I do not believe in free love, I
believe in true love.
IF anyone should wish to see a practice in camouflage and deceit, obfuscation and decoy, look to the 2021 Census website for England and Wales. It took the many people employed in compiling that census about eighteen months to publish it (though only in staggered updates, so that the most shocking parts might be muffled with the decline in interest). There could not be a more illustrative example of the inefficiency of this information age. They might present in a single table the vital statistics of the census, but they do not! No one has even attempted to decipher its contents for a Wikipedia article, whose figures for England's population are still largely stuck in 2011 and sometimes in 2001. I have read even that they mean to do away altogether with a census from now on, but pray how can they do away with something they have barely achieved anyway? But of course they will do away with the census, it is like physical currency, the historic (true) counties, traditional regiments such as the Buffs, and all national identity: a hindrance to the party, a target for the Contagion. This is the most appalling example in my eyes of the website's obvious smokescreen:
'There are three people for every football pitch-sized piece of land in England.'
Did they really think this kind of language would deceive anyone intelligent enough to actually look into these statistics for himself? I have no doubt they spent millions of pounds employing people to design, code, and coordinate, the slow and meaningless blow-out graphs that riddle the website, as well as the meaningless comparatives they relentlessly use as an attempt to divert from the gravity of the issue, which is, quite simply, the death of an historic nation. This is the real truth to bear in mind and this the real statistic that (excluding territories of inconsiderable size) England is the second most densely populated nation on earth.
There are 198 countries in the world (including England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland).
England is the 94th country in the world by size (50,301 square miles large).
But it has the 26th Largest Population in the world (56.5 million people).
Only one other nation in the world (Bangladesh) has a higher population and a smaller land mass than England.
England therefore is the Second Most Densely Populated country in the world (after Bangladesh), excluding island and city states (such as Monaco, Singapore, Macao, and Hong Kong, of which none have an area larger than 406 miles square or 1/124th of England's area).
The precise Population Density of England is 1,133 People per Square Mile.
However, 18 million people (18,091,000), or 31.2% of the entire population of England lives in London and the South-East.
Yet this region only comprises 15.84% (less than 1/6th) of the entire area of England, though it is effectively one third of the country's population.
This also makes the South-East region of England (including London) the Second Densest Region in the World larger than 1,000 miles square (at 2,270 people per square mile); second only to the Dhaka Division of Bangladesh.
With all this in mind, how can anyone say there is plenty of room left in Britain? The figure for the population density of the United Kingdom is usually given as a mere 720 people per square mile, and this figure is felt to be insignificant when it is further branded 'only the 34th most densely populated country in the world'. That 33 countries should be more densely populated is comforting indeed to a claustrophobic soul! But as I have already observed, 30 of these countries or dependencies are no larger than 1000 miles square, 20 of them indeed are no larger than 200 miles square (which is smaller than the Isle of Man) and are clearly, therefore, an irrelevant comparison.
Furthermore, it is vitally to be noticed that this density figure for the United Kingdom incorporates unreservedly the 44,699 square miles of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Irleand, whose combined population is only 10.4 million persons (10,447,269). In other words, only 15.5% of the Total Population of the United Kingdom lives in 47.3% of its total area. Furthermore, 91% of the population of Scotland lives in only 2% of its land area, and 92% of Wales is not built upon. This is because much of Scotland and Wales (as well as Northern Ireland, and also some of England) is hostile and difficult to live on due to such geographical obstructions as mountain ranges, hill ranges, valleys, forests, and rivers.
Mountain Ranges of the British Isles.
Compare, for example, the preceding topographical map of the United Kingdom to the following topographical map of France, which is a country two and a half times larger than the United Kingdom and yet has a smaller population (contrary to some false statistics).
When it is considered that about 33% of the United Kingdom is comprised of Mountain Ranges, 12% is comprised of National Parks, 13% is considered Forest or Woodland, and 40% is classified as environmentally important pasture or grassland, it may be realised that it is an absurdly simplistic practice to judge the potential capacity of the population of Great Britain by an unqualified area of square miles.
National Parks of the United Kingdom.
Yet even if this absurd
simplicity of calculation is followed, it is very observable that, should we
still decide to build upon every square inch of our mountains and parks, to
level every square foot of our woodlands, and concrete over every
hedgerow-divided field and pasture, we yet would have only 0.16% of the
world's total land area to use, in a region which already has almost 1/100th
(0.84%) of the world's entire population concentrated within its
bounds. If Britain be attractive to foreign nations then it is Britain they should imitate, or shall we all pile into the smoking room when there are suites and halls empty?
