Bloody noses and crack’d crowns

I.

“The migrant invasion—we’ve been invaded.” You haven’t been invaded. An invasion happens when your army has been defeated and your capital sacked—an invasion looks like the picture above, and most people who complain “the migrants have invaded” are nowhere near as distraught as this Frenchman. I understand why people take the propaganda line “invasion”, it dramatises gradual migrant shifts—it makes people feel afraid, it changes the discourse about “our diverse migrant-based future”. Since we live in a democracy, it does what democrats always do—even right-wing democrats—it makes people play the victim, feel helpless. We have been invaded, we are the victims—nothing has been done to protect us. Yet, as with most democratic rhetoric, it is not real—there has been no invasion, you have not been defeated.

If, for example, Britain closed down the NHS—about 1/3 of whose employees are foreign—there would mass migration from Britain tomorrow; not only would employees and their families leave, so too would a major draw be removed. This is not the behaviour you see in an occupation army. Shut down the whole welfare state and you would see mass migration from Britain as well, just on a greater scale. Of course, it is difficult to do so in a democracy because the people are retarded (hat tip, Rajneesh—an Indian). People think, “But me nan will die if we don’t have the NHS,” and, “It’s free,” and they think those things because they are stupid. The NHS kills people, your nan may well die in a cold corridor after a 12-hour wait tended by a Filipino nurse who barely speaks English…But at least it was free. The NHS kills people and makes people ill—and, obviously, it is not free; it is paid for by taxation and loans—and like any state activity, apart from the army, it is rubbish.

Anyway, the point is that immigrants are not “invaders”—they are not even a coherent group with a single leader and objective; and, as recent riots in Leicester demonstrated, they fight among themselves as much as against the natives—in fact require “the white man” (or a Chinese man from Hong Kong who has become KC at a pinch) to come down and act as intermediary to stop the inter-communal violence. So, no—Europeans are not victims and should not play victim, even for rhetorical purposes. To change the migrant situation, you do not even need to use “forcible repatriation” and other dark euphemisms—shut off the welfare state and you would be amazed at the reverse flow.

I would add at this point that there is a particular aspect connected to Anglo-Saxon psychology at play here. The world is dominated by America—the core culture in America is Anglo-Saxon; previously, the world was dominated by Britain, same story. The unique point about these peoples is that they have never been conquered. Britain has barely been invaded—British institutions, like Parliament and the monarchy, show an almost 1,000-year-long continuity and that situation is only matched by organisations like the Vatican. Similarly, the Americans—although there was back-and-forth in the Indian Wars—have never been really invaded.

In Europe, by contrast, you have countries like Spain that were formed on the basis of a 900-year struggle to emancipate themselves from Islam—and many other European countries have spent years occupied by various powers or rival tribes, events that have formed national psychologies at the biological level (their women were raped, I mean). The Anglos, by contrast, do have this bien pensant view about relations with other people because “Britons never, never, never shall be slaves”—and, frankly, haven’t been. This situation, along with America’s vast size, makes the attitude to immigration very different—the very secure person can afford to show noblesse oblige to the outsider. “Invaded? But you are too ridiculous…do you mean the Germans?”.

The Twitter account ReStation recently noted that French police officials tend to make very terse statements about migrants along the lines, “It’s the migrants. They’re the criminals, they’re the main problem.” Anglo-Saxons would never do that, partly from politeness, but also because they have not been brutalised by foreign invaders—there is an innocence to Anglos, particularly in America; and, as they say, “nothing bad ever happens in America”. The French have been traumatised by outsiders (see above) and so they relate differently to the outsider—they are not a snug cozy little island or an isolated continent; they are relatively “open” to invasion. The whole mentality is different. So, similarly, the French army drills to suppress prospective Islamist uprisings—although perhaps the British do too, albeit more discreetly.

II.

A similar “invasion” dynamic pertains with Rishi Sunak: people post images where Indians celebrate that “they” rule the British now—invasion! “Oh, the irony, the British ruled India and now the Indians rule Britain.” Taleb has a similar line where he notes that France invaded Algeria, but now the French eat couscous. This is an old story, even found in Latin mottos—the conquered conquer the conquerer, the Romans speak Greek. The problem is it is contrived—in the Sunak case both from pro-Indian and pro-British sources—because Sunak is not a conquering Indian maharaja. He does not speak Hindi, he speaks English—he was culturally formed by elite British public schools and universities. He does not dress in traditional Hindu costume, he wears a suit. He does not intend to impose Hinduism—so I believe, anyway—on Britain or make Hindi the official language; nor is he in a position to do so. All the cultural currency for Sunak goes one way—the British way, he has submitted to Englishness.

