Down with the Ayatollahs and their Basiji thugs – solidarity with the people of Iran (and the Israelis for having to endure the politics of the JP for that matter.)

http://labitacoradehobsbawm.blogspot.com/2009/09/eric-hobsbawm-el-corto-siglo-xx-y-lo.html

I have no idea why people feign puzzlement over the issue of a peoples local origin. Or at least, do so when the people happens to be White. The whole world and his dog knows that Sikhs are indigenous (ie. native) to the Punjab, and therefore not to England; the Han to China, and therefore not to England; the Zulus to southern Africa, and therefore not to England.. and on and on.

You say Germans can’t be racist in Germany, I point you to an example most people will know, but you seem unaware of. Racist Nazis killed many fellow Germans, people who had fought for Germany in WW1, who thought of themselves as German.

I have yet to define racism, if you look it up it is something like “the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races” or “discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race “. I would also say its to do with judging someone on ideas formed before you know anything about them, prejudice.

You discuss racist thoughts, but they are not a crime. People think of all sorts of things, including murder, but most don’t act on those thoughts. You persist in attempting to confuse the issue.

Thos Nazis who were German could not have been racist in Germany, by my definition. You know this. I put the thought crime part of my argument to you before you resorted to the Nazi theme.

I asked: “Adrian, do you think householders commit a thought crime against squatters and burglars in having hostile feelings toward them?”

And said: “The attempt to make a thought crime out of native people’s hostile attitudes to groups that entered their country against the native people’s known wish is both oppressive and ethnic-specific, so therefore is itself objectively racist.”

My analogy may not work, what goes for the individual & householder may not also be true for a people & its country, but until you refute it I’m gonna assume it’s sound. Moral arguments tend to transfer well across those lines. Where you later (and bizarrely) defined ‘racism’ as exclusively referring to physical acts I simply ask if the householder is not entitled to try and physically block the entry of the aggressor or remove him.

On your bizarre definition of racism I would ask what makes a punch or a murder racist? What physical thing – as you would demand? It seems clear enough to me that it would be the motive, originating in racial hostility, which is a thought, a feeling, a sentiment, an idea… but what do you say?

You still fail to answer the most simple question, you stated earlier that no German could be racist in Germany. I asked if you though Nazis were racist. You launched into a discussion on thought crimes!

But still I’ll play the game your way… You describe the ladies in your documentary as ‘racist,’ I haven’t watched it but surely that’s for they think or say, not for any ‘racist’ acts they do (whatever that might mean)? If you’ve ‘proved’ they are racist by posting a link to the documentary, what racist acts does the documentary show them doing? It would be nice if answer takes into account my arguments, but I know I’ll be lucky even if just works within your paradigm.

You again fail to answer my points, do you think the Nazis were racist or not? Failure to answer can mean you dont have an answer.

***

Ben, I was not being evasive in simply asserting Powell’s support, I really did think it was common knowledge. Still, an online search for “enoch powell”+poll points us predictably to his wiki page, I quote:

“Heath sacked Powell from his Shadow Cabinet the day after the (1968) speech, and he never held another senior political post. Powell received almost 120,000 (predominantly positive) letters and a Gallup poll at the end of April showed that 74% of those asked agreed with his speech … Powell’s popularity appeared to contribute to the Conservatives’ surprise victory in the 1970 General Election, which showed a late surge in Conservative support in the West Midlands, near Powell’s constituency. In ‘exhaustive research’ on the election, the American pollster Douglas Schoen and University of Oxford academic R.W. Johnson believed it ‘beyond dispute’ that Enoch Powell had attracted 2.5 million votes to the Conservatives. Johnson later wrote that ‘It became clear that Powell had won the 1970 election for the Tories… of all those who had switched their vote from one party to another in the election, 50 per cent were working class Powellites. Not only had 18 per cent of Labour Powellites switched to the Tories but so had 24 per cent of Liberal Powellites’. Johnson further believed that the votes Powell brought to the Conservatives were ‘quite possibly four or five million’. A Daily Express poll in 1972 showed Powell being the most popular politician in the country …. In August 2002 Powell appeared in the List of 100 Greatest Britons of all time (voted for by the public in a BBC nationwide poll).”

—

That 2002 poll seems especially significant, I think, after 34 years of unending scorn poured upon him by the establishment parties, mainstream media, and all organs of state from schools to the police.

For your claims that Powell did not represent the majority view and that the establishment party/ies do not avoid the race and nation issues because its views are out of step with the people’s, I refer you to Powell’s obit in the Indy:

“His stand on race made him the most reviled member of the House of Commons and a hate figure on university campuses. Yet polls showed that he was one of the most popular figures in the land and for a time he was favoured to succeed Heath as Conservative leader. Within a fortnight of the 1968 speech he had received over 120,000 letters of support. He had struck a chord with the British people. He was saying the unsayable.

“Yet the speech that made him also destroyed him. Race was the only subject that brought him majority public support; but the more popular he became the more unacceptable he was to the political elite. He had gone beyond the political pale and many of his long-standing friendships were ruptured. […]

“In fact, Powell self-destructed on the British party system and political culture. The more he appealed beyond the Conservative Party to the country at large, the less acceptable he was to colleagues.”

—

Now to address some of your other points, Ben.

None of the mainstream parties has a stance on immigration as they are afraid of tackling the class question by forcing the bosses to treat both the domestic/migrant labour force equally.

They all have the same stance on immigrants: to cram as many in as possible while still appealing to their own slightly individuated voter bases, all of which oppose ‘more immigration’. I’m unsure what you see with regard to class and British/ Foreign labour so don’t know what you think the establishment pols are afraid of. It appears to me that migrant labour is used to drive down wages and accommodate British workers to employment insecurity thru’ ‘labour mobility’. Establishment parties facilitate this process because their paymasters want this.

Unlike Kenya this country is not held down through the force of arms by an occuping, foreign army. That is the key difference between colonialism/imperialsm and immigration.

This is false because the regime here today is not a national one, but a globalist one made up of foreigners at least as much as by British citizens, never mind English, Scots or Welsh men and women. At the heart of this regime are the same international financial interests that were in power at the height of the British Empire.

The people moving to this country do so in search of jobs, better quality of life or are fleeing from perescution. They are not coming here as an armed force seeking to enslave the existing population at the point of a bayonet – as we did in Inda/Kenya/Palestine/Sri Lanka/Nigeria.

If you would see the people promoting and benefitting from both historical processes you might better be able to see the similarity between the strategies. The soldiers who invaded Africa and Asia did not materially benefit from their efforts even if they survived: the spoils of these wars went to the bankers and industrialists, often one and the same, who demanded these wars of conquest from the government. Once Africa and Asia had been settled by European disease- and spear-fodder, and an infrastructure installed that enabled its natural resources to be exploited for the benefit of the financiers, there was no longer any need for European government frontmen in Africa and Asia, and the Empires came home.

But the financiers couldn’t help thinking that two of their strategies that had proved useful in managing the populations of Africa and Asia – divide and rule and deracination – might also help them control and exploit people in Europe, too. Trouble was, European states in the 1950s was were pretty well ethnically homogenous and therefore internally peaceful, and they were nationalistic. Cue the EU, mass immigration, and the culture wars – it became racist to say England belongs to the English approximately ten years after it had been racist to say India didn’t belong to the Indians …

Both varieties of colonisation and economic exploitation were able to progress because, as I said before, sovereignty, the right not to be aggressed against was not respected. And if it is not respected in principle, meaning that Englishmen have the right to keep everyone else out of England should they choose to (the BNP do not have any such policy btw, not even close), then we cannot oppose other forms of similarly justified aggression including imperialism or ethnic cleansing. Or house-breaking and theft; your address again please?

You say you disagree that the foundation of the social contract is a respect for the other man’s property, but then your definition of the social contract suggests exactly the opposite, it’s ALL about property rights:

“we the working people contribute, build and sustain the economy and society through our labour and so as the generators of this wealth we deserve to live our lives free of want/hunger/squalor/poor health”

You then contradict yourself again:

“if someone comes to this country and participates in building this commonwealth then they are as welcome here as my own brother who has lived here since birth”

– But someone from outside the commonwealth has not contributed to the economy and society so therefore, as he is not a generator of that wealth, he does not deserve access to the resources that free the commonwealth from hunger, etc.

I think it’s easier to understand these questions when they are framed for individuals. If we do that I think we know you are not honest in opening up the commonwealth to strangers: you would not give a stranger an equal share of what you have worked for and inherited from your family if he merely promised to work hard with the capital and contribute to the common pot in the future. Your open-ness is a posture that rewards you with social status (in a corrupted culture) but pledges to take from the commonwealth and destroy the social contract between citizens to favour one’s fellow over an outsider.