|April 22nd, 2013||#1|
Text: Marxism, Multiculturalism, and Free Speech, by Frank Ellis
[Going to be posting this in full here, adding three pages a day. Incompete but fantastic look at Political Correctness from a British academic, now retired I believe. I've decided to put this in this section because so much of PC concerns thought control through control of language and punishment for those now who misbehave but misspeak, according to the neo-communist commissars. PC is essentially the attempt to enforce a warped view of reality through twisted language. Use the cultists' code or be punished. Ellis won't tell you that jews are the primary driver behind PC; apart from that, what he says is mostly accurate.]
Discussion here (Radio Istina shows and more)
Buy it at amazon here:
Marxism, Multiculturalism, and Free Speech (Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies Monograph Series, 31): Frank Ellis: 9780930690601: Amazon.com: Books
A Work as Eye-Opening as it is Measured and Studied July 27, 2007
Introduction by Professor Dwight D. Murphey. A collection of essays which explore the neo-Marxist roots of the contemporary move to suppress race consciousness, to promote "multiculturalism," and to criminalize (at least in Europe) freedom of speech on such matters as race, national identity, and immigration. The author is a British professor of Russian and Slavic languages who is a recognized authority on Marxist and neo-Marxist ideology and propaganda techniques. Included are chapters on Race, Marxism and the "Deconstruction" of the United Kingdom; on the historical link between Communism's "Enemy of the People" and the European Union's concept of "Hate Criminals"; on "Political Correctness" and Race Legislation in Britain and the European Union; and on what the author calls "the Ideological Struggle from Lenin and Mao to Marcuse and Foucault."
Marxism, Multiculturalism, and Free Speech
Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies
Monograph No. 31
Council for Social and Economic Studies
Washington DC 20006
Table of COntents
By Dwight E. Murphey............................................................1
The Parekh and Macpherson Reports:
"Deconstruction" of the United Kingdom.....................................6
Race Legislation in the European Union.....................................38
Political Correctness and the Ideological Struggle:
From Lenin and Mao to Marcuse and Foucault............................52
From Communism's "Enemy of the People"
to PC's "Hate Criminal"...........................................................90
Frank Ellis is primarily a scholar, an expert on the Soviet Union and its Marxist-Leninist ideology. He is a member of the faculty in the department of Russian and Slavonic Studies at Leeds University in the United Kingdom. It is not surprising that he is the author of several publications -- books and articles -- in his area of expertise.
But his is not a detached, effete scholarship. His voice is impassioned, and informed by his scholarship. He stands unabashedly for the England that is known to history and that now lies under the incubus of an alien thought-control that dominates the West today. The incubus of which we speak takes the form of a smothering cloud of ideology that insists entirely on its own prerogative to speak, barring quite militantly any opposing view, no matter how well-considered. It is in this context that we find Frank Ellis threatened today by the most strenuous efforts to silence his voice. Leftists student demonstrations have demanded that he be dismissed because in off-campus writings he has expressed opinions that opposite Marxism and multiculturalism and the suppression of free speech in present-day Britain and Europe. He is a man of great courage, and it would be easy to speak of him as potentially a martyr on behalf of the England-that-was. That would not be inappropriate, but doing so would obscure, perhaps, a larger truth: that it is England, the United Kingdom, and the West in general that is being martyred, not simply one man.
The amazing things is that the "multiculturalism" and "diversity" that seeks to still his voice presents itself -- and is no doubt accepted at face value as such by a great many who have not thought it through -- as a benign, well-meaning, life-affirming perspective. Anyone who opposes something so positive, so moral, must per se be profoundly evil. It is from this perspective that Ellis is under attack today, even though his message is in fact fully in keeping with what the overwhelming consensus among educated Englishmen held to be true even so recently as a few years ago. What, after all, could be more compassionate and more attuned to the moral high ground than a multiculturalism that makes everyone welcome and that values each individual and each culture as invaluable parts of the rich texture of the human race?
The difficulty, of course, is that that is not what "multiculturalism," as the West is experiencing it today, really is. When it welcomes an influx of large numbers of people from Asia, Africa and Latin America into Europe and North America, it is not primarily affirming those people and their cultures. What it means, first and foremost, is the cultural transformation and destruction of the existing societies of the West. If it were truly "multicultural," it would seek to strengthen Western societies precisely in their own uniqueness, and to do so to other cultures as well, so that true variety and diversity would continue to exist in the world. It is worth noting that in this course of negation, "multiculturalism" must adopt a ubiquitous double standard -- one that champions everything non-Western and that undercuts and denies everything originally European.
I saw the double standard at work even so recently as this morning. Ellis is under fire because he has argued, among other things, that not all cultures are equal, and that the West has had a superior culture. This is said to be "racist," and "to make those of other cultures uncomfortable." In that context, it isn't admitted as something that a reasonable person of good will might assert, having in mind the mathematics of Euclid, the astronomy of Copernicus, St. Paul's Cathedral with its Christopher Wren dome, the "Moonlight Sonata" of Ludwig van Beethoven, and countless other manifestations of high culture. Nor is it acknowledged that the overwhelming number of Englishmen of prior generations would have found Ellis' observations unexceptional. But this common wisdom is now damned as vicious. On the other hand, I shared a bowling lane this morning with a young Afro-American who sported a "black pride" T-shirt, with a picture of a submachine gun on it. No one took offense, and certainly the thought-police weren't called. It seems that within the prevailing ethos it is accepted as benign for all other cultures than the West's to proclaim their excellence -- and in the most militant fashion. The fact that there is such a double standard is, as I have said above, most revealing about the ideological fakery that is at play.
This deserves still another moment of reflection. There was a time when the West asserted its superiority and sought to extend its dominion over the world. I take Ellis' view to be far short of that. There is nothing in his writing suggesting a program of cultural conquest. Rather, his is no more than a defense of the West's right of continued existence. It is those who use "diversity" and "multiculturalism" as a pretext for a demographic swamping-out of the Western nations who are on the cultural offensive. When they shout loudly that it is he who is vicious, they artfully reverse the truth.
Those who do not understand the "attack on the West" that has "captured the moral high ground" and has come to suffuse virtually all of the institutions and "commanding heights" of Western society are not personally to be blamed for their acceptance of today's shibboleths. Most people are fully occupied with the details of their own lives, jobs, businesses, and avocations. They accept with implicit trust the truisms that are presented to them, especially when those truisms are repeated over and over again by the opinion-makers in academia, the media and the professions. The fault lies not with the average person, even the average "educated" person. The fault lies with those who make it their lives' work to deal in ideas and articulated opinion -- and who have signed on to the project of cultural transplantation. Even most of these have done so out of conformity, breathing in without question the ethos of their doctoral instructors, their "role models," or their peers. The few others -- the leaders -- act out of a conformity at a higher level. While ostensibly "thinkers," they have sucked at the breast of alienated social commentators going back over a long history within the literary, artistic and academic culture of the modern West. The alienation against all mainstream Western culture goes back at least as far as Rousseau in the eighteenth century. It is commonplace these days to attribute it to the Frankfurt School of half or three-quarters of a century ago -- to men like Marcuse, Adorno and Gramsci, who saw that the primary upcoming battle against the West was to be a cultural one, and that victory lay in "a march through the institutions." (Earlier, with Marx, communism was to be ushered in by a revolution of the "proletariat." But after the Left's disappointment with how the populations of Europe rallied to the side of their respective counties in World War I, there was a gradual disillusionment toward the "proletariat" as an ally of the intelligentsia. This made necessary a change in strategy, which eventually took the form of seeking all disaffected or unassimilated groups, and particularly "ethnic minorities," as allies.)
Last edited by Alex Linder; April 22nd, 2013 at 04:32 PM.
|April 23rd, 2013||#2|
The two World Wars of the twentieth century weakened European civilization immeasurably, and one cannot help but think that the cultural Left played an opportunistic game in latching onto the rising assertiveness of all "peoples of color" in the aftermath of the Second World War. The predominant intelligentsia of the West -- historically highly alienated, but of course with many who stood outside it, not joining in the alienation -- have no particular love for the cultures of the non-Western world. We ought not to be fooled by the superficial and ultimately denigrating shows of "compassion" that serve primarily to demonstrate "how really good we are." What the Leftist elements that dominate the present-day Western intelligentsia actually feel, and feel with a seemingly white-hot intensity, is hatred. Ironically, we are taught to believe that "hatred" is an ignoble passion, and that "hate speech comes from those who would champion the West's right to exist. All the while, the real hatred burns within the Left -- and in the name of "acceptance of others," in truly Orwellian style, has made itself the official ideology of government policy and of the institutions in Britain and elsewhere in the West.
As Frank Ellis points out, many streams of thought feed into this hatred. As a Sovietologist, he sees most acutely the relevance of Marxist thought and the earlier "multiculturalism" sought within Stalin's empire. Ellis does not himself have occasion to explore them, but there are other major forces at work in the world today that have the same tendency. It is often pointed out that the leaders of "neo-conservatism" (so influential at the core of the George W. Bush administration in the United States) trace their mental histories to an affinity years ago for Leon Trotsky, who sought to universalize Communism. The neo-conservatives' messianic desire for universal meliorism is joined by the regnant ideology of "globalization," a prime feature of which is to argue for "economic efficiency" and "reduction of costs" while deliberately eschewing any concern for a given country's or peoples' own particular interests. Given the truly incredible developments recently in communications, transportation and world finance, the winds of economic globalization blow fiercely over every land, increasingly stripping away the vestiges of local culture. Interestingly, there are a number of movements of "devolution," by which local peoples seek to preserve their own identities; but it remains to be seen whether they can prevail in any meaningful way against so imposing an array of forces against them.
A subset of these issues -- a subset that is of infinite importance -- is the question of intellectual freedom and its offshoot, "freedom of speech." It was Herbert Marcuse who, in his "Essay on Repressive Tolerance," argued that all speech that advocated change in (Western) society should be encouraged and all speech that defended existing social structures should be repressed. Only in this way, he said, could a truly meaningful "tolerance" be attained. It takes only a moment's reflection to see that this was a rationale for a totalitarianism of the Left. Indeed, it is the rationale for today's multiculturalist demand that all opposition to the demographic and cultural invasion of the West be silenced.
Thus, the overriding moral issue for all caring persons in England and elsewhere in the West today is whether this totalitarianism is to be praised, coddled and encouraged. There was, not so long ago, outrage in the intellectual culture of the West when the Soviet Union sought to enshrine "proletarian science" in the form of Lysenkoism in place of Mendel's genetics. Where is the outrage today?
We find it in the impassioned voice of, among others, Frank Ellis. I recommend his essays collected in this volume (all of them published recently in the Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies) to all readers, of whatever persuasion, who believe that intellectual freedom should continue to be one of the fundamental values of the West.
Dwight D. Murphey
THE PAREKH AND MACPHERSON REPORTS: "DECONSTRUCTION" OF THE UNITED KINGDOM*
Cities and towns the length and breadth of Britain -- from Bristol, the Medway towns, Slough and London in the south, to Birmingham and Leicester in the Midlands, to Bradford, Burnley, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Leeds, Oldham, Leicester and Manchester in the north -- all now harbour large populations of non-white immigrants, a significant proportion of whom, for various reasons, refuse to or are unable to adapt to the host country. Over the last 20 years violent street confrontations between the native indigenous majority population and black and Asian immigrants have become depressingly familiar. In fact, racial strife is now a recognizable feature of the British urban landscape. Meanwhile, the numbers of legal and illegal immigrants entering the United Kingdom continue inexorably to rise. By any standards these are dramatic changes in an already densely populated and traditionally, racially homogenous country such as Britain. Given the failure of the British government to address the scale of the problem, it is reasonable to assume that the worst is still to come. And the problem is by no means confined to the United Kingdom. Similar and equally deleterious effects of legal and illegal immigration can be observed all over the Western world.
