Playing the end game

Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 18 October 2006 23:45.

From a UPI article titled Gallic Intifada:-

Turf conscious bloggers in Paris’ rundown, mostly Muslim, suburban immigrant housing estates rival in violent messages that threaten to beat senseless and even kill any intruder caught in “our ghetto.” Almost every word is misspelled, in both argot slang and pidgin French. And these are not empty threats. An average of 14 policemen a day are injured in bloody clashes with jobless youngsters.

France’s Interior Ministry said 2,500 police officers had been “wounded” this year. The head of the hard-line trade union “Action Police” Michel Thooris wrote to Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy to describe conditions in housing developments turned slums as “intifada.” Police cruisers are pelted daily with stones and “Molotov cocktails” (gasoline-filled bottles with burning wicks that explode on impact) and Thooris said cops assigned to what was rapidly degenerating into “free fire zones” should be protected in armored vehicles. Entire tall buildings empty into the streets to chase policemen and free an arrested comrade.

“We are in a state of civil war, orchestrated by radical Islamists,” Thooris told journalists.

Meanwhile, the Telegraph has finally pondered these last two weeks of ministerial interventions in the veil row, and in this morning’s leader come up with ... the deeply obvious: Labour loses faith in multi-culturalism.

At his press briefing yesterday, the Prime Minister made it clear his Government’s approach to cultural diversity had changed. He may have couched his position in careful language, but the conclusion was inescapable: integration, rather than multi-cultural separatism, is now official policy. By saying that he “fully supported” the decision of Kirklees council to suspend the Muslim teaching assistant who had refused to remove her veil at work, and then reinforcing this point with the observation that the veil was a “mark of separation”, Mr Blair removed any doubt about the Government’s position.

He was, in effect, affirming that the contentious views expressed over recent weeks by Jack Straw, Ruth Kelly and John Reid were not maverick individual opinions, but part of a larger, concerted revision of the Cabinet’s stand.

Ministers are now clearly ready to embrace the argument that they have attacked for many years as insensitive, even bigoted: if Britain is to succeed in absorbing diverse peoples, ethnic minorities must accept the mores of their adopted country.

... As the shadow home secretary, David Davis, has said, we cannot afford to encourage a form of “voluntary apartheid” by allowing minority groups to withdraw into cultural isolation. Mr Davis described this as a “series of closed societies within our open society”.

Well, it really should be patently obvious to everyone that integration is the only game left. But it is one for high rollers. Lose and you have a Rosbif version of the Gallic Intifada on your hands. Lose and you lose everything ... racial diversity, liberalism, the lot. The less than appealing Plan C - basically, hanging on to power for power’s sake - is Leviathan.

It was never meant to be like this, of course. Multiculturalism, with its in-built recognition of distance and separateness, really wasn’t a risky business. That’s why it was attractive to both political Parties. It gifted them a pretty quiet life, nothwithstanding the occasional race killing or riot. It gave each minority its own special little place in the patchwork of New Britain. And it gave every leftist a wonderful weapon with which to beat the hapless natives - most especially after 1997 when race politics really came of age in Whitehall. So long as no serious questions were asked about it everything could be left to drift gently along. And it did drift along for twenty-nine long years in all, if one dates its lifespan from The Race Relations Act of 1976 to The London Bombings.

But its death on that fateful day in July last year was horribly final. Now, our moral betters in Westminster are looking askance at les banlieus and telling themselves that, here, integration will be gentler and kinder and just, well, more British.

To engineer that unhappy outcome they must find the correct answer to two questions that multiculturalism was never designed or required to ask:-

1) To what point is it necessary to deculturate the aliens - most particularly the Moslems?

2) Multiculturalism was a heavy and vastly unfair burden on the natives. But the sense of otherness at its heart left the natives a few tattered racial rags with which to cover themselves. Integration, were it successful (ie a road to Rio), would leave them nothing at all. Why, then, would they go along with it?

Question number one has been answered very generally by Blair in the balance he ascribes to the public and private sphere. The veil is a public sphere issue and we can now see that all those ministerial interventions have been a toe in the deculturation water. The early signs from their Moslem audience are not encouraging.

Question number two will certainly be answered, from a governmental perspective anyway, through a mix of persuasion and coercion. The persuasion will go something like this: We all understand now that different cultures cannot exist in the same space. But, by

~~golly~~

gosh, races can. We must recognise that our ethnic minority friends and workmates belong with us and are just as British as we are. And look ... we are doing what you always wanted and making it much harder now for immigrants to get in.

Admittedly, there will be a minor problem with this part of the programme. None of it is true. But that, oh joy, is where the coercion will come in. Expect a new raft of laws on equal access and racial quotas leaving no stone unturned in the quest for native acquiescence. Hate speech (such as this, probably) will be high on the list, and nationalist political activity will be as severely circumscribed as possible. Hate speech prosecutions of salient activists, a legal attack on funding and, if at all possible, full financial sequestration will be pursued against the BNP.

In the great game of social engineering we are about to embark upon the final moves. I still expect Nature to roll the winning dice.

Tags: British Politics

Comments:

Posted by Steve Edwards on Thu, 19 Oct 2006 05:20 | #

Precisely what is so good about “integration”, anyway? With whom and what are we going to “integrate”? It sounds like yet another attack on freedom of association.

Posted by Steve Edwards on Thu, 19 Oct 2006 05:25 | #

By the way - I seem to have lost access to the template, so I’ll just post this link for any interested parties. It’s quite relevant to our discussions:

http://www.cis.org.au/POLICY/spring_06/polspring06_edwards.htm

Earlier article here:

http://www.cis.org.au/POLICY/autumn05/autumn05-6.htm

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 19 Oct 2006 09:48 | #

The forthcoming intensification of the attack on the two freedoms is mere means. The end is eventual panmixia ... Brazilianisation ... white genocide, in fact.

Libertarianism is floss on these waters, Steve, and libertarians will be borne down into the great mill-race as if their technical protestations were nothing. They are nothing.

In the switch from Multiculturalism to Integrationism a racial corner has been turned in Britain. The side-issue of culture has been swept away, and a genetic defence of our three peoples is now at the heart of it.

We cannot avoid the final step. To fight integration we must be clear-thinking and dedicated racialists.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 19 Oct 2006 10:45 | #

Here’s Education Secretary and leadership hopeful Alan Johnson sounding a warning to colleagues not to go too fast, and trying a bit of persuasion on Muzzies who have reacted badly to the veil row.

Alan Johnson warned Cabinet colleagues last night that their attacks on Muslim women for wearing the veil may backfire and drive them to defend their faith.

The Education Secretary used a speech in Brighton to caution Jack Straw, the Leader of the Commons, and Harriet Harman, the Solicitor General, who have been in the forefront of the calls for Muslim women to avoid barriers that stop them integrating into British society.

Speaking at the National Children and Adult Services conference, he made it clear that he was not attacking their views, which came after the suspension of a Muslim teacher who refused to remove the veil in front of male colleagues.

He said: “We must be careful that, rather than driving people into defending their faith, we instead encourage an open celebration of our diversity. Young minds are free from prejudice and discrimination so schools are in a unique position to prevent social division. Schools should cross ethnic and religious boundaries, and certainly not increase them or exacerbate the difficulties in this sensitive area.”

Mr Johnson confirmed that he will ask existing faith schools to do more to foster integration with other faiths or non-believers in their communities.

He said anamendment tabled to the Education and Inspections Bill in the Lords is only “the start”. The Bill will give local authorities discretion to specify that non-believers are allocated a quarter of places at new faith schools.

However, Mr Johnson said that he also wanted to go further by asking existing faith schools to contribute more to their communities, possibly through teacher exchanges.

“This important principle is a start,” he said. “Through the current consultation on the new admissions code, we should explore whether there is more we can do by encouraging existing faith schools to further promote community cohesion, as I know they themselves are keen to do.

“Building on the agreement signed earlier in the year by all the faith groups to teach each other’s religion in their RE classes, I want to see teachers exchange between different religious schools, so that pupils and teachers are exposed to the ethos and approach of different faiths.”

It is clear that, for the government, Islam is the make or break element among aliens. The diarrhea about “we instead encourage an open celebration of our diversity” might get the Muezzin singing Boy George faves, but I doubt it.

It goes without saying that any appeal to celebrate “our” diversity will be met by the English with derision. Other persuasive tropes will have to be employed.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 19 Oct 2006 14:52 | #

They really are all doing their bit. Here’s former Europe Minister The Right Honourable Denis MacShane trying to convince us that the world is split between evil Islamic extremists and the rest of us (who include “British citizens of Muslim faith”. Naturally.)

Except “we” don’t include them at all.

McShane is not a native of England. Beyond the fact that he is MP for Rotherham and sits at Westminster, he appears to have few connections to this country. He is actually Polish-Scots, born Denis Matyjaszek. He is a member of the Henry Jackson Society, which is a neocon, pro-Israel, War Party body, and he is “chair” - ridiculous word - of the cross-party parliamentary committee looking into Anti-Semitism in Britain.

As far as I am aware he has NO interests in English-national subject areas. Like all mainstream politicians he would be embarrassed and annoyed if an Englishman actually told him what he thinks of foreigners in his country (we all know what those thoughts are).

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 19 Oct 2006 17:03 | #

Sorry to say dental hygiene was not in my thoughts. I was merely reaching for the old cotton industry ... you know, back when Lancashire’s frowning hillsides employed the Lancastrian working class.

Posted by Bo Sears on Thu, 19 Oct 2006 18:58 | #

It is a little difficult grasping the significance of the masters’ ideological switch from “diversity” to “integration” in the British Isles (note care to avoid claim that England is part of Europe). But it appears to follow the reverse path we enjoyed in the USA.

Here we were treated to a heavy-handed integrationist ideal and legally-supported goal first…from around the mid-1950s until the late 1970s when our masters decided we needed to embrace diversity.

The leading left-wing racialist ideologue opposing diversity turns out to have been Arthur M. Schlesinger in his slender booklet, “The Disuniting Of America,” first published in 1991. And he appeared chiefly concerned about its potential harm to the integrationist ideal, not any concern for quality of life of Americans.

Both the diversity and integrationist ideologies are simply attacks on white American, white English, and white European cultures, histories, and heritages.

It is possible that the integrationist ideal in America ultimately broke down when the American judiciary refused to cross most municipal and school district lines in crafting integrationist strategies, and that the diversity school of thought was powered, in its place, by vast immigration commencing in 1965 or thereabouts.

If this is true, then the British Isles face a far greater threat under the integrationist rubric than the USA did because we understand that UK municipal and school district lines are entirely subject to the legislative process in London, something very different from the USA.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 19 Oct 2006 22:27 | #

“The leading left-wing racialist ideologue opposing diversity turns out to have been Arthur M. Schlesinger” (—Bo)

“Racialist”?

Did I read that right? Arthur Schlesinger, the Kennedy family’s very own personal version of the Performing Court Fool of the Middle Ages? That one? That witless Kennedy-family sycophant extraordinaire a racialist?

I can as soon believe that of him as I can believe it of that other darling “historian” of the Democrats (but of the Clintonites in this case, not the Kennedys), Doris Kearns Goodwin, the know-nothing, radical left-wing, ultra-low-double-digit, just unfrickingbelievably irritating Official Court Historian of the anti-white anti-Christian inbred nepotistic Jewish media-mafia that runs network TV, who simply love trotting her out before the cameras every fricking five minutes to do her drivel-and-drool routine masquerading as “commentary.” (Terri Schiavo frankly would’ve done a better job from her hospital bed.)

Excuse me Bo, but do any writings of Schlesinger’s actually suggest he’s ... what you said?

Posted by Bo Sears on Fri, 20 Oct 2006 00:12 | #

“Left-wing racialist” is the term, not just “racialist.” And, like most extremist liberals, Schlesinger has an acute awareness of whites as an evil race and non-whites as victim races. Check out the book mentioned above, “The Disuniting of America.”

“Racism, as I have noted, has been the great national tragedy. In recent times white America has at last begun to confrong the racism so deeply and shamefully inbred in our history.” page 19

But I think you are making a point with parody.

Of course the lefties are race-conscious, even more than they are gender-, disability-, or class-conscious. In any case, racialism is a living, breathing phenomenon on what we call the left, far more so than on what we call the right. In the USA anyway.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 20 Oct 2006 00:42 | #

OK, excuse me, Bo — I get your point now. Somehow I missed it the first time around. Thanks for that explanation, which makes perfect sense.

Posted by JB on Fri, 20 Oct 2006 20:03 | #

France’s Interior Ministry said 2,500 police officers had been “wounded” this year. The head of the hard-line trade union “Action Police” Michel Thooris wrote to Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy to describe conditions in housing developments turned slums as “intifada.”

I’ve posted this link before but just to remember MR readers what the “right wing” party (UMP) is in France. This is the spokeswoman for ‘The Right’/Nicolas Sarkozy speaking :

http://www.fdesouche.com/index.php?2006/08/23/676-la-france-revee-par-les-sarkozistes-une-societe-metissee

‘Our future? A mixed-race society, proud and vibrant’

France is a mixed-race society that doesn’t see itself as such. This must nevertheless be understood: the people living in the ghettos and the nice neighborhoods are going to end up mixing with each other. Our borders are going to open to new forms of immigration coming from Asia as well as from the countries of the East. We’re at a crossroads, and we’re afraid—afraid of “the Other,” of the foreigner. One builds the future more easily when one is proud of what one is, when one is reconciled with one’s past.

The history of France is made of grandeur, of humanity, and we should be proud of it. There are also wounded memories, individuals who were sacrificed, and martyrs. But if we who are in charge politically spend all our time bandaging wounds in order to rewrite the past to make it more acceptable, we’ll no longer be advancing toward the future, namely, the construction of a racially mixed society.

Posted by JB on Fri, 20 Oct 2006 20:22 | #

next time anyone hears a white person talking positively about diversity ask : why shouldn’t Scotland remain scottish ? Why shouldn’t England remain english ? Why shouldn’t Spain remain spanish ? Denmark danish ? Sweden swedish ? etc. Their answer will probably be : ummm… because…. err… because… wait… because Diversity is Good, I mean Diversity is our Strength. Yes, Diversity is Good., then ask : what’s so good about it ? And see how they try to give themselves a veneer of rationality to cling to their mantra.

Don’t expect to convince that person that Diversity isn’t good but if you do it in the presence of others you’ll probably have planted a seed of doubt in their minds. That’s a small start but if resistance to this insanity is only to be found on the internet we won’t get new adherents for the West’s cause. Breaking the spell in public is more important than writing these long articles with fifty footnotes. Everyone with half a brain can understand the basic message of western patriots but if they don’t hear it in their daily lives they won’t have the confidence to act and in turn spread the idea and get involved in politics.

Posted by VanSpeyk on Sat, 21 Oct 2006 16:52 | #

You know, JB, I have actually asked that question. Many times in fact, both on-line as off-line. They always respond affirming the believe that multi-ethnic societies are simply a consequence of globalization. That it is inevitable. That ethnic homogenity is something anachronstic. That is our own fault for importing cheap labor in the 60s and 70s (the guestworker fenomene). In other words they consider us something akin to racial luddites; people who do not want to accept that society has changed in a fundamental way, has gone into a new era and the likelyhood of going back to all-White countries is about as likely as people abandoning industrial machines. Of course, I always respond by pointing out that is does not nessecarily have to be this way (Japan, Korea, Israel, etc) but to no avail. Nationalism (ie an ethnic group rules itself), they say, is something of the past. A stage we have passed (almost in an evolutionary way). Nationalism, das war Einmal, as one columnist in a Dutch newspaper put it recently.

They say all this even when they accept the fact that immigration policiec have brought us great grief. I think it is partly a result of our tendency to view the the passing of time as a linial progress. From the darkness of the Middle Ages came the progress of the Renaissance, then further progress with the Enlightement and Industrial Revolution, expansion of voting rights, etc, etc.

Posted by VanSpeyk on Sat, 21 Oct 2006 16:56 | #

I’m sorry for not putting this in my first post, but I just wanted to add that in my modest experience it is actually not so common to find someone who blatters on and on about the ‘strength of diversity’ or ‘multi-cultural enrichment’. I think it would suprise us to learn how much that discourse is really only common amongst our elite and finds precious little support among ordinary people (not just working class people, but people in general). Most people simply except it and shut up about it either out of fear or because they cannot fattom a solution.

Posted by Rnl on Sat, 21 Oct 2006 17:44 | #

Bo Sears wrote:

I think the pattern is the same, viz. integration followed by multiculturalism. They just had a shorter initial period of integration. Some of their politicians are now attempting to return to it, at least rhetorically.

The British probably don’t think they had an era of integration, because their non-White populations were then so small and they never regarded integration as a great national project.

Here we were treated to a heavy-handed integrationist ideal and legally-supported goal first…from around the mid-1950s until the late 1970s when our masters decided we needed to embrace diversity.

John has cancer, so his doctors, to cheer him up, start talking in soothing tones about his body’s growing diversity.

“Multiculturalism” and “diversity” were names put into common currency, after the failure of integration, to describe balkanization, which few wanted and none would have openly requested. They’re a tacit recognition of failure and sickness, but marketed to relabel failure and sickness as success.

Once politicians start talking again about integration, they’re acknowledging sickness, but refusing to name it. Although honesty would be better, in this case duplicity is a sign of progress and a portent, perhaps, of improving health.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 21 Oct 2006 18:51 | #

VanSpeyk,

To those who cleave to the Marxist trope of Inevitability the fate of Soviet communism stands as a clear and ringing riposte. Little Marxist-Leninists insisted on the victory of their toxic political garbage, and lied to buggery about its real nature. Their worldview was, quite simply, falsified by history.

The undoubtedly deadly but not yet fatal racial communism which confronts the West today is, obviously enough, even worse than its Soviet predecessor. Not only is our land not ours to hold unto ourselves, but our very genetic integrity must be offered up to the careless invader.

The offence is too eggregious to stand. When the people have had enough of it they will wrought change.