First of all, the law of the jungle—of Malthus—trumps everything else at some point so let’s get that out of the way.  What we’re doing in talking about Human Rights is setting up the rules of a game we play while our technologists yet have enough autonomy and let us treat Malthusian limits as “merely theoretic”.  At some point we may finally remove from technologists the autonomy and wealth necessary to push back the boundaries of Malthus but that day has not yet arrived in all its horror.

Secondly, something that is bringing that day of horror upon us faster all the time is the Nanny State theocracy—a religion favoring non-European minorities wherever Europeans are in the majority (and even where they are in the minority) thereby refusing to recognize the value of preserving the European culture that brought about technological civilization.  Indeed the theocracy hates it and is acting to destroy the European foundation of technological civilization by importing more r-strategic populations to replace population losses due to k-strategy among the creators.  So we may not have much longer to play the “human rights” game.  Malthus may get us soon.  That makes it urgent that “human rights” be redefined in such a way as to push back the Malthusian day of reckoning lest the entire game become moot.

So for contrasting analysis I’m including two alternative proposals for “A Universal Declaration of Human Rights”—one “allodial” and the other currently used by the UN to slowly destroy the territorial foundation of Europeans hence those that have demonstrated their historic capability to expand the limits to growth and delay the day of reckoning with Malthus.

READ MORE...

Apparently, black-on-black gun crime in “High Street UK” cannot be represented by brave, free-thinking political cartoonist, Garland.  With what sense of self-deceit and pointlessness did he sit down at his desk to sketch today’s offering in the Telegraph?

The prosecution asked for and has been rewarded with a five year sentence for Ernst Zundel, at the end of his trial in Mannheim on 14 counts of incitement.

Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel was sentenced to five years in prison by a German court Thursday.

It’s the maximum sentence the far-right activist could have received for his conviction on 14 counts of incitement. Denying the Holocaust is a crime in Germany.

The decision was cheered by Jewish groups including the Canadian Jewish Congress.

“I think that they’ve given a strong message ... to the world, that I believe will bring a tremendous amount of comfort to Holocaust survivors,” said Bernie Farber, chief executive officer of the CJC.

“I think a lot of us can take a very deep breath and move on to other things—other than thinking of Ernst Zundel anymore.”

... Prosecutor Andreas Grossmann suggested Zundel was a “political con man.”

“You might as well argue that the sun rises in the west,” Grossmann said. “But you cannot change that the Holocaust has been proven.”

One hoped with the early release of David Irving from his cell in Austria that the nadir has been reached.  Apparently not.  It is very sad.  I admire these brave men such as Zundel, Germar Rudolf, Robert Faurisson.  I do not know whether they are right in all they claim.  I do know that state oppression is a crude wheel on which to break these beautiful, difficult birds, and is to be rejected and resisted by all who call themselves decent and fair-minded men.

The global machinery of the Holocaust will probably not turn for long without some Don Quixote somewhere determining to drive a lance through the mill-race.  It will happen, eventually.

I like my cats.  I am protective of them even though they may harbor nasty brain degenerating parasites like toxoplasmosis.  That’s why I take them to the vet despite their protestations.  I don’t want to have to kill them.  I like them.  I like my cats.

Now, there are lots and lots of people running around pretending to be humans who are actually pretty much incapable of using their human neuroanatomy in their political relations.  I’m thinking specifically of the folks I have previously referred to as “The Church Ladies of Political Correctness” or “The Church Ladies of Holocaustianity”.  One might also call them the Nanny Theocrats.  Some of them are men but basically they are stuck in a parental mode toward people who really don’t want to be treated as children—other adults for just one of the more obvious examples. 

Now I don’t hate these people until they start their parental posturing.  All mammals have these parental circuits and they are quite endearing in the appropriate context.  However, even though I don’t really hate them, I do want to fix them—sort of the way I would take my cats to the vet and have them dewormed or something.  My cats object to this, and it is quite understandable that they object.  I, a human, am, after all, imposing my will upon them, as animals.  Likewise the potential humans who have lost their humanity—rather mammals stuck in a particular mode of mammalian behavior—object as I, a human, would impose my will upon them, as animals and fix them.  I really don’t want to have to put them in cages or euthanize them but there is this problem:  Many of them have control of the means by which they might themselves be fixed. 

I mean think about it for a second:

Imagine the vets’ offices were suddenly occupied and taken over by hyperintelligent cats infected with toxoplasmosis.  Moreover, they somehow had the police department trained to think it was their duty to uphold “the law” to protect their occupancy of the vet’s office and to imprison all cat owners who would so much as think “hurtful” or even “hateful” thoughts about putting their cats in a cat transporter box to carry to one of those horrible places where they stick needles in poor defenseless kittens.  If they were intelligent enough they might occupy positions in academia, media and government to the point that it might become necessary to kill the poor defenseless kitty cats along with the military industrial complex and perhaps civilization itself protecting their control of the treatment for toxoplasmosis.

During some portion of this commotion, some cat owners might lose sight of the fact that they like cats.  Some might even become “filled with hate” toward cats.  Too bad.  The cats should have stayed out of the positions of public trust and authority.

The BNP put up a short piece on its website yesterday about Mark Collett’s appearance at a BBC local radio debate on the wonders of multiculturalism in the city.  Without him, in truth, it wouldn’t have been much of a debate.  There were only a couple of rather weak dissenting voices besides his own - neither of them armed with much in the way of argument.

The format was a panel answering points made or, sometimes, questions raised by an invited audience.  Collett, who was born and educated in the city, was among the invitees - which is certainly progress for a party that is still formally denied a media platform.

The panel of wise multicultural elders consisted of:-

  * Wolde Selassie - Chair, Leicester African Caribbean Arts Forum and Leicester   Black History Season consortium
  * Prof Richard Bonney - formerly Professor of Modern History at the University of Leicester, now Emeritus Professor and Chairman of the Europe-Islamic Organization
  * Riyaz Laher - youth worker and teacher
  * Sir Peter Soulsby - Leicester South MP (Labour, naturally)

Collett was given a fair crack of the whip.  He spoke from his place in the audience on, I think, three occasions.  He is, of course, the BNP’s Head of Publicity, and the most striking aspect of his contribution was its careful avoidance of anything too controversial or shocking to the assembled black and brown folks and white ethno-suiciders.

You can listen to the whole debate here, though I found the rampant suicidalism on so very eager display too much for my taste.  The BBC, however, kindly acknowledged Collett’s unique appeal on the evening with some links to a post-debate conversation recorded with some young or, certainly, youngish Moslems.  The links are here, here and here.

It is disquieting to hear a senior BNP official apparently predicating Moslem integration on the wearing of the hijab rather than the full-face veil.  But this is politics, a game the BNP are learning how to play.  Winning trumps sincerity.

I guess he did at least bag the best line in the debating chamber, rounding off with the ringing declaration that the panel represented all manner of ethnicities, but none of them included the white native population.  The BNP alone represented them.

Following his excursion to the ‘pool last November, Tom Sunic is going back for another interview on the 16th February, 7.00pm local central USA time.  The topics will be the dangers of multiculturalism in the USA and ex-communist Yugoslavia, and his now imminent book, prefaced by Kevin MacDonald, Homo americanus: Child of the Postmodern Age.

I have to say that in its most eggregiously populist moments MR’s little audio adventure will never come within a country mile of the Political Cesspool.  Must be something in the water in Memphis, Tennessee.  But if you want to listen to Tom and you’re in Europe, you might need something a little stiffer than water to keep you company.  The show goes out at 2.00am Western European time.

In “The World Can Halt Bush’s Crimes By Dumping the Dollar”, Reagan-era Treasury official, Paul Craig Roberts, is basically posing the question I’ve posed here previously, but from another perspective.

So how does this play out in practice?

READ MORE...

We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations.  Three of these involved our own country.  Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world.  Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America’s leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.

Throughout America’s adventure in free government, such basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among peoples and among nations.

... Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry.  American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well.  But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment.  We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience.  The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government.  We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications.  Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.  The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.  We should take nothing for granted.  Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

The stark warning of Dwight D Eisenhower, contained in his farewell address of January 17, 1961.

You do have to follow the money.  If you follow the money here, it’s not so much that Halliburton wanted a war so they told Dick Cheney to go get one for them.  It wasn’t that.  But you do get a willingness to go to war.

Lt.Col Karen Kwiatkowski, US Dept of Defense (ret) and noted critic of the war in Iraq, quoted in the BBC documentary Why We Fight, broadcast on 23rd March, 2005.

The United States is moving closer to war with Iran by accusing the “highest levels” of the Iranian government of supplying sophisticated roadside bombs that have killed 170 US troops and wounded 620.

The allegations against Iran are similar in tone and credibility to those made four years ago by the US government about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction in order to justify the invasion of 2003.

The Indy’s front page lead today.

Below the fold is that BBC documentary in four parts, as it is packaged for YouTube.  Certainly it is beautifully produced, and duly received its professional encomia from Robert Redford’s friends.  But the BBC is a wholly left-leaning organisation and it shows.  By way of a health warning, be aware that the programme opens with a carefully cut and edited version of Ike’s farewell speech (in the opening quote to this post I have re-contextualised his words).  Of the integrity of the rest of the programme I won’t comment in any detail, save to say that the conclusions broadly agree with my understanding of how this wicked world works.

Bear in mind also that the saving grace of the programme-makers is their discontent.  As they make clear in their criticism of Congress they are from a tradition that is not at all the same as the political left.  On this we may find common cause.

READ MORE...