Mary Riddell is a spiteful, intellectally lazy Observer journalist, an egalitarian activist and, apparently, a believer in the dead Marxist, Stephen J Gould.  Today she has taken it upon herself to write a hate piece about Leeds University professor, Frank Ellis.

Ellis, you will recall, took it upon himself - not for the first time - to do what Drew Fraser did Down Under and inform the British public about racial differentials.  He is a doughty fighter, and has done the same public service in respect to the social effects of The Lawrence Inquiry.  His specialism is Russian and Slavonic Studies, upon which he has the soundest view imaginable - though one hardly likely to endear itself to Ms Riddell.

In her bitch-piece today she is, no doubt, reacting to Ellis’s success in getting his views across.  He knows perfectly well, of course, that the white population is thirsty for such insights and, too, that his notoriety on the Establishment Left is a threat to him professionally and personally.  He is, like Prof Fraser, a brave man for whom the collective cost of silence is greater than any cost to him of speaking out.  He has my admiration and, I don’t doubt, that of many others with no website on which to express it.  I admire his cheek, too.  Last week, Ms Riddell reports, he sent the Observer an “an email offering a resumé of his views and asking what we would pay him”.  He must have done it deliciously anticipating the mortification that would ensue among all those so fearful-progressive Observer folk.

READ MORE...

Thanks to Michael R for the following genetic research news - news to me anyway.  From it we can extract a quick, concise and killing rejoinder to that illiterate anti-racist trope: “99.9% of our genes are shared with stink bugs.”

Researchers find factors that distinguish us from other primates

LONDON - How can humans and chimpanzees, who share about 99 percent of the same genes be so different?

Scientists in the United States and Australia say changes in the gene expression, not just genes, is a big part of what separates humans from their nearest relatives. Gene expression is the process by which genes are turned on or off. Not all of the estimated 30,000 genes in humans are activated at the same time in every cell.

“We think gene expression is a major part of what separates chimps and humans,” said Kevin White, an associate professor of genetics, ecology and evolution at Yale University.

More here.

The prospects are great for ecologically imposed patriarchy enhancing the fertility of whites via oceanic frontiers.  The majority of the earth’s surface remains not only uncultivated, but not biologically productive despite the presence of adequate sunlight and near-adequate nutrients. If recent experiments in iron fertilization of high nitrogen low chlorophyll oceanic surface regions are any indication, the primary ingredient lacking is the pioneering spirit that led to the cultivation and increased carrying capacity of the Anglosphere’s frontier territories: The United States, Canada, New Zealand and Australia.  It is reasonable to expect that the Anglosphere alone could increase its numbers by a factor of 10, relatively unmolested by multicultural supremacists, during this pioneering renaissance and maintain if not improve the quality of their populations.  Other, less sea-faring European peoples could enjoy smaller but nevertheless profound population and territorial relief.  Moreover this population increase could be very rapid if the fertility rates of the United States frontier is any guide.  This is a prospect that seems plausible in no other way short of world war.

READ MORE...

… to be honest, ‘blood and soil’ is such a dismal, choking thing when taken in too strong a dose compared to the attractions of globalised cosmopolitanism.  The wonderful thing about modern ‘identity’ is that you can make it for yourself and rather than having it forced upon you by the people around you.  No, be[ing] a cosmopolitan is not to be less than whole, it is to be British (or American or French or Chinese) .... but not just British (or American or French or Chinese) if that is what you want.  It allows you to be you and to wrap yourself up in the bits of ‘your’ culture which work for you and to say ‘screw it’ to the rest. That is irresistible.

Freedom is not belonging… you can get that at a football match. Freedom is ... well, freedom.

These auto-intoxicating words of Samizdata illuminati and liberty-tripper, Perry de Havilland, were passed down to me from on “high” during a debate on what is now an ancient and very much pre-MR thread at his blog.  For anyone who still doesn’t know, Samizdata is a famously critical-rationalist (ie, Popperian) blog, and is right-wing Britain’s most-hit (by us!).

As was my practise at the time of that quote, I always acted with caution, giving Poppergun Perry no excuse to ban me.  Later it transpired that no excuse was necessary.  But that’s another story.

Now, following our disgracefully enjoyable examination of all these critical-rationalists’ emotional lives, organised so ably for us by Alex, I want to take a moment to reflect on the strange hatreds and glaring weaknesses of these desperately bitchy, cosmopolitan housewives.

READ MORE...

All British and United States troops serving in Iraq will be withdrawn within a year in an effort to bring peace and stability to the country.

The news came as defence chiefs admitted privately that the British troop commitment in Afghanistan may last for up to 10 years.

The planned pull-out from Iraq follows the acceptance by London and Washington that the presence of the coalition, mainly composed of British and US troops, is now seen as the main obstacle to peace.

According to a senior defence source directly involved in planning the withdrawal, Britain is the driving force behind the scheme. The early spring of next year has been identified as the optimum time for the start of the complex and dangerous operation.

The source explained that troop numbers were expected to decrease slightly over the next 12 months but that the bulk of British and American forces, who make up 138,000 of the coalition’s 153,000 troops, would be withdrawn simultaneously.

... The source said: “Our presence [in Iraq] is now part of the problem. That is a situation which is now accepted by both governments. We are viewed as an occupation force even though, at the moment, we are in Iraq at the invitation of the government.

“Every time we go out on patrol we run the risk of drawing fire and taking unnecessary casualties. The security situation will not improve in the short term, whether we are in Iraq or not.”

From an article on the Telegraph website, quoting unattributed sources.

If this is right, the most ill-conceived, dishonest, expensive and pointless foreign adventure in modern times will end in humiliation as Sunni and Shia “extremists” compete to send coalition forces home as bloodied as possible.  That may not be very bloodied, as these things go.  But it won’t be easy for the government machine in Washington and in London to claim the much-craved honourable exit.  “Obstacles to peace” cannot exit honourably.

After that, what are the chances for democracy in Iraq, or for any operational longevity of the Iraqi Defence Force which must underpin it?  What is there to prevent the country splitting into its three warring factions?  And if this isn’t the result the White House - and, poodle-like, Downing Street - foresaw at the outset, who will pay the political price after so much deceit and waste?

Does ethnicity matter? Is it important?

Right-wing (classical) liberals generally answer with a consistent “no”. Even if they feel some sense of ethnic identity themselves, they believe that a modern, autonomous individual should be shaped by his own reasoned choices. We don’t get to choose our ethnicity, so it is assumed (at best) that ethnicity is something of secondary rank within human nature, something of a sentimental nature, but not relevant to how we choose to organise our lives or our society.

Left-wing liberals are less consistent. Like all liberals, they believe that we are human because of a freedom to exercise our individual will. Therefore, they tend to read issues in terms of power relations: who is dominant in their will over others. Those tagged as dominant tend to lose moral legitimacy, as they are thought to have organised a privilege at the expense of the oppressed “other”.

What this means is that left-wing liberals will generally be harsher on ethnic groups tagged as “dominant” than on those they consider oppressed – especially if the “oppressed” group is thought to be rallying around ethnic discrimination to improve their status.

For a traditionalist conservative like myself, neither of these liberal views is adequate. A traditionalist would argue that ethnicity is important in creating a social context for individual life and in providing a core source of identity for individuals.

This is true whether we belong to a large, successful, “dominant” ethnic group (e.g. the Japanese), or a small, beleaguered one (e.g. an Amazonian rainforest tribe).

READ MORE...

You can picture the scene.  The DCI had been in Court all morning, and from there straight into conference with the CPS, the PA, Coroner’s Office and a few voluntary sector types.  All part of the Minister’s new “Startline” initiative.  A reheat, naturally.  No different to “Overview”, which wasn’t any different to “Deliver, a Multi-Agency Approach to Crime Management for a New Society in a New Millenium”.  And that was back in 99, when people were still naïve enough to believe that new fangled top-down theories could do more than the old-time, hairy-arsed copper.

But at the sharp end things have moved on since then.  Coppering is stretched out between two worlds, the politician’s and the criminal’s.  And they are growing farther and farther apart by the day.  It wasn’t the crime-fighting that was causing the trouble, really - even though the scrotes were a different proposition.  No, it was whichever bright-eyed grad happened to be writing papers for the Home Office at the time.  Those buggers never learned.  Next year there would be another meaningless CM initiative, and two more the year after that.  And then there would be all the latest bloody sensitivity training intiatives, equality audits, outreach recommendations ...  It was an extremely strange way to nick criminals.

Still, one has to play the game, show willing and all that.  The meeting that afternoon had required more than the usual quota of willing, of right-noise making.  So when, finally, the DCI nipped in to the station on his way home it was past eight.  He was tired.  He didn’t want to hang around.  Just get a couple of quick things done and then get away.

But that hope went up in smoke as soon as he pushed through the cheap plywood door to his office.  His extention was ringing.  He snatched it up.

READ MORE...

In The Return of Patriarchy Foreign Policy’s Phillip Longman opines:

Patriarchy does not simply mean that men rule. Indeed, it is a particular value system that not only requires men to marry but to marry a woman of proper station. It competes with many other male visions of the good life, and for that reason alone is prone to come in cycles. Yet before it degenerates, it is a cultural regime that serves to keep birthrates high among the affluent, while also maximizing parents’ investments in their children. No advanced civilization has yet learned how to endure without it.

And I would add that no advanced white civilization has yet endured for the simple reason that none has learned what makes Europeans fertile.

As I’ve often pointed out before, there are two big exceptions to the decline of total fertility rates among whites, exemplified in the United States by Utah and Alaska.  These two States correspond to the ancient dichotomy between socially imposed monogamy and ecologically imposed monogamy respectively.  Utah has socially imposed male authority (via Mormonism which posits a father as priest to his family) and Alaska has ecologically imposed male authority.  It is the latter that is the more natural for whites and it is why abandonment of the pursuit of frontiers, as occurred in 1972, is so destructive to white fertility.  By frontiers I’m referring to physical, not political, frontiers.  Although fighting wars can affect the operational sex ratio (unmated males/unmated females) in a way that enhances white fertility, it is a terminal euphoria, as shown by the post WW II baby boom generation.  The frontiers I’m talking about increase the carrying capacity of a territory as happened in Europe during the retreat of the glaciers, during the neolithic, or during the expansion of North American crop cover.  Although I’ve walked my talk for a long time now to open up space as a frontier, the wheels of the gods are now turning slowly in the right direction for the long journey there and it is time to pursue more immediate concerns.  That is what this series of messages on “Ocean Frontier Fertility” will be about.