Tim Haydon
Niall Ferguson; Anti - White ‘Historian’ and Creep
-
Written by Tim Heydon
A Tale of Two Historians
Niall Ferguson: Fashionable - guess why
The historian Niall Ferguson is to be seen everywhere these days, letting us have the benefit of his opinions on all manner of social issue subjects. It’s not surprising that he is so fashionable, given how much in tune with political-class thinking he is, including its thinking on race, immigration and related matters.
David Starkey: Unfashionable – guess why not
Contrast the approval with which he is treated compared to the treatment of that other historian, David Starkey who was condemned for describing the white underclass today as ‘culturally black’ following the recent widespread riots. A hundred or more historians wrote to The Times saying that Starkey’s views were a disgrace to academia and that he was unqualified to speak about modern Britain. His period was the Tudors and he should stick to it. There have been continued calls from the usual suspects to have him banned from broadcasting.
No such criticism however has been meted out to Ferguson, who is currently on TV giving us his views on modern China. Ferguson is certainly not a specialist on China, ancient or modern and is not slow to dilate on current affairs in Britain, including those on race.
Ferguson: Cameron’s Multi-ethnic Britain is ‘authentically British’ ??
Ferguson was caught out recently when he informed ‘Newsweek’ Magazine that David Cameron’s vision of a multi-ethnic Britain was ‘authentically’ British. What planet is this man living on? Since when have the British ever been multiethnic? The peoples who make up the UK; the English, Scots Irish and Welsh are so closely related racially, culturally and religiously as to be almost indistinguishable. The differences between them cannot be compared as Ferguson seems fatuously to do with the vast gulf that exists between all of them and the completely alien immigrants who have been thrust upon them in recent decades.
Ferguson gets it wrong about Churchill
Ferguson actually thinks that Churchill would have approved of Cameron’s approach. Here are some Churchillian thoughts on the subject of race:
Native Americans and Aborigines
"I do not admit...that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia...by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race... has come in and taken its place."
Indians
"I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion." (Pat Buchanan, The Unnecessary War)
’(A) foul race protected by their pollution from the doom that is their due."
'(T)he beastliest people in the world (who will) continue to breed like rabbits."
Arabs, Negroes and Mongrels
''The qualities of mongrels are rarely admirable, and the mixture of the Arab and negro types has produced a debased and cruel breed, more shocking because they are more intelligent than the primitive savages."
''The stronger race soon began to prey upon the simple aboriginals; some of the Arab tribes were camel-breeders; some were goat-herds; some were Baggaras or cow-herds. But all, without exception, were hunters of men. To the great slave-market at Jedda a continual stream of negro captives has flowed for hundreds of years.
''The invention of gunpowder and the adoption by the Arabs of firearms facilitated the traffic by placing the ignorant negroes at a further disadvantage. Thus the situation in the Sudan for several centuries may be summed up as follows: The dominant race of Arab invaders was unceasingly spreading its blood, religion, customs, and language among the black aboriginal population, and at the same time it harried and enslaved them.''
Keeping Britain White
(If immigration from the Caribbean is not halted), "we would have a magpie society: that would never do". (To the governor of Jamaica, Sir Hugh Foot 1954)
"More discussion about the West Indian immigrants. A Bill is being drafted - but it's not an easy problem. P.M. [Churchill] thinks 'Keep England White' a good slogan!". (Harold Macmillan, in his diary entry on the Cabinet meeting of January 20, 1955)
Forthrightness and Truth not welcomed in Culturally Marxist Britain
Churchill’s views were expressed at a time when the British took their freedom of speech for granted and constrained only by the common law and those on slander and libel, could speak their mind without considering whether someone or other might be 'offended'. He made his views known in the kind of brutally uncompromising, forthright language which today is said to be ‘unacceptable’. This means unacceptable to the Guardian-reading classes who have to all intents and purposes criminalised them.
That doesn’t necessarily mean that they are wrong. It does mean though that Ferguson is wholly wrong about Churchill. Churchill might, like Cameron, have wanted a Britain that was ‘close to but not subsumed by Europe’. But he knew, as Ferguson apparently doesn’t, that if Britain became multi ethnic, it wouldn’t matter a fig if it was subsumed by Europe or anyone else come to that, because it would have ceased to exist as Britain in any case.
Ferguson the Creep
Ferguson has form on the subject of race. In an article some years ago in the Sunday Telegraph, he dismissed the idea that ‘ghettos’ were forming in Britain. (Taking ‘ghetto’ in its usual sense nowadays to mean an area where an ethnicity is dominant, that view is completely accurate). He went on;
‘Want some more good news? According to Lucinda Platt of the University of Essex, around 56% of children form Indian working-class families go on to professional or managerial roles in adulthood, compared to just 43% of those from white, non-immigrant families. Even people with Caribbean ancestry now do better than whites.… ‘
Why is it ‘good news’ that immigrants are apparently more successful in Britain than is the native population? Doesn’t this state of affairs, if true (and it can be strongly disputed), compound the gross betrayal of the native British in their own country by their own leadership? Would any one other than a total creep rejoice that his own kith and kin are losing out to foreign imports in this way?
Taking Anti – White Hate to a logical Conclusion
Ferguson has taken his self-hatred as a white man to an extraordinary pitch, having married a black woman, the Somali Ayaan Hirsi Ali in the USA, in a move which, inter alia, strengthens his anti-racist credentials. Ali (author of 'Infidel' and other books about her experiences as an islamic woman) had to leave the Netherlands where she had claimed asylum, after it came to light that her claim was bogus. She had lived for years in non-threatening Kenya before heading for Europe to make mugs of the Dutch by lying about her origins and availing herself of Dutch Taxpayers’ money.
The Lessons China should have taught Fergusson
Whilst in China, Ferguson might have had time to reflect that that country (rather than also-huge India) is probably now already the largest economy in the world having surpassed the USA; that it is set also to become its most powerful and that this might be connected to the fact that its population is the most highly intelligent overall in the world and is racially and culturally homogenous for all practical purposes. True, 10% comprises ethnic minorities, but these are mostly in their own areas on the fringes of the country, which is vast. It still leaves a preponderance of Han Chinese of whom there are well in excess of a staggering one billion. Before it was 'improved' by its communist 'progressives', China was one of the most successful civilisations on earth as well as one of the most internally peaceable.
The West, enfeebled by an apparent death wish expressed in the mad over-generosity of its welfare states and in its multiculturalism and multiracialism will soon be dancing to a tune played by the racially and culturally united Chinese.
The Chinese One-Child Rule and Immigration
The Chinese are, amazingly, short of workers in some key areas because of their massive economic expansion. However they have clamped down on immigration. Having had a one-child per family policy for thirty years, it is likely that they will not allow any sizeable immigration into their country for generations, if ever.
Furthermore, they feel no need to overcome their distaste and traditional contempt for foreigners which arises from straightforward racial feeling compounded by their justifiable pride in their millennia-old civilisation. This is because, despite having conquered and oppressed many peoples, most recently the Tibetans, they are unburdened by the kind of self-hating racial guilt which is peculiar to western leftist / liberal intellectualism.
