Tuesday, 31 January 2012

A Walk Down Canal Road In Strood

A Walk Down Canal Road In Strood.

If Dickens returned he wouldnt recognise the place,
Like a battered housewife with a broken face,
The hooting boats that chugged the tide,
And clanking cranes along the river side,
Are now rusting wrecks, offshored and globalised.

The Railway Tavern where I once used to drink,
Is now a gay bar seeking pounds that are pink,
Built where the Medway on a high spring tide,
Still rises to flood the snug with its filthy brime.

The call of a curlew in the misty fringe,
Drifts over the groaning recycling bins,
Sifting the shore where a soviet sub rests,
Beached like a whale, slowly rusting to death.

As whores in short skirts who work in spurts,
Seek paying strangers, their addictions curse,
Out from dusk to dawn in a life forlorn,
Is this the reason for which they were born ?

Clucking burglars prowl the midnight streets,
Needle famished, pathetic poppy thieves,
Whilst chains are drawn across front doors,
Flats full of single mothers fear the creaking floor.

In the morning workers walk the dog shit path,
Past concrete playgrounds devoid of grass,
Dodging the rabid pitbulls of chavs high on PCP,
Who seek the slow bleak death of this liberal liberty.

Then back along the same cruel street at night,
Tar black dark, lit with febrile orange light,
Where lurk gangs of hoodies who carry knives,
For whom 'respect' means more than human lives.

Add to Technorati Favorites

The Poet Is A Revolutionary.

The true poet is a revolutionary,

And the only poetry that lives,

Is the poetry of war.

It should be the kiss of a fist,

In the smug face of authority,

A petrol bomb cast into the palaces of apathy,

That cleanses with its fire,

The pig stys of politicians.

It should never be complicit,

It must seek to destroy to create,

And each line lead to a little death,

That is the birth of a new beginning.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Thatcher & The Betrayal Of Britain


An old woman stumbles into the shop of an Asian grocer and peers quizzically at the price of milk. Indian music blares from the speakers as a large African smirks with the usual blend of contempt and hostility at the white slag fumbling with her pence at the counter. She shuffles home through the dirty streets, passing dull-eyed denizens of the metropolis, and complains to her husband about rising prices as they sit to a modest breakfast. Only after another woman enters the kitchen do we discover that Lady Thatcher is talking to herself, a prisoner in her own home and of her own memories. Like Britain herself, she has been buried alive.

The Iron Lady is a film about the ghosts of people, issues, and a nation long since vanished. It has little to do with Margaret Thatcher's accomplishments, beliefs, or time in office. Instead, most of the movie is spent watching an old demented woman scurry about her modest quarters in conversation with the shade of her dead husband. Occasionally, it shifts from clumsily executed biopic to outright horror. In one particularly disturbing scene, Lady Thatcher frantically turns on all the appliances in her house to drown out the hectoring of her dead husband. Denis Thatcher stares at his wife's back from within a mirror, as Lady Thatcher desperately pleads with herself to turn away from madness. The camera zooms in and out with one wild cut after another. Such a mood fits The Exorcism of Emily Rose or Paranormal Activity. So much for those who came to the theater to see a movie about the Conservative Party.

As a portrayal of a living woman, it is sickening and without excuse. Obviously, this kind of treatment is limited only to someone who is right of center. Can anyone imagine a biopic focusing on a senile Nelson Mandela or Rosa Parks? To ask the question is to answer it. Even as the issues Thatcher championed have faded, as "New Labour" and other left-wing parties reconciled themselves to a diminished role for the unions, the rage against the Iron Lady is constant and enduring and the controversy about her continues. Websites have been set up to commemorate her death with a party, the comment boards on videos and articles about her are filled with furious vulgarity and loathing directed at woman who hasn't been in power for 20 years, and even the Conservative Party has backed away from “Thatcherism,” as much as they can, even to the point of changing the Party's logo from a flaming torch to a tree seemingly drawn by a child.

Out with the old, in with the green.

The result is that in some way, the portrait of a defeated and dying woman is the only kind of tribute the Kali Yuga can pay to a figure of importance who came from the wrong side. Meryl Streep (whose mimicry is skilled, but what of it?) sets the tone with the usual comment along the lines of "of course, I don't agree with her evil politics, but this portrayal makes her sympathetic." Similarly, the chattering class of Britain in the press and online have come to terms with this portrayal of Thatcher precisely because it shows the Iron Lady at her lowest point. Thatcher is, of course, racist, a traitor to woman, an enemy of workers, a woman who made people starve and completely destroyed Britain. As a human being, however, she is sympathetic because she is dying. In a culture where the highest value is self-loathing, this is perhaps the most a conservative can hope for.

The movie also does its best to turn Thatcher into a symbol of identity politics. The young Thatcher lectures her husband (just after he has proposed no less) that "one's life must matter...beyond the cooking and the cleaning and the children, one's life must mean more than that." A young Thatcher dressed in bright blue and heels enters Parliament for the first time and is contrasted with the stereotypically stern aristocratic British men in dark suits who just strolled over from being evil in The King's Speech. All gaze at her in astonishment, although the first woman in Parliament had already taken her seat 30 years before. Ominously, the "Members" room has urinals, while the "Lady Members" room contains an iron. Obviously, we are supposed to think Lady Thatcher should have forgotten all this silliness about the collapsing economy and championed the sitzpinkler movement. As Steep herself observes, what is important about Thatcher is not anything she did (which was all evil) but that a woman was elected in "gender biased, homophobic, class-ridden England." Movement conservatives, of course, don't believe the movie is feminist enough.

What did Margaret Thatcher do? Well, we really never really find out. She confronted the unions...but why this matters or what was the outcome is never really explained. We know it is incredibly controversial but the military-style planning Thatcher used to humble the trade unions is ignored and the entire subject simply peters out. Then we jump straight into the Falklands War, which gives Thatcher the popularity needed to carry out the rest of her program. However, again, why the decision was difficult, why there was opposition, and why Thatcher made the difference as opposed to anyone else being in charge is not explained.

After the Falklands, prosperity magically comes to Britain (again, no explanation why) and Thatcher rules for a lengthy period of time—during which nothing apparently happens. There is a shot of perhaps three seconds of Margaret Thatcher dancing with a tuxedoed Ronald Reagan, but that's all the mention the "second most important man in my life" will get. Just them dancing around somehow causes the Berlin Wall to crumble. Rather than a tour through history, we are a treated to a montage out of Rocky IV...or maybe even Team America: World Police. Even Thatcher's collapse is reduced to the petty and the personal, as her colleagues seemingly betray her because she yelled at them, not because of any policy differences. Thatcher's warnings about increasing European centralization and fiscal union, a subject as timely as ever, is all but ignored aside from a brief comment about the UK not being "ready for it."

Such a treatment is perhaps inevitable because the issues that motivated Thatcher have become all but irrelevant. The best that can be said of Thatcher is that she confronted, and to some extent defeated, the primary challenge of her time by frustrating the British Left's attempt to turn the sceptered isle into a grim Airstrip One of Brezhnev bureaucracy and overwhelming state ownership of the economy. The Iron Lady contains one notable scene of an enraptured Thatcher watching her father speak of the virtue of a "nation of shopkeepers"; later, Thatcher speaks of the small businessman's proud rejection of noblesse oblige. Of course, Thatcher's libertarian rhetoric about there being “no such thing as society" belied her electoral dependence on a British traditionalism she did not identify with. Despite the fact that she in large partowed her rise to power to a thinly veiled critique of non-White immigration (and spoke even more frankly about the subject in private), Thatcher did precious little to stop the demographic transformation of the United Kingdom, the transformation of the British Empire into a mere satrap of the United States (or even worse, the European Union), and the eradication of the culture and identity of the British people.

Just as American conservatism of even the Russell Kirk variety was gradually replaced with a deracinated defense of "values," so did Thatcher ground her politics in abstractions rather than in a sense of British identity. When Enoch Powell commented to her that he would fight for Britain even if it were under a Communist government and that values "can not be fought for, nor destroyed" because they exist beyond space and time, Thatcher was literally rendered speechless. Thatcher represented the “Americanization” not just of the British economy but of conservative politics, and the result was inevitable retreat and failure on cultural issues, as in the United States.

Even her economic reforms can be seen with the advantage of hindsight as, at best, a rearguard action. While outright state control over the economy may have been blunted, the fall of trade-union power may have been inevitable. The larger concern is that as with the "Reagan Revolution" and later "Republican Revolution" within the United States, Thatcher's Conservatives failed to cut the growth of government or the ever increasing share of government spending that went to the welfare state. By saving British socialism from itself but ceding to the hard Left control of the commanding heights of the culture by defining conservatism purely as economic, Thatcher made "Cool Britannia" and its all encompassing political correctness possible.

Even victory in the Falklands may have simply postponed the inevitable, as Britain's military position has seriously declined and Argentina is simply biding its time to reclaim the Malvinas. Viewing contemporary debates over a national army for an independent Scotland and the Union Jack condemned as controversial because Blacks think it's racist, Thatcher's call to make "Great Britain great again" seems almost tragic. As London is no longer an English city and the governments of the West are girded for seemingly permanent economic decline, it is hard not to view Thatcher's story as irrelevant.

One can imagine an alternate British history with Enoch Powell as Prime Minister laying the foundation for a sustainable traditionalist Right that would preserve the long-term existence of British identity, culture, and economic power. Instead, we had the transformation of Toryism to American classical liberalism, and therefore its inevitable (and perhaps intended) defeat. With Thatcher's accomplishments alternatively co-opted or undone with the passage of time, what is left? To the emerging post-Britain, she'll be linked to the evil racist past, a bump on the road to Equality, her policies bluntly summarized as supporting the "rich people."

To the official conservatism of the rump Britain, she'll be a symbol of the Good Old Days of Conservative victories against unsympathetic statist enemies, with troubling questions about immigration, culture, and the long-term impact of her policies abstracted away and easily avoided. Of course, to official opinion, even harmless nostalgia can not be tolerated. Would that there was a real British Right to come to the same conclusion!

Add to Technorati Favorites

The Parable Of The Squirrels

This article should be called The Parable Of The Squirrels - as it explains exactly what the end results of immigration, diversity and multi-culturalism lead to.

The future is looking black for grey squirrels as numbers of darker variety soars in UK

By Tamara Cohen

Last updated at 1:55 AM on 31st January 2012

Comments (14) Share

After almost wiping out its red cousins in the UK, it seems the grey squirrel is getting a taste of its own medicine.

The black squirrel population is soaring and experts say it could eventually be the dominant variety.

There are now believed to be at least 25,000 – mostly in East Anglia – but isolated sightings have been recorded elsewhere.

A black squirrel in the UK: The squirrels were introduced in 1912 - scientists now aim to find out how far they have spread in the past 100 years

The spread of the black variant is the biggest change in squirrel demographics since the red population was devastated 50 years ago.

The grey squirrel was able to displace the native red because it is larger and better able to compete for food. It also infected the reds with a disease.

Once in the millions, red squirrel numbers have declined to just 120,000 in the UK.

The English population, found in isolated pockets in the North, East Anglia and the Isle of Wight, is down to 25,000 – the same as the black squirrel but about to be overtaken.

Black squirrel feeding: Scientists believe that the squirrels have spread around 50 miles in 100 years - a contrast to grey squirrels, which now number two million in the British isles

The black squirrel is actually the same native North American species as the grey but its colour is the result of a genetic mutation.

Scientists are not sure why the black variety is proving more successful. Research will focus on whether it is fitter or more aggressive.

Around 100 grey squirrels were introduced into Britain in the 1870s as an exotic pet. There are now two million. In the 1880s, around a dozen black squirrels escaped from a private zoo in Woburn, Bedfordshire.

The first one spotted in the wild was on the outskirts of Letchworth in Hertfordshire in 1912.

They compete with the greys for food and, when the two varieties mate, the black gene is dominant. Marina Pacheco, of the Mammal Society, said: ‘All of the grey squirrels could be black in a few decades.’

Scientists at Anglia Ruskin University have called on the public to report sightings to the website www.blacksquirrel project.org

Geneticist Helen McRobbie said: ‘Numbers have risen steadily over the years and they have been spotted in Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire.

‘But we don’t have evidence that they are living elsewhere in the British Isles.

‘Therefore it would be great if as many people as possible can submit their sightings.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093826/Nationwide-hunt-Britains-rare-black-squirrel-100-years-introduced.html#ixzz1l1jset1k

Add to Technorati Favorites

Sunday, 29 January 2012

The Price Of Prohibition


Twenty seconds of shooting, 432 bullets, five dead policemen.

Four of the corpses are sprawled over a shiny-new Dodge Ram pick-up truck that has been pierced so many times it resembles a cheese-grater. The bodies are contorted in the unnatural poses of the dead – arms arched over spines, legs spread out sideways.

The fifth man is a moustached 48-year-old lying 10 feet from the pick-up, bathed in his own blood. His eyes are wide open, his right hand stretched upward clasping a 9-mm pistol – a death pose that could have been set up for a Hollywood movie.

It is a balmy evening in Culiacan, Sinaloa, near Mexico's Pacific coast. The policemen had stopped at a red light when the gunmen attacked, shooting from the side and back, unleashing bullets in split seconds. A customised Kalashnikov can unload 100 rounds in 10 seconds. This is a lightning war.

I arrive 10 minutes after the shooting and a crowd of onlookers is already thickening. "That one is a Kalashnikov bullet. That one is from an AR15," says a skinny kid in a baseball cap, pointing at a long silvery shell next to a shorter gold one.

Related Articles
Giant open-air drug lab raided in Mexico
24 Jan 2012
Elaborate drug tunnel found between Mexico and US
01 Dec 2011
Mexican drug war deaths top 47,500
12 Jan 2012
Besides them, middle-aged couples, old men and mothers with small children gawk at the morbid display. The local press corps huddles together, checking photos on their viewfinders to ensure they have the best images. They are relaxed, cheery; this is their daily bread.

A battered Ford Focus speeds through the crowd. The wife of one of the victims jumps out and starts screaming hysterically. Her swinging arms are held back by her brother, his eyes red with tears. It is only when I see the pained look on their faces that the loss of human life really sinks in.

Anyone with half an eye on the news knows that Mexico is in the midst of a drugs war, with rival cartels battling for control of a $30 billion trade with the United States. The country so deep in blood it is getting harder to shock the locals. Even the kidnapping and killing of nine policemen, or a pile of craniums in a town plaza, isn't big news.

Only the most sensational atrocities now grab media attention: a grenade attack on revellers celebrating independence day; the sewing of a murder victim's face onto a football; an old silver mine filled with 56 decaying corpses, some of the victims thrown in alive.

In the five years of President Felipe Calderon's administration, the government admitted earlier this month, the drug war has claimed 47,500 lives including those of 3,000 public servants – policemen, soldiers, judges, mayors, and dozens of federal officials.

Such a murder rate compares to the most lethal insurgent forces in the world – and is certainly more deadly than Hamas, ETA, or the Irish Republican Army in its entire three decades of armed struggle.

The nature of the attacks is even more intimidating. Mexican gangsters regularly shower police stations with bullets and rocket-propelled grenades; they carry out mass kidnappings of officers and leave their mutilated bodies on public display; they even kidnapped one mayor, tied him up, and stoned him to death on a main street.

I originally travelled to Latin America with the goal to be a foreign correspondent in exotic climes. The Oliver Stone film Salvador inspired me with its story of reporters dodging bullets in the Central American civil wars. But by the turn of millennium, the days of military dictators and communist insurgents were no more. We were now, apparently, in a golden age of democracy and free trade.

I arrived in Mexico in 2000 the day before former Coca Cola executive President Vicente Fox was sworn into office, ending 71 years of rule by the Institutional Revolutionary Party.

This was a titanic moment in Mexican history, a seismic shift in its political plates, a time of optimism and celebration. The clique who ravaged the country and lined their pockets for most of the twentieth century had fallen from power.

In the first years of the decade, no one saw the crisis ahead. The American media heaped high expectations on the cowboy-boot wearing Fox as he entertained Koffi Annan and became the first Mexican to address a joint US session of Congress. The first wave of serious cartel warfare began in the autumn of 2004 on the border with Texas and spread across the country. When President Felipe Calderon took power in 2006 and declared war on these gangs, the violence multiplied overnight.

The same system that promised Mexico hope was weak in controlling the most powerful mafias on the continent. The old regime could manage organised crime by taking down a token few gangsters and taxing the rest. Mexico's drug war is inextricably linked to the democratic transition.

Its special-force soldiers became mercenaries for gangsters. Businessmen who used to pay off corrupt officials had to pay off mobsters. Police forces turned on one another – sometimes breaking into shoot-outs.

Following the rise of the Mexican drug cartels has been a surreal – and tragic – journey. I have stumbled up mountains where drugs are born as pretty flowers; dined with lawyers who represent the biggest capos on the planet; and I got drunk with American undercover agents who infiltrate the cartels. I also sped through city streets to see too many bleeding corpses – and heard the words of too many mothers who had lost their sons, and with them their hearts.

I have met the assassins, too; men like Jose Antonio from Ciudad Juarez, probably the most murderous city on the planet – just seven miles from the border with the US. Jose stands at just five feet six and has chocolate coloured skin, earning the nickname "frijol" or bean. He has a mop of black curly hair and bad acne, like many 17-year-olds. But despite his harmless demeanour, he has seen more killings than many soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Frijol came of age in a warzone. When Mexico's two most powerful cartels, the Zetas and Sinaloa Cartel, began fighting in 2004, he was just 12 – and joined a street gang in his slum. At 14, he was already involved in armed robberies, drug dealing and regular gun battles with rival gangs.

At 16, police nabbed him for possession of a small arsenal of weapons – including two automatic rifles and an Uzi – and being an accessory to a drug-related murder.

Frijol is typical of thousands of teenagers and young men. His parents hail from a country village but joined the wave of immigrants that flocked to work in Juarez, sweating on production lines making consumer goods for an average of $6 a day.

It was a radical change in their lives. Frijol's parents still celebrated peasant folk days and macho country values. But he grew up in a sprawling city of 1.3 million where he could tune into American TV channels and see the skyscrapers of El Paso over the river. Contraband goods and guns flooded south and drugs went north. He was in between markets and in between worlds.

While Frijol's parents slaved in the factories, he was left for hours at home alone. He soon found company by joining one of Juarez's street gangs - known as barrios, the very word for neighbourhood. His was the "Calaberas", or skulls, and had 100 members.

"The gang becomes like your home, your family. It is where you find friendship and people to talk to. It is where you feel part of something. And you know the gang will back you up if you are in trouble."

Frijol learned to use guns in the Calaberas. Arms moved around Juarez streets freely and every barrio had its arsenal. "Men with connections started looking at who knew how to shoot," explains Frijol. "There was a guy who had been in the barrio a few years before and was now working with the big people.

He started offering jobs to the youngsters. The first jobs were just as lookouts or guarding tienditas [little drug shops]. Then they started paying people to do the big jobs... to kill."

I ask how much the mafia pays to carry out murders. Frijol tells me without stopping for a moment. One thousand pesos. That is about $85.

The figure seems so ludicrous that I check it out in other interviews up in the barrios with former and active gang members. They all say the same thing. One thousand pesos to carry out a killing. The price of a human life in Juarez is just $85.

To traffic drugs is no huge step to the dark side. All kinds of people over the world move narcotics and don't feel they crossed a red line. But to take a human life - that is a hard crime. I can at least comprehend assassins killing to jump from poverty to riches. But for someone to take a life for $85 – enough to eat some tacos and buy a few beers over the week – shows a terrifying degradation in society.

I ask Frijol what it is like to be in fire fights, to see your friends dead on the street and to be an accessory to a murder. He answers unblinking. "Being in shootouts is pure adrenalin. But you see dead bodies and you feel nothing. There is killing every day. Some days there are 10 executions, others days there are 30. It is just normal now."

I speak to psychologist Elizabeth Villegas. The teenagers she works with have murdered and raped. I ask, how does this hurt them psychologically? She stares back at me as if she hasn't thought about it before.

"They just don't understand the pain that they have caused others," she replies. "Most come from broken families. They don't recognise rules or limits."

The teenage sicarios know that under Mexican law, minors can only be sentenced to a maximum of five years in prison no matter how many murders, kidnappings or rapes they have committed. Many convicted killers will be back on the streets before they turn 20. Frijol himself will be out when he is 19.

But the law is the least of their worries; the mafias administer their own justice. Juarez Cartel gunmen went to neighbourhoods where gang members had been recruited for the Sinaloans; a death sentence was passed on the whole barrio. The Sinaloan mafia returned the favour on barrios that had joined the Juarez Cartel.

I went to a neighbourhood where 20 teenagers and young men had hung out on a street corner a year ago. Fifteen had since been gunned down, a bar they hung out in torched.

A few of the survivors are incarcerated, the rest have fled, leaving a neighbourhood looking like a ghost town.

Frijol recognises that youth prison may be hard. But it is a lot safer there than on the streets now. "I keep hearing about friends who have been killed out there. Maybe I would be dead too. Prison could have saved my life."

On the streets of Mexico, death was never far away. Five sources whose interviews helped shaped my book were subsequently murdered or disappeared – although these killings almost certainly have nothing to do with my work.

One of them, Honduran anti-drug chief Julian Aristides Gonzalez, gave me an interview in his office in the sweaty Honduran capital. The square-jawed officer chatted for several hours about the growth of Mexican drug gangs in Central America and the Colombians who provide them with narcotics.

In his office were 140 kilos of seized cocaine and piles of maps and photographs showing clandestine landing strips and narco mansions. I was impressed by how open and frank Gonzalez was about his investigations and the political corruption they showed up.

Four days later, he gave a press conference showing his latest discoveries. Next day he dropped his seven-year old daughter off at school. Assassins drove past on a motorcycle and fired 11 bullets into him. It turned out he had planned to retire in two months and move his family to Canada.

*El Narco: The Bloody Rise of Mexican Drug Cartels by Ioan Grillo (Bloomsbury, £12.99), is available from Telegraph Books at £11.99 + £1.25

Add to Technorati Favorites

The Science Delusion


The unlucky fact that our current form of mechanistic materialism rests on muddled, outdated notions of matter isn't often mentioned today. It's a mess that can be ignored for everyday scientific purposes, but for our wider thinking it is getting very destructive. We can't approach important mind-body topics such as consciousness or the origins of life while we still treat matter in 17th-century style as if it were dead, inert stuff, incapable of producing life. And we certainly can't go on pretending to believe that our own experience – the source of all our thought – is just an illusion, which it would have to be if that dead, alien stuff were indeed the only reality.

The Science Delusion

by Rupert Sheldrake

We need a new mind-body paradigm, a map that acknowledges the many kinds of things there are in the world and the continuity of evolution. We must somehow find different, more realistic ways of understanding human beings – and indeed other animals – as the active wholes that they are, rather than pretending to see them as meaningless consignments of chemicals.

Rupert Sheldrake, who has long called for this development, spells out this need forcibly in his new book. He shows how materialism has gradually hardened into a kind of anti-Christian faith, an ideology rather than a scientific principle, claiming authority to dictate theories and to veto inquiries on topics that don't suit it, such as unorthodox medicine, let alone religion. He shows how completely alien this static materialism is to modern physics, where matter is dynamic. And, to mark the strange dilemmas that this perverse fashion poses for us, he ends each chapter with some very intriguing "Questions for Materialists", questions such as "Have you been programmed to believe in materialism?", "If there are no purposes in nature, how can you have purposes yourself?", "How do you explain the placebo response?" and so on.

In short, he shows just how unworkable the assumptions behind today's fashionable habits have become. The "science delusion" of his title is the current popular confidence in certain fixed assumptions – the exaltation of today's science, not as the busy, constantly changing workshop that it actually is but as a final, infallible oracle preaching a crude kind of materialism.

In trying to replace it he needs, of course, to suggest alternative assumptions. But here the craft of paradigm-building has chronic difficulties. Our ancestors only finally stopped relying on the familiar astrological patterns when they had grown accustomed to machine-imagery instead – first becoming fascinated by the clatter of clockwork and later by the ceaseless buzz of computers, so that they eventually felt sure that they were getting new knowledge. Similarly, if we are told today that a mouse is a survival-machine, or that it has been programmed to act as it does, we may well feel that we have been given a substantial explanation, when all we have really got is one more optional imaginative vision – "you can try looking at it this way".

That is surely the right way to take new suggestions – not as rival theories competing with current ones but as extra angles, signposts towards wider aspects of the truth. Sheldrake's proposal that we should think of natural regularities as habits rather than as laws is not just an arbitrary fantasy. It is a new analogy, brought in to correct what he sees as a chronic exaggeration of regularity in current science. He shows how carefully research conventions are tailored to smooth out the data, obscuring wide variations by averaging many results, and, in general, how readily scientists accept results that fit in with their conception of eternal laws.

He points out too, that the analogy between natural regularities and habit is not actually new. Several distinctly non-negligible thinkers – CS Peirce, Nietzsche, William James, AN Whitehead – have already suggested it because they saw the huge difference between the kind of regularity that is found among living things and the kind that is expected of a clock or a calcium atom.

Whether or no we want to follow Sheldrake's further speculations on topics such as morphic resonance, his insistence on the need to attend to possible wider ways of thinking is surely right. And he has been applying it lately in fields that might get him an even wider public. He has been making claims about two forms of perception that are widely reported to work but which mechanists hold to be impossible: a person's sense of being looked at by somebody behind them, and the power of animals – dogs, say – to anticipate their owners' return. Do these things really happen?

Sheldrake handles his enquiries soberly. People and animals do, it seems, quite often perform these unexpected feats, and some of them regularly perform them much better than others, which is perhaps not surprising. He simply concludes that we need to think much harder about such things.

Orthodox mechanistic believers might have been expected to say what they think is wrong with this research. In fact, not only have scientists mostly ignored it but, more interestingly still, two professed champions of scientific impartiality, Lewis Wolpert and Richard Dawkins, who did undertake to discuss it, reportedly refused to look at the evidence (see two pages in this book). This might indeed be a good example of what Sheldrake means by the "science delusion".

1206 wds• Mary Midgley's The Solitary Self: Darwin and the Selfish Gene is published by Acumen.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Capitalism In Crisis Says Soros

Let the system fall and the New World Order collapse, and into the fires we can cast all those bankers and speculators who have grown rich from its crimes.


Billionaire investor George Soros has warned the global economic system could collapse and riots on the streets of America are on the way.

The 81-year-old said he’d rather survive than stay rich as the world faces an ‘evil’ period and Europe fights a ‘descent into chaos and conflict’.

He has backed the euro, bought $2billion in European bonds and insisted the economic climate is similar to the 1930s Great Depression.

‘The euro must survive because the alternative - a breakup - would cause a meltdown that Europe, the world, can’t afford,’ he told Newsweek.

‘The situation is about as serious and difficult as I’ve experienced in my career.
We are facing now a general retrenchment in the developed world.’

His warnings came as U.S. stocks dipped on Tuesday, with talks to resolve Greece's debt crisis faltering and threatening a five-day winning streak.

Mr Soros, known as the ‘the man who broke the Bank of England’ after he made $1billion when Britain's pound crashed in 1992, had more warnings.

‘The best-case scenario is a deflationary environment,’ he told Newsweek. ‘The worst-case scenario is a collapse of the financial system.’

Support: Mr Soros has backed the Euro, bought $2billion in European bonds and insisted the economic climate is similar to the 1930s Great Depression

The veteran financer added that ‘it’s very hard to know how you can be right’ after all the problems associated with the ‘boom years’ before now.

'The euro must survive because the alternative - a breakup - would cause a meltdown'
George Soros

Mr Soros compared the economic crisis to the collapse of the Soviet Union and said people do not fully understand what is happening.

He told Newsweek a euro collapse could ‘revive the political conflicts that have torn Europe apart over the centuries’ and increase racism.

The European bonds he bought were mostly Italian and from ex-Goldman Sachs chief Jon Corzine’s now-collapsed securities firm MF Global.

Investments: Mr Soros bought European bonds from the now-collapsed securities firm MF Global, run by ex-Goldman Sachs chief Jon Corzine (pictured)

Meanwhile on Tuesday, U.S. central bank the Federal Reserve opened a two-day meeting that is expected to end with a signal that interest rates will be held near zero into 2014.

'The situation is about as serious and difficult as I’ve experienced in my career'
George Soros

Mr Soros, based in Manhattan, New York, is known to make his money on long-term solid share choices and avoids investing in gold.

He supports the Occupy Wall Street movement and claims the response to potential unrest could be worse than the riots.

‘It will be an excuse for cracking down and using strong-arm tactics to maintain law and order,’ Mr Soros told Newsweek.

He is also a Democratic supporter and believes President Barack Obama will ‘surprise’ the country by winning the 2012 general election.

'The worst-case scenario is a collapse of the financial system'
George Soros

His personal life was also challenged last year when his long-time girlfriend Adriana Ferreyr sued him for allegedly causing her distress and assaulting her.

However he slammed her lawsuit as ‘riddled with false charges and obviously an attempt to extract money’, reported Newsweek.

Mr Soros added that the European Union could still ‘regain its lustre’ and the U.S. may go some way to ‘actually strengthening the institution’.


Forecast: The International Monetary Fund - headed by Christine Lagarde, pictured, predicts global growth of 3.25 per cent in 2012

In a separate report, world leaders were today urged to focus on growth more than budget cuts this year as fears deepened that recession in Europe will slow the global economy.

Global-lending organisation the International Monetary Fund (IMF) predicts global growth of 3.25 per cent in 2012, slower than the 4 per cent it projected in September.

In turn, the 17 nations that share the euro will shrink 0.5 per cent this year, compared to its forecast for 1.1 per cent growth four months ago.

Europe's recession should only have a modest impact on the U.S., which the IMF believes will grow by 1.8 per cent growth over the same period, unchanged from its September estimate.

But it warned against steep budget cuts, which it says will slow growth further and undermine market confidence, running against the push for budget cuts backed by Germany’s Angela Merkel.

It comes as the single currency fell back from three-week highs and world stocks stumbled as the latest setback in efforts to restructure Greek debt triggered more fears about the region’s outlook.

By Simon Tomlinson

Add to Technorati Favorites

America Is Not A Christian Nation

America is a Constitutional Republic, not a Christian Nation - we need to keep religion out of politics and out of the political / legal system.

America also needs to abolish the Federal Government and restore states rights.


Bring back the witch burnings! The brouhaha involving Rhode Island high school student Jessica Ahlquist, 16, who requested her school remove a prayer banner invoking '"Our Heavenly Father," serves to illustrate how the ideals of the American Founders have been trampled and corrupted by religious fanatics in this country.

Ahlquist made a simple request to preserve what is called the "separation of Church and State," based on the "Establishment Clause" of the American Constitution. For her efforts, she's been viciously attacked with all kinds of insults, hate speech and threats of violence, including death, with a Rhode Island state representative suggesting she's an "evil little thing."

However, it is Ahlquist's Constitutional right to attend a secular public school. If others wish to attend religious schools, there are plenty of those in this country. Our public schools must be kept secular, teaching religion only from a dispassionate and uninvolved perspective. Otherwise, religion must be barred from public schools. No proselytizing, no school prayers - nada.

This Constitutional "wall of separation" was further solidified by a woman named Vashti McCollum, who sued her local school board over religious indoctrination and won, in a Supreme Court ruling in 1948:

Vashti McCollum, a self-described humanist from Champaign, Ill., challenges the practice of allowing students in public schools to attend voluntary religious instruction during school hours, on school property. When her son and other students chose not to attend the classes, they are left to study alone in an empty room. McCollum sues the local school board; her family is subjected to harassment and hate mail; the family cat is lynched. The case reaches the Supreme Court, which rules 8-1 in favor of McCollum, saying the practice of holding religious classes on tax-supported property violates the Establishment Clause.

As Charles Shaynes points out, Ahlquist's request is in line not only with the American Constitution but also with the wishes of the founder of the State of Rhode Island, Rev. Roger Williams (c. 1603-1683), himself a theologian and "deeply religious Christian minister":

Jessica may be in the minority in Cranston, but she's in good company as the latest in a long line of Rhode Island dissenters — beginning with the state's founder, Roger Williams.

Williams, who was himself verbally attacked, was banished from Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1635 for objecting to the entanglement of religion and government that, he believed, corrupted both.

He founded Rhode Island as the first government in history with no established religion and a commitment to protect liberty of conscience for every person. As a deeply religious Christian minister, Williams vowed to put an end to centuries of oppression and coercion by erecting what he called "a wall or hedge of separation" between the "Garden of the Church and the Wilderness of the World."

Rhode Island was to be a "haven for the cause of conscience" where government stayed out of religion and all people (including Quakers, Catholics and others persecuted in surrounding colonies) would be free to choose in matters of faith.

If he were alive today, there's little doubt that Roger Williams would be solidly in Jessica's corner. He would view the "school prayer" banner as blasphemous state appropriation of religion. However big or small the issue, Williams believed that any state entanglement with religion violates conscience, divides society, and (most important for him) offends God....

"Jessica Ahlquist is clearly an articulate and courageous young woman, who took a brave stand, particularly in light of the hostile response she has received from her community."

Fortunately, the federal judge in this case - who made the above quote about Ahlquist - saw fit to uphold the Constitution and ruled in her favor. Naturally, the hate speech and death threats have continued to fly.

In the final analysis, the hate speech, death threats and irrational religious fanaticism displayed in Rhode Island could be deemed "un-American" and "anti-American," as well as illegal and/or immoral. Jessica Ahlquist is the true American in this situation, following the ideals of the American and Rhode Island Founding Fathers.

Moreover, I personally find the idea of a "Heavenly Father" to the exclusion of all other divine concepts, including the "Heavenly Mother" or, perhaps more appropriately, the "Earthly Mother," to be offensive to my religion. It is a sexist and human-derogating notion that I reject - so, these spewers of hate speech and death threats are offending my religion.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Fisk On Palestine.


The Palestinians are not only, it seems, an "invented people" – courtesy of Newt Gingrich – but the only Arabs on the Mediterranean not to enjoy a Spring or an Awakening or even a Winter.

And Benjamin Netanyahu has been boasting that he was right about Egypt and Tunisia and Libya. He did not welcome their supposedly democratic revolutions last year – and who, he has been asking, blames him now for his silence? And the Israeli Prime Minister's silence, I notice, continues over Syria. Save for the accusation that the Assad regime was involved in the attempt by Palestinian refugees to cross the border via Golan last year – Netanyahu must be right about that – and a passing comment in June that "the young people of Syria deserve a better future", that's it. Israel, the beacon of democracy in the Middle East, has nothing more to say.

For some reason, we – in the press, on television, in our parliaments – are not discussing this silence. But, as Professor Ian Buruma pointed out recently, the political heirs of "deeply racist traditions" are the new champions of the Jewish state, whose policies now owe more to 19th-century ethnic chauvinism than to Zionism's socialist roots. All kinds of strange people now give their support to Israel. It is disturbing to note that the Oslo mass murderer, Anders Behring Breivik, supported the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from the West Bank. That's not Israel's fault. But Republicans in America are now warning of an Islamic Sharia law takeover in the US. It's an idea fostered, according to The New York Times, by a 56-year-old Hasidic Jewish lawyer called David Yerushalmi and his Society of Americans for National Existence, who now has former CIA director James Woolsey and Republicans Newt Gingrich and Michele Bachmann echoing his views. The last two have actually signed a pledge "to reject Islamic law".

For what? Israel, which in the past could analyse events rationally, if not always correctly, appears, too, to have lost its ability to grasp events, its Prime Minister hiding behind self-delusional speeches when he should be understanding the typhoon sweeping across the Arab states around him. People who will no longer tolerate dictators are not going to accept peace treaties with an ever more expansionist Israel – 2,000 more colonisers' homes, Netanyahu decided last autumn, would be the latest punishment for the Palestinians who dare to demand statehood.

Obama is also silent. When Netanyahu and the king of Saudi Arabia could line up to plead with Obama to save Mubarak, you knew something had gone terribly wrong. Gideon Levy, one of the finest of Israeli journalists, writes with biting eloquence of his government's folly, its failure to see that Arab democracy is a cause for good, not bad, that its relationship with the United States is – in a grim and almost colonial way – even more dangerous to Israel. And, all the while, the settlements continue. Which is why the Palestinians will not resume peace talks with Israel under the grubby neutrality of the United States.

Liberal Jews in America are ever more outraged at this phenomenon. They have often seen something faintly fascist about the right in Israel. Indeed, I have a letter beside me as I write, sent to The New York Times on 2 December 1948, warning of the visit to the US of the young Menachem Begin whose "Freedom Party", said the letter's authors, was "closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties". Among the authors of this letter was Albert Einstein. Today, brave Israeli leftists like Miko Peled, son of the legendary Israeli General Matti Peled, have been touring the States, trying to warn of the dangers presented by Israel. In a recent speech, he described the fearful start of the bombardment of Gaza on 27 December 2008 (total dead about 1,300 Palestinians and 13 Israelis) as "a date that will forever be etched in our memory as one of the darkest and most shameful days in the long history of the Jewish people".

Now, said Peled, at Silwan just outside East Jerusalem, thousands of Palestinians may be evicted from their homes "so that Israel can build a park to glorify a conquest that took place 3,000 years ago, never mind that not a shred of scientific evidence exists that such a king (David) ever lived, any more than there is evidence the world was created in six days. The past trumps the present in Israel – a state that wants to eliminate the existence of people who live on their land to solidify the myth of a glorious past". Strong stuff indeed.

But is it any surprise that the Palestinians believe this when the president who told them they deserve a state vetoes their demand for statehood at the United Nations, while his country deprives them of millions of dollars for daring to believe him, withdraws its funding from Unesco when it bestows a kind of statehood on the Palestinians – and then remains silent when Israel says it will keep money legally owed to the Palestinians of the West Bank? But since Obama's re-election counts for more than "Palestine", what chance is there of peace in the Middle East? Maybe Israel is ensuring that the past also trumps the present in the United States. If only we could ask the one rabbi Netanyahu chose to quote in his UN speech against Palestinian statehood last year: the very same rabbi who inspired the murderer Baruch Goldstein to kill so many Palestinians 18 years ago.

But, of course, we remain silent.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Sunday, 8 January 2012

The Great Betrayal Of The Past

Whilst 'white activists' in America waste their time on forming political parties, the destruction of white culture and heritage is being imposed by Liberal Fascist Revisionists.

Those who lose their past have no future.

The duty of every generation is to keep our history alive - or else the sacrifices of countless generations is lost.

Why dont white activists in America volunteer to work at these museums to save them money.

Why not take your families out to visit them.

Why not donate some money for their upkeep.

For decades nationalists have totally wasted time on the political struggle - now we need to concentrate on the cultural struggle and social struggles to preserve white culture and history from treasonous liberals who seek to destroy it.

Civil War museums in South work to be more inclusive and reflect modern views on history

Text Size PrintE-mailReprintsBy Associated Press, Updated: Sunday, January 8, 6:48 AM
NEW ORLEANS — Inside Louisiana’s Civil War Museum, battle flags line the walls. Uniforms, swords and long-barreled guns fill museum cases beside homespun knapsacks, dented canteens and tiny framed pictures of wives that soldiers carried into battle.

In the back, there’s a collection devoted to Jefferson Davis, one-time president of the Confederacy, complete with his top hat and fancy shoes at the spot where his body once lay in state.


Weigh InCorrections?

( Louisiana’s Civil War Museum / Associated Press ) - In this photo provided by Louisiana’s Civil War Museum, taken approximately in 1895, the inside of Louisiana’s Civil War Museum is seen, about four years after it opened in New Orleans. Today, battle flags line the walls. Uniforms, swords and long-barreled guns fill case after museum case, alongside homespun knapsacks, dented canteens and tiny framed pictures of women the soldiers left at home. In the back, where the body of Jefferson Davis once lay in state, the collection is dedicated to the onetime president of the Confederacy, complete with his top hat and fancy shoes. But 150 years after the Civil War, the little museum finds itself in another battle: like other Civil War museums, in both the north and the South, it is fighting to make the changes needed to keep it relevant to coming generations for which the war is not a memory.
.It’s all housed in a little red stone building next door to the bigger and much more heavily visited Ogden Museum of Southern Art and near the National World War II Museum. Yet 150 years after the Civil War, the little museum finds itself struggling — like others both in the North and South — to make changes and stay relevant with new generations.

For some museums, that means more displays on African-Americans or exhibits on the roles women played as combatants and spies. For others, it means adding digital maps and electronic displays to attract tech-savvy youth for whom the war holds no memories. Or it may simply mean adopting a wider, more holistic approach to the war — without taking sides.

But it’s not always easy for museums to update their exhibits because of the high costs, curators say. And some would-be visitors’ dollars are kept away by the perception that southern Civil War museums are one-sided — or even racist.

“It’s a challenge on several fronts, one is getting enough money for it,” said John Coski, historian and library director at the Museum of the Confederacy in Richmond, Va. “Most have recognized the need to make the transition to a more modern perspective, but for some that’s a struggle. Especially in the South, there are still strong feelings about some of these museums.”

Louisiana’s museum opened in 1891, then called “Confederate Memorial Hall: The Battle Abbey of the South.” The combative name was dropped in the 1960s and today it’s seeking a “more inclusive, broader” perspective, museum curator Patricia Ricci said. It has been invited to become affiliated with the Smithsonian Institution, which will further spur the effort to showcase a more modern interpretation of the war.

“I think we will add some information on the Union effort here,” Ricci said. “And we will probably make some other additions with it. It always comes down to money, and we never have enough.”

Today, the museum has the second largest collection of Confederate artifacts in the nation. Visitors can view the uniforms of eight Confederate generals from Louisiana, rare swords and rifles, more than 125 original battle flags and rare photographs.

Ricci, the museum’s curator of 31 years, notes that fewer people have visited the museum with each decade since the 1950s. But the 150th anniversary offers hope that a tide of new visitors will arrive. Attendance in December was up by 800 people over 2010, Ricci said.

The 150th began in April with the commemoration of the first shots fired at Fort Sumter in Charleston, S.C. It will end in four years with remembrances of the Confederate surrender at Appomattox in Virginia.

For now, the Confederate Museum draws just a fraction of the visitors who flock to bigger museums nearby, averaging about 16,000 people a year. That’s down from some 20,000 visitors before Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans in 2005.

The museum’s main revenue source is the $7 fee collected from each visitor, leaving it forever scrambling to make ends meet. Many of the artifacts are in need of restoration; the building needs a new slate roof and still hasn’t added the handicapped facilities it wants.

( Louisiana’s Civil War Museum / Associated Press ) - In this photo provided by Louisiana’s Civil War Museum, taken approximately in 1895, the inside of Louisiana’s Civil War Museum is seen, about four years after it opened in New Orleans. Today, battle flags line the walls. Uniforms, swords and long-barreled guns fill case after museum case, alongside homespun knapsacks, dented canteens and tiny framed pictures of women the soldiers left at home. In the back, where the body of Jefferson Davis once lay in state, the collection is dedicated to the onetime president of the Confederacy, complete with his top hat and fancy shoes. But 150 years after the Civil War, the little museum finds itself in another battle: like other Civil War museums, in both the north and the South, it is fighting to make the changes needed to keep it relevant to coming generations for which the war is not a memory.
.“We have to be very frugal,” Ricci said. “I look at the World War II museum which gets millions of visitors and wish we could get just part of that.”

Some visitors do stumble upon the museum after visiting the others nearby — and are surprised by its scope.

“I think it’s a very important part of our history,” said Rose Adams, 47, visiting from Dallas. “This is a wonderful display, full of such interesting things. I just happened on it after going to the World War II museum.”

Interest in the Civil War got a huge boost in 1990 with the airing of Ken Burns’ PBS documentary on the war, still the most-watched public television series ever.

“One of the interesting things is that the series did in the North was it really provided a sense of ownership of the Civil War, which had been since 1865 the province of the South,” Burns said. “We ceded the interest generally to the South, which is unusual, because it’s usually the winners who write the history, not the losers.”

But he notes museums that may have once been shrines to one side or another are adapting new kinds of displays exploring the war from new angles.

“I think a lot of that is changing and getting more centered on the war and not a distorted idea of it,” Burns said. “Basically museums have started to interpret a more holistic look of the war.”

In Charleston, The National Park Service has worked to make anniversary events more hospitable to blacks, offering events featuring Gullah story tellers and basket weavers, discussions of slavery and programs with re-enactors portraying black units that fought for the North. Gullah is the culture of the descendants of slaves who live on the region’s sea islands.

Later this year the Charleston Museum mounts an exhibition about Robert Smalls, the slave who commandeered a Confederate transport vessel and piloted it past Southern batteries to the blockading Union fleet. He later served five terms in Congress from South Carolina.

Still, the feeling that southern museums dedicated to the war are racist is a lingering problem, said President and CEO of the Museum of the Confederacy in Richmond, Va., Waite Rawls.

“It’s still one of the greatest challenges Confederate museums face, and we are all working on it,” he said. “Unfortunately the Confederate flag was used as a symbol of white supremacy in the civil rights era. We got hit with a double whammy of the 1860s and the 1960s.”


Add to Technorati Favorites

Saturday, 7 January 2012

Massive Muslim Paedophile Ring Hidden By Media

Click on the above image.

On the 3rd January 2012 in Liverpool Crown Court 21 Muslims allegedly involved in a massive paedophile gang who are alleged to have been targeting primarily white children in the Manchester area were sent for a pre-trial hearing.

We have been informed from sources inside the court that the media have been asked by the Liverpool police to keep this case out of the papers.

There is a massive Muslim rape / grooming epidemic in our country targeting primarily white children for rape.

The media have mentioned a few cases, but hidden many.

There has been no public inquiry into the full extent of this crime wave, no investigation by the Equality Commission as to its extent and even childrens charities that are supposed to protect children from perverts involved in such crimes are refusing to investigate such cases out of political correctness.

This year we must begin the civil rights struggle to get the media to cover these cases and for our community and children to be protected.

If we dont then these crimes against humanity will continue in Britain.

UPDATE - by checking some of the names on the above court list we can confirm they are the same ones from Rotherham who are mentioned in this article below ;


Eight men were due in court this morning following a police probe into the alleged grooming of young girls.

All of the suspects, from Rochdale, were charged late last night with conspiracy to commit penetrative sexual activity with a female under 16 years.

The men are Abdul Rauf, 42, of Darley Road;

Liaqat Shah, 40, of Kensington Road;

Adil Khan, 41, of Oswald Street;

Qamar Shahzad, 29, of Conisborough;

Mohammed Sajid, 34, of Jepheys Street;

Mohammed Ikhlaq, 31, of Clover Hall Crescent;

Mohammed Amin, 44, of Failinge Road

Abdul Aziz, 40, of Armstrong Hurst Close.

The men were due before magistrates in Rochdale today.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Friday, 6 January 2012

The Kemp Lie On BNP Ideas

This is Kemps farsical statement on the BNP Ideas site ;

I hadn’t until someone emailed me a copy of Barnes’s latest rant. Apparently I wanted to take over the British Freedom party along with Andrew Brons! (according to that story.)

That story is pure fiction and completely made-up. There is no truth to it whatsoever.

Classic Barnes dementia—at least I had a good laugh.

For the record, I am not a member of any party, and have no intention of joining any one either. I wish you all good luck.

1) I never said Kemp wanted to take over the British Freedom Party what I was said that a senior member of Andrew Brons entourage had contacted Peter Mullins - saying he was acting under the authority of Andrew Brons - to ask for Andrew Brons to takeover the party.

The deal, as I stated, was that Andrew Brons would take over the party - not Kemp.

The person who spoke to Peter Mullins said that as part of the deal Arthur Kemp had demanded that I and simon bennett be removed from the party EC.

Kemp is being his usual disingenuous self when he says I said he wanted to take over the party - I never said that and that was never Kemps demand.

It was Andrew Brons who was going to take over the party according to the person making the offer.

It seems that Kemp and the person making the offer may not have been acting under Andrew Brons authority - that was very naughty of you Kemp and the person who made the offer.

2) The story is 100 % true - ask Peter Mullins and the people who were involved in the debates around the offer at the time - the EC members of the party who were informed of the offer

3) Classic Kemp diversionary technique to label someone demented to try and obfuscate the issue - seeing as Nick Griffin used to tell me all the time how Kemp was a maniac sociopath whose ego was such that he thought himself superior to every nationalist in the country !

4) As for his ' I am a member of no party and have no intention to join any' - thats the sort of guarantee that Neville Chamberlain put his faith in !

I dont expect you to believe me - I simply say to you contact those people who I named in the article below and ask them.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Ed Milliband Tweets

LOL - I made the best of the Ed Milliband tweets on The Telegraph ;


Add to Technorati Favorites


Image - Paul Weston, Chris Knowles and the leader of the Jewish Task Force in a picture taken at the EDL Amsterdam Demonstration in 2011 where the Jewish Task Force provided security for the EDL.

I note the comments from Peter Stafford about ALan Lake and the British Freedom Party - the issue is not that the party has direct links with Alan Lake, the problem is Alan Lake set up the EDL with Chris Knowles and they put Tommy Robinson into his position as leader of the EDL.

The fact is that Alan Lake even gave the EDL their name !

The Zionist direction of the EDL was decided by Alan Lake & Chris Knowles.

Tommy Robinson was appointed by them to run the EDL.

As long as the EDL is led by Tommy Robinson and the Zionist clique around him - then the British Freedom Party is an willing party to the Zionists around the EDL.

As for Paul Weston - Paul is a nice guy and a man I respect - but he has been drawn in too close to the Zionist clique around Alan Lake, Tommy Robinson and Roberta Moore.

Add to Technorati Favorites

UPDATE For British Democracy Tards

Just had a read of the comments on the British Democracy Forum re my article below about BNP Ideas.

To be frank I couldnt give a flying fuck what any of the collection of window lickers on the BDF site think, but for the sake of clarity I will just say - if you dont believe the story below about the lies / duplicity of the BNP Ideas cabal, then ask ;

Peter Mullins

Simon Bennett

Peter Stafford

Michael Wood

They will all confirm that the story is 100 % correct.

How does it feel now you mugs - whilst your 'heroes' were lying to your faces they were all plotting behind your back !


Their attacks on the British Freedom Party are motivated solely by spite and chagrin.

And you fools think you can trust any of them.

Havent you mugs learnt since the Eddy Butler debacle.

Butler was leaking information from the BNP EC for years and passing it on to the Left in order to damage the party.

We narrowed it down to about three people, and after the English Democrats plotting came to light it was obvious it was Eddy Butler who was passing the information on to Sharon Ebanks who then published it on her site to undermine Griffin and the BNP.

She was as used by Butler as much as the BNP Reform Group were also used by him.

She thought she was getting revenge on Griffin - when in fact Butler was using her ftor his own ends to destroy the BNP to benefit the English Democrats.

We all knew he was the leak but couldnt prove it.

It was only after he destroyed the BNP that it was revealed that he had been working with the English Democrats against the BNP with Steve Uncles in secret for TWO YEARS before the slplit with the party.

Dont believe me - go and ask Michaela McKenzie what she knows about Eddy Butler and the English Democrats.

She took notes at meeting with Eddy where he was plotting to destroy the BNP - and was shocked by what she heard !

Dont believe me - go and ask her.

Your 'heroes' like Butler / Kemp are all mirror images of each other - Old School Bent as a Nine Bob note, corrupt to the core, back stabbing egotistical bastards.

They have the same old fashioned factionalist nationalist mindset that has corrupted and contaminated nationalism for a generation - and yet you still lick their feet like idiot lap dogs.

I dont know who is more pathetic - them or you.

As for me leaving the British Freedom Party - I left for two reasons.

1) to concentrate on writing novels

2) Because I did not want to work with the EDL who I believe are run not by Tommy Robinson but by a cabal of Zionists like Alan Lake and Chris Knowles.

I am a British Nationalist.

I dont bow my fucking knee to Islamism, Zionism, America or Israel.

Any group that I believe is run by Zionists is a group I wouldnt piss on if it was on fire.

When the British Freedom Party Executive Council took a democratic vote to merge with the EDL and it was passed by a majority vote, then as a democrat I had to accept the decision.

Hence I chose to not renew my membership of the party or stand for re-election on the EC of the party.

The British Freedom Party was designed as a constitutional democratic party and hence any decision passed in a democratic manner has to be respected.

Whilst the majority of the EDL lads are all good blokes and dedicated 100 % solely to the fight against Islamism, I believe that the leadership is Zionist to the core - and hence what I regard as political poison.

Any leadership of the EDL that links the EDL to the Jewish Task Force and Jewish Defence Force, Roberta Moore and Chris Knowles and the Centre for Vigilant Freedom - is an organisation I wouldnt touch with a barge pole.

The British Nationalist struggle is to get British Nationalists into power - it is not to get Zionists into power.

I wish the BFP all the best, but I wont have anything to do with it as long as the present EDL leadership remain in place and the party does not abandon any contact with Alan Lake and those people who have been linked to Anders Breivik.

I am a British Nationalist - not a Kosher Nationalist.

That is my opinion on the issue - hence I no longer remain a member of the party.

I also believe that any political party will not win power unless the methodology I defined in the article below is undertaken first, hence politics is itself a total waste of time until the foundations of a future political victory have been secured.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Andrew Brons & BNP Ideas = LIE MACHINE

From the endless twaddle we are forced to read on the internet peddled by Andrew Brons supporters, it appears that the Centre For Democratic Nationalism was set up to be a cross party / non-aligned / non-factionalist / open forum for all nationalists to work together for the benefit of the nationalist movement.

If that is true then perhaps Andrew Brons can explain why the comments I left on the BNP Ideas site have been deleted and not put up by Arthur Kemp ?

Any organisation with the involvement of Arthur Kemp in it will be used as a mechanism for the agrandisement and glorification of ....well, Arthur Kemp of course.

Anyone that Kemp doesnt like will be deleted and denied any access to the organisation itself.

Which in effect makes the Centre For Democratic Nationalism a complete and total waste of time.

It appears that the Kemp / Brons alliance is merely a perpetuation of the factionalism of the BNP.

What makes me laugh most about the BNP Ideas site and the articles on it is the way they constantly attack the British Freedom Party on it by allowing people to comment and abuse the party.

I am no longer a member of the British Freedom Party.

I have nothing more to do with it in any way.

So therefore I no longer have to keep certain facts confidential.

Last summer Peter Mullins got a phone call from one of Andrew Brons staff in his EU office - I forget their name but this can be clarified by Peter Mullins himself.

Anyway - Peter got a phone call from someone who works for Andrew Brons and is a senior member of the Brons camp.

Peter was asked if he would be willing to allow Andrew Brons to take over the British Freedom Party as its Chairman - but that Arthur Kemp had demanded as part of the deal that I and Simon Bennett were removed fom our posts.

The proposal was that Peter Mullins would stand down as Chairman and remain on the AC and Andrew Brons would take over as Chairman with Arthur Kemp and others from the Brons camp sitting on the AC of the party.

Peter told them to piss off.

Yet it appears that the BNP Ideas site now wants to allow a constant barrage of abuse against the British Freedom Party on its site - when just a few months ago they wanted to take over and run the party !

These are the people that are involved in BNP Ideas - a cabal of venal little Napoleons and martinets who are more interested in Ego Nationalism than British Nationalism.

The censorship of my comments was pathetic - I will post on this site in the next few days the future strategy and tactics that Nationalism needs to undertake to grow and gain support in the future.

This strategy is based on three factors ;

1) Liberal Deconstructionism

2) The Social Struggle

3) Discourse Dominance via the Social Media

The last thing Nationalism needs is another decade of martinets motivated by ego thinking that politics and political parties, or in the case of the BNP another political cult, is needed to save our people.

What the idiots that have run nationalism for the last thirty years havent realised is that politics and political parties are a waste of time unless we have created a nationalist consciousness in individuals and within our communities that will allow them to vote for a political party that seeks to give them representation as a community.

Unless our people are nationalised, then they wont vote for nationalist parties.

The three struggles above must precede the political struggle.

The censorship by Kemp of my comments and the abuse of the British Freedom Party on the BNP Ideas site proves that the cabal running the BNP Ideas group are nothing more than the usual collection of egotists who dont care about nationalism, for they regard nationalism as a vanity project of self glorification instead of the vehicle for our racial, ethnic and cultural survival as a people.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Hey Teacher Leave Those Kids Alone

If you want to watch something truly sickening - then watch this ;


This is the crap kids in London schools are being taught.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Wednesday, 4 January 2012

Liberal Slogans

Diversity Macht Frei !

Multi-Culturalism Uber Alles !

Add to Technorati Favorites

The True Cost of the Lawrence Case


Yesterday, two men were found guilty of murdering the negro Stephen Lawrence in 1993. Those outside of Britain probably have little idea of how politically consequential this case has been. It has been turned into a veritable political cult, used to drive the "Diversity Macht Frei" agenda and drive the British peoples' dispossession of their own homeland.

Lawrence was not the first young black man to have been murdered by racists, nor was he the first black murder victim to have been failed by a seriously botched police investigation. But he was the first black murder victim whose tragic demise was cynically milked by the cultural elite and used as the lynchpin of a moral crusade against Old Britain and its foul, backward inhabitants. In a triple whammy of murder-milking, Lawrence’s death was used by the elites to demonise the white working classes as the new ‘brutes within’; to redefine racism as a disease of the brain rather than as a relation of power; and to dismantle long-standing legal principles that were once seen as central to the justice system.Source

One of the first things Labour did when it came to power in 1997 was commission an inquiry into the incident. This resulted in the MacPherson report which raised racism to the level of heresy and led to an inquisitorial thought-crime apparatus being installed throughout British society. MacPherson offered the absurd definition of a racist incident as:

The definition of a "racist incident" will now include incidents categorised in policing terms both as crimes and non-crimes. It will now encompass "any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person".

This definition has now been adopted by the EU.

MacPherson also came up with the ethereal concept of "institutional racism". No one has ever come up with a clear definition of what institutional racism is but it seems to be some kind of mystical racism that an organisation may be guilty of even if none of its members think racist thoughts or perform racist actions.

In the wake of the MacPherson report, all major British institutions sought to purge themselves of "institutional racism" in advance of anyone actually accusing them of it. In fact, most creepily of all, MacPherson claimed that the clearest sign that an organisation was guilty of "institutional racism" was its refusal to admit that it was! This resulted in a ridiculous but sinister wave of pre-emptive confessions from major British organisations.

The trial itself was a travesty of justice. A previous trial had already resulted in acquittals. So to even stage this second trial, the ancient "Double Jeopardy" rule that prevents the same person being tried twice for the same offence had to be set aside. Normal principles don't apply in cases of heresy!

The political cult built up around this case made a fair trial impossible. It resembles the bizarre cult the Nazis built up around Horst Wiesel.

I don't doubt that the people convicted were fairly dodgy characters, undoubtedly involved in various kinds of crime. They may even have been involved in the murder. But I don't see how anyone could conclude that beyond a reasonable doubt.

The new trial was based on a spot of blood found on an item of clothing. It was clear that the items of evidence had not been stored properly in police custody, creating a risk that the clothing had been contaminated by contact with other objects smeared with the victim's blood.

An astonishing £50 million was spent on the police investigation during which they:

Bought a house next to the suspects and having an undercover police officer move in there in an attempt to befriend them and coax an admission of guilty from them

Bugged conversations between the five prime suspects while they prepared for a prime-time television interview with celebrity broadcaster Martin Bashir

Recorded their conversations as they played golf during a holiday in Scotland that followed the interview. Their comments were relayed by satellite from tiny microphones hidden in their golf trolleys

With the permission of the Home Secretary, bugged thousands of their telephone conversations. Separately, a top Yard officer authorised bugging operations on their homes, cars and workplaces. Even their pubs and snooker halls were bugged
During the bugging, the suspects actually talked about the Lawrence murder in terms that made it clear they were not responsible for it.

During an apparent discussion about the Lawrence case, Neil Acourt says: "I fancy they've had a crack deal me self [sic]."

Norris replies: "Yeah came down to get a bit of toot or something or had a bit of crack, it's all gone wrong, the c---'s" got knackered up and all of a sudden four innocent people are getting done for it."

Norris adds: "Every time it comes on the news the real people are sitting laughing their nuts off."

Luke Knight adds: "Thinking they've got away f------ scott free."

"Yeah," Acourt adds. "They're definitely doing that."Source

The police dismissed this, insisting that they must have suspected they were being bugged.

Even after conviction, one of the men convicted protested his innocence to the jury.

“You have condemned an innocent man here today. I hope you can all live with it.”

His father also shouted "Shame on you" at the jury. This raw emotion suggests to me that he genuinely was not guilty of the crime.

Even if the spot of blood is accepted as having been uncontaminated by the evidence process, how is it possible to conclude that it had splashed on to the clothes of the murderer rather than someone who just happened to have been present at the scene? Obviously, it's not. But that doesn't matter. As the judge's verdict made clear, they were being convicted as much for their heretical attitudes as their actions.

"You were both members of that gang. I have no doubt at all that you fully subscribed to its views and attitudes."
The jury were shown surveillance videos on which the suspects made racist comments that had absolutely nothing to do with the murder.

And what is the claim that this was a racist murder based on? Lawrence's friend, Duwayne Brooks, claimed he heard them say "What, what nigger" while they were running over to where he and Lawrence were standing. Duwayne Brooks is a proven liar. His testimony has been contradicted by other witnesses at the scene in other respects. Indeed, during the previous trial, he failed to identify the suspects he claimed he had seen. By his own admission, he has also been in a fair bit of bother with the police himself. Moreover, the same people accused of the Lawrence killing had also (both formally and informally) been suspected of involvement in various other stabbing incidents where there was no suspicion of a racial motive.

So this whole "race-crime" cult is built on a wafer-thin foundation of evidence.

One of the ironies of this case is that it was his mother, who has been the one driving the public agenda related to the murder, who was principally responsible for his death. Apparently, she was in the habit of imposing a curfew on her son. If he wasn't home by a certain time, he would be locked out of the house all night. That's why Lawrence and Brooks took a shortcut through a dangerous area. If there had been no curfew, he could have taken a longer and safer route home. The woman effectively killed her own son. Perhaps that's why she felt it necessary to create a political cult in his memory, with a little help from Nelson Mandela.

