Monthly Archives: August 2011

Margaret Thatcher: the most useful of idiots

With his mixture of vaulting intellectual ambition and howling mediocrity of mind, Lenin is the MaGonagal of  philosophers. (Connoisseurs of intellectual incompetence and pretension should browse through Lenin’s ‘Materialism and  Empririo-Criticism’ for an especial treat). Nonetheless,  like Hitler, the man possessed a certain low animal cunning  and a complete absence of moral restraint, which qualities  permitted him to make a few acute psychological and  sociological observations. Amongst these is the concept of  the useful idiot.

For Lenin this was the role to be played primarily by  simpleminded bourgeois dupes who unwittingly aided the  movement towards the proletarian revolution, a revolution  utterly antipathetic to the ideals and aspiration of the simpleminded bourgeois dupes. But the concept is of general  political utility. The useful idiot is any person who acts  in a way which unwittingly promotes political interests  which are opposed to his own political ideals.

The best of all useful idiots are those in positions of the  greatest political advantage, both because they have power  and their  propensity to be  deluded by their egos  into believing that they are utterly beyond manipulation or mistaken in their policies. They also display a serious want of  understanding of the probable consequences of their actions.

It was this combination of circumstances and mentality which  made Margaret Thatcher so potent a useful idiot in the  liberal internationalist cause.  As I wrote that last sentence, I saw rising up before me the  opposing hordes of her admirers and haters, singularly  united in a ghastly embrace of disbelief. Was she not the  Iron Lady, the Hammer of the Left, the destroyer of union  power, the slayer of the socialist dragon? Did she not speak  of turning back the tide of immigrants? Was she not the rock  from which the European Leviathan rebounded? Did she not  ensure that Britain was respected in the world as she had not  been since Suez? Was she not a mover and shaker in the nationalist cause?

In her own rhetorical world Mrs T was all of these things,  a veritable Gloriana who enchanted some and banally persuaded  many more, but in practical achievement she was none of them. This discrepancy between fact and fancy made her an  extraordinarily potent tool for the soldiers of the  ascendant ideology of the post-war period, the sordid bigotry  that is liberal internationalism.

The hard truth is that she allowed the primary British  political corruptions of the post war period – immigration,  multiculturalism, “progressive” education, the social work  circus,  internationalism, the attachment to Europe – to not  merely continue but grow vastly in scope during her period in  power.

A harsh judgement? Well, at the end of her premiership what  did Britain have to show for her vaunted patriotism, her wish  to maintain Britain’s independence, her desire to drive back the state, her promise to end mass immigration? Precious  little is the answer.

Her enthusiastic promotion of the Single European Act, which  she ruthlessly drove through Parliament, allowed the  Eurofederalists to greatly advance their cause under the  guise of acting to produce a single market; her “triumph” in  reducing our subsidy to Europe left us paying  several billion  a year to our European competitors whilst France paid next to  nothing; our fishermen were sold down the river; farmers  placed in the absurd position of not being allowed to produce  even enough milk for British requirements; actual (as opposed to official) immigration increased; that monument to liberal  bigotry, the Race Relations Act was untouched, the  educational vandals were not only allowed to sabotage every  serious attempt to overturn the progressive disaster, but  were granted a great triumph in the ending of ‘O’ levels, a  liberal bigot success amplified by the contemptible bleating  of successive education secretaries that “rising examination  success means rising standards”; foreign aid continued to be  paid as an unforced Dangeld extracted from an unwilling electorate; major and strategically  important industries either ceased to be serious competitors  or ended in foreign hands; the armed forces were cut  suicidally; the cost of the Welfare State and local  government rose massively whilst the service provided both  declined and Ulster was sold down the river with the Anglo Irish Agreement. Most generally damaging, she promoted  internationalism through her fanatic pursuit of free trade.

At all points Britain was weakened as a nation. Such were  the fruits of more than a decade of Thatcherism. Even those things which are most emblematic of her - privatisation, the sale of council houses and the  subjection of the unions – have had effects which are  contrary to those intended. Privatisation merely accelerated  the loss of control which free trade engendered. We may as customers celebrate the liberation of British Telecom and BA,  but is it such a wonderful thing to have no major car  producer or shipbuilder? The trouble with the privatisation of major industries, which may be greatly reduced, go out  of business or be taken over by foreign buyers, is that it  ignores strategic and social welfare questions. Ditto free trade generally. Both assume that the world, or at least the  parts which contain our major trading partners , will remain  peaceful, stable and well disposed towards Britain for ever, an absurd assumption.

Margaret Thatcher also engaged in behaviour which led to a corruption of public life which undermined and continues to  undermine her intended ends. Politicians should always think of what precedent they are setting when they act for bad  precedents will be invariably seized upon by later  governments. She  consistently failed to  address this concern. Take her attitude to privatisation and  the unions. In the former case she displayed a contempt for  ownership: in the latter she engaged in authoritarian actions  which were simply inappropriate to a democracy. Such legally  and politically cavalier behaviour has undoubtedly  influenced Blair and New Labour, vide the contempt with which  parliament is now treated, constitutional change wrought and incessant restrictions on liberty enacted.

There is a profound ethical question connected to  privatisation which was never properly answered by Tories:  what right does the state have to dispose by sale of assets  which are held in trust on behalf of the general public and  whose existence has been in large part guaranteed by  taxpayer’s money? This is a question which should be as  readily asked by a conservative as by a socialist for it  touches upon a central point of democratic political  morality, the custodianship of public property. The same ends  - the diminution of the state and the freeing of the public from seemingly perpetual losses – could have been achieved by  an equitable distribution of shares free of charge to the  general public. This would have had, from a Thatcherite standpoint, the additional benefit of greatly increasing share ownership. By selling that which the government did not  meaningfully own, she engaged in behaviour which if it had  been engaged in by any private individual or company would  have been described as fraud or theft.

The breaking of union power was overdone. As someone who is  old enough to remember the Wilson, Heath and Callaghan years,  I have no illusion of exactly how awful the unions were when they had real power. But her means of breaking their abusive  ways, particularly during the miners’ strike, were simply  inappropriate in a supposed democracy. Passing laws restricting picketing and making unions liable for material  losses suffered when they broke the rules were one thing: the  using of the police in an unambiguously authoritarian manner in circumstances of dubious legality such as the blanket  prevention of free movement of miners, quite another.

The Falklands War displays another side of her weakness in  matching actions to rhetoric. Admirable as the military action was, the terrible truth is that the war need never  have been fought if the government had taken their intelligence reports seriously and retained a naval presence  in the area. The lesson went unlearnt, for within a few years  of the recovery of the Falklands, her government massively  reduced defence expenditure.

But what of her clients, the Liberal Ascendency? Would they  not be dismayed by much of what she did? Well, by the time  Margaret Thatcher came to power liberals had really lost whatever interest they had ever had in state ownership or the  genuine improvement of the worker’s lot. What they really  cared about was promoting their internationalist vision and  doctrine of spurious natural rights. They had new clients;  the vast numbers of coloured immigrants and their children,  women, homosexuals, the disabled. In short, all those who were dysfunctional, or could be made to feel dysfunctional, in terms of British society. They had new areas of power and  distinction, social work, education, the civil service ,the  mass media to which they added, after securing the  ideological high ground, the ancient delights of politics.

Although the liberal left distrusted and hated Margaret  Thatcher (and did not understand at the time how effective  her commitment to free trade was in promoting  internationalism), they nonetheless had the belief throughout  her time in office that Britain’s involvement in the EU and  the Liberal Ascendency’s control of education, the media, the  civil service and bodies such as the Commission for Racial  Equality would thwart those of her plans which were most dangerous and obnoxious to the liberal.

Margaret Thatcher greatly added to this wall of opposition  by her choice of ministers. Think of her major cabinet  appointments. She ensured that the Foreign Office remained in the hands of men (Howe and Hurd) who were both ardent  Europhiles and willing tools of the FO Quisling culture, the  Chancellorship was entrusted to first Howe and then Lawson who was also firmly committed to Europe. The Home Office sat  in the laps of the social liberals Whitelaw, Hurd and Baker,  Education was given to Baker and Clarke. Those appointments  alone ensured that little would be done to attack the things  which liberals held sacred, for they were men who broadly  shared the liberal values and who were opposed to  Thatcherite policies other than those on the economy, which  of course was the one Thatcherite policy guaranteed to  assist liberal internationalism. By the end, she was so weak  that she was unable to prevent the effective sacking of a  favourite cabinet minister, Nicholas Ridley, by the German  Chancellor.

The constant cry of Margaret Thatcher after  she left office  is that she did not understand the consequences of her acts.  Of course she does not put it in that way, but that is what  it amounts to. She blames Brussels and the Foreign Office for  the unwelcome consequences of the Single European Act. She  readily admits that this minister or that in her government proved unreliable or treacherous, but does not conclude that  her judgement in choosing them was at fault. She blames the  Foreign Office for the Falklands War. But nowhere does she acknowledge her fault.

In her heart of hearts, has  the second longest serving and most  ideological prime minister in modern British history ever comprehended, however imperfectly, that she was a prime mover  in the Liberal Internationalist cause? I doubt it, because  self deception is at the heart of what makes a useful idiot.

How the Kosovan war developed the Blair Doctrine

I wrote the article below in 1999 for the Libertarian Alliance magazine Free Life.  On re-reading it I am  struck by how the Nato air attack on the rump of Yugoslavia in 1999  inspired the Blair Doctrine  which in essence says  that the UN or other international body such as Nato can use force within a country to stop a government from doing something which affects no other country. The Nato attack on Kosovo began on 24 March and ran to 11 June. On 22 April Blair enunciated the Blair Doctrine in a speech to the Chicago Club. (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/jan-june99/blair_doctrine4-23.html).

Kosovo was a step change from the earlier Nato attacks made on Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1995  because Kosovo was still legally unequivocally part of Serbia in 1999, while  Bosnia Herzegovina was part of a very complex civil war resulting from the collapse of Communist rule in Yugoslavia which ended with international recognition of Bosnia  Herzegovina before the Nato action.  There was no such international recognition of Kosovo as an independent state before the Nato action in 1999 and even today its status is unclear. A declaration of independence from Serbia was enacted on Sunday, 17 February 2008 by the Assembly of Kosovo, but has not met with general international acceptance.

——————————————–

A victory for Milosevic?

Robert Henderson

Now that the big boys toys have been put back in the  cupboard and Mr Jamie Shea is returning to run his whelk  stall in the Mile End Road, we really do need to ask why  this bizarre act of aggression by Nato occurred because it  has profound implications for Britain. What was it all about?

Well, we all know that, don’t we? To put the Albanians back  into Kosovo, stupid! Wrong.  The war started because  Milosevic would not accept the Nato proposals drawn up at Rambouillet, which was scarcely surprising for they might have been designed to ensure their refusal.

Not only did the Rambouillet Proposals give foreign soldiers  the right to enter any part of Yugoslavia, they provided for  a referendum on independence for the Kosovan population. Add  to that the demand that Serb troops withdraw from Kosovo and  the refusal to allow Russian troops to be part of a  peacekeeping force, and it is all too easy to see why  Milosevic refused them. Moreover, the Rambouillet proposals  were not put forward as a basis for negotiation, but as a  fait accompli. They then became the subject of a naked  ultimatum, issued effectively by the US in the egregious  person of Madeleine Albright.

The Rambouillet proposals would have reduced Yugoslavia to  the status of a dependent territory, with the virtual  guarantee that the land (Kosovo) which had the greatest  emotional significance for the majority Serb population would be lost to the hated Albanian minority. Moreover, they had the knowledge that the loss of Kosovo through a referendum  would almost certainly result in the expulsion of the two hundred thousand Serbs normally resident in Kosovo, assuming  that they had not already left after the withdrawal of  Serbian troops. Milosevic was offered the prospect of  tremendous humiliation and nothing else. If Nato had wished  to ensure a war they could scarcely have done better. As  Henry Kissinger remarked in a interview with Boris Johnson of  the Daily Telegraph (28/6/99,) Rambouillet was a provocation.

But the Rambouillet proposals were only the immediate cause  of the conflict. The war was really about the imposition of  Liberal Internationalist ideals. Since 1945, the Liberal  Internationalist cause have been growing in strength until it  has become the ostensible ideology of the ruling elites  throughout the West. During the Cold War the territorial  ambitions of the Liberal Internationalists were considerably  constrained. Since 1989 those constraints have been removed.  The result has been an unhappy sequence of interventions,  covered by the fig leaf of UN colours, which have  demonstrated the utter impotence of the Liberal  Internationalist creed by invariably creating situations the exact opposite of those intended by the interveners: Somalia is a mess of anarchy, Bosnia a UN protectorate with the  warring ethnic groups largely segregated and future conflict  just waiting to happen. The war against Serbia marked a new  stage in Liberal Internationalist ambitions: naked  aggression was undertaken without even the indecent cover of  the UN fig leaf.

The persistent failure of international intervention has not  deterred the Liberal Internationalists because, like all  fanatic ideologues, the Liberal Internationalist is  incapable of admitting that his creed is plain wrong no matter have often events prove it to be so. For the Liberal  Internationalist any failure is simply the result of  insufficient resources and time, a spur to behave in an ever  more totalitarian manner; from peacekeeping through outright  war to de facto colonial occupation. Consequently those with the power in the West continue to intervene ineptly in  conflicts inherently irresolvable in liberal Internationalist  terms. Their response to failure or the contrary evidence of  events is to embark on ever more intervention regardless of  the havoc caused or the long term consequences.

What the war was not about was morality, despite Blair and  Clinton’s inordinate and deeply risible posturing. (In fact war is never about morality. It is always about territory,  aggrandisement, the removal of competitors and the  imposition of the victor’s will.) The nations attacking  Yugoslavia had stood by during many greater man made horrors  such as the massacres in Rwanda. Most pertinently, the West  had not merely stood by while hundreds of thousands of Serbs  were expelled from Croatia, but in the guise of the UN had  actively assisted in that expulsion by providing arms and  airpower to support the Croat military. Most tellingly, and  most repellently, because it was utterly predictable, Nato  has not meaningfully protected the Kosovan Serbs since the  end of the war. Nor could they have had any reasonable expectation of doing so, for the size of even the projected peace keeping force (50,000 – which numbers have not been  met) was obviously inadequate to mount a general police  action against an Albania population of nearly two million in  which there were plentiful arms. A cynic might think that  Nato’s aims were from the beginning to produce a Kosovo  ethnically cleansed of Serbs.

The course of the war laid bare the stupidity,  incomprehension, incompetence and amorality of the Nato  members’ leaders. The objective facts say that the conflict  has greatly worsened a naturally fraught situation. Before  the war, the vast majority of the Albanian population of  Kosovo was in Kosovo living in their homes. Since the war  began the, vast majority have either left the country or  remain in Kosovo having been driven from their homes. Thus,  just as the Second World War signalled the beginning of the  Holocaust, so Nato’s action signalled that of the Kosovan  Albanians’ tragedy. Without the war, it is improbable to the  point of certainty that the greatest movement of a population in Europe since 1945 would have occurred.

The hypocrisy of the whole business was graphically demonstrated in the Nato members’ attitude towards the  refugees. The public posturing on the need to provide for the refugees was all too clearly balanced by the fear that any large scale import of refugees to Nato countries outside  the Balkans would arouse considerable dissent in those countries. Amongst many stomach heaving moments, Clare Short’s protestations that Britain did not want to move the refugees away from the Balkans simply because Britain did not  wish to unwillingly assist Milosevic rank very high. The  double standards, both amongst politicians and the media  have continued with the end of the war, as the Liberal Ascendency quietly tolerates ethnic cleansing of the Kosovo  Serbs and the gross acts of revenge taken by the Kosovo Albanians.

What if there had been no war? Judged by what had gone before, there would have been continued harassment of Kosovan Albanians by Serb paramilitaries and some action by the regular Serb forces, the latter primarily directed against the KLA. One simple fact alone gives the lie to Nato’s claims that wholesale ethnic cleansing would have occurred regardless of Nato intervention. Prior to the war,  Milosevic had ten years to undertake the task and did not attempt it. Fine ideals are not fine at all if they are so  out of keeping with reality that they produce evil ends.

Who won the war? Well, let us follow the Dragnet example and  just look at the facts. Milosevic remains in control of  Yugoslavia minus Kosovo. Two of the prime demands of the Rambouillet proposals – that the Kosovo population be given a referendum on independence within three years and the right of peacekeeping troops to go anywhere in Yugoslavia – have been dropped. There is also to be no referendum and the peacekeeping force will operate only within Kosovo. In addition, Russian troops are involved in the peacekeeping force, a token Serb presence will be allowed in Kosovo and  there are signs that the force may eventually come under UN  not Nato auspices. Those are very significant political gains for Milosevic.

Let us make the assumptions which most favour Nato. That the agreement which was reached between Milosevic and Nato was not ambiguous. That Milosevic will keep his word. That the  peace keeping force will be Nato led under a unified command. That the Russians involved in the peace keeping will not subvert the process on the ground. That money will be forthcoming in sufficient amounts to rebuild Kosovo. That the KLA will allow themselves to be disarmed. A collection of pretty improbable occurrences. But no matter, let us grant them. What then?

Even under such propitious and unlikely circumstances, it is highly improbable that Kosovo will be quickly returned to normality. The destruction of housing and the spoliation of farm land alone make that immensely difficult, but given the will and the money, the material damage might be repaired.

But material renaissance is not the heart of the problem. That lies in the all too simple fact of the existence of  two incompatible ethnic groups occupying the same territory, both sides replete with ancestral hatreds and recent hurts.  In such circumstances a peaceful multicultural Kosovo is a fantasy.

We have the example of Bosnia before us. Stripped of all cant, it is now a good old fashioned League of Nations  Protectorate, a mandated territory. It has the experience of several years of UN control. Yet the vast majority of the displaced populations in Bosnia have not returned to their homes and the various ethnic groups there lead largely segregated lives.

But the post bombing situation in Kosovo is unlikely to be  anything like so favourable as I have described. The KLA  have shown no more willingness to generally disarm than the IRA. The agreement which was reached is not unambiguous.

Milosevic cannot be relied to keep his part of the bargain. The Russians have shown that they are not willing to accept  Nato command unconditionally. Money in the quantities suggested as needed for rebuilding (anything between 15-25 billion pounds) may well prove to be too great a hurdle for politicians to sell to their publics who are being told of the need for cuts in welfare – The USA and Europe are already squabbling over who should bear the cost of rebuilding Kosovo.

Milosevic also has one great general political advantage; he knows that political life amongst the Nato powers is ephemeral. While he may be in power in five years time, the majority of his opponents will not. He can afford to sit and wait until a propitious moment comes to regain all or part of Kosovo. Milosevic’s position is not as strong as that of Saddam Hussain in purely authoritarian terms, but he has a  vital quality which Saddam does not, namely his authority does not rely entirely on force.

Before the war started the Nato leaders must have known that a western led occupation of Kosovo would simply replace one form of repression with another. At best they could expect a replica of Bosnia: at worst, an ethnic cleansing of Serbian Kosovans. Since the end of the war, all too predictably the worst has occurred as the western disregard shown for the  welfare of ordinary Serbs elsewhere in the Balkans has been  repeated. The peacekeeping force has stood ineffectually by whilst Kosovo is cleansed of Serbs by the KLA and their associates.

Perhaps no one has won the war, but that is often the way of wars. The real question is who has suffered the most damage. At the moment it may look like Milosevic, not least because the Nato countries in truth had nothing material to gain and everything to lose from the War. Yet Milosevic has reduced the Rambouillet demands, probably tightened his control on Yugoslav politics and large parts of Kosovo has been ethnically cleansed. The Nato countries have made significant concessions and committed themselves to massive expenditure and the deployment of troops indefinitely. This will both take money from their own electorates and influence their future foreign policies. It is a strange sort of victory if victory it be for Nato.

For Britain there is much about which to be ashamed and worried. We have bombed defenceless targets which plainly were not in any meaningful sense military. This places us in an impossible moral position in dealing with terrorist action. What moral argument could we have against Serb reprisal bombs in Britain? That it is wrong to bomb innocent civilians?

More worryingly Blair has shown himself to be an unashamed warmonger. I would like to believe that Blair’s public words were simply a cynical manipulation of the public to promote his reputation and were made in the certain knowledge that Clinton would not commit troops to a land war. Unfortunately I think that Blair was anything but cynical in his belligerence. The Observer reported on 18 July that Blair had agreed to send 50,000 British troops to take part in an invasion force of 170,000 if Milosevic had not conceded  Kosovo to Nato. Incredible as this may seem, (and it was not  denied by Downing Street) such recklessness fits in with Blair’s general behaviour. So there you have it, our prime minister would have committed the majority of Britain’s armed forces to a land war in which we have no national interest, regardless of the cost, deaths and injuries. The danger remains that Blair will find another adventure which does result in a land war. Over Kosovo, he behaved like a reckless adolescent and nearly came a fatal political cropper. Yet this government appears to have learnt nothing from the experience, vide the unpleasant and malicious fanaticism in Blair and Cook’s declarations of their intent to both unseat Milosevic from power and bring him before an international court, vide the humiliation of Russia, vide the ever more absurd declarations of internationalist intent since hostilities ceased. That adolescent idealists’ mindset could lead Britain down a very dark path indeed. It is also incompatible with a foreign policy that supposedly encourages elected governments (however imperfect they are) over dictatorships.

What other lessons does this war teach us? It shows above all the utter powerlessness of the democratic process and the sham of international law. In the two countries which have taken the lead, US and Britain, parliamentary support was not formally sought nor given, funds voted or a declaration of war sanctioned. The other members of Nato have been impotent bystanders.

The American Constitution was designed to prevent aggressive acts of war without congressional approval. That constitutional guarantee has been severely tested since 1945, but perhaps never so emphatically as in the past months. If an American president can commit such considerable forces to a war regardless of Congressional approval, it seriously brings into question the value of the constitutional restraint. Where exactly would the line be drawn in the Constitutional sand?

In Britain, the matter was debated at the government’s convenience but at no one else’s. Incredibly, many will think, support for the war was never put to a vote in the Commons.

As for international law, that has been shown in the most unambiguous manner to be a sham. The war was fought without a declaration of war, in contravention of the UN Charter and in a manner guaranteed to cause significant civilian casualties.

Yet Judge Arbour at the War Crimes Tribunal does not indict the likes of Clinton and Blair, only Milosevic. (Readers might like to note that formal complaints to Judge Arbour about Blair and Clinton have been ignored). Law which is not equally applied is no law, but merely a tool of the powerful against the weak. Moreover, there does not appear to be any illegality at which the US would draw the line. Apart from incitements to murder Milosevic, there have been newspaper reports of attempts by the CIA to illegally enter Milosevic’s bank accounts and drain them of funds (we honest folks call that theft). If governments do not obey the core moral and legal commandments of their own societies, law does not effectively exist.

If international law meant anything, the Nato action would be deemed objectively illegal. It was so first because of an absence of lawful international authority, there being no UN sanction for the War. On a national level, neither the British nor the American Parliaments sanctioned either the action or the expenditure which permitted the action.

The war also drove a coach and horses through the UN Charter and the Nato Treaty. The UN Charter was breached because it prohibits action to amend a sovereign state’s borders. As for the NATO treaty, this only provides for action to be taken in defence of member countries. Clearly the Yugoslav government had offered no direct threat to NATO members because there was no attempt to act outside the territory of Yugoslavia. Moreover, the only NATO countries which might have called for assistance to a perceived threat – Greece and Hungary – did not do so and made it clear that they were far from supportive of the Nato action.

In general terms, it was impossible before the war began to make a convincing case that Yugoslavia could present a threat to the peace of Europe. It is a country of ten million souls, poor with an underdeveloped industrial base. Moreover, its natural poverty had been greatly increased by years of civil war and UN sanctions.

Balkan history tells a single story: any of its peoples which become possessed of the advantage of numbers, wealth or arms will oppress as a matter of course any other of its peoples. If the Albanians gain control of Kosovo, rest assured that they will behave as abominably towards the Serbs as the Serbs have behaved towards them. The disputed territory is Serb by history and Albanian by present settlement. There is no absolute right on either side.

1984 and the internationalist warmongers

In George Orwell’s great political novel 1984 the world is in a state of perpetual war between three political blocs:  Eurasia, Eastasia and Oceana.   It is never clear why the protagonists are at war with one another, a fact made even more opaque by the frequent changing  of  allies and enemies. One day Eurasia and Eastasia  may be allied  against Oceana, the next Eurasia and Oceana allied against East Asia.  The central character of the novel,  Winston Smith, spends much of his time at the Ministry of Truth re-writing history to keep up with the changes in allegiance.

Orwell’s dystopia has uncanny and disturbing similarities in  our world. Since the fall of the Soviet Union in the early nineties, the West – principally the US and Britain – has been engaged in in more or less perpetual war,  war which has in every case been initiated by the West.  Not only that,  but the wars have seen rapidly shifting alliances.  Until the so-called “Arab Spring” began six months ago,  the  prime tyrants of the Arab world – those of Egypt, Syria,  Saudi Arabia, the Yemen and Libya – were, for reasons of realpolitik,  the allies of the West.  Egypt received an annual stipend from the American taxpayers of billions of dollars;  Gaddafi, now the ultimate western pariah,  was brought back into the international fold in 2004 largely by the efforts of Tony Blair (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/25/tony-blair-colonel-gaddafi-alexander-chancellor)  and  struck a deal whereby sanctions were lifted from Libya and Gaddafi abandoned his  weapons of mass destruction programme, including his attempts to get nuclear weapons,  the funding of terrorists and  stifled the flow of illegal north African  migrants into Europe.

Gaddafi kept his side of the bargain, but that counted for nothing when liberal internationalist politicians such as Cameron and Sarkozy got carried  away with the “Arab Spring” fantasy and imagined that Gaddafi would be brought down as readily as the ruler of Egypt, despite the fact that Libya was  a very different animal being a polity built on the personal rule of one man –  Egypt had a much broader civil and institutional structure including an army,  which was the power on which the tyrant rested, power which could be used to remove him when his use was ended.   In Libya, the army did not exist as such,  the armed forces being either militias or mercenary troops, both of   which were the personal fiefdoms of Gaddafi, his sons and a few trusted confidantes.

The appetite for war amongst the political classes in the USA and Britain was whetted by the first Gulf War in 1990 which resulted from Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait.  There were  good pragmatic reasons for  the West driving Saddam out of  Kuwait  because his control of Kuwait would have given him  vast new oil reserves to tap and potentially use to destabilise the Middle East.  The problem was that  the USA  was willing to drive him from Kuwait but wanted to leave him in power as a backstop against an Iran still in the throes of the Islamic revolution.  Most contemptibly, the first Bush administration gave the opponents of Saddam hope that if they rebelled the alliance against Saddam America  would support them, but then not only failed to provide the support but actively assisted Saddam in his terrible act of revenge against his opponents by allowing his helicopters into the air.   The consequence  has been the West  continuously involved in Iraq ever since, first with the original war, then with the no-fly zones and then with the new  invasion and occupation of 2003.  To that has been added the interminable war in Afghanistan – it cannot be dignified with the term occupation,  because  after eight years it cannot be claimed with a straight face that the area has been in any sense  pacified – and the latest and on-going military action in Libya.

After the first Gulf War  and the establishment of no-fly zones came  Western interference in  the war (or more correctly wars)  in the Balkans. This  followed the gradual dismemberment of  Yugoslavia following  Tito’s death in 1980, with the  final shackles against Western intervention in the Balkans  being removed with the collapse of the Soviet Union from 1989 onwards.   This was accompanied in  the 1990s by a few Western skirmishes in  Africa such as  the US’s attempt to arrest a warlord in Somalia in 1993 (the episode captured in the film Black Hawk Down) and Britain’s intervention in Sierra Leone (2000) after the UN had done their usual, gone in and proved utterly ineffectual.  All of this was done without explicitly denying the UN’s commitment to preserving the sovereignty of nation states.

In some cases Western military action could be readily justified within the UN Charter because one UN member had attacked another. That was the case in the first Gulf War.
However,  most of the interventions since 1990 have driven a coach and horses through the UN Charter as it concerns  sovereignty:

“Article 2

“The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

“The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

“All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

“All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

“All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

“The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

“Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall notprejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.”  (http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml)

This position was re-affirmed in a UN resolution in  1996: “ Recalling further the principle enshrined in Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter of the United Nations, which establishes that nothing contained in the Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the Charter…. (http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/50/ares50-172.htm)

Even in 2011  nothing has changed officially. The UN still supports national sovereignty in theory.  However, the organisation has in practice  regularly  adopted a policy of intervention in domestic national affairs, a change driven primarily by the commitment of US presidents (the two Bushs and Clinton) and British Prime Ministers  (Blair and Cameron) who represent the governments of two thirds  of the UN Security Council.  Once established,  the practice of intervention has become  increasingly difficult to veto  for even the US president  as Obama has discovered, not least because  the UN resolutions which supposedly legalise interventions are routinely  bent grotesquely. There is a prime example  in UN1973 which was designed purely to protect civilians within Libya by the use of air and  sea power and to facilitate humanitarian aid.  It explicitly reaffirms the importance of Libyan sovereignty with the clause :  “Reaffirming its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and national unity of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya”  (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10200.doc.htm).  Despite the very limited objectives of the resolution, it has been used to justify the use of the air and sea power to
actively and deliberately support the Libyan rebels.  Effectively, the Nato  forces (which act as the UN’s forces in this conflict) have been the rebels’ army and navy. Not only that but  the rebels have been given intelligence, military advice  and logistical support by Nato and there may well have  special troops  such as the SAS on active service on the ground. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8716758/Libya-secret-role-played-by-Britain-creating-path-to-the-fall-of-Tripoli.html).
This has been accompanied by Western  politicians such as Cameron, Obama and Sarkozy openly calling for the overthrow of Gaddafi.

It could be argued that the UN has entered new ground with resolution UN1973 by permitting action to be taken for the first time against a UN member where the member is offering no threat to another state. This is casuistry. It may be pedantically true,  but the determination of what is a sovereign state  is not always straightforward. The first major UN intervention – the Korean War – was in reality intervention in a civil war, albeit complicated by Chinese involvement.  When Yugoslavia began to fracture it was not clear where one nation state started and another ended.  In the case of Kosovo, which was still formally part of Serbia, the intervention was simply the UN backing the splitting of a national territory.

Nonetheless, on purely legal grounds the Libyan action  does mark a departure from what has gone before,  because the UN has explicitly sanctioned action within  a UN member state where the alleged misbehaviour is solely occurring. As we can see from the UN Charter as quoted above,  that goes directly against the UN Charter.  That makes resolution UN1973 illegal and the action resulting from it illegal. This is important because the  UN and its military surrogate NATO are claiming that they are only acting because UN1973 legalises their actions.
The whole affair shows what a  sham international law is generally and the contempt that the UN and its main players hold it in.

The explicit ideological change can be dated from with Tony Blair’s development of the “Blair Doctrine” . He unveiled this in 1999 in a speech to the Chicago Economic Club. In it Blair sought to lay down rules which would justify breaching national  sovereignty:

“The most pressing foreign policy problem we face is to identify the circumstances in which we should get actively involved in other people’s conflicts. Non-interference has long been considered an important principle of international order. And it is not one we would want to jettison too readily. One state should not feel it has the right to change the political system of another or forment subversion or seize pieces of territory to which it feels it should have some claim. But the principle of non-interference must be qualified in important respects. Acts of genocide can never be a purely internal matter. When oppression produces massive flows of refugees which unsettle neighbouring countries then they can properly be described as
“threats to international peace and security”. When regimes are based on minority rule they lose legitimacy – look at South Africa.

“Looking around the world there are many regimes that are undemocratic and engaged in barbarous acts. If we wanted to right every wrong that we see in the modern world then we would do little else than intervene in the affairs of other countries. We would not be able to cope. “So how do we decide when and whether to intervene. I think we need to bear in mind five major considerations

“First, are we sure of our case? War is an imperfect instrument for righting humanitarian distress; but armed force is sometimes the only means of dealing with dictators. Second, have we exhausted all diplomatic options? We should always give peace every chance, as we have in the case of Kosovo.

Third, on the basis of a practical assessment of the situation, are there military operations we can sensibly and prudently undertake?

Fourth, are we prepared for the long term? In the past we talked too much of exit strategies. But having made a commitment we cannot simply walk away once the fight is over; better to stay with moderate numbers of troops than return for repeat performances with large numbers. And finally, do we have national interests involved? The mass expulsion of ethnic Albanians from Kosovo demanded the notice of the rest of the world. But it does make a difference that this is taking place in such a combustible part of Europe.

“I am not suggesting that these are absolute tests. But they are the kind of issues we need to think about in deciding in the future whenand whether we will intervene. “(http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/jan-june99/blair_doctrine4-23.html).

Most of the countries which belong to the UN – which is the overwhelming majority of nation  states  -  are dictatorships, many of them tyrannies  of the most obnoxious type. If the same standards were applied to them as are being applied to Gaddafi they would all suffer the same fate. But of course that will not happen for reasons which are  practical, ideological or founded in realpolitik.     That being so, it is profoundly destabilising  to intervene here but not there and doubly so when an ally yesterday can become enemy number one the next day for no good reason of state. (Personally, I think that realpolitik should be avoided wherever possible because its stores up trouble for the future, but if it is to be used consistency is as necessary as it is in any human activity which reluies on trust.)

There are a number of serious dangers in this new  internationalist world. First, if national sovereignty is to be disregarded there are few nation states which would not potentially be at risk of suffering threats of military action or military action or lesser acts of aggression  such as blockades and sanctions.  It is important to understand that constricting a country’s sovereignty  consists of much more than invading it. It is using any threat to prevent a country acting within its own borders as it deems fit.  This is already widespread through the vast library of international treaties which now exist. These undermine democracy fundamentally,  because the treaties are mostly open ended and national politicians are all too ready to use the treaty restrictions as an excuse for not acting in the national interest. The emasculation of  the British Parliament through the EU treaties is a first rate example of the extent to which sovereignty can be eroded  piecemeal.

Because treaties are generally not time limited or,  in the case of organisations such as the EU, there is no ready way of legally exiting from them, it is all too probable that the Blair Doctrine will get wider and wider application in the cause of holding nations to treaties. This will not only be via the UN,  but through other supra-national  bodies such as the EU. There is no potential end to the mischief that the Blair Doctrine could make,  for a regime need not be inherently vile to have it applied. There  may simply be a civil war  and atrocities are  committed as they almost always are in war. Using the Blair Doctrine , the UN could sanction military action in any arena of civil strife. The doctrine  also provides a specious but ostensible legal basis for the emerging great powers of the east, Indian and China, to intervene where they choose.  They may in time decide to intervene to the disadvantage of the West.

At best the Blair Doctrine will mean, as with international law generally, the powerful doing as they choose and the weaker being punished by the powerful when  it suits the powerful or protected from punishment by the powerful when it suits their purpose.  In truth, international law is no law at all,  because  only where all parties in a jurisdiction are equal before the law does a meaningful legal system exist.  The argument put forward by Blair that  if everything  cannot  be done it does not mean nothing  should be done,  falls for that reason for it becomes no more than politicians picking and choosing on political rather than legal grounds to act or not act.  It is equivalent to saying in the national context we will prosecute that poor man for murder,  but not this man because he is rich and powerful.

If national sovereignty is to be protected it means tolerating what we in the West would consider vile regimes.  A hard thing to say  you may think,  but consider what happens when dictatorships fall; often what follows is worse than the dictatorship. That is what happened in every Western aggressive war since 1990. As dictatorships must and will be tolerated it is it is pointless to, for example, complain that Gaddafi is using force against civilians because that is obviously what he needs to do from his point of view.   In addition, every democratically elected government owes its first allegience to the people it serves.   To risk the money and lives of its people to aid foreigners  when no national interest is at stake is  at best unconscionable. Often it will prove to be absolutely against the interests of the country. The uncritical support for the “Arab Spring”  and active intervention in Libya may be repaid with the spread of Islamic governments hostile to the West through  north Africa and the Middle East.

National sovereignty is a prize worth fighting for.  Only in the national state can any meaningful democratic control be exerted. The  Blair Doctrine is part of the liberal internationalist agenda, something he ranged over widely in his 1999 speech which I  cited above.   The effect of  internationalism is to politically  infantilise populations because they no longer have control over the general shape of their society.

Ironically, the imposition or attempted imposition  of the internationalist agenda will not advance the  ideals which liberals claim to value. Rather, the result of their application will be more or less continual war  with consequences not only for the countries unfortunate to be the subject of UN warmaking,  but also for those which are not.  It is noteworthy that since the modern internationalist warmongers got the bit between their teeth, the liberty of Western states has been much reduced,  primarily because all  the states attacked since 2001 have been majority Muslim countries and Islamic  terrorism is the  feared  terror of the  moment, not least because of that other strand of internationalism, the free  movement of peoples. This has put large Muslim populations into most Western  countries and they provide the basis for Islamic terrorism within the states  which are coming up with the military muscle to attack Muslim states.  However, there are also large immigrant  populations of many different origins in the West and  virtually anywhere the West intervened could result  in a similar situation to that which now exists with Muslims.

There are  also the  wishes of Western populations to consider. In Britain there has been a  persistent widespread opposition to military intervention by Britain. Millions  have marched against such interventions.  British politicians since  1997  have simply ignored the feeling in the country as they posture happily on the  world stage, polishing their liberal internationalist credentials , behaviour made all the more  disgusting  because neither they nor  anyone they care about is ever going to be doing the fighting or find  themselves suffering financially because the money  lavished on these vanity wars  mean that public services have been cut  or  a  job lost  because it can no longer be  funded.   The British public has nowhere else to  go politically because all the major parties support the wars.   Where  such important matters  are  decided by a political class who are  hopelessly out of touch with the public, that inevitably  brings a political system into general contempt.

Do people like Cameron and Sarkozy  believe in their internationalist creed? It is a moot point.  I was originally going to call this article “1984 and the liberal internationalist warmongers”. Then I reflected upon how there really is no “right or Left” in this.  The younger Bush was ostensibly a man of the Right and Tony Blair a man of the Left. Yet both subscribed to the same globalist message, a toxic mixture of market economics,  political correctness and , whether they embraced the idea willing or not,  the destruction of the nation state.  Worse, the globalist ideology does not seem to have any clear sense of aiming for a general end which involves people generally.   Globalists  seem , like the Party in 1984, to be concerned only with exercising power, to be bereft of any real ideological centre. They talk the politically correct internationalist talk but fail to walk the politically correct walk.  People like Cameron constantly praise the joy of diversity while living their lives in very white worlds; send their children to schools where black and brown faces are rare and more often than not enjoy the simplicity of life which inherited wealth brings.   Their protected, cossetted lives mean that they can engage in their warmongering  without any risk to themselves or their families. All they really care about is their own privilege and power.

Will this  madness continue? It would be a  relief to think it will  not,  but the war in Libya  dispels the idea that the political classes  have learnt their lesson from the disasters of Iraq and Afghanistan.   The one-time British Foreign secretary  David Owen  has already climbed onto what will probably be an ever more crowded internationalist bandwagon seeing the Libyan enterprise as  the template for more UN interventions:

“During the darkest moments of Nato’s campaign in Libya, it was suggested that its sluggish progress represented the death knell for the doctrine of humanitarian intervention – that a West chastened by its experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan and enfeebled by debt lacked the money, the morale and the military resources to take action against those who broke international law. Now that the rebels have swept into Tripoli, the opposite argument is being made – that their success represents a vindication of the
Nato strategy, and provides a template for the toppling of despots in Syria and elsewhere.

“The truth, however, is that Libya is not a successor to Kosovo or Sierra Leone. Instead, it is the prototype for a new kind of intervention, one that reflects the very different world that we find ourselves in today. “ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8717986/We-have-proved-in-Libya-that-intervention-can-still-work.html).

The cost of such interventions and  the ongoing economic crisis which shows no sign of abating  may clip the internationalist warmongers wings for the foreseeable  future.  Longer term it could be that the  growing strength of China and her immense ambitions in the Third World – she is  already massively involved  – may prove  to be a more potent brake on such aventures  if to act on the Blair  Doctrine  would bring the  those putting it into  action into conflict with Chinese interests.  China may also become much more willing to use her UN veto to prevent  actions such as those in Libya.  The same  may apply to India as she grows stronger and possibly other powers such as  Indonesia.  There are already signs that this is beginning to happen with China protesting about the Libyan rebels’ promise  to punish her by threatening Chinese oil  interests in Libya because China had not wholeheartedly supported UN  intervention in the conflict (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/globalbusiness/8717571/China-urges-Libya-to-protect-oil-investments.html).

The racial and ethnic make-up of the August 2011 UK rioters by group

Robert Henderson

I have taken the same Daily Telegraph data used in my earlier analysis (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8698443/UK-riots-suspected-looters-statistics-and-court-cases.html) and divided the names into groups which give the strongest pointer to race and ethnicity. During this process I discovered various duplications in the Daily Telegraph’s data and the total of named people is now 278.

The various group totals are:

21 Biblical names

37 British surnames but non-British forenames

4 Double barrelled surnames

21 African names

48 Muslim names

5 Non-Muslim Asians

16 Foreign European names

126 Those with British names who could plausibly be white or black

The first thing to note is that those with British names who could be  plausibly white or black comprise less than half the named charged rioters and looters. If every one of the 126 is assumed to have been white and British that would still mean around 53% of the rioters were either black or Asian, despite the fact that they formed less than 8% of the UK population at the time of the last published census in 2001. That gives a false picture of  Asian involvement,  because apart from Muslims only five Asians appear and it is a fair bet that some of the Muslims are black rather than Asians.

It is also improbable in the extreme that all of the 126 in the either black or white group were white. Bearing in mind (1) the overwhelming dominance of blacks in the riots which is readily apparent from the voluminous footage of the rioting and (2) the fact that the riots occurred overwhelmingly in areas with a large black population, it is reasonable to assume that many  will have been black.  If it is assumed that only 50% of the 126 are black, the number of white Britons involved in the 282 group of those charged was probably around 60-70. It may well have been substantially less than that.

Group Data

Those with Biblical names – these are most probably black

Nathan David Evans,Male,21,11/14/1989

Nathan Anthony George Henry,Male,

Nathan Dempster,Male,18

Joshua Mathias Courtney Jones,Male,30,8/16/1980

Levi Nesbitt,Male,20

Aaron Mulholland,Male

Aaron Israel,Male,21,4/24/1990

Aaron Young,Male,20,3/19/1991

Aaron Grima,Male,22

Aaron Samuels,Male,29

Aaron Hugh Mulholland,Male,30,7/5/1981

Aaron Warwood,Male,18

Micah Lammie,Male,22,3/18/1989

Samuel Green,Male,22

Samuel Konneh,Male,30

Samuel Thomas Green,Male,22

Daniel Bell,Male,30

Daniel Hourd,Male,21

Daniel Moran,Male,26

Medad Coker,Male,30,10/21/1980

Cain Larden,Male,25

Total 21

Those with regulation British surnames but forenames which are used primarily by blacks.

