Majorityrights Central > Category: Free Speech

Along the road to the reclamation of homeland lies the reclamation of free-thinking and free speech.  A few days ago The Times put up a discussion topic titled, Do migrants make us or break us?  Despite the fact that this is, in mainstream terms, precisely the gateway question - the beginning of understanding - there have only been 24 comments at the time of posting this entry.  Compare that to the 205 that The Guardian musters for a piece titled The toxic Powell legacy, written by a sub-con named Sunder Katwala.

OK, the very fact that immigration is now dominating all the serious rags is a great advance on the conspiracy of silence of five years ago.  But really ... 24 comments on what is, after all, the choice between a prosperity predicated, supposedly, on racial egalitarianism and the Darwinian meaning of life itself!  When the circulation of The Times is 700,000 and The Guardian 375,000!

Well, I decided to conduct a (necessarily very small) experiment on The Times’ thread.  Since the headline question is the precurser to a proper political understanding of race and modernity, I’ve stretched it a little by submitting to The Times’ moderator a few rather more cogent questions.  Here they are:-

Questions to sleepers.

1) Is good business a good enough reason for English children to lose their birthright to England?

2) Is it fair or moral of the self-hating left and self-interested racial minorities to scream “racist” at those who seek the actual survival of the English people?

3) Do you believe that the English have a moral right to survive?

4) Do you understand that territory is the guarantor of genetic continuity?  Do you believe that the English have a moral right to assert their ownership of England?

5) If, in fact, the demographic trajectory for us is already one of continuing local displacement, national dispossession and genetic deracination, do you think it is better to repatriate immigrants wholesale or to acquiesce in an inevitable if long and slow extinction?

6) Will the hyper-moral return of tolerance mean anything if we do not survive?

7) If you are English, do you love your people?  Is there anything outside of your immediate family which you love more?

Now, these are the sort of questions that have twice got me banned at The Guardian, once as Guessedworker, once just the other day as this guy John Standing.  Will they survive the cut at The Times?  Has freedom of expression recovered to that point, or is it only permissable for mainstreamers to ask the questions?

And, of course, if the comment is published, will any readers answer?  Will they be Englishmen or opportunistic cryptos?

We shall, as the blind man said, see.

Many thanks to Geoff Beck for bringing to our attention the following important letter in The Times:-

Racial IQ research

IN CLEAR violation of the tradition of academic freedom, the vice-chancellor of Leeds University has suspended Dr Frank Ellis and instituted disciplinary proceedings against him for presenting the research, published in peer-reviewed academic journals and scholarly books which demonstrates that blacks have, on average, lower IQ scores and poorer academic achievement than do whites (Profile, last week). Much solid research also makes it more likely than not that there is a genetic contribution to this (and other) group IQ differences. Dr Ellis, then, has done no more than restate what has been said for half century by a number of eminent psychologists and anthropologists at leading universities.

These include the late John Baker (Oxford), Hans Eysenck (London), Philip Vernon (London), Richard Herrnstein (Harvard), and Henry Garrett (Columbia).

A number of behavioural scientists, including ourselves, have reached the same conclusion. Others have put much of this on the record. Many more agree but have been reluctant to put this on the record for fear of the kind of intimidation that Dr Ellis is receiving from the University of Leeds.

There is an important and legitimate debate going on on intelligence and genetics, as there is on climate change and foreign policy. It is a sad day when British universities muzzle their academic staff and threaten them with dismissal for taking part in one of these controversies.

Professor Richard Lynn
University of Ulster
Professor Philippe Rushton
University of Western Ontario
Canada
Professor Arthur Jensen
University of California
Dr Charles Murray
American Enterprise Institute
Washington
Christopher Brand
University of Edinburgh
(1970-97)
Professor Helmuth Nyborg
Aarhus University, Denmark
Professor Linda Gottfredson
University of Delaware
Professor (Retired) Donald Templer
Alliant International University (1978-2005), Fresno, California

Yesterday, the Agora blog posted the considered judgement of UN Special Rapporteur Doudou Diéne on the cartoon wars.  The Danes, it seems, are racists and xenophobes.

