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