Vindicated at last! I told the local zoo that throwing its cages open for an hour every Tuesday was bound to end in disaster. Many deaths and countless maulings later, the zoo has finally admitted its policy was wrong. If only it had listened to me and got rid of the cages altogether! The problem was that the big cats and other predators were cut off from the humans that surrounded them, so they never learnt to adapt to human ways. If the zoo hadn’t used cages, that problem would never have arisen: the lions and the crocodiles and the cobras and all the rest would have “integrated” and everything would have been just fine.
Wouldn’t it? Well, of course not. Correctly predicting disaster for your opponents’ policies is no guarantee that your own policies would be any better. In the 1980s an English headmaster called Ray Honeyford claimed that multi-culturalism was bound to end in disaster. The forces of political correctness fell on him in all their self-righteous fury. He was vilified as a racist and forced into early retirement from a profession he loved. Twenty years on, he’s able to smile sadly and say: “I told you so.”
Honeyford’s crime was to publish an article in 1984 doubting whether the children in his school were best served by the connivance of the educational authorities in such practices as the withdrawal of children from school for months at a time in order to go “home” to Pakistan, on the grounds that such practices were appropriate to the children’s native culture. In language that was sometimes maladroit, he drew attention, at a time when it was still impermissible to do so, to the dangers of ghettoes developing in British cities. Mr Honeyford thought that schools such as his own, the Drummond Middle School, where 95 per cent of the children were of Pakistani or Bangladeshi origin, were a disaster both for their pupils and for society as a whole. He was a passionate believer in the redemptive power of education, and its ability to integrate people of different backgrounds and weld them into a common society. He then became notorious for, among other things, his insistence that Muslim girls should be educated to the same standard as everyone else. (The Daily Telegraph, 28th August 2006)
So has Honeyford been vindicated at last? After all, multi-culti, just as he predicted, has proved disastrous. But that doesn’t mean what he proposed to put in its place wouldn’t have been equally disastrous. Honeyford was and remains a liberal in the bad modern sense: he piously trusted that the “redemptive power of education” would be enough to turn non-white Muslims into model citizens of a white Christian nation. He was wrong. Multi-culturalism means the state encouraging minorities to do what they want, so the opposite means the state encouraging minorities to do what it wants. Which policy will minorities like better? How will they react to the state interfering in their lives and telling them what to do, particularly after decades in which they’ve been allowed to go their own way?
The answers are obvious and the failure of the alternative to the “British model” is glaringly obvious across the English channel – and I do mean “glaringly.” Like Ray Honeyford, French liberals believed that the magic of education could turn its non-white Muslim immigrants into model citizens, proud of French history and traditions:
The ambivalence of the cité dwellers matches “official” France’s attitude toward them: over-control and interference, alternating with utter abandonment. Bureaucrats have planned every item in the physical environment, for example, and no matter how many times the inhabitants foul the nest (to use the Afrikaner’s expression), the state pays for renovation, hoping thereby to demonstrate its compassion and concern. To assure the immigrants that they and their offspring are potentially or already truly French, the streets are named for French cultural heroes: for painters in Les Tarterets (rue Gustave Courbet, for example) and for composers in Les Musiciens (rue Gabriel Fauré). Indeed, the only time I smiled in one of the cités was when I walked past two concrete bunkers with metal windows, the école maternelle Charles Baudelaire and the école maternelle Arthur Rimbaud. Fine as these two poets are, theirs are not names one would associate with kindergartens, let alone with concrete bunkers. (“The Barbarians at the Gates of Paris“, Theodore Dalrymple, City Journal, Autumn 2002)
That’s a pretty strong statement of intent: to call kindergartens after two of your greatest poets. The statement of intent is: “We want you to be French!” The reply has been: «Allez vous faire foutre!»
Violence intensifies in suburbs of Paris
Rioting youths shot at police and firefighters Thursday after burning car dealerships and public buses and hurling rocks at commuter trains. France’s government faced growing pressure to curb the violence, fueled by anger over poor conditions in suburban Paris housing projects. Rampaging for an eighth day, youths ignored an appeal for calm from French President Jacques Chirac, whose government worked feverishly to fend off a political crisis amid criticism that it has ignored problems in suburbs heavily populated by first- and second-generation North African and Muslim immigrants. The riots started after the electrocution deaths of two teenagers hiding in a power station from police they believed were chasing them in the northeastern suburb of Clichy-sous-Bois.
