Friday, 2 December 2016
For those who've never heard of Dianne Abbott: she's a high-ranking and well-known British politician. In October, the British Labour Party appointed her as Shadow Home Secretary. (She first became an Member of Parliament in 1987.)
Abbott was given the job of Shadow Home Secretary by the “radical” Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn. Abbott had a relationship with Corbyn in the late 1970s.
Rather predictably, Dianne Abbott is a strong supporter of Black Lives Matter. She recently addressed a meeting on the subject organised by the Socialist Workers' Party offshoot, Stand Up To Racism. It also seems that Abbott's a keen fan of the “race-baiter” Al Sharpton, whom she met in October. (Abbott has been called “Britain's Al Sharpton”.)
One can see Abbott's racial obsessions when looking over her career. For example, she chairs the All-Party Parliamentary British-Caribbean Group and the All-Party Sickle Cell and Thalassemia Group. The latter are two diseases that disproportionately affect black people.
Abbott is also founder of the London Schools and the Black Child initiative.
Closer to the present day, the University of London held a “a celebration of black identity” (in 2012) to honour Dianne Abbott's quarter-of-a-century in Parliament. This included a concert which included Linton Kwesi Johnson and Kadija Sesay. I assume that most – or all – of the other performers were black too.
Dianne Abbott's Racism
Dianne Abbott began her racist career in 1988, when, at a black studies conference in Philadelphia, she claimed that "the British invented racism”.
Despite that, we'll begin Abbott's story of racism in 1996.
In that year, she referred to the nurses at a local hospital as "blonde, blue-eyed Finnish girls". No doubt they weren't all blue-eyed or all blonde; yet alone all blue-eyed and blonde. However, racists such as Abbott like to generalise. So why did Abbott make this comment? She did so because she believed that these Finnish nurses had "never met a black person before". Did she really know that they'd never met a black person before? Of course not. Would her words have been acceptable even if they hadn't seen a black person before? No, it would have been racist.
Dianne Abbott came in for a lot of stick for this comment; even from Marc Wadsworth, who was executive member of the Anti-Racist Alliance at the time.
Nonetheless, another race-baiter, the black Labour MP Bernie Grant, came to Abbott's defence. He said:
"Bringing someone here from Finland who has never seen a black person before and expecting them to have to have some empathy with black people is nonsense. Scandinavian people don't know black people—they probably don't know how to take their temperature".
Bernie Grant too was generalising; at least according to the aforementioned Marc Wadsworth. Wadsworth (who's half-Finnish) pointed out that the then Miss Finland, Lola Odusoga, was black and of both Finnish and Nigerian descent. And, like Abbott herself, Bernie Grant wouldn't have known that these Finnish nurses had never met a black person before. (As for the bit about taking temperatures?) This didn't matter. Bernie Grant and Dianne Abbott were really demanding black nurses for black patients.
Let's move to January the 4th, 2012. Abbott tweeted the following:
"White people love playing 'divide and rule' We should not play their game."
This is profoundly racist; except, of course, it can't be because Dianne Abbott is black. Abbott believes that all “[w]hite people love playing 'divide and rule'” and all whites play the same game. Is that also true of anti-racist whites like the socialist members of her own Labour Party (such as her ex-lover, Jeremy Corbyn)? Or are they honourable (white) exceptions?
Of course political divide and rule has existed as long as long as civilisation has existed. So to single out whites is, well, racist. Indeed by saying that “whites play 'divide and rule'”, Abbott herself was playing divide and rule – even if for her own team.
Needless to say, this racist outburst of Abbott's led to large-scale accusations of racism.
Abbott was told by her own party (the Labour Party) that the comment was unacceptable. Thus she did indeed end up apologising for "any offence caused". She claimed that she hadn't intended to "make generalisations about white people". Of course she did! But she was caught out and therefore she knew she simply had to apologise in order to save her career. And, like a typical politician, she apologised in a sincere act of hypocrisy.
