Saturday, 20 November 2010

Alfred the Great - Role model for a New Generation

By Mister Fox

The concern that children educated in state schools are taught an anti-British propaganda that makes them ashamed of themselves and their history is something that needs countering. This potted history of Alfred the Great (1)is a small attempt to correct this great evil and it also draws some parallels with our contemporary plight. A significant difference is that we have been conquered by our own elected representatives and pacified to submit to the encouraged invasion by Race Laws and the ideological use of terms like “Racism” which is stopping us defending our women, children and territory from colonisation. (2)

Alfred was born into chaotic and dangerous times as we are today. Invaders from Denmark and Norway called Vikings, had sailed from their homelands in longships and were plundering England. Although these invaders were racially similar they had developed separately and were not Christians but Odinists. Like today the invaders coveted our territory and they also won repeated battles against the indigenous people. The three kingdoms of Mercia, Northumbria and Wessex were under sustained attack from Viking raids. The Viking incursions culminated with a "Great Army" landing in East Anglia in 865 AD. This army made widespread territorial gains, and by 875 the kingdoms of Mercia and Northumbria had succumbed with only Wessex remaining Anglo Saxon. Wessex was attacked in 878 and Alfred fled to the Somerset marshes were he regrouped to counter attack.

The Viking invasion of England began by raids in 793. They attacked London in 842 and colonised East Anglia in 865 followed by the colonisation of Northumberland in 870 and Mercia in 874.

When Alfred was born in 849 fifty years into the colonisation. England comprised the four kingdoms of East Anglia, Mercia, Northumberland and Wessex.

In Alfred's 21st year his brother King Aethelred led the Saxon army to Ashdown to engage the invaders in battle. However, when the Vikings sallied at them Aethelred was too busy praying to fight so Alfred took command. He led the charge. This surprised the Vikings and Alfred won. This was unusual as he Vikings won all the other many battles of the time. Then, fortuitously, Aethelred fell ill and died and Alfred became King in 871.

Alfred led his men at the Battle of Wilton but they lost. They had to make peace and buy the Vikings off with gold. They won a promise from the Vikings of no more raids. In 877, his 28th year, Alfred went to his fort at Chippenham to celebrate Christmas. Then, twelve days later, a large Viking army arrived to take them while they were feasting and not prepared for battle. The Vikings slaughtered many, burnt their homes and captured the fort. However, Alfred had fled with some of his men. They were indigent and had to wander begging food and billeting from his people. After much suffering they arrived at Athelney an island in the Somerset marshes. There was a building there that they used as a redoubt or stronghold. They hid there from the Vikings to recoup their strength and make plans.

A legend grew up at this time. It is said that he sheltered for a while with a farmer and his wife. She apparently went out to milk the cows leaving him to watch some oat cakes she was baking. Alfred being engrossed in planning his tactics to overcome the invaders, let them burn.

That spring Alfred contacted the English Earls telling them of his whereabouts. Then came the turning point – the Earl of Devon beat a Viking army in battle. Alfred knew the time had come to emerge from hiding and rally his forces. They mustered at Egbert's Stone. Alfred's Saxons cheered when they saw him as they thought he was dead and hope replaced despair in their hearts.

The Viking army, led by Guthrum, was camped at Edington. Alfred and his Earls decided their tactics, prayed all night to God and the next morning marched on Edington. The Saxon army stood close together forming the famous “Shieldwall”. The battle was fought all day with arrows falling like hail and at last the Vikings turned and fled the battlefield. Alfred pursued the foe to the fort at Chippenham and camped around to besiege them. The Vikings surrendered after two weeks. Alfred made peace and gave them North and East England. This became known as the Danelaw because Danish law held sway there, with Wessex and the South belonging to the Saxons. This was not satisfactory as the Vikings were still hostile and now with a claim on the land and battles continued until 937!

Finally, they took the English throne. In the summer of 1015, Cnut's fleet set sail for England with a Danish army of c 10,000 in 200 longships. Cnut was the head of Vikings from all over Scandanavia. The invasion force was to be in close and brutal combat with the English for fourteen months until the invaders took the country and Cnut was crowned.(3)

Alfred did not make many mistakes, though. He turned the towns into fortified communities with large, strong walls around them. He built a fine navy that later became the base of English power. This defeated the Vikings at sea in 875. People had previously thought the Vikings were invincible at sea. In 892 Alfred again beat the Vikings at sea. Then after four years of war Alfred drives the Danes out. Like most “Clashes of Culture” the conflict is permanent and when a nation has weak leaders thy surrender to the stronger power as Ethelred the Unready (4)and like the traitors in power today. A feature is trying to bribe those the weak rulers fear.

In 991, when Æthelred the Unready was about 24 years old after the Battle of Maldon, the English began paying money to the Vikings to leave them alone - a gafol of 10,000 pounds was paid for their peace. Yet the Danish fleet continued to ravage the English coast from 991 to 993. In 994, the Danish fleet sailed up the Thames towards London. The battle was not conclusive so Æthelred met with Olaf Tryggvason their leader, and signed a treaty with agreeing with the settled Danish companies and the English government to regulate settlement disputes and trade. The treaty stipulated that the pillaging and slaughter of the previous year would be forgotten, and stated that 22,000 pounds of gold and silver had been paid to the raiders as the price of peace. The parallel with decadent, spineless,contemporary elites like the Archbishop of Canterbury and Lord Phillips trying to introduce Sharia Law is striking. (5)

Alfred removed to London in 886 and built many new buildings setting it on course to become the Capitol city. Like today, the country faced colonisation and had to be brought out of chaos and decline. He made new laws and very importantly translated books out of the Latin into the vernacular English. This enabled more people to learn and also helped bind the communities with a common identity. Alfred encouraged writing, reading music and art among his people which originating in a national religious outlook give rise to civilisation. He died in 899 at fifty years of age. Alfred was the youngest son of the King of Wessex who took him to Rome where he met the Pope when he was four. He must have been impressed by the famous grandeur of Rome and seen the comparative barrenness of his homeland of the time.

His mother encouraged her children to learn and offered a beautiful book to her child who first learned to read. Wily Alfred could not yet read so he asked his teacher to read it to him till he had it by heart and won it as a prize from his mother!

I am very grateful to Peter Mullins for suggesting the idea for this educational piece to me.







alanorei said...

Excellent article, Mr Fox, thank you, and of course Sarah.

This too is good:

On Edington Hill May 878 A.D.

That Eastertide – historians write -
He saved the future by the sword
Which emblemed in barbaric night
The cross of Jesus Christ his Lord,
That was the crucial point, men say:
For Alfred’s wisdom was his crown,
Who, in the old skull-shattering way,
Christened the powers of darkness down.

- Siegfried Sassoon, Collected Poems 1908-1956

Dr Gail Riplinger in her book In Awe Of Thy Word, Psalm 119:161, p 697, notes that the martyrologist John Foxe in Volume 2 of his Acts and Monuments wrote of Alfred:

"Of this Alfred, Bede in his history testifieth that he was exactly and perfectly seen in the holy Scriptures...Wheresoever he was, or whithersoever he went, he bare always about him in his bosom or pocket a little book containing the Psalms of David...whereupon he was constantly reading or praying...

"[Alfred] thanked God always, what trouble soever fell to him, or to his realm, sustaining it with great patience and humility...

"If he were not let
[prevented] by wars or other great business, that eight hours he spent in study and learning, other eight hours in prayer and almsdeeds, and other eight hours he spent in his natural rest, sustenance of his body, and the needs of the realm...

"But the young king, seeing in himself the inclination of his fleshly nature, and minding not to give himself so much as he might take, but rather by resistance to avoid temptation thereof, besought God that he would send him some continual sickness to quench that vice, whereby he might be more profitable to the public business of the commonwealth, and more apt to serve God in his calling."

Alfred is of course the only English monarch who is called the Great. From the above it's possible to see why.

Disappointingly, although our two lads went to very good schools, it seems that they never learned about Alfred in either of them.

They never learned about Foxe's Book of Martyrs either. You don't have to get very far into it before you will see why - and who really controls education in the UK now (clue: it isn't the Muslims).

misterfox said...

When I did my MA one of my housemates was a Zambian. He loved Elizabethan and post Elizabethan literature especially Foxe's Book of Martyrs which is outstanding if somewhat fanciful.
The great British hero of the 20th century was Cyril Osborne. He told the House of Commons in an immigration debate of 1965" Our children and our grandchildren will curse us for our moral cowardice." I am afraid we are that generation and have to deal with this situation we have inherited. Education our young to ofset the corruption taught by state schools is one part of that. We must all pull together and now the BNP has imploded do what we can to build he movement up again.

Dr.D said...

A feature is trying to bribe those the weak rulers fear.

What does this mean?

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

This is an extremely impressive article by Mister Fox.

I do not necessarily share his standpoint in relation to the BNP, but I stand in admiration of his analysis and research.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, a bit sloppy. I meant the equivalent to Danegeld now. The rulers give much more money to immigrant areas than White ones I believe to buy their peace.

misterfox said...

I know you disagree with my views on the BNP which concerns me. Do, you think it will endure for a few more months? It is likely to be wound up as insolvent over the next couple of months because of Griffin's wasting money on unnecessary court cases, £2,000 a week to Dowson and other suspect dealings.
To be honest S. I am often worried at how blase you seem when I email you trying to stress how important it will be for those of us who write to try to keep things together and the need to be in touch with the other bloggers. I am genuinely worried that you(and others like GA) don't understand the situation or are very complacent during an implosion.

alanorei said...

Foxe remains controversial, it seems. Given the nature of his opponents, that isn't surprising.

Jesse Helms said...

There is a typographic error in the last sentence of the first paragraph. I think it should say: "..stop(ping?) us from defending our ...etc." Great article otherwise! Cheers!

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

Hi Jesse

Thanks for spotting that, I have corrected it.

misterfox said...

Thank you, Jesse. Sarah's blog is very good in that few things get lost in translation whereas other blogs I have contributed to used to lose not only letters but broke links.
I like to post several links because it provides evidence for my anti-orthodox assertions and gives means for others to pursue their own research which is important.

alanorei said...

William Bradford was another good English role model.

On the first Thanksgiving, he said this:

"Inasmuch as the great Father has given us this year an abundant harvest of Indian corn, wheat, beans, squashes, and garden vegetables, and has made the forests to abound with game and the sea with fish and clams, and inasmuch as He has protected us from the ravages of the savages, has spared us from pestilence and disease, has granted us freedom to worship God according to the dictates of our own conscience; now, I, your magistrate, do proclaim that all ye Pilgrims, with your wives and little ones, do gather at ye meeting house, on ye hill, between the hours of 9 and 12 in the day time, on Thursday, November ye 29th of the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred and twenty-three, and the third year since ye Pilgrims landed on ye Pilgrim Rock, there to listen to ye pastor, and render thanksgiving to ye Almighty God for all His blessings."

James Mathurin said...

This is an interesting piece, although the premise, that it offers an alternative to an anti-English slant in current schooling, surprises me.

UK children are taught about Alfred the Great in year 3 (age 7-8), during their history unit on the Vikings. There are interactive features to help with lessons and for children to work on at home, in easy to find places (the BBC website being the simplest to find).

In fact, I've taught these lessons, along with identifying features of the English language we still have from the vikings. The children then go on to learn about the Tudors, the Victorians and Britain's role in the industrial revolution, Britain in WWII, and Britain in the 50s and 60s, and this is all before they get out of Primary and into Secondary school.

I have to admit, as someone who currently works in British education, that I really have not seen any evidence of the 'anti-British propaganda' this article is predicated upon.

alanorei said...

That's encouraging, James, thanks.

I'll ask our lads again when we/they phone. At 25 and 22, they may have had trouble remembering back to Year 3.

I recall helping our younger lad with an assignment of the Great Fire of London, 1666 but can't recall anything on the great deliverance that Alfred wrought against the Danish invaders.

As I remember the equivalent of such lessons (in Australia, mid 1950s), the Danes were portrayed as the enemy. I hope that still is the case.

Anonymous said...

The Viking invasions weren't all bad, were they? We gave the Celts a little positive genetic variety, didn't we?

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

@ Anon 17:45
Vikings and Celts are genetically and ethnically identical, so that is hardly the multicultural mixing or "Genetic variety" you are seeking to imply.

The people of Kenya are made up of some 40 different tribes, the Native Americans even more however, nobody would seek to call them "mongrels" or deny them their rights as native indigenous peoples.

Please come back when you have leaned to think

misterfox said...

Most young people I talk to seem to have had a comprehensive education in history but there is a movement to restrict history to Henry VIII, to promote feminism, the second World War obviously, to indoctrinate anti-racism and the Roman Empire to teach anti imperialism.
Even in public school education Isuspect this PC slant is put on every subject. Schools, after all, promote the dominant orthodoxy which is PC or what is also called Cultural Marxism. I would like to her form school pupils as this is an important battle ground.

alanorei said...

Originally posted, I believe, on your blog on May 17th this year, Sarah. I think it is relevant:
Thank you for your article, Sarah, about which I inserted a comment on the Green Arrow site.

As for the threat to the white Caucasian race by miscegenation, I submit for consideration the following from Vatican Assassins by American Baptist researcher Eric Jon Phelps, p 581 of his 1836 page work, available as a CD.

Comments in braces are EJP's updated remarks on Robert L. Dabney's grim forecasts.

"After the (civil) war, while under martial law, the Jesuits continued their attempt to destroy the Protestant White race of the South. The unparalleled and farsighted Robert L. Dabney, one of the South’s greatest Presbyterian ministers and youngest member of General Jackson’s staff, writes:

""...once abolition by federal aggression came, these other sure results would follow...full negro equality: that negro equality thus theoretically established would be practical negro superiority [as demonstrated in America’s Africanized culture of today];...that this miserable career must result in one of two things, either a war of races, in which the whites or the blacks would be, one or the other exterminated; or amalgamation...And this apparently is the destiny which our [Jesuit] conquerors have in view [which is in complete agreement with the Order’s Masonic Jewish Zionist Israel Cohen’s* A Racial Program for the 20th Century (1912) advocating a continual Negro agitation against all Whites in general, Negro prominence in sports and entertainment, and ultimately the sin of interracial marriage]. If indeed they can mix the blood of the heroes of Manassas with this vile stream from the fens of Africa, then they will never again have occasion to tremble before the righteous resistance of [White Protestant and Baptist-Calvinist] Virginian freemen; but will have a race supple and vile enough to fill that position of political subjection, which they desire to fix on the South [and the nation]."" EJP's emphasis added.

*An SJ puppet [AJO'R 23/11/10]

Like it or not*, Robert L. Dabney's analysis via EJP is probably one of the most comprehensive overviews of the whole issue.

*The 'not' brigade would include the BBC and the rest of the MSM, the C of E, both houses of parliament, the EU, NWO, UN, both houses of congress and probably the majority of academics on both sides of the Atlantic.

But sometimes the minority does have the truth.

James Mathurin said...

@ alanorei
How the vikings are portrayed may vary depending on the teacher. Certainly the plain and simple brutality and the unprovoked nature of their attacks is covered as a historical fact, but most teachers would also cover the fact that there were also later peaceful Viking settlers who became part of Britain, leaving their mark in our language and geography.

I do think Anonymous has a slight point, as Vikings come from a similar ethnic background, but the Britons of the period had already been interbreeding with Europeans, Moors and probably a good few Arabs, so the Vikings, on their separate branch of development would have had a bit of spice to add to the genetic mix.

Also, the Kenya comparison you made is a bit strange, particularly as no person in their right mind would call anyone else a 'mongrel' (or indeed a "Frankenstein", as I was referred to on here before), although the colonial powers did deny them their rights as indigenous peoples by drawing up borders all through Africa that deliberately separated tribes by arbitrary borders, and made them co-habit with antagonistic tribes, so that they would be more likely to fight each other than their colonial masters.

James Mathurin said...

@ Alanorei
I have to admit, I do not really see why that quote is relevant. Apart from the claims of 'negro superiority in America', which I see no evidence for, and the suggestion that a race devoid of 'White Protestant and Baptist-Calvinist Viriginians' would automatically be easy to control, I simply don't see the link between this sermon and Alfred the Great or UK education.

What am I missing?

misterfox said...

A fifteen-year old correspondent had this to say about James' version of state education _

"From my experience he's lying, unless they've drastically changed the syllabus since my time in primary school. In Year 3 we learnt about the Great Fire of London and Henry the 8th with his array of wives. Besides, it was nothing serious as you're only 8 years olds in Year 3. Throughout my time in secondary school I've heard many the history teacher denounce the BNP and British patriotism whilst proclaiming that "communism works in small communities".
Of course it's not on the syllabus, but the teachers are left unburdened to make their wild remarks which go unchallenged - that's where most of the anti-British sentiment comes from. Apart from that, none of the GCSE exams in the course I'm taking are anything to do with Britain, we look at America mostly, with a slight twinge of the Russian Revolution and Hitler's rise to power, which, as you can imagine, portrays Trotsky and Lenin as saviours come to liberature their country from the boundless tyranny of Tsar Nicholas II (it's all Stalin apparently, without him we'd be living in a one-world stateless utopia by now!), whilst illustrating Hitler as some sort of Nationalist lunatic blaming the immigrants for all of Germany's woes, foaming from the mouth as he personally beheads and thereafters eats Jewish children for fun. At the end of the syllabus on Nazi Germany they may as well scribble on the board in big, bold letters:"

misterfox said...

James, you really need to cite some sources for your English interbreeding with Arabs and Moors claim. That seems like multi-racialist propaganda to me, you know, there are no races, we are all immigrants, stuff. But I thank you for the courteous way you put over your differing views.

alanorei said...


The purpose of the quote was simply to reinforce Sarah's note of Nov. 23rd, which see.

And as a general point against the 'we-are-a-nation-of-immigrants' propaganda consisently pushed by the MSM in this country and the persistent mantra of the Left.

I would agree that 'Negro superiority' in the US is non-existent in reality. However, that doesn't prevent the myth from being pushed 24/7 by the MSM in the US.

James Mathurin said...

@ Mister Fox
First of all, I'm not lying. I would not be surprised if the person you spoke to had not gone through the subjects I am talking about in Year 3, as they are on a rotating curriculum, which will be covered by some children in Year 3 and some in Year 4. It is part of the curriculum, however, so unless he moved schools and fell in between those sylabi, he should have covered it.

As for it being 'nothing serious', I can only assume that is down to the attitude of your respondent or their teacher. Naturally, the content must be pitched at a level approriate to 8 year-olds, but should still allow for critical examination of evidence, discussion and using historical facts to place it in the larger context of British history.

While I have no problem with a teacher denouncing the BNP, particularly in the context of history where their links with fascists of history should be apparent, I think the comment about communism working in small countries, if explained with such a lack of nuance, to be a ham-fisted and unproductive teaching technique, and if those comments are challenged, the teacher should adress them rather than simply shut the discussion down.

Although, as I said, I can only really address Primary curriculums in detail, I do recognise the emphasis on a history of the whole world in the 20th Century from my time in Secondary school, but I think an unnecessary view of this larger context being automatically anti-British.

As for the portrayal of Hitler he describes, I would interested to know what he feels is inaccurate about it (I am assuming he didn't seriously have any lessons where Hitler is described beheading and eating children - that would be seriously poor teaching, and unnecessary considering the insanity and brutality of the Nazi regime).

James Mathurin said...

@Mister Fox
As far as sources, that is a fair point, but one that most hardly seem to bother with on here. It's a valid point, though, and I did say that I was not sure about an arabic presence in Britain before the Vikings, and I think I was right to be uncertain.

As for Moors, it's a pretty accepted fact that they were part of the Roman army, particularly the archers, and I did find a reference to it here:
This quote in particular seemed valid:
"Black soldiers, specifically identified as Moors, were actively recruited by Rome, and served in Britain, France, Switzerland, Austria, Hungary, Poland, and Romania. St. Maurice, patron saint of medieval Europe, was only one of many Black soldiers and officers under the employ of the Roman Empire."

As for the "propaganda", it is a valid point that 'race' has no scientific meaning, and is a purely social construct. Also, in Britain, there could only be a tiny fraction of the population that are not descended from immigrants of some kind, whether those are Romans, Vikings, Anglo-Saxons or French (in fact, didn't the BNP need to make some arbitrary number of generations need to have passed in your family tree without 'foreign blood' before they would consider someone 'British' because of this very fact?).

James Mathurin said...

@ Alanorei
Do you have any evidence at all that the MSM in America has been actively promoting a view that African Americans hold more power in their society than White Americans? I have really not seen anything to support that suggestion.

Anonymous said...

Sarah said:
"Come back when you have learned to think."

Oh...I was just having a little fun. These days preceding turkey day in the US are often rather tedious. If that is you on the homepage, with your blond hair, and since the subject had to do with Vikings, I just had to ASK. If you need to do a background check on me go to (which is Americans for Legal Immigration PAC) and check my posts under my username "Captainron." In the US we are trying to tough out these last few weeks before a new Congress, and are busy working to thwart the open borders lobby's plans, in their last ditch efforts. I do generally caution people, though, that while limiting illegal immigration is the right thing to do, people will still have to adjust away from the certain conveniences that have come about because of such a phenomenon. Cheers.

I'm not trying to imply anything and was simply reading a story about the plight of whites in SA when I happened upon your site.

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

@ Anon 16:38

Thanks for the clarification, sorry I misunderstood you


misterfox said...

That was a direct quote from a correspondent that I did not change. Actually, I meant to delete the "lying" reference because insults are counter productive.
Its all well talking about The Social Construction of Reality as if it is self-evident or morally superior: it only seems so in the comparison with the "brutalityu"of the Nazi regime b ut we could also consider thelunacy of Lysenkoism. In fact what we have now, which you have imbibed, is an ideological construction of reality.
Ideologies need an enemmy and as the Nazis used Jews multi-racialism uses Whites. That is why every ill in society, every hitch in the move to multi-racial utopia is blamed on us using the connative term "racism" which only applies to Whites.

misterfox said...

This is not some innocent move to multi-racial heaven on earth but a permanent scapegoating of Whites and we have to defend ourselves. If we are all descended from immigrants that does not mean we should sit back and allow new immigrants to push us out but by not allowaing it we are demonised as rascists. That is not socially constructing reality but persecuting innocent people in the homeland they have emotionally bonded with over 1500 years: a very cruel and evil movement.
To an extent "Reality" is determined by ruling elites but when it directly tries to change inbuilt human nature we get the evil genocides as with Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin etc. James, be very sure of what you wish for. You just might be on the side of the genocidists and not morally superior after all. The thing that really is socially constructed in Britain today is the school subject of history.

alanorei said...

James, re: evidence,

2 pieces.

One is indirect in that any US researcher who publishes rigorously carried out studies on intelligence testing w.r.t. different races is likely to get mercilessly pilloried by his institution and by the essentially left-wing student body - without any attempt made to address his actual research. Basically, the MSM supports the antagonists. This happened in the case of Dr Arthur R. Jensen at the University of California in 1970. The case is described in The Dispossessed Majority by Wilmot Robertson, p 294. I suggest that you will find the book informative.

The aim is to intimidate anyone who is realistic about racial abilities. Once that is achieved, the sky's the limit. The nation could even end up with a black or mixed-race president - and did.

The other piece of evidence is simply by observation of the popular entertainment programmes televised in this country and which are hit series in the US, or hit movies. These programmes will, for example, frequently have a black man in charge of a mainly white professional department, e.g. the police, or an black man depicted as the fount of wisdom for the somewhat dumb whites. Starsky and Hutch, Castle, Died Hard 2 and Deep Impact, the latter with President Morgan Freeman, somewhat prophetically, are examples that immediately spring to mind.

These are not 'scientific' programmes, they don't have to be. The are simply used to shape public perceptions - and they do, as indicated by the identity of the Chief Executive in the White House now.

Abraham Lincoln would be turning in his grave - but that's another subject.

I hope this is sufficient to help you to see in part why I think the way I do on these matters.

Of course, my US-based sources are all right wing and most are right wing KJB Baptists, whose perceptions you probably won't share but they are 'on the ground' over there and do know what is going on around them.

If you're interested, for a KJB Baptist perception of the US, including Lincoln's comments on and to blacks and the unwarranted media 'hype' of blacks (and a lot else), I recommend What Hath God Wrought! by Dr William P. Grady, Baptist pastor and ex-RC from NYC. His work is very detailed and well-referenced.

James Mathurin said...

@ Misterfox
I have no doubt that what you quoted was an actual reply, although yes, editing out the insults would have been prudent.
I think you may want to look again at my response, as I said nothing about a 'social construction of reality,' rather I pointed out that the concept of 'race' which we use today is of no meaning in science, and exists only as a social construct, which is why many discussions use the more accurate term 'ethnicity'.

I am not sure why you feel the need to refer to the Nazi's brutality in inverted commas; Kristallnacht, the Holocaust, the Blitz, the Luftwaffe's involvement in the Spanish Civil War, and many more Nazi achievements are objectively brutal, are they not? If my view is "an ideological construction of reality," I would be interested to know what your opposing construction entails.

I assume it is something along the lines of all white people being treated like Jews under the Nazis, so I would be fascinated and shocked to see the evidence of Whites being forbidden from owning property, having their businesses closed down and given by the state to non-White families, being forced into ghettos, and eventually physically exterminated.

I would also like to see where whites are being blamed for 'every ill in society'. I agree that there are very few social ills portrayed as being purely perpetrated by non-Whites, but that is because it would be an innacurate picture. I have yet to see a social ill portrayed as being purely down to the existence of white people.

Also, in case it needed saying, racism is not something limited to white people.

James Mathurin said...

@ Misterfox
In your reply about evidence, there is a mistake straight away, or at least a misinterpretation. The reason studies trying to establish an intellectual inferiority of one ethnicity to another tend to get pilloried in academic circles is because there is no good evidence to support them. A cursory examination of Jensen shows that while some people did take an ideological opposition to his work, I would have thought that you would have applauded this opposition to what they perceived as his Lysenkoism. I also noticed that an academic debate about his work went on for a long time, as it did with The Bell Curve, while you are suggesting that it was a MSM-led campaign that ignored the scientific merits of his work.

I also took a quick look through Jensen's book, and have found it to be an interesting (rather than informative) mix of opinion and correlation. He seems to be someone else who is hung up on a strange view of society being dominated by some Jewish/African axis.

I have to say that you seem to defining 'realistic about race' as being 'holding opinions about race which fit in with the prejudices and assumptions that we have carried since the era of the slave trade'.

Your observations of popular media seem to be, at best, cherry picked, rather than any kind of representative analysis. For example, the black character in Starsky and Hutch is a pimp selling information to white policemen, hardly a display of 'black superiority', and while Morgan Freeman played a black president, I think he still represents a tiny percentage of famous actors who have played a fictional president, and the vast majority of those actors will be White.

Also, to suggest that Barack Obama is the President as a result of Die Hard 2 is pretty laughable. He was chosen by the population to be a better candidate than his opponent, and if anything his race held him back (you can't honestly suggest that a white candidate with an anglicised name would have faced groundless accusations of being an inelligible, Muslim foreigner who had been educated in a terrorist Madrasa).

James Mathurin said...

@ Misterfox
I see that I just addressed a reply to you which should have been addressed to Alanorei, so apologies to both of you for that.

I was reminded by a friend of something pertinent to what we were discussing. They are from a Scottish family, whose family crest prominently shows a Moor, to represent their Moorish descendants, which were very common in Scotland, even though it is not something you would realise, looking at the family now. I don't wish to put their name on here, but I doubt that their crest is unique.

Anyway, I don't see that you have provided clear evidence for the existence of this 'scapegoating of whites', permanent or otherwise, and as such, it seems that you are suggesting that Whites defend themselves from a non-existent threat, which as such, can never actually be defeated (I don't mean to sound hyperbolically Orwellian, but that is how it is coming across).

We are, as you say, descended from immigrants, but that does not mean that new immigrants are 'pushing us out', any more than the Romans, Angles, Saxons, Vikings, Moors and Vikings pushed the previous natives out. With no evidence that this is the case, I don't see how persecution of innocents is going on, let alone any cruel or evil acts.

I would appreciate some further explanation of what you consider to be 'inbuilt human nature' in this context, as I get the impression that you are suggesting it is a desire not to mix with other ethnicities, something I have seen no evidence for, especially not in my work with young children.

I'm not sure what you think I am wishing for, but it is certainly not genocide. As for history being 'socially constructed', I don't see how it could not be, as it is basically the study of society. If, as some may suggest, it were to focus almost exclusively on British history only, that would simply be another social construct. What I suppose is more pertinent would be whether there is an objective justification for what goes into the history syllabus.

alanorei said...


Re: Jensen, you overlooked my statement to the effect that Jensen was victimised without anyone attempting to refute his work. This is the kind of intimidation that leads to the kind of 'affirmative action' mentality so prevalent today.

Dr Jensen's findings were corroborated by other workers in the field of intelligence testing of races:

Dr R. Travis Osborne, one of the USA’s leading educational psychologists, with 30 years of experience in the field said this in 1966:

“On group achievement tests designed to evaluate the degree of success in learning the basic subjects taught in public schools, the American Negro with rare exception is unable to keep pace with established grade norms. In most subjects the average Negro child falls behind the [normal] group at the rate of almost one-third of a grade per year, until by the time he graduates from high school he is in some areas four full years below the twelfth grade standard.”

It's up to you to prove otherwise. You haven't done so yet. You denied the validity of Jensen's work but you haven't furnished any refutation of it, no more than his critics did in 1970.

You might also like to list the African countries that are major, progressive, industrialised nations solely on the basis of black expertise, if you really believe that race is only 'a social construct.'

Re: the media examples, you overlooked the statement that these were simply some that came immediately to mind. They were spot samples. Others could be cited - like 'black' Friar Tuck in the recent BBC series Robin Hood, who was portrayed as the intellectual superior of the 'thick' whites around him. It's part of a MSM genre.

The S and H character I had in mind was Dobie, the precinct captain and S and H's superior, not Huggie the spiv.

I did not suggest that BHO came about as a result of Morgan Freeman in Deep Impact. I simply indicated that the role was prophetic, which indeed it has been. As I recall, BHO got the presidency on the basis of the votes of the liberal North, where one would expect the greatest media influence. The more conservative south seemed to vote almost uniformly against him.

Though now I think that possibly more and more northeners are wishing they had too.

misterfox said...

The inverted coments signify a quotation. Who from? Why, from you, Mr.Marthurin, from you.
You add:""Black soldiers, specifically identified as Moors, were actively recruited by Rome, and served in Britain, France, Switzerland, Austria, Hungary, Poland, and Romania. St. Maurice, patron saint of medieval Europe, was only one of many Black soldiers and officers under the employ of the Roman Empire."

So what? What is that supposed to suggest that we cn be duispossessed now? I used made no scientific supports for my views and never do. My arguments are based on my belief of what general human nature is amongst all peoples, throughout all time: the need to belong to a people have territory to call one's own and the instinct to put their own poeople first.
It is a natural part of human being and arisaes from the emotions. This has been broken down by elites who are against their own people. A quick example of outside groups being given priority over the indegenous people who have prior right is the recent decision to give gypsies preferential service at unemployment benefits. Please look this up. I will find other examples although my articles are full of examples. You, it seems, have gone along with the hegemonic ideology and not questioned it.

andynewt said...

What James is doing is opposing new thinking with the standard orthodox ideology. He does not seem to realise he is doing it and this shows how ideology works. People imbibe it without being aware and use it to stop new ideas. Whether they know it or not they are protecting the "hegemonic" elites from criticism, opposition and even rebellion. They need to try questioning what they think and why and examining evidence of what is happening around them.
You can see what is happening by going round places like Brixton or Bradford but these progerammed people believe what they are told by the elites through education and the media. This rerquires independence of mind, thinking for oneself and collating the evidence from field study and that is scary.

