... in tears, as it happens.

As a result:-

A branch of one of the world’s biggest banks has been found guilty of racism after a senior member of staff told a colleague she would be voting for Robert Kilroy-Silk at the last general election because she said he promised to “get rid of the foreigners”.

The remark was overheard by another employee, who sued the bank, HSBC, for race discrimination. Ruby Schembri, 35, a Maltese national, reported the remark. This week an employment tribunal ruled the remark could be construed as racist and ordered HSBC and the supervisor to pay compensation.  The case is one of the first to find that a comment not directly made to another person can constitute racism.

This exciting, go-ahead development in the great fight for individual liberty means that criticism of immigration is steadily becoming impossible in the British workplace.  You may perhaps consider such an affront to grown-up living came about only through the wilfull exploitation of some pretty disingenuous behaviour, to whit:-

Ms Schembri added: “I found Debbie’s racist comment to be offensive and very hurtful.  I left the room and was on the counter.  I began to cry.”

But moral fibre has no place in the modern British courts.  And it sure can’t when self-professed race lawyers and victimology artists boast about “Fearless & Innovative Litigation” and about winning “the largest race claim in the history of the UK”, all via “affordable representation, whatever the actual cost to our firm”.

Oh for the days when an employer could turn around and say, “Look, sweetheart, if you can’t handle that you’d better find yourself somewhere else to work”.  This one, I should add, felt obliged to send the benighted Kilroy-Silk supporter to race awareness classes.

Of course, as an MRer I believe we should all be made fully aware of race.  But I doubt if that was quite the intention in this lady’s case.

Speaking recently to a Congressional representative about immigration policy, I tried to explain the problem in terms he could understand.  I related to him my own experience at the Hewlett-Packard E-Speak project, a project that absorbed $500M of risk capital from the founding company of Silicon Valley during the peak of the dot-con bubble.

READ MORE...

CNN and Fortune have gotten together to complain about the impoverishment of “our” society with the explosion of choice offered by the Internet, in an article titled “The extinction of mass culture”.  A few excerpts:

The advent of 300 channels and the Internet has fragmented audiences - and the explosion of choice has left us poorer

Do we lose something as a society if we have less in common? How do we define ourselves as Americans if we are not sharing the same culture impacts?

Yes, there is more information available to us than ever, but I don’t think we are better informed. Niche media will, inevitably, continue to weaken mass media.

Politics in America has become polarized for many reasons, but a big one is the fact that people can now filter the news and opinion they get to avoid exposure to ideas with which they disagree.

Mass culture provides intangible benefits, too. Big stars, hit TV shows and even commercials help knit a society together. Think of the feeling that comes a few times a year - the morning after the Super Bowl or the Oscars - when tens of millions of Americans share a common experience.

I think this article unintentionally pretty much explains the problem.  These guys are so self-absorbed due to unaccountable control over the culture that they can’t see that the real impoverishment occurred with the advent of mass media via fictive kinship.  Mass media fictive kinship created a false ethnicity within which it was possible to commit what the Geneva Convention defined as “genocide”, without anyone taking notice.  After all, if an entire race of people is utterly destroyed, and we still have “our mass culture”, then the loss is no more important than the loss of, say, a brand of dish-washing detergent.

I have been asked to provide the current prison contact address for Kevin Hughes.  Readers will know that he is the BNP member handed down a two and a half year custodial sentence for an argument in the street with an Iraqi asylum seeker.  No one was hurt.  But the judge at Worcester Crown Court saw his anti-racist duty clearly.

Kevin is a man of good character, a family man, a charitable worker and, of course, a loyal Englishman.  He is, it seems, finding that the long prison day goes by extremely slowly, and yet he has been denied newspapers and books by the authorities.

He is allowed to receive mail.  I am sure that not just fellow BNP members have written to him offering their support, but good people all around the world who know a judicial wrong when they see one.  Any MR reader who wishes to remind Kevin that he has not been forgotten may do so by writing here:-

Kevin Hughes
XB4290
HMP Featherstone
New Road
Featherstone
Wolverhampton
WV10 7PU

For correspondents within the UK a stamped-addressed envelope would be much appreciated, so he can reply.

