Author: serpentstail

It’s not about the climate, stupid!

Whether you think the world is going to end in 12 years, or you take a less apocalyptic view of climate change, it behoves everyone – and Christians especially – to check out the company they keep before throwing in their lot with any group.

Extinction Rebellion has been causing havoc across cities of the Western world, and many well-intentioned people have joined them in the belief that they are helping to save civilisation.  However, this is NOT the aim of Extinction Rebellion – rather, the opposite is the case.

As several of the founders have disarmingly admitted in recent interviews and articles, there is no evidence to support the view that billions are going to die, and their alarmist rhetoric is merely good for whipping people up.  Their actual aim is the destruction of Western civilisation in favour of a return to some utopian ‘natural state’ – rather along the lines of Pol Pot who wanted to turn Cambodia back into an agrarian country and decided that the land could only support two-thirds of the population so he murdered the other third.  Stuart Basden, one of the 15 co-founders of XR, has written that ‘XR isn’t about the climate’, rather it’s about destroying Euro-Americanism, whiteness, patriarchy, and the idea that heterosexuality is normal.   (https://medium.com/@plaosmos/extinction-rebellion-isnt-about-the-climate-42a0a73d9d49). Another co-founder, Gail Bradbrook, took hallucinogenic drugs in central American to ‘re-set her brain’ and returned as a radical who wants to destroy civilisation and who thinks everyone should take psychedelic drugs to alter their consciousness. (https://www.newscientist.com/article/2213787-extinction-rebellion-founder-calls-for-mass-psychedelic-disobedience/)

This agenda means, of course, destroying Christianity too.  As Marx said, all it takes is enough ‘useful idiots’ for a revolution to take place.  So be careful what company you keep, check out who you are following, and perhaps even take a look in at the grand old environmental scientists who denounce XR, people like James Lovelock, creator of the Gaia Hypothesis; or Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, who say these people have abandoned science in favour of left-wing political activism.

Many churches have leapt into joining XR actions without apparently looking into what it is about. Discernment is necessary, and discernment requires getting hold of as many facts as possible.

The subversion of Remembrance Day

I just attended my local Remembrance Day service, and I was pleased to see such good attendance.  I live in an area with strong military links and presence, which may account for it.

The service was conducted by a major of the Salvation Army, which also provided the band, and I was disappointed by the text and subtext of the sermon and prayers.  According to this prayer leader, the people who fought in the two world wars did so in search of peace. The sermon was about the need to make and keep the peace; the prayers were about peace with a response about peace.

This is a subversion of the truth – and an echo of Chamberlain’s disgraceful ‘Peace in our time’ agreement with Hitler and Stalin.  This is not surprising given the almost total take-over of our churches and our institutions by socialists and communists who want to conquer the world this time without a shot being fired to protect us. (Their attempt to do it by war didn’t end too well…)

British soldiers didn’t go to war for peace – they went to war for FREEDOM, an ideal that has resonated through our land for centuries.  The countries of mainland Europe have never known freedom in any meaningful way – for the past two thousand years they have all lived almost continuously under some form of empire or tyranny. This makes true freedom both an enigma for them, and something to be feared, enabling them to huddle together under the tyranny of the EU because it is familiar to live that way. Roman law, which is the foundation of all their law, says you can only do something that is legislated for, otherwise it is illegal.  British law is a law of freedom – our precious Common Law, by which we can do anything unless it is legislated against because it (potentially) harms others.  This freedom is what made us the most successful country and culture the world has ever seen – and why the Left and Islam and the EU all want to suppress the UK and enslave it.

It is the British love of freedom that led our soldiers to fight and defeat Napoleon, who was trying to bring the whole of Europe under his control; that same love of freedom led our soldiers to fight in their millions against German expansionism in WWI and WWII.  In none of these wars had we been invaded (yet), none of them affected our internal national peace.  Yet we knew that one day they would, and that tyranny would visit our shores if we didn’t stop it in its tracks.

Since WWII socialists have peddled the myth that wars are the result of states, and that therefore states must be abolished (in favour of empire!) This is a fallacy. Peace is the result of strong nations remaining within their boundaries and not attempting to annex others. However, nation states have only been created by certain peoples – those who are intelligent enough to use self-restraint and recognise the rights of others. Nationhood cannot be imposed, which is why artificially-created states fall into civil war. Tribalism cannot be replaced by nationalism from outside, a sense of nationhood must develop internally and relies on a homogeneity of ethnicity, faith, values and culture. Europe is one of the few areas with indigenous national development, despite its constant forays into empire. It is the reason that Europeans developed civic culture and industrialisation.

Britain is the top example of a nation based on freedom, trust, civic responsibility and rights. That is why it has had so much internal peace – until multiculturalism brought division and violence to our streets. Peace is a product of contentment, and that contentment comes from freedom – spiritual, legal, social. That is why our soldiers fought and died: for freedom, and not for peace.