'Now, these are facts, hard, grim, indisputable facts, and in the face of these facts, I ask again, what are we to do?' CHURCHILL, in 1934.
Some
further Population Statistics for England.
600,000 births a year.
300,000 of those births are to parents born outside the U.K..
The remaining 300,000 are to parents born inside the U.K., but of those around 25% will already be second generation immigrants.
Therefore only around 225,000 live births each year are to native indigenous British people (whom I define as those whose ancestors have lived here longer than a century), and this figure continues decreasing year on year. By 2050, the figure may well be as low as 150,000 whereas the rate of births of foreign-born mothers will continue to increase.
By 2050 I estimate that only a quarter of all live births in England will be to those of native indigenous British people. This is both due to the tendency of the native indigenous British people to reproduce less and the observable tendency of the immigrant British people to reproduce more.
Meanwhile it seems highly likely that, with an unchanging Conservative government and an incoming Labour government, the average figure of immigration will remain at something like 1,000,000 a year or 500,000 a year net.
This will signify a continued displacement of the native indigenous British people until, by the year 2075, there will almost certainly be more people living in England of foreign than of native origin.
This I extrapolate thus: 500,000 multiplied by fifty is 25,000,000 (twenty-five million) people. This is the base figure of new immigrants into England.
Over fifty years there will probably be about 20,000,000 (twenty million) live births of non-native mothers.
This is to be compared with a likely figure of about 10,000,000 (ten million) live births of native indigenous British mothers.
Therefore over fifty years there will be an additional 45,000,000 (forty-five million) non-native people living in England and only an additional 10,000,000 (ten million) native people.
Factoring into this equation the fact that, with the advancement of medicine, I estimate an average of 500,000 people dying in England per year during this period, of which about two-thirds will be native indigenous British people, I must subtract the figure 17,000,000 (deaths) of native indigenous British people over this projected fifty-year period from the aforementioned total, as well as the figure of about 10,000,000 (deaths) from the total of non-native people.
This leaves my final projected estimates for the Population of England in 2075 as the following:
Total Population: 93,000,000 (93 million) people.
Total Non-Native Population: 59,000,000 (59 million) people.
Total Native Indigenous British Population: 34,000,000 (34 million) people.
In this period of time seven
million more native indigenous British people will die than will be born. It
was news to me to learn by this calculation that the native British people of
England actually have a declining birthrate, and that their deathrate already
exceeds their birthrate. This tallies with what is happening in places like
Japan also. Were it not for foreign births in England this fact would be more
generally known. I do not at all consider this a bad thing however as the
populations of the world need to go down generally. The trouble of course is that it seems to only be occurring amongst already diminutive races such as the
British and the Japanese.
This of course will signify a complete and unprecedented change of our country, possibly to the point of its name and flag being altered, and certainly to the point of its Christian status being revoked. English will become less and less used as a language over time, and the majority of political decisions will be made by non-natives, free of historic attachments to local traditions such as the church and monarchy. I have not made up these numbers but carefully checked them several times over. Even if they prove overestimates the general trend will prove me right, if not in fifty years then in seventy-five. I must admit, I am profoundly disheartened by this research, I did not think the problem so grave as I now understand it. Unless radical political change were to occur in this country (a thing most unlikely) this fate will not be averted.
PART II.
When it is further realised that the majority of those who emigrate from this country are those whose ancestors had probably resided here for at least a thousand years, the true scale of what is happening may be realised. I am not unaware of the arguments people make for this disastrous and destructive policy, a policy which a government claiming to 'conserve' things has taken to its apex. Mainly they say the N.H.S. is full of foreign workers. Well, perhaps it would not have to be if it were not also full of foreign patients, 1.3 million extra a year. 'O, it is good for the economy', never mind that it is awful for the country, no, no, showing that G.D.P. has progressed forward per annum like an inchworm is more important than the beauty of the nation, its wellbeing, its heritage. People talk as though an economy is a perpetual motion device, it never should regress. Do not you think progress itself can mean regression? If a man wishes to walk to a well but, in the name of progress, decides to continue walking and walks off a cliff, is that estimable because it is progress? Perhaps he should have stopped at a certain point.
The two main parties are now indistinguishable from each
other, they are but one party: Ingsoc. Sir Keir Starmer is professedly
an atheist, so naturally he will not see the purpose in protecting a Christian
country's heritage and tradition, for an atheist sees no purpose in anything
whatsoever. He can only make excuses for his atheism, pretend there is a
meaning in his land of oblivion, and please his blinkered vision of existence
and human life. England is dead, the cross of St. George will be effaced by the
time I am on my deathbed, we live now on Airstrip One. Truly to these Vandals a thousand years in their sight is like a sordid evening gone. Firstly, we had the blobitechture æra of early Blair the Debonair, the smiling viper, the used car salesman, who sold the Royal Yacht Britannia so to spurn his sovereign, who torched the hereditary peers, who eliminated assisted places at public schools and somehow argued it for a measure of equality, and generally 'sold our reputation for a song', 'things can only get better' faded out to the sounds of 'there are bad times just around the corner'. The London Eye, the Millennium Dome, the Eden Project, the Gherkin, and the new Lloyd's building, all of these were made to browbeat us into thinking that shabbiness and shoddiness are beautiful. As Dr. Johnson once observed, one can draw attention by unsual merit or one may draw attention by absurd spectacle. Shall I paint me a Mona Lisa or walk everywhere backwards? Then came the frutiger aero and frutiger metro æras of Brown and Cameron, who fitted nicely into the hell chasm which Blair had opened up into the heart of England, O when shall these three meet again, In thunder, lightning, or in rain? When the Commons day is done; When the club clock ticks to one.
The Conservative Party needs purging of all the atheistic capitalism in its bones which it has absorbed like a sponge in a sewer, and the Labour Party wants replacing with something not hell bent on annihilating the nation, such as the Social Democratic Party led by Mr. Clouston.
These two organisations of the Conservative and Labour parties have become parasitic to the nation. They neither of them truly represent either right or left wing politics, for the foundation of all politics must be patriotism as the dignified Mr. Clouston so intelligently proves. They represent only greed, lucre, and vanity. If democracy is to survive it must have able and respectful opposition, not the circus we see to-day. I have lately joined the Reform Party and poured the last lees of my hopes for the preservation of England, and therefore Christian Civilisation, into its demijohn. I agree with nigh enough all its policies. Perhaps it could stress more vitally the principles of Christianity in a nation whose flag is the Cross, but the influence at least is perceptible. I am glad they talk of reforming the House of Peers instead of abolishing it, as I would be profoundly distressed if that great (though sadly abused) mistress of tradition and grandeur, supporting a glorious monarchy, were destroyed. Blair assaulted her by revoking her hereditary peers, and successive governments have made her pride a mockery by supposing a hoard of superannuated commoner politicians may be exalted, at a word, to the dignity and merits of a peerage.
Capitalism is an empty word and I no more will use it except to show it as such. Commerce is a fact of society, but when a society lacks an existential faith or philosophy it is purely driven by that same commerce. This is what is termed capitalism, it is another of those attempts to fashion a present concept out of absence, something Spinoza dislikes. Every communist party in history has continued in commerce, so that their railing against capitalism is ever a railing against themselves. Often it has transpired that a communist state seems more obsessed with money even than ordinary states, for having cast out all traditional monarchy, religion, symbols, and customs, they are left with little more than the hammer, the sickle, and the price which each commands. Indeed, it is precisely this same capitalism devoid of all patriotism which has led the Conservative Party to the greedy and grubby paths it lately has taken. Mass immigration can be justified by economics but it can be justified on no other grounds. No other excuse can be made for social order, tradition, identity, justice, or precedent. What proud reason which is not avaricious can be made for swamping a country with millions of alien citizens? We are literally getting to the point when Christianity will become a minority religion in England. We have to ask ourselves why, in the first place, these people wish to abandon their families and friends in order to come here, to desert their homelands and heritage. Simply because there is more opportunity for them; so, in the name of economics, and frankly greed, without any respect for our own social order and identity, we poach these people from countries which actually need them. I wish that all nations should be prosperous and wise, I have respect for every culture, but above all my own. I am simply defending what every other decent patriot would himself defend, only it seems in England does such a manner of thinking have to be protected against the slurs and reproaches of malignance and folly.
'We are often told we are a nation of immigrants, this is a complete myth. This is, in one year, massively more people coming into the country than came in the whole period from the Anglo-Saxons to the Second World War.' PAUL MORLAND, demographer.
A tremendous fellow.
PART III.
What do I desire of France, what do I desire of China, what do I desire of Brazil and Egypt, what do I desire of Poland, Morocco, Spain and Greece, Turkey and India, Malaysia and Russia? That they should be themselves. And what, pray, do I desire of England? The very same. The folly of people who advocate diversity in a small nation, by which they mean a systematic suppression of its natives and influx of foreigners, is that they are hypocrites. They cannot see diversity itself relies on separation. How can a cheese be a cheese if it is melted into the soup? And the same for all other ingredients, the beef, the tomatoes, the carrots, the potatoes, all these require distinct and isolated cultivation in order to be themselves, but the cook wishes to liquefy them all into his soup. Yet if the cook is at all competent he will know that even in the case of this general liquefaction too much of everything will render it not a soup but sewage, inedible, disgusting, repulsive.
The admirer of cultures cannot be the advocate for emigration, for the one must mean the reduction of the other, and the triumph of either must mean the destruction of its opposite. The distinction of nations is the thing which allows for independence, for the individuality and self-worth and mutual pride which engenders mutual respect. Yet this is understood — truly it is understood — in the case of far distant cultures in this country; the left-wing academics would be disgusted at any suggestion of systematic emigration on the part of native Europeans into Jamaica, into Peru, into Nigeria, or Papua New Guinea. Imagine if we did it. Suppose we made it so that a quarter of their populations were comprised of us, and furthermore that we daily belaboured them with accusations of racism, that we could not walk down the street without the backward natives looking at us as though we were different to them, how dare they? They must have quotas, we must be ministers in their government, we must be represented in every advertisement on their television and radio stations, and if they dare to question us we will accuse them. They shall not touch us, we must be immune. If this actually were to happen, the European races would be roundly condemned for an unwarrantable and intolerable imposition upon a native populace and a native culture.
Yet the Europeans had empires and therefore deserve all the displeasure of the world. Pray, was there not a cause? Moreover, how aware are these critics of the scale of this imperialism? The simple fact of the matter is that European colonisation was far more equivalent to international business than to amalgamation. On the contrary, it is the kind of local amalgamation into one country such as the world has seen in the examples of Russia and the United States which is the true imperialism. It is the true imperialism because it is the total eradication of national identity. Whoever will hear again of a national Siberia or Texas? How many are aware that travelling through China once meant travelling through hundreds of different races and dialects which were mutually incomprehensible, and which now are being deliberately destroyed? That is the true colonisation.
The European empires were motivated by interests of business and defence, they were not at all amalgamating and that is true simply by the fact that they were not amalgamated. To-day, ninety-nine colonies in a hundred of the European empires have full independence with their cultures left intact. True it is that in India they appropriated the English language, that they decided the western inventions brought to them were on the whole worthwhile in the keeping, the train, the motorcar, all steam and electrical devices used in industry, their books on medicine, how to safely perform surgical operations, how to sterilise instruments, how to inoculate against diseases, which has proved of some use in that sub-continent, curatives for polio, diphtheria, malaria, and also that subtle discovery of penicillin. We left India with a framework for parliamentary democracy, for local government, for western schooling, military organisation, for financial trading, for scientific research, for technological development, for social order; we left it with grand buildings of state and carefully maintained roads, streets, and town plans. All of this the Indian peoples could have rejected as, what it now is termed in our own English institutions, the work of enslavement and of oppression. Yet they kept it as the work of human progress, with their culture defended and sustained, and their peoples' lives improved. We condemn ourselves with the memory of Amritsar, they barely acknowledge the Mutiny, for it is the habit now of English academics to be self-loathing and to make deprecatory palimpsests of all our recorded achievement, whereas in places like India it is common simply to foster and to nurture a natural and healthful patriotism.
How many British went to live in India? So few that to-day we represent only 1 in 5767 people in India (250,000). That is the legacy of our imperialism, that they now have a larger economy than our own and that Hinduism is the third largest religion on earth. What an enslavement! What an oppression! On the other hand, peoples from the Indian sub-continent, including India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka, represent 1 in 18 people in the United Kingdom (3.7 million).
But it is not my intention purely to dwell on the case of Britain and England. They are good examples however as typifying that which is happening all across Europe, but my case applies to the entire world. There are some nations which presently produce thousands of times more emigrants than the numbers of immigrants they allow into their own country. What is the consequence of this? That their cultures should be entirely uncorrupted in the countries which were their cradle whilst they spread and strengthen in the cradles of others. This is very greatly true of India, China, Japan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Mexico, and many of the Arabian and African nations. Do I reprehend this course of action? Only in part. I do not approve of emigration or immigration. I think they are damaging human cultures enormously at the present day. They did not damage cultures nearly so much in the past simply because they could not be facilitated as they currently are by rapid and mass transportation. Great emigrations occurred it is true, but this was in a time when humanity was yet larval, and they tended to occur over a period of centuries. Nothing like the numbers which now can respectively emigrate or immigrate in a period of twelve months could ever have previously occurred. Especially in island states, that position which formerly proved an exceptional defence against incursion now becomes a bulwark against repatriation, for it is more difficult to escort over sea than land.
Meanwhile, the very reverse of these examples of the much emigrating and little immigrating nations is occurring in the western world. In the examples of Britain, France, Italy, Greece, Germany, Spain, and the U.S.A., far more immigrants arrive on these shores than emigrants depart from them. These immigrants are comprised of a large majority from those nations previously enumerated as themselves prohibitive to their own immigration. Therefore a very large import into these western powers of those nations' cultures is occurring, but an equivalent exchange is not occurring. This means of course very logically that the concentration and potency of western cultures in western countries is decreasing, whereas the concentration and potency of these other cultures, especially African, Arabian, and Asian, cultures, remains full and complete in the places of their origin, and indeed multiplies to those places to which they are exported.
Is this a bad thing? Yes it is, a very bad thing in the eyes of anyone who respects and appreciates the diversity of cultures. Nowadays, when the earth by communications and transport is becoming more and more standardised and formularised, where it is as common to eat a McDonald burger in Madagascar and Tokyo as New York, it is surely of vital and paramount importance that whatever is left of a focussed and individualised historic culture should be preserved with the utmost care and patience. No one doubts this, nor should doubt it, of African, Caribbean, Native American, Aborigine, Japanese, or South American cultures. Why then should anyone doubt it of the European cultures? I realise it is very nice to feel that one is being very nice to others, that by saying all men are equal and publicly proclaiming an indifference to colour or creed or culture, is very gratifying, but it is not nice nor gratifying to the people who suffer for it. If you Sir or you Madam were growing up in a town where your grandparents grew up, and their ancestors across centuries and perhaps a millennium grew up, lived and died, grew to see yourself alienated and ostracised in a place where formerly there were churches and now there are mosques and mandirs, where once was spoken English and now is spoken more than a hundred different languages as in the London borough of Newham, would you think people were being very nice to you? On the contrary, would not you feel betrayed and despised by people who, thinking too much about public image and whatever makes them seem nice in political discourse, have forgotten or ceased to care about the common people of this country, about their happiness, their identity, and their place in society? How maddened I am by hearing people talk endlessly about the alienation of immigrants in this country, by their struggles with their identity, as though it is our fault! If my family moved to China I have no doubt that I too would struggle with my identity, but it would not be the fault of the Chinese, it would be the fault of my family! Why cannot people be intellectually honest for once and stop preening and parading their virtue like peacocks? If their positions or their families were suffering as others are can anyone be in any doubt that they would instantly and immediately seek recompense and rectification? They all are selfish and short-sighted.
Of course I am sympathetic to those who must struggle between the question of whether they are to be identified with the countries of their origin or the countries of their naturalisation, but I must blame their forebears for ever presenting them with the dilemma in the first place. We are told they came here 'to seek a better life'. Are there no other ways, pray, of seeking a better life than to abandon everyone you know and force yourself and your family on an alien culture? And what of those who did not so leave? Who are we to say whether the one is a better or a worse life? What an arrogance is that! Were I an Indian as I am an Englishman I should scorn such a solution to any personal problems, whatever may be my individual concerns, how could I ever think to depart from my culture and my people? It is wrong, simply wrong, and not at all to be commended on any count.
But it is commended, and we know why. Money. Money alone. Money devoid of all connection with culture and artistry, severed from all ties with social order and esteem, a prize and an ingrained arrogance, which talks (O how it talks!) of equality and racism, while it has foreigners for cleaners, foreigners for servants, foreigners for waiters, foreigners for dustmen! These people who bathe five times abroad and come home to Chelsea, Mayfair, and Hampstead, covered in talcum powder, pretend to a sympathy they do not really possess, for if truly they did possess it, they would extend that sympathy universally, not apply it only to immigrants but to natives as well. This sympathy, coupled with a far-seeing and well-grasping intelligence, would see the wisdom in measured and ordered assignment throughout the world of its various cultures and people. They would see that, in truth, nature herself already had assigned the correct places and positions. Moreover, they would forego their material vanity and actual superciliousness, give up their hypocrisy of behaving like emperors and speaking like soap-box Marxists, and tend their own garden. All men are created equal, but all men are not created the same.
EPILOGUE.
I will now conclude in saying that England has fostered throughout the world, more than any other nation, tolerance and magnanimity among the races. It was England's example which guided America and Europe and her former colonies, and the legacy of Wilberforce will only fade with the world itself. His facilitation through empire of the illegalisation of slavery is something which could not have been achieved, at that time or perhaps in any time, by other means. We are all part of the brotherhood of man, let it never be doubted. That is not what concerns my discourse. For though we all are brothers and sisters born in God's image, nevertheless I firmly believe we each of us require and deserve space and identity. Without this an incontinent chaos of displacement and resentment must surely prevail. Does not the Old Testament teach the lesson and point the moral of Babel? In this context it is those who argue, against the many storms of real intolerance, for a limitation on the movement of peoples who prove themselves in fact the real peacemakers of this world and the sureties for diversity. They act as those who say 'No, these things are precious, treat them delicately.' They are far-seeing and only wish to preserve the status quo to avoid the catastrophes of history. Theirs is the true tolerance, not to be confounded with the base and unintelligent animosity which too long has dominated all debate upon this question. The world is vast. Perhaps in times to come the huge regions of the Australian outback as well as the Gobi and the Saharan deserts will, by the ingenuity of man, be fertilised and populated. Certainly we should look to these prospects before we dream idly and expensively of a futile planet colonisation. Yet even without these, there are huge and goodly regions neglected in the stead of these few small European nations which it has been my present business to consider and to mourn for. I argue not against tourism, though I myself prefer to travel in mind and spirit through art and literature rather than in person, nor have I any love for Kodak gawping; I argue not against reasonable levels of international cooperation, for that is inevitable and doubtless useful; I argue not against the right of others to find companionship and love among other cultures and climes; I merely argue against the kind of radical and wholesale migrations which are at this time occurring without check or forethought. Nor do I believe this kind of unprecedented supplanting of old established lines and principles is presaging a brave new era. Technology is reaching its limits as well as science, this is perceptible in our lifetimes. Those who witnessed the extraordinary discoveries and advancements of preceding decades must notice it, the gallop of those horses is labouring, it is slowing, it is turning to a trot. Everything hereafter will be incremental, eventually we will veritably stall and then will we wonder: What do we do now? Is science not the infinite God we trusted it to be? And the scientists somewhat irritably but justly will reply, Can you make the sequoia to grow any taller? We are doing our jobs the same as anyone, find your purposes elsewhere. At that time, putting down the microchip baubles which had fascinated us too long, we will begin to realise, We are no different from the Ancients. They lived, they laughed, they cried, they died, the same as we, the very same. Their questions are our questions. We have been too ready to dismiss their cultures and the lessons they teach us. Let us go, and return to contemplation and meditation, for our lives are improved but our souls are famished. We are at a juncture when we could stop. We should stop. Somehow I doubt we will stop, but I will put in writing the feeling nonetheless. There is no need for the movement of bodies when there is so free a movement of ideas through communications. We are all aware of one another now, let us begin then to respect each other. I would be profoundly grieved to see a single culture die from any part of the earth. It is not hateful to cherish our differences, it is hateful not to do so and to think that we all must be lumped together, stripped of our historic identities, and painted with the new colours of an unfounded and a soon to burst bubble of technological and scientific conceit. There seems to be a tendency in the minds of many British people, of all political affilliations and leanings, to respect another culture's right to independence but not our own. Yet it is surely the case that we cannot truly appreciate or respect another's if we do not first learn to respect our own. What did Shakespeare write? 'This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man.' Really the best comparative is of a house. There are only so many rooms in mine and there are only so many rooms in yours. This does not mean I hate your house, it does not mean you hate mine, it means simply that we respect each other's right to existence and independence. If you must think on anything, think on this.
La fin~
.png)
No comments:
Post a Comment