We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day We have said it before, but it bears repetition, that the coming EU referendum campaign will be the first internet campaign in our history and I remain convinced that the material on the net will have a decisive impact on the course of the campaign.
– Richard North, already quoted and linked to by Patrick Crozier as a response to my gloomier posting here
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Good luck, I hope you guys come out on top over there.
From over here the EU looks like an accident seeking a place to happen. If you guys can turn it into a United States of Europe, get rid of Brussels and make the government transparent, it would be a good thing. As it stands now, the EU is going full speed down the road to tyrany.
” Yes, through the blinding smoke of Iraq and through the endless fuming of M. Chirac, the common people — the timeless volk — of Europe are beginning to see their true enemy — radical Islam. The will to survive and prevail is not yet spent in the hearts of our European cousins. They are late to the battle that is now raging. But they are not too late. The second great anti-fascist Euro-American alliance is now beginning to form on the foundation of our two common democratic peoples. Their spineless governments will follow, and will soon be run by fighting leaders uplifted from the ranks. ”
-Tony Blankley
Tony is an optimist.
Stehpinkeln writes:
“If you guys can turn it into a United States of Europe, get rid of Brussels and make the government transparent, it would be a good thing.”
No, it would not be a good thing. Very probably it would be an even worse thing. I appreciate this might be hard for some Americans to understand, but the melting pot principle only works when those immersed in it actively want to merge their identities.
Completely disregarding the issue of large, remote government, those of us who entirely value Italians as Italians and Danes as Danes, do not want the enforced homogeneity which a ‘United States of Europe’ would inevitably entail.
Just because it works in the USA (though quite a few Americans of my acquaintance haven’t been so sure it does) doesn’t mean that large federal governments are invariable A Good Thing (TM).
This EU Referendum is the most important event in British history since the German air attacks of 1940. It is a mortal threat to the survival of Britain of equal severity, and worse, it is not nearly so obvious as formations of two-engined bombers, so too many people fail to grasp what is at stake.
If Britain can hold out against this evil, as in 1940, then the day may come when Danes can be Danes and Italians can be Italians again as part of a community of free and independent states. If not, then the Brussels government is going to do hideous damage to the cultural heritage, freedom, and material wellbeing of its member states and their people before it inevitably disintegrates, much as the old Soviet Union did, though probably without the forthright brutality which seems to be a Russian specialty.
Unlike, I imagine, most of the people who read Samizdata, I am not an athiest. And I well telll you that I am quite literally praying for your country.
If Britain says no, others will follow, specifically the Danes, Swedes and maybe the Dutch.
Comments about having the United States of Europe hit on an important point that is probably missing from the EU: federalism.
Granting great flexibility in States rights and limits on the Federal government, under a free-trade zone and with unmonitored immigration, would be great.
To a degree, America’s willingness to take on a national character is a product of that very idea: from many diverse interests, a common ground.
You don’t have to fit a mold to be an American. If anything, belonging to a nation without great cultural requirements AND being able to retain your past culture, is the hallmark of the American identity.
Ivan Kirigin writes:
“Granting great flexibility in States rights and limits on the Federal government, under a free-trade zone and with unmonitored immigration, would be great.”
Unmonitored immigration? I spend far too much time in urban Europe to believe it is anything like “great”.
As for the rest, that ability to retain one’s past culture you speak of is precisely what the EU threatens (loss of weights and measures, legal system, traditional means of government etc etc). There is simply no comparison with the forging of the American nation and federalism, even if it were on offer (which it is not), would not save the UK from the loss of its cultural and (eventually) national identity.
I am at a loss to understand why so many Americans think there are such close parallels. Mercifully, some (like Lexington Green, above) can see the situation more clearly for what it is. A process of slow invasion and assimilation into an alien state.
http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/uploaded_files/news_files/67_BB05FinalDraft.pdf
Brian,
Here’s another cause you might be interested in linking to…
“A process of slow invasion” where our politicians sign away ancient liberties [such as the right to self-determination] without a shot being fired “and assimilation into an alien State” run by people who not only do not share our values but who would rejoice in our defeat.
The most significant difference between Europe and America is that people went to America,we are already here in our ancestoral homelands.
There is no desire by the commonality for a federal state.
We are indeed, as Lexington Green points out, in greater danger than when the Lufwaffe darkened our skies,only this time it is a different bunch of Fokkers
G Cooper – many Americans, although we love ’em, are too provincial to understand that in Europe, WE, not “settlers” are the indigenes. We’ve occupied our lands for – probably – thousands of years.
Americans – British and some French in the south – settled America, whether the left approves of this or not. They developed it, they improved it, they made it so desirable that immigrants from other cultures were eager to be a part of it and couldn’t assimilate fast enough.
In Yurrop, we are very small countries compared to Australia, Canada and the United States. Americans simply cannot get their heads around the fact that the whole world wasn’t a virgin when the settlers came to the US. Like whatever nitwit – probably Timothy Leary -announced that sex began in the 1960s, many Americans think the world began in the 1600s. They cannot understand there were vivid and vital civilisations before anyone heard the word “America” or “Amerigo” or “Vespucci” or “Columbus” or whatever the hell they were going to call it.
National identities that developed separately over a couple of thousand, or more, years, do not wish to be merged by fiat.
I agree with you that it is eerie that some Americans simply do not understand this. They look around in ill-informed wonder and think, “Well, we’re a melting pot. Why don’t the Europeans who have developed their separate cultures and languages over 2,000 years want to be a melting pot?” The Lexington Greens are few and far between. (Thank you for your prayers, Lex. We need them!)
We are on the razor’s edge.
Verity writes:
“National identities that developed separately over a couple of thousand, or more, years, do not wish to be merged by fiat. ”
Precisely. I spent much of today working with Italians, a people whose artistic and vibrant culture I value extremely highly (possibly, not least because it’s such a wonderful contrast to my own sceptical, wry Englishness). We are much better being “us” and they are much better being “them”. I love them all the more for it and (I suspect) vice versa. You get far, far better results from a diversity of influences, than from a bland, homogenised, Europulp.
The tragedy of it is that the mendacious hounds who peddle the Euromyth like to pretend that those who oppose homogenisation are xenophobes. The truth is, course, that we are quite the opposite.
