Friday, September 22, 2006


In Oz, academic Andrew Fraser struggled to keep his name as a race realist after (30 viii) claimed he had been successfully bullied by legal authorities into retracting his warnings about Australia becoming a third-world country thanks to abandoning its classic White Australia policy – warnings of the type which had already led to his resignation from Macquarie LUniversity. The Paramatta Sun said it would “probably” publish AF’s retraction of his alleged apology.


A fine tribute to Enoch Powell was published by Roger Scruton in New Criterion (ix 06), explaining the need for Platonic ‘noble lies’ to help people find their unconscious roots and rituals and thus their perfection etc., etc.; but rather dismally concluding that the peoples of Europe were losing their homelands – a process that could apparently ony be interrupted and not halted by “a violent upheaval, with results every bit as interesting as those [of the River Tiber] that Powell prophesied.” {There was indeed much reason for doom and gloom at this stage as the West’s feckless and psychologically bankrupt politicians and ‘philosophers’ had led their multiculti societies into half-hearted war with Islamofascism which even an ‘outspeaking’ Pope and a media suffering from only self-censorship could not bring themselves to support, let alone extend. But the coming exodus of talent from southern and eastern Europe would probably do wonders for American and British resolve just as Albert Einstein and Hans Eysenck had helped provide the Anglo-Saxon world with the means and resolve to stand up for itself. Already there were weekly queues of Poles trying to worship in Catholic churches in Britain; and the Pope had promised fresh attempts at reconciliation with Orthodoxy, with its long history of successfully resisting both Islam and Communism (and its true hero for the West in Alexander Solzhenitsyn).}


Neuropsychiatrist Richard Haier, California, told (12 ix) of a substantial link between volume of cerebral grey matter and IQ (long championed here, as classically). Enthusiastically, he told reporter Sanjay Gupta: “"We can make quantitative assessments of how much gray matter [people] have in every single area, and we can use that to predict what their IQ might be. This is in the very early stage, and I think it’s going to be very interesting."


Ten years after The g Factor: General Intelligence and Its Implications set out the case for school streaming/tracking/setting etc., the mighty USA Today published an article favouring the idea (Patrick Welsh, ix 2006)….


Britain’s ludicrous Home Secretary, ‘Dr’ Reid, was shouted down by angry Muslims as he announced during a visit to Leytonstone, East London, that Muslim parents should report to the police any signs of their children becoming “radicalized.” Instead of cancelling Muslim immigration, mosque building, ‘faith schools’, female slavery, enforced child marriage, beards, burquas etc., ex-Marxist Doc Reid preferred to go straight down the path to a police state by encouraging reporting of and police action on the vaguest of suspicions – lumbering Britain with an anti-terror policy that was at once tyrannical, prejudicial and grossly impractical. {Plainly the NuLabour belief in benevolent despotism backed by state snoopers knew no bounds. Rather than simply deporting unemployed, criminal and welfare-absorbent Mueslis, the thuggish Home Secretary had decided – without the slightest consultation with Cabinet, Parliament or even the press – to introduce an East German-style regime (under which millions finally lived in ‘internal exile’ rather than fall foul of the state’s army of snoopers which eventually employed one in eight of the adult population).}

Brown and bearded Muslim hecklers in white robes (some council house denizens and well-known members of extremist Muesli organizations, deemed ‘racist’ by fellow-Mueslis) were eventually ushered out of the Leytonstone Youth Centre to police tents for tea, biscuits, counselling and completion of complaint forms as to how their human rights had been violated before joining co-religionists chanting “John Reid, Go To Hell” while top cop Sir Ian Blair explained that British police would ‘have difficulty’ following Dr Reid’s ideas (hoh-hoh) for ‘putting down’ Muslim fanaticism.

It transpired that burly top scimitar-waver Abu Izzadeen, 30, was in fact a Jamaican who had converted to Islam and apparently become a leader of the (legal) al-Muhajiroun and the outright bossman of a splinter group called al-Ghurabaa which had actually been outlawed by HMG for ‘terror glorification’ earlier in 2006 (though Abu Izzadeen had been left free to run around). In view of the newsworthiness of a Muesli leader’s public claim that the Home Secretary was wrong to visit a “Muslim area”, Izzaloon was interviewed on the BBC’s flagship Radio 4 ‘Today’ programme, where he obligingly called Rev. Bliar a murderer, crusader and state terrorist, said the West was fighting Islam (not just Iraq and Afghanistan), and threatened no end of trouble (“a very strong reaction”) if Whitey did not mend his ways (Guardian, 22 ix). Radio 4 listeners – a pious and middle-aged group that had for years seldom emitted a squeak about the BBC’s general gross political correctness and multiculturalism – was shocked to its cotton socks and phoned in en masse to say e.g. that ‘if Muslims feel like Izzadeen, they should all be deported.’ {Such were the violent explosions of feeling from both Muslims and Whites to which 40 years of British politicians’ cowardly stifling of debate about third-world immigration had been bound to lead.}

Monday, September 18, 2006


The BBC's longstanding and much-honoured comic actor and writer, Chris Langham, 57, famous for playing a hapless government minister, found himself, after a year's investigation by Britain's `carry-on-mugging-and-steaming' police (in the course of which he would have gone to hell and back), charged with some twenty offences of child groping (on multiple occasions with 14-year-old girl) and kiddie porn after thirty years in which only his happy second marriage, five children and occasional problems with alcohol and cocaine had been publicly remarked (Guardian, 13 xii).

{Another victim of neglect of the simple principle that the punishment - any why not include the investigation and media coverage? -- should fit the crime! Accusations of largely non-injurious paedophilia, typically stirred up by feminists, had already cleared most men out of teaching, coaching, children's shows and social work in the U.K. over the previous 20 years. For passable sympathy and informed discussion of Chris Langham and his plight, see a freelance journalist here; and for a longer indictment of the West's dangerous inquisition against `paedophiles' (endangering not least children themselves, as well as taxpayers' pockets), see here.}

{Near the same time, it was announced that an Orkney girl of 24 would sue the Orkney Islands Council for 100,000 pounds for abuse by tinpot local authority tyrants in the course of removing her from her South Ronaldsay home in 1990 on (entirely wrong) suspicions emanating from hysterical Marxite social work nincompoops of mass paedophilia and witchcraft being practised by some thirty Orkney parents (BBC, 11 xi).}


The United Kingdom Independence Party, brought low in 2005 by failing to back Robert Kilroy-Silk (with his sidekick Joan Collins) as leader, gave itself a new bite at the cherry by committing straightforwardly enough to low taxation, low immigration and selective education - though the word `race' could still apparently not pass the lips of party members including its new leader Nigel Farage M.E.P. (Daily Telegraph, 13 ix).


The Pope (Benedict XVI) found himself in hot water with Jew- and Christian-hating Pakis and Palis for quoting a Byzantine-Christian Emperor of 1391, Manuel II Paleologus (whose base in besieged Constantinople was soon to be overwhelmed by the Turks) in discussion with an educated Persian contemporary. Apparently, Manuel reckoned that the chief novelty of the Mohammedan religion had been its violence* (Guardian, 15 ix).

At the same time, the Islamic Society of North America held its national convention and one of its group sessions was called "...And Beat them Lightly." The session analysed a verse from the Koran to try and show that not-too-violent beating of women is not abuse but really for women's own protection..

The 57-nation Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the world's largest Muslim body, declared that the quotations used by Pope Benedict, 79, represented a "character assassination of the Prophet Mohammad" and a "smear campaign" but made no mention of Muslim fondness for (gentle or not-so-gentle) wife-beating; and Paks and pals demonstrated their oh-so-non-violent ways by burning effigies of the Pope on their Muslim streets. A high-ranking Roman Catholic source expressed fears for the Pope's safety, saying: "While I think the controversy will go away, it has done damage and if I were a security expert I'd be worried." The West's media eagerly awaited a papal retraction/apology/confabulation etc. - anything to show their new religion of multiculti PeeCee was holding against the mounting tides of common sense.

But Muhammad Abdul Bari, the secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said the Pope was regurgitating the words of a bigot. "One would expect [the Pope] to repudiate the Byzantine emperor's views in the interests of truth and harmonious relations between Islam and Catholicism," he said. The Deputy Leader of Turkey's ruling AK Party said: "The owner of those unfortunate and arrogant comments, Benedict XVI, has gone down in history, but in the same category as Hitler and Mussolini." In India, be-burquaed Mueslies protested in Srinagar (Jammu & Kashmir Province), declaring "ALAS PoPE BENEDICT HAS LoST His MENTAL AND MoRAL BALANCE." "Ugly," "unfortunate," "inflammatory," "mistaken," "suspicious," "unscholarly," "irresponsible," "hateful," "rude" and "weak-minded" were a few of the epithets chosen by Muesli leaders to describe the Pope and/or his theological lecture and to demonstrate how Islam was a/the `religion of peace'; Islamic websites called for the pontiff to be assassinated. A hardline cleric linked to Somalia's powerful Islamist movement called for Muslims to "hunt down" and kill the pontiff, while an armed Iraqi group threatened to carry out attacks against Rome and the Vatican.

Western femininnies also weighed in to condemn the pontiff (, 17 ix).

{In due course the Vatican issued a fairly sickening statement of `regret' - but at least not enough to satisfy Egypt's `Muslim Brotherhood,' Shitite leaders in Lebanon or Soony leaders in Iraq and even the Muslim Council of Britain wanted the Pope to `go further' (i.e. towards personal apology, retraction, prostration, compensation, self-certification and conversion to Islam). Within a day of the Pope's 12 ix address in Regensburg University becoming widely known, five churches were firebombed in the Palestinians' West Bank territory. Morocco's King Mohammed recalled his country's ambassador to the Vatican and a 60-year-old Italian nun and her bodyguard killed in Somalia after the aforementioned Muslim jungle-drumming `cleric' had condemned Benedict's speech. On 17 ix, the Pope stated that Emperor Manuel II's views `in no way corresponded to his own' - triggering a question as to why he had invoked them and shaped his lecture as if developing them, and still failing to mollify at least Egypt's Muslim Brothers.}

(Sadly, 15 ix saw the death of the once-distinctly-scrumptious leftish Italian journaliste, Orianna Fallaci, 77, who had devoted her later years to exposing the brutalities of Islam.}

* What the Emperor had said was: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". The Pope** went on to criticize the Muslim stress on divine will rather than divine rationality, contrary to Greek and classical Christian ideas.

While also mildly rebuking Protestants, he went on to declare: "The scientific will to be obedient to the truth, and, as such, it embodies an attitude which belongs to the essential decisions of the Christian spirit." The Pope concluded: "The West has long been endangered by this aversion to the questions which underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby. The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of its grandeur - this is the programme with which a theology grounded in Biblical faith enters into the debates of our time. "Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos, is contrary to the nature of God", said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian interlocutor. It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university."

* The Pope had been shaping up for some time as a good guy - backing the family against the depradations of socialist politicians and `conservative' hangers-on, and banishing rock music from Vatican orgies ooops Christmas celebrations and replacing rock's desperate sentiments with those of Beethoven and Mozart. Unfortunately, he had been unable to prevent paedohysteria and its massive drain on Church funds in compensation (for what?) cases. But at least he could be quite clear about his duty to the West as the New York Times called on its NYTwits to blast him for his "evil and inhuman" sentiments towards Mueslis (South Africa's `Independent', 16 ix) and to issue a "deep and persuasive" apology; and he won some support from Germany's Chancellorine Angela Merkel, who said Mueslis had `misunderstood' him, and from the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, who said "Muslims as well as Christians must learn to enter into dialogue without crying `foul'."

In Britain, 93% of Sky TV viewers said the Pope should not apologize; and the Pope received the blessing of the Sunday Times (17 ix) (whose columnist Rod Liddle suggested a quid pro quo for the Pope's statement of regret, viz return of church lands by Turkey and suppression of violence against Christian clergy, believers and converts); of the USA's robust `Town Hall' (16 ix) which concluded, "The fact that the New York Times, and much of the West, don't share the same determination [as the Pope] is much more dangerous anything Benedict said"; and of the Boston Herald (17 ix) which splendidly indicted "mediaeval" Islam and remarked its countless vile provocations while the West had rather pointlessly fought with both hands tied behind its back during the first five years of the Tenth Crusade.


After years of bullying the West to adopt multiculti PeeCee, Jews found themselves led by Britain's Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks to abandon multiculturalism in favour of a society where English would be "our first language of citizenship" (not least for Mueslis) and the Labour- and femininnie-loved arrangement of 40% of children being born to unmarried parents would be abandoned as a "wholly unprecedented experiment" which would end in "complete failure" and the death of societies that backed it (Sunday Telegraph, 17 ix).

The Jackson & Rushton story triggered media interest from several outlets in Canada and India before achieving almost entirely adulatory coverage in the London right-wing tabloid (yet striving to be feministish since 1995, to get readers), the Daily Mail (14 ix) – with a splendidly provocative concluding sentence of advice that women could catch up attainment-wise if they worked harder – and from Glasgow’s plebeian-oriented Daily Record (14 ix), China Daily (14 xi), Dominican Today (14 ix) and the Nigerian Tribune (14 ix) (though the latter troubled to stress that Phil had claimed to work to have no educational implications). Perhaps Phil had at last taken my advice to him to use some Pioneer funds to buy some PR?....

But, probably more representative of what would follow if ever the story trickled up the media rather than down, the London Labour-backing Daily Mirror (14 ix) had “top psychologist Prof Alan Smithers,” Director of the Centre for Education and Employment Research within the Department of Education at the (private, ‘right-wing’) University of Buckingham, ‘slam’ the report and “strongly disagree” with Phil who had supposedly ‘read wrongly and too far into the figures’ and forgotten that women were making ‘lifestyle choices.’

Likewise, the US-based ‘Women’s e-News’ listed the J&R finding under ‘News to Jeer’ and claimed “other researchers” had “slammed” the report (16 ix). In the United Arab Emirates, the reaction of “psychologists such as Doctor Raymond Hamden at the Comprehensive Medical Centre” (7 Days, 15 ix) was likewise to “dismiss the research as ridiculous, saying “Some people will do or say anything to get published, even manipulate statistics. There are liars, damn liars and then statisticians.””

Again, anthropologist Simon Underdown, of Oxford Brookes University, was summarized by Australia’s Daily Telegraph (18 ix) as saying of J&R’s work, "Statistics can prove almost anything."

In the USA, NBC5 TV (Chicago) (14 ix) summarized the research as “controversial,” though without saying why; and Evolution News & Views (15 ix) declared: “Because of Rushton’s blatant and unapologetic chauvinism, many will dismiss him as an outlier, an aberration who misuses the authority of Darwin’s theory in order to support his agenda.”

And Phil would surely have wanted to dissociate from the interpretation of Turkey’s Sabah 15 ix) that greater male intelligence would have resulted from sexual selection pressures in the Stone Age.

Even the correspondents of American Renaissance gave the idea of general male intellectual superiority a distinctly mixed reception (15 ix).

Still, at least the errant London Schooler had stimulated some witty repartee: "British-born researcher John Philippe Rushton says IQ test results show men are more intelligent than women; although a man coming right out and announcing that men are smarter is good evidence that they are not.” (Inopinion, 15 ix); and the Observer’s Victoria Coren (17 ix) suggested that, having proved the intellectual superiority of Europeans over Africans and of men over women, Professor Rushton might be commissioned to turn his talents to studying straights and gays – “Just for the exciting suspense, as we all wait to see what on earth the open-minded scientist will conclude next.”


Prince Harry learned defaxalife (if he did not know them before) as his bee-stung-lipped ‘Zimbabwe’-born blonde girlfriend, Chelsy Davy, was robbed at gunpoint by five gun-toting South African Blacks who had posed as customers in a Cape Town restaurant (‘Cubana Latino Café’, near Chelsy’s digs at the University of Cape Town) – stripping Chelsy of her possibly precious mobile phone as well as of cash, keys, jewellery and credit cards she lay terrified on the kitchen floor with other coralled White revellers.

{Black-run South Africa had long suffered one the world's highest rates of violent crime. More than 19,000 murders were recorded in 2004 and armed robberies were frequent. Restaurants in the affluent quarters of Cape Town and Johannesburg were regular targets. }

{Britain’s royals had been given a chance to get real about race when Prince Philip, Chancellor of the LUniversity of Edinburgh, was appealed to in 1997-8 to repeal the LUniversity’s decision to dump me and The g Factor. However, instead of taking the slightest noticeable action, the royals continued to promote Dame Stewart Sutherland till, earlier this year, the ‘people’s peer’ (who had brought English cash to fund Scottish oldies) was to be seen in photos bearing drinks in Buck House to the Dook and Her Maj. Dame Stewart (who, in fairness, had in 1996 arranged to have The g Factor published by Oxford University Press) thus became, together with myself, one of the few victors of the g factor wars – other Edinburgh accusers of me having suffered grievous injuries or dropped dead or ?suicided or turned terminally alcoholic or lost their husbands or gone bald.}


‘Police’ in Cumbria who refused an application from a 23-year-old British Army veteran because he had a Union Jack tattoo (on an upper arm) were forced to back down when shamed by the Sun newspaper (11 ix).


The shambles of the West’s response to 9/11 (despite the follow-up terror bombings in Bali, Madrid, London (7/7) and Bombay), was nicely exposed by British sociologist (and anti-paedohysteric) Frank Furedi (U. Sussex) in Spiked, 12 xi. Hamstrung by the deluded religion of PeeCee foisted on it by its craven, multi-dining, carry-on-capitulating ‘leaders,’ ‘diplomats’ and meedja folk, the West had simply found no meaningful space for the idea that there were Muesli-fuelled low-IQ psychotics intent on destroying it and able to achieve a degree of support from some 50% of Western-dwelling Mueslis.

Instead of interning its wartime home-based enemies on reasonable suspicion – as had happened in Britain of 1939-40 and the U.S.A. of 1941-2 – the West had instead embarked on a population-wide restriction of civil liberties combined with increased third-world immigration followed by dishing of dosh to Muesli leaders to confabulate committee-wise at leisurely length with government ministers and kindred toadies to the effect that any possible and surely remote problems of civil unrest could be dealt with by yet further dosh for said Muesli leaders and acolytes and by a strengthening of the U.K.’s 400 Muesli ‘faith schools’ where be-burquaed girls could be taught their lifetime slave roles in the oh-so-great peace and tranquillity of Islam that would follow if only these schools ceased to be inspected by the Department of Education and Skills and were instead entirely Muesli-controlled….

To ‘balance’ the few dozen Mueslis arrested on terror charges, U.K. police had felt obliged to persecute evangelical Christians who warned against extending yag rights (to adopt children and avoid inheritance tax) and quite overt (and entirely non-violent, and indeed witty) critics of Jewry like Luke O’Farrell and Simon Sheppard (see e.g. John Ray, 17 iv) whose ‘racial hostility’ would likely have been quickly assuaged by Jewish leaders announcing an apology for PeeCee and a determination to join with leftist politicos to make recompense to the West’s victims of multiculti religiosity. Just about the only public figure allowed to be seen condemning Islamic fanaticism on the fifth anniversary of 9/11 was Lady Thatcher, 81 – invited to New York by Vice-President Cheney in reasonable but sadly miniscule retaliation for Not-the-Conservative-Party leader David Cameron disgracefully attempting to ‘distance himself’ from ‘simple-minded American extremism’ in the Tenth Crusade (as the War on Terror should long previously have been renamed). {The West had lost its foothold in Palestine in the Eighth Crusade of 1291 but regained it in the increasingly American-backed ‘Ninth Crusade’ to establish the state of Israel, 1947-1973.}

Thursday, September 07, 2006


As verdict was awaited from the LUniversity of Aarhus, Denmark, in the case of that looneyversity’s politically incorrect sex difference researcher Helmuth Nyborg (see here, earlier September*), Nyborg could have drawn a little satisfaction from a new claim that adult males had IQs 3.6 points higher than those of females.

Reporting in the journal Intelligence, Western Ontario researchers Douglas Jackson and Philippe Rushton found that the 103,000 17-18-year-old testees who had provided the 1991 norms for the Scholastic Aptitude Test (later renamed Scholastic Assessment Test for peecee reasons) had shown such a small but, with such numbers, fully significant sex difference (‘Ascribe: Public Sector Newswire’, 7 ix 2006).

