Wednesday, 11 February 2009

Bulger Killers that could marry your daughter!

The following has been posted by Martin Wingfield:

IF Jamie Bulger were alive today he would be nineteen. He might have been at university, or working and courting and making plans to get married at some time in the not too distant future. But Jamie Bulger doesn’t have any of that to look forward to, because 16 years ago tomorrow he was brutally murdered.

Yet his killers could well be engaged to be married - even to your daughter - and you wouldn’t know it, because courtesy of the British taxpayer and the British ‘justice’ system they have been given new names and a new lifestyle. That should be a worry to parents and communities everywhere, but especially in West Cumbria where a former policeman told me yesterday that one of the killers is now living. Apparently a local journalist stumbled upon the story but was immediately hit by a court injunction, paid for once again by the British taxpayer, so he was unable to inform the public of the killer in their midst.

On February 12th 1993, three year-old Jamie Bulger was taken from a Liverpool shopping centre by two 10-year-old boys. He left his mother’s side for just a second, but that was long enough for Jon Venables to take his hand and lead him away to his death.

Together with Robert Thompson, Jon Venables took Jamie on a three mile trek, stopping every now and again to torture the little boy who was crying for his mummy.

Finally they stopped at a railway track where they brutally kicked him, threw stones at him, rubbed paint into his eyes, and tried to cut off his fingers with a pair of scissors. They then left his tiny battered body on the tracks so a train could run him over to hide their crime.

These two boys understood very well what they had done was wrong and that is why they tried to make it look like an accident.

Venables and Thompson were found guilty of murder at Preston Crown Court on November 24, 1993. The trial judge sentenced them to be detained at HerMajesty’s pleasure, with a recommendation that they should be kept in custody for “very, very many years”.

Yet shortly after the trial, Lord Taylor of Gosforth, the Lord Chief Justice, stepped in and ordered that the two boys should serve just ten years, which would have made them eligible for release in February 2003.

In fact they were released two years earlier than his recommendation on a life licence in June 2001.
An injunction was imposed shortly after the trial, preventing the publication of details about the boys. The injunction has remained in force following their release, so that details of their new identities could not be published.

In January last year Lady Justice Butler-Sloss awarded Venables and Thompson anonymity for the rest of their lives so that they can settle anywhere they like without any unwelcome intrusion by the media.

There can be no new life or identity for little Jamie Bulger. After what they did to him, Venables and Thompson should never have been released from prison, let alone provided with the where-with-all to live a relatively normal life.

We feel that it is disgusting that these two creatures are protected by tax payers money, we feel that the British Government should expose their identity so that the people around them know exactly who they are dealing with. We feel that it is a sick thing that people can form relationships with these vile individuals and not have a clue about what they have done in their past.

Martins blog can be found at:



  2. 'This Is The Worst Recession For Over 100 Years'

    Ed Balls, the PM's closest ally, warns that downturn is ferocious and says impact will last 15 years

    By Nigel Morris, Deputy Political Editor, and Sean O'Grady, Economics Editor

    February 10, 2009 "The Independent" -- In an extraordinary admission about the severity of the economic downturn, Ed Balls even predicted that its effects would still be felt 15 years from now. The Schools Secretary's comments carry added weight because he is a former chief economic adviser to the Treasury and regarded as one of the Prime Ministers's closest allies.

    Mr Balls said yesterday: "The reality is that this is becoming the most serious global recession for, I'm sure, over 100 years, as it will turn out."

    He warned that events worldwide were moving at a "speed, pace and ferocity which none of us have seen before" and banks were losing cash on a "scale that nobody believed possible".

    The minister stunned his audience at a Labour conference in Yorkshire by forecasting that times could be tougher than in the depression of the 1930s, when male unemployment in some cities reached 70 per cent. He also appeared to hint that the recession could play into the hands of the far right.

    "The economy is going to define our politics in this region and in Britain in the next year, the next five years, the next 10 and even the next 15 years," Mr Balls said. "These are seismic events that are going to change the political landscape. I think this is a financial crisis more extreme and more serious than that of the 1930s, and we all remember how the politics of that era were shaped by the economy."

    Philip Hammond, the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, said Mr Balls's predictions were "a staggering and very worrying admission from a cabinet minister and Gordon Brown's closest ally in the Treasury over the past 10 years". He added: "We are being told that not only are we facing the worst recession in 100 years, but that it will last for over a decade – far longer than Treasury forecasts predict."

    The minister's comments came as the Chancellor, Alistair Darling, admitted the global economy was "seeing the most difficult economic conditions for generations". Writing in today's Independent, Mr Darling said his plans for shoring up Britain's finances included "measures to insure against extreme losses" as well as separating out impaired assets into a "parallel financial vehicle". Unemployment figures out tomorrow are expected to show the number of people out of work has passed two million. The Bank of England's quarterly inflation report, also released tomorrow, is expected to include a gloomy forecast for economic growth.

    Yesterday, the Financial Services Authority warned that the recession "may be deeper and more prolonged than expected", adding that the global financial system had "suffered its greatest crisis in more than 70 years".

    Speaking to Labour activists in Sheffield, Mr Balls conceded that the Government must share some of the blame because it had failed properly to control the banks. But he accused the Tories of blocking Labour's attempts to tighten financial rules.

    He said: "People are quite right to say that financial regulation wasn't tough enough in Britain and around the world, that regulators misunderstood and did not see the nature of the risks of the dangers being run in our financial institutions – absolutely right."

    The other great depressions

    *Long Depression, 1873–96

    Precipitated by the "panic of 1873" crisis on Wall Street and a severe outbreak of equine flu (Karl Benz's first automobile did not chug on to the scene until 1886), it was remarkable for its longevity as well as its global reach. In Britain, it was the rural south rather than the rich cities of the north that suffered. The UK ceased to be a nation that relied in any way on farming for its livelihood.

    *Great Depression, 1930s

    The "Hungry Thirties" were rough on many, at a time when welfare systems were rudimentary. The worst period was from the Wall Street Crash of 1929 to about 1932, but in places such as Jarrow, the unemployment rate hardly dipped below 50 per cent until the economy was mobilised in 1940. However, for many in the south and for the middle classes, the times were relatively prosperous.


    New party set up to save Wirral libraries
    Feb 11 2009 Liverpool Daily Post

    Mr McFadden said: “It was like turkeys voting for Christmas. I am going to make it my business to see a people’s community party which will take over.”

    He pledged to organise protests and called for those opposing the closures to attend a meeting at Merseyside TUC in Birkenhead tomorrow.

    Cllr Kirwan said he was appealing for members of the public who fear they will be affected by the SAR to contact him with case studies.

    He said: “I want to be bombarded with people who will lose out because, for example their local library has closed.”

    Merseyside TUC will hold its meeting at Merseyside Advice Centre, St Anne’s Street, Birkenhead tomorrow night at 7.30pm.


    New party set up to save Wirral libraries

    A SINGLE issue political party dedicated to saving libraries set for closure by Wirral Council is being set up by campaigners furious at cultural cuts.

    Last night, one of those behind the action, Alec McFadden, of Merseyside TUC, said during the 15 months before the next local elections he would be working with other groups to ensure a new political opposition group is able to emerge.

    The move comes as Independent Conservative councillor David Kirwan confirmed he is to press ahead with seeking a judicial review of the council’s decision, with the backing of Wirral Residents Association.

    On Monday night a full council meeting voted in favour of the controversial Strategic Asset Review (SAR) despite almost a third of Lib-Dems rebelling.

    It will see 11 of the borough’s 24 libraries close, but council leader Steve Foulkes insisted measures would be taken to see the buildings transferred to community ownership and management, along with village halls and other cultural facilities across the borough.

    The asset review will also see considerable consolidation of council “back office” facilities as part of a large scale reduction on the council’s estate to save some £3.1m a year. The authority plans instead new “hubs” which will provide council services at key locations across the borough.

    To cheers from a packed public gallery the six dissident Liberal Democrats had risked the wrath of their party leadership which had pushed ahead with the SAR in their power-sharing deal with the council’s Labour group.

    Alec McFadden said the aim of the new political movement is to challenge Labour and Lib-Dems who voted for the SAR.

  5. Village fury over £8,000 to be spent teaching Romany songs to schoolchildren
    The residents of Cottenham have learned to live with their new neighbours after one of Britain's biggest traveller camps was built in their village.

    But they haven't always sung their praises. Which could be why local officials are spending £8,000 in Lottery cash - to teach local children Romany songs.

    They will then put on a show which is meant to unite the villagers and travellers.

  6. Labour isn't working . . . again: 400-strong jobless queue echoes famous poster as unemployment reaches 12-year high

    They came in their hundreds in the cold, drawn by the prospect of snagging one of just 50 temporary jobs at London Zoo.
    In recent years, the annual open day for seasonal jobs during the Zoo's high season has only attracted between 120 and 150 applicants.
    But yesterday more than 400 hopefuls waited for several hours for the chance to work in the gift shop or in the zoo's canteen for £8.80 an hour.
    The image echoes the classic Tory 'Labour isn't working' advert of 1979 - a year in which unemployment was creeping towards three million under Jim Callaghan's Labour government.
    new figures revealed that unemployment has reached a 12-year high.

  7. Labour ministers are furious at a decision to release official statistics that highlight the increase in foreign workers in Britain.
    Yesterday the ONS revealed that the number of non-UK nationals in work rose by 214,000 to 3.8million and a record 151,000 work permits were handed out to foreigners.
    The figures came as official statistics showed that the number of people out of work had risen to a 12-year high.

    But this is the first time that the ONS has highlighted the employment of foreigners in a separate press release.

    Ministers are said to be 'fizzing' with anger at what they regard as a political act by
    Karen Dunnell, director at the Office for National Statistics.

  8. Figures show 39 pubs a week shut
    Feb 12 2009

    A record number of pubs are closing every week in Britain, highlighting the "extreme" economic pressures facing the industry, new figures have showed.

    A total of 39 pubs are shutting every week, three more than last year, including 19 in suburbs, eight in town centres and the rest in rural areas, the British Beer and Pub Association said.

    The group, which represents the brewing and pub industry, criticised the Government over increases in beer taxes and millions of pounds of extra costs in red tape.

    Rob Hayward, the association's chief executive, said: "With pubs closing at a record rate and job losses escalating, it is truly staggering that the Government is proposing to hit the sector with a £300 million bill for extra red tape this year alone.

    "In fact, the Government openly state they believe that their new regulations will lead to more pub closures and job losses.

    "Pub closures are a clear demonstration of the extreme financial and economic pressures facing the sector.

    "At this time of deepening recession and rising unemployment, the Government should be actively looking at ways to support the community asset of the pub.

    "They should not be introducing legislation that will condemn more pubs to closure and put more people out of work."

    The association said 44,000 jobs had been lost in the industry in the past couple of years, warning that 59,000 could be axed.

    Almost 2,000 pubs closed last year, 600 more than in 2007, the report said.

  9. Eight held and children put in care after raid
    Feb 12 2009 by Ben Rossington, Liverpool Echo

    NINE children were taken into care today as police blitzed a road blighted by guns, drugs and teenage gangs.

    Officers raided eight addresses in Reeds Road, Huyton, and locked up 13 people.

    In two homes, police found four girls aged nine, six, two and six months and five boys aged 16, 13, three and one, who they suspected were being neglected or in danger.

    Four adults were arrested on suspicion of child neglect.

    The other arrests included:

    A 67-year-old woman on suspicion of possession of controlled drugs with intent to supply and also for handling stolen goods.

    Three teenagers – two aged 16 and one 13 – for possession of controlled drugs with intent to supply.

    Two men aged 24 and 21, and one woman, 21, for possession of controlled drugs.

    A 43-year-old man for money laundering after £70,000 was found in a house.

    One man, aged 50, for abstracting electricity.

    An 18-year-old for alleged breach of his anti-social behaviour order, and a 29-year-old man and two woman, 20 and 27, on suspicion of assisting him to breach the order.

    Three houses were given Merseyside’s first anti-social behaviour closure orders after a string of complaints.

  10. The Problem With Whites
    By Kevin MacDonald

    America will soon have a white minority. This is a much desired state of affairs for the hostile elites who hold political power and shape public opinion. But it certainly creates some management issues - at least in the long run. After all, it's difficult to come up with an historical example of a nation with a solid ethnic majority (90% white in 1950) that has voluntarily decided to cede political and cultural power. Such transformations are typically accomplished by military invasions, great battles, and untold suffering.

    And it's not as if everyone is doing it. Only Western nations view their own demographic and cultural eclipse as a moral imperative. Indeed, as I have noted previously, it is striking that racial nationalism has triumphed in Israel at the same time that the Jewish intellectual and political movements and the organized Jewish community have been the most active and effective force for a non- white America. Indeed, a poll in 2008 found that Avigdor Lieberman was the second most popular politician in Israel. Lieberman has advocated expulsion of Arabs from Israel and has declared himself a follower of Vladimir Jabotinsky, the leading pioneer of racial Zionism. The most popular politician in the poll was Benjamin Netanyahu - another admirer of Jabotinsky. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Li vni are also Jabotinskyists.

    The racial Zionists are now carrying out yet another orgy of mass murder after a starvation-inducing blockade and the usual triggering assault designed to provoke Palestinian retaliation - which then becomes the cover for claims that Israel is merely defending itself against terrorism. This monstrosity was approved by overwhelming majorities of both Houses of Congress. The craven Bush administration did its part by abstaining from a UN resolution designed by the US Secretary of State as a result of a personal appeal by the Israeli Prime Minister. This is yet another accomplishment of the Israel Lobby, but one they would rather not have discussed in public. People might get the impression that the Lobby really does dictate US foreign policy in the Mideast. Obviously, such thoughts are only entertained by anti-Semites.

    But I digress.

    In managing the eclipse of white America, one strategy of the mainstream media is to simply ignore the issue. Christopher Donovan ("For the media, the less whites think about their coming minority status, the better") has noted that the media, and in particular, the New York Times, are quite uninterested in doing stories that discuss what white people think about this state of affairs.

    t's not surprising that the New York Times - the Jewish-owned flagship of anti-white, pro-multicultural media - ignores the issue. The issue is also missing from so-called conservative media even though one would think that conservatives would find the eclipse of white America to be an important issue. Certainly, their audiences would find it interesting.

    Now we have an article "The End of White America" written by Hua Hsu, an Assistant Professor of English at Vassar College. The article is a rather depressing display of what passes for intellectual discourse on the most important question confronting white people in America.

    Hsu begins by quoting a passage in F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby in which a character, Tom Buchanan, states: "Have you read The Rise of the Colored Empires by this man Goddard?" Well, it's a fine book, and everybody ought to read it. The idea is if we don't look out the white race will be-will be utterly submerged. It's all scientific stuff; it's been proved."

    Buchanan's comment is a thinly veiled reference to Lothrop Stoddard's The Rising Tide of Color which Hsu describes as "rationalized hatred" presented in a scholarly, gentlemanly, and scientific tone. (This wording that will certainly help him when he comes up for tenure.) As Hsu notes, Stoddard had a doctorate from Harvard and was a member of many academic associations. His book was published by a major publisher. It was therefore "precisely the kind of book that a 1920s man of Buchanan's profile - wealthy, Ivy League­educated, at once pretentious and intellectually insecure - might have been expected to bring up in casual conversation."

    Let's ponder that a bit. The simple reality is that in the year 2009 an Ivy League-educated person, "at once pretentious and intellectually insecure," would just as glibly assert the same sort of nonsense as Hsu. To wit:

    The coming white minority does not mean that the racial hierarchy of American culture will suddenly become inverted, as in 1995's White Man's Burden, an awful thought experiment of a film, starring John Travolta, that envisions an upside-down world in which whites are subjugated to their high-class black oppressors. There will be dislocations and resentments along the way, but the demographic shifts of the next 40 years are likely to reduce the power of racial hierarchies over everyone's lives, producing a culture that's more likely than any before to treat its inhabitants as individuals, rather than members of a caste or identity group.

    The fact is that no one can say for certain what multicultural America without a white majority will be like. There is no scientific or historical basis for claims like "the demographic shifts of the next 40 years are likely to reduce the power of racial hierarchies over everyone's lives, producing a culture that's more likely than any before to treat its inhabitants as individuals, rather than members of a caste or identity group."

    Indeed, there is no evidence at all that we are proceeding to a color blind future. The election results continue to show that white people are coalescing in the Republican Party, while the Democrats are increasingly the party of a non-white soon-to-be majority.

    Is it so hard to believe that when this coalition achieves a majority that it will further compromise the interests of whites far beyond contemporary concerns such as immigration policy and affirmative action? Hsu anticipates a colorblind world, but affirmative action means that blacks and other minorities are certainly not treated as individuals. And it means that whites - especially white males - are losing out on opportunities they would have had without these policies and without the massive non- white immigration of the last few decades.

    Given the intractability of changing intelligence and other traits required for success in the contemporary economy, it is unlikely that 40 more years of affirmative action will attain the outcomes desired by the minority lobbies. Indeed, in Obama's America, blacks are rioting in Oakland over perceived racial injustices, and from 2002­ 2007, black juvenile homicide victims increased 31%, while black juvenile perpetrators increased 43%. Hence, the reasonable outlook is for a continuing need for affirmative action and for racial activism in these groups, even after whites become a minority.

    Whites will also lose out because of large-scale importation of relatively talented immigrants from East Asia. Indeed, as I noted over a decade ago, "The United States is well on the road to being dominated by an Asian technocratic elite and a Jewish business, professional, and media elite."

    Hsu shows that there already is considerable anxiety among whites about the future. An advertizing executive says, "I think white people feel like they're under siege right now - like it's not okay to be white right now, especially if you're a white male. ... People are stressed out about it. `We used to be in control! We're losing control'" Another says, "There's a lot of fear and a lot of resentment."

    It's hard to see why these feelings won't increase in the future.

    A huge problem for white people is lack of intellectual and cultural confidence. Hsu quotes Christian (Stuff White People Like) Lander saying, "I get it: as a straight white male, I'm the worst thing on Earth." A professor comments that for his students "to be white is to be culturally broke. The classic thing white students say when you ask them to talk about who they are is, `I don't have a culture.' They might be privileged, they might be loaded socioeconomically, but they feel bankrupt when it comes to culture They feel disadvantaged, and they feel marginalized."

    This lack of cultural confidence is no accident. For nearly 100 years whites have been subjected to a culture of critique emanating from the most prestigious academic and media institutions. And, as Hsu points out, the most vibrant and influential aspect of American popular culture is hip-hop-a product of the African American urban culture.

    The only significant group of white people with any cultural confidence centers itself around country music, NASCAR, and the small town values of traditional white America. For this group of whites - and only this group - there is "a racial pride that dares not speak its name, and that defines itself through cultural cues instead-a suspicion of intellectual elites and city dwellers, a preference for folksiness and plainness of speech (whether real or feigned), and the association of a working-class white minority with 'the real America.'"

    This is what I term implicit whiteness - implicit because explicit assertions of white identity have been banned by the anti- white elites that dominate our politics and culture. It is a culture that, as Hsu notes, "cannot speak its name."

    But that implies that the submerged white identity of the white working class and the lack of cultural confidence exhibited by the rest of white America are imposed from outside. Although there may well be characteristics of whites that facilitate this process, this suppression of white identity and interests is certainly not the natural outcome of modernization or any other force internal to whites as a people. In my opinion, they are the result of the successful erection of a culture of critique in the West dominated by Jewish intellectual and political movements.

    The result is that educated, intellectually insecure white people these days are far more likely to believe in the utopian future described by Hsu than in hard and cautious thinking about what the future might have in store for them.

    It's worth dwelling a bit on the intellectual insecurity of the whites who mindlessly utter the mantras of multiculturalism that they have soaked up from the school system and from the media. Most people do not have much confidence in their intellectual ability and look to elite opinion to shape their beliefs. As I noted elsewhere,

    A critical component of the success of the culture of critique is that it achieved control of the most prestigious and influential institutions of the West, and it became a consensus among the elites, Jewish and non-Jewish alike. Once this happened, it is not surprising that this culture became widely accepted among people of very different levels of education and among people of different social classes.

    Most people are quite insecure about their intellectual ability. But they know that the professors at Harvard, and the editorial page of the New York Times and the Washington Post, and even conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are all on page when it comes to racial and ethnic issues. This is a formidable array, to the point that you almost have to be a crank to dissent from this consensus.

    I think one of the greatest triumphs of the left has been to get people to believe that people who assert white identity and interests or who make unflattering portrayals of organized Jewish movements are morally degenerate, stupid, and perhaps psychiatrically disturbed. Obviously, all of these adjectives designate low status.

    The reality is that the multicultural emperor has no clothes and, because of its support for racial Zionism and the racialism of ethnic minorities in America, it is massively hypocritical to boot. The New York Times, the academic left, and the faux conservatives that dominate elite discourse on race and ethnicity are intellectually bankrupt and can only remain in power by ruthlessly suppressing or ignoring the scientific findings.

    This is particularly a problem for college-educated whites. Like Fitzgerald's Tom Buchanan, such people have a strong need to feel that their ideas are respectable and part of the mainstream. But the respectable mainstream gives them absolutely nothing with which to validate themselves except perhaps the idea that the world will be a better place when people like them no longer have power. Hsu quotes the pathetic Christian Lander: ""Like, I'm aware of all the horrible crimes that my demographic has done in the world. ... And there's a bunch of white people who are desperate - desperate - to say, `You know what? My skin's white, but I'm not one of the white people who's destroying the world.'"

    As a zombie leftist during the 1960s and 1970s, I know what that feeling of desperation is like - what it's like to be a self- hating white. We must get to the point where college-educated whites proudly and confidently say they are white and that they do not want to become a minority in America.

    This reminds me of the recent docudrama Milk, which depicts the life of gay activist Harvey Milk. Milk is sure be nominated for an Oscar as Best Picture because it lovingly illustrates a triumph of the cultural left. But is has an important message that should resonate with the millions of whites who have been deprived of their confidence and their culture: Be explicit. Just as Harvey Milk advocated being openly gay even in the face of dire consequences, whites need to tell their family and their friends that they have an identity as a white person and believe that whites have legitimate interests as white people. They must accept the consequences when they are harassed, fired from their jobs, or put in prison for such beliefs. They must run for political office as openly pro-white.

    Milk shows that homosexuals were fired from their jobs and arrested for congregating in public. Now it's the Southern Poverty Law Center and the rest of the leftist intellectual and political establishment that harasses and attempts to get people fired. But it's the same situation with the roles reversed. No revolution was ever accomplished without some martyrs. The revolution that restores the legitimacy of white identity and the legitimacy of white interests will be no exception.

    But it is a revolution that is absolutely necessary. The white majority is foolish indeed to entrust its future to a utopian hope that racial and ethnic identifications will disappear and that they won't continue to influence public policy in ways that compromise the interests of whites.

    It does not take an overactive imagination to see that coalitions of minority groups could compromise the interests of formerly dominant whites. We already see numerous examples in which coalitions of minority groups attempt to influence public policy, including immigration policy, against the interests of the whites. Placing ourselves in a position of vulnerability would be extremely risky, given the deep sense of historical grievance harbored by many ethnic activists and organized ethnic lobbies.

    This is especially the case with Jews. Jewish organisations have been unanimous in condemning Western societies, Western traditions, and Christianity, for past crimes against Jews. Similar sentiments are typical of a great many African Americans and Latinos, and especially among the ethnic activists from these groups. The "God damn America" sermon by President Obama's pastor comes to mind as a recent notorious example.

    The precedent of the early decades of the Soviet Union should give pause to anyone who believes that surrendering ethnic hegemony does not carry risks. The Bolshevik revolution had a pronounced ethnic angle: To a very great extent, Jews and other non-Russians ruled over the Russian people, with disastrous consequences for the Russians and other ethnic groups that were not able to become part of the power structure. Jews formed a hostile elite within this power structure - as they will in the future white-minority America; Jews were "Stalin's willing executioners."

    Two passages from my review of Yuri Slezkine's The Jewish Century seem particularly appropriate here. The first passage reminds me of the many American Jews who adopt a veneer of support for causes of leftist versions of social justice and racial tolerance while nevertheless managing to support racial Zionism and the mass murder, torture, and incarceration of the Palestinians. Such people may be very different when they become a hostile elite in a white-minority America.

    Many of the commentators on Jewish Bolsheviks noted the "transformation" of Jews [after the Bolshevik Revolution]. In the words of [a] Jewish commentator, G. A. Landau, "cruelty, sadism, and violence had seemed alien to a nation so far removed from physical activity." And another Jewish commentator, Ia. A. Bromberg, noted that: the formerly oppressed lover of liberty had turned into a tyrant of "unheard-of-despotic arbitrariness". The convinced and unconditional opponent of the death penalty not just for political crimes but for the most heinous offenses, who could not, as it were, watch a chicken being killed, has been transformed outwardly into a leather-clad person with a revolver and, in fact, lost all human likeness. ...

    After the Revolution, ... there was active suppression of any remnants of the older order and their descendants. ... The mass murder of peasants and nationalists was combined with the systematic exclusion of the previously existing non-Jewish middle class. The wife of a Leningrad University professor noted, "in all the institutions, only workers and Israelites are admitted; the life of the intelligentsia is very hard" (p. 243). Even at the end of the 1930s, prior to the Russification that accompanied World War II, "the Russian Federationwas still doing penance for its imperial past while also serving as an example of an ethnicity- free society" (p. 276). While all other nationalities, including Jews, were allowed and encouraged to keep their ethnic identities, the revolution remained an anti-majoritarian movement.

    The difference from the Soviet Union may well be that in white- minority America it will not be workers and Israelites who are favored, but non-whites and Israelites. Whites may dream that they are entering the post-racial utopia imagined by their erstwhile intellectual superiors. But it is quite possible that they are entering into a racial dystopia of unimaginable cruelty in which whites will be systematically excluded in favor of the new elites recruited from the soon-to-be majority. It's happened before.

    Kevin MacDonald is a professor of psychology at California State University­Long Beach.


    A fatal attraction: Labour's fascination with the super-rich will destroy the party and could take Britain down with it While still at Edinburgh University, Gordon Brown edited The Red Paper On Scotland, a collection of essays that dreamed of a radical transformation of society.

    He argued that a better world could come only if the public accepted 'the necessity for social control of the institutional investors who wield enormous financial power in controlling the economy'.

    How ironic, then, that three decades since writing those words in 1975, Gordon Brown and his Labour colleagues have allowed these 'institutional investors' - as we have been learning all this week - to engage in an orgy of unregulated speculation.