Majorityrights Central > Category: Media

Today, in its campaign to present the negro Maclaren driver Lewis Hamilton as a national icon, the Telegraph finally came to the point.

... he is a hero to be emulated.

I demurred on the thread.  However, my brief if somewhat uncompromising comment was removed by the Telegraph moderators.

There are three fundamental reasons for admiring sportsmen. One is that they reflect some glory on one’s own people.

Hamilton is not English. I am, and I would prefer any Englishman, and indeed anyone of European lineage, to win anything before a Bantu, half or full.

The next reason for admiring a sportsman is that he or she has such a peerless talent, one is bound to applaud.

Hamilton has been silver-spoon fed by his Dad’s friend, Ron Dennis, since he climbed into a kart.  In F1 anyone can win in the best car - remember David Coulthard’s introduction to F1 in the all-conquering Williams.  Further, uniquely in Hamilton’s case, his team-mate is subtly disadvantaged and, last year, was outrageously regarded by Dennis himself as someone “we are racing against”.

So for now the peerless talent issue remains moot.

The third reason for admiring a sportsman is his or her moral nature.  All sport involves a tremendous struggle against the body, and it also offers a stage for the play of moral characteristics and the making of moral choices.  Men such as Michael Johnson, Bobby Charlton and Bobby Moore, Don Bradman and Garfield Sobers brought dignity or modesty or a purity of sporting passion that elevated them to the status of the genuine hero.

Michael Schumaker, in contrast, was a very great driver but morally he failed the test, and he was unloved in consequence.  The signs are that Hamilton will never be ranked among the heroic.

Finally, and unrelated to the admiration issue, I am very tired of the “Poster-Boy” element in the press’s treatment of Hamilton.  There is something political in it which I am bound to reject outright.  I don’t like having my views on race prescribed by the media, which is what most of the Hamilton kerfuffle is about.

Well, it was surely the second paragraph, and that too naked truth, “Bantu”, that did it.  The view that Lewis Hamilton is a negro living in the wrong country, like all negroes living in Europe, is problematic for a Judaised mind.  It cannot process the withholding of legitimacy from African populations in the ancient European homeland without experiencing a fit of the vapours.  The resulting censorship is only the latter-day ammonium carbonate for a correct-thinking MSM moderator.

In fact, over the last twenty months or so I have posted the simple thought that “Lewis Hamilton is not English” on a wide variety of MSM threads and even on the Autosport forums, almost always in response to journalists’ casual description of him as an “Englishman”.  Where my correction posted automatically it was almost always subsequently removed.  On the rest it never made an appearance at all.

There is something here that needs bringing out.  I know perfectly well that a claim that some rap artist in the news, or a black poet, is not actually one of the English people will sail through unremarked.  A white mother won’t make any - or enough - difference.  Nor should it.  Genetically, the English are a northern European people.  African admixture ends this.

But Hamilton is a media-created special case.  We have to believe the media story.  They want us to believe the story.  It is as if the arising of a potential black hero is too rare and, by its rarity, too precious to them to have the stark and uncompromising truth of his inalienable alienness pointed out.  And this, lest you failed to notice, is the racism of the Establishment.  This is the untrammelled desire to meddle in our sense of self, to engineer in us “higher feelings” and an end to racist ones.  The unspoken assumption that we are racist in this way, instead of merely human, and the sheer affrontery that these people have the right to alter us, is the endemic racism of the modern age.

I hope Hamilton fails to finish in tomorrow’s Brazilian GP.  But I fear that his car will be too good, and he will be able to coast around to finish fifth or higher and pick up the point he needs to win the championship.  Perhaps the boy can drive, I don’t know and don’t care.  I do know that we will see more ... much more ... of this media lionisation, all of it pure culture politics.

And that I am, indeed, bound to reject.

Here we go again.

From Reuters

Law enforcement arrested two men in Tennessee who had plans to rob a gun dealer to shoot Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and “as many non-Caucasians” as possible, an official said on Monday.

An official from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said police found the men in the Jackson, Tennessee area with a number of guns, including a sawed-off shotgun, in their car.

“They wanted to go to a place where they could shoot as many non-Caucasian as they could,” the official said, noting that the men first planned to rob a gun dealer. “They also had a plot to assassinate Sen. Obama.”

The Associated Press gets the numbers sorted out.  88 for neo-nazis.  14 for the future of white children.

And, always important, the words: skinhead ... white supremacist ...

In court records unsealed Monday in U.S. District Court in Jackson, Tenn., federal agents said they disrupted plans to rob a gun store and target a predominantly African-American high school in a murder spree that was to begin in Tennessee. Agents said the skinheads did not identify the school by name.

Jim Cavanaugh, special agent in charge of ATF’s Nashville field office, said the two men planned to kill 88 black people, including 14 by beheading.

... The men also sought to go on a national killing spree after the Tennessee murders, with Obama as its final target.

... The men, Daniel Cowart, 20, of Bells, Tenn., and Paul Schlesselman 18, of Helena-West Helena, Ark., are being held without bond. Agents seized a rifle, a sawed-off shotgun and three pistols from the men when they were arrested. Authorities alleged the two men were preparing to break into a gun shop to steal more.

... For the Obama plot, the legal documents show, Cowart and Schlesselman “planned to drive their vehicle as fast as they could toward Obama shooting at him from the windows.”

“Both individuals stated they would dress in all white tuxedos and wear top hats during the assassination attempt,” the court complaint states. “Both individuals further stated they knew they would and were willing to die during this attempt.”

Something I don’t think the assassination scare in August achieved - this one makes the lead story on both news services.  Drip, drip.

UPDATE 28.10.08

From the Telegraph:-

Barack Obama plotters revealed to be small-town outcasts who met on internet

Two white supremacists charged with plotting to kill Barack Obama have been revealed to be a pair of emotionally troubled young outcasts who found each other through the internet.

Daniel Coward, 20, of Bells, Tennessee, and Paul Schlesselman, 18, of Helena-West Helena, Arkansas, hatched a bizarre but disturbing plan to go on a racist “killing spree” with the Democratic presidential contender as its ultimate target, say prosecutors.

The pair wanted to kill “88 people and behead 14 African-Americans” before shooting Mr Obama from their car in a suicide mission while wearing white dinner jackets and top hats, according to court papers.

The pair were arrested on Friday in Tennessee for illegal possession of firearms, threats against a presidential candidate and conspiring to rob a gun store.

In the pair’s home towns,

local people painted them as odd, and even disturbed, individuals.

In Helena-West Helena, Schlesselman was described as a “troubled child” by Marty Riddell, a colleague of his adoptive father, Mark Schlesselman.

Miss Riddell said she once tried to offer Schlesselman a pet lizard but was warned by his family that “he would hurt it”.

In Bells, a conservative Bible Belt town in a traditional southern cotton growing region, local people said Cowart had been an attention-seeker at high school, once starting a bomb scare.

Although neighbours were shocked to hear of his involvement, several - including a man who worked for the sheriff’s department - said there were more skinheads in the area than local people realised.

Guns and religion are strong in Bells and most men are keen hunters, although Cowart had apparently not been one of them.

He was more likely to have been found in church, said neighbours who said Cowart had once done missionary work for one of them.

Dudley Johnson, a car technician who lives near the large white colonial-style house where Cowart lived with his grandparents, described Cowart as a “nice little fella who used to work at the grocery store”. He added: “I think this was a cry for attention.”

Mr Johnson admitted his own father had tried to raise him to be a racist but that insisted “racism is not a big problem here - we try hard to get along with black people”.

Al Overton, a local hunter dressed in their uniform of camouflage jacket and baseball cap, said his initial shock at news of the plot had given way to a realisation that “This is 2008”.

He had little time for the Illinois senator. “Omama - Obama - thinks he’ll take the guns away but the hunters are not going to let him do that,” he said.

Investigators have admitted there did not appear to be any formal assassination plan. A lawyer for Cowart said he was reviewing the charges against his client “as well as the facts and circumstances of his arrest”.

It also emerged that the Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish civil rights organisation, helped lead federal investigators and local police to the pair.

The ADL, which monitors white supremacist groups, discovered that Cowart was involved in the Supreme White Alliance, a racist skinhead group.

Mr Obama told the Pittsburgh television station KDKA he was unconcerned about his safety given his protection from “the best folks in the world - the Secret Service”.

He added: “You know, look, I think what’s been striking about this campaign is the degree to which these kind of hate groups have been marginalised.”

Not a majoritarian tale this time, but a personal one ...

Back in May I participated on the thread to what very quickly became a famous Guardian article: Margaret Hodge’s A message to my fellow immigrants.

This was the offering in which the erstwhile Labour Industry Minister agreed with the BNP’s long-standing and oft-dismissed plaint about council house allocation:-

We prioritise the needs of an individual migrant family over the entitlement others feel they have. So a recently arrived family with four or five children living in a damp and overcrowded, privately rented flat with the children suffering from asthma will usually get priority over a family with less housing need who have lived in the area for three generations and are stuck at home with the grandparents.

