Aliens, who wants Them?

Aliens, who wants Them?

Warning: the following contains fallacious insensitivity of no relevance, devoid of specifics, seriousness, realism or probity. Provability is therefore suspect and double entendre abounds. There is an old break point to the strength of social cohesion that had been unwittingly started by governments inaction – namely (as much as this is disputed) uncontrolled immigration and the non incorporation of mass immigrants, hidden in the arrangement of mythical multi-culturist approaches. Governments, have allowed a false sense of a developed creed of multiculturism to pervade its policies, it has refused to acknowledge the separation that has and is still continuing to be taking place by actively promoting a ‘Political Correctness’ attitude. So much so that anyone questioning the role of immigration or the application of positive discrimination or identify and criticise ethnic mores not in keeping with a secular, liberal, lawful, customary views; albeit that there is behind these views a long established sectored religious background of the countries which has been based largely on the remains of the practice of Christianity, are too easily labelled as being racist. In a peculiar way, the tension that such PC approaches has created, fostered and created by governments and authorities’ influence, is not difficult to understand. On one side governments and industries wanted cheap undemanding labour which would suppressed the elevated demands from indigenous workers for better conditions and a more equal share in the rising wealth of nations after the depressive period of post wars. This covert approach of economy manipulation was usefully adopted in Germany, France and particularly played out well in the UK.

This suppression worked very well over periods of time despite the disruptive activities of organised labour and the constant battle with governments and business interest for improvements but this contest was always weakened by the steady flow of imported flexible labour. This created an undercurrent of economic cultural hostility which has, for governments, been easy to largely ignore for the simple reason that the physical and practical impact of the placement of those taken in, were positioned into older industrialised areas of those countries and like in the UK not the mercantile areas of the affluent south, the “home counties”. They were drawn and placed in established manufacturing urban areas not regions of “englands green and pleasant lands’. It was therefore the high density urban areas that took the brunt effects of multiculturism and they suffered the dislocation of indigenous cultured heritage. A cursory look at the general conditions and rewards for workers in Germany and France seems to show that across the broad spectrum of workers they have gained an enhanced standard of living over the past decades far better than a UK comparison. It is a supposition, but this may have been due to a better application and closer alignment of government policies between its managerial expertise within the industrial sectors and a cooperative relationship to the improvements of ‘organised’ worker conditions.

The same alliance of attainments can hardly be said to have taken place in the UK known at one time as “the sick man of Europe” as much for its numerous period of industrial strife, poor productivity, slack industrial investment and a disconnect between the “managerial classes”, government disengagement and the complaints of controlled workers conditions. In some way this has been an early conditioning element to the resistance of immigrating and resenting attitudes. As much as there were low sporadic levels of public strain focused on the increase in immigration there has never been a consistent organised battle aimed and targeted at new migration acquiring the jobs “no one else want to do”; a pitch of PR constantly sold to excuse the high inflows of labour. For an extended period this disguise worked well hiding the inadequacies of government / industry industrial economic policies, a scantiness disregarded to some extent by the expansive eras stemming from the association to the EEC and beneficent bounty of North Sea Oil; both of which are now in reduction amplifying the demise in productive capacity, manufacturing output (exports) and the over reliance on the service sectors which exposes the imbalances in labour requirements, volume, location concentration, skill set and areas of under (dis)investment. It is a fluke of B that for now demand exceeds supply primarily for minimum plus £ workers however one might concede that as the cost and benefits of B crash through this demand/supply may not last and every form of employment will be a contest – there may not be enough ‘quality’ work to go around.

It will then perhaps raise the angst of an unwarranted importation of labour, a difficulty that was recognised from the early 1980s with complaints of immigration employment displacement (and racial tensions) but in order that try and forestall any serious outbreaks of clashes and dissent to the suppression of labours anxieties, of the deteriorating life conditions; there was a deliberate propaganda push to extol the benefits of immigration and the richness it brings of overlaying the indigenous with a refreshing choice of absorbing new cultural attitudes and culinary delights! This spawned the obstinate PC dictates directed at the majority of the unwitting populace, to bring them into line; it was and still is indoctrination by unchallengeable messaging and popular media-broadcasted social engineering pap. Some of this subtext social engineering is out of time, out of contexts, unbalanced, unrepresentative and unrealistic or wholly recasting original based classic/pop material to suit re-education perspectives of PC and multiculturism; of course no one dare publicly complain; racist

Such unexpected PC apartheid against the majority (one assume that there is a majority that do not hold outright racist tendencies) has gone on to find new feeding grounds on the wave of ‘cancel culture’, ‘wokeism’, cultural(miss)appropriation protectionism, multi-sex delineation, the PC manipulation of fashionable causes and radicalism to unlock false accusation wrapped in memes and slurs sometimes urged on within a political sphere protected by parliamentary privilege aimed at those voicing anger exposing government inconsistencies. Some elements of dubious vehemence on issues has always been practiced throughout the populace by a virulently small number of people but given enough public spread they gain enough attraction for others to easily be persuaded by the falsification of superficial reasoned ‘arguments’ of a fashioned positioned statement to become an actual threat to the safety of specified individuals. In a more subtle way the same counter ‘factual’ assertions used by opportunistic ‘fringe’ elements to force through their views, are directing a detrimental fear of organizational prosecution of any challenges and further push publicised denigration of them to silence any that they choose to be offended by. Those who challenge their narrowed specific stance, evidential facts and whatever else might be deemed as provable reality that mirrors what may be assumed as civil sensible ‘normality’, risk awkward threatening treatment.

Such targeted provocation as exercised by the displeased discontented has been given far too much leeway in the pursuit of offering an “alternative point of view” in the public and media sphere. To some extent this has led to suppression of the majority, now the hushed majority that with-hold their own ordinary sagacious opinions unwilling to engage in the vociferous spouting of prejudicial views that lack presented equilibrium. It is a peculiar state of affairs just now that there are so many strange opinions that verge off the boundary of outright stupidity that appear to be attempting to unravel many aspects of the foundations of proven knowledge in education, ethnicity accounts, social discourse, equality, biology, science, biology, environment, cultural history, economics etc that it is, in some circles, risky to nail the elements of the fabrications upon which they rely on. It might be assumed that common sense would be enough to discharge the inventive opinions as they may lack the rigour of salient facts but often the insatiable personality of those making such onerous claims overrides the immediate ability to properly scrutinise for any realistic veracity. For the proponents of unreasonable opinions it is fruitful to continue to press their views loudly and as widely as possible, eventually, as they find, enough persuasion is pressed onto others to gain the weight of collective force to use for the silent majority to remain silent.

Alternative point of views are necessary to have and be assessed but without analytical discretion it is possible to see the rise of, what is called group think; where everyone presented with the untested view may assumes the view offered on a subject is right and requires no finessing to be in with-one of the group and particularly if there is a incentivised pogrom against decent. It is one thinks, if it is too late now but this is what has happened with the idea of multi-culturism so it is unlikely that any action will be taken, albeit subtlety, to pull back from the notion of multi-culturism which, in ones opinion, is not working at its best and will not work when environ and economic pressure amalgamate to cause severe discomfort to countries like the UK, USA and Europe. Considerable more emphasis should have been placed on establishing an integration into the majority of the cultural norms which in one way (for instance) means not having translation of the documents of the common language into other ‘foreign’ languages, not having any change of accepted cultural conditions to suit new immigrants, dissuading modes of dress worn that hide an individual’s identity, secular sex equality and legality is always paramount pushed as the norm. Is this being racist?

The point of this is to highlight how the accepted tenet of the creed of multiculturism and the lack of challenge to the whole idea of its process have placed minorities in a position of jeopardy by not providing sufficient resources at attempting fostered integration into the dominant surrounding culture. Which to some extent is the fragile reason that there is the easy occurrence and accusations of racialism, the silent majority have seen too much, too soon, too localised. Much is being done to eradicate, with the help of PC doctrine, the outbreak incidents of ethnic intolerance, and predisposition (by the few) of the discomfort with the impacts of multiculturism and it is also to avoid the fear of it getting out of repressed control. Unwillingness to approach the decade’s long reasons for xenophobic attitudes in some areas is not resolvable by any pretence of it being unusual, an aberration, reliant on some good normality in behaviours and the force of PC for peaceful coexistence. It is perhaps sustainable while society is stable but as has happened and can happen again when thing go awry the different get the heat of angst. In the situation when for whatever reason the social structure is put under pressure, it is the unconventional that seemingly avoid secular integration that will be exposed

Xenophobia is hard to rationalise or even defend other than by the application of extremist hostile actions being inflicted by the alien (enemy?) onto a recipient culture (as in a conflict) which then enlists attitudes to specific intolerance. Generally, in what may pass as normal time, it could be supposed that there is a lack of intercultural understanding which may be a cause for intolerance or that one custom element taken out of the its overall mores foundation could be enlarged beyond its principles; this element becoming a ‘caricature’ portrayed by extremist examples as a defining aspect fundamental to follow. For example and not particularly a good one, it seems that believers in the Islamic creeds places themselves in a straight jacket of near total observance of their beliefs which is seemingly ossified into the favour of male domination; a part of which is that females are not equal, they are kept subservient.. On this one basis alone it creates a complete disconnect with the movement of secular practices and is a practiced tendentious issue that emphasise difficulty with trying to influence a democratic equality onto those countries that eschew secularism and are often discordant and tribal as seen in afflict Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Palestine, Pakistan, parts of Africa. And this imbalance may infect other Middle East states with potentially Turkey to follow even though it seems to have an element of weakened secular direction.

It is the wholly fervent approach that is applied to religious belief and the control exercised by fundamentalist that does not allow any challenge to their authority, which is completely at odds with the secular democratic stance developed by the west that has constructively moved towards much greater leading inclusiveness in all areas for females. This inequity of sexes is something which Christianised countries have only started to rise above in the past 100years and is something that is not wholly supported by strict fundamentalist, Christians / Islamist / Semites etc either.

There is also a veiled Islamic ideology, which however imprudent, that wants to see (it’s suggested) the overthrow of secularism to be supplanted by Islamic theocracy. For the moment in western countries secular numbers are against them but in some, like in parts of the UK, (and France, Belgium, USA, Germany) areas have already adapted to be mini Islamic enclaves that can appease radicalism. Although there are many moderate practising Islam followers, acquainted as secularised Muslims, not enough of them make any attempt to question the regressive (too definitive?) excesses of their religion, speak out on the extremist or make any endeavours to either undermine its unforgiving potency nor able question the validity of the Koran (or Torah / Bible) in a modern context or acquiesce to converts who want to move away from extreme interpretations. For Islamist to do so is to be labelled as an infidel and may call to be expunge. Indeed any religion that has as its base a patriarchy foundation and practices, carries risk for any that may be accused of transgression and this at its simplest (?) can cover the exhibition of, what is taken as defamatory by the religious zealot, anything challenging the religion by humour, music, dress, gender, phrase appropriation etc.

Whereas atheist or secular people have and can make humour and use elements out of religious character and scriptural context as used in such as the “Life of Brian”, “Jesus Christ Superstar”, “Jerry Springer’s: the Opera”, “The Vicar of Dibley”, “The Last Temptation of Christ”, and “Risen” etc without vengeful blasphemous allegation being levelled on creators or content; no such appropriation of religious ‘scripts’ to humour innuendo absurdity is obvious or allowed for using Mohamed - Islamises and where it has been tried or made reference to such as in “The Satanic Verses”, at great deal of murderous resentment (fatwa) has been evident. One cannot be sure that even calling on the names of: Jesus Christ, Mary Mother of God, Allah, Mohamed, Buddha etc as a expressions of exasperation or frustration over something or nothing and not actually believing these characters, is unwise, or it may simple be that with the Christian religions, as elements of it are metaphorically used in the above films, it has matured; it and the people that believe are strong enough in their faith they now to see the humour and irrationality in life that it requires a god within themselves to be their guide and not rigid ideology. Others may say that such depictions and deviant thoughts has become perverted from the scripted “words” of god and cannot be allowed, well one talks to It a lot and It does LOL.

And as far as wanting more aliens go, saps are alien enough. Alien to each other, themselves, internally and the space they occupy. At times they may call on a superior icon for help, guidance, and perhaps then hide nefarious attitudes and their actions behind old scripture attitudes. However, certainly it is not sure they want or could use any new inserted god toting Aliens with their own sacred scriptures, for any amount of PC just wouldn’t cover silencing the multitude; they may see the stupid saps have enough trouble already.

© Renot

242221728