Category Archives: invasion

The globalist lies about the British job market

Robert Henderson

One of the great lies of the modern liberal is that in developed countries such as Britain unskilled  and low skilled jobs are a rapidly shrinking commodity.  Daniel Knowles of the Daily Telegraph  was at it  on 17 November with Our greatest social problem: there are no jobs left for the dim (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielknowles/100118217/our-greatest-social-problem-there-are-no-jobs-left-for-the-dim/).  He tried to explain  away Britain’s growing problem of youth unemployment by arguing that the less bright, less educated British youngsters of  today are unemployed because “Robots and Chinese people have taken over the sorts of jobs that 16 year olds could get without any qualifications straight out of school and work in for a lifetime.  The only jobs left for the under-educated, or often just the less academic, are in service industries: serving coffee, cleaning toilets, stacking shelves. These jobs are not the first rung on the ladder. There is no ladder; no one hopes to work in Pret a Manger for life.”

There are several interesting aspects of Knowles’ comment. First, he assumes that offshoring jobs to places like China is something which cannot be reversed and the practice carries no moral opprobrium.  Second, he makes the assumption that everyone wants a career rather than just a secure job which allows them to live independently. Third, he makes no mention of the role mass immigration has played in creating unemployment amongst the young, something which can only be explained by  Knowles being of the generation which has been brainwashed into pretending that the ill effects  of immigration do not exist.

Knowles’ ideas about the young could be as readily applied to British workers of all ages if one accepts his interpretation of  the state of the labour market.  He is right on the superficial detail that  less well-qualified Britons British workers are increasingly being left without unskilled and low-skilled work, but wrong in understanding of why this is and his implied assumption that Britain’s economic circumstances cannot be changed.

The “we have to live in a globalist world” lie

Britain does not have to be,  in the cant of the globalists,   a post-industrial society.  To begin with Britain still undertakes a good deal of manufacturing, albeit  this has become across too narrow a range of goods.  The base to expand industrial production is still there if only Britain’s politicians forsook the globalist fantasy and concentrated on protecting the domestic British economy,  for example, by having a policy to be self-sufficient in food and energy or by making it illegal to use a call centre outside of Britain to serve Britain.    This would  necessitate  Britain  leaving the EU.   Withdrawal from the EU would also allow Britain to re-establish control over immigration. Turning off the immigrant labour tap  would force British employers to take on native Britons.

Such actions  would place  restrictions on what Britain could sell overseas and lessen  the opportunity for Britons  to work abroad,  but  it would be a case of economic swings and roundabouts . The swings of being an independent judiciously protectionist nation again would most probably exceed greatly exceed the roundabouts of  other nations’ restriction.  This is because the central lesson of economic history is that  a strong domestic economy is  necessary for a country to be economically successful.  It is worth adding that Britons who go to work abroad today  are, unlike the majority of foreigners who come to work here, amongst the better qualified part of the population.  Consequently, any restriction on their ability to emigrate would be to Britain’s advantage.

Being more self-sufficient as a  country also has considerable political advantages. There is less opportunity for  diplomatic bullying, especially of small countries by the powerful. Domestically, the more things which are within the control of  a government the greater the democratic control,  because politicians cannot blame ills on international treaties and circumstances to the same extent.  For example, suppose the controls over British financial sector had remained as they were before the Thatcher government’s relaxations,  the present financial mess would not have touched Britain to anything like the same extent  because lending by British financial institutions would never have got out of hand.

As for people not being prepared to do run-of-the-mill jobs for all of their lives, this is what used to happen routinely and, indeed, many  people  continue to do just that  today.  Nor is this  something restricted to the  unskilled.  Any skilled craftsman – a builder, plumber or carpenter – or someone with a skill such as HGV driving  will do the same basic job all their lives unless they choose to go to another form of employment.  The fact they are skilled does not necessarily  make the job intrinsically  interesting , although it will be better paid generally than those in a low or unskilled employment.  It is also a mistake to imagine that skilled jobs which are  non-manual are generally fulfilling or prestigious.  A country solicitor dealing largely with farm leases and conveyancing or a an accountant spending most of their time preparing final accounts  are scarcely enjoying working lives  of wild excitement while a The truth is most jobs, regardless of their skill level, are not intrinsically interesting to the people who do them, the interest in working arising from the money reward and the social interaction which comes with the work.

The “there are not enough  low skill jobs”  lie

Nor is it true that unskilled and low-skilled jobs are diminishing.  The large majority of jobs today, require little or no specialised  training.  Very few retail jobs involve a detailed knowledge of the product; driving a vehicle other  than an HGV comes with the possession of an ordinary driving  licence; undertaking a routine clerical task can be done almost immediately by someone who is literate.  Until the advent of general purpose robots which can do most of the jobs a human being can do, there will continue to be a plentiful supply of low-skilled work. (http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2011/07/01/robotics-and-the-real-sorry-karl-you-got-it-wrong-final-crisis-of-capitalism/)

The existence of low-skilled or unskilled work has a positive benefit beyond the work itself.  It provides a means of independent living for the least able. In Britain the average IQ is 100. The way that IQ is distributed – in  a good approximation of normal distribution – means that 10% of the population has an IQ of 80 or lower. An IQ of 80 is thought by most experts in the field of intelligence testing to be the point at which an individual begins to struggle to live an independent life in an advanced industrial society such as Britain.  Without  low-skilled and unskilled work  the low IQ individual is left with no means to live an in independent life. That means in all probability a  heavy dependency on benefits with a likelihood of antisocial behaviour because they cannot live a life of norm al social responsibility.  Full employment is a social good which goes far beyond the overt material product of the employment.  The nationalised industries may have had a significant degree of over -manning in strict

The “ immigration does not lower wages or take jobs from Britons” lies

The immigration aspect of British unemployment is particularly potent. Since 1997 the large majority of  new jobs in Britain  have been taken by foreigners ,  with those coming from Eastern Europe being particularly drawn to low-skilled employments, viz.:

The ONS figures show the total number of people in work in both the private and the public sector has risen from around 25.7million in 1997 to 27.4million at the end of last year, an increase of 1.67million.

But the number of workers born abroad has increased dramatically by 1.64million, from 1.9million to 3.5million.

There were 23.8million British-born workers in employment at the end of last year, just 25,000 more than when Labour came to power. In the private sector, the number of British workers has actually fallen. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1264333/GENERAL-ELECTION-2010-Under-Labour-nearly-UK-jobs-taken-foreigners.htm l  –8th April 2010).

The situation has not changed since the 2010 general election. In November 2011 there are 147,000 more foreign born workers in Britain than there were in November 2010. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/8894148/Extra-150000-foreign-workers-in-Britain-as-unemployment-rises.html. )

Most of the immigrants to Britain who have entered employment since 1997 have taken low-skilled jobs: –

In the first quarter of 2011, around 1 in 5 workers, or 20.6 per cent, in low-skill occupations were born outside the UK. This figure has increased from around 1 in 11 workers, or 9.0 per cent, in the first quarter of 2002.

This represents an increase of 367,000 non-UK born workers in low-skill jobs, with 666,000 in the first quarter of 2011, up from 298,000 at the start of 2002.  Over the same period there was little change in the number of workers in low-skill jobs in the UK, which stood at around 3.2 million. However, the number of UK-born people in low-skill jobs fell from 3.04 million to 2.56 million.

There were also increases in the percentage of non-UK born workers in each of the three higher skill groups, although the increases there were not as large as that in low-skill jobs. Low-skill jobs are those that need a basic level of education and a short period of training, while high-skill occupations normally require a university level of education or extensive work experience.

The 1.7 million increase in the number of non-UK born workers is comprised of:

• 88,000 from EU 14 countries ((Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden)

• 585,000 from EU A8 countries(Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovak Republic, Slovenia)

• 1,010,000 from rest of the world countries Looking at workers at each job skill level, the majority of workers at each level were also UK-born, at 79.4 per cent, 87.2 per cent, 87.6 per cent and 86.1 per cent in low, lower-middle, upper-middle, and high-skill level jobs respectively.

Majority of workers born in EU A8 countries in low-skill occupations As there was a rise in EU A8-born workers in low-skill jobs over the last decade, it was also the case that workers in this group tended to be in low-skill jobs. In the first quarter of 2011, of all those born in EU A8 and working in the UK, 38.3 per cent were in low-skill jobs, while only 7.8 per cent were in high-skill jobs.

Majority of workers in the UK are UK-born Looking at all workers in the UK, the majority were UK-born. However, over the last decade, the number of UK-born workers fell by 223,000, while the number of non-UK born workers rose by 1.7 million. As a result, UK-born workers as a percentage of all workers fell from 91.5 per cent at the start of 2002, to 86.1 per cent at the start of 2011. (http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_234559.pdf)

Those are of course only the official figures. There will also be a substantial number of immigrants taking jobs by working in the black economy.

If the  1.7milliion  official count jobs filled by immigrants since 1997 had been filled by Britons,   UK unemployment would be officially around 900,000 today, not good but still vastly better than what we have.   The vast majority of the jobs taken by immigrants  could have been done by Britons because they are low-skilled or unskilled.  This gives the lie to the idea that the movement to a service dominated economy would mean  a famine of jobs suitable for the less able and more poorly qualified.  The wilful destruction of much of Britain’s  manufacturing and extractive industries in the 1980s   and the later offshoring of  jobs dealt a severe blow to British employment opportunities,  but it did not in itself mean large numbers of Britons would be unable to find work.  It is the permitting of mass immigration which has brought that about.

It is not only unskilled  British workers who are  being squeezed out.  Certainly in London where I live, the building trade has been taken over by foreigners, especially those coming from Eastern Europe.  The takeover has been achieved very simply: the immigrant plumbers, carpenters, painters  and builders  have been willing to grossly undercut the wages of the British craftsman.    Despite  supposed shortage of midwives, British  midwives cannot find posts in Britain (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8889007/Student-midwives-struggling-to-get-jobs-despite-shortage.html) and there are examples of skilled Britons being sacked as foreign companies bring in staff from their own country  ( http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2125178/huawei-accused-racial-discrimination).

For most of the decade from 2000 politicians of all stripes and the media refused to accept that immigrants were lowering wages. Around 2010 they began to accept  what the laws of supply and demand should have told them,  more people seeking work equals lower wages and poor non-money conditions of work. (http://www.allbusiness.com/labor-employment/compensation-benefits-wages-salaries/12699472-1.html). This was deeply ironic because following Blair’s election as Labour leader, the left liberal fraternity religiously espoused worship of the market.

The “Britons won’t do the work” lie

Phone-ins, social networking and the individual experience of those around you tell the same story: there are very large numbers of Britons desperate for work, often any work,  who just cannot find any.  Again and again people tell of how they have  tried  for dozens, sometimes hundreds of jobs without getting even an interview. Media reports of employers  getting large numbers of applicants for even menial jobs are a regular feature( http://www.londonlovesbusiness.com/25-people-chase-every-job-in-some-areas-of-london/423.article).  Many new graduates are finding that they have been sold a pup about the increased employability of those with a degree and are lucky to find any sort of  job. ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/jan/26/fifth-graduates-unemployed-ons).

It beggars belief that British employers are  employing foreign workers because they cannot find suitable people. Even if there was a problem with the attitude of young Britons, for which I see no evidence for as a general problem, it would not explain why older workers with a good work history are being overlooked.   The most likely explanation is that British  employers find foreign workers are cheaper and easier to lay off when they want to.

It is also true that where large numbers of people are needed,  gangmasters will be used and these are often foreign and only recruit people of their own nationality.  There is also the growing practice of foreign companies in Britain bringing  in their own people (http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2125178/huawei-accused-racial-discrimination). There is also the possibility of corruption especially where public service organisations are concerned, with foreign agencies and the British people doing the hiring enter into a corrupt arrangement whereby the Britons ensure foreigners are recruited and receive a kickback for that from the foreign agents who supply the labour. The foreign agent gains through the fees for finding and supplying the foreign staff.

During the Blair/Brown bubble years there may have been an element of Britons unwilling to do some of the menial low paid jobs, but in our present dire financial straits that cannot be the case now even for low-skilled workers.  Moreover even during the Blair/Brown bubble , the rapidly rising property prices and rents and falling wages  often made it impossible for a Briton who had social obligations such as a family to support to take those jobs because they would not provide a means to support the family.  Most of the immigrants who came in, especially those from Eastern Europe,  were young men with no obligations beyond supporting themselves.  They are able , even on the minimum wages, to save a few thousand per year  and that money in their own country is worth multiples of  what it is worth in Britain.   Such immigrant workers  found that  they could work for a couple of years in Britain and save enough to buy a property in their own country. (Give Britons the chance to go abroad and earn enough to buy a  house in Britain and you will be trampled in the rush). In short,   there was never a level playing field between British and foreign workers.

The obligation of democratic governments

The first responsibility of a government in a  democratic country is to promote the well-being of its  citizens above those of foreigners.  To take the view, as successive British governments have  in practice taken since 1979, that immigrants are, in effect,  entitled to the privileges  accorded to British citizens is to render British citizenship null and void.  To think of the world as a single marketplace with labour, goods and services drawn from wherever is cheapest or most immediately available, is to reduce Britain to no more than a residence of convenience which can be used for the purposes of the individual without any concern for Britain as a society.  That is what Britain’s politicians  and her broader elite are dragging the country towards.  All sense of nation has not been lost ye, t but Britons are increasingly seeing themselves as abandoned by those who are supposed  to wield power on their behalf and for their good and are in desperation increasingly  looking for their own advantage without regard to the effects of their behaviour on the society they live in. .

If Britain had a political elite which acted as an elite should do in a democracy, they would cast aside the globalist fantasy and begin to rebuild a stable British economy and with it a much stronger and more settled society.  They would recover Britain’s sovereignty by withdrawing from the EU. They would end mass migration. They would allow Britain to re-industrialise behind protectionist barriers.  In doing those things they would produce a situation which would allow Britons to be employed in jobs which were secure and paid well enough, even at the unskilled level, to live a normal family life because Britain would become a high wage economy. This would be because even the least skilled in society would have a value , for  the unskilled  work would still need to be done and  there would not be an immigrant army  to do it . This would either  put a premium on those willing to do the unskilled work who would command higher pay or the unskilled work would have to be done as incidental work by those  doing more skilled work, for example, cleaning the workplace in addition to being  a draughtsman.  A fantasy? Well, it is what happens in Norway , a very high wage economy.

The black-instigated and dominated 2011 riots and the Great Elite lie

Robert Henderson

The politically inspired fog covering the race and ethnicity of those  involved in the August riots is beginning to clear. The Ministry of Justice have produced a further  analysis of people  arrested and brought before the courts  for offences committed in the rioting in England between  6th and 9th August       (http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/statistics-and-data/mojstats/august-public-disorder-stats-bulletin-241011.pdf).  The data is complete to 12th October.

The Home Office has also produce a report dated simply October
2011 (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/overview-disorder-aug2011/overview-disorder-aug2011?view=Binary).
There are differences in the mode of collection of data between the two reports, but the message is broadly the same.

The large majority of those brought before the courts committed their  alleged crimes in
London.  1,984 people had appeared before the courts by midday on 12th October 2011. By riot area the figures are:

• London – 1,386

• West Midlands – 174

• Nottingham – 64

• Greater Manchester – 200

• Merseyside – 62

• Other areas – 98

(http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/statistics-and-data/mojstats/august-public-disorder-stats-bulletin-241011.pdf  – p4). The overwhelming majority of those brought before the courts were from areas with large non-white populations.

The reports include an ethnic/racial breakdown of those arrested and those brought before the courts.  These demonstrate clearly that blacks were grossly overrepresented, Asians proportionately  represented and whites grossly underrepresented in proportion to their part of the population of England. Here is  the Ministry of Justice:

Comparisons by ethnicity (where ethnicity was recorded) show that 42 per cent of those brought before the courts were White, 46 per cent were from a Black or mixed Black background, 7 per cent were from an Asian or mixed Asian background, 5 per cent were other. The proportions vary significantly by area. However, caution is needed when analysing these figures as the comparisons with the local population have not been fully age adjusted (p4).

This broadly agrees with the ethnic  breakdown of those arrested  given in the Home Office report :

Forty per cent of all arrestees described their ethnicity as White, 39 per cent as Black, 11 per cent as from a Mixed ethnic background, eight per cent as Asian and two per cent
from some other ethnic background. (p4).

There are two ways of looking at the figures: by comparison with the population of England as a whole and by comparison with  the populations of the areas in which the
riots took place. (I have had to use the estimates for England and Wales because the ONS  treats England and Wales as a single entity. However, the distortion is minor because Wales’ population is only approximately 3 million).

The Office of National Statistics estimates of the ethnicity of England and Wales  in 2011 are

% White, British 82.79

% Mixed 1.85

% Asian or Asian British 6.11

% Black or Black British 2.94

% Chinese 0.85

(http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/may/18/ethnic-population-england-wales)

Blacks with 2.94 of the population comprise  46% of those brought before the courts , while whites (which includes white immigrants) with 82.79% of the population provide only  42% of this group. Asian representation approximately reflects their percentage of the UK population. The comparison with the populations of the riot areas  showed an even greater black involvement. This was true even in the few areas where there was only a small non-white population, for example;

 Salford – of defendants brought before the court who lived in Salford, 94 per cent were White and six per cent were from a Black or mixed Black background; whereas the
resident population, under the age of 40, comprised 88 per cent white and two per cent black or mixed Black backgrounds.

In areas where the non-white population was substantial, the proportion of those  brought before the courts  who were classified as wholly or partially black  was stark. For example;

 Haringey – of defendants brought before the court who live in Haringey, 34 per cent were White and 55 per cent were from a Black or mixed Black background; whereas, the
resident population, under the age of 40, comprised 62 per cent were White and 17 per cent were from a Black or  mixed Black background.

 Nottingham – of defendants brought before the court who lived in Nottingham, 32 per cent were White and 62 per cent were from a Black or mixed Black background; whereas, the resident population, under the age of 40, comprised 71 per cent were White and nine per cent were from a Black or mixed Black background.

 Birmingham – of defendants brought before the courts, 46 per cent were from a Black background, 33 per cent from a White background and 15 per cent from and Asian background.Whereas the resident population, aged under 40, comprised 58 per cent  , 30 per cent from Asian and nine per cent from Black backgrounds. http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/statistics-and-data/mojstats/august-public-disorder-stats-bulletin-241011.pdf
– pp16/17)

The figures do not necessarily represent the actual ethnic/racial participation in the riots. The sample depends  on those arrested and brought before the courts self-identifying their racial group.  5 per cent did not  identify their race.   Which group would be less likely
to refuse to identify their race? I think it  unlikely that whites would do so because  in Britain being white does not carry any stigma or sense of being outside the mainstream.  Most  of that 5%  could probably be assigned to non-whites.

There is also the willingness and ability of the police to arrest and investigate members of  all racial and ethnic groups with equal vigour and success and the willingness of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to prosecute without any regard to ethnicity or race.

There can be no certainty about  the even handedness of the police and CPS  because the public does not have access to the police data including the vast amount of CCTV evidence.
Nonetheless, it is possible to say what is probable.  As everyone who watched the TV coverage or viewed the many postings on sites like YouTube of TV coverage or private recordings, it is clear that where gangs of rioters were breaking into shops and other
buildings the rioters were overwhelmingly black. Despite assiduous efforts to find a white gang making the initial breach into a property I have found none.   Nor have I been able to find a white gang rioting or looting in any circumstances.  Whites actually looting either appear  in ones or twos or  occasionally as part of a predominantly black gang.

If that interpretation of how the riots evolved is correct – black initiation and domination of the rioting and looting followed by opportunistic white involvement –  it is probable that the police have disproportionately arrested whites compared with blacks.  This would be because whites, not being in gangs, would be easier  and safer to arrest than blacks, both during the riots and afterwards.  The  police would also be chary of tackling non-whites and especially black gangs both during the riots and later because of the politically correct ideology which has taught the police that dealing with blacks is dangerous because of accusations of racism.    There is some indication of that this may have happened   because the Home Office report on the riots http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/overview-disorder-aug2011/overview-disorder-aug2011?view=Binary – p5 ) downplays the role of gangs:

Overall 13 per cent of arrestees (417) were reported to be affiliated to a gang. Outside London, the majority of forces identified fewer than ten per cent of all arrestees as gang
members, and only two non-London forces estimated figures in excess of this – West Yorkshire (19%) and Nottinghamshire (17%). For these two forces, these percentages only represent relatively small numbers of arrestees (13 and 20 respectively; see Table A15 in Annex). In London, police reported that 19 per cent of arrestees – 337suspects, drawn from 169 different gangs – were identified as gang members. This is far more numerous than those arrested in all other forces combined. However, even in London, the great majority of arrestees (81%) were not identified by the police as being members of gangs. It should be noted that the way in which gang members were identified was not completely consistent between forces as no standard definition of gang membership was used. (p 18).

The relatively small percentage of those identified as gang members could be the consequence of  a failure to arrest or investigate a large proportion of the black rioters and looters. It should also be understood that gangs are generally a black and Asian phenomenon. The 13 per cent is probably drawn overwhelmingly from the the  non-white rioters.

The white component of those brought before the courts is  problematic because although it is  low compared with the group’s dominance of the English population,  there is no clear differentiation between foreigners and native white Britons nor a figure for the total numbers of foreigners brought before the courts.  (I made and an analysis of arrested rioters names in August –  http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/the-racial-and-ethnic-make-up-of-the-august-2011-uk-rioters-by-group/–  which  shows some rioters with European names. It is a fair bet that most of these were white).

The number of foreigners sent to prison either after sentence or on remand  was  110  at 30th September (http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/statistics-and-data/mojstats/august-public-disorder-stats-bulletin-241011.pdf  – p18). This constituted  13 per cent of those sent to or remanded in prison.  It is a reasonable assumption that a significant proportion of these people were white and further that those brought before the courts but not jailed will also contain a  proportion of white foreigners.  If, as the video evidence suggests,  the white foreigners like whites generally   tended to be opportunistic looters rather than engaging in violence against people or property,  they would be less likely to be sentenced to prison or remanded in custody than blacks who clearly were
responsible for most of the serious assaults on initial property (the breaking into shops and other premises).  That could mean that their appearance in the overall totals of those arrested and those brought before the courts but not held in custody could be higher than
those sent to prison.

The course of the riots also supports the view that blacks instigated and dominated the rioting and looting and other racial groups took advantage of their seeming  freedom from
police action after the police stood off in the first days. Here is the Home Office description of  what happened during the five days:

Day 1 Saturday, 6 August – Incidents of unrest in Tottenham with vehicles, shops and residential buildings set alight, and looting of shops.

Day 2 Sunday, 7 August – Further incidents of disorder occur in others areas of London affecting principally Enfield, Wood Green, Brixton, Walthamstow and Islington.

Day 3 Monday, 8 August – Disorder becomes widespread in London, with disorder occurring across almost all London boroughs. Incidents of disorder also occur in Avon and Somerset (Bristol), West Midlands (Birmingham) and Merseyside (Liverpool).

Day 4 Tuesday, 9 August – Although disorder in the London area begins to dissipate, disorder becomes more widespread throughout parts of Thames Valley (Reading, Milton Keynes), West Yorkshire  (Leeds), Leicestershire (Leicester) and Greater Manchester (Salford, Manchester). Unrest also continues in Bristol, Liverpool and Birmingham.

Day 5 Wednesday, 10 August – Disorder continues into the early hours on Wednesday in Birmingham, Nottingham, Leicester and Merseyside. Widespread disorder has now largely died out, though isolated disorder continues throughout the evening into early hours of Thursday. Some low-level isolated unrest continues over the following days. (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/overview-disorder-aug2011/overview-disorder-aug2011?view=Binary – p7).

The flow of the disorder is clear: it started in areas of heavy  black settlement and gradually spread to places with smaller proportions of blacks in the population. In those areas a much smaller amount of  looting and  criminal damage occurred.

The dominant  element of criminal intent (as opposed to political protest) in the riots can be seen from the high proportion of those brought before the courts with a criminal
conviction or caution:

• Overall 76 per cent of those who have appeared before the courts for the disorder had a previous caution or conviction

• 80 per cent of adults and 62 per cent of juveniles had a previous caution or conviction.

•71 per cent of adult males who have been brought before the courts for the disorder had at least one previous conviction compared to 28 per cent of males aged 18-52 in the
population as a whole who have at least one previous conviction

 •45 per cent of males aged 10-17 brought before the courts for the disorder had at least one previous conviction. This compares with two per cent of the 10-17 year old male population who have at least one previous conviction

(http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/statistics-and-data/mojstats/august-public-disorder-stats-bulletin-241011.pdf  – p7).

These statistics should be viewed in the context that the police will have been much more likely to identify  people with a criminal record or caution  from CCTV and other images than those who are unknown to them. However,  there were many arrests at  the scene of crimes and the difference between the general population and those brought before the courts is so stark that is unlikely to be wildly inaccurate as a representation of  the rioters in general, whether arrested or not.

There was a strong  age  bias towards the young.:

Comparisons by age show that 26 per cent of those brought before the courts for offences relating to the public disorder were aged 10-17 (juveniles) and that a further 27 per cent were aged 18-20. Only five per cent of those appearing before the courts for the disorder were over 40 years old. (http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/statistics-and-data/mojstats/august-public-disorder-stats-bulletin-241011.pdf
– p3).  Because the age profile of blacks and Asians in Britain is significantly younger than that of whites,  it is probable that a higher percentage of  blacks and Asians are included in the  younger offender groups than amongst the overall group of those brought before the courts.

The claims of social deprivation do not stand up. This is not because  the rioters were  not  poor or at least came predominantly from areas of social deprivation.  They  did. Moreover, their  educational attainments were below  average – see p 20 http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/statistics-and-data/mojstats/august-public-disorder-stats-bulletin-241011.pdf.  The reason why the claims fall is because there are many other parts of the country equally poor  with populations lacking educational success which did not riot.  The difference is that these areas had small or non-existent black populations.  

Calling black multi-coloured

What is clear is the determination of the British political elite to deny the reality of the riots. Instead of accepting that these events were black riots and lootfests which encouraged opportunistic looting by a small percentage of whites and a larger percentage of Asians, they have painted the riots as being racially undifferentiated  and the product of variously “broken Britain”, “an  underclass” , “social deprivation”  and “feral children”.  At best they are sweeping a problem under the carpet and at worst cynically tarring the native white population with a brush filled with a politically correct lie.

I submitted this prospective epetition (https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/)
:

The Commons to debate why the true nature of the black-instigated and dominated 2011 riots has  been denied by politicians of all parties who have insisted on the  false equality of participation of all races and ethnicities in the riots,  despite the fact that anyone watching the voluminous TV and private video coverage of the riots could see that  blacks were involved out of all proportion to their presence in the population, a fact given statistical support by the Ministry of Justice analysis of those brought before the courts which showed 46 per cent being black or mixed race and 7 per cent being Asian – http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/statistics-and-data/mojstats/august-public-disorder-stats-bulletin-241011.pdf

Almost needless to say it was turned down.

 

 

 

Remember, remember the fifth of November – it speaks to us today

Robert Henderson

Anyone taking their cue from the mainstream British media would imagine that Guy Fawke’s night is merely an archaic piece of religious bigotry. The papers and airwaves are alive with mediafolk and politicos tut-tutting over  the “anti-Catholic festival”,   with the more advanced liberal  bigots amongst them musing whether it should be banned as it
“incites hate”, while the less straightforward propagandise  for its abolition under the shelter of “health and safety”  with a recitation of the tremendous risks involved with bonfires and fireworks.

The truth, as ever with liberal bigots, is  the exact opposite of  what they claim. To equate   anti-Catholic feeling in 1605 (and for many years afterwards) with simple, wilful hatred is to display a howling ignorance of both history and of societies which are dominated by
religious belief. By  1605 England had endured 70 years of incessant Catholic threat since
the breach with Rome.*  Under Mary Tudor she had had a very dirty  taste of  what a Catholic Restoration would mean, with burnings and general persecution.  Before English eyes were the constant  sufferings of Protestants on the  Continent.   The re-conversion of England to Catholicism would mean  at best the intolerance of the Inquisition   and at worst   a Catholic foreigner  such as Mary’s husband Philip II of Spain sitting  on the English throne.  The great massacre of French  Protestants on  St Bartholomew’s Day in 1572  was dreadful warning of  what  fate might await  Protestants  under a Catholic monarch.

Throughout the reign of Elizabeth, the fate of  Protestantism  hung by precious  few threads, the sturdiest of which was England. On the continent only Sweden and the nascent power of the Dutch Republic stood between  the power of Spain, the great  agent of the counter-Reformation. Most  of  Europe  remained Catholic. The two greatest continental kingdoms,  Spain and  France were  Catholic and the (Catholic) Holy Roman Empire under the Hapsburgs was still a considerable  force.   Had England fallen to Rome  the Counter-Reformation would in all probability have triumphed.  Had the Dutch Republic failed  England would have been utterly isolated as a Protestant kingdom.

An  analogy with the position that England found itself under between the 1530s and 1605 would be that of Britain  in WW2 before America joined the war. Yet the Elizabethan situation was more perilous by far. The WW2 situation lasted for less than 30 months; that of England in 1605 had lasted 70 years and would last the Lord knew how much longer. Worse, there was no great overseas help to be had because there was no  Elizabethan equivalent of the USA or the Empire and the population of England was tiny  (3-4 million at best)  compared to the powers which opposed her.

During the 45  years following Elizabeth’s accession (1558)  Spain had three times tried and failed to invade England (1588, 1596, 1597). As recently  as   1601 Spain invaded Ireland and joined with Irish forces, but was defeated at the battle of Kinsale in Co. Cork.

To these external threats may be added the incessant Catholic plots against Elizabeth’s life throughout her reign,  with the shadow of Mary Queen of Scots  covering  most of them until her long overdue execution in 1586.

The mentality of  those  English Catholics who were prepared to act against the Crown was treasonable in the extreme. They’re cast of mind is exemplified by Reginald Pole, whom Mary Tudor rewarded with the Archbishopric of Canterbury and the Pope rewarded with a  cardinal’s red hat. Pole fled England after falling out with Henry VIII. He then wrote
a pamphlet imploring all Catholic powers of the day from the emperor Charles V to Frances I of France to invade England  and for all Englishmen to support the invaders.

For men such as Pole religion was all.  To make England Catholic was their only end. There was no arguing with them. Like the fanatic Muslim today everything else subordinate to their religion.  As Catholics,  their loyalty was to the Pope not to their king or country. The Catholic traitors of Elizabeth’s reign  would have willingly allowed a creature  such as the Duke of Alva to land and devastate England as he had devastated the Low Countries. Nothing was too terrible if it meant England  was to became Catholic once more. Truly, England in 1605 had no reason to  doubt that   she was under threat from  within and without her shores.

The modern  British mind has difficulty with understanding that religion was a very different beast to what it is today.  It does not understand that religion was not a quiet, private activity then but rather something which coloured the whole of life. Unbelief if it existed kept its head well buried. Intelligent, educated men were often ecstatic in their devotion and the poor if deficient in theology mixed their  Christianity with a healthy dose of pagan superstition, vide the  witch mania of the time.

Because religion was taken seriously, not only the fate of the individual soul but the fortunes of a country seemed to rest on the performance and nature of the religion of the country. Hence, to a Protestant the maintenance of England as a Protestant nation  was as
vital as its  re-conversion  to Catholicism was to a Catholic. This belief,  coupled with the actual behaviour of Counter-Reformation Catholic countries towards Protestants , was enough to persuade any English Protestant that  nothing worse than a Catholic England could be envisioned.

Religion was then a political question, the most important political question of the day and  Catholics of necessity were traitors because they had to give their loyalty to the Pope.  That was the long and short of it for Protestant England.

The response to the gunpowder plot was, in  the context of the day, extraordinarily mild.  The plotters had encompassed a plan the like of which had never been attempted before and which arguably has never been made reality anywhere ever. They designed to kill the entire English ruling elite, including the King,  in one fell swoop. A  more clinical and diabolically simple means of  revolution cannot be imagined. No  wonder the English elite  were terrified and the people easily roused to rage. There was some tightening of the laws and their enforcement against Catholics, but  there was no English St Bartholomew’s Day
against them.

The creation of a day of commemoration by Parliament on the 5th  of  November was a brilliant political act which kept the danger of further  Catholic plots and invasions before the people. Its popularity and longevity as a truly anti-Catholic festival  shows that Parliament was  utterly  in tune with the people.

The festival has renewed relevance today with the re-importation of fanatic religion in the form of Islam whose adherents acknowledge no country  and who, like the Catholic church of old, seek nothing less than the encompassing of the world within their faith. Plus ca change…

Today Britain is subject to a foreign power (the EU) to whom she pays an annual tribute (the difference between what is paid to Brussels and what we get back) and from whom she suffers constant interference with her internal affairs (virtually everything). In addition, Britain  has to bear institutions on her territory which are controlled by the foreign power (foreign inspectors of various sorts)  and the foreign power is attempting to make allegiance to the foreign power superior to Britons allegiance to Britain. (EU citizenship, the EU  Constitution).
*England’s  position before  Henry VIII’s  breach with Rome has startling similarities with  Britain’s position  today. Catholic England was a country subject to a foreign power (the Papacy) to whom she paid an annual tribute (Peter’s Pence) and from whom she  suffered constant interference with her internal affairs (clerical appointments). In addition, Catholic England had to bear institutions on her soil which were directly controlled by the foreign power (religious houses  founded under the direct authority of the Papacy) and every English man and woman owed their first allegiance to the Pope as Christ’s vicar on
Earth.

That NuLabour “mistake” over mass immigration wasn’t a mistake non-shock

Since they lost the 2010 election, the Labour Party have been religiously spinning the line that the massive immigration they presided over during their 13 years in office was a mistake. A favourite ploy is to try to concentrate all the admission of failure on the decision to allow the better part of a million migrants from Eastern Europe when new entrants were admitted to the EU. Labour’s new leader Ed Miliband was at it in September 2011. Asked by Nick Robinson of the BBC whether Labour had lied about immigration, Miliband said

“I don’t think we lied but I do think we got it wrong in a number of respects. I think that first of all we clearly underestimated the number of people coming in from Poland and that had more of an effect therefore than we would otherwise have thought. And secondly, I think there’s this really important issue about people coming into the country and the pressures on people’s wages. People aren’t prejudiced but people say to me look I’m worried about the pressure on my wages of people coming into this country, I’m worried about what it does to housing supply – all those issues. Now some of that is real and some of it isn’t but I think you have to address not just tough immigration policy but underlying issues as well.”  (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2011/04/ed_miliband_we.html).

The claim that the immigration was a mistake takes some swallowing.  To begin with there is the sheer volume of it.  Although there are disputes about the figures,  millions arrived  while far fewer left. The think tank Migration Watch UK estimates that from 1997-2010 the official arrivals totalled 3.2 million, while  941,000 Britons left. Approximately 80% of immigrants came from outside the EU.  The old white dominions – Australia, Canada and New Zealand – received more migrants from Britain than Britain received from them.   The greatest source of immigrants from outside the EU was the Sub-Continent.  Consequently, it   is reasonable to assume that the majority of immigrants were Asian or black. (http://migrationwatchuk.com/pdfs/MWK001-Migration-UK-report_Print.pdf).  To those official figures must be added an unknown number of illegal immigrants. Migration Watch estimates those at another one million under the Blair and Brown governments.  That may be on the conservative side, but taking it as a reasonable figure would mean that a net immigration figure of 3 million during the 13 years of Labour rule.  It is difficult to see how that vast increase in immigration – in 1997 net migration was  around 40,000 – could have happened by accident.   How could a Government not see what was happening for 13 years and do nothing “by accident”?

But it is not necessary to rest the case for mass immigration being a deliberate policy on the numbers and nature of the immigration. Labour in power left a number of smoking guns to show that it was indeed a deliberate policy. In 2003 the Home Secretary David Blunkett said that there was “No obvious limit” to the  immigration of skilled labour,  adding incredibly  that he did not believe there was  was a maximum population for the UK  (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3265219.stm).  This was at a time when immigration had already ballooned to around 170,000 per annum.

Tony Blair  said very little about immigration beyond  while in office beyond uttering the usual pc sanctioned platitudes about how valuable immigrants were to Britain . He did say  asylum applications and illegal immigration were too high, but this was done whilst allowing legal immigration to get out of hand (Blair managed to reduce asylum applications, but did nothing about illegals.  The asylum drop probably meant only that illegal immigrants chose other ways to enter Britain than  asylum).  In his autobiography Blair  mentions  immigration on precisely six pages out of 691 (pp 204/5; 523/4; 630; 678).  Here  he concentrates almost entirely on the reduction of asylum; the use of immigration as a prime lever to justify his desire for ID cards and  his wish that the EU controlled immigration. Blair does ( p 524) let the cynical cat out of the bag by boasting that he shut the immigration debate down by putting ” ID cards at the centre of the argument”  and winning “Because our position was sophisticated enough – a sort of confess and avoid’, as the lawyers say…” In short, say thing are wrong but avoid blame by switching attention to what is to be done in the future.

Blair broke his reticence about  immigration on  29 October 2011 in an interview with the ethnic British newspaper Eastern Eye. Here he not only spoke warmly of mass and mixed immigration but claimed it was a necessity for Britain:

‘It’s been a very positive thing and there is no way for a country like Britain to succeed in the future unless it is open to people of different colours, faiths and cultures.’ ‘

He went on to say:

“That is not to say you don’t have problems at certain points, but those problems are to be overcome without losing the essence of what has actually allowed this country’s people to get on and do well.’

… I think the majority of people in Britain today are not prejudiced and can understand the benefits of migration.

‘I think what people worry about is where they feel there is no control over who comes in and there are no rules governing who comes in or not, and that is a different issue altogether.

‘It would be very unfortunate if by putting those rules into place, we view that immigration was a somehow bad thing for the country, because it is not.’ ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2054903/Tony-Blair-defends-opening-door-mass-migration.html#ixzz1cCP3YCrZ).

Blair’s comments give credence to the claims in 2009 of  a special advisor Andrew Neather during the Blair government years.  He maintained  that  not only was mass immigration a deliberate policy of  the Government,  it was specifically designed to create an ever more diverse society:

” I [Neather] wrote the landmark speech given by then immigration minister Barbara Roche in September 2000, calling for a loosening of controls. It marked a major shift from the policy of previous governments: from 1971 onwards, only foreigners joining relatives already in the UK had been permitted to settle here.

“That speech was based largely on a report by the Performance and Innovation Unit, Tony Blair‘s Cabinet Office think-tank.

“The PIU’s reports were legendarily tedious within Whitehall but their big immigration report was surrounded by an unusual air of both anticipation and secrecy.

“Drafts were handed out in summer 2000 only with extreme reluctance: there was a paranoia about it reaching the media.

“Eventually published in January 2001, the innocuously labelled “RDS Occasional Paper no. 67″, “Migration: an economic and social analysis” focused heavily on the labour market case.

“But the earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.

“I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn’t its main purpose – to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date. That seemed to me to be a manoeuvre too far.

“Ministers were very nervous about the whole thing. For despite Roche’s keenness to make her big speech and to be upfront, there was a reluctance elsewhere in government to discuss what increased immigration would mean, above all for Labour‘s core white working-class vote.

“This shone through even in the published report: the “social outcomes” it talks about are solely those for immigrants.

“And this first-term immigration policy got no mention among the platitudes on the subject in Labour’s 1997 manifesto, headed Faster, Firmer, Fairer.

“The results were dramatic. In 1995, 55,000 foreigners were granted the right to settle in the UK. By 2005 that had risen to 179,000; last year, with immigration falling thanks to the recession, it was 148,000.

“In addition, hundreds of thousands of migrants have come from the new EU member states since 2004, most requiring neither visas nor permission to work or settle. The UK welcomed an estimated net 1.5 million immigrants in the decade to 2008.

“Part by accident, part by design, the Government had created its longed-for immigration boom.” (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23760073-dont-listen-to-the-whingers—london-needs-immigrants.do).

After the 2010 election a Labour peer Lord Glasman leant further support to the idea that  New Labour’s immigration policy was deliberately dishonest in an interview with the Labour journal Progress: :

“….immigration and multiculturalism … has become ‘the big monster that we don’t like to talk about’, claims Glasman. Mass immigration under Labour, he believes, served to ‘act as an unofficial wages policy’. The party’s position, Glasman contends, occupied a ‘weird space where we thought that a real assault on the wage levels of English workers was a positive good’. More seriously, he charges the last government with having acted in a ‘very supercilious, high-handed way: there was no public discussion of immigration and its benefits. There was no election that was fought on that basis. In fact there was a very, very hard rhetoric combined with a very loose policy going on. Labour lied to people about the extent of immigration and the extent of illegal immigration and there’s been a massive rupture of trust.’

“Perhaps most controversially, Glasman calls on progressives to recognise their ‘responsibility for the generation of far-right populism’, currently manifested in the growth of the English Defence League. ‘You consider yourself … so opposed that you don’t want to talk to them, you don’t want to engage with them, you don’t want anybody with views like that anywhere near the party.’ This, he believes, is to ignore ‘a massive hate and rage against us’ from working-class people ‘who have always been true to Labour’. The solution, he says, is ‘to build a party that brokers a common good, that involves those people who support the EDL within our party. Not dominant in the party, not setting the tone of the party, but just a reconnection with those people that we can represent a better life for them, because that’s what they want.’

That process begins, argues Glasman, by understanding that ‘working-class men can’t really speak at Labour party meetings about what causes them grief, concerns about their family, concerns about immigration, love of country, without being falsely stereotyped as sexist, racist, nationalist’.” (http://www.progressonline.org.uk/2011/04/19/labour-isnt-working/).

In true Maoist fashion Glasman soon confessed his “fault” (daring to speak honestly about race and immigration) –   http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/07/blue-labour-immigration-2

In virtually any time and place other than developed world in the modern era  the deliberate injection of  vast numbers of people, many of them incapable of assimilation because of  of racial difference or ethnic stubbornness, into a society would have been considered unconscionable. It is the betrayal of the tribe, the most fundamental form of treason because once the interlopers are present in large numbers they have effectively conquered part of the receiving land’s territory.    Had Blair and Brown pursued a policy of  mass immigration because they saw it as part of their worship of market economics that would have been bad enough, a crime worthy of death in a sane world.   But it is clear from their own words that they had a more obnoxious and fundamental motive.  Blair and Brown and their political associates actively hate their own society and sought to change it utterly whilst at the same time repressing any native dissent about the changes wrought. That is not merely treason but a form of psychopathy.

But it is not only the followers of New Labour who contain the poison. The entire British political elite pay at least lip service to the same internationalist “anti-racist”  ideology.   When the Neather article appeared there was no outrage from the Tory and Lib Dem leadership. When the Blair Government’s estimate of 13,000 migrants from the new east European entrants  to the EU turned out to be  monstrously wrong as hundreds of thousands poured in, the Tories and Lib Dems said little or nothing. Nor has the Tory/LibDem Coalition Government done anything to reduce immigration since they took office.  Most tellingly, no mainstream British political party has challenged freedom of movement within the EU, without an end to which no meaningful  immigration controls can be operated.

The terrible reality is this: Britain  has a political elite to whom treason is second nature; men and women who make the profoundest of mistake of  imagining  that human beings are  interchangeable regardless of race or culture and that consequently societies  can be socially engineered without danger.   Hayek saw their nihilistic qualities  70 years ago:

“The  Left intelligentsia…have so long  worshipped   foreign  gods that they seem to have become  almost  incapable of seeing any good in the  characteristic  English institutions and traditions. That the moral   values  on which most of them pride themselves  are   largely  the products of the institutions they  are out to destroy, these socialists cannot, of course,   admit.  And  this  attitude  is  unfortunately  not confined to avowed socialists. Though one must hope that  it  is not true of the less  vocal  but  more  numerous  cultivated  Englishman,  if one  were  to  judge by the ideas which find expression in current  political discussion and propaganda the  Englishman who not only  “the language speak that  Shakespeare  spake”,  but also “the faith and morals  hold  that   Milton  held”  seems to have almost vanished.  [The Road to Serfdom p222 Chapter Material Conditions and Ideal Ends]  

Some would object that none of the the British political elite counts as  Leftist  today. That is true in the sense that the economic aims of socialism were  dumped in favour of a worship of the market after Blair’s transmogrification of Labour to New Labour.  But that is all which as been dropped. The bigger project of internationalism has encompassed all major British parties, the members of which pay lip service at least to the  attendant ideology which has been developed from the internationalist ideal, namely, political correctness.  The politicians who subscribe to it are the heirs of  the “Left intelligentsia” Hayek found in Britain.

It isn’t a crisis of capitalism but a crisis of globalism

Robert Henderson

Contents

1. Turning a blind eye

2. What is capitalism?

3. Globalisation and the developed world

4. The suppression of dissent

5. The developing world

6. The loss of  national control

7. The undeveloping world

8. Supra-national  politics

9. Just another outbreak of an old  disease

10. Unemployment as a barometer of an economic system

11. Capitalism in a protected domestic economy

1. Turning a blind eye

Amongst the wailing and gnashing of teeth from all parts of political mainstream over the ongoing  economic crisis  its prime cause goes unmentioned.   Free market capitalism, which has been accepted , whether enthusiastically or resignedly, by Western elites for the past quarter  of a century  as the only economic theory worthy of support, is being questioned.  Even some of its firmest adherents are questioning whether  there has been  too much freedom of individual  action in the economic sphere. Some mainstream commentators who write for resolutely “free market” supporting newspapers  like  the Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail, are even beginning to wonder if capitalism is in a crisis from which it may not recover:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2022993/Capitalism-crisis-80-years-ago-banking-collapse-devastated-Europe-triggering-war.html#ixzz1aUJrGGaG

and

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/8814560/If-capitalism-does-fail-the-alternative-is-far-far-worse.html

Those coming from the left are unsurprisingly joining in the “end of capitalism” rhetoric (http://www.marxist.com/world-capitalism-in-crisis-1.htm). What you will not find are many  if any  mainstream politicians and economic  commentators  addressing the real source of the crisis:  the cloying and uncritical embrace of the internationalist creed  which we call globalism by Western elites, especially those in Britain and the USA.

Before I turn to the ill  effects of globalism there is the tricky  matter of defining capitalism needs to be addressed, because  there is a case for saying that capitalism is a state of theoretical  purity which does not exist in the real world.

2. What is capitalism?

Capitalism is seriously difficult to define because it shares so much with economic systems which are not considered to be capitalist.  For example, if the state undertakes an  economic activity such as providing healthcare in an organisation such as the NHS or nationalises the railways and coalmining are they capitalism in action? After all they employ capital,  land and labour, the three  factors of production in classical economics and provide goods and services to the public just as a private business would do.

What do  state enterprises  lack which private business has? The entrepreneur? Well, most large companies are not run by entrepreneurs but corporate administrators.   The profit motive?  Perhaps, but what about state enterprises which consistently make profits for the taxpayer such as the Post Office in Britain while it had a monopoly?  Freedom of action?  Private enterprises are heavily constrained by law and state regulation in every developed economy and state organisations are often granted a remarkable operational freedom.   The risk of going bust if they do not perform? Any state enterprise can in principle be ended or privatised  while private companies when they are large enough  have a good chance of being rescued by taxpayers,  vide the banks in the present financial crisis.  An absence of private money?   State businesses frequently draw  all or much of  their income from  payments they receive from the general public in return for goods or services,  for example, nationalised  energy companies .  Moreover,  many  companies which are classified as private enterprise organisations draw all or much of their income from  taxpayer funded contracts. Then there are the not-for-profit organisations, especially the charities, which increasingly  act as sub-contracted arms of the state as they draw much of their income from the taxpayer  and the rest of their income from donations. Individual and corporate. How should  they be classified?  Part of capitalism? Part of the state? A separate class of economic actor altogether?  It could be any of the three options.

To all those blurrings  of the distinction between private enterprise and public  service must be added  the  macro-economic fact that  all developed economies have a massive part of their GDP in the hands of the state.  The mixed economy is a fact of all reputedly capitalistic economies.  Does that render the idea of capitalist society redundant?   In a sense it does. The broad  differences  in developed  (and increasingly the more advanced of the developing countries)  is in the degree to which state control and ownership is balanced against private enterprise.

There are of course qualitative  differences in the application of the law as it affects the economy and the nature of the control which is exercised over the economy by the state,  especially in areas such as the banking system and the ability of foreign companies to operate. For example,  while countries such as Britain and the USA  allow vast swathes of their economies to be purchased by foreign countries, China will often in practice only allow foreigners in on the basis of joint ventures with Chinese firms. (http://www.booz.com/media/uploads/Making_Partnerships_Work.pdf ) . Nonetheless, there is a general similarity in the economies in as much as all are a mixture of public and private and all permit some degree of government interference and direction of  the market.

Despite the difficulty of definition  the term capitalism is not without utility. There is clearly a difference between a company which acts on its own behalf  without state direction or assistance and a nationalised industry. Parts of mixed economies are capitalist if by that is meant private companies which  operate without  deriving any part of their revenue from the taxpayer,  have management free to act  within the general restraints  of the law  without  state direction  and  which operate on the principle that they stand or fall on  whether they can at least break even.  The companies which receive  taxpayers’ money, especially those which rely on the taxpayer for  only part of their income,  also  have much  of the aspect of a pure private enterprise business in that they will in practice dictate how things are done, the public body funding their work being essentially in the position of a customer who merely sets ends not means.  Capitalism is a spectrum of behaviours  rather than  a clear-cut behaviour.

It is important to understand that  free trade does not equal capitalism. Free trade is   simply the exchange of goods, services and capital between countries. It says  nothing about the circumstances in which these things  are created. These  can be anything from  a command economy to the economies in which free enterprise is most dominant.

3. Globalisation and the developed world

Globalism equals destabilisation.   Until  the financial crash of 2008 the globalists argued that ever increasing free trade generally and the internationalisation of financial markets in particular  increased  economic  and  international  stability by  spreading risk more widely  (which reduced the cost of credit and consequently increased economic activity ) and by that by making countries ever more interdependent  the likelihood of international conflict  was ameliorated.  In fact, both ideas were pipe dreams and the exact reverse  of what globalism actually creates.

There are two  central elements of globalism. The first  is the end (or at least considerable diminution) of protectionist practices. Domestic  economies in the developed world are stripped of  great swathes of their economies, including strategically important ones such as coal mining and steel making, by the removal of protectionist barriers such as quotas, embargoes and tariffs. This  results in either entirely foreign imports  from low-wage economies such as China driving out the necessarily higher priced goods made in the developed nations or businesses in the developed world throwing in the towel and off-shoring their production of goods and services to low-wage economies.    To that is added in much of the developed world the banning of state aid and intervention  by both  treaties  and the domestic laws and rules imposed by national governments in thrall to an uncritical belief in  laissez faire economics and small government.

Getting rid of protectionist barriers and privatising state owned industries  massively reduces opportunities  for employment for the native populations of the  developed countries.  This creates greater competition for jobs which reduces wages and other conditions of employment and   increases insecurity of employment.  In some instances,  as occurred with Britain in the 1980s,  the opening up the domestic markets  to imports results in the  most dramatic and socially damaging of economic traumas,  structural unemployment, which lays waste the primary sources of employment of  large areas , the effects of which carry down the generations.

The second central element of globalism, the free movement of peoples across borders, amplifies these consequences  of free trade  and adds other destabilising  effects.  Mass migration of labour inevitably  goes from lower-wage economies to higher wage economies because there is no incentive for those in higher paid economies to take a run-of-the-mill-job in a lower-paid economy. In a addition,  developed economies offer not only higher wages but also many non-monetary benefits such as those provided by a fully-fledged welfare state which are absent in developing economies.

Mass migration allows employers to radically cut wages in the higher-wage economies and greatly increases competition for most  jobs, especially those which require little training or skill.  The difference in cost of living between the immigrant’s country of origin (low)  and the developed country they go to (high)  are important. Immigrants, whether unskilled or skilled,  are willing to work in such jobs for mediocre pay and live in poor, cramped  accommodation because they know that they will be able to  save a few thousand pounds in a year or two . They can do this even if by  living honestly by paying tax. But  often they  will  be paid cash- in-hand (no deductions for tax) ,  and live in in a  squat (the taking over of someone’s house or flat without permission and living there rent free.   Many will work  while they are claiming unemployment benefits.   If they have saved four or five thousand after a year or two,  this  will be enough to buy a house or flat in their own country  where prices are a fraction of what  they are in a developed country.  (Give Britons the chance to save  the price of a house or flat in Britain by working for a couple of years in those conditions in a foreign country and you are likely to be trampled in the rush).

As more and more immigrants come to developed economies, the position of the native worker worsens. This is  because  not only  are there are more people chasing jobs, but also because native employers increasing rely on gang masters and other recruiters  who are foreign and only  want to  employ  foreigners (frequently foreigners from their own country:  in the following  case it was a Bulgarian employing Bulgarians http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/277363/Workers-are-fired-for-being-British). Sometimes employers deliberately exclude  native workers by insisting that those employed speak a foreign  language in the workplace, for example,  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1257784/Biggest-Asda-meat-supplier-excludes-English-speakers-instructions-given-Polish.html ).

In Britain many employers excuse their recruitment of foreign workers  on the grounds that they either cannot get native workers to apply or that  those who do apply are unqualified for the job.  As the vast majority of the British jobs being taken are low or non-skilled  and there are now millions of native  Britons desperately seeking work of any kind, this must be an excuse in most instances  (http://www.metro.co.uk/news/878903-500-queue-for-just-20-sales-assistant-jobs-at-new-poundland-store#ixzz1b85oCrLr)

Even in the case of skilled workers there is discordance between the claim of lack of skilled applicants and the numbers of skilled British workers unable to find jobs. For example, there are  large numbers of doctors and nurses trained in Britain who cannot find posts in Britain,  while at the same time the NHS is recruiting heavily from abroad. (http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2011/09/09/no-need-to-speaka-da-english-in-the-nhs/).  More generally,   new British graduates are finding great difficulty in getting both appropriate jobs and, increasingly, any job at all (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8283862/Graduate-unemployment-hits-15-year-high.html).

All of that suggests that British employers are favouring foreigners for reasons other than they give. The most plausible causes are lower pay and inferior conditions being accepted by immigrants, the greater ease with which immigrants can be sacked , especially those who are here illegally,  and the possibility of bribes being paid, especially by foreign agencies, gangmasters using foreign labour and people traffickers,  to those recruiting for British employers to persuade them to choose immigrants over native workers.    An example would be where a public service employer uses a foreign agency to recruit abroad.  The agency will receive a hefty fee from the public service employer for each foreigner recruited and  that fee will be  split between the agency and  a corrupt recruiter in the UK.   There is also a natural disincentive for native workers to seek work where they would be in the ethnic minority in their own land, for example, if you are English imagine working a factory where the common language is Polish or Hindi even if it is not a requirement of the job that the language is spoken.

These various  practices mean large swathes of employment become effectively closed to the native population. The extent of the problem in Britain can be seen from one stark statistic: out of two million new jobs created under 13 years of the last  Labour Government 1.8 million went to immigrants (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1325013/Migrants-took-9-10-jobs-created-Labour.html)

The removal of protection for the domestic market, off-shoring and mass immigration has meant that material inequality has grown considerably in the developed economies  over the past quarter of a century as the wages of those competing with immigrants has fallen and unemployment has risen, including an army of long term unemployed.   The countries showing the greatest growth between the haves and the have nots  have been the USA and Britain, arguably the two countries most committed to globalism. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/18/bronx-manhattan-us-wealth-divide).

But there is much more to globalisation than the creation of material inequality. Mass immigration does not just create competition for jobs. It means there are more people seeking housing, healthcare, benefits and  education .   This further increases insecurity and resentment amongst the native population, especially amongst the poor because  they  are the ones most reliant on the welfare state  and consequently  are the people most likely to be in direct completion with the immigrants.

More generally, there is the natural resistance to large numbers of foreigners  settling in an area. Any  sizeable  influx of immigrants is never evenly spread. Immigrants in large numbers congregate  in self-created ghettoes which radically changes the nature of the area they settle in. This  arouses resentment amongst the native population, most fiercely  and poignantly by those directly affected, but as immigrant numbers grow massively, increasingly  amongst the native population generally,  regardless of whether people live in areas of heavy immigration.   The concern is not primarily that the immigrants provide completion for jobs, houses and social services , although those are important triggers of resentment, but anger at territory being  effectively conquered by  immigrants (http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2011/02/22/part-of-england-has-been-invaded/)

4. The suppression of dissent

Those consequences  would be enough to condemn globalism as a political creed , but there is much more to be set in the debit column of its balance sheet.

Because native populations in the  richer countries  are increasingly disadvantaged and angered at the effects of  immigration, the elites who have permitted it and are committed to globalism have to control the resentment and anger. Politicians  do this in various ways. They use  their power to prevent any honest  opposition to  mass immigration and its consequences by  passing laws which criminalise  the native population if they express  dissent to the policy. They create other  laws which in practice privilege immigrants, for example,  the British Race Relations Amendment Act  2000 which forces all public bodies in the UK to prove they are not discriminating against racial and ethnic minorities. They  use their ready access to the mass media to incessantly  push the “multiculturalism is good” message  and  force it  in school curriculums – in Britain there is barely a subject untouched by its taint, even those subjects such as physics, chemistry and maths which you might imagine would be immune can be taught from this ethnic perspective or that ethnic perspective (Islamic maths anyone?)

Companies which rely on public contracts and charities have to play by the same multicultural rules as public service organisations  and large public companies whether  or not r they are reliant on public contracts in practice do so voluntarily.  As an overarching deterrent, all employers are liable to be taken to Employment Tribunals if someone claims racial discrimination relating to dismissal, unequal treatment or the failure to get a job and risk unlimited awards against them if a complaint against the employer is upheld.

The  multicultural message and the intimidation of dissenting views is religiously supported  and underpinned  by the British  mass media , the members of  which  all publicly subscribe to the idea that racial discrimination (by which they mean any preference for any racial or ethnic group not approved of by the politically correct) is the ultimate evil  and as a consequence are only too willing to conduct a hate campaign against anyone at whom the cry “racist” is directed and ensure that anyone with a dissenting voice is kept from public view.

The consequence of this wholesale  enforcement of the multicultural dogma is that anyone in Britain who expresses  an opinion which suggests that mass immigration and its consequences are less than the quickest path to social Nirvana runs the risk of penalties which range from losing their job (especially if the person works in the public sector) to being imprisoned  for inciting racial hatred.

As for the economic aspects of globalism, Western political elites  and their allies in the media and other positions of power and influence have overwhelmingly  bought into the idea of free trade, at least to the extent that they have been willing to agree to greatly reduced protectionism. Those who would vigorously oppose the idea of out-of-control  laissez faire economics at home and abroad have been  almost entirely censored out of the public picture.  On the odd occasions when some brave soul breaks the censorship and puts forward in public complaints about mass immigration reducing wages or taking jobs and scarce housing or the export of jobs to the developing world ,  these are squashed by the media proponents of globalism with mantras such as  “It’s inevitable because we live in a  global world” ; “It’s market forces”;  “We have to compete globally”.

5. The loss of  national control

On top of all this is piled two  things, the loss of control  of national governments over finance and the signing up of nation states to treaties which emasculate democracy by granting powers to supra-national bodies that should rightly belong to individual states.  The  most striking example of this is the EU, where the nations of the European Economic Area  (over 30  of them) are bound to the so-called four freedoms;  the free movement of goods, services, finance and  people.

The failure to control the banks and their ilk is  a direct consequence of globalism.  The political elites in the developed world have been  driven to not interfere  with the major players in finance by ideology,  self-interest (think of all the cosy post-politics sinecures  in private business  senior politicians acquire) and  fear  (they are terrified that if the banks are not pandered to economic catastrophe will follow). To those bars to  sane financial policies can be added  the interference of supranational  bodies  such as the EU. The existence of such bodies has meant  that even if national governments  had wished to behave responsibly by restraining the bankers’ excesses, they could not have done so because it would have been judged to be anti-competitive by a supra-national body such as the EU competition Commission.

The upshot of this development was frighteningly reckless finance industry business models based on selling mortgages to those who could not possible afford to service them, the development of exotic derivatives such as Collateralised Debt Obligations and Credit Default Swaps and the relentless gearing up of their debt to deposits ratio. This last practice resulted in even supposedly  staid financial institutions such as British building societies getting  into serious trouble  because they became dependent on constant and massive recourse to short term wholesale borrowing , something which froze once the financial panic of began in earnest in 2008.

If banking had remained primarily a national matter, as it was until the late 1980s before the sudden explosion of computers and the embrace of laissez faire economics ,  the damage caused would have been minor compared to what has occurred  even if banks had been allowed to engage in the unsafe practices described in the previous paragraph.  There would have been both far less scope for credit expansion and,  where bank  failures  occurred, they would have almost certainly happened sooner than they did under a globalised system because there would be far fewer  places for a bank in trouble to go to try to borrow to put off the evil day of insolvency. Most  importantly, the  national  financial institutions would have been smaller  and  less able to cause mortal damage to the national economy and would not have had the potential to undermine the international financial system.  In addition, if banking is kept within national boundaries it can be much more readily supervised. Once  it expands beyond a national single jurisdiction, as it does with the EU,  meaningful government supervision and control becomes utterly  impossible.

6. The developing world

Those are the ills of globalisation from the standpoint of the developed world.  But the developing world and the remnants of undeveloped and still undeveloping world are not left unscathed by globalisation.  The developing world experiences an aggregate increase in wealth as it takes manufacturing and service industries from the developed world and improves its infrastructure. But these improvements come at great human cost.  Traditional ways of living are disrupted. Vast numbers flood from the countryside to the towns where they live and, if they are lucky, work in miserable conditions. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8818059/100-million-Chinese-farmers-to-move-to-city-by-end-of-decade.html)

Many  find their material conditions  (but not necessarily their psychological state)  improve, but far more are actively disadvantaged by the changes.  If they remain outside the cities people find their  areas being  denuded of many of the most able and vigorous people who leave for the cities; their land being taken with little or no compensation  for infrastructure projects such as dams, railways and factories and their way of life becoming less and less sustainable.  Those who go to the cities for work find their lives are worse than they were before in terms of the conditions they have to endure and subject to great job insecurity . Even in the more developed of the developing Asian countries, where most of the world’s population now lives, there is  a great chasm between the  haves and the have-nots.

Although offshoring production and opening up their markets to  imports from low-wage economies are  disruptive for the developed world and  potentially dangerous  because it puts  them to an increasing extent in the hands of foreign powers , it also  bound the likes of China and India into a dependent embrace.  As the economies of the developing nations  grow they will increase their domestic demand and the capacity and willingness  to satisfy it which  will make them less dependent  on international markets. But that is a fair way in the future.  At present the developing world  is reliant to a very heavy extent on exporting to the developed world.

Countries such as China are also massive  holders of sovereign debt of Western countries, especially of the USA. These  two things mean that the developing economies  are affected by the present depression (let us give it its proper name)  in the developed world,   which is reducing demand for the products of the developing world and,   in the case of countries with large sovereign debt holdings, at risk of losing vast amounts of money.   It is also by no means clear that the financial systems of the developing nations are sound, even if they have not suffered from the same ills as the developed world’s financial  sector.  For example, China is constantly having to patch up bankrupt [projects and organisations (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/china-business/8821094/Chinas-debt-spree-returns-to-haunt.html).

7. The undeveloping world

The part of the world which is not seriously  industrialising also suffers from the destruction of traditional ways of life with nothing adequate replacing them.   Again there has been a flight from the countryside to towns and cities, although in this instance it has not resulted in large-scale  industrial or even substantial  commercial development.   The only winners are those who have tapped into  the funds controlled by the elite who dispense the vast amounts of foreign Aid and the income from foreign companies for mineral rights  to those they favour, whether that be through the award of government jobs or  through straightforward corruption.

Many have been displaced by the demands of foreign countries, especially those extracting raw materials.  Countries have abandoned their traditional agriculture and turned to farming to produce food and flowers for the developed world.  A growing practice is for countries in the developing world, especially China, to buy or lease  large amounts of land in undeveloped countries to produce food for the country which has purchased the land.  It is a kind of  imperialism,  but imperialism without any sense of moral obligation to the ruled.

All of these practices mean that much of the undeveloped world, primarily black Africa, live their lives in conditions which range from abject poverty  to perpetual civil war.  Although I would never pretend that living under colonial rule is unreservedly palatable,  it can bring order and  where the colonial power develops a sense of moral obligation to those it rules, as happened with British officialdom in the final century of the Empire,  it can prevent  serious abuses.   What most of these countries currently have is the worst of all worlds,  deeply corrupt native elites  who sell their countries to the highest bidder, whether that selling being in the guise of gaining aid or commerce, and foreigners exploiting their people and land. There is no check  on abuse.

8. Supra-national  politics

There is a special subset of internationalism, the advanced supra-national body  comprised of nation states which has the nature of a federal government even if it does not have that formal structure.      The EU is the only organisation  which comes close to meeting  that description at present ,but it provides a warning of how such groupings can display the ill-effects of globalism together with some novel features of their  own.

Member states  of the EU have to allow unrestricted  migration within the EU (to be pedantic, within the European Economic Area which includes the likes of Norway and Switzerland as well as the EU) and accept the loss of other great swathes of sovereignty  ranging from  the economic (competition, the making of trade treaties) to the social  (the conditions of work, health and safety).

Most dramatically for the world in general,  17 of the 27 EU states have signed themselves up to the Euro. This  was a criminally reckless enterprise because it married massively disparate economies such as the German and Greek without creating a central executive with the powers of a nation state.  This meant that the controlling and guiding body for the Euro, the European Central Bank, was unable to do  such essential things for a supra-national currency as determine tax regimes throughout the Euro area and move money from the richer to the poorer Euro members .   These errors were compounded by  the failure to implement what  powers existed to impose financial discipline on the Euro members such as  the restriction on the size of  member states budget deficit.  Unsurprisingly,  the Euro eventually ran up against reality and for the past eighteen months the currency’s situation  has looked ever more dire as Greece, then Portugal, Spain and Italy looked candidates for a default as they found it more and more expensive to borrow  on the international markets to cover their budget deficits  and service their national debts, something exacerbated as their  tax bases shrunk during the depression .   In October 2011 the poison looks as though it might even encompass France and Germany.

The ill consequences of the formation of the Euro stretch  far beyond its members.  The constant delay in coming to a conclusion as to what should be done to deal with the Euro crisis, whether that be the wholesale or partial break-up of the Euro or a  decision for the Eurozone to go for full fiscal integration including massive movements of money from the rich members to the poor (the only thing which might rescue the Euro), has created uncertainly throughout  the world and has  significantly worsened an already dire world economic situation.

The Euro crisis has  also sucked in countries from outside the Eurozone to help fund the vast sums needed to bail out the Republic of Ireland and Greece.  This affects the  non-Euro members within the EU and those  from outside the EU who are liable to provide IMF loans.  Countries such as the UK have had to pay  both towards the EU stabilisation fund and the IMF loans.

The lessons from the EU (so far) are that far are that such supra-national bodies amplify the general problems of globalism, especially the loss of democratic control, and add the joker of grand  follies such as the Euro which have massive effects beyond  the supra-national body.

9. Just another outbreak of an old  disease

Globalisation should not be seen as a completely new phenomenon,  although its modern extent and scale  is novel, not least because of the ceaseless march of digital technology and the encouragement, or at least toleration, by Western elites of mass movements of people from the poor to the rich world .   From an historical perspective it is simply the latest example of  the laissez faire  economic ideology capturing  elites and becoming the dominant ideology.

Laissez faire economics has its roots in the late 18th Century when Adam Smith made himself its John the Baptist with his Wealth of Nations (The Invisible Hand playing the role of God’s avatar).   In comparison with those who became his disciples in the  following century,  Smith  was responsible and restrained,  acknowledging that there  were things such as the provision of roads which only the state could undertake and economic areas such as armaments which should as a matter of national prudence be kept in public hands.   His followers such as Richard Cobden, John Bright and David Ricardo In the 19th century knew no such restraint and wanted little if any state interference in the economy at home or abroad.

The consequence was that Britain was tied to the idea of free trade  from the 1840s until the First World War intervened in 1914. During that time the rest of the then advanced world  practised protectionism while Britain outside of the Empire did not.  This resulted in Britain’s dominant economic position in the world in 1850 deteriorating  badly by 1914, with the GDP  of the USA and Germany then  exceeding that of Britain. The years 1840-1914 were a period of great economic  instability in Britain with frequent booms and bust, frequent bubbles, bank failures  and great damage being done  to Britain’s self-sufficiency, most particularly in food.  It was also a period when British industry became deficient in many of the new major industries such as chemicals, despite having been leaders in the early days of those industries.   This was  the outcome of an economy which was allowed to evolve without any state guidance or initiative.  Come  war in 1914 and Britain found itself  dangerously dependent on  imports of not only food  but other vital materials and products, a dependency made  all the more problematic with the development by Germany of efficient submarines to prey upon boats bring the imports to Britain.

Nonetheless, the period  1850-1914 saw a very considerable increase in global transactions and movements of peoples.  This was a consequence of the  development of the railways , the steamship, the Telegraph  and vastly improved roads and the existence of the  various European  empires  (including the Russian) which allowed much free movement of people and goods within the bounds of each empire.

But although this was a form of globalism,  its pernicious social and economic effects were greatly  ameliorated  (at least for the developed world)  by the fact that so much of the world was controlled by the European empires.  The mass movement of peoples occurred  within the colonial possessions not between the colonial possessions and the colonial power’s homeland.   Politics was still contained within the nation state.  The developed countries, with the exception of Britain,   still thought  their national advantage was to be gained by protectionist measures.  Even Britain did not completely buy into the idea of free trade  because legal preference was given to trade within the Empire

A World war and the Great Depression  killed off the laissez faire creed as the elite British and British imperial ideology  for 50 years.  The European Empires were dismembered  and the Soviet and Chinese communist blocs created .   Protectionism ruled (even the European Economic Community, as the EU was then,  did not  greatly change the picture  because it was small to begin with and the radical measures such as the single market  were for the future).

After the second World War it was, for  the developed world,  an era of great stability.   There was no war in Europe worthy of the name, the nearest approaches to it were  several uprisings against Communist rule;  such serious wars as the West became involved in – most notably Korea and Vietnam – were either wars of  choice not necessity  or native uprisings at the fag-end of European colonialism like the British fight against communists in Malaya and  the French retreat  from Indo-China and Algeria.

In this protectionist world  the economies of the United States and Europe  did not shrink or stagnate. Just as the economies of those which practised protectionism in the nineteenth century  grew,  so did  those of the developed world grow between 1945 and 1980. It is a myth that only laissez faire economic policies produce strong growth.  Britain was an exceptionally  interesting case because the Attlee government of 1945-51 undertook arguably the most radical programme of nationalisation ever seen outside of the Communist world and British governments of all formal colours followed what were essentially social democratic policies domestically until the election of Thatcher in 1979

Most tellingly, after 1945 there was no general serious economic crisis until the early seventies when  two extraordinary events occurred. In 1971  the USA unilaterally collapsed the Bretton Woods system which  imposed discipline on the world’s freely exchangeable currencies by   pegging the dollar to the gold standard and the other currencies to the dollar at fixed prices. This  introduced the destabilising volatility of floating exchange rates into the world’s economic system. In  1973 the  oil producers’ cartel OPEC  doubled  oil prices. But even these  considerable shocks  did not knock the world economy over ; they merely made  it stagger.  It took the advent of Thatcher and the American neocons  to drive the economies of the developed world into a world of ever increasing make-believe where their politicians kept on saying how things were getting economically better, that countries such as Britain could become post-industrial and live off service industries alone.  The insanity of that mentality can be starkly seen now as unemployment has remained stubbornly high  in the developed world, something exacerbated by the present depression but not  created by it.

10. Unemployment as a barometer of an economic system

Unemployment is arguably the prime barometer of the social utility of an economic system. It was very low in Britain until the early seventies running along at 2-3%  (http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111.pdf). Even at the end of the 1970s its was low compared with what it has been since globalisation took off. In 1979 the Independent Labour Organisation (ILO) count  of those seeking work  without necessarily being signed on for unemployment pay  was 1,528,000 and the figure for those signed on for unemployment pay was 1,064,000. (http://www.york.ac.uk/res/ukhr/ukhr0405/tables&figures/04%20004.pdf)

In Britain in 2011 the official ILO  survey figure in August was 2,566,000 (8.1% of all economically active).  Those actually signing on for unemployment benefit totalled 1,597,200. (http://www.parliament.uk/topics/Unemployment.htm).  However, that is not the true figure because there  were 2.58 million people claiming long-term sickness benefit  (Incapacity Benefit and its 2008 successor Employment Support allowance)   in February 2011.  (Perhaps even more staggering there were 5.8 million working age benefit claimants).  (http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/index.php?page=statistical_summaries).

In 1979 the long-term sick figure stood at  720,000  (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1042141/60-long-term-benefits-claimants-work-admits-minister.html). It stretches credulity beyond breaking point that there are there are some 1.8 million more people of working age who are too ill to work indefinitely in 2011 than 1979.  The reality is that much of  the 2.58 million will be disguised unemployment.

During the 1980s the Thatcher Governments adopted a policy of moving people off the ever growing unemployment register (those claiming unemployment benefit peaked at over 3 million in 1986) and onto the long-term sick count, where they often remained more or less permanently because much of the unemployment was structural (a consequence of deliberately destroying much of Britain’s extractive and manufacturing industry)  and the unemployed simply had no jobs to go to.  The policy was  carried on by  the Tory and Labour Governments which followed Thatcher.

How much of the 2.58 million now on the long-term sick register are really just unemployed?  As it is only those of working age (16-65) who are part of the statistics, it is difficult to see why the real figure would not be similar to that of 1979.  The population has grown since 1979 by a few million so let us say that 1 million are the  genuinely long-term sick.  Add the other 1.58 million to the ILO figure for 2011 and the unemployed rises to over 4 million. To that figure can be added  those who now stay on at school until they are 18 (in 1979 far fewer did) and the vast increase of university students (from around 13% in 1980 http://www.le.ac.uk/economics/to20/greenaway03.pdf to around 40%  in 2011 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1584495/Labour-sticks-to-50-per-cent-university-target.html). It is difficult to give exact figures here but it would probably push the true figure of unemployed in the UK in 2011 up to around the 5 million mark.

As an example of how globalisation brings instability, both economic and social,  Britain is probably the prime example among developed nations.  All it has brought to Britain is seemingly permanent mass unemployment.

It would be argued by the Thatcherites and their ilk that the high level of employment in the post-war period was due to overmanning, especially in the nationalised industries.   That has some truth in it, although the extent of the overmanning is exaggerated by modern neo-liberals.  It is also a question of what service is given. Much of the supposed overmanning of the nationalised industries was really a matter of giving a superior service to that which is given by the nationalised industries after they were privatised  and manning levels drastically reduced.

But even if it is allowed that there was substantial overmanning  in the post-war period that does not necessarily mean it was not of social and economic benefit. What needs to be considered is the overall picture of society where such overmanning exists.  It ensures that  most people in a society are employed. That  creates social stability by giving people a routine in their lives, by ensuring that people are bound into society , by giving them a sense of purpose and most importantly a feeling of security so they can plan for the future, something particularly important when it comes to starting and raising a family.

That was essentially the situation in the period 1945-1979. People felt secure in their jobs, housing was cheap and plentiful, not least because the massive council housing programme of the  1950s and 1960s, the NHS had been created  and  perhaps most importantly a single adult wage was enough to support a family.

Compare that with what we have today.  People in Britain are increasingly insecure. If they have jobs they fear that they will lose them. If they keep their jobs there are pay freezes or wage reductions. The unemployed seek desperately for jobs – any jobs – but find they are competing with dozens or even hundreds of people for unskilled work. It is difficult in 2011  to support a family on a single adult average wage. Housing,  both bought and privately rented , has become obscenely  expensive  – If the average house price in 2011 was  the same in real terms as the average house price in 1955 it would be less than £40,000 (http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2010/10/24/the-vicious-poison-in-the-british-economy-is-the-outlandish-cost-of-housing/).  It is a recipe for rabid insecurity and the fuel for renewed class hatred and racial and  ethnic strife.

The dirtiest secret of all in this matter of overmanning under the social democratic regime of the post-war years  or the supposedly more efficient workings of laissez faire since 1980, is that the British government has developed a universal subsidy for employers. It is tax credits which are paid to people in work on low pay (the definition of low pay has been somewhat elastic being up to £60,000 until recently but it is still at £41,000 –  http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/taxcredits/start/who-qualifies/what-are-taxcredits.htm#8).   Hence, the taxpayer is in effect  paying employers to take on labour, rather than, as used to be the case, the taxpayer paying the employee by funding more generously manned  nationalised industries than were strictly required.

The true cost of unemployment  is rarely calculated.  For example, where structural unemployment occurs, as with the coal mining closures in Britain, large numbers of people are  lost to work for many years, not infrequently for life. The cost to the taxpayer in maintaining long-term unemployment is immense, as is the psychological cost to the unemployed individuals and their families.  Even where those made redundant get new jobs they are rarely as well paid as those which have gone. Often precious skills are lost to the country when an engineering company closes or offshores its production. These factors  are  rarely if ever built into cost-benefit analysis of the loss of employment.  British government contracts are a good example. They are frequently awarded simply on the basis of who offers the lowest price. A recent example of this is the awarding of a multi-billion pound contract to Siemens rather than the British-based Bombardier for trains for the Thames Link.  (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-14019992).  If skilled people cannot find appropriate work in Britain, they go abroad.

There is also a general economic benefit from having people in jobs, drawing regular wages and feeling secure: it helps maintain aggregate demand because people  both more confident about spending and , because the money and the spending appetite is spread throughout the population the rate of circulation of money is kept high which stimulates economic activity.

11. Capitalism in a protected domestic economy

If it is not  capitalism but free trade  and the mass movement of people across national borders which causes instability what is the solution?  WE could remove those practices and societies, but then what?

If  capitalism was  allowed free rein in the domestic economy  but free trade and mass immigration were not, would that be the ideal regime?   Capitalism in the domestic market  would certainly have the capacity for damage if there was no state support for the poor, the sick, the disabled  and the old in the form of ensuring that there was sufficient  housing,  healthcare , educational opportunity, pensions for the old  and support in times of unemployment and  illness within the reach of the poor.

There are also things which should remain in public hand as a matter of  policy either because it would dangerous for them to be  in private hands  (the armed forces, police, justice) or because they can only operate  efficiently as a monopoly  (the post office) or are a natural monopoly (roads, railways).

Perhaps most contentiously there is a strong case for nationalising banks,  both because of their potential  to wreak havoc in an economy and because their nationalisation would return control over the money supply, as far as it can ever be controlled  to national governments.  Nationalised banks should also make a handsome profit to for the taxpayer because it would  next to impossible not to regularly make large profits  if they  eschewed the reckless practices of the past generation. (There would of course have to be very strong  constitutional bars to politicians debauching the currency.)

But even if banks were not nationalised, they would be much easier to control within an economy operating within national borders  with national politicians committed to the idea of nations not internationalism. For example, national governments could ban any financial instrument which created confusion between lender and borrower, creditor and debtor.  They could cap the amount of sovereign debt held by a bank.  They could insist upon minimum deposits and maximum multipliers of wages for mortgages.  Restrictions on lending to foreign borrowers could be introduced.

The existing banks are of course operating internationally and it might be thought that all they would have to do is  shift their entire operations out of any national territory which tried to control them.   There are two good reasons why they would not want to do that. First, banks may be international in their trading, but often they still have much or a majority of their  business in a particular country, normally the country of their origin. That would make it difficult to shift their operations because they would have to be willing to  kiss goodbye to a large part of their business if the  national government of a country where they had much of their business was   serious about controlling them.  Any national government could simply say, all right you won’t play ball with us, we shall not let you trade in this country.. The second reason is the fact that banks rely on governments underwriting them to a large degree both in terms of guaranteeing deposits and by  Central Banks acting as lenders of the last resort.  There are not that many countries which can safely offer such guarantees.  That would make the threat of leaving somewhat hollow.

Provided that all  things are done – welfare, nationalisation, protection, control of the banks  –   allowing free enterprise to generally organise most  things economically within the nation state is the best way of proceeding.  If a general  protection for strategically important parts of the economy such as farming and energy production are put in place, a judicious use of quotas  for a wide range of necessary goods  implemented  (says, 75% of all necessary goods to be home produced)  and mass immigration is outlawed,  there is little harm  that capitalism (or private enterprise if you prefer) can do .On the credit side of the ledger, there is  undoubted great utility in  having a self-organising  part of the economic system which satisfies human ambition and efficiently delivers goods and services where the ability to pay is either not an issue or the good or service is not a necessity.  This  would cover  the large majority of economic activities,  because much of the welfare provision would come in the form of money to the claimant and this would then be spent to purchase food, clothes and so on provided by private enterprise.  There is also an argument that it is healthy for a society to have large numbers of people who are capable of taking charge, making their own decisions. One of the problems the countries of the Soviet bloc had after the USSR split and  the communism fell was the lack of people who were capable of taking charge, of creating new businesses or even doing jobs which required initiative.

The alternative to capitalism is states running command economies.  These do not have a happy record. Much better to allow a properly  controlled capitalism to do most of the job of meeting most human needs.

Will the elites of  developed world wake up and see that globalism is the problem? Not from choice because they have nailed their colours to the internationalist banner. But fear of what is happening  in the world they have created – growing class feeling, racial  and ethnic strife and increasing material deprivation and insecurity  – may drive them to bite the bullet. Let us hope that happens before it is too late.

See also

http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/the-wages-of-globalism/

http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/a-sane-alternative-to-globalism/

http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/market-economies-and-the-illusion-of-choice/

http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/does-the-welfare-state-corrupt/

http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2011/02/14/public-service-and-private-enterprise-what-do-we-mean-by-efficiency/

http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2011/09/21/another-day-another-lethal-financial-derivative/

http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2011/01/30/the-consequences-of-an-end-to-mass-immigration/

http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2010/12/27/does-free-trade-deliver-greater-prosperity-the-lessons-of-economic-history/

The English must not take their future for granted

England has a truly remarkable history. It was here that Parliamentary government evolved; here that the Industrial Revolution began, here that the only world empire ever worthy of the name was acquired and ruled.  In the arts and sciences  the English can point to the likes of Shakespeare, Newton and Darwin; in martial matters Cromwell, Marlborough, Wellington and Nelson; in goverment the Pitts, Disraeli, Glasdstone and Churchill.  The country has remained unconquered for the better part of a thousand years  and her domestic history is one of remarkable peacefulness when put in the context of  the wider world.  The English are  one of the rare peoples who do not need to exaggerate their history because the reality is sufficient for pride.

But gratifying as our history is, we must never forget that we live in a dynamic universe. The past is but the past and  old glories no guardians of the future. As a matter of urgency the English must learn to resist the incessant insult  to which they are now subject. A nation may be likened to a man. If a man continually accepts insult or engages in  repeated self-denigration, we think him a poor fellow. At first such behaviour is embarrassing. Soon it becomes  irritating. Eventually it breeds a profound contempt and contempt is mother to all enormities. So it is with peoples.  On the simple ground of self-preservation, the English cannot afford to continue to permit the present gratuitous and  incontinent abuse offered by both foreigners and her own ruling elite nor tolerate the suppression of the English  voice.

How may the English reverse the present state? As with all peoples, the English need to be taught their history to give them a psychological habitation. Moreover, the myths of the England haters dissolve readily enough in the acid of fact.  The problem is that there is presently a conscious effort backed by the forces of the state to deny the English a proper knowledge of their history, or indeed any meaningful  knowledge at all. Incredible but true. The attack is two pronged: denigration and a concentration on historical trivia at the expense of the important.

The habit of denigration has a long history. Here is Friedrich Hayek’s description of the left of fifty years ago:

The Left intelligentsia…have so long worshipped foreign gods that they seem to have become almost incapable of seeing any good in the characteristic English institutions and traditions. That the moral values on which most of them pride themselves are largely the products of the institutions they are out to destroy, these socialists cannot, of course, admit. Sdaly, this attitude is unfortunately not confined to avowed socialists. Though one must hope that it is not true of the less vocal but more numerous cultivated Englishman, if one were to judge by the ideas which find expression in current political discussion and propaganda the Englishman who not only “the language speak that Shakespeare spake”, but also “the faith and morals hold that Milton held” seems to have almost vanished. [The Road to Serfdom]

What the left internationalists did not have fifty odd years ago was control of education or a supremacy in politics and the media. They now possess this utterly. The concentration on trivia is of more recent birth and had its roots in the late fifties and early sixties. Prior to then, complaints about an over concentration on “Kings and Queens” history existed, but no one in the academic world seriously suggested that such history was unimportant. That has now gone. Even pupils who have taken A-Level history know next to nothing. Facts and chronology have been replaced by “historical empathy” and investigative skills. Where once pupils would have learnt of Henry V, Wellington and the Great Reform Bill, they are now asked to imagine that they are a peasant in 14th Century England or an African slave on a slaver. The results of such “empathy” are not judged in relation to the historical record, but as exercises in their  own right. Whatever this is, it is not historical understanding. Because history teaching has been removed from historical facts, the assessment of the work of those taught becomes nothing more than the opinion of the teacher. This  inevitably results in the prejudices of the teacher being reflected in their presentation and marking. In the present  climate of opinion within British education this means liberal political correctness wins the day. Thus history  teaching, and the teaching of other subjects such as geography which can be given a PC colouring, has become no  better than propaganda. This would be unfortunate if the propaganda promoted English history and culture uncritically. But to have anti-English propaganda in English schools and universities is positively suicidal. That it is state policy is barely credible.

The extent to which the state has embraced the politically correct, anti-British line is illustrated by this letter to the Daily Telegraph from Chris McGovern when director of the History Curriculum Association, which campaigns against the failure to teach British history fairly or comprehensively:

SIR–The landmarks of British history have become optional parts the national curriculum (report Sept. 10). They appear only as italicised examples of what is permissible to teach.

However, this permission is offered in guarded terms. A guidance letter already sent to every school in the country states: “… we would also like to emphasise that it is very much up to individual schools to determine whether or not to use the italicised examples”. However, there is no such equivocation about teaching history through a host of politically correct social themes. Failure to filter history through such perspectives as gender, race, agent and cultural diversity will be in breach of the law. (Sunday Telegraph 4/12/94).

That was the state of affirs 16 years ago. It  has worsened considerably since. How have we reached this state? The root of it was in the mentality which Hayek noticed fifty years ago, but it  required mass immigration for its realisation as a state policy. Multiculturalism was embraced as a mainstream  political ideal in the late 1970s because politicians did not know what to do about mass immigration and its consequences.  Both Labour and the Conservatives initially embraced the French solution to racial tension, namely integration. But by the end of the seventies integration was deemed by the our elite to be a failure at best and oppression at worst.  Multiculturalism was its successor. Once it became the new official doctrine, the many eager Anglophobic and internationalist hands in British education and the mass media were free to give reign to their natural instincts.

Apart from the denigration and underplaying of English history and culture, the espousal of multiculturalism has had  profound effects on English society. By continually denigrating and belittling the English, ethnic minorities have been encouraged to develop a contempt and hatred for England. It is the most consistent form of incitement to racial hatred within these shores, made all the more dangerous by its espousal by the British state and elite.

The practical effects are the creation of a grievance culture within the various ethnic minorities and a belief that English laws and customs may be ignored with impunity, a belief perhaps best exemplified by the Muslim attack on free expression. The position is made worse in that instance by the existence of the Race Relations Act, which is an attack  on one of the things Englishmen have long prized: namely the right to say what one wants without fear of the criminal law.

If England is to survive as more than a geographical entity, it is essential that the young be imprinted with a knowledge  of the immense achievements of Britain in general and England in particular. This need not mean the creation of a  vulgar, contrived chauvinism for there is so much of  undeniable value in Britain’s past that a fictionalised and bombastic history is unnecessary. For example, why not base GCSE history teaching on a core of the development of the English language, the history of science and technology (with special emphasis on the industrial revolution), the  development of the British constitution and the growth and administration of Empire? Multiculturalism should be  abolished in the schools as a matter of policy.

No nation can maintain itself if it does not have a profound sense of its worth. In a healthy society this sense of worth  simply exists and children imbibe it unconsciously. Our society has been so corrupted by the liberal’s hatred of his own culture that a conscious programme of cultural imprinting is necessary. If it is not done, how long will it be before English children express surprise when told they are speaking English and not American? The corrosion of English society can only be halted if pride of England and her achievements is instilled in the young.

The words of the younger Pitt in 1783 (following the disaster of the American War of Independence) seem peculiarly  apt for our time:

We must recollect … what is we have at stake, what it is we have to contend for. It is for our  property, it is for our liberty, it is for our independence, nay, for our existence as a nation; it is for our character, it is for our very name as

Englishmen, it is for everything dear and valuable to man on this side of the grave.

The English must learn to attend to their own interests for reasons of simple preservation. They may best do this by the creation of an English Parliament to provide England with a political and public voice. Only when that is done, may the liberal censorship of the ordinary men and women of England be broken.

Not as white as they are painted

Robert  Henderson

Those of us who do not share the liberal’s ostensible love of the multicultural mess they have made of modern Britain  will be gratified to hear that  the latest communal outbreak of the Joy of Diversity has brought  the riotin’, lootin, whinin’ folk to their doorsteps.
The riots and lootfests   currently occurring throughout London and other cities  either “blessed” with large black populations or close to those which do have them  – Birmingham, Manchester, Nottingham, West Bromwich, Wolverhampton, Leicester, Bristol and Liverpool – have spread from black ghettos such as Tottenham,  Brixton and Hackney to richer areas such as Lambeth, Ealing, Notting Hill and Chalk Farm.
The last is of particular interest because Chalk Farm abuts the ancestral home of liberal bigots, Hampstead, and the rioters and looters got to the boundary of the Chalk Farm/Hampstead divide.  How the collective population of Hampstead –which is preternaturally white for an inner London borough – must be sighing with dismay that they did not personally  experience so vivid an  outbreak of the “joy”, especially as
they experience so little of it in normal times due to the terrible shortage of
black and  brown  faces  in their midst (http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2010/10/16/how-the-well-to-do-liberals-choose-to-live-a-lesson-from-primrose-hill/).

White liberals in Notting Hill  had cause to be  especially excited. According to BBC Radio 5 (the 10.00 pm show 8 August) police warned a householder who rang them to report
looting  to stay inside his home because there were allegedly rioters going about armed with machetes.   Just think of  how he  must have shaken fit to burst  with excitement as they thought of what blacks in Africa generally do with machetes.

Enough of the funnies.  This is serious. Nothing equivalent has happened in Britain  before.  UK Race riots since the late 1950s have been restricted to the ghetto areas themselves and were much less widespread  as a consequence. Nor was there anything like
the scale of  destruction of  property or looting we are presently witnessing.  The widespread use of  arson this time is particularly striking. It would probably be necessary to go back to  the anti-Catholic  Gordon Riots of 1780 to find greater destruction of property in London.  However, the Gordon Riots were genuinely concerned with a particular political issue rather than being primarily an excuse to loot and destroy.

Why has this happened now? Thirty years of pandering to blacks by the British elite in all its guises – politicians, mediafolk, big business,  public servants and  educationalists – has taken its toll.   Blacks have  been taught that two things by Britain’s liberals: nothing is their fault and everything they do wrong  is down to ol’ whitey who just can’t stop oppressing them . On the white liberal side,  they  get their emotional rocks  off by engaging in paroxysms of white  guilt whilst cynically using  ethnic minorities  as a client class, of whom blacks are their unequivocal  favourites.  (The white working class used to be the clients of the liberal left, but that changed in the 1980s when the unions would not play ball with the Labour Party hierarchy and three successive defeats at the hands of Thatcher persuaded most Labour politicians that dumping the white working class was necessary if they were to get into power before they were on their Zimmer frames).

The response of white liberals

Initially, white liberals and blacks  claimed  that looters were protesting about the shooting dead of a black man Mark Duggan by police  in Tottenham on Thursday 4 August 2011 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14459516).This response  was   obvious nonsense  – violent protest is one thing, looting quite another. Unable to write this off as a peaceful political protest gone wrong, Liberals and their black quangocracy  clients (the blacks who are  treated as “community leaders” , those who receive considerable amounts of public money to run “multicultural” projects or  given highly paid publicly funded sinecures) are in a quandary.  They know that these riots  are being conducted overwhelmingly by blacks. They know  that the general public understands this  because of the voluminous media coverage. They realise that to deny the  fact that this is a black event puts them in the position of “Comical Ali” during  the Western attack on Iraq when he denied allied attacks were  getting through  as allied planes bombed the land close behind  him.  But  they  are only too well aware that to admit the truth (that this is a black problem) would  undermine the politically correct  virtual world they have created in which everyone in a position of power or influence  in  Britain has to give lip service at least to the idea that ethnic and racial diversity is a good in itself and infinitely preferable to homogeneous societies.

Faced with this profound difficulty liberals and their ethnic minority clients have taken one of  two paths. The first mode of evasion is to portray the riots as having no racial
context and to rely on the intimidatory effect of decades of multicultural propaganda together with liberal control of the media to allow them to call black white without attracting too much public ridicule.  BBC reporters have been especially addicted to this nonsense by stressing at every opportunity that there are “people of all races” taking part in the riots. The more daring ones emphasise the fact that there are white rioters – it would be interesting to know the national origins of the few  white rioters because  eastern
Europeans  and gipsies in particular  have a liking for theft and mayhem.   Best of all the BBC  (bless their liberal bigot hearts) have repeatedly  described the rioters and looters as protestors. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8690267/London-riots-BBC-criticised-for-branding-thugs-as-protesters.html).

Getting on to BBC phone-ins to point out the black genesis of the riots has been next to impossible. On 7th August I did manage to take part fleetingly  in a phone-in on the BBC
Radio 5 Stephen Nolan programme (10.00 pm -1.00 am). After half an hour of listening to Nolan and his guests chatter happily about the riots without mentioning the racial aspect , I rang to mention  that, try as I might to believe them,  I could not help noticing that  the vast majority of the rioters were black and consequently it was not a general social problem but a black social problem. I attributed the source of the problem to  a near universal sense of victimhood amongst blacks.   I bolstered this latter judgement with the fact that I,  unlike white liberals who almost invariably arrange their lives to live in very white worlds,   have lived for most of my adult life  and live now in parts of London which have a large black  population and consequently I engage daily with blacks, many of them, shock horror! poor and  uneducated.

It took me another forty minutes to get on air,  during which time the programme continued to parade a gallery of  politically correct grotesques that included a Metropolitan Police officer who is a leading light in  the black police association.  When I eventually was allowed to broadcast  my comments provoked outrage from this individual and I was immediately cut off, most frustratingly,   before I could point out to him that he had unambiguously  identified himself as a racist by joining a black-only representative group .

Later in the programme Nolan had as studio guests  Edwina Currie (the one-time Tory Minister) and a retired suffragan bishop by the name of Stephen Lowe. Their job was to review the papers. Lowe castigated the Telegraph for having a long gallery of photographs
showing blacks rioting and looting. He objected to this because – wait for it – the coverage made it look as though this was a black riot.  Hilariously, this earned a stern rebuke from
Currie who repeatedly accused Lowe of bringing race into the equation by mentioning the racially monochrome nature of the Telegraph photos.   Not to worry, the Telegraph made up for this terrible blunder  next day by publishing a series of photos released by the police of rioters. Guess the colour of the first rioter shown. Yes, that’s right, he is white. As was the person in the  third photo. Sadly, the pretence of it being a racially neutral riot could not be sustained and the rest of the 14 photos were overwhelmingly black.  (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/uknews/8690951/London-riots-CCTV-pictures-of-suspects-are-released-by-the-Metropolitan-Police.html).   The Telegraph have continued to disgrace themselves in politically correct eyes by printing another series of black villains in their 9 August issue.

The early signs from court appearances resulting from the riots suggest there is something very odd going on when it comes to the application of the law.  As anyone can see from the media coverage,  the vast majority of rioters are black, but the number of those  appearing in court who are white is much  greater than  their proportion of the rioters and looters. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2024767/Man-charged-riot-incitement-Facebook-London-rioters-guilty.html#ixzz1UjYYfl00)

I suspect one of two things is happening: either the police have concentrated on arresting white rioters because they  are (1) unlike the black culprits, often not part of a gang of rioters/looters and (2) arresting them does not cause any ethnic mayhem . Alternatively, the police/CPS are deliberately pushing white cases to the front of the queue to give the
false  impression that the rioters are not overwhelmingly black.   The other thing which looks suspicious is the routine showing of black rioters  in groups and whites in what look like cropped photos in which a single person is shown. These could be  extracted from scenes showing one white rioter amongst a crowd of blacks.

The other general  liberal tactic is to blame it all on economics and preferably Tory cuts. This has the advantage of leaving race out of it altogether.   Harriet Harman, a minister in both the Blair and Brown Governments, was sure that this was linked to  the rioting and looting. (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/neilobrien1/100100392/harriet-harman-and-the-intellectual-bankruptcy-of-the-progressive-left/). Mary Riddle, a Labour Party media groupie employed by the supposedly Tory Daily Telegraph,  was in no doubt that the  riots are due to social deprivation in general and the creation of an uneducated underclass in particular: “London’s riots are not the Tupperware troubles of Greece or Spain, where the middle classes lash out against their day of reckoning. They are the proof that a section of young Britain – the stabbers, shooters, looters, chancers and their frightened acolytes – has fallen off the cliff-edge of a crumbling nation.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8630533/Riots-the-underclass-lashes-out.html.

If  Harman and Riddle were correct all poor areas would be susceptible to this behaviour and most of the rioters would be white.  This is not the case. The reality is that the criminality is, as anyone can see from the press and TV, overwhelmingly being perpetrated by blacks. Moreover, the first of the rioting arose in black ghettos.  Most tellingly, no  town or city which does not have a  substantial black population or such a population close by  has seen rioting.  This also gives the lie to the claim from the Conservative side that  the riots are down to the  lax discipline in schools and the undermining  of parental authority  which has produced a generation of youngsters without respect for the law or any authority .

Clearly the causes  of these riots lie in something other than poverty, a lack of school discipline  or poor parenting.   Ostensibly the behaviour is caused by 30 years of our  elite pandering to the black population of Britain by telling them how oppressed they are and how racist Britain is. This has undoubtedly stoked their appetite for victimhood and given
them a belief that they owe nothing to society in general. That gives them the moral release to riot and loot.

The black response to the killing of Mark Duggan demonstrates the difference between blacks and whites. The police in Britain kill very few people compared with virtually anywhere else, not least because they are not routinely armed.  Most of those they  kill are white. Violent protests or protests of any sort rarely if ever occur when the person killed is white because whites still trust the police (just) to behave reasonably . When a  black man is killed it is assumed by blacks that it is tantamount to a murder and violent protest is more often than not the eventual outcome.   It remains to be seen what the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) report concludes about the Duggan shooting, but if as has been reported  by the media Duggan had a gun on him it is difficult to see how the police could be criticised for killing him if he either had it in his hand or it was near him and he was reaching for it when he was shot .

But there is a deeper problem. Blacks display the same general type of uncontrolled  behaviour in societies of very different types throughout the world, whether it be where
they are in the racial majority or minority, in an advanced industrial country or one from the depths of the Third World. There is genocide and mutilation  in places such as Rwanda and Sierra Leone; rioting, looting and episodic murder in Britain.  The degree of misbehaviour may vary but  its general type is the same; a lack of self-control  expressing itself in gratuitous violence.

That places the victimhood justification for misbehaviour in Britain in a different light. It is simply a rationalisation of general black social behaviour.  Why do blacks tend to  behave like this?  Part at least of the answer is  probably to be  found in the inferior average  IQ of blacks.  In IQ and the Wealth and Poverty of Nations (2002), the British psychologist Richard Lynn and  the Finish economist Tatu Vanhanan  included their  estimations of the average national IQs of 185 states .  They reached the estimates
either by using studies of IQs conducted by others or where these were not available, by extrapolating from neighbouring countries which did have IQ studies.  For example, if the estimate based on studies of country X was 80, a  neighbouring country Y which had no studies would also be taken as 89. In the case of all black African countries  the estimated average IQ  was 69. (http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/t4.asp).

Such a low average black IQ was unsurprisingly greeted by  widespread disbelief and objections were raised  about the validity of the studies used and the practice of extrapolating from other countries where no studies existed .  In 2006 Lynn and Vanhanan published IQ and Global Inequality which addressed the objections and,  while not removing them altogether, did show that  the correlation between the imputed
IQs  and IQ studies of the states in question  made after 2002 were strong (.91) (http://www.people.vcu.edu/~mamcdani/Publications/McDaniel%202008%20book%20review%20IQ%20and%20global%20inequality.pdf).

But even without the African studies and estimates, it is known that black IQs are inferior to those of whites or East Asians such as the Chinese.  The average American black IQ is a well established 85, considerably higher than the 70 of black Africans but still way below the average white IQ of 100. Moreover, black Americans have a large admixture of white genes, so an average IQ between the black African and the white American average IQ is
exactly what would be expected if it is granted that IQ is strongly dependent on genetic inheritance.  It is reasonable to assume the blacks in the US without a white admixture would have an average IQ closer to the 70 estimated  for black Africans.

What is the consequence of such a low average IQ? The first thing to understand is that people with low I Qs are not monsters but simply people who have a different level of
mental competence. They have less capacity for abstract thinking, are more literal minded, live more in the present . In short, they are childlike.  This makes them more susceptible to
irrational and uncontrolled behaviour http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2010/12/02/blacks-the-odd-man-out/).  This could be the root of the strong propensity for violence and a lack of social awareness seen amongst blacks. Other factors such as higher testosterone levels in blacks may also have some effect.

But there could also be another factor in play which is a corollary of the low IQ. Someone with a low IQ  may  find living in an advanced society  extremely stressful because they
cannot cope with the intellectual demands which the society exerts on them. It is interesting that some types of mental illness are linked to low IQ (http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2010/11/27/a-low-iq-individual-in-a-high-iq-society/).  This could be part of the reason at least  for the fact that  diagnosis of  mental illness, especially schizophrenia, amongst blacks is high in Britain. It is claimed by some, especially educated blacks,  that this is due to racism within the  British mental health services. This is  difficult to take this seriously in these pc times. If diagnosis of mental illeness was to be skewed by bias it would be more likely to result in fewer diagnoses of mental illness amongst blacks not more. Plausibly, blacks become disproprotionately mentally ill in Britain  simply because they cannot cope.  The paranoia  engendered
by the victimhood fostered by white liberals will not help their mental state either. (http://www.blackmentalhealth.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=154&Itemid=139).

The emasculation of the police

The most chilling thing about reports from the scene of the riots and looting has been the persistent claims of those at the scene but not part of the criminality that there  is either an  absence of any police or where there were any police,  they were ineffective.

If the first riot in Tottenham had been quashed there is a good chance that the others might not have happened or have  been much less serious.  Quashing a single riot should have been within the power of the Met which has more than 30,000 officers, not immediately but within an hour or two after they had re-directed  officers from other parts of London.  Instead the police in Tottenham  stood back and watched the looters  for many hours.

Why have the police been so supine? It  is primarily a consequence of  the injection of political correctness into police officers’ minds with its most potent strand being “anti-racism”. A lesser secondary cause is the ever more stifling culture of “health and Safety” which the police have embraced . (see  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13319812
and http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/42/contents). This has resulted in the police putting their own safety before that of the public, a straight reversal of  what used to be the case. Effective  policing system cannot operate on such a basis.

The British elite’s  official pandering to ethnic minorities  goes back to 1965 when the first Race Relations Act (RRA) was passed followed by a second  stronger Act in 1968 which was one of the things which provoked Enoch Powell to make his “Rivers of Blood” speech in the same year. (http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2011/03/19/enoch-powells-rivers-of-blood-speech/). A third RRA with considerably more teeth arrived in 1976 which elevated ethnic minorities to a de facto protected status,  not only by  strengthening the penalties for “inciting racial hatred”  but by its provision of  a wide range of  privileges to ethnic minorities in the areas of work, education  and social provision.
(http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/74)

Then came the Scarman report into the Brixton Riots of 1981. Lord Scarman  did not accuse the Metropolitan Police of racism,  but called for the development of community policing, the recruitment of more black officers and laid part of the blame for the riots on social deprivation, particularly the high rate of unemployment in Brixton. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/25/newsid_2546000/2546233.stm)
This began the long march towards  the police policing ethnic minority areas not on the basis of what crime was occurring in them,  but what they could get “community leaders” – who tended to be self-appointed – to agree to and the ascribing of virtually  any black
behaviour to deprivation.

The next and longest  nail in the coffin of rigorous policing of blacks (and ethnic minorities generally) came with the Macpherson report into the death of the black teenager Stephen Lawrence (http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm42/4262/sli-47.htm).  Macpherson accused the Metropolitan Police of being “institutionally racist”, that is racist not consciously but through the prevailing  ethos (“canteen culture”)
within the force, an accusation which was eventually embraced wholeheartedly by the Met followed by all the other UK police forces. Macpherson defined racism and institutional racism as:

‘RACISM

6.4 “Racism” in general terms consists of conduct or words or practices which advantage or disadvantage people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin. In its more subtle form it is as damaging as in its overt form.

6.34 “Institutional Racism” consists of the collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic
origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness, and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people.’

A  good examination of the ill effects of  the acceptance of the existence of “institutional racism” can be found at http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/cs06.pdf).

Macpherson also provided an absurd and dangerous definition of what constituted racist behaviour which should be investigated:

DEFINITION OF RACIST INCIDENT

12. That the definition should be:

“A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person”.

‘13. That the term “racist incident” must be understood to include crimes and non-crimes in policing terms. Both must be reported, recorded and investigated with equal commitment.

‘14. That this definition should be universally adopted by the Police, local Government and other relevant agencies.’

This meant that any complainant who was malicious or simply burdened with a sense of victimhood could turn an ordinary crime into one which was racist or even worse turn an incident which had no meaningful criminal content into a criminal act.

Macpherson continued:

‘REPORTING AND RECORDING OF RACIST INCIDENTS AND CRIMES

15. That Codes of Practice be established by the Home Office, in consultation with Police Services, local Government and relevant agencies, to create a comprehensive system of reporting and recording of all racist incidents and crimes.

16. That all possible steps should be taken by Police Services at local level in consultation with local Government and other agencies and local communities to encourage the reporting of racist incidents and crimes. This should include:

– the ability to report at locations other than police stations; and

– the ability to report 24 hours a day.

17. That there should be close co-operation between Police Services and local Government and other agencies, including in particular Housing and Education Departments, to ensure that all information as to racist incidents and crimes is shared and is readily available to all agencies….’

And

‘PROSECUTION OF RACIST CRIMES

‘34. That Police Services and the CPS should ensure that particular care is taken at all stages of prosecution to recognise and to include reference to any evidence of racist motivation. In particular it should be the duty of the CPS to ensure that such evidence is referred to both at trial and in the sentencing process (including Newton hearings). The CPS and Counsel to ensure that no “plea bargaining” should ever be allowed to
exclude such evidence. ‘ (Ibid)

To put the cherry on  pc policing, in 2000 the Blair Government passed the Race Relations
(Amendment) Act . This extended the obligations laid down in the 1976 Act for private bodies such as companies and charities to the police and other public  authorities  so that “ It is unlawful for a public authority in carrying out any functions of the authority to do any act  which constitutes discrimination.   (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/34).

Faced with that battery of multiculturalism supporting law and the ever more fervent support of  the political elite for political correctness,   unsurprisingly  the British police became  paranoid about being seen as “racist”. The “anti-discrimination ” credo has put any officer judged to have been racist – and this might be no more than a bit of banter suggesting that a black officer is difficult to see in the dark  – at the risk of instant dismissal. It has also given a lever for non-white officers with the police to go on the
grievance trail (http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/217239_43_gmp_officers_in_police_racism_claims).
The upshot is that police officers from newly minted constables  to grandees such as chief constables and the Metropolitan police commissioner  have become not only extremely  of what they say,  but reluctant to act forcefully against suspected black  criminals.  This reluctance is particularly marked in situations such as riots where they know they will be  filmed by the mainstream media and  private individuals.

In 1989 the Metropolitan Police changed its title from the Metropolitan Police Force to the Metropolitan Police Service.  Other police forces followed suit.  The change of name is symbolic of the  profound  change in attitude.  The British police moved from being keepers of the peace and catchers of criminals to quasi-social workers crossed with political commissars who are ever eager to enforce political correctness by investigating
any alleged “hate crime” even though the idea of a hate crime only has a spectral
existence in English law.    No absurdity is beyond them  as shopkeeper Gavin Alexander found in 2007 when the police swooped on his shop and took several golliwog dolls into custody (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23389075-police-seize-golliwogs-in-racism-probe.do).

Needless to say, as political commissars the police are less than eager to investigate complaints  which do not fit into the pc regime. In 2001 I made a complaint to the Racial and Violent Crime Squad against the BBC Director-General Greg Dyke who described his own organisation as “Hideously white”.  This met all the necessary criteria for prosecution:  Dyke was a public figure, he headed the largest media organisation in the world and his words indubitably incited hatred against whites.  The police refused to register the complaint let alone investigate it even,  though I persuaded an MP to write to the Met complaining about double standards (http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2011/04/28/the-ever-increasing-madness-of-political-correctness/).

The future

The situation is potentially  very serious. Imagine a situation where riots and looting such as these could be called up regularly without an adequate police response. It would be close to anarchy.  This is what we risk. Potential rioters and looters have seen the police reduced to helplessness. They will think they can do it again whenever they choose.

This was flash mob rioting using social networking. Those on a network simply need to wait until they receive a message telling them where  the next meeting point for a riot
is and head for it.  They get their loot and riot, then get another message telling them to move on elsewhere. The police can be run ragged. The same applies to any violent political protest rather than straightforward criminality. Any society can be reduced to chaos if enough people refuse to respect the law.  That is the message which comes out of these riots.

What will happen now? Even if the police could identify them, the numbers  are too great to bring to meaningful justice. Numbers are always difficult to assess where there is a fluid crowd, but the sheer volume  of riots and the length of time they have lasted must mean there have been thousands of people committing criminal acts.  Even if each incident only involved a couple of hundred people it would be easy to run up a figure of 10,000.  Many of the crimes – arson, serious criminal damage, serious theft – would have to carry a heavy prison sentence if  adequate punishment is to be administered.  To  process that number of people through a police investigation, the  Crown Prosecution Service and the courts would be a colossal task. Those who are old enough to remember the Poll Tax fiasco will recall how the magistrates courts became choked trying to process Poll Tax refuseniks.  This would be much worse because the crimes would all go before a jury in the higher
unless a guilty plea is entered.  There would also be the strong likelihood of appeals, something which did not arise often in the case of a refusal to pay  the Poll Tax.
Even if these problems  could be overcome, there would be no obvious place to incarcerate those convicted because our prisons are already so jam-packed everything is done to avoid
imprisoning people and desperate remedies such as letting prisoners out early a frequent resort.

If  people are not brought to justice or are brought to justice without any serious
punishment  resulting , the numbers of those who   are willing to riot and loot
will grow.  This will drag in blacks who have not been willing to loot and riot before.
It will also tempt other ethnic minorities to join in on the basis that if the blacks can get away with it why shouldn’t  they  have some of the spoils. A proportion of whites will also be tempted if they see ethnic minorities getting away with murder.  That is the truly pernicious nature of what is happening:  it continually encourages more disorder.

The point to cling onto is that without the mass immigration of blacks none of this would be happening. If some whites are engaging in the disorder it is only because the black rioters have provided the platform for them to behave in that way.  We can safely say that because rioting to loot just has not happened in British society when there was no large black population here. Nor do we find such rioting happening in areas dominated by native white Britons.

The riots have all taken place in England. The reason is simple: the vast majority
of  post-1945 immigrants have settled in England not the rest of the UK. It is the English who have had to bear the brunt of  mass immigration’s most obnoxious consequences.

What should be done? I suggest this. All attempts by government to appease ethnic minority groups should stop. No more money for community leaders, ethnic based charities or public projects which promote the interests only of minority ethnic groups.  All the laws such as the Race Relations Act and the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000
which give de facto privileges to ethnic minorities and prevent honest objections to immigration and its consequences should be repealed.  The police should be banned from playing the role of political commissars and get back to honest coppering; catching villains
and maintaining order. Institutionalised political correctness should be stripped from public service  and any organisation which receives public money.
Most importantly, politicians and the mainstream media should  stop incontinently  promoting the liberal fantasy of multicultural heaven and recognise that it is not heaven but at best purgatory.

What will the Coalition Government do?   Sadly, the odds must be on more appeasement
of blacks in particular and probably ethnic minorities in general.   Over the past 30 years  vast sums of taxpayers’ money has been poured into appeasing blacks and Asians.   A
good example is the permitting of Housing Associations which, overtly or covertly,  provide social housing for particular ethnic groups (http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2011/04/08/the-truth-about-social-housing-and-ethnic-minorities/).  In addition to spending money, politicians and the mainstream  media have given a grossly disproportionate amount of time and publicity to telling blacks and Asians how valuable they are to Britain.  Like foreign Aid, the attempts to create
a  healthy society by pouring money into alienated and naturally separate communities are doomed. They  simply take the money and attention and then ask for more of the same without becoming any more responsible either individually or to the wider society . They will undoubtedly be coming back for largesse and attention  now and  it is difficult to imagine a political class which has wholeheartedly  signed up to the wonders of diversity  refusing them another hand-out. Perhaps the moving of the Joy of Diversity into the districts inhabited by white liberals will change their  public views  but do not bet on it.  They are well aware of the ill-effects of mass immigration which is the reason they take such care to live in very white worlds themselves.  Provided they can arrange things to keep the immigrants from intruding into their own lives they will probably keep quiet and carry on peddling the same tired multicultural nonsense.

Those who still think that multiculturalism can work need to understand that not only is it more psychologically comfortable for minorities to remain separate, but that it can be advantageous if the host community is soft enough to pander to it.

See also

(http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/the-position-of-minorities/.

http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/black-and-asian-cultural-separatism-in-the-uk/

No 10 Downing Street e-petitions dealing with Immigration, the EU and the ECHR

Robert Henderson

The Government scheme for e-petitions (http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/) which the public can initiate and/or vote on is now live. If a petition can garner 100,000 votes in a maximum of a year, Parliament will then consider whether to  debate the subject of the petition.  Although there is no guarantee of a debate, it would be politically  difficult to refuse one because a failure to debate an issue would nakedly reveal  the scheme as  simply a piece of political elite PR.

There are already quite a  few petitions, the large majority being serious. The most popular subjects are those which the British political class wish they could censor out of public debate: immigration, race, foreign aid, Islam, the EU,  the corruption of the political class, warmongering, weakness in punishing criminals, the death penalty, the harassment of motorists, the cost of transport  and the imbalance of the devolution settlement with England left high and dry without a political class to look after her interests.

There is a good deal of duplication, not least because the search function is poor and it is difficult to see exactly what has been put up by other people.  Nonetheless, it gives a good idea of what the public is most  interested in.

Below are links to the petitions which deal with immigration in all its forms, the European Union and the European Convention of Human Rights  in all its manifestations which have already been sanctioned at this date. Where there are misspellings or typos, this is because those moderating the submissions are putting them up on the site without correction.

Immigration

End mass immigration View

Stop ALL immigration into the UK View

An immediate Ban on immigration from outside of the EEC View

No to Turkey joining the EU View

Abolish the residual categories of British nationality View

Emigration should be drastically reduced View

Emigration should be drastically reduced View

Asylum seekers should should be given temporary refuge and should return to their own country as soon as circumstances allow View

Benefits for immigrants View

Benefits for non-UK residents View

Resident Permits for Immigrants View

To opt out of the Human Rights legislation View

Abolish Islam in the UK View

English Law, Not Shariah Law View

European Union

European Law View

Leave the European Union View

We Want To Withdraw From The EU View

Repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 View

European Sovereignty Act View

Repatriation of Powers from the European Union View

Britain wants referendum to leave EU View

No to Turkey joining the EU View

Referendum on the Accession of Turkey to the EU View

Referendum on accession of Croatia to the EU View

Remove the EU flag from British number plates View

Reduction in payments to EU View

Cost/Benefit Analysis of EU Membership View

Human Rights  (ECHR)

Repeal The European Courts Human Rights Act View

withdraw from the european human rights act View

Protect the UK from the European Convention on Human Rights View

Withdraw from the European Human Rights Commission View

Human Rights Act & the ECHR. View

Human Rights Act View

Ban the Human Rights Act View

Human Rights Act should be revoked. View

Ban the Human Rights Act View

Human right legislation View

Protect the UK from the European Convention on Human Rights View

Patriotism is not an optional extra

Robert Henderson

Contents

1. What is patriotism?

2. The roots of patriotism

3. Nations are tribes writ large

4. The importance of a national territory

5. The democratic value of nations

6. What the individual owes to the nation

7.  The liberal internationalist

8. How to move from multiculturalism to patriotism

9 No patriotism, no enduring society

1. What is  patriotism?

By patriotism I mean the sense of belonging to a people, of  owning a land, having a group identity,  of feeling  at ease with those belonging to the group  in a way which meeting  those  outside the group never engenders, of naturally  favouring your  people above foreigners, of knowing that the  interests of the “tribe” must come before that of any outsider. By this  definition patriotism is something which the vast majority of human beings can  understand because it is not an ideology but an innate human quality whose origins lie buried deep within the evolution of social animals.

The only people who may genuinely be unable to understand  patriotism are the severely mentally retarded or those with a personality disorder such as autism which reduces their ability to understand social contexts.  Despite their incessant repudiation of patriotism even latterday liberals understand the pull of patriotic inclinations, although of course they would never recognise the nature of their inclinations.    These drive  them to live in a manner which is directly at odds with their professed ideology. Look at the life of a white liberal and you will find that they overwhelmingly arrange their lives so that they live in
very white, and in England, very English worlds. They do this in two ways. They either live in an area which is overwhelmingly white – the “rightest of right-on”  British folk singers Billy Bragg chooses to live in the “hideously white”  and English county of Dorset – or  reside in a gentrified white enclave created  on the outskirts of an area such as Islington in London  which has a significant ethnic content to its population– the Blairs lived there before moving to Downing Street. The latter tactic allows the white liberal to luxuriate in the faux belief that they are “living the diversity dream”,  whilst in reality encountering little if any  of the “joy of diversity” they are so vocally enthusiastic about.  A splendid example of  white liberal ghettoization is the drippingly  pc TV presenter Adrian Chiles who  described in a BBC programme  The  Colour of Friendship (18 August 2003) how he looked at his wedding photographs which were taken only a few years before and saw to his dismay and  astonishment that it was in the words of the one-time BBC director-general  Greg Dyke “hideously white”.  With a guest list of several hundred he was unable to find a single non-white face staring out at him. The only ethnic  minorities he had equal or extended contact with were those he met at work, who  were of course middleclass and westernised.

The ease and near universality of understanding of  patriotism sets it apart from ideologies such  as Marxism and liberal internationalism.  The majority of the followers of any ideology with a large number of adherents  will have little understanding  of it, either because they are intellectually lazy or because they lack the  intellectual wherewithal to master the creed. Few Marxists have ever had  a grasp of such ideological niceties as the
laws of dialectics and even fewer modern  liberal internationalists understand  the relationship of  laissez faire economic theory  to historical economic  reality.   The tendency for those who ostensibly support  an ideology to be ignorant of it beyond the grasping of a few ideas which can be reduced to slogans is greatly inflated where, as has happened with political correctness, it becomes the  ideology of  the ruling elite.  In such circumstances people  give lip service to an ideology ,  even  if they neither understand its theoretical basis or even agree with it out of  expediency, whether that be driven by fear or ambition.

The majority of believers in any ideology  are in the position of the laity in Western Europe  before the Reformation when the universal use of the Latin Bible and Latin in church rites meant that the vast majority of the population were left at the mercy of a clerical elite who simply told them what to believe, whether or not it was  sanctioned by the Scriptures. Such people will chant the slogans and support  the intellectual leadership of their movements not because they understand and  are convinced by the ideology, but because  they have  nailed their emotional  colours to  a group.  Ironically, they are tapping into the same  innate traits which create tribes and nations.  The problem is they are creating something which is evolutionarily destructive because it drives them to attempt to destroy the natural formation of human groups through bonds of cultural and racial similarity.

Compare the  situation of the follower of an ideology with that of those who respond to the all of patriotism as defined above. They cannot be so easily or routinely hoodwinked and manipulated by the few, because almost everyone instinctively understands what it is to be patriotic. It does not need to be explained to them.  Whatever the behaviour arising from appeals to patriotism it is not undertaken out of ignorance. Of course, the  ways in which people respond to  their innate feelings  need not be either pretty or moral,  for at its extreme appeals to the emotions and thoughts which come with patriotism may lead to attempts at genocide.  However, even in such extreme circumstances,  the tribe or nation attempting genocide is at  least behaving in a way which is congruent with human biology  and the survival of the group, although an  attempt at conquest or genocide which goes wrong may severely damage or destroy the aggressor.

2. The roots of  patriotism

The sense of being separate, of belonging to a discrete group with identifiable characteristics is a necessary part of being human because Man is a social animal. Social animals have two universal features: they form discrete groups and within the group produce hierarchies – although both the group and the hierarchy vary considerably in form and intensity. Human beings are no exception; whether they are hunter-gatherers or people populating a great modern city they all have a need to form groups in which they feel naturally comfortable.

Why do social animals form discrete groups rather than treat all the animals of their species which they encounter as being part of the group? Part of the answer surely lies in competition for territory, food and mates and the  limits placed on any species by their environment.  For example, it would be impossible for lions to exist in much larger groups than they do because of their heavy food demands. Moreover, once the group size is established it is not possible for a species to suddenly change its size because the behavioural template will have been set to accommodate the size which exists.  Man is possibly the exception to this rule, but  it could be argued that humans only learned
how to form larger groups very slowly and that where larger groups form today, for example, villagers moving off the land to the cities in developing countries,  this is simply  the extended consequences of the long, painful steps towards extending the human group size.

Some animals, most notably insects, fish and birds, successfully form very large groups. However, the  form of their association  or their degree of social integration  differs from  that of primates  (and arguably mammals generally). Social insects rely for their organisation on what are in effect  simple  automated responses through such triggers as
chemical releases. Fish and birds may form large groups, most probably because it affords them evolutionary  goods such  as greater protection from predators or easier access to mates,  without  engaging in much social support for one another beyond being together. Birds  may assemble in large groups only when they migrate.

The most highly developed social animals amongst mammals such as primates and wolves do far more than simply congregate.  They develop patterns of behaviour which require active and complex  cooperation between members of the group.  Such behaviour may of itself place limits on the size of a group by the behaviour being dependent  upon the mental capacity of the animal.   For example, it could be that a pack of  wolves can only be the size it is because anything substantially larger would  be impossible for the mind of the animal to comprehend or for behaviours which are essentially automatic to operate within.

There is also the question of mating strategies and the  raising of offspring. Sexually reproducing social animals have to evolve strategies to maximise reproduction for the individual whilst preventing competition for mates amongst males becoming so intense it threatens the viability of the group.  Probably the most common method of achieving this amongst social mammals is to have a dominant male; frequently  a sexually mature male who occupies the position of the oriental despot with his harem, for example,  the gorilla.
This of itself means that that the group must be clearly defined with males from outside excluded. But even where there is a looser social arrangement which permits different males within the group to not only co-exist but share the females , as is the case with the chimpanzee,  there is still a sense of possession amongst the males at least and hence the need for a defined group.When a species has moved to social animal status,  behaviours that intensify group behaviour such as the recognition of members of the group by scent will make the exclusion of outsiders  ever more rigid. It is also probable that amongst the most advanced social  mammals that the individual animals have sufficient mental awareness to become, just as humans do, accustomed to the behaviour of the members of their particular group and that becomes a  major part of maintaining the group identity.
Animals generally hate novelty so it would make evolutionary sense for them to prefer those individuals with whom they have grown up to strangers.

Man is the exception to the rule of group size in as much as over the past 10,000 years or so humans have shown themselves capable of  creating groups of vast size . This is plausibly attributable to the mental capacity of humans being sufficient to overcome the organisational  which thwart the increase in group size of other social mammals.  But this ability to increase group size massively has only occurred in recent human existence. Human settlements where people are counted in thousands rather than dozens or hundreds have a history of less than 10,000 years and even today most human beings live in small communities.   From paleontological and archaeological evidence, historical accounts of how people lived  and  the example of  tribal peoples living today, we can reasonably deduce that the natural size of human groups living  without the ability to generate their own food supply through farming is a few hundred at most.   Importantly, although  Man can now live in larger communities,  he is still in evolutionary terms equipped to live in small groups. This means that the innate tendencies which lead social
animals to set limits to the group  are alive and well.

That leaves the formation of hierarchies to be explained. For animals other than Man the answer is I think simple enough, only by forming hierarchies can social groups cohere. Animals vary considerably in their physical and mental qualities. Observe any animal, even the simplest single cell organism, and differences between individuals within the species will become apparent. Some are more vigorous than others, some unusually large, some abnormally small, some more adventurous and so on. Individuals will also vary in physical capacity and behaviour by age and, in sexually reproducing species, sex.

Solitary animals compete for existential goods through direct competition with other members of their species, something they do through methods such as such as scent marking of territorial boundaries and serious fighting . When an animal is social, differences in individual quality and the urge of each individual to survive have to be resolved by something other than the methods used by solitary animals because the animals live in close proximity. Competition for desirable goods still occurs, most notably
competition for food and mates, but normally within behaviours which are not fatal to other members of the group or behaviours which are so disruptive as to threaten the survival of the group. Moreover, the development of such behavioural restraint  provides the possibility for  behaviours to develop  which  make the individuals of the group dependent  upon one another, for example, the hunting strategies of  the wolf which
requires the adult members of the pack to display a very considerable degree of cooperation.  The development of  such behaviours probably reinforces the tendency
towards hierarchy. The upshot of these various social accommodations  is the formation of different social niches into which individuals with different qualities ad histories fit.

Consider what would happen if hierarchies did not exist. There would be constant conflict within the group because no individual would have cause to defer to another except from fear of physical harm.  Fear is a blunt and very limited instrument of social control, whether it be of humans or animals. It is a strategy more suited to the solitary animal than the social one. Group behaviour is a compromise between the immediate advantage of the individual and the diffuse advantages derived from group activity. The compromise is given structure by hierarchies, whether that be a fixed biological distinction by sex or caste (for example, social bees) or a transient one due to the age of an animal. Hierarchies are
built on the differences between individuals and the more rigid the hierarchical structure the greater will be the selective pressures to produce individuals in the right proportions to fill the various social niches within the group.

Hierarchies also make sense in terms of the development of social animals. Social animals are descended from asocial animals. The movement from asocial to social animal is presumably akin to the evolutionary process whereby a parasite is converted to a symbiotic partner. It is a process of gradual behavioural accommodation.

Social animals on the bottom rung of the social animal ladder may do little more than associate together at certain times. The next rung up and the animal frequently associates with others of its kind. One more step and the animal forms more or less permanent groupings. And so on until we reach the ultimate social animal, Man.

The gradual evolution of social behaviour of itself points to the need for hierarchy, because at each stage of the evolution the natural overtly selfish behaviour of the original solitary animal has to be modified. That modification will only come through natural selection working on behavioural traits which favour more complete socialisation.

What about human beings? Are they not capable of breaking the biological bounds which capture animals? Does not their immense intelligence and possession of language place them in another category of being? Could Man not simply decide not to behave in a non-hierarchical manner? The fact that human beings have never done so is of itself sufficient evidence for all but the most ideologically committed nurturist to decide that human
beings cannot do it in practice and to conclude that the forming of hierarchies is part of the human template. However, to that fact can be added another, the dominance-submission behaviour which every person witnesses daily not merely in positions of formal dominance and subordination such as the workplace, but in every aspect of social life.

Societies which consist of various human groups that  see themselves as separate  from each other disrupt the creation of a healthy hierarchy. Instead of there being a single hierarchy within an homogenous group (defining homogenous as a population in a discrete territory  which sees itself as a group), there are  hierarchies formed within each group and a further overarching hierarchy formed from the various groups themselves
with  each group hierarchy competing within the population as a whole.

The nature of the competition between the groups will depend on the relative  proportions each forms  of a population and the history of each group.  The subordinate groups within the society will feel that they are there on sufferance and  be suspicious and fearful of the dominant  group and constantly  worried that any  other minority group is outcompeting them.  A majority population which has been  dominant  in all respects within the territory will take some shifting from its position of supremacy,  but the influx of substantial numbers of outsiders will nonetheless create insecurity and  resentment amongst the dominant population. In such circumstances no individual , whether of the dominant or subordinate group(s), feels entirely  secure because there is constant tension between groups. Most importantly for the wellbeing of the society, there is no common bond of trust between people sharing the same territorial house.

3. Nations are tribes writ large

Nations are tribes writ large. They are remarkably durable. Empires invariably fall but a nation is timeless and can be only be utterly destroyed only through an act of genocide. Even the loss of a homeland – the most traumatic loss any nation can sustain – does not destroy a people as the Jews have emphatically shown for nearly two thousand years.

A shared faith or political ideology does not make a nation.  Muslims may claim to be one people, but the reality is very different as the continual strife between Muslims bears witness. Not only is there the major division between Shias and Sunnis, Muslim dominated states of the same ostensible branch of Islam are often hostile to each other, while Muslim terrorists/freedom fighters (take your pick) willingly kill fellow Muslims – women and children included – in large numbers.

Similarly, Marxist Leninists in the Soviet Union and Red China may have maintained the fiction to the bitter end of the Soviet Bloc that the international proletariat was as one, but the substantial deviations between their ideologies and the viciously repressive measures they used to deny their own proles contact with outside world (and hence with the rest of
the proletariat) told another tale.

Today, the doctrine of liberal internationalism pretends to a universality of human experience and commonality which is refuted every day by the manifold social, ethnic and racial strife throughout the world. It is an ideology which wishes the world would be as it says rather than asserts that this is the world as it is or would be under given conditions.

Nations are organic growths. They cannot be constructed consciously as the “nation-builders” of the period of European de-colonisation fondly imagined and their liberal internationalist successors today continue to at least pretend to believe. Nations are developed through the sociological process of establishing trust within the group. This only happens when others are recognised as belonging naturally to the group. That does not mean that every member of the nation is seen as equal as an individual, whether for
reasons of personality, ability or social status, but it does mean they are accepted automatically as being part of the nation. An English duke may have little if any social contact with the English working man, but each would instinctively recognise the other as English because despite their social distance they fall within the recognised template of what it is to be English.

Nor is the sense of group solidarity and empathy  restricted to nations. As David Hume noted  over two centuries ago when he reflected on how we respond to people in different circumstances: “An Englishman [met] in Italy is a friend:  A European in China [is a friend] ; and perhaps a man [of any origin] wou’d be belov’d as such, were we to meet him in the moon.” ( A Treatise of Human Nature Book II section 2 (A Treatise of Human
Nature).  The same forces which create tribes and nations are at work here as the individual seeks, in the absence of members of his tribe or nation,  those who are closest to his tribe or nation.

Just as a nation cannot be consciously created the individual cannot decide in anything other than the legal sense that they are this or that nationality. A man may decide to become a British citizen through an act of will but he cannot decide to be English. That is because being English is the consequence of parentage and upbringing, something over which the child has no control. It is the unconscious imbibing of a culture something
visceral.

Most vitally, to be part of the tribe or nation a person has to be accepted without thinking by other members of the nation as a member of the nation to be of that nation. That is why the claims of English men and women to be Irish, Welsh or Scots are both forlorn and ridiculous. As the English film director Stephen Frears wittily remarked of the very English actor Daniel Day-Lewis “I knew Daniel before he was Irish”.

Like it or not, the upbringing of these wannabe Celts has made them English. Not only do they think like the English, understand English mores without thinking and are armed with a library of English cultural references, they have a personality which falls within the English spectrum. Put them in a room with foreigners or the Celts they wish to be and they will be taken for English. Such people cannot be anything but English, because only by being raised in a society where you are accepted without question as being part of the nation can the person become part of a nation. An Englishman who wishes to claim that he is a Scot cannot realistically  do so because he lacks the cultural imprinting of a Scot. It is not something which can be faked.

4. The importance of a national territory

A national territory is essential to the well-being of the nation. The fate of the Jews after they lost theirs is a cautionary tale for anyone who believes otherwise. The ideal is a territory which is controlled entirely by the nation, a population which is overwhelmingly comprised of people who are authentic members of the national “tribe” through their parentage and upbringing. The prime example of such a state is the pre-union England, which was the first true nation state.

The next best choice is for a nation state containing different peoples who each have de facto their own national territory. Britain is a first rate example of such a state, with the four home nations – England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – each having their own territory.  Simply having a land in which you form the majority on the ground is a great consolation and benefit . That applies even to a people such as the Kurds whose land is  divided between Turkey, Iraq and Iran. Being the dominant population they have both the reassurance of their demographic  control of the territory – boots on the ground – and the consoling possibility of converting that demographic dominance into political control in the future.

The Jews are an oddity. Until the modern state of Israel was founded in 1948 they had been without a homeland for nearly two millennia. They neither controlled a territory in their own right nor were the dominant people in a land. Because of that they were able to convert their religion into a cultural suit to be worn by all adherents in a way that Islam and Christianity or any political ideology never could. Denuded of their own land, they could neither be oppressed by an invader nor oppress others by invasion. They could
not exercise state power. All they had left was cultural power, whether that be intellectual or economic. The consequence was that Jewish culture rather than the possession of a homeland became the primary or even sole psychological focus of  Jews.

As a consequence of the history and  evolution of Jewish society, there been a strain within Jewry since the foundation of a modern state Jewish state was first seriously mooted  in the 19th century that has been hostile to the formation of such a state,  because the Jewish culture which they valued was the product of not having a country to call their own and consequently would become tainted if Jews had a homeland, that Jews would become like other peoples.

Although this mentality has a certain intellectual attraction, it condemns Jews to perpetual insecurity. Although Jews have successfully developed a culture built upon the need to accommodate themselves as a minority within majority non-Jewish populations whilst maintaining a strong ethnic identity, the absence of a territory which they control has meant that their history for the past twenty centuries has been an unhappy one, punctuated regularly by abuse from the majority populations with whom they co-existed,
abuse which ranges  from everyday discrimination to attempts at genocide. This abuse is the consequence of the disordering of the hierarchy humans need, the consequences being what at bottom is a battle for territory.

5. The democratic value of nations

Politically, nations are immensely valuable because the nation state is the largest political unit which allows any meaningful democratic control. Indeed, it is arguable that representative government at the national level is the only real opportunity for serious democratic control, because representative bodies below the national level are always subject to a national government. Supra-national authority signals the end of democratic control. More of that later.

Only in a country where there is a sense of shared history, culture and communal interest can representative government function, even in principle, as a conduit for the interests of the entire population. In a country which is riven by ethnic and racial difference representative democracy invariably deteriorates into a mass of competing groups all struggling for their own advantage. Policy making and its execution becomes fragmentary and it is impossible to construct a coherent approach to promoting the common good. In a nation state with a large degree of homogeneity the political process is concentrated instead upon policies which affect all, or at least the overwhelming majority, of the people. For example, before post-war mass immigration fractured Britain, the great political questions were ones related to class. Policies were put forward  which either were intended to better the situation of the working class or to resist change.  Whichever side a person
was on in that debate, they had no illusions that political policy was designed to meet the situation of the British people as a whole. Today political policy in Britain  is at best a juggling act between the competing ethnic and racial groups and at worst  a deliberately  conspiracy amongst the political elite to suppress the interests of the native population to accommodate those of  minority groups formed over the past 60 years  by incontinent mass immigration.

Once a country’s sovereignty is breached through treaties which commit countries to bow to the will of supra-national bodies , as has happened with the constituent countries of the EU, democratic control withers on the vine because mainstream politicians of all stamps begin to formulate their policies within the context of what the supra-national body allows not in the interests of the country. Eventually, a situation is reached, as has been reached in the case of the EU, where all parties with an opportunity for power sing from the same policy hymn sheet. At that point representative government becomes a shell and democratic control is gone because there is no opportunity to vote for any party which will change matters. That is so because the grip of the existing elite is so tight on all the levers of power, most importantly the mass media, that no new party can even get a serious hearing.

Where the form of government is parliamentary, the difficulty is enhanced by the fact that very large numbers of candidates must stand to both be taken seriously and have any chance of forming a majority. This imposes an immense organisational and economic burden on the new party, not least because the party will lack experienced politicians as candidates and party bureaucrats. Add in things such as first-past-the-post voting in
individual constituencies and the deposit of £500 for each candidate which is at risk of being lost in the vote does not reach 8% of the total, and the British system is just about the best armoured against new parties gaining a foothold in government as any in the world.

Democratic control is vitally important to maintaining the integrity of the nation. There is only one general political question of importance in any society, namely, how far can the masses control the abusive tendencies of the elite? Elites as a class are naturally abusive because it is in the nature of human beings to be selfish and to look for their own advantage and that of those closest to them. That does not mean that no member of an
elite will break ranks and go against their class interest. What it does mean is that an elite as a whole will not change its spots , not least because the sociological shackles are too strong for most of those members of the elite who might be tempted to go against their class interest will be dissuaded from doing so because of the group pressures within the elite, for the elite will develop a “tribal” sense of their own, with those outside the elite seen as a separate social entity.

The less democratic control there is over the elite , the more the elite will engage in behaviours which are detrimental to the coherence of the “tribe” as a whole because the elite will seek their own advantage rather than that of the nation.  Before the rise of the nation state, the abuse was generally much in evidence because elites commonly took the form of monarchies and subordinate rulers in the forms of territorially based aristocracies presiding over territories which contained various national/ethnic groups, the members of which were seen as subjects not part of a national whole. The common and deliberate policy of such elites was to “divide and rule”. Territories were also frequently subject to changes of ruler through conquest, a change of royal favour (in the case of subordinate rulers), inheritance or marriage contracts. In such circumstances there was little
opportunity for the masses to exercise any form of control over their rulers because there was no unity of feeling or sense of commonality amongst the peoples they ruled and the sense of “tribe“ was localised.  It is noteworthy that arguably the most dramatic popular rising in Europe during the mediaeval period took place in England (the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381), the one large kingdom in Europe at that time with a broadly homogenous population and a territory which enjoyed meaningful central Royal control.

With the creation of the nation state there arose the possibility of democratic control. The creation of a sense of nation within a single territory responsible to a single ruler in itself provides the circumstances whereby dissent can be focused and power and influence removed from the monarch and diffused to an ever larger part of the population. That is
precisely what happened in England , with first the gradual accretion of powers by Parliament , especially over taxation, then with the development of Parliamentary government after 1689 and finally with the extension of the franchise from 1832 onwards. By the beginning of the 20th century a large degree of democratic control had been established because the elite were working within the nation state, were dependent on a mass electorate and were having to produce policies within a national context. That control lasted until the early 1970s when the elite found another way of breaking it by moving politics from the national state to a supra-national power, the EU. Once that
was done, the abusive tendencies of the elite could re-assert themselves, as they have done in spades.

6. What the individual owes to the nation

Membership of a nation places a natural duty on the individual to support the nation. Patriotism should be viewed as a matter of utility, an absolutely necessity for the maintenance and coherence of a society. The idea that a society can survive which is merely a collection of deracinated individuals has no basis in history or observed human behaviour today.

It is a very great privilege to be unambiguously part of a nation, for it is the place where you automatically belong. Just as a family is the place where most people can find automatic support so is the nation. In fact, the nation is even more reliable than a family because no one can remove the nationality which has been imprinted into a person while a family can reject a member. In an advanced country such as Britain membership of the nation state is valuable indeed, for materially at least it is still (just) a fully-fledged
life support system.

That which is valuable needs to be defended, because what is valuable is always envied by others and will be stolen if possible and destroyed if not. The state recognises this by expecting its nationals to fight to protect the national territory against an overt invader. The principle can be extended to other things such as opposing mass immigration (a surreptitious form of conquest) and defending the nation’s vital industries.

Patriotism becomes less intense as the size of the group   increases, a fact noted by David Hume: “But when society has become more numerous, and has encrease’d to a tribe or nation, the interest is more remote; nor do men so readily perceive , that order an
confusion follow upon every breach of these rules , as in a more narrow and contracted society.”  (Book II section 2 A Treatise of Human Nature).  But that does not mean it becomes diluted to the point of having no utility. It simply means that patriotic feelings are not as immediately strong as those which attach to family and friends.  Perhaps more exactly, patriotism is not called upon with the same frequency  as the emotions which attach to those whom we regard with personal affection.  The latter feelings are constantly with us,  constantly being called upon. Patriotism on the other hand, is intermittently required to preserve the integrity of the tribe or nation. But it is always there in the
background guiding our  behaviour from thinking it natural that immigrants are excluded from our territory to supporting a national sporting team.

Being patriotic by my definition does not mean constantly and stridently asserting a nation’s achievements and superiority to other nations. It simply   means looking after
the national interest in the same way that an individual looks to their own interest.

7. The liberal internationalist

Liberal internationalist ideology is diametrically opposed to what Nature has decreed. It states that homo sapiens is a single species whose atoms, the individual human being, are interchangeable. For the liberal internationalist discrimination is the dirtiest of words and a word which he interprets to the point of reductio ad absurdum.

That is the theory. In practice, the liberal internationalist complains of discrimination only when it effects those whom it includes within the protective embrace of political correctness. Those outside that embrace may be abused and vilified. Most perversely this attitude frequently results in members of a majority actively discriminating against their
own people. Nowhere is this behaviour seen more sharply than in the attitude of the British elite towards the English to whom they deny any political voice – a privilege granted to the other parts of the UK – and actively abuse them by representing English national feeling as a dangerous thing.

The liberal left internationalists may have made truly immense efforts to portray nations as outmoded relics at best and barbarous survivals from a less enlightened past at worst, but despite their best (or worst) efforts they have not changed the natural feelings of people because these feelings derive from the general biological imperative common to all
social animals: the need to develop behaviours which enhance the utility of the
group.

But if an elite cannot destroy the naturally patriotic feelings the people they rule, they can severely taint and shackle  them by suppressing their public expression through the use of the criminal law, for example, laws against the incitement to racial hatred which are interpreted  as applying to any dissent from the politically correct position on race and immigration  and civil law penalties such as   extortionate payments for unfair dismissal
through racial discrimination which, curiously, only ever seem to apply to members of  ethnic minorities. To this they add the ruthless enforcement of their liberal-left ideology throughout politics, public service, academia, the schools, major private corporations and the mainstream media.

So successful have liberals in Britain been in their censorship and propaganda  that rarely
does any native dissent about immigration and its consequences enter the public realm, while it is now impossible for anyone to occupy  a senior position in any public organisation or private organisation with a quasi-public quality, for examples, charities
and large companies, without religiously observing the elite ideology which has solidified into what is now called political correctness. The consequence is that people have developed the mentality common in totalitarian regimes that certain feelings, however natural, are somehow now out of bounds and dangerous and consequently should be the subject of self-censorship. People still have the feelings but they are withdrawn from public conversation and increasing from private discourse.

It is important to understand that even the most vociferous liberal does not believe in his or her heart of hearts that humanity is a single indivisible entity whose atoms (the individual) are in practice interchangeable. They wish it was so but know it is not so. However, the ideologically committed continue to live in hope that minds and behaviours can be changed by what they are wont to call “education”, for which read indoctrination. The rest go along with the idea because it has been built into the structure of the elite and the doubters prize ambition and their membership of the elite above honesty.

It is of course impossible to consciously force someone to be patriotic,  but there is no need to because the natural instinct of human beings is to be patriotic. All that needs to be done is to remove the constraints placed on national expression by the liberal internationalists and these natural instincts will re-assert themselves . That can be done by the political elite changing their tune towards a defence of the nation and the nation state. Let the political rhetoric alter and the public mood will swing towards the patriotic. The underlying strength of patriotism can be seen in the case of England. Despite being denied any national political voice and incontinently abused by the British elite,   whenever a national sporting  team representing England takes the field the support is immense.  Come the football World Cup and vast numbers of the flag of St George appear on everything from flagpoles to cars. Let England win the Rugby World Cup or cricket’s Ashes and great crowds fill the streets of London as they teams go on a celebratory parade.  Whenever an England side plays abroad they are joined by astonishing numbers of  English men and women.

8. How to move from multiculturalism to patriotism

All treaties which restrict the power of a government to act in the national context must be thrown away. In the case of Britain that means leaving the EU and repudiating treaties such as the UN Convention on Refugees and the European Convention on Human Rights.

The institutionalisation of political correctness within public service must be destroyed, both by dismissing all those employed explicitly to enforce such views (who are de facto political commissars) and by repealing all laws which both provide powers for officials and those which restrict free expression. I say political correctness in its entirety because the various strands of political correctness support each other, most notably in the general attack on “discrimination”. Leave anything of the “discrimination” culture intact and it will be used to bring in multiculturalism by the back door. It would also require many of the de facto political commissars to be left in office.

Public office, both that held by politicians and officials, should be restricted to those with four grandparents and two parents as nationals born and bred. This should be done to prevent any lack of focus because of the danger of divided national loyalties.

Mass immigration must be ended. Immigrants in a country illegally should be removed in short order where that can be done. Where possible, those legally in a country who cannot or will not assimilate fully, should be re-settled in their countries of their national origin or the national origin of their ancestors or in other countries where they will be in the racial/ethnic majority. Those who are in a country legally but who do not have essential scarce skills which cannot be supplied by the native population, should be sent back to their countries of origin – there would be few from countries who could not be returned because they would be definitely identifiable as coming from a country and few countries will refuse to receive one of their nationals even if they do not have a passport.

A written constitution is a must because otherwise any change to remedy matters will be vulnerable to easy reversal. Such a reversal could be thwarted, as far as these things can ever be thwarted, by placing a bar on what a government may do. That should include prohibitions on the signing of treaties which restrict national sovereignty and mass immigration, provisions for the protection of strategic industries and the restriction of
public office to born and bred nationals and a clear statement that the nation state exists to privilege its members over those of foreigners. Most importantly, there should be an absolute right to free expression for that is the greatest dissolver of elite abuse and general chicanery. Milton understood this perfectly: ‘

And though all the winds of doctrine were let loose upon the   earth, so truth be in the field [and] we do injuriously  by  licensing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength.  Let  her
and falsehood grapple;  who ever knew truth put to the worse,  in a free and open encounter…’ [Milton – Areogapitica].

9. No patriotism, no enduring society

The value of patriotism is its ability to produce social coherence and an enduring and discrete population . Without patriotism a country becomes no more than a geographical expression and is ready prey for colonisation by overt conquest through force or covert conquest through mass immigration.

Liberal internationalists have ends which are directly in conflict with patriotism. They seek the destruction of nation states and the subordination of nations to a world order ommanding a single human society .  A particularly crass example comes from the TV
broadcaster I mentioned earlier, Adrian Chiles:

“I want all the species to marry each other so that in 300 years’ time we are all the same colour.

“White people can’t talk about whiteness without sounding racist. I would love my daughter to marry an Asian or black man. “http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100localnews/content_objectid=13305960_method=full_siteid=50002_headline=-Asian-for-Aide-s-girl-name_page.html#story_continue

The  ends  of liberal internationalism are predicated on the demonstrably false premise that diverse populations will live not merely as peacefully and productively as homogeneous ones , but produce stronger and, by implication, more enduring societies . The internationalists have no rational grounds for believing this , for the whole experience of human history and the world as it is today is that diversity of race and ethnicity in the same territory equates to violence and social incoherence. There is literally no example of a diverse society which has not suffered serious ethnic strife, whether that be outright racial war or chronic social disruption such as riots and the production of ethnic ghettos which become de facto no go areas.

Ironically, the invariable consequence of mixed populations is not as liberals would like to believe, a diminishing of aggressive national/tribal sentiment but an inflation of it. A people secure in its own territory does not need to engage in constant national expression because nothing threatens it: a people in a mixed society must constantly do so because
all the ethnic/racial groups are necessarily in conflict because of the need for each to compete for power and resources for their own group.

Because Man is differentiated profoundly by culture, the widely accepted definition of a species – a population of freely interbreeding organisms sharing a common gene pool – is unsatisfactory. Clearly Man is more than an animal responding to simple biological triggers. When behavioural differences are perceived as belonging to a particular group by that group as differentiating members of the group from other humans  they perform the same role as organic differences for they divide Man into cultural species. That is how homo sapiens should be viewed, as an amalgam of species and subspecies who require their own territories to maximise peace . In addition such societal differentiation probably  drives  the evolution of Man . A good example of  the latter would be 18th century England and the Industrial Revolution. Would that revolution have occurred if England had not been a very homogeneous society which suffered very little immigration from the 14th century onwards?  Probably not, because large-scale immigration or conquest by a foreign power would have radically changed the nature of England.

The Liberal internationalists’ belief  that human beings are interchangeable social atoms who may live as readily in one society as another is a recipe for national suicide. Patriotism is not an optional extra.

The wages of Scottish independence – England, Wales and Northern Ireland must be heard

In the matter of Scottish independence, the British political elite and the Scottish Numpty Party (SNP) are flatly  ignoring the interests of the English, Welsh and Northern Irish.  This is unreasonable for two reasons: firstly, the granting of independence to Scotland has considerable political, economic and security implications for the remainder of the UK and, secondly, the conditions on which Scotland might be allowed to leave the Union are of direct interest to the rest of the UK, because if they are too generous to Scotland they will disadvantage England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The granting of over-generous conditions to the Scots  is probable with the present Coalition Government, which has done nothing to abate the appeasement of the Scots so assiduously practised by New Labour since 1997  by continuing the Barnett Formula and tossing juicy bones to Edinburgh such as increasing the number of armed forces personnel in Scotland at a time of massive reductions in Britain’s defence forces (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/8646134/Liam-Fox-Scottish-defence-footprint-to-increase-despite-RAF-Leuchars-closure.html).  There is also the strong possibility that the present Government would attempt to placate Scots by going for devolution max or independence lite, either of which would shift major powers to Scotland such as fiscal independence and the revenues from the oil and gas in Scottish waters without the Scots taking on a share proportionate to their population of the UK’s financial obligations.

It is also true that even if the cutting adrift of Scotland was entirely equitable in terms of the division of debts and assets, the rest of the UK (and especially England) would have a serious interest in blocking the divorce. To begin with, an independent Scotland would not be able to guard its own borders or patrol the oil and gas fields in its waters because of its small population, the large territory in relation to the population and the sheer cost of doing so. The rest of the UK (in reality England because Wales and Northern  Ireland receive far more from the UK Treasury tax pot than they put in)  would in practice be providing Scotland’s defence,  because no country could imagine that an attack on Scotland would not bring in England.

There would also be the threat of immigration from an independent Scotland to England. Scotland could operate an open door policy in the sure knowledge that immigrants entering Scotland would overwhelmingly head for England. Scotland might even act as a national people trafficker by selling entry to Scotland and/or Scottish citizenship. If both Scotland and England remain within the EU, the Westminster Government would be unable to do anything about the immigration to England via Scotland  of any number of people from both within and without the EU.

Lastly, there would be the question of what would  happen if  an independent Scotland ran into the sort of economic trouble experienced currently by the Republic of Ireland and Greece. As sure as eggs are eggs, England would be called upon to bail her out.  Even if that did not happen it is probable that an independent Scotland would not be able or willing to finance her share of the accrued financial obligations of the UK. There would be no way of guaranteeing that an independent Scotland could service even her 9 per cent share of the UK national debt (which is officially projected to be  at least £1.3 trillion at
the proposed referendum date of 2015) let alone her PFI and other public service debt (http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2011/06/02/the-wages-of-scottish-independence-public-debt/). The reality  is that if Scotland had a nominal independence England would be the guarantor of last resort, underwriting Scotland’s obligations accrued both before and after independence.

The rest of the UK, and especially England, clearly have a pressing interest in the question of  Scottish independence. How should that interest be given a  political voice? This can be done either with a referendum on Scottish independence in which they (but not the Scots) vote on a simple question such as “Should Scotland be allowed to vote on whether they want independence” or by a referendum held in England, Wales and Northern Ireland on any conditions for independence which have been agreed between the UK and Scottish Governments and accepted by the two parliaments. It is important to understand that UK Government cannot simply decide to grant Scotland independence, because the 1707  Act of Union would have to be repealed by the Westminster Parliament  and the Scottish Parliament would have to accept the conditions for independence and pass legislation preparing Scotland for independence if a YES vote was obtained. (The later Acts bringing  Ireland into the Union and then adjusting the Union to include Northern Ireland rather than Ireland,  would be amended by the doctrine of implied repeal. However, a new Act might be passed clarifying the new situation).

A  vote on the simple question of independence should be held in England, Wales and Northern Ireland  and a YES vote obtained  before a Scottish referendum is  held.  If a NO vote resulted then Scottish independence would be off the agenda.   Similarly, if the conditions are voted upon, this should be done before the vote is put to the Scots.  A NO vote would mean that either Scottish independence was off the agenda or that the conditions had to be changed and put to the English, Welsh and Northern Irish electorates again.  Nothing short of Westminster abolishing the Scottish parliament and government by repealing the devolution settlement as it applied to Scotland could prevent a referendum, being organised by the Scottish government and sanctioned by the Scottish parliament, but such a referendum would have no legal or constitutional status.

If Scotland declared UDI they would legally  be in rebellion. That would not only lay Scotland open to catastrophic sanctions by Westminster but also put them at odds with the EU because  an independent Scotland created illegally would not automatically  have EU status. It would also be a very dangerous thing for the EU to offer any support on encouragement to part of an established EU member seceding from the member because there are so many parts of the EU which might do the same. In theory this might play into the hands of Eurocrats because it undermines the powerful  national state, but in practice it would simply strengthen nationalism and in the most messy and chaotic manner with
micro-states popping up all over the EU.  This consideration would also prevent the EU
pushing for Scotland to be made  independent in the case of Scotland voting YES in a referendum which had no legal status.  However, the EU might well push for greater
devolved powers short of independence for Scotland in  such circumstances. That needs watching.

There is also the ticklish question of what the franchise should be for the Scottish referendum on independence. Like the rest of the UK, Scotland is far from being ethnically monolithic. The 2001 census showed 88 per cent of the population being White Scottish, 9 per cent White non-Scottish  and 2 per cent black or Asian. (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2004/02/18876/32939).
There are also different electoral qualifications for voting in Scotland and the rest of the UK, these varying between UK national elections, elections to the devolved assemblies, EU elections and local elections. Elections to the Scottish parliament include Scottish residents from other EU countries in the electorate, while elections to the Commons do not. Conversely, ex-patriot Britons are allowed to vote for Westminster MPs while they are not allowed the privilege in the election of MSPs to the Scottish parliament even if they are on Scottish electoral registers. As there are large numbers of Scots living outside
Scotland,  this is no small difference.

The Scottish government Draft Referendum (Scotland) Bill Consultation Paper  states “Eligibility to vote will follow the precedent of the 1997 referendum in being based on who
can vote at Scottish Parliament and Scottish local government elections. However, the draft Bill provides that those aged 16 or 17 on the electoral register on the date of the referendum will also be entitled to”.   (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/02/22120157/7)

That is all very well on paper, but there is no guarantee that the Commons would accept such a franchise because that would mean a large proportion of voters could be either without British citizenship or possessed of dual citizenship. It would in principle be possible to identify people from outside Scotland who would be willing to vote for independence, ship large numbers of them into the country shortly before a referendum, get them registered as resident in Scotland and effectively fix a YES vote.

There is also the strong possibility that there would judicial challenges from those excluded particularly ex-patriot Scots. In a country such as modern Britain they might well succeed, so hemmed about with laws and treaties obligations restricting what parliaments and governments may do. Most particularly Article 3 of the first Protocol to the Human Rights Act runs “The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.”  It is all too easy to foresee the type of legal wrangles over who comes within the definition of “the people”, especially in the case of ex-patriot Scots.  Would a Scot have to live outside Scotland for six months, a year, five years or what to count as not being part of the people?

If the Scottish parliament could not simply lay down who should vote in the referendum large numbers of possibilities arise. Here are a few. Should every adult living in Scotland get the vote? Should it be every adult who is qualified to vote for the Scottish Parliament? Should it be only British citizens living in Scotland?  Should it be only Scots living in Scotland? Should it be Scots living throughout the UK? What about Scots living abroad? Should they be allowed to vote as ex-pat Britons are allowed to vote in Westminster elections? Should it be any adult in Scotland entitled to vote in EU elections? Should it be every adult in Scotland entitled to vote in local elections?

The above facts speak for themselves: there is considerable doubt about when and in what form a referendum on Scottish independence might be held. It is vital that the many unresolved questions are answered before any referendums are held and that the political elite in the UK does not simply railroad an independence referendum through without giving the people of  England, Wales and Northern Ireland a say in that which so directly concerns them.