I’ve just finished reading The Cousins by Max Egremont. It’s about two members of the English gentry, Wilfrid Scawen Blunt and George Wyndham, who were both politically active in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

The impression you get of the gentry in the book is largely positive. Being part of the tradition of a landed estate, and having a good education and time for leisure, seems to have made the gentry both more cultivated and more genuinely conservative than the upper class we have today.

READ MORE...

So, Anglo-French tensions have “heightened last night after Jacques Chirac delivered a series of insults to Britain as London and Paris fought to secure the 2012 Olympic Games and faced fresh disagreement at the G8 summit.”

Great.  Let’s hope the IOC is so impressed by Jacque’s Gallic charm that it awards not only the 2012 Olympics to heterosexually Gay Paree but 2016 as well ... and 2020, 2024 and beyond.  I see no reason why the French taxpayer should not fund the Games in perpetuity.  Speaking for myself, though, I would prefer to hang on to my income to save or spend as befits my needs.

The next best option to inflicting actual bodily pain on the French wallet would be to forego the Olympian expense and scrub the competitive side of the Games completely.  Medals should simply be awarded according to tradition.

So ... in athletics the “blue riband” 100m Mens medals could be divided up quite appropriately between two black Americans and anutha brutha from the Caribbean.  Kenya could have a clean sweep of the long distance medals, of course.  Britain would be allotted a women’s archery gold and do jolly well in almost all the most obscure sailing categories.

This would mean that the papers could write their stories of plucky Brit defeat, dropped batons and positive drug-tests months, even years before the sacred flame is lit.  The free-wheeling closing ceremony, which nobody pays much attention to, could take place in advance of the big set-piece opening one, which everybody seems to think terribly important - though I have no idea why.  In fact, one ceremony could be run straight into the other.  It’s only efficient and obviously a winning formula.  I can’t think why nobody has come up with it before.

Best of all, non-English people like David Aaronovitch can enjoy the vibrant, outdoor life of their MultiCult melting pot without being torn away to watch grown men jumping into a sandpit all day (medals for Brazil, America, Cuba or diverse similarities).  London is so very youthful and exciting now there are so few Londoners in it, not a second should be spent away from drinking it all in.

And Paris?  Well, it’s just not the same.  A museum.  No wonder Jacques is envious of Tony.

I bet one or two of those French Muslims can go some over 1500m, though.

For me, certainly, and no doubt for many other MR folk the suddeness with which “Peak Oil” has come on to the scene, like a great wave rising out of a calm sea, has produced rather more questions than answers.  One of these is: why is it of such interest to nationalists?

Obviously, it does not seem to matter at all yet to the mainstream political parties.  In the UK none of the three mainstreamers have indicated more than a passing acquaintance with the concept.  It’s true, though, that they all have deep ideological investments in ever-rising productivity, consumption and GDP, and that may explain it.  But interestingly, even the Green Party has paid scant attention thus far to Peak Oil and its staggering economic, social and political implications.

The one exception in my little country is the British National Party, which is striving with might and mein to interest its membership in the issue.  Yesterday Nick Griffin put up an article on the BNP website and also announced the launch of a special Peak Oil section in its newspaper.

The latter has a very interesting resumé titled Opportunity?.  It is either a piece of frothing at the mouth by frustrated, second-rate minds and political no-hopers ... or it is rather visionary and the source of hope for those who don’t welcome an endlessly diverse future.  Read and decide for yourself.

In Griffin’s article he reveals that he expects to “challenge for power” around 2030.  Yes OK, far enough away to be faintly possible, near enough to keep his supporters digging into their pockets.  But cultural marxism, our ruling ideology, will not last indefinitely anymore than classical marxism did.  2030 is certainly within the range of possibilities for an ideological collapse no less spectacular than 1989’s.

Griffin may be right about his March on Westminster, you never know.  He may be right about Peak Oil.  The latter would hugely help the former, though, and that’s the point.  He believes the Peak can be scaled, and nothing happens in politics without belief.

Johan’s fine article posted here on June 26th is out of date!  “Try googling “Boer farm murders”.  You will get the picture,” he wrote of the mainstream media’s failure to inform the public about the assault on SA’s Boer farmers.  But today Roger Graef in the Sunday Telegraph has broken the silence.

He has done it, however, in a journalistically even-handed way, reporting the views of a Boer farmer in the northern Gauteng province, the black from whom this particular land was taken and the local police chief.  The latter is provided with an eight-strong force of men and two cars to patrol an area the size of Scotland.

The one-time black farmer is clear that whites should simply go away:-

Payete Ndlovana, the black farmer, explains the violence as revenge for the sins of apartheid. He and his family were kicked off their farm more than 30 years ago and since 1994 he has vainly tried to recover it.

