Stephen Moriarty
Some further reflections: “The truth is no man’s enemy.” (Scottish proverb)
In a fight, which team do you join? Answer: the one which will have you. Result: everyone has in the back of their mind which team will least suspect them of treachery. Result: everyone is careful not to stray too far from the fold. Result: multi-identity societies are inherently fractious. There is a consonance between this reasoned strategy and an instinctive one because natural selection will select those who instinctively reach this strategy as well as those capable of reasoning their way to it.
This inherent instability is the reason it was necessary, until recently at least, to maintain consumption at a high level, thus preventing investment and action on environmental issues. During the crisis of 2008 it was necessary to socialise all the debts of the banking sector because the disruption that would have resulted from allowing some of the banks to fail was unthinkable in a fractious multi-identity society. Such a society results in the collectivisation of losses and ceaseless inflation until the inevitable collapse. What follows this collapse is a police-state.
This policing can feel quite comforting, indeed I often feel like one of Wells’ Eloi. Day-to-day crime has fallen and I feel safer on the street. Aggression is now of necessity deviant because it is easier to be unprejudiced positively than negatively, and thus we float around smiling at all and sundry like members of a cult. Everyone is too busy convincing themselves that human nature is essentially benign to waste any time being judgemental, and discourse is limited to banalities by the need to avoid saying anything incorrect inadvertently. Since metaphor can be read into innocent utterances, it is safest to say nothing at all, and showing a capacity to reason has become dangerously unusual. It is Wells, Orwell and Huxley all rolled into one. When, I wonder, will the Morlocks, led by O’Brien, come to take me to see Mustapha Mond?
Where is all the displaced aggression is going? Against the self and that which represents it, as in the “demonization of the working class” and the hunt for “Establishment” perverts. As I have expounded in a previous essay, this scapegoating has the potential to be very dangerous because people feel no compunction about it. They sincerely believe that the English working-class is lazy and that Tories are evil. They are filled with the hate neurosis and it pours out against the only objects allowed.
With no responsible elite to emulate, and their wages driven down to subsistence levels by globalisation, the lower orders have seen their marriage customs decay and their families disintegrate. How many under 40 would now believe that England was once a society of extreme puritanism in sexual matters; that 70 or 80% of the population was baptised into the Church of England; that divorce was a matter of such shame that the word was never mentioned in front of children; that women were famous for polishing the front-steps of their houses; that disapproval of drinking was widespread?
The callous distaste for “Chavs” that was more recently prevalent, at least until Owen Jones wrote his timely book, shows how the upper and middle-classes in Britain abdicated their responsibilities towards their people: “What,” they were forever asking rhetorically, “could possibly explain these people’s poor choices?” The answer was the irresponsibility and incompetence of the upper and middle classes. Only the complacent could think that a civilisation does not have to be communicated from the educated to the uneducated for it to survive, and yet this complacency has been public policy for decades. Who was it that abolished the Grammar Schools and destroyed the apprenticeship system? Who declared, ex-cathedra, as it were, that England was a multi-cultural country?
The foundations of English civilisation that do or did exist: the traditions of Parliament and the armed forces, the articles, liturgy and music of the Established Church, English law, the canon of English literature, all these have been neglected or reserved for the privileged; yet there they all are, or were, available as the basis for a stable society and ready to confound those who scoff at the notion of “British values”.
The Balkanisation of England is well underway, however. Much of the hysteria surrounding these issues is due to the deep need of both the elite and much of the population to remain in denial about this. Some policies, such as Free Schools and Heseltine’s City Mayors, are motivated by denial, for they can only accelerate this process. In the past half-century England has gone from being probably the most cohesive and law-abiding society that there ever was to being a powder-keg. In 2011 large parts of the population went on a crime-spree the like of which has never before been seen in England, and four years later it is hardly mentioned.
Will corrupt political practices be imported here? Party-government, jury-trials, the counting of ballots and the disinterestedness of public servants, all are dependent on trust and loyalty between people and these things are in shorter supply in multi-identity societies. Since corruption is reckoned to be one of the main causes of poverty, and poverty one of the main causes of over-population, we can see that one of the main forces “pushing” immigration is the existence of multi-identity societies elsewhere. Of course one of the main “pull” factors is the peace and prosperity that a single-identity society created. Why might this be?
The persistent human propensity to ethnic conflict, which seems inexplicable or irrational to a “liberal”, is motivated either by an instinct or a “dissociated instinct” to cleave to relatives as the best way of ensuring the survival of one’s own genes. If it is the former then we are in very serious trouble, if the latter we may be able to hold society together. It does worry me that the so-called “clash of civilisations” (and other such cultural fault-lines) seems to occur down what are not just religious but also ethnic lines. It is dangerous to theorise about this in the sense that we know humans have a tendency to ethnic conflict, and that is all we really need to know. This is the common-sense position that sophisticates like to deny.
We know that evolution takes place in humans, therefore that there have often been genetic winners and losers and that this must be especially true when the phenotypic losers do not greatly share the winners’ genes (“kinship selection”, or rather the lack of it). It would seem to me that monogamy is the only system that offers some form of reproductive and therefore genuine equality and I suggest that it is even more justified in a heterogeneous society than in a homogenous one. It may also reduce aggression to outsiders. It is remarkable to note that until the 1960s such an astonishingly fair system was the norm in Britain and elsewhere. Michel Houellebecq has noted the parallel between the increase in disparities of wealth and the increase in disparities of access to relationships in recent decades. Anyone who takes fairness as a justification in argument must address this absolutely fundamental issue.
Nevertheless, the destruction of nations is a statement about ownership. In nations there is an understanding that ultimately things are owned not by individuals but by the community. This rankles with some, who like to think that what they own they own by right, but it is important for them to remember that those property rights exist only because there is a collective will to enforce them internally by law and externally by defence.
People use every possible clue to work out whether someone is a foreigner or not. It is relatively uncontroversial to put this interest down to there being “survival value” in it, because someone from another tribe would not consider you part of his or her “in-group” and you would therefore be in greater danger in their company; but it is also the case that mating with not-too-distant-but-sufficiently-distant relatives has biological as well as material advantages. The advantages of an adaptation are most likely to be maintained by marrying someone also adapted to your environment. I am aware of the evidence from Israel about unrelated children brought up together not copulating later, but I have also heard that separated biological brothers and sisters often find each other particularly sexually attractive if they meet as adults. The former adds weight to the idea that proximity in infancy that prevents incest, the latter is evidence that people are nonetheless attracted to people who are like them. This is probably what so many fundamentally kind people feel so guilty about when they are accused of racism.
Male and female sexuality differs, however, with the neo-Darwinists asserting that women are attracted by status and that their “choice” is the most important form of sexual selection. “Empowered” women in the West may have felt the nation-state as a constraint on their choice and therefore supported its destruction. Although often affecting a moralistic attitude, women may unconsciously await the outcome of male dominance struggles before “choosing.” This, rather than empathy, probably explains the curious alliance of feminism with “multiculturalism”.
If different genetic heritages endow different predilections, we might see patterns in a free society that correlate with genetic inheritance. Therefore we must not assume that a non-random distribution of such inheritances is proof of some kind of unfairness. There has been a tendency to see “racism” as the only evil rather than just one of many possible forms of injustice. Accusing people of racism because there happens to be a non-random distribution of genetic inheritances, for instance, and implementing policies which have as their sole object the avoidance of the charge of racism in spite of all other considerations, can be unjust.
Such policies may be pragmatically necessary, however; indeed they may be absolutely essential. As mentioned earlier, it would seem to depend upon whether the instinct to cleave to relatives is “dissociated” or not, that is, whether people can be induced to treat as relatives people to whom they are not in fact closely related. We know this is possible to a degree – the nation-state is not the same as the tribe in which these instincts evolved – but to what degree?
There are things that one cannot change about people, but if I were asked what policy to pursue, I would urge that every effort be made to homogenise that which can be; that lifelong marriage be encouraged; that Englishness should again be esteemed; and that what is humanly possible should be scientifically determined.
Discover more from The Libertarian Alliance
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“It is important to remember” that “a collective will” (meaning the agreements of many individuals, let us remember) to enforce property rights is not the same thing as collective ownership of individuals’ property.
It’s also important to remember that correlation is not causation: multi-cultural ism & decline in civil behaviour may be correlated, but this correlation does not prove anything.
Lots of speculation in this article – some interesting, some not – but little is substantiated.
When people lose their humanity and forget their true nature, all bets are off. Reducing multiculturalism and boosting ethnic homogeneity won’t solve this fundamental problem. People of different cultures can get along pretty well as long as they treat each other with respect. Once that respect (including self-respect) for others as human beings is gone, hell starts to break loose. Only bringing that respect back can fix the problem. Legislation won’t cut it.
Can you be a little more specific in your criticism (and praise!)? I tend to the view that people’s true nature is the problem rather than the solution (would you like to live in any pre-scientific society?); but at the same time civilisation must be compatible with that nature. Democracy is an issue here: it is quite easy to imagine multiculturalism under a benign dictatorship, but what happens if you give people the vote and they tend to vote en bloc? Yet democracy is an important check on power that most of us wouldn’t want to be without (democracy that is). Ethnic voting may not always be a complete disaster – different groups can keep each other under scrutiny – but it is unstable (a hostage to demographics) and clumsy – it trumps class issues which then go unaddressed.
In a previous essay (“Some reflections on multiculturalism”) I tried to argue that unfortunately multicultural societies create scapegoats despite themselves: when the “us” is so wilfully vague and incredible, the need for a “them” is ever more intense, and this explains the hysterical reaction to people who hold opinions that are even only slightly at odds with the faith that everything will be all right as long as we all behave “with respect”. I also tried to touch on the consequent pseudo-religiosity: society has become an explicitly moral project in which “good” people treat other cultures with respect. What usually goes unrecognised is the masochism involved in this (people have a need for “home”) and that this again contributes to scapegoating. What’s worse is that, rather like the teacher in Wyndham’s the Midwich Cuckoos whose imagined wall is crumbling before his eyes despite his best efforts, the effort of believing that everything is going to be alright is distracting and even deranging, and this has had some extremely serious, criminal, consequences which must be weighed in the balance against all the modern piety. I also tried to show how multiculturalism was possibly a factor in issues such as family breakdown in the host community. After all, multiculturalism is a more or less explicit form of laissez-faire with regard to moral issues and, particularly for the host culture, marks a breaking of the bonds between the classes.
Of course there was a lot of hypocrisy, racism and ignorance in pre-1960s Britain, but, to use an old expression, that doesn’t mean we should chuck the baby out with the bathwater. It is undeniably irksome, but society has to be organised and led, there is no getting away from it. The “anti-racist terror” as Richard Millet has called it, is one way of organising society, but, as I am trying to show here, it has its problems, and we shouldn’t be frightened to try to improve upon it.
I tend to the view that people’s true nature is the problem rather than the solution
I see no reason to change people’s true nature, or to consider it as a problem. Ideologies that conform to people’s nature rather than fight it are self-evidently more logical and sensible. Packing mutually incompatible peoples together is not the way to a viable nation state, to put it mildly. As I said in a previous comment below, Britain seems stable enough now, but it’s still in the early stages of being demographically transformed. To the multiculturalists, it’s still a work in progress.
Thank you for this. It would seem to me that again there is the assumption here that if only we could live according to nature we would be happy. A few dominant males probably would be, and their “wives”, but other people would be having their throats cut to nonsensical incantations. There would be periods of relative calm within the tribe but warfare would never be far away as marauding low-status males from other tribes would always be trying it on. It’s interesting how Left and Right end up making appeals to “noble savage” myths. Hobbes was wrong when he said there was a war of all against all, but he was nearly right!
Mais que sais-je?
The thing is, multiculturalism often means opening our borders to people who still engage in throat-cutting and polygamy. People don’t change their fundamental nature, but Europeans have made huge social and political improvements throughout their history. Much of the world’s population (Muslims particularly) rejects that progress, and they intend to reverse it when they have colonised our countries in sufficient numbers.
My wife is from the Philippines, which is a very racially mixed country where 180+ different languages are spoken. The civil war that is going on is against Muslim separatists in the south. Otherwise, there’s no evidence of ethnic conflict in the larger Philippines. It appears to me all problems other than the Muslim separatists (a situation made worse by American interference in that they pay large sums of money and send “advisers” to the Philippines army and police, hence creating an incentive to prolong armed conflict) stem from governmental corruption. Perhaps the governmental corruption is only so evident because it’s a poor country – the corruption in this country is immense, after all.
Homogeneous societies are in my view far superior and much more stable to those which are mixed. History is filled with ethnic conflicts where one or more groups come to share the same living space.
There have been substantial studies, one of which was particularly comprehensive by Robert Putnam, which described the effect of multi-cultural (multi-ethnic) constructs upon society.
They included:
*Lower confidence in local government, local leaders and the local news media.
*Lower political efficacy – that is, confidence in one’s own influence.
*Lower frequency of registering to vote, but more interest and knowledge about politics and more participation in protest marches and social reform groups.
*Higher political advocacy, but lower expectations that it will bring about a desirable result.
*Less expectation that others will cooperate to solve dilemmas of collective action (e.g., voluntary conservation to ease a water or energy shortage).
*Less likelihood of working on a community project.
*Less likelihood of giving to charity or volunteering.
*Fewer close friends and confidants.
*Less happiness and lower perceived quality of life.
*More time spent watching television and more agreement that “television is my most important form of entertainment”.
Being a liberal, he allegedly tried for 6 years to find other excuses for the trends he found regarding ethnic diversity, because deep down he did not want them to be true. Yet being a scholar and a political scientist, he decided to publish the findings anyway, albeit 6 years late and after adding all sorts of caveats at the end.
It is not exactly far fetched to point out either, for example, that an increase in voting fraud has occurred thanks to immigration from Pakistan, that there is further corruption in the political system and in the ‘charity’ systems at the behest of group identities syphoning off money and powers for their own advancements.
It is true that the antics of the financial system are monumentally corrupt, but that is not an argument as to why other ingredients of it should be allowed to be present in society and nor does it really encompass the same kinds of societal fractures.
It is my belief that social trust is at a minimum in multi-ethnic societies and that wherever there lay ethnic identity and interests, there can never be “democracy” for the good of the country (or individual towns) because it turns into a competition as to which group can ‘get what’ for their own general advancements.
Even rival Pakistani groups that originate from different parts of Pakistan (or maybe different religious sects within Islam) were smashing up a community centre the other week for this very reason. Many of them will be third generation “British” now. All groups will tend to foster a kinship towards those who are most like them.
“Getting along” is not the be all and end all for many people either. Talking about “getting along” (as the issue at hand) is to miss the point by a country mile. “Getting along” is merely the transition period between a former ethnic homogeneity and that of a full blown ethnic replacement. That is what is ultimately taking place.
What if you object to your race being wiped/mixed off the face of the earth? What if you think it is an absolute travesty that the British Isles is one day filled completely with Pakistanis, Afghanis, Somalis, Turks, Chinese, Japanese, Malaysians, Koreans, Bangladeshi, Indians, Nigerians, and the unfortunate offspring of various mixtures of all the above with each other and what was (once) the indigenous peoples?
What if you object that the same phenomena is being ushered into all “western” nations and the Occident? Islam is to be a dominant force in many of these European nations in the future and you’d have to be completely brain dead to not understand what that will bring with it. It is both an ethnic and religious assault.
I think that you would also have to be pretty blind if one assumes that things will just carry on as they were before, just with a different population mix. This assumes that all groups are the same, that all races are the same, that collective trends are not valid or important as to how a nation functions or develops.
Where is the evidence for this, other than a blind hope that separate human development for tens of thousands of years magically rendered everybody all the same in aptitude and capacity?
People cite all sorts of things as excuses, like poverty, or lack of education……but I think they often put the cart before the horse. James Watson, a pioneer of DNA, once dared to point this out and soon felt the wrath for doing so. Emotion and wishful thinking seems to triumph over the truth.
I think that the current quasi-mixed state of affairs that is bumbling along in a kind of semi-working fashion just masks the decline that is already coming and what will get worse the more “diverse” we get as a nation, particularly via those originating from Africa and the Middle East.
It is a recipe for disaster and serves no interest whatsoever to the host communities and their future as communities, nation, civilisation or race. There is no reason in my mind why this future ought to be acceptable or tolerated, particularly when it could have been avoided from the outset.
To speak of needing “respect” is not enough to avert what is likely to come. I think things will develop in a fashion that will make such notions impossible or redundant. Nobody will wish it to happen, but I think it will happen regardless, whilst the wishers and the dreamers plead for it to stop and question themselves why and ‘how it has come to this?’. It came to it, because they chose to ignore the consequences of their actions.
The alternative is that the white race, the indigenous peoples of Europe and the British Isles, continue to obliterate themselves and hand over their nations and futures to other races and religious dominance – both wilfully and gracefully.
That may well happen, given how brainwashed people seem to be, but I think it would be the first time in history that a people have allowed their own eradication – and in the meantime put themselves purposefully into a position of being a disadvantaged and vulnerable ethnic minority in their own homelands.
Something monumental is taking place here. It has little to do with “respect” or “getting along” with others. I “get along” with the Muslim man who runs the local petrol station. I “respect” many of the values that some of those people have, which ‘our own’ have lost. I “respect” some of the doctors I have seen in the past. I treat everybody, from anywhere, as decent as I can on a one to one basis.
But that does not make the situation right. That does not alleviate the problem. That does not diminish all the other factors going on and nor does it stop the ethnic solidarities or eventualities of the ultimate scenario rolling out for England.
The destruction of our countries by mass immigration is planned by people who know the consequences only too well – it’s not the work of deluded idealists. People say Britain is still a thriving country, but that’s because it’s still only in the early stages of being invaded and of having its indigenous people replaced.
Putnam’s study provides academic proof for something that has always been obvious to any sane person. But the mere erosion of morale and trust that he describes is nothing compared with what’s to come.