The native British population faces two threats from these changes, one immediate and on-going, the other a distinct possibility in the next two decades. For the present, there is the covert and overt war being waged against the indigenous majority population, against its history, language, folkways, culture and traditions. This is a war in which
multiculturalists exploit existing institutions -- the legal system, the education system at all levels (especially the universities), the print and broadcast media, parliamentary democracy and free speech -- to achieve their goals (Bork, 1997, Honeyford, 1998, Vazsonyi, 1998). These methods are analogous to those used by Soviet commissars to sovietise Central and Eastern Europe after 1945 (Ellis, 2001). Attacked in this way, institutions retain their outward form but the heart is torn out, the soul extirpated. Incapable of defending themselves, these institutions and the people who work in them can no longer serve the nation state that has created and nurtured them over the centuries. A second, long term threat is terrorism. Street riots, as the experience of Northern Ireland and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict demonstrate, can easily escalate to well organised terrorist campaigns against the security forces. It is difficult to see what would prevent determined militant immigrant groups from using the same means, were they so minded, especially were they wedded to some form of Islamic fundamentalism. In this regard "Islamophobia", fear of Islam, is fully justified.
*This chapter first appeared as an article "Race, Marxism and the 'Deconstruction' of the United Kingdom" in Volume 26,
Number 4, Winter 2001 of The Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies.
Last edited by Alex Linder; April 24th, 2013 at 03:02 PM.
|April 24th, 2013||#3|
Two reports published recently in the UK, The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry: Report of an Inquiry by Sir William Macpherson of Cluny (1999), sponsored by the British Labour government, and The Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain: Report of the Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain (2000), sponsored by the Runnymede Trust, and authored by Bhiku Parekh (both reports being more widely known, respectively, as The Macpherson Report and The Parekh Report) illustrate the scale of the threat to the white indigenous majority population. For, in their respective analyses of British society and the recommendations they propose, both these documents represent a fundamental break with the norms of English common law and culture. In his report of the police investigation into the murder of a black teenager, Sir William Macpherson, a retired British judge, accused the police of "institutional racism". Predictably, the consequences on police morale have been disastrous. On the streets, ever fearful of attracting the catch-all "racist" label, the police have adopted a low-key approach towards non-white suspects. The result has been an increase in the number of violent street crimes as immigrant criminals operate with apparent immunity from prosecution (something which has been observed in Cincinnati and Seattle in the aftermath of black rioting). More worrying in the long term has been the readiness of many senior police officers uncritically to accept Macpherson's accusations and, perversely, to revel in public displays of self-flagellation and self-accusations of "racism".
Based on the illiberal neo-Marxism that underpins so much of multiculturalism, The Parekh Report is a far more comprehensive and aggressive attack on the United Kingdom than its predecessor. For example Parekh, believes that we in the UK are suffering from 'multicultural drift' (Parekh, 2000, 11) and that what is required is 'a purposeful process of change' (Parekh, 2000, 11). Later in the report, and with obvious approval, Parekh cites a respondent who argues that: 'People in positions of power must really believe, in their hearts and minds, that black and white are equal' (Parekh, 2000, 141, emphasis added). And again in chapter 20 we are given the thoughts of an anonymous race bureaucrat: 'Training is encouraging people, but we have reached the stage where people must be told to do it or else' (Parekh, 2000, 284, emphasis added). We have been warned.
National Identity and History
History's would-be nation killers hae always understood that to subjugate or to weaken a nation it is necessary to destroy a nation's sense of history, or at the very least dilute it. In the twentieth century the masters of the genre have always been communists or other activists of the left, such as Ceausescu, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Kilm Il Sung. For the multicultural agenda to succeed in the UK the indigenous majority population must be coninced or intimidated into believing that it is just one of a number of groups, with no special privileges conferred by the past, then opposition to the coercive incorporation of large numbers of non-white aliens will be made all the more easier (or so believe the advocates of multiculturalism). In practice, however, there is widespread resistance, instinctive and rational, and frequently violent, to multiculturalism in the UK. This can be seen not just in the street confrontations between gangs of Asians and indigenous whites but in the periodic outbursts of politicians who, having expressed views contrary to orthodoxy, then recant in spectacular fashion, John Townsend, the former Conservative Member of Parliament for East Yorkshire being the latest example.
Any one who reads The Parekh Report can have no doubt that the destruction, or in postmodernese the "deconstruction" of any strong white identity, is one of Parekh's main aims. Thus, in the preface Parekh talks of 'the non-existent homogeneous cultural structure of the 'majority' (Parekh, 2000, x), only, subsequently, to expend vast amounts of ideological energy attempting to destroy something, which apparently, does not exist. When whites are no longer able to say "we", they are vulnerable to groups of non-white immigrants who most assuredly are encouraged to promote the use of "we" at the expense of the host society. To this end, divide, weaken and rule are the essential policies deployed by Parekh against the whtie, indigenous majority population. Case as victims, the Irish are singled out for sympathetic treatment, as are the Scots and Welsh.
Symptomatic of Parekh's confusion and muddle on the question of race is the astonishing disclaimer in chapter 10 that: 'Irish people are classified as white for statistical purposes' (Parekh, 2000, 130). Curiously, while highlighting Scotalnd as a special deserving case, as victim of English rather than a beneficiary of the 1707 Act of Union, Parekh pointedly refrains from criticixing the nationalist movements in both Wales and Scotland. In fact, he justifies them in a way which would not be the case were there a strong English Nationalist movement: 'The rising tides of nationalist sentiment in Scotland and Wales, however, have clearly been driven by historical resentments of long-standing relations of privilege and dependency' (Parekh, 2000, 21).
Among the Scottish politicians, I suggest, any drive for nationalism is inspired not by images of Braveheart but by the tantalising possibility of bypassing Westminster and acquiring ever more generous subsidies from the European Union (EU). Any English National Party would be singled out by Parekh for putting the interests of the indigenous British population before aliens and foreigners, whereas the perfectly legitimate aspirations of the Scottish National Party towards independence are ignored. There exists an unbridgeable contradiction between Scottish nationalism and the multicultural agenda which Parekh wishes to impose on the English (Linsell, 2001). And violent conflict between native Glaswegians and large numbers of immigrants in the summer of 2001 over the allocation of resources -- the wave of the future -- supports this view. Parekh applauds the rise of Scottish and Welsh nationalism not out of any regard for these legitimate aspirations towards Welsh and Scottish independence, which his multiculturalism obliges him to reject, but for the weakening effects it has on the British identity as a whole. On the other hand, any similar sense of identity or national revival among the English is to be deplored as 'a new kind of little Englandism' (Parekh, 2000, 24).
Last edited by Alex Linder; April 25th, 2013 at 04:12 PM.
|April 25th, 2013||#4|
Especially resented is Bill Bryson's best-seller, Notes from a Small Island, first published in 1995. Bryson's crime in Parekh's eyes is that he omits blacks, Asians and others from his story of a small island. Such omissions are perfectly rational. For these minorities have arrived very late in the day and the national story can only 'exclude them'. Here we have another reason why English history and the history of the United Kingdom have to be written off and where that is not possible, rewritten Orwellian-style to suit the purposes of multiculturalism. Trafalgar, Oliver Cromwell, the English Civil War, the Battle of Britain, the Somme, the Falklands, Sir Isaac Newton, Shakespeare, Elizabeth I are hardly likely to inspire the same love, admiration or other emotions in immigrants as they do in the white indigenous majority population. And why should they? Quite reasonably, Asians and blacks look to their own. With regard to Bryson, Parekh is also guilty of an omission of his own, failing to point out to the reader that Bryson is a white American, who clearly loves Britain, warts and all.
Identity is inextricably linked with history and so it is to be expected that Parekh and his social engineers with to "deconstruct" British history to serve their purposes. Having noted that the Act of Union in 1707 created Great Britain, Parekh then argues that: 'The dominant national story of England includes Agincourt, Trafalgar, Mafeking, the Somme and Dunkirk' (Parekh, 2000, 16). To be sure, the Royal Navy was founded by an English King and Nelson's historic address was to Englishmen to do their duty, but Trafalgar was fought and won in 1805 nearly a century after the Act of Union. Though the vast majority of Nelson's sailors were Englishmen, the consequences of defeat would have affected all of Britain, not just England. Likewise, it was not just English soldiers who fought and died at the Somme. Nor can the English, as Parekh implies, lay sole claim to the miracle and the pain of Dunkirk. For the memory of Dunkirk is also the memory of the surrender of the British 51st Highland Division at Saint-Valery. Dunkirk, as the Somme, belongs to a number of great and sometimes painful moments in the life of Britain. This can be appreciated in a memorable passage taken from Alistair Maclean's HMS Ulysses, possibly that Scottish writer's finest novel, and certainly one of the best we have of the Battle of the Atlantic in World War Two. A senior naval commander feels the crushing weight of the command and reflects upont he British lives lost in the Atlantic as the convoy battles its way through repeated German air and U-boat attacks:
Especially dubious in the Parekh deconstruction of English and British history is the emphasis placed on imagining history, part of a much wider attack on traditional method inspired by French radical theories, so popular in the academy (Windschuttle, 1997). If history is just imagination, then anything goes and anything can be claimed and the way is open for all kinds of charlatans to take centre stage. Imagination is hardly a reliable historical source. Imaginative use of historical data and documents is another matter entirely. There is, Parekh points out, more to Britain than just England, which is true enough. But England was and remains the economic powerhouse of Britain. This has long been obvious to foreign observers. Russians, for example, routinely refer to Britain and the UK as Angliya the Russian word for England. And the Irishman, Edmund Burke, pointedly writes of "we English" in his Reflections on the Revolution in France. English Common Law, the break with Rome, The Book of Common Prayer, the model of parliamentary democracy and free speech, the special role of maritime matters in shaping the life of the country (this after all was why Trafalgar was so decisive since it guaranteed British naval supremacy for nearly 150 years) have all contributed to England's special nature. Foreign observers have well understood the monumental significance of the evolution of private property, free speech and parliamentary democracy in England and the benefits for the rest of the world unlike Parekh who seems to be trapped by his parochial multiculturalism. A mere 20 miles of water separates Britain from continental Europe, yet the effects of this separation have been profound for the political, cultural, intellectual and religious development of Britain. What we have here in the separates and highly distinctive political and cultural evolution of Britain is perhaps analogous to what happens in genetics, namely that very small differences in the genes can have large phenotypic consequences. As with race, it is not the size of the genetic difference but rather the impact that change has on the phenotype.
None of these differences however has deterred Parekh from asserting that the uniqueness of the British system of parliamentary democracy 'is not supported by the known historical facts' (Parekh, 2000, 19). In part this is correct. For the system is a uniquely English contribution to world civilization, certainly not Welsh, Scottish or Irish, though Irish and Scottish thinkers, most notably, Edmund Burke, David Hume and Adam Smith, have shaped this process. In reviewing the role of representative institutions in continental Europe, Richard Pipes notes that there were various assemblies in Spain, Scotland, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden and Denmark. None, however, was as successful as the English. Pipes argues, convincingly, that 'one factor that bolsters parliamentarism is territorial smallness. As a rule, the smaller the country and its population the easier it is to forge effective democratic institutions, because they represent manageable communities with shared interests and are capable of concerted action: conversely, the larger a country the greater is the diversity of social and regional interests, which impedes unity.' (Pipes, 1999, 153). Pipes, in other words, recognises the importance of homogeneity, cultural and racial. Again, Pipes notes, it was to England's advantage that she 'never developed provincial parliaments' (Pipes, 1999, 153). This, of course, is something that the EU is desperately trying to foist on England so as further to weaken any strong sense of English national identity, and yet another reason why Parekh wants the British to cast away their independence and become totally absorbed into the EU.
Discussion of religious conflict in Britain is intended to show that there has always been strife in Britain and division over religious matters between the people of England, Scotland and Ireland. Thus, runs the argument, the conflicts arising over multiculturalism in the UK are part of this on-going historical conflict and adaptation to change. Three points can be made here. First, there is the question of race. The idea that since large numbers of Normans, Saxons, Jutes and Danes have come here and settled is not in itself and argument in support of large scale non-whites immigration to the UK. None of these were genetically very distinct from the earlier population of the islands. The Norman Conquest imposed a very thin layer on the Anglo-Saxons and by the 14th and certainly no later than the 15th century, the Normans had been totally absorbed into Anglo-Saxon England (Johnson, 1995). Second, if as Parekh believes, race is a social and political construct, not something that has evolved in different parts of the globe in response to differing survival challenges, then the large scale legal/illegal immigration is simply a matter of "deconstructing" the dominant white indigenous identity and reconstructing it along multicultural lines. (Note for example the title of chapter 3 "Identities in Transition"). As we know from countless historical examples, people and nations emphatically do not lend themselves to this kind of neo-Marxist moulding and remoulding. For better or for worse, race matters, and will continue to matter, however much people such as Parekh and others deny it.
Last edited by Alex Linder; April 27th, 2013 at 07:44 PM.
|April 27th, 2013||#5|
Third, desperate to convince us of the benefits of multiculturalism, Parekh fails to provide any convincing evidence from anywhere in the world, past or present, of a successful and enduring multicultural (multiracial) society. Catastrophes and bloody failures on the other hand are easy to find: Rwanda, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Yugoslavia and the Soviet Empire. For all the differences and disagreements that exist among the white indigenous majority population, when Britain has been in peril the nation has pulled together. Similarly, Russians rallied to fight the Germans in the darkest days of the German invasion not out of loyalty to the Cominterm (the Soviet version of multiculturalism) but out of deep love of Mother Russia. In the words of Viktor Kravchenko: 'At the core of a nation there is a hard, eternal and unconquerable element - it was this that was bared in Stalingrad, that survived blood-letting and disaster on a horrifying scale. It had nothing to do with Karl Marx and Stalin' (Kravchenko, 1946, 402). And whether it was Henry V's band of brothers on the eve of Agincourt, Nelson's Jack Tars at Trafalgar, or the Few in the summer of 1940, it was love of hearth and country and a sense of duty, tempered by military discipline, that prompted soldiers, sailors and airmen to risk their lives in battle, not the perverse, unnatural abstractions of multiculturalism. Parekh is oblivious to the very history and its significance that he wishes to erase.
In citing a great many things that bind people into something called a community -- many of which are sensible -- Parekh unwittingly cites reasons why multicultural societies cannot remain stable and why there is so much friction. He argues that a sense of belonging is needed, failing to see that multiculturalism destroys that very sense of belonging. The cult of multiculturalism demands that white Englishmen value the achievements (or in many cases the non-achievements) of foreigners above those of native Englishmen. Now, granted many of what one might regard as better and, in some cases, superior achievements include a degree of subjectivity. But not all. For example, the scientific achievements of Europeans completely overshadow those of subSaharan Africans. We can argue about why this is so, but the enormous disparity in achievement remains (for an analysis of the relationship between national IQ and economic performance see Lynn & Vanhanen, 2001).
Having ridiculed the idea of the nationalist state, Parekh then argues for something called 'One Nation'. In passing one can note that Parekh's use of 'One Nation' bears a close resemblance to Evgeniy Zamyatin's use of 'One State' in his powerful satire of Soviet totalitarianism, We. In Zamyatin's 'One State', the inhabitants, or numbers, as they are called, live out a wreteched existence in which every possible aspect is governed by a brutal bureaucracy. Orthodoxy (multiculturalism?) is associated with mental health, dissent (belief in the nation state?) with madness. Written in the early 1920s and then banned by the communist party for over 660 years before being finally published in the Soviet Union in 1988, We turned out to be a dire predictions of totalitarianism. And twenty five years after The Camp of The Saints was first published, Jean Raspail's deeply disturbing analysis of cowardly politicians and intellectuals and enervating compassion is proving to be a similarly dire prediction of multicultural distemper.
Parekh's idealised 'One Nation' will not be based on a unifying and enduring national identity. Only bureaucratic coercion and something akin to Soviet-style totalitarianism can hold things together. This is conceded by Parekh when he talks of 'substantive values' or 'common values':
There is of course a profound irony here of which Parekh is painfullly unaware. For it is preeminently Western societies, and within that framework, English traditions of equality before the law and the assertion of individual rights, (the Taliban, as far as one can tell, did not have habeas corpus or free speech) that provides the moral, legal and intellectual basis for banning the non-white practices of female circumcision, arranged marriages and unequal treatment of women. Parekh needs to be reminded that it was in the sceptred isle that the ideas of individual freedom, the rule of law and parliamentary democracy were born and bred, certainly not in India, Pakistan, Japan or China, let alone Africa.
Last edited by Alex Linder; April 28th, 2013 at 10:02 AM.
|April 28th, 2013||#6|
Parekh has much to say on the subject of racism and the definition offered differs substantially from that given in The Macpherson Report. According to Parekh:
 Later in the report Parekh cites a correspondent who bemoans the fact that: 'Young children are not colour blind. As young as two or three y ears old they are aware of differences between the people around them...' (Parekh, 2000, 149). Is this evidence for a genetic preference for one's own race or evidence that race is something inculcated into children.
Yet this has not deterred Parekh from asserting that: 'Race, as is now widely acknowledged, is a social and political construct, not a biological or genetic fact. It cannot be used scientifically to account for the wide range of differences among peoples' (Parekh, 2000, 63). At no stage in this report does Parekh attempt to justify the basis on which he makes this astonishing assertion. We are expected to take it on trust. While one would not expect to see the names of John Baker, Thomas Bouchard, Chris Brand, Carleton Coon, Jon Entine, Hans Eysenck, Linda Gottfredson, Arthur Jensen, Michael Levin, Richard Lynn, J. Philippe Rushton, Vincent Sarich and Glayde Whitney in the bibliography, one would most certainly expect to find the names and works of Stephen Jay Gould, Leon Kamin, Richard Lewontin and others who deny the biological and genetic basis of race and who, when they attack the hereditarians, as they are called, are given pride of place in the print and broadcast media as being the legitimate voice of science, whereas Baker et al are to be dismissed as cranks or wose. One anomaly is the inclusion of Charles Murray's & Richard Herrnstein's The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life in the bibliography, though, curiously, the sub-title is omitted. Equally curious is the absence of any attempt to challenge the Murray & Herrnstein thesis that: (i) race has a biological basis and; (ii), to challenge the well established empirical finding of a 1 standard deviation between the average black and white IQ. Parekh passes up an opportunity at the very least to criticise Murray & Herrnstein.
Since the whole basis of multicultural social engineering rests on the assertion that race is a social and political construct and not a biological or genetic reality, Parekh's assertion is of the greatest importance. That this assertion -- no more -- is repeatedly cited as evidence that those who oppose multiculturalism are racists, the omission of any source material in The Parekh Report's lengthy bibliography or endnotes, which would serve to provide some independently verifiable corroboration of this all important assertion is quite striking. Why this obvious omission? I speculate that the reason the latter set of names is absent is because
 Parekh's approach to race can also be seen in his egregiously political/ideological definition of what he calls sexism: 'Similarly, sexism involves seeing all differences bewteen women and men as fixed in nature rather than primarily constructed by culture' (Parekh, 2000, 67, emphasis added).
Parekh is deeply worried that by citing any authors who have written about race, pro or contra, he is merely drawing attention to the huge amount of evidence in the professional and specialist journals, as well as the many monographs, all in the public domain, and, as a result, the huge discrepancy between what many scholars say publicly on the subject of race and what they accept professionally. Studying this huge reservoir of empirical data, independently minded individuals might just be dissuaded from the notion that race is a social and political construct. To this end The Bell Curve's sub-title might well stimulate interest in forbidden territory, indicating, as it does, that there is a link between intelligence and socio-economic status. Unable to bypass the question completely, Parekh nevertheless wants to shut the discussion down as soon as is possible. This implies that he is possibly aware that race is not a social and political construct or that he is ignorant of the developments made, and which continue to be made, in genetics and evolutionary biology.
Some of the objections to race as a genetic reality cited by Parekh are the usual collection of fallacies. We are told that there is more genetic variation within one group, or as Parekh writes, 'any one so-called race than there is between 'races'" (Parekh, 2000, 63). Again, Jensen's comment is far more convincing, since it has withstood independent scrutiny:
Last edited by Alex Linder; April 29th, 2013 at 03:00 PM.
|April 28th, 2013||#7|
Interestingly, but perhaps not surprisingly, for all his assertions that race is a social and political construct, Parekh evasively notes that: 'Some diseases disproportionately affect certain communities' (Parekh, 2000, 178), implying that this is due to cultural conditions alone. Again, despite his insistence that race is a social and political construct, Parekh bemoans the fact that: 'people from South Asia are at risk of thalassaemia' and are not offered 'genetic counselling' (Parekh, 2000, 179, emphasis added). Even advice from the British Prime Minister's Cabinet Office, cited with approval by Parekh, insists that statistics regarding illness and diseases be 'separated by race' (Parekh, 2000, 181). As Parekh acknowledges, almost all the sufferers of sickle cell disease are of African descent, and the disease is found in black populations throughout the world. Race as a social and political construct cannot account for this distribution pattern, whereas the genetic explanation is simple: the link between race and disease is medically established (Rushton, 1999). Parekh's position on race is, in his own words, 'logically incoherent'.
Parekh's main contribution to the genre of racism is the invention of 'cultural racism' (Parekh, 2000, 148). Now, if according to Parekh race is a social and political construct, that is, above all cultural in the sense that things social and political make up culture, 'cultural racism' is pure tautology and meaningless. That in itself does not make it useless, given that so much that has anything to do with anti-racism is incoherent. Placing any suitable adjective before racism frequently leads to contradiction and incoherence, but it has a wonderfully intimidating effect which weakens the will to resist in a logical manner. Therein lies the purpose of creating 'cultural racism'. The danger of arguing that race is a social and political construct is that if you attack some aspect of culture you are racist. So if you attack the practice of female circumcision you are racist or, as Parekh says later in the report, guilty of 'cultural racism'. And if should be understood that any sense of disgust, articulated or otherwise, towards such practices is itself a manifestation of cultural racism.
Free Speech and "Hate" Crime
Barely hidden and frequent attacks on free speech by trying to argue that incitement to racial hatred must be avoided are some of the more sinister aspects of The Parekh Report. This leaves plenty of room for those promoting multicultural/multiracial societies to assert that anything they do not like is somehow guilty of inciting racial hatred and thus that certain areas be barred from discussion (race as a biological and genetic reality, racial differences and IQ, immigration, for example). This attempt to censor critics becomes more important in the light of recommendation 12 of The Macpherson Report which provides a definition of a racist incident ('A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person').
An insidious attempt to set limits to certain Anglo-Saxon rights is implicit in the assertion that: 'Human rights are thus rarely absolute but can be limited in order to protect the rights of others' (Parekh, 2000, 91). Decoded, and with reference to free speech, this means, I suggest, that rights of free speech, rightly regarded as the basis of all open and free societies, should not apply to those who criticise the multicultural/multiracial experiment. Since Asian and black societies have never independently recognised the value of free speech as the basis of a free and open society or shown much respect for it in the aftermath of European colonial withdrawal, immigrants to the UK from sub-Saharan Africa and the Indian subcontinent cannot reasonably be expected to grasp the importance of free speech or to defend it with the same tenacity as white Anglo-Saxons. For the indigenous whites of England and European civilization as a whole, however, a great deal is at stake. Western civilization is inconceivable and unsustainable without free speech.
'Crucially', pleads Parekh, 'restrictions on rights are legitimate only if such restrictions are proportionate to the harm they are trying to prevent' (Parekh, 2000, 91). Bearing in mind that, as far as the multicultural ideologues are concerned, racism is the great evil, then this paragraph provides a convenient basis for restricting free speech. What we have here is the typically postmodernist agenda - cloaked in the language of human rights - which asserts that any standard it wishes to destroy or subvert (in this case free speech) is relative and can claim no privileged perspective, but that any standard it wishes to enhance or to promote (multiculturalism, race is a social and political construct for example) most certainly is deemed to be a privileged perspective and thus worthy of special moral and legal status (its critics are to be silenced and vilified as racists). And if this is insufficient warning of what Western societies can increasingly expect, we should note the report's demand that human rights 'be interpreted and applied in a culturally sensitive manner' (Parekh, 2000, 91). People who attack multiculturalism, in other words, are behaving in a culturally insensitive manner and must be silenced. True enough, 'the logic of multiculturalism qualifies and informs the logic of human rights' (Parekh, 2000, 91), but it does so in a way which is inimical to logic and human rights and exposes the multicultural agenda as both illogical, deeply illiberal and, despite its assertions of inclusiveness, as monochromatic: white is second best.
Note, for example, Parekh's illogical and illiberal approach to the Human Rights Act 1998: 'Freedom of expression may assist individuals who are not allowed to wear clothing at work or school which is important to them for religious or cultural reasons' (Parekh, 2000, 97). This is, I assert, a perverse interpretation of the Act. 'Freedom of expression', as stated in the Act, has no relevance for wearing or not wearing certain items of clothing. As always, the special pleading on behalf of blacks and Asians - and in the example just noted, a perverse and illogical interpretation of the Act - is accompanied by the assertion that the rights and freedoms are not absolute and can be restricted in certain circumstances: 'Crucially, the infringement will have to be proportionate to the harm that the authority is trying to prevent' (Parekh, 2000, 97). Not specifically mentioned, I again suggest that the rights to free speech, as opposed to the right to wear unsuitable clothing at school or work, are the rights that Parekh really wishes to violate.
Hate crime, with its appropriately Orwellian ring, is another invention of multicultural ideologues who are trying to silence opposition and criminalise the thoughts and utterances of those who disagree with them. Special pleading is again evidence in the way in which Parekh characterises hate crime:
Last edited by Alex Linder; April 29th, 2013 at 02:42 PM.
|April 28th, 2013||#8|
Join Date: Jun 2009
Revisiting the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain: the Parekh Report 10 years on
Comments seem to be moving in the right direction:
hilletehnoob 1 month ago
this immigration is absolute suicide
GCMaxProductions 3 months ago
Britain is a mess due to mass immigration and through joining the EU open market. Any positive aspects of immigration are now virtually non-existent as our services struggle to operate under the weight of over population.
The immigrants breed so much they are destroying the nation and so they have to go. It's either them or us and we were here first.
Sh0klar 1 year ago
Immigration into the west is genocide of the white race, which is fermented by radical extreme jews who play race against race, colour against colour. The more ethnic minority that make it into governments over white europeans is a win for them. Immigrants will effectually bring what they left behind to that where they go, and force it on the western nations. Making a new third world.
It'z gone exponential. . .notice jews not capitalized. . .
Last edited by Rick Ronsavelle; April 28th, 2013 at 02:06 PM.
|April 29th, 2013||#9|
It is not at all clear why hating or disliking someone, so long as the hate does not lead to physical violence or other forms of law breaking, should automatically be seen as something criminal. Any expression of dislike, indifference, mild disapproval or resentment directed at multiculturalism or blacks will, naturally, always bee regarded as an expression of hate, rather than one of the milder forms of rejection. Nor is it immediately apparent why racially offensive language - a hate crime - must be considered more harmful than muggings, rape and murder. Murder is serious because it is murder. The power of hate crime to silence and to intimidate opponents of multiculturalism is a direct consequence of recommendation 12 of The Macpherson Report (see above). Hate crime is based on the notion that hating people is a crime, which in certain contexts and situations might well be suspect, or even morally reprehensible, but in other cases might well be a wholesome and logical response to clear and present danger, such as, for example the discovery that some 7,000 of your fellow citizens ahve been murdered by Islamic terrorists.
Worse still, what Parekh calls racist crime is not just an attack on an individual but on the community because that individual is a member of a community. This conclusion does not follow at all but it is nevertheless revealing of the mindset of multiculturalism which sees individuals primarily not as individuals but as cogs in a machine, or in the language of race Marxism, a community. Important here is not such much racist crime but crime itself. That affects every one of us regardless of race or sex. Following on from his original dubious assertion, Parekh then goes on to assert that racist attacks are perpetrated 'not only against [emphasis in the originalo] a community but also, in the perception of the offenders themselves, on behalf of a community' (Parekeh, 2000, 128). This comes very close to arguing that recently, whatever the perceptions of the offenders, when a 77-year-old man white man was badly beaten by Asian youths in Oldham that the non-violent and law-abiding members of the Asian population resident in Oldham approved of what happened. Possibly, some did , but many, one can assume, were disgusted by the act of violence itself regardless of the victim's race. And the same could be said of the white reaction to Stephen Lawrence's murder in 1993.
Education, Arts and Media
As inheritors of the Marxist-Leninist tradition of agitprop, multiculturalists pay special attention to education, the arts and the media which they consider to be the commanding heights in the anti-racist industrial complex. Parekh seems unable to envisage art and related activities independent of the state. What he has in mind here is a huge enterprise of socialist-realist propaganda subsidised by the tax payer which will then disseminate the tenets of multiculturalism. He makes explicit demands for 'redistribution of funding' in the arts (Parekh, 2000, 166) and his plans for the media are the sort of thing that was common place in the former Soviet Union. Overwhelmingly, there is a desire to change reality by changing what we see on television.
Among multiculturalists it is an article of faith that higher education in the UK fails to take account of non-whites:
 Parekh's hiring and promotigno plans for the media and the arts are a direct borrowing from the federal employment preferences used in the US (Parekh, 2000, 166-167)
Consider the study of Russian language and literature. Now, one can argue about what should be included in a course of study - whether one concentrated on the nineteenth century or twentieth century literature
but the point remains that the subject requires long hours of study, especially when some students take a joint honours course which involves the study of another language and literature at the same level. Irrespective of what combination of study a student pursues he must achieve a minimum level of competence in spoken and written Russian to get his degree. 'Asian and black experience and perceptions' have no relevance here at all. All students irrespective of race or sex are expected to achieve the same minimum standard. Students are able to meet these standards or they are not. The same requirements apply in other disciplines. Parekh's demand that the Asian or black perspective should be considered (what this means exactly in the field of modern languages or physics is not clear) is still further evidence of special pleading. Higher education in the US has been pursuing this course for a number of years and the result is preferential treatment for black students on entry requirements to certain courses who fail to meet minimum standards. As a result large numbers of capable white students with high SAT scores have been denied a place in a good university for which their innate intellectual abilities make them suitable (D'Souza, 1992, Bork, 1997). This most certainly is racial discrimination or racism, and of a particularly vicious kind. If poor average black performance at university is IQ-related, then this will have a limiting effect on the number of blacks who can teach at university level and in the type of disciplines taught.
Chapter 12 of The Parekh Report, which deals with the arts and media, begins with a citation from Jane Austen's Mansfield Park in which 'dead silence' is noted in response to a question concerning the slave trade in Austen's novel. 'Dead silence' then becomes Parekh's theme for this chapter. In his eagerness to castigate the English for their part in the slave trade, Parekh ignores or is unaware that slavery was practised long before the first white colonialists arrived in Africa (Baker, 1975, 364-5) and that it still flourishes today in sub-Saharan Africa (Lamb, 2001). Forgetting that the UK is overwhelmingly white, Parekh has no hesitation in demanding, presumably as a way of overcoming the 'dead silence' that: 'It is essential that 'Westerners' should know far more than they do about the arts, philosophy and religions of other civilizations' (Parekh, 2000, 164). With regard to the successful prosecution of the British national interest, diplomacy and other forms of international intercourse as well as the satisfaction of intellectual curiosity, something that is not equally distributed among the population, then one might agree with the use of 'essential'. In, however, the context of a comprehensive programme designed to instill in Westerners a sense of loathing of their own civilizations, in order to weaken their resistance to the presence and consequences of large numbers of non-white aliens in their countries, the suggestion should be rejected for the social engineering it undoubtedly is.
Last edited by Alex Linder; May 1st, 2013 at 01:58 PM.
|May 1st, 2013||#10|
Underlying all Parekh's discussion of multiculturalism is a deep-seated resentment of white Britain, especially the English. So the West and Westerners are placed in quotation marks or are prefaced with the inevitable and sneering 'so-called'. The intention here is to deny not just the racial basis of Western civilization and the outstanding contributions already noted but to erase from the historical record the very idea of a distinct, separate, high-achieving white Europe. Something very similar was attempted by the Nazis with regard to the Jews. Long before the Final Solution was implemented every attempt was made to eliminate Jewish influence from German culture. Exactly the same process occurred in the Soviet Union when various national groups (Ukrainians, Volga Germans, Tartars, Kazakhs and Armenians) were deemed to be obstacles to the Soviet Union's totalitarian brand of multiculturalism. All this is, of course, in stark contrast as to how whites are expected to behave regarding Pakistanis, Indians and blacks. No 'soc-called' or 'Asian' in quotation marks are permitted here. Whites are the new untouchables.
Parekh's complaints about the way in which blacks and Asians are represented in the British media and arts should be examined alongside the photographs published in The Parekh Report itself. The conclusions are interesting. By race the breakdown is as follows:
1 Asian boy, (p.9)
1 black woman + 2 white women, (p.17)
1 black man + 1 black boy + Asian boy (p.30)
1 black boy (p.45)
1 Asian boy with graffiti "Fuck the BNP" on the wall in the background (p.70). Photo taken by the Association of Black Photographers
1 white boy with 1 white (?) girl, (p.83)
3 whites, immigrants?, Albanians? Status unknown. (P.98)
1 white woman + 1 black man (p.104)
6 Asian girls + 1 white woman (p.121)
1 black man (p.134)
3 Asian girls (p.155)
1 white male + 5 white boys (p.173)
1 white male + 1 black baby (p.186)
1 black male (p.195)
1 Asian male (p.209)
3 male figures on building site. Race not clear. Possibly white (p.228)
1 black woman (p.244)
1 Asian woman + 1 Asian boy (p.259)
1 Asian male (p.275) Photo taken by The Association of Black Photographers
2 Black girls + 1 white girl (?). Others present. Race not clear (p.287)
Total number of people of all races: = 48
Total number of Asians and Blacks = 27 (56%)
Total number of whites including assumed Eastern European immigrants: = 21 (44%)
Total number of whites minus assumed Eastern European immigrants = 18 (38%)
 the British National Party (BNP) is a right wing party that firmly opposes all immigration.
The striking thing about these percentages is the huge underrepresentation of whites. Were these figures taken to be proportionally representative of the indigenous majority population as a whole, they would mean that whites comprised less than half of the populations of the United Kingdom when in the year 2001 they comprise approximately 95%-96%. If we exclude the three men on page 98 who shall be assumed to be Eastern Europeans, the proportion of indigenous whites falls to a staggering 38%. Whites are the new invisibles as well. The hugely disproportionate numbers of non-whites shown are thoroughly misleading. They have more to do with propagandistic ambitions of multiculturalism (note here for example the graffiti on the wall on page 70 which is the real object of this photo) than with representing an accurate picture of the UK's current racial mix. In fact, we should see these photographs more as the desired multicultural vision of the UK, a future in which whites are the minority in their own country.
Such crude socialist-realist iconography (the relation of such thinking to the history of the Communist Left will be explored at length in the later chapters of this monograph) makes it all the more difficult to understand why Parekh should complain about black actors who are expected: '...' to act their skin colour' - rather than deploy the full range of their skills' (Parekh, 2000, 168). We are expected to submit to the demand to promote diversity yet when a black actor is given a role, in accordance with the diversity decree, Parekh complains, because this is is 'acting his colour'. And the oft-cited reason for black failure, the lack of role models, should be borne in mind. Recall, too, Parekh's bemoaning the lack of black and Asian tutors and lecturers in higher education. If blacks are deemed to need role models in the media and in higher education, this can only be because white role models are not being accepted. If a black role model is to influence blacks he must appeal to some aspect of being black, not white. he must, as it were, 'act his colour' or 'teach his colour'. The solution, according to Parekh is 'much more colour-blind casting' (Parekh, 2000, 168). Now consider Macpherson's fuery, directed at those police officers who rather quaintly believed that the law should be 'colour-blind' (see paragraphs 6.18 and 45.24 of The Macpherson Report), and bear in mind Parekh's own demand that diversity be given preferential treatment irrespective of the White Anglo-Saxon notion of equality beore the law -- colour-blind in other words -- and you can grasp the scale of contempt, double standards, violence to logic, and hypocrisy on which the drive for multiculturalism is based. When colour-blind policing means that more blacks are arrested for violent crime, then colour-blind policing is obviously racist and has to go: police officers must respect diversity (ignore black criminals). On the other hand, when Parekh's television watchers perceive that black actors are acting 'their colour', colour-blind casting, but definitely not colour-blind policing, is the order of the day.
Disproportionately high levels of black crime present Parekh with another opportunity to undermine free speech. If a newspaper runs an article which produces objective and verifiable data about the disproportionate numbers of blacks arrested for violent street crime, this, according to the Parekh view, is an abuse of free speech, since it encourages racial prejudice. This is the standard contempt that Parekh can barely restrain towards white viewers and readers (and possibly some black ones as well). Parekh wants to decide what we should be allowed to watch because, he believes, such programming will predispose the white indigenous majority population to react in a prejudicial manner towards blacks. The trouble is Parekh might well be right in believing this but entirely wrong to criticise whites for reacting in this manner.
Assume that you are a white living in a major British city and you frequently encounter sullen, aggressive black youths on street corners and you personally know of friends who have been mugged and been subjected to racist taunts (you yourself may even have been a victim of such language and assault). You then see the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police informing a press conference that in a recent operation and analysis of the data it was ascertained that blacks, although a minority of the population, were disproportionately responsible for street crime in London (Woods, 2000). Moreover, no one, as far as one can tell, disputes the accuracy of the data. As a result of your own personal experience and observation, confirmed by acquaintances and reinforced by meticulously gathered reports with objective data, you conclude that it is definitely prudent to avoid young blacks on street corners and to plan your day in such a way that you can avoid such people at all times. You may even reevaluate your decision to stay in those many areas of London now heavily populated by blacks and Asians, seeking the relative safety of the suburbs, or leave the city and its environs altogether.
 Woods's analysis is based on the British Home Office publication, Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System: A Home office Publication Under Section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, 1999 and www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/index.htm. [no longer located at this link! --AL]
No, as far as Parekh is concerned, if you do that you are an unreconstructed racist, the typical white bigot, whereas you are in fact merely a thoroughly rational individual who, sensible of danger, has assessed the situation and acted accordingly. 'Prejudice', as Burke warns us, 'is of ready application in the emergency' (Burke, 1790, 183). The beleaguered white Briton, living in a city which he no longer feels he can call his own, and Parekh's insistence that - if you do not like what is happening to your country, you are a racist - is just one of the unbridgeable gaps between the 'community of communities', with its institutional hatred of whites and the gruesome reality in many British cities in the year 2001. The communist party of the Soviet Union had the same problem with reality which all the tanks, secret police, psychiatric hospitals for dissidents and concentration camps could not bridge.
When indigenous Britons reject the 'community of communities' fantasy, the next step has become coercion and the restriction of their rights to free association, to assert their identity, history, culture and language and their rights to free speech. Whites, remember are to be made to believe that multiculturalism is doubleplusgood. Not only does Parekh support the view that free speech can be sacrificed if the multicultural programme is not to be put at risk, but in true neo-Marxist fashion he wishes to criminalise the act of speaking out against multiculturalism. Marx and Lenin would certainly have approved of this attempt to use the very openness of England's institutions to destroy England. For ever since Lenin wrote What is to be Done? (1902) and countless left-wing totalitarians have enriched it, the infiltration and capture of established institutions has been the standard approach employed to subvert, to destroy and to reinvent a state along communist lines. The approach and methods remain unchanged and readily lend themselves to serving the agenda of multiculturalism or race Marxism.
Sheer numbers alone, quite apart from racial and cultural differences, mean that legal and illegal immigration has profound consequences for a small, already densely populated island and that at some stage governments will have to act to stop the influx of immigrants. Presumably, even Parekh can see that the size of Britain necessarily means that limits to immigration must be set if the infrastructure is not to collapse and the countryside lost under concrete. Environmental groups in the UK are strangely silent on this latter point.
Rather than making the obvious tactical concession that 'Immigration and asylum controls are needed' (Parekh, 2000, 221) and then hurrying on to the next anti-white measure, Parekh, should spell out why immigration and asylum controls are needed. Numbers are absolutely crucial. How far are we expected to see the population rise before we declare a critical threshold beyond which we will not tolerate more immigrants, 60,000,000, 80,000,000, 100,000,000, 120,000,000? That Parekh bypasses this issue, as with that of race, is because an open discussion of why immigration and asylum controls are needed would make another formidable case against immigration and thus a rejection of one of the report's central points, namely that large-scale immigration is inherently a good thing.
That Parekh's concession is purely tactical can be seen from the following:' Our recommendations are designed to shift UK (and ultimately EU) policy away from the overt or implicit racist base on which it was developed, and towards a system that reflects and endorses the kind of society outlined in part 1 of this report' (Parekh, 2000, 221). These recommendations are designed, quite deliberately, to allow large numbers of immigrants (predominantly non-white) to enter the white nation states of Europe with the long-term aim of changing their racial composition irreversibly in favour of non-whites. It goes without saying that such breathtaking multicultural engineering, cannot be permitted to be derailed by anything as crude as the wishes of Europe's white indigenous populations, who do not want immigration and asylum controls to be abandoned because they know that their countries will not survive the influx of large numbers of foreigners. The spirit of apartheid lives on in multiculturalism: apartheid forcefully separated the races, whereas multiculturalists seek to impose racial and cultural mixing on homogenous populations regardless of the social, moral and economic consequences. Which is worse?
[onto page 31, three more on thurs.]
Last edited by Alex Linder; May 1st, 2013 at 03:32 PM.
|May 1st, 2013||#11|
Join Date: Jan 2013
The person who launched the action to have Ellis removed from his position was a college kid (front) member of UAF, United Against Fascism, another loud-mouth protest group of Jews, Blacks, Communists, Arabs, Socialists -- a motley crew.
http://uaf.org.uk/about/our-officers/ (UAF officers)
This is an interesting, though sickening, video worth watching to the end. Nazi this and Nazi that, Blacks have learned their masters' language.
My thoughts were, the world has become much too small; we're having to share space with ugly, obnoxious people who don't shut up. Sixty years ago Blacks and Jews were barely visible, hidden away in their own little enclaves. And who ever heard of an Arab? Blacks didn't mingle at all with Whites, and when Jews did, they held their tongues. The video is really sickening.
Ellis wasn't actually fired; he was suspended pending outcome of an investigation, but he chose to leave the profession without waiting for that to take place.
|May 2nd, 2013||#12|
Ellis has some weird punctuation, and is semi-PC in his opposition to PC. But I guess you take what you get in Britain. I don't understand how anyone can write about this stuff at length and not see the jewish thread running through leftism. Wherever this people goes, it brings the same verbal tricks and big bag of bad ideas/dishonest history with it. I just don't see how any other approach to the study of PC and term warfare comes close to providing the clarity analysis from the jew vs goyim angle does.
|May 2nd, 2013||#13|
[conclusion of chapter one]
Despite the many assertions from politicians of all parties that immigrants, and the supposed benefits of "diversity" that accompany them, are a good thing, there is no demand for more "diversity" on the part of whites. Indeed, the reverse is true. Not on the same scale as in the US, there is now a recognizable manifestation of white flight to the countryside and the suburbs in the UK. America provides more clues as to what the UK can expect if high levels of non-white immigration continue for another decade or more: much higher levels of violent crime; a huge increase in taxes to fund welfare programmes; an overwhelmed criminal justice system; loss of amenity and environmental destruction, especially acute in the south east of England. The American experience also makes it quite clear that whenever they can escape or circumvent oppressive federal legislation, blacks and whites will segregate themselves along racial lines. The periodic eruptions of race-related violence which we have seen in British cities would become much worse in scale and duration, as the numbers of non-white immigrants increased. Oldham, not the sickly utopian Parekh fantasy of a 'community of communities', would be the symbol of the new, strife-torn Britain. Now is the time to avert this catastrophe and the point to bear in mind is that it can be averted. It is not inevitable. It is above all a question of political will.
The UK does not have an open-ended obligation of any kind to allow foreigners (black or white) for whatever reasons to come here and live. The primary obligation of the British government is to safeguard the way of life of the majority (overwhelmingly white) and to secure the nation's physical boundaries from armed invasion. And here we can identify an affliction peculiar to the Western mind. All the research and development costs allocated to National Missile Defense (NMD) and the costly infrastructure needed to deal with the threat of Strategic Information Warfare (SIW) count for nothing if the state that disposes of such weapon systems has meanwhile voluntarily and suicidally relinquished control of its borders, so acquiescing to an unarmed invasion of legal and illegal immigrants. The vast majority of people in the UK want to see the numbers of immigrants reduced and illegals expelled. In view of the moral and intellectual failure of Parekh and many British politicians to make the case for immigration that is a perfectly rational and respectable position to hold. The onus is not on the white indigenous majority population to deploy rational arguments against large-scale immigration into the UK - though such arguments can easily be mustered - but on the pro-immigrationists and multiculturalists to justify why they wish to disunite and to balkanise the UK by importing large numbers of legal and illegal immigrants. So far their attempts have been pitiful in the extreme.
Sponsored by a strange combination of white liberals who reject their coutnry and recent immigrants who seem driven more by a desire to punish Britain for her past greatness, particularly where it concerns empire east of Suez, The Parekh Report is less a blueprint for creating a 'community of communities', to use one of Parekh's favourite expressions, than an attempt to impose an alien agenda on the British people for which no major party has any mandate at all, let alone the Runnymede Trust (a nasty irony in view of the importance of Runnymede in English history).
One of the crucial questions arising from this report is whether race is a social and political construct or a biological and genetic reality. Whatever one's view conflict is to be expected if the multicultural agenda, as envisaged in The Parekh Report, is even partially implemented. The proposed declaration on cultural diversity is especially offensive in an overwhelmingly white country where blacks and Asians have only lived in noticeable numbers since 1948. One wonders what Robert Mugabe's reaction would be, were white farmers, Zimbabwe's beleaguered wealth creators, to make such a suggestion in that unhappy land.
Even if race were a 'social and political construct', as Parekh insists, though, as noted he fails to provide any works in the secondary literature to support his belief, this would still not invalidate the desire of the 'socially and politically constructed' white population to retain their own particular social and political construct known as the United Kingdom. Even social and political constructs are not built in a day. Parekh's expectation that the white majority population abandon their historically established social and political construct in favour of his is thoroughly unjust and, in view of the nature of his recommendations regarding what he calls "hate crime", deeply threatening to all the freedoms constructed by all these little Englanders, emulated, incidentally, worldwide. 'Albion's seed', in David Hackett Fischer's striking phrase, has born remarkable fruit and not just in North America. Another alarming consequence of race's being a social and political construct is that the mission of the United Kingdom's Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) must extend way beyond racial equality. It means, given the way in which race is defined, that the CRE is, by default, also committed to imposing social and political equality. This does not mean anything so crass as equality before law: it means equal outcomes. In the twentieth century this was known as communism. We are, it seems, slow to learn.