Mr Byron Cawley,Male,19,3/14/1992

Sanchez Banton,Male,18

Samuel Jolly,Male,18

Curtis Dejean,Male,

Jacques Samuel De La Lubie,Male,18

Lorriane Andalinda Mcgrane,Male,

Byron Cawley,Male,19

Tyrrel Shannon,Male,19

Pierre Wilkinson,Male,20,10/7/1990

Miss Shereece Ashley,Female

Jerome Lewis,Male,20,1/3/1991

Alicia Smith,Female,20

Stefan Hoyle,Male,19,1/21/1992

Jordan Blackshaw,Male,20

Jordan Kelly,Male,20,1/9/1991

Harrison  Mccalla,Male,20

Travis Cadogan,Male,22,9/1/1988

Shonola Smith,22

Kairo Lawson,Male,21

Kaine Stephen Thorpe,Male,24,5/1/1987

Felix Jones,Male,25

Byron Payton,Male,26

Lloyd Mansfield Mcgregor,Male,27,7/30/1984

Chammel Chrison Pusey,Male,27,9/14/1983

Asha Mcdevitt,Male,28

Antany Edwards,Male,23

Marvin Seymour,Male,24

Dayle Blinkhorn,,23

Brice Haddan Green,Male,23,7/9/1988

Lance Prince,Male,20,11/10/1990

Saffron Armstrong,Male,21

Jade Wallace,Female,22

Troy Mcleod,Male,27,9/19/1983

Reiss Wilson,Male,21

Shelly Bishop,Female,36

Rodney Benoni Davis,Male,18,4/28/1993

Ashton Alexander,Male,18

Kellie Hall,Female,25,4/15/1986

Total 37

Double barrelled surnames – these will most probably be black

Reece Davis-james,Male,18

Alexander Elliott-joahill,Male,18,4/16/1993

Alexander Elliott-johill,Male,18

Gary Howe-sampson,Male,20

Total 4

Those with African names – these will definitely be black

James Antwi,Male,18,12/19/1992

David Attoh,Male,18,

Ohene Bamfo,Male,20

Olufemi Akande,Male,20

Lloyd Coudjoe,Male,20

Fredrick Osei,Male,22,1/3/1989

Gassam Ojjeh,Male,22

Ryan Kaputula,Male,21

Jason Akinole,Male,22,12/3/1988

Dammy Sofekun,Male,23,3/14/1988

Anthony Akueruka,Male,23,6/3/1988

Samon Adesina,Male,23,9/11/1987

Sanh Ngan,Male,24,7/31/1987

Nana Kwame Sarpong,Male,25,4/8/1986

Roxwell Yeboah,Male,33

Nosakare Aigbogun,41

Paul Obanyanyo,Male,42

Paul Obonyano,Male,49,9/26/1968

Sayon Leroy Armstrong,Male,31,2/10/

Banye Kenon,Male

Gareth Okoro,Male,30

Total 21

Muslim names – these are unlikely to be white

Samir Drissi,Male,18,3/6/1993

Arjun Tassinari,Male,18,9/7/1992

Jamaal Hakim Hislop Whall,Male,18,12/24/1992

Ali Ladji Ford,Male,18,9/25/1992

Omar Muktar Farah,Male,18,11/14/1992

Ahmed Al-jaf,Male,18,3/22/1993

Zishan Hussain,Male,18

Abdul Majid,Male,18

Amir Shar,Male,18

Beidir Amin,Male,18

Jamal Ebanks,Male,18

Samir Shah,Male,18

Taryk Claytonabdorahman,Male,

Karmail Rizvi,Male,19,

Adel Driouch,Male,19,11/11/1991

Adewumi Adebayo ,Male,19,6/3/1992

Ahmed Diakhaby,Male,19,2/20/1992

Kumail Rizvi,Male,19

Hamza Alamin Abubakar,Male,19

Quamai Nugent,Male,19

Hodan Hussain,Male,20

Abdiasis Ibrahim,Male,20

Badawi Elbadawi,Male,20,3/27/1991

Omar Talab,Male,20,6/29/1991

Abbas Larti,Male,22,2/11/1989,

Munir Zaman,Male,20

Abdullah Ansari,Male,22,5/25/1989

Ishmail Lokko ,Male,22,2/28/1989

Farshad Dousti,Male,22,3/31/1989

Imran Khan,Male,23

Youssuf Addow,Male,25,3/4/1986

Haramein Mohammed,Male,25

Ahmed Farah,Male,27

Adellah Snape,Female,30

Abdelhak Hamraoui,Male,36

Hassan Halloway,Male,39

Hamza Abubakar,Male,19

Khuram Iftikhar,,21

Adam El-wahabi,Male,21,3/30/1990

Amir Mostafa,Male,21,10/19/1989

Youssef El-idrissi,Male,19

Sallah Osman,Male,32

Dirye,Male,19,7/22/1992

Adam Ozdas,Male,19

Armin Naserbakht,Male,22,7/23/1989

Marouane Rouhi,Male,21

Mourouane Rouhi,Male,21

Daniel Ullah,Male,22

Total 48

Non-Muslim Asians

Shourov Chowdhury,Male,19,2/2/1992

Jamie Hoang,Male,19,7/1992

Donness Bissessar,21

Amerpreet Gill,Male,23

Gurmeet Tarmeet,Male,35

Total 5

Foreign European names

Peter Bugososlavsky,Male,20

Bennie Acato,Male,19,10/31/1991

Adam Sieniuc,Male,20

Mr Piotr Dziedzic,Male,22,2/27/1989

Leandro Santos Desaevasconcelos,Male,21

Lucian Trufia,Male,24

Nina Yavarianfar,Female,27

Stefan Phidd,Male,31,11/19/1979

Lee Montaldo,Male,40

Maurice Edward

Dubois,Male,41,11/23/1969

Barry Naine,Male,42,6/25/1969

Paul Raune,Male,46,6/28/1964

Sebastian Praxitelous,Male,18

Michael Caillaux,Male,18

Samuel Caillaux,Male,20

Tony Gustave,Male,33

Total 16

Those with British names who could plausibly be white or black

Kyle Smith,Male,18,4/2/1993

Miss Victoria Holmes,Female

Graeme Paton,

Christopher Edwards

Dale Siddall,Male,18

Dane Williamson

Laura Cook,Female,18,

Joseph Moran,Male,18

Liam Allan,Male,18

Michael Binns,Male,18

Ricky Gemmell,Male,18,,

Ryan  Brack,Male,18

Shane  Collett,Male,18

Lee Anthony  Slade,Male,

Sean Mitchell,Male,19,8/22/1991

Laura  Johnson,Female,19

Christopher Clark,Male,19

Callum Powell,Male,19

Carl Pine,Male,19

Charlie  Herron,Male,19

Heather Russell,Female,19

Michael Doyle,Male,19

Peter David  Morgan,Male,20,4/22/1991

Max Doran Raven,Male,19,7/30/1992

Danielle Mcshane,Female,20

Thomas Anthony Livingstone,Male,20

Curtis Burke,Male,20

David Lukeman,Male,20

John Alexander,Male,20

Oliver  Johnson,Male,20

Billy Bennett,Male,21,9/25/1989,

Billy Watson,Male,21Oliver Tetlow,Male,22

Jack Lamb,Male,22

Andrew Britten,Male,22

Clive Morris,Male,22

David O’Neil,Male,22

Gregory Coleman,Male,20

Perry Atherton,Male,20

Ronnie Whitby,Male,20

Darren Aiken,Male,21

Gavin Richard Edwards,Male,21,3/13/1990

Conrad Mcgrath,Male,21

Ricky Farrant,Male,21

Reece Mcdonagh,Male,21

Craig Moody,Male,22,1/31/1989

Fraser Giscombe,Male,22

Lee Mcaloney,Male,22

Mark Anthony Baker,Male,22

Tom Skinkis,Male,22,12/29/1988

Rhys Cleary,Male,23

James Oliver Tomlinson,Male,23,3/3/1988

Christopher James Harte,Male,23

Mr Nicolas Robinson,Male,23,8/3/1988

Christopher Hart,Male,23,

Callum Nugent,Male,23

Christopher Heart,Male,23

Luke Blakemore,Male,23

Nicholas Robinson,Male,23

Richard Mccoy,Male,23

Ross Jackson,Male,23

Jason Hedgecock,Male,24

Natasha Mavis Reid,Female,24,10/25/1986

George Austin,Male,24,11/18/1986

Linda Boyd,Female,24

Ross Lynch,Male,24

Natasha Reid,Female,24

Craig Fullerton,Male,24

Dwaine Spence,Male,24

David Gordon,Male,25,10/9/1985

David Swarbrick,Male,25

Andrew Barlow,Male,25

David Benjamin,Male,25,4/4/1986

Kieron Samuels,Male,25,8/21/1985

Mark Burns,Male,25

Barry Paisley,Male,25

Stephen Carter,Male,26, ,

John Millbanks,,26

John Joseph Millbanks,Male,26

Craig Cave,Male,26

Gareth Rees,Male,26

Liam Cornwell,Male,26

Daniel Tony Watson,Male,27,5/20/1984

Ryan Doyle,Male,27,10/17/1983

Ian Blaize,Male,27,11/10/1983

Karl Brown,Male,27

Ricky Hudson,Male,27

Michael Hayden,Male,28,2/2/1983

Karl Kaynor,Male,28,

Natalie Lee,Female,28

Eoin Flanagan,Male,28,1/1/1983

Robert Dnison,Male,28

Tony Williams,Male,30

Katie Lovett,Female,30

Julie Aldrich,Female,31,5/25/1980

Mark Phillips,Male,32

Jeffrey Ebanks,Male,32

Keith Adrian  Mitchell,Male,33,1/9/1978

Mark  Cunningham,Male,33,

Jean Brown,34

Paul Williams Newman,Male,34,8/24/1976

Stephen John Williams,Male,34,6/10/1977

Jason Matthews,Male,35,8/22/1975

Terry Payne,Male,35

Jason Matthews,Male,35

Mr Robert Wayne Campbell,Male,38,9/1/1972

Michael Wilson,Male,38

James Best,Male,38

Anthony Winder,Male,38

Jason Ullett,Male,38

William Jenkins,Male,40,5/11/1971

Joseph Levy,Male,41

Karen Anne Turner,Female,42,6/23/1969

Stuart Gallagher,Male,42

Sean Havens,Male,43

Steven Keith,Male,43

Terry Monaghan,Male,44,2/26/1967

Martin Burton,Male,44,6/19/1968

Kenneth Michael Hunnisett,Male,45

Darren Byrne,Male,46

John Mcneil,Male,46

Bernard Moore,Male,46

Michael Coffey,Male,47

Gary Herriott,Male,48

Peter Ellwood,Male,50

Ingrid Smith,Female,58

Jack Onslow,Male

126

In evaluating how many white Britons are amongst the 278 these facts need to be understood:

1. Those with double barrelled British surnames are most probably black because it has become the fashion for blacks in Britain to use both their parent’ surnames because there are so many illegitimate births and half-brothers and half-sisters in black families.

2. Those with first names such as Tyrone or Byron or standard white names spelt differently,for example Daveeed for David, are likely to be black.

3. Those with African names such as Akinole will be black unless a white woman has married an African.

4. Those of black West Indian origin or ancestry will generally have British surnames because the slaves took their masters names.  Some will have names which are indistinguishable from British names. However, they often use first names  rarely used by native Britons such as Delroy and Winston or unusual Biblical names such as Micah and Esau.

5. Those with Muslim names are unlikely to be white or native Britons. The could just conceivably be white converts or whites who have married Muslims.

6. Those with names such as Singh or Patel are most probably Asian,  although if it is a female who is older than a schoolgirl they might be white women who have married Asians.

7. Those with foreign surnames drawn from European countries will generally be white, but may well be first generation immigrants, especially if they come from Eastern European countries.

Using these criteria as a guide,  I estimate that at worst 70 of the 295 could have been white.  I say at worst primarily because there is no way of testing the question of whether some of those with traditional British names are blacks from the West Indies.   Of those who are white, a significant minority could be recent immigrants.

 

The racial and ethnic make-up of the 2011 rioters

Robert Henderson

The mainstream  British media and politicians are desperate to claim that the recent riots and looting  have no racial context and that it is a multicultural event.(In fact, they have unwittingly reduced it to a black/white event because Asians are omitted in their narrative). This is absurd as anyone can see from the TV and Press coverage of the actual riots that the vast majority of those taking part are black.  However, although this is shriekingly obvious no one has published any breakdown by race or ethnicity of those taking part. This is an attempt to fill the gap by analysing the names of those charged with offences.

The Daily Telegraph compiled a list of 466 people charged with offences relating to the UK riots which began on 7 August 2011 who had appeared in court by 11 August. The Telegraph story is at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8698443/UK-riots-suspected-looters-statistics-and-court-cases.html.

Of the 466 people, 295 are named, the others being those under the age of 18 or those suspected to be under the age of 18 (under 18s cannot be named in British courts except where the court deems it reasonable) plus a few for whom the Telegraph did not have names.  I have listed the 297 named people below. Under them are the facts which need to taken into account when assessing   the racial and ethnic origins of the rioters.

Dale Siddall,Male,18

Alexander Elliott-joahill,Male,18,4/16/1993

Christopher EDWARDS.