Sunak is not some lusty son of the Hindutva—he is not an Indian “man” at all; an Indian man fully instantiates his Indian traits, whereas Sunak’s parents sold out their Indianness to be rich in Britain—they alienated their son from his Indian nature in the process, feminised him (to judge from his smile he may be actually homosexual too). He is owned—Uncle Tom, as black Americans say; all the cultural domination goes the white man’s way. Leftists know this to be so and that is why they would say, technically, Sunak is oppressed; he “acts white”—he is constructed purely from a Western framework, constrained by white supremacy (an exoticised addition to England, another Indian gem—human capital this time, not mineral—transported back to the imperial metropolis for display). Of course, the left is not sincere about this cultural interpretation—the answer is not for Sunak to return to Mother India, bathe in the Ganges, and adopt the Hindutva; rather, he should adopt some puppeted “Indian nationalism” that is thin slap that disguises the hideous Marxist visage beneath.

So Britain has not been “conquered” by the Indians—it is not “ruled” by the Indians; and the same was true with Obama—indeed, he was not even, as black Americans knew, really black; he was not a son of slaves, not formed by the black cultural experience in America—he was a weird Pygmalion project created to please Anglo-Jewish intellectuals. This is what is true in culture—however, it is customary to stop the analysis there. Polite society says, “A divergent cultural interpretation, how novel.” But we are not going to stop.

These things work at several levels. No, Britain has not been conquered by India. No, America has never been “run by the blacks”—and never will be. Yes, Sunak is culturally owned by the white man and alienated from what it is to be Indian. Yet despite the cultural complexity, the cultural hegemony in which different races operate, the racial factor is still present. So, yes, it will disturb the British political equilibrium to be ruled by a racial outsider—people cognise these factors at the unconscious level, even if the person is acculturated and shows submission to white culture. Men do not want to be run by men from different tribes—archaically it signals slavery, or perhaps impending slaughter (and certain unconscious factors among mothers, wives, and daughters will also egg them on in this regard).

Hence Obama caused massive blowback—Trump—because not only was he a racial outsider, he also represented a non-American culture (his confected progressive liberalism); it was too much for the American body politic to take. In Britain, the backlash will be less severe, given that Sunak submits to British culture, but there will still be a backlash—and that is because at an unconscious level, culture aside, people take note as regards the racial power dynamics. It is particularly primal and though heavily repressed—effectively medicated against through soporific propaganda and material luxury—still present in the democracy.

Multiracial societies are low-trust societies because racial allegiance ultimately transcends cultural overlay, though not in a simple and uniform way. Earlier, I noted that before Sunak took office the Tories had floated the idea that 3M Indian immigrants might come to Britain—that had nothing to do with Sunak, if he wanted to help his co-ethnics he would be more subtle than that. Yet many people will hear that news and then see his appointment and think, “So it’s run for the Indians, eh?”. The truth is immaterial because that is the impression that is created—and sometimes the suspicion is justified, there is a racial cabal at work.

Indeed, Sunak immediately appointed Braverman—who would in ordinary circumstances be “out” ministerially—as Home Secretary because she is, just like him, from an East African Indian family; he can trust her more than other people—you trust and work with your own. Yet can such a situation provide legitimate government, especially when you have been appointed and not elected?

“But what about Disraeli, he was a Jew—Christian, just as Sunak is culturally English—and that was fine!” Well, the fact is that the dynamics were different because there were few Jews in the country at the time and the Jews also look European—whereas today there are many Asians in the country and people can “see” when favouritism happens, whereas with the Jews you can politely pretend otherwise. Besides, Disraeli was not really Tory—he put forward the One Nation idea, the idea that Conservatives should work to make the country more equal; and this is because the Jews, highly ethnocentric, favour egalitarian policies to make the tribe more secure as a corporate body—Europeans want a hierarchical environment characterised by individual competition.

Further, if you read Disraeli’s famous novel Coningsby you find he attacks proper old Conservatives like the Duke of Wellington, sneers at soldiers—not very conservative. In fact, Disraeli rose to power when Britain had already entered decadence—his premiership was not really Conservative and was a step along the road to decline. So Disraeli cannot be taken as a successful example in this regard—Sunak is, in this sense, Disraeli+ because he is decadence plus; and he is different because Britain is properly multiracial now, unlike in Dizzy’s day, and must deal with all the complications that go along with that...

The great irony about northwestern Europeans in this regard is that they are not particularly ethnocentric—not predisposed to cabal formation—and so easily torture themselves over notions around “inclusion” and “racism”, while other groups, such as the Pakistanis and Jews, happily form ethnocentric support networks to help “our people” without any bad conscience about it being unfair or “not treating people as individuals”. What is racially distinct in northwestern Europeans is that they treat other people as individuals—not completely, but to a greater degree than most. Hence they are the most likely to believe a multiracial society will work, seeing everyone as individuals, while actually having the most to lose from it—since other groups will not extend the same consideration to them.

III.

In this way, trust in multiracial societies collapses—sometimes the suspicions are legitimate, sometimes, per the leftist notion, there genuinely is a malevolent agitator who exaggerates or invents non-existent or innocuous cabals. In the Sunak case, what will happen—especially since he has no mandate to govern, the Conservatives being in general chaos—will be that there will be a backlash. The membership—being more ethnocentric than most, being conservative—voted for Truss in a previous run-off against Sunak, even though she is useless, because they did not want to be led by a racial outsider. Conservative voters will likely abstain in the next election as a protest—they were ignored.

Meanwhile, those Labour voters who broke “the red wall” and voted Conservative to get their Brexit will be dismayed to find Sunak is PM—they are more ethnocentric than even the Tories. Bazza of Norf FC will say, “I voted bleedin Tory for me bleedin Brexit and now we ’ave a bleedin Pakistani PM.” They will turn back to Labour, back to a party led by a racially white man—even his name resonates: Keir Starmer, Keir Hardy (founder of the Labour Party); he speaks to our people, our lads down the pit. In these conditions, the Conservatives will be swept aside in a landslide.

There is an oddity in leftist politics caused by the fact that the working class is not very bright; hence the working class is more ethnocentric than the middle class—hates outsiders more—and yet is led by people who claim to like outsiders more, the socialist intellectuals. The working class do not realise this is so; they just think “Labour is for people like us, not those posh people with funny accents” (they are “nationalist” about class, sometimes even about accent and accent locality)—the decision, as with much politics, is purely tribal; and this is not the thinking strata of society, just the strata played by slick intellectuals or people, like Starmer, who rise from the working class into professions, usually state-subsidised, like teaching or social work.

It is not impossible that they deliberately betray what they come from because although they say “I’m Labour through and through” they secretly despise what they come from and are happy to “punish” it with a migrant dump—so works the human heart, I know. You see, men like Starmer or DH Lawrence who rise up out of the working class are at the same time, even if they pitch themselves as its defenders, alienated from it—they’re “always readin fookin books” (which is what posh people do, risible) and “ee thinks ees better than oos because ee went to a poncey university”. They have actually left their class—and it actually despises them; so you have to wonder what their motivations are when they aspire to lead it.

It is only idiot socialist intellectuals, like Orwell, who come from the higher classes who romanticise the working classes “hope lies with the proles”—the proles are stupid, cruel, and utterly narrow-minded; and the people who rise up from them, even to lead them, are alienated from them because anyone with any sensitivity or nous will be alienated from an environment that is animal-like, brutal, resentful, and hateful towards what is superior and beautiful—unless strictly drilled. Anyway, the irony here—I am big on irony at the moment, so is life hey-hey—is that the people who most dislike foreigners, the working class, have foreigners dumped upon them by their political leaders because socialist parties are led by intellectuals who have fanciful religious ideas about “the brotherhood of man” and think that the fact that a Lancastrian works with the same plastic-press machine as an Indonesian makes them “brothers” who are identical due to occupational category.

In a way, it is all coincidental—a kind of retarded joke—that these people, so unlike the people they purport to represent, should become the spokesmen for a group whose actual interests are totally divergent from their own intellectual heralds. They encourage the working class to feel class hatred and then use the distraction to open the door to even more divergent alien groups—and such groups, as in Rotherham, then actually prey on the socialist constituency. Socialists are atheists, of course—they stir up envy against their own countrymen, encourage disloyalty, and then offer up the people they want to “save” to foreigners. Such is the perversity found in the godless—disloyalty, envy, betrayal.

This is a long way to say that the red wall will revert to Labour with a vengeance—the working class stirred by racial instincts, by loyalty to “our boy” Starmer (and he really is “their boy”, so much more so than middle-class Corbyn). The Conservatives will be wiped out, bereft of their usual constituency and the Brexit bump from the working class. It is only fortunate that Corbyn does not lead Labour—these circumstances are the one case in which he might have conceivably won, since people prefer to be tyrannised by one of their own rather than be led, even moderately well, by the outsider (the shame of it—it disgusts me, as it should disgust any man). Corbyn, of course, would probably run an almost all-white cabinet that would ramp up immigration and crash the economy—yet that would just illustrate the general tensions and ironies in the situation, man rarely being consistent.