James Mathurin said...

That's a very interesting accusation, which I don't think you have entirely explained. What 'new thinking' am I opposing? It seems like the opinions I have found myself disagreeing with are actually very old views, of 'races' and their mutual incompatibility, and the importance of their 'purity'.

Also, please could you detail the 'standard orthodox ideology' that I am using?

You also have not explained who the 'hegemonic elites' are, but do seem to be taking my lack of criticism of them as being an explicit endorsement.

You are quite vague with your references to "what is going on in Brixton or Bradford," so again, please be explicit with what this supposedly obvious truth is that I am blind to.

"They need to try questioning what they think and why and examining evidence of what is happening around them. "

I've got to admit, based on this response, at least, that this comment simply comes through as being very ironic.

James Mathurin said...

Actually, I did point out that people had refuted Jensen's work, as well as the people that took an ideological exception to him. I have to say, describing this as 'intimidation' seems to fit in with the victimised anti-PC view that some people express, where they expect their freedom of speech to be respected, but believe that it is wrong for anyone to use their freedom of speech to express offence at them.

Dr Jensen's work was corroborated by some, disputed by others, and eventually rejected by him, as he came to accept that environment played a significantly greater role in intelligence than he had previously thought. This article has an interesting history of the academic debate:

The Osborne quote presents correlation, rathan causation, so it doesn't proves anywhere near as much as you seem to think it does.

The request about African countries is ridiculously over-simplified, unless there are any African countries you can list that have not been damaged and held back by the influence of colonialism. Perhaps you could suggest a mathematical formula for extrapolating from a country's current level of development the level it would have reached if certain historical events had not happened?

Your media examples get worse - as you point out, you don't have any serious data to back up your points, your going purely by your own subjective opinions, and I think you have made it clear with your replies on here that you have a significant level of bias in your observations on race.

Do you have any objective evidence of this 'MSM genre'? May I suggest taking a sample of top-rated shows and movies, identifying the actors given top-billing, or perhaps playing roles clearly identified as heroic, and breaking it down by ethnicity?

Why would you expect the North of the US to be more influenced by media than the South? Is that based on any hard evidence, or more subjective opinion? Also, are you considering every aspect of the media, such as talk radio?

James Mathurin said...

@ misterox
Apologies if I misinterpreted your use of quotes, I must have misread it as you questioning my description of the Nazis.

The quote you go on to question of mine was offered in response to your request for evidence that Moors made up part of the genetic makeup of Britain before the Vikings. I offered it as evidence of their role in the Roman army in Britain, and just as the Romans left their genetic mark, so to would the Moors have. This was also why I mentioned my friend's Scottish coat of arms with the Moorish face on it.

You seem to be describing your beliefs as being irrational, or at least illogical, based as they are on your own beliefs, and rejecting any scientific, rational basis. This is especially confusing, as you asked me to cite sources for some of my comments, yet you seem to think that your views are equally valid if they are 'based on your beliefs'. Does this not seem at least a little inconsistent to you?

Your description of human nature seems quite valid, but incredibly vague. When you describe 'a people', what group are you describing? A group united by ethnicity? By culture? By shared interests? By language?

Who are the elites you refer to, and what is their motivation for turning against their own people?

You mention a story about Roma and unemployment benefits which I did not see any refernces to. Could you provide a link, perhaps one that covers the justifications for this decision, and is specific about whether it is a decision or a proposal?

You seem to makesome large assumptions in your closing line. Do you honestly believe that it is impossible for me to hold views opposed to yours by having lived my entire life without having ever questioned my values or beliefs, and only by mindlessly accepting narratives as they are spoon-fed by the media?

misterfox said...

James this is not a crude, directly brutal operation by the elites but a constant psychological warfare against Whites. A quick example is the 15-year old schoolgirl arrested for burning The Koran
Muslims burn poppies, attack & spit on our soldiers, burn our national flag preach hate, and proclaim "God Bless Hitler, but if we transgress the rigid behaviour patterns dictated by the elites even our children are persecuted.

Incidentally, I enjoyed your art site.

James Mathurin said...

@ misterfox
I think you would benefit from re-examining whether your interpretation of events is not at least a little skewed by your own personal prejudices.

The girl was arrested on a charge of 'inciting religious hatred', not a charge of 'offending Muslims', or indeed of 'being white'. This offence is not one aimed specifically at whites or christians, and while I personally find all religions could benefit from not taking themselves so seriously, I don't see evidence of a massive anti-British conspiracy in this (especially as the teenager was stupid enough to put the evidence up on Youtube for the world to see).

There was at least one arrest when the Muslims Against Crusades group did their ridiculous and offensive poppy-burning stunt, and there has been condemnation of it from every area that could be considered 'the elite' of our society. In fact, I think it would be hard to find many people, whether on Left or Right, and from any background, that have supported such acts, even among those (like myself) who opposed the wars these groups are using as their justification.

I am glad that you enjoyed my art site too, I'm working on new stuff for that while I'm repying here, as it happens.

alanorei said...


The article you state still does not establish parity between blacks and whites with respect to intelligence. That it raises the issue of environment and socio-economic factors is nothing new. Clearly these have to be accounted for in any rigorous comparison of different racial groups w.r.t. intelligence.

The article also indicated that Jensen's work was/is still the subject of controversy, so again it adds nothing really new.

Re: Osborne, I simpy quoted the first paragraph of his monograph from which it was drawn, entitled Racial Difference in Mental Growth and School Achievement.

30 pages of detailed data and discussion follow. Again, it is up to you to disprove that material, which you haven't done.

Re: African countries, thank you for confirming that you couldn't come up with any. You simply played the 'race victim' card. It could also be pointed out that European nations have themselves suffered serious convulsions over the centuries, together with a much harsher climate than sub-Saharan Africa but still achieved civilisations far more highly developed than any African equivalent.

You could read The Lie of Apartheid by Arthur Kemp to gauge how the formerly most advanced nation in Africa is doing today, under black rule.

You could also read his most detailed book Four Flags, which addresses the genetic basis for race, in particular that of the race that inhabits these isles and has done from time immemorial.

Re: the media, again you seem to be missing the point. The media shapes perceptions. A wise man said centuries ago that if he could make all the ballads, he wouldn't care who made the laws of a nation. This was from a detailed work on the use of popular music as a means of subversion. Having studied this work, I see similar trends in popular culture, including films etc. The book is The Marxist Minstrels by David A. Noebel.

Re: the media, I simply went by the conclusion of a travelling Baptist evangelist, Dr Sam Gipp, who compared BHO to Hitler w.r.t. the November 2008 election result and declared that, his emphasis, "Adolph Hitler had thugs, called "The Brown Shirts" who beat up and intimidated Hitler's opponents into silence. Obama has his own "Brown Shirts" called "The News Media.""

As I indicated, the media were clearly more influential in the north, because that's where BHO got his votes from, mainly.

Here's another quote that you might like to consider:

"I will say, then, that I am not nor have ever been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races - that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with White people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the White and black races which will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the White race" - Abraham Lincoln, Fourth Lincoln-Douglas Debate, September 18, 1858, Charleston, Illinois, in Abraham Lincoln: Speeches and Writings (New York: Library of America, 1989), p. 636, and in Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Volume 5, page 371.

Lincoln, I think, had some real-life experience of race and as a result, appears not to have viewed it as a mere social construct.

James Mathurin said...

@ alanorei
The article I posted was not a response to the charge that Whites have a genetically-based difference in intelligence to other races, it was addressing the specific study that you offered as one that had resulted in 'intimidation' of the writer, and which you seemed to hink was academically unrefuted. I was just pointing out that the findings are refuted, including by Jensen himself, who came to see socio-economic and environmental factors as having significantly more influence than this study had accounted for.

As far as the Osborne quote, do feel free to actually present the evidence that you fee makes your point, as you have not yet done so, only provided an observation of correlation, rather than a proof of causal relationship. I cannot refute a point that you have not satisfactorily made, and with this point, you definitely have not.

