Leader writers, those callow redbrick graddies who cut their not-yet-yellow journalist’s teeth on a few hundred words of thunderous pointlessness every day, are not normally the controversial sort.  They can’t afford to be.  Careers ahead of them, editors to impress, ghastly blunders to avoid ... you know how it is.  But one of this morning’s two offerings by the Telegraph’s leader writer ever so slightly cracked the mould.

His or, just possibly, her first paragraph was a standard Telegraph rant at the dishonesty of the BBC.  Read it many a time.  But then our young hopeful warmed to his (or just possibly her) task, displaying a knowledge of Genghis Khan’s liberal social policy that, as they say, rocked: When he conquered a new tribe, it was his custom to liquidate the aristocracy and assimilate the lower orders: “providing opportunities for the many and not the few”, as it were.  Where modern socialists are sometimes accused of cutting high achievers down to size, Genghis did this literally, ordering the execution of all Tatars over a certain height.  He was a great believer in state power, replacing Mongolia’s clan system with a rudimentary bureaucracy.  He was even an early decimaliser, organising his forces in units of 10.

It was a laugh, that was all.  But I stopped smiling and started thinking when I read the penultimate sentence: Above all, he was a supra-nationalist, deliberately mingling subject populations to destroy their sense of national identity.

Suddenly, forbidden knowledge hove into view.  You won’t hear Michael Howard say anything like that about Labour - never mind Genghis - on his shirt-sleeved tour of the marginals.  You won’t hear him roaring at Blair & Co for the utterly deliberate damage being done to the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish - but most especially the English.  You won’t hear any Tory rail at Labour’s transnationalism, or rip apart its blank slate racial egalitarianism.  It’s not part of the electoral discourse.  It’s too complicated.  Too dangerous.  Not polite.  And, accordingly, our heroic young journalist finishes off his (or just possibly her) effort blandly and therefore safely career-wise, “Step forward Genghis Khan, father of European integration.”  But that was a clear after-thought of no significance.  The other words, those ones about the deliberate mingling of populations to destroy national identity, were burnt onto the page.

It’s good to know that this sort of seminal critique of liberalism is received “out there”, beyond the internet badlands of right-wing cyber-bastards like us.  It’s good to know that it’s not completely self-censored as the left dictates, too.  Perhaps it’s all worth saying again ... and again.

The art world is one of the most corrupted components of British society.  It is filled with talentless professional eccentrics, poseurs and intellectual frauds and lightweights who daub with faeces and trade in pure shock value or boorish mundanity.

What might have been excusable were it no more than the surviving rump of 20th century modernism, refining perhaps the irony of Duchamps and Dali but not their outrageousness, has completely taken over the asylum.  As Prince Charles famously said of architecture, the avant garde has become the establishment.  It seems that there is no way back, for the structure of patronage and schooling which produced the great art of our European past cannot be replicated.  Democracy, capitalism and the state have killed it off absolutely and forever.

The consequence, quite apart from the flight from beauty and the total failure of draughtsmanship, is that the general public has become hopelessly innured to badness.  It traipses along to the galleries to be baffled, amused, entertained by the shock of the bad - in the process, naturally enough, creating a demand for more and yet more and worse badness.  We know it’s all crudely unintellectual schlock of the lowest order, a sublime joke in which some Highfallutin Johnny Expert informs us with a perfectly straight face as to that before which we must genuflect.  But still, it seems, we genuflect.

READ MORE...

THE government has secretly calculated there are about 500,000 illegal immigrants in Britain despite repeated claims by ministers that they do not know the scale of the problem.

However, in the face of a political controversy over lax controls at Britain’s borders, experts involved were told not to reveal the figure.

So begins the lead article in today’s Times Online.

One quite expects governments to “finesse” or just hide inconvenient information.  In the public mind “secrecy” and “Whitehall” go together like peaches and cream.  But from what pain and discontent, precisely, are our wise and far-seeing rulers protecting us now?  Surely, they can’t fear that we shall resent the news of 500,000 illegal but always, of course, vibrant and diverse “saints” walking among us.  Why, they told us that kind of thing was a cause for celebration.  Isn’t it, then?

You have to have a heart of stone not to crack a smile at this tale of death-defying baby-hood.  Thirteen-month old baby boy Lavonta Clark - mother Lawanda, sister Latonia (Bob Cosby would not be happy) -  “survived a drop from a third-story window.  Amazingly, a couple of scratches and a bump on the back of his head are his only injuries.”

The “drop” was inflicted by an 11-year old boy who had had enough of Lavonta’s crying.  You know how it is when you are eleven.  Crying baby ... open window ... end of problem.  Except this time the problem had its fall broken by bushes and cushioned by soft mud.  Result: Lavonta’s screaming even louder and you’ve got a new addition to the rap sheet.  But now you know why guns are good.

Mum Lawanda appears to have wandered away, possibly to “get some things together.”  She needed to give some money to her landlord.  It is not known if the things produced any money.  It is known that she had left her baby in the charge of the eleven-year felon’s aunt who ... well anyway, that’s the way they like to do things in Cincinnati.  From here on, though, Lawanda is going to “focus” on her son.  She would do well to focus on the 11-year old, too.

Last night I found myself explaining the facts of MR life to Birch of GNXP (see latter part of thread).  He had visited us armed with his co-bloggers’ rather puerile and, probably, resentful smear that we are a WN site - meaning a racist, hating sort of operation obsessed with race, race and nothing but race.

I don’t know whether I adequately dealt with this brickbat.  If not, I point the GNXPers and our own readers to the Telegraph today.  It offers a more wistful and eloquent reply by the splendid Charles Moore.  There, I think, one can hear the authentic voice of a mild and much put upon “majority”.

Moore himself concludes:-

There is, at heart, a simple reason why immigration has more than doubled under Mr Blair.  It is because Labour wants it.  Its current policy states: “Controlled and managed immigration is essential to the economic wellbeing of the United Kingdom and the health of the public services.”  This sentence sounds reassuring, but actually it is saying that mass immigration is a good thing. I do not believe that most British voters accept this.  It is high time it was submitted to a clear electoral test.

Alright, Moore’s little survey is completely unscientific.  Politically, it is not very deep.  It does not peel back the layers of blank slate egalitarianism which underpin Labour’s creaking model of Man, nation and race.  But it does shine a light into corners where party polling cannot and

venture.  We, of course, do.  It is our function to examine as best we can the sometimes hidden, oftimes ignored will and interests of the majority.

This is something that GNXP fundamentally opposes.  It is something, actually, that almost the entire political establishment of the western world opposes - along, as we know, with most of academia,  the mainstream media, etc.

They, though, are not in the slightest concerned to answer the question which Moore places in the mouths of those he encountered in the rain of St Leonards: “What can we call ours?”

“WN” or not, race-obsessed or not ... we are.

Browsing through an autobiography of authoress P.D. James, I was surprised to discover she is something of an Anglican traditionalist. She writes,

“The Church of England in my childhood was the national church in a very special sense, the visible symbol of the country’s moral and religious aspirations, a country which, despite great differences of class, wealth and privilege, was unified by generally accepted values and by a common tradition, history and culture, just as the Church was unified by Cranmer’s magnificent liturgy.”

As you might expect, she does not approve of recent developments within the C of E. She declares,

READ MORE...

I have long regarded the political correctness movement as a threat to all independent thought, and I am deeply concerned about the level of self-censorship in academia. To counteract this tendency, I have left no political taboo untouched in my teaching. I believed that America was still free enough for this to be possible, and I assumed that my relative prominence offered me some extra protection.

If I made one mistake, it was that I was too cooperative and waited too long to go on the offensive.

The closing words of a statement by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, professor of economics at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, following his victory over a UNLV “commissar”.

Hoppe had been persecuted through the disciplinary machinery of the university for an entire year by this individual.  His sin was having twice failed, while lecturing, to take account of the feelings of a homosexual student.

The academic world - or that part of it that cares more for academic freedom than political correctness - rode to Hoppe’s defence.  UNLV was presented with a public relations disaster and, with some reluctance it seems, was finally forced to back down.

There’s been another survey showing a disintegration of Dutch national feeling. The survey found that 32% of the Dutch wish to emigrate and that only 51% feel proud of their country.

Why such negativity? According to the researchers, people complained about “political developments, multiculturalism, over-population, criminality and socially distant people.”

What makes this situation especially interesting is that The Netherlands has always been held up as a showpiece of liberalism. It is what we are all meant to be heading toward. And yet multiculturalism has already been so destructive of a sense of Dutch national community that a third of the population wants to leave.

READ MORE...