Canada's open immigration policy in which it's Prime Minister goes down to welcome the Syrian refugees with a coat
is laudable, or is it ?
Many politicians have played the role of 'glad handing' even when through gritted teeth they have little in common
with the person they are greeting. Its this "little in common" aspect of policy I would like to address.
The article I was reading was written by a well meaning liberal, who's views we have in the past respected for the
influence they have on us in dampening our disquiet.
But what is this disquiet and where does it come from.
The
adage that "we don't handle change well" covers most of the things we
do in life. From buying a new house to a new wife, there are things we overlooked
and didn't see in the small print. And so it is with immigration and the
immigrant.
The
immigrant comes with the promise of new blood and a rejuvenated sense
of the work ethic. They bring a new cultural divergence which is
supposed
to invigorate our old and tired way of thinking. They bring food and a different perspective to our lives which is often in need of a proverbial kick up the bum.
But in and amongst all of this they also bring things we disagree with. Modes of thinking and intolerance which we
find disdainful and above all, they often bring segregation.
For
centuries the immigrant has withdrawn into a self created ghetto. The
Jews, the British, French and Portuguese all have felt themselves different,
better than the local population. Integration is a rare bird and is soon shot down by bigotry.
If we look at the confusion in this country where accents are no indicator of deeply held differences of opinion,
where resentment
of the old towards the new and now, the new towards the old is becoming
endemic. Where on a clear day you would be forgiven for questioning which country you lived in surrounded by fashions
and customs which are alien to your own.
The
British are known for being taciturn when challenged to illicit their
feelings. Other than in the security of their pub, or at home with
friends
they waltz around issues for fear of upsetting the guest but when the
guest
becomes the predominant topic then their default position is to say little and hope for better times.
The cause if ever there was such a thing has survived the constant battering from the liberal consensus, that
there should be
no identifying image of what can be called the national image, other
than the liberal PC vision of multiculturalism. An amalgam of cultural diversity, which is an oxymoron since diversity
is the opposite of uniformity.
If
there was one thing to specify, when drawing up a social program for
material well being I would have thought that the 'uniformity of
intention',
not 'the process' of getting there, had to be questioned. The
substantive
agreement on what our values are, is fundamental to having any sort of success with visitors who stay.
Unfortunately only the process was important back in 1947 when, because of the unity the collaborative effect of
shouldering arms
in a common cause to defeat an enemy did we feel obliged to open our
doors to replenish the manpower we had lost on the battlefield. The 'process'
not the 'consequences' was all important since our system
of governance has always assumed, they know best and the buggers who are at the coal face better get used to it.
Generations have come and gone and although we have muddled through in true British fashion, the massive cultural
adaptation of the white indigenous population has never been acknowledged.
The assumption that new meant better was repeatedly sold and is still being sold, even though there is a wide
divergence,
particularly a religious divergence, which on the one side, does not
feature in their lives but in the other is fundamental to their everyday existence. The absorption, in a largely sectarian
majority, of a fundamentalist
religious way of life was bound to bring comparisons and with it, "a
them and us scenario". The very opposite you assume you would wish to
happen if your dream is a inter-supportive
multicultural and harmonious society.
My
views would be an anathema to the the trendy intellectualisers who
promote what we are supposed to think but of course, 'open discourse'
has been shut down in the Orwellian world we live in. The keepers of
our thoughts and
practices would think it unwise for random observations being allowed to gain too much traction.
Orwell had it down to a T in his books where a minority controlled 'thought police' programmed the thoughts of the
many and free speech was ok, so long so you said the right thing.
In the last 60 years we have become conditioned to so many things.
The "bad" of our forefathers in contrast to the good of virtually everyone else.
Whilst 'everyone else' has had a reason for being the bad guy, only the colonial powers were to blame because
'they should have known better'.
Globalisation is good for us because it encourages to look outside our self interests and encourages us to
philanthropise our resource irrespective of what we have to give.
Listening to that doyen of the global picture, George Soros was like listening to the most immoral person on the
planet. His rational
for causing so much national bankruptcy after he had placed his bet was
that he had to exploit a weakness irrespective of the hardship he
caused to individual people living in the
countries he had ruined. His saving grace, in his mind was the charitable work he has done targeting his pet projects.
Wall Street has created this Global financial playing field in which the likes of Soros and Blankfine exploit for
their own personal
enrichment every day. Exploit the livelihoods of millions of people
like you and I whilst we are continually encouraged to thank our lucky
stars that a man like Jeremy Corbyn will never
be able to promote his ideas since they run counter to the capitalistic mind-speak of the Global plan.
People will continue to swallow the tripe of a band of extortionists as long as we continue to believe "they know
best".
