THE POSTS MOSTLY BY GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION

THE POSTS MOSTLY BY GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION

.

.
Boston artist Steve Mills - realistic painting

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

S.Africa:42% of Black youths want to flee SA

S.Africa: 2010 - Total SHOCKER: 42% of Black youths want to flee SA - only 33% of Whites & Indians want to...
Date Posted: Tuesday 27-Apr-2010
[Check out this stunning article from THE SUNDAY TIMES of South Africa.


As I pointed out with Zimbabwe, Liberal Western theory there failed. Liberal Western theory of society goes like this: "The Middle Class is what holds Europe and America together... ergo... in Africa to fight communism/Marxism, you build a BLACK MIDDLE CLASS... give them a stake in the country and THEY WILL BE THE NEW LEADERS AND WILL FIGHT Marxism/Socialism and will raise up Africa."

Nice theory. Totally backed up by the historical facts. Bummer is: Despite all that - the concept flops to the ground in Africa! When faced with evil... what did the PROFESSIONAL BLACK MIDDLE CLASS IN ZIMBABWE DO? 600,000 of them fled to BRITAIN!

The sissified, molly-coddled Black Liberals of Africa are a lot like the sissified, white Liberals of the West who spawned them. The basic credo of the Liberal is: When someone comes at you with a gun, YOU RUN AND SWIM AS FAST AS YOU CAN TO GET AWAY. When said communist/terrorist corners you eventually (when there's no room on the planet to run away any more): YOU SURRENDER TO HIM. That is basically what Liberals do. Sorry, but that's how I see it. I reckon if Conservatives and Liberals went to war, there would be no war because Liberals would all run anyway.

It is the people who are made of tougher stuff who stand and fight. So instead you see the completely ridiculous situation in Zimbabwe. You had 13 million blacks and 100,000 whites left. The ones standing up to Mugabe were not the 600,000+ black professionals - who immediately relocated to the UK, but the 100,000 whites, most of them aged 60+ and the other blacks too dumb to be Liberals. They were the ones who put up the real fight in the face of impossible odds.

In South Africa you may yet see that most despised of creatures, the White Afrikaner as being the last bastion before this country becomes a 100% bonafide communist state. Even outnumbered, more than 10:1, you might find, to your amazement that it is not the Black Liberals of South Africa who will try to stop the ANC from turning this country into another Zimbabwe (because the Black Liberals of South Africa will all be living in Europe) - but the Afrikaners - who REFUSE TO GIVE WAY. Stick around. It is the whites, who in the face of completely impossible odds may be trying to make the last stand for civilisation and decency in this country. Jan]

Just Who Is This Guy, Obama?

Just Who Is This Guy, Obama?

SK – via Four Winds August 30, 2009

Barack Obama is less of a person than an image— a brand. People see what ever they want as they do on a Rorschach test.

But does anyone really know him? In fact, he is:

* A man with no birth certificate.

* A man whose birth records, both in the United States and Kenya, are sealed by government order.

* A man whose childhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, spied on U.S. military installations in Hawaii for the Soviet Union, edited a communist newspaper, authored pornographic novels, and wrote poetry in praise of Joseph Stalin.

* A man who promised transparency in government, but has spent over a million dollars in legal fees hiding information that would determine his eligibility to be President.

* A man whose academic records are sealed from kindergarten through law school.

* A man who arrived in New York in June of 1981 without enough money to get a hotel room, but one month later flew to Indonesia and Pakistan.

* Why did he go?

* Who paid his expenses?

* A man who traveled to Pakistan when it was illegal for U.S. citizens to do so. So what country’s passport did he use?

* A man whose Law School Admission Test scores and grades at Columbia University are known to have been mediocre, but was admitted to Harvard Law School through the intervention of a Saudi named Khalid al -Mansour.

* A law review editor who never published an article in any law review.

* A lawyer with no significant accomplishments in the law and no reputation in the legal community.

* A former State and U.S. Senator, who never authored a piece of legislation.

* A disciple of the Marxist Saul Alinsky.

* A product of the Chicago political machine—the most corrupt political organization in America.

* A man who selects Marxists, corrupt politicians, and criminals as his close political associates and personal friends.

* A man whose presidential candidacy was endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America, the Socialist International, and the Workers International League.

* A man lauded for the literary brilliance of two memoirs, both of which were ghostwritten by others.

* A so-called Christian who says that knowing when human life begins is “above his pay-grade,” but somehow knows that abortion is permissible at any stage.

* A man who thinks “waterboarding” is immoral, but that partial-birth abortion is moral.

* A man who publicly laments slavery in America—which was abolished 150 years ago—but praises Islam, which still practices both slavery and the sexual mutilation of young girls.

* A man who speaks endlessly about helping the less fortunate, but gives almost none of his sizeable income to charity—not even to his half-brother, who is living in squalor in Kenya.

* A man who had the most left-wing voting record in the United State Senate, but was predicted by the press to “govern from the middle.”

* A man who has never created a job, met a payroll, or even operated a lemonade stand, but wants to tell Detroit how to make cars.

* A President who has never before served as an executive in either the private or the public sector.

* A Commander-in-Chief who doesn’t know how to shoot a rifle, throw a hand-grenade, drive a tank, fly a plane, or con a ship.

* A Commander-in-Chief who has publicly divulged some of our nation’s most important intelligence secrets.

* A man who has been put in charge of the largest economic engine that ever existed, but has never invested in the stock market and admits total ignorance of it.

* A President who says that science will guide his administration, but has no education in the sciences.

* A man who is proficient in reading what is written for him on a teleprompter, but jerks and stammers his way through any off-the-cuff speaking.

* A man whose health records are sealed from childhood to the present day.

* A man who spent 20 years in a church whose pastor espouses Marxist Liberation Theology, anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Semitism, but claims he never heard his pastor utter anti-American, and anti-Semitic statements.

* A man who added more to the National Debt in 120 days than all other Presidents did in the past 220 years, yet feels qualified to lecture Americans about “fiscal responsibility”.

* A man who publicly expressed disdain for the U.S. Constitution on a Chicago radio station because it limited the government’s ability to “redistribute wealth.”

* A man who sits and listens submissively while his country is castigated by Daniel Ortega—a Communist thug whose own daughter accused him of raping her.

* A narcissist who gave the Queen of England a present from the United States –an iPod containing recordings of his own speeches.

* A so-called Christian who officially declared “Pride Month” for a lifestyle that the Bible calls an abomination.

* A man who wanted Americans to ignore his Muslim name during his election campaign, yet boasts of his Muslim name when he travels to Muslim countries.

* A man who can name hundreds of America’s shortcomings, yet none of its great accomplishments.

* A President who claims the moral high ground by closing Gitmo yet supports the transfer of terror suspects to countries where horrific torture is certain.

* A President who scoffed at being called a socialist yet acted to nationalize the auto industry, the banking industry, and the insurance industry . . . and now seeks to nationalize the healthcare industry.

* A President who violates private property rights, the sanctity of contracts, and the rule of law—three essential principles that go back over a thousand years in the Common Law tradition.

* A man who promised 95% of all Americans a tax cut, but is increasing taxes on 100% of the population through inflation—the cruelest tax of all.

* A lawyer who represented ACORN—an organization now indicted in several states for voter fraud—whose stated goal is to get as many people on welfare as possible in order to destroy our financial system.

* A President who cheated GM’s bondholders by giving their property to the UAW in a political payoff.

* An American President who frequently criticizes his own country when speaking in foreign countries, but never praises America’s generosity, goodness or greatness.

* A President whose Secretary of the Treasury cheated on his taxes—as did several other appointees and advisors.

* A President who scoffs at being called a socialist, yet has appointed 28 “Czars” to circumvent constitutional government, including:

* A “Science Czar” who has advocated compulsory abortions for American women and the “surrender of sovereignty” to a “comprehensive Planetary Regime.”

* A self-professed communist as his “Green Jobs Czar”. A "Pay Czar” to regulate the pay of corporate executives.

