RAH - The social, political and individual psychology behind mass immigration and multi-racial/multicultural society

It seems to me that mass immigration is undermining any deep or meaningful sense of British identity to the extent that the British state itself is fast becoming untenable. No sane person would want it to simply fall (or be torn) apart, or be held together by super-restrictive laws and brute force, so we need to start thinking about what to replace it with - and how.

2nd Post

I understand the economic reasons for mass immigration (capital's and the state's need for cheap foreign labour, immigrants' desire for better economic and social opportunities , etc.), but I am also trying to understand the "social psychology" of those, especially on the "progressive", liberal-left of the political spectrum, who do not share the interests of capital, but are ideologically motivated in "championing" the madness mass immigration into our already, natively and unsustainably, overpopulated country.

Added to this madness is another, related to the strong ideological interest of "progressives" in immigrants from very different ethnic and cultural backgrounds to those of the indigenous population. Human nature being what it is, this is bound to lead (has already led) to ethnic and cultural segregation and conflict, which will get worse as time goes by and the "minorities" become ever more numerous, established and confident in asserting their own ethnic and cultural identities. At the moment we simply laugh off British Muslims who want to live under Sharia Law, but in 50 years time (or maybe sooner) we may have to start negotiating (or fighting) with them.

One, typical, expression of this social psychology is provided on this thread by [FreshTedium] and [whatithink], who immediately sought to dismiss and condemn posters critical of mass immigration as "xenophobes" and "racists". One would have to get them on the analyst's couch and know a lot more about them to find out exactly what motivates them, but I have a few suggestions, which I believe are generally applicable, but may or may not apply to them personally (no offense meant, chaps!).

In McCarthy's America, for example, (political) opponents would be summarily dealt with by associating them with communism, in Soviet Russia by associating them with capitalism, or in medieval Christendom by associating them with paganism or some kind of heresy. It is the same social psychology ("spirit"), I'm sure, that in modern Britain opponents of the all-dominating (state, business and media) ideology, which promotes mass immigration and champions the "melting pot" of multi-racial/multicultural society, are dismissed as "xenophobes" and "racists", or at least, suspected of having such leanings, which "worthy citizens" have a "moral duty" to cudgel or "educate" out of them.

These people like to puff themselves up (as we all do from time to time) with moral self-righteousness, thus demonstrating to themselves and, more importantly, to their in-group (of fellow "progressives", perhaps) their moral superiority and "in-group credentials" (very important for group bonding and identity, just as it was for Marxists, anti-communists, pious Christians and others).

And there I must leave it for the moment, to watch Sunday AM and keep myself up to date on the madness of modern Britain.

3rd Post

Continuing where I left off with my musings over the social, political and individual psychology behind the madness of mass immigration:

A desire (or professional need) for the "moral high ground", along with the social, political and economic advantages that go with it, I think, is a major force behind the ideology of mass immigration and the multi-racial/multicultural society it creates.

It is a "moral high ground", I suggest, that derives from Europeans' initial response to their shock and horror at the consequences of the Nazi's criminally insane racial ideology, which current "multiculti" ideology can be seen as the exact (equally extreme) opposite of.

The Nazis believed that race was of fundamental importance, with Germans being a superior "master race", with the right to dominate, exploit, or even eliminate, other, inferior races. The concept of race was fundamental to their manipulation and misuse of Germans' sense of national identity. Multi-culti ideology, in contrast, maintains that race has no social significance whatsoever (some even denying its existence altogether), except to "racists", and thus can have no role in national identity.

The problem that I have with this (and I am sure many others, native and immigrant, too, if they dare to be honest about it) is that ethnicity, although not exclusively, is nevertheless central and essential to my own sense of personal and group identity. It relates to my ancestors and their history (going back to the ancient Greeks), so how can it not be?

A multi-racial/multicultural sense of British identity has no depth or substance to it. It is just a politically opportune fabrication (as the myth of "British identity", in fact, always has been, even before the advent of multiculti society) to legitimize the authority of the British state, its government and institutions, in order to serve the interests of those who profit most form them.

Every time I've listened to Gordon Brown this last week, he's said how much he wants to SERVE the British people (which is why he needs us all to commit to a shared sense of British identity), but what he really wants, his main motivation (as it is for most politicians) is the desire for POWER. He cannot admit it, of course, perhaps not even to himself, but it's surely the truth.

With that, I refer back to my first post on this thread on the need for us to start thinking, at least, about replacing the power structures of our nation state, which are deeply rooted in our animal nature and behaviour (unsurprisingly, in view of human origins), and thus predominantly exploitative (as well as inherently unsustainable), with ones rooted in our more enlightened, human nature.

4th Post

More musings on the social, political and individual psychology driving the madness of mass immigration and multi-racial/multicultural society:

Woven into European history and culture is the exploitation of human fears and guilt as a means of social control and domination. Christianity was the perfect religion to facilitate this, in which man is depicted as a fallen angel and a wicked sinner - for desiring knowledge and self-awareness, no less (how terrible!), for which he was cursed by God and expelled from Paradise. The last thing the ancient priests, who presented this story as "holy scripture", wanted was to have their own authority undermined by individuals self-confident in their own knowledge and self-awareness, so they used God's authority to make them fearful and guilty about it.

Christianity made us feel guilty about our animal urges, especially sexual ones, which it exploited to control and dominate society (even, to some extent, the aristocracy, with which of course, the church formed an alliance to dominate and exploit the masses).

Most of us no longer submit to Christian teachings (ideology), thus a new source of guilt is required for those now seeking to control and dominate society: enter, very opportunely in the aftermath of the defeat of Nazism, with its horrific racial ideology, the extreme opposite ideology of multi-racial/multicultural society and - in order to create it and in allegiance with the interests of capital and the state - of mass immigration, along with a new priesthood (mostly employed in the temples of the liberal/leftwing media) to administer and enforce it.

We are no longer required or expected to feel guilty about our natural sexual urges (quite the contrary), but about our equally natural inclination to mistrust and set ourselves apart from those of different race or culture. Such inclinations (standing in for the sexual ones) are now considered wicked, or more specifically, "racist", and have to be suppressed. Thus, a new priesthood has its most effective means of controlling and dominating society to its own advantage.

What do you think? Could there perhaps be some truth, at least, in these idea?

To: Guardian CiF Re: The social, political and individual psychology behind mass immigration and multi-racial/multicultural society Date: Monday 2 July 07

In response to the article, "Brown's immigration challenge" by Will Somerville. Link to article and thread at The Guardian. It seems to me that mass immigration is undermining any deep or meaningful sense of British identity to the extent that the British state itself is fast becoming untenable. No sane person would want it to simply fall (or be torn) apart, or be held together by super-restrictive laws and brute force, so we need to start thinking about what to replace it with - and how. 2nd Post I understand the economic reasons for mass immigration (capital's and the state's need for cheap foreign labour, immigrants' desire for better economic and social opportunities , etc.), but I am also trying to understand the "social psychology" of those, especially on the "progressive", liberal-left of the political spectrum, who do not share the interests of capital, but are ideologically motivated in "championing" the madness mass immigration into our already, natively and unsustainably, overpopulated country. Added to this madness is another, related to the strong ideological interest of "progressives" in immigrants from very different ethnic and cultural backgrounds to those of the indigenous population. Human nature being what it is, this is bound to lead (has already led) to ethnic and cultural segregation and conflict, which will get worse as time goes by and the "minorities" become ever more numerous, established and confident in asserting their own ethnic and cultural identities. At the moment we simply laugh off British Muslims who want to live under Sharia Law, but in 50 years time (or maybe sooner) we may have to start negotiating (or fighting) with them. One, typical, expression of this social psychology is provided on this thread by [FreshTedium] and [whatithink], who immediately sought to dismiss and condemn posters critical of mass immigration as "xenophobes" and "racists". One would have to get them on the analyst's couch and know a lot more about them to find out exactly what motivates them, but I have a few suggestions, which I believe are generally applicable, but may or may not apply to them personally (no offense meant, chaps!). In McCarthy's America, for example, (political) opponents would be summarily dealt with by associating them with communism, in Soviet Russia by associating them with capitalism, or in medieval Christendom by associating them with paganism or some kind of heresy. It is the same social psychology ("spirit"), I'm sure, that in modern Britain opponents of the all-dominating (state, business and media) ideology, which promotes mass immigration and champions the "melting pot" of multi-racial/multicultural society, are dismissed as "xenophobes" and "racists", or at least, suspected of having such leanings, which "worthy citizens" have a "moral duty" to cudgel or "educate" out of them. These people like to puff themselves up (as we all do from time to time) with moral self-righteousness, thus demonstrating to themselves and, more importantly, to their in-group (of fellow "progressives", perhaps) their moral superiority and "in-group credentials" (very important for group bonding and identity, just as it was for Marxists, anti-communists, pious Christians and others). And there I must leave it for the moment, to watch Sunday AM and keep myself up to date on the madness of modern Britain. 3rd Post Continuing where I left off with my musings over the social, political and individual psychology behind the madness of mass immigration: A desire (or professional need) for the "moral high ground", along with the social, political and economic advantages that go with it, I think, is a major force behind the ideology of mass immigration and the multi-racial/multicultural society it creates. It is a "moral high ground", I suggest, that derives from Europeans' initial response to their shock and horror at the consequences of the Nazi's criminally insane racial ideology, which current "multiculti" ideology can be seen as the exact (equally extreme) opposite of. The Nazis believed that race was of fundamental importance, with Germans being a superior "master race", with the right to dominate, exploit, or even eliminate, other, inferior races. The concept of race was fundamental to their manipulation and misuse of Germans' sense of national identity. Multi-culti ideology, in contrast, maintains that race has no social significance whatsoever (some even denying its existence altogether), except to "racists", and thus can have no role in national identity. The problem that I have with this (and I am sure many others, native and immigrant, too, if they dare to be honest about it) is that ethnicity, although not exclusively, is nevertheless central and essential to my own sense of personal and group identity. It relates to my ancestors and their history (going back to the ancient Greeks), so how can it not be? A multi-racial/multicultural sense of British identity has no depth or substance to it. It is just a politically opportune fabrication (as the myth of "British identity", in fact, always has been, even before the advent of multiculti society) to legitimize the authority of the British state, its government and institutions, in order to serve the interests of those who profit most form them. Every time I've listened to Gordon Brown this last week, he's said how much he wants to SERVE the British people (which is why he needs us all to commit to a shared sense of British identity), but what he really wants, his main motivation (as it is for most politicians) is the desire for POWER. He cannot admit it, of course, perhaps not even to himself, but it's surely the truth. With that, I refer back to my first post on this thread on the need for us to start thinking, at least, about replacing the power structures of our nation state, which are deeply rooted in our animal nature and behaviour (unsurprisingly, in view of human origins), and thus predominantly exploitative (as well as inherently unsustainable), with ones rooted in our more enlightened, human nature. 4th Post More musings on the social, political and individual psychology driving the madness of mass immigration and multi-racial/multicultural society: Woven into European history and culture is the exploitation of human fears and guilt as a means of social control and domination. Christianity was the perfect religion to facilitate this, in which man is depicted as a fallen angel and a wicked sinner - for desiring knowledge and self-awareness, no less (how terrible!), for which he was cursed by God and expelled from Paradise. The last thing the ancient priests, who presented this story as "holy scripture", wanted was to have their own authority undermined by individuals self-confident in their own knowledge and self-awareness, so they used God's authority to make them fearful and guilty about it. Christianity made us feel guilty about our animal urges, especially sexual ones, which it exploited to control and dominate society (even, to some extent, the aristocracy, with which of course, the church formed an alliance to dominate and exploit the masses). Most of us no longer submit to Christian teachings (ideology), thus a new source of guilt is required for those now seeking to control and dominate society: enter, very opportunely in the aftermath of the defeat of Nazism, with its horrific racial ideology, the extreme opposite ideology of multi-racial/multicultural society and - in order to create it and in allegiance with the interests of capital and the state - of mass immigration, along with a new priesthood (mostly employed in the temples of the liberal/leftwing media) to administer and enforce it. We are no longer required or expected to feel guilty about our natural sexual urges (quite the contrary), but about our equally natural inclination to mistrust and set ourselves apart from those of different race or culture. Such inclinations (standing in for the sexual ones) are now considered wicked, or more specifically, "racist", and have to be suppressed. Thus, a new priesthood has its most effective means of controlling and dominating society to its own advantage. What do you think? Could there perhaps be some truth, at least, in these idea? http://www.spaceship-earth.org