The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
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
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
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.

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

 
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.

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon, NickG
    • Replies: @Peter Johnson
    @Anonymous

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

  2. • Replies: @syonredux
    @Lot

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KsljBj3UEI

    Replies: @Peter Johnson, @Old fogey, @Dube, @byrresheim

    , @MikeatMikedotMike
    @Lot

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

    Replies: @AnotherDad

    , @Anonym
    @Lot

    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
    @Lot

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

    , @Dieter Kief
    @Lot

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

    , @Corvinus
    @Lot

    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.

    Replies: @Anon, @Perspective, @Faraday's Bobcat, @Rosie, @ThreeCranes, @donut

    , @ThreeCranes
    @Lot

    What's that bobby doing in Addis Ababa?

  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?

    • Replies: @LemmusLemmus
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

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

    , @The Alarmist
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    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
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    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
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

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

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    , @Anonymous
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Only part of the speech was recorded at the time.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

  4. 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…..

    • Replies: @Dr. X
    @syonredux


    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.

    Replies: @Nigerian Nationalist

  5. @Lot
    https://i.imgur.com/aXa1e0w.jpg

    Replies: @syonredux, @MikeatMikedotMike, @Anonym, @Anonymous, @Dieter Kief, @Corvinus, @ThreeCranes

    • Replies: @Peter Johnson
    @syonredux

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

    , @Old fogey
    @syonredux

    Thank you very much for this video. It is sobering, and rings true.

    , @Dube
    @syonredux

    Precisely. "My gripe is: We were never asked."

    , @byrresheim
    @syonredux

    2 late.

  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.

    • Replies: @Saxon
    @another_underground_man

    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
    @another_underground_man


    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?
  7. “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………..

  8. Right in the feels…

    It didn’t have to be this way.

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

  9. 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

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Clyde

    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?

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin

    , @WowJustWow
    @Clyde

    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.

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @Stan Adams

    , @Anonymous
    @Clyde


    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."
  10. 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.

  11. 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.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    @Ivy

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

    Interesting that his name suggests Muslim ancestry.

    Replies: @Romanian

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    @Polynices

    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
    @Polynices

    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.
     
  14. 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.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Alden


    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]
  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

    • Replies: @Excal
    @Jim Don Bob

    Enoch Powell was a truly great man. If the world passes out of this growing darkness, his name will be remembered with reverence.

  16. • Replies: @Lot
    @Lot

    http://shoebat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/2rzxrih.jpg

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

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @bored identity, @Mr. Anon

    , @istevefan
    @Lot

    Stop it. You're killing me.

    , @Luke Lea
    @Lot

    Truly scary.

    , @Dr. X
    @Lot

    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...

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    , @Eustace Tilley (not)
    @Lot

    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.

    Replies: @J.Ross

    , @Corvinus
    @Lot

    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.”

    Replies: @Hunsdon, @Lot, @Lurker

  17. @Lot
    https://i.imgur.com/aXa1e0w.jpg

    Replies: @syonredux, @MikeatMikedotMike, @Anonym, @Anonymous, @Dieter Kief, @Corvinus, @ThreeCranes

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

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    @MikeatMikedotMike


    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.
  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.

    • Agree: ben tillman
    • Replies: @SteveRogers42
    @Anon

    "Refugee" females get mandatory Norplant as a condition of asylum.

  19. @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

    Replies: @Lot, @istevefan, @Luke Lea, @Dr. X, @Eustace Tilley (not), @Corvinus

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Lot

    I never knew you had a cleft palette.

    , @bored identity
    @Lot

    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
    @Lot

    Muslims mooning western civilization.

  20. 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.

    • Agree: Buffalo Joe
    • Replies: @Millennial
    @p s c

    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
    @p s c

    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
    @p s c

    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
    @p s c

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

    , @songbird
    @p s c

    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
    @p s c

    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

    Replies: @DFH

    , @Excal
    @p s c

    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.

  21. 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.

    • Agree: sayless, dfordoom
  22. @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

    Replies: @Lot, @istevefan, @Luke Lea, @Dr. X, @Eustace Tilley (not), @Corvinus

    Stop it. You’re killing me.

  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.

    • Replies: @Red Little Smurf
    @Reg Cæsar

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

  24. @Lot
    @Lot

    http://shoebat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/2rzxrih.jpg

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

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @bored identity, @Mr. Anon

    I never knew you had a cleft palette.

  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.

    • Replies: @Gary in Gramercy
    @Buffalo Joe

    How about James Earl Jones?

    Replies: @Buffalo Joe

    , @Mishra
    @Buffalo Joe


    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
    @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.
     
    In murder cases, they call this "the smoking gun". And evidence of premeditation.

    Replies: @Buffalo Joe

    , @Achmed E. Newman
    @Buffalo Joe

    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!

    Replies: @Buffalo Joe, @Charles Erwin Wilson

  26. 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.

  27. 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.

    • Agree: L Woods
  28. @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

    Replies: @Lot, @istevefan, @Luke Lea, @Dr. X, @Eustace Tilley (not), @Corvinus

    Truly scary.

  29. @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.....

    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.

    • Replies: @Nigerian Nationalist
    @Dr. X

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

    Skipped your History class there mate?

  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.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Harry Baldwin

    And again:

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

    Replies: @AndrewR, @AnotherDad

    , @WowJustWow
    @Harry Baldwin

    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.

    Replies: @JackOH, @Pericles

    , @Wizard of Oz
    @Harry Baldwin

    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
    @Harry Baldwin

    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
    @Harry Baldwin

    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!

  31. @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

    Replies: @Lot, @istevefan, @Luke Lea, @Dr. X, @Eustace Tilley (not), @Corvinus

    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…

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Dr. X

    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.

  32. @Lot
    https://i.imgur.com/aXa1e0w.jpg

    Replies: @syonredux, @MikeatMikedotMike, @Anonym, @Anonymous, @Dieter Kief, @Corvinus, @ThreeCranes

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

  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.

  34. 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.

  35. ’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”.”

    • Replies: @Romanian
    @Anon7

    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.

  36. @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

    Replies: @Lot, @istevefan, @Luke Lea, @Dr. X, @Eustace Tilley (not), @Corvinus

    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.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Eustace Tilley (not)

    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.”

  37. 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.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @MEH 0910

    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.

  38. 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.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @WowJustWow, @Wizard of Oz, @AndrewR, @Cagey Beast

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    @Anonymous

    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.

    Replies: @Perspective

    , @AnotherDad
    @Anonymous


    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.
  39. NYTimes
    Pakistan
    Drug resistant typhoid strain

    • Replies: @Kylie
    @Goatweed

    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?

  40. 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.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    @Anon


    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
    @Anon


    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.
  41. @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.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @WowJustWow, @Wizard of Oz, @AndrewR, @Cagey Beast

    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.

    • Replies: @JackOH
    @WowJustWow

    "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.

    Replies: @utu, @utu

    , @Pericles
    @WowJustWow


    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.
  42. @Lot
    @Lot

    http://shoebat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/2rzxrih.jpg

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

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @bored identity, @Mr. Anon

    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

  43. @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.

    Replies: @Gary in Gramercy, @Mishra, @Reg Cæsar, @Achmed E. Newman

    How about James Earl Jones?

    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    @Gary in Gramercy

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

  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.

    Replies: @Gary in Gramercy, @Mishra, @Reg Cæsar, @Achmed E. Newman

    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.

  45. 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/

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @syonredux


    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."
  46. @WowJustWow
    @Harry Baldwin

    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.

    Replies: @JackOH, @Pericles

    “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.

    • Replies: @utu
    @JackOH

    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.

    Replies: @Anon, @WowJustWow

    , @utu
    @JackOH


    America’s once great cities
     
    You got carried away. American cities were never great.
  47. @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.

    Replies: @Wizard of Oz

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

    Interesting that his name suggests Muslim ancestry.

    • Replies: @Romanian
    @Wizard of Oz

    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.

  48. @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.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @WowJustWow, @Wizard of Oz, @AndrewR, @Cagey Beast

    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.

  49. 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!

  50. @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.

    Replies: @Gary in Gramercy, @Mishra, @Reg Cæsar, @Achmed E. Newman

    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.

    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    @Reg Cæsar

    Reg, nicely stated, thank you for the reply.

  51. @syonredux
    @Lot

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KsljBj3UEI

    Replies: @Peter Johnson, @Old fogey, @Dube, @byrresheim

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

  52. @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.

    Replies: @Red Little Smurf

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

  53. 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.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Massimo Heitor


    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.
  54. @Lot
    @Lot

    http://shoebat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/2rzxrih.jpg

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

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @bored identity, @Mr. Anon

    Muslims mooning western civilization.

  55. 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.

  56. Only parts of the original audio and video of the speech have survived.

  57. But somebody had a sound-alike voice read out the whole speech and put it up on YouTube…

  58. 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.

    • Replies: @Ali Choudhury
    @Anonymous

    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.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @TheUmpteenthGermanOnHere, @Perspective, @Lot, @Romanian

    , @L Woods
    @Anonymous

    No thanks.

  59. @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.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @WowJustWow, @Wizard of Oz, @AndrewR, @Cagey Beast

    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.

  60. 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.

    • Replies: @Lurker
    @DFH

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

  61. 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.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    @Anonymous

    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
    @Anonymous

    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?

    Replies: @J.Ross

  62. @Anonymous
    @Harry Baldwin

    And again:

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

    Replies: @AndrewR, @AnotherDad

    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.

    • Replies: @Perspective
    @AndrewR

    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

  63. 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.

  64. 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

    • Replies: @Jason Liu
    @Johann Ricke

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

    , @Autochthon
    @Johann Ricke

    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!
  65. 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?

    • Replies: @Anonym
    @Anonymous

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

    , @Not Raul
    @Anonymous

    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.

  66. 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.

    • Disagree: Harry Baldwin
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Ali Choudhury

    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
    @Ali Choudhury

    It was a prescient and sensible speech.

