Loss of culture in England

I had always assumed from the many horror-stories about the British underclass told by Anthony Daniels (“Theodore Dalrymple”) that he was mainly talking about blacks. He never mentions race at all but I put that down to the sort of inhibition about mentioning race that is understandable in people of Jewish origins. Since his work as a prison doctor seemed to be the main source of his stories and since the black contingent in British jails is huge, I thought I could read between the lines.

But now I wonder. I read constant reports in The Times and elsewhere about what an alcoholic jungle city-centres in Britain have become after dark and I note other reports such as this—where young British women aim to get “shitfaced” regularly—and this —where we read of the beautiful and talented Charlotte Church: “For her, an average night out involves downing her favourite “Cheeky Vimto” cocktail - a double port mixed with a sugary vodka-based alcopop, so named because it tastes like Vimto chewy bars - before leaving her house, then topping it up with another 10 double vodkas.”

So I am beginning to believe that the native people of England are in trouble too. They seem to have undergone a real loss of their traditional culture. Even in 1977 when I spent a year in Britain that had not happened. At that time if you saw someone drunk in the street, it was a fair bet that he was Irish. The typical Englishman would spend all night in the pub over a single pint or perhaps two. It was a culture that used alcohol with great moderation. But it would seem that such a culture no longer exists among the British young. That does seem a tragic loss given the various sorts of damage that unwise use of alcohol can lead to. More importantly, however, a general loss of restraint, moderation, self-control and individual responbsibility would seem to be indicated. The previous moderate use of alcohol did not spring up out of the blue but was an outgrowth of a wider culture of moderation and restraint.

I have noticed no similar deterioration in Australia—perhaps in part because Australia’s drinking habits have always been more Irish than English. So while there certainly are some incidents of drunken violence, it has always been so. And the broader culture seems unchanged. Australians are as cheerful and as friendly as ever. Once can certainly not point to any clear evidence that tells us why Australian culture has not undergone any collapse but the fact that Australian governments tend to be much more conservative and much less socialistic than British ones would certainly be my starting point for an explanation. I think we have much less of a nanny State here and strong survivals of traditional rugged individualism.

Posted by jonjayray on Tuesday, July 5, 2005 at 09:59 PM in Social liberalism
Comments (16) | Tell a friend

Comments:

Posted by Keith on July 05, 2005, 10:16 PM | #

The project of the Blair government seems to be to dismantle any idea of “Englishness” as an identifiable culture and to replace it with some vague socialist nanny-ideal that gives any culture other than the native one special consideration.
Pride in British traditions and institutions has been systematically derided and attacked and devalued.
I’d go out and get drunk too, faced with that grey socialist lack of vision.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 06, 2005, 12:51 AM | #

If I might, I’d like to flesh out Keith’s excellent statement a bit further (my additions are in brackets):

“The project of the Blair government seems to be to dismantle any idea of ‘Englishness’ [or of the English race] as an identifiable culture [or race] and to replace it [the culture] with some vague socialist nanny-ideal with that gives any culture other than the native one special consideration, [and the race with an interbred mixture of English and about a dozen or so non-white races including African and Caribbean Negro, Oriental, Indian Subcontinental, and Middle-Eastern Arab, so that no longer will anyone be able to claim there is an English race in the world as there was from fifteen hundred years ago till now]. Pride in British traditions and institutions [and in the British collection of traditional races] has been systematically derided and attacked and devalued [and, as for the traditional collection of British races, they’re in the process of being deliberately extinguished forever through the means we all know only too well, based around forced excessive incompatible immigration and its companion policies, the whole amounting to deliberate race-replacement].”

(I hope Keith didn’t mind my taking those liberties with his comment—that was how I saw, in my mind’s eye, a way to “complete” his excellent-but-incomplete post as I read it ...)

Posted by Keith on July 06, 2005, 01:05 AM | #

Fred, thank you for expanding so effectively on my quick note. And I agree wholeheartedly with what you’ve added.

Posted by DaveJ on July 06, 2005, 04:27 AM | #

I used to thing I liked the english, then I went there.

Posted by Guessedworker on July 06, 2005, 05:04 AM | #

Thanks for this post, John. I only grew suspicious of Daniels’ incapacity to mention race quite recently, and specifically in connection to his prison doctoring. I see it as rooted in his Jewishness, not in the anomie which one encounters generally among the English these days (and which I do not restrict to the young).

Anomie is the product of social instability which, in these largely pacific times, is itself the consequence of pursuing personal liberty. On this subject, quite obviously, I take my lead from an honest and honourable Jewish gentleman of higher worth than Daniels: the great sociologist, educationalist and staunch supporter of family life, Emile Durkheim.

War, when it happens, and social liberalism are the plainly visible sources of instability in our society. But there is a respectable, historical argument to be made that the impact of industrialisation and urbanisation kicked off a chain reaction - including the demand for universal suffrage - which swept away the old Conservative zeitgeist. Conservatism was the producer and sole guarantor of stability in society. Its Whiggish/liberal/advanced liberal successor has no such purpose, it being concerned solely to “free” men - including from traditional or Conservative morality.

By default, therefore, instability was bound to arise. There was simply nothing in place to stop it. What we have is an inevitable social entropy, coloured and driven by the pursuit of value-free personal liberty.

Within that picture the anti-white and other egalitarian programmes of modern marxian politicians add mightily to the production of cultural and social anomie among the English. Advanced liberal racism against us is a highly significant factor, as Fred notes. But the story of English anomie did not start in 1948.

We are now quite unknown to ourselves. We are lost, which is the meaning of anomie at a personal level. Liberalism has freed nobody but ploughs on, re-inventing itself periodically with the identification of new oppressions and new modes of freedom. It is social disaster politically incarnate.

Those among MR’s little community who believe that nationalism will reverse our trajectory towards deracination and loss of our homelands need, in my opinion, to reflect much more deeply upon the great issue of anomie. Perhaps, having done so and appreciated the scale of it, others besides myself will argue for a more meta-political approach to solving our formidable problems.

Posted by jonjayray on July 06, 2005, 05:34 AM | #

David
You sound remarkably Marxist in that post. Alienation and anomie are much favoured by the Left as a description of the ills of society—which a paternal state will of course fix

Posted by jonjayray on July 06, 2005, 05:36 AM | #

Do English readers of this post think this description is apt?

“an alcoholic jungle city-centres in Britain have become after dark “

Posted by Guessedworker on July 06, 2005, 05:54 AM | #

John.

Your “alcoholic jungle” quote refers to the hour or so after “turning out time” on, particularly, Fridays and Saturdays. That means from 2.00am in the morning.

The problem is restricted to major population centres where a concentration of late night bars and clubs offer cheap booze to attract several thousand “customers”. I hasten to add that destructive social liberalism is only one side of the bargain. The other is destructive free enterprise - though, after much bad publicity, pub chains are now making noises about ending all-night happy hour.

I will answer your first comment on the new liberalism thread

Posted by john fitzgerald on July 06, 2005, 06:43 AM | #

I agree with guestworker, state schooling
I think has had a very detrimental impact on my people. And the bbc has probably done more than any other institution to
demean the indiginous culture.
Every one wants to believe in something bigger than themselves, a nation, a people, but there isn’t much to beleive in in England. Maybe racism will become popular.

Posted by Mark Richardson on July 06, 2005, 06:57 AM | #

Guessedworker has put it exactly right:

“Conservatism was the producer and sole guarantor of stability in society. Its Whiggish/liberal/advanced liberal successor has no such purpose, it being concerned solely to “free” men - including from traditional or Conservative morality.”

Let’s face it. We have all been morally “liberated”. If you don’t like what you see, you have no right to try to change things, certainly not to insist on a higher standard. Just to turn away or change the channel. Anything else would be an imposition on someone else. Or so the ruling ideology goes.

Posted by Stuka on July 06, 2005, 09:18 AM | #

Anyone familiar with Modern England & the English would have known the starring roles in Dalrymple’s stories primarily go to the English, not non-whites. I seem to recall Dalrymple himself addressing this several years ago in one of his columns.

Incidentally, Charlotte Church’s problems extend not only to her drinking habits, but also to her choice of a Negro boyfriend.

Posted by ummjack on July 06, 2005, 11:02 PM | #

Theodore Dalrymple is always explicit about the race of the people he writes about. He distinguishes among the behavior of poor blacks, poor whites, and poor Asians, when there’s anything to distinguish, and he tells the reader when there is not.

Posted by Andrew L on July 07, 2005, 03:03 AM | #

This is not Good, who can we call winging poms if there are no poms any more, we would have not anyone to insult, tornt, We must defend the right form poms to exist, they are the only ones left to insult without being called racist, Hmmmmm. well the white ones.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on July 07, 2005, 05:01 PM | #

Product of two things (i) Socilist state education, and (ii) left-Tory relaxation of the licensing laws under the ghastly Major. There are very good reasons why I’m bringing up my 13 year old son in the US; the culture (outside the big cities) is less dangerous.

The US casino gambling mania is a similar problem, which will have equally disastrous effects in the long run. However, Virginia is so far sensible about casinos—long may it remain so!

Posted by john rackell on July 10, 2005, 08:33 AM | #

The US casino gambling mania is a similar problem,

What about internet addiction?

Posted by David Murphey on February 12, 2008, 10:03 PM | #

Next entry: Is the term “liberal” still meaningful?

Previous entry: The “mystery” of Ashkenazic origins

Existential Issues

White Genocide Project

Of note

General News

Science News

Science Categories

All Categories

The Writers

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Controlled Opposition

Crime

General

Immigration

Islam

Jews

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Whites in Africa