Martin Webster
From: Martin Webster
Date: Saturday, 20 June 2020 18:46
To: [Various]
Subject: Churchill’s part in Coloured Immigration
Churchill’s alleged negritude and syphilis are side-issues in comparison to his promotion of Coloured Immigration
[This post was originally an email communication from me to a number of people on my email list, some of whom responded. I have adapted the format and set out the responses below this post.]
I don’t know whether the allegation that Winston Churchill had a negro ancestor has been proved by Sam Dickson’s assertion and John Ing’s suggestion — both on 11th June (see below).
Moving from negritude to syphilis, some of you may remember an old comrade in the Cause, the late Dr William Mitchell, who had a GP medical practice in New Cross, south London, and whose son, Robert, stood as a National Front candidate for that area in the 1979 general election.
Dr Mitchell always maintained to me that Churchill suffered from “hereditary syphilis†thanks to his father, Lord Randolph. All the “official†Churchill web sites pooh-pooh that allegation, while other sources cite pro and con assertions. Wikipedia (no friend of ours) has this entry on Randolph, which is typical of the latter approach:
In January 1875, about a month after Winston’s birth, Randolph made repeated visits to Dr Oscar Clayton.[12] He had twenty years to live, but suffered from debilitating illness, particularly in his last decade. Quinault writing in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography considers that he probably was passing through the stages of secondary syphilis and then tertiary syphilis, but mentions a brain tumour and multiple sclerosis as other possible causes.[4] It is definitely the case that he was treated for syphilis, and it has been suggested that he was suffering from symptoms of the mercury-based medication.[13] Clayton was a society doctor and specialist in the treatment of syphilis at his London practice at 5, Harley Street.[12] Robson Roose, who was the Churchills’ family doctor in the 1880s, had written on syphilis, his diagnosis, as a root cause of debilitating disease. He referred Randolph to the specialist Thomas Buzzard, but continued to prescribe potassium iodide and mercury.[13]
According to Frank Harris, who published the allegation in his scandalous autobiography, My Life and Loves (1922–27), “Randolph had caught syphilis…” [12] He relied on a story by Louis Jennings, an associate of Randolph’s who had later fallen out with him. John H. Mather of the National Churchill Library and Center called into question Harris’ veracity and offered the alternative theory of a “left side brain tumour”. Mather noted that “There is no indication that Lady Randolph or her sons were infected with syphilis.”[14]
The more crucial issue
The more crucial issue for us to consider is this
What was the point of Winston Churchill mobilising the British people to …
“… fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender …â€
… when the last remnant of that brave generation of Britons have lived to see a time when, at the orders of the government, various services meant to protect this island and its people are ushering — with the help of the French navy! — wave-upon-wave of illegal immigrants on to our shores?
More illegal immigrants arrived in the first six months of this year (2,000) than arrived in the whole of last year.
Boris Johnson offers legal immigrant status to 2.85 million Hong Kong Chinese
And while that is going on, our Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, writing in The Times on 3rd June, has offered to make what he says would be one of the “biggest changes†in the history of the British visa system “to allow 2.85 million Hong Kong citizens the chance of fully-fledged citizenshipâ€.
Let us revert for a moment to the commencement of mass Coloured Immigration in the early 1950s when Churchill was returned to power. Unless at that time Churchill was senile and kept alive solely by his physician Dr Charles McMoran Wilson’s concoctions of baby monkeys’ glands, then he must take his share of the blame for the immigration catastrophe.
It was during Churchill’s post-WW2 government that huge pressure was placed by Tory Party ‘whips’ and other Establishment intimidation agencies on Tory MP Cyril Osborne to withdraw his parliamentary motion — the first and last of its kind ever proposed — for a debate on the issue of coloured immigration.
Such was the pressure that eventually Osborne became “illâ€. Some say the illness was feigned; others that the pressure had made him genuinely ill. Whichever was the case, in his absence from the House of Commons his motion was not called on. Soon after he was awarded a knighthood. His health recovered.
As the pro-Tory Establishment-toady historian Andrew Roberts remarked at the end of the last chapter of his 1994 book ‘Eminent Churchillians’:
“… and so the greatest demographic change in the entire history of the British nation was achieved without any democratic ratification whatever …â€
Nobody from any of the parliamentary political parties or in any major national newspaper or broadcasting network challenged the truth of that assertion. The Establishment went quiet and hoped nobody would notice.
Choice – the only voice which piped up
The only small voice which did pipe up was Choice, the occasionally-published newspaper issued by my old friend and patron Jane Birdwood (The Dowager Lady Birdwood). At the material time, I was the paper’s principal writer as well as its graphical originator.
Choice published a favourable review of the last chapter of ‘Eminent Churchillians’ in the autumn of 1994. That rattled the cages of Jewish journalists, especially the nest them then infesting the London ‘Evening Standard’. They were soon on the phone to Roberts asking him: “What have you done?!?â€
Realising that he had ‘dropped a clanger’, he sought to defend his reputation by mounting an ungallant personal attack on “the racist†… “the fascist†Lady Birdwood. (This from a man who used to hold discreet dinner parties at his swanky Chelsea home for the former Prime Minister of Rhodesia, Ian Smith!)
Choice got its own back by publishing another story about the matter in which we praised Roberts for drawing attention to a matter which the Establishment wanted to cover up and not allowing himself to be intimidated. (har! har!) See the attached cutting from Choice.
Roberts’ crucial sentence …
“… and so the greatest demographic change in the
entire history of the British nation was achieved
without any democratic ratification whatever …â€
… means the multi-racial society that has been imposed on us by gradual degrees since 1948 has got no democratic legitimacy.
That has huge legal and moral significance in a “democracy†in terms of what is allowable and justifiable by way of resistance.
• The British people never asked for a multi-racial society.
• The people were never asked if they wanted a multi-racial society.
• Creating a multi-racial society was not made the central issue in any general election.
A multi-racial society was sneaked up on the British people by gradual degrees, under the camouflage of continuous horrendous lies. That is not what is known to be “the democratic processâ€.
The supportive public reaction to Enoch Powell’s ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech frightened the Establishment
The Establishment reacted with shock at the enthusiastic public support for Enoch Powell’s forthright anti-immigration speech delivered on 20th April 1968.
In this, Powell warned: “… I see the Tiber foaming with much blood …â€. He declared that unless immigration was halted and reversed then the time would come when the immigrants would “hold the whip hand†over the indigenous British population.
Who can say that this isn’t happening now with rows of British policemen of all ranks ‘giving the knee’ to Black Lives Matter rioters?
The Establishment’s response to public support for Powell was not to reconsider what it was doing to our country by way of immigration — as true democrats would do — but to impose oppressive Race Relations laws designed to suppress and criminalise opposition to what was being done.
These Race Relations laws were, in the first instance, drafted by the Board of Deputies of British Jews and circulated under the title: ‘Group Libel Bill’). All of the several revisions of this legislation were lobbied-for and drafted by the Board of Deputies of British Jews.
In one revision to the Race Relations legislation, “intent†and “the truth†of what was uttered or published by a defendant were not allowed as a defence against charges of “inciting racial hatredâ€.
We are now living under a tyranny. Massive changes to the ethnic and cultural fabric of our nation have been and are being imposed without any reference to the electorate by tyrants who tolerate no opposition.
The time is long overdue for serious resistance. Without resistance then the indigenous Anglo-Celtic folk of the British Isles — and, indeed, the whole of Europe — face genocide via enforced race-mixing.
From: Sam Dickson
Date: Saturday, 20 June 2020 18:58
To: Martin Webster
Cc: Various.
Subject: Re: Churchill’s part in Coloured Immigration
Martin:
As someone who has laboured in these vineyards for almost 60 years, I think the most remarkable feature of Whites in my lifetime has been their extreme passivity.
What has transpired in our lifetimes is horrifying and amazing but the most amazing thing is that Whites seem incapable of normal reaction.
The passivity is more remarkable than what has happened.
It’s akin to going into a grocery store and seeing a woman being raped in the vegetables section, a teenager being knifed in the fruit section, customers being robbed at gun point in the meat department…but the customers in the grocery taking no notice but just blandly pushing their shopping carts around and filling them with their purchases.
What can account for this?
Television?
I have never been able to diagnose whites.
Sam
From: NJ
Date: Saturday, 20 June 2020 20:10
To: Martin Webster
Subject: Re: Churchill’s part in Coloured Immigration
Can’t see the situation could be resolved peacefully. It will come to the point of culmination. Politicians are scum everywhere, no use. It will be like a shoot-out in the streets of Dodge City …
Best wishes
From: Adrian Davies
Date: Saturday, 20 June 2020 20:11
To: Sam Dickson , Martin Webster
Cc: Owen Hayes, John Ings, Philip Gegan, NJ, Denis Pirie, Peter Rushton, Jeremy le Poer Power, Kevin Layzell, Larry Whitehurst, “Martin K. O’Tool”, David Hidson, Steve Kerr, John Morse, Steve Ketdee, Tony Avery, Stead Steadman, Tim Vaux, Robert Henderson, ‘Come Carpentier’ , Gunter Deckert, ‘Bruno Knab’, Bill Baillie, Ray Heath, “Prof. Kevin MacDonald”, Jeremy Turner, ‘Gilad Atzmon’, Israel Shamir
Subject: RE: Churchill’s part in Coloured Immigration
Dear all,
I must say, I agree with Sam about the extraordinary passivity of white people in the face of reverse colonialism, inverse racism and dispossession of their native lands.
