A-PAEDOHUNTING WE GO
Having destroyed the UK’s constitution by irresponsible and unwanted patchwork semi-devolution (to ‘regions’ recognized only by a few Celts), its economy by over-borrowing, its school system by comprehensivisation, its universities by PeeCee, its health service by non-medical management, its welfare system by excess, its royals by illusory multiculti ambitions, its legislative capacity by E.U.-deputation, its criminal justice system by drugs unrealism, its postal service by egalitarian pricing, its telephone system by ‘cold calling’ and non-answering, and its streets by dog-ends, overflowing bins and non-numbering of residences, Britain embarked on subjecting its armed forces (already denied relevant weapons and policies for coping with elementary terrorism and treachery) to paedohunting – beginning with the super-eminent Army supremo Lord Bramall, 91, who had his country seat infested for hours with self-righteous cops sporting full gear of helicopters, AK47s, nightsticks and mobile televisions ooops telephones even though, at his age, he presumably bore no responsibility for the disastrous Blair Wars which had failed to set back mad Mueslis one iota and left the future of Europe in the hands of Greek socialists, Italian frauds and French countrydwellers (if also, thankfully, of Russia’s Mr Putin) (cf. Peter Hitchens, Mail on Sunday, 22 iii).
BOO-HOO IQ
The amazing Singapore leader Lee Kuan Yew died at 91, having – despite his ‘authoritarianism,’ eugenicism* and Confucianism (he had successfully promulgated caning for criminals, children and soldiers and tax breaks for graduate mothers) – turned his country into a well-organized economic powerhouse and magnet for world business talent, if giving a back seat to culture and ‘human rights.’**
Richard Nixon remarked that if Lee had lived in another time and place, he would have attained the world stature of a Churchill, a Disraeli or a Gladstone. Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush respectively called Lee a "remarkable leader and statesman" and "one of the brightest and most effective world leaders that I have ever known" during the launch of Lee’s book, Hard Truths to Keep Singapore Going. Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher praised “his way of penetrating the fog of propaganda and expressing with unique clarity the issues of our time and the way to tackle them." Her successor, Labour moderate and multiculti multimillionaire Tony Blair, said of Lee: he is "the smartest leader I ever met."
Lee, a Cambridge double-starred First (at Fitzwilliam College, along with his equally brilliant wife of the same Hakka racial origin), had often dismissed ideas of equality as delusions of religious and political fanatics.
LKY was a most flexible politician, getting on with even the post-War Japanese (who had sent him for execution in 1943), the unbusinesslike Malays and the communist Peking-led Chinese and extending his handouts for graduate mothers to all when it seemed expedient. LKY’s conventional multiculti sentiments notwithstanding, the fantastic success of Singapore (which became richer per caput than oil-endowed Scotland) had probably owed as much to its racial unity and attractiveness to southern Chinese as to LKY’s remarkable initiative – in particular to its being 75% Chinese and thus relatively immune from corruption that plagued multiracial societies.
* Guardian, 24 iii: In social as in economic affairs, Lee tried to shape society to an extent attempted perhaps only by Mao Zedong in recent times. What began in the early years as a voluntary family-planning campaign ended up with the state trying to influence marriage choices and “enhance” Singapore’s genetic quality by encouraging graduates to reproduce among themselves. .... Ethnic prejudice lurked just under Lee’s image of technocratic rationalism. He combined assumptions about Chinese cultural supremacy with belief in genetic theories which influenced social policy in Singapore.
** Daily Mail, 24 iii: They might engrave on his memorial one of his many sayings: ‘I tried to be correct, not politically correct.’ Lee was a great man, albeit flawed as all such are, who achieved something wholly remarkable. Our own leaders would be far better employed taking guided tours of Singapore for the next six weeks than mouthing nothings on the hustings.
PERILS OF PROGRESSIVISM
Britain’s Conservative Party, which had tried to go green, love hoodies, splurge on foreign aid, allow gypsy immigration, support the disastrous Arab Spring, bring in gay marriage, and of course to abjure racism, found its starlet Pakistanie, promoted-to-Baroness Warsi, sharing platforms with Muesli extremists (Sunday Telegraph, 22 iii, Andrew Gilligan); and a Pakistani-grandparented ‘Tory-dream’ candidate, British Army captain Afzal Amin, selected by it for a Birmingham (Dudley North) seat, in secret talks to persuade the ‘far right’ English Defence League into ‘spectacular rallying’ (against the building of a £18M mosque) that the Pak ‘race hero’ would then have magically resolved to general acclaim.
