Language is always evolving, and the direction of a language’s evolution is a function of its users. In Jamaica this meant, first, the development of a creole by West African slaves after British rule in the 17^th century; and, secondly, with the island’s population being majority Black since the 1670s, said creole’s growing into an unofficial national language.

Because it was based on a White man’s language, and Whiteness had long been associated with high social status, Jamaican patois was traditionally looked down upon as a failure to attain the White Englishman’s educational standards.

This, however, is changing (at least in Jamaica), and linguists at the University of the West Indies in Kingston have been working on a translation of the Bible into Jamaican patois. The hope of supporters is officially to legitimise the creole as an authentic language in its own right.

The results are striking. What follows is from Luke’s Gospel—or, in patois, Jiizas—di buk we Luuk rait bout im:

Original: ‘And having come in, the angel said to her, “Rejoice, highly favoured one, the Lord is with you: blessed are you among women.”’

Patois: ‘De angel go to Mary and say to ‘er, me have news we going to make you well ‘appy. God really, really, bless you and him a walk with you all de time.’

The BBC report on this development includes a film where a Jamaican cleric frames this in nationalist terms. His easy switch from patois to Standard English, from illiterate to literate English, as if they were different languages, is rather odd.

Jamaican patois’ literary pretensions may represent a more advanced stage in a development that has occurred in other former colonies.

In Singapore the local creole is known as Singlish. It is an accretion of words originating from English, Malay, Hokkien, Teochew, Cantonese, Tamil, Bengali, Punjabi, and, to a lesser extent, various other European, Indic, and Sinitic languages, with television-derived American and Australian slang thrown in for added global spice. Singlish is disglossic, meaning it has high (acrolectic) and low (basilectic) variants. The former is most similar to Standard English, the latter appears almost like a foreign language: compare ‘This person’s Singlish is very good’ with ‘Dis guy Singrish si beh zai sia.’

In Malaysia the English-based creole is called—somewhat appropriately—Manglish. The creole shares roots with Singlish, and West-coast Manglish is nearly identical to the former.

Closer to home, in the United Kingdom there is Hinglish (Hindi + English), which is spoken both in India and in the United Kingdom. Its usage in Britain is so widespread that some years ago Collin’s published a humorous dictionary, titled The Queen’s Hinglish, How to Speak Pukka.

Hinglish is not like Jamaican patois, Haitian creole, or Singlish, but operates more like Spanglish, with borrowed words thrown into the base language and occasionally rearranged grammar. Hinglish words include: airdash (travel by air), chaddis (underpants), chai (Indian tea), crore (10 million), dacoit (thief), desi (local), dicky (boot), gora (white person), jungli (uncouth), lakh (100,000), lumpen (thug), optical (spectacles), prepone (bring forward), stepney (spare tyre) and would-be (fiancé/e).

Sensing the rage of White citizens and the existential threat it poses to the status quo, British politicians have sought to keep the chanko stew in the multicultural pressure cooker from exploding through feinted acts of appeasement—purely cosmetic, if not outright deceptive, ‘changes’ in immigration policy. In the minds of many mainstream White politicians, immigration is inevitable, necessary, and will not fundamentally affect the power balance in the country. And in the minds of some such politicians, immigration might alter the outward complexion of the country, but will not change its fundamental values or institutions—Blacks and Asians will become ‘White’ inside. Thus, any rage coming from within the indigenous White majority (‘racism’ in the PC dictionary) is a nuisance that needs to be managed and controlled until ‘education’ and exposure eliminates it in time.

Yet, based on the experience of former colonies, a fundamental alteration of the ethnic and racial composition of the citizenry in the European territories now being colonised by settlers from Asia, Africa, an the Caribbean, will bring along with it the long-term decline of Standard English and the rise of creole variants, which, may in due course obtain official legitimation. In this sense, Jamaica may be affording us a preview of Europe’s future, rather than another emblem of the island’s further divergence from Britain and convergence with West Africa.