This collective defect is especially pronounced in Anglo-Saxons. Twenty years ago, I would have added “also in the Dutch and the Swedesâ€, but both those people now show far more signs of awakening racial consciousness and resistance to dispossession than do ours.
Why is this so? The likelihood of a people who have in the years since the arrival of the Empire Windrush at Tilbury in 1948 offered so little resistance to demographic displacement now offering the serious resistance for which Martin calls seems remote. I shall be delighted to be proved wrong, but how?
Regards,
Adrian
From: [Name withheld]
Date: Saturday, 20 June 2020 20:22
To: Martin Webster
Subject: RE: Churchill’s part in Coloured Immigration
Thanks Martin, really depressing, what dreadful people we have been ruled by. I have written to our MP re Chinese Hong Kong. I’ll send you a copy of his reply. Why would our leaders have done this? Sounds naïve after all I’ve been involved in but it is unbelievable.
KBO
From: Robert Henderson
Date: Saturday, 20 June 2020 20:40
To: Sam Dickson, Martin Webster, Adrian Davies
Cc: Owen Hayes, John Ings, Philip Gegan, NJ, Denis Pirie, Peter Rushton, Jeremy le Poer Power, Kevin Layzell, Larry Whitehurst, “Martin K. O’Tool”, David Hidson, Steve Kerr, John Morse, Steve Ketdee, Tony Avery, Stead Steadman, Tim Vaux, ‘Come Carpentier’ , Gunter Deckert, ‘Bruno Knab’, Bill Baillie, Ray Heath, “Prof. Kevin MacDonald”, Jeremy Turner, ‘Gilad Atzmon’, Israel Shamir
Subject: Re: Churchill’s part in Coloured Immigration
The answer to passivity amongst the English is probability that the English evolved to have an extraordinary degree of self control which allowed Parliamentary government and a meaningful legal system to evolve and reduced the propensity for violence. The Canadian criminologist Elliott Leyton in his book Men of Blood argues strongly for the English being exceptionally restrained when it comes to violence, a tendency going back at least as far as the Middle Ages. That does not mean that the English are never violent merely that at any given period the English were much less violent than the general run of humanity.
When I say evolved I mean Darwinian selection. It would work like this. Any human population will contain a range of personalities, e.g. brave, reckless, calculating and so on. Natural selection would work on the various personalities. The brave reckless personality would be selected for warrior societies and less brave and reckless for more restrained societies
Our own society functioned very well before the introduction of immigrants from around the world. It can’t function properly with huge and growing immigrant bodies within the UK. In short, no society can function properly when it has introduced into it alien behavioural elements which exclude one another.
RH
From: Bill Baillie
Date: Saturday, 20 June 2020 20:56
To: Adrian Davies, Sam Dickson, Martin Webster
Cc:Owen Hayes, John Ings, Philip Gegan, NJ, Denis Pirie, Peter Rushton, Jeremy le Poer Power, Kevin Layzell, Larry Whitehurst, “Martin K. O’Tool”, David Hidson, Steve Kerr, John Morse, Steve Ketdee, Tony Avery, Stead Steadman, Tim Vaux, Robert Henderson, ‘Come Carpentier’ , Gunter Deckert, ‘Bruno Knab’, Ray Heath, “Prof. Kevin MacDonald”, Jeremy Turner, ‘Gilad Atzmon’, Israel Shamir
Subject: RE: Churchill’s part in Coloured Immigration
The First Past the Post electoral system has prevented the representation of anti-immigration candidates in the UK. If we had Proportional Representation we would have a sizeable block of patriotic MPs, just as they have in the Netherlands and Sweden. Our first priority should be PR.
Bill Baillie
From: Adrian Davies
Date: Saturday, 20 June 2020 20:59
To: Robert Henderson, Sam Dickson, Martin Webster
Cc: Owen Hayes, John Ings, Philip Gegan, NJ, Denis Pirie, Peter Rushton, Jeremy le Poer Power, Kevin Layzell, Larry Whitehurst, “Martin K. O’Tool”, David Hidson, Steve Kerr, John Morse, Steve Ketdee, Tony Avery, Stead Steadman, Tim Vaux, ‘Come Carpentier’ , Gunter Deckert, ‘Bruno Knab’, Bill Baillie, Ray Heath, “Prof. Kevin MacDonald”, Jeremy Turner, ‘Gilad Atzmon’, Israel Shamir
Subject: RE: Churchill’s part in Coloured Immigration
Replying to: Robert Henderson’s message that was sent: 20 June 2020 20:40
That’s an interesting idea, but I wonder about its premises. Was the Battle of Towton, for example, an instance where the English showed “an extraordinary degree of self-control�!
From: Adrian Davies
Date: Saturday, 20 June 2020 21:15
To: Bill Baillie, Sam Dickson, Martin Webster
Cc: Owen Hayes, John Ings, Philip Gegan, NJ, Denis Pirie, Peter Rushton, Jeremy le Poer Power, Kevin Layzell, Larry Whitehurst, “Martin K. O’Tool”, David Hidson, Steve Kerr, John Morse, Steve Ketdee, Tony Avery, Stead Steadman, Tim Vaux, Robert Henderson, ‘Come Carpentier’ , Gunter Deckert, ‘Bruno Knab’, Ray Heath, “Prof. Kevin MacDonald”, Jeremy Turner, ‘Gilad Atzmon’, Israel Shamir
Subject: RE: Churchill’s part in Coloured Immigration
You’re right Bill that FPTP is a bulwark of the system parties against dissidents and that PR would be helpful (you would also be right to point out that the zeal of British nationalists for leaving the EU led to the abolition of the only PR elections that we have ever had in England: I appreciate that Wales, Scotland and N. I. have versions of PR for the devolved legislatures).
Bearing in mind that the duopolists respectively hold 365 and 202 of the 650 Westminster constituencies, and so control the legislative process, there is not a cat’s chance in hell of their conceding PR, at any rate, for so long as Labour entertains the (possibly delusional) belief that under FPTP it can ever return to sole power untrammelled by the requirements of coalition. The present system works really well for the Conservatives, while Labour think that it might work for them the next time around.
From: Robert Henderson
Date: Saturday, 20 June 2020 21:20
To: Sam Dickson, Martin Webster, Adrian Davies
Cc: Owen Hayes, John Ings, Philip Gegan, NJ, Denis Pirie, Peter Rushton, Jeremy le Poer Power, Kevin Layzell, Larry Whitehurst, “Martin K. O’Tool”, David Hidson, Steve Kerr, John Morse, Steve Ketdee, Tony Avery, Stead Steadman, Tim Vaux, ‘Come Carpentier’ , Gunter Deckert, ‘Bruno Knab’, Bill Baillie, Ray Heath, “Prof. Kevin MacDonald”, Jeremy Turner, ‘Gilad Atzmon’, Israel Shamir
Subject: Re: Churchill’s part in Coloured Immigration
Replying to: Adrian Davies message ofSaturday, 20 June 2020 20:59
Let me quote what I wrote:
“The Canadian criminologist Elliott Leyton in his book Men of Blood argues strongly for the English being exceptionally restrained when it comes to violence, a tendency going back at least as far as the Middle Ages. That does not mean that the English are never violent merely that at any given period the English were much less violent than the general run of humanity.â€
That deals with non-state actions.
As for state actions such as war, the normal general rules of restraint are removed, although even there such rules as accepting surrender mitigate the violence. It is also worth noting that the English Civil War lacked the routine application of the normal continental rules about sacking a fortified town or city which had not surrendered and the only time such continental rules were applied was during Cromwell’s time in Ireland and that harsh treatment could be ascribed as revenge for the massacre by Catholics of thousands of Protestants in Ireland in 1641.
RH
From: Adrian Davies
Date: Saturday, 20 June 2020 22:00
To: Robert Henderson, Sam Dickson, Martin Webster
Cc: Owen Hayes, John Ings, Philip Gegan, NJ, Denis Pirie, Peter Rushton, Jeremy le Poer Power, Kevin Layzell, Larry Whitehurst, “Martin K. O’Tool”, David Hidson, Steve Kerr, John Morse, Steve Ketdee, Tony Avery, Stead Steadman, Tim Vaux, ‘Come Carpentier’ , Gunter Deckert, ‘Bruno Knab’, Bill Baillie, Ray Heath, “Prof. Kevin MacDonald”, Jeremy Turner, ‘Gilad Atzmon’, Israel Shamir
Subject: RE: Churchill’s part in Coloured Immigration
Replying to: Robert Henderson’s message ofSaturday, 20 June 2020 21:20
Leyton’s is an interesting theory. I don’t have the specialist knowledge of continental history required to say whether England really has been much less violent than other European states with genetically similar populations for the past 500 years.
The late Sir Alfred Sherman (an Anglophile Jew) reasoned that the apparent relative domestic peacefulness of England was the result of the extraordinary opportunities for those so inclined to make a career out of violence and extortion in the empire (very much the thesis of some of those presently advocating in favour of BLM, the only difference being that Sherman approved of such actions, if directed towards lesser breeds without the law. Sherman would have thought Lord Clive’s extraordinary career as a self-taught military commander, shakedown and protection racket specialist in Bengal admirable rather than shocking, but I couldn’t possibly comment!)
My own take on our history is that hyper-individualism is an Anglo-Saxon genetic trait, which has evolutionary advantages under some circumstances (it makes the English remarkable explorers, inventors and entrepreneurs, though all these qualities are to be found in other European nations, as is apparent from the discovery of the new world by the Portuguese and the Spanish and the derivation of entrepreneur, for which, as the second President Bush observed, the French don’t have a word!) but also has disadvantages, for example in competing with groups that have a strong in group/out group differentiation mechanism (and one in particular).
First the Reformation and then the long period of British maritime hegemony moreover enabled England/the United Kingdom to develop in relative isolation from even the rest of Europe, so that in terms of defining who is the other, class distinctions eventually replaced religious distinctions as the dividing factor in society, while foreigners were rarely encountered at all.
After 1948, profoundly alien populations began to settle a country that was class stratified, with little sense of the importance of ethnicity, outside one or two areas such as the East End of London where earlier waves of immigrants were recognised by Britons as “the otherâ€.
Despite the impact of all the factors that I have outlined above, it remains both surprising and profoundly depressing that there has been such little popular opposition to demographic transformation.
From: Robert Henderson
Date: Sunday, 21 June 2020 15:31
To: Sam Dickson, Martin Webster , Adrian Davies
Cc: Owen Hayes, John Ings, Philip Gegan, NJ, Denis Pirie, Peter Rushton, Jeremy le Poer Power, Kevin Layzell, Larry Whitehurst, “Martin K. O’Tool”, David Hidson, Steve Kerr, John Morse, Steve Ketdee, Tony Avery, Stead Steadman, Tim Vaux, ‘Come Carpentier’ , Gunter Deckert, ‘Bruno Knab’, Bill Baillie, Ray Heath, “Prof. Kevin MacDonald”, Jeremy Turner, ‘Gilad Atzmon’, Israel Shamir
Subject: Re: Churchill’s part in Coloured Immigration
Replying to: Adrian Davies’ message ofSaturday, 20 June 2020 22:00
England’s relative lack of violence is indubitably shown by war. Whereas the rape and massacre of the inhabitants of fortified towns and cities and the theft of whatever came to the hands of their invaders was still routine in on the continent in the 17th Century (e.g., see the Sack of Magdeburg) it was effectively extinct in England by then, although as I mentioned before, not when England fought in lands other than England, e.g., Ireland.
On this question of violence keep in your mind the wholly exceptional written records England has, ranging from the Exchequer Pipe rolls, the legal records now held in the National Archive and the parish registers which take us back to the 13th Century at worst. Such records allow historians to build a much more intimate and accurate picture than virtually any other country in Europe. This includes the decline of violence.
Rather than individualism I would say the very early imposition of the rule of law (by the 12th/13th Centuries) and the survival and development of Parliament leading to Parliamentary government in the late 17th century are the drivers to less violence. There were many Parliaments and Assemblies throughout Europe in the Medieval world but these all fell into various degrees of disuse as monarchs became ever more powerful. By the mid 17th century there was barely a Parliament worthy of its name aside from England’s and the Dutch States-General.
As for individualism this can be overdone. Take economics. The UK became the greatest economy and power in the 19th Century behind a very effective system of protection called the Old Colonial System. This was not dismantled until the 1840s and 1850s. By opting for free trade after that time the UK lost its economic advantage and when WW1 came along we were seriously embarrassed both by our inability to feed ourselves from our own farming and by the lead which Germany had taken in the chemical industry.
One final comment on economic individualism. I have never met a poor man or woman who had a good word to say for it. That tells you something important.
At present we are seeing a hasty change of direction as countries have seen how dangerous laissez faire economics is for it puts us in the hands of potential enemies such as China.
RH
From: [name deleted]
Date: Sunday, 21 June 2020 17:45
To: Martin Webster
Subject: Re: Churchill’s part in Coloured Immigration
Thanks for this. To have had congenital syphilis, his mother would have had to have been infected, which would certainly have been possible, either being infected by her husband or from her own well-known extra-curricular activities. However, I cannot myself see any of the stigmata of the disease in their son. Do you know why Dr Mitchell thought he had been infected?
I’ve recently finished reading Diana Preston’s Eight Days at Yalta. The impression I had from the book was that Churchill’s mental weaknesses at this time in his life were probably related to his prodigious alcohol consumption, which I rather suspect might well have been the cause of his “black dogâ€. Aside from this, I was interested to read that following Roosevelt’s death Harry H Truman fired all of Roosevelt’s Jewish advisors and refused to allow any of them to attend future conferences.