To get away with saying this sort of thing Doudou must be - or consider himself to be - one of the global great and the good.  No stain of racism, no smear of xenophobia attaches to his international personna.  Or his Armani.

He is not, however, a very deep Doudou.  His UN report, incredibly vital and influential though it doubtless is, has the title, “Situation des populations musulmanes et arabes dans diverses régions du monde - Rapport soumis par le Rapporteur spécial sur les formes contemporaines de racisme, de discrimination raciale, de xénophobie et de l’intolérance qui y est associée.”  Pity it’s not more pithy.  Some of it has been translated into English by Agora and can be read here, if you have run out of sleeping pills.

I can’t work myself up into much of a lather of indignation at this sort of thing.  It’s a rigged game.  Can one really expect the UN to pronounce that the Danish constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech, must be upheld?  Or that it’s high time Muslims around the world learned to accept mild criticism with humility and a willingness to learn why they are perceived negatively?

Pigs, of course, might fly.  But never in the Dar al-Islam.  And never in the United Nations headquarters in New York.

Have you heard the one about the blonde girl who gave birth to twins?  She searched the whole town looking for the other Dad.

OK, it’s not the best joke in the world.  It’s not even the best blond girl joke in the world (in English: Essex girl).  But is it the most offensive?  Or even just a teeny bit offensive?  Sufficient, say, for the purposes of a press complaint under the race hate code?

Well, Vigrid, a bunch of Norwegian guys with a certain political affiliation - Godwin’s Law notwithstanding - may be about to find out.

READ MORE...

Today sees the beginning of the trial at Leeds Crown Court of Nick Griffin and Mark Collett.  The charge against them is of using words and conduct likely to incite racial hatred, and it refers to remarks made to private meetings in West Yorkshire two years ago.

I firmly believe that the Home Office has this prosecution completely, utterly wrong.  Yes, the verdict of the court is always a matter of deepest uncertainty and nobody can be confident that the two defendants will be acquitted.  The liberal leanings of the judiciary are such that one must question whether a fair trial can be guaranteed at all.

But, for once, the effect of the trial on public opinion is surely NOT guaranteed for the Home Office.  The left is so given to bellowing the “Racist! Fascist!” bugaboo everytime someone strays from the prescribed party line, it doesn’t seem ever to have considered whether this ploy might one day fail.  That day is today.  The English public is no longer much impressed by the lavish use of special Marxist epithets.  These are steadily losing their power to shock, and just becoming rather predictable and, therefore, boring.  Coincidentally - or perhaps not - New Labour is losing its power to command political affection.  Public sympathy is all at sea.

This development, if I am not mistaken, pressages the possibility that people might actually begin to assess an argument on its merits.  In the Griffin/Collett case that means that the Great Unwashed, who hate a bully and love an underdog, mightn’t swing so mechanically behind the ruling class.  For never was the identity of the bully and the underdog more clear.  In strategic-political terms there is much for Griffin to gain in the coming days.

One worry for him will be a determinedly disinterested or just plain disingenuous MSM, which is why such an energetic effort has been made by his Party to set-up ad hoc communication channels.  Their reach beyond the Party faithful might not count for much in MSM terms.  But it is the best they can do, and much more than has been done in any previous case in which the BNP has been on trial.  It is a sign of a clear collective conscience, too.

The blogosphere ought to take a keen interest in what, after all, could turn out to be the biggest legal-political fiasco since Profumo.  We shall be looking to see how our friends and enemies perform as well as commenting on proceedings ourselves.

I hope Nick and Mark will be restored to their respective families with all speed, cleared in name and bouyed by a great legal, moral and political victory.  If not, the electoral outcome should still be favourable for their Party.  But a Win-Win is clearly just.

