Thursday, 25 September 2008

Nick Griffin roots for Obama - truth stranger than fiction?

Published: 24 Sep 2008

BNP leader Nick Griffin cuts an unlikely figure as a Barack Obama fan – but that did not stop him wearing a hat supporting the presidential hopeful.

The controversial politician was convicted of incitement to racial hatred in 1998 for denying the Holocaust but has repeatedly insisted the BNP is not a racist group.
The far right party is opposed to non-white immigration and all for returning Britain to a white nation.

But as this snap shows, it looks like Griffin is not averse to seeing a black man become the next American president.

Wednesday, 24 September 2008

Anti-cervical cancer drug shunned by schools, parents and girls

A CATHOLIC school has become the first in the country to block a project to vaccinate girls against cervical cancer.Governors of St Monica's High School in
Bury - who have previously criticised the jab for `encouraging sexual promiscuity' - have decided they don't want pupils vaccinated on school grounds.The government plans to give injections to girls aged 12 and 13 to protect them against the sexually- transmitted papilloma virus, linked to cervical cancer. Experts believe the programme, which consists of three injections over six months, will eventually save hundreds of lives a year.

Goodness knows where the government is finding the money for this anti-cervical cancer vaccination that no one wants in our Credit Crunchy time.

Perhaps someone in the NHS has "done a deal" with the pharmaceutical company that manufactures this drug?

That it is moral hazard would be the parent's first fear. If this jab is supposed to give immunity from the sexually-transmitted kind of cervical cancer it is meant to prevent, then it would give British schoolgirls - known throughout the world for their promiscuity and unplanned pregnancy - one less reason to keep their knickers on.

To deal with the problem, a government study brightly suggests that schoolchildren should be shown the pleasures oral sex, ie schoolgirls should give schoolboys blowjobs when sex is expected, to avoid unwanted teenage pregnancy.

This sounds remarkably like a society that is about to lose all its marbles in pursuit of sexual gratification.

Why is the single-minded pursuit of sexual gratification to the exclusion of everything else a Bad Thing?

For those of us who have not had lessons about the Birds and the Bees, I will explain briefly.

Having it off whenever, wherever with whoever, leads to unplanned pregnancy.

Unplanned pregnancy leads to illegitimacy and there is already a lot of it about.

In 1993, just over a third – 34.5 per cent – of all births in Britain occurred outside of wedlock, already high by European standards. When Murray looked at the British underclass in 1989, he made a conservative estimate that by 1999, on a linear trend, more than 40 per cent of births would be to single women.

He was right. According to the latest figures from the ONS, by 2004, this had
grown to 42 per cent (the equivalent US figure was 35 per cent). This is an
exceptional rise. It is likely on this trend that the majority of all babies produced in Britain in a decade will be born to single or unmarried mothers. They already are in Wales, and in a host of other places you care to name across Britain: in Sunderland, Newcastle, Manchester, Nottingham, Dundee, Glasgow, Stoke, Norwich, Plymouth, Weymouth and Belfast. In Hartlepool, Blackpool, Liverpool and Lincoln, the illegitimacy rates are already over 60 per cent. Figures also confirm that pregnancy is no longer seen as a trigger for marriage. In 1992, 27,200 girls aged 15-19 were married and by 2003, this had more than halved to just 11,700; this at a time when the birth rate amongst single women under twenty remained stable at roughly 25 per 1,000. A similar pattern has occurred in older age groups. The result is that more babies are being born outside of marriage, and more children are growing up without a stable parental relationship.

Why is bastardy a Bad Thing?

The evidence has long shown us that teenage pregnancy and illegitimacy is encouraged by welfare, and absent fathers and single mothers damage children’s emotional and psychological development, often permanently. Dozens of social science and economic research papers have been published in the US since the 1970s proving these points, including one of the most influential, by Mikhail Bernstam of the Hoover Institution at Stanford in 1988, that showed that childbearing by young unmarried women increased by 6 percent in response to a 10 percent increase in monthly welfare benefits; among blacks, the increase could be as high as 10 percent (Mikhail S. Bernstam, “Malthus and Evolution of the Welfare State: An Essay on the Second Invisible Hand, Parts I and II”, Hoover Institution,1988).

While there have been some studies that argue the causality is unclear or there is no net impact overall, there has never been a paper which proves that welfare actually promotes marriage and the maintenance of stable families, nor any that show that children benefit from being born into broken homes. The consensus is that out-of-wedlock birth and growing up in a single-parent family means the child tends to experience retarded cognitive development; lower educational achievement; lower job attainment; increased behaviour and emotional problems; lower impulse control; and retarded social development.

Unsurprisingly, such children are far more likely to engage in early sexual activity; have children out of wedlock; be on welfare as adults; and engage in criminal activity.

How typical that the state should be paying good money to encourage precisely the very activity that will make teenage pregnancy more likely.

What sort of message does this free anti-cervical cancer vaccine give British schoolgirls?

Let me venture to put it together in way even a sink-school educated British schoolgirl can understand:

  1. No need to worry about getting sexually-transmitted cervical cancer after your jab.
  2. It is OK to have unprotected sex when you have the jab.
  3. It is OK to have sex as soon as you have the jab.

Do we really need to encourage them to have more sex??

Is this the sort of message we want to give to the mothers of the next generation of illegitimate children?

Visit for horrifying statistics on the crime rate amongst the illegitimate and the singly-parented.

Brown's Conference Speech

In the middle of an unfolding financial meltdown already compared to the 1929 Wall Street crash, our PM proposes the following:

  1. From next year, about 250,000 people with cancer will receive the free prescriptions - which could save them hundreds of pounds a year. Free prescriptions would be extended to cover patients will all serious illnesses in “the long term”. The change is estimated to cost £20 million over the next year, rising to £300 million a year over the long-term as more conditions are covered. The current prescription charge in England is £7.10 per item and often cancer patients are taking several drugs at once.
  2. free universal health check-ups for anyone aged over 40
  3. to help elderly people requiring nursing care to remain in their homes
  4. free nursery school places to all two-year olds
  5. Older children who fall behind at school will also be entitled to personalised “catch-up tuition”.
  6. a commitment to introduce new legislation to legally compel the Government to cut carbon dioxide emissions and child poverty as they have pledged to do. (Mr Brown said greenhouse gas emissions will now fall by 80 per cent, rather than 60 per cent, by 2050. Woo-hoo! Hooray! Yipee!)
  7. a new independent commissioner to represent the rights of victims of crime
  8. plans to offer free internet access to poorer families

Got this far?

Where is he going to find the money?

Does he think we are stupid? Or worse, is he stupid?

Nick "Tax Cut" Clegg still has my vote.

I wonder what Cowardly Cameron will say at the Brum Con-Con this weekend. Will he witter on about Compassionate Conservatism and sharing the proceeds of the Credit Crunch to cheers and standing ovations from the attending CaMoronians?

Do bears defecate in woods?

Tuesday, 23 September 2008

Homespun wisdom on the Credit Crunch?

Much of the Credit Crunch seems analogous to the time when I fell over in the street.

Losing my balance while walking down the street, I was determined to stop myself from falling over. I struggled desperately to regain it, zigging and zagging, straining and flailing, nearly bumping into other pedestrians in my efforts to stay upright. In the end I still fell over anyway and ripped the knee of my new jeans.

My humiliation would have been less spectacular and rather shortened had I just accepted the inevitable.

Could this analogy be useful to central bankers thinking it is still a good idea to throw good money after bad?

Senator Jim Bunning, Republican:

"This massive bailout is not the solution, it is financial socialism, and it is un-American."

Billionaire investor Warren Buffett, called the market turmoil “an economic Pearl Harbor."

Monday, 22 September 2008

The British National Sport of Whingeing

I have been taken to ask by for suggesting that workmen and women whinge, and suspected of misogyny, illiberalism and goodness knows what else. Perhaps I should just have said that all poms whinge and are known in Australasia as "whingeing Poms". This is undeniable, thankfully.

"Australia is where you go when you’ve made a mess of everything. That’s why the 1.3m Brits who live there are known as whingeing Poms. Because they’re all failures.

Another popular destination is Spain, which is home these days to 761,000 Brits. Are they all brain surgeons? Inventors? Did Sir Christopher Cockerell invent the hovercraft and then move to Puerto Banus? No. Spain is where you go when you’ve sold your taxi."

For the rest of Jeremy Clarkson's piece on why it is pointless even to leave the country (expat existence is not all it's cracked out to be, apparently), go to:

"Repeal ALL anti-discrimination legislation and end this race for Greater Victimhood!" or "Why I am thinking of voting Lib-Dem"

Gad, all these race discrimination actions brought by disgruntled Asian officers who didn't get their promotion!

One wonders if the police have time to catch any criminals, their time at work being mostly taken up by fretting about being racially discriminated against or being racially discriminatory towards one another.

