Of course Tony, it's all in my mind!

The comment of one commntator today: "In the USA and in much of Europe there has been an explosion of euphoria at Mr Obama's triumph in the USA presidential elections. In stark contrast, there has been a deafening silence from the Arab nation, the greater Muslim world and Russia. The reason to all Arabs and all Muslim is clear, and has been made even more obvious by his appointment to a key post of Rahm Emmanuel, a man, who even went so far in the 1980's as to serve as a volunteer Zionist storm-trooper against the then defenceless Lebanon. How can an Arab, whether Muslim, Christian, Jewish or of no religion, trust a new leader of the USA who makes such a choice, showing clearly that he is willing to support the Nazi-style oppression of his fellow human beings when it does not affect his own mixed race. " Hardly perhaps a smart move: when America urgently needs the Arab Petro states to continue to fund their awesome twin deficits! OK: one can say, glibly," Stuff the bloody Arabs: sod Russia" etc. Unfortunately, the global World of Real Politik has changed with the USA trying their best to write their own epitaph, by screwing up the global financial system.

The thoughts of another commentator on the Obama phenomenon are here. http://bnp.org.uk/2008/11/obama-the-expected-victory

Add to this the fact that mass Mexican and Third World migration has set the USA on course to having its European-American founders become a minority in their own country by 2040, and it is clear that, on top of seeing the end of the American century, we are in fact witnessing the death of America as anything other than a geographical expression. Can someone answer this question for me? Who colonised Mexico and south America? Was it the Spanish and Portuguese? How about another question then... is Portugal and Spain in Europe? Are they therefore Europeans? Ah, it would appear that they are regarded in certain quarters as non-whites, so it is fair to lump them in with blacks then is it? It's about time the Gryphon called a spade a spade don't you think? And not Hispanic! Are those of the Iberian peninsular the new Niggers then Jack?

The vast majority of Mexican nationals Tony are in fact indians. Same with South America. The upwards migration pressure right from Tierra del Fuego upwards is not from descendents of the original Conquistadores and Portuguese colonists and the assorted Scots, Irish, Brits, Germans who make up the "White" population, and not from the Criollos or Mestiza, either. It in majority, is Indian. Wetbacks have been a huge problem for the USA for many years. Actually to be fair, the article was on point re ACORN and Fannie and Freddie and I agree with much that was stated. Of course, the banks and brokers became hyper-greedy and expanded the concept of Sub Prime enormously, as we know.

Close, but not quite PS. The vast majority, around 70% are mixed race Spanish and Indian. The rest are pure indigenous, about 10%, 'white', 10% and the balance are a mixture of all sorts. The majority are known as Hispanics and they are generally the ones who are the immigrants into the US, the illegals being the wetbacks after swimming across the Rio Grande.

So, John, no evidence at all. I asked for evidence of the other crap you wrote, absent black fathers was a given.

Obama, to me, seems typical of the blacks I knew and still know. Just an opinion Tony, which you have every right to disagree with, maybe I am wrong Keep your bile to yourself John. Your spew above about Obama, his mother and his grandmother was not worthy of this forum or anywhere else for that matter. If that's the best you have to offer... your opinion based on stale air and piss, it isn't worth airing. If that's the best you can do you should stay out of here.

How about doing a bit of research before shooting your mouth off: Your comments were typical BNP: inaccurate but based on a semblance of truth ******** From FOXNews.com Obama Calls Grandmother 'Typical White Person' in Radio Interview Barack Obama called his grandmother a "typical white person" in a radio interview on Thursday, raising eyebrows among some of his critics only days after he sought to bridge racial division in a major campaign speech. Friday, March 21, 2008 Barack Obama called his grandmother a "typical white person" in a radio interview on Thursday, raising eyebrows among some of his critics only days after he sought to bridge racial division in a major campaign speech. Obama had pointed to his mother's mother in his speech Tuesday as an example of someone who harbored fears of blacks based on racial prejudice. The Illinois senator revisited his relationship with his grandmother on Thursday in an interview on 610 WIP, Philadelphia Sports Radio. He denied his grandmother held hatred toward blacks, but described her as a "typical white person." "The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity -- she doesn't," he said. "But she is a typical white person who, you know, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know, there is a reaction. That has been bred into our experiences that don't go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way." On Tuesday, Obama described his grandmother as a woman who was at times fearful of black men. In the speech, he said: "I can no more disown than I can disown my white grandmother, a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed her by on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe." The remarks weren't the only ones focusing on race and the campaign on Thursday. Geraldine Ferraro complained that Obama had lumped her in with his controversial pastor, whom she called a "racist bigot." Obama mentioned the 1984 vice presidential candidate on Tuesday in his speech on race and his relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., whose heated, anti-U.S. sermons raised questions about the company Obama keeps. "To equate what I said with what this racist bigot has said from the pulpit is unbelievable," Ferraro told the Los Angeles newspaper, The Daily Breeze, on Wednesday. "He gave a very good speech on race relations, but he did not address the fact that this man is up there spewing hatred." Ferraro, who left Hillary Clinton's campaign finance team after saying Obama wouldn't be where he is if he were white, said she had "no clue" why Obama included her in his speech. She said Obama's relationship with Wright raises questions about his judgment. "What this man is doing is he is spewing that stuff out to young people, and to younger people than Obama, and putting it in their heads that it's OK to say 'God damn America' and it's OK to beat up on white people," she said. "You don't preach that from the pulpit." The Wright controversy lit up shortly after Ferraro left her post on the Clinton finance committee following her initial interview with The Daily Breeze on Obama's success. In his speech, Obama drew a comparison between the two individuals. "We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias," he said. Speaking in Philadelphia, Obama then argued that the issue of race cannot be ignored and that to over-simplify and focus only on the negative aspects of the matter would distort reality. Overall, Ferraro said Obama's speech was "excellent," aside from the part where her name was mentioned.

Thanks for the replies Tony, those were my views not the BNP's. Here is Griffin's response to the election of Obama: ''Nick Griffin assesses the significance of Obama’s Presidential victory. — An outgoing Republican President leaves behind him an American economy in free fall, and a Democrat wins the race to replace him. No surprise in the USA then. Obama’s inevitable victory was against a liberal puppet of the plutocrats whose greed has wrecked the economy not just of America but of the entire world. This is not the result of some zeitgeist change in the USA that heralds a bright new leftist dawn of peace and harmony under a brilliant new leader who will heal ills just by touching the afflicted. Obama was elected because McCain represented the party which Americans blame for turning the cash withdrawal machines they called houses into giant millstones of ever increasing debt and despair. While Obama’s undeniable charisma and brilliant Internet campaign played an important role in his victory, in the end this was not so much about the Democrats winning as it was a matter of the Republicans losing. McCain’s poll ratings tracked the Dow Jones stock market index and he was doomed when he stated that the fundamentals of the American economy were sound on the very day that Bear Sterns collapsed. That’s all there is to it. The Obama halo is relative to his opponent, and within weeks of his not having an opponent that halo will begin to lose its lustre. And so it should. Because, unnoticed by Americans — or rather, unreported by the liberal-left media — Barak Obama played a key role in the creation of the sub-prime disaster that has propelled him to power. The disaster started when a ‘community organizer’ in Chicago named Madeline Talbott began to use the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act to build her political influence among the city’s black community. The CRA itself was a piece of bankster greed dressed up as PC folly. The politicians who passed it thought they were voting to make it easier for poor people — minorities especially — to get mortgages despite having bad credit ratings. The banksters who wanted it passed wanted to be relieved of the inconvenient shackles of prudence that prevented them from getting another huge tranche of US society into unrepayable and hence highly profitable debt. Talbott made a lucrative career out of suing or threatening institutions over real or perceived ‘discrimination’ against blacks, and the CRA gave her the opportunity to take them to the cleaners. She set up a direct action campaign group, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) and set about intimidating various banks into giving loans to poor blacks — and out of court settlement payouts to her. She was greatly helped in this when she hooked up with a slick and highly capable young community activist in Chicago, who she hired to train her ACORN agitators. Her new friend, one Barak Obama, taught them confrontational tactics learned from various 1960s Black Power activists he idolised (his favourite was Malcolm X), and secured campaign money from the left-philanthropic Woods Fund. This helped ACORN secure its grea-*test*-('") triumph, when Talbott in 1993 persuaded US mortgage giant Fannie Mae to roll out a $55 million national pilot programme to give mortgages to people with “troubled credit histories”. The rest, as they say, is history — except for the suffering yet to be endured by untold millions whose lives are going to be savaged by the Second Great Depression caused when the banksters/black agitators’ boom went bust. Still, the McCain camp were too PC, and too heavily implicated in the disaster themselves, to raise these facts as a campaign issue. Obama’s role in its genesis is now academic, as will be his handling of it now that he’s in charge, because the ‘US century’ is over in any case. The American economy has been gutted and destroyed by decades of free trade suicide, and there is nothing in Obama’s policy pronouncements to suggest he can change this. The place that took over from Birmingham and Britain as the high tech workshop of the world now has an economic profile more akin to a Third World country, with the export of minerals, food and other raw materials being more important than the export of finished manufactured goods. For a decade now, the USA has racked up enormous debts and sold off vital assets in order to finance a lifestyle its increasingly unproductive population enjoyed as the world’s ‘consumers of last resort’. As a direct result of this free trade lunacy, the economic leadership of the world has been handed on a plate to the Far East, and the United States is now an economic basket case. At the same time, imperial over-reach in Iraq and Afghanistan has involved the USA in wars it cannot afford, which it cannot win, but withdrawal from which (as promised by Obama, and rightly so) will be a national humiliation. Add to this the fact that mass Mexican and Third World migration has set the USA on course to having its European-American founders become a minority in their own country by 2040, and it is clear that, on top of seeing the end of the American century, we are in fact witnessing the death of America as anything other than a geographical expression. The election of Barak Obama certainly will in all probability speed this process up to some extent, but the long-term historical trend was set years ago, and the question of who is in charge of rearranging the deckchairs on the US Titanic is actually of very little significance. There is only one possibility of this analysis proving wrong: Operation Apollo. This is Obama’s proposal to spend vast sums of money in a crash programme to end America’s (and hence the West’s) deadly dependence on oil in general and Middle Eastern oil in particular. If he actually has the stamina and political skill to stand up to the vested interests that will oppose this (namely the oil companies and haulage lobbies who will not want this change, the banks which will want to finance things with faster returns, and the liberal welfare parasites whose living comes from overseeing hand-outs to the mainly black underclass), then Obama could actually make a difference and become a significant historical figure for good. Unfortunately, he is far more likely to end up increasing handouts to those he sees as ‘his people’, and to blow the last American capital on alleviating the symptoms of America’s energy-starved decline than on addressing the problem itself. If he does so, Obama’s Presidency will end up as much of a disappointment as Tony Blair’s leadership did in Britain. Far from marking the end of race as a factor in American politics, that will end up polarising the place as never before. Not that that is likely to benefit any white nationalist party in America, as there is none, nor is there one upon the horizon. The place is a political disaster zone of self-indulgent juvenile extremism and lack of self-discipline. Hence, when Obama does disappoint, the reaction will not produce anything worthwhile, but simply crude racist ugliness. At its worst, a string of white supremacist nuts and disgruntled ex-jarheads will be arrested plotting to assassinate him, and one will succeed, sparking not just pogroms but the legalised dispossession of a white America paralysed by fear and guilt. For at the very heart of Barak Obama there is a deep-seated anti-white racism. Of course he disguised it during his brilliant campaign, but it oozes from between the lines of his autobiography, Dreams from My Father. In this he tells how he deliberately turned his back against his own multi-racial identity in order to give himself a 100% black persona. He lives with a ‘nightmare vision’ of black powerlessness. He seethes over injustices and prejudices that he never encountered. He de-*test*-('")s his own white grandmother when she is frightened by an aggressive black beggar. He is, in short, a true racist bigot. “Black people have reason to hate,” says Obama. He is, outwardly, a handsome man, but a deep and abiding ugliness lurks within. He is an articulate man, but the problem is not how the leader of a dying super -power sounds, nor even what he says; it’s what he does. We must of course wait to find out, but find out we will.''

Like I give a shit what Gryphon thinks, but I had read it already.

Yes, I agree once again, Percy. Very disappointed, particularly when you look at the economic problems Obama has inherited. As for the dynamics of race mixing in London. What are the respective ratios of black men/white woman and white men/black woman relationships that you come across? Heavily in favour of the first combination I would guess. White men (particularly sad old ones) seem to prefer the orientals (and occasionally asians) as opposed to the blacks when it comes to relationships outside their race. However, since mixed race relationships are now encouraged across the board these days by the media I would expect all combinations to increase. However, does anyone have any explanation as to why black men seem to prefer white women (and vice versa, in comparison to other combinations) while orientals and other asians seem to be preferred by white men?