Observations on the ethnic shift of the capital city (and the taboo of a genocide)
One of the very difficult things I have been coming to terms with is how innocent people of all races, birthplaces, languages, religions, and professions are pawns in power games. Wars can be overt and fought using more traditional bombs and bullets, or covert and conducted via subversive ideology.
Many who have done no wrong in seeking a better life can end up being tools of cultural destruction and ethnic cleansing. It is paradoxical, in that there is a brotherhood of all men and women that we recognise, yet at the same time I feel I have little in common with many fellow inhabitants.
I have taken it for granted that this is how things are and will continue. Was I wrong?
Who are “we” — what is this place, and whose is it? While the Normans back in 1066 made a pact to respect the customs of the locals, it is hard to pin a date on when London was last identifiably English in its general sense. There has been a cosmopolitan capital of Empire and commerce, surrounded by a more parochial culture of farmers and craftspeople, for many centuries.
What does it mean to belong to this piece of terrain? A belief in the rule of law and individual liberty? To be part of the history of a people that goes back for thousands of years? A blood tie to those who came before us or the risking of bloodshed to fight for the country?
Why it is a tragedy to despoil indigenous people elsewhere but not here? Why are these questions taboo? What happens if that taboo is forcibly confronted?
London has endless waves of immigration: Low Countries (15th century), Huguenots (C17th), Italians (C19th), Jews (C19th), Chinese (C19th), Greeks (WW2), Poles (WW2), Windrush generation (1940s/50s/60s), East African Asians (1970s), Baltic states (2000s), and LatAm (2000s). None of these changes are conceptually new, yet there is a qualitative difference: the disappearance of the white British, and the attack on the Anglosphere (UK/USA/Australia/NZ/Canada) via Covid and attempted genocide.
Growing up beside Heathrow Airport it was taken as normal to have an internationalist neighbourhood, and my neighbours were Pakistani, French, Syrian, and Irish. My primary school was still very white British, however, with only one non-white person from Fiji. London has been “diverse” all my life… yet something is shifting; the default is no longer what it was.
On the train from Stonebridge Park to Euston I counted 45 heads, and only five were white. As a teenager I had the experience of being the only white person on a crowded bus in Barbados (as my father worked for British Airways and we got free staff travel). It starts to get jarring as that becomes the experience at home. Who am I, here, now?
Part of what I notice is how advertising is changing. You don’t need to have a wild conspiracy theory about demographic displacement; there is also a reaction to market forces, and the destiny of the city on its present trajectory is for the native English to become a minority, and a small one in many parts of town.
Other cities like Birmingham are also no longer recognisably English, for better or worse. The idea of “ethnic minorities” has flipped; the default is turning into something new and contradictory. Whether you approve or disapprove is unimportant at the level of observation of what is present in front of us.
The advert below would have been unthinkable in the 1950s, and is unremarkable in the 2020s. That’s a lot of demographic and cultural change in a single lifespan.
What particularly caught my attention was the advert beside Tottenham Hale station. It says that “Tottenham is yours/ours”, which naturally invokes the question of who “you/us” might be. Is this a place of the soul or the soil? Or something else?
A partial answer came from later pondering my passage through Broadwater Farm Estate, and a little girl on her bicycle. What I realised after was how little soil the place has. This is perhaps true more widely of highly urban areas. What is a country if not a relationship between a people and their land?
A lot of newcomers work their asses off in low-paid and unattractive jobs, while living in poor conditions. A few of my own, ahem, “escapades” have taken me to places and situations that most “respectable” folk don’t get to see. There is a common desire for peace, family, and escape from poverty.
There is also no shortage of “invader” controversy (e.g. contemporary Spanish coast) or “imperialist” strife (e.g. historic Indian Raj) elsewhere from the presence of English, Scottish, and Welsh folk going abroad. It is not a race or religion matter, but a more fundamental issue of bloodlines, tribes, and cultures. Where does this mixing lead us?
Part of me is filled with gratitude for folk who do honest work by keeping a shop. Part of me is filled with grief at the decay and disappearance of my own native culture.
I had assumed that we would just muddle through as “one humanity” after waking up from the corruption and debt slavery nightmare. Now I am having to go back to my founding assumptions about who we are and what this is all about. Do we get legacy nationalism, new regionalism, or reformed kingdoms as a consequence of the ongoing collapse of globalism? It possibly plays out differently depending upon where you are.
These are my brothers and sisters, and yet they are not as we have different genes and family histories. We are one human family, but we are not one bloodline, so cannot be literal brothers and sisters. It is so hard to make sense of. I don’t want them to suffer, but I also don’t want my own heritage and identity forcibly crushed by an evil agenda.
I am coming to terms with genocide at the deepest level, and I hold no grudge or animosity against those I see about me. Yet somehow, I know deep down that this cannot persist. Once you expose the Covid bioweapon nightmare, and who it targeted, and why — there are unstoppable consequences that have to be confronted.
Nobody has done anything wrong by wanting to move for a better life and new opportunities, yet these mass migrations are the result of active meddling and policies that discourage the formation of national cultures as a bulwark against globalism and international capital’s interests. When you unrig the financial system, incentives change.
The wickedness of destroying our separate identities, knowing the misery that unwinding it entails, but the catastrophe that results for its unchecked continuance… it is all too horrific to contemplate. Yet here we are, and we are damned if we continue, and damaged if we back out.
Peace requires a shared spirit; worshipping different deities leads to irreconcilable interests and intentions. Every religion equally functions as an axis of power for worldly interests. The mainstream Christian churches in England are hopelessly corrupt. Lots of people have good intentions, but an age of deceit leads most astray.
Meanwhile, mosques and temples thrive. Demography is destiny, and they are the ones having families and raising their children in a culture that maintains life.
If you resolve hundreds of years of treason, denial of constitutional law, and debt enslavement, what happens to all these people?
Is it “right wing” to even think about your own national, cultural, and ethnic identity?
What does the end of globalism mean in its widest sense?
What happens when all treason is exposed and punished — including weaponised or forced migration?
Were all those encouraged to come here effectively an extension of a massive human trafficking and energy harvesting scam that went around the world?
What does this say about us and our country?
What if the future of this place is not light to dark after all?
You cannot selectively address genocide or treason. It has to be dealt with as a whole, no matter how uncomfortable the logic of its resolution, lest it recur and the karma be on you. There is a story far greater than simply arresting a few politicians, fixing the financial system, and deleting human traffickers from society. A jury of one’s peers requires cultural and spiritual equals to exist in sufficient number.
The very bedrock of “who belongs where?” is now in play — in a manner never encountered in our lifetimes. The “official script” was acted out for decades, yet few were conscious of how evil the intent of the captured state could be. It is no secret that the contemporary Marxists want to do away with our constitution, traditions, and borders. Now it cannot be unseen, nor the nightmare effects avoided.
Matters that appeared settled and inevitable are no longer taboo to confront. Britain isn’t a melting pot culture, but may be a melding one, stewed more slowly, and spiced more gently. Difficult conversations and hard choices lie ahead — about identity and nationality. London seems to have gone too far and too fast; it is incompatible with a return to strict constitutionalism. Few are prepared to face the implications.
Read It Now
