0 comment Thursday, October 30, 2014 | admin
This response from Dr. Frank Ellis, answering David Cameron's speech at the Munich Security Conference, has been making the rounds, and has provoked a lot of discussion and much approbation.
I first saw it at Sarah, Maid of Albion's blog but it has been posted in many places. It's very incisive, very well-written, and he makes points that very much need to be made.
I am doubtful about how much 'mainstream' coverage Ellis will receive from this, though if we had an honest and objective, or even a non-hostile media, it would be widely covered.
This is very apposite right now:
In all the discussions about rising food prices, metals, access to water and productive farm land no one wishes to identify the real problem: specifically the reckless and unsustainable breeding of Third World Populations either in the Third World itself or in the Third World estates that Third-Worlders have been allowed to create in the First World.
You cite what has happened on the streets of Tunis and Cairo as an example of the compatibility of Western values and Islam: 'hundreds of thousands of people demanding the universal right to free elections and democracy�. Middle-class, English-speaking protesters might well press the right buttons when interviewed by some BBC reporter but the underlying problem of Arab states and Sub-Saharan Africa is massive, out-of-control and unsustainable population growth. This is the Malthusian nightmare writ large and it is being played out all over the Third World. Egypt�s unemployed will remain unemployed (many of them are unemployable in any case). Hunger and hopelessness will gnaw at them. The results are predictable. Democracy and civil society are preposterous and irrelevant abstractions outside of Western Europe and will not feed people, certainly not in Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa. Where populations spiral out of control, as they are doing in so many parts of the world, violence, exacerbated by religious/ideological fanaticism, is inevitable.''
But the most important part, to my mind, is his answer to Cameron's nonsense about multiculturalism and assimilation. Ellis says:
''Concerning multiculturalism in the United Kingdom you state the following:
Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and apart from the mainstream. We�ve failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong. We�ve even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run completely counter to our values.
For the avoidance of any doubt your repeated exculpatory use of "we" does not include me and, I suspect, millions of other Britons. Your use of 'we� refers to the last Labour government and the xenophiles who sought to impose the anti-white racist cult of multiculturalism on the indigenous population. It is emphatically not the responsibility of the indigenous population 'to provide a vision of a society to which they [immigrants] feel they want to belong�. If, according to you, the 'we� failed to provide this vision, then why did millions of Islamic immigrants join the first wave who could not find this 'vision�? If they have no 'vision of society to which they feel they want to belong� why do they stay? Why not go home to Somalia, Waziristan and Sub-Saharan Africa? That these millions of immigrants have no 'vision of society to which they feel they want to belong� yet still stay in the Christian-infidel-infested wasteland of Britain suggests to me that their continued presence in Britain has everything to do with the fantastically generous welfare provision they receive (all the wives included) and absolutely nothing at all to do with any lack of 'vision of society�.
You have been reported as saying that multiculturalism has failed. I see no clear statement of that in your speech at all. In fact, you claim that it is the indigenous population that has driven Muslims into their parallel societies. That you are still advocating some form of the cult is clear when you argue that 'instead of encouraging people to live apart, we need a clear sense of shared national identity that is open to everyone�. National identity by its very nature is exclusive, partial and narrow. A national identity that is 'open to everyone� is not a national identity. National identity is determined by a combination of genetic, racial, cultural, psychological, geographical, linguistic and mental factors, tempered by the blows of history, by shared suffering in war and peace, by humiliation and glory, by the memory of those gone before. How can my English national identity be open to everyone? The answer is that it cannot. National identity that is open to everyone ceases to be a national identity; national identity that is open to everyone is just another way of promoting multiculturalism without using the m-word. In other words, it is a deceit, a ploy to disarm the critics of multiculturalism who have instinctively and rationally apprehended the cult�s national-identity-hating agenda all along. As an Englishman who still values his national identity I have no desire at all to share it with others.''
Bravo.
He obviously perceives the dishonesty and the hypocrisy in the blather by Cameron. Not only Cameron, but all the other Western 'leaders' recite the ritual disavowals of multiculturalism, knowing full well that they plan to continue to push that fraudulent ideology on their subjects despite their pretenses at being concerned about their own people, and about the grave problems of multiculturalism.
Despite the transparency of Cameron's attempt to delude his listeners, there are, believe it or not, still people all over the Internet cheering Cameron's supposed conversion. What has happened to people's attention spans that they no longer remember that these empty statements about multiculturalism are now a regular event? They say the words, these ''leaders'' and yet things don't change. Mass immigration goes on unchecked, and the 'hate speech' laws persist, and dispossession proceeds apace. Shouldn't a few people, besides Dr. Ellis, begin to perceive the obvious? The obvious fact is that Western political leaders are not serving their own people, and are in fact serving alien interests, or those of unseen 'elites' who pull their strings.
In any case, Ellis is right on target with this response.
I have noticed that commenters here and there keep saying Ellis is wasting his time because Cameron et al will not listen. It's likely true that none of the political leaders will heed what Ellis says, given that they serve other masters. But the value of Ellis's words are that they are, as in open letters generally, meant to convey a message, or set an example, or to inspire a wider audience. It may be that Ellis is seeking to energize others, to exhort them and perhaps give them courage to speak out or otherwise assert themselves. He may want to encourage more discussion of the dire situation in his country. Those are all reasons that may be motivating him. And I think those motivations are in a sense more worthy than trying to awaken some sense of conscience among the elected officials, which I think is mostly a lost cause. So I hope this statement by Ellis continues to be read and discussed, and that it has a snowball effect. Sooner or later, something has to get through to the somnambulists in our Western countries.
I first saw it at Sarah, Maid of Albion's blog but it has been posted in many places. It's very incisive, very well-written, and he makes points that very much need to be made.
I am doubtful about how much 'mainstream' coverage Ellis will receive from this, though if we had an honest and objective, or even a non-hostile media, it would be widely covered.
This is very apposite right now:
In all the discussions about rising food prices, metals, access to water and productive farm land no one wishes to identify the real problem: specifically the reckless and unsustainable breeding of Third World Populations either in the Third World itself or in the Third World estates that Third-Worlders have been allowed to create in the First World.
You cite what has happened on the streets of Tunis and Cairo as an example of the compatibility of Western values and Islam: 'hundreds of thousands of people demanding the universal right to free elections and democracy�. Middle-class, English-speaking protesters might well press the right buttons when interviewed by some BBC reporter but the underlying problem of Arab states and Sub-Saharan Africa is massive, out-of-control and unsustainable population growth. This is the Malthusian nightmare writ large and it is being played out all over the Third World. Egypt�s unemployed will remain unemployed (many of them are unemployable in any case). Hunger and hopelessness will gnaw at them. The results are predictable. Democracy and civil society are preposterous and irrelevant abstractions outside of Western Europe and will not feed people, certainly not in Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa. Where populations spiral out of control, as they are doing in so many parts of the world, violence, exacerbated by religious/ideological fanaticism, is inevitable.''
But the most important part, to my mind, is his answer to Cameron's nonsense about multiculturalism and assimilation. Ellis says:
''Concerning multiculturalism in the United Kingdom you state the following:
Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and apart from the mainstream. We�ve failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong. We�ve even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run completely counter to our values.
For the avoidance of any doubt your repeated exculpatory use of "we" does not include me and, I suspect, millions of other Britons. Your use of 'we� refers to the last Labour government and the xenophiles who sought to impose the anti-white racist cult of multiculturalism on the indigenous population. It is emphatically not the responsibility of the indigenous population 'to provide a vision of a society to which they [immigrants] feel they want to belong�. If, according to you, the 'we� failed to provide this vision, then why did millions of Islamic immigrants join the first wave who could not find this 'vision�? If they have no 'vision of society to which they feel they want to belong� why do they stay? Why not go home to Somalia, Waziristan and Sub-Saharan Africa? That these millions of immigrants have no 'vision of society to which they feel they want to belong� yet still stay in the Christian-infidel-infested wasteland of Britain suggests to me that their continued presence in Britain has everything to do with the fantastically generous welfare provision they receive (all the wives included) and absolutely nothing at all to do with any lack of 'vision of society�.