We should look at policies where the legitimate sense of entitlement felt by the indigenous family overrides the legitimate need demonstrated by the new migrants.

It was not a very useful or glorious thread debate from my point of view.  But in the course of it the following message greeted my attempt to re-post:-

This account has had its posting rights withdrawn. This may be because of a breach of our talk policy, or because you picked an unsuitable username. If you have any questions please contact .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

I was summarily banned.

My really very, very close friend, indeed political soulmate John Standing stood in for me as usual, and sent two e-mails to that address before a third elicited a reply.  Well, not much of a reply.  Just another e-mail address I could try.  A further three mails went unanswered, each requesting “a precise and referenced explanation of your withdrawal of my posting rights to CiF”, and asking “which specific words, phrases or comments precipitated your action, and what principles underlie it.”

I had been wondering whether the cause of my troubles was a remark I had made about the Guardian’s outing of BNP member and prima ballerina Simone Clarke:-

English interests have not been placed before the electorate since the end of WW2, except by minute, very poor but very brave parties who have been hated by the liberal Establishment and subjected to every kind of calumny and repression.

Simone Clarke is a case in point. Ian Cobain and Alan Rusbridger broke the law to out her, and neither has been prosecuted. Her hounding was a disgrace, and you should hang your head in shame that you don’t see that.

... The point being that Cobain - who is, I believe, a white Zimbabwean - had joined the BNP as an apparently willing helper and was given access to a computer holding the party membership list.  That list was subject to the Data Protection Act, and leaking data from it was, in my view, clearly a criminal act.  As far as I am aware the police have taken no action against the journalist involved, or his editor.  And this despite the fact that the Guardian had a second bite of the cherry with a follow-up by black journalist, Hugh Muir.

But this causal theory lost some of its lustre yesterday morning when I clicked on a Joseph Harker article alluringly titled Balancing the blogs.  It began:-

White men, are you all stupid? Before you accuse me of racism, or indeed sexism, let me say that I take the question from the book by Michael Moore, who is a white man (though probably not stupid; but is he alone?).

and continued ...

Some time ago I wrote saying that all white people are racist. I didn’t mean in-your-face, BNP-style racism, but the subtle, unthinking, subliminal kind. Now I think I was being too kind. There’s nothing subtle about many of the views expressed on our comment threads.

... if we want to have a sensible discussion about race, or racism, is it possible on a general-access website such as this? Or do we need to find a new corner of cyberspace, and boldly go where no stupid white man has gone before?

Clicking on this character’s name produced this page, with the intriguing information that “Joseph Harker is assistant comment editor of the Guardian.”

In my bones I know Harker -  if yesterday’s article is any guide, a racist and hater by any definition - must have pulled my posting rights.  I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if, beforehand, he also took up anonymity and blogged as one of my non-English interlocutors on the thread.

Now I know I will not be able to post as Guessedworker at the Guardian.  Harker will never relent.  Even if he wanted to, he is probably incapable of responding to my question about “which specific words, phrases or comments precipitated your action, and what principles underlie it.”  In any case, there is plainly no point in continuing the John Standing mails.  Nor in appealing to Harker’s boss.  She is Georgina Henry, and I don’t have much faith that she has attended enough assertiveness classes yet to handle her dusky assistant.

Cobain ... Muir ... Harker.  What an extremely unpleasant organisation Alan Rusbridger runs.

Hat-tip to Laban Tall for this sublime example of elite discomfiture, occasioned by the ruthless, knowledgeable Piers Morgan in an interview of Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger.  It was retailed in The Independent today.

PM: Do you assume that editing is a job for life?

AR: No, I assume that all careers must come to an end at some point.

PM: But Guardian editors, tend to have the professional lives of several elephants. What would it take to be fired?

AR: When you’re appointed, the only thing you are told is to edit the paper “as heretofore”.

PM: That seems suitably incomprehensible for The Guardian.

AR: I think it means that The Guardian is a liberal, progressive, intelligent, internationalist paper which operates to certain ethical standards. And that’s what I have to do. So if you betray that edict by backing UKIP in an election, for example, you would have to leave.

PM: I’m talking more about personal conduct. I read an interview in which you said that what mattered most between a paper and its staff and the readers was trust. Do you think you have to be as trustworthy privately as you are professionally?

AR: I think you have to be trustworthy in your professional life.

PM: Not personal life?

AR: [Silence for 10 seconds] I like to make a distinction between professional and private in everything we write about.

PM: But when David Blunkett admitted in his diaries that he couldn’t concentrate on the Iraq war dossier debate in Cabinet because he was in emotional turmoil over his affair, isn’t that where private and professional gets a little blurred?

AR: If that impacted on his life…

PM: A private or public matter?

AR: I wouldn’t, er… [pauses] go looking for this kind of thing.

PM: Really? Isn’t it a matter of public interest if the Home Secretary admits he couldn’t focus on a dossier that sanctions war because of the turmoil surrounding his affair?

AR: Well, I wouldn’t go looking into it, if that answers you.

PM: No, that wasn’t my question. I asked if it was a public matter or not. It strikes me that by his own admission, therefore, his private life is directly impacting on his public work.

AR: If that’s his own judgement…

PM: But The Guardian serialised his own book with that very admission. It doesn’t mean you read it, granted…

AR: It was 900 pages. I didn’t read it all.

PM: It amuses me when you “serious” editors claim you don’t do private-life stuff, because you do. You wait for the tabloids to do the work and then pile in, repeating the juicy bits while condemning the tabloid intrusion. If you feel that strongly about it, why repeat the original invasive material? Did you cover the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott’s dalliance with [his secretary] Tracey Temple?

We did in the end, yes.

PM: Why “in the end”?

AR: There isn’t a pat answer to that. There are very few of my broadsheet editor colleagues who, if someone came to them and said, “I’ve been shagging the Secretary of State for, er - I’m trying to think of a department that doesn’t exist - er, pensions and culture, are you interested?”, would say “yes”. None of us do that kind of stuff as original journalism. But, once stories are out, then if your job is to report what is going on in society at large then there comes a point when you can’t ignore them.

PM: I find that a totally fatuous argument. Either you believe that Prezza’s affair is in the public interest, or you don’t. If you think that the affair itself is not a public matter, the braver thing to do is not to report it all. The Independent used to have a policy of never reporting on the Royal Family, and I thought that was admirable and that it lacked the total hypocrisy of your position.

AR: It was brave, but in the end they looked stupid and stopped.

PM: If I gave you concrete evidence Charles and Camilla were splitting up, would you publish it?

AR: Yes, because that is about the relationship between future monarch and wife, the future King and Queen.

PM: And if I told you that Charles was leaving Camilla because he was having an affair with Victoria Beckham, would you publish that part of the story?

AR: Well, again, because marriage in monarchy is more part of the job, then it is more relevant; rather than the fictional minister I discussed earlier.

PM: Isn’t being Deputy Prime Minister a fairly important job?

AR: Yes, but the broad distinction that editors in my end of the market make is that what politicians do in private, consensually, is up to them.

PM: Literally, anything?

If it’s legal, yes.

PM: So if I showed you evidence of David Cameron snorting cocaine, you would publish that because it’s illegal, right?

AR: Yes, but I wouldn’t spend a lot of time going looking for it. I think illegal behaviour by a possible future prime minister is in the public interest.

PM: Don’t you think that Cameron should have been honest on whether he’d broken the law?

AR: I’d have been happier if he’d come out one way or another. But we all knew what he was saying by refusing to answer it.

PM: Did we?

AR: Didn’t we?

PM: Would you answer that question? Are you a public figure?

AR: Not really, no. I am accountable to the Scott Trust [owner of the Guardian Media Group], and I make The Guardian’s journalism more publicly accountable than any other editor in this country.

PM: I only ask, because I remember The Guardian treating me as a public figure when I encountered various scrapes as an editor. Do you think that your own life would stand up to much ethical scrutiny?

AR: In terms of the journalism?

PM: No, I mean privately. Do you consider that infidelity is always a private matter for public figures, for instance?

AR: I think what people do legally and consensually is private.

PM: If I asked you if you had ever taken illegal drugs, would you feel compelled to answer?

AR: No, I’d say to you to mind your own business.

PM: What’s your current salary?

AR: It’s, er, about £350,000.

PM: What bonus did you receive last year?

AR: About £170,000, which was a way of addressing my pension.

PM: That means that you earned £520,000 last year alone. That’s more than the editor of The Sun by a long way.

AR: I’ll talk to you off the record about this, but not on the record.

PM: Why? In The Guardian, you never stop banging on about fat cats. Do you think that your readers would be pleased to hear that you earned £520,000 last year? Are you worth it?

