Yuku free message boards

A few months ago, fake Britain was shown to the world in all of its fraudulent splendour. The "Royal Wedding" was a global event. Billions watched, enraptured, a fairytale wedding of a beautiful princess. Women couldn't stop talking about the wedding dress. Everyone was in awe of the pomp and circumstance. Britain seemed, for a moment, to be once again the greatest power on earth, as it was in the days of the British Empire upon which it was said that the sun never set.

Move the clock forward a few months and the world is treated to the reality of modern Britain - the major cities on fire, feral gangs running wild, looting at will.

Britain has all of a sudden become an interesting country. In fact, it has now attracted the attention of the leadership of the Illuminati. Communism died the moment the Berlin Wall came down in 1989. Although it staggered on as a zombie for another year or two, a fatal blow had been delivered. The symbolism was total and terminal. Communism itself was that Wall. When the Wall no longer existed, neither did Communism.  Now the extraordinary possibility has arisen that capitalism might meet its death in the original capitalist country - Imperial Britain, home of the Industrial Revolution, home of the "Dark Satanic mills".

Britain is ruled by a hereditary monarch, completely unaccountable to the people despite being the head of State. No one is allowed to ask her any questions or demand that she justify her position. The current British government is one of the most privileged in the history of the country. Ultra-rich toffs from the most privileged backgrounds, educated at the finest private schools and at Oxbridge (Oxford and Cambridge), say, with straight faces, "We're all in it together", as they slash public spending and throw hundreds of thousands onto the dole queues. How can a millionaire and someone struggling to feed themselves be in it "together". What kind of warped person attempts to claim they are? What degree of perversion of logic and language must exist for a millionaire to make such a statement? Why does anyone listen to such arrant nonsense? What's the latest idea for stimulating growth in the UK? - tax cuts for the rich! What a surprise. As if we didn't see that coming.    

Massive cuts are even being applied to the army and police: the military and paramilitary wings, respectively, of the British establishment. How dumb can the "Elite" be to weaken their bullyboy forces at the very moment that the anti-establishment forces are gaining traction at long last?

Last year, thousands of British students rioted in response to savage education cuts and massive increases in student tuition fees. Now the underclass has seized its moment to attack the ruling regime, and has struck with devastating effectiveness, choosing the perfect moment to do maximum damage.

Consider the seismic events that have happened in Britain in recent times. For endless years, British people were told that their politicians were the finest in the world. Then the expenses scandal erupted. Politicians were proved to have been fiddling their expenses on a monumental scale. Some chosen scapegoats even went to jail although, in truth, all of them deserved to be put behind bars. There was also a "cash for honours" scandal whereby rich donors to political parties were given knighthoods and called "Lord" in exchange for their cash. Then came the "hacking scandal". It was revealed that newspapers had, for decades, been routinely committing criminal offences - hacking into the phones of any newsworthy individuals to listen to their messages, hacking into their computers to read their emails, using private detectives to go through people's rubbish to find anything of "sleaze value". This huge database of sensitive information was used as a tool of blackmail. Members of Parliament admitted that they were too scared to criticise the media for fear that they would then become targets of the media sleaze machine that would reveal damaging private information about them. Journalists openly threatened politicians and anyone who crossed them. It was understood that the media could destroy anyone they wished at any time since they knew everyone's secrets.

Several years ago, Rebekah Brooks, a senior executive of Rupert Murdoch's sleaze empire, openly admitted in front of a televised Parliamentary committee that her organisation had paid police officers for information - a criminal offence. The whole establishment of the country simply pretended not to hear since no one wanted to stand up to Rupert Murdoch. He was deemed so powerful that he was perceived as being able to make or break governments, hence no one dared challenge his evil empire. The country literally turned a deaf ear.

But the revelations kept flowing thanks to a few heroic individuals (one journalist and two politicians in particular). Police initially claimed that the hacking scandal was restricted to one journalist covering royal affairs who had used a private detective to hack the phones of members of the Royal Family. These two were duly sent to jail, and that, it seemed, would be that. Their imprisonment was supposed to represent the symbolic end of the matter and draw a line under the whole thing.

New revelations were given a cursory glance by a senior policeman who refused to re-open the investigations, asserting that there was "no new information". It later turned out that there were many boxloads of dynamite revelations that he didn't even look at. Well, that's the British police for you.

When it was discovered that several years ago the phone of a missing schoolgirl (whose dead body was discovered six months after her disappearance) was hacked by a newspaper, public revulsion was so extreme that the whole house of cards suddenly collapsed. The missing schoolgirl's mobile phone message box was full with anxious messages from friends and family, so the hacker deleted some messages to create new space for messages. This, naturally, led the police to suspect that she might be alive and had run away from home. (In fact, she had been brutally murdered within minutes of being abducted in broad daylight by a serial killer.) In other words, the illegal hacking had completely altered the nature of the police investigation and given false hope to the girl's family. The whole of Britain was sickened and outraged. The tipping point had been reached. Such was the hatred towards Rupert Murdoch's newspaper News of the World that was responsible for the hacking of the schoolgirl's phone that he actually had to close it down even though it was one of the most successful newspapers in the world (serving up endless sleaze and celebrity tittle tattle).

So, Great Britain is led by an unelected monarch, ruled by a privileged elite, and has a political class mired in corruption, in cahoots with a sleazebag, criminal media. The top bankers have got their snouts permanently in the money trough.

If these are the scum setting the moral tone of the UK, who could possibly condemn the rioters and looters? They had learned well the moral lessons set down by the elite - grab everything you can and fuck everyone else.

One of the most intriguing aspects of the London riots was that it was overwhelmingly perpetrated by young black men. This was plain to see in endless pictures of the event. However, no politician or media commentator wanted to talk about the racial angle, and their bacon was saved when other cities of Britain rioted, and in some of these cases the rioters were overwhelmingly white.

However, a prominent and controversial TV historian called Dr David Starkey jumped in where angels fear to tread, making comments deemed so racist that several observers declared that he had just committed career suicide.

He made the statement that in the UK all successful blacks are effectively white i.e. they consciously or subconsciously imitate prominent whites. Conversely, unsuccessful whites consciously or subconsciously imitate prominent "bad boy" blacks. Cue media outrage.

Starkey stated: 'What has happened is that the substantial section of the chavs [members of the UK underclass]...have become black. The whites have become black. A particular sort of violent, destructive, nihilistic gangster culture has become the fashion."

On the subject of black street language, he said, "Black and white, boy and girl operate in this language together. This language, which is wholly false, which is this Jamaican patois that has intruded in England...This is why so many of us have this sense of literally a foreign country."

Commenting on the Labour MP for Tottenham where the riots began in the aftermath of the fatal shooting of an armed black man who didn't seem to be given any chance to surrender, Starkey said, "Listen to David Lammy [the Labour MP for Tottenham], an archetypal successful black man. If you turn the screen off, so you were listening to him on radio, you would think he was white."

In one of our previous articles, we wrote:

A book called The History of White People by black American historian Nell Irvin Painter has argued, convincingly, that Barack Obama is white, and this has nothing to do with the fact that his mother is white. Obama has basically found himself motoring along on the "white side" of the track i.e. his education is typical of that of a patrician white, as are his income, his power, his status, and that was true long before he became President. It was easy for many whites to vote for him because, as they recognised, he was effectively white himself. Would those whites who voted for Obama also have voted for someone like the Reverend Wright? Not a chance.

Painter's point is that race is a social construct, subject to the forces of fashion. Many whites, attracted by the "bad boy" image of black rappers, have adopted black cultural values.

Painter has argued that well-connected, prosperous blacks can be "white", while disadvantaged whites are indistinguishable from disadvantaged blacks, if you ignore their skin colour and focus on how they conduct their lives, and how they are treated by society.

Can anyone deny that President Obama sounds much more like a white professor than a black rapper?

We regard Starkey and Painter's case as unarguable. The question isn't whether it's true or not - it plainly is - but to understand how it came about and what can be done about. And, in fact, the issue isn't really one of race at all, but of education.

Consider the following hypothetical case of a young black man whose father has jumped ship and plays no part in his upbringing. He's in a one-parent home and his mother is out all day working for the minimum wage as she packs shelves in a supermarket. She is exhausted when she comes home and just wants to watch soap operas to relax. She has no time for her son, though she dutifully tells him to work hard at school, respect his teachers and make something of himself. She herself is uneducated and barely literate. She can't give her son any help with his schoolwork and she doesn't provide an educational environment where books are respected.

The young black man is not at all academic. He hates school. Moreover, he is highly physical and dominant. He is, in fact, a bad wolf. What are the life choices facing this young black wolf? Well, he's already a dismal failure at school. The academic track is a dead end for him. He will definitely have a miserable life if he tries to go down the conventional path of achieving exam success. He has no chance at all of passing any exam.

In order to have power and influence within his community, it's vital for him to minimize the importance of education in his peer group because that is where he is at maximum disadvantage, where he's an absolute, sure loser. So, he uses his physicality to bully all the smart boys. He constantly rubbishes academic attainment and says it's only for those "sell-outs" trying to copy whites. He says that all books are racist because they're written by white men and promote white values. He plays "gangsta rap" constantly and is always talking about hoes, bitches, guns, bling, drugs, robbery and shooting cops. He and all of his friends refer to each other as "niggers".      

He can't speak English very well since he can barely read, so he starts inventing a new language in which no one is more fluent than he. This is a kind of grunting language full of words being used in bizarre ways (he never really understood what the words meant in the first place). Also, this coded language serves to stamp his brand on his gang and to exclude outsiders.

He defies teachers in school and is regarded as a rebel, a "hero". At all times, he says he's too cool for school and that any academic kid is a geek, nerd, dork, and uncool loser. He relentlessly stigmatizes and bullies any academically successful kid. He is inevitably expelled (not that he attended school much anyway). He becomes involved with the local drug dealers and starts earning good money and driving a flash car. He gets sexy girlfriends. His friends envy him and look up to him. He beats up, stabs or shoots anyone who opposes him and rules his gang with an iron fist. He demands "respect" at all times.

So, this guy has created a good life for himself where he has status, power, respect, and money. He has maximized his opportunities outwith the school environment where he had zero chance of achieving anything.

Can anyone criticize him? The academically talented leverage their academic skills to the maximum. Why shouldn't those with different skills leverage those different skills to the maximum too?    

Does our case study sound familiar? All people who struggle at school are tempted by the alternative, criminal type of life we have described. It's no surprise that unsuccessful white kids should be attracted to this gangsta scene and it street code and language. Very soon, they will be black in all but skin colour. By the same token, the blacks who do well at school will soon be white except in skin tone.

If blacks were the academically most successful then the positions would be reversed and ambitious whites would be seeking to become black, and unsuccessful blacks would be turning white. It's not race that's the issue: it's which group is most identified with educational success in an environment where huge emphasis is placed on passing exams.  

How should we deal with the young black wolf? The doctrine of negative liberty - of non-interference in people's lives - says, "Do nothing." But we know exactly where that leads - to increasing criminality and eventually jail or death.

The interventionist State would stop this young black wolf from poisoning his peer group and turning them against education. He, and everyone else of similar ilk, would be identified at an early age by psychological profiling and they would be taken to radically different, non-academic schools. Here, their particular skills would be identified and a means found to harness them constructively. The young wolf would feel proud and successful of his achievements. His self-esteem and self-image would be high. Far from becoming an enemy of the state, he would be transformed into a valuable contributor with a clear-cut, non-academic path to follow through life. He would enjoy status and power within the system rather than outside it.

Gang culture is a direct product of negative liberty where governments make no attempt to intervene in the lives of non-academic kids from dysfunctional families. Gangs are an alternative form of society. They have a hierarchy and a code of conduct. They have a dress code, a demand for "respect", for loyalty. To "diss" one member of the gang is to diss the whole group. A gang provides status, a place, a function, a role in life, an identity, a cause. For those who have been rejected by the mainstream, why wouldn't you join a gang?

In the arena of positive liberty, gangs are wholly unacceptable, and they would be prevented from arising in the first place. Gangs are formed by bad wolves, so the primary way to stop their formation is to deal with the bad wolves before they become bad. It's not a remotely difficult job as long as the State assigns itself the right to address problems at the earliest possible stage. Any failure to tackle a problem makes the problem much worse. The advocates of negative liberty never intervene until the streets are on fire and rioters are roaming around like wild animals. Is that rational?

Gangs are the logical response to the indifference of the State. If the State doesn't help then people will help themselves. They can't be blamed for that. It's the State's fault for doing nothing. The British riots were exactly what the British form of government brought on itself by its criminal disregard for kids from ghettos.

America, the rebellious child of the British Empire, has supplanted its frail father but now its glory days are slipping away too and it's disturbingly easy to imagine America slipping much further than Britain. Without its financial and economic clout, it's possible to imagine America as a Third World country, full of poorly paid people suffering worse conditions than the Chinese and Indians.