Political Correctness

The Necessary Rise of the Black Baroness


White woman, presumably filled with guilt, observing Chris Ofili’s “No Woman No Cry,” said to portray Baroness Doreen Lawrence

Given that Baroness Doreen Lawrence, the mother of murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence, is now being touted as Labour’s candidate to fight the London mayoral elections in 2016, it is time to reconsider the complexities of British multiculturalism and how the Black population and Britain relate to each other.

The central problem is that because of real average differences in traits like IQ, Blacks simply don’t fit into White societies, like Britain, that prize “equality.” Most people, of course, know this at a gut level, but on the conscious level there is still a lot of brainwashing, denial, and disinformation, backed up by extremely fuzzy thinking.

People in these societies have been taught that “equality” is a sacred and moral value, so they are naturally reluctant to face up to the awkward fact of continuing Black inequality. It simply does not square with their declared values and actual equality of opportunity that other non-White groups like Asians have no trouble taking advantage of.

The only way out of this paradox is for the society to generate the idea of “racism” and create the myth that Blacks are held back by “evil, racist” White people.

The problem with this, however, is that because these societies are dominated by egalitarian values and the idea that anything “bad” from the past should and can be reformed, they constantly undermine any objective basis for actual racial discrimination with the result that ever more abstruse and chimerical forms of it have to be found or conceptualized. Read more

Comrades and Cannibals: Odium Theologicum on the Modern Left

In Gulliver’s Travels (1726), the land of Lilliput is gripped by a furious controversy about hard-boiled eggs. Should they be opened at the big end or the little end? The opposing sides slaughter and persecute each other over the issue. Jonathan Swift was satirizing the absurdities of religious dispute in his day and the wars it caused between different sects. There’s a special term for this phenomenon: odium theologicum, or “hatred among theologians.” Because there is no objective means of establishing truth in theology, the only definitive argument is force.

Centuries later, the modern left is full of atheists and secularists who have no time for religious nonsense like that. Instead, they conduct furious controversies about chairs and haircuts. Two giants of the British left, Richard Seymour and Laurie Penny, have recently been excoriated as racists, colonialists and white supremacists:

Racist Richard Seymour

Racist Richard Seymour

But… wait a minute, you might ask. What was it that Seymour and Penny did to bring down this rain of criticism on their heads? Did they invade a country? Or did they lynch someone?

No. Seymour was talking about that chair – you know the one that looks like it is a black woman, that Roman Abramovich’s girlfriend had herself photographed sitting on for the [London] Evening Standard. Seymour did not say he liked the chair. He said it was racist. But he made the terrible error of pointing out that some sex play involved racial acting out (which is a bit outré, but not actually an endorsement of racial oppression).

Penny’s crime was even greater: she wrote an article in the New Statesman about short hair being (a bit of) a feminist statement… except that she did not say anything about the hair of “Women of Colour.” Yes, that’s right: Laurie Penny’s article “does not include any mentions (even as a side note) of WoC hair issues.” (Further adventures in intersectionality, The Charnel-House, 31st January 2014)

The offending photo, from the Guardian

The offending photo, from the Guardian

Read more

Dawkins’ Demon: The True Faith of Liberal Atheists

Men and Miracles

Here are four highly important Western thinkers. Please pick the odd one out:

1. St Thomas Aquinas (theologian).
2. Charles Darwin (biologist).
3. Stephen Jay Gould (biologist).
4. Richard Dawkins (biologist).

The odd one out is of course No. 2, Charles Darwin, because he didn’t believe in miracles. By contrast, supernatural intervention in mindless nature is central to the thinking of the other three. For example, Aquinas believed that a single conception in Palestine about two thousand years ago involved a miraculous suspension of natural law. The militant atheist Richard Dawkins scornfully rejects the miracle of the Virgin Birth. So, less scornfully, did the bio-Marxist Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002). Instead, their version of atheism mandates belief in a much bigger supernatural intervention involving billions of conceptions for thousands of years over most of the earth’s surface. By the standards of Dawkins and Gould, Christians like Aquinas are woefully lacking in metaphysical ambition.

This is because Dawkins, Gould and other liberal atheists believe in the Miracle of Human Equality: namely, that all human groups, despite their superficial physical differences, are equal in average cognitive ability – equal, in fact, on all psychological variables. In short, there is only one brain: the Human Brain. And all groups have an equal share in it. Okay, the actual physical brain of different groups varies in size and structure, but that doesn’t make any difference to brain function. Metaphysics trumps mere matter, for heaven’s sake. Or rather: not for heaven’s sake. Liberal atheists don’t believe in heaven, but they do believe that Black women are capable of the same high intellectual achievement as Chinese men. It’s true that no Black woman has ever won a Nobel Prize for Physics or made fundamental contributions to mathematics, but that’s because racism and sexism have held the soul-sisters back. How do we know that? Because the undoubted genetic differences between those two groups have no effect on the brain. That is the central dogma of Neuro-Miraculism, the super-scientific creed of liberal atheists like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould. Read more

Less is Moore: Men-Shuns, Pensions and Rape-Gangs

Languages never stay still. In one key dialect of modern English, meaning can be conveyed by the absence of adjectives. It happens with the nouns “man” and “men”, though you’ll also see it with nouns like “youth/s”, “teen/s”, and so on. Mentions of “men” are often men-shuns, because the media avoid describing the “men” any further. But that very absence of description conveys a clear meaning. I can remember seeing a good example of this semantic rule – meaning-by-adjectival-absence – in 2005, when a policewoman was shot dead by criminals in the vibrant multicultural city of Bradford, in northern England. It was a highly unusual crime by English standards and the police, as you would expect, quickly issued a description of the suspects. They were on the look-out, news broadcasts informed the nation, for “up to three men”.

So the shocked citizens of Bradford knew that the suspects were “men” and that there were possibly three of them. Beside that, they knew nothing. The police did not think it would be “helpful” to add further adjectives to the generic noun “men”. But that absence-of-adjectives conveyed a clear meaning to those, like me, who are familiar with Politically Correct English, or PCE. This is the special dialect used by politicians, journalists, bureaucrats, academics and all other public servants in the United Kingdom, including the police. In PCE, the phrase “up to three men” means, in a criminal context, that the “men” were of a particular kind and that the crime was a heinous one. And what particular kind were the “men”? I don’t like to say: I’m discussing semantics and the English language, so let’s not muddy the waters, as it were, by pursuing red herrings. Or herrings of any other colour, for that matter. Read more

The bitter truth about multiculturalism

Heinz Buschkowsky, mayor of the Berlin problem-district Neukölln (41% immigrants), has written a book that will unleash a lot of discussion. Bild [a leading German tabloid] has published exclusive excerpts:

At this point my case is more about the daily powerlessness in a world where shoppers walk through the supermarket, collect products, pass the cashier without paying, and make clear to the cashier what will happen to her when she calls the police.

There, where five persons walk abreast over the sidewalk and all others should make way. There, where possibly everyone is gazing into nothingness before the traffic light to avoid trouble with the streetfighters in the car next to you and being asked: “Do you have a problem? We can resolve it here and now!”

There, where small children are asked for a ‘road tribute’ or a ‘consumption tax’ for the use of the playground. Where young women are being asked if they wish to have a ‘fertilisation process’. Where people throw their softdrink over the head of the bus driver when he asks for your bus ticket. This simply puts you in a bad mood, just by reading it.

As long as we pursue a policy of all-understanding and all-forgiving and make clear to the people that we are not thinking about changing these conditions, because this neglect of manners belong to ‘cultural identity’ and ‘openness to the world,’ we will only find lukewarm partners for a genuine successful  integration policy. Read more

The Menace of the New “McCarthyism”

On June 25, the Huffington Post “reported” that a Cambridge University academic “responsible for mentoring students” has “come under pressure” to resign his position. Guess which allegations resulted in Martin Sewell, a supervisor in the Faculty of Economics at Cambridge University, coming under intense scrutiny:

(a) Rapist
(b) Pedophile
(c) Serial killer
(d) Flash-mob thief
(e) Cannibalistic predator
(f) Racist, sexist, “pro-Hitler” eugenicist

If you guessed (f), you are correct! Critics are horrified that Sewell, an accomplished academic and incisive observer of human differences, has bucked the forces of political correctness and some how remains gainfully employed.

Sewell, a 43-year-old native of Reading, has posted summaries of “taxonomies of race,” which include notable (hint: notorious) sources: John R. Baker’s Race, a landmark study published in 1974 by Oxford University Press; Michael Levin’s seminal work Why Race Matters; Herrnstein and Murray’s bestseller The Bell Curve; Arthur Jensen’s The g Factor; Frank Salter’s On Genetic Interests; Richard Lynn’s Race Differences in Intelligence; and Kevin MacDonald’s A People That Shall Dwell Alone.Sewell’s Website postings have driven his adversaries raving mad. Surely a “responsible” mentor of students should know better than to risk one’s academic position by favorably citing such radioactive literature on race and ethnicity. Acknowledging that race is a valid scientific taxonomy and that race differences are natural biological realities will generate accusations of “racist” faster than Heidi Beirich can inhale a tray of donuts. After all, “responsible” mentors know better!

"Hideous Heidi" loves to get people blacklisted and fired.

The fact that an academic with Sewell’s laudable record is under such scrutiny speaks volumes as to the nature of the infraction. From whence does this “pressure” come?
Left-wing critics have worked tirelessly over decades to make it dangerous to espouse such views—positions that are now rendered career-sacking offenses. How this has come about is worth closer scrutiny.

Read more

Non-white gangs of youths can be violent racists, too

Editorial note: The following letter was published, with some deletions, in The Independent regarding the murder convictions of David Dobson and Gary Norris, both White, for the 1993 murder of Stephen Lawrence, who was Black, of West Indian origin. (Notice another letter that deals with the murder of a White police officer, Keith Blakelock, a crime by Blacks during a riot in 1985 for which there were no convictions.) This is Webster’s original letter, posted here with Webster’s permission:


All murders are to be deplored; all murderers should be brought to justice; and the media should give coverage to all such crimes.

This said, I note the different treatment accorded by the Metropolitan Police, the judiciary and the media to the murders by teenage “racist gangs” of 18 year old Stephen Lawrence in Eltham, SE London, in April 1993 and 15 year old Richard Everitt in Somers Town, Camden, north London, in August 1994. Stephen was of West Indian origin; Richard was white.

The circumstances of the murders were similar. Both were attacked by gangs of teenagers who before and after the murders expressed violent racial hatred. Stephen was murdered by a white gang. Richard was murdered by an Bengali gang. Neither victim behaved in any way to provoke even verbal abuse, let alone being stabbed. Read more