Was Mohammed a prophet of the God of Abraham, Jacob, Moses and Jesus?

Nowadays, to all too many people this is a non-question. The ‘establishment’ of the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches appears to have accepted that this Muslim claim is true, and are encouraging their followers to believe this.  Thus there are occurrences such as the offer of the use of a church for Muslim worship during Ramadan by a female cleric in Darlington, including covering up crosses and a depiction of Jesus to avoid offending them[1]; or the recitation of part of the Koran during an Epiphany service in the Scottish Episcopalian Cathedral in Glasgow in 2017[2].  Both these episodes received criticism from some senior clerics, but the fact that they happened at all shows that there is considerable confusion among modern Western Christians about what Islam is really about.

This has only been the case for the past 50 years.  From the inception/creation of Islam in the 7th century, Christians have opposed the claim that Mohammed was a prophet of their God – and millions of Christians have been killed for this opposition.  Quite what the truth about Mohammed was hung in doubt: for some, he was a charlatan, trying to create a new religion based on bits of Jewish and Christian scripture and tradition in order to lead people astray and build a power-base; for others he was deluded and genuinely believed he was God’s messenger but this was not true; for others he was a madman, intent on power at all costs and killing all those who stood in his way.  What they did NOT consider was that he was telling the truth.

Why would that be?  Well, it’s very simple really.  It’s about the Creed (statement of belief):

“I believe in God,
the Father Almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died and was buried;
He descended into hell;
on the third day He rose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
from there He will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Holy Catholic Church,
the communion of Saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.”[3]

Christianity is based on three core beliefs about Jesus who is called The Christ/The Messiah:

  • He was the only Son of God
  • He was crucified, died and was buried
  • On the third day he rose again to new life.

This is the basis of the Creed which churchgoers say in church on Sundays, and which Christians of all denominations believe.

What does Islam have to say about Jesus:

  • He was NOT the son of God, not divine, but just a man (a fairly minor prophet)
  • He was NOT crucified, but God rescued him and substituted another man for him
  • He did NOT die, and therefore he was NOT resurrected. Rather, he was whisked away somewhere by God, and one day he will return, marry, die and be buried in Mohammed’s tomb.

These two sets of beliefs are completely opposed.  The first one, underlying Christianity, has a credible claim to be true because of the extraordinary growth of Christianity despite massive persecution for the first 300 years of its existence.

The second set, the Islamic one, is simply a denial of the truth of Christianity in order to replace it with a new faith based on Mohammed and his own god Allah – an Arabian god attested in Arabia long before Mohammed came on the scene.

No Christian can possibly believe that God, who in the Old Testament is sometimes called Yahweh and who raised to new life His Son our Lord Jesus, who is the Christ, could have called a new prophet 600 years later and told him that none of this was true.  It is simply impossible!  It also ignores the fact that Jesus told his disciples that he was the last prophet, but that others would come who falsely claimed to be prophets of God, and we must be careful not to be taken in by them as they really come from the devil.

Therefore Mohammed was manifestly not a prophet of the God of Abraham, Isaac, Moses and Jesus. There is plenty of evidence to show that this backstory was created to try to attract Jews and Christians to the new cult Mohammed was trying to spread based on Allah, an entirely Arab entity who was married to the great Arab goddess Allat.

It’s time to put to bed the concept of the three Abrahamic religions: there are only two, Judaism and Christianity. Whatever Muslims may claim, Allah is not Yahweh, and Mohammed cannot have been Yahweh’s prophet. Christians have known this for 1400 years.  Why do modernist relativists think they know better? Hubris comes to mind.

[1] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7046347/Christians-offer-cover-crosses-Muslims-celebrate-Ramadan-church.html; https://sputniknews.com/europe/201905201075149777-uk-church-ramadan-prayer/

[2] https://www.christiantoday.com/article/bishop-michael-nazir-ali-condemns-koran-reading-at-anglican-cathedral-epiphany-service/103716.htm

[3] This is the Apostle’s Creed, which is accepted by all denominations and was developed in the 2nd century. The Nicene Creed of AD381 caused division between the Eastern and Western churches over certain details.

The Sale of Europe

Have you ever wondered WHY Muslims are able to challenge UK customs and avoid complying with UK laws so successfully?

Has it struck you that the narrative surrounding Mohammedans changed drastically in the 1970s, so that from being a dangerous scourge bent on conquering the West, they became civilisers of Europe who were unjustly attacked in the Crusades?

If you are too young to have been aware of the change, and think it has always been like this – now is the time to learn what has really been happening over the past 50 years, and WHY.

From October 6 to 25, 1973 the so-called Yom Kippur war took place, in which a coalition of Arab states led by Egypt and Syria attacked Israel.  The Western powers that had been involved in the creation of Israel provided her with weapons for self-defence, led by the USA.  Israel won the battle – but the Arabs then took the war much further, by refusing to sell oil to any state that had supported Israel.  This create the OPEC crisis which brought Western governments to the verge of collapse due to their dependence on Arab oil.

