Gloomy prognostications about the future of Europe seem to be flying thick and fast these days. It seems that everybody who is anybody, especially on the other side of the Atlantic ocean, is quite convinced that the whole European continent is riding on a one-way ticket to Palookaville.
Speaking for myself, I am not entirely persuaded. Certainly the combination of demographic decline and economic and political sclerosis means that Europeans have some very difficult choices galloping over the horizon towards them. But that is not the same as saying that they are all doomed and done for. Who is to say that they will not make the right choices?
Well, British historian Niall Ferguson for one. In his reading of the entrails, choice does not even come into it:
The fundamental problem that Europe faces, more serious than anything I’ve mentioned so far, is senescence. It’s a problem that we all face as individuals to varying degrees, but from society to society the problem of senescence, of growing old, varies hugely. In the year 2050, which is less remote than it may at first sound, current projections by the United Nations suggest that the median age of the European Union countries, the EU 15, will rise from 38 to 49.
There is only one way out for this continent, and that is immigration. There is an obvious source of youthful workers who aspire to a better standard of living. All around Europe there are countries whose birth rate is more than twice the European average, indeed, significantly more than twice. The trouble is that nearly all these countries are predominantly Muslim.
So far, so what? There is nothing here that is not being editorialised about in much of the press. But Ferguson takes matters a little further.
The reality is–and it is perhaps the most striking cultural phenomenon of our times–that Western and Eastern Europe are no longer in any meaningful sense Christian societies. They are quite clearly post-Christian–indeed, in many respects, post-religious–societies. In the Netherlands, Britain, Germany, Sweden, and Denmark, less than 1 in 10 of the population attends church even once a month. A clear majority do not attend church at all. There are now more Muslims in England than Anglican communicants. More Muslims attend mosque on a weekly basis than Anglicans attend church. In the recent Gallup Millennium Survey of Religious Attitudes conducted just a couple of years ago, more than half of all Scandinavians said that God did not matter to them at all. This, it seems to me, makes the claim to a fundamental Christian inheritance not only implausible but also downright bogus in Europe. The reality is that Europeans inhabit a post-Christian society that is economically, demographically, but, in my view, above all culturally a decadent society.
They cannot, though they will try, resist forever the migration that must inevitably occur from south and from east. They will try. Indeed, they try even now to resist the migration that really ought legally to be permissible from the new member states to the old member states after May the 1st. Even that has become contentious. Increasingly, European politics is dominated by a kind of dance of death as politicians and voters try desperately and vainly to prop up the moribund welfare states of the post-Second World War era, but above all to prop up what little remains of their traditional cultures.
I understand Samuel Huntington is worried that Mexican culture is taking a firm root in this country and shows no sign of being dissolved into the traditional American melting pot. I read an alarmist article by him in Foreign Policy this week. Well, I have good news for him. Long before the mariachis play in Harvard Yard, long before that, there will be minarets, as Gibbon foretold, in Oxford. Indeed, ladies and gentlemen, there already is one. The Center for Islamic Studies is currently building in my old university a new center for Islamic studies. I quote: “Along the lines of a traditional Oxford college around a central cloistered quadrangle, the building will feature a prayer hall with traditional dome and minaret tower.” It will open next year. I wonder what Gibbon would have said.
At the risk of grossly misrepresenting him, Ferguson appears to be of the view that faith matters. Or, if nor ‘faith’ as such, then perhaps ‘spirit’.
Few serious analysts of my acquaintaince make any attempt to examine the role of religion in civilisation and, as a wholly secular individual, I must admit that I do not give it a great deal of thought either. But maybe that is to overlook the importance of religion as a sort of civilisation catalyst.
Ferguson clearly indicates that Islam is poised to rush into the vacuum left by the soon-to-be-departed Christianity but even he does not suggest that this means the ‘end’ of Europe as a civilisation. Merely that the Europe of a hundred years from now will be an altogether diffierent place from the Europe of a hundred years ago.
If faith plays a key role in bolstering a successful civilisation then could Islam give Europe that new lease of life? Or will it simply be North Africa with pine trees?
[My thanks to the Brothers Judd for the link.]
David,
Niall Ferguson’s view is compelling but he stops well short of saying the necessary. It only takes seven words: We do not want an Islaamic future.
Those seven words, together with other similarly brief and to-the-point, bottom-line positions, will eventually be heard and heard with mounting frequency. Once the lid of ethnic discontent come off it’s the very devil to put it back – and we won’t want to.
As I’ve said before, this gloomy and probably over-familiar prognostication of mine has nothing to do with the attractions of libertarianism or even the economic of senescense. It is about a left political elite driving the English towards a future they will most certainly reject. When they feel it cannot be averted or ameliorated by political means they will do one of two things:-
a) make the best of it, which probably only means a rural balkanisation whilst slipping into a long, embittering struggle for control, then influence, then survival, or
b) surprise us all and militarise.
Sorry guys, I know a lot of you think brown skin is supremely irrelavent. But what you think isn’t the point. People DO tend to try to hold to what they have, especially countries, and so, I feel, will we.
I think the link with faith and the vitality of of a civilization is in its persistant values. The post-Christian values of France focus on the satisfaction of the individual, hence the spectacle of morgues overflowing with elderly heat casualties this past summer, while their children refused to cut short their vacations.
There are few ideal Christian societies to compare this to, except periods of “revival” such as the one lead by Jonathan Edwards in the 1700s in New England. The US, despite it’s own decadent mass media, has had a series of revivals in it’s history, 2 before the Revolutionary War, another before the Civil War, and yet another major one at the beginning of the the 20th Century. It’s interesting that these coincided with social change involving freedom.
I’m a Christian, but I’ve seen time and again that the Judeo-Christian values in Western Civilization allow for a kind of common grace that enables atheists and agnostics to be strong proponents of absolute moral values without feeling a need to attribute them to a Divine source. In secular Europe however, there seems to be no resisting the moral relativism that has thrown away the yardstick that measures our behavior, and IMHO, accounts for the callousness and “senescence” of Europe
I’m afraid that if Europe doesn’t experience some kind of revival, Islam will fill the vacuum of values.
Thank you for posting this Mr Carr.
Guessedworker, you just beat me to it! There may be and probably is much to worry about in the context of an aging population and what it will, almost certainly, do to our economy. Political parties are elected to govern on our behalf and receive a mandate from the voters based upon their manifesto but much of what they undertake to achieve is not included in their manifesto – or only in the vaguest terms. It is, therefore, incumbent upon them to listen to public opinion and amend their ambitions accordingly no matter how logical they may appear to be.
The current debate about immigration shows clearly that a great majority of the electorate recognise that some immigration is necessary but want no part of Muslim immigration and are, in fact, unhappy about the present Muslim population. Our political leaders need to bow to the will of the people.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll keep on saying it until somebody gets fed up and smacks me upside the head: the only reason the West needs a growing population of young people is to prop up the Ponzi scheme that is Social Security.
There is another way Old Europe could increase their population. English speakers do it all the time. But the French couldn’t copy those Damned English Shopkeepers or those Evil American Cowboys, could they? What is this secret technique? They could have SEX.
Perhaps the Continentals should encourage a different sort of immigration, say evangelical Christians from North America. Missouri Synod Lutherans for Germany and Scandinavia, African Baptists for France, and Mormons on bikes for everyone…
This is pretty much what I’ve thought for several years now, but expressed rather better than I could manage.
The bulk of the people need religion, or at least they need some form of moral guidance that they don’t need to think too much about. The decline of Christianity in Europe, especially Western Europe, has been matched by an increased interest in paganism, wicca and other more or less esoteric religions as well conventional religions like Islam. It seems quite plain to me that Islam, wicca, paganism et al are merely filling the moral vacuum.
All societies, without exception (that I’m aware of), rise, reach a peak of power and influence, and then decline. Indeed societies and corporations, like people, get senile. The European powers did this some time ago, America is in the decline stage now. China and India are in the ascendant. I think a major symptom (or perhaps cause) of the decline is a loss of confidence in the culture of the society in question, probably caused by declining marginal economic advantage and consequent relative decline in global or regional power and influence. This loss of confidence is, in the contemporary west anyway, demonstrated by the rise of political correctness, multiculturalism and moral relativism. These are symptoms of a deeper problem, not problems in themselves.
Attempts to boost the “native” population won’t work if the society is morally and culturally weak in the first place. Numbers don’t make a culture strong, but lack of them can exacerbate weakness.
There is undoubtedly a major problem in the west with Islam, another thing I’ve maintained for a couple of decades now. I thought at the time the west should really have supported the USSR in Afghanistan, since the Communist system was doomed to fail in time anyway (making the strategic problem of Ivan washing his boots in the Indian Ocean (only one of the reasons Russia was there, and not the most important) less significant) but in the meantime they could have been very useful in limiting radical Islam. As it turned out, western attempts to counter Soviet attempts to counter Islam merely increased the strength of the radicals (this sentence makes grammatical sense, honest).
I do think there is a constant tussle between liberty and authoritarianism. Some forms of authoritarianism are less bad than others (cf. Soviet Communism and the Taliban, for example – which one would you rather live under?), and so sometimes it is necessary to side with bad guys to defeat worse guys. We tend in the west to shrink from this now, and become terribly sanctimonious when someone decides to do it. The tussle now is between liberal democracy and religious fundamentalism. It can’t be ignored, and I really do think it is us or them.
There needs to be less had wringing in the west about the poor benighted foreigners and some more assertion of basic civilised values. A willingness to break some heads when necessary and not worry about it too much is also lacking.
I don’t think this is too likely to happen, and I suppose we will therefore deserve what we are likely to get as a result of our spineless moral cowardice.
EG
More children
What is it about the low birthrates for native born europeans?
Socialism reduces the desire to have kids? Increases the costs?
When these hardworking, taxpaying immigrants start flooding in and save our top-heavy society, can we return to worrying about how overpopulated the country is?
I’ve been saying for some time that Europe (meaning the continent) is finished. It’s old, it’s dying, it’s totally irrelevant. Like a bunch of fussy old men, they busy themselves making fidgety little treaties with one another and discussing irrelevancies while the world soars by.
How long is it since Europe had a new invention that the world took to its heart? An innovative way of doing business? The world’s not interested, which is why they have to guard their trade with one another so jealously.
A large rise in their Muslim population (which the people most assuredly do not want, by the way – although about the Spanish, who knows?) will cause an acceleration in the decline because Muslims are not forwarding looking people and they are not notoriously inventive, as the Anglosphere is, and their society is not fluid, as ours is.
I see Europe sinking to around the South American level of importance to the world. It has already abdicated the ability to defend itself.
Once Tony Blair goes to that big coronary ward in the sky and we get a more representative government in, three things should happen with lightning speed. First, the notion of our signing onto the Titanic via a European “constitution” should be noisily trashed for good, and Britain should start repatriating the powers it ceded to Brussels. This means unilaterally. We will not care whether they agree or not. If they’re not nice about it, we’ll take our trade elsewhere, as we buy more from the continent than we sell. (And let’s face it: they’ll be happier without us. We’re the fly in the ointment. Leave them alone and let them get on with their own decline, but include us out.) We cannot afford to be a small island offshore a continent with a huge and growing Muslim population with the right to abode.
Two, out of the UN Convention on asylum seekers or whatever its correct name is. Too bad, but life’s like that. The drawbridge should be clanked up. (We should, instead, be helping them make their native countries more appealing to stay in.) And out of the Human Rights Act – meaning the repatriation of legislative powers from judge-made law. This does not mean that we would never take in another human soul – we were right to take in thousands of Jews after WWII, and they have assimilated and prospered, to all of our benefit. The same goes for the E African Indians. But it must be the will of the electorate, not supranational apparatchiks.
Third, a massive effort, perhaps involving the military as the police force doesn’t have enough manpower, to round up and deport every illegal immigrant in Britain, and the imposition of harsh terms of entry at the ports/airports. No amnesties as that only encourages the others. Everyone in Britain without a legal right to be in the country, out. Undocumented people, out.
Finally, I get bashed around the head and shoulders every time I bring this up, but I would like to see Britain apply to be a state of the United States. All their systems are better than British systems and not so easily subverted. No single elected person in the US could have the power to impose the destructive tranzi, Gramscian overlay that Blair has imposed on Britain’s fabric, and this must never happen again. I know Americans feel their democracy is slipping away from them, but compared with Britain, they are breathing the pure oxygen of freedom.
Spirit is another way of saying morale. America has it. Read Oriana Fallaci’s “Rage and Pride” to find out why.
Blair is doing his best to kill morale in Britain.
‘Course Bush is only tolerably better. Well at least he is enlarging the economic pie.
I’m betting on North Africa with trees.
Two reasons. Britain no longer believes in British culture. Socialism with its current multi-culti drivers.
The only way to actually absorb the new guys is with a roaring economy. Once people get jobs they have to associate with their fellow citizens every day. Overtime there is an interchange.
Real jobs, in the real economy is the secret of the American melting pot. No jobs no melting pot.
Socialism kills jobs. Living large on the dole does not get new comers integrated into society.
America is at the top no doubt. But to think even at the top America is at its peak is in my opinion not exactly correct.
We are starting to squeeze the socialists out here.
You fail to take into account the grattitude of 18 million Iraqis. Fifty million Iranians. India and parts of China. Just like post WW2 a lot of people have America in their dreams. There are a lot of people in the world coming of age who are very happy the Anglos kept the lights burning. (Thank you Winston, thank you who suffered )
Such sentiment gave America a 40 year boost post 1945 which is just now in steep decline in some parts of the world but rising in others. (Eastern Europe) and just starting to evidence in new places.
America is at its peak. It is no where near beginning to decline in power.
Part of the reason is China. Because of the one child policy they have a huge demographic problem coming in about 20 years. They will start aging at the rate of 9 or 10 months every year. They got a lot of problems.
India is not too great a problem because in its own way it is British. We will get along with each other.
America has a lot to thank the British people for. Here is hoping in the years to come you are well and prosper.
OK – Europe’s demographic decline, you’ve pressed one of my hot buttons.
Here’s a relevant citation from Oswald Spengler’s ‘The Decline of the West’, not yet on the web as far as I can tell:
“The abundant proliferation of primitive peoples is a natural phenomenon, which is not even thought about, still less judged as to its utility or the reverse. When reasons have to be put forward at all in a question of life, life itself has become questionable. At that point begins the prudent limitation of the number of births. The primary woman, the peasant woman, is mother. The whole vocation towards which she has yearned from childhood is included in that one word. But now emerges the Ibsen woman, the comrade, the heroine of a whole megalopolitan literature from Northern drama to Parisian novel. Instead of children, she has soul-conflicts; marriage is a craft-art for the achievement of “mutual understanding”. It is all the same whether the case against children is the American lady’s who would not miss a season for anything, or the Parisienne’s who fears that her lover would leave her, or an Ibsen heroine’s who “belongs to herself” – they all belong to themselves and they are all unfruitful. […]
… there is an ethic for childless intelligences, and a literature about the inner conflicts of Nora and Nana.
At this level all civilisations enter upon a stage, which lasts for centuries, of appalling depopulation. The whole pyramid of cultural man vanishes. It crumbles from the summit, first the world-cities, then the provincial forms and finally the land itself, whose best blood has been incontinently poured into the towns, merely to bolster them up awhile. At the last, only the primitive blood remains, alive, but robbed of its strongest and most promising elements. This residue is the Fellah type.”
And as regards faith, the problem is that without the Kirche you won’t get European women to have the Kinder.
Cedant arma uteribus.
Verity: I don’t see Britain’s future as a US state but it could possibly save itself from the tranzi-Islam alliance by entering into a kind of free trade zone bloc alliance with the US and Australia (maybe Western Canada as well — Eastern Canada is under the firm grip of the tranzis.)
Any European who thinks that his civilization will survive in any recognizable form when Europe becomes Islamic is living in cloud kookoo land.
Islam is an extremely culturally destructive force. Ask yourselves how and why the people of the Pharohs, the Phoenecians and the Mesopotamians, the Carthaginians, all these ancient people we read about only in history books, have been transformed into “Arabs?” This is the future of the Dutch and the Scandinavians and the French and the Germans and even the proud Britons. To become footnotes in volumes about ancient people. Maybe some day, some future Mel Gibson will be making a movie with the “ancient” language of French or German and we’ll all marvel that pockets of people still speak it in the “Arab” lands of Al-Franzia and Al-Alemagne.
It is very frightening to me what is happening in Europe. I hope I don’t live to see the day when the contents of Louvre, the Tate and the Vatican are destroyed. I hope you guys will give it over to us for safekeeping when the deluge starts to happen.
Please Europe! Stop committing cultural suicide. Find the will to live. The entire world will lose an incredibly rich cultural heritage.
PS Verity — One thing I think the Blair government is correct about is allowing the Eastern Europeans to immigrate. They will assimilate quickly and help offset the Islamic demographic juggernaut in Britain. They are no threat to Britain’s cultural heritage or democratic institutions.
Of course, I can’t approve of the underhanded immigrantion shenanigans that were recently exposed. But I would hope that Britain’s unfortunate experience with Islamic immigrants will not put it off all immigration — especiallly an immigration wave that can help mitigate the Islamic wave.
Afternoon Charles,
I remember back in the days of B.J.Vorster the National Party urged South African women – whites of course – to have more children and ameliorate the growing imbalance with the youthful black population. The Boers were religious enough. But it was a hopeless and ignorant non-solution, as you would know only too well.
You probably also know that there’s some wild talk in SA about what might happen when Mandela dies. Top of the nightmare list is a wipe-out, maybe not immediately but after a change of President. True or false, there’s not a single white population that can claim with certitude that what it sees as its homeland will be known as such by the end of the 21st century.
Here, the age-profile/declining birthrate issue is not the real issue. It merely enables us to dance around the real issue without naming it. At its core, the problem is that our politicians are willing for us to share our country with aliens, and have been so since 1948. If one is willing to share one’s homeland one has already grown careless over its possession. One has already fallen under the spell of the American myth, which is not our myth, and allowed the censorious left to permit us our thoughts and speech.
We have forgotten ourselves. And the rest, under the circumstances, is a matter of time and demographics.
As to whether this matters or not I leave to the individual conscience of the reader. But for the avoidance of any doubt as to mine, I believe it matters very, very, very much indeed.
Hello, Susan, and you’ve disagreed with me on this point – statehood – before. But if Britain is to be a tiny offshore island off a continental mass largely – or even just “very” – populated by Muslims, we must formally belong to a larger nation. Not that they could best us in an armed fight, but they could trickle in, as they do now. Police estimate that London alone has around 250,000 illegals floating around in it. Assuming the police are lying so as not to frighten the horses, double it and say half a million. And then there are the couple of million – or more – legals.
If Europe becomes Muslimised over the next 50 years or so, both through legal and illegal immigration and breeding, we are going to need body mass. That is the United States. It won’t stop us being any less British, and we’re halfway there in language, thought processes and habits anyway.
The Americans would probably even find a way for us to keep our royal family.
I don’t think we should fight Islam because the world would lose a cultural heritage. We should resist it because it’s primitive, aggressive and theistic. And we like ourselves better than we like them.
BTW, I am not totally convinced this will happen in Europe. Certainly the French voters are very clear in their minds that they don’t want any more in and that the ones who are here should be forced to assimilate or get out. A victory for M Le Pen’s party is not impossible – (Dissident, do you agree?) – especially now his daughter has taken over and has softened the rhetoric. I do feel, though, that the politicians in Europe are so mired in their radical lefty politics that it will take them too long to get the point.
On the other hand, Holland has pulled up the drawbridge and said no more immigrants for a minimum of four years, and that includes “asylum seekers”. They’re also now insisting that “immigrant” children (born of Dutchborn parents who never integrated) will have to learn in Dutch and forget all this multiculti crap. Also, they’re putting a stop to adolescent boys taking a year off from school to become “more familiar with the land of their parents (grandparents).” From now on, they stay in school and stay in Holland until they graduate.
PS – Susan, I don’t know whether you’ve visited Britain, but it is a tiny country with a population of 60m. It really cannot take any more people unless the whole country is to be concreted over. Yes, of course, Europeans are far preferable to Islamics, but this is a very small country – it could fit into Texas 3 1/2 times. But yes, of course, if it has to be one or the other, there is no contest.
Verity — I don’t think I’ve ever discussed British-US statehood with you before. You must be confusing me with someone else.
I wouldn’t have a problem with it as an American because we Ameros need “body mass” too. There’s a seperatist movement of Albertans in Western Canada who want to join the US too btw. Alberta’s where the oil is — a “win-win” for all involved!
But I don’t think British people would go for it. Britain is a proud nation. It should be no one’s colony or adjunct. It should find a way to stand on its own as a separate nation.
RE: the royal family — not a problem. The Princess of Hawaii still gets a state holiday and a lot of ceremonial stuff. But Yanks won’t put up with all the curtseying and bowing 🙂
Re: small island. I really wasn’t aware that Britain is so small relative to US states. It looks pretty big on the global map. But maybe I’m just exaggerating its size in my mind because I’m adding in Britain’s huge, brave heart?
France and Germany should have taken in the bulk Eastern Euros. They have more geographical room and even worse demographic Islamic problems than Britain.
Brtain should press its ancient claim to Normandy & Calais and move the Eastern Euros there if she needs more room 🙂
Also Verity, a small logistical problem — I don’t think you can fit 51 stars on the flag in any way that makes decent design sense. That’s one of the main reasons why we stopped at 50.
So, it would seem that there is consensus on the subject of continued Muslim immigration. In all the reading that I do, I haven’t come up with anyone who welcomes Muslim immigration and doesn’t regret the existing presence.
The question then is, how do we get our government to listen?
Susan – This Brit, currently on second working trip to the Great State of Texas, certainly wouldn’t go for it.
America has many fine qualities, but it also has some that are somewhat irksome, at least from my personal perspective.
In comparison to Britain, I find the US more politically correct, more intellectually conformist, lazier, more corrupt and far more complacent and ignorant. Technology is in many cases (anything mechanical or household) somewhat obsolescent and horrendously inefficient. Size and cheapness is everything, but quality is something that seems to happen to other people.
Innovation was mentioned earlier. Innovation frequently happens in the face of adversity, necessity being the mother of invention and so on. In Europe, resources are less abundant and generally more expensive than in the US, hence more effort is devoted to making things from cars to washing machines more efficient. This doesn’t happen so much in the US, there seems little need or desire to innovate. Cars use 1970s technology, domestic washing machines are commonly old industrial designs because they are cheap and simple. The US compares badly to Europe and the Far East in this respect, which is presumably why many of those who can afford them buy imported products and cars.
Politeness is everywhere, but is patently (and frequently blatantly) insincere. The manufacturing workforce is frequently (though by no means always) indolent and ignorant. Few people seem to want to improve their lot, and complacency is widespread. The US compares badly to Eastern Europe in these respects.
I think that I would sum America up by saying that it doesn’t really live up to the promise of its advertising. Then again, nowhere is perfect – but on balance, and not for the first time in my sometimes peripatetic life, I am not displeased that I was born British.
Of course, and perhaps most importantly, it is almost impossible to find a good cup of tea over here. This is a fatal flaw, IMHO 😉
EG
Susan – I thought it was you who demurred re the UK formally joining the US once before. Well, then, it was some other highly intelligent lucid thinker!
Yes, Britain is very small. Maybe bigger than MA – maybe around MA and NH combined. We already have 60m – a fifth of the population of the entire United States. We are an indigenous society. Not an immigrant society like the US or Australia. .
It is the radical left that has been intent on diluting Britishness by encouraging vast undigestible chunks of alien matter into Britain. The British (and French) never wanted it, but when they voiced their opposition, they were shouted down as “racists” and “little Englanders” and “xenophobes”. (Well, of course, the French weren’t shouted down as “little Englanders” …) We now know that the left colonised the language with the intention of closing out the debate. Now that we know that, those verbal bullets have lost the magic power to deflect people from raising the issues.
Interesting too that the radical left is intent on degrading the two most powerful and creative religions the world has ever known and that powered the world to its present state – Judaism and Christianity. And they can’t wag their tails enough (oops! dog analogy!) to curry favour with the Islamics.
Euan – Political correctness varies from state to state, although I’m surprised to hear that you find it oppressive in Texas. They’re holding back on you!
I hate tiny little European tinker toy cars designed to appease the green industry. Use up all the gas, I say, and have a good time, but long before it’s gone the Americans will have invented something new. Not the British, with their anxious, furrow-browed “conservancy” cowering, and certainly not the French or the Scandinavians. The next fuel will be invented by Americans and I don’t care how old fashioned their washing machines are. (BTW, did you know dryers in France just dry your clothes? As in, don’t tumble dry? So you lift out clumps of rigid, albeit dry, towels and sheets with creases seared in? The consumer society doesn’t exist over here. The government, the banks, the state owned power company, the big corporations are your boss in France. You are not theirs.
But the Americans invented political correctness, and they will be the first to exit.
Eh, if we roll in a couple States all at once the flag could look nice. Puerto Rico is just waiting for the excuse, Alberta too. Maybe we take Scotland separately. We’d find a way to make sure our flag doesn’t upset feng shui.
Verity – should the English ever wish to join, they’d be more than welcome in my mind. But your countrymen will probably refuse. Too many of them are wedded to the socialist culture that won’t fly here. They’d vote against it rather than change for the better.
Anyone who wants to read about the effect of religion and culture should be reading Spengler, a pseudonymous editorial writer with Asia Times (Charles – nice quote from the real one!). You can find his article index here.
Of particular interest would be this article.
Verity,
Christianity is being adopted by some Euro Muslim immigrants, specifically those from Berber communities (as a kind of protest against Arab colonization) and Iranian communities (those who’ve developed an allergy to Islam after living under the Mullahs).
There is a whole network of Iranian Christian churches in Europe — yes even in godless Scandinavia. The church members are often spied upon by Iranian agents and persecuted by Iranian Muslim immigrants. In Germany some have started to meet underground to avoid the persecution (since the German authorities don’t seem to be too put out about their problems.)
But you won’t find any of this out from the mainstream media.
Euan, I agree with you about the general inefficiency and clunkieness of US household products. It’s a hangover from the days of viewing North America as a land of limitless bounty as our pioneering forefathers did. It needs to change. With 400 million people projected by around 2030, we need a vast shift in cultural values in this area.
If I had to sum up the US culture in contrast to the European culture, in one word, I would say “utilitarian”. We have utilitarian food, utilitarian clothes, utilitarian language, utilitarian furniture. The type of quality of products you see in Europe isn’t valued in the US because the extra labor required to produce it is seen as wasteful.
Again, this is a hangover from pioneer days when “good enough to do the job” was important because there was no time to do anything else. Everything you see in a Western state like Texas would have been built in only the last 100 years. That is a lot of work and there is no time for “frills.”
Where I live in Northern California people realize that the nation is built and we don’t need to be so utilitarian anymore. As a result, we are starting to adopt European ideas about quality and elegance. Where I live, plain (read “utlitarian”) concrete sidewalks are being torn up and replaced with brick paving, for example.
Unfortunately, we are also starting to import tranzi European political concepts, which I find less pleasing.
Euan,
I disagree with you on almost every point that you make, one or two may have a smidgen of validity, but in general you seem to have little understanding of anything that is slightly different from that which you are used to. I get the impression that your ego has taken a bruising during your sojourn.
Quite apart from the impression that you are more concerned with the material aspect of life in the US. which is quite a turnround for a Brit, as the usual cry is that the Americans are too commercial-minded.
I could go through your post and criticise each point, but I think that, as you are here on a working trip, and you are probably living in rental accomodation, your experience of the lower end of the market in household equipment is to be expected.
With regard to social aspects of life here, like most visiting Brits, you expect America to have the same culture as in England. The two nations may well speak a similar language, but culturally, they are as different as could be, Americans are not mutated Britons. There are few ‘big fish in small ponds’, everyone here is a ‘small fish in a big pond’, hence much fewer delusions of grandeur.
Politically, and religiously, I find the Americans to have a wider spectrum of choice than I ever found in Britain, the same may be said of news media sources. I think that many get a false impression of Americans as being brash and loud, when in fact, the opposite is true. The outward ‘show’ protecting a basically introvert nature, and yes, that politeness is as genuine as the English ‘hello’, just different, but no less sincere.
A small point – Americans drink more tea per head than the English, they just have a different way of making and drinking it! but, of course, your way is the correct way! 🙂
I would sum up America as being a land of genuine opportunity, with a very ‘down-to-earth’ approach to life, where ambition, competition and success are considered as virtues, which probably goes some way to explaining the westward ‘brain drain’.
To give you your due – you did not mention the lack of ‘fish and chip’ shops. 🙂
Au contraire, ernest – I have worked in Germany, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Nigeria and the Sudan as well as the good ol’ US, so I have more to compare it to than just Britain.
I expected America to be significantly different than the UK. It is, and in pretty much the ways I expected. You don’t have much ego left after working in some of the crapholes I’ve been in, so there isn’t much there to take a bruising.
I would disagree with the idea that there are fewer delusions of grandeur over here. Quite the opposite, in my experience (and this view seems not uncommon amongst my fellow temporary exiles). Rental property or not, the tales from those who actually own property here is not dissimilar. The general view is that there is a basic and widespread lack of quality in manufactured goods, although there is much cheapness (in all the senses of the word).
It’s not a bad place, God knows I’ve been in worse. But then, I’ve been in better too – depends what you’re looking for.
I had an odd chat with a Pakistani cab driver over here. He’s just become a citizen, and is regretting it. He’s exploring the ways to become Canadian instead, because he dislikes the insecurity and money-obssession of this society and the (perhaps concomitant?) violence which is never very far beneath the surface. Remember where he comes from…
EG
Verity – Fortunately, I have never been to France but I suppose one day work or curiosity will take me there.
You raised the point about innovation. Frugal and efficient cars don’t come about to appease the green lobby, they come about through economic necessity – when the fuel price is consistently high, for whatever reason, it makes economic sense to build cars with efficient high speed engines rather than the slow, lazy V8 so loved in the US. The next fuel source for cars already exists – electricity – and it is in areas with relatively high petrol prices that it will find most application. California has expensive fuel (by US standards) but also legislation mandating zero emissions vehicles, and there is a 7 month waiting list for hybrid cars. Either the best or the worst of both worlds depending on your point of view. Here in TX, gas is cheap, so why would anyone bother?
I suggest it *is* important how efficient the washing machines are. Or whether your lavatories use water efficient sensor flushes or spring-loaded 2″ ball valves (unchanged since the 1940s). Where there is the economic impetus to innovate, innovation will happen, but this is subject to other factors such as, for example, excessive regulation (in the EU) or excessive product liability litigation (in the US). Innovation in one area has benefits in others, and although it may be a long stretch from toilet flushing technology to national economic welfare, there is something of a link there. If there is no real incentive to innovate, it will tend not to happen – and it would seem that although American technology is advancing in some areas in many it seems stagnant and obsolescent.
Use up the gas as fast as you want and to hell with the consequences is all very well, but I think it betrays a lack of innovation, a difficulty in thinking forward and a gross (and foolish) complacency.
Anyway, this gets away from the original point about immigration. As general prosperity increases, so native birth rates decline – this appears to be a general rule, but I’m not sure it’s ever been defined as a principle. Immigration is necessary and beneficial for societies, and the UK has benefitted mightily from it in the past – 1/6 of all white English natives have black ancestors, for example, as a legacy of the slave trade and the empire. The British are a hybrid people, a mixture of Celts, Romans, Hispanics, Africans, Franks, Teutons, Scandinavians, Indians, with the odd Briton thrown in down the south-west.
The problem is of course the culture of the immigrants and their readiness or otherwise to assimilate. The weakness of western culture leads to a loss of belief in its advantages, which in turn permits and promotes the doctrine of multiculturalism. This prevents assimilation by more or less encouraging immigrants to confine themselves to ghettos in the name of preserving diversity, which in turn leads to social division and, ultimately, strife. This is of course made much worse when the immigrant culture does not want to assimilate and indeed expects the host culture to change itself to meet the expectations of the immigrants.
As for America, there is an enormous and possibly widening gulf between mainstream white European culture and that of the “African-Americans”, and seldom the twain shall meet. Maybe Americans don’t see it so clearly since they grow up with it, but to me it is striking and painfully obvious, worse than the relations between white and black in east London and on a par with Anglo/Moslem cultural differences in other parts of Britain.
So, similar problems for similar reasons. What to do? Joining one failing culture to another failing culture is not going to make a single strong culture. The indications of history are uncomfortable, but since nobody seems to learn anything from history (vide those on this forum who posit that America isn’t in relative decline and will continue to dominate for decades to come), I think we are the ones who will need to assimilate. Like it or not.
EG
I think the general fear of “Islamization” misses the point, which is not so much that Islam is a threat to Europe, as radical fundamentalist Islam is a threat to Europe. Naturally the Leftists do not want any discussion whatsoever about the effects of mass immigration from a different culture; all cultures are morally equal, and any questioning is a priori racist and xenophobic. However, the clampdown on public debate merely insures a much cruder expression of the problem, which is certainly sensed by the population but which the elite dare not examine in depth.
Of course, it might very well be Islam. Britain has not forced its Muslim population into state patronage and squalid urban ghettos like the French. The United States seems not to have a problem with a large radical Muslim population in its country, but the mosques are controlled by the Wahhabis and the major advocacy organizations like CAIR.
Though more generally these problems seem to crop up from a refusal to demand that immigrants assimilate into the cultural and political mainstream of the country. There were similar concerns about Catholics, once. That their ethic was unsuited for democracy and that their religion encouraged subservience and loyalty to a transnational community of believers rather than the nation-state. Of course, they did assimilate quite successfully, and the experience of Italy, Spain, and Portugal has certainly disproved the idea that Catholics are unable to maintain a stable democracy. So it might be with Muslims; but they are being actively discouraged from losing their links and loyalty to their homeland. In France because they need that identity against a basically hostile state and society; in the United States and the United Kingdom, because multi-cultural fetishists continually reassure them of their superiority and of the mendacity of “white, Christian, European” civilization. If they adopted a secular identity as well as a religious identity, as most modern Westerners do (if they do not dispense with the religious identity altogether), then I think they could certainly be assimilated as well as assimilate the ideals of liberal democracy. The Turks perhaps provide an example there, though certainly they have flaws, they have been amazingly successful by the standards of other Muslim countries.
However, as long as there is no insistence on assimilation, or a simple refuse to allow assimilation, you will get a culturally distinct underclass, one with a simmering resentment of the host country. This in turn leads to radicalization, as is happening certainly in France. When the host country’s demographic identity is in flux, perhaps mortally threatened, and there are nearby countries which allow that distinct underclass to continually renew their ties to their native culture, that is a recipe for disaster, I fear.
“Britain no longer believes in British culture”
Last time I saw their flag was replaced by a huge red cross, because the Union Jack represented imperialism, colonialism, and racism. What a shame! I am a Chinese, was born, and raised in that colonial haven of Hong Kong. I love the Brits. I hate it when they joined the EU, I hate it more when they desecrated their Union Jack, I hate it when their people didn’t realize their country’s contribution to humanity. Their form of colonialism provided the foundation for democracy all over the world. Without them, the Indians would still be fighting their tribal wars, without them in HK, many more Chinese would have been slaughtered in Mao’s Great Leap Forward era. Yes, under colonialism, the whites rule. But what is wrong with that? Why shouldn’t “coloured” people enjoy the rule of law? Isn’t it racist to insist that Chinese should be ruled by Chinese who were mass murderers? Why so many non-whites opt to relocate to Europe and America to be ruled by the white people if the whites were so bad. May be the ex-colonials should join hands to save the colonists from themselves.
Bravo, ic. This American likes to collect old books, and one of my favorites is Van Loon’s Geography, by Hendrik Willem Van Loon (genius). It seems to have been written as a favor to someone dear to him and is therefore full of his personal takes on the world; as much sociology as geography.
Quite apart from the fascination of viewing the world condition C 1932 through the eyes of a highly intelligent person unencumbered by political correctness, the title of Chapter 21 moves me everytime I read it: “Great Britain, an island off the Dutch coast which is responsible for the happiness of fully one-quarter of the human race”.
I wish its’ current citizens would remember the enormity of the accomplishment in that single sentence once in awhile, in between their nay saying and self flagellation.
Euan,
It’s not a bad place, God knows I’ve been in worse. But then, I’ve been in better too – depends what you’re looking for.
Would you care to name one of these ‘better’ places? — and of course – just why you feel them to be better.
Just out of a genuine interest…..
ernest – everywhere is better than somewhere else depending on what you are looking for. Here’s my take on some of the best things in the places I’ve suffered ^W worked in:
Germany – clean, efficient, things work, good beer;
Sudan – hundreds of miles of unspoilt open desert, Red Sea Hills, friendly people, coffee shops;
Nigeria – err….umm…”relaxed” approach to life;
Kazakhstan – huge open spaces, friendly (Russian) and unusual (Kazakh) people, Russian cuisine;
Azerbaijan – 20-something babes;
America – everything is cheap, easy lifestyle;
Britain – God’s chosen people, what more can I say?
And some bad things:
Germany – what is not expressly permitted is forbidden, rules for everything;
Nigeria – “African time” – if you’ve been in Africa you understand, if you haven’t it’s like manana on steroids;
Kazakhstan – nepotism, laziness (not Russians, btw);
Azerbaijan – 20-something babes who have grown into 40-something women;
America – paranoia, insecurity, materialism;
Britain – well, we’re in Europe, plus just a tad Socialist
I’d also mention the Czech Republic, but I was only there on holiday (Karlovy Vary and Prague) and not to work. Still, there the people are friendly and everyone speaks either Russian or English, not to mention the beauty of old Prague and the peace of Karlovy. Plus I fell in love there, so it’s kind of special to me.
The foregoing is not entirely serious, of course, and is a highly personal view. Enjoy.
EG
Verity,
Yes, Britain is very small. Maybe bigger than MA – maybe around MA and NH combined…
If it is at all helpful, I believe that Britain is approximately the same size as the American state of Wyoming.
Just to counterbalance the seeming love affair with the “Empire” of many contributors here, let’s not forget that fully “one-quarter of the human race” saw fit to get the hell out of it, many of them well before the 20th Century. We here in Ireland had serious difficulty in achieving real freedom, hampered by restrictive laws, several failed rebellions, and a refusal to honour the Home Rule Bill in the early 20th Century.
Lest the good people of Samizdata forget, we had to blast the brains out of manys a British skull before they finally got the message that maybe the Irish wanted out of the cosy little club. And before anyone brings up the “civilizing” aspects of Empire, let’s not forget the Empire left us with bugger all economy, near single crop subsistent tenant farming, fucked infrastructure and no power distribution grid to speak of.
Nothing wrong with feeling proud to be “British”. The problem comes when seeing the Empire as – I believe our American friends would say – “all that”.
Actually, it wasn’t. Try living it from the “Conquered” side of the fence.
James: what are you talking about? No one here has mentioned The Empire except the Hong Kong guy. I believe that most were discussing their fondness for the indigenous culture of Britain and their belief that it should be allowed to stay in Britain rather than be overrun by an alien and incompatible culture.
Such knee-jerk tranziness. Expressing a fondness for Britain and its history and culture automatically becomes a vote for Imperialism and the white man’s burden.
Tranzis!
Susan: Nancy’s quote was a direct reference to the empire. It painted it in an unabashedly favourable light. I see nothing wrong in pointing out that the quote incorrectly portrays colonialism in a solely positive light.
Perhaps you might explain to me what a “Tranzi” is? The definition provided on Samizdata doesn’t tell me much. I might then understand what I’m accused of being in the absence of any shred of knowledge of me personally on which to base such a judgement.
And If I remember correctly from my post, there’s no implication that those expressing a fondness for Britain are endorsing Empire. I would in fact have to include myself as endorsing Empire in that case, which of course is ridiculous. I might ask you in return what you are talking about?
Or perhaps it is simply oversensitivity to criticism of the Empire? That would make my previous post all the more timely, it would seem to me.
My goodness. Someone is very grouchy tonight. I certainly didn’t mean to portray colonialism in a solely positive light, and nowhere in my previous post did I say that. I understand that Ireland has its’ own history of unhappy interaction with England. England hasn’t always acted with saintly altruism – so what? Neither has any other country.
My point was and is that if one adds up the pros and cons of English involvement with the world, the end result has been overwhelmingly positive. Ask the Indian women who were saved from their husbands’ funeral pyres by British soldiers whether they minded being conquered.
Euan, are you sure you’re in Texas? It sounds more like you’re visiting 1977.
I don’t see a whole lot to be gained from these your-culture-sucks-more-than-mine discussions, but I’m an American who spends considerable time in the south of England, and there isn’t a single point of your description I recognize as anywhere in the general neighborhood of accurate. About either of our home countries. Love ’em both, perceive they have flaws, couldn’t pick them out of a lineup from your post.
Euan,
Thanks for the reply, my only comment is ‘Vive le difference’.
I too, have lived in many countries, almost anywhere outside of big cities, has something to commend it, Mother Nature manages to surprise and amaze wherever. I tend to prefer the warmer climes myself…
The most intangible plus anywhere, is the feeling of freedom, something that America has ‘in spades’, and more of, than anywhere else in the world.
Large metropolis’ are a cancer, in whatever country they fester.
Well, Weasel, I *did* say it was a personal point of view.
I’m not knocking America, just saying that it has bad points as well as good. From my particular point of view, those were the bad things about the US. Nor am I indulging in “you culture sucks more than mine” – if you want to see it that way, then that’s up to you, but you shouldn’t read things that aren’t there. Our countries are just different, that’s all. Personally, although there is much about America I like, I would not want to live here.
You probably don’t see things in America as I do, just as I am unlikely to see the bad (or good) points of Britain as clearly as you.
Euan – “1/6 of all white English natives have black ancestors, for example, as a legacy of the slave trade and the empire. “ Rference, please.
Violence just beneath the surface? Of Texas? How did I manage to live in Houston for 16 years and manage to miss sensing the violence roiling just beneath the surface? Everyone in Texas is armed, which means very little trouble with violence. Yeah, and gas is cheap so they drive comfortable cars. And electricity’s a non-starter. The next fuel will be far more workable and I’m sure they’re inventing it right now (in America – probably TX). I’m afraid your view is very judgemental and British and not based on anything real.
“I think we are the ones who will need to assimilate. Like it or not.” I think … not. We will toss them all out first, including those born here. In fact, that’s not a bad idea. They’re so crazy about their “native” country that they go wife shopping there – nice ignorant girl, doesn’t talk, walks behind, stands behind his chair while he eats and then eats the leftovers, shits behind the shed.
It is past time that we took control of the situation and resolved it to suit ourselves. Of course, that won’t happen until tranzi pinko Blair (BTW – even Jacques Chirac refused to kiss Robert Mugabe, and kissing cheeks is in the French culture. English statesmen don’t kiss anyone, but Blair kisses a famous terrorist and dictator. He is a piece of rubbish.)
David Carr – Gosh, I didn’t know that. Thank you! That’s a handy comparison.
Euan – “although there is much about America I like, I would not want to live here.” Very wise. With your sneering attitude, you wouldn’t get invited to many parties. Your list of places you regard as being better than the US is a piece of adolescent grandstanding and rebellion. I’ve also lived and worked in several countries, and for sheer energy, openness and ease of living, there is nowhere I have ever been (never been to Australia) that comes close enough to even make a comparison. Oh, that unspoilt African desert! So what? The minute they’ve got the money, they’ll be building hideous skyscrapers that keep collapsing on it. Would you rather live in the Khartoum or Big D? Don’t be ridiculous.
And James, please don’t bore us with your ancient Irish boilerplate. It’s all been said 178 million times. Go back to your poteen and singing I’ll Take You Home Again, Kathleen. Ya da da, ya da da.
Euan,
A genetic study conducted last year (I think, with a 3,000 base) found that one in a hundred English test subjects carry modern negroid genes. This was enough, incidentaly, for the left to make a song and dance about our mongrel blood. One in six would send them soaring into the stratosphere with delight! But it isn’t one in six.
On the subject of the polyglot nature of the British you are wide of the mark again, I’m afraid.
First, you must understand that there is no such thing as pure blood. But just throwing in every people that arrived on these shores (survivors of the Armada, for God’s sake!) is to arrive at conclusion before you have the facts.
The only wide-ranging genetic survey (of Britain, not England) was conducted three years ago by a brilliant (and Jewish) population geneticist for the BBC’s “Blood of the Viking” series. He found, for example, that the only surviving traces of Norwegian Viking blood were in the Penrith area – where they had their stronghold. So much for population mobility.
He also found that it was not possible (then, not necessarily now because of the haplotype revolution) to distinguish meaningfully between north Germans (Saxons, Jutes, Angles) and Danes. They are, for all useful purposes, one people though two cultures.
The bottom line, anyway, is genetic relativity. The indiginous populations of north-western Europe are closely tied – culturally, too. French and English Kings have ruled over France and England. This notion of who we are we can accept with pride. But it doesn’t imply that we want to give up our country to a French or German inasion.
Furthermore, we don’t have to pretend that the left’s habitual deception about mongrelism is in anyway true. It is simply a wedge to open us to a Boasian “Race Does Not Exist” acceptance of a socialist and racially-mixed future.
If you do not have this kind of information in your keeping, Euan, you are not in a position to pontificate on the issue of our future.
Susan, Verity,
Assimilation of third-worlders is better than non-assimilation insomuch as it frustrates the multi-cultural agenda. The Gramscian Tendency will have to re-focus identity politics – much easier to say than do.
But assimilation is a myth of American making, and largely economic in its compass. It is not a model applicable to the ancient states of Europe. When people raise assimilation in Europe they do so out of defensiveness – already a different motivation from that in America. Assimilation relies on the third-worlder becoming a first-worlder, but it sets no standard by which this might achieve its goal. It is fuzzy alround. It assumes a great deal, not least that the third-worlder will be accepted by other first-worlders. It assumes that each will not wish to live among their his kind (the new science of population modelling has revealed that if only one-sixth of two completely intermixed cyber-peoples move to be beside at least one their own kind, complete segregation is an unstoppable outcome). It assumes that third world populations are – or can become – the equal of first world populations, despite the complete absence of proof anywhere in the world thusfar that this is indeed true.
Most of all, it assumes that balkanisation, deracination and dispossession are prices the English will find acceptable in the long-term for whatever gift third-world immigration is supposed to bring.
If you buy these assumptions, OK. Similar if you think it’s all inevitible anyway so goodbye Europe. The many proponents of RDNE will welcome you to the fold.
Euan,
We generally have about 1/2 or less the violence you saw.
The reason the violence level is so high right now is because we are running a serious drug prohibition scheme.
The violence in America spikes between 2X and 5X when we do serious prohibition.
What you need to do is to avoid the war zones.
I myself am most unhappy about this situation and I’m making efforts to see it is eliminated.
Guessed worker,
It takes two to three generations to turn immigrants into Americans.
America today is not based on race. We are quite welcoming to newcomers. (Check out how the second generation Vietnamese are doing.)
It is a funny place that is very hard for outsiders to understand. We are a country founded on an idea. Yhat all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. That among those rights is Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Kind of a snappy common heritage don’t you think?
And it doesn’t matter your race or religion. You get to claim that heritage by oath or birth.
A lot of us here think it is a pretty good deal.
Perfect? Hell no. In every category of goodness I mentioned above there are pockets of badness. But they are pockets not pervasive.
We have a good thing going here and generally we are pretty welcoming to any one who wants to join us. Y’all come, now, y’hear.
Guessedworker, a post of great vitality and immediacy, as always. So, next question: what do you suggest?
Radically speaking, I’d shovel almost all of the Islamics out. They believe they have the right to impose their rather intolerant diety and primitive lifestyle upon us by force and this is a threat we should not ignore. My personal view is, if someone says he is going to kill you, take him at his word.
The court of Human Rights and other tranzi organisations would just have to live with the mass deportations. What are they going to do? Invade us in rowboats equipped with bows and arrows?
I see former Archbishop Carey lit rip in a speech in Rome yesterday. I could hardly believe my eyes when I read it. He said Islam is authoritarian, inflexible and under-achieving. There’s much more in today’s Telegraph.
We need to get these sullen, resentful and dangerous ghettoes out of our country. Mosques should be obliged to apply for special licences and to fulfill a number of conditions before being allowed to operate. They’re ant farms of hostility and resentment.
To all those lofty people who say, “Oh, this isn’t the British way!” let me say, “You are going to have a lot that is not the British way imposed on you unless you act now to protect our way of life.” These people are on a holy mission. They’re fanatics. They think dying for Allah is going to get them 72 virgins. I mean, how pathetic is that? It says it all, doesn’t it? That’s their ambition. It’s worth giving up their lives to get at 72 virgins. (By the way, Susan will correct me if I’d wrong, but these virgins are retreads. Once their virginity’s been used up by these suicide bombers, they become virgins again. Sounds like some girls I used to know in high school.) By the way, what do the kids get? The four-yr olds?
Guessed, I think assimilation of Islamic masses in order to defeat the Gramscians is too high a price to pay. Free exchange of ideas on blogs like Samizdata is already having an effect. The tranzi pinkos are beginning to hear muffled laughter when they make their pronouncements. Blair’s (deservedly) lost every shred of credibility on every front. The cabinet’s a Marxist joke. People are waking up. But the damage Blair & Co have done to debate is taking the edge of Michael Howard’s weapons.
Anyway, I’d be interested in reading your solutions/predictions.
Re Dr Carey’s comments on Islam, Dr Iqbal Sacranie, who’s the secretary-general of something called the Muslim Council of Britain issued a less than subtle veiled threat: “Dr Carey is trampling on a very sensitive area by referring to the Koran and the traditions of the Prophet.” Ooh-er! Don’t mention the Prophet! Not even if you’re the former Archbishop of Canterbury! Especially if you’re the former Archbishop of Canterbury, because you might actually know what you’re talking about!
Chris writes:
I think the general fear of “Islamization” misses the point, which is not so much that Islam is a threat to Europe, as radical fundamentalist Islam is a threat to Europe.
Sadly, you are mistaken. Islamism v. Islam is virtually a distinction without a difference, – or perhaps it’s something like the ‘difference’ between the IRA and Sinn Fein.
Besides, the problem is not that Europeans are unwilling to assimilate Muslims — it’s the Muslims themselves who are by and large unassimilable, due to a combination of cultural and evolutionary factors (since Islam clearly selects for the cognitively disadvantaged). In France and Belgium Muslims have de facto already created their own sharia mini-states, which are no-go areas for native Europeans.
Guessedworker writes:
“Here, the age-profile/declining birthrate issue is not the real issue. It merely enables us to dance around the real issue without naming it. At its core, the problem is that our politicians are willing for us to share our country with aliens, and have been so since 1948. If one is willing to share one’s homeland one has already grown careless over its possession. One has already fallen under the spell of the American myth, which is not our myth, and allowed the censorious left to permit us our thoughts and speech. ”
But in fact both issues (demographic decline and immigration) are imbricated. Most of us have two souls dwelling within our breast when it comes to preserving ‘Fortress Europe’: on the one hand, we would like those cheap labourers to come over here and do the dirty work for us — and then, on the other hand, we would like these foreigners to dematerialise after working hours. They don’t dematerialise. They won’t or can’t assimilate. And some of them build mosques and create their own Islamic republics.
Don’t just blame the ‘politicians’ — after all, it’s we who voted them in. The ‘citizen as citizen’ may be opposed to mass immigration, but the ‘citizen as consumer’ may well be in favour of it. How are we to look after the growing legions of Caucasian geriatrics in the absence of children of our own? By distributing clam-shaped automated bathing machines a la Japan? For Whitey in Europe, I’m afraid, the writing is on the wall – even those of us who are strongly opposed to immigration will prefer to be looked after, in our old age, by a Muslim immigrant than be nobody at all.
It’s that question again, Verity, the big one: What is to be done? Unfortunately, as many Samizdata cogniscenti well tell you, I am absolutely nobody and my prescriptions carry no weight whatsoever. Therefore, I try only to raise the understanding of what lies in front of us all, and do this in the hope that more people will start asking that very question. But for me to start bouncing solutions around the blogosphere would be the fantasy stuff you gave M.Simon such a hard time over!
I will, however, give you two pointers if I may:-
1) Think through the eyes of the common man, and ask yourself what he would say or do if confronted, for once in his life, with the naked truth. It’s his people’s continued existence as north Europeans and their continued and uncontested possession of their own homeland that is at issue here. If, when it comes to saving himself, you think he would have more balls than the “inevitability” pushers, the prisoners of PC (Tory politicians, for example) and the proponents of RDNE (or RDNM – Race Does Not Matter), then don’t be afraid to be guided by his rough hand. The worse that will happen, as happens to me, is that some unsuspected enemies will reveal themselves – a pity but no matter.
2) Don’t think too narrowly or in too short a time-frame – the practical limit for forecasting is 2100 but the key date is 2050 (an American hotspot, I know, but as ever America leads the way). Most importantly, don’t concentrate on culture to the exclusion of race. The English are not a culture. We have developed rather a fine one and we have, as our HK friend makes so poignantly clear above, much to be proud of in our contribution to the world. But saving that from the slow decline of marxist relativism or the less certain but more harrowing defeat to Islaam is secondary. If the old dog survives so will his unique aroma.
And, of course, good luck.
Charles, that is chilling.
Britain needs the body mass of the United States and it needs to start adopting American habits, like having children. It makes no sense for Britain not to apply to become a state. Europe (save sensible Holland, which has pulled up the drawbridge and declared a four-year moratorium on all immigration, including “asylum seekers”) has allowed so many of them to burrow in that it fears big trouble if it tries to keep the rest of them out. They won’t keep their heads in the sand forever, but by the time they bestir themselves to action, the situation will be dire.
Britain cannot stand alone 22 miles from a whole continent bristling with grudge-laden Islamics. As a state of the United States, it would be a much more formidable target. Britain has plenty to offer the United States in return, including our N Sea oil, which the continent is eying with glittering eyes. It would be to our mutual benefit and would strengthen the whole concept of the Anglosphere.
It would be great if Alberta applied and was allowed in as well! More oil! More independent-minded people! Another rodeo!
I, too, am grateful to the British for endowing the lands it had governed with law and order, serving as a basis for further development when those lands became independent.
The problem of declining birth rates isn’t just restricted to Europe. It’s a growing social problem here in Singapore, and the government does recognise the social ramifications of the Islamic community gaining greater demographic power, and is therefore encouraging sex and marriage amongst the educated chinese by its usual ham-fisted methods(you’ll be sniggering if you knew just what they’re doing).
But the problem still remains to be solved. Women are enjoying their right to work and earn money more than their right to having children. No femi-nazi influence in this; it just happened.
I wish my small country could apply to be a state of the US too(even if we are even further away than good ole England). Failing that, maybe we should hook up with Australia… Which means no more National Service(Yayyyy!!!), no more bitching about lack of natural resources and lack of land, bigger markets for development, and so on.
Why is it nobody actually reads anything properly?
Sneering attitude? Because I have decided, having seen a place, that I’d prefer not to live there, I am sneering?
I don’t recall saying other places were necessarily “better” than the US. What I said, which would be patent if you actually read it, is that depending on what you are looking for every place is better than anywhere else for that specific thing.
And where does this half the violence I have seen reference come from? What actual, specific violence did I mention? Exactly, so how come it can be said so assuredly that the true level is half what I saw?
As for the racial mix of the British, or anyone else, it really doesn’t bloody matter one damned bit. I am not wide of the mark, and to say so is indicative of a pedantic and literalist interpretation of the words in question. There *are* people in the UK who do have that sort of ancestry. Does this mean that all of them do? No. Did I say that it meant all of them do? No.
David
Dearie me, you sure got all the big fish circling and snapping when you threw this bait into the water, did you not? All with their credentials displayed prominently, too.
What I cannot discern from all the thoughts expressed so lucidly is what the electorate of Britain should consider as the more dangerous: the culturally subversive acid piss of the Gramscian gremlins, or the bellicose bawling of the Islamofascist nutters and mad mullahs. It seems that the former has been more successful for the past 40 years or so, but the latter have now been allowed to invade in such large numbers that they pose an even more formidable threat to the indigenous culture of Britain. Is it the former who have contrived to open the back door (the front door, too, come to think of it) to the latter and if so why? And where does Blair fit into it? Surely there has to be a clash, eventually, between the two threats even though there seems to be collusion at the moment. The former contrive towards an international socialist cultural hegemony, the latter towards dominant global fundamentalist Islam and to kill all Jews and Infidels. What is even more worrying is that the Great Unwashed seem blissfully ignorant of either danger and just want Peace and Love – and Bush out of office, not to mention regarding Israel as the real ‘enemy’ and obstacle to ‘peace in the world’.
The GU therefore deserve any depressing scenario that transpires. They are ‘sleepwalking to disaster’ as Melanie Phillips describes it. As for the ‘European Union’, it is surely the Confederation of International Mafia Superdons. The largest ongoing crime continuum in the world, with its bureacratic ‘associates’ all in highly paid no show jobs as reward for past favours; baksheesh paid for by the skim from national contributions and trade. The ‘skim for the scum’ as the share shufflers of Las Vegas said when allowed the ‘Guineas’ to have their share by direct theft as they made multi billions from trading the Casinos on the stock markets and laundering the money from bogus ‘hostile’ takeovers and insider trading through connected multinational corporations and banks. And the EU wants it’s own army, too?
David, Verity, Guessedworker, Susan, help me out here, I’m confused.
Euan- you have got to be kidding about the efficacy of European goods. I lived in an apartment for a short time with a “European” washer and dryer, the clothes never dried we had to go to the laundry mat to get our clothes done. When I got out of college one of my first purchases was an oversize top loading Kenmore washer and dryer. Fabulous- never had a problem with it except once when I moved the movers set it up wrong but the Sears guy came out and out put it right in about five minutes. I have the same Mr. Coffee, the same Oyster blender, a great George Foreman grill, the same Betty Crocker can opener that I have had since college- never once had a problem with any of these things. I love my Dirt Devil vacuum. Sorry to wax enthusiastic about household goods but am a clean freak. Surely you cannot mean American techie stuff. Further, with regard to “American” goods, what are you taking about? Very hard to tell what’s really American these days.
America consumerism is essentially about choice. You can buy more expensive things easily. You can buy cheap very easily. Yes, you get what you pay for that’s how markets work. There are a few British items that I have, small, pricey but great. I love my Mason Pierson hairbrush and my Barbour for example, but I am not running out to buy a British iron or anything, my Black and Decker (I think that’s American) classic works just fine thank you.
America- “paranoia, insecurity, materialism” hmm. Every year America has a happiness poll. This year it was somewhere in the high seventies I think. (That may indeed have something to do with faith). Earlier this year when I was in Britain, (yes Euan Americans do occasionally travel) they announced the results of a poll which showed that the majority of people wanted to live elsewhere. I put this down to weather, because when I lived there for a year in high school and on every visit since, it seemed pretty great to me. However, I seriously doubt a poll of Americans would show the same thing. I cannot speak to paranoia but I think any insecurity you see if probably reverse snobbery reacting to your snobbery which is probably more blatant than you think. Whenever I hear complaints about materialism, I believe there is a certain amount of underlying jealously there. I have been, in my life been seriously broke, scrounging change from between the cushions of the couch. I now have very recently through sweat of my brow reached a stage where I can afford some bling bling and I like it. I go to church, I tithe, I help my parents and friends out, I flip pancakes for the Kiwanas, I raise money for the local United Way. These are terribly middle class pursuits I realize. I genuinely try to give back like most Americans do. You do realize, of course, that America gives more to charity than any other country on the face of the earth. My state is certainly not the wealthiest, but we rank higher in charitable giving than most. Materialism? Get a grip.
Now that I have written this, I feel kind of foolish. What do I care what some random guy thinks? However, I believe that such shallow criticism and belittling of American culture is not so amusing now that people want to blow us up for daring to pursue happiness. Maybe such nonsense ought to be consistently confronted.
Anyone remember Enoch?, – Enoch Powell, that is.
His speech on immigration in 1968, drew the ire of every lefty in the country, they, wrongfully in my opinion, branded him a racist. An action which served to effectively close down any rational discussion on immigration for the next thirty years.
He was also a great ‘anti-marketier’, which further alienated him from main stream politics. That Edward ‘Traitor’ Heath, sided with Michael Foot in condemning him, shows the fear, so prevalent at that time, of upsetting the ‘racial’ apple-cart. However, it is worth noting that one, Tony Blair, paid tribute to him, when he died in 1998.
Looking back on those times (1970’s), it is now easy to see the deliberate smearing, by means of selective editing of speeches and the use of any picture that made him look like Hitler. Being of that era, he favoured a small moustache, which did make him look like Hitler. A great hatchet job, and one that effectively ended his career as a politician.
However, on reading his speeches and essays on the matters of immigration and on Europe, the impression is not one of him being a racist, and a ‘little Englander’, but more of him as being a patriotic Englishman, with nothing more than the welfare of United Kingdom, at heart. His foresight was extraordinary, he foresaw most of the problems that we now face, although he saw them more in an English context, rather than a European one. Being a Europhobe, that is hardly surprising.
The major problems of lack of assimilation, cultural and religious difference are all mentioned, it is such a pity that he was a poor ‘communicator’, and was thus reviled and then ignored.
Euan – You said you’d worked in the US twice and though you’d seen worse, you’d seen better. Such an airy dismissal of one of the only two or three free countries left in the world carries a whiff of chippiness.
Your Pakistani taxi driver said there was too much violence in the US and wished he’d gone to Canada. You cited this as proof that all was not well with the US, if even Pakistanis wished to escape to Canada. (We were adjured to “remember where he came from”.)
“As for the racial mix of the British, or anyone else, it really doesn’t bloody matter one damned bit.” In that case, why cite this imaginary figure? You cited it to prove a point and you couldn’t reference it. Someone else proved that your figure had been grossly exaggerated, causing you to downgrade your point to “it really doesn’t bloody matter one damned bit.”
I think you will agree that I did indeed read your posts, Euan.
I am NOT belittling America, American people, or American culture NOR am I belittling the same aspects of any other country. If you read it that way, that’s your problem and frankly you are wrong.
I AM saying that, from what I have seen of various places in the world, each has good and bad points. The bad points of America, from MY PERSPECTIVE, mean that, on balance, I would not want to permanently live there. That’s all.
This is valid. Just as the opinion of a given American that he would not like to live permanently in the UK because of is valid.
Eeeyow, Euan! Arrogance is radiating from you like stink-lines off a cartoon skunk.
Frank, don’t you think that multiculturalism was imposed on Britain as a tool to weaken it and dilute the British identity? That certainly is what Tony Blair and his gang of thugs are using it for, having deliberately left all the doors open and the house unattended.
My reading, for other people to correct me with their own points, is, knowing that Britain was a homogenous society and would fight outside enemies to defend itself, the Gramscians introduced enemies within, little by little, employing, of course, those dandy old favourites “Racist!” “Little Englander!” “Xenophobe!” to discredit anyone who made bold enough to object. As we know, this colonising of the language is a deliberate ploy to shut down the debate.
During Tony Blair’s seven years wrecking Britain, he has elevated “racisim” to the status of top crime of the universe. By so doing, he has devalued the terrible affront of all other crimes. Uttering a racial slur attracts a greater sentence than raping a 6 month old baby. This is an important point, because he has subjugated the Briton’s natural instincts of fairness at the same time as denigrating the value of his culture (they don’t teach history in school, except as an example of the harm we did). They elevated girls over boys.
In other words, they set about upsetting the natural order. The Islamics, being totally alien to Western Christian society, were a tool.
The only thing is, as these things do, the Islamics have now gotten out of hand and Tony Blair is so frightened he’s running off to Ghadafty’s tent, to show what a generous spirit he has and how well he regards Arab leaders. The fact, remains, the Marxists/Gramscians and the rest of the ragtaggle can’t control the Islamics any more and they’re fluttering around squawking and jumping from perch to perch. David Blunkett has a plan a day. Jack Straw is pissed off because he didn’t get to go to the mint tea party in Gadafty’s tent. Tony Blair is more oleaginous than ever – and that’s going it some.
Now they’re using smoke and mirrors to try to pretend the immigration “debate” – if I may elevate it so – is really about the right of east Europeans to come to Britain. This is a teeny weeny figleaf and anyone stupid enough to take up this particular ball and run with it is a stooge. That is not the debate.
Start of off-topic mental meanderings:
Arrogant? Me? Come the glorious day when all you lot are first up against the last state-owned wall, we’ll see who’s arrogant…
Well, I’m not sure how I could make my point of view (more than once stated to be highly personal and not entirely serious) be more readily taken for what it is (a personal and not entirely serious point of view).
Standing on the beach of the blogosphere, sometimes I fancy I watch an endless sea of pedantry crashing upon the sands of reason, a crescendo of soundbites and out-of-context snippets, not entirely unlike the pedantic point scoring observed in other, more leftist fora.
I suppose those who are interested in politics do tend towards the pedantic. Hmm.
Time to go to the parking lot and suck on a fag, which of course is a felony where I am.
Perhaps it is redundant to point out that the foregoing IS NOT ENTIRELY SERIOUS. At least, I bloody well hope it is 🙂
PS – I also think this is why Blair scampered off to DC when the 9/11 assault occured. I think it struck him in one blinding moment that everything was out of control, and that the Islamics in Britain would not necessarily remain passive clients of the British state any more. I think the reason they don’t deport bigamist and terrorist Abu Hamza or whatever his stupid name is, is they are frightened to death of the consequences. It has spun out of control, much to their amazement. They thought it was all working so nicely.
Now we have terrorists released from Guantanamo walking around Britain free, yet the Americans say they have proof they trained with the Taliban in Afghanistan. It’s all whirling out of control. And Blair’s too much of a coward to tackle it at home, where it would provoke enough violence for the British to turn on the Marxist party and toss them out. And Blair has to consider his ambitions in Europe and can’t do anything to offend his masters in case he doesn’t get offered a glitzy job.
I see that someone by the name of Dr Sacranie of something called the Muslim Council of Britain or something has issued a veiled threat to the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Carey, for mentioning the words Mohammad and Koran. This is passing bold.
BTW, Edward Heath’s a Gramscian or I’ll eat my chapeau.
As the saying goes, arguing on the Internet is like running in the Special Olympics: even if you win, you’re still retarded.
(And what a pleasure to see “retarded” come back as a pejoritive, after a political exile of nearly forty years).
Since hammering away at my above post, I have now read Boris Johnson’s essay in today’s Speccy The Queen Fights Back which is apparently an abridged version of his Keith Joseph Memorial Lecture delivered to the Centre for Policy Studies on 25 March. It is very apropos to this thread.
His argument is for slow integration and assimilation rather than rapid racial and cultural invasion and multi-culti tribalism. He thinks the government are having a dose of the seconds on immigration matters because many immigrants seem to like the Union Flag and the pomp and circumstance that goes with it. Are the Tories at last responding to the tenor of many threads on this and Melanie’s blog?
But one thing that left me feeling even more confused than I was before, was this statement in his piece:
‘The Crown was removed from the Treasury letterhead. I remember being amazed, sitting on some Police Bil, when we just nodded through a clause changing the oath of loyalty sworn by police constables so as to remove a specific reference to the Queen. I went into the Lobby, found Chris Moncrieff of the Presss Association, issued a torrential statement of denuctiation and heard no more about it.’
Can anyone inform me as to whether this clause was eventually passed. If it was why was there no clamour from the police? As one who took that oath half century ago, I still remember the back hairs of my neck bristling with pride and a sense of duty when I did so. And a feeling that I would carrying out my duties as a Keeper of The Queen’s Peace with direct authority from HM herself, rather than having to defer to the grubby occupants of the Westminster Gasworks. It sustained me through many glorious and dark days. It seems that not only can transient MPs can now intercede in the priorities and powers of a constable, but that any two-bit local busybody in the Town Hall with a handful of crony votes from minority militant pressure groups can also decide who shall and shall not be nicked, or even investigated. In the days when I took the oath, any mouthy politician who shouted the odds in a police station was either shown the door, or dragged over the counter and charged with disorerly conduct in a police station.
Not that there would be anyone available to do that these days. Those officers not mincing around on gay pride marches, or sitting in the inner sactums having their Black Police Association cabal sit-downs, are no doubt skulking in quiet places around their patch, looking over their shoulders, keeping their heads down and muttering and memorising the mantras of political correctness to enable them to pass their exams and remove themselves from the front-line. (:-) Not that I wish to be too hard on my erstwhile colleagues, as many I keep in touch with are as outraged as I am by the recent trends in policing.
Frank, Frank … why ask us? We are rightist attack dogs. No brains required. Just teeth.
Well, anyway, the left is certainly an enigma. The only possible explanation I can offer for its apparently screaming contradictions is this.
First, the left is not knowingly Gramscian. A philosophical discussion with one of its number will produce all manner of hagiographic references to the illuminaries of the British Communist Party circa 1937. Great days. Spanish prisons. Hitler on the horizon. But mention Daddy Benjamin or Adorno, Marcuse and the rest of the Frankfurt-cum-Americans and you will be told that they were an obscure and narrow sect interesting for their work on literary criticism but of absolutely no bearing to the Movement. Mention the little hunchbacked Itie sweating his balls off in Turi gaol and you will be given up as a bad job.
So what’s going on? The answer is that Gramscianism does not require Gramscians. It works in the same way as popping an alka-salza tablet into a glass of water. Pretty soon the water is full of bubbles and has a funny flavour but the tablet has disappeared. The folk who put the tablet in the glass were the academics of Culture Studies fame.
Of course, the left saw it’s original water source dry up when the Wall came down in ’89. It would have had no recourse but to accept cultural marxism anyway. It knew this back in the early 1980’s (when Livingstone launched the world’s first rainbow coalition). So I think for the most part it was thinking in hegemonic terms by 1989 as well as pushing PC and identity politics. In the interim, of course, it has dropped the alka-selza tablet into the much larger, national glass of water. We’ve got damned bubbles everywhere.
Now Palestinians. Our lefty interlocutor with whom we are, of course, discussing political philosophy is quite unaware that his recently acquired and ardent support for gay marriage is a consequence of PC/IP. He thinks he is still a free-thinking agent. Therefore, he will do inconvenient and immature but traditionally leftish things like giving vent to his outrage on behalf of some oppressed group in a land far, far away. Not the Spanish communists this time for sure, but Palestinians are suffering and they are powerless in the face of those IDF tanks, bulldozers, helicoptors et al. They are a perfectly good cause for yer average sociology student. So he goes and does what the left always does: Bush, Bush, Bush, Out, Out, Out, Sharon, Sharon, Sharon …
This brings him even more on-side with local towel heads – with whom, as a group struggling under the oppressive hegemony of white male heterosexuals (OK, forget the heterosexuals – these are stone-them-to-death nutcakes) he has due sympathy, or is that empathy. As for Islaamic extremism, well, read Ryan of Manchester, the anarchist blogger who argued last year that Baader-Meinhof were right to assasinate jewish businessmen in the 1970’s. The Islaamic nutters and the left (nutters) have a common enemy.
Blair? A politician. Mandelson? Now he could be a Gramscian. But it doesn’t matter anyway because they all know the hymn sheet and they’re all drinking from the same glass of Alka-Selza.
Need a pick-me-up, Frank?
Verity
Thanks, I knew I could rely on you to clear my head and get the team back into shape. I am very puzzled as to why your are in France – on assignment I hope – otherwise hurry back, your country needs you.
Guessed Worker, one doesn’t have to use words like “towell heads” to get one’s point across.
GW
So what’s going on? The answer is that Gramscianism does not require Gramscians. It works in the same way as popping an alka-salza tablet into a glass of water. Pretty soon the water is full of bubbles and has a funny flavour but the tablet has disappeared. The folk who put the tablet in the glass were the academics of Culture Studies fame.
You are a master of the splendid analogy, the magical metaphor. It did occur to me that the current bunch in charge probably acquired their Gramscian philosophy by osmosis rather than consciously. But I noted today in the press that another of Mandelson’s gay pals has been put in charge of Downing Street’s spinning wheel. So through osmosis or otherwise the process continues. Incidentally, though the the Italics above encapsulate immacualtely the essence of your argument, I did enjoy the other expanded interpretations in your reply to my plaintive plea. These Peripatetic School questions do have amazing results on this blog, what a pity old Aristotle is not still around.
I’ll toast your, and Verity’s, health with a glass of Shampoo later and hope that Verity’s current hosts haven’t laced the bottle with vintage red Gramsci grapes. Cheers!
Edward Heath a Gramscian. Love it. But it was Morning Cloud not Morning Star and he wound up as Father of the House, not Father of the Chapel. Still, the idea of him going to his batchelor bed every night with a cup of cocoa and a Prison Notebook, desperate to become a real, organic intellectual, has a certain charm.
Can we all please rid ourselves of the notion that Boris Johnson is conservative or libertarian? He is a soft lefty. His grandfather was a Turk. (I don’t know what that’s got to do with anything, but it certainly amazed me.) He’s worse than a wet. He’s one of those complacent people who assumes all’s right with the world because all’s right in Henley. His writing is beginning to affect me like nails down a blackboard.
I too blanched when I read that the crown had been removed from the Treasury letterhead. Can one man – Blair – really do that? Just like that? God, he’s a destructive spirit! And the police force thing, too, Frank. This is all part of the same plan, although they would accuse me of paranoia (not just being retarded) for saying so.
I said when he first came to national attention that Blair is a very dangerous man. He sheds destructive vibes like dander. There’s something not quite right about him.
Cheers Frank
Sorry Susan. But you don’t know what the, erm, the … well, you don’t know what they call us? Keep smiling, kid.
Susan – Towel-head. You shouldn’t assume, from your perch in the state of fruit and nuts, that people in more rational environments welcome instruction from you in the usage of their native language. Guessedworker’s writing is compelling without your editing.
Crikey, I’d better check the lens cover is closed on my USB camera. Seems it’s been leaking pictures of me out onto the net showing me to be a grumpy ol’ Gus. Couldn’t be that some of the good people here read more into one’s text than is actually present, could it? Nosirree, couldn’t be that. 🙂
I understand your point, I simply disagree to some extent. I’d say it’s more a mixed bag, certainly so when it comes to past colonial actions. I’d say some of Britains biggest contributions were in fact the industrial revolution (performed predominantly with homegrown talent), Mr. Charles Darwin and WWII, more specifically the Battle of Britain and the sabotage raids/intel work of the British Commandos and spys.
Now the Americans, they know a thing or two about “Empire”, if we can even use the term: Sell them Coke, cars and various other products and watch those tasty Western values flow out. Invest there to build stronger companies back in the U.S. Defend them when they’re threatened, but keep the hell out of their politics as much as possible. Now THAT’S how it should be done. The British Empire could have learned a thing or two from them.
Gotta love this blog, we start off – ‘here’, we go ‘there’, and then sometimes, I emphasize, sometimes, we end up returning to the original discussion.
One thing is for sure, it is rarely boring, and sometimes even educational.
Many thanks to you all, the Samizdata team, the commenters, David, Perry, Andy et al, Charles, Frank P, Verity, GW, S.Weasel and all the rest of the usual ‘soap-boxers’.
Can’t always agree with you, but enjoy your company.
May Thanks…….
Ah, Verity, Verity. Sure wouldn’t I just love to heed your advice and shuffle off if I could, but I can’t find me Shilielagh. Left it over there be the turf pile. Oh well, I suppose I’d best be off a’ramblin all the same. “Low lie de fields of Athenry….”
Ah, stereotyping. Gotta Love it. Works wonders for your credibility. Not a bad fertilizer either. I do shpray a bit on the shpuds now a’ agin, so I do.
Sad part is, I agree with the first paragraph of your wee rant. I guess 50% isn’t bad?
Susan:
See? See? Not grouchy at all! Sometimes the camera does lie 🙂
You might check that vein pulsating on Verity’s forehead though 😉
Verity, I enjoy Guessed Worker’s posts as much as the rest of you but I disagree with him when it comes to some of his posts about race.
Where I come from “towel head” is a racial epithet. It’s not tranzi wetness to prefer it not be used — just a preference for civilized discourse.
Frank — I know what they call us. I believe in calling a spade a spade, but not in gratuitiously insulting the spade when you don’t have to. That’s all.
James, why do I get the feeling you’re an Irish tenor? Keening for an Ireland, in an irritatingly high pitched voice, that never was?
Then we get that great Oirish insight: “Now the Americans, they know a thing or two about ‘Empire’, if we can even use the term: Sell them Coke, cars and various other products and watch those tasty Western values flow out. Invest there to build stronger companies back in the U.S. Defend them when they’re threatened, but keep the hell out of their politics as much as possible. Now THAT’S how it should be done. The British Empire could have learned a thing or two from them.”
First, that the world wants what America produces isn’t due to the construction of clever Five Year Plans by the American government. It’s not a concerted movement. The popularity of American products is due to raw capitalism. The companies went out and marketed their products and people liked them enough to part with their money for them. America is successful because it gives people what they didn’t know they wanted until they saw it, and makes them feel good about spending their money. This is products.
Two hundred years ago, when the world was just opening up to the great-great-grandfathers of those now slapping Tommy Hilfiger onto their credit cards, it was a bit rougher because we were shipping raw materials (and paying local labour) and the British navy in particular was given to protecting British commercial interests.
James,
I have not time right now to go digging around for the link but I recall reading in 2001 (in some very credible and august economic journal) that of the world’s top 10 freest economies, no less than 8 of them were former British colonies.
Oh yes, and the Rep. of Ireland was among them.
I reckon that’s a pretty impressive legacy. Learn from the Americans? I rather fancy that the Americans learned from the British – the founders of modern civilisation.
James – I posted the above before I saw your good-natured rebuff. OK.
James; You are confusing me with Nancy. I never accused you of being “grouchy.” I merely expressed annoyance that you extrapolated a discussion about the indigenous culture of Britain into an endorsement of British imperialism.
re: tranzis. I guess you’ve had to be in on previous discussions to get the drift. But it’s not inconsistent with their typical reactions to try to deflect a discussion about the positive aspects of any Western culture into a condemnation of that culture’s past excesses. A very typical reaction on that score. Sorry if that’s not what you meant to do.
Beats the hell outta me, Verity. Perhaps you could point out the various bits where you see that, and I’ll try to explain. I take it you’re not too fond of us over here in The Auld Sod 🙂 Too bad, that.
Can’t sign a note, btw. Croak like a frog I do.
Er, that’s pretty much in keeping with what I said. All sounds about right to me.
Which was kind of my point; A MacDonalds on every corner, not a Garrison Barracks. No worries, I hear where you’re coming from.
What David Carr said.
Susan, Guessedworker’s posts stand on their own and I doubt that he sought your editorial guidance. As you know, I have great respect for your posts and always read them with interest, but perhaps you ought not to try to impose your California standards of political correctness on a libertarian blog.
Verity, I don’t have “California” standards of political correctness. I’d like for this blog to dispell the notion that conservatives and libertarians are nasy old bigots, that’s all.
I despise transi thought as much as you do, but not everything they say is wrong, BTW. They just twist tradition, conservative (if I may say: Anglo-Saxon) ideas of decency and fairplay all up into an evil, power-mongering agenda.
Guessed worker, I apologize if my comments offended you.
Sorry, that post above came out garbled. What I meant to say is that I’d like to think my objections to the word ‘towel head” stems from traditional Anglo-Saxon notions of fair play and “fair go” rather than from any sense of “political correctness.”
Susan,
I do not wish to offend YOU. There’s absolutely no offence taken on my side. But what do I do now for a mildly perjorative term for our Arab brothers? Quelle domage.
Maybe we can debate the race thing properly sometime. I would be interested to know your position.
Verity,
Where did you get all that front, if you see what I mean? Hell, if I get rich and famous overnight I want you as my bodyguard. One blast of Verity-speak and the bad guys will dive for the exit. Never, never change.
No worries, appreciate the follow up.
No, Susan. The Anglo Saxons are much more robust. It’s the Californians who are so dainty, and at the same time so bossy. The language of Shakespeare doesn’t mince its words.
Guessed worker, how about calling ’em lunatics? 🙂 This is a more forthrightly descriptive term than towel heads.
Verity: You have missed my point completely. Unusual for you. Never mind.
OT: for comic relief I dipped into the talkboard at al-Ghardayan to see how they were reacting to Carey’s remarks. The knee-jerk tranziness was so thick it was utterly suffocating. Lots of posts along the lines of “What does Carey consider an achievement? Lethal Weapon II”?, yada yada yada.
The ignorance of Western culture, the cultural relativism and knee-jerk tranziness was so suffocating I had to get out. I used to be able to lurk at the al-Ghardayan talkboard (sometimes one can find useful information on it), but now I can’t abide it. Imagine if the whole world was run on the lines of al-Ghardayan’s talkboard. That is our future if we don’t fight back. I had to rush over here to get some fresh air pronto 🙂
Ooops, all apologies on my part, Susan, I’ve gotten the names confused. My bad!
Apologies also if it seemed I was ragging on at British culture, I misinterpreted what was posted here.
No problem. I’m an atheist and Transhumanist, so believe me, not only am I enamoured by Western Enlightenment values and culture, I’m counting on ’em!
Susan
‘Frank — I know what they call us. I believe in calling a spade a spade, but not in gratuitiously insulting the spade when you don’t have to. That’s all.’
I think that remark should have been directed at Guessedworker who countered your rebuke with the ‘You should here what they call us …’ suggestion, not me, Honey. But no matter, the repartee is getting a little confusing. We all seem to be roughly on the same side – with reservations here and there. That’s the way it should be. But I do admit that I’m with Verity on the bluntness issue, and I have to warn you that calling a spade a spade in the UK will get you nicked! Try Afro-Caribbean instead 🙂
Incidentally, Taki is the one who uses quite liberally the ‘towel head’ sobriquet for Islamofascists, in his Spectator column and I sometimes suspect that Guessedworker is he. But I suppose Taki is too busy to be blogging hereupon, no doubt he’s in Gstadt gazing at the lissome ladies in their sexy shark-skin ski-suits and remembering the times when he could something about it, rather than just lusting in vain. Only kidding GW, you actually write much better than him.
Frank: I agree that Guessed Worker writes much better than Taki. His alka-selzer analogy was brilliant.
Verity
‘I said when he first came to national attention that Blair is a very dangerous man. He sheds destructive vibes like dander. There’s something not quite right about him.
Yes. Did you ever read Geoffrey Wheatcroft’s article in Atlantic Monthly (June 1996) which was a devastating potted bio of Blair. You would love it, given your aversion. The web page is: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96jun/blair/blair.htm
Will you all please revert to insulting me? I don’t know about Taki but I’m much more comfortable with that
Just read Wheatcroft’s article, Frank. A faultless assessment. But what pregnancy lies in those repeated assertion that no one really knows what Blair, PM will do. I would very much like to see Wheatcroft revisit this now no longer open question. I suppose he is bound to have done so.
In June of this year Anthony Seldon will be presenting a Channel 4 dockie on the Blair premiership, to coincide with the publishing of his book on the second term. I have a lot of respect for Dr Seldon, though his pet idea for funding education by on the basis of parental income doesn’t chime with me. Still, he is a penetrating thinker, like Wheatcroft. One hopes that some of the Blair artifice will be exposed.
Agreed, but we must also remember that many former colonies also went straight down the tubes after liberation (some have stayed there, too). Is this the legacy of former British Rule? The left wingers would say it is, but I don’t buy it.
Many of those nations reverted to tribalism once the British were gone, because they never really understood the benefits of the British form of civilization. Their hatred of the British led them to reject their ways of life in their entirety, and they reverted to earlier, more primitive forms of society and/or thinking. If they’d truly learned the lessons, they perhaps wouldn’t have regressed.
A very recent example would of course be Zimbabwe under Mugabe, using hatred of the “white man” to effectively destroy his nations agriculture. All the while those nice left wingers over here seem quite happy to let this atrocity pass by without so much as a whimper, but that’s for another thread.
Of course, this pattern isn’t limited just to former British colonies, but occurs across all nations that were someone’s colony. It’s the nature of the beast to some extent. But is this a reflection on the British or other colonial nations? I don’t think so. It’s more a reflection of the damage caused by reverting to tribalism. Thankfully, by the time the British left Ireland – and most likely directly as a result of them having been here – we’d gotten tribalism out of our system.
Speaking of Ireland, our position on the list is a relatively recent thing. The “Celtic Tiger” economy was a direct result of the IDAs efforts to encourage multinationals to invest here, to some degree at the expense of promoting the creation of local businesses (not that I’m complaining, I work for one of those multinationals). It’s worked out well for us, although as a result we have our small, idiotic but vocal groups of socialist, green-to-the-gills, Che-loving anti-globalizers. Fun planet we live on, eh?
Certainly the British left a legacy of workable civilization in former colonies, no argument about that. The main problem seems to be that many didn’t take heed of it, or rejected it completely. Their loss, IMO.
GW
‘Will you all please revert to insulting me? I don’t know about Taki but I’m much more comfortable with that.’
Gather ye rosebuds while ye may … you know it won’t last, and the blushes are duly noted.
I can’t find any ‘revisit the Blair bio’ piece by Wheatcroft, shame he doesn’t run a blog. Now if Mark Steyn had written that article, we would have his revisit with nobs on, each correct prognostication underlined and in flashing, flourescent purple. Don’tcha love him?!! 🙂
As a comparative neophyte to the blogosphere I realise that when I find a blindingly revealing morsel of info tucked away in the entrails of this terrifyingly revealing medium, that you seasoned bloggers may well have already digested its bones of contention to jelly.
But just in case: a dear friend recently drew my attention to the work of Professor Cleon Skousen, a Mormon thinker and erstwhile FBI Agent/Police Chief. As we have been getting a grip on the ghost of Gramsci, it is aposite and timely to revisit Clousen’s analysis of Communist aims back in 1958. It should also be noted that Congressman A.S. Herlong Jr. entered the salient list in Skousen’s piece into the Conressional Records in 1963.
All we have to contemplate is which of the 45 points in this ‘communist wish list’ are already fulfilled and which are still developing. And what we can do to formulate and implement a counteracting wish list – if it’s not too late already. Suggestions please for both the list and tactics for implementation. See: (Link)
Frank, I couldn’t get the link to work. So here is the list in full.
CURRENT COMMUNIST GOALS
1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.
6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.
7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.
8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev’s promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.
9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.
10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.
11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)
12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.
14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.
15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a “religious crutch.”
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”
29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”
31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.” Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture–education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.
36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].
39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use [“]united force[“] to solve economic, political or social problems.
43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.
44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.
45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.
Documentation Note: The Congressional Record has only been digitized for years 1983 to
Hmm.
1. “There is another way Old Europe could increase their population. English speakers do it all the time. But the French couldn’t copy those Damned English Shopkeepers or those Evil American Cowboys, could they? What is this secret technique? They could have SEX. ”
Can I volunteer?
2. “The bulk of the people need religion, or at least they need some form of moral guidance that they don’t need to think too much about.”
I have to agree. People need a moral compass with which to judge themselves and their daily lives. Without that compass all there is left is the pursuit of personal pleasure at any cost.
3. “What is it about the low birthrates for native born europeans? Socialism reduces the desire to have kids? Increases the costs? ”
Believe it or not, no. Even Sweden, with the silliest set of child-rearing laws around, has very low birth rates. The simple fact seems to be prosperity. With prosperity comes entertainment and other diversions. Look back through history and the most common form of entertainment was either getting blindly drunk or sex. With the former often leading to the latter. This same phenomenon is happening everywhere there is prosperity.
4. “… but I would like to see Britain apply to be a state of the United States. ”
Wow. Now that’s irony for you. 🙂 If Britain became the 51st state then we’d seriously rethink the whole July 4th celebration thing.
Frankly I’m amazed that Blair is actually going to be able to force Britain’s submission to the EU without even so much as a vote. Then again I suppose that it would work the same way. Since Blair is busily uprooting thousand year old traditions in his drive to merge with the EU, he could do the same thing in a bid for statehood.
If nothing else you could always opt for the same situation that Puerto Rico is in. They’re citizens, with all the benefits except federal elections, but they don’t pay federal taxes. It’s an odd situation where the Puerto Rican Seperatists have been fighting for decades for independence. Actually both houses of Congress have been fighting for Puerto Rican independence too. now that I think about it. The only people holding things up are the Puerto Rican people themselves who want no part of it. I suppose they know a good thing when they see it.
5. “The Americans would probably even find a way for us to keep our royal family.”
I don’t doubt that at all. I think it’s very apparent that Americans have a fascination for the Royals beyond that of anyone actually living in the UK. We’ve got people who fly to London to see the Royals, or at least the palace. How many people living in London care enough to take a taxi?
6. “Also Verity, a small logistical problem — I don’t think you can fit 51 stars on the flag in any way that makes decent design sense. That’s one of the main reasons why we stopped at 50. ”
That’s ok. We could add a bunch at the same time. Alberta, Britain, Scotland, Puerto Rico and, who knows, Iraq. 🙂
Just kidding about Iraq. That would make people howl.
7. “Politically, and religiously, I find the Americans to have a wider spectrum of choice than I ever found in Britain, the same may be said of news media sources. I think that many get a false impression of Americans as being brash and loud, when in fact, the opposite is true. The outward ‘show’ protecting a basically introvert nature, and yes, that politeness is as genuine as the English ‘hello’, just different, but no less sincere.”
The thing that people sometimes forget, is that America is geographically large and extremely diverse. Customs, language, cuisine, architecture, climate and more are all completely different based on geographical region. As someone who has travelled a great deal of America I can tell you, things are vastly different everywhere. The America you see is just that you have seen. There is always much more to be experienced. As for manufactured goods, it all again depends on locality. I’ve lived in places where a quiet dishwasher was unheard of. I’ve also lived in places where a noisy dishwasher would have resulted in an immediate call for a repairman. And I’ve lived in places that considered dishwashers as a ridiculous luxury (my grandfather, lol).
As for tea, it really again depends on the region. I live in New Jersey and all of my friends use basic Lipton tea for making ‘ice tea’ for the summer. But for hot tea we all generally prefer higher quality chais. An example is that I’m going to go and make myself a nice little pot of vanilla tea.
8. “As for America, there is an enormous and possibly widening gulf between mainstream white European culture and that of the “African-Americans”, and seldom the twain shall meet. Maybe Americans don’t see it so clearly since they grow up with it, but to me it is striking and painfully obvious, worse than the relations between white and black in east London and on a par with Anglo/Moslem cultural differences in other parts of Britain.”
What on earth are you talking about? The vast majority of African-Americans are middle class. Whatever nonsense you see on TV is essentially just that. Nonsense.
9. As for the next source of energy?
It’s actually, to my knowledge, been perfected in Australia. It’s called HDR Geothermal (Hot Dry Rock). It involves drilling very deep holes in the ground, pushing pipes down until they get to a point where it gets very hot. Then they run a closed loop of fluid through the pipe, then through a heat exchanger and then a turbine. No exhaust, no pollution and can be done just about everywhere. Plus the oil industry has researched everything needed to do the drilling.
HDR was actuall first developed at Los Alamos, ed. As far back as 1970.
Hmm.
“HDR was actuall first developed at Los Alamos, ed. As far back as 1970.”
*shrug* to my knowledge there’s still a pilot plant in existence from the Los Alamos program. But it seems the most recent developments are coming from Australia. No idea why as it seems a very logical sort of energy source. If the mantle is a thin skin of solid rock floating on a sea of molten lava you’d assume that the first thing people would think of is to drill a hole in the ground to get at that energy.
There are a number of easily downloaded pdf files that cover the economics of HDR. I’m still trying to work my way through them but it’s incredibly dry reading.
And I thought IBM manuals were like crossing the Sahara!
Ya-a-a-y! David got his century!!
Hello Frank,
I rather hopred the Scousen list would elicit some interest. Apparently, not. I thought I’d give it a prog with a stick, just to see if there was any life in it.
1958 was a long while ago. I was in short trousers and peddling my first two-wheeler around the backyard. The incomparable Duncan Edwards (a Bobby Moore and Brian Robson rolled into one) was captain of England at 21, and would be dead before the year’s end. In America McCarthysm was done and dusted four years earlier. It must have been a pretty good time to be left-wing. Still, Scousen shows a remarkable breadth of vision, even if one assumes that his list is more wide-ranging than it runs deep. It does not have the feel of scare-mongering to it.
From the standpoint of the present tranzi-ist debate, the list is really quite revealing. Of the forty-five items exactly one third are classic Cold War stuff, focussed on the global power struggle. Of the rest, seventeen involve meddling in domestic US politics, eight directly in the political structure and nine in wider political activism. These are the sort of objectives that the House Committee would have been expecting hidden communists to have.
The balance – thirteen items – are strictly cultural. The promotion of ugliness, homosexuality, promiscuity etc could be written off as the whiplash, Salt Lake City social conservatism. But look where we are today, forty-six years later. I take my hat off to the man. But most of all, I note that the fact that someone was writing on the wall all those years ago. Who listened then and who is listening now?
GW
Yeah, it was a year of mixed fortunes for for me: the day I got married in the May of that year, ManU’s depleted team lost the FA Cup to Bolton 2 – 0. My dear wife would probably remember it as the year she scored an own goal, too, but at least she’s still here to remind me of it – and living with me in the same house, so the cultural vandals have still some way to go. ManU’s fortunes have improved since then, too, even if Bolton are still a thorn in their side.
At work I was still helping sort out the aftermath in Soho of the remnants of the criminal empires of Billy Hill, Jack ‘Spot’ Comer and Albert Dimes, who pre-dated the Kray Twins (in fact spawned them) and a new dawn of politics was heralded by the visit of Khrushchev & Bulganin to London. Then in the Autumn came the first real indication of what was afoot in ‘race relations’ in London, when the first Notting Hill race riot erupted, from which a great deal of molten leftist lava still flows.
Thanks for listing Scousen’s perceived 45 point manifesto of International Communism at that time, not sure why the link didn’t work, probably the way I entered it, but if anyone is interested in Scousen (that is a name folks – not an invitation to go cruisin’ the cottages of Liverpool) a good Google will lead them to his works and his worries. His religious proclivities to one side (and, after all, the heading of this thread is aposite to that) his research and foresight seems spot on to me and apart from the items on the wish list that have now passed into historical irrelevance, far too many seem to have been realised. We should all be prepared to answer the rhetorical question with which you finished your last post, GW, before the last post is sounded on England, as the Union Flag is lowered and in its place a star-spangled red one is raised over the HQ over the Brussels HQ of the Federation of European Socialist Republics. Somebody more erudite than I should compile the new Socialist wish list. Verity, where art thou?
Congrats on your ton on this thread, David, it may even top Melanie Phillips’s “The Abandonment of Marriage” blockbuster, but I’ll bet it doesn’t become as visceral, and it would be nice to see Reuben Chapple back in action again. Boy! Did he get Gramsci’s game plan? Even though his particular expertise was on the Pink Panthers aspect of the grand Gramscian cultural hegoministic plan.
Look old man, you’ll never get Verity’s attention that way. If you really can’t get by without another fix of Veritonian verbal directness you HAVE to feed the beast (at arm’s length mind you – don’t want to loose any fingers or, indeed, treasured political principles) a really tasty morsel.
Try this, from the cutting edge Marxist site ctheory.net. Its the puff to an e-book about where “they” are taking us (westerners, that is – not third-world folk, of course, who still know how to reproduce). Of what it is to be young – and confused.
The Last Sex
Feminism and Outlaw Bodies
The Last Sex looks at the future of gender in an age when the transgendered have emerged as a walking and breathing challenge to old sex definitions. Both the Krokers and the authors included (Kathy Acker, Shannon Bell, Stephen Pfohl) present rallying cries for what the Krokers call “transgenic gender,” a new gender that lies beyond our current ideas of sexuality, one that exists outside the dualistic man/woman model.
-Richard Kadrey, Future Sex
The Last Sex is about body outlaws, operating in the interzone between the cold seduction of the hysterical male and the beginning of that new horizon called the LAST SEX. It broadens the survey of issues in gender politics to include a consideration of themes related to trans-gender and trans-sexuality, reflecting the major shift taking place both in feminist theory and in the style of feminist writing.
GW
For Chrissakes! Trying to keep up with Samizdata and the fierce intellectual reactionary meanderings and contrapuntal themes of the punters on this site is damaging enough to what is left of my old fashioned sanity.
Moreover, watching Brian Paddick perform in a Commanders uniform on Gay Pride marches; even worse, seeing him on Sky news with St Stephen’s Tower in the background (Big Ben and big bender in a two shot) when the Yard stuck him up as spokesman, to answer for the sloppy security at the Parliament of Mother-s, after the Greenpeace piss-take last weekend, did for the remnants of my pride at having served with the Poliss of the Metrollups. More generally, watching my fellow subjects marching in their thousands around London displaying their cowardice or misguided pacifist politics for the comfort of enemies and potential enemies of the West has dented my pride in my country. Now you want me to read the literature of a bunch of perverted leftie psychiatric patients who seek to destroy the very sexuality of our species and replace it with the whaddayacallit? … “a new gender that lies beyond our current ideas of sexuality, one that exists outside the dualistic man/woman model.”
Per-leeeease! Leave me with the tiny stirrings that are what is left of my libido, but most of all, my memories and DREAMS of the pleasure to which it once led. I’m beginning to think this is Satan’s blog and I am being tested to breaking point! Gramsci, Fonte and Scousen are enough to be going on with for now, thank you. And be thankful for Verity (I know you are) and all that sails in her. She is our hope for the future.
And didn’t Arsene Wenger screw up today with his last ditch ‘defensive’ subs? An uncharacteristic cock-up that displeased me greatly. But Faith is, most definitely, the Key. So Arsenal, still, for the big treble! The only bunch of Frenchmen I have ever admired. BTW what about the sinistral surge in the Frogpond today?
Frank,
It’s a case of hold on to nurse, even if she is the sweaty little hunchback of Turi. Because the alternative may be much, much worse.
The current, Gramscian nature of culture theory is probably the end of the line for “public” cultural revolution. Post-Gramscianism will be some form of Identity Theory, sexually reconstructive, self-mutilating, a sort of Rio Carvival in Stoke-on-Trent with Freud and oestregen injections. Apparently, we must be liberated from any oppressive shadow cast by our genetic natures. It is the ultimate challenge for environmentalism over genetic determinism.
Perhaps you think I am being a tad alarmist. Perhaps you think its just too outlandish, too ridiculus, too impossible. But the clever, damaged lefty shit-bags who dream up this poisonous stuff don’t view things in that light, not for one moment. They survey their achievements todate – confused, Ibsenite women wasting their lives on work, the white race no longer breeding and inviting into its mist all the third world, men marrying men – and see no bat to the process transmogrifying into its next and still more radical form. The bastards are working on it all day, every day. They never sleep.
It would lovely to think that our genes will rebel. If their was any justice (not, of course, social justice), these CM gits would have their heads severed forthwith by Tony Martin in his swinging new official capacity. Then the offending objects, devoid at last of thoughts to challenge and change us, could be stuffed on the the pitchforks of English yeomanry for parading through every county town of England and being pelted with rocks by the ladies of the WI.
But there we are. I’m a social conservative you see. Very reactionary.
Not an Arsenal fan, Frank, but I’ll give them their due. Pity they’ve drawn Man U next week and then Chelsea in Europe. I think they’ll loose against one of them, at least.
GW
In 46 years time some blogger will fall upon your last posting in an archive and say, “Hey, it’s just as well the now extinct hetereo-sexual paleocon honkies didn’t pay attention to this guy, or we may not have succeeded!” Great fun! Except, of course, it ain’t funny.
Islamic culture and sharia law don’t square with any secular, libertarian principles that I’m aware of (mind you I’m neither libertarian or muslim so I may be blind to the connection).
Sounds like an early surrender David.
Yeah, but bloody awful/aweful spelling. You know, pressures of work, Brahms and Lizst, tight underpants.
I should say, before you run away with the idea that I really expect my daughter, now eleven, to have to choose between a cross-dressing and carelessly inept African dentist and a life of masturbation, that I tip the force of life to win in the end. Marx is crap, and crap with a limitless capacity to damage human beings.
I just wish more of the supposedly freedom-loving Samizdatistas would realise where, broadly, most of their social liberalism comes from and where, specifically, it is heading. I understand that, for them, the cult of individual liberty shines with a blinding intensity. But blindness is only what it is. The beauty that I most admire does not rest in the noisy gift of the freedom to experience. It is an Englishness that is subtly familiar yet so recondite we cannot even, when challenged, find the words to sum it up. But though it is stitched into us and informs our culture and the way we love the people individual and collective whom we do indeed love, it is not able to defend itself. It is all too easily ignored – and when ignored, brutalised.
But there we are. Enough of that. They don’t like it around here if I rabbit on about blood and soil, much less the crassness of individualism.
anyone here know Andy Piederer (i think that’s how it’s written …) ?
He used to be into things like this, but now I cant find him