The Reluctant Fundamentalist

(Film Review)

I have to confess I was something of a reluctant audience, I did not really want to watch this film. Aired as it was, on the BBC, I suspected from the start that it would in fact be a propaganda piece, with a heavy “narrative”. I was not wrong. I won’t bother with a spoiler alert, because I don’t want you to watch this film. I watched it so that others would not have to.

The film opens in Pakistan, where our “hero” Changez (played by Riz Ahmed) is attending a social gathering. Musicians and singers are performing a not completely worthless but rather sombre song. He serves a glass of whisky to his dying relative. Right there was the first moment when I felt a bit irritated, there was a signal here. You see, Muslims aren’t all bad, they drink a glass of whisky now and again. I’ve heard rich Saudis sometimes do the same, but what do I know. I have also heard that sometimes people get flogged to within an inch of their lives for drinking alcohol in Islamic societies, but no doubt its seldom the rich and powerful individuals.

As the musicians play, the scene cuts to the street where an American man is walking along accompanied by a Pakistani woman. The pair are ambushed and the man is bundled into a car. This kidnapping sets the scene for the rest of the film. The scene cuts to a cafe where Changez is sitting talking to an American journalist played by Liev Schreiber. It turns out Schreiber is really a CIA agent, who is investigating the kidnapping.

The film flashes back to our “hero” Changez’s earlier days when he studied at an Ivy League US university. He then joins some big company as a financial analyst. His boss is Kiefer Sutherland, who plays the first baddie white guy, a ruthless corporate guy who makes big money by making companies more efficient. He joins a team with three other young recruits. One is a white guy, who gradually morphs into another baddie white guy as the film progresses. One is a black guy, who turns out to be a goodie and becomes Changez’s friend. The other is a white girl who isn’t that important in the plot.

The young team of 4 have a barbecue in a park. They talk about their ambitions for the future. The goodie black guy is not really out for himself, he has a plan to become a rich philanthropist and wipe out malaria. Changez quips that he is going to become a “dictator of an Islamic Republic with nuclear capability”. Hilarious. Changez runs into the love interest of the film, played by Kate Hudson. She is photographing skateboarders. As the plot develops, they begin an affair.

Then one evening Changez is watching TV in his hotel room. The news of the 9/11 attack comes on the TV, and he turns to watch. At first he is quite shocked, but then he smiles as he watches. I’ll just repeat that, he smiles as he watches.  I felt quite nauseous.  The scene flashes back to the present, where Changez is talking to the CIA guy in the cafe. Changez explains his emotions at the time. He says he should have felt sorrow, but all he could feel was a sense of awe at the “audacity of the thing”. As you can guess I’m really warming to the guy at this point. “David had struck Goliath” he says, “arrogance brought low”. CIA guy doesn’t look too happy about it. What was the arrogance Changez was talking about, I wondered?  Was it the arrogance that led the US to help the Afghan Taliban during their resistance of the Soviet occupation?  Was it the arrogance that led the US to give billions in aid to Pakistan :

What arrogance was he talking about, exactly?

It turns out Changez is now a lecturer at a Lahore university. The authorities are harassing Changez and they talk about why.  As he was speaking, a terrible thought came to my mind. Wasn’t Lahore the city where Asia Bibi was sentenced to hang for “blasphemy”? Could it even be that she was incarcerated in a filthy prison not far away from this very film set? A horrible nauseous feeling swept over me and I had to pause the film and run upstairs to the bathroom. I wondered if this spoilt brat rich kid from the leafy suburbs had bothered to join any rallies calling for her release? There are victims and victims though, and no doubt his higher status as a Muslim victim enabled him to not have a troubled conscience about that. A little recovered I managed to return to my living room and resume the viewing.

We flash back to the US, where the younger Changez’s career is developing. In the wake of 9/11 tensions are high. He is stopped at an airport and strip searched. The sense of victimhood is growing. He visits a company to lay off staff and has his tyres slashed. He starts to grow a beard and gradually tensions with Hudson grow. She puts on a self-indulgent “art” show (rich kids can afford to do this sort of thing). The art show is full of references to her affair with Changez, in large neon writing. “I had a Pakistani once”, reads one of the signs. Its pretty sick. He finally decides he’s had enough of the US and returns to Pakistan to become the lecturer he now is.

We flash back to the present. A protest has gathered outside the cafe. The CIA guy decides that Changez was involved in the kidnapping – the hostage is now dead. The CIA guy arrests Changez and marches him out of the cafe at gunpoint. But, guess what, its all a big mistake. Changez is not really a baddie at all, he’s a good guy. There’s a scuffle, one of the protesting students gets shot (he later dies). The film ends with the student’s funeral.  Another victim of dumb American aggression, or so we’re supposed to think.  Its not a perfectly legitimate arrest of a suspect in a kidnapping (that’s apparently now also become a murder because the kidnapped man has been murdered).

You can feel a bit of pity for the student who dies, but really its not the CIA’s fault. Changez associates with a guy who seems to be a mujahideen of some sort. Its only reasonable that Changez should be under suspicion. I don’t think that’s what the makers of the film wanted us to feel however. I think they wanted us to think of Muslims as victims, the underdog, and white men as the baddies. However, I don’t have sympathy for a guy that smiles when thousands of people are murdered.

The Pretend Strategy – From Chamberlain to Cameron

[This is the fourth in a short series of posts about the UK Government’s counter extremism strategy, called “Prevent”]

In the 1930s the UK government was pursuing a strategy of appeasement towards the rising menace of fascism in the European continent at that time. In 1938, tensions between Germany and Czechoslovakia were growing. Hitler was calling for the Sudetenland to become part of Germany, due to the large number of ethnic Germans in that region. Chamberlain went to Munich to agree with Hitler an “Anglo–German Agreement” which was supposed to be “symbolic of the desire of our two people never to go to war again”. Chamberlain claimed that during the meeting Hitler agreed not to bomb the people of Prague. He returned to England, and triumphantly proclaimed:

“My good friends, this is the second time there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts. Now I recommend you go home, and sleep quietly in your beds.”

Shortly afterwards, Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia and the path to war had become inevitable. Then Hitler invaded Poland and war was officially declared. Chamberlain’s honour was in tatters.

Appeasement is always a tempting response when faced with a rising supremacist ideology. Of course it might work, the problem is that usually it doesn’t work. What is revealed by our investigation of the government’s “Prevent” strategy is that this policy is essentially a policy of appeasement. It hides from the truth, it pretends that the Islamic religion is not the intolerant and supremacist ideology that it is. Especially during the time that Labour were in office, large amounts of money were given to mosques and other Islamic organisations in the hope that this would promote a more peaceful “version” of the religion. Then since the Conservative party took over, a rather different strategy was attempted. Essentially this strategy has been to pretend that Islam can be moulded into something that it is not. This interference has more served to alienate a lot of the followers of the religion than it has to reduce the rising threat of Islamic intolerance. This strategy also has failed, and now a new direction is being attempted, which is equally doomed to fail because it avoids the truth.

Ultimately we must face the truth. The UK government cannot re-write Islamic texts. Mohammed’s example was a brutally warlike and intolerant one. Those who attempted to speak out against him were killed. Take for example the story of Asma bint Marwan who was murdered in her bed as she slept with her children around her. This is not the way of a civilized society. This is not the way of democracy. We must allow people to speak freely. We must allow people to mock their leaders. We must allow people to mock religions.

The new Orwellian direction that the policy has now taken is just about the worst reaction possible to Islamic intolerance. By promising to silence the critics of Islam using “Extremist Banning and Disruption Orders”, the Conservative government are handing victory to the terrorists. In a towering gesture of hypocrisy, this policy proposal comes not long after David Cameron’s attendance of the je suis Charlie rally in France that followed the massacre of cartoonists at the Charlie Hebdo magazine. Stéphane Charbonnier must be rolling in his grave.

Supposedly the rationale behind this new direction is that criticism of Islam will lead to hostility towards the Muslim population, which could lead to violence against them. Or if we are more honest with ourselves, perhaps it is that we must keep critics of Islam quiet because followers of the religion get very upset when Islam is criticized, and themselves may turn to violence? Whichever is the main motivation is immaterial. We have free speech because free speech allows us to criticize bad ideas. If we cannot criticize a religion that calls for those who try to criticize the religion to be killed, then we no longer have free speech. If the government were to silence the critics of Islam, then they would simply be doing the bidding of the Islamic terrorists whose goal is also to suppress that criticism. Free speech was not won by cowardice in the face of intimidation and aggression. We must take risks to preserve it.