Samir Drissi,Male,18,3/6/1993

Kyle Smith,Male,18,4/2/1993

Arjun Tassinari,Male,18,9/7/1992

Rodney Benoni Davis,Male,18,4/28/1993

Djibrile Batrane,Male,18,4/18/1993

Jamaal Hakim Hislop Whall,Male,18,12/24/1992

Reece Davis-james,Male,18

Dane Williamson

Ali Ladji Ford,Male,18,9/25/1992

Omar Muktar Farah,Male,18,11/14/1992

Ahmed Al-jaf,Male,18,3/22/1993

James Antwi,Male,18,12/19/1992

Zishan Hussain,Male,18

Samuel Jolly,Male,18

Graeme Paton, Male

Sanchez Banton,Male,18

Nathan Dempster,Male,18

David Attoh,Male,18

Laura Cook,Female,18

Aaron Warwood,Male,18

Abdul Majid,Male,18

Alexander Elliott-johill,Male,18

Amir Shar,Male,18

Ashton Alexander,Male,18

Beidir Amin,Male,18

Curtis Dejean,Male,

Jacques Samuel De La Lubie,Male,18

Jamal Ebanks,Male,18

Joseph Moran,Male,18

Liam Allan,Male,18

Michael  Binns,Male,18

Michael Caillaux,Male,18

Ricky Gemmell,Male,18,,

Ryan Brack,Male,18

Samir Shah,Male,18

Sebastian Praxitelous,Male,18

Shane Collett,Male,18

Lee Anthony Slade,Male,

Taryk Claytonabdorahman,Male,

Karmal Rizvi,Male,19

Miss Victoria Holmes,Female,

Ahmed Diakhaby,Male,19,2/20/1992,

Byron Cawley,Male,19,3/14/1992

Bennie Acato,Male,19,10/31/1991

Sean Mitchell ,Male,19,8/22/1991

Mr Nathan Anthony George Henry,Male,

Lorriane Andalinda Mcgrane,Male,

Dirye,Male,19,7/22/1992

Jamie Hoang,Male,19,7/1992

Adel Driouch,Male,19,11/11/1991

Adewumi Adebayo ,Male,19,6/3/1992

Heather Russell,Female,19

Kumail Rizvi,Male,19

Adam Ozdas,Male,19

Laura Johnson,Female,19

Christopher Clark,Male,19

Mr Shourov Chowdhury,Male,19,2/2/1992

Hamza Alamin Abubakar,Male,19

Stefan Hoyle,Male,19,1/21/1992

Max Doran Raven,Male,19,7/30/1992

Byron Cawley,Male,19

Callum Powell,Male,19

Carl Pine,Male,19

Charlie Herron,Male,19

Hamza Abubakar,Male,19

Michael Doyle,Male,19

Quamai Nugent,Male,19

Shourov Choudhury,Male,19

Tyrrel Shannon,Male,19

Youssef El-idrissi,Male,19

Peter Bugososlavsky,Male,20

Aaron Young,Male,20,3/19/1991

Pierre Wilkinson,Male,20,10/7/1990

Peter David Morgan,Male,20,4/22/1991

Lance Prince,Male,20,11/10/1990

Miss Shereece Ashley,Female

Jerome Lewis,Male,20,1/3/1991

Hodan Hussain,Male,20

Alicia Smith,Female,20

Abdiasis Ibrahim,Male,20

Badawi Elbadawi,Male,20,3/27/1991

Omar Talab,Male,20,6/29/1991

Danielle Mcshane,Female,20

Levi Nesbitt,Male,20

Ohene Bamfo,Male,20

Jordan Kelly,Male,20,1/9/1991

Adam Sieniuc,Male,20

Olufemi Akande,Male,20

Lloyd Coudjoe,Male,20

Thomas Anthony Livingstone,Male,20

Curtis Burke,Male,20

David Lukeman,Male,20

Gary Howe-sampson,Male,20

Gregory Coleman,Male,20

Harrison Mccalla,Male,20

John Alexander,Male,20

Jordan Blackshaw,Male,20

Munir Zaman,Male,20

Oliver Johnson,Male,20

Perry Atherton,Male,20

Ronnie Whitby,Male,20

Samuel Caillaux,Male,20

Shereece Ashley,Female,20

Darren Aiken,Male,21

Tyrone Thaddeus Coombs,Male,21,5/16/1990

Billy Bennett,Male,21,9/25/1989,

Nathan David Evans,Male,21,11/14/1989

Gavin RichardEdwards,Male,21,3/13/1990

Khuram Iftikhar,,21

Conrad Mcgrath,Male,21

Adam El-wahabi,Male,21,3/30/1990

Leandro Santos

Desaevasconcelos,Male,21

Ricky Farrant,Male,21

Aaron Israel,Male,21,4/24/1990

Amir Mostafa,Male,21,10/19/1989

Reece Mcdonagh,Male,21

Ryan Kaputula,Male,21

Billy Watson,Male,21

Donness Bissessar,,21

Daniel Hourd,Male,21

Kairo Lawson,Male,21

Leandro Santosdesaevasconcelos,Male,21

Marouanae Rouhi,Male,21

Reiss Wilson,Male,21

Saffron Armstrong,Male,21,,

Shaundre Robinson,Male,21

Tyrone Coombs,Male,21

Jade Wallace,Female,22

Mr Travis Cadagon ,Male,22,9/1/1988

Abdullah Ansari,Male,22,5/25/1989

Ishmail Lokko ,Male,22,2/28/1989

Craig Moody,Male,22,1/31/1989

Jason Akinole,Male,22,12/3/1988

Armin Naserbakht,Male,22,7/23/1989

Fredrick Osei,Male,22,1/3/1989

Abbas Larti,Male,22,2/11/1989,

Farshad Dousti,Male,22,3/31/1989

Daniel Ullah,Male,22

Shonola Smith,,22

Aaron Grima,Male,22

Samuel Green,Male,22

Micah Lammie,Male,22,3/18/1989

Pete Kemoy Williams,Male,22,2/15/1989

Mr Piotr Dziedzic,Male,22,2/27/1989

Oliver Tetlow,Male,22

Jack Lamb,Male,22

Andrew Britten,Male,22

Clive Morris,Male,22

David O’neil,Male,22

Fraser Giscombe,Male,22

Gassam Ojjeh,Male,22

Lee Mcaloney,Male,22

Mark Anthony Baker,Male,22

Piotr Dziedvic,Male,22

Samuel Thomas Green,Male,22

Tom Skinkis,Male,22,12/29/1988

Rhys Cleary,Male,23

Dayle Blinkhorn,,23

James Oliver Tomlinson,Male,23,3/3/1988

Dammy Sofekun,Male,23,3/14/1988

Brice Haddan Green,Male,23,7/9/1988

Anthony Akueruka,Male,23,6/3/1988

Samon Adesina,Male,23,9/11/1987

Christopher James Harte,Male,23

Mr Nicolas Robinson,Male,23,8/3/1988

Christopher Hart,Male,23,

Amerpreet Gill,Male,23

Antany Edwards,Male,23

Brice Green,Male,23

Callum Nugent,Male,23

Christopher Heart,Male,23

Imran Khan,Male,23

Luke Blakemore,Male,23

Nicholas Robinson,Male,23

Richard Mccoy,Male,23

Ross Jackson,Male,23

Jason Hedgecock,Male,24

Kaine Stephen Thorpe,Male,24,5/1/1987

Natasha Mavis Reid,Female,24,10/25/1986

George Austin,Male,24,11/18/1986

Mr George Austin,Male,24,11/18/1986

Linda Boyd,Female,24

Ross Lynch,Male,24

Sanh Ngan,Male,24,7/31/1987

Marvin Seymour,Male,24

Lucian Trufia,Male,24

Natasha Reid,Female,24

Craig Fullerton,Male,24

Dwaine Spence,Male,24

Kellie Hall,Female,25,4/15/1986

Youssuf Addow,Male,25,3/4/1986

David Gordon,Male,25,10/9/1985

Nana Kwame Sarpong,Male,25,4/8/1986

David Swarbrick,Male,25

Andrew Barlow,Male,25

David Benjamin,Male,25,4/4/1986

Kieron Samuels,Male,25,8/21/1985

Haramein Mohammed,Male,25

Felix Jones,Male,25

Barry Paisley,Male,25

Cain Larden,Male,25

Mark Burns,Male,25

Stephen Carter,Male,26, ,

John Millbanks,,26

Byron Payton,Male,26

Daniel Moran,Male,26

John Joseph Millbanks,Male,26

Craig Cave,Male,26

Gareth Rees,Male,26

Liam Cornwell,Male,26

Daniel Tony Watson,Male,27,5/20/1984

Ryan Doyle,Male,27,10/17/1983

Ian Blaize,Male,27,11/10/1983

Mr Lloyd Mansfield Mcgregor,Male,27,7/30/1984

Chammel Chrison Pusey,Male,27,9/14/1983

Troy Mcleod,Male,27,9/19/1983

Nina Yavarianfar,Female,27

Ahmed Farah,Male,27

Karl Brown,Male,27

Ricky Hudson,Male,27

Mr Michael Hayden,Male,28,2/2/1983

Karl Kaynor,Male,28

Natalie Lee,Female,28

Asha Mcdevitt,Male,28

Eoin Flanagan,Male,28,1/1/1983

Robert Denison,Male,28

Aaron Samuels,Male,29

Samuel  Konneh,Male,30

Joshua Mathias Courtney Jones,Male,30,8/16/1980

Medad Coker,Male,30,10/21/1980

Aaron Hugh Mulholland,Male,30,7/5/1981

Daniel Bell,Male,30

Tony Williams,Male,30

Gareth Okoro,Male,30

Katie Lovett,Female,30

Adellah Snape,Female,30

Mr Stefan Phidd,Male,31,11/19/1979

Julie Aldrich,Female,31,5/25/1980

Sayon Leroy Armstrong,Male,31,2/10/

Mark Phillips,Male,32

Sallah Osman,Male,32

Jeffrey Ebanks,Male,32

Keith Adrian Mitchell,Male,33,1/9/1978

Tony Gustave,Male,33

Mark Cunningham,Male,33, ,

Roxwell Yeboah,Male,33

Jean Brown,34

Paul Williams Newman,Male,34,8/24/1976

Stephen John Williams,Male,34,6/10/1977

Jason Matthews,Male,35,8/22/1975

Terry Payne,Male,35

Jason Matthews,Male,35

Gurmeet Tarmeet,Male,35

Shelly Bishop,Female,36

Abdelhak Hamraoui,Male,36,

Mr Robert Wayne Campbell,Male,38,9/1/1972

Michael Wilson,Male,38

James Best,Male,38

Anthony Winder,Male,38

Jason Ullett,Male,38

Hassan Halloway,Male,39

Joseph Levey,Male,40

Lee Montaldo,Male,40

William Jenkins,Male,40,5/11/1971

Joseph Levy,Male,41

Maurice Edward Dubois,Male,41,11/23/1969

Nosakare Aigbogun,41

Paul Obanyano,”,Male,42

Barry Nine,Male,42,6/25/1969

Karen Anne Turner,Female,42,6/23/1969

Stuart Gallagher,Male,42

Paul Obanyanyo,Male,42

Sean Havens,Male,43

Steven Keith,Male,43

Terry Monaghan,Male,44,2/26/1967

Martin Burton,Male,44,6/19/1968

Kenneth Michael Hunnisett,Male,45

Darren Byrne,Male,46

John Mcneil,Male,46

Bernard Moore,Male,46

Paul Raune,Male,46,6/28/1964

Lattlay-fottfoy,Male,47

Michael Coffey,Male,47

Gary Herriott,Male,48

Paul Obonyano,Male,49,9/26/1968

Peter Ellwood,Male,50

Ingrid Smith,Female,58

Aaron Mulholland,Male

Banye Kenon,Male

Jack Onslow,Male

In evaluating how many white Britons are amongst the 297 these facts need to be understood:

1. Those with double barrelled British surnames are most probably black because it has become the fashion for blacks in Britain to use both their parent’ surnames because there are so many illegitimate births and half-brothers and half-sisters in black families.

2. Those with first names such as Tyrone or Byron or standard white names spelt differently,for example Daveeed for David, are likely to be black.

3. Those with African names such as Akinole will be black unless a white woman has married an African.

4. Those of black West Indian origin or ancestry will generally have British surnames because the slaves took their masters names.  Some will have names which are indistinguishable from British names. However, they often use first names  rarely used by native Britons such as Delroy and Winston or unusual Biblical names such as Micah and Esau.

5. Those with Muslim names are unlikely to be white or native Britons. The could just conceivably be white converts or whites who have married Muslims.

6. Those with names such as Singh or Patel are most probably Asian,  although if it is a female who is older than a schoolgirl they might be white women who have married Asians.

7. Those with foreign surnames drawn from European countries will generally be white, but may well be first generation immigrants, especially if they come from Eastern European countries.

Using these criteria as a guide,  I estimate that at worst 70 of the 295 could have been white.  I say at worst primarily because there is no way of testing the question of whether some of those with traditional British names are blacks from the West Indies.   Of those who are white, a significant minority could be recent immigrants.

 

Not as white as they are painted

Robert  Henderson

Those of us who do not share the liberal’s ostensible love of the multicultural mess they have made of modern Britain  will be gratified to hear that  the latest communal outbreak of the Joy of Diversity has brought  the riotin’, lootin, whinin’ folk to their doorsteps.

The riots and lootfests   currently occurring throughout London and other cities  either “blessed” with large black populations or close to those which do have them  – Birmingham, Manchester, Nottingham, West Bromwich, Wolverhampton, Leicester, Bristol and Liverpool – have spread from black ghettos such as Tottenham,  Brixton and Hackney to richer areas such as Lambeth, Ealing, Notting Hill and Chalk Farm.

The last is of particular interest because Chalk Farm abuts the ancestral home of liberal bigots, Hampstead, and the rioters and looters got to the boundary of the Chalk Farm/Hampstead divide.  How the collective population of Hampstead –which is preternaturally white for an inner London borough – must be sighing with dismay that they did not personally  experience so vivid an  outbreak of the “joy”, especially as they experience so little of it in normal times due to the terrible shortage of  black and  brown  faces  in their midst (http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2010/10/16/how-the-well-to-do-liberals-choose-to-live-a-lesson-from-primrose-hill/).

White liberals in Notting Hill  had cause to be  especially excited. According to BBC Radio 5 (the 10.00 pm show 8 August) police warned a householder who rang them to report
looting  to stay inside his home because there were allegedly rioters going about armed with machetes.   Just think of  how he  must have shaken fit to burst  with excitement as they thought of what blacks in Africa generally do with machetes.

Enough of the funnies.  This is serious. Nothing equivalent has happened in Britain  before.  UK Race riots since the late 1950s have been restricted to the ghetto areas themselves and were much less widespread  as a consequence. Nor was there anything like the scale of  destruction of  property or looting we are presently witnessing.  The widespread use of  arson this time is particularly striking. It would probably be necessary to go back to  the anti-Catholic  Gordon Riots of 1780 to find greater destruction of property in London.  However, the Gordon Riots were genuinely concerned with a particular political issue rather than being primarily an excuse to loot and destroy.

Why has this happened now? Thirty years of pandering to blacks by the British elite in all its guises – politicians, mediafolk, big business,  public servants and  educationalists – has taken its toll.   Blacks have  been taught that two things by Britain’s liberals: nothing is their fault and everything they do wrong  is down to ol’ whitey who just can’t stop oppressing them . On the white liberal side,  they  get their emotional rocks  off by engaging in paroxysms of white  guilt whilst cynically using  ethnic minorities  as a client class, of whom blacks are their unequivocal  favourites.  (The white working class used to be the clients of the liberal left, but that changed in the 1980s when the unions would not play ball with the Labour Party hierarchy and three successive defeats at the hands of Thatcher persuaded most Labour politicians that dumping the white working class was necessary if they were to get into power before they were on their Zimmer frames).

The response of white liberals

Initially, white liberals and blacks  claimed  that looters were protesting about the shooting dead of a black man Mark Duggan by police  in Tottenham on Thursday 4 August 2011 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14459516).This response  was   obvious nonsense  – violent protest is one thing, looting quite another. Unable to write this off as a peaceful political protest gone wrong, Liberals and their black quangocracy  clients (the blacks who are  treated as “community leaders” , those who receive considerable amounts of public money to run “multicultural” projects or  given highly paid publicly funded sinecures) are in a quandary.  They know that these riots  are being conducted overwhelmingly by blacks. They know  that the general public understands this  because of the voluminous media coverage. They realise that to deny the  fact that this is a black event puts them in the position of “Comical Ali” during  the Western attack on Iraq when he denied allied attacks were  getting through  as allied planes bombed the land close behind  him.  But  they  are only too well aware that to admit the truth (that this is a black problem) would  undermine the politically correct  virtual world they have created in which everyone in a position of power or influence  in  Britain has to give lip service at least to the idea that ethnic and racial diversity is a good in itself and infinitely preferable to homogeneous societies.

Faced with this profound difficulty liberals and their ethnic minority clients have taken one of  two paths. The first mode of evasion is to portray the riots as having no racial  context and to rely on the intimidatory effect of decades of multicultural propaganda together with liberal control of the media to allow them to call black white without attracting too much public ridicule.  BBC reporters have been especially addicted to this nonsense by stressing at every opportunity that there are “people of all races” taking part in the riots. The more daring ones emphasise the fact that there are white rioters – it would be interesting to know the national origins of the few  white rioters because  eastern  Europeans  and gipsies in particular  have a liking for theft and mayhem.   Best of all the BBC  (bless their liberal bigot hearts) have repeatedly  described the rioters and looters as protestors. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8690267/London-riots-BBC-criticised-for-branding-thugs-as-protesters.html).

Getting on to BBC phone-ins to point out the black genesis of the riots has been next to impossible. On 7th August I did manage to take part fleetingly  in a phone-in on the BBC  Radio 5 Stephen Nolan programme (10.00 pm -1.00 am). After half an hour of listening to Nolan and his guests chatter happily about the riots without mentioning the racial aspect , I rang to mention  that, try as I might to believe them,  I could not help noticing that  the vast majority of the rioters were black and consequently it was not a general social problem but a black social problem. I attributed the source of the problem to  a near universal sense of victimhood amongst blacks.   I bolstered this latter judgement with the fact that I,  unlike white liberals who almost invariably arrange their lives to live in very white worlds,   have lived for most of my adult life  and live now in parts of London which have a large black  population and consequently I engage daily with blacks, many of them, shock horror! poor and  uneducated.

It took me another forty minutes to get on air,  during which time the programme continued to parade a gallery of  politically correct grotesques that included a Metropolitan Police officer who is a leading light in  the black police association.  When I eventually was allowed to broadcast  my comments provoked outrage from this individual and I was immediately cut off, most frustratingly,   before I could point out to him that he had unambiguously  identified himself as a racist by joining a black-only representative group .

Later in the programme Nolan had as studio guests  Edwina Currie (the one-time Tory Minister) and a retired suffragan bishop by the name of Stephen Lowe. Their job was to review the papers. Lowe castigated the Telegraph for having a long gallery of photographs  showing blacks rioting and looting. He objected to this because – wait for it – the coverage made it look as though this was a black riot.  Hilariously, this earned a stern rebuke from  Currie who repeatedly accused Lowe of bringing race into the equation by mentioning the racially monochrome nature of the Telegraph photos.   Not to worry, the Telegraph made up for this terrible blunder  next day by publishing a series of photos released by the police of rioters. Guess the colour of the first rioter shown. Yes, that’s right, he is white. As was the person in the  third photo. Sadly, the pretence of it being a racially neutral riot could not be sustained and the rest of the 14 photos were overwhelmingly black.  (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/uknews/8690951/London-riots-CCTV-pictures-of-suspects-are-released-by-the-Metropolitan-Police.html).   The Telegraph have continued to disgrace themselves in politically correct eyes by printing another series of black villains in their 9 August issue.

The early signs from court appearances resulting from the riots suggest there is something very odd going on when it comes to the application of the law.  As anyone can see from the media coverage,  the vast majority of rioters are black, but the number of those  appearing in court who are white is much  greater than  their proportion of the rioters and looters. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2024767/Man-charged-riot-incitement-Facebook-London-rioters-guilty.html#ixzz1UjYYfl00)

I suspect one of two things is happening: either the police have concentrated on arresting white rioters because they  are (1) unlike the black culprits, often not part of a gang of rioters/looters and (2) arresting them does not cause any ethnic mayhem . Alternatively, the police/CPS are deliberately pushing white cases to the front of the queue to give the  false  impression that the rioters are not overwhelmingly black.   The other thing which looks suspicious is the routine showing of black rioters  in groups and whites in what look like cropped photos in which a single person is shown. These could be  extracted from scenes showing one white rioter amongst a crowd of blacks.

The other general  liberal tactic is to blame it all on economics and preferably Tory cuts. This has the advantage of leaving race out of it altogether.   Harriet Harman, a minister in both the Blair and Brown Governments, was sure that this was linked to  the rioting and looting. (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/neilobrien1/100100392/harriet-harman-and-the-intellectual-bankruptcy-of-the-progressive-left/). Mary Riddle, a Labour Party media groupie employed by the supposedly Tory Daily Telegraph,  was in no doubt that the  riots are due to social deprivation in general and the creation of an uneducated underclass in particular: “London’s riots are not the Tupperware troubles of Greece or Spain, where the middle classes lash out against their day of reckoning. They are the proof that a section of young Britain – the stabbers, shooters, looters, chancers and their frightened acolytes – has fallen off the cliff-edge of a crumbling nation.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8630533/Riots-the-underclass-lashes-out.html.

If  Harman and Riddle were correct all poor areas would be susceptible to this behaviour and most of the rioters would be white.  This is not the case. The reality is that the criminality is, as anyone can see from the press and TV, overwhelmingly being perpetrated by blacks. Moreover, the first of the rioting arose in black ghettos.  Most tellingly, no  town or city which does not have a  substantial black population or such a population close by  has seen rioting.  This also gives the lie to the claim from the Conservative side that  the riots are down to the  lax discipline in schools and the undermining  of parental authority  which has produced a generation of youngsters without respect for the law or any authority .

Clearly the causes  of these riots lie in something other than poverty, a lack of school discipline  or poor parenting.   Ostensibly the behaviour is caused by 30 years of our  elite pandering to the black population of Britain by telling them how oppressed they are and how racist Britain is. This has undoubtedly stoked their appetite for victimhood and given  them a belief that they owe nothing to society in general. That gives them the moral release to riot and loot.

The black response to the killing of Mark Duggan demonstrates the difference between blacks and whites. The police in Britain kill very few people compared with virtually anywhere else, not least because they are not routinely armed.  Most of those they  kill are white. Violent protests or protests of any sort rarely if ever occur when the person killed is white because whites still trust the police (just) to behave reasonably . When a  black man is killed it is assumed by blacks that it is tantamount to a murder and violent protest is more often than not the eventual outcome.   It remains to be seen what the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) report concludes about the Duggan shooting, but if as has been reported  by the media Duggan had a gun on him it is difficult to see how the police could be criticised for killing him if he either had it in his hand or it was near him and he was reaching for it when he was shot .

But there is a deeper problem. Blacks display the same general type of uncontrolled  behaviour in societies of very different types throughout the world, whether it be where  they are in the racial majority or minority, in an advanced industrial country or one from the depths of the Third World. There is genocide and mutilation  in places such as Rwanda and Sierra Leone; rioting, looting and episodic murder in Britain.  The degree of misbehaviour may vary but  its general type is the same; a lack of self-control  expressing itself in gratuitous violence.

That places the victimhood justification for misbehaviour in Britain in a different light. It is simply a rationalisation of general black social behaviour.  Why do blacks tend to  behave like this?  Part at least of the answer is  probably to be  found in the inferior average  IQ of blacks.  In IQ and the Wealth and Poverty of Nations (2002), the British psychologist Richard Lynn and  the Finish economist Tatu Vanhanan  included their  estimations of the average national IQs of 185 states .  They reached the estimates either by using studies of IQs conducted by others or where these were not available, by extrapolating from neighbouring countries which did have IQ studies.  For example, if the estimate based on studies of country X was 80, a  neighbouring country Y which had no studies would also be taken as 89. In the case of all black African countries  the estimated average IQ  was 69. (http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/t4.asp).

Such a low average black IQ was unsurprisingly greeted by  widespread disbelief and objections were raised  about the validity of the studies used and the practice of extrapolating from other countries where no studies existed .  In 2006 Lynn and Vanhanan published IQ and Global Inequality which addressed the objections and,  while not removing them altogether, did show that  the correlation between the imputed IQs  and IQ studies of the states in question  made after 2002 were strong (.91) (http://www.people.vcu.edu/~mamcdani/Publications/McDaniel%202008%20book%20review%20IQ%20and%20global%20inequality.pdf).

But even without the African studies and estimates, it is known that black IQs are inferior to those of whites or East Asians such as the Chinese.  The average American black IQ is a well established 85, considerably higher than the 70 of black Africans but still way below the average white IQ of 100. Moreover, black Americans have a large admixture of white genes, so an average IQ between the black African and the white American average IQ is  exactly what would be expected if it is granted that IQ is strongly dependent on genetic inheritance.  It is reasonable to assume the blacks in the US without a white admixture would have an average IQ closer to the 70 estimated  for black Africans.

What is the consequence of such a low average IQ? The first thing to understand is that people with low I Qs are not monsters but simply people who have a different level of  mental competence. They have less capacity for abstract thinking, are more literal minded, live more in the present . In short, they are childlike.  This makes them more susceptible to irrational and uncontrolled behaviour http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2010/12/02/blacks-the-odd-man-out/).  This could be the root of the strong propensity for violence and a lack of social awareness seen amongst blacks. Other factors such as higher testosterone levels in blacks may also have some effect.

But there could also be another factor in play which is a corollary of the low IQ. Someone with a low IQ  may  find living in an advanced society  extremely stressful because they  cannot cope with the intellectual demands which the society exerts on them. It is interesting that some types of mental illness are linked to low IQ (http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2010/11/27/a-low-iq-individual-in-a-high-iq-society/).  This could be part of the reason at least  for the fact that  diagnosis of  mental illness, especially schizophrenia, amongst blacks is high in Britain. It is claimed by some, especially educated blacks,  that this is due to racism within the  British mental health services. This is  difficult to take this seriously in these pc times. If diagnosis of mental illeness was to be skewed by bias it would be more likely to result in fewer diagnoses of mental illness amongst blacks not more. Plausibly, blacks become disproprotionately mentally ill in Britain  simply because they cannot cope.  The paranoia  engendered  by the victimhood fostered by white liberals will not help their mental state either. (http://www.blackmentalhealth.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=154&Itemid=139).

The emasculation of the police

The most chilling thing about reports from the scene of the riots and looting has been the persistent claims of those at the scene but not part of the criminality that there  is either an  absence of any police or where there were any police,  they were ineffective.

If the first riot in Tottenham had been quashed there is a good chance that the others might not have happened or have  been much less serious.  Quashing a single riot should have been within the power of the Met which has more than 30,000 officers, not immediately but within an hour or two after they had re-directed  officers from other parts of London.  Instead the police in Tottenham  stood back and watched the looters  for many hours.

Why have the police been so supine? It  is primarily a consequence of  the injection of political correctness into police officers’ minds with its most potent strand being “anti-racism”. A lesser secondary cause is the ever more stifling culture of “health and Safety” which the police have embraced . (see  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13319812
and http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/42/contents). This has resulted in the police putting their own safety before that of the public, a straight reversal of  what used to be the case. Effective  policing system cannot operate on such a basis.

The British elite’s  official pandering to ethnic minorities  goes back to 1965 when the first Race Relations Act (RRA) was passed followed by a second  stronger Act in 1968 which was one of the things which provoked Enoch Powell to make his “Rivers of Blood” speech in the same year. (http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2011/03/19/enoch-powells-rivers-of-blood-speech/). A third RRA with considerably more teeth arrived in 1976 which elevated ethnic minorities to a de facto protected status,  not only by  strengthening the penalties for “inciting racial hatred”  but by its provision of  a wide range of  privileges to ethnic minorities in the areas of work, education  and social provision.
(http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/74)

Then came the Scarman report into the Brixton Riots of 1981. Lord Scarman  did not accuse the Metropolitan Police of racism,  but called for the development of community policing, the recruitment of more black officers and laid part of the blame for the riots on social deprivation, particularly the high rate of unemployment in Brixton. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/25/newsid_2546000/2546233.stm).  This began the long march towards  the police policing ethnic minority areas not on the basis of what crime was occurring in them,  but what they could get “community leaders” – who tended to be self-appointed – to agree to and the ascribing of virtually  any black behaviour to deprivation.

The next and longest  nail in the coffin of rigorous policing of blacks (and ethnic minorities generally) came with the Macpherson report into the death of the black teenager Stephen Lawrence (http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm42/4262/sli-47.htm).  Macpherson accused the Metropolitan Police of being “institutionally racist”, that is racist not consciously but through the prevailing  ethos (“canteen culture”)  within the force, an accusation which was eventually embraced wholeheartedly by the Met followed by all the other UK police forces. Macpherson defined racism and institutional racism as:

‘RACISM

6.4 “Racism” in general terms consists of conduct or words or practices which advantage or disadvantage people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin. In its more subtle form it is as damaging as in its overt form.

6.34 “Institutional Racism” consists of the collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic
origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness, and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people.’

A  good examination of the ill effects of  the acceptance of the existence of “institutional racism” can be found at http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/cs06.pdf).

Macpherson also provided an absurd and dangerous definition of what constituted racist behaviour which should be investigated:

DEFINITION OF RACIST INCIDENT

12. That the definition should be:

“A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person”.

‘13. That the term “racist incident” must be understood to include crimes and non-crimes in policing terms. Both must be reported, recorded and investigated with equal commitment.

‘14. That this definition should be universally adopted by the Police, local Government and other relevant agencies.’

This meant that any complainant who was malicious or simply burdened with a sense of victimhood could turn an ordinary crime into one which was racist or even worse turn an incident which had no meaningful criminal content into a criminal act.

Macpherson continued:

‘REPORTING AND RECORDING OF RACIST INCIDENTS AND CRIMES

15. That Codes of Practice be established by the Home Office, in consultation with Police Services, local Government and relevant agencies, to create a comprehensive system of reporting and recording of all racist incidents and crimes.

16. That all possible steps should be taken by Police Services at local level in consultation with local Government and other agencies and local communities to encourage the reporting of racist incidents and crimes. This should include:

- the ability to report at locations other than police stations; and

- the ability to report 24 hours a day.

17. That there should be close co-operation between Police Services and local Government and other agencies, including in particular Housing and Education Departments, to ensure that all information as to racist incidents and crimes is shared and is readily available to all agencies….’

And

‘PROSECUTION OF RACIST CRIMES

‘34. That Police Services and the CPS should ensure that particular care is taken at all stages of prosecution to recognise and to include reference to any evidence of racist motivation. In particular it should be the duty of the CPS to ensure that such evidence is referred to both at trial and in the sentencing process (including Newton hearings). The CPS and Counsel to ensure that no “plea bargaining” should ever be allowed to
exclude such evidence. ‘ (Ibid)

To put the cherry on  pc policing, in 2000 the Blair Government passed the Race Relations  (Amendment) Act . This extended the obligations laid down in the 1976 Act for private bodies such as companies and charities to the police and other public  authorities  so that “ It is unlawful for a public authority in carrying out any functions of the authority to do any act  which constitutes discrimination.   (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/34).

Faced with that battery of multiculturalism supporting law and the ever more fervent support of  the political elite for political correctness,   unsurprisingly  the British police became  paranoid about being seen as “racist”. The “anti-discrimination ” credo has put any officer judged to have been racist – and this might be no more than a bit of banter suggesting that a black officer is difficult to see in the dark  – at the risk of instant dismissal. It has also given a lever for non-white officers with the police to go on the  grievance trail (http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/217239_43_gmp_officers_in_police_racism_claims).  The upshot is that police officers from newly minted constables  to grandees such as chief constables and the Metropolitan police commissioner  have become not only extremely  of what they say,  but reluctant to act forcefully against suspected black  criminals.  This reluctance is particularly marked in situations such as riots where they know they will be  filmed by the mainstream media and  private individuals.

In 1989 the Metropolitan Police changed its title from the Metropolitan Police Force to the Metropolitan Police Service.  Other police forces followed suit.  The change of name is symbolic of the  profound  change in attitude.  The British police moved from being keepers of the peace and catchers of criminals to quasi-social workers crossed with political commissars who are ever eager to enforce political correctness by investigating  any alleged “hate crime” even though the idea of a hate crime only has a spectral  existence in English law.    No absurdity is beyond them  as shopkeeper Gavin Alexander found in 2007 when the police swooped on his shop and took several golliwog dolls into custody (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23389075-police-seize-golliwogs-in-racism-probe.do).

Needless to say, as political commissars the police are less than eager to investigate complaints  which do not fit into the pc regime. In 2001 I made a complaint to the Racial and Violent Crime Squad against the BBC Director-General Greg Dyke who described his own organisation as “Hideously white”.  This met all the necessary criteria for prosecution:  Dyke was a public figure, he headed the largest media organisation in the world and his words indubitably incited hatred against whites.  The police refused to register the complaint let alone investigate it even,  though I persuaded an MP to write to the Met complaining about double standards (http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2011/04/28/the-ever-increasing-madness-of-political-correctness/).

The future

The situation is potentially  very serious. Imagine a situation where riots and looting such as these could be called up regularly without an adequate police response. It would be close to anarchy.  This is what we risk. Potential rioters and looters have seen the police reduced to helplessness. They will think they can do it again whenever they choose.

This was flash mob rioting using social networking. Those on a network simply need to wait until they receive a message telling them where  the next meeting point for a riot  is and head for it.  They get their loot and riot, then get another message telling them to move on elsewhere. The police can be run ragged. The same applies to any violent political protest rather than straightforward criminality. Any society can be reduced to chaos if enough people refuse to respect the law.  That is the message which comes out of these riots.

What will happen now? Even if the police could identify them, the numbers  are too great to bring to meaningful justice. Numbers are always difficult to assess where there is a fluid crowd, but the sheer volume  of riots and the length of time they have lasted must mean there have been thousands of people committing criminal acts.  Even if each incident only involved a couple of hundred people it would be easy to run up a figure of 10,000.  Many of the crimes – arson, serious criminal damage, serious theft – would have to carry a heavy prison sentence if  adequate punishment is to be administered.  To  process that number of people through a police investigation, the  Crown Prosecution Service and the courts would be a colossal task. Those who are old enough to remember the Poll Tax fiasco will recall how the magistrates courts became choked trying to process Poll Tax refuseniks.  This would be much worse because the crimes would all go before a jury in the higher  unless a guilty plea is entered.  There would also be the strong likelihood of appeals, something which did not arise often in the case of a refusal to pay  the Poll Tax.  Even if these problems  could be overcome, there would be no obvious place to incarcerate those convicted because our prisons are already so jam-packed everything is done to avoid  imprisoning people and desperate remedies such as letting prisoners out early a frequent resort.

If  people are not brought to justice or are brought to justice without any serious  punishment  resulting , the numbers of those who   are willing to riot and loot  will grow.  This will drag in blacks who have not been willing to loot and riot before.  It will also tempt other ethnic minorities to join in on the basis that if the blacks can get away with it why shouldn’t  they  have some of the spoils. A proportion of whites will also be tempted if they see ethnic minorities getting away with murder.  That is the truly pernicious nature of what is happening:  it continually encourages more disorder.

The point to cling onto is that without the mass immigration of blacks none of this would be happening. If some whites are engaging in the disorder it is only because the black rioters have provided the platform for them to behave in that way.  We can safely say that because rioting to loot just has not happened in British society when there was no large black population here. Nor do we find such rioting happening in areas dominated by native white Britons.

The riots have all taken place in England. The reason is simple: the vast majority  of  post-1945 immigrants have settled in England not the rest of the UK. It is the English who have had to bear the brunt of  mass immigration’s most obnoxious consequences.

What should be done? I suggest this. All attempts by government to appease ethnic minority groups should stop. No more money for community leaders, ethnic based charities or public projects which promote the interests only of minority ethnic groups.  All the laws such as the Race Relations Act and the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000  which give de facto privileges to ethnic minorities and prevent honest objections to immigration and its consequences should be repealed.  The police should be banned from playing the role of political commissars and get back to honest coppering; catching villains  and maintaining order. Institutionalised political correctness should be stripped from public service  and any organisation which receives public money.  Most importantly, politicians and the mainstream media should  stop incontinently  promoting the liberal fantasy of multicultural heaven and recognise that it is not heaven but at best purgatory.

What will the Coalition Government do?   Sadly, the odds must be on more appeasement  of blacks in particular and probably ethnic minorities in general.   Over the past 30 years  vast sums of taxpayers’ money has been poured into appeasing blacks and Asians.   A  good example is the permitting of Housing Associations which, overtly or covertly,  provide social housing for particular ethnic groups (http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2011/04/08/the-truth-about-social-housing-and-ethnic-minorities/).  In addition to spending money, politicians and the mainstream  media have given a grossly disproportionate amount of time and publicity to telling blacks and Asians how valuable they are to Britain.  Like foreign Aid, the attempts to create  a  healthy society by pouring money into alienated and naturally separate communities are doomed. They  simply take the money and attention and then ask for more of the same without becoming any more responsible either individually or to the wider society . They will undoubtedly be coming back for largesse and attention  now and  it is  difficult to imagine a political class which has wholeheartedly  signed up to the wonders of diversity  refusing them another hand-out. Perhaps the moving of the Joy of Diversity into the districts inhabited by white liberals will change their  public views  but do not bet on it.  They are well aware of the ill-effects of mass immigration which is the reason they take such care to live in very white worlds themselves.  Provided they can arrange things to keep the immigrants from intruding into their own lives they will probably keep quiet and carry on peddling the same tired multicultural nonsense.

Those who still think that multiculturalism can work need to understand that not only is it more psychologically comfortable for minorities to remain separate, but that it can be advantageous if the host community is soft enough to pander to it.

See also

(http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/the-position-of-minorities/.

http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/black-and-asian-cultural-separatism-in-the-uk/

No 10 Downing Street e-petitions dealing with Immigration, the EU and the ECHR

 Robert Henderson

The Government scheme for e-petitions (http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/) which the public can initiate and/or vote on is now live. If a petition can garner 100,000 votes in a maximum of a year, Parliament will then consider whether to  debate the subject of the petition.  Although there is no guarantee of a debate, it would be politically  difficult to refuse one because a failure to debate an issue would nakedly reveal  the scheme as  simply a piece of political elite PR.

There are already quite a  few petitions, the large majority being serious. The most popular subjects are those which the British political class wish they could censor out of public debate: immigration, race, foreign aid, Islam, the EU,  the corruption of the political class, warmongering, weakness in punishing criminals, the death penalty, the harassment of motorists, the cost of transport  and the imbalance of the devolution settlement with England left high and dry without a political class to look after her interests.

There is a good deal of duplication, not least because the search function is poor and it is difficult to see exactly what has been put up by other people.  Nonetheless, it gives a good idea of what the public is most  interested in.

Below are links to the petitions which deal with immigration in all its forms, the European Union and the European Convention of Human Rights  in all its manifestations which have already been sanctioned at this date. Where there are misspellings or typos, this is because those moderating the submissions are putting them up on the site without correction.

Immigration

End mass immigration View

Stop ALL immigration into the UK View

An immediate Ban on immigration from outside of the EEC View

No to Turkey joining the EU View

Abolish the residual categories of British nationality View

Emigration should be drastically reduced View

Emigration should be drastically reduced View

Asylum seekers should should be given temporary refuge and should return to their own country as soon as circumstances allow View

Benefits for immigrants View

Benefits for non-UK residents View

Resident Permits for Immigrants View

To opt out of the Human Rights legislation View

Abolish Islam in the UK View

English Law, Not Shariah Law View

European Union

European Law View

Leave the European Union View

We Want To Withdraw From The EU View

Repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 View

European Sovereignty Act View

Repatriation of Powers from the European Union View

Britain wants referendum to leave EU View

No to Turkey joining the EU View

Referendum on the Accession of Turkey to the EU View

Referendum on accession of Croatia to the EU View

Remove the EU flag from British number plates View

Reduction in payments to EU View

Cost/Benefit Analysis of EU Membership View

Human Rights  (ECHR)

Repeal The European Courts Human Rights Act View

withdraw from the european human rights act View

Protect the UK from the European Convention on Human Rights View

Withdraw from the European Human Rights Commission View

Human Rights Act & the ECHR. View

Human Rights Act View

Ban the Human Rights Act View

Human Rights Act should be revoked. View

Ban the Human Rights Act View

Human right legislation View

Protect the UK from the European Convention on Human Rights View

The Great Charity Scam

Most people when faced with the word charity attached to an institution are inclined to be well disposed to the organisation regardless of what the charity is supposed to do.  If it is a popular area of work, such as medical research or the provision of services to disabled children, rationality goes out of the window.  Hardly anyone questions how the money is spent or how much of it actually goes to the people the charity are supposedly helping. Even fewer ask where charities get their money from, the public commonly  subscribing to the  benign but erroneous assumption that it is collected largely from money put into collecting boxes or donations made by the living or the dead directly to charities. There is a further commonly believed  fantasy that those collecting for charities are  unpaid volunteers cheerfully giving their time out of  pure altruism, a fantasy which quite incredibly often extends to  that  persistent nuisance known as  “chuggers”  who aggressively buttonhole  people in the street.

The truth is a great deal more complex and murkier than the general public imagines.  The most dramatic subversion of charities comes in the form of national and local governments directing taxpayers’ money to charities to perform work which would otherwise be undertaken either directly by the public body or through the employment of a private enterprise contractor.  The charities who accept  public money – and the vast majority of the larger ones do – become no more than subcontractors  to  government.

The extent of  public funding is massive:  In 2010 the Charities Commission (which oversees charities in England and Wales) concluded  “that almost a quarter of the large charities consider public sector funding to be their most important source of income. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/government-cutbacks-could-wipe-out-25-per-cent-of-charities-1926155.html). In February 2010 ‘ Cardiff University’s school of social sciences on behalf of the public services union Unison predicted that many charities will go bust” [because of coalition cuts in funding]’ and concluded  that ‘More than half of charities’ income now comes from government contracts to deliver public services.’  (ibid).

The use of charities to provide public services  fits in with the Coalition Government’s  drive to subcontract public provision. This means that all three major British political parties officially support the use of charities as government subcontractors, albeit  half-heartedly by the LibDems. Whoever is in power for the foreseeable future, it is a fair bet that the relationship between charities and the Government will broaden and deepen.

As for fundraising from the public, “chuggers”  are paid, a basic and sometimes  bonuses.   They work for fundraising firms who receive payments from a charity for every recruited donor. (http://www.pfra.org.uk/face-to-face_fundraising/do_you_object_to_chuggers/they_are_paid/).  Many of the larger charities run regular raffles. My experience of these is that once a raffle a raffle has been entered  they will not only send  details of all future raffles but in many cases send out second letters urging entry into the raffle if an entry has not been received a few weeks before the closing date. I  have also been positively bombarded with requests, both by letter and email, for  donations not only from charities to which  I have donated , but also from  charities to  which I have never contributed .   This can only mean charities sell on donors details to other charities and quite probably to private business.

The other prime problem with  charities, even large ones, is the fact that they are often very inefficient. The poorly run ones spend a great deal on administration.  They spend inordinate  amounts  on advertising. They hoard money rather than spend it. They manage their money poorly. They fail to modernise their services. Their accounts are inadequate. The idea that charities will be more efficient than direct public provision  is simply laughable. Not only do they suffer from the structural ills of public service they lack any proper  public accountability. Charities are audited each year, but that audit is much less demanding than the audit required of large public companies. Moreover, their frequent failure to keep adequate records makes  any audit of the use of public money very difficult. It would also be a very  expensive job to monitor their spending of public  money meaningfully.

Take the case of Scope, the charity previously known as the Spastics Society, which aids those with cerebral palsy.  It is a mainstream charity of just the sort to attract public sympathy in large measure. The first thing to note is that it changed its name in 1994 from something everyone could immediately understand – the Spastics Society- to something which most people would not have a clue about. The charity had allowed itself to be seduced by the marketing sirens.  It is difficult to imagine this confusion did not have some effect on fundraising.

In January 2006 Scope announced it was shutting 50 of its shops because it had a predicted £310 million deficit. (Daily Telegraph 13/01/2006). The Telegraph account went on to disclose that Scope’s last accounts showed that it was budgeting to spend £35.6 million more than it received in the financial year 2006/7, that there was a hole in its pension fund and that its buildings suffer widespread dilapidation through lack of investment.  I think most people who think about it would be somewhat disturbed by the idea that a charity had a pension fund of any size and that a substantial part of their donations are going to fund it. Charities in the public mind are thought of as institutions where people offer their services either free or at a discounted rate. The idea that their paid employees are just like any other employee does not fit comfortably with the public’s idea of charity.

One of the directors of Scope Jan Hildreth at that time  (he was also a former director-general of the Institute of Directors summed up the mentality of his and many other charities: “Like many charities, the concern of the society has always been its activity and not its finances.”(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1507717/Scope-to-close-50-charity-shops-as-10m-loss-looms.html). Interestingly  Scope blamed part of its plight on ‘the Government for underfunding services it provides, such as residential and school places.  “It wants our services, but it doesn’t want to pay for them,” the spokesman said. “This is a drain on our coffers.” ‘ (ibid).

To inefficiency add fraud. The National Fraud Authority estimates  internal and external fraud against the charities costs £1.3 billion a year ( http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/about_us/contacting_us/p_brief_charities_fraud.aspx).

The use of charities as government sub-contractors has other pernicious effects. It allows a government to evade responsibility even more effectively than the employment of private companies does because charities, especially popular ones,  throw up a moral shield. As mentioned above people feel that money spent by a charity is a good in itself. That applies even when it is taxpayers’ money.

Often the public is not even aware that public money has gone to a charity. This means that governments can support unpopular policies, such as those associated with political correctness, without the general public being aware that public money is being used to promote the policies. A  government can also make charitable donation part of their PR because they can  gain kudos from the public by publicising their donations of taxpayers’ money to popular charities.

As the Scope complaint quoted above suggests, governments may also see  charities as a cheap means of public provision. Whether it is or not is another matter – personally I would doubt it because of the widespread incompetence in the charity world.. There is a further objection to the use of charities as publicly funded providers. They have a moral and civic role. The whole point of a charity is that it is the product of the individual will, a conglomeration of the active decisions of those who choose to make a contribution.  It is part of what academics like to call civil society, those institutions which men naturally form in a free society and which fall outside the ambit of the state. Lose or even seriously diminish those institutions and the state determines all, for there is nothing to oppose it or offer an alternative.

Making a charity simply or largely a client of government undermines the very idea of charity. There is every chance that if charities are seen as arms of government, private donations to them will begin to dry up. That in turn would have spending implications for the taxpayer, because although often inefficient,  charities do fund a considerable amount of what would therwise be described as public provision. The taxpayer would end up footing the bill for extra public provision.

State funding also makes charities forget their original role. The  natural tendency for charities who become heavily dependent on public money is to  cease to view their organisation as a charity and see it simply as a business.  There was a good example in the news this week.  The St John’s Ambulance (SJA), a charity which provides medical services at most major public event in Britain and which is much admired by the public has decided to “rationalise” the charity by moving from a system of localism with money raised in an area being spent there to a centralised  treasury which will collect all the money raised throughout the UK  and distribute it as their  central management sees fit.  The volunteers fear that the change will make people less willing to volunteer for unpaid work.  As the SJA has 1,600 paid staff and 40,000 volunteers, the effect  of the change could be dramatic.  (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8684165/St-John-Ambulance-abandoning-volunteers-over-restructure-project.html).

The SJA also displays another unpretty trait of modern charities; the expansion of highly paid posts. The proposed SJA  reform will involve  the creation of “ eight regional directors will be created on salaries of £80,000 a year plus benefits to represent London, the south east, south west, East Midlands, West Midlands, East of England, North-West and North East.”  (Ibid).  Salaries exceeding £100.000 for chief executives are common (http://society.guardian.co.uk/salarysurvey/table/0,12406,1042677,00.html).  Sometimes the percentage of donations taken by senior staff is astonishing. Take PACT, a charity run by the wife of Sir Anthony Meyer, with Cherie Blair – a close friend of Lady Meyer – as patron. Here is the Mandrake column in the Telegraph reporting on 25 May 2011 “… all but £9,500 of the money received in donations by Pact, which stands for Parents & Abducted Children Together, was paid to the Chanel-clad Catherine Meyer, who is the chief executive, and to one member of staff.

“Lady Meyer, who is also its president, and her employee were paid a total of £49,586. Lady Meyer received almost 70 per cent of that sum. Pact’s income from donations was £59,056 and it received a further £38,234 in grants…

“We are doing a huge amount of work for very little salary,” she said. “I used to work in the City and earned much more.”

Her husband, and six of Pact’s 11 trustees, added in a letter: “We consider it to be at the low end of the pay scale for chief
executives of charities with a demanding brief. “(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/8534133/Cherie-Blair-is-in-no-hurry-to-speak-up-for-charity-boss-Lady-Meyer.html).
The example beautifully demonstrates the inability of those running charities to understand the difference between a business and a charity.

The danger for charities which lose their popular base and become dangerously dependent on public  funding is that they  run the risk of being left stranded when the economic tide goes out.  When, as is happening today, public funding is cut many will find that they cannot fill the gap because they have put too many of their campaigning eggs in one basket.

There is a further serious  problem, namely what is a  legitimate charity? Charity is big business. According to the Charity Commission, as at June 2001 there were 161,978 registered charities in England and Wales with a combined income of £56 billion (http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/About_us/About_charities/factfigures.aspx).   Is it
really possible that such a vast number of good causes exist which deserve the considerable privileges granted to them by the state?

Take our private schools (many of them bewilderingly for foreigners called public schools).  They are overwhelmingly charities. They also have in most cases a history of one hundred years or more. This means that the profit motive is absent and a quasi public-service (civil society) ethos has had time to evolve. Yet public schools – which get around £100 million tax relief – have always subsidised the education of the poorer middle-class children rather than the education of the truly poor. Why should they have status of a charity?

There are also many questionable cases where the charity exists to fund something which is essentially, even in principle,  a private or sectional interest, for example the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Why should the taxpayer subsidise such institutions?

The biggest charitable status bone of contention is political action.  The Charities Commission permits political campaigning  “Yes – any charity can become involved in campaigning and in political activity which further or support its charitable purposes, unless its governing document prohibits it” but bans charities having a political purpose “A charity cannot have a political purpose. Nor can a charity undertake political activity that is not relevant to, and does not have a reasonable likelihood of, supporting the charity’s charitable purposes”  (http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/publications/cc9.aspx#11).  This is completely impractical. For example, how can  a charity whose purpose is to support immigrants in applications for asylum, fight deportation and so forth not  have a political purpose?  There can also be the complication of  public funding which is a political matter in itself. Take the Immigration Advisory Service (IAS) which is currently insolvent,viz: .

” The Immigration Advisory Service (IAS), the largest provider of publically funded immigration and asylum legal advice,  advised today that it had been placed into administration. The IAS, a registered charity, has been in existence for 35 years, and employs 300 staff at 14 locations across England and Scotland. It is renowned for a large number of important legal precedent cases which have been taken through the Courts, including to the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights.

“The Governments reforms include the removal of immigration from the scope of legal aid, and a 10% cut in legal aid fees for refugees seeking asylum within the UK. Immigration accounts for around 60% of IAS’s income. There are few organisations that could cope with the compound effect of removal of immigration from the scope of legal aid and a cut in fees for asylum clients.

“The IAS has been in discussion with the Legal Services Commission (LSC) in an attempt to gain support for a solvent restructure of its operations. IAS had also tried to reach an agreement with LSC for an extended period to repay monies which (in common with many other firms) had been claimed in error, partly, in IAS’s view, due to the complex funding rules in place. The legal aid cuts put IAS in the position of needing to fund any repayment of these monies, from a much reduced income base, and as a result it has not proved possible to reach agreement on a way forward.” (http://www.iasuk.org/home.aspx).  How can that not be an organisation with a political purpose?

Charities epitomise the difficulties of mixing private and public. It is true that as non-profit making bodies they share some of the ethos of public service and the profit motive is absent, but their entanglement with government has utterly undermined their charitable status and moral stature.   How do we return them to  their proper purpose? Charitable status should only be granted to those who raise their own money. Paid fundraisers should be banned.  Limits should be put on the amounts spent on administration and advertising.  Charities should only be registered which undertake their entire work in the UK. Those currently registered which are inherently political should have their charitable status removed.  Only  those with a purpose which could potentially benefit anyone should be registered.  Examples would be those dealing with medical research or care of the old.

Impractical? A recipe for chaos? No. Much of what charities now do is what government should be doing. Governments would have to do their duty and either employ what are now charities as simple  subcontractors without charitable status or make other arrangements. A great deal of the rest is simple political action under the guise of charity or the subsidy of of particular  interests without any wider social benefit.  Some charities such as the IAS are directly opposed to the UK’s interests.  A radical review is required of what should constitute  a charity.

Spaced Out – What is the point of Homo Sapiens in space?

When I was young I was much enthused by spaceflight.  Anything seemed possible after the Moon landings. The immense technological and psychological challenges which the incredibly hostile environment of space and all the other planets and  moons of the Solar System present to  humans seemed merely waiting to be swept aside by human ingenuity. Now I am old I can see that space travel and settlement is of very restricted utility or possibility  unless startling scientific and technological discoveries are made, and if it ever became possible to move beyond our own system to other Suns such expeditions would contain great risks for humanity.

The nearest star to Earth  Proxima Centauri  is 4.2 light years away. Even if one could travel at  90% of the speed of light with little time needed to accelerate or decelerate, from the point of view of those on Earth it would take  around  five  years to travel to the nearest star (the perception of time passing would be less for those on the ship because of Special Relativity).  In practice the trip would almost certainly  take much longer  because it would  take considerable time to accelerate and decelerate to and  from such speeds, not least because of the  problems arising from the human body not being able to withstand prolonged rapid  acceleration
because of the G-forces  involved (http://quest.nasa.gov/saturn/qa/new/Effects_of_speed_and_acceleration_on_the_body.txt).

Most stars are much  further flung Proxima Centauri . Assuming neither a means of exceeding the speed of light is discovered nor a way of  circumventing distance by some method such as jumping through wormholes via dark holes,  all we can realistically do with manned flight  is explore our own solar  system.

In terms of human settlement or exploitation, exploring the solar system is not an attractive prospect because the only objects  which have any chance of allowing human occupation of any kind are Mars or Pluto or  some of the bigger  moons such as Ganymede and Titan. All the other planets would destroy human beings through excessive (for the human form)  gravity, atmospheric pressure or heat .  Even those bodies humans could land on would present a most hostile environment, for not one has an atmosphere which humans could breath . Moreover,  all, even Mars, would have a gravity which is only a fraction of that of Earth and this would have serious physiological effects on humans. The same problem with knobs on applies to any other planetary system. Man is made for Earth. Anything else will be foreign to his biology. Earth sustains life because it has an intrinsic magnetosphere which both protects the planet from highly charged particles carried by the solar wind which are harmful to life and the retention of the atmosphere which can be eroded by the solar wind.  Nowhere else in the Solar System  are these conditions  found and we would be  unlikely to come across them even if the vast distances between the stars and Earth could be travelled. More of that later.

I can hear devotees of sci-fi  shouting “what about terraforming”, the idea that planets or moons could be engineered to become places habitable to homo sapiens. Apart from the obvious barrier of  no one having  the slightest idea of how this might be done,  there are also inconvenient  facts which restrict  our choices.  The gas giants – Saturn, Jupiter, Neptune, Uranus -  are ruled out because they are , er, largely composed of  gas.

The planets  beyond Mars are also vast distances away from not only Earth but also the Sun.   One astronomical unit (AU) is 92,955,807 miles ( 149,597,870 km),  which is the average distance from the Earth to the Sun.   Jupiter is 5.2 AU from the Sun; Saturn 9.54 AU; Unranus 19.22 AU; Neptune 30.06 AU and Pluto  39.5 AU( http://nineplanets.org/). Hence, the nearest planet to  Earth beyond  Mars, Neptune,  is a distance of 4.2 AU from Earth and Pluto is 38.5 AU away or to put in another way, 76 times the distance of Mars from the Earth which is around  half an AU off.    Apart from presenting immense challenges to build a spacecraft capable of sustaining humans for long periods –  for many years at a time at current rocket speeds –   the  distance  of the outer planets from the Sun means that the useable energy which could be captured from the Sun would be tiny compared with that which reaches a planet at Earth’s distance from the Sun.  Distance from the Sun would also  make settlement on the larger moons  such a Titan (Saturn) and Ganymede (Jupiter) very problematic even assuming it is possible to land men on them.

That leaves Mercury, Venus and Mars. Mercury would simply fry or freeze us, its surface temperature varying from 90-700 degrees Kelvin. It does rotate but very slowly – once every 59 Earth days and possesses a very thin atmosphere consisting  of atoms blasted off its surface by the solar wind.  This atmosphere constantly needs replenishing because the heat sends the
atoms into space. Venus is sometimes called Earth’s “sister planet”, because of all the Solar System ‘s planets  it most resembles Earth  in  size, gravity, bulk composition and distance from the Sun.  Sadly, it has next to no magnetic field to protect it from cosmic radiation, an  atmospheric pressure that  is 93 times that of earth, an atmosphere largely composed of carbon dioxide, clouds formed of sulphuric acid several miles thick  with winds of several hundred miles an hour and a surface temperature of  400-700 degrees Kelvin.  If terraforming of Venus were to happen, it would be the sort of job guaranteed to keep a builder giving an estimate sucking his cheeks in and  whistling for years.  So we are left with Mars. Mars also  lacks a decent magnetic field and is considerably smaller than the Earth so gravity would become a problem for long term habitation.  We could however actually land on Mars as it is presently constituted.

Leaving behind the dream of terraforming, what are we left with? Assuming that the problems of shielding people  from cosmic radiation and the physiological difficulties arising for an environment radically different from the Earth could be overcome, Mars and various moons such as our own might be lived on in physically  enclosed habitations with their own breathable atmosphere . However, there would be  the further problem of supplying the means of life, a difficulty which would be massively amplified if Mars or a moon had no water.  If there is water in large quantities, it is  possible to envisage settlements of a reasonable size living in closed settlements  and growing their own food.  Nonetheless, it is worth noting that an
attempt to replicate such an environment on Earth called Biosphere2,  was less than a raging success  from both a technical and psychological standpoint, with the oxygen content of the
atmosphere falling rapidly, food production inadequate and the inhabitants splitting into two groups hostile to one another. (http://www.biology.ed.ac.uk/research/groups/jdeacon/biosphere/biosph.htm)

Our present scope for colonising other parts of the solar system being distinctly limited , the big question is this, why we should be doing anything in space beyond  placing manned
satellites around the Earth and unmanned probes further afield?  The idea of mining the solar system for minerals is dubious in the extreme, because of the still fantastic cost of putting and maintaining anything into and in space. It is difficult to see how this will change. How about space tourism?   Perhaps we shall see a market grow for Richard Branson-style short trips to the edge of space, although even that is  it is difficult to see that as anything other than a very limited market for reasons of cost. Longer term trips into space, whether orbital or eventually to destinations such as the moon  or even Mars are distinctly unlikely because of the cost and physical and psychological training and qualities required to undertake long space flights.

A research laboratory on the Moon or Mars perhaps? Perhaps, but the cost would be frightening.  More to the point,  what would be the purpose of such a thing? The fate of the Moon programme is instructive. Men walked on the Moon  and where then left psychologically dangling in the air.  They had achieved their goal and had nowhere else to go. If a manned settlement is created on the Moon or Mars  the danger would be that the creation of the settlement would be an end in itself and once achieved become a white elephant.   Apart from
studying the geology of the Moon or Mars, it is difficult to think of any research which could be done on the Moon or Mars which could not be done on Earth or from a station in space.

But even assuming that it was thought worthwhile and affordable  to explore the Solar system or even go further afield there would be many horrendous  practical problems to be overcome.  Take the  psychological aspect. I suspect that humans would find  leaving Earth an immense distance behind would be tremendously difficult.  Parallels are often drawn  with those who set out  on voyages to parts unknown such as those from Europe to the New World, but there are considerable differences. To begin with  the exploring sailors were  not constrained by an environment inherently fatal to them; those in a spaceship are. Astronauts have to carry their air around with them; sailors do not.  Then there is the question of time.  A voyage across the Atlantic would take weeks:  with current technology a flight to Mars would last six months or more, one to Pluto nine or ten years.

Sailors in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries  were  restricted to small vessels but these would be larger than the living quarters of modern spacecraft and the crew would not have the claustrophobic feeling of being trapped within the ship, a feeling which would almost be a danger for astronauts on long missions.  Those in a spaceship would be very aware  that they had to carry all their  fuel and  provisions them;  sixteenth century sailors had no need of fuel and were   able to gather water and food even while they sailed  and always had the hope of landfall.  A spaceship is reliant  on very complex equipment  which  could not be replaced and probably not repaired during a flight;  a wooden ailing ship had a considerable capacity to absorb  damage and remain operational, not least  because a ship of any size would have a hip’s carpenter and wood to make repairs could be acquired if landfall was made in a wooded area.   The fears of space travellers and exploring sailors would be different.  Those in space would go with the knowledge of  the perils they were facing; the fear of fifteenth and sixteenth century  sailors would arise from not knowing what they would face.  I suspect the former state i harder to face because it is more real.  The loneliness and sense of vulnerability of
the space traveller and settler – even within the solar system -  might be impossible to bear.

Ten there are the physical difficulties. Even assuming we could come near to approaching the speed of light it is difficult to see how a spacecraft  could travel safely. For example, how would they miss objects large enough to destroy the ship at such speeds – and the objects  would not need to be very large.  As for strategies such as going through wormholes, how would spaceships  avoid materialising in the centre of a star or planet?

Many of the  problems might in time be overcome. Completely effective radiation shields might be made;  spaceships of great size constructed, most probably in space itself;
the  physical deterioration of humans caused by weightless halted;  the speed of spacecraft increased to the point where a trip to Mars or even the outer planets was reduced to a few weeks  to mention just a few.  But the question would still remain, to what end  would the travel be undertaken? For the trivial reason of tourism? Hardly a persuasive reason.  For the exploitation of of the physical resources of other planets, moons and asteroids? Intelligent machines could do that job much better.  To put research stations on the Moon or Mars? Again intelligent machines could do the work more safely and cheaply. Take the matter further. Suppose a means to travel to the stars was found, either by  new scientific and technological discoveries or by the  Noah’s Ark solution beloved of Sci-Fi writers where a giant spaceship spends generations travelling at a  cosmically modest speed to a nearby star. Would that be a useful or sensible course to follow?

To begin with the chances of finding planets suitable for uman habitation are most probably small. There is only body in the Solar System which supports life as far as we know. Certainly none supports advanced life.  Life of any type may be a rarity throughout the Universe.  Even if there are millions of planets in our galaxy which support life  of some type it would
still be a very long shot for humans in spaceships to encounter them because there are many tens of billions of suns in the Milky Way.  Even if “Goldilocks”  planets within what is considered the  “habitable zone” by astronomers  -  the distance from a star where an Earth-like planet can maintain liquid water on its surface – the chances of finding planets with life are small  as the Solar System shows  - Mars and Venus are within the habitable  zone of the Sun.

It is also a mistake to imagine that an Earth-like planet which contained water would evolve physically as Earth has evolved. For example, the existence of a large moon causes much
more tidal action than would otherwise be the case and this has effects on the Earth’s crust  which may include the tectonic action of her crust. This is unique amongst the planets of the Solar System. Such singularities may have laid the grounds for life to begin on Earth (http://www.astrobio.net/index.php?option=com_retrospection&task=detail&id=2507).

If a planet with life was found the chances of it being suitable for human beings to live on would be remote.  There would the problems of gravity and temperature which was too high or too low. The atmosphere would be unlikely to be breathable by humans.  There would be diseases against which humans would have no defence. Even if humans did not find hostile intelligent  aliens,  they would have to contend with aggressive non-intelligent aliens and probably more devastating If intelligent aliens were met, it is very improbable that friendly
civilisations would be encountered because if there is intelligent life on other worlds,  it will presumably have evolved . That will  mean in all probability that such creatures would be hostile to humans  just as we would be hostile to any alien who entered our solar system. The unknown is a great dissolver of liberal fantasies about humans being one big happy family. How much more powerful would the fear of those who were utterly unlike ourselves?

The most likely way for humans to explore and even exploit the Solar System or other celestial systems  is through intelligent machines. They would not be subject to the considerable physical limitations of humans and most probably not to the psychological problems humans would display in in space and on other worlds. I say probably because as artificial intelligence improves – and it is increasing by leaps and bounds at present – it is a fair bet that a form of consciousness will come along with the increased intellectual capacity
and that may lead the machines to suffer what would be in effect emotional/psychological problems.

Sadly, the most likely purpose space will be put to is war, as the major powers set up missiles systems and other weaponry in space.

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 184 other followers

%d bloggers like this: