White Genocide?

Tags

Affirmative action, African American, America 911, American Liberty, Anders Behring Breivik, Anti-Racist is a Code word for Anti-White, Barack Obama, Christianity, Civilisation, Defend the modern world, miley cyrus, Pat Condell, Paul Weston, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, United States, White Genocide

It was in Birmingham on the 20th of April, 1968, that the political history of Modern England was quietly – but irrevocably – altered.

In a soft, seductive, Shakespearean tone, Conservative parliamentarian Enoch Powell delivered the talk on immigration since immortalised as ‘Rivers of Blood’.

In this address, Powell warned that Britain’s new immigration policy, should it continue indefinitely to the same extent, would disinherit the indigenous population of their rights, and in doing so set the scene for widespread civil conflict on English streets.

Shortly after the meeting was adjourned, the talk was reported by the media. The reaction was an uproar that shook British society to its very foundations.

Marches were held across the country, both for and against. The working-classes of the inner cities came out overwhelmingly in support of the MP, and claimed attention to the loss of industrial work for natives caused by immigration. The opponents of Powell’s sentiment meanwhile described his concerns as outrightly ‘fascist’, a word which, at that time, still had some emotional force behind it.

This is an excerpt from the speech itself:

“In 15 or 20 years, on present trends, there will be in this country three and a half million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants… There is no comparable official figure for the year 2000, but it must be in the region of five to seven million, approximately one-tenth of the whole population… Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population …  As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see “the River Tiber foaming with much blood…. 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.”

The prescience of this speech is at once clear and obvious. Indeed, such an austere articulation of the fashionable ‘White Genocide’ thesis has never since been produced.

The phrase ‘White Genocide’ is one I personally dislike. It is deliberately hyperbolic, not to mention insensitive to the memory of genuine historical events. Nevertheless, it has quickly become the banner for a broad coalition of internet Nationalists, both rational and irrational, hateful and merely concerned.

And even if the phrase is innapropriate, the process intimated by it is real enough to deserve analysis.

As it happens, Powell was exactly correct in his ‘five to seven million’ range of estimate. The 2001 census in Britain showed that 6 million non-Whites then resided in the country; a figure which rises logically to seven million if we add the projected number of illegal, unregistered immigrants (1,000,000+).

The 2011 census showed that the figure of non-white Brits had risen to eight million, a figure kept down by the White immgiration from Eastern-Europe, in particular from Poland. But with Poles removed, the percentage of White English (Anglo-Saxons) in England in 2011 was just over 80% or 4 in 5. By 2020, over one quarter of English citizens will be non-English. By 2030, that figure will be over one third.

The White English are already a minority in cities like London and Leicester, and will soon be in Birmingham, Bradford, Nottingham and Manchester too.

The White population furthermore is getting considerably older. About a third of White English people are over or nearing retirement age. This will soon leave the numbers of physically capable White English citizens at a point of parity with non-Whites.

This last point, as offensive it might strike the heart, matters a great deal. As Paul Weston of LibertyGB has pointed out, people of the older generation ‘don’t matter’ as much in the demographic balance of power, because if a situation of ethnic conflict erupted over the political sovereignty of English territory, older English citizens would be largely out of the game, thus leaving the fighting to a severely diminished pool of White youths, many of whom are indoctrinated Leftists with a generational identity stronger than a National one.

Given the factors described, I would estimate the date at which White English people lose practical domination over their homeland at 2020. At this point, the fighting capacity of White English and non-White English will be roughly comparable. Perhaps it will even be slightly to the non-white advantage given the mixed loyalties of young whites themselves.

So, all is lost for Whites then? Not quite. As I mentioned above, the figures are nuanced with details which should considerably qualify any interpretation. Perhaps the biggest (and most obvious) swing factor in all this is that not all non-White communities possess either the cohesion or the desire to pose a practical threat.

The Polish people, for example, cannot seriously be called a threat to English sovereignty. Nor can, I would argue, the largely apolitical Black population, most of whom are integrated into the cultural bloodstream by sport and music. Nor are the Hindus or the Sikhs an aggressive or even integrationist element, given their strong ties of family and identity with India.

Still, even if not in England, White Genocide might seem a more reasonable hypothesis elsewhere.

The United States is due to have a White minority by 2042. White babies already account for a minority of newborns, and a shrinking portion of school and university intake. How minorities react to this transition is unguessable. While racial harmony has long been considered an American ideal, it hasn’t always panned out that way in reality. The Los Angeles riot legacy, Hispanic/Black gang animosities, lingering Protestant anti-Semitism, Detroitification of big cities, Trayvon Martin, Mexico border wars, drugs violence, and many other factors provide ample tinder for a wayward spark to ignite.

In his book ‘White Girl Bleed a Lot’, Colin Flaherty documents the alarming rise in Black-on-White mob activity in parts of urban America. The most notorious example of this trend is the reported ‘Knock-out’ game (often described in racial terms as ‘Polar-Bear Hunting’) in which gangs of Blacks seek out vulnerable Whites and Asians and attempt to knock them unconscious with a single blow the head.

In South Africa and Zimbabwe too, there have regular mob atrocities committed against White officials and civilians alike. The same trend is observable in parts of France, Sweden and Belgium (these cases particularly targeting women).

By way of conclusion, the hypothesis of ‘White Genocide’ should, I think, be rebranded simply as ‘Anti-European racism’. The first term is a ghost, the second a reality. As the Twenty-first century progresses, and as demographics alter, expect anti-European sentiment to become as widespread as any other kind of racism before it.

The White peoples of the world – aging, diminishing and riddled with Feminism – are going to have to learn to organize for their common defence; perhaps not against anything so great as ‘genocide’, but certainly against pogroms, the scale of which are yet to be determined.

D, LDN.

Advertisement

Will There Ever be a Black President?

Tags

African American, Anglo-Saxon, anti-Semitism, Barack Hussein Obama, Barack Obama, Black, Black people, BNP, Civilisation, Coffee, Cultural Marxism, Defend the modern world, History, Multiculturalism, President, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Syria, United States

Racial classification in America has long been envied for its complication and absurdity. With roots in slavery and the fierce self-love of Anglo-Saxon agrarians, the American meaning of ‘White’ quickly evolved into something very different from its European sense. Commonly-speaking, one is only ‘White’ in America if one is of 100% pure (non-Spanish speaking) European heritage.

For example, if an American is 9/10ths White and the remainder is Black, the 1/10th Black heritage metaphysically dissolves all other ancestry to produce simply an ‘African-American’. If one is a blue-eyed, blonde-haired Spaniard with roots in Spain’s new world colonies, one is not European any more but ‘Latin’. Meanwhile, an Indian-American from South-West Asia is an ‘Asian-American’ but Arabs from South-West Asia are White-Americans. Follow?

The reason I raise this is because of a complaint I (and most reasonable people) have with the description of Barack Obama as ‘the First Black President’. He isn’t, and the claim that he is offers a false conclusion to a very significant trend of US social development.

Barack Hussein Obama was born to a White mother. In the absence of his father, the half-White Obama was raised by the said White mother. He later attended a multiracial school to which Black people contributed the tiniest demographic, and went on to a prestigious University whose intake was mostly White. He then resurfaced out the other end as a Black man. How does this happen?

Why, given the time and effort his mother (and only his mother) invested in the upbringing of this man, is he identified entirely with the attributes of his absentee father? He’s not even ‘biracial’ in popular tradition, but simply and starkly ‘Black’. His mother, his childhood and hundreds of his ancestors are airbrushed completely from his typology.

Surely a more sensible definition of Obama’s ethnicity would have him not as a Black man with some White heritage, but the reverse. Obama is a White man with some Black heritage.

Obama has little to nothing in common with his sub-Saharan paternal line. Their superstition and poverty couldn’t be more at-odds with the President’s atheistic intelligence, good humour, linguistic skill and (occasional) diplomatic grace. On the other hand, Obama would be readily suited to his maternal ancestors. Should they manage to get over the unseasoned bigotries of appearance, Obama would find along his Irish line, many people similar in character to himself, stretching back many centuries.

The question of whether America is ready for a Black President is thus still an open question. My guess would be no. One can hardly recall the candidacy of Herman Cain for the Republican nominee without smiling, and there seems to be no other examples forthcoming.

There is nevertheless a very bright hope for a second non-White President, and that is the brilliant Dr. Condoleezza Rice. The former Secretary of State is a woman of great qualification and  – should she contest and win an election – would likely provide a far superior regime to that presently enthroned.

D, LDN.

Christopher Lane’s Culture Shock (and America’s Problem).

