But 'don't let them' also implies strongly - "don't let them exacerbate the situation with mass migration " - so strong borders and a moratorium on immigration; and don't shy away from policies of coercive (if necessary) and ascriptive (certainly) integration and assimilation. As far as I can see this means: an end to translation services in the welfare state; a welfare system that incentivizes family formation, marriage and individual responsibility; conscription - to give all Brits the experience of working along side others as fellow Brits, regardless of ethnicity, race or religion; a strongly positive national mythos to become the bedrock of national curriculum; life long compulsory service - 2 days a month -- to replace a large part of the expensive, tax-funded and unaffordable transactional welfare state and public sector (road works, school maintenance, some house building, hospital cleaning and maintenance, hospital cooking and catering, fire service, ambulance driving......all moved from the world of transactional individualism where we outsource love and reciprocation, to a world of life long involvement in our communities...and a week-in week-out ascriptive/unavoidable pattern of working along side ordinary people. This would include bankers and tycoons, mindless hooligans, Muslims, Christians, atheists..... Everyone. Last thought: imagine how many of those Russian mafia tycoons would stay if this was implemented and enforced on pain of imprisonment (or deportation). It would also signal to immigrants no less than life long citizens.... that only a real, lifelong and genuine commitment to the polity and community will do.
I do agree with much of what you say (I'm not sold on national service but I appreciate the reasoning). I'm not trying to say that we shouldn't control migration, far from it!
But part of the reason why I am not advocating for any of this is (a) I'm not in a position to influence government policy -- I see a lot of people arguing for this or that, sensible policies, but it doesn't matter while the people holding the reins of power are not listening; (b) it seems we have little hope in the UK of actually achieving political change. The Labour government seem intent on pushing 'the agenda', and the biggest alternative right-wing party (Reform) have been busy infighting and imploding over the last couple of weeks.
I would also add that mass migration has not been pushed by a well-meaning but misinformed government. It has been imposed upon the British people by those who have an agenda to destablise and rule. And I believe we will not see the end of it until (a) Britain collapses (a distinct possibility), (b) the elites move into the next phase and start imposing social credit systems or whatever.
This is why I think, for me, the only practical thing I can do right now, and Christians can do, is to stand more firmly on Christ and on the gospel. I am not saying doing nothing, but rather operating in ways that Christians have always had to effect change -- which are more effective ultimately than any political solution.
I totally get all of that. I suppose I would say that the most damaging divide is between Christians - the sort of wild/hermetic/’woolly” (perhaps) NT fundamentalists who would eschew all state power and are critical of ‘cultural christianity’ (Justin Brierley, Kingsnorth, Elizabeth Oldfield) and the civilizational/Christendom types…who gravitated towards ARC or people even more on that end (say Dave Greene). The political agenda I have intimated….would at least have the merit of forcing those two sides to come together; the latter to be more serious about living with the difficult implications of the Good Samaritan; and the former - with the Ordo Amoris and the reality of Earthly power and perhaps those Biblical commitments about which they are less forthcoming (homosexuality, promiscuity, sexuality in general, family formation, abortion etc). The large place of agreement is probably in relation to not consumerism, materialism and those forms of idolatry about which they agree (celebrity culture, mammon, hook up culture)…so in the first instance, I would see this as a vehicle to get those two ‘wings’ talking
But 'don't let them' also implies strongly - "don't let them exacerbate the situation with mass migration " - so strong borders and a moratorium on immigration; and don't shy away from policies of coercive (if necessary) and ascriptive (certainly) integration and assimilation. As far as I can see this means: an end to translation services in the welfare state; a welfare system that incentivizes family formation, marriage and individual responsibility; conscription - to give all Brits the experience of working along side others as fellow Brits, regardless of ethnicity, race or religion; a strongly positive national mythos to become the bedrock of national curriculum; life long compulsory service - 2 days a month -- to replace a large part of the expensive, tax-funded and unaffordable transactional welfare state and public sector (road works, school maintenance, some house building, hospital cleaning and maintenance, hospital cooking and catering, fire service, ambulance driving......all moved from the world of transactional individualism where we outsource love and reciprocation, to a world of life long involvement in our communities...and a week-in week-out ascriptive/unavoidable pattern of working along side ordinary people. This would include bankers and tycoons, mindless hooligans, Muslims, Christians, atheists..... Everyone. Last thought: imagine how many of those Russian mafia tycoons would stay if this was implemented and enforced on pain of imprisonment (or deportation). It would also signal to immigrants no less than life long citizens.... that only a real, lifelong and genuine commitment to the polity and community will do.
I do agree with much of what you say (I'm not sold on national service but I appreciate the reasoning). I'm not trying to say that we shouldn't control migration, far from it!
But part of the reason why I am not advocating for any of this is (a) I'm not in a position to influence government policy -- I see a lot of people arguing for this or that, sensible policies, but it doesn't matter while the people holding the reins of power are not listening; (b) it seems we have little hope in the UK of actually achieving political change. The Labour government seem intent on pushing 'the agenda', and the biggest alternative right-wing party (Reform) have been busy infighting and imploding over the last couple of weeks.
I would also add that mass migration has not been pushed by a well-meaning but misinformed government. It has been imposed upon the British people by those who have an agenda to destablise and rule. And I believe we will not see the end of it until (a) Britain collapses (a distinct possibility), (b) the elites move into the next phase and start imposing social credit systems or whatever.
This is why I think, for me, the only practical thing I can do right now, and Christians can do, is to stand more firmly on Christ and on the gospel. I am not saying doing nothing, but rather operating in ways that Christians have always had to effect change -- which are more effective ultimately than any political solution.
I totally get all of that. I suppose I would say that the most damaging divide is between Christians - the sort of wild/hermetic/’woolly” (perhaps) NT fundamentalists who would eschew all state power and are critical of ‘cultural christianity’ (Justin Brierley, Kingsnorth, Elizabeth Oldfield) and the civilizational/Christendom types…who gravitated towards ARC or people even more on that end (say Dave Greene). The political agenda I have intimated….would at least have the merit of forcing those two sides to come together; the latter to be more serious about living with the difficult implications of the Good Samaritan; and the former - with the Ordo Amoris and the reality of Earthly power and perhaps those Biblical commitments about which they are less forthcoming (homosexuality, promiscuity, sexuality in general, family formation, abortion etc). The large place of agreement is probably in relation to not consumerism, materialism and those forms of idolatry about which they agree (celebrity culture, mammon, hook up culture)…so in the first instance, I would see this as a vehicle to get those two ‘wings’ talking