The clue’s in the name: the Labour party was founded to fight alongside the trade unions on behalf of the British working-class.  You can see the roots of the alliance forming when a mining company in Scotland tried to import foreign workers at the beginning of the twentieth century. One of Labour’s greatest future heroes spoke up for the men whose wages were being undercut:

Trade Unions were openly hostile, claiming that the newcomers’ lack of English made them a danger at work; the Glasgow Trades Council declared the Lithuanians in Glengarnock as “an evil” and wrote to the TUC [Trades Union Congress] demanding immigration controls to keep them out.

Even a figure such as Keir Hardie, founding father of the Labour Party, led a fierce, xenophobic campaign against the Lithuanians. Hardie, as a leader of Ayrshire miners, wrote an article for the journal, The Miner, in which he stated that: “For the second time in their history Messrs. Merry and Cunninghame have introduced a number of Russian Poles [as the Lithuanians were described] to Glengarnock Ironworks. What object they have in doing so is beyond human ken unless it is, as stated by a speaker at Irvine, to teach men how to live on garlic and oil, or introduce the Black Death, so as to get rid of the surplus labourers.” (Lithuanians in Lanarkshire, BBC History, February 2004)

Keir Hardie wasn’t being “xenophobic.” He was doing exactly what a Lithuanian socialist would have done if the situation had been reversed: standing up for the workers he was elected to serve. By the time Tony Blair became Labour leader in 1994, all that old-fashioned socialist nonsense had been discarded. Now the Labour party champions the downtrodden bosses against the oppressive workers.

Labour doesn’t seek to defend its traditional supporters; it seeks to harm them, as a Labour peer openly admitted in 2011:

Labour let in 2.2million migrants during its 13 years in power – more than twice the population of Birmingham. Lord Glasman, 49, had already told BBC Radio 4 recently [in 2011]: ‘What you have with immigration is the idea that people should travel all over the world in search of higher-paying jobs, often to undercut existing workforces, and somehow in the Labour Party we got into a position that that was a good thing. Now obviously it undermines solidarity, it undermines relationships, and in the scale that it’s been going on in England, it can undermine the possibility of politics entirely.’

The academic, who directs the faith and citizenship programme at London Metropolitan University, criticised Labour for being ‘hostile to the English working class’. He said: ‘In many ways [Labour] viewed working-class voters as an obstacle to progress. Their commitment to various civil rights, anti-racism, meant that often working-class voters… were seen as racist, resistant to change, homophobic and generally reactionary. So in many ways you had a terrible situation where a Labour government was hostile to the English working class.’ (Miliband ally attacks Labour migration ‘lies’ over 2.2m they let in Britain, The Daily Mail, 16th April 2011)

Now, having spat in their faces, Labour wants to persuade its working-class supporters that it won’t do the same again. It will, of course: the hostility described by Lord Glasman has never gone away. Working-class Whites would be very foolish to vote for the party again. All the same, it is entirely possible that Britain’s next prime minister will be Ed Miliband, current Labour leader. If an adolescent narcissist like Tony Blair can win three elections, an adenoidal reptile like Miliband can win one. But even in Miliband’s own constituency in Yorkshire, the discontent is obvious:

In last year’s local elections, Ukip contested four wards in Doncaster. This year it was 21. Farage’s party won just one of those, but came second in 17 and third in 3. And Ukip lost a couple of those wards by just tens of votes. In the European elections, Farage’s party topped the poll in Doncaster, with 24,240 votes to Labour’s 23,743. …

There are clearly anxieties here, as elsewhere in the country, that are not being addressed. “There are places in Doncaster when you can’t hear an English voice,” claimed Johnnie Ray, 66, a former coal miner supping ale in the Trades and Labour club, as he waited for a country and western act to begin. Asked if Miliband is saying enough to assure him, Ray spits out: “I don’t even know what he is saying.”

The potency of the issue isn’t lost on Miliband. Labour lost a million voters between 2005 and 2010. Research by Professor Geoffrey Evans and Dr Kat Chzen at Oxford University suggests that those people may have gone elsewhere not because of the economy or Gordon Brown’s unpopularity, but because of immigration. “I talked to Ed Miliband about this in his office,” said Evans. “He’s certainly aware of it. But he wants to be ‘decent’, he told me. It’s a tricky one. If you want to pick up Lib Dem votes, you don’t want to be banging on about immigration too much either. And they are so culpable for immigration that it becomes a bit implausible. It’s hard to think what Labour should do.” (Ed Miliband appears out of step on immigration, even in his constituency, The Guardian, 31st May 2014)

Labour will simply have to lie, make big promises they have no intention of keeping and hope that people are foolish enough to believe them. I’m worried that they will be believed, but I hope that Labour’s intentions are becoming too obvious. The party wants to turn British Whites into a minority in their own nation. But then so does the Conservative party. The mainstream parties in the U.K., just like the Republicans and Democrats in the U.S., have two reasons for existence: to serve the interests of big business and to replace liberal democracy with cultural Marxism.

Ed Miliband has no ties with or concern for the White working-class. His father, Ralph Miliband, was a Belgian Jew who sought asylum in the U.K. in 1940. He then became a leading Marxist academic here and re-paid his hosts by hoping that their society would be swept away. One of his former research assistants has described his reaction to a trip she made to “the Communist bloc” in the early 1960s:

As for East Germany: I had been terrified by the sight of military police parading through the streets and training their guns under the bridges so they could shoot anybody who tried to escape to the West by swimming along the river. I could not see how all this authoritarianism benefited people either mentally or physically. Some people seemed to be near starvation, and the streets of East Berlin seemed to have more horses and carts than cars.

When I got to describing my cynicism at seeing a newspaper poster saying ‘Walter Ulbricht 99 per cent certain of being elected’, I realised just how agitated Ralph had become. He sprang to Ulbricht’s defence, and appeared to be blind to the East German dictator’s failings — he even refused to condemn the building of the Berlin Wall. I realised that Ralph was an enthusiast for the very regimes I had come to hate. In my three years at LSE [London School of Economics] as an undergraduate, I had sat through many a lecture and coffee bar discussion in which Marxists looked forward to the contradictions in capitalism leading to its collapse and to the advent of the dictatorship of the proletariat. But I was appalled by how hardline Ralph Miliband was. He must have known of the hardship suffered by people in Communist countries, but for him, I suppose, the end justified the means. The Communist countries were heading towards a Marxist heaven. There might be teething problems on the way; but things were better in East Germany than in Britain.

Ralph did not hate Britain. He just wanted to make it better by transforming it into a Communist state, and that meant destroying a lot of Britain’s social institutions because they promoted and buttressed social inequality. The dictatorship of the proletariat would be preferable to Harold Wilson’s Labour government. (I was Ralph Miliband’s research assistant, and this is what he was like, The Spectator, 19th October 2013)

But the “dictatorship of the proletariat” didn’t arrive in Britain as Marx predicted it would. That’s why Ralph’s sons David and Ed didn’t openly espouse Marxism. Instead, they entered the Labour party and became part of the traitorous cabal that opened Britain’s borders to the world. They then competed for the leadership of the party. Ed won and David left politics to help do to America what he had already done to Britain:

David Miliband is the President and CEO of the International Rescue Committee. He oversees the agency’s relief and development operations in over 40 countries and its refugee resettlement and assistance programs throughout the United States. In addition, he leads the IRC’s advocacy efforts in Washington, Geneva, Brussels and other capitals on behalf of the world’s most vulnerable people. … Miliband graduated from Oxford University in 1987 with a first class degree in philosophy, politics and economics, and received his master’s degree in political science in 1989 from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which he attended as a Kennedy Scholar. (David Miliband, President and CEO, International Rescue Committee)

The Miliband brothers are part of a rootless international elite loyal only to itself and to the hybrid of predatory capitalism and cultural Marxism that now governs all Western nations. While bankers’ profits keeping on rising, the Whites who built those nations see their wages stagnate and their cities flooded by non-Whites from the Third World. And parties formed to champion the White working-class, like Labour in the U.K. and the Democrats in the U.S., are fully in favour of both the bankers and the non-Whites. It’s a sick situation, and the disease starts at the top. The British working-class need to recognize Labour for what it has now become: a plague, not a party.

In Gulliver’s Travels (1726), the land of Lilliput is gripped by a furious controversy about hard-boiled eggs. Should they be opened at the big end or the little end? The opposing sides slaughter and persecute each other over the issue. Jonathan Swift was satirizing the absurdities of religious dispute in his day and the wars it caused between different sects. There’s a special term for this phenomenon: odium theologicum, or “hatred among theologians.” Because there is no objective means of establishing truth in theology, the only definitive argument is force.

Centuries later, the modern left is full of atheists and secularists who have no time for religious nonsense like that. Instead, they conduct furious controversies about chairs and haircuts. Two giants of the British left, Richard Seymour and Laurie Penny, have recently been excoriated as racists, colonialists and white supremacists:

But… wait a minute, you might ask. What was it that Seymour and Penny did to bring down this rain of criticism on their heads? Did they invade a country? Or did they lynch someone?

No. Seymour was talking about that chair – you know the one that looks like it is a black woman, that Roman Abramovich’s girlfriend had herself photographed sitting on for the [London] Evening Standard. Seymour did not say he liked the chair. He said it was racist. But he made the terrible error of pointing out that some sex play involved racial acting out (which is a bit outré, but not actually an endorsement of racial oppression).

Penny’s crime was even greater: she wrote an article in the New Statesman about short hair being (a bit of) a feminist statement… except that she did not say anything about the hair of “Women of Colour.” Yes, that’s right: Laurie Penny’s article “does not include any mentions (even as a side note) of WoC hair issues.” (Further adventures in intersectionality, The Charnel-House, 31^st January 2014)

Intersectionality — the idea that oppressions “intersect” and make life much harder for, say, Black one-legged lesbians — is a new way of expressing an old theme. The old theme is cannibalism: the left eats its own, because the true aim of the left is not to serve humanity, but to rule over it. Leftists are greedy for power but they don’t like to share it. After the French Revolution, people who had fought for Equality, Fraternity and Liberty turned on each other in an orgy of hatred and slaughter. After the Bolshevik Revolution, the same thing happened.

Those cannibalistic tendencies are still alive and well on the modern left. If leftists are not torturing and slaughtering at the moment, that’s only because they’re not able to. Pioneering communists who helped Stalin to power eventually realized their mistake. But by then it was too late. Whites who are presently helping non-Whites to power are making the same mistake: the treatment of Seymour and Penny is clear proof of that.

And if non-White leftists express such hatred and spite towards their own comrades, what will the increasing power of non-Whites mean for Whites in general? As we can see from South Africa and Zimbabwe, non-Whites believe in racial equality and justice for precisely as long as it takes for them to get the upper hand. Once they have it, their old beliefs are discarded. Not that those beliefs are ever sincere. This is a non-White Trotskyist addressing his White comrade Richard Seymour:

How fucking dare you…turn around and put the word “racist” in quotation marks like the accusation is a trivial or silly one. … Your response has been at all times to try and define this racism out of existence. … Your response at all turns has been to argue, essentially, we’ve got a moral chip on our shoulders. YOU FUCKING CRACKER. (Further adventures in intersectionality)

Ouch! The non-White obviously believes that the truth of an opinion is guaranteed by the aggression and self-righteousness with which it is expressed. And Seymour is unable to respond in kind. He’s a White heterosexual male, replete with “unearned privilege.” If he is criticized by a non-White or a homosexual or a woman, he has only one course open to him: repentance and obedience. Otherwise he is racist, homophobic and sexist.

As observers of the chair controversy have noted, Seymour is hoist on his own petard, because he has always been an enthusiastic hammer of heretics. He used to be a member of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), but he resigned after a furious controversy about rape. A senior member of the SWP, “Comrade Delta,” was accused of raping a junior member, but was cleared by a committee made up of his own colleagues. The complainant was persuaded not to go to the police, because “bourgeois justice” is corrupt and anti-revolutionary. While Seymour was still in the party, he wrote this about the controversy:

One last thing. There is an article in The Independent about this case. It uses the phrase “socialist sharia court”. It is miles away, in tone and spirit, from Laurie Penny’s piece. I would urge people to think carefully about who wants to use the sort of language deployed in the Independent article. I think the answer is, “racists”. I would also point out that, as far as I know, the Independent did not speak to any party members. My advice is to disregard that piece. (Crisis in the SWP, Lenin’s Tomb blog, 11^th January 2013)

The Independent is a deeply pious liberal newspaper. To accuse it of harbouring “racists” is ridiculous. But now Seymour is facing ridiculous accusations of his own. Arguments on the left often seem to consist of trying to manoeuvre one’s opponent into a position where one can throw an accusation of “Racist!” or “Sexist!” or “Homophobe!”

Or ideally all three. And now transphobia has been added to the list of heresies. I’m reminded of a story by the Texan writer Robert E. Howard (1906-36), creator of Conan the Barbarian. In Red Nails (1936), Conan confronts a wizard called Tolkemec, who has a “witch-wand” that kills anyone caught in the wrong position:

Then began slaughter. Screaming insanely the people rushed about the chamber, caroming from one another, stumbling and falling. And among them Tolkemec capered and pranced, dealing death. They could not escape by the doors; for apparently the metal of the portals served like the metal-veined stone altar to complete the circuit for whatever hellish power flashed like thunderbolts from the witch-wand the ancient waved in his hand. When he caught a man or a woman between him and a door or the altar, that one died instantly. (Red Nails)

That sounds like a “debate” on the left, where the death-bolts are words and the altar is anti-racism or feminism or LGBT rights. But there have been many wizards on the left using words to win power. One of them was called Yigael Gluckstein, a Jewish immigrant to Britain who founded the SWP under the nom de guerre Tony Cliff. Like Christopher Hitchens, Richard Seymour was trained in anti-racism by Gluckstein. And like Seymour, Hitchens was accused of racism by a former ally, the verbose and self-righteous Edward Said (see here).

Odium theologicum has never gone away: thanks to mass immigration and identity politics, it simply taken on new forms and continued to poison Western society. But who are the malevolent wizards most responsible for its modern virulence? The answer was supplied on Steve Sailer’s blog back in 2007:

Multiculturalism promotes segregation, stifles free speech and threatens liberal democracy, Britain’s top Jewish official warned in extracts from his book published Saturday.

Jonathan Sacks, Britain’s [former] chief rabbi, defined multiculturalism as an attempt to affirm Britain’s diverse communities and make ethnic and religious minorities more appreciated and respected. But in his book, The Home We Build Together: Recreating Society, he said the movement had run its course. …

Sacks said Britain’s politics had been poisoned by the rise of identity politics, as minorities and aggrieved groups jockeyed first for rights, then for special treatment.

The process, he said, began with Jews, before being taken up by blacks, women and gays. He said the effect had been “inexorably divisive.”

“A culture of victimhood sets group against group, each claiming that its pain, injury, oppression, humiliation is greater than that of others,” he said.

(“Britain’s top rabbi warns against multiculturalism,” Steve Sailer, 20^th October 2007)

Now Muslims and transsexuals have joined the “aggrieved groups” jockeying for special treatment. The left is not just eating itself: it’s eating the West, helping to destroy the societies that have funded its parasitism and tolerated its posturing. There is no easy or painless way out, but one positive thing will emerge from the approaching collapse: leftism and liberalism will be discredited for good.

The Guardian has been performing a key liberal ritual: gazing adoringly into a mirror. Narcissism is central to liberalism and nothing is more gratifying to liberals than a chance to display their Conspicuous Compassion and Concern for Oppressed Minorities:

Today, on the UN’s first day of Zero Tolerance on FGM [Female Genital Mutilation], the Guardian is launching a national and international campaign to end FGM. We are not the first to try. There are ministers in government – Jane Ellison at the Department of Health and Lynne Featherstone at International Development – who have prioritised action. The efforts of others – in London, Glasgow, Manchester, Cardiff and Birmingham – are slowly bringing greater recognition of the problem. But too many young girls – perhaps 20,000, the daughters of mothers who have themselves been cut – remain at risk. After discussions with campaigners and among communities where it is practised, it became clear that an education programme delivered through every school in the country could provide the breakthrough in cultural attitudes that could make a real difference. We want everyone to be aware that FGM is illegal. We want potential victims – and parents who are perhaps under pressure from family elders – to know there are people and organisations ready to offer support. (Female genital mutilation: end it, Editorial in The Guardian, 5th February 2014)

Etc, etc, etc.

Steve Sailer has been mining comedy gold in the rich seam of 21st-century feminism:

Feminism: “Feelings / Nothing more than Feelings”

From The Nation, an article about how black feminists scream at white feminists and then other white feminists pile on those vicious racist white feminists. And how “trans” feminists can get very, very upset at the Vagina Monologues-type feminists who actually have vaginas:

… In a revolution-eats-its-own irony, some online feminists have even deemed the word “vagina” problematic. In January, the actress and activist Martha Plimpton tweeted about a benefit for Texas abortion funds called “A Night of a Thousand Vaginas,” sponsored by A Is For, a reproductive rights organization she’s involved with. Plimpton was surprised when some offended Internet feminists urged people to stay away, arguing that emphasizing “vaginas” hurts trans men who don’t want their reproductive organs coded as female. …

Reading this more closely, I realize I may have gotten this backward. The protesters may be individuals who have vaginas but are objecting to the cultural stereotypes that encodes vaginas as being – in some socially constructed sense – female. (Feminism: “Feelings / Nothing more than Feelings”, iSteve, 29^th January 2013)

The article in question, Michelle Goldberg’s Feminism’s Toxic Twitter Wars (The Nation, 29^th January 2013), is simultaneously funny, freakish, frightening and fascinating. I was particularly struck by this paragraph:

Similarly, there’s a norm that intention doesn’t matter — indeed, if you offend someone and then try to explain that you were misunderstood, this is seen as compounding the original injury. Again, there’s a significant insight here: people often behave in bigoted ways without meaning to, and their benign intention doesn’t make the prejudice less painful for those subjected to it. However, “that became a rule where you say intentions never matter; there is no added value to understanding the intentions of the speaker,” Cross says.

The “norm” is obviously an attempt to turn Women of Color into mini-Popes: infallible and invulnerable to criticism. If a Woman of Color chooses to interpret a statement by a woman of Whiteness as “offensive,” the woman of Whiteness is permitted no defence. If she attempts one, she “compounds” the offence. In other words: “Shut up and obey.” This seems a good example of something I wrote about last year:

If parasitism [exists] among human beings, it will exploit some particular aspect of our biology. Wasps can easily inject chemicals into the brains of other insects. Human beings can easily inject ideas into the brains of other human beings. They do this using something called language. So words like “hate,” “bigotry,” “racism,” “antisemitism,” “homophobia,” “Islamophobia” and so on may be the verbal equivalents of a wasp’s neurotoxins: cheap and effective ways of inducing paralysis in a nutrient-laden host. (Verbal Venom: Biological Parallels for Western Pathologies, The Occidental Observer, 15^th October 2013)

When Black feminists claim “offence” and then deny their White opponents a right to defend themselves, they are clearly using verbal venom to paralyze a “nutrient-laden host.” But where does this tactic come from? Which group began the “more victimized than thou” competition? An article posted by Steve Sailer way back in 2007 gives the answer, from no less that the former rabbi-in-chief of the UK:

Britain’s top rabbi warns against multiculturalism; Sacks: Multiculturalism threatens democracy

By ASSOCIATED PRESS

Multiculturalism promotes segregation, stifles free speech and threatens liberal democracy, Britain’s top Jewish official warned in extracts from his book published Saturday.

Jonathan Sacks, Britain’s [former] chief rabbi, defined multiculturalism as an attempt to affirm Britain’s diverse communities and make ethnic and religious minorities more appreciated and respected. But in his book, “The Home We Build Together: Recreating Society,” he said the movement had run its course.

“Multiculturalism has led not to integration but to segregation,” Sacks wrote in his book, an extract of which was published in the Times of London.

“Liberal democracy is in danger,” Sacks said, adding later: “The politics of freedom risks descending into the politics of fear.”

Sacks said Britain’s politics had been poisoned by the rise of identity politics, as minorities and aggrieved groups jockeyed first for rights, then for special treatment.

The process, he said, began with Jews, before being taken up by blacks, women and gays. He said the effect had been “inexorably divisive.”

“A culture of victimhood sets group against group, each claiming that its pain, injury, oppression, humiliation is greater than that of others,” he said.

In an interview with the [London] Times, Sacks said he wanted his book to be “politically incorrect in the highest order.”

(Britain’s top rabbi warns against multiculturalism, iSteve, 20^th October, 2007; emphasis added)

In the West, we talk about the “tip of the iceberg.” In Africa, they talk about the “ears of the hippopotamus.” It’s the same idea: that there’s something big in the water, but you see only a small part of it. Mass immigration is like that. Its harmful consequences are reported every day even in the liberal media. But the full extent of the harm is concealed. Here’s an example from the BBC:

Christina Edkins killing: Phillip Simelane detained

A man who killed 16-year-old Christina Edkins on a rush-hour bus in Birmingham has been detained indefinitely under the Mental Health Act. Phillip Simelane, from Walsall, stabbed the teenager in a random attack as she made her way to school in March [2013]. He had been released from prison, unsupervised, three months before the attack – despite warning signs over the state of his mental health. … Mrs Justice Thirlwell, sentencing Simelane, said it was “likely to be a life-long order”. The judge added: “It is made for the nature of the offence and necessary to protect the public from serious harm.” She also expressed concern that Simelane had not been receiving treatment at the time of the killing.

Christina had been travelling to LeasowesHigh School in Halesowen on the number 9 bus, two weeks after her 16th birthday, when she was attacked. Simelane, who was sitting behind her on the upper deck, stabbed her in the chest as he walked past to get off. He was arrested a few hours after the attack following an extensive manhunt. … A memorial garden dedicated to Christina is due to be opened at her former school on Thursday. Speaking on behalf of the family, the great uncle said Christina was a “bright, beautiful girl” who was looking forward to her school prom and loved sports. He added: “Her headmaster said, ‘if a school could choose its pupils it would be full of Christinas’. Now the family asks the question –  when this man was discharged from prison on 13 December 2012, why was the recommendation, made a few weeks earlier by mental health experts, that he be supervised after release whilst adjusting to life back in the community, not followed up?” (Christina Edkins killing: Phillip Simelane detained, BBC News, 2nd October 2013)

According to the BBC, Phillip Simelane is “from Walsall.” In fact, he’s from Swaziland via Walsall:

The 24-year-old was born in Swaziland, southern Africa, and arrived in the UK at the age of nine. He lived in Walsall with his siblings and mother, who had separated from his father. (See here)

Why was he here? Immigration from Africa imposes huge costs on the UK and has never had a democratic mandate. If Christina Edkins’ great uncle had pointed this out, he would have been in serious trouble. Instead, he was the model White victim, complaining only about the lack of services for the perpetrator: “Speaking [after the sentence], Christina’s great uncle Chris Melia said: “We have no sense of vengeance or revenge. We just want him out of the way and [to] remember Christina. The authorities didn’t help him, [they] just let him out of the prison door and let him go, just abandoned him. If there had been some help and authority he wouldn’t have been on the bus.”

The BBC also says that Simelane carried out a “random attack.” It’s always “random” when a non-White murders or assaults a White without an obvious motive. We’re forbidden to suggest another possibility: that many non-Whites hate Whites and enjoy harming them. If the great uncle had suggested that, he would also have been in serious trouble.

However, he’s right that the murderer would not have been on the bus if the authorities had provided expensive help funded by White tax-payers. The problem is that another Black schizophrenic might have been there instead. The murder of Christina Edkins is the tip of the iceberg: beneath it lies a stark biological reality. Blacks are not only much more violent than Whites, they are also much more prone to schizophrenia (see here). Over the decades, the White nation of Britain has spent billions of pounds treating and providing hospital places for mentally ill Blacks. Many billions more have been spent on imprisoning criminal Blacks and on trying vainly to raise Blacks from low achievement.

In other words, Britain has spent huge sums trying to do the impossible: alter the biology of Blacks. Without mass immigration, there would have been none of this useless expense and Christina Edkins would still be alive.

So would many other White victims of Black murderers. Britain’s crime statistics would look much healthier in other ways, because Blacks commit rape, assault and robbery at much higher rates than Whites. So do Pakistanis and other non-Whites (see here, here and here).

All this has been obvious for many years. Non-Whites in Britain cost huge sums of money and commit huge amounts of crime. The same thing is happening in Norway, which has watched Britain from across the North Sea — and decided it wanted some here,of its own. This means that Norway also had a brutal bus-murder this year. In fact, it’s had three of them:

Failed asylum seeker kills three on bus

The man accused of stabbing to death a woman and two men on an express bus in western Norway was an asylum seeker from South Sudan who was due to be deported from Norway on Tuesday … The 31-year-old, who was living at an asylum reception centre in Årdal,  was due to be deported to Spain on Tuesday, after having his application rejected in June.

“This person had applied for asylum, and come to Norway in April,” a spokesman for Norway’s immigration directorate said. “He was rejected in June, and was supposed to be returned to Spain under the so-called Dublin Regulation.”

The man is accused of killing the bus driver, Arve Haug Bagn (55) and Margaret Molland Sanden, a 19-year-old biotechnology student at the Oslo and Akerhus University College of Applied Sciences. The third victim,  a Swedish man in his 50s, has not been named. Police believe that the three victims were the only people on the bus when the man attacked.

… The attack marks the second time the Valdres Express has been hijacked. In 2003, it was hijacked by a mentally disturbed 26-year-old Ethiopian man who stabbed the driver to death. (Failed asylum seeker kills three on bus, The Local (Norway), 4^th November 2013)

The Norwegian authorities haven’t released the name or picture of this murderer, but he seems to be claiming mental illness too (see here), which may mean that he will be allowed to stay in Norway.

Either way, the similarity between the murders of Christina Edkins and Margaret Sanden makes me wonder if there was something sexual at work. Blacks don’t react well to rejection by attractive White women. But that’s crime-think, of course. For liberals, it’s far better to pretend that these very similar crimes were random tragedies. They weren’t: they were direct and predictable consequences of mass immigration. Non-Whites are violent in their homelands and violent in the West. If you import Third-World people, you will get Third-World pathology. This is not hard to understand, so liberals have no excuse for opening the borders.

Now let’s turn to a third story about vibrant enrichment. This one might seem more like farce than tragedy:

Taxpayers foot £350k legal bill for Muslim pubic hair battle

A top judge has criticised the “astonishing” £350,000 cost of a legal battle over a couple’s right to shave their disabled daughter’s pubic hair. The mother and father of the young woman, who cannot be named and is referred to as ED in court documents, said their daughter’s pubic hair should be removed in line with Islamic tradition. But their local council, which has cared for their daughter since 2008, questioned whether the disabled woman had the mental capacity to consent to her hair being removed. In 2011 the couple applied to the family court for their daughter, now in her thirties, to be returned home and raised the “stark” issue of her pubic hair being removed – leading to a long-running, £350,000 taxpayer-funded legal battle. But the couple have now dropped the case at the last minute, leaving a judge at London’s High Court “utterly baffled”.

Mr Justice Roderic Wood said: “I thus remain utterly baffled by the course this litigation has taken, and perplexed by this lack of clarity in their case. Obtaining a 10-day slot of a High Court Judge’s time is not easy, for there are many competing cases of equal if not greater urgency than this one.” … (Taxpayers foot £350k legal bill for Muslim pubic hair battle, The Daily Telegraph, 29^th October 2013)

If £350,000 is an “astonishing” cost, think how much the local council is spending on care for the disabled woman. It will work out at millions. That’s more expense for White tax-payers because of mass immigration. But is it fair to blame the Muslim parents for an unlucky roll of the genetic dice? Almost certainly it is. This is another iceberg story. Just as Blacks in the West suffer from schizophrenia at much higher rates than Whites, so Muslims suffer from “disability” at much higher rates. Why? It’s simple: in-breeding. Pakistanis, in particular, have a vibrant custom of marrying close relatives:

700 children born with genetic disabilities due to cousin marriages every year

The problem is worst among children born in Britain’s Pakistani community, where more than half of marriages are between first cousins, and children are 10 times more likely than the general population to suffer genetic disorders. The medical risks of first cousin marriages include higher rates of infant mortality, birth defects, learning difficulties, blindness, hearing problems and metabolic disorders.

As adults, the children born from first cousin marriages are at increased risk of miscarriage or infertility. A third of children affected die before their fifth birthday. An investigation by Channel 4’s Dispatches programme found that although more than 70 British studies have proved the risks, and 700 British Pakistani children are born with associated genetic diseases every year, many people deny the dangers. Ann Cryer, the former Labour MP for Keighley, suffered abuse for trying to highlight the problems.

“It’s a public health issue and we deal with public health issues by raising awareness, by talking about subjects such as obesity, such as drug addiction, such as alcohol,” she said. “But for some reason we’re told that we mustn’t talk about cousin marriages because this is a sensitive issue. I think it’s absurd, we have to talk about it in order to find solutions.”

Research shows the number of cousin marriages has risen dramatically in the UK over the last three decades, mainly between British Pakistanis, but also between first cousins in the British Bangladeshi community in which nearly a quarter of people marry their first cousins, and in some Middle Eastern and East African communities. (700 children born with genetic disabilities due to cousin marriages every year, The Daily Telegraph, 22^nd Aug 2010)

This is a “sensitive issue” because it might be exploited by racists who say that non-White immigration is very harmful to the West. Racists are wicked people, you see: they speak the truth. So would liberals rather die than admit their errors? No, they’d rather you and your family die. Liberals get the righteous glow of supporting Third World immigration; ordinary Whites like Christina Edkins and Margaret Sanden pay the price. But it can’t go on. The iceberg of human biology will sink the ship of liberalism. Our job is to ensure that the West doesn’t sink with it.

Here’s a short and very old word: Wasp. Here’s a long and very new word: Neuroparasitology. Despite their differences, the two words go together very well. Neuroparasitology is the study of how parasites manipulate the brains of their hosts. Parasitic wasps are experts at this manipulation. For example, some inject paralysing toxins with their stings and create living larders for their offspring. Mason wasps lay eggs on paralysed caterpillars, then seal them into brood-chambers made of mud. The caterpillars are then eaten alive by the larvae that hatch from the eggs.

Parasitic wasps induce this suicidal passivity with minute injections of neurotoxin, because tiny amounts of chemical can have huge effects on nervous systems. The way a caterpillar submits to being eaten alive is both grotesque and fascinating, but then parasitism is one of the most interesting aspects of biology. Like predators, parasites have spontaneously evolved again and again in the animal kingdom. There are parasitic mammals, birds, fish, insects and more: Think of vampire-bats, cuckoos, lampreys, mosquitoes and so on.

Each species of parasite exploits some particular aspect of its host’s biology. Wasps inject toxins that paralyse nerves; cuckoos lay camouflaged eggs that fool eyes and brains. But this raises a dangerous idea about Homo sapiens. It’s clear from biology that predation and parasitism evolve quickly and easily among animals. All birds have a common ancestor, but some birds, like eagles and shrikes, now prey on their relatives, while others, like cuckoos and skuas, now parasitize their relatives. So why can’t predation and parasitism have evolved among those animals known as human beings? Why can’t there be predatory or parasitic ideologies, professions and even races?

Catch-Twenty-’Koo
One answer might be this: there can’t be because that’s a wicked thing to suggest – it’s bigoted, hateful and racist. But that answer might, in itself, be evidence for the proposition. If parasitism does exist among human beings, it will exploit some particular aspect of our biology. Wasps can easily inject chemicals into the brains of other insects. Human beings can easily inject ideas into the brains of other human beings. They do this using something called language. So words like “hate,” “bigotry,” “racism,” “antisemitism,” “homophobia,” “Islamophobia” and so on may be the verbal equivalents of a wasp’s neurotoxins: cheap and effective ways of inducing paralysis in a nutrient-laden host. In Europe, Canada and Australia, these verbal venoms have legal backing. There are laws against hate-speech and people are imprisoned for expressing opinions. Language and law are aspects of human biology and both are ways of manipulating our behaviour. So both might, I suggest, be exploited by predators or parasites that wanted to feed on a nutrient-laden society.

Indeed, there will be a Catch-Twenty-Cuckoo at work: If a legalistic, language-based form of human parasitism exists in a particular country, it won’t be safe to say so in that country. This hypothesis suggests a new way of understanding the American First Amendment: as anti-parasite code written into the political genome of the United States. Free speech and free enquiry are part of the immune system of a society: ways of identifying and solving problems there. When free speech and free enquiry are punished or banned, the society’s immune system stops working and problems aren’t identified and solved:

Good government and a healthy society require the free exchange of ideas. That is why throttling it is the first priority of bigots and tyrants; their schemes depend on the suppression of truth. The purpose of the First Amendment, therefore, is to ensure that people of all views, no matter how disconcerting, have the right to be heard. It is through argument and explanation — by competing in the marketplace of ideas — that the truth is supposed to prevail. (Jared Taylor, The SPLC Wants To Starve My Family (Among Others), VDare, 17^th August, 2011)

The Sharks of Marx
When the truth is suppressed, horrors begin breeding. For example, after the British police were injected with accusations of “institutional racism,” they were paralysed and no longer acted against non-White criminals. So Muslim rape-gangs began operating in British cities and committing horrendous crimes against Whites:

[Mohammed] Karrar was brazen in his exploitation of Girl D and acted in the belief that the authorities would never challenge him – something that for years proved to be true. Isolated, terrified and dependant on the drugs she was being fed, she summoned up the courage to report Karrar to the police twice; once in May 2005 and again in 2007. Nothing happened. Social workers also knew and did not act. One told the court it was the “general consensus” of the staff in her care home that she was being groomed. In 2007, while Girl D was on a trip with a social worker, Karrar and his brother repeatedly called her mobile phone. When her social worker answered one of the calls, Karrar told him: “If you don’t get her I’ll fuck you up, I’ll fuck her up and I’ll fuck her mum up.” (Oxford gang skillfully groomed young victims then sold them for £600 a time, The Guardian, 14^th  May 2013)

The crimes in Oxford were brazenly obvious, but the “authorities” did nothing as a non-White Muslim raped and tortured White girls for years on end. Why? Because the physically and morally repulsive Mohammed Karrar knew that he could make accusations of “racism” and “Islamophobia” if he was challenged. However, his group didn’t create those verbal venoms: Karrar might be called a secondary parasite, exploiting the paralysis induced by primary parasites known as cultural Marxists. Marxism may be an example of a general biological phenomenon taking a unique form among human beings. Predation and parasitism are general phenomena, but language is unique to Homo sapiens. So predation and parasitism might take linguistic form among human beings. Marxism could be analysed as a linguistic and conceptual assault on society: a way of manipulating behaviour for the benefit of Marxists.

That manipulation created the communist slave-states seen in Eastern Europe and Asia, but Marxists didn’t succeed in overthrowing governments in Western Europe and the United States. Their thirst for power was still there, but it was thwarted. And so Marxism followed another biological precedent: it mutated. In the Soviet Union it was openly predatory; in the modern West, it has become covertly parasitic. It manufactures verbal venoms in order to paralyse Western societies and open them to exploitation. Here, for example, is a White celebrating the ever-growing number of non-Whites in Britain:

Over time, babies matter far more to an economy than even the cleverest of central bankers. The wealth of nations is determined by how many workers they host, and how productive their citizens are. That means that Britain’s extraordinary baby boom – births are at their highest level since 1972 – will end up proving immensely more significant to our long-term prosperity than whatever tweaks to monetary policy [the Bank of England] chooses to introduce. The extent of Britain’s resurgent birth rate is as stunning as it has been overlooked. A remarkable 729,400 babies were born in England and Wales in the year to June 2012, the most for 40 years, according to the Office for National Statistics. Combined with an elderly population that is living longer, the gap between births and deaths is rising, and this, rather than net immigration, is what is driving the majority of the UK’s population increase (though many of the babies born are to migrant parents). (Britain’s baby boom will affect our economy more than anything [the Bank of England does], The Daily Telegraph, 2^nd July 2013)

Mockery and Mohammad
Allister Heath, the liberal suicide-cultist who wrote that article, claims that “these data will warm the hearts of those of us who believe every birth to be a miracle that deserves to be celebrated.” Like Britain as a whole, he has been injected with the verbal venom of “Race Does Not Exist.” This venom means that Britain and other Western nations remain suicidally passive as their resources are eaten by outsiders. The fastest-breeding “communities” in the West are not financing their own growth, which takes place at the expense of Whites.

I am resistant to the neurotoxins of Marxism, so I do not celebrate the ever-growing numbers of Pakistanis and Somalis in my country. I do not want Britain to become more like Pakistan and Somalia. Among many other things, immigration by Muslims and Blacks is very bad for free speech:

Muslims protest “age of mockery” as thousands descend on Google HQ

Thousands of Muslims have pledged a series of protests against Google HQ for a “hateful and offensive” anti-Islam video, saying they now live in an “age of mockery”. A protest by 10,000 Muslims outside the offices of Google in London today is just the first in an orchestrated attempt to force the company to remove an anti-Islamic film from website YouTube in Britain.

Thousands had travelled from as far afield as Glasgow to take part in the demonstration … Anger over The Innocence of Muslims, an American-produced film which insults the Prophet Mohammad and demeans Muslims, according to protesters, remains available to watch on the website YouTube, a subsidiary of Google. Organiser Masoud Alam said: “Our next protest will be at the offices of Google and YouTube across the world. We are looking to ban this film. This is not freedom of expression, there is a limit for that. This insult of the Prophet will not be allowed.” …

Speeches by more than a dozen imams in a mixture of Arabic, Urdu, and English urged Muslims to honour the name of the Prophet and not to back down in the face of Google’s continuing reluctance to act, and were met with passionate cries of “God is Great” and “Mohammad is the Prophet of God” in Arabic. … (Muslims Protest “Age of Mockery” as Thousands Descend on Google, The Daily Telegraph, 14^th October, 2012)

Thousands rally in UK to demand end to anti-Islam speeches

BIRMINGHAM: Up to 25,000 British Pakistani men, women and children from across the UK gathered in Aston Park here to express their love for [the Prophet] Muhammad (peace be upon him) and to call on the British government to introduce legislation that bars Islamophobes from insulting Islam under the garb of the freedom of speech. The participants, who also travelled from several parts of European cities, were led in a peaceful and colourful mile-long march by Hazrat Peer Alauddin Siddiqui. This is the fourth consecutive gathering for the biggest Melaad-un-Nabi [Birthday of the Prophet] of British Pakistanis in Britain but this year it was dedicated to “protect the honour and legacy of Muhammad (PBUH [Peace Be Upon Him])”. Speakers included interfaith leaders from Christian, Hindu, Sikh, and Jewish religions and parliamentarians from Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrats. …

Speakers said that freedom of speech was a cherished value but abusing Islam is not freedom of speech. They said the best way forward is to engage constructively with Muslims about their religion. They said Muslims were making a great contribution towards everyday life in western countries and it is important that their contribution is recognized. (Thousands rally in UK to demand end to anti-Islam speeches, The News (Pakistan), 23^rd April, 2013)

For many advocates of mass immigration, Muslim hostility to free speech is not a bug, but an asset: the traitorous New Labour government adored open borders as much as it loathed free speech. But what about the Christians who support Muslims in their campaign to impose sharia law on Britain? Are they insane or suicidal? Well, are caterpillars insane when they allow themselves to be eaten alive by wasp-larvae? No, the caterpillars have been injected with neurotoxins and can no longer defend themselves. Similarly, Christians and other Whites have been injected with neurotoxic ideologies like anti-racism, egalitarianism and libertarianism. These ideologies distort their perception of reality and stop them seeing the horrendous consequences of mass immigration.

Invaded, Looted and Destroyed
George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949) offers many insights into the psychology of Marxism. In the novel, the Ministry of Truth oversees lies and the Ministry of Love oversees torture. This semantic chutzpah is seen everywhere among Marxists. In the modern West, for example, those who claim to fight hate are actually inspired by it. There are many organizations and ideologies throwing accusations of “hate” in the United States, but at present they can’t initiate prosecutions and get Whites jailed for their opinions. But they definitely want to:

The “Hate Crimes Prevention Bill” will be in the Senate Judiciary Committee this week. It recently passed the House, causing the Anti-Defamation League to rejoice. The ADL called the law “an essential and necessary step forward in the national effort to counter hate crimes” and urged passage by the Senate. It also congratulated itself on taking a leadership role in promoting this legislation for the last 10 years. Other Jewish organizations have also been at the forefront of promoting “hate crime” legislation in the US and throughout the West.

Needless to say, here are very sound reasons to oppose this legislation. “Hate Crime” laws are superfluous, since crimes such as murder or assault are crimes whatever the motivation. Moreover, as Paul Craig Roberts recently pointed out there is a pronounced tendency for American legislation to metastasize into regulations far different and much more sweeping than the enactors envisaged (or admitted). This alone is reason enough to oppose any legislative advance into the areas of motivation or opinion. It is inevitable that “Hate Crimes” will quickly come to include political speech, specifically on immigration. (Kevin MacDonald, The Hate Crimes Prevention Bill: Why Do Jewish Organizations Support It?, VDare, 11^th May, 2009)

MacDonald is describing an attempt to create more verbal venom for injection into the brains of American Whites. This venom is paralysing Whites as their society is invaded, looted and destroyed.

My hypothesis, therefore, is that cultural Marxism is a language-based form of parasitism. But how might you go about proving this hypothesis? In the same way as you might prove that an animal has parasites. You don’t have to detect the parasites directly — you can deduce their presence from their effects on an animal’s metabolism:

Simple Math May Solve Longstanding Problem of Parasite Energetics
… “When we get sick – particularly with infectious agents – we often talk about having our ‘energy drained,’ or of ‘having low energy,’” said [Ryan] Hechinger, an associate research biologist at UCSB’s [University of California at Santa Barbara] Marine Science Institute and Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology. “This common language highlights that energy may provide a useful currency to investigate how infectious agents, or parasites, impact their hosts.”

[I]t may be possible to predict how much energy parasites drain from their hosts, according to Hechinger, simply by modifying equations from the metabolic theory of ecology – a theory that describes the relationships between metabolic rates, body temperatures, and sizes of organisms. … Energy as a currency is important, and, according to Hechinger, a more universal currency to describe parasitism than is the typical use of numbers. Using energy and the new equations might uncover universal rules about the nature of parasitism. “It may help us to not only measure, but also predict the influence of parasites in hosts and even entire ecosystems,” Hechinger said. “This is especially important because ecology is increasingly documenting that parasites are major players in ecosystems – just as important as predators and competitors.” (Simple Math May Solve Longstanding Problem of Parasite Energetics, ScienceDaily, 2^nd July, 2013 – see here for full paper)

Note those phrases: “energy as a currency” and “universal rules about the nature of parasitism.” Parasitism certainly exists among animals and plants and can be studied, Hechinger suggests, through its effects on ecosystems. If parasitism exists among human beings, it may affect economies in a similar way. In a human society, money would be an equivalent of energy in an ecosystem. So is the banking crisis an example of parasitism? Are the huge sums of money poured into collapsing American cities like Detroit another example? Do the suicidal immigration policies of White nations result from parasitic manipulation? Are accusations of hate and racism the verbal equivalents of neurotoxins used by parasites?

Those are serious scientific questions. The answers may prove extremely uncomfortable for some. They may also prove vital for the West’s survival.

]]>