Sunday, 2 October 2011

The progressive destruction of “Change”

There he was on stage this week, that rather geeky little man with the disturbing stare who now leads the Labour Party, and he was chanting the same mantra they all keep repeating “I'm up for the fight to change Britain” he hooted in the unattractive nasal way he does, “Britain needs to change”.

They are all so addicted to that little word “change” aren’t they, they flourish it at every juncture and scatter it liberally through any speech, but what do they mean by it?

Look to the definitions of change in any dictionary and what will you find? – “alter, amend, transform, make different, transfer, substitute, replace” – not one of those words guarantees anything good will come from the process, just that it will not be the same when its done. 

Death brings change, disease and bad luck bring change, America's flawed Messiah promised “change” and that benighted nation is drowning in those changes as I write. For two generations or more Western politicians have promised change, indeed many have brought change, and how many of those changes are we any better for? Count the good ones on your hand and you'll find you still have fingers to spare.

Is it not true that the real “change” we need is the means of reversing all the ill thought through and many truly malevolent “changes” which have been forced upon us in recent decades.

Another word they all adore is “progressive”.  Politicians of all shades, red, yellow, green and blue all claim to be “progressive” and our media murmur the word as if with reverence, but has the “progress” they have brought been for good or ill?

Cancer is progressive, so is syphilis, woodworm, dry rot and dementia, and all of them bring friendlier changes than have the “progressive” politicians and reformers of our age.

But those people never were our friends.

Like the Communist revolutionaries and Frankfurt school plotters who came before them, the malevolent old men who came of age in the 1960's and 1970's and who rule us now, remain fixated with changing the world, and my God they have done so, although not for the better. Our betterment never was their plan. They have brought change in the form only of destruction, and that was, and remains, the whole point. What should replace that which they destroy is less relevant to them, in fact I doubt they even care, they remain obsessed with their all consuming hatred of the once great and powerful West, and that leaves little room for anything else.

It is a strange hatred these old men and women and their unattractive spawn feel for the history of the West inspired as it is by iconoclasm, a desire for anarchy and a deep self-loathing death wish. It is a hatred based on the myths, lies and calumny they have repeated so often they perhaps now even believe it themselves.

As the ugliest girl might hate the prettiest, not for her sins but for her beauty and her grace, they hate us not for our flaws but for our achievements.  We achieved what others could not, and in the eyes of the aging 60's revolutionaries that in itself means we are an evil they must destroy.

Theirs is a hatred entirely misplaced.  The West, and those of European, particularly Nordic and Anglo Saxon, origin has brought more benefit to humanity than any other group in the history of the world, in fact, by comparison with our contribution that of any other group is reduced to insignificance, assuming they indeed made any contribution at all.

If you look to the origins of any development or movement which has improved the general well being of mankind, you will almost certainly find at its core a white European male, or a white male of European ancestry, the same would not apply to any other group you may wish to name.

Those who hate the West point to the evil we have done, but by any standards the evil is minor when set against the good.

For every weapon which white men created they have made and distributed a million pills which have cured more diseases and saved more lives than died in all the wars in history.  For every slave which the white race once owned we were instrumental in the freedom of a hundred others, and every act of brutality we committed have been compensated for by a thousand acts of charity and benevolence.

No other group can even start to claim the same

To an overwhelming degree, white Westerners, especially white western males, have historically been a greater force for good than any other group.  However, it is white westerners, especially white men, who have been primarily undermined by the changes imposed upon our societies by, so called, progressives.   It is they, who have given so much, whom the progressives most hate.

Lesser men are marked for what they destroy, not for what they create, for more than half a century lesser men have ruled the West, and we see the trail of their destruction all around us.

The liars in the media tell us the Western Society is flawed and failing, yet it is not western society but its enemies which has brought us to where we are, our fault, if any, is our refusal to confront them or to call them on their lies.

And what lies they told us.

We were told that opening our borders to mass third world immigration would boost our economies and protect our pensions, how that lies has been exposed as the exact reverse has come to pass. Our economies are collapsing, they are in the worst state they have ever been and our once guaranteed pensions have become a fading and distant illusion.

