Monday, 31 January 2011

America a the Middle East

If anyone is watching the current turmoil on the streets in various Middle Eastern countries such as Egypt, Yemen and Tunisia in the belief that this will lead to a happy Western style democratic outcome, I fear they will be sadly mistaken. One does not have to listen to the barley concealed note of excitement in the voices of the BBC reporters on the ground to know that things are about to get considerably less comfortable for that part of the world and for us in the West.

There are many factor and many players involved, however, here are a couple of articles giving unconventional, but thought provoking takes on the role of the current US administration.

The American Left's role in leading Mid-East Regime Change

Moslem led America seeks to destabilise Egypt

The Special Relationship and Realism

By Tim Haydon

The Real Reason for the End of Britain’s Special Relationship’ with the USA

The ‘Daily Mail; devoted a page of the 12th January edition to an article by Stephen Glover acknowledging the truth of President Obama’s clear attitude that, contrary to decades of Foreign Office Policy, Britain enjoys no special relationship with the USA.

Glover went into some detail about the fawning attitude of Britain towards the USA over the years, including the dog-like devotion of Tony Blair which as he pointed out, at best invites the USA to take this country for granted and at worst earns its contempt. But he did not touch on the real reason for Obama’s contemptuous dismissal of the special relationship idea which saw one of his first acts as President as being the removal of Churchill’s bust from the Oval Office.

Obama realised the true Nature of the ‘Special Relationship’

Obama was at a pains to deny any special relationship with Britain because as he, a black man, was quick to notice what our own Foreign Office, blinded by Political Correctness, failed to, that that relationship when it existed , though said to have been based on WW11 experience, was fundamentally racial and cultural in character.

The USA of course was founded by British people living in the colonies and its first century and more as an independent nation was dominated by ‘Wasps’ (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants). It was common until quite recently for the British to talk of the Americans as ‘our American Cousins’ and even during the credit crunch one could read about ‘Anglo –Saxon ‘ economics.

The ‘Special Relationship’ could not survive Multiculturalism and Multiracialism

Such a relationship is of course totally at variance with the idea of multiculturalism and multiracialism as espoused by Obama and our own political elites. But while the latter failed to notice this so that Gordon Brown could allow himself to snubbed no less than 5 times by Obama, again, the latter did not.

As it is, the racial and cultural affinities between the USA and Britain are fading fast as the mass immigration of third-word aliens transforms both countries. African- Americans and Hispanics now number in excess of 79 millions or 27% of the population of the USA and whites, so Bill Clinton asserted, are set to become a minority by 2050. In Britain of course, the native British are on the same path set by our self-hating political class of traitors.

The end of the ’special relationship’ is also the end of the USA and of Britain as we have known them.


Hat Tip: British Resistance

Saturday, 29 January 2011

The KJB Story - Part 2 - The Critics' Den

The Anvil of God’s Word

By Alan O'Reilly

Dr Smith stated in The Translators To The Reader that:

“Neither did we think much to consult the [earlier] Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch; neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered: but having and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see.”

That work has received an avalanche of criticism in the last 400 years from a legion of critics, “My name is legion: for we are many” Mark 5:9.

The Appendix to this work addresses some of the better-known criticisms.

For now, it will hopefully be enough to point out what KJB supporters believe, namely that which was brought back to the anvil to be hammered afresh eventually became the anvil that has withstood all the critics’ hammers for the last 400 years.

This anvil and the critics’ hammers are described in a poem entitled:

The Anvil Of God’s Word

Last eve I passed beside a blacksmith’s door
And heard the anvil ring the vesper chime;
When looking in, I saw upon the floor,
Old hammers worn with beating years of time.

How many anvils have you had,” said I,
“To wear and batter these hammers so?”
“Just one,” said he; then with a twinkling eye,
“The anvil wears the hammers out, you know.”

And so, I thought, the anvil of God’s Word,
For ages, sceptics’ blows have beat upon;
Yet, though the noise of falling blows was heard,
The anvil is unharmed - the hammers gone.

We now address our final question, what happened to the 1611 Holy Bible after 1611 and on to the present?

(To be continued)

Tuesday, 25 January 2011

Update on the Shane McClellan race hate attack

Last year I posted a couple of articles (here and here) regarding the case of white US teen Shane McClellan who was the victim of a vicious race attack during which he was kidnapped, beaten tortured and racially abused. Amazingly, given the racial element of the attack, one of his assailants has been convicted. However, predictably, the US media is struggling to find ways of excusing the brute for his behaviour.

The Following report comes from V-Dare

Guilty in Seattle: Somali Gets Hard Time for Anti-White Attack

By Brenda Walker

I suppose it was something of a victory for sanity and justice that a Somali immigrant was convicted of a hate crime against a white teenager, particularly since the victim was initially doubted by locals. After all, 16-year-old Shane McClellan (pictured) said he had been tortured for hours by two men who had shouted, “The white man has kept us down,” and “This is for enslaving our people.”

A crime like that runs counter to the liberal narrative. Immigrants are highly regarded as a victim group, incapable of racist hate, goes the stereotype.

On the contrary, Somalis residing in America have distinguished themselves as few others have for their extreme anti-social behavior, including gang crime, violent jihadism and constant demands for special treatment for their Islamic practices.

Local media struggled to frame the brutal crime in a way that would exonerate the convicted Somali perp. The Seattle Times chose the booze:

Man sentenced in W. Seattle attack on teen blames it on Four Loko, Seattle Times, January 21, 2011

The Four Loko made him do it.

Ahmed Mohamed, who was sentenced Friday to nearly six years in prison for the attack last year on a West Seattle teen, claimed the caffeine-infused energy beer he drank for the first time the night of the assault was partially to blame.

Continue reading this report at V-Dare by clicking here
Hat Tip: Dr. D

Comment Policy - Update

It has come to my attention that some of those who have left comments and opinions at this blog in the past have not been acting in good faith. Although I believe in free speech, I am no longer prepared to accept contributions from those who come here with malicious intent.

The Internet provides vast opportunity for people to express their views, however, this is my blog and I will decide who is allowed to speak here.

I, therefore, regret that, in future, I will have to be more restrictive as to what comments are approved, and will enforce the policy against ad hominem attacks more rigorously than I have been. Furthermore, certain commentators will no longer be welcome here.

I will not enter into discussion on this matter, if anyone finds that their future comments are not approved, they can attribute this to their prior activity both here and on other forums.

Genuine commentators remain welcome, those with ulterior motives do not.

Thanks for your cooperation


Sunday, 23 January 2011

The KJB Story - Part 1

King, Bishops and Puritans at Hampton Court, January 1604 (1)

By Alan O'Reilly

The Learned Men

Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one…but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark” – Dr Miles Smith, The Translators To The Reader

How did the learned men achieve their mark, who were they and how well fitted were they for their task?

First, we must know what happened at Hampton Court in January 1604.

The Hampton Harrier - The King that played the Puritan

The Puritans(2) were Church of England clergymen who held strongly to the English Protestant Reformation of the 16th century. The English Reformation followed the break with Rome by Henry VIII(3). After the break, the Church in England gradually became the Church of England.

The Puritans wanted all traces of Catholicism removed from the English Church so when King James 1st came to the throne in 1603, the Puritans presented him with the so-called Millenary Petition(4), because it had 1,000 signatures.

The king convened a conference at Hampton Court in January 1604 for the church leaders to hear the Puritans’ grievances. One of these grievances was the perceived need for a new bible.

The Puritans’ leader was Dr John Rainolds, president of Corpus Christi College, Oxford. Rainolds said to the king “May your Majesty be pleased to direct that the Bible be now translated, such versions as are extant not answering to the original.”

We will see later why Rainolds used the term “the original.”

The king replied “I could never yet see a Bible well translated in English, but I think that of Geneva is the worst.”

The Geneva Bible had been translated in Geneva, Switzerland in 1560 with the help of English Puritan exiles. The historian Gustavus Paine explains that it was not the text of the Geneva Bible that James objected to. Paine states:

Some of the marginal notes in the Geneva version...disturbed him: they seemed to scoff at kings. If the Bible threatened him, it must be changed. Away with all marginal notes! And indeed...many [were] based on dogma now outworn. James may have had some right on his side; he was far from witless.”

John Rainolds stood his ground and the petition for the new bible was granted.

Paine states “So clever was [James’s] handling of the meeting that, although he…actually threatened to harry [the Puritans] out of the land, he appeared to some observers to lean towards them. Indeed, the dean of the chapel said that on that day the king played the Puritan…after all the talk ended, it seemed [the Puritans] had…only one gain: the new Bible [but William] Tyndale’s prayer was now answered in full: James 1 had ordered what Tyndale died to do.”

William Tyndale was a brilliant Bible translator whom Catholics had burnt at the stake in 1536 for his work on the scriptures. Just before he died Tyndale had prayed “Lord, open the King of England’s eyes.” Through James 1st and John Rainolds, God had answered His martyr’s prayer.

With James having granted the Puritan’s petition, the next step was to choose the translators. The ones eventually chosen could be summed up as:

High Church, Low Church - White male C of E Protestants

Two of James 1st’s most trusted advisers were Richard Bancroft(5) Bishop of London and later Archbishop of Canterbury and Robert Cecil(6), who became the Earl of Salisbury.

The king charged them with appointing the men to compile the new bible and by the end of summer 1604 they had selected a total of 47 scholars for the work.

As indicated, these 47 scholars were both high and low churchmen(7).

The high churchmen favored a fixed and formal style of worship service and believed firmly in the overall authority of the bishop or most high-ranking clergyman of a particular area, or diocese.

The low churchmen were less formal with respect to worship services and less willing to accept the absolute authority of a diocesan bishop. The low churchmen included the Puritans like John Rainolds. They made up almost a quarter(8) of the scholars. Gustavus Paine states:

There were among [the translators] no Roman Catholics, Jews or women. They were male Protestants, roughly or smoothly within the Church of England, and as such they thought in certain grooves. The marvel is that they did so well…

But…for the new Bible the strife between [high and low] factions would be healthy. The Bible has always thrived on turmoil.”

It can safely be said that in reality, God had chosen the right men, at the right time, as we see from their unparalleled scholarship.

Hebrew at his fingers’ ends” - Unparalleled scholars

19th century historian Alexander McClure wrote this, his emphases:

“As to the capability of those men, we may say again, that, by the good providence of God, their work was undertaken in a fortunate time. Not only had the English language…then ripened to its full perfection, but the study of Greek, and of the oriental tongues [including Hebrew], and of rabbinical [Jewish] lore, had then been carried to a greater extent in England than ever before or since. This particular field of learning has never been so highly cultivated among English divines [scholars] as it was at that day…All the colleges of Great Britain and America, even in this proud day of boastings, could not bring together the same number of divines equally qualified by learning and piety for the great undertaking.”

The situation has not changed in 150 years. Dr Donald Waite is the Director of The Bible For Today organization in the USA. In 1992, he had been a teacher of Greek, Hebrew, Bible Speech and English for over 35 years, including teaching at seminary level.

Dr Waiteix(9) wrote extensively on the scholarship of the King James translators. He then stated categorically that he knew enough about the Hebrew and Greek languages to know that he could not have qualified to be one of the King James translators.

Dr Waite said that in 1992 and he still holds to that statement.

So who did qualify?(10) Here are some of King’s men.

Dr John Rainolds

The man who petitioned the king was appointed the Regius or Royal Professor of Divinity at Oxford in 1585. Rainolds was noted as a distinguished Greek and Hebrew scholar and it was said that “his memory and reading were near to a miracle.

John Rainolds died in 1607 at the age of 58. By then, he was President of Corpus Christi College, Oxford. He was succeeded by Dr John Spencer, then aged 48, who was another of the translators.

Dr John Spencer

Dr Spencer was elected Greek lecturer at Corpus Christi College at the age of 19, which speaks volumes for his scholarly ability. His wife, it should be noted, was a great-niece of Thomas Cranmer(11), former Archbishop of Canterbury, whom the Catholic Queen Mary Tudor burnt at the stake in 1556 for his Protestant testimony.

Many of the King James translators were, in fact, children or youths during the reign of Catholic Mary, aka ‘Bloody’ Mary. Dr Gail Riplinger writes:

The KJV translators were born and lived their adult lives with a frightfully close view of the persecuting shadow of bloody Queen Mary 1…as small children, [they] could have seen their friends’ parents go to the stake. Children were sometimes forced to watch their own parents burn or to set them on fire themselves.”

Scenes such as those must have made a terrible impression on the young boys’ minds. That is one reason why the King James translation is in no way Papist, in spite of later criticisms to the contrary.

Dr Miles Smith

Dr Smith was appointed Bishop of Gloucester in 1612. He wrote the preface to the 1611 Bible, The Translators To The Reader and The Epistle Dedicatory found in the front of the Authorized Version. It was said of Dr Smith that “He had Hebrew at his fingers’ ends; and he was so conversant with Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic, [Oriental languages related to the Old Testament] that he made them as familiar to him as his native tongue.

Dr John Bois

Dr Bois was a Fellow of St. John’s College, Cambridge, to which he was admitted at the age of 14. He was able to read Hebrew at the age of 5. He was also a distinguished Greek scholar and sometimes devoted himself to his studies in the university library from 4 o’clock in the morning to 8 o’clock at night.

Such was John Bois’s reverence for the word of God that he would stand while studying, reading or translating the scriptures.

Dr Lancelot Andrewes

Dr Andrewes was Bishop of Winchester and Chaplain to Queen Elizabeth 1st. She was “that bright Occidental Star” as Dr Miles Smith described her in The Epistle Dedicatory. It was said of Dr Andrewes that “His knowledge in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac and Arabic...was so advanced that he may be ranked as one of the rarest linguists in Christendom.”

Lancelot Andrewes has been criticized as being too high church to be a fit translator but Gustavus Paine(12) states “While Andrewes valued a high ritual, he never forced it on others…He had a wide knowledge of scholars throughout England and good judgment in weighing their talents. In short, this thoughtful [man] possessed the traits [of character] most useful in choosing the men to make over the English Bible and in welding them into a working unit.”

Dr Richard Kilbye

Dr Kilbye became Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford in 1610. He was an excellent Greek and Hebrew scholar. After the 1611 Bible was published, he heard a young preacher give three reasons why a particular word in the 1611 Bible should have been translated differently. Dr Kilbye afterwards explained to the young preacher how he and others had considered all three reasons “and found thirteen more considerable reasons why it was translated as now printed.

Such were some of the learned men. Briefly, what did they have to work with and how did they carry out their task?

Materials and Methods

The materials the King James translators had to work with included(13) all preceding English and foreign language Bibles. Among these sources were the Bishops’ Bible, translated during the reign of Queen Elizabeth 1st and the Puritans’ Geneva Bible.

The translators also had the Jesuit New Testament in English produced at Rheims in France in 1582.

In addition, they had all the printed Greek texts of the time, numbering 15, 6 Hebrew Old Testaments and “a great mass” of Greek manuscripts.

They also had the texts of ancient Bibles such as the Old Latin(14) that dated from the 2nd Century A.D., or very close to the time when the New Testament was written. These were the Waldensian Bibles of the Vaudois, the people of the valleys in Northern Italy. The King’s men had 6 of their Bibles.

That was why John Rainolds could refer to the original text of the scriptures at Hampton Court. He and his colleagues had texts that were first written at almost the same time as the original writings.

In addition, the King James translators had the 4th century Latin Vulgate Bible of Jerome, the official bible of the Catholic Church.

They also obtained selected readings from two fairly early Greek manuscripts(15) called Codex or Book A, of the 5th century and Codex B, of the 4th century. Codex A was at the time located in Alexandria, Egypt and Codex B is the well-known Vaticanus manuscript located in the Vatican Library. Codex B and another 4th century codex named Aleph, after the first letter of the Hebrew Alphabet, form the main Greek basis for the Latin Vulgate(16). Aleph is also called Sinaiticus because it was found in 1844 in St Catherine’s Greek Orthodox Monastery(17) at the foot of Mount Sinai. Codex B and Codex Aleph are the manuscripts referred to on pages 1024 and 1073 of the 1990 Edition of the New International Version.

With the Jesuit Rheims New Testament, the Latin Vulgate and readings from Codex A and Codex B, the King’s men therefore had access to virtually all the variations from the 1611 Holy Bible that are now found in the new versions.

As American researcher Norman Ward has said, “The translators of 1611 had substantially the same selection of readings from which to choose as did the revisers of 1881, 1952, 1973 and 1979.

Concerning the methods by which the King James translators worked, Bishop Bancroft, with the help of Lancelot Andrewes and others, set down 15 rules for the work(18). Dr Benjamin Wilkinson(19) gives an overview of how the King’s men put these rules into practice:

“The forty-seven learned men...were divided first into three companies: one worked at Cambridge, another at Oxford, and the third at Westminster. Each of these companies again split up into two. Thus, there were six companies working on six allotted portions of the Hebrew and Greek Bibles. Each member of each company worked individually on his task, then brought to each member of his committee the work he had accomplished. The committee all together went over that portion of the work translated.

“Thus, when one company had come together, and had agreed on what should stand, after having compared their work, as soon as they had completed any one of the sacred books, they sent it to each of the other companies to be critically reviewed. If a later company, upon reviewing the book, found anything doubtful or unsatisfactory, they noted such places, with their reasons, and sent it back to the company whence it came. If there should be a disagreement, the matter was finally arranged at a general meeting of the chief persons of all the companies at the end of the work.

“It can be seen by this method that each part of the work was carefully gone over at least fourteen times. It was further understood that if there was any special difficulty or obscurity, all the learned men of the land could be called upon by letter for their judgment. And finally each bishop kept the clergy of his diocese notified concerning the progress of the work, so that if any one felt constrained to send any particular observations, he was notified to do so.”

Dr Donald Waite(20) has said that the translators’ method had never been used before in Bible translation and has never been used since.

He concludes that this method is certainly superior to any other.

We move now briefly to consider the welter of criticisms that have been leveled at the 1611 Holy Bible.

