It's interesting how in the U.K. the intellectual tide has shifted so that the downsides of immigration can increasingly be talked about in a sophisticated fashion just as the American establishment is battening down the hatches and crushing dissent. For example, David Goodhart getting banned from the Hay Festival for being an immigration skeptic has gotten him good publicity in Britain, while Jason Richwine getting fired has been widely treated as proof that he had it coming.
From This Is Lincolnshire in the U.K.:
Grantham MP Nick Boles blames rising house prices on immigration
Grantham and Stamford MP Nick Boles says immigration is helping push up house prices, preventing young people from owning their own home.
The Planning Minister said he has changed his mind about immigration after seeing how the arrival of 2 million new immigrants over the last decade has left Britain short of houses.
He warned that failure to build enough homes would mean only the professional classes would be able to buy a house.
Mr Boles told a national newspaper: “I have become much more critical of immigration. A very substantial contribution to housing need comes from the level of immigration in the past two decades.
“‘I had the classic metropolitan view about immigration that it was broadly good for me because it made life more varied and interesting and there were lots of people bringing different skills into the economy.
“I wasn’t really aware of the effect on people who were competing for relatively low skilled jobs and competing for public services.” ...
Mr Boles said young people are being priced out of the property market, citing figures which show that the number of first time buyers who get a mortgage without help from their parents has halved from 69 per cent in 2005 to just 35 per cent now.
“The biggest block on home ownership now is affordability,” he said.
Posts
95 comments:
whatever you do, steve, do not mention the structure of the government as a possible explanation for this phenomenon. The fact the UK has a parliamentarian democracy has nothing to do with this.
And do not mention that the fact that the UK has a greater percentage of whites than the USA has anything to do with this.
Keep your analysis at a superficial level and everything will be hunky dory.
Keep things superficial, steve.
That's the american way, chum.
Don't rock the boat!
“I had the classic metropolitan view about immigration that it was broadly good for me because it made life more varied and interesting and there were lots of people bringing different skills into the economy. I wasn’t really aware of the effect on people who were competing for relatively low skilled jobs and competing for public services.”
The utter obliviousness of the political class to the effects of their policies is awesome to behold. But I'm probably naive. There may be something deeper going on than this guy suddenly recognizing the obvious. Maybe there's a new memo circulating.
Yeah, but the big difference between the US and UK on this subject is this: Britain has no romanticized view of its immigration history.
While immigrants have moved to Britain since Huguenots -- immigration became, briefly, an issue in Victorian Britain -- immigration has never been central to British history, nor has there ever been any successful movement to propagandize it as an essential part of Britain's national character.
I'd advise you to compare the US experience to that of other British settler societies such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
They, like the US, have experienced significant immigration and immigration has successfully been represented as essential to their national characters (while anti-immigration sentiment has been effectively demonized -- see the "White Australia" policy).
If you can't talk seriously about immigration in the US, nor can you in Canada, Australia or New Zealand and it's for very much the same reasons. Sad, but true.
The UK is no help here.
Sort of related: the Seinfeld episode where Jerry does his wretched refuse riff is playing right now on WPIX in the NYC market.
"Yeah, but the big difference between the US and UK on this subject is this: Britain has no romanticized view of its immigration history.
While immigrants have moved to Britain since Huguenots -- immigration became, briefly, an issue in Victorian Britain -- immigration has never been central to British history..."
I think a big difference is that in the US everyone but Indians gets called an "immigrant", as if there were no difference between immigrants and conquistadors, colonists, or settlers. Migration was central to British history too, but I doubt anyone in the UK would refer to the Normans, Angles, Saxons, or Jutes as immigrants.
The second comment from Anonymous nails it. The real comparison for America can only be Canada, Australia and NZ. And in all those countries you see open borders enthusiasm.
Keep in mind, those three countries are actually far more conservative in their founding history than the radical whiggery that created the USA. Plus they maintained their allegiance to the British Crown, and by extension to British ethnicity, for all these centuries. I'd say even India has more Britishness in its national character than America.
The USA really is unique in its absolute repudiation of ethnicity and blood-and-soil nationalism. Which is why the American rightwing is this weird collection of idiots, libertarians and capitalists. Not a single respectable rightwinger who can compare with the Le Pens, or Netanyahu, or even Putin.
You will never have strong anti-immigration sentiment here. You can fight it all you want but it is inside you, written in your country's DNA... you can keep scrubbing at that foul spot all you want but it will never leave.
It is quite interesting though that the ethnonationalist rightwing is weakest in the UK among European countries. It is almost as though the country which was most successful in exporting itself across the world over the last few centuries was suffering from its overexertion. Maybe identification with the empire and the Anglosphere weakens identification with the local.
Maybe universalism is a good strategy to propagate your culture for some time(white man's burden, bringing democracy to Iraq, expecting other societies to adhere to your conception of human rights etc etc), but also contains the seeds of its own destruction in that it makes you lose your self-identity. So global relativism combined with national particularism may be the best long-term pro-rightwing strategy.
“‘I had the classic metropolitan view about immigration that it was broadly good for me because it made life more varied and interesting . . . "
Who thinks like that, really?
Why would it take these British politicians decades and decades to see that immigration has hurt Britain and the people?
These are just lame CYA rationalizations over the truth, which must be that they were bribed.
In 1620, how many Indians (Native Americans, whatever the correct term is) were there in the territory now the United States of America?
The number must be so small. Its ridiculous that we are guilt-tripped over them. The same people who want there to be 500 million people living here think the "Native Americans" should have had the whole place for probably 10 million people. Maybe a lot less.
The United States came into being through genocide of Native Americans and through policies such as Manifest Destiny, which involved expropriation of land and further extirpation of peoples. It also brutally enslaved Africans and paid no reparations whatsoever to its descendants.
After it became an industrial power, it contributed more than any country to planetary pollution, and is leading the way in destroying the biosphere through global warming.
This tragic history is the result of white people. For all the achievements of whites - from anesthetic dentistry to gadgets like the iPad - in the view of the world, the horrors imposed by it on others by it FAR outweigh anything else. Genocide and slavery, yes, but engineered famines that killed hundreds of millions, brutal colonialism, rape in astonishing numbers in the Americas, global pollution, and global warming (perhaps its biggest sin of all) is just the beginning of the list.
To say that America must remain a white country is both nonsensical and immoral.
It's interesting how in the U.K. the intellectual tide has shifted so that the downsides of immigration can increasingly be talked about in a sophisticated fashion just as the American establishment is battening down the hatches and crushing dissent.
It's also interesting how in the UK you can go to "gaol" for talking about immigration, whereas in the US that is completely out of the question. Who, really, is crushing dissent?
The second comment from Anonymous nails it. The real comparison for America can only be Canada, Australia and NZ. And in all those countries you see open borders enthusiasm.
But no more than in the UK.
"One Walmart's Low Wages Could Cost Taxpayers $900,000 Per Year, House Dems Find"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/31/walmart-taxpayers-house-report_n_3365814.html
"Walmart wages are so low that many of its workers rely on food stamps and other government aid programs to fulfill their basic needs, a reality that could cost taxpayers as much as $900,000 at just one Walmart Supercenter in Wisconsin, according to a study released by Congressional Democrats on Thursday."
short of houses
Per the tone of his comments, you get the impression that if to pump up supply they'd cover the English countryside with shitty little houses half full of foreigners then massive immigration would be OK with him.
Half of the increase of the UK population between 1991 and 2010 (2.4 million in absolute terms) was due to the direct contribution of net migration.
“I wasn’t really aware of the effect on people who were competing for relatively low skilled jobs...
It takes some people longer than others to see the obvious.
The non racial stuff goes back to Rome, in the Regal period. Greeks slaughtered males in conquered cities. Rome allowed treaty citizenship. Starting with the Sabines. It is as old as 600 BC.
Britain has no romanticized view of its immigration history.
The British establishment has been working very hard to develop a romanticized view of its immigration history. Anyone who disagrees is a racist and is probably in the BNP.
Did you see the opening ceremony of the London Olympics?
Didn't you know we would have died out were it not for the reggae and curry bought into this country saving us from both starvation and musical oblivion?
White people can't cook curry and they can't play reggae. Its a genetic problem that white people have, particularly the English. Anyone who disagrees is a racist and probably in the BNP.
Dave Pinsen said...
but I doubt anyone in the UK would refer to the Normans, Angles, Saxons, or Jutes as immigrants.
Except almost the entire establishment and the left - which is pretty much the same thing.
The popular notion that Britain must have been a nondiverse cultural wasteland in the 1960s, the era of John Lennon, Mick Jagger, John Cleese, and James Bond, is a triumph of theory over memory.
"Walmart wages are so low that many of its workers rely on food stamps and other government aid programs to fulfill their basic needs, a reality that could cost taxpayers as much as $900,000 at just one Walmart Supercenter in Wisconsin, according to a study released by Congressional Democrats on Thursday."
How does this compare with numbers at Target, KMart, dollar stores, grocery stores and mom and pop retailers?
Post-war Britain has never been able to build enough housing to satisgy demand.
This particularly true of the present economic bust-up in which house building has been reduced to a trickle.
Over the past 50 years an old, old pattern keeps re-asserting itself as the leitmotif of the British economy. Whenever the conomy finally picks up from stagnation, massive house price increases (due to pent-up demand) feed through the economy causing gallopping inflation and trade deficits. In short, the British economy invariably 'overheats' and spectacularly crashes.
Happened in 1973, 1989 etc.
Even I, as a non-qualified amateur knows this. But the legions of 'clever' people running Britain seem oblivious to this ancient and ingrained pattern.
The idea that the US or Australia is incapable of immigration restriction based on history is pretty ridiculous IMO. Both Australian and the USA have had significant immigration restriction in the past. It will be popular again.
And Britain has had immigration boosterism despite a lack of much recent immigration history.
The common thread in the immigration boosterism zeitgeist in the UK, USA, Australia, Canada, NZ etc. is the taboo on the subject because of PC. Any arguments used are just means to that same end, whether it is Emma Lazarus or whatever Blair and Brown have used to race replace Britons.
Eventually we will find our voice. Eventually PC will become unfashionable. It is very unlikely that this will happen simultaneously in all our countries, any more than the housing bubbles would burst all in the same month and year. And yet, we hear similar variations on the same arguments as it regards the bursting of the PC bubble - "It can't happen here!" "It's different here!" etc. etc.
The common thread in all of this is that our countries have adopted a suicidal mindset that is unsustainable. The mental shackles will be thrown off; it's just a matter of when.
"Except almost the entire establishment and the left - which is pretty much the same thing."
I am dumbfounded and stand corrected.
"After it became an industrial power, it contributed more than any country to planetary pollution, and is leading the way in destroying the biosphere through global warming."
If not for white science the population explosion worldwide would not have occurred and there'd be no immigrants to move to Western countries.
Robert Hume
Immigration is great for property speculators but terrible for almost everybody else.
Here in my country, Australia, we are suffering from a housing affordability crisis caused, in large part, by the huge wave of immigration that started about a decade ago. However, nobody in parliament nor the media is prepared to publicly make the link between mass immigration and the worsening house affordability situation in Australian cities.
Immigration remains a taboo subject downunder.
i've heard arguments against immigration restrictionism made in britain in a similar vain to what you hear in australia, the u.s, and elsewhere. typically it will be claimed that there is no legitimate 'british' people because the british are a mishmash of different conquering/settler tribes such as the danes, romans and saxons (a falsehood in itself). the british, it is so frequently claimed, are mongrels that have no valid claim to indigenous status.
The majority of immigrants to the UK since the floodgates were opened in 1997 have come from outside Europe.
Ossettian
Immigration and English elite betrayal back in 1517: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_May_Day
"Britons of all political views can debate immigration now only because most contemporary immigrants are white eastern Europeans. This means the liberal/left no longer feel guilty for engaging the debate."
Ah yes. If there was hope, it lies in the Poles.
Family formation in the UK a la the Beckhams and their beautiful family?
It's progress but the real breakthrough will be when it's openly recognized that immigrants are not interchangeable and that those of European background are way preferable to third worlders. Making differentiations between them is important. A Czech or Italian is way different from an Afghan or Pakistani. The former provide all the diversity they really need, the latter are in fact just albatrosses.
Harry Baldwin: The utter obliviousness of the political class to the effects of their policies is awesome to behold. But I'm probably naive. There may be something deeper going on than this guy suddenly recognizing the obvious.
I doubt that they're as oblivious as they pretend to be. It's all beer and skittles beating the the lower orders into the dirt, until things get ugly enough that even the serenely traitorous recognize that their own necks might be in need of some prudent looking-after. Note that he said, immigration was "broadly good for me". Ears prick up when not only one's office but one's hide may be on the line.
(Not that I'm predicting anybody is going to go all Place Louis XV on anybody there - but I do get the impression that the natives may be a tad more sullen and snarly of late. iSteve Englishmen, please fill us in.)
Working Class Englishmen: The British establishment has been working very hard to develop a romanticized view of its immigration history. Anyone who disagrees is a racist and is probably in the BNP.
I know I've been amazed at the sheer shameless whorishness of the PTBs shoveling that "nation of immigrants" propaganda in the UK. (They're shoveling it in France, too, so I'll assume anywhere else in Europe they can wedge it in.) Americans really ought to acquaint themselves with these maneuvers - it may enlighten at least the brighter ones among us about the nature of home-grown "nation of immigrants" revisionist misinformation campaigns. (Fevered trolls/apparatchiks like "hardly" notwithstanding.)
The common thread in all of this is that our countries have adopted a suicidal mindset that is unsustainable. The mental shackles will be thrown off; it's just a matter of when.
I expect that the mental shackles will be thrown off only moments before actual shackles are forced upon us.
a) Nick Boles wants to concrete over vast swathes of Southern England, and so do the construction firms who fund the Tories.
b) the immigration bit is almost certainly another attempt to stop votes peeling away to UKIP. But a lot of disillusioned conservatives would think Prime Minister Miliband a price worth paying for the destruction of the Tory party. Peter Hitchens was right when he wrote that they are a barrier to conservatism rather than an enabler of it.
I see that one of the Woolwich killers spoke at a rally organised by Unite Against Fascism, whose most famous supporter is Prime Minister David Cameron.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/351147
c) tangential, but the UK natives who can afford it have been for many years fleeing London and heading West in a desperate attempt to escape diversity.
http://ukcommentators.blogspot.co.uk/2006/04/escaping-frantic-lifestyle.html
http://ukcommentators.blogspot.co.uk/2007/06/except-wild-wales.html
The USA really is unique in its absolute repudiation of ethnicity and blood-and-soil nationalism.
You don't know what you're talking about. Abraham Lincoln was a "blood-and-soil nationalist".
The USA is unique in that nobody knows it's actual history any more.
and who's fault is it that the UK has millions of immigrants, that are given free housing, when UK residents are left to struggle.
www.whathouse.co.uk
"Walmart wages are so low that many of its workers rely on food stamps and other government aid programs to fulfill their basic needs, a reality that could cost taxpayers as much as $900,000 at just one Walmart Supercenter in Wisconsin, according to a study released by Congressional Democrats on Thursday."
It seems to escape these Congressional Democrats that they want to do to America what Walmart is doing in Wisconsin.
Or maybe they DO understand it and they're just angry that Walmart is muscling in on their scam.
"This tragic history is the result of white people. For all the achievements of whites - from anesthetic dentistry to gadgets like the iPad..."
Somewhat new here, so I'm assuming this is the normal level of trolling to be expected.
Britain is a tiny country compared with the U.S.. How UK fit into American territory?
In the U.S., there is plenty of room for utopias, not in Europe. Its potential enemy can be your neighbor.
The territorial size of a nation can influence political decisions.
There are well known drawbacks to multi-party parliamentary systems. They have at least one good point. They leave room for parties like UKIP and others who see the advantage of actually representing the majority. Once British Whites sense that there is an organized, acceptable party representing their interests the Conservatives will either adapt to the new reality or die.
Legacy population Americans once could assume the GOP had their interest at heart. That veil has now dropped, but there is no other institutional party for Whites to run to.
For example, David Goodhart getting banned from the Hay Festival for being an immigration skeptic has gotten him good publicity in Britain ...
I think the British authorities determine which whites have effectively zero civil rights based on where they stand in the class pecking order.
See:
http://freespeechineurope.wordpress.com/2013/05/31/political-police-ban-bnp-for-demonstrating-but-dont-ban-uaf/
http://freespeechineurope.wordpress.com/2013/05/30/police-threaten-to-arrest-patriotic-shopkeeper-for-selling-offensive-patriotic-t-shirt/
I don't think there has ever been a time in the UK when the mainstream view was that illegal aliens should not be deported. I was flabbergasted when my 'nice white lady' American mother in law would talk openly about the help she gave to an illegal alien family in her little rural Southern town. That is just not on the radar for normal Brits. Likewise I still can't understand how 'nativism' can be a slur. Aren't 'natives' the default good guys?
A Working Class American bleated: Keep things superficial, steve.
Hunsdon said: This blog has many regular commenters whose contributions I enjoy. There are many with whom I disagree, but find stimulating. There's Whiskey, who's always good for a laugh.
And then, sir, there is you. You manage to combine ignorance with offensiveness and an entirely unjustified condescension.
If you plan on remaining, as, I fear, you do, I should encourage you to step up your game.
Goodhart is mainly concerned with British society becoming less cohesive. He is not opposed to whites babies being a tiny minority of those being born (which they will be before this century is out) as long as everyone plays the game. He celebrates how common it is for British whites to cohabit with black Africans, and looks forward to the offspring of African black men and white women leading the two major parties.
Rohan Swee:
"I do get the impression that the natives may be a tad more sullen and snarly of late. iSteve Englishmen, please fill us in"
The PTB are worried by the Islamist murder of the soldier in the 'Help for Heroes' shirt. Soldiers have a sacralised, romanticised place in English culture - from Kipling's "Tommy Atkins" on, but much more strongly since the end of the IRA terror campaign*, and I think promoted by the Blair government. The people love the 'squaddies', much more universally than Americans 'support the Troops', and they won't stand for this sort of thing. This desire by the people to protect the soldiers was the initial impetus for the formation of the EDL.
*Squaddies having to do slightly nasty things to loveable-rogue Irish terrorists was a bit of a downer for Brits. Having to do nasty things to Iraqis & Afghans, not a problem.
Generation X Fares Poorly During Recession, Says Study
By Abby Ellin
ABC News Blogs
June 1, 2013
gma.yahoo.com
...The study, using data from 1989 through 2010 collected by the Federal Reserve Board and the University of Michigan, found that between 2007 and 2010, Gen Xers lost nearly half of their overall net worth, an average of about $33,000, and also had higher levels of debt than previous generations...
What's more, although Gen-Xers... did see high financial gains as a result of the housing boom, their overall rate of home ownership is lower than that of previous generations...
Rohan Swee:
"I do get the impression that the natives may be a tad more sullen and snarly of late. iSteve Englishmen, please fill us in"
I pretty much agree with what Simon says.
It seems to have got quite exciting since the beheading. IMHO its as though the beheading has been like a miniature UK 9/11 in that it seems to have galvanized people.
This comes on top of the recent advances of UKIP. Whilst UKIP are far from perfect, they propose a five year immigration ban. I suspect many people are beginning to think there may be a point in voting again.
UKIP do not need to win any seats to hugely influence politics here.
Also, I'm probably unusual in taking an interest in whats going on elsewhere in Europe, like France and Sweden, but I can't help getting the feeling its kicking off all over the place which all adds to the feeling that something big may be stirring.
What Boles tells This Is Lincolnshire is purely for consumption in his Lincolnshire constituency. It would be naive to suppose that it reflects any real change of heart.
Why aren't they building enough housing? I keep hearing how high the population density is in England; how there's no room for development. Imagine my surprise when I lived there and found that outside the cities the countryside is dominated by sheep. Sheep fields to the horizon start just outside of London just after the M25. Lots of wasted space that could easily be developed.
Anonymous at 9:27 wrote:
"The number must be so small. Its ridiculous that we are guilt-tripped over them. The same people who want there to be 500 million people living here think the "Native Americans" should have had the whole place for probably 10 million people. Maybe a lot less."
It probably was less than 10 million. Estimates for both Canada and the US range from a low of 2.1 million to as much as 18 million. Canada's pre-colombian native population was estimated at 500,000. Today there are over 850,000 'pure' First Nation people in Canada. In the US, there may actually be more Amerindians than in pre-columbian times.
It's a moral thing.
"Racism" was turned into the ultimate sin to prevent White people defending their borders. However it didn't quite succeed. There are still a few things non-elites consider worse e.g. sexual exploitation of chidren on a massive scale.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/351147
The gradual exposure in the media over the last two years of muslim gangs preying on very young white girls and the cover up by the political establishment has shifted the moral high ground - not completely but enough to allow a more anti-immigration party to break through the middle and the GOP-equivalent party - which the guy quoted is part of - is haemorhaging support to this party hence the BS from Mr Boles.
However although it's BS coming from him he is still being *forced* to say it because the ground has shifted.
The same dynamic applies in the states. It's a battle of *morality* and the other side seized the high ground in a pearl harbor attack and no-one has figured out how to win it back but that's what it needs - their moral hand needs to be beaten.
ps the reason this story managed to get out despite the best efforts of the elites is Britain is more crowded and the BNP publicizing it.
Incidents like the soldier are important also but i think the sequence has been
1) child rape jihad
2) very sudden growth of UKIP
3) soldier
Oops added wrong link to above post. The correct link is:
http://muslimrapewave.wordpress.com/
This site has been collating all the local newspaper reports of the child prostitution gangs.
comment of 9:17 - I should have said "alleged killers" - they've been charged but not convicted. UK law is fussy about things like that, though the evidence is strong.
Hunsdon said: This blog has many regular commenters whose contributions I enjoy. There are many with whom I disagree, but find stimulating. There's Whiskey, who's always good for a laugh.
Funny, I do exactly the same. I enjoy reading Whiskey and Truth even when I disagree with what they say. They are often funny or at least amusing, and often (partly) right.
And then, sir, there is you. You manage to combine ignorance with offensiveness and an entirely unjustified condescension.
You nailed it. The DL 3.0 and 4.0 personas, like the DL 2.0 and 1.0 - I just skip over. I am one "rabble" that is not going to be "roused". The unjustified condescension is particularly annoying. I just look at the "Mixing Left and Right Is Forbidden" Icon and just shake my head (mentally, to save effort). If this guy was even somewhat inclined to read what is written here, he would know that even the most unsophisticated among the commentariat here are well aware that the left-right continuum is a concept that is not particularly helpful when it comes to mapping the policy platforms of individuals and groups, and frequently breaks down.
Anyone who has taken "The World's Smallest Political Quiz" (which would be most of us, I would expect) would know that, and if they are commenting here they would also know that this tool also breaks down as it is as much a marketing tool of libertarians as anything. We could devise our own iSteve or WN quiz to create our own "european vs everyone else" political quiz, e.g. a white vs non-white political axis that would probably be more useful (to us) than the unlimited ways one might divide up the electorate and the politicians into various alignments.
We are well aware that there are some in the MSM for whom the Republican = Left and Democrat = Right are about as sophisticated as they get, and that's what is just promoted, but DL N.0 is not to the iSteve comments section as Roddy Piper is to "They Live". We've put on the sunglasses already, we've taken the red pill, DL N.0 is not the messiah come to take us to the promised land.
But since I don't want to engage with someone who doesn't listen, it's easier to just skip over and engage with someone who is worth engaging.
anon:
"ps the reason this story managed to get out despite the best efforts of the elites is Britain is more crowded and the BNP publicizing it."
I think that the significance of the Muslim rape gangs is not just knowledge of their existence and that they're common (even a year ago I was still "Oh it's grim Up North - couldn't happen here though!" Now we know it's all over). It's the now-widespread knowledge that the authorities were actively covering them up and in some cases actively faciliting it, especially with girls under their 'care'.
Personally, I think I came across the story in 2003 when I looked at the BNP website. At the time I didn't know if it was true, I didn't particularly trust the BNP (I still remember "When we take power, all news will come from government approved sources"! in a story on their website about media bias), but I soon realised that the BNP were careful only to report stuff that was actually happening. So naturally I started wondering why this wasn't being reported in the MSM - was it being suppressed *because* the BNP were campaigning on it? AFAICT it only got reported, eventually, because the police finally convicted a gang.
It is quite interesting though that the ethno-nationalist right-wing is weakest in the UK among European countries. It is almost as though the country which was most successful in exporting itself across the world over the last few centuries was suffering from its overexertion.
I disagree.
The worst place in Europe for ethno-nationalist parties in Europe are Spain Portugal and Ireland, closely followed by Germany.
Britain isn't doing all that bad. The BNP and UKIP are essentially English nationalist parties, Scotland has the SNP, Wales has Plaid Cymru and North-eastern Ireland has the DUP (Sinn Féin are an ethno-nationalist party in the north and a Trotskyist party in the South). They have a big impact too, scaring the bejesus out of the big two from time to time. If UKIP didn't exist Britain wouldn't be likely to leave the EU in 2017.
I think the position of the immigration debate has genuinely shifted in the UK in recent years. The reason for this I think is that Britain is all about London and London is becoming both expensive and unpleasant as a result of immigration and this has pissed off a lot of people who count.
Another factor is that has dawned on the British powers that be have realised that they have made a colossal mistake importing so many Muslims. They're losing control of many parts of their cities and the don't know what to do. The Muslims are buying up commercial property too. The British don't have anywhere to move to like Americans do.
I expect that the mental shackles will be thrown off only moments before actual shackles are forced upon us.
I doubt it. At the moment the comments sections of major newspapers are flooded with nationalist sentiment, and that is the sentiment that is getting "green arrowed". If you sort by "best rated", you won't even read any anti-white sentiment as that gets red arrowed into the negative regions. Even in articles that are against us, our viewpoint gets across every day in the most eloquent manner. The best comments are elevated to the top of the heap as "best rated".
It's hard to argue that this is not the voice of the majority. I suspect that even the journalists and moderators end up being swept up in the nationalist sentiment. Formerly they weren't exposed to it in university or in the office, but now they are. And it persuades some of them. These become a fifth column within the fifth column.
It's only a matter of time before some major MSM outlets swing to be firmly on our side. I would argue that the Daily Mail is on our side already. It's not surprising that it's not a Murdoch paper, as Murdoch is a strong booster of the immivasion.
It's not as if they can throw millions of us into camps and get away with it in the internet age. It would only accelerate the growth of nationalism. And fortunately, the EDL protestors have been disciplined into not being provoked into violence, unlike the marxist scum on the other side.
Irishman - Im not sure the SNP are a real nationalist party. They, the leadership anyway, seem genuinely excited at the thought of importing millions of 3rd worlders.
The people love the 'squaddies', much more universally than Americans 'support the Troops', and they won't stand for this sort of thing. This desire by the people to protect the soldiers was the initial impetus for the formation of the EDL.
I note the war memorials in my area are now decorated with poppies, flags, cards and suchlike, some mentioning Lee Rigby by name.
No mention of this phenomenon in the MSM of course.
alpSteve Sailer:
The popular notion that Britain must have been a nondiverse cultural wasteland in the 1960s, the era of John Lennon, Mick Jagger, John Cleese, and James Bond, is a triumph of theory over memory
Ugh Steve ,seriously? Those popular culture icons are what passes for culture in your book?
Im sure Theodore Dalrymple may have an opinion on that!
I never understood this grovelling Anglophilia among white American HBD types.If you think that it is better than Judeophilia then you are welcome to it.
Ideally the only "philia" should be for your country.
However most English have only resentment and contempt for Americans.
From what I see, if Americans do something good,English say: "that is the legacy of Anglo blood ,drive and culture"
If they do something bad- "stupid Americans ,they have wrecked what we bequeathed them!"
The British establishment has been working very hard to develop a romanticized view of its immigration history. Anyone who disagrees is a racist and is probably in the BNP."
DVN: BNP is keen on wooing Sikhs.
Did you see the opening ceremony of the London Olympics?"
DVN: bloody awful
Didn't you know we would have died out were it not for the reggae and curry bought into this country saving us from both starvation and musical oblivion?
DVN: Haha! I never understood this cuisine argument when its used in favor of immigration.
Does one really need to import more than a couple of hundred restauranteurs at the most for diverse cuisines?
White people can't cook curry and they can't play reggae. Its a genetic problem that white people have, particularly the English. Anyone who disagrees is a racist and probably in the BNP.
DVN: Gordon Ramsay is doing okay with the curry stuff(though we call it masala) along with other ethnic British chefs
Dont know about reggae but England has its own blues which were homegrown in the coalmining regions I believe.
George Michael and Lisa Stansfield were talented enough in this genre for them to get praise and recognition from American black musicians
5/31/13, 11:27 PM
The housing crisis is particularly acute in the SE of England because so many people want to live in London combined with the circumstance that housing growth is severely restricted by the Green Belt around London. White flight, especially involving families, is a combination of the rise of minority-majority schools in London, and simply being priced out of the market.
Britain's lack of credible political representation for immigration-restrictionist parties, compared to other European countries, is largely explained, I believe, by the power and influence of the state-funded BBC, which is committed to promoting multiculturalism.
For all the concentration of the death of the GOP due to the growing number of non-whites, much less is heard about the like threat to the Conservatives. I heard a stat that only 15% of non-white voters backed the Tories at the last General Election.
"It's the now-widespread knowledge that the authorities were actively covering them up and in some cases actively faciliting it, especially with girls under their 'care'."
Yes good point, i should have stressed that as it's the key thing when i said it was a moral issue.
It's only partly that the rape jihad has undermined the elite's narrative of immigrants always being the victims. Far bigger is the damage to the PC elites claim to the moral high ground because they actively conspired to cover up thousands of children being forced into prostitution as it's the strength of their claim to the moral high ground which determines the strength of their other moral pronouncements e.g. on "racism".
.
"However most English have only resentment and contempt for Americans."
It's PC and media-sanctioned to be anti-american so it varies with how PC and/or media-following people are.
"i've heard arguments against immigration restrictionism made in britain in a similar vain to what you hear in australia, the u.s, and elsewhere. typically it will be claimed that there is no legitimate 'british' people because the british are a mishmash of different conquering/settler tribes such as the danes, romans and saxons (a falsehood in itself). the british, it is so frequently claimed, are mongrels that have no valid claim to indigenous status."
To quote the late Lawrence Auster:
To see the uselessness of the "nation of immigrants" formula as a source of political guidance, , imagine what the British would have said if they had adopted it in 1940 when they were facing an imminent invasion by Hitler’s Germany. "Look, old man, we’re a nation of immigrant/invaders. First the Celts took the land from the Neolithic peoples, then the Anglo-Saxons conquered and drove out the Celts, then the Normans invaded and subjugated the Anglo-Saxons. In between there were Danish invaders and settlers and Viking marauders as well. Since we ourselves are descended from invaders, who are we to oppose yet another invasion of this island? Being invaded by Germanic barbarians is our national tradition!"
Since every nation could be called a nation of immigrants (or a nation of invaders) if you go back far enough, consistent application of the principle that a nation of immigrants must be open to all future immigrants would require every country on earth to open its borders to whoever wanted to come. But only the United States and, to a lesser extent, a handful of other Western nations, are said to have this obligation. The rule of openness to immigrants turns out to be a double standard, aimed solely at America and the West.
Full article
DVN: I never understood this grovelling Anglophilia among white American HBD types.If you think that it is better than Judeophilia then you are welcome to it.
Ideally the only "philia" should be for your country.
That's a real puzzler there, DVN. Why do so many white Americans with HBD sympathies feel some affinity for the mother-nation of Anglo-Saxondom? It's almost as if we had some sort of genetic/historical/cultural relation to them.
I don't understand what you don't understand.
Hadn't noticed any "groveling", though.
However most English have only resentment and contempt for Americans.
Haven't seen this in my personal interactions. On a more global level, one can resent the hell out of the behavior of one's cousins, but they're still one's cousins (whatever the knee-jerk anti-Americanism and the ignorance of the U.S. of the Guardianista classes). Sane Englishmen rightly resent the pernicious effects of American power and cretinous foreign policy - something sane Englishmen share with sane Americans. (They also complain, like everybody else, about the messianic export of a more and more degraded political and social "culture", but they've lapped up its worst aspects so enthusiastically that can no longer really point fingers here.)
At any rate, I may be a son-of-a-bitch American to some Englishmen, but, for all that, and after two centuries separation, I'm still not seen as a son-of-a-bitch Johnny Foreigner.
From what I see, if my cousins do something good, I say: "that is the legacy of the Swee blood, drive and culture"
If they do something bad- "stupid cousins,they have wrecked what our parents and grandparents bequeathed them!"
Hope that FTFY clarifies things. (It shouldn't be news to a regular that a lot of the white Americans around here don't exactly share the neo-con sui generis view of America.)
Regarding the population of pre-Columbian America, the Jamestown settlers arrived to find a continent that was far more sparsely populated than it had been even 100 years prior. A century earlier, the Spanish had introduced Old World deceased to The New World, and they quickly spread to every corner of the Americas. The North American Indians, already less populous than the Indians of Central and South America, were hit particularly hard (the temperate climate and nomadic lifestyle probably resulted in less resistance to the diseases than was possessed by their kin to the south). Some estimates put the number wiped out in North America at nearly 90% of the pre-Columbian population. So the English settlers, ironically, had the Spanish to thank for the relative ease in which they settled North America.
The reason there has been this shift in the conservative position is the UK independence party. They are strong in the east midlands region (which is conservative and "blue collar") and they are campaigning heavily on immigration. That area has been heavily "enriched" by eastern Europeans in recent years.
Pure politics.
Ugh Steve ,seriously? Those popular culture icons are what passes for culture in your book?
Im sure Theodore Dalrymple may have an opinion on that!
I suspect they're what passes for popular culture in Steve's book. Popular as in 'of the people', not the high-culture elites that have done so much to degrade and denigrate the WASPish culture of the Anglo-American masses.
There's definitely an attempt by leftists to peddle the "Britain is a nation of immigrants" line. Ridiculous of course: ethnicity was v. stable 1066-1948. Huguenots, and Jews in late 19C were a (one-off) drop in the ocean.
To see the uselessness of the "nation of immigrants" formula as a source of political guidance, , imagine what the British would have said if they had adopted it in 1940 when they were facing an imminent invasion by Hitler’s Germany. "Look, old man, we’re a nation of immigrant/invaders. First the Celts took the land from the Neolithic peoples, then the Anglo-Saxons conquered and drove out the Celts, then the Normans invaded and subjugated the Anglo-Saxons. In between there were Danish invaders and settlers and Viking marauders as well. Since we ourselves are descended from invaders, who are we to oppose yet another invasion of this island? Being invaded by Germanic barbarians is our national tradition!"
I could easily imagine Churchill saying that in a mocking tone!
Ah but he would take such an analogy rather sincerely when justifying British dominion of India. He believed only the "depressed classes" had any right to claim ownership of India.
Therefore in his jaundiced view India was a non entity composed of hodgepodge of invading Aryans,Greeks,Persians,Scythians,Huns and Mughals
Why the British had as right to be there as anyone else!
DVN: I never understood this grovelling Anglophilia among white American HBD types.If you think that it is better than Judeophilia then you are welcome to it.
Ideally the only "philia" should be for your country.
RS:That's a real puzzler there, DVN. Why do so many white Americans with HBD sympathies feel some affinity for the mother-nation of Anglo-Saxondom? It's almost as if we had some sort of genetic/historical/cultural relation to them.
DVN: I would say its because white HBDers are a very silly people and dont prefer to ask themselves uncomfortable questions like why didnt Australia,Canada and New Zealand didnt choose to secede
RN:I don't understand what you don't understand.
DVN: Thomas Paine addressed this type of silliness when responding to proto HBDers among the English crown insisted that it was unnatural to Americans who were mostly of English blood to seperate from the mother country. Paine brought up Normans and enquired why England was no longer beholden to France and Germany?
It is one thing to acknowledge your roots, its another to view them through bizarre rose colored lenses.
RS:Hadn't noticed any "groveling", though.
DVN: Then you are not paying attention. What you white paleos and neocons have in common in the glorification of the British empire. Now I understand time may put a lot of things in a better light but c'mon. Most Americans of that era were dead set against the Empire, especially its conduct in India(5 million dead in engineering famines in 1940s).
Neocons happily invoke the Empire as a justication for their misadventures abroad and your lot provides them with moral cover with your Anglophilia. And lets not kid ourselves: white HBD anglophilia does justify the Empire.
RS:However most English have only resentment and contempt for Americans.
Haven't seen this in my personal interactions. On a more global level, one can resent the hell out of the behavior of one's cousins, but they're still one's cousins (whatever the knee-jerk anti-Americanism and the ignorance of the U.S. of the Guardianista classes).
DVN:Are they your cousins or brothers or your mother?Talk about loopy metaphors!
I met English Tory guys who were pro American for sure but even they thought the U.S was too religious/gun happy/patriotic yahoos - Basically boilerplate Democratic party talking points
RS:Sane Englishmen rightly resent the pernicious effects of American power and cretinous foreign policy - something sane Englishmen share with sane Americans. (They also complain, like everybody else, about the messianic export of a more and more degraded political and social "culture", but they've lapped up its worst aspects so enthusiastically that can no longer really point fingers here.)
DVN: You must be joking. British popular culture is far more crass and revolting than the American counterpart.Indeed most noxious American trends such as reality TV shows have their origins in Britain.
You shouldnt really be bothered by the opinions of those who gave the world the British Empire and yes it was a NET negative.
RS:At any rate, I may be a son-of-a-bitch American to some Englishmen, but, for all that, and after two centuries separation, I'm still not seen as a son-of-a-bitch Johnny Foreigner.
DVN: Silly boy. They only wish to live vicariously off you no matter how much they despise you for your power which they used to have!Now look at them-the Portugal of Northern Europe! You are still a crass Yank to them. You were once somewhat the same people but two major wars(including one where they burned down your capital) can change a lot of things.
If you are thrilled about England not being on board for U.S support for Israel, knock yourself out.
Yes the average English guy is very pro Palestinian but its much more than that. They are Arabists and have a serious hard on for the Middle East.
One could be forgiven in thinking that they dont mind the moniker Londonistan.
This is what happens when Anglican church turns into what it is now.
RS:From what I see, if my cousins do something good, I say: "that is the legacy of the Swee blood, drive and culture"
If they do something bad- "stupid cousins,they have wrecked what our parents and grandparents bequeathed them!"
RS:Hope that FTFY clarifies things. (It shouldn't be news to a regular that a lot of the white Americans around here don't exactly share the neo-con sui generis view of America.)
DVN: What makes you think I think this board is populated with neocons. Ascribing obtuseness to your adversary is always a bad move.
Neocons have got you to what Iraq,Afghanistan tops? Both monstrous entities created by the British BTW
Anglophilia led you to WWI,WWII. Churchill wanted FDR to invade Russia.
And there was that little matter of Tony Blair pushing Clinton into Kosovo and Margaret Thatcher warning Bush 41 to not "go wobbly" on Saddam.
Creating ANOTHER Muslim republic into Balkan Europe.Wise move that. This was a strong catalyst in the rise of Putin.
Now who cost you more blood and treasure for wars in which you had little part- those blasted neocons(who are still Americans btw) or your blood cousins who love you so so very much?
Rohan Swee:
"At any rate, I may be a son-of-a-bitch American to some Englishmen, but, for all that, and after two centuries separation, I'm still not seen as a son-of-a-bitch Johnny Foreigner."
Yes - Brits often resent American power and its misuse, but cannot conceive of any Anglospherians as 'foreign'. When my American wife first moved here, several times she met Brits who were gobsmacked that the immigration authorities' official rules treat Americans worse than third-world Commonwealth citizens, mostly south-Asians. Of course rules and actual practice are not always the same thing. In her case the BUNAC (British Universities North America Canada) scheme, nominally designed for six-month postgraduate jaunts, made moving here very easy.
The second comment from Anonymous nails it. The real comparison for America can only be Canada, Australia and NZ. And in all those countries you see open borders enthusiasm."
DVN: I can somewhat understand Canada,Australia and U.S. I mean geography does make a difference. These are among the top ten largest countries. But NZ?!
Keep in mind, those three countries are actually far more conservative in their founding history than the radical whiggery that created the USA. Plus they maintained their allegiance to the British Crown, and by extension to British ethnicity, for all these centuries. I'd say even India has more Britishness in its national character than America.
DVN: I remember meeting many WASP types from Mass and Conn who liked me a great deal since I knew a lot about Wodehouse ,British history and played squash unlike the majority of Americans.
They were somewhat disappointed that I loathed cricket though
The USA really is unique in its absolute repudiation of ethnicity and blood-and-soil nationalism. Which is why the American rightwing is this weird collection of idiots, libertarians and capitalists. Not a single respectable rightwinger who can compare with the Le Pens, or Netanyahu, or even Putin."
DVN: I like the American right wing personally though I agree they should pay some more attention (not too much) to white HBDs
U.S may not have a strict blood ans soil nationalism as in the old country but they do have "real"Americans as in the descendents of the four branches of Albion.
They are a minority today but their culture still predominates.
You will never have strong anti-immigration sentiment here. You can fight it all you want but it is inside you, written in your country's DNA... you can keep scrubbing at that foul spot all you want but it will never leave.
DVN: The Statue of Liberty/Emma Lazarus myth is a recent narrative.Before that and even after anti immigrant especially anti Catholic sentiment was very strong.
And statue of liberty actually had nothing to do with immigration but the liberation of slaves hence "liberty" .At the base of the statue are broken schackles which can only be seen from air.
It is quite interesting though that the ethnonationalist rightwing is weakest in the UK among European countries. It is almost as though the country which was most successful in exporting itself across the world over the last few centuries was suffering from its overexertion. Maybe identification with the empire and the Anglosphere weakens identification with the local.
DVN: Invade the world ,invite the world. That and Empire guilt on steroids.
I think the most hardy died off in WWII and Britain may have won the war but surrendered something more precious for peace..
Maybe universalism is a good strategy to propagate your culture for some time(white man's burden, bringing democracy to Iraq, expecting other societies to adhere to your conception of human rights etc etc), but also contains the seeds of its own destruction in that it makes you lose your self-identity. So global relativism combined with national particularism may be the best long-term pro-rightwing strategy.
DVN: Universalism done right ala Greeks and Romans did work to a large degree.
The British Empire while strived to be fair and just fell apart due to its greed and hypocrisy by making a mockery of its high standards.
The worst place in Europe for ethno-nationalist parties in Europe are Spain Portugal and Ireland, closely followed by Germany."
All these countries were ruled by either fascists ,Nazi sympathizers or in the case of Germany....
Also they are predominantly Catholic- the Church was not exactly neutral on the whole fascism issue.
England being the most civilized of the lot,their right wingers are given more benefit of doubt.
For discussion of the right in France-the other on Marie Le Pen
I'll take your word that your wife said this, but I won't give much credence to her judgment.
http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/10/timss-nclb-minnesota-oped-cx_dr_1211ravitch.html
"While the U.S. continues to rank well below the top-performing nations, Minnesota now ranks fifth in the world, behind only Hong Kong, Singapore, Chinese Taipei and Japan. While U.S. fourth-graders saw a gain of 11 points, Minnesota's students had a gain of 38 points."
If you adjust for participation rates, the strongest Math states in the US, in this order are:
Massachusetts, Illinois, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Minnesota, North Dakota, Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, etc.
Minnesota isn't quite as good as the Jew heavy Northeastern states (which tend to dip a lot in the unadjusted rankings due to their very high participation rates), but still is pretty good.
(There's about a standard deviation in distance in the adjusted rates between Massachusetts and West Virginia [the weakest performing state, below District of Columbia when adjusted), with Massachusetts about half an SD above the US average and WV about half an SD below.)
DVN: The line about British not being able to cook curry was sarcasm.
Yea I think maybe you aren't the best ethnicity to be judging which nation's right is the most civilized. Nothing in India is civilized so exactly how would you even know what to look for.
The Catholic church actively opposed fascism in Germany and tacitly supported it in Italy so I guess that counts as neutral. I know that the Catholic Church is a sore spot in India. All those dead Dalit corpses upper castes weren't able to step gleefully over.
The thing is for such a uncivilized nation you guys aren't exactly over-flowing with barbarian vigor either. Maybe its hook worm who knows. How long has that Communist insurrection been raging. But Indra Ghandi made Nixon wait that one time, because her plane was having mechanical problems one imagines, so I guess you have that going for you.
The difference of course is that England actually fought off its invaders. The irony dies when you actually let your country get conquered by people from 1000s of miles away. No Englishman, or Frenchman, or Portugese, or Mughal, or you get the picture (did I mention Denmark) asked to be allowed to emigrate to India. Nor did India allow them to. You Indians "tried" to resist and largely because your caste and ethnic divisions openly call into question which group India belongs to. Why on earth would a lower caste India fight for India when the Westerners show up treat him better than his fellow "Indians."
DVN: Are they your cousins or brothers or your mother?Talk about loopy metaphors!
All three work just fine in their given contexts. Are we going to have to send you into the sperg corner today too?
What makes you think I think this board is populated with neocons.
I don't. You've just worked yourself into such a state over the thought of the natural sense of affiliation that ordinary Englishmen and most white Americans commonly share, that it's impaired your reading comprehension.
So is it the white Americans or the Englishmen you're crushing on here, DVN? Because you sure do seem to be throwing a big silly gay jealous fit over this undeniable historical/genetic/cultural connection. ("Oh, girlfriend, you need to just get over John Bull, I heard him say the most terrible things about you!...)
Ascribing obtuseness to your adversary is always a bad move.
No kidding.
The difference of course is that England actually fought off its invaders.
DVN:Alright I would appreciate you not speak on matters of which you have very little knowledge as I will prove below.
The irony dies when you actually let your country get conquered by people from 1000s of miles away.
DVN: What irony? Whos being ironic?
To paraphrase madam Clinton what difference does it make where the barbarians invaded you from ?
Just FYI, Britain was first populated by Iberian settlers.
No Englishman, or Frenchman, or Portugese, or Mughal, or you get the picture (did I mention Denmark) asked to be allowed to emigrate to India.Nor did India allow them to. You Indians "tried" to resist and largely because your caste and ethnic divisions openly call into question which group India belongs to.
DVN: Hello genius. The talk was of invasions in the case of England as well!
And the "Britain" that resisted(and failed resisting) the Saxons was a very different one from the Britain that resisted(and failed) resisting the Danes.And that was a different "Britain" that resisted(and failed) resisting the Normans.
And that was a different Britain that resisted(and failed) the invasion of William of Orange from the Netherlands.
You missed being a colony of Spain only due to bad weather.
Why on earth would a lower caste India fight for India when the Westerners show up treat him better than his fellow "Indians."
DVN: Why on earth indeed? Why on earth did lower castes at the forefront at fighting the Muslims and later the British?
British coopted certain sections of lower castes and made the great bulk of lower caste far worse off by introducing large holdings to pay off collaborators and introducing bonded labor on an unprecedented scale.
Read the reports of Greek and Chinese travellers in India and they will tell you that serfdom and slavery was practically unheard of.
So you will forgive me if I dont go head over heels in admiration of English egalitarianism.
Furthermore your ridiculous assertions that Indians didnt resist is bogus. The fact that India is predominantly Hindu is circumstantial evidence enough that we resisted.
Islam which conquered southern Europe and the entire Middle East in less than 2 centuries took nearly 1 millenia to complete their conquest of India.
And as soon as they had completed it they were compelled to retreat due to Hindu Maratha resurgence.
The Dutch were conclusively defeated by Marthanda Varma of Kerala in 1789.They never set foot in India again.
The Portuguese were given a thorough beatings by various kings of Kerala and the Marathas and restricted themselves to Goa and one island no Indian had idea existed.
In 1960,the Indian army invaded Goa and made short of the Portuguese army.
The howls from England over how unfair that fight was deafening but also hilarious.
The English and French companies(or tried in their case) acquired India not just by force of arms but also fraud,bribery ,treachery and deciet. Thoroughly dishonorable tacts and methods but go ahead and pat yourself on the back for it and oh while your at it dismiss the 15 million dead Indians in engineered famine during the British Raj as cant make an omellete and all that old boy. Why, how else will us heathen savage learn the glories and benefits of English humanitarianism?
pip pip cheerio and all that you fatuous git
Yea I think maybe you aren't the best ethnicity to be judging which nation's right is the most civilized. Nothing in India is civilized so exactly how would you even know what to look for."
DVN: You will forgive me but Im not really interested in the opinion of ignorant twats like yourself when it comes to matters of culture and civilization.
The Catholic church actively opposed fascism in Germany and tacitly supported it in Italy so I guess that counts as neutral.
DVN: hahahahahahaha. The Catholic church "actively opposed" fascism. Seriously anon dude, you are a joke a minute. I see your historical knowledge remains as pathetic as before.
I know that the Catholic Church is a sore spot in India. All those dead Dalit corpses upper castes weren't able to step gleefully over.
DVN: Hey you know who else has sore spots. All those patients in hospitals set by Mother Theresa. She has recieved 100s of millions of $ over the years many of them from despots such as Haitian presidents but she had spent exactly zero on treating patients but simply transferred the monies to the already overflowing treasure chests of the Vatican.
I guess the Pope does need a new hat. And the Pope mobile doesnt run on holy water!
I guess I should be more understanding.
The thing is for such a uncivilized nation you guys aren't exactly over-flowing with barbarian vigor either. Maybe its hook worm who knows.
DVN: Shall we get into all the diseased that plagued Europeans well into the Industrial era?
You make one false assertion that we are uncivilized and then follow up that we are barbarians but as barbarians we are lacking in vigor.
I think dissecting the stupidity,contradictions and obtuseness in that short statement may take up a book but congratulations you are the verbal equivalent of a garbage compactor.
How long has that Communist insurrection been raging. But Indra Ghandi made Nixon wait that one time, because her plane was having mechanical problems one imagines, so I guess you have that going for you.
DVN: Look if you have to be snarky atleast give yourself something to work with. The above is pretty weak.Oh did I laugh at it but not WITH you.
And genius , it was not Nixon but Kissinger.
The communist insurrection is given strong political and ideological cover by Anglicized elites who studied at Oxford,Cambridge and Harvard.
They seem to love them there , well I say if you love them so much ,lets let them loose in those environs,what you say.
I lived in India for a quite a while and havent been bothered by Naxal violence in the least.
It bothers us much less than IRA bothered the English.
6/2/13, 3:24 PM
Hunsdon said...
DVN: The line about British not being able to cook curry was sarcasm.
I know Mr Hunsdon. But most American posters here, who unlike the Brtish, are unfamiliar with Indian food and how ubiquitous it is in England. So I thought I would throw in that info.
But Indra Ghandi made Nixon wait that one time, because her plane was having mechanical problems one imagines, so I guess you have that going for you"
Actually what we do have is her dad humiliating the Portuguese.
And preventing Islamic and Chritian imperialism is unmatched in world hisotry.
And THAT is what aggravates you, it stings you that we not only did not accept your childish theology of the Trinity but we defeated them ideologically and we are taking that battle to your turf if the crisis of faith and the increasing trend of cremation is any indication.
Honestly I cant think of a more disgusting concept than that of bodily resurrection. WTF?
Cremation is the way to go. Greeks,Romans and Vikings concur .I bring these up as obviously opinion of white people is more valid than any other!
Nope i couldnt be happier that India isnt Christian. Instead it is thriving in consequential countries like China. The only thing stinging my nostrils are the three guys currently taking a dump in the streets of Bombay. The decomposing corpses dont help either. Heres a hint champ when you have to compare your current culture to medieval european culture in order to create a positive comparison your culture needs help. Heres another one if your country didnt suck i wouldnt know how bad indian food smells because youd all still be in india where you cant smell the food over the dead bodies.
You know who else celebrates evicting the Portugese angola and mozembique. Make sure you build a few more atatues commenerating that feat. Ill look forward to their inevitable collapse due to shoddy construction.
I don't. You've just worked yourself into such a state over the thought of the natural sense of affiliation that ordinary Englishmen and most white Americans commonly share, that it's impaired your reading comprehension.
So is it the white Americans or the Englishmen you're crushing on here, DVN? Because you sure do seem to be throwing a big silly gay jealous fit over this undeniable historical/genetic/cultural connection. ("Oh, girlfriend, you need to just get over John Bull, I heard him say the most terrible things about you!...)"
DVN: Hahaha! Actually no. I like Americans and English people as well on a small scale(personal relations) and large scale(relations between India and the Anglosphere)
But yes I prefer Americans more.
Rather than the jealous girlriend I think a more apt analogy would be the battered wife syndrome(it depends on who you ask ,patriotic British will claim it is they who are abused while Americans will claim emotional abuse)
Of course there are "undeniable historical/genetic/cultural connection"( I notice you didnt address my point about Thomas Paines observation on genetic links).
You know who else has "undeniable historical/genetic/cultural connections?"
England ,France and Germany
India and Pakistan
India and Sri Lanka
Iraq and Iran
Japan and China
you see where I am going with this?
You are a new country and a powerful one.
But you seem to suffer an inferiority complex due to a lack of a long history and wish to latch on to the motherland's old world appeal and heritage.That is understandable. Understandable but dangerous.
National self confidence and cultural integrities are destroyed this way.
You taking solace in England's long history is absurd as the English taking pride in proto Saxons of Germany defeating the Romans under Augustus.
Create your own history and leave them behind. Even if they are pleasant people.
If you choose to pursue this anglophilia you will remain a cultural banana republic.
As an Englishman, I fully regard "my" and "our" history as encompassing pre-England Britain and pre-Britain England. I find it hard to imagine not doing so. Why therefore shouldn't an Anglo-American regard his history as reaching back across the Atlantic? Irish-Americans certainly do. Virginia Dare was born five lifetimes ago only. Less than three lifetimes ago the colonists were seeking only to assert their rights as Englishmen, not to renounce their heritage and form a new nation without roots or memories.
As Simon and others have said, Anglo-Americans, South Africans, Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders will never be fully foreign to English people. I sense this is a source of no little irritation to at least one poster on this thread, but it is a fact. Why would you expect it to be otherwise?
DVN, you don't need to pretend to like English people or the English nation when this is manifestly the opposite of the truth. I don't mind and I'm sure none of my compatriots do - our feelings will not be hurt and we can still discuss this or that civilly. But some honesty, please.
DVN:"Yes the average English guy is very pro Palestinian but its much more than that. They are Arabists and have a serious hard on for the Middle East."
?!?!
Um, is this bizarro-England you're talking about?! Pro-Palestinism is confined to the elites and the Far Left. The average Englishman thinks warmly* of Israel, and loathes Arabs.
*OK, not as much as Americans. But vastly more than most Europeans.
DVN:
"And that was a different Britain that resisted(and failed) the invasion of William of Orange from the Netherlands."
Yes, we fought bravely, but after he put an arrow in our Bonnie Prince Charlie's eye, we had to give up.
(Maybe you're thinking of a different William?)
?!?!
Um, is this bizarro-England you're talking about?! Pro-Palestinism is confined to the elites and the Far Left. The average Englishman thinks warmly* of Israel, and loathes Arabs.
DVN: Oh cmon! I am talking not so much of the appreciation of those joyless fundies imported from Pakistan but more of the picturesque sheikhs and Bedouins from Araby
The East coast WASPs inherited this Arabophilia from you and established American University of Cairo and Beirut.
Arabs learnt to articulate much of fierce anti Zionism from British and American professors,no they werent considered "left" at the time but very much establishment aristocrats
Yes Christian Zionism was invented in Britain.But like so many things invented in Britain such as soccer and cricket ,foreigners do it better these days
*OK, not as much as Americans. But vastly more than most Europeans.
6/3/13, 2:32 PM
Simon in London said...
DVN:
"And that was a different Britain that resisted(and failed) the invasion of William of Orange from the Netherlands."
Yes, we fought bravely, but after he put an arrow in our Bonnie Prince Charlie's eye, we had to give up.
DVN:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_III_of_England
Actually was speaking of this guy.
To be fair, he was sort of invited by English protestants.
As an Englishman, I fully regard "my" and "our" history as encompassing pre-England Britain and pre-Britain England.
DVN: Love your handle BTW!
How would you as an Anglo Saxon claim heritages that are not yours?
I ask this sincerely what cultural aspects did Anglos borrow from the Neolithic Iberian settlers or the Romanized Britons?
I am always puzzled that the English claim King Arthur,a half Briton Roman aristocrat who fought the Saxons, as one of their own.
"I find it hard to imagine not doing so. Why therefore shouldn't an Anglo-American regard his history as reaching back across the Atlantic? Irish-Americans certainly do. Virginia Dare was born five lifetimes ago only. Less than three lifetimes ago the colonists were seeking only to assert their rights as Englishmen, not to renounce their heritage and form a new nation without roots or memories.
DVN: The people land on Plymouth as seperatists but opportunistically decided to stay loyal to the Crown for protection.
When you form a new nation ,you do form a new nation with your roots and this decideds you sever a great deal of roots and memories of the old nation.
Otherwise the new nation would be no better than those Replicants in Blade Runner, running around with other peoples memories in their head!
Irish Americans cannot be compared to the seperatists.
The Irish were immigrants while the seperatists were settlers.
It was economic rather than ideology that compelled the Irish to move to America.
Therefore it is not inappropriate for them to have ties to their mother country.
"As Simon and others have said, Anglo-Americans, South Africans, Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders will never be fully foreign to English people. I sense this is a source of no little irritation to at least one poster on this thread, but it is a fact. Why would you expect it to be otherwise?"
DVN: Canadians,Australians,NZ,Cayman Islands, British Virgin Islands,Gibraltar,Barbados,Bahamas et al are fine and expected as they recognize the crown as their sovereign.
But America and South Africa? Not so much.
DVN, you don't need to pretend to like English people or the English nation when this is manifestly the opposite of the truth. I don't mind and I'm sure none of my compatriots do - our feelings will not be hurt and we can still discuss this or that civilly. But some honesty, please.
DVN: Mr Arrogant officer in Mel Gibson movie-you seem to have been annoyed by comments about the British empire and called into question that England was never invaded.
These were responses to arrogant HBD types who justified a foreign conquest of my country for my own good no doubt!
A common refrain that comes up was Sati and this is often used to highlight British humanitarianism
Ok, Ill bite.I will accept British rule for sake of abolishing Sati if you accept hypothetically a conquest of your country by Moorish Spain in 1300s say so they would end the dastardly practice of burning witches.
If you think liking the British people today entails admiration for the Empire then we have a problem.
There was enough to like about England before the Empire - Magna Carta,Chaucer,Shakespeare,Christopher Wren,Isaac Newton. All these had little to do with the empire.
You couldve been a great country with your gifts of exploration,science and trade but you got greedy.
You couldve dealt fairly with the native of Australia and America and expanded to mutual benefit but you didnt because you COULD overpower them and take it.
The ports of Calcutta and Madras were initially given to you by the local despots for trade and you couldve acquired more land by purchase and barter but no you wanted it all and you took it all because you COULD.
If you played your cards right, you could still those ports in India ,some land and heck even more islands in the Indian Ocean but you lost it all for greed.
Imperialism is a poison because it fosters a pride that is zero sum. This pride derived from power pushes aside all other pride and when you lose power,as what happened in late 1940s-1960 you sink into despair.
Oh sure Thatcher put some brakes on the slide down by siding with Reagan against the Soviets, prevailing over a tin pot Latin American dictatorship over a barren piece of rock(two bald men fighting over a comb) and pushing wobbly Bush 43 into the Iraq war but the slide is here to stay.
Nasty immigrants ,welfare state, cultural decline(as elaborated by Theodore Dalrymple),decline of military prestige are all symptoms not causes.
And just FYI ,forget about Muslims they are beyond hope, if Hindu and Sikh Brits support India at England vs India cricket matches yes I think they should hightail it back to their homelands if they cant cheer for the hometeam.
DVN: The distinction between English settlers and Irish immigrants is valid, but ultimately people are just people. The feelings of the two groups would not have been all that different (and given that the Irish arrived in a ready-made prosperous first-world-for-its-time nation state, and the English arrived in Deathworld, the English could be forgiven for cleaving far more closely to their roots than the Irish).
As for the Empire - I have no affection for any of it. I broadly share your views. I don't know if you're familiar with the original meaning of the term "Little Englander", but that describes me (and many others). I don't feel guilt about the settlement of empty-ish lands per se - I am pleased that Englishmen formed viable new nations abroad, albeit sad that this enterprise was not managed without squashing the locals. But I take no pride or joy from the despoiling of India, Africa etc. I wish we could have remained a small, prosperous, isolationist northern European state as several of our neighbours were (and still are, just).
Ref: South Africa. I mean the Anglo-South Africans, many of whom are now back here having decided that the game is up (and having done so much to bring that unhappy conclusion about). Many of this group in fact put down such shallow roots on the Cape that they now move among us again without registering as foreign in even the smallest measure.
Nope i couldnt be happier that India isnt Christian. Instead it is thriving in consequential countries like China."
DVN: What?!
The only thing stinging my nostrils are the three guys currently taking a dump in the streets of Bombay. The decomposing corpses dont help either. Heres a hint champ when you have to compare your current culture to medieval european culture in order to create a positive comparison your culture needs help.
DVN: Oh yes it does. I never said that it didnt. When did I claim that India is a paradise? LOL idiot. FYI Madurai ,Vijayanagar, Calicut for starters for considerd much cleaner than London or Paris of that era. Once again why should we grateful to the British exactly
Heres another one if your country didnt suck i wouldnt know how bad indian food smells because youd all still be in india where you cant smell the food over the dead bodies.
DVN: You say here is another one as if you are a delivering a zinger of Hbomb proportions when you only end up sounding more and more like a troll.
I know what Indian food is and what it is not.So you will pardon me if once again I laugh AT you and not with you.
And I wouldnt talk about corpses - your religion is based on venerating corpses.
You know who else celebrates evicting the Portugese angola and mozembique. "
DVN : Good for them. I reckon a semi retarded child from the interiors of Mozambique has twice your IQ(but he is still in double digits..tsk tsk)
Make sure you build a few more atatues commenerating that feat. Ill look forward to their inevitable collapse due to shoddy construction."
DVN: Perhaps so, as long as they fall on your head, I will overlook the corruption and sloppy work that Indians are known for just this once.
Arrogant Englishman said:
DVN: The distinction between English settlers and Irish immigrants is valid, but ultimately people are just people. The feelings of the two groups would not have been all that different (and given that the Irish arrived in a ready-made prosperous first-world-for-its-time nation state, and the English arrived in Deathworld, the English could be forgiven for cleaving far more closely to their roots than the Irish).
DVN: Actually its counter intuitive. Surely the experience with immigrants wouldve opened your eyes to it!
It is precisely because the Irish arrived in a first world modern nation that they cleaved more closely to their country than the WASPs did.
Isnt that what immigrants in England are doing today?
The Irish Americans in their melodrama tend to exagerrate the prejudice against them. The prejudice was really religious than racial apart from a few cranks who believed Celts were unsuited for the industrial revolution because they were mystical...or something
And its precisely it was Deathworld ,the Puritans had to rely more heavily on their own wits and immediate community than a faraway kingdom who was mostly indifferent to their success.
During the American revolutionary war, the British lost against the irregulars as they were unfamiliar with the terrain.If you are talking about blood and soil nationalism.The British certainly didnt fulfill the soil criteria and seeing how todays WASPs are a minority among whites ,even the blood factor is almost moot.
Arrogant Englishman:
As for the Empire - I have no affection for any of it. I broadly share your views. I don't know if you're familiar with the original meaning of the term "Little Englander", but that describes me (and many others). I don't feel guilt about the settlement of empty-ish lands per se - I am pleased that Englishmen formed viable new nations abroad, albeit sad that this enterprise was not managed without squashing the locals. But I take no pride or joy from the despoiling of India, Africa etc. I wish we could have remained a small, prosperous, isolationist northern European state as several of our neighbours were (and still are, just).
DVN: Of course this is not begrudge the tremendous advantage of populating entire continents with your people. I will give you that many who condemn you for your Empire are simply envious that they didnt have their own. For the most part Indians are exempt from this as its ingrained in our history and culture that any invasion of a foreign country except as self defense is sinful.
Arrogant Englishman:
Ref: South Africa. I mean the Anglo-South Africans, many of whom are now back here having decided that the game is up (and having done so much to bring that unhappy conclusion about). Many of this group in fact put down such shallow roots on the Cape that they now move among us again without registering as foreign in even the smallest measure."
DVN: Sad what happened to South African whites. They were aholes for sure but not monsters especially when you consider the horrors of the past century.
Actually the English dealt more harshly than other whites than non whites( most non whites who died in millions in famines in India or diseases in Americas died not due to malice but incompetence).
Not to mention the English treatment of Germans in WWI and WWII.
Churchill contemplated sterilizing the German populace and made a point of urinating in the Rhine
Boers who had humiliated English regulars were only beaten when the English coralled their women and children into a nifty little invention called "concentration camps"
When the British ambassador met his German counterpart in the 30s to complain about the same, the grinning German produced an encyclopedia with concentration camp defined "first used by the the British against the Boers"
Some trivia : One person who was decorated by the British for his service as a stretcher bearer in the Boer war was a young lawyer called Mohandas Gandhi
Post a Comment