David Hamilton

According to the Mail on Sunday, which obtained the official statistics of 37 police forces under the Freedom of Information Act, there is an offence involving a knife every 24 minutes of the day in England. 

There were over 5,500 serious crimes involving knives in just three months this year - one every 24 minutes. That is 55 knife-related murders and more than 2,000 stabbings.  [And that figure does not include data from Northamptonshire, Somerset and Lincolnshire - Ed]

The newspaper explained:-

London, Manchester and Birmingham are the worst-affected areas, while West Yorkshire, Merseyside and Northumbria police forces were also in the top 10. During just April, May and June this year, the Metropolitan Police recorded 1,580 offences – more than quarter of the national total.  A breakdown reveals 17 people are stabbed or robbed at knife point in the every day and by July 2008 twenty teenagers had been murdered in London.  The total for the whole of last year was 26 shooting or stabbing killings among young people”.

Our elites have imported gang warfare while pretending that the immigrants were soft, sentimental like pets and if we were nice to them they would be nice to us!

Common sense tells people that immigrant areas are no longer safe for white people to live in.  But to obfuscate the facts, a 9 percent reduction in crime is claimed by the police, with the violent crime sector being reduced by 8 percent.  As is now well known, in areas with much crime many people do not report burglaries or muggings because experience tells them that the police will do nothing about it.  Less than half of such crimes are reported.  It is a deceit visited upon the population by a government who cannot control crime because they are acolytes of the religion of equality, and no racial or ethnic group can be more inclined to certain crimes than any other.

READ MORE...

In line with my prior posts on The Amygdala War, UPI reports in Chronic stress = depression, infertility that:

Chronic stress, however, increases the length and volume of expression of corticotropin releasing factor in areas of the brain associated with fear and emotion, including the amygdala—the brain…

In our study, rats that continuously were exposed to corticotropin releasing factor from this area of the brain experienced anxious and depressive behavior, decreased libido and disrupted ovarian cycles suggesting that persistent release of CRF such as occurs in chronic stress clearly affects multiple body systems,” says Wilson. “These behavioral changes are similar to what we see in human females who are exposed to stressors on a daily basis.

So “liberate” your enemy’s females by seducing them, with money and “independence”, into a high stress workplace within two income trap families and you exterminate their genes without so much as a peep from the UN’s commission on human rights!

Genius.

This ...

is Eva-Britt Svensson ... not Kafka’s pin-up but a Swedish Member of the European Parliament who serves on the Committee on Women’s Gender and Equality Rights.  The Committee is seeking a Europe-wide ban on advertising which features exiguously dressed women possessed of that quality once known as “it”.

Today Ms Svensson is reported to have said:-

“Gender stereotyping in advertising straitjackets women, men, girls and boys by restricting individuals to predetermined and artificial roles that are often degrading, humiliating and dumbed down for both sexes.”

“Gender stereotyping in advertising is one of several factors that have a big influence in efforts to make society more gender equal. When women and men are portrayed in a stereotypical way the consequence may be that it becomes difficult in other contexts to see women and men’s resources and abilities.”

And this ...

is Eva Herzigová pictured out of her straitjacket.  Miss Herzigová‘s “resources and abilities” include making such observations as:-

“History is the key to everything: politics, religion, even fashion.”

So be honest now.  Which of these statements would you prefer to discuss?  With the speaker in person, of course.

Speech given by Dr. Tom Sunic at the “Nordic festival,” Gothenburg, Sweden, 30th August, 2008

We start to wonder about our identity at the moment when we are about to lose it. Our fathers and our grandparents never asked questions about their identity; they never worried about it. They took for granted their affiliation to a given religion and to a given tribe or a people. It is with the rising tide of globalization, multiculturalism and multiracialism, along with the waning of the traditional nation-state, that we start asking a question about who we are. The minute we raise the question of identity we start thinking about national identity.

But is this still really so today? How do we define our modern identity? Let us propose a couple of modern definitions that are onerous to Europeans.

First, we must mention the “substitute” identity, or ersatz identity, or identity by proxy. It is no accident that along with the loss of their own identity, white Europeans resort to ersatz identities. For instance they espouse the Palestinian or Tibetan identity or some other distant Third World identity as if it was their own. They spot some lost Indian tribe in the Amazon forest and then, with all their passion, strive to protect and preserve it. But when it comes to defining and preserving their own identity they remain silent. To say aloud “I am proud of being European,” let alone “I am proud of being a Swede,” or “proud of being a Croat,” smacks of nationalism. It must be avoided in modern discourse.

So which is the defining factor of identity today? Here in this place, you and I can talk about primary identity, secondary and tertiary identity. Does our local national identity today, in the epoch of globalism, precede our secondary European identity? I may have many more things in common in terms of my identity here with young Swedish identitarians than with my fellow Croat nationalists. But in a multicultural and multiracial society it changes. I may find common bonds even with my former enemies, the Serbs, who may also have difficulties identifying themselves with non-European residents coming to their shores.

READ MORE...

Harold Myerson’s frank and malevolent Jewish hate-piece in Tuesday’s Washington Post concludes with this paragraph:-

In a year when the Democrats have an African American presidential nominee, the Republicans now more than ever are the white folks’ party, the party that delays the advent of our multicultural future, the party of the American past. Republican conventions have long been bastions of de facto Caucasian exclusivity, but coming right after the diversity of Denver, this year’s GOP convention is almost shockingly—un-Americanly—white.  Long term, this whiteness is a huge problem. This year, however, whiteness is the only way Republicans cling to power. If the election is about the economy, they’re cooked—and their silence this week on nearly all things economic means that they know it.

Now, Myerson is plainly a frustrated man.  He has climbed to the summit of his own personal Mt Nebo, and he can see that longed-for multiracial Promised Land where Jews shall be free.  It’s so close he could almost smell it.  He has come to the conclusion that the first sign of arriving in it ... a sign that only a few days ago looked so darned believable ... would be the election of Barack Obama as the forty-fourth President of the United States.

The election of Obama = the consent of white America to submerge itself in “our multicultural future”.

But then along comes a gust of cold Alaskan wind and the too, too solid fear that the white American majority of voters may not consent at all.  Myerson and his kin group will have to wait to fire up their celebrations.

In his frustration he affirms two contradictory facts.  First, “our multicultural future” is going to happen, he is saying.  In terms of numbers it’s just a matter of when.  It cannot be put off through the political process.

And he’s right, of course.  A McCain presidency wouldn’t do anything to change that, quite the reverse.  But there is a crucial distincton to be made here.  The process of political and demographic marginalisation that afflicts white America - which will continue whoever is in the Oval Office - has been imposed without discussion, without consent.  It lacks all legitimacy, therefore, and carries within itself permanently the seeds of revolt.  As long as there is a large body of men and women who call themselves white Americans ... as long as white American gun-owners and church-goers are a fact on the electoral, cultural and racial ground, there is the possibility, even likelihood, that “our multicultural future” will, in some definitive sense, be rejected.  Such a permanent challenge, which is rooted in the existential fact of being a white American, could have highly unpredictable consequences.

So Myerson desperately needs to see that shifting the schwerpunkt to culture (which began as long ago as 1923, with the establishment of the The Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt) has worked.  He needs the undoing of white America to bear its own imprimateur.  It is balm to his inate paranoia.

And so we get fact two: “Long term,” says Myerson, “this whiteness is a huge problem”.

For Jews, he means.  The only way of dealing with it is more of the same ... more Rothstein, more NBA, more porn, more Brangelina, more Bratz, more Myerson, indeed ... more everything.  More white deconstruction, too.  More, more, more.  White Americans as people who are, in any kind of sense, their European selves have to be “solved”.  Finally.

Rick Lyons is the crime correspondent for the never knowingly thoughtful Daily Star.  But he has escaped its customary nubile delights long enough to pen a piece for that organ of the irrational left, The Guardian.  It was titled, “Antifa’s gift to the BNP”, and was a leftist hack’s cri de coeur that the violent left was stuck in the past, and needed to understand that physical confrontation was counter-productive.

Lyons delivered himself of a number of other insights of a nature and quality than need not detain us.  But his comment thread was interesting on one count, at least.  At 11.11 am, a commenter styled gheymears explained his own shameful past in the violent left:-

I was heavily involved in AFA, a forerunner of Antifa, during the early 1990’s. What we did at the time, when I was younger and more politically naive, shocks me now. We operated pretty much along similar lines as a football firm - driving around in a transit looking to ‘spot’ fascists when they had a rally organised. Every other person would be armed and our reasoning was that by terrorizing the BNP they’d be forced to meet in secret and lose contact with the voting public. I wouldn’t be to dismissive of the violence either, this was groups of experienced street fighters, linked to football clubs like Celtic and Man United, along with people from groups such as Red Action that had links with the IRA - not to mention the ties with animal rights groups and the ALF.

The violence was pretty disgraceful and led to numerous people being hospitalised, and after I left, to a number of anti-fascists being jailed. I met people who had used axes, iron bars, smoke bombs, cs gas etc. We also got into a number of spontaneous confrontations when people bumped into BNP members in pubs or even out shopping. It wasn’t uncommon at the time to see a skinhead wearing a bunch of nazi badges out in town with a bag full of groceries. On more than one occasion telephone calls were made and a couple of anti-fascists would come into town and catch the skinhead away from CCTV and assault them with iron bars, bottles etc. Members of AFA over the years were jailed for kidnapping fascists and in one famous incident for throwing a well-known fascist in front of a bus.

The reason I’ve went into detail about this violence is because I had never been one for fighting before joining the anti-fascist movement, and I haven’t since I left either. We had a strict authoritarian ideology that insisted that violence was required to win control of the streets to create a political vacuum that could then be filled by the left. Ideas about democracy and freedom didn’t even enter the equation, so sure were we that left wing politics were correct and everything else should be opposed.

Looking back, having matured both politically and intellectually, I’m appalled by what AFA were prepared to do. What is maybe worse is that after the BNP announced its decision to stop marching so as to avoid streetfights (which effectively killed AFA), another group has sprang up purely to try and draw them in to violence. Still nobody on the left has started a credible group to argue with them politically, and the real worry for me is that the left don’t and never will have an answer as in parts the BNP are asking the tough questions and in some policies supplying an answer that people are comfortable with. The left fear a debate with the far-right, and turn things into a physical confrontation exactly because they won’t win any arguments about immigration or crime - yet somehow manage to see themselves as defenders of freedom, and not the destroyers of it.

It needs to be understood that for twenty-five years up to the early 90’s there was a subterranean war between the violent left and, first, the National Front and then John Tyndall’s homosexual-free British National Party.  The aggressor, by and large, was the violent left.  It was not politics, of course.  It was a lifestyle choice, and a social pathology with its roots, ultimately, in the street battles of Cable Street and thence Weimar Munich.  But anyone who, today, encounters the perfectly brainless throwing around of epithets by the left in place of real argument - and we all do - has touched upon remnants, however distant, of that extraordinary and totemic world.

It is encouraging to learn that gheymears has extricated himself from anti-fascism, and gained a proper moral perspective on it.  There must be many like him.  But then, he says he was never violently-inclined except in his anti-fascism.  He fell under the sway of something more powerful than himself, and lost his moral compass.

Right here.

From Nature:-

Genes mirror geography within Europe

Understanding the genetic structure of human populations is of fundamental interest to medical, forensic and anthropological sciences. Advances in high-throughput genotyping technology have markedly improved our understanding of global patterns of human genetic variation and suggest the potential to use large samples to uncover variation among closely spaced populations1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Here we characterize genetic variation in a sample of 3,000 European individuals genotyped at over half a million variable DNA sites in the human genome. Despite low average levels of genetic differentiation among Europeans, we find a close correspondence between genetic and geographic distances; indeed, a geographical map of Europe arises naturally as an efficient two-dimensional summary of genetic variation in Europeans. The results emphasize that when mapping the genetic basis of a disease phenotype, spurious associations can arise if genetic structure is not properly accounted for. In addition, the results are relevant to the prospects of genetic ancestry testing6; an individual’s DNA can be used to infer their geographic origin with surprising accuracy—often to within a few hundred kilometres.

From Dienekes’ post:-

The realization that not only major continental races, but also ethnic groups are biological entitites goes against the prevailing politically correct orthodoxy. According to this orthodoxy, European nations are artificial cultural constructions whose members share a “myth” of common origins; they are “constructed” products of the last few centuries; ethnic identification is a subjective notion of self-identity, rather than an objective notion of ancestry and homeland.

It now appears that while European nations are not races, they are, nonetheless, biological populations, occupying specific positions along the Caucasoid genetic continuum, and distinguishable from most other European nations, if not always their immediate neighbors.

And, below the fold, the bulk of JWH’s post, with substantial quotes from the original paper:-

READ MORE...

Two book reviews by Dr K R Bolton FCIS

An online survey on the beliefs of 5700 New Zealanders showed that 22% believe it “likely” that “a secret elite cabal controls world affairs”, with 21% responding that they don’t know, and 57% stating “unlikely”. (Sunday Star Times, C2, 31 Aug. 08).

Given the ridicule attached to “conspiracy theories” the percentage is encouraging, indicating that a significant proportion of New Zealanders are aware of political realities, or at least discern intuitively that something is amiss.

While such beliefs are lumped in by the Sunday Star Times with superstitions and whether Elvis faked his own death (to which very few responded positively) etc. the ongoing success of alternative news -stand magazines such as New Dawn from Australia, and in particular Jon Eisen’s Uncensored (NZ) show that many New Zealanders are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with what had been described as the ‘village idiot theory of history’ - that stuff just happens at random - as portrayed by the mass media.

The following are two book reviews on conspiracy theories, adapted from an article originally appearing in the first issue of Restoration Magazine.

Cyclicity of Conspiracy Theory

The popularity of conspiracy theories follows cyclic trends after periods of crises. The French Revolution gave rise to the modern theory of conspiracies in general, ascribing the subversion and breakdown of the traditional order to the influences of Masonic coteries, including the Illuminati, from whence other conspiracy theories have followed, often encompassing communism, Zionism, international finance, and such groups as the Bilderbergers, Council, on Foreign Relations, Lodge 322 and Trilateralists.

The 1905 Russian Revolution popularised the hitherto obscure Protocols of Zion, again with a Masonic theme, but with a Jewish façade, although doctrine of the Protocols has nothing of the nature of Zionism per se about it.

Since such theories were generally of a ‘right-wing nature,’ and often linked to ‘anti-Semitism’, World War II drove them into disrepute.

The Cold War revived conspiracy theories, and 9/11 has given impetus to a revival of interest in covert cabals such a Masonry not seen since the Russia Revolution. Impetus has been added with the revival of alternative religions and the questioning of mainstream religion, including the popularity of books such as those about the alleged Prior de Sion by Baigent, et al. They have also revived an interest in the role of the Illuminati.

READ MORE...