Perhaps the reason why Ali Dezai didn't get his promotion despite getting top marks for all his exams was because his employers knew he would be a trouble-maker.

This was of course proven prescient in the light of his subsequent actions.

Perhaps the Met have every reason not to hire anyone who is not IC1, because of their higher statistical probability of suing for racial discrimination, which is disruptive to the workplace as well as socially-divisive.

It is very rare for anyone IC1 to sue for race discrimination. Sex discrimination, yes, but virtually all who sue employers claiming discrimination are women and wogs (if such a playful alliteration is still allowed). Is this (and the fact that they have a tendency to get pregnant even when unmarried, and use their sick children as an excuse to skive off work) not a compelling reason not to hire these groups of people?

Why, I might be hunted down and shot by the PC police just for suggesting this, but I will say it anyway.

I have no doubt that British society would be more cohesive and less litigious if all anti-discrimination legislation were repealed.

In its old Tyndalite days, the BNP were unashamed about their desire to repeal all anti-discrimination legislation. Now they seem to have pulled back from this, perhaps because they see the potential of claiming Greater Victimhood than the non-1C1s after decades of oppression suffered by them from the PC-liberal elite.

It is a great shame really, if British nationalism merely identifies itself with this modern manifestation of the slave mentality, that of Victimhood and Blaming Others - a womannish and proletarian trait.

I had once thought those who supported the BNP - however much they blamed the wrong people for their ills - had the courage of their convictions to brave being treated as social pariahs in the service of a nationalist ideal. This ideal was something to do with a peasant and instinctive antipathy towards PC liberalism and the concomitant desire to introduce more traditional policies favouring the family, as well as the condign punishment of criminals, or so I had thought.

Now, however, it does appear that all is lost. British nationalism is represented by an all-white cry for Greater Victimhood. If they have nothing more constructive to offer the electorate other than Greater Grievance, Greater Victimhood and the bribing of non-whites to go home at £50K per person, then they will fail in even these dubious objectives.

If this once-great country should be run by anyone, it should be by The Great and The Good, confident of their Greatness and Goodness.

Were it to be run by the ones who wish to represent The Least and the Worst, proud of the smallness of their minds and their tendency to vice and illegitimacy, what sort of standard would it set for the rest of the nation? Or indeed a loose federation of England, Scotland and Wales? (The BNP favour divisive devolution and an English Parliament, don't you know.)

At least the Lib-Dems (or should they now be called the Libertarian-Democrats?) are saying something populist that is also sensible. Nick Clegg should be congratulated for this bold repositioning of his party by offering us the option of lower taxes, unlike the contemptible and cowardly Conservatives.

Were he to dare go further on this Libertarian theme and propose the repeal of all anti-discrimination legislation, and take the UK out of the EU, he would have more than my vote. Let us hope he is power-hungry enough to take this risk.

For any Lib-Dems reading this, may I point out that there is nothing inherently anti-Liberal or undemocratic about repealing laws that favour litigious employees who should never have been hired.

Thursday, 18 September 2008

Why Political Correctness is Evil

In an online interview with FrontPage magazine, Dalrymple (whose writings can be found at explained:

In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When
people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious
lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they
lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies* is to
co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One's
standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of
emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political
correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.

* for example,

Saturday, 13 September 2008

Sarah Palin and Barack Obama - two more reasons why America is doomed

McCain has chosen as his running mate a woman unable to pass on the traditional values that the Republican Party stands for, which I assume to include marriage. Sarah Palin's daughter is expecting and unmarried, yet this is somehow brushed aside as an irrelevance, even by Obama.

It's OK, Obama, to lay into Palin even though your mother was a much-divorced woman. It is the ones who don't even bother getting married before having babies who should be pelted with rotten vegetables and fruit.

Or perhaps it is those who still think it is OK to have a child outside wedlock who deserve the pillory and stocks, like you Obama?

Why is marriage desirable in the context of bringing up children?

If you are a Darwinian, you would understand.

When we have sex, it is for the pleasure of it. Babies are not an erotic goal - in fact the very opposite.

The male has to compete to win the hand of the female most likely to be a good mother and wife, ie the one most beautiful, sexy, clever, kind and fertile that he can hope to win.

It falls to the female to select the male most capable of protecting and providing and assume the role of being the prize of the male most worthy winner. To give of herself cheaply and too freely is to negate the role that is naturally hers. When enough females forget this important duty, the result is decline and disaster for the society they inhabit.

Women are prizes to be won by men. Whores are those who would give themselves to the highest bidder. The more astute reader will have noticed that there is not that much difference between being a whore and how a woman who desires marriage might behave - she would accept the most advantageous terms on offer.

Marriage is but prostitution approved by law but burdened with more onerous terms for both parties.

Prostitution is a series of short-term transactions while a marriage is a long-term relationship only capable of being achieved by a couple who have a minimum of mutual-respect and affection.

It is therefore those females who give of their favours too freely or cheaply and then give birth to children outside wedlock who are the ones who bring about eventual societal collapse, when enough generations have been economically, genetically and intellectually impoverished.

To be a "slut" is therefore for more harmful to society than to be a "whore".

Unplanned pregnancy and casual sex, ie the worship of Sexual Freedom, and the welfare state which protects these sluts from the consequences of failing to play by the rules of partner and natural selection, in the light of the above thesis, is therefore the main cause of Western decline.

Some blame foreigners, some blame the Jews, others the Muslims, but I blame the misuse of our sex organs as a thinking organ and the apathy of men in the face of totalitarian feminism, as well as those who refuse to condemn the perpetuation of illegitimacy as immoral and wicked - people such as Sarah Palin and her supporters and Obama, who thought he would sit on the fence in case it offended the rank and file of illegitimates supporting him.

"Why America is doomed" or "When we break our own rules"

Quote from R E McMaster, a commodities and currency trader -

... with the US financial system “broke”, to quote former Fed Head Paul
Volcker, we should expect more chaos, with the very high risk of either more
severe recessions and/or higher inflations (maybe both simultaneously) in more
violent whipsaws. …What I also ponder is unfavorable climate resulting in poor
global food production (Russia coming back online agriculturally to the
contrary, a huge boost). Lack of food is a great historical reason for war. And
what concerns me most is the real and present danger of war by 2012-2017, with
Iran and Pakistan boiling, plus terrorists increasing their technological
capabilities. All it would take is one low yield back pack nuclear device being
exploded once in one city somewhere in the world, and the world as we know it
would change, black swan style, over night. And Machiavellian style, governments
have historically used war as distractions from the economic distress they have
often created. …Americans might have a reality check. The USA has become a
secular humanistic socialist empire, far removed from the mindset and philosophy of their freedom-loving, tax hating Founding Fathers.

In fact, if you read the writings of the US Constitutional Founding Fathers, that kind of thinking today would land them on the Homeland Security terrorist watch list. (The US Founding Fathers saw themselves as freedom fighters, but the British saw them as terrorists. Point of view matters. Wonder how the Taliban views things? …It is next to impossible to defeat militarily a masculine-based culture on their own home ground where people are willing to fight and die for what they believe in, unless genocide is the chosen military option. The Russians knew and exercised this military option in Afghanistan. And Russia today is looking for payback for the humiliation it suffered when the USSR fell.) …

I find it useful to look at organizations impersonally. As author M. Scott Peck wrote, bureaucrats, wherever you find them, of whatever stripe, are “people of the lie.” They are like the nameless, faceless, plastic, white storm troopers commanded by Darth Vader in the movie, Star Wars. Bureaucracies have ever been the greatest collective manifestation of human evil. And the older the bureaucracy, the more vertical layers it has, the richer it is, the more people it employs, the more widely dispersed its tentacles are internationally and geographically, the more corrupt, inhumane, immoral, self-interested, perpetuating and evil it becomes – any bureaucracy. Bureaucracies are the antithesis of freedom. They tell people what to do, when to do it, how to do it, for how much and keeps them dependent, childlike, slave-like in the bureaucratic collective. So the more bureaucratic the organizational structure, the more layers, the more slave-like (as opposed to free individual, horizontal, covenantal and contractual arrangements).

Singapore and Switzerland enjoy the most civil of civil governments.
Singapore’s government, on a tiny island, is like the local government of most
US cities. And as long as you do what used to be considered the normal, decent
and right thing in Singapore, you have freedom there. Jimmy Rogers has relocated
to Singapore. And Switzerland, although increasingly corrupted by US pressure,
well, the Germans, Italians and French who comprise the bulk of Switzerland have
such different languages, cultures and outlooks on things, and a modest
underlying distrust for each other along with a modicum of dislike, that a loose
knit Swiss federation government, where power lies in local cantons, serves
their purposes just fine. Oh yes, the Swiss so favored the US Constitution at
the time that they basically adopted it and still pretty much apply it the way the US Founding Fathers intended, not the way it has been effectively discarded by the US empire today.

Female of the Species by Joanna Murray-Smith

A review of it can be found at

of this funny, sharp, relevant and wise satire on feminism as an ideology.

Echoing the life voyages of the likes of Germaine Greer and Fay Weldon, the stages of feminist thought can be summarised as follows:

Women must free themselves from the yoke of man-made restrictions - Phase 1

Women must become like men to free themselves, ie have careers and sexual freedom, earn money, and no longer be in the home - Phase 2

Women should therefore abandon their traditional path of fulfilment and empowerment, ie marriage and motherhood - Phase 3

Women must acknowledge their failure to become happier after abandoning marriage and motherhood, or acknowledge that marriage, motherhood and career is the privilege of that rare being, the highly motivated and talented time-manageress - Phase 4

Women should re-embrace their traditional roles and once again become happy and fulfilled feminine beings -Phase 5

Men, those who are protectors and providers, should be treated with respect and tenderness because they too are vulnerable creatures saddled with the additional burden of not being allowed to show their vulnerability - Phase 6

The feminist and post-feminist journey is analogous to going right round the earth and finding the very thing you sought, in your own backyard. It was nevertheless a journey that had to be made.

The moral to be extracted from all this?

Pleasing oneself is an exercise that always remains tantalisingly unfinished.

Therefore pleasing others and fulfilling the roles that we naturally find ourselves in is the path most likely to lead to lasting happiness.

The love of others obtained through the sacrifice of our selfish pleasures is a greater measure of our worth than our ability to continue enjoying selfish pleasures.

Duty, though dull, is therefore in our long-term self-interest and most likely to result in self-fulfilment and long-term happiness - a happy paradox!

The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas

A synopsis of the plot of the film I saw may be found at

- another exploitative Holocaust potboiler.

It seems to be some sort of Nazi morality tale. The morals I have managed to discern are as follows:

  1. You shouldn't exterminate people, even if you regard them as subhuman vermin.
  2. If you must do this sort of thing, you shouldn't bring your children along to your place of work if you happen to be Kommandant of a death camp (David Thewlis).
  3. If you are an Aryan child about to befriend a Jewish child, do not on any account dress up as an inmate of the camp and dig your way into it to help him find his missing father, or you will end up being exterminated with the Jews.
  4. If you are a Jewish child, on no account allow your well-meaning Aryan friend to dig into your death camp in his desire to help you find your father, thus causing him to lose his life, thus confirming the Nazi view that the Jews are a treacherous people on whom compassion is wasted.

The dialogue between the two boys is mawkish and utterly unconvincing.

David Thewlis was all right I suppose, but David Hayman, who played the Jewish doctor forced to be waiter, gardener and kitchen help in a Nazi household did manage to move me to tears. If it were not a complete work of fiction, written by a children's writer, there might have been some point to it. That it is being touted as a work suitable for children is astonishing, for it could be said to fan the flames of anti-Semitism. (See 4th moral.) This emotionally exploitative story is as morally empty as it is fictitious and improbable.

Thursday, 11 September 2008

Malaysian Chinese citizens described as "squatters" by indigenous Malay politician

Rising Racial Tension in Malaysia

Adverse possession - a legal concept that can turn a squatter into an owner - should be borne in mind by the maker of that statement that the Malaysian Chinese citizen is but a mere squatter in Malaysia.

It is unfortunate that such petulant statements have been made, but resentment of the more economically canny Chinese by the laid-back Malay has echoes in Britain today, where the white indigenous working classes feel they have the bread taken out of their mouths by foreign workers prepared to work harder for less.

The truth is that Malaysia is now swamped by other immigrants - from Indonesia and Bangladesh - and most Malaysian employers declare their preference for foreign labour, because the locals are lazy, do sickies, are full of excuses and don't know the meaning of hard work ...

In truth even the Malays are not as indigenous as the genuine aborigines of Malaysia, ie the Dayaks, Kadazans, Negritos, and have in their turn exploited and sidelined the previous occupiers.

A comment has been made by a Malay that the Chinese are the Jews of Asia and just as unpopular.

The truth is no one likes the class swot. The desire and temptation to tear up his books and smash his glasses is never far away.

Let us hope that Anwar, smeared as a sodomite by the ruling party, who has nevertheless managed the feat of keeping together a coalition of

(a) liberal Malays keen to give up their race privileges because they find their protected status unedifying and unnecessary,

(b) an Islamic Party that says it does not really want an Islamic state and

(c) non-Muslim non-Malays of liberal-socialistic bent,

will keep the racial lid from boiling over, perhaps by gently pointing out to the offended Chinese the existence of squatters' rights.