Sadly, however, Helmuth’s jubilation would have been constrained by the fact that the SAT does not cover that bottom 30% (IQ-wise) of the American population which does not aspire to go to college – a body well known to over-represent males (notoriously prone to serious g deficiencies as much as they are to the g superiorities that help yield genius). As Jackson & Rushton noted in their Discussion section: “Although there is a clear sex difference in g among students taking the test, it is perhaps less clear that this sex difference captures faithfully the sex difference in the general population.” {Here probably ended the pretty disastrous exercise by Emeritus Professor Richard Lynn (see here, 2005, 2006 [e.g. FIND Blinkhorn]) intended to have fun with the London School’s historic support for general intellectual equality of the sexes -- first proclaimed by Cyril Burt in 1912 and over the years the most popular contribution of the School to psychology.}

Wednesday, September 06, 2006


After a decade of smearing critics of Britain's largely uncontrolled third-world immigration as `racist,' `fascist,' `neo-Nazi' and `same-old-Tory', terrified Bliarite Home Secretary `Dr' Reid (seeking to keep the Sun tabloid from defecting to Not-the-Conservative Party leader David Cameron while Rev. Bliar holidayed with Sir Cliff Richard in the Caribbean) announced that criticism of immigration was not necessarily racist and said the Government would somehow move (probably quite uselessly, as with all previous such initiatives [which could not in any case defy diktats from Brussels]) to restrict the mass immigration thought imminent from Bulgaria and Romania (Sun, 21 viii).

{In the Spectator (19 viii), playboy Rod Liddle joined the ranks of those British columnists prepared to squeak the occasional criticism of the insaner forms of immigration, saying of the Muesli terror threat: "The problem is of our own making because, through following a multicultural agenda, we first allowed into the country too large a number of immigrants possessed of a culture and beliefs which are antithetical to our own. And then we encouraged them to keep those beliefs rather than integrate."}

As Labour dropped to 31% support in national opinion polls, the Secretary of State for `Communities and Local Government,' Ruth Kelly (a high-church Catholic hailing from The Queen's College,* Oxford, with an MSc in Economics) and balded BBC Ceylon-born newsreader George Alagiah also backed `integration' - opposing `the ring-fencing of communities provided by multiculturalism' (Guardian, 22 viii). Mother-of-four `Ms' Kelly (married name: Gadd) announced expressly her latter-day agreement with desperate once-Marxist hitman `Dr' Reid that "it is not racist to discuss immigration and asylum" (Classic FM Radio, 24 viii, 11:00) and said, "We must not be censored by political correctness, and we must not tiptoe around important issues."

It transpired that Ms Kelly had set up her own `Commission on Integration and Cohesion' which was said to be determined not to brush Muesli issues under the carpet or just placate Mueslis with more dosh and quango positions for their `community leaders.' - Some hope! At no time did the name Samuel Huntington or his title Clash of Civilizations cross Ms Kelly's lips - she contented herself with urging the rooting out of "all forms of extremism", a sentiment which would have come easily from one of her Northern Irish background. {Perhaps NuLabour `Integration' would, like Mao Tse Tung's Hundred Flowers movement, invite critics out into the open and then destroy them - as explained by China hand and realist John Derbyshire.}

After a day with Ms Kelly the leading news item in the U.K., BBC Radio 4 (24 viii, 18:00) got into the spirit of things and celebrated integration projects for Mueslis in places like race-rioting Oldham - but, after ten minutes of statutory pious drivel, admitted there was no proof that any of the projects actually worked (not least, said a Conservative councillor, because the Whites and Muslims had simply no wish to integrate - a view promptly confirmed by writing under the banner of the `Institute of Race Relations' (Black Information Link, `Cant on cohesion', 24 viii) and by the Association of Muslim Lawyers (Guardian, 24 viii)). Certainly it seemed unlikely, in view of her links to Opus Dei, that Ms Kelly would be recommending the very necessary use of The Pill by lower-IQ Mueslis..

A Spectator leader gave the `integration and cohesion' wheeze a fair wind, seeing no problems with it and agreeably opining: "The total failure of `multiculturalism' as a left-wing ideology since the 1970s is disgracefully clear: it has encouraged ghettoisation and deprived generations of children of Asian and African descent of a sense of what it is to be British, and the great national history of which they are now a part." However, the Chairman of Ms Kelly's Commission, one Darrah Singh, asked by BBC Radio 4 (24 viii, 22:00) to do some of the frank talking about immigration issues that was supposedly in demand, was tongue-tied about the Commission's purpose to such a degree as to provoke ironical comments from his interviewer.

And, defying Bliarite insistence on keeping British foreign policy off-limits, nignog Rushul Tarafder, from the 1990 Trust, a Black community institute, told Ms Kelly that damage to community relations caused by UK foreign policy could not be ignored. At Westminster, opposition parties were sceptical. Damian Green, Tory immigration spokesman, said: "When the government set up a previous taskforce it only implemented three of 64 recommendations. This time, it must make a commitment to solving the problems." But the Telegraph's Vicki Woods sternly and straightforwardly rubbished Ms Kelly's twaddle, saying (26 viii): "Patronising guff, all this. To be ignored by everyone, barring those "community leaders" who desire an OBE."

