Third World scum rises to First World top

Most of the eponymous scum gloating about the Queen’s death are black, but this isn’t about their race. They are also Left-wing, but it isn’t about their politics either. They are none of them particularly bright, but it’s not their understated intellect that makes them scum.

It’s their culture, which isn’t just alien to our Western one, but aggressively hostile to it. They loathe viscerally everything about Western history, civility and polity. Even more to the point, they lack basic decency and taste, and they are smugly proud of this deficiency.

A society not hellbent on self-destruction wouldn’t let such people within spittle-sputtering distance of any respectable public platform. Their lot would be lonely rants at TV screens, and they should only ever subsist on menial jobs.

Yet the scum in question have all risen to the top of opinion-forming professions in the US. To preempt objections, I’m not singling out America for criticism. We have our own throngs of such internal barbarians, although more of them have tended to keep their revolting views about the Queen to themselves over the past few days.


I am simply trying to comment on the delights of diversity, enforced by what Americans call affirmative action and we describe, less euphemistically, as reverse discrimination.

Having learned that the Queen was at death’s door, Uju Anya, Carnegie Mellon professor of linguistics, saw fit to share this tweet with her like-minded followers:

“I heard the chief monarch of a thieving raping genocidal empire is finally dying. May her pain be excruciating.”

Speaking here is an American professor. Of linguistics. At a respectable university.

For a professional linguist, her disdain for punctuation is as pathetic as her grasp of basic facts of life. For example, “chief monarch” implies the existence of other, junior ones. I know Prof. Anya isn’t British, but an academic should know better. This woman is stupid and ignorant – and that’s before we’ve even touched on her character.

She later continued in the same vein, and with the same stylistic flair: “If anyone expects me to express anything but disdain for the monarch who supervised a government that sponsored the genocide that massacred and displaced half my family and the consequences of which those alive today are still trying to overcome, you can keep wishing upon a star.”

Prof. Anya is from Nigeria, and apparently the calamities she mentions were suffered by her family during the 1967 civil war in that country, when Nigeria had already been independent for seven years.

The war was caused by Biafra separatists eager to kill and die for the independence of the Igbo tribe. I’m sure they were inspired by Prof. Anya’s cultural ancestors disgorging that fetid reflux of the Enlightenment: the right of any ethnic group, no matter how backward, to claim national sovereignty.

The British government did supply the Nigerian government with arms, hoping to put a quick end to the carnage. Unfortunately that didn’t work and a million people died.

This and other tribal massacres in decolonised Africa proved what was clear anyway to anyone not blinded by evil ideologies. Most of those countries weren’t ready to govern themselves. In fact, most of them only became countries because colonial empires found it easier to run administrative units demarcated by geography rather than ethnicity.

Tens of millions of black Africans have since been killed by other black Africans, proving the evils of premature, ideologically driven decolonialisation. But even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the British were marginally at fault, what that woman wrote is savage, hateful drivel that shouldn’t have any place in a civilised society.

I wouldn’t wish an excruciatingly painful death on anyone, even ghouls like Putin, whose demise I’d otherwise welcome. And even if such a vile thought popped up in the back of my mind, I’d have the taste not to air it ad urbi et orbi.

To their credit, many decent Americans expressed their outrage. But the good professor’s response was unapologetic – and as linguistically accomplished as her academic discipline demands: “I said what I fucking said,” she wrote.

She isn’t the only one. Journalists from The New York Times, New York Magazine and The Atlantic, all supposedly reputable publications seen as the flagships of cultured, liberal opinion, have also jumped on that bandwagon.


Thus, for example, Tirhakah Love, senior newsletter writer for New York Magazine: “For 96 years, that colonizer has been sucking up the Earth’s resources. You can’t be a literal oppressor and not expect the people you’ve oppressed not to rejoice on news of your death… Now I’m supposed to be quiet or, better yet, actually mourn what was a barely breathing Glad ForceFlex trash bag? Please, no.”