* A President who swore an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic,” yet has nominated a domestic enemy of the Constitution to the Supreme Court.

* A President whose Homeland Security Chief classified pro-lifers, veterans, and supporters of traditional marriage as terrorists.

* A President who stood silent while the Iranian government hacked unarmed protestors to death with axes, because it was an internal matter, but freely offers his opinions about the internal affairs of Israel and Honduras.

* A President who decreed that true acts of terrorism must now be described as “man-made disasters.”

* A President who cracks hurtful jokes about Special Olympians.

* A President who refused to intercept or inspect a North Korean ship virtually certain to be carrying Weapons of Mass Destruction to Burma.

* A President who wants to cancel all missile defenses while rogue nations are developing long-range ballistic missiles.

* An American President who blames the violence in Mexico on America.

* A Commander in Chief who claims to have been unaware that Air Force One was taken on a terrifying, low-level photo-op over Manhattan.

* A President who berates American CEO’s for flying in private planes at private expense on company business, but whose wife spends hundreds of thousands tax payer dollars flying to Paris for a shopping spree.

* A President who promised a transparent administration, but requires all questions be screened before “impromptu” appearances.

* A man who freely admitted that his energy policies are designed to bankrupt the American coal industry.

* A President who has presided over the loss of 14.7 million jobs and whose “energy policy” will cause the loss of another 1 million jobs.

* A President whose “energy policy” will increase the average American’s utility bills by over $2,000 a year in the middle of the Great Recession.

SOMEONE KNOWS

The vast majority of Americans do not know who he is, but someone surely does. Someone paid for his travel expenses to Pakistan and Indonesia.

Someone engineered legal challenges to all of his election opponents for the State Senate and had them disqualified.

Someone straightened and leveled his path to the U.S. Senate when a Democrat Judge made public the child custody records of his Republican opponent. When he was a candidate for the U.S. Senate, someone arranged for him to speak at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

Someone saw to it that all of his records were sealed, both at home and abroad. Someone assembled the massive organization for his run for the Presidency. Someone knows all about him.

Who? The answer is George Soros-connected to the Rothchilds.
http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/government/obama_government/news.php?q=1251826356 

Dissolving the European People


Sunday, 11 April 2010

Dissolving the European People

By Richard Spencer



"The government should dissolve the people and elect another one," quipped the Communist playwright Bertolt Brecht after the East German riots of 1953. For good or ill, the U.S. political elite seems to be acting on his advice.~Peter Brimelow, 1992
As much misery as it caused, the German Democratic Republic never actually tried to displace the German people. The natives of Britain haven't been so lucky:    

Nearly every one of 1.67m jobs created since 1997 has gone to a foreigner
Daily Mail
By James Chapman
8 April, 2010

Immigration was at the centre of the election campaign today as it emerged that virtually every extra job created under Labour has gone to a foreign worker.

Figures suggested an extraordinary 98.5 per cent of 1.67million new posts were taken by immigrants.

The Tories seized on the revelation as evidence that the Government has totally failed to deliver its pledge of 'British jobs for British workers'.

{snip}

Mr Brown rejected the idea of an immigration quota, which he said would do 'great damage to British business'. 

This report rhymes with Andrew Nether's revelations from last fall.   

Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser
The TelegraphBy Tom Whitehead
23 Oct 2009

The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

He said Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote".

As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants.

Critics said the revelations showed a "conspiracy" within Government to impose mass immigration for "cynical" political reasons.

Mr Neather was a speech writer who worked in Downing Street for Tony Blair and in the Home Office for Jack Straw and David Blunkett, in the early 2000s.

Writing in the Evening Standard, he revealed the "major shift" in immigration policy came after the publication of a policy paper from the Performance and Innovation Unit, a Downing Street think tank based in the Cabinet Office, in 2001.

(I discuss this affair in more detail here.)
On the heels of Nick Griffin’s appearance on the BBC comes this fascinating headline in the Telegraph:
Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser
In other news, Playboy subscribers have announced that they don’t read the magazine just for the articles.
The story continues: 
The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”, according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.
He said Labour’s relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to “open up the UK to mass migration” but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its “core working class vote”.
As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants.
Critics said the revelations showed a “conspiracy” within Government to impose mass immigration for “cynical” political reasons.
Mr Neather was a speech writer who worked in Downing Street for Tony Blair and in the Home Office for Jack Straw and David Blunkett, in the early 2000s.
Writing in the Evening Standard, he revealed the “major shift” in immigration policy came after the publication of a policy paper from the Performance and Innovation Unit, a Downing Street think tank based in the Cabinet Office, in 2001.
He wrote a major speech for Barbara Roche, the then immigration minister, in 2000, which was largely based on drafts of the report.
In Monsieur Neather’s Evening Standard column, he positively revels in the little social experiment he helped concoct:
It didn’t just happen: the deliberate policy of ministers from late 2000 until at least February last year, when the Government introduced a points-based system, was to open up the UK to mass migration.
The results in London, and especially for middle-class Londoners, have been highly positive. It’s not simply a question of foreign nannies, cleaners and gardeners—although frankly it’s hard to see how the capital could function without them.
Their place certainly wouldn’t be taken by unemployed BNP voters from Barking or Burnley—fascist au pair, anyone?
Translation: right-wingers and traditionalists are stupid and disgusting people who are rightly shunned from society. Those Third World migrants, on the other hand…
[T]his wave of immigration has enriched us much more than that. A large part of London’s attraction is its cosmopolitan nature.
It is so much more international now than, say, 15 years ago, and so much more heterogeneous than most of the provinces, that it’s pretty much unimaginable for us to go back either to the past or the sticks.
Field and Soames complain about schools where English is not the first language for many pupils.
But in my children’s south London primary school, the international influence is primarily the large numbers of (mostly middle-class) bilingual children, usually with one parent married to a Brit.
My children have half- or wholly Spanish, Italian, Swiss, Austrian, Croatian, Bulgarian, Congolese, Chinese and Turkish classmates.
London’s role as a magnet for immigration busted wide open the stale 1990s clichés about multiculturalism: it’s a question of genuine diversity now, not just tacking a few Afro-Caribbean and Bengali events on to a white British mainstream. It’s one of the reasons Paris now tends to look parochial to us.

If you had only read Neather’s column, and hadn’t, say, visited London, you might think your average refugee was a dashing and genteel flaneur with a famous Austrian Duke as an uncle and a habit of peppering his speech with foreign bon mots, to the delight and cultural enrichment of his hosts. And the rest are “Polish plumbers.” In Neather’s imagination, he and Tony turned London into a dazzling salon that puts old Paris to shame (a city which, by the way, has experienced much the same demographic transformation). Neather doesn’t dwell too long on who the immigrants actually are. (For your information, the vast majority of them come from the Pakistan region, followed closely by Africans and Afro-Caribbeans.) My impression upon visiting London recently was that it’s become a crime-ridden, vulgar, dysfunctional, generally unpleasant counterfeit of its former self. I probably should have stayed away and just read about “diversity” in the Evening Standard
Neather also makes no bones about the brazen deception involved in the scheme:
But ministers wouldn’t talk about it. In part they probably realised the conservatism of their core voters: while ministers might have been passionately in favour of a more diverse society, it wasn’t necessarily a debate they wanted to have in working men’s clubs in Sheffield or Sunderland.
In part, too, it would have been just too metropolitan an argument to make in such places: London was the real model. [Tony Blair’s immigration minister Barbara] Roche was unusual in that she was a London MP, herself of east European Jewish stock.
But Labour ministers elsewhere tend studiously to avoid ever mentioning London. Meanwhile, the capital’s capacity to absorb new immigrants depends in large part on its economic vitality and variety. There’s not a lot of that in, say, south Yorkshire. And so ministers lost their nerve.
And as is so often the case with disastrous government projects, Blair’s immigration policy can be traced back to some highly connected think-tank that’s accountable only to the Prime Minister (the Performance and Innovation Unit) and some unelected “minister” (in this case, the adorable Miss Roche.)
In another outburst of honesty, Neather correctly states that it’s not a case of the London economy needing tons of immigrants in order to be efficient and dynamic; it’s the other way ‘round: only a pre-existing dynamic economy would be able to “absorb” millions of Third World newcomers. I don’t think I’m overstating the matter when I write that Neather is arguing against most everything everyone always tells us about immigration. (We’ve always had the horse in front of the cart here at Takimag, however.)
The line from Neather’s column that will probably go down in anti-racist lore reads,
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.
It wasn’t only “the Right” who got their noses rubbed in diversity, and one hopes that the British people will make Blair, Neather, Roche, and the whole crew bewail the unintended consequences of their immigration policies. 

The Tea Parties: No Great Awakening


Monday, 26 April 2010

No Great Awakening

The Tea Parties and Whiteness

No Great Awakening
This is the first in a series of articles on the question, raised most publicly by Patrick Buchanan, whether the Tea Party movement nurtures white consciousness and unity and will become the political basis for whites as a people. 

Unlike Pat Buchanan, I do not think the Tea Party movement marks the emergence of a new, white ethnonationalism. At the end of his recent article on the subject, Buchanan himself backs away from this prediction, conceding that the conflict that gave rise to the movement “is not so much racial as it is cultural, political and tribal.” The politicians Tea Partiers admire most are Sarah Palin, who has the racial consciousness of a fried egg, and Ron Paul, who flirted with heterodoxy years ago, but now claims to have put all that behind him.

The racial significance of attending a Tea Party is not much different from going to the opera or a Renaissance festival: Virtually everyone there is white, and most like it that way but would never admit it -- not even to themselves. Tea parties, just like opera companies, fret over their whiteness and claim to want to cure it.
Other more promising movements have come and gone without giving rise to ethno-nationalism. The militias and the Minuteman border patrols were far more likely than Tea Parties to attract racial free thinkers, but they never talked about race. Their leaders threw out anyone who did.

The Left detects “racism” whenever whites gather and for whatever reason: Tea Partiers, Daughters of the American Revolution, Republicans, suburbanites, country clubbers, NASCAR fans, etc. Some people even complain that Star Trek conventions are too white. What the Left is detecting is only its own propaganda; there is no racial consciousness in these groups. They are not a sign of ethnonationalism, nor will they be until their organizers and participants are prepared to say, “Yes, we’re white, and we like it that way.”

Buchanan compares the Tea Party movement to the breakup of the Soviet Union along ethnic lines. Until Tea Partiers are prepared to echo the motto of the Vlams Belang Flemish-identity political party in Belgium -- Eigen volk eerst! (Our people first!) -- that comparison is fantasy. The motto of the Tea Party Patriots, “fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets,” is hardly a celebration of ethnic identity.

For racial consciousness to have political consequences, it must be as explicit and unapologetic as that of the Congressional Black Caucus and the National Council of La Raza. That is what it will take for whites to survive as a distinct people with a distinct culture, but tea partiers do not have even the vocabulary to think in those terms, much less the backbone to act on them.

Whites are schizophrenic about race. When it matters to them personally, they can be shockingly illiberal. They clear out when the neighborhood turns Mexican or the public school turns black, and they do this whatever their politics. As Joe Sobran has noted, in their mating and migratory habits, liberals are no different from members of the Klan. But virtually no whites admit race has anything to do with this, and they claim not to care if the whole country goes black and Mexican.

Immigration and high non-white birthrates are turning ever-larger parts of the America into those very places where whites refuse to live, but once they have escaped from the joys of diversity, and found a little patch of homogeneity, whites forget why they moved. This deluded state of mind is now at least 50 years old, and is only slowly crumbling. Don’t expect a speaker at a Tea Party rally to point out the contradiction between wanting “good” schools, “safe” neighborhoods, and “diversity.”

I applaud the tea partiers’ opposition to big government and to Obama’s leftist politics. The country will need them if Obama is to be stopped after a single term. But they will not be an incipient ethno-nationalist movement until they dump Sarah Palin and make Patrick Buchanan their champion.