As a sort of brief follow-up to my previous piece on the British Library, which took a subjective glance at the philosophical, political, and racial undertones of the government establishment, I decided to conduct a short survey so as to gauge more objectively my observations.
As I was hesitant to make a full sweep of a reading room, notebook in hand, glaring into each reader’s face, attempting to racially profile them one-by-one, I decided on the more subtle tack of sitting alone in a corner of the foyer, otherwise invisible and unnoticed, and conducted a statistical survey. For just five minutes I made note of each person that strolled past and categorised them based upon their facial features and dress into racial groups.
The results were as follows:
The first thing that one notices is that whilst these numbers are not equal by any means, they do correlate significantly with the average IQ of said groups, which is roughly held to be as listed below. (Cochran et al.)(Murray; Entine).
In business theory, there is the oft-cited term Diversity Management, the tenet of which is to “attract and hire a diverse workforce reflecting the communities in which the company operates”.(http://www.yourdiversityatwork.com/diversity/) It is largely accepted in Marxist theory that in order for a group or enterprise to be “fair”, “unbiased”, or “in-discriminatory” that the make-up of said group reflects by-and-large the population make-up of the surrounding social environment. The case would be, and often, is made that a restaurant chain, for example, operating in an environment that is populated 50% by Arabs should employ and train 50% of its staff from the Arab community.
Following this train of thought, when one considers the BL diversity statistics in relation to the population statistics of the UK as a whole (the so-called community or market served by the British Library), the inequality or misrepresentation of these groups becomes even more stark.
Below is a citation from Google, which in turn is sourced from Government data circa 2016:
Before I draw any conclusions from this data, I should state that as a Londoner who has travelled throughout the UK and seen for myself the overwhelming surge in the non-white population over the past few decades, I severely doubt that these statistics presented by the government, google, or wikipedia are an actual fair reflection of the extent of the process of ethnic replacement of the home peoples on the ground. However, in dealing with left-wing ideologues I find it only fair to use their own statistics against them in this instance.
To conclude, therefore, going by these official accounts, it would appear that an ethnic minority of 0.6% of the population accounts for 41% of library use in the British library. The white majority of 87% appears to account for only 30% of library use. According to Marxist theory, one would assume that Jews in the UK have amassed as a group a large amount of privilege, whereas the native whites are suffering severe discrimination. The differences, whilst not correlating with “community” demographic statistics of the UK do, however, show correlation with average IQ levels. Thus, one has to begin to entertain the possibility that perhaps IQ does affect group performance within wider-society, and that this “privilege” if inherited genetically by groups that show tendencies for in-group preference, could be considered as argument against the egalitarian hypothesis.
As for the Chinese, Black, Indian, and Arab populations, they hold up statistically as expected or slightly above as would be expected, and I am in no doubt that the influx of foreign students from China and other Asian nations is largely responsible for this gap. Hearing them converse with one another in their foreign tongues and watching them almost exclusively congregate with one another on racial grounds, it seems sensible to assume that these are not British citizens and are therefore excluded from the population statistics cited above.