Greg Roberts (Salisbury Review, Summer 2022) asks whether the promulgators of mass immigration and its consequences for this country realised what they were doing or not.
His question was no doubt rhetorical, even ironic. But many people seem to regard those phenomena as merely the workings of random historical forces, and what’s more that they have led to conditions that we ought to welcome and are, indeed, hugely beneficial for everyone.
The answer to his question is surely apparent to any thoughtful analyst of British history over the last seventy years. First, the excuses made for the initial importation of over a thousand Caribbeans to supplement our depleted work force were startlingly shallow. If the NHS required extra staff, was it not obvious that the migrants would add not only to medical staff but even more to the numbers of those requiring medical treatment. If no one calculated the likely population increase, given comparative rates of reproduction etc, the authorities were especially negligent.
Had those authorities the welfare of the immigrants in view? Did they not realise that introducing people from a very different culture (unavoidably marked by obvious physical differences) would cause social difficulties? Did they really think the British were uniquely mild, docile and tolerant, and would accept the new dispensation without complaint? Why should they have done, unless they were indeed the race to whom Tsar Alexander I, visiting in 1814 attributed ‘something inherent in the people …. A temper of mind, a soberness of thought, reflecting habits, such as no other people have [which] cooperated with, and made practicable in perfection all her institutions.’ In fact, the British proved remarkably accepting, almost to a fault; nevertheless they were castigated for xenophobia and have been so remorselessly to this day.
The problems attached to the Windrush episode were of course multiplied a thousandfold when immigrants from much more alien cultures arrived in even larger numbers, and were not submitted to the disciplines that the United States had wisely put in place during the great transatlantic migrations of the late nineteenth century: disciplines that ensured all newcomers learned the language and adopted the basic values of the society they were entering.
Here, Pakistanis, Indians, Ugandans, Bangladeshis and all were permitted to go about their business as though they had never left home. Go to Southall in west London today and try, as did one politician a few years ago, to highlight British morals and legal structures there: you will meet a very dusty reception. The Tory MP who took that initiative was thrown out of his own party for his pains.
That has been a pattern, from the ejection of Enoch Powell for making a prediction (in learned and civilised terms) that has proved frighteningly accurate, through innumerable examples such as Ray Honeyford and Roger Scruton, till today: James Watson, one of the discoverers of DNA, has been ruthlessly stripped of his deserved honours for holding scientific opinions not in accord with what is required of anyone in public life. Anyone speaking up for British social and legal norms in cases of intercultural dispute will always be not only silenced but demonised.
The language of demonisation has vastly expanded to cope with the problem. The horrors of the mass enslavement of numerous English girls in Rochdale, Oxford and elsewhere were allowed to happen because the authorities were frightened of being accused of racism – a very useful Leninist-style blanket crime, of a type now being proliferated widely. This is traditional Bolshevik tactics, and I have little doubt that the whole campaign, political and social, over many decades, has been the work of neo-Marxists (that is, those who hate the West and its cultural and political achievements), inspired by the Frankfurt Marxists of the 1940s and ’50s.
Among these were Antonio Gramsci and Rudi Dutschke, who championed the ‘long march through the institutions’ that we now witness achieving such success everywhere – in the media, in the Church of England, in the universities, in the Royal Academy. No area of public life is unaffected by increasingly shrill imperatives to attack our traditional culture: to ‘diversify’, to ‘decolonise’, to abolish ‘white privilege’- all wonderful new fictions invented by the radical left and now to be found in the mouths of ordinary middle-of-the-road public officials, clergy and teachers.
I know personally at least one member of the thoroughly respectable establishment who has deep-rooted Marxist affiliations, who has done great damage in his sphere of influence, and who has been materially rewarded by the establishment. If Dr Roberts wants proof that the authorities know what they are doing, he should look around him!
Andrew Wilton
I noticed about “werdna” that, whatever the nominal subject of his posts, the actual claim he makes is inevitably how people like *him* are infinitely superior to the inferior masses. Rather odd from someone whose whole worldview is how we need to celebrate diversity, accept the other, etc.