Verity – The problem isn’t that Americans (qualifier: some) are too provincial, or can’t understand the identity of the various nations of Europe. The EU is being inflicted on Europe by Europeans, so I would have to say the problem is that Europeans (qualifier: some) are too provincial, or can’t understand the identity of the various nations of Europe. American ignorance isn’t what is raising the blue and gold.
The “Melting Pot” is an immigration policy (that the USA is unfortunately turning away from), not a unification policy. The British were masters of the Melting Pot, successfully assimilating people without even having them immigrate! It was a recognition of the superiority of British culture (but not necessarily race). The Melting Pot continues to be a good immigration policy for Britain (time to readopt it!), but it is indeed inappropriate and ill-advised in the context of the European Union.
Anyway, America isn’t a melting pot any more. It’s a collection of mutually hostile ethnic groups (whites– with honorary white status for Jews, orientals and Indians) versus the “Hispanics” and blacks who bitterly contest the title of Most Favored Minority.
These three groups are rapidly segregating themselves in different states, uneasily held together by a bankrupt and bullying Federal administration which exaggerates external threats to stifle mutual loathing in the homeland.
When the thrifty, productive, clean-living and God-fearing majority gets tired of paying for lousy public schools, welfare handouts and “defense”, the USA will fall to bits and a different political configuration will emerge on the North American continent. With luck it will be a looser alliance of self-governing states or regions, including more libertarian and free-enterprise-friendly ones which are not expected to bail out the rest.
For now, the Heritage Foundation no longer rates the US among the ten most economically free nations. That’s a wake-up call. The revolution could all happen faster than we expect: remember that the Sovietologists never foresaw the crumbling of the USSR either.
Verity:
“If Britain says no, others will follow, specifically the Danes, Swedes and maybe the Dutch.”
This is precisely why the Grinning Fool is trying to arrange things so that our referendum is held last.
m410 writes:
“The Melting Pot continues to be a good immigration policy for Britain (time to readopt it!),…”
No, it does not and it is not.
I’m sick to death of commentators from across the pond opining about the delights of immigration for a country of which, one has to assume, they have only a scant acquaintance.
Britain is a tiny island, already far too densely populated in many parts and currently suffering from Bliar’s clandestine “open doors” immigration policy. At the very least, this country needs a complete moratorium on immigration, while we try to find out the truth behind what has actually been going on for the past five or six years.
If North America still feels the need for immigration, that is good news for those seeking to make new lives for themselves and their families. But here are no useful comparisons to be made between the wide open spaces of Canada and the USA and the UK.
Oh come on, stop having us on that your opposition to immigration has anything to do with population density, if this is the case why aren’t you calling for a moratorium on having children.
This population density stuff is complete piffle, quite obviously there’s bags of room, the problems of this country can all be solved by a massive retreat of the state and concomitant extention of individual liberty and responsibility.
Paul Coulam writes:
“Oh come on, stop having us on that your opposition to immigration has anything to do with population density….”
Thank you for the mind-reading act. It’s always entertaining to be told what I think by someone else.
“…. quite obviously there’s bags of room,…”
Quite obviously you need to get out more. I’d suggest a quick trip down the Thames to see the amount of building under way and being planned by Prescott and his team of clowns, perhaps followed by a revelatory visit to see the vast swathes of Kent being swallowed-up in a similar process.
And the reason for all this development? Well that can be another trip for you, but this time a virtual one to Migration Watch
From which the following sentence is extracted, revealing a fact the government has been unable to contradict:
“Recent Migrationwatch research suggests that we will need an extra one million houses in England, in addition to present plans, to house immigrants over the next eighteen years.”
Plenty of room, my Aunt Fanny!
GCooper,
Yes, I find that many people benefit from me telling them what they think. Of course you still haven’t explained why it is that, given we’re so full up to the rafters, you aren’t calling for a moratorium on having children.
I’ve travelled all over the British Isles and am often taken aback by just how roomy it is here but am reassured that the free operation of the market raises the prices of the relatively dense areas compared to the relatively spacious areas thus diverting populations to their economically optimum locations.
Of course, if you really find it all too stifling here in the UK there’s nothing to stop you clearing off and freeing up a bit of space for some more productive nice immigrant family.
Andrew Duffin – I didn’t know that, but no sacrifice, however enforced, by the British people is too great to further the career and international profile of Tone ‘n’ Cher Slime.
G Cooper – Voila!
You’ve got it! Those of us (all over ‘Europe’) who are in love with other countries because they are so unlike us and so intriguing are the ones who love Europe.
The xenophobes are the socialists who fear different cultures and want to homogenise them to make them more understandable to their own shrivelled souls.
It cannot be said too often: The socialists are xenophobic.
Who doesn’t secretly love the French for their outrageous presumptions? Well, I do! I also love their sweetness and warmth, perhaps a quality undetectable to those unable to relate to people who aren’t like themselves. My ex-neighbours in France and I stay in touch by email, and for some bonkers reason, they always try to write in English and I essay French. Result, hysterical emails (I’m sure on both sides). The French are adorable, if only they could stop being so insufferable.
I could go on – but let’s remember, the xenophobes are the socialists who cannot deal with a lack of uniformity. The cosmopolites are the true internationalists who are drenched in pleasure and admiration that these separate cultures, languages and histories all took place on one continent (except for us – ahem, as we’re an island and therefore intrinsically posher and more responsible) and cultures – and don’t want – as the socialists want – to rule them. Just live peaceably, side by side with them – because they’re all crazy, except us. Oh, and maybe the Dutch. OK, and the Danes are pretty normal …
M410 – No, sir. It wasn’t us. The American state department pushed for the suicidal homogenisation of European countries for 30 years because a unified Europe would be a bulwark against the Soviet Union. The Europeans were happy to go along with the gag because they got huge American military bases and mega dollars. Britain was always the odd man out. Other than the Brits, the French are the only ones with a military that can scramble in five minutes.
…the French are the only ones with a military that can scramble in five minutes.
What… eggs?
Paul Coulam writes:
“Of course, if you really find it all too stifling here in the UK there’s nothing to stop you clearing off and freeing up a bit of space for some more productive nice immigrant family.”
To which the only sensible response is to quote that great philosopher Bugs Bunny: What a maroon!
Verity
Too true. I bow to no-one in my admiration for and fascination of ancient Rome and Renaissance Italy, can speak Italian fluently, will happily discuss French and Italian food and wine, have lived in Italy, France and Spain, will load up the car at the drop of a snowflake to ski in the Alps from France to Austria, will cheer on any number of foreigners reperesenting Arsenal without a thought to where they come from … blah … blah … blah … However, because I’m opposed to the EU it is ME who is the xenophobe. It never seems to enter the unexamined mind of the self-righteous socialist that my opposition to the EU may be because its bad for the peoples of Europe. No, because I am opposed to the actions of a clique of politicians and bureaucrats in Brussels and Strasbourg I am ‘anti-European’, whatever that means.
It is, of course, the left which is xenophobic. History’s great bastards have been. The socialist BNP does better in traditinal Labour areas of the country than elsewhere. its even acceptable now for a Government Minister (Mike O’Brien) to be explicitly anti-semitic without recourse.
GCooper, well it didn’t take long to reduce your argument to drivel. Haply you will reflect on your errors and come to a closer understanding of the truth.
Pete_London – You speak fluent Italian, you’ve lived in Italy, France and Spain, you go skiing in the Alps – you are an effete, privileged snob and need to be taken down a peg or two. You see? You cannot win.
You don’t want a homogenised Europe? You are a xenophobic little Englander. You’ve lived all over Europe, admire much of its history and speak at least one of its languages fluently? You’re a phony cosmopolite.
The socialists and other assorted lefties and moonbats are so eaten up with spite and envy they can’t think straight. Of course, that is why they’re called moonbats.
Verity
Also, I was born in a terraced house in Walthamstow, which makes me a class traitor. At such points I can pull out my trump card to end all criticism; my dear mother’s Irish, so I claim oppressed minority status.
Pete – Excellent! Always have an ace in the hole!
By the way, I see David Beckham gave a press conference in fairly fluent Spanish. Of course, he’s a Tory.
I wonder how many foreign languages Jack Straw speaks? Tessa Jowell? Gordon Brown? Stephen Byers? Alan Milburn? Estelle Thingamijig? Jo Moore? The socialists seem to be a bunch of little Englanders in my opinion.
I wonder how many foreign languages Clare short speaks. I wonder how many languages Mo Mowlam speaks. Little Englanders!! Why are they contemptuous of learning foreign languages? They must be xenophobic!
I am another Lexington Green I will have to say. I don’t believe government should be that big, controlling so many different countries with different cultures. What’s good for France might not be good for Britain, etc… I think each individual country should keep it’s own unique cultures and it’s own government instead of trying to merge them all together. I think that sovereignty of every nation is so important. It should never be lost. There’s just something fishy about the EU to me and I can’t quite place it. I’m from the U.S. and I’m paying close attention to it. So not all Americans are living in la la land.
Denise W writes:
“So not all Americans are living in la la land.”
It would be fair enough if they were – after all, it isn’t the USA that is being (directly) threatened.
My objection is to those Americans who have paid attention, completely misunderstood the situation and like to pontificate on that basis. Indeed, the US government, for many years, did just that – encouraging the lemmings in the UK government ever-closer to the EEC, as it then was.
But one’s real contempt has to be reserved for those Brits who are too stupid to care what is being done to their own country and, sadly, they are many.
It was the supine nature of my countrymen that impelled me to flee. I couldn’t believe that how inevitably even political commentators picked at nits and missed the big picture. They were at it again with this Mickey Mouse “constitution”, turning the million clauses over carefully on their computers.
What the hell difference do the clauses make? It’s the imposition of a “constitution” on the citizenries of a non-country with the stated goal of binding them together into a kind of Heath Robinson nation that is the outrage. Not the individual clauses. It is Brussels itelf which is the outrage, not who gets appointed to a place at the trough. It is the attempted imposition of a whole new set of supranational laws and the bypassing of duly elected parliaments and senates that is the outrage, not the laws and rules and regulations themselves. It is that the EU – or the EEC – was sold to the peoples of Britain and Europe on a false prospectus that is the outrage.
It is the decimation of our measures and currency with decimilisation that is the outrage – a step taken intentionally to cut us off from our past.
Meanwhile, the political commentators take another sip of their coffee as they hone the perfect aperçu for encapsulating their judgement of some aspect of this outrageous “constitution” without appearing to be aware of the only issue: the absolute outrage they should be feeling is at the the attempted overlaying of our own, home grown constitution with some rubbish which may or may not suit the continentals, but is dangerous for us.
I wonder what you would have been saying had Oliver Cromwell gone ahead with the Protectorate’s plan to introduce a decimal currency in the 1650s…
Just because something is ancient doesn’t of itself mean it’s good or shouldn’t be changed. On the other hand, change for its own sake is to be deprecated. On balance, though, there were many good and few bad reasons for both decimalisation and metrication – not least the facts that decimal computation is easier than fractional in most cases, and that everyone in the world except America uses the metric system.
EG
Verity writes:
“It is the decimation of our measures and currency with decimilisation that is the outrage – a step taken intentionally to cut us off from our past.”
That was certainly the start of the process and I recall how loud was the laughter at those of us who objected and predicted, quite rightly, where this was all heading.
The alacrity with which the BBC glommed onto a near-Stalinist imposition of metric measures was signal enough. It’s quite depressing how people swallow it, too. I actually had some juvenile twerp say to me on the phone this week that he had “put on a few kilos over Christmas”.
I could hardly agree more with what you say.
Euan Gray writes:
“…not least the facts that decimal computation is easier than fractional in most cases, and that everyone in the world except America uses the metric system.”
Given the arrival of calculators and computers shortly after the currency was decimalised, that change was probably inevitable. Undeniably, however, the wrong basis was chosen and local inflation galloped away, compounding an international economic problem and worsening the UK’s competitiveness.
The move to metric weights and measures and Centigrade on the basis that “everyone else uses them”, on the other hand, was entirely spurious. What conceivable difference does it make to a Belgian housewife if I buy my potatoes by the pound and grumble about it being too hot at 80?
I tend to look askance at ‘Gramscian conspiracy’ theories, but I am quite convinced the underlying motivation behind metrication, consciously or unconsciously, was exactly the same as the Leftists’ desire to dismantle the UK’s entire constitution, sense of identity and system of government, brick by brick. They hate it and they want it changed beyond recognition.
Euan
You don’t get it. Decimalisation and metrication came about not because the British people wanted it, but because it has been decreed that Britain shall become the North West province of the country of Europe.
Just as a sovereign nation has a parliament, a judiciary, a flag, an anthem, a passport, a police force, a military, a foreign minister, a foreign policy, an immigration policy, tax policies etc. so the EU has them or is adding them. The move had nothing to do with need, demand or common sense and everything to do with stripping away another cultural layer in order to bring about complete cultural amnesia and a Britain ripe to be subsumed by the EU politburo.
None. But if you’re trying to flog your potatoes to the Belgian housewife she’ll probably want to buy them in kilos. In the 19th century, Britain legalised the use of metric system, since a considerable proportion of our manufactured goods was wanted in metric nations. I personally don’t see the problem with using one set of measures for the domestic market and another for export, but obviously it’s more efficient if you make everything to the same system. Naturally this doesn’t apply to so much to loose bulky goods like the humble spud, but given that the weighing and packing equipment (being a manufacture) is probably set up for metric you can see the logic. Then again, I remember a few years ago when supermarket digital scales were bilingual, as it were, and you could ask for and get half a pound of ham & see it displayed in both metric and imperial. Again still, it is cheaper to make scales with only one readout instead of two. Rationalisation and efficiency in the market, you see – I thought folks here liked that sort of thing??
I don’t think there was anything sinister about metrication. I’m sure it would have happened anyway soon enough, simply for the very reason that everyone else does use it. Even America will eventually go metric, and right now seems to be at the stage Britain was 30 or 40 years ago where most things high tech are metric anyway and it is low-tech and general consumer stuff that is persistently customary. That said, if you buy your groceries in Wal-Mart now you’ll see most of them have both US and metric weights, volumes, etc. already on the packaging.
But the old measures will not die for a long time. My industry works with steel oil & gas pipes, and although these are sold to metric dimensions, they are actually imperial sizes (largely because of the hideous cost of refitting a steel mill with all new presses to sell a product that won’t fit existing stuff). For example, you order a 12″ pipeline from an all-metric Japanese or European mill. What you actually get is a 323.9mm pipeline, since the pipe is made to the exact metric conversion of 12″ nominal bore, which for obscure historical reasons assumes a 3/8″ plate thickness and hence a true outside diameter of 12-3/4″ or 323.9mm. The 3/8″ plate is now marketed as 9.52mm plate. You cannot buy a 300mm steel pipe (you can get it in plastic though), but you can buy a 323.9mm pipe. You know it makes sense…
EG
Euan Gray writes:
“Again still, it is cheaper to make scales with only one readout instead of two. Rationalisation and efficiency in the market, you see – I thought folks here liked that sort of thing??”
But that is the point, isn’t it? This didn’t come about as a consequence of market forces, or free choice. It came about as a consequence of government diktat with people being threatened with imprisonment if they dared respond to market forces by doing what their customers wanted – selling goods in pounds and ounces.
“I don’t think there was anything sinister about metrication”
That use of force was precisely what was sinister and is what gives the clue to the underlying visceral need of the Gramscians to make this happen.
G Cooper, I was still in England the week they declared the end of yards and feet. About two days after it passed into law – if it ever did; perhaps it was simply imposed by the faceless nomenklatura in Brussels – I was in the shower when the dreaded Archers came on. Rather than get out and turn it off violently, I decided to live with it for a couple of minutes. They had some ancient country bumpkin in a pub recounting, in a rounded rural accent, something that had just happend “oh, it were about a couple hundert metres down the road…”.
But it would have done pretty soon.
The government enforces a standard system of weights and measures. Many people would say this is not an unreasonable thing to have a government for, since it means that a kilo (or pound) in London is the same as a kilo (or pound) in Glasgow, and so there is less likelihood of traders ripping off the public – as they are apt to do given half the chance.
It makes economic sense to have a nationally standard system of weights and measures. This of course only works if you can punish people who sell short measure or use illegal measures, which of course requires coercion. From a global point of view, it makes sense for Britain to use the metric system because most of our exports go to metric markets and most of our imports come from metric markets.
I agree that jailing people who try to sell carrots by the pound rather than the kilo is somewhat excessive, and would suggest there’s nothing wrong with using both the legal national standard (metric) and what a small and shrinking number of customers insist upon (imperial). If the grocer wants to give himself extra work, that’s up to him. I think as long as he uses the national standard, he should be allowed to use anything else he wants as well (but not instead).
I cannot see that it is an evil conspiracy to turn us into placid euro-drones. We’d have gone metric pretty soon anyway.
EG
Verity writes:
“They had some ancient country bumpkin in a pub recounting, in a rounded rural accent, something that had just happend “oh, it were about a couple hundert metres down the road…”.
Yes, the BBC has been aching to get on with this and has been one of the most eager cheerleaders. Given the Gramscian nature of the project, I wonder why?
If the advocates of metrication were so sure of themselves and the inevitable triumph of their awkward, artificial system, why did they feel the need so rigidly to enforce its use?
Eaun Gray writes:
“We’d have gone metric pretty soon anyway.”
So you say. But if it is true, why the need to use such draconian means? Many retailers were (and are) perfectly happy to sell in both systems, yet they have been prohibited from so doing, with a goon squad of enforcers to make sure they obey.
Clearly, our lords and masters lacked confidence in the inevitability of this grand plan.
As for arguments about the convenience of British manufacturing exporters (one is tempted to say “all three of them” but that’s another issue) there never was anything to stop them producing goods in metric sizes. Clearly, though, this supposedly universal insistence on metric goods was little impediment to the people who produced this 15″ laptop with its 3 1/2″ hard drive…
Of course, the really compelling argument, is that much of this was done to suit the convenience of the multinationals so, in fact, it militated against small British companies, rather than in favour of them.
And the ultimate irony, gentlemen, is you can perfectly legally buy a pound (une livre svp) of something in a French market. The French don’t give a toss.
They also don’t have the same axe to grind as the Gramcians in Britain. It’s the BBC and the Labour Party that care so very, very much.
Euan
The government enforces a standard system of weights and measures. Many people would say this is not an unreasonable thing to have a government for …
What happened to all that ‘hearts and minds’ stuff you were going on about in RCD’s ‘Cutting the Gordian Knor’ post? As for the rest of your post, it goes without saying that governments are leaste suited to regulating any market place. Market makers themselves are best placed to decide the route to profitability.
What one calls something is not necessarily the same as what that thing actually is. Your 15″ screen is specified and manufactured to metric dimensions, but is sold by Imperial dimensions for no better reason than this is how TVs and monitors have always been sold in the UK and US – and since the US dominated these industries at the start, it has stuck. The pipe example I gave before is also valid largely because of Anglo-American dominance of the oil industry in the early 20th century.
I suspect your laptop’s hard drive is really 2-1/2″ rather than 3-1/2″, but either way it is designed, specified and made in metric units.
It’s not so much an insistence on universally metric goods, rather a universally recognised standard of measurement. This isn’t a conspiracy or a step on the road to global government, it’s just a rational decision. Sometimes, rational decisions need to be enforced – had there not been coercion to compel people to use the Imperial standard system long ago, it would never have been a “standard,” and an inch in Glasgow would not be the same thing as an inch in London.
Doubtless, people complained then about this impractical and heathen new-fangled standard system. Plus ca change…
EG
Verity writes:
” It’s the BBC and the Labour Party that care so very, very much.”
Not without considerable assistance from the Tories In Name Only like the traitors Heath, Patten, Howe et al.
Sadly, there’s a deep seam of fifth columnists in the UK.
I think it’s somewhat facetious to compare changing the national system of weights and measures to the arbitrary execution of foreigners.
There is an obvious need to have a recognised standard of weights and measures. If the national standard is the same as the one used by (with one exception) the rest of the world, then this is probably more convenient. Frankly, I don’t care a stuff which is the standard – I can use metric or Imperial just as easily – or even if we had both in parallel and if I had to learn a new system then I don’t imagine it would be terribly difficult. Whatever standard you have will need to be enforced, and if we hadn’t gone metric we’d still be threatening people with jail and fines for not using the old standard system.
Indeed, and this is why I said that the country would inevitably have gone metric anyway. Just as America slowly is now.
EG
Euan
Units of measurement and summary execution weren’t being compared, your principle of winning hearts and minds where something supposedly good and beneficial for the recipient was being analysed. As for arbitrary execution of foreigners you obviously never did read what others posted on that thread.
By the way, the units in which my produce is weighed, advertised and sold are none of your damn business. You obviously think it is your business because you think it right for people to be punished for selling goods in units not authorised by the state. Along with pounds and ounces we British seem to have lost something else. Its the lost art of minding your own business. Tell me Euan, what is a suitable ‘punishment’ that the state should meet out to me for selling produce in units not sanctioned by the state?
Euan Gray – if the thought fascists hadn’t forced it with a jackboot and a kosh, it wouldn’t have happened in the anglosphere. And the rest of the world would have accommodated the mighty anglosphere.
Well, G Cooper, no one holds Edward Heath, the dead sheep, Chris Patten and Douglas Hurd in greater contempt than I do. I would love to see Edward Heath put to death for treason. Chris Patten is beyond parody. Even the Chinese thought he was a joke, and they don’t laugh easily.
But, you say: “Sadly, there’s a deep seam of fifth columnists in the UK.” You don’t mention that Britain is the first country in history (as far as I know) where the fifth column is actually the government and resides at Nos 10 and 11 Downing st.
Euan Gray writes:
“It’s not so much an insistence on universally metric goods, rather a universally recognised standard of measurement. This isn’t a conspiracy or a step on the road to global government, it’s just a rational decision. Sometimes, rational decisions need to be enforced…”
And you still believe this isn’t sinister? At risk of invoking Godwin’s Law, much the same utilitarian argument would have been used to enforce the use of German across Europe, had WWII gone the other way.
If your argument has any validity at all, the proof would have come without the need for coercion. It was only the desperation of the pro-metric lobby in the face of sullen unwillingness that made them resort to compulsion.
Your point about manufacturers working in metric while selling in imperial measurements actually reinforces my point, rather than yours. If it is so easy to do, why wasn’t it done? If it is as easy to manufacture in metric but sell in imperial as you suggest, then why force customers to adopt a system they doin’t want to?
In other words, who benefits?
Clearly, it suits the needs of those who believe in increased homogeneity and decreased freedom of choice.
Verity writes:
“You don’t mention that Britain is the first country in history (as far as I know) where the fifth column is actually the government and resides at Nos 10 and 11 Downing st. ”
Indeed, but if only that were the one place from which they had to be rooted-out!
The problem in this country (which is why your decision to get out may very well have been smarter than mine to stay – for the time being at least) is that hosing-out New Labour barely scratches the surface of the rot in this state.
G Cooper – I say again: Voila!
You will have no help in hosing them out because they’ve got little grabby lizard feet that can cling on to perpendicular walls and not enough people have sufficient will to hose them down with maximum pressure. The commentators are an extraordinarily gentle crew, except for the formidable Melanie Phillips. I find this baffling. No one has the will to dislodge them, including the Conservative Party. They are not offended that something of the quality of Tony Blair is occupying the post of the prime minister of Britain. They just want to figure out how to be more “New Labour” than the Labour party, having missed the point that the English loathe the Labour Party.
But you are right. Britain is rotten. The beams supporting the state are rotten. The entire infrastructure is rotten. And they have brought in millions of wood beetles.
This whole “New” Labour episode has been quite extraordinary, because there were no real politics involved at any point. It’s all been smoke and mirrors and song-‘n’-dance numbers by the front man.
There is absolutely nothing there except an insane hunger for power.
At some point, when even they get the point that the wealth creators are leaving in droves, they will begin to require exit visas. Be careful not to stay too long out of loyalty because, as painful as it is, there is nothing to be loyal to.
Her Maj is pushing “diversity” in monocultural Britain, our roots going back thousands of years and the daring of our people being the reason we have a presence all over the world – because of her holdings in E Africa. Don’t offend dictators who have control over your land and mineral wealth. Time for her and her ghastly family to go. They have mismanaged absolutely everything they essayed. Fergie. The monstrous Diana, the two young princes who are beyond irrelevant. The Queen allowing herself to be bullied, because she was frightened, by the crowds when the crowds “mourned” Diana and demanded the Union flag be flown at half mast and by T Blair who said, “Trust me, your Majesty, I can lead you across these shoals and then everything will be fine.” Well, she sold herself to Tony Blair. And now she’s flying the Union flag at half mast for thousands of Sri Lankan peasants who died because they were accident victims, but not for our servicemen who tragically died in the course of duty. I’ve really gone off the Queen in a big way.
Euan Gray wrote:
The government was trying to introduce the metric system here in the States 30 years ago. That was about the time cars in the States started being required to have metric in addition to US measures (which are different from Imperial measures; after all, everybody knows a gallon is 231 cubic inches).
I even recall a few of the signs on the New York State Thruway being in metric (around Syracuse, IIRC, there were signs saying the next exit was 3km away).
And yet, metric hasn’t made much impact in people’s everyday lives, other than bottles of cola and car engines being listed in liters.
Having said that, there are things for which metric is better suited, notably measuring areas. My parents installed laminate flooring, and because the blocks were devised by a European company, they were metric (200mm x 1200mm). Once my father bought a metric tape measure, it was quite easy for him to measure the cutting points, and how much flooring he needed to buy, properly. Contrast this with the US/English system, in which the blocks would be measured solely in inches, and the room dimensions in a combination of feet and inches. And it’s a good thing my parents weren’t installing new carpeting — in the US, that’s sold by the square yard.
GCooper, you misunderstood me. My bad, let me try again. I agree that the EU will be the end of Great Britian. It’s gonna happen, there is absolutly nothing you can do to prevent it. So your choices are a futile, losing fight or some political judo to try and get the best deal you can.
Even if this Shot at an EU Constitution goes down in flames, which it looks like is what will happen, there will be another, and then another, until the Socialists get their way. Look at the vote in Ireland. They kept running it until they rigged the voting enough to win.
That is what Brussels will do. Only death will stop the Brusselites. And if Europe lacks the will to prevent it’s quiet destruction at the hands of Islam, where will they get the will for armed revolt against the faceless bureaucrats of the EU?I was just pointing out that some good could come of it. A Federal Europe allows the various nations to maintain their identity, while benifiting from co-operation. The United States of Europe was a VERY bad choice of words. It invites an inapt and unintended comparison between Western Asia and America.
EG, the only lasting result of the Metric thingie in the USA was a lot of speed limit signs with bullet holes in them. For the most part, the metric laws were ignored. The politicians didn’t press the issue, since they would have just gotten themselves tossed from office. When I fill up my gas-guzzler, it is in gallons. My beer comes in 12 oz containers. My pistols are mostly .40 caliber, not 10.03 millimeters or what ever. My old lady buys 34-D’s not some goofy metric size. The Speed limit signs are slowly being replaced with MPH signs. If that confuses the Mexicans and Canadians, tuff sh*t.
The anti-metric hysteria patently blinds some people to the pretty simple points I was making:
1. Britain would inevitably have gone metric as this is really the global standard of measurement for all practical purposes.
2. America will also eventually go metric for the same reason.
3. There is nothing wrong with using the metric system.
4. There is nothing wrong with NOT using the metric system.
5. If you want to advertise your car as returning 40 furlongs to the hogshead that is (or should be) up to you.
6. It is a good idea to have a common standard of measurement. All nations throughout history have done this, and for the same reasons.
7. What this standard is changes from time to time and is not of itself important. Right now the most widely used system is metric. 100 years ago it was Imperial. Things change.
8. People would have bitched and moaned then at the imposition of the Imperial standard system just as they bitch and moan now at the adoption of the metric standard. 100 years from now people will bitch and moan if we were to propose abandoning metric.
Really I don’t agree with the idea of jailing people for selling stuff in pounds rather than kilos. However, I do accept that a national legal standard of weights and measures is desirable, and that this needs to be enforced – otherwise people WILL short measure. The practical thing is to insist that people observe the legal standard, but if as well as that they want to sell stuff in pounds, gallons (US or Imperial?), tons (long, short or metric?) or miles (statute, nautical or metric?) then they should be free to do so.
Metrication isn’t a big deal. It’s not a difficult system to understand, but neither is the Imperial standard. Whichever system you were educated in will feel the most “natural” to you, whether this is metric or Imperial. Much of the resistance to metrication is petty chauvinism directed at foreigners and their heathen ways of measuring stuff, and as such it is silly and not a meaningful objection.
Read the label on the side and you will see it also comes in a metric size 🙂
EG
Verity
Euan states:
Much of the resistance to metrication is petty chauvinism directed at foreigners and their heathen ways of measuring stuff, and as such it is silly and not a meaningful objection.
There they go again, the problem lies with we xenophobic little Englanders!
Euan, do start reading what other people post. I have no objection to the metric system in itself. I and others do object to a cultural layer being stripped away by socialist diktat. You seem to enjoy life on your knees. I’m waiting to hear what ‘punishment’ I should suffer at the hands of the state for not employing officially sanctioned units of measurement. After all you did say:
It makes economic sense to have a nationally standard system of weights and measures. This of course only works if you can punish people who sell short measure or use illegal measures, which of course requires coercion.
No, wait, here it is:
Really I don’t agree with the idea of jailing people for selling stuff in pounds rather than kilos.
Maybe I should merely be taken outside and re-educated instead then.
I have noticed you’re long on assertion and short on reference. The latest example being:
7. What this standard is changes from time to time and is not of itself important. Right now the most widely used system is metric. 100 years ago it was Imperial. Things change.
8. People would have bitched and moaned then at the imposition of the Imperial standard system …
I’ve long been under the impression that Edward I introduced the Imperial system in the 13th Century.
“Much of the resistance to metrication is petty chauvinism directed at foreigners and their heathen ways of measuring stuff, and as such it is silly and not a meaningful objection.”
That is just patronising claptrap. You persistently evade the simple truth that if the inevitability of metrication were a fact, then it would have happened anyway, without the need for draconian imposition.
As for this knee-jerk reaching into the PC bag of clichés, where anyone who objects to anything foreign is automatically branded a xenophobe, I’m afraid it simply won’t do.
It has been repeatedly established in this thread that the posters who object to metrication are very far from xenophobes. What we are however is resistant to change for its own sake and that is the point at issue: that you have consistently failed to prove the need for this imposition, resorting, instead, to that trick of Marxist politicians, the supposed ‘inevitability’ argument. ‘You might as well get used to this – it’s going to happen anyway’ – as is currently also being used by the traitorous dogs shoving us into EU-wide unelected government by bureaucrat.
It is not hysterical to wish to preserve those things which are as woven into one’s culture as are weights and measures and currency. From learning ‘Half a pound of tuppeny rice’ to finding curtains to fit the windows of a house built in imperial measurements, to wondering ‘How many miles to Babylon?’ the terms we use are part of our culture and if you change the terms by force, you wrench and distort that culture. It is a deliberate and calculated attempt to render the past alien. And can you deny that is precisely what those who hate Britain and all it has achieved want? Isn’t spurious ‘modernisation’ the very mantra of the cultural vandals in ‘New’ Labour?
If it society changes organically, of its own will, so be it – but only dictators and dangerous ideologues resort to compulsion.
For God’s sake, it’s a system of standard weights and measures, not the repeal of habeas corpus or the compulsory speaking of French.
There are a great many things wrong with this country, and there is much to be concered about in the development of the European state, BUT the use of the metric system is not part of Gramscian conspiracy to make us all good European citizens and is really not a major issue.
The system of weights and measures is not a cultural layer. It’s just a common tool.
Unfortunately, when you make a public big deal out of inconsequential trivia like the standard of weights & measures, but don’t make any significant effort to mount a concerted public campaign about really important issues such as the presumption of innocence, arbitrary justice and the emasculation of parliamentary authority, then you really do appear to be Little Englanders, even if you are not in fact so.
If you insist on thinking the metric system is part of an evil plot for Euro-homogenisation, then by all means carry on. I think you’re paranoid. The average man in the street was probably quite happy with the Imperial system, but that doesn’t mean he can’t or won’t use the metric system, nor does it mean that he would necessarily support going back to the old system. I notice that the amount of public support for the so-called “metric martyrs” is not exactly overwhelming – it just is not an important matter and I think most people are capable of figuring this out.
Really, who gives a damn about whether you buy your carrots by the pound or the kilo? How hard is it to adjust? It is monumentally unimportant. The Imperial standard system is not something that somehow defines Britain or Britishness, it’s simply a standard system that we used for a specific purpose. Other systems are now more practical and useful for that same purpose, and indeed we only adopted the Imperial system because of a lack of a useful common standard beforehand. What system we use for this does not define what sort of culture we have and nor does it matter that the system is use was invented in France and not here.
I can assure you that even if Britain left the EU tomorrow we would not suddenly revert to flogging spuds by the pound or petrol by the gallon. We would continue our painful progress towards metrication, a process made all the more unnecessarily painful by continued delay, foot-dragging and petty objections about trivia.
I did not mean to suggest the Imperial system was only introduced 100 years ago. My point was that when it was laid down (by state diktat, of course) there would have been people bitching and moaning just as people do now about another change.
EG
Well, you could say the same thing about the imposition of the Imperial standard as well, couldn’t you? Which is one of my points – people moan about change however useful or pointless that change may be.
The fact that “226.8 grams of 0.83 pence rice” doesn’t quite trip off the tongue does not mean that changing the system of weights and measures is a conscious act of cultural vandalism. Many words and phrases used in nursery rhymes and similar everyday phrases don’t actually mean much, if anything, these days and haven’t done for a long time. How many people in their 20s or 30s these days know what a guinea is? Or a furlong, a league, an ell, a chain, a cable or a quarter? Yet all these things were once commonly used, and most passed into disuse long before metrication.
So the remnants of the Imperial system would have passed into disuse, and would have been replaced with metric equivalents – this process was already happening anyway before any state imposed requirements. There would have been a new weights and measures act, defining and compelling the use of the metric system as the legal national standard, and just as people had been punished by the state for not using the authorised Imperial system so they would then be punished for not using the authorised metric system. Is it wrong to punish people for refusing to use the metric system, but acceptable to punish them for refusing to use the Imperial one? Basically, we would probably be today pretty much where we actually are with the likely exception of buying loose fruit and veg.
However, as I alluded to before on the subject of computer parts, metrication does not mean that Imperial-sized things are no longer available. Timber, sheet wood, curtain poles, etc., are all made to Imperial sizes but sold in metric dimensions. You buy a 1220 x 607mm sheet of plywood, for example, but it’s really just the metric conversion of standard 4′ x 2′ sheet. If the whole thing was completely and truly metric, don’t you think it would make more sense to sell 1000 x 500mm sheets? Equally, 70 x 44mm timber is the metric conversion of what you get when you plane 3″ x 2″ rough-sawn wood, and that’s what you buy. You won’t see 75 x 50mm, unless you order it specially. In the same way you buy a 1.8m (6 foot) curtain pole, and ready-made curtains are actually made to suit standard Imperial window sizes even if they are sold in metric dimensions. It’s not hard to cope with – just measure up in millimetres rather than inches and you won’t have the slightest difficulty (I speak from experience, being in the process of renovating my Imperial-dimensioned house, so don’t tell me this is difficult – I know it isn’t)
If you try to ossify your culture, it will surely die. Things change, and one of the great strengths of English culture is that it has historically kept things which are useful, unsentimentally junked things that are no longer of utility, and invented new “traditions” (like tartan, the coronation ceremony and the army’s structure) whenever it suited. It is flexible and adaptable, like our language, and just like our language we tend not to try and forever nail it down to some specified form of Englishness. Cultures which do this are weak and lacking in self-confidence. Whether you sell spuds in pounds or kilos makes not the slightest difference – it is more important to ensure that you can freely buy your spuds AT ALL in a competitive open market.
EG
Euan, I can’t be bothered to read your posts all the way through because you just present the same very lengthy arguments over and over again. No offence, but it’s tedious.
I will say one final time, that G Cooper, Pete_London, me and several others on this thread do not want Britain to be preserved in amber. The surest thing in life, the one thing you can absolutely bet on, is, things change. No one is arguing that change is not the way of the world. Have I made myself clear?
We are arguing that with metrification, change was forced on the British people when there was absolutely no demand for it with the purpose, as G Cooper said so eloquently, of rendering the past alien. To cast Britain off its moorings.
Brian, back to your original blog, have there been any statistics or guesstimates as to how many Brits are involved in blogging? Either participating or just reading blogs? We haven’t addressed whether your prediction that the euro referendum will be fought on the internet is reasonable and, if it is, what to conclude from it!
None taken, I have the skin of a rhino. But how’s this for short ‘n’ sweet:
Complaining about metrication is petty, since it would happen anyway. It is futile, since it is not going to be reversed. It is dangerous, since it absorbs time and effort better spent opposing the REAL dangers of a European state. And it is counter-productive since, whether you appreciate it or not, it makes people who have genuine and well considered objections to the EU appear like huffy Little Englanders who will not be taken seriously.
EG
Euan. It is not even the metrification itself that we object to – although I personally think it’s stupid – but the intent behind it. This is what we are trying to explain to you.
Verity writes:
“Euan. It is not even the metrification itself that we object to – although I personally think it’s stupid – but the intent behind it. This is what we are trying to explain to you.”
Quite! But I’ve given up trying to get that across. Life is too short.
I’m glad you’re giving this up, because you will not make believe that metrication is a plot to erase Britain’s awareness of its history. To me, that is an absurd conspiracy theory bordering on the paranoid. Nor do I believe it is part of a larger plot, or even a malign intent not quite extending to plottishness.
There is in my view no malign intent to erase Britain’s history or culture, however much some on the left would like this. The reality is that Britain is a relatively poor and weak country. We were bankrupt in 1940 and have been dependent on American goodwill (and cash) from then until the 1980s. America has consistently encouraged us to get closer to Europe (not least to ease the burden on Washington – the “special relationship” is not nearly as special as many think), and to do this we have had to change the ways we do some things. Other things would have changed anyway.
It is not so much trying to forget our history as perhaps learning that we simply cannot have things our own way any longer. We do not have the military or strategic power to act independently (read “against American wishes”), and even if we did we do not have the cash to fund this in a crisis. Nobody is denying British history, although some want to, but it does need to be understood that it IS history, it is not the way we can do things any more. Having said that, it is probably fair to say the EU hasn’t worked out the way Panglossian US policy had thought it might. Even so, we don’t realistically have a national escape route into the US and need to keep on good enough terms with both Europe and America. We can leave the EU, but we can’t ignore it. We can’t ignore America either, but it’s highly unlikely we could actually become part of the US. So we can be independent yet inextricably linked to Europe, or we can be part of Europe. We can’t be completely independent and do things our own way, it just is not practically possible – at least, not without very significant cost.
Just because things change doesn’t mean they will always change for the good or that the change will always even be what the people consent to. It’s just political reality, unpalatable as it may be to some.
EG
Euan
I’m glad I read to the end. I’m know minded to skip over anything you post in future. One word of advice; get up off your knees, you serf.
Euan Gray – I’ve long felt that people’s political opinions are more a matter of mindset – of temperament if you will – than of reason and reading your post convinces me of this even further.
This doctrine of ‘managed decline’ was the predominant philosophy of Oxbridge civil service mandarins and the Left of the Conservative party post-Suez. I had hoped that, along with everything else she achieved, Margaret Thatcher had swept it from the country, but it has, as such depressive tendencies seem to, come creeping back like a fog.
I have rarely seen it better expressed than in your weary, defeated, resigned words. There is little one can say in the face of a faith. Or even the complete lack of it.
Was not at all what I was talking about.
It is a FACT that Britain is not a particularly wealthy or powerful country. The idea of managed decline presupposes that nothing can be done to prevent the decay into irrelevance, but simply recognising that we are not especially wealthy or powerful does not mean we have to accept unending decline, whether managed or not. I am well aware of what ‘managed decline’ means, I do not approve of it and I do not urge it. I am arguing something quite different.
What we do need to recognise is that we can’t have it all our own way any more and we do therefore have to make some adjustments to accommodate this perhaps unpleasant fact, whilst retaining what independence of action and policy we realistically can. This is a totally different thing, which obviously I have not managed to communicate properly.
As for Thatcher, it is generally accepted now that her administration was the first post-war one to have a realistic (and necessarily unflattering) view of our ability to act independently. This resulted in a more useful relationship with the US, facilitated of course by the election of Reagan, but also a realisation that we could not divorce ourselves from Europe however much we (and she) may have wanted to & we needed to put our case for a reformed Europe rather than just accepting what the Franco-German axis wanted. Or withdraw, of course, but even then as I said we cannot ignore the place. This changed somewhat after her departure, to the country’s detriment.
I would also add that Thatcher’s administration continued the gradual run-down of British military strength, to the extent that by the end of her time in office it would have been logistically impossible for us to mount the Falklands operation again. This obviously accelerated after the end of the Cold War, but that’s a different thing. However, this is not ‘managed decline’ so much as pragmatic adjustment to changed circumstances.
EG
Euan Gray writes:
“However, this is not ‘managed decline’ so much as pragmatic adjustment to changed circumstances.”
Which is precisely how a Leftish Tory grandee once described it, when pressed.
I’m sorry but, like Pete-London, I give up.
But circumstances have changed. Are we to ignore this, deny reality and pretend that what has taken place has not actually happened?
It might make you feel better to assume nothing has changed, but it’s rather silly.
EG
Well, Pete_London and G Cooper, I am going to take one more swing and then I am also out of this thread.
Euan Gray, who else? says There is in my view no malign intent to erase Britain’s history or culture,
Oh, really? Is that why Christmas was turned into ‘Winterval’ in Birmingham? Is that why British history and the mind-boggling achievement of the British Empire is not taught in British state schools? Is that why British children in taxpayer supported schools are being forced to celebrate Deepavali (and devote class time to creating Deepavali cards) and Eidel Fitri in class, but forbids nativity scenes or plays? And why native British children – especially British boys – feel disconnectd from their own history? Because the “achievements” of every immigrant culture are celebrated as towering and magnificent, and their own culture is trashed? Is that why Blair & Co are so at pains to elevate every primitive culture that has found its way into Britain and to sneer at the hardships endured by our ancestors who were engaged in creating wealth overseas?
I’m sorry, and I don’t want to be lavishly offensive, but I agree with Pete_London. You are a serf in your soul.
As an aside, when I’ve been in India and have met officials and ministers, I have been personally thanked for the English language, which united India, the railroads, and the ICS. As just a person suddenly elevated to that of official recipient of international compliments, I just said friendly things like, “Well, you do better with the language than the average Briton!” and like comments.
Oh, and by the way, if all these immigrant cultures are so rich and life-enhancing, and so inventive they never even invented toilet paper for shitting in the dunes, why aren’t people from long developed first world countries lined up around the block at their embassies trying to get visas to immigrate there?