Violence has spread to at least 20 Paris-region towns, said Jean-François Cordet, the top government official for the Seine-Saint-Denis region north of Paris where the violence has been concentrated. He said youths in the region fired four shots at riot police and firefighters but caused no injuries. Nine people were injured in Seine-Saint-Denis and 315 cars burned across the Paris area, officials said. In the tough northeastern suburb of Aulnay-sous-Bois, youth gangs set fire to a Renault car dealership and burned at least a dozen cars, a supermarket and a local gymnasium. Traffic was halted on a suburban commuter line linking Paris to Charles de Gaulle airport after stone-throwing rioters attacked two trains. (Associated Press, 3rd November 2005)
«Liberté! Égalité! Conflagration!»
France gets a glimpse of the future
Multi-culti doesn’t work. Nor does the alternative to multi-culti. White liberal democracies cannot accommodate aliens with no traditions of liberal democracy and with no ability or desire to adapt to white norms. As Britain, France and other white nations vainly try to accommodate their aliens, they are rapidly becoming less liberal in the good old sense and more liberal in the bad new sense. Freedom of speech is a classic liberal value rejected by huge numbers of modern liberals. So is belief in objective truth and reasoning. For example, if you allow mass immigration from countries where electoral fraud is widely practised, it inevitably follows that the immigrants will try to commit electoral fraud in their new country. So you will have to take strong measures in response.
Britain has allowed mass immigration from countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh, where electoral fraud is widely practised. And our New Labour government has indeed taken strong measures in response – strong measures to help Pakistanis and Bangladeshis sustain their vibrant traditions of vote-rigging, ballot-stuffing, and fake registration. New Labour’s expansion of postal voting is an open encouragement to fraud, but our ethnics hardly need encouragement:
Labour trio’s “vote-rig factory”
Three Labour councillors in Birmingham were caught operating a “vote-rigging factory”, an Election Court has heard. Police found the trio handling unsealed postal ballots in a deserted warehouse in the city during a late-night raid in June 2004, the hearing was told. The votes were later counted towards that month’s English local elections. The men, elected to the Aston ward, deny collecting votes fraudulently. The judge presiding has indicated the whole postal voting system is under scrutiny.
Deputy High Court Judge Richard Mawrey, QC told the hearing at the Birmingham and Midlands Institute the case could have potentially serious consequences for any forthcoming General Election. The special Election Court, the first in living memory to hear allegations of vote-rigging, opened in Birmingham last month. The case against Muhammad Afzal, Mohammed Islam and Mohammed Kazi is being brought by local Liberal Democrat supporters. They claim the trio benefited from the widespread misuse of postal votes during the 10 June election.
Ravi Sukul, counsel for the petitioners, accused the three men of being “deeply involved” in illegal practices. Witnesses saw them carrying several bags from their campaign office, which the men drove to a warehouse on an industrial estate off Birch Road East, the court was told. The police were alerted and called to the premises. Mr Sukul said: “When the officers arrived there, in the middle of the night, they saw a large room with a 10ft long table and six Asian men present. Hundreds of documents and unsealed envelopes were scattered all over the table.” (BBC News, 2nd March 2005)
Fraud threatens electoral system
Britain’s electoral system is under threat from the growing spectre of fraud, an influential group of MPs is expected to say. The Committee on Standards in Public Life will warn that the birthplace of democracy has no room for complacency when it publishes its Review of the Electoral Commission. Nearly 350 cases of electoral malpractice have been reported by the police to the Crown Prosecution Service since 2001, its evidence shows. Postal voting has contributed to fraud, the committee is likely to say. It believes the credibility of the electoral administration system has come under threat with the introduction of a postal system with no proper safeguards. The committee is also likely to question the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the electoral register. It is a system based on trust, it will say. Trust alone is no longer suitable, and the committee is expected to call for proactive deterrence and enforcement. (The Scotsman, 18th January 2007)
“Diversity Is Our Strength!”