This is a professional writer, nay editor, practising his craft, getting tangled up in a string of negatives, while holding the Queen personally responsible for the depletion of natural resources. And yet he is held in high regard by his superiors.

This scum ought to talk among themselves to thrash out a common strategy. If Mr Love hates the Queen for the British record of colonisation, his colleague at The New York Times, Maya Jasanoff, a Harvard history professor, holds decolonisation against her:

“The queen helped obscure a bloody history of decolonization whose proportions and legacies have yet to be adequately acknowledged,” she wrote.

Her character and the timing of that diatribe aside, Prof. Jasanoff’s grasp of her own discipline is as wobbly as her command of logic. The Queen couldn’t have been guilty of both colonisation and decolonisation, bloody or otherwise. That’s scum talking, not someone supposedly qualified to teach at a venerable university.


A writer for The Atlantic magazine, Jemele Hill, identified journalists’ duty as covering the “devastating” impact of the Queen’s reign. And a Washington Post hack warded off all objections to the timing of such vituperation: “When is the appropriate time to talk about the negative impact of colonialism?” Never, if it’s scum doing the talking, is the answer to that.

I haven’t read those publications since leaving America 35 years ago. Even when living there I only glanced at them sporadically. In those days I physically couldn’t stomach their Lefty, pseud fare. But I don’t recall such obvious scum on their editorial staffs.

Their writers may have extruded excremental nonsense, but they generally stayed within the confines of our civilisation by observing elementary etiquette. Things have evidently changed since then. Third World scum has risen to the top of the pot, rendering the whole contents unpalatable. Things are even worse than I thought.

8 thoughts on “Third World scum rises to First World top”

  1. Oh my goodness! I am truly sorry for fellow Americans who feel the need (the right!) to spew such disgusting invectives at any person, much less the Queen of England! I would make a joke that some of those quoted here are only university professors, so their views are obviously infantile and irrational, but they do not deserve that benefit, even in jest. There is nothing to be said in their defense. I can pray that they see the error of their ways and repent before their deaths, but I can offer nothing else.

    It is evidence of their imbecility that they blame the dear, departed Queen for both colonization and decolonization. Your arguments that many countries were not (are not still) ready for self-government is dead accurate, but little understood or appreciated. I wish I could construct a quadruple negative to rival poor Mr. Love (ironic name, that), but I’m a little too shocked at the moment to put in that effort.

    Whenever the subject of colonization is discussed, my mind immediately goes to the benefits, and of course, to Monty Python’s “The Life of Brian”. In particular, I remember John Cleese’s character, Reg, leader of People’s Front of Judea, asking “What have the Romans ever done for us?” and after a brief discussion responding, “All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?” What have the British ever done for us? You shouldn’t even have to ask.

    1. In addition to economic motives, colonisation was driven by bien pensant notions of ‘liberal interventionism’, especially popular with the Whigs. The Tories, such as Dr Johnson, opposed it, rightly in my view. As for Americans, don’t feel bad about it. We have our own share of monarchy haters. But I noticed a curious phenomenon in the US: conservatives tend to be pro-, and the Lefties anti-, British. This is one of the demarcation lines, and of course colonialism is another. The New York Times, for example, has been consistently anti- as far back as I can remember. By contrast, Yale’s Scull and Bone society worships not only Britain, but all the monarchs since even before the Conquest. (It’s still not my favourite group, but this is a separate matter.)

  2. It is a sad truth, I am sorry to say, that the same progressive steps that make possible your blog and other such desirable developments also create space for the barbarians such as you rightly castigate today. I have no solution to this problem. Have you?

  3. If it’s any consolation to you, Mr Boot, this filth knows at bottom that the Queen is a higher being than they are. Even scum have that minimal intelligence.

  4. What is the Western Black’s ultimate goal here? If their grievances follow logic, they will have to relinquish every tool at their disposal, from Internet griping to mobile phones, air-conditioning, every single engine, economic automany, rule of law, property rights, health care, civility and so on ad nauseum. Yet our leaders indulge and encourage this madness.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.