NuLabour's unusual concern to seem to allow debate about immigration (but not of course to stop funding its divisive `faith schools' for Mueslis) came in a week when a Sunday Times poll (20 viii) had found 63% of Brits wanting "much tougher" restrictions on immigration (up from 58% 18 months previously); when Ryanair (which did not fly the Atlantic) sued the Government for œ3M because of the disruption to its customers from HMG's entirely idiotic policies of strip-searching five-year-olds, grannies, priests etc. - the demand after the 8/11 failed Heathrow bomb plot had been that airlines search 50% of passengers; and the Sunday Times (27 viii) estimated that 10 million White adults wanted to leave Britain to escape from third-world immigration and socialist taxation -- asked if they had thought about moving abroad, 16% said they had given it "serious thought" and a further 6% said they planned to do so.

Asked to comment on the Government's integration `initiative,' ex-headmaster Ray Honeyford, sacked from his Bradford school in 1984 for his "racist" questioning of Pakistani practices (like absenting kids to soak up the barbaric culture of Pakistan), robustly declared: "Official attempts to guide our racial and intercultural relations having apparently achieved very little so far, Miss Kelly's speech was made at the launch of yet another quango, this one called the Committee on Integration and Cohesion. For those who want to establish new quangos, nothing succeeds like failure: the more failures, the more quangos."

And Bangladeshi youths from Tower Hamlets, the London borough which won a `beacon award' for multicultural endeavour in 2004 from Ms Kelly's predecessor i/c `communities', Deputy Prime Minister `Two Shags' Prescott, gave the Sunday Telegraph (27 viii) his verdict on multiculturalism: "What multiculturalism? Do you see any white faces here?" {The best that could be said was that Ms Kelly had given the cowardly `right-wing' press a window of opportunity for outspeaking; and at least the Sunday Telegraph showed some willingness to use this, pointing out it was high time to reverse the "catastrophe" of multiculturalism and get Muslims to accept "the fundamental political and social principles which define Britain today: the secular basis of political institutions, the equality of the sexes, freedom of speech, and the central value of toleration." If only Britain's traitorous politicians could likewise seize the moment to junk peecee tyranny!}

* Strangely, Queen's had also produced two of Britain's only three known academic race realists, Professor Geoffrey Sampson (Mandarinist and computerologist at U. Sussex) and myself (with Emeritus Professor Richard Lynn being the third). Awareness of possibly deep-seated and long-maintained racial differences was sternly inculcated by the colourful Senior Tutor MacDonald who would move heaven and earth to avoid admitting any Campbell to the College, let alone to its High Table.


A fine analysis of the uselessness of Britain's criminal justice system for lowering crime was provided in a new book, A Land Fit for Criminals - an indictment by ex-probation officer David Fraser of Britain's failure to keep crime off the streets and out of people's houses which was rejected by no less than sixty of the U.K.'s oh-so-bien-pensant `publishing houses' before finally being accepted by a lady publisher whose stepson had been murdered by a drug-dealing Jamaican who had gone largely unpunished and wholly undeported.

{Sadly, neither Fraser nor his supporter, the eminent Doc. Dalrymple (City Journal, Summer 2006), felt able to mention the roles that race, genes, stupidity and the hopeless hysteria about drugs (banning them - making them criminally lucrative -- while providing free treatment for addicts on the NHS) played in Britain's ongoing `liberal' mayhem which had astonishingly, in twenty years, made London more dangerous than New York. Nor did the book or the good doctor acknowledge what socialists would regard as their great twenty-year achievement of outlawing all `racist' and non-peecee thinking and turning education into an overwhelmingly female profession from which standards have been banished along with the men who once upheld them.}

{Promptly enough, England's Director of Public Prosecutions, a Blair crony drawing his nice big salary for the past three years of Black lawlessness, stepped forward to condemn Britain's `unbalanced' system of justice which after years of `liberalism' gave more rights to defendants in criminal trials than to victims, witnesses or the public (e.g. spending œ1M in 2005 to defend Algerian terrorist Kamel Bourgass while awarding the family of the policeman he murdered only 13K in compensation) (Times, 28 viii). Yet the `rebalancing' called for by Ken McDonald Q.C. and supposedly intended by Rev. Bliar and `Dr' Reid involved as its centrepiece merely the provision of eight thousand more prison places in five years time so as to make cons more comfy; and the vague idea of giving victims more of a say in trials and sentencing seemed likely to lead chiefly to many victims being prosecuted for racism..}


A gloomy article by top historian Niall Ferguson predicted that the next successful large-scale terrorist attack in Britain would result in America writing off the U.K. as a terminal victim of its chosen policy of Londonistanism, and in the U.K. falling rapidly into civil war (Sunday Telegraph, 27 viii). (By implication, NF and voices on the American right thought the French policy of apartheid for Muslims in the banlieux more capable of success.) Admittedly, British people, as polled, had dealt with 8/11 chiefly by wanting to dissociate from Rev. Dubya Bush, as well as by giving their own Rev. Bliar the thumbs-down. But 63% still wanted tougher action against terriers; and it remained to be seen whether a Churchillian leader assisted by Michael Gove (see this diary/blog, mid-August) could emerge to tell Mueslis, PeeCees, Multcultis and everyone else - especially Britain's traitorous politicians and civil servants -- that Britain had stood and would continue to stand for its historic language and liberties pursued with respect for logic and love and by means of intelligence and eugenics; in particular, with NuLabour's Opus Dei member `Ms' Kelly moving to ban homosexuality, abortion and contraception ooops! to ban `mono-cultural diversity' (aka multiculturalism) and enforce White kids to be bussed to largely-Black schools (a scheme tried and failed in the U.S.A. of c. 1980) and White females to marry Blacks (as proposed by Black Harvard sociologist Orlando Patterson in 2003), the cowardly right would surely feel moved to spell out its own version of `integration' -- preferably involving an English speaker of at least O-Level standard in any family unit that was to receive a penny of assistance towards its needs for state-funded hospitalization, secondary education, welfare and pensions..


After escaping at age 18 from eight years of being held captive in a dungeon by an apparent `paedophile' in Vienna, pretty Natascha Kampusch astonished environmentaloony mediafolk by showing little interest in them or in her estranged parents (with whom she had rowed just before being kidnapped, over whether she had to wear glasses), saying "It is true that my youth was different to the youth of others, but in principle I don't feel I missed anything" (Sun, 29 viii). Natascha had cried a lot when learning of the suicide of her `master' (he threw himself under a train after her escape -- while Natascha had been allowed out in the garden to do car-washing). Natascha was deemed by pseudo-experts to be suffering from `Stockholm Syndrome' (= loving one's captor), so incapable were the pseuds of understanding that a decent human spirit can easily survive all of the trials readily deemed by psychologically ignorant leftist newsies to have `crushed' that wretched 20% of the British population which is permanently sick or psychopathic or otherwise incapable of work after sixty years of the U.K.'s `welfare state.' (If she had truly loved her captor, why did Natascha seize her first opportunity to escape? One can only guess that, until she matured and developed more confidence, she had frankly preferred her life with her captor, Wolfgang Priklopil [`Wolfi'], to living with her estranged/bickering parents. Time for newsies to wise up! Many `victims of paedophilia' are principally the victims of loveless homes which delight in press-fuelled paedohysteria and from which `paedophiles' provide more of a rescue than do Britain's sociologified, feminasty and Marxite social `workers.')


British newspapers had to admit that the attacker of a 15-year-old girl (stabbing the victim in an eye with scissors because she was a `metaler' who would not agree on the superiority of hip hop music) was a 14-year-old Black (e.g. Guardian, 29 viii). Why? Merely because the defendant decided to use as her public excuse a claim that the victim had previously accused her of being "a dirty, black bitch" and a "little nigger" thus requiring newsies to set aside their usual `anti-racist' refusal to mention the skin colour of those accused of, found guilty of or even imprisoned for serious crimes.


Having failed in his nine years in office to achieve anything except eviscerate the British constitution, Rev. Tony Bliar announced he would keep a record of all U.K. infants' details (including names and addresses - except in the case of `celebrity children' like his own) together with the failings of their parents (smoking, drinking, obesity, BNP membership, suspected `child abuse' because a child had a fall etc., etc.) so that social workers could pay failed homes compulsory visits. Ideally, such Big-Brothering would begin during pregnancy, said Bliar (Guardian, 1 ix; Classic FM Radio, 5 ix, 12 noon); so, when this dangerous wheeze corrupted the millions of civil servants having access to the register and failed to reduce children's smoking, drinking, obesity, spelling mistakes etc., etc. by one iota, Bliar's next recourse could only be to eugenics.

{A fine and blistering blast at Blair's `Children's Index was provided in the Daily Telegraph by columnist Andrew Gimson (1 ix). Apparently the planned œ241M p.a. expenditure on intrusion was the NuLabour response to the fact that a Black female social worker had failed to keep an eye on the young Black girl, Victoria Climbi‚, who was abused to death in London by her Black adoptive parents because they believed her to be infested with the Works of the Devil. Rather than just stop employing incompetent (Black) social workers, the Government decided less daringly on an Index that would presume every family guilty till proved innocent and finally destroy such truth as remained in the adage `An Englishman's home is his castle.' How much easier just to insist that every family receiving state health or welfare benefits should include or have as a regular visitor an adult of over 30 having English to O-Level standard!}


The pious, mother-believing U.K. media got a shock as a half-Pakistani 12-year-old girl, Molly Campbell, whom they presumed abducted from Stornoway, Western Isles, to Lahore, Pakistan, by her Muslim father turned out to have been perfectly keen to escape the hysterical clutches of her apparently trembly-handed, overweight, outback-council-house-slum-dwelling, cannabis-offering and Islam-apostate British mama, 38, who was, according to depositions in Lahore, living in sin with a new partner after a decline into mental illness (depression). British socialism and its media allies looked likely to face the full fire of righteous Islam as Molly described her life with her mama as "a living hell" - though she was kinder about Scotland itself. The Pakistani father involved (fabulously rich compared to his situation when he married in Britain twenty years ago and began producing his four children) offered to pay his ex-wife's expenses to attend custody trials in Lahore and indeed to stay on longer - always providing she abstained from liquor. He further complained that post-9/11 Britain was rife with racism against `black/brown' people - another amusing tribute to NuLabour's failure in pursuit of multicultural illusions.


"Be Near Me", a sympathetic (and highly praised) novel about a lonely priest who madly (in the c. 2000 Britoid climate) falls for a 15-year-old boy, was daringly published (with Allen & Unwin) by acclaimed author and intellectual Andrew O'Hagan (who had grown up the hard way in Glasgow-Kilwinning of the 1970s but gone on via Strathclyde University to become Assistant Editor of London Review of Books, boyfriend of Sunday Times columnist India Knight, and a Goodwill Ambassador for UNICEF). O'Hagan's `Father David' is a literate and witty priest already ill-suited to rapport with his plebeian Scottish West-coast parishioners; but then, after he has befriended two teenagers, a boy and a girl, a party ends with him giving the boy a kiss - overseen disastrously for him by his zealous housekeeper, so all paedohysterical hell breaks loose.

O'Hagan, 38, was interviewed on BBC World Service (5 ix 2006, 9:40a.m.BST - just after the mighty John Updike explained his own fictional attempt to characterize with some sympathy the psychology of Muslim terrorists) and expressly claimed his novel was "anti-tabloid." He put paedohysteria down to c. 2000 suppression of reasonable forms of identity (as churchgoer, Scotsman, skilled/intellectual) and their replacement with football mania, celebrity mania and the group bonding of paedo-hunting - he remarked that paedo-outing demonstrations have an air of mediaeval carnivals with people gleefully snapping away with their mobile phones ("you could sell them ice creams," he said).

{In Arthur Miller's The Crucible - played splendidly during the Edinbugger Festival by the drama students of Dean Close School, Cheltenham -- the Puritan witch-hunters can hardly be said to `lack identity'; but they do lack reasonable and sustainable identity in their intolerance of almost all forms of sex and of adolescent frivolity and in their lack of commitment to any sober and workable evidential process for their society.} {Intriguingly, O'Hagan had the same mild Glasgow accent as Dr Richard Yuill, the Scottish sociologist whose 2003 Ph.D. thesis for Glasgow University had likewise attempted some understanding of and sympathy for paedophilia - though both authors left well alone the wilder reaches of paedosadism.}


Faced with the disastrous state of British politics - with a fraudulent Prime Minister (no `fast track learning' delivered; Iraq invaded on a mere pretext and with no proper planning), Deputy Prime Minister (planning to overcome Labour's Dome mortification by leaving London with a quite unwanted supercasino to be put up by a personal friend despite ethics maestro Prezza banning councillors up and down the land from voting about matters in which they have personal interests or on which they have closed minds; wife-cheating), Chancellor (had raised taxation to pre-Thatcherite levels and bloated the Civil Service with cronies, spin doctors and nincompoops) and Home Secretary (no plan for exclusion, repatriation or integration of third-world immigrants despite Labour's nine years in office and his own promise to `hit the ground running'; southern Afghanistan turning out to involve intense fighting with inadequate weaponry and manpower after `Dr' Reid had intimated that scarcely a shot would be fired as British troops closed down the livelihoods of poppy growers); and with a Not-the-Conservative-Party `opposition') --I welcomed the opportunity to sign up for government-by-referenda at YOU SAY (supporters included Michael Gove M.P. [see previous diary/blog] and Queensman and constitutional expert Professor Vernon Bogdanor).

{I had myself thought up this idea of imitating Switzerland and leafleted Edinbugger LUniversity people with it back in the days of the collapse of the Major Government (as it turned out that Tories could not deliver on `back to basics' and were thus left stranded without any idealistic pitch and unable to compete with NuLabour peecee piety). In 2006, Not-the-Conservative-Party leader David Cameron had introduced green idealism as his counterweight to some possible support for freedom and enterprise; but greenery seemed unlikely to bear the necessary weight, for the only thing that ever terrified NuLabour into backtracking was when motorists rebelled against fuel price hikes.}


As Aarhus University went into its fourth week of pondering the finding of its nitpicking academic `commission' that its IQ-sex-difference advocate should be (somewhat) dishonourably discharged, the usual wall of media silence descended: as in the cases of Frank Ellis (LUniversity of Leeds), Bruce Lahn (LUniversity of Chicago) and Rod Lea (Keenepuru Science Centre, Wellington, NZ) the politically correct useful idiots who run such places had evidently learned the lesson of the 1996-7 Brand Affair in Edinburgh: seal the hereditarian outspeaker's lips (with gold if necessary) and command all luni staff to say nothing, but NOTHING to the media. Thus can even the most `awkward' stories die the death - with a little help from leftist media folk who, e.g., were so helpful in bringing down the curtain after IQ and the Wealth of Nations had been reported in 2004 on p. 5 of the Times.


"Ayman al-Zawahiri, a brutalised medic, was the leader and chief moralist of his own [Islamicist terror] group, al-Jihad [which reserved to itself the right to declare who was a true Muslim and equally who could be murdered]. "Unfortunately," one of bin Laden's companions said, "his IQ was not that great." ..Very soon, Zawahiri would be in a Russian jail." - Martin AMIS, Times (Books), 2 ix 2006.


After 15 years of PeeCee and its media minions outlawing any frank speech that offended minority sensitivities, it transpired that the first Muslim to become a British beauty queen believed that mere `stereotypes' and `attitudes' in Britain critical of Islam were driving young Muslims to terrorism. "They think they might as well support it because they are stereotyped anyway," said `Miss England' Hammasa Kohistani, talking to the Daily Mail (4 ix).

{At the same time, frumpish caravanning Minister Tessa Jowell, presumably for want of anything practical to say about China's failure to act against Iran's fast-developing nuclear programme, weirdly busied herself in Peking urging `free speech' for Western journalists reporting Chinese affairs..}


Comments? Email Chris Brand.
Some history.