The astonishing sight of police at a British polling-station
But of course the commission didn’t point out what has caused the hugely serious problem of electoral fraud. Non-whites are responsible, most of them Muslim, and if more non-whites enter British politics, there will be more corruption of all kinds. You can’t rely on “trust” to control people who come from Third World nations riddled with malpractice and fraud. But as I pointed out above: belief in objective truth and reasoning is a classic liberal value rejected by modern liberals. Faced with the consequences of ethnic enrichment up and down the country, here’s how the modern liberal Ruth Kelly, Minister for Women and Equality, has reacted:
Councils “must be more diverse”
Local councils need a “better balance” of members, with more young people, women and ethnic minorities running for office, Ruth Kelly has said. The communities secretary is setting up a commission which, she said, would help “break down barriers.” It will look at improving support for those with children and look at time commitments and employers’ attitudes. A census of councillors suggests the average age is 58 for those in England, while 96% across Britain are white.
In a speech to the Local Government Association, Ms Kelly said: “We need to see a wider range of people of all ages and backgrounds entering local politics. By getting a better balance at the local level we can get the best people for our councils – and the best councils for our people.” Led by Dame Jane Roberts, the former leader of Camden Council, the commission is expected to report its recommendations by November. The research company IDeA, which carried out the census, found 69.3% of councillors in England were male. (BBC News, 9th February 2007)
Note the fatuous NuLab word-magic: “a better balance at the local level” will mean “the best people for our councils – and the best councils for our people.” White males aren’t the best people, you see: “our people” need more women and more non-whites. And in fact “our people” are women and non-whites – those two groups play the role of saints in the modern liberal religion, while white males play the role of demons. And when women and non-whites behave in less than saintly ways, liberals do their best to cover up. There’s been a horrendous story about child cruelty in the British media recently, for example:
Couple jailed for torturing disabled daughter
Appalling failures in Britain’s child protection system were exposed today as a couple was sentenced to a total of 22 years for “scalping and kicking like a football” their four-year-old daughter, who has cerebral palsy. The case had echoes of the Victoria Climbié tragedy, with a judge expressing “anxieties” about social services. Samuel Duncan, 26, was given 10-and-a-half-years and Kimberley Harte, 23, 11-and-a-half-years, after “revolting abuse” in which boiling liquid was poured over the child’s hands, her hair was ripped out, she was repeatedly kicked in the groin and forced to sleep naked in a locked toilet. The attacks happened only weeks after the girl was returned from foster care to the couple by Westminster social services last year. (The Daily Telegraph, 9th February 2007)
I’m a vile and loathsome racist, so as soon as I heard about the case, I concluded that blacks would be responsible. To reach this despicable conclusion, I used the classic liberal value of reasoned argument from objective evidence. When horrendous crimes against children – Victoria Climbié, Ainlee Labonte, Toni-Ann Byfield – have been dominated by blacks in the past, it’s logical to assume that blacks will be responsible for the latest example. Indeed, such crimes offer support for a theory of genetically based differences between the attitudes of blacks and non-blacks to the care of children. Different species of animal occupy different positions in what is known as “r-K strategy”: some follow an r strategy, breeding fast and giving little care to their offspring, some a K strategy, breeding slowly and giving lots of care (think of r meaning “reproduction” and K meaning “care”). But the Canadian psychologist J. Philippe Rushton proposes that an r-K difference also exists within a single species: Homo sapiens. Here’s the American writer Jared Taylor describing his theory:
In almost every respect, racial differences in the physiology of reproduction show an r-K pattern that runs from blacks to whites to Asians. Fraternal twinning, for example, is clearly an r-strategy of producing more and smaller young, who are more likely to be miscarried, be born underweight, die in infancy, and receive less parental care. Fraternal twinning is twice as common among blacks as among whites, and twice as common among whites as among Asians. Triplets are ten times more common among whites than among Asians and 17 times more common among Africans than among whites. In some African populations, multiple births account for 60 out of every 1000.
Offspring of the different races gestate and mature according to different r-K strategies. Blacks are born earlier and smaller than whites, but are stronger and better coordinated. They can sit up and roll over sooner than whites, who can do so sooner than Asians. On average, blacks walk at age 11 months, whites at 12 months, and Asians at 13 months. Although it is a specialized measure of development, permanent tooth eruption occurs sooner in Africans than in Europeans, and later in Asians. Among primates in general, there is near-perfect correlation between lateness of permanent tooth eruption and such things as length of life, brain size, years to maturity, and complexity of social organization. (“A New Theory of Racial Differences”, American Renaissance, Dec. 1994)
The classic liberal response to a suggestion like that is first to ask whether it’s true and second to decide whether, if it’s true, we can use it to govern our societies better. The modern liberal response to a suggestion like that is first to shriek “Racist!” and second to try to silence those making it. J. Philippe Rushton and Jared Taylor can both testify to these modern liberal responses, and so can I. The British state is trying to lock me up for my racist heresies, but until it succeeds I will continue to say what appears to be the truth: that on average blacks are more criminal and violent than whites and care less for their children. Even slight differences in the average behavior of two groups may be hugely exaggerated at the extremes, which is why I predicted that blacks, despite being a small minority in Britain, were responsible for the latest case of horrendous cruelty to a child. When I visited the BBC website to test my prediction, I discovered a situation like the one described by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in his story “Silver Blaze” (1894):
“Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”
“To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”
“The dog did nothing in the night-time.”
“That was the curious incident,” remarked Sherlock Holmes.
When a serious crime is committed and the BBC doesn’t mention the race of the criminals or show their faces, it’s a safe bet that the criminals are non-white. The picture that first accompanied the child-cruelty story was an attractive study of the statue of Justice on the roof of the Old Bailey, Britain’s most famous criminal court:
Truth Concealed, Truth Revealed:
The BBC tries to cover up, then comes clean
So I was confirmed in my belief that blacks were responsible, but I wasn’t completely right. When the BBC eventually revealed the truth and showed a picture of the criminals, one of them turned out to be white: the mother. The BBC won’t have liked that either, because women are supposed to be saints except when white men corrupt them. Alas for the BBC and the rest of the liberal media, the man in this case wasn’t white.
But let’s be fair: modern liberals do sometimes portray women as wilful sinners. In a recent column I mentioned the media frenzy about a reality TV show called Celebrity Big Brother. A trio of white women, Jade Goody, Kate O’Meara, and Danielle Lloyd, had bullied the brown woman Shilpa Shetty, an Indian film-star, and been vilified throughout the British media for racism. Non-white saintliness trumps female saintliness, you see. I’ve never watched any series of Celebrity Big Brother (CBB), but the Australian feminist Germaine Greer, who was stupid enough to appear in one, now comments regularly on CBB for the media. This is what she thought was going on in the latest:
“Why does everyone hate me?”
There are no good reasons for watching Celebrity Big Brother and very good reasons for not. Not watching will spare you the nerve-fraying annoyingness that is Shilpa Shetty. Everything about her is infuriating: her haughty way of stalking about, her indomitable self-confidence, her chandelier earrings, her leaping eyebrows, her mirthless smile, her putty nose and her eternal bray, “Why does everyone hate me?” Not to mention the crying jags. What no one seems to have quite understood is that Shilpa is a very good actress. Everyone hates her because she wants them to. She also knows that if she infuriates people enough, their innate racism will spew forth.
Bollywood [the Indian film industry] is no picnic; anyone who makes 51 Bollywood movies in 13 years has to be tough. Shilpa has a black belt in karate. She is just the girl to raise the pit bull in a dizzy little drip like Danielle and keep her frothing at the mouth long enough for her nascent career to disappear down the drain. This explains the slightly cannibal air of self-satisfaction that never abandons Shilpa. She knows what she is doing and she will shred the nerves of all the other women in that house. I can switch Shilpa off. The people in the house with her haven’t got that option. The problem is that most of the housemates are too dim to convey what a pain in the ass Shilpa is without appearing to persecute her.
Endemol [the company behind CBB] must be over the moon because racism has raised its ugly head. Every time someone sends in a complaint to Ofcom [Britain’s TV regulator] about racism in the Big Brother house, the profile of the show is raised and Shilpa earns a bit more of her huge fee. So far three housemates have decided that if they remained in the house they stood to lose more than they had to gain. Although their behaviour seemed irrational at the time, because they were forced “greatly to find quarrel in a straw”, it was actually supremely rational. So far none of the women has been that smart. Except for Shilpa. Shilpa’s enjoying herself. Ladbroke’s are quoting her 10/3 favourite. (The Guardian, 17th January 2007)
Greer is obviously another example of how it’s much easier to see others’ faults than to see your own. She made a fool of herself by appearing on CBB, but she was spot-on about the devious and manipulative Shilpa Shetty. The careers of Shetty’s white bullies now lie in ruins and while they’re investigated by the police for “racism”, Shetty herself enjoys her vast new fame in Britain to the full:
Shilpa Shetty poses smugly outside the
parliament of the country she’s fooled
Big Brother’s Shilpa thanks Blair
Big Brother’s Shilpa Shetty has thanked Tony Blair for his support during a meeting at the Houses of Parliament. The Bollywood actress watched prime minister’s questions in the Commons before meeting Mr Blair afterwards and declaring: “He was very sweet.” She was invited by Labour MP Keith Vaz, who was among those who criticised the TV show after Ms Shetty’s treatment by other contestants caused a race row. She said she had thanked the PM for his support “to me and my country.” “To see how so much respect has been bestowed upon me has truly been an honour,” she said. The Commons chef prepared a special dessert in her honour, “Shilpa’s delight”, and she met both Mr Blair and Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell briefly after prime minister’s questions. On Mr Blair she said: “He was very very kind and said he was very sad to see what I had had to go through in there [the Big Brother house].” She was also very fond of Ms Jowell, although she stressed to reporters that she was not “politically inclined.”
