Social Mobility and Integration

Nice sounding concepts, which conceal the liberal-fascist/statist ideology beneath.

I have been giving some thought to these two concepts, which our politicians are so keen on promoting, and what they really mean.

Social mobility boils down to individuals moving UP the social hierarchy, which, of course, everyone likes the idea of in respect to themselves and their own. Only, social status is relative, and as some go UP, others, necessarily, go DOWN. It embodies the idea that life is a competition, or a “rat race”.

It’s important to note that those advocating social mobility have all done very well for THEMSELVES in this respect, so its a kind of self-praise: look how well I’ve done! And because I’m such a wonderful, fair-minded individual, I think EVERYONE one should have the opportunity to do the same. Everyone should be able to “come first”. It sounds good, but is, of course, complete nonsense.

Integration, according to the OED, is

The process of bringing about or achieving equal membership of a population or social group; removal or absence of discrimination against groups or people on racial or cultural grounds; desegregation,

which, it seems to me, is a formula for “assimilation” and “miscegenation”.

“Miscegenation” is now a taboo word, but has to be used to recognise the implications and ideological intentions of “integration” in a historical context, as an overreaction to the unjust and inhumane anti-miscegenation laws of Jim Crow and Apartheid (not to mention the horrors of Nazi racial ideology), which was then consolidated and exploited by those seeking a spurious moral high ground for themselves (mainly on the Left), and the power-political advantages that go with it: anyone not for mass immigration, multi-ethnic society, integration of ethnic minorities and miscegenation is condemned and dismissed as a “racist”, thereby demonising and suppressing the natural ethnic basis of national identity and representing the triumph of the liberal-left’s fascist ideology of “colourblindness” (denial of the importance of race and ethnicity for a deep and meaningful sense of personal and group, e.g. national, identity), which, not coincidentally, is the exact but equally extreme opposite of Nazi fascist ideology.

Social mobility = Survival of (advantage to) the Fittest

In response to the article, “A government in line with public opinion” in the comments section today’s Telegraph:

The welfare state was created in the aftermath of a 6-year struggle against Nazi tyranny which had united people as never before, giving them a powerful sense of shared identity, destiny and solidarity. No longer just a State, run by privileged elites for their own advantage, but with a genuine sense of being a Nation and a People.

My parents, who experienced the whole war (my father as a Royal Marine) would never have dreamed of “exploiting” the welfare state, but remained dedicated to “doing their bit”, “playing their part”, not just for themselves and their own family, but also for the country as a whole. To have been on “benefits”, for whatever reason, would have made them deeply ashamed. My father would drag himself off to work no matter how ill he might feel. They had the attitude one would expect from people who feel that they belong to a Tribe, a Nation, a People, a continuation of the solidarity they had felt with their fellow Britons during the war.

During the 70s, however, my parent’s, especially my father’s, attitude started to change, as wave after wave of Commonwealth immigrants poured into the country he had fought to protect against Nazi invasion. As my parent’s became an ethnic minority in their own street, they realised that the British State had betrayed them.

Their work, sacrifices, sense of nationhood and solidarity had been misconceived, misplaced and in vain. Having helped to save their country from the Nazis, their leaders had opened it up to mass immigration of people we didn’t even have a shared – racial, cultural and historical – European identity with. And anyone who protested – as my father did, to his union and local labour party representative – was told they were being “racist”. – just as Mrs Duffy was, more than 30 years later, not by a local activist, but by the Labour Prime Minister himself. Betrayed, over two generations, from top to bottom.

So it is no wonder that people have turned away from the left and its ideals of social solidarity, towards the right and its more individualistic ideals (of every man for himself); especially since it was the left, with its anti-white/anti-nationalist ideal of a colourblind, globalised (Americanised,) “post-racial”, i.e. post-European, society, which provided the ideological motivation for mass immigration and creation of a multi-ethnic society, alongside and far more important than the economic motivation, i.e. the needs of state and capital for cheap foreign labour.

“Social mobility” is just a rationalised form of “survival of (advantage to) the fittest”, reflecting society’s perverted Darwinian nature, which we are in complete, official and unofficial, denial of.