Barbara Roche was Blair’s immigration minister. She favoured multiculturalism, and lauded diversity. “My being Jewish informs me totally, informs my politics. I understand the otherness of ethnic groups. The Americans are ahead of us on things like multiple identity. I’m Jewish but I’m also a Londoner; I’m English but also British.”(The Independant, June 23, 2003.) As antisemitism related to the Moslem influx ounted, Roche is reported to have regretted some of the results.
The problem is which identity is dominant. I am Jewish but would not want an immigration minister who sees herself first and foremost as Jewish – for the same reason that there is nothing wrong with having a family but you don’t want an immigration officer whose #1 goal in the job is to enrich their family. The problem here is that she let her Jewish experience of prosecution obviously overcome common sense.
Yes. I think that people like Barbara Rocher must always think that somehow they live in a ghetto, and the ghetto has to be broken open. This would have been only one of the many motives. Other motives were more crude: recruiting votes for Labour; rubbing Tory noses in diversity; the world is oneism; religion is old hat and doestn’t count anymore…The Left is the source of globalism. See Marx and Engels.
There have been sea-changes in dominant Jewish attitudes.
International socialism focussed on the New Jerusalem in Eastern Europe has been replaced by international capitalism focussed on the Old Jerusalem in the Middle East.
The unifying factor of Hashem worship has been replaced by Holocaust religion.
Faced with a history of hostility from nations towards their diaspora, Jews have felt more comfortable in multicultural societies and for other reasons also they have encouraged post-WW2 immigration, but the influx of anti-Israel migrants and black violence against their shops have turned many of them against third-world immigration.
It is not antisemitism to say that Jews ask first “Is it good for the Jews”, and this can lead to what has been called “political autism”. But my view is that we should emulate their example, not self-righteousness but not self-hatred either.
As with “racism” there are several definitions and connotations of “antisemitism”. The UN General Assembly in 1975 decided by majority vote that “Zionism” was “racism”. The IHRA working definition[s] of antisemitism in 2016 encouraged expression of the view that “anti-Zionism” is “antisemitism” – which is “racism”.
Not only are Jews sensitive to any suggestion of criticism or hostility but Gentiles likewise, for reasons that need not be discussed on this blog.
Implications exist for British politics, however, apart from the refugee/migration controversy; for instance, (i) the funding for Blair and later the anti-Corbyn (i.e. pro-Israel) elements in the Labour Party; and (ii) the establishment’s determination (Johnson, Starmer, Truss) to support a massive “Holocaust Centre” deliberately sited to confront our adjacent Parliament in Westminster. This is not just the supreme Shoah Memorial, among scores already built around the Gentile world, but it intends to condemn the British people, not only for failures in helping Nazi victims but for our alleged role in various other “genocides” after the war (Lord Pickles & Ed Balls, “The Jewish Chronicle”, 12.8.22, page 6).
This permanent Woke Monument is unlikely to highlight any Palestinian discomforts like Plan Dalet, while the millions killed by (say) Communists before 1933 are excluded, perhaps because this might distract from the chief theme of congenital English “racism” and Christian/European “Jew-hatred”.
I frankly share concern about this proposed Westminster architectural monstrosity, which I have conveyed to Jewish publications, though for a different reason from some of those nevertheless eloquently expressed by opponents in their community, such as Baroness Deech and Melanie Phillips, whose main complaint seems to be that it is not exclusively Jewish in its compass.
They are quite right that it will not reduce antisemitism, which they like Liz Truss link to anti-Israel sentiment, but because it will actually and ironically lend substance to re-emergent “tropes”: (1) There is a “Jewish lobby” which gets whatever it wants from Anglo-American politicians by continual nagging and financial connections; (2) “the Jews” are “behind” revolutionary attacks on the historical character of western nations except Israel itself.
In adding to the now wearisome vilification of English people and their religion as racist and/or Jew-hating (cf. Anthony Julius, “Trials of the Diaspora”, USHM movie “Antisemitism”, etc), and in particular subliminally linking immigration and refugee control with persecution and ethnocide, this Centre is likely to provoke resentment, for which Jews above all will be blamed, in this case with a plausibility that was not the case with the Blood Libel or the supposed Judaic origin of Bolshevism.
