Majorityrights Central > Category: Journalism

Nick Carter is everything the soon-to-be disappearing English majority of Leicester do not need in the editor of their local newspaper.  In his hands the Leicester Mercury is the messenger of multiculturalism and anti-racism.  Nick is profoundly dedicated to both and, as such, is the indefatigable enemy of majority interests.

He regards multiculturalism as the “basis on which our society is built” - a somewhat questionable claim, it must be said.  Perhaps he can plead in mitigation that he does not belong to that waning ethnic majority and doesn’t know any better.  Or perhaps he does and he does, but he is ideologically incapable of averring to the real foundations of England and the real people who built them.

He is no historian, in all fairness – and one should strive to retain one’s sense of fairness even with people like this, in fact especially with people like this.  He claims: “This country has been multi-cultural for a very long time.”  I am not absolutely sure when multiculturalism became our official religion.  I must admit, I thought it was rather recently.  But if Nick says it was long, long ago when Leicester’s housing estates emerged from the primordial mists and the first, of course, always vibrant immigrants drove out the neanderthals and built a mosque … well, he must be right.

READ MORE...

This Telegraph article, Labour’s immigration policy? Lots more of it by Alasdair Palmer, is indicative of a problem affecting all political commentary on the topic of immigration: nobody will say the real reason why mass immigration is happening.

READ MORE...

Leader writers, those callow redbrick graddies who cut their not-yet-yellow journalist’s teeth on a few hundred words of thunderous pointlessness every day, are not normally the controversial sort.  They can’t afford to be.  Careers ahead of them, editors to impress, ghastly blunders to avoid ... you know how it is.  But one of this morning’s two offerings by the Telegraph’s leader writer ever so slightly cracked the mould.

His or, just possibly, her first paragraph was a standard Telegraph rant at the dishonesty of the BBC.  Read it many a time.  But then our young hopeful warmed to his (or just possibly her) task, displaying a knowledge of Genghis Khan’s liberal social policy that, as they say, rocked: When he conquered a new tribe, it was his custom to liquidate the aristocracy and assimilate the lower orders: “providing opportunities for the many and not the few”, as it were.  Where modern socialists are sometimes accused of cutting high achievers down to size, Genghis did this literally, ordering the execution of all Tatars over a certain height.  He was a great believer in state power, replacing Mongolia’s clan system with a rudimentary bureaucracy.  He was even an early decimaliser, organising his forces in units of 10.

It was a laugh, that was all.  But I stopped smiling and started thinking when I read the penultimate sentence: Above all, he was a supra-nationalist, deliberately mingling subject populations to destroy their sense of national identity.

Suddenly, forbidden knowledge hove into view.  You won’t hear Michael Howard say anything like that about Labour - never mind Genghis - on his shirt-sleeved tour of the marginals.  You won’t hear him roaring at Blair & Co for the utterly deliberate damage being done to the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish - but most especially the English.  You won’t hear any Tory rail at Labour’s transnationalism, or rip apart its blank slate racial egalitarianism.  It’s not part of the electoral discourse.  It’s too complicated.  Too dangerous.  Not polite.  And, accordingly, our heroic young journalist finishes off his (or just possibly her) effort blandly and therefore safely career-wise, “Step forward Genghis Khan, father of European integration.”  But that was a clear after-thought of no significance.  The other words, those ones about the deliberate mingling of populations to destroy national identity, were burnt onto the page.

It’s good to know that this sort of seminal critique of liberalism is received “out there”, beyond the internet badlands of right-wing cyber-bastards like us.  It’s good to know that it’s not completely self-censored as the left dictates, too.  Perhaps it’s all worth saying again ... and again.

... what “no-go area” generally means is that you can vote for Tweedle-left or Tweedle-right but all the great questions have been settled by transnational elites sufficiently insulated from your tedious parochial griping.

Mark Steyn, writing in today’s Telegraph.

Steyn is an interesting case.  He earns what must, in journalist’s terms be a substantial crust by extending both ends of the political commentator’s art.  On the one hand, he skits across the stolid affairs of nations and the works of powerful men with a delicious irreverence and lightness of touch.  Where serious political analysis should be are the acid truths and improper musings of a one-time student rag writer grown more skilled but also more comfortable and rounder of girth with age.  Thus:-

I’ve no reason to disbelieve the crop of polls showing Labour and Conservatives neck and neck, but, unlike American polling, where distinctions between “registered” and “likely” voters are carefully studied, none of us has any clear idea which unloved party will do the least effective job at further depressing the turnout of whatever unenthusiastic faction of its dwindling base is most unresistant to being cajoled to the polls.

On the other hand, as a beneficiary perhaps of the double detachment of being a foreign national and a Jew, he eschews the familiar petty battles of British political life in favour, amazingly, of the things that actually interest us.  So we get transnationalism over the cornflakes - the rude but oft neglected reminder that our votes don’t mean a damned thing.  If we did not know before, we are plainly told now:-

The Guardian complained yesterday about Michael Howard’s assertion that “for too many years immigration has been a no-go area for public debate”, and I sort of agree with them. It’s not that it’s a “no-go area for public debate”, but that you can debate it all you want and in the end nothing happens.

And:-

... the so-called public “indifference” to the royal wedding is part of a deeper fatalism toward British institutions and the British state. The Windsors have been wily adaptors to the evolving mood of their kingdom, but with the kingdom evolving itself clear out of business, who needs a king?

In the free and scandalously irresponsible cyber-world of blogging this sort of hard truth-speak is meat and drink.  We don’t get nearly enough of it in a mainstream that assesses the cares of the public no higher than a morbid fascination with bed-blocking in the NHS.  Where can one find a few more Mark Steyns?