[name]
From: Sam Dickson
Date: Monday, 22 June 2020 05:13
To: Robert Henderson
Cc: Martin Webster, Adrian Davies, Owen Hayes, John Ings, Philip Gegan, NJ, Denis Pirie, Peter Rushton, Jeremy le Poer Power, Kevin Layzell, Larry Whitehurst, “Martin K. O’Tool”, David Hidson, Steve Kerr, John Morse, Steve Ketdee, Tony Avery, Stead Steadman, Tim Vaux, ‘Come Carpentier’ , Gunter Deckert, ‘Bruno Knab’, Bill Baillie, Ray Heath, “Prof. Kevin MacDonald”, Jeremy Turner, ‘Gilad Atzmon’, Israel Shamir
Subject: Re: Churchill’s part in Coloured Immigration
Replying to: Robert Henderson’s message of Sunday, 21 June 2020 15:31
The last serious civil war in Britain was in the 1640s. (The 1745 thing is too silly to be dignified by calling it a “civil war.”)
The passions animating both sides in that war were very strong.
I have searched in vain in my genealogy for any cavalier ancestor. Coming from centuries of Presbyterians, of course, it has turned out that all English ancestors known to me were Parliamentarians. I had an ancestor who was a captain in the Parliamentarian army. That’s as impressive as I have been able to come up with. My ancestors were Presbyterians, not Puritans, and did not support the execution of Charles Stuart (although I think he had it coming.) It’s remarkable evidence of the English people’s attachment to the monarchy that the Presbyterians continued to oppose executing the King after all that he had done to earn their hatred.
Despite the furious antagonism between the contending sides in the 1640s, it is remarkable how civilized the behavior was in comparison to things like the French and Russian Revolutions.
There were episodic atrocities. The Parliamentarians killed some Royalist civilians. Part of Charles’ army once ran amuck and killed a lot of civilians in some town or other (which became part of the charges against him in his trial).
But by and large each side was quite restrained.
Things like the Gulag, the Katyn Forest killings, the mass executions of “class enemies” in the Russian Revolution and things like the guillotinings, the September Massacres, the mass murders by sinking boats crammed with ordinary people in the French Revolution did not happen.
Neither the Parliamentarians nor the Cavaliers routinely killed the wives and children of their opponents. Neither side believed that it was okay to rape the wives and daughters of people on the other side.
For all that we Anglo-Saxons think that the English (or British – since Scotland was involved too) Civil War was an awful event, compared to other peoples’ revolutions it was nothing.
Sam
From: Come Carpentier
Date: Monday, 22 June 2020 07:16
To: Sam Dickson
Cc: Robert Henderson, Martin Webster, Adrian Davies, Owen Hayes, John Ings, Philip Gegan, NJ, Denis Pirie, Peter Rushton, Jeremy le Poer Power, Kevin Layzell, Larry Whitehurst, “Martin K. O’Tool”, David Hidson, Steve Kerr, John Morse, Steve Ketdee, Tony Avery, Stead Steadman, Tim Vaux, Gunter Deckert, ‘Bruno Knab’, Bill Baillie, Ray Heath, “Prof. Kevin MacDonald”, Jeremy Turner, ‘Gilad Atzmon’, Israel Shamir
Subject: Re: Churchill’s part in Coloured Immigration
Replying to: Sam Dickson’s message of Monday, 22 June 2020 05:13
Ascribing degrees of violence to nations or races according to their presumed genetics is hazardous and unreliable. I believe that the British showed a capacity like most other people, given certain circumstances, for intense violence and indeed, in a ‘softer’ tone ‘putting up your dukes’ in English society was quite accepted even in the early 20th century whereas to fight with bare hands (or knuckles) was considered ungentlemanly on the continent. Soccer hooligans from Britain are known and feared everywhere! I remember an English friend telling me (tongue-in-cheek) that ‘we had to train fighting dogs for the Empire’.
British mores and behaviour have also changed a lot over the centuries. The rather uproarious conduct acceptable in Shakespeare’s time (when people socially kissed each other on the mouth|) became unthinkable in times of Victorian propriety which were guided by rules similar to those we are expected to observe in the wake of the COVID epidemic.
C.
From: Sam Dickson
Date: Monday, 22 June 2020 14:56
To: Come Carpentier
Cc: Robert Henderson, Martin Webster, Adrian Davies, Owen Hayes, John Ings, Philip Gegan, NJ, Denis Pirie, Peter Rushton, Jeremy le Poer Power, Kevin Layzell, Larry Whitehurst, “Martin K. O’Tool”, David Hidson, Steve Kerr, John Morse, Steve Ketdee, Tony Avery, Stead Steadman, Tim Vaux, Gunter Deckert, ‘Bruno Knab’, Bill Baillie, Ray Heath, “Prof. Kevin MacDonald”, Jeremy Turner, ‘Gilad Atzmon’, Israel Shamir
Subject: Re: Churchill’s part in Coloured Immigration
Replying to: Come Carpentier’s message of Monday, 22 June 2020 07:16
Come:
I hope the Anglo-Saxons (and Celts) still have the capacity buried somewhere inside of them of fighting back.
I keep wishing to see what someone (H. G. Wells?) predicted: that when cornered the English will work themselves up into a frenzy of self-righteousness and destroy everything in sight.
Or Kipling’s “When the Saxon Begins to Hate.”
But I’ve been waiting a long time, just as many of you have.
Sam
From: Peter Rushton
Date: Monday, 22 June 2020 16:23
To: Owen Hayes , Sam Dickson, John Ings, Martin Webster
Cc: Philip Gegan, NJ, Denis Pirie, Jeremy le Poer Power, Kevin Layzell, Larry Whitehurst,, Adrian Davies, “Martin K. O’Tool”, David Hidson, Steve Kerr, John Morse, Steve Ketdee, Tony Avery, Stead Steadman, Tim Vaux, Robert Henderson, ‘Come Carpentier’ , Gunter Deckert, ‘Bruno Knab’, Bill Baillie, Ray Heath, “Prof. Kevin MacDonald”, Jeremy Turner, ‘Gilad Atzmon’, Israel Shamir
Subject: Re: Churchill’s part in Coloured Immigration
Today’s Daily Telegraph included what amounted to a call for some such resistance – significant mainly because its author Nick Timothy was ideological guru for the previous Prime Minister Theresa May. His theme is reminiscent of Evelyn Waugh’s disparaging comment to a neighbour after she congratulated him on the Tory election victory of 1951:
“The Conservative Party have never put the clock back a single second.”
The article is online at:
PTR
From: Robert Henderson
Date: Monday 22 June 2020, 17:00
To: Owen Hayes, Sam Dickson, John Ings, Martin Webster, Peter Rushton
Cc: Philip Gegan, NJ, Denis Pirie, Jeremy le Poer Power, Kevin Layzell, Larry Whitehurst, Adrian Davies, “Martin K. O’Tool”, David Hidson, Steve Kerr, John Morse, Steve Ketdee, Tony Avery, Stead Steadman, Tim Vaux, Come Carpentier, Gunter Deckert, Bruno Knab, Bill Baillie, Ray Heath, “Prof. Kevin MacDonald”, Jeremy Turner, Gilad Atzmon, Israel Shamir
All part of the long march through the institutions, Peter. As a history and politics undergraduate in the late sixties and early seventies I saw the long march in its early stages after Rudi Deutsche had floated the idea. Of course the idea of place men was nothing new but Deutschke gave it a much more formalised and vastly greater canvas to paint on.
It was quite apparent even then that it was a most potent political weapon. RH
From: Nation Revisited
Date: 22 Jun 2020, 17:38
To: Robert Henderson, Owen Hayes, Sam Dickson, John Ings, Martin Webster, Peter Rushton
Cc: Philip Gegan, NJ, Denis Pirie, Jeremy le Poer Power, Kevin Layzell, Larry Whitehurst, Adrian Davies, “Martin K. O’Tool”, David Hidson, Steve Kerr, John Morse, Steve Ketdee, Tony Avery, Stead Steadman, Tim Vaux, Come Carpentier, Gunter Deckert, Bruno Knab, Ray Heath, “Prof. Kevin MacDonald”, Jeremy Turner, Gilad Atzmon, Israel Shamir
I have no doubt that left wing academics and liberal politicians are in favour of coloured immigration. I also know that the Jews are generally in favour of open borders. They have wandered the world for two thousand years and they are bound to feel sorry for immigrants. But I maintain that the main reason for immigration is economic. If you support world trade you can’t complain about immigration. The only way that we can protect ourselves is by becoming part of a self-sufficient bloc that uses its own labour and resources.
Bill Baillie
From: Sam Dickson
Date: 22 June 2020, 17:53
To: Nation Revisited, Sam Dickson,
Cc: Robert Henderson, Owen Hayes, John Ings, Martin Webster, Peter Rushton, Philip Gegan, NJ, Denis Pirie, Jeremy le Poer Power, Kevin Layzell, Larry Whitehurst, Adrian Davies, “Martin K. O’Tool”, David Hidson, Steve Kerr, John Morse, Steve Ketdee, Tony Avery, Stead Steadman, Tim Vaux, Come Carpentier, Gunter Deckert, Bruno Knab, Ray Heath, “Prof. Kevin MacDonald”, Jeremy Turner, Gilad Atzmon, Israel Shamir
Bill:
A nation must be reasonably self-sufficient to be a sovereign and independent nation.
We have seen this in the Covid Virus “crisis” here in the US. (I will set to one side the fact that the virus scare is 5% real and 95% hype.)
We have been unable to implement widespread testing…because our medical supplies are no longer manufactured in America but are imported from CHINA.
The free trade fanatics – which include all Democrats and virtually all Republicans – have spent decades ridiculing people who questioned the wisdom of deindustrialization and off-shoring our manufacturing to the Third World.
Those of us who pointed out that this would leave us at the mercy of foreign countries, most of which are hostile to us, were called “economic isolationists”, “reactionaries”, “trade warriors” when the proponents were polite and “fascists” and “Nazis” when they weren’t.
Well! Now we have the data in hand. Who was RIGHT? Who was WRONG?
But – no surprise – the System media has been in absolute lockstep in never, never, never even raising the question about our dependence on foreign imports.
Instead, the journalists have blathered away about Trump’s “failure to prepare.”
Never about the Clintons’ role in stripping away our ability to produce our own medical supplies. Not once have I seen anyone in the media ask any System politician or economist a question about this issue.
The unanimity of the media and the gullibility of the American people are astonishing.
There was more disagreement, dissent and free reporting of real news in Pravda and in Der Voelkischer Beobachter than in the American media.
And I’m not being cute in saying that.
There is absolute,total, deadening unanimity in all of our media.
Goebbels and Stalin could only dream of having such a compliant media and gullible public.
But reality remains reality.
And your point (and mine) has been proven right.
Free trade means abolition of country.
From: Martin Webster
Date: Monday 22 June 2020, 18:56
To: Nation Revisited, Robert Henderson, Owen Hayes, Sam Dickson, John Ings, Peter Rushton
Cc: Philip Gegan, NJ, Denis Pirie, Jeremy le Poer Power, Kevin Layzell, Larry Whitehurst, Adrian Davies, “Martin K. O’Tool”, David Hidson, Steve Kerr, John Morse, Steve Ketdee, Tony Avery, Stead Steadman, Tim Vaux, Come Carpentier, Gunter Deckert, Bruno Knab, Ray Heath, “Prof. Kevin MacDonald”, Jeremy Turner, Gilad Atzmon, Israel Shamir
Bill:
That’s a load of bollox, and you (should) know it.
“…part of a self-sufficient bloc that uses its own labour and resources…†you say?
What? Like the European Union — which you champion in honour your spiritual guru, Saint Oswald Mosley?
Please don’t try and divert the theme of this thread on to your Mosleyite obsession of ‘Europe a Nation’.
The EU is gorging itself on alien (mainly Afro-Asian) immigration and is also having a great time using the French navy to usher on to our beaches boat-loads of illegal immigrants — 2,000+ this year already, double the number of arrivals last year. (As I write I learn that Stuttgart is the latest European city to be devastated by immigrant rioters. The German media and Police are doing their best to hush up the fact that Police of that city were forced to flee from a massive onslaught which saw Police cars torched, individual officers beaten-up., etc., etc. The German media have been describing the rioters simply as “peopleâ€!)
While I’m banging the anti-EU drum, may I say how illogical I found Adrian Davies’ support for your advocation of Proporational Representation. He lamented that the Brexiteers’ victory in (a) the 2016 Referendum and (b) the last general election, resulted in the loss to the British electorate of the only PR elections available to them.
Oh! Deary-me!
Adrian was too coy to spell out (to a mainly Brexiteer audience in this thread!) that the elections to which he was referring were the EU ‘Parliament’ elections!
The ‘loss’ to the British people of those elections is not matter for lament since the EU ‘Parliament’ has very little power. The real power in the EU belongs to the Commission, which is a self-perpetuating oligarchy. The EU ‘Parliament’ is little more than a decorative bauble designed to con the ill-informed general public that the EU is a democratic institution
Furthermore, the number of British members of the EU ‘Parliament’ (by whatever method they were elected) were completely swamped by MEPs from other countries. Most of these other countries, (including Croatia) are in the ranks of the begging-bowl brigade who love the EU because it enables them to batten on to the taxpayers of the minority of EU countries who are net-contributors to the EU’s budget — who included, until recently, Britain.
“A self-sufficient bloc†Bill? Give me a break!
Getting Britain OUT of the EU once and for all must be British nationalists’ (as distinct from European nationalists) number one priority. Once that is done, we must then turn our attention to stopping immigration and starting repatriation.
Our internationalist enemies realised back in 2016 that at the root of the British peoples’ hostility for the EU, the thing that prompted them to vote as they did in the Referendum, was their hostility to the alien invasion of our land. That theme was at the root of my initial posting which prompted this thread.
So, Bill, don’t be like Mr Dick in David Copperfield who, no matter what was the topic of any discussion, he always steered the conversation towards the subject of King Charles the First’s head.
Martin Webster.
That’s the end of the thread for the time being. We shall update this post as and when further responses are posted to the original post.
Anglo-Celtic
