Leicester is the tenth largest city in England, and the first, it is said, in which the English natives have been tipped over into minority status (though that is not officially confirmed).  It is also the burial place of “the last English king”, and of the arising of the first English Community Group.

The group was formed last year with the help and guidance of the English charity, The Steadfast Trust.  Its first significant project has been a poll of local opinion in areas like Braunstone where there is a high proportion of English people resident.  Some 5,000 questionnaires were sent out, and 112 were returned completed.  That’s a 2.24% response rate.  Now, that’s not a high rate, and probably doesn’t exceed the average vote in the city (these days) for the BNP.  But if one doesn’t pay too much heed to the number, there is some pretty startling stuff here.

The question, of course, is how far from representativeness the results are for the English of Leicester.  A YouGov study conducted in 2006 showed that 55% of respondees agreed with BNP policies when the name of the party was not attached to them, falling to 49% when it was.  So I wouldn’t write it off merely as an exercise in assorting the BNP supporters from the good folk of Leicester.

Here, anyway, are the survey results.

READ MORE...

The Atlantic’s sensational article titled “Hacking the President’s DNA” would be merely sensational (after all, we’re only talking about the DNA-targeted assassination of world “leaders”—“leaders” that are as fungible as crack cocaine) were it not for this section:

Despite a budget of $3 billion, progress did not come quickly. Even after years of hard work, many experts doubted that the time and money budgeted would be enough to complete the job.

This started to change in 1998, when the entrepreneurial biologist J. Craig Venter and his company, Celera, got into the race. Taking advantage of the exponential growth in biotechnology, Venter relied on a new generation of gene sequencers and a novel, computer-intensive approach called shotgun sequencing to deliver a draft human genome (his own) in less than two years, for $300 million.

Venter’s achievement was stunning; it was also just the beginning. By 2007, just seven years later, a human genome could be sequenced for less than $1 million. In 2008, some labs would do it for $60,000, and in 2009, $5,000. This year, the $1,000 barrier looks likely to fall. At the current rate of decline, within five years, the cost will be less than $100. In the history of the world, perhaps no other technology has dropped in price and increased in performance so dramatically….

Gathering the equipment required to do all of this isn’t trivial, and yet, as researchers have upgraded to new tools, as large companies have merged and consolidated operations, and as smaller shops have run out of money and failed, plenty of used lab equipment has been dumped onto the resale market. New, the requisite gear would cost well over $1 million. On eBay, it can be had for as little as $10,000. Strip out the analysis equipment—since those processes can now be outsourced—and a basic cell-culture rig can be cobbled together for less than $1,000. Chemicals and lab supplies have never been easier to buy; hundreds of Web resellers take credit cards and ship almost anywhere.

This is the engineering of pathogens whose virulence is targeted so specifically that it can kill only one person in the world while rendering the rest of the infected suffering from nothing more than virus-transmitting extended phenotypes such as sneezing.

An individual’s DNA is merely an extreme case of genetic correlation structure.  It is far simpler to have a less-specific genetic correlation structure be the DNA target, eg: race or ethnicity.

Moreover, there is no particular reason that the virulence of the pathogen to the target need be fatal.  For many purposes it would suffice to merely make it debilitating in some way—such as a propensity toward obesity which has a variety of effects on reproductive viability, longevity and cognition.  Or it might affect only certain areas of the brain involved in territorial defense such as the amygdala (as does HIV) without seriously impacting other aspects of the organism.

There have been rumors, for years, that Israeli scientists had been working on ethnospecific biological weapons.  There were few, if any other nation states outside of Africa in a position of sufficient ethnocentrism, moral insularity and secrecy to even consider pursuing such a program.  As the scale of the ethnospecific bioweapon laboratory decreases below that requiring the resources of a nation state, the number of such laboratories is bound to proliferate.

It is fairly clear that there may already exist several such laboratories in Asia and the Near East, and perhaps in Latin America.  In the West, the only place such laboratories plausibly exist are in the neocon-controlled bowels of the DoD, although the concentration of Dravidians, increasingly taking the CTO positions of the Fortune 1000, particularly in Silicon Valley, combined with their obvious ethnocentric designs on the United States, makes it likely they will soon have laboratories of this kind on US soil.  Similar situations obtain in Great Britain.