A year ago today Theo Van Gogh was murdered in an Amsterdam street by Mohammed Bouyeri - a Dutch-born Morrocan or, as Theo would have had it, a goat-fucker.

Incorrigibly difficult, no doubt, and rude and brave, Theo was a right-wing advocate of liberty and an implacable enemy of censorship.  For this he was killed and for this, too, he is admired - unquestionably more now than ever during his lifetime.  Admiration for Theo has been expressed all across the political spectrum in Holland because, quite simply, there has to be room for people like him in Dutch society, of all societies.  What people liked about the fabled Dutch tolerance was precisely that.  In stark contrast, Bouyeri’s actions are not simply an extreme expression of intolerance but are intolerable to the point of being anti-Dutch.

The exceptions to this view come from those Theo most opposed, meaning anybody connected to the Dutch government and “the establishment”, and those he gleefully offended, meaning Jews and Moslems and the professional anti-white lobby.

From the first moments after Bouyeri struck, people understood that something big had happened.  It is still happening, and Theo’s memory is an inextricable part of that.

Here are a few photographs that, I hope, catch the spirit of what, in death, Theo - with all his addiction to controversy, all his irritable and irritating outspokenness - has come to mean to the Dutch.

READ MORE...

Yesterday Reuters and AP broke the story of two Singaporean Chinese bloggers jailed for posting racist remarks about minority Malays.

Benjamin Koh, 27, was sentenced to a month’s imprisonment while Nicholas Lim, 25, was fined and jailed for a day, both for posting comments on their personal websites, or blogs, attacking the city-state’s mostly-Muslim ethnic Malay community.

The two faced up to three years jail or fines of up to S$5,000 for violating laws under Singapore’s Sedition Act by promoting ill-will and hostility between the city-state’s ethnic communities with their June Internet posts.

READ MORE...

Today’s Sunday Telegraph reports upon the corruption race politics have wrought to London’s Metropolitan Police Service.

Scotland Yard failed to investigate fully an allegation by a white woman of a rape involving an officer from an ethnic minority because of concerns that it would be accused of racism ...

At an industrial tribunal last week, the Commissioner Sir Ian Blair faced accusations of “politically correct meddling” in a disciplinary case involving white officers. He was said to have been keen to make examples of the officers, who faced charges of racist behaviour, even though an inquiry had already cleared them.

That charge is overshadowed by the latest unprecedented revelation, however, which demonstrates the extraordinary lengths to which the Metropolitan Police is prepared to go to accommodate officers from ethnic minorities.

The rape complaint, which the force has attempted to keep secret for four years, was considered so sensitive that Sir Ian, then Deputy Commissioner, oversaw the inquiry himself ...

The failure to question the officer because of the sensitivity over his race was confirmed by several sources. One said: “Scotland Yard was treading on eggshells with this and the feeling at the top level was that even putting the rape to this man would be too much.”

The woman, who cannot be identified, said: “Due process has not been served. This man, who is now a serving officer, was party to my rape.”

Scotland Yard said that the allegation had been “thoroughly investigated”. While awaiting their response, a man identifying himself as the officer’s solicitor called the offices of The Sunday Telegraph in a state of agitation. Attempts to contact him subsequently failed, but Scotland Yard admitted that after this newspaper’s inquiry, it contacted the officer. “We have a duty of care to him,” said a spokesman, who declined to comment on the duty of care to the alleged rape victim.

This repellant situation is a child of The Lawrence Enquiry.  Met Commissioner Sir Ian Blair denies he is only there to drive political correctness into his white officers.  But who believes that?  Not the un-named (alleged) victim in this case.  Not many of Sir Ian’s white officers, I suspect.

But there are at least some green shoots in the actions of the Sunday Telegraph, specifically its reversion to normal reporting standards.  This is a mighty step forward from its, of course, intentional silence on the racist murder of young Kriss Donald in Glasgow by a group of local Muslims.

There is still a gap to close here.  Justice is not “justice for the racially oppressed”, even if Sir Ian thinks so, and should never be reported as such.