It takes a nation to protect the nation
I'd discussed this with several people in the last few days, and would have loved to have written down my thoughts and observations over the Jubilee weekend. Thankfully someone over at Gates of Vienna has written down my thoughts, and far better than I could.
Whilst the BBC (and those who staged the Jubilee celebrations) made sure some non-white faces were highlighted at various events, those non-white faces were the exception rather than the rule. When the Royal Barge docked near HMS Belfast, the nearest boroughs to that location are all majority non-white boroughs. Yet there was barely a non-white face to be seen in the crowds. (Places like The City and the City of Westminster do not count as "real" boroughs, since most Londoners, and most people in any borough in Britain, do not live in such bizarre conditions of wealth and transience.)
And if one walked north east from Tower Bridge (which abuts the borough of Tower Hamlets), into the almost entirely Bangladeshi Whitechapel, there was barely even a union flag to be seen, let alone a street party. I came across one street party in a rich, white enclave (Narrow Street). And even there, the union flag was probably out-numbered by the variety of flags from other nations.
The future of the UK looks grim.
“Unity through Diversity”?
by Pierre Picaud
A casual observer opening up the current pages of Britain’s anaemic right-wing press is greeted by an unprecedented expression of optimism and positivity.
The source of all this rapture is the jubilee celebrations presently underway, which mark the diamond anniversary of the ascension of the United Kingdom’s most dutiful long-suffering monarch: Elizabeth II.
From Melanie Phillips in the Daily Mail, to Ed West in the Daily Telegraph, to Fraser Nelsonin The Spectator, there is a palpable sense of relief, joy even, at what is deemed to represent an unparalleled display of patriotism and national loyalty, the likes of which have not been witnessed in Britain for a generation.
As a feast for the eyes and an amazing technical accomplishment, the still on-going celebrations which began with a mesmerising pageant on the River Thames in London and continued last night with a gala concert on The Mall in front of Buckingham Palace, the events are a wonderful success.
(This essay’s title is drawn from the very moving speech given by Prince Charles, in recognition of his mother’s tireless service, at the conclusion of last night’s performance.)
The numbers attending have been dizzying to an extent beyond normal human comprehension: with as many as 1.2 million people lining the riverbank for Sunday’s pageant, mostly in the pouring rain.
The whole spectacle has spawned a new and surprising narrative of national unity and togetherness, which has come as a surprise and a relief to those commentators who had previously found themselves perturbed by and decrying the perceived fragmentation of British society.
Here were the public in central London, in their millions no less, unabashedly displaying and celebrating Britain and Britishness; with a Union flag hanging from every lamppost and waving from every hand, and not a sight of that hated blue-and-yellow EU monstrosityanywhere…
What a relief!
There is, however, one slight problem with this picture that no one is mentioning. A small boy tugging at his mother’s coat at the Emperor’s parade, aching to express a truth that can perhaps only find the light of day at somewhere like Gates of Vienna.
With the exception of very small numbers — that are in essence statistically irrelevant — whether you like it or not, pretty much everybody you see in the multitude gathered in London is white.
To understand the significance of this, one needs to know the demographics of the city.
Greater London, the largest conurbation in Europe, is usually divided into two geographic zones: the suburban ‘outer ring’, and the metropolitan ‘inner city’. London’s inner portion has been majority immigrant territory for some time, and as the years progress even the outer ring is approaching parity between immigrants and native inhabitants.
Thanks to publicly subsidised housing, with the exception of a few isolated pockets the centre of the city is mainly immigrant-dominated.
A visitor to the majority of the primary schools of the boroughs which lined the river down which Sunday’s pageant rowed, would see that the ethnicity which formed 98% plus of the audience for the jubilee, is represented as a rule in less than 10% (in many cases less than 5%) of the demographic makeup of the pupils of those schools.
Where then, one is forced to ask, were the parents of the rest of all these children, presumably a convenient short stroll away from demonstrating and celebrating their “Britishness”?
Why did they not seize this simple and convenient opportunity to declare themselves full, happy, and enthusiastic members of our grand multicultural society, when the vast majority of attendees had largely travelled much great distances in order to do so (according to train company reports)?
The cameras of the BBC, usually anxious to present a picture of multiracial harmony, and whose coverage of the events has been broadly panned as inane, clearly struggled in desperation to find non-white faces in the crowds.
Their failure to do so was even more stark as they linked to outside broadcasts of commemorative street parties up and down the country, particularly in places like Luton, where it was patently evident that wherever the English were in the minority only the English were doing any celebrating at all.
Where were the others? Our fellow “Britons”?
Those perfectly capable of coming out in their tens, even hundreds of thousands; for publicly funded Hindu Diwali celebrations in Trafalgar Square, or the Afro-Caribbean yearly carnivalin Notting Hill (policing cost to the British taxpayer: 34 million pounds a year), or Islamic Eid “festivals” in East London; were all conspicuous by their virtual absence.
This is not an Islamic issue, or even one truly of colour or race. It would have been surprising if any significant proportion of those celebrating this jubilee weekend were Poles, or any of the nearly two million Eastern Europeans who have come to the UK over the last decade, either.
The predominant skin colour of those attending the jubilee has merely provided visual confirmation of how comprehensively the social model into which decades worth of political and financial capital has been invested in Britain has failed.
To be clear: the English (unlike the Scots or Welsh to any similar degree) were told, not outright, but tacitly and subtly; through policy, policing, changes to educational syllabi, deliberate alterations to the cultural framework etc., that Englishness — their identity — would have to be subsumed, altered, diluted, undermined, even to the point of being questioned as having any true cohesive validity.
This was a necessary evil. It had to be done in order not to alienate or marginalise the millions of immigrants arriving mostly in the English portion of Britain, who “yearned to be part of our society” and to make a better life for themselves into the bargain.
Though awkward, this essential transformation would be worth it, and would in turn bring about a fresh paradigm of nationality.
Britishness would be elevated into a new and inclusive form of meta-identity that all could participate in and be welcomed by. A mélange-identity uniting and encompassing all comers.
This new paradigm in turn would have its own founding myths, as do all attempts to unite disparate ethno-religious communities. The myth that a person newly arrived from East Africa was “just as British” as any Englishwoman who might be able to trace her family back to the Norman conquest. The myth that one could achieve, “Strength through Diversity.”
Furthermore, these myths would be reinforced by numerous means.
Television “idents” and programs for example would subtly attempt to communicate harmonious multi-cultural unity, as in this collage. (Compare in particular the ethnic makeup of those attending the faux street party at the end of this BBC jubilee ident with those in thisCNN report of the genuine article.)
And thousands of farcical local council propaganda posters on buses and billboards would show a similar multitude of grinning multiracial faces, regardless of the theme. The golden rule of course being that the more outnumbered the actually English people in the photograph were, the more strained and enthusiastic their smiling had to be.
(This collection of picture exhibits shows the usual progression from the London boroughs of: Southwark, to Camden, to Newham, to Hackney, to Lewisham, to Tower Hamlets.)
This effort was so total and all-encompassing, that it was easy thoughtlessly to fall for it and assume it to be in part true. Particularly as every effort has been made, either by immigrants themselves or by positive discrimination, to advance newcomers through the professions so that they are now over-represented in medicine, media and the law.
Notwithstanding the fact, that the promotion of compulsory allegiance to this narrative has shifted over the decades from a gentle socio-political prodding, to a state of affairs where any who dare to forcibly question it in public face imprisonment.
But it was only required to force allegiance to this mind-set from natives… not, of course, from those who came; that would have been racially presumptuous and monstrously unfair. The one was supposed to magically facilitate the other.
But patriotism and national loyalty are based on the individual’s core willingness to sacrifice; and in modern Britain the balance of sacrificial expectation was set right from the start.
The state had to sacrifice to provide the benefits that would be received by the newcomer, while the immigrant was required to sacrifice and surrender, in exchange for the comforts and opportunities of their new life, well… what exactly?
In the interests of generating a nationally loyal harmony, every multicultural effort has been made to bend over backwards in the promotion of togetherness and inclusivity, up to and including the sacrifice of many essential characteristic elements of a thousand years of English and British history; right down to the abandonment of the most basic things like the promotion of our own language on the one hand, or judicial protections like double jeopardyon the other.
The children of the English, in the schools for which their parents pay through their taxes, are now compulsorily taught not the glories and accomplishments of their nation’s past, but primarily and chiefly its inequities, oppressions and “evils”.
This did not happen by chance. It was a transaction. A deal.
The accurate depiction of Britain’s majestic and impressive history for example, was to be abandoned in exchange for something. Deliberately disowning historical reality (like a thousand and one other such national cultural renunciations) was intended to provide an inclusivity that would in turn guarantee the delivery of an attached, benign and loyal immigrant population.
So where were they then: when a golden and simple opportunity presented itself for the demonstration of their new Britishness? Nothing jingoistic, or confrontational, but a four day series of events designed from the start to be achingly inclusive and multicultural.
Frankly? Our new fellow-Britons were nowhere to be seen.
When the chance arose to show how successful this theory of mutable national identity in fact was, in whose name so much has been forcibly lost, the results are startling — and, for those with an eye to the future, more than a little alarming.
The paradigm hasn’t changed. Our social engineers are either liars or fools.
People always only feel a genuine allegiance and loyalty to a place with which they have a pre-existing hereditary, historic or geographical investment.
The newcomers want no part of it, thank you very much.
Benefits? — “Yes.”
Sacrifices? — “Hmm. We’d rather not, if it’s all the same to you.”
And to be clear: the kind of sacrifice under discussion in this essay is not mounting the lip of a trench to advance into machine-gun fire in defence of your nation’s values or borders, but taking a couple of hours out your bank holiday weekend to stand in the rain for a bit with a flag.
This is the grim harvest we must expect from multiculturalism’s insistence that pre-existing identities should be encouraged to flourish rather than to adapt.
The British, and more chiefly the English, have received nothing in return for their sacrifice: of identity, of tradition, of heritage, and of culture.
They’ve been conned. Duped. The promised transaction hasn’t taken place: there will be no unity in the United Kingdom, and no guarantee of security as a result.
We will not see the likes of this weekend again.
Steve - it is islamists who regard immigration and high birthrates as a tool of islamification ! As for stats - if you've been on this site for any time you will have seen them - including in this very thread !
England may look green and pleasant but we are heaverly populated.
According to the 2011 census, the total population of the United Kingdom is around 65,000,000—the third-largest in the European Union (behind Germany and metropolitan France) and the 22st-largest in the world. Its overall population density is one of the highest in the world at 660 people per square mile, due to the particularly high population density in England (currently over 1000 people per square mile). Almost one-third of the population lives in England's southeast and is predominantly urban and suburban, with about 7.8 million
its also true to say the population in England has increased from, in 1971 - 45,870,100 To 2008 - 51,809,700 ( taken from national census)
We are waiting for the results for the 2011 census results so a comparison can be done.
The results from 2001 untill 2008 show a fall of 3.7% in the white british catergory. Untill september when the new results are shown we can't do much sumising. We need this figures to see if theres an exceleration in the population change.
There is also the guesswork needed for the ammount of ilegals in england. Not long to wait.
I'm glad your happy with the immigrant situation as it is now. What happens if the population is swinging prodominately toward a larger muslim minority. You say we should deal with the problematic ones know. I agree. The only worry i have is that we are not dealing with them now. And as the population and the religious balance changes, i don't see us dealing with it in the future. As the muslim population increases the problems will increase. Thats just fact. By the time we see a pie chart or a graph that shows the population is 20 30 % muslim, weather british born or immigrant, there will be no more discussions.
Lebanon's population is estimated to be 59.7% Muslim (27% Sunni; 27% Shia; 5.7% other (Shia, Sunni, Isma'ilite, Alawite, or Nusayri and non-Muslims with similar beliefs to the Muslim such as Druze, who do not consider themselves to be Muslims)), 39% Christian (Maronite, Greek Orthodox, Melkite Catholic, Armenian Orthodox, Syriac Catholic, Armenian Catholic, Syriac Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Chaldean, Assyrian, Copt, Protestant), and 1.3% other.
An increase in the muslim population normally means an increase in problems for all non-muslims. Lebanon is finnished as a christian country. Which is ok, things change don't they. The fact that christians have to move country, well thats ok as well, people emigrate all the time. The fact that theres more crime and persecution against christians doesn't matter either. Because that we're not allowed to aknowledge or talk about.
Main article: Lebanese diaspora
And if you have time read this.
Before we changed the UK we should have thought of the consequences. I'm one of those who don't believe we can turn things around. I believe civil unrest is just a matter of when not if. I don't care if i'm wrong. But after yrs of looking at the evidence, and looking around the country at the social changes, i believe me and people who see the same thing are right .
ALL WHITE ON THE NIGHT
It's funny 'cos it's true: Comedian Lenny Henry joked about the lack of black people at the Jubilee celebrations - and he had a point
As a gag at the Jubilee Concert, comedian Lenny Henry offered a throwaway line: ‘Hands up if there are any black people here. Right that’s three of us . . . let’s have a fight.’
But Mr Henry is not a fool. He knew what he was saying and it struck a chord with me, too. The reality was that during all four days of the Diamond Jubilee, the crowds were astonishingly white.
Disturbingly white. Dulux white.
Our country is changing colour, and will continue to do so.
Just look at London (these statistics are from the 2001 census): 783,000 consider themselves to be Black or Black British, another 866,000 Asian or Asian British, and 226,000 mixed race who may identify themselves as Black.
So in London — after all that’s where the main Jubilee celebrations took place — 26 per cent are black or brown. But if you looked at the crowds, the minorities probably made up just 1 per cent of the audience.
Why? I have four main reasons. Perhaps minorities do not consider Elizabeth to be ‘their’ Queen because she is white — it was the same in America for many voters until President Barack Obama came along.
Perhaps the majority in the black and Asian communities view the Queen as representing entrenched privilege, an issue the Conservative Party faced when it came to Polling Day. Perhaps many did not feel the sense of national excitement because their family history in this country did not start until after 1952.
Or perhaps they did not have their roots in countries that had imperial backgrounds, such as India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Ghana and so on.
The Jubilee was all white on the night, but for the Royal Family to survive it will have to embrace a changing country.
And if Lenny Henry had not been quotable as someone who made the point, would the august ex-editor of The Sun have been capable of writing about it? Or would the fear of being accused of "thought crime" have been enough to stop him from enunciating his observations?
for the record another piece on this theme is here: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/06/12/anarchy-in-the-uk/
author is Mark Tapson
England is wrestling with cultural – even literal – civil war with an unassimilated, radicalized Muslim element that openly desires to bring down the country. Combine this with “Occupy” movement riots, ethnic gangs, increasing racial assaults both spontaneous and otherwise, and a government that has civilized itself into impotence, and you have growing anarchy in the UK, as The Sex Pistols once sang.
Mr McKenzie says
The Jubilee was all white on the night, but for the Royal Family to survive it will have to embrace a changing country.
How are the royal family going to imbrace islam i wonder. Convert. Its quite ckear that islam will not except a christian queen as their head of state. As for weather we would see any Black or brown faces iin the future supporting the royal family. I have hope they will. I know a lot of Black lads who go along to england matches cheering england on as enthusiasticly as any white faced supporter. I think its just most of the black people who are starting to identify as being english, are young, and are less likely to go flag waveing. Also they may have slightly mixed feelings about weather they themselves are perseved as being british, or english. We also have to except that the generations that have been put through the education system since the 70's havn't exactly been encouraged to exhibit signs of nationism.
I have no doubt followers of islam will not embrace our country, but i;m sure as we get into 3rd 4th generation children of immigrants, we will see more public signs of national pride from people who are Black, but who are seen as, and identify as english people.
Condensed millk sandwhiches all round.
Steve, you dodged all of the questions I asked you, so I'll repost them. Can you please answer them this time?
1) Do you advocate that indigenous Europeans allow in so many Arabs, Asians, Sub-Saharan Africans and other foreigners that they become minorities in their own countries?
2) Can you explain to me why you believe that it is "racist" or "supremacist" to limit the number of immigrants coming into a country?
3) A very large majority of the British people agree that immigration numbers should be slashed. See link and link. Do you believe that immigrants should be shoved down the throat of the British people against their democratic will?
4) I take it you are not opposed to Muslim immigration. So it seems to me that it should be very easy to Islamize Europe based on your principles. Simply continue mass immigration of Muslims into Europe until they become the majority and take democratic control. Would you be opposed to a Muslim-controlled UK?
Steve Charls said:
John - I dont understand why you classify immigrants as either European or Non-European. Your prime concern appears to be the "indigenous" nature of the person, i.e. their race. To me race is wholly irrelevant. A family of Chinese moving in to the house next door to me is really going to cause me no concern whatsoever. However, if a family of Essex-born converts to Islamism move in next door to my my blood will be boiling. I.e. it is the religious beliefs and islamist values and behaviours which will challenge my moral compass more than the colour of the person's skin, racial background or place of birth. This surely is not an argument of indigenous or not, white skin or not, European or not - but Fascist Islamist or not!!
No I have no problem with Arabs or Asians moving to the UK - some (many) of them are actually Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, and atheists. I only have a problem with Islamists - have I not already made that clear?
I ask the question whether it is racist or not as you appear to use the classification of European frequently in your argument. I personally may feel I have more in common as a North European with a Siberian or Mongolian than a hot-headed Mediterranean.
I have a problem with people in the UK - whether British born or not (many of the July bombers and subsequent plotters were UK born and bread - being Islamist fascists. And going back to my banning cars cos people die crossing the road comparison - I would not stop migrants coming here, because 'some' of them have have been Islamists. The solution is to deal with Islamism in the UK - by statute and enforcement.
Immigration has been beneficial to me personally - both in my personal life and working life. Personally I moved from a very white location to a very culturally enriched area (South coast to London) - yes it may include crack dealers, but they aint had any impact on me and believe me I've lived in some interesting areas! Funnily enough you cant pop out in Portsmouth and buy a goat curry, rice n peas, a bowl of borsht, or some pierogi. I am also married to an immigrant! In terms of work it has enabled me to recruit into jobs which quite frankly not that many 'indiginous' folk appear to want to do and immigrants are quite happy to work their bollocks off in!
I see these could be one of those threads where every body has a different take, and could finish with every body in the end will have to agree to disagree.
For those who say Britain has benefitted from immagration. I think they are jumping the gun a little, we are beginning to see the negative effects now. How will it be in ten or twenty years time ? How long will it be before the problems overweigh the benefits? Also who has benefitted from immigration ?
We should look at the third question and a little bit of history. The British elite are those that benefit at he cost of the majority of the people, and the immigrants. Immagration and forced Immagration (slavery) has been used as a tool of the elite to get richer. For them mass immigration to not new, as an example just now there are two threads going on this forum, Malaysia and Burma, both place have ongoing problems between the indigious people and the immigrants which Britain imported as cheap labour, When Britain withdrew from both Malaysia, they they also left behind the immigrants, who the local people did not want in the first place. What we see now is a repeat of history, not in a far of place, but in our own back yard.
It was not only the British elite, the Spanish, Portugese, French and Dutch where also doing the same. The reason they where there is because S E Asia is very rich in natural resources, when they left, they left a vacuum where the local corrupt elite could take over, who then with the former European rulers to plunder the resources, leaving the locals and immigrants in poverty and to fight over tit bits left over.
It is ironical that all the S E Nations that once came under rule by a European Nation now today have very restrictive immigration laws
Britain should have restrictive laws such as Indonesia. Comparing Britain or Europe to Indonesia, when it comes to natural resources Britain/Europe are third world nations, and Indonesia is first world.
Britain cannot sustain immigration let alone mass immigration. Britain strength was in manufacturing and banking, 50 years ago nearly item you saw had a "made in britain" and it was rare to see a foriegn label, now today it is rare to see a British label.
I am pretty well gemmed up on Indonesian immigration laws, and they are extremely restrictive, but they are not racial in any way, in fact it is harder for a Pakistani or Afghan to enter than a European. nor do they violate human rights
Shiva you are probably right - we will finally all need to agree to disagree on some matters.
I would give one example of how it is not just the elite who benefit from immigration. We are an ever ageing population, with more of us living to an age where we lose our mobility and our memory and suffer from dementia. Those providing care for the increasing numbers of frail elderly often with dementia (many of which are in the public or not-for-profit sectors, such as housing associations) could not operate without the siginificant proportions of staff who have come here to work from places such as SE Asia, Africa and Poland. Having worked in the sector myself I can tell you that 95% of applications for all vacancies come from not only non-indigenous people, but people who have arrived here in the last 10 years. White British people simply do not apply for these posts (in the main) so this would present a real issue should the gates to immigration be completely closed. I would be interested to hear alternatives to staffing in this area of ever increasing need.
OK John, I will try:
1. Are you not so worried if white europeans (or even white Eastern europeans) are allowed in and make us indigenous folk the minority, or is your concern only addressed to non-White/non-Europeans making us the minority? I am worried that we do not lose our identity and culture as a group of people. I do not see either of those matters to be connected to skin colour, or non-Europeaness. No one can take my identity away from me, even if I am floating in a sea of Afro-Carribeans! People could deny/or try to deny me my culture, which is why I stated before that statute and enforcement need to ensure I have my freedoms (as listed in this site's constitution) - be they to occassionally dance round a maypole or to put my ankle bells on for a spot of morris dancing. I currently live in an area where ethnically I am probably in the minority being white and British born. This does not concern me unduly and I certainly enjoy its benefits. So "no" I am not specifically concerned about the mass immigration specifically of those who you site.
2.I might think your view is racist or supremicist as you repeatedly site "European" vs "non-European", which I take to mean race and ethnicity. As I have said previously, race and ethnicity is really not an issue to me. Culture and law however is, and I am concerned to think these are being jeapourdised by Jihadis!
3. Neither of your links appear to work. In the absence of these - yes people get worried about the availability of social housing, good schools places and unemployment. People also get annoyed of those who come here and take from the system rather than give. The Channel 4 survey on this a year or so ago gave a useful insight into the fact that Poles give some of the most tax/least benefits and Somalis the least tax/most benefits. The subject is more more complex than indigenous/non-indigenous.
4. I am certainly against anyone coming to the UK seeking to change the laws and principles which have been built upon over the centuries of our history and democracy, and also against those who allow this. It's another question whether absolutely every single muslim wishes to change the law of this land. I think it unrealistic to say every single one of them does, however, i think we all know a significant number do, and that the British authorities appear to often too ready to roll over and succumb to their demands.
And finally - no I certainly would not want a Muslim controlled UK, so on that we can certainly agree!!
North is 40 years behind in terms of "racism" ; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2158977/North-40-years-rest...
Sorry steve could you post a link to the c4 survey if you know where it is.
And could you explain this sentence.
Poles give some of the most tax/least benefits and Somalis the least tax/most benefits.
Does it mean the pole pay the most tax to britian, and recieve the least benefits, and somalis pay the least tax and recieve the most benefits. Just to clarify cheers.
I have done a quick search - it was from 2007 (hot time flies!)
Yes it was highlighting which groups of immigrants claimed the most benefits and which worked the most hours (rather than paid the most taxes as i stated before).
It came in for a bit of bashing from the Left for treting immigrants as economic units - how very selfish of us!!