(To be continued)

To Read the introduction Click here






4) Final Authority by William P. Grady, Grady Publications, 1993, Chapters IX, X

The Men Behind the KJV by Gustavus S. Paine, Baker Book House, 1977, Chapter 1

Translators Revived by Alexander McClure, Reprint of the 1858 Edition, Maranatha Bible Society, Michigan, Introductory Narrative and biographical sketches

Which Bible? edited by Dr David Otis Fuller, 5th Edition, Grand Rapids International Publications, 1975, The Learned Men by Terence H. Brown, pp 13ff

Gipp’s Understandable History of the Bible by Samuel C. Gipp, Th. D., Daystar Publishing, 2004, Chapter 9.

O Biblios’ The Book by Alan O’Reilly, Covenant Publishers, Chapters 11, 12

Author’s note: The repeated citation of my own work in this treatise is not intended as either a promotion of that work or to detract from the work of other authors cited in my own work. The repeated citations of ‘O Biblios’ in this treatise are mainly for ease of reference.

King James And His Translators and The Hidden History Of The English Scriptures by Gail Riplinger, A.V. Publications Corp., 2011

King James, His Bible And Its Translators by Dr Laurence M. Vance, Vance Publications, 2006



7) The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church edited by E.A. Livingstone, Oxford University Press, 1977

8) The Bible Babel by Dr Peter S. Ruckman, Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1981, p 17

9) Defending The King James Bible by Rev D. A. Waite, Th.D., Ph.D., The Bible For Today Press, 1992, p 87

10) O Biblios’ The Book, Chapter 4

Which Bible, pp 13ff

Translators Revived, biographical sketches

In Awe of Thy Word by G.A. Riplinger, A.V. Publications Corp., 2003, Chapters 16, 25


12) The Men Behind the KJV, pp 20-21.

13) O Biblios’ The Book, pp 26-27, Ibid., Chapter 10, Section 10.1, King James, His Bible And Its Translators, Essay Four, Which Bible?, p 212,

14) Which Bible?, p 208,


16) Final Authority, Chapters VIII, XIII, ‘O Biblios’ The Book, Section 10.1

17) Hazardous Materials by G. A. Riplinger, A.V. Publications Corp., 2008, Chapter 20

18) The Men Behind the KJV, pp 70-71

19) Which Bible?, p 257,

20) Defending The King James Bible, pp 88-89

Book Review: The Spirit Level. Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett. 300pp plus addenda. Penguin 2009

By August Pointneuf

The title is a word play on “spirit” with the implication that this means “an elevation of emotion”, perhaps “happiness” (which some understand to mean a certain quality of life.) The book then seeks to prove that similar (“level”) incomes in a society cause greater “happiness”, listing parameters of “anti-happiness” such as shorter life expectancy, more teenage pregnancies, greater social violence, mental illness, less trust and increased prison populations.

The reviewer will not contested that people seem to feel more at ease with their equals, and it seems that similar people intuitively group themselves. The authors, however, with deistic magnanimity, proffer a formula for making people “more equal”. This is a collection of naive (and oft failed) politico-economic interventionalist strategies.

It is far more likely that those populations which possess genetic and cultural similarities will be as near equal as it is possible to be. This will be mediated by similar thinking processes, expectations, entrenched symbolism, familiarity, closer communicative capacity and much more. The aspiration of this book, which is to demonstrate that a single factor can be engineered to benefit humans’ passage through life, is gravely doubted.

This is a bad book because it punts a narrow idea with misleading “statistical facts”, to garner a following. It is arrogant in that it ignores the complexities of human behaviour and counter-behaviour, and purports to be able to reduce this to a simplicity which is, instead, an absurdity.

However, like many books which eventually achieve notoriety, it is important because it illustrates the ease by which irrational cults are established – and how the mainstream media catalyse and accelerate such public opinion, whatever be their motives. This book had reviewers from the Sunday Times, Guardian, Observer, Economist, Independent, New Statesman, Glasgow Herald, Globe and Mail (Toronto), Nature, Irish Times, Financial Times, The Australian and (no surprise here) Socialist Review lathering it with praise, and so bringing their own competence and credibility into account.

“The Spirit Level” is long winded, repetitive and difficult to read. It warrants a chapter and verse refutation, but that is not the purpose of this review.

Written by two epidemiologists, this book reflects the narrow statistical approach which one would expect of them, without the biology to which the reader should be entitled, given that emotions are biological functions. Astoundingly, the book chooses to ignore (except by brushing references) the greatest experiment ever in attempting to increase human contentment by equalising incomes, the communist credo, and its ultimate failure.

Judging by the book’s wide reception (and the 350-odd lectures which it spawned) “happiness” is of profound concern to a great many people.

Currently the interest in the role of governments in providing “happiness” to their populations has been perked up by David Cameron who asked the Office of National Statistics to (attempt to) measure Britain’s “general well being”. This is not novel, and has often been addressed before, inter alia by Richard Layard (an economist) in 2006, which is quoted in this book.

More significant is that the importance of the “Pursuit of Happiness” is written into the American Constitution. Given the brevity of that document, and that it reflected primarily the will of a society (rather than a draft from the distance by which government is now separated from populace) this aspiration was, and should remain, important to societies.

Any attempt to analyse the mechanics of “happiness”, of course, lies in the deep realms of behavioural dynamics, and in the even deeper complexities of psycho-emotionalism.

The reviewer questions the authors’ assumption that happiness is quantifiable. Happiness is, almost entirely, a retrospective emotion. Therefore it lies embedded in vulnerable memories and emotions which, having been selectively filtered, are admixed with residua of nostalgia, grief, regret and fulfilment. Sexual “happiness” is likely to be a separate and highly specific mechanism of reproductive biology. The same applies to the “happiness” related to the satiation of hunger and thirst or the attainment of warmth, each of which needs to be independent and specific if it is to fulfil its biological importance. To attempt any type of broad scoring of “happiness” would be to measure a multiple of agglomerated variables, a useless exercise if the end-point of the endeavour is to extract, condense and formulate political actions for the future.

Our next step is, therefore, to consider what this book seems to be targeting, but has failed to do in a muddle of definitions.

The reviewer suggest that the inaptness of “happiness” as a parameter could be improved via the concept of “contentment”. Since contentment is probably only the negative measure of “absence of stress” the more tangible index could be stress. Stress has long been objectively measured (albeit crudely) both psychologically and physiologically. Therefore, despite its limitations of accuracy, using absence of stress would be an improvement on attempting to grasp the nebulous entity “happiness”. As it happens, examples given in the book that are claimed to “diminish happiness” (such as extended commuting) are all recognised stressors.

