I wanted to post this after reading Don Wassell's "those crazy Europeans" post.
The essay below had a profound impact upon me as I grew up in an all white community in Iowa that wasn't perfect but it was a healthy environment for a young man to have a run of the land, take chances in a safe environment, and allowed people of European descent to express their genes for the success of the next generation.
If anyone thinks for a second that raising a child on a videogame and sheltering them from the savages down the street is the ideal to raise a child, I would argue they are mistaken.
-------------
http://www.bnp.org.uk/columnists/joepr2.php?joeId=7
The theft of public space and the meaning of Britishness
22nd March 2005
Multiculturalism and public space
Since the 1950's and the subsequent imposition of the multiracial society on the British people the relationship between public and private has changed from complementary to dichotomous. And as the process of multiculturalisation has advanced, the contrast between the two has become ever starker and public and private now stand in sharp opposition to each other.
We are more or less in control of what happens at home, in private, but in the public arena we are merely one in the crowd. Prior to the creation of multiracialism this hardly mattered because we were all much of a muchness and the overwhelming majority subscribed more or less to the same way of life and understanding of the world; public and private were seamless. Of course there were immigrants before the 1950's but in those days their number was small and they weren't able to sustain their own cultures in our culture and thus they tended to be absorbed by and become part of the whole.
A culture is a manifestation of a people's relationship with the way of the world as it perceives it to be. It is a term of opposition and can be measured only comparatively, that is by contrasting it with other cultures. And since culture has direction, that is it seeks to mould the world according to its own understanding and belief, cultures are naturally competitive.
For the past fifty-odd years successive governments have encouraged, allowed, and turned a blind eye to third world immigration of such magnitude that now third world cultures are sustainable in our midst. And since cultures have a public as well as a private expression, alien cultures are now impacting on our public space which, just fifty or so years ago, reflected exclusively our understanding of the world; now it's being used to express other understandings in competition with our own.
Mass third world immigration has logically and predictably led to the dilution of our homogeneity. And as a consequence our relationship with public space has changed. Where once it mirrored us now it's more like a fairground hall of mirrors; we recognise less of what we see and that what we do recognise has been distorted out of shape.
In order to manage this change so as to facilitate the development (sic) of multiculturalism the establishment, primarily in the form of local government, has taken charge of public space. And in so doing it has restricted the public expression of Britishness to make room for alien cultures and alien world views. As a consequence the indigenous people of these islands have been alienated from that which was once exclusively theirs, public space.
Retreat from community
People hark back to the time when we could leave our doors unlocked without fear and when there really was such a thing as community. Nowadays we live behind locked doors, windows, and gates. Our houses and cars are alarmed, and what passes for community, especially in our towns and cities, is something that a growing number find at best meaningless and at worst totally alienating.
The British people have retreated from the public and now focus their attention almost exclusively on the private. Since 'out there' is distinguished by its ugliness we compensate by spending our energies on beautifying 'in here'. The poorest of us have material wealth beyond the imagination of just a generation or two ago; millions spend the majority of their spare time improving their homes, their private space; and all the while the quality and worth of public space diminishes.
Yet strong evidence of growing dissatisfaction shows that what we've gained hasn't compensated for what we've lost. There are two essential and complementary facets to life, family and community, private and public, and life is incomplete without both.
Public space is now municipal space. It is no longer ours and it has become a means of moulding society according to the internationalist designs of the establishment. And since community exists in public space, in losing public space we have lost community.
On message
Fifty years ago local authorities were more or less one-man bands; the town clerk ran the show and public space managed itself. Since then their size, powers, and responsibilities have grown out of all recognition. Now they have a say in most aspects of our lives and control what happens in public space.
Given that the underlying philosophy of today's political establishment is the equality of man idea, concomitant of which is the notion of cultural equivalence, local authorities see it as their duty to give expression to the minority cultures in our midst. And as diversity has replaced homogeneity, local governments ensure that public space is no longer allowed to reflect exclusively the indigenous culture. From an organisation that once concentrated all its energies on local matters, the local authority has become an arbiter of conflicting world views.
Whether it's in the form of the political indoctrination of schoolchildren, the favour of ethnic minorities and asylum seekers over the indigenous population, or the simplest notice in a public library; the local authority always puts an internationalist slant on its actions. The international communist flavour of their corporate logos says it all; "Working towards equality for all."
Our towns and cities have become dominated by a forest of street signs giving pointless directions and officious instructions whose subliminal message is a reminder of town hall control, and all that that means. Our town centres are cluttered with cheap and nasty pastiche street furniture, a pathetic attempt to recreate the individuality and vernacular of times past, but of course within the context of our wonderful multicultural utopia. Traditional British festivals and their public celebration have been sanitised into meaninglessness so as to ensure their compatibility with the myriad cultures that now inhabit the country. Christmas has been corrupted into a festival of spending, Easter has been elbowed out of the way for the Third World-focused "Red Nose Day", and Whitsuntide has been left in the gutter.
In a vain effort to compensate for this marginalisation of British cultural festivals, the establishment organises its own multicultural events. Their aim is to bring together Britain's disparate cultures under the umbrella of multiculturalism and within the parameters of political correctness. They don't work. Real cultural celebrations are an expression of the community, whereas those that are imposed from above are essentially meaningless - hence the paucity of support and attendance for local authority-inspired politically correct events; they are dull and lacking in spontaneity.
Is there any wonder our urban life is so soulless? It's been eliminated in the cause of multiculturalism.
Not being satisfied with alienating the British people from our own towns, cities, and public parks, the establishment is busy trying to infect the countryside with its multicultural makeover. It's too British you see. The simple pleasure of a country walk is seen as too much of a White pursuit and as such it is perceived as a threat to multiculturalism. And of course this is all the fault of the indigenous people who in some way are responsible for Muslims and inner city Blacks not setting out on the Pennine Way.
"Empowering the community..."
Vandalism is an expression of the alienation from public space. For instance, fifty years or so ago the public park was used both for private and public leisure activities. It was an expression of civic pride, a community facility which people visited both to enjoy the countryside in the town and to enjoy with like minded people a sense of belonging, of being part of a community.
Nowadays the park is no longer ours. It's theirs and they use it like everything else that they've taken from us, it is used to reinforce their anti-British egalitarian agenda. In most towns and cities the public park is a place to avoid. It's where people are attacked, it's where the bandstands and pavilions have been burned down, where the benches are smashed and obscene graffiti adorns the derelict cafeteria walls.
Throughout history the ritual destruction of the monuments of power has been a symbol of opposition. And inarticulate though those acts of vandalism may be, what else is the smashing of bus shelters and phone booths but an expression of opposition to what is. This isn't an attempt to excuse such behaviour; it merely puts it in context.
Vandalism is generally aimed at that which falls (however inaccurately) within the description 'public property', and on the surface it appears to be nihilistic destruction for destruction's sake. But it is more than that. The problem is that public property and public space are no longer extensions of the White British self. They have become another tentacle of the alien multiculturalism which is why they're under attack.
Somewhat belatedly the establishment has woken up to the connection between community and public space and is now trying desperately to do something about it. They were so convinced of their own egalitarian dogma that they expected everyone else to jump aboard their multicultural bandwagon. But instead of getting involved people have left it up to them; public space is now seen as a town hall thing. If there's a problem in the public sphere, let them deal with it. And of course they can't.
So now we see the beginnings of an establishment-inspired reinvention of the community. Having all but destroyed it in the cause of multiculturalism, politicians are now going on about the "empowerment of communities..." They want to give back what they've taken and allow communities to say what goes. They don't like what they've unleashed and their hope is that by "empowering communities" they can reintroduce order and commitment to public space.
But there's a problem. At the moment when anyone mentions the word 'community' one immediately thinks of ethnic minority communities. For they're the only communities that are recognised as existing in Britain; White communities on the other hand are an anathema to the establishment and indeed it has spent the past fifty odd years trying to destroy them. So clearly any community that the establishment wishes to 'empower' must be a community that conforms to liberal-left ideology; preferably a multicultural/multiracial community, or failing that a minority community will do. But they can't possibly "empower" a White community because their whole philosophy is founded on the idea that such thing doesn't exists.
Establishment efforts to inculcate this other idea of community betray an ignorance of human development and they are doomed to failure. Rod Liddle writing in the Sunday Times a couple of weeks ago made the same mistake. In order to encourage a feeling of national identity, he said, we should, "...inculcate a core of Britishness in our schools."
What came first, the Britishness or the inculcation?
Community and national identity develop from bottom up; the development is organic not prescriptive! Our naturally occurring communities have been undermined and out of necessity the powers that be are hurriedly drawing up replacements according to their own plans. It puts one in mind of the committee that in designing a horse came up with a camel.
Beautiful irony
Certainly community will not, can not, develop according to the liberal's plan. And it is inevitable that the centrifugal forces of politics will cause coalescence along cultural and racial lines, whatever anyone does to prevent it.
My guess is that prior to the imposition of multiculturalism most British people were hardly aware of their Britishness, particularly those who'd not travelled abroad. Culture is a term of opposition. And without other cultures against which to compare one's own, most people will be largely unaware of their own culture - they see it as just the way things are done.
And it wasn't until foreign cultures began to form in our own land and appear in our public space that we began to ask questions about our own culture and identity. We'd no need to do this before except in an academic sense. Now we've got angst-ridden liberals like Liddle et al wringing their hands and talking about Britishness and attempting to define it in terms of tolerance, forgiveness, and understanding. Well they would, wouldn't they?
But isn't it amazing how chickens always come home to roost, and usually in such an ironic fashion!
Multiculturalism is an attempt to minimise the importance of culture, and the theft of public space was a necessary part of this effort. But instead of marginalising culture, as was intended, multiculturalism is actually focusing attention on it. The effect is diametrically opposed to that which was intended. And whereas Britishness was never an issue before the multicultural idea took shape, now it's becoming the issue.
This is why the liberals are so anxious to be the ones to define what Britishness means. They've got to come up with something that both satisfies the growing disquiet with the state of the nation and complies with their multiculturalisation of it - which is the cause of the disquiet in the first place. It's a tall order, especially since one is the antithesis of the other.
The essay below had a profound impact upon me as I grew up in an all white community in Iowa that wasn't perfect but it was a healthy environment for a young man to have a run of the land, take chances in a safe environment, and allowed people of European descent to express their genes for the success of the next generation.
If anyone thinks for a second that raising a child on a videogame and sheltering them from the savages down the street is the ideal to raise a child, I would argue they are mistaken.
-------------
http://www.bnp.org.uk/columnists/joepr2.php?joeId=7
The theft of public space and the meaning of Britishness
22nd March 2005
Multiculturalism and public space
Since the 1950's and the subsequent imposition of the multiracial society on the British people the relationship between public and private has changed from complementary to dichotomous. And as the process of multiculturalisation has advanced, the contrast between the two has become ever starker and public and private now stand in sharp opposition to each other.
We are more or less in control of what happens at home, in private, but in the public arena we are merely one in the crowd. Prior to the creation of multiracialism this hardly mattered because we were all much of a muchness and the overwhelming majority subscribed more or less to the same way of life and understanding of the world; public and private were seamless. Of course there were immigrants before the 1950's but in those days their number was small and they weren't able to sustain their own cultures in our culture and thus they tended to be absorbed by and become part of the whole.
A culture is a manifestation of a people's relationship with the way of the world as it perceives it to be. It is a term of opposition and can be measured only comparatively, that is by contrasting it with other cultures. And since culture has direction, that is it seeks to mould the world according to its own understanding and belief, cultures are naturally competitive.
For the past fifty-odd years successive governments have encouraged, allowed, and turned a blind eye to third world immigration of such magnitude that now third world cultures are sustainable in our midst. And since cultures have a public as well as a private expression, alien cultures are now impacting on our public space which, just fifty or so years ago, reflected exclusively our understanding of the world; now it's being used to express other understandings in competition with our own.
Mass third world immigration has logically and predictably led to the dilution of our homogeneity. And as a consequence our relationship with public space has changed. Where once it mirrored us now it's more like a fairground hall of mirrors; we recognise less of what we see and that what we do recognise has been distorted out of shape.
In order to manage this change so as to facilitate the development (sic) of multiculturalism the establishment, primarily in the form of local government, has taken charge of public space. And in so doing it has restricted the public expression of Britishness to make room for alien cultures and alien world views. As a consequence the indigenous people of these islands have been alienated from that which was once exclusively theirs, public space.
Retreat from community
People hark back to the time when we could leave our doors unlocked without fear and when there really was such a thing as community. Nowadays we live behind locked doors, windows, and gates. Our houses and cars are alarmed, and what passes for community, especially in our towns and cities, is something that a growing number find at best meaningless and at worst totally alienating.
The British people have retreated from the public and now focus their attention almost exclusively on the private. Since 'out there' is distinguished by its ugliness we compensate by spending our energies on beautifying 'in here'. The poorest of us have material wealth beyond the imagination of just a generation or two ago; millions spend the majority of their spare time improving their homes, their private space; and all the while the quality and worth of public space diminishes.
Yet strong evidence of growing dissatisfaction shows that what we've gained hasn't compensated for what we've lost. There are two essential and complementary facets to life, family and community, private and public, and life is incomplete without both.
Public space is now municipal space. It is no longer ours and it has become a means of moulding society according to the internationalist designs of the establishment. And since community exists in public space, in losing public space we have lost community.
On message
Fifty years ago local authorities were more or less one-man bands; the town clerk ran the show and public space managed itself. Since then their size, powers, and responsibilities have grown out of all recognition. Now they have a say in most aspects of our lives and control what happens in public space.
Given that the underlying philosophy of today's political establishment is the equality of man idea, concomitant of which is the notion of cultural equivalence, local authorities see it as their duty to give expression to the minority cultures in our midst. And as diversity has replaced homogeneity, local governments ensure that public space is no longer allowed to reflect exclusively the indigenous culture. From an organisation that once concentrated all its energies on local matters, the local authority has become an arbiter of conflicting world views.
Whether it's in the form of the political indoctrination of schoolchildren, the favour of ethnic minorities and asylum seekers over the indigenous population, or the simplest notice in a public library; the local authority always puts an internationalist slant on its actions. The international communist flavour of their corporate logos says it all; "Working towards equality for all."
Our towns and cities have become dominated by a forest of street signs giving pointless directions and officious instructions whose subliminal message is a reminder of town hall control, and all that that means. Our town centres are cluttered with cheap and nasty pastiche street furniture, a pathetic attempt to recreate the individuality and vernacular of times past, but of course within the context of our wonderful multicultural utopia. Traditional British festivals and their public celebration have been sanitised into meaninglessness so as to ensure their compatibility with the myriad cultures that now inhabit the country. Christmas has been corrupted into a festival of spending, Easter has been elbowed out of the way for the Third World-focused "Red Nose Day", and Whitsuntide has been left in the gutter.
In a vain effort to compensate for this marginalisation of British cultural festivals, the establishment organises its own multicultural events. Their aim is to bring together Britain's disparate cultures under the umbrella of multiculturalism and within the parameters of political correctness. They don't work. Real cultural celebrations are an expression of the community, whereas those that are imposed from above are essentially meaningless - hence the paucity of support and attendance for local authority-inspired politically correct events; they are dull and lacking in spontaneity.
Is there any wonder our urban life is so soulless? It's been eliminated in the cause of multiculturalism.
Not being satisfied with alienating the British people from our own towns, cities, and public parks, the establishment is busy trying to infect the countryside with its multicultural makeover. It's too British you see. The simple pleasure of a country walk is seen as too much of a White pursuit and as such it is perceived as a threat to multiculturalism. And of course this is all the fault of the indigenous people who in some way are responsible for Muslims and inner city Blacks not setting out on the Pennine Way.
"Empowering the community..."
Vandalism is an expression of the alienation from public space. For instance, fifty years or so ago the public park was used both for private and public leisure activities. It was an expression of civic pride, a community facility which people visited both to enjoy the countryside in the town and to enjoy with like minded people a sense of belonging, of being part of a community.
Nowadays the park is no longer ours. It's theirs and they use it like everything else that they've taken from us, it is used to reinforce their anti-British egalitarian agenda. In most towns and cities the public park is a place to avoid. It's where people are attacked, it's where the bandstands and pavilions have been burned down, where the benches are smashed and obscene graffiti adorns the derelict cafeteria walls.
Throughout history the ritual destruction of the monuments of power has been a symbol of opposition. And inarticulate though those acts of vandalism may be, what else is the smashing of bus shelters and phone booths but an expression of opposition to what is. This isn't an attempt to excuse such behaviour; it merely puts it in context.
Vandalism is generally aimed at that which falls (however inaccurately) within the description 'public property', and on the surface it appears to be nihilistic destruction for destruction's sake. But it is more than that. The problem is that public property and public space are no longer extensions of the White British self. They have become another tentacle of the alien multiculturalism which is why they're under attack.
Somewhat belatedly the establishment has woken up to the connection between community and public space and is now trying desperately to do something about it. They were so convinced of their own egalitarian dogma that they expected everyone else to jump aboard their multicultural bandwagon. But instead of getting involved people have left it up to them; public space is now seen as a town hall thing. If there's a problem in the public sphere, let them deal with it. And of course they can't.
So now we see the beginnings of an establishment-inspired reinvention of the community. Having all but destroyed it in the cause of multiculturalism, politicians are now going on about the "empowerment of communities..." They want to give back what they've taken and allow communities to say what goes. They don't like what they've unleashed and their hope is that by "empowering communities" they can reintroduce order and commitment to public space.
But there's a problem. At the moment when anyone mentions the word 'community' one immediately thinks of ethnic minority communities. For they're the only communities that are recognised as existing in Britain; White communities on the other hand are an anathema to the establishment and indeed it has spent the past fifty odd years trying to destroy them. So clearly any community that the establishment wishes to 'empower' must be a community that conforms to liberal-left ideology; preferably a multicultural/multiracial community, or failing that a minority community will do. But they can't possibly "empower" a White community because their whole philosophy is founded on the idea that such thing doesn't exists.
Establishment efforts to inculcate this other idea of community betray an ignorance of human development and they are doomed to failure. Rod Liddle writing in the Sunday Times a couple of weeks ago made the same mistake. In order to encourage a feeling of national identity, he said, we should, "...inculcate a core of Britishness in our schools."
What came first, the Britishness or the inculcation?
Community and national identity develop from bottom up; the development is organic not prescriptive! Our naturally occurring communities have been undermined and out of necessity the powers that be are hurriedly drawing up replacements according to their own plans. It puts one in mind of the committee that in designing a horse came up with a camel.
Beautiful irony
Certainly community will not, can not, develop according to the liberal's plan. And it is inevitable that the centrifugal forces of politics will cause coalescence along cultural and racial lines, whatever anyone does to prevent it.
My guess is that prior to the imposition of multiculturalism most British people were hardly aware of their Britishness, particularly those who'd not travelled abroad. Culture is a term of opposition. And without other cultures against which to compare one's own, most people will be largely unaware of their own culture - they see it as just the way things are done.
And it wasn't until foreign cultures began to form in our own land and appear in our public space that we began to ask questions about our own culture and identity. We'd no need to do this before except in an academic sense. Now we've got angst-ridden liberals like Liddle et al wringing their hands and talking about Britishness and attempting to define it in terms of tolerance, forgiveness, and understanding. Well they would, wouldn't they?
But isn't it amazing how chickens always come home to roost, and usually in such an ironic fashion!
Multiculturalism is an attempt to minimise the importance of culture, and the theft of public space was a necessary part of this effort. But instead of marginalising culture, as was intended, multiculturalism is actually focusing attention on it. The effect is diametrically opposed to that which was intended. And whereas Britishness was never an issue before the multicultural idea took shape, now it's becoming the issue.
This is why the liberals are so anxious to be the ones to define what Britishness means. They've got to come up with something that both satisfies the growing disquiet with the state of the nation and complies with their multiculturalisation of it - which is the cause of the disquiet in the first place. It's a tall order, especially since one is the antithesis of the other.