Bloody Shovel 3

We will drown and nobody shall save us


Sailer quoted Disraeli  (d'Israeli, originally) saying "all is race". I got curious and Googled the guy, and damn.

I don't know if England has lost 15 IQ point on average since that time, as Charlton says. But Parliament speeches have lost even more than that.

Some samples from

The noble lord in this case, as in so many others, first destroys his opponent, and then destroys his own position afterwards. The noble lord is the Prince Rupert of parliamentary discussion: his charge is resistless, but when he returns from the pursuit he always finds his camp in the possession of the enemy.

Speech in the House of Commons (24 April 1844), referring to Lord Stanley; compare: "The brilliant chief, irregularly great, / Frank, haughty, rash,—the Rupert of debate!", Edward Bulwer-Lytton, The New Timon (1846), Part i.

Heh. Prince Rupert being famous for being the best general to lose the English Civil War.

London owes everything to its press: it owes as much to its press as it does to its being the seat of government and the law.

Probably true. Not a good thing though.

Sir, it is very easy to complain of party Government, and there may be persons capable of forming an opinion on this subject who may entertain a deep objection to that Government, and know to what that objection leads. But there are others who shrug their shoulders, and talk in a slipshod style on this head, who, perhaps, are not exactly aware of what the objections lead to. These persons should understand, that if they object to party Government, they do, in fact, object to nothing more nor less than Parliamentary Government. A popular assembly without parties--500 isolated individuals--cannot stand five years against a Minister with an organized Government without becoming a servile Senate.

It did eventually become that anyway, though.

First, without reference to England, looking at all countries, I say that it is the first duty of the Minister, and the first interest of the State, to maintain a balance between the two great branches of national industry; that is a principle which has been recognised by all great Ministers for the last two hundred years...Why we should maintain that balance between the two great branches of national industry, involves political considerations—social considerations, affecting the happiness, prosperity, and morality of the people, as well as the stability of the State. But I go further; I say that in England we are bound to do more—I repeat what I have repeated before, that in this country there are special reasons why we should not only maintain the balance between the two branches of our national industry, but why we should give a the agricultural branch; and the reason is, because in England we have a territorial Constitution. We have thrown upon the land the revenues of the Church, the administration of justice, and the estate of the poor; and this has been done, not to gratify the pride, or pamper the luxury of the proprietors of the land, but because, in a territorial Constitution, you, and those whom you have succeeded, have found the only security for self-government—the only barrier against that centralising system which has taken root in other countries.

Again, it only took a couple of wars to centralize power anyway.

I say, then, assuming, as I have given you reason to assume, that the price of wheat, when this system is established, ranges in England at 35s. per quarter, and other grain in proportion, this is not a question of rent, but it is a question of displacing the labour of England that produces corn, in order, on an extensive and even universal scale, to permit the entrance into this country of foreign corn produced by foreign labour. Will that displaced labour find new employment? ... But what are the resources of this kind of industry to employ and support the people, supposing the great depression in agricultural produce occur which is feared—that this great revolution, as it has appropriately been called, takes place—that we cease to be an agricultural people—what are the resources that would furnish employment to two-thirds of the subverted agricultural population—in fact, from 3,500,000 to 4,000,000 of people? Assume that the workshop of the world principle is carried into effect—assume that the attempt is made to maintain your system, both financial and domestic, on the resources of the cotton trade—assume that, in spite of hostile tariffs, that already gigantic industry is would only find increased employment for 300,000 of your population...What must be the consequence? I think we have pretty good grounds for anticipating social misery and political disaster.

Talk about modern relevance.

But this principle of race is unfortunately one of the reasons why I fear war may always exist; because race implies difference, difference implies superiority, and superiority leads to predominance.

Yes, yes, yes.

The movement of the middle classes for the abolition of slavery was virtuous, but it was not wise. It was an ignorant movement. It showed a want of knowledge both of the laws of commerce and the stipulations of treaties; and it has alike ruined the colonies and aggravated the slave trade...The history of the abolition of slavery by the English and its consequences, would be a narrative of ignorance, injustice, blundering, waste, and havoc, not easily paralleled in the history of mankind.

It took a Jew to say that.

All is race -- there is no other truth.


The Jews represent the Semitic principle; all that is spiritual in our nature. They are the trustees of tradition, and the conservators of the religious element. They are a living and the most striking evidence of the falsity of that pernicious doctrine of modern times, the natural equality of man. The political equality of a particular race is a matter of municipal arrangement and depends entirely on political considerations and circumstances; but the natural equality of man now in vogue, and taking the form of cosmopolitan fraternity, is a principle which, were it possible to act on it, would deteriorate the great races and destroy all the genius of the world. What would be the consequence on the great Anglo-Saxon republic, for example, were its citizens to secede from their sound principle of reserve, and mingle with their negro and coloured populations? In the course of time they would become so deteriorated that their states would probably be reconquered and regained by the aborigines whom they have expelled and who would then be their superiors.

Tears in my eyes. The last 170 years have been completely lost.

The characteristic of the present age is craving credulity.

It got worse, my lord. Much worse.

In a progressive country change is constant; and the great question is not whether you should resist change which is inevitable, but whether that change should be carried out in deference to the manners, the customs, the laws and the traditions of a people, or whether it should be carried out in deference to abstract principles, and arbitrary and general doctrines.

He could've given a bit more punch to that. Change it to "in deference to the traditions of a people, or in deference to obscure, unfalsifiable and preposterous abstract claims made by idle people to signal their empty virtue.

King Louis Philippe once said to me that he attributed the great success of the British nation in political life to their talking politics after dinner.

As opposed to before?


Leave a Reply
  • > I don’t know if England has lost 15 IQ point on average since that time, as Charlton says. But Parliament speeches have lost even more than that.

    At the time that speech was given, only about one in ten men could vote in Britain, usually well-to-do or landowners. By the time Disraeli's career ended, the franchise had been extended to maybe one in five men and a secret ballot was introduced, but notably those who received Poor Relief still couldn't vote.

    By 1884 most men could vote. By 1918 any woman over 30 could vote and women could be in Parliament. By 1928 they had universal suffrage at age 21, lowered to age 18 in 1970. For about twenty years now they've been pushing to lower it further, to 16.

    It's not that the IQ of England has dropped (other than via immigration) on average, and it's not the average IQ of the class of persons who could vote today under the rules of 170 years ago has dropped, it's that the franchise has been extended since that time to the childlike, the hysterical, the idiots, and the welfare class.

    • But Parliament speeches have lost even more than that. False dichotomy. Both have occurred. Probably not a full 15 points, though. On replication, effect sizes almost always decrease. 15 is 1 SD. I figure the actual loss is maybe 0.6 /- 0.15 SD. Add that to the dilution of the voter IQ solution, and you get the gradient from d'Israeli to Jonah Goldberg.

      Natural advisors are 40 IQ points above the average follower. That puts Goldberg at around 140, and d'Israeli could have crushed him with three fingers. Or: the 1% is not the upper class, that's being absurdly populist.

      Simultaneously, parliaments have been stripped of power just as the monarchy was before them, so the stupidity of the voter and their advisors is of dubious relevance.

  • Take that quote about slavery, replace the words "Abolition of Slavery" with the words "Civil Rights", and it would be just as accurate as it was 150 years ago. These people simply never change...

  • Tears in my eyes. The last 170 years have been completely lost.

    Oh, Mr Spandrell, you have no idea how right you are.

    May I suggest you read pp. 21-27 of this book, The Roman and the Teuton, originally published in 1864.

    In order to show his audience what late imperial Rome was like, the author begins: "let us give reins to imagination for a moment, and picture to ourselves a few social and political analogies of our own England of the nineteenth century".

    They knew.

    Read it and weep.

  • 3 pingbacks