HOW THE GOVERNMENT HAS DECLARED WAR ON WHITE ENGLISH PEOPLE

England is in the middle of a profoundly disturbing social experiment. For the first time in a mature democracy, a Government is waging a campaign of aggressive discrimination against its indigenous population.   

In the name of cultural diversity, Labour attacks anything that smacks of Englishness. The mainstream public are treated with contempt, their rights ignored, their history trashed. In their own land, the English are being turned into second-class citizens.

This trend was highlighted this week by the case of Abigail Howarth, a bright teenager who applied for a training position with the Environment Agency in East Anglia but was turned down because she was too white and English. The post, which carries a £13,000 grant, was open only to ethnic minorities, including the Scots, Welsh and Irish.

Such social engineering was justified by the Agency on the grounds that minorities were under-represented in its workforce, the parrot cry used by bureaucrats throughout the public sector to justify bias against the English. 

Though Abigail’s case rightly caused outrage, it was not unique. This kind of reverse discrimination is now rife across the state machine, underwritten by the very English tax­payers who are the targets of institutional prejudice.

Although it is technically illegal to restrict jobs to certain ethnic groups, the racially fixated commissars have found a way round that problem by developing training schemes open only to minorities. Under the 1976 Race Relations Act it is permissible to use racial considerations in recruitment to trainee positions such as the one to which Abigail applied. 

Such practices are dressed up as “positive action” to widen diversity and, in the words of one Labour council, “to overcome past discrimination”. So HM Revenue and Customs offers work experience jobs, worth up to £15,900 a year pro-rata, to ethnic minority graduates, while the Museums Association has two-year ethnic minority apprenticeships.

Similarly, Birmingham City Council gives £16,000 a year to “black and minority ethnic individuals” in its “Positive Action Traineeship Scheme”, and a £10,000 allowance to clerical trainees from “the Bangladeshi and Pakistani communities”.

Discriminatory training schemes can also be found in ITV, the civil service and the NHS, which boasts “a management development programme specifically designed and tail­ored to the needs of black and minority ethnic midwives”. 

It was revealed last year that Avon and Somerset Constab-ulary rejected 186 applications from white men on the grounds that they were already “over-represented” in the force. In the same way, London Mayor Ken Livingstone last month refused to endorse a series of nominations for the London Fire Authority because they were dominated by whites.

And whole towns are beginning to suffer state disapproval. Eighty administrative jobs in the Prison Service have recently been transferred from Corby in Northamptonshire to Leicester because, as the Home Office admitted, Corby’s population is predominantly “white British”, a terrible sin in our multicultural society.

It is a bitter irony that the Labour Government, which works itself into such a synthetic rage over racial prejudice, should practise overt discrimination on an epic scale. The remorseless focus on supporting minorities has led to a perverted ideology of anti-white racism. 

Almost every interaction with any public service now leads to a detailed analysis of one’s ethnic status. A vast race equality industry has been built up, filled with overpaid paper shufflers, consultants and advisers with little to do except invent new grievances.  

There is an air of the Maoist permanent revolution about their activities. Since immigration now runs at probably one million people a year, the make-up of society is changing dramatically. So, in this climate of endless demographic upheaval, the race relations brigade will always be able to invent more work for itself.

Yet anti-English discrimination undermines the central plank of the propaganda for mass immigration. We are constantly told we need vast influxes of foreigners to boost our economy and fill vacancies but unem­ployment levels in immigrant communities are so high and skills so lacking that we need to reserve parts of our economy for them. So if we have to spend a fortune on training schemes, why are we inviting hundreds of thousands of arrivals from the Third World and Eastern Europe here every year?

Economics have little to do with the issue. The Left in Britain have seized on mass immigration and multiculturalism as a battering ram to destroy the society they despise. They once sought to change our country through economic revolution. That failed with the Winter of Discontent and the downfall of communism. But demographic change through migration has proved far more damaging.

George Orwell once wrote: “England is perhaps the only great country whose intellec­tuals are ashamed of their own nationality. In Left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution.”

That is now precisely the mentality that predominates within the machinery of the British state. And our country is dying as a result.

LINK

Nearly half US murder victims are black: report

African-Americans are victims of nearly half the murders committed in the United States despite making up only 13 percent of the population, a report published Thursday showed.

Around 8,000 of nearly 16,500 murder victims in 2005, or 49 percent, were black Americans, according to the report released by the statistics bureau of the Department of Justice.

Broken down by gender, 6,800 black men were murdered in 2005, making up more than half the nearly 13,000 male murder victims.

Black women made up 35 percent, or 1,200, of the nearly 3,500 female homicide victims.

Young black men aged between 17 and 29 bore a disproportionately high burden in the grim statistics, making up 51 percent of African-American murder victims.

The percentage of white male murder victims in the same age group was 37 percent.

More than half the murders of blacks took place in densely populated urban areas.

Firearms were involved 77 percent of the time in homicides involving black people and around 60 percent of the time in murders of whites.

Most murder victims -- 93 percent of blacks and 85 percent of whites -- were killed by someone of their own race.

Gang violence was involved in around five percent of homicides with black victims against seven percent for white victims.

In percentage terms, whites were twice as likely to be killed by a current or former partner than blacks -- 12 percent of whites were murdered by a life partner against six percent of blacks.

Blacks were also at greater risk of rape or sexual assault than any other ethnic group except American Indians, the report showed.

LINK

"In a study covering five different periods of history, from 300 AD to the present day, and geographically spread across much of Europe, scientists ha

"In a study covering five different periods of history, from 300 AD to the present day, and geographically spread across much of Europe, scientists have extracted the mitochondrial DNA from a sizable number of individuals in an effort to examine changes in diversity. The results, published in the Royal Society journal is intriguing to say the least. 1700 years ago, three out of every four individuals belonged to a different haplotype. In modern Europe, the number is only one in three. The researchers blame a combination of plague, selection of dominant lineages and culturally-inflicted distortions. The researchers say more work needs to be done, but are unclear if this involves archaeology or experiments involving skewing the data in the local female population."

LINK

English Less Diverse Than 1,000 Years Ago, DNA Study Finds

English people are less genetically diverse today than they were in the days of the Vikings, possibly due to two deadly plagues that swept their country centuries ago, a new study says. The study compared DNA from ancient and modern Englanders and found that the country has a smaller gene pool than it did a thousand years ago.

The findings come in contrast to modern England's reputation as a cultural melting pot, where in many major cities you are as likely to hear Urdu (from India) or Yoruba (from Nigeria) being spoken on the streets as English.

"The findings were unexpected. Modern England is the result of centuries of mixing cultures, and so higher diversity was expected," said Rus Hoelzel, a geneticist from the Britain's University of Durham, who led the study.

Hoelzel and his colleagues obtained DNA samples from the skeletal remains of 48 ancient Britons who lived between A.D. 300 and 1000.

The researchers studied the mitochondrial part of the DNA, which is passed down from mothers to their children (see an overview of human genetics).

By comparing this DNA with that of thousands of people from various ethnic backgrounds living in England today, they found that genetic diversity was greater in the ancient population.

The team also compared the ancient DNA with samples from people living in continental Europe and the Middle East, and found a similar lack of genetic variety.

"Few of the modern populations were as diverse as our ancient sample," Hoelzel said, adding that his team analyzed 6,320 modern samples in all.

The findings are published in the journal Biology Letters.

Plague Wipe-Out

One possible explanation for this narrowing of diversity might be two major outbreaks of bubonic plague that swept England and much of Europe—the Black Death (1347-1351) and The Great Plague (1665-1666)—Hoelzel said.

DNA Damage?

Not everyone is convinced by the new findings.

Mark Thomas, a geneticist at University College London, thinks the reduction in diversity can be explained in a more mundane way.

"Ancient DNA tends to elevate diversity, because the way DNA is damaged over time tends to mimic the mutations that lead to diversity," he said.

The way that DNA degrades after a person's death can make ancient DNA appear to have more variation than modern DNA, he explained.

Willerslev, the expert in ancient DNA agreed, saying, "DNA damage, an artifact of the data, is the other obvious explanation for this decrease in diversity."

Hoelzel countered that DNA damage couldn't explain the changes his team observed.

"We undertook multiple controls to ensure that DNA contamination and post-mortem change could not explain the change in diversity," he said.

Meanwhile, Thomas said he also doubts that the Black Death and the Great Plague would have caused enough reduction in population to explain the drop in diversity.

"The population reduction would have had to be extreme in absolute, rather than relative, numbers to cause the loss of diversity claimed," Thomas said.

Hoelzel responded that the loss was not simply the result of the sheer numbers killed by the plagues, but rather was a function of the particular genetic lines that disappeared during the epidemics.

"A typical population bottleneck [an extreme reduction in numbers] couldn't explain the loss—too many [people] are known to have survived," he said.

"It would need instead to be related to the differential survival of families, or natural selection, but either mechanism could explain the loss observed."

LINK

Penn And Teller Get Hippies To Sign Water Banning Petition

Once were warriors: gene linked to Maori violence

MAORIS carry a "warrior" gene that makes them more prone to violence, criminal acts and risky behaviour, a scientist has controversially claimed.

Dr Rod Lea, a New Zealand researcher, and his colleagues told an Australian genetics conference that Maori men had a "striking over-representation" of monoamine oxidase - dubbed the warrior gene - which they say is strongly associated with aggressive behaviour.

He says the unpublished studies prove that Maoris have the highest prevalence of this strength gene, first discovered by US researchers but never linked to an ethnic group.

This explains how Maoris migrated across the Pacific and survived, said Dr Lea, a genetic epidemiologist at the New Zealand Institute of Environmental Science and Research.

But he said the presence of the gene also "goes a long way to explaining some of the problems Maoris have".

"Obviously, this means they are going to be more aggressive and violent and more likely to get involved in risk-taking behaviour like gambling," Dr Lea said before his presentation to the International Congress of Human Genetics in Brisbane.

Dr Lea said he believed other, non-genetic factors might also be at play. "There are lots of lifestyle, upbringing-related exposures that could be relevant here, so obviously the gene won't automatically make you a criminal."

The same gene was linked to high rates of alcoholism and smoking. "In terms of alcohol-metabolising genes we've found that Maori have a very unique genetic signature," Dr Lea said.

"That influences their drinking behaviour, so they're much more likely to binge drink than other groups …"

The researchers are now collecting thousands of DNA samples from Maoris to investigate these traits.

They can then work out precisely what role each gene plays and use this to explore these trends in the mainstream populations.

"With Maori it's easier to find the genes than it is in the broader Caucasian population so it's a great case study," Dr Lea said.

LINK

Facial expressions run in the family

Do you look like your father when you're angry? Probably more than you'd imagined. Facial expressions may be inherited, Israeli researchers say.

According to scientists, every person has a set of facial expressions that is unique to them, a signature of their identity that remains stable over time. Stable patterns of facial expressions arise before a baby is six months old, but until now, scientists were unsure whether these patterns were learned or innate.

"We were interested to examine whether there is a unique family facial expression signature," said lead author Gili Peleg from the University of Hafa in Israel. "We [correctly] assumed that we would find similarities between the facial expressions of relatives."

The study, which is published today in the U.S. journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, involved 21 participants who had been blind from birth, each with either one or two relatives who had normal vision. According to the researchers, blind individuals have no way of learning the facial expressions of their relatives by mimicry. The common perception that blind people touch other's faces to sense their expressions was revealed to be, in fact, very impolite behaviour.

The scientists induced six emotional states in each individual - sadness, anger, joy, think-concentrate, disgust and surprise - and then documented all the facial movements the person made while experiencing a particular emotion.

Forty-three different facial movements were recorded, including movements such as: biting the lower lip on the left-hand side; moving the lips while pressed together, as though chewing; rolling the upper lip inside the mouth; sticking out the tongue slightly while touching both lips; and pulling down the corners of the mouth while pushing the chin forward.

A computer program was used to allocate the blind individual to a family according to the types of movements observed and their frequencies. The blind individual was allocated to the correct family 80 per cent of the time when using information from all six emotional states.

"These findings indicate the existence of a hereditary basis for facial expressions," Peleg explained.

When each emotional state was analysed separately, the computer correctly allocated the blind individual to his or her family most often for the negative emotion anger, at 75 per cent.

"Negative emotions increase the frequency and diversity of facial movements. The chance to find similar movements raises in a situation in which more facial movements are displayed," according to Peleg.

To induce a state of anger, the researchers asked each person to relate a past experience which caused them to feel angry. The individuals were encouraged to use as much detail as possible in order to relive the experience. This was also how sadness and joy were induced.

Think-concentrate is an "intellectual emotion" first described by Charles Darwin in 1872. This emotional state was evoked by asking individuals to solve a few puzzles of increasing difficulty. While they were concentrating on a puzzle, surprise was induced by suddenly asking the individual a question in gibberish. To induce disgust, they were told a story that included "disgusting" details.

This study paves the way for discovery of the genes that influence facial expressions. According to the researchers, "Genes may control muscles' and bones' structure, innervation and even perception." Further research will explore the evolutionary significance of these heritable facial expressions.

LINK