The result? The West was blackmailed by the Arabs into supporting the Palestinian narrative of victimhood, and allowing the settlement of Muslims in the West, in return for oil.  The 9 members of the EEC (which the UK had been illegally signed up to in 1972 by Heath) all signed up to a new relationship with the Arab world with supported and encouraged Islam in Europe in return for oil.  A new narrative was developed around the concept of a Euro-Arab culture based on the Mediterranean, which had shared history and economic interests.  The Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD) was behind the ‘resolutions of Strasbourg’ in 1975, which stated the need for Europe to import North African workers with the proviso that they would immediately obtain full citizen rights (eg the vote and benefits), would be able to retain their culture and customs, and the Western media would change its attitude and encourage Europeans to welcome Islam as part of its own culture and adopt some of its ‘human values’.

What started in 1973 has continued with bi-annual meetings and agreements on embedding Islam ever more firmly in Europe, supported by mass immigration, economic collaboration, and educational brainwashing of the populace, as in the Barcelona process of 1995. There have been ever-increasing demands for the separation of Muslims through the creation of government-funded cultural centres, mosques and Islamic schools, as in the ISESCO document of 2000. (Not by chance is this when Tony Blair introduced Islamic schools in the UK). The whole plan is for the colonisation of Europe by Islam, and its conversion – a price the Western leaders of 1973-5 thought worth paying for their own political survival, but which they knew must be kept hidden from the populations they were betraying.

This is why incoming Prime Ministers suddenly abandon talk about the Christian faith and start praising ‘this great faith of Islam’; why they continue to suggest it is a ‘religion of peace’ when the evidence is of 1400 years of violence, war and mayhem.

Don’t take my word for it!  Check out the EAD, the resolutions of Strasbourg, the Barcelona process, and the ISESCO document.  Then spread the news far and wide. We must inform the public, and inform our leaders that we now know we have been sold, and that we expect them to REJECT all those secret agreements and PUSH ISLAM OUT OF EUROPE before we are all forced to convert at the sword’s edge.

For more information on the background to this topic you might also like to read https://www.eurocanadian.ca/2015/03/ideological-and-geopolitical-origins-of-eu-islamization-mass-immigration-and-destruction-of-european-ethnicity.html

Diversity: strength or weakness? Brexit as a case-study.

In recent years the Left-Liberal Establishment in the UK has been telling the nation that diversity is a strength.  Because the mainstream media is on the side of the Left, this statement has never been challenged in a public way. Those who DO challenge it have had to do so through other channels which are not so widely available and are increasingly censored.

The concept of diversity as strength has been used to push the multicultural, multifaith agenda of globalism.  As it has never been properly challenged, so it has never actually been justified. It remains just a sound-bite that is never-endingly poured out through propaganda via local councils, the mainstream media, etc.  No evidence has ever been offered to support the claim.

Brexit, on the other hand, is a clear case to refute the idea that diversity is strength.  The Brexit vote has split the country, and any chance that the divisions might be healed has been obliterated by the aggressive campaign by the Remain camp to over-turn the referendum result.

Diversity of opinion on Brexit is about diversity of opinion on how we should live, how we should be governed, and what type of country we want.  Those on the Remain side want to be governed by an unelected elite of bureaucrats on the lines of Roman Law: Roman Law lays down what is allowable, and everything else is forbidden, hence the mass of red-tape with which we have been deluged ever since joining the EEC in 1972.  Nothing can be done unless it is legislated for and controlled.  Similarly those on the Remain side want a globalist economy, with open borders so that cheap labour can be imported easily to depress the wages of native workers and increase profits for the bosses. Remain supporters want an open society, in which all traditional rules and ways of living are thrown away and individualism is rampant, and that largely includes disposing of Christianity, the founding faith of European civilisation; dismantling the family, the bedrock of culture; and now removing the final boundaries of biological truth.

Leave supporters have a different vision. They want to be ruled by Common Law, which says that everything is permissible unless a law has been put in place to prevent it, and these laws are based on freedom to do whatever you like as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else.  Leave supporters are proud of what Britain has achieved over centuries of innovation and flexibility, and want to retain their own economy free from control by a supra-national body that wants to destroy nation-states in favour of a European Empire.  Leave supporters want to maintain the traditional social bonds that made Britain the strongest and most powerful force in the world, including Christianity, the nuclear family, strong social cohesion, and biological truths.

The fact that Brexit has caused rifts in families, in workplaces, in friendships, and indeed in the nation, shows that diversity of views about governance, law, tradition, family and faith are utterly destructive of social and national cohesion.  Brexit has been an opportunity to examine what happens when such profound disagreements occur.

So let’s return to multiculturalism and multifaithism. The claim of the Left is that people who have completely different understandings of how we should be governed (by UK law or by Islamic law, for instance) are perfectly capable of living in harmony.  The Left says people who come to the UK to live on benefits and have no skills and no intention of working should be welcomed by natives whose taxes go to support them while, for instance, UK women born in the 50s and 60s now have to wait years longer before they can collect their pensions. The Left claims that Christians have nothing to fear from Muslims even though Islam was established expressly to destroy Christianity and Judaism.  Similarly that nuclear families need have no fear of polygynous families taking over, and that transgenderism is about human rights rather than denial of biological truths. The clash of Islam and LGBTQ ‘rights’ is currently unfolding outside the schools. Recent legal judgements by a Leftish judiciary have shown that there’s a hierarchy of human rights, and that Christian belief is not equal to Muslim or transgender beliefs.

A new Danish study has just shows that, at every level, social cohesion is damaged by diversity: ethnic diversity, religious diversity, social diversity.[1] Of course, this is no surprise.  To anyone with half a brain it is obvious that inserting a group of people into a society that has radically different understandings of how to live, how to be governed, which laws to obey, what to believe etc, is not going to be conducive to either cohesion or stability.

That has always been the aim of the Left. They knew that no society has ever chosen diversity, that it has always been solely the product of invasion and empire.  The Left wants to destroy Western civilisation because it is the best that has ever been developed: the most humane, the most creative, the most productive in history.  And Britain has been the peak of Western civilisation, because of Common Law which offers freedom to innovate, experiment, and develop those things that the rest of the world also wants.

The Left want total control, a global government of the few over the rootless, non-cohesive, wage slaves that will be the produce of multi-cultural fragmented societies – no longer societies but melting pots of the unrelated, all fighting each other for survival. Hence Britain has been the prime target of destruction via multi-culturalism and multi-faithism.  The Left needs a constant flow of new groups of victims for the production of constant destruction of norms – hence multiculturalism, multifaithism, multigenderism, and a ‘post-truth’ society. Our famed British tolerance, born of freedom, has been used against the British to enrol them in their own destruction.

It is not too late to reverse this, but it will have to be a thorough cleansing.  In the Bible, God told Saul to kill all the Amalekites – and all their animals – because they had proved to be so dangerous to the survival of God’s people over generations that they must be rooted out completely[2].  Saul’s failure to destroy the king and the booty led to his fall from grace. In order to save the oldest and greatest European nation from destruction, we cannot allow ourselves to be overcome with pity. Those who have come here for a better life have benefitted richly, some of them giving nothing but destruction in return. How can it be cruel to tell them it is time to leave? It can’t take away what they received in the past. As for the native Leftists who brought this state of diversity upon us, they must face the justice of those whom they have overlooked and sought to destroy. As a youngster I was introduced to a Communist cell, in which I was taught that we must be prepared to kill our families in order to bring about the revolution.  They cannot be surprised if we offer them the same ‘justice’ they would visit upon us.

[1]https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335924797_Ethnic_Diversity_and_Social_Trust_A_Narrative_and_Meta-Analytical_Review

[2] I Sam 15.

The idea of a job: Why multiculturalism can’t work #1.

When I said to my dad, I have an idea for a blog post, it’s “The idea of a job” he was mystified. What do you mean?  So I asked him, “What is a job?”  Well, it’s obvious, he thought – but is it??

I suggest that the idea of ‘a job’ is culturally specific – in fact, specific to Western capitalist culture.  Take England: the idea of ‘a job’ is the product of the industrial revolution in concert with the land enclosures of the 18th century in particular which drove peasants off the land and into the towns in search of work in factories.

Until then, nearly everyone worked on the land, growing and husbanding enough food for themselves and family, and enough to give some in tithes to the clergy and the landowners.  The clergy didn’t really have ‘a job’ either until that time – they had a vocation, although after the Reformation it became more of a professionalised vocation, but still not ‘a job’.  A job is regular work in a certain place in return for a wage.  At that time, clergy were given money and food by their parishioners as tithes.

Of course, there were people who sustained themselves in different ways.  In Medieval England we saw the rise of towns dominated by tradesmen – merchants and specialised craftsmen.  These people, however, did not have ‘a job’ – they were not generally employed and paid a wage for their work. Rather, skilled craftsmen worked for themselves, selling their products at fairs and later in shops. Sometimes they had an apprentice, who would train for 7 years under their tutelage in return for bed and board and learning a skill. Once fully trained, the apprentice would go and set up for himself, selling his products at fairs or in his own shop.  At this time, most shops were simply houses with a bench in front for the display of wares; sometimes the front room was opened to the public as a shop, but the rest of the house was where the tradesman and his family lived and worked.  You can see these still in The Shambles in York, which used to be the butchers’ quarter.  Merchants started out as itinerant salesmen, moving from fair to fair on behalf of tradesmen who trusted them to sell their goods.

Villages also had some specialised workers: miller, blacksmith, baker, brewer all operated in their own premises as a one-man-band or family enterprise, as a service for the community.  It wasn’t a job, they weren’t employed by others on the whole, they were craftsmen.  Some were paid in kind, not money – for instance, some of the flour they milled.  Most women worked on the land with their menfolk, or kept household and looked after the children if their husbands had trades.  A trade was not ‘a job’, but a craft.

Jobs arrived when the means of feeding themselves were removed from peasants, and they were forced to sell their labour to ‘employers’.  Nowadays in the Western world very few people have access to land to grow their own food for subsistence; instead, they sell their labour as ‘a job’ in return for money with which to buy food and pay rent and purchase all the other things they want or need.

In the rest of the world, it is different.  In non-industrialised countries, the idea of ‘a job’ doesn’t exist.  Rather, grow food at a subsistence level and husband a few animals. This domestic agriculture is often largely the work of women and children, and men hire themselves out as ‘day labourers’ sometimes to add some income to the subsistence farming. This is the same as in Biblical times, when the labourers went into the market place to see whether anyone wanted to hire them to harvest the crops of large landowners, or make mud-bricks, or whatever. It’s what we would call ‘casual labour’; it’s not ‘a job’, which has fixed and regular hours, duties and remuneration.

This is why multiculturalism has not achieved what was claimed by its proponents: people to bulk out the workforce which was shrinking due to declining birthrates in the West (the reasons for which will be looked at another day!).  I was in Germany in 2015 when the huge immigrant influx from Syria occurred.  Germans told me that they need extra people because they can no longer fill all the jobs themselves as the population ages.  Four years later the majority of these immigrants still do not have jobs.  Rather, they live on state handouts paid for the by Germans who DO have jobs.

The UK is a particularly strong case of jobless immigrants from non-industrialised countries.  80% of Somalis don’t work but live entirely on state benefits[1].  Government data published on 21st September 2018 shows that only 55% of Pakistanis and Bangladeshis aged 16-64 are in employment (658,000), compared to 76% of white British and 81% of white other (26, 181,000), with 67% for generalised black (865,000)[2]. The figure for Pakistanis and Bangladeshis in 2004 and 2005 was only 44%!  It is interesting that ‘black’ is given as a general group, thus avoiding highlighting the Somali situation – there are a little over 100,000 Somali-born people in the UK, plus their UK-born offspring. 95% are in rental accommodation, and of these, 80% are in social housing, paid for by the UK tax-payers who DO have jobs.[3]  The fact that jobless immigrants tend to live in the most expensive cities in social housing paid for by UK workers needs to be recognised and dealt with by government. If these people are simply being ‘looked-after’, they could be looked-after in a cheap part of the country, so that the social housing is available to the indigenous population that has jobs.

Not all immigrant groups fare like this. Those from China, some 250,000, have high self-employment rates and low unemployment.  They also have high educational achievement. I suggest that while their history is different, they are from semi-industrialised countries in which craft specialisation for non-utilitarian purposes has a long history. They are highly literate societies where the idea of ‘a job’ exists, even if large numbers of the population work on the land.

So when those pushing multiculturalism claimed that immigrants from south Asia and Africa would solve our labour shortage, they were very wrong.  Many of these people have never had a job, because they don’t have the concept of ‘a job’, and as the UK state appears willing to give them housing and healthcare and education and money just for the privilege of having them in the country, why would they acquire the idea of ‘a job’?  Those that want more money have found other ways of getting it, hence the high number of Africans and Asian Muslims involved in the drug trade, and the consequent knife-crime and shooting epidemics we are experiencing in our cities.  Get a job?? – why bother, it’s a mug’s game when you can make vast amounts from illegal drugs.

It’s about time that we woke up to some of the fundamentals of why multiculturalism doesn’t – and can’t – work.  The idea of a job is one of them.  I will look at others in future blogs.

[1] “over the last 10 years, the employment rate of the Somalia-born population has rarely been above 20 per cent of the 16–64-year-old population” Rutter, Jill (March 2013). “Back to basics: Towards a successful and cost-effective integration policy” (PDF). Institute for Public Policy Research. Retrieved 13 June 2015

[2] https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/work-pay-and-benefits/employment/employment/latest

[3] b “Britain’s Immigrants: An economic profile” (PDF). Institute for Public Policy Research. 30 September 2007. Retrieved 7 June 2015. K

IQ MATTERS: IQ, Racism and Knife Crime

IQ has become a rather disreputable topic lately.  It has fallen victim to the claims of ‘hate speech’ that attempts to close down discourse on topics found uncomfortable by the liberal-left elite that has dominated our political and media class for the last 40-50 years. A psychologist friend told me that nowadays IQ is not thought to be a useful measure. I have seen twitter discussions claiming the same thing. The basis for much of this is the statement that it is a racist measurement, part of the claim that racism is the main issue for western society and the root of all our ills. This essay looks at what IQ is, why it matters, and how we could utilise IQ tests helpfully.