Thus the reviewer believes that any attempt to debate the quality of well-being of a population, should be an attempt to define and measure stressors.

None of this should be surprising, since it would seem self-evident that a profound purpose of any society, ideally mediated by its government, is to provide protection against threat. Some would say that amelioration of threat (the trigger of all stress) should be the only purpose of impartial government.

The authors attempt to explain what makes some societies more equal in their “happiness”, repeatedly exemplifying Sweden (and wider Scandinavia plus Finland) and Japan and it is here that the authors finally destroy all their credibility – when they venture into speculative fantasy, proffering the explanation that the Second World War stresses on Japan and Scandinavia produced this effect. (Page 242). Even in the simplest epidemiological terms this is invalid, since they have no comparative measure of their chosen variable as it was before the war.

The statistics in this book can be used, with validly, to demonstrate that the progressive loss of homogeneity in societies, produced by infiltration of alien cultures, is a significant cause of stress and its sequelae. The “wealthiest” countries will be those which attract the greatest number of alien immigrants, as do countries which have the pomposity to believe that lax immigration cannot damage their entrenched cultures. It would be expected that when poor immigrants enter a richer country the disparity in incomes would increase. Likewise, within any given country or state, when the poor are lured into richer areas (by increased benefits, lower taxes or employment opportunities) income disparity will also increase. Migration therefore causes disparities in income and, purely in parallel with that, a cascade of undesirable social consequences.

If it is accepted that the Japanese and Scandinavians have the most homogenous gene pools and (probably not coincidentally) the most stable cultures of the examples cited, then the soundest conclusion that can be extracted from the data presented in this book is that the more culturally and genetically homogenous a society is, so the least is the “inequality” and the least stressed the population.

There are even statements in the book which support this but which are ignored in argument, such as:

Emile Durkheim showed that suicide rates in different countries and populations were related to how well people were integrated into society and whether or not societies were undergoing rapid change and turmoil. (Page 78)

If Wilkinson and Pickett wish to recoup their scientific integrity, they could do worse than to establish some parameters for measuring genetic homogeneity and cultural stability in their sample societies, and then match those parameters against stress levels in those societies. It would come as no surprise if their conclusion was that the most genetically and culturally stable societies had the lowest “inequality”, the lowest stress levels and are the “happiest”.

The book ends with a begging letter,

Warnings From the Lion

Churchill as a young man.

By David Hamilton

Churchill understood the threat to the West.

Sir Winston Churchill is one of the few major British politicians who had the courage to try to stop open-door immigration. He had strong views about race and was a keen supporter of eugenics. Late in his career, as post-war prime minister from 1951 to 1955, he might have succeeded in barring the door had it not been for failing health. Most biographers and historians now downplay his racial views and thereby give a false picture of the great man.

Churchill was different from academics and mushy liberals who theorize about multi-racial utopia. He was a brave and practical man who did not go to university but to the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst, and later won a commission in the Fourth Hussars. As a young man he was with Lord Kitchener at the Battle of Omdurman in 1898, when the British avenged the 1885 murder in Khartoum of General Charles “Chinese” Gordon. He was a war correspondent during the Boer War, was captured, held prisoner and escaped. As Home secretary in 1911, he personally took charge of the Siege of Sidney Street, when a small gang of Latvian anarchists holed up at 100 Sidney Street in Stepney, and fired on police. He called in the Scots Guards, and when a fire broke out at 100 Sidney Street, he made the decision to let the anarchists burn rather than have the fire brigade douse the flames. During the First World War, he commanded a battalion of the Royal Scots Fusiliers as a Colonel.

Churchill was not taken in by liberal orthodoxy. He knew that different races compete for power and territory, and he had seen sub-Saharan slavery first-hand. In 1899, he wrote a book about Kitchener’s Sudan campaign called The River War, in which he expressed views that in today’s Britain would have him up on charges of inciting racial hatred:

“The qualities of mongrels are rarely admirable, and the mixture of the Arab and Negro types has produced a debased and cruel breed, more shocking because they are more intelligent than primitive savages. The stronger race soon began to prey upon the simple [black] aboriginals ... To the great slave-market at Jeddah a continual stream of Negro captives has flowed for hundreds of years. The invention of gunpowder and the adoption by the Arabs of firearms facilitated the traffic by placing the ignorant Negroes at a further disadvantage. Thus the situation in the Sudan for several centuries may be summed up as follows: The dominant race of Arab invaders was unceasingly spreading its blood, religion, customs, and language among the black aboriginal population, and at the same time it harried and enslaved them.”

As for Islam, in the first edition of the book he wrote passages well worth pondering today:

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities — but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”

Churchill was an enthusiastic eugenicist, and was a sponsoring vice president — as were the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Bishop of Ripon — of the first International Eugenics Conference, which took place in London in 1912. Arthur Balfour delivered the opening address with Leonard Darwin — Charles Darwin’s son — presiding.

Churchill’s papers from this period show that he worried that “moral degenerates” and people of low intelligence were out breeding the educated classes. He proposed that “mental defectives” be incarcerated and that the “feeble-minded” be forcibly sterilized. As Home Secretary, Churchill reportedly told his government colleagues that:

“The unnatural and increasingly rapid growth of the feeble-minded classes, coupled with a steady restriction among all the thrifty, energetic and superior stocks constitutes a race danger. I feel the source from which the stream of madness is fed should be cut off and sealed up before another year has passed.”

Churchill was deeply suspicious of intellectuals and their Utopian theories. In his St. George’s Day address of 1933, he said:

“The worst difficulties from which we suffer do not come from without. They come from within. They do not come from the cottages of the wage earners. They come from a peculiar type of brainy people always found in our country who, if they add something to the culture, take much from its strength. Our difficulties come from the mood of unwarrantable self-abasement into which we have been cast by a powerful section of our own intellectuals. They come from the acceptance of defeatist doctrines by a large portion of our politicians. But what have they to offer but a vague internationalism, a squalid materialism, and the promise of impossible utopias?”

Many of Churchill’s views have gone out of fashion. He was convinced, for example, of Britain’s right to rule the lesser breeds. In a 1931 address at the Royal Albert Hall he said, “We gave India a civilization, far above anything they could possibly have achieved themselves, or could possibly maintain.” In his tribute to the Royal Marines in 1936, he explained that Britain was a gift passed from one generation to the next: “Those who do not think of the future are unworthy of their ancestors.”

Churchill went on to became the embodiment of the struggle against Nazism. He would never have been an appeaser. In October 1930, before Hitler had even taken power, he expressed his views of Nazis: “If a dog makes a dash for my trousers, I shoot him down before he can bite.” The fight against Germany did not change his racial views. During the war, a black official at the Colonial Office had to stop eating at a London club when American officers took it over and enforced segregation. When Churchill heard of this, he replied, “That’s alright. Tell him to take a banjo; they will think he is one of the band.”

At Yalta with Roosevelt and Stalin.

When he resumed power after the war, he opposed non-white immigration, but he was 76 years old. His instincts were sound but he no longer had the energy of a young man. Records of a cabinet discussion on Nov. 25, 1952 show that he asked if “the Post Office was employing large numbers of coloured workers. If so, there was some risk that difficult social problems would be created.” He then “raised the whole issue ... of whether coloured subjects of the Commonwealth and Empire should be admitted to the country from now on.”
“We gave India a civilization, far above anything they could possibly have achieved themselves, or could possibly maintain.”
In 1953 Churchill suffered a stroke that left him paralyzed on the left side. He went into decline and was not capable of decisive action, but his cabinet continued to debate immigration. In March 1954, his Home Secretary, David Maxwell-Fyfe, told the cabinet “that large numbers of coloured people are living on National Assistance” and that “coloured landlords by their conduct are making life difficult for white people living in the same building or area ... [T]he result is that white people leave and the accommodation is then converted to furnished lettings for coloured people, with serious overcrowding and exploitation.” In October 1954, Churchill warned Maxwell-Fyfe, “that the problems arising from the immigration of coloured people required urgent and serious consideration.” Maxwell-Fyfe replied that they could not be kept out under then-current law.

Britain allowed all Commonwealth citizens automatic entry but Maxwell Fyfe “did not believe that the problem had yet assumed sufficient proportions to justify legislation, which ... would antagonize liberal opinion.” Churchill foresaw, however, that “the rapid improvement in communications was likely to lead to the continuing increase in the number of coloured people coming to this country, and their presence here would sooner or later come to be resented by large sections of the British people.” He, too, was not sure, however, that “the problem had assumed sufficient proportions to enable the Government to take adequate counter-measures.”

Faces from the Empire Windrush, which arrived in 1948
with the first load of Commonwealth immigrants.

Churchill once explained to Governor of Jamaica Hugh Foot why he opposed non-white immigration: “It would be a Magpie society: that would never do.” Ian Gilmour, then owner and editor of the Spectator, relates that just before he stood down because of his health in April 1955, Churchill told him “It [immigration] is the most important subject facing this country, but I can not get any of my ministers to take any notice.”

In fact, many of his advisers were appeasers, though this time it was Indians and Pakistanis they wanted to placate. The Commonwealth Relations Office feared that if Britain kept out non-whites “there might well be a chance of the governments of India and Pakistan introducing retaliatory restrictions against the entry or residence of members of the British business community.” Commonwealth Secretary Earl Home also warned of possible retaliation.

In Eminent Churchillians, Andrew Roberts quotes people who worked closely with Churchill, and who probably had the sentiments typical of the period. One of Mr. Churchill’s private secretaries remembered that “at that time it seemed a very good idea to get [coloured] bus conductors and stuff.” A junior minister complained that “it was becoming hard to find somebody to carry your bags at the station.” As one minister put it later, “we were just stalling and hoping for the best.” After Churchill resigned, the internationalist Anthony Eden took over, and any hope of serious immigration control was lost.

In today’s climate what Churchill really thought is considered so unpalatable that at least one modern biographer chose deliberately to censor him. As Gretchen Rubin wrote in her 2003 book, Forty Ways to Look at Winston Churchill:

“To shield his reputation, this account has downplayed Churchill’s deplorable attitudes toward race. Churchill used opprobrious terms like blackamoor, chink, wop, and baboo and distinguished between the white race and others. [emphasis in the original] For example, he wrote that at a September 1944 conference, he was “glad to record” that “the British Empire ... was still keeping its position, with a total population, including the Dominions and Colonies, of only seventy million white people.” He never outgrew his views. His doctor recalled that in 1955, Churchill asked whether “blacks got measles ... When he was told that there was a very high mortality among negroes from measles, he growled, ‘Well, there are plenty left. They’ve a high rate of production.’”

Today’s Tories are backing away from Churchill in other ways, claiming that his concept of the welfare state is “out of date.” Tory leader David Cameron recently asked an advisor, Greg Clark, to rethink “conservative” policy on poverty, and this was his conclusion: “The traditional Conservative vision of welfare as a safety net encompasses another outdated Tory nostrum — that poverty is absolute, not relative. Churchill’s safety net is at the bottom: holding people at subsistence level, just above the abyss of hunger and homelessness.” What does this mean? Seaside vacations and cell phones for the poor?

Grandson Winston also understood
what was at stake.

Good sense may run in the Churchill family. Winston’s grandson, also named Winston, was a Conservative member of Parliament from 1970 to 1997. In 1993 he got in trouble for saying that the British way of life was threatened by a “relentless flow of immigrants” from the Indian subcontinent. Then-Prime Minister John Major piled on in the ensuing criticism, but Mr. Churchill was unrepentant, claiming that despite widespread public condemnation, many colleagues, including government ministers, privately expressed their agreement. He left politics when the seat he held was abolished.

It is tempting to imagine what Britain would be like if the grandfather had maintained his vigor and combativeness through the crucial period during which immigration policy was set. Perhaps his force of personality could have pushed through sensible policies. At any rate, it is unlikely he would ever have had to face shouts of “Fascist!” or “Nazi!” no matter how strongly he defended Britain’s right to a European heritage and destiny.

First published in American Renaissance January 2007

Friday, 21 January 2011

BBC ‘East Enders’ Lies. Cultural Marxism and Black / White Sexual Relations

The multi coloured Jackson family from Eastenders

By Tim Haydon

The BBC soap ‘East Enders’ deliberately propagates lies about the frequency of white / black sexual relations and the general tension-free wonderfulness of the multicultural, multiracial ‘community’ that is Albert Square.

It does this in order to further the BBC’s Marxist agenda of racial obliteration of the white British. But perhaps unwittingly or because of the social setting of ‘East Enders’ it correctly focuses that on the whole those whites who do pair with blacks tend to be lower class women. This article attempts to answer the questions:-

(1) Why is it on the whole white working class women but not white women from higher social groups who to a limited extent pair with black men?

(2) Why don’t white men pair with black women to the same degree?

How the BBC propagandises its Marxist Agenda

The BBC continues its drive to expunge the British from the face of the earth. This agenda can be seen in action through the BBC drive to eliminate British and specifically English identity through miscegenation. Here is an analysis of the racial character of the ’love interest‘of just one family, that of Bianca in ‘East Enders’ (No doubt your writer will be corrected on the details if necessary):-

Bianca: Bianca has a mixed race son, Morgan.

Carol : (Bianca’s mum) – Married a black man Alan Jackson and had a mixed race son, Billy. Carol has shared a black boyfriend (Connor) with Bianca’s adopted daughter, the perennial victim

Whitney: Shared a black boyfriend with Carol (see above).

Thus three generations of this one English BBC TV family have had or are having sexual relationships with blacks. (The concentration on blacks arises from the Cultural Marxist position that as historically the most primitive and most ‘oppressed’ of races, the negro most requires to be shown as on the same socio-economic level as the ‘oppressing’ whites).

Some major points arise: although the East Enders’ depiction of reality is grossly perverted through the deliberate, ridiculous exaggeration of the frequency of mixed–race liaisons which is a device for encouraging them, there is a certain amount of truth in it:-

1) Black/ White Liaisons do indeed happen.
Given racial genetic interests and fitness theory (see eg ; Frank SalterOn Genetic Interests’ ) and human assortative mating revealed by facial resemblance (‘Computer simulations suggested that sex among genetically complex organisms requires mate choice strategies for its evolutionary maintenance, to reduce excessive genetic variance produced by out-crossing) why do these inter–racial liaisons occur at all?

The answer must be that racial preference / fitness etc are tendencies only which can be overridden by other tendencies given the right circumstances. Much academic work needs to be done on this subject (in the present political climate this is unlikely to be a priority in the academy) but here are a few tentative suggestions:-

a) BBC and other propaganda for miscegenation (such as the numerous depictions of mixed – race couples in Advertisements, the attack on white history in our schools and the parallel celebration of other races /cultures) must be having an effect on some individuals. Indeed given the intensity of this propaganda, it is perhaps remarkable that there is not more miscegenation than there is.

b) Popular ‘culture’ is now in large part a celebration of black or black-derived music. The star status of black or mixed race entertainers encourages miscegenation. During the run of the X-Factor the BBC and some elements of the print media publicised the assertion that because of the success of mixed race contestants, ‘mixed race’ was now fashionable. (Can you imagine the BBC at any time suggesting that it was fashionable to be white?).

2) Black/ White liaisons tend to happen at the level of society depicted by East Enders.

It is a fact that the white females who pair with blacks tend to be lower class. You can see evidence of this outside schools, most shopping malls and elsewhere where single mums congregate with their mixed –race offspring, often having a fag –at public expense. Why is this?

Lower Class Individuals are more influenced by Black – Based Popular Culture

a) One reason must be that individuals at this level of society tend to be more influenced by black-based popular culture and political-class indoctrination than those at higher levels.

We look for Mates in the same IQ levels as Ourselves

b) Connected with a) above, it is known that as a general rule we tend to look for our partners in the same intelligence levels as ourselves. Blacks in Britain have an average IQ of 86 (almost exactly the same as Blacks in the USA) (Richard Lynn: The Global Bell Curve p88).

This level of IQ is mirrored in those white women who pair with blacks. The lower class have on average the lowest level of IQ among whites. This fact ought to be readily accepted since it accords with everyday common-sense observation. It was accepted in many University Psychology Departments in pre-PC days as a result of the studies but thanks to ideology and not to empirical observation it is now treated in much the same way that evidence for the low inherited average IQs of blacks is. Bruce Charlton, a Newcastle University evolutionary psychiatrist, was met with hostility from the usual suspects when he made this point in connection with working class entrance to the better universities in 2008.

Mating with Individuals in the same socio-economic Class as Ourselves

urthermore, people tend to mate with partners who are of the same socio-economic class (When the partnership is a committed one, women tend to ‘marry up’, or used to, but many of these inter-racial liaisons are not likely to be committed to the point of marriage). As Charlton indicated, notwithstanding the attacks on it, IQ, which measures intelligence and is 50% heritable very accurately predicts real-life success. ‘‘ ‘The Bell Curve’ showed that IQ predicts success in education, jobs and training. Low IQ predicts child abuse, crime and delinquency, health, accident proneness, having a child out of wedlock, getting a divorce after 5 years’ marriage and even smoking during pregnancy.’’ (J Philippe Rushton: ‘Race Evolution and Behaviour’ (Abridged Edition P48).

Foreign born Afro –Caribbean males who work in London have the lowest socio-economic status as measured by the International Index (ISIE). They score 37 with white males scoring 47.4. (South Asians score 46.6 and Chinese 45.6). (Overall in the UK, whites earned an average of £332 in 2001. For blacks it was £225 while for Pakistanis and Bangladeshis (ie moslems) it was £182. The Chinese had average weekly earnings of £342 in 1995). ( Richard Lynn: The Global Bell Curve P101/ 102).

The Low Physical Attractiveness of Lower Class white Women

Another factor which might enter into the equation is the fact that as studies have shown, we tend to mate with those whom we consider to be on the same level of physical attractiveness as ourselves. It will be remembered from above that we also tend to mate with individuals in the same intelligence levels as ourselves. A recent study by Dr Satoshi Kanazawa of the London School of Economics, (Report Daily Telegraph 17 Jan 2011) shows that the best looking among us have an IQ 12.4 points higher than the less attractive. This seems to help confirm your writer’s admittedly personal observation that low-IQ underclass white women tend also to come low down on the scale of attractiveness.

It seems likely then that matching low IQs, social status and physical unattractiveness are reasons why these females rather than more attractive white women higher up the socio-economic scale are the more likely to mate with blacks, who to this English male eye at least, are (generally speaking) physically very ugly. The better –looking ones are those with a lot of white blood. That your writer should think this is of course ethnic preference and linked aesthetic conditioning talking rather than any objective standard of attractiveness.

3) Black /White couples do usually comprise a black Man and a white Female

Admittedly from personal observation, as ‘East Enders’ and advertisements show, mixed –race couples do tend to comprise a black (negro) male and white female. The ratio of such pairings to the whole seems to be as high as 75% - 90%. This imbalance is quite remarkable. What is the reason for this phenomenon? There is clearly limited space for what requires a major study, but here are a few suggestions:-

More black Men than Women?

One reason for it could be that there are simply more available black males than black females around. But even if true, that would not be enough to explain the huge imbalance as it does nothing on its own to explain why white females would want to pair with these blacks when there are enough white men.

Black Men find white Women more attractive than black Women?

It could be argued of course that black men find white women more attractive than their own black women. However, while It may be the case that in a mainly white society, white standards of beauty influence blacks, it seems unlikely that black men brought up among blacks with mainly black standards of physical attractiveness for women and taking into account ethnic preference would consider white women in general more attractive than their own women - quite the contrary.

The ‘Trophy’ Syndrome?

There is though the ‘trophy‘ syndrome in black /white pairings. The women involved are often blonds, even when bleached – ie as white as possible. White women, belonging to the majority, dominant racial group are seen as prizes which confirm their racial ‘equality’ and as visible sign of achievement for black men. The ‘trophy’ syndrome is instantly recognisable among successful blacks such as Trevor Phillips and Obama’s Father and celebrities such as Chris Eubank and Ashley Cole who have all sported attractive white women as partners.

One attraction for the white women involved with black celebrities; wealth and reflected celebrity or public exposure, is obvious. The attraction for the majority of white women pairing with blacks remains to be explained.
(There is a curious reverse flow with a few white celebrities such as Jon Snow the TV presenter and the Historian Niall Ferguson marrying black women (In the same socio-economic class). Here, one suspects at least part of the attraction for the men involved is the highly public confirmation their marriages give to their left-liberal, right-on credentials which is useful to them in their careers).

A suggested Explanation:

What white Men find attractive in Women

One explanation could be that men and women have different priorities when selecting mates. Yes, IQ and socio-economic class is very important but so too is physical attractiveness. But what constitutes physical attractiveness?

For men, it boils down to the signals which announce a woman as healthy, fertile and ready to mate. Hence the cosmetics women don: the eternal search for youth –enhancing potions; slimming regimes which define the hip /waist ratios which signal child bearing properties, the blusher, lipstick and so on which mimic sexual readiness, all of which accentuate these factors. European men can read the signals very easily in women of their own race, but it is more difficult in women of other races, especially those racially farthest apart from ourselves such as negroes.

White Male Standards of Female Beauty

Then there are standards of beauty, strongly linked to the sexual signals mentioned above which go hand in hand with ethnic preference and fitness.

There are pure blood black woman who are very striking and attractive up to a point. But beautiful, or even very pretty? Your writer has never seen a black woman who fitted this description. The (by white standards) coke –like hair, the large and coarse features, the thick and (to him) repellently everted lips, the proportions of the body, and yes; the sheer blackness and coarseness of the skin, so at variance with the delicacy and fragility, the blushing, pink- and white fineness of an ‘English Rose,’ the standard of English female beauty, all militate against it.

There are plenty of mixed –race women who can be described as pretty, but even then, Like Naomi Campbell, they would be prettier still although perhaps less striking to European eyes if they had more white blood in them.

This is not ‘racism,’ meaning a bigoted attitude born of sheer prejudice towards other races. It is a function of racial genetic preference / fitness which does not deny that Chinese and Japanese women, especially those from the North with small, delicate features far removed from the ape, slender limbs, fine complexions and skins whiter than most Europeans, can be very pretty and extremely attractive physically.

So too can women of other races such as the paler, slim and doll-like Indians and South -East Asians. Like their men, some light-skinned Afghan women can be very handsome with their strong, high cheek - boned features, normally covered up by moslem drapings.

White Female Standards of Male Attractiveness

For women in differing degrees ( apparently more so than men for women), what constitutes physical attractiveness need not be what is handsome only or even at all but what is male, including personality. (Phil Mitchell is no oil –painting). This is probably the case throughout the social spectrum. At the lower end of the social scale however, thanks to the other factors touched on above, white female affinity for pure maleness of over looks and ethnic preference / fitness can come to the fore so far as blacks are concerned. According to J Philippe Rushton,

‘the races differ in testosterone level which helps to explain men’s behavior’….While levels even up somewhat in older men, ‘ In a study of university students, Black Americans had 10% to 15% higher levels than White students …..Testosterone acts as a ’master switch’. It affects things like self-concept, aggression, altruism, crime and sexuality, not just in men but in women too. Testosterone also controls things like muscle mass and the deepening of the voice in teenage years’ (Race and Evolution p40).

Black Male Sexuality is More So

Blacks are sexually active at an earlier age than Whites and have sex more frequently than they do. Their male sexual apparatus is larger (although according to John Baker (Race) it is no larger when engorged).

Whites in turn are higher up the scales than Orientals. The same hierarchy is found in sexual permissiveness, thinking about sex, and even in levels of sex guilt.

What has been said above surely goes a long way to explaining the phenomenon of the white lower class female / black male imbalance. There is much that remains to be said about the pairings between other racial groups, or the absence of them. But this essay is already long enough and that exploration will have to wait until a later date.

A developing Class Structure based on Race

Suffice it to say that, as elsewhere the world, what seems to be developing very slowly but spurred on by the BBC and its marxist like is a class system in Britain structured on racial lines with whites and orientals at the top; south asians and mixed–race individuals mostly in the middle and those with the most negro blood at the bottom. In short, the complete antithesis of the racially and culturally egalitarian, multiracial nirvana envisaged by the leftists who are engineering it all.

As Robert Burns put it;
‘The best-laid schemes o’ mice an’ men
Gang aft agley….’