BBC ‘East Enders’ Lies. Cultural Marxism and Black / White Sexual Relations

The BBC soap ‘East Enders’ deliberately propagates lies about the frequency of white / black sexual relations and the general tension-free wonderfulness of the multicultural, multiracial ‘community’ that is Albert Square. 

It does this in order to further the BBC’s Marxist agenda of racial obliteration of the white British. But perhaps unwittingly or because of the social setting of ‘East Enders’ it correctly focuses that on the whole those whites who do pair with blacks tend to be lower class women. This article attempts to answer the questions.

(1) Why is it on the whole white working class women but not white women from higher social groups who to a limited extent pair with black men? 

(2)  Why don’t white men pair with black women to the same degree?

The BBC continues its drive to expunge the British from the face of the earth. This agenda can be seen in action through the BBC drive to eliminate British and specifically English identity through miscegenation. Here is an analysis of the racial character of the ’love interest‘of just one family, that of Bianca in ‘East Enders’ (No doubt your writer will be corrected on the details if necessary):-

Bianca: Bianca has a mixed race son, Morgan.

Carol : (Bianca’s mum) – Married a black man Alan Jackson and had a mixed race son, Billy. Carol has shared a black boyfriend (Connor) with Bianca’s adopted daughter, the perennial victim

Whitney: Shared a black boyfriend with Carol (see above).

Some major  points arise: although the East Enders’ depiction of reality is grossly perverted through the deliberate, ridiculous  exaggeration of the frequency of mixed–race liaisons which is a device for encouraging them, there is a certain amount of truth in it:-

1) Black/ White Liaisons do indeed happen. 
Given racial genetic interests and fitness theory (see eg ; Frank Salter ‘On Genetic Interests’ ) and  human assortative mating revealed by facial resemblance (‘Computer simulations suggested that sex among genetically complex organisms requires mate choice strategies for its evolutionary maintenance, to reduce excessive genetic variance produced by out-crossing) why do these inter–racial liaisons occur at all? 

The answer must be that racial preference / fitness etc are tendencies only which can be overridden by other tendencies given the right circumstances. Much academic work needs to be done on this subject (in the present political climate this is unlikely to be a priority in the academy) but here are a few tentative suggestions:-

a)  BBC and other propaganda for miscegenation (such as the numerous depictions of mixed – race couples in Advertisements, the attack on white history in our schools and the parallel celebration of other races /cultures) must be having an effect on some individuals. Indeed given the intensity of this propaganda, it is perhaps remarkable that there is not more miscegenation than there is.

b) Popular ‘culture’ is now in large part a celebration of black or black-derived music. The star status of black or mixed race entertainers encourages miscegenation. During the run of the X-Factor the BBC and some elements of the print media publicised the assertion that because of the success of mixed race contestants, ‘mixed race’ was now fashionable. (Can you imagine the BBC at any time suggesting that it was fashionable to be white?).

It is a fact that the white females who pair with blacks tend to be lower class. You can see evidence of this outside schools, most shopping malls and elsewhere where single mums congregate with their mixed –race offspring, often having a fag –at public expense.  Why is this?

a) One reason must be that individuals at this level of society tend to be more influenced by black-based popular culture and political-class indoctrination than those at higher levels.

b) Connected with a) above, it is known that as a general rule we tend to look for our partners in the same intelligence levels as ourselves.  Blacks in Britain have an average IQ of 86 (almost exactly the same as Blacks in the USA) (Richard Lynn:The Global Bell Curve p88).  

This level of IQ is mirrored in those white women who pair with blacks. The lower class have on average the lowest level of IQ among whites. This fact ought to be readily accepted since it accords with everyday common-sense observation. It was accepted in many University Psychology Departments in pre-PC days as a result of the studies but thanks to ideology and not  to empirical observation it  is now treated in much the same way that evidence for the low inherited average IQs of blacks is.  Bruce Charlton, a Newcastle University evolutionary psychiatrist, was met with hostility from the usual suspects when he made this point in connection with working class entrance to the better universities in 2008.

urthermore, people tend to mate with partners who are of the same socio-economic class (When the partnership is a committed one, women tend to ‘marry up’, or used to, but many of these inter-racial liaisons are not likely to be committed to the point of marriage).  As Charlton indicated, notwithstanding the attacks on it, IQ, which measures intelligence and is 50% heritable very accurately predicts real-life success. ‘‘ ‘The Bell Curve’ showed that IQ predicts success in education, jobs and training. Low IQ predicts child abuse, crime and delinquency, health, accident proneness, having a child out of wedlock, getting a divorce after 5 years’ marriage and even smoking during pregnancy.’’ (J Philippe Rushton: ‘Race Evolution and Behaviour’ (Abridged Edition P48).

Foreign born Afro –Caribbean males who work in London have the lowest socio-economic status as measured by the International Index (ISIE). They score 37 with white males scoring 47.4. (South Asians score 46.6 and Chinese 45.6). (Overall in the UK, whites earned an average of    £332 in 2001.  For blacks it was £225 while for Pakistanis and Bangladeshis (ie moslems) it was £182.  The Chinese had average weekly earnings of £342  in 1995). ( Richard Lynn: The Global Bell Curve P101/ 102).

Another factor which might enter into the equation is the fact that as studies have shown, we tend to mate with those whom we consider to be on the same level of physical attractiveness as ourselves. It will be remembered from above that we also tend to mate with individuals in the same intelligence levels as ourselves. A recent study by Dr Satoshi Kanazawa of the London School of Economics, (Report Daily Telegraph 17 Jan 2011) shows that the best looking among us have an IQ 12.4 points higher than the less attractive. This seems to help confirm your writer’s admittedly personal observation that low-IQ underclass white women tend also to come low down on the scale of attractiveness.

It seems likely then that matching low IQs, social status and physical unattractiveness are reasons why these females rather than more attractive white women higher up the socio-economic scale are the more likely to mate with blacks, who to this English male eye at least, are (generally speaking) physically very ugly. The better –looking ones are those with a lot of white blood. That your writer should think this is of course ethnic preference and linked aesthetic conditioning talking rather than any objective standard of attractiveness.

Admittedly from personal observation, as ‘East Enders’ and advertisements  show, mixed –race couples do  tend to comprise a black (negro) male and white female. The ratio of such pairings to the whole seems to be as high as 75% - 90%.   This imbalance is quite remarkable.  What is the reason for this phenomenon?   There is clearly limited space for what requires a major study, but here are a few suggestions:-

One reason for it could be that there are simply more available black males than black females around. But even if true, that would not be enough to explain the huge imbalance as it does nothing on its own to explain why white females would want to pair with these blacks when there are enough white men. 

It could be argued of course that black men find white women more attractive than their own black women. However, while It may  be the case that in a mainly white society, white standards of beauty influence blacks, it seems unlikely that black men brought up among blacks with mainly black standards of physical attractiveness for  women and taking into account ethnic preference would consider white women in general more attractive than their own women - quite the contrary.

There is though the ‘trophy‘  syndrome in black /white pairings. The women involved are often blonds, even when bleached – ie as white as possible. White women, belonging to the majority, dominant racial group are seen as prizes which confirm their racial ‘equality’ and as visible sign of achievement for black men. The ‘trophy’ syndrome is instantly recognisable among successful blacks such as Trevor Phillipsand Obama’s Father and celebrities such as Chris Eubank and Ashley Cole who have all sported attractive white women as partners.

One attraction for the white women involved with black celebrities; wealth and reflected celebrity or public exposure, is obvious.  The attraction for the  majority of  white women pairing with blacks remains to be explained. 
(There is a curious reverse flow with a few white celebrities such as Jon Snow the TV presenter and the Historian Niall Ferguson marrying black women (In the same socio-economic class). Here, one suspects at least part of the attraction for the men involved is the highly public confirmation their marriages give to their left-liberal, right-on credentials which is useful to them in their careers).

One explanation could be that men and women have different priorities when selecting mates. Yes, IQ and socio-economic class is very important but so too is physical attractiveness.  But what constitutes physical attractiveness?

For men, it boils down to the signals which announce a woman as healthy, fertile and ready to mate. Hence the cosmetics women don:  the eternal search for youth –enhancing potions; slimming regimes which define the hip /waist ratios which signal child bearing properties, the blusher, lipstick and so on which mimic sexual readiness, all of which accentuate these factors. European men can read the signals very easily in women of their own race, but it is more difficult in women of other races, especially those racially farthest apart from ourselves such as negroes.

Then there are standards of beauty, strongly linked to the sexual signals mentioned above which go hand in hand with ethnic preference and fitness.

There are pure blood black woman who are very striking and attractive up to a point. But  beautiful, or even very pretty? Your writer has never seen a black woman who fitted this description. The (by white standards) coke –like hair, the large and coarse features, the thick and (to him) repellently everted lips, the proportions of the body, and yes;  the sheer blackness and coarseness  of the skin,  so at variance with the delicacy and  fragility, the blushing, pink- and white fineness of an ‘English Rose,’ the standard of English female beauty, all militate against it.

There are plenty of mixed –race women who can be described as pretty, but even then, Like Naomi Campbell, they would be prettier still although perhaps less striking to European eyes if they had more white blood in them.

This is not ‘racism,’ meaning a bigoted attitude born of sheer prejudice towards other races. It is a function of racial genetic preference / fitness which does not deny that Chinese and Japanese women, especially those from the North with small, delicate features far removed from the ape, slender limbs, fine complexions and skins whiter than most Europeans, can be very pretty and extremely attractive physically.

So too can women of other races such as the paler, slim and doll-like  Indians and South -East Asians. Like their men, some light-skinned Afghan  women can be very handsome with their strong, high cheek - boned features, normally covered up by moslem drapings.

For women in differing degrees ( apparently more so than men for women), what constitutes physical attractiveness need not be what is handsome only or even at all but what is male, including personality. (Phil Mitchell is no oil –painting). This is probably the case throughout the social spectrum. At the lower end of the social scale however, thanks to the other factors touched on above, white female affinity for pure maleness of over looks and ethnic preference / fitness can come to the fore so far as blacks are concerned. According to J Philippe Rushton,

Blacks are sexually active at an earlier age than Whites and have sex more frequently than they do. Their male sexual apparatus is larger (although according to John Baker (Race) it is no larger when engorged). 

Whites in turn are higher up the scales than Orientals. The same hierarchy is found in sexual permissiveness, thinking about sex, and even in levels of sex guilt. 

What has been said above surely goes a long way to explaining the phenomenon of the white lower class female / black male imbalance. There is much that remains to be said about the pairings between other racial groups, or the absence of them.  But this essay is already long enough and that exploration will have to wait until a later date.

Suffice it to say that, as elsewhere the world, what seems to be developing very slowly but spurred on by the BBC and its marxist like is a class system in Britain structured on racial lines with whites and orientals at the top; south asians and mixed–race individuals mostly in the middle and those with the most negro blood at the bottom. In short, the complete antithesis of the racially and culturally egalitarian, multiracial nirvana envisaged by  the leftists who are engineering it all.

As Robert Burns put it;
‘The best-laid schemes o’ mice an’ men
Gang aft agley….’