By Max Musson:
Boris Johnson delivered a speech yesterday revealing much about the spirit motivating the Conservative Party and the upper echelons of our society currently.
Johnson, who is of course the Mayor of London and who comes from a privileged background with lineages extending back to British royalty as well as to continental aristocrats, likes to project the rather eccentric image of an affable, well-meaning, and oftentimes inspired buffoon and ‘man of the people’, who is at the same time, a reliable and trusted, establishment insider.
The son of Stanley Johnson, an MEP and one time employee of both the European Commission and the World Bank, Boris Johnson was born in New York but educated at the European School of Brussels, Ashdown House School, Eton College, and Balliol College, Oxford, where he read Classics.
Johnson is a keen proponent of multiracialism and multiculturalism, declaring recently during Mayor’s Question Time in City Hall, “I’m probably about the only politician I know of who is actually willing to stand up and say that he’s pro-immigration.”
Less well known to the general public and perhaps the reason for Johnson’s enthusiasm in this respect is the fact that he is descended on his father’s side from Turkish Muslims and on his mother’s side from Russian Jews. Furthermore, his wife Marina, by whom he has four children, is the daughter of Charles Wheeler and his Sikh wife, Dip Singh.
What then did the very cosmopolitan Mr Johnson have to say while delivering the annual Margaret Thatcher Lecture – hosted by the right-wing Centre for Policy Studies think-tank?
Johnson apparently felt it necessary to justifying the widening gap between rich and poor in this country, by stating quite correctly, that there is a wide disparity within our population in terms of individual IQ’s. He is reported to have stated, “Whatever you may think of the value of IQ tests, it is surely relevant to a conversation about equality that as many as 16 per cent of our species have an IQ below 85, while about 2 per cent have an IQ above 130.”
Interestingly, Boris referred to humanity as a ‘species, thereby failing to reinforce the universalist mantra of ‘one race, the human race’. He also made the mistake of applying European IQ statistics to the whole human ‘species’, despite talking only about the population of the British Isles, and one can see immediately how easy it is for someone so sloppy with nomenclature and statistics, to descend into muddled thinking – such as failing to realise that while there is some correlation between IQ and personal incomes within working class communities and the middle classes, it is not primarily IQ that is responsible for determining personal wealth.
Johnson expressed some concern that social mobility has declined in recent times, and using an interesting turn of phrase, said “I worry that there are too many cornflakes who aren’t being given a good enough chance to rustle and hustle their way to the top.”
One might understand why a ‘cornflake’ might legitimately ‘rustle’ it’s way to the top when the packet is given a good shake, but it is disconcerting and again evidence of ‘muddled thinking’, when someone with ambitions to be Prime Minister believes it is legitimate to ‘hustle’ one’s way to the top.
Johnson asserted that Thatcherism needed to be updated for the 21st century. “I hope there is no return to the spirit of loadsamoney heartlessness – figuratively riffling banknotes under the noses of the homeless – and I hope that this time the Gordon Gekkos of London are conspicuous not just for their greed, valid motivator though greed may be for economic progress, as for what they give and do for the rest of the population, many of whom have experienced real falls in their incomes over the last five years”, he said.
It is again significant that at a time of general economic hardship, someone with ambitions to become Prime Minister is referring to greed as a ‘valid motivator’. One also wonders at the naivety of expecting those ‘validly’ motivated by greed to voluntarily perform anything other than token acts charity for those they have conned and trodden on as they have ‘hustled’ their way to the top.
Johnson called for the super-rich to be hailed for their contribution to paying for public services as he said that the top 1% of earners contribute 30% of income tax. “That is an awful lot of schools and roads and hospitals that are being paid for by the super-rich. So why, I asked innocently, are they so despicable in the eyes of all decent British people?
In his speech, Johnson apparently conflates the level of differential in earnings that most people would regard as just and healthy, and which fairly reflects individual differences in ability, with the vast disparity in earnings that exists between workers on the one hand, and the heads of major corporations on the other. While everyone would expect and regard it as just that a business leader should earn more than employees with less responsibility, it cannot be just that the head of a bank for example, is paid seventy-five times as much as the average bank employee and two-hundred times as much as their counter staff.
Furthermore, if the super-rich top 1% earning seventy-five times as much as their average employee, and approximately one-hundred and fifty times the average wage, are paying just thirty times the average amount of income tax, then they are still not proportionately paying the same amount of income tax as a poor person.
Johnson asks, “So why, I asked innocently, are [the super-rich] so despicable in the eyes of all decent British people? Surely they should be hailed like the Stakhanovites of Stalin’s Russia, who half-killed themselves, in the name of the people, by mining record tonnages of coal?”
However Johnson fails to appreciate that the Stakhanovites, were not a parasitic class of financial speculators and nor were they company directors driven by personal greed. They were ordinary mine workers and factory workers who made an almost super-human effort to achieve record levels of production by working harder at their menial jobs than anyone had ever worked before.
Does Johnson actually think that a bank executive or a currency trader works one-hundred and fifty times harder than a stock-picker in a distribution warehouse, or a building site navvy?
Clearly, when entrepreneurs stake everything they own in order to start a business, the success of which is by no means certain, then such people have obviously taken a great risk and it is therefore justifiable in those circumstances that they should reap rewards that reflect the risk they have taken, and such rich rewards are usually obtained via the appreciation in the value of their share holdings and/or their equity stake in their companies.
The directors of FTSE100 companies however, are not risk-taking entrepreneurs in the main. They are business managers, who take control of a large going concern and have generous compensation packages that usually protect their financial interests whatever happens. They are usually chosen because they are, ‘a safe pair of hands’, and just as they tend to avoid risk taking in their business dealings, they likewise take no risks with their own, personal future financial wellbeing. Should things go completely ‘pear-shaped’ for the ‘Blue Chip’ company they run, they are usually able to liquidate the company and walk away, unharmed other than in terms of reputation, and often with a handsome redundancy package or ‘Golden handshake’ to soften the blow.
Furthermore, the richest 1% in our society do not equate with the most intelligent 1%, as Boris suggests’ and if they all decided to disappear off to some other country, their places could be filled immediately by others, just as bright, who would otherwise have never been given the opportunity.
Once someone has accumulated more money than they could possibly spend during their lifetime and more even than their children could spend during theirs, what is the point of continuing to build one’s fortune? Surely that is the point at which any normal person would choose to retire and devote their time to their family or to benefiting the community or the nation to which they belong?
If those who have already acquired sufficient wealth were to retire and allow others to step up and take their place, and if directors salaries were limited to say, just ten times the earnings of their average employee, this would go some significant way towards reducing the disparity in wealth between the richest and the poorest in this country; enabling more people to gain employment; enabling companies to afford to employ more people; enabling companies to re-invest more money back into their businesses; enabling companies to pay higher levels of dividends to their investors. Wouldn’t that be something?
Most tellingly however, Boris Johnson appears to find it difficult to articulate any source of motivation other than personal material gain (i.e. greed) and this most likely is the result of his cosmopolitan background.
Deprived of racial, religious, ethnic or national identity, the truly cosmopolitan individual has no real sense of community with any of the population groups among whom they live, and consequently self-interest and one’s personal material gain, or at best one’s family and their material interests, become one’s sole motivation. Without a racial, religious, ethnic or national identity, there is no other yardstick by which one can measure success or human worth, and this is why as Britain has become more multiracial and multicultural, there has developed a constant decline in ethics and morality and relentless focus on money and its acquisition.
By Max Musson © 2013
# # # #
Will Mossop
- Edit
And of course if his family had done the British thing and not tried to hide their origins they would have retained their paternal surname so he would be Boris Kemal Bey not Johnson. Perhaps he should have the decency to revert to that given name rather than hide under an assumed one. How many moslems take their wives name?
“On his father’s side, Johnson is a great-grandson of Ali Kemal Bey, a liberal Turkish journalist and the Interior Minister in the government of Damat Ferid Pasha, Grand Vizier of the Ottoman Empire, who was killed during the Turkish War of Independence in 1922.[7] During World War I, Johnson’s paternal grandfather and great-aunt were recognised as British subjects and took their grandmother’s maiden name of Johnson.” (Wikipedia)
Nimble
- Edit
Johnson is not the only well known British politician with strong non-White and/or non-British origins. If you actually look at the heritage of so many of ‘our leaders’ it is absolutely disgraceful how so many barely have any claim to be British. We, the British people, the English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish people, are being largely ruled by people who have heritages vastly different to our own.
.
Taken from the article I’ll link at the bottom…
.
Nick Clegg
Johnson is not alone in this among the political leaders of this country. Nick Clegg is half Russian on his father’s side and Dutch on his mother’s. He speaks Dutch fluently and quite likely spoke it at home rather than English, at least at times. He is married to a Spanish woman.
.
David Cameron
Then there is David Cameron. If Boris Johnston can boast of his immigrant Turkish roots, Cameron can equally as well boast of his immigrant Jewish ones, which are very important in the family (Cameron’s middle name is Levita, the surname of a Jewish forebear).
.
Ed Miliband
Nothing much further need be said about Ed Miliband, the son of an immigrant Belgian Jew of Polish origins, whose background and attitudes speak for themselves.
.
Not being willing to admit that one is in favour of immigration does not mean that it will not continue. And it is continuing, despite the Coalition’s apparent desire to cut down on the benefits which immigrants can too easily access. Romanians and Bulgarians are going to arrive in hordes very soon and only leaving the EU will stop such movements. Muslims will continue to import spouses from the Indian sub-continent and elsewhere.
.
https://alternativeright.com/blog/category/mass-immigration-public-opinion-and-the-racism-of-johnson-cameron-clegg-and-miliband#comment-1108349405
frederickdixon
- Edit
“..and only leaving the EU will stop such movements.” Absolutely correct – and the sooner we’re out the better.
Steve
- Edit
I can’t stand him but it amazes me how many people are fooled by him & his act.
frederickdixon
- Edit
Boris made a powerful,stirring and optimistic defence of Thatcherism in his own inimitable style, and it will persuade many. However, it was when he addressed not the past where Mrs. Thatcher now safely resides, but the future that we begin to see how he sees Britain – he looks forward to Britain having the largest population in the EU “no I don’t know where they’re going to live either” and to our cities “proudly British” but “infused by hybrid vigour”.
There speaks a man who, whatever his other advantages, is himself a cosmopolitan hybrid with no feel for the essential nature of England as the homeland of the English, yet who manages to project himself – somehow – as quintessentially English! Very dangerous because he is a likely next leader of the Conservative Party, and quite capable of arranging matters with Farage whom he rather resembles
Crazy Englishman
- Edit
When companies are in a crisis situation, about to implode, the 1% are masters of abdication, with permanent refusal to take responsibility for their actions/inactions, resting accountability firmly on the shoulders of the lower rank employees and or fictitious elements.
Hustling and greed are sinful and criminal, living up to the biological and cultural origins of your creed? Boris
Shaun
- Edit
Bo Jo isn’t an ethnic nationalist! That wasn’t surprise, but it does seem to me that Bo Jo does understand there is a basic inequality among-st ”mankind”. There is a strong correlation between IQ and ability to gain wealth.
The richest people do tend to be the people with the highest IQs. I remember reading a summary of IQ and Wealth of the Nations and seeing it loud and clear: clever people create rich countries.
Bo Jo, however, assumes that all his upper-class chums have high IQs and they are where they are because they are a higher breed. I don’t think this is the case.
Unless you are complete doughnut, it is very difficult to lose vast quantities of inherited wealth. And, let’s be honest, those people who attend the top private schools do tend to make contacts that help them reach the upper echelons of society. Another word for these people is parasites.
When looked at objectively, the most creative, intelligent people don’t tend to descend from upper classes. Many of the great scientists, inventors, businessmen and money-makers have descended from impoverished surroundings. Upper class parasites tend to fed off them once they create something that they couldn’t!
Basically, people like Bo Jo are snobs. He feels himself superior to the masses and he doesn’t care what happens to them. His assumption (if you read between the lines) that only people in his inner circle matter is just the corollary of a protected, narcissist life.
He and his ilk are ruining the country, so they are not as smart as they think. Also, the rising powers of India, China, Russia and Brazil might invade one day. What do they think: the immigrants are going to band together to defend them? Crazy times, crazy world.
Max Musson
- Edit
Shaun, I agree with you completely. I never said there was no correlation between IQ and the ability to create wealth, as you say Richard Lynn’s ‘IQ and the Wealth of Nations’ proves there is. What I said was that while there is a correlation between income and IQ within the working class and middle classes, IQ is not primarily the factor which produces great wealth and this concurs with your statement that “most creative and intelligent people don’t tend to descend from upper classes. Many of the great scientists, inventors, businessmen and money-makers descended from impoverished surroundings”.
Shaun
- Edit
Max Musson, you’re right about the correlation between wealth and IQ amongst the working classes.
I have studied human intelligence and have concluded that there is a rather unfair distribution of intellectual ability amongst the various strands of the human animal. The best study I have seen is the IQ scores of Nobel Prize scientists. They averaged over 150.
To put that into perspective he chances of finding a random group of people who had an average IQ over 150 was billions to one. This study made it obvious to me that you can’t ignore IQ and, to be honest, our civilization would be worthless if our IQ levels weren’t what they are.
Don’t get me wrong I’m not saying that White people are all geniuses. No, the average for a White person is 100 (pretty dumb if you ask me); but we do produce quite a lot of people who score in the 130-140-150 range. Enough to have a cutting edge Culture Baring Elite.
As for the upper classes, I reckon they would have the highest average IQ as a class. I haven’t, though, read any research on this matter; but I will say there are quite a few obvious morons amongst the British Royal Family, so many of these people who have sold us out to the Zio-Order might be too inbreed to function like their ancestors did.
Speaking about Bo Jo, I reckon he is a smart guy. I doubt, however, he is the bumbling hidden genius he tries to project onto the public; he is smart, he isn’t an Otto Von Bismark. I have met many nationalists who are easily as clever as our so-called ruling classes.