To be alive in Britain in the mid-21st century is to constantly be exposed to the half-baked opinions of half-educated people who purport to have expertise; it is to be relentlessly confronted with debased and incoherent ideas. This takes its toll – it has a large, cumulative, demoralising effect on society to be force-fed a diet of intellectual gruel. And it is suggestive that we have a very bleak future in store, because it indicates that we are in the grip of a way of thinking – which psychiatrist Iain McGilchrist recently called “deluded” – that can lead us nowhere but down.
This was brought home to me viscerally by a recent news story concerning Wildlife and Countryside Link (WCL), a “coalition” of conservation and environmental charities and other such organisations, which includes some of the biggest and most familiar names in the charitable sector – Greenpeace, the National Trust, the RSPB, the WWF, etc. WCL submitted a written response to a call for evidence issued back in November 2023 by a group of MPs (the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Race and Community) on the subject of ‘Racism and the Environmental Emergency’. For whatever reason (a slow news day, perhaps), this response was dug up by journalists last week and paraded as being an accusation that the British countryside is a racist, colonial white space, or words to that effect; outrage has, entirely predictably, followed.
You can read the document in question here. It is important to say that the WCL has since issued a statement calling the news reporting a “misrepresentation” and pointing out that the document was only signed by 11 out of a total of 82 organisations represented by the Link. It is hard to know how to interpret this – it could be that the 11 organisations in question genuinely went off on a ‘frolic of their own’ in submitting the evidence, but it could be that they were actually representing the WCL as a whole and are now being thrown under a bus by the bigger member organisations who are embarrassed by the story. Whatever is the truth of the matter, it is I think the case that there is a bit of exaggeration going on in the news reports: the document doesn’t actually label the British countryside “a racist, colonial white space”. But acknowledging that it is an exaggeration shouldn’t cause us to overlook the very important fact that the WCL’s submission is still appalling drivel.
Before explaining why, let me get one major caveat out of the way. I have close family members who are not white. Generally speaking they do not encounter racism in their daily lives. But the main exceptions have always been on visits to the countryside (actually, specifically the Welsh countryside, where on one occasion the family was indeed memorably pelted with rocks by a gang of youths). I also happen to know a black person who was beaten up in rural Cumbria simply for not being white. So I do not want to be read here as denying what to me is plainly evident – there are actually some racists in rural Britain and sometimes they can be violent. It goes without saying that this is bad. And in drawing attention to this issue the WCL does have a point. One shouldn’t allow oneself to be blinded by the fog of the culture war on this.
The problem, then, is not that the WCL suggested – and this is only one of several themes in the document – that non-white people can feel put off from going into the countryside for fear of being the target of racist comments or even violence, and that this in turn can have an impact on their health, because walking in green spaces undoubtedly is good for you physically, mentally and (the WCL don’t use this word, of course) spiritually. This would I think be a huge oversimplification but could, if you squint at it, be considered a justifiable contribution to public debate.
The problem is the utterly bogus theoretical framework within which that contribution is made. Allow me to draw your attention to a quotation taken from section f of the document in question:
Cultural barriers reflect that in the U.K., it is White British cultural values that have been embedded into the design and management of green spaces, and into society’s expectations of how people should be engaging with them. Racist colonial legacies that frame nature as a ‘white space’ create further barriers, suggesting that people of colour are not legitimate users of green spaces.
You can imagine the intended effect of this paragraph. The reader (a Member of Parliament, let’s not forget), clearly, is supposed to furrow his brow, nod sagely, and say to himself, “Ah, yes, the embedding of cultural values, racist colonial legacies – a very important set of issues to deal with”. And, of course, he is then supposed to continue, “It’s a good job the WCL exists and I had better take it and its ideas seriously and perhaps bung some public money its way”.
What he is not supposed to do is to spend any time thinking about it, because if he did, he would quickly realise what bunk it is. What on earth does it mean to say that “white British cultural values” have been “embedded into the design and management of green spaces”? (Doesn’t this just mean that, as it is inescapably the case that the British countryside was created by British people, it is closely entwined with British identity in the same way that the Japanese countryside is closely entwined with Japanese identity and the Indian countryside is closely entwined with Indian identity, and so on and so forth?) What on earth are “white British cultural values” to begin with and what do they have to do with the countryside? (Is the author suggesting that non-white people can’t enjoy or comprehend the understated beauty of the British countryside on the basis of their being the wrong race?) How do “racist colonial legacies” frame nature as a “white space”? (I would have said that if anything it was the complete opposite: wasn’t one of the main themes of colonial discourse that colonial subjects were unsophisticated nature-dwellers who needed educated Europeans to help organise their societies? And more to the point, how is the British countryside beholden to a “colonial legacy” except perhaps in respect of the Anglo-Saxons or Romans, the most recent colonisers of Britain?) It is, in short, a tissue of ill-thought-out and unexplained assertions that the reader is required to take seriously just because the person scrawling them on the page has a tendentious claim to being an ‘expert’ of some kind.
The problem, then, is not that the WCL was calling the countryside “racist” (it wasn’t); and it isn’t that it was drawing attention to the fact that rural racism is actually a problem (it is). It is that it was dressing up its claims in a shroud of – forgive me for using the word, but it really is the most appropriate one to use – bullshit.
That it is bullshit is of course bad enough. And that it is taken at all seriously is worse: no society can have a bright future if its educated classes are this incapable of genuine thought. But it is indicative of a much more profound malaise, and here we need to spend a little bit of time with our friend Iain McGilchrist, whom I earlier mentioned.
In The Master and His Emissary (2009), McGilchrist meticulously lays out for us the case for understanding the human brain – like all animal brains – as being divided between two hemispheres with two different jobs. In doing so, he debunks the old 1960s notion that the left side of the brain was the reliable, dependable, rational one, and that the right side was creative and spiritual and filled with mumbo-jumbo. The actual division concerns two different ways of attending to the world. The right side of the brain’s job is to attend to the whole – to be aware of the surrounding environment. The left side of the brain’s job is to attend to the singular – to manipulating and getting. To use McGilchrist’s example, a bird needs to use the left side of its brain to focus on tasks like grabbing a worm or placing a twig to make a nest. It needs to use the right side of its brain to be aware of the world around it so as to avoid predators and so forth. This is a necessary division of labour present in all multi-cellular life.
Humans of course do more than birds, but McGilchrist explains human thought and ultimately human culture and civilisation as being nonetheless informed by these two different modes of attending. What is important here, above all, is that this means we have two different ways of interfacing, as it were, with the world around us. Our left brains see the world as being composed of objects to be manipulated. Our right brains see it as a continuous whole – the word he often uses in later work is a ‘flow’. It follows that what the left brain likes is abstraction: it likes to break everything down into pieces which it can understand and deal with in the singular. What the right brain likes is to see everything as inter-connected and interrelated. Put simplistically, the former sees the whole as being less than the sum of the parts and vice versa.
McGilchrist’s book is among the most important that I have ever read (and I don’t know anybody who has read it who does not value it as highly as I do), and its signal contribution is in drawing our attention to a fundamental error that is at the heart of our politics and indeed our approach to everything, from dating to architecture to economics to parenthood. This error is our obsession with dealing with abstract ‘re-presentation’ rather than what actually ‘presences’ to us: dealing with the map, and thinking that it is the same thing as the terrain. From an academic paper McGilchrist once published:
The [right hemisphere] is better at seeing things as they are preconceptually — fresh, unique, embodied and as they ‘presence’ (Heidegger, anwesen) to us. The left, then, sees things as they are ‘re-presented’, literally ‘present again’ after the fact, as already familiar abstractions or signs.
This is because it is the right hemisphere that experiences experience first, so to speak (being the one that is paying attention to the surroundings); it then passes what it experiences to the left hemisphere to sift through and identify what it thinks is useful or important, and the left brain does this on the basis of pre-existing categorisation (“Yes, that’s a worm, I’ve eaten one of those before, I’ll grab it again”). Our problem is that our thinking has become dominated by the left hemisphere, so we get stuck at the level of ‘re-presentation’ or “already familiar abstractions or signs”; we’ve lost the habit of re-embedding the ‘re-presentation’ back within the right hemisphere’s much richer and more complete perspective on the world. We are stuck in a web of theory, then, disconnected from reality.
McGilchrist concedes at the end of his book that his account might be wrong and indeed may be entirely metaphorical, but even as metaphor, it is one of great power and insight. And it describes our problem more fully than any other explanatory account I can think of: we, to repeat, increasingly encounter the world in our conscious state as a set of ‘re-presentations’ or “already familiar abstractions or signs”, not as a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. And this leads us to the absolutely crass and stupid theoretical nonsense that characterises our public life, which increasingly resembles a hall of mirrors – all representation, no reality. We fall for absurd, ‘gotcha’ explanations that crumble like dust when exposed to the light: “Ah yes, the reason why non-white people don’t go on country walks is because white British cultural values have been embedded into the design and management of green spaces.” And we convince ourselves not only that these theoretical CliffsNotes are plausible, but they are the actual underlying reality: that it makes sense to think of the British countryside not as a vast, interconnected and interrelated whole, constantly in motion, constantly changing, constantly in a state of ungraspable and irreducible flow, but as something that can simply be understood straightforwardly on the basis of “white British cultural values and racist colonial legacy”.
Michael Oakeshott, in his essay ‘Rationalism in Politics’ (also absolutely critical in understanding our predicament), long ago identified the same problem. When people are poorly educated, disconnected from their traditions and heritage, and put in charge, they lack the ability to make decisions based on the accumulated cultural wisdom of their ancestry. And they therefore, to use his term, have to resort to ‘cribs’ (in the sense of short-hand copies of great works) – they don’t really know or understand anything, so they become particularly vulnerable to the pat answers of charlatans and the debased interpretations of the work of serious thinkers. How to actually introduce, and include, non-white people into the glory and wonder of the British countryside – a true cradle of civilisation if ever there was one – is an important question and a great task, but the answer is utterly beyond those who purport to solve it. Instead all they can do is scrabble about for a ready-made idea that sounds fancy enough to look like expertise. “Blah blah cultural values, blah blah colonial legacy – that’ll do.” To repeat: they live in the map, and mistake it for the terrain. And they are therefore incapable of acting in a sensible or useful way.
A society in the grip of this thinking cannot hope to go on in a civilised form. And in his recent public appearances McGilchrist has begun to sound increasingly apocalyptic, saying indeed that he thinks it “extremely unlikely that this civilisation will survive”. I know what he means. Everywhere around us we see the same set of problems, all deriving from the same fundamental error of dealing with representation and abstraction as though it is the underlying reality. At best this leaves us incapable of wise decision-making; generally it means that decision-making is actively bad.
The recent illustration par excellence is of course the response to COVID-19, in which our decision-makers at all turns seemed to think their mathematical models and theoretical solutions were more real than what was actually happening in society – and in which an obsession with trying to exert control over abstract, stylised ‘facts’ (‘case numbers’, deaths, the ‘R’ number and so on) consistently won out over taking decisions on the basis of what would be best for the whole. But one can see it across the whole piece, whether in the economy, education, culture, sport, crime – everywhere we see badly informed tinkering led by simplistic theory and based on abstract models; very rarely do we see anybody in a position of leadership trying to govern, to repeat, for the whole.
But to close on a more immediate note, the thing that concerns me most is that the problem is becoming so visible and salient even at the level of individual decision-making and in our personal lives. I happen to be writing these words on Valentine’s Day, at a time when the dating scene (thankfully I no longer have to worry about such matters) is surely the least appealing it has ever been. And the problems with it are all identifiably rooted in precisely the issue that I have been describing: the reduction of the whole to the parts; the confusion of understanding with the representation of “already familiar abstractions or signs”; the application of the map or ‘crib’ rather than the comprehension of the reality. Young people, it seems, are increasingly apt to see each other not in terms of the whole but in terms of what they represent – partly just their physical attributes of course, but partly also their character. For women, men seem by default to be presumed to be predatory or misogynistic; for men women by default seem to be presumed to be moneygrabbers or irredeemably ‘woke’. And for both parties, relationships are increasingly defined transactionally, as though a romantic or sexual partner is simply an object to be interacted with in order to gain some fleeting pleasurable sensation (the so-called ‘situationship’) or something even more grubby (money etc.). We do not see people for who they are; we see them schematically on the basis of a pre-existing, abstracted set of categorisations and theories.
Without wishing to be too bleak, it is only a matter of time before this mentality begins to bleed into the family sphere, and one can already see this dark spectre emerging in the form of commercial surrogacy, divorce porn and the growing normalisation of parental resentment towards children. When the family itself becomes subject to left hemisphere thinking, that can only mean its death – and plummeting birth rates and youth anti-natalism are surely at least in part attributable to the phenomenon I am describing. To return to McGilchrist: it is highly unlikely that this civilisation will survive – and this is taking on an increasingly and poignantly literal meaning. How to respond, though, is something that will have to wait for future posts.
Dr. David McGrogan is an Associate Professor of Law at Northumbria Law School. He is the author of the News From Uncibal Substack where this article first appeared.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Would you consider an editor? I got as far as McGilchrist and lost the will to carry on even though I was enjoying the read. Reading longish pieces on a small mobile phone isn’t great.
Not a post to be proud of, I would suggest. I haven’t downticked, because ticking one way or the other seems a pretty silly business; but be sensible – your problems with your “small mobile phone” have nothing to do with the quality of this piece. I’m sure (sort of) that you can do better than this!
Another excellent piece by Dr McGrogan. He is spot on but how many people who need to be convinced of their foolhardiness will read it. Clearly, the most obvious evidence of the concern we should all have surrounded the Covid debacle but long term, the seemingly less important point about courting efforts, or lack of, with today’s young people is very worrying for the continuance of mankind.
China’s population is heading for a 50% decrease, 50% of all women in the USA and UK are childless at 30 and half of those will never have children. I amin my mid to late 70s and the world is very different than when my wife and I got married in the 1960s. We will be long gone but my grand-daughters will reap the inevitable outcome of what Dr McGrogan’s piece suggests..
The relentlessness of the drivel was exemplified to me on a car journey the other day, when I switched on Radio 4 and heard an author discussing his book that had become a successful TV series (I think), and I stuck around to hear what the actual book/series was.
Within one minute, the interviewer said, “One way the series differs from the book is that it has increased the diversity and inclusiveness. Can you tell me how…?”
I turned off. You can’t watch Countryfile, the Antiques Roadshow, the local news, the Archers, the weather forecast or pretty much anything else without having the progressive Cult preached at you constantly.
Remember that silly Bridgerton period drama program that had quite a lot of black people in it because the producers said that their casting was “colour blind”——So this enabled them to have black people in a place and time where they didn’t really exist. It would kind of be like making a drama about the Congo in 1800 full of white people —-Absurd. —–So imagine if George Clooney were to play Nelson Mandela.? ——-Jeez there would be spitting fury from the same DEI idiots.
It’s the sheer incongruity of the contrived DEI situations pervading everything that surrounds us that I despair of. A simple TV ad’ must have a mixed race family, white ones clearly don’t exist in ad-land. There’s a disproportionate representation in all dramas of, inter alia, minority hues. I’m fed up of having to intone “here we go again” to my long suffering wife, the moment the obligatory, token tinted/LGBGT+ wallah is artificially introduced into the plot. Mind you, on the plus side, I’m more regularly inclined to simply switch off these days. PS Watching the by-election results the other day caused me to do a double take when the successful (male) labour candidate embraced and kissed his husband! Real life imitating art?
The British Broadcasting Cult strikes again!
They do an excellent line in Climate Emergencies, NET Zero policies, Dark Matter and Dark Energy (when there’re other avenues to explore), Low Fat diets and Plant Based diets (when it’s Sugar and other Carbs that are consumed to excess), promoting Infrastructure Projects that have insufficient planning and a lack of experienced professionals TAKING RESPONSIBILITY, and pushing the narrative that 10 years of Medical Trials can be squashed down into One must the pinnacle of their accomplishments.
And then there’s the truely Woke Stuff.
All part of the War on the West.—– Whiteness is “The Original Sin”.— The countryside will only get praise when rappers with ghetto blasters are running about calling everyone “bruvva”, and nipping into the country pub for a bar lunch.
‘Cultural barriers reflect that in the U.K., it is White British cultural values that have been embedded into the design and management of green spaces, and into society’s expectations of how people should be engaging with them. Racist colonial legacies that frame nature as a ‘white space’ create further barriers, suggesting that people of colour are not legitimate users of green spaces.’
sorry, this is BRITAIN. Which has been a white, Celtic, Anglo country for thousands of years. This is MY country and if people who come here from elsewhere don’t like it, then they can return from whence they came. If they were born here then they need to assimilate and get on with their lives or, if they hate us so much, also leave for a place that suits them better.
Sick to the point of revolution with this anti White, racist evil that percolate through these cretinous organisations and the left in general.
Precisely.
Blacks, Muslims, Hindus, Chinese et al have their own lands. Apparently sacred and off limits to Whites. Any White incursion into said sacred lands is colonisation, racist, fascist. What then is the destruction and reverse colonisation of a White Christian country?
Unoticed!
Mission Accomplished?
It is indeed BRITAIN. ——But you surely have not been paying much attention. We are not a Nation now. We are region of the International Community where people from all corners of the globe come here and NEVR leave. Some places are turning into Islamabad. The party is over. In pretty much 2 generations the country has been over run and the culture destroyed. You can thank the parasite political class for that who pander to the UN. —Not to you.
I’ve posted this before:
“When I was a Revolutionary Marxist, we were all in favour of as much immigration as possible. It wasn’t because we liked immigrants, but because we didn’t like Britain. We saw immigrants – from anywhere – as allies against the staid, settled, conservative society that our country still was at the end of the Sixties. Also, we liked to feel oh, so superior to the bewildered people – usually in the poorest parts of Britain – who found their neighbourhoods suddenly transformed into supposedly “vibrant communities”. If they dared to express the mildest objections, we called them bigots.
When we graduated and began to earn serious money, we generally headed for expensive London enclaves and became extremely choosy about where our children went to school, a choice we happily denied the urban poor, the ones we sneered at as “racists”. What did we know, or care, of the great silent revolution which even then was beginning to transform the lives of the British poor?
To us, it meant patriotism and tradition could always be derided as “racist”. And it also meant cheap servants for the rich new middle-class, for the first time since 1939, as well as cheap restaurants and – later on – cheap builders and plumbers working off the books. It wasn’t our wages that were depressed, or our work that was priced out of the market. Immigrants didn’t do the sort of jobs we did.
They were no threat to us. The only threat might have come from the aggrieved British people, but we could always stifle their protests by suggesting that they were modern-day fascists. I have learned since what a spiteful, self-righteous, snobbish and arrogant person I was (and most of my revolutionary comrades were, too).”
Peter Hitchens
Hitchins is still a posturing snob but at least he woke up a bit when he entered the real world
Needed to be said.
Why are Africa countries’s popukations under represented by Anglo Saxon Caucasians – I am allowed to think that – other locations are available…
“But the main exceptions have always been on visits to the countryside (actually, specifically the Welsh countryside, where on one occasion the family was indeed memorably pelted with rocks by a gang of youths). I also happen to know a black person who was beaten up in rural Cumbria simply for not being white.”
Why is a white person attacking black person always deemed racist, but a black person attacking a white person is never deemed racist?
The vast majority of black people who are murdered in Britain and America are murdered by other black people.
The only reason this drivel about the countryside being racist keeps coming out is to demoralise the British people with communist propaganda
Black attacking white is never deemed racist because diversity only work in one direction. ————-It is always about less white people and demonising everything connected with whiteness.
100%.
The Dr should note that not only are there racists in rural Britain, but there are also racists of all colours in suburban and urban Britain, and there are also thugs of all colours all over Britain. In my experience, thugs may use racist language and some may be racist but often they are just thugs who use whatever insults come to mind – black so-and-so, white so-and-so, tall so-and-so, gay so-and-so, fat so-and-so. That gang of youths might pelt everyone with rocks – everyone they think they can get away with it with at any rate, and I’ve seen plenty of gangs of youths doing all sorts of violent and menacing things in all sorts of settings.
As Akala puts it so well in “This is London”
“The place where you don’t f**k with
The Turks or the Asians
Triads, pikeys, even Caucasians
Where them cockney boys will chiv your face
You mug no love, every colour mentality thug”
I was about to write a similar comment. If I get beaten up – which occasionally happens although I’m getting better at getting rid of these people before they’ve managed to work themselves up to this point – nobody would think that was ‘racist’, despite the event was the same in both cases. Because of this, I think one should be extremely careful before applying a fashionable label to such things and usually, not do it at all.
There are no bigger racists on earth than western living black people particularly in the US where the issue has been so highly politicized. I have worked in a few countries in West Africa and worked with many African and they don’t have this trait although they are very tribal.
After most of the social justice problems which were said to be important in the second half of the 20th century got solved, the woghurts discovered that they couldn’t woghurt without them. Hence, they all had to be recreated by intentionally sowing division. To justify their own existence, these people need problems and not solutions. They’re thus effectively a force for ensuring that what they claim to want to accomplish never actually happens.
This mirrors the real-world career of the real Marxists, BTW. Marx had claimed (sounding almost like a neo-liberal, mind you) that – as final stage of the revolution – the state, which is really solely an instrument for repressing the masses, would die off as it wasn’t needed anymore. But the communist parties soon realized that this meant communist parties also weren’t needed anymore and they were certainly not willing to let that happen. Hence, they reinvented themselves around the notion of perpetual antifascism, strangely, just like the neo-liberals again.
The ‘thinking’ of the WCL report is surely colonial in itself, as the author touches upon. The report represents those who live in the countryside as primitives who need civilising. The natives need acclimatising to the diverse neo-imperial agenda.
If there is ‘rural racism’, is there townee racism? What is the difference? If the countryside is in a constant state of ‘flow’, you cannot step into the same river twice.
If I had been born and lived in the countryside, I would be afeared to visit certain parts of the cities.
Another example of what the author describes might be seen in the Captain Tom phenomenon. As a phenomenon it was as transmissible as any virus. The right side of the brain might not be the emotional side as such, but emotions are contagious. This phenomenon of Captain Tom combined two of the author’s ‘maps’. The first map was the national religion, the NHS. The second was Britain’s moral scripture of the Second World War. Emotions were the necessary highways in the ‘map’
Dissect these maps and what can be found? The NHS wasn’t created, like the universe, ex nihilo. All the assets that had been created before the NHS’s creation in 1948 became the NHS in an act that was something like the dissolution of the monasteries. The day after the creation of the NHS it was the same as the day before.
As for Britain’s role in the Second World War, the glory, if glory it was, belongs to others. The people who lived in Britain in 1940 were vastly different from us in almost every way. Many episodes in Britain’s conduct in the war were far from successful and were way-markers in Britain’s political diminishment.
But as far as the countryside is concerned, surely it was colonised by knotweed, rhododendrons and grey squirrels.
One thing farmers know is that the sower will become the reaper. The illustration is familiar, but the truth is most serious. This is not a ‘map’, a creed or controversy. Every thought, word or deed is as a seed. It grows to form habit and character. Somewhere in this world a person will meet the fruit of their past.
“If I had been born and lived in the countryside, I would be afeared to visit certain parts of the cities.”
You’d be quite right to be cautious. I was born in London and there are plenty of places I know are best avoided. What’s your postcode? N7 or N1?
Try walking around the suburbs of Luton or High Wycombe by yourself as a white person. The locals will give you an extra special welcome, one you won’t forget….
I posted about Iain McGilchrist the other day. His work on how the brain functions is fascinating, and the interview with Unherd is well worth listening to. I’ll repeat: make sure you listen to the Q&A at the end – the answer, carefully given to one question, explains the left-brained social collapse were currently experiencing.
“WCL has since issued a statement calling the news reporting a “misrepresentation” and pointing out that the document was only signed by 11 out of a total of 82 organisations represented by the Link.”
None should have signed it. None!
Force fed bs!
Example: the Atlantic conveyer is breaking down which will leave ireland and the uk with conditions similar to Iceland and Canada!
So, buy electric cars, solar panels and windmills and that will end the problem!
Ffs
“where on one occasion the family was indeed memorably pelted with rocks by a gang of youths). I also happen to know a black person who was beaten up in rural Cumbria simply for not being white.”
Unfortunately this can apply to anyone. I have been pelted with stones by a gang and friends beaten up badly. There are those looking for trouble and any excuse will do, such as the person that floored me because of the way I looked at him, even though I hadn’t seen him until I was on the floor. Looking for rational motivations in these cases is fruitless.
I’d urge all to listen to Dr.Iain Mcgilchrist’s Utube video “deluded” – the link being in the first Para.
Imho he explains perfectly why we are where we are in Clown World.
The best explanation I’ve heard/seen.
I don’t entirely agree with the idea that this is caused by a simple split between left and right brain. There is deliberate intent to subvert western culture to destroy it. This article is about the British countryside, but it isn’t just that is it? Yesterday I watched this about the spread of DIE within the aviation business in North America. Aviation is one industry that has consistently improved itself across efficiency, reliability and most importantly safety. Below is a screenshot from an FAA presentation on hiring based on diversity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qofbS4OFLHM&t=841s
I Uncovered Footage That Proves The Airline Industry Is Doomed
The blurb picture you have posted is simply circuitous Bullshit and you are right, the airline industry is doomed.
“The recent illustration par excellence is of course the response to COVID-19, in which our decision-makers at all turns seemed to think their mathematical models and theoretical solutions were more real than what was actually happening in society”
An interesting article but let down by elements such as the above. Our decision makers did not think their models were “more real.” They knew full well that the models were bullshit – partygate – but they served a purpose, to generate mass fear. People like Bozo were simply acting under orders. Pantsdown was paid by Billy to produce a work of fiction confirming the Great Plague. Clearly David McGrogan has not yet realised all this. Supporting the government bullshit rather undermines the topic under discussion.
I do commend David McGrogan for at least calling out the crap:
“Cultural barriers reflect that in the U.K., it is White British cultural values that have been embedded into the design and management of green spaces, and into society’s expectations of how people should be engaging with them. Racist colonial legacies that frame nature as a ‘white space’ create further barriers, suggesting that people of colour are not legitimate users of green spaces.”
Who on earth wrote utter nonsense such as this?
Britain’s countryside was built by Britons. Britons, until recently were very white in their skin tones. End of.
The saddest aspect of all this is that we realists are even discussing a subject that deems the British countryside RACIST.
Give me strength
“ Our decision makers did not think their models were “more real.” They knew full well that the models were bullshit.”
100%. Nothing short of a Divine Revelation will convince me otherwise. Scotch eggs. They were probably pissing themselves laughing when they made up that crap.
Absolutely tof.
From my perspective I am pleased to report that my drinking buddies have now, four years later seen through all the C1984 crap. Masks on for a piss break but off for a sit down drink has had them in stitches at the outrageous stupidity.
Fortunately, none of them swallow the climate crap.
“From my perspective I am pleased to report that my drinking buddies have now, four years later seen through all the C1984 crap. “
Good news. Always heartening to spend time with like minded people who’ve woken up. We had some visitors from Italy this week – “no-vax” as they are referred to over there. They reported resistance to the sinister goings on in the world is growing there too.
Thanks tof and especially the good news from Italy.
The author’s relatives of colour were attacked by youths in the Welsh countryside. In Old Saxon the term ‘Welsh’ means foreigner. Thus the Welsh were the people who became foreigners in their own land. Supreme irony.
For all we know these youths in Wales thought the author’s relatives were English.
In order to attend to the specific and not to the whole it is necessary to have a long attention span. If you have learned to read you have developed such a long attention span that you can then use for any other task.
In his last report which can be read online, the American Senior Inspector General Afghan Reconstruction described how the widespread illiteracy in Afghanistan impeded the training of recruits for the Afghan National Army.
Not having a long attention span derived as a by-product of literacy, the Afghan recruits could not attend to any task and frequently left them unfinished. The American trainers then completed these task. The result was the infantilising of the recruits.
“For all we know these youths in Wales thought the author’s relatives were English.” Or from the wrong valley.
That’s reminded me of the time I was punched by a member of the Free Wales Army in Abersoch for being English, until I pointed out my Irish ancestry, when he was all smiles and apologies. I’m not sure what the moral is there except that Wales is for the Welsh, and not the incomers.
I think the moral is that, as others have pointed out, cherry picking an incident and calling it “racism” is possibly inaccurate. I am sure that “racists” exist but some bung of thuggish kids chucking stones at you indicates to me a bunch of thuggish kids chucking stones – people with violent tendencies don’t need much excuse sometimes to be violent.
I walked into a pub in Kingston once with some Welsh acquaintances – one of them was a big burly man who looked like he could handle himself. One or two of the regulars obviously copped his accent, saw he was handy and decided that he might be threatening their top dog status and nearly came to blows. Same thing happened in another Kingston pub with a Scouse acquaintance. In neither case were my acquaintances doing anything other than trying to drink a quiet pint.
Culture is not determined by race. It is determined by common language, shared heritage, morals, values, manners, Law.
The English Countryside is the product of 2000 years of history and emergent culture from Celt, Roma, Angie, Saxon, Jute, Viking, Norman heritage.
People who can find racism in hedgerows are mentally ill and psycopathic racists.
I’m sure you know that farming arrived from 5,000 BC and onwards. Modern humans moved up into what was Britain before the sea came up and so would have arrived at the same time as the Flora and Fauna moved in, so we would have been interacting with all of this from the start of the Holocene.
Out of interest I came across this graphic in the New Scientist magazine from an article about Civilization. This is supposedly a scientific publication. Notice the age of Stonehenge – and this would have passed editorial checks and proof reading.
The author’s family’s experience in Wales is shocking. However, as a white Englishman I can’t say I or my family were welcomed with open arms when we last went for a holiday there 40 years or so ago. My son also has horror stories from his university days at Bangor 20 years ago.
All of the people peddling these obscure wild theories are typically highly educated and imaginative. It’s like they live in a dream world of group think not rooted in reality. Look at Klaus Schwab who has two PHds amongst other degrees. These are people who typically live in big cities. The opposite side I refer to it as common sense. Most of the people in rural communities are rooted into the reality of living on earth and have a lot of common sense which is required to survive. There seems to be a correlation between your level of education and your level of common sense, inversely proportional, generally speaking of course.
Someone with a degree in Afro-American chemistry or (the German health minister Karl Lauterbach) (global) health policy and management, ie applied misuse of statistics for preconceived political purposes, isn’t highly educated (for any sensible definition of the term). These people are stupid offspring of affluent families which is also the reason why all their project are so … well … stupid.