Despite government promises, Mr Payete is furious at the slow pace of land reform. He drives out from his small house in the townships to what was once his family’s land, now fenced off with razor wire.

A narrow passage allows him to visit the graves of his forebears. He backs Robert Mugabe’s approach in Zimbabwe and wants whites to go somewhere else. “Mugabe is right. They kicked us off our land, that’s why we fight,” he says.

READ MORE...

Willingly, I never give a penny to charities beyond those serving the needy of my own people.  Willingly, I never entertain the solicitations of charities “supporting” the Third World.  Sub-Saharan Africa is completely beyond the pale.  Africans will never, never overcome their inate characteristics - which, of course, include:-

1) A disastrously low average IQ productive of n-o-t-h-i-n-g.

2) Sexual aggression, leading directly to violence and acts of surpassing cruelty at every level from the personal to the genocidal.

3) A striking poverty in those cooperative qualities upon which social and economic progress depend, in consequence of which African rulers are invariably corrupt despots and life for African people is invariably insecure, oft times bestial.

“Make poverty history” is a truly pathetic, wasteful and ignorant idea.  “Make low-IQ history” or “Make sexual aggression history” would make more sense if the developed world grasped the eugenic nettle and bred Africa into some semblance of tolerableness.  But drug-busted, non-musical pop people ... idiot-crowds waving their arms aloft in Hyde Park ... “Sir Bob” and the whole ghastly, liberalistic Mandela-isation of global politics completely turns me off ... dude.

The only, marginally respectable argument for charity to Africa is that some of those who get their hands on the dough might be good enough not to come and live amongst us.  But I don’t think even that modest return on our “investment” will come about.  Nothing sustains in Africa.  Africans will keep coming until we have to close the door.

Around the world billions of predictably suggestible airheads, they say, will view the great publicity stunt.  I never listen to “bands”.  Big children with a few hundred amps but no musicality hold not the slightest appeal for me.  Shan’t watch.  Shan’t listen.  Shan’t pay any attention.  Obviously, shan’t donate.

A truly strange and fascinating story of forgery in a pro-Nazi cause - or, just possibly, an MI6 subversion - has broken this morning with the report in the Telegraph that:-

Documents from the National Archives used to substantiate claims that British intelligence agents murdered Heinrich Himmler in 1945 are forgeries, The Daily Telegraph can reveal today.

It seems certain that the bogus documents were somehow planted among genuine papers to pervert the course of historical study.

The results of investigations by forensic document experts on behalf of this newspaper have shocked historians and caused tremors at the Archives, the home of millions of historical documents, which has previously been thought immune to distortion or contamination.

The allegation that the SS leader was murdered, with the knowledge of Churchill and War Cabinet ministers, appeared in Himmler’s Secret War, published in May.

What made the claim stand out from other allegations over the years was that it referred to specific documents in the National Archives at Kew - usually an absolute guarantee of validity.

READ MORE...

Two press stories caught my eye today, both causing me to reflect on the state of fairness in our public discourse.

Of course, when anybody mentions fairness in a political context Everyman promptly sails off into the associative chain of moral and political largesse that is the liberal presumption … you know, the acceptable way to think … the way that makes equality and social justice self-evident first principles quite beyond challenge.  We are all good liberals today.  So we all understand that no dissent on this matter can be tolerated.

Well, it happens that the principle of association is how the thinking part of the brain routinely negotiates its territory.  Since Everyman is not in control of the associations laid down in his mind – and, obviously, at no time in his life does he aspire to such godliness - it is all too easy for thought to be scarcely his own and deed, being even more easily influenced from without, still less so.  The human condition is far more worthy of pity for its ignorance of self than ever it is for its (these days) somewhat sporadic social disadvantage.  We are all good and ignorant liberals!

However, we are as we are.  Nature’s little arrangement thinking-wise did not flip-flop out of the cerebral soup just so we could spend our fleeting days in thrall to liberalism.  We are, actually, worth more than that.  You never know, the concept of freedom may even be authentic, if profoundly non-political.  For sure, liberalism is not a means to freedom.  It does not work.  Therefore, it need not be our immutable destiny.

READ MORE...

“At the end of the day, no argument in favour of exclusion can withstand what people see with their own eyes - that it is wrong to treat people they care about in a way that diminishes their personal choice.”

Alex Munter, the national spokesman for Canadians for Equal Marriage.

He spoke as the Canadian House of Commons passed a bill granting same-sex couples equal rights to those in traditional marriages.

Canada became the third country, behind Belgium and the Netherlands, to put the liberal fetish for “rights” and “personal choice” above the practical politics of promoting the known best medium for raising whole, contented human beings.