The SPLC crows:

Kevin MacDonald, the California State University, Long Beach, psychology professor who wrote an anti-Semitic trilogy explaining why he thinks Jews are bad for white societies, has been removed from instructing certain classes. Gerry Riposa, dean of the College of Liberal Arts, told Hatewatch that MacDonald would no longer be teaching lower-level courses, including a required course for psych majors specializing in child development.

But Riposa says that’s not so. He insists that MacDonald’s lower-level classes have had “really low enrollments,” which is unacceptable given the rapid growth in Long Beach’s student body. Riposa said he has ordered MacDonald to come up with “some other courses” than the three or four he has taught for years because he “needs to do something else.”

Whatever works.

Whatever works?

How Darwinian of the SPLC!

Here’s my response sent to the SPLC’s editors:

The Occidental Quarterly recently published an interesting article titled: “Niche Theory, Population Transfer, and The Origin of the Anti-Semitic Cycle” by Richard Faussette that describes the origin of anti-Jewish sentiment. While his description is convincing, it is not adequate to explain the degree and pervasiveness of anti-Jewish sentiment. For that I believe a concept from evolutionary medicine needs to be applied called “horizontal transmission” and “optimal virulence”. Essentially, evolutionary medicine describes how symbiosis vs virulence evolves in parasites depending on the selection pressures. This concept can also be applied to selection pressures applied to Jews over hundreds of generations to yield a good explanation for the high degree and pervasiveness of anti-Jewish sentiment.

The Sea Stallion from Glendalough, the longship Havhingsten fra Glendalough, is a faithful reconstruction of the Skuldelev 2 wreck ...

... found on the bottom of Roskilde Fjord, Norway in 1962.

Chemical analysis of the timbers revealed that Skuldelev 2 - one of five such wrecks in preservation today - was built not in any Viking homeland, but in Glendalough, Dublin in 1042.  The Irish capital had been founded by Viking settlers two centuries earlier, and had become a flourishing trading centre with a large Scandinavian population and close ties to the rest of the Viking world.

The Skuldelev 2 is believed to have been sunk in Roskilde Fjord after thirty years of service.

In December 2004, Her Majesty Queen Margrethe launched the project to build her replica in Denmark.  Only traditional methods would be used, even down to cutting the timbers solely with the Viking axe.  She would be thirty metres long and with a beam of almost four metres.  Her sail would be linen and cover 118 square metres.  Her crew complement would be a maximum eighty oarsmen and women.

The summation of that noble effort was her long voyage, begun on June 30th this year, “back” to Dublin.  She left Roskilde on 30th Jun, stopping in Kirkwall in Orkney and Kyleakin in Skye, and Lagavulin Bay on 30th July.  She arrived triumphantly in Dublin on 14th August.

And how did the political world react to this stirring event?  Need you ask?

The Danish government has expressed regret over the Viking invasion of Ireland more than 1,000 years ago.

The apologetic gesture came as a replica Norse warrior ship arrived in Dublin after a voyage across the North Sea.

Danish Culture Minister Brian Mikkelson said his country was proud of the ship, Havhingsten (The Sea Stallion).

“But we are not proud of the damages to the people of Ireland that followed in the footsteps of the Vikings,” he said.

“But the warmth and friendliness with which you greet us today and the Viking ship show us that, luckily, it has all been forgiven.”

Surely, not quite the Viking spirit.

In the Iowa Straw Poll, the exit poll conducted by “Vote in Sunshine” was at odds with the official vote count by an enormous margin (37% vs 9%) of over 300% difference in the case of Ron Paul.  Detractors of the exit poll claim this difference was caused by the exit pollsters being obvious Paul supporters—driving away supporters of other candidates from signing their exit poll affidavits.  But here is a front and back view of a supposedly representative shirt worn by an Iowa Straw Poll exit pollster (click through for higher resolution detail):

Now clearly these images are not consistent with the theory put forth by the detractors that the exit pollsters were presenting an image so biased toward Ron Paul that it resulted in a 300% increase in exit poll results for him.  The over 300% disparity can hardly be explained by whatever subtle signals might have been put off by the exit pollsters.  It might be explained by two other things, however:

1) Actual fraud during the closed count of votes during which a voting machine “malfunctioned”.

2) Misreporting by the “Vote in Sunshine” folks so gross that we must assume something was going on akin to the exit pollsters chanting Ron Paul slogans while wearing shirts not represented by the above “neutral shirts”—misreporting by “Vote in Sunshine” so gross that it is most reasonably construed as fraud.

I don’t know who is lying here but either way when liars show up around issues of such stupendous significance—rationality sides with further questions being asked.

UPDATE: We now have 3 more straw polls, two of which strongly corroborate the Vote in Sunshine exit poll (Alabama State and a county fair in New Hampshire) nd and one of which weakly corroborates the Iowa results (Illinois State).

READ MORE...

Courtesy of Tivo and the New Media, Max Tower brings you this graphic example (there are many others but few quite so graphic) of the kind of thing that could turn the Ron Paul supporters militant enough that they become violent:

Max Tower comments:

The actual results of the event are here:
1. Mitt Romney - 4516 votes, 31%
2. Mike Huckabee - 2587 votes, 18.1%
3. Sam Brownback - 2192 votes, 15.3%
4. Tom Tancredo - 1961 votes, 13.7%
5. Ron Paul - 1305 votes, 9.1%
6. Tommy Thompson - 1,009 votes, 7.3%
7. Fred Thompson - 231 votes
8. Rudy Giuliani - 183 votes
9. Duncan Hunter - 174 votes
10. John McCain - 101 votes
11. John Cox - 41 votes

How can they leave out Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul? They showed 1-3, and 6-8. This is just irresponsible news reporting. America might as well give up on getting a real candidate elected. The only ones that will be covered by the media are those who have sold out. Actually, don’t give up. Get angry. Get angry and tell all your friends to vote for Ron Paul.

I missed this, in my experience, almost unprecedentedly honest piece of writing by Leo McKinstry when it appeared in the Daily Express on 9th August.  He still blames “the left” for our travail, of course - we haven’t reached the stage yet where a wee little journalist can break with that.  But it still merits attention.

I have praised McKinstry’s honesty before, here and here.  He knows that of which he complains, having worked as an aid for Harriet Harman (who is now Labour Deputy Leader).

The body of the Express article details various instances of discrimination against English applicants to jobs in the state machinery.  We know the story well, and I won’t paste it all out here.  I will, though, treat you to McKinstry’s bold top ‘n tail for that narrative, which could have been written by any of us.

I also reproduce the entire comments thread as it stands this morning.  A good deal of it is probably contributed by BNP members, who are ever-ready to make their point.  But anyone who has scratched the polite surface of conversation with the kind of person who might read the Express knows the sturdy soul underneath.  These are the sentiments he holds.  I am surprised, frankly, that the Express moderators permitted such sound expressions of opinion.  Perhaps they moderate according to the tone set by the article.  Perhaps the Express has decided to counter falling newspaper readership by breaking with the zeitgeist and ministering to its readers’ true opinion.

Erm ... no, that would be too much to hope for.

HOW THE GOVERNMENT HAS DECLARED WAR ON WHITE ENGLISH PEOPLE

Thursday August 9, 2007
By Leo McKinstry

England is in the middle of a profoundly disturbing social experiment. For the first time in a mature democracy, a Government is waging a campaign of aggressive discrimination against its indigenous population.? ?

In the name of cultural diversity, Labour attacks anything that smacks of Englishness.?The mainstream public are treated with contempt, their rights ignored, their history trashed.?In their own land, the English are being turned into second-class citizens.

This trend was highlighted this week by the case of Abigail Howarth, a bright teenager who applied for a training position with the Environment Agency in East Anglia but was turned down because she was too white and English.?The post, which carries a £13,000 grant, was open only to ethnic minorities, including the Scots, Welsh and Irish.

Such social engineering was justified by the Agency on the grounds that minorities were under-represented in its workforce, the parrot cry used by bureaucrats throughout the public sector to justify bias against the English.

... It is a bitter irony that the Labour?Government,?which works?itself?into?such?a synthetic rage over racial prejudice, should practise overt discrimination on an epic scale.?The remorseless focus on supporting minorities has led to a perverted ideology of anti-white racism.?

Almost?every?interaction with any public service now leads to a detailed analysis of one’s ethnic status.?A vast race equality industry has been built up, filled with overpaid paper shufflers, consultants and advisers with little to do except invent new grievances.??

There is an air of the Maoist permanent revolution about their activities. Since immigration now runs at probably one million?people?a?year,?the make-up of society is changing dramatically.?So, in this climate of endless demographic upheaval, the race relations brigade will always be able to invent more work for itself.

Yet anti-English discrimination undermines the central plank of the propaganda for mass?immigration.?We?are constantly told we need vast influxes of foreigners to boost our economy and fill vacancies but unem­ployment levels in immigrant communities are so high and skills so lacking that we need to reserve parts of our economy for them.

So if we have to spend a fortune on training schemes, why are we inviting hundreds of thousands of arrivals from the Third?World?and?Eastern Europe here every year?

Economics have little to do with the issue.?The Left in Britain have seized on mass immigration and multiculturalism as a battering ram to destroy?the?society?they despise.?They once sought to change our country through economic?revolution.?That failed with the Winter of Discontent and the downfall of communism.?But demographic change through migration has proved far more damaging.

George Orwell once wrote: “England is perhaps the only great country whose intellec­tuals are ashamed of their own nationality.?In Left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution.”

That is now precisely the mentality that predominates within the machinery of the British state. And our country is dying as a result.

READ MORE...

It would be interesting to hear the opinions of our commentariat of the Global Elite Wiki that is being constructed here.  By definition, the complex and arcane web spun by the power elite is something the little people, the nobodies can know very little about.  But this appears at first glance to be a solid, sober and extremely comprehensive attempt to rectify that.  Have a nose around.  See what you think.

The results of the Iowa Straw Poll are in and the question is whether Ron Paul’s overwhelming Internet popularity translated into not just boots on the ground but effective boots on the ground.

Various humorous (herd of angry cats) and sometimes derogatory (escaped mental institution inmates) epithets have been hurled at Paul’s supporters.  What they really are is a not very well-regulated nascent militia—in the early stages of formation at that—with all of the attendant organizational problems.  But this is not yet a violent revolution—it is still politics where the bottom line is not territory but votes captured.  Given this standard, it is important to look at the most recent “revolution” in America’s conservative movement for comparison:  The Reagan Revolution. 

In 1979, Ronald Reagan garnered 11% of the vote in the Iowa Straw Poll and went on to win not only the Republican nomination but the Presidency whereas Paul garnered 9% in 2007—so they are comparable with Paul at a slight disadvantage in the comparison.

A few things stand out about Reagan in 1979 vs Paul in 2007:
* Reagan was considered by many to be a “favorite son” of Iowa, having started his career in Iowa at the dominant radio station there.
* Paul was one of the earliest supporters of Regan in that Presidential race.
* Reagan’s conservatism was not considered as radical as is Paul’s conservatism.
* Reagan ran a more conventional campaign with more time spent in Iowa than Paul.  For Paul his Iowa Straw Poll campaign was almost entirely a reaction to the rather sudden appearance of Internet support groups subsequent to the May debate with the corresponding boots on the ground showing up late.

What this says is that Paul’s conservative revolution is credible (despite an Old Media blackout that will continue) if during the next few months Paul’s committed boots-on-the-ground Internet militia and Paul’s own commanders learn to better coordinate their mutual resources.

I consider the author of this video to be a grassroots video genius:

This video used to be the second short in the stream to which I linked in my prior post about New Media, but for some reason someone replaced it with a rap video.

READ MORE...