It has been proven that to take away the familiar and known from an individual is to disorientate that person. It is a well-practised method of breaking down a prisoner for interrogation, for example (sensory deprivation etc). A less harsh form, usually, is recruit training in armies and similar organizations. However, the same is true in societies generally. When the familiar is taken away, society suffers something akin to a nervous breakdown. The singer Morrissey has commented recently that England now is little more than a memory.
In the UK, we have seen how society was already struggling with the importation of millions of immigrants even before 1997, when the Tony Blair Zionist government (ZOG puppet government) took power. It is now a matter of record that a deliberate decision was taken by the Tony Blair government to import further millions of immigrants, mostly non-Europeans, in order to destroy Britain as it has been and to a limited extent still is; to destroy the racial and cultural roots and foundations of our country. White genocide.
That policy, spearheaded by two corrupt Jews, Phil Woolas and Barbara Roche (both now removed from Parliament), has been successful. Britain is now, at least in part, an ethno-social dustbin. The millions imported have been breeding, prolifically. Recent reports and studies estimate that the UK will become majority non-white by 2050. If one takes England alone, the date can probably be reduced to around 2040. Already, some English cities are English in name and history only or are getting that way: London is already majority non-white (native-born population: 44%), Birmingham and Manchester are rapidly following (57% and 66%), while smaller cities such as Leicester and Bradford are already, like London, mainly non-white.
The above ethno-cultural changes have destabilized the national mental landscape. The change has been accompanied by a propaganda campaign stealthily making use of “soaps” and TV advertizing. The mixed-race family is presented as the norm. Even Midsomer Murders, the archetypal Middle England comedy-drama detective series, was forced, after criticism, to put blacks and browns into the cast lists. This is (as with TV ads) not really reflective of reality but the creation of a new “reality”. Social engineering.
The wrenching apart of the accepted “mental landscape” does not end with the racial-cultural question. It is far wider. It includes the gratuitous renaming of commercial and trade union organizations. Thus the old trade unions, with their easy to understand names and functions, have become amorphous huge conglomerations with names that mean little, such as “Unison”, “Unite” etc, and have abandoned their members’ interests to pursue a politically-correct agenda involving “anti-racism”, “anti-sexism”, promotion of mass immigration etc.
In the same way that the trade unions have been corrupted, so commercial enterprises have been renamed and somehow displaced. Norwich Union insurance becomes “Aviva”, and so on.
The result of this dislocation of the mental landscape on the large scale has been the rupturing of the connection between the people as a whole and the mainstream political parties. The Conservative Party, which once had a membership in the millions, now numbers only a few tens of thousands and is still sliding. Labour, which was going the same way, has recovered under Corbyn to about 450,000, but its popular vote has not recovered. The Liberal Democrats are a very small party in terms of both members and votes. UKIP too has fallen back, in its case to almost nothing, but the fact that it briefly mushroomed into a threat to the older parties indicates that the voters are no longer anchored to System parties. However, a non-System party credible enough to come to the fore has not yet emerged.
Another symptom of the mental-landscape dislocation is seen in the notionally “nationalist” direct-action operations carried out by the “lone wolf” dissidents. The highest profile case is probably that of Thomas Mair, who killed Jo Cox MP a few years ago. In his case, the sheer dislocation suffered by society seems to have triggered a determination to make a point through forceful action.
More significantly, the lack of secure anchorings in society may lead to a volatile political milieu in which a social-national party could be formed, become popular and then move to attain power within a relatively few years.
Ian Robert Millard 
A very interesting piece.
Have you noticed, too, how the architecture of the local urban and suburban environment in England has altered? I grew up in the North and it used to be quite heavily industrial, but even as a boy I noticed the change over to a bland post-industrial landscape: shopping centres, business parks, boring housing estates, etc., and former industrial sites becoming museums or, worse, derelict. I think the psychological effect of this must be a less hardy populace, shallower, greedier, more selfish and blander people, due to the myriad effects and re-orientations these structural economic changes cause. Sort of like the way parts of the United States are. When you add into that a more ethnically- and racially-mixed population, you then have the makings of a very shallow, commercially-driven society. Nationalism is really ‘political ecology’, is it not? It’s in part about recognising the roots and moorings that we all have to our ‘home’ and the importance of this to us as human beings. Even the most cosmopolitan individual must one day return home.
It must be still more traumatic watching one’s locality change ethnically, in some cases to something completely unrecognisable. It’s a process of colonisation. We’re all familiar with the trope that Amerindians suffered inter-generational traumas as a result of their dispossession by white colonists – and I’ve no doubt there’s truth in it.
The ‘Rotherham’ phenomenon interests me as an example of ‘psychopolitics’ and it seems to me that it has not yet been described correctly. It could be understood at a social-psychological level as a unconscious cry from white women to white men to stand up and oppose this bio-racial colonisation. If white men do not rise to the challenge, then they lose their women, not just figuratively but eventually literally. Shoe-horning the issue into the legal system and calling it ‘rape’ does not, it seems to me, allow for a full comprehension of its racial significance. It’s not rape, it’s colonisation. When re-framed and understood in those terms, matters of legality fade into insignificance. You either fight or you lose your future. Maybe the inability to comprehend this is down to the lack of an authentic white male voice in society: everything seems feminised and we have developing this burgeoning white mythos of self-victimhood. White men are not victims.
White men stand for personal responsibility, which is the keystone of our civilisation, and a value that is at odds with plaintive feminist whining about ‘rape cultures’, from whatever ethnic source. The solution to ‘Rotherham’ is the expulsion of non-whites from Britain, not the expansion of the state and its feminist social work culture, disrespect for due process and sexual terrorism against men.
Self-victimhood is very appealing and only a strong character can overcome it. Jews have that mythos in abundance and have institutionalised it: from the Exodus to the Holocaust. I think Jews have inculcated this victimhood into our psyche, as a religion in itself and a further means to control us, and I do wonder to what extent that is responsible for our moral degeneration, self-abasement and Stockholm Syndrome-type mass mental orientation? I recoil at the re-creation of the Holocaust mythos in the form of ‘Rotherham’: Rotherham itself, Telford, Oxford, etc. Whites are NOT victims. I am not a victim. Whites are creators of civilisations. Whites are doers, makers, rulers and – yes, sometimes – oppressors. Victimhood must not become our credo. Yet, in that regard, I consider Thomas Mair to be a hero, even if his actions came out of a desperate or confused mindset. There is a man who assumes responsibility and acts, instead of whinging and whining and resting on statutory legalities. I have no sympathy for Jo Cox.
A different angle on your topic is the way that in a multi-cultural society, everything is reduced to the common denominator, which is usually the lowest standard or the coldest form of behaviour, so as to avoid offence.
Years ago, I went on a CAB advisers course in which we were told not to shake hands with clients. It was explained that this is due to cultural sensitivities: we live in a multi-cultural society now, they told us, and not all traditions include the hand shake as a greeting custom. To me, the handshake is intuitive on greeting anybody, even somebody I don’t like, and it felt strange having to remember not to do it. (I expect the Roman salute would not have been acceptable either, and I didn’t push my luck).
Many, many years ago (and long before I fell into nationalism), I was for a while a volunteer for a community group in south London and used to know quite well a black man who was one of the mainstays. He had a social science degree of some sort. When giving talks to the client group – mostly white teenagers – he would emphasise cultural sensitivity points, such as not being seen kissing in public as that could offend other cultures, etc. It’s a minor example of how what might be considered fairly normal, even intuitive, behaviour among whites is slowly abolished in the interests of “community cohesion”, a Newspeak phrase for revising the host culture into something bland and neutered to accommodate the alien.
Whenever as a group we needed something doing, the black fellow would always suggest we try the ‘equality argument’. It’s the key that unlocks everything. The cynicism is shameless, but I think this is how lots of otherwise sensible people get roped into playing these games: you have to speak the language of the decision-makers, and they themselves are indoctrinated into soft leftism. It turns people into cowards and betrayers of their own culture and binds white people implicitly to the meta-conspiracy, making it psychologically as well as practically difficult to ‘stand up’ and oppose this stuff in the political sphere.
LikeLike
As to architecture and landscape, it is true that “the country” has become suburbanized. Places that I knew as a child in South Oxfordshire and Berkshire (1956-67 and 1970-1974) are noticeably more “suburban” and London-commuter oriented now, though some (thanks to planning restrictions) are little changed, eg Goring on Thames, Sonning etc. The country through which I cycled aged 8 or 9 has altered: fields of wheat, and pig farms, are in some cases now golf courses etc (when I belonged to Reading Golf Club as a junior member aged 15, it was the *only* one very near to Reading, I think; now there are dozens). Elsewhere, though, some of the changes have improved the places changed: I was taken to see Ebbw Vale in South Wales c.1978. A Dante-esque vision of industrial hell, like the old Ruhr. On returning in the 1980s, I saw how it had already started to regreen, the slag heaps were becoming green hills with forests.
You are right about the “victim culture”.
LikeLike