Knowing this was for the Guardian, he added with a mischievous smile: \”This is where the left seems lost. It insists on solidarity across the nation, with higher tax rates for rich people to help their less fortunate countrymen. But this solidarity is predicated on a sense of national belonging, to which the left is allergic; national identity comes with chauvinism and nationalism, and creepy rightwing supremacists. It\’s quite ironic how postmodernists and many contemporary social thinkers on the left will tell you that all sense of belonging is a construct, tradition is invented and nations are simply fantasies or imagined communities. Well, the global financial elite agrees.\”

25 thoughts on “Snigger”

  1. So Much For Subtlety

    Or as I am inclined to say, if they don’t give a f**k about me, why the f**k should I give a f**k about them?

    The global financial elites do agree. Which is why they and the Left together are happy to flood Britain with cheap Third World labour until the British will, presumably, become extinct in a generation or two.

  2. ..”the British will, presumably, become extinct in a generation or two…”

    Are you British? Then thank fuck for extinction.

  3. Interestingly the most successful welfare states have been in countries with homogeneous populations, ie Scandinavia.

    Its a sense of belonging together that enabled the goose’s feathers to be plucked so much.

  4. Serf: actually the “Scandinavia ia a homogeneous population” thing is a bit of a myth. I think it’s arguable that there’s more social solidarity there, and there’s certainly less heterogeneity in terms of e.g. income spreads than in the UK, but in terms of migration and national identity Scandinavia is probably about as heterogeneous as us.

    For one thing there’s the Sami (Denmark aside), and in Finland there’s a very large (and historically elite) Finland-Swede minority. But in terms of immigration from other climes, they have that too – and in some senses places like Sweden have made it harder for themselves by deliberately concentrating on “worthy causes” such as refugees, rather than on economic migrants like Britain has. (Also, having had less of an overseas empire in years gone by, migrants have less of a pre-existing cultural link. Many migrants to the UK from the former British Empire already spoke English and had been through a British-style education system. Very few of Oslo’s sizeablePakistani community turned up in Frogner speaking fluent Norwegian.)

    Sweden has a similar proportion of ethnic minorities to the UK and similar issues of concentration in certain (urban) parts of the country. Places like Malmo have developed ethinic tensions reminiscent of the worst of the northern English mill towns, with all the familiar allegations in the press about children starting school without knowing any Swedish, crime and antisocial behavior (particularly misogyny) being linked to certain ethnic groups, higher unemployment rates among immigrants (linked to “discrimination” or “scrounging” depending on your personal right-on/xenophobia ratio). Israeli newspapers report, in concerned tones, how the Jewish population in Swedish cities feels increasingly insecure due to the increased numbers of Muslims (certainly true) and claims of a corresponding rise in anti-semitic attacks (a story also familiar in France, but in neither case do I know the extent to which the phenomenon is real, or a statistical misperception fuelled by media panic and cognitive bias).

    By the way, a very strong Danish cricket team comfortably beat Bangladesh in the 1986 World Cup qualifiers and could well have gone on to play in the 1987 World Cup had the former Guyana player Rupert Gomes not put in a star turn against them for the Netherlands. The team was TK Jensen, JS Jensen, N Bindslev, A From-Hansen, Soren Henriksen (briefly of Lancashire CCC), J Morild, Ole Mortensen (Derbyshire legend), M Seider, T Nielsen (captain), TS Nielsen, and S Thomsen.

    And here’s the squad for the Denmark youth team’s most recent attempt to qualify for the U-19 World Cup: Christian Peck-Thorsted, Saad Hasnaat Ahmad, Aqeel Amjad, Anders Bulow, Glenn Molgaard Hedevang, Raja Basit Javed, Kamran Tariq Mahmood, Mati Malik, Siddique Akbar Raja, Ihyas Sawmy, Hamid Shah, Vijayasai Sasitharan and Saif Yaqoob. Which looks pretty heterogeneous to me, but none the worse for it.

  5. Francis,
    You do realise that the aim of breaking up homogeneous populations was part of revolutionary theory back in the ’60s don’t you? Was lectured on in those grubby back rooms attended not only by today’s socialist opinion formers but also a surprising number of the its financial elite. Curious what causes people have played with in their pasts.
    It’s the psychology the military have used for thousands of years. Remove people from their familiar surroundings, the society they identify with; or in the UK’s case bring in enough outsiders to have the same effect. The more isolated people feel, the more conducive they are to influence.

  6. Bloke in spain.

    Indeed. But the UK has never been a homogenous population. It is simple rubbish to suggest therefore that immigration policy is designed to eradicate the “indigenous Brits”. They don’t exist.

  7. Frances, with respect, bollocks.
    Try going to a 19th century graveyard & reading the names on the stones. Almost exclusively indigenous. Now try the same in other European countries. Closer you get to a border the more the leavening from across the border. Then you get enclaves. Maybe based on trade routes or other pressures. East of Montauban in France, for some reason, there’s a large Spanish legacy. Heaven knows why. Pyrranees are way south & the people the other side not even particularly Spanish.
    It’s that Channel thing. You can’t just walk.

    Scandinavians in the North but that is 1000+ years ago
    Normans & a tiny ruling elite + some Breton hangers on.
    Hugenots- not many or we’d be speaking more French
    Dutch in the Fens
    Irish for the 18th & 19th canals & rail
    Jews in 19thC & another small wave between the wars.
    Who else till the Windrush docked?

  8. bloke in spain

    With respect, not bollocks at all. Define “indigenous”. The names on gravestones tell you nothing at all about people’s origins. What we do know is that there has been immigration to the UK from time immemorial and the Brits are a mongrel race. So “indigenous” is a meaningless term.

  9. Francis is trotting out that leftist nonsense about the 50 million folk who lived in this country before the immigrants arrived. According to him, we were all just standing here by accident. We weren’t a race, we weren’t a nation, we had no shared history, or bonds of kinship. The fact that we are a mixture of anglo saxons and celts, means we fail to qualify as a nation with a heritage, a language, and ancestral links going back centuries, in many cases more than 1000 years. We are as entitled as any other other nation, to respect for our national identity, and our rights to sovereignty over our homeland.

    This used to be a very cohesive society, until the wreckers started trashing it. It most assuredly not a land without a people, desperate to be colonised by whoever felt like dropping by.

  10. Monty

    Yawn. You’re trotting out nationalistic nonsense about the 50 million folk who have been migrating in and out of this country for the last three thousand or so years. Homogeneity is not a precondition for nationhood. Immigration – or emigration – does not destroy nationhood. Race does not determine nationhood. Ancestral links transcend national barriers. Britain has more than one cultural heritage and more than one language. That does not in any way destroy or weaken its national identity or its sovereignty. Stop being so bloody parochial.

    Oh, and would you please spell my name correctly? It is on every post I make. If you bothered to get my name right you might also get my gender right, you ignorant cretin.

  11. A couple of years ago my school teacher brother in-law told me two things within about 15 minutes of each other.

    1) the BBC is a great national institution producing extraordinary, world-beating programmes and any right-thinking Briton should feel patriotic about it.

    2) he regarded himself as a citizen of the world, a brother to all mankind who did not recognise national boundaries or nationhood.

    It’s not a million miles from those lefty multiculturalists who yet champion the demand of Hamas to create a racially and religiously sealed laager in Gaza and the West Bank.

    The rest of you, simmer down at the back.

  12. The UK could have got a lot of high grade immigrants in 1940 but was agin the prospect of invasion.
    Odd really. Withy hindsight the Weremacht may well have integrated better than the current lot. And as a bonus – no pink government or teachers etc. .

  13. So Much For Subtlety

    Frances Coppola – “But the UK has never been a homogenous population.”

    Yeah but there is a difference between a small minority of people not particularly removed from the indigenous population and the massive influx we have seen since the 1990s, or even since the 1950s. You can point to a tiny number of French Hugenots but you really shouldn’t claim this is the same as about 5% of Britain’s population being of South Asian Muslim origin.

    “It is simple rubbish to suggest therefore that immigration policy is designed to eradicate the “indigenous Brits”. They don’t exist.”

    I agree. I don’t think that was the intent. But I do think the intent was to change Britain so radically that the old definitions of British would be upset – and the Tories would be out of power indefinitely unless they embraced the Left’s multicultural agenda. In fact we know that immigration policy was set to screw the Tories because New Labour said so.

    It just so happens that indigenous British people have by and large stopped having children in large numbers. And coming close to at all. British people have given up racism and so inter-marriage is common. Given the old definition of “English” included “White” we will need a new definition. Which is to say there may be people in these isles of partly English origin. Even British origin. But they may call themselves English and they won’t be English as we used to define them.

  14. So Much For Subtlety

    Frances Coppola – “You’re trotting out nationalistic nonsense about the 50 million folk who have been migrating in and out of this country for the last three thousand or so years.”

    Sorry but that is not true. People have not been moving in and out of these isles for the last three thousand years or so. We know this because DNA tests show it. The population has been more or less static – even the Anglo-Saxon invasions have not made much of a difference. What we have had is a small amount of movement by a small number of people. No more.

    “Homogeneity is not a precondition for nationhood. Immigration – or emigration – does not destroy nationhood.”

    Both those propositions are debatable. The first is patently false. Nationhood requires some sense of homogeneity. It may not be racial, but it is something. Thus French school books began “Our ancestors the Gauls”. A nation by definition is different from other people and is in some sense homogeneous. Even when it is not, social coherence requires some sense of commonality. Countries like Brazil and the US which are multiracial also tend to have weak social ties. Countries like Sweden that used to be ethnically homogeneous have strong ties.

    “Race does not determine nationhood.”

    That depends on the nation. Some nations do not use race to define themselves. Some do. The nation can be defined in any number of ways. Being English is certainly defined in racial terms. We have a category of Black British but we rarely have anyone who calls themselves Black English. Jamaicans are British, partly, by descent, by religion, by language. But they are not British. They are not even close in the way that New Zealanders are.

    “Ancestral links transcend national barriers.”

    They can. They often do, especially for the rich. But they don’t always.

    “Britain has more than one cultural heritage and more than one language. That does not in any way destroy or weaken its national identity or its sovereignty.”

    Given the long running sore that is Ireland and the imminent independence of Scotland I find it amazing you can make that claim. The actual real existence of those other cultural heritages has been a massive source of disorder in Britain – more so than anything else including race or class. But Britain is not a nation in the French sense. It is a state in the Austro-Hungarian sense. Or it is for the moment.

    “Stop being so bloody parochial.”

    The wealthy elites of Britain, who do not have to live with the consequences of immigration, often make this claim. I have cousins who do. They pride themselves on being open minded. As they move from Gated Community to Gated Community and retire to France. Of course the UK is an abstraction to them because their real home is a Five Star international hotel. Which is fine. But having never seen or lived in Britain, having never suffered the consequences of modern British disorder, I think it is a bit rich of them to tell us to embrace their prejudices at the expense of what was a perfectly working country.

  15. So Much For Subtlety

    MyBurningEars – “actually the “Scandinavia ia a homogeneous population” thing is a bit of a myth.”

    But that is irrelevant. It may not be socially or at least racially homogeneous now. But it was when they set up the welfare state. Mass Third World immigration, or even mass immigration, is a new thing in Sweden. The social democratic model dates back to the 1930s. When they set it up, Sweden was about as racially homogeneous as you could get.

    “For one thing there’s the Sami (Denmark aside), and in Finland there’s a very large (and historically elite) Finland-Swede minority.”

    Not exactly Somalis practising FGM are they? The Sami were a problem – and the nice Social Democrats tried to eliminate them through adoptions, sterilisation and so on. The Swedish minority in Finland was about as non-minority as minorities go as you could hope for – the Father of modern Finland and the hero of their independence struggle, Marshall Mannerheim, came from this community and did not even speak Finnish allegedly.

    “Sweden has a similar proportion of ethnic minorities to the UK and similar issues of concentration in certain (urban) parts of the country. Places like Malmo have developed ethinic tensions reminiscent of the worst of the northern English mill towns”

    And so here is a simple prediction – the Swedish social model is dead. Swedes will pay high taxes for other Swedes. They won’t for Swedes of Somali origin who sit on the dole all day, cut their daughters’ genitalia and are widely suspected of committing a disproportionally large share of sexual assaults against indigenous women. Sweden will gradually move towards the Brazilian model of a White upper class that selfishly controls the state for their own benefit while a large mainly Black underclass rots in poverty. As will we.

    Is there evidence for this? The Swedish Social Democrats have only lost five elections since 1932 – 1976, 1979, 1991, 2006 and 2010. As you can see, heavily loaded to the post-mass-immigration period. 1976 and 1979 might have been caused by the oil shock, but 1991, 2006 and 2010 look like a decisive shift to the Right to me. And so the welfare state begins to unroll.

  16. SMFS

    Do be consistent, please. Are you talking about English or British nationhood and identity? They aren’t the same.

    I am not a member of any “wealthy elite”, and I do not live in a “gated community”. I live in a modest three-bedroom semi in a poor area of the South-East (yes, there are such places) which has a large Asian community. But I think the comments made were parochial.

    I disagree with quite a lot of what you’ve written – as usual – but in the interests of not having yet another ill-tempered debate I will leave it there.

  17. SMFS

    On consideration, I think I will take your argument apart.

    Historical immigration to UK (prior to 1922):

    DNA tests do show that there was not much overall change in the population until 1922.

    From that time onwards immigration has vastly increased:

    The end of the British Empire caused considerable immigration from former British colonies, which still continues today to some extent. There was also a wave of immigration after WWII, when the UK resettled large numbers of displaced people from Eastern Europe. EU membership has also forced the UK to accept quite large numbers of migrants from other EU countries, notably Eastern Europe. And finally – and not insignificantly – the UK has sought immigration at various times to fill skills shortages. Only the fourth of these could reasonably have been avoided, so frankly I dispute that all of this adds up to a deliberate attempt to “redefine Britain”. There may have been some intention along these lines recently: the Wiki article does cite one source that claims mass immigration was government policy 2000-2008.

    I am not disputing that Britain is changing. If you want to argue that “indigenous Brits” are disappearing – by which you mean descendents of people resident in these isles prior to 1922 – you may be right. But I completely deny that these changes mean that Britain is no longer a nation and no longer has an identity. That, sir, is racist bollocks.

  18. Frances,
    Something that might interest you.
    I took the trouble to dig out an old secondary school photo scanned & sent by a classmate. It dates about 1963 which probably makes the last that would exclude the wave of immigration that started in the ’50s.
    I went to school in what was, at the time, a markedly Jewish area of East London. Eight out of the 26 boys in my class were of that religion & I’d guess that ratio was about constant throughout the school. The only criteria for attending the school were living in the catchment area & passing the 11+
    To my surprise, after very careful study, I learn that amongst the 600 boys are two that look distinctly asian. Indian I’d guess. I do vaguely remember a couple of lads with ‘suntans’ so I suppose this must be them. Brothers I think. To my amazement I spotted a schoolfriend. He’s half-cast. Afro/white. Pale complexion but the curly hair, the lips, the nose. If I passed him on the street today, by modern convention, I’d label him ‘black’ although at the time he was just an ugly bugger. I saw so few black people, apart from in films, that I never made the connection.
    As was common at the time we had ‘registration’ forms but were streamed into ‘ classes’ for teaching. OK, I may have an unusually retentive memory but when you’ve heard the same list of names read out alphabetically for five years every morning it’s not much of a feat to recall most of them. Likewise when you’ve shared your life with a class for four years, most of the names come to mind. Especially when you’ve the photo to jog your memory. I got 23 out of my registration form & 24 from my teaching class. There is of course an overlap so I don’t double count. I can omit all the Jews because I knew all the lads who were Jewish & I’m pretty good at identifying Jewish names. There’s one Italian name, but he also ticks the Jewish box so I include him with them. I come up with 28 names. All of them typically English apart from mine which is an uncommon one. And English they were because if they hadn’t of been, kids being kids would have made a point of it.
    I’m not by any means a statistician but a sample group of 7% should be significant but I can also add one German in a different year because I remember the lecture on not blaming him for the entire war & some bad feeling from the Jews. Not in the photo but in my memory is an oriental, most likely Chinese but definitely mixed race
    Now if any school is going to reveal a population of immigrants it’s ours. We already do, hence the highly abnormal proportion of Jews.
    So where are they?

    The last time I passed that school the ‘white’ kids coming out the gate were a distinct minority. My old school friend inherited his parent’s house & still lives there. He’s one of the remaining two ‘white’ households in the street & the other’s Irish

  19. More anecdata. My primary school class had 2 non-obviously white. One was some sort of antipodean of European descent. The other was sub-continent, I presume via Uganda. It’s a wee bit later than BiS’s example and a lot further north …

  20. I wonder what it tells us that those who argue from the “extinction” perspective are defensive and unhappy with the present situation while those who oppose them are glib and aggressive. I suppose we could interpret this in a variety of ways.

  21. Bloke in spain

    I think it does depend where you live. My primary school photos – later than yours – show a sea of white faces with one or two other colours. I was in the suburbs of South London at the time. But my children’s primary school photos show a similar balance – mostly white, a few other colours. And this is North Kent.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *