Here is an English blogger’s take on the fate of America under Mexicanisation.  It’s a wide-ranging, somewhat formative but nonetheless good post - well worth a read, I think.  I would be interested in what some of our American friends make of blogger Steve’s view.

I have found myself included in a New Right mailing list which contains much interesting material ... such as this Moscow News interview of the great Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn.

One has the impression that the general population in Russia has caught the West’s disease of advanced liberalism (“total liberalism” the Moscow Times calls it) with such swiftness that large parts of the country’s elite have been left behind ... and are morally and politically resisting.  I hope that is true.

All the interview is worth reading.  But the sections which particularly caught my attention are these:-

MN:  It would be natural to assume that, at the very least, you would include a demographic project among these priorities - something that you have called “saving the nation.” What short-, medium- and long-term actions need to be taken as Russia, the Russian nation in particular, is literally dying out?

AS: Indeed, “saving the nation” - numerically, physically, and morally - is the utmost task for the state. (Consider the 25 million compatriots who were cut off from Russia as a result of the crazy conspiracy in the Belovezhskaya Forest: Our law-makers were in a state of chaos, hysterically and irresponsibly going from one extreme to another and contradicting themselves.) All measures to raise living standards - housing, diet, healthcare, education, morality, etc. - are in effect designed to save the nation. This is an overriding priority.

MN: Clearly, our society is in a moral crisis that manifests itself either in the absence of any moral principles or in the existence of opposing moral principles at the same time. Can Russia escape this collision? What is the state supposed to do in this situation - impose a particular set of moral values? What values?

AS: In their actions, state authorities must stay within the bounds of morality even more responsibly than ordinary citizens. They should set an example, but not forcibly impose any rules. I believe that the only way out is through the conscious, voluntary self-constraint and self-denial of people, especially those shaping public opinion.

READ MORE...

The author of Tomorrow is Another Country, Myles Harris, has popped up with a free article in the current Salisbury Review.  It is titled “Made in Broadcasting House” and, fairly obviously therefore, is an attack on the liberal media’s long culture war against the native British peoples.

Here are the best bits:-

Three weeks after the bombings an 18 year old black teenager was murdered by a white thug in Liverpool. Dreadful as it was it was given air time out of all proportion to its significance. Even though it came soon after the London bombings, it was instantly elevated to first place in the news. Senior police chiefs talked sombrely of it, pundits were called in to condemn it and the story was kept alive for months. This was in marked contrast to the way the BBC covered the ‘ordinary‘ murder of a 28 year old white man by a black man in the same week and in almost identical circumstances. It was hardly mentioned on the news, no mention of the race of the victim’s assailant was made and it was quickly dropped. It took a huge number of protests before the BBC gave the story adequate coverage.

The message was clear. Fifty six Britons may have been murdered by religious fanatics, a young white man of 28 may have been casually stabbed to death defending his girlfriend on the top of a London bus, but the murder of a black teenager was far more important. A black man killing a white man or Islamist terrorists killing and maiming people on the tube are crimes but they are not racism. A white man killing a black man is racism and therefore incomparably worse. Racism points to something deeply flawed in a society. So flawed - goes the unspoken message – we can begin to understand how the tube bombings themselves might be ‘explicable’ or even ‘justified‘ in the eyes of a racial minority such as British Moslems, (6% of whom thought them justified). Once we have accepted our racism we will be able to see our society as morally equivalent to that of the Islamist bombers. This view, that all actions are equivalent, that there is really no difference between our society and any other, has been creeping up on us for years. It is a product of extreme liberalism, and its ultimate consequence is a bestial society in which anything is permitted.

... For forty years the British - who had always believed to the contrary - have been told they are irredeemably racist and everything they have automatically thought to be good. We have been told that our police, the army, British tolerance and fair play, our justice system, are all irredeemably flawed. Instead we are constantly reminded that the police suffer from institutional racism, the British army tortures its prisoners, our security service is full of liars, uncontrolled mass migration is beneficial to the country…

At the moment traditional British society is lying whimpering in the floor of its cage under this assault. And like the battered wife awaiting a violent husband, urged on by the left, we are struggling to discover what it is we must do to prevent further blows ...  When all such possibilities are exhausted – and they always are - those who have learnt to be helpless do not remain passive. The beaten wife takes a knife to her husband, the dog lying whimpering on the floor sinks his fangs into the hand that produces a plate of food.

READ MORE...

I frequently find myself in the ironic position of defending a theory with which I disagree:  Kevin MacDonald’s theory of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy.  This is because, although I think it isn’t correct, his theory is coherent, important and continually attacked through misrepresentation—usually by mis-defining “group evolutionary strategy”.  In other words, they disagree with his theory by refusing to address it.  By contrast I differ as to its degree of relevance to Jewish history.  Specifically, I disagree with this statement of MacDonald’s: “Fundamental to Jewish group integrity over historical time have been social controls and ideologies that depend ultimately on human abilities to monitor and enforce group goals, to create ideological structures that rationalize group aims both to group members and to outsiders, and to indoctrinate group members to identify with the group and its aims.”  I don’t disagree this group evolutionary strategy has played a significant role in the evolution of Jewry but I do not believe it is fundamental to Jewish group (particularly genetic) integrity over historical time.  My working hypothesis is that group cohesion is sufficiently valuable as a defense of individual genetic interest that it exists among all in their environment of evolutionary adaptation and a primary mode of group conflict is, not so much in direct competition for resources, but in the very genetic expression of group genetic interests.  In other words, we’re seeing a battle carried out over the expression of genetic self-interest.  This is much as a host and parasite struggle over whether the host is to express his own genetic self-interest or the interest of the parasite’s genes.  The fundamental reason Jews thrived in European populations is because they were genetically dominant over those populations and hence their group phenotypes won the struggle for expression in the resulting human ecologies.  This contrasts with their fate among populations with comparable or greater genetic dominance to Jews, such as in the Middle East and Africa.  This also explains how Jews have continued to behave self-destructively with respect to immigration, civil rights and other movements benefiting, at the expense of Jews, those populations.

There is a useful chart of the BNP’s local authority election results on its website, from which we can construe a few facts about them and the mountain they are climbing.  I think the present tense in that latter regard is entirely justified now, btw.  The climb, wherever it takes them, has properly begun.

The first thing to make perfectly clear is that it is a climb in three parts.  A base camp must be established in each local authority ward and Westminster constituency.  There must then follow a period of steady progress - hard graft with the object of familiarisation of the terraine and consolidation of further gains.  Finally, when all is ready and the electoral conditions are right, one may strike out for the summit.

What the BNP’s figures tell us is that besides the 32 mountaineers who planted the Cross of St.George on their particular summits on Thursday there are a further 225 in the middle phase of the local authority ascent.  They are comprised of about 75 second places and double that number of thirds.  And that, of course, does not include the twenty councillors the Party has in areas where no election took place this time, nor all those in the middle-phase in those areas.

READ MORE...

This time tomorrow we political Brits will be glued to the telly for the pundits’ reading of the exit polls in the 2006 English local authority elections.  Now, it happens that none of these great and wise experts predicted Mr Blair’s 2005 General Election majority with much accuracy.  But one blogger of no consequence and with no reputation to lose alighted on a figure of 52.  It turned out to be not the worst of pure guesses - being 14 seats astray - and beat all the highly-paid pros.

So tomorrow’s poll is another chance for some psephological fame.  Accordingly, I am resolutely refusing to rest on my oracular laurels, and eschewing all temptation to be modest and unassuming.  Brash and boastful is much more fun.

Here, then, is my prediction, guaranteed 100% accurate and stuff the rest, for the lead item on Friday morning’s news:-

READ MORE...

Thanks to R Berkeley for this link to a Pravda article by Stojgniev O’Donnell.  Not unnaturally, the author’s standpoint is in some ways Russia-centric.  But the opening paragraph certainly caught my attention.  Here are a few highlights:-

Russian Christians now admit that the concept of human rights and liberties as advocated by America and the West has no application in contemporary Russia . That country is drowning in vices directly linked to the West’s concept of inherent rights and liberties: abortion; homosexuality; dissolution of traditional marriage; pornography; slavery, prostitution, and exploitation of the oppressed, etc. The Russian Orthodox now understand that such American “values” are, in fact, vices which harm every human society as a collective. Such American “rights” have not brought happiness. They represent the deviance of the cult of the individual. From my Third World perspective, I am amazed that some Americans continue to argue that America’s virtue is that it protects such “rights” (=vices).

... We are now witnessing the demise of America. For decades, America successfully marketed its “values” throughout the world (accompanied often by hefty cash subsidies for corrupt, subservient regimes). The aims of the American ideology were no less ambitious than those of Soviet communism, and the Americans were victorious over the Soviets, for a couple of years anyway.

... America is dying. I assure those Americans who still feel secure about a regular pay check, their job perks, vacations, company cars and cell phones, annual bonuses, benefits, government entitlements, U.S. dollar-based investments and accounts, etc etc., that their lifestyle is crumbling. There is no longer any right or logic in America’s prosperity.

... The American Middle Class has outlived its period of historical relevance and soon will be replaced, by Hispanics, India’s Indians, and Chinese. Those groups have no qualms about bearing and rearing children.

It is the twenty-first century. America is rat-infested history. America will fall, overrun by fatwah-inspired Muslims; wild, dispossessed, self-identified Apache or Aztec guerillas; looting, reparations-deluded African-Americans; indignant Eskimos; flaming cross-dressers and advocates of every sort of politically correct nonsense. History doesn’t last forever, and anyway, America had a couple of good centuries before it turned to cr*p.

This video animation constructed from Mordechai Vanunu’s famous sixty photographs is worth a look while pondering Iranian ambitions.

Thanks to Troy for the link.