The actress won Celebrity Big Brother, following clashes with housemates Jade Goody, Jo O’Meara and Danielle Lloyd, who were accused of bullying and racism – something all three denied. And the row reached both the House of Commons and India, where chancellor Gordon Brown found media coverage of his attempt to boost bilateral relations overshadowed by the programme’s fall-out. When Mr Blair was asked about the row in the Commons, he admitted he had not seen the programme, but added: “Of course, I would agree entirely with the principle that we should oppose racism in all its forms.” Ms Shetty has said she does not believe her fellow contestants were being racist, but that their remarks had stemmed from jealousy, or a “lack of education.” ( News, 7th February 2007)
Wasn’t it good of her to forgive the evil white racists who tormented her? And wasn’t it good of the British prime minister to spare a few minutes from saving the world to meet this brown-skinned saint? Then again, doesn’t saving the world depend absolutely on “opposing racism in all its forms”?
My answer to all three questions is a loud and heartfelt “No!.” Shilpa Shetty is obviously as slimy, insincere and crooked as Keith Vaz, the Indian MP who collaborated with her in exploiting gullible whites; Bliar is obviously as shallow and stupid as ever; and racism, being both natural and healthy, should be encouraged, not opposed. When non-whites enter white nations in huge numbers, it is insane to believe that they are here for our benefit and that we can build a peaceful, prosperous, happy future together. We can’t and insane is exactly what our current leaders are. If you want a picture of what has happened to Western societies since the Second World War, a man who died long before it began still provides one of the best. In his story “The System of Dr. Tarr and Prof. Fether” (1856), Edgar Allan Poe wrote about a visitor to a French lunatic asylum where something very strange once happened:
“One fine morning the keepers found themselves pinioned hand and foot, and thrown into the cells, where they were attended, as if they were the lunatics, by the lunatics themselves, who had usurped the offices of the keepers.”
“You don’t tell me so! I never heard of any thing so absurd in my life!”
“Fact – it all came to pass by means of a stupid fellow – a lunatic – who, by some means, had taken it into his head that he had invented a better system of government than any ever heard of before – of lunatic government, I mean. He wished to give his invention a trial, I suppose, and so he persuaded the rest of the patients to join him in a conspiracy for the overthrow of the reigning powers.”
“But I presume a counter-revolution was soon effected? This condition of things could not have long existed. The country people in the neighborhood – visitors coming to see the establishment – would have given the alarm.”
“There you are out. The head rebel was too cunning for that. He admitted no visitors at all – with the exception, one day, of a very stupid-looking young gentleman of whom he had no reason to be afraid. He let him in to see the place – just by way of variety, – to have a little fun with him. As soon as he had gammoned him sufficiently, he let him out, and sent him about his business.”
“And how long, then, did the madmen reign?”
“Oh, a very long time, indeed...”
It turns out that the visitor is actually speaking to the “head rebel” and Poe’s story may be the first appearance of the joke about lunatics taking over the asylum. But the joke has become reality throughout the West. Lunatics are running our governments and leading us all to destruction. Their contempt for the intelligence of the white electorate seems to know no bounds. Politicians like Tony Blair and Ruth Kelly have simultaneously admitted that multi-culturalism has been a disaster and tried to pretend that they had nothing to do with it, as though liberals like them weren’t in charge all the way. But while they say that they’re going to abandon multi-culti, it’s obvious that they aren’t. The aim they’re pursuing for their Jewish masters remains unchanged: Europa delenda est! “White nations must be destroyed!” And if we whites are stupid enough to let liars, lunatics and traitors like Tony Blair, George Bush and Ruth Kelly stay in power, the plain truth is that we’ll deserve to be destroyed.