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

    Replies: @BenKenobi, @Anon

    , @Saxon
    @Ali Choudhury

    "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
    @Ali Choudhury

    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
    @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.
     
    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.

    Replies: @Hunsdon, @Anonym, @Ali Choudhury, @3g4me, @Lot

    , @J.Ross
    @Ali Choudhury

    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
    @Ali Choudhury

    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."

    Replies: @George, @Ali Choudhury

    , @Clyde
    @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.
     
    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
    @Ali Choudhury

    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.

  67. Anonymous[817] • Disclaimer says:
    @Lot
    https://i.imgur.com/aXa1e0w.jpg

    Replies: @syonredux, @MikeatMikedotMike, @Anonym, @Anonymous, @Dieter Kief, @Corvinus, @ThreeCranes

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

  68. @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.

    Replies: @Peter Johnson

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

  69. @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.

    Replies: @Ali Choudhury, @L Woods

    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.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Ali Choudhury

    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.

    Replies: @Ali Choudhury

    , @TheUmpteenthGermanOnHere
    @Ali Choudhury

    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.

    Replies: @German_reader

    , @Perspective
    @Ali Choudhury

    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
    @Ali Choudhury

    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
    @Ali Choudhury

    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.

  70. @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.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief, @Harry Baldwin

    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!

  71. @JackOH
    @WowJustWow

    "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.

    Replies: @utu, @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.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @utu

    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
    @utu

    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.

  72. @Lot
    https://i.imgur.com/aXa1e0w.jpg

    Replies: @syonredux, @MikeatMikedotMike, @Anonym, @Anonymous, @Dieter Kief, @Corvinus, @ThreeCranes

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

  73. @JackOH
    @WowJustWow

    "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.

    Replies: @utu, @utu

    America’s once great cities

    You got carried away. American cities were never great.

  74. 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

    Replies: @Anonymous, @WowJustWow, @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?

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    @Anonymous

    Yep, guess she has the whip hand now.

  75. @Alden
    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.

    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]

  76. Don’t forget to upload the cut, thanks Steve.

  77. @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.

    Replies: @Gary in Gramercy, @Mishra, @Reg Cæsar, @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!

    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    @Achmed E. Newman

    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
    @Achmed E. Newman


    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.
  78. @Dr. X
    @syonredux


    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.

    Replies: @Nigerian Nationalist

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

    Skipped your History class there mate?

  79. @Dr. X
    @Lot

    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...

    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.

  80. @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?

    Replies: @Anonym, @Not Raul

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

  81. 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…).

  82. @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/

    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:

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

  83. 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.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @The Anti-Gnostic, @Saxon, @Almost Missouri, @AnotherDad, @J.Ross, @J.Ross, @Clyde, @DFH

    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.

  84. @Ali Choudhury
    @Anonymous

    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.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @TheUmpteenthGermanOnHere, @Perspective, @Lot, @Romanian

    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.

    • Replies: @Ali Choudhury
    @Anonymous

    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/

    Replies: @Anonymous

  85. @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.

    Replies: @Millennial, @jim jones, @Desiderius, @PV van der Byl, @songbird, @Curtis Mouser I, @Excal

    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!

  86. @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

    Replies: @Jason Liu, @Autochthon

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

  87. @Ali Choudhury
    @Anonymous

    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.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @TheUmpteenthGermanOnHere, @Perspective, @Lot, @Romanian

    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.

    • Replies: @German_reader
    @TheUmpteenthGermanOnHere

    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.

    Replies: @Anon

  88. @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.
     

    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.

    • Agree: Romanian
  89. @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.

    Replies: @Millennial, @jim jones, @Desiderius, @PV van der Byl, @songbird, @Curtis Mouser I, @Excal

    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.

  90. 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.”

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    @Aeoli Pera

    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

  91. 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.

  92. @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.

    Replies: @Cagey Beast, @Anonymous

    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.

  93. @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?

    Replies: @LemmusLemmus, @The Alarmist, @Saxon, @Jack D, @Anonymous

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

  94. @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.

    Replies: @Ali Choudhury, @L Woods

    No thanks.

  95. @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.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @WowJustWow, @Wizard of Oz, @AndrewR, @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!

    • LOL: The Anti-Gnostic
  96. 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).

    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    @dearieme

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

    , @Hunsdon
    @dearieme

    dearieme: Lucky you!

  97. @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.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @The Anti-Gnostic, @Saxon, @Almost Missouri, @AnotherDad, @J.Ross, @J.Ross, @Clyde, @DFH

    It was a prescient and sensible speech.

    • Replies: @BenKenobi
    @The Anti-Gnostic

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

    "Remove your governments, they are not for you."

    , @Anon
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    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.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @Yak-15, @dfordoom

  98. 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.

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

    Bullshit.

  100. @Ali Choudhury
    @Anonymous

    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.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @TheUmpteenthGermanOnHere, @Perspective, @Lot, @Romanian

    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.

  101. 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.

    Replies: @Cagey Beast, @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.

  102. “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

  103. @AndrewR
    @Anonymous

    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.

    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:

  104. @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.

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @bomag

    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.

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

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Escher

    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.

    Replies: @Eustace Tilley (not)

  106. @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.

    Replies: @Dieter Kief, @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?

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Harry Baldwin

    This is a very important point.

  107. @Anonymous
    @Harry Baldwin

    And again:

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

    Replies: @AndrewR, @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.

  108. • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    @Ozymandias

    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.

  109. 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.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @AnotherDad


    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
    @AnotherDad

    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.

  110. 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.

  111. @Lot
    https://i.imgur.com/aXa1e0w.jpg

    Replies: @syonredux, @MikeatMikedotMike, @Anonym, @Anonymous, @Dieter Kief, @Corvinus, @ThreeCranes

    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.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Corvinus

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

    , @Perspective
    @Corvinus

    Disingenuous and spurious.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    , @Faraday's Bobcat
    @Corvinus

    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.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    , @Rosie
    @Corvinus


    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.

    Replies: @res, @Mishra

    , @ThreeCranes
    @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.

    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.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    , @donut
    @Corvinus

    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 ?

  112. @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?

    Replies: @LemmusLemmus, @The Alarmist, @Saxon, @Jack D, @Anonymous

    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.

  113. @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?

    Replies: @LemmusLemmus, @The Alarmist, @Saxon, @Jack D, @Anonymous

    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.

  114. > 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.

  115. @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.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @The Anti-Gnostic, @Saxon, @Almost Missouri, @AnotherDad, @J.Ross, @J.Ross, @Clyde, @DFH

    “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.

  116. @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.

    Replies: @Lurker

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

  117. @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.

    Replies: @Saxon, @ben tillman

    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.

  118. @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

    Replies: @Lot, @istevefan, @Luke Lea, @Dr. X, @Eustace Tilley (not), @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.”

    • Replies: @Hunsdon
    @Corvinus

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

    , @Lot
    @Corvinus

    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?

    Replies: @Rosie, @Corvinus

    , @Lurker
    @Corvinus


    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.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  119. Anon[302] • Disclaimer says:
    @utu
    @JackOH

    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.

    Replies: @Anon, @WowJustWow

    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.

  120. @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.

    Replies: @Millennial, @jim jones, @Desiderius, @PV van der Byl, @songbird, @Curtis Mouser I, @Excal

    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.

  121. @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.
     

    Replies: @Desiderius, @L Woods

    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.

  122. @Corvinus
    @Lot

    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.”

    Replies: @Hunsdon, @Lot, @Lurker

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

    • LOL: Anonym
  123. @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.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @The Anti-Gnostic, @Saxon, @Almost Missouri, @AnotherDad, @J.Ross, @J.Ross, @Clyde, @DFH

    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?

  124. @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?

    Replies: @LemmusLemmus, @The Alarmist, @Saxon, @Jack D, @Anonymous

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

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @Jack D

    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."

  125. @Lot
    https://i.imgur.com/aXa1e0w.jpg

    Replies: @syonredux, @MikeatMikedotMike, @Anonym, @Anonymous, @Dieter Kief, @Corvinus, @ThreeCranes

    What’s that bobby doing in Addis Ababa?

  126. @The Anti-Gnostic
    @Ali Choudhury

    It was a prescient and sensible speech.

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

    Replies: @BenKenobi, @Anon

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

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

  127. 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!

  128. @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.
     

    Replies: @Desiderius, @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.

  129. @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.

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @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.

  130. @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.

    Replies: @Millennial, @jim jones, @Desiderius, @PV van der Byl, @songbird, @Curtis Mouser I, @Excal

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

  131. @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.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @The Anti-Gnostic, @Saxon, @Almost Missouri, @AnotherDad, @J.Ross, @J.Ross, @Clyde, @DFH

    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.

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob, German_reader, BenKenobi, Harry Baldwin, a reader
    • Replies: @Hunsdon
    @AnotherDad

    Hear him, hear him.

    , @Anonym
    @AnotherDad

    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
    @AnotherDad

    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.

    Replies: @ThreeCranes, @Anon, @Anonymous, @Benjaminl

    , @3g4me
    @AnotherDad

    @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
    @AnotherDad

    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.

    Replies: @Neil Templeton

  132. @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

    Replies: @Anonymous, @WowJustWow, @Anonymous

    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.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    @WowJustWow

    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.

    Replies: @Lot

    , @Stan Adams
    @WowJustWow


    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?
  133. @MikeatMikedotMike
    @Lot

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

    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.

  134. Anon[395] • Disclaimer says:
    @The Anti-Gnostic
    @Ali Choudhury

    It was a prescient and sensible speech.

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

    Replies: @BenKenobi, @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.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    @Anon

    "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.

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic, @Anon

    , @Yak-15
    @Anon

    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
    @Anon


    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.

    Replies: @Anon

  135. @Corvinus
    @Lot

    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.

    Replies: @Anon, @Perspective, @Faraday's Bobcat, @Rosie, @ThreeCranes, @donut

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

  136. @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.
     

    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.

  137. @Corvinus
    @Lot

    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.

    Replies: @Anon, @Perspective, @Faraday's Bobcat, @Rosie, @ThreeCranes, @donut

    Disingenuous and spurious.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Perspective

    "Disingenuous and spurious."

    In what specific ways? See, if you are going to make that charge, back it up.

  138. @Corvinus
    @Lot

    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.

    Replies: @Anon, @Perspective, @Faraday's Bobcat, @Rosie, @ThreeCranes, @donut

    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.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Faraday's Bobcat

    "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.

    Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson, @Neil Templeton

  139. @Corvinus
    @Lot

    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.

    Replies: @Anon, @Perspective, @Faraday's Bobcat, @Rosie, @ThreeCranes, @donut

    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.

    • Replies: @res
    @Rosie


    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
    @Rosie

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

    I agree that engagement is pretty much without purpose.

  140. @AnotherDad
    @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.
     
    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.

    Replies: @Hunsdon, @Anonym, @Ali Choudhury, @3g4me, @Lot

    Hear him, hear him.

  141. 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)?

  142. @utu
    @JackOH

    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.

    Replies: @Anon, @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.

    • Agree: utu
  143. @Rosie
    @Corvinus


    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.

    Replies: @res, @Mishra

    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.

  144. @Corvinus
    @Lot

    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.”

    Replies: @Hunsdon, @Lot, @Lurker

    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?

    • Replies: @Rosie
    @Lot


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

    Replies: @Lot

    , @Corvinus
    @Lot

    "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?

    Replies: @AnotherDad

  145. @Lot
    @Corvinus

    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?

    Replies: @Rosie, @Corvinus

    See the problem?

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

    • Replies: @Lot
    @Rosie

    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.

    Replies: @Yak-15, @L Woods

  146. @Ali Choudhury
    @Anonymous

    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.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @TheUmpteenthGermanOnHere, @Perspective, @Lot, @Romanian

    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.

  147. Anonymous [AKA "John Greer"] 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?

    Replies: @LemmusLemmus, @The Alarmist, @Saxon, @Jack D, @Anonymous

    Only part of the speech was recorded at the time.

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @Anonymous

    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.

  148. @WowJustWow
    @Clyde

    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.

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @Stan Adams

    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.

    • Replies: @Lot
    @AnotherDad

    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

  149. 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.

  150. @Rosie
    @Lot


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

    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.

    • Replies: @Yak-15
    @Lot

    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
    @Lot

    Cool concern troll bro

  151. @AnotherDad
    @WowJustWow

    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.

    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.

  152. @AnotherDad
    @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.
     
    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.

    Replies: @Hunsdon, @Anonym, @Ali Choudhury, @3g4me, @Lot

    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.

  153. @Gary in Gramercy
    @Buffalo Joe

    How about James Earl Jones?

    Replies: @Buffalo Joe

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

  154. @Reg Cæsar
    @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.
     
    In murder cases, they call this "the smoking gun". And evidence of premeditation.

    Replies: @Buffalo Joe

    Reg, nicely stated, thank you for the reply.

  155. @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?

    Replies: @Anonym, @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.

  156. Anonymous [AKA "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.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Anonymous

    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
    @Anonymous


    Corvinus,

    You ignorant slut.
     
    Sums that up, eh?

    Replies: @Brutusale

  157. @Corvinus
    @Lot

    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.

    Replies: @Anon, @Perspective, @Faraday's Bobcat, @Rosie, @ThreeCranes, @donut

    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.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @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."

    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.

  158. @Rosie
    @Corvinus


    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.

    Replies: @res, @Mishra

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

    I agree that engagement is pretty much without purpose.

  159. “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?”

  160. @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.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @The Anti-Gnostic, @Saxon, @Almost Missouri, @AnotherDad, @J.Ross, @J.Ross, @Clyde, @DFH

    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.

  161. @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.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @The Anti-Gnostic, @Saxon, @Almost Missouri, @AnotherDad, @J.Ross, @J.Ross, @Clyde, @DFH

    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.”

    • Replies: @George
    @J.Ross

    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

    Replies: @J.Ross

    , @Ali Choudhury
    @J.Ross

    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.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Anon

  162. @AnotherDad
    @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.
     
    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.

    Replies: @Hunsdon, @Anonym, @Ali Choudhury, @3g4me, @Lot

    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.

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    @Ali Choudhury

    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
    @Ali Choudhury

    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?

    Replies: @Ali Choudhury

    , @Anonymous
    @Ali Choudhury

    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
    @Ali Choudhury

    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.
     
  163. @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.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @The Anti-Gnostic, @Saxon, @Almost Missouri, @AnotherDad, @J.Ross, @J.Ross, @Clyde, @DFH

    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.

  164. @WowJustWow
    @Harry Baldwin

    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.

    Replies: @JackOH, @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.

  165. @J.Ross
    @Ali Choudhury

    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."

    Replies: @George, @Ali Choudhury

    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

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @George

    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

  166. Enoch was wrong.

    It’s fountains of blood.