Even the Deputy Prime Minister at the time, Nick Clegg, called Abbott's comments "a stupid and crass generalisation". However, Nadhim Zahawi, a Conservative MP, summed it up perfectly when he said:
"This is racism. If this was a white member of Parliament saying that all black people want to do bad things to us he would have resigned within the hour or been sacked."
No Mr Zahawi, blacks can't be racist! Haven't you read any Marxist theory?
Despite the many complaints to the Metropolitan Police about Abbott's racism, the police said that she “did not commit a criminal offence”. You see, the bosses of the Met know their Marxist theory too. (All that “diversity training” and “community cohesion” stuff.) The Metropolitan Police is yet another organisation which the Left has taken over. This, of course, doesn't mean that every cop in the rank and file is a Leftist. It simply doesn't need to be the case that all cops are Leftists. If the leadership is Leftist, then that's all that counts. (Think here of the Trotskyists/Marxists who lead and run the National Union of Teachers and the National Union of Journalists.)
Abbott is also a hypocrite in other respects.
Abbott, as a socialist, fiercely criticised her political colleagues for sending their children to private and/or selective schools. (E.g., Abbott was a unappeasable critic of fellow snobby Labourite Harriet Harman who, in 1997, had decided to send her own children to a grammar school.) In 2003, Abbott sent her own son to the the private City of London School. That must mean that what she did was "indefensible" and "intellectually incoherent" because that's precisely what she said about the other people who'd sent their kids to private and grammar schools.
The plot of this story is even thicker than that.
It involves the added bonus of Abbott's well-known and well-documented racism.
When Abbott was a guest on the BBC Two show, The Week, she defended her stance by saying: “West Indian mums will go to the wall for their children.” The host of this show, Andrew Neil, reacted by asking Abbott if she thought that “black mums love their kids more than white mums”.
Is it even true that West Indian mothers go to the wall for their children? What? All of them? I don't think so.
The Marxist Theory of Racism
Dianne Abbott has a long history of making racist comments. Except that she won't see any of them as being racist. Why is that? Well, according to Marxist theory, blacks simply can't be racists. Only whites can be racist. That's because “whites have political and economic power”; whereas blacks do not. Thus, as I said, none of Abbott's statements were racist – according to both Abbott herself and Marxist theory.
And since only people with political and economic power can be racist, I wonder how this applies to Abbott herself. After all, Abbott went to Cambridge University, where she studied with the luvvie Simon Schama. After that, from 1986 to 1987, she worked as a Race Relations Officer and became Head of Press and Public Relations at Lambeth Council. She them became an MP. She's also served on various Parliamentary committees. And so on and so on.
Now that's a lot of political power. Nonetheless, I'd expect Abbott to claim that when it's said that “blacks have no power”, that's meant in the sense that blacks as a whole have no power. How convenient. Perhaps blacks can't be snobs (like Abbott herself), paedophiles, killers, etc. either. In other words, this prejudice-not-racism theory effectively infantalizes blacks.
If you think I'm being conspiratorial about this, simply type in the words “black people can only be prejudiced, never racist” (don't use inverted commas) into Google. And then read the pages and pages of Marxist/Leftist theory which tell us, in all seriousness, that no black person can ever be racist. Read it and laugh.
Monday, 28 November 2016
The Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, is being asked (by a Labour MP) to classify Britain First as a “terrorist organisation”; and, following that, to ban (or “proscribe”) it.
Labour’s Louise Haigh has suggested giving the House of Commons a chance to approve adding Britain First to the list of banned organisations.
This “proscription” will be - if made law - deeply undemocratic. It will make it a criminal offence for people to belong to Britain First. Not only that: it will be a criminal offence to even encourage the support of Britain First. The same goes for arranging meetings in support of the party. And to top all that: if you wear Britain First clothing, you'll be arrested and possibly imprisoned.
Now this is what Louise Haigh MP wants for Britain in 2016. Can you believe it?
As Louise Haigh herself put it:
“... can we have a debate about whether Britain First should be proscribed as a terrorist organisation and banned from standing in democratic elections?”
Still, all is not lost; at least as far as Britain First is concerned. As the Leader of the House, David Lidington, put it (in a tacit defence of democracy):
“There have been cases in the past where organisations have been so proscribed, have gone to the courts and successfully won a judicial review to say that the evidence on which that action had been taken was not sufficient.
“So, I’ll make sure that your proposal is reported to the Home Secretary but there has to be clear evidence of terrorist involvement for the terrorist proscription to be applied.”
Before that, Lidington had also said:
“I can’t offer a debate. As you probably know, the Home Office brings forward orders for the proscription of particular organisations but must do so on the basis of evidence.”
Can you the imagine the audacity and sheer stupidity of such a demand to ban a political group? It's both philosophically illiterate and politically extreme. Hasn't MP Haigh ever heard the phrase “correlation doesn't imply causation”?
As far as I know, the killer of Jo Cox (Thomas Mair) wasn't a leader or even a member of Britain First. He has neither been on a Britain First demonstration nor attended a meeting.
Yet simply because he shouted “Britain First” during the killing of Jo Cox, an opportunistic Corbynite MP is calling for the banning of a political group.
Needless to say, similar demands were once made about both the British National Party and the English Defence League. And some left-wingers have even said the same about Ukip!
Let's face facts here: all right-wing and/or patriotic groups (outside the Conservative Party) should be banned, according to many “progressives” – especially Corbynistas like Louise Haigh. Let's state another fact: the forbears of Louise Haigh once classified the Conservative Party as “fascist” and/or “racist” in the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990. (Some still do; and the Tories should bear this in mind!)
Is an image of the Gulag beginning to form in your mind?
The killer of Jo Cox shouted “Britain First”. Louise Haigh is a member of a party that is (in parts) rampantly anti-Jewish. So much so that it has been officially investigated (by a Labour baroness!) to that effect. There's more: Haigh is supporter of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign; which has numerous links to Palestinian terrorists. (Take one example. The PSC funded the ship the MV Mavi Marmara (of the “Gaza flotilla”); which contained many well-documented terrorists and Islamists and a large stash of weapons. Some of these weapons would have been intended – at some point - to be used on Israeli citizens.)
Since we're on this theme. Does Haigh support Black Lives Matter?
Yes she does. There are links between Black Lives Matter and support for the killing of 28 policemen in the United States; as well as 11 cop-killings by BLM activists. Haigh's boss, Jeremy Corbyn, was himself very closely attached to - and supportive of - the IRA (as well as of Hamas, Hezbollah) from the 1980s up until the 1990s.
On a final technical note. when Thomas Mair shouted “Britain First!”, how do we know that he was referring to the political party? Perhaps he shouted “Britain first!”, rather than “Britain First!”. After all, Britain First itself chose that title because the words “Britain first” have often been uttered by all sorts of patriots and patriotic groups. And even by a few Conservative MPs!
Wednesday, 23 November 2016
Jeremy Corbyn has retrospectively repudiated the fringe "alt-left" group Momentum for publicly celebrating his election as leader of the Labour Party back in September. At that celebration, according to “Zionist sources”, Corbynites raised their fists and sang the Red Flag anthem.
In a far-ranging interview with the Islington Dinner Party Times, “Jezza the Gezzer” Corbyn (who was educated at the private Castle House School) was quoted as saying: "I condemn them. I disavow, and I condemn them. And I disavow and condemn them too."
Corbyn said he didn't want to "publicly energise" alt-left groups, which include neo-Communists, retro-Socialists, Socialist Internationals, Islamosocialites, anti-Semit...Zionists, and Trotskyians.
Alt-left supporters were filmed (by Red Ken Loach) on Saturday in Islington cheering as a speaker shouted: "Vive la revolution! Death to all neoliberal pigs! Pay rises for Marxist professors!”
In the video, a leader of the "alt-left" movement told a conference of Corbynistas that the UK belongs to the Vanguard of the Working Class, whom he described as “Patriarchs of the Children of Toil".
Chairman Moo denounced the movement's critics as "the most despicable Nazifascistracist creatures who'd ever walked the planet".
The gathering on Saturday drew protesters who blocked traffic around the Che Guevara Building and Safe Space Centre in Islington's socialist-dinner-party district.
Reichskanzler Angela von Turtle expressed no concern at all that Mr Corbyn's leadership of the Labour Party has given succour to extremely moderate Trotskyists and communards (such as the Socialist Workers Party, Left Unity, Alliance For Workers' Liberty, etc. - all of whom supported Corbyn).
A senior official close to Mrs Turtle described the infamous "Comrade Corbyn!" video as "a video".
|"I'm a center-Left democrat."|
But Mr Corbynoid stood by his Chief Communist and Director of Communications, Seumus Milne, when the latter started instigating plans for a Gulag for the “far right” somewhere “up North”. (Milne is an ex-Winchester [private] College fag and former associate editor of The Guardian newspaper.) Corbyn bristled at claims that the newspaper was associated with the Socialist Dinner Party Movement.
"The Guardian is just a unbiased, fair and brilliant publication. They cover stories like you cover stories," he told the Islington Dinner Party Times.
"If I thought supporters were a racist towards working-class whites and right-wing Jews, I wouldn't even think about hiring them", he said of Seumus “Beria” Milne.
This is a partial rewriting of (yet another) BBC article on Donald Trump and the alt-right movement: 'Trump disavows alt-right supporters'.
Donald Trump has called for Ukip's interim leader, Nigel Farage, to become the British Ambassador to the United States. Trump said:
“Many people would like to see Nigel Farage represent Great Britain as their Ambassador to the United States. He would do a great job!”
Personally, I don't think that would be a good move on Farage's part. It would be a step down; even though Farage would be ambassador to the world's most powerful country. Besides which, it may tie him too closely to the current British Conservative Government; which, again, I don't think would be such a good thing. I say this because Farage and Ukip have very little in common with today's Conservative Party and most Tories don't have much respect for Farage and Ukip.
In any case, since Trump won the election, perhaps he and other sympathetic Americans should be helping Farage and Ukip, not the other way around. (Then again, it can be argued that Farage helping Trump is an indirect way of Farage helping Great Britain.)
If Farage did become the British ambassador to the U.S., he'd be the most senior diplomat in Washington. Yet, from that position, I'd guess that he'd have little chance to do the political things he'd like to do.
Farage was nonetheless “flattered” by the idea of becoming an ambassador. Though, despite being flattered, he doesn't want the job. As Farage himself said:
“I don’t think I will be the ambassadorial type. Whatever talents or flaws I have got I don’t think diplomacy is at the top of my list of skills.”
So it's not a surprise that the British Government has said that there's “no vacancy” anyway. The current ambassador - Sir Kim Dorroch - sent a memo to Downing Street which said that he and other UK diplomats were “well placed” to deal with Trump's presidency and everything which flows from it. In addition to that, a Government official said that the UK Gov. has “excellent ambassadors to the US”.
In view of Sir Kim's words, Farage said that it was “obvious” that the current Ambassador to the United States should resign. Why? Because this man, in Farage's words, is part of the “old regime”. Yes, an old regime which has enthused about the European Union; encouraged mass immigration; banned American and Dutch dissidents (e.g., Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer and Geert Wilders); allowed Muslim ghettos, halal slaughter and sharia law to mushroom; and so on.
Moreover, according to Sky News, Farage went on to say that Sir Kim's
“ world view, and the world view of the Trump team are going to be diametrically opposed and I would have thought it would be sensible to put someone there who was likely to get on with Team Trump”.
Nonetheless, Farage has said that he'd “love to help” deal with Team Trump; though not as an ambassador. Indeed he likes the idea of being the U.K and U.S's go-between. That's why he said that the British Prime Minister's stance against such a position is “nonsense”. Not only that: Theresa May should put “petty personal differences” aside.
Farage has also said that some of the British politicians who've been "openly abusive about Trump” are “now pretend[ing] to be his friend".
Farage went on to say:
"It is career politics at its worst and it is now getting in the way of the national interest. I have said since the now famous photograph with Donald Trump 10 days ago that I would do anything to help our national interest and to help cement ties with the incoming Anglophile administration. I have known several of the Trump team for years and I am in a good position with the president-elect's support to help. The world has changed and it's time that Downing Street did too."
Finally, American readers may also recall that Farage has already campaigned with Trump in Mississippi (last August); when thousands of Americans turned up to listen to Trump speak. At the time Trump described Farage as “the man behind Brexit”. Trump also predicted that the U.S. election would be “Brexit plus plus plus”.
Tuesday, 22 November 2016
What is surprising is the amount of people who fall into the trap of blaming others for Arabic violence and Islamic fanaticism – or at least they've done so in the case of the Iraq War. Has everyone bought into this “narrative” (a favourite word of Leftists) on Iraq?
So who was – and still is - to blame for the violence in Iraq? Not ISIS, Iraqi Muslims, Shia/Sunni militia and terrorists, Baath party members, etc. Not in the slightest. Muslims, it seems, are never to blame when in comes to the racist Left; which sees all Muslims as children who are incapable of behaving humanely or decently. Instead it's all the fault of Blair, or Bush, or the “neocons”, or global warming (as The Guardian and Noam Chomsky have it), or whoever.
Yes, it may be absolutely true that Tony Blair shouldn't have intervened in 2003. It may also be true that he's power-mad lunatic who wanted (or still wants) to go down in history as a great statesman. Nonetheless, what he did, he did some 14 years ago and the violence is still with us. Sure, we stayed in Iraq until 2009/11; though in 2007 Blair resigned and then more or less disappeared from the political scene.
Tony Blair attempts to legitimise his position on Iraq by using a quote from an Iraqi woman – formerly a victim of Saddam Hussein. According to Blair:
“I still keep in my desk a letter from an Iraqi woman who came to see me before the war began. She told me of the appalling torture and death her family had experienced having fallen foul of Saddam's son. She begged me to act.”
“After the fall of Saddam she returned to Iraq. She was murdered by sectarians a few months later. What would she say to me now?” (479)
As I will say a few times in this piece, many haters of Blair will simply say that he's lying about this. (After all, Blair is “Bliar”, isn't he?) The basic gist here is that Blair thought he was doing good. Nonetheless, he accepts that his actions had disastrous consequences. Thus are critics of Blair critical because Blair couldn't predict the future? Or are they critical because, in his heart of hearts, Blair knew that mass violence and terrorism would be the result of the intervention in 2003?
Tony Blair also confronts Saddam's crimes head-on when he quotes himself speaking in Glasgow in October 2002 (on the same day as the mass protests). He told the audience that “'tens of thousands of political prisoners languish in appalling conditions in Saddam's jails and are routinely executed'” (426). He also said that “'in the past fifteen years over 150,000 Shia Muslims in southern Iraq and Muslim Kurds in northern Iraq have been butchered'”. Finally, he said that “'up to four million Iraqis in exile round the world including 350,000 now in Britain'”.
Following on from that, and in the same speech, he singles out the hypocrisy of the “anti-war” Left. He said:
“'There will be no march for the victims of Saddam, no protests about the thousands of children who die needlessly every year under his rule, no righteous anger over the torture chambers which if he is left in power will be left in being.'” (426)
Of course the revolutionary - and even moderate - Left didn't march against Saddam Hussein. Saddam had brown skin and he didn't rule a “Western capitalist state”. Thus his crimes were of no interest to most – if not all – Leftists. That's unless links could be found which connected Saddam to the UK, US and the West generally. And, of course, links were made; though they were made primarily after the intervention of 2003.
Tony Blair also argues that, as philosophers put it, there was no necessary connection between removing Saddam Hussein and the mass violence which followed (mainly a couple of years later, according to Blair). As Blair himself puts it:
“The notion that what then happened was somehow the ineluctable consequence of removing Saddam is just not right. There was no popular uprising to defend Saddam. There was no outpouring of anger at the invasion. There was, in the first instance, relief and hope.” (465)
What ruined all this was that “tribal, religious and criminal groups [decided] to abort the nascent democracy and try to seize power” (465). What's more, Blair believed that “if the terrorists could cause chaos, the resulting fear and security clampdown would become a signal that the mission had failed” (465).
Again, should Blair have known all this would have happened in a (typical?) Arab country?
Thus not all the blame for the Iraq War can be placed in the hands of Blair and Bush... at least not according to Blair himself. He tells us that “it is instructive to read the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 passed by President Clinton” (385). In more detail:
“It was then that US policy became regime change, but it did so – as the Act makes clear – because the WMD issue and Saddam's breach of UN resolutions.” (385)
Of course it can now be said: But Clinton didn't invade Iraq. Blair and Bush did! We can also ask if Clinton would have intervened in Iraq had he the chance and/or reason to do so. I believe that at some point, had he retained power, Clinton might well have invaded Iraq. (Let's not forget here that Clinton had already bombed Iraq in 1998).
*) All quotations are from Tony Blair's autobiography, My Journey.
Thursday, 17 November 2016
A left-leaning British news outlet has just keenly informed us that Nigel Farage was the first British politician to meet Donald Trump after the US election. Needless to say, we were meant to read something very deep and very meaningful hidden within those informative lines. Something sinister, perhaps; such as Trump agreeing with Farage – or Farage agreeing with Trump - on certain things.
So, yes, Farage met Trump before the British Prime Minister met Trump. What should we conclude from this? Some people have said that this made the British PM look “very foolish”. Indeed Theresa May won't be meeting Trump until next year; by which time, no doubt, she'll have had time to see how the political cookie has been crumbling. (Mrs May plans to visit Trump in the first three months of 2017.) Nonetheless, May has spoken to Trump by telephone. That, of course, is a very formal procedure which is expected from every British PM after an American election. Did she offer Trump some advice on how to deal with the Muslim Brotherhood/CAIR? No; don't be silly!
On top of all that, there's even been talk of Farage being a “go-between” for the British PM and Trump. That, of course, implies that Theresa May will need a go-between.
As for the title of this piece, a Ms Kellyanne Conway (Trump's spokeswoman) said that Trump and Farage "enjoy each other's company and they had the opportunity to talk about freedom and winning and what all this means for the world". Conway also said, rather unoriginally, that the meeting had been "very productive".
After the meeting, Farage himself said:
"It was a great honour to spend time with Donald Trump. He was relaxed, and full of good ideas. I'm confident he will be a good president. His support for the US-UK relationship is very strong. This is a man with whom we can do business."
Despite all that, the British Government has said that UKip's Farage will have "no role" in the Conservative Government's relationship with the new US administration. That's hardly surprising. If that were the case, then that too would be embarrassing for the Conservative Party. That's unless the Tory Party thinks that keeping a healthy political distance from Trump will benefit it in the long (or short) term. I doubt that! The Tories should take heed of what the US election and the EU referendum results have implicitly said to the establishment and/or the elite: namely, “Listen to the people!” On the other hand, any attempt by Theresa May and Co. to become newbie “British Trumps” will quickly be seen through! To be honest, most current Tory MPs and leaders share very little with Trump. Indeed most are ostentatiously proud of that fact.
On another point and during the aforementioned meeting, Farage asked Mr Trump to return a bust of Sir Winston Churchill to the White House Oval Office. Farage said he'd been "especially pleased" by Trump's "very positive reaction" to the idea of the bust returning. The said bust was removed by (then) President Obama as soon as he arrived in the White House. Obama, quite possibly, simply didn't have much time for Dead White Males. He does, however, have much time for Dead Black Males like Martin Luther King. (Obama substituted the bust of Churchill with the bust of Martin Luther King.) Whether or not Obama “snubbed” the Brits because of this, I'll leave the reader to decide. Nonetheless, after his meeting with Trump, Nigel Farage did state the following:
"... thank goodness, we are coming towards the end of an American president who loathed Britain.”
What about Conservatives in the UK loathing Donald Trump?
It's not surprising that Nigel Farage has said that Theresa May and other Conservatives have been “quite rude” about Trump. It's not surprising because, like the Obama administration, most – though not all! – British Tories believe in mass and unvetted immigration, the appeasement of Islamism, the European Union and all sorts of other - seemingly – Left-Liberal causes.
To get back to the rudeness. That means that British Tories should accept that "there are some fences to be mended". Farage also said that “Trump is an Anglophile” who “understands and recognises what our two great nations have done together between us” (as spoken on Fox News).
In terms of the 'dismal science' (i.e., economics), Farage said:
"One of the things we can do, we can have between us a sensible trade relationship, cut tariffs, we are massive investors in each other's countries. There's a bright future."
Despite all that, Trump had already joked to reporters when he said: "We're just tourists."
So firstly we had the Brexit Show. And now Donald Trump is President of the United States of America. Both these events, it has been said, were the result of “people power” (or the “voices of forgotten voters”). They were forgotten by the Left-Liberal elite; who, after following the words of Saul Alinsky and Antonio Gramsci, “took over the institutions” (e.g., the law, universities, parts of the BBC, parts of the Church, NGOs, charities, etc. ). Then, of course, these Alinskyite or Gramscian acolytes went on to take over various parts of various governments.
Still, the British Conservative Party - as well as others - shouldn't focus entirely on securing the votes of these forgotten voters. They should, instead, listen hard to what they have to say. Again, this isn't about gaining back votes (though votes will be needed): it's about destroying the Left-Liberal hegemonies (which exist in both the US and the UK). It's also about taking back control from the European Union; as well as from the American and British elite.
Basically, the peoples of the UK and US want their countries back.
It's interesting that Kenan Malik offers a short account of various academics who've published well-publicised and controversial papers and books which argue that the IQ of black Americans is lower than that of white Americans. He mentions Arthur Jenson (an academic at Harvard University), Richard Herrnstein (another Harvard academic and joint author of The Bell Curve) and the British psychologist, Hans Eysenck. At the end of the paragraph, Malik states the following:
“Meanwhile, the rise of inner-city violence, particularly in America, has led a number of scientists to consider the biological reasons for aggressive behaviour.” (185)
… and that's it! No further commentary except to say that “opponents of such claims [are] more determined to challenge them” (185). But Malik doesn't challenge them. Perhaps this isn't place to do so. In addition, it can of course be the case that aggressive behaviour can be studied without any focus on race. Nonetheless, Malik does make a statement about “biological reasons for aggressive behaviour” just before the comments about black IQs.
|Do anti-racist accept IQ tests or don't they?|
Malik hints at why he doesn't tackle claims about the IQ of blacks by discussing the statements of Margaret Mead on the subject. Firstly, Malik says that Mead “took a conscious decision not to explore the biological bases of human behaviour” (181). He then quotes Mead herself giving the reason for this. She said that it would be “dangerous” (Malik's word) because “'of the very human tendency to associate particular traits with sex or age or race, physique or skin colour'” (181). What's more, Mead concludes by saying the following:
“'It seemed clear to us that further study of inborn differences would have to wait upon less troubled times.'” (181)
This isn't to argue that there aren't arguments elsewhere (there are). However, it seems that both Mead and Malik today (to quote Mead again) simply assumed that racial scientists “'make invidious comparisons based on such arbitrary associations'” (181). (Why “invidious”? Were all the “associations” truly “arbitrary”?) As I said, arguments against racial science and IQ testing exist elsewhere. Nonetheless, platitudinous remarks and smug assumptions seem to rule the roost on most occasions when race is discussed.
Malik also makes an astonishing claim when he confesses (if that's the correct word) that “[s]tatistically, the average IQ of African Americans is lower than that of white Americans” (224). Nonetheless, he immediately states that
“unless we believe that African Americans are less intelligent than whites, we must recognise than an important part of the explanation lies in the social position of African Americans as a whole in American society” (224).
It appears that because Malik stresses the important impact of culture - and therefore politics - on science, then this must be an ideal case to give a political (rather than a scientific) explanation of the facts. Indeed since conscience and morality/ethics are part of culture, perhaps it's only right and proper to simply assume that the differences of IQ between blacks and whites simply must be to do with the “social position of African Americans in America today”. However, at least prima facie, the first way to interpret the fact that black IQs are lower than white IQs is because of genes or brains. Sure, such a quick conclusion can never contain the entire truth; yet at least it must be so much as stated.
The other possible conclusion is that American blacks have a poor “social position” partly because of their low IQs. After all, many other American racial groups - which started off with disadvantaged social positions - eventually became more and more successful and better off (such as Jews, the Chinese, the Irish and so on).
Throughout his book Malik (either directly or indirectly) stresses the point that it's scientifically - and perhaps philosophically - illiterate to stress biology at the expense of what he calls “culture”. True, yet - in this passage at least - Malik stresses culture (or “social position”) at the expense of biology. Indeed even though Malik repeatedly refers to that binary opposition between biology or genes and culture, he does seem to come down on the culture side on every occasion – not only this one.
Malik also repeatedly stresses that individual scientific theories partly – sometimes wholly – express the culture and therefore the politics of their day. Does that mean that Malik's science expresses the the anti-racism of our day? After all, Malik says that all science (even anti-racist science) must express the politics or culture of its day.
None of this is to deny that American blacks have experienced what Malik calls “social discrimination” and that they've done so “as a group” (which, to Malik, means this isn't about “individual blacks”). Nonetheless, Malik focuses entirely on such social discrimination and seems to assume - or conclude - that this is the entire explanation of the fact that American blacks have lower IQs than American whites.
Perhaps this is an argument against what's called “methodological individualism” (which Malik critically mentions elsewhere). That is, cultural/political interpretations trump biological/genetic interpretations when it comes to statistics... and much else. The IQ of individual black Americans, then, isn't to the point. (Not even the IQs of large groups of black individuals is to the point.) What matters is “African Americans as a group” (Malik's italics). And such a group suffers from “social discrimination”. That must mean that culture and/or politics not only trumps biology, it also trumps statistics and IQ scores.
Malik puts the case against methodological individualism (without using those two words) more explicitly - and on the same page - when he writes that
“[u]nlike animals, for whom social behaviour can be understood as the sum of individual actions, for humans there are aspects of the social which are irreducible to the individual level, and which can only be understood in social terms” (224).
Malik backs up his argument with a quote from the philosopher Bernard Williams. Thus:
“'What is true is that each action is explained, in the first place, by an individual's psychology; what is not true is that the individual's psychology is entirely explained by psychology.'” (225)
At least in this instance, Bernard Williams stresses both sides of the binary opposition that is (individualistic)psychology versus culture. Nonetheless, this may well be a rather innocuous (i.e., non-political) point about philosophical externalism (a position in the philosophy of mind). In other words, Williams (in the quote above) mightn't have been singing from the same (political) hymn-sheet as Malik himself.
*) All quotations are from Kenan Malik's Man, Beast and Zombie.