When the British (and other Europeans) began to invite immigrants “en masse” into their small and crowded lands, onlookers were astonished.
It was clear that the British were introducing to themselves enormous problems, and that cultural and other conflicts were inevitable. Many of these arms-length observers had lived in culturally mixed communities abroad, where they found that they needed to evolve strategies to ensure their survival in multi-racial societies.
However, what made Britain particularly different was its highly structured society. There was little latitude for change, or space in Britain’s compacted population, to allow for the major social adjustment which would be necessary if transcultural immigration was permitted.
The outsider recognised that this experimentation on the British, by politicians, had no precedent. The lessons of the past had been diametrically counter to this experiment, which planned to reverse the entrenched philosophy of self-preservation and defensiveness against alienisation. For centuries these protective strategies had been in place with demonstrable success. The British governments, however, now waved all history aside with self-satisfied aplomb. It was to be irreversible.
What started it? Small groups were the prime motivators of “pro-immigration” in Britain:
“Academics", seeing themselves as superior thinkers, believed that they had an "enlightenment" which was their own special providence, and claimed they were the authoritative purveyors of morality.
“Ecclesiastics”, from the vacuum of their own deficiencies, grasped the (fundamentally flawed) ethos touted by “intellectuals”, so giving it pseudo-credibility for absorption by their absurdly credulous wards.
Politicians then channelled this novelty into their own domain as a ploy towards their proposed politico-economic engineering.
These politicians were powerful enough to begin manipulating the population and, without specific mandate, imposed their pro-immigrant views on a confused public, often surreptitiously and apparently always with self-serving goals.
Which part of the population surrendered? As a pre-emptive, the British “pro-immigrant cabal” need to be addressed:
These people standardise their techniques of demanding racial fragmentation, despite the racial homogeny which had served the British supremely well for so long past. These preachers blustered "You cannot generalise", "There are good and bad in all people", "There is only one race, the human race" even “Once we are all brown there will be no quarrels in a happy land”. Such trite, if not inane, responses have been repeated mindlessly, presumably in the hope of bludgeoning others into believing these determined, albeit irrational and misguided, airy fabricators.
Their views are counter-intuitive, and show a naivety which is embarrassing. One common motive seems to be an exhibitionistic, self-proclaiming righteousness.
Take these arguments as read and not bother with them further.
There have always been, of course, Britons of extraordinary capacity, intellect, insight, compassion and social creativity. These are the people that made Britain great, and defended its cultural integrity in the past. But unfortunately the recent breeds of politicians knew they could manipulate percentages of the population, and knowing that 50% of the electorate is the least gifted half of the population, that group was targeted. The politicians also focused on the fractions of the population which displayed the worst frailties of the human - laziness, avarice, covertness and the capacity to manipulate - in order to ensconce their authority and tighten their control over the British public.
Therefore this is not a condemnation of the sensitive and capable British; instead is condolence to those who unsuccessfully opposed the blundering political assertiveness, the political manipulation and the perversion of democracy.
So, what were the techniques which the politicians used to woo and beguile their populations?
1. "We will bring in people who will do the work for you". This was the most cynical and surreptitious of promises by politicians to their population. Some British seemed to feel that, having been successful in the war, they were entitled to the lethargy of the superior. The politicians implied that the immigrants would be an inferior group who would do the work which some British. There were some whose misappropriated sense of superiority led them to believe much “service work” was beneath their dignity and saw this as a path up the social scale. Immigrants were to become their transport workers, like the coachmen and chauffeurs of their yesteryears. There was also a strong thread of jealousy. It seemed that the "stay-at-homes" believed their more adventurous colonial brethren lived a superior life with servants at their feet. Those who had not ventured to the colonies began to begrudge the colonists. The immigrant doctrine now lead these to believe that they, too, could become “of the class” which employed the same type of servants. They didn't understand, unfortunately, that the servants of the colonists were not an expression of colonist wealth, but rather an expression of the poverty of those lands. Mostly these aspirers towards grandiosity demonstrated the evil of “wanting something for nothing" and in particular any offer of cheap labour.
2."There are not enough people to do the work". Of course this is dismissible as reason, since transport workers and others could have been easily recruited from the indigenous population, as had already been done in other countries, if sufficient salary were granted. The expectation that the British were led towards was that they were going to get people who would do unpleasant work for less. There was also the implication that these "immigrant workers" would continue to work, as a race, forever in menial jobs. This of course was blatant stupidity on the part of the British politicians. The immigrants would begin, as soon as they possibly could, to compete with the British for the higher salaries, and ultimately out-compete them in many respects. So the politicians were recklessly risking the employment of their own electorate. The British pattern of living and income were to be prejudiced by a delusion perpetrated and promoted by a ruthless set of politicians.
3."You will enjoy a more colourful society". This has been well debated elsewhere. The idea is fatuous, since the "colourfulness" of any group exists only because it is unusual and exotic. “Resident exoticism” fades fast.
4."You will benefit from the injection of new immigrant people, who will fortify and strengthen your race". This was a rather crude extrapolation of agricultural naïveté and was historically false. No non-European group has ever added materially to the civilisation(1) which the British attained in the prime of their civic capabilities. The British had been an enormously successful race, and dilution with other genes and other cultures could be expected (even if one uses simple agricultural analogies of cultivar degradation) to weaken and lessen the inherent superiority of the Briton. This civic superiority should have been obvious to all. What else would have motivated the immigrants to invade?
5."You have a charitable obligation ". Emotional manipulation was applied with leverage like "You people are so successful that you must come to the aid of the poor, starving, diseased, and cold in the rest of the world by sharing the quality of life which you enjoy”. A fatuous argument. The wretchedness of what has been called the "bottomless bucket" of impoverished human beings in the third world could not be altered by inviting a small proportion into the British homeland. Britain had to remain successful if it were to continue to support its charitable beneficiaries abroad. Self-sacrifice is self-limiting.
It was clear that the British were introducing to themselves enormous problems, and that cultural and other conflicts were inevitable. Many of these arms-length observers had lived in culturally mixed communities abroad, where they found that they needed to evolve strategies to ensure their survival in multi-racial societies.
However, what made Britain particularly different was its highly structured society. There was little latitude for change, or space in Britain’s compacted population, to allow for the major social adjustment which would be necessary if transcultural immigration was permitted.
The outsider recognised that this experimentation on the British, by politicians, had no precedent. The lessons of the past had been diametrically counter to this experiment, which planned to reverse the entrenched philosophy of self-preservation and defensiveness against alienisation. For centuries these protective strategies had been in place with demonstrable success. The British governments, however, now waved all history aside with self-satisfied aplomb. It was to be irreversible.
What started it? Small groups were the prime motivators of “pro-immigration” in Britain:
“Academics", seeing themselves as superior thinkers, believed that they had an "enlightenment" which was their own special providence, and claimed they were the authoritative purveyors of morality.
“Ecclesiastics”, from the vacuum of their own deficiencies, grasped the (fundamentally flawed) ethos touted by “intellectuals”, so giving it pseudo-credibility for absorption by their absurdly credulous wards.
Politicians then channelled this novelty into their own domain as a ploy towards their proposed politico-economic engineering.
These politicians were powerful enough to begin manipulating the population and, without specific mandate, imposed their pro-immigrant views on a confused public, often surreptitiously and apparently always with self-serving goals.
Which part of the population surrendered? As a pre-emptive, the British “pro-immigrant cabal” need to be addressed:
These people standardise their techniques of demanding racial fragmentation, despite the racial homogeny which had served the British supremely well for so long past. These preachers blustered "You cannot generalise", "There are good and bad in all people", "There is only one race, the human race" even “Once we are all brown there will be no quarrels in a happy land”. Such trite, if not inane, responses have been repeated mindlessly, presumably in the hope of bludgeoning others into believing these determined, albeit irrational and misguided, airy fabricators.
Their views are counter-intuitive, and show a naivety which is embarrassing. One common motive seems to be an exhibitionistic, self-proclaiming righteousness.
Take these arguments as read and not bother with them further.
There have always been, of course, Britons of extraordinary capacity, intellect, insight, compassion and social creativity. These are the people that made Britain great, and defended its cultural integrity in the past. But unfortunately the recent breeds of politicians knew they could manipulate percentages of the population, and knowing that 50% of the electorate is the least gifted half of the population, that group was targeted. The politicians also focused on the fractions of the population which displayed the worst frailties of the human - laziness, avarice, covertness and the capacity to manipulate - in order to ensconce their authority and tighten their control over the British public.
Therefore this is not a condemnation of the sensitive and capable British; instead is condolence to those who unsuccessfully opposed the blundering political assertiveness, the political manipulation and the perversion of democracy.
So, what were the techniques which the politicians used to woo and beguile their populations?
1. "We will bring in people who will do the work for you". This was the most cynical and surreptitious of promises by politicians to their population. Some British seemed to feel that, having been successful in the war, they were entitled to the lethargy of the superior. The politicians implied that the immigrants would be an inferior group who would do the work which some British. There were some whose misappropriated sense of superiority led them to believe much “service work” was beneath their dignity and saw this as a path up the social scale. Immigrants were to become their transport workers, like the coachmen and chauffeurs of their yesteryears. There was also a strong thread of jealousy. It seemed that the "stay-at-homes" believed their more adventurous colonial brethren lived a superior life with servants at their feet. Those who had not ventured to the colonies began to begrudge the colonists. The immigrant doctrine now lead these to believe that they, too, could become “of the class” which employed the same type of servants. They didn't understand, unfortunately, that the servants of the colonists were not an expression of colonist wealth, but rather an expression of the poverty of those lands. Mostly these aspirers towards grandiosity demonstrated the evil of “wanting something for nothing" and in particular any offer of cheap labour.
2."There are not enough people to do the work". Of course this is dismissible as reason, since transport workers and others could have been easily recruited from the indigenous population, as had already been done in other countries, if sufficient salary were granted. The expectation that the British were led towards was that they were going to get people who would do unpleasant work for less. There was also the implication that these "immigrant workers" would continue to work, as a race, forever in menial jobs. This of course was blatant stupidity on the part of the British politicians. The immigrants would begin, as soon as they possibly could, to compete with the British for the higher salaries, and ultimately out-compete them in many respects. So the politicians were recklessly risking the employment of their own electorate. The British pattern of living and income were to be prejudiced by a delusion perpetrated and promoted by a ruthless set of politicians.
3."You will enjoy a more colourful society". This has been well debated elsewhere. The idea is fatuous, since the "colourfulness" of any group exists only because it is unusual and exotic. “Resident exoticism” fades fast.
4."You will benefit from the injection of new immigrant people, who will fortify and strengthen your race". This was a rather crude extrapolation of agricultural naïveté and was historically false. No non-European group has ever added materially to the civilisation(1) which the British attained in the prime of their civic capabilities. The British had been an enormously successful race, and dilution with other genes and other cultures could be expected (even if one uses simple agricultural analogies of cultivar degradation) to weaken and lessen the inherent superiority of the Briton. This civic superiority should have been obvious to all. What else would have motivated the immigrants to invade?
5."You have a charitable obligation ". Emotional manipulation was applied with leverage like "You people are so successful that you must come to the aid of the poor, starving, diseased, and cold in the rest of the world by sharing the quality of life which you enjoy”. A fatuous argument. The wretchedness of what has been called the "bottomless bucket" of impoverished human beings in the third world could not be altered by inviting a small proportion into the British homeland. Britain had to remain successful if it were to continue to support its charitable beneficiaries abroad. Self-sacrifice is self-limiting.
Part II
Illusion. The gullible Britons fell for it. They believed that immigrants would be imbued with gratitude for the hospitality received and show deference to the host culture. The immigrants were expected to respect an established and sophisticated pattern of living. It was assumed that the immigrants to Britain would have a desire to avoid offence and a willingness to share the products of a civilisation and its social structures in an equable way. These qualities were long embedded into the British culture. This behavioural structure was the contract which the British held amongst themselves, and which had been carefully passed down through the generations. These had been the internal assumptions necessary for the historic success of British society. It was thus implied that immigrants would also honour this contract.
Reality. Self-selected immigrant tranches included sufficient sub-set variants to cause an irreversible alteration of British society. These interlopers had no reason to consider that they should be beholden to their hosts. Theirs was not to show gratitude: Instead they began to believe (assisted by the “intellectuals”) that they were arriving in Britain to receive their "due". When necessary, reasons were invented to “prove” the British were indebted to the immigrant.
Immigrants sought to extract maximally from the social structures of a civilised society, with ruthless tenacity. Instead of the expected graciousness it became the pattern for many an immigrant to slander, diminish and volubly despise the natives whom they planned to eventually displace. Immigrants intended, and demonstrated, that their role would be to inject their imported cultures, and to overcome the established patterns of British life, replacing it with formats of their own inclination. Immigrants began to erode the establishment en route to overcoming and usurp the society, moving to ultimately dominate and control. The immigrant response to their admission to Britain was to display emotional manipulation, aggression, claims of moral authority, and the control of the nubile. Their unfettered indulgences are allowing them feed on, and erode away, the restraints of the civilised world into which they had been invited.
Deadly misinterpretations. Most Britons were, of course, compassionately concerned. They had a sense of charity and hospitality. There was a reluctance to hurt or condemn. There was a determination to overcome what proved to be an uncomfortable ingression caused by aliens forced upon them. But they were also prejudiced themselves by many of their own delusions including their sense of superiority. There was an arrogant belief that all immigrants would continue to appreciate the superior qualities of the British, and would aim to emulate and mimic the existing culture. So it was believed that the alien would eventually merge imperceptibly to become indistinguishable from the native population. Remember that “integration” was the key political word at that time. So arrogant was that assumption that no attempt was made to provide “house rules” of any sort. Not even would capacity in English be a necessary requirement for citizenship.
When it became clear that “integration” was impossible then “multiculturism” was the next political invention, presumably a form of “separate development”.
The British also fell for the nonsense about "strengthening the race", and the even greater stupidity of trying to make their already deep, rich, and highly cultured society "more colourful".
The last chapters. As the disarray imported with immigration started to show, the British governments tried repairs by pasting legislative pastiches over crack after crack. Astonishing legislation was progressively imposed, designed to oppress a people by forcing them into conflict with their own intuition. The population was denied the latitude to express inherent views, and prohibited from reacting instinctively. The people were prevented from expressing their concerns about the loss of their national homogeneity; something which many knew had allowed the Europeans to become the greatest race of history. Whatever this legislation might have done to “assist integration" (and there is no evidence that it has) far more important was the divisive effect it had on the British population. It perplexed and humiliated the British, and cowed them by the creation of inquisitous puppets. These nefarious informatives (which progressively included all financial institutions) became obliged, by law, to report on their fellows. Quislings spread through the population, setting neighbour against neighbour in that most invidious of socially destructive mechanisms.
A people broken. Many say that the pride and spirit of the British has been broken. In the greater part they are no longer people of warmth and hospitality, but rather a nation of the reclusive and defensive. These are the people that look at the pavements and corridor floors, rather than looking their fellows in the face, something so obvious to the visitor. These are the people who have allowed themselves to be taxed more than ever in the history of mankind. These are the people who have allowed their government a total control of their finances and savings (forcing banks to act as agents for the government instead of being the employees of the savers).These are the people who have had their privacy extirpated entirely, to be dispersed into the data banks of their controlling authorities. These seem to be people who now fear to respond and, like the light-blinded rabbit, can only passively plead for “someone” to do “something” while they await immolation.
Social and behavioural patterns destroyed. Once the context of the British culture had been warped, once the behavioural patterns of the British began to be distorted by political manacles, then the fine social equilibrium changed. The alterations have been insidious, slow enough to steal in, unnoticed by most. Long-entrenched behavioural patterns and the necessary working assumptions, essential as the infrastructure of Britain’s functional integrity, now had no footings. Emotional tensions have become universally palpable but none dare speak out. Taught bands of silence have now straight-jacket the nation. Predictability and reasonability can no longer be assumed; and have been replaced by the bizarre, and often risible, non-rationality of asinine legislation.
Immunising defences destroyed. The individual as a decision maker has been stripped of all the natural and inherent capacities to react defensively. Such social “cellular defence systems” can only exist at the level of the individual who has provided the vital immune defence systems of all societies. But the hapless Native Briton has now been forced to abdicate as the traditional defender of Britain’s previous homogenous culture. With the endemic destruction of its immune system Britain’s previous social structure is now awaiting entire collapse.
Finale. Saddest is that most British cannot see, even now, where they have been led, and do not realise that within a generation their impoverished progeny will have a total amnesia for their once great culture.
August Pontneuf
____________
(1) The Moorish exodus from Iberia left architectural and linguistic residua. However there is no evidence that the Moorish presence contributed to Civic capability. Instead, on many accounts, Iberia lagged behind the development of the rest of Europe.
2 comments:
I'm beginning to ask myself if I really sympathise with the British much anymore. As a Zimbabwean who has emmigrated to the UK to escape the nuclear like destruction of Southern Africa by blacks I have generally been treated well by the British folk but in some instances been treated exceptionally badly by sanctimonious Poms without a cooking clue about Southern Africa, not only holding an opinion about something they know absolutely squat about but actually trying to force such opnion down the throat of somebody who has lived their entire lives in Southern Africa while they haven't.
I had the most pleasurable experienced of the following discussion with a dumb bitch the other night who thought she was the cat's arse painted pink:
"So why have you come to the UK?"
Me, "To escape the violent crime, racism and corruption of South Africa..."
Her, "So you mean the white on black racism is still happening?"
ME "No, there never was white on black racism in South Africa on the scale you see today where whites are being subjected to black racism on every level and being murdered out daily by random black racists...."
Before I could continue, her response was;
"So white South Africans are getting what they deserve..?"
She then launched into a tirade about immigrants to the UK and how "they" are taking away jobs from Brits, and virtually had an apoplexy when she climaxed with a tirade about Muslim immigrants "flooding" into Britain and claiming huge amounts in benfites while remaining unemployed while her poor mother could not get housing benefits because she is "native British and not immigrant Muslim..."
I leaned over to her, looked her squarely in the eye and said,
"Looks like you British are getting what you deserve...."
Stupid bitch was silent for the rest of the night as were most of the others, except for one gent who hooted "Touche" through his bristling moustache and regaled us for some time about his experiences with the munts in SA and how, stupid, savage and destructive they are.
Britain *was* analogous to a well-cultivated organic garden that took a thousand years of blood, sweat and tears to reach a pinnacle of success that had no equal throughout the world.
That was, until the usual suspects already mentioned, began carelessly introducing a few incompatible seeds to your once-beautiful garden. Weeds have sprouted everywhere and are now proliferating beyond your control with help from a "fertilizer" that only encourages further growth.
These discordant "plants" have grown so rapidly these past decades, they now threaten to engulf your entire oasis with their unsought presence. They've become such a regular nuisance, that many descendants of the original gardeners are abandoning the garden in droves and moving on to better environments.
To Anon. Zim:
I'm astounded at some people's lack of knowledge regarding your situation, but we're simply competing with the powerful brainwashing mechanisms that MSM use to control the masses.
Today, there's no excuse to remain ignorant forever since the advent of the internet and blogs such as this one.
I'm seriously considering of having business cards printed with my favourite blogs and suggesting to detractors to check these out before I debate with them.
Post a Comment