I have been sent the URL for a site new to me, assembled by an NZ scholar - and strict dialectician - named Kerry Bolton.  I am impressed with the work Dr Bolton has put into his site thusfar, which includes an extensive catalogue of study resources and a page on a periodical, Restoration Magazine, which I guess he is editing.  This latter, it appears, might be a worthwhile addition to that small group of intellectual English-language publications serving our range of interests, of which Occidental Quarterly and Michael Walker’s (soon to be rescusitated) Scorpion are the finest exemplars.

Efforts like Dr Bolton’s, which go beyond the usual “protest website” and offer paths to understanding for anyone motivated to tread them, deserve our attention and support.  I note with interest that this effort includes a Commentary page with just one entry todate: a more detailed and considered obituary to the great Solzhenitsyn than the one I knocked out!

I shall watch the development of the Renaissance Press project closely, and commend you to do the same.

The story in yesterday morning’s Telegraph was unambiguous and damning:-

Old boy network is obstructing police investigation

An “old boy network” of officials is deliberately obstructing police investigating decades of alleged abuse at care homes in Jersey, according to the police officer who spearheaded the inquiry.

Deputy Chief Officer Lenny Harper angrily hit out at the figures who he says have engaged in a “day by day attack” on the inquiry team and the alleged victims of abuse at Haut de la Garenne and other island institutions.

In his most outspoken criticism of the Jersey authorities, Mr Harper told the Telegraph: “I can quite clearly say that the investigation is being held up. There are people on the island who just don’t want us going down the route of this inquiry.”

... More suspects would have been charged by now, said Mr Harper, if it hadn’t been for delays in the island’s legal system.

“We are walking through treacle at the moment,” he said. “One file has been with the Attorney General’s office since April 29 and it’s still showing no signs of moving at the moment. It’s been very frustrating.

“I don’t think they are involved in child abuse, it’s more like an old-boy network.

“The ordinary people of Jersey are overwhelmingly in favour of the inquiry, but how many expressions of support and sympathy for the victims have we heard from the politicians? None. They don’t do sympathy for the victims.”

This situation of the investigator obstructed at every turn by shadowy Establishment forces crops up with alarming regularity in large-scale child abuse cases.  In Jersey the obstruction takes the form largely of an official code of silence.  Since Jersey is a family holiday destination, one could charitably conclude that these are the machinations of a pack of Larry Vaughn types (Vaughn being the “don’t-rock-the-boat” Mayor of Amity artfully played by Murray Hamilton in both Jaws and Jaws 2: “I’m only trying to say that Amity is a summer town. We need summer dollars. Now, if the people can’t swim here, they’ll be glad to swim at the beaches of Cape Cod, the Hamptons, Long Island ...”)

Jersey, however, is a highly successful if no longer entirely off-shore banking centre.  Its wealthy residents are perfectly content to avoid prying eyes - indeed, that’s the whole point of being there.  There is, then, a darker materialism at work on the island than a mere interest in ice cream sales and beach balls, and this interest is surely what Harper means by “an old boy network”.  The implication for any revelations damaging to the zeitgeist of confidentiality, never mind allegations of child abuse, are plain.  There will all too probably be an outbreak of “official incompetence”.  As the News of the World reported on 13th July:-

An inside source told The News of the World: “There’s a strong suspicion that the files are being held on to until Lenny Harper goes and a new team is in place.

“No one will be surprised if the truth about what happened in the care home never surfaces and once more the evidence gets swept under the carpet.”

Lenny Harper has now gone from the enquiry.

READ MORE...

By Stanley Womack, ResistingDefamation.org

Ever since Proposition 209, the anti-race-preference initiative, was passed by California voters in 1996, various state and local government agencies have sought a means to save race-based government programs.

The opening, true words of an NRO article written in May 2004 by Lance T. Izumi & Sharon Browne (both energetic opponents of affirmative action and, in Browne’s case, a successful litigant).

Well, all those disappointed state and local government agencies need pine after the old days no more.  The San Jose Mercury News reports:-

Students recruit minorities to UC in ways institution can’t

By Lisa M. Krieger

California law bans the state’s public universities from recruiting students based on race.

But it can’t stop student volunteers.

Call it the outsourcing of affirmative action. Stepping into jobs made off-limits to university officials by Proposition 209 - the 1996 California ballot proposition that prohibited public schools from targeting students based on race, sex, or ethnicity - students are reaching back into their own communities to boost diversity on campus.

“We feel an obligation to help open the door to allow for more of our brothers and sisters to enter,” said Fuifuilupe Niumeitolu, a Tongan student at the University of California-Berkeley who is a member of the student group Pacific Islanders Higher Education Recruitment Program. “It is a labor of love, rooted in creating social change.”

The passage of Proposition 209 hit UC-Berkeley’s racial and ethnic communities hard. The number of incoming freshmen from under-represented minorities groups - African-American, Latino, Native American and Pacific Islander - shrank by half.

The numbers are just now beginning to recover. But the campus is still far from reflecting the state’s diversity. Although about 47 percent of public high school graduates in California are members of underrepresented minorities, they make up just 25 percent of UC’s incoming freshman class. At UC-Berkeley, the system’s most elite campus, there are only 15.7 percent.

Under-represented minorities groups.  That’s a new phrase, even from Lisa Krieger, who we at RD judge to be one of, if not the, most consistent purveyer of anti-white American hate-journalism at San Jose Mercury News.  What it signals is a new wedge for ethnic cleansing.

READ MORE...

“Violence can only be concealed by a lie, and the lie can only be maintained by violence. Any man who has once proclaimed violence as his method is inevitably forced to take the lie as his principle.”

Alexander Solzhenitsyn, whose words those are, has died from heart failure in Moscow, at the end of a long period of decline.

“You can have power over people as long as you don’t take everything away from them. But when you’ve robbed a man of everything, he’s no longer in your power.”

The author, among other works, of One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich (1962), The First Circle (1968), Cancer Ward (1968) and The Gulag Archipelago(1973–1978), historian, Nobelist, and a profund Russian nationalist and Russian Orthodox Christian, Solzhenitsyn belonged nowhere but in the socks and shoes of his own spirit.  Life forced moral judgements upon him wherever he looked ... as a soldier in Germany in 1945 witnessing the murder and rapine of the Red Army, as a witness to the grotesque violence inherent in Stalinism, as a prisoner in the gulag and a persecuted intellectual outside it, and as an exile in the liberal West appalled by the spiritual absence, self-indulgence and materialism there.

Until I came to the West myself and spent two years looking around, I could never have imagined to what an extreme degree the West had actually become a world without a will, a world gradually petrifying in the face of the danger confronting it . . . All of us are standing on the brink of a great historical cataclysm, a flood that swallows up civilization and changes whole epochs.

Solzhenitsyn’s final act of courage in the written word, Two Hundred Years Together (2003), remains unpublished in the West.  It examines in a critical way the nature of the Jewish engagement in Russian life from the partial annexation of Poland in 1795 to 1916.  Whilst it finds that the Revolution was not a Jewish conspiracy, it does dwell on the culpability of Jews where Jewish culpability existed.  For this, of course, Solzhenitsyn has received his due measure of reflexive semitic hatred inside Russia, and his book has been very effectively frozen out in the West.

“It is impossible to find the answer to the eternal question: who is to be blamed, who led us to our death? To explain the actions of the Kiev cheka only by the fact that two-thirds were Jews, is certainly incorrect.”

But the Jewish tantrums will be of no import to our memory of the man.  Solzhenitsyn will be revered in Russia and admired in the West for his moral stature, and for proving that the human spirit was greater than the corruption and violence of the Soviet system ... and, perhaps, greater too than the equally deady - actually, more deadly - dangers of modernity which beset Westerners, in all their comfort and security, today.

“It has made man the measure of all things on earth—imperfect man, who is never free of pride, self-interest, envy, vanity, and dozens of other defects. We are now paying for the mistakes which were not properly appraised at the beginning of the journey.”

Jean-Marie Le Pen, Front National member of the European Parliament, given just 4 minutes to explain the world to Monsieur Bruni, le président de la page trois.

He did alright.

From the BNP website, and originally from fdesouche.com

Lord Salisbury, three times a Conservative Prime Minister and a political giant in a more enlightened age, once remarked, “English policy is to float lazily downstream, occasionally putting out a diplomatic boathook to avoid collisions.”  English, no less!  But I digress.

To illustrate the Anglo-centric point a little further, here’s what the New York Times reported on 4th March 1900:-

Regarding Lord Salisbury’s point of view, for some time past he has taken little interest in American politics, and he is averse to any form of an Anglo-American alliance, believing that the Constitution of the United States is unsuited to such a bond.  To use the words of one who is in the closest confidence of the Premier, “the politics of America have such an influence on foreign policy, and render the duration of supreme power so uncertain, that any alliance would kill itself quicker than any one could kill it.”

Lord Salisbury feels under no obligations to foster pro-British sentiment in the United States.  In fact, for the most part he remains in profound ignorance as to the trend of American public opinion.  His idea, as represented by the speaker just quoted, is to trade fairly and squarely without embroiling himself with any extraneous matters ...

Today, though, English politicians - if that is what they really are - have an altogether different view of their and our priorities.  Here’s Boris Johnson, Mayor of London and currently the most powerful Conservative politician in the country, talking to a reporter from Square Mile magazine about Barack Obama:-

“I was looking at him on the news and just thinking what an amazing moment this is, watching his speech in Berlin and thinking what a critical moment this is for America and for attitudes towards what they can achieve amongst the black community.

“If Barack Obama can do it, it will be the most fantastic boost, I think, for black people everywhere around the world.

... I think a Barack Obama victory would do fantastic things for the confidence and the feelings of black people around the world - that they can win.”

Unfair comparison? The last of the great Conservatives ... and Boris. With a friend.

Asked if his words consituted an endorsement of the Democrat hopeful, Mr Mayor said pithily, “Yes”.

Well, I’m just wondering what a time-travelling Salisbury might have thought about Obama and the American body politic, and the “feelings of black people around the world”.  Presumably, he would have held on harder than ever to his boathook, and to English national interest.  He was flatly against what he called “black men” in the English Parliament, and opposed the Liberal candicacy of Dadabhai Naoroji at the 1892 General Election (Naoroji was elected nonetheless and became the first Indian sitting at Westminster).

Salisbury happens also to have been the man who set up the first city-wide authority in the capital, London County Council - something he later came to regret as “the place where collectivist and socialistic experiments are tried. It is the place where a new revolutionary spirit finds its instruments and collects its arms.”  And, these day, puts them around the nearest example of “black people”, apparently.

In any case, the time-travelling Salisbury would be able to judge from the incumbent at City Hall how completely successful those revolutionaries have been.  We are all MultiCultists now.

By JW Holliday

Leading on from this MR essay, where I asked some questions that needed to be addressed in future updates of Salter’s work, I now repeat and, in some cases, expand upon these here:-

1. Genetic patterns/combinations as genetic interests

This refers to genetic structure, and this has been discussed in detail already – e.g, here.  This is a crucially important point that needs to be expanded. It can certainly be done theoretically and qualitatively based upon the known facts. A quantitative examination would require the services of an objective/sympathetic population geneticist (if such exists - doubtful today) and/or further studies about genetic structure and population differences in said structure. In any case, this topic needs to be addressed in future editions of On Genetic Interests.

2. Compare and contrast kinship genetic interests and adaptive genetic interests

Adaptive genetic interests can be renamed functional genetic interests, since the pursuit of kinship genetic interests IS , of course, adaptive and there is no clear distinction here.

Functional genetic interests are a subset of total genetic interests. A simplistic view would be:-

Total Genetic Interests = Kinship Genetic Interests + Functional Genetic Interests.

That is simplistic because of overlap – some portion of functional genetic interests are also kinship genetic interests, since important functional genes can vary in ways correlated to kinship.

Better:-

Total Genetic Interests = Kinship Genetic Interests + (Functional Genetic Interests – The Kinship Component of Functional Genetic Interests).

Simply put, kinship genetic interests are those genetic interests based upon relative kinship, independent upon the functional consequences of the gene sequences in question, while functional genetic interests focuses on how the gene sequences influence phenotype to make the individual and/or group more competitive, and more likely to pass on distinctive genetic information to the next generation.

READ MORE...

Remember Lester Jones, the interesting social constructionist who troubled to engage with “Recititive” at the Guardian’s “Comment Is Free”?  Alas, shortly after that conversation Recititive was despatched to the gulag by the Guardian mods.  They do like to preserve the intellectual purity of their thought-world, and poor Recititive was judged altogether too polluting.

However, some very similar right-wing swine named “unsanctimonius” is playing with the fire of the mods instead, and today he had an encounter with the aforementioned Lester Jones.  As there are one or two half-useful pointers to debating technique in it I will reproduce the goalmouth moments here:-

The thread followed on a very fine and interesting piece of writing about the illusion of leadership by the (I think) Marxist intellectual Jeremy Seabrook.  It finished with this splendid observation:-

Power and privilege will always find ways round efforts to create economic and social justice. And so it has been in our time. The principal participants in the global theatre are increasingly masks of some gigantic harlequinade or Noh play. The script is pasted in the wings. It is their business to offer prospectuses of freedom and constant improvement to the people, to receive acclaim, to fail, and be scorned and repudiated for their venality and dishonesty. They know this. This is why they tend to expend so much effort providing against the time of their downfall; sometimes corruptly, usually within the loose limits placed upon their right to accumulate and prepare for the day when they will be hounded from power in defeat.

It is the ignoble shabbiness of their role that has created a highfalutin language of “governance”, “high office”, “senior politicians”, “veteran leaders”, “statesmen and women”; as well as the global babble about “transparency”, “accountability” and of course, the “empowerment” and “participation” of the people. The grandiose words are merely decorative. No one should be under any illusion about the emancipatory potential of Barack Obama, and nor should we be quite so vengeful over the shambling figure of Gordon Brown who strings together cliches much as our grandmothers knitted kettle-holders. Their destiny is to strut and fret their hour upon the stage, to exit and not mess with the decor.

“Unsanctimonious” duly praised Mr Seabrook thus (trolling ever so slightly, you understand):-

An informed and eloquent article in a desert of wrong-headedness. Thank you, Mr Seabrook.

However, you omit to mention that the power elite are not merely corporatists but are also coldly determined anti-nationalists whose primary assault on our lives is not economic but racial. The power elite is bound to attempt to kill the most stubborn and salient point of resistance to its absolutist ambition, which is the ancient European state tied to and defended by its people.

Nation-killing and race-replacement immigration - all wildly applauded by the dumb and self-loathing, universalist left - is a power elite crime against humanity. When are you, Mr Seabrook, going to break with your universalist principles and defend your people and their homeland against this attack?

And off we went. Lester Jones, defending his ideological turf next in the thread:-

READ MORE...