Friday, June 08, 2012

A vivid demonstration of the fraud of "multicultural" Britain

A casual observer opening up the current pages of Britain’s anaemic right-wing press is greeted by an unprecedented expression of optimism and positivity.

The source of all this rapture is the jubilee celebrations, which mark the diamond anniversary of the ascension of the United Kingdom’s most dutiful long-suffering monarch: Elizabeth II.

From Melanie Phillips in the Daily Mail, to Ed West in the Daily Telegraph, to Fraser Nelson in The Spectator, there is a palpable sense of relief, joy even, at what is deemed to represent an unparalleled display of patriotism and national loyalty, the likes of which have not been witnessed in Britain for a generation.

As a feast for the eyes and an amazing technical accomplishment, the  celebrations which began with a mesmerising pageant on the River Thames in London and continued last night with a gala concert on The Mall in front of Buckingham Palace, the events are a wonderful success.

The numbers attending have been dizzying to an extent beyond normal human comprehension: with as many as 1.2 million people lining the riverbank for Sunday’s pageant, mostly in the pouring rain.

The whole spectacle has spawned a new and surprising narrative of national unity and togetherness, which has come as a surprise and a relief to those commentators who had previously found themselves perturbed by and decrying the perceived fragmentation of British society.

Here were the public in central London, in their millions no less, unabashedly displaying and celebrating Britain and Britishness; with a Union flag hanging from every lamppost and waving from every hand, and not a sight of that hated blue-and-yellow EU monstrosity anywhere…

What a relief!

There is, however, one slight problem with this picture that no one is mentioning. A small boy tugging at his mother’s coat at the Emperor’s parade, aching to express a truth that can perhaps only find the light of day at somewhere like Gates of Vienna.

With the exception of very small numbers — that are in essence statistically irrelevant — whether you like it or not, pretty much everybody you see in the multitude gathered in London is white.

To understand the significance of this, one needs to know the demographics of the city.

Greater London, the largest conurbation in Europe, is usually divided into two geographic zones: the suburban ‘outer ring’, and the metropolitan ‘inner city’. London’s inner portion has been majority immigrant territory for some time, and as the years progress even the outer ring is approaching parity between immigrants and native inhabitants.

Thanks to publicly subsidised housing, with the exception of a few isolated pockets the centre of the city is mainly immigrant-dominated.

A visitor to the majority of the primary schools of the boroughs which lined the river down which Sunday’s pageant rowed, would see that the ethnicity which formed 98% plus of the audience for the jubilee, is represented as a rule in less than 10% (in many cases less than 5%) of the demographic makeup of the pupils of those schools.

Where then, one is forced to ask, were the parents of the rest of all these children, presumably a convenient short stroll away from demonstrating and celebrating their “Britishness”?

Why did they not seize this simple and convenient opportunity to declare themselves full, happy, and enthusiastic members of our grand multicultural society, when the vast majority of attendees had largely travelled much great distances in order to do so (according to train company reports)?

The cameras of the BBC, usually anxious to present a picture of multiracial harmony, and whose coverage of the events has been broadly panned as inane, clearly struggled in desperation to find non-white faces in the crowds.

Their failure to do so was even more stark as they linked to outside broadcasts of commemorative street parties up and down the country, particularly in places like Luton, where it was patently evident that wherever the English were in the minority only the English were doing any celebrating at all.

Where were the others? Our fellow “Britons”?

Those perfectly capable of coming out in their tens, even hundreds of thousands; for publicly funded Hindu Diwali celebrations in Trafalgar Square, or the Afro-Caribbean yearly carnival in Notting Hill (policing cost to the British taxpayer: 34 million pounds a year), or Islamic Eid “festivals” in East London; were all conspicuous by their virtual absence.

This is not an Islamic issue, or even one truly of colour or race. It would have been surprising if any significant proportion of those celebrating this jubilee weekend were Poles, or any of the nearly two million Eastern Europeans who have come to the UK over the last decade, either.

The predominant skin colour of those attending the jubilee has merely provided visual confirmation of how comprehensively the social model into which decades worth of political and financial capital has been invested in Britain has failed.

To be clear: the English (unlike the Scots or Welsh to any similar degree) were told, not outright, but tacitly and subtly; through policy, policing, changes to educational syllabi, deliberate alterations to the cultural framework etc., that Englishness — their identity — would have to be subsumed, altered, diluted, undermined, even to the point of being questioned as having any true cohesive validity.

This was a necessary evil. It had to be done in order not to alienate or marginalise the millions of immigrants arriving mostly in the English portion of Britain, who “yearned to be part of our society” and to make a better life for themselves into the bargain.

Though awkward, this essential transformation would be worth it, and would in turn bring about a fresh paradigm of nationality.

Britishness would be elevated into a new and inclusive form of meta-identity that all could participate in and be welcomed by. A mélange-identity uniting and encompassing all comers.

This new paradigm in turn would have its own founding myths, as do all attempts to unite disparate ethno-religious communities. The myth that a person newly arrived from East Africa was “just as British” as any Englishwoman who might be able to trace her family back to the Norman conquest. The myth that one could achieve, “Strength through Diversity.”

Furthermore, these myths would be reinforced by numerous means.

Television “idents” and programs for example would subtly attempt to communicate harmonious multi-cultural unity, as in this collage. (Compare in particular the ethnic makeup of those attending the faux street party at the end of this BBC jubilee ident with those in this CNN report of the genuine article.)

And thousands of farcical local council propaganda posters on buses and billboards would show a similar multitude of grinning multiracial faces, regardless of the theme. The golden rule of course being that the more outnumbered the actually English people in the photograph were, the more strained and enthusiastic their smiling had to be.

(This collection of picture exhibits shows the usual progression from the London boroughs of: Southwark, to Camden, to Newham, to Hackney, to Lewisham, to Tower Hamlets.)

This effort was so total and all-encompassing, that it was easy thoughtlessly to fall for it and assume it to be in part true. Particularly as every effort has been made, either by immigrants themselves or by positive discrimination, to advance newcomers through the professions so that they are now over-represented in medicine, media and the law.

Notwithstanding the fact, that the promotion of compulsory allegiance to this narrative has shifted over the decades from a gentle socio-political prodding, to a state of affairs where any who dare to forcibly question it in public face imprisonment.

But it was only required to force allegiance to this mind-set from natives… not, of course, from those who came; that would have been racially presumptuous and monstrously unfair. The one was supposed to magically facilitate the other.

But patriotism and national loyalty are based on the individual’s core willingness to sacrifice; and in modern Britain the balance of sacrificial expectation was set right from the start.

The state had to sacrifice to provide the benefits that would be received by the newcomer, while the immigrant was required to sacrifice and surrender, in exchange for the comforts and opportunities of their new life, well… what exactly?

In the interests of generating a nationally loyal harmony, every multicultural effort has been made to bend over backwards in the promotion of togetherness and inclusivity, up to and including the sacrifice of many essential characteristic elements of a thousand years of English and British history; right down to the abandonment of the most basic things like the promotion of our own language on the one hand, or judicial protections like double jeopardy on the other.

The children of the English, in the schools for which their parents pay through their taxes, are now compulsorily taught not the glories and accomplishments of their nation’s past, but primarily and chiefly its inequities, oppressions and “evils”.

This did not happen by chance. It was a transaction. A deal.

The accurate depiction of Britain’s majestic and impressive history for example, was to be abandoned in exchange for something. Deliberately disowning historical reality (like a thousand and one other such national cultural renunciations) was intended to provide an inclusivity that would in turn guarantee the delivery of an attached, benign and loyal immigrant population.

So where were they then: when a golden and simple opportunity presented itself for the demonstration of their new Britishness? Nothing jingoistic, or confrontational, but a four day series of events designed from the start to be achingly inclusive and multicultural.

Frankly? Our new fellow-Britons were nowhere to be seen.

When the chance arose to show how successful this theory of mutable national identity in fact was, in whose name so much has been forcibly lost, the results are startling — and, for those with an eye to the future, more than a little alarming.

The paradigm hasn’t changed. Our social engineers are either liars or fools.

People always only feel a genuine allegiance and loyalty to a place with which they have a pre-existing hereditary, historic or geographical investment.

The newcomers want no part of it, thank you very much.  Benefits? — “Yes.”  Sacrifices? — “Hmm. We’d rather not, if it’s all the same to you.”

And to be clear: the kind of sacrifice under discussion in this essay is not mounting the lip of a trench to advance into machine-gun fire in defence of your nation’s values or borders, but taking a couple of hours out your bank holiday weekend to stand in the rain for a bit with a flag.

This is the grim harvest we must expect from multiculturalism’s insistence that pre-existing identities should be encouraged to flourish rather than to adapt.

The British, and more chiefly the English, have received nothing in return for their sacrifice: of identity, of tradition, of heritage, and of culture.

They’ve been conned. Duped. The promised transaction hasn’t taken place: there will be no unity in the United Kingdom, and no guarantee of security as a result.


Merciless British bureaucracy

Only publicity can get humanity out of them

An 'overzealous' car park warden stuck ten parking tickets on a car parked in a hospital's disabled bay as the owner was undergoing emergency surgery.  The tickets were slapped all over the red Mini by the warden after the patient parked in the bay.

She could not move the car due to emergency surgery, but the ticket blitz came despite her showing her blue disabled badge and a note saying she was in for transplant treatment.

Parking company officials were forced to back down today after they were condemned by other patients, visitors and politicians over the coldhearted move.  One person said: 'It is a disgrace - where is the compassion?'

The woman patient - who has not been named - parked her Mini parked at a disabled bay at the University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff as she went for treatment after a kidney swap.

But after an emergency she was forced to stay in the hospital and she was unable to drive her car away from the bay.

The ten parking tickets - each with a £30 fine - were plastered in a mosaic across her windscreen on ten occasions from May 16 until this weekend.


The Real Racists

In 2008, Barack Obama won 95 percent of the black vote. Now, blacks voted in large percentages for Democrats long before that, of course, largely because of Democratic devotion to huge spending on social programs. But Obama’s election was unique.

The black community, however, was also largely anti-same sex marriage. In fact, many commentators suggested that Obama’s presence on the 2008 ballot in California allowed Proposition 8, upholding traditional marriage, to win approval – blacks showed up to vote Obama, and cast their ballots in favor of Proposition 8 at the same time.

Take the black population in Maryland, for example. Just a few weeks ago, 56 percent of Maryland black voters were getting ready to cast their ballot against a referendum granting approval to same-sex marriage. Only 39 percent of blacks supported same-sex marriage.

Then President Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage. Now, polls show that suddenly, 55 percent of blacks plan to vote for same-sex marriage in Maryland, with only 36 percent opposing.
And that statistic holds true nationally. Suddenly, nearly 60 percent of black Americans across the country support same-sex marriage.

So, what changed? Certainly nothing changed in the black churches, which have large opposed same-sex marriage, and continue to do so. Nothing has changed in black households over the past couple of weeks – no change in socioeconomic status, no change in household income, no change in level of educational attainment.
Only one thing has changed. Barack Obama has spoken. And Barack Obama is black.

Make no mistake: were Obama white, no such shift would have occurred. Plenty of white politicians have endorsed same-sex marriage. When Joe Biden did so, nobody expected the black community to fall into line. But when Obama did it, suddenly there was a groundshift inside the black community.
Obama made no persuasive arguments for same-sex marriage. He hardly made any argument at all. And yet a full fifth of black voters shifted their opinions on the issue when he opened his mouth.

There are 27 majority black Congressional districts in America. 26 of them have black Congressmen. There is something to the notion that black legislators have more in common with black constituents than those who do not share their experiential background – but Barack Obama does not share those experiences. He does not share common beliefs. And what’s most perverse, when his beliefs come into conflict with those of the black population, large swaths of the black population shift their views to meet his.

Why? It’s not because they’ve been convinced by him. It’s because he leads, and too many black Americans follow, no matter how they really feel about the issues.

This spells the death of deliberative democracy. Liberal republicanism is based on the notion of the non-tribal – it’s based on the idea that we vote for the politicians who best serve the country, not those who “look like us.” And more than anything else, liberal republicanism is based on the idea that we keep our politicians accountable. We are not led by them; they represent us. If they stray from the path we want them to take, it is they who must adjust, not we.

These polls should be very frightening indeed – not because a majority of blacks suddenly support same-sex marriage, which is their prerogative, but because of the reason for that shift. The reason is not rational. It is racial. And that is a serious problem.


Abort a Baby, Pro-Choice; Drink a Slurpee, No Choice

Sick Democrat priorities

In defending his controversial proposal to ban the sale of all sugary drinks over 16 ounces, New York City’s Mayor Bloomberg boasted that, on average, New Yorkers outlive other Americans by three years. But that is only if they make it out of the womb. At present, 41% of all New York City babies are killed before birth.

To be sure, obesity is a massive problem in America (no pun intended), with very serious health complications for individuals and very real economic implications for the nation. In no way do I minimize the problem of obesity. But Mayor Bloomberg’s proposal is wrongheaded and, worse still, tragically hypocritical.

On the Today show, Matt Lauer needled the mayor about supporting Donut Day while calling for a ban on large sugary drinks, to which Bloomberg responded, “One donut’s not going to hurt you. In moderation, most things are OK.”

But what if people eat more than one donut? Or what if the one donut they choose to eat is of especially high caloric content, not to mention extra sugary?

Or what if a skinny person wants to eat three donuts, along with a 44 ounce Big Gulp? Should that be allowed? Or what if a severely obese person wants to eat just one donut, along with a 16 ounce Coke? Is that OK? Maybe people should be weighed before placing their order?

Perhaps a limit should be put on how many slices of pizza a person can eat in one sitting (in proportion, of course, to their BMI, body mass index)? Or maybe there should be a ceiling on how many pieces of apple pie someone can consume after a meal, or on how many bites of a deli sandwich he or she is allowed to ingest before having to put the rest in a to-go box? (If you’ve ever eaten at a famous NY deli, like the Carnegie Deli, you know that the size of drink you order is the least of your caloric concerns.)

What about ice cream parlors? How many scoops should they be allowed to serve per customer? And should chocolate-dipped sugar cones be banned altogether? And what about the ubiquitous street-corner vendors? Should they be permitted to sell regular-size candy bars but not king-sized? And how many of those candy-bars should they be allowed to sell per customer? Going back to the mayor’s proposal, who would actually enforce these regulations?

On a more serious note, what about the consumption of alcohol in city bars? Since there is a definite correlation between drinking and cirrhosis of the liver, should there be a limit on the kind of alcoholic drinks people are allowed to order or the amount of drinks they are allowed to consume?

And what about sexual health risks? Bloomberg is a champion of “gay rights,” apparently ignoring the numerous health risks for men who have sex with men (MSM). And when he boasts about the healthiness of New Yorkers, has he forgotten about a 2006 CDC study that reported that, “Over the past several years, increases in syphilis among MSM have been reported in various cities and areas, including Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco, Southern California, Miami, and New York City.” Yes, that very same New York.

All this, however, is trivial when compared to the staggering abortion rates in New York City, which have been as high as 46% in 1998 (meaning, virtually half of all babies conceived) and most recently were reported at 41%, including the following breakdown: “Specifically non-Hispanic Blacks have a 59.8% abortion rate. Hispanics have a 41.3% abortion rate. Asians have a 22.7% abortion rate. And non-Hispanic Whites have a 20.4% abortion rate.”

As New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan remarked, “If 41% of New York babies are aborted, with the percentage even higher in the Bronx and among our African-American babies in the world, it is downright chilling.”

Also downright chilling is the fact that earlier this year, Planned Parenthood honored Bloomberg with a lifetime achievement award, coinciding with his $250,000 donation to their organization after “it initially lost funding from the Susan G. Komen breast cancer charity.” This is the same Bloomberg who “was sued in 1997 by a sales executive who claimed that after she became pregnant, Mr. Bloomberg urged her to have an abortion, telling her, ‘Kill it!’ and saying sarcastically, ‘Great! Number 16,’ apparently referring to the number of pregnant women at the company. Mr. Bloomberg adamantly denied any wrongdoing and settled the case out of court for an undisclosed amount.”

The suit was actually brought against Bloomberg L.P. by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which charged that female employees at the company “were demoted and had their pay cut after they disclosed that they were pregnant.” Whether the charges were true, Bloomberg’s enthusiastic support of abortion is not in question.

I wonder what the average lifespan of New Yorkers would be if the multiplied tens of thousands of babies snuffed out in the womb were factored in as living to “zero” years? And this zealously pro-abortion mayor wants to ban Slurpees and Big Gulps?

To paraphrase the thoughts of one of my radio show callers, in Mayor Bloomberg’s world, the feminists who say, “Keep your hands off our ovaries” are commendable while the New Yorkers who say, “Keep your hands off our diets” are contemptible. Put another way, Bloomberg is “pro-choice” when it comes to a mother aborting a tiny baby in her womb and “no-choice” when it comes to her putting a big Slurpee in her stomach.

God help the mayor.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCHAUSTRALIAN POLITICSDISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL  and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine).   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  For readers in China or for times when is playing up, there is a mirror of this site  here.


No comments: