Civilization vs Savagery: Black Criminals and the Traitors Who Import Them

This article was first published in Professor Kevin MacDonald's 'The Occidental Observer' blog and is reproduced here by his kind permission. The original can be viewed at this link at The Occidental Observer.

Civilization vs Savagery: Black Criminals and the Traitors Who Import Them

July 6, 2018

by Tobias Langdon

Irony. It’s another  over-worked term in modern popular culture. But there are times when it’s perfectly appropriate. The Dutch academic Dr Jeroen Ensink  devoted his life to improving water-supplies in the Third World, thereby helping non-Whites to lead healthier lives and raise more children. He had worked everywhere from Pakistan to Malawi, but in 2015 he was based in London and “working on a large study” on the Congo for the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

Random Attacks

Dr Ensink was happily married and had just celebrated the birth of a daughter to his wife Nadja Ensink-Teich. On 29th December 2015 he left his home in north London to post some cards announcing the birth to his friends and relatives. That’s when he encountered a psychotic stranger, who stabbed him to death in a “random attack.”

I’m an incorrigible thought-criminal, so when I first heard about the killing I naturally leapt to a hate-filled conclusion. White victim? Random attack? Vibrancy will be involved, I thought. Sure enough, the psychotic killer turned out to be a 23-year-old Nigerian called  Timchang Nandap. And yes, it is indeed a tragic irony when a Black from the Third World kills a White who has devoted his life to helping Blacks in the Third World.

civilization vs savagery
Civ vs Sav #1: Dr Jeroen Ensink and Timchang Nandap

But the death of 16-year-old Christina Edkins in 2013 was simply tragic. She too was killed in a “random attack” by a psychotic stranger, as I described in “ Biology Beneath: Exposing the True Costs of Mass Immigration.” Again I leapt to a hate-filled conclusion at the time and again I was right.

The killer Phillip Simelane was Black, but he came from Swaziland, not Nigeria like Timchang Nandap. Otherwise the two cases are remarkably similar. Both killers had long histories of crime and psychiatric problems. They should have been in jail or secure mental hospitals, not roaming the streets. That’s what Christina Edkins’ relatives  said then and that’s what Dr Ensink’s widow is  saying now, as an enquiry into his death gets under way in London. She wants “answers” from the authorities about a crime that she says “should never have happened.”

civilization vs savagery
Civ vs Sav #2: Christina Edkins and Phillip Simelane

But she is, I’m afraid, a deluded liberal exactly like her late husband, because she is not asking the most important question: Why was Timchang Nandap in the White nation of Britain in the first place? Blacks cause huge problems in the West and supply nothing that White nations need.

They are much more prone not just to crime, violence and welfare-dependency, but also to the most severe forms of  mental illnessEn route to his “random” killing of Dr Ensink, Timchang Nandap announced that he was “the Chosen One” and the “Black Messiah.” If Britain’s mainstream journalists were honest, they might have drawn parallels with an even worse Black killer in London, the psychotic  Robert Torto. But mainstream journalists are not honest, so Mr Torto has stayed where liberals know he belongs: in oblivion.

A forgotten hate-criminal

And who was Robert Torto? He was a Ghanaian religious maniac who announced that he was the “Son of God” and conducted a fire-bombing campaign in 2006 to rid London of sin and infidelity. He successfully burned two Muslims to death after throwing a petrol-bomb into their shop, but he was arrested before he could turn his attention to the  gay clubs and mosques on the “To Do” list found by police at his home.