Our services would collapse without immigration they told us, whereas in truth they are now collapsing beneath the ravenous influx which devours them.

We may, some of us feel briefly better off, but that is just an illusion, a temporary high bought on credit, money we borrowed, or which our government did, and its all about to fall around our ears. If you own nothing but debt, you own nothing.

The fabled benefits of immigration have been exposed for the lies they always were, and in the most devastating way. Yet our borders are still open, and still they come.  

Meanwhile, other states, the real and only beneficiaries of globalization, and the net exporters of immigrants, rather than importers, states Brazil, China and India boom and thrive at our expense.

We are the “racists” if we resist they chided, whilst they set about producing a hundred thousand books, movies and TV shows depicting us as vile and filled with hate, yet it is we who are the victims of race hate, we who are the main victims of race hate crimes and we who are being driven from our towns and cities, many, such as our capital, we have already all but surrendered.  It is we who are being ethnically cleansed.

The single greatest “change” they have brought about is the way they have forced us to give up our homelands to a massive third world invasion, and it is this, above all else, which is destroying us.  A few short decades ago all the great powers of this planet were Western powers, we now face a situation whereby it is expected that within twenty to thirty years only 25% of the planet's wealth will be held by the West. That is a great result if you believe in egalitarianism irrespective of merit, but not if you care about the future of the West, or indeed the future of our planet.

The great achievement of the egalitarian lobby will be to have placed 75% of the world's wealth in the hands of totalitarian governments and immensely rich third world plutocrats, for whom human rights is an alien and ludicrous concept.

This is a politically manufactured outcome achieved through the “changes” our leaders have forced down our unwilling throats and by their special brand of “progress” which they beguiled us into believing would improve our lot.

As the west crumbles and declines, how can they still claim that mass third immigration brings us benefit when clear evidence to the contrary is all around us. Yet they still claim it, and crazy as it seems, there are some who still believe it.

It's a lie, and, in most respects, it always was.

The super rich achieve a short term benefit from mass immigration because it depresses the wages they have to pay, a few politicians benefit by virtue of the votes which their imported constituency bring.  However, beyond that small and unattractive coterie of corruption and contempt, nobody else benefits in any way.

There is no widespread benefit from mass immigration, it is a vehicle for change that's all was intended for. But of a change which only brings destruction, and the only purpose of which is to replace what was already there, nothing more.  

That any good should come from that process was never the plan.               

39 comments:

alanorei said...

Thank you, Sarah

As Solomon said about 3,000 years ago, emphases added.

"My son, fear thou the LORD and the king: and meddle not with them that are given to change:" Proverbs 24:21.

It starts with "men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;" Romans 1:18, pretending that they have found mistakes in the 1611 Holy Bible, for a modern application (the reading is changed in the new bibles).

It ends with the catalogue of horror in the last 12 verses of the chapter, Romans 1:21-32, that reads in essence like a lib/lab/con party manifesto.

Note that the title of the Letter shows that it is primarily addressed to Europeans, who therefore cannot say that they haven't been warned.

Anonymous said...

"If you look to the origins of any development or movement which has improved the general well being of mankind, you will almost certainly find at its core a white European male, or a white male of European ancestry"

Agriculture, spoken language, written language, farming.

Also, ways in which evil "progressives" have 'changed' Britain:
-Ending Child Labour;
-Making voting availale to more than the landed Gentry;
-Getting women the vote;
-Ending slavery;
-Creating the NHS;
-Getting universal education;
-Getting a minimum wage;
-Making employers responsible for the safety of people who work for them.

What utter bastards.

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

Anon 13:00

You are being somewhat selective in attributing your list to the work of "Progressives" given that they are all the achievements of the White Europeans whom it is now fashionable for progressives to condemn.

They are also advances in human well being mostly heavily resisted or ignored by many of the cultures which the progressives now seek to force upon us.

Anonymous said...

Sarah, you found, what, one person who went all hyperbolic about white Europeans, and that becomes representative of all progressives? Just because they don't hate and fear other races doesn't mean they hate and fear their own.

Most of the campaigning and frontline work against regimes and groups within Britain who oppose such progressive values as equal rights for women is done by Progressives. Most of the opposition to those ideals in Western countries comes from conservatives and the Right. For instance, look at the Republican / Tory (depending on the country) opposition to minimum wages, or the conservative, corporate-sponsored Tea Party's reaction to proposed universal healthcare.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 13:00 You forgot to mention the gulag or Mao's cultural revolution, the 100 million victims of the forced progress or the brainwashing of impressionable children & young college students into hating their own nations, their culture, traditions by falsely protraying the white man as the sole perpetrator of slavery & genocide in the world.

Neither did you mention the contribution that progressive mass murder Leon Trotsky made to humanity when he invented the slur "Racist" a slur used by progressives to redefine those loyal to their people, their cultural traditions and way of life as the worst evil.

You are so blinkered by ideology that you can't see that it is the marxist left that is the problem, the worm inside the apple.

Marxists/Liberal/Progressive...your name may change but the insidious ideology which is responsible for the worst acts of genocide in human history remains.


Yes utter bastards.

Anonymous said...

Mass immigration keeps the demand for property UP! This keeps prices HIGH. It forces local councils obliged by UN/EU mandates to accommodate "asylum seekers" and the unwashed to PAY the pimps (property developers sic) in the Buy-to-let "industry" agreed (extortionate)rentals.

These rentals are invariably 3 to 4 times more than they're worth. The money ultimately comes from the tax kitty which WE - those who work that is... PAY for.

Ministers like Huhne and who knows who else within the establishment are in on this.

In Brighton for example a one bedroomed privately rented flat fetches up to £900.00 per month! considerably more in some parts of London. The pimp doesn't care who pays the rent - but also knows the state will pay it if the tenant can't.

A tenant who loses his/her job is entitled to government funded Housing Benefit (full wack) to pay the rent.

A council property (unobtainable for a white young male) of same dimension and location costs just £300 - £400.00 pm.

Council properties also are few and far between these days as thousands have been bought up by pimps to let out for the amounts mentioned above. Of those that remain priority is given to single mothers - whatever age and asylum seekers.

The pimps who control the market (and the government) are making fortunes out of tax paying workers whatever occupation.

Now you know why the roads are 3rd world standard, buildings generally in once picturesque seaside towns are dilapidated and run down, health services are sub standard et al.

The immigration and property "industries" are crippling this country but the tax paying majority seemingly choose to ignore it.

The malaise all this is causing means nothing.

Yma Chiraz said...

> benighted

Just love this new word for me, shades of "straight to the pool room" - if you know the antipodean association of that compliment.

Thence can I suggest a change in form of address - Benighted Haissem.


Regarding the inevitability of change, you must well know the Confucianism that it is the only constant?

I must say, my mind map linked pretty soon to the song "Change we must" (attached below) when reading the article, and I played around with changing the word order. I like the b1 + c1 connotation of changing vine into wine :

a1 Change! Must we?
a2 Change, we must.

b1 Must change we
b2 Must we change?

c1 We change must
c2 We must change.

(Must is a form of mildew, often used in the agricultural context).

Finally, if I am up to it, I could type out the section "Religion of Progress" from my gem "History of the World", which are the author's closing words - a similar sort of theme to the evils of indiscriminate change.


Change We Must
Artist : Jon Anderson
Title : Change We Must

Una ha hay la
Tymura lu ra
Shana tu hay ah
Lay mai

Una ha hay la
Tymura lu ra
Shana tu hay ah
Lay mai

Coming through vision
Coming through wisdom
Coming together, this love
Giving me day time, given this night time
Bringing within me, this love

Una ha hay la
Tymura lu ra
Shana tu hay ah
Lay mai

Coming through wisdom
Coming through freedom
Coming together, this love
Giving me day time, given this night time
Bringing within me, this love

Giving me day time, given this night time
Bringing within me, this love

Una ha hay la
Tymura lu ra
Shana tu hay ah
Lay mai

Coming to the earth, singing to the stars
Change we must, to live again
Coming to the earth, to the moon
Coming to the sky, to the earth
Change we must, to live again

We will witness the sun, we will sing
We belong to the world
Our mother so devine, we live again
This is here, this is now, this is love
This is love that surrounds
Change we must change we must, to live again

Una ha hay la
Tymura lu ra
Shana tu hay ah
Lay mai


Google Translate auto-detected Filipino, but this is not correct.

john said...

Well anonymous, as usual, you leftist types have a few things wrong...
"Ending of slavery"? That's a joke. Embracing the left ideals has EXPANDED slavery. YOU are a slave. Don't think so? read the definition and then refuse to pay any of the illegal taxes, fees, licenses etc levied upon you. You are working under compulsion for the benefit of others. Sounds like slavery to me.
The NHS?!?!? You better come up with a better example than that!
Universal suffrage is part of our current problem, not the solution.
etc etc etc.
Even the term "progressive" is wrong - "progressives" are actually regressive. Its just that THEY want to be dictators now.

Anonymous said...

No one is brainwashed into hating their own nation. Most progressives are proud of their country, they just don't feel the need to pretend that their country has ever been perfect. This is summed up eloquently by the quote on the base of the statue of Edith Cavell near Trafalgar Square, but of course, I don't have to tell a patriot like you what it says, do I?

Also, I don't know of any progressives who portray " the white man as the sole perpetrator of slavery & genocide in the world." Then again, neither do you.

'Racist' is a pretty clear word - one who makes presumptions based purely on race. It applies to anyone of any ethnicity who does that. It is easy to be loyal to your traditions and culture without being racist - just don't be racist. Anyone can be one without being the other. Just don't act as if cultures and traditions different to yours are inherently worse.

I am not a Marxist, so I have no real interest in addressing that point. The fixation on it is amusing, though.

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

We await the next progresive who will no doubt claim credit for Magna Carter and the anti-enclosure act of 1489

Anonymous said...

Good point, Sarah, enacting magna carta and changing Britain from a theocratic dictatorship to a parliamentary democratic system was a hugely progressive step, and probably angered conservatives of the time. I am remiss for leaving it off my list.

Cheers! ;-)

Anonymous said...

John, what particular definition of slavery are you using? I've never paid an 'illegal' tax in my life, whatever they are. Certainly, I benefit directly and indirectly in many ways from the taxes I pay for my, and from those paid by prudent. It's mutually beneficial (for the most part - we all know some people at all levels exploit the system selfishly).

The NBA is a fantastic organisation, without which myself and many others I know and love would have a Mich lower quality of life, if we would have lived at all. This is to say nothing of the benefit we all get from a healthier workforce, and the part it plays in ameliorating and preventing the spread of disease.

If you think women having the vote is part of the problem, I wonder what our host makes of that. It certainly seems a ridiculous claim to me.

As for progressives being regressive, what state are you saying they want to regress to? Monarchy? Feudalism? The only ones I ever see harping on about 'the good old days' are conservatives and the Right. Progressives are interested in taking what is best from the past and present, and using them to build something new.

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

Anon 14:48

I actually find your attempt to find equivalence between the vindictive little social engineers of today with the anti-slavery campaigners and suffragettes of the past really quite offensive.

You are not comparing like with like, they are entirely different breeds.

There is a difference between campaigning to right a wrong and seeking to achieve an ideological outcome.

The anti-slavery campaigners for instance were motivated by the desire to liberate a race, the modern progressives are determined to destroy one.

Anonymous said...

"There is a difference between campaigning to right a wrong and seeking to achieve an ideological outcome."

No it's not. Deciding what is right and wrong is making an ideological choice. Setting a wrong to rights is an inherently ideological outcome.

"The anti-slavery campaigners for instance were motivated by the desire to liberate a race, the modern progressives are determined to destroy one."

Well, that's just paranoid rubbish. There is no genocide going on, at least not in the West. If there ever is, it will be the progressives who stand against it, not the conservatives.

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

"There is no genocide going on, at least not in the West. If there ever is, it will be the progressives who stand against it, not the conservatives."

Oh yes, just like the progressives stood against the genocides in the Soviet Union, in China and, of course don't cover up the numerous genocides committed by their little tin gods in Africa.

