Ten years ago Moreland City College in the Melbourne suburb of Coburg had an enrolment of over 1000 students. Last year numbers had fallen to 270 and the school was closed.

Why? It seems that multiculturalism didn’t work in this Coburg school. A group of highly disruptive students gave the school a bad reputation from which it never recovered. And there is now evidence that these disruptive students were Lebanese Muslims who hated Australia and wanted to replace it with an Islamic state.

A former teacher, Chris Doig, tried to raise the alarm when some of his students danced with joy after the September 11 attacks. His concerns were ignored by authorities. Mr Doig said of these Lebanese students that “Some of the disruptive ones would say that Australia was degenerate and our legal system would be replaced by Shariah law in the not too distant future.”

He also said of the disgruntled students that “Some of these were so disruptive and even violent that staff and other students abandoned the school when they could.”

Nor is Mr Doig a lone voice. Two other teachers have supported his claims. One of these says that the disruptive students used to boast that Australia would become a majority Islamic country in 50 years. “They would do this by converting the infidel and by out-breeding the rest of the community.”

John Ray recently complained that America isn’t allowing in enough skilled migrants. He believes that the US should follow Australia’s lead and bring in more Indian and Chinese computer programmers and engineers.

What John didn’t mention was how controversial the skilled migration program actually is in Australia.

The problem is that it’s very difficult to recruit migrants with exactly those skills needed by the Australian economy at a particular time.

The result is that skilled migration often ends up creating a labour surplus in particular fields which is bad for everyone. It makes it harder for local graduates to get jobs, and it means that many highly skilled migrants end up driving taxis in Australia rather than doing good work in their home countries.

As far back as 1996, there were researchers warning of this problem. This, for instance, is a quote from the Business Review Weekly of November 18th 1996,

READ MORE...

The robust – I might say characteristically robust – response from a number of MR people to John’s “jolly Indian” post set me thinking about the problem of Individualism.  And it is a problem for us.  Not so much, perhaps, in cases such as Razib’s, who today answered a query about “the substantive difference between you (Razib) and the Majority Rights crowd” as:-

“Majority [group] Rights vs. Individual Rights”

Now, I agree with Razib here.  MR is primarily a vehicle to discuss the present and future life of Western Man, while GNXP argues for “Eastern Man’s” interests in the West and ONLY in the West by commending to us the lot of an atomised individual.  (And if you are offended by that recommendation, you bloody well should be.  It is offensive.)

Offensive he may be, but Razib is no evil genius.  He is an uncomplicated young guy pursuing his “individual rights” in an entirely predictable way, and I don’t disdain him for that.  I do disdain him, along with all GNXPers, for acting like the worst leftist and blackening our names for doing what we can to defend our group interests.  But if he and we can agree that he does it in the name of a competing interest – he doesn’t want to be excluded just because we prefer our own kind – then at least we all know where we are coming from.  Namely, the Salterism which GNXP’s David B so utterly failed to disprove or discredit because it can’t be disproved or discredited.  It is manifestly true.

READ MORE...

In 2003, with little publicity, an Australian Senate committee made a momentous decision.

With support from all parties, the committee recommended the formation of a Pacific Economic and Political Community – the PEPC.

The committee summarised its final report as follows:

“In essence, it proposes a Pacific community which will eventually have one currency, one labour market, common strong budgetary and fiscal discipline, democratic and ethical governance, shared defence and security arrangements, common laws and resolve in fighting crime, and, health, welfare, education and environmental goals.”

Note that there would be a single currency and a single labour market. Sound familiar? It’s very much like the European Union, I think, except that the differences between the participating countries would be much greater.

Australia would effectively federate into a super-state, not only with New Zealand, but with Papua New Guinea and thirteen other Pacific Island nations.

READ MORE...

“For personal reasons I would like to believe that men and women are equal, and broadly that’s true.  But over a period of time the evidence in favour of biological factors has become stronger and stronger.  I have been dragged in a direction that I don’t particularly like, but it would be sensible if the debate was based on what we pretty much know to be the case.”  -  Dr Paul Irwing, in The Times, giving liberals the shocking news in a cuddly, empathic way.

Dr Irwing and Professor Lynn (whose earlier, liberal-offending exploits are touched upon at the end of the article) are only saying what anybody capable of surfing internet politics can easily discover:-

Men are more intelligent than women by about five IQ points on average, making them better suited for “tasks of high complexity”, according to the authors of a paper due to be published in the British Journal of Psychology.

Genetic differences in intelligence between the sexes helped to explain why many more men than women won Nobel Prizes or became chess grandmasters, the study by Paul Irwing and Professor Richard Lynn concluded.

They showed that men outnumbered women in increasing numbers as intelligence levels rise. There were twice as many with IQ scores of 125, a level typical for people with first-class degrees.

When scores rose to 155, a level associated with genius, there were 5.5 men for every woman.

Alright, not new information for us.  But it is interesting that the MSM is now prepared to touch the IQ story at last - one thinks of the Guardian’s recent admission that, yes, genes have a role in general intelligence.  It doesn’t matter whether these are coincidental swallows.  Enough of them will usher in summer, and all scientists for whom the left has proved a censorious foe should think on that.

Human difference, lest one forgets, simply does not lend itself as a foundation for marxian politics.  We are a very long way yet from seeing the hopeless expectations of Affirmative Action recipients or the egalitarian obsessions of the establishment or the selfish interests of state employees challenged.  But that is the goal.  The public acknowledgement - however gradual and haphazard - of a truth that has been (at times, viciously) suppressed for three decades is a necessary start.  We need much, much more of it.

Some months ago I received a manuscript in the mail bearing the return address of an old friend.  This friend later denied any knowledge of the thing.  The postmark and stamps were unremarkable, and I have never been able to discover the identities of the sender, the two correspondents in the remarkable, fragmentary dialogue, or the author of the commentary, one “Johannes Climacus”.

I have been reluctant to publish this material, fearing that it might meet a hostile reception even from those who stand most to gain from an understanding of it.  But finally, overcoming these scruples, I determined to cast it like bread upon the bitter waters of MR, where readers may carp at it at their leisure.

Dialogue Conducted In Anticipation of the End of History

LYCOPHRON:  I suppose that one question (there are several that I won’t raise) is:  given the Eurasian characteristics of Dugin’s perspective (naturally, given where he is), his relationship to his own traditions and to globalization, etc. makes a certain sense.  But how would, say, an American in sympathy with these ideas situate himself?  I don’t necessarily mean practically, but close enough—do you move to Russia and pray for a reversion of North America to primeval forest?  That’s not meant derisively, but it raises an important question, which is: clearly someone in his context can be for something, but can someone in our context appropriate these ideas and be for anything?

READ MORE...

On July 25th BBC2 aired a powerful, half-hour piece of investigative journalism titled, “The Siege of Darley Hall Farm.  It charted:-

... five years of guerrilla warfare directed against John Hall, a guinea-pig farmer whose stock is bred for medical experimentation ...  [It] revealed how the tentacles of extremism exert a stranglehold first over one enterprise, then a series, and from here an entire community.  Stories of personal courage abounded as the Animal Liberation Front’s campaign intensified from dire warnings and attacks against property to arson, accusations of paedophilia, murder threats, and, finally, body snatching.

Altogether, the farm and its surrounds have endured 290 protests and 170 incidents of violence and intimidation.  In March a High Court judge refused the area an exclusion zone, while defining these actions as a terror campaign.  The ALF, it would seem, is not the only perpetrator of inhumanity.

Today we learn that the terror tactics, and specifically the stealing of the remains of the Hall family’s grandmother, were successful.  The Halls will abandon animal breeding in the hope that her remains will be returned.

The legal system badly failed the Halls.  No less importantly, it has failed the cause of scientific research in Britain and it has failed all of us.  Why?

When I consider the rush to protect Muslims through anti-British religious hate speech law, to bring Nick Griffin and his co-defendant to court for predicting 7/7 and to hound John Tyndall to his grave, I can only conclude that the legal will exists in spades if the “offender” suits the liberal establishment.  As far as I know the New Labour clique aren’t militant vegans.  The Animal Liberation Front has no members among Labour MP’s.  So is it that a residual 1960’s Student Union admiration for action directe is at work in them?  Is left-organised protest always allowed to pass because there are, as everybody knows, “no enemies to the left”?

ALF is everybody’s enemy.  Can anyone explain why it is not seen by our betters for the evil it is and stopped in its tracks at the outset?

UPDATE

Adam Nicolson, writing in the Guardian (where else?), has answered all my questions.

READ MORE...

“Leadership elections are intended to expose the ideas of rival candidates - thus making it possible for the party to decide the direction in which it wants to be led.  The Tory party is being denied that opportunity.  That is, I suspect, because none of the leadership candidates has the faintest idea about what Conservatism now stands for.  Meanwhile their supporters are engaged in no more than a doomed search for a “winner” who does not exist.”

Roy Hattersley, his tap dripping less bile than usual in today’s Guardian.

To which, no doubt, spirited Tories will counter that “if a week is a long time in politics four years is a hell of a lot longer.”  Or perhaps “oppositions don’t win elections, governments lose ‘em.”  That is the self-calming fatalism which passes for electoral wisdom on the right today.

READ MORE...