What The Guardian doesn’t understand about the Labour Party

Ukip has come north to offer itself as a party for blue-collar voters.

It is a fraudulent offer. In the first place, there is no disputing that the SNP talks the talk of a leftwing alternative to Labour in Scotland. Whether it also walks the walk is a different question, on which there are deeply divided views. But there is no disputing that tens of thousands of former Labour voters last week decided that their interests were safest with the SNP and the yes campaign. None of this is true of Ukip. Ukip is not a leftwing alternative to Labour or even the Tories, but a rightwing one — as the conference powerfully underlined.

Mr Farage said that the NHS would be safe in Ukip’s hands. This is simply incompatible with the classic Tory tax-cutting agenda that he then announced a few hours later, in which inheritance tax would be scrapped and those on skilled workers’ salaries would get a 5p income tax cut. The figures do not add up, and the gap between income and spending would widen still more if the flatter tax regime the party favours as a goal, with a further 5p cut in the top rate of income tax, ever came into force. Mr Farage is selling a lie.

None of this is to pretend that Ukip’s current claims will always fall on stony ground. Ukip’s rise in parts of old industrial Britain has been eased by Labour complacency and neglect. There is a widespread appetite for change. But the answer for Labour is to mount a principled response to Ukip, not to ape it.


What the
metropolitan left generally doesn’t understand, not in its gut it doesn’t, is quite how right wing the core vote of the Labour Party is. The British working classes just don’t share most of the trendy concerns that motivate the urban intelligentsia. And it’s that that leaves that door wide open for someone to come in and nick that core vote.

This isn’t a prediction but it wouldn’t actually surprise me if Labour lost a swathe of those Northern and Industrial towns that have been electing dead donkeys as long as they wore a red rosette for the past century. Not because of any change in the desires of that core vote: but because the professional political class that claims to represent them simply doesn’t.

143 comments on “What The Guardian doesn’t understand about the Labour Party

  1. …but because the professional political class that claims to represent them simply doesn’t.

    Point in fact – immigration. It’s the working classes that have been hit hardest in terms of unskilled jobs being taken by immigrants or seeing wages stagnate because of an oversupply of labour. Labour’s response is “fuck off you racist”.

  2. “What the metropolitan left generally doesn’t understand, not in its gut it doesn’t, is quite how right wing the core vote of the Labour Party is.”
    They should spend more time in Labour Social clubs.
    Always a good source for smuggled cigs & baccy, anything “fallen off the back of a lorry” & a wide range of leisure pharmacopeia. Good places to hear the latest & best racist & misogynist gags, as well.
    It’s Conservative Associations are the havens of PC.
    And that’s London. Heaven knows what it’s like oop North.

  3. The professional political classes do not merely not represent the Labour core, they actively despise it. Their every move is to try and coerce the rest of us to think and act like them. Ditto the tories, obviously.

  4. The ‘trendy’ internationalist Left captured the Labour Party in London in the 1970s. These were the white collar graduates of the first expansion of university education. The Wembley Conference was their high point.

    Since then they have been less overtly in control but during that time the Establishment has absorbed all of their beliefs. They are now practically a foreign imperial power governing a conquered tribe.

  5. Anyone under the age of about 40 will assume that the left is “nicer” than the “right”. Older voters, who remember the Soviet Union and our own thuggish labour movement will think otherwise.

    Quite simply, New Labour did a brilliant job of creating this myth, with considerable help from the rotten element of the Tory party. They even managed to paint dim homophobia, racism and similar traits as right-wing.

    Brilliant, but bound to be a problem eventually as it’s wrong.

  6. And out of interest, why is the ASI pitching in with the Metropolitan Elite?
    “UKIP’s line on immigration is intellectually and morally bankrupt. Despite what UKIP claims, immigration is good for virtually everyone in society, rich and poor alike. The evidence is clear that even low-skilled immigration only hurts low-skilled native wages temporarily, and does not affect the number of jobs available to natives at all. The reason for this is that immigrants demand services as well as supplying them: every job taken by an immigrant also means a new job will be created to supply him or her with their needs.”
    The ASI according to http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100287887/ukip-vs-the-free-market-britains-immigration-debate-gets-interesting/.
    This is purest bollocks. Yes, economic activity creates jobs but it doesn’t say where those jobs will be created because it doesn’t say where those services will be delivered.
    A lot of immigrant labour in the UK are there to earn money to send back to the old country. Their service providers in the UK are also there to earn money to send back to the old country. Just look at the number of Polish shops, selling Polish goods, run by Poles have materialised in recent years. This has always been true. It’s true of the Pakistani community. The Greek Cypriot community in London, which I have strong connections with, runs like a semi detached economy. The aim of every Bubble is to salt away enough dosh to retire back to the island in the biggest house they can manage.

  7. bloke (not) in spain – “Yes, economic activity creates jobs but it doesn’t say where those jobs will be created because it doesn’t say where those services will be delivered.”

    The over-all benefit of immigration is about zero. It is not big if it exists at all. But our elites are committed to it. Presumably for the same reasons they want to live in Tuscany – they hate Britain.

    It is not really a matter of what jobs are created. It is whether we want Britain to continue to exist. And whether we want neglected White girls to be gang raped.

  8. The ASI are basically a pro-business lobby group, who promote free market rhetoric when it suits them. Mass immigration lowers the wage bill so that’s their primary motivation there. So, no worries about the worsened Gini Index or the catastrophic social and cultural effects, which are somebody else’s problem; and by appealing Keynesian-style to an idealised aggreggate, they can ignore the specific effects entirely.

    SMFS- it’s partly about hating Britain (or, specifically, England). It’s also about it opposing racism having been adopted as a moral crusade by our elites though; crusaders will happily tolerate any negative consequences, however bad, so long as they feel like they’re “doing the right thing”.

  9. The actual immigration is a minor issue – it’s the lack of integration which is the disaster, and the elite’s active and deliberate encouragement of this through their cult of multiculturism.

    In fact, it has had an unexpected bonus for them – the descendants of people who did actually integrate turning violently against their host culture.

  10. @IanB
    Aren’t the ASI supposed to be pro business? That is the market economy.
    But they suffer the same problems as the socialist Metropolitan Elite. High prevalence of the public schooled, university educated. Semi detached from it, they’ve imperfect understanding how the actual economy works down in the engine room.

  11. So whats the labour party pitch?

    We’ll despise you

    Make you compete with thousands of new immigrants who’ll get preferential treatment

    Do nothing while you die of neglect in hospital

    Turn a blind eye while your kids are raped?

    Yeah, that would get my vote..

  12. My northern working-class Dad (mistakenly ) voted for Labour all his life. His attitude towards immigrants was “all right in their own country but not over here”. Him and millions of others. He was worth all the metro-scum who read the Guardian put together. And he was right. Except about voting Labour.

  13. I honestly couldn’t care two hoots what my neighbour’s skin colour is. I do want them to basically ape the middle class British traditions to which I largely subscribe – no loud music, no screaming matches in the streets, keep the garden clean etc.

    But it does seem that I’m in a minority, and that lots of indigenous Brits don’t want foreigners here purely because they’re foreign (and that lots of nominally British but actually foreign people prefer not to mix too much with the indigenous – see Pakistani ghettos, Brixton and Handsworth etc).

    Why this is, who knows. Also, frankly, who cares. It is what it is, people are what they are, and politicians who have imposed on the people of this country a soft invasion by those who don’t want to follow our basic norms (however hypocritical we are about them) should be run out of office, and then out of town.

  14. Interested – “I honestly couldn’t care two hoots what my neighbour’s skin colour is. I do want them to basically ape the middle class British traditions to which I largely subscribe – no loud music, no screaming matches in the streets, keep the garden clean etc.”

    Skin colour should not count. But it does. Because all of those things are strongly correlated with being White and of British origin. There is no reason I can think of why this should be, but it has been incredibly hard for non-White people to adopt the values of the middle class. Thus they have also had a great deal of trouble acquiring the wealth of the middle class. Some have an easier time of it than others, but none find it easy.

    Added to this is the Guardianista tendency that hates the British. Unfortunately they are grossly over-represented in the teaching professions. So the celebrations of the abolition of slavery were actually turned by the Left into the usual anti-British Hate-fest. Instead of the Empire being held up for admiration it is something we apparently all share some sort of guilt for. All of which means the longer minorities are in this country, the more they hate us and the more likely they are to try to kill us in terrorist attacks.

    Yeah, that hounding of Enoch Powell is working out well innit?

  15. The feeling of being a part of a people is dependent largely on being able to maintain the belief of a common ancestry with them, and this is impossible when you are obviously different in appearance. Peoples are basically defined by the (often illusory) belief of common ancestry; the famous example being the Jews, who maintain that they are all descended from Abraham.

    A people believe they have a common history- “we are the people who did X” or “to whom X happened”. The English are the people who “won the (second world) war” and Trafalgar, and Agincourt, and the Battle Of Hastings, etc (it’s often battles because they are significant historical junctures) and built Stonehenge, and so on. The Jews historical narrative is a series of persecutions and triumphant survivals thereof, which they recite at annual religious (cultural) festivals, and to which The Holocaust has been added. Interestingly, diaspora Africans now share a sense of peoplehood as “the people who were enslaved”.

    So you really have to look the part, so you can believe your ancestors were there. This is why we have all this nonsense from the elite thrashing about trying to define British as “shared values”. Peoples generally have “shared values” but they are not definitional, but a natural consequence of being a culture. Their feeling of being a people comes from believing in a shared history. Which is why hardly any of the peoples of the Earth have “history” as we know it academically, but they all have tales of where they came from.

  16. The ASI are pro-free market and anti-protectionist. Both classic labour and classic conservative are protectionist – unionist labour apply protectionism to the supply of labour on behalf of employees, and conservative apply protectionism to the supply of goods and services on behalf of employers and manufacturers. The ASI are opposed to *both* ends of the spectrum, the only people really on their side are the libertarians.

    People from both labour and conservative tend to support free market principles only when it suits them. Conservatives like the free marketeer’s opposition to unions and regulation as bad for business. Working class voters like their opposition to big business stitching entire industries up with self-interested regulation and cronyism. Both sides dislike outside interference and regulation, or paying taxes towards things they get no benefit from.

    Looking at the poll results, it appears that the UKIP vote has risen not at the expense of conservative or even libdem votes, but at the expense of the labour vote. Now that doesn’t necessarily mean that UKIP voters are actually ex-labour – it might be that labour is leaking voters to conservative while conservative is leaking to UKIP – but it is at least plausible that they are.

    The left have always been strongly protectionist towards jobs, and the immigrants-taking-our-jobs issue is just a special case of that. Conservatives don’t care so much about that, and in fact quite like being able to hire cheap and reliable Polish plumbers, but they do care about the change in culture and crime levels. Both are annoyed about immigrants on welfare – the conservatives because they have to pay the taxes to fund it and labour because they’re often in direct competition for that welfare.

    There are plenty of reasons why UKIP might appeal to a subset of working-class voter, and if UKIP are to get into power they need a broader base of support. Unfortunately, the policies on which they are most popular (i.e. immigration) tend to be the protectionist ones that libertarian free-marketeers most hate. Protectionism benefits one group at the expense of the rest of society, and the cost is always greater than the benefit. Protectionists seek a bigger slice of a smaller pie. But it’s so much a part of “the way things are” that it is hard to see how it can ever change. The only thing people can see is their proportion of the pie getting smaller, and the politics of envy kicks in.

    Wise turkeys would vote for Christmas, because it’s what gets them fed and housed for the rest of the year. But turkeys are not known for their wisdom, and a lot of people behave the same way.

  17. @”Johnnydub
    September 27, 2014 at 11:28 am

    So whats the labour party pitch?

    We’ll despise you

    Make you compete with thousands of new immigrants who’ll get preferential treatment

    Do nothing while you die of neglect in hospital

    Turn a blind eye while your kids are raped?

    Yeah, that would get my vote..

    Proof that honesty is not always the best policy.

  18. “they (the Conservatives) do care about the change in culture and crime levels.
    Well yeah. They care about what they see from the windows of their cars as they pass. But Conservatives, much the same as the intellectual left, carefully insulate themselves from the cultural changes immigration brings. It’s the Polish plumber, the Bulgarian cleaner & nice Mr Patel at the newsagents. And a better choice of restaurants. They don’t live with the stink of Asian cooking coming from the flat next door or the homeboys on the landing.
    Crime. Some thing that’s always denied is immigration brings crime. because crime’s regarded as a moral issue rather than what it is. An economic issue.
    Immigration selects for criminals.
    Small time, marginally unsuccessful criminals are more likely to leave their country of origin because they’re unwanted & have less stake in it. The expat communities they join have less stake in their adopted homelands & cultural affinities are stronger than the downsides of harbouring lawbreakers.
    With immigration inevitably comes low level thievery, fraud, drug dealing, protection rackets etc etc as they outcompete the locals.
    Proof is in the pudding. You want a go-to on something illegal, alegal or illicit best bet’s to start with the immigrant communities.
    Always been so. The Mafia in the States, the Chinese tongs. It’s no accident my home’s called the Costa del Crime. Half the UK’s chancers seem to gravitate there for the pickings. Almost anything’s doable & you don’t need a word of Spanish to get it done. (Some Russian tends to be a help, though.)

  19. This metropolitan socialist elite, where’s that? I’ve never come across it. Its the “champagne socialism” I feel I’ve missed out on.
    As to the right wing working-class, they’ve always been present, just that they are generally known as working-class Tories .It is the Tory party elite of Bullingdon Club oafs and those who are there to sell public services to the corporations who are in a muck sweat that these electoral cannon fodder are off to a more reliably racist billet.

  20. @ SMFS
    Interested is quite right: skin colour on its own does not matter. The first non-white people I got to know were public schoolboys (one black, one yellow, several brown): they were, in general no different from the rest of us (except the brown kid in my year was better at mental arithmetic than I was). The next lot were at Oxford, again the only differences that are memorable was that one of the guys born in west Africa felt free to make a disparaging comment that would have been denounced as racist if I had said it and the brilliance of one of the boxers.
    There are middle-class black, brown and yellow guys just as there are white ones.

  21. @ bloke not in spain
    Things will get better soon – they are blowing up all the tower blocks that the Wilson government built in the 1960s so you will get moved out.
    As a paid-up member of the Conservative for xxx years who walks or takes the train/tube nearly every where (most of my mileage is to visit my 83-year-old mother-in-law or to get to races) I find your insult crassly incompetent. My plumber is English: my Polish contact was a wartime RAF pilot and I do my own cleaning.

  22. NiV is quite right, as is the ASI.

    UKIP is simply playing the same protectionist game that the unions have traditionally played. “Protecting” white labour from foreign competition: socialism.

    Today we see more of the same when letters from Unite are read out approvingly. “Protecting” the NHS from transatlantic trade deals is the sort of bollocks I would expect from socialists; socialism is what I am hearing in Doncaster today.

  23. “All these things are strongly correlated with being White and of British origin”

    Racist bollocks from the usual source.

  24. john77’s reminiscences about his public school & Oxford encounters with minorities demonstrates how you have two totally opposite experiences talking past each other.

  25. DBC Reed– “electoral cannon fodder”–now we see what this socialist turd really thinks of the working class. He and all his kind hate the working class because that working class wanted–and still want– a better life–not the canting evil and misery Reed and his gang have to offer. Labour survives on the Scotch/Welsh/vote-fiddled migrants and the ever-declining legacy vote–My Dad voted Labour–well mine did and he was wrong to. I saw through socialism (and statism in general) and millions more are doing and will do so in future

  26. “UKIP is simply playing the same protectionist game that the unions have traditionally played. “Protecting” white labour from foreign competition: socialism.”

    Seriously, I don’t think “white” has anything to do with it. It’s not about racism – the Poles are as white as us and they’re regarded the same way – it would be more accurate to call it “nationalism” here since it’s national boundaries that are being discussed, but what it’s really about is “localism”.

    It’s exactly the same impulse that leads certain lefties to object to a branch of Tesco moving into their neighbourhood, on the grounds that it will take away business from the local high street shops and change the culture to a more impersonal one. People get tribal, and they don’t like outsiders, and they don’t like change.

    The markers used to identify the outsider varies. race, religion, and nationality have of course been historically common, but things accent, dress, name, food preferences, manners, the type of car you drive, etc. have all been used to recognise those who “don’t belong” when more visible signs are unavailable.

    Tribal territorialism is the ultimate form and source of protectionism.

    As for UKIP being racist, this chap stood for UKIP advertised as ex-Labour. And quite popular within the local party too, I hear. Does he look like a white supremacist ringleader to you?

  27. bloke (not) in spain demonstrates that he is either illiterate or suffering from memory loss.
    Firstly, when I joined the Conservative party an overall majority of its members were working class
    Secondly I, and all the members of my immediate family (both parents and all siblings) got my/our education on scholarships, whether to public schools or grammar schools/high schools, and universities. This has previously been stated on this blog when relevant to refute some offensively stupid left-winger.
    I grew up in industrial towns, mostly on the edge of a coalfield (my memory starts in one *on* a coalfield).
    Which reminds me that the only time I was invited into a slum, it was a council flat in a *one-year-old* block inhabited by an indigenous white family. Whereas the Victorian terraced house of my little sister’s “fall-back” boyfriend (they went out together when they didn’t have alternative boy-/girl;friends) was spotless.
    Someone is out of touch – but in this case it isn’t me.

  28. john77
    What you’re talking about is history. A very pleasant history, but history. That world hasn’t existed for a long time. The Victorian terrace your sister’s boyfriend’s family kept spotless is likely the home to a Pakistani family who behave exactly as if they were back home in Peshawar. Even down to the roaches. If you walked down the street it’s highly likely you’d be asked what you were doing there.
    If white working class Conservatives still exist they’re out on the new development estates simmering in their 3 bed boxes with attached garage. Their less fortunate brothers were first betrayed by Labour, Then the Tories, Labour again & now more of the same under the current gang. Their patience has worn exceeding thin.

  29. In any case, it beats me why any of the white working class would vote Tory. Conservatives have hardly a single MP who represents their interests. Even less than the Labour Party.

  30. NiV

    Yes, accepted. A much better description of the motives and manifestations of protectionism. Still narrow, short sighted and totally self defeating though.

  31. john77 – “Interested is quite right: skin colour on its own does not matter. The first non-white people I got to know were public schoolboys (one black, one yellow, several brown): they were, in general no different from the rest of us (except the brown kid in my year was better at mental arithmetic than I was).”

    It should not matter. There is no logical reason why it does matter. But it does. Sure, there are Black people who get a good education. Two thirds of White people in the middle class manage to pass on that status to their children in the US. Two thirds of Black middle class people do not. Raising a Black child in a White family is not all that reliable an indicator that the Black child will turn out like the White children it is raised with. It may be that damage is done in utero or in the very early years, but there you go.

    There is an African immigrant to the US called John Ogbu who has written on middle class Black children and their attitudes to education. Nothing I could say would do it justice as his argument is moderately subtle. But young Blacks, especially young Black males, do not have the same attitude to things like homework their young White peers do. Even if they come from middle class families. There is no sensible reason why that should be – they are only hurting themselves – but it is what it is.

    Ironman – “Racist bollocks from the usual source.”

    I am sorry but are you claiming that being middle class is *not* strongly correlated with being white and of British origin? This is the real world, dude. Learn to cope.

  32. What BNIS and SMFS say.
    Because the genetic differences between the races include behaviour. For example the percentage with the mutation that predisposes one to violence occurs in about 20% of Europeans and 50% of Asians and Africans.
    There’s not much hard data on behavioural variations within the Europeans (samples aren’t big enough yet), but I’d bet that in the 40 or so generations since the Normans there’s been a significant genetic drift between the un-invaded British and the much-invaded mainland Europeans. That probably includes higher levels of trust in the British.

  33. JeremyT – “What BNIS and SMFS say. Because the genetic differences between the races include behaviour.”

    Just for the record, I am not comfortable with a genetic argument and I am not making one. There may well be a genetic difference that matters between the races. Or not. I know of this genetic study referred to. But I reject such studies on things like being Gay because they are usually so weak and drawing on really small populations. I will wait to see how strong this claim is.

    Whatever is the cause, it is persistent and so far we have not been able to do a damn thing to close that gap. I have always thought it is the toxic nature of modern Black culture but it may be too persistent for that alone. We have tried affirmative action and it has not worked. We have tried early education intervention and it has not worked (or at least it works moderately well until the children hit puberty and then it does not work). We have allow Blacks to try their own solutions. Both in the West and outside it. Jamaican education is not a hot bed of success. None of them have worked. At some point you need to say 40 years of trying is long enough.

    The gap remains and it is not going anywhere.

  34. Bloody hell. I defend UKIP when it’s accused of racism, but if this thread is indicative then I take it all back.

  35. Matthew L – “Bloody hell. I defend UKIP when it’s accused of racism, but if this thread is indicative then I take it all back.”

    It is a remarkable indication of the Hard Left’s long march through the institutions that this response is so common here. You only have to say something that sounds mildly critical of non-White people and half of what is a Classically Liberal website shows they are more at home at CiF.

    Which is ironic because the New York Times’ former science correspondent could write on the reality of genetic differences between the races without being censored in the way that some people here want (although I don’t think he ever found one that was significant). So some people here are to the Left (and incidentally denying the science in a Creationist sort of way) of the NYT.

    This is why UKIP is so much fun. Not that I am a supporter. But once you step outside the narrow box of what our Betters deem acceptable, it is interesting how liberating, and interesting, it is.

  36. *notices a thread with more than usual activity*

    *ducks the flying barstools*

    It seems that Ironman, NiV and Matthew L are holding the fort admirably.

    I’m still puzzling over how SMFS manages to work immigration controls into what he calls a classically liberal worldview: the idea, originating in the later nineteenth century among nativists and populists, was substantially adopted during the Progressive era. It is not, and never has been, a plank of a classically liberal policy platform. For myself, the classical liberal motto on this seems, “Forward to the early nineteenth century!”

    *exit, pursued by a bear*

  37. Philip Walker – “I’m still puzzling over how SMFS manages to work immigration controls into what he calls a classically liberal worldview”

    I don’t. I said this site is Classical Liberal. I did not say I was. TW is outspoken against immigration controls.

    “the idea, originating in the later nineteenth century among nativists and populists, was substantially adopted during the Progressive era.”

    Well it predates that a little. Even at the time, some people told the Byzantine Emperors that they would regret asking the Turks into Europe. As they did. I expect someone may have mentioned to the Romans that letting the Goths in was not a good idea either.

  38. Philip: Anyone who thinks that racism has any scientific justification at all is only worth ignoring, frankly.

  39. It seems to me that the following are indisputable.

    Black people in advanced countries commit (and are victims of) much more crime than whites.

    Their educational attainment is lower.

    Their accomplishments are fewer.

    There are no black run countries anywhere in the world that approach the level of development of western white countries.

    Why these things should be so is an interesting question. If we think about it, maybe we can do something to bring the black population up to the level of the white population, which would benefit all of us.

    But that is probably impossible as long as some people think that merely to notice and point out these very obvious facts is to be racist.

    It seems to me that racism is judging all people by the behaviour of a racial class to which they belong. Thus, blacks are statistically more likely to try to mug me than whites; but I should not treat all blacks as muggers. Blacks are less likely to make good employees; that doesn’t mean I should not employ blacks. Blacks are less likely to make responsible parents; that doesn’t mean there are not many blacks who make better parents than many whites.

    Burying one’s head in the sand and refusing to admit, or even to discuss, the facts one sees with one’s own eyes, and shouting down anyone who mentions those facts, does nothing at all to advance the cause of black people as a whole or as individuals.

    I would love to have Thomas Sowell living next door to me; I would hate to have David Beckham living next door to me. I have much more in common with Sowell, and it has nothing to do with his race.

  40. It seems that Ironman, NiV and Matthew L are holding the fort admirably.

    Well, all that Matthew L in particular has done is throw out some heresy accusations. That might be holding a fort, but it’s a fort of dogma, not reason.

    Ironman has tried an argument predicated on a major Libertarian weakness, which is to try to reduce all questions to issues of economics, thus drawing a commonplace, but deeply flawed, attempted homology between economic protectionism and border controls. (You see a similar problem particularly in anarcho-capitalists, the Maoist end of Libertarianism, who try to reduce even the criminal law to a free market, economic system.) The economy is an important part of the human world, but the human world is not just the economy.

    Simply put; consider again the Jews. Most of the peoples mentioned in the Bible are long gone. Even the mighty Roman Empire now has to be dug out of the ground. Gone are the Hittites, Ammonites, Jebusites, Philistines, etc. But not the Jews, even though they had no country for 2000 years.

    The reason is pretty simple; the Jews valued the preservation of their culture group highly and enacted specific cultural policies to ensure its survival. We could condemn them as “racists” for doing so; but still they could say, “nonetheless, here we (still) are, whatever you think. We still exist”.

    Were they really morally wrong to do that?

  41. Both Blacks and whites have the same bad incentives given at the poorer end of society. Welfare, bastardy from welfare, etc, etc. Whites have responded in a bad way to these destructive incentives just as have blacks. The results–crime, esp violent crime are present in both groups. But to a far lesser extent among whites once pop numbers are adjusted.
    That would seem to leave 2 possibilities:
    1-Genetics
    2- Culture generated within the group: If it is culture then it is hard to account for a culture that is divided across several nations but somehow produces consistently higher levels of violence.

    Those are facts. If Matthew L and the waycist squealers don’t like it–lets hear a credible refutation–not slogans.

  42. “Which is ironic because the New York Times’ former science correspondent could write on the reality of genetic differences between the races without being censored in the way that some people here want”

    I don’t want such views censored. I’d just argue that they’re wrong.

    And I don’t think they’re applicable to UKIP or the vast majority of its voters. Certainly they don’t like political correctness, and they have a somewhat more jaundiced view of immigrants, but neither do I think they have a particularly strong personal dislike of foreigners, as the NF lot tend to. Farage is married to a German immigrant, after all. They just want some controls and limits, to protect those aspects of the local community they live in that they like.

    “Why these things should be so is an interesting question. If we think about it, maybe we can do something to bring the black population up to the level of the white population, which would benefit all of us. But that is probably impossible as long as some people think that merely to notice and point out these very obvious facts is to be racist.”

    I agree. And a statistic you didn’t mention, but is also fairly indisputable, is that black children adopted by white middle class families have the same educational chances as white kids. It’s about culture and expectations, motivations and habits of mind. People have to learn how to learn; they have to learn how to work. It’s not automatic – it’s taught.

    It’s the old argument about equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome. The right-winger sees some kids doing better than others, believes it is because the more successful kids work harder, and asks how we can bring the less successful ones up to the same standard. The left-winger sees the same thing, believes it is because the successful kids are privileged by their background and are being handed all the prizes unfairly, and therefore want to take the attainments off the successful kids and hand them, without requiring any effort, to the ones who are not.

    There is no better way to utterly destroy kids’ motivation to work, and succeed, and to cripple their minds for life. And it applies just as much to the white kids caught in that trap as the black ones.

    Immigrants who come in intending to adopt the western culture as fast as possible tend to quickly integrate and succeed. The first couple of generations are often poor but hard workers. By the third generation they’re part of the population. But those immigrants determined to retain their own culture often wind up retaining those features that caused the country they just fled from to be such a tip. Asian kids don’t have such a chip on their shoulder and quickly overtake even the white kids. The Jews retain their own culture, but have the work ethic built in. Back in the dark ages the white Europeans were the dead-enders and all the action was going on down around the Mediterranean and India, before that the centres of civilisation were in China, Egypt, Mesopotamia, … while the north Europeans were still painting themselves blue. And of course, for the vast majority of human history, there was no civilisation. Just hunter-gatherer tribes.

    Civilisation is an invention. It is not an instinct.

    I recall watching an interesting documentary on Maggie Thatcher, just after her death, where they commented on how one of the things that drove the left into such incandescence about her was the way she worked to get the poor out of the poverty trap. By encouraging people to get rich by working hard, by getting them on the housing ladder and encouraging middle-class bourgeois aspirations, what they called the “culture of greed”, she took away Labour’s captive base of support. It was almost as if the Labour ideologues wanted to keep the poor down, because their resentment was the engine that drove their grab for power. You can’t have a class war if there’s no proletariat left any more.

    So I think that even if you got the left to understand what the reason was for continued poverty and deprivation (i.e. them), they’d still pursue policies designed to entrench it, because it is at the core of their system of the world.

    The blacks are their primary victims, and their foot soldiers in the class war. But you’ll not save them, and defeat the leftists, by turning your back on them.

  43. I think the question a racist like me might ask is not whether other peoples from other cultures have equal or superior capacities, etc. It is why exactly it is expected that they come here to develop them, and why exactly we get to be responsible for that, and why we must do that even though it puts our own culture in grave peril in terms of survival.

    The simple problem is that although other parts of the world beat Northwestern Europe to “civilisation”, every one of them were ultimately failures. Egypt, Greece, Rome, etc; they reach a certain level, then basically stop developing (or at least, only very slowly). Something in Europe- or Europeans- seems to have avoided that happening. We have no idea what that X factor is. It might be dumb luck, it might be environment, it might be something intrinsic to white people. But we have the simple fact that only we achieved modernity and it seems clear that only we could have done, out of those who have developed civilisation. Even the Jews- in racial terms, the brainboxes- achieved nothing but a torrent of mystical drivel until they adopted European ways (and a large and growing percentage of them never escaped the mystical drivel, it should be noted). So really, it seems that the current programme by our elites to overrun every white nation with a torrent of foreigners seems to be at the very least reckless, considering we are the only civilisation to have developed the capacity for modernity and we really do not know why.

    I was watching a white nationalist on Youtube the other week who made an interesting observation; every day, across the world, there will be thousands of meetings and discussions held in which white people discuss how they can benefit non-white persons at their own expense. Yet, there will be not one such meeting at which non-whites discuss how to benefit whites. Put like that, it is rather chilling.

    Why are we doing this?

  44. IanB: We are doing this because of socialism at every level of society.
    Also the cause of Western Civilization is the lucky combo of reason and freedom to use that reason and keep–as individuals and families–fruits of said “freeason”
    It is not anything esoteric.

  45. @Ian B

    ‘Why are we doing this?’

    There are seven billion people on the planet, five billion (ish) of whom are not Europeans or European derived.

    It seems likely to me that some of those five billion *are* latent rocket scientists, and that we should probably be trying to develop them for the good of us all. Seems a waste not to.

    Beyond that, globalisation isn’t going anywhere, so it is probably a good idea to try to build functioning/ish countries out of African basket cases whether to create trade partners or if only to incentivise some Africans to stay at home.

    Much as I personally am not against immigration (though I’d have a points system of course) the current arrangement, of millions of very poor people there, benefits and plentiful food here, and lots of boats, seems unlikely to pan out well in the end.

    Beyond that, just basic fellow feeling for one’s fellow man?

    @NiV I didn’t mention black kids raised in white families, no, but there was lots of stuff I didn’t mention. It’s not really practical to raise all black kids in white families, and it seems unlikely that ‘they’ will imitate ‘us’.

    Increasingly we are sadly imitating them!

  46. “It seems likely to me that some of those five billion *are* latent rocket scientists..”

    Waycist!!! Waycist!!!

    A genetic predisposition to be rocket scientists?

    Do we have any scientific evidence for this?

  47. I assume you’re joking, but I’m not saying there’s a genetic predisposition, but a human one. I’ve yet to hear of a canine rocket scientist, thougn at risk of being called speciesist perhaps one should not rule it out.

  48. It was, Interested, an attempt to show the ridiculousness of some of the reflex accusations further up the thread. And indeed, I’ve kept Border Collies & despite their many & varied accomplishments, astronautics weren’t among them. Nor have any New Guinea tribes reached LEO utilising bamboo & birdspit.
    It was to point out that to produce rocket scientists, it helps if you have a culture does rocketry other than with RPGs.

  49. When Richard Murphy gleefully guides his little followers towards this depressing thread you can be sure he will not point out that Tim Worstall does not like immigration controls.

    It is unfortunate that his elegant and admirable comments policy is in used in this way by the terminally sad.

  50. Correction
    “I’ve kept Border Collies & despite their many & varied accomplishments, astronautics weren’t among them.”
    Yet.
    I remain deeply suspicious of what was occurring at the end of the garden, behind the shed.

  51. Ironman here deploying the “I can’t answer that, so I’ll just point and shout ‘heresy'” strategy thar.

  52. If Ironman and the waycist squealers don’t like what’s been written–lets hear a credible refutation–not slogans or condescending nonsense about how we should worry about the hurt feelings of leftists.

  53. It has, Mr Ecks, been the standard way of shutting down debate for several decades. Stop! Someone might be offended. Why discard a winning strategy?

  54. “So really, it seems that the current programme by our elites to overrun every white nation with a torrent of foreigners seems to be at the very least reckless, considering we are the only civilisation to have developed the capacity for modernity and we really do not know why.”

    As the Klingons say: That which does not grow, dies.

    We’re doing it to spread modernity. We’re doing it to expand that fraction of mankind that believes in liberty. We’re doing it to create allies in the war against the darkness. We’re doing it because if we don’t care enough to save other people, and to stand with them, nobody will stand with us. And why should they?

    We do it because we’d like to think that if we were stuck in one of those hellholes, someone would be willing to help us.

    But mostly, we do it because trade is profitable, and the larger the trade network, the more mutually beneficial it all is. The wealth created by the West alone is fantastic, just think what the world would be like if everyone was that productive?

  55. @Ian B

    “Ironman here deploying the “I can’t answer that, so I’ll just point and shout ‘heresy’” strategy thar.”

    I find Ironman increasingly gnomic. I don’t know who he is criticising or what his criticism is, but I agree it would be more useful to hear some factual knock-downs. If it’s so obviously wrong (whatever it is that he’s criticising) it ought to be a simple matter to refute it.

    The idea that we should care what Richard Murphy thinks, or that we would get a fair hearing from the likes of him whatever we said, is risible. He’s a mad fantasist with delusions of relevance, I couldn’t care two hoots about him.

    @BiS yes I knew you were joking, so was I (badly).

    @NiV yes broadly that was my point.

  56. Ironman- “When Richard Murphy gleefully guides his little followers towards this depressing thread you can be sure he will not point out that Tim Worstall does not like immigration controls.”

    Why would he point them here when he can show directly our host supporting his party as it exploits immigration concerns for political gain?

    http://www.timworstall.com/2014/09/26/what-bastards-ukip-are-eh/

    (note: I have no problem with someone making compromises with fellow travellers in order to work together for a greater goal. It’s just that sometimes a particular compromise is too delicious to prevent snark.)

    By the way, I think the thread is very interesting. Even the tediously predictable parts (waycism!) are usefully illustrative. Having civilised grown-ups exchange and debate viewpoints even when they disagree is a credit to Tim’s elegant and admirable comments policy.

  57. @ SMFS
    Your reply is a reasonable one – however it is to “skin colour does not matter”, rather than to “skin colour on its own does not matter”.
    This is a thread about the Grauniad’s misrepresentation of the working class. I expect the cumulative impact of the media on different groups of teenagers to be significant.

  58. “What the metropolitan left generally doesn’t understand, not in its gut it doesn’t, is quite how right wing the core vote of the Labour Party is. The British working classes just don’t share most of the trendy concerns that motivate the urban intelligentsia. And it’s that that leaves that door wide open for someone to come in and nick that core vote”

    You have this back to front. Of course the left understands that the white working classes do not share any part of their obsessions and so are very unlikely to vote for them as they start to be implemented. This isn’t an opportunity for UKIP because UKIP do not hold power and so do not have the ability to change the electorate to suit requirements. This is the reason that white working class people (and UKIP) are both endangered species and will be gone in a generation.

    Why else the massive immigration? Why the war on traditional working class ways of earning a living or living a life? Why the insistence on sending every child to university? Why the constant barrage of PC and other baffling crap from the media? These things are not what the left wish to achieve as their end game. They are instead logical tactics to change the electorate over a long period of time for political gain.

    The British working classes do not have the resources to do anything about this, even if they noticed, which they won’t. UKIP are the political representatives of a soon to be extinct group of people and will be irrelevant over the course of the long game that is being played here.

  59. In short: this is not an opportunity for UKIP. It is instead a demographic, economic and cultural disaster for those UKIP currently represents, and it is too late to do much about it.

    Those currently moving towards UKIP are the ones that have noticed something is happening that they don’t like, even though they don’t understand what it is all about. The vast majority haven’t even made this first basic step. The game is lost.

  60. PJF
    “By the way, I think the thread is very interesting. Even the tediously predictable parts (waycism!) are usefully illustrative. Having civilised grown-ups exchange and debate viewpoints even when they disagree is a credit to Tim’s elegant and admirable comments policy.”

    Note the tone of superiority and condescension employed as if no other opinion could be held except the anti-racist cant. A Noel Coward of socialist bullshit this one. And the insolent inversion of truth to refer to calling leftist liars on their tricks as “tedious” when the rest of us have had to put up with 20+ years of anti-white bollocks from every shade of left vermin from the thugs of the UAF to BluLabour lounge lizards like Cameron.

  61. @ Interested
    Not quite – there are no statistics on unconvicted criminals or unreported crimes. All that is undisputed is that black teenagers are disproportionately the victims of violent crimes.
    There are statistics to show that blacks are more likely to be convicted of crimes but a lot of self-styled “progressives” claim that is because US police forces are racist.

  62. I don’t see how racism can have any scientific support when there isn’t even a quantifiable way of defining “race”. Different cultures have different outcomes but if you swap two newborns, one from Uganda and one from the Upper East Side, their outcomes will be solely determined by where they grow up (assuming that they’re not subject to any racism, of course).

  63. @Matthew L

    True. If a black couple bring up a white child he is much more likely to turn into a sub-10 second 100m sprinter.

  64. Interested: “black” is a very broad category which includes more genetic diversity than there is between you and Carl Lewis.

  65. Matthew L – “Anyone who thinks that racism has any scientific justification at all is only worth ignoring, frankly.”

    Well off you go, ignore away. In the meantime I will note you dishonesty in trying to claim this argument is about racism instead of racial differences. And secondly, I will note that the US FDA has approved heart disease pills for Blacks only. It seems that certain drugs work better in people of mainly African American origin than in people of mainly European origin. The FDA is racist? The whole process of peer review is racist?

    The risk of an African American getting diabetes is directly correlated with the percentage of African genes in his make up. I have no idea what that means, but is it racist to notice?

    Matthew L – “I don’t see how racism can have any scientific support when there isn’t even a quantifiable way of defining “race”.”

    We have major populations that have been geographically isolated for thousands of years. Which are genetically distinct. Immediately recognisably so. So much so that an expert can tell the race of a skeleton. So much so that if you go to a reputable company, they will take a small dab of your blood and tell you where your ancestors came from – within 200 miles in the case of Europe.

    This is simply Lewontin’s Fallacy. Marxism and good science rarely go together. You can tell the race of a suspect from any blood sample.

    “Different cultures have different outcomes but if you swap two newborns, one from Uganda and one from the Upper East Side, their outcomes will be solely determined by where they grow up (assuming that they’re not subject to any racism, of course).”

    Wow, a hard core Blank Slater. This is not my experience. But anecdote is not data. We can be sure that no White child adopted by someone from Uganda is going to grow up to compete in any running race at the Olympics – not the short distance, not the long distance. In fact no White male will win the 100 metres in my life time again. Nor will any Asian. Everyone who will do so, will be of Western African origin.

    People have done adoption studies. It helps with academic performance, but not by much.

  66. NiV – “And a statistic you didn’t mention, but is also fairly indisputable, is that black children adopted by white middle class families have the same educational chances as white kids.”

    I would dispute that. Strongly. Because the evidence does not seem to be there. Well they have the same chances, they do not get the same outcomes. Which is what I assume you mean.

    “It’s about culture and expectations, motivations and habits of mind. People have to learn how to learn; they have to learn how to work. It’s not automatic – it’s taught.”

    But it has been much easier to teach White peasants right off the fields than to teach Blacks. It has been much easier to teach East Asians. I agree it is at least partly cultural with the Japanese, Korean and Chinese having 2000 years of ingrained respect for education. But look how easy it was for somewhere like Sweden to go from dirt poor backwardness to a modern industrial state. Unlike, say, Malawi.

    “Immigrants who come in intending to adopt the western culture as fast as possible tend to quickly integrate and succeed.”

    Except they do not. Not even when the cultural differences are small. Most Jewish-American immigration was in the 19th century. They have succeeded very well. But they will not vote Republican and if the movies, books and plays produced by them are anything to go by, they retain a high level of disdain for the White majority. They have been grossly over-represented in political parties aiming to murder most of us. Chomsky is a good example but there are very few Trot parties that were not heavily Jewish. Very close ethnic groups that arrive in small numbers can be assimilated. Larger ones that are more distant cannot be.

    NiV – “As the Klingons say: That which does not grow, dies.”

    Do they also say that those who commit suicide also die?

    “We’re doing it to spread modernity. We’re doing it to expand that fraction of mankind that believes in liberty.”

    How is that working out in, say, Detroit? An entirely functioning White majority city slowly became majority Black. How did that turn out for Detroit? Or Birmingham, Alabama? Liberty is dying because even White people no longer believe in it. Certainly it is not popular these days in Tower Hamlets.

    “We’re doing it because if we don’t care enough to save other people, and to stand with them, nobody will stand with us. And why should they?”

    They are not going to stand with us anyway. They hate us. They will spitefully damage our interests even when there is nothing in it for them. Look at how they vote at the UN. If we do not look out for ourselves, who will look out for us?

    “We do it because we’d like to think that if we were stuck in one of those hellholes, someone would be willing to help us.”

    Delusion. When it came down to it, how many people voted with George W Bush in the war on terror?

    “The wealth created by the West alone is fantastic, just think what the world would be like if everyone was that productive?”

    We can dream. But it is unlikely to happen. Because they are not us. Not even the Italians can manage to run a half decent economy for long. Certainly the Arabs cannot. Asking Pakistanis to move to Birmingham won’t make them Cobdenites. It will make Birmingham Pakistani.

  67. @Matthew L

    ‘Interested: “black” is a very broad category which includes more genetic diversity than there is between you and Carl Lewis.’

    I didn’t realise we were being quite that pedantic. But let me adjust my original comment to read:

    True. If Carl Lewis’s parents bring up a white child of Anglo Saxon ancestry he is much more likely to turn into a sub-10 second 100m sprinter.

    (What is your explanation for the fact that all significant 100m runners in recent decades have been quite similar in appearance?)

  68. “Matthew L
    Interested: “black” is a very broad category which includes more genetic diversity than there is between you and Carl Lewis.”

    Now here’s a thing.
    Just how much genetic diversity is there in the doggish world? There’s only been about 10,000 years since they were bred from the original wolf stock. Yet anyone who’s been owned by Borders’ll tell you, there’s whole libraries of behaviour patterns hardwired in. You don’t train Borders to herd sheep. They know how to herd sheep. It’s only necessary the shepherd masters the correct inflections of doggish to get ’em to herd them where he wants.
    How much genetic difference is required to influence behaviour? Dogs aren’t the only creature humanity’s been breeding for the last 10,000 years. Humanity’s another.

  69. Ian B

    “I was watching a white nationalist on Youtube the other week who made an interesting observation; every day, across the world, there will be thousands of meetings and discussions held in which white people discuss how they can benefit non-white persons at their own expense. Yet, there will be not one such meeting at which non-whites discuss how to benefit whites. Put like that, it is rather chilling.

    Why are we doing this?”

    We are doing it because our leaders and a certain segment of society do not agree with the historically dominant traditions of white western culture. Instead of adapting their political offerings to the past and still (just) current preferences of white western people, they are instead in the process of adapting the people of Europe to enable the things that they want. They do this by importing different people who want different things, attacking the cultural institutions of the original people, and by making it as difficult as possible to do well economically living a traditional western lifestyle with its inherent assumptions and preferences.

    On an individual level this manifests as a combination of guilt and self hatred. Looked at without emotion, anyone can see that most other relatively strong cultures hate western culture and would prefer to see it destroyed or dominated. Unfortunately there is a strong strand in western culture that believes in a kind of perverted tolerance and equality for all. Confronted with the reality of everyone else wanting to kill us, it is impossible for this kind of person to drop their desire for peace and mutual accommodation with an equal. They can’t blame the other culture, because to do so would be to admit their real nature. And so for them the fault is always with Western culture in not bending enough to accommodate what the other wants. This goes on forever and in the end will probably destroy us.

    Realistic options for the West at this point are quite radical and unlikely to happen. We would need to assert the political power of the traditionalist majority very quickly before they become a minority and then use it to make life exceedingly difficult for those of antagonistic cultures living within ours. Unfortunately the generation following ours does not have any attachment to traditional western culture thanks to years of educational and other propaganda, as well as a large number of the current generation of working adults. We have left it too late.

  70. Race, race, race, race…. Jesus.

    Anyway, this is what pisses me off:

    Mr Farage said that the NHS would be safe in Ukip’s hands. This is simply incompatible with the classic Tory tax-cutting agenda

    It’s TORY NHS CUTS! again. As I never tire of pointing out to lefties, the last Westminster cuts to the NHS budget were under Callaghan. Since devolution, both Labour in Wales and the SNP in Scotland have also cut NHS budgets. Anyone below the age of forty has never ever seen a Tory or even remotely right-wing NHS cut. But they all believe in them. Why?

  71. “Race, race, race, race…. Jesus.”

    Can’t say I particularly agree with some of the comments above, but it is unavoidable, isn’t it? When the Graun extract starts with the words “Ukip has come north to offer itself as a party for blue-collar voters.”, it’s pretty obvious which demographic they’re talking about. It’s actually the left’s perpetual obsession with viewing everything in terms of race & racial allegiances drives this sort of thing.

  72. “Race, race, race, race…. Jesus.”

    Racial characteristics are shaped by the physical but also cultural environments that genes find themselves within. So of course it is about culture, but also about race. Unless you have no cultural preference at all?

    It is blatant illusion to think that a load of people of a different racial and cultural background can turn up here and become functioning Western Europeans within a generation or two. Instead the genes and culture of Western Europe will inevitably become more like the place the new people came from originally. This is the whole point of the exercise.

  73. “the left’s perpetual obsession with viewing everything in terms of race & racial allegiances drives this sort of thing.”

    Race and culture form a feedback loop. The left know this.

    The public consumption message is: don’t be racist, be colour blind, i.e. don’t prefer people who are genetically more like yourself. This is so that you have an internal voice always telling you not to do or say anything about the very rapid changes you see taking place in Western society right now.

    The truth is that the left is expressing an intense preference for certain types of culture (and by association racial characteristics) over others. They just don’t want you or I to do the same thing.

  74. > It is blatant illusion to think that a load of people of a different racial and cultural background can turn up here and become functioning Western Europeans within a generation or two.

    Bollocks. They did. As has been pointed out repeatedly and accurately, the fascinating thing about the “immigrant” communities who are radically violently opposed to Britain is that their grandparents weren’t. You would be hard pushed to meet someone more British, and patriotically so, than an immigrant who arrived here from Pakistan in the Sixties or Seventies. The Jihadist bastards exporting defenestration to Mesopotamia were born and raised in Britain. Very few of them got their different cultural background from their families — how could they, when their families left the old country at a time when Wahhabism was a fringe sect and only weirdos wore burkhas? The different cultural background is not, in fact, a background: it is a novel new craze. And, whatever race is, it’s not something that arose in the last forty years.

    > Unless you have no cultural preference at all?

    Of course I don’t. I’m Jewish.

  75. Well that’s this site’s reputation for balanced non racist discussion blown!
    If I may offer an insight from my murky left-wing past: I used to run with (literally we were always running away from Mosleyites who called themselves the UNION movement because they wanted full union of UK with Europe) a bunch of very fleet-footed older lefties who believed in a Socialist Commonwealth( some said Empire) .They believed West Indians were forced to come over here because the UK shut down their cane sugar industry. They believed Churchill had sold out the Imperial Preference system of tariffs to the Americans (at Halifax Nova Scotia???) and that the Commonwealth industries would lose out and their workers be forced to come to England. When I heard of a Northampton factory moving its production to Poland I thought of those old boys who would have probably wondered why a cheap labour factory could n’t be sited in a Commonwealth country. You can now see on Guido Fawkes’ blog that the Commonwealth trading bloc is miles bigger than the EU.
    I sometimes panic that I would vote UKIP if they rebuilt Commonwealth trade and relegalised Resale Price Maintenance (banned by Heath to get into Common Market as was). But no worry there!

  76. Ah yes, the sprinter fallacy.

    OK, it turns out that the main determinant of being able to run a sub ten second 100 metres is having the ACTN3 gene, which codes for an increase in fast-twitch muscle fibres. Now this gene is more common in people with West African heritage, but it is by no means universal in them. It also occasionally crops up outside there – there’s a Frenchman of pinkish hue (Christophe Lemaitre) who has run 100m in 9.92 seconds, for instance.

    So how do we make a race out of this? If you have ACTN3 and therefore can sprint fast, you’re a Blacksprinter? Well you can have two brothers where one has it and one doesn’t – can two full brothers be of different races to each other? Is that Frenchman a Blacksprinter too?

    It’s indisputable that certain genes have increased frequency in certain areas of the world. That does not mean that racial classification has any scientific basis, because “increased frequency” doesn’t mean “universal”.

    How do you define who is “in” and who is “out” of a particular race in a quantifiable manner? Until you can answer that, there is no scientific basis for the existence of race.

  77. Matthew,

    > It’s indisputable that certain genes have increased frequency in certain areas of the world. That does not mean that racial classification has any scientific basis, because “increased frequency” doesn’t mean “universal”.

    This is a non-sequitur and a straw man. Firstly, there’s a difference between “defined by current science” and “definable by science”. Secondly, there’s a difference between “definable by science” and “perceivable”.

    We can’t define tesselation sufficiently well to solve it algorithmically. Yet humans can perceive tesselation — easily. It would be a fallacy to say that it’s not there just because science hasn’t cracked it yet, or even because science never can crack it. It is clearly nonetheless a thing.

    When a human looks at another human and categorises them according to gender or race or whatever, they are clearly not actually perceiving genes, so any findings about genes are frankly immaterial to the discussion.

    > How do you define who is “in” and who is “out” of a particular race in a quantifiable manner?

    Why do you insist that any such quantifiability has to be in terms of genes? Why do clearly perceivable attributes such as “narrow nostrils” or “frizzy hair” not count? And, that aside, why does it need to be scientifically quantifiable? Why should humans not be allowed to use vague terms that are nevertheless useful and meaningful?

    Despite some of the best minds working on the problem for many centuries, we have yet to properly quantifiably uncontroversially define the term “person”. The term is still useful and meaningful and any fuckwit can tell you how many people are in this room.

  78. It’s a matter of fuzzy boundaries. Most of the categories we use in life have fuzzy boundaries; humans think in terms of examples and stereotypes; that is the “center of a concept” rather than where the edges are.

    It is hard to define the boundary between tall and short, between a bush and a tree, between political left and right, between a star and a planet, between sanity and madness, between rock and jazz. Nonetheless, all these things still exist.

  79. Why do you insist that any such quantifiability has to be in terms of genes?

    It could be in terms of anything as long as it’s unambiguous.

    Why do clearly perceivable attributes such as “narrow nostrils” or “frizzy hair” not count?

    Right, so we’ll be getting the ruler out to measure the shape of someone’s nostrils or bringing back the old pencil test? Why not add phrenology to the mix, too?

    And, that aside, why does it need to be scientifically quantifiable? Why should humans not be allowed to use vague terms that are nevertheless useful and meaningful?

    Because people are saying things like “Because the genetic differences between the races include behaviour. For example the percentage with the mutation that predisposes one to violence occurs in about 20% of Europeans and 50% of Asians and Africans.”

    Look, you can use the concept of race all you want but it needs to be clear that it has no objective validity and should not be the basis for discrimination.

  80. @Matthew L

    It’s hardly a fallacy, and I don’t think that anyone says all black guys can run quickly and are thick (or that all white guys are cerebral and civilised but run slowly).

    There are outliers in all peoples and all directions; the only reason for introducing the sprinter was to counter your absurd suggestion that, quote, “If you swap two newborns, one from Uganda and one from the Upper East Side, their outcomes will be solely determined by where they grow up (assuming that they’re not subject to any racism, of course).”

    That is, you used the word ‘solely’, not me.

    At some point, there has to be a reason why the Upper East Side is the Upper East Side.

    Lemaitre is the only European-descent athlete to go sub 10 seconds, and he will have to find another gear to get on the podium at the Olympics.

    There is a reason for this, too, and one assumes it is not down to diet, or training, or culture, or how his parents raised him. He is an outlier, but even so he is not a good enough outlier to actually trouble the really quick men.

    You’re right that sprinting is mostly genetic.

    It seems highly likely to me that intelligence and a predisposition for civilisation (sort of rubbing along with other people and working together to create stuff of importance) are similarly genetic.

    For some reason, to say this is ‘racist’, while it’s not when talking about physical prowess.

    You’re right that a Ugandan kid raised on the Upper East Side has a better chance of doing well than a Ugandan kid raised in Kampala, and a better chance than an Upper East Side kid transposed to Kampala, too.

    But if you raise an Ashkenazi Jew in the same family as a Ugandan, whether in Kampala or the Upper East Side, the Ashkenazi will probably do better than the Ugandan, because he is highly likely to be more intelligent and diligent.

    The questions are
    – why is this?
    – can we bring the Ugandan kid up to the level of the Ashkenazi, how long would it take, and what would it cost?
    – if we can’t bring a specific Ugandan kid up to Ashkenazi levels, can we help Ugandans generally to develop over a period, how long would that take, and what would it cost?

    As I say above, I am in favour of helping poorer nations to develop, and I firmly believe that there are plenty of intellectual Lemaitres in Africa; we should help them reach their potential for our good and theirs.

  81. > It could be in terms of anything as long as it’s unambiguous.

    What’s wrong with ambiguity?

    > Right, so we’ll be getting the ruler out to measure the shape of someone’s nostrils or bringing back the old pencil test?

    Er, why the fuck would you do that? Are you psychotic?

    > Look, you can use the concept of race all you want but it needs to be clear that it has no objective validity and should not be the basis for discrimination.

    You’re conflating objective validity with precise unambiguous scientific quantifiability. They’re not the same thing at all.

    And I don’t discriminate, but that doesn’t mean we can’t make observations. For instance:

    > the percentage with the mutation that predisposes one to violence occurs in about 20% of Europeans and 50% of Asians and Africans.

    First, for the record, I’m not endorsing that statement because I have no idea whatsoever whether it’s true. But I don’t care. Because the thing that makes humans superior to other species is our ability to use rationality to overrule instinct. For instance, it seems clear that a lot of human males have a genetic predisposition to commit rape. Some people got very upset when it was reported that scientists were even looking into that, because they assume that “genetic predisposition” means “excuse”. And the scientists were quite baffled by the controversy because it was obvious to them that, as long we are capable of overruling the urge to rape — which we are — genes don’t get anyone off any hook. In which case, what’s wrong with studying these things? It could be useful.

    Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that black people are x% more likely to have a gene that cause violent urges. Surely, for most people, suppressing violent urges is at least an inconvenience in daily life. Maybe doing so contributes to depression. So let’s say studying such genes were to lead to a pill you could take that would help to suppress their effect. That would be helpful to loads of people. It would be helpful to x% more black people than white, in fact. And it could never happen if any acknowledgement of differences were disallowed on the grounds thatit constitutes discrimination.

  82. @Matthew L

    ‘Because people are saying things like “Because the genetic differences between the races include behaviour. For example the percentage with the mutation that predisposes one to violence occurs in about 20% of Europeans and 50% of Asians and Africans.”’

    I don’t know who said that, but with (genuine) respect, how does saying it differ from your assertion in respect of the genetic basis for sprinting ability?

    That is, if it’s true, it cannot be racist to say it – much as dickheads like DBC Spacebar might think it is – and thus we should not be in a situation where people are not ‘allowed’ to say it.

    People should not be allowed to discrimate on that basis, I’m with you there.

  83. That is, if it’s true, it cannot be racist to say it – much as dickheads like DBC Spacebar might think it is

    I think you’ll find that “it’s” should actually be written, “it ‘s”.

    Thanks for your attention.

  84. DBC Spacebar writes:
    I would have though the reason that black people are better at sprinting is because they were selectively bred by slaveowners to be physically strong.They also had a better diet than all those free English people who, enjoying the benefits of laissez faire ,became so short and puny that they could not be recruited to the fight the Boers. Cue: pants-shitting panic by the ruling class, somewhat akin to the obesity panic now in progress. Whose fault is it that the poor can’t afford proper food? Can’t think.