In attempting to compel the white British to believe that they are just a social and political construct and that this construct must be deconstructed to make way for another, Parekh is, in fact, asserting that a multiracial, social and political construct is not merely on a par with, but superior to, the traditional, mono-racial, British one he wishes to "deconstruct" and replace. In other words, he is behaving like one of those old-fashioned British "racist" empire builders whom he excoriates for taking up, as Kipling famously put it, the white man's burden.
If Parekh believes that multicultural societies are deemed to offer the world a privileged perspective, then there can be no objections to white Britons holding the view that Britain, as it has evolved over the centuries, is also a privileged perspective, and one to be protected not to be "deconstructed" by social engineers and foreigners. Recasting the problem as a social and political construct, as Parekh does, may divert attention from race, as a genetic and biological reality - for the time being and not for much longer - but solves nothing because the fundamental causes of conflict in multicultural (multiracial) societies are ignored. Consider, too, that the flow of legal and illegal immigrants from India, Pakistan, sub-Saharan Africa and Eastern Europe is unidirectional. The reasonable assumption has to be that these immigrants also believe that white Britain has something to offer them that his vastly superior to the grand corruption, squalor, incompetence, disease, superstition, endless tribal and civil wars, murderous rulers, overpopulation and environmental degradation of their own benighted countries. Indeed, how can it be otherwise? As far as one can tell, whites are not storming India's borders or those of South Africa.
Multiculturalism is also conspicuously one-sided in that the demands made of the British and other European nation states to deconstruct themselves in order that they accommodate large numbers of aliens do not apply to China, Japan, Mexico, India, Kenya, Zimbabwe, South Africa and Somalia. This has been thoroughly, and for people such as Parekh, embarrassingly well documented by Peter Brimelow in his pioneering study, Alien Nation. Brimelow wanted to ascertain what would happen were one so minded to emigrate to one of the countries that provide the bulk of immigrants to the US (Mexico, South Korea, Philippines, Taiwan, Jamaica, China and India). Brimelow's favourite response was that from the Indian embassy.
Three separate officials asked him whether he was of Indian origin, one making it quite clear that: 'Since you are not of Indian origin, while it is not impossible for you to immigrate to India, it is a very difficult, very complex, and very, very long process. Among other things, it will require obtaining clearances from both the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Home Affairs. (Brimelow, 1996, 253).
As Brimelow observes: 'Note that these Indian officials are asking not about citizenship, but about origin. For those unaccustomed to recognizing such things, this is racial discrimination. It is even more stringent than the 1921 Quota Act - an outright "brown-India poilcy".' Brimelow concludes that: 'The world is laughing at America' (emphasis in the original, Brimelow, 1996, 253). And Parekh wants the world to laugh at the United Kingdom as well.
Fissiparous and predisposed to conflict, multicultural states offer unprecedented opportunities for an unaccountable and unelected stratum of race bureaucrats to regulate the lives of the majority. Nothing less than the transformation of traditionally white, homogenous, Western nation states into multiracial societies will satisfy Parekh. Love of nation and allegiance to ancient standards of genuine community block the path towards this transformation. Powerful feelings of love and belonging have to be eradicated if multiculturalism's goals are to be achieved. History, language and the-way-we-do-things have to be destroyed or corrupted. In the pursuit of these goals, Parekh and others are fully aware that persuasion will not work, hence the coercion and oppressive nature, or rather anti-nature, of multiculturalism. It is a new and particularly virulent form of oppression. Too many of the indigenous population, have been slow to realise just how virulent, or they prefer to look away or run away. And it is well advanced. So fundamentally opposed is The Parekh Report in both the spirit and substance of its message to the United Kingdom's indigenous majority population that one might easily conclude it was written by the agents of a would-be occupying power and their collaborators. Multiculturalism, like its Marxist-Leninist predecessors, is showing itself to be preeminently the cult of the nation killer not the nation builder. What is happening in Britain may well be replicated in numerous other of the West's nation states in the years ahead.
Baker, John R. 1974, Race, Oxford University Press, New York and London.
Bloom, Alan. 1988 The Closing of The American Mind: How Higher Education Has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today's Students, foreword by Saul Bellow, Touchstone Books, Simon & Schuster, London.
Bork, Robert H. 1997 Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline, ReganBooks, New York.
Brimelow, Peter. 1996 Alien Nation, HarperCollins, New York.
Burke, Edmund. 1986 Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790), Penguin, London.
Ellis, Frank. 2001 The Macpherson Report: 'Anti-Racist' Hysteria and the Sovietization of the United Kingdom, Right Now Press Limited, London.
D'Souza, Dinesh. 1992. Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus, Vintage Books, New York.
Hackett Fischer, David. 1989 Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America, Oxford University Press, New York.
Honeyford, Ray. 1998 The Commission for Racial Equality: British Bureaucracy and the Multiethnic Society, Transaction Publishers, London.
Hughes, Robert. 1993 Culture of Complaint: The Fraying of America, Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford.
Jensen, Arthur. 1998 The g factor: The Science of Mental Ability, Praeger, Connecticut and London.
Johnson, Paul. 1995 The Offshore Islanders: A History of the English-Speaking Peoples, Phoenix, London.
Kirk, Russell. 1994 America's British Culture, Transaction Publishers, London. 1996 Redeeming the Time, Intercollegiate Studies Institute, Delaware.
Kravchenko, Viktor. 1989 I Chose Freedom: The Personal and Political Life of a Soviet Official (1946) [?], with a new introduction by Rett R. Ludwikowski, Transaction Publishes, New Brunswick and Oxford.
Lamb, Christina. 2001 "Meanwhile, in West Africa girls are on sale - just £5 each", The Sunday Telegraph, 9th September 2001, p.28.
Linsell, Tony. 2001 An English Nationalism, Athelney, Norfollk, England.
Lynn, Richard & Vanhanen, Tatu. 2001 "National IQ and Economic Development", The Mankind Quarterly, volume XLI No 4, 2001, pp.415-435.
Maclean, Alistair. 1994 HMS Ulysses (1955), HarperCollins, London.
Macpherson, Sir William of Cluny. 199 The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry: Report of an Inquiry by Sir William Macpherson of Cluny, CM 4262-I, The Stationery Office, London.
Parekh, Bhikhu. 2000 The Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain: Report of the Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain, Profile Books, London.
Pipes, Richard. 1999. Property and Freedom, The Harvill Press, London.
Rushton, J. Philippe. 1999 Race, Evolution and Behavior, Special Abridged Edition, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick.
Sarich, Vincent M. 1995 "In Defense of The Bell Curve: The Reality of Race and the Importance of Human Differences", Skeptic, 3, 1995, pp.84-93.
Vazsonyi, Balint. 1998 America's 30 Years War. Who Is Winning?, Regnery Publishing Inc., Washington, D.C.
Windschuttle, Keith. 1997 The Killing of History: How Literary Critics and Social Theorists are Murdering Our Past, The Free Press, London.
Woods, John. 2000 "Race and Criminal Cowardice", Right Now!, Issue 29, October/December 2000, pp.10-11.
[end chapter one]
Last edited by Alex Linder; May 2nd, 2013 at 10:51 AM.
|May 3rd, 2013||#14|
RACE LEGISLATION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION*
The Joint Action and The Directive
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the European Union has adopted a series of major treaties -- the Treaty on European Union (1992), the Treaty of Amsterdam (1997) and the Treaty of Nice (2001) -- all of which are designed to facilitate the metamorphosis of Europe's independent nation states into mere member states of a new supranational entity, the United States of Europe. As the ambitions of Europe's politicians have grown, so have the illiberal tendencies of the EU become manifest. Freedoms which in England for example, have long been taken for granted as inalienable and irrevocable, are now threatened. Nowhere is this more apparent than with regard to free speech. Here, the major threat is the EU's official policy of multiculturalism and the attempt to impose multicultural orthodoxy on Europe's profoundly sceptical populations.
On 19th July 2000 the directive of the Council of the European Union 'implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin' entered into force (hereinafter the Directive). The Directive adds to earlier EU legislation, most importantly, Title VI of The Treaty on European Union (TEU) which provides for cooperation in the fields of justice and home affairs and, additionally, The Joint Action adopted on 15th July 1996 to combat racism and xenophobia (hereinafter The Joint Action).
Despite reassuring references in its preamble to Article 19 of The International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHRFF), the two Titles of The Joint Action weaken the presumption in favour of free speech in order to favour measures designed to combat racism and xenophobia. It is worthwhile to recall the provisions of Article 19 of the ICCPR:
1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights of reputations of others;
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals.
The preamble of The Joint Action emphasizes 'the respect for the rights of others, as laid down in Article 19' of the ICCPR, yet it is the case, in contrast to the preamble, and obvious from paragraph 3 above, that this is only applicable to paragraph 2 of Article 19, not paragraphs 1 and 3. The right to hold an opinion without interference means more than the right merely to form and to retain an opinion. It means, too, the right to express that opinion (acknowledged in paragraph 2). Although this right may be subject to certain restrictions, the presumption of Article 19 is strongly in favour of the freedom of expression. Where restrictions are to be introduced they must be provided for by law and they must be necessary and subject to a strict scrutiny standard. On these points the preamble of The Joint Action clearly begs an important question: racism and xenophobia, as they affect expression of opinion laid down in paragraph 2 of Article 19 of the ICCPR, are automatically assumed to be so execrable that the various politicians and drafters of The Joint Action are relieved of the burden of demonstrating legislative necessity. They are thus free to impose coercive measures on freedom of expression which would not be justified in time of war, let alone in peace time.
[size=1] In this respect see Rodney Atkinson, Fascist Europe Rising, Compuprint Publishing, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, England 2001.
 'Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29th June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic'. In Official Journal of the European Communities, L 180, 19.07.2000., pp. 22-26.
 The relevant Article is K.3, paragraph 2(b) which makes it possible 'to adopt joint action in so far as the objectives of the Union can be attained better by joint action than by the Member States'.
 'Joint Action of 15th July 1996 adopted by the Council on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, concerning action to combat racism and xenophobia', in Official Journal of the European Communities, L 185, 1996, pp.5-7.
The directive consists of 19 articles, and many of its provisions represent a serious threat to free speech, free association, the rule of law, scientific research and the dissemination of results. The long term implications are also worrying since the Directive obliges the members states, inter alia, to notify the European Commission by 19th July 2003 of 'sanctions applicable to infringements of the national provisions adopted pursuant to this Directive (Article 15), and that by 19th July 2003 member states 'shall adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive' (Article 16). Two years later on 19th July 2005, and every five years thereafter, member states are required to inform the Commission to draw up a report to the European Parliament and the Council on the application of this Directive' (Article 17).
The emphasis placed on 'the right to equality before the law' (paragraph 3, Preamble) is largely cosmetic and is in any case rendered meaningless by the provisions of paragraph 17 of the Preamble and Article 5 (Positive Action):
The prohibition of discrimination should be without prejudice to the maintenance or adoption of measures intended to prevent or compensate for disadvantages suffered by a group of persons of a particular racial or ethnic origin, and such measures may permit organisations of persons of a particular racial or ethnic origin where their main object is the promotion of the special needs of those persons (paragraph 17, Preamble and Article 5).
5 Particularly ominous is the call in paragraph 11 of the Preamble for 'effective judicial cooperation in respect of offences based on racist or xenophobic behaviour'. No attempt is made here to define what constitutes 'racist or xenophobic behaviour' or the nebulous term 'social advantages' (paragraph 12, Preamble).
[onto page 41, three more sat.]
Last edited by Alex Linder; May 3rd, 2013 at 06:26 PM.
|May 7th, 2013||#15|
[okay...backed up from saturday, we pick up on page 41 and will get 12 pages up today to get back on sched.]
