It’s fifty years now since I was at university and a great deal of my time there -- especially the weekends -- is long forgotten.

I do remember going with the intention of studying math and economics. At that time, and maybe still, there was a requirement, in the first year, to take other subjects. Whether this was to prevent specializing too soon or to provide a more rounded education or both I don’t know but, when my second year began one of those other subjects became all of my classes, either Modern History or Economic History.

At that level, the assumption was that you already knew the who, what, where, and when of historical events and the focus was on the why. So, there were no multiple-choice or true/false questions, only two-thousand-word essays on the why of important events in history. I was fascinated with these, basically, puzzles, working back in time to see what had happened to set in motion the factors behind, for example, the outbreak of wars.

One of these assignments was to “Account for the Industrial Revolution occurring in Britain before other countries.” For a long time, the accepted explanation had been that the “Protestant Work Ethic’ was the reason but, while there was an innate industriousness in the people of Britain generally, it was no more so than some of their neighbors in Europe. Equally, while Britain had adequate ore and coal resources it was no more blessed than many other countries and much less than some. Neither did Britain have a massive population or land area. Both were quite small, in fact. The answer to the question goes back all the way to the Magna Carta when British society began to differ from those elsewhere. Over the ensuing centuries, there came to be a regard for democracy, private property, law and order, and education. Social and geographic mobility was possible and financial institutions were born and grew. Add in a hands-off approach to business from government and all of the ingredients were in place for that revolution in industry: An industrious educated population led to a rash of inventions, these were allied to business ventures, productivity increased, entrepreneurs made money, invested it in improvements, and everything that we so casually accept today as the norm, came about.

It’s well recorded that, along with progress, there was massive disruption for whole groups of workers whose skills were no longer needed and whose families became destitute. Their situation was a desperation so profound that we can hardly imagine it, but society was not done changing and today we have a safety net of welfare, unemployment benefits, and social security to help those whose lives have been upended, for whatever reason. And, from that time to this, legal protections from historical inequalities were established to protect individuals and groups from persecution. That our society adapted to care for and protect everyone and not just a fortunate few is no small matter.

It wasn’t just the economy that saw advances, medical breakthroughs in antibiotics, antiseptics, and anesthetics were also made. Those allied to an improved diet caused the life expectancy of the population, in general, to double from that day to this.

I don’t recall being asked at the time to give this a name but thinking about it now the best word that I can think of to describe all of this is Culture. And that Culture was exported by British settlers to North America, Australia, and New Zealand and copied elsewhere. As a result, there are areas in this world where there is security, freedom, and prosperity, especially in relation to those other areas where tyranny and lawlessness still exist and economic security does not.

So when I hear someone like Barack Obama spout about diversity and multiculturalism being a “strength,” I have my doubts and, of course, while it sounds good, he offers absolutely no proof of his assertion. On the other hand, I can think of lots of examples where other societies have practices that are absolutely abhorrent: "child bride" is a euphemism for pedophilia. Do we really want anyone in our midst that thinks that this is okay? I could go on and on about other aspects of some cultures that are just as despicable. But, leaving barbarian practices and beliefs aside, what about those who just have no education and cannot possibly survive, without assistance, in a modern economy? Whose responsibility is it to feed, house, and clothe them? The government will do it for sure, but they will do it poorly and inefficiently and with resources taken from others by the threat of force. Or, what about those who lack the sophistication to see through the empty promises of, and then vote for, the grifters that so many of our politicians are?

Speaking of grifters, our society, our culture that benefits everyone is not just threatened from outside our borders, it is, at the very least, not protected by our “betters.” These people not only do not have our welfare at heart, but they also despise us, and they despise us so much they don’t mind telling us – consider Hilary Clinton’s “deplorables” description or Harry Reid’s comments about being able to smell tourists to D.C. As for those who believe that Bill Clinton really “feels your pain,” I see no evidence of that other than big talk. In fact, most politicians are complicit with those that benefit the most and are affected the least by the current open-border policies that are undermining our way of life.

It has already started, but where the tipping point is in this process, I do not know. There is a tipping point, however, and there will be an economic and societal collapse that no regular folks will survive intact if unchecked, unvetted immigration overwhelms and eradicates the culture that has led to the freedom and prosperity that we thoughtlessly take for granted today.

Image: Pixabay

To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.