Tags

African American, Australia, Boris Johnson, Christopher Lane, london, Melbourne, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, South London, Sydney, United States, Wollongong

I live in a house-share with 8 other people, 5 of whom are Australian (two from Sydney, two from Melbourne and the other from the wonderfully named city of Wollongong). They came to London, so they say, to experience a city with ‘a bit more Jazz’, by which I think they mean a city more diverse, risky and ‘American’ than those of their homeland. They now wish they hadn’t.

A great many people in England – usually folk with a conservative bent – are massively envious of those living down under, and so would view Aussies who migrate to Britain with confusion. Australia might not have the political relevance, economic power or cultural importance of somewhere like the UK, but as a trade for this, its natives tend to enjoy isolated, post-historical, low-risk lives, comparatively safe from minorities, Islam, pollution and crime. One can sense the pleasures of this existence by noting the number of Australians who spend all day online mocking the poor denizens of London and New York with something like the following:

“Man, I’m so glad I live in Australia. All you poor Pom bastards getting mugged left, right and centre – and here I am relaxing on the beach…”

Trolling of this kind is not uniquely Australian of course. Canadians and New Zealanders are pretty adept at it as well. But it’s Australians who have turned the habit into a well perfected craft.

One can’t dislike Aussies for doing this. I am – just as they presume – jealous of the social peace Australia enjoys. (I’m also jealous of the fact that the future demographics of Australia do not condemn its population to civil war and Islamic takeover).

But while differences between Oz and Britain are great, none compare with the growing divide between Australia and the United States.

While both are technically part of the ‘Western’ World, the US and Australia are becoming ever more foreign to each other with the advance of social trends. On specific issues like crime, they are at opposite ends of the global development scale. The murder rate in the United States is almost 5 times that of Australia (1.0/100,000 in Aus – 4.8/100,000 in the US) and a similar disparity exists in the rate of rape and robbery.

With this in mind, the strong emotion unleashed by the murder of Christopher Lane makes more sense.

In case you haven’t read about it, Mr. Lane was a 22 year-old Australian athlete staying in America with his girlfriend when he was shot dead by a group of mainly African-American youths. The assailants are said to have picked Mr. Lane at random and committed the crime simply because they were ‘bored’. Race has not yet been dismissed as a motivating factor.

Beneath every tribute video to Mr. Lane on YouTube, a stream of comments (by both Aussies and Americans) angrily discuss the social implications of the incident, often veering into explicitly racist language. While that’s a shame, one cannot deny that there is a racial problem worth talking about here.

Responding to the Lane killing, John Mcwhorter over at Time magazine wrote the following:

“The numbers don’t lie: young black men do commit about 50% of the murders in the US. We don’t yet know whether the attack on Lane was racially motivated, nor can we know whether the three black boys who attacked a white boy on a Florida school bus recently would not have done the same to a black kid. (Critics took Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to task for not condemning the violence.) But hardly  uncommon are cases such as the two black guys who doused a white 13 year old with gasoline and lit him on fire saying “You get what you deserve, white boy” (Kansas City, Mo.) or 20 black kids who beat up young Michael Owens on his porch “for Trayvon” (Mobile, Ala).”

It’s worth pausing on the statistic cited in this extract. ‘50% of murders’ committed by African Americans. FIFTY PER CENT.  Remember that African-Americans currently make up no more than 12% of the American population. For that community to enjoy a 50% market share on homicide is frankly bewildering.

In the same week I learned of Mr. Lane’s fate, I was browsing through a disturbing book entitled ‘White Girl Bleed a Lot: The Return of Race Riots to America’ by Colin Flaherty. This volume details the increasing regularity and brutality of Black-on-White crime in the United States. Here’s an excerpt: 

“Racial violence is back. In hundreds of episodes in more than 80 cities since 2010, groups of black people are roaming the streets of America — assaulting, intimidating, stalking, threatening, vandalizing, stealing, shooting, stabbing, even raping and killing. Cities big and small. Expected and unexpected.

But local media and public officials are silent. Crime is color blind… Race is not important… We talk about everything except black mob violence and lawlessness. That is Taboo. Result: Few know about it. Fewer still are talking about it. Today it is at epidemic levels at almost every city in the country.”

To conclude, the Australian reaction to Mr. Lane’s murder is no surprise. The present situation in America is not one any other civilized country would recognize as their own. Americans are going to have to make a choice. Either continue down this route and become more and more unrecognizable to other Western countries, or make a stand and remain in the top category of development. The latter is no longer something to take for granted.

D, LDN