Mumbai, 125 dead: thank you Gandhi

Nov 27, 2008, New York Times:

MUMBAI, India--Coordinated terrorist attacks struck the heart of Mumbai, India's commercial capital, on Wednesday night, killing dozens in machine-gun and grenade assaults on at least two five-star hotels, the city's largest train station, a Jewish center, a movie theater and a hospital...

The Mumbai police said Thursday that the attacks killed at least 101 people and wounded at least 250. Guests who had escaped the hotels told television stations that the attackers were taking hostages, singling out Americans and Britons...

Fire also raged inside the luxurious Oberoi Hotel, according to the police. A militant hidden in the Oberoi told India TV on Thursday morning that seven attackers were holding hostages there.

"We want all mujahedeen held in India released, and only after that we will release the people," he said. Some guests, including two members of the European Parliament who were visiting as part of a trade delegation, remained in hiding in the hotels, making desperate cellphone calls, some of them to television stations, describing their ordeal...

A group calling itself the Deccan Mujahedeen said it had carried out the attacks. It was not known who the group is or whether the claim was real ...

Lawrence Auster:

Thank you, Mohandas Gandhi, for using your fabulous moral suasion, backed up by a personal hunger strike, to prevent the Indians from expelling the Muslims at the time of the Partition of India and Pakistan (even as the Muslims were expelling millions of Hindus from Pakistan), leaving a vast Muslim minority in India, now 150 million strong, forever carrying out jihad. Thank you, Nehru, thank you, Congress Party, and thank you, liberalism, which in the name of universal human sameness refused then and refuse now to recognize the nature of the eternal warrior religion of Islam, and thus leave civilized humanity helpless and vulnerable before it.

The only solution, the only way to save the world from Islam, is Separation, the permanent exclusion of Muslims from all non-Muslim countries and the containment of Muslims inside their own lands. In India, tragically, that is not possible, at least in the short term, because of the sheer size of the Muslim population that lives there thanks to the great liberal saint Gandhi. In India, the main method of preventing Muslim terrorism is the threat of mass reprisals by the Hindu majority, as explained here and here. But if such deterrence ceases to be effective, as is evident in this unprecedented Muslim attack, what is to be done?

----------------

(Note, see my views on separation below).

This gallery is brought to you by Gandhi, Nehru, and subsequent perpetuators of liberalism.
** warning: graphic **

Note: I agree that separation is the only solution. I'm in favour of separating Muslims and non-Muslims. But I think it's too late to talk in terms of excluding Muslims from non-Muslim countries. So that leaves some form of internal separation. How to do that democratically? I don't know, maybe a new federalism with ethnically homogeneous states.

Update: Lawrence Auster explains his view of separationism:

... it's not a one-shot deal--instantly expelling all Muslims. To put it in those terms is to kill it in people's minds, just as making the removal of illegal aliens appear to be a matter of instantly deporting them all has the effect of killing the idea of doing anything about illegals, other than legalizing them. It would not involve, at least in the early and medium stages, expelling law-abiding Muslims with no connections to sharia and jihad. I have proposed a range of measures, starting with (1) expelling the most objectionable and most excludible Muslims, (2) placing legal restrictions on the religion of Islam, such as, at a minimum, closing pro-jihad, pro-sharia mosques, and (3) offering to pay Muslims to return permanently to their home countries. These steps would make Muslims feel unwelcome here, leading many of them to start to depart voluntarily, a process helped along by the offer of payment. The minimal, and perhaps the sufficient, goal of the policy is not to have literally zero Muslims in America, but to reverse our present course, so that the presence and power of Islam in America, rather than steadily increasing, as is now the case, is steadily decreasing.

As far as legal measures to restrict Islam are concerned, my own preference, which I recognize goes too far even for many people who support Separationism, is for a constitutional amendment banning the practice of Islam in the United States.

Honouring forgotten victories

November 10, 2008, Jonathan King:

... Australia's former World War I European allies have been commemorating Remembrance Day for decades, but our nation's preoccupation with Gallipoli has overshadowed realities of the Western Front to such an extent that it hardly appeared on the historic radar.

... One soldier wounded at Fromelles told me he was forced to say he was shot at Gallipoli as nobody knew of Fromelles, Australia's worst one-day killing field that claimed nearly 2000 lives.

The Western Front was fives times greater than Gallipoli because five times as many Australians served there - 250,000 not just 50,000; more than five times more died there - 46,000 not 8709; they fought more than five times as many battles - 40 battles not eight; they won more than five times more Victoria Crosses - 52 not nine and fought there for 2½ years, not eight months. More importantly, (unlike Gallipoli) by 1918 they fought as Australians under Australian command, with all five divisions led by General Sir John Monash. Most significantly, what happened was not a defeat like Gallipoli because this all-volunteer army of World War I helped win the war. As Monash reported, the AIF only constituted 10% of Allied forces but won 25% of enemy territory, prisoners of war, arms and ammunition...

I interviewed Peter Casserly, 107, our last WWI Western Front man along with the last 50 diggers who begged us to stop glorifying Gallipoli and focus instead on their victory on the Western Front. They wanted to be remembered as winners, not losers...

THREE QUESTIONS Jonathan King, SMH:

What did you learn from the diaries of Australian soldiers who served on the Western Front in World War I?

How traumatised most of the soldiers were having to fight in the battles on the Western Front. They revealed their secret fears in their diaries … these men who were just bank clerks, insurance salesmen, blacksmiths, carpenters or farm hands rose to the occasion, overcoming fear to become brave and skilled warriors all Australians should be proud of ...

SBS radio interview (starts at 4:00) with Jonathan King:

In a special Remembrance Day program we hear Jonathan King, historian who has recently released the book The Western Front Diaries. It is an eyewitness account of the diggers in the trenches of World War 1.

Quote from interview (8:00):

Q: You look at the young of today, will they have the same spirit as those incredibly brave young men?

JK: No, nothing like it. For example, everybody in 1918 was basically British, or Anglophiles, but predominantly British. They were either born in Britain or their parents were born in Britain. Today, Australia is a totally different country, and so we can't imagine that there would be the same commitment, there wouldn't be so many volunteers, and nor would they identify with Britain ... I don't think it could ever happen again.

Anger as whites shut out of Rugby League World Cup

November, 2008

If consistency was a virtue (TM), that might have been a headline by Daniel Lane at the Sydney Morning Herald. Instead, his 2006 article was titled: Anger as Aborigines, Maori shut out of cup. Back then, retired Aboriginal footballer Arthur Beetson called for indigenous teams to compete in the 2008 Rugby League World Cup. As it turned out, they were not included but did play an invitational warm-up match before the opening game, including a very spirited pre-game "haka off" (warning: contains half-naked crazy man):

"As the host nation, Australia can allow the Maori and Aborigines to enter a team in the World Cup but they don't want to," Beetson said.

"You just hit brick walls with the ARL. It's because of this type of thinking that rugby league has gone nowhere in 100 years.

"We could pick a team that would give the World Cup a real shake, and that's without the Aborigines who could be picked for the Australian team. Is the ARL worried we might beat them?" ...

"It would be appropriate in that the two indigenous people of the host nations who have contributed so much to the game can be recognised at the World Cup."

Sounds good. I'm all for it, although the distinction between a World Cup and Indigenous Cup would take some clarifying. But, alas, there is no mention of the value of a white Australian team "who have contributed so much" more to the game and who have no team representing them (the current Australian team is racially mixed and turning browner by the day).

In the aftermath to this game, there were again calls to allow indigenous teams into future world cups. But, now they also suggest allowing Aboriginals to decide whether they want to play for the Dreamtime team or the Australian team. Andrew Stevenson writes Give Kangaroos last pick of the cultural melting pot:

Bring back the Maori and you might bring back some effervescence to some otherwise very flat beer. And, another guaranteed way to raise a froth is choose all the Kooris, Gooris or Murris, for the Indigenous Dreamtime team. Imagine how well they'd go with Johnathan Thurston, Greg Inglis and Scott Prince helping to direct proceedings.

"I think they should get the best of the best Aboriginals and the best of the best of the rest of the country and let's see how they go. I think they would surprise a lot of people," said Anthony Mundine, making a lot more sense than usual. "I think that would give our youth something to strive for and something to dream about."

The Kangaroos will still probably win but, with half a dozen competitive teams and some epic mate-versus-mate confrontations, international rugby league could live again.

Indigenous teams would somehow add effervescence and froth. How so? Yes, by adding competitiveness, but he is also hinting at the added spice of a racial contest. But, either way, the addition of a white Australian team would also add both because the current Australian team is one-third non-white. So was a white Australian team suggested? No. Alas, the white side of the brain does not work for today's journalists. The closest suggestion to a white Australian team is described as "the last pick of the culural melting pot": we only exist in the defacto negative as the undefined leftovers (still unable to positively discriminate with pride and identity).

And if it's good for indigenous youth to strive for and dream about playing for their race, then why not white Australian youth also? The silence is deafening ...

Another SMH article Call to relive the Dreamtime says...

With a number of players likely to be first choice selections in both sides, Mundine said the decision should be left to the individuals but predicted most Aboriginals would want to play for the Dreamtime team.

Supporting his view is the actions of Kangaroos stars Greg Inglis and Scott Prince ...

"To get out there and represent the Indigenous people is a very proud moment," said South Sydney-bound fullback Rhys Wesser, who scored two tries.

"It was great to take the game back to the grass roots and you saw all the people who came out today to celebrate this moment so I think that it would be good to have it every year. We're very proud of our culture and if we could have this game once a year it would give us something to celebrate."

Soward added: "I'd love to see us in the World Cup and even the Maoris, we gave a good account of ourselves today and obviously we've got a huge following so it would create more revenue."

Former Manly great Cliff Lyons, who acted as a mentor in camp and was a trainer, backed Soward's call.

"I thought today's game was better than the one last night [between England and Papua New Guinea] so why not," Lyons said. "It was a great contest."

