Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The bigotry of low expectations.

Slightly off thread, but politics does play into why the bigotry of low expectations is corrosive to all.


Well this is where me and many other conservatives would say, that there is a clear difference between those like yourself who identify more with the ideals of post war old Labour. "A country fit for everyone", and those who have and continue too propose for socialism, only there as a prerequisite to the adoption of communism.

I have meet more people who while supporting Labour are not motivated by envy and tend too hate communism and what it has done, we debate and at best come to some middle ground or at worst too agree to disagree about things such as nationalisation vs. strategic control of the nations assets and all of the other things that you mention. I dont consider your ideas to be evil just wrong and by wrong I mean that for some of them to work we need a population that wont deviate... Human nature is the single point of failure in most things.

Sadly I believe that you and the many others like you have and are ignored by the Labour party and will continue to be. The Labour parliamentary party today seem more determined that other to play the, race and race baiting, gender, sexual orientation cards for political advantage and worst of all a disdain for the nation and its history regardless of good and bad.

Why does the Labour party focus on so much on race, why do they so vigorously court the minority block vote... To gain power, i have no doubt.

They celebrate often the first BAME man, woman whatever be appointed to such or such a position, as if positive discrimination polices have made it happen, and thus we must go continue to discriminant to end discrimination. Rather than celebrating that someone worked hard to gain whatever the position, they paint a picture that an immutable characteristic define the person rather than their character and ability. Talk about subverting Dr Martin Luther King Jnr, for political advantage.

I dont have a decent answer to how you can bring Labour back to a position where it can represent a differing view of how the nation should be best governed but still think this nation is a good nation with much to be proud of in our past and much to be able to achieve in its future.

I have always believed that there is an absolute need for there to be political parties of opposite to the government of the day, it need not be a mirror opposite to conservatism. It should oppose in debate and oppose in action, on principle not for political advantage.

There are many who are not white but are conservatives, why are they called race traitors, and various other pejoratives by political opponents in some cases... Why do they do that? Switch the immutable characteristic and party of such type of behaviour and it would be considered a HATE Crime.


p.s. the whole Hate Crime Legislation and associated nonsense is a divisive crock of shite.

You silver tongued old fox, you have hit a number of good points again.
The rot set into Labour in the 70's as it became more entwined with Marxism, etc. and move away from traditional British socialist ideas.
Why does Labour keep pushing identity politics and a hand full of hard left ideas? I think it is because we as a nation have all ready created a very fair and just country to live in. I don't think their is anything my grandparents campaigned for in the 40's, 50's, and 60's has not been delivered with the exception of gay rights which came much later. Labour now uses identity politics as a unique selling point to make them different from the conservatives. It also gives them a stick to bash people with.
Identity politics is easy to do, compared with actual political debate.
If we are all equal why focus on what makes us different?

Hopefully KS will do a better job as leader than JC and listen to us moderate Labour members.

(I left Labour when Blair was in power, and rejoined when JC announced he would resign.)

As for racially profiling voters on which party they MUST vote for makes my teeth itch. It is racism, they are judging someone by the colour of their skin, and yes they should be called out on it and punished.

Nationalisation is always a contentious subject. The State tends to buy out failing companies, fix them, then sell them in the nation's interest. I am all for profit, and I think a nationalised rail service could be very profitable for exchequer....and those profits could be used to ease the tax burden of the people. Not your normal Marxist view on nationalisation, but a more realistic one. Profit driven SOE's and national assets. ;0)
 
You silver tongued old fox, you have hit a number of good points again.
The rot set into Labour in the 70's as it became more entwined with Marxism, etc. and move away from traditional British socialist ideas.
Why does Labour keep pushing identity politics and a hand full of hard left ideas? I think it is because we as a nation have all ready created a very fair and just country to live in. I don't think their is anything my grandparents campaigned for in the 40's, 50's, and 60's has not been delivered with the exception of gay rights which came much later. Labour now uses identity politics as a unique selling point to make them different from the conservatives. It also gives them a stick to bash people with.
Identity politics is easy to do, compared with actual political debate.
If we are all equal why focus on what makes us different?

Hopefully KS will do a better job as leader than JC and listen to us moderate Labour members.

(I left Labour when Blair was in power, and rejoined when JC announced he would resign.)

As for racially profiling voters on which party they MUST vote for makes my teeth itch. It is racism, they are judging someone by the colour of their skin, and yes they should be called out on it and punished.

Nationalisation is always a contentious subject. The State tends to buy out failing companies, fix them, then sell them in the nation's interest. I am all for profit, and I think a nationalised rail service could be very profitable for exchequer....and those profits could be used to ease the tax burden of the people. Not your normal Marxist view on nationalisation, but a more realistic one. Profit driven SOE's and national assets. ;0)
It's simple, the need victims.

As said, as things go, people here are very well off compared to many places. It's hard to beat up the government when there's general harmony and contentment.

They have to actively split, sow distrust and hate throughout and then amplify and use the results.
 
This sounds in some degree my experience of 'Secondary Modern' education, and when it started to change from education to indoctrination. To some degree also a fixation of the heritage of my surname... Wasn't nice at time but much like you I think you probably managed to shrug it off and live with it, and in later life perhaps turn that negative into a positive by being a more resilient person.

The learning experience was fundamentally changed under the 1964–1970 Labour government. and since then has become worse not better. "The road to hell being paved with good intension" does to some degree to allow Labours policy to seen as flawed not deliberately bad.

Add to that the opportunity then offered to Rudi Dutschke circa 1967, and fellow communists via 'The long march through the institutions' (der lange Marsch durch die Institutionen) to see the western world fall, subverted from within.

That such changes have inexorably led generation after generation to the stage, where everyone gets equally rewarded for taking part rather than striving to be the single winner. This rather endures that no one has to find out that life is not fair and is hard, and as importantly how to make the best of the hand you have been dealt not the hand that one wants.

Of course the issue is that it takes effort to overcome adversity. Some will look at adversity and say its not their fault it is because of the actions of the state, others will understand that it is not so, and strive to change their circumstances within the bounds of the law and their abilities.
That bit’s complex Dutschke was part of the inevitable self loathing. ( Bloody fingers) that chimed very much with the East German Commmunist way of thinking but also with the RAF anti Americanised institutions and their support for KZ labourers users such as IG Farben and BASF, but they pretty much ignored the fact that the USSR had profited from the same technologies. This led to a ,“ but Germans were responsible, we are therefore less culpable but we’ll take the profits on both sides” one of the off putting things about RAF was they posited no solutions, just habitual self loathing. That was unhealthy, largley because families split just because they had somehow survived and it goes to the heart of the“ The only good Germans a dead one“mentality that obtains to this day. Now you mix that with the distrust of West Germany by the allies and it becomes potent.

The point is that by the Sixties it was our generation by and large Starting to work for the large institutions, they hadn’t been through anything much and it was all horribly judgemental and the last thing that the allies cared about was what NS had done to Germany itself and even now you’ll see one program but these will be followed by ten programs, that will somehow it doesn’t matter.
the analogy I make is it’s rather like gender cancer. One program about testicular cancer and ten reminding us that Brest cancer is far more important. By the way men can get breast cancer too. I’ve been tested for it.
 
Last edited:

skeetstar

Old-Salt
You silver tongued old fox, you have hit a number of good points again.
The rot set into Labour in the 70's as it became more entwined with Marxism, etc. and move away from traditional British socialist ideas.
Why does Labour keep pushing identity politics and a hand full of hard left ideas? I think it is because we as a nation have all ready created a very fair and just country to live in. I don't think their is anything my grandparents campaigned for in the 40's, 50's, and 60's has not been delivered with the exception of gay rights which came much later. Labour now uses identity politics as a unique selling point to make them different from the conservatives. It also gives them a stick to bash people with.
Identity politics is easy to do, compared with actual political debate.
If we are all equal why focus on what makes us different?

Hopefully KS will do a better job as leader than JC and listen to us moderate Labour members.

(I left Labour when Blair was in power, and rejoined when JC announced he would resign.)

As for racially profiling voters on which party they MUST vote for makes my teeth itch. It is racism, they are judging someone by the colour of their skin, and yes they should be called out on it and punished.

Nationalisation is always a contentious subject. The State tends to buy out failing companies, fix them, then sell them in the nation's interest. I am all for profit, and I think a nationalised rail service could be very profitable for exchequer....and those profits could be used to ease the tax burden of the people. Not your normal Marxist view on nationalisation, but a more realistic one. Profit driven SOE's and national assets. ;0)


LVH, agree with much of what you say, but you are going to have to give me some situations where the state has taken an ailing company, fixed it, and sold it back to the market with a beneficial effect to the exchequer.
As for nationalised railways, when the state owned them, they were an ill managed money pit, beholden to rail unions, I remember the horrors of British rail, and bad as things may be now, they were worse then.
 

endure

GCM
LVH, agree with much of what you say, but you are going to have to give me some situations where the state has taken an ailing company, fixed it, and sold it back to the market with a beneficial effect to the exchequer.

Rolls Royce
 

skeetstar

Old-Salt
Thiught someone would mention RR, but if I recall correctly, RR went into liquidation, and the govt bought out the bits that were viable.. effectively just shaking off huge debts and starting again, that wouldn't be my definition of fixing a business.. some debtors will have lost a lot of money. I may be wrong on that point.
 
It's the invisible elephant in the room that no-one dares talk about for glaringly obvious reasons.

Ashkenazi Jews have more Nobel Prizes than any other race. Why is that? Well, there's two answers. The first is "DA JOOZ DID IT!!111 ZIONIEST CONSPRIACY!!1"

The other is that they won the prizes due to having a higher intellect, and therefore the average difference of intelligence over the whole group leads to large differences in the more extreme cases. Psychometric tests have also shown other results, which are never talked about for rather obvious reasons.

The official line from the BEEB, and one especially spouted by Adam Rutherford (who is a minority surprise surprise) is that there's no difference between the races genetically. That may be true, but studies indicate that there is a difference in psychometric results which is directly linked to IQ and that has quite an accurate reflection on how well one will do in life, but we can't talk about that for glaringly obvious reasons.



There's more to it that than. As a rather good example. Can absolutely anyone join the army? If not, why not? The main issues would be either behavioural, like the Kray twins, that they failed the medical, or that they failed all the entry tests. There is a point, believe it or not, that the army cannot find anything useful for someone to do because their intelligence is just too low and they would be counter-productive. If the army can't find anything for them to do then what hope have these people got in the dog-eat-dog world of civvy street?

Quite a large number of people are unemployable, what are we meant to do with people who can't read or communicate, let alone get to work on their own initiative?


Generally there is poor evidence for a firm biological construct of race: Taking race out of human genetics | Science

It's also interesting that IQ does have a large genetic basis (though plenty of room for social intervention): https://www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal/files/8895353/genetic_foundations_of_human_intelligence.pdf

So I'd be interested to see the research which is able to demonstrate that any differences in IQ between the (social construct of) different races is down to genetic reasons... Because that would suggest to me that there are statical models which are able to predict roughly predict your race (or at least which cluster of races you belong to) based on IQ, which would put the cat amongst the pigeons of those who argument there isn't a biological construct of race.
 
Generally there is poor evidence for a firm biological construct of race: Taking race out of human genetics | Science

It's also interesting that IQ does have a large genetic basis (though plenty of room for social intervention): https://www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal/files/8895353/genetic_foundations_of_human_intelligence.pdf

So I'd be interested to see the research which is able to demonstrate that any differences in IQ between the (social construct of) different races is down to genetic reasons... Because that would suggest to me that there are statical models which are able to predict roughly predict your race (or at least which cluster of races you belong to) based on IQ, which would put the cat amongst the pigeons of those who argument there isn't a biological construct of race.
Whose IQ test could you use? From what I understand they have cultural components so creating a series of tests, for different racial groups, that gave comparable results would be practically impossible.
 
Whose IQ test could you use? From what I understand they have cultural components so creating a series of tests, for different racial groups, that gave comparable results would be practically impossible.

Good point which applies to a lot of psychometric measurements, diagnostistic scales etc.

Ref IQ, I'm not an expert, but I would expect the non-linguistic component of IQ tests - such as the Ravens matrix etc etc. I recall reading reaction-times broadly correlate with IQ too.
 
Last edited:
You silver tongued old fox, you have hit a number of good points again.

That politics for good or ill, is at its heart about division, particularly when there is only a two option answer to a issue. This is not the division of identity politics. Rather differing cohorts standing together to support a solution.

That the western world has settled on the the imperfect nature of majority rule, as the "fairest" way forward should allow those whose plan or ideas having lost the argument to be able to accept the plan. Sadly there will always be a cohort amongst the minority, that will never accept that, rather they will ferment dissent.

Sadly the western world has been served by an increasingly weak political, class of all colours is I think undeniable, and at the same time a populace that both has become disengaged by 'shiny things' and an expectation that the 'State' is responsible for everything.

That allows the few to begin the fermentation of dissent to be framed as an Us vs. Them, rich vs. poor, or white vs. fill in the blank, rather than problem vs. solution.

That the reality is that hard problems generally require hard solutions, has not been served up to society for some time now... rather it has been shoved under the carpet or such compromises made in the 'hard solution' that it becomes no solution at all.

Like the bigotry of low expectations, suggesting that 'minorities cannot succeed' without special treatment at the gift of the white man. The failure to acknowledge that Government cannot fix everything and that in many cases taking personal responsibility is paramount and the sad truth that even the best society cannot save everyone.

The first rule of life saving in any context military or civilian is... Do not become a casualty yourself. This weekend it seem a cohort of society and not the majority is ignoring that. Spurred on by those who want to see society burnt down, and replaced with what? Capitalism or Socialism.
 

endure

GCM
Thiught someone would mention RR, but if I recall correctly, RR went into liquidation, and the govt bought out the bits that were viable.. effectively just shaking off huge debts and starting again, that wouldn't be my definition of fixing a business.. some debtors will have lost a lot of money. I may be wrong on that point.


The government paid cash for all of RR's assets, aero, industrial and cars.

In 1973 they sold Rolls Royce cars off to prepare for its public flotation.

Rolls Royce PLC was privatised and its shares were offered to the public in 1987. The privatisation was a big success.
 
Good point which applies to a lot of psychometric measurements, diagnostistic scales etc.

Ref IQ, I'm not an expert, but I would expect the non-linguistic component of IQ tests - such as the Ravens matrix etc etc. I recall reading reaction-times broadly correlate with IQ too.

Ravens' matrices seem to be good enough for the Army.
 
Just to steer the thread to another area of bigotry of low expectations ...... Reaction to Voter ID laws.
Both in the US and the UK opposition parties wet themselves with outrage that minority communities will be disenfranchised because they are less likely to have ID, work a computer, fill in forms etc.
I always found this unrealisticly low expectation of members of a community to be arrogant and patronising at best, or down right racist at worst.
...in addition to being a key part of the strategy of Certain Parties to ensure that any 'extra' votes come their way.
 
Like the bigotry of low expectations, suggesting that 'minorities cannot succeed' without special treatment at the gift of the white man. The failure to acknowledge that Government cannot fix everything and that in many cases taking personal responsibility is paramount and the sad truth that even the best society cannot save everyone.

Spot on that.

The first rule of life saving in any context military or civilian is... Do not become a casualty yourself. This weekend it seem a cohort of society and not the majority is ignoring that. Spurred on by those who want to see society burnt down, and replaced with what? Capitalism or Socialism.

Fiscal responsibility, You can have both if it's done with minimal government and overheads.
I'm looking to you A.I, make the Marxists irrelevant again.
 
...in addition to being a key part of the strategy of Certain Parties to ensure that any 'extra' votes come their way.

It will certainly be interesting to see the impact voter ID has. There are examples of both left and right parties in the US commuting voter fraud.
 
You might as well dismantle the state now and return to Victorian values of self help - all fine and dandy for those born with a decent start in life, but a self-perpetuating shitstorm for those less fortunate.
Which is entirely where 'positive discrimination' comes in.

I don't mind competing on the basis of ability, even if it means losing out to a more able candidate. I'm dead set against succeeding because my station in life was better than someone else's when they've had to be better and harder-working.
 
Not sure if this belongs here but there are some loose links to low expectations.

As some of you know, my sister is American and very woke. Last night I got some messages off her asking if I was campaigning for schools to teach "Anti-racist". Apparently current teaching racial equality in schools and punishing actual racism is "neutral" and not good enough.

I ask for more information on how the new proposed "Anti-racist" differs from the standard racial equality teaching we have today?
It is lacking white privilege and collective white guilt for slavery.
The bigetory of low expectations of our education in dealing with racial equality got me mad.

I counter by pointing out that I am against the ideas of racial hierarchy, but by blaming all white people for slavery and colonialism you are creating your very own racial moral hierarchy (and by default perpetuating racial hierarchy theory) This did not go down well.
....nor did my likening her ideas that whites should have historic racial guilt to Jews being persecuted for the original sin of the Romans nailing Jesus to a cross.

The conversation soon fell in to twitter outrage topics of JK Rowling, how easy whites have it, and black authors being paid less than white authors (I did wind her up by asking if they all had the same agent and wrote similar style books for a like for like comparison).

Personally I think privilege is mainly caused by wealth, class or political allegiance ..... Or by being the dominant race in an appartied country.
 
Which is entirely where 'positive discrimination' comes in.

I don't mind competing on the basis of ability, even if it means losing out to a more able candidate. I'm dead set against succeeding because my station in life was better than someone else's when they've had to be better and harder-working.

That's a noble sentiment- but would you really? I don't know of one person who was set in positions over me by virtue of positive discrimination, who actually apologised for their rickets and went to management and said "Give the job to him, he can do it." Nope they hung on like grim death because it was a foothold. There may be professional pride involved. It's the reverse of you've F*****d up take a promotion or a sideways. Why? because the failures also highlight the failure of mantras. It's also how failure is percieved, is a failure always a failure or a learning curve. But I mean, Positive discrimination when it came in in the 80's was supposed to be a leg up for the "deserving". Unfortunately it wasn't the deserving who got the leg up- they didn't need it.
 
That's a noble sentiment- but would you really?
Yes. I know it because I have.

Faced with knowing another candidate and believing they would be better for the job, I withdrew despite having certain 'structural' advantages.

I've got where I am by hard work against the odds and I wouldn't be comfortable with myself if I blocked someone else in that position.
 
Yes. I know it because I have.

Faced with knowing another candidate and believing they would be better for the job, I withdrew despite having certain 'structural' advantages.

I've got where I am by hard work against the odds and I wouldn't be comfortable with myself if I blocked someone else in that position.
Well bully for you and more power to your elbow.
 
Top