Alex Kurtagic 

October 13, 2009 

Sometime ago I visited my local surgery. At the reception desk, I was confronted with a poster, bearing Britain’s National Health Service (NHS) logo. The poster was produced by the NHS Business Services Authority (NHSBSA), which is a spawn of the British government’s Department of Health. Across the top of the poster, in large white letters set against a black background, it read, “YOUR CHOICE OF TREATMENT.” Below followed eight captioned photographs, depicting eight models in different attires. The four on the left, under the captions “pharmacy,” “optician,” “dentist,” and “doctor,” sported smiling faces and a friendly manner; they were also ethnically diverse, with 50%–75% of the physiognomies bearing partly or wholly non-European features. The four on the right, under the captions “security,” “police,” “court,” and “prison,” sported serious faces and an unfriendly manner; they were ethnically homogeneous, with 100% of the physiognomies bearing Northern European features. Further down, in large white letters against a bright red background, the poster demanded “STOP ABUSE OF NHS STAFF,” and warned, “Verbal or physical abuse of our staff could result in prosecution.” 

I am sure I am not the only here who has found the distribution of models rather odd. As it stands, the poster carries with it an obnoxious subtext: friendly help comes from the ethically diverse camp, while unfriendly punishment comes from the indigenous, White Britons. None of the three possible explanations for this subtext are flattering to the NHSBSA.

The first possible explanation is that the IQ distribution among members of the NHSBSA management is restricted to points along the far left end of the Bell Curve. And as the mean IQ is obviously very low, we must assume that some of the points on that curve will be found at such distance from the Caucasoid mean that supplying sufficient paper to print the full graph would necessitate clearing out the Amazon forest twice over. Were this not the case, the management at the NHSBSA would have quickly detected and harshly rebuked the knavish attempt to infuse the agency’s anti-white bigotry into their commission.

Unfortunately, they did not, thus suggesting either that the NHSBSA’s professed zeal for inclusiveness has motivated them to maintain lax cognitive requirements for employment within their organisation; or that their human resources department has been forced to lower their expectations from the available pool of labour in modern Britain, due to the accumulated dysgenic effects of Tory and Labour government policies. 

The second possible explanation is that the NHSBSA is imperfectly committed to multiculturalism: They think it is OK to multiculturalize the NHS, but are happy to advocate institutional racism when it comes to extending the process of multiculturalization to private security agencies and the criminal justice system. A perfect commitment to multiculturalism would have demanded that either the Asian pharmacist or the African dentist be swapped with one of the scowling Englishmen on the right hand side for the sake of balance. Or, even better, that two of the Englishmen on the right hand side abandon their posts, to Asian and African replacements (preferably sporting scowls). That way the NHSBSA would make it unequivocally clear that they abhor institutional racism and that they believe it ought not to be tolerated it in any way, shape, or form, on any occasion and under any circumstances, in any area or stratum of society whatsoever.

The third possible explanation is that the NHSBSA is staffed by one, some, or all of the following: hate-filled, anti-White bigots; pathologically masochistic, apoplectically self-hating White liberals; or well-meaning individuals of any description afflicted by subterranean or undiagnosed forms of anti-White racism. Upon examination of the NHSBSA website, I found that the board of directors of that organisation is not ethnically diverse: It is, in fact, uniformly White. Therefore, we may safely assume that ultimate responsibility for the obnoxious NHS poster falls upon members of one of the two latter groups.

This is most unfortunate, for if the board of the NHSBSA had been staffed by non-White directors in its entirety, we would at least have known where we stood with them, and have had reason to rejoice at their restraint: After all, the once “wretched of the Earth” have been agitated by radical Marxists for decades now, and the poster still allows one White doctor and an optician with ambiguous but at least partly Northern European features.  

The fact that anti-White messages are being sponsored by Whites within the NHS by an organisation created by a government department with White tax payer’s money can only be indicative of a mental disorder. A human with a healthy mind does not take money from the wallets of his own family members in order to fund a slander campaign that targets them as well as himself. When an individual is victim of a slander campaign, his life chances are reduced: Unless the slander is conclusively exposed as what it is and everybody learns of it, the destruction of reputation that ensues depresses economic performance, diminishes mating chances, lowers potential mate quality, and curtails longevity. If self-inflicted, such behaviour can be described as a form of inwardly directed violence or self-mutilation — as suicidal. 

Therefore, if the cause of such disordered behavior is exposure to political correctness, and if political correctness is a by-product of cultural Marxism, it is correct — and no mere metaphor  to — describe the later as a pathogen, and to diagnose those infected by it as suffering from a psychiatric disorder.  

Unfortunately, the condition is so widespread among those who shape modern discourse that we cannot realistically demand that the members of the NHSBSA board step down so that they may undergo psychiatric treatment. Another problem is that we have yet to find the cure for their condition.  

The Egalitarian Personality 

What are we to do, if those running our government and institutions are afflicted by an undiagnosed psychiatric disorder? And how is a diagnosis to be accepted when making the disorder diagnosable in the first place depends on its acceptance by psychiatrically disordered bureaucrats — bureaucrats who will, of course, vehemently resist being declared unfit for duty? Indeed, they are far more likely to diagnose us with the condition of disagreeing with them.  [more]