  85. Actually, further, when I said, “People should not be allowed to discriminate on that basis, I’m with you there.”

    I don’t know what I was thinking.

    I meant:

    “People should be allowed to discriminate on whatever basis they wish, but in my opinion people should not discriminate on that basis.”

  86. I would have thought selective breeding for strength would lead to strength, not speed, but then I’m not a moron.

    Anyway, forget speed. How do you explain Ethiopian marathon runners?

    And what the fuck is it about your tiny mind which will allow you to countenance the idea that “evilwhiteslaveowners” could selectively breed people in a couple of generations but thousands of years living on the savannah and running away from lions/after gazelle cannot?

  87. By the way – well done. Your improved use of the space bar proves you can listen and learn. Now, if only you could widen that to other areas.

  88. And obesity panic or no, no-one in modern Britain is dying of malnutrition, except old people in your beloved NHS and the progeny of stupid tarts allowed to breed like rabbits by your beloved welfare state. All capitalism does is provide the calories; but then, if we ever try things your way there’ll be no fatties, that’s for sure.

  89. “Look, you can use the concept of race all you want but it needs to be clear that it has no objective validity and should not be the basis for discrimination.”

    But it does have objective validity because people can reliably distinguish people of one race from those of another. Why shouldn’t it be used as the basis for discrimination, the expression of preference?

  90. “Well that’s this site’s reputation for balanced non racist discussion blown!”

    Discrimination on the basis of race is a useful heuristic and you are only hurting yourself if you don’t use it. In fact I am sure you do. Most people claiming not to discriminate in fact do in the first instance, but are open to their minds being changed on the basis of evidence about a specific person or people. This is a sensible way to behave.

  91. “They did. As has been pointed out repeatedly and accurately, the fascinating thing about the “immigrant” communities who are radically violently opposed to Britain is that their grandparents weren’t. You would be hard pushed to meet someone more British, and patriotically so, than an immigrant who arrived here from Pakistan in the Sixties or Seventies. ”

    Obviously they didn’t, or their children and grandchildren would not be waging jihad against the West. Western European people do not give rise to jihadist children and grandchildren very often. The problem with people from Pakistan is both cultural and racial, and it hasn’t gone away just because we hoped it would and they seemed nice when the stakes were higher for them.

  92. I’m a little confused here. Apparently the proletariat under laissez faire weren’t working hard at all, and dwindled away to puny waifishness as they idled in the fields, factories and mines. So I’m not quite sure what DBC Spacebar’s friends in the Northampton Maoist-Trotskyite Popular Front were complaining about for the past century with the whole exploitation of the workers thing.

  93. People from Pakistan were brought to Britain precisely because their culture and inherited characteristics would cause problems for traditional Western European civilisation. That is a feature, not a bug.

  94. Tomsmith, I’d be more inclined to believe you were right (as opposed to thinking you’re completely wrong) if

    i) ‘they’ showed any sign of understanding the piss-up/brewery arrangement

    and

    ii) they themselves and their children/grand children etc were not going to live in the cauldron of hatred you suggest they foresaw and desired

    There are no conspiracies, only fucking idiots who convince even bigger idiots to vote them in.

    That doesn’t mean we aren’t fucked, and perhaps means we’re fuckeder. After all, evil masterminds are still masterminds, and might have an answer once they realised they were fucked, too.

  95. @Interested
    Like you I don’t believe their was a conspiracy to repopulate the UK. But I do believe there was method in their madness.
    In the immediate post war period, there was a shortage of labour. Increasing demands for consumer goods & the requirements of staffing the welfare state. The gap could have been filled by retooling/automating factories to increase per cap productivity, but importing cheap labour was cheaper.
    That’s the Tory/business justification.
    But there’s also a Labour Party/union angle.
    A higher productivity/technocrat workforce would have moved away from being the working class proletariat socialism required as its political base.
    So, irrespective of political colour, both sides welcomed the policy for their own reasons.
    This takes us from the Windrush right through until the late 70s.
    The problem is, since then the arguments used to convince the public to accept immigration have taken on a life of their own. Any government wanting to curb immigration runs up against the promoted memes of anti-racism & multiculturalism.
    They have truly f*****d themselves.

  96. Well, there’s always a bunch of reasons for anything. Originally, the idea was just cheap labour for the welfare state (nurses etc) and they thought that cheap labour could keep failing industries afloat, like textiles Oop North. Then the Civil Rights thing kicked off in the USA and became the main cause celebre of a Left looking for a justification, which rapidly spread across the Atlantic to the Stoodent Marxists of the 1960s, and then it just became an absolute dogma.

    In the early 70s the New Gramscians (the fragrant Bea Campbell being a leading light) had taken over the Communist movement and everyone diverted to the New left form of class struggles between black and white, men and women, gay and straight etc, and here we are. Basically the American ideal of harmony between races became globalised. Everyone wanted a civil rights struggle, even if they had to import one.

  97. Squander Two – “As has been pointed out repeatedly and accurately, the fascinating thing about the “immigrant” communities who are radically violently opposed to Britain is that their grandparents weren’t. You would be hard pushed to meet someone more British, and patriotically so, than an immigrant who arrived here from Pakistan in the Sixties or Seventies.”

    Isn’t that, you know, proof of what he said? A generation or two in the UK has *not* been able to make them middle class? But I think you are over-stating things. Those patriotic Pakistanis had just driven Britain out of India. They hated us enough to go to prison en masse. Why would they suddenly start to love us once they got here? Well for one thing, if they didn’t keep telling the majority they loved us, the skinheads might get them. At least they would think that wouldn’t they? So every incentive to play up how happy they are. Their children were born here and don’t fear deportation.

    “how could they, when their families left the old country at a time when Wahhabism was a fringe sect and only weirdos wore burkhas?”

    Wahhabism has been in Pakistan since the 19th century. Regularly cropping up in the Tribal Areas. You mean the urban middle class did not wear burkhas. They got swamped, as we did, with migrants from the countryside with very different attitudes to women.

    Matthew L – “OK, it turns out that the main determinant of being able to run a sub ten second 100 metres is having the ACTN3 gene, which codes for an increase in fast-twitch muscle fibres. Now this gene is more common in people with West African heritage, but it is by no means universal in them.”

    Great. You have now renounced your previous idiotic claim. Progress. A clear genetic difference.

    “It also occasionally crops up outside there – there’s a Frenchman of pinkish hue (Christophe Lemaitre) who has run 100m in 9.92 seconds, for instance.”

    I would like him tested for every drug known to mankind.

    “So how do we make a race out of this? If you have ACTN3 and therefore can sprint fast, you’re a Blacksprinter?”

    No, if you have ACTN3 and about 3,000 other genes more common in Black people, you are probably Black.

    “How do you define who is “in” and who is “out” of a particular race in a quantifiable manner? Until you can answer that, there is no scientific basis for the existence of race.”

    Look to the genes:

    A 2005 study by Tang and colleagues used 326 genetic markers to determine genetic clusters. The 3,636 subjects, from the United States and Taiwan, self-identified as belonging to white, African American, East Asian or Hispanic ethnic groups. The study found “nearly perfect correspondence between genetic cluster and SIRE for major ethnic groups living in the United States, with a discrepancy rate of only 0.14 percent”.[4]

    Paschou et al. (2010) found “essentially perfect” agreement between 51 self-identified populations and the population’s genetic structure, using 650,000 genetic markers. Selecting for informative genetic makers allowed a reduction to less than 650, while retaining near-total accuracy.[39]

    Africans are genetically distinct from other populations. A simple test can show this.

    Matthew L – “Look, you can use the concept of race all you want but it needs to be clear that it has no objective validity and should not be the basis for discrimination.”

    This is not a scientifically accurate statement. It is just re-stating Lewontin’s Fallacy. Race has a strong and clear genetic basis. It can be tested for by a simple DNA test.

    Although whether it ought to be a basis for discrimination is another matter.

    Interested – “As I say above, I am in favour of helping poorer nations to develop, and I firmly believe that there are plenty of intellectual Lemaitres in Africa; we should help them reach their potential for our good and theirs.”

    We have been trying to find bright African-origin children in the West for decades. 40 years in fact. We have done everything that can be done to help them. It has not worked. If they are there, they are very hard to find. I think there are cultural reasons for that – perhaps influenced by genetics, perhaps not – but the problem is not going to go away. We cannot do much for bright African-origin children.

  98. So DBC spacebar is 90-odd years old and was running faster than the young men in the “Union Movement” 80-ish years ago – we learn something new every day. His pals believe that Churchill – who as a back-bencher had no control over the government in the 1930s – sold out Commonwealth preference. Elderly socialists running faster than the Mosleyites? Why not tell us that the sea is pink?
    I’m only 60-odd so when I was 5, I learned to fight with my back to the wall because Labour party supporters told their sons to beat me up for being the son of a Tory.Things were better in those days – they only told them to beat up boys.

  99. Obviously, the genetic characteristics of East African marathon runners are different from the genetic characteristics of West African (diaspora) sprinters.

    So it’s daft to use observations about runners as a justification for making generalized statements about the innate characteristics of people with a particular skin colour.

  100. PaulB – “Obviously, the genetic characteristics of East African marathon runners are different from the genetic characteristics of West African (diaspora) sprinters.”

    I am not sure what is obvious about it but it is possible.

    “So it’s daft to use observations about runners as a justification for making generalized statements about the innate characteristics of people with a particular skin colour.”

    Well, when you see someone doing it, let us know. In the meantime, the fact that there are genetic differences between the races, such as this, make it a very sensible counter to the argument that a random ultra-orthodox NY Jewish baby deposited in a random Kenyan household has as much chance of winning a marathon as any other Kenyan.

  101. @Paul B

    ‘Obviously, the genetic characteristics of East African marathon runners are different from the genetic characteristics of West African (diaspora) sprinters.’

    That is true. However, it is part of the picture which in totality allows us to observe that the quickest runners in the world seem to be people from the West African diaspora, while those with the most astonishing endurance seem to be from the east of Africa.

    It is most unlikely – as the record books show – that anyone from a more European ancestry will win the Olympic 100m or marathon in the near future.

    Apparently, even people like you can accept this.

    Yet to notice other differences between groups is ‘racist’. It’s very odd.

  102. Tomsmith,

    > Obviously they didn’t, or their children and grandchildren would not be waging jihad against the West.

    So, if you oppose “the West”, that proves that your grandparents weren’t British? Nonsense. Internal fights for the supremacy of ideas are a normal feature of all civilisations. What about English Nazis in the Thirties? Did they all have German grandparents? Come to that, were German Nazis all descended from Italians?

    I really don’t understand this bizarre reluctance to acknowledge that ideas can spread from one brain to another, which has surely been the defining feature of the development of human civilisation for our entire history. Oh, no, it must all be hereditary. Feh.

    > The problem with people from Pakistan is both cultural and racial

    Bollocks: there is no Pakistani race. The difference between Pakistan and India and Bangladesh is 100% cultural. And jihad is far more popular with descendants of Pakistani immigrants than with descendants of Indian immigrants. The problem is cultural.

    Specifically, the problem is the amount of oil money the Sauds have poured into Wahhabist evangelism. It’s looking like they might be beginning to change their mind about the advisability of that idea, which would be a nice silver lining.

    More specifically, the problem is the self-hatred of our ruling and chattering classes that teaches British people that Britain is to be hated. Without the systematic destruction of patriotic pride, anti-British ideologies would find it far harder to get a foothold.

    SMFS,

    > Isn’t that, you know, proof of what he said? A generation or two in the UK has *not* been able to make them middle class?

    No, because obviously not all of them are jihadis. Most are not.

    > Those patriotic Pakistanis had just driven Britain out of India. They hated us enough to go to prison en masse. Why would they suddenly start to love us once they got here?

    Again, if this was a good point, we’d be seeing the same behaviour in the Indian diaspora as the Pakistani diaspora. And we aren’t. We’d also presumably see similar problems amongst the descendants of French migrants to Germany. And we aren’t.

    > Wahhabism has been in Pakistan since the 19th century. Regularly cropping up in the Tribal Areas. You mean the urban middle class did not wear burkhas. They got swamped, as we did, with migrants from the countryside with very different attitudes to women.

    In other words, it’s not genetic. Especially since Wahhabism doesn’t come from Pakistan — not even the same continent.

  103. @S2 how is it not the same continent?

    But I agree generally, and the difference between (general) attitudes and behaviour in the UK between Indian-origin sikhs and hindus and Pakistani-origin muslims*, in the absence of a great genetic difference, shows that genes and race are not sole determinants of being a good or bad person (not that anyone half sensible says they are).

    Religious or other belief can turn the gentlest man into a violent lunatic and also sometimes the reverse.

    (But it can’t make him run quicker, or understand quantum physics – there are limits.)

    *Yes, I know there are plenty of lovely Pakistani muslims and some unpleasant Indian sikhs and hindus.

  104. No, the Middle East is in Asia as PF says.

    Saudi (western edge of Asia) is separated from Africa by the Red Sea.

    At the north end end you have Jordan and then the Med ie Europe.

    To the south is the Arabian Sea, then the Indian Ocean, then Oz.

    To the east, Gulf, Bahrain, more Gulf, Iran, Aghanistan, China…

  105. Squander Two – “What about English Nazis in the Thirties? Did they all have German grandparents? Come to that, were German Nazis all descended from Italians?”

    The English Nazis were few and in the war generally very patriotic. Diana Mosley’s brother may have refused to fight the Germans, but he died fighting the Japanese.

    “there is no Pakistani race. The difference between Pakistan and India and Bangladesh is 100% cultural.”

    I would not be so quick to write off the differences. For one thing, the level of cousin-marriage suggests that the Muslim populations of South Asia may be genetically distinct from the Hindus. Although Hindu caste endogamy is an issue in its own right.

    “And jihad is far more popular with descendants of Pakistani immigrants than with descendants of Indian immigrants. The problem is cultural.”

    That is true. But that does not mean that South Asians of Hindu origins like us either. Just that their objections are likely to take some other form.

    “More specifically, the problem is the self-hatred of our ruling and chattering classes that teaches British people that Britain is to be hated. Without the systematic destruction of patriotic pride, anti-British ideologies would find it far harder to get a foothold.”

    Indeed.

    “No, because obviously not all of them are jihadis. Most are not.”

    It doesn’t mean most of them don’t sympathise with the jihadis. Remember, no one got fired over 7-7. It is only recently that any British Muslims have condemned any terrorism at all.

    “Again, if this was a good point, we’d be seeing the same behaviour in the Indian diaspora as the Pakistani diaspora. And we aren’t. We’d also presumably see similar problems amongst the descendants of French migrants to Germany. And we aren’t.”

    The Hugenots were close enough to be assimilated. The Jewish communities were too small to assert themselves strongly – although, again, people like Eric Hobsbawm show that a lot of Jewish immigrants did hate us. But the Indians are not voting Tory. Don’t be so sure they don’t have their own ways of expressing their dislike.

    “In other words, it’s not genetic. Especially since Wahhabism doesn’t come from Pakistan — not even the same continent.”

    The Deobandis do. And it is the same continent. I would assume culture is most important but it doesn’t mean that there isn’t some genetic issue. Most Islamists strike me as Inbred retards. Which they may well be.

  106. @J77
    Churchill was held by the people I once “ran with” to have sold out the Imperial preference tariff system at the time of the Atlantic Charter when he failed to get the USA to enter the war but did enter into an agreement to get rid of the preferential tariffs (formulated in 1932 in Ottawa by I believe Neville Chamberlain ,son of Joseph Chamberlain who broke with laissez faire to promote the Imperial tariff system ).The clue was in the reference to Nova Scotia where the negotiations took place on ships in the harbour.
    Ethiopians are said to be good at long distance running because they live at altitude: altitude training is considered beneficial to long distance runners.
    I cannot be bothered with all the other personal comments and witless rudery :not a sufficient challenge.
    It is hardly surprising you people are so hostile to foreigners ; you cannot cope with people who have slightly different political opinions even those which are very much in the British grain.

  107. You’ve forgotten how to use the space bar again.

    We’re not ‘hostile to foreigners’ (at least, I’m not) but to dickheads. Hence, I like Thomas Sowell, but I don’t like you.

  108. “So, if you oppose “the West”, that proves that your grandparents weren’t British? Nonsense. Internal fights for the supremacy of ideas are a normal feature of all civilisations. What about English Nazis in the Thirties? Did they all have German grandparents? Come to that, were German Nazis all descended from Italians?”

    Reversion of a community of immigrants of a different race or culture, from apparent patriotism and Britishness in the first immigrant generation, to racially and culturally typical hatred of Western people and culture by the third suggests that the first generation were pretending to like Britain and the West to me. This is indicated by movement back towards the typical beliefs of that culture in subsequent generations. British people becoming Nazi sympathisers in WW2 is completely different since British people are not generally Nazis. i.e. in this case it looks like individuals simply being convinced by Nazi arguments. If British Nazi sympathisers did have German grandparents then this would indeed be significant. But it is not.

    “I really don’t understand this bizarre reluctance to acknowledge that ideas can spread from one brain to another, which has surely been the defining feature of the development of human civilisation for our entire history. Oh, no, it must all be hereditary. Feh.”

    Why does this particular idea seem to spread so disproportionately to people of Pakistani cultural and racial background with lovely Britain-loving grandparents? Why not to other British people?

    “there is no Pakistani race. The difference between Pakistan and India and Bangladesh is 100% cultural. And jihad is far more popular with descendants of Pakistani immigrants than with descendants of Indian immigrants. The problem is cultural.”

    This sounds like wishful thinking to me. I wager that you would find racial differences between families in India and Pakistan where different religions have been maintained over many generations and upon whom mass rape/murder has not been perpetrated by a different religious group. Of course cultural transmission of religion is the thing of primary importance in this particular case. Which is why Pakistanis were a particularly poor choice to import in the UK from the point of view of the British people. Nobody is arguing otherwise.

    “Specifically, the problem is the amount of oil money the Sauds have poured into Wahhabist evangelism.”

    Yes this is certainly a problem. But it is only a problem for us because those people didn’t remain in Pakistan.

    “More specifically, the problem is the self-hatred of our ruling and chattering classes that teaches British people that Britain is to be hated. Without the systematic destruction of patriotic pride, anti-British ideologies would find it far harder to get a foothold.”

    Import non-Western people and you end up with anti-Western ideologies.

    “Again, if this was a good point, we’d be seeing the same behaviour in the Indian diaspora as the Pakistani diaspora. And we aren’t. We’d also presumably see similar problems amongst the descendants of French migrants to Germany. And we aren’t.”

    As someone else said, what makes you think Indian Hindus and Sikhs love Britain and the West? I think that like Jews they just function better here than Pakistani Muslims.

  109. Interested tried this:

    We’re not ‘hostile to foreigners’ (at least, I’m not) but to dickheads. Hence, I like Thomas Sowell, but I don’t like you.

    I’m guessing you were guessing where to put the commas.

  110. Interested:

    “Tomsmith, I’d be more inclined to believe you were right (as opposed to thinking you’re completely wrong) if

    i) ‘they’ showed any sign of understanding the piss-up/brewery arrangement

    and

    ii) they themselves and their children/grand children etc were not going to live in the cauldron of hatred you suggest they foresaw and desired”

    i) Refer to the quote by Andrew Neather. It was certainly planned. Why?

    ii) I am not suggesting that they foresaw and desired a cauldron of hatred that might affect them. I would say that this is a miscalculation on their part.

    What I think various governments and civil service thinkers since the war did was to identify what they didn’t like about the British population, and then try to change it using the powers available to them.

    Immigrants tend to vote for more government, so they imported more immigrants. Educated people tend to vote for more government, so every child goes to university or some other training. People employed by the government vote for more government, so government size and scope was expanded. People under economic stress vote for more government, so various economic stresses are imposed. The unemployed poor vote for more government more often than the employed poor, so traditional working class means of earning money have been attacked. Traditional culture resists change; more government requires constant change, so traditional forms of everything are removed, changed, destroyed. A coherent national culture speaks with one voice on issues of national importance but a fractured multi-culture has no direction and is riven by internal conflict , so immigration and multiculturalism is promoted. And so on.

  111. @Arnald

    “I’m guessing you were guessing where to put the commas.”

    Arnald, as a native English speaker, I’m actually curious (and a willing learner) – go for it..:)

    @ Tom Smith

    “Educated people tend to vote for more government”

    Why do you say that? If you ignore the BBC / Guardian combination that is?

  112. @Tomsmith
    “What I think various governments and civil service thinkers since the war did was to identify what they didn’t like about the British population, and then try to change it using the powers available to them.”
    You’re neglecting an important principle of politics. Politicians in power & those thinking themselves likely to attain power, don’t do long term planning. They’re far too preoccupied with the electoral cycle The “A week is a long time in politics” phenomenon.
    If it was planned it, was planned by those out of power. The left of the Labour Party & those outside the party but of similar mind. Part of their long term strategy to gain power or ascendency.

  113. “If it was planned it, was planned by those out of power. The left of the Labour Party & those outside the party but of similar mind. Part of their long term strategy to gain power or ascendency.”

    The civil service is always in power

  114. @ DBC Reed
    Since Commonwealth Preference was sold out by Ted Heath in his negotiations to enter the Common Market nearly ten years after Churchill had died, you are merely demonstrating just how wrong you can be. There was fierce debate about the restriction of imports on New Zealand butter.
    Winston Churchill was an advocate of free trade in the 1920s, but out of power in the 1930s when firstly the Labour Minister J H Thomas messed up the conference designed to establish Commonwealth Preference as a major feature of trade and then the left-wing (“Liberal”) Canadian PM bowed to US pressure to abandon what there was.

  115. @ DBC Reed
    Britain imported sugar cane from the West Indies until it joined the EEC in the 1970s. The West Indians came over here to man London Transport and nurse in hospitals in the 1950s.
    Who do you think that you are kidding?

  116. Tomsmith,

    > Reversion of a community of immigrants of a different race or culture, from apparent patriotism and Britishness in the first immigrant generation, to racially and culturally typical hatred of Western people and culture by the third suggests that the first generation were pretending to like Britain and the West to me. This is indicated by movement back towards the typical beliefs of that culture in subsequent generations. British people becoming Nazi sympathisers in WW2 is completely different since British people are not generally Nazis. i.e. in this case it looks like individuals simply being convinced by Nazi arguments.

    Oh, I see. If white people adopt an evil ideology, it’s because they’ve been persuaded by the ideology, but when brown people adopt an evil ideology, it’s because brown people are evil. This is why we’ve been talking at cross-purposes: I was assuming that genetics, to whatever extent it applies, applies to the whole human race. But of course no, that’s ridiculous: white people have the ability to use rationality to overcome instinct, whilst brown people do whatever their flawed DNA tells them to. It’s so obvious.

  117. @S2

    I don’t buy his argument, either, but I can see the difference between reversion to a previous position and conversion to a new one.

    @PF He’s technically right, in a stopped clock sort of way. I shouldn’t have used the first comma after ‘hence’. That said, on the internet people tend to punctuate a little more ‘speechily’; there’s a difference between that and his mate DBC Spacebar’s constant use of ‘have n’t’, which is never right on the inter net or an yw here el se.

    @Tomsmith

    I’m not disputing that ‘they’ planned immigration (though I don’t accept Neather as the oracle); what I’m disputing is that they intended to ruin the country, a country in which they themselves would have to live with their children and grandchildren. That is, they didn’t foresee any problems with it, or, at least, thought any problems which arose would be amenable to some sort of legislative fix.

  118. > …the quickest runners in the world seem to be people from the West African diaspora, while those with the most astonishing endurance seem to be from the east of Africa.

    It is most unlikely – as the record books show – that anyone from a more European ancestry will win the Olympic 100m or marathon in the near future.

    Apparently, even people like you can accept this.

    Yet to notice other differences between groups is ‘racist’. It’s very odd.

    It’s not racist to notice differences between groups. It’s racist to assume that skin colour is a useful classification when the evidence from these runners is that it is not. It’s racist to assume that group genetics are the important thing without looking at environmental factors first. And it’s racist if, like one commentator here, there’s almost no subject you can discuss without specifying the skin colour of the people involved.

    Many world chess champions have been Russian or Jewish (Botvinnik was both). Could there be explanations other than the assumption that Russians and Jews are smarter that Northwest Europeans?

  119. @ Interested

    OK, I understand – though I’m not sure I agree!

    As the “hence” was linking the sentence before it, I’m not convinced it’s wrong to add a comma after it, ie to separate it from the clause that followed?

    Whatever, I agree it’s not important.

  120. Interested,

    > I don’t buy his argument, either, but I can see the difference between reversion to a previous position and conversion to a new one.

    Define “previous position”. If a bunch of English guys started accusing uppity women of witchcraft and killing them, would that count? That’s a tradition with a longer history in England than suffrage. If that started up, would anyone seriously try to blame genetics?

    Extremist Wahhabism in its current form is a recent invention. Pakistan in the 1970s did not export large numbers of young men who beheaded non-Muslims on camera. Young men who now behead non-Muslims on camera are not reverting to a position previously held by their grandparents; they are embracing a new ideology that did not exist in Pakistan when their grandparents lived there. Hence Naziism seems like a perfectly reasonable comparison.

    You could say that I’m being overly specific about tactics there and that the behaviour we’re really discussing is just the desire to build a nation-state composed purely of just one religion and the willingness to kill people of other religions to achieve that. But then it would be rather difficult for a European to claim that that’s behaviour specific to Pakistan or even Islam with a straight face, wouldn’t it?

  121. @Paul Boring

    ‘It’s not racist to notice differences between groups.’

    You do know you’re not the ‘racism’ police? Still, it’s nice to see you don’t see racists everywhere!

    Look, you dumbass, if you seriously think it’s all just a matter of environment I suggest you quit your job and employ Carl Lewis’s mum (or perhaps Usain Bolt’s) to train up white sprinters to win the Olympic and World Championships. You’ll make a fortune!

  122. @S2

    I dunno.

    To revert to killing witches, I would be going back to a clearly bonkers position held by no-one I know, and no-one remotely sensible in the last 400 years, albeit one that was held in this country.

    Whereas a young Pakistani lad in Bradford, maybe unemployed, maybe the victim of a bit of abuse, might romanticise himself as being part of a grand conquering army. The internet is full of young, dynamic co-religionists sticking it to the man, giving him something to follow and believe in etc.

    Basically they are Muslim hippies?

  123. “what I’m disputing is that they intended to ruin the country, a country in which they themselves would have to live with their children and grandchildren. That is, they didn’t foresee any problems with it, or, at least, thought any problems which arose would be amenable to some sort of legislative fix.”

    I don’t dispute this at all. I’ve probably been exaggerating a bit in an attempt to stir genuine responses but my basic argument still applies and of course planners plans turned out to be complete cock ups. Doesn’t mean they didn’t intend to do what they did or that population change wasn’t the goal. Read a bit of HG Wells for the flavour of this mindset.

  124. “Define “previous position”. If a bunch of English guys started accusing uppity women of witchcraft and killing them, blah, blah”

    Interested has answered this pretty well

  125. Whatever the reason for the current situation, how do you convince a nation with completely unrealistic and basically childish opinions of what is possible, which is infected with PC, and which is constantly undermined by a political class that seems to want the opposite of the average person, that they need to start deporting the unreformed traditionalists from a different culture who are vehemently opposed to everything we represent and who want to kill us either by chopping our heads off or raping us to death (usually depending on gender; sometimes both)?

  126. PaulB – “It’s not racist to notice differences between groups.”

    Hundreds of your Social Justice Warrior Siblings disagree.

    “It’s racist to assume that skin colour is a useful classification when the evidence from these runners is that it is not.”

    A 0.14% error rate. Skin colour is a very good system of classification, or at least was before people started moving. This is not a matter of personal opinion. This is Science!

    “It’s racist to assume that group genetics are the important thing without looking at environmental factors first.”

    I consistently prefer cultural and environmental factors. It is just that they are not always enough. We have had a lot of affirmative action. For 40 years. We have done everything we can to encourage BMEs and provide the right culture and environment. It does not work. We will, no doubt, try for another 40 years. How many decades of failing do you need before you will be willing to change your prejudices?

    “And it’s racist if, like one commentator here, there’s almost no subject you can discuss without specifying the skin colour of the people involved.”

    No doubt. But it is relevant? Is it true? They are the only issues that matters.

    “Many world chess champions have been Russian or Jewish (Botvinnik was both). Could there be explanations other than the assumption that Russians and Jews are smarter that Northwest Europeans?”

    Sure. The Soviets put a lot of time and money into chess. Not specifically into Jewish or Armenian or Georgian chess but chess in general. Didn’t get a lot of Uzbek champions. Did get a lot of Jewish ones. Perhaps it was discrimination. On the other hand, America put no money into chess. Yet their chess champions were also disproportionately Jewish. Maybe it is not an environment thing.

    It is a nice example for you to pick because you can be racist about Jews being *superior* to other White folk and get published. And there are people who publish saying that Ashkenazi Jews are genetically superior. Just as you can publish saying West African Blacks – no matter what environment they are raised in (whether it is in Jamaica or the US or even in France) – run fast for genetic reasons. You just can’t say they are academically slow for genetic reasons. Even Obama was happy to admit reading a book that made a genetic argument for Black sporting success.

  127. @ PaulB
    Do you mean Kasparov?
    Botvinnik was an atheist, Jewish by race, born in Finland.
    Apart from that I should support your argument – look at the success of British cycling since Chris Boardman made it, if not fashionable, at least respectable among young sportsmen.
    @ Squander Two
    “That’s a tradition with a longer history in England than suffrage.”
    Try learning how to add up and subtract.
    Suffrage in England re-started in 1660 after a brief inter-regnum, but if one if excludes the period of republican dictatorship suffrage in England is 738 years old.

  128. @John77

    ‘Apart from that I should support your argument – look at the success of British cycling since Chris Boardman made it, if not fashionable, at least respectable among young sportsmen.’

    John, no-one doubts that if 1,000 people from group A cycle and no-one from group B cycles that the best cyclists will emerge in group A.

    For quite a while, the leading Olympic sprinters in the world were white. Racism made it so, ironically.

    If I were Team Sky I would probably be out in Ethiopia and Kenya with some bikes, talent-spotting.

    As SMFS says, the reason Paul Boring and his mates don’t like this argument is because it cuts the other way.

    Certain groups of people are inarguably superior in physical ways; it seems likely, and not just based on what we see with our own eyes, that it holds true for intelligence and other attributes, too.

    That is a can of worms, I accept, and we should (IMO) be very careful with how we treat that information, but it does still seem to be true, and truth is what we should focus on – those of us interested in science, not voodoo.

  129. Interested,

    > To revert to killing witches, I would be going back to a clearly bonkers position held by no-one I know, and no-one remotely sensible in the last 400 years, albeit one that was held in this country.

    But that’s my point. What I’m arguing against is this nonsense that ideology can be blamed on genetics. In genetic terms, 400 years is nothing. The whole reason that we can think of 400 years as a long long time ago in terms of human behaviour is that human behaviour is shaped by culture, and culture can move fast. If we were talking about the inherent behaviour of any other species, we wouldn’t be looking at their grandparents, we’d be looking for clues in the fossil record.

    > Certain groups of people are inarguably superior in physical ways; it seems likely, and not just based on what we see with our own eyes, that it holds true for intelligence and other attributes, too.

    There is a huge difference between sport and ideology: in sport, it is the performance of exceptional individuals that we are interested in; with ideology, we care about the herd. The fact that there are loads of black guys who can’t run and loads of very fast white guys is immaterial when you’re only looking for the five or six fastest men in the world. And we could say the same about (a specific type of) intelligence when discussing chess champions. But, if our terrorism problem were the five or six most effective jihadis in the world, we wouldn’t have a problem. If we’re discussing herd behaviour — armies, say — the fact that tens of thousands of white guys are capable of running very very fast — even if not quite as fast as a few exceptional black guys — is important. And with ideology, it’s what people want to do that matters, not what they’re capable of — because their attempts, even if ultimately vain, can be seriously disruptive.

    Again: what distinguishes humans from other animals is our ability to overrule our own instincts. So it doesn’t particularly matter what those instincts are.

    Let’s say it’s true that black people have a greater genetic predisposition to violence. So what? I work with black people all the time, and they don’t beat me up. At school, I got more violence from the white kids than the black. I’m pretty sure that most people who live in cities regularly get the urge to punch or at least shove annoying strangers, and choose not to — I know I do. We know that a lot more human males have a genetic predisposition to rape than act on it. We don’t really care about people’s urges; we care about what they do. Studying genetics can (in some cases) tell us about the former, but not the latter.

    john77,

    I thought it was obvious from context that I was referring to women’s suffrage. Perhaps not.

  130. Sqaunder,

    I might have skipped some of the argument, but I don’t think the case is being made that “ideology is genetic”. But some elements of the human tabula not-rasa might be, in terms of personality. It may be that some groups are more violent due to (for instance) a different statistical distribution of hormonal responses, to another group. We all (presumably) agree that the reason I get “angry” and my body pumps full of hormones that cause me to be both prone to, and capable of, violent action is genetic.

    It is widely held indeed that men and women differ in this regard. It is not unreasonable to suggest that reproductively distinct populations might differ in degree.

    But whether or not that is the case, ideology and behaviour does map onto culture, and culture runs deep. This is one of the points I keep making in my “Puritan Hypothesis”; Europe is a “deep Christian” culture and those of us who believe we are atheists or “secular” still carry the legacy of Christian philosophy, culture and behaviour, both good and bad.

    At this point, ethnic groups or races map onto cultures, and thus we can make approximate claims regarding their tendencies in certain ways; regardless of genetics, because of historical cultural traits which are deep and persistent in peoples.

  131. Yes, but if it’s culture, the answer is to try and change it, not to say — as some here are — that it’s racially inherent and therefore unfixable.

  132. Speaking as a northern working class leftie I have to agree with Timmy’s assertion that most working class have no sophistication whatsoever, not like what I do

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.