By Robert Whiston & Ivor Catt Aug 11th 2011
Britain has been rocked back on its heels by the riots of early Aug 2011. The rioting has not, as in previous instances, been in an isolated location but has occurred in several major conurbations spread across the country.
We can all see on our television screen the predominant colour of the rioters’ skin and can guess their social grouping but our ‘liberal’ democracy and our anti-racist laws pervert the conveying of truth into a secondary consideration. As a result we are not told the ethnicity of the culprits. Our media falls silent when discussing the obvious and it is left to the interviewing of by-standers to tell it how it is.
- “For over thirty years, the social policies of successive British governments have failed to stem the tide of social decay and disintegration.
Science and commerce, if faced with such a track record of failure, would demand a full analysis and question the fundamentals upon which decisions were taken in the past.
Why isn’t this happening in social policy matters ?
Why are we in an aggressive and confrontational society ? We have never been richer; never more fully employed; never more able to
enjoy the good things in life. Yet why are we still so apprehensive ? You can be part of the solution. There is an alternative view. The received wisdom is that men are inherently violent. But are such men born violent, or is our society making them violent ?
Go to the centre of an English town on a Saturday night; the picture you
will see is one of drunkenness, aggression and violence. The perpetrators
are nearly always young men.”
The above summary could have been written any time in the last 5 days but can you guess when it was actually written ? It was in the Summer of 2000 in preparation for a conference to be held in Oct of that year entitled “The age of violent young males – causes and remedies.”
(http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/conf/generalinfo.htm). The only adjunct to the above synopsis is that girls and young women are today increasingly taking their place alongside males in public anti-social behaviour.
On the above URL ‘click’ through the various option page of speakers organised by Robert Whiston & Ivor Catt, and the topics discussed and you may well develop a sickening feeling of déjà vu.
It comes as something of a shock to realise that for more than 10 years Society has tolerated drunkenness, obscenities and lewdness in public places at night. No wonder it has become accepted as the ‘norm’
Predictions and predicting the future course of events rely on masses of accurate data, superb analytica skills and a good understanding of history. Whiston & Catt used all their numerical and philosophical expertise to draw these strands together during the years 1997 to 2000, culminating in a conference of international speakers that reflected their work.
What was not possible due to the technology of the time was the illustration of differences among ethnic groupings.
‘Political correctness’ yet again prevents a proper analysis of the cause of the rioting.
Catt notes that, “During some six hours watching television, I only heard mention of the colour of the rioters once.” Whiston noted the same discrepancy but watched the television news coverage for twice as long.
We can expect the liberal left to roll out the following excuses, indeed, Harriet Harman MP (feminsist) has already begun down this road
- No job prospects
- Drug abuse
- Poverty /low incomes
- Alcohol abuse
- Deprivation /exclusion
- No youth services
They, the liberal left, will perhaps get around to acknowledging broken homes as playing a part but they won’t mention easy divorce as a factor or the lack of fathers in single mother households, or serial and transient fathers in cohabiting ones.
They will not mention that most of the observed criminality will be by children where the parent(s) don’t care at all, or ‘care’ at only a minimal level. The pivotal role of fathers will not be mentioned and if it is, it will be downplayed against a background of heroic single mothers coping as best they can.
For Whiston & Catt – and other researchers – the obvious cause of the riots is “fatherlessness.”
If we are right, then these other factors (1 – 7 above) will tend to have been caused by fatherlessness, so we would look to these other factors as intermediate effects-causes, being caused by fatherlessness and in turn causing rioting and looting behaviour. The fatherless child and household will suffer more from these other factors.
Norman Dennis’s research (1993) specifically separated out deprivation from fatherlessness as the causes of criminality in youth (“Rising Crime and the Dismembered Family”).
News coverage this time around has been more honest speaking to more relevant commentators such as Danny Kruger of the prisoner’s charity “Only Connect”  (http://www.onlyconnectuk.org/), and Shaun Bailey, a black youth worker heading up “MyGeneration” (http://www.mygeneration.org.uk/). 
Uncomfortably for the liberal establishment these two individuals have focused on the disintegration of the family and the smashing of the moral compass this brings.
Confounding predictions, it is being tentively reported in the media that the first batch of rioters were not all unemployed. Apparently, in court a ‘surprising number’ of offenders gave a variety of job titles from social worker to primary school teacher to, allegedly, ‘a ballerina.’ This ‘surprising number’ phrase could be a reflection of anything above an expected, say 1%, or it could reflect a much higher level, say closer to 50%.
If it is closer to the 50% mark then it torpedoes any claim that deprivation, poor job prospects, unemployment, and poverty have anything to do with the causation.
NB. There is always a tendency among politicians and the media to fall into the trap of supplanting correlation with causation.
The sustained attack on the family orchestrated by radical feminists outlined in the Oct 2000 quote above has had two dire effects. Firstly, radical feminists have enjoyed a degree of success out of all proportion to their numbers. Secondly, this success has had a disproportionate effect on different racial groups, most notably on the Caribbean youth (see below).
Modern Britain is divided up into three major race categories White, Black and Asian with sub-sets within each groups.
The Black race category is made up primarily of Caribbean Blacks and African Blacks. The social patterns and family formation characteristics of the two are poles apart in many ways. For example, African Blacks.are more likely to marry than those from the Caribbean.
The Asian category is made up of Hindu Indians and Muslim Pakistanis and Bangladeshi. Despite religious differences their culture is far more homogeneous with high marriage rates.
The following graphs have been used several times before – in response to government Green Papers – to illustrate to government the possible future problems the three major groups pose. They were drawn up in the late 1990s and early 2000s and as such allow us to project foward, by age, the children of those family types.
Throughout the 2000’s Whitehall Depts, e.g. the Home Office, Ministry of Justice etc, preferred not to act on the information they contained and by implication the likely problems they would be facing in the next 5 to 10 years, i.e. circa 2011.
By illegitimate births
All the following graphs are based on data gathered by ONS (population Trends) in the mid 1990s under a programme of survey assessing people by their “living arrangements.” At the centre of these surveys were young women since they alone determined the level of marriage, cohabiting and lone paretnhood. The pertinence of this date is that children born in this era will, by now (in 2011), have been of the approximate age to take part in the looting and rioting.
The first graph (Fig 1) shows the age at which single women (i.e. unwed) give birth. The Black and Afro-Caribbean sectors appear to have the highest per capita incidence. That is to say, as a %age of a sub-population at any age between 16 and 35. However, on a purely numerical basis (not shown here) the greatest number of illegitimate births occur in the largest ethnic section which is, of course, Whites by virtue of whites being the largest numerical component in the population.
Note how the Asian trend line (Indian and Pakistani etc) never rises above 20% and perhaps surprisingly only rises among the mid 30 year olds and not, as one would expected in the teenage years (i.e. unlike other ethnic groups).
Fig 1. Single mothers / illegitimate births (by age and ethnicity) (%)
By contrast the percentage of illegitimate births among Black single mothers never falls below 50% at any age grouping. This is, in fact, an aggregation of Caribbean Blacks and African Blacks and so may represent an under-recording the percentage of illegitimate Caribbean Black births (comparatively African Black women have higher marriage rates and fewer illegitimate births).
Similarly, in matters relating to cohabitation while cohabitation rates of White and Black women may rise to 20% in the teenage years and fall only as they grow older. Asian women of all ages rarely chose it as an option and it never exceeds 2%.
Fig 2. Cohabitation (by age and ethnic group) (%)
The breadth of data provided by ONS makes it possible to transpose the data to throw up other results. For instance we can show marriage rates by age and by ethnic group.
Fig 3. Asian Women by Marital status (Patriarchal Societies)
Fig 3 (above) shows the mareige and lone parent (unmarreid) rates by age of Asian women. By western standards, Asian conventions and household practices are assumed to be more patriarchal in structure refelcting a more patriarchal society.
This shows a single very strong marriage line trend line across all ages and two very minimal line representing the proportion of lone parenting (unwed mothers) and cohabitation taking place.
The antihseis of the Patriarchal society is the Matriarchal society. This is most clearly domostrated in the Black Caribbean household structure where men and fathers have traditionally been kept on the periphery (see Fig 4).
Black Caribbean households reveal not only high levels of lone parenting (i.e. unmarried mothers) in the teenage years at over 60% but the trend line never falls below 50% regardless of age. This is a very distinctive characteristic
Another distinctive characteristic is thatmarriage never overtakes lone parenting as the option of choice. At best they are almost equal by the age of 35.
The trend for lone parenting is persistent across the age groups even though it could be described as poor and decaying in severity.
Fig 4. Black Women’s Marital Status (Matriarchal Society)
The redeeming features of these trend lines is that Lone parenthood does eventually decay in popularity over time and that cohabiting never surges above 20% (although these mid 1990 trends have probably been overtaken by time and may be more extreme).
White Society – in Transition
Marriage in the patriarchal model society (Fig 3) is as prevalent as it is exceptional in the matriarchal model society (Fig 4). But whatof the majority ethnic group – whites.
Fig 5 (below) shows the effects on the White female population of various external forces e.g. fashion, government policy, state subsides, and contact with other ethnic groups. Fig 5 displays enigmatic characteristics of a possible Society in Transition.
Fig 5. Transitional Societies. (Whites – Marital status).
In the graph what can only be labelled ‘a confusion’ is seen in the 16 – 25 age range. The marriage trend line starts so low that cohabiting and Lone parenthood are more popular choice. However, it is not quite as low as in matriarchal households and by age 25 marriage is the clear preference.
Given that the average age of marriage has risen in recent years to 32, we would have to make an allowance for the cross over point to be not 26 but 35. An impact on cohabiting and single parenthood levels can thus be expected.
However, in the mid 1990s Lone parenthood gently tapered off after the age of 24 and cohabiting followed a similar trend.
Great efforts have been made culturally and politically by society’s shapers to legitimise, i.e. mainstream, both cohabitation and lone parenting. Therefore, the estimated trend line seen in Fig 5 (above) as representing ‘modern Britain’ must be expected to begin from a higher point, and stay high, or even rise.” By this is meant the incidents of illegitimate births among various ethnic groups will be larger numerically than in the mid 1990s and be spread over a wider age range, e.g. 16 to 35 and not as prevciosly spread from 16 to 23. Fig 6 (below) is an attempt to illustrate this shift along the age continuum.
Conversely, total marriages have been falling year on year so Fig 5 which shows the trend lines as percentage of marriage and cohabitation may today see the trend line coming closer together – as in Fig 4.
On the other hand, marriage has never been so lionised by popular gossip-filled journals. After a hesitant start,at 15%, it appears that most girls and young women choose marriage though at a later age. This brings the trend line up to the 80% level by the time they are 34.
A similar thing could be happening today or it could be more than offset by rises in cohabitation. This could point to marriage not being totally rejected but deferred on a more indefinite timescale. This is fully supported by both longitudinal and attitudinal surveys indicating that for 90% of women, marriage (and a family) is still their ultimate goal.
Current situation ?
Making an educated guess and without the benefit of analysing the most recent ONS data on ‘living arrangements’, it would come as no surprise to us to see the present marital status trend lines to be roughly in the order shown below in Fig 6.
Fig 6. Estimated (educated guess) of marital status trend (2011)
Marriage will have fallen further out of fashion and will have been deferred until later in life (note the trend line has been emboldened for comparison purposes only).
Illegitimate births which we know from others sources now account for around 40% of total live births would suggest that Lone parenthood and Cohabitation will have increased significantly in recent years. It is debateable whether cohabiting exceeds Lone parenthood as the two tend to merge (in reality) due to the way state benefits are structured
The ‘confusion’ we first saw in Fig 5 (Transitional Societies) will have increased and moved along the age continuum. The new ‘cross over’ point (previously 20 year olds), will now most probably be between 30 and 35 year olds.
The consequence of this deferment is a reduction in wealth creation. The women /couples concerned might not be aware of it but wealth creation only begins in earnest at the point of marriage.
By deferring marriage by 10 years women and their illegitimate children are more likely to live in lowered standards of living than they could otherwise expect.
Married men are the engines of wealth creation(see ref Catt) and wealth provides an enlarged GDP and the Treasury with taxable income. It is in the interests of government to recognise this and move from’ subsidised family units’, ie lone parents and cohabitation and into incentivising net contributing couples, ie the married family unit.
Ignoring the cost of property damage for the purposes of this examination, the greatest casualties have been among Whites and Asians.
The strong bonds in patriarchal model families have seen them defend their families and their properties from the terrorism of looting, sometimes with their lives. 
The bonds of matriarchal model families have seen them exposed to fear and vicitmisation.
The terror of looting and arson appear to have been carried out by Black and White youths, not Asians.
With Lone parenthood endemic in some White communities and also in some Black communities it is likely that the main culprits will be from those backgrounds and will have shared the same degree of fatherlessness.
In the final analysis it will, we believe, be a straight cut between households and ethnic communities where good parenting is exercised and by implication a father is present in the household versus lone parenting and no single biological father on the horizon.
In a bone-crushing article that is a ‘must read’, the much respected journalist Melanie Phillips tears into the ‘liberal left’ and its social policy fantasies (http://melaniephillips.com/how-the-liberals-ruined-britain). Those fantasies include the culture which has adopted non-judgementalism, the ‘child-centred’ approach, and that all opinions no matter who utters them must be ‘valued.’ These are just a few selected extracts:
- In such areas, successive generations are being brought up only by mothers, through whose houses pass transitory males by whom these women have yet more children — and who inevitably repeat the pattern of lone and dysfunctional parenting.
- The result is fatherless boys who are consumed by an existential rage and desperate emotional need, and who take out the damage done to them by lashing out from infancy at everyone around them.
- Such children inhabit what is effectively a different world from the rest of society. It’s a world without any boundaries or rules. A world of emotional and physical chaos.
 Formerly a speech writer for Michael Howard and then David Cameron.
 Described as a suporter of the Conservative Party
 Three young Asian men (aged 21, 30, and 31) were killed by a speeding car while attempting to protect a petrol station and nearby stores from looters on the Dudley Road, Winson Green in Birmingham. the independen 10th Aug 2011. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/david-cameron-offers-condolences-over-birmingham-riot-deaths-2335188.html