Saturday, August 13, 2011


'Underclass' my foot: the 'riots' essentially were an attack by a migrant-enclave community on the host culture

Those who claim that the 'riots' were a phenomenon of 'the underclass' are wilfully ignoring the elephant(s) in the room.
I'm here replying to BBC Home Affairs editor Mark Easton's own blog -- myself and Mark having been in private email discussion.

The 'riots' were not started by 'the underclass': they appear to have been started by the community of Afro-Caribbean gangsters and their associates, as a ploy to impose costs on the police for their efforts to try to disrupt gangsterism through Operation Trident and associated activity; and in consequence to get the police to back off.
This was essentially an assault by one community on another: the entrenched Afro-Caribbean migrant enclave (the most visible and extreme elements of it, or wider sections of it led by extreme elements) on the host community -- if the latter could be considered sufficiently cohesive to be termed a community; which, of course, it no longer really is.

Mark chooses to restrict consideration to those who at most are merely the hangers-on to ethnic-gangster-based culture: those who at most have in part assimilated to 'black' culture even whether or not they possess the particular in-group marker of Afro-Caribbean ethnicity themselves. To these people the 'riots' were either just a fashion statement to which they were conforming, or -- showing even less agency -- simply normative behaviour they opportunistically piggy-backed to a minimal extent.

Anyone who has studied any social-psychology at all will recognise this sort of behaviour. Humans will conform to the most outrageous behaviour if they perceive it to be normative. Hence the famous Milgram experiments, where perfectly normal and average individuals administered what they were led to believe were painful electric shocks to others, even up to lethal levels, simply because they were instructed to do so.
As Peter Hitchens remarked (BBC Radio 4 Any Questions last night): most of those initially picked up by the police were the numpties that in their keenness to display that they were street-cred sheep were too stupid not to still be there when the police finally bothered to do something. They are hardly the criminals who instigated the 'riots', but just those who came along to gate-crash the party.
So it was that amongst the first to be charged were several who could in no way be characterisable as 'underclass', who may now be mightily embarrassed that they were so stupid, or may salve their cognitive-dissonance by seeking to justify their actions as being akin to seeing a common commodity item lying on the floor and just picking it up to take home -- which in the context of what had indeed become normative behaviour, indeed is just about what their behaviour amounted to. Both of these responses are acutely evident in comments to reporters by many of those who took part and now look back on their behaviour in the cold light of day.

This is not to excuse follow-up opportunistic looting of stores already ransacked, but to put the 'riots' in its various aspects into a proper perspective; which to a committed relativist, as any BBC journalist PC-fascist has to be, would be easy to appreciate if PC-fascism had any internal logic!

I don't downplay the aping of 'black' culture: it's a measure of just how culturally dispossessed we have become under PC-fascist onslaught and the massive growth of migrant enclaves and the entrenchment of migrant-enclave sociality this has facilitated. The famously rude historian David Starkey sussed this well enough in his interesting and forceful comments on BBC2 Newsnight last night. Yet in showing an understanding of the 'black'-aping 'white' 'underclass', he too fails to understand that the root of the 'riots' is inter-communal conflict. He was explicit that he thought the violence was not inter-communal, and even went so far as to say that Enoch Powell had got it wrong in this respect: that Powell was right that immigration would destroy us, but by a different process. Part of Starkey's error is that he seems not to understand the wider context of the de facto 'war' being waged by our elite against the rest of us that is PC-fascism. There surely will be inter-communal strife well enough when everyone wakes up to that.

It speaks volumes about the media and the BBC in particular that none of this fairly obvious analysis can be seen through the standard government-media-education uber-class PC-fascist blinkers that pretty well all BBC employees possess as a mindset in order to have obtained and to retain their jobs.
As ever, ordinary people are to be condemned and, if possible, criminalised; whereas those who are PC-identified as members of spurious 'disadvantaged' groups are to be supported and pitted against ordinary people as agents of the 'progressive project', as it were.
Even apart from the blinkers of a PC-fascist ethos, I'm constantly amazed at the sheer ignorance of the dynamics of human sociality displayed by political commentators; but then that is only too true of sociologists. Until everyone -- and especially journalists and sociologists -- are required to properly study biology, thereby to appreciate sociality as explained 'from the bottom up', then hopelessly false analysis will continue to prevail.

Friday, August 12, 2011


That the 'riots' were caused by ethnic-enclaving is shown by the pattern of spread

The fully expected 'sweeping under the carpet' progresses, as with the analysis today on BBC News by the BBC's Home Affairs editor, Mark Easton, who said that the 'riots' were "not about 'race' "
Indeed they are not about 'race' in the sense of being some sort of protest by a particular ethnicity, but the 'riots' were predominantly caused by the in-group psychology that produces the cultural enclaves that even longstanding migrants of some ethnicities are usually to be found.

That the several-days-long 'uprising'indeed was centrally caused by 'race' -- or, rather, 'culture' attached to 'race' -- could not be more evident in the pattern of how it started and spread across the country. It was in the order of cities according to size of Afro-Caribbean sub-population: from Tottenham within London, to first Birmingham, then Bristol and Liverpool, plus Nottingham, and then to Manchester; hardy at all to Leicester (which has only a small A-C sub-population), NOT AT ALL to the massive city of Sheffield (which has few A-Cs), and to Yorkshire to the only place where there is any concentration of A-Cs: the small area of Leeds called Chapeltown.
Yes, there were white, mainly underclass 'hangers on', but this is testament to just how much ethnic-African and specifically Afro-Caribbean gang culture has prospered, and how much the culture of those who are towards the foot of the indigenous ('host') population has not.

The problem is the entrenchment of profound 'in-grouping' in even long-established migrant enclaves: the very opposite of integration.
Wider issues of social breakdown are themselves in substantial part contingent on this main issue of migrant enclave in-grouping; and in any case, are not least both caused by and are a manifestation of the contempt by the government-media-education uber-class for the mass of ordinary people in the backlash of 'PC-fascism' -- which is, of course, why mass immigration had been deliberately foisted on us in the first place.

Nobody at the BBC can come clean about this, because they have to tow the line of the standard 'PC-fascist' ethos (fully internalised as it is at the BBC as in all other parts of the establishment) in order to hang on to their jobs. So this is no dig at Mark, who's a nice chap.  Rather, it's in some sympathy with him.

Sunday, August 07, 2011


Tottenham: ethnic-enclaving is growing, not fading; and anyone can see where that is going

The complete failure of integration even of third-generation migrants following uncontrolled immigration has been all too well illustrated by the events in Tottenham overnight, which replicate the Broadwater Farm and nationwide inner-city uprisings against the host culture of a generation ago.
Media – the BBC especially – predictably fail to mention the ethnicity of the man that an armed police response team shot dead in Tottenham: Mark Duggan is, of course, black. Everybody well knows that ethnic-minority enclave versus host-community conflict is what this is all about. Yet again we go through the ridiculous brushing-under-the-carpet at which the media and the BBC in particular are so adept.
Hilariously, the media is afraid that mere mention of reality will boomerang their bogus charges of 'racism' back in their own faces. The conflict is, of course, not about 'race' but about culture. Ethnicity is merely a marker. Everyone knows individuals of various ethnic minorities who are if anything more culturally English/British/European – however you wish to term it – than they are themselves. Not only are such people no problem to us: they readily become members of our 'in-groups' (to use a term from psychology and sociology). So much for supposed ineradicable 'racism'.
It is plain for all to see that many migrant enclaves persist with not just no sign of breaking down under assimilation to the host community, but actually strengthen. Anyone would intuit that this would occur. It's basic human behaviour.
Recent research has shown that in-group/out-group psychology is much more to do with in-group 'love' than it is about out-group 'hate'. That is, the psycho-social force that establishes and maintains a group such as a migrant enclave is not hostility from without, but cohesion from within. The indigenous 'white' community is not responsible for ethnic ghettoisation; it is ethnic grouping by minorities that itself produces ghettoisation.
Of course, the more that our completely uncontrolled immigration is allowed to continue, the larger and more specific the plethora of migrant enclaves we host becomes. We know from the example of many Muslim migrant enclaves that far from the predicted assimilation, a third-generation population actually is less integrated into the mainstream than are more recent newer arrivals, and than were these very communities in their first generation.
It is not merely that integration has completely failed: the very reverse has occurred. Migrant-enclaving has become ever further entrenched. As enclaves have grown in size through so-called chain-migration, natural specialisation by those within the enclave means an ever declining need for the enclave to integrate with the host community at its margins.
Given the huge numbers of people involved, no pessimism of any kind is required to see that what we have here is a social disaster of monumental proportions; and that's even before you take into consideration the great driving force for inter-cultural conflict that is the intrinsically conflictual religion (as scholarship reveals) of Islam. The enclaving of ethnic Africans in parts of London in comparison to much Muslim enclaving looks more like a multi-cultural success story, but as overnight events reveal, this is to say the least superficial. 
To reiterate: the scenario is one of inter-cultural conflict, with ethnicity being merely a marker in all this.
This has been self-inflicted, as it were; that is, inflicted on the rest of us by a government-media-education uber-class that hates the mass of ordinary people through the immense backlash of 'political-correctness' by those of a political-Left mindset who cannot reconcile in their minds their ethos with the refusal by 'the workers' ever to buy revolutionary socialism and 'the progressive project'. It is the greatest political fraud in history: the most spectacular example of taking the ball home and refusing to play. For taking down with them the society that, as any society, would not change into something entirely foreign to human-nature; the malicious fools responsible will be cursed forever.

Monday, August 01, 2011


Anders Breivik and his manifesto: a great deal of nonsense has been written

A great deal of nonsense has been written about Anders Breivik, the man who ruthlessly attacked the ruling Norwegian Labour Party.
That pretty well everyone – myself not excluded – recoiled at his actions, does not belie the accuracy of Breivik's research and analysis in his 'manifesto', which is in line with most scholarship in respect of both PC and Islam.
It is clear that the mass of ordinary people are considered with utter contempt by the government-media-education uber-class across the Western world; this as the result of 'cultural Marxism'. So we are, in effect, 'at war' within our societies over PC, as Breivik claims.
And Islam seems not to be a benign religion that is toxic only to the extent that some have adopted a veneer of Western revolutionary thinking after Marx to produce a fundamentalism. Breivik makes an exhaustively detailed convincing case that the problem is inherent in the core of the religion itself and how it is interpreted generally; contrary to what I have previously understood (until recent reading of scholars had already set me along these lines).

It is not through any Christian religiosity that Breivik arrives at his position: he is not in any way a practising Christian, let alone a Christian fundamentalist as has been claimed -- or, rather, guessed. But it is when he gets on to Christianity in his 'manifesto' that Breivik's thesis seems to me perhaps to be weak.
A Christian based governance is inherently "serving" and therefore not as corruptible as other forms, Breivik argues. But what about the evidence from history – and, yes, this is a long time ago, granted – of the corrupt payments for 'indulgences'? He says that whereas "Liberal modernity" is down to "a God of Mammon" and Islam is "the will of God in Sharia"; with Christianity "the government is first accountable to the revealed will of God". Well, isn't this just any projection those in power care to think up? Looking at our own Christian leaders, currently this seems to be PC.
Christianity has to rise again, Breivik hopes: presumably he thinks (correctly) that religion in some form is inevitable, so that rather than the humanism that simply substituted mankind for God to beget Marxism, we'd be better off with the status quo ante. This is similar to the positions of Franco and Hirohito, who sought not the revolutionary overthrow of elites in the interests of the masses -- as would Marxists and their very close brothers the fascists – but merely to bolster fading national religions (Catholicism and Shintoism) and monarchies. Yet is it not something more than mere optimism to expect that some return to rationality will replace PC-fascism after it implodes?

As for his take on the gender [sic] aspect of PC, it may be that Breivik was influenced by his immediate family background. He had a relationship with his family members, excepting his father, who left the family when Anders was aged just one. He always maintained full contact with his mother, notwithstanding lamenting what he regarded as her promiscuity. This Breivik blames on the moral relaxing that attended PC, though it seems more likely that this was an association rather than that PC was the major causal factor (PC in any case not being a significant presence at this time). Surely it was instead down to the advent in the 1960s of near-infallible contraception, which relieved men of the obligation to enter 'shotgun marriage'. [This is the basis of the 'great disruption', as Francis Fukuyama terms the social change Breivik bemoans.]
It may be that his early experiences and how he reviewed them in later life are a critical part of Breivik's motivation to move from what is a worthy analysis to the sort of violence few would contemplate (at least seriously), let alone carry out. Maybe we will get to know in time, after the wild speculations have evaporated and a more dispassionate focus comes to bear.

A loner Breivik appears not to be: he had friends. There is no evidence that Breivik is insane or even psychopathic: his calmness during the attack does not mean that he would be indifferent to people in other situations. He's intelligent, well-educated, and very capable of clear thought – though whether or not he 'over-thought' regarding strategy is another question. Though his actions may turn out to be counter-productive, at least for now he's succeeded more than anyone else in prompting a very widespread focus on the major problem that is PC. That can hardly be denied.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?