What is IQ? I suggest that it is a measure of how suited a person is to western culture and particularly to the western education system. Will they flourish, or will they stumble?  The basis for this suggestion is the origin of IQ tests.  Created in the early 20th century, when schooling had become compulsory, they sought to place children in suitable educational environments. In the UK it was recognised that educational ability was not evenly distributed throughout society, including crossing class boundaries. The 1944 Education Act created three tiers of schools, and children were allocated to them according to their performance in an IQ test.  Were they academic, or practical? Would they do best in a grammar school, or a secondary modern, or technical schools?For post-war society to rebuild and flourish, it was important to train young people with the skills we needed.

Unfortunately, our society values academic ability above practical ability, and rewards it with status if not with money.  Grammar schools were a route to social mobility for high IQ working-class youngsters who might even go on toe university funded by the state[1]. This was a totally new world opening up – and not surprisingly it was seen by some as divisive.

Who saw grammar schools as divisive?  The noisiest seem to have been socialist politicians, the ones we would expect to be pleased to see working-class children have new opportunities to flourish. Looking back at how the liberal-socialists of the 1960s and 1970s worked to overturn the grammar system, I wonder whether this was because they didn’t actually want working-class people to better themselves and take a more forceful role in society.  These politicians were middle-class supporters of the working-class, but their view of the working-class was of people unable to help themselves. If they were to enter universities and the professions in large numbers, they would undoubtedly make their own decisions about who represented their interests best, and the middle-class socialists would be out of a job.

However, this wasn’t their only or most serious point of concern.  The liberal-socialist politicians were also those pushing for multiculturalism, an idea that arose largely from growing imperial guilt and a theory of racism as something despicable and uniquely the province of white people[2]. Although multiculturalism initially involved bringing people from the Empire over to Britain to work – people who spoke English, were accustomed to British law and history, saw Britain as the ‘mother country’ and were largely Christian – there were cultural differences in food, clothing, music, forms of worship, use of the English language, how people were spoken to, the noise level of everyday life etc – which were at odds with the British way of life. Multiculturalism was meant to make the British accept norms and values that were totally foreign to them.

When it came to educating the children of these immigrants, it quickly became clear that in general they did not do well at school.  If a selective education system based on IQ tests were to continue, it would soon be apparent to everyone that most immigrants were in the non-academic schools, because they were not very academically bright. Such a reality played into the racism discourse that arose from the period of slavery, that Africans were not as clever as white people.  Since socialists are driven by ideology rather than evidence, the thought of accepting evidence that Africans are less bright than white people as real was too much.  Socialist ideology claims that all are equal, including roughly equally bright, and all should have an equal outcome of education.  If numbers of university entrants was the measure of equality of outcome, something must be changed about how to achieve that outcome.  Since clearly most immigrants were not as academically able as the indigenous population, this must be masked by removing the measurements that made it obvious. 

The answer was to abolish the 11+ IQ test, abolish grammar schools, and make all (nearly all) schools comprehensive.  Then because of the low ability of many students, the standards had to be reduced. It is now no secret that many A-level exams are closer to O-levels from 30 years ago, and many degree level exams have content and ability-requirements that were A-level standard 30 years ago. The final element of dumbing down education was to expand the university system so that practical courses – previously taught at polytechnics – became university courses, and students had to pay fees. Once students pay fees, the expect a result – a degree. Therefore pass marks fell, no student fails a degree any more, decent academics have left the profession in droves, and their places are taken by people who would never have qualified for a university post even 20 years ago. A degree no longer gives employers any idea of ability even to read and write properly!  The time when the state paid for the brightest young adults to train for the professions at university, so that they would be useful to the state, are long gone.

What has all this to do with IQ? We need to go back to the question of what IQ measures.  If it measures the ability to flourish in western society and education, this is not a value judgement. It does not suggest that people with lower IQ are intrinsically less valuable than those with a high IQ. There is a range of IQ within every society – but as various studies have shown, there is a range in IQ between cultures.  Therefore it is not surprising that people from other cultures may not measure at the same IQ level as those whose culture created the measure – because it is designed for indigenous people, not for incomers. If the understand the origin and purpose of IQ tests, the claim that they are racist has no traction. Such a claim is only made because Africans and many Asians score lower than Europeans – though some Far East Asians score higher (so how does the racism trope play out there?). For ideological socialists and liberals, such a truth cannot be tolerated. Therefore the racism card is played, to undermine the entire system.

So what are these IQ scores?  The average IQ of western Europeans is 100. As this is an average, many people fall above or below this score. In the UK an IQ of 80-90 is named ‘dull normal’ or ‘backward’, while 70 is regarded as the top of the educationally retarded range, and young women who become pregnant and have an IQ below 70 are liable to have their baby removed for adoption. Pre-PC terminology such as ‘mentally defective’, ‘moron’ and ‘imbecile’ was used for people with an IQ below 60, with a whole range of schema to choose from but all roughly the same.