If Mundine predicts most Aboriginals would play for a Dreamtime team, then do you think most whites would want to play for a Colonial team (or whatever you want to call it)? Alas, we only hear the crickets chirping in the journalists' brains. And if it's a "proud" moment to represent the indigenous team, then wouldn't the same be true for whites? Chirp, chirp, chirp ...

Another article says...

Match-winner Jamie Soward ... believes some of Australia’s best players would support the idea and pick the Indigenous team over the Kangaroos ...

“It would be up to them (Aboriginal heritage Test stars) whether they’d want to play for Australia or the Aboriginal team but I’m sure they’d probably take the Aboriginal team.

“It’s been an emotional week for all of us. Talking at the start of the week what it meant to each player was pretty special and something I will never forget.”

While inclusion in a World Cup is highly unlikely, the near 10,000 fans who flocked to the SFS early enough to watch the game would support the prospect of further clashes between the two teams.

It could have also been an emotional week for whites too. Chirp, chirp, chirp, ...

OK, Ireland beating Samoa was cool, but it's not quite the same as supporting a white Australian team.

The arguments for race based teams are partly based on re-establishing a competitive world cup, but also on the unmistakable pride in playing for and supporting one's race. So white Australians have a right to be angry because, unlike other Indigenous groups, we are not permitted to play for our race. Sure, we might struggle for some equivalent to the haka, and we probably won't attack the referee if things don't go our way, but the pride is there all the same. Whites may still dominate the Australian team, but there's not the same pride in the jersey anymore, and it will soon be dominated by non-whites.

And further, if there is so much pride in playing for your race, then it follows that the National Rugby League competition should also permit teams to discriminate by race (as well as allowing teams of mixed race). If all this talk about racial pride is accurate, then that would explain why I get more enjoyment watching the all-white Ireland team playing than I do the mixed-race Australian team. And it would also add more "froth" to the NRL competition.

Until next time from the journalistic Bermuda Triangle ... Chirp, chirp, chirp ...

Also: Arthur Beetson has also called for a Reconciliation Test between Aboriginals and the Rest of Australia because:

People don't realise that a lot of our mob call Australia Day 'Invasion Day'. An annual game would be a chance to heal the rifts.

I agree it would help to heal the rifts, but if it's reconciliation you seek then you need to play white Australia. And if Tonga and Samoa can play peacefully, but with passion, despite 1000 years of hatred then I think we can do the same with our 200 year history. Let's get it on.

Melbourne's street warfare on racial lines

November 02, 2008, Herald Sun:

POLICE have compiled a dossier on Melbourne's 40 warring street gangs - most organised along racial lines...

Police and youth workers said gang warfare was turning parts of Melbourne into no-go zones at night...

Officers said they were frustrated the emerging racial nature of gangs was being denied by government because of political concerns...

One police source said crime related to gangs was at crisis levels.

"The level of violence has become serious," he said.

"These people are going armed with deadly weapons. There are knives and baseball bats involved.

"And these gangs are now organised along racial lines - there are Polynesian gangs, Sudanese, Lebanese, Vietnamese and the rest." ...

Former Police Commissioner Bob Falconer said a new debate was needed on how to tackle rising violent crime linked to gangs...

Mr Falconer said there needed to be recognition of the racial nature of gangs.

"There has obviously been some sort of government edict to shut down debate about this. The police will not talk about it," he said.

"It is indisputable that ethnicity is coming into aspects of crime. Most of these gangs have openly ethnic names - and they are self-labelled...

The silence is because diversity only works under fascistic denial. It's because diversity itself is a core part of the problem, and the only solution is to ditch the dumb idea and go back to 'boring' ethnically homogenous communities. A new debate is exactly what we need: ask all public servants to pile up all material with the word 'diversity' in it, burn all the heretical teachings of the diversity ideologues, round up all the diversity advocates and parade them around town like the thieves of social capital that they are. Make them walk around town with the words 'nation wrecker' hung around their necks chanting "Enoch was right".

ENOCH WAS RIGHT - Part 1



ENOCH WAS RIGHT - Part 2
Powell's war-time experience told him diversity leads to violence.
Sing it folks... 2, 4, 6, 8
We don't want to integrate!



ENOCH WAS RIGHT - Part 3

"Too often today people are ready to tell us: 'This is not possible, that is not possible.' I say: whatever the true interest of our country calls for is always possible. We have nothing to fear but our own doubts..."

In 1981, Powell's voice reverberated from the political wilderness with a dour warning of: 'the uncertainty of violence on a scale which can only adequately be described as civil war'.


A debate is long overdue, not doubt hastened by the bashing death of Richard Saunders in Brisbane. But the only solution I can see is one where immigration is recognised as colonisation and some form of separation is the solution. Something that sets limits on the process of colonisation so that each race/religion has their own space and something worth investing their time and energy into preserving. Be that a new federalism, land rights for each group, or whatever. Anything else is just damage control, "heaping up our own funeral pyre" and "mad, literally mad", ending in "the black man will have the whip hand over the white man".

Enoch was right.