Amin also appeared to tell the former EDL leader, Tommy Robinson, over a Pizza Express meal, that he would be prepared to pay EDL for canvassers because he needed “two white working-class lads” to tell voters that, if they supported the Army, they should vote for him. The crime-plotting retired army captain also pledged to act as the EDL’s “unshakeable ally” in parliament if Robinson were able to help him (Guardian, 23 iii) – but agreed to stand down as Conservative candidate when his wheeze came to light.
ACADEMIC TREACHERY FILMED
The sorry state of the PeeCee-penetrated universities of the USA – a country supposedly fighting Tallyhoes, alQueerdo and ISIS – was nicely exposed by student pranksters (New York Post, 24 iii). A video sting operation showed Cornell’s assistant dean for students, Joseph Scaffido, agreeing to everything suggested by an undercover muckraker posing as a Moroccan student. Scaffido casually endorsed inviting an ISIS “freedom fighter’’ to conduct a “training camp” for students at Cornell’s upstate Ithaca campus -- bizarrely likening the activity to a sports camp.
Is it OK to bring a humanitarian pro-“Islamic State Iraq and Syria” group on campus, the undercover for conservative activist James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas asked. Sure, Scaffido said in the recorded March 16 meeting. Scaffido didn’t even blink an eye when the undercover asked about providing material support for terrorists – “care packages, whether it be food, water, electronics.” How about supporting Hamas? No problem at all, Scaffido replied.
PAN-EUROPEANISM DEFENDED
Diplomatically and majestically surmounting Russian vs American tensions, White leader Jared Taylor addressed a meeting of 300 nationalists in St Petersburg (AmRen, 24 iii). There was good broad agreement on backing Christianity and kindred traditions against Islam and third-world immigration; and on the likelihood of Russia providing once more the only serious defence of European civilization – though the meeting had eventually to be closed down due to a hoax bomb call (probably from one of 40 protesters outside the St Petersburg Holiday Inn).
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/76ba6/76ba603b70a4874bad79f47368e7c0388317430e" alt=""
European Pressphoto Agency; published in New York Times, 22 iii.
Davidson Yukka of the National Independence Party of Finland pointed out that in some respects Russia was freer than any other country in Europe. Some forms of speech had come under attack in countries such as Finland, where it was possible to lose one’s job for criticizing homosexuals or opposing gay marriage. “The European Union is an idea that has failed,” he said, “but the politicians are still riding this dead horse.” He concluded that if our enemies abuse and denounce us it is because we are right.
Britain was represented, e.g. by Nick Griffin, the former head of the British National Party who had become active in the new Alliance for Peace and Freedom. He argued that Western leaders have the Midas touch in reverse: Everything they touch turns to blood. He predicted that Europe will either end up as a caliphate or there will be a civil war, and that it is now Russia’s turn to lead the world and prevent catastrophe. To this end, Russia should go on a media offensive to counteract the irrational hostility found in the West. RT television broadcasts were a good first step, but they must be supplemented with a strong social media campaign. Mr. Griffin also argued that Russia should help replace the dollar as the sole means of international exchange.
JT especially observed that the religion of America is no longer Christianity. Rather, it is “diversity”:
"We are not to believe in Jesus Christ. We are to believe that a crazy mix of races, of languages, of habits, of religions, of manners is a great and wonderful thing. The slogan of America is “diversity is our greatest strength.”
In 2007, General George Casey, who commanded the American troops in Iraq, announced, “I firmly believe the strength of our Army comes from our diversity.” What is this? Does the strength of an army not from good training? From good weapons? From love of country? No. The US Army is strong because it has soldiers from Guatemala and the Philippines and Haiti and Mexico. This is insanity. But this insanity of diversity is the new religion of America.
But my country is not content just to commit suicide. It wants every Western country to commit suicide. When the United States was dropping bombs on Serbia in 1999–America loves to drop bombs–General Wesley Clark explained why the bombing was necessary: There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states. We are trying to transition into the 21st century, and we are going to do it with multi-ethnic states. And for Americans, multi-ethnic does not only mean Serbs and Croats and Bosnians. It means Arabs, Africans, Asians, Muslims, Hindus–anything and everything. That is what my country wants for you! Diversity!
England’s ever-more peecee ‘Ukip’ and France’s yag-‘marriage’-accepting ‘National Front’ were conspicuous by their absence from the St Petersburg conference; but the get-together was subsidized by President Putin’s ‘Rodina’ party.’"
‘POPULATION’ POLL OF PERSONALITY
A questionnaire issued to 400K Brits from the Psychology Department Cambridge University yielded only three recognizably valid results (from those taking the trouble to reply to the online survey, published in PLOSOne): that the university towns of London, Oxford, Cambridge and Brighton were the most ‘open-to-experience’/tender-minded/intellectual/argumentative; that East Anglians were more conscientious/conservative; and that the Welsh and Glaswegians were more neurotic (Daily Mail, 25 iii; DTelegraph, 25 iii).
{The limitations of the g-neglecting ‘Big Five’ personality dimensions which yielded the Cambridge non-result are indicated and corrected in TgF, Chap. 2, which backs extracting g and thus dealing in terms of a ‘Big Six’ (Brand, 1994, ‘How many dimensions of personality?’ Psychologica Belgica 34); R.B.Cattell, passim.}
PEECEE PASSIM
As worldwide interest focussed on the possible motivation of Germanwings under-pilot Andreas Lubitz, who had crashed his Barcelona-bound Airbus plane in the French Alps, killing 150, authorities and MSM were distinctly slow to remark that Lubitz was single, never sported a steady girlfriend, still lived with his parents at age 28, had argued about something with his Airbus captain, had previously been known as a gay flight attendant, had been photoed in homosexual capitals San Francisco (by Golden Gate Bridge) and Miami, and (as some internetters said) “looked faggoty.”
However, after a day of denying Lubitz (a Jewish name) had any psychological problems (or “issues”), authorities did admit he had been treated for depression – perhaps not unconnected with his six-month suspension from a pilot training programe. Later, he was said to have been repeatedly issued sick notes for a “physical” problem {AIDS?}; and an attempted girlfriend said he was a “tormented soul” who craved fame and would wake with nightmares; but the homosexual possibility remained unmentioned/unmentionable for three days (Independent, 28 iii – which added that Lubitz had received psychiatric treatment from Airbus owner Lufthansa across an 18-month period).
{If mass murderer AL did turn out to be a yag, the case would long provide the star example of the horrors to which PeeCee could lead and of the dominance of peecee censorship in Western public life.}
EGALITARIANS TO RAID LUNIS
English universities should be robbed of 25% of their student fee income, opined the ‘tsar’ of the LibCon Coalition’s Commission for Social Mobility, Equality, Harmony and Holiness, one Alan Milburn, formerly a Labour MP (Guardian, 27 iii). The resulting cash would be redirected to increasing salaries for would-be schoolteachers prepared to work in rough areas.
No evidence was offered that the largesse would improve exam results for “disadvantaged” children even on the exercises in rote learning that had become the gateway to luni entrance since 1980; but teachers of the rough should, thought Milburn, enjoy accelerated promotion to headships (and early retirement?...). Mr Milburn owed his own education to a comprehensive school and Lancaster University (formerly Preston Poly). {Yes, Britain’s LibLabCon rulers were united in their g-denying egalitarianism and environmentalism.}
LEFTIST ‘CONVERSATIONS ABOUT RACE’ EXPOSED
As in the UK, so in the USA: multicultifiends were taking, in 2015, to pretending that they saw the need to discuss – as they always discussed... – the topic of race which they had turned over a generation into one on which the expression of ‘incorrect’ views would lead to criminalization, ostracization, banning and sacking (see Trevor Phillips, above). But, at least across the Pond, reply to conversational pseudo-enthusiasm was on offer (World Net Daily, 26 iii):
"You know just how scholarly a policy paper is when it is studded with a clichéd expression like “We need to have a conversation about . . .” The pop-phrase is familiar from these farcical usages: “We need to have a conversation about race”–when, in reality, we do nothing but subject ourselves to a one-way browbeating about imagined slights committed against the pigmentally burdened. “We need to have a conversation about immigration”–when such a “conversation” is strictly confined to a lecture on how to adapt to the program of Third World mass immigration. This particular “conversation” involves learning to live with a lower quality of life, poorer education, environmental degradation, less safety and security, more taxation and alienation.
In this mold is a policy paper by Jennifer Bradley, formerly of the liberal Brookings Institute. Bradley had a stroke of luck. Matt Drudge of the Drudge Report found fit to link her essay on his eponymous news site. Titled “The Changing Face of the Heartland: Preparing America’s Diverse Workforce for Tomorrow,” Bradley’s Brookings essay would have been more honestly titled “Get With the Program, Middle American! Demography Is Destiny.”
Disguised as scholarship, the Bradley essay schools Middle America at length on how to prepare its diversifying workforce for tomorrow. Thus, for example, she states that “America is on the cusp of becoming a country with no racial majority, where new minorities are poised to exert a profound impact on U.S. society, economics and politics.”
The implication here is that this seismic shift is due to a mystic force beyond the control of the host population, rather than to willful policies in which the native population has never had a say and will likely never have one. Bradley’s particular concern is with “two demographic shifts.” The one is the aging of the predominantly white (and presumably productive) generation of Americans born after World War II. Another is the concomitant influx of “Mexicans, Hmong, Indians, Vietnamese, Somalis, Liberians and Ethiopians.”
....As Bradley sees it, a feature of the diversity explosion in the Minneapolis-Saint Paul Midwest microcosm is a widening “race-based education and achievement gap” that will “become a drag on workforce growths unless something was done to reverse these trends.”
Translated, this means the immigrant population isn’t measuring up. I can think of a few unexplored options to narrow the gap described. One is to welcome immigrants who’ll add value to the economy, rather than drain taxpayer resources. Bradley, however, is here not to strike up a true conversation–which would include exploring all options–but to dictate the terms of the “conversation.”
...Because the imported population is failing to achieve parity with the host population, Bradley has inferred that the newcomers are “underserved”; that they require more resources, when the fault could just as well lie in the kind of incompatible immigrant being privileged by policy makers. The essay’s premise is that America is “underserving” her immigrant population, when it is the other way round: Averaged out, the immigrant population is underserving the American economy.
Demographics need not be destiny. The West became the best not by out-breeding the undeveloped world–not due to huge numbers–but because of human capital: people of superior ideas and abilities, capable of innovation, exploration, science, philosophy.
REALITY DAWNS
As the dirt-poor but strategically placed Muesli state of Yemen erupted in the Solunni vs Shitite ethno-sectarian civil warfare that had long been Western people’s only hope (since their politicians were too peecee and slow-witted to abandon their fatuous hopes of bombing the Middle East into demakrazy), at least the American ‘far right’ began to wake up. Pat Buchanan (27 iii):
"....This week, the Saudis sent their air force against the Houthi rebels who had seized the capital of Sanaa, driven out the president, and have now driven south to Aden to take over half of the country.
Why is the Saudi air force attacking the Houthis?
The Houthis belong to a sect close to the Shiite and are supported by Iran. Yet the Houthis, who bear no love for us, began this war to expel al-Qaida from Yemen. And their hatred for ISIS is surely greater than it is for us or Israel, as, last week, 137 of their co-religionists were massacred in two mosque bombings in Sanaa. ISIS claimed credit.
In summary, though the Houthi rebels in Yemen, Shiite militia in Iraq, Iran, Hezbollah, and the Alawite regime of Assad may not love us, they look on al-Qaida and ISIS as mortal enemies. And, thus far, they alone have seemed willing to send troops to defeat them.
Where are the Turkish, Saudi, Kuwaiti or Qatari troops?
During World War II, the U.S. Navy and Merchant Marine shipped tanks, guns and munitions to a Soviet Union that was doing most of the fighting and suffering most of the casualties in the war against Hitler.
No matter all the "Uncle Joe" drivel at Tehran and Yalta, we were never true friends or allies, and shared nothing in common with the monster Stalin, save Hitler's defeat.
If President Nixon could toast Mao Zedong, can we not deal with Ayatollah Khamenei?"
And why wouldn’t America admit its mistake of backing hypocritical Saudi and its alQueerdo products and instead talk with President Putin about a White/European/Nordic league that would control the Middle East via its relatively Caucasian Shitite allies of Iran and Syria? (And settle the Ukraine in the course of the rapprochement....)
-----------------------------------
Comments? Email Chris Brand. -- CV for Chris Brand. -- Some history.
-----------------------------------