You have been reported as saying that multiculturalism has failed. I see no clear statement of that in your speech at all. In fact, you claim that it is the indigenous population that has driven Muslims into their parallel societies. That you are still advocating some form of the cult is clear when you argue that 'instead of encouraging people to live apart, we need a clear sense of shared national identity that is open to everyone�. National identity by its very nature is exclusive, partial and narrow. A national identity that is 'open to everyone� is not a national identity. National identity is determined by a combination of genetic, racial, cultural, psychological, geographical, linguistic and mental factors, tempered by the blows of history, by shared suffering in war and peace, by humiliation and glory, by the memory of those gone before. How can my English national identity be open to everyone? The answer is that it cannot. National identity that is open to everyone ceases to be a national identity; national identity that is open to everyone is just another way of promoting multiculturalism without using the m-word. In other words, it is a deceit, a ploy to disarm the critics of multiculturalism who have instinctively and rationally apprehended the cult�s national-identity-hating agenda all along. As an Englishman who still values his national identity I have no desire at all to share it with others.''
Bravo.
He obviously perceives the dishonesty and the hypocrisy in the blather by Cameron. Not only Cameron, but all the other Western 'leaders' recite the ritual disavowals of multiculturalism, knowing full well that they plan to continue to push that fraudulent ideology on their subjects despite their pretenses at being concerned about their own people, and about the grave problems of multiculturalism.
Despite the transparency of Cameron's attempt to delude his listeners, there are, believe it or not, still people all over the Internet cheering Cameron's supposed conversion. What has happened to people's attention spans that they no longer remember that these empty statements about multiculturalism are now a regular event? They say the words, these ''leaders'' and yet things don't change. Mass immigration goes on unchecked, and the 'hate speech' laws persist, and dispossession proceeds apace. Shouldn't a few people, besides Dr. Ellis, begin to perceive the obvious? The obvious fact is that Western political leaders are not serving their own people, and are in fact serving alien interests, or those of unseen 'elites' who pull their strings.
In any case, Ellis is right on target with this response.
I have noticed that commenters here and there keep saying Ellis is wasting his time because Cameron et al will not listen. It's likely true that none of the political leaders will heed what Ellis says, given that they serve other masters. But the value of Ellis's words are that they are, as in open letters generally, meant to convey a message, or set an example, or to inspire a wider audience. It may be that Ellis is seeking to energize others, to exhort them and perhaps give them courage to speak out or otherwise assert themselves. He may want to encourage more discussion of the dire situation in his country. Those are all reasons that may be motivating him. And I think those motivations are in a sense more worthy than trying to awaken some sense of conscience among the elected officials, which I think is mostly a lost cause. So I hope this statement by Ellis continues to be read and discussed, and that it has a snowball effect. Sooner or later, something has to get through to the somnambulists in our Western countries.
Labels: Cultural Marxism, Ethnonationalism, Mass Immigration, Multicult, United Kingdom
0 comment Thursday, July 24, 2014 | admin
We've got a problem on the right.The American people as a whole are sorely divided in many different ways: one generation against another; the social classes (which do exist, though not in the European sense) are divided, and of course race is the biggest and most serious source of division. The deep rift between left and right, which has become a chasm in recent decades, is largely centered on race, even more than on class conflict. The left have worked themselves up into a frenzy over how 'racist' most of their racial brethren supposedly are, and they are willing, it appears, to see open conflict over this.
Bring religion into the mix, and you have one more source of deep division. So with the Islamic population that has been imported into our country, bringing with them religious and racial disparities, you have a very volatile combination.
The events over the last several days in Oregon, with the Somali immigrant attempting a bombing at a Christmas-tree-lighting ceremony, have caused something of a revival of discussion of the Islamic question. On several genteel conservative blogs there is actually rather tentative talk about curbing Moslem immigration, and -- imagine! -- sending them home.
A few years ago, I asked why we are so afraid of the 'd' word (deport). We were not always afraid of it; Eisenhower, who was hardly a right-wing nativist, actually did deport a good many illegal Mexican migrant workers. But now, the word deportation has, thanks to the left and their media, been associated with phrases like 'cattle cars' or 'tearing families apart.' But all 'deport' means is to send somebody back to their place of origin, otherwise known as home. Imagine that.
I still think we ought to use the simple phrase ''sending them home''. The left are diabolically good at finding emotionally-laden words to use against us; we can respond by refusing to let them dictate the terminology and the words used to frame the debate.
About this time, someone will suggest that it is horrifying to send people back to some pestilential and dangerous country like, say, Somalia. But pray tell, how did Somalia, or other such places get to be cesspits? And will those same conditions not eventually develop here as we import the authors of all the chaos to live among us?
But back to the question of Islam specifically: there are many on the right who believe that Islam is not a threat except insofar as we cause that to happen. We, with our evil foreign policy and our War On Terror, have caused terrorism. Actually I can't help but remember that my far-left friend, whom I have known since college, said the exact same things. You might say in response, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Leftists might be right about Islam and our wars in the Middle East.
Nonetheless, I always stop and think twice if I start to agree with my lefty friend.
For the record I opposed the War in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's one of the things (immigration being another) which sent me running and screaming away from the GOP. I started this blog as a way of examining some of these issues and also as a way of exploring where I belonged on the political spectrum, as I was not an average Republican nor was I a paleoconservative -- because I did not agree with many paleos that Islam was not a threat if we simply leave them alone.
I am all for leaving them alone, but to say that they are not our enemies is not possible for me.
Here we read a frequently-quoted right-wing writer scoffing at the idea that Islam is a threat.
Consider that ten minutes before the first tower got hit in New York, the thought had occurred to practically no one in America that Islam constituted a mortal threat to all that we hold holy, chiefly chain restaurants and iPods. But Islam afterwards offered to fill this void that the Russians had wimped out on. For a brief period after the implosion of the Soviet Union, Americans had no threat to worry about. They found it deeply puzzling. Weren't we supposed to be afraid of something? It didn't feel right.
Then came New York, and suddenly we saw it: The Clash of Civilizations. Islam was out to get us. Why hadn't we noticed? A roaring hatred for Moslems sprang up from people who had never met a Moslem, who had a garden slug's grasp of history. A deep satisfaction came over the land. We had been made whole again.
Battling Mohammedans quickly became an industry. The government at first tried to peddle Terrorism as the enemy, not Islam, but it didn't stick. Something more robustly flackable was wanted.
I find Buchanan, of the American Conservative, proclaiming that Islam is a Culture of Jihad, and most militant. No doubt. Very. Would it be poltroonish of me to note that just now Christian armies are busily annexing and wrecking Afghanistan and Iraq, having recently bombed Somalia?
[...] Those Moslems. Militant, they are. The bastards.''
I don't know if Reed is a Christian; I don't read his stuff often, but it appears he is not. I also know he is an expatriate who is married to a Mexican and who has Mexican children, so I consider that as having abandoned his American identity. Fine; he's done the right thing to move to Mexico.
But I think his writings are very influential among some on the right, and there are many around the right-wing blogosphere who say things much like Reed says above.
I don't see what solutions he offers except to leave the poor Moslems alone, but what would he have us do about those who are in our midst, like the Christmas bomber-wannabe? Oh, perhaps he'd say that the incident was ginned up by the powers-that-be, that it was a sting, that the boy was lured and baited into a trap.
Honestly, I acknowledge the basis for a lot of the cynicism on the right; I have a certain degree of it myself. But do those who scoff at the idea of an Islamic threat believe that everything (like 9/11) was an 'inside job' or a 'false flag operation'? I have a feeling that when/if another major incident happened, most on the hard right would say that it was a false flag deal. Is it not even possible that there might be genuine terror attacks?
I am just trying to understand the mindset; do people believe that Moslems in general do not hate us or consider us their enemies? It's easy to rationalize their militancy by blaming it on our government, but doing so ignores the long history of Islamic hostility towards Christendom, and their repeated attempts to conquer our forefathers or convert them forcibly. Moslems not only invaded, repeatedly, our ancestors' homelands, but often kidnapped and enslaved numbers of Christian Europeans. We have a long, troubled history with them which starts long before any of our current foreign policy mistakes.
And leaving the question of 'terrorism' aside, there is the very real problem of the gradualist approach wherein Islam colonizes Western countries with the express purpose of Islamizing them. They don't even need violence to attain their ends, as they simply immigrate en masse, bring their relatives, and have many, many children at their hosts' expense. All the while, as they reach a critical mass, they get a foothold in influential positions, and agitate against the host country's culture and religion. We see what is happening in Europe; how can one blame this on our foreign policy?
No, they've always been hostile to us and always will be. We cannot coexist in the same country, not without losing our identity and being absorbed into their race, culture, and religion. It can't be done.
But the fact that the right is divided on this issue is a big problem.
I wonder if some on the right see Islam as a weapon to be used against Christianity, much as the Christ-hating left sees them? The left is so consumed by their hatred and resentment of Christianity that they will submerge their own agendas (feminism, gay rights, atheism) and take their chances with Islam rather than co-exist with Christianity.
The left are playing the game of siding with ''the enemy of my enemy'', and hoping to make common cause, dancing with the devil. They are doing this at their peril, as they may well see someday -- or maybe not.
Incidentally, Chris Roach has a very good piece discussing the potential for the 'suicidally liberal' people in Oregon to wake up to reality.
''It�s not clear if an event like this, even if successful, can remove the politically correct scales from the eyes of Portland�s leaders. Theirs is a web of deception that will likely detect, even in this, a clarion call to redouble their efforts of outreach, tolerance, and the like. Liberalism like that of Portland�s mayor renders intelligent people stupid and blind to basic reality.''
I tend to think that the true-believer liberals would actually rather die and feel good about themselves while doing so, than to violate all that they believe in and identify with. I just hope that our whole society isn't taken down with them.
Labels: Diversity, Immigration, Islam, Jihad, Multicult, Poitical Correctness, Social Divisions
0 comment Saturday, July 5, 2014 | admin
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�" 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.
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�" 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: Britain, Globalism, History, Mass Immigration, Multicult
0 comment Monday, June 23, 2014 | admin
Over at Moonbattery there is a post about the fact that November 18 is the anniversary of the awful Jonestown events -- whether you call the 900+ deaths suicide (as many do) or a massacre, it was a shocking scene.
Van Helsing at Moonbattery emphasizes that cult guru Jim Jones was a collectivist, a leftist, and not simply some crazed preacher as he was depicted in most of the media coverage. He was, first and foremost, a leftist, not a Christian. There is every evidence that he did not believe in Christianity, or religion in any form, unless he was to be its 'god.'
The Moonbattery piece links to a post by Petr at the old Original Dissent forums; it makes for interesting reading.
I know I've alluded to Jones and his 'People's Temple' in previous blog entries, but it is uncanny how closely his ideology resembled 21st century multiculturalist ideals. I don't say this in a flattering way, but he was ahead of his time. In our time he would not have fled the United States (which he believed was a thoroughly 'racist' country where he and his followers were hunted people). He would have stayed here and found a comfortable niche among his kindred souls on the multicult left. Maybe he would even be the revered grey eminence of that movement.
He was ahead of his time in that his obsessions and fetishes match those of today's cultural Marxists. He preached to his very diverse group of followers that America was a racist country, a fascist regime, in which their lives would be in constant danger. It sounds very similar to what the state media imply in many of their stories about 'racism.'
Jones was obsessed with the idea of 'rainbow families' much as today's trendy liberals are. He adopted 'diverse' children, and he pressured his followers to participate in interracial intimacy, which he told them was an act of love and charity.
He encouraged, shall we say, intergenerational relationships - the young with the elderly. This was recounted in a book written by a follower -- I have it in my possession somewhere, but at the moment I can't cite the name of the writer or the book. It's lost among my stacks of books for now.
The whole disastrous episode which ended in hundreds of people dead in Jonestown is a cautionary tale about the all-too-American tendency to blindly follow charismatic personalities, and to accept what authority figures say without examining it. There is no reason why his early followers, who were Christians, should have followed this deranged pied piper over the cliff. If they had done what Christians should do, and examined his 'teachings' from a Biblical perspective, as the Bereans of the Bible did, they would not have had a tragic end.
Why are many Americans so willing to follow false shepherds, and to uncritically accept the authority of these people? This seems to be a trait that is more common than it should be in our country. And the last couple of years seem to show us that it is ever more common.
What is most appalling about figures like Jones is that their compliant followers come to believe that they are serving 'God' or the cause of 'right' and justice. Totalitarianism in the name of do-goodery is the worst kind.
As I think I said before, Jones is something of a founder of postmodern 'America'; his ideology is the offical one, the default one, the one which most leftists today will fight for and maybe even die for. The leftists' 'America' should be renamed in honor of their inspiration, Jim Jones.
Maybe one of these days he will in fact be revered and his birthday honored. Maybe he will be the co-honoree on that January holy day that honors another leftist.
Van Helsing at Moonbattery emphasizes that cult guru Jim Jones was a collectivist, a leftist, and not simply some crazed preacher as he was depicted in most of the media coverage. He was, first and foremost, a leftist, not a Christian. There is every evidence that he did not believe in Christianity, or religion in any form, unless he was to be its 'god.'
The Moonbattery piece links to a post by Petr at the old Original Dissent forums; it makes for interesting reading.
I know I've alluded to Jones and his 'People's Temple' in previous blog entries, but it is uncanny how closely his ideology resembled 21st century multiculturalist ideals. I don't say this in a flattering way, but he was ahead of his time. In our time he would not have fled the United States (which he believed was a thoroughly 'racist' country where he and his followers were hunted people). He would have stayed here and found a comfortable niche among his kindred souls on the multicult left. Maybe he would even be the revered grey eminence of that movement.
He was ahead of his time in that his obsessions and fetishes match those of today's cultural Marxists. He preached to his very diverse group of followers that America was a racist country, a fascist regime, in which their lives would be in constant danger. It sounds very similar to what the state media imply in many of their stories about 'racism.'
Jones was obsessed with the idea of 'rainbow families' much as today's trendy liberals are. He adopted 'diverse' children, and he pressured his followers to participate in interracial intimacy, which he told them was an act of love and charity.
He encouraged, shall we say, intergenerational relationships - the young with the elderly. This was recounted in a book written by a follower -- I have it in my possession somewhere, but at the moment I can't cite the name of the writer or the book. It's lost among my stacks of books for now.
The whole disastrous episode which ended in hundreds of people dead in Jonestown is a cautionary tale about the all-too-American tendency to blindly follow charismatic personalities, and to accept what authority figures say without examining it. There is no reason why his early followers, who were Christians, should have followed this deranged pied piper over the cliff. If they had done what Christians should do, and examined his 'teachings' from a Biblical perspective, as the Bereans of the Bible did, they would not have had a tragic end.
Why are many Americans so willing to follow false shepherds, and to uncritically accept the authority of these people? This seems to be a trait that is more common than it should be in our country. And the last couple of years seem to show us that it is ever more common.
What is most appalling about figures like Jones is that their compliant followers come to believe that they are serving 'God' or the cause of 'right' and justice. Totalitarianism in the name of do-goodery is the worst kind.
As I think I said before, Jones is something of a founder of postmodern 'America'; his ideology is the offical one, the default one, the one which most leftists today will fight for and maybe even die for. The leftists' 'America' should be renamed in honor of their inspiration, Jim Jones.
Maybe one of these days he will in fact be revered and his birthday honored. Maybe he will be the co-honoree on that January holy day that honors another leftist.
Labels: Authoritarianism, Cultural Marxism, Multicult, Racial Conflict, Totalitarianism