Majorityrights Central > Category: Cultural Marxism

I was not entirely surprised to see that Mr Cool of the equality game, the diversity gang-banger Trevor Phillips, has been making those smooth, smooth moves again.  He is reported in the Telegraph telling us that we must rewrite the history of Britain to reflect the roles of other cultures.

Parts of British history need to be rewritten to emphasise the roles played by other races and religions like Muslims, a prominent race relations campaigner has said.

Trevor Philips, the chairman of the new Commission for Equalities and Human Rights, said the history of Britain did not properly reflect the contribution of other cultures.

Rewriting the country’s history would demonstrate to Britons in the 21st century how other groups part from Anglo Saxons shaped the nation.

He told a fringe meeting at the Labour conference: “We may need to revisit our national story – we want to rewrite that story to tell the whole story.”

The rewriting should start with the story of how the English fleet led by Sir Francis Drake fought off the Spanish Armada in 1588, he said.

The important role played by the Muslim Turks, who delayed the sailing of the Spanish fleet so that the English ships were better prepared, had been airbrushed out of the story however.

Mr Phillips said: “When we talk about the Armada, it was the Turks who saved us because they held up the Armada after a request from Elizabeth I.

“Let’s rewrite that, so we have an ideal that brings us together so that it can bind us together in stormy times ahead in the next century.”

Mr Phillips, the former chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, declined to offer any other examples of parts of British history that should be rewritten.

So it wuz the wogs wot done it.  Well I never!

READ MORE...

Three day’s ago London’s mayor Ken Livingstone was all a-blubber at his own noblesse oblige.

“You can look across there to see the institutions that still have the benefit of the wealth they created out of slavery,” Livingstone said, pointing through a huge window at the skyscrapers cluttering London’s financial district.

“As mayor, I offer an apology on behalf of London and its institutions for their role in the transatlantic slave trade.”

Livingstone has been an inveterate gesture politician all his career.  To most observers the motivation has looked very like spite.  But I think it does him a disservice to belittle his sincerity in that way.  On Thursday the stirrings in his heart and the tears in his eyes were very likely real.  Tellingly, he informed his audience that:-

“It was the racial murder of not just those who were transported but generations of enslaved African men, women and children.  To justify this murder and torture black people had to be declared inferior or not human.  We live with the consequences today.”

We certainly do, and it’s the replacement of Europe’s people with, among others, the least educationally and civilisationally competent of all the human races.

Livingstone, however, can only relate sympathetically to SSAs - and other foreigners.  Kin-wise, he has his head on the wrong way round.  The “institutions that still have the benefit of the wealth they created out of slavery” and, by extension, all unapologetic Englishmen are irredeemably racist, and just irredeemable, because blacks remain locked in the basement of Western life.  Human bio-diversity does not exist, indeed is yet more racism.  Absolute equality, therefore, is the only political ambition to which Livingstone can aspire.  And for him that means the eager sharing of white living space, for the extinction of racism has no meaning otherwise.  It is a gesture again, no doubt, but one demanded of us ... one of obeisance, and the most final and absolute relinquishment of those high qualities of being which define us, and which in action this neurotic man perceives as the mark of Cain.

Thus, in a speech in 2005 in support of siting a statue of his demi-god, Nelson Mandela, in Trafalgar Square, he said:-

“Nelson Mandela would signify the peaceful transition to a multiracial and multicultural world and I would be proud to have that in London,”

Of course, the “peaceful transition” he lauds is our acquiesecence in our own racial murder.  There can be few more eloquent or more remorseless examples than Ken Livingstone of the Freudian theory of projection.

READ MORE...

If you want to know what happens when normal, healthy people are sanctioned by their government to defend their way of life against leftist hate-groups, go to Moscow:-

Police arrested Russian gay rights activists and British campaigner Peter Tatchell today as they attempted to stage a banned demonstration in Moscow.

Hundreds of ultra-nationalists hurled abuse and attacked the few dozen gay protestors who had gathered outside the office of the Mayor of Moscow, Yuri Luzhkov, to mark the 14th anniversary of Russia’s decriminalisation of homosexuality.

Mr Tatchell was punched in the head in front of police and journalists and another protestor was left bleeding from his face after an assault. Riot police eventually moved in to separate the two groups and arrested several far-right protestors.

Nikolai Alexeyev, the organiser of the gay march, and several other protestors, including a German MP, were arrested as they attempted to present a letter to the Mayor’s office signed by scores of European parliamentarians supporting their right to demonstrate.

READ MORE...

by GT

One of the little blessings of civil rights and the fight against evil white racism has been an explosion in serial killings.

Note why Marxists and feminists include in their databases serial murderers from as long ago, in some cases as far back as 1800.  They are interested in inflating the number of white males relative, of course, to Africans.  Real life, however, is not that easy to ignore.

An Anatomy of Serial Murder

Fox 2004

Notwithstanding these cautions, Figure 3.1 displays counts of serial killers, partnerships, and teams each year since the beginning of the 20th century, using the midpoint of a killer’s career as a reference point.  That is, for example, Theodore Bundy, whose murders spanned the years 1974 to 1978, having a career midpoint of 1976, is counted in the 1970s. Unabomber Theodore Kaczynski, who was at large from 1978 to 1996, had a career midpoint of 1987 and thus is included among killers of the 1980s, even though he operated both before and after this decade.

The trend is relatively flat for the first half of the century, hovering around 10 serial killers per decade. The pattern emerging in the second half of the century is radically different. In the 1960s, the number of killers or killing teams reached nearly 40.  Remarkably, over the course of the next two decades, the 1970s and 1980s, the number of killers or partnerships quadrupled, surpassing the 150 mark in the 1980s.

Although rapid growth into the 1980s clearly suggests significant shifts in the prevalence of serial murder, these results are vulnerable, at least in part, to alternative explanations related to changes in data accessibility and quality of record keeping.  As interest in serial murder increased, so did the likelihood that case histories would be published in some fashion.  Additionally, as law enforcement became better equipped to identify linkages between victims slain by the same killer or killers, the detection of serial crimes and criminals became more likely.  Notwithstanding these concerns, the trend in serial killings into the 1980s is quite consistent with a more general rise in violent crime, including homicide, as well as in resident population, strongly suggesting that the rise in serial murder is more than just an artifact of increased reporting and improved detection.

READ MORE...

My thanks to Michael R for the latest on the long-running story of the gay sheep of Oregon:-

Science told: hands off gay sheep

Experiments that claim to ‘cure’ homosexual rams spark anger

SCIENTISTS are conducting experiments to change the sexuality of “gay” sheep in a programme that critics fear could pave the way for breeding out homosexuality in humans.

The technique being developed by American researchers adjusts the hormonal balance in the brains of homosexual rams so that they are more inclined to mate with ewes.

It raises the prospect that pregnant women could one day be offered a treatment to reduce or eliminate the chance that their offspring will be homosexual. Experts say that, in theory, the “straightening” procedure on humans could be as simple as a hormone supplement for mothers-to-be, worn on the skin like an anti-smoking nicotine patch.

So far so good.  But then the Times reports the reactions from a famous lesbian who won Wimbledon once or twice, a Professor of bioethics who seems, to judge from his blog, terribly interested in homosexuality (and doesn’t much like Iran), Peter Tatchell of the former Bermondsey bedsit tendency, and a spokesperson - or possibly spokes-sheep, it isn’t clear which - from animal rights group, PETA.

For some reason none of these people are advocates of parental rights.  Ovine, yes.  Homosexual, certainly.  Parents?  Children?  Not a chance.

It puts me in mind of a similar “debate” some years ago about a newly discovered and effective means to restore hearing function to certain deaf children.  The outrage from professional deafness advocates was very similar to the story here.  A hitherto undiscovered richness in deaf culture was noisily evoked.  We the public were asked to believe that something profoundly rewarding in signed interaction, something that weighed more heavily in the treasures of the personal life than the very voices of those one loves, would be lost to these children if the treatment was provided.  It was obviously untrue.  But then as now, nobody wanted to point out the reason for the deception: that it is unbearable for the disadvantaged, having fought perhaps all their lives to erect some semblance of self-respect and equal worth, to have this exposed as nothing by the simple mechanism of parental choice.  So unbearable is it, the antis will willingly deny new generations of children a normal life.

For such delusion to attend disability is no cause for our political satisfaction.  It is human farce upon human tragedy.  But it is also not really the point because rights of free speech and free association are taken from the majority not to raise others to some leftist utopia of joyous equality, but to deprive the majority of its healthy and natural cultural hegemony.  There is absolutely no morality in this, and no reason why we should hesitate to prick the “rights” balloon out of some newly learned Marxist sensibility.

Tonight Channel 4 broadcast their dishonest and/or technically ignorant DNAPrint stratagem, 100% English.  I am in no doubt that the purpose of the programme was to soften us up for what will be a sustained assault on our Englishness.  It is culture war of the most blatant kind.

Anyone wishing to post a response to the programme can do so by joining the Channel 4 Forum here.  It would be as well to read JW’s post on (willful) misunderstandings of DNAPrint technology.  It dates from 1st August last year and it’s here.

JW’s snapshot of the argument, which I have lifted with his consent from correspondence between us, runs as follows:-

... the tests are statistical estimates of affililiation/similarity to different ancestral pools, and cannot be directly interpreted to mean that any person actually has X % ancestry from source Y.

One could point out that “English” was not a category of the test, and if the English ethny is in fact an ancient ancestral mix of different genepools this does not in any way invalidate the concept of Englishness, English genetic interests, or someone being of unmixed English stock.  Or the obvious distinctions between an Englishman and a Negro….

By analog, the Bullmastiff is a mix of Mastiff and Bulldog; it is now an established, stable breed, and one can speak of a dog being a “purebred Bullmastiff.”

The fact that a Bullmastiff is composed of two other breeds no more means that a Pekingnese can be a Bullmastiff than the fact that the English may be a blend means that a Negro is somehow “English.”

If Orange is a mix of Yellow and Red, this does not logically imply that Orange does not exist, or that Purple can somehow be a shade of Orange.

Earlier today the BBC was already working on a softening-up process of its own.  The subject matter was English patriotism.  But lurking clumsily in the background was a non-prescriptive and, therefore, non-English English identity:-

... now the England football team is a key part of a new “progressive patriotism”, helping to reclaim the St George’s Cross from racists and provide the English people, regardless of their colour, with something to unite behind.

That is the view of musician and author Billy Bragg, whose book, The Progressive Patriot - A Search for Belonging, looks at what it means to be English, British or patriotic in modern society.

“The English people, regardless of colour,” they say.  So that’s it, then, for the genuine English.  They no longer have any right to their own name (a gripe I recognise has no meaning to the liberal mind since it considers all identity to be descriptive - without which consideration liberalism’s great lodestar of the unfettered will has no meaning).

READ MORE...

Spain could soon become the first country in the world to give chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and other great apes some of the fundamental rights granted to human beings under a law being proposed by members of the ruling Socialist coalition.

The law would eliminate the concept of “ownership” for great apes, instead placing them under the “moral guardianship” of the state ...

From the Telegraph

OK, it’s a wonderfully loopy idea which every sane person will immediately dismiss, probably through tears of laughter.  But those of us with political memories that go back to the 1980’s have heard such objection before.  We laughed at political correctness.  It didn’t stop the ratchet turning:-

EMPLOYEES who send lewd jokes around the office by e-mail or text message could land their companies with unlimited compensation payments for sexual harassment.

New advice from the Equal Opportunities Commission states that even when an offensive e-mail is not sent directly to a colleague, but is circulated to others in the same workplace, it can constitute harassment. So too can viewing pornographic images on a computer screen next to a colleague who finds them offensive.

Unacceptable e-mail behaviour ranges from the more crude practice of circulating e-mails or text messages with pornographic attachments to the more insidious one of sending e-mails laden with sexual innuendo or commenting on a colleague’s appearance.

Jenny Watson, chairwoman of the commission, said that electronic sexual harassment was “a significant new issue” for employers. “At every stage, as technology has the potential to improve lives, it has the potential to have a negative impact in other ways. It would be quite possible for an offensive e-mail to be part of an environment that constituted sexual harassment,” she said.

Now, Jenny Watson is a good example of the left at work.  Professionally, she is a human rights “advisor”, which is no profession that I understand.  It seems to mean that she is a specialist in finding cosy, taxpayer-funded sinecures where government abuts industry.  But it is her directorship of the Lichstenstein-based Global Partners & Associates that really communicates the meaning of these engagements.

GPA appears from its website to be a normal company training organisation, publishing guides and videos, and running courses for managers and sales staff.  But the description on Jenny Watson’s bio states that GPA is, in fact, “an organisation which promotes democracy and human rights world wide: working on human rights projects in the UK, clients comprise public bodies and non-governmental organisations.”  Note that the claim isn’t that GPA promotes efficiency or success.  It promotes democracy and human rights.  If that’s what it does - and I assume Jenny wrote the bio herself - the GPA website goes to a lot of trouble to avoid saying this, presumably because its few fee-paying private sector customers would baulk at a Gramscian in their midst.

There are hundreds of Jenny Watsons in every Western country.  Step by step they coerce society towards the progressive paradise.  They are the foot soldiers, winning the war on the ground.  It’s not their purpose to dream up the next great stride towards freedom, be it for blacks in America or women at work or queers anywhere or trannies or even apes.  It’s not their purpose to get elected, and to listen to the Marxist dreamers and then, in time, unfailingly incorporate their dreams into law.  But the Jenny Watsons do enter into the revolutionary process next.  Theirs is the job of injecting the many strains of egalitarian virus into our commercial and cultural bloodstream.  They do it every day of their working lives.  It is their mission, their love, and we actually have to pay for the privilege.

I suppose that in our magically equal future some thoughtless knuckle-dragger who “harrasses” a female at work might be able to claim legal dispensation under the Monkey Law.  But short of that I’m afraid we are in trouble, and it’s no longer good enough to laugh at anything our political persecutors propose.

This log at the BNP’s website will tell you all you need to know about the hatred which our masters harbour for England and the true heart of the English.  Quite disgusting.