Love your articles but I'm sure you know that the reason for mass immigration is global governance. Can't have One World Government with pesky nation states insisting on their sovereignty.
To break down the nation state, you need to break down national pride and re-write history (like insisting everything bad is one particular country's fault - uniquely evil); denigrate those who show patriotism (like putting a flag on a lamp post); break homogenous cultures apart by importing alien cultures who will outbreed the natives and dilute them into extinction; join states into supranational organisations like the EU, the UN, NATO and sign up to lots of international treaties to undermine homegrown law; pretend that all cultures are equal even if one culture is building cathedrals and performing organ transplants whilst another is practising voodoo or hanging gays from cranes; destroy home grown industries so that all countries rely on imports from other countries to survive thus ensuring inter-dependence; undermine property law with taxation so that eventually nobody owns anything; ensure that justice isn't done - and more importantly, seen not to be done - to undermine an individual's sense of self-worth and their confidence in the system, so that they are easily dominated by authoritarian government enabling natural rights to be removed.
The globalists are ticking off the To Do list at a rate of knots to ensure that very soon you will not be a free man, but a number and meaningless dot in the global tyranny - how will you rebel when you are trapped in the digital matrix with every move and thought tracked. 99.99999999999% of people will be very, very, very poor. A handful will be very, very, very rich and control everyone.
So, the only boundary now is between globalism and national sovereignty - other divisions are artificial mechanisms to divide and rule and recruit useful idiots to the globalist cause. Pretty much everything that is wrong with our societies now is shape-shifting globalism. Arguing moral niceties like the death penalty for serious crimes or how much immigration is acceptable is pointless because the game has shifted from how can we organise our societies in a fair and sensible way to 'do we have a society?' Answer 'no'. When you argue for biological men to be allowed into women's changing rooms or sports, when you think nature should be destroyed by bird mincers and Made in China solar panels, when you think there should be no borders and no immigrant is illegal, when you think crime is not a lapse of individual responsibility but because life isn't fair, then you are a globalist and ensuring the slavery of all mankind for ever.
The only way to fight back against globalism is to re-assert individual and national sovereignty and fight to the death for it. Most people can't be bothered to even think about it, let alone do anything about it.
I had this kind of thing in mind when I said I didn't have any good "non-conspiratorial" explanation for why the UK governments over the years (and governments elsewhere) have been so keen on what is, essentially, mass uncontrolled immigration.
When you look at the associated problems such mass uncontrolled immigration brings - more debt, poorer economy, more crime, less social cohesion, Balkanisation, and so on - it's really, really hard to understand what the supposed 'benefits' of it all are supposed to be from the government perspective. It doesn't make any kind of sense in 'traditional' terms - and so we're a bit like Sherlock eliminating the impossible to see what, however improbable, remains.
Agreed! My brainwashed friends all react to this with 'but why would they do that?'
Duh!!! Unlimited money and unlimited power. Just because it's not something that you would do.......try thinking like a psychopath (one in ten apparently), people!!!
It's even simpler than that (but even a brief explanation is quite verbose):
They believe in an ideal, an idea, and are working to make that idea(l) real.
Few things are that dangerous.
The Napoleonic wars, the century of revolutions (1800s), the first World War, the Russian Revolution, the dissolution of the Ottoman and the Austrian-Hungarian empires - during this time, the height of intelligencia and intellectuals all over Europe argued, based in the reality of their time, that the following were the causes of wars, imperialism, poverty and starvation, and oppression:
Religious intolerance/fundamentalism/beliefs in general
The manly man-ideal
Nationalism
Racism (the kind based in Darwin and Spencer et al)
Capitalism of the corporate-monopolistic kind
And so, they all - one by one and via shared correspondence and published works (the so-called "Kalergi plan" being the most well-known today; the actual book is avaliable via archive-dot-org) concluded that all of those things had to be eliminated, for there to ever be peace.
A new race of Europeans, without history or inherited culture, traditions and faiths, living under a system of pre-planned top-down administrated rules, producing what the system needed as and when asked for, and otherwise free to pursue leisure (to the intellectual bourgeoisie of the time, leisure and time to fart about doing nothing but think and write your thoughts down was the height of human achievements) in ways and manners conducive to improving the new race as a whole.
It's a poisonous brew of modernism, scientific rationalism, relativism, vulgarised utilitarianism, scientific racism, eugenicism, mysticism (anthrosophy f.e.), romanticism, liberalism and general progressive utopianism.
It looks psyhcotic or psychopathic from the outside. It's not - it makes perfect sense as theory.
But not as reality. A parallel would be some schmuck crossbreeding dogs and wolves, arguing that you'd getter tougher dogs from it.
What you do get is a very dangerous hybrid lacking the virtues of either pure form. A smarter wolf that breeds faster is still a wolf; a savage dog is just that - and is no longer tame.
Point is, it all boils down to control. No-one is the boss of anyone. No-one has the right to shape the world according to their pet theory. No-one has the right to anything other than their own personal sovereignty and what they can create from their labour in a free market. Anything else is tyranny.
Control for the sake of control, and only because the means to have as total control as possible exists, yes.
I think they confuse order and control, too. When they speak, it is oft couched as striving for order, for things to be predictable and therefore safe, and I believe this is honestly how they feel and think about it.
But they lack trust, being inherently untrustworthy themselves and operating in spheres that run on mutual profiteering rather than trust and honour, they have no way of being different. Especially not since creating a career means "lick upwards, kick downwards" is the rule in all large organisations.
And so to them control equals order and vice versa.
A real-life example is the EU-rules for improving insulation of houses and lowering heat loss from windows. The rules are written to cover the entirety of the Union, meaning the apply equally to someone on the southern coast of Siciliy as well as to someone at Treriksröset, well north of the Arctic circle.
The sicilian needs do nothing - not much heat loss in Winter for him. The Northlander might have to bankrupt himself to ensure the percentage of improvement is met.
Had they both been free to each handle their respective situation according to needs and means, both of them would/could have achieved optimal results.
But that means letting people be free, and that means extending trust.
I am, in no small part because I have been aware of the data, the stats and have been thinking this issue through from all angles for three decades.
Including in both down-at-the-pub-milieus and in formal academic settings.
The question "How many times do you agree someone may rape your underage daughter, while filming it and posting the rape online, would you say is one too many before he is to be put down?" is one that never fails to infuriate people opposing the death penalty.
Because that question makes it real, brings it home and exposes them to their own instinctual reaction - kill him, here, now, in public and stake the body for the crows - which they know and feel is simply [Right], but which they have been conditioned to deny: crimestop and doublethink.
"How many Jews, Jehovas, gypsies, and sundry sent to the gas hambers is one too many?", is a good follow-up question, because it forces them to rationalise it as "That's not the same thing".
O-kay, sez I: "How many Jews et cetera raped by nazis is one too many before we put a shoot-on-sight order out on nazis?"
Blubbering, sputtering, angrish noises usually follows - even from seasoned sociologists, professors in statecraft, and criminologists and ethicists.
Because: those questions takes it down to the gutter, where the metal meats the meat, and they don't like it up close and personal.
They want their crimes as data and stats in neat little files. Not as a blow-by-blow report on how 14 ****skin teenaged boys raped a 13-year old White girl for hours, while filming and sharing it on social media and sending clips to her parents, and ended the rape by shoving a fistful of feces and blood and assorted crap from the floor into what was left of her vagina.
They - the idiots, because that's what "bleeding heart liberal" is in real life when it's do-or-die-time, can't handle the truth. The can't handle reality.
And they fear people like me and loathe us, but they fear people like you more: should you rise up and say "Enough! More than enough already! This ends now, one way or the other!" and put muscle behind those words, they know that your next question will be:
"You knew! You knew from the start! And you let it go on and on and on! You are complicit and well handle you as such - up against the wall you utter bastard!"
And I would volunteer as headsman. I'd do it for free.
It's kind of hard to argue with some of the things you write here. I'm reminded of Marianne Bachmeier who shot, in court, the person who raped and murdered her 7 year old daughter.
Ever since learning about that a few years ago I've not been able to properly 'condemn' her actions. There's the 'intellectual' part of me that can make arguments about why vigilante justice is wrong, but I also know that if anyone had done that to either of my daughters they'd be a dead man walking (given the opportunity).
We largely avoid this kind of vigilante hell hole because we 'trust' the state to mete out appropriate justice. This kind of implicit 'contract' is currently being severely weakened with savage scumbags being given risible 'sentences'.
I'm not blaming how the system works, on migrants.
(I blame migrants for how they acty, obviously, but they didn't make our legal/political systems be the way they are.)
Vigilantism is justice, as long as it is the right person being subjected to revenge. There's no way around that, and the theory - I know it very well - that we defer ustice/revenge to the state?
Is a lie. The state /took/ that away from the people, gradually and incrementally over centuries.
Tangent on that:
Olden days - in Sweden this would be pre-1550s, based on surviving documentation - someone would "bring cause" before the Ting, giving their version of things, calling on witnesses and so on. The accused did the same, and a jury consisiting of the more trusted and prominent men of the region (initially, these were elected for a set period by the other menfolk of that region) made a ruling.
Everything was public, and bringing a false cause had real consequences, as did being convicted - your reputation suffered, which was no small thing.
Punishment dep. om crimes obv. but death was always an option. One case I actually read (early 1500s) had the Ting decide to execute the perpetrator because of his long history of petty crimes growing more and more obnoxious and violent, until he had violated a woman. The Ting in this case asked the assembly to vote on it.
And further back, the Ting could decide to award the aggrieved party the right to claim revenge against the criminal - or his family if they refused to give him up. Some fragments of those laws suggest the victim of a crime got the choice between being paid damages (the eq. of several years of income today, alt. getting the criminal as a thrall for a no. of years) or the criminal being mutliated or killed.
Just ask someone opposing capital punishment why it is better for society that the criminal lives, than not. They are usually big on stuff like "sacrificing for the greater good" and other such vulgarisations of Bentham's utilitarianism; well then what's the argument against killing off notorious repeat offenders?
I think I loathe such people even more than the actual criminal: someone being a bastard because it is their nature is one thing, that's not much different from a rat or a badger breaking into the pantry principle-wise; someone intelllectually able and capable to reason enabling and defending someone like Jimmy Saille having "an unalienable right to life" is so much worse.
Why yes, i'm rather passionat about this topic, how did you tell?
> "In my younger days, “bleeding heart liberal” would have been a fairly accurate description of me. .... Today I find myself actively considering more extreme ‘solutions’ to problems without a sufficiently great degree of accompanying moral squeamishness."
Reminds me of something from out here -- in the colonies 😉🙂 -- that you may have missed:
Mark Twain (??): When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished at how much he had learned in seven years.
Excellent, thoughtful piece which reflects my political/ethical journey to a large degree.
Just one quibble - you say that "without the work of immigrants our NHS would disintegrate". That doesn't really hold, however, because the reason any socialised healthcare system (the NHS up in your neck of the woods, Medicare down here in Oz) needs more personnel, heavily sourced from foreign labour, is because of all the foreigners on the demand side. Hospitals, GP waiting rooms, wherever you look, the number of migrants in line is significant because the offer of free (or heavily subsidised) health care in the target country is an almighty pull factor for immigration.
Your caveat should itself be caveated to better read as "with less immigration, the NHS would need fewer foreign staff to stave off collapse".
Yes I think increased immigration also places extra burdens on healthcare, but I don't think the problems would magically disappear if immigrants were to suddenly vanish one day. Alleviated, maybe, but disappear? No
I do know, having had some experience over the last 3 months with my mum being ill in hospital/care for that time, just what a fantastic job the immigrant workers are actually doing in this sector.
Love your articles but I'm sure you know that the reason for mass immigration is global governance. Can't have One World Government with pesky nation states insisting on their sovereignty.
To break down the nation state, you need to break down national pride and re-write history (like insisting everything bad is one particular country's fault - uniquely evil); denigrate those who show patriotism (like putting a flag on a lamp post); break homogenous cultures apart by importing alien cultures who will outbreed the natives and dilute them into extinction; join states into supranational organisations like the EU, the UN, NATO and sign up to lots of international treaties to undermine homegrown law; pretend that all cultures are equal even if one culture is building cathedrals and performing organ transplants whilst another is practising voodoo or hanging gays from cranes; destroy home grown industries so that all countries rely on imports from other countries to survive thus ensuring inter-dependence; undermine property law with taxation so that eventually nobody owns anything; ensure that justice isn't done - and more importantly, seen not to be done - to undermine an individual's sense of self-worth and their confidence in the system, so that they are easily dominated by authoritarian government enabling natural rights to be removed.
The globalists are ticking off the To Do list at a rate of knots to ensure that very soon you will not be a free man, but a number and meaningless dot in the global tyranny - how will you rebel when you are trapped in the digital matrix with every move and thought tracked. 99.99999999999% of people will be very, very, very poor. A handful will be very, very, very rich and control everyone.
So, the only boundary now is between globalism and national sovereignty - other divisions are artificial mechanisms to divide and rule and recruit useful idiots to the globalist cause. Pretty much everything that is wrong with our societies now is shape-shifting globalism. Arguing moral niceties like the death penalty for serious crimes or how much immigration is acceptable is pointless because the game has shifted from how can we organise our societies in a fair and sensible way to 'do we have a society?' Answer 'no'. When you argue for biological men to be allowed into women's changing rooms or sports, when you think nature should be destroyed by bird mincers and Made in China solar panels, when you think there should be no borders and no immigrant is illegal, when you think crime is not a lapse of individual responsibility but because life isn't fair, then you are a globalist and ensuring the slavery of all mankind for ever.
The only way to fight back against globalism is to re-assert individual and national sovereignty and fight to the death for it. Most people can't be bothered to even think about it, let alone do anything about it.
I had this kind of thing in mind when I said I didn't have any good "non-conspiratorial" explanation for why the UK governments over the years (and governments elsewhere) have been so keen on what is, essentially, mass uncontrolled immigration.
When you look at the associated problems such mass uncontrolled immigration brings - more debt, poorer economy, more crime, less social cohesion, Balkanisation, and so on - it's really, really hard to understand what the supposed 'benefits' of it all are supposed to be from the government perspective. It doesn't make any kind of sense in 'traditional' terms - and so we're a bit like Sherlock eliminating the impossible to see what, however improbable, remains.
Agreed! My brainwashed friends all react to this with 'but why would they do that?'
Duh!!! Unlimited money and unlimited power. Just because it's not something that you would do.......try thinking like a psychopath (one in ten apparently), people!!!
It's even simpler than that (but even a brief explanation is quite verbose):
They believe in an ideal, an idea, and are working to make that idea(l) real.
Few things are that dangerous.
The Napoleonic wars, the century of revolutions (1800s), the first World War, the Russian Revolution, the dissolution of the Ottoman and the Austrian-Hungarian empires - during this time, the height of intelligencia and intellectuals all over Europe argued, based in the reality of their time, that the following were the causes of wars, imperialism, poverty and starvation, and oppression:
Religious intolerance/fundamentalism/beliefs in general
The manly man-ideal
Nationalism
Racism (the kind based in Darwin and Spencer et al)
Capitalism of the corporate-monopolistic kind
And so, they all - one by one and via shared correspondence and published works (the so-called "Kalergi plan" being the most well-known today; the actual book is avaliable via archive-dot-org) concluded that all of those things had to be eliminated, for there to ever be peace.
A new race of Europeans, without history or inherited culture, traditions and faiths, living under a system of pre-planned top-down administrated rules, producing what the system needed as and when asked for, and otherwise free to pursue leisure (to the intellectual bourgeoisie of the time, leisure and time to fart about doing nothing but think and write your thoughts down was the height of human achievements) in ways and manners conducive to improving the new race as a whole.
It's a poisonous brew of modernism, scientific rationalism, relativism, vulgarised utilitarianism, scientific racism, eugenicism, mysticism (anthrosophy f.e.), romanticism, liberalism and general progressive utopianism.
It looks psyhcotic or psychopathic from the outside. It's not - it makes perfect sense as theory.
But not as reality. A parallel would be some schmuck crossbreeding dogs and wolves, arguing that you'd getter tougher dogs from it.
What you do get is a very dangerous hybrid lacking the virtues of either pure form. A smarter wolf that breeds faster is still a wolf; a savage dog is just that - and is no longer tame.
Point is, it all boils down to control. No-one is the boss of anyone. No-one has the right to shape the world according to their pet theory. No-one has the right to anything other than their own personal sovereignty and what they can create from their labour in a free market. Anything else is tyranny.
Control for the sake of control, and only because the means to have as total control as possible exists, yes.
I think they confuse order and control, too. When they speak, it is oft couched as striving for order, for things to be predictable and therefore safe, and I believe this is honestly how they feel and think about it.
But they lack trust, being inherently untrustworthy themselves and operating in spheres that run on mutual profiteering rather than trust and honour, they have no way of being different. Especially not since creating a career means "lick upwards, kick downwards" is the rule in all large organisations.
And so to them control equals order and vice versa.
A real-life example is the EU-rules for improving insulation of houses and lowering heat loss from windows. The rules are written to cover the entirety of the Union, meaning the apply equally to someone on the southern coast of Siciliy as well as to someone at Treriksröset, well north of the Arctic circle.
The sicilian needs do nothing - not much heat loss in Winter for him. The Northlander might have to bankrupt himself to ensure the percentage of improvement is met.
Had they both been free to each handle their respective situation according to needs and means, both of them would/could have achieved optimal results.
But that means letting people be free, and that means extending trust.
Exactly! Good explanation! Judging others by your own (low) standards.
"I’m not advocating for this as a solution..."
I am, in no small part because I have been aware of the data, the stats and have been thinking this issue through from all angles for three decades.
Including in both down-at-the-pub-milieus and in formal academic settings.
The question "How many times do you agree someone may rape your underage daughter, while filming it and posting the rape online, would you say is one too many before he is to be put down?" is one that never fails to infuriate people opposing the death penalty.
Because that question makes it real, brings it home and exposes them to their own instinctual reaction - kill him, here, now, in public and stake the body for the crows - which they know and feel is simply [Right], but which they have been conditioned to deny: crimestop and doublethink.
"How many Jews, Jehovas, gypsies, and sundry sent to the gas hambers is one too many?", is a good follow-up question, because it forces them to rationalise it as "That's not the same thing".
O-kay, sez I: "How many Jews et cetera raped by nazis is one too many before we put a shoot-on-sight order out on nazis?"
Blubbering, sputtering, angrish noises usually follows - even from seasoned sociologists, professors in statecraft, and criminologists and ethicists.
Because: those questions takes it down to the gutter, where the metal meats the meat, and they don't like it up close and personal.
They want their crimes as data and stats in neat little files. Not as a blow-by-blow report on how 14 ****skin teenaged boys raped a 13-year old White girl for hours, while filming and sharing it on social media and sending clips to her parents, and ended the rape by shoving a fistful of feces and blood and assorted crap from the floor into what was left of her vagina.
They - the idiots, because that's what "bleeding heart liberal" is in real life when it's do-or-die-time, can't handle the truth. The can't handle reality.
And they fear people like me and loathe us, but they fear people like you more: should you rise up and say "Enough! More than enough already! This ends now, one way or the other!" and put muscle behind those words, they know that your next question will be:
"You knew! You knew from the start! And you let it go on and on and on! You are complicit and well handle you as such - up against the wall you utter bastard!"
And I would volunteer as headsman. I'd do it for free.
It's kind of hard to argue with some of the things you write here. I'm reminded of Marianne Bachmeier who shot, in court, the person who raped and murdered her 7 year old daughter.
Ever since learning about that a few years ago I've not been able to properly 'condemn' her actions. There's the 'intellectual' part of me that can make arguments about why vigilante justice is wrong, but I also know that if anyone had done that to either of my daughters they'd be a dead man walking (given the opportunity).
We largely avoid this kind of vigilante hell hole because we 'trust' the state to mete out appropriate justice. This kind of implicit 'contract' is currently being severely weakened with savage scumbags being given risible 'sentences'.
I want to emphasise something here:
I'm not blaming how the system works, on migrants.
(I blame migrants for how they acty, obviously, but they didn't make our legal/political systems be the way they are.)
Vigilantism is justice, as long as it is the right person being subjected to revenge. There's no way around that, and the theory - I know it very well - that we defer ustice/revenge to the state?
Is a lie. The state /took/ that away from the people, gradually and incrementally over centuries.
Tangent on that:
Olden days - in Sweden this would be pre-1550s, based on surviving documentation - someone would "bring cause" before the Ting, giving their version of things, calling on witnesses and so on. The accused did the same, and a jury consisiting of the more trusted and prominent men of the region (initially, these were elected for a set period by the other menfolk of that region) made a ruling.
Everything was public, and bringing a false cause had real consequences, as did being convicted - your reputation suffered, which was no small thing.
Punishment dep. om crimes obv. but death was always an option. One case I actually read (early 1500s) had the Ting decide to execute the perpetrator because of his long history of petty crimes growing more and more obnoxious and violent, until he had violated a woman. The Ting in this case asked the assembly to vote on it.
And further back, the Ting could decide to award the aggrieved party the right to claim revenge against the criminal - or his family if they refused to give him up. Some fragments of those laws suggest the victim of a crime got the choice between being paid damages (the eq. of several years of income today, alt. getting the criminal as a thrall for a no. of years) or the criminal being mutliated or killed.
Just ask someone opposing capital punishment why it is better for society that the criminal lives, than not. They are usually big on stuff like "sacrificing for the greater good" and other such vulgarisations of Bentham's utilitarianism; well then what's the argument against killing off notorious repeat offenders?
I think I loathe such people even more than the actual criminal: someone being a bastard because it is their nature is one thing, that's not much different from a rat or a badger breaking into the pantry principle-wise; someone intelllectually able and capable to reason enabling and defending someone like Jimmy Saille having "an unalienable right to life" is so much worse.
Why yes, i'm rather passionat about this topic, how did you tell?
Well, here's a first, I agree with absolutely everything you've said in response to various comments on this subject.
> "In my younger days, “bleeding heart liberal” would have been a fairly accurate description of me. .... Today I find myself actively considering more extreme ‘solutions’ to problems without a sufficiently great degree of accompanying moral squeamishness."
Reminds me of something from out here -- in the colonies 😉🙂 -- that you may have missed:
Mark Twain (??): When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished at how much he had learned in seven years.
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/10/10/twain-father/
Some people it takes longer ... 😉🙂
I know that Twain quote very well - it's one of my favourites
Mark Twain certainly had quite a way with words 🙂
Excellent, thoughtful piece which reflects my political/ethical journey to a large degree.
Just one quibble - you say that "without the work of immigrants our NHS would disintegrate". That doesn't really hold, however, because the reason any socialised healthcare system (the NHS up in your neck of the woods, Medicare down here in Oz) needs more personnel, heavily sourced from foreign labour, is because of all the foreigners on the demand side. Hospitals, GP waiting rooms, wherever you look, the number of migrants in line is significant because the offer of free (or heavily subsidised) health care in the target country is an almighty pull factor for immigration.
Your caveat should itself be caveated to better read as "with less immigration, the NHS would need fewer foreign staff to stave off collapse".
Yes I think increased immigration also places extra burdens on healthcare, but I don't think the problems would magically disappear if immigrants were to suddenly vanish one day. Alleviated, maybe, but disappear? No
I do know, having had some experience over the last 3 months with my mum being ill in hospital/care for that time, just what a fantastic job the immigrant workers are actually doing in this sector.
Bring back the cat o nine tails, us convicts behaved nicely after a flogging or two.
🤣
Hello Rudolph, I like your post for many reasons one being the " yes yes yes i agree with you so much feeling after reading a paragraph" .
I am not British and nor do i live there.
I do wonder, why the British people, the greater majority of who i suggest would agree with your comments, seem to do nothing about it.
Thankyou