Re: African countries, thank you for confirming that you could not come up with a suitable response to my points, or produce the list I mentioned. Instead you just fall back on the tired accusations of 'playing the race victim card'; especially strange, as I had not mentioned race in connection to that point, only mentioned the effect of colonialism, something which is not suddenly beneficial if other ethnicities do it.

The point about 'harsher climates' especially is an ill-thought out one. The climate in Europe is actually much better suited to the kind of crops that allow a greater degree of stability (grains like wheat, corn and oats, for example), which actually explains why early man left Africa for those cooler climates in the first place.

With the media, I can't help thinking that you are actually missing the point.I don't disagree that the media shapes perception, but you never actually presented any proof that the media is shaping the perceptions that you think it is. You are simply going on your own subjective feelings, not objective fact. You are perfectly entitled to your opinions, but you do need to recognise the difference between opinion and fact.

Your other media point is, no offence, laughable. The word of a travelling Baptist preacher is pointless in this discussion, and his actual comment is one I have seen before, and found it ridiculous then. With the comparison he is making, he is alledging that the White house has direct control of the Main Stream Media, is using them to overcome democracy with deliberate attacks, and that Obama's opponents have been silenced (I mean, come on, when you are organising a rally, and using it to directly attack people in power, and facing no possibility of arrest or harrassment, you are not being silenced).

"As I indicated, the media were clearly more influential in the north, because that's where BHO got his votes from, mainly."

No, you are making a huge leap about the reasons for those greater number of votes, with no evidence to support it. You are making a series of assumptions: That the media were the only factor in deciding people's votes; that exposure to the media causes people to vote for Obama; that therefore, Obama getting more votes in one area means that the media had more influence in that area.

You might be right, but you have to present evidence.

Your Lincoln quote only shows the pervasiveness of the racist assumptions of the society Lincoln grew up in, as his quote is filled with opinion and assumption again, with no evidence to support them. Lincoln did much to be admired, but that does not mean that his word is unquestionable, or that his 'experience of race' was objective.

alanorei said...

P.S. James

It is quite apparent that we have reached different conclusions on the subject under discussion according to what we have seen/studied/read.

We therefore probably won't reach a consensus. Moreover, since this subject is somewhat OT w.r.t. Mr Fox's original post, I suggest that in fairness to Sarah, we should not clutter up her blog any further.

However, if you wish to continue the exchange, I am happy to do so and am quite willing for Sarah to send you my email address for that purpose. (Thank you in anticipation, Sarah, sorry to be an inconvenience.)

alanorei said...


You will see my last note wherein I suggest continuing this exchange off list. I will provide summary answers below.

Re: Jensen, my original point was that vilification of him took place before any evaluation of his work. I cited him as an example of the kind of victimisation likely to be levelled at anyone who points out racial differences. That Jensen later refined his work is not surprising in the light of on-going research. However, according to Robertson, he "demolished" allegations that IQ tests were "culturally biased against non whites" in a 1980 publication.

Re: the Osborne quote, I simply provided the author's conclusion based on his research. If you would like more details, contact me via Sarah.

Re: the media, I believe that my original point was one of observed portrayals, i.e. the virtuous (at least morally superior) black(s) vs. the evil whites. What has also happened in the US (and increasingly here) is the policy of Affirmative Action. I have not established a causal link between them but I cannot believe they are unconnected.

Re: African countries. You were asked to state which African countries have become stable, prosperous, 'first world' nations by means of black expertise alone. Whatever the vicissitudes of this exchange, you continue to evade the question.

You clearly believe that humans originated in Africa. They didn't but that is a separate issue. By reference to harsher climate, I was simply referring to the kind of famine conditions that early Europeans had to face from time to time, in addition to incessant wars and death-dealing plagues. I would simply conclude that they had as much to contend with as Africans, yet did a whole lot better w.r.t. establishing advanced nations, e.g. with systems of weights and measures, law, governance, medicine, architecture, literature, calendar, science, navigation and technology etc., none of which emerged in Africa - even without the 'scourge' of colonialism.

My main reason for mentioning Dr Gipp was to see if you would ridicule the testimony of a godly Christian man genuinely concerned for and aware of what is happening in his own country.

You did. That tells me a lot.

Re: BHO, you allow I might be right. Yes, I might be but if you wish to puruse that point, I would ask that you do so off list, as indicated.

Re: Lincoln, I figured you wouldn't like that quote. It always intrigues me that those who make negative pronouncements about another race, whose life and conduct they have observed firsthand over many years, always must be dismissed as biased in some way.

Here's another quote that I guess you won't like but I suggest beware of dismissing it as mere assumption and opinion. The events happened long before Affirmative Action, so could be considered 'raw data.'

"They were a happy, ignorant set, knowing no care nor responsibility. They took no thought for tomorrow. Like pigs, if their bellies were full, they were happy. At night after a hard day's march, they would sing and dance long after all the soldiers but the guards were asleep. If they were hungry, they would beg of anyone. The women were not noted for their modesty or virtue" [Hello, Cheryl Tweedy-Cole, how did you get in here?], and who can wonder at it. Some of the women were so indifferent about such things that when they came to a creek or swamp, they would elevate their clothes if necessary to the tops of their heads, and so wade through" - Private Robert Hale Strong, 105th Illinois Volunteers, from A Yankee Private's Civil War, p 115.

21 year-old Pte. Strong marched with Sherman's army from Atlanta to the sea in 1864. Although he never did any statistical study, he did observe some definite racial differences along the way (certainly between black and (most) white females).

Reply if you wish but again, I'd ask that you do so off list, as indicated.

James Mathurin said...

@ alanorei
I saw your response about not continuing this discussion, so I will respond to your points in your final post, and leave it there.

Thank you for the clarification on Jensen. The academic response to his work was not a villification, and was appropriate. The non-academic protests could be seen as villification, but I think such an emotional response is understandable, given the kind of atrocities committed in the name of the disproven beliefs that which Jensen's erroneous statements gave support to. That Jensen's refining of his work led to him changing his opinions shows that his original work was in error.

Without more details from what you say Robertson said, I can't comment on him 'demolishing' the ethnic bias of IQ tests, but again, this is a debate that continues, so I don't think any demolition could have been too thorough.

On your points on the media, I can see that these are your honest conclusions from your observations. However, they are only as valid as anyone else's, and I have observed both negative and positive portrayals of Whites and Blacks, so in the absence of your offering any evidence, we are unlikely to reach a consensus.

I am not evading your African question. It is impossible to name any African countries which have arrived at their current state, whether good or ill, purely by black expertise. Such a nation only exists in fiction (such as Marvel comic's Wakanda). As such, no I cannot name an African nation that is stable and prosperous due to purely African expertise, but I could neither name a single African country that is unstable and poor due to purely African expertise.

Humans did originate in Africa. All the current evidence points to that as fact. It doesn't have any bearing on this discussion, but I don't know why youwould deny it.

I don't question that the humans who migrated into Europe faced their own challenges, but their environment made a huge difference in allowing them to make the developments you talk about. There is no rational reason to think that the people from Africa would have done any worse under those same conditions, though we can only hypothesise about that. Also, I would be interested to see if you have any evidence to support your suggestion that Africans never developed measures, law, governance, calendar, etc., as that sounds like yet another baseless supposition, that runs counter to established evidence.

I should point out that I did not mock Dr Gipp, but only his unproven suggestions. Being a man of god does not make bad arguments suddenly become good, and his comments make it appear that, while he may be concerned, he is not aware of what is happening in his own country.

The Lincoln quote did not actually make any remarks about the 'conduct' of blacks. It is not really intriguing that those who make negative comments about races are dismissed; no one race is dominated by any one characteristic, good or bad, so anyone who suggests that a race is, is clearly arguing from a personal bias, rather than the objective truth.

The quote from the private is an interesting account, but is no more 'raw data' than anyone else's personal testimony, just as an account of brutality and laziness by white soldiers would not apply to the whole of their army, or any larger group.

alanorei said...