Extremely close development of the UK-Israel Road Map under Truss is explained by her statements at CFI conferences in 2022 and 2021. The advantage to the UK is scientific innovation in cyber technology and food resource. Possible disadvantages are political, for example a quid-pro-quo commitment of our slender military capacity and lives to warfare against selected Muslim countries.
>The UN General Assembly in 1975 decided by majority vote that “Zionism” was “racism”.
Well, yes, but if Algeria suggested that the world is flat and Israel flattened it, this too would pass in the UN General council by a vote of 113 to 5 (the US and U.K. will abstain, in order to preserve their neutrality in the eyes of OPEC).
@ Skeptic
Of course, a witty riposte.
But “definitions” matter. What is “antisemitism”? Could it ever be justified, or not? Has the relationship between Jews and different peoples during the past millennia never been anything other than an open-and-shut case of the always admirable, uniquely harmless and helplessly innocent victim being attacked by the innately evil Other?
Otto Weininger, Theodor Herzl, Bernard Lazare, Oscar Levy, Arthur Trebitsch, Israel Shahak, Norman Finkelstein, Albert Lindemann, Avraham Burg and Gilad Atzmon, for instance, have expressed different opinions, but woe betide any Gentile who does so today.
Regarding the Holocaust Centre proposed for Westminster Gardens (there is one already in Laxton, Notts), I looked up the “Jewish Chronicle” (19 August) to find the latest views.
Lord Carlile and Anita Wallfisch’s son think the memorial is actually too small and neglects British shortcomings. But it will in fact “feature material about British antisemitism” (pages 1-2).
I think this would be counter-productive in the long run.
Of course they know what they are doing. It’s the deliberate destruction of a nation to fit in with the New World Order Agenda as dictated by the BIS, WEF, UN, Trilateral Commission and The Bilderburg Group etc. It matters not which puppet is in 10 Downing Street. We are being invaded, we are at war, but the overwhelming majority of people simply don’t realise it.
See the latest report on Truss & Sunak from Migration Watch UK online.
See the documentation of my article on the international promotion of woke and immigration online (Council of European Canadians).
Absolute precision is necessary in identifying both the main and subsidiary actors in this process.
Excellent article. And still they float over and still we pick them, feed them, house them etc to the estimated tune of well over a billion pounds a year, and rising every year, (based on 60,000 expected to cross this year alone.) Imagine putting that amount into our collapsing dental service? The French must be rubbing their hands with glee. When will people realise you can’t play fair when everyone else is cheating!
This may be an urban myth but a friend with an asylum seeker contact told me that although he gets only £40 a week, he has free housing and dental care INCLUDING IMPLANTS!
Thank you, Andrew Wilton, for your admirable brief summary of the facts.
But what are we to do about it?
@ Andrew Wilton, Greg Roberts, Brian Rockford
The multicultural mass-immigration issue has very many aspects which still require a major thoroughly comprehensive and critical analysis, especially of its British impacts, by competent scholars on “our” side (so to speak); plus a significant publisher.
Various minor contributions to the larger mosaic already include studies by Winston Banks, “Excessive Immigration” (2019), Ed West, “Diversity Illusion” (2020 ed), Steve Moxon, “Great Immigration Scandal” (2006) & Clare Ellis, “Blackening of Europe, II” (2022). For a useful quick glance at the Left-Blob outlook available in numerous publications, try Rachel Shabi, “How immigration became Britain’s most toxic issue,” The Guardian, 15 November 2019, online.
Parallel to the article here above is my comment on (1) the international “woke” collaboration and (2) the turning of various English institutions inside out, now kindly published online (after failed submission to over 30 other sites) by the Council of European Canadians.
I have tracked this question, and its biological anthropology connection, from from the late 1950s and have a huge, lifetime personally unique collection of books and articles, mostly leftist, which are available for anyone who can write the detailed book I no longer have time to write myself.
Two among many experiences may be of interest. In the mid-1970s I glimpsed the method in the now evident madness from a London University Institute of Education lecturer, who outlined the methods needed to destroy British “nationalism”, as maximum continual “third world” immigration combined with maximum suppression of opposition to it; when asked how religious anticommunist Muslims could advance global socialism, she explained that the priority was to destroy “English racism”, but the attack on “Asian sexism” would follow later.
I participated in the Majority Rights group with Alfred Sherman, Roger Scruton, Ray Honeyford, Stephen Bush and other notables before leaving London, but this lost parliamentary supporters with Blair landslide.
There is much excellent critical analysis of the West’s orgy of self-flagellation, its moral masochism, in France, where there is open debate on the subject. I can thoroughly recommend Pascal Bruckner for starters.
Pascal Bruckner is good, but Eric Zemmour is better.
I would recommend Douglas Murray even for those who still think the n-words begin only at Calais.
In the current crime wave in France half the offenders in Paris and Marseilles are foreigners.
The initial influx of West Indians was prompted by the push factor of unemployment aggravated by an import change and migrant exclusion by the USA, and the pull factor of cheap labour in the imperial motherland. Some Labour MPs in fact were concerned about the social wisdom of this development for both peoples with different ways of life.
What undermined this caution was concern about the viability of Commonwealth co-operation and the psychological concern about “racialism” and “colonialism” bequeathed by propaganda against the Axis in WW2. Then came activist opposition from groups with contrary supposedly defeated ideologies that stimulated not only some violence but provoked cumulative anti-“racist” legislation; see e.g. Aurel Braun & Stephen Scheinberg (eds), “The Extreme Right” (1997), pp.93-97. But the long-term implications of the imported “challenges” in both their local and international contexts have proved epochal, from the Notting Hill riots of a seedy past to Waltham Forest knife gangs of the vibrantly diverse present, from the Windrush Revolution to the Great Replacement.
A good article Andrew, your reasoning appears to have triggered the bile of the ‘free speech for me but not for thee’ weirdo who practices a peculiar form of pernicious parasiticism here.
Ah, more explicit racism. Really Myles, I thought you’d actually started to root out these kinds of vile articles after you finally woke up to it (pun intended) a few months ago.
Sorry I’ve not been around to keep you in check, but I seemed to stop getting the email alerts for some reason.
Still, nice to see the criminals that used to be in power getting their up-commance, isn’t it? With a bit of luck trump will be in prison and johnson made to crawl back under his rock.
The equivocal word “racism” as weaponised here and elsewhere is part of the answer to the question that perplexes Mr Wilton. There is a difference between the maltreatment of individuals because of the accident of their birth/biological identity, and the protection of the native culture of a homeland from intrusive, undesirable and compulsory alterations.
There is no such thing as “the native culture” in the UK. Apart from anything else we’re a conglomeration of cultures from north and south after centuries of invasion. My culture is diametrically opposed to yours for a start.
In the same way that we all have our own vocabularies, yet there is an English language, there is a native culture. We have not had centuries of invasion, it’s new. It is the poor who are the first to suffer the consequences of immigration, of course.
>It is the poor who are the first to suffer the consequences of immigration, of course.
People like Werdna never bother with the poor, whom they consider peasants that exist to serve them. In exchange he is willing to teach them the *enlughtened truths* he believes, but he won’t tolerate any talking back from th uppity peasants. That’s “racism” and them proving they are “beyond the limits of civilized society.”
>There is no such thing as “the native culture” in the UK…. a conglomeration of cultures from north and south after centuries of invasion.
True for every culture in the planet, so apparently no nation has its own culture. Or perhaps only darker-skinned people have a *real* native culture, living as they did in peace and harmony all the time (that’s what they teach in school these days, isn’t it?). It’s also self-serving: since you satisfied yourself there is no British culture, you feel no guilt at helping to destroy it.
>Ah, more explicit racism.
So what? “Racist” today just means “something liberals don’t like.”
“Racism—so what?” Says it all about this vile forum really. From homophobes to nonsensical climate change deniers, you’re all outside of civilised, educated society.
@Weirdna
What exactly is “your culture” within “our conglomeration”?
For the definition of “culture” and its detailed application to the English people, see the anthropological studies by Geoffrey Gorer, Kate Fox, William McDougall, Maciamo Hay, Andre Siegfried, Ewen Callaway, Anthony Smith, Bryan Sykes & Laura Longmore, just for starters, refutation by David Conway and Migration Watch UK of the “many invasions” claim, brief notes on our evolved cultural unity in the Wikipedia entries “English People” & “Culture of England”, and my own Royal Society of St George Bibliography (albeit requiring considerable updating). Redefinition of “England” to accommodate the post-1948 arrivals has of course been on-going for more than a decade, which is one unwanted consequence of an originally unwanted development imposed on a hitherto largely homogenous and continuously developed society. Lodging an Azawakh in an Airedale’s kennel doesn’t make it an Airedale.
The seriousness of our predicament, belatedly flagged up by academics like Robert Tombs and commentators like Andre Neil, is well illustrated by the historical nonsense that Roman Emperor Septimius Severus was a Black African.
No, it says that “racism” today just means “shut up!” and we don’t.
Yes, you’ll always be a racist.
>you’re all outside of civilized, educated society.
Oh no! Whatever shall we do now?!
Have a long look at yourself in the mirror? Too much to ask, probably.
Werdna (Andrew) = Marxist troll.
“Werdna” just spews personal abuse.
No argument, no information, no debate.
The Lenin and Alinsky method.
I think, Skeptic, that “fascist” is the usual epithet used by what Orwell called the duck-speakers for people the “leftists” hate, whether they are civilised libertarians like Murray Rothbard, Ayn Rand and Sean Gabb or well-educated conservatives like Kenneth Minogue, Russell Kirk and – Myles Harris.
As for “racist”, back in the days of the Inner London Education Authority, we were told that “only white people can be racist”. Now it would seem that white people cannot be anything else but “racist”, especially those of us “privileged” to be “pale, stale and male”. The best way we can expiate the guilt of this inherited original sin is by “returning” our ill-gotten gains from slavery, imperialism and industrial pollution, and to “save the planet” by reproductive suicide, thereby making room for the “wretched of the earth”.
>I think, Skeptic, that “fascist” is the usual epithet used by what Orwell called the duck-speakers for people the “leftists” hate,
In Orwell’s time this was true, and he, perceptive as ever, pointed it out. But nowadays “racist” is added to that. It means literally nothing except “I disagree with you.”
And: homophobe, transphobe, biphobe, sexist, ableist….
Here are my neologisms: Anglophobe, Albophobe…. additions welcome.
For some reason I cannot reply directly to Sandra, but to add to her suggestion, Scruton called itt “Okiophobia” – the fear and hatred of home, of one’s own culture,
Did the political supporters of multi-ethnic mass-immigration know what they were doing? See: “Blair presided over a silent conspiracy to change Britain for ever” (Daily Mail, 27 February 2016, online) & “Cameron: We’ll slash immigration by up to 75%….to prevent Britain’s population hitting 70 million…or else risk public disharmony” (Daily Mail, 11 January 2010). Now nearly 68 million, the UK total is expected on ONS projections to exceed 70 million by 2040 because of net immigration.
Because I agreed from youth onwards with both Labour and Conservative MPs, and the Royal Commission on Population, warning against permanent import of migrant workers of different “race or religion”, the above same newspaper did indeed call me a “young fascist” (as Mr Casper says) and hypocritically so.
The Mail gratuitously dragged me into its vendetta against the Levenson Inquiry and its supporter (BBC News, 24 November 2011) Max Mosley, who had briefly invited me at university to do paid vacation literary work for his parents, but with whom I had no subsequent contact whatever during the past 60 years and who committed suicide in 2021. There is a long story to all this which I may try to publish as “Anatomy of a Smear”, a biographical case study of how the media can defame people by half-truths, innuendo, words shifted from context and tabloid-format presentation, while denying impecunious victims any effective comeback.
An opponent of both communism and compulsory multi-culturalism, I have also been a lifelong supporter of free speech and free elections. The press should be be free to speak truth to power, but should not spread falsehoods about the powerless, without at least allowing them an opportunity to answer back.
So far as the “right-wing” Mail Newspapers are concerned, I am in eminent company because they have been sniping continually against the Prince of Wales for many years past.