Now, is the fact that blacks have on average a lower IQ than whites and that this leads to blacks' being under-represented in vocations which require above average IQ - a disadvantage for which whites are responsible and blacks are entitled to compensation? There are also some obvious inconsistencies with the Directive's stated aim of 'the raising of the standard of living and quality of life, economic and social cohesion and solidarity' (Paragraph 9, Preamble). Special dispensation for black-only organisations to plead for blacks is hardly likely to promote 'economic and social cohesion'. Further, there is a strong hint in paragraph 17 that, since it can be taken for granted that whites are always the perpetrators of disadvantages for others and never the victims, the establishment of organisations geared to the promotion of whites' special needs (however defined) are not necessary. Worse still, in the climate of searching out 'hate crime' and combating 'racism and xenophobia' some will argue that any such organisation is inherently 'racist and xenophobic' and thus to be vilified or proscribed. Indeed this is strongly suggested by Article 14 (Compliance). Anything that conflicts with the 'principle of equal treatment' is to be abolished. This also includes the abolition of 'non-profit-making associations, and rules governing the independent professions and workers' and employers' organisations' where the principle of equal treatment is violated (Article 14, paragraph (b)). In the present inconsistent and frequently incoherent legal climate whites can be certain of one thing, namely that sanctions which the Directive demands be 'effective, proportionate and dissuasive' (Article 15 Sanctions) will in practice be: (i) ineffective (because they are unjust and violate the very principle of equal treatment which the Directive is pledged to uphold); (ii) disproportionate (because of the tendency in all things multicultural to be led by hysteria) and (iii) punitive to the point of viciousness (for the same reasons as ii).
Paragraph 6 of the Preamble goes to the very heat of the EU's multicultural agenda:
This failure to make explicit the meaning of "racial origin" and, equally, the failure explicitly to reject 'such theories' rather than endorse the evasive caveat that the term "racial origin" does not imply acceptance, raises, once again, some interesting questions, as can be seen from Article 4 of the Directive which is cited in full:
 Readily applicable to 'the principle of gender mainstreaming' (Article 17 Report, paragraph 2).
On the other hand, the lack of clarity here and the undetermined position on "racial origin" as well as the criteria laid down -- 'particular occupational activities' -- make a potentially strong case for outcomes almost certainly not intended by the Directive. To begin with, let us apply the 'genuine and determining occupational requirement' to boxing. Consider the case of a black boxing promoter faced with making a choice between whether to support one of two relatively unknown and untested boxers (one black, one white). He would be acting rationally and in a manner consistent with the Directive were he to support the black boxer and reject the white boxer. He could show that his decision was 'based on a characteristic related to racial or ethnic origin' and not on his being personally biased in favour of black boxers, merely because they were black. His decision would also be based on the criteria of legitimacy (within the law) and proportionality (he can only select one boxer from two candidates) as specified in the Directive.
By 'biased in favour' I mean that if, over the years the boxing promoter has found that for most weights of boxing, black boxers have won more fights than whites (and thus made more money for him) his tendency to favour black boxers is entirely rational. Suppose a black boxing promoter favoured black boxers merely because they were black. How would it be possible to determine that his bias was based on a racial preference for his own kind and not on boxing criteria? Given the innate physical advantages that blacks [word(s) missing, probably possess (not to mention cough, Klitschkos, cough)] the boxer's colour would be a rough proxy of boxing ability so even here it would be rational to discriminate on the basis of colour. But even if the promoter's decisions were so biased in favour of blacks to the extent of giving contracts to blacks who were temperamentally and physically unsuited to the demands of the sport, should he be stopped from pursuing this discriminatory policy? I suggest no. If he pursues such a policy, he will lose fights (read money) and risk the ultimate sanction of business failure: he either readjusts his policies or goes out of business. Legislation that penalises him for preferring black boxers irrespective of their abilities affects all of us, whereas if he goes out of business because of his personal preferences our fundamental freedoms are left untouched. Unlike the black boxing promoter who decides to promote incompetent boxers, the university that awards university places to incompetent blacks suffers no such business sanction. That is borne by the taxpayer. The use of psychometric testing (including IQ tests) to determine suitability for certain types of employment (as in the famous US case Griggs v. Duke Power Co) is also legitimate, proportionate and based on determining occupational need. The black boxing promoter has based his decision on experience, the proven and demonstrable superiority of black boxers over most but not all whites. He does not ask for any biometric data. His judgement is tested in the ring. The case of a university which rejected most but not all blacks because their SAT scores were not good enough for, say , law or medical school is also acting according to the criteria specified above, and far more scientifically, given that SAT scores bear a strong positive correlation with IQ test results and academic performance.
Last edited by Alex Linder; May 7th, 2013 at 12:34 PM.
|May 7th, 2013||#16|
Although Article 4 concentrates on occupations, we cannot avoid the fact that blacks and whites have different types of medical problems. So Article 4 also has a bearing on medicine. Given that the profile of black medical problems -- the predisposition to certain types of disease -- is found throughout the world, these medical problems cannot be explained on the basis of culture. Race as a biological and genetic reality has no difficulty in accounting for this.
 Of relevance for EU legislation is the landmark US case The City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co (1989) in which the Supreme Court struck down the reverse discrimination provisions of affirmative action. At the heart of the Croson decision was the failure of the city of Richmond to demonstrate any evidentiary basis for racial quotas. Vague claims about past wrongs and societal discrimination were held to be an insufficient basis for race-conscious programmes. Henceforth, any remedial measures had to be victim-specific and meet a strict scrutiny standard. For a detailed discussion of Croson and its wider implications see Roger Clegg ed., Racial Preferences in Government Contracting, The National Legal Center for the Public Interest, Washington, D.C., 1993.
The above analysis is of course not at all how the drafters of this Directive wish it to be interpreted. When they use legitimacy they really mean something vague, along the lines of fairness or more specifically equal opportunities and equal outcomes. When they use proportionate they mean quotas based on the percentage of racial or ethnic minorities in the population. The determination to impose quotas arises from the assumption that blacks and Asians are victims of discrimination even when there is no obvious discrimination. Thus paragraph 2(b) of Article 2 states that:
The exception to this assertion would be the multicultural who is quite happy to see white students with high SAT scores denied a place at a good university in order that a low-achieving minority student be given the place. Article 5 (Positive Action) will also have an impact: 'With a view to ensuring full equality in practice, the principle of equal treatment shall not prevent any Member State from maintaining or adopting specific measures to prevent or compensate for disadvantages linked to racial or ethnic origin'. The use of compensation here is misleading. It suggests that minorities have somehow been wronged or cheated because, for example, they are not represented in the university population in proportion to their number in the population as whites (the disparity ratio fallacy). Apparently, white men can't jump. Should they then be compensated for their failure to match black dominance in basketball?
Article 8 (The Burden of Proof) shifts the burden of proof in any legal action to the respondent and paragraph 2 also permits Member States to introduce 'rules o evidence which are more favourable to plaintiffs' (emphasis added). Moreover, in view of the fact that multiculturalists wish to give the widest possible meaning to an interpretation of "hate crime", making it in fact a serious crime (a federal crime in the US), the assurance in Article 8, paragraph 3 that: 'Paragraph 1 shall not apply to criminal procedures' is not convincing. Paragraph 3 should possibly have been amended to conclude with 'for the time being' (In view of the provisions of the Council Framework Decision, 'for the time being' is appropriate. See below).
The whole dubious notion of 'indirect indiscrimination' also reveals intellectual inconsistency in another way. The Directive states that indirect discrimination can 'be established by any means including on the basis of statistical evidence' (Preamble, paragraph 15 emphasis added). The combination of 'by any means' and the shift in the burden of proof puts respondents at a severe legal disadvantage. In the context of English common law these are serious erosions of traditional freedoms. The willingness to use statistical evidence, which almost certainly means using the low numbers of blacks and Asians in certain professions as well as status within those professions as prima facie evidence of discrimination, is in stark contrast to the hostility of egalitarians rationally and honestly to consider the rigorous statistical data as it relates for example to black and white IQ differences, crime rates worldwide and other forms of dysfunctional behavior.
[Commentary: The US got anti-white discrimination going formally and legally under LBJ, but really institutionalized and kicked off under Richard Nixon, directed by one of his jews. The first formal academic criticism, from jew Glazer, appeared a few years later, still in the '70s. It's as though Europe has taken the American example and, if anything, removed the fig leaf. This equality law is nothing but a way to fuck whites. 'Affirmative action' or 'positive discrimination,' as well as the concept of and intention behind 'hate crimes' are designed solely to hurt and endanger and degrade whites. They are not aimed to help blacks. They don't help blacks. They are designed solely to hurt whites. By rubbing their nose in the fact they can do nothing about having their racial inferiors shoved on top of them as 'equals.' This tepid British academic, who deserves credit for courage, just like Kevin MacDonald, can't, because of professional deformation, as the French call it, as much as any other reason, truly effectively evoke the outrageousness of these anti-white policies. Instead, Ellis analyzes them with the usual conservative, neoconservative, gloss. He makes the obvious points obviously. He only hints that the people who designed these policies just might be aware of their actual effect! The people enacting these legal outrages are not stupid. They are running things. Nor are they well intentioned. They are quite ill intentioned. But they ARE rational. They DO know 1) that blacks are niggers; 2) that there ain't no cure for nigger; 3) that sticking niggers over whites will have no effect but destroying the white race and the West it made. They know this. What they do is deliberate. It is calculated. It is and should be called murder. Genocide. White men are morally crushed by being legally forced to accede in their own undermining, all in the name of historical guilt and 'equality.' . . . In the US, the rhetoric began by calling a jewish movement a black movement. Constitutional rights were done away with (freedom of association, for one) and it was called 'civil rights.' The promulgators spoke of equality and opportunity and fairness, but this was a cover. What they actually wanted was legal superiority. The 'civil rights movement' was a jew-led anti-white movement, aimed at subverting the constitution and placing blacks, browns, reds and yellows on top of whites - but below jews. This would be done in the name of equality, fairness, morality and justice. Degree by degree, decisions by decision, courts came to find that mere 'statistical disparity' was enough to prove invidious discrimination. This is where the EU has started. Statistical patterns alone are enough. The fundamental irrationality of this position, and the fact that in practice it is anti-white, are well known to the architects. They're what they intend. Conservatives are losers precisely because they won't take this point head on. They will pretend these consequences are unintended results of well intentioned men, when the facts are the opposite. The men are ill intentioned, and the results are entirely intentional. No kind of moron doesn't realize that the fact that niggers are 80% of D.C. yet <1% of aeronautical engineers has nothing to do with racial discrimination. Essentially this stuff amounts to a white tax. A tax on whites for being white. They are penalized because they are superior. They are tied up like plowhorses and made to farm fields for their inferiors, all while being lectured about their historical guilt. No ordinary white wants this, not in France, Germany, Italy or England. But we have it anyway. Why? Because the elites somehow split from the people. How is that? Because the elites came to be dominated by a tiny alien outsider racial group - namely, the jews. And jews plus white sellouts (think the Bill Clintons) run things. Any voice that might rise up and speak for the white majority gets attacked or crushed. That position - that whites have interests - is declared beyond the pale. Its ideas aren't discussed. They are smeared as hate. Their carriers are defamed. Their representatives are shamed or imprisoned - whatever means of separating them from money and influence the jews have to use is employed. Whites have effectively been converted into slaves, through law. Through media rhetorical trickery many of them have been so blinded to this they think it a good or at least inevitable thing. It is neither. Whites don't need blacks and jews to run effective, attractive societies. Jews are an alien, competing race that has figured out how to get control of white society and destroy it from the inside. Whites exist to feed jews and the muds they use to control and dilute the white population. Essential to white recovery in the future is teaching our young that jews are not us. They are hostile aliens bent on our genocide. Ellis doesn't get anywhere near this because his work is mostly descriptive rather than analytical. Its the racial animus driving the PC crowd that needs to be excavated and put on the table for all to see and think about. Specifically what needs to be done is to identify the jewish role in creating communism, its policies and rhetoric, and drawing lines to their equivalents in the West. Ellis at least sort of does this, indirectly. He's a Soviet expert, so he draws some parallels. But he leaves out the jewish nexus. That's what is essential though. For it, you must turn to the Nazis. Their puzzling it out and explaining it so all could understand is why they are, to the jews, and in the jew-controlled media, the most evil men of all time. Evil, note wryly, is a word jews laugh at everywhere else.]
Council Framework Decision (CFD)
Multiracial societies worldwide are artificial constructs and liable, as demonstrated by the former Yugoslavia, Soviet Union and countless examples from Africa, to explode into violence. Beyond certain limits racial and cultural diversity has historically posed a threat to the survival of a nation or state. Yet the explanatory memorandum which accompanies the CFD instructs us that: 'European societies are multicultural and multi-ethnic, and their diversity is a positive and enriching factor' (paragraph 1, emphasis added). No evidence is cited in support of this assertion. Nor are we told when in the recent history of Europe, the continent ceased to be monoracial and became multiracial. If diversity, which is a code word for the presence of a large numbers of non-white legal and illegal immigrants in European societies, were indeed 'positive and enriching', then whites would be demanding ever more diversity. Of course, they make no such demands. There is massive opposition to large numbers of legal and illegal immigrants in Europe and the CFD is intended as part of the wider coercion of indigenous Europeans to believe, act, and to speak as if they believe, that diversity is a good thing.
 Another remarkable feature is the provision of Article 7 (Defence of Rights) which permits individuals to apply the principle of equal treatment 'even after the relationship in which discrimination is alleged to have occurred has ended'.
 Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on Combating Racism and Xenophobia, COM (2001) 664, 28.11.2001. See: http://europa.en.int/eur-lex/en/com/...1_0664en01.pdf
Last edited by Alex Linder; May 7th, 2013 at 03:18 PM.
|May 7th, 2013||#17|
When the numbers of racist crimes are discussed it is noted that: '66% fell within the category of propaganda offences' (Some Figures, paragraph 3, emphasis added). 'Propaganda offence' is the sort of language we expect to find in Soviet jurisprudence, specifically, the notorious Article 58 of the Soviet criminal code, which made anti-Soviet propaganda and agitation a criminal offence, invariably punished by long terms in slave-labour camps or death.
 Racism and xenophobia are not to be treated as political offences and thus cannot serve as grounds for refusing to extradite an accused individual (Article 14 Political Offences).
As far as the EU is concerned, a propaganda offence is anything that rejects multicultural assumptions and the uncritical acceptance of diversity as a positive and enriching factor. The following -- many more could be added -- would all be regarded as examples of 'propaganda offences':
The Move Toward Thought Control
The desire to police what we can and cannot read, view and listen to are evident in the concerns expressed about the Internet in the Council Framework Decision (CFD). Among other things, 'the Internet is also a relatively cheap and highly effective tool for racist individuals to spread hateful ideas to an audience of thousands if not millions' (paragraph 12). Now, it is for individual users of the Internet to decide whether ideas are in fact hateful not unelected bureaucrats. There is barely concealed rage at the constitutional guarantee of free speech in the USA (paragraph 12) and the following should be noted: 'The Commission's approach on this issue is to ensure that racist and xenophobic content on the Internet is criminalised in all Member States' (paragraph 13). If this goal is achieved it will mean taht the free speech guarantees in the USA will be of great importance to dissident Europeans facing bureaucratic and legal persecution in the EU. It will not be surprisign if we see the opponents of censorship turn the concerns expressed about hate crime, racism adn the rest in the CFD against its drafters. Thus, an indigenous Briton would be entitled to claim that promoting multiculturalism at the expense of whites is itself racist; that TV-programming and advertisements which conspicuously use black actors to promote black self-esteem or to give a false picture of black status and their numbers in the population, was to use the language of the CFD 'a propaganda offence'; that rap was 'hate music'; that the BBC and a large part of the press, incite racial hatred of whites; that -- to use the hyperbole of black activiss when campaigning for black history classes -- the multicultural curriculum in British schools amounts to cultural extermination since it encouraged white schoolchildren to despise their country and its achievements.
By far the most threatening provisions of the CFD, however, are to be found in the definitions of racism and xenophobia:
"racism and xenophobia" shall mean the belief in race, colour, descent, religion or belief, national or ethnic origin as a factor determining aversion to individuals or groups (Article 3, paragraph (a)).
This definition represents not just a direct assault on free speech but marks the triumphal assertion of what Orwell famously and presciently called Thoughtcrime. To criminalise belief is to criminalise intellectual activity, to stifle all thought from the very outset. It also effectively repeals paragraph 1, Article 19 of the ICCPR and Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the ECHRFF. For if 'the right to hold opinions without interference' (paragraph 1, Article 19, ICCPR) means anything it means the right to believe in the sort of things that the drafters of Article 3 are seeking to criminalise. Were this definition to become law it would effectively ban all research into the genetic basis of race, as well as huge areas of anthropology and history. It would be argued that criticism of the CFD definition was itself inspired by racist and xenophobic sentiments and thus criminal as well. If we replace belief in race, colour, etc., with belief based on empirical evidence that the Earth and other planets in our solar system revolve round the Sun, then one can appreciate the regressive and crudely medieval nature of this definition. Stripped of all the concerns about racism, it represents and attempt to silence all opposition to multiculturalism. It is a measure of the blindness induced by multiculturalism and a reflection of multiculturalism's innate totalitarianism that 12 years after the fall of communism Europe's legislators can draft proposals which would be more appropriate to the former Soviet Union or North Korea than to 'Free Europe'.
 Paragraph 2 of Article 12 (Jurisdiction) states that jurisdiction extends 'to cases where the offence is committed through an information system'. No definition of what constitutes an information system is given so this could mean anything from an Internet web site to a privately held filing cabinet. In view of the provisions of paragraph 3 Article 15 (Exchange of Information) this gives a free hand for the police to search private premises and raid private dwellings at will. Paragraph 3 states:
Given the definitions of racism and xenophobia which are used in the Council Framework Decision, it is not racism and xenophobia that 'are a direct violation of the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law' (paragraph 2), but the nature of the detailed plans to combat racism and xenophobia themselves, which are the direct and indirect threat to a civilized society. The whole tone of the CFD and related legislation is the assumption that racism and xenophobia are so terrible, so dreadful, that normal rational appraisal must be suspended or be deemed to be inadequate. Established legal custom, it is argued, cannot and must not prevail. As far as the UK is concerned, this means that in order to fight this allegedly supreme evil, the rule of law and free speech must be abandoned in order to serve the greater good of combating racism and xenophobia.
To those familiar with the National Socialist state or Soviet totalitarianism this has a familiar ring. Indeed, the whole thrust of "anti-racist" legislation in the EU provokes some ominous and startling parallels with the totalitarian despotisms
of the last century - Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and Communist China. In much the same way that Nazi Germany's Nuremberg Laws in 1935 consolidated the state's official policy towards Jews, finalising the emergence of the National-Socialist state, so the EU's race and multicultural legislation discussed in this article can be seen as a decisive move towards not just the emergence of a United States of Europe but also towards Europe's becoming a unified police state.
[end chapter 2, page 51]
Last edited by Alex Linder; May 8th, 2013 at 10:20 AM.
|May 7th, 2013||#18|
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Virginia, CSA
Are the goddamned kikes & Social Marxist goy whores who gleefully ram this genocidal shit down White throats all surrounded by squads of heavily-armed bodyguards?
"First: Do No Good." - The Hymiecratic Oath
"The man who does not exercise the first law of nature—that of self preservation — is not worthy of living and breathing the breath of life." - John Wesley Hardin
|May 8th, 2013||#19|
|May 8th, 2013||#20|
[this is the truly interesting one, the most important and meaningful, which is why I've spent lots of time discussing it in Radio Istina]
POLITICAL CORRECTNESS AND THE IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLE: FROM LENIN AND MAO TO MARCUSE AND FOUCAULT*
The suddenness with which political correctness entered the public domain in the period between 1989-1991, and the ensuing arguments about the legitimacy of Western culture which lasted until well into the mid 1990s, implies that the concept of political correctness is a very recent phenomenon, the origins of which are to be found in certain intellectual trends of the late twentieth-century. Richard Burt, for example, in an essay published in Censorship: A World Encyclopedia, argues that the term political correctness was first introduced by the New Left in the 1960s (Jones, 2001, 1901). Certainly, thinkers of the New Left developed the concept, but long before Marcuse and Derrida, and a host of other New Left and postmodernist writers were required reading on the campus, we find political correctness established as an ideological criterion of Marxism-Leninism. Official Soviet sources clearly show that the term was in use as early as 1921 (Resheniya, 1967, 205). If one takes into account the role of Lenin as the architect of the Soviet Union, and his massive influence in shaping Soviet ideology, then a reasonable assumption is that it is to Lenin to whom we must turn in order to find the conceptual origins of political correctness and the term itself. Soviet sources support this assumption.
A review of a diverse and large body of Soviet and Western literature, written and published throughout the twentieth century, which was conducted in preparation for this article, repeatedly identifies the theme of correctness - ideological, political or theoretical - as a concern of exceptional importance for Marxist-Leninism and Maoism. The range of sources is impressive: Lenin's own writings before and after the start of the twentieth century; some early resolutions of Communist Party congresses; the insights of writers and philosophers, for example, Joseph Berger, George Orwell, Czeslaw Milosz, Stefan Amsterdamski, Leszek Kolakowski, Balint Vazsonyi, Arthur Koestler and Alain Bensançon; the writings of Mao, and other official Chinese sources; victims of Soviet psychiatric abuse; Chinese and Soviet dissidents; scholarly studies, both Soviet and Western, of Soviet propaganda, agitation and media; and the works of some of Russia's greatest writers, most notably Andrey Platonov, Boris Pasternak, Vasiliy Grossman and Alexander Solzhenitsyn.
Soviet and Chinese manifestations of political correctness are worlds of paranoid suspicion, endless show trials, false confessions and struggle sessions. They are worlds where the workings of the rational mind are viewed with suspicion, even hatred. For the hapless victims ensnared in the web of communist ideology it was frequently a matter of life and death (Conquest, 1990, Lifton, 1961, Lin 1991, Thurston, 1988, Wu, 1994). In the aftermath of the Soviet experiment, Russian scholars have explored the connection between Soviet ideology with its insistence on correctness and the consequences for Russian culture (Dobrenko, 1997, Etkind, 1993, Shalin, 1996). Their observations leave no doubt that political correctness was an ideological criterion which applied to all spheres of intellectual endeavor. Having lived under a system where verbal spontaneity and scepticism could sometimes be fatal, and having experienced the party's attempt to police thinking, these former Soviet citizens, and their Chinese counterparts, offer acute insights into the problem of political correctness in the West today. They repay careful study.
 Balint Vazsonyi, a refugee from communist persecution, states that his first encounter with the term politically correct was when he read the works of Anton Makarenko, Lenin's expert on education (Vazsonyi, 1998, 13).
 In her pioneering study of Soviet media published in 1973, that is well before the term political correctness acquired wide usage, Gayle Durham Hollander made teh following observation: 'The teacher is a third source of political influence: as a representative of society's authority, she is both an adult model of behaviour, and the perpetrator of a learning culture in which political correctness is an integral part of scholarly success. [....] Alternative views of politics are ridiculed or ignored, and Marxism-Leninism is presented as the basis of all knowledge - social, political, aesthetic, and scientific. (Hollander, 1973, 13, emphasis added) [no emphasis added, I suspect it would be on "all knowledge."] Note in this respect the Soviet ditty: 'if you are ideologically consistent, then you are politically literate'.
Last edited by Alex Linder; May 8th, 2013 at 12:48 PM.