Extremist Banning and Disruption Orders

[This is the third in a short series of posts about the UK Government’s counter extremism strategy, called “Prevent”]

In the autumn of 2014, the Conservative government announced a truly Orwellian plan to deal with “extremism” using new legislation. The proposals they described are not yet law, but will probably soon be put before parliament. Here is an extract from Theresa May’s speech at the 2014 Conservative party conference, when this plan was first mentioned:

I want to see new banning orders for extremist groups that fall short of the existing laws relating to terrorism. I want to see new civil powers to target extremists who stay just within the law but still spread poisonous hatred. So both policies – Banning Orders and Extremism Disruption Orders – will be in the next Conservative manifesto.

Note especially the phrase “extremists who stay just within the law but still spread poisonous hatred”. Since it is already illegal to incite violence, this was a curious choice of phrase.  What sort of “extremism” might this include?  The proposals were indeed included in the manifesto, albeit vaguely. In October 2015 the government published a draft “Counter-Extremism Strategy” which can be found here:

In this document they gave some examples of the kinds of extremism that they intended to target with the orders, here is one of the examples of extreme speech that they gave (chapter 1, page 11, section 11, 4th bullet point):

  • describing Islam as a “disgusting, backward, savage, barbarian, supremacist ideology masquerading as a religion.”

So, if you describe the Islamic religion in these terms you are, according to the government, an extremist. But there are also Islamic extremists apparently as well, this is an example they give of Islamic extremist speech:

  • unbelievers (or ‘Kufaar’) are “not worth anything, less than an ant, less than an insect, less than a dog. A dog has more honour than a Kafir and at least the dog he’s loyal to you.”

However surely the speaker here is just elaborating on this Koranic verse:

Surely the vilest of animals in Allah’s sight are those who disbelieve, then they would not believe.
(Quran 8.55)

So, on this page of the document the government have both described a critic of Islam as an extremist but also (probably unwittingly) criticized the Islamic religion themselves. It almost seems to me the UK government is coming dangerously close to implicitly accusing itself of “extremism” here.

Worse still, no clear definition of extremism was even given in the document. The word is in any case very subjective. Not deterred by the difficulty of defining a clear legal definition they again announce:

Disrupting extremists – We will create new targeted powers, flexible enough to cover the full range of extremist behaviour, including where extremists sow division in our communities and seek to undermine the rule of law.

As I mentioned in the first post on the “Prevent” strategy, the government have themselves already been accused of sowing division by prominent Muslims, a type of “extremist” behaviour defined here.  Is the government itself an extremist organization according to their own vague definition?

What other kinds of “extremism” might be targeted by the orders? One Conservative MP suggested that school teachers who argue against gay marriage should be subjected to the orders:

In short, it seems that just about anything the government doesn’t agree with then might be targeted. Perhaps global warming skeptics might be next? Opponents of mass immigration? Where might it end? There was a suggestion that environmental activists might be subjected to the orders in one speech I read about.

How would these orders work in practice? This is what I have gleaned so far:

If the police (or the home secretary? I’ve read different reports) feel that an individual is an extremist they will apply to the High Court for an Extremist Banning or Disruption Order against them.  Apparently the criteria would be as vague as someone saying something in public that was likely to cause “alarm and distress”. Note here that many Muslims claimed to be alarmed and distressed by the Charlie Hebdo cartoons. Whilst they are subjected to the order, all public speaking or publishing that they do will have to be vetted by the police and approved before they can go public with it. (How long the orders would remain in force or what conditions would lead to them being lifted has not been revealed yet). If they bypass this process and go public without checking with the police beforehand, they will be in breach of the order and will have committed a criminal offence for which there will be a prison sentence. If this sounds like something out of the Soviet Union or George Orwell then that’s because it is like that. This is the thought police telling people what they can think and what they can’t.

One really big issue I have with these orders is that they would be directed at individuals rather than particular opinions. The incitement to violence law by contrast was aimed at a specific thing a person had said. Once subjected to one of the orders, journalists and commentators on current affairs could be effectively put out of business because absolutely every time they wanted to make a public statement they would have to submit it first to the police and then wait for approval. Even if the police allowed most things they wanted to say, the simple process of waiting for approval could hamper the person to the point where they were commenting on yesterday’s news always a day or more behind the rest – especially at weekends probably when the police were not on duty.

The stigma associated could also encourage people reading the person’s opinion to dismiss their views more readily, as the government would have tarred them with the brush and they could be dismissed as just that “extremist”, no need to listen to him/her. Of course this could also work in the opposite direction and encourage other people to read their views more intently, if they were generally suspicious of the government. Either reaction is bad though, because in the first reaction the government is successfully interfering with free speech, and in the second distrust of the government is increased which is also bad for democracy. Different people would react in different ways and so these are not contradictory objections.

Perhaps most worryingly of all, the government could even use the orders to silence their political opponents.

Crucially, will the public be kept informed about who the orders have been used against, and how? If so, then that revelation could undermine the very point of the orders, because the very opinion that the authorities are trying to suppress will be so publicized and will be much discussed in the media. If not, then it would seem to me that the thought police state has become a reality, because opinions will be being suppressed, and we won’t know whose opinions or why.

The Pretend Strategy – A New Orwellian Direction

[This is the second in a short series of posts about the UK Government’s counter extremism strategy, called “Prevent”]

In the run up to the general election in spring 2015, a new tougher rhetoric began to be heard from the Conservative party leadership. It seemed they were realizing that the “Prevent” strategy was not proving terribly effective. An almost endless stream of Islam-related bad news stories kept appearing in the press. A clearly not very de-radicalized individual nicknamed as “Jihadi John” (because of his English accent) kept appearing in online videos which showed him hacking the heads off people including an aid worker and a journalist. A lot of other UK citizens were also believed to have gone to join the Islamic State.

In a speech in autumn 2014, the home secretary Theresa May announced:

And I want to tell you about another change we intend to make. As part of the Government’s counter-terrorism strategy, Prevent has only ever been focused on the hard end of the extremism spectrum. So the Home Office will soon, for the first time, assume responsibility for a new counter-extremism strategy that goes beyond terrorism.

Was she just talking about Islamic extremism here? Was she just talking more generally about the sort of extremism that directly incited violence perhaps? It soon became clear that she was referring to all sorts of other kinds of “extremism” as well:

And our policy doesn’t just focus on violent extremism, it deals with non-violent extremism too.

So what, exactly, constitutes non-violent extremism? She listed a number of Islamic hate preachers that she had “kicked out” of the country.  She did not mention the fact that she had also barred two well known critics of Islam (Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller) from entering the UK to speak on Islam at an EDL rally in 2013.

Other phrases such as “extremism in all its forms” were repeatedly heard in speeches by the Tory leadership from this time onward.  She also said in the same speech that free speech was an important British value. So where exactly was the line going to be drawn between extremism and free speech? It was not at all clear. She concluded the speech with this:

We must confront segregation and sectarianism. We must face down extremism in all its forms. We must stand up for our values. Because, in the end, as they have done before, those values, our British values, will win the day, and we will prevail.

It became no clearer at all where the line would be drawn when she tried to clarify this in July 2015:

We’re not talking about curbing free speech. We recognize that free speech is one of our values. But we have to look at the impact some people have in terms of the poisonous ideology they plant in people’s minds that will lead them to challenge, lead them to undermine the values we share as a country.

So how exactly were the prime minister and home secretary going to confront “non-violent extremism”?. It was clear from the speech that they intended to introduce new legislation, Orwellian measures called “Extremist Banning and Disruption Orders”. I will examine these in detail in the next post.


The Pretend Strategy – The Story So Far

This is the first in a series of posts examining the UK government anti-terrorism strategy known as the “Prevent Strategy”.  This strategy is part of a larger 4-part counter-terrorism strategy called “CONTEST”.

In the wake of the suicide bombing atrocities that took place in London on 7th July 2005, the then Labour government created this convoluted strategy that was supposed to address the underlying problems that had led 4 young men to commit the terrible acts.  In the government’s words the goal of “Prevent” is “to stop people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism”. Is the strategy working?  The BBC estimates that 800 UK citizens have gone to join the Islamic State in spite of the strategy being in place:

Have others been turned away from violent jihad?  Possibly, the government claimed in 2013 that 500 people had undergone “deradicalisation” which had steered them away from violent extremism.  However there have also been claims that many Muslims in the UK feel alienated by the strategy.  If many Muslims feel alienated by the strategy it is perfectly possible that it is having the exactly opposite effect to the one intended on those people.  Of course it is impossible to estimate the scale of such an effect.  Here is an example of just such a reaction from a prominent Muslim, the chairman of Birmingham Central Mosque:

Hundreds of millions of pounds have been spent on the strategy.  Meanwhile a government funded community centre was found to be being used to  recruit people to join the Islamic State!

A lot of Prevent funding has apparently just been given to mosques and Islamic organisations, presumably as an incentive to dissuade terrorism.  This is really based on the idea that “mainstream” Islam is a peaceful religion, and therefore it should be encouraged in order to draw Muslims away from more violent “strains” of the religion.

The above articles relate mainly to spending during the Labour government’s time in office.  The strategy was revised somewhat since the Coalition came to power, and spending has been reduced greatly, but currently annual spending is still £40m.  I am under the impression that generally the focus has shifted more towards spying and greater interference in what is being taught.  The increased feeling of being spied upon appears to have worsened the alienation felt among the Muslim population.  More hostility towards the government has been reported since the Conservatives came to power.  The government also cannot control what is taught in the home.  Even if they close madrassas, radicalization can just go on behind closed doors.

Unfortunately the government cannot change the teachings of the Koran and the violent and warlike example of Mohammed’s dictatorial rule, so there is really a limit to what influence they can have.   As long as they are clinging to the notion that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the religion, they are avoiding the elephant in the room.   Some Muslims will almost inevitably be “radicalized” as long as Islam is taught.

The strategy has also been targeted at non-Muslims, presumably in a feeble attempt to appear balanced.  The “Prevent duty”, advice given to schools and child care providers states: “Protecting children from the risk of radicalisation should be seen as part of schools’ and childcare providers’ wider safeguarding duties”.  This general purpose advice has led to a bizarre case where a child was arrested for visiting a UKIP website and watching an EDL video:

As a non-Muslim UK citizen I am outraged that large amounts of taxpayers’ money has been given to organizations promoting a religion whose ideals are so very antagonistic towards free speech and democracy.  The strategy is really typical of a government making a knee-jerk reaction to a crisis situation, governments it seems must always be seen to be doing something, however pointless, and as discussed the strategy is actually counter-productive.

The “Prevent” strategy would be better named as the “Pretend” strategy.


Click to access prevent-duty-departmental-advice-v6.pdf


A Tribute To Stefan Molyneux

I have been listening to the podcasts of Stefan Molyneux at for some time now, which are available without charge or subscription.

Stefan does a regular call in show more than once a week, in which people call in to discuss various subjects, ranging from their personal issues in relationships to politics and philosophical questions. To my mind he has a very good understanding of human psychology, and really seems to give good advice to his callers. One of his most central themes is peaceful parenting, and he advises people to never hit their children.

He has also produced a series of books available in podcast or readable form, which set out his philosophical ideas. One of the main themes of his work is anarchism. He believes we would be better off in a stateless world, arguing that states are fundamentally immoral. I am not at all sure how a stateless society could work, to my mind we need to belong to a state for law and order and defence at the minimum. However I find his arguments interesting and in my own view states are becoming increasingly unwieldy, especially in the “West”, there does actually seem to be a trend towards greater governments’ mismanagement of their states. The question is, is this trend reversible through the current political system or are we heading towards some sort of crisis and upheaval? I will be exploring this question further in future blog posts.

Another interesting aspect of his work is what he terms “Universally Preferable Behaviour”. This is a sort of universal moral framework as I understand it. He speaks from an atheist perspective. If we are to wean ourselves away from backward and dangerous religious beliefs we need to be coming up with something like this to fill the void left by the loss of the more beneficial aspects of moral guidance from the church.

Possibly his other ideas such as peaceful parenting might encourage a more peaceful world to develop, in which there might certainly be eventually less need for a state, especially for defence and law and order. Even if the goal of a stateless society is utopian or not achievable in fact, I can see only good coming from philosophical thinking that encourages more peaceful behaviour and the resolution of conflicts in our personal lives. Less harmful behaviour by governments might even eventually emerge if this is successful.

Wherever you stand on these issues I believe Stefan Molyneux, and other internet commentators like him, deserve a great deal of credit for breaking down taboos around what subjects can be discussed in our era that is otherwise so heavily suffocated by political correctness.

I strongly recommend readers try listening to his podcasts, even if you disagree with the idea of a stateless society. I almost invariably find the call in shows fascinating. Please contribute a donation to the show if you can, as he relies on listener donations.

Dysgenics and Solutions

In the last two articles I have talked about why I believe that average intelligence is falling in the “Western” world. In this article I will talk about how we can reverse this trend. Firstly attitudes will have to change. We must break the taboo and force the subject of dysgenics into the mainstream media. None of the necessary changes in government policy are going to come about until voters are forced to face reality. I appreciate that this is a huge task but the debate is already taking place in the alternative media and blogosphere to some extent. Even if those working couples who are having children currently increased the number of children they had just a little, we could soon be back to sustainable levels. If they could be made to see that the children they are having face a bleak future if average intelligence continues to decline, then they might be persuaded to have just one or two more. Couples must also be persuaded to have children earlier to reduce the risks of birth defects.

Secondly we simply have to reduce the welfare bill to reduce the burden on working families. To have children whilst you are unemployed is to abuse the system. The smallest necessary change is to stop child benefit payments altogether to those who have children while they are not working. As shown in the last article these payments directly lead to an increase in birth rates among the least intelligent members of society.  Trying to fight poverty by giving unrestricted welfare to people who will not work merely creates more poverty. A change to flexible retirement age for state pension payments should be considered to relieve the financial pressure on working families. Some people argue that we should go even further and abolish the welfare state altogether. I think we should take this suggestion seriously. However whatever is done should be done in stages, otherwise hardship will be acute and people will resort to crime, endangering the stability of society.

Another pressure seldom mentioned is the pressure on housing. In the UK we have strict planning laws, with correspondingly low rates of house building and yet very high rates of net migration into our country. We don’t want to turn our green and pleasant land into a concrete jungle, so instead we should regain control of our borders and stop immigration in its tracks. The key to a peaceful and happy future is sustainability and stability in all things. At the moment even those working couples who want to have children are thwarted by the astronomically high house prices in the UK.

Till now, successive governments have used mass immigration as a solution, for example simply propping up the NHS by importing doctors and nurses from other countries. The Labour government dramatically increased the wages of doctors partly in order to attract doctors from foreign countries. This is morally indefensible. The countries affected can scarcely afford to lose these people. In any case, eventually those countries will start to object and we will be left with a shortage of new doctors. We must return to a sustainable situation where the middle classes have enough children so that there are enough children born here capable of becoming the doctors of the future. The same applies to all other professions as well. There may in fact be a large brain drain effect occurring as the “West” draws the most intelligent people from less developed nations. This could even be a significant factor in the breakdown of stability in these countries. It may even explain why some countries continue to be basket cases even with the wide availability of new technology such as mobile phones.

If we fail to change direction, then our decline will continue until our current democratic system collapses altogether. The burden on taxpayers will just grow to the point where the state is bankrupted. Those who wish for such an outcome should think carefully about it. Banks could collapse. The police, emergency services, army would all be unpaid. A complete breakdown in law and order could occur, with no doctors and nurses available to treat the casualties of the huge crime wave that would result. Far better to at least attempt to achieve a managed transition to a better society.

Dysgenics and Welfare

It is now over half a century since the creation of the modern welfare state in the UK. The modern welfare state did not embody the principle that William Beveridge laid out that unemployed men should be supported by the state “but with complete and permanent loss of all citizen rights – including not only the franchise but civil freedom and fatherhood.”

To many people that statement seems quite shocking today. But, after so many decades of welfare without such limitations, where are we now? We have a large and growing underclass of people who have not only never worked but actually generations have now been born and grown up entirely supported by the welfare state.

We have a large and rapidly growing population of Muslims in the UK (this population doubled in a single decade according to census statistics). A disproportionately large percentage of Muslims (especially Muslim women) are not working and are supported by the state. Welfare is not only directly fueling the growth of this population, but is encouraging the least intelligent members of it to have more children. The tendency of this particular population to intermarry among cousins is also leading to more genetic defects in children, increasing the cost of care provided by our free healthcare system, the NHS.

Of course there are problems in the non-Muslim underclass as well. Parents who are addicted to drugs, alcohol and tobacco are damaging their children both in the womb and after birth. Parents on welfare may not only tend to be less intelligent in the first place, they are more likely to impair the development of their children’s brains during brain development as well.

Here is a study that shows there is a link between more generous welfare payments and birthrates of the recipients:

Click to access wp0809.pdf

No surprise there really. Why is it so controversial to talk about such an obvious problem? Welfare is taking money away from hard working families through taxation, making it more difficult for them to afford to have children.

An even larger problem for the hard working people is the growing state pension bill. This is a very large part of state spending. As people are living ever longer the cost continues to grow, making it still harder for hard working families to have children.

To summarize, our current generous welfare system is making it increasingly difficult for hard working members of society to afford to have children. Lazy and incapable people meanwhile are continuing to have children without restriction, courtesy of those hard working people. Its more than likely that average intelligence is falling as a result of these pressures.