Sunday, 16 January 2011

More enrichment in Plymouth

Victim and attacker

Plymouth girl's attacker 'sadistic and evil'

Sabrina Barber's attack was "sustained and savage" the judge said

The leader of a girl gang who burned a teenager with a cigarette, attempted to blind her with eye liner and stamped on her face has been described as "sadistic" by a judge.

Judge Francis Gilbert QC told 16-year-old Sabrina Barber he had never seen such a "sustained and savage assault".

Her victim, Naomi Morrison, 17, was attacked by 10 girls for 90 minutes on Plymouth Hoe in December 2009.

Barber, from Plymouth, admitted causing grievous bodily harm with intent and was detained for five years.

'Savage assault'

Her co-accused, 19-year-old Melissa Rowe, also from Plymouth, was given a 10-month sentence, suspended for two years.

The gang of girls attacked their victim who was falsely accused by one of them of lying about a miscarriage.

Naomi Morrison was attacked for 90 minutes by a gang of 10 girls

Jo Martin, prosecuting at Plymouth Crown Court, said: "Barber toyed with her victim, humiliating, degrading and assaulting her."

She said Barber told Miss Morrison to lie down and "threatened to kill her and stood on her face".

Full Story
Hat Tip: JP


misterfox said...

It must be an absolute priority to get these vile savages out of our once civilised country.

Anonymous said...

Really? Civilised? Everytime I go on a history tour all I hear is about how violent English society has been. Jack the Ripper anyone? Fair enough that you dont want other races int he country but dont claim that England was pure and crime free.

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

Yes we had criminals, but now we are importing lots of new criminals, and lalso ots of new types of crime.

I don't think we had girl gangs in the past, gang rape was virtually unheard of so were paedophile gangs whereas honour killings, muti murder and suicide bombings were totally unheard of.

90% of all the knife crime, the gun crime, the muggings and drug pushing is committed by colonisers.

Immigration has made the crime problem we had infinitely worse.

misterfox said...

I didn't say it was. Pay attention.

Anonymous said...

Hi Sarah, thought you might find this video interesting, as you know Apartheid has ended in South Africa? Apparently self imposed Apartheid is ok though.

Where are the white kids in the rainbow nation? Maybe it is just as well the white kids are excluded because the school is dogged by sexual abuse.


Anonymous said...

Strange i never seen this news reported in the controlled media....keep them ignorant until it's too late to do anything about it...Donna

Anonymous said...

16 January 2011 14:58

If a civilisation = crime free there's never been a civilisation.

No ones claiming that we had zero crime just that, as with all European societies, crime and criminals where rare. An exception rather than the rule.

alanorei said...

Here is yet more 'enrichment,' although the 'M' word is not mentioned.

From various sources, I understand that:

20% of the population of London in the 1840s had syphilis

The prostitutes there were as young as 8 years of age - they would be plied with gin.

Most of the girls and younger women in Newcastle-upon-Tyne in the slum areas of the 1840s were prostitutes.

1870s Manchester was an absolute hellhole of degradation.

London gangs violently abducted women to force them into prostitution on the continent in the 1890s. Certain establishments were also set up in London so that clients (upper class males) could abuse the women with impunity. I would guess that a victim who tried to escape could end up floating lifeless in the Thames.

That said, real poverty and destitution applied unlike today (that upper class males took advantage of, of course). These horrors were mainly confined to congested urban areas and clearly had their spin-off effects of human degeneration.

It is also the case that dedicated Christians like William Booth and Dr Barnado worked tirelessly to bring in social reform. By the 20th century they had achieved considerable success and many of the problems had been alleviated. (Mr Hitler also helped with creating an incentive for new housing in 1940-1941).

Regrettably, though, the retreat of the
Church in the last 50-60 years has no doubt helped the Devil to advance - along with a burgeoning influx of "the worst of the heathen" Ezekiel 7:24.

More reformers like Booth and Barnado are needed, able, fearless, compassionate and not pc.

Pat said...

Anonymous - It was well reported in the local press and surprisingly the victim was interviewed on the local BBC programme. The attacker lives somewhere in the middle of Cornwall. It has always puzzled me that as this is a region that does not normally attract immigrants, asylum seekers, etc. when they do arrive it is always in quite large numbers seemingly 'overnight'.

Macaw said...

When I first saw the photo, I immediately thought of SA (for those of you who do not know, I live in Pretoria). Only then did I see it was in the UK.

MisterFox, although I agree with your sentiments, I have to say, that you are stuck with that human garbage.

@anon 14:58 - there are always three sides to a story: One side, the other side and the truth.

History tours would be boring if all there was to say was that the houses had white picket fences.

The UK was great at one stage. Look at 22 Sqdrn SAS. What a history. Look at your marines. Your RAF was the best there was. You ruled the seas. In the early 80's you folks sailed the entire Atlantic to take back the falklands.

Look at 6 para in Afghanistan a few years back.

I can go on and on, but although I am not British and have no links whatsoever, I served with a few SAS blokes in Angola. (Some of them even came from Rhodesia).

The real Brit is a lion. Maybe the lion should roar again ....

Anonymous said...

That is some sick person.
From the Plymouth Herald:
"Barber approached Naomi, questioned her and then ordered her to lie on the ground.

Everyone at the scene was afraid of Barber, and Naomi obeyed.

Barber became more agitated and violent, but had control of the group, said Miss Martin, ordering them not to take photos, to put their phones away and not leave the scene."

Is it 'cos she's Black and thus genetically inferior to Whites (who are inferior to Asians)?

No, she is probably the by-product of Socialist policies with no father to raise her.

Girl Power achieved from their ho-dancin' hippy-hopity crew of male genetilia.

James Mathurin said...

@ Sarah
I couldn't help wondering about what you said. I think we often have the impression that because the media did not focus on such things in the past, they did not happen. There was an interesting article in the TES on how this affects our perception of children today. In the mid-war period, there were several cases that would have been huge scandals today, but were just reported as footnotes - a pair of young boys kidnapping and murdering a baby (predating the Bulger killing by decades), and a gang of schoolboys using a rifle to attempt to kill their headmaster, and succeeding in shooting another teacher.

Are you sure that things like gang rape and girl gangs were as rare in the past, or that people just did not talk about them?

I don't think we had girl gangs in the past
Girl gangs might sound like a modern British problem, but new research has revealed an all-female crime syndicate had a firm and pitiless grip on London as far back as the 18th century.

I don't see the link between immigration and paedohile gangs, as there doesn't seem to be a racial component that runs consistently through them. The most recent case implicates an aspect of the Anglo-Pakistani community, but other rings seem to be of different ethnicities:

90% of all the knife crime, the gun crime, the muggings and drug pushing is committed by colonisers.

Can I ask the source of this suspiciously round figure? While I don't doubt that these are crimes committed mainly by people from lower socio-economic backgrounds, which will equal a large number of immigrants, or second and third generation Britons, I cannot find anything to back up that number.

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

James you have obviously not been watching the news. You have produced evidence of some "white paedophile gangs" however, if you had taken note of the recent report in the Times, the BBC Panorama report and the recent comments by the ex-Justice minister Jack Straw, there is a massive and massively disproportionate problem with Asian paedophile gangs. Out of 56 recent prosecutions 53 of those convicted were Asian.

Meanwhile the Metropolitan police recently admitted that 92% of the gang rape suspects in London were non-white

The vast proportion of knife crime is gang related most of the victims are black and so are the vast majority of the perpetrators

And you are being somewhat disingenuous in your comments about people in lower social economic situations being involved in crime. In numerical terms there are more white people living in poverty than all other racial groups put together. However, other racial groups are disproportionately involved in crime, so the analogy does not apply.

So there was a girl gang in the 1920's? I doubt they were as violent as modern girl gangs.

This is a very rushed response, however, I am sure other correspondents will provide you with more information.

alanorei said...

This report by Tony Shell addresses the issue of interracial crime.

He has another report Ethnicity and the experience of crime in England and Wales, which is similar, though I haven't been able to locate it on line.

James Mathurin said...

Sarah, thank you for the links, etc.

It is clear there is a cultural aspect in these crimes. I found this account particularly disturbing:

What interests me is that there seems to be a generational aspect in this; the parents of the youths doing this did not do it, so what has changed? There are clearly cultural factors, such as the horrible sexism in much of Islam, but what is causing it to change over time?

Having given some interesting stats, I'd like to see the ones about the crime statistics broken down by ethnicity and socio-economic status. It's actually something I've been very interested in seeing for a while, and seems to be very hard to track down (probably because of the difficulty of collecting, measuring and calculating the data).

It does appear that Alan agrees that socio-economic status may still be a factor, in the way he ascribes the higher crime rate Britain used to have in previous centuries to the more severe poverty.

I think you might want to look again at the girl gang article. Not only is it interesting, it actually points out that there is a history of girl gangs in London going back to the 18th Century.

I do appreciate the response. Rushed it may have been, but it actually had more meat to it than most replies I've had on here.

alanorei said...

Re: 'socio-economic' factors, I only mentioned those because in 19th century urban England they were much more severe than now and may have been partly the explanation for some of the lawlessness and degradation back then.

The news reports about today's paedo gangs suggest, however that the perpetrators are all pretty well heeled, with expensive vehicles etc. W.r.t. the victims, 19th century style destitution has not been mentioned as a factor in their respective downfalls, that I have seen.

I would not therefore attach any significance to so-called socio-economic factors as such in this current string of Moslem atrocities.

The main factors are both ethnic and religious but essentially the criminals are those who believe the Qur'an to the letter and therefore follow in the bloodstained footsteps of their demonic mentor and founder, Mohammed.

I might add that I've no wish to engage in a lengthy discussion on this subject, James.

If you want to know more of my stance here, I suggest you read Who Is This Allah? by Nigerian Christian G.J.O. Moshay. That book will confirm virtually every anti-Moslem statement that has appeared on this blog and rightly so.

alanorei said...

P.S. Concerning 'socio-economic' factors, the only one of relevance that could apply and probably does is chronic parental neglect w.r.t. the victims, in addition to the abysmal and probably wilful failure of church, schools, law enforcement and government in what should first and foremost be their duty of care towards the governed.

I don't quite know how you would precisely categorise those aspects, though.

For the purpose of clarification, that is my position on this particular subject stated in its entirety.

misterfox said...

Macaw, When the Lion does roar again the garbage will be blown away. We have a lot of groundwork to do but I think that end is achievable with modern technology.

James Mathurin said...

@ Alanorei
You seem to be accepting and denying the significance of socio-economic factors at the same time.

You say that that the "lawlessness and degradation" of 19th Century urban England was contributed to by the severe poverty of the time. Yet poverty and income inequality has significantly fallen since then, and the crime rate has fallen with it.

Of course, income inequality and relative poverty has been increasing since the 80s, yet you seem to be saying there is no possible way it is a factor with these kind of crimes and perpetrators? As I said, despite the cultural influences, these criminals' parents weren't committing these crimes, so what has caused that difference?

alanorei said...


My essential points are first that Moslem paedo gangs do not commit their crimes on the basis of poverty, destitution etc.

My second point is that they commit them because they are Moslem savages, a fact you can confirm for yourself if you bother to read the reference I quoted.

Concerning the victims, my third and last essential point is that parental negligence and official betrayal are key factors in what produces them, not 19th century style poverty - at least as far as I can determine from the media coverage I have seen (including the BNP site).

As indicated, I have already set out my conclusions on this subject, as reiterated above for your clarification.

I have nothing essential to add and see no point in replying to you any further.

Anonymous said...

@james Firstly there is no such things as an Anglo-Pakistani's. That really is a social construct.

Of course we are affected by our environment, small numbers of Europeans turn to crime in comparison to the members of the BME's. Our modern view of the 19th century has been formed by Marxists, and is unreliable as it has agenda.

Even so in the 19th century there was real poverty existing in a harsh northern European climate.

Today material poverty is very rare, especially if your black, you will not starve, or go hungry. Today poverty is not being able to get the latest shoes. Unless of course you are an addict or a child growing up with an addict for a parent. Again this is not poverty which is forced on people but chosen. So if the ethnics you are trying defend come from this environment, their parents are part of the problem, a problem we wouldn't have to deal with, or finance, if they weren't here.

Crime has risen in line with immigration so the idea that earlier generations didn't behave in a similar way is non-sense.

Could you tell us how our community in Our Country and Homeland has benefited from either immigration?

notareargunner said...

Enoch Powell said, and I remind readers, that these immigrant families have two identities and can choose either, much as they can with their passports.
Successive governments have promised to repatriate immigrants who commit serious crimes. It's all just talk.
The police's response was to go out and shoot an unconnected Brazilian electrician, a bit of an overkill, probably for overcharging.
Today I am going to Accrington where my people are rapidly becoming a minority. So much for the sacrifice of the Pals.
The only people with no redress under Human Rights legislation appear to be the ancient indigenous people of these islands.

James Mathurin said...

@ Alan
I do see your point that these gangs, and indeed, no sexual predators, commit their crimes on the basis of poverty. However, most violent crimes, including those unrelated to money, and crimes of passion, which do not have a financial motive, usually have people from lower socio-economic strata as perpetrators and / or victims, so I think there is some link, and may be in this case.

Even if you wish to cartoonishly dismiss them as 'Moslem savages', ythis still does not explain why their 'moslem savage' parents' generation did not commit these crimes. Again, I think an explanation might help to find a solution.

I do agree that parental neglect is a cause and result of a great many social ills, but I do not see exactly how it caused these girls to become victims? Are you saying that they would not have fallen for whatever methods these men used to get them to come with them if they had had better parents?

Of course, you do not have to reply to me, or answer my questions, i just wanted to share my responses.

James Mathurin said...

@ Anonymous
Your point about Anglo-Pakistanis being a social construct is interesting. In the one sense, it is very true - they are children of 2 pakistani parents, but have been raised in England, so the 'Anglo' aspect of their being is purely social.

I hesitate to read more into what you wrote than you explicitly said, but it does have shades of Nick Griffin's crazy 'no such thing as a black welshman' comment. Sorry if this was not what you meant.

As I said, I am not just saying that poverty makes people turn to crime, but I was pointing out the link between poverty and a general level of violence and abuse in everyday life.

As for our view of the 19th Century being shaped by Marxists, on the surface, that sounds like a very convenient excuse to ignore any aspects of history you don't like. Maybe I'm not being fair, so which aspects of 19th Century history have I been misled about? Victoria was still queen, right? Brunel built the bridges? Maybe Jack the Ripper was a Marxist invention to smear the imperialist police?

Material poverty is rare today? It is true the general standard of life has risen, but income inequality has been rising over recent decades, as I already stated. I am not sure what being Black has to do with that. Today, poverty is still real for many, Black, White, and others. Poverty is still having to choose between paying the rent or eating, not having to choose between a PS3 and a plasma screen.

Are you sure crime has risen in line with immigration? Overall, crime has been falling for a very long time, certainly since the 1950s, when the wave of immigration that seems to concern people on here began.

I am not sure how to address your last question. What does 'either immigration' mean in that context? If you explain, I will try to answer.

alanorei said...


It is not 'cartoonish' to describe* Moslems as savages. You clearly have neither read the Qur'an nor studied the history of this menace.

*Not 'dismiss.' I resent that kind of distortion that, I have to say, repeatedly characterises your comments and is one reason why replying to them eventually becomes tedious.

For your information, this is an extract from Who Is This Allah?, which explains why these crimes are escalating, p 25. Moshay sets out Moslem tactics dating from the 7th century as follows. (Though savages, they are not altogether stupid savages when it comes to conquest. The following applies obviously to male 'infidels.' The female ones are simply the spoils.)

"Migrate to Christian areas because they are tolerant. Pretend to be peaceful, friendly and hospitable; begin to clamour for religious political and social rights and privileges that you will not allow to Christians in an Islamic country; breed fast there and settle down; there should be no Christian activities in your community; you may speak or write to discredit their religion, but they must not talk about Islam; begin to expand your community; Christian activities should be restricted in all the places you expand to; the moment you have enough military might against these ‘disbelievers’, these trinitarian kaferis, go ahead and eliminate them or suppress them as much as you can, and be in control."

Moshay concludes "Where immediate invasion is not possible, that has always been the policy."

That is exactly what is happening in Britain now as other commentators here have been at pains to point out. I would be extremely surprised if you cannot see that.

As indicated, the Moslem menace in Britain is materially assisted by 5th column authorities who should be executed for treason.

I might add that Mr Moshay has seen real Islam close up over an extended period. His observations are corroborated independently by Peter Hammond, long term missionary to the Sudan, who has written two most enlightening books entitled Faith Under Fire in the Sudan and Slavery, Terrorism and Islam. Those are two more works that you would find most informative.

Whether from wealthy or (more likely) not so wealthy backgrounds, the victims almost certainly come from households that are demon-infested garbage dumps ruled by the television, the DVD player, the internet and the gutter-level example of professional hireling media slags like Cheryl Tweedy 'Ragwort' Cole and her crony Kimberley Walsh who habitually consort with males of a different race.

The victims then find out to their cost that as a general rule it doesn't benefit to emulate that kind of role model.

Corrupt Marxist teachers who taught the victims that they came from animals and can therefore act like animals and cowardly clergy who refuse to gainsay that also don't help.

I hope that is sufficient further clarification for you.

James Mathurin said...

@ Alan

You're missing my point. I have no point describing many Muslim beliefs as 'savage'. In fact, I think it is hard to find any religion that does not have some beliefs that are savage, but Islam certainly has some horrible and repugnant attitudes.

However, I said it was cartoonish to describe Moslems as savage. You are referring to a very diverse community, which stretches from atheists of muslim descent and liberal Muslims, to the fundamentalists and Taliban type of groups.

Have you ever actually met any muslims? I have met, and indeed grown up with muslims from the liberal end of the spectrum. Some of them were girls who wore the hijab, some did not, some were close friends, some were people I did not care for at all. They did not all think that English girls were sluts, or that people who did not share their beliefs should be punished.

I am not pretending that this represents all Muslims, as that would e a cartoonish simplification just as bad as yours. Just don't pretend that all muslims are like these rapists, or Bin Laden. It is simply not factually correct, and I choose to see you as mistaken or ignorant, rather than deliberately lying on this matter.

Also, to be clear, I think that if the police in the area were avoiding investigating these crimes to the best of their abilities, that is utterly wrong. I think that society, whether composed of one group or a mix of many, can only work if we are all equally subject to the rule of law.

Also, I have to point out that it is interesting that the way you continually describe certain women as slags and sluts is disturbingly similar to the way those rapists thought of English women. You even go so far as to say that these girls were attacked partly because they were trying to 'emulate' slags, which seems an all-too-typical 'blame the victim' approach to so many rape victims.

I am sorry if you find me too dismissive, but frankly, someone who says that the teaches of evolution is linked to girls being raped is all-too-easy to dismiss.

James Mathurin said...

Whoops. Obviously, where I said "I have no point describing many Muslim beliefs as 'savage'," I meant to say 'I have no problem describing...'

alanorei said...

I think if you are prepared to check the references I have outlined, James, you will find that what you blithely dismiss as wilful ignorance is all too often a harsh reality where Moslems rule.

It can also be said that Moslems basically divide into two groups - those that believe the Qur'an to the letter and those that don't.

Once again, I suggest you actually read it.

As for the background/behaviour of the victims, you have conflated a number of different issues. I suggest you do some research into the publications of Family and Youth concern.

As for the evils of the teaching of evolution, you should study the careers of some of history's most powerful evolutionists who actually achieved the means of putting Darwin's abominable theories into practice, e.g. Hitler and Stalin.

James Mathurin said...

@ Alan

I have no doubt that things are terrible in a country where Muslims rule. Theocracies tend towards fundamentalism and brutality, no matter the faith they start out with.

Also, it is true that Muslims split into fundamentalists and non-fundamentalists, but again, how is that different from any religion? Personally, I am against all fundamentalism, I simply don't limit it to Islam.

I am not actually making any comments myself about the victims' background or behaviour, just commenting on yours, and pointing out that you are talking about them in similar terms to those who raped them (eg. 'slags').

As for evolution, if you think Hitler and Stalin's regimes were somehow based on the Theory of Evolution, you either clearly do not understand evolution, or you are confusing Darwin's work with those who dubbed themselves the "social Darwinists", but whose thinking was based more on the pre-Darwinian idea of 'only the strongest survive'.

alanorei said...


Re: Hitler and Stalin

The regimes were based on Catholicism. The elimination of so-called 'sub species' i.e. European Jews (in Hitler's case) was based on both Catholic hatred for Jews and Hitler's willingness to carry Darwin's theories through to their logical conclusion.

If you interested, I can supply references.

James Mathurin said...


If that was the case, Hitler had no understanding of Darwin, or the logical conclusions of his theories. There is absolutely nothing in Darwin's theories that lead to genocide, unless you are a madman, looking for an excuse to exercise your own twisted urges, and frankly, if you're as twisted as Hitler was, anything will do as an excuse, from Darwin to the Bible to Alice in Wonderland.

alanorei said...


I guess you must be a committed evolutionist.

If so, then at long last we have unearthed the truth. All readers please take careful note.

I suggest, James, that you read In The Minds of Men, Darwin and the New World Order by Ian Taylor, pp 408ff, The Road from Darwin to Hitler.

James Mathurin said...


I am not a committed évolutionist, I am just committed to science, observable and verifiable truth and logic.

So yes, please do take note.

I read your book, and I see a rather good account of how the eugenics movement tried and failed to justify themselves by borrowing terminology from the Theory of Evolution, while still failing to grasp some of its most basic points. I have no question that Hitler was a eugenicist, but that does not link him with Darwin's work.

Here, I think, is one of the key misunderstandings:
"Haeckel expressed this argument, typically, by pointing out, "The theory of selection teaches that in human life, as in animal and plant life everywhere, and at all times, only a small and chosen minority can exist and flourish.""

The idea that those who thrive are 'chosen' runs entirely counter to natural selection, yet it is the basis of eugenics.

alanorei said...

So you believe that natural selection is 'science, observable and verifiable truth and logic'?

And you can demonstrate with actual documented results of how it accounts for the origin of species?

James Mathurin said...

Well, we have the entire fossil record for one thing.

If you were to predict how a fossil record would appear if it had developed through a process of natural selection, it would very closely resemble the one we find.

So there is that.

alanorei said...

Thank you for this, James

I will not crave Sarah's indulengence any longer after this one last question on a specifc example, for which of course, I would be happy to receive your answer off list via email that Sarah could give you.

Let me explain briefly.

A few years ago we visited an aquarium in Manly, near Sydney.

It had some captive seals, about which a member of staff gave a presentation to the visitors.

He said, and in all honesty these were his exact words:

"Seals evolved from bears."


My question is, therefore, could you please forward the scientific evidence for this claim, from the fossil record or wherever, specifying location(s) and description(s) of the actual geological strata and fossil 'column' where this transformation has occurred, an estimate of the time scale for this transformation and an outline of the methods used and their reliability, the identity and professional qualifications of the discoverers, explanations of any discrepancies, gaps etc. in the strata, specification of all transitional forms (this is most important) that should be observed in the strata (with explanation of why they are transitional forms and of what should be there if any are missing and why they are missing) and of course citation of all peer-reviewed scientific papers in which this evidence may be found.

Thanks in anticipation.

P.S. (to Sarah). I hope to forward the next instalment of the KJB article to you very soon, possibly today. Thank you for your patience.

Anonymous said...

@James I'm with you on evolution,
and either was a typo.

Race and identity are closely, linked and it's only very recently that the idea of a black Welshman, would have been any credence. So there is more than just shades of Nick griffin , I'm in complete agreement with him. Identity , Ethnicity are exclusive in concept and practice. Some you can co-opt into, Islam other's have a racial basis English being one of these. So you will never be English and Anglo is the Angle in Anglo-Saxon so saying Anglo-Paki(the correct term as is Afghani) is as meaningless as saying Saxon-Paki.
(It means truth teller)Paki-stan = Land of the Truthful( hilarious I know)

James "Crime has been falling since the 50's" really? Is this a serious claim? Is it based on the kind of maths that Home Office and ECHR use to show whites aren't the largest group of victims of Racially motivated crime?

Some links.

Independent 1993.


The Law Society

quote "It was not until the mid 1950s that the rise in crime began to accelerate"

From another European societies.


The State is Interesting which section of the community commit the most crimes? clue:- its the same worldwide>

The conclusions reached are strange but typically left wing,. More police equals more recorded crime(or higher crime rates), both true and false, More goods, more opportunities to steal so more theft. The more affluent society in general becomes the more criminal it becomes?

The same can be seen in all European Societies.

"we find a growth in recorded crime of the same order of magnitude in every country, with the single exception of Japan" less crime the law society see link above.

Japan is the one Major Industrialised nation where crime hasn't risen and it's demographics haven't changed. Interesting.

is Japan Exceptional?;jsessionid=2828D163D7B67A71C652B64F148E5ABC.inst1_3a?docId=5000298490.

The answer appears to be racial.

Recorded Crime rates in the UK have dropped? figures where massaged under Major and under The Socialist/Marxist government of Communist Labour,and they will continue to be under the Red Tories. It like tractor production apparently we lead the world.

Do you deny the existence of racial differences,or is it a case of evolution and selection don't apply if they undermine certain ideas? . I don't think genetics or environment - physical or abstract - can explain human behaviour on their own. Like the relationship between software and hardware poor software or faulty, substandard or the wrong type of hardware and the application doesn't run, or performs poorly.
Genetics provides the hardware society provides the software (memes). We can observe the results. I not pretending to be an expert on Evolution, Selection or the Memeplex. If you are, there will be people better qualified to answer you than me.

Anonymous said...

@James you might like this link

In reply to your point that poverty is relative. Not only is that semantics, a typical "left wing" tactic; Income equality is not the same as as poverty.

Anonymous said...

@james reference new typos in my new posts, you know what my points are.

eg: "It like tractor production apparently we lead the world"

should be: It's like tractor production, apparently we lead the world.

Bill Tyler

In future I'll proof read before posting.

James Mathurin said...


I've been to Oceanworld in Manly, it's a fantastic aquarium! Did you visit the aquarium after 2009? If so, he might have been referring to this:

The article title answers several of the questions you posed:

A semi-aquatic Arctic mammalian carnivore from the Miocene epoch and origin of Pinnipedia

As for the 'methods used', that is pretty simple: Natural Selection.

Gaps in the record? Simple, fossilisation is an extremely rare occurrence. Most organic remains leave no trace, especially after thousands and millions of years. We are lucky to have what remains we have found, so it is inevitable that there will be gaps. We can still make observations of the remains on either side of the gap and made predictions of what the 'missing link' would have been.

While I may not have supplied every answer you asked for in your obviously comedically-exagerrated list, you could always email the lady who announced the discovery in Nature on to satisfy your curiosity.

James Mathurin said...

Oh, by the way, that took about 3 minutes of google-searching, so either you already knew all this and wanted to see if I would answer correctly. or you never bothered checking the facts yourself, and simply rejected the idea because it disagreed with your preconceptions.

Apologies if there is some third option.

James Mathurin said...

@ Alan
Also, as the Nature article is written with a lot of complicated vocabulary and technical terms, there is a more layman-friendly (it was to me!) account here:

@ Anonymous

That article is interesting indeed, or at least the research it refers to is. They interpret the oxytocin hormone as meaning that ethnocentrism and racism being "hardwired" onto human beings. Another view of it could be that it is part of our 'animal instincts' that, as rational creatures, we can rise against, and actually can work against us in the modern world (such as the fight-or-flight response, where our bodies react to everything that excites us as if it is potentially an immediate physical danger - useful if a tiger jumps out in front of you, not so much if you get a large credit card bill in the post).

It also points out that oxytocin isn't actually anything to do with ethnicity itself, in the suggestion that ,"Giving soldiers a dose of oxytocin “might make them more cooperative towards their comrades, even willing to self-sacrifice,”" and more likely to launch an attack on an opposing army, meaning that, for example, an Asian soldier would be more likely to defend a white comrade, and attack an Asian opponent.

Semantics is not something that is the preserve of the Left (what else do you call the BNP's ridiculous definition of a 'real Englishman' being someone whose family is unmixed for x amount of generations?).

You are right that semantics and poverty are different things, and actually of more significance.
In a 2002 paper,[3] Eric Uslaner and Mitchell Brown showed that there is a high correlation between the amount of trust in society and the amount of income equality.

In addition to affecting levels of trust and civic engagement, inequality in society has also shown to be highly correlated with crime rates. Most studies looking into the relationship between crime and inequality have concentrated on homicides - since homicides are almost identically defined across all nations and jurisdictions. There have been over fifty studies showing tendencies for violence to be more common in societies where income differences are larger. Research has been conducted comparing developed countries with undeveloped countries, as well as studying areas within countries. Daly et al. 2001.[21] found that among U.S States and Canadian Provinces there is a tenfold difference in homicide rates related to inequality.

James Mathurin said...

"You are right that semantics and poverty are different things, and actually of more significance."

Yeah, obviously I meant to say income inequality and semantics are different things. Damn typos.

alanorei said...

The article really doesn't answer anything, James

It merely 'suggest(s)...a sister relationship with bears' and 'suggests...a fresh water transitional phase.'

Here they have found what they call one link between seals and bears that has a resemblance to a couple of other fossils that have also been found elsewhere.

No evidence that a series of transitional phases exists has actually been found, according to the article. That was the most important part of what I had asked for.

I am not surprised that investigators have found 'semi-aquatic carnivore' fossils. The book After The Flood by Bill Cooper refers to many such creatures observed a mere 1500 years ago in coastal waters off Scandanavia (Denmark). They are now extinct. How do the investigators know that what they found isn't one of those?

It should be noted that crocodiles, alligators, caymans and Komodo dragons all have forelimbs and hindlimbs, not flippers, and long tails. These are also semi-aquatic but they are not fossils.

The point is still, how did the seals actually evolve from bears (neither of which have long tails) according to the fossil record (if they did), not how they might have done. (And why do they both still exist as, apparently, fully 'evolved' species - unless this is an example of cross-evolution?)

In other words, the article on this point is in large part guesswork. (It could equally be used to prove that bears evolved from seals, surely.)

Ditto your use of the word 'predictions' for what isn't there in the fossil record (or is supposed to be but isn't).

By methods I meant measurement of the age of the fossils.

I note your dismissal of my question as 'comedically-exagerrated' (sic).

It was in fact a serious question, though you may choose to believe otherwise.

In that context, I note your statement about rejection based on preconception. On the contrary, it was you who mentioned the fossil record. I simply posed a specific if detailed question to elucidate your evident confidence in that record.

That you reacted the way you did in your second note in particular is not untypical of evolutionary supporters, as set out by Malcolm Bowden in the Appendix of his book Science vs. Evolution.

On one point, you are essentially right. Investigators are 'lucky' to find anything.

In which case, the supposed evolutionary/geological column should be struck out of every text book on the market where it appears, as mere speculation.

However, you did at least try to answer the question. I will not trouble you any further therefore.

We were at the aquarium in 2001.

James Mathurin said...

You clearly do not understand the Theory of Evolution.

Here's why the article answers your questions. It was already known that seals and bears had something in common, being vertebrates, and more significantly, mammals. They have even more significant similarities that indicate they are from the same family of mammals. Mammals having originated on land, and fossils of bears being older than those of seals, the seal is more likely to be a descendant of the bear than the other way around.

Therefore, you would expect to find a transitional stage, and that was discovered in 2009.

As I explained, you would not expect a series of transitional fossils. Hardly any animals ever get fossilised, and it's just because life has been around on Earth for billions of years that we have the number we do. All we can reasonably expect to find are snapshots along the line of descent, and when we do and they match our predictions, it demostrates the validity of the theoretical underpinnings of those predictions.

You are basically saying that, although there is overwhelming evidence of evolution, you will only be satisfied with a literally impossible amount of evidence.

Perhaps the investigators found one of those Scandinavian animals, it would still be a transitional form, just a living transitional form, rather than a fossilised one. Younger species live today alongside older ones, some of whom are their ancestors, so seals, bears and this rumoured creature in Scanfinavia living side by side would not be evidence against evolution.

Your point about crocodiles, alligators etc is more evidence of evolution. These animals live in semi-aquatic conditions that are dramatically different from that of selas, and so their bodies are very differently adapted. If seals were found in Africa, and crocodiles in the Arctic, that would be evidence against evolution.

Your confusion at seals and bears living at the same time again demonstrates a misunderstanding of the ToE. Bears are well-suited to their environment, so were already "fully evolved" as you put it. Those that became more reliant on aquatic food were not ideally suited to that environment, so their chances of reproduction, and the prospects for their offspring benefitted from gradual physical changes, or even sudden mutations, which would have been to the detriment of bears. Over a great length of time, this leads to a younger species living alongside its ancestor.

If your question was not meant to be comedic, then i can only characterise it as ridiculous. The way you asked it made me suspect that you know far less abotu the ToE than you think you do, and this response has only confirmed it.

Your desire to put your faith over objective truth shows through very often. Dismissing the evolutionary / geleological column as 'speculation', for example. They are formed from evidence, and predictions made and tested against that evidence is a scientifically disprovable way.

Please, please, look up the definitions of those words, as you are amazingly good at missing their significance.

alanorei said...

If all this 'evidence' exists for evolution, James, why do you still refer to it as a theory?

And how do you establish a time scale of billions of years?

Anonymous said...

"Semantics is not something that is the preserve of the Left" James come on mate semantics , rhetoric and moral and cultural relativism are all the left has. The BNP saying you have to be here for x generations to be English isn't semantics.
Eric Uslaner and Mitchell Brown I'll read it later, however there is another famous study , I'll find the link, which link multi-cultural an multi-racial environments with a lack of trust/social capital. it was undertaken by a liberal/Neo-Marxist! I posted further up the page as well, it was about crime rates and demographics.

Bill Tyler

Anonymous said...

Yeah, obviously I meant to say income inequality and semantics are different things. Damn typos.
lol very clever James. Damn your smart

Anonymous said...

Yeah, obviously I meant to say income inequality and semantics are different things. Damn typos.
lol very clever James. Damn your smart

Anonymous said...

And James are we talking about income equality or poverty now? If you have switched to income equality do you still stand by your original posts and poverty made them do it?

Bill Tyler

James Mathurin said...


Because a theory, in scientific terms, means something that has been proved.

After all, I assume you would not be so questioning of the Theory of Gravity, or the Theory of Relativity, even though they have both been proved. In archaic language, they would be referred to as 'laws', but that term actually has no scientific meaning.

What you, and indeed many people, are confusing is the meaning of the word 'theory' and the word 'hypothesis'. Again, I am not mocking you, seriously pointing out a very common misunderstanding.

Establishing a timescale of billions of years obviously goes beyond biology, and into the realms of geology and physics. I can go into that later, but I'm a bit rushed right now.

James Mathurin said...


"rhetoric and moral and cultural relativism are all the left has."

The Left and progressives got women the vote, got rid of child labour, won us universal education and got us a National Health Service. The Left actually has a pretty bloody good track record to go along with it's semantics.

"The BNP saying you have to be here for x generations to be English isn't semantics."

Well, what is it? Why is x amount of generations a tipping point? It doesn't make you more patriotic, more knowledgable of English history, more likely to defend democracy, less likely to emmigrate than someone who has been raised here and is mixed (like myself), or a child of immigrants. It's an arbitrary, semantic cutoff.

For some reason, I got no notification of your previous post. I do agree that race adn identity are linked, but we're back on social contructs again. Without leaving London, I've been in places where people identified me as 'mixed', 'black' and 'white'. Race is only as important to our identity and how we perceive others as we want it to be.

Maybe the idea of a 'black Welshman' is only recent, but then the ipad is even more recent, and I haven't seen anyone question the existence of that. How would a black person with a welsh accent, who has lived in Wales all his life, and is proud of being Welsh not be a Black Welshman? Or is it a question of 'they must be a black person whose family have lived in Wales for however many generations the BNP decide'?

I would dispute that identity and ethnicity are exclusive. Ethnicity is a fixed value, but identity is far more malleable. I have heard many asian youths say that they can feel confused in their identity, struggling to work out whether they fit more in the British culture they have grown up in, or the Asian culture their family comes from. I can't help feeling that telling them that they will never be British no matter what will only make them more likely to reject and resent us.

"Anglo is the Angle in Anglo-Saxon so saying Anglo-Paki(the correct term as is Afghani) is as meaningless as saying Saxon-Paki."

Wow, and it's the Left who use semantics? ;-) Anglo is the term used to represent England; you would term relationships between England and America as being Anglo-American. However, to avoid confusion, I could use the term 'British Pakistani'. Would that help?

It does look like I was mistaken on the crime trends. Your question did prompt me to look at the Parliamentary analysis of reported crimes over the 20th Century, which does indeed show a rise. It also mentioned the British Crime Survey, which tries to measure reported and unreported crimes, which has only been going since 1981, and shows a pretty constant level.

I am amazed that you can describe Nu Labour as 'Communist'. One of the first things they did was reduce links with the unions and praise Thatcher. Blair governed as a Centre-Right leader.

I don't deny racial differences, but I don't ascribe them any more significance than differences of hair colour. Cultural differences can be very significant, but are not the same as race.

"Genetics provides the hardware society provides the software (memes)."

Very interesting point, but I think you overstate the importance of the tiny, pretty much trivial differences in genetics between people of different ethnicities. I wouldn't argue with the statement itself, though. Thanks for a good reply, though.

James Mathurin said...


You are right that I have allowed myself to drift a bit between discussion of poverty and income inequality. Without re-reading my old posts, I don't think I said anything I don't stand by, although I might modify a few of my thoughts.

For instance, having now looked into the link between income inequality and falling social capital, I think we may see a possible explanation for the generational change that I mentioned.

I certainly never said 'poverty made them do it'. We always have the personal responsibility to make good or bad choices, I would argue that poverty and income inequality have a big effect on how many good or bad choices you get to choose between. Plenty of poor people don't commit crimes, plenty of Muslim youths don't rape white girls, etc. All of those people made more responsible choices.

James Mathurin said...

"Yeah, obviously I meant to say income inequality and semantics are different things. Damn typos.
lol very clever James. Damn your smart "

Man, I managed to mess that up twice? In my defence, that was the end of a very long day. OK, third time's the charm - "Poverty and income inequality are different things."

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

James I am afraid that you are incorrect in your definition of theory. It doesn't mean it has been proved.

In fact Darwin's theory of evolution has not been conclusively proved. It is a very compelling theory and accepted as fact by most people.

However, whilst the necessary "missing links" elude us, it remains an unproven theory.

alanorei said...

Thank you for your comments, James

I look forward to your further comments on the billions-of-years time scale.

James Mathurin said...


Thank you for catching my imprecise language there. You are correct, i was over-simplifying.

A theory is not something that is proven. It is, however, an explanation for observable phenomena that must be backed up by evidence.

In scientific fields there are harsh, predetermined levels of probability that the explanation must reach, before it goes from hypothesis to theory, which evolution easily reaches, and none of the other explanations for the current state of life on Earth do.

There are many many 'missing links' around us Sarah, some extinct, some living. For instance, every amphibian can be seen as a missing link between fish and lizards, and many Dinosaur fossil as a missing link between amphibians and birds.

Again, a quick google search finds a page that explains the misunderstandings that rpompt people to claim that transitional fossils do not exist, and gives some specific examples of ones that do.

Human ancestry. Australopithecus, though its leg and pelvis bones show it walked upright, had a bony ridge on the forearm, probably vestigial, indicative of knuckle walking (Richmond and Strait 2000).

Haasiophis terrasanctus is a primitive marine snake with well-developed hind limbs. Although other limbless snakes might be more ancestral, this fossil shows a relationship of snakes with limbed ancestors (Tchernov et al. 2000). Pachyrhachis is another snake with legs that is related to Haasiophis (Caldwell and Lee 1997).

Transitions from condylarths (a kind of land mammal) to fully aquatic modern manatees. In particular, Pezosiren portelli is clearly a sirenian, but its hind limbs and pelvis are unreduced (Domning 2001a, 2001b).

James Mathurin said...


I was not totally clear on whether you were asking about hte age of the Earth or the Universe, so did a little research on both (which is fun - part of the reason I enjoy having conversations like these!)

Both have been aged using several methods, and I found a couple of pages which detail both

The generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years (plus or minus about 1%). This value is derived from several different lines of evidence.

Unfortunately, the age cannot be computed directly from material that is solely from the Earth. There is evidence that energy from the Earth's accumulation caused the surface to be molten. Further, the processes of erosion and crustal recycling have apparently destroyed all of the earliest surface.

The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.

While these values do not compute an age for the Earth, they do establish a lower limit (the Earth must be at least as old as any formation on it). This lower limit is at least concordant with the independently derived figure of 4.55 billion years for the Earth's actual age.

The most direct means for calculating the Earth's age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204.

The Universe:
the universe has been here within a finite period. And because that is so, it should be possible to measure how long it has been around. So far, there are 3 major methods by which we can determine the age of the universe. Although they do not directly match, their predictions lie within the same order of magnitude; all within a range of 10 billion to 20 billion years

The first method, called nucleocosmochronology, is like the one mentioned above, i.e., making use of the abundances of radioactive nuclide. Another method makes use of the Universe‘s rate of expansion, while the 3rd through the behavior of globular clusters, which are spherical collections of stars, the oldest of which have stars estimated to be no older than 18 billion years.

The Universe’s expansion is an offshoot of the Big Bang theory, which also has led to the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation, the source of data of the most precise measuring devices for the age of the Universe.

The most precise measurement of the age of the Universe so far, pegged at around 13.7 billion years, was made by NASA’s Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). Anisotropy pertains to the uneven distribution of cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, the oldest electromagnetic waves in the Universe. With WMAP, NASA has been able to generate a full-sky map of CMB radiation and, subsequently, that said estimate.

This article also linked to :
13.73 Billion Years – The Most Precise Measurement of the Age of the Universe Yet

alanorei said...

Thank you for your extra note, James.

I will check this out.

In the meantime, here is an additional item on puijila.

Anonymous said...

Gene's shape us, we shape our environment which in turn shapes us. Man can to certain extent be the engine of his own evolution. The environment we live in now is largely synthetic. Europeans have over millennia created fairly uniform environments for themselves wherever they went . Africans have also created environments that bear their distinct signature in which ever part of that massive continent they where on, or come to that Detroit or Brixton.

Socio-economic factors in pre industrial or even better stone age society - I don't know much about this either, so stay with me, but I think society "evolves" as well - The economic factors I should imagine would be what came readily to hand, the natural resources and how easy they where to harvest. So applying the same, I think, standard that your argument applies to modern "in-equal" industrial society, baring physical disability there should be no "in-equality" with in the group. Furthermore as it is access to resources that determines outcome - to a certain extent - those that live in an environment which provides the most abundant and easily harvested resources should , all things being equal, have the highest standard of living and achievement and furthermore their society should be the most "harmonious"? Where as those groups who live in more desolate regions and are therefore suffering resource poverty should do less well? Or have the dynamics changed does mankind in fact live in a variable environment where only certain rule's or processes affect him at certain times? Or have I misunderstood the role inequality plays in determining outcome?

Bill Tyler

Anonymous said...

More errors, I'm going to blame it on another long day and the fact its past midnight.

alanorei said...

Some further articles, for anyone interested on the age of the earth and the universe. Note that these articles are written in non-specialist language but still 'in depth.'

Many related articles are available on the site. (Going (way) back to the original topic, it does seem to me (this is just an opinion) that this nation is de-volving, not e-volving.)

Age of the Universe, Part 1. This is introductory, on 'the big bang.'

Age of the Universe, Part 2. This looks at observable aspects of the earth and solar system and their implications for the age of both the earth and solar system/universe.

NASA and 'the big bang'. This is a further article on 'the big bang.'

This site has some very informative pamphlets.

You can also get pdf files of back copies of their journal.

The 2008 No. 2 file has an article on Hitler, Darwin and Mein Kampf.

James Mathurin said...

You are welcome Alan.

The extra article on Puijila is, in some ways, quite stunning with how far they are willing to go.

Their first point, that Puijila could be an otter, rather than a seal / bear link is pretty desperate. Their evidence for this is that the link between bears and seals (which, even before it was discovered, one would predict would have short legs, possibly webbed feet and a fur coat - in short, would look kind of like an otter) really really looks like an Otter. By that logic, surely bats are birds, and dolphins and whales are fish?

The second point reaches laughable levels that you yourself have never stooped to - suggesting that this species was created by God, appearing with no ancestors, from nowhere. While we cannot strictly talk in scientific terms of 'impossibility', only look at relative probabilities, the chances of this magical occurrence happening, and just happening to match the predicted outcomes of the ToE are astronomically smaller than the probability that the creature is what Rybczynski describes it as, based on the evidence.

Thanks for sharing the article, though.

James Mathurin said...


I agree that we have started to manipulate our environment far more than at any time in our history, but I think you understate its importance in our earlier development as a race.

There is an excellent documentary I saw recently, called Guns, Germs and Steel, which focussed on the role of environment and climate in shaping human history. One of its main points was that the climate and land links of Europe and thr Middle East created the conditions (the presence of beasts of burden, and a climate suitable for high-energy crops, most importantly wheat, which in turn allowed communities to settle, and for farmers to produce enough food that it did not require the entire commuinity to spend their time seeking food, so that they could start to develop other skills) for humans to abandon the nomadic existence that characterised African societies. He pointed out that it is only in the southern-most countries in Africa, which are the only ones with climates close to Europe, that anyone, African or European, has been able to succesfully develop European-style agriculture, so even today, we are still at the whim of nature more than we may imagine.

I get your little joke about Detroit and Brixton, but seriously, can you point out some 'African signature' that is common to those places and pre-colonial Africa?

I think I follow your point that members of pre-industrial societies would have equal access to resources, disability not withstanding seems to not follow the idea through. Different people in any community would have different levels of access to resources. Assuming we are talking mainly about food, the farmer would have more access than anyone else. If he was willing to trade for it, those who had more of what he wanted, or the skills to produce it would have more access to food. Also, those with the disposition and power to simply take it would also have more access. Straight away, there are many ways for inequalities to form, and they may grow or shrink as circumstances change, with disharmony growing and shrinking within the group, even while their general standard of life remained quite high.

Groups who lived in desert regions would, as you said, have less access to resources as a group, but within the group, the access to whatever they did find would probably would probably be more equal. Therefore, although life would be harsh, interactions within the group would probably be more stable and harmonious.

Thanks for really taking on board what I had said, I am enjoying your responses.

James Mathurin said...


The articles are interested for demonstratin how people can ignore such a wealth of evidence.

I respect your right to whatever beliefs you want, but it is clear that answers in genesis puts every bit of evidence secondary to their holy book, so none of their scientific points come from a remotely objective standpoint.

Many of the arguments seem to be derived from the arguments used by convicted felon Kent Hovind, and there was a very detailed page which categorises the faults with them here:

I do have to say, the 'Hitler, Mein Kampf, Darwin' article is pretty poor., It just quotes a series of passages fro mMein Kampf, and then just says that they reckon Darwin sounds similar (without any actual quotes from Darwin to prove such a comparison).

alanorei said...


The Hitler/Darwin article was in part limited by space. It had, however, a reference to a larger, more detailed work.

I am aware of Talk Origins. Many answers to its claims are found here.

However, I am sure that both AiG and CSM would be interested in your views. It appears that they are each contactable via email.

I would certainly be interested in seeing any communication you send and any replies you get, though in fairness to Sarah, I think this should be done off list.

Anonymous said...

Guns, Germs and Steel :- Europeans have only achieved so much because of our location, (We live on magic ground) conveniently selection and evolution don't seem to have played a role (or even happened?) because we are after all exempt from such forces if they don't support left wing dogma..good for undermining traditional religion but not the Marxist one. Kenya(East Africa) , Rhodesia and South-Africa ( as examples, not an exhaustive list), are all extremely fertile and were during colonial the pre-colonial times,- much more so than say Norway , Sweden or Finland? - but it is only after Whites arrived just a few hundred years ago - and think of all that we had achieved in the the many millennia before that, that any thing even resembling modern agriculture happened. GG&S is more Marxism to my mind that only rehashes or reaffirms the central tenants of Neo-Marxism to the faithful or acts as propaganda to convince the unconvinced. Do you really support it James, it's glaring logical and historical inconsistencies. I'm sure it reaffirms what you believe, but does it stand up to critical analysis. Also for someone who can argue so convincingly for evolution why would choose to ignore it's role in shaping intelligence "but I think you understate its[the environment that different groups built?] importance in our earlier development as a race" No I don't It's the differing nature of these environments that interests me. For example if I said if the African had evolved in Japan and vis-versa you would quiet rightly point out that either evolution would taken a similar path or the African would have died out. Yet the environment they create for themselves are as far apart as the African is from the European.

I'm sure you have been to the British Museum have you seen the Sumerian exhibits?

The 'African signature' can be seen from "Salisbury" to New Orleans to Haiti to Detroit to Liberia etc etc etc. When does it stop being a situation beyond their control or all the fault of someone else? And the experience of colonialism and slavery aren't unique to Africans. All races have had some experience of them.

This is rushed James sorry. There's a few things in your last post and your others that make for interesting reading.I'll get back to you later. But we are getting somewhere So far we have established that crime and immigration have risen together. Poverty and Income inequality are different and according to your
last post. Disposition - yet to be defined - can affect group behaviour and acheivment. Also in your desert community; scarcity would cause a form of proto-communism to be established, rather than savagery, bloodshed and self interested behaviour. I'm sure there's more I'm going to collate it all when I get back and go through it. I think it is important to remember that this started off as post designed to hight-light the regular racist violence suffered by the British at the hands of an imported community.


James Mathurin said...

Oh, I don't think the URL for the Gins, Germs and Steel documentary came thorugh in my last post, so ehre it is again:

James Mathurin said...

Alan, it is almost painful reading the scientific misconceptions on those AIG articles. The concept of evolution being powered by 'random chance'. the idea that, eith regard to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, life on Earth is a closed system, etc., etc. Point after point that is not just wrong, but has been shown to be wrong time and again.

I have no intention of corresponding with AIG. There are people far more qualified than I (I am just a science geek, a fan of physics if you will) who could provide better answers, and indeed have.

It is interesting though, as if you came to that work without a basic understanding of science, or how to research and question scientific work, those articles would read as being incredibly convincing. The key is to think critically, and try to make conclusions that are not based on assumptions (such as the Bible being correct - if it is, the research will show it to be, but time and again those articles show that they have approached their work with the assumption that any theory that disagrees with bible is inherently incorrect, and have only been interested in the evidence to prove that point).

James Mathurin said...

Bill, I think you are oversimplifying. No one said that Europe and the Middle East are 'magic ground', but they are different environments from anywhere else on the planet.

All but 1 of the world's species of beasts of burden are found in that area, and it is a mostly fertile region, with easy land links that allow farming and technology to transfer into areas which are perhaps not so fertile (such as Norway), to compensate for natural fertility. The vast majority of the African environment, by comparison, only allows for subsistence farming at best.

That this led to the differences between European societies and those of Africa, Australia and the Americas is evolution very much in action. Evolution is about the relationship between our genes and our environments, and it shows how a species with the same genetics (the human race) can have such drastic differences from one environment to another.

The African nations you list fit into this theory perfectly - the Southern nations of Rhodesia and South Africa are in the small part of Africa with a climate comparable to Europe, where European agricultural techniques can work (whereas they failed miserably throughout the rest of Africa), and Kenya had a major port, allowing for techniques to migrate from the Middle East (I may well need to research that more fully though).

I am slightly puzzled by the constant referring to Marxism as a general, all-purpose 'we want to ruin society because we're evil' threat, as it has been through much of this site.

I am also slightly confused by the comparison between Africans and Japanese. It is completely in line with the theories of Gins, Germs and Steel to suggest that, had the climates and ecologies of Africa and Japan been reversed, their development would most likely have reversed with it.

You also seem to avoid clarifying what the 'African signature' is. You say that it is something common to areas where people of African descent have lived post-colonially, but surely to be an 'African signature' it would also have to be consistent in pre-colonial Africa, something that has not been demonstrated?

Also, while only someone ignorant of history could argue that only Africans have been subject to colonialism and slavery, only someone equally ignorant could argue that the African experience and legacy of colonialism and slavery is unique to all of those cases in nature and magnitude. In fact, as Gins, Germs and Steel points out, that is in large point due to the colonialists' failure to use their own techniques of agriculture in Africa, forcing them to exploit it instead for it's natural resources, a process that was more dangerous and damaging, and therefore required a more severe level of control and subjugation over the native population than it did in, for example, India.

I'm looking forward to your expanded-upon thoughts that you talk about in that last paragraph, particularly the suggestion that a more equal and stable desert community would tend towards communism of some kind (and I will be perfectly frank - I don't see that as any bad thing).

You are right that we have moved quite a bit from the original article, but that is how conversations go sometimes. :-) I would question that that original article shows the attack to be racist, or part of a regular pattern. Not every attack by a White person on a black person is racist, and not every attack by a black person on a white one is racist. That is not to say that the offence in the article is anything other than repugnant and brutal, of course.

Anonymous said...

Hi James just to get a few things clear. In your opinion there is no such thing as race,it is just a social construct, man out of all the animals is exempt from selection we evolved, became perfectly evolved and then stopped. The environment which "selected" for (or sifted out) certain traits creating an "improved" product which may then have shaped the environment further, the environment becoming more and more an expression of the regional type of man's will, which in turn selected for certain traits etc. this process has stopped now? or the effects we observe - the nature of the shaped environment, it properties are not evidence of the type of strengths that have been selected for? I'm just trying to get things clear.

There are quiet a few strategic shifts in your posts. And after looking more in to gun germs and steel it reads more and more like an extended excuse and justification of certain traits and post-modern "ideals".

The proto-communist society of desolate OR resource poor tribes seemed to be your suggestion it's not mine, if you see it differently could you define it?

Communism is one of the greatest evils in history, unless of course a quarter of a billion deaths,the crushing of whole societies and savage totalitarian rule is "cool". (I know james no ones done it right yet, if only eh , lets slaughter a few million more in the attempt to get it right)

As for attacks being racially motivated or not, what is indisputable or children wouldn't be attacked by these animals if they weren't here.

Again just trying to pin you down on a few points.

I will get back to answering you , weekends are often busy I'm sure you no what its like.


James Mathurin said...

Hi Bill.

You are right to try to pin me down on words, so I will be clear on what I mean.

I think race is often mixed up with qualities like ethnicity and culture. Race is more vague than people realise - there is often more genetic variation between people from different parts of Africa (who would be identified as the same race - black), than between an African and a European. The differences are much smaller than skin colour and our concept of 'race' may make them appear; people on here talk about race as if made us different species with significantly different characteristics.

This does not mean that evolution has stopped - after all those differencecs in hair and skin make us more suited to different climates, but we are still the same species, as evidenced by the fact that any human male can breed with any human female - one of the definitions of being the same species.

Even if we are 'erfectly evolved', that is only temporary. Great White Sharks and crocodiles have not had to evolve for millenia, as they are perfectly suited to their environment. However, if their environment changed, they would suddenly not be perfectly evolved.

I do get your point - humans change their environment like no ither lifeform. However, it is easy to overstate our control. As GGaS pointed out, if European society was at all inherently superior to African, they would have been able to bring their agriculture to all of Africa - instead they failed utterly, apart from in the areas that matched their climate, and were ravaged by disease. It is also relevant to discussion sof climate change - we have adapted really well to the world as it is, but if we shift the climate even a little, we will find ourselves very much at the mercy of our environment.

Maybe GGaS reads like excuses if you go into it with the idea that people of different ethnicities are born with significant differences. I admit, my life experience has led me to go into it with the opposite view, but I am always willing to look at evidence and change my views accordingly.

However, I think that GGaS backs up every point it makes with good historical and geological evidence. Are there any points in particular that you feel are blatantly untrue?

I was being slightly joking about your mention of communism:
"Also in your desert community; scarcity would cause a form of proto-communism to be established, rather than savagery, bloodshed and self interested behaviour."

I do agree with what you jokingly said about 'not getting communism right'. It has the best ideals of any political movement, yet has been perverted away from those ideals so often, it's truly horrible. At least when fascist dictators do monstrous things they're being true to their beliefs. Some people are making steps in the right direction - Brazil's Lula da Silva, for instance.

"As for attacks being racially motivated or not, what is indisputable or children wouldn't be attacked by these animals if they weren't here."

True, they would just be attacked by someone else. There is no reason to belive that removing every immigrant from the country tomorrow would fix anything. For one thing, there are pretty much always white youths in these gangs too - are yo usuggesting that they are all just good kids who have been led astray by bad company?

The problems go far beyond race, and if anyone wants to find solutions, they need to look at the bigger picture the evidence hints at.

Thanks for taking the time for this answer Bill, it feels like a fruitful conversation.

Anonymous said...

james I have been trying to ignore this while I worked ..I cant.
1/"True, they would just be attacked by someone else."

So it was their fate, or their fault( like the white children fucked by Muslim invaders)? Or am I "oversimplifying". We have already established that crime was lower before mass immigration, that the attackers where not white an that for what ever reason ethnics are "over represented" in crime stats. So if we are being honest I cant say that these people wouldn't have been attacked but I can say they would have lived in a much safer environment and would have stood much less chance of being attacked. This also hints at an attitude of "screw em our presence here is more important than their safety". we are not a nation of immigrants James

2/ "There is no reason to believe that removing every immigrant from the country tomorrow would fix anything." "Anything"? James we both now that is not true. Crime rate s would drop and left would be undermined overnight, the immense cost of immigration and immigrants would no longer be shouldered by us, and huge areas of the state could be shut see above. I know we need to completely re-organise our society for the benefit of immigrants.

"For one thing, there are pretty much always white youths in these gangs too. Are there stat's and evidence please", the reports I've seen the gangs are 90% plus completely ethnic in make up.

general crime:

racist attacks or attacks by group of ethnics on whites:

( the left typically instead of trying to highlight these cases of racism sought to call us racist for highlighting them)

- are yo usuggesting that they are all just good kids who have been led astray by bad company?
see above

James That part of your post was arrogant , untrue and uncalled for. I will get back to you sorry mate still busy.

James Mathurin said...

Hey, I happened on this thread when I was looking at a reference to Sarah being a doubter of evolution, and I realised that the last reply to me came in while I was 'banned'. I have no idea whether Anonymous will get a notification, but here goes, anyway.

"So it was their fate, or their fault( like the white children fucked by Muslim invaders)? Or am I "oversimplifying"."

Yes, you are. You acknowledge yourself that, regardless of immigration, crime would still happen. The victim in this case was from a low socio-economic strata, making them more likely to be a victim of violent crime, and the perpetrators were also, which also makes them more likely to commit those crimes. If you disagree, then it sounds as if you think that eliminating immigration would instantly create socio-economic equality, and erase the legacy of centuries of inequality.

"This also hints at an attitude of "screw em our presence here is more important than their safety"."

I could see you taking it that way, but it is meant as more of an "inequality in our society will have more of an effect, so let's not screw them by focussing just on immigration."

"we are not a nation of immigrants James"

I don't know, that recent 'who are the native English' article seems to disagree - it was saying that while we are not an immigrant nation like Australia, America or Argentina, there were areas with various mixed-race communities stretching back millenia.

"[If we removed all immigrants] Crime rate s would drop and left would be undermined overnight"

The links you provided earlier don't bear that out. The Law Society one goes into several explanations for the Post War-1994 crime rate increase, none of which include immigration. This is unsurprising, as it points out that the increase was idenical in almost every country in that period, not just those with "mass-immigration".

"and huge areas of the state could be shut down."

Actually, it would require an immense state effort, and an ongoing one, to enforce the 'zero-immigration' policy.

"I know we need to completely re-organise our society for the benefit of immigrants."

Well, we've already named days of our week, and months of our year, in their honour, and we've changed our vocabulary of food, all to make immigrants more comfortable. I'll tell you what it is, mate, it's political Correctness gone mad!

""For one thing, there are pretty much always white youths in these gangs too. Are there stat's and evidence please", the reports I've seen the gangs are 90% plus completely ethnic in make up. "

In areas where immigrants make up a similar proportion of the low socio-economic strata, yes, which is what we would expect. Your links show that, prior to 'mass-immigration' to London, it wasn't that there was no crime in London, it was just managed by White families like the Krays (or maybe they're OK, cos they're good English boys who loved their mum).

"are yo usuggesting that they are all just good kids who have been led astray by bad company?
see above

OK, I suppose you were. Your naiveté is actually slightly charming.