You are completely deluded.

In the last 100 years left wing progressives have been complicit in the vast majority of the genocides and crimes against humanity.

Anonymous said...

Agree with the comment by alanorei and the original post by Sarah Maid of Albion.

As for other comments - No genocide occurring in England?

Let's say, a form of long-term genocide is occuring within England. What you have are a class of fanatical marxist/globalists who are literally destroying England and the English - in more ways than one.

Take a close look at the situation, or is it people just "don't want to know"?

The British are doing themselves no favour by voting for the LibLabCon party. There isn't an ounce of patriotism nor any intellectual and moral honesty within the LibLabCon political ant heap.

Adit said...

Aonymous said: " There is no genocide going on, at least not in the West."

The problem with people like "anonymous" is that they only consider it genocide if people are running around the street hacking people to death with machetes. If there is no river of blood, according to them it can't be genocide (and if its someone they dislike then it's just crime not genocide.) For example, if I found a way to sterilize an entire racial group (without drawing blood) so that there would no longer be any children, 'anonymous' would not consider that genocide. Perhaps he should look up the UN definition of genocide.

Anonymous said...

Hey, there were some good points there. Well, on the SOviet Union, at least. No question, some progressives defended the Soviets even though they very quickly entered a system of state ownership controlled by a powerful elite (a system opposed to their stated ideals), and caused huge sufferring trying to protect, amintain and conserve that system.

As for China, the progressives are campaigning for democracy, for workers' rights, against cruelty to children caused my the one-child policy. I haven't seen any groups on the Right doing that.

On Africa, it was Peter Thatchell, surely for you the most hateful of progressives (a gay anti-racist? Disgusting!) who tried to arrest Mugabe. Progressive news sources tend to be the ones that lead awareness of situations like the Janjaweed in Sudan, or the genocide in Rwanda, as conservative sources tend not to care too deeply about events outside of their own country.

"In the last 100 years left wing progressives have been complicit in the vast majority of the genocides and crimes against humanity. "

Oh, go on, do enlighten me. Please explain the genocides committed in the Middle East, some by conservative Western governments (Churchill), or the regimes of Iran, Iraq and others, supported by conservative interests in the West, or South American genocides (eg. Pinochet, who was even protected over here by Thatcher), or indeed the conservative support for many of those African "tin gods".

I am not saying that progressives have got everything right, but it is in their nature to move forward and learn from their mistakes, while conservatives keepp trying to move backwards to the 'good old days'.

Anonymous said...

Of course sterilization would be genocide. However, that's not happening here. None of the definitions of genocide, whether from the dictionary to the UN, are happening here.

If you want, lay out the definition you think applies, and I will explain why you are wrong.

Also, unlike plenty of posters on here, there is no group I dislike enough to ignore crimes or genocide against. I leave the hypocrisy to others.

Adit said...

Anonymous Said: "However, that's not happening here. None of the definitions of genocide, whether from the dictionary to the UN, are happening here."

Didn't the Labour Party in England get caught admitting that they opened the flood gates to immigration to change the demographics of England? How is that NOT Genocide?

Can you have a Political Party Strictly for Whites in England? (Ask the BNP how that worked out when they tried)Actually, can you have a Whites Only anything In England with out the Government intervening? When was the last time a non-white group had the same intervention? Probably never.

Mass immigration and Government attempts to promote assimilation is an attempt at GENOCIDE.
How many White English have been killed by the Immigrants? Driven out of communities by violence (crime)? All of this falls under a-d of the convention below.

From the Convention:

...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

Adit said...

To 'Anonymous'. I'll just make it simple.

Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.

The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.

Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.

What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?

And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?

But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

Larry said...

The 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide Article II, Section C defines genocide as any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Mass immigration and forced assimilation is genocide as defined by section (c).

Anonymous said...

"Didn't the Labour Party in England get caught admitting that they opened the flood gates to immigration to change the demographics of England? How is that NOT Genocide?"

Because changing something isn't exterminating something. That is why they are two different words, with two different definitions.

"When was the last time a non-white group had the same intervention? Probably never."

So, you've not even bothered to check? Well, why let facts get in the way of a persecution complex? In fact, are there any race-based political parties (let's be more specific than 'group' here) for non-whites in Britain?

"Mass immigration and Government attempts to promote assimilation is an attempt at GENOCIDE."

No. Just because you want to believe that doesn't make it true. No matter how many BLOCK CAPITALS OF TRUTH you use.

"Mass immigration and Government attempts to promote assimilation is an attempt at GENOCIDE."

No it isn't. And the reason why is contained in the quote you posted:


"...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group"

When someone kills someone for money or in a fight, they're a murderer (and frankly, a bastard). When they kill someone of another race for money or in a fight they are still a murderer (and bastard). It is only if they kill someone of another ethnic group (or affect their life) because they have set out to destroy that person's group that they have crossed the line from murder to genocide, and that is not happening in Britain.

I will even give the BNP / NF credit for not trying to commit genocide when they went out "paki-bashing" etc.; they were not trying to wipe out Asians, just scare them out of the country (and fleetingly suppress their feelings of inadequacy).

Anonymous said...

"To 'Anonymous'. I'll just make it simple."

Oh, I'm sure you will.

"Everybody says there is this RACE problem. "

Well, I could stop there. Not everyone says that. In fact, it's mainly just people like you. Still, let's see what else you have.

"Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries."

Again, no, people aren't saying that. Who has ever said there should be no immigration into non-White countries? It hasn't happened, you are making it up. Actually, there may be some nutters, maybe Louis Farrakhan, who have said that, but I don't think that is what you were getting at.

"What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?"

I'd think you'd sound just as nutty as you do now.

"And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?"

It would take a psycho black man to be scared. If a black person has a child with a white person, the black person's family, culture, values, etc., aren't magically wiped out of existence.

I would be happy to call any such pointlessly-scared person black person an idiot to their face.


"They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white."

They're not, but if that makes you feel better, go right ahead.

"Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white."

No, it's just anti-people-who-believe-in-the-same-stuff-that-you-do.

whitegeNOcide said...

"Anonymous" the white genocide-advocating hate criminal thinks white children should be wiped out as a racial group globally via mass immigration,"assimilation",forced integration,all in the name of so-called "anti-racism".

What motivation other than wanting to commit GENOCIDE would a white person have for trying to deny their fellow white people the right to a continued existence in their own countries?

It is more than obvious that Anti-racism is just a codeword for anti-white.

Anonymous said...

""Anonymous" the white genocide-advocating hate criminal thinks white children should be wiped out as a racial group globally via mass immigration,"assimilation",forced integration,all in the name of so-called "anti-racism"."

Let's start:
1) I don't advocate genocide, and have pointed out how opposed I am to it;
2) I don't hate any ethnic group;
3) I don't think white children should be wiped out, any more than I think black, asian or South American children should;
4) I don't think that forcing integration helps anyone. I think that people will always end up bonding over what they have in common, and forcing them to do so will only cause resentment;
5) I am not a "so-called" anti-racist, I am simply anti-racist. I think people should be judged by their actions and merits, not their heritage.


"What motivation other than wanting to commit GENOCIDE would a white person have for trying to deny their fellow white people the right to a continued existence in their own countries?"

Where have I denied white people anything? You make it sound like I want to move them all out of their homes to make room for gay Somalian asylum-seeking hoodies (or whatever the Mail is campaigning against today).

Also, I'm curious, what exactly is it that makes you say I am white?


"It is more than obvious that Anti-racism is just a codeword for anti-white."

Well, yes, if you ignore everything I actually said. Then again, like i said, never let facts get in the way of a good persecution complex.

Seriously, why do you people value your victim status so much?

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

"Anonymous" has left some further comments, I will decide whether to let them through in the morning.

ioannes said...

"Genocide involves the attempt to achieve the disappearance of a group by whatever means. It does not have to be violent, it could be a combination of policies that would lead to a certain group dying out."

Malcolm Fraser (Prime Minister of Australia 1975-1983)

The world is starting to notice that anti-racist is just a code word for anti-white.

alanorei said...

Re: Anon comments, if it's the same one, as indicated, I think we know the individual's identity.

I am sure that you will make the right decision Sarah but it has to be remembered that while trolls, like the Devil, come in many disguises, the intent is the same.

The oldest coherent Book in the world, dating from about 1800 B.C., describes them well.

"They conceive mischief, and bring forth vanity, and their belly prepareth deceit" Job 15:35.

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

After some consideration, I have decided in this instance to allow through a number of recent comments made by "Anonymous".

However, this does not mean I have any intention of allowing this blog to revert to the situation we say a few months back, where a single individual set out to challenge every statement made or view expressed with the aim of wearing down other posters so as to achieve an implied victory.

This is not a debating forum and if the previous behaviour starts up again, I will have no hesitation in rejecting posts and blocking posters.

Anonymous said...

Quote:

Also, I'm curious, what exactly is it that makes you say I am white?

"It is more than obvious that Anti-racism is just a codeword for anti-white."

Well, yes, if you ignore everything I actually said. Then again, like i said, never let facts get in the way of a good persecution complex.

Seriously, why do you people value your victim status so much?""


Can I ask you... a rhetorical question....? Why do Jews value their 'victim status' so much???

Are we related?

Anonymous said...

"Can I ask you... a rhetorical question....? Why do Jews value their 'victim status' so much???"

Well, if it's rhetorical, that means you already know the answer, so I'll let you explain. Besides, I'm a gentile, so I don't claim any huge insight.

"Are we related?"

Well, we do have the same name. ;-)

Anonymous said...

Hmmmm yes..?

Pity we don't protect ourselves in the same manner as they (the Jews) do eh?

We whites appear to be our own worst enemy thanks to the likes of 'whites' like you.

God I really wish I was born Jewish sometimes!

Anonymous said...

"Pity we don't protect ourselves in the same manner as they (the Jews) do eh?"

Historically, I don't exactly think they've done such a great job of that.

"We whites appear to be our own worst enemy thanks to the likes of 'whites' like you."

Am I white? Seems the whites are doing pretty well, anyway. I can't think of any areas they are behind other groups in, at least in the West.

"God I really wish I was born Jewish sometimes!"

Well, I can honestly say I've never heard that before. you certainly get points for originality.

Adit said...

Since I don't have the time or inclination to go through everything Anonymous said, I'll hit a few points and then call it quits on this.

Anonymous Said:
"Because changing something isn't exterminating something. That is why they are two different words, with two different definitions."

...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or IN PART, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such

c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole OR IN PART;

Changing something, can lead directly to exterminating something. Remember, it doesn't have to be machetes wielded in the street right this second. If the changed demographics lead directly to destroying the white race in whole or in part, it can fall under the definition of Genocide. This 'change' was done with intent and purpose. It was NOT an accident.

" It is only if they kill someone of another ethnic group (or affect their life) because they have set out to destroy that person's group that they have crossed the line from murder to genocide, and that is not happening in Britain.."

That is strictly opinion. Perhaps people who have had family members killed by immigrants or been terrorized out of their neighborhoods would think differently. Mass Immigration was done with intent and is being used as a weapon. Why important people who are diametrically opposed to Western Culture (Islam is a great example),and will destroy Western Culture (and more importantly the people who created it) the first chance they get? Two or more incompatible groups (which are expanding daily) in a finite territory with finite resources. Exactly what do you think will happen? Then lets add assimilation propaganda aimed primarily at the indigenous population to weaken their culture (wouldn't want all those immigrants to feel unwelcome), add race mixing and Voila! A recipe for Genocide. If you are looking at 'intent' to be some document which says "We the undersigned have decided to commit Genocide against the White race by the the following method(s)" I think you'll find that people intent on genocide don't tend to leave that kind of documentary evidence. Intent is determined by deed and its consequences.

"If a black person has a child with a white person, the black person's family, culture, values, etc., aren't magically wiped out of existence."

Why? Because you say its so? The child is no longer black. If this happened on a large enough scale or over a long enough time, the black race could cease to exist. Because, you see, their children WOULD NOT BE BLACK. I wanted to make that perfectly clear since that fact has 'apparently' eluded you. What difference does culture, values, etc make to this argument? Race is genetics NOT Culture. But then you know that, that's why the flip to the cultural argument. BTW, just out of curiosity, how do you know their culture and value system wouldn't be destroyed by assimilation? Magic Eight-Ball? Divination? Hopeful thinking on your part? Any proof to back that kind of statement up?

BTW, since you keep eluding to being non-white in other posts, so why exactly should anyone take your criticism of White Genocide seriously? If you are not white, you (and your racial group) have a vested interest in the death of the White Race. If whites ceased to exist, you'd get a bigger piece of the pie now wouldn't you? White Genocide is to your advantage. I think that says it all right there.

Anonymous said...

"...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or IN PART, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group,"

There is no demonstrated intent to destroy white Britons, that's just paranoid.

"If the changed demographics lead directly to destroying the white race in whole or in part, it can fall under the definition of Genocide."

They won't, but even if they did, it still wouldn't be genocide.

"[Genocide isn't happening in Britain]
That is strictly opinion. Perhaps people who have had family members killed by immigrants or been terrorized out of their neighborhoods would think differently."

Perhaps, but unless they have a good reason to, they would be wrong.

"Mass Immigration was done with intent and is being used as a weapon. "

Well, that is also an opinion. And a pretty irrational one, in my opinion.

"Two or more incompatible groups (which are expanding daily) in a finite territory with finite resources. Exactly what do you think will happen? "

Well, considering the groups are demonstrably compatible, I think they'll do what Britons do best: Keep calm and carry on. Muslims have been here for centuries, and we've avoided all-out religious war this long. I think we're safe.

"Then lets add assimilation propaganda aimed primarily at the indigenous population to weaken their culture..."

I have never seen propaganda telling Whites that they have to have sex with immigrants, or that they shouldn't have relationships with other Whites. I get the feeling that you, like Sarah, regard any depiction of mixed-race couples even existing as an act of war. Race mixing is not genocide.

"Intent is determined by deed and its consequences."

It really is not. Check a dictionary. Any dictionary.

"[Black family, culture, values, etc., aren't destroyed by "race-mixing"]

Why? Because you say its so? The child is no longer black."

Well, because their family is still alive, and the mixed-race child can be part of it. Their culture still exists, and the child can be raised in it. Their values are passed on like any parent's can be. the colour of the child has absolutely zero effect on any of this, unless the family is racist and refuses to accept the child.

"What difference does culture, values, etc make to this argument? Race is genetics NOT Culture."

Ah, the nub of your problem. You don't know what race is. It is not genetic, it is social. And if you're not just concerned with pigmentation, then what you really are worried about is culture and values.

After all, there is no genetic difference to how much of your genetics is passed on whether your child mixed-race or not. I imagine you don't realise this. You pass on half of your child's DNA regardless of who your partner is.

Anonymous said...

"BTW, just out of curiosity, how do you know their culture and value system wouldn't be destroyed by assimilation? Magic Eight-Ball? Divination? Hopeful thinking on your part? Any proof to back that kind of statement up?
"

Well, successful mixed-race relationships, and well-adjusted offspring.

Like me. I was raised in both worlds, and have seen the good and bad of both. Over the Summer I saw 2 Shakespeare plays on stage, and went to Notting Hill Carnival. I listen to typically White and Black (and other) music, read White and Black (and other) authors, socialise with White and Black (and other) friends. Not that any of this will mean anything to you. I could go on, but you already have your mind made up.

"BTW, since you keep eluding to being non-white in other posts, so why exactly should anyone take your criticism of White Genocide seriously?"

Because being non-White doesn't preclude one from talking objectively about something?

"If you are not white, you (and your racial group) have a vested interest in the death of the White Race."

That is ridiculous. Being White doesn't give you a vested interest in the deaths of other races, does it? Besides, if someone's out to hurt White people, that affects me and my loved ones directly.

Anonymous said...

Excellent article Sarah, keep up the good work

Anonymous said...

http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/319977_2674022008637_1198770161_33154279_1406811912_n.jpg

More focussed on the USA than the UK, but the principle still holds true.