The renowned sociologist W.G. Runciman, who died in late 2020, was the sort of figure who liked grand explanations. No one has been grander in our time, except perhaps Perry Anderson. Runciman wrote a massive ‘Treatise on Social Theory’ over many years. It was a sketch of the evolution of human societies in terms of how they operate in three fundamental areas: 1) economic or productive, 2) political or coercive and 3) persuasive or ideological.
One of the questions he asked himself was why the Greek polis (i.e., city state, e.g. Athens, Sparta, Corinth etc.) had died. His answer was that it had failed to tick the three boxes. It had failed to understand the importance of controlling resources and generating profits. It had failed to maintain its militia and failed to pay its mercenaries. And, above all, it failed to convince its people that they had any good reason to accept their subordination within the polis. There was, he said, “no ideology of subordination”.
His argument was that every civilisation needs an ideology of subordination. There will be an ideology of subordination, whether we like it or not. And so — and this is my argument rather than his — we have an interest in making sure that our ideology of subordination is a good one.
What is an ideology of subordination? It is a set of beliefs that persuade the masses to defer to what we now call the elites. In short, it is what we believe in order to accept our lot. In his book Confessions of a Reluctant Theorist — not that reluctant, obviously — Runciman commented that there was no set of values in Athens or Sparta to explain to the slaves or poor why they should defer to their rulers. Aristotle in the Politics testified overwhelmingly to the failure of the rulers to “persuade those whom they designated as kakoi” that their rule was justified. Plato in the Republic allowed a poor man to declare that “the rich are only rich because the poor aren’t brave enough to have a go at them”. This sounds a bit like modern Britain.
Cities could of course be successful if they ticked all three of the boxes Runciman identified. Runciman instances Rome and Venice: Rome, which extended citizenship to foreigners and slaves, which established something like a cash nexus, and which had a remarkable imperial-military cult based on the Temple of Jupiter; and Venice, which learnt how to extract wealth from its colonies, which used its naval power in service of control of commerce, and which magnified its own cult by building a shrine on the site of St. Mark’s bones and decorating it with Roman statuary.
What about our ideology of subordination? As everyone has come to know, Michel Houellebecq achieved notoriety for a novel, Submission, which sketched a vision of France operating under Islamic hegemony. This is one candidate for a modern ideology of subordination. The other major candidate is the corporate communist-capitalist one of China, the WEF, the WHO, the IPCC, the EU, London and Washington D.C. There are, perhaps, two other candidates. One is distinctively out of favour, though it is probably the only one which can save us. It is Christianity. And the fourth is a completely empty fantasy. It is built out of the decorative but insubstantial words of our civilisation: democracy, liberalism, freedom.
On May 1st Tulsi Gabbard spoke to Joe Rogan. She reflected on the rise of Islamism, and offered a simple analysis:
…their goal being to influence populations around the world towards this Islamist ideology. They want to govern the world under Islamic rule, under sharia law… And so this ideological war that’s being waged is being waged by one side, and there’s not a counter-narrative, there’s not a counter-war being waged on the other side to defeat it — with the superior ideology of freedom!
This seems to be the hopeful consensus of our time. That we, in the West — in the world created by the European empires in America, Australia, perhaps India and parts of Africa — can use the grand language of liberty to defeat our enemies. But there is an obvious problem with this.
The problem is, as usual, that we can understand this hypocritically or idealistically. Hypocrisy means we will use this language, and not believe it, and hope other people believe it. Idealism means that we will use this language and believe it.
The problem is that it fails both as hypocrisy and as idealism.
Hypocritically, an ideology of liberty is just a fig leaf for the communist-capitalist protocols of the institutions I have already listed. Liberty will avail us of nothing if its meaning is adjusted, twisted, reverse-engineered to mean something else. We will be forced to be free in a way even Rousseau could not have imagined. We will talk of freedom, but not be free.
Idealistically, an ideology of liberty is empty. It has no content. It offers us no reason to accept subordination. It ends in psychoanalysis and antidepressants. For a time, we believed in ‘meritocracy’. But as Michael Young, Ferdinand Mount, David Goodhart and many others have shown, it is extremely socially disruptive: it can only work within a grander ideology of subordination. Nigel Farage’s ‘British values’ are simply not going to hold anything together for more than a generation — a generation probably already gone.
All three of the great subjects the Daily Sceptic has made its own are elements of a modern secular ideology of subordination. The hope of our secular elites is that they can transcend the eclipse of Christianity by persuading us that we have good reason to value their domination. They do this by issuing grim warnings about what will happen to ‘the planet’ if we do not obey, by trying out new powers in crises such as COVID-19, and by allowing the old habit of liberty to be commandeered by useful administrators and protesters who demonstrate that the entire system is conspicuously and inquisitorially caring of the marginalised by proscribing anyone who does not accept the protocols of inclusion.
It should be obvious that we in the 20th Century made the mistake of taking our civilisation for granted. We believed that Christianity and Empire had delivered us into a relatively beneficent and prosperous modernity, and we supposed that we could dismantle Empire and dismantle Christianity without losing that beneficent and prosperous modernity. This, in retrospect, looks like a mistake. We are now aware that our political system is controlled by a new ideology of subordination, built out of desperate secular attempts to command our allegiance by claiming scientific and moral authority. This is the explanation of wokery, climate change, and even immigration — immigration being the means by which we recruit foreigners into our system not only for work but also in the hope that they, like the foreigners who became Roman, will feel loyalty to the Western state. This, obviously, is frequently not the case. And even if it were the case, in miniature, and for a time, it is happening within a system which is now not free but heavily ideologically coercive. And I, for one, cannot see why immigrants will see reason to respect a system which is now being designed to demoralise its own original people.
It is Christianity, in its truth, and Christian civilisation, in its conflict — see Hume, or Acton, or, indeed, any good historian — that generated the order into which we have been born. Christianity was always ambiguous as an ideology of subordination. It professes no simple submission. It asks for theology, in a way that Islam does not. When discovered in hypocrisy, it weakens itself more than any other system of belief. But it is for these very reasons that it is the most beautiful justification for subordination ever adopted by humans.
If the English fully lose the habit of organising their imagination and institutions around faith in Christ, then there is no alternative but to accept a stronger and inferior ideology of subordination. For the moment, the candidates appear to be the Islamic one, and the Chinese one. Perhaps there is hope in the vivid and various civilisations of Japan, India and even Europe, but it is hard to see how they can offer the requisite simplicity required by a modern system of subordination.
I intend this argument to be grim. Whether we like it or not, we must have an ideology of subordination. In the last five or so years we have been witnessing increasingly desperate secular attempts to supply us with one.
Dr. James Alexander is a Professor in the Department of Political Science at Bilkent University in Turkey.
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.
400+ years ago The Church locked Galileo up for indulging in this new fangled “Science” that challenged their authority. Today the situation is reversed, and it is “science” that is now King, or should I say “Official Science” which will tolerate no questioning of its authority. ————We now live in a scientific dictatorship where government in a symbiotic relationship with the scientists that they fund decide what is true.
You always get to decide what’s true for yourself. The government can’t easily change that, hence the intensive propaganda, censorship and threats of prosecution to dissuade opposition.
Complete myth and utter bollocks. He provided no mechanical proof for his claims. Such mechanical proofs are still missing. He recanted his Copernicanism before he died.
I suppose you’ll claim his telescope was bullshit and didn’t exist. How about his microscope? How about the planets revolving around the Sun?
Galileo said the planets circled the Sun, and they don’t, and he was propagating remnants of the elicycle theory.
Groan. Here comes pedantry.
Incidentally, “He recanted his Copernicanism before he died” is laughable. Have you never read the history of the, oh so Godly, Church at that time? There were a peculiarly high number of people who recanted numerous things. Have a read why.
In fact, just to help the hard of thinking, I’ll tell you why:
“Galileo recanted Copernicanism due to pressure from the Church and the authorities of his time. His works advocating Copernicanism were banned, and he was prohibited from teaching, defending, or discussing the heliocentric model. The Church declared heliocentrism as false, leading to the suppression of Copernicus and Galileo‘s work. Galileo‘s recantation was more about authority and power rather than scriptural demands. Despite his recantation, it is said that as he left the court, he murmured to himself, “But it [Earth] does move.”
“Galileo’s recantation was more about authority and power….”—-Which was exactly the point I was trying to make. I am glad you explained that to the person FerdIII as I won’t have to bother now. —cheers
Christianity in Galileo’s time was as cruel, tyrannical, oppressive and stupid as izlam has always been and still is now, having made no progress in 1400 years from “Kill all unbelievers”.