In this scenario, the traditional upper classes in Britain would gradually change complexion, becoming progressively Asian and Muslim. Whiteness retaining its link with high status would prescribe a period of mimesis, where the new upper class would initially use a variant of Standard English as a class demarcator. In time even this Standard English will likely be seen as an obsolete vestige from a superseded past under White hegemony. It will likely be said that ‘no one speaks like that anymore’, the same way that no American politician today sounds like Woodrow Wilson in 1912, William Taft before him, or William McKinley in 1896. The same way that the BBC abandoned Queen’s English, even a creolised form of our Standard English will give way to a full creole.

This is not to say that what we call Standard English would remain static in a scenario where Europeans regain control of their destiny. The various spelling reform efforts in English predate the era of mass immigration, and scientific and technological advances, along with the social structures and behaviours that they give rise to, are constantly adding terminology to our dictionaries. New words have legitimately entered the English language from non-Indo-European sources via, for example, American, South African, and Australian English. Language is and should be constantly evolving. The question here is how ours is likely to evolve, who it is that will influence its evolution, and for what reasons.

While we are on the topic of immigration and the sentiment it elicits among frustrated White folk everywhere, it is worth highlighting once again how the media reports collisions between communities.

Perhaps one of the most egregious recent example I have seen is a report on the Copenhagen Post, ‘Denmark’s leading source for news in English’.

Titled, ‘Fears of Vigilantism After Rape of Young Girl’, the report begins:

The rape of a ten-year-old has shocked the residents of a small town in Jutland, and led to fears residents would seek revenge against the suspect – a 16-year-old boy of Somalian descent.

A week ago last Saturday two girls were threatened at knife-point by a boy and led into a forest. While the nine-year-old girl managed to escape and sound the alarm, the ten-year-old was raped.

It took over a week for the police to make an arrest, and in the meantime the description of the culprit – an ‘African-looking’ male between the ages of 16 and 18 and with black curly hair – was circulated.

So far, so good, right? Mr. Stanner has reported the crime and identified the suspect, not neglecting to mention his race. Now let us examine how the rest of the article runs. The next sixteen paragraphs follow directly after the above three, without transition:

Some 40 percent of the town’s residents are immigrants and several boys and young men fit the description given by the girls. While the police began collecting evidence, rumours started circulating that groups of residents were looking to take matters into their own hands and young immigrant men were warned to stay indoors.

To help calm nerves, a meeting was held the following Tuesday in which a family member of one of the two girls urged residents to let the police do their job in apprehending the culprit.

One of those in attendance was Kaj Mortensen, the manager of a local housing association, who told the press that fears of a vigilante mob forming were overblown, though it was worth reminding residents of the consequences of vigilantism.

“It’s something we want to avoid, it’s the police who have to handle these things. We shouldn’t do anything ourselves,” Mortensen said. “Broadly speaking we discussed the need to talk to each other, regardless of which ethnicity you might have.”

While it seems residents did allow police to conduct their investigation in peace, a right-wing political organisation used the incident to spread their anti-Islamic agenda.

Twenty members of the Danish Defence League (DDL), were spotted in the nearby town of Herning on Thursday night on their way to Gullestrup, where the next day posters could be found declaring the town an ‘Sharia Free Zone’ and signed by the DDL.

The DDL admitted on its Facebook page to hanging the posters and called the act a ‘good effort’.

The group is tied to the British organisation English Defence League, which is made up largely of white males linked to the football hooligan community and who are responsible for violent anti-Islamic rallies across the country.

In a press release, the DDL declared it was prepared to take on the role of the police at times when they felt the Danish people were not being protected

“The Danish Defence League declares that we will take the streets in areas where the number of rapes are rising if the authorities in Denmark are not getting the situation under control. We take this position after the Danish police once again have shown that they either can’t or won’t – or don’t have the resources to – protect the Danish people from Muslim immigrants’ perverted desires.”

A 16-year-old was been arrested late last week after forensic evidence linked him to the crime. The police would not confirm what the evidence was but one report suggests his fingerprint was found on a condom packet lying close to the scene of the crime.

According to information obtained by the tabloid Ekstra Bladet, the 16-year-old had recently returned from a year in Somalia and had reportedly witnessed that country’s strife at close quarters.

Acquaintances of the suspect described how the experience has affected him.

“He was unrecognisable when he came home. He seemed hard and superficial and spoke very loudly, almost shouting all the time,” one source was quoted in Ekstra Bladet as saying.

