Saturday, 19 November 2011

Archbishop John Sentamu’s Misconceptions about the Nature of Western Economies

© Frank Ellis 2011

John Sentamu’s article in the Yorkshire Pos (online 5th November 2011) in which he attacks the inequalities of wealth generated by an economic system largely based on the private ownership of the means of production reveals him to be a woefully ignorant commentator, and one who fails to grasp the reasons for the West’s astonishing intellectual and economic achievements. The substance of Sentamu’s article, such as it is, also confirms the sharp decline in the intellectual core of the Church of England’s leadership.

Social, intellectual and economic inequalities that arise from hard work, self-discipline and superior IQ are everywhere to be seen. They are a natural state whereby those endowed with such qualities will rise in social status, if they so wish, and to whom the benefits of wealth will accrue. Nature provides no evidence that all men were created equal or that all men will achieve the same things and reach the same goals. In what is still a largely white country, though mass, non-white immigration is set to reduce whites to a minority in their own country, black failure in education, employment and high levels of representation in crime, confirm that the qualities required for even modest levels of success are largely absent among blacks resident in Britain. Is it this, I wonder, that serves to fuel Sentamu’s resentment of England?  Does his apparent concern for the well-being of lower-paid workers mask a racist resentment of conspicuously successful whites?  Bear in mind that Sentamu was one of those fellow-travelling, useful idiots who lent his name to the viciously anti-white racist Macpherson Report (1999). Macpherson, Sentamu and all the others involved in the preparation of this hate tract, which had very little to do with a bungled murder inquiry and everything to do with attacking and undermining the institutions of a white nation, bear a large share of the responsibility for the degenerate behaviour of blacks that struck English cities in August 2011.

It does not occur to Sentamu that companies and businesses are founded by ambitious and private individuals whose intention is to create a successful business not a charity. Some of these companies generate huge wealth and their products have immeasurably improved the living standards of millions of people. They exist to make money and profit so that they can meet the demands of investors and so that they can reinvest capital to make more products. A privately owned company that is conspicuously profitable and handsomely rewards its shareholders and Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) will generate envy and resentment, especially among those who regard themselves as the intellectual and moral arbiters of our society.  Privately run companies do not have to answer to the outpourings of Sentamu’s poisonous envy presented as concern for the less economically successful.

Sentamu concludes that in those instances in a company where CEOs are paid 300 times more than the least well paid employees  - no company is actually cited by Sentamu – that this tells these employees ‘that they are of little value’. It tells employees no such thing. However much he might like to enjoy the same salary and benefits of the CEO the security guard knows that he is incapable of running a major company. If he is convinced that he is as good as his master he can start a business and prove it. Otherwise he must earn his living as an employee. Where large numbers of people come together, as in the workplace, inequalities between and among individuals will be apparent. No employee works to improve the position of others (or of starving Somalis and Kenyans). He strives towards his own ends and from this basic fact of human nature arises, inevitably and desirably, economic and social inequalities and the economic and intellectual progress associated therewith.

Sentamu tells us that: ‘Top pay has been found to bear little or no relation to company performance, but even if it did, isn’t the performance of a company dependent on the work and well-being of all its staff?’ It is obvious that the performance of a company depends, in part, on the work and well-being of employees. Sentamu implies without any evidence that when the gap between senior personnel and junior personnel is large or very large that the morale and well-being of junior staff in some unspecified way suffers. I suggest it does not. It is the nature of envy to which Sentamu implicitly appeals that differences in pay and privileges are most painfully felt among workers and staff of comparable levels. The worker on the factory-floor does not envy the stratospheric pay of the CEO: he envies the slight increase in pay which his more able fellow worker enjoys by virtue of his better and more efficient work rate and ethic. That difference may only be small but it gnaws away at the less well remunerated worker’s sense of self-esteem. This is why unions attract mediocrities who wish to see all the stupid, the able, the lazy and industrious held to the same standard. None must be permitted to shine since this will make the bad and stupid workers confront their inadequacies.

Companies that pay top staff high salaries regardless of results are not necessarily wasting money. CEOs have a symbolic, propagandistic function that companies use to promote themselves. This is especially the case where senior appointments are not made on merit but on considerations of equal opportunities and affirmative action which is then used by the company to trumpet its commitment to racial and sex diversity. Such appointees will be very well paid for doing very little. They are simply window dressing and public relations puppets. Moreover, paying the CEO a vast salary which may or may not be related to his performance signals the power and status of the company itself: it is a message of corporate dominance and power. There is no difference at all between a wealthy individual donating millions of dollars to feed the starving, AIDS-ridden hordes of Africa and a top-listed company paying a CEO a large salary. Both are gestures of power and status designed to impress. 

Sentamu worries about the effects of high levels of CEO pay on the morale of lower paid employees. He should ask himself what it must be like for a high-IQ and capable white employee in a top-rated Western company to be passed over for promotion in favour of a low-IQ incompetent black, all done in the name of the false god of diversity. Moreover, if Sentamu is indeed concerned by the lack of any link between pay for CEOs and performance he might like to consider the beam in his own eye. Where, pray tell, is the link between the performance of the Church of England’s leadership, its CEOs, as it were, and the salaries, fringe benefits and pensions that Rowan Williams and Sentamu enjoy? It is quite clear to me, sinner and lover of money that I am that the Church of England has succumbed to heresy. The Church of England openly promotes homosexuality and the ordination of women priests. It does not accept the teachings of Christ and has, on so many indicators, succumbed to the Satanic creed of “do what thou will shall be the whole of the law”. When the Church of England teaches that there are no privileged perspectives it destroys its own authority. If there are no privileged perspectives then sin cannot be condemned, the sinners cannot be punished; there is nothing to worry about when Christians are persecuted by all those nice Muslims or when Muslims try to establish no-go areas in England. Why should any Englishman accept anything said in the name of the Church of England when the church itself rejects Holy Scripture and openly colludes with its enemies and the enemies of England?
Again, and given Sentamu’s concern for what he considers to be the high pay enjoyed by CEOs, I find it strange that he has nothing to say about the grotesque mismatch between the rates of pay enjoyed by senior figures in the public sector and their generally shoddy performance: university vice-chancellors are overpaid bureaucrats and have inflicted long-term damage on their institutions by permitting reckless expansion; social services consistently fail to protect little boys and girls from sub-human perverts and the violently retarded; those charged with securing our borders let criminals and illegal immigrants come and go at their will; and the police are too frightened to act against non-white criminals; NHS hospitals resemble death camps where the old, weak and vulnerable are subjected to selections based on indifference, where they are abused, starved, mocked, dehydrated and, where, far too often, they are exposed to the not so tender mercies of Third Worlders masquerading as doctors and nurses. Local government is yet another example of public sector incompetence. The monopoly enjoyed by local government means that these bodies can impose confiscatory and rapacious levels of council tax regardless of their sub-standard performance and, of course, these councils pay themselves all kinds of bonuses for meeting spurious government targets.  If thousands of welfare parasites and immigrants who live on the backs of others live in a particular local authority there is very little chance that those in work and who pay for the flat-screen televisions and trainers coveted by the feckless can change this state of affairs through the ballot box: parasites simply outnumber the responsible hosts; indigenous whites – who supposedly do not exist - have effectively been disenfranchised by immigration. One of the worst examples of overpaid public employees is the BBC. As a body funded by a license fee, a viewing tax, and one that can levy a tax even if you do not watch the BBC, there is an exceptionally powerful case for mandating that the full salary, privileges, pension provisions and any other benefits enjoyed by its senior personnel be published in full every year. Were the BBC a privately funded entity there would be no grounds for such disclosure.

Sentamu’s exploitation of poverty to attack successful companies is the standard method used by Marxist agitators and those who are determined to ignore human nature. People who choose not to eat properly, who smoke, who consider a subscription to satellite television to be an essential item of expenditure rather than proper clothing for their children, women who have child after child to different fathers, who buy expensive consumer trash on a credit card, do not live in poverty: they are stupid, feckless and incompetent. They know that no matter how depraved and reckless their behaviour that welfare payments paid by people in work will secure them a roof over their heads and the misguided sympathy from people like Sentamu. The person who is quite able to survive on a modest income but cannot afford a Mercedes or a long-haul holiday is not poor. It is not a matter of any moral, social or religious concern that that he must do without high-status and conspicuous consumption which others can afford. Third-World immigrants who have entered Britain and who exploit the welfare generosity of this country are not poor. In this country they enjoy a standard of living which would be impossible in the failed Third-World states whence they come. This is why they come here of course. Sentamu, an African, is well aware of this state of affairs.  Rather than attacking British companies he should turn his attention to the race war being waged by his fellow Africans against whites in South Africa. Why does the Church of England remain so silent about this genocide by stealthy instalments?

In a still relatively free country, such as England, inequalities of income and social status are inevitable and desirable. Those who have the talents to succeed have a good chance of succeeding. This is why Sentamu hates the Western free market economies since it rewards some and ignores others, highlighting these innate differences. In this world opportunities are never equal and never can be. People who are differentiated by innately superior and inferior levels of intelligence, knowledge and the all-important work ethic will not produce the same outcomes. The more conditions are rendered equal the greater the role played by innate factors. Social mobility cannot be open to all since not all will be able to exploit the available opportunities. Those that can enjoy greater socio-economic status will achieve the rewards which go with such status. Divisions by class and status are normal. If Sentamu wishes to remove these differentiated outcomes he must be party to the destruction of a society which rewards individual achievement.

Sentamu’s vision of a more caring and equal society is one of compulsory equality and even higher levels of taxation to support an ever growing welfare parasite class. I take it for granted that Sentamu’s hideous vision for my country means that immigration controls shall be formally abolished so that millions more indigent and unemployable Africans can overwhelm us. Naturally the indigenous population shall be expected to care for these immigrants and make them feel needed and place them on an equal footing with the English. If we English do make theme feel welcome then obviously we are somehow evil, racist and so on, (→ ∞).

Sentamu states that: ‘Great wealth has for so long been seen as a mark of status’ and that we have to change this state of affairs.  To this end, Sentamu proposes two changes. First, those who in his words ‘who have already rewarded themselves most handsomely’ would not be acknowledged in the Queen’s Honours List. Second, he suggest that in order to put a stop to tax avoidance people should be encouraged to tick a box on their tax returns indicating that they have no objection to having the amount they have paid in tax made public.

Sentamu’s first proposal confirms his pitiful understanding of wealth and wealth creation. Wealth creation is inextricably linked to innovation and technological success. It is right and proper that we recognise and reward innovation. Why should a highly successful inventor – there are no highly successful inventors in Uganda – who makes vast sums of money be excluded from being honoured by my Queen? The second proposal has nothing to do with tax avoidance (Sentamu does not seem to grasp the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion) and everything to do with arousing envy and resentment against those who are successful. Were Sentamu’s proposals to be taken seriously they would lead to a society in which all innovation would cease, or all the innovators would be driven away, and one which would regress to social and economic stagnation and thence to decline. The green pus of envy, the resentment of the successful, which is the hallmark of the social leveller, oozes from Sentamu’s proposals. Sentamu should begin his quest inside the institution that employs him. If he is so concerned about the connection between wealth and status what does he propose to do to reduce the wealth of the Church of England and its drive to maintain its undeserved status, a status based on its loyalty to England which it has now cast aside? Sentamu, the Ugandan, should bear in mind that the Church of England is a Church of England and a Church for England. The Church of England was not intended to minister to the spiritual needs, whatever they are, of the Third World. In any case, Africans prefer sangomas, muti, killing albinos and cannibalism. If that suits them, fine. Just stay in Africa where they and their mumbo-jumbo belong.

Instead of berating his white hosts for their success and wealth, I suggest that Sentamu returns to his native Africa and preaches the gospel of wealth creation to his fellow Africans instructing them that it is a sin to live as international-aid parasites on the donations of the white man. Africans must learn to stand alone or perish. Sentamu should also lecture his fellow Africans that they must put a stop to their selfish and destructive breeding otherwise they will all starve to death. The time will come when even the white man’s agricultural prowess will not be able to feed the billions of clamouring, voracious, black mouths never mind the seething masses of India, Pakistan, China, Central and South America. Sentamu should also start to lecture Mugabe and his fellow Marxist savages, Mandela et al, that dispossessing and murdering successful white farmers is not a very smart move in a continent threatened by the spectre of mass starvation.


Frank Ellis, 13th November 2011

66 comments:

Anonymous said...

Sentamu is just another stooge in the Marxist plot. He lives the life of a Prince while preaching equality, just like his woolly faced leader.

Laager said...

Received by e-mail from a friend in New Zealand:

--------------------------------------------

"When the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed."


Is this man truly a genius?

Checked out and this is true...it DID happen!

--------------------------------------------



An economics professor at a local college in the USA made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class.

That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, as a great equalizer. 



The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).



After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.
As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little. 


The second test average was a D!
No one was happy. 



When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. 


As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. 



To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that SOCIALISM would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. 
It could not be any simpler than that.

Remember, there IS a test coming up.
The next election.


--------------------------------------------

These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:



1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.



2. What one person receives without working for it, another person must work for it without receiving.



3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.



4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!



5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

--------------------------------------------

If anyone knows how to contact Bishop Sentamu, please pass this on to him.

vigorniensis said...

All done NOT in the name of "diversity" Frank, but because of those pair of idiots Hezeltine and Scarman when they ordered "positive discrimination" to be the order of the day, once they had finished their patronising and poisonous revue following the black riots in Toxteth 1981. Parliament, in its normal supine way allowed this cancerous arrant nonsense to become accepted when these two individuals should have been held up to ridicule for promoting this nonsense that allowed criminality to be excused on some perverted idea it was the white man's fault. That, Frank, is where the issue starts and ends.
NKC

vigorniensis said...

All done NOT in the name of " false god of diversity" Frank, but because of those pair of idiots Hezeltine and Scarman when they, long before that satan, McPherson, ordered "positive discrimination" to be the order of the day in their patronising and poisonous revue following the black riots in Toxteth 1981.
Parliament, in its normal supine way allowed this cancerous arrant nonsense to become accepted and unchallenged, when in reality, these two individuals should have been held up to ridicule and reverse racism charges, for promoting this nonsense that allowed criminality to be excused on the perverted grounds that somehow it was the white people’s fault.
That, Frank, is where the heart of the issue starts and ends. Terrific article and time somebody stood up and described this black man of the robe for the intellectual lightweight and Marxist he is.
Vigorniensis

misterfox said...

Sentamu, could begin at looking at the exhorbitant entrance fees to York Minster. I know it costs a lot to run (£20,000 a day apparently) but charging to enter a house of God is outrageous and comparable to letting money-lenders into the temple.

Laager said...

@ vigorniensis

"intellectual lightweight and Marxist"

Just like Bishop Tutu in South Africa who recently publically proposed that a "wealth tax" should be imposed on the minority white population only.
Is that not racist?

How sad.

The 90% black majority in South Africa which controls all three tiers of government need laws like Affirmative Action, Black Economic Empowerment and now possibly a Wealth Tax to legislate themselves onto an equal playing field.

On top of this South Africa post 1994 is the most imbalanced socialist state in the world. With estimated black unemployment running at 50% (population 35m), these parasites live off the taxes generated by the white entrepreneur population of 4m who control 90% of the economy.

The real tragedy is that like Tutu, Sentamu is the best they have got.

Britain should be grateful that a Julius Malema has not made it into public office here with his custom made soap box. Very good at standing on it and rabble rousing but not uttering a word of meaningful substance.

Anonymous said...

Laager

Excellent summation of Atlas Shrugged.

alanorei said...

Thank you, Dr Ellis and thank you, Sarah

St Paul had a simple solution to the problem of mass immigration of foreign mouths, in terms of what should be government policy for a nation with a Bible-based Constitution, such as Britain.

"For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat" 2 Thessalonians 3:10.

alanorei said...

From the late Ronald Reagan, apparently.

Once upon a time there was a little red hen who scratched about the barnyard until she uncovered some grains of wheat. She called her neighbors and said "If we plant this wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Who will help me plant it?"

"Not I," said the cow.

"Not I," said the duck.

"Not I," said the pig.

"Not I," said the goose.

"Then I will," said the little red hen. And she did. The wheat grew tall and ripened into golden grain. "Who will help me reap my wheat?" asked the little red hen.

"Not I," said the duck.

"Out of my classification," said the pig.

"I'd lose my seniority," said the cow.

"I'd lose my unemployment compensation," said the goose.

"Then I will," said the little red hen, and she did.

At last the time came to bake the bread. "Who will help me bake bread?" asked the little red hen.

"That would be overtime for me," said the cow.

"I'd lose my welfare benefits," said the duck.

"I'm a dropout and never learned how," said the pig.

"If I'm to be the only helper, that's discrimination," said the goose.

"Then I will," said the little red hen.

She baked five loaves and held them up for the neighbors to see.

They all wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share. But the little red hen said, "No, I can eat the five loaves myself."

"Excess profits," cried the cow.

"Capitalist leech," screamed the duck.

"I demand equal rights," yelled the goose.

And the pig just grunted.

And they painted "unfair" picket signs and marched round and around the little red hen shouting obscenities.

When the government agent came, he said to the little red hen, "You must not be greedy."

"But I earned the bread," said the little red hen.

"Exactly," said the agent. "That's the wonderful free enterprise system. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our modern government regulations productive workers must divide their products with the idle*."

And they lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked, "I am grateful, I am grateful."

*Basic Marxism, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." It is designed to wreck a nation such that in its place a state-controlled system is imposed like the Jesuit Reductions in Paraguay in the 18th century.

But her neighbors wondered why she never again baked any more bread.

Anonymous said...

Laager, name the professor, the college, or any news outlet your story was reported in, otherwise it's pretty safe to assume that it never happened.

James Mathurin said...

"Social, intellectual and economic inequalities that arise from hard work, self-discipline and superior IQ are everywhere to be seen."

And yet none of those qualities are as important as how rich your parents are.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7948999/Half-of-childrens-income-determined-at-birth-research-claims.html

"Does his apparent concern for the well-being of lower-paid workers mask a racist resentment of conspicuously successful whites?"

I'm no fan of Sentamu, but most of the poor people in Britain are White.

email said...

Dear Mr. Ellis,

At the sigh of Sentamu, one would thing the english people is black. He sounds like South Africa's ANC and a Band Aid recipient. Letting his rant unanswered, next thing you know AA and BEE is implemented in UK.

How funny are his mimics of a muslim believing that all what is needed must fall freely from heaven, e.g. the West.

This article echoes well the growing sentiment in Europe that non-european people should be encouraged to leave unless their country is able to offer symetric advantages to Europe, for the very sake of fairness the likes of Sentamu ask so dearly.

The humanist idea behind those feelings is that benefiting immigration originates from advanced countries to lesser ones, for Nature made them need each other.

Great french orator Jean-Marie Lepen put it that way:
"If you don't want french people in Algeria you will get algerian people in France."

That is exactly what happened in France and United Kingdom.

"the seething masses of India, Pakistan, China, Central and South America"

Here perhaps Latin America should not be put in the same sack as Africa or muslim Asia. Brazil is home to more white people than UK. There is no specifically black criminality as opposed to northern America although they share an history of slavery.

Be it for equal misery or absence of segregation laws after abolition, they appear to have reached an enviable modus vivendi unseen in other continents, separating or sedimenting without state interference while keeping rights equal.

Best regards.

misterfox said...

Its still the lefties making the running. We need to catch up with their ability to launch quick campaigns on issues as they arise.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnVwNPdyBxM&feature=share

Anonymous said...

In Britain, the window-dressing is now becoming the whole shop.

Anon.

Laager said...

@ Anon 8:04

I am on the case

In the meantime I leave you with this

AN AFRICAN FABLE

The Legend of the Ant and the Grasshopper


PART 1: The Original Legend

An ant and a grasshopper lived in the same field. During the summer, the ant works all day and night bringing supplies for the winter and he prepares his home to keep him warm during the cold winter months ahead. Meanwhile the grasshopper hops and sings and eats all the grass he wants and procreates.

Come winter, the grass dies and it is bitterly cold. The ant is well fed and warm in his house, but the grasshopper has not prepared for the winter, so he dies, leaving a whole horde of little grasshoppers without food or shelter. The moral of the story is that one should work hard to ensure that you can take care of yourself.

Laager said...

