Archbishop has no counterpart among the current wave of third world immigrants and their SJW supporters.
    , @Disordered
    People also forget the immigration break of 1920-1965. Pretty much every descendant of the first wave of immigrants was WASPified to acceptable enough degrees, specially during WW2 - after all, it was the most popular war ever, bringing flagwaving feelings as soon as thought of. So of course it was no surprise there eventually would be a WASP-ey Irish-American in the WH - and a decidedly more American than Irish fella, the Camelot (!) lifestyle was not very Eire.

    People also forget that that first wave was easier to adapt, there wasn't nearly as much mass media available to the immigrants, much less from their home countries. The first wave was certainly more diverse in languages, certainly less educated by modern standards - and yet today's immigrants struggle with English more. No wonder, they're surrounded by a lot more of their country's culture - so many Miamians watch Univision and Telemundo all day...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  258. Kylie says:
    @Goatweed
    NYTimes
    Pakistan
    Drug resistant typhoid strain

    Yes, I saw in the Daily Mail about the drug-resistant strain of typhoid in Pakistan. I’m suprised the left isn’t out in full force demanding that Westwrn countries take these sick people in. What could go wrong?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  259. @Anon
    To anyone who says that this soup can't be unsalted because it would be too draconian: Wrong. Just halt further immigration and put in place policies which boost fertility among the native British and discourage fertility among the non-ethnic British. Encourage younger immigrants to emigrate with financial incentives. In two generations you'll have reversed most of the demographic change of the last sixty years.

    It's completely doable and humane (but you'll 1st you have to get control of the media). Wait another generation and the only solutions become necessarily more draconian, like in Israel.

    “Refugee” females get mandatory Norplant as a condition of asylum.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  260. The race to get the Outer Hebrides’ first mosque ready for Ramadan

    A mosque is being constructed in Stornoway, on the Isle of Lewis.

    The Isle of Lewis is still home to a few thousand Scottish Gaelic speakers. And President Trump’s mother, Mary Anne McLeod, grew up just a couple of miles outside Stornoway.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-38648877

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  261. @another_underground_man
    In general I don't think people really care about the future. Politicians want to get re-elected. People want their immediate lives to go smoothly. Whether or not multiculturalism brings about hell on earth isn't of deep concern to almost anyone. And probably far more people fervently wish a hellish outcome for our planet than don't, anyway.

    I'm glad this small race-realist corner of the world exists on places like unz.com, but far too little attention is being paid here and everywhere to "designer humans" and the ultimate replacement of mankind by machines. In a few hundred years, at most, all of this "race realism" debate will have been triviality because we'll have seized control over the genetic make-up of our successors.

    I think the best and smartest intuitively know this and are hoping this comes about before race-realism becomes undeniable. In this way, they hope to avoid mass murder or global civil unrest.

    Me, I just hope we don't nuke ourselves into oblivion before then.

    I’m glad this small race-realist corner of the world exists on places like unz.com, but far too little attention is being paid here and everywhere to “designer humans” and the ultimate replacement of mankind by machines. In a few hundred years, at most, all of this “race realism” debate will have been triviality because we’ll have seized control over the genetic make-up of our successors.

    “Our” successors? What makes you think “we” will be around in a few hundred years?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  262. @Lot
    "If Jews faced significant discrimination in America, relative to the discrimination that most American ethnic groups faced"

    I've seen no evidence Jews ever experienced significant discrimination in the USA. The left has made a major project of exaggerating the degree of discrimination against Gilded Age white migrants. Every American history textbook has that same photo of the "No Irish Need Apply" sign which suggests such signs were not too common. 19th Century America was, like England, very welcoming and accepting of Jews.

    "Why admit someone to Harvard, if the primary motivation of the applicant is not to learn..."

    I don't think there are significant ethnic differences in motivations to attend prestigious universities.

    “I don’t think there are significant ethnic differences in motivations to attend prestigious universities.”

    Really? Let me put it differently. The influence of the prestigious universities is in part a societal understanding of the role they play in carrying forward the stories of the culture. Primarily, the stories of the ruling culture. Certainly students can be tested, or can signal, or can be separated by ethnic origin regarding their probable allegiance to the founding stories. Why would we not expect to see variation in the response of the varied tribes to the stories of the ruling culture? My argument is that Jews in the beginning were not particularly attracted to the founding stories but were attracted to the value of a diploma from a leading university. Perhaps this made Jews, in the beginning, less attractive to these institutions than a similar, but less scholastic gentile, providing incentive for quotas. I doubt the same relation would hold today, for the founding stories have been abandoned, for better or worse. And so the attraction of various ethnics to the replacement set of stories has likely changed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  263. @syonredux
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KsljBj3UEI

    2 late.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  264. @Ali Choudhury
    Well, the cultural differences must have been pretty stark. The opposition to Irish immigration saw a lot of electoral successful and keen to argue they were inherently unfit to enter the US. Post 1965 legal immigration has not engendered a similar response.

    There was a stronger emphasis on nationhood and “blood and soil” back then, to the point that a country defined you. I think it was good for 19th century liberalism to de-emphasize that and point to the individual. However, Western thinkers, who came up with liberalism, assumed everyone everywhere would express individualism the same way they did. That was the mistake. They, in an access of Western superiority, thought other peoples would embrace the Western way of life naturally and painlessly, like taking a shower off the bad old cultural mores and taking in some recipes. It’s been 200 years or so since the first nation of the Third World got its independence (Haiti)… and so far, all we do is try to excuse them for their failure by pinning it on the white man. Ironically, when Third World nations move as close to the West as possible, they do better. Will there be a merged global culture eventually? Who knows, but lots of time and strife will pass.

    Also, post 1965 immigration was fed by postwar capitalism, which was much bigger a machine than in the Gilded Era, lobbyists started being paid more and more. It was also a more taxed era than the robber baron era, ergo more incentives to try to find shortcuts to make more money; and since offshoring was getting started, why not globalize the labor pool as well? Therefore, the cheap labor could be brought in. Plus, internationalism and oppressed/oppressor-country talk was invented by Lenin and specially by Trotsky and later leftist Third Worlders (Mao, Che); by that time, the US had already shut the gates in the 20s, which led to full assimilation in the 45 years such policy lasted while also leading Americans to believe that assimilation was easier than expected. Perhaps that earlier experience got their hopes up too much…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  265. Anonymous[113] • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus
    "In measurement of assimilation, say 50 years after the point of immigration, one doesn’t measure the difference between the immigrant and the average 50 years before, one measures the difference between the immigrant and the average in society in the current year."

    Who says we measure it must be measured in the manner you prescribe? Is it a think tank, a group of political scientists, a number of historians? What is their line of thinking? Please clarify.

    "This is one reason why your argument fails. The nativists in New York and Boston resisted Irish immigration, arguing that the Irish immigrants would change the environment for the worse. Some years later, a new assessment is made, and it appears that the Irish have largely assimilated, and society has not cratered."

    So it would appear that the nativists were wrong. The nativists, however, would probably not agree with assessment. Besides, who made this "new assessment"? What criteria did they use to determine that the Irish had largely assimilated? Could there not be a "new assessment" some years later in showing how non-white groups have also assimilated similar to the Irish?

    "Yet, the initial claims of the nativists have not been addressed. The Irish did change the labor markets everywhere they went, and they did disturb the political and cultural balance with respect to religion and other institutions and values."

    And that is no different than past or current immigration groups. There were be a change in the political and economic system. What type of change, the extent of it, and the benefits/detriments derived from it, however, will be debated.

    "Although the nativists were not in error, and although some nativists paid a steep price through the immigration of the Irish, other Americans, and some nativists, profited handsomely from the enterprise."

    They may have made money on this endeavor, but their attitudes toward the Irish as being other than assimilable had remained.

    "In later years the entire episode was retconned as a rightly ignored expression of disgraceful xenophobic paranoia by thoroughly discredited racists."

    Again, that would mean the nativists were in error, right?

    "The genetic and cultural differences between native Americans and Germans or Irish in the 18th and 19th centuries were much smaller than the differences between primarily European-descended Americans today and immigrants from East Asia, the Subcontinent, Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and other locations that are far removed from Europe and America in many important respects."

    Not according to WASPs and nativists of the mid to late 1800's. They argued that the gene pool would be significantly diluted by the infusion of undesirable elements. Except, the Germans, Poles, and Slavs at that time, like the Salvadorans and Kenyans now--along with white "race traitors"--say these genetic and cultural differences were overhyped.

    "And of course the nation is already “full-up” in terms of pressure on many natural and social resources. In this sense, comparing the immigration question today to the question of allowing immigration to Irish and Germans is not legitimate."

    The same attitudes existed then as do now--the nation at that time would endure significant hardships from the infusion millions of "alien ethnic groups".

    "The main points, however, are that: 1) the nativists of yore were right to oppose immigration of the Germans and Irish..."

    That is not the impression you gave earlier. Besides, I thought the Germans and Irish were white Europeans, so why would the WASPs/nativists be opposed to include their brethren with the gimmedats that America has to offer?

    "and their general fear that the Germans and Irish would induce instrumental change to the world they lived in was not unfounded"

    Change, certainly. Instrumental, maybe or maybe not.

    "and 2) even if one is wholly Scots-Irish, German, or Irish, the fact that one’s ancestors were immigrants that once faced resistance or persecution from American nativists in no way colors or corrupts the structure of the immigration decision faced by Americans today."

    It absolutely does color or corrupt the structure, my friend.

    Corvinus, you lying sack of crap.

    Provide one solid piece of evidence that the Germans were not white in 19th century America. Provide one solid piece of evidence that Germans faced structural racism in expressing their political will in 18th century VA, PA, NC, etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Provide one solid piece of evidence that the Germans were not white in 19th century America."

    You weren't paying attention. The Germans were deemed as being unassimilable--dirty, less intelligent, prone to public drunkenness. In other words, their character was other than "white".

    "Provide one solid piece of evidence that Germans faced structural racism in expressing their political will in 18th century VA, PA, NC, etc."

    You created a strawman here. I never made this argument. Since the Germans for the most part lived in their own communities, like other immigrants before them, they built up their own structures. Why? WASPS and nativists believed the spread of the German language would disrupt the American way of life. They created instruction laws to be binding on this notion in several states. The Bennett Law (1889) “made attendance in public or private schools compulsory for children and defined a school as one in which the common subjects were taught in the English language.” In other words, the German language was particularly threatening to their assimilative powers in America. Furthermore, German Catholics and Protestants were generally prohibited by non-German Catholics and Protestants from attending the same congregations. Why? The Germans were not "one of them", despite being of the same faith.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  266. Corvinus says:
    @Neil Templeton
    "Who says we measure it must be measured in the manner you prescribe? Is it a think tank, a group of political scientists, a number of historians? What is their line of thinking? Please clarify."

    I don't know why it is measured this way, but it appears to me that it is. This measurement discounts the loss to the prior inhabitants, as the cost of adapting to new circumstance is disregarded. The counterfactual in which the immigrants never entered is not considered.

    "So it would appear that the nativists were wrong. The nativists, however, would probably not agree with assessment. Besides, who made this “new assessment”? What criteria did they use to determine that the Irish had largely assimilated? Could there not be a “new assessment” some years later in showing how non-white groups have also assimilated similar to the Irish?"

    The nativists were not wrong. The Irish did not fully assimilate. They maintained their own neighborhoods until the outside temperature was to their liking. Depending upon the magnitude and character of immigration, the absorbing culture assimilates to the immigrants.

    "And that is no different than past or current immigration groups. There were be a change in the political and economic system. What type of change, the extent of it, and the benefits/detriments derived from it, however, will be debated."

    The "will be" is the important signal here.

    Maybe that's enough to get you started, if you care to get it. If not, so be it. Your arguments are not new to me Crow, nor is your thick reading of my own. You are not persuasive. I am done for now.

    “Who says we measure it must be measured in the manner you prescribe? Is it a think tank, a group of political scientists, a number of historians? What is their line of thinking? Please clarify.”

    “I don’t know why it is measured this way, but it appears to me that it is.”

    Appears to you. So you really have no clue. Would you be able to hazard a guess as to who says it must be measured this way–a think tank, a group of political scientists, a number of historians?

    “This measurement discounts the loss to the prior inhabitants, as the cost of adapting to new circumstance is disregarded. The counterfactual in which the immigrants never entered is not considered.”

    You said it appears to you that it is measured this way, which means it may not actually be the way it is actually measured. Again, who says it is measured in this manner?

    “The nativists were not wrong. The Irish did not fully assimilate. They maintained their own neighborhoods until the outside temperature was to their liking.

    It would appear you are changing the goalposts. You had stated that “it appears that the Irish have largely assimilated, and society has not cratered.” Now you are saying they did not “fully assimilate”. What does “fully assimilate” mean to you? How do you define it? There needs to be clarity here.

    Furthermore, it is natural for first and second generation immigrations to congregate in their own neighborhoods. Even the English, the Scots-Irish, and the Welsh had their own distinct communities when they came over in the 1600 and 1700′s. But, in all cases here, these groups and the Irish, along with other groups, immersed themselves into the dominant culture.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  267. Corvinus says:
    @Anonymous
    Corvinus, you lying sack of crap.

    Provide one solid piece of evidence that the Germans were not white in 19th century America. Provide one solid piece of evidence that Germans faced structural racism in expressing their political will in 18th century VA, PA, NC, etc.

    “Provide one solid piece of evidence that the Germans were not white in 19th century America.”

    You weren’t paying attention. The Germans were deemed as being unassimilable–dirty, less intelligent, prone to public drunkenness. In other words, their character was other than “white”.

    “Provide one solid piece of evidence that Germans faced structural racism in expressing their political will in 18th century VA, PA, NC, etc.”

    You created a strawman here. I never made this argument. Since the Germans for the most part lived in their own communities, like other immigrants before them, they built up their own structures. Why? WASPS and nativists believed the spread of the German language would disrupt the American way of life. They created instruction laws to be binding on this notion in several states. The Bennett Law (1889) “made attendance in public or private schools compulsory for children and defined a school as one in which the common subjects were taught in the English language.” In other words, the German language was particularly threatening to their assimilative powers in America. Furthermore, German Catholics and Protestants were generally prohibited by non-German Catholics and Protestants from attending the same congregations. Why? The Germans were not “one of them”, despite being of the same faith.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  268. @Neil Templeton
    "Who says we measure it must be measured in the manner you prescribe? Is it a think tank, a group of political scientists, a number of historians? What is their line of thinking? Please clarify."

    I don't know why it is measured this way, but it appears to me that it is. This measurement discounts the loss to the prior inhabitants, as the cost of adapting to new circumstance is disregarded. The counterfactual in which the immigrants never entered is not considered.

    "So it would appear that the nativists were wrong. The nativists, however, would probably not agree with assessment. Besides, who made this “new assessment”? What criteria did they use to determine that the Irish had largely assimilated? Could there not be a “new assessment” some years later in showing how non-white groups have also assimilated similar to the Irish?"

    The nativists were not wrong. The Irish did not fully assimilate. They maintained their own neighborhoods until the outside temperature was to their liking. Depending upon the magnitude and character of immigration, the absorbing culture assimilates to the immigrants.

    "And that is no different than past or current immigration groups. There were be a change in the political and economic system. What type of change, the extent of it, and the benefits/detriments derived from it, however, will be debated."

    The "will be" is the important signal here.

    Maybe that's enough to get you started, if you care to get it. If not, so be it. Your arguments are not new to me Crow, nor is your thick reading of my own. You are not persuasive. I am done for now.

    Massive Irish immigration during the 19th century did pose the problems you describe.

    But, there were very important differences between the Irish-Catholics of 150 years ago and current Third world immigration.

    Led by the Irish among them, the Catholic churches and parochial schools implemented an extensive assimilation program (though not involving conversion to Protestant denominations) for Irish immigrants to adopt American values as they were generally understood at the time.

    Read this historical account of New York’s Archbishop Hughes:

    https://www.city-journal.org/html/how-dagger-john-saved-new-york’s-irish-11934.html

    Alas, the Archbishop has no counterpart among the current wave of third world immigrants and their SJW supporters.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    Thanks for the link. The Irish are tough, and resilient.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  269. @Neil Templeton
    "Who says we measure it must be measured in the manner you prescribe? Is it a think tank, a group of political scientists, a number of historians? What is their line of thinking? Please clarify."

    I don't know why it is measured this way, but it appears to me that it is. This measurement discounts the loss to the prior inhabitants, as the cost of adapting to new circumstance is disregarded. The counterfactual in which the immigrants never entered is not considered.

    "So it would appear that the nativists were wrong. The nativists, however, would probably not agree with assessment. Besides, who made this “new assessment”? What criteria did they use to determine that the Irish had largely assimilated? Could there not be a “new assessment” some years later in showing how non-white groups have also assimilated similar to the Irish?"

    The nativists were not wrong. The Irish did not fully assimilate. They maintained their own neighborhoods until the outside temperature was to their liking. Depending upon the magnitude and character of immigration, the absorbing culture assimilates to the immigrants.

    "And that is no different than past or current immigration groups. There were be a change in the political and economic system. What type of change, the extent of it, and the benefits/detriments derived from it, however, will be debated."

    The "will be" is the important signal here.

    Maybe that's enough to get you started, if you care to get it. If not, so be it. Your arguments are not new to me Crow, nor is your thick reading of my own. You are not persuasive. I am done for now.

    People also forget the immigration break of 1920-1965. Pretty much every descendant of the first wave of immigrants was WASPified to acceptable enough degrees, specially during WW2 – after all, it was the most popular war ever, bringing flagwaving feelings as soon as thought of. So of course it was no surprise there eventually would be a WASP-ey Irish-American in the WH – and a decidedly more American than Irish fella, the Camelot (!) lifestyle was not very Eire.

    People also forget that that first wave was easier to adapt, there wasn’t nearly as much mass media available to the immigrants, much less from their home countries. The first wave was certainly more diverse in languages, certainly less educated by modern standards – and yet today’s immigrants struggle with English more. No wonder, they’re surrounded by a lot more of their country’s culture – so many Miamians watch Univision and Telemundo all day…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  270. Romanian says: • Website
    @Anon7
    ’Enoch Powell was no racist,' says actor who played Emperor in Star Wars (September, 2017)

    “A row has broken out between Black Country MP Ian Austin and the Hollywood actor portraying one of the West Midlands’ most famous politicians - Enoch Powell.

    “Mr Austin hit out at Ian McDiarmid, who portrayed evil Emperor Palpatine in the Star Wars films, after the actor claimed Powell was not a racist.

    “Mr McDiarmid is portraying Powell in a play called What Shadows, running in Edinburgh and London.

    “It looks at Powell’s famous “Rivers of Blood” speech in 1968. Birmingham-born Powell, MP for Wolverhampton South West, told an audience in a Birmingham hotel that allowing high levels of immigration from Commonwealth countries was “like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre”.”

    Dunno whether the actor is a crimethinker, but his reading of the speech was terrible. I just listened to it on the BBC website http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09z08w3

    I was afraid it would be sinister, but that would have made it better – it just sounds limp-wristed. Did Enoch Powell sound like that back then? Frankly, the actor should have done a Palpatine voice. I cannot imagine the newer generations being awed by the speech when read in this way.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  271. Romanian says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz
    Is not Thilo Sarrazin a very good German counterpart to Powell. Also sacked!

    Interesting that his name suggests Muslim ancestry.

    It might, but it could also be that one of his ancestors was nicknamed the turk or saracen because he was darker than others in the community. An important source of European peasant family names, after occupational names (thatcher, fletcher), is a nickname. He did not necessarily have to be swarthy, just with dark hair and maybe a bit darker coloring, like the Black Irish. Such variations are natural – men are often darker than women, babies are lighter in color than adults, both in skin and hair etc.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  272. Romanian says: • Website
    @Ali Choudhury
    Brexit was primarily a vote against unlimited white, Christian, Central European immigraton to the UK. They are very obviously competitors for jobs and business with much of the local population, Muslims not so much.

    Aside from the wage suppression that can happen with groups that actually work (90% labor force occupation for Polish in the UK, 10% for Somalis), and the very real crimes that take place with Eastern Euros (violent ones, not just fraud, though not many), the main reason was the fact that it is not illegal to hate on fellow Europeans. It has been allowed as a safety valve. You will end up in prison if you say something bad about a Muslim who is also a British subject, but a Polish Plumber is fair game from the perspective of the law. This is especially interesting when it comes to Gypsies, many of whom are visibly non-European yet are, from the perspective of the Western anarcho-tyranny regimes, honorary Euros. This explains how the French reveled in sending Gypsies back to Eastern Europe, indulging in the borderline un-PC hostility towards racial foreigners as a sort of catharsis when they are stuck with all of the Maghrebians they took in. Back in Eastern Europe, the Gypsies are the African-Americans of the local progressives, who must be pampered and elevated for their past slavery, even as everyone except a few nobles was essentially a slave through the institution of serfdom, which ended roughly around the same time as actual Gypsy slavery.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  273. @PV van der Byl
    Massive Irish immigration during the 19th century did pose the problems you describe.

    But, there were very important differences between the Irish-Catholics of 150 years ago and current Third world immigration.

    Led by the Irish among them, the Catholic churches and parochial schools implemented an extensive assimilation program (though not involving conversion to Protestant denominations) for Irish immigrants to adopt American values as they were generally understood at the time.

    Read this historical account of New York's Archbishop Hughes:

    https://www.city-journal.org/html/how-dagger-john-saved-new-york’s-irish-11934.html

    Alas, the Archbishop has no counterpart among the current wave of third world immigrants and their SJW supporters.

    Thanks for the link. The Irish are tough, and resilient.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  274. @WowJustWow
    I felt like that maxim may be specific to Britain. Consider:

    The bar for a US President to not be generally considered a failure is pretty low: Win a 2nd term, even if you go lame-duck soon after; sign one major piece of legislation — even if nobody likes it, it’s still an “accomplishment”; have only a few major scandals; don’t get humiliated on the global stage by some pissant third world country; don’t screw things up too badly, or if you do, make sure the worst effects don’t become visible until after you’ve left office.

    The *expected* outcome of a UK Prime Minister’s tenure seems to be: get into office by some complicated shifting of party coalitions that makes nobody happy, and bumble around until you’re shamed into calling for an election that will take you out of office immediately — no time to even host “A Very Special Christmas from Washington DC” with Special Olympics kids as you sail off into the sunset with a bunch of goodwill PR before Inauguration Day.

    The *expected* outcome of a UK Prime Minister’s tenure seems to be: get into office by some complicated shifting of party coalitions that makes nobody happy, and bumble around until you’re shamed into calling for an election that will take you out of office immediately

    Is it true that prime ministers have to pay their own moving costs?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  275. Anon[198] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ali Choudhury
    Do you mean Charles I? It was his pro Catholicism and belief in the divine right of kings to govern without calling parliaments that set off the opposition to him, I don't recall guns being a cause of the uproar.

    Do you mean Charles I? It was his pro Catholicism

    Someone didn’t pay enough attention in history class.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by iSteve, at whim.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?