If he’d been White, he would now be a notorious hate-criminal and his horrific crimes would be  regularly re-visited by official propaganda. But he was Black, so he’s long-forgotten. The criminal Berlinah Wallace will eventually be the same. As I described in “The Bestial of British Re-Booted,” she threw sulphuric acid on her White ex-boyfriend Mark van Dongen in 2015, leaving him with such horrific injuries that he committed suicide. Like Dr Ensink, Mark van Dongen was Dutch. Like Timchang Nandap, Berlinah Wallace was Black.

civilization vs savagery
Civ vs Sav #3: Mark van Dongen and Berlinah Wallace

But she came from South Africa, not Nigeria. Africa is a huge and varied continent. Indeed, there is  much more genetic diversity among Black Africans than in the rest of the world’s population combined. Unfortunately, none of that genetic diversity codes for civilization and sustained intellectual achievement. Tiny White nations like  ScotlandSweden and  Hungary have contributed far more to science, mathematics and art than all the teeming millions of Africa. And Whites from those nations make many more valuable contributions when they emigrate to larger nations like England and America. Blacks from Africa, by contrast, are a permanent burden on the White nations that host them.

No skin in the game

And that brings me to another tragic irony in modern Britain. It just has been announced that  there will be prosecutions of a senior police officer and other men responsible for supervising a  soccer match in 1989 at which ninety-five fans were crushed to death. However incompetent they may have been, the men have my sympathy. Crowd-control is a difficult but thankless job. If you get it right, people take your success for granted. If you get it wrong, you’re covered in opprobrium. But the prosecutions are probably a good thing. They mean that the police have what Nassim Taleb calls “skin in the game.” When the police make mistakes, it’s right that they answer for them.

Meanwhile, British citizens responsible for many more deaths and much more suffering walk around in no fear of the law. The Jewish immigration minister  Barbara Roche oversaw a vast increase in Third-World immigration under the smirking war-criminal Tony Blair. The officials at that soccer-match in 1989 did not know that their actions would lead to nearly a hundred deaths. At worst, they were incompetent.

Blair and Roche knew with absolute certainty that increased immigration from the Third World would lead to thousands more murders, rapes and woundings. Indeed, they knew that it would permanently harm Britain. For merely one example, let’s take the “more than 200,000” Somalis who came to Britain under New Labour. Tom Bowyer’s  devastating biography of Tony Blair points out that “most” of the Somalis were “untrained and would be dependent on welfare,” so “the Home Office could have refused them entry”.

Masters of Mendacity

But Barbara Roche “granted [them] ‘exceptional leave to remain’.” Somalia is a  failed state riven by clan warfare and corruption. The average IQ of Somalis  appears to be 68 — yes, a jaw-dropping sixty-eight. Even if they weren’t inclined to criminality, Somali immigrants will always form a permanent —  and expanding — underclass of tax-eaters. Of course, Somalis are heavily inclined to criminality. Barbara Roche committed huge crimes against Britain and she has never answered for them. Instead, she serves as “the chair of the board of trustees” at the “Decidedly Jewish”  Migration Museum in London, which pumps out lying propaganda about the way migration has “enriched” Britain.

barbara roche
Mistress of Mendacity Barbara Roche

I hope that Blair’s and Roche’s immunity from prosecution ends sooner rather than later. When it does end, it will be easy to prove that they acted in full knowledge of what increased Third-World immigration would do to Britain. It will also be easy to prove the motives for their crimes. Blair was a  shabbos goy betraying British Whites in return for money and political success. In her own words, Roche  entered politics “to combat anti-semitism and xenophobia in general.”

Atomizing British society has been “good for the Jews”. But it has not been good for Jeroen Ensink, Christina Edkins, Mark van Dongen and countless other British Whites. The same is true in every other Western nation where Jews and their shabbos goyim have committed the huge crime of exposing civilization to savagery.

‘White flight’ plus immigration always add up to segregation

This report on White Flight by Alasdair Palmer & Karyn Miller was first published in the Daily Telegraph on 8th October 2006 (to read original source, click here - all emphasis on this page has been added). Nearly twelve years have now elapsed since that time, and the mass-influx of non-white migrants into our country, towns and cities continues unabated...

The call to prayer from the muezzin wafts down the streets five times a
day. Nearly all of the women are veiled in public. It is not easy to buy
alcohol or find an open pub. And, as one resident says: “You can walk
all the way to the shops – you won’t see any whites.”

But this isn’t an exotic city in South Asia or the Middle East. This is
Bradford. The old Victorian city has profoundly segregated
neighbourhoods: areas separated not simply by wealth but by ethnicity,
culture and religion.

Profound segregation along those lines could be the future for many of
our cities.

Graham Gudgin, of the consultants Regional Forecast, has calculated
what that level of migration means for the future of Britain’s cities. He
examined the population and complexion of the UK’s 37 largest cities.

To his surprise, he discovered that, after years of shrinking, many of
Britain’s towns are now increasing in size.

Yet the exodus of middle-class families that was responsible for many
cities falling in population has not ceased or even slowed. It is simply
that the rate of immigration from outside Britain has increased fast
enough to compensate.

Migrants from developing countries typically have more children than
indigenous Britons: they marry younger and start families earlier.

In 2001, the Institute for Economic and Social Research revealed that
the birth rate among Bangladeshi teenagers, for example, was 75 per
1,000, compared with 29 births per 1,000 white teenagers of British parentage. The Bangladeshi girls were almost all married and would go
on to have many more children, while most of the white teenagers
would not.

In the London borough of Newham, where a very high proportion of the
population is from South Asia, the average woman will have 2.5
children. The average number of children for women in Britain as a
whole is 1.8. Where wealth goes up, birth rates go down.

The exodus of wealthier whites and influx of poorer migrants with higher
birth rates means many of Britain’s towns and cities may soon have
majority populations made up of recent migrants. Indeed, Mr Gudgin’s
model predicts that many of them will soon be completely dominated by
new arrivals.

He has calculated what happens, on present trends, to the population of
a hypothetical British city that starts with immigrants making up just one
per cent of the population.

It takes, he notes, “45 years for that population to reach a proportion of
20 per cent of the total”. That, he says, is approximately the number of
years it took for the proportion of migrants to reach 20 per cent in the
British cities where it has actually done so.

It takes a further 20 years for the ethnic share of the population to
double to 40 per cent – the level achieved in London in 2001. But then
the ethnic proportion increases very rapidly, taking a further 12 years to
reach 60 per cent and just another five years to reach 100 per cent.

“Obviously,” says Mr Gudgin, “our cities are not going to be 100 per
cent ethnic in the near future, or probably ever. We have to assume that
migration policy and behaviour will change long before that point is
reached. The model simply shows what would happen if migration
policy and behaviour continued at the same rate as it is today.”

The assumption that policy will change to alter the rate of migration long
before any of Britain’s cities become “100 per cent made up of recent
migrants from other ethnicities” is surely correct. Yet the expectation is
that immigration will increase, rather than diminish, over the next

Mr Gudgin explains his projection’s rapid increase in the ethnic
proportion not just as the result of immigration itself but as the result of
its combination with “white flight” from cities.

The indigenous Britons who leave are those who have the opportunity
to do so, which usually means they have the economic resources to be able to move house. They are usually middle-class rather than working-
class, and often people who own their homes.

Does this mean that the middle classes want to be segregated from
ethnic minority migrants, and will move to ensure that they live in white
neighbourhoods: that they are, in a word, “racist”?

That is the allegation normally thrown at working-class inhabitants of
inner cities: the people who are “left behind”, who complain about “their”
neighbourhoods being “swamped by immigrants”, and who say that
“immigrants are claiming too many benefits and are allowed to jump the
queue for council housing”.

The depressing conclusion – that the middle classes are, despite the
rhetoric of inclusiveness, no more welcoming or inclusive than some of
their working-class compatriots – might turn out to be correct.

Extreme segregation is found in many American cities, where blacks
and whites are often separated in different residential enclaves. Is it the
future for some British towns?

Are we, in the words of Trevor Phillips, the chairman of the Commission
for Racial Equality, “sleepwalking towards segregation”?

The Assault on our Language and Culture

I remember hearing a Labour Party member saying in 1970 that coloured immigration (as “multi-culturalism” was then called) would benefit Britain by “enriching our culture”.

