IRAN HAS NUCLEAR WEAPONS ACCORDING TO CAMERON

David Cameron admits that another rogue state has NUCLEAR WEAPON.



FRIGHTENING.

If Cameron was telling the truth.
He's mad quite a few gaffes recently and this could be no different.
Let's see how he riggles out of this one, if he can.

A Conversation About Race................Is It Double Standards?

The above excerpt is from the brilliant and thought provoking docu-film by Craig Bodeker.

Sir Henry one of our blog authors here - first uploaded A Conversation About Race last October but our own particular link to this film has since been broken. But fear not for our fellow marvellous British nationalist (Thank you) on their Unrepentent British Nationalism blog has the full film available.

It really is a well worth watching film and hopefully with our new found friends and viewers here on our blog should draw some interesting comments from those who have never seen it before.

Additionally, the film compliments Silly Kuffars last blog post RACE REALISM accordingly.

RACE REALISM

This is an interesting article taken from a link off the Green Arrow.



Race realist Jared Taylor declares the "civil rights struggle was won long ago"

Jared Taylor (Right) and Jesse Jackson at the National Press Club, Washington DC, March 18, 2010

Jared Taylor, current editor of the American Renaissance, denies the term "white nationalist" and explains why he is not a "white supremacist." But, what this established journalist claims, is that he is a "race realist." Taylor's views have become an important piece of the race relations puzzle, and can often be found in studies, essays, newspapers (including the Washington Post) and books. Taylor has been called everything from a racist to a "true paragon of tolerance." He takes a few moments to discuss with Jamie Hines what is a "race realist," why there is no need for the civil rights battle, and what he thinks of President Barack Obama.

JH: I've read that you describe yourself as a "race realist." What is a "race realist?"
JT: Race realism is rejection of the agreeable fantasies about race that have become orthodoxy since the 1960s. First, it is obvious that most people prefer the company of others of their own race. Forced integration therefore causes tension and resentment.

Second, race is an important element in individual and group identity, which means it is impossible to build a society in which race does not matter.

Third, people of different races build different societies. Blacks—wherever they are found in large numbers—establish communities with certain characteristics, and whites and others do the same.

Fourth, the combination of the first three factors means that racial diversity is a source of constant conflict. This is blindingly obvious, yet one of the requirements of respectability in this country is to pretend—and to repeat loudly at every opportunity—that diversity is a strength.

Fifth, the evidence is overwhelming that there is a substantial genetic contribution to well-established racial differences in average IQ. North East Asians living in America have higher incomes, better test scores, and more education than whites because they are, on average, smarter. Whites are smarter than Hispanics, who are smarter than blacks. It is vital to recognize this because otherwise “society” (meaning whites) is blamed for the failures of blacks and Hispanics.

Finally, race realism recognizes that whites have legitimate group interests just like everyone else.

JH: What are the legitimate group interests of whites?
JT: It is vital to eliminate the stark racial double standard that denies white even have legitimate interests as a group. White pride or racial consciousness is considered “bigotry” or “hatred,” while any other kind of racial consciousness is considered to be a healthy form of ethnic self-esteem. This means every group in the country—except whites—is constantly pushing its collective interests, while whites are not allowed even to have interests as a group, much less work for them.

Some of the interests of whites are obvious. The first is not to be reduced to a minority. Most whites don’t want this but they dare not say so for fear of being accused of “hate.” Hispanics, on the other hand, are constantly rejoicing in their increased numbers and influence, and it is considered natural for them to look forward to eventually become a majority. Their gain is our loss, so why are they allowed to be happy about their gain but we are not allowed to resist our loss?

Whites have every right to prefer the kind of society that they create and to resist demographic shifts that are already changing their country in profound ways. Jews have a right to a Jewish state, and they keep it Jewish through selective immigration. Japanese have a right to a Japanese state and they keep it that way through restrictive immigration. Whites also, whether in North America or Europe, have the right to live in nations that reflect their culture and heritage.

Second, what is known as “affirmative action” is really discrimination against whites. If the kinds of preferences shown to blacks or Hispanics were shown to whites it would be a nation scandal, but because the victims are whites (and sometimes Asians) it is of no consequence. Whites must work to eliminate this while it is still possible to do so. When non-whites become majorities, they are likely to push for even more extensive racial preferences than the ones they enjoy today.

JH: Do you consider yourself a White Nationalist and/or a White Supremacist? Why or Why not?
JT: No. I don’t know what the term white nationalist is supposed to mean. White supremacists presumably want to rule other races, and race realists have no such desire. I believe people of every race should be free to pursue their own destinies, and this is impossible in societies in which they become minorities.

It should not be necessary to add that a concern for one’s own interests implies no hostility to others. Race realists understand that people of all races have the same rights: to preserve their culture and identity against any force that would dilute or replace it. One’s race is one’s extended family. Putting the interests of family before the interests of strangers is not hostility to strangers. One can become good friends with strangers but family comes first.

JH: After doing some research, I've found that your parents were "conventional liberals" who were missionaries in Japan. At what point, and why, did your views shift from what you seen at a younger age?
JT: I, too, was a conventional liberal until I was in my 30s. I preferred being a liberal. Liberals are happy to consider themselves morally superior to conservatives (and certainly to anyone who could be called a “racist,” whatever that means). Also, liberalism is the driving, majority ethos of the United States, and it is more comfortable to agree with the majority. I clung desperately to liberalism. It was the study of history and economics as well as extensive travel in Europe and Africa that finally ground away my liberal illusions.

JH: How do you feel about the election of the first black President?
JT: It was bound to happen eventually, given the collapse of the white majority. Until 1965, we had an immigration policy designed to keep the country majority white. Since that time, the white percentage has declined from about 88 percent to perhaps 62 percent. Do not forget: 55 percent of whites voted for Mr. Obama’s opponent. Twenty years ago, any candidate who got 55 percent of the white vote became president. Now, a majority of whites can vote for a candidate but his opponent may win. In this sense, because of demographic change, you could say that whites did not get the president they wanted. Why should whites encourage that kind of change?

As for Mr. Obama, he encourages the population shifts that are displacing whites. He has sued a state that simply wants to enforce the duly established immigration laws that the federal government refuses to enforce. He wants to give amnesty to 12 million illegal immigrants, most of whom are non-white. In these respects, he is probably not much different from his main Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton. However, even she would not have ordered the Justice Department to drop its voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panthers. This sort of thing is alienating whites.

JH: Describe the current state of race relations in America.
JT: Race is, and always will be, a serious social fault line in this country. Relative peace is maintained because whites tolerate “affirmative action” and massive non-white immigration. They do this because they are browbeaten and bamboozled into thinking it is wrong for whites to act in their own interests. This will not always be the case, and race relations will get worse as more and more whites begin to resist dispossession.

JH: What are your thoughts about people who say, "race doesn't matter?"
JT: They are fools. Race obviously matters. Ninety percent of the churches in the United States are at least 80 percent one race. Is that an accident? Residential segregation is not much different from patterns in the 1950s. Why is that? The NAACP, the Urban League, the Congressional Black Congress, the National Council of La Raza, the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), and literally thousands of other groups and associations are based deliberately and specifically on race. Try telling their members race doesn’t matter.

It is almost exclusively white people who say race doesn’t matter, and this is because they are the only people who are required at least to pretend that it doesn’t matter. This, in turn, is because they are not allowed to have explicit racial interests of their own, and must deliberately close their eyes to the racial chauvinism of others lest they acknowledge this anti-white double standard.

JH: Do you believe that there is a need to fight for civil rights in America?
JT: What do you mean by “civil rights”? People of all races have the same legal rights in the United States, so the “civil rights” struggle was won long ago. Many blacks and Hispanics seem to think racial preferences for themselves are “civil rights” but they are actually a power grab at the expense of whites.

Wouldn't you say this is bang on the nose for Britain and Europe aswell as America.

AT LAST SOME SENSE

Link here -Asylum seeker forced out:

The case of the "child" asylum seeker who has had the fees for his stay in a children's hostel stopped by Wigan Metro is a rare indication of some sense by social workers in the borough who say he is in reality twenty years old.
They disputed that Rabar Hadad who arrived from Iraq after travelling from ther "in the wheel arch of a lorry" two years ago was only sixteen. This presumably means that he was younger than 15 when he arrived and thus a child.
It begs the question that if someone who as a child is thus immature managed to travel so far and in such a manner. Also where were his parents or family?
Why would someone so young seek asylum anyway if he was still a child? Is Iraq not safe anyhow?(admittedly not always pleasant being full of Iraqis but they are his own people so he should get on with them).
The cost Wigan Metro was paying for this six foot plus "child" was reported as £4000 per week, seven times the school fees for Eton. Where do they get these costs from?
However there is a way that mr Hadad's age could have been verified (and perhaps it was), X ray.
The maturity of teenagers can be gauged by their bone development on X ray and I would hope that will have been done.
In any event he has no right here whatever his age is as Iraq is safe and bordered by Syria and Turkey, both muslim countries where he could gain asylum if necessary and live according to his culture.

It is heartening to know that at least SOME social workers are immune to having the wool pulled over their eyes and saved the taxpayers £200,000 per year, although I am sure there are many twenty year old children who get away with it

FLOODS IN PAKISTAN

Our sympathies must go to the people flooded out of their homes in Pakistan.
However monsoon rains have been a regular occurrence for thousands of years so why was this so bad and affected so many people?
There are two main reasons, people and goats.

The population of Pakistan has increased exponentially and many of the mountains have been deforested to obtain wood for building and cooking.
Additionally the goats eat the remaining herbage and leave the mountains barren. Thus when rain does come there is no green cover to absorb it and the water rapidly flows down the steep bare hillsides.

People have been increasingly crowded into valley floor villages and the sheer numbers of them make living in unsuitable places inevitable.
No effort to curb this population growth as muslim tradition teaches "inshalla"or God's will. Thus if you starve to death or drown it is the will of God and man can do nothing. People just accept their fate.
Western civilisation takes a different attitude in that people are often responsible for disasters which are often man made, but also with thoughtful planning these can be averted.

For instance limitation of family size is an important difference, and thus pressure on land resources.
Also we take care not to denude our mountains of plants which can thus act as a sponge. Admittedly we see problems with flooding now mainly owing to concreting over our land and increasing the speed of surface water run off.

Unfortunately people from Pakistan are coming here in increasing numbers and bringing their fatalistic habits with them. Our population is increasing rapidly as a result with consequent pressure on our land with increasing numbers of houses needed to accommodate them.
We are overpopulated ourselves and problems of flooding will increase in line with the population.

The goats? Cattle are too big for Pakistani areas but the goats provide protein in their meat and animals for ritual slaughter. Yes the people need some meat but perhaps the muslims irrational attitude to pigs could be one contributor to the problem.
If they kept pigs for protein and let the mountains regenerate their vegetation there would surely have been less severe floods.

But then, what can you do when it is God's will that they are unholy and therefore banned.

Another cause of human distressm the mulim religion and its food prohibitions and its insistence on large families.

The last thing we need here is more of this medieval and superstitious religion.