Race realism grows but....
Robert Henderson
" A consensus seems to be emerging that the multiculturalism experiment
was necessary but that after 30 years its time is over." David Harrison
(S Tel 8 Oct). Really? What consensus is this?
Liberal bigots are trying to avoid their responsibility for the
damage done by mass immigration by pretending that most people agreed
with multiculturalism. Of course, the only people who believed in
multiculturalism, if any did, were the liberals, who have used their
control of politics and the media to censor any dissident voice for more
than 30 years.
No one actually wants the diversity for themselves. Those who advocated
it, white liberals, have generally taken great care to remove
themselves from the immigrants as the massive " middleclass white
flight" from places such as London vividly demonstrates. The question
Abe Lincoln put to the pro-slavers ("What is this good thing no man
wants for himself?") is apt in the case of the multiculturalists.
Alasdair Palmer and Karyn Miller (S Tel 8 Oct) write that this white
flight drives them to "The depressing conclusion - that the middle
classes are, despite the rhetoric of inclusiveness, no more welcoming or
inclusive than some of their working-class compatriots - might turn out
to be correct." What? They did not notice the phenomenon and realise its
implications before?
In the same ST issue Patience Wheatcroft writes: " The tyranny of
political correctness has for years suppressed the qualms that many
Britons have had about what was happening to their country." And that is
meant to be an excuse for no one with a public voice speaking out for
thirty years or more?
RH
--
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
stewart...@hotmail.co.uk
Robert Henderson wrote:
> ...Liberal bigots are trying to evade their responsibility
>
> " A consensus seems to be emerging that the multiculturalism experiment
> was necessary but that after 30 years its time is over." David Harrison
> (S Tel 8 Oct). Really? What consensus is this?
I seemed to be under the impression that the consensus was held by
about 20-30% of people and the rest have always and will always be
opposed to mass immigration. The Tibetans don't like it, why should we?
Jon°
"the only people who believed in
multiculturalism, if any did, were the liberals, who have used their
control of politics and the media to censor any dissident voice for more
than 30 years."
............................................................................
......
I agree with what you say but I think your dating is wrong. The liberal
left leaning bien pessants have believed in the flooding of Britain by
foreign cultures for a lot longer then 30 years. Prior to thirty years ago
it may not have been called "multiculturalism".......The liberal-elite's
then called it "integration". What is in a name though? The left-wing
liberals believe that any word means what they want it to mean.
The prison sentences handed out to those whites who had revolted in the,
"Notting Hill Riots" against West Indians moving into their areas were
exemplary, they shocked the nation with the severity used. Now we can see
that this was the liberal-elite using the law to ensure that white
opposition to the importation of black labour would not be tolerated. Judge
Salmon was noted for his liberalism...............Well in some areas but not
in the areas where white Englishmen opposed their country being taken over.
The Notting Hill riots were in 1958...........48 years ago, it was around
this time that the first mumbling's of "Multiculturalism" began to be
heard...............So I believe..
"Robert Henderson" <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
the Good Captain
stewart_bris...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
You've got to be talking 15 - 18% at the most, surely. The problem is
that figure incorporates the BBC, most of the BAFTA luvvies and TV
journalists, three quarters of the print media and most of the
politicians and political activists. Its a graphic illustration of how
a minority can usurp a culture and and destroy a nation from within.
Lenin was an amateur compared to these guys.
Crowley
Jon° wrote:
> I agree with what you say but I think your dating is wrong. The liberal
pensants
> The Notting Hill riots were in 1958...........48 years ago, it was around
> this time that the first mumbling's of "Multiculturalism" began to be
> heard...............So I believe..
Weren't you a Ted back in 58 Jon ?
stewart...@hotmail.co.uk
it was very rough. i have a vague memory of a 70-80% consistently
being polled as against mass immigration. this assumes the rest are
pro, whereas I imagine alot are don't knows or too scared to says.
Aramis Gunton
<phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> writes
>And that is meant to be an excuse for no one with a public voice
>speaking out for
>thirty years or more?
Indeed I am still agitated after reading the articles and many more of
their ilk appearing of late.
But, who is going to drag the advocates of this insanity onto a public
forum to explain themselves.
I posited elsewhere that the limited attention span 'they' now pray we
are attributed with will somehow mitigate against any serious fallout.
Perhaps Wee fucking Willy (Muppet) Hague should be dragged onto TV to
explain his castigation of John Townend back in 2001
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk_politics/1246591.stm
"John Townend spoke of "Commonwealth immigration" undermining Britain's
"homogenous Anglo-Saxon society" and said Enoch Powell had been right in
making pessimistic forecasts about its impact."
--
Aramis Gunton
Aramis Gunton
stewart...@hotmail.co.uk writes
>whereas I imagine alot are don't knows or too scared to says.
"Too scared" !!!!
This England eh???
--
Aramis Gunton
Smack
Wasn't it Enoch, who as the minsiter of employment ( or whatever) set
up the Windrush immigration?
Farmer Giles
It certainly has been going on for a lot longer than 30 years, Jon, but
that wasn't what RH was saying. What he was referring to was simply the
censoring of dissident voices over that period. Not since the most
active days of Enoch Powell has anyone been allowed to voice any real
opposition to immigration and multiculturalism.
Leaving that aside, I can't agree with this term 'liberal elite' in this
context. Those who have schemed for and planned this whole multi-ethnic
Britain exercise are far from liberal in any sense. They may have
recruited a naive band of useful idiots to do their bidding, a gang of
pseudo-liberal shysters who are happily and willingly executing the
grand plan - a plan that fully intends to sweep them aside when the time
is right - but 'liberal'? About as liberal as a rattlesnake!
Jon°
consequence, accept to a happy little pedantic.
"Ted", no I was in diapers. I bet you still have your old yellow socks,
brothel creepers and shark-skin shirt with a black tie. Do you wear them on
special occasions?
"Crowley" <crowley...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
Farmer Giles
No it wasn't. Do get your facts right. When the 'Windrush' came here -
which no-one 'set up' (or invited) we had a Labour Government - Enoch
was a Conservative, in case you didn't know.
Dr. Sunil
Is that why so many (the Dalai Lama included) migrated to India (a
country with 16 official languages)?
Energy
> ...Liberal bigots are trying to evade their responsibility
>
> " A consensus seems to be emerging that the multiculturalism experiment
> was necessary but that after 30 years its time is over." David Harrison
> (S Tel 8 Oct). Really? What consensus is this?
>
OK, so now we have multiculturalism as a bad idea. So now we get
"integration" instead. Now integration and assimilation can and do
work, they also can and do fail to work. Some Muslim immigrants will
become atheist grandfathers of pale skinned 3/4 white CofE church-going
children. Some native English people will become islamofascist suicide
bombers. If we want to find exceptions to any general rule we make then
we will find them, but we can also see statistical trends that are
highly reliable in aggregate. I think that it is this dichotomy,
between the individual case and the virtually statistically certain
aggregate case, that people are having a lot of trouble with, at both a
logical and moral level.
No amount of promotion of integration (or even the more extreme case of
complete assimilation) by the government can work *in a free society*.
It's a pipe dream. People who aren't going to integrate won't
integrate. I would also say the opposite too, *in a free society*, the
people who *are* going to integrate are going to do it anyway, even if
the government were against it. Perhaps if we turned our society into a
totalitarian state and introduced such social engineering and
anti-religious control as existed in the USSR it just might work
(though even that example seems not really to have worked in the long
run e.g. Chechnya). Abandoning faith schools may change things a bit
but basically anything the government can do to promote integration,
*while maintaining a free society*, is like trying to adjust the
temperature of a room by turning a light bulb off and on.
The only realistic solution is to restrict immigration, in type and in
number, in such a way that integration / assimilation of the immigrants
can reliably be predicted. Now we may disagree on how that can be
done:- no immigration whatsoever, only "anglosphere" immigration, only
EU immigration, only immigration from Christian countries, only "white"
immigration, only immigration from first world counties, only
non-Muslim immigration. There are many hypothetical approaches but at
this stage, IMO, agreeing the precise solution is not as important as
agreeing the principle. This is what I haven't seen from the
establishment and media talking heads. They have talked about
multiculturalism not working but have not then drawn the conclusion
that further immigration must be controlled in such a way to, at the
very least, not make the country any more incohesive than it already is.
True Blue
"the Good Captain" <concerned...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1160495197.5...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Well put.
Mikein...@aol.com
>
> Leaving that aside, I can't agree with this term 'liberal elite' in this
> context. Those who have schemed for and planned this whole multi-ethnic
> Britain exercise are far from liberal in any sense. They may have
> recruited a naive band of useful idiots to do their bidding, a gang of
> pseudo-liberal shysters who are happily and willingly executing the
> grand plan - a plan that fully intends to sweep them aside when the time
> is right - but 'liberal'? About as liberal as a rattlesnake!>
The BBC does not believe in diversity for themselves - except as a
piece of display. When I was BNP press officer I regularly visited
their studios. No one could fail to notice that the ethnics were
drivers cleaners and security.
Theoneinfrontofyou
news:vuC2jbGx...@nink.demon.co.uk...
Where are the "lions" instead of the "donkeys"?
Crowley
Jon° wrote:
> A word can mean what ever I want it to mean, S's & N's are of no
> consequence, accept to a happy little pedantic.
I've noticed you spelling it as "pessants" on several occasions so I
thought I'd put you straight to stop you embarrassing yourself but
seeing as you're being snotty about it I won't bother in future !
> "Ted", no I was in diapers.
WTF are "diapers", some yank word innit ?
> I bet you still have your old yellow socks,
> brothel creepers and shark-skin shirt with a black tie. Do you wear them on
> special occasions?
Come off it Jon, I'm a mere stripling compared to you, you old fart ;-)
Smack
You're right. However, I knew there was some connection to immigration
and Powell...this is from a Profile I found on Google..
"In fact, as Minister of Health in the early 1960s, Powell actually
oversaw the recruitment of non-white staff from Commonwealth countries
into the National Health Service. He later explained that recruitment
was in the hands of individual hospital authorities, and that there
were no restrictions on Commonwealth immigration; such controls came
into effect only in July 1962, two years after Powell became Minister
of Health."
Was Powell a Jew...he looked very Jewish?
Farmer Giles
> Jon° wrote:
>> A word can mean what ever I want it to mean, S's & N's are of no
>> consequence, accept to a happy little pedantic.
>
> I've noticed you spelling it as "pessants" on several occasions so I
> thought I'd put you straight to stop you embarrassing yourself but
> seeing as you're being snotty about it I won't bother in future !
>
>> "Ted", no I was in diapers.
>
> WTF are "diapers", some yank word innit ?
>
The word 'diapers' - for nappies - was commonly used in England in the
19th century (in fact it was even used by Shakespeare).
Farmer Giles
Sounds right, although nowadays they seem to have graduated to newsreaders.
Farmer Giles
Powell never denied the fact that during the time he was Minister of
Health nurses were recruited from the Commonwealth (although, as you
said, he didn't have anything to do with it personally) - but recruiting
a few dozen nurses is hardly requesting mass immigration.
>
> Was Powell a Jew...he looked very Jewish?
>
No he certainly wasn't Jewish.
pencil
"Farmer Giles" <Gi...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:gNidnRInu5J...@brightview.com...
They went under the guise of liberalism - tho your point is a valid
one.
>...Those who have schemed for and planned this whole multi-ethnic
pencil
> In message <+GiUl9mB...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>, Robert Henderson
> <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> writes
>>And that is meant to be an excuse for no one with a public voice
>>speaking out for
>>thirty years or more?
>
> Indeed I am still agitated after reading the articles and many more
> of their ilk appearing of late.
>
> But, who is going to drag the advocates of this insanity onto a
> public forum to explain themselves.
>
> I posited elsewhere that the limited attention span 'they' now pray
> we are attributed with will somehow mitigate against any serious
> fallout.
The ones with the memory will be the ones who are in charge.
Farmer Giles
But they didn't - and that's my entire point. The monkeys may have done,
but not the the organ-grinders.
Let Robeson Sing
> The only realistic solution is to restrict immigration, in type and in
> number, in such a way that integration / assimilation of the immigrants
> can reliably be predicted. Now we may disagree on how that can be
> done:- no immigration whatsoever, only "anglosphere" immigration, only
> EU immigration, only immigration from Christian countries, only "white"
> immigration, only immigration from first world counties, only
> non-Muslim immigration. There are many hypothetical approaches but at
> this stage, IMO, agreeing the precise solution is not as important as
> agreeing the principle. This is what I haven't seen from the
> establishment and media talking heads. They have talked about
> multiculturalism not working but have not then drawn the conclusion
> that further immigration must be controlled in such a way to, at the
> very least, not make the country any more incohesive than it already is.
Great post. I wouldn't go along with a skin colour bar though, although
I believe immigration should be virtually ended anyway for other
reasons. I'd be more inclined to look at deportations of any immigrants
involved in plans to attack this country, where they are convicted. As
for the British nationals involved in such things, perhaps we can send
them to the country of their parents or grandparents origin?. If they so
badly want Sharia Law, then we'll pay the airfare and kick them off at
Islamabad or wherever and they can see what it's like for real?. I don't
think totalitarianism is required to sort the mess out but authoritarian
polices on this issue, sadly, may be inevitable. In many parts in the
country, we could have own Northern Ireland in the near future, unless
we get to grips with it now.
Aramis Gunton
<pencil...@ntlworld.com> writes
>> I posited elsewhere that the limited attention span 'they' now pray
>> we are attributed with will somehow mitigate against any serious
>> fallout.
>
>The ones with the memory will be the ones who are in charge.
Will we collectively have the wherewithal to undertake that which may
well be essential?
It's akin to allowing a neighbour to continually deposit shit against
one's side wall. At first it is a small pile of poo and one may not
consider it a sufficient threat resultant in a requirement to dig in
one's fingers and remove said excrement.
However as time progresses and one's neighbour emboldened by your
inactivity discharges ever more shit against your wall the smell becomes
ever more obvious and the deed required to redress the injustice takes
on ever more extreme ramifications.
Whereas at the beginning a dirty stinky finger was the down side of
action now a full body suit of shit may result from remedial action.
True one should in retrospect of acted forcibly out the outset but
prevailing social mores dictated otherwise.
Now however inaction is no longer an option should you wish your
existence to progress as always desired.
It's a thorny subject indeed.
--
Aramis Gunton
Energy
Well I don't necessarily disagree with all of that, but dealing with
those involved in plans to attack us is a (morally) relatively easy
matter. However they are just the heads of a hydra. The deeper problem
is the underlying ideology behind them. That ideology exists, some say
as Islam itself, others that it has Islam as it's soil if not it's
substance. I don't really want to get into that distinction right now
until I've developed some points further. We cannot solve the problem
of Islamism by locking up lots of Muslims who plan attacks while having
(say) immigration policies that allow the proportion of Muslims in the
country to steadily increase into double figures, while Wahhabist
doctrines are preached in more and more mosques via Saudi petrodollars.
So as I see it we have the choice of somewhere in the continuum between
these two poles,
A) Simply stop all Muslim immigration and do everything to prevent
their proportionate population growth, perhaps even diluting it through
introducing assimilating immigrants if such could be shown to work.
Perhaps adjustments to the welfare state could have some influence.
Then we could preserve a freer society. Deal wth Islamist terrorism as
a law enforcement matter. The smaller the number of Muslims the easier
to deal with it that way.
B) Do not reduce Muslim immigration. Do an Ataturk and come down on
Islamism. This will mean abandoning some of our traditional freedoms.
Perhaps banning forms of Islam or (as in Turkey) put all mosques under
government control and restrictions. In extremis Islam itself could be
banned outright from being practiced, on the grounds of being a
treasonous or subversive ideology. If this fails, as it has several
times in Turkey, dealing with Islamist violence will likely become a
military rather than police matter.
Now we don't know exactly what choices we have because we don't know
how, for example, Muslim total fertility rates are going to pan out in
the next few decades. Perhaps B will become inevitable even if we
restrict immigration now. Perhaps Muslims will leak out significant
numbers of apostates. But I see A and B as the two sides of the
pendulum. If you want lots of Muslim immigrants then you must pay a
price in abandoning traditional British freedoms. If you want to
preserve those freedoms then we need to reduce further Muslim
immigration and the sooner the better.
I prefer A. At the moment the establishment seem to be wanting to
maintain present Muslim immigration levels (or at least they wont
openly talk about restricting them), while containing Islamist violence
with the police and pursuing a policy of "integration" that will mean
that Muslims and non-Muslims will eventually find a harmonious
relationship at some future date and Islamism will thus be defeated as
the "perversion of Islam" that it (in their conception) is. This is not
going to work. I suspect that much of this approach is just
procrastination.
gringogirl
today a woman from india -or a hindu as i call them , won the booker
prize , over a welsh woman who was considered the best chance.
her book is about "globalism" and it is set in India and new york
city. gag me. the united states is now filling up with indians who
are being imported strictly for the purpose of taking american jobs ,
even when we have millions of unemployed.
next, I read in the United states paper- that scottish women and
Nigerian males are having a go at breeding .... oh great ....
www.numbersusa.com
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
Throw in some guns and coke and you have a "vibrant multicultural
community". Innit.
--
Dirk
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress - The UK's only occult talk show
Presented by Dirk Bruere and Marc Power on ResonanceFM
Boed...@isp.com
Jon° wrote:
> R. H.