Kevin now has his appeal papers drawn up.  There is good hope that his clearly inappropriate sentence will be reduced.  But his criminal record will, sadly, never be expunged.

Italy on penalties!  The only national side who have suffered more than England in the penalty shoot-out finally nails five in a row, and lifts the World Cup.  Not a great game.  In fact, if I say that England would not have been disgraced in this company you will know what I mean.  France the better side for the last seventy-five minutes.  But any moral claim that arises from that was thrown away by Zidane’s violent conduct and red card.  What’s the betting it was a racial slur that made him do it?  And if it was, will we hear about it?

Anyway, a team of Europeans has won the World Cup in Europe, and that’s not a bad result at all.

Everyone knows the game:  There are the rich guys, mainly land owners, who are eating the potential children of the young guys by selling out their jobs to foreigners.  They didn’t mean to eat those potential children—they just got greedy and now they’re standing with a knife and fork in their hands, blood running down their chin and a partially eaten—but not yet dead—victim trying to figure out whether to fight, flee or die.  In panic over realization, usually subconscious but nevertheless pressing for consciousness, of the monsters they have become the rich guys are increasingly intent on doing away with the young guys altogether via total disenfranchisement in favor of foreigners (and women) before they get their just deserts.  The young guys are dropping out of college and if they find anything to do they generally find crime or military duty.  Thus we see the development of a very critical measure of how much value young men place on ethnic enfranchisement by dividing white males graduating from college by the sum of white females plus nonwhites.  This gives us some idea of how motivated young white men have been historically by ethnic enfranchisement.  But there are others.  Let’s take for example the young man fighting Germany during WW II.  How motivated would he have been to give his life if he had been forced go to high school for a year in a typical US public school of today?  Indeed, how motivated would the men who built the railroads, opened the land to cultivation and built the most powerful industrial nation on earth have been if they knew it was all going to be given away to foreigners, gangstas, pseudo-libertarians and neocons?  We can rest assured that the US would not have been developed nearly as much as it was.  The young men of those generations would have been just as demotivated as the young men of today by such a vision of the future.  So the question arises exactly how much do the men who have profited from this sellout of heritage owe sacrifices of prior generations of young men and the demotivated young men of today for violating their sacred trust?  Is triple damages adequately punitive?  And what about criminal punishment?

Rebuking newspaper editors for various slurs is a valuable effort because it does make them confront their bias. Here is our response to the Publisher and the Editorial Page Editor of the San Jose Mercury News when they validated an op-ed piece labeling us with the Spanish-language term “Anglo.” This is offered to Majority Rights posters as a possible sample for such rebukes.

Note there is no crying game, no claim of hurt feelings. No passive-aggressive stuff here. No begging, no weeping. But it will have an impact over time because the argument will always appear on the Internet when the editors’ names are searched.

And rebuking the media masters about their hate speech is better than chattering about it among ourselves.

Stan

READ MORE...

For a while now I have been rolling the idea around in my thoughts that race is today, particularly in regards to marketing, what sex once was a couple of generations ago. It is a topic that is taboo, yes, but one that is so biologically unavoidable that it presents a huge untapped resource to those who are willing to broach public (or elite) opinion and use it for creative, commercial ends. My theory is that at some point someone will take the plunge, and if and when the coast looks clear for the more timid, many more will stamped in as well.

Recent developments suggest that companies may be close to the edge of taking the leap; at least one now has:

[N]ew billboard advert for Sony’s white PSP has caused consternation across the US videogaming community. The ad shows a white model dressed entirely in white threateningly grasping the face of a black model. Next to them are the words, “PlayStation Portable. White is coming”.

The ads were developed by agency TBWA, which seems to have a very high-risk outlook. From their site, they provide an view of their philosophy:

Disruption is a tool for change and an agent of growth: a working methodology and a life view philosophy.

The word is difficult, uncomfortable but “Disruption” is not destructive. It is creation. Disruption is a means of creating something dynamic to replace something that has become static.

Disruption is the art of asking better questions, challenging conventional wisdom and overturning assumptions and prejudices that get in the way of imagining new possibilities and visionary ideas.

...

Disruption is a system for people who hate systems. Similar to the concept of open-source software development, Disruption has evolved and matured as communities around the network use, adapt and reinvent Disruption tools for specific market or client needs.