If Galileo hadn’t recanted he was in serious danger of being burned at the stake as an heretic. So much for ‘Christian’ values!
It took the RC church a very long time to admit it was mistaken about its ignorance, such is its arrogance.
No thank you, James Alexander, just a basic reading of the history of Christianity convinces most people that we are lucky to be free of subordination to it.
It took centuries to shake off its grip in Europe and what with the rather silly man who is latest in a long line of very questionable (some positively vicious) popes, and the wokeified, transified pathetic CofE in this country – let’s be glad we did.
My moral values may be informed by our Christian heritage, but will never be subordinated to it.
If he had not recanted in that Court he would have been tortured until he did and then would have died. What would you choose?
There are some extreme “environmental” cult followers that would imprison us today in the 21st century for having an opinion on climate change. Which only shows one thing, that that this issue isn’t about science. Can you imagine wanting to imprison someone for disagreeing about General Relativity?
Galileo promoted the Copernican Heliocentric view, with the planets circling the Sun because he saw Jupiter’s moons circling Jupiter, publishing pamphlets in Italian, (not Latin like Copernicus) not backed up experimental data. Only he had seen them.
Pope Urban VIII asked Galileo to put his words in a book, making it neutral for both theories. Galileo complied by putting the Pope’s words in Simplicio, an imbecile: it doesn’t get much idiotic than that. Up to that point Urban VIII had supported Galileo, but he had matters of state to consider, so wanted Galileo and his unsettling theories away from the public and confined to academia until he could provide proof of his theory. Until then he could only promote his theory as a theory, not a fact.
Galileo was therefore largely the architect of his own punishment.
In those days, the Church’s responsibilities covered much more than they do now. But he published in Italian with a “dialogue” which could be seen, and was presented as an attack on the Pope. He was abrasive and obstinate (possibly obsessive or obstreperous are better adjectives) about an idea. Galileo’s trouble arose from his completely unscientific practice of demanding people agree with things he said even though he didn’t have proof for them. He did this on a number of topics, including those that were wrong. He went so far as to demand the church change religious dogma based on his unproven ideas. There was some pushback toward his behaviour due to religious fervour, but ultimately, Galileo’s problem was he wouldn’t stop demanding people agree with his theories which he didn’t have proof for.
That Galileo happened to be [ALMOST] right on his most important theory doesn’t make his behavior any better. [The planets don’t CIRCLE the Sun.] Galileo would have remained hugely popular and respected if he had just not demanded people believe things he couldn’t prove to be true. He wasn’t hated for his ideas; he was hated because people didn’t like being told they had to believe things the evidence didn’t show to be true.
He was more like an Al Gore: taking half truths, and not entering into informed discussion.
Yeah, the intelligent Galileo really was to blame for being threatened with torture and being burned at the stake by some disgustingly ignorant, power-hungry career churchman who had bought and bribed his way into being elected pope.
Your arguments are ridiculous because ONE man can insist all he likes that the moon is made of green cheese and no one HAS to believe it.
His life was in danger because NO ONE was allowed to contradict the RC church and the pope on any subject whatsoever, or else – they were an early form of the Mafia.
They had all the power and he had none, except the courage of his convictions. And he WAS right – the sun does not go round the Earth!!
Hats off to Galileo!
PS: Who are you, Norfolk-Sceptic, to sit in judgement on Galileo’s ‘behaviour’?
Nothing to say about the behaviour of corrupt, powerful tyrant popes who threatened to torture and burn alive anyone who didn’t agree with them and actually did it too, either through their own orders or via the evil Inquisition they encouraged?
Unbelievable nitpicking. Maybe you’re a flat-earther too?
“What is an ideology of subordination? It is a set of beliefs that persuade the masses to defer to what we now call the elites.”
Why does it have to be deference to “elites”? That might be how it ends up, but my idea of society and civilisation, which indeed rely on “subordination”, is that we realise that things are better for us if we co-operate, follow social norms, obey the law, outsource certain functions to a state – a sort of minimalist collectivism.
That would be anarchism? I don’t mean that in the negative sense usually attributed to it but that, ideally, we don’t need government or leaders
When I was a young man, I joined the Anarchists, but no-one turned up to the meetings..
The problem appears to be that administrators doing routine jobs, like setting the times of meetings, gain prestige and start setting strategy, even though they don’t understand that they don’t understand the technicalities.
Hence we have Arts, Humanities and Social Science graduates setting Energy policy, when they ought to stick to setting speed limits on urban roads.
Sorry, they can even screw up that!
When I first went up to Oxford an anarchists group was formed but we soon had to disband because the members just wouldn’t behave. Alan Bennett
Sort of. Assuming we retain nation states, I struggle to imagine doing without coercive taxation to pay for non excludable goods like law & order, national defence and border control. There are probably a fair few other things that would need to be collective – energy grid, road and rail networks, air traffic control. You need someone to administer that and make decisions within certain parameters based on prevailing circumstances. They should be public servants, not leaders or rulers. But people seem to like having leaders so it won’t happen!
It was why the CIVIL Service used to employ Civil SERVANTS.
The people in government are supposed to be public servants, but they soon forget that if they ever knew it.
Indeed. Sadly I think a lot of the electorate seem to forget that too, and expect to be “led” or “ruled” and for the state to solve all their problems.
The chieftains of the tribes who migrated into the Western Roman Empire eventually decided they were not going to be subordinate rulers to the diminished Emperor in Ravenna. It has been observed that the Eastern emperors in Constantinople successfully resisted the ‘Germanification’ of their provinces.
The US part of the Washington/Peking subordination depends on the arms industry. As Biden has told the Americans, artillery shells produced in Arizona provide work and prosperity for US workers. As these weapons have to be used or stored, wars elsewhere are required.
The globalist subordination creates borderless human work and tax units out of migrants or similar. Starmer has proposed that the vote be extended to tax-paying EU citizens living in the UK. Citizenship becomes like gym membership. Just turn up and pay the fees and you can participate. Flotsam and jetsam moved by the tides of corporate business.
While Christianity has influenced custom, habit and law over centuries so that we are very different people than what we would have otherwise been, there is no indication in the Gospels or the Epistles that the faith was ever meant to create a civilisation.
After all, Christ said that His kingdom was ‘not of this world’. That is, not somewhere else, but not made up out of economies, armies, and bureaucracies. In the Gospel episode called the wilderness temptation, Jesus is offered command of the Roman Empire as a means of establishing His kingdom on earth; the Romans calling their empire, the empire of the whole earth. Jesus refuses.
The Byzantines held Christ to be the Cosmic Emperor. The Head that held together the entire structure of the world and civilisation. In 1453 that cosmos finally ended.
Though ‘British values’ are a shorthand for a polity, Gen Z and Gen Alpha, having been told that Britain in structurally racist and colonialist, have no interest in that subordination. As the majority of them surveyed in a recent poll say that they would not fight for Britain, this is bad news for the US and globalist subordinations. When confronted by an old-fashioned military, nationalist and industrial subordination, these Gens melt away like a pattern in smoke.
The chieftains of the tribes who migrated into the Western Roman Empire eventually decided they were not going to be subordinate rulers to the diminished Emperor in Ravenna.
Eventually, the chieftains of these tribes became emperors of the West, an arrangement rivalling Rome in durability, which really only ended a litte over 100 years ago because it stood in the way of US & British business interests with a certain obstinacy. And even this was only possible by exploiting and elevating Bolshevism as convenient, revolutionary ideology to use against uninteresting people in faraway countries Western politicians new little of.
Business interests, or State Interests?
Those within profitable enterprises, keeping their customers happy, have an income.
Governments can only tax the population.
Starmer has proposed that the vote be extended to tax-paying EU citizens living in the UK. Citizenship becomes like gym membership. Just turn up and pay the fees and you can participate. Flotsam and jetsam moved by the tides of corporate business.
The attached image (from Encyclopedia Britannica) shows all countries whose citizens have full voting rights in the UK. And they don’t even have to pay taxes for that. All they need to do is to be legally in the UK – temporary leave to remain is fine – at the time of an election.
Excellent post, especially the map, telling the truth that so few people know.
And Claphamian’s view was particularly good:
“Citizenship becomes like gym membership. Just turn up and pay the fees and you can participate. Flotsam and jetsam moved by the tides of corporate business.”
It’s a more nicely worded variant of Theresa May’s citizens of nowhere, ie, corporate nomads who get posted to assignments in different countries they have no particular ties to. But this was already a bit specious when she said it and nowadays, it has become totally untrue because freedom of movement between EU member states ended in the UK four years ago. Ie, that’s again banging the neverendum drum and disingeniously so, as voting rights for non-citizens have already existed for a long time.
That Starmer wants to extend these to people conjectured to hold a more favorable view of the EU than the Leave-voters, albeit for no particular reason, is something the Leaver-neverendums obviously don’t like. That’s their prerogative. But they should openly be campaiging against voting rights for so-called other whites, the charming UK ethnicity designation for continental Europeans¸ instead pretending that non-citizens are about to get a right to vote for the first time ever.
It’s a remnant of having had an empire.
I agree it’s inconsistent. My preference would be that only citizens should be able to vote in general elections. Obtaining citizenship is not that expensive or difficult and most people would be able to retain their original citizenship too. I think there should be a residency requirement too – some kind of minimum length of time you spend in the country each year.
In Thatcher’s day, obtaining citizenship was very difficult for foreigners, and rightly so. First, your employer had to convince the government that they couldn’t find a Brit with your exact skills to fill the post. Then you had to work for that same employer continuously for about 7 years and pay full taxes before applying for citizenship. There was no automatic right to import your whole extended family. It was a good system, and fair.
Nowadays, any hostile alien from anywhere can basically enter the UK as a burglar with no intention of ever working again, get handed a voter registration form, with full welfare benefits for himself and his extended family which he later imports, including elderly parents and grandparents who are immediately allowed to start collecting UK state pensions without ever having paid in a penny, and citizenship handed out to all & sundry with gay abandon.
In China by contrast, no foreigners can even get permanent residency unless they can prove they are very wealthy and won’t be a burden on the Chinese healthcare system. Welfare benefits are completely out of the question. A much more sensible system, and the reason China is not overwhelmed with alien scroungers from Africa & India.
I’m not sure it’s quite as easy as that but I agree it’s got stop.
What puzzles me is that we have a few sponsored foreigners at work and the process seemed quite stringent- they needed to show a certain level of education and above all there was a minimum salary requirement that was quite high, yet out and about I see and hear obviously foreign born people doing what are probably minimum wage jobs- how is this possible?
I’m not particularly interested in the right to chose to face of Net Zero in the UK but I couldn’t become a British citizen without giving up my German nationality first and that’s a bit more than pair of gloves which can be taken on and off as desired and with little concern for the consequences. OTOH, that other people basically have a right to vote what they’re going to do with my money isn’t a fortunate situation. Especially considering that these other people include a large amount of economically inactive muslims.
But I don’t think the system of self-governing parliaments is a particularly sensible arrangement anyway and it’s certainly not democratic. Historically, parliaments are a feature of monarchies and not democracies and that parliaments always have a tendency to decapitate the state in order to gain supremacy over its erstwhile masters doesn’t speak in favour of them.
The British system is still better than the continental rule of the partycrats through proportional representation, though, as it at least retains the notion that MPs represent their constituents to a degree.
I wasn’t aware that Germany did not allow dual citizenship. I guess that makes it awkward. I still don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect some kind of firm commitment in order to be able to vote in a general election.
I think you could do worse than commit yourself to the UK but I would say that because I am from here. Then again Mrs ToF is not from here and has no intention of returning to her country of origin. I thought the system of free movement within the EU worked ok until the rapid expansion into places at a very different economic level and the subsequent decision to open the borders. I think we had to withdraw from that. Not that we’re much better off now, but it’s still easier than changing the policy of a whole continent.
Your point about the economically inactive having a vote is well made. I think there’s a case for looking at that.
An idea I had about that some years ago was that people living on state handouts shouldn’t have a right to vote. This would include people on benefits, civil servants¹ and at least some pensioners. The basic idea was that the welfare state would help people who cannot otherwise sustain themselves but that these people wouldn’t be able to vote for more money for themselves.
¹ I think that’s a really important point as that’s IMHO the only way a civil service can ever be an impartial civil service. If you plan to work for that state for the benefit of whatever the government of the day happens to be, you must let go of your own political opinions first.
Yup I think there’s a lot of sense in that
YOU COMPLETE PRAT!!! Agreeing with the African/German that some BRITISH PENSIONERS SHOULDN’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE?????
“UNBELIEVABLE!”, as Victor Meldrew would say.
I don’t think I specifically said that British pensioners should not have the right to vote. I think if you’ve paid into the system then you should be able to vote, if you are British.
The origins of the person making the argument are not relevant – not to me, anyway.
Yes, you did! Stop waffling!
You agreed with what the rich foreigner said.
I will waste no more time with you.
I agreed with some of the points he was making. See my reply to Pamela Preedy above.
If they rely on state handouts, there’s an argument to make in favour of that. And besides, just because I once disagreed with your silly idea of obsessing over slavery just in the way the people who routinely hand your own ass to you want you doesn’t make me African. As I already told you in the past, I’m a descendent of people who had to have an Ariernachweis for work during the third Reich.
I also don’t think I look very negroid.
ONLY the British should have the right to vote in this country. And by ‘British’ I mean English, Welsh, Scottish and N Irish – no others, no foreigners, no immigrants.
Yes, English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish AND THEIR DESCENDANTS around the world who have returned to live permanently in their ancestral homeland of the British Isles.
If people from the Chinese diaspora return to China to live, even after centuries, they should be allowed to vote, because China is their ancestral homeland.
The same goes for Italians, Greeks, French, Scandinavians, etc. who return to live in the land of their ancestors.
The same goes for Aussies, Kiwis, Canadians, Americans, South Africans and others around the world whose ancestral homeland is the British Isles.
If you want to know someone’s ethnicity, ask where their ancestors lived 500 years ago, or 1000 years ago. All Ethnic Europeans (= white people) were living in Europe 1000 years ago, except for those kidnapped by slavetraders and dragged away, a trade which began at least in Roman times.
So actual British people who had worked all their lives would be denied the vote, including pensioners needing state supplements to boost the meagre UK state pension? While foreigners living here get the vote because they have well paid jobs or inherited money?
WTF, there’s no sense in that and it’s preposterous for RW to even suggest it, never mind you agreeing with it.
I think it’s anomalous that some people who reside legally in the UK and make a net positive contribution to our economy are not able to vote, and others who take rather than give, do get the vote. I think it’s anomalous that commonwealth citizens get the vote. I do think you should have to be a British citizen to vote. If you’re a British citizen and you or your spouse have never made a net positive economic contribution, I do wonder if you should be able to vote, though I think one would need to consider people with genuine disabilities. I think it’s a complex topic.
WHAT??????!!!!
You come here from Germany where one of your parents is German & the other African/Indian etc., complain about “racist” treatment from British people, then say that British Pensioners shouldn’t have the right to vote in British Elections,
but rich foreigners like you SHOULD?????
You’re even more of a POMPOUS GIT than I thought, with a BLOATED SENSE OF ENTITLEMENT.
As for people voting for more money for themselves, our Members of Parliament do that every year.
Who the blazes do you think you are, talking as if you were a Lord over the Serfs already, and impatient to go back to those good old days, and showing us all a photo of your aristocratic ring.
Are you so ashamed of one of your parent’s African/Indian Ethnicity that you totally reject it by insisting you are only “German”? Have you ever even visited your ancestral homeland in Africa/India? Shame on you for a PRETENTIOUS CHARLATAN.
Go tell British Pensioners in the pubs you like to frequent that they shouldn’t have the right to vote!
And don’t bother with one of your windbag replies, proving your intellectual superiority, because I won’t read anything you ever post again.
I never wrote any of that, duckhead, and as you keep insulting my parents, I’ve also had some thoughts about who you must be, considering what you post: You’re probably a 2nd generation naturalized Pakistani who likes to style himself as heretic because he’s also gay and a communist — that you firmly believe to be entitled to decide what to do with my money makes the latter pretty certain — remember Thatcher’s “the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money”.
OK, because you said before that you tell everyone you are “German, not white”, I thought you were like that Senegalese African immigrant to Germany who calls himself a “Black German”, who whined about “racism”, despite being elected to the German parliament by the same Germans he called “racist”.
I will continue to read your posts, because they are very informative, and I hope you will join the “Surrey Sceptics” in The Bull’s Head in Dorset, 2nd Tuesday of every month at 7:30, as they invited everybody in yesterday’s News Round-Up, because you can be sure they will welcome you as a fellow sceptic and not give you a hard time, as you have experienced in other pubs in Reading or wherever, and Surrey’s not far from there.
Just don’t tell them you think British pensioners shouldn’t be allowed to vote, or I’d imagine you’ll be chucked out on your ear.
PS. You’re wrong: my family have been faithful Protestants for 400 years, and this is the land of my English ancestors, with a bit of Scots & Dutch thrown in.
Dorking, not “Dorset”!
If you are “white”, then don’t deny it!
You said before that you were “German, NOT WHITE”, complaining about the “racist” treatment from Brits, so that indicates a miscegenated Third World Ethnic, because Ethnic Europeans cannot be “racist” towards each other.
“Tribalist”, Yes.
“Racist”, No.
We are all the same Ethnic European “race”.
Nor can Ethnic Africans be “racist” towards each other. Nor Ethnic Indian Subcontinentals, nor Orientals.
Only “TRIBALIST”, which is perfectly natural.
Well I’m with Tulsi Gabbard. I’m not religious but at least when we were legitimately a Christian nation ( or a Christian Europe ) we had strength in unity, and history is littered with examples of how formidable we were in defeating our enemies that threatened our civilization and way of life. Contrast centuries gone by with our present day and we see our treacherous leaders welcoming the invaders to our shores with open arms, practically laying down the red carpet, and encouraging our ongoing colonization and future subordination of the masses using the Trojan Horse of ‘multiculturalism’. When in history has anything like this happened?
Cultures that have demonstrated historically that their values do not clash with ours and they have the ability to tolerate others and live side by side peacefully ( Hindus, Jews, Sikhs ) are one thing, but the ideology of Islam has shown us time and time again throughout the centuries that it’s completely incompatible. Also, they are hardly backwards in coming forwards when it comes to broadcasting the fact that they hate all non-Muslims and think of themselves as superior, so there is that. The evidence of this is all around us and they just keep on proving this point every single day. Then there’s the ever-increasing numbers. The depressing evidence, such as how many churches are being converted into Mosques as opposed to Temples and Synagogues, because there’s no Christians to use them any more;
”The European Parliament elections represent an existential battle between the open borders agenda of elites in Brussels and those who wish to reclaim national sovereignty and save their countries and cultures from being subsumed by mass migration, a French MEP told Breitbart News.
The MEP said that she has personally experienced the negative ramifications of mass migration, saying that — especially as a woman — she felt the French way of life is slipping away.
Chagnon explained that even as a sixty-year-old woman, she “adapts” how she dresses when she goes to Paris, taking care to cover up when on the streets or public transport. She also said that her own daughter decided to leave the French capital and move to Australia after being attacked on the streets of Paris twice.
“The whole way of life is being changed,” she lamented. “People are adapting their way of life under the terrible pressure that we have from these Muslim gangs going around trying to enforce adherence to their Sharia Islamic laws. They have used the freedoms in Europe to curtail ours.”
Highlighting the change, the National Rally politician said that even in her small rural beachside town, she saw women wearing Islamic “burkinis” — a full-body covering alternative to the bikini for Muslim women to abide by the religion’s draconian dress codes — whereas, before the open borders societal transformation, starlets like Brigit Bardot would famously sunbathe on French beaches topless.
“You wear bloody burkinis in Saudi Arabia, what may be liberation for women over there is a terrible regression in France,” Chagnon said.
The populist politician said mass migration was being inflicted upon the people of Europe by globalists in Brussels, who do not see immigration as a problem, but rather as “their project”.
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2024/06/07/exclusive-from-brigitte-bardot-to-burkinis-french-way-of-life-being-destroyed-by-mass-migration-says-mep/
Just one more recent police-stabbing incident to add to the ever-growing collection. A serious lack of Hindus, Jews or Sikhs running around like hate-filled psychos, stabbing and sexually assaulting all and sundry, don’t you think?
”A series of gruesome knife attacks on Austrians in Vienna’s Favoriten district continues to cause outrage among locals. The latest incident, involving a police officer, was captured in disturbing footage released by the German news site NiUS, once again highlighting the growing migrant violence in the area.
The suspect, identified as a 41-year-old Jordanian migrant, appears from the side behind an officer conducting a check. Suddenly, he reaches out and stabs with full force.
The young police officer survived with minor injuries. As the footage suggests, he was incredibly fortunate — the attacker seemed to aim for the officer’s neck but missed by a few centimeters, and the blade was deflected by the “stab-proof vest.”
https://rairfoundation.com/austria-police-officer-survives-gruesome-knife-attack-migrant/
I don’t know about Sikhs but depending where you are: Hindus can rape, torture, and murder in the worst way those deemed untouchable. Jews can be equally violent but we’re not supposed to talk about that.
They’re all humans and doing what some humans do (although some religions would have their followers believe some are less human and fair game).
Exactly. Well done for bravely telling the truth. Everyone forgets that Sikhs, Hindus & Muslims all formed their own separate Thuggee gangs in India, before they were suppressed by British military force.
The “Jagratta” music at Sikh weddings imitates the loud music played by the Thuggees, to drown out the screams of the victims being raped and murdered, and they still wear their disembowelling knives beneath their clothing, by which they offered the beating hearts of male victims to their Moon Spider Goddess of Death called Kali-Allah. The adult female victims were raped and killed, the children given as child prostitutes enslaved in Kali-Allah’s temples.
British Protestant missionaries rescued many child prostitutes from those temples, and were hated by Hindus, Sikhs & Muslims for doing so.
In 1999, a Hindu gang attacked the Australian Protestant missionary Graham Staines and his two little boys asleep in their car, and burnt them all alive as a fire sacrifice to Kali-Allah, while young Hindus ritually danced 300 yards away with loud music to drown out the screams of the victims.
So where are all the Hindu and Sikh grooming gangs?
The sex traffickers hiding in plain sight – BBC News
“In one high profile case last month a gang of four traffickers were convicted of luring victims from China and Thailand, seizing their passports and forcing them to work in brothels.
One of the traffickers was 52-year-old [SIKH] Jagpal Singh, a man who people in the west end of Glasgow knew well as the owner of a local dry cleaners.
In 2017, Singh had even appeared on the short-lived BBC reality show Common Sense. He was one of a cast of British people chosen for their humorous takes on current affairs – usually as they worked at their normal jobs.”
Three British Sikhs jailed for smuggling Afghans into UK | World News – The Indian Express
People smugglers who brought in illegal migrants in car boots jailed – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
TWO SIKHS jailed for human trafficking AFGHAN SIKHS into UK:
“Palvinder Singh Phull, 48, from Hounslow, received three and half years for assisting unlawful immigration. On 8 July 2018, Mr Phull was stopped at the UK border in Dover, and three Indian nationals claiming to be Afghan Sikhs were found in the boot of his hire car.
His co-accused, Harjit Singh Dhaliwal, 45, from Middlesex, was jailed for three years and two months, also for assisting unlawful immigration. Four days after Mr Phull was arrested, on 12 July 2018, Mr Dhaliwal was stopped at the UK border and four Indian nationals also claiming to be Afghan Sikhs were found hiding in the boot of his car.”
Pair jailed for trafficking Latvian women to Derbyshire – BBC News
TWO SIKH MEN:
“Tajinder Singh, 33, and Gurdeep Singh, 52, from Wolverhampton, arranged for the women to be flown to England under the pretence of a holiday.”
Thanks Mogs
John the Baptist is the True Christ. Elizabeth bore non-identical twins at Ein Karem, but the firstborn Jesus the Forerunner was stolen at birth by the Impostor “Goddess” calling herself the “Virgin Mary”, pretending to play midwife after drugging and deceiving Elizabeth. The Impostor Mary presented newborn John to Zacharias as his only son, and smuggled newborn Jesus seven miles away to Bethlehem, so she could claim he was born in the City of David. It was only the beginning of her horrific crimes, as she deceived the world for 2000 years.
But the Time of Evil is over.
OMG.
Remember that in the End Times, all that was hidden shall be revealed.
All those statues, paintings, icons & stained glass windows will have to be renamed “Madonna & Stolen Child”.
So are we saying that we need an ideology to stand behind? I am ready to do that but as I, snd many Europeans, cannot believe in a deity, then it will have to be something else. A strong man (not a woman as they can never be strong enough) with a powerful and compelling ideology will do for me. Politics will not save us anymore. Revolt is going to be the only fix for the terrible place we find ourselves in.
I agree. We have to subordinate ourselves because that is the nature of the universe. We can subordinate ourselves to something malign, or pretend that we can tough it out on our own (nature abhors a vacuum) or we can follow the evidence and surrender ourselves to what has worked better than anything up to now.