AR: That’s for others to say.

PM: Wouldn’t it be more Guardian-like, more socialist, to take a bit less and spread the pot around a bit? We have this quaint idea that you guys are into that “all men are equal” nonsense, but you’re not really, are you? You seem a lot more “equal” than others on your paper.

AR: Er… [silence].

PM: Do you ever get awkward moments when your bonus gets published? Do you wince and think, “Oh dear, Polly Toynbee’s not going to like this one.”

AR: Er… [silence].

PM: Or is Polly raking in so much herself that she wouldn’t mind?

AR: Er… [silence].

PM: Are you embarrassed by it?

AR: No. I didn’t ask for the money. And I do declare it, too.

PM: But if you earned £520,000 last year, then that must make you a multimillionaire.

AR: You say I’m a millionaire?

PM: You must be - unless you’re giving it all away to charity…

AR: Er…

PM: What’s your house worth?

AR: I don’t want to talk about these aspects of my life.

PM: You think it’s all private?

AR: I do really, yes.

PM: Did you think that about Peter Mandelson’s house? I mean, you broke that story.

AR: I, er… it was a story about an elected politician.

PM: And you’re not as accountable. You just reserve the right to expose his private life.

AR: We all make distinctions about this kind of thing. The line between private and public is a fine one, and you’ve taken up most of the interview with it.

PM: Well, only because you seem so embarrassed and confused about it.

AR: I’m not embarrassed about it. But nor do I feel I have to talk about it.

READ MORE...

The cartoon culture war in the Telegraph rages back and forth.

Alright, Garland’s little dishonesty could, by the charitable, be ascribed to cowardice.  How is a fellow to draw a too, too black hand holding the gun?  Oh, the agony.

But there is not an ounce of Garland’s equivocation in this, from Springs, though equivocation of a different kind may apply.  It plagiarises that celebration of the familial life of our healthy, monoracial past, the Bisto Kids.  The “Kid’s Stuff” title might help the more subtle reader towards a deeper intention: what’s gone wrong with childhood?  Answer (possibly): it’s black.  But if that’s the case the use of the generic “Housing Estate UK” after Garland’s “High Street UK” is unhelpful.  And, anyway, design by ommission, if that’s what this is, remains dangerously uncertain, and is a very long and discursive way from the old newspaper tradition of fearless free speech.  How difficult is it, really, to state the facts of black sociobiology?

One wonders, after these awful past decades of PeeCee, what political synapses inside the heads of Telegraph management still function normally.  Not many, I think.

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?

A half-hour BBC Radio 4 documentary was aired this evening with the title, “The Woman Who Never Was?”.  The article about it on the BBC’s website sets the scene:

Enoch Powell’s infamous ‘rivers of blood’ speech at a Conservative Party meeting in Birmingham in 1968 marked both the end of his chances of holding ministerial office and the birth of an enduring mystery.

In that speech he quoted a letter which referred to the plight of an unnamed woman pensioner in his Wolverhampton constituency whose life had, he claimed, been ruined by immigration.

This, according to Powell, was her story: “She worked hard and did well, paid off her mortgage and began to put something by for her old age. Then the immigrants moved in. With growing fear, she saw one house after another taken over.”

“She is becoming afraid to go out, windows are broken. She finds excreta pushed through her letterbox. When she goes out to the shops she is followed by children, charming wide-grinning piccaninnies.”

‘Media circus’

The next day, Tory leader Edward Heath sacked Powell from his shadow cabinet as the debate over his speech and arguments over immigration reached boiling point.

The country demanded to know who this woman was but Powell repeatedly refused to say.

READ MORE...

Well, if we were to start an on-line broadcast operation (and we are) I don’t think I would associate it with human waste.  Not intentionally!  I suppose it takes all sorts.  Anyhow, the programme list for The Political Cesspool looks more interesting than the name would suggest.

Early this evening (UK time) Dr Tom Sunic circularised me with the link to his TPC interview, which was recorded in Croatia and is scheduled for broadcast at 7.00pm CST.  MR readers who catch the broadcast are definitely invited to post their impressions to the thread below.

If not quite with TPC’s effluent-chic we, too, are venturing into the exciting world of sound.  Next week, in fact.  Again, the MO will be in-depth political interviews, conducted for us by the inimitable and ingenious Søren Renner.  He will begin with MR folk but, we hope, spread his wings far and wide from there.  I’ve drawn the short straw for Interview 1, which will doubtless make everybody who comes after look very good indeed.