A few months ago I read Road to Serfdom for the first time, and a powerful and convincing read it was too. Hayek makes the case that Nazi regime grew out of the destruction of the German middle classes, a hatred for British liberalism (specifically the ‘free trade’ economic liberalism of the day) and complete failure to understand the problems inherent to economic planning.
One of the most compelling arguments was the correlation between anti-capitalism and anti-semitism.
The argument goes that, excluded from the sort of unionised, protected jobs available to German nationals, Jewish people set up their own businesses – as, literally, the only means of making a living. They embraced capitalism and trade because it allowed them to feed themselves and their families and they were perceived as being very successful at that.
Of course the German working classes, having been through a depression and economic disaster, saw it differently – they saw Jewish people making a living and not sharing their wealth with the German people. Jealousy quickly turns to hatred, and all it then takes is the right politician to come along to threaten to use the power of the state to redress the balance and, it seems, all hell breaks loose.
I look around the town where I live and I see a disturbing parallel – a hated and despised immigrant population (mostly from Pakistan) whose main source of employment appears to be either self employment or working for other people from Pakistan. Any poverty in the Pakistani community is hidden because the only interactions most white people have with them is when they order take-away, or go into a corner shop, or order a taxi. Others live in the same area – the part of the town that has the cheapest housing – and have watched as the their streets have become increasingly ethnic in appearance. This freaks people out. They don’t like it, and they’re condemned as thought criminals if they say so. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t… but is it entirely fair or reasonable to force people to think anything through bullying, hectoring, intimidation? If there’s nothing wrong with being the only white person left on your street, why does it need saying? Why do people need to be persuaded of that?
The problem is this: What do you do about it?
Dispersing the immigrant population? How do you do that without evicting them from their homes, ripping them out of their jobs and families? Too fascist.
Preventing them from wearing ‘ethnic’ clothing? Well, how do you do that without passing laws about what is and isn’t acceptable for people to wear? Again, that’s distinctly un-British.
Deport the immigrants: Hard to imagine how that one ends well. Derisory bribes to leave are unlikely to be successful – it would require force and would quickly reduce Britain to the status of a rogue state, an international pariah. International trade would collapse, imports from Britain would be banned and we’d be utterly ruined.
The least worst option appears to be controls on immigration in the first place, it seems. There’s no acceptable, humane or even British way of dealing with immigrant populations once they’re in the country.
But then the question becomes does it really need dealing with in the first place? Apparently so, if you listen to the people who point to crime statistics from certain ethnic minority grouping as if this is the ultimate argument that, yes, immigration is a terrible thing. I’m not convinced. Other people argue that the public services and general infrastructure cannot cope with the growth in the population – which, I think, is a much more valid argument.
The growth in the population has exposed Britain’s planning system as glacial, the dependence on the state to provide infrastructure as in error, and more horrifyingly it’s shown that public services are not properly balanced – theoretically ten thousand more people paying tax should pay for the public services of ten thousand more people – but that is not the case. Public services are not paying for themselves based on the people using them thanks to ridiculous levels of centralisation and woefully inadequate five and ten year plans. More proof, as if it were needed, of the folly of economic planning.
This, I’m afraid, is the real problem. The solution of ‘get rid of the immigrants! Stop them coming in’ might temporarily relieve the stress on infrastructure and public services but it wouldn’t fix the underlying problems – that this is a country that is institutionally incapable of adapting to anything and with an over mighty state stretched far, far, far beyond what it can be reasonably expected to be able to deal with.
And yet we blame the immigrants for this, for daring to expose the limits of our creaking, broken infrastructure. The current reasons for capping immigration is to protect the public services, benefits payments, social housing and job prospects of the people who are already here. It’s socialism, you see, but just for British nationals. Hmmm…. why does that sound familiar?
But then this is the tendency of socialism – this is what happens. It’s inevitable. As the state grows and “gives” more and more to the nationals in its jurisdiction, so the pressure grows to limit who counts as ‘in’ and who counts as ‘out’.
People explode in a self-righteous fury if they believe that one group is getting something their own group isn’t – and this fury is being channelled into the growth of fascist thought rather than providing the political will to stop Governments picking favourites and taking sides.
It may be that the socialists are the most vocal anti-racists, but it is they who’ve created the economic conditions in which racism thrives. It’s they who’ve created a country with a growing obsession with stopping “foreigners” taking advantage of our welfare state, and it’s they who’ve spent the last 100 years telling everyone that Free Trade (which includes free movement of people) is a bad and terrible thing, it’s they who’ve told everyone that the job of the state is to pick sides and pick winners…. and they’re acting surprised, shocked and outraged when people who see themselves as losers in the current system want to use the state for their own purposes?
What exactly did they think would happen? I mean, really? The only way to stop National Socialism in the UK is to stop socialism.
Stacey Riley said...
13 Dec 09 at 2:36 pm
A very measured, honest post. A lot of what you said I see/hear about in my own rural community. However, in my community the problem is complicated by the fact that a lot of the immigrants originate from Eastern Europe. A lot of resentment is caused by a proportion of the immigrants not being able to speak functional English.
If we want immigrants in this country, a lot of problems could be reduced by insisting on acquiring a minimum level of spoken English before arrival. Preferably written as well.
In other European countries, there is an expectation that you become familiar with the native language. Little help is available to you unless you understand the native language. France springs to mind.
By not speaking the local language, it ghettoises the two groups and increases costs due to translation. From anecdotal evidence I’ve found that the existing population feel that the immigrants are not willing to integrate into the culture and community unless they speak the language.
Phil said...
13 Dec 09 at 3:11 pm
You say that “It may be that the socialists are the most vocal anti-racists, but it is they who’ve created the economic conditions in which racism thrives.” But in fact, it has traditionally been the state and business leaders who have engineered the rise of fascism, often directly.
Forgive the long reply, but in order to qualify that statement I have to go into a little history;
Around the Great War, millions of workers rose up in revolt against social and economic oppression, and the ruling classes fostered fascism as a way to crush this revolutionary wave and divide the working class.
In Britain, the British Empire Union (BEU), was founded in 1916, and the Economic League in 1919. In the inter-war years, they were two of several organised fascist groups which worked in tandem with the state against workers movements. Through strike breaking, anti-communist violence, and intelligence activities, they enabled the state to tackle the threat of “Bolshevism.”
In Italy, supported by the military, the business class, and the liberal right-wing, Mussolini’s Blackshirts waged a war of terror against socialists, communists, and anarchists. As always, fascism was used by the powerful as a way of fracturing class consciousness in favour of nationalism. However, when King Victor Emmanuel III handed Mussolini the reigns of power, fascism finally distinguished itself from the interests of the dominant sectors of liberal democracy.
In Germany, fascism didn’t first emerge in 1924, when Hitler took over what was then the German Workers’ Party, but in 1919. It was then that the German Social Democratic Party enlisted the nationalist militia known as the Freikorps, who would later become famous for their service to the Nazis, in crushing the Spartacist Uprising and thus preventing a workers’ revolution in Germany.
When Hitler did come to power, and Germany joined Italy as the second state where fascism was not merely a tool of the state but dominated the legislature, still the ruling class of Europe did not realise their folly. American and European business leaders actively approved of the destruction of communist and trade unionist currents in Germany. The British and American establishments, particularly, viewed Germany as a useful buffer against the threat of Soviet Communism.
Likewise, in 1938, British Ambassador to Spain Sir Henry Chilton “expressed the conviction that a Franco victory was necessary for peace in Spain” and that it “would be better for Great Britain” than a republican victory. Winston Churchill, too, praised the fascist Franco as “defending Europe against the Communist danger,” although he was pleased by the republic’s repression of the anarchists, and did have some concern that “Franco could be an upset or a threat to British interests.”
It was, of course, the German invasion of Poland on 1st September 1939 that led to Britain declaring war on Germany. Thus, by fostering, promoting, and later appeasing fascism in order to preserve the established order, had the elites of Europe brought on a war that would utterly eclipse the Great War in terms of death, horror, and human sacrifice.
Plato Says said...
13 Dec 09 at 3:33 pm
Well said, Charlotte.
I’m really concerned at what has been happening – I will self-censor my own comments here as I don’t want to sound like a fruit-cake.
That is a really worrying thing to feel.
That my middle-of-the-road, law-abiding, well-educated self should feel that to express real doubts about what has happened to our country is equated with being a ‘flat -earther’ [courtesy Gordon Brown, PM] speaks volumes.
I’m in my 40s and can’t recall a time when words like ‘fascism’ were ever used to describe UK politics except by a tiny minority. Other examples are ‘police state’ and ‘totalitarian’. WTF is going on?
And finally, my bete noire – vote rigging. When was our voting system ever held in such distain as now? I associate this with TPLAC and Iran – yet here we’ve had convictions described as worthy of a ‘banana republic’.
I guess I should be grateful that Ed Balls announced on Marr’s show today that 2m people won’t have to undergoe CRB checks after all – pity that leaves 9m who will.
I assume that I am a kiddy-fiddler until proven innocent.
Tristan said...
13 Dec 09 at 3:55 pm
Phil: Remember Mussolini was a (state) socialist – the fight between Bolsheviks and Fascists was one between two variants of the authoritarian – both of which were allied in their hatred of liberals and libertarian socialists.
Dick Puddlecote said...
13 Dec 09 at 4:01 pm
Great piece, CG. Socialism has always relied on creating demons against which their policies are then targeted.
The underlying message is always a selfish one, though. I want what I can’t get under free trade/association/speech etc., therefore I’ll restrict others so I can be happy.
And if restrictions don’t work, I will use force.
Henry North London said...
13 Dec 09 at 4:04 pm
Ah the voice of reason, An absolutely fabulous post to read the first time I come back to read blogs in December.
I am of course in an ethnic minority but my father decided to go to the only town in Britain with a 99.9% white majority. Here there are no ghettoes, He decided that he didn’t want to live in the ghettos of his countrymen back in 1970, he decided to integrate to some degree and see how the other half lived. As a result I am known as the coconut when abroad in India and everywhere else, speak with an RP accent and lapse in to Yorkshire/Sheffield dialect from time to time.
But how to persuade the rest who cling to their society and for some whom it is ” haram” or forbidden to speak to the infidel? (totally tongue in cheek by the way)
My father and I already call Bradford little Pakistan because the big dam near Mirpur displaced them all in one go and they migrated en masse into a certain area of Bradford.
How do you get them to integrate? You can’t Its damn near impossible, unless you educate the women and free them from their shackles by their rather paternalistic men.
It takes a lot of time and Baroness Warsi is a good example but from Dewsbury, not the Mirpuri crowd in Bradford. Everyone tends to flock together as birds of a feather and ancestral towns play a huge part in it.
Im the only brown one on this street but theres nothing wrong with that…
Tristan said...
13 Dec 09 at 4:17 pm
Phil:
Much of what you say is true, but it doesn’t contradict Hayek’s points (or Charlotte’s).
I disagree with the use of socialism by Hayek and Charlotte here, and I think that is the root of much disagreement. It is not strictly the socialist movement we are talking about here, but the authoritarian statist movement which found many supporters amongst socialists, but also amongst the ruling classes (Bismark’s programme in Germany is a good example). It is the raising of the state above individuals and society and seeking to supplant the functions of voluntary association with authority which provides the breeding ground described.
Jim said...
13 Dec 09 at 4:23 pm
Immigrants will integrate eventually, given time and a fair wind, assuming (and its the crucial assumption) they have no great barrier to integration. And thats the point – the barrier exists for a large proportion of immigrants, and that barrier is obviously Islam. It pretty much forbids integration.
The current wave of Eastern European immigrants will be absorbed within a generation for example. There will be intermarriage, learning of the language, becoming part of the community. Everyone will have a Polish or Latvian uncle or aunt or such like. It will be very normal. Culturally they fit in well, the Catholic Church is experiencing a revival because of them.
The issue is what to do with enclaves that actively refuse integration and seem to get more extremist as time passes, not less so.
My only suggestion is to stop pandering to them. Refuse to pay for ‘community leaders’, and special pleading. Make everyone deal with the State in English. No translation of Council leaflets into 50 different languages. No special dispensations for religious intolerances. Be up front and honest and defend our own cultural heritage. State clearly what the UK stands for, and what we will not tolerate.
It is the culture of appeasement in government that encourages the hothead extremists to demand more and more concessions. You can never win by constantly acceeding to the demands of your opponent.
Ed P said...
13 Dec 09 at 4:44 pm
Great post! But remember how this mess was created.
The buck stops with Blair’s “behind the scenes” policies. The hidden agenda of mass immigration to hasten a multicultural society, just like his hidden “preparations” for war, did not permit sensible distribution, planning or the provision of local services. Displacement of the indigenous and the rise of ghettos & the BNP were the inevitable result.
Greig said...
13 Dec 09 at 5:42 pm
The Nazis in their wilderness years to adopted the ‘leader’ model (@ Bamberg, Franconia) , and thereafter, everything was going to be top-down. The Nazi party was not to be a democratic or consensus based institution.
“Of course the German working classes, having been through a depression and economic disaster, saw it differently – they saw Jewish people making a living and not sharing their wealth with the German people. Jealousy quickly turns to hatred, and all it then takes is the right politician to come along to threaten to use the power of the state to redress the balance and, it seems, all hell breaks loose.”
Not really, genocide ( by transition) became possible, and therefore it became a policy, B, was because of A, – allied to Hitler’s Armenian reasoning, and a solution which was not final, wasn’t really a solution in the mind of Hitler.
Greig
Joe Otten said...
13 Dec 09 at 6:00 pm
A great post and an important insight, Charlotte. It is absurd to assign people as good and evil on the basis of social class as it is to do it on the basis of race.
But I agree with Tristan that you are using the term socialism wrongly here. Most political ideologies are infected with the instinct to divide society and pick winners. Conservatism does this as much as socialism, but picks winners who were winning already. (Which is why under communism after a while it becomes hard to tell who is a revolutionary and who is a counter-revolutionary.)
Iggy Pop's Socks said...
13 Dec 09 at 6:06 pm
“National Socialism was a religion and Hitler was its Christ. Crucified at the Feldherrnhalle and risen after Landsberg, he had returned to lead the movement and the nation to salvation.”
That’s it – so when the Soviets over-ran Hitler’s last real oil field in late 1944, the issue of fighting the largest war in history without a real oil supply wasn’t an issue, miracles were to be expected as policy.
‘On the cloudless afternoon of October 3, 1942, a rocket burner ignited a mixture of potato schnapps and liquid oxygen to send a 13-ton, 46-foot-long V2 rocket. Originating from the German test site of Peenemünde, arcing over the Baltic, and continuing on course for 58 seconds until the engine cut off after placing the rocket in its trajectory. Five minutes later, upon reaching an altitude of over 50 miles, it splashed down into the sea. The launch of the V2 rocket, the world’s first long-range ballistic missile, was one of the twentieth century’s defining events, auguring both the space age and the high-tech killing of civilians.’
http://www.archaeology.org/0205/abstracts/letter.html
And London was to be destroyed by a hugely expensive and resource hungry spud powered missile.
When what Hitler really needed was a gear-box for tanks that worked, only by over-engineering complete crap, would his state of the art tanks move.
The shock of Stalingrad, that was unpleasant, defeat was possible, the Germans could get over losing VI army,
the losses at Minsk, there was no time to process the overwhelming psychology, of losing – three reliable, efficient, competent and proven armies had disappeared and Germany somehow had find a replacement, which was trauma, to find the last soldiers,
La Grande Armée, only had to do Armageddon once, the German military, were going to have to do it twice,
So, they were in the market for miracles right to the end.
Greig
James D said...
13 Dec 09 at 7:16 pm
The socialist overt anti-racism agenda is worse than that: it allows race to be an issue in places where there is no real issue. In the Welsh Labour leadership contest, we witnessed one of the candidates (who was thankfully unsuccessful), Edwina Hart, attacking Welsh-medium education on the basis of Welsh speakers being mainly white, whilst failing to mention that Wales in general is much whiter than England. And the fact that in Cardiff, the least white place in Wales, there are more mixed-race people than black people is suggestive of a high level of racial harmony.
You are completely right that socialism has to be stopped, but how this is to be achieved in Wales is another matter: the two largest parties are a socialist unionist party and a socialist-agrarian nationalist party. There is a distinct lack of a liberal nationalist party. The Welsh Lib Dems could fill that gap, but they are beyond incompetent, as was demonstrated by their letting UKIP in in the EU elections.
And here we come back to the problem of the Lib Dems being a rubbish liberal party. I’m going to vote to re-elect my Lib Dem MP next year, but I’m not going to join them. But maybe that’s why it’s all my fault.
Matt said...
13 Dec 09 at 7:58 pm
Has everyone missed Jim’s post?
Don’t appease Islam. That would be the best first step on the long road back from the brink.
IMHO –and Jim’s
Edward said...
13 Dec 09 at 11:59 pm
Sadly, an incorrect analysis on either Hayek’s part or the author’s. It’s been so long since I last read Hayek than I can’t remember which is the case. The German middle-classes were not destroyed before Nazism. Far from it: the Mittelstand were one of Hitler’s power bases, and as artisan capitalists, enjoyed the benefits of the very anti-Semitic laws that the author describes. (They are now one of the FDP’s power bases. History produces such ironies.)
We live in 2009. Can we really find Hayek convincing when he writes that socialism may lead to totalitarianism by means of changes to domestic political institutions that grant more power to governments? That doesn’t seem to hold true when we look back at the twentieth century. Totalitarian governments more often came to power by revolutions or by outside imposition, and so they don’t reflect governments gradually seizing more and more power. The Nazi Party is a rare case of that process. Twentieth-century totalitarians were more like Lenin, Mao or Pol Pot; they were revolutionaries who first achieved power and then imposed socialism (or capitalism) in whatever form they chose. The institutional evolution that Hayek proposed didn’t bring forth totalitarians to anywhere near the same extent as anti-institutional revolutions. So we should look at the causes of those revolutions, particularly those of the Communists.
In each case, evil men came to power due to feudal conditions in which the poor enjoyed no rights. The development economist Daron Acemoglu and his associates propose an interesting model: there will be a revolution if the poor can gain more by seizing capital owned by the rich elite than by staying in the place, even if much of the capital must be destroyed in the process. So it seems that a radical lack of concern for the poor, including the absence of the welfare state that the author so derides, is the halfway-house on road to serfdom, more than any socialist intervention to which one can point. Libertarians, make of that what you will.
Call me Taff said...
14 Dec 09 at 1:47 am
“the least white place in Wales, there are more mixed-race people than black people is suggestive of a high level of racial harmony.”
The Sikh bangle ban, was to exlude ONE Sikh girl from a school which had an appalling track record of brazen indifference to its statutory responsibilities re: race relations act.
Sikh Bangle Ban School in Breach of Race Laws for Five Years
7 Dec 2007 … She said, “The Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 made a requirement … Publication Information: Article Title: Sikh Bangle Ban School in …
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst;jsessionid…?a=o&d=5024289053
I didn’t see the LEA slap them down for racism, wasting public money and being a bunch of retards.
It was so typical of blame free Britain. It is no wonder paedophiles view the welsh school system as their special thing.
They didn’t want ANY Sikhs at their school.
I know the dump well, it was run by a pack of racists who if there was a difference between them and the BNP, I honestly could not see it myself.
Call me Taff
Phil said...
14 Dec 09 at 2:31 am
Tristan,
“It is not strictly the socialist movement we are talking about here, but the authoritarian statist movement which found many supporters amongst socialists, but also amongst the ruling classes.”
I’d certainly agree with the sentiments there. Authoritarian “socialism” is an abhorrent ideology, and at that a patronising one assuming that we need a puffed up “vanguard party” to say what’s best for us.
But that notwithstanding, it’s still fallacious to blame “socialism” (of any stripe) for fascism. Hitler, Mussolini and franco were supported by the business classes and the liberal elites of Europe as a way of crushing the working class.
David Gillies said...
14 Dec 09 at 3:30 am
Hayek portrayed the Fascist/Bolshevik conflict as essentially a turf war. He’s right. When I were a lad, the campus SWP contingent were just as doctrinaire anti-liberal as the NF scrotes they purported to despise. I have been called ‘f***ing Tory scum’ (despite being a minarchist libertarian of the first water) by some random Dave Spart type for attempting to argue that viewpoints not coincident with the prevailing Leftist consensus nonetheless merited a forum.
(don’t know your policy on profanity, Charlotte, hence asterisks.)
Letters From A Tory said...
14 Dec 09 at 10:33 am
“Jealousy quickly turns to hatred”
Did anybody else have a ‘Yoda moment’ when they read that?
Charlotte Gore said...
14 Dec 09 at 10:39 am
A Yoda moment I had writing it, yes.
Philip Walker said...
14 Dec 09 at 10:44 am
David: keep reading. Charlotte’s all in favour of profanity, as far as I can tell.
Charlotte: great post. Picking up on your comments on the public services, I like to say that ‘market-oriented public sector reform is an immigration issue.’ (I need a snappier version!) You never see businessmen complaining about how immigration is causing them problems, but all the issues arise in the public sector. So when we can make the public sector more market-oriented, we’ll find that the increased responsiveness decreases resentment at immigration.
Laurence said...
14 Dec 09 at 11:24 am
I greatly enjoyed this piece.
What please is a “Yoda moment”? I get the reference but I have never seen Star Wars. Come to that, I don’t care for Marcus Prigstocke either.
Joe Otten said...
14 Dec 09 at 12:55 pm
Even in the public sector it is not a one-way street. The NHS would be grossly undercapacity without immigrant labour.
Philip Walker said...
14 Dec 09 at 1:51 pm
Joe: that’s true, but it’s only a part of the story. As you say, it’s a two-way street, but in slow, sticky, unresponsive public services, the traffic is mostly going in the wrong direction.
Leon Greenwell said...
14 Dec 09 at 2:06 pm
The Indian sub-continent has been studying commerce for 5000 years
Us natives utterly refuse to, and usually rely on trades handed down by families, which is getting increasingly more difficult
David Scott said...
14 Dec 09 at 8:47 pm
Although, I personally am so far to the left that even the democrats appear to me to be “right-wing,” I consider myself to be a strict constitutionalist. It is my opinion that since its inception there has been an organized and systematic assault by the conservatives in the United States (and in the other industrialized nations) on the civil liberties written into the US Constitution. The “War on Drugs”; “War on Terror”; “War on Communism” and a host of other wars waged by the right wing are really nothing more than a War on People–an excuse to erode civil rights to the point of non-existence. I invite you to my website devoted to raising awareness on this puritan attack on freedom: http://pltcldscsn.blogspot.com/
donpaskini said...
14 Dec 09 at 11:50 pm
Hi Charlotte,
At the start of the 20th century, there were riots in the East End in protest about Jewish immigration, and in 1902 there were 45,000 members of the British Brothers League, which emphasised the economic problems caused by the immigrants, as well as attacking them as carriers of disease and for their supposed criminal tendencies. There was hardly a welfare state to speak of, and the government pursued classically liberal economic policies.
In the 1950s, at the height of the consensus in favour of central planning and the welfare state, there were hardly any protests about the mass immigration which was taking place.
So it is just not the case that, “As the state grows and “gives” more and more to the nationals in its jurisdiction, so the pressure grows to limit who counts as ‘in’ and who counts as ‘out’.”
The greatest level of hostility to immigrants does not correlate with the size of the state, but with things like unemployment and poor housing.
On the rise of Hitler, Richard Evans’ books are good.
Greig said...
15 Dec 09 at 12:24 am
In 1902 the issue was ‘where’ the Jews were going, I think many of the people opposed, had no objections to Jewish settlement within the empire or more widely across Britain.
Being opposed to the creation of a Jewish ghetto in London, is not exactly the same as being anti-semitic. Though obviously anti-semitic types will be opposed as well.
Malcolm Todd said...
16 Dec 09 at 12:30 am
To add my tuppenceworth to the fairly thorough debunking of this article on its historical misconceptions, it’s simply not true that “it’s [Labour] who’ve spent the last 100 years telling everyone that Free Trade (which includes free movement of people) is a bad and terrible thing”. Before WW2 at least the Labour Party was a firm adherent of free trade (while the Tories tended to be protectionist; don’t know about the Liberals at that time – though they were certainly in favour of state intervention in the economy from Keynes’s time).
http://www.labour-party.org.uk/manifestos
Greig said...
17 Dec 09 at 5:02 am
The first Labour PM was brought in (1924) on an anti-protectionist ticket.
Winston the Smithy said...
22 Dec 09 at 5:27 am
While you mention some points I agree with, you fail to see the underlying reality of the growth of immigrant populations, currently at a minority.
You speak of Pakistanis:
“I look around the town where I live and I see a disturbing parallel – a hated and despised immigrant population (mostly from Pakistan) whose main source of employment appears to be either self employment or working for other people from Pakistan. Any poverty in the Pakistani community is hidden because the only interactions most white people have with them is when they order take-away, or go into a corner shop, or order a taxi.”
Muslims associate with Muslims predominately. They do not want to associate with the ‘infidels’ (that’s you and me by the way) for they are taught that in their Koran. You won’t see them down the pub or the social. They don’t drink, but yet again associating with infidels and westerners.
More so, the majority of the Pakistani population in the UK is unemployed, the husband and wife are on the dole and he’s doing a cash in hand job as a taxi/delivery driver for a takeaway.
You will also find as well that their children, although born in the UK do not learn English or English literature first, but instead Urdu or Bengali.
In essence you have people growing up in the UK, sectioning themselves off from the rest of society, creating their own ghettos and of course creating a problem for the future.
Tell me Charlotte, what happens when the majority of people in the UK are Muslim? Tell me also what happens when men within Islam are taught from an early age that women are half that of men and to do with with their pleasure? What also happens in a democratic country when the Muslims all decide to vote for the Sharia Party of the UK and then once in power, decide all women should be dressed from head to foot in a tent, all must convert to Islam and obey the will of Allah and of course all Sharia Law Courts take preference over English and Scottish Law courts. In fact, what happens when they just decide that seeing as they’re the majority, they’ll now destroy British Culture, implement a Muslim one, remove democracy completely and put in a supreme spiritual leader as they have in Iran?
Well you’ve got 50 years to decide. I know you’ll probably be dead, but you see, unlike our ancestors who gave their lives for our liberty and freedom, we have done nothing whatsoever to protect our future generations. We are handling them a hellish future.
Could you imagine in WW1 and WW2 if the British people had the same political philosophies in control then as we do now? There would have been no retaliation against Hitler – “Mustn’t upset and offend the Germans. We’re not being politically correct. How dare we abuse their human rights of wanting to invade Poland and eventually us? Better just get on with our lives, lie on our backs and put paper bags on our heads, waiting for the Germans to come and conquer us. We don’t want to be looked upon as racists, good God no.”
So what do you do Charlotte? Do you want to preserve a libertarian UK, or do you want to allow it to disappear, while foreign culture grow and eventually (as all culture do) fight for supremacy? Of course I’m speaking of Islam, because there really is no other culture in the world that wants to dominate over everyone, imposing their culture upon all at pain of death.
The cracks are appearing in the dam, that will destroy you, your house and your quaint little village. Do you patch up the dam and stop any leaking of water or do you allow the cracks to get bigger, thus eventually creating a breach and total annihilation of your lovely little Utopia?
Islamisation is inevitable, purely by population growth. Muslims procreate far more than any other demographic, while ironically the indigenous are dying out, because of many factors – feminism, materialism, end of family, pro single parent and single child family etc etc.
So Charlotte, again, how do you solve the problem of Islamisation? Do you act on it, making sure it doesn’t grow anymore (how would you do that?) or do you just like on your back with a paper bag on your head waiting for a supreme spiritual leader of Islam, to enforce your children (daughters) into wearing a black tent for the rest of their lives, because the men don’t want to be held responsible for their actions of rape because they couldn’t keep their dick in their pants?
It’s a tough question isn’t it? Are you a smart Libertarian who will use force in order to stop your demise, or are you a stupid libertarian who is against any use of force whatsoever?
Winston the Smithy said...
22 Dec 09 at 5:46 am
“The only way to stop National Socialism in the UK is to stop socialism.”
And how on earth do you propose that? You’ve have a far better chance of contacting the captain of the Marie Celeste for goodness sake.
Go to any state school, college and University campus and not only will you see socialism rife within, not forgetting that the overwhelming majority of lecturers happen to also be, that is unless their not members of the Communist party, but you’ll also see that it’s the mantra of most students. Forget Conservatism or Libertarianism. Notice how I don’t say Liberalism, for the simple reason that it’s now fully merged into one homogeneous blob with socialism?
Our younger generations, since the 60′s have been indoctrinated by Socialism. Walk along the street in London and go past an SWP stand – students, at the ripe old age of 20, telling us all how we should live our lives.
In the past, politicians, school teachers, professors, policemen, in fact anyone in any major establishment was in charge, because of their experience, common sense and understanding if the University of Life. Look at it today, leaders of Conservative and Liberal parties in their early 40s, along with the lecturers, head teachers and police.
I’m 38, but I shake my head in realisation that “here we go again” some plum, just out of their nappies, controlling everyone’s lives and no doubt about to make some major f*ck ups for everyone.
We are living in an ageist society, where if you’re over the age of 25 don’t think about a career in music. In fact if you’re over 30, your on the scrap heap for employment. We want pretty young things, whom like putty, we can mould into what we want them to be.
Thankfully in the past, we had our elders and those who had acquired wisdom to keep society straight. Sure there were always the young upstarts with their grandiose ideas of Utopia, freedom and peace for all, but they were kept in check by their elders and upon growing older, understanding life better they were thankful for their elders “reigning them in.”
Now however, we have no one to reign anyone in and keep them in check. We have the problem of the socialists getting into power, who continually make mistake after mistake after mistake and it’s always the public who have to put up with it and pay the price. Then again it’s the public who vote these twits in, that is, if they do vote in political elections. It seems all are now far too interested in voting on Cowell TV 4 or 5 times a year or so.
Does Socialism cause Racism? « Left Outside said...
28 Dec 09 at 8:27 pm
[...] month DK’s quote of the day from Charlotte Gore and her post inspired by Hayek’s Road To Serfdom. It may be that the socialists are the most [...]
Liberal Conspiracy » Does socialism really cause racism? said...
30 Dec 09 at 1:01 pm
[...] month DK’s quote of the day from Charlotte Gore and her post inspired by Hayek’s Road To Serfdom. It may be that the socialists are the most [...]