Home page
IQ nonsense 1      IQ nonsense 2      IQ nonsense 3      IQ nonsense 4      IQ nonsense 5      
IQ nonsense 6      IQ nonsense 7      IQ nonsense 8      IQ nonsense 9

One mark of defective intelligence is the lack of motivation to enquire as to the facts concerning an event when other people point to the event having been an outrage or atrocity. This leads to unrealistic perspectives and an inability to take rational decisions concerning, for example, economic policies or foreign affairs.

The recent move to amalgamate foreign affairs and overseas development and the closer proximation of number 10 and number 11 under Boris Johnson are matters for extreme concern for the constituents of this country.

In this series we have thrown doubt on the sort of intelligence to be found in a governance led by Johnson who values greed as a motivator for economic management in encouraging those with high IQs to excel. However, countless examples in this series have pointed out that this has not operated well in the interests of the constituents of this country.

Recent events spilling over from the horrifying cold blooded murder of George Floyd in the USA at the hands of a policeman have raised many questions. However, there has been a subtle effort to dispel this rising dissatisfaction of the British constituents by keeping the focus on racism rather than the government's economic activities. The first move has been to kick this into the long grass by organizing yet another "enquiry" in to institutional racism. Everyone knows that this will mean little or no substantive action on this during the life of this parliament. We have yet to observe what the next diversions and displacement actions will be.

In 2002 Boris Johnson wrote a piece in which he stated that colonialism in Africa should never have ended and that "The continent may be a blot, but it is not a blot upon our conscience," he wrote. "The problem is not that we were once in charge, but that we are not in charge any more." Before reviewing the African situation and in order to understand the economic model deployed in colonies and applied to this day, it is instructive to understand its origins in the first colonies of Scotland and Ireland and subsequently the United States.

King James 1st of England and 6th of Scotland, like political parties today, had no regular source of income so he promoted and put into practice the Charter system of handing "business groups" vast territories, which were not his, in return of protection (English military) from the inhabitants of the territories and a share of the proceeds arising from taxes and rents from the production of colonists. This model was entirely predatory looking to the interests of the King and the commercial groups while having no intent to benefit the "natives" This model and policy framework is still in operation under both US and UK corporate expansion abroad was established and introduced by the very top of the social hierarchy, i.e. royalty.

Although, by design, a predatory economic model, these insidious schemes ended up as very racially explorative, in that they essentially discarded any consideration for the rights of indigenous populations. An early example was the Lewis Company set up to exploit herrings in the Outer Hebrides and salted - a money spinner in those days) that failed because of subversion of "natives" and with help from surrounding people of the Isles. Because of the constant disruption to the Lewis Company and other "commercial ventures", King James, around 1607, issued various directives for the genocide of various named Scottish families (clans). For example instructing the Marquis of Huntley to extirpate: Mainland and Northern MacDonalds and MacNiels of the Isles (the spelling of these names is immaterial). So an open willingness to carry out genocide in support of this commercial venture was part and parcel of this model. The experience with the "troublesome Celts" consolidated some basic lessons in the minds of the investors. These were that for “colonization” to work, indigenous populations need to be liquidated and colonists or slaves should be transported to the chartered locations to run the "commercial venture". Many failed Scottish and Irish ventures led the investors to put this new concept into practice in North America, such as the founding of Jamestown in Virginia. Chronicles of the time often referred to indigenous Indian settlements in North America as being like native Irish settlements. The slaughter of American Indians is well known at the hands of military and mercenaries and later in the opening up of the West. This violent expansion of the "frontier" has since spun a "romantic" mythology that prefers to ignore the suffering imposed on the indigenous people.

Oliver Cromwell around 1650s the "founder of parliamentary democracy" also pursued campaigns of genocide in Ireland and a regime of reservations (Connaught) designed to starve and liquidate the Irish "natives"; thankfully this failed. However,also under Cromwell, thousands of Irish "natives" were shipped to the West Indies as slaves.

Although Gutenberg and his printer (1450) broke the censorship of the Church and eventually contributed to the Renaissance, many of the tracts concerning constitution and alternative views of religion circulated in secret amongst literate individuals. Publications had to be licensed under an elaborate system censorship. Breaking such laws was punishable by torture and often by extra-constitutional death (murder) even in foreign parts (assassination). However, as the “masses” became better informed the censorship tactics shifted to gain an increasing consolidation of control over media – initially print media – and now including electronic media through massive corporate private operators who also fund political parties, the "royalty" of today. To some extent the victory of the BREXIT campaign relied on electronic social media manipulation while Boris Johnson, in his presentations clings onto a mythological image of our history which, in his eyes, did no harm.

The continuation of this process today is managed largely through mind control and subjugation of the majority to precarious working conditions in a dependency that prevents significant revolt. Michel Foucault, the French philosopher wrote about these types of power structures which, unlike him, are alive and well today with leaders such as Johnson defending a mythological version of British History as something that only did good.

The latest nonsense concerning Hong Kong concerning freedom and democracy overlooks the fact that Hong Kong was grabbed from China in response to China's resistance to the supply of opium by the East India Company merchants creating widespread addiction amongst the Chinese population. The British argument was that of maintaining "free trade". In defense of the income of the East India Company British military assets, including warships, were used to impose the Charter system and put down legitimate opposition.

Lord Palmeston's Gunboat policies were a disgrace and represented the model now deployed by the USA today. The imposition of sanctions on countries have the effect in all cases of causing constituents of countries, the "natives", to suffer and die from lack of medicines and in some cases food. Iraq sanctions are believed to have resulted in the deaths of over 1 million people, mainly children. The UK has invariably supported the USA in its callous and irresponsible actions. The same has been true of the invasions of Iraq, Syria and Libya. These actions have turned the situation of the populations of these countries into an unacceptable misery. In Syria and Libya slave markets appeared in the ISIS zones with US and UK Intel supporting fighting groups allied to ISIS. In Libya today large slave markets populated by captured migrants operate openly. The British government has never acknowledged this suffering nor acted to reduce it although its actions contributed to the creation of these circumstances.

A dreadful portent of what is to come with the amalgamation of the foreign office with DfID has been the shameful virtue signalling of providing "humanitarian aid" for victims in the Yemen. At the same time Britain continues to supply armaments and "technical support" for the Saudi Arabian onslaught of the people of that country contributing to deaths and destruction creating the need for humanitarian aid. The gruesome cost benefit analysis was simply the small amount spent on "humanitarian aid" is paid back in the form of image building of the moral rectitude of our government and we as a responsible world power while this is paid back many times over in the form of profits, executive salaries and political contributions by the armament companies. The media pitch beside referring to our humanitarian kindness and empathy also referred to the importance of the armaments industry to employment in the UK. But following the Charter model, this is not the principal concern, which is the maintenance of the rip-off prices and corporate profits reaped from such murderous activities.

In the meantime, this irresponsible adventurism has created the problem of asylum seekers and migrants moving from the Middle East and North Africa to Europe and the UK; all of this suffering and the deplorable morality of these acts can be laid at the door of the occupant of No. 10 and the cross-party consensus of politicians who voted in support of these despicable actions.

Nothing in this disastrous trail of misery for "others", while the economy of the United Kingdom advanced, has been, in any way, something that inspires "national pride" on the part of rational people.

It should not be overlooked that the main beneficiaries of this process have always been "investors" and adventurers who set out to claim territories which were not their's in the name of their monarchs who, of course, obliged by supply troops or mercenaries to consolidate the position of the commercial interests.

Cedric Robinson the former professor at the Department of Political Science at the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) named this predative system of economic exploitation "Racial capitalism". Certainly history has demonstrated a complete lack of any empathy within the system for the needs of those of other races who were enslaved, murdered, displaced and marginalized by this system. The process of globalization has also arisen largely on the basis of the operation of a variant of this model where those employed at the production end endure poor conditions and pay while the constituents in the home countries lose their employment in industry and manufacturing. On the other hand the government justifies this continuation on the basis of cheaper goods for a population facing declining real incomes. So the system is not only discriminatory on the basis of race it is also one which has intensified differences based on wealth and income resulting in an increasingly precarious economic status for an increasing proportion of the population in the UK. The way the economy is run today is creating increasingly deep divisions based on income classes.

The latest event of Covid-19 has brought home to the majority the precarious and unsatisfactory operation of this economic model fed by quantitative easing which has only favoured the advancing wealth of those who handle the low cost money in exchange for supporting the interests of the politicians feeding this monster.

Having debates concerning race relations and launching enquiries on "institutional racism" have brought to the fore many minority individuals who have been very articulate in their expression and clarity of analysis but the government knows that in the end the general population will tire of this subject and the outrage will dissipate in spite of a failure to act on the part of the government. This is par for the course.

The remaining question is the more fundamental need to understand the predatory model that has been responsible for the atrocious treatment of different races across the world. It is of importance that the population of this country recognizes that it continues in operation now as our domestic economic model which continues to subjugate the majority while, what continues to be an illegitimate factional group with accumulating commercial power that funds political parties, rather than a King, continues to enrich itself in a manner legitimized by the declarations and writings of a misguided prime minister.

As in the USA, there is a so-called "right wing" power base including white supremacists whose economic plight is, in reality, the same as many ethnic minorities. But the animated and sometimes violent racist divide between these groups helps to maintain a division that is convenient for governance since it provides an opportunity for government to counter this group and appear to be against discrimination. Because of the latent racism in the population this sickness will not be solved soon because the widening frustration linked to precarious economic circumstances is easily directed against others which takes of the form of racism. However, the plight of the increasing numbers of poor in this country of any race is that their condition has been caused by the Charter-type mentality and its economic model described. It is this which continues to be the main underlying cause of the generalized frustration of the constituents of this country. Donald Trump has been skilled in maintaining this divide as a lever for him to maintain power in a country whose excessively violent treatment of those who dissent is there for all to see. Black Lives Matter are marginalized by scare tactics of violent police, threats of military intervention coupled with Intel and some politicians threatening to place them on a terrorist watch list.

Britain continues to act as a more than obvious second category vassal state of the USA in its inability to free Julian Assange for exposing some of the worst current day atrocities associated with the Charter economic model; we don't really need to refer to history to observe, on a daily basis, the reality moulded by our third rate political parties and divided nation.

It is self-evident that our political class and their modes of organization and mindsets lack the practical adaptive intelligence to respond to the needs of constituents and they all take the easy way out by willingly subjugating themselves, and the population, to the wishes of those who manage and benefit from this pernicious scheme.