Can’t have JJR out on his lonesome.  Here are a couple of blog offerings from the capital city of love, the first a fine display of principle and true courage from the bloggers of “no-passaran” who protested a Muslim protest march last weekend against Western free speech.

Voices start to ring out. “It’s provocation!” “You tread on 1.5 million Muslims!” “Connards!” “Rat faces!”

“Ignore them, they are idiots!” reply others as a crowd starts to press around. A rhetorical question rings out: “Would they be carrying out the same provocations in other types of demonstrations?!” (Actually, Monsieur, yes we would and yes we have.)

The Danish American feels like replying that they have done the same to Chirac, to Mitterrand, to the civil servant salons, and to union demonstrations, but suddenly he and the French American start moving away. What has happened is that a short blonde Frenchwoman has tugged on their sleeves and gently but firmly started pulling them away.

“I will show you my ID 10 meters from here” says the plainclothes cop. “They are going to lynch you!” she adds, as she leads us into another street (in the movie taken by our valiant camera team, you can briefly see her wearing a brown coat, right after a bearded guy in white cap and tan jacket says “They are provoking us” and the camera turns).

“Sons of adultery!” “Hey, you two sons of the whore!” Uniformed policemen join us and start rushing us, more and more quickly down the street (I don’t want to run, I tell them), with a growing crowd quickening their steps. A police van’s door opens. “Go! Go!” shouts a policeman to the driver, “Foncez!” as sirens wail and the van rushes ahead.

“Are you out of your minds?!” ask the two officers. “Do you know how many of them there were?!” “Somebody’s got to stand up for free speech”, replies the French protestor. After staying with us for 20-something minutes, they let us out. (As a departing farewell, I say, “You know, right before you came, we almost had them surrounded.”)

READ MORE...

It seems pretty obvious to me that prison riots, prisoner rape and abuse could all be quelled by imposing neither integration nor segregation on the inmates, but by simply giving them what “free” men in the outside world are denied:

Freedom of association—even, and especially, by race.

READ MORE...

So, although our Prime Minister, yeah, was stranded in South Africa while the Commons debated compulsory ID cards, he has got his deeply suspect way and we will get his cards.  The government won by 31 votes.  It has a Commons majority of 64.

The bill will now go back to the Upper House for its second reading.  So the next question to be answered is whether their Lordships will re-insert their prior amendment suspending all action on the cards until full costs are known.  The government’s margin of victory on that tonight - 53 votes - may well be sufficient to stay their hand.  This looks like a lost war.  I will probably have to change my blog handle to 6530988747.

There is always, though, the wild hope and succour for the truly, madly desperate of a Cameron victory in 2009.  That dubious pleasure might save us from having to register our “personal details” with the state.  Whether David Cameron is a torch-bearer for freedom is, of course, wholly unknown.  More likely, he is a torch-singer for MI5.

While our Prime Minister, yeah, has been slumming it in lovely, downtown Soweto his Chancellor has made another in his series of speeches about what Britain Under Brown will be like.  Awfully British value-wise, apparently.  At United Royal Services Club in London he “called for a battle for the hearts and minds of British Muslims to prevent them coming under the influence of Islamic extremists.”

Notwithstanding the fine record of success of past campaigns for alien hearts and minds - Viet Nam always comes to the fore, I think, but Iraq is right up there, too - I really can’t see this working.  Frankly, if I was a Muslim and I saw Mr Brown reaching out to me, I’d run like hell in the direction of Finsbury.

READ MORE...

The following, very detailed and highly relevant, biographical assertions about Flemming Rose were added on 2/10/06 (by a presumed anti-Zonist) and removed the next day (by a presumed Zionist).

Flemming Rose born 3/14/1956 into a Jewish family in the Ukraine has a major in Russian language and literature from University of Copenhagen. From 1990 to 1996 he was the Moscow correspondent for the newspaper Berlingske Tidende. Between 1996 and 1999 he was the correspondent for the same newspaper in Washington, D.C.. In 1999 he became Moscow correspondent for the newspaper Jyllands-Posten and January 2005 the cultural editor of that paper (KulturWeekend). He fled Denmark where he was under police protection to Miami, Florida in fear for his life where he is currently in hiding.

The reason I feel this is valuable to look at is the fact that Rose’s commissioning of Muhammad-mocking cartoons has been portrayed as a conflict between European values and the values of Islam.  This biographical detail makes it seem to be more a conflict between Zionists and Muslims waged on our soil and we are the ultimate losers for having allowed either of these peoples to step foot on our soil.

Is it too early to draw the lesson from the affair of the Danish cartoons that liberal democracy and Islam cannot peacefully coexist - and therefore won’t?  You will not be at all surprised to learn that I, a denizen of the heinously radical right, don’t think it is.  But I also think that many others - most of us rightists, actually - will in due course be happy to agree.

It is, you see, natural for the peoples of the West to seek to maintain their customs and, indeed, their sovereignty in their own lands.  It is in the nature of Islam to seek dominance over everyone and everything.  Something’s gotta give, as they say.  But Islam will not in any way moderate itself to accommodate  Western hegemony.  No “moderates”, not even Abdullah Badawi, Malaysia’s prime minister and a man recognised as a leader of “moderate Islam”, is really suggesting that it should.  Ergo, the accomodation must come from the West.

That would be a significant step towards dhimmification in the view of a lot of folks on the Conservative, libertarian and nationalist right.  But that’s the point.  The liberal-left has a completely different view, namely that its ultimate interest is the protection of the MultiCult, the society it has created in the image of “Man as free individual”.  If all that enriching, celebrated diversity falls apart in its hands ... if all the years of effort dedicated to the destruction of that dark, limited, backward thing, the racial nation state ... if all that goes to waste, then a new chaos will descend.  Hated nationhood will awaken from its long, helpful slumber.  The future, which should have been individualist, free and racially egalitarian, will become completely, perhaps tragically unpredictable.  Think how intolerably unfair that would be to the poor left.  So damned near yet so far.

READ MORE...

Some years ago I was browsing through a pile of American magazines from the late 1940s in a second hand bookshop. The most interesting article I found was written by a female columnist (the magazine was from around 1946 or 1947). She argued that women had had enough of the hardships brought about by feminism (loneliness, childlessness etc) and that it would be a relief to return to more traditional values.

Which is what women did in the 1950s, thereby ending the first great wave of feminism which had begun (roughly speaking) in the 1860s (there had been individual feminists before then, but it seems to have been in the 1860s that feminism was first taken up as government policy in Great Britain).

I wonder if we are now poised on the brink of another feminist down phase. There seems to be a similar weariness amongst women - an unwillingness to continue shouldering the burden of overwork and poor family outcomes which are associated with modern feminism.

This wearing down of feminism from within is especially marked in a recent article in the Daily Mail by Amanda Platell (The Silent Conspiracy, 28th January 2006). The entire article is worth reading as evidence of a change in attitude, but let me cite some of the most revealing passages.

Here is Amanda Platell explaining that despite her glamorous career and lifestyle she wishes to question the feminist legacy:

READ MORE...

President Robert Mugabe has begun to reverse his “insane” land grab and offer some white farmers the chance to lease back their holdings in Zimbabwe.

With the fastest shrinking economy in the world, Mr Mugabe has had to backtrack on six years of chaos and his own determination to rid the country of all white farmers.

The Daily Telegraph today.

So the ruinous hand of black African power extends an olive branch to the people it demonised, robbed, terrorised and murdered.  Remember the late Hitler Hunzvi, the “War Veterans” leader who compared himself to revolutionary figures like Che Guevara, Napolean Bonaparte and even Jesus Christ.  He is on record euphemistically threatening, “All revolutions require violence ... No-one can stop the revolution we have started.”

Wrong.  The corruption of Mugabe’s cronies and the incapacity of his people have stopped it.  What few black farmers are cultivating former white-owned lands are doing so on a subsistence basis.  Eighty to ninety per cent of the land, howevever, lies untended while Zimbabweans go without.

Vanity precludes Mugabe himself from making the announcement.  Two “trusted” underlings will be deputised to grovel before an unsurprised world.  Ian Smith described Mugabe as a “Marxist terrorist” and one can’t help but feel that were he alive today, he would counsel the expellees strongly against cooperating with his enemy now.

I suppose in the end there will be some white farmers prepared to listen not to the ghost of Ian Smith but to a chastened yet hardly repentant Mugabe.  It will be short memories and white individualism - the inability or just refusal to observe group dynamics - which will lead them back.

At least one ex-farmer has perfect clarity of mind and purpose, and said yesterday:-

“It’s bloody miserable out there. All our friends have gone, our equipment has been broken, irrigation has been vandalised, our homes have been wrecked, the roads are a mess, our workers have gone so why should we return? I am sure there will be some clots who are so damn miserable in other countries or living in towns that they will go back.

“We should be campaigning for compensation, not going back to help people who wrecked our country.”

A meeting in ghastly, characterless Birmingham of 300 offended people with itchy beards - rumoured to be all males - has produced a demand for changes to the Race Relations Act and the Press Complaints Commission code.  Specifically, the newly-formed Muslim Action Committee wants the same right in law to be offended as infrequently, apparently, as Sikhs and Jews.  And this is notwithstanding the fact that only last week Parliament neutered Charles Clarke’s guileless attempt at this sort of thing.

To demonstrate the monumental capacity these, of course, vibrant scholars have to get offended, effendi, they are organising a march in ghastly, non-white London on February 18th.  Let’s hope they get themselves a decent signmaker this time.  Between 20,000 and 50,000 marchers are expected to attend, almost all of them offended.  But some may be very angry indeed.  Some may even be ballistic.

I can’t help but wonder if non-European Caucasians aren’t altogether too excitable for boring old, unexciting Britain.  If they just don’t get free speech at all - and they don’t - maybe there’s a better, more sandy place where they can practise their humourlessness and dedication to outrage as much as they like.  Five times a day even.  Ten, twenty, I don’t mind.