Former Labour Home Secretary Jack Straw boasted today about how the cult had been used to transform Britain:

Mr Straw, who ordered the Macpherson Inquiry into the case in 1997, said progress had been made in the years since the murder.

But he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "We have still got a lot further to go because if you are black or Asian and you are young, your sense of how you are treated is very different and more adverse and is very different from anybody else.

"I think we've probably got most of the legislation we need in place. It's about ensuring people are less tolerant of racism, whether it's explicit – of which I think there is much less these days – or just implicit, lazy, uncaring, intruding remarks made in the heat of the moment, on the football field and so on.

"I think everybody accepts that the terrible murder of Stephen Lawrence and, yes, the inquiry I established, have produced a sea change in British society."
The British people recognise that this trial has been more about politics than justice. It's notable that the Daily Mail, which claims to have played a significant part in events by openly accusing the suspects of murder at an early stage, was massively censoring comments on the story and then shut them down altogether.

All in all, this was one of the biggest politicised travesties of justice since Joe Stalin walked the earth.

Finally compare the different media and political response when British indigenes are murdered by alien colonists. See just a few of the many examples here, here and here.

PS: This from a Daily Telegraph comment:

I have just discussed the case with my son's 19 year old black friend.

I remain stunned to have heard the following:

"I am gutted. We was hoping that they would get off so riots could happen and I could get myself some new gear".

Add to Technorati Favorites

Richard Everitt / Stephen Lawrence - Compare & Contrast


The deaths of Richard Everitt and Stephen Lawrence:
compare and contrast

Robert Henderson

The Death of Richard Everitt (see below) is an article I wrote in 1994. Compare and contrast the elite response to his death and that of Stephen Lawrence.

Richard was knifed to death by an Asian gang approximately 300 yards from my front door. The gang was large, perhaps as many as 15 members. The gang was known as the Drummond Street Posse and had gone out that night specifically looking for a “white boy” to attack because they felt they had been “wronged” by a white boy (http://www.mamaa.org/infalre.html).

The gang were arrested the same night for a separate incident and blood was found on 19-year-old Badrul Miah. This turned out to be a match for that of Richard. Miah, later boasted that he had “stabbed up some white boy”. http://www.mirror.co.uk/life-style/kids-and-family/2008/10/13/exclusive-i-can-t-forgive-my-son-s-knife-crime-killer-115875-20799700/

After nine months the police had arrested 11 people in connection with the murder. The 11 dropped to six and after a committal hearing the number fell to 3. Eventually only two came to trial, Badrul Miah and Showkat Akbar. Akbar was found guilty of violent disorder and sentenced to three years, of which he served 18 months. Miah was sentenced to life but let out on licence after 11 years despite the trial judge describing it as an unprovoked racist attack (see Mirror link above).

The parents of Richard suffered beyond the loss of their child: “After the trial Mandy and Norman tried to move on but were the victims of threats and racial abuse. They had to leave the home where they raised their children and move out of London to Essex.” (http://www.mamaa.org/infalre.html)

Those are the bare facts of the Everitt murder. Compare the elite response to his murder with their response to that of Stephen Lawrence:

1. Only one person was convicted of the murder even though all were guilty of joint enterprise.

2. There has been no media campaign to bring the others to justice.

3. There has been no public inquiry into Richard’s murder.

4. The one person was convicted of Richard’s murder was released after 11 years without any media or political uproar.

5. There has been no concerted media campaign stretching over nearly two decades to bring the others in the gang to justice.

6. Unlike the Lawrence case where the Daily Mail accused the five suspects of murder in 1997 (http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/features/frontpage/lawrence.html) , no representative of the national press or broadcasters called any other member of the gang which murdered Richard a murderer.

7. The gang members who attacked Richard were older than those accused of attacking Stephen Lawrence.

8. Unlike the Lawrence murder, British politicians from the word go not only refused to adopt the tone of moral outrage which they routinely do when the death of Stephen Lawrence is discussed, but actively tried to play down the racist aspect. Considerable pressure was put on Richard’s parents at the time to go along with the usual Maoist pc line that they were not racist and so on. The local MP, Frank Dobson, was most notable for his silence.

It is often said these days that the grip political correctness has on British society is much worse than it was. It is true that the absurdities get ever greater as the politically correct compete to be the purest ideologue, but as the Everitt case shows in really important matters such as the administration of justice it was already solidly entrenched two decades ago.

Add to Technorati Favorites

The Truth About Racism In Britain

In 1995 (just 2 years after Lawrence's murder) The British Crime Survey estimated that, 382,000 offences were racially motivated. Of these 238,000 were against white people. Be sure to include this fact in any debate against a liberal.


Racially motivated incidents (Table 8.1)

8.2 The British Crime Survey (BCS) (Percy 1998) estimated that, in 1995 382,000 offences (2% of all incidents reported by the survey) were considered by the victim to be racially motivated.

Of these 143,000 were committed against ethnic minorities and 238,000 against white people.

Page 47 link here -


Nine years later in 2004:


The most recent analysis shows that in 2004, 87,000 people from black or minority ethnic communities (BME) said they had been a victim of a racially motivated crime. In the same period, 92,000 white people said they had also fallen victim.

Focusing on violent racial attacks, 49,000 BME were victims. Among whites, the number was 77,000.

Of those that involved wounding 4,000 were BME. Among the white population it was 20,000.

Link here - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6128466.stm

Of those 'racially motivated' offences:


Describing an incident as racist may say as much about a victim's mindset as the offender. How else can one explain the British Crime Survey finding that 3,100 car thefts from Asians were deemed to be racially motivated?

Add to Technorati Favorites

The Lawrence Debacle


Men may be created equal, but not all murders are equal. Some are quickly forgotten, except by those immediately affected by them, while others—by no means always political assassinations—have a lasting political impact. Among the politically significant kind was the murder of Stephen Lawrence, a young black man, in a London suburb on the evening of April 22, 1993. Five or six white youths set upon Lawrence and a friend, Duwayne Brooks. One of the attackers supposedly shouted, “What, what, nigger?” immediately before Lawrence was stabbed to death. Brooks managed to evade the attackers, who ran away.

Despite considerable circumstantial evidence against several suspects, the perpetrators escaped conviction. The police investigation into the murder was a model of incompetence of the kind that every Briton now expects of our boys in blue. Over the investigation there also hung a pall of suspected corruption, for one suspect was the son of a rich drug trafficker who, on a previous occasion when his son stood accused of a stabbing, had tried (unsuccessfully) to bribe and threaten the victim into altering his evidence.

But the Lawrence murder took on a wide social significance because of its racial overtones. The botched investigation became a cause célèbre—the presumption being that racism alone could explain the police’s failure to bring the perpetrators to justice—and the government launched an official inquiry to “identify the lessons to be learned for the investigation and prosecution of racially motivated crimes.” There followed a festival of political and emotional correctness the likes of which have rarely been equaled. It would be impossible, at less than book length, to plumb the depths of intellectual confusion and moral cowardice to which the inquiry plunged. In 1999, it released a report of its findings that won almost universal praise despite its risible shortcomings.

This year, on the tenth anniversary of the report, the press and professional criminologists are celebrating it for, as one put it, bringing about a “paradigm shift” in the sensitivities of British police about “diversity”—police now think about race all the time, it seems. The report’s real effect, however, was to demoralize further an already demoralized police force, which, immediately after the report appeared, retreated from stopping or searching people behaving suspiciously and watched street robberies increase 50 percent.

Perhaps the fact that the inquiry was open to the public had something to do with the nature of the resulting report. The public gallery regularly overflowed with activists and extremists, who did not hesitate to jeer and mock the witnesses with whom they disagreed; the head of the inquiry, Sir William Macpherson, rarely admonished these spectators, thus creating an officially sanctioned atmosphere of intimidation. Among the self-congratulatory sentences that opened the report (“We believe that our procedures did ensure fairness”; “The contributions of the Inquiry’s Advisers to the Report and to the conclusions to the Report . . . have been imaginative, radical and of incalculable worth”) was the following, a flash of lightning in the darkness: “We thank the officers from the Walworth Police Station, who in difficult and sometimes dangerous circumstances have helped to keep order when emotions ran high.” An incipient riot is not a situation in which the truth is likely to emerge or to be uppermost in people’s minds.

The report’s contention was that the mishandled Lawrence case illustrated the “institutional racism” of the London police force. Poor Sir William tied himself in knots trying to explain the notion of institutional racism, relying in part on that great moral authority on race relations, Stokely Carmichael, the onetime “prime minister” of the Black Panthers. As Macpherson admitted, he could point to no actual instance of racist behavior by the officers involved in the case, though evidence of incompetence and delay was abundant. But if he had concluded from the lack of evidence of racist behavior that the police were not racist, he doubtless would have become an object of execration by all the people who think the right thoughts. Thus Macpherson’s redefinition of racism: “Failure to adjust policies and methods to meet the needs of policing a multi-racial society can occur simply because police officers may mistakenly believe that it is legitimate to be ‘colour-blind’ in both individual and team response to the management and investigation of racist crimes.”

On the very next page, however, Sir William quoted approvingly the assertion of an association of black police officers: “Institutional racism leads officers to act, albeit unconsciously, and for the most part unintentionally, and treat others differently because of their ethnicity or culture.” In other words, if you treat people the same, you are racist; but if you treat them differently, you are racist. It is clear that we are here in the realm not of the rule of law but of the Malleus Maleficarum, and that Macpherson is acting not as judge but as witchfinder-general.

The evidence of institutional racism that Macpherson uncovered would be laughable, had the liberal press not taken it so seriously. For example, when the police arrived at the murder scene, Brooks snarled: “Who called you fucking cunts anyway, pigs, I only called an ambulance.” That the police did not feel entirely reassured that Brooks was a respectable, upright citizen, and ignored the fact that he was also a victim of the attack, became for Macpherson a sign of their racist stereotyping, not a natural response to such vile abuse, which is not a normal way for the law-abiding to address the supposed guardians of the law—or, indeed, anyone else.

Further evidence, in Sir William’s view, was that some of the detectives refused to accept that the Lawrence murder was “wholly racist,” though none denied at least a racist element. Of course, since no one had actually been convicted of the murder, the murderer’s motive could not be known for certain. And even if the suspects—a violent group, certainly—were indeed the culprits, was racism the sole, or even primary, cause of their violence? One suspect—David Norris, the drug trafficker’s son—was almost certainly guilty of that earlier stabbing in which his father became illegally involved, as the report observed. But there the victim was white. Norris and two other suspects in the Lawrence murder had also been suspects in another assault, this one on two brothers, both white. In both instances, Norris got off because of incompetent prosecutions.

Macpherson did not draw the obvious inference, and if he did, the liberal intelligentsia would not have applauded.

Let us assume that Norris was indeed one of Stephen Lawrence’s murderers. If the prosecution of Norris’s earlier crimes had not been so incompetent, and if he had received an adequate sentence if found guilty (an unlikely outcome in contemporary Britain), then Lawrence would now be alive.

At one point, the inquiry listened to secretly recorded conversations among the Lawrence suspects. The conversations were racist in the crudest possible way, but they were not purely racist. Norris said, for example, “If I was going to kill myself, do you know what I’d do? I’d go and kill every black cunt, every Paki, every copper, every mug that I know.” The police in London are not predominantly minorities; it is also unlikely that “every mug” that Norris knew was a minority. Norris’s propensity to racism was probably caused by his propensity to violence, rather than the other way around.

So on every possible ground, the police who dismissed the idea that the murder was “wholly racist” were right, at least factually. Their error was political or even metaphysical—beyond the realm of mere empirical evidence. On Macpherson’s view, the police should act more as defenders of politically correct orthodoxy than as keepers of the peace and searchers after the truth.

Further confirmation of Sir William’s moral cowardice was his uncritical acceptance of everything that Stephen Lawrence’s mother said. Now, Mrs. Lawrence had lost her son to murder, and the police had failed to solve the far from insoluble crime; she was understandably distraught and angry. But that did not make her the arbiter of truth; common sense, indeed, should have suggested the contrary. One might have hoped that a judge would have shown some judgment.

At the beginning of the report, Macpherson defended the unusually “adversarial” manner in which the inquiry was conducted. “Cross-examination of many officers was undoubtedly robust and searching,” he wrote. A few pages later, without noticing any contradiction, he mentioned that when one Mr. Gompertz, the counsel for the police, was questioning Mrs. Lawrence, “The nature and content of the questions made Mrs. Lawrence protest that her perception was that she was being put on trial. Wisely Mr. Gompertz desisted.” In short, only the accused could be questioned.

Mrs. Lawrence had already demonstrated that, no doubt in her distress, she was willing to go beyond the facts. In her statement to the coroner’s court, she said (and later repeated the assertion to Nelson Mandela when he visited London): “In my opinion what had happened was the way of the judicial system making a clear statement to the black community that their lives are worth nothing and the justice system will support any one, any white person who wishes to commit any crime or even murder against a black person, you will be protected, you will be supported by the British system.”

Even if we leave aside the question of why she bothered to participate in the system at all if it really was as she described it, she ought to have known that she was exaggerating. I quote from the report, which sought to show that Lawrence’s was not the only racist murder in the area:

In February 1991 a white man named Thornburrow murdered a young 15 year old black youth named Rolan Adams. . . . He was sentenced to life imprisonment.
On 11 July 1992 an Asian boy called Rohit Duggal was stabbed to death by a white youth named Peter Thompson. . . . Thompson was found guilty of the murder in February 1993.
Mrs. Lawrence should have known about these sentences. If she did not, she was ignorant; if she did, she was lying. But all that Macpherson said of her incendiary charge was that it showed the depth of her feeling—not that it was inaccurate and misleading. Her victimhood had to be immaculate.

Mrs. Lawrence further said that she felt condescended to by the police and ascribed this condescension to their racism. Macpherson showed—surprisingly, for a judge—no recognition of the obvious difficulties in accepting such feeling as evidence of anything. He did not even demand that her feelings have some objective correlative: if she felt condescended to because of racism, she was condescended to because of racism.

Among the report’s many pernicious recommendations was the following: “The definition of a racist incident should be any incident which is perceived as racist by the victim or any other person.” Nothing could be better designed to destroy the possibility of easy—dare I say normal—relations among people of different races. For the notion that racism is so pervasive and institutionalized that it is everywhere, even where it appears not to be, induces in the susceptible a paranoid state of mind, which then finds racism in every possible situation, in every remark, in every suggestion, in every gesture and expression. It is a charge against which there is no defense.

Two incidents in my clinical experience illustrate this nonfalsifiability. In the first, the lawyers for a black defendant asked me to appraise his fitness to plead. The defendant faced charges of assaulting another black man, out of the blue, with an iron bar. The man was obviously paranoid, his speech rambling and incoherent; his lawyers could obtain no sensible instructions from him. I argued that he was unfit to plead. Whereupon the man’s sister denounced me as a racist: I had reached my conclusions, she charged, only because her brother was black. Her 15-year-old daughter started to describe to me her frequent difficulties in understanding her uncle, only to be told to shut up by her mother. The lawyers had been unable to obtain instructions from the defendant only because they were white, the sister persisted. Give her brother black lawyers, and he would be perfectly reasonable. Of course, if I had said that he was fit to plead, she could have claimed with equal justice (which is none) that I came to that conclusion only because he was black.

The second case, far more serious, ended in a man’s death; the blame was partly mine. A black man in his mid-twenties arrived at our hospital with severely cut wrists. He was nearly exsanguinated and needed a large blood transfusion; his tendons also needed an operation to repair. By all accounts, he had been a perfectly normal man, happily employed, a few weeks before, but suddenly he had stopped eating and become a recluse, barricading himself in his house until police and family broke in to reach him. His suicide attempt was not one of those frivolous gestures with which our hospitals are all too familiar. If ever a man meant to kill himself, this man did.

His mother was by his bedside. I told her that her son should remain in the hospital for treatment (you’d hardly have to be a doctor to realize this). At first she was perfectly agreeable; but then a friend of the young man, himself young and black, arrived and instantly accused me of racism for my supposed desire to lock the patient up. I tried to reason with this friend, but he became agitated and aggressive, even menacing. Whether from conviction or because she, too, felt intimidated, the mother then sided with the friend and started to say that I was racist in wishing to detain her son.

I could have insisted on the powers granted to me by law—asking a court to have social services replace the mother as the patient’s nearest relative for the legal purpose of keeping him in treatment. But I did not fancy the process: the young friend had threatened to bring reinforcements, and a riot might have ensued in the hospital. Instead, I agreed to the demand that I let the patient go home. The two said that they would look after him, and I made them sign a paper (of no legal worth) acknowledging that I had warned them of the possible consequences.

This piece of paper they screwed up into a ball and threw away immediately outside the ward, where I found it later. I had made copies, and it was one of these that I sent to the coroner when, six weeks later, the young man gassed himself to death with car exhaust. The notion of ubiquitous, institutionalized racism resulted in his death; and I resolved that it would never intimidate me again.

When I think of Macpherson’s feeble mental pirouettes, I turn for relief to an official 1854 report into some abuses committed in Birmingham Borough Prison, where I myself worked a century and a half later. Every day, as I entered, I passed an oak notice board, on which one could read, displayed in gold lettering, the names of past governors of the prison. The second on the list was Lieutenant William Austin of the Royal Navy, whose cruelties—among those of other prison officials, including its doctor—a commission of inquiry had investigated.

To read the commission’s report after Macpherson’s is to enter a different world, one in which words mean what they appear to mean, the integrity of the commissioners is self-evident, facts count more than feelings, and conclusions follow from the evidence. In fact, to read the commission’s report after Macpherson’s is to experience a powerful sense of moral and intellectual progress—at least among the writers of official reports—but in the wrong temporal direction, alas. The prose of the commissioners, one of them a doctor, is clear, vigorous, and without the evasions and contradictions of Macpherson’s writing. They write like men who know they are doing a good job well.

The event that brought the abuses to light was the suicide of a 15-year-old inmate named Edward Andrews, who had stolen four pounds of beef and been sentenced to three months’ hard labor in the prison. The suicide revealed a pattern of abuse. The commission discovered that the prison imposed an entirely illegal system of “hard labour” that forced prisoners to turn a crank 10,000 times a day—2,000 before breakfast, 4,000 before lunch, and 4,000 before dinner. If a prisoner did not complete each stage, he lost the subsequent meal. If he did not complete the 10,000 by the end of the day, he was put on bread and water. The weight on the crank was adjusted, supposedly to meet each prisoner’s physical capabilities.

The commissioners inspected the crank machines and described them with great clarity:

Although in pressing the handle downwards the prisoner has only the five pounds to bear down, yet in lifting it up, when nearest his body, he has to exert a force equal to at least three times that weight; and according to the same evidence, the labour would be of a nature most severe and exhausting; insomuch as, taking into account the speed with which it must be performed in order to accomplish the number of revolutions required for a day’s work, 10,000 namely, or nearly 30 revolutions a minute, we were assured that, in order to accomplish such a task, a boy would necessarily exert a force equal to one-fourth of the ordinary work of a draught horse; the average estimate of the work of a boy, in ordinary labour out of a prison, being about one-tenth of the same.
Young Andrews, unable to complete the work, was not only put on bread and water but also, on Lieutenant Austin’s characteristically harsh order, dressed in the “punishment jacket.” This consisted of an ordinary straitjacket, combined—again illegally—with a leather collar fixed around the prisoner’s neck and attached to the wall. “Very speedily after [the jackets’] introduction into the prison,” the commissioners explained, “they appear to have been converted into ordinary implements of punishment for non-performance of prison labour or breaches of prison discipline (frequently of a very trivial nature).”

The commissioners describe how the “punishment jacket” worked: “the prisoner being first muffled in the strait jacket, having his arms tied together on his breast, the leather stock fastened tightly round his neck, and being, moreover (where the punishment was inflicted by day), in almost every case strapped to the wall of his cell, in a standing position, by means of strong leather straps passed round the upper parts of the arms, and fastened to staples or hooks in the wall, so tightly as to draw back the arms into and keep them in a constrained and necessarily painful position, at the same time compressing them.” After watching a willing volunteer strapped into the jacket, the commissioners realized that “it was obvious that such a mode of restraint must necessarily, if continued for several hours, be productive of great pain—in truth, that it must be an engine of positive torture.” Their conclusion: “With respect, then, to the case of Edward Andrews, we are of opinion that, by the order and with the knowledge of the governor, he was punished illegally and cruelly, and was driven thereby to the commission of suicide.”

The conclusion reflected a proper and transparently honest sifting of the evidence. The Macpherson report did not. Since 1854, prison conditions have improved. Since 1999, race relations have not.

Theodore Dalrymple, a physician, is a contributing editor of City Journal and the Dietrich Weismann Fellow at the Manhattan Institute. His new book is Not with a Bang but a Whimper.

Add to Technorati Favorites