>
> "the only people who believed in
> multiculturalism, if any did, were the liberals, who have used their
> control of politics and the media to censor any dissident voice for more
> than 30 years."
> ............................................................................
> ......
>
> foreign cultures for a lot longer then 30 years. Prior to thirty years ago
> it may not have been called "multiculturalism".......The liberal-elite's
> then called it "integration". What is in a name though? The left-wing
> liberals believe that any word means what they want it to mean.
Actually, it was the Trots/commies/Marxists of "Old" Labour in the
40's
who started the whole thing as Shirley Williams admitted recently.
They were one worlders and they despised the nation state. They also
wanted to destroy white Christian civilisation and the only way to do
that in Europe was to import the non-white, the non-Christian,
knowing
that in short time they would breed with the lower class whites and
eventually outbreed them. Labour lied to the British people telling
them that the black West Indian were needed because there was a
labour shortage. That was untrue, in fact there were few jobs
available
for the returning soldiers.
>
> The prison sentences handed out to those whites who had revolted in the,
> "Notting Hill Riots" against West Indians moving into their areas were
> exemplary, they shocked the nation with the severity used. Now we can see
> that this was the liberal-elite using the law to ensure that white
> opposition to the importation of black labour would not be tolerated. Judge
> Salmon was noted for his liberalism...........
Oy ruddy vey another "liberal" jew!!!! So many of them aren't there
and all
of them in positions of power where they can make law to enforce their
"liberal" positions.
Now, I have to run down to The Mosque, they are having a meeting and
we all have to show up. It seems someone has complained yet again
about our lovely practise of slitting the throats of thousands of
sheep in
memory of our father Abraham and the sacrifice of the ram that Allah
provided
in place of Isaac.
Boed...@isp.com
Not so, an ethnic is in charge, unless you don't consider jews as
"ethnics".
Robert Henderson
>R. H.
>
>"the only people who believed in
>multiculturalism, if any did, were the liberals, who have used their
>control of politics and the media to censor any dissident voice for more
>than 30 years."
>............................................................................
>......
>
>I agree with what you say but I think your dating is wrong. The liberal
>left leaning bien pessants have believed in the flooding of Britain by
>foreign cultures for a lot longer then 30 years.
True, but until the mid seventies to they had not got a sufficient grip
on the media and government to stifle all public opposition. RH
>Prior to thirty years ago
>it may not have been called "multiculturalism".......The liberal-elite's
>then called it "integration". What is in a name though? The left-wing
>liberals believe that any word means what they want it to mean.
>
>The prison sentences handed out to those whites who had revolted in the,
>"Notting Hill Riots" against West Indians moving into their areas were
>exemplary, they shocked the nation with the severity used. Now we can see
>that this was the liberal-elite using the law to ensure that white
>opposition to the importation of black labour would not be tolerated. Judge
>Salmon was noted for his liberalism...............Well in some areas but not
>in the areas where white Englishmen opposed their country being taken over.
>
>The Notting Hill riots were in 1958...........48 years ago, it was around
>this time that the first mumbling's of "Multiculturalism" began to be
>heard...............So I believe..
>
>"Robert Henderson" <phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>
>
--
Robert Henderson
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Robert Henderson
gringogirl <sumar...@yahoo.com> writes
Robert Henderson
Mikein...@aol.com writes
to be interviewed after the publication of Is it in the blood? The
only black faces I saw were the porters on the door - but things are
changing. The BBC now boast on their website of having 12/5% ethnic
staff. RH
Robert Henderson
"Boed...@isp.com" <Boed...@isp.com> writes
>
> Actually, it was the Trots/commies/Marxists of "Old" Labour in the
>40's
> who started the whole thing
No, it goes back much further than that. The internationalist ideal in
its modern form can be traced back to at least the 18th century. RH
>as Shirley Williams admitted recently.
> They were one worlders and they despised the nation state. They also
> wanted to destroy white Christian civilisation and the only way to do
> that in Europe was to import the non-white, the non-Christian,
>knowing
> that in short time they would breed with the lower class whites and
> eventually outbreed them. Labour lied to the British people telling
> them that the black West Indian were needed because there was a
> labour shortage. That was untrue, in fact there were few jobs
>available
> for the returning soldiers.
--
miki
<Boed...@isp.com> wrote in message
news:1160531162.3...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
miki.
Robert Henderson
<Gi...@nospam.net> writes
>
>It certainly has been going on for a lot longer than 30 years, Jon, but
>that wasn't what RH was saying. What he was referring to was simply the
>censoring of dissident voices over that period. Not since the most
>active days of Enoch Powell has anyone been allowed to voice any real
>opposition to immigration and multiculturalism.
>
Quite right. Rh
>Leaving that aside, I can't agree with this term 'liberal elite' in
>this context. Those who have schemed for and planned this whole
>multi-ethnic Britain exercise are far from liberal in any sense.
Liberalism has two strands which developed in the nineteenth century:
the classic free market Manchester school libertarian liberals who
find their modern expression in Thatcherism and the human rights,
internationalist breed who are the lineal descendants of the likes of
Wilberforce. The ones who are political liberals in modern usage are
the latter who are of course liberal bigots. RH
>They may have recruited a naive band of useful idiots to do their
>bidding, a gang of pseudo-liberal shysters who are happily and
>willingly executing the grand plan - a plan that fully intends to sweep
>them aside when the time is right - but 'liberal'? About as liberal as
>a rattlesnake!
--
Jon°
..........................
Re-read, it was written jocularly. I have noticed in the past though that
you lack a sense of humour, however I will continue with my tongue-in cheek
replies 'cos I know no that they embarrass you. Stolid unimaginative folk
seem to suffer from "the lack of confidence" that makes them see the world
as a mournful place.
Diapers is an English word dating back centuries sunshine.
"Stripling"! Are you comparing yourself to an under-developed ancient
weepy-willow? You aged flatulent!
"Crowley" <crowley...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1160502724....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
gringogirl
so why are we not rising up? Good question. Right now - if we did
rise up in small groups , the swat teams would there in no time to kill
us- there is no place to hide- its 1984- if we rise up in violence we
would have to go the whole way.
it is not so easy to find a place in the united states where one can
focus a protest-
we would need an army and frankly most americans are in this strange
bland land of
cable tv and in your car and dont deal with life.
last week - I actually took the bus for a few days while my car was
being repaired. The mexicans immediately saw that I was vulnerable and
I think my back pack was close to being snatched not 10 blocks from
where I live-
I may protest the day labor sites this weekend and I am risking my
saftey because the police are really there for us - yes they would
kill us but thats about all
gringogirl
so why are the Brits being so Nice to their nasty ex colonial
neighboors? why are americans do slow to realize that the corporations
have enslaved them?
Crowley
Jon° wrote:
.
You really should try to get out more, Jon. And I don't just mean to
that day centre the social worker arranged for you.
Robert Henderson
gringogirl <sumar...@yahoo.com> writes
>
> so why are we not rising up? Good question. Right now - if we did
>rise up in small groups , the swat teams would there in no time to kill
>us- there is no place to hide- its 1984- if we rise up in violence we
>would have to go the whole way.
> it is not so easy to find a place in the united states where one can
>focus a protest-
> we would need an army and frankly most americans are in this strange
>bland land of cable tv and in your car and dont deal with life.
> last week - I actually took the bus for a few days while my car was
>being repaired. The mexicans immediately saw that I was vulnerable and
> I think my back pack was close to being snatched not 10 blocks from
>where I live- I may protest the day labor sites this weekend and I am
>risking my saftey because the police are really there for us - yes
>they would kill us but thats about all
Here's story I wrote recently:
Where did all the freedom go?
Robert Henderson
You grow up in a country where you're told over and over, "this is where
freedom is" and "we're the land of the free". For quite a while you
believe it because no one from the government interferes with your life
overmuch. And you believe flattering lies such as any American can
become resident, even though anyone with half a brain should understand
that's a load of hogwash. But you rub along comfortable enough because
your own life is allowed to be more or less what you choose it to be,
leastways as far as your finances allow. Then things start to change.
Politicians in Washington interfere more and more. They tell you can't
say this or you can't do that. You find that despite the first Amendment
you can't actually say what you want because if you do your job might
suddenly disappear or a lawsuit arrive on your doormat. And if it's not
the government it's some officious handjob from a pressure group telling
you not to eat this or smoke that, you mustn't drive your car, you
shouldn't drink and a hundred and one other things which it isn't any
business of anybody but yourself whether you should do them or not.
Time passes and you find that what you could say or do last year you
can't say or do now. It's not being able to say what you think that's
the worst of it for me. Remember 1984? Remember NewSpeak? Remember what
its prime function was? It was to manipulate language until dissent
became next to impossible. That is what is happening to us.
It's a gentle enslavement. They take away your freedom by degrees and
you never quite seem to reach the point where you say, if I don't do
something now, that's the end of my being able to do something else in
the future. Freedom passes away just like sand in an hourglass, a grain
here and there, but never enough to stop the flow. One year you don't
have to carry an ID card, the next you find you do. The state has
required you to buy a licence to exist in your own country whilst
telling you the accharine joke that it is to protect your liberties,
that the country is under attack from some enemy no one can actually
find or capture. What were the Party's slogans in 1984? Ah yes, FREEDOM
IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH. That's just the kind of crap we're
fed in America these
days with talk of taking away our freedoms to make us all safer. Oh
yeah!
Eventually you can't ignore what's happening and you look around and
think, hey, where did all that freedom go? And you suddenly see, like
Paul on the road to Damascus, the plain truth, grating into your brain:
those who pretend to be the servants of the people are just their
abusive masters. They make laws which let them be as self-serving as you
like. You want to bribe a politician or a public servant? No problem.
You can do it as legal as you like. You don't give them the money in
brown envelopes or put it in Swiss bank accounts, you just pay them off
with non-jobs as consultants or you make a donation to a senator's
campaign fund. Equality before the law? You can have just as much
equality as you can buy. In fact, if you're real loaded the law doesn't
really apply to you unless you do
something really stupid and get caught crimson-handed. And if you do
something stupid, you can buy your way to a much lighter penalty.
Remember Marlon Brando's son? Shot his sister's boyfriend in cold blood
but was out of prison in scarcely more years than you can count on the
fingers of one hand. Any poor boy who did that would have gone down for
murder 1.
Anyways, I got to thinking that there wasn't that much point in just
existing in this world while you waited to have the slave's shackles
put around your ankles for good. My wife's dead and my children are all
grown up so I didn't feel that it would do them a deal of harm if I
actually did something, not just talk, but actually did something. Make
those self-serving sonofabitches actually take note, actually make them
do something for the common good rather than their own.
What can the ordinary man legally do as his freedoms are being
pickpocketed? Well he can vote for the people chosen from the powerful
by the powerful. And those people will always say the same sort of
things. And what they say will always be to their own advantage and if
that happens to be to the disadvantage of everyone else they don't give
a damn. Truth to tell, the powerful are only too happy to keep the rest
of us afraid and insecure because it makes them more secure. A man
without a union whose worried about whether he's going to have a job
next month is a damn sight easier to control than one with a secure job
and a bit of property to fall back on.
We have what is called democracy. Only it isn't anything which can be
recognised as democracy. No siree, because those that have can always
find a way to subvert the best of democratic intentions. "Democracy" is
just the ruling class's marketing strategy to disguise their continuing
privilege.
What can a single man illegally do? Well, actually he can still do
plenty in the good old US of A. They haven't been able to take our guns
way yet, though that's not for want of trying. So a man can start
killing the people with the power and the money. Now, if there is one
thing people like that hold dear it is their own miserable skins. They
don't give a damn about the folks who elect them or who work for them,
but they sure as Hell care bout themselves.
Maybe it's a load of hogwash that any citizen can become president but
any citizen can handle a gun. What was it that Chinese fellow Mao said?
"Power issues from the barrel of a gun". Damn right.
Then I sat down and thought of all the revolutions I had read about and
seen on TV and I reckoned not only could a single person do something
but it was best that it was a single person. The trouble with folks who
take power is they become just like those they have replaced - that's
another thing old George Orwell got spot on . So, I thought, the best
thing is not to try to take their places but simply to get them to
behave. How do you that ? Well, you give them a list of things they have
to do which no one can really argue with morally such as getting rid of
the Patriot Act and respecting the Constitution, arranging free
healthcare for everyone and stopping interfering in other folks'
countries. Then you tell them you'll kill them if they don't do what
you ask.
That's what I did thirteen months ago. I gave them my list of things to
do and said I would start killing them if they hadn't agreed to do them
within a month. Of course, they didn't believe me so I had to kill a few
before they got the message. They were frightened by the first killing
but they thought it was just a one-off and reckoned they would catch me
soon. Then I killed a second and third and they began to get real mad
and just a little bit afraid. By the time I had killed ten they were
beginning to get real afraid.
Now I have killed forty three of the sonofabitches without them catching
me and all those folks with power are wondering if they're next. That's
the great thing about concentrating on the elite. They are big enough as
a group to
be impossible to protect, but small enough for each one of them to feel
they might be next. And I made sure it played on their minds by telling
them who I considered to be in my sights. It wasn't just politicians,
but anyone with power or influence: senior military men, mediafolk, big
business folks, top public servants, heads of pressure groups, anyone in
fact who has any real power and influence over the lives of others,
anyone who just plays with us for their own pleasure and profit. The
first one I killed was a congressman. Then it was the editor of a big
circulation newspaper. Next the head of a real big corporation. Then it
was another politician, a senator, followed by a real smug
environmentalist. After that I whacked a four star general and then the
UN secretary-general. The Sec-Gen really made a stir.
Why I haven't gone right for the top yet, why haven't I taken out Mr
President? Well, I need the people with real power to be doing the
changing, to be putting my demands into action. The best man for that is
the President. But if he doesn't do what I want soon I'll kill him just
to reinforce the message that no one is safe and if you don't do what
I say you will pay the penalty.
How come I have managed to kill so many without getting caught? Well,
killing the powerful is more difficult than killing Joe Public, because
they have the power of the state or their wealth to get protection. But
it isn't that difficult because the elite is just too big to protect
itself. And in a country such as the good old US of A, no politician can
vanish from public view for ever and anyone else I've got in my sights
who isn't a politician will sooner or later have to expose themselves to
circumstances where they can be picked off at long range. How do I kill?
Well, a state of the art sniper's rifle will do the job pretty surely at
500 yards provided you can shoot straight. Even at 1,000 yards you stand
a decent chance. Me, I use a Barrett 0.50 which in America you can still
get through the mail. Ain't that grand! A real reliable gun. I recommend
it.
The other thing I did right from the beginning was make it clear that
ordinary folks weren't at risk. No damnfool bombs like the one Timothy
McVeigh exploded. The only people I'm going to kill are those who have
the power. The newspapers and TV made that clear to the public as soon
as I killed the first editor and warned them others would follow if they
did not print and broadcast anything I told them to print and broadcast.
Real quick learners mediafolk.
Why don't I go in for bombs and the like? Well, it's partly the morality
and partly tactics. The ordinary man and woman doesn't have any power.
You can't blame folks when it isn't their fault. That's reason enough.
But doing it this way also means ordinary folks aren't afraid, don't
become resentful of you. And they won't believe the folks with power
when they say that more freedom must be taken away to protect the
country. They won't believe
them because they'll know the only people who need protecting from me
are the elite.
Will they catch me? Maybe but a man working on his own isn't that easy
to find if he isn't one for shooting off his mouth. Remember the UNA
bomber? He managed to evade capture for 17 years despite the best
efforts of the FBI and local police forces. And he was anything but
careful. Contrariwise, in everything I do, my watchword is
self-discipline. A truly cautious man takes some catching.
What have I got going for me as an assassin? I've got enough money to
allow me to purchase whatever I need to carry out my assassinations with
the most efficiency, buy weapons, hire rooms and so on. And I haven't
been one of those green inkers forever firing off my political views to
all and sundry, so no one has any reason to suspect that I might be
involved with such killings. Nor is anyone likely to get a handle on me
from any communication I send to the authorities or media. That's what
did for the UNA bomber in the end, a relative recognised his literary
style and ideas in one of his messages.
I purchased all my weaponry and ammunition well before I began my
assassination and I haven't purchased anything more since I killed my
first man. When I bought stuff I made sure that I didn't buy it from one
place.
Instead I brought a little from different suppliers, Payment was always
in cash.
My weapons and other stuff used for the killings are stored away from
where I live, a fair distance from my home and a real isolated place.
Because there are no weapons in my home and because the other place I
own is isolated and outright, there no chance of me being caught out by
police coming to check at my house or little chance of folks nosing
around my weapons stash place.
When I travel to an assassination I go by public transport and foot so I
can't be tracked by a licence plate. My weapon can be broken down so I
can carry it in a way that makes it like I'm carrying something else. I
choose my assassination position carefully chosen both for a clear line
of fire and to make sure I can get away fast. I always make myself real
familiar with the immediate area and the exit points. Ideally there
would be several exit opportunities. I avoid any assassination point
anywhere near my home ground. Once I'm in the assassination position, I
fire one shot only to ensure my position cannot be marked. After a
killing I withdraw rapidly but not at a speed to raise suspicion. I
carry little so I am unlikely to leave evidence behind. Every time I
kill I destroy everything I'm wearing.
Perhaps most of all I am protected by the fact that what I am doing has
no point of operational weakness. I am not asking for money or anything
else which has to be given to me. No one ever has to contact me or meet
me. They just have to do what I say.
Is it difficult to kill? Not for a country boy like me. Do you know what
stops men killing? Well, it's a number of things but most of all it's
squeamishness, not morality. Kill an animal and then killing a man is
not so hard. In fact, killing is easy for a country boy. You grow up
with death all around. So when it comes to killing a stranger it isn't
much more than shooting a bird or sticking a pig. Of course, most men
aren't country boys so they tend to be squeamish out of ignorance.
Where's the morality in all this? Well, morality is just a behavioural
trick to allow a big-brained self-conscious being like Man to live
socially. But it only works if its goes both ways. Games theory tells
you that. The most
efficient tactic for any social species is to trust others until you
know that they cannot be trusted. Then you give them nothing. Behaving
morally towards those who behave immorally towards you is simple
self-destruction.
But as I said before that doesn't mean you can just go killing who you
want. It has to be just. Take Timothy McVeigh. What he did was
indefensible because he was killing indiscriminately and attacking
people without real power or influence. But what if he had shot
politicians who were supporting the proposed war crime in Iraq? Would
that be morally wrong? Or suppose he had shot those Federal Officers
responsible for Waco? Or how about him assassinating Supreme Court
judges who palpably abuse the Constitution? Or what about McVeigh
eliminating
corrupt businessmen who never seem to pay an appropriate or even any
penalty for fraud on a grand scale? Or what if he was removing
mediafolk who refuse to tell the truth about those they favour or fear
whilst abusing those whom they hate and those without the power to
resist? Would all those things be morally indefensible? What does the
ordinary citizen do when those in charge of the state abuse their power
and prevent the law taking its course against them and their friends?
Or take another case. What if a killer was a Serb avenging the US war
crime against Serbia or an Iraqi or Afghan avenging the US war crimes in
Iraq and Afghanistan? Or even a Vietnamese avenging the war crime in
Naam? This is the trouble when a nation becomes an aggressor for
whatever motives. The moral lines aren't clear.
The great thing about what I'm doing is anyone can do it. It is the
ultimate form of democracy. There is no one to betray, no party to
betray, no internal party politicking, not even a cell to be penetrated
by the State. All there is the individual, working alone, telling no one
of his plans.
How far have I succeeded ? Well, it takes a while to turn round a big
ship
like the US of A, but it's beginning to move. The media is already doing
what they are told. Big corporations are stopping offshoring jobs.
Pressure groups have been a lot less preachy of late and the Supreme
Court has stopped making judgements which insult the people by insulting
the Constitution. The Patriot Act has been repealed and politicians are
talking about bringing home our troops from around the world. My job's
far from done though and I'm just off to kill the Secretary of State
just to make sure the folks on Capitol Hill don't take their eye off the
ball....
stewart...@hotmail.co.uk
Dr. Sunil wrote:
> stewart...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> > The Tibetans don't like it, why should we?
>
> Is that why so many (the Dalai Lama included) migrated to India (a
> country with 16 official languages)?
yep, their culture was being destroyed by the chinese. they almost all
went to live in a few places in the mountains, mainly dharamsala where
the dalai lama lives.
Robert Henderson
Sunil <dr_suni...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>
>stewart...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>> The Tibetans don't like it, why should we?
>
>Is that why so many (the Dalai Lama included) migrated to India (a
>country with 16 official languages)?
>
>
What excuse do you have for deserting your country of birth? RH
marvelus
wrote:
>Crowley wrote:
>> Jon° wrote:
>>> A word can mean what ever I want it to mean, S's & N's are of no
>>> consequence, accept to a happy little pedantic.
>>
>> I've noticed you spelling it as "pessants" on several occasions so I
>> thought I'd put you straight to stop you embarrassing yourself but
>> seeing as you're being snotty about it I won't bother in future !
>>
>>> "Ted", no I was in diapers.
>>
>> WTF are "diapers", some yank word innit ?
>>
>
>The word 'diapers' - for nappies - was commonly used in England in the
>19th century (in fact it was even used by Shakespeare).
and Dickens.
Dr. Sunil
Robert Henderson wrote:
> In message <1160499173.2...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, Dr.
> Sunil <dr_suni...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
> >
> >stewart...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> >> The Tibetans don't like it, why should we?
> >
> >Is that why so many (the Dalai Lama included) migrated to India (a
> >country with 16 official languages)?
> >
> >http://www.tibet.com/exileglance.html
> >
> What excuse do you have for deserting your country of birth? RH
Ignoring any philosophical implications about life beginning at
conception (I was actually conceived in Britain!), I was only four
months old when I first arrived. I have only known life in this
country, and I am only fluent in the English language (to my mother's
chagrin!), ergo this is home for me.
Dr. Sunil
Although if you looked at the map I linked, they have settlements in
the deep south of India too.
miki
"gringogirl" <sumar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1160552528....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Because the information services, i.e. the mainstream media
(owned and controlled by the exploiters)
keeps telling them "it just ain't so" ??
Boed...@isp.com
If he was a jew he was an ethnic but until you post proof that hw
was a jew I
will view him as a *cot minstrel. He worked in the coal mines as a
boy
and to date I have yet to meet a jew coal miner.
miki
<Boed...@isp.com> wrote in message
news:1160599174.5...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
If you investigate the cemetery at Hamilton you will
find that
he is buried under a jewish tombstone, and in the
company
of other jews, not his Scottish in-laws. His portrayal
as being
"Scottish" was a superb hoax played on the goyim by the
jewish money-making establishment.
Now how do you classify that darling of WW2
entertainment,
"Gracie Fields" ?? miki..
Boed...@isp.com
Sounds like what they did with "Flanagan and Allen" -
"Flanagan" was
jewish. I'll take a look the next time in Hamilton.
> Now how do you classify that darling of WW2
> entertainment,
> "Gracie Fields" ?? miki..
I know she was a Lancashire girl, how do *you* classify her?
miki
Robert Henderson
Sunil <dr_suni...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>> country with 16 official languages)?
>>
>> http://www.tibet.com/exileglance.html
>>
>> What excuse do you have for deserting your country of birth? RH
>
>Ignoring any philosophical implications about life beginning at
>conception (I was actually conceived in Britain!), I was only four
>months old when I first arrived. I have only known life in this
>country, and I am only fluent in the English language (to my mother's
>chagrin!), ergo this is home for me.
>
'Course it is Sunil, 'course it is. Now, back to your cleaning
immediately! RH rH
Boed...@isp.com
You will have to explain why you believe she was jewish. She was
born
atop of a fish and chip shop and worked in the factories of Rochdale.
She
is buried in a Protestant cemetary in Capri. Was she born jew, if so
it is not mentioned in her biography. As to Harry Lauder, his
mothers name
was "MacLennan" and his father came from an old *cots family. He is
buried
in a Christian cemetary in Bent, Hamilton. When did he turn jew?
Is his name on this jewish tombstone you say he wads burie under
written in
Hebrew, if not, how is it a "jewish tombstone"?
miki
<Boed...@isp.com> wrote in message
news:1160773740.1...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
(Schiller). miki.
Molesworth
"Boed...@isp.com" <Boed...@isp.com> wrote:
> > > > Now how do you classify that darling of WW2
> > > > entertainment,
> > > > "Gracie Fields" ?? miki..
> > >
> > > I know she was a Lancashire girl, how do *you* classify her?
> >
> > jewish.
>
> You will have to explain why you believe she was jewish.
Dunno about jewish. I do know my Dad disliked her intensely. Something
about sitting out WW2 in Capri or something.. whilst making movies
showing her in a patriotic light.. long time ago..
Molesworth
miki
"Molesworth" <ukm...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:ukmole-D8E369....@news.gazeta.pl...
Who dominates 99% of the movie industry ? Fields was
displayed here and
there "in a patriotic light" in WW2 just as was Harry Lauder in WW1.
miki.
Boed...@isp.com
> > written in
> > Hebrew, if not, how is it a "jewish tombstone"?
> >
> "Against stupidity, even the gods argue in vain".
> (Schiller). miki.
I agree, now answer the questions or I'll have to sic Schiller on
you.
miki
<Boed...@isp.com> wrote in message
news:1160845030....@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
You have been brainwashed by the propaganda
machine.
Why do you suppose all the attention is
concentrated on
the MacLennan side and what amounts to a
blackout on
the father's ? "Google" is no help, nor the
other web site.
If "seeing is believing", then I believe... I
have seen the photo.
Am I "talking" to the person who was a BNP?
If so, have you
got a contact in the Hamilton area ? miki.
Boed...@isp.com
i.e. the jooooos.
Why do you suppose all the attention is
> concentrated on
> the MacLennan side and what amounts to a
> blackout on
> the father's ? "Google" is no help, nor the
> other web site.
Then I assume you have actually seen his gravesite and what you say
is
jewish wriitng there. Unless you have seen it with your own eyes, you
have
access to the same information that I have and nothing about his
father's
ancestry says anything abgout being jewish.
> If "seeing is believing", then I believe... I
> have seen the photo.
The photo of his grave?
> Am I "talking" to the person who was a BNP?
No.
> If so, have you got a contact in the Hamilton area ? miki.
No, however when I come home (Coventry), I'll take a trip to Hamilton
and
see for myself.
BTW To be jewish, one has to have a jewish mother. If Harry Lauder's
father was jewish and not his mother, he would have ahd to convert to
judaism
and it would have been difficult for him to conceal that.
Gracie Fields?
Boed...@isp.com
miki wrote:
> "Molesworth" <ukm...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:ukmole-D8E369....@news.gazeta.pl...
> > In article <1160773740.1...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Boed...@isp.com" <Boed...@isp.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > > > Now how do you classify that darling of WW2
> > > > > > entertainment,
> > > > > > "Gracie Fields" ?? miki..
> > > > >
> > > > > I know she was a Lancashire girl, how do *you* classify her?
> > > >
> > > > jewish.
> > >
> > > You will have to explain why you believe she was jewish.
> >
> >
> > Dunno about jewish. I do know my Dad disliked her intensely. Something
> > about sitting out WW2 in Capri or something.. whilst making movies
> > showing her in a patriotic light.. long time ago..
> >
> > Molesworth
>
> Who dominates 99% of the movie industry ?
The jooooos.
Fields was
> displayed here and
> there "in a patriotic light" in WW2 just as was Harry Lauder in WW1.
Harry Lauder's son was killed in WW1. and I have *never* read
anything about
him being jewish. There *are* of course many *cots jews. They are
money lenders like the obscene late, Sir Isaac Wolfson and dealers in
precious gems etc. I have never seen or heard of even one who worked
in the mines and factories of *cotland as Lauder did.
Boed...@isp.com
Robert Henderson wrote:
> In message <1160530745.1...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> "Boed...@isp.com" <Boed...@isp.com> writes
> >
> > Actually, it was the Trots/commies/Marxists of "Old" Labour in the
> >40's
> > who started the whole thing
>
>
> No, it goes back much further than that. The internationalist ideal in
> its modern form can be traced back to at least the 18th century. RH
Actually I was referring to the British Trots/Marxists in "Old"
Labour
who turned white Christian Britain into the multi cultural cesspit
it has
become. The internationalist ala the jew Marx and his tribe have
always felt threatened by nations where the people look alike and
practise one religion. They stood out like sore thumbs and knew it.
Only under communism and a government they could control did they
feel safe as we saw when they financed and achieved the Bolshevik
Revolution in 1917 and when they were able to murder The Tsar and his
family just as they had done in The French Revolution.
>
> --
> Robert Henderson