How it started
0 comment Saturday, July 5, 2014 |
At the blog Sarah, Maid of Albion, there is a good post by Mister Fox. It's about the immigration problem in the UK, with Winston Churchill and his terms as Prime Minister being the focus of the piece.
Although Churchill himself, as Mister Fox indicates, seemed aware enough of the growing problem of large numbers of immigrants to Britain, it seemed that those around him did not always support his efforts to deal with the problem. It seems that there were already a number of internationalist/globalist types in government.
Mister Fox notes Churchill's warnings about these kinds of people:
"The worst difficulties from which we suffer do not come from without. They come from within. They do not come from the cottages of the wage earners. They come from a peculiar type of brainy people always found in our country who, if they add something to the culture, take much from its strength. Our difficulties come from the mood of unwarrantable self-abasement into which we have been cast by a powerful section of our own intellectuals. They come from the acceptance of defeatist doctrines by a large portion of our politicians. But what have they to offer but a vague internationalism, a squalid materialism, and the promise of impossible utopias?''
I've noticed this over the years. The intellectual classes are often the fount of many damaging ideas and trends. This is true in the matter of politics, and in other areas. When I was doing a study on the growth of what we now call 'New Age' religions and cults, it seemed impossible not to see that the majority of those who were in the vanguard of these things were intellectuals, often from upper-middle class or upper-class origins. In general these were people who had, essentially, too much leisure and too much time on their hands, leading to their search for the new, the exotic, the bizarre, and the outrageous.
Some of you no doubt read the article that's been making the rounds on various blogs, about a study which purports to show that liberals are born, not made. Liberalism is claimed to have a genetic basis. Whether this is true or not, I don't know, but as someone over at AmRen commented on that article, liberals are often 'intuitives', according to the Myers-Briggs personality typing system. These people who are categorized as 'intuitives', and they are often people in search of some cause or some utopia.
I would say that many of the 'intellectuals' who championed the cause of the One World idea were of this personality type, just as were many of the people like Englishwomen Annie Besant and later, Alice Bailey who became committed to new-age and leftist beliefs and causes.
I've already quoted, in previous entries, writings from people like H.G. Wells and Bertrand Russell, who were dedicated to promoting the destruction of nationalism and to a 'world order.'
I don't mean to digress too much here, but all these people were of a common mind on certain things, and they were examples of the kind of restless intellectuals who are destructive to the existing order.
I think, too, that we (myself included) focus much on the politicians, while there are other people, often in the intellectual world or the ''arts'' or in religious circles who are just as much complicit in what is happening to the West as our our elected (or selected) elites. There is a seamlessness among these groups; there is mutual influence and a popular mindset, a group mind if you will, that prevails among these people. This is true now as it was in Churchill's time.
Churchill's colleagues or cabinet ministers seemed to be working to undermine Churchill's efforts to deal with immigration and its attendant problems.
''The type of attitude Churchill had to endure with his colleagues was growing even then. The early Globalist, One-Worlder, Lord Milner, wrote a Memorandum of June 23rd On the Repatriation of Coloured Men which explained why they could do nothing about it: "I have every reason to fear, that when we get these men back to their own colonies they might be tempted to revenge themselves on the white minorities there´┐Ż" This emasculated attitude grew until Churchill was nearly isolated in his own government.''
Were these men cowardly -- really afraid of 'revenge' or retaliation? If so, why? Britain was still very powerful at that time, still a very confident nation. I wonder of people like Lord Milner were not so much afraid as wanting to be sure their internationalist aims succeeded. Too much ethnocentrism or national feeling among the British people would pose an obstacle to their utopian schemes. It's much the same with our current politicians who claim that we ''can't'' deport illegals because we must cooperate with Mexico and not alienate the 'friendly' government there.
Incidentally, were my readers aware of the fact that there had been racial riots in Cardiff, Wales in the 1870s and again in 1911? I was not aware of that; it is something that is not mentioned in the average history book. Today it would not be mentioned because it might contradict the ''diversity is our strength'' dogma.
The people of the UK have been subjected, in recent years, to the nonsense about how ''Britain has always been multicultural'' just as we in America have been pummeled day and night with the phrase ''this is a nation of immigrants'' and ''we are all immigrants.'' Another mode of attacking the national identity of the people of Britain, specifically English people, is the assertion that the people of that island have been a 'mongrel people' for centuries as wave after wave of immigrants or invaders have come to Britain. The fallacy in this is that most of the people who have settled in Britain over the centuries have been of closely-related ethnic groups; they are all cousins of a sort. That is a far cry from the present ill-assorted collection of unrelated people who have immigrated there in later years.
Churchill saw, apparently, that his country was threatened by uncontrolled immigration, but for a number of reasons, including 'internationalist' traitors in high places, and then his own ill-health, he was never able to do anything to successfully stem the growing problem.
In a later era, Enoch Powell gave his warning:
''As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see "the River Tiber foaming with much blood". That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century. Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.''
The people of Britain seemed to be mostly supportive of the speech; it was his fellow politicians and the leftist media who went on the attack.
Mister Fox notes in the blog piece how that in 1955, not long before Churchill left office, the slogan ''Keep England White'' was favored. Fast-forward a little more than a decade, and Enoch Powell is forced out of office and called a 'racist' for saying things that were formerly acceptable. What happened in that short space of time?
One thing that had happened during that time was that the Civil Rights Revolution had taken place in the United States, and it was becoming more and more taboo to hold pro-White views or to do anything which amounted to 'discrimination.' All of this, of course, was not happening by chance; it was all part of an overall plan by the Left, aided by the complicity of the left-dominated media and of course the intellectual ''chattering classes'' on both sides of the Atlantic. By 1968, various victim groups began to agitate for their rights, emulating the successful model of the Civil Rights revolutionaries. This happened all over the Western world, both in Europe and here in the United States.
Will Britain succumb to the one-world multicultists? Many Americans pronounce Britain, as a nation, deceased. On the other hand, a lot of people, even among Americans, say the same about us. Don't count the British out just yet, and the same for our people.
Though many people think America will survive if only because of our rebellious spirit (does it still exist?) and our greater (at this point) rights to free speech and to bear arms, I wonder if we are not, despite those things, at a disadvantage. Why? Because in noticing what people say in real life and on the Internet, I hear so many White Americans talking about how Republicans need to 'reach out' to blacks, and try to 'help' theme attain the American dream, and about how wonderful it is that the GOP is getting more 'inclusive.'
There is, I'm afraid, a kind of treacly sentiment on the part of many Americans toward blacks and other minorities, especially Hispanics. There is a paternalistic desire to help them, and a kind of empathy, a feeling that these people are children that need kind assistance from us. It makes many Americans, even on the right, feel all warm and fuzzy to see 'successful' blacks like Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Tom Sowell, Bill Cosby. It makes them feel good that they can admire black people and reassure themselves that they aren't racist, after all.
I don't know if that same sentimentality exists among White British or English people; I rather suspect it doesn't although they do have their share of mad-dog liberals and 'whiggers' just as we do.
I don't have a crystal ball, but I rather think that a critical mass of British or English people will reassert their rights and their primacy of place in their own country.

Labels: , , , ,