AN AFRICAN FABLE

The Legend of the Ant and the Grasshopper


PART 2: The South African Version

The first part is the same, but because it happens in South Africa there are a few complications…

The starving, shivering offspring of the grasshopper demand to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while right next door they are living in terrible conditions, without food or proper clothing. A TV crew shows up and broadcasts footage of the poor grasshoppers, contrasting this footage with the ant, snug in his comfortable home with a pantry full of food. The public is stunned.

How can it be, in this beautiful field, that the poor grasshoppers are allowed to suffer so while the ant lives in the lap of luxury.

In the blink of an eye, SAGU (South African Grasshopper Union) is formed. They charge the ant with “species bias”, and claim that the grasshoppers are victims of 30 Million years of green oppression. The stage a protest in front of the ant’s house and trash the street. The TV crew interviews them, and they state that if all their demands are not met, they will be forced into a life of crime. Just for practice they loot the TV crew’s luggage and Hijack their van.

The TRC (Take and Redistribute Commission) justifies their behaviour by saying that this is a legacy of the ant’s discrimination and oppression of the grasshoppers. They demand that the ant apologies to the grasshopper for what they have done, and that he make amends for all the other ants in history that have done the same thing to the grasshoppers. PAGAD (People against Grasshopper Abuse and Distress) state that they are starting a holy war against the ants.

The president appears on the 8 o clock news, and says he will do everything for the grasshoppers that have been denied the prosperity they deserve by those who have benefited unfairly during the summer. The government drafts the EEGAD (Economic Equity for Greens and Disadvantaged) act retrospective to the beginning of the summer. The ant is fined for failing to employ a proportionate number of green insects, and, having nothing left to pay his taxes, his home is confiscated by the government for redistribution.

The story ends as we see a grasshopper finishing off the last of the ants food while the government house he is in (which happens to be the ants old house) crumbles around him because he does not know how to maintain it.

Showing on the TV (which he and a couple of friends stole from another ant) the president is standing before a group of wildly singing and dancing grasshoppers announcing that the new era of “equality” has dawned on the field.

The ant, meanwhile, is not allowed to work, because he has historically benefited from the field. In his place, ten grasshoppers have been appointed to harvest the grass for the winter, but the grasshoppers only work 2 hours a day and steal half of what they actually harvest.

When winter comes again and not enough food has been harvested they strike and demand an 150% increase in their wages so that they can buy food, which now has to be imported because the grasshoppers are not productive enough to produce enough food locally.

The ant packs his things, and immigrates to another field where he starts a highly successful food company, and becomes a millionaire by selling food to the field where he came from

Anonymous said...

Sentemu is not just a stooge in the marxist plot ... he is the marxist plot. Sarah has given a very truthfull and revealing account of the predicament that the U.K. is now facing but its too late dear Sarah the plague has been foolishly welcomed in through an open door. It's too late to turn the black tide back and the extinction of whites in S. Africa is progressing as planned and in the meantime the necessary steps to remove the whites have been cunningly put into place around the world. We can thank Marx,Lenon and the ruskies for that and in doing so we must also remember that they are white. The law of the universe has no compassion for fools and the extinction of the human race can be assured of when the whites are no more. The blacks have prooved time and time again that they will selfdestruct soon afterwards. Mankind will decease upon this earth long before it's inevitable cosmic end.

Anonymous said...

Sent a comment in earlier. I don't see it here so I take it that it was too straight to the point to be published. Like I said before (without reason for disqualification)is that former flourishing white countries have been invaded and are overrun by fleeing blacks with impregnated Marxist ideals. The chaos and genocide in Africa and especially now in South Africa is only just beginning in the U.K. and in many other first world countries. Ronald Reagan's story about the Little Red Hen and the story about the economics professor are two perfect examples of what is taking place in the world today. Mankind upon this earth in the hands of such lunatics is heading for extinction. The gullable sympathetic whites will be the first to go but without a doubt the rest will soon be unnable to cope and will soon be at each others throats. The extinction of the human race is sure to follow. Utimately greed is the culprit and it will be the final downfall of mankind upon this planet.

Celtic Warrior said...

Bit off topic I know.

Laager wrote;

“On top of this South Africa post 1994 is the most imbalanced socialist state in the world. With estimated black unemployment running at 50% (population 35m), these parasites live off the taxes generated by the white entrepreneur population of 4m who control 90% of the economy.”

Here am I sitting in Cape Town desperately waiting for someone to come and replace some cracked floor tiles but the company just been phoned to cancel the job. They have been let down by non-attendance of his staff and are unable to find more reliable staff.

I had to terminate my garden service 18 months ago as the chap who ran it also suffered from unreliable staff. I now employ the services of a Malawian immigrant who is much more reliable.

My wife and I usually eat out once a month or so. For the past 3 years I have made a point in asking the waitrons where they came from and in almost all instances they tell me they come from Zimbabwe. As are the petrol station attendants. The car guards all seem to come from the DRC.

Where are all these out of work South Africans you mention?

Celtic Warrior said...

James Mathurin wrote;

“And yet none of those qualities are as important as how rich your parents are.”

I think you should read the Telegraph article again. The OECD study it quotes made no mention of wealthy familys, only better education. See following. It was the TUC that mentioned income.

“The study also found that the UK had a large wage premium to growing up in a better-educated family and a similar wage penalty associated with growing up in a less-educated family.”

In a country like the UK where education is both compulsory and freely available to all, it’s not rocket science to work out that the smarter pupils will, generally speaking, do much better in life than the less smart pupils.

Rich parents indicate that they were smart and made the best use of their education. In addition to inheriting the physical appearance of parents, it is also more than likely that offspring also inherit their parent’s intelligence and therefore do better in life than the offspring of less intelligent parents, and are less likely (in general) to inherit the intelligence that will greatly increase their chances in life.

Anonymous said...

Hmmmmm.... Sentamu.... Wasn't he one of Idi Amin's Judges? So a real 'human rights' guy then. It's a bit like making Goebels the Pope. Oh, hang on.....!

Anonymous said...

Just discovered this blog so alot of reading too do.Im a uk resident who thoght he was up to speed on world news.s africa farmers i had no clue.so sarah ONE MORE PERSON BECOMING AWARE IS THAT NOT REASON TO CONTINUE you tube I WILL PERSIT black screen only speaks works for me.

notareargunner said...

I had a wonderful 'old Boerkje' friend who summed Our Bish up on one simple expression. "N' ka**ir isn' ka**ir isn' ka**ir"
Unless your a Rhodesian and they become excitemunt.

Anonymous said...

Diversity stole my bicycle !

Pensioner said...

Anon@08:04 Laager, name the professor, the college, or any news outlet your story was reported in, otherwise it's pretty safe to assume that it never happened.

It is obvious that, either; (A) you have never heard of South Africa. (B) you are an anc Stoolie planted to scarper any negative publicity on the anc government and its communist and labour allies.
There have been, literally thousands of articles, printed and and broadcast on radio and TV around the world proving the corruption, nepotism, fraud etc. the anc is driving the South African economy into just another Banana Republic. Even on this very site are numbers showing the Genocide of the Whites being committed in South Africa!!!

Sigbrit said...

IT'S THE LOTTERY, SOCIALIST STYLE......
Yup. In the Socialist lottery all people who enter donate a pound to the lottery. But as we are all equal... There is no first prize. The lottery money is shared equally amongst those ho enter, and those who don't. So each lottery entrant gets about 4p back as winnings for the pound they have put in as the money is also shared out with those who don't put money in as they are too 'poor'. Thus every body 'wins', even if they do not contribute.
And eventually nobody contributes as it is pointless, there is no incentive. And that's why Socialism fails. And that's why Africa fails. It conributes nothing. Just sits in it's own mess and waits for the white man to come along and 'contribute'.

Anonymous said...

After reading Sentamu's misconceptions I looked him up on the Wikkipedia website. Some very interesting facts concerning him were revealed. Then I read Sahara's comments regarding his misconceptions and I fully agree with her. The problem with most black African Leaders is that when they receive a good education they don't know how to use it. Receiving a good education is one thing and knowing how to use it properly is another. For instance the ANC leadership in South Africa have suddenly woken up to the fact that an increasingly large number of their black brothers and sisters are being killed in black owned taxicabs. This is not surprising as the majority of the drivers have never been properly trained/educated to drive a taxicab at all. For a few grand passed under the table to certain officials one can purchase any vehicle licence required to drive a vehicle of their own choosing. So what does the ANC do? They have decided that all future drivers must now apply for a learners licence at 16 years of age and after completing 4 years of supervised driving under certain specific conditions they may apply to take the final driving test. Typical african thinking instead of dealing directly with the root cause of the visible problem at hand they have decided to punish the innocent. This however will improove the driving skills of future law abiding citizens only. At an increased cost to them of course but it will not remove the fraud that is taking place. In fact there is every chance that the illegal purchase and sale of under the table licenses will greatly increase. In parliament today a secrecy bill was voted in by 225 votes in favour of it with 175 being voted against it. This means that a law abiding citizen who reports any crimes against an ANC parliamentarian or government official can now be locked up in jail for it. It will also completely mute an already muzzled and stifled media. Sad to say it looks like a dictatorship is now not far away. For when a crime ridden government removes all access to public scrutiny it is only doing so to protect it's own people and their illegal criminal actions. At the moment S.Africa is not at war with any other country and there is no just reason or cause to implement such a thing as a secrecy bill.
In the past Sentamu has criticized, condemned and openly demonstrated against the likes of people such as Robert Mugabe for the deplorable manner in which he has mismanaged his country and mistreated his own people. However he now finds it fit to be a British Ugandan and a leader in the church of England and spew out miscoceptions about the nature of western economies. "HAW HIM DARKFACE HIM SPEAK WITH FORKED TONUE".

Anonymous said...

Looks like the freedom of the press and the freedom of speech has also gone for a ball of chalk in the western world.

Anonymous said...

Looks like the freedom of the press and the freedom of speech has also gone for a ball of chalk in the western world.

Laager said...

@ Anon 20 November 2011 08:04

I sent your comment to my source in NZ.
This was his reply:

"Tell Anon to go jump off a bridge somewhere, do the world a favour.

I have no idea if this is true, but I would doubt it. It is used by the author, who is also anonymous, to make a valid point on the issue they feel is significant. Readers can take it or leave it, as they wish!"

I then went to SNOPES ho state the following:

There is indeed a real school named Texas Tech in Lubbock, Texas, but the school is merely the latest setting for this illustrative tale meant to explain the teller's belief that communism (or socialism - the terms are used interchangeably although their meanings are different) cannot work.

While we can't as yet pin down the origin of this grade averaging piece, anecdotal evidence indicates it's at least 15 years older than its 2009 outbreak would tend to indicate, in that one of our readers says he heard it at Bible College in 1994 from a professor teaching world civics"

Status: Legend

--------------------------------------------

Whatever the authenticity of the article may be the facts that it demonstrates have been proven around the world in a number of countries with socialist Govts and policies.

The best example of this is the never ending stream of African illegal immigrants who are voting with their feet to leave Africa, cross the Sahara desert and Mediterranean Sea each year to get into Europe.

Anonymous said...

True indeed so the the people who created the problem in the first place should be forced to rectify the problem. The UK countries should send all of the illegal imigrants in the U.K. to China and the USSR. Lets see how they will handle the problem that they have created for other countries. America bailed the USSR out of their last in house economical crisis by handing them a good few billion dollars. Lets hope there won't be anyone to help pull them out of the crap next time round. Since the end of the second world war countless millions of innocent people around the world have died because of the communist philosophy. There are still many millions of AK47 assault rifles spewing out death and destruction in the third world countries as well as undetected and unchartered communist land mines. However after all said and done I am sure the thousands (could be millions)of illegal imigrants heading for the U.K. would never ever think of invading the USSR at all. In the first place it is a very cold country and secondly in the U.K. they see a far better chance of getting a free slice of bread and butter.

James Mathurin said...

Just as a note, I will not be following up replies to me for a while, but I am the anonymous who pointed out the fictionality of the "Obama class" story (clicked anonymous by mistake). It is fictional, and utterly unbelievable too - the psychological explanations it gives are utterly unreasonable.

I did want to ask about the 'fairytales' people are sharing, and wanted to ask if people realise that the morals they espouse are actually pretty Left-wing? Sharing equally in the labour and benefitting equally from the benefits is the basis of much Left-wing thinking, and in any Socialist fairytale, the person who thinks they should get get more than they've worked for would also be the villain.

Just a thought.

misterfox said...

The alien taxi drivers here are beginning to cut a dash, if that's the expression.

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Bristol-taxi-driver-sped-away-man-bonnet/story-13909333-detail/story.html

Anonymous said...

TO J.M.
When you have done with your escape trick and are ready for the truth and a few more thoughts then put this in your pipe and smoke it. The so-called fairytales that you find so left wing have the uncanny knack of becoming a reality because the majority of all fairytales have a distinct righteous and positve meaning within them nomatter which wing they come from. If you read the story about the "Obama class" again you will find that it was not trying to proove "who" was the villain but "what" was the villain in the story. Guese what ... the western worlds best and greatest friend good old communism was the villian and the collapse of the economy in the Soviet Union is no fairytale. It was a reality and will forever more remain so. Furthermore the collapse of Africa due to communism is no fairytale either and millions of diseased and starving people suffering on the richest continent upon this planet are also proof off this failure. Communism looks wonderful on paper but in practice it is a total failure. Africa is further proof of this fact. However it will still be promoted in Africa because communist China has a hidden agenda and the chaos caused by communism in Africa suites them perfectly. They feel absolutely nothing for the black people in Africa. They have got their beady slanted red eyes on good agricultural land for their future billions and the vast mineral wealth that lies dormant beneath the African soil. The reality is that in the midst of all the chaos due to initiating communism in Africa that Africa will be easily coerced into believing that communist China will be their ultimate savior. Easy pickings for the taking and the freedom and democracy for the blacks on their own African continent will once again become just another fairytale ... or should I dare call it a reality?

James Mathurin said...

Misterfox:
"He should ask himself what it must be like for a high-IQ and capable white employee in a top-rated Western company to be passed over for promotion in favour of a low-IQ incompetent black, all done in the name of the false god of diversity."

Has this ever actually happened? That a highly-qualified white job applicant has been passed over for a non-white applicant of much lower ability or qualifications? Because I have never once heard of it happening. I don't think it has.

"Companies that pay top staff high salaries regardless of results are not necessarily wasting money. CEOs have a symbolic, propagandistic function that companies use to promote themselves. This is especially the case where senior appointments are not made on merit but on considerations of equal opportunities and affirmative action which is then used by the company to trumpet its commitment to racial and sex diversity"

Again, I may be wrong, but I don't think any company has ever done that. Are there any non-white or female CEOs at companies that have led to our economic downturns (Enron, the various banks or businesses which needed government bailouts here and in the US?)?

"Moreover, if Sentamu is indeed concerned by the lack of any link between pay for CEOs and performance he might like to consider the beam in his own eye. Where, pray tell, is the link between the performance of the Church of England’s leadership, its CEOs, as it were, and the salaries, fringe benefits and pensions that Rowan Williams and Sentamu enjoy? It is quite clear to me, sinner and lover of money that I am that the Church of England has succumbed to heresy. "

Now you're talking! Total agreement on this point.

"The more conditions are rendered equal the greater the role played by innate factors. "

And yet, by your own admission, we live in a country where many positions of power and influence (government, business, etc.)are held by people whose innate abilities are questionable at best. Surely that indicates that we live a seriously unequal society?

"In any case, Africans prefer sangomas, muti, killing albinos and cannibalism."

They "prefer" it? So the majority of Africans are not members of major organised religions (in large part Christianity)? I must be living in a parallell universe.

James Mathurin said...

Celtic:
"I think you should read the Telegraph article again. The OECD study it quotes made no mention of wealthy familys, only better education. "

Actually, you should reread it. It says that education is an additional factor to "[t]he impact of family background on future earnings". The family background (read: income), regardless of education is reported as the main determinant.

"In a country like the UK where education is both compulsory and freely available to all, it’s not rocket science to work out that the smarter pupils will, generally speaking, do much better in life than the less smart pupils."

To a degree, but being born to a poor family in a poor neighbourhood guarentees that you will be at a school facing more challenges, attracting fewer outstanding teachers, and facing more outside factors that will impact on the standard of education received (violence, drugs, crime, etc.).

Put another way - the vast majority of Oxbridge students are educated in the private sector - does this show that money buys your children better education, and therefore better opportunities, or do rich people just coincidentally give birth to smarter children?


"In addition to inheriting the physical appearance of parents, it is also more than likely that offspring also inherit their parent’s intelligence and therefore do better in life than the offspring of less intelligent parents"

So, intelligence is inherited? The researchers who have spent decades trying to solve the nature /nurture debate will be glad that you've answered it for them. Seriously, is that aything more than your unqualified opinion?

James Mathurin said...

Pensioner, your response to my "anonymous" post makes no sense. I wasn't even talking about South Africa.

James Mathurin said...

Laager:
"Whatever the authenticity of the article may be the facts that it demonstrates have been proven around the world in a number of countries with socialist Govts and policies."

It's a pack of lies, so what "facts does it demonstrate"? Bloody hell, to describe Obama as "Socialist" alone makes it meaningless as a political commentary.

"The best example of this is the never ending stream of African illegal immigrants who are voting with their feet to leave Africa, cross the Sahara desert and Mediterranean Sea each year to get into Europe."

They're all from Socialist countries? Is that just another lie, like the Socialist college story, or is there any truth to back it up?

Oh, and Sigbrit, the Socialist lottery you describe would be an improvement - over a lifetime almost every player would get more money back than they do from the current lottery system. I don't imagine Camelot would go for it though.

James Mathurin said...

Anonymous:
I won't be replying for a while, but it's no escape trick; I simply have other things to do.

"The so-called fairytales that you find so left wing have the uncanny knack of becoming a reality because the majority of all fairytales have a distinct righteous and positve meaning within them nomatter which wing they come from"

Intersting, but bear in mind, a fairytale written under our current deregulated Capitalist system would go something like:

A ladybird had enough grain to make 10 loaves of bread, but couldn't grow it. It told some other insects they could grow his grain, harvest it, grind it, bake it and slice it, and in return they would each get one slice each. They toil for weeks while the ladybird relaxes, and eventually get paid their slice each.

Next season, they go back to see if the ladybird's offering the same deal, only to find out that he took the profits from last year's bread, bought even more grain, and got insects from the poorer field next door to do the same job, but for only a crust each.

The insects protest, but are beaten up by his security, and villainised in his press as 'jealous class warriors' who only want to bring down a 'job creator'.

Tell you what though, if anyone did try to bring a Chinese or Soviet style state-monopoly capitalist model in, I'd be right there fighting it with you. I have no interest in supporting people who exploit us, whether they're presidents of corporations or governments.


"Communism looks wonderful on paper but in practice it is a total failure. Africa is further proof of this fact. "

Well, I think that had more to do with African nations being propped up as Cold War proxies by the respective Capitalist and "Communist" countries, and suddenly being abandoned when there was no war to fight.

I agree about China not caring about Africa, but this:


"They have got their beady slanted red eyes on good agricultural land"

makes it hard to take you seriously. Most of the posters on this sight avoid such cartoonish racist imagery, and it does add to their plausibility.

Celtic Warrior said...

James Mathurin asks,

"Has this ever actually happened? That a highly-qualified white job applicant has been passed over for a non-white applicant of much lower ability or qualifications? Because I have never once heard of it happening. I don't think it has".

I've invited you to come to Africa many times before but you fail to do so. If you were to come to South Africa you would see many instances of "highly-qualified white job applicant has been passed over for a non-white applicant of much lower ability or qualifications".

Celtic Warrior said...

James Mathurin states,

"Surely that indicates that we live a seriously unequal society?"

I'm not sure of why you believe that society should be equal. Probably a great ideal, although impossible to achieve, because from the moment we are conceived we are unequal.

The genes we inherit from both our mothers and fathers will play a major part in how well we succeed in life. We inherit both our physical and mental attributes in unequal proportions from our mothers and fathers. That is the lottery of life.

Some are unfortunate to be born with handicaps such as fetal alcohol syndrome, which will have been due to the mother’s excessive alcohol consumption during her pregnancy, whilst others will be fortunate to be born to a mother who not only did not partake of alcohol but also took great care of her body during this time.

