Wednesday 27 June 2012

The Republic Is Born.

The moment the Queen shook McGuniness's hand was historic and symbolic.
It will be seen by history as the moment we became a Republic and the Monarchy fell.
It will take a few more decades to happen, but the line has been crossed.
The moment the Queen shook that murdering terrorists hand was the moment the Monarchy confirmed its utter irrelevance.
That betrayal by the Queen is the birth of the British Republic.
Add to Technorati Favorites

Saturday 9 June 2012

The New IQ Elite
Have you come across “OES syndrome”? The letters stand for Overeducated Elitist Snob, and if you don’t know what that means let me draw your attention to the front benches of the House of Commons.
OES syndrome is an American term, coined by the US political scientist Charles Murray to describe the clustering of wealth, power and – crucially – intelligence at one end of the social spectrum. Murray’s new book Coming Apart: The State of White America is not as controversial as The Bell Curve, the 1994 volume in which he and Richard Herrnstein compared race and IQ. But its conclusions are every bit as alarming.
A hundred years ago, says Murray, most Americans in the top five per cent of cognitive ability had ordinary occupations. They were very clever shopkeepers, farmers, housewives and factory workers. But they didn’t somersault over their peers.
One reason is that they couldn’t marry very smart people. High intelligence was scattered evenly across America, so a gifted farm worker might have to travel 100 miles before he met a woman as bright as he was. Instead, he married an ordinary local girl, and their children, regressing to the mean, were only slightly cleverer than their schoolfriends.
The explosion of college education changed that. Universities plucked bright kids out of their home towns like a tornado and suddenly they found that they weren’t in Kansas any more. Young people hooked up with equally intelligent partners and passed on two sets of smart genes.
This mobility opened up Ivy League universities to competition from ultra-bright candidates. The old-money aristocracy at Harvard, Yale and Princeton shrank, but the average IQ at those universities soared – and with it the earning potential of alumni. The newly elite students married each other and the result, says Murray, is a hard core of Overeducated Elitist Snobs.
Members of this supercharged class don’t just separate themselves from the poor: they’re quarantined from “everybody who isn’t as rich and well educated as they are”. They also produce clever, rich children by marrying brains and money (which go together these days).
Remind you of anybody? We may tease David Cameron and George Osborne for being “toffs”, but they’re more than that. Although both inherited money, they’re also furiously ambitious academic snobs of the type Murray describes. In their meritocracy, the purpose of a superior brain is to amass money and power. Intellectual curiosity isn’t encouraged lest it jeopardise that project. Hence the anomaly of a prime minister with a brilliant First from Oxford who has never uttered a truly original thought in public.
Let’s not kid ourselves that the elitism of this Oxbridge-educated Coalition will disappear when it loses power. Labour has its own OES syndrome; so do politicians and business leaders from Palo Alto to Beijing. Free market capitalism forces the brightest people to the top. That may sound like good news, but it also creates an association between intelligence and living standards that, in the long run, will condemn stupid people to poverty.
The new marriage patterns do as much harm as good. Once bright people are taken out of the local gene pool, what does that leave? Our natural reaction is to say: “Let’s not go there.” But we really have no choice, because global capitalism is creating a cognitive hierarchy in front of our eyes – and, with it, inequalities just as cruel as the ones we thought we had abolished.
This is much the same argument as I use to assert that the UK was the first nation to become genetically stratified. It happened first because we initiated the Industrial Revolution which brought the bulk of the population from the countryside to towns and cities and opened opportunities for untapped talent outside the landed aristocracy. People marry people similar to themselves; this is called assortative mating.
Genetic stratification is not a caste system. The reason being the regression toward the mean mentioned in the blog. This is a simple and inevitable consequence of characteristics being transmitted as discrete units: genes. Its effect is that on average offspring are less extremely removed from the overall population mean of a characteristic with a metric such as that of height or IQ than their parents. For example, the offspring of the bright tend to be less bright and those of the tall shorter and vice versa in both cases.
The "on average" mentioned above allows for potential variation among offspring such that they may become more extreme than the mean value of a characteristic of their parents. Thus, even the dimmest will produce some offspring closer to the population mean intelligence and a small proportion may greatly exceed this. Of course as nature and nurture influence the expression of a characteristic the offspring of the dimmest may lack much contribution from nurture and social intervention may be required to unlock talent.
The upshot is that a genetically stratified society must be understood as dynamic rather than static. The dynamic upwards and downwards is closer to glacial growth than a fast running stream but it has immense consequences.
This reasoning supports the notion that we should move toward a true meritocracy rather than the lip service currently made. Upward and downward movement should not be partially locked as at present. Keeping talent down is both wasteful and stores up trouble from intelligent people inn the lower social strata: it is those who will become criminal gang leaders or militant trade unionists. Not allowing those of less talent than expected in their class to drift downwards is equally bad. It means that resources, especially inherited wealth, are sequestered away from those who would use them better.
So in order to further meritocracy opportunity must be unlocked. This entails radical overhaul of the education system and the introduction of inheritance tax that is no longer effectively optional for the wealthy.
Meritocracy should not be construed as dog eat dog in a scramble for wealth. I am not advocating the crass "American Dream". Meritocracy is much more than opportunity to amass wealth according to ability. What it is to do with is encouraging each individual to work hard to develop such talent as he has so that he may find a niche that gives satisfaction whether in workaday life or in the pursuit of family interests and hobbies. Some of the most talented will be drawn to entrepreneurship, others to the learned professions and academe in expectation of a comfortable lifestyle rather than wealth but with the challenge and satisfaction of following their profession most important.
The bottom of the talent pile should be considered too. There is no reason why those performing relatively menial tasks should not be instilled with pride in doing what they do well. There is no reason why they should not be valued and seen to be. Part of that value is reflected through wages. Whilst income differentials are inevitable in a society that values freedom to make one's own way and act as an incentive for achievement the grossly disparate distribution at present is indicative of market-capitalism having been permitted to enter a pathological state whereby opportunity is monopolised by the few; it must be released.
What has gone very wrong is that the rat race to wealth, reflected now in the "bonus culture", is regarded as somehow noble, that gross disparities in wealth are as inevitable as winter and that it is every man for himself, may the devil take the hindmost. Those resisting change to the status quo are displaying a selfish short sightedness that is ultimately to their detriment. The words society and community have become ill-defined, misused and sometimes derided. A society is more than the sum of individuals battling for their own interests. There is interdependence that even the most wealthy have to rely on. Some of this is enshrined in our laws.
Feelings of fair play arise spontaneously in childhood. When it is perceived to be absent historical precedent shows that nasty consequences can afflict even the most entrenched elites if they don't give grouind. They should bear in mind that so-called property rights are no such thing. They appear on no tablet of stone (not even "thou shalt not steal" is a prescription for how economic wealth should be divided up in the first place) . They are societally defined. Property ownership is in general a good that most people recognise. Yet that should not lead to unquestioning acceptance of present assumptions on how generated wealth should be shared among those who labour and those who can't labour or about how much should be inherited by those who didn't earn it.
The days of the OESs are numbered.
Add to Technorati Favorites

Thursday 7 June 2012

The Globalist Agenda Revealed.

Finally the Globalist Corporate Fascist agenda is revealed - the British Army will be downsized and replaced by cheap foreign mercenaries, the same as the British economy has been globalised and replaced with cheap foreign workers.
This is the globalist corporate agenda exposed - and it is being imposed by traitor filth governments elected by moronic British people at the behest of the globalist media.
The Army will have to rely on help from private contractors and foreign soldiers in future wars, the Defence Secretary will announce today.
Several regiments will be axed or merged as the Army downsizes from 102,000 personnel to 82,000 by 2020.
Private military contractors, Nato allies and Territorial Army reservists will be employed to plug the gaps, Philip Hammond will say.
In a speech to the Royal United Services Institute in London, Mr Hammond will outline plans for paid civilian soldiers to provide ‘logistics support’ for regular front-line soldiers.
He will promise that the UK will maintain ‘teeth’ for any future military operations, but add that others will have to help with key tasks to keep soldiers armed and fed.
This could lead to recently retired soldiers being rehired as mercenary contractors to deliver kit to front-line soldiers.
Britain could also be forced to rely on other countries for vital transport and logistics tasks, which are currently undertaken by soldiers’ own countrymen.
Mr Hammond will tell the think-tank’s conference on land warfare that the Army will ‘rethink the way we deliver every aspect of military effect in order to maximise capability at the front-line’.
He will say Army chiefs are now ‘thinking innovatively about how combat service support is provided, using more systematically the skills available in the reserve and from our contractors.’
He will add that commanders are ‘working closely with partners to operate logistics more rationally through Alliance structures’, as the Army looks ‘to others to provide the tail, where Britain is concentrating on providing the teeth’.
The long-mooted cuts to personnel were detailed in the Strategic Defence and Security Review in 2010. However, the plans for greater involvement of private military contractors will fuel fears that the economic crisis will leave the UK saddled with a cut-price Armed Forces, placing our soldiers in danger.
Hammond is also braced for a bitter fight over Army reorganisation when he publishes a plan to slash the number of regiments before the summer.
The reorganisation of the British Army will reduce numbers from 102,000 to 82,000
The reorganisation of the British Army will reduce numbers from 102,000 to 82,000
He will pledge to maintain the vital links between regiments and the communities from which they recruit – but he will also acknowledge that some historic cap badges face the axe.
He will say: ‘There is no question, of abandoning the regimental system. But that does not mean that we can avoid difficult decisions as the Army gets smaller.
‘A regular Army of 82,000 will have a different structure to one of 102,000. And some units inevitably will be lost or will merge. In making those decisions, the military voice must prevail.’
Mr Hammond also wants to beef up the reserves, investing £1.8billion in the TA and doubling the number of members to 38,000. This would leave a total of 120,000 soldiers at commanders’ disposal.
Reserve units will be twinned with regular Army regiments, so that members of the TA will train with soldiers they would be deployed alongside.
Mr Hammond will say his Army 2020 proposals provide ‘the opportunity to transform the role of reserve forces’.
He will continue: ‘The future reserves must be structured to provide, as they do today, some niche specialists capabilities that aren’t cost-effective to maintain on a full-time basis – for example in areas of cyber, medical, or intelligence.
‘The integrated Army concept means that light infantry battalions will be reinforced on deployment through a permanent partnership with reserve battalions.’
Read more: Add to Technorati Favorites

Tuesday 5 June 2012

Now The Party Is Over ....

The fact that the Monarchy remains as it always was, whilst the rest of British culture, society and traditions are destroyed in the Neo-Liberal KulturKampf is evidence of its dislocation from the rest of society, not its relevance.
Now that the celebrations are over, and well deserved too as the Queen is a fantastic role model and worker, the debate now needs to begin - not about republicanism, but about reality.
The monarchy is allowed to stay the same by the political class as they can enact their endless cultural revolutions out of sight. As long as the monarchy remain on the throne, the lemmings think they still live in Britain and under a democracy.
They are not.
This country is being destroyed.
The monarchy cannot, and has not, stopped that process.
The existence of the monarchy has not preserved our national culture, national borders, rights, liberties, the integrity of our political system etc etc - all it has done is allowed the masses to be apathetic and delusional about what is happening in our country.
Add to Technorati Favorites

Out Of Africa Theory Is False
Got to the above link and then download the full text from the blue highlighted TEXT HERE words at the top of the article.
Here is a short precis on the information ;
The report states that haplogroups α- and β originate from a downstream common ancestor for haplogroup A and β-haplogroup, coined the α-haplogroup which emerged 160,000 ± 12,000 ybp.
African haplogroup A (originated 132,000 ± 12,000 years before present) is very remote time-wise from all other haplogroups, which have a separate common ancestor, named β-haplogroup, and which originated 64,000 ± 6000 ybp.
Therefore all haplogroups orginated from the a haplogroup, which originated not in Africa but in Central Europe.
Therefore we did not originate in Africa, as all humans originated from the a haplogroup in Central Europe.
The a haplogroup later split to form the African A haplogroup around 132,000 YBP.
The a haplogroup later split to become the β-haplogroup, which originated 64,000 ± 6000 ybp.
The β-haplogroup did not come from the A Haplogroup, which originated 132,000 ± 12,000 years before present, which is the entire basis of the Out of Africa Theory.
The β-haplogroup came from the archaic a haplogroup, not the African A haplogroup - hence the Out of Africa Theory is incorrect.
African A halogroup originated from the original halogroup a, hence the orginal ancestors of all halogroups is a not A but a, and haplogroup a originated in central europe, not Africa.
====================================================== The African A haplogroup came from the a haplogroup which originated in central europe.
Therefore the Out of Africa Theory is wrong.
Nor did we descend from Africans and the A haplogroup - we descended, as did the Africans, from the a haplogroup.
The β-haplogroup, originated 64,000 ± 6000 ybp from the a haplogroup, not the A haplogroup.
The B haplogroup includes a family of Europeoid (Caucasoid) haplogroups from F through T that originated 58,000 ± 5000 ybp.
Therefore we do not orginate in Africa, nor do we descend from Africans.
Both Africans and Europeans descend from the original a haplogroup.
The Africans evolved from a haplogroup to become A haplogroup.
Europeans evolved from a haplogroup to become B haplogroup and then F to T haplogroups.
Add to Technorati Favorites

The Liberal Photofit

In order to avoid increasing racism and preventing racial stereotyping, the police have announced that in future all cases of crimes involving ethnic minority groups that the above image will be used in all future descriptions and drawings as a representation of the suspects.
Add to Technorati Favorites

Sunday 3 June 2012

The anti-fascists are funded by the global capitalists.
If you follow the money you'll find that large well organized militant leftist organizations, so-called "anti-fascist groups" (examples: ANSWER Coalition in the United States & UAF in Britain) are funded by New World Order/Global Government fronts such as the Ford Foundation. So then, what's the connection between the NWO and militant leftist (i.e., "anti-fascist") organizations?
Before I go any further let me state that most "anti-fascists" are generally seeking:
- Trotskyism (i.e., a borderless world based on global Marxism)
- Intermixing of all races in which everyone will supposedly have respect for one another and universal justice will prevail
- Destroying Nationalism by destroying the very concept of a nation-state (this is part of Trotskyism)
Such goals amount to what I call, "college utopianism" (i.e., hyper-naivety) and of course can never be realized except on paper (i.e., in theory). However, in working towards such goals, anti-fascists do much of the "trenchwork" towards:
- breaking down national borders
- promoting massive non-White immigration into the Western world (which acts as a nation-wrecking force on the West)
- promoting multiculturalism (which eventually tears a nation apart from within)
Interestingly, these are the same broad goals of the NWO. Hence, the NWO uses radical leftists to do much of the trenchwork necessary for the NWO's future "global plantation." This is a key point for people on the right to understand.
But of course, anti-fascists have absolutely no idea they are simply useful idiots of the NWO. This is another key point to understand.
Anti-fascists are effective since they sincerely believe what they're doing is morally right. Their belief in their moral superiority is a powerful motivating force, propelling them to inflict much damage to society (in their quest to tear down the current order). They believe global justice will be realized when all nations are eliminated, all races live together, and similar utopian goals are realized. Of course this is the old communist trick they have fallen for. A trick? Yes, because as soon as such broad goals are realized or merely approached, the NWO hammer will come down hard and a "global plantation" run by tyranny will reign supreme (think Bolshevik Russia). At this point anti-fascists will wonder, "where is the utopia we worked for?"
This is the same tactic top-tier Marxists have been using for 100+ years.
The bottom line is that communism is a scam used by elites to gain absolute power. Never forget that.
Here's an example of typical anti-fascists - these being in Russia - though they're the same in every nation they operate.
Add to Technorati Favorites