The average IQ of Somalis is 68. The further south you go in Africa, the lower the average IQ.  There may be very sound reasons for this. As long as IQ is not taken as a measure of VALUE, this is merely information[3].  Similarly, the average IQ in Hong Kong and Singapore is 108, higher than European, and again their may be good reasons for this.  What matters here is that IQ is related to the form of society created by the group.  In particular, IQ is involved in self-control.  The higher the IQ, the better self-control you have. This clearly affects the form of society: a high IQ group with expect high levels of self-control (a value that is tightly related to achievement at school and in work, more so than self-esteem).[4]  A low IQ society will need tighter rules to ensure good behaviour.

The UK is currently suffering from an ‘epidemic’ of knife crime, particularly in London but also in Birmingham and Manchester. They also suffer from gang culture. Often the two are intimately linked. The vast majority of perpetrators and victims of knife crime are young black men. Why should this be?? The politicians are wringing their hands in despair, Labour politicians blame cuts in police funding by the Tory government even though the Metropolitan Police have moved hundreds of officers on to duty dealing with on-line ‘hate crime’ rather than putting them on the streets. Calls have been made for a ‘knife-crime tsar’ to look into the issue.  They won’t get anywhere, because the real issue is something they dare not name: low IQ.

We have millions of immigrants with IQs well below the UK average, many falling in the ‘retarded’ category.  Remembering that IQ is a measure of how able people are to function in our high IQ society – one that depends heavily on self-control, common sense, and harm minimisation, with traditionally low crime and consensual policing – it is not difficult to see that people with low IQ will struggle in this situation.  However much standards are reduced in schools, we are never going to get them low enough for people with an IQ of 50 to cope.  Such people are normally classified as having special educational needs – yet the Somalis clearly are not in a category that needs help with feeding and getting dressed. They are perfectly capable of functioning in Somali society, which has been created by and for people with an average IQ of 68. They have adopted a ‘religion’ (which is really an ideology) which gives no scope for personal decision-making or critical thinking, but sets out the rules to be obeyed and the punishments for infringement.

Putting boys of this calibre and mindset into our schools sets them up for failure. They need tight rules and small groups that allot status according to ‘respect’, which is based on fear and access to power and money, rather than achievement in the workplace. Somalis do not have a concept of work or jobs as we do: they are agrarian, with a plot of land for subsistence farming, with some spare produce to take to market, and they sell their unskilled manual labour to those who will buy it. Therefore status cannot come via the professions or skilled labour as it does in Europe.  Therefore, as our education system means little if anything to them, they congregate in gangs with strict rules of membership and punishments for infringement.  They gravitate toward illegal ways to make money which also bring status: drug dealing and petty crime. Knife crime is a by-product of this culture of gangs and drugs. Initiation rites often include committing crimes such as theft or murder. Defending gang territory leads to battles and knifing of opposing gang members. To the rest of us it is mindless. To the Somalis and other black and Asian youngsters in the same mindset, it is how they survive.

So the issue of knife-crime comes down to multiculturalism and the liberal-socialist ideology that we should all be equal and therefore should all be able to live the same way. The Somalis are an extreme case, but a serious one because of the large numbers of them in the UK and Europe. The solution to the knife-crime epidemic is to send them all back to Somalis or wherever they came from.  This may seem cruel – they came here for a better life. But are they having a better life?? No, they are not. They are like fish out of water, with parents who don’t understand the language let alone the culture they’ve brought their children into so cannot help them. Their IQ is inadequate for them to understand how we live, or to live this way even if they do understand it.  They would be far better off back in Africa, Asia or the Middle-East, among people with similar IQ in a society made for people with that level of IQ.  In fact, some Somali parents have come to this conclusion and are sending their sons to Africa to keep them safe[5] (and their daughters to prevent them from becoming westernised). There they can flourish. They will not have the handouts and benefits that they receive in the UK, without having to lift a finger – but what kind of life is that, never having to work or earn a living the way the majority do, just spending time stabbing each other and hoping you don’t get killed today. Not the life I would wish on anyone.  However, it would clearly be better in the whole family went back, rather than sending adolescents to fend for themselves.

It’s time to stop being ‘cuddly-nice’ – which is actually patronising, racist, and not a little hubristic –  and recognise that we are doing these people harm. The best thing for them – and for us – is remigration of all low-IQ culture groups. Let them flourish in their proper environment rather than perish in ours.

[1] My father was a working-class East End Jew, who got to grammar school via the 11+.  There he got an education his parents could never have dreamed of. 

[2] See also the issue of the Arab-Israel war on 1973, resultant blackmail to obtain oil, and the ‘Euro-Arab Dialogue’ to create a Mediterranean economic area with the mass importation of Muslims and Islam into western Europe based on the Resolutions of Strasbourg.

[3] Read my essay of IQ, Geography and Culture for more about this.

[4] The field of Positive Psychology has worked on this area and there are various books available on the topic.

[5] See, for instance, reports in the mainstream UK press: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/mar/09/british-somalis-send-sons-abroad-to-protect-against-knife-crime; https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/mar/09/british-somalis-send-sons-abroad-to-protect-against-knife-crime;

; �”������J��

The Establishment fight-back against feminism began formally in 1975. Do you know how?

1975 was the heyday of ‘third wave feminism’.  In case you don’t know, the ‘first wave’ was in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries with people like Mary Woolstonecraft, and the struggle for women’s rights to land, education, and property (including their children); the ‘second wave’ was the movement for women’s suffrage, best known for people like the Pankhurst family.  ‘Third wave feminism’ was interested in reproductive rights – the right for contraception and abortion – as well as the freedom to be financially independent of husbands, or not to marry but still raise children.

Support for these rights came initially from the Liberal Party, which also supported the decriminalisation of homosexuality.  With the almost terminal decline of the Liberals, new support was sought from the Labour Party despite its main interest apparently being with the manual workers.  This was partly because women were entering the manual labour-force in greater numbers, and also because the Labour movement liked to believe it was supporting the underdog – a strange chimera-like creature which changed both its appearance and its essence according to wider politics.

However, women who looked to Labour for support were deceived.  The ‘beer and sandwiches deals behind closed doors’ reputation of Labour had not altered, it just put on a show of change to hide what was going on in reality.

In 1973 the oil-crisis hit the West: in retaliation for support losing the Arab-Israeli war, OPEC put an oil embargo on all countries that had supported Israel.  The result was blackmail: those countries could only import oil if they imported Islam into the West and gave it free rein.  In the UK, the crisis brought down the Heath conservative government, which had illegally taken the UK into the EEC without a referendum, and was replaced by Wilson’s Labour government in 1974.

The following year all 9 members of the EEC signed up to the Resolutions of Strasbourg, a little-known document negotiated between the 9 and all the Arab countries of the Mediterranean on 7th and 8th June 1975. It was a plan to unite the economies of the Mediterranean, which involved recognising the Palestinians as victims, and importing workers from North Africa who would be free to continue to live according to their own culture and faith, but who would be accorded full citizen rights in their host countries.  Notable in the Final Resolutions of the Cultural Committee is the following:

  • emphasising the contribution which Arab culture can still give to European countries especially in the field of human values,
  • hoping that European governments will help Arab countries to create the resources needed for the participation of immigrant workers and their families in Arab culture and religious life,

The idea that Arab culture has something to offer Europe in the field of human values is astonishing, given that it is based entirely on Islamic teaching. According to Islam, there are NO human values, only values given by allah.  There are no human rights, as these descend entirely from the Christian view that all people are made in the likeness of God.  In Islam, women are not entirely human, they are incapable of being mature but remain minors all their lives, subject to the whims of their male guardians, unable to be a witness equal to a man or to inherit equally with a man.  Their sole purpose is to please men sexually, to serve them and to produce babies for the war against non-Muslims. Human life has no intrinsic value, but can be destroyed for a wide range of reasons in barbaric ways such as stoning, or suicide missions for allah. Women should be covered to protect men from sexual urges. Girls can be married at 9 because Mohammed had sexual intercourse with a 9-year-old wife.  Limbs are lopped off as punishment. Under Islam people are not allowed to use their intellect for innovation – nothing is permitted that is not in the Koran, so Islamic countries have never developed industry or advanced economies, there are no ‘careers’ or ‘professions’ – so workers from North Africa will not be skilled and will have no concept of working as Westerners do, so they will not be useful members of society. 

This is what the Labour government of the UK, and all the ‘progressive’ governments of the EEC, signed up to.  Whilst giving lip-service to womens’ rights, and making use of their labour to prop up the economy, they started the process of Islamising Western Europe by inviting in immigrants with a completely different attitude to humanity, and to women, and giving them full rights to continue with their own cultural behaviours, to use the economic resources of their hosts (housing, benefits etc)  to multiply their strength without paying into the system through taxes, and by being allowed to vote, to use the political systems to take over the West entirely.

Once Islamic regimes have been established, there will be no womens’ rights, no human rights, no animal rights, no political rights, no democracy, no freedom of belief, and absolutely no gay rights, sexual rights, reproductive rights etc.

Behind closed doors, by signing first the Resolutions of Strasbourg, and then over the coming years a whole stream of documents supporting and increasing the rights of Muslims to establish their own laws, education system, and cultural strength, both the Labour and Conservative governments since 1973 have quietly and secretly been ensuring that whatever rights they are forced to give the native population, these will soon be swept away when the burgeoning Muslim populations take over.

Those politicians assume they’ll all be dead by then – and many of them are already. They had their time in power, and made their massive fortunes, and they don’t care what happens to the rest of us, our children and our once-proud countries. 015