Category Archives: Britain

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

 

Advertisements

Only something like a religious revival can begin to solve England’s deep, deep problems

Britain, Dalrymple notes,

has enormous cultural problems, perhaps only to be expected in a country in which more than 50% of children are born out of wedlock and 20% do not eat a meal with another member of their household more than once every two weeks. A dangerously high and perhaps unsustainable proportion of the population is unfitted for productive life in a modern economy, having attained an abysmally low educational level despite (or because of?) considerable state expenditure. This section of the population is not merely indifferent to refinement of any kind – intellectual, æsthetic or of manners – but actively hostile to it. Similarly, it is not merely not anxious to learn, it is anxious not to learn.

This explains why Britain has persistently imported labour from Eastern Europe

to perform tasks in its service industries that ordinarily one might have expected its large fund of indigenous non-employed people to perform. Although these tasks require no special skills, they require certain personal qualities such as reliability, politeness, and willingness to adapt: and these the eligible local population lack entirely. No hotel-keeper, for example, would consider using British labour if he could get foreign.

Perhaps nothing, says Dalrymple, captures the levels of personal incompetence and lack of self-respect in Britain

than the fact that young men of the lowest social class are about half as likely to die in prison as they are if left at liberty. In prison, though adult, they are looked after, at least in a basic way, and told what to do. They are no longer free to pursue their dangerous and crudely self-indulgent lifestyle, in which distraction is the main occupation. In prison they receive the healthcare that, though it is free to them under the NHS, they are not responsible enough to seek when at liberty.

In short, Dalrymple observes,

they do not know, because they have never been taught, how to live in a minimally constructive fashion, though they were certainly not born ineducable.

Other comparable countries have similar problems, but none

has them to anything like the same extent.

He points out that these problems do not originate from Britain’s membership of the European Union,

nor will they be solved by exit from the Union. They can be solved only by something more resembling a religious revival than by any likely government action.

But

expecting a population to bethink itself while simultaneously being offered political solutions that require no effortful cultural change is unreasonably optimistic. And politicians are unlikely to be frank about the problem for two reasons: first because alluding to the deficiencies of their electorate is probably not the best way to get elected, and second because it downgrades the providential role of politics, which politicians are understandably reluctant to do.

Britishers are ferocious in defence of their egotism

Great Britain, writes Dalrymple,

has become among the least disciplined nations known to me in the matter of making a noise, and the most ferocious in its defence of its own egotism. The English, it used to be said, took their pleasures sadly; now they take them loudly. As they walk through the streets in pursuit of their generally gross and unrefined pleasures, or after they have taken them, they scream and shout fit to wake people on life-support machines in a vegetative state. The women are worse than the men, or at least their voices are more penetrating.

Ztraceni v ghettu

Šokující, srdceryvné příběhy z anglických městských ghett, jež napsal literárně talentovaný vězeňský lékař a psychiatr, jsou především obžalobou levicového liberalismu a multikulturní ideologie intelektuálů. Těm se totiž podařilo přesvědčit tzv. spodinu společnosti, že je především obětí nespravedlivých společenských podmínek, ze nezodpovídá za svůj život a ze je naprosto bez šancí.

Tolerantní postoje k deviantnímu chování a ke zločinu odsuzují ty nejzranitelnější (děti a ženy) k životu v gangsterském prostředí násilí, drog a každodenní hrůzy.

Ohromná mašinerie sociální pomoci nevede k soběstačnosti ani neumožňuje únik z ghetta. Ideologická představa, že z bídy neexistuje osobní východisko, pouze sociální dávky, tak vytvořila velké patogenní společenství (24 % mladistvých neumí v Británii číst ani psát), které se paradoxně opravdu stalo obětí systému a žije v sebeklamu neviny, bezmoci a beznaděje.

Nechť se tento dramatický a strhující zápis strašlivé skutečnosti stane pro nás varovným mementem.

Ukázky z knihy:

Jako vězeňský lékař trávím sice velkou většinu svého profesionálního života na dně společnosti, ovšem díky svému psaní mám přístup i do společnosti literární. To, jak tato společnost samolibě přehlíží sociální katastrofu, k níž došlo v nejnižších vrstvách, mě děsí neméně než katastrofa sama. Ještě nikdy se tak strašlivá lhostejnost neskrývala za soucitem, ještě nikdy neexistovala taková záměrná slepota. Je to, jako kdyby se pragmatičtí Angličané změnili v národ náměsíčníků.

Je chybou domnívat se, že všichni lidé, nebo přinejmenším všichni Angličané, chtějí být svobodní. Naopak, pokud svoboda znamená zároveň zodpovědnost, pak ji mnozí lidé nechtějí – ani co by se za nehet vešlo. Ochotně by vyměnili svou svobodu za skromný (byť iluzorní) pocit bezpečí. Dokonce i ti, kteří o sobě tvrdí, že si svobody nesmírně váží, nemají zrovna nej větší radost, aby uznali následky svého jednání. Cílem milionů lidí je dělat si, co se jim zachce, a nechat za své činy pykat jiné.

George Orwell napsal, že základní povinností novodobého intelektuála by měla být obhajoba samozřejmostí a neustálý boj proti „malým smrdutým ideologiím…, které zápasí o naši duši”. Orwell tím mínil totalitní ideologie, které oslňovaly inteligenci jeho doby a bránily jí vidět zřejmé a evidentní pravdy o společnosti. Jeho napomenutí platí i dnes, přestože fašismu a komunismu už dávno odzvonilo. Zánik totality totiž zdaleka nevedl k upřímnému a čestnému hodnocení reality, ale pouze rozmnožil ideologické brýle, jimiž lidé pohlížejí na svět. Jestliže platí, že lidstvo, jak to vyjádřil T. S. Eliot, nesnese příliš mnoho pravdy, očividně dokáže snášet jakékoli množství nepravd.

Cenzura, jíž intelektuálové zakrývají pravdu, a to i před sebou, stojí proto za prozkoumání a musíme se ptát, proč tak vlastně činí.

  • Nejprve je tu fenomén vědomého popírání reality.
  • Za druhé, žongluje se s tendenční ahistorickou analogií neboli jakýmkoli precedentem.
  • Za třetí, jakmile jsou fakta pod tíhou nevyvratitelných důkazů konečně přijata, je popřen nebo překroucen jejich morální význam.

Jeden producent televize BBC mi nedávno nastínil, jak takové liberální zapírání může probíhat.
Jeho kolegové, sdělil mi, ho považují za nekonformního, za rytíře bojujícího s větrnými mlýny a možná téměř za blázna. A jak že se projevuje to jeho bláznovství? Chtěl, aby BBC natočila nepřikrášlené dokumenty o životě ve spodní třetině společnosti, o masové (a vzrůstající) negramotnosti, o masovém (a narůstajícím) nemanželském původu dětí, o rodinách s jediným rodičem, o masovém (a narůstajícím) chuligánství, násilí, bezpráví, narkomanii, závislosti na sociálních dávkách a beznaději.

Chtěl, aby si lidé uvědomili, co se u nich za rohem vlastně odehrává. Doufal, že upozorní na devastující účinky fragmentace, lépe řečeno, atomizace rodiny, již liberální legislativa, sociální inženýrství a neblahé změny v kulturním vnímání od konce 50. let 20. století tak silně podporují.
Jeho nadřízení v BBC přivítali jeho návrhy blahosklonně.

Nejprve ovšem popřeli fakta. Když přišel s nevyvratitelnými důkazy o existenci zmíněných jevů, obvinili ho z amorálního šíření paniky.
Když dokázal, že jevy, na něž fakta poukazují, jsou vážné a že se rychle šíří celou společností, sdělili mu, že se s tím nedá nic dělat, protože jde o nevyhnutelnou součást moderního života. Když namítl, že jsou výsledkem záměrné politiky, chtěli vědět, jestli touží po návratu starých špatných časů, kdy rozhádaní manželé byli nuceni žít spolu.

A když na to odvětil, že co se napáchalo, lze rovněž alespoň zčásti opravit, vytasili nakonec svůj trumf.
Na tak nezajímavé téma nemá smysl něco natáčet.
Britskou veřejnost přece nebude nikdo rušit při její neoblomné náměsíčné chůzi ke společenské katastrofě, před níž ji její křehká ekonomická prosperita zcela jistě neuchrání.

Forward into the seventies

Britain, Dalrymple notes, has several very severe problems, and this is evident the moment you leave a prosperous area whose residents are likely to vote Conservative. Among the problems are

  • stagnation of productivity
  • precariousness of income
  • deficiencies in public services
  • low cultural and educational level of much of the population
  • inadequacy of the housing stock

Yet

the only solution heard to these problems is more government expenditure. The Conservatives went in for this — Theresa May refused to rule out tax increases, for example.

Socialist calamity looms

Thus an alarming aspect of the election was

the recrudescence of the politics of envy and resentment.

The Labour party under Jeremy Corbyn

radiated dislike of the prosperous, even the modestly prosperous.

The party’s solutions to the country’s problems were supposedly to be paid for by higher taxes on the richest 5% of the population.

This proposal overlooked the fact that the top 1% of earners already pay almost three times as much in income tax as the bottom 50% combined, and the fact that wealth is dynamic rather than static, resembling more the bloom of a grape than a cake to be sliced. Taxes on capital (in other words, state expropriation) were Corbyn’s obvious next step, with capital flight the equally obvious consequence.

None of this worried the young,

who had as yet no stake in property, only what are sometimes called ideals. The Labour party offered them and others the beguiling vision of living perpetually at the expense of others — Bastiat’s definition of the state. The Laffer curve meant nothing to them; punishing the prosperous was more important and gratifying than understanding how to maximise tax receipts.

Dalrymple comments:

The election could take Britain back more than 50 years.

Dalrymple: I met a would-be suicide bomber

What, Dalrymple asked himself, in this man

who had not yet had the chance to put his thanatological daydream into practice could have produced as embittered a mentality—what experience of life, what thoughts, what doctrines? What fathomless depths of self-pity led him to the conclusion that only by killing himself and others could he give a noble and transcendent meaning to his existence?

Dalrymple writes that

no threat (at first sight) might deter someone who is prepared to extinguish himself to advance his cause, and who considers such self-annihilation while killing as many strangers as possible a duty, an honour, and a merit that will win ample rewards in the hereafter.

And Britain has an unknown number of such people in its midst, many of them homegrown.

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.

 

A filthy, degraded country

England, Dalrymple points out to an interviewer, is a corrupt country. Not in the way that, for instance, Italy is corrupt, but morally and intellectually corrupt, which is worse. The educational system has been ruined, there are large social problems (of which public drunkenness is an example), and the country is the dirtiest in Europe — Britishers routinely fling rubbish out of car windows to pollute the beautiful countryside, for instance. There has been a cultural revolution in the country, making it quite the opposite of what it once was.

The loss of a sense of a hierarchy of value

screen-shot-2017-01-03-at-22-58-44There is in Britain, says Dalrymple (from 1:01:03),

a very crude materialism, and skewed values. Parents used to ask me why their child was so horrible when they did ‘everything’ for it. I asked what they meant by ‘everything’. The answer was: providing it with the latest tennis shoes, things of no value, rubbish. I’ve known a case of murder over the brand of tennis shoes.

Why is this?

Probably because there’s nothing else. There’s no cultural continuum, no pride in country, no political project, no religion.

There is, Dalrymple points out,

a loss of a sense of a hierarchy of value, as well as of a social hierarchy.

Dalrymple remembers his father, who was born in a poor quarter of London. The education he received there

was better than 99.9% of children today. His teachers — to whom he was always grateful — never took the view that he was poor and couldn’t be expected to learn Latin or appreciate science or art. They aimed to open his eyes to science and art. He told me that they would take children to museums in their spare time.

There is very little sense of that now because

the idea that one thing is higher than another has disappeared, especially from the intellectual class, who are all playing the shepherdess like Marie Antoinette. They don’t really like their own children not to have any sense of hierarchy, but they will propound the theory that there is no higher and lower, and unfortunately this affects everyone.

Superior rationality of the Eurocrats

screen-shot-2016-12-05-at-19-45-29Thwarted élites, Dalrymple points out,

are not good losers. They resort to any manœuvre to ensure that they prevail.

Brexit

is by no means a certainty.

But just say that Britain were able to effect the departure from the European Union that most of its citizens want. In that case,

the EU’s hopes for survival would rest on catastrophe for Britain. If it were able to prosper outside the Union, or maintain its level, the value of the Union would be called into question by the peoples of Europe even more than it is today.

screen-shot-2016-12-05-at-19-47-28Imperative that the British be made

  to suffer for their impertinence,

as Admiral Byng was shot pour encourager les autres. This could not be done

without causing harm to European companies that do a lot of trade with Britain; but when it comes to the EU, politics overrides economics. If it did not, the common currency would not have been created, for there was little justification for its creation; to the contrary, there were many obvious disadvantages for most member countries.

screen-shot-2016-12-05-at-19-49-44The ‘European project’, Dalrymple explains,

is a political rather than an economic one. A prosperous economy is only desired insofar as it is necessary to produce a strong and powerful polity. The aim of the EU is not peace but power. The driving force of the Union and its so-called project (never spelt out) is megalomania.

The wishes of Europe’s people not only must not be followed,

but should be neither consulted nor even known. This contempt for the opinions of the ruled was inherent in the European ‘project’ from its inception, its founders believing in the incapacity of populations to know what was in their best interest, and that a cadre of the enlightened knew their interest better than they.

screen-shot-2016-12-05-at-19-52-24‘Democratic oversight’

should be appearance rather than reality,

that the masses might believe

they are ruled by consent. Any pretence of such oversight must not be allowed to interfere with the serious business of benevolent, wise, but bureaucratic or technocratic control of society. Politics is to be abolished in favour of administration: the dream of every utopian from Plato to Marx and anarchists of every stripe.

But Dalrymple notes that

riding roughshod over a population’s opinions and sentiments in the name of a supposedly superior rationality is not a very wise policy.