The boy appeared in court last Saturday in a close door hearing.

He denies any involvement in the rape.

Interesting, is it not, how the report focuses entirely on worries about the feelings and safety of the immigrant residents, and spares not one word for the feelings of the 9-year old who was threatened with a knife, or of the 10-year-old girl who was raped at knifepoint, or of the families of these two girls, or of the Danish local residents who may be parents to young girls. The safety of local Danish girls does not fall under reporter Peter Stanner’s radar.

What does fall under his radar are the feelings of the young rapist thug. Some would want to point out that Mr. Stanner’s report is sympathetic to the rapist, for it spends five paragraphs attempting to, let us say, nuance, or add context, to the Somali youth’s despicable crime, so that readers may not rush to conclusions. It is the boy who is the real victim, not the girl who will be traumatised for the rest of her life. The villains are those irascible Danish barbarians living in the neighbourhood and of course the DDL.

We have seen ample evidence of how, for mainstream journalists, context is essential when attempting to understand attacks on White folk by coloured immigrants or their descendants, but wholly unimportant when attempting to understand the frustration of White folk who, Emma West or Darren Scully, decide they have had enough. For the likes of Mr. Stanner, the existence of the DDL has no context other than simple racism, and their reacting to this event is merely base opportunism, motivated by a mean-spirited desire to exploit an unfortunate incident for political gain. There is no legitimate reason to defend the Danish, of course.

When I came across the Daily Telegraph’s first report about Emma West’s cri de coeur aboard the Croydon tramlink, I was reluctant to comment for the reasons already outlined in Andy Nowicki’s latest blog.

However, the Telegraph report—since updated—did suggest to me that any mainstream media coverage, especially if it went viral, would be worth commenting upon, and therefore worth keeping an eye on for developments.

My instinct was not wrong.

Mainstream media reports since have predictably emphasised the shock of West’s fellow commuters and YouTube viewers as well as the illegality of West’s speech. The early Telegraph report, preceding West’s arrest, suggested she was motivated by irrational hatred and even that she may not be in full possession of her faculties:

During the footage the mother - who at times appears to slur her words - begins by ranting

Nabeela Zahir, a 29-year-old journalist based in London, writing for the The Huffington Post, has since chipped in, deploying a familiar double tactic. With her opening sentence, hardly neutral in tone, she telegraphs that expressing views critical of immigrants and immigration has no place in decent society:

The racist torrent of abuse that spewed out of the mouth of a woman travelling on a London tram has left many Brits horrified.

Further down, Zahir, who describes herself as ‘British Asian’, repeats the tired old cliché of White racial identity being a mental illness and paints a picture of her adopted country as being riddled with nasty racism.

It seems not to matter that she was able to obtain a full education in British universities, or that she has been able to find ample professional opportunities in her chosen career as a news producer, documentary film researcher, television co-host, assistant broadcast journalist, writer and contributor, sub-editor, and communications press officer, who has worked for Channel 4, Channel 4 News, Waddell Media, the BBC, and ITN, among others, as well been published by The Guardian and received a George Viner scholarship. According to her narrative, Britain’s nasty racism is everywhere, always, under the surface, not only in violent forms, but also in all manner of subtle forms, sometimes finding expression in socially acceptable discourse.

 This is more or less the message emanating from The Guardian, where Sunny Hundal, commentator on ‘British Asian’ identity politics and committed racial activist, who questions whether West should be arrested for expressing her views, but believes

there are still far too many Westminster commentators who think racism is a thing of the past

 and that West is a product of ‘the opinions of the rightwing press’ and its ‘biased reporting’.

The Mirror, a Left-wing tabloid, lays it thick with its biased reporting, broadcasting at full volume the message that West’s views are objectionable (highlights are mine):

Viewers disgusted at her comments brought it to the attention of the British Transport Police . . . Disbelieving viewers left comments on the video sharing website . . . One said: “She makes me furious”, while another posted: “So much hate, actually ashamed to be British.” … The woman begins her x-rated outburst . . . She then ignores a polite request from a second traveller to stop swearing in front of the children on the tram. And the mum's sickening rant then goes into overdrive . . .

None of the coverage herein cited, and least of all the self-serving commentary from non-White commentators, attempts for a moment to explore the motive of West’s frustrations, even though they are not unique to her. Evidently, for the mainstream reporters there is nothing to explore: West is a sick racist and that is all there is to say about it; she needs to be prosecuted, as Colin Liddell says, ‘to the full extent of the law’, lest others feel emboldened also to express their rage.

But why do these expressions of White rage at the state-sponsored policy of immigration, diversity, and multiculturalism never have anything to do with the state-sponsored policy of immigration, diversity, and multiculturalism?

It seems obvious to me that if the rage follows a given pattern, comes from members of an identifiable group, flows in the same direction, there is an abundance of empirical evidence supporting the assertions made, and politicians, both in Britain and elsewhere across the West, are so scared of it being seen or understood that they feel the need to suppress it with heavy spin and heavy-handed legislation, there must be something to it beyond mere psychosis or irrational emotion.

The sheer popularity of the video and the amount of commentary it has elicited in the mainstream press suggests awareness that there are very many of who, put off by West’s vulgarity, dare not admit to sharing her sentiments. After nearly 6.7 million views and nearly 160,000 comments on YouTube since Monday, the evidence is clear.

The central irony of "The Majority Strategy" (what VDARE calls "The Sailer Strategy" and what could be called "The Francis Strategy") is that the GOP has been winning elections by means of it for years, while denouncing it and even consciously trying to undermine it. In other words, the GOP is the White People's Party, whether it likes it or not.  And it will win in its current form so long as America's historic Majority believes (corectly or not) that the Party stands for its interests.  

The Democrats also have a winning forumla; it's called "The Minority Strategy." Quite unlike the Republicans, the Democrats are willing to talk about their Strategy.  

The Future of the Obama Coalition

New York Times

By Thomas B. Edsel

November 27, 2011

For decades, Democrats have suffered continuous and increasingly severe losses among white voters. But preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that the party will explicitly abandon the white working class.

All pretense of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment — professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists — and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic.

The implication of an explicit Minority Strategy and implicit, unspeakable Majority Strategy is that no White ruling coalition will  be allowed to exist in these United States.  

Four years after the event, singer and former Smiths frontman, Steven Morrissey, has decided to sue the New Musical Express (NME) magazine for libel in connection with an article where he was criticised ‘for allegedly telling a reporter Britain had lost its identity due to high levels of immigration’.

According to The Guardian,

Lawyers for the former Smiths frontman told the high court on Monday that the singer “continues to suffer” reputational damage from a controversial interview he gave to NME magazine four years ago in which he complained about an “immigration explosion” leading to a loss of British identity.

In a written submission, Morrissey said his comments received “a barrage of press” at the time, and added: “Question marks over my being a racist have never since receded”.

This is the latest instalment of a

bitter standoff that spans almost two decades – in 1992 NME accused him of “flirting with disaster” and racist imagery after he wrapped a union flag around himself while on stage in Finsbury Park, north London . . . .

In the opposite corner, however, Catrin Evans, acting for the magazine, takes the view that:

“[t]he fact that [Morrissey] has spent the three years since March 2008 recording albums, touring, promoting his new work and presumably doing well enough commercially to be able now to contemplate funding this libel claim, shows that his reputation has been unaffected. His fans apparently still love him,” Evans told the court. She pointed out that the offending interview had never been published online and continues to exist “only in Morrissey fans’ bedrooms”.

In 2007 Morrissey was quoted by the NME as saying

Although I don’t have anything against people from other countries, the higher the influx into England the more the British identity disappears. So the price is enormous.

If you travel to Germany, it’s still absolutely Germany. If you travel to Sweden, it still has a Swedish identity.

But travel to England and you have no idea where you are

Following which, in a follow-up interview, he

is alleged to have added that he did not think his comments were inflammatory, but were “a statement of fact”.

It says something about the Left, and indeed about the politics of the mainstream music industry, that even Morrissey’s perfectly reasonable and accurate observations were deemed, according to Tim Jonze, the journalist who interviewed Morrissey, ‘offensive’, and according to the NME, racist. These people are so far to the Left that they will only be seen when instruments able to detect the cosmic gravitational wave background are invented. (The predicted redshift is in excess of z > 10²⁵.)

Be that as it may, one cannot help but wonder why, if Morrissey believes that successive governments’ policy on immigration has had a negative impact in Britain, he cares about the opinions of those who supported that policy.

I certainly don’t. Do you?

On the other hand, it is difficult to ascertain Morrissey’s real attitudes an intentions, given that in 2004 he was a founding signatory of the violent terrorist group United Against Fascism, and that the year following his ‘offensive’ remarks he donated £75,000 (some $150,000 at the time) to a campaign sponsored by the aforementioned group, Love Music Hate Racism.

As to his politics, Morrissey is known to have criticised conservative politicians and to have been rooting for Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry in the U.S. presidential elections of 2004.

Thus this seems the case of a Leftist suing other Leftists for using Leftist reputational weapons because of his criticism of Leftist policies.

Put another way, this seems a case of Leftists seeking to redistribute wealth among themselves and contribute a big chunk to fattening their lawyers.

I hope the legal process proves detailed and comprehensive, and that they spare no funds, and leave no stone unturned, unearthing every document, taking as many years as are needed, in their search for the truth.

The economic crisis is the most prominent issue facing the EU these days. But there is also another issue – a silently emerging one – that may have even more serious repercussions for the EU’s future than the economic crisis.If the mishandling of the issue of immigration - both legal and illegal – continues, it may well threaten the existence of the EU as we know it. Recently, the pressure is mounting on a basic pillar of the EU: the Schengen Agreement.

The Schengen Agreement led to the creation of the Schengen Area through the strengthening of external border controls and the abolition of internal controls among Schengen states. The Agreement also set the preconditions for police and judicial cooperation and a common set of rules on visas and asylum. Schengen states may reinstate border controls for reasons of public policy or national security, but only for a short period.

How legal immigration threatens the solidarity among EU states

Citizens of the EU and the Schengen Area may move and settle from one State to another provided that they have the means for supporting themselves. Recent EU enlargements towards Eastern Europe in 2004 and 2007 have resulted in significant movements of labour from the new members to countries of Western Europe (e.g. the UK, Germany, France). These movements have had a considerable impact in the receiving countries’ social services (health service, education, housing) and in the employment opportunities and the wages of parts of the indigenous workforce, especially in those receiving countries who did not impose restrictions in the movement of workforce from the new member-states. Moreover, some moved to the West without being able to support themselves and this resulted in a rise in criminality. This situation led some countries, such as Italy, France and Spain, to take measures to limit the settlement of people from the new enlargement countries or to even deport citizens of such countries on the grounds of public order (e.g. France’s deportation of Romanian and Bulgarian Roma). It is obvious that, even in cases of legal movement of EU citizens, each member-state’s national interest takes precedence over a -still vague- EU solidarity.

How illegal immigration threatens the solidarity among Schengen states

The issue that fragments the solidarity, and thus the functionality, of the EU even more is that of illegal immigration and of the burden-sharing of immigrants who managed to enter the EU illegally. In April 2011 France decided to close its borders with Italy so as to stop trains carrying African immigrants who had entered Italy illegally and the Italian government had provided with temporary residence permits in order to help them leave the country. Italy, acting on its national interest, tried to export its problem of increased inflow of illegal immigrants by granting temporary residence permits to more than 20,000 North African illegal immigrants, while France, acting on its own national interest as well, closed its borders. Italy, then, accused France of violating the Schengen Agreement but the European Commission concluded that France’s decision was legal. The end result is that both Italy and France have called for the Schengen rules to be modified in order for them to restore some border controls. The latest challenge to the Schengen Agreement has come from Denmark, which recently reinstated control checks on its borders with Sweden and Germany in order to fight crime and illegal immigration.

It is obvious that, in order to tackle this challenge to its solidarity, the EU will have to take the issue of immigration - and especially that of illegal immigration - very seriously. The EU will have to do much more on the issue than mere words of support and some funds that cover only a fragment of the costs of the border countries which receive the bulk of the inflow of illegal immigrants.

The mishandling of illegal immigration threatens core EU values such as the free movement and settlement of European citizens. What the EU must understand is that it is not one single EU-society but a union of sovereign national societies which have been formed through the ages. These societies carry their own national and cultural traits and have their own interests. A weak notion of European identity, especially so long as the EU remains a federal bureaucratic mechanism, will never take precedence over national identities and interests. And the issue of immigration – especially that of illegal immigration – poses a key challenge to the EU by putting its solidarity under pressure.

Once again London has become a battlefield. On this occasion, the gunning down of an alleged cocaine dealer and gang member during a police operation in a vibrant multicultural area has been the trigger to several days of mayhem.

From 300 people massing in front of a police station to demand ‘justice’, we have gone to assaults on police officers, random property damage, and, of course, looting.

The looting is not even being done under the cover of darkness anymore. Having viewed the reports, Andrew Gilligan, from the Daily Telegraph, has observed:

On the television and YouTube pictures . . . most of the rioters and looters didn’t look angry. The ones making their way out of the smashed-up shops in Wood Green High Road with boxes full of other people’s property actually looked quite pleased. Here, at least, the quest wasn't so much for justice, more for free trainers. . . . You could see the expressions on the Wood Green looters' faces because by that stage it was daylight.

As Colin Liddell has already noted, the mainstream media has gone into damage limitation mode. They have been deploying every conceivable tactic to complicate a simple issue and deflect attention from the real problem.

Thus, the disturbances and the thieving are being blamed on poverty, idle youth, excessive urbanisation, overcrowding, the government’s austerity measures, the Summer heat, too many White policemen, unemployment, the city’s Mayor being on holiday, and a ‘tiny unrepresentative minority’ of thugs and criminals.

By far the most original tactic, however, has been the effort to blame the riots on Twitter and the BlackBerry messenger service.

Nowhere do proponents of this fascinating theory explain:

1. Why when the alleged criminal being gunned down is White, the city does not go up in flames, with White Englishmen taking to the streets to burn people’s cars and burn and loot people’s businesses.


2. Why burning and looting is not evenly distributed among Twitter and BlackBerry messenger users, as opposed to concentrated on vibrant multicultural areas in London.

The blaming of rioting and looting on Twitter and BlackBerry reminds me of the blaming of the theft of music over the internet on ‘technology’.

Is it not people, and their choices when using technology, what determines its effects?

When a thug smashes a Molotov cocktail on the parked vehicle, or applies his baseball bat to the shop window, or climbs into the off-licence or the electronics or shoe shop in order to grab as much booze, TVs, and trainers as he can hold in his arms or supermarket trolley, it is not because a 29-year-old geek in San Francisco had a bright idea five years ago; it is because the thug is out for a few days of joyous mayhem, knowing he will enjoy safety in numbers and get away with it.

Equally obvious to any thinking citizen is that were there no Afro-Caribbean ‘community’ in London, there would be no racial dimension and therefore no excuse for rioting, burning, looting, and attacking law enforcement officers.

Which takes us to how such a ‘community’ came to be in London in the first place, and why they see their neighbourhoods as loot as opposed to something that belongs to them and in which they all have a stake.

Rather inconvenient observations for proponents of immigration and multiculturalism.

On happier news, Civitas, a U.K. thinktank, has called for the Equality Commission to be abolished, arguing that it ‘contributes very little to meaningful equality’ and offers poor value for money.

A euphemism if I ever saw one.

The "America" immigration restrictionists were defending no longer exists. 

Associated Press:

For the first time, minorities make up a majority of babies in the U.S., part of a sweeping race change and growing age divide between mostly white, older Americans and predominantly minority youths that could reshape government policies.

Preliminary census estimates also show the share of African-American households headed by women - made up of mostly single mothers - now exceeds African-American households with married couples, a sign of declining U.S. marriages overall but also continuing challenges for black youths without involved fathers.

The findings, based on the latest government data, offer a preview of final 2010 census results being released this summer that provide detailed breakdowns by age, race and householder relationships such as same-sex couples.

Demographers say the numbers provide the clearest confirmation yet of a changing social order, one in which racial and ethnic minorities will become the U.S. majority by midcentury.

"We're moving toward an acknowledgment that we're living in a different world than the 1950s, where married or two-parent heterosexual couples are now no longer the norm for a lot of kids, especially kids of color," said Laura Speer, coordinator of the Kids Count project for the Baltimore-based Annie E. Casey Foundation.

Byron M. Roth, The Perils of Diversity: Immigration and Human Nature. Washington Summit Publishers, 2010, 577 pages.

Dr. Byron Roth, Professor Emeritus of psychology at Dowling College on Long Island, has written an important book on the damage that has been done to the United States and Europe by the large scale immigration of non-European peoples that has taken place in recent decades.

Roth begins The Perils of Diversity by documenting how elite opinion-makers in academia and the mainstream media almost all assume that the peoples of all races are similar, and therefore that they can all be accommodated in the United States and Europe. The principal “debate” is between those who advocate assimilation and those who advocate multiculturalism. While acknowledging that different racial groups can sometimes be in conflict, assimilationists argue that these ethnic problems can be solved through “the magic of assimilation,” in which all races and religions are gradually transformed into Americans or Europeans. The multiculturalists argue that we should let the immigrants keep their culture, beliefs, and practices; this can be accomplished, they say, peacefully, and different communities can live in social harmony. They blame the intolerant attitudes of the host populations in the United States and Europe for the discord that is frequently present: It is the fault of the indigenous American and European peoples, who do not do enough to accommodate immigrants.

Roth argues that both the assimilationists and the multiculturalists fail to understand human nature.

Assimilationists believe that all races have the intelligence and values required to maintain Western civilization, while multiculturalists believe that all races and cultures can live together in social harmony. These beliefs are, Roth argues, seriously incorrect in the light of historical experience and scientific evidence.

From New Zealand come reports that one Peter Dunne, White, and leader of the Left-wing United Future political party, has called for a ‘multiculturalism act’, to ‘stamp out racism and mark the growing multiculturalism of New Zealand society’.

Apparently, the call has been motivated by an incident, whereby a group called Right Wing Resistance (RWR) distributed leaflets bearing the message 'Stop The Asian Invasion'.

Dunne disapproves of this activity and would like to see it banned, explaining that

[a] Multiculturalism Act would ensure everyone enjoys equal treatment and protection under the law, while formally acknowledging the freedom of all members of New Zealand society to preserve, enhance and share their cultural heritage without fear of persecution.

Yet, when we look at the RWR’s website, we see that they describe themselves as

an organized unified resistance movement against mass immigration, the dilution of our European culture and pride, and the current multicultural agenda created by the current government networks designed to destroy our colonial rights and identity.

Question: Is not Dunne’s proposed Multiculturalism Act meant to formally acknowledge the freedom to do precisely this?

It seems Dunne seeks both to legally protect and legally ban the same thing, simultaneously.

We can imagine the kind of semantic contortions that will have to be contrived in order to conceal the proposed Act’s racially discriminatory, anti-White aims.

Another remarkable aspect of this incident is that, as an explanation, Dunne declares, entirely unself-consciously and without irony, that

[o]fficial statistics already show that almost one in three New Zealanders today are of non-European origin – within the next 15 years that is likely to increase to over 40 percent.

By 2021, for example, a quarter of our population will be of either Asian or Pacific origin.

Question: Would this not be precisely the reason why groups like RWR form in the first place?

A look at the photographs suggests that the membership consists of working-class Whites, exactly the demographic that has typically been worst hit by non-White immigration.

As usual, the Left’s idiotic answer to the social tension caused by multiculturalism is . . . more multiculturalism.

What arrogance.

It is like a disease.

It bears mentioning that the Māori have a protest movement of their own, which in some ways is broadly analogous to those now emerging in traditional White societies and in other former European colonies. Imagine Māori leaders moving energetically to stamp out activist groups campaigning for the preservation of Māori culture and pride. Furthermore, imagine most Māori applauding their leaders’ anti-Māori measures, ostracising the campaigners, and actively encouraging European immigration and Westernisation, regarding their collective ethnic suicide as a measure of virtue. One could scarcely look at such actions without some perplexity, and would indeed wonder, even if convenient, about the mental soundness of such a people and whether Nature has not meant for them to disappear.

In any event, far-away Mr. Dunne is behind the times politically: the state of the art in European politics is for White politicians to say that multiculturalism has failed, and then to engage in deeper levels of deception, hopeful that the citizen will not notice and thus keep the multicultural pressure cooker from exploding.