Thank you for your final note. I could take issue with much of its content but will clarify a few points:

Re: Human origins. I take the Biblical position that humans originated in Eden, in what is now the Middle East. That is why I reject an African origin. I should add that however the KJB is checked out, archeologically, historically, scientifically etc., it always proves to be correct and sometimes enlightens the checker.

Re: Dr Gipp. He has travelled all over the US for 30 years. To say that he doesn't know what is happening in his own country is the height of presumption. I suggest check his web site for details.

Re: Pte. Strong, he (and his fellow soldiers) observed the behaviour of large numbers of freed slaves over a period of several months. I believe him to have been an honest witness about the group behaviour as a whole, even if he wasn't conducting a scientific survey as such.

Re: Africa/African achievement etc., my comment about Africa was based on what European explorers found, or more accurately didn't find when they got there.

The above point is really the heart of the issue and probably the best place to leave it.

Therefore, I would be very happy to receive from you at any time (e.g. email via Sarah) evidence of parity of black and white intelligence and independent achievement in the fields where my studies thus far have indicated white superiority.

I have explicit evidence to the contrary in a book called Race and Reality by Carleton Putnam but I would be very pleased to receive your counter-evidence.

Thank you for an interesting exchange.

James Mathurin said...

@ alanorei
I respect your right to take the biblical position on human origins, but we will clearly have to differ there - You are taking a position on faith in the absence of evidence, me on the basis of evidence in the absence of faith. The KJB definitely does not work as a historical document, and certainly not a scientific one.

I can only make conclusions about Dr Gipp based on what I've seen of him. Based on that comment and a quick look at the site you linked to, he is someone who has a lot of heartfelt concern, but it is clearly based on a view of the real world that is seen through a very distorted prism. I'm sure he is an excellent preacher, but not an excellent social or political commentator.

I have no reason to believe Pte Strong was lying, but his testimony is at best a snapshot of one small group.

Your views of Africa are based on some very old stereotypes that don't match reality. To suggest that they didn't even have law or governance especially is just an absurd claim.

You are welcome for the exchange of views. It has definitely been interesting for me as well.

alanorei said...

Thank you for your comment, James

For information, I believe that the 2 works listed below are very informative and set out the respective sides of the exchange very well. They are both by Putnam and although I don't accept his apparent evolutionary stance, I believe him to be a thorough researcher.

The books were published 40-50 years ago but the point-counterpoints raised seem very up-to-date to me. I commend them as insightful overviews.

Race and Reason.

Race and Reality, each as a pdf.

misterfox said...

You are asking me to write a thesis: I don't know which to deal with.
Firstly, all my articles(there are several on this blog) are loaded with examples and I add copious links for people to check my claims. The error you make is too think what we are working towards is old-fashioned. It is an analysis of evidence from the world around us; the consequences of mass immigratrion not the ideolgy which is to build a multi-racial utopia. The idea that races do not get on is an eternal truth and demonstrable from gathering and collating evidence from the world: not ideological debates.

misterfox said...

Ideology is a political system of abstractions which lead to a goal(utopia) and have an enemy(Whites to multi racialists it is Whites) who are held to the cause of the problems that the ideologues want to solve. to the Nazis it was jews, to multi-racialists it is us Whites. The usual method is the use of a connative term - Racism! This is almost exclusively applied to Whites in public discourse.
If, for example, a White employer wanted to sack a recalcitrant "ethnic" worker that employes could be prosecuted and fined for "racism". Surely you know that? Do you think that is building equality

misterfox said...

Your ideological view is what I would call multi-racialist and some of your claims are characteristic supports for that: there is no scientific basis for race and we are all immigrants.
Actually, I don't make scientific claims.
My views are are a reworking of traditional beliefs on conserving our homogeneity.
My starting point is my prejudice in favour of my own people: those with whom I share aa culture, religion and ancestors. I believe we have a duty to conserve what we inherit from our ancestors and a responsibility to pass it on to our descents. At present our children are being dispossessed and disinherited by foreigners and that is morally evil.
Incidentally I belive prejudice is wisdom handed down from our forbears and saves having to lessons the hard way. I refer you to Edmund Burke. In 1955 Churchill tried to introduce a Bill to control immigration.

alanorei said...

The second link seems to have broken. This is it again, for anyone interested.

Race and Reality

James Mathurin said...

I haven't asked for a thesis, just evidence. Feel free to post links and quote the appropriate passages. Where you or others have done so, I have responded to that evidence.

What you are working towards is old-fashioned: A world where people are separated due to racial characteristics, rather than any meaningful, objective criteria. Your views are the essence of conservatism - being resistant to change, progress, and feeling that any step backwards would improve their environment.

For instance, you have not offered any relevant evidence that your interpretation of the 'comsequences of immigration' is accurate, which makes it look like your are basing your interpretations more on ideology.

To suggest that there is no history of people from different ethnicities being able to co-operate is another baseless, unproven, borderline-insane point.

James Mathurin said...

@ misterfox
I'm not sure that you know what ideology means. An ideology can be one of those things, but you are giving a really narrow definition.

Just for clarity, could you compare your definition to the one I found online at

Also, I don't think that you can honestly say that white people are seen as an enemy of those who hold 'multi-racialist' views. If there were to even be an enemy in their view, it would be racists in general, would it not?

Your example is a spectacularly poor one. White employers can fire recalcitrant minority employees (Blacks, asians, homosexuals and religious minorities have indeed and continue to be fired, just as white people do). That is a simple fact. A charge of racism would only be succesful in a case where an employer were to fire an employee from an ethnic minority for reasons that they are not applying to employees from another ethnic group.

Again you state that your beliefs are based on tradition and prejudice, and that's fair enough, but seeing as I'm approaching it from a position of logic and evidence, I can see we may well be reaching an impasse in this discussion.

Among your beliefs, I do agree about having a responsibility to conserve and pass on our ancestry, but unless you feel that change is equivalent to destruction, I don't think your characterisation of the 'evil' being done to our culture is accurate.

Prejudice is exactly what it says: Pre-judging; making your mind up before you employ any critical faculties of your own. This runs counter to what most would perceive as being wisdom.

James Mathurin said...

@ alanorei
I am looking through the first of the pdfs you linked to, and while I can see why it appeals to you and your views, I find in condescending, short-sighted and intellectually dishonest.

I do thank you for putting the links up, as it is always useful to see differing points of view. I do agree that social conventions can have an impact on the freedom of scientific inquiry, but ultimately, nothing can be dismissed until it has gone through the scientific method, including peer-review, so any definite evidence of racial inferiority would eventually get picked up, and would have to be recognised.

misterfox said...

I really don't have time to prove anything to you. Its in my articles: there are about 20 on this blog full of examples to support my analysis and I also post many links so that people can check my evidence. That is good enough.
I have a piece of philosophy on here:

I have written the only overview of mass immigration and its opponents

I have an article in the New English Review in which I re-define art. I hope you don't mind!

There is a programme on BBC World Service tomorrow Heart and Soul. I understand that deals with the persecution of Jews in Malmo, Sweden. Something only I have repeatedly warned the European Jewish communities about. I'll bet you think Muslims persecuting Jews is human progress.

James Mathurin said...

@ misterfox
It would have perhaps been appropriate, even if you are using your own articles as evidence, to quote the appropriate passages.

Looking briefly through them, the strict reliance on tradition and the 'common sense' that springs from it, is quite bizarre. Using your logic, we would have a world where, among other things, women didn't vote and children engaged in heavy manual labour.

You do make some huge genrealisations, and it is not clear whether this is bad writing or bad thinking. Reading some of your writing, you very much come across as thinking that all violent street crime (muggings, gun crime, knifings) are committed by ethnic minorities. I am not inclined to go into a specific point-by-point analysis of each piece (I have other things to do), but as I said, maybe you could quote the parts you feel back up your points from this discussion, and I can address them here.

I can see where your redefinition of art is coming from, but I really think you have not followed your ideas through to their logical conclusions, as the piece goes on to contradict itself numerous times.

Your last point is really quite insulting. Attacks of any extremist minority against another group are against all of my personal principles, and are a step backwards, in line withe principles you have outlined, to people believing that the conflicts of past generations should define, rather than inform, the conflicts we choose to perceive today.

alanorei said...

Re: condescending, short-sighted and intellectually dishonest.

These are derogatory terms lacking in substance, James.

But since Putnam's treatise no doubt conflicts with your own world view, I can understand why you would use them.

James Mathurin said...

@ alanorei
They are indeed derogatory terms, and when I find time to go further into the pdfs, I am depressingly certin that I will be able to add a few more to the list. Maybe the treatise gets better, but all I have seen so far is a procession of straw-men arguments, opinions and complaints about his personal treatment by the realm of academia. Jensen seems capable of amazing intellectual shifts between rigour (which show me why he has gained the impressive jobs he has) and laziness (which shows me why he has received such short shrift on this particular issue).

I do feel he makes some valid points about how academia reacts to controversial subjects, but I don't see any convincing evidence that his views which brought him such trouble were based upon anything objective or true.

Of course, seeing as my views no doubt conflict with your world view, I can understand why you would dism iss them. ;-)

alanorei said...

The writer is Putnam, James, not Jensen.

You've already dismissed Jensen several comments back. No need for an encore.

Re: world view, it is not mine, at least not initially. It is that of the KJB e.g. "the whole world lieth in wickedness" 1 John 5:19. Just a point of clarification.

misterfox said...

"Using your logic, we would have a world where, among other things, women didn't vote and children engaged in heavy manual labour."

That is in your mind not mine. I write in support of young White Britons and against the contemporary form of Capitalism, Globalism.
There have been police reports, but usually suppressed, that muggings are Black crimes against Whites. I believe that there are so many crimes against White Britons like rape or Muslims grooming young White girls that Whites are victims of a race war in their own country both caused and suppressed by the elites(those with the power to do something about it but don't, and the influence to mould peoples' view of the reality). You do have to look for the evidence and collate it yourself not turn to received opinions from the orthodoxy(or watch Crimewatch).
The art piece is original and these things are rarely born full grown - the ideas will be developed. It would help if you pointed out the contradictions, though.

James Mathurin said...

@ alanorei
Apologies for mixing up the names, you are quite right, it is Putnam. That Bible quote is a pretty sad view of the world, I must say.

@ misterfox
The things I mentioned are all things that went against the 'wisdom handed down by our ancestors.' Our ancestors and their traditions were right on some things and, as I'm sure you would agree, spectacularly wrong on others, so while knowledge of them is important, they are not always the most reliable guide.

I know plenty of people on here take such claims on faith, but talk of 'suppressed police reports' is so much meaningless conspiracy theories without the evidence to back it up.

Your views on rape, grooming and the 'race war' against whites are described as 'beliefs', but again, presented without any supporting evidence, they come across sounding like shrill exagerrations.

Telling me to look for and collate the evidence for your points is a ridiculous suggestion. As the one making the argument, the onus is on you to present the evidence, because I can only be left with the impression that you have watched Crimewatch and extrapolated fromthere, taking in the received opinio ns of the orthodoxy you are part of.

One of the first things you said in your art article was that art is defined by "the artifice, the organising of elements, perspective, choice of colour etc," yet that taking a photograph of a sunset is "reproducing nature and is not art but nature."

Surely the very act of deciding to photograph a sunset rather than anything else involves artifice and the organising of elements and perspective? The photograph might be awful, and might be an example of bad art, but would surely still be art by your definition. I actually think that your definition is quite a good one, but you go on to apply it in a very narrow way with the works that you say do and do not count as 'art'.

The Danto quote that you use is one which I also disagree with; one does not have to be part of the art world, and know its history in order to see soemthing as art. While that knowledge may change your interpretation of art, ignorance of those does not mean you cannot appreciate the art.

For instance, I found that I viewed Wheatfield with Crows
very differently once I discovered it was one of Van Gogh's final paintings before his suicide. Not knowing that, it is still a beautiful and evocative painting.

Despite this, you argue that work such as Banksy's has no art 'and is just technique', despite showing an image of a piece where your conditions of artifice and the organising of elelemts are essential components of the piece (creating an image that has never happened in real life (artifice), and organising the elements (the soldier, girl and gun, and their position and poses in relation to each other).

As an extension to the points you made, I remember a definition of art by the comic great Will Eisner, which was that art is anything we do that is not for the purpose of survival or procreation. He illustrated this with a comic strip depicting a caveman escaping a sabre-tooth title, with every one of his action labelled as 'survival', until the final frame where, having escaped the beast, before returning to his cave, he turns and blows a raspberry in its direction, which is triumphantly labelled 'ART!'

I think this fits in with the parts of your definition I agreed with, and highlights where I differ.

James Mathurin said...

@ misterfox
You are correct about the importance you placed on subject matter. While I find that a quite childish point ( a good painting of this must be art, a good sculpture of that cannot be), it is perfectly in line with the priority you put on tradition over reason, so I suppose there is no sensible argument I could offer that would affect your views. A shame, because I was enjoying the somewhat lighter subject matter.

I do think there are valid objective differences between 'art' (expression of of personal, political, social aspects, etc.) and 'craft' (the techniques used to make the piece), and subjective differences between 'good art' and 'bad art'. You do seem to be conflating 'bad art' with 'craft'.

As far as the photograph analogy, you over-simplify. It would be more accurate to read, "If I photograph a sunset, I make a decision to do so, perhaps because I find something aesthetically pleasing or even beautiful about it; I make the decision to take a photograph of the sunset, and not, for example, the glade of trees to the side of it, as I feel it communicates what I want more effectively; I frame the shot so that the elements are arranged well, showing more or less of the land and sky, possibly, or shifting the sun off-centre." Using the zoom function is only one step in the sequence. None of these mean that the photograph will be good, or that those decisions will be correctly implemented.

The onus in a discussion is on the person making the point to back up their points. That is such a basic tradition of debate and just plain old rational discussion. You make a point, someone questions it, you respond to the question and explain your answer. I have discussed many of these issues on other sites, but I would not simply tell you to go and look at them, I repeat the point here. To do otherwise is laziness, avoidance and cowardice at worst.

In this discussion, you have made the gang rape point with noting to back it up. I would not claim, or even wish to claim that it is a crime that never happens, but I think it is a massive improbability that it is, as you describe it, a crime purely committed by blacks, or indeed any one group.

Perhaps you misread my point as thinking that I wanted to claim the white girls are never gang-raped. I simply questioned your assertion that it is a purely black, or immigrant crime.

Based on your stated peference for opinion and tradition over evidence, I have to say that you seem far less likely to know what is really going on in the world, regardless of how verbosely you express your ignorance. I do understand your arguments, I just remain spectacularly unconvinced by them, and the fact that you need to dismiss that as me not understanding only makes them look less impressive.

James Mathurin said...

@ misterfox

The article that you linked to makes some very mundane points in a sensationalist way. Gang rapes in areas with more immigrants are more likely to be committed by immigrants. Surely that means that gang rapes in areas with more natives are more likely to be committed by natives?

I do agree that our police have a pretty poor record on rape in general, but I don't see anything in your article to show that they are dealing with these specific rapes significantly worse than the others (percentage of arrests, percentage of succesful prosecutions, etc). The interpretation of these crimes as acts of war is a massive leap of logic, with no steps to justify it. You claim that the fact that gang rape is being committed by gangs somehow proves that it is being done on behalf of, or with the assent of, their community.

One of your references even shows Muslim leaders encouraging police to be more proactive in these cases, so how are they and their communities being simultaneously held responsible in your view?

Looking at your references, there is a serious issue to be discussed, but you dignify these appalling rapists by painting them soldiers in an ideological war, and cheapen the abuses suffered by those girls by turning them into mere fodder for propaganda.

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

Thanks for your latest contribution James.

However, I now feel that this debate has gone as far as it can go. I would be grateful if you, Alan and Mister Fox wish to continue this discussion you do so off line.

I will be happy to pass on e-mail addresses if requested.



James Mathurin said...

@ Sarah
Fair enough. Both alanorei and misterfox have said they won't respond to me anyway, so I will leave the thread alone at this point, as no one benefits from just reading me talk to myself.

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

Thanks James

I appreciate your cooperation