Then there are those unfortunate to have had mothers and fathers who had incompatible blood groups (or is it geans) and led to them being born with Downs Syndrome. These are also from the lottery of life.

Then there are all the societal and environmental factors which will have a major affect on ones life. Children born and brought up in rural Britain will have a much healthier lifestyle and supportive society than the city born children. Again the lottery of life.

Please note that there will be a great many exceptions to the general statements made above. Sometimes great men come from the most humble of backgrounds, while some who will have had every opportunity in the lottery of life will fail.

Celtic Warrior said...

James Mathurin in response to the post;

"In any case, Africans prefer sangomas, muti, killing albinos and cannibalism." Goes on to state;

“They "prefer" it? So the majority of Africans are not members of major organized religions (in large part Christianity)? I must be living in a parallell universe”.

Many (most?) African people profess to be a member of organized religions. Those in the north mainly profess Islam as their belief system, whilst those in the south mainly profess the Christian faith.

Islam spread into Africa by Arab Muslim traders. Policies introduced by the Muslims tended to benefit other Muslims and this influenced many Africans to convert to Islam to gain the benefits of the pro Muslim policies. The coexistence between the polytheistic and monotheistic beliefs had a major influence on the Islamic religion of Africa. In other words they adopted Islam to suit themselves. Many of the indigenous African people were not ready to abandon totally their ancestral cult and adopt Islam in its entirety. African culture, languages and some of their religious ceremonies survived to exist alongside Islamic rites and this resulted in a unique African version of Islam.

I give you the foregoing which is straight out of the University of South Africa module HSY 202H, as it also helps explain what happened in southern Africa when European Christian traders started coming to Africa in the 16th century.

I was once the manager of a high technology company in central Africa whose employees were all Christians. A series of thefts took place which resulted in the staff coming under suspicion and the union demanded that I employ the services of a witch doctor (sangoma) to get to the bottom of the thefts.

I also had to intervene in a case of child neglect and a murder threat, when one of my staff was accused of demanding money with menaces (murder in this case). He could not pay off the witch doctor who had been treating his sick baby and who had been getting worse by the day. The witch doctors treatment was to make cut marks on the baby. My solution was to get my wife to prepare a bottle of milk mixed with an egg and give it to the staff member with strict instructions to give it only to the baby and not the other children. This, my wife did this for a few weeks and the problem was solved. I tell this story as the person was a Christian.

Mr Mathurin, I have suggested a number of times before that you should come and live and work here in Africa to learn something about Africa and its culture, before making anymore unknowledgeable statements of the kind you do.

Celtic Warrior said...

James Mathurin states;

"To a degree, but being born to a poor family in a poor neighbourhood guarentees that you will be at a school facing more challenges," WHY?

"attracting fewer outstanding teachers," WHY?

"and facing more outside factors that will impact on the standard of education received (violence, drugs, crime, etc.)". WHY?

Like many of my race, I not only come from a poor family and a poor neighbourhood, I was also brought up in wartime and strict postwar austerity, and it didn’t hinder me or many others of my generation. But than I come from a nation of people, who have undergone centuries of depravation, and who dragged themselves and many other unfortunate peoples into modern advanced economies. I’m specifically proud of the fact my ancestors did all this without ever having had to go with the begging bowl to richer more developed nations, as there were no richer more developed nations. Our ancestors did it all on their ownsome.

We also did not have the opportunity to immigrate to wealthy countries, instead we went and created these countries ourselves and who are now the most successful economies in the world.

I don’t think there were too many people around in the 17th, 18th, 19th or early 20th centuries, that could not be classified as poor or coming from a poor neighbourhood. But we still got where we are today without aid from rich donar countries.

Celtic Warrior said...

James Mathurin states, in response to my post when I asked him to reread the Telegraph article which quoted the OECD study;

“Actually, you should reread it. It says that education is an additional factor to "[t]he impact of family background on future earnings". The family background (read: income), regardless of education is reported as the main determinant.”

It does not state “an additional factor”, here’s what it stated;
“The impact of family background on future earnings has greater impact in Britain than in countries such as Canada, Australia, Denmark, Norway and England where upbringing impacted on 20 per cent of income.”

You then go on and compound your grievous error when you attach the prescription (read: income), after the term “The family background”. It might help if you were not to attach your own opinion to a clear and unambiguous press quote. It was, the TUC that made the point about “income inequality” which I would expect them to do. Here’s the quote;
“The TUC trade union said that income inequality and poor social mobility in Britain also lagged behind America, Italy, France and Germany.”

Here’s the remainder of the statement;
“The data was released by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
The study also found that the UK had a large wage premium to growing up in a better-educated family and a similar wage penalty associated with growing up in a less-educated family.
TUC general secretary Brendan Barber said: "The Government is right to identify that social disadvantage in the UK is a problem which is holding people back.”

Celtic Warrior said...

James Mathurin states;

“So, intelligence is inherited? The researchers who have spent decades trying to solve the nature /nurture debate will be glad that you've answered it for them. Seriously, is that aything more than your unqualified opinion?”

The fact that intelligence is inherited is not my unqualified opinion but the opinion of the majority of researchers into racial IQ gaps. Would you like to give me some checkable references to which I can go to and check on what those researchers you quote are saying? Let me give you a reference to check.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_Science_on_Intelligence

Probably one of the least biased reports on racial IQ gaps; it was published in the Wall Street Journal in 1994. It is a document issued by a group of academic researchers in fields allied to intelligence testing that claimed to present those findings widely accepted in the expert community. It was signed by 51 university professors specializing in intelligence and related fields, including around one third of the editorial board of the journal Intelligence.

It helps explains why more than 97% of all significant human achievements have been made by white males. It also explains, at least to me, why African states descend into the malfunctioning states most of them have become.

Just look around the room where you are now sitting and pick out something, anything, of material assistance to mankind that came from the brain of an African in or outside Africa. Does this not prove something?

Anonymous said...

Celtic Warrior my man you hit the nail right on the head as I have said the exact same thing for the last decade or two. However we must give the Africans their due when they set out to bring absolute chaos within their own countries they sure make a darn good job of doing so. So much so that no invention upon this earth will ever be able to rectify the damage that their ignorance has caused.

James Mathurin said...

@ Celtic:
We were talking about Western economies. I don't disagree with what you are saying about the corruption infecting the ANC and the effect it is having on Black and White South Africans, but how is it relevant to this discussion?

In western economies, I have never heard of a qualified white applicant for a job being passed over for a less-qualified non-white or female applicant due to 'positive discrimination' policies. I was asking if anyone ever had.

As for why society should be equal, I should clarify my meaning. While I definitely believe in a safety-net for people who cannot support themselves, when I say equality, I am suggesting 'equality of opportunity' at all stages of life. What we have at the moment is a system where your skill, abilities and other qualities have to be counted alongside your parents' backgrounds, who you know, and what social groups you fit into. I think we should live in a meritocracy, and we do not.

As for genetics, you clearly do not understand the subject. WHatever your views on religion, I recommend Richard Dawkins' books, as he explains heritability and inheritance very clearly.

We do not inherit mental attributes to the same degree as our physical ones. Our parentage can make a big difference in our height, skin tone, hair, etc, but outside of genetic disorders or disorders caused by environment (such as fetal alcohol syndrome, as you mention), there is no evidence thst it makes a significant difference mentally.

Downs Syndrome is definitely not caused by "mothers and fathers who had incompatible blood groups (or is it geans)". Again, do some research.

"Then there are all the societal and environmental factors which will have a major affect on ones life."

Exactly, things which give us more or less opportunity, regardless of whether we earn them. I think we should work hard to reduce these differences, and not just hand-wave it away as a "lottery of life".

"Please note that there will be a great many exceptions to the general statements made above. Sometimes great men come from the most humble of backgrounds, while some who will have had every opportunity in the lottery of life will fail."

I agree, but often success is handed to those from well-off backgrounds, while it takes more effort for those from humble backgrounds.

James Mathurin said...

Celtic:
I'm not sure of the point of the post about African religions. I did not suggest there was only Christianity on the continent, or even Christianity and Islam. They are, however, far and away the biggest religions, so I didn't understand why Mister Fox said Africans "prefer" Muti, etc.

You asked me a series of questions of clarificatoin (which does mean you risk being banned by Sarah for her definition of "trolling"), but I will attempt to answer them. It may take a couple of posts.

Why does being born to a poor family in a poor neighbourhood guarentee that you will be at a school facing more challenges?

First off, I did exaggerrate with 'guarantee'. I should have prefaced it with 'almost' But schools in poor neighbourhoods tend to pick up children who have been expelled from other schools for behaviour problems, as well as children with SEN (Special Educational Needs - the kind of children I work with) who have not been diagnosed. They tend to be abandoned by children of exceptional ability, or with parents who have the money to do so. They also tend to receive less funding, as they are financed by Local Authorities whose resources are more stretched. They are also neighbourhoods where many immigrants move to, so the schools will have greater concentrations of pupils who speak EAL (English as an Additional Language), which is a further drain on time and resources.

Why do those schools attract fewer outstanding teachers?

Outstanding teachers have options, and very few would choose to work in underfunded, overfilled schools in poor neighbourhoods, filled with challenging children. Even at the best schools, the workloads and stresses of teaching are collosal, and they are amplified at poorer schools.

Why are poorer schools facing more outside factors that will impact on the standard of education received?

because those problems I mentioned (violence, crime, drugs, etc) are concentrated in poorer, particularly urban neighbourhoods. Children are affected by these things outside of school, and bring those issues into school with them. A school will always be partly a product of its environment, and while they try to offer an oasis, it is rarely totally possible.

James Mathurin said...

Celtic:
I am aware of the tough background you come from, and respect the successes you've built from it.

Surely you accept that if you had been born to a richer family, you would have had an easier ride? That you were effectively penalised before you had even been born, and that other people benefitted from many advantages they had done nothing to earn, and quite likely did not appreciate? This is a gross injustice in my eyes, one that affects many of the white working-class Sarah defends, and I for one do not think they should just "know their place", and shut up and get on with it. It's an injustice, and they should demand better for themselves.

"I’m specifically proud of the fact my ancestors did all this without ever having had to go with the begging bowl to richer more developed nations, as there were no richer more developed nations. Our ancestors did it all on their ownsome."

No, our ancestors didn't borrow from richer nations. They stole from nations with more natural resources. They invaded, overwhelmed them with military might, and took the resources for themselves. Our current lifestyle is still built on the legacy of that theft. Take whatever pride from that you want. We cannot turn the clock back and make it 'unhappen', but at the very least, let's not lie to ourselves about the riches that helped us create the 21st Century we live in now.

James Mathurin said...

On the Telegraph article:
It talks about parental background, and then gave education as a factor that "also" imapcted on future income.
Here:

"The study also found that the UK had a large wage premium to growing up in a better-educated family"

"Also" means it is an additional factor to the main subject, "family background". This is basic English, and I hope I do not have to explain it again. I am not even trying to say that education is unimportant, only that the article clearly states that it is not the only factor.

"You then go on and compound your grievous error when you attach the prescription (read: income), after the term “The family background”. It might help if you were not to attach your own opinion to a clear and unambiguous press quote."

Fair enough, but editorialising aside, how do you define "family background" without reference to income? I do not know if one is possible.

As for the article you mention about inherited and racial differences in intelligence, you clearly did not even read the whole wikipedia article, specifically the sections called "History" and "Response and criticism".

It points out that the people signing the article cannot even define "intelligence" (As it states in one of thwe articles referenced on the wiki page (http://www.aera.net/uploadedFiles/Publications/Journals/Educational_Researcher/3902/095-109_03EDR10.pdf p.97), "It is easy to make fun of a discipline that cannot agree on the
meaning of its central construct, even within a work intended to
display consensual views."), and are only experts in testing intelligence, not in genetics, neurology, or anything that would actually confirm a link between what they are measuring and racial differences. By definition, their work is incapable of ascertaining whether differences in average IQ scores between racial groups (which do exist) are caused by innate factors, or environmental ones, or as stated in the article I mentioned:
"If one focuses only on relationships among test scores, it is impossible to find evidence contrary to the hierarchical model in relationships between test scores and external criteria.
In fact, there is contrary evidence from external validation
studies, that is, evidence that IQ or g is neither the sole nor necessarily the most important cognitive factor in adult socioeconomic
success."

"It was signed by 51 university professors specializing in intelligence and related fields"

But it was also sent to 31 other such researchers who did not bother to sign, and another 48 who explicitly disagreed. Not so impressive.

As for the relative scientific achievements of whites and non-whites historically, we've discussed that many times, but you clearly ignored all of the points I made. I can find links to them if you need to remind yourself.

Anonymous said...

To J.M.
My dear chap I have read this article from beginning to end and I must admit that you are a very good literate tap dancer. Despite your efforts to proove the opposite of the realities and truth at hand you have only opened the door to further condemnation for your beliefs and ideas. By all means utilize your talents to your best advantage and have your "sayso" but remember that the the human race cannot and will not survive on assumptions and deductions of an individual that seeks out excuses for the past mistakes that have been perpetrated by their ancestors. Great men and women all around the world have risen up out of the ashes of poverty to become highly efficient and responsible leaders. On the other hand many people have come from rich backgrounds and with all of their educational
qualifications they have led their country and peoples into chaos and poverty. To me this proves one point only and that is ... Regardless of colour or creed it is what is deep down inside a person that really counts and matters and not what or where they came from. Communism is based on socialism and socialism is a tool used to manipulate and deceive the working class only. Capitalism is however still practiced by the government officials and the elite within the country. The unwritten law of the universe from the beginning of time is that "the masters will make the rules for the wise men and the fools" and mankind has no authority or power to change it. Furthermore for everything and I mean everything upon this planet and beyond it there is a beginning and an ending and the sooner that the whole of mankind learns to work together in equality, righteousness,justice and harmony on this planet the better. After all said and done the pitiful excuses and fantasies of the mistakes made in the past are not going to be a solid foundation to build a united peaceful world upon. The writing is on the wall and the need for sanity and righteous intelligence must immediately become the ultimate achievements for all mankind to aim for. Nothing short of total unity, equality and justice for all will be sufficient enough to prevent further future blunders in governance and clinging onto the excuses for blunders made in the past is definitely not going to achieve anything at all. Something must be positively done about the future of mankind as words are worthless without the deed especially when it concerns the upliftment of the third world countries. To say that they are responsible for their own downfall is really not questionable but to do nothing about it is also unforgivable You can take these facts seriously as it is not cartoonish racist imagery it is a reality and the sooner sanity prevails within our worldly society the beter.

Yendor said...

Talking about leaders and leadership check Jacob Zuma the present South African president on Wikipedia. He has a wonderful list of great events behind his name. Its a long and his intellectual magnificence can be seen therein by the amount of times he has been able to confound the law and side step a conviction. Even being able to dismantle the most efficient crime unit in South Africa since 1994. They were known as the "Scorpions", They had 705 fraud charges pending against Zuma when the ANC big wigs voted to dismantle the "Scorpions". (The Scorpions had been nailing the fraudulent ANC parliamentarians and officials left right and centre). Charges against Zuma were then withdrawn and a short while later the ANC parliamentarians voted Zuma into the presidential seat. The "Hawks" or "telly tubbies" (as they are now known) replaced the "Scorpions. Mac Maharage Zuma's personal spokes person when asked about Zuma's standard of education by the media proudly proclaimed that Zuma is a self educated man. Maharage is a very clever man indeed. He was originally South Africa's first ANC minister of transport. He removed the restrictions on the road transportation system and the congestion on the public roads soared but the railways without any cargo to convey is on the verge of a total collapse. The previous government who imposed the restrictions must now be green with envy because they were so shortsighted at the time. Maharage owns a huge road transport company and has become a multi millionaire to boot. Mac was rewarded for his brilliant and dedicated service to South Africa with a promotion to personal spokes person of the president. Such brilliance combined is beyond us all. Together they will be the greatest leaders in the world. (Zimbabwe may top us on this one though).I visualize millions more jobs being created, free RDP houses and medical care for the poorest of the poor. Schools,educational facilities and medical centres mushrooming up in the cities and rural areas. You name it and South Africa will already have it. With this brilliant ANC leadership at the helm in South Africa it is sure to bypass the first world countries. However there is one thing that is of slight concern though. Zuma always appears to be falling asleep. This can be seen and heard when Zuma makes/reads a parliamentary speech which is broadcasted to the nation on the T.V. He continually stops and starts when and where he pleases. Such as in the middle of a word or a sentence. He also seems to be hassled by a cold because he coughs at regular intervals as well. He should have these things seen to because they are impeding his speech and are not doing justice to his brilliant image at all. I don't want to be rude but it makes him sound like a third grader reading to the teacher. Never the less there is no other country in the world that can boast about their brilliant leaders like South Africa. (Except Zimbabwe of course).
Zuma said that the ANC would rule South Africa untill the second comming of Christ and stated that the ANC was destined to rule for the time because God had wanted it to be so. The American University of Nigeria has bestowed a honorary doctrate of philosophy to Zuma. Where and when does such wondrous brilliance from this man ever end?
The ANC government is preparing for their 100th birthday bash and they will be celebrating it for a WHOLE YEAR. Who is going to pay for it? Who cares the taxpayers must underststand that such brillint hard working ANC government officials have to be rewarded for their efforts. What it will actually cost is of no consequence at all especially when God has placed the ANC government permanently in power to lead the people. South Africa is now standing beneath God's hands of blessing.

James Mathurin said...

Anonymous, you make some really interesting points (and many I agree with - if I dont quote it, its probably because you and I are on the same page), so Im trying to reply before im totally lost to the holidays. I think it will take more than 1 reply:

"remember that the the human race cannot and will not survive on assumptions and deductions of an individual that seeks out excuses for the past mistakes that have been perpetrated by their ancestors."

A point I've tried to make a number of times on here. Hopefully they'll start listening to us. ;-)

"Great men and women all around the world have risen up out of the ashes of poverty to become highly efficient and responsible leaders."

Yes, and they have faced many more barriers and difficulty doing so than those who did not live in poverty.

"On the other hand many people have come from rich backgrounds and with all of their educational
qualifications they have led their country and peoples into chaos and poverty."

Well, yes, but did they personally suffer any such consequences? The previous US President is a fantastic example: A wastrel of a student and soldier, a consistent failure in one business venture after another, being baled out by his father's friends, and an utter failure as a President, plunging his country (and ours) into two wars, and greatly contributing to a world-wide recession. But this son of privelege is, himself, doing fine - still rich, still comfortable, and unrepentant. In this, he is typical of "rich failures".

"To me this proves one point only and that is ... Regardless of colour or creed it is what is deep down inside a person that really counts and matters and not what or where they came from."

I totally agree. My point was that we live in a system where those are ignored, and who your parents are counts for far too much.

"Communism is based on socialism and socialism is a tool used to manipulate and deceive the working class only. Capitalism is however still practiced by the government officials and the elite within the country. "

That is exactly my problem with the Soviet model. Communism is supposed to devolve power to the local level, with a government left only in charge of national matters (military, transport, etc.). If it ends up with an elite ruling over a poor population, it is an utter betrayal of its stated ideals, and basic morals.

"The unwritten law of the universe from the beginning of time is that "the masters will make the rules for the wise men and the fools" and mankind has no authority or power to change it."

Why not? Just because something has always been does not mean that it must always be. We can always work towards a better ideal, or why bother with anything?

"To say that [thrid-world countries] are responsible for their own downfall is really not questionable"

Well, I have questioned it a great deal on here, and have not heard a reply that actually proves your assertion. If you wish, I can stick some links up.

"You can take these facts seriously as it is not cartoonish racist imagery it is a reality and the sooner sanity prevails within our worldly society the beter."

I agree, there's a lot more here than the cartoonish points raised, and I enjoyed responding. Merry Christmas, Happy Hannukah, and Jolly Solstice.

Celtic Warrior said...

James Mathurin in reply to the following statement by Anonymous;

"To say that [thrid-world countries] are responsible for their own downfall is really not questionable"

Went on to state;

“Well, I have questioned it a great deal on here, and have not heard a reply that actually proves your assertion. If you wish, I can stick some links up.”

May we have these links please?

Mr. Mathurin must have missed the posting by Mike Smith on the 9th October this year.

http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2011/10/destruction-of-african-farm.html

He should note that many of the stories told of the destruction of productive farms in South Africa, like the ones in Zimbabwe, have also been reported in the mainstream media.

I would suggest that if he is really interested in what has happened in post independent Africa he should go to the library and sign out some books on the subject. One I have recently read is “Dark Star Safari” by Paul Edward Theroux.

I know from past experience that Mr. Mathurin, being of African decent, finds it difficult to accept any criticism of Africa and Africans, without casting around for some dead white males to blame for the misfortunes of Africa. He conveniently forgets that Africa had no schools, colleges, universities, writing, paper, wheels, doctors, health clinics, hospitals, medicines (other than muti), an abundance of food, roads or bridges, until the white man came and brought them. Now that the white man has left, Africa is slowly reverting to what it was previously. Zimbabwe, DRC, Nigeria, Somalia and Sudan are just some examples.

Mr. Mathurin has never lived and worked in Africa, but he talks as if he has some expertise on the subject. As one that has lived and worked in Africa for 40 years I can categorically state that Mr. Mathurin is either very badly informed or prone to exaggeration.

Despite all appeals for him to come and help his poverty stricken and downtrodden kin in Africa, he has failed to do so and justifies it with unconvincing excuses. It seems that like many of his ilk, he prefers to live in the cosy land of the white man, which he tells us was built on the backs of colonialism and slavery, whilst bad old white men like me try to help his African kin out of their pit of despair.

James Mathurin said...

Hey Celtic, merry Christmas to you.

Here are the links:


http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2011/04/update-on-censorship-at-leeds.html

http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2011/04/colonial-inheritance.html

http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2011/05/on-going-debate.html

http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2011/04/interracial-marriage.html

Looking over them, they are all ones where we discuss colonialism, its legacy, and different views on the successes and failures of African and other nations. Think you were involved in a few of them, too. I've read the 'Death of a Black Farm' thread, but I think the researcha nd facts I outlined in the other threads cover that already. I get labelled a 'troll' so easily that I should try to avoid needless repetition. ;-)

"I know from past experience that Mr. Mathurin, being of African decent, finds it difficult to accept any criticism of Africa and Africans, without casting around for some dead white males to blame for the misfortunes of Africa."

a) You are also of 'African descent', my friend;

b) I have and am always willing to accept criticism of Africa and Africans, if it is backed up by objective evidence. For instance, I have readily joined in criticism of the ANC regime and their policies, here and in real life. I certainly think I am far more willing to discuss critical views of non-whites and non-Europeans than you are of white Europeans;

c) I'm not looking for 'dead white males' to blame, I am only interested in the truth. Whoever that reflects badly on, c'est la vie. What I would say is, responsibility will tend to lie with people with the most power and influence.


"He conveniently forgets that Africa had no schools, colleges, universities, writing, paper, wheels, doctors, health clinics, hospitals, medicines (other than muti), an abundance of food, roads or bridges, until the white man came and brought them."

Apart from the fact that several of those claims are untrue, I have not 'forgotten' any of those. My points have been around the inherent and deliberate instability of how those were introduced and exploited in Africa. They were created in a way that was unsustainable without the backing of a major empire.

"Now that the white man has left, Africa is slowly reverting to what it was previously."

Actually, in some places it is worse. Make of that what you will.

"Mr. Mathurin has never lived and worked in Africa, but he talks as if he has some expertise on the subject."

I've never been into a star, either, but I could happilly discuss what goes on within one. Adequate research can allow one to gain a degree of insight (and not all, but plenty of personal experience only gives one anecdotal evidence).

"As one that has lived and worked in Africa for 40 years I can categorically state that Mr. Mathurin is either very badly informed or prone to exaggeration."

No you cannot. You can give your opinion. That is all.

"...he prefers to live in the cosy land of the white man, which he tells us was built on the backs of colonialism and slavery,"

It's my home, by birth and descent. How it was built is true, but like many people here, I am working towards a more ethical future. The sad attempt at emotional blackmail is beneath me. I quite happilly approve of any person who helps anyone less fortunate, here or overseas. I am glad that you have helped, and certainly don't see you as a 'bad old man', but I do my bit here, and I also don't feel the need to pretend that it is only white people helping in other countries.

Celtic Warrior said...

In response to JM’s list of links;

I looked through the links you provided and found an abundance of relevant answers, contrary to your claim that you “have not heard a reply that actually proves your assertion”.

However, I thought that the following remarks, just a few of many similar remarks, made on the links you gave to be rather enlightening.

I can only wonder why you would wish to read a nationalist blog that is so opposed to your left wing multiculti views. Surely you don’t expect to convert us all to believe in the great benefits of “multicultural diversity”.

Although I’m speaking for myself, I believe that many on here will support my contention that non white immigration from Africa and the Middle East is detrimental to our Anglo Celtic culture. Especially considering that we’ve got along quite well for the last 14 000 years without the need for an infusion of non white genes.

Some remarks made on the links goven.

http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2011/04/update-on-censorship-at-leeds.html

• If you are going to resort to downright lies then you are not welcome here.
• You second claim is a lie as well, the attempt to compare some rudimentary time pieces ….. with modern western technology is laughable and shames you for claiming it.
• You come hear a spout your politically correct tosh and blatant lies and expect us to take you seriously, well we don't.
• I don't plan to personally respond to any further messages on this subject. However, if you look at these examples they are quite laughable.
• James this is what you tried with me in your comments to one of my older essays on the Muslim gang-rapes of young White girls which is why I do not get into debate with you.
• I have not allowed you last attack through
• Hence I am not prepared to allow her deceitful, hate infused, and politically motivated bile to infect my blog again.
• If you wish to express your own loathing make the charges you wish to make, please find a more reputable athority.
• James James James I love the way in typical left wing fashion you take something I wrote cut it , then manipulate it to back up some spurious assertion..is this what you teach those poor kid's to do?
• You are just playing silly games. I'm sorry but I regard you as inconsequential and can not be bothered with you.

http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2011/04/colonial-inheritance.html

• We are different clearly and as Jimmy no doubt think's we should 'celebrate diversity' It's strange that he seems kick so hard against this one obvious fact.
• Of course inconvenient facts can be ignored when you have an agenda to promote.
• Your hatred of white people and you compulsion to blame them for all evils is really quite troubling James, I suggest you seek help.

James Mathurin said...

So, Celtic, apparently I ignored a bunch of relevant answers. Funny, you didn't post any, you just coppies and pasted a list of insults against me. You don't like me, I get it. In fact, it amuses me. But it doesn't make me wrong.

Are there any answers in the links to which I did not respond? I'll save you the time of checking: No. Your assertion is unproven. Do point out if that is not the case. (It is not the case. I was right. None of you have proved me wrong - everyone just keeps backing out as if providing evidence is beneath you)


"I can only wonder why you would wish to read a nationalist blog that is so opposed to your left wing multiculti views. "

Well, there's the difference between us. I don't like hanging out in echo chambers. I like to test my ideas, to challenge them, and places like this do that. They force me to eliminate assumptions and lazy thinking. They force me to do research, and not just pat myself on the back for agreeing with an orthodoxy.

I can kind of see why those things would not interest you, but I hope I at least cleared it up.


"Although I’m speaking for myself, I believe that many on here will support my contention that non white immigration from Africa and the Middle East is detrimental to our Anglo Celtic culture. Especially considering that we’ve got along quite well for the last 14 000 years without the need for an infusion of non white genes."

I could just say, 'check you facts', but I'll help you out by saying that, from the moment the Romans invaded, bringing Moorish archers, and knowledge from Africa and the Middle East, we got 'infusions of non-White genes'. Also, any country that is an international trading hub gets 'infusions' the whole time. Both of these things take us back further than 600 years (I'm assuming you're going from roughly Year 0 to the present day). I'm sure most people would agree with your contention. Congratulations.

As for the "enlightening" comments:

a) I've never lied on here. Feel free to look for one, but I've no need;

b) Plenty of people have decided not to respond to me, including you, I think. It tends to be justified by my "trolling" them by asking them to actually prove what they're saying. I do, indeed, find that "enlightening";

c) I am not sure of the appropriate way to mock the idea that I 'hate and loathe white people'. I have narrowed it down to 3 options:
i) Ironic - "Some (indeed most) of my best friends are white";
ii) Pointing out errors in logic "I am mixed-race, and do not hate the half of my own family who are white";
iii) Ironic -Nerd-logic-error-pointing-out "I'm mixed-race, and some of my favourite genes are white".

TTFN

Celtic Warrior said...

In response to my statement “Especially considering that we’ve got along quite well for the last 14 000 years without the need for an infusion of non white genes." JM stated;

“I could just say, 'check you facts', but I'll help you out by saying that, from the moment the Romans invaded, bringing Moorish archers, and knowledge from Africa and the Middle East, we got 'infusions of non-White genes'.”

Interesting point indeed. There are many reasons put forward for the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, one of which was the negative changes to Roman society caused by major influxes of alien people into Rome. As Roman society changed so did their ability to defend themselves and maintain effective rule. There were also insufficient indigenous Romans available to man the Legions and they therefore had to recruit greater and greater numbers of less capable non Roman citizenry, such as the Moorish archers from Africa and the Middle East you referred to.

The degradation of Roman society due to "multicultural diversity", together with the adoption of Christianity as a state religion with its pacifist ideology, ultimately rendered Rome incapable of resisting the Germanic tribes that began invading from the north, until eventually the Goths sacked Rome in 410 AD.

Most scholars agree that the Western Roman Empire was no more by the end of the 5th century AD. Luckily for us it was the Germanic tribes that succeeded and eventually re-established white rule over Western Europe.

I wonder how many readers of this blog will see, as I do, the dangers to Britons of a similar destruction being visited on our way of life by the uncontrolled entry into Europe by today’s Moors from Africa and the Middle East. The decline is already well on its way and one can only wonder if the indigenous Britons can reverse the decline and again re-establish Britain as the home of great literature, science and inventiveness.

One problem we have is our inability to learn from history. Amazing that it was Thucydides, who 2500 years ago, wrote his History of the Pelopennesian War so that mankind would learn from the mistakes of history.

James Mathurin said...

Celtic, that was a really interesting response.

"There are many reasons put forward for the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, one of which was the negative changes to Roman society caused by major influxes of alien people into Rome."

Many reasons, huh? no kidding, I started doing some research on this, and it's a fascinating subject. I found names of researchers like Edward Gibbon, Vegetius, Arnold J Toynbee, james Burke, Michael Rostovtzeff, Ludwig von Mises, Bruce Bartlett, Joseph Tainter, Adrian Goldsworthy, J. B. Bury, Peter Heather, Bryan Ward-Perkins, Henri Pirenne, and Lucien Musset, and theories relating to the corrosive effect of military dictatorships, unfair taxation, instability of 'plunder economies', state control over citizens' lives, disease, lack of a middle class, and lack of resources.

I really am wondering, who are the serious historians suggesting that immigration killed the Roman Empire? Most of the immigration I saw was by Germanic people, not Moors and non-whites.


"There were also insufficient indigenous Romans available to man the Legions and they therefore had to recruit greater and greater numbers of less capable non Roman citizenry, such as the Moorish archers from Africa and the Middle East you referred to."

Again, where the army needed filling, it seems to have been with Germaninc mercenaries. As I understand it, the moorish archers were a feature of the Roman army in the period when it was most expanding, not something associated with the period when it fell.

Also, assuming your account is accurate, what made the non-Romans "less capable". Which historians have confirmed their lack of capability?


"The degradation of Roman society due to "multicultural diversity", together with the adoption of Christianity as a state religion with its pacifist ideology, ultimately rendered Rome incapable of resisting the Germanic tribes that began invading from the north, until eventually the Goths sacked Rome in 410 AD."

I saw a lot of discussion of the role of Christianity, but none at all of this 'degrading multiculturalism' you're talking about. Are you sure you're not just projecting your own prejudices onto history?

"I wonder how many readers of this blog will see, as I do, the dangers to Britons of a similar destruction being visited on our way of life by the uncontrolled entry into Europe by today’s Moors from Africa and the Middle East."

Considering it looks like you made it up, this reader, for one, does not see any danger. Also, while there are very valid debates to be had over immigration and emmigration levels, and the sustainable level of population britain can manage, if you think immigration into this country is "uncontrolled", you are simply deluded, unless you take the extremist position that any and all immigration from non-white countries should be banned.

"The decline is already well on its way and one can only wonder if the indigenous Britons can reverse the decline and again re-establish Britain as the home of great literature, science and inventiveness."

What is the nature of the decline? Crime? Education levels? Are we producing less good literature or music than before? Do we have less scientists? Less inventors?

I simply don't think that is the case. It just comes across like paranoid justifications for disliking people who look different to you.


"One problem we have is our inability to learn from history"

I agree. Another problem is our tendency, like Thucydides, to be very selective about the interpretations we draw from our historical lessons.

Celtic Warrior said...

JM Stated;

“Most of the immigration I saw was by Germanic people, not Moors and non-whites.”

I wish you would make your mind up, as it was you who stated in your last post; “from the moment the Romans invaded, bringing Moorish archers, and knowledge from Africa and the Middle East, we got 'infusions of non-White genes'.

“Again, where the army needed filling, it seems to have been with Germaninc mercenaries.”

Please refer to answer given above. This is getting very tiresome; I think I’ll give it a rest.

James Mathurin said...

Celtic, a clarification:

I was referring to immigration into the Roman Empire in the Century or so preceding its collapse. That immigration was mainly Germanic. The Moorish immigration I'm talking about was earlier in the Empire, indeed it was during the Roman Republic.

So yes, I should have explained it better, but no, there is no inconsistency in what I was saying, as I was discussing two historically distinct periods of the Roman Republic and Empire.

I'm sure you will give it a rest, but I will just reiterate my question: Which serious historians have attributed the fall of the Roman Empire to an influx of non-white immigration?

Celtic Warrior said...

JM Stated;

“That immigration was mainly Germanic. The Moorish immigration I'm talking about was earlier in the Empire, indeed it was during the Roman Republic.”

Please make your mind up. You keep changing the goal posts.

If Moorish immigration took place in the time of the Roman Republic it would have happened prior to 44 BC. The invasion of Britannia took place 100 years later in 43 AD. The 4 Legions that invaded Britannia had spent most, if not all, of their service since their formation in Gaul and Pannonia and not in the Middle East or Africa. Their members would therefore have been mainly European.

You still don’t get it do you? It was you (not a historian) who claimed that “Moorish archers, and knowledge from Africa and the Middle East, we got 'infusions of non-White genes'” I just took it on from there. If you wish to withdraw that statement then there is no argument on the influx of non-White genes. You can't have it both ways.

However the following is food for thought. But be mindful that like all of the 210 reasons put forward for the decline of the Western Roman Empire there are many dissenting opinions between historians on which are the most valid.

The historian Tenny Frank, having studied a great number of Latin inscriptions concluded that the Western Empire was flooded with an invasion of Greek and Oriental slaves. As they were emancipated they secured Roman citizenship and the whole character of the citizen body changed. This explains Frank’s view about the development for the triumph of absolutism due to the growing failure of the Roman ability to rule that had built the empire in the first place. (UNISA Study Guide 1 CLS 3705 The Decline and fall of the Roman Empire page 51).

To Martin P Nilsson (scholar of the Greek, Hellenistic and Roman religious systems) the most important problem in the empire was race, for upon it depended the quality of Roman civilization. Culture rests upon racial character. If alien races were to be assimilated, they must be interpenetrated by their conquerors. However, due to the declining birth rate the reverse process took place, resulting in a dilution of Roman blood and an unchecked ‘mongrelisation’ took place. Hence throughout the provinces ‘all stable spiritual and moral standards were lost’. (UNISA Study Guide 1 CLS 3705 The Decline and fall of the Roman Empire page 52).

I do think that Britain today is in a similar position to Rome in the 5th century. It is being inundated with alien cultures and religions which are diluting British blood and which will lead to further degradation of Anglo Celtic culture down the road, as more and more immigrants arrive and more and more children are born to immigrant families. Is it any wonder that the unfortunate lady Emma West lost her cool in a London train when she found herself surrounded by alien faces, alien languages and alien cultures? I know exactly how she felt as I have felt the same in a similar situation. If that makes me a racist then so be it.

James Mathurin said...

Celtic, this discussion started off about 3rd world economies, and you used it as an excuse to copy and paste a bunch of personal insults against me; When I started talking about the Roman conquest of Britain, you started talking about the fall of the empire;

And now you presume to lecture me on changing the goalposts? If you want the moral highground so much, I suggest you stop digging first.

Of the 4 legions who invaded Britain, Legio II Augusta
and Legio IX Hispana had been sstationed in Hispana (Iberian peninsula /Spain), and with the IX also serving in Africa.

I don't argue that their members would have been mainly European, but then that was never my argument. I didn't suggests waves of swarthy moors washing into Britain - that's the kind of imagery you people stick to. I was just arguing that the Roman conquest, and Britain's status as a trading nation, with many foreign merchants settling and marrying here, meant that it was false to suggest that there were no non-white genes in Britain until 600 years ago, as you had written.

Of course, I am sure you will interpret my clarification as more 'goalpost moving'.

Tell you what, in the spirit of reaching agreement, rather than banging our heads on mutual brickwalls, I will rephrase the "infusion" passage you take exception to, to "a presence of non-white genes and knowledge." How about that?


"But be mindful that like all of the 210 reasons put forward for the decline of the Western Roman Empire there are many dissenting opinions between historians on which are the most valid."

Continued...

James Mathurin said...

"But be mindful that like all of the 210 reasons put forward for the decline of the Western Roman Empire there are many dissenting opinions between historians on which are the most valid."

Most of those "210" reasons fit into the 4 categories of general malaise, catastrophic collapse, monocausal decay and transformation. You seem to be suggesting "race mixing" as a malaise or monocausal decay reason. The examples you give do demonstrate why it's such a poor theory.

Nilsson is a scholar of mythology from what I see, which is a fascinating area of study, but not one that seems to qualify him to talk on race.

Tenney, whose "Race mixture in the Roman Empire" paper I read, makes valid observations about ethnic changes, and seems to have really swallowed 30's style "yellow peril" propaganda, from the way he goes on about the effect of "The Oriental" on the Romans.

However what neither he, Nillson or yourself do is ever explain why "Culture rests upon racial character", and why "mongrelisation" is a bad thing. You all simply take it for granted due to an irrational conviction that racial purity is a virtue, a belief that I have never seen any convincing evidence for.

Look at some of the other reasons given for the collapse of the Roman Empire - The general malaise theorists point to expanding military budgets driving unsustainable levels of taxation, an army more loyal to its own commanders than to Rome, and the unsustainability of the empire's 'plunder economy', adn the endless civil wars of the fractured parts of the army;

The monocausal decay theorists look at plagues and depopulation, deforestation, and falling mining output leading to currency devaluation;

The catastrophic collapse theories look at the cumulative effects of many of these event happening concurrently, including the rise of the Persian Sassanid empire, and;

the Transformationists consider, as you mentioned, that the empire simply took on new forms - the Catholic churc and the germanic cultures that rose to dominance.

You look at all of those explanations, and argue, with no justification, that "mongrelisation" was the reason that "throughout the provinces ‘all stable spiritual and moral standards were lost’." I am, to say the least, unimpressed.

You talk about 'diluting Anglo-Celtic culture', ignoring the influence of 'alien' cultures in creating modern British culture, and ignoring the irony that an 'Anglo-Celtic culture' is already a mongrel culture of Angles and Celts.

You also don't explain why changes within the culture, whether from 'aliens' or other Anglo-Celts, are a bad thing.


"Is it any wonder that the unfortunate lady Emma West lost her cool in a London train when she found herself surrounded by alien faces, alien languages and alien cultures?"

You really want to bring her into this? Am I supposed to feel sympathy for a drunken bigot who yells abuse at strangers in front of her toddler? I spend a lot of time surrounded by people with different faces, languages and cultures to mine, and I've never once felt compelled to swear at them and tell them to "go back to Nicaragua." Maybe it's because when I ride the tram to Croydon, I am sober.

"I know exactly how she felt as I have felt the same in a similar situation"

Well then grow the hell up.

"If that makes me a racist then so be it."

Well, it does, so congratualtions I guess.

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

@ Celtic

Of course he keeps changing the goal posts, that is the whole point.

Don't keep falling for it.

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

@ James

This discussion is now over, I will not approve any further comments.