This was in the face of what even in those far-off days was considerable evidence that non-whites tend to debase and distort White culture by superimposing their own sub-cultures upon it.

In the intervening years this evidence has multiplied and now we only have to switch on our television sets or open a magazine to see what black sub-culture is doing to our music, art and way of life. Even the English language is not immune.

Blacks and asiatics are ceaselessly promoted in the mainstream media by the Jews and white liberals who for the most part control it. Blacks, in particular, are portrayed as “artistic” and “sensitive”, in the face of all the evidence of our own eyes and ears. The most cravenly childish and primitive forms of culture – whether crude paintings, sculpture, reggae or similar “music”, or attempts at acting, are thrust upon us as being somehow equal to or even superior to our own.

Black “entertainers” posture on our stages and screens gyrating and swaying, to the applause of white liberals and fellow blacks. Rap artists drone on with their mono-tone, staccato verbal diarrhea backed up by a bongo drum and an electric guitar (and, usually, several other blacks). Even the once staid “Songs of Praise” television program that used to grace our Sunday evenings on BBC1, with choral singing from some of Britain’s finest church choirs, has become largely a platform for black gospel singers shaking their ample hips and emitting sounds that used to be heard on TV in the 1960s in David Attenborough’s reports from African forest clearings.

One of the first casualties of our culture was our language, the English language, spoken by more people worldwide than any other. The language of Shakespeare and Milton, of Wordsworth and Dickens. From the earliest days after mass non-white immigration took a hold on our country alien words have entered our language. Words such as “chillin'”, “chillaxin'”, “dude”, and “holla”, are part of the black sub-language that is attacking the English language.

Other English words, often going back centuries, have been made to mean something different, often the opposite of their original meanings, such as “wicked” and “cool”. One of the most important words that blacks use among their own is “shit”, used to describe just about anything.

The English language word-ending “er”, as in “mister”, “player” or “gangster” becomes “mista”, “playa” and “gangsta”. Ironically, the word “nigger” also falls into this category. It was originally a term of affection used by Whites in the southern United States in the nineteenth century. Then it was made unacceptable in Western countries by the liberal media, who deemed it a “hate” word. Now it has become popular with blacks themselves when greeting each other. And, of course, they spell it “nigga”.

Black obsession with the sex act is reflected in most of their so-called musical efforts, as in “The pussy was da bomb, had a nigga on sprung” or “Bitches get fucked on the roof when I ain’t got no hotel dough”.

Another part of the human anatomy that endlessly fascinates black people is, apparently, what we refer to as the backside. Hence, to “drop it like it’s hot” refers to dropping one’s backside quickly to the rhythm of a song, and catching it just before it touches the floor.

All this is just a small part of the “cultural enrichment” promised us by establishment politicians in the early days of multi-culti. There are now thousands of ways in which the English language has been distorted through its use by non-whites. In fact the situation is now so bad that, according to Dr Dominic Watt, a sociolinguistics expert from the University of York, and the author of ‘The Sounds of the Future’ report, there will be significant and permanent changes to our language by the middle of the century. It goes without saying that these “changes” will invariably be for the worse.

For example, blacks and asiatics have difficulty in pronouncing “th”, as in “the”, “mother” and “think”. The sounds that come out are the more primitive sounding “da”, “muvver” and “fink”. “This” becomes “dis” and “that” becomes “dat”. These people also can’t pronounce the letter “u” properly. So, for example, “beautiful” (not that they tend to use such a word very often) becomes “bootiful” and “duke” becomes “dook”.

In other areas of pronouncement, “red” becomes “wed”, and “real” becomes “weal”. And then there’s the hundreds or maybe thousands of new, primitive words, blacks use in their rap outpourings and, more and more, in their day-to-day language.

So fast is the alien population growing compared to Whites that this deterioration of the English language is now the mainstream way of speaking in many of our large towns and cities, where blacks and asiatics outnumber White Britons. You can imagine the long-term effects all this constant degrading of our beautiful language will have on it, and on our culture in general.

‘The Sounds of the Future’ report also covers the effect of modern technology, and in particular Social Media, on the English language, perhaps in an attempt to prevent accusations of “racism”. You can read more about Dr Watt’s findings here. 

“I Am A Racialist! And Proud!”

This post, from Will Wright, was originally posted in the Comments Box of an article published in the Telegraph Online, “Three in five Britons support a ‘hostile environment’, for illegal immigrants, poll shows”. It will probably have been taken down by the time you read this, so here is the full version.

A racialist is someone who believes in racial differences and separate racial development. This is someone who wants his own race to survive, thrive and prosper. Someone who is a racialist might, or might not, also be a racial supremacist. That is someone who believes his own race is inherently superior to other races and wants it to thrive on a global scale, if necessary, at the expense of other races. But being a racialist is about a love of your own people – not hatred of other peoples. No one can help being born of a particular race and it would be wrong to hate anyone because of this.

Any hatred should properly be directed towards the Establishment and the political class, rather than other races. The politicians have created a multi-racial nightmare. Some individual politicians are more deserving of blame than others.

‘Racism’ is a word promoted by the Politically Correct lobby in the United States. It is meant to imply hatred and criminality. It has been imported from America by the PC brigade here in the United Kingdom. Since the Seventies, it has gradually replaced the correct word, ‘racialism’. This was always the intention. Reject the import and always use the word ‘racialism’.

Racial Nationalists are people who love their own country and don’t want large numbers of foreigners to live permanently in their ancestral homeland. They particularly don’t want racial foreigners settling in their country.

Liberals and the Left try to intimidate anyone who speaks in favour of their own people’s interests by shouting ‘racist’. But unless large numbers of British people are prepared to say “I am a racialist”, rather than “I’m not racist, but…” then Britain will surely be destroyed. We need hundreds, then thousands then tens of thousands to declare “I am a racialist”. This as a prelude to millions voting into power a racial nationalist political party.

The National Front, in the Seventies, was such a party. It was destroyed by every dirty trick in the book.

  • The Establishment putting up the election deposit.
  • A massive campaign of violence by the far left.
  • Oppressive race laws designed to crush any dissent against mass non-white immigration.
  • Nationalists being driven out of jobs.
  • Infiltration by the state security services etc.

In the Nineties and the new millennium, the British National Party was a poor imitation of the National Front. It found that banks wouldn’t give it banking facilities and printers would not print its literature. It faced the same blanket hostility from broadcasters and newspapers that the Front had. It faced another threat too – UKIP.

UKIP offered a ‘safe’ haven for those who felt patriotic but were too afraid to declare, “I am a racialist”. UKIP people from Farage downwards were terrified of that magic, imported word ‘racist’. That is why they drove out Godfrey Bloom, Anne Marie Waters, Henry Bolton, Jo Marney, and others.

UKIP’s immigration policy of an ‘Australian points-based system’ is totally inadequate to save Britain as a white country. We need a complete halt to non-white immigration and a start made on a policy of phased repatriation of all non-whites.

Nigel Farage was asked what his greatest achievement was. I thought that he might have felt that helping to get Britain out of the EU was this. But no, he thought that stopping the ‘far-right’ was more important. Farage is a false messiah – just another judas goat.

So, let us make a start. I am a racialist. Now you write it. You will feel so much better – and you won’t ever again be intimidated by the American-imported word ‘racist’.

The BBC and Other Media versus The Truth

The following is an Open Letter to the BBC's Points of View on the Media Coverage of Black Crime from Will Wright

Subject: Race and immigration ... and a suggestion for an interview documentary

7th May 2018

Dear BBC

There have been quite a few stories about race or immigration in the news lately: the fiftieth anniversary of Enoch Powell’s speech, the twenty fifth anniversary of the Stephen Lawrence killing, the Windrush controversy, Boris Johnson’s suggestion of an illegal immigrant amnesty and Prince Harry to marry a mixed-race American citizen, among others.

One of the most controversial is the great many black-on-black knife murders in London since stop and search was abolished. On your website page at you write “Knife deaths aren’t causing the outrage they should because the majority of victims come from black communities, a top UK officer says.”

It seems to me that this top policeman has got things the wrong way around. The reason the knife murders are not causing more outrage is because the majority of the killers come from black communities. It further appears to me that white liberals become very upset on the rare occasion that white people kill a black victim, as with Stephen Lawrence who is remembered twenty five years later.

What of all the young white men stabbed by blacks? Forgotten. All the black-on-black killings? White liberals would rather ignore this embarrassing phenomenon.

Mark Easton’s piece on 5th April is titled, “London killings: no easy answers to gun and knife crime”. I am inclined to agree with you that this is not easily sorted out. However, I would like to offer some unfashionable solutions.

How about the reintroduction of capital and corporal punishment? If someone was convicted of murder then they should hang. This should apply whoever the murderer is, whoever the victim is. There would be controversial cases when the murderers were of a different race to the victims. But a brave government would implement this and brave judges would pass the death sentence on murderers.

Furthermore, I would reintroduce stop and search. If someone was found to be in possession of a knife, then they should be birched.

None of this would be ‘easy’ (I agree with your headline writer) but I believe that over time things would get better on the streets of London.

Moving on to something even more controversial – Enoch Powell’s historic speech. In that speech, Powell advocated repatriation of non-whites. Most commentators today seem to dismiss the speech as ‘extreme’ and suggest that Powell got it wrong.

But did he? We have predominantly Pakistani grooming gangs in many northern towns and cities targeting under-age white girls. Does anyone in the mainstream media dare to suggest that this is racial hatred or pedophilia? They would if white gangs were targeting black or Asian girls.

Surveys have suggested that one in five Muslims in Britain have at least some sympathy with Islamic terrorist groups – that is about 400,000 people. Among the Muslim community are some who hate Britain and the West and would blow us up given the chance. But we don’t know who they are, where they are, or when they will strike.

Then there are the violent Afro-Caribbean elements already mentioned.

I expect that the BBC believes that there are no easy answers and I agree. But there is a difficult but necessary answer: Enoch Powell’s answer, repatriation.

It is my belief that if the United Kingdom does not stop all non-white immigration and start a programme of phased repatriation quite soon, then white people will cease to be a majority in our own country. Eventually we would become extinct. This would happen through immigration of non-whites, emigration of whites, a higher non-white birth rate and interbreeding among whites and non-whites. Worst case scenario – there could even be a massacre of a minority white population.

Repatriation of non-whites should begin with known terrorists and convicted criminals. In any sane country it would go without saying that all illegal immigrants are automatically criminals and should be deported immediately.

Those non-whites who have led law-abiding lives should be treated as humanely as possible. But there will be difficult cases and that should not deflect us, as a country, from doing what is necessary for our survival as a white country.

Liberals and cultural Marxists seem to want non-white countries to belong to their indigenous populations – but all white countries to become multi-racial. I believe that if the white people of the world perish then, in time, this will be followed by the death of modern civilisation.

Many believe that most BBC news and political journalists are left-wing. I believe this too. But I also believe that most are very professional and try to put aside their personal opinions and be objective. I do think, however, that it must be difficult to do this and get outside of the left-wing groupthink.

I recently saw a documentary, on RT, presented by George Galloway, about the ‘far-right’. I did not think that was objective or fair – but Galloway did interview Martin Webster, the former National Activities Organiser of the Seventies National Front. Webster was shown for a few minutes during a half-hour programme.

So how about the BBC interviewing Martin Webster about his views on repatriation of non-whites? It would be better viewing if the whole half hour documentary concentrated on an interview, rather than showing NF marches from the Seventies. The BBC must be able to do this better than Galloway and RT.

Will Wright