So, JJR has provoked another “lively” debate about the JQ.  The unedifying spectacle of extreme judeophilia phobia

philia threatens.  Antagonism stalks the thread.  Questions are raised, as ever, about the purpose and utility of the blog ...

Situation normal, you might say.  This is MR, after all.  It has never been Amen Corner.

But I think it would do no harm to set out in a formal post why the blog functions in this manner, and why I will not willingly change it.

When one starts a political blog it is usually for the purpose of inflicting upon the world one’s own half-baked opinions, bad jokes and other illiteracies.  It is not wholly beyond the realm of possibility, however, that one may be motivated by something a bit bigger than self.  Apart, I guess, from the survival of the planet absolutely nothing in and beyond politics is bigger than the survival of European Man.  And it is that - the shattering significance of where he stands today and why, and where he is heading tomorrow - combined with the fact that this cannot even be discussed in the political and journalistic mainstream, which   caused me to set-up this decidedly free speech blog.

Now, at the time there was no template to copy.  There were fine websites addressing the issue from various sides, it is true.  But by definition a blog is an open resource.  Uniquely, the time and opportunity exist to interact, to persuade ... to try to answer and, thereby, awaken as many people as possible who are not currently in possession of all the facts and arguments they need to awake.  That, surely, is the first duty of anyone damned fortunate enough to escape the deadly embrace of conventional thinking.

Now, the place to do it is not, in my opinion, among the demonised and ghetto-ised nationalists.  It is out on the edge of the sleeping world where every illusion about us obtains, and only dreams of freedom drift across eyes wide shut.  I once read that it takes five years to change a man’s mind.  I don’t accept that in our case, because we have Nature, tradition and truth on our side.  There are a lot more light sleepers out there, too, as events drag them unceremoniously towards the morning light.

But there was another, more personal reason why I wanted to position MR as close to the mainstream as our interests and material would allow.  Like John, Phil, Martin and Mark, I am a Conservative by instinct.  I did not come to The Great Issue through nationalist politics.  I am comfortable talking to Conservatives about the dichotomies scarring their worldview.  I believe that if Conservatives can gain, or regain, their normal, healthy group-awareness from contact with nationalists, so nationalists can gain realism and respectablity from Conservatives.  The relationship should be mutually beneficial.

That, at least, is the theory.  In practice it has, let us say, been occasionally frustrating.  MR is very like a great pre-war airship.  When the storm-winds blow she is a might susceptible to being driven off-course - quite a bit off-course, actually.  Usually somewhere around Jerusalem.  We have lost bloggers from both wings - temporarily in most cases, I hope - because of the JQ as well as because their tastes and interests naturally diverge.  In the order of things, individual tastes and interests are of little importance and should, ideally, be subservient to a shared notion of the common good.  The JQ, however, is a challenging subject, and it doesn’t help for nationalists who are very familiar with (and completely unphased by) it to discount the difficulties it poses for others.  I have said elsewhere that I think we spend too much time on it.

Still, for all that the blog is what it is, which is something pretty unique and, I hope, valued by some.  I won’t change it.  I want, instead, to push the experiment forward and invite all who read this and who believe, from whatever political standpoint, that the Crisis of European Man is politically paramount to join in that effort.

Janice Turner is the kind of journalist who should never type the word, patriotism.  Or nation, or nationhood.  To state the obvious, she is a lady journalist, you see.  A woman ... a nice, emolient, “why can’t we all just get along?” sort of soft thingy.

In this morning’s Times she simpers, “Help, I think I’m a little Englander.”  But what she really delivered to the doorsteps of the, well yes, nation was a perfectly-honed if unwitting confirmation of my friend Fred Scrooby’s oft-stated view of her sex.

She is unaware that she can’t apprehend race, of course.  Not in its fullness.  For Janice, her homeland and the interests of its people can be only vaguely perceived through the medium of the economy.

This, then, is how she makes the patriotic case:-

... Does it matter that such a cherished British institution [she means Wimbledon 2006 - Ed] has shacked up with a foreign brand?  Lauren’s little polo ponies will trot out of the Wimbledon shop as sure as rain will fall. So he’s worth his £6 million deal.  And anyway, what is British fashion?  Our designers create from Parisian ateliers, their clothes are cut in Milan, sewn in China, shown in New York.  Get with the global economy, grannio, you may think.  Well, perhaps . . . except it just feels so wrong.

Likewise, as I glare at the Saharan patches on my lawn and read about Thames Water, which hiked up my bill on a promise to repair leaks but instead decided to award my hard-earned to its shareholders, my fury is compounded by the knowledge that my water is German-owned.  I keep imagining the executives of RWE — Thames’s parent company — relaxing by glistening swimming pools, amid verdant gardens.

Deep in the Ruhr or Rhine, they won’t get neighbours ear-bashing them about plants shrivelled by the hosepipe ban.  They won’t feel they have failed in their duty to their customers or to this country, because we are faceless, faraway citizens and this is a foreign country.  They don’t feel responsibility, let alone shame.  ... Am I a little Englander, a petty nationalist, an economic dinosaur because I loathe the idea of British utilities and infrastructure being foreign-owned?  In the global free market, the swirling, borderless world of international finance, why should it matter that the Spanish are about to buy Heathrow, Gatwick and five other British airports?  Or that 21 ports, including Hull, Southampton and Tilbury — accounting for a quarter of British seabourne traffic — will soon be controlled by a foreign consortium?  After all, much of our energy is already owned by French or American firms, or at any rate controlled by non-British shareholders.

... And so powerful and cross-party is the belief that liberalised markets mean the best company — regardless of nationality — gets the gig and provides the best value for the customer, it feels heresy to ask two simple questions: is this safe and is it undermining our sense of nationhood? I cannot answer the first. No politician has ever explained what happens if things turn sour with a country that owns our strategic installations: a bunch of power stations, say, or Mersey docks, now property of the people of Dubai. The British Government has already vowed that Russia’s state-owned Gazprom will not be allowed near our gas for fear it will use supplies as a political weapon, as it did in Ukraine. Yet we are expected to believe that all other foreign companies are benign, have only our interests at heart.

Now, at this juncture MR - if not Times - readers will be connecting the dots pretty damned quick.  So what has Janice to say of the surrendering of whole segments of our cities and towns to complete aliens?  Does she rail at the paucity of politicians, by which we must assume she means mainstream politicians, explaining that things will turn very sour racially?  People like us have, of course.  Several times.  But our politicos would rather eat sennapods and gunpowder for a week.

Ms Turner, it turns out, feels the same.  There seems to be a war going on inside her between her feminine emotion and her masculine reason.  Here she is zig-zagging towards an outcome, a synthesis of sorts:-

READ MORE...

The American feminist author and London-based journalist Lionel Shriver disappointed a few Guardian readers today with a classic rant against the Mexican invasion.

“I am obsessed with immigration,” she said.  She obviously meant it.  She railed against “the disappearing ink” of US immigration law, and ended:-

I was bemused to read this week that Mexico has an accelerating immigration problem. Many of the South and Central Americans teeming across its border with Guatemala are heading for the US. But a fair number are staying on in Mexico, where they take “the jobs Mexicans don’t want”. So many Mexicans have left for more lucrative jobs in el Norte that only the Guatemalans will pick mangoes in the baking sun for a few lousy pesos.

Furthermore, foreigners ploughing into Mexico are subject to the same fierce local resentment that brought outraged Mexicans out on America’s streets in April. The coordinator of the government-funded humanitarian organisation Grupo Beta declared, “This society does not see migrants as human beings, it sees them as criminals.” I was startled to learn that Mexico’s immigration law is far more stringent than America’s, even more stringent than the harsher laws now in limbo in the US Congress, over which Mexican president Vicente Fox has been so alarmed.

This is what I mean about double standards. The very same national populations that blithely regard the US as an extension of their own backyard get very stroppy indeed when foreigners start regarding their own countries with the same presumption.

Admittedly, this is a double standard in which American mythology has been complicit. Forever talking up the “melting pot” and our proud tradition as a “nation of immigrants”, US politicians can’t sabre-rattle over stricter immigration policies without sounding like hypocrites. The rest of the world doesn’t believe the US has the right to police its own borders; raised on all that “huddled masses yearning to be free” folderol, Americans don’t either. In short, the US has been helplessly victimised by its own bullshit.

READ MORE...

E-mail to this blog received today from Matt Heaton of our hosting company.

Dear Bluehost.com Customer,

Today we experienced several MAJOR distributed denial of service attacks against our network. We regret that you experienced some downtime today. We have worked diligently today to further protect our network from these types of attacks. The attack today came from MANY different computers at the same time. This makes it difficult to block and resolve the issue.

Please know that we are working as hard and efficiently as we can to make sure interruptions are brief and rare.

We add our apologies for any connection difficulties you may have experienced over the last 24 hours or so.

By current standards the Rt Hon Hazel Blears, the Chair of the Labour Party and Minister Without Portfolio at the Cabinet Office, is a bit of a high-flier.  She has few enemies in the Party and may well prosper in the coming Brown era despite her championing by Tony Blair.

Given this, one might think that some analytical ability must reside between her ears - but not on the evidence of her speech a week ago to the Labour Party’s ethnic minority taskforce (ironically, in white-minority Leicester).  As reported today by BBC News, her subject matter was the success of the BNP in May’s local government elections.

I did my bit of analysis on that here and included a prediction of how Labour would react:-

So then, it will have to be not a change of philosophy in any way but a plethora of carefully contrived, sticking-plaster policy proposals - social housing investment, fake public consultation, even more fake community cohesion initiatives ...  They will be palliatives, yes, and they will not survive close inspection.  But they may slow the climb insomuch as in working class areas the BNP campaigns heavily on housing for asylum seekers and other forms of official favouritism which rile white hackles.

So, six weeks downstream what have we actually got from our rising starlet.

READ MORE...

The cleavage between right- and left-liberalism can be summed up in a word: choice.  When people are encouraged to make their own choices they somehow never make the ones that the social engineers require.

School choice ‘means classroom ghettos’

Giving consumers choice in public services - and particularly in schools - is causing acute risks to racial equality.

That, at least, is the view of the Commission for Racial Equality which warns that Tony Blair’s commitment to increasing choice undermines that other current political mantra of increasing integration.

Indeed, it’s feared that choice will encourage racial segregation in an already highly segregated country.

This report was a special feature on BBC 1 evening news.  Mark Easton examined the educational divide in Blackburn, where ...

22% of the population come from ethnic minorities but 90% of non-white primary school children go to overwhelmingly non-white schools - up from 60% in just six years.

In secondary schools too, segregation is increasing.

Twenty-five years ago Pleckgate High School was predominantly white.

Today, 30% of pupils are white and the latest intake is 20% white.

“It is the parental choice that is having the main impact,” says head teacher Robin Campbell.

“How do you resolve that? We are then into the realms of social engineering and I don’t think that would work in any borough

READ MORE...

BBC News Reports that:

Jewish communities across the UK are holding a year of commemorations to mark the 350th anniversary of the “readmission” of Jews to England.

The events of 1656 are popularly regarded as a watershed and, more widely, an important step in the development of a multicultural nation…

Oliver Cromwell had agreed, or at the very least turned a blind eye, to the return of some Jews who were also allowed to practise their faith openly in the UK.

More like he had agreed to turn a blind eye to the immigration despite the will of his people expressed by their representatives.

Sound familiar?

Historically groups with “incorrect” ideas stuck in the midst of hostile populations have often turned to esosotic symbols as means of displaying their group allegiance to those “in the know”, while staying under the radar of the crowd.

Americans repulsed by the changes to America since the advent of political uber-liberalism in the 1960’s, and in particular the 1965 Immigration Act, have at least one highly suitable symbol which they could use: the 49 star American flag. It was used from 1959 to 1960 after Alaska was made a state, and because of the way the stars are offset, look almost identical to the 50 star flag.

It would be a mistake, I think, to believe that if we could return to 1960, that everything would be fine; the civilizational crisis that we face is much more fundamental. However for those in the US who want to express solidarity with others in the “resistance” without making a big wave, this might be a good cryptic way to do so.