  167. @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.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @The Anti-Gnostic, @Saxon, @Almost Missouri, @AnotherDad, @J.Ross, @J.Ross, @Clyde, @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.

  168. @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."

    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

  169. 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.

    • Replies: @Lurker
    @Anon

    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.

  170. @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

    Replies: @Anonymous, @WowJustWow, @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.”

  171. @Ali Choudhury
    @AnotherDad

    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.

    Replies: @ThreeCranes, @Anon, @Anonymous, @Benjaminl

    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?

  172. @Achmed E. Newman
    @Buffalo Joe

    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!

    Replies: @Buffalo Joe, @Charles Erwin Wilson

    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.”

  173. @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.

    Replies: @Millennial, @jim jones, @Desiderius, @PV van der Byl, @songbird, @Curtis Mouser I, @Excal

    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.

  174. @Anonymous
    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.

    Replies: @Anon, @Anonymous

    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)

  175. @George
    @J.Ross

    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

    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

  176. 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.

  177. @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.

    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.

  178. @Ali Choudhury
    @AnotherDad

    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.

    Replies: @ThreeCranes, @Anon, @Anonymous, @Benjaminl

    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?

    • Replies: @Ali Choudhury
    @Anon

    That already happened. It was called the British Empire.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @dcite, @Hunsdon, @Saxon, @Bill B.

  179. @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).

    Replies: @Buffalo Joe, @Hunsdon

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

  180. @AnotherDad
    @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.
     
    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.

    Replies: @Hunsdon, @Anonym, @Ali Choudhury, @3g4me, @Lot

    @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.

  181. @Anon
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    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.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @Yak-15, @dfordoom

    “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.

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    @YetAnotherAnon

    Britain is discovering "White flight."

    , @Anon
    @YetAnotherAnon

    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.

  182. @TheUmpteenthGermanOnHere
    @Ali Choudhury

    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.

    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.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @German_reader

    Diane Abbot and Sadiq Khan never integrated, but yet if you agree with Enoch Powell you will be locked up.

  183. @Eustace Tilley (not)
    @Lot

    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.

    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.”

  184. @Anon
    @Ali Choudhury

    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?

    Replies: @Ali Choudhury

    That already happened. It was called the British Empire.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Ali Choudhury

    So you agree with his point.

    Replies: @Ali Choudhury

    , @dcite
    @Ali Choudhury

    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.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    , @Hunsdon
    @Ali Choudhury

    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?

    Replies: @Ali Choudhury

    , @Saxon
    @Ali Choudhury

    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.
    @Ali Choudhury

    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”.

    Replies: @Sunbeam

  185. @YetAnotherAnon
    @Anon

    "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.

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic, @Anon

    Britain is discovering “White flight.”

  186. @J.Ross
    @Ali Choudhury

    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."

    Replies: @George, @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.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Ali Choudhury

    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
    @Ali Choudhury


    Do you mean Charles I? It was his pro Catholicism
     
    Someone didn't pay enough attention in history class.
  187. @Escher
    IMO BBC is resorting to sensationalism to boost its sagging ratings.

    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.

    • Replies: @Eustace Tilley (not)
    @J.Ross

    If sanity would be preserved
    And civilization conserved,
    Please trash your TV
    To defund BBC
    And treat Minitrue just as deserved.

  188. @Harry Baldwin
    @Anonymous

    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?

    Replies: @J.Ross

    This is a very important point.

  189. @Ali Choudhury
    @Anon

    That already happened. It was called the British Empire.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @dcite, @Hunsdon, @Saxon, @Bill B.

    So you agree with his point.

    • Replies: @Ali Choudhury
    @J.Ross

    I am not Indian so whatever happens there is of little interest to me.

    Replies: @J.Ross

  190. @Ali Choudhury
    @J.Ross

    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.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Anon

    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.

  191. 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.

  192. @Perspective
    @Corvinus

    Disingenuous and spurious.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “Disingenuous and spurious.”

    In what specific ways? See, if you are going to make that charge, back it up.

    • Troll: YetAnotherAnon
  193. @Faraday's Bobcat
    @Corvinus

    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.

    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.

    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson
    @Corvinus


    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?

    Replies: @Corvinus

    , @Neil Templeton
    @Corvinus

    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.

    Replies: @Ali Choudhury, @YetAnotherAnon, @Corvinus

  194. @Anonymous
    @Ali Choudhury

    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.

    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/

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Ali Choudhury

    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.

    Replies: @Ali Choudhury, @Anonymous

  195. @J.Ross
    @Ali Choudhury

    So you agree with his point.

    Replies: @Ali Choudhury

    I am not Indian so whatever happens there is of little interest to me.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Ali Choudhury

    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?

  196. @ThreeCranes
    @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.

    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.

    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.

  197. @Anonymous
    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.

    Replies: @Anon, @Anonymous

    Corvinus,

    You ignorant slut.

    Sums that up, eh?

    • Replies: @Brutusale
    @Anonymous

    For those too young to remember the origin:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c91XUyg9iWM

  198. @YetAnotherAnon
    @Anon

    "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.

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic, @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.

  199. @Lot
    @Corvinus

    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?

    Replies: @Rosie, @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?

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    @Corvinus

    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.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  200. @German_reader
    @TheUmpteenthGermanOnHere

    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.

    Replies: @Anon

    Diane Abbot and Sadiq Khan never integrated, but yet if you agree with Enoch Powell you will be locked up.

  201. @Anon
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    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.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @Yak-15, @dfordoom

    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.

  202. @Lot
    @Rosie

    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.

    Replies: @Yak-15, @L Woods

    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.

  203. @Ali Choudhury
    @Anon

    That already happened. It was called the British Empire.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @dcite, @Hunsdon, @Saxon, @Bill B.

    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.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @dcite

    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.

  204. @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

    Replies: @Jason Liu, @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!

  205. @Anonymous
    @Clyde

    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?

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin

    Yep, guess she has the whip hand now.

  206. @Achmed E. Newman
    @Buffalo Joe

    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!

    Replies: @Buffalo Joe, @Charles Erwin Wilson

    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.

  207. @Corvinus
    @Faraday's Bobcat

    "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.

    Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson, @Neil Templeton

    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?

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Charles Erwin Wilson

    "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.

  208. @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.

    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.

  209. @Corvinus
    @Lot

    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.”

    Replies: @Hunsdon, @Lot, @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.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Lurker

    "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.

  210. @Anon
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    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.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @Yak-15, @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.

    • Agree: jim jones
    • Replies: @Anon
    @dfordoom

    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?

  211. @AnotherDad
    @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.
     
    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.

    Replies: @Hunsdon, @Anonym, @Ali Choudhury, @3g4me, @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.

    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    @Lot

    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?

    Replies: @Lot

  212. @Lot
    @Rosie

    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.

    Replies: @Yak-15, @L Woods

    Cool concern troll bro

  213. @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).

    Replies: @Buffalo Joe, @Hunsdon

    dearieme: Lucky you!

  214. @Jack D
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

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

    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.”

  215. @Anonymous
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Only part of the speech was recorded at the time.

    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.

  216. Anon[395] • Disclaimer says:
    @dfordoom
    @Anon


    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.

    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?

  217. @Ali Choudhury
    @Anon

    That already happened. It was called the British Empire.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @dcite, @Hunsdon, @Saxon, @Bill B.

    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?

    • Replies: @Ali Choudhury
    @Hunsdon

    No and I don't see how the analogy applies. It usually isn't immigrants and their descendants who make decisions on immigration policy.

  218. @Corvinus
    @Faraday's Bobcat

    "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.

    Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson, @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.

    • Replies: @Ali Choudhury
    @Neil Templeton

    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.

    Replies: @Disordered

    , @YetAnotherAnon
    @Neil Templeton

    Corvinus - * long, reasoned, articulate post follows *

    You must have a lot of time to waste.

    , @Corvinus
    @Neil Templeton

    "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.

    Replies: @Neil Templeton, @Anonymous

  219. @syonredux
    @Lot

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KsljBj3UEI

    Replies: @Peter Johnson, @Old fogey, @Dube, @byrresheim

    Thank you very much for this video. It is sobering, and rings true.

  220. @Lot
    @AnotherDad

    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.

    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?

    • Replies: @Lot
    @Neil Templeton

    "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.

    Replies: @Neil Templeton

  221. @Ali Choudhury
    @J.Ross

    I am not Indian so whatever happens there is of little interest to me.

    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?

  222. @syonredux
    @Lot

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KsljBj3UEI

    Replies: @Peter Johnson, @Old fogey, @Dube, @byrresheim

    Precisely. “My gripe is: We were never asked.”

  223. @Neil Templeton
    @Corvinus

    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.

    Replies: @Ali Choudhury, @YetAnotherAnon, @Corvinus

    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.

    • Replies: @Disordered
    @Ali Choudhury

    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...

  224. @Hunsdon
    @Ali Choudhury

    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?

    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.

  225. Anonymous[817] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ali Choudhury
    @Anonymous

    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/

    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.

    • Replies: @Ali Choudhury
    @Anonymous

    Boris Johnson was seen as being more decisive in Leave winning which is why the Establishment is infuriated by him.

    , @Anonymous
    @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.

  226. Anonymous[817] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ali Choudhury
    @AnotherDad

    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.

    Replies: @ThreeCranes, @Anon, @Anonymous, @Benjaminl

    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.

  227. @Anonymous
    @Ali Choudhury

    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.

    Replies: @Ali Choudhury, @Anonymous

    Boris Johnson was seen as being more decisive in Leave winning which is why the Establishment is infuriated by him.

  228. 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.

  229. Anonymous[817] • Disclaimer says:
    @dcite
    @Ali Choudhury

    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.

    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.

  230. @Neil Templeton
    @Lot

    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?

    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.

    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    @Lot

    "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.

  231. Anonymous[817] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    @Ali Choudhury

    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.

    Replies: @Ali Choudhury, @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.

  232. @J.Ross
    @Escher

    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.

    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.

  233. @Ali Choudhury
    @Anon

    That already happened. It was called the British Empire.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @dcite, @Hunsdon, @Saxon, @Bill B.

    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.

  234. @Ali Choudhury
    @Anon

    That already happened. It was called the British Empire.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @dcite, @Hunsdon, @Saxon, @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”.

    • Replies: @Sunbeam
    @Bill B.

    "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.

  235. @Neil Templeton
    @Corvinus

    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.

    Replies: @Ali Choudhury, @YetAnotherAnon, @Corvinus

    Corvinus – * long, reasoned, articulate post follows *

    You must have a lot of time to waste.

  236. 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. “

  237. @Corvinus
    @Lot

    "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?

    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.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @AnotherDad

    "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.

  238. @Bill B.
    @Ali Choudhury

    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”.

    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.

  239. @Anonymous
    @Anonymous


    Corvinus,

    You ignorant slut.
     
    Sums that up, eh?

    Replies: @Brutusale

    For those too young to remember the origin:

    • LOL: donut
  240. @Charles Erwin Wilson
    @Corvinus


    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?

    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.

  241. @Corvinus
    @Lot

    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.

    Replies: @Anon, @Perspective, @Faraday's Bobcat, @Rosie, @ThreeCranes, @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 ?

  242. @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.

    Replies: @Millennial, @jim jones, @Desiderius, @PV van der Byl, @songbird, @Curtis Mouser I, @Excal

    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

    • Replies: @DFH
    @Curtis Mouser I

    The taigs are going downhill even faster than we have, both in demographic and moral terms

  243. 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.

    • Troll: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Nick Diaz

    >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
    @Nick Diaz

    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.

  244. @Ali Choudhury
    @AnotherDad

    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.

    Replies: @ThreeCranes, @Anon, @Anonymous, @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

    [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.

  245. @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.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Neil Templeton

    >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?

  246. @Neil Templeton
    @Corvinus

    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.

    Replies: @Ali Choudhury, @YetAnotherAnon, @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.

    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    @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. 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.

    Replies: @Corvinus, @PV van der Byl, @Disordered

    , @Anonymous
    @Corvinus

    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.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  247. 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.

  248. @AnotherDad
    @Corvinus

    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.

    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.

  249. @Lurker
    @Corvinus


    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.

    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.

  250. @Curtis Mouser I
    @p s c

    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

    Replies: @DFH

    The taigs are going downhill even faster than we have, both in demographic and moral terms

  251. @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

    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.

    • Agree: Kylie
  252. @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.

    Replies: @Millennial, @jim jones, @Desiderius, @PV van der Byl, @songbird, @Curtis Mouser I, @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.

  253. @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.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @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.

  254. 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…

  255. @Corvinus
    @Neil Templeton

    "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.

    Replies: @Neil Templeton, @Anonymous

    “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.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @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."

    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
    @Neil Templeton

    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.

    Replies: @Neil Templeton

    , @Disordered
    @Neil Templeton

    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...

  256. @Goatweed
    NYTimes
    Pakistan
    Drug resistant typhoid strain

    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?

  257. @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.

    Replies: @SteveRogers42

    “Refugee” females get mandatory Norplant as a condition of asylum.

  258. 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

  259. @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.

    Replies: @Saxon, @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?

  260. @Lot
    @Neil Templeton

    "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.

    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.

  261. @syonredux
    @Lot

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KsljBj3UEI

    Replies: @Peter Johnson, @Old fogey, @Dube, @byrresheim

    2 late.

  262. @Ali Choudhury
    @Neil Templeton

    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.

    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…

  263. @Corvinus
    @Neil Templeton

    "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.

    Replies: @Neil Templeton, @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.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Anonymous

    "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.

  264. @Neil Templeton
    @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. 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.

    Replies: @Corvinus, @PV van der Byl, @Disordered

    “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.

  265. @Anonymous
    @Corvinus

    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.

    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.

  266. @Neil Templeton
    @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. 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.

    Replies: @Corvinus, @PV van der Byl, @Disordered

    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.

    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    @PV van der Byl

    Thanks for the link. The Irish are tough, and resilient.

  267. @Neil Templeton
    @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. 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.

    Replies: @Corvinus, @PV van der Byl, @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…

  268. @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”.”

    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.

  269. @Wizard of Oz
    @Ivy

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

    Interesting that his name suggests Muslim ancestry.

    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.

  270. @Ali Choudhury
    @Anonymous

    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.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @TheUmpteenthGermanOnHere, @Perspective, @Lot, @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.

  271. @PV van der Byl
    @Neil Templeton

    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.

    Replies: @Neil Templeton

    Thanks for the link. The Irish are tough, and resilient.

  272. @WowJustWow
    @Clyde

    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.

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @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?

  273. @Ali Choudhury
    @J.Ross

    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.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Anon

    Do you mean Charles I? It was his pro Catholicism

    Someone didn’t pay enough attention in history class.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS