Three cheers for the person Rabinder Singh sat opposite on the train

Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, 06 August 2005 10:10.

Today’s Guardian carries a piece by a QC practising at the highly activist Matrix chambers. He is a British Sikh named Rabinder Singh, and he is affecting the pain of rejection because someone on his train journey to work yesterday got up and walked away from him:-

... you were already sitting there in the seat opposite. Your eyes were closed. You must have been tired. Then you opened your eyes and you saw me. You got up and moved to the next carriage. Perhaps you wanted some privacy or did not want to disturb me with a mobile phone call. Or perhaps you were afraid of me ...

The rest of the piece is the usual plaint of how the immigrant is so badly misunderstood, and very weak it is. Singh tells us he lives among white people. He eats Italian food as well as Indian. He is not a religious fanatic. He has been “formed” by Shakespeare, John Locke, Tom Paine (Tom Paine! Bloody hell, no wonder he’s one of the Matrix culture warriors). He is British ... British through and through ... British, I tell you!

Well, he’s waving around an already devalued currency - and the more he does it, the cheaper it will get. Britishness has plainly had its day. It was rejected by the Scots and Wesh long, long ago. I know Mr Paisley still clings to it - all those bowler hats, black umbrellas and Union Jacks. But the English have it in their power, if they so wish, to respond to the assimilationist thrust by falling back upon their true national identity. They may dispense with this worthless notion of Britishness and reject the new assimilationism and Mr Singh with it.

He cannot complain. In all societies and among all peoples rejection is the lot of genetically distant immigrants. It is normal. It accords with the interests of the host. Usually, it will be girded by specific distastes, both aesthetic and moral. It is not permitted in law for me to express any such distaste myself, of course. With what joyous zeal would Matrix QCs

~~perse~~

... prosecute any of England’s 50,000 new hate criminals unlucky enough to fall into their grasp. Thus, to return to the issue of racial distaste, one might profitably reflect upon the plaint common to blacks that they receive insufficient respeck - from which it is clear how they, at least, perceive that their hosts disdain their behaviour and capacities. (OK, is that a sufficiently circuitious and circumspect wording to keep Cherie and her Matrix pals off my back?)

One way or another, Mr Singh the prosecuting council isn’t going to change human nature. But he can change British race politics. His article, as a plea for understanding and openness on the part of the eponymous English commuter, is one more contrivance towards changing the multicultural mindset. Assimilationism is coming. In real terms it’s impossible to achieve short of genetic panmixia. But the new left/right-liberal concensus for assimilation will judge itself by the degree of social panmixia it can generate.

At present, the goal is merely to address Moslem alienation. The process is security driven. But AQ will continue their campaign in Britain. They will open Nature’s divisions as much as they can. In a tug-of-war between bombers and liberals, the push for social panmixia looks doomed.

The missing element, which has powered egalitarian politics in the West for a more than century, is a marxian intellectual platform. Anyone with at least half a brain knows that multiculturalism is a cake baked in Frankfurt, with a Gramscian topping and a sprinkle of Post-Modernism for colour. There was a five decade pause between Theo, Max, Walter et al shaking hands and culture war going racial in Europe. These things take time and the assimilationists haven’t got any.

So Mr Singh can only plead:-

Maybe I am not what you think I am. Remember, we are all individual human beings, with our hopes and dreams; we all have our faults but are basically good, I think, and try to do the right thing. It’s what is inside us that really matters, not the colour of our skin or what we wear. I do not ask you to agree with me about everything. But I do ask: please do not prejudge me because of the way I look.

My advice is to get up and walk away from him ... into your Englishness, where he cannot follow. Assimilationism is the goal of the same activists like Singh who brought us Multiculturalism. We’ve heard enough from them.

Tags: British Politics

Comments:

Posted by John Ray on Sat, 06 Aug 2005 12:51 | #

Most Singhs are Sikhs and this Mr Singh may have been wearing the Sikh turban—which to the casual observer could be mistaken for the headgear worn by many Moslem males. I think it was just a reasonable fear of Islamic extremism that Mr Singh observed

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 06 Aug 2005 13:04 | #

“Remember, we are all individual human beings, with our hopes and dreams;” (—Rabinder Singh, quoted in the log entry)

Oh, “hopes and dreams,” is it? All right then, if the subject is to be “individual human beings’ hopes and dreams,” Mr. Singh, what about the fond hopes (now condemned as having been pitifully naïve at best and very likely “racist”) and innocent dreams (now nearly completely dashed) of the tens of millions of white Brits who would’ve wanted the U.K. to remain what it was, a white British nation-state? What about those? Do those hopes and dreams count as well? Why must it always be they, the original white Brits, who have to completely disregard, utterly sacrifice their own precious hopes and fervent dreams so that the hopes and dreams of the foreigner may flourish in their place? Why, pray tell, is that? Who’s decreed that, exactly? Well, whoever decreed it, there are those of us who reject it and are simply not fooled any more by propaganda such as this, put into newspapers by editors who intend no good to come to white Britons thereby or to the U.K. We’ve caught on, you see ... and we’ve every intention of reviving our own hopes and dreams for a change, hopes and dreams whose still-glowing spark the Guardian editors have not yet been able to finally snuff out forever (though it’s certainly not been not for lack of trying ...). We begrudge no one anything: none of their happiness, their hopes, or their dreams. We question only this constant din, this continual message being hammered into us that we must die so that others may live. They have another place to live. We don’t. Where in the world did that lie come from, anyway?

Posted by John Ray on Sat, 06 Aug 2005 13:14 | #

Scroob
You are a very fast and fluent writer
Have you thought of starting your own blog?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 06 Aug 2005 14:14 | #

Stop trying to change the subject just because you’re losing, John. No one’s fooled.

Posted by John Ray on Sat, 06 Aug 2005 14:52 | #

“Stop trying to change the subject just because you’re losing, John. No one’s fooled. “

LOL

Posted by Geoff Beck on Sat, 06 Aug 2005 16:06 | #

> and he is affecting the pain of rejection because someone on his train journey to work yesterday got up and walked away from him

Was that special somebody you, Guessedworker?

Posted by Geoff Beck on Sat, 06 Aug 2005 16:14 | #

Cultural Awareness

... you were already sitting there in the seat opposite. Your eyes were closed. You must have been tired. Then you opened your eyes and you saw me. You got up and moved to the next carriage. Perhaps you wanted some privacy or did not want to disturb me with a mobile phone call. Or perhaps you were afraid of me ...

Manners are an encumbrance.

In the US I tell the foreigner why I’m being rude to him. Perhaps some foriegner asks me directions… I square up to him and look right into his eyes - and tell him to shove it! I’m not speaking to you because you <u>are</u> a foriegner and don’t belong here.

The English, no doubt due to better breeding, I think, are not capable of such blunt rudeness. Perhaps this may be an advantage, for us, over here, in the long run.

Anyway, whoever offended ‘Lord Singh’ deserves high praise. Like him, perhaps, my job is to OFFEND AS MANY as possible.

Posted by sr on Sat, 06 Aug 2005 16:25 | #

About being asked for directions, asked for money, having personal comments directed to or at one on the street: it is my opinion that when this happens it is because one has failed to discourage it. A real beard and moustache offers a certain protection; the attitude that one is not aggressive, but also not to be f***ed with, is necessary.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 06 Aug 2005 16:27 | #

“In the US I tell the foreigner why I’m being rude to him. Perhaps some foriegner asks me directions… I square up to him and look right into his eyes - and tell him to shove it! I’m not speaking to you because you are a foriegner and don’t belong here.” (—Geoff)

But these individuals, Geoff, aren’t responsible for what’s happening. I don’t see where they deserve rudeness. They’re just ordinary people, good folk by and large, who are caught up in a vast scheme they had nothing to do with designing. Why not save your wholly-justified indignation for the U.S. government officials and bureaucrats whose fault the whole thing is? Those are the ones who deserve rudeness (except righteous indignation isn’t rudeness—so, those are the ones who deserve a demonstration of your and my and everyone’s justified anger). It makes me feel bad every time you say you’re rude to these immigrants in the street. I don’t know who’s right about this—maybe you are. But I would never do it. These are people, ordinary people. They are in control of nothing.

As for the incident with the Sikh in the train, I don’t see that as rudeness—the Sikh was being overly sensitive.

Posted by Matra on Sat, 06 Aug 2005 16:45 | #

Geoff - The English, no doubt due to better breeding, I think, are not capable of such blunt rudeness.

I don’t think good breeding and an unwillingness to offend are major problems in working class England (or Scotland or Northern Ireland)!

Posted by Geoff Beck on Sat, 06 Aug 2005 16:53 | #

> I disagree Fred.

The third world mob invading the US is one pincer of an assualt on European American civilization, the other pincer being international capital. They both need each other to destroy “us”, Fred.

Fred, those people are not my folk. They are foreigners, they are here because they broke our laws or took advantage of our corrupt government. Their presence is illegitimate.

To hell with them both!

Posted by Geoff Beck on Sat, 06 Aug 2005 16:55 | #

Matra,

Well I’m waiting to see the “lads” march on the government with pitchforks, torches, and bicycle chains!

Posted by Stuka on Sat, 06 Aug 2005 21:46 | #

I know it offends those of us raised in the tradition of fairness, fairplay, & the gentlemanly virtues, but I no longer see the point of treating non-white immigrants with respect & deference. As Geoff says, their very existence in Europe & North America is illegitimate. Their very presence here is the problem. So, short of an outright war of liberation (which I am certain is coming, God willing), our only course of action today is aggression, or “rudeness”. Perhaps if non-white settlers get the word out back home that the natives are surly, rude, and violent, they’ll stop coming & even consider returning.

Posted by Svigor on Sat, 06 Aug 2005 21:53 | #

A famous man once said, “deserve’s got nothin’ to do with it.”

There are plenty of good reasons to be rude to foreigners and outgroups, just as there are good reasons to be polite. For example, in the former category we have the distinct possibility that the word will spread that the natives don’t welcome strangers.

Sort of like how Mexico, kidnapping capital of the world, puts the word out.

Who would you rather rob, someone who’s reportedly likely to feed you a lead salad if you enter his home, or someone who sets out cookies and milk and leaves the door open?

Posted by Svigor on Sat, 06 Aug 2005 21:55 | #

Politeness is only rational if it’s reciprocal. Moving uninvited into someone else’s home is the opposite of polite (if foreigners made any effort to divine public opinion they’d know they aren’t welcome).

Posted by Mark Richardson on Sun, 07 Aug 2005 01:52 | #

My advice is to get up and walk away from him ... into your Englishness where he cannot follow.

When I read this I thought of the situation in Japan. I lived there for a year with a number of other Westerners. Many were enthusiastic about life in Japan at first. But there always came a moment when Westerners realised that no matter how polite the Japanese were, that you would always be an outsider. You would be a guest looking in on what was happening, but nothing more.

At that moment, the Westerners I knew started planning their return home.