By Tim Haydon.
Like the Red Queen, David Cameron seems to be able to believe in six impossible things before breakfast. No doubt though, like the Red Queen, he has had plenty of practice in doing so.
The First impossible Thing
One of the impossible things he believes is that it is possible on the one hand for Britain to belong to a political set-up , the EU, whose raison d’etre is the destruction of nations and on the other that it is worthwhile for it to try to hang on to Scotland. In the context of the EU, why does it matter if Scotland goes or stays? After all, if the UK is scheduled to be completely obliterated anyway, what is the point of arguing about it? Of course, the Scots are also the subject of delusion if they think that they can assert their identity within the EU. The EU might save them from the unwanted embrace of the English, but they will find that it is a fire to England’s frying pan.
The Second Impossible Thing
Allied to this first of Cameron’s impossible things is another. He apparently thinks that on the one hand it is possible for the population of Britain to be transformed into a multicultural, multiracial ‘society’ (a contradiction in terms) as will Scotland, but that on the other there will still be some kind of special features to the geographical areas known as England, Wales and Northern Ireland which the geographical area known as Scotland will feel such affinity for that it will want to attach itself to it in preference to the rest of the multicultural, multiracial EU. In other words, that there will be homogeneity and at the same time, difference.
What, one wonders, might these special features be thought to be in this impossible scenario? Certainly Scotland shares an island with England / Wales, but that is hardly a sufficient binding force. Haiti and the Dominican Republic, for example, share an island, but have never shown much inclination to join up in any other way. What then, seeing that Scotland was able to join with the rest of the UK in the first place because it was racially, culturally and religiously closely allied to it, factors which will have disappeared in the multicultural, multiracial EU?
The Debates are reduced to Economics because the real Issues are not Culturally Marxist
Ethnic affinities, or the disappearance of them, cannot be mentioned in the institutionalised lie that is Cultural Marxist Britain. So we are left with economics. And it is indeed noticeable that the Scottish Independence debate is being conducted almost wholly in relation to the Scottish standard of living, as is the current EU in-out debate in the UK as a whole.
At the time when the Union of 1707 was being mooted, the Scots were bribed with economic favours and English gold among the aristocrats of the political class to agree to it. And the same game is being played now, with defence contracts being awarded to Scottish firms and dire warnings of what will happen to the Scottish economy should Scotland become independent.
But if it is true, some might say, that the Scots could join with the English and the other nations of the UK in a political union because of their ethnic affinities, why is it that they needed economic bribery to do so and why now do many of them want to separate from this union and others want to stay only out of material self interest?
Sigmund Freud and Scottish Independence
The Scots, the English the Welsh, the Irish are certainly ‘family’ ethnically speaking, but as Sigmund Freud pointed out in his Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego in an insight which most people notice anyway through common sense observation, small differences between individuals or groups in close relationships, such as ethnicities, religions, political parties and sometimes even families (family quarrels can be very bitter) produce ‘feelings of aversion and hostility’. Freud went on, ‘closely related races disdain or despise each other’. It is these small ethnic differences, which were not so much in evidence when Scotland and the rest lived apart and which were previously overcome with economic blandishments, that are the motivating factor for the drive for Scottish independence, whether they are acknowledged as such or not. They were not considered too important when Britain was an independent and confident country and were usually treated with jocular good humour. With the prospect of EU membership as an economic shoulder to rely on, attention has become increasingly focused on them with the results which we now see.
Sigmund Freud and Ethnic Distaste
As Freud also remarked, greater distances lead to ‘an insuperable repugnance such as ’the Gallic people feel for the German, the Aryan for the Semite, and the white races for the coloured.’ And vice – versa, it should be unnecessary to add. The EU is, though, thought by the small peoples which are demanding independence from their neighbours – the Scots, the Catalans, the Basques, the Northern Italians etc – to be sufficiently remote not to be a problem, indeed to be the answer to their problems of being dominated by their larger national compatriots. But as already noted, remote it might be, but in the end it will prove to be the kiss of death for them as for the rest. The EU is like poison gas on the battlefield: invisible but present, all-encompassing and deadly.
The Third Impossible Thing – Replacing the Native British without serious Consequences.
There is a third impossible thing, allied to the others which Cameron appears to believe. He seems to think, like others of his ilk, that while it was the native British people who made this country, they can be replaced with other peoples who are as alien to it as can possibly be imagined and that it will continue to swan on much as before. What’s more, because racial feeling will have been obliterated in the new Cultural Marxist dispensation (It won’t be) life here will actually improve (’The best of Britain is yet to come’).
This ridiculous optimism, which is based on the proposition that Britain is becoming a ’creedal’ society, ie one based on ideas rather than on ethnicity, courtesy of the EU and supranational bodies like the Human Rights Court, flies in the face of common sense and everyday observation. Such ideas may suit the political class, which thinks that ideas are more important than anything else because this feeds the sense of intellectual superiority which it hugs to itself, but these notions are too watery on their own to find much continuing allegiance amongst the mass of the people.
The United States is not an Example of a functioning Creedal Nation
It is no good pointing to the United States as an example of a creedal nation. That country may have been founded explicitly on the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and The Federalist Papers, but in reality it was implicitly from the first a European, Christian and specifically Protestant country. As it becomes less so, so it is beginning to disintegrate ethnically, socially and politically as Pat Buchan has pointed out in such books as ‘Suicide of a Superpower’, ‘State of Emergency’ and ‘The Death of the West’.
The Irreplaceable People of Britain
The people of Britain cannot be replaced if Britain is to remain remotely the country that so many other admire and want to come to. Their culture cannot be absorbed willy nilly by others, because they are as native to these islands as the native oak. Their colour of their skins, hair and eyes is an adaption to the conditions in these northern climes. The proportions of their bodies and other physical attributes are adaptions to the coldness of them. These alone are important parts of our culture, reflected in our art, architecture, literature – even in our fashions and sense of colour. The particular temperament of the native British, including their tolerance, is a function of their development as a people in the effective isolation of these islands for millennia. Their specific abilities are also the result of living in these latitudes and specifically on these isolated islands. And so on
The British Character has adapted Influences from Abroad over Millennia
The native British have taken Influences from abroad such as Christianity and made them their own according to their character as a people. It would ordinarily be many, many centuries before the immigrant influx approximates to these characteristics but, quite apart from the aggressively alien nature of their cultures and religions which have been encouraged here, with the advent of modern medicine and technology, the Darwinian factors which produced the native British have been pretty much eliminated.
T S Eliot and the Dangers of too much Diversity
TS Eliot remarked, (‘Notes towards the Definition of a Culture’); ‘It is a recurrent theme of this essay that a people should be neither too united nor too divided, if its culture is to flourish. Excess of unity may be due to barbarism and may lead to tyranny; Excess of division may be due to decadence and may also lead to tyranny; either development will prevent further development of culture.’
Multiculturalism is said not to be division because the Cultures live in parallel, so to speak. But in reality, no division could be more ‘excess’ than the imposition of ‘multiculturalism’. How else are they supposed to ‘enrich’ us? (Why is it necessary for them to be here rather than in their own places of origin for them to do this?).
T S Eliot and Social Disintegration
In connection with the four nations of Britain, Eliot also said, ‘It is important that a man should feel himself to be, not merely a citizen of a particular nation, but a citizen of a particular part of his country with local loyalties. These, like loyalty to class, arise out of loyalty to the family. Certainly an individual may develop the warmest devotion to a place in which he was not born, and to a community with which he has no ancestral ties, But I think we should agree that there would be something artificial, something a little too conscious, about a community of people with a strong local feeling, all of whom come from somewhere else….On the whole it would appear to be best that a great majority of human beings should go on living in the place in which they were born. Family, class and local loyalty all support one another and if one of these decays, the others will suffer also’.
That happy balance between diversity and sameness and identification with place, arising out of family feeling, was surely achieved by the United Kingdom of the different peoples of Britain. That is why the unity of our country and its traditional character are worth fighting for.