Anno Domini

I am a child of the Cold War, so I spent most of my life in an epoch where the 'Year 2000' was synonymous with ‘The Future’—a time when, provided we averted a thermonuclear apocalypse, people would be wearing silver spacesuits and bases would have been long established on the moon.

When the year 2000 finally came, however, it was anti-climatic: I spent New Years Eve in the company of investment executives, whose host never cared to keep track of the time in order to witness the year change at its precise moment. I was the only one to notice the stroke of midnight while sitting at the dinner table. When the date changed, I elbowed my neighbour to point out that we had entered the year 2000, but she only gave me a brief, distracted, half-lidded glance and an indifferent “Ah, yea… Hm.”

Twenty years earlier I would have been exasperated, but by 1999, amidst the hype surrounding the so-called “millennium” (which was not due until the following year anyway, since there was no year zero), I had began to think about the dating system we currently use in the West.

Said system is Christian, and its purpose is to mark the Christian era, beginning with Christ, whose birth will be celebrated again later this week: A.D., Anno Domini, is ‘the Year of Our Lord’. As, until relatively not so long ago, practically every Westerner was a Christian, few if any had any reason to think critically about the date on the calendar.

It may surprise some to learn that the Anno Domini dating system is neither accurate nor 2011 years old.

Anno Domini was invented in 525 by a Scythian monk, Dionysius Exiguus, based in Rome. Existing Easter tables in use at the time counted the years from the accession of Diocletian. Dionysius devised the system wishing not to continue the memory of persecutor of Christians. Thus the system, which counted from the incarnation of Christ (without specifying whether this meant nativity or conception), was meant originally as a method of enumerating Easter tables. At the time the new table was devised, the Julian calendar identified the years by naming the consuls who held office that year from the 1 January, a system we now call ‘consular dating’.

Subsequent scholars have not been able to agree on Dionysius’ calculations, variously proposing the birth of Jesus to have occurred on dates ranging from 18 B.C. to A.D. 6, which means it is likely we are not in the year we think we are at all: what we will call 2012 may in fact be 2030, or 2007.

Moreover, it took centuries before Anno Domini was widely adopted as a de facto dating system. Consular dating persisted long after the office of consul had ceased to have meaning; by the time the Byzantine Emperor Justinian I abolished consular elections in 541, consulships existed purely to mark the beginning of a new year. Not long after, Justinian I required the use of the imperial regnal year, although in Greece, according to Edward Gibbon, ‘the imperfect mode of distinguishing each year by the name of a magistrate, was usefully supplied by the date of a permanent aera: the creation of the world [Anno Mundi], according to the Septuagint version’. This was what we call the Byzantine calendar.

Anno Domini was first adopted as a primary dating system by the 6th century North African chronicler Victor of Tunnuna. Bede, familiar with the work of Dyonisius, followed him in the 8th century, with his Ecclesiastical History of the English People, also introducing the B.C. formula and the omission of a year zero.

It was not until Alcuin of York (d. 804) adopted Dionysius’ invention in continental Europe that Anno Domini gained legal sanction and popularity: Alcuin was Charlemagne’s principal advisor in ecclesiastical affairs, and the institutional sanction afforded by Charlemagne and his successors ensured the system’s prevalence into modern times.

Outside the Carolingian Empire, however, adoption was slow, and both Spain and the East had alternative calendars: in Hispania (Spain), the Era of the Caesars was used until the 14th century, while Portugal did not begin using Anno Domini until 1422.

In the East, Alexandrian Christians used the Era of the Martyrs, numbering years from the accession of Diocletian, while Eastern Orthodox countries only began discontinuing use of the Byzantine calendar when Russia adopted Anno Domini in 1700, with other countries following in the 19^th and 20^th centuries.

With Dionysius’ methodology in mind, it may be asked why we do not number the years from 25 December. In fact, that was the custom until modern times: 1 January was always New Year's Day, but the year number always changed either on 25 December (the nativity of Christ), 25 March (the conception of Christ), or Easter. The year number was not synchronised with New Year's Day until the 17th century, although in Britain the practice persisted until she adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1752.

Dominance of Darkness

The decline of Christianity across the West, as well as the adoption of the Gregorian calendar for civil matters by traditionally non-Christian peoples across the world, has led to a change of the nomenclature among some, with ‘Before Christ’ (B.C.) and ‘Anno Domini’ (A.D.) being dropped in favour of ‘Before Common Era’ (B.C.E.) and ‘Common Era’ (C.E.)

This may make sense for non-European cultures so long as the cognitive structures, systems, and practices of European man continue to define the dominant paradigm around the world. Should European man fail to reverse his global decline until he is reduced to an anthropological curiosity or relic, even the Common Era system may come to be seen as an irrelevant colonial residue in need of replacement.

Globalists and scientists would probably be attracted to a Human or Holocene Era system, which counts the years from the advent of the current geologic epoch, the Holocene. The Holocene Calendar adds 10,000 years to the present year. Proponents view this as a logical marker since the Holocene coincides roughly with the advent of human civilisation, in the shape of settlements, agriculture, and so on. They also prefer it on the basis that it is non-denominational and avoids the problem of earlier years having larger numbers when the event or individual in question span periods that traverse year 1.

However, this assumes a linear progression towards a universal human standard, where reason and global citizenship triumph over religion and ethnonationalism. The reality is that, with humans being tribal, control over the calendar, over the event from which we are to count our years and how we are to number or name them, has ethnic and political significance. A calendar is also an expression of power: hence, the French government of the First Republic adopting the ‘Republican Calendar’, forcing Lothrop Stoddard over a century later to include republican dates in The French Revolution in San Domingo’s bibliographical references. In a post-Christian, post-Caucasian world, it will be the dominant race that imposes its calendar, according to its dominant ideology of the moment, rather than a generic human dating system. The latter may in time be adopted by scientists, but that may be a possibility so long as there are scientists.

In the worst-case scenario, where humanity devolves into a primitive, ahistorical, illiterate state, enumerating the years may become an entirely forgotten practice, belonging to obsolete human adaptations long buried in the dust.

It may not come to that. Yet, it is possible that, provided European man succeeds in securing his continuance and prosperity as a unique biological category, whatever civilisation he creates after the collapse of Faustian (Christian) civilisation, will be founded on entirely different premises, even if rooted in the same millenarian tradition. Our descendants may find it quaint that we numbered our years the way we have been since Mediaeval times.

Don't Care About the Girl

While we are on the topic of immigration and the sentiment it elicits among frustrated White folk everywhere, it is worth highlighting once again how the media reports collisions between communities.

Perhaps one of the most egregious recent example I have seen is a report on the Copenhagen Post, ‘Denmark’s leading source for news in English’.

Titled, ‘Fears of Vigilantism After Rape of Young Girl’, the report begins:

The rape of a ten-year-old has shocked the residents of a small town in Jutland, and led to fears residents would seek revenge against the suspect – a 16-year-old boy of Somalian descent.

A week ago last Saturday two girls were threatened at knife-point by a boy and led into a forest. While the nine-year-old girl managed to escape and sound the alarm, the ten-year-old was raped.

It took over a week for the police to make an arrest, and in the meantime the description of the culprit – an ‘African-looking’ male between the ages of 16 and 18 and with black curly hair – was circulated.

So far, so good, right? Mr. Stanner has reported the crime and identified the suspect, not neglecting to mention his race. Now let us examine how the rest of the article runs. The next sixteen paragraphs follow directly after the above three, without transition:

Some 40 percent of the town’s residents are immigrants and several boys and young men fit the description given by the girls. While the police began collecting evidence, rumours started circulating that groups of residents were looking to take matters into their own hands and young immigrant men were warned to stay indoors.

To help calm nerves, a meeting was held the following Tuesday in which a family member of one of the two girls urged residents to let the police do their job in apprehending the culprit.

One of those in attendance was Kaj Mortensen, the manager of a local housing association, who told the press that fears of a vigilante mob forming were overblown, though it was worth reminding residents of the consequences of vigilantism.

“It’s something we want to avoid, it’s the police who have to handle these things. We shouldn’t do anything ourselves,” Mortensen said. “Broadly speaking we discussed the need to talk to each other, regardless of which ethnicity you might have.”

While it seems residents did allow police to conduct their investigation in peace, a right-wing political organisation used the incident to spread their anti-Islamic agenda.

Twenty members of the Danish Defence League (DDL), were spotted in the nearby town of Herning on Thursday night on their way to Gullestrup, where the next day posters could be found declaring the town an ‘Sharia Free Zone’ and signed by the DDL.

The DDL admitted on its Facebook page to hanging the posters and called the act a ‘good effort’.

The group is tied to the British organisation English Defence League, which is made up largely of white males linked to the football hooligan community and who are responsible for violent anti-Islamic rallies across the country.

In a press release, the DDL declared it was prepared to take on the role of the police at times when they felt the Danish people were not being protected

“The Danish Defence League declares that we will take the streets in areas where the number of rapes are rising if the authorities in Denmark are not getting the situation under control. We take this position after the Danish police once again have shown that they either can’t or won’t – or don’t have the resources to – protect the Danish people from Muslim immigrants’ perverted desires.”

A 16-year-old was been arrested late last week after forensic evidence linked him to the crime. The police would not confirm what the evidence was but one report suggests his fingerprint was found on a condom packet lying close to the scene of the crime.

According to information obtained by the tabloid Ekstra Bladet, the 16-year-old had recently returned from a year in Somalia and had reportedly witnessed that country’s strife at close quarters.

Acquaintances of the suspect described how the experience has affected him.

“He was unrecognisable when he came home. He seemed hard and superficial and spoke very loudly, almost shouting all the time,” one source was quoted in Ekstra Bladet as saying.

The boy appeared in court last Saturday in a close door hearing.

He denies any involvement in the rape.

Interesting, is it not, how the report focuses entirely on worries about the feelings and safety of the immigrant residents, and spares not one word for the feelings of the 9-year old who was threatened with a knife, or of the 10-year-old girl who was raped at knifepoint, or of the families of these two girls, or of the Danish local residents who may be parents to young girls. The safety of local Danish girls does not fall under reporter Peter Stanner’s radar.

What does fall under his radar are the feelings of the young rapist thug. Some would want to point out that Mr. Stanner’s report is sympathetic to the rapist, for it spends five paragraphs attempting to, let us say, nuance, or add context, to the Somali youth’s despicable crime, so that readers may not rush to conclusions. It is the boy who is the real victim, not the girl who will be traumatised for the rest of her life. The villains are those irascible Danish barbarians living in the neighbourhood and of course the DDL.

We have seen ample evidence of how, for mainstream journalists, context is essential when attempting to understand attacks on White folk by coloured immigrants or their descendants, but wholly unimportant when attempting to understand the frustration of White folk who, Emma West or Darren Scully, decide they have had enough. For the likes of Mr. Stanner, the existence of the DDL has no context other than simple racism, and their reacting to this event is merely base opportunism, motivated by a mean-spirited desire to exploit an unfortunate incident for political gain. There is no legitimate reason to defend the Danish, of course.

Apology Not Accepted

We have finally learnt why England crawls with working-class women willing to complain openly about immigration: it seems the United Kingdom is run by a secret cabal of Nazi sympathisers, lodged deep within the Conservative Party, and close to Prime Minister David Cameron.

On Sunday the nation stood still as the Daily Mail, in an epic and immensely detailed report, made the terrible revelation. Earlier this month, Conservative Member of Parliament Aiden Burley attended a stag party, where 34-year-old Oxford-educated Mark Fournier, who works as an accountant and whose stag party it was, revealed his true colours—in public, in front of gay and Jewish eyes, and of those of respectable French citizens trying to enjoy a peaceful dinner with friends and family. Unable to bottle up his Nazism any longer, and eager to be as transgressive as possible, Mr. Fournier went around in full German Nazi SS uniform, complete with swastika armband, in proud and brazen defiance of French laws.

Fortunately, reporters from the Daily Mail happened to be in the same restaurant on that precise evening and at that precise time, and were able to document the outrage, filming it and photographing it conclusively. This is reporter Matt Sandy’s account [emphases here and further down are mine]:

Mail on Sunday photographer John McLellan and I were in Val Thorens working on an unrelated story last Saturday when we went to Restaurant La Fondue . . .

As we ordered drinks, we noticed a rowdy group of men at a table. Then we saw a man in an SS uniform walk past us to the toilet. We were surprised by the group’s brashness and their taunting of the waiters.

It was a small restaurant, with room for 50 diners, and was two-thirds full.

Watching other British people behaving as this group were in a foreign country was at the very least embarrassing.

Outside, we chatted to the men. Several agreed to pose for photos and, without prompting, did Nazi salutes. I have seen this happen only once before – at a football match.

The group invited us to join them at a British-themed pub later that evening. It was only at this stage that we discovered that one of their number was a Conservative MP.

In the bar, which was packed with holidaymakers enjoying apres-ski, they continued drinking, and their chanting became more frequent and uninhibited. It was hard to believe that an MP did nothing to halt this offensive behaviour.

This offensive behaviour included a toast that ran:

Let’s raise a toast to Tom for organising the stag do, and if we’re perfectly honest, to the ideology and thought process of the Third Reich.

Mr. Burley, who ‘[i]n an entry on [his] website, dated June 21 this year, . . . describes a visit to Israel’, witnessed this act, heard these words, and did . . . nothing. Worse, he was photographed paying the bill.

The British nation need not fear, however, for prompt action has been taken. According to the Daily Mail,

[a] French police spokesman confirmed that an investigation could be launched, and said: ‘Anti-Semitic and pro-Nazi crimes are taken extremely seriously in France. Anyone suspected of breaking the law in this respect can and will be prosecuted.’

The news report clarifies that

[t]his is because under the French penal code it is a crime, unless required for a film, a play or a historical exhibition, to wear or exhibit in public anything reminiscent of what was worn or used by the Nazis.

Meanwhile, Mr. Burley released a statement (through Conservative Central Office), stating,

There was clearly inappropriate behaviour by some of the other guests and I deeply regret that this happened. I am extremely sorry for any offence that will undoubtedly have been caused.

And the BBC reports that

[a] Conservative Party spokesman confirmed there would be a full investigation into what had happened.

Unsatisfied with that, shadow transport minister and Labour MP John Zak Woodcock, who is chairman of the Labour Friends of Israel group, has ‘called for Mr. Burley to be sacked’.

Events are unfolding, so we will see where this leads. Mr. Burley and friends have good reason to worry, for some have had their careers ruined for less.

Last month, for example, one Mr. Darren Scully, another conservative politician and now former major of Naas, in Ireland, was forced to apologise, resign, endure days of abuse and public humiliation, and face a police investigation—and a possible prison sentence of up to two years—following a radio interview where he expressed frustration with the bad manners of his Black constituents and his decision earlier this year to direct them to colleagues better suited to take up their concerns.

With so many reports of racists and Nazis coming out into the open, claiming support of the BNP or wearing a costume as the ultimate act of defiance to the system, the inevitable conclusion must be that more ‘education and love’ are needed, because if love for multiracialism is not forthcoming, it must be that we need yet more of the same.

The End of Americanism

Pat Buchanan’s Suicide of a Superpower is an apt follow-up to his 2002 volume, The Death of the West. Although the new book focuses on the United States, it restates and updates the narrative of the older book. It is no coincidence, therefore, that the former refers briefly to the latter early on.

Buchanan’s main thesis is this:

When the faith dies, the culture dies, the civilization dies, the people die. That is the progression. And as the faith that gave birth to the West is dying in the West, peoples of European descent from the steppes of Russia to the coast of California have begun to die out, as the Third World treks north to claim the estate. The last decade provided corroborating if not conclusive proof that we are in the Indian summer of our civilization.

Suicide has stirred some controversy in the mainstream media for stating what for many is, or should be, known and obvious, but which for the majority is either not so or taboo: the negative consequences of immigration, diversity, and multiculturalism.

Yet, the book has obtained wide coverage and seems widely available—last month, while travelling in the United States, I saw it prominently displayed in the bookshops of major airports. This is a significant achievement that must not pass without notice, for there are others who have been advancing identical theses without the same level of exposure.

Suicide, however, is not without significant limitations, and these merit detailed discussion, for they stem from an outlook that will need to be overcome if we are ever to move forward with an effective solution to the suicide of America and the rest of the West.

The Pluses

With 428 pages of meat in it, Suicide is divided into 11 chapters, each of which is in turn divided into shorter sections with lapidary titles. The chapters are: The Passing of a Superpower, The Death of Christian America, The Crisis of Catholicism, The End of White America, Demographic Winter, Equality or Freedom, The Diversity Cult, The Triumph of Tribalism, The ‘White’ Party, The Long Retreat, and The Last Chance.

In none does Buchanan flinch from presenting the facts as they are. And where there are lacunae, Kevin MacDonald has already filled them with his Culture of Critique. The first chapter is in tone apocalyptic, yet the sheer rapidity of the United State’s decline as a superpower justifies that tone; Rome’s decline in wealth and capability may have taken longer, but America’s is comparable and, as Buchanan presents it, suggests familiar buildings and everyday objects one day becoming ruins and broken artefacts in a continent abandoned to a dark age. Buchanan proposes solutions in the final chapter, but, besides flawed (and I get to that further down), they are conditional, which lends the trajectory of decline traced throughout most of the volume an aura of inevitability. This is not an indulgence on pessimism, because all previous empires eventually collapsed, and all previous great civilisations in history came to an end.

In his detailed discussion of Christianity’s role in the United State, and of the crisis of Catholicism, Buchanan acknowledges the importance of the transcendent. Many of the ills that afflict the West in our age are linked to, if not the result of, a materialist conception of life, and of the consequent subjection to a secular economist criterion of all matters of importance to a nation and a people. The dispossession and loss of moral authority of the White race in their own traditional homelands was to a significant degree achieved through, or caused by, economic arguments. It was not the so-called ‘civil rights’ movement in the United States that turned Detroit into a ruin; what turned it into a ruin was the reliance on economic arguments—so characteristic of the materialist liberal outlook—that enabled the decision to purchase Black slaves in African markets and ship them to North America. Similarly, the loss of moral and spiritual vigour, which has so enfeebled the White race and sapped its will to live, can be traced to the rise of secularism, to the severing of the race’s link to the transcendent. ‘Where are the martyrs for materialism?’ he asks.

To this Buchanan adds a helpful discussion about equality and freedom. He explodes the liberal conception of them as concomitant concepts, and convincingly presents them as polar opposites in a dichotomy: greater equality means less freedom, greater freedom means less equality. Buchanan makes clear that the only possible way to see these two concepts as concomitant is by ignoring human biodiversity, for, where inborn differences in physiology impose upper limits to human plasticity, equality—the elimination disparities in outcome—cannot be achieved without handicapping the cause of those disparities. Thus, the freedom to choose among the best universities is limited for bright White students when entry requirements are relaxed among less able non-White students in the effort to achieve equal outcomes among all racial groups.

The chapters on the diversity cult and tribalism re-state arguments that have for years been advanced by Jared Taylor. Taylor has done it in much greater detail, but Buchanan will reach a much wider audience, so this is a gain. Buchanan also echoes the Sailer Strategy—‘the idea that inreach to its white base, not outreach to minorities, is the key to future GOP success’—in his discussion of his party’s prospects as Whites decline in the United States. And, like Taylor, he ridicules those who see this decline as a cause for celebration.

Also like Taylor, but in the economic area, Buchanan reveals some astonishing facts. Apparently, the United States military relies on equipment that cannot be made without parts manufactured by potential enemies and economic rivals. Did you know that?

Another helpful discussion is introduced in the final fourth of the book, where Buchanan, following Amy Chua, deals with the fatal design flaw that afflicts multiethnic nations that have embraced democracy and capitalism:

Free markets concentrate wealth in the hands of a market-capable ethnic minority. Democracy empowers the ethnic majority. When the latter begin to demand a larger share of the wealth, demagogues arise to meet those demands.

This is a reply to the economic argument for the state-sponsored policy of immigration, diversity, and multiculturalism in the West, repeated without proof and refuted by empirical studies everywhere, that supposedly boosts economic growth because diverse immigrants ‘bring in skills’ and foster greater creativity. In fact, said policy leads to Whites becoming dispossessed minorities, as they already did in a number of other former European colonies. Buchanan points out that people like Evo Morales, president of Bolivia, and Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela, use ‘principles invented by white men—universal franchise and majority rule—to dispossess white men’. He also quotes 19^th century Rightist Louis Veuillot to describe how democrats are dispossessed by non- (or ‘instrumental’) democrats: ‘When I am the weaker I ask you for my freedom because that is my principle; but when I am the stronger I take away your freedom because that is my principle’. He asks: ‘What does the future hold for the West when people of European descent become a minority in nations they created, and people of color decide to vote themselves proportionate or larger shares of the national wealth?’

In terms of solutions, Buchanan offers common sense advice: the United States should live within its means and actively take steps to cut its deficits. For him this means pruning government and government expenditure, including social security benefits and military bases overseas; and instituting a policy of economic nationalism, levying tariffs on imports and cutting corporation tax to zero, so as to revive manufacturing in the United States, attract overseas investment, and reduce reliance on imports. I do not think even economists will agree on whether this would yield the desired results, but at least Buchanan is making concrete policy proposals that place the interests of his country first, and is willing to accept that ethnonationalism is an inescapable reality of the human condition. 

The Minuses

There are fundamental flaws in Buchanan’s exposition.

Firstly, he equates European civilisation with Christianity. This is surprising, particularly coming from an American writer, advancing an Americanist position, given that some of the basic principles and practices upon which America was founded, such as the constitutional republic, originated or had their roots in Europe well before the dawn of Christianity. What about ancient Greece? What about ancient Rome? Were those not European civilisations? A more accurate statement is that the United States is a Christian country. This is defensible, even if the United States never had an established religion and even if not all Americans were Christian. Perhaps what Buchanan means is that Faustian civilisation—the civilisation of Northern Europe, of which North America is an extension—is a Christian civilisation.

Buchanan is correct to identify the decline of Christianity in America as one of the roots of its decline. In doing so, however, he has Edward Gibbon as his inverse counterpart, for Gibbon identified the rise of Christianity in Rome, that is, the decline of the Roman religion, as one of the causes of Rome’s fall. Gibbon would have sympathised, perhaps, with the statement, ‘When the faith dies, the culture dies, the civilization dies, the people die.’ Yet, given that the fall of Rome did not mean the end of European man, and that if the rise of Christianity was linked to Rome’s fall, the rise of Christianity was also linked to the rise of Faustian civilisation. All this tells us, therefore, is that we may be witnessing the end of a cycle involving Christianity. However, even if it is Christianity’s fate to pass, as have other religions, or to become a ‘Third World religion’, as Buchanan puts it, European man will still be there, at least for a while, and, provided he survives as a race, he will give rise to a new civilisation, traceable to the Greek, the Roman, and the Faustian, but founded on somewhat different principles. This will bring no comfort to Christians, nevertheless, and Buchanan, as a Christian, is justified in his alarm.

Gibbon would concede that Buchanan makes a powerful argument for Christianity. A monotheistic religion with a personal god can be a potent unifying force, eliciting much stronger commitments from its followers. The Roman pagans were easygoing, and vis-à-vis other religions, the pagan outlook, as expressed by Nehru in a conversation with the former Chilean Ambassador in India, Miguel Serrano, is generally ‘live and let live’. One can easily accept that it is not difficult to decimate a people with that outlook, for, in as much as it resembles the multiculturalists’ easygoing attitude to all religions except Christianity, it is proving daily in our society an agent of dissolution. It may well be that in a world of intense ethnic competition, a high-tension—even totalitarian and intolerant—religion is the more adaptive group evolutionary strategy. Buchanan’s discussion on the growth and endurance of evangelical Christianity, Orthodox Judaism, and militant Islam indicates he is of this view, and that is a plus consistent with his recognition of the importance of the transcendent. Yet he inadvertedly exposes a conundrum: if Christianity is a universal faith, accommodating every race and nationality, as he says, and if, as he also says, non-evangelical forms of Christianity have declined because they are accommodating, then, would this not suggest that Christianity will not survive in practice as the White man’s religion unless it becomes a non-accommodating faith?

Secondly, Suicide makes it clear that Buchanan cannot conceive of anything beyond the America of the 1950s. This is the most unfortunate aspect of this book. It is also the reason why Buchanan offers no real solutions, other than turning back the clock. Were his recommendations implemented in the United States, they would only retard the processes that are in place, achieving a temporary reprieve, a momentary stabilisation, before resuming their course, perhaps with renewed vigour and speed.

What Buchanan seems not to recognise is that, while the 1950s may have felt good for many, the conditions for the modern trends that he condemns were already in place then. They were simply masked by the transient prosperity, stability, and romanticism of the era. The 1950s led to the 1960s. And the upheavals of the 1960s had their roots in the academics of the 1930s, who in turn had their roots in Marxism, dating back to the 19^th century, which in turn had its roots in liberalism and the Enlightenment in the 18^th century. And this is not merely a question of there having always been a hostile faction within the American republic, seeking to undermine it with its insidious liberalism; the conservatives who opposed Marxism also had their intellectual roots in 18^th-century liberalism. Buchanan makes it seem as if the United States has been hijacked by liberals, but the fact is that it has always been in the hands of liberals, right from the beginning: the United States was founded and is predicated on the ideas of liberal intellectuals, and its Founding Fathers were liberals. If the United States seems to be spearheading the process of Western decline, bringing everyone down with it, it is because liberalism took stronger root there than anywhere else, due to a lack of opposition to liberal ideas.

From this perspective it can be argued that Buchanan’s Suicide of a Superpower is not the result of the United States’ being ‘far off the course set by [the] Founding Fathers’, but rather of the United States’ being exactly on that course, even if the Founding Fathers never anticipated that it would lead where it has led.

As a conservative in a republic founded by liberals, Buchanan is by definition a liberal, defending a previous stage in the development of liberalism. Hence his failure to see beyond liberalism’s event horizon.

Liberals have a linear conception of history. Thus Buchanan hopes that by prescribing better liberal policies (what he would call conservative policies), the American republic can be set back on course and resume its trajectory of endless progress and economic growth. Unfortunately, treating the problem as if it were a disease in need of a cure is futile when the problem is a congenital defect. In such cases the best hope is genetic resequencing, a form of death and rebirth. Most likely it will mean certain death and a possible rebirth, elsewhere, as something else, perhaps in North America, but at first, if at all, only in a part of it. Concretely this means the break-up of the union into regions and the emergence among them of a dominant republic among weaker ones, with strength or weakness being a function of the dominant racial group in each case.

Similarly futile is the attempt to revert a civilisation to an earlier stage of development. In the Spenglerian view this would be like trying to turn an old dog back into a puppy, or an old tree back into a bush. Technology may make it possible one day to reverse the physical effects of ageing, but it will not erase the memories and conclusions of a lifetime, and therefore not rejuvenate the spirit. This applies even in the non-organic realm: we may be able to restore an old mechanical typewriter so that it looks and works like new, but it will still be obsolete technology, and its reason for being will shift from usable tool to unusable antique.

Unfortunately for those living today, reality is more in accord with the organic conception of history, whereby things go in cycles and slow build-ups lead to rapid changes in state. Following Spengler, Francis Parker Yockey argued that attempts to cause a reversion into an earlier state of development will at best yield temporary results, introducing distortions that will be magnified as the next stage of development indefectibly follows.

One can sympathise with the argument that it would be worse if the current political leadership in the United States managed to stabilise the economy and perform plastic surgery on the face of America, as this would buy said leadership more time and permit existing trends to remain in place until the possibility of a White rebirth in North America, even without United States, became extinct. A Spencerian collapse sooner may open up avenues that may be closed later.

Buchanan wonders whether the United States will implode by 2025. This was my own scenario in Mister, where the United States disintegrates in a hyperinflationary chaos. But it is difficult to predict with accuracy and I would not want to speculate beyond a possible dismemberment along regional lines sometime this century. When it happens, whenever it may happen, those who remember the America we know today and who did not know better until it was too late will be amazed that people thought the United States would go on forever. They will also be amazed that people ever thought as they do now, despite the final outcome being so blatantly obvious. Buchanan’s diagnosis is mostly accurate, but his treatment, well intentioned as it is, is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

The Balance

Despite its defects, there is no escaping it: Suicide of a Superpower is a punishing indictment of the United States’ post-war political leadership, authored by a prominent conservative who speaks as part of America’s mainstream establishment. Any White American fed up with the way things have been going in recent decades and looking for new politics beyond Democrat or Republican will find here solid justifications for going beyond convention and eventually adding his muscle to the struggle for fundamental change.

Suicide will not awaken the complacent, induce the fearful to speak up, or cause ideological enemies to change their views. The complacent is comfortable in his ignorance and does not want his world disrupted by inconvenient truths; in most cases he has the means to avoid them by insulating himself economically. The fearful, who knows but remains silent, will not be emboldened by Buchanan’s confirming him in his views; he will wait, as he has always waited, and then side with change once it looks like it is going to win. The ideological enemy is beyond convincing; the only solution is to crush him thoroughly.

Should you buy Suicide of a Superpower? The answer is yes. Not only is it brave, but it contains many helpful insights and bewildering facts to fuel a healthy debate. The fact that the book is everywhere has also infuriated the radical Left, who have renewed their efforts to have Buchanan fired by MSNBC. The radical Left does not want this kind of discussion to take place in a mainstream media forum. In fact, radical Leftists would like Buchanan to be banned from the networks, shunned by his publishers, phlebotomised by the taxman, prosecuted by the ICC, and sent to the gulags, to spend his old age in poverty, obscurity, and hard labour—surrounded, of course, by politically correct diversity. To his credit, Buchanan has not buckled in to criticism. Therefore, every copy that is sold is a kick to the radical Left, and added impetus for the book to reach more persuadables.

With enough manpower and talent it will be possible to survive the cataclysm and make it through to the other side. The other side is something entirely new; traditional, but different—it is not the White America of the 1950s, nor Reagan on steroids, nor is it a linear extrapolation of what is good about the 2010s minus what is bad. For Whites to survive in America, Americanism must end. Those who survive will be the architects of what comes after Americanism; they will not call themselves Americans—the designation may not even make sense for them. Viewed from the other side, with the old certainties gone and new ones in place, it will be impossible to think as we do today, even if future generations carry forward much of our knowledge, traditions, and cultural legacy.

Why the Epic Tram Lady?

When I came across the Daily Telegraph’s first report about Emma West’s cri de coeur aboard the Croydon tramlink, I was reluctant to comment for the reasons already outlined in Andy Nowicki’s latest blog.

However, the Telegraph report—since updated—did suggest to me that any mainstream media coverage, especially if it went viral, would be worth commenting upon, and therefore worth keeping an eye on for developments.

My instinct was not wrong.

Mainstream media reports since have predictably emphasised the shock of West’s fellow commuters and YouTube viewers as well as the illegality of West’s speech. The early Telegraph report, preceding West’s arrest, suggested she was motivated by irrational hatred and even that she may not be in full possession of her faculties:

During the footage the mother - who at times appears to slur her words - begins by ranting

Nabeela Zahir, a 29-year-old journalist based in London, writing for the The Huffington Post, has since chipped in, deploying a familiar double tactic. With her opening sentence, hardly neutral in tone, she telegraphs that expressing views critical of immigrants and immigration has no place in decent society:

The racist torrent of abuse that spewed out of the mouth of a woman travelling on a London tram has left many Brits horrified.

Further down, Zahir, who describes herself as ‘British Asian’, repeats the tired old cliché of White racial identity being a mental illness and paints a picture of her adopted country as being riddled with nasty racism.

It seems not to matter that she was able to obtain a full education in British universities, or that she has been able to find ample professional opportunities in her chosen career as a news producer, documentary film researcher, television co-host, assistant broadcast journalist, writer and contributor, sub-editor, and communications press officer, who has worked for Channel 4, Channel 4 News, Waddell Media, the BBC, and ITN, among others, as well been published by The Guardian and received a George Viner scholarship. According to her narrative, Britain’s nasty racism is everywhere, always, under the surface, not only in violent forms, but also in all manner of subtle forms, sometimes finding expression in socially acceptable discourse.

 This is more or less the message emanating from The Guardian, where Sunny Hundal, commentator on ‘British Asian’ identity politics and committed racial activist, who questions whether West should be arrested for expressing her views, but believes

there are still far too many Westminster commentators who think racism is a thing of the past

 and that West is a product of ‘the opinions of the rightwing press’ and its ‘biased reporting’.

The Mirror, a Left-wing tabloid, lays it thick with its biased reporting, broadcasting at full volume the message that West’s views are objectionable (highlights are mine):

Viewers disgusted at her comments brought it to the attention of the British Transport Police . . . Disbelieving viewers left comments on the video sharing website . . . One said: “She makes me furious”, while another posted: “So much hate, actually ashamed to be British.” … The woman begins her x-rated outburst . . . She then ignores a polite request from a second traveller to stop swearing in front of the children on the tram. And the mum's sickening rant then goes into overdrive . . .

None of the coverage herein cited, and least of all the self-serving commentary from non-White commentators, attempts for a moment to explore the motive of West’s frustrations, even though they are not unique to her. Evidently, for the mainstream reporters there is nothing to explore: West is a sick racist and that is all there is to say about it; she needs to be prosecuted, as Colin Liddell says, ‘to the full extent of the law’, lest others feel emboldened also to express their rage.

But why do these expressions of White rage at the state-sponsored policy of immigration, diversity, and multiculturalism never have anything to do with the state-sponsored policy of immigration, diversity, and multiculturalism?

It seems obvious to me that if the rage follows a given pattern, comes from members of an identifiable group, flows in the same direction, there is an abundance of empirical evidence supporting the assertions made, and politicians, both in Britain and elsewhere across the West, are so scared of it being seen or understood that they feel the need to suppress it with heavy spin and heavy-handed legislation, there must be something to it beyond mere psychosis or irrational emotion.

The sheer popularity of the video and the amount of commentary it has elicited in the mainstream press suggests awareness that there are very many of who, put off by West’s vulgarity, dare not admit to sharing her sentiments. After nearly 6.7 million views and nearly 160,000 comments on YouTube since Monday, the evidence is clear.

Feast of the Einherjar

From Stephen McNallen, speaking in 2008, for those who follow this festival:

Dutch Halal Ban—A Lesson from Europe?

The BBC reports:

Next month the Dutch parliament is expected to approve a ban on halal and kosher methods of slaughtering animals for food.

Those who proposed the ban say it is simply an issue of animal welfare, but it received strong support from the right-wing Freedom Party.

Many see it as a violation of their religious freedom, and among the Jewish community it is a worrying echo of a similar ban brought in by Hitler.

One of the Muslims interviewed moaned that the Dutch desire Muslims to be Muslims at home, but not in society. I think that is correct. And, what is more, I venture that many would also define 'home' as 'not in the Netherlands'—meaning, overseas, far away, where the Muslims came from originally and ought to have remained.

It is disappointing that the Nethelands' chief Rabbi, Benjamin Jacobs, hauls in Hitler and the Holocaust to bolster his complaint (see video in the BBC report). Could he not have voiced his displeasure without doing that?

Be that as it may, this ban on halal butchery shows what is still possible to achieve in contemporary politics, despite the state-sponsored policies of immigration and multiculturalism.

Animal welfare has preoccupied both the liberals and traditionalists, and because this common ground exists, it has been possible for anti-immigration politicians to use arguments processable by their opponents to slow down the damage caused… by their opponents.

This is not the only example of how the very ideology of the Left can be turned against them—with Leftists' approval.

Another has been criticism of Israel's human rights record, which has resulted in academic boycotts of Israel. Although progress on that front has been somewhat slow.

Yet another should be opposition to the debt racket ran by the banksters of Goldman Sachs and their ilk. There have been screams of disgust from both extremes of the political spectrum, but no tactical coalition has been formed in order to achieve fundamental reform in this area.

I bears noting, however, that policies or practices that indirectly exclude non-European immigrants and their descendants are, from the point of view of tactical politics, not entirely reliable, and ought to be formulated with care.

In December 2005, for example, Soulidarieta, a charity group with alleged links to Identity Bloc, began distributing pork soup to the needy at locations close to soup kitchens. Alsace Solidarity launched a similar initiative in Strasbourg a few weeks later. The traditional soup was designated 'Identity Soup' by its chefs.

Within less than two months officials banned the handouts in Strasbourg and the police closed down offending soup kitchens Paris. This, at the urging of an anti-racism group, the rather Orwellian Movement Against Racism and for Friendship Between Peoples, whose lobbyists urged the then Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy to impose a country-wide ban.

Strasbourg's mayor, alerted to the racial subtext, pontificated: 'Schemes with racial subtexts must be denounced'.

The weakness of this scheme was that the Left does not care about traditional cuisine or traditional anything, the way that they think they care about things like animal welfare and human rights. Thus, although the anti-racists' complaint was eventually rejected in the courts, it was easy initially to impose a ban. 

It seems it has been less easy to argue against banning halal butchery, even if there is a racial subtext, when animal welfare is concerned. Note that a supporter of the Dutch ban is Marianne Thieme's Party for Animals, a party that for modern standards is considered to be of the 'centre-Left'.

Perhaps there are lessons for identity politicians here.

'A Reactionary Snob'

The Sweet-Scented Manuscript is Tito Perdue's first novel, though not his debut, a status that the vicissitudes of fortune and of the publishing industry dictated would be Lee, his most critically acclaimed work. The latter shares the protagonist with the novel at hand, which recounts Leland (Lee) Pefley's first year at Antioch College, in Yellow Springs, Ohio, in 1956-57.

As it happens, that first year is also his last, because, somehow, despite the college turning out a cesspit of permissiveness and scruffy Marxist radicals, of students with—to use Tito's terminology—a 'glandular' conception of romance, Lee manages to get expelled, along with Judy, his stunning sweetheart, and their best friends.

The narrative progresses in linear fashion, and begins with Lee riding a bus en route to the college. The boy has left his native Alabama behind and is venturing into 'the North' for the first time. He is introspective, nervous, and absent-minded, surrounded by a bestiary of miserable fellow travellers, his bus driven by a gloomy and glowering driver, while his hand checks constantly that his wallet is still in his pocket. Lee the dreamer is wholly innocent of crowds and urban life. One of this preoccupations is identifying intellectual geniuses—for he imagines these are the type of people who attend university, and somehow expects them to have a particular look about them, which leads him, as he approaches his destination, to scrutinise those in his age group bearing books. These opening scenes dilate for many pages, crammed with detail and clever phrasing, setting a leisurely pace for and the ironic tone of the rest of the novel. This is one to be read slowly, relishing every sentence like a rich dessert wine.

Of course, Lee, who by this time has experienced a whole series of petty indignities, has a moment of panic upon arrival, suddenly eager to hide and run straight back to Alabama. Instead, he puts on his bored expression and ploughs on towards the college campus. (Misanthropic that he is, he will not deny himself an experience.) There he meets Luke, a hyperactive, studious, loquacious, well-dressed Jewish student, who just about armwrings our suspicious hero into becoming his roommate. Lee is so self-absorbed and nervous that he, under his aloof veneer, forgets he is still carrying his suitcase as Luke leads him around the campus.

It is not long before Lee is disabused as to the nature of the college ecology, which pullulates with depressive existentialists, Marxist charlatans, and sex-crazed lazy philistines. Yet it is also not long before he encounters Judy, a short, busty brunette from New York, coveted by all the male students, and also an ice queen. Lee, hit as if by a croquet mallet to the face, recognises his destiny, and he seizes the moment boldly to go where no man has dared before, securing a dance with the belle—much to the outrage and despair of those less gifted in the testicular department than he. Young man that he is, however, and emboldened by his achievement in a single evening, Lee succumbs to hubris, and causes—with an attempted kiss—an abrupt retreat, which sets him up for a protracted game of cat and mouse with the capricious girl.

You will have to read the novel to discover what happens, but suffice it to say that this is a magical love story, cute, visceral, and absorbing, with a caliginous dreamlike atmosphere, a charismatic voice, clever dialogue, and endearing characters so real that they almost feel like personal friends. Indeed, one is almost able to inhale the distinctive air of that time and place, almost a witness to events, rather than a reader from cynical postmodernity, half a century removed.

And yet, this is more than a love story, for as the story migrates into Cleveland's slums and windy Chicago, the novel is riddled with amusing incidents, troubled characters, menacing creeps, and trenchant observations, immortalised in literature in the inimitable bookish fashion of 'a reactionary snob'—of an amiable but misanthropic Southerner like Tito Perdue, who hates young people because 'they are always smiling'. Nostalgia for the romantic aspects of the 1950s in America combines with fascination for the corruption, the squalor, and the misery of the 'adult' world, as discovered by a dreamy 18-year-old boy—a boy who completely rejects and is ill-adapted for the modern system of wage slavery, hypocrisy, iracund mini-despots, and semi-catatonic drudgery. Because for him progress in life is a function of being kicked out of ever larger institutions.

The Sweet-Scented Manuscript is also riddled with all manner of idiosyncratic leitmotifs, phrasal and descriptive, deployed by Perdue to deadpan humourous effect, somehow in a manner that fuses Wagner with the dulcifluous 1950s ballads recurring throughout the novel. Bus drivers are always surly and sarcastic; journalists are always fat; and adults are always angry and miserable, or suppressing anger and misery. Suppressed aggression is a subtle thematic undercurrent.

The latter is organically linked to another despite its higher aspirations: Lee is obsessed with books. Books are the first thing he notices in a room, the library one of the first places he visits, and a reading list one of his first gifts for Judy. And yet, in his intellectual preoccupations, he combines the irreverent, agrestial naïvety of a rural upbringing with an uncompromising, cultured superciliousness. In a way he lives in and detached from a world that is not good enough for him, either in its bucolic or metropolitan facets, and which is progressively to get further and further removed from his ideals.

This being Perdue's first novel and largely autobiographical, it is afflicted by some of the expected traits of an incipient literary writer with superior talent and an archaic mind: the narration, for example, is hyper-real, recording every remembered detail, at times more for Perdue's benefit than for the reader. The dialogue can sometimes be confusing, as it is often reproduced without beats. Also there is vague evidence of this having been originally a much longer work—Tito tells me that his initial draft was 1,000 pages long, with double the final wordcount, and that he wrote the novel with a mechanical typewriter, in 1983, knowing nothing about novel writing except for the fact that novels were long.

All the same, the story is told in a terrifically amusing manner, and every page is a constellation of little gems. While immersed in this novel, for example, my wife asked me to read her a couple of pages. I ended up reading 27 because she kept laughing at Perdue's descriptions of trivial situations, and at the kind of things that made him, or Lee, indignant. For a modern reader, the America of the 1950s, or at least the parts of it that interested Perdue, is very quaint, particularly as seen through the eyes of someone who both is nostalgic for that era and was horrified by its decadence and lacking authenticity. This is especially true in the interactions between Lee and Judy, the starry-eyed competitive lovers, whose relationship has the charm of innocence associated with those times.

One is sad to reach the end.

As an author, Perdue says he admires Orwell, Faulkner, Hardy, and Dostoevsky, but contemporary readers will probably not fail to notice similarities between my work and Perdue's. In unusual ways, there are some astounding parallels, which neither he nor I failed to note after exchanging novels over the Summer, even though our voices and novels are different. I am also reminded somewhat of Alexander Theroux, another misanthropic, anti-modern, sesquipedalophiliac author of literary fiction. However, unlike Theroux, the pitiless satirist, or myself, the scientific artist, Perdue is a disgusted but amused romantic.

If you are interested in Perdue's work, it may be a good strategy to begin with The Sweet-Scented Manuscript, and then follow Lee's adventures chronologically: The New Austerities (Lee at 42), published in 1994; Journey to a Location (Lee at 70), to be published by Arktos; Materials for all Future Historians (Lee at 71), not yet published;Lee (Lee at 72), published in 1991; and Fields of Asphodel (Lee in the post-mortem world), published in 2007. Two other Lee novels exist, The Smut Book (Lee at 11) and Morning Crafts (Lee at 13). The latter will be published by Arktos, with specially commissioned cover artwork by yours truly.

You can purchase The Sweet-Scented Manuscript and Perdue's other extant novels here.

End of a Cycle

MacMillan has made available to us an excerpt of Pat Buchanan's Suicide of a Superpower audiobook. The atmosphere in this recording is, as you may expect, dark, grim, apocalyptic—one cannot help but imagine how this will sound on the other side of the catastrophe, once what we know today and once knew is gone, and this audio, surviving perhaps in fragments, found in some archeological site, petrified but somehow partially recovered and translated, provides the titans of the next manvantara with a glimpse of what it must have been like for people in the vanished American civilisation to live in the final slope of the Kali-Yuga.

You can hear the clip here.

What is He Doing?

Four years after the event, singer and former Smiths frontman, Steven Morrissey, has decided to sue the New Musical Express (NME) magazine for libel in connection with an article where he was criticised ‘for allegedly telling a reporter Britain had lost its identity due to high levels of immigration’.

According to The Guardian,

Lawyers for the former Smiths frontman told the high court on Monday that the singer “continues to suffer” reputational damage from a controversial interview he gave to NME magazine four years ago in which he complained about an “immigration explosion” leading to a loss of British identity.

In a written submission, Morrissey said his comments received “a barrage of press” at the time, and added: “Question marks over my being a racist have never since receded”.

This is the latest instalment of a

bitter standoff that spans almost two decades – in 1992 NME accused him of “flirting with disaster” and racist imagery after he wrapped a union flag around himself while on stage in Finsbury Park, north London . . . .

In the opposite corner, however, Catrin Evans, acting for the magazine, takes the view that:

“[t]he fact that [Morrissey] has spent the three years since March 2008 recording albums, touring, promoting his new work and presumably doing well enough commercially to be able now to contemplate funding this libel claim, shows that his reputation has been unaffected. His fans apparently still love him,” Evans told the court. She pointed out that the offending interview had never been published online and continues to exist “only in Morrissey fans’ bedrooms”.

In 2007 Morrissey was quoted by the NME as saying

Although I don’t have anything against people from other countries, the higher the influx into England the more the British identity disappears. So the price is enormous.

If you travel to Germany, it’s still absolutely Germany. If you travel to Sweden, it still has a Swedish identity.

But travel to England and you have no idea where you are

Following which, in a follow-up interview, he

is alleged to have added that he did not think his comments were inflammatory, but were “a statement of fact”.

It says something about the Left, and indeed about the politics of the mainstream music industry, that even Morrissey’s perfectly reasonable and accurate observations were deemed, according to Tim Jonze, the journalist who interviewed Morrissey, ‘offensive’, and according to the NME, racist. These people are so far to the Left that they will only be seen when instruments able to detect the cosmic gravitational wave background are invented. (The predicted redshift is in excess of z > 10²⁵.)

Be that as it may, one cannot help but wonder why, if Morrissey believes that successive governments’ policy on immigration has had a negative impact in Britain, he cares about the opinions of those who supported that policy.

I certainly don’t. Do you?

On the other hand, it is difficult to ascertain Morrissey’s real attitudes an intentions, given that in 2004 he was a founding signatory of the violent terrorist group United Against Fascism, and that the year following his ‘offensive’ remarks he donated £75,000 (some $150,000 at the time) to a campaign sponsored by the aforementioned group, Love Music Hate Racism.

As to his politics, Morrissey is known to have criticised conservative politicians and to have been rooting for Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry in the U.S. presidential elections of 2004.

Thus this seems the case of a Leftist suing other Leftists for using Leftist reputational weapons because of his criticism of Leftist policies.

Put another way, this seems a case of Leftists seeking to redistribute wealth among themselves and contribute a big chunk to fattening their lawyers.

I hope the legal process proves detailed and comprehensive, and that they spare no funds, and leave no stone unturned, unearthing every document, taking as many years as are needed, in their search for the truth.

That Will Teach Him

On Monday 10 October the BBC aired a Panorama shockumentary film about the British National Party (BNP). This was the latest in a series of ‘exposés’ about that organisation, previous ones having been Channel 4‘s Young, Nazi, and Proud (2002), the BBC’s ‘BNP: Under the Skin’ (another Panorama film from 2005), and the 15 July 2004 edition of BBC One’s The Secret Agent.

Unlike its predecessors, this film, made by Darragh MacIntyre, did not focus on that party’s discussion of race and immigration (what he referred to as ‘racism’), but rather on the BNP’s financial management and accounting practices.

The film also enjoyed the participation of former senior party officials and employees, who had fallen out with the party leader and Member of European Parliament (MEP), Nick Griffin. These included the former party fundraiser, Jim Dowson; the former Director of Publicity, Mark Collett; the former treasurer, John Walker; former webmaster Simon Bennett; former party Administrator Marion Thomas; and former party worker Alistair Barbour. According to MacIntyre, he also spoke to various others, off the record, including David Hannam.

As a method of inspiring caution towards Griffin and his party among lukewarm supporters the film is effective. It reinforces earlier news reports about the BNP’s current financial troubles and persistent late filing of accounts and, more damagingly, presents its accounting practices as governed by a semi-criminal ethos. Only those with first-hand information, those sensitised to media tactics, and those who do their own research before forming an opinion will come to a nuanced—although not necessarily more positive—view.

The case is made by the former BNP officials, who in the film state that invoices were faked so as to comply with the Electoral Commission’s rules; that the party lied about its accounts; and that Griffin broke the European Parliament’s rules by extracting money from his member’s expense account and diverting it towards funding national party work. According to the film, for example, Nick Griffin rented a unit in an industrial estate in Cumbria to use as offices for his work as MEP, but also rented the unit next door to use as national party headquarters, apparently so that the latter could siphon off electricity from the MEP’s offices, and thus have the European Parliament pay the bill for electricity that was used for party work within the United Kingdom. MacIntyre concedes that when the European Commission investigators arrived at the site they found no evidence of an electricity scam, but one can easily imagine why, as all it would take to transfer electrical costs onto another entity’s bill is to run an extension cable. Yet the assertion is unsubstantiated, so MacIntyre films Alistair Barbour stating that for Griffin it was all about getting their noses in the trough and getting as much as they could out of the European Parliament.

Things look even worse when the film reveals how Nick Griffin chose to respond to MacIntyre’s requests for an interview. Evidently fed up with the BBC’s efforts to discredit him and his party, Griffin was reluctant to be interviewed to respond to the allegations—in the past he has complained of negatively biased selective editing by the mainstream channels. After some thought, however, he agreed to appear in the programme, only it seems he did so after recognising an opportunity to turn the tables on the BBC. In what was evidently revenge for what he considers the ambush of the BBC’s Question Time programme two years ago, he formatted the ‘interview’ like a press conference, with a reverse Q & A. The film shows Griffin first ending a statement about BBC bias in reporting BNP politics (as he would have expected, the statement was left out in its entirety) before making a swift exit and then having the BNP’s own cameras turn on the BBC before Simon Darby (the National Media Spokesman) launches a series pointed questions. In other words, Griffin orchestrates a televised ambush. The resulting video was gleefully posted on the BNP website shortly after it was made as a ‘taste of their own medicine’ exercise. (It is instructive to contrast this footage against Panorama’s version of this incident.) I say things look worse, not better, because the exercise, satisfying as it may have been for Griffin and BNP supporters, highlights to what degree the BNP is a reactive, rather than an active, party: they allow their tactics, approach, and character to be defined by their enemies; and thus, even when they go on the offensive they are still fundamentally defensive.

On the whole, the BBC film paints a picture of Nick Griffin and the BNP leadership as corrupt, opportunistic, thuggish, and incompetent. Of course, this is as one would expect from an organisation with a strong Leftist bias and a record of persistent negative reporting about their chosen bogeyman, the BNP. In reality, however, the BBC programme only scratches the surface, for one can find much more detailed and equally colourful—but ultimately tedious—background information elsewhere, courtesy of former members’ blogs, local news reports, the BNP website, and more.

In an earlier article I pointed out that many of those who share the party’s official views and policies for the United Kingdom, would worry about a BNP government. Not only is there an amateur quality to their operation, despite efforts to present themselves more professionally, but their approach betrays a rough-and-ready, quick-and-dirty, pub-brawl character when responding to challenging situations. Evidently this has much to do with access to money and the attitudes that result from the fact of marginality. It must also be in the nature of populist parties to be this way. The mainstream parties, who enjoy all the assurance of social legitimacy and access to professional advisors, manage much more successfully to appear respectable despite being fraudulent and corrupt on a much larger scale.

Indeed, the phrasing used by Mark Collett when discussing the party’s wins in the European Parliamentary election of 2009 is telling, as he says that it was thought at the time that the BNP would ‘now operate like a legitimate party’. Even if Collett’s phrasing was merely unfortunate, it betrays a culture within the BNP that in personnel terms has been defined by its lowest common denominator as well as by the marginality contrived by establishment academics, politicians, and media content producers, all of whom regard the BNP as essentially criminal. There is a subtle but crucial difference between realising that an electoral victory will enable members to operate as a professional party, and realising that said victory will enable members to operate as a legitimate party. The former suggests greater access to resources will reflect positively in party organisation and management; the latter suggests the party did not consider itself legitimate to begin with, which is different and independent from being considered legitimate by the establishment or the mainstream of society.

As bad as it all looks in the programme, a few comments about it are necessary.

One of them has to do with the BNP’s finances. An accountant hired by the BBC to assess the party’s accounts and financial position deems the party to be ‘technically insolvent’, and it has been reported that the party is £570,000 in debt. This is peanuts when one thinks of the Labour Party’s debts in 2010, which amounted to £16,600,000; or those of the Conservatives, which amounted to £13,000,000; or those of the Liberal Democrats, which amounted to £1,600,000. Even accounting for membership size, while the BNP’s debt burden is significant for a party of 14,000 members, said debt burden is £40 per member, while the Labour Party’s is £85 per each of their 200,000 members, and the Conservatives’ is £45 per each of their 290,000 members. Only the Liberal Democrats are better off. All the same, the Panorama film reveals that the BNP managed to triple their income between 2007 and 2009, which approached £2,000,000 that year. Conversely, it does not reveal that at least some of the debt has been accrued fighting the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), who did not like the idea of Whites organising politically as Whites. The BNP was not able to sign up new members while the court case dragged on. And, however much the BNP may leave to be desired, the EHRC case was a clear attempt at hobbling the party economically. The haters at the EHRC have no interest in having a party like the BNP be compliant with equality legislation; on the contrary, I am sure they would have preferred it if the BNP leadership had refused to comply, as that would have meant that the party, along with any other that sought to organise Whites polically as Whites, would no longer be recognised or allowed to operate as such.

Another is that the programme makers’ emulation of EHRC’s economically targeted approach appears to signal a change of emphasis in the establishment’s tactics. Nick Griffin is an MEP because a great many people voted for him, not caring if doing so was considered ‘racist’. The fact is that these voters felt the BNP addressed concerns that they had and wanted to make known to mainstream political parties, having noticed that said parties’ leadership only worries about those concerns when the BNP advances in the polls. ‘Vote for anyone except the BNP,’ said Conservative Party leader David Cameron in 2006. By focusing on allegations of maladministration and corruption, rather than on ‘racism’, it is clear that the hope is to undermine the confidence of supporters and thus make it even more difficult for the party to fund itself. This would indicate a possible recognition that an increasing number people are tired of the constant accusations of racism and no longer give a damn about being thought politically incorrect—that, in other words, the establishment’s ‘anti-racist’ ideology no longer enjoys the force it once did, creating the need for attacking the opposition’s status rather than their morality.

Yet another is that the programme treats former BNP officials and workers rather sympathetically. The viewer learns nothing about them, except their former positions, the fact that they left the BNP, and their being disillusioned with Nick Griffin and his ‘officer core’. Hard evidence seems scarce, and the viewer is presented mostly with a series of assertions. This has made it easy for Griffin to dismiss his critics as being disgruntled individuals with axes to grind. There is an unpleasant cynicism at work here that, as usual, insults the viewer’s intelligence.

What is interesting is that, as the allegations are presented in the programme, Griffin’s misdeeds—the fake invoices, the undisclosed donations, the misuse of expense accounts (all of which also occur within the mainstream parties)—all seem aimed at improving his party’s economic standing, rather than enriching him personally. His car, until recently, was a Skoda.

This contrasts with the corruption uncovered within the mainstream parties during the parliamentary expenses scandal of 2009, where members of parliament got their noses in the trough to enhance their personal lifestyles.

Convicted thief Elliot Morley, for example, former Labour MP for Scunthorpe, stole £16,800 from the public purse—that is, from people like you and me—by claiming £800 a month in respect of a property in his constituency for 18 months after the mortgage had ended. Convicted thief Jim Devine, former Labour MP for Livingston, stole £8,385 from the public purse by claiming against expenses using faked invoices. Convicted thief David Chaytor, former Labour MP for Bury North, stole £13,000 by claiming rent for a house which he owned, using a fake tenancy agreement with his daughter. Former Labour MP for Wirral South, Ben Champan, falsely overclaimed £15,000 against interest on his mortgage. Millionaire peer Amir Bhatia was told to repay £27,446 as a result of false claims against a second home. Tony Blair was luckier than his colleagues, as records of his expenses were shredded ‘by mistake’ when efforts began to have them published.

In the case of the Labour politicians, we have individuals who do not believe their own ideology: they use the language of social justice, redistribution of wealth, and class resentment, yet they clearly want to live the good life, and, though in some cases they already enjoy great wealth, they do not mind redistributing income extracted from the poor or the middle class in order to top up their personal bank accounts. In the case of Griffin, the film suggests a politician who is genuine ideologically, but who follows through with unethical and criminal practices. The latter would seem driven by a pub-brawl approach to politics, a deep hostility towards and mistrust of mainstream institutions, and the fact of marginality, a limit situation that intrinsically generates a need for bending rules, exploiting loopholes, and resorting to unorthodox, crude, and opportunistic tactics of dubious legality. Parts of this approach may be intellectually justifiable where an establishment has used the law to suppress dissidence, as in the case of certain speech laws, but outside of these specific areas this is not the case, and the BBC may have realised this and sought to exploit it accordingly.

Divisions, falling outs, and dillusionment has caused defections to rival parties; some of the former officials and employees who appeared in the programme are now working for them. These rival parties are small, however, and it may take many years before any of them gains brand recognition. The media and political establishment no doubt hope that by undermining trust in the financial management and accounting practices of the main nationalist party they will foster a climate of suspicion within nationalist politics as a whole, causing rival parties of a similar mould to find it more difficult to add members and obtain donations. And so long as they have limited economic means they will find it difficult to look important and like they have good prospects, both of which are essential given the human tendency to side with winners—being on the side of the winners makes a person feel good about himself, because he aspires to be like the winners and to count them as friends, since that sends out the message that he too is a winner.

From a broader perspective, so long as establishment institutions remain in the grip of, or are defined by, a Leftist ideology it will make little difference politically whether the BNP survives its present crisis, splinters into smaller parties, or disappears altogether. Its utility in recent years has been as a recognisable option for those wishing to scare mainstream politicians into re-thinking immigration and the state-sponsored policy of multiculturalism. The mainstream political and media establishment know full well there is no prospect of a BNP government, but this does not stop them from fearing that BNP advances in the polls will make it seem ‘OK’ for White voters openly to criticise and organise as Whites against policies that run counter to their interests and desires as an identifiable group. A film like the one discussed herein has the same aim as earlier ones that focused on so-called ‘racism’, the message always being that ‘if you support these guys, you’re supporting criminal thugs, so beware!’ It will not change anyone’s minds with respect to the fundamental issues of immigration and multiculturalism: those who favour current government policy will find themselves confirmed in their views; those who think the media has a Leftist bias will also find themselves confirmed in their views—even if they would not want the BNP in power; and the apolitical majority who simply adopt prevailing mainstream opinion will find no reason to change. The film is really for this latter group—it exists as a reminder of where the boundaries of acceptability lie, as well as a general deterrent against investigating alternatives.

Women on the Left

The topic of women on the Right has led to many a heated discussion, and it is one that commentators on the Left have gleefully joined in their efforts to promote their cause and discourage opposition.

One of the favourite tropes of the Left is that its opponents offer women nothing except serial pregnancy and household chores. Another is that their opponents are angry, hate-filled, pension-age misogynists. Yet another is that, because of the above, none but a tiny minority of deluded, sociopathic women support them.

The implication is that the Left offers women emancipation; that proponents of the Left are happy, loving, youthful people with enlightened attitudes; and that, because of the above, the sane majority of women support them.

But—is this true?

And if all or at least some of it is true, is it true without qualifications?

So far no one has pointed the electron microscope toward women on the Left.

This is an omission that needs correcting, for in a culture that is materially dominated and regulated by the ideological Left, and/or where the cultural hegemony has been defined by the ideology of the Left, the topic is certainly worthy of investigation.

The Left as a Force of Emancipation

The Left’s cosmology derives from Freudo-Marxian scholasticism, the closed matrix into which fit their insidious abstractions and incestuous analytical frameworks, and which drives their various so-called "emancipatory" movements.

Generally, Leftists believe women to have been oppressed by—as they would so characteristically phrase it—"the patriarchal White male capitalist superstructure."

Yet, capitalism is founded on classical liberalism, hardly a traditionalist ideology, so the Left’s own feminist narrative should be taken as self-criticism.

Also, while it is true that social reforms were needed because the role and opportunities for women had become too limited (this is what drove Betty Friedan’s critique), this was not due to an excess of tradition, but to a lack of it. As I argued in a previous article, traditional Western cultures accorded women high social status, even divinity, and conceived them not just as wives and mothers but also in a variety of high-status, even sacred roles.

By contrast, what the Left has done for women is trade one form of slavery for another. So now, instead of being dependent on husbands, whom in most cases they married out of love, women, having become wage slaves and debt slaves, are dependent on anonymous corporations, banks, and the government, who regard them purely as sources of money or labour, and who certainly love no one.

That is how gender equality has been achieved, because men are also slaves.

We cannot even say that the Left has given women the option of choosing their enslaver, because nowadays enjoying a good middle- class lifestyle without having to do odious work requires either a very high income, two incomes, and/or going into debt, particularly since earnings are so heavily taxed.

Some women certainly enjoy sacrificing everything for a remunerative career, and some even achieve those careers, but they comprise a minority. Most women, like most people, work only to pay the bills, and only tell themselves they enjoy their work because that is the only way they can stand it: most women, like most people, are bored by it and spend their weeks longing for the next weekend and dreading the following Monday.

Is that freedom?

Or is it living death?

Love, Leftie Style

When we think of the Left in the context of love, we imagine nude long-haired youngsters cavorting in the mud at some outdoor Rock music concert.

But, of course, that image is from over 40 years ago. And it hardly reflects the universal reality of triumphant Leftism, since it is subcultural and belongs to a point in time and space, as opposed to ordinary people’s everyday reality.

And what is that reality?

We know the Left has devastated the family. Radical feminist agitation, and media depictions of women informed by extreme Leftist ideologies, have produced a breed of women who are harsh, overbearing, loud, aggressive, muscular, even hirsute. They possess litigious dispositions, thermonuclear tempers, and hair-trigger hypersensitivity. They wear horizon-spanning shoulder pads, gurn on furious treadmills, bake themselves on tanning beds, have perpetual headaches, wear suits and baggy jeans, slash upholstery with their bones, and dream of corporate careers involving ball-busting, misandristic revanchism, and fist-slamming brinkmanship.

