Wednesday, June 06, 2012

A Mess of Pottage

In an appropriate follow-up to last night’s report by Bewick, our English correspondent Pierre Picaud discusses what the Diamond Jubilee celebrations reveal about Modern Multicultural Britain.

Diamond Jubilee, Queen Elizabeth II

“Unity through Diversity”?
by Pierre Picaud

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

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

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

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

(This essay’s title is drawn from the very moving speech given by Prince Charles, in recognition of his mother’s tireless service, at the conclusion of last night’s performance.)

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

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

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

What a relief!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where were the others? Our fellow “Britons”?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Furthermore, these myths would be reinforced by numerous means.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The newcomers want no part of it, thank you very much.

Benefits? — “Yes.”

Sacrifices? — “Hmm. We’d rather not, if it’s all the same to you.”

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

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

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

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

We will not see the likes of this weekend again.

Previously by Pierre Picaud: A Subtle Cultural Shift


Brock Townsend said...

Most excellent and posted.

Anonymous said...

I tried commenting on this observation on a few of the msm forums i read regularly (nothing racist or abusive) just pointing out what this article is about.And just as i suspected none of them got published.

Anonymous said...

You will find some interesting names and ideas in that short youtube video, which help explain how and why the events mentioned in this excellent article have occurred.

Anonymous said...

The issue of race is a complex one. I think one item that people neglect is that "race" is associated with more than biology. It is associated with a strongly shared history. In the case of the English ethnogroup, no other people on this Earth will ever know quite what it's like to be "English" like the indigenous people of the lower isles. You can't bring in foreigners and expect them to magically turn into "Britons" when they couldn't care less about some of the factors that make up such an identity.

I regularly mourn the fools who continue to support "diversity" with such good intentions but have no idea what damage they are allowing.

Anonymous said...

Lovely sentiment, BUT the English received OIL that fuels their modern life in exchange for their sacrifice.

A very poor deal was struck because, eventually the immigrants themselves will ensure that BOTH the English - and modern life too will COMPLETELY disappear.


Anonymous said...

On my way in to work this morning I listened to the BBC Radio discussion/news programme '5 live'. The listener phone-in topic this morning - 'Have the Olympic games been hi-jacked by commercialism?'

It's the wrong question. It's not commercialism that's hi-jacked the games, it's multiculturalism. Just as the forces of multiculturalism (with their incessant 'anti-racism' bleating) are in the process of hi-jacking the European Championship football tournament in Poland and Ukraine which commences this week.

Those same forces attempted to hi-jack the Queen's Jubilee Celebrations. As this excellent article points out, it didn't quite work out that way - it was a multicultural podium but an overwhelmingly English audience.

Anonymous said...

In English it's programme not program; program is American.

thehawkreturns said...

I tried to post at two MSM sites that the "Defender of the Faith" had failed miserably and, indeed, had failed to even mention the hordes of non-Faithful "cultural enrichers" breaching her borders. And yes, neither were published.

Anonymous said...

The only jarring moments for me was on the BBC coverage outside the Palace where there was someone with a Saltire and a lion of Scotland.There was an Irish tricolour somewhere also. All the other flags were the Union flag. I did not see one flag of St George when the vast majority of those on the street must have been English.

jimbola said...

I grew up in south london and am now 36 years old. I have been subjected to this barrage of propaganda my whole life and for many years had bought into it wholoesale.

But the more they chucked it down or throuts the more I smelled a rat, and after 1997 things got immeasurably worse to the point that I'm now an ardent (working class) right winger.

So there is at least hope that there are millions more like me, who's eyes, ears and brain are in good working order despite the lefts attempts to cloud our minds and disposses us.

Your post was bang on the money.

Anonymous said...

I loved this essay. Only one mistake. ''Liars or fools'' should read liars,fools and thieves.

Pat said...

Every word true! Even here in the south west of England, with fewer ethnic races than other parts we have diversity rammed down our throats by all the local media. One black child in a school gets to be centre photo if the school holds an event. It is so blatantly obvious what they are doing. They just don't seem to care what the indigenous people think any more. Like you say, woe betide anyone who passes an unfavourable comment.

gsk said...

Point well made. Indeed, wasn't there a terrific degree of "diversity" in every great event during the reign of Queen Victoria? Pictures come to mind of all sorts of ethnic diversity, but at the service of the crown. Surely, the legal mandates of an empire were different then, but there was a common mission, ideal and identity. Now, although all the elements of freedom and liberality have been offered to those same peoples--and more--and they can't lift a Union Jack in gratitude. Ah well, a million white Britons looking at one another might jog their memories, and revive their spirits. It's not about the skin colour, but the residual pride that's been shaken out, and we may be surprised at the effect.

Anonymous said...

Traditionally, westerners are used to having their loyalty attached to their nation, which also represented their ethnic group (Germans, English, French, Americans, etc). The result of multiculturalism will be that people's loyalty detaches from the nation state, to their ethnic group.

Anonymous said...

I was down by the riverside, at a luncheon for 400, to watch the flotilla go past. Apart from a handful of sikhs/Hindus (women were wearing union flag sarees)- and I do mean a handful - the rest were as white as a sheet. And in the throng of thousands on my way back to Waterloo station, again, a handful of Indians, but no blacks at all. Certainly no muslims anywhere - and they are most ready to identify themselves through their appearance.

bewick said...

Wow. Did I start something!
I, unfortunately, watched Jubilee coverage on the Beeb. Bad choice.
I must say that I saw an obviously muslim woman with a union flag hijab. She was, as Pierre Picaud says, one of very few.
Beyond that there were very few of the "ethnic minorities" featured. Since is this is the now seriously left wing and seriously biased BBC then one must assume that they searched seriously hard and found the ethnic minorities "wanting".

IF they were there you can be sure the Beeb would have found them and would have trumpeted that to the exclusion of the indigenous. THEY WERE NOT THERE. Sort of fits with my Sikh story. THEY were asked to parties but didn't attend ( I wasn't asked to any party. Serves me right for being a grumpy old man)
There WAS one item during the concert which included the "african" choir. These were young kids from former British territory in Africa apparently brought here simply for this concert. NOT British residents. They were lovely and appeared seriously happy to be included.
Those already here seem less happy.

bewick said...

anonymous said
it is programme not program.
Not quite true. "program" is totally correct in reference to computers.
Windows 7 is a "program"; "Friends"; "The Killing"; "only fools and horses" are programmes. As is, say, a "programme for renewal"
Just saying

Brock Townsend said...

In English it's programme not program; program is American.

English spellings use to be prevalent in the South and are still used somewhat.

Linda Rivera said...

The plan was never to have Unity through Diversity. The plan was clearly to bring about Muslim conquest of Britain, Europe and other countries via the deliberate importation of many millions of Islam’s foot soldiers.

In Islam, the world is divided into two: The House of Islam, are the 56 nations conquered by Muslims. The House of War, are the nations not yet conquered by Islam – the rest of the world. Muslims are ordered in their military-religious books to CONQUER all nations.

Linda Rivera said...

Muslims Chase Cops in London….Police Run for Cover

What Will Happen When Islam Takes Over Britain WAKE UP!

The ethnic cleansing of Bury Park – Luton

The ethnic cleansing of Bury Park – Luton 2

Melvin Muskrat said...

Multiculturalism seems to be blending into the more au courant [au current?] Diversity. I guess maybe we're just cutting to the quick here. Little ones to the back of the line please. All those starting with 'I' to the front.

Anonymous said...

A last convulsion of Old Britain by courtesy of Madame Tussauds ?

In 1908 the diamond jubilee of the reign of the Emperor Franz-Joseph of Austria- Hungary (Emperor from 1848 until his death in 1916) was celebrated in Vienna with much pomp and splendour. The Emperor Wilhelm II of Germany together with the reigning heads of the German principalities came to Vienna to personally congratulate the then 78-year old Emperor Franz-Joseph.
However, the multicultural Austria-Hungary was in 1908 already much in decay and in 1918 the whole Empire collapsed and crumbled as a result of WW I.


Anonymous said...

Re: Program/programme. My eyes must have deceived me! Coulda sworn I read in this article 'program' which in the context should have been 'programme'. Apologies - couldn't find it anywhere. Duh! Great article though - though wish all those whites would start to defend their country by kicking the traitors that run it into touch!

Anonymous said...

This was the exact same panorama that received the wedding of Prince William. Same story, patriotism only in whites, I don't think I saw a beard or a burka in the audience.

Anonymous said...

Choosing whether to celebrate the jubilee or not isn't a question of 'do you like Britain?' or 'what do you think of the British?'.

A lot of people don't like the royal family. A lot of people don't believe that monarchies have a place in the 21st century, or that Britain needs to have an unelected head of state, or that large amounts of taxpayer's money should be given to one of the richest people in the world.

I'm English (and white, if it matters) and I decided not to celebrate the jubilee. I can understand why others would do the same.

Anonymous said...

Queen Elizabeth II's reign will be remembered as the one that presided over the decline of Great Britain from the heights of world dominion to a bankrupt balkanized/colonized failed state.

Not much to celebrate, Im afraid.

Except maybe that she may outlive her cuckholded son Charles the Prince of Wales (cuckholded by an "Asian" Muslim no less.

Maybe William can bring greatness back to England.


Anonymous said...

Excellent article BTW!


bewick said...

anonymous at 6/07 @ 9.07 pm said
"A lot of people don't believe that monarchies have a place in the 21st century, or that Britain needs to have an unelected head of state, or that large amounts of taxpayer's money should be given to one of the richest people in the world." Mmmm
The President of Italy costs almost double what the whole Royal Family costs. The President is a politician. Are you saying that you would prefer someone like Blair to be Head of State? I wouldn't.

Just today I read that tourism was likely to attract £1bn a year to Britain mainly because of the Royals.

Suggest you do some serious research before being so dogmatic. And also research comparative politics. I think you may just find that maybe, just maybe, our system is less corrupt than most.
Or are you using the "politics of envy"? Well now, I would NEVER have wished to swap places with the Queen or any Royal. Her workload is as great as mine ever was but at least I had privacy.

Profitsbeard said...

The new immigrants are their as colonists, not as citizens.

Why would they show up to honor the traditions they are in the U.K. to destroy, overwhelm, and replace?

They do not consider themselves "British", but as the future masters of these infidel dogs.

Anonymous said...

The last hurrah a melancholic pageant reeking of betrayal only the expected sentimentality of the occasion preventing the accusations being made.

Jolie Rouge