Saturday, April 17, 2004


It was nice to see I was still getting taught at Heriot Watt University, Edinburgh - at least in 2003, by Lindsay Oliver, Lecturer in Cognitive Science. {Watch out, Lindsay, they'll be coming for you soon!}


A survey of 14,000 Tesco customers as to their favourite films showed that the top twenty films chosen by men (1. Star Wars 2. The Great Escape 3. The Godfather) had simply zero overlap with the top twenty chosen by women (1. Dirty Dancing 2. Bridget Jones's Diary 3. Thelma and Louise). Said Times film critic Dave Calhoun (12 iv): "Men violently peacock around other men in `The Godfather', `Scarface' and `Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels' - all films that lend men easy celluloid heroes. While in `Titanic', `Ghost' and `Truly, Madly, Deeply', female characters painfully struggle to find true love - cue tears, empathy and a much repeated plotline."


Long after the overwhelming Democratic bias of U.S. academics became widely known - some 90% of staff being liberal-left (McDougall Newsletters, passim), the Times of London deigned to report the phenomenon (12 iv, `Angry Right is aiming to teach a lesson to liberal professors'). The comparable phenomenon of liberal-left bias in British luniversities had been reported to the highest levels of the Conservative Party without the slightest action being taken.


Amidst protests from Amnesty International (which never lifted a finger against peecee censorship of The g Factor), officials in Rio de Janeiro planned to put walls around two of the city's slums to restrict otherwise infectious violence, thieving and drug pushing from reaching the city's richest areas and fashionable beaches. {Five years ago, Slovakian authorities walled in gypsies; and the past year saw the near-completion of the Israeli wall to segregate Palestinians. That walls provide one of the few practical answers to multiculti-crazy politicians was long ago proved in Northern Ireland.}


The doctor who secretly reports - as `Doctor Theodor Dalrymple' - for the Times and the Spectator explained to his readers that there was no need to fear much Muslim terror from the youngsters of Muslim families in East London (Times, 15 iv). Apparently Muslim prisoners (whose numbers were approaching those of Blacks) show not the slightest interest in Islam except for its tolerance of polygamy and the oppression of women. Halal meat, reading the Koran, praying to Mecca? Forget it! Muslim young men just wanted their heroin and the opportunity to offer marriage ad lib to feckless White girls; and Muslim girls were wearing their veils only to oblige parents, spending their time otherwise smoking and reading the sexual advices in girls' magazines.


Man-aping feminasties were given a salutary shock as top Scottish female weightlifter, Ms Nuttall-Halliwell, 38, died from her exertions (Scotsman 16 iv). Additionally the obscenely proportioned Ms Nutty-Ballyunwell had been injecting herself with insulin so as to cheat inspectors of body-building freaks.


British teachers gave everyone a hoot when, at their annual conference (BBC, 16 iv), they roundly denounced the policies of sending `learning disabled' (i.e. low-IQ) children to normal schools - policies which most of the loony `teachers' had accepted without a whimper for the previous generation in which `Tories' had followed Labourites in pretending that all children could be educated in the same way (except for their own wee darlings who invariably needed private education or a grammar school place achieved by purchasing housing in one of Britain's few unreconstructed areas).


Comments? Email Chris Brand.
Some history.


Sunday, April 11, 2004


1. Philippe Rushton's 20-year-long stress on the uncontrolled sexuality of Black people received fresh confirmation as the US Army reported that its Black women had rates of AIDS no less than 23 times higher than the rate for White servicewomen (Guardian, 6 iv). Experts declined to comment on the possibility that Black women - normally deprived of sex because Black men prefer White women or drugs or just shooting each other - go rather wild when finding themselves in a situation where there are 20 males competing for every female.

2. New research from the eminent Clemson University, South Carolina, reported that the racial diversity of an area was linked to higher crime - and even more so when the area was racially segregated (perhaps because of extreme crime problems). (The linkage of countries' ethnic diversity to prisonization was noted in McDougall NewsLetters, 1999, using figures supplied by the Council of Europe.)

3. Ordinary people in Britain had become fed up with unrestricted immigration (Times, 6 iv). According to a Populus poll, 73% wanted immigration only if accompanied by self-sufficiency and/or skills; and a further 18% wanted immigration closed down altogether. The poll recorded the Conservatives as having caught up with Labour for the first time since the 2001 general election - both parties having the support of 34% of the electorate. Top tabloid columnist for the usually Labour-ite Daily Mirror, Tony Parsons, asked of immigrants "Why the hell do they have to live here?" For the Times (6 iv), columnist Michael Gove proposed simply charging immigrants a flat œ10,000 for the right to British residence - thereby democratizing the current arrangements under which anyone can win residence by bringing in œ1 million of investment.


After a blistering week of tabloid allegations over one-legged `roof tilers' and `electricians' with fingers missing being allowed to breeze into Britain, P.M. Tony Blair announced -- after a one-hour Downing Street ministerial `summit' for tea and Tunnocks' caramel biscuits -- that he would be taking over control of immigration policy from blind Home Secretary Jo Blunkett, stopping sham marriages, busting universities which take on bogus students, having the Audit Office investigate Britain's asylum statistics to see if their accuracy could be ascertained or improved, reinstating the Civil Service whistleblowers who had exposed the Blunkett/Hughes malpractices and introducing identity cards as soon as possible (perhaps by 2006). But the Opposition called the climb-down a gimmick and said Blair had `more summits than the Himalayas'. And from Cambridge University economics professor, Robert Rowthorn, fellow of prestigious and normally left-ish King's College, writing for the think-tank Civitas, claimed that dullard immigration did not boost the British economy as the Government liked to claim but rather may be costing it œ400 million annually - apparently Government figures standardly neglect the cost of running the immigration service (Sun, 7 iv; Scotsman 7 iv); Professor Rowthorn especially reckoned that unskilled immigration was a net loser for Britain. {It was equally likely that the Government's talking up of immigration failed to include the costs of the provision of social housing, immigrant criminality and the provision of education andhealthcare. A request to the Home Office (by Robert Henderson, followed by chase-up) to supply such information drew a blank non-reply in 2002. Such information needs to be supplied for second-generation non-White immigrant families (especially in the case of Blacks whose low-IQ and hyperactive children are a constant drain on the educational system).}


Although British politicians had treated the British people with contempt for a decade by shamelessly continuing with mass dullard immigration despite London schools, doctors' surgeries and hospital clinics (not to mention the immigration `service') being plainly swamped hy people who speak little English and have many difficult ailments and even more children, the revenge of the Marxists for their losing the Cold War was thought to be coming to the end of its useful life. In the Daily Telegraph (7 iv), whistleblowing civil servant Steve Moxon (who exposed the Hughes/Blunkett scams) read the new linguistic dance of Blair buddy Trevor Phillips (above) as frankly indicating a "seismic shift" in discourse if not reality. Backing up this analysis came top leftish (and feminastie) Grauniad columnist Polly Toynbee (7 iv, `Why Trevor is right') saying British people did indeed have "not unreasonable fears" about immigration; congratulating Phillips on breaking with "the unctuous, unthinking platitudes about the richness of all diversity, as if difference were a self-evident asset"; saying that British history should be taught (and "not just the lessons to be learned from Hitler"); insisting that "Muslim teaching on women staying one step behind will not do"; and referring to the "rogue crazed creed" and the "insane and unassuageable cult" of the one Muslim in 8 who supports Al Qaeda and saying "no kind of multiculturalism `understands' this." {The last remark admittedly suggested a continuing residual affection for multiculturalism, but Polly had at least been making a reasonable effort to re-arrange her armchairs till she got carried away by the old tunes. Likewise, `Asians in Media' (8 iv) professed the hope that the BBC would "continue its commitment to Asian programming (whatever Mr Trevor Phillips says about ditching multiculturalism)."} Home Secretary Blunkett said he agreed with Phillips that the term `multiculturalism' was no longer useful and should be replaced by `diversity with integration' (BBC 7 iv). Church authorities also tentatively welcomed Phillips' apparent change of tack, talking of `the tide changing in Britain's debate on culture' (Church Times, 8 iv) - and of course insisting that the church was at the heart of British culture. Intellectuals David Goodhart and Roger Scruton also welcomed Phillips' change of heart and/or discourse - Goodhart was singularly generous in this since he had been condemned as a xenophobe for articulating similar views in March; and Times correspondents were generally pro the new Phillips. But top Scotsman lady columnist Joyce Macmillan was shocked (10 iv) and said abandoning multiculturalism was "both bizarre and deeply dangerous" since (a) it had never been tried outside London and (b) no-one knew what Britishness was anyhow. The `seismic' and plainly unexpected nature of the Phillips Declaration was further indicated by wailing and lamentation from (Times, 10 iv):


Comments? Email Chris Brand.
Some history.


Monday, April 05, 2004


After ten days of argument in Parliament (see March, above), the Home Office Minister responsible for Immigration, Beverly Hughes, resigned. She admitted she had, albeit "unwittingly", apparently due to a memory lapse or three, misled Parliament and the public about the H.O.'s catastrophic peecee policies that effectively allowed just about anyone to enter Britain as and when backlogs of applicants mounted. In the Guardian (1 iv), Conservative M.P. David Cameron wrote that Britain's blind Home Secretary David Blunkett was "either a fool or a fake" to have defended Hughes vigorously against civil service whistleblowers - and he claimed that, with asylum swindling doubled since Labour took office, and with civil servants seeing that H.O. policy is to put the blame on them, plenty more whistleblowers were queuing up. Prime Minister Tony Blair said he would be taking "a close interest" in immigration lest it became "a source of tension and misunderstanding."

The Guardian's political editor, Michael White, wrote (2 iv) : "There was no disguising how serious a blow the affair is to Labour's credibility and its battle to restore public trust." The Spectator noted that Conservative leader Michael Howard had scented blood and switched the topic of a big speech from `the National Health Service - how we will match Labour spending' to the topic of immigration (abandoned three years ago by the `Tories' as `racist'). The Sunday Telegraph (4 iv) claimed Mr Blair himself had authorized the granting of mass visas to unqualified Romanians so long as they obliged him by switching from asylum seeking - which he had promised the British public he would cut. To the Observer (4 iv), a friend of David Blunkett's described the revelations of Government forgetfulness and fiddling as "catastrophic."


Still reeling from 10, Downing Street's support for multicultural revisionists David Goodhart and Roger Putnam (see March), Britain's half-Black boss of its `Campaign for Racial Equality' decided to pretend to follow suit by telling the Times (3 iv, p. 1) that multiculturalism was "out of date" and what was needed was monoculturalism with lots of rights for valued minorities. As Muslim young men burned the Union Jack in London Regent's Park, Trevor Phillips, the best connected man in London (he chooses staff for Prince Charles), announced a two-part deal which he said should be brokered.

1: "Even if we disagree with their views on the Middle East, religion or anything else, they are still all one of us," he ludicrously announced. "The first thing we must do is call them British again and again and again, tell them all they are British muslims and we accept them."

2: It must be pointed out that they, for their part, must "work by the rules of British people - and that excludes terrorism."

Yes, he agreed, we must "kill off multiculturalism - it means the wrong things, like separateness." Instead, Britain should adopt Multiculturalism Mark II - venerating Shakespeare, eccentricity, tolerance and diversity, and smiling genially on the jumbo-salaried Phillips supporting the Guyana cricket team. But Phillips deplored Britain's one clear gain from years of multicultural piety, saying he did not approve of Black youf thinking they can smoke marijuana just because it had been reclassified by Labour as only a Grade C drug - "That is nonsense. It is against the law."

Leading Thatcherite Lord Norman Tebbitt, who had once outraged the likes of Phillips by saying immigrants should normally support the English cricket team, gave a qualified welcome to Phillips' charade, saying he was glad his long-held views were perhaps coming within reach of popularity. The liberal-left Observer (4 iv) was more reserved, applauding the "multiracial, multicultural society" as "a good one" and saying any further `integration' would require Whites to embrace diversity and "respect the rights of others whose beliefs are different from our own."

The Muslim Council of Britain tried to conceal its anger, with general secretary Iqbal Sacranie saying "Multiculturalism is something to cherish and be proud of" and that Phillips' comments had been "too Muslim-specific" (Sunday Herald [Scotland], 4 iv, p. 1); and the Black peer and former Tory candidate, Lord Taylor of Warwick, branded Phillips "too right-wing for me."

State-funded Muslim `anti-racist' campaigners rejected what they took to be Phillips' abandonment of multiculturalism as "disgusting"; but a Times leader (3 iv), while urging "the majority" to demonstrate "tolerance of diversity," noted that "vast sums have been spent supporting ethnic uniqueness at the expense of our common heritage" and that it could well be time for a change.

{Meanwhile, as a practical class unremarked by U.K. newspapers, the Arabs of the Sudan, Africa's largest country, demonstrated their own lack of faith in multiculturalism by ethnically cleansing 800,000 Black Africans from their homes in the Darfur area of south-west Sudan (whence 100,000 victims fled into Chad while others remained inspecting what remained of their burnt-out villages) (Globe & Mail [Canada], 2 iv; BBC, 3 iv; Deepika [India] 4 iv); China Daily, 4 iv; Taipei Times, 4 iv; ABC Online [Australia], 4 iv).}