I was not entirely surprised to see that Mr Cool of the equality game, the diversity gang-banger Trevor Phillips, has been making those smooth, smooth moves again.  He is reported in the Telegraph telling us that we must rewrite the history of Britain to reflect the roles of other cultures.

Parts of British history need to be rewritten to emphasise the roles played by other races and religions like Muslims, a prominent race relations campaigner has said.

Trevor Philips, the chairman of the new Commission for Equalities and Human Rights, said the history of Britain did not properly reflect the contribution of other cultures.

Rewriting the country’s history would demonstrate to Britons in the 21st century how other groups part from Anglo Saxons shaped the nation.

He told a fringe meeting at the Labour conference: “We may need to revisit our national story – we want to rewrite that story to tell the whole story.”

The rewriting should start with the story of how the English fleet led by Sir Francis Drake fought off the Spanish Armada in 1588, he said.

The important role played by the Muslim Turks, who delayed the sailing of the Spanish fleet so that the English ships were better prepared, had been airbrushed out of the story however.

Mr Phillips said: “When we talk about the Armada, it was the Turks who saved us because they held up the Armada after a request from Elizabeth I.

“Let’s rewrite that, so we have an ideal that brings us together so that it can bind us together in stormy times ahead in the next century.”

Mr Phillips, the former chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, declined to offer any other examples of parts of British history that should be rewritten.

So it wuz the wogs wot done it.  Well I never!

READ MORE...

Yesterday, a foreigner, working as a US Congressional aid, said “So what?” and hung up on a constituent who pointed out that his Congressman was acting against the US Constitution.

In response to the latest “mini amnesty”, called The DREAM Act, launched against the American people by their corrupt “representatives”, a colleague of mine called his so-called “representative”, Jim McDermott, to object to this violation of The Posterity of the Founders of the US:

US Congressional Switchboard Toll-free Numbers (02-07-07)

1-866-340-9281
1-877-762-8762
1-866-808-0065
1-866-220-0044

White House Phone: 202-456-1111
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi: 866-340-9281

During the phone conversation he pointed out that the US Constitution forbids US officials to accept titles of nobility, as was recently granted Rep. McDermott by an African king:

That’s when McDermott’s Congressional aid responded in his foreign accent, “So what?” and hung up.

The SPLC, which has been trying to get Kevin MacDonald’s academic tenure revoked, with some minor victories, is now trumpeting a paper by David Isadore Lieberman titled “Jews Will Be Jews: A Scientific Racialism for the 21st Century” as “Academic Paper Rebuts Cal State Professor’s Anti-Semitic ‘Scholarship’”.

I started reading the paper despite the fact that it was being trumpeted by a disreputable source—hoping to find some real scholarly criticism of MacDonald’s scholarship.  Here is a representative passage:

So there is little common ground between MacDonald?s warm embrace of authoritarian values and Altemeyer?s urgent warnings against them. In the end, of course, these are really matters of data interpretation; MacDonald can certainly make use of Altemeyer?s statistical findings concerning authoritarian personalities without finding them the cause for alarm Altemeyer himself does. The problem, however, is that MacDonald?s transparent desire to render tendencies toward authoritarianism among members of his own ethnicity palatable requires him to do some fancy rhetorical dancing around Altemeyer?s terms as well as his data. Ultimately, this will lead us to the real issue of interest here: yet another example of MacDonald suppressing information that does not conform to his theory.

I haven’t read the whole thing yet, but much of it seems to boil down to such arguments:

“Those who MacDonald cites on particulars would object to his use of their data for his thesis.”

In the above too-typical paragraph, Lieberman goes so far as to admit that this isn’t really a valid criticism of MacDonald’s scholarship but then turns right around and calls MacDonald’s omissions of, what Lieberman admits are, irrelevancies as “suppressing information that does not conform to his theory”.

It is hard to get motivated to read such a paper.  If someone grinds their way through the lefty-blogger type rheotoric to find some nuggets of real scholarship within Lieberman’s paper, let me know.

Language is a potent weapon for legitimizing any political system. In many instances, the language in the liberal West is reminiscent of the communist language of the old Soviet Union, although liberal media and politicians use words and phrases that are less abrasive and less value-loaded than words used by the old communist officials and their state-run media. In Western academe, media, and public places, a level of communication has been reached which avoids confrontational discourse and which resorts to words devoid of substantive meaning. Generally speaking, the liberal system shuns negative hyperbolas and skirts around heavy-headed qualifiers that the state-run media of the Soviet Union once used in fostering its brand of conformity and its version of political correctness. By contrast, the media in the liberal system, very much in line with its ideology of historical optimism and progress, are enamored with the overkill of morally uplifting adjectives and adverbs, often displaying words and expressions such as “free speech,” “human rights,” “tolerance,” and “diversity.” There is a wide spread assumption among modern citizens of the West that the concepts behind these flowery words must be taken as something self-evident.

There appears to be a contradiction. If free speech is something “self- evident” in liberal democracies, then the word “self-evidence” does not need to be repeated all the time; it can be uttered only once, or twice at the most. The very adjective “self-evident,” so frequent in the parlance of liberal politicians may in fact hide some uncertainties and even some self-doubt on the part of those who employ it. With constant hammering of these words and expressions, particularly words such as “human rights,” and “tolerance”, the liberal system may be hiding something; hiding, probably, the absence of genuine free speech. To illustrate this point more clearly it may be advisable for an average citizen living in the liberal system to look at the examples of the communist rhetoric which was once saturated with similar freedom-loving terms while, in reality, there was little of freedom and even less free-speech

READ MORE...

An opening out of the themes from Part 1, these being the inadequacy of our philosophy and its fatal disconnection from first principles, or first cause.  On the Radio page now.

So as to produce equality of outcome for Hispanic students, they will receive full credit for the University of Majority Rights course Geography 101, the only requirement being that they demonstrate mastery of this map: