Category Archives: Britain (dysfunction)

England, corrupting England

Britain’s baneful effect on the Jamaican spirit

What has England done to them that they should turn out thus?

Dalrymple writes that whenever he has a patient who belongs to the first generation of Jamaican immigrants,

I cannot help but ask myself what England has done to the Jamaicans.

How, he wonders,

has such a charming and humorous community been turned into the sullen, resentful people that so many of their children (or grandchildren) seem to be today?

The males, in particular, are

possessed of an arrogant sense of radical entitlement that renders them almost extraterritorial both to the laws of the land and the laws of good manners.

Advertisements

In England, inner emigration is the only option for decent people

Britishers, writes Dalrymple, are

more comprehensively surveyed as they go about their daily business than the poor Soviets ever were.

The surveillance

is intended not to protect or deter, but to intimidate.

There is in Britain, he notes,

a nomenclatura who wield great and irresponsible power, whose life is distant from that of the great majority of citizens. As in the Soviet Union, they do not own the state institutions in which they work, but they have the usufruct of them. Their privileges are wildly out of proportion either to their merits or to the privileges that others enjoy. The first-class carriages of trains, for example, are almost exclusively for their use.

Sovietisation

Dalrymple points out that England has become

a propaganda state. No matter what economies are imposed on those parts of the public services that deliver services to the public, there is always time enough and money enough in state institutions for the production and distribution of glossy propaganda to the workers who receive it compulsorily (for they are never asked whether they want it or not).

As in communist countries, the purpose of the propaganda

is not to persuade, much less to inform, but to violate the probity of the recipient, who has neither the energy nor the courage to protest against its lies, and therefore becomes in some way complicit in them. The more untrue the propaganda is, the more at variance with the lived experience of those who are subjected to it, the better, for the more completely it destroys the integrity of the recipient, rendering him docile.

Therefore, at the very time when hospitals are under threat of closure,

the staff receive glossy handouts portraying them as happy and smiling, at one with the management, just as Soviet peasants were portrayed feasting at tables groaning with produce at the height of famine.

There is

a constantly-changing langue de bois used by the hierarchy of public institutions, to disguise the reality. Words no longer have tolerably fixed meaning, but must be construed in their dialectical sense. Experience teaches, for example, that when the chief executive of an NHS institution says, ‘I am passionately committed to x,’ he means x is about to be disbanded or closed down, and about time.

Careless talk costs careers

An atmosphere of fear stalks Great Britain, says Dalrymple.

People are reluctant to speak their minds, even if what is in their minds is by no means outrageous. Whole subjects, some of them of great national importance, are beyond the pale of acceptable discussion. In the public service, underlings are afraid that their superiors might get to hear anything that contradicts the latest ideological doctrine, or that fails to use the latest accepted terminology, and that they might suffer.

Professionals have to take part in many fraudulent

ceremonial procedures, such as endless meetings of a semi-political nature, and perform bureaucratic tasks ever more intellectually corrupt and disconnected from the real goal of their work, compliance with which destroys their probity and turns them into ciphers.

Failure to protest

induces a state of self-hatred and contempt.

The best

go into inner emigration, and withdraw from public life completely.

The worst

join the apparatchiks.

Careerism, cronyism and looting of the public purse

Who is to blame for the Sovietisation of British life? Dalrymple explains that Margaret Thatcher played a large part.

Not only did she give the impression of being an economic determinist, a mirror-image Marxist, and not only was she a great centraliser, giving an impetus to the most ruthless forms of careerism and its corollary, cronyism, but she vastly increased the role of supposedly technocratic management in society, and particularly in the public service. She thought that professional managers were the way to control the vested interests of professions and public servants; in the process she created the new nomenclatura, with vested interests that dwarf all previous vested interests, and a looting of the public purse such as has not been seen for two centuries.

The Labour party,

to do it justice, saw its opportunity presented to it on a plate by the Conservatives. Trained in dialectics by those (many) among them with communist pasts, they read the situation with some subtlety. Not nationalisation, but a permanent revolution of ever-changing regulation, favour-swapping with big business, bureaucratic reorganisation, and the proliferation of parastatal bodies was the road to eternal power and the spoils it brought with it.

In the process,

the freedom and independence of the citizen had to be destroyed: a small price to pay, since they never valued it in the first place.

Dalrymple does not expect to see the Sovietisation reversed in his lifetime,

at least not without a cataclysm: and that might bring us something very much worse.

In the meantime, he has

joined the inner emigration.

Britishers’ abysmal cultural and educational level

Dalrymple points in a speech (from 6:11) to Great Britain’s

obviously low general level of education, which you can see just by walking in the street.

It is very glaring from the moment he arrives in England (he lives much of the time in France). There is

a determined, ideological quality to the evident low cultural and educational level.

One finds in Britain

  • deliberate crudity, vulgarity and stupidity
  • lack of refinement of any kind
  • inability or unwillingness to learn even so simple a matter as how to address strangers with reasonable civility (all the more devastating in an economy that is highly dependent on the provision of services)

For this reason, Dalrymple explains, England will, whatever its level of unemployment,

continue to have to import labour if it wants to have simple services that work with tolerable efficiency. If you don’t believe me, I suggest you go to a large hotel with only a British staff. It’s amusing in a way.

England will continue to have to import labour if it wants to have simple services that work with tolerable efficiency

 

Why Dalrymple voted for Brexit

Dalrymple spends part of every year in his house in Shropshire

Despite the fact that the European Union is far from being the cause of all the country’s problems, the outcome of the 2016 UK EU membership referendum steers Britain away from a potential monster, Dalrymple tells an interviewer.

Although no sensible person would liken it to the Third Reich or the Soviet Union, the EU nevertheless bears the seeds of an unfree state. It wants to force different peoples together in an artificial union. Dalrymple notes that Belgium is such a union: it holds together, more or less, but to do such a thing on a larger scale is to court major problems.

And the argument that the EU is the only way for Europe to play a role on the world stage can be swept aside. The EU has shown only weakness.

The European project, says Dalrymple, is little but misplaced megalomania.