One thing is clear:  People with the genetic correlation structures we think of as “our” race’s DNA are not among those at the vanguard of such ethnocentric, morally insular and secretive scientists.

We can, perhaps, take some comfort in the fact that almost all of those who would target our genetic correlation structures will leave our women relatively healthy—although they might well be cognitively debilitated to make them more “tolerant” of the sexual advances of untargeted men.

An update to my series on Ocean Frontier Fertility started here at MR in 2006.

An entrepreneur dumped 100 tons of iron sulphate off the coast of Vancouver, British Columbia, causing a phytoplankton bloom, the purpose of which was to feed algae-grazing sockeye salmon and increase the harvest for Amerindian tribes economically dependent on salmon.

The globalist chattering class is in an uproar.  To listen to them, this madman is running a substantial risk of permanently damaging the fragile ecosystems being fertilized, if not the entire ocean hence biosphere.

What you won’t read in the reports of this event from venerable institutions like the National Geographic and The Smithsonian is that volcanic eruptions, nearby in the Gulf of Alaska—eruptions that dumped hundreds of tons of iron into the ocean—have historically been followed, 2 years later, by surges in sockeye salmon runs.  This isn’t even controversial.

Indeed, as described in my prior installments on “Ocean Frontier Fertility”, the prospect of iron fertilization for agriculture is so great that it is plausible that much, if not most, of the biosphere’s arable lands could be returned to their natural state—a catastrophically beneficial global environmental change.  We don’t even need to discuss whether carbon would be sequestered, let alone whether global warming is anthropogenic to see that conducting iron fertilization tests on this scale is a no-brainer “go” decision from an environmental viewpoint.

So what is really behind the globalist hysterics?  Why do they hate the environment so much that they would wish to prevent the return of the Amazon rainforest—return the Midwest US prairie and bison—return African habitats to the rare and endangered species—all while feeding the world on high quality, brain-developing protein and fish oils?  Is it that they hate African children who would benefit greatly by such nutrition?

Of course not.

They are afraid that whites might get loose again—this time to the oceans—and avoid the accelerating extinction of their unique genetic endowment of individual sovereignty bequeathed to whites by their “barbaric” culture, the way they almost did in the New World.

Its that simple.

There cannot be many of us who do not owe a debt of gratitude to Phil Rushton, both for his theoretical brilliance, allied to an unswerving devotion in most difficult professional circumstances to the cause of unpopular scientific truths, and for his steadfast, loyal European heart.  How much poorer would we all have been had Rushton not possessed these qualities ... had he merely shied away from the race question and lived an ordinary academic’s life, a quiet life, the life of an unquestioning product of his political times.

I did not discover Rushton until early in 2003.  It was at that time when I had decided to contribute something to the cause of white survival.  There was a particular question which troubled me, and which I saw as holding a key to changing the fortunes of white advocacy.  To answer it I needed a crucible, and to get that ... to construct something people would feel worthwhile writing for and reading ... I had to generate some kind of internet presence.

Cue Race, Evolution, and Behaviour.  When I came across it at Rushton’s own Darwin site, it had already been published eight years, and Rushton himself had said that he had run out of opponents to debate.  I certainly hadn’t, though.  I had found what I needed, and promptly devoured it in one sitting, reading in bed until the small hours.  For the next fourteen or fifteen months I blasted around the political blogosphere provoking every liberal, every racial egalitarian, every race-denier, every anti-racist I could into a hopeless battle about human differences and hereditarianism (hopeless courtesy of Rushton’s superb analysis), psychometrics, and gene issues generally.

A surprising number of my opponents knew of Rushton, and had a ready put-down - second- or third-hand of course.  I do not believe that a single one of them escaped the shredder.  REB’s central theory of r/K and child development was just too perfect in its internal fit.  Most of the liberal rif-raff, of course, didn’t know about this “controversial” (meaning courageous) Anglo-Canadian psychology professor, born on the Dorset-Hampshire border a couple of miles from my own birthplace and eight years distant in time.  They would, in any case, have considered their political truths inviolable to attack by one supposed racist using the theories of another.  They never had a chance.  There was metaphorical blood everywhere.

Thanks to the carnage I had something to gesture towards when the moment came, in the summer of 2004, to put together a slate of writers for a website to be titled majorityrights.com.  I never knew Rushton, and only corresponded with him very briefly.  I wish now I had had the opportunity to explain how much I extracted from his thesis and to what purpose I had put it.  He would probably have wanted to know, like most scientists, if I had correctly and faithfully represented his thought.  The answer was that REB was so beautifully and clearly written, that was an easy task.

There is not another Phil Rushton in this world.  White Nationalism has lost a true champion.  He did not live nearly long enough - gone at just 68.  But for his life and his talents and his work we equally loyal-hearted sons and daughters of old Europe can be extraordinarily grateful.  I know I am.

Something is stirring in France, and its name is Génération Identitaire:

READ MORE...

Hate is the emotion of powerless resistance.

Hate becomes a crime during the last stages of consolidating tyranny.

Since the BNP demise thread transmogrified into a thread warfare thread, I thought it might be helpful to augment previous advice on comment style and content with a few practical tips on staying alive in the thread war.

Choosing your battleground

Different media have widely differing accessibilities for nationalists and tolerances for nationalist opinion.  We are, though, engaged in a war for control of the discourse, and that means finding the level of truth-speaking at which it is possible to participate.

Pre-moderated media, such as the Daily Mail and the BBC, tend not only to exclude the possibility of an exchange of opinion, but weed out radically pro-white comment.  These media have, in my view, to be addressed later, if and when the general discourse has been liberalised.  The place to start is post-moderated sites on the political right, where the tenor of comment provides more cover.  Post-moderated sites on the left, like CiF, New Statesman, and The Independent are good places to conduct raids but are not relevant to the campaign as such (though they have utility when the left is in power).

The Daily Telegraph is clear favourite among the dailies in Britain.  It has the advantage of separate DISQUS systems for the general comment and news system and for the blog system, so a user-name ban in one does not imply a user-name ban in the other (a full IP ban does, though).

READ MORE...

... discussed at the British Democracy Forum in a post titled somewhat more speculatively than it would seem, “Message to Nick Griffin’s Special Branch handlers”.

Bear in mind the that German government court papers of a year or two back indicated that out of 200 leading NPD functionaries, 30 were working as undercover agents.

The interesting part of the conversation begins with a response to another BDF member who had observed that, “There is a great willingness - indeed, an enthusiasm - to believe that Griffin is “state” or an “agent”. To do so allows one to exculpate the mind. It is a nonsense. Griffin is nothing more nor less than a failed would-be businessman with a penchant for dubious practice, like most pyramid salesmen.”

Mike: Fair point for general membership but others knew well what was going on and blanked it from their minds for convenience. The ords look at the tops and say well they are still there so the rumours must be false. The tops are guilty parties.

It’s the same with state plants. They can scream to high heaven ‘I’m a plant’ and people blank it as something which only happens in books - like bank runs. There is one at the moment outside the BNP who screams it. As someone said to me of followers ‘They’ve been told and it goes over their heads’. Now you can never be 100% sure so the correct thing is to be wary of what they are up to and where it might lead not ignore it.

View the operations of Mark Kennedy elsewhere. Appears from nowhere and very helpful plus provides facilities. People like that you keep an eye on. If they are plants they’ll let it slip somehow. It’s only human. Look out for sabotage or luring you into situations which can be used against you but not necessarily involving anything illegal. And keep in mind that the state is obsessed with building databases of ‘enemies of society’. MI5 had files on FOUR MILLION people some years ago. Even they admitted this was a little excessive. A lot of these plants are name and address collectors. Anyone opposing state policy - even writing to a newspaper - is an ‘enemy of society’.

I think these guys must be soft minded. They’ll be dumped as soon as not useful. It’s not worth it.

Mill: The problem is that such a large proportion of prominent nationalists have been labelled “State Plants” at some time or other, that it becomes difficult to separate the fiction from the reality.

READ MORE...