Feminism has also produced an alternative breed of liberated women, more prevalent than the first, whose archetypical specimen pullulates city centres every evening of the week. They stand perched atop vertiginous heels, bleach their hair, spray-tan their skins, starve their bodies, muscle their abs, whoop drunkenly, smoke while pregnant, and frequent brainless nightclubs, in whose pulsating interior they signal their availability for easy sex, right then and there, in the privacy of a toilet stall. The most educated and intellectual among them read romance novels, the love of whose heroes they subsequently seek at the bar or on the dance floor. In some cases they even affect a taste for football. These women are not feminists, although some may have picked up feminist attitudes from television sitcoms and romantic comedies, but they are nonetheless a product of feminism.

Such is the proliferation of these breeds that some men in the West have declared marriage strikes and/or sought more amiable companions in Asia and Eastern Europe.

Divorce has also exploded as a result of Leftist ideology, not only because it has promoted a thoroughly unpleasant archetype for modern women in the West, but also because it has devalued marriage, promoted casual sex, normalised dysfunction, and made divorce a lifestyle choice.

Since this environment is their creation, made in their image, one has to wonder, then, how many Leftists can boast of happy life-long marriages?

Where are their women?

They are with their lawyers, angry, disillusioned, and filing for divorce!

Women on the Left

Leftist ideologies seem to attract a very particular type of woman. By looking at the Left’s women intellectuals, we learn about their character.

For starters, we find out from Ti-Grace Atkinson why the Left are so interested in the whereabouts of our women. In Amazon Odyssey (1974), she wrote:

The price of clinging to the enemy [a man] is your life. To enter into a relationship with a man who has divested himself as completely and publicly from the male role as much as possible would still be a risk. But to relate to a man who has done any less is suicide.... I, personally, have taken the position that I will not appear with any man publicly, where it could possibly be interpreted that we were friends.

Atkinson was influenced by Simone de Beauvoir, author of the seminal feminist treatise, The Second Sex. In an interview for the Saturday Review, published on 14 June 1975, de Beauvoir provides a possible answer as to why the Left has pushed so hard to force women into wage slavery while also pushing for predatory taxation (because, note, if the Left were about giving women autonomy, they would have pushed for vocational employment and tax-breaks, rather than forced labour and tax-hikes):

No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.

De Beauvoir was a firm admirer of Soviet Communism. Some feminists, like Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, Professor Emerita of Ethnic Studies at California State University, have expressed sentiments congenial with that movement. In her 1969 essay, ‘Female Liberation as the Basis for Social Revolution’, she wrote:

How will the family unit be destroyed? . . . the demand alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare.

In true Soviet style, Prof. Mary Jo Bane, Thornton Bradshaw Professor of Public Policy and Management at Harvard Kennedy School, offers a solution for the pesky problem of what to do with the children:

In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them.

Other politically sinister women view the problem from a spiritual, rather than materialist, perspective. In Women and Madness (1972), professor and psychotherapist Phyllis Chesler wrote:

[M]ost mother-women give up whatever ghost of a unique and human self they may have when they ‘marry’ and raise children.

Sheila Cronan, of NOW!, supplies additional insights concerning marriage:

Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the Women’s Movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage.

Because, obviously,

[t]he simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist.

Particularly because, as expressed by Catharine MacKinnon, Professor of Law at the University of Michigan:

All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman.

Indeed, some Left-leaning women conceive the situation to be so dire that the only solution is to dispense with men altogether. The likes of Cheryl Clarke, infuse their brand of politics even into their most intimate affairs:

Heterosexuality is a die-hard custom through which male-supremacist institutions insure their own perpetuity and control over us. Women are kept, maintained and contained through terror, violence, and the spray of semen . . . [Lesbianism is] an ideological, political and philosophical means of liberation of all women from heterosexual tyranny… (“Lesbianism, An Act of Resistance,” in This Bridge Called My Back: Writing by Radical Women of Color).

Andrea Dworkin, a woman whose inner and outer beauty was truly in the eye of the beholder, did not want to dispense with men without first getting some satisfaction from them:

I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig. (Ice and Fire, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1987.)

In interviews, she made her sentiments clear:

Q: ‘People think you are very hostile to men’. A: ‘I am’.

Her hostility was committed to print in her books, like Our Blood, where she wrote in 1976:

Only when manhood is dead—and it will perish when ravaged femininity no longer sustains it—only then will we know what it is to be free.

Unsurprisingly, her second husband (still alive), is a radical feminist, who has written books like Refusing to be a Man, and The End of Manhood: A Book for Men of Conscience.

Dworkin also said, "Men use the night to erase us."

Which is perhaps why there are Left-leaning women who take a root-and-branch approach to the problem of manhood. Triple-PhD holder Mary Daly, former professor at Boston College, said in 2001:

If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males.

Perhaps the most exquisite example of women on the Left is Valerie Solanas. Her iconic, The S.C.U.M. Manifesto, was the foundational text for the Society for Cutting Up Men. She wrote:

Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation, and destroy the male sex.

Because, after all,

To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo.

But of course, it need not be that bad. Jilly Cooper, S.C.U.M. member, still thinks there is a role for men in the world:

The male is a domestic animal which, if treated with firmness . . . can be trained to do most things.

It would be naïve to think that such views result from experiences with traditionalist males, because, as everybody knows, a person tends to socialise with people who share his or her values. Thus the views of women luminaries from the Left-wing intelligentsia may perhaps say more about their male counterparts on the Left than they do about their enemies on the Right. They may also say something about their lack of experiences with men, period; with men whom traditionalists would class as scum; or with men who are from non-Western cultures, where women are accorded low social status.

For example, Andrea Dworkin became a radical feminist after being severely abused by her first husband, Cornelius Dirk de Bruin, a fellow radical activist involved in the Vietnam War protest movement.

Mary Daly had no real experiences with men, being a lesbian. ‘I don't think about men. I really don’t care about them.’

Valerie Solanas came from a dysfunctional family.

And Phyllis Chesler cites her experiences in the early 1960s with her Afghani husband in Kabul as inspiring her to become an ardent feminist. As was the custom for foreign wives in Afghanistan, she was required to surrender her U.S. passport to the authorities and lived a virtual prisoner at her in-laws’ polygamous household.

And, of course, it is these women that the Left has exalted as experts in gender, manhood, and womanhood, posting them at leading universities, dedicating them entire departments, and publishing and promoting their psychotic diatribes.

The only reason the Left can portray itself as enjoying the support of women is it that it has feminists—which is just as good as not enjoying the support of women at all, particularly when some of them want to wipe out the male sex from the face of the Earth.

I do not think even Savitri Devi was ever that extreme.

This is no doubt something to consider next time male commentators on the Left obsess about our women, who are very different indeed.

Interview with Richard Lynn

As part of my continuing series of extensive interviews with daring authors and publishers, I have interviewed Professor Richard Lynn, author of IQ and Global Inequality, Race Differences in Intelligence, Eugenics: A Reassessment, and Dysgenics, recently published in a new and updated edition. As with earlier interviews in the series, I wanted to get a sense of the subject's personality, not simply ask questions about his work, which can be found elsewhere. Professor Lynn, otherwise keen on prose efficiency and Lacedaemonian brevity, kindly provided substantial answers to my questions and afforded us some insights into his early life and memories.

You can read the interview here.

How Dare She!

With breathless, wide-eyed dismay, the BBC has reported findings from a listening of audiotapes recently released containing a interview with Jackie Kennedy, granted to a historian shortly after her husband’s assassination.

In the audiotapes, Mrs. Kennedy offers her opinions of Lyndon Johnson, and world leaders Indira Gandhi and Charles de Gaulle (in all cases negative).

However, by far the worst offence by Mrs. Kennedy, and the one determined the title of the report, was her daring to express a negative opinion of Martin Luther King.

According to the BBC, she

strongly criticised Dr King, recalling how her brother-in-law, US Attorney General Robert Kennedy, told her the civil rights leader had been intoxicated at JFK’s funeral and mocked Cardinal Richard Cushing’s Mass.

She said: “He made fun of Cardinal Cushing and [Robert] said that he was drunk at it. I can't see a picture of Martin Luther King without thinking, that man's terrible.”

Can you believe the effrontery?

How dare she criticise the most important man that ever lived in the United States of America! How dare she disapprove of his intoxication at her husband’s funeral, and his mocking the service.

It is inconceivable that any sane wife of a recently deceased husband would articulate such uncharitable opinions, let alone plumb the churlish depths of snobbery with the gusto evident in that audiotape.

And, note, it’s “Dr King” for you, you peonish baboon. Don’t you ever forget that.

One would think that, given the unquestionable evidence—uncovered twenty years ago—of King’s plagiarism in his doctoral dissertation of 1955, efforts would be made not to emphasise his holding a doctorate—a degree that under normal circumstances, not to mention circumstances involving holders who campaign for White civil rights, would have been revoked, with fulminant effect and endless media gloating.

I have no doubt that BBC journalists find it genuinely outrageous that anyone would have anything critical to say of their Afro-American secular saint.

But I also have no doubt that the BBC’s report is intended as a reminder, albeit perhaps unconscious, for the readers that it is not OK to cross that line—to blaspheme against the deities of the Marxist pantheon, to fail to show due reverence, to speak out of turn, to have feelings other than awe, marvel, admiration, and humility for the likes of Martin Luther King.

100m Winners, De-Blacked

It never ceases to amuse one how equality zealots, when confronted with an inconvenient fact, always manage to square the circle with their unique brand of tortive logic. In fact, one has to marvel at the ingenuity displayed from time to time, because contriving politically correct explanations for observed events in order to force them into compliance with ideology is not always easy.

Take for example the article Is it Wrong to Note 100m Winners are Always Black?, authored by former table tennis champion and failed Labour candidate Matthew Syed, published by the BBC News website this last Saturday. It is clear from it that the consistency with which Black athletes win the 100 metre sprint competition had been noticed, causing enough discomfort vis-à-vis the implications for race relations in the multicultural state to warrant a full explanatory article, lest sports fans watching the World Athletics Championships this weekend reached conclusions not approved by the state.

Syed lays out the problem:

Every winner of the 100m since the inaugural event in 1983 has been black, as has every finalist from the last 10 championships with the solitary exception of Matic Osovnikar of Slovenia, who finished seventh in 2007.

Assuming that this success is driven by genes rather than environment, there is a rather obvious inference to make - black people are naturally better sprinters than white people. Indeed, it is an inference that seems obligatory, barring considerations of political correctness.

This, of course, will not do. Syed then proceeds to explode the inference—and how he does it is really incredible:

But here's the thing. This inference is not merely false - it is logically flawed. . . .

To see how, let us examine success not in the sprints but in distance running, for this is also dominated by black athletes. Kenya has won an astonishing 63 medals at the Olympic Games in races of 800m and above, 21 of them gold, since 1968. Little wonder that one commentator once described distance running as "a Kenyan monopoly".

But it turns out that it is not Kenya as a whole that usually wins these medals, but individuals from a tiny region in the Rift Valley called Nandi. As one writer put it: "Most of Kenya's runners call Nandi home."

Seen in this context, the notion that black people are naturally superior distance runners seems bizarre. Far from being a "black" phenomenon, or even a Kenyan phenomenon, distance running is actually a Nandi phenomenon. Or, to put it another way, "black" distance running success is focused on the tiniest of pinpricks on the map of Africa, with the vast majority of the continent underrepresented.

The same analysis applies to the sprints, where success is focused on Jamaicans and African-Americans. Africa, as a continent, has almost no success at all. Not even West Africans win much.

The combined forces of Mauritania, Guinea-Bissau, Sierra Leone, the Republic of Guinea, Liberia, Ivory Coast, Togo, Niger, Benin, Mali, the Gambia, Equatorial Guinea, Ghana, Gabon, Senegal, Congo and Angola have not won a single sprinting medal at the Olympics or World Championships.

The fallacy, then, is simple. Just because some black people are good at something does not imply that black people in general will be good at it.

Note how Syed, using a tired Labour tactic, attempts to pass evidence as a refutation. He conveniently neglects to mention that most of the individuals residing in Nandi belong to an eponymous tribe. And while he is correct to point out later in the article that it is wrong to assume that all Blacks are the same, given that they exhibit the most genetic variation among the main racial groups, this adds substance to, rather than detract from, a genetic explanation, as all this tells us is that the Nandi are particularly well equipped anatomically for the 10,000 metre competition.

Syed proceeds to make genetic explanations seem preposterous by providing a preposterous analogy:

Imagine a similar argument using the Central African Bambuti, a black tribe more commonly known as Pygmies. With an average height of 4ft we could assert that the Bambuti are naturally better at walking under low doors. Would it be legitimate to extrapolate that black people in general have a natural advantage at walking under low doors?

He then attempts to explicate an alleged fallacy by committing three in a row himself:

Our tendency to generalise rests on a deeper fallacy - the idea that "black" refers to a genetic type. We put people of dark skin in a box labelled black and assume that a trait shared by some is shared by all.

The truth is rather different. There is far more genetic variation within racial groups (around 85%) than there is between racial groups (just 15%). Indeed, surface appearance is often a highly misleading way of assessing the genetic distance between populations.

This evidence demonstrates how absurd it is to engage in racial generalisations - how crazy it is to witness a tiny group of black people winning at, say, the 10,000m and to infer that all people who share the same skin colour share an aptitude for 10,000m running.

One surmises this tells us more about the hidden racial prejudices and subterranean determinism of so-called ‘anti-racists’ than about how race realists think about human biodiversity. What is craziest about the arguments presented above is that they provide evidence for their own refutation: for example, it is obvious that in the face of great genetic variation, and given the highly specialised nature and the very high level of the competitions involved, some racial subtypes will possess superior genetic endowments for one competition and other racial subtypes will possess them for another.

Finally, we get to the most bizarre part of the article, and the one that gives the game away (note the tone):

But our subconscious assumptions about race have more than merely sporting implications.

Consider an experiment by Marianne Bertrand and Sendhil Mullainathan, two American economists. They drafted 5,000 CVs and placed archetypal "black" names such as Tyrone or Latoya on half of them and "white" names such as Brendan or Alison on the other half. They then divided the white CVs into high and low quality and did the same with the black CVs.

A few weeks later the offers came rolling in from employers, and guess what? The "black" candidates were 50% less likely to be invited to interview. Employers were using skin colour as a marker for employment potential, despite the fact that the candidates' CVs were identical.

But that's not all. The researchers also found that although high-quality "white" candidates were preferred to low-quality "white" candidates, the relative quality of "black" CVs made no difference whatsoever.

It was as if employers saw three categories - high-quality white, low-quality white and black candidates. To put it another way, the subliminal assumption that causes us to think that black people are all the same has powerful real-world consequences.

For many economists, this assumption, which gets under the radar of our conscious thought, explains why black people still lag behind white people in economic development more than four decades after the introduction of race-relations legislation.

Recognising that we have these biases is a good place to start in trying to combat them. And a good way of tracking progress is to watch a 100m final and see whether we fall into the trap, when seeing eight contestants with black skin, of inferring that black people are naturally better sprinters.

Ultimately, then, this entire exposition about Black supremacy in athletic competitions and comically contrived logical fallacies is about calling White people racists and once again suggesting they must  redouble efforts to remove themselves from their own societies.

Given the effort expended slandering White folk in this very roundabout way, one cannot help but sense the exercise was driven by desperation.

There, in Black and White

The United Kingdom is marvelling at the enrichment being visited upon the country by the multicultural state.

Inexplicably, the politicians, who worked so hard for so many years to ensure Britons did not miss out on the joys of diversity, are proving shy to take credit for the creativity and skills they have imported into the country from all corners of Africa and South Asia. Instead, they have taken to invect against the displays of rapturous exuberance sweeping the streets of London and now other cities as well.

Be that as it may, Britons today must admit, however reluctant they may have been in the past, that state-sponsored multiculturalism has finally delivered what it promised.

One of the arguments for the multicultural policy was that racial and cultural diversity would add a variety of approaches to problem-solving, with each breed of immigrant bringing with him unique ways of looking at things, thus supplementing the apparently boring, stale, and predictable ways traditionally preferred by native Britons.

A conspicuous example has now been provided by the events that began in Tottenham last Saturday.

As we know, Tottenham is an economically depressed area of the capital, with many of its residents being poor, living in squalor, and depending on state benefits. It is, however, the most diverse area in the country, and possibly of Western Europe, with 113 different ethnic groups living cheek-by-jowl in an intensely urbanised area, where no fewer than 193 languages are spoken, not including hybridised varieties of broken Cockney, gang slang, and Twitter-pidgin.

Thus, out of this cauldron of multifarious religions, sects, backgrounds, cultures, dialects, and worldviews, idiosyncratic approaches to wealth-creation have emerged over the years, creating new industries and causing others to boom. Psychoactive drug and gun traffic are thriving, providing employment and raising the standard of living of many local entrepreneurs on a scale that would not have been possible prior to the advent of multiculturalism.

Yet this is all well known to native Britons, particularly those still remaining in this and other enriched areas, and even more so to the police, who now enjoy larger budgets and can offer more opportunities for employment than before. The same must be true of cremation services.

What has not been noted in the mainstream media, however, is the degree of ecological specialisation among local residents, which news reporting on the U.K. riots have brought into relief.

On the one hand, footage on the ground has revealed that Black youths have decided to specialise on wealth redistribution, focusing on the performance of thousands of unrecorded transactions at local businesses, at all hours of the day and night, without need for shop assistance or customer service. By means of chairs, bricks, and baseball bats, they have eliminated barriers to the free circulation of goods, and have transferred substantial amounts of wealth from unmanned shop floors and into their homes. Some have posted images of themselves on Twitter, showing off their newly acquired wealth. Others have travelled to other parts of the city, seeking new vistas and opportunities. And yet others, inspired by the pioneering spirit of these Black youths, have been seen by BBC news reporters on the ground arriving with bags and inquiring where the riots were.

On the other hand, the footage has also revealed that White folk have decided to specialise on urban repair and maintenance. Reports posted on the BBC News website have shown a clean-up operations organised by volunteers, 99% of whom appear White. While various Black youths have been interviewed or filmed by the BBC reporters, both photographs and footage have revealed a nearly unbroken sea of White folk hard at work with their brooms and spades, removing the debris left by several nights of multicultural ebullience.

It is there in black and white.

As I have remarked elsewhere, this will no doubt be interpreted by proponents of multiculturalism as convincing proof that they were right all along, and that they must now intensify their efforts to bring even more of it, and introduce it as soon as possible on diversity-deprived areas, so that as many Britons as possible can share in the bliss.

Blame Twitter

Once again London has become a battlefield. On this occasion, the gunning down of an alleged cocaine dealer and gang member during a police operation in a vibrant multicultural area has been the trigger to several days of mayhem.

From 300 people massing in front of a police station to demand ‘justice’, we have gone to assaults on police officers, random property damage, and, of course, looting.

The looting is not even being done under the cover of darkness anymore. Having viewed the reports, Andrew Gilligan, from the Daily Telegraph, has observed:

On the television and YouTube pictures . . . most of the rioters and looters didn’t look angry. The ones making their way out of the smashed-up shops in Wood Green High Road with boxes full of other people’s property actually looked quite pleased. Here, at least, the quest wasn't so much for justice, more for free trainers. . . . You could see the expressions on the Wood Green looters' faces because by that stage it was daylight.

As Colin Liddell has already noted, the mainstream media has gone into damage limitation mode. They have been deploying every conceivable tactic to complicate a simple issue and deflect attention from the real problem.

Thus, the disturbances and the thieving are being blamed on poverty, idle youth, excessive urbanisation, overcrowding, the government’s austerity measures, the Summer heat, too many White policemen, unemployment, the city’s Mayor being on holiday, and a ‘tiny unrepresentative minority’ of thugs and criminals.

By far the most original tactic, however, has been the effort to blame the riots on Twitter and the BlackBerry messenger service.

Nowhere do proponents of this fascinating theory explain:

1. Why when the alleged criminal being gunned down is White, the city does not go up in flames, with White Englishmen taking to the streets to burn people’s cars and burn and loot people’s businesses.
2. Why burning and looting is not evenly distributed among Twitter and BlackBerry messenger users, as opposed to concentrated on vibrant multicultural areas in London.

The blaming of rioting and looting on Twitter and BlackBerry reminds me of the blaming of the theft of music over the internet on ‘technology’.

Is it not people, and their choices when using technology, what determines its effects?

When a thug smashes a Molotov cocktail on the parked vehicle, or applies his baseball bat to the shop window, or climbs into the off-licence or the electronics or shoe shop in order to grab as much booze, TVs, and trainers as he can hold in his arms or supermarket trolley, it is not because a 29-year-old geek in San Francisco had a bright idea five years ago; it is because the thug is out for a few days of joyous mayhem, knowing he will enjoy safety in numbers and get away with it.

Equally obvious to any thinking citizen is that were there no Afro-Caribbean ‘community’ in London, there would be no racial dimension and therefore no excuse for rioting, burning, looting, and attacking law enforcement officers.

Which takes us to how such a ‘community’ came to be in London in the first place, and why they see their neighbourhoods as loot as opposed to something that belongs to them and in which they all have a stake.

Rather inconvenient observations for proponents of immigration and multiculturalism.

On happier news, Civitas, a U.K. thinktank, has called for the Equality Commission to be abolished, arguing that it ‘contributes very little to meaningful equality’ and offers poor value for money.

A euphemism if I ever saw one.