|
|||||
Samizdata quote of the day – There’s Good News for Britain: Things Are Really BadBritain is like an alcoholic who has spent a decade reassuring himself that, despite his binges and blackouts, he is “high functioning”. The reality is, however, that he is increasingly not actually functioning at all. We are headed for the rock bottom we so badly need. The moment of clarity is coming. It will be painful. But it’s the only thing that can save this country. – Konstantin Kisin (£) December 16th, 2025 |
 38 comments to Samizdata quote of the day – There’s Good News for Britain: Things Are Really BadLeave a Reply |
   |
||||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
I agree that Britain is in for very hard times – very hard times indeed, terrible suffering.
But will the country recover?
One tiny piece of hope…..
Yesterday I was too tired and depressed even to scratch off the leftist propaganda stickers on the lampposts and bus shelters.
But today they had been scratched off – someone else had done it.
Even when we think we are alone (isolated – doomed), we are not really alone – we have allies even if we do not know their names.
Perhaps the left will win – perhaps all the future that this nation (perhaps the whole Western world) will have is – ashes and dried blood – horror and death.
Or perhaps NOT.
You are far from alone. I’m an old lapsed Tory but the other day my daughter dragged me, grumbling and cynical as is my wont, to an informal Reform social in the Midlands. I’m glad she did. For the first time in a long time, I felt a faint flicker of hope. There are people of every shape, hue, and age, not just pale salty wrinklies like me, who think they have something they need to defend.
Curious that the powers that be in our country are talking up the war threat again. Britain probably is one of the western countries least prepared for a major war right now, and apart from some minute increases in defence spending, most of the policies pursued under Starmer and the Tory government that preceded at best have done little to make Britain more ready for such a conflict, if not just made things worse.
Given all that, one has to wonder what their game is.
I think Kisin is what is sometimes called an “accelerationist” – the idea that the rapid descent into hell is necessary for there to be a change for the better. The only problem with the “we must destroy in order to build” is that if so much damage is done, the situation is irrecoverable, at least for decades.
I’d always assumed that my wife’s Book Club was North American liberal in bent, so she’d been cautious – silent actually – about my enthusiasm for Atlas Shrugged (description of Britain 2025/26). But it came out and . . . huge enthusiasm. I was staggered.
Old Jack Tar – the local record of the Reform Party is mixed, introducing new taxes at county level (as well as increasing the basic Council Tax by the maximum), but opposing tax increases at Parish Level.
But, of course, there is more to politics than taxation – “demography is destiny” as the French used to say (before they started to be sent to prison for saying such things), and unless the demographic crises in this nation is successfully addressed (the increase of hostile populations, and the demographic decline of the British) the nation will be destroyed – it really is that serious.
Martin – our rulers appear to want to distract us from the real crises, both economic and cultural (and demographic), and Mr Putin is an ideal distraction – as he really is a bad man.
Johnathan Pearce – I agree that peaceful reform to save the nation would be good, and President Trump, and the Prime Ministers of Hungary and Japan and Italy, and the Presidents of Argentina and President Elect of Chile are trying to do that. Ditto the President of Paraguay
But….
I think Konstantin Kisin is correct about Britain.
The madness is so entrenched here – and all levels of society.
Only a terrible collapse will wake up the British – if even that will do so.
“But you will not survive such times” – I know I will not survive, I can not really survive now. Indeed I wish I had died many years ago.
Michael Taylor – excellent Sir! Good to hear.
“I think Kisin is what is sometimes called an “accelerationist”
Self-described in fact 😀 Also from the linked article…
Perry, Konstantin Kisin does not see a chance of reform in Britain at present – if he did he would not be an “accelerationist”.
But there is no guarantee that the British people would take action even when things get dramatically worse, which they will. And what action can the British people take? After all the protests of the summer of 2024 were brutally crushed (with force that is not used against, for example, Islamic protests or leftists protests) – with the courts turned into “Drum head” tribunals and even the King (in his Christmas broadcast of 2024) being used for propaganda against the British people.
Denouncing the British people for “not doing anything about” various things – assumes they can “do something about it”. But what can the British people do?
Peaceful dissent is viciously punished – and they have few weapons for armed dissent, they would be crushed (massacred), by police and soldiers who would say “I do not want to kill you mate – but I have got my job and pension to think about” (which is understandable- as people without an income understand only too well) – and the media would present the dissenters as “racists” and there has been endless propaganda (agitprop) declaring, for many years, that “racists” must be destroyed. And when the left say “Winston Churchill was a racist!” by their definition of the term (which dominates the education system and all other institutions) they are correct – he was, as anyone who wants the British to survive is a “racist” by this definition, and, so people are taught, must-be-destroyed. And this is an international definition – for example President Eisenhower was a racist by-this-definition which holds that “racism” is NOT just being cruel to other ethnic groups, just wanting the Western ethnic nationalities (French, German, English, Danish – and so on) to continue is enough for a person to be declared a “racist” who-must-be-destroyed. In short – the definition of “racist who must be destroyed” has gone from someone who SUPPORTS genocide, to someone who OPPOSES genocide (a 120 degree shift in the definition of the term).
Still the economic collapse may change many things – and such a collapse is starting.
The next General Election is unlikely to be before May 2029 – things will be very bad indeed by then.
And what could an incoming elected government do?
Such things as “national music” or slogans such as “Czechs should be ruled by Czechs” would now be considered proof of a “racist” who “must be destroyed”.
Someone like Mr Putin would be quite happy with such a definition – as, by this definition, Ukrainian nationalism would be defined as “racism that must be destroyed” with Russia chanting “Diversity is Our Strength” as a “proud multi ethnic state”. Privately there is a lot of bigotry in Russia – but officially (especially when talking to people in Africa, Asia and Latin America) Russia is proudly “anti racist”.
And, economically, this “proud multi ethnic state” has a basis – as it sells raw materials and food (for example to China).
But the United Kingdom has no such economic basis – it imports (not exports) food and raw materials, AND it also imports manufactured goods.
Britain also lacks Russian cynicism.
Mr Putin struts about as an “anti racist”, a “friend of Islam”, a “defender of the rights of women”, or whatever – but he does not really believe in anything (he is a cynical power grubbing opportunist), and the same is true of the other people in power in Russia.
But the British establishment, the local branch of the international establishment, are “True Believers” (“shit eaters” is the Russian term – people who “eat the shit”, i.e. believe the official propaganda of the education system and the media) – people such as Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer really believe in the “anti racism”, “feminism” and all the rest of the stuff they come out with.
The British establishment believes (really believes) all of it – including the contradictory stuff such as being opposed to “Islamophobia” and supporting “Gay Rights” AT THE SAME TIME.
This is the real difference between, for example, Moscow and Petersburg – and London and Birmingham.
Although, of course, Russia may be as doomed as Britain appears to be – Mr Navalny certainly thought so, arguing that Mr Putin had sold out the Russian people to their enemies of many centuries (both the forces of the Crescent Moon and the People’s Republic of China), just to stay in power.
Which is worse? Someone like a senior member (the most senior member – Christmas address and all) of the British establishment – who undermines their nation without-knowing-they-are-doing-it, or someone like Mr Putin who sells out his nation, knowing full well they are doing it – because he cares for nothing but HIMSELF.
People are still voting for the Liblabcon. Don’t think that will ever change.
Stuart:
Are you sure? The only elections we have recently have been local government by-elections, and Reform have been winning many of those seats. The next big elections are in May, and even Sir Keir Stazi cannot cancel them (I hope). We will then see who people are voting for. I do not think it will be for the establishment parties. If it is, we are indeed screwed.
Paul Marks “And what could an incoming elected government do?”
Well, first they will have to have a decent majority. Farage therefore it will have to be. He should start now building a small set of deliverable promises. “On the first day of a Reform government, legislation will be laid before the House to repeal the vicious, cowardly, destructive taxation raid on our farms. So if you’re a farmer, vote Reform!” Etc, etc. But not too many. A clear four or five. Clarity on the top major issues will gather in the squandered Bojo majority and more. Those voters are still there and more are seeing the light. What are the five? Boats and expulsions, farmers and tax, kids and mutilation, ECHR and the blob… Careful choices and clear messages, please.
Of course, the empire will strike back with slurs and insults but with every media hit against the manifestly good things, the gap between the Establishment and ordinary people will be stretched further, made clearer. There could be a once in a lifetime chance to tear some of it down but it will have to be done in the first hundred days. There is, I hope, much work being done to establish the above points and set of priorities and better politicians than me are, I am sure, measuring and preparing the timescales for the most effective delivery ahead of the next election.
Alas, in the dark of the night, I fear that Mr Farage has not the political management skills to surf the wave of opposition that will come his way. A thick skin and a steady hand will be needed. He has the first but not the last.
PS He will also need to appoint a few hundred Reform peers the first day too so that the Lords can be tamed – before they are got rid of too. And stand ready to fire civil servants standing in the way. Just fire them and be damned. All of this needs to be ready to go Day 1.
Mongoose:
I agree with you. I too hope that Farage is up to the job. There is no-one else, so we have to hope that. I feel that he knows what must be done. The task he faces is at least as important as that which faced Churchill in 1940, but a lot less physically dangerous.
I fear KK haa been hanging out with Americans too much. Yes there are clearly a number of issues in the UK, but by most material metrics it isn’t doing that badly.
And why is that those who predict a society heading for collapse narcissistically assume that it will be their ideology that will rise from the ashes and save the day.
Paul Marks 12-17-25 1042 hrs.:
I am not used to considering you to be optimistic (smile) but what indication is there other than habit that there a) will really be honest elections by May 2029?, b) what could/would the british people do if they were cancelled/”postponed” by those in power. and c) what prevents the current government from placing anyone who is a real opposition leader in custody for forbidden speech? Especially since y’all [like us] have plenty of members of the sogannante “opposition” who will roll over for the regime for either fear or promised favors.
Subotai Bahadur
Paul Marks, re “they have few weapons for armed dissent, they would be crushed (massacred), by police and soldiers”
My guess would be that a lot of Muslims and their allies would join in the fray and gladly also wage war against the Anglos.
In other words, any rebellion would not be fought just against the powers that be.
Reminds me of Lenin.
– Lenin did not literally say “the worse, the better.”
– The phrase is a shorthand used by critics and later commentators to describe his revolutionary logic: that worsening social and political crises could create fertile ground for revolution.
This is probably where KK took his idea from.
But it’s the only thing that can save this country.
I just want to mention that although sometimes alcoholics do hit rock bottom and pick themselves up moving on to a better life. They also frequently die prematurely of Cirrhosis of the liver.
It is also worth pointing out that the first of Alcoholics Anonymous 12 steps is “honesty”, the fourth is “soul searching”, the fifth is “integrity” and the seventh is “humility”. Does that make anyone feel confident that recovery is coming soon?
Argentina and Venezuela used to be rich prosperous countries. There is no guarantee you sit at the top forever.
This country started to slide when Thatcher was assassinated. Its been down hill ever since.
Can I also air a thought thats passed through my mind a few times over the last year or two? Our political class for centuries havent cared about blood and soil. They’ve been more than happy to co-opt someone who had tenuous links to this country to become even the monarch. William of Orange. To this day we have the leader of the Conservative Party, someone unqualified for parliament let alone potential prime minister.
Henry Cybulski – likely so, Britain in 2025 (or 2026) is not Athens Tennessee in 1946. The idea of successful resistance here is absurd. Indeed Subotai Bahadur may have a point about the next General Election.
Stuart Noyes – liberty started to decline, the state started to grow (even as a proportion of the economy) as far back as the 1870s – but you are CORRECT – the betrayal of Margaret Thatcher in 1990 was when the last effort to roll back the state was ended (although honourable mention should also be made of Liz Truss – who was also betrayed). With hindsight (always 20/20 vision) 1990 is the year I should have left this world.
Jacob – yes, being an educated Russian, K.K. would be well aware of what “Lenin” said. And, like Sir Keir Starmer and higher, “Lenin” was a “true believer” – unlike the cynical criminal Mr Putin, “Lenin” really believed in the “Progressive” ravings that came out of his mouth – and his pen.
Mila s – you are wrong about the first point, Britain is (not is not) doing very badly – and things are going to get a lot worse.
But, Mila s, you may be CORRECT about the second point – just because Britain is going to fall apart, does NOT mean that liberty will rise from the ashes.
mongose – yes indeed reasonable first steps Sir. Although the situation will be incredibly bad by 2029.
JohnK….
Winston Churchill set himself two great tasks in 1940 – to save the British Empire and to save the British people.
By the time of his death in 1965 it was clear that the British Empire was dying (although Hong Kong remained till 1997), and it was also becoming clear that the British people were in peril – both their liberties (for example the attack on Freedom of Association and Freedom of Speech that was the 1965 Race Relations Act – although this Act was mild by the standards of later Acts of Parliament) and indeed their very existence as a people – as John Enoch Powell (a supporter of Winston Churchill) warned a few years later.
Winston Churchill was very tough on himself, hence his comment shortly before his death “in my life I have achieved many things, held most of the great offices of state, only, in the end, to achieve nothing-at-all” – that is TOO HARSH as Winston Churchill had preserved the self government and liberty of the British people – which Mr Hitler would NOT have allowed, any more than he allowed it to Norway (a nation also made of “race brothers” and also “protected by the sea”).
What people have to see now is that the liberties, indeed the very existence of the British (as a people), is under threat.
Already we are hearing “it is only Birmingham and a few other cities and towns – I do not live anywhere near these places”.
If people wait till the “demographic transformation” comes to their town or village, it will be too late.
Bizarrely, the above, the position of Winston Churchill and others, is now considered “racist” – the definition of “racism” has turned 180 degrees.
“Racism” used to mean supporting genocide (the policies of Adolf Hitler), now “racism” is defined as OPPOSING genocide (the destruction of the British people and other Western peoples, the French, the Germans, the Swedish people, and so on) – as in the politics of Winston Churchill.
Does it matter whether the British people continue to exist or not?
If someone’s answer (their real answer – decoded from the sort of waffle we are used to hearing in official statements such as the Christmas broadcast) is “NO” – then everything else they say, does not matter.
Today I was supposed to be at a training scheme in Bedford (quite some way away from Kettering) – for which I was given only 24 hours notice, but I had to decline as I had a prostate examination today.
However, when I arrived at the medics – the appointment was cancelled due to the doctor strike.
Meanwhile the British government, on top of all its other wild government spending, is giving yet more Billions of Pounds to the European Union.
This is not a very nice country now – lots of dangerous people (mentally ill – or just criminal) on the streets, and the weather is (famously) vile – I was soaked through today. However, it used to be said that your money was safe in “honest Britain” – but now the government confiscates money from private individuals from nations with which we are NOT at war, a rich foreigner would have to be truly insane to leave their money here, or buy property here – Mansion Tax, confiscations, and on and on.
The idea that “Britain is not doing too badly” is absurd – and the crash has barely started yet.
Paul:
It seems I may have been too optimistic yesterday. Sir Keith Stazi is indeed now consulting with 63 councils about postponing next year’s elections. I think this has to be the worst government this poor country has had since the advent of universal suffrage. When they said if voting changed anything, they’d ban it, it was not meant to become government policy. Now I just hope Nigel Farage makes it to 2029 alive and unincarcerated.
@Stuart Noyes
They’ve been more than happy to co-opt someone who had tenuous links to this country to become even the monarch. William of Orange.
He became king because his wife was a direct descendant of the throne, specifically she was the Granddaughter of Charles I, and daughter of James II/VII who was forced to abdicate. She was married to William and she would only accept the crown if he was her co-regent. FWIW, the glorious revolution was, in a sense, to preserve the British culture and royal blood line, and rescue it from the dreaded Catholicism of her father. So his links were far from tenuous. She was Stuart to the core, as was their successor Anne, who though apparently extremely fecund, was unable to bring a child to majority. For sure George I was a real German interloper, but again was brought on the preserve the protestant faith of Britain through the Act of Settlement. All of this was not really anything to do with the bells and smells of Catholicism, but was primarily due to separating Britain from the continent of Western Europe, mostly rife with Catholicism. They didn’t hate the Pope, they hated France and Spain.
Ironically I think a civic based nationalism is only really plausible where there is a relatively secure ethnic majority population. This can allow a generous definition of a nationalist identity that allows willing small minority populations to assimilate to, even to the extent where the sovereign like a monarch could even be a foreigner as it didn’t threaten the ethnic majority’s predominance (although for the record I dislike William of Orange).
When minority populations become larger and larger, they’re more likely to coalesce around their own ethnocentric identities, making civil nationalism untenable. You add contemporary liberalism and leftism to the situation deliberately undermining the majority population and that makes it even more untenable. Appeals to a shared constitution, monarch or ‘values’ stop working. The shrinking majority population, seeing minorities getting their own way by asserting their own ethnonationalist identities, may see blood and soil nationalism as their own best card to play.
John K – it is grim indeed Sir.
Fraser Orr – yes the present monarch, King Charles III, is a direct descendant of Alfred the Great (the Norman Henry the 1st, himself born in England, married a direct descendant of Alfred the Great). Anti monarchists tend to ignore descent down the female line – which is rather insulting to half of humanity.
Martin – yes whoever said “our political class for centuries haven’t cared about blood and soil” has clearly not read the speeches and books of Winston Churchill. He went on about the English race, and the English soil all-the-time.
Indeed they seem to be unaware of the general speeches and writings of the British “political class” before the 1960s.
The last 60 or so years is not “centuries”.
Up to the mid 1960s is was quite normal to talk about the English as an ethnic group – with a national culture.
Strangers like my paternal great grandparents (my great grandfather was a Russian Jewish wrestler – whose first action in this country was to throw a docker into the river Thames for pulling his beard – given the state of the river in those days, that might have been considered attempted murder, but it just attracted laughter) had to assimilate into that culture – or go away, there were no “anti discrimination” laws in those days.
Up till a couple of years ago Cambridge university taught about the Anglo-Saxons – as a Germanic ethnic group who became the English (either displacing or converting the Romano Britons – depending on the part of the country) – only a couple of years ago were the Anglo Saxons removed as a subject in Cambridge. As “decolonisation” of the curriculum – by which they meant COLONISATION – the colonisation of this island by new groups of people – falsely calling colonisation “decolonisation”. I am using an “s” rather than a “z” – because we are talking about England.
So a couple of years ago is now “centuries”.
Of course Englishness is based on “blood and soil” – what else would it based on? Even Prime Minister John Major used to make speeches about elderly English ladies cycling to churches, through the morning mist, down country lanes……
Was John Major “centuries ago” when making those speeches (however insincere the man may have been) in the 1990s?
By the way “Christian Nationalism” (which now gives the official class, including the Church of England, an attack of the vapours – they get dizzy and start to say hysterical things) was the de facto position on this island till the 1960s – with the law (and so on) being based on Christian ideas, and a strong national culture, with government expected to serve the national interest – NOT the interests of the “International Community”.
If nations (ethnic groups) have no right to rule themselves, then what would be the objection to Germany invading the Polish lands (Poland) and the other nations?
And if Christian doctrines have nothing to do with the law, if “the law” is just (as Thomas Hobbes would have it) the “will of the state” – then all the actions of the Nazis were legal, because they were the orders of the state.
Far from the Nazis being “Christian Nationalists” (as the lunatic ruling class in the modern West now claim) the Nazis violated both the rights of nations (peoples) and Christian law.
All the great writers on the Common Law of England were believing Christians – whose religious philosophy informed their legal thought.
Although that does NOT mean that non Christians can not come to the same conclusions.
The so called “anti Nazis” who dominate the Western world have reached what are rather like Nazi conclusions.
For example, that nations (ethnic nations) have no right to rule themselves – that they may be ruled by overarching authorities.
And that “the law” is just the will (the commands) of the elite – with no rights AGAINST the state (“rights” being redefined, in Jeremy Bentham fashion, as goods and services, and regulations, from the state – as in the “Employment Rights Act” that charter for increasing UNEMPLOYMENT).
Israel is a nation state that seeks to rule itself (not be ruled by the International Community) – an ethnic group ruling itself. And it is also, increasingly, religious – and its right to exist is based (in large part) on Jewish religious claims.
No wonder the international elite (which hates and despises both nationalism and traditional religion – as opposed to the new “synodal” one-world “religion”) do not like Israel.
Its traditional families and relatively high fertility rate also do not fit the agenda of the International Community – not at all.
Concerning the history of Europe, I am probably the least-educated person who comments here. I come here to learn, mostly.
But that phrase – “blood and soil” – even in the dim recesses of my undereducated mind, as prodded by Google, it has connotations that place it fairly close to “nigger” in the acceptability of its public use, esp in Europe.
Was that phrase rehabbed or reclaimed at some point?
(And, to be clear, living as I do in Somalia Minor, I am not implicating the topic of diversity – just this phrase.)
bobby b.
Winston Churchill did not use the word “nigger” or other racial slang.
But he did, as did almost everyone else, speak and write about ancestry and the land.
The idea that national culture is evil, and that ethnic groups (nations) do not deserve to govern themselves, is quite recent – at least it has only recently become dominant in the institutions.
Certainly (YES) individuals may assimilate into a different culture – although this takes very great effort.
But the idea that the population groups that have engaged in mass migration into Western nations over the last 60 or so years will assimilate (in any meaningful sense) has been shown to be false – as their children and children’s children are, mostly, hostile to the Western world, even though they were born into it. They have their own principles – their own basic way of looking at the world, and they do not like Western principles – and wish to get rid of these principles.
Tragically the international establishment seems to agree with them about this task of getting rid of Western principles – culture in the true sense (not the trivial sense of sport and entertainment).
Paul, I fear I was unclear. I had thought that explicitly pointing out that I was not speaking of diversity as a topic – that instead I was only specifically questioning the use of those three words – “blood and soil” – was clear. I was wrong.
“Blood and soil” – “Blut und Boden” – was, and (so far as I can tell online) remains a specific tradeline of the German Nazi Party of the 1930’s and 1940’s.
My question was and is, did this small phrase become rehabbed at some point, unlike “nigger” (which is why I included that word in my comment)?
Only a few years ago, it was as socially inept to use that three-word phrase as it was to use that one racially-charged word.
So, something changed. I’m just trying to catch up.
bobby b – I am sorry, but I am unclear as to what you mean.
As for the National Socialists inventing the term “blood and soil (blut und boden) in Germany – no I do not believe they did, they just took what normal people said and tried to make it their own. They also took a little blue flower that had been a symbol of Germany for centuries – that did not make the little blue flower a Nazi.
The National Socialists were also not above pretending to be Christians – even though, in private, they had nothing but hatred for Christianity.
Just as they despised the idea that an ethnic nation should govern themselves – the Nazis wanted to conquer other nations. Conquer soil that had never been theirs.
A united Europe, under their control, was one of their central principles.
None of the above has got anything to do with the word “nigger” – so I do not understand why you are using this word.
Although the word did appear in paint catalogues – as as shade of brown, and some people named their pet dog with this word – and thought nothing of it. It was not used, by polite individuals, to refer to black human beings.
There is plenty of blood and soil stuff in William Shakespeare – was he a Nazi?
Well I suppose the modern answer is “yes he was” – hence the demands to “decolonise the curriculum” by removing all traditional literature.
Zionism would also, by this weird modern definition, be “Nazi”.
Paul is right. If I use the term ‘blood and soil’, unless I am specifically referring to the Nazi party in Germany, I am referring more to the general idea of ethnonationalism, an idea that is older than Nazism, and refers to defining a national group by shared ancestry/ethnicity. Like any idea, it can be driven to dangerous and aggressive extremes, perhaps exemplified by the Austrian painter or Rwanda in 1994. However, I think making the idea completely taboo because of World War Two is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The ‘anti-fascist’ paradigm of post-WW2 has progressively tried to make effectively everything that is associated with the pre-1945 world taboo and unacceptable. This is one of the the reasons Britain is subject to endless bullshit propaganda that we were apparently always a ‘nation of immigrants’ that is glued together by left-liberal ideology being masqueraded as ‘British values’ (a concept I don’t think existed until Gordon Brown’s government), why America is reduced to a purely ideological ‘proposition’ nation, etc
Martin – the New York Times had an article (no link – I do not know where to find the thing) arguing that whilst J.R.R. Tolkien is traditionally thought of as anti Nazi [he was anti Nazi – he hated the Nazis] he was Nazi – because his writings are full of what could be called blood and soil stuff – the Hobbits of the Shire, the Breelanders, the men of Rohan, the men of Gondor, the Elves of Mirkwood – and so on.
By their definition of “Nazi” then YES Tolkien is a Nazi – but then all traditional literature would be “Nazi” by this definition.
It would be like saying “a Nazi has one head – therefore all one headed beings are Nazis, only beings with multiple heads are good”.
The international elite actually does this – the traditional family was (sometimes) praised by Nazis, therefore traditional families are Nazi (according to the international establishment).
The Nazis held that men and women were different and had different roles – therefore to believe that men and women are different and have different roles, is to be a Nazi (according to the international establishment).
And on and on.
FWIW, I think it has nothing to do with blood or soil. It is entirely to do with culture. Which is to say the ideas, shared values and institutions that made a particular nation appealing to live in. Here in America there is very little unity of blood, it is, as they say, a mixing pot. But what made it great, and what made Britain great, were the ideas and culture that undergirded those societies. Ideas like fairness, equality before the law, free speech, free markets, respect for innovation, democratically elected governments that were weighed down so that they couldn’t do too much, and charity toward the poor and sick. Of course those cultures also contained a lot of bad things like racism, misogyny, homophobia, “knowing your place” and so forth. And we are surely all glad to see the back of those.
Why, for example, black people in America have such poverty and lack of success, and why Asian people in America have such wealth and inevitable success, has nothing to do with their genes or the color of their skin. It is entirely to do with the values and ideas in the culture they grew up in that affected their life outcomes.
And it is these cultures that are being eroded. There is no harm in immigration, there is great harm in immigration without assimilation. And even more harm in immigration with an undiscriminating welfare state. I should say that from an American perspective there are a LOT of good things in the Hispanic culture, which is why many Hispanic people are very successful in America. However, teaching Hispanic people that it is OK to not learn English and empowering them not to do so, teaching them that flouting the law is OK, and so on, is very toxic and destructive to that Hispanic culture, and poisons what is a beautiful culture of family, hard work, religiosity, fiesta and really delicious food.
Liberia’s constitutions were modelled on the US constitution. Liberia’s GDP per capita is 1% of US GDP per capita.
John Jay, in Federalist 2, highlights the unity of blood of early Americans and the impression I get from him is that blood (ancestry) and culture are closely linked:
Fraser Orr and Martin.
The incoming populations, and their children and children’s children, reject Western principles – they have their own principles, their own cultures (in the fundamental sense of principles – not pop music, sport and porn, nice though these things may be).
As for blood and soil – the thinker the Founding Fathers of the United States cites most was Montesquieu.
Montesquieu wrote (a lot) about how the physical conditions of a nation (its climate and so on) and its cultural traditions shaped a people over time – over many generations.
Again it is possible (possible) for an individual to join a different culture – but it requires very great effort.
And what might happen with a few individuals is not likely to happen with the mass migration of a different population into an area.
For example, the mass migration of the Germanic tribes into what had been Roman Britain.
To put the post holes of their huts into the ashes of what had been towns and cities.