Robert Whiston FRSA Sept 2012
‘THE CLOSING OF THE BRITISH MIND’ – the immigration disgrace and the university student visa scandal.
Part 1 was subtitled “No Bolt from the Blue” hinting at a pre-existing knowledge by both those that wield elected and unelected power – the oligarchy every nation spawns, and across the ages from Homer to Pliny. But in so doing they are inevitably sowing the seeds of their own destruction. In Part 2 we see the social cost and the political price which some have already paid. In common with deceitful bankers, deceitful politicians are having their bluff called.
Standard operating procedure in government circles is to set up an inquiry or a committee to investigate any perceived problem. This buys time and mollifies outraged voices.
Immigration is no different. The left-leaning think tank, the IPPR, in an article entitled “Does Immigration Cause Unemployment ?” dated January 2012 refers to the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC), a committee of economists set up to advise the government on immigration policy. 
- “The MAC confirms the finding from previous studies that immigration does have an effect on wages: it finds no overall effect, but a negative effect on lower-paid workers, offset by a positive effect on higher-paid workers.”
So those that are in some way better placed and have higher incomes have their incomes boosted still further. Meanwhile the majority – those on low incomes – have their suffering and poor living standards further eroded.
As we have seen above this was deliberate Labour Party policy. No wonder Blair’s ministers fell silent about it at the time and no wonder they are now afraid they have alienated their core voters.
Somewhat optimistically and disregarding migration watch figures Migration Advisory Committee goes on to conclude that:
- ‘What will make the headlines, however, is that for the first time ever in a government-sanctioned report, the MAC finds an ‘association’ between immigration and employment. In particular, the MAC estimates that: ‘an extra 100 non-EU migrants are initially associated with 23 fewer native people employed’.
Those who are MAC or IPPR salaried staff might be able to draw comfort from the fine distinction that greater unemployment is only due to non-EU migrants rather than directly relating to EU migrants. It is a nuance lost of those with no jobs.
As is customary in a paper whose authors float well about the clouds they feel the need to highlight a number of cautionary points to justify their position. These, it turns out to be, include no more than the point already made here, e.g. distinguishing immigration’s impacts during periods of economic growth and economic downturns.
The IPPR reports that MAC had not found a ‘causal link’ but merely ‘an association’ and relates how MAC admits to some important limitations on the robustness of its results.
A further report cited by IPPR is the Jan 2012 NIESR, report which looked at both EU and non-EU migrants.  Intriguingly the NIESR report cites ‘immigration’ in relation to National Insurance number registrations issued and is the first major study to use data from national insurance numbers. Yet despite the huge quantities of NI numbers issued NIESR report concludes report finds no link between immigration and unemployment – which curiously parrots the findings of most previous studies.
In a Press Release (May 2012), the IPPR says that only 15% of students stay permanently in Britain and contribute to long-term net migration after graduating. For this reason they argue that the government should adopt a more rational method of not counting students unless they cease to be transitory. This would certainly help clean-up and demistify immigration statistics. Although this would have little impact on real long-term gross immigration and ‘net migration’ it would give the appearance of bringing the numbers down. Under the IPPR’s alternative suggestions students would disappear from immigration statistics balance sheet as they have in other countries.
The only drawback with this idea is that it fails to address the present problem which is those bogus applicants, the so-called student who disappear within their own ethnic community ghettoes. Would being “off balance sheet” encourage more overstaying and illegal use of student visas ?
A cosy consensus has existed for a long time between the political parties over how to treat immigration. Both the present and previous governments believes that immigration ‘enriches our culture’ and strengthens our economy but now the Conservative attitude is that under Labour placed unacceptable pressure on public services.
Those ‘pressures’ manifested themselves in health care facilities, GP services, dentistry, housing and school places.
Scotland’s Cardinal Keith O’Brien is not the first to voice his concerns over population numbers. The tens of thousands of immigrants per annum will, within the lifetime of two or three parliaments have reproduced to the level of hundreds of thousands. We already see this in Ulster where the Catholics are “out-birthing” the Protestants.
Recalling a recent visit to Austria his host explained:
- ‘You know, we are losing our Christian Catholic community. We are not having babies, but the immigrants, they love babies, love families, love family life, have many, many children, and soon they will be taking over’,”
Cardinal O’Brien has asked that Catholics have more children or face seeing their faith eclipsed by the religions of immigrants.  His remarks risk sparking a political debate but he has said that members of the [Catholic] Church hierarchy fear immigrant groups could:
- ” . . . take over in western European countries because they have more children than indigenous Christians”
Scotland is in a dilemma. The Scottish Executive under the leadership Donald Salmon wants to encourage more immigrants to come to Scotland because it is fast being de-populated, while the Tories warned earlier this month that, uncurbed, the flow of migrants could threaten traditional British values.
Both England and the USA already have significant numbers of immigrants in their populations – the same could be said of France and Canada. But of the 4 states it is the US and Canada that have had and need a programme of immigration. England, generally speaking, is already overpopulated and France is slightly under-populated given its land mass.
A distinguishing mark is that immigration which is said to have ‘made America strong’ actually threatens to ruin Europe. Undoubtedly the immigration waves of the 18th, 19th, and 20th century (sanctioned by the US Congress) were planned and managed and essential to build-up an empty hinterland – without people there is no economy.
However, immigration fails to make Europe strong principally because the above does not apply but also because all EU countries have a welfare state apparatus.
Immigration made America strong because it had no welfare state commitments – every settler had to fend for themselves and so the cost of attracting, settling the people needed was exceedingly low.
The common problem faced is that all ‘host populations’ will – or are – finding themselves “out-birthed” and becoming a minority in their own country ( “Average Family Size” is another solid indicator. In Europe it is now well below 2.4). Nowhere is this more acute than in America. The New York Times, May 2012, citing census figures made it clear that birth rate was at the root of the problem: 
- “Overall, the white population is barely above the point where births exceed deaths.”
Left: Non-white births exceed white births in USA for the 1st time
On the same day, May 17th 2012, the Wall Street Journal stated that:
- “For the first time in U.S. history, whites of European ancestry account for less than half of newborn children, marking a demographic tipping point that is already changing the nation’s politics, economy and workforce.” 
Among the roughly four million children born in the U.S. between July 2010 and July 2011, 50.4% belonged to a racial or ethnic group that in previous generations would have classified them as minorities.
For the US this presents a double whammy. An older generation of whites will look at the younger generation who will mostly be non-white. The older generation, as a group, grew up in a largely white world with white traditions and values. The United States has a poor record of educating minority youth out of poverty or their ethnic values.
Will older Americans baulked by the ballot box at paying to educate a younger generation that looks less like themselves ? And will Pres. Obama’s health care ideals, aimed at the poor, the old and ethnic minorities suffer ? Will the trend be away from giving financial help for needy families, e.g. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) ? 
Arguably, while the increasingly ‘diverse’ young population is a potential engine of growth, will it not become a burden if the poor current educational standards remain static ?
Meanwhile neighbouring Canada projects that, by 2031, almost 50% of the population aged of 15 or more will be foreign-born or have at least one foreign-born parent. The number of ‘visible minorities’ will double and make up the majority of the population of cities in Canada.
In Europe “multiculturalism, once an expansive and all-embracing ideal, has now hardened into orthodoxy and schism. Time to usher in an era of greater openness has passed us by. The schism is not confined to white host versus ethnic immigrant minority but intra-ethnic minorities.
England will face the same dilemmas as the US is the coming years, so close attention should be paid to how the US experience unfolds. The question for both countries is how can we re-imagine the ‘social contract’ between population and state instruments, especially when the two generations may have precious little in common ? Between the 1991 and 2001 censuses, 50% of the population increase was due to foreign-born immigration (4.9 million people and 8.3% of the population). 
It is now pretty obvious that inside Whitehall this problem has been identified albeit not publicised. On Oct 12th 2009 I penned an article about the British context of demographic change and citing D.A.Coleman who was professor of Demography at Oxford. Between 1985 and 1987 worked as a Special Adviser to the Home Office. Therefore, we should give his views due weight.
In 2007 Coleman asked, “Is the ‘Second Demographic Transition sustainable’?” In other words, can we afford the welfare state as we have known it and cope with an ageing population at the same time ? He used graphs to pose the question (see ‘Projected ethnic change in the UK given 2001 data’).
Below: one of Prof. Coleman’s 2007 graphs
The same graph also shows the transition / convergence between the cultural mix and races that may have occurred by 2051.
Therefore, at the same time as government ministers were reassuring the public that there was nothing to fear behind the scenes some elaborate calculations were being made.
There are always implications, usually financial, when social change is a foot. To the question ‘can we afford the welfare state’, an ageing population is unavoidable and some commentators believe, for technical reasons, that the National Insurance Fund will be in a much sturdier position than it was during the 1990s.
Opening balances of the National Insurance Fund (NIF) fell from a healthy position of £10b in 1989 to around £3bn in 1992 – 94 but pensions and state benefits continued to be paid out (ONS Table 3.11).
Professor Coleman also wrote that the “fiscal burdens” including, for example, divorce, adds 15% to Britain’s overall Welfare Benefits bill (£15 bn) and in so doing creates 3 households when only 2 should be needed.
Throughout the 2000’s pensions and how they could be afforded was on top of the political agenda. A committee headed by Adair Turner was asked to examine the matter and in April 2006 the last of their reports was published. It signalled 1/. the death-knell for private firm private pension plans as unaffordable 2/. put a question mark of state sector pensions and 3/. forced a reassessment of state pensions paid to retirees.
The general consensus at the time (i.e. 2002 – 2006) was that pensions run by private firms and pensions generally were unsustainable in the unfolding economic situation – but bear in mind this was 4 years before the world of banking collapsed of 2009. (Pensions are a complex issue and the lead up to the Turner Report cannot be adequately covered in this article).
But were the “fiscal burdens” mentioned above entirely home-made by workers and business, or the consequence of an immigration policy ?
It was Leo McKinstry who let Londoners know that in inner London, 55% of all births were to foreign-born mothers and that net inward migration into Britain was probably greater than that for Canada. In the same ‘Spectator’ article, 23rd April 2005, Leo McKinstry states:
- “And the ethnic minorities are far more likely to be welfare recipients than are their white counterparts; 28% of all ethnic minority groups and 34% of all blacks receive income-related benefits compared with 18% of whites.”
This is not new ‘news’ for the working class but in 2005 this verged on subversive sedition. The difference is that someone ‘in authority’ has disclosed it and in so doing validated what had previously been dismissed and smeared as prejudice and ignorance. Although it might have reinforced those working class attitudes, the majority are unlikely to be Spectator readers.
Similarly, those that are disenfranchised most are unlikely to know that according to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), an astonishing 61% of Bangladeshis in Britain are either unemployed or economically inactive, compared with just 23% of the white population, while 45% of Africans are unemployed.
Overall, 41% of ethnic minorities are without jobs — hardly the dynamic contribution so often portrayed in state propaganda.
Some Labour MPs are on record as assaying, in 2005, that the current immigration system was a shambles and that “that there was a ‘culture of institutional chaos’ within the system.”
- “I find official indifference astonishing. What the immigration authorities are admitting is that they do not have a clue how many people are settling in this country.” – Roger Godsiff, MP (Birmingham Sparkbrook and Small Heath).
Jolted into action
The Closing of the British Mind was so total between 1999 – 2010 that the far-right Dutch politician Geert Wilders – an EU citizen with all the rights to travel within the EU – was first detained and then refused entry to the UK when he landed at Heathrow Airport (12th Feb 2009). Geert Wilders had been invited by the Freedom Party leader to show his film Fitna in the UK’s House of Lords.
Right: Geert Wilders MEP
Accused of ‘islamophobia’ he was forced to appeal at an Asylum and Immigration Tribunal which overturned the decision in Oct 2009 of the ban issued by the then Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith.
Perhaps she was aware that Wilders had increased his partY’S representation at every election since 1998.
In 2002, there were more than 111,000 asylum applications to Britain – more than double the number in France.
As a proportion of population, Home Office figures show the UK received 1.8 applications for every 1,000 residents. This was less than half the highest application rates seen in Sweden, Norway and Austria but as will be shown below, ‘ratios’ can be misleading
In an article for Aljazeera fellow Dutchman Anno Bunnikdescribed Geert Wilders’ rise to prominence in Dutch politics as “shocking” and included the phrase ‘sorcerer’s apprentice’ .  By innuendo Bunnik even tried to link Wilders with Anders Breivik who killed 77 young people in Norway – as if Islam does not have it own killers of children.  However, as Bunnik had to concede, this did not harm his political position with voters who were able to distinguish between a quote, “terrorist”, and a legitimate politician. This is a feature that seems to be lacking in the Arab / Muslim world – but then that could also be due to ignorance levels and the ‘herd’ mentality (ref. shooting dead of the American Ambassador in Libya, 2012).
Right: Pim Fortuyn (assassinated 2002)
Pim Fortuyn was assassinated by, of all things, an “animal rights activist” (Volkert van der Graaf) on 6th May 2002. 
Coming from a liberal tradition, and one of tolerance, Dutch politicians had studiously avoided questions of immigration and integration. But so unyielding have immigrants shown themselves to fit in to the host nation that Hans Wansing, a political commentator at the Dutch daily De Volkskrant believes “It’s probably fair to say that the Dutch have become less liberal.”
- “A lot of people feel we have been too tolerant over the years – hence the appeal of Pim Fortuyn when he started breaking taboos.”
In Holland, as well as in Italy, civic tranquility has been shattered by Islamist and or immigrant unrest.  Tolerant Holland experienced a Dutch-Moroccan Muslim assassinating film maker Theodoor “Theo” van Gogh in broad day light, gunned down on Nov 2nd 2004 (Van Gogh was shot eight times with a semi-automatic pistol, he was then stabbed in the chest and an attempt to decapitate the body was made with a second knife).
Right: Theodoor “Theo” van Gogh (also assassinated on 2/11/2004)
Peculiarly, ‘far right parties’ are blanked both by the media and authorities yet they have every right (having fought two world wars) to exist as far left parties (which invariably get treated much more favourably).
When the far-right and anti-immigration ‘Sweden Democrats’ party, lead by Jimmie Akesson, won 20 of the 349 seats in the country’s election it came despite being boycotted by media outlets for the customary political debates leading up to elections. 
If the world thinks Norway was shocked by the terror-shooting by Anders Breivik it is overlooking Norway’s ethnic riots and Sweden’s spike in rapes by immigrants.
Sweden’s population of under 9 million in 2003 rose to 9½ million (9,417,000) in 2010 and the number of immigrants rose from 63,795 in 2003 to 99,000 in 2010 – a flea bite compared to the UK – and approx. half that number circa 43,000 emigrating in 2010.  Nearly one in five of the population has a foreign background and it is estimated that 15% of Sweden’s population is born abroad.
In Norway the comparable figure is only 1 in 8. Immigrants and those born in Norway to immigrant parents constitute 600,900 persons or 12.2% of Norway’s total population (in Britain 1 in 12 of the population were born overseas).
Analysis of immigrants by geographical region reveals the composition to be: 287,000 who have a European background; 210 000 who have an Asian background; 74,000 from Africa; 19,000 from Latin-America and 11,000 from North America and Oceania.
Of all Norwegian-born persons with immigrant parents 54% had an Asian background.Having said that, Greece now accounts for 90% of all detected illegal immigration into the EU.
The Danish People’s Party was founded on 6 Oct 1995 and is described as a far-right and anti-immigration party. In the 2007 parliamentary election the party took 25 seats in the 179-member Folketinget (i.e. 13.8% of the vote, and the third largest party in Denmark). Only about 4.8% of Denmark’s population of 5.5 million are refugees or immigrants, but the problem is their unemployment rate and non-integration, which casts them adrift as drones and welfare cheats in a tight, industrious society.
In 2000, Jörg Haider’s Austrian Freedom Party and the People’s Party were elected and formed a coalition government. The machinations are none too clear but the heads of government of the other fourteen EU members decided to cease cooperation with the Austrian government, even though it had been democratically elected !
Left: Jörg Haider (b.1950 – killed [?]2008)
Embarrassed by the pro-right policies, the left-leaning governments (Social Democrats and Christian Democrats) of the EU could not in all conscience be seen to be doing business with Austria – yet doing business with communist Soviet Russia was OK.
Haider and his party vigorously opposed immigration and sometimes made public statements seen as offensive to immigrant populations. In the early 1990s, Haider proclaimed – somewhat prophetically – that:
- “The social order of Islam is opposed to our Western values. Human rights and democracy are as incompatible with the Muslim religious doctrine as is the equality of women. In Islam, the individual and his free will count for nothing; faith and religious struggle – jihad, the holy war – for everything.”
Apart from Turkey, which made deliberate strides after 1927 the was no Islamic country with a functioning democratic process during the entire 20th century. However, a Turkey “Mk II” have emerged embracing Islam in government in a way Atatürk (1881 – 1938) would have deplored.
Once seen as something of a backwater it had so smooth an immigration policy that it never registered on the radar. However, all that has all changed in recent years. In the Aug 2010 General Election the nation made up its mind that immigrants were the most sensitive public issue.
In a country big enough to be categorised as a continent, Australia is trying to control the 6,300 asylum seekers that reached Australia in 130 boats in 2010 (thought to be highest number in 20 years), with the highest number coming from Afghanistan (2,700). 
By Aug 2011 the Australian government, representing the people, found itself locked in a battle with the courts, representing the law and humans rights, over its right to negotiate a swap of refugees with Malaysia. Under the deal, Australia would have sent 800 asylum seekers to Malaysia and would have received 4,000 refugees in return over four years.
Parallels with the Vietnamese Boat People of the late 1970s and early 1980s come flooding back of which Australia accepted 137,000 and who have not shown themselves to be disruptive to any of the many countries that took in the 1¼ million starving refugees.
The problems posed by immigration – legal and illegal – are felt from Australia, to Canada, the US to Scandinavia and mainland Europe too. (see Appendices for all the countries mentioned above).
It is not, therefore, a UK phenomenon but within the EU there is, rightly or wrongly, a pan-European reflex which is inextricably linked with Muslims and an aversion to their demands for censorship on our right to free speech. In the West we find intolerable because we value highly its effects in fostering the Arts the Sciences and Political Philosophy. This level of deliberate antagonism of the host nation is singularly not found among Hindus or Chinese or Buddhists.
Arguably, as a quid pro quo, if we are tolerant of their right to insult and abuse Europeans, Christians and, of course, Jews then they should be tolerant of other points of view if they want to stay and build their mosques in Europe.
The intelligentsia has long ago retreat to their ivory towers and make-believe world of harmonious multi-culturalism.
Intellectually abandoned and politically disavowed, the working class and low skilled have few champions. It takes people like Prof. Robert Rowthorn to articulate the problems. As an academic economist, he has examined many of the “serious studies” that have analysed the economic effects of immigration and which have come down in favour of it (see IPPR above).
Prof. Rowthorn says there is no evidence from any of them that large-scale immigration generates large-scale economic benefits for the existing population as a whole. On the contrary, all the research suggests that the benefits are either close to zero, or negative.
- “For low-skilled Britons, the result is that there are only two options: very low pay or unemployment. The economy becomes dependent on a constant influx of immigrants who are willing to accept low pay and poor working conditions. That is what Labour ministers mean when they insist that “public services would collapse without immigrants”.
- It is bizarre that the Labour Party, which still continues to insist that it is the party of the poor and vulnerable, should endorse a policy the purpose of which is the creation of what Marx called “a reserve army of labour”: a pool of workers whose presence ensures that rates of pay for cleaners and ancillary staff in the NHS can be kept as low as possible.
- Relative to population, the scale of immigration is now much greater than during any period since the Anglo-Saxon and Danish invasions over a thousand years ago.”
Leo McKinstry, writing in the Daily Telegraph (15th Nov 2006) articulates the situation well – the one ethnic group that it is perfectly acceptable to insult and ignore is the white working class. 
- “Once regarded as the backbone of Britain, the people who saved our country in two world wars, the indigenous, less affluent, sector of the population is now treated with contempt by liberal elitists, who sneer at the supposed idleness, vulgarity, xenophobia and ignorance of so-called “chavs” or “white trash”.
Ed Miliband, the Labour Party’s new leader has now admitted his party “got it wrong“ on immigration when in government.  Miliband’s shift on immigration policy has left Tony Blair and Gordon Brown quite exposed. His new position is that Gordon Brown and Tony Blair should not have allowed uncontrolled immigration from new EU states in 2004 conceding that as a Party:
- “We became too disconnected from the concerns of working people.”
Two incidents encapsulated what many saw as the Labour government’s failure to “get” why so many people were worried about immigration. Firstly, in 2007 Gordon Brown promised “British jobs for British workers.” It was an impossible promise to keep, given the guaranteed free movement of people within the European Union.
Secondly, a campaigning Gordon Brown famously described a Labour supporter (and pensioner) from Rochdale as noting more than a “bigot” after she raised immigration with him during the general election.
The fact is, the Labour Party been too quick to accuse Conservatives, and others, of racism when in the past they have been silenced by the racist card whenever they have tried to talk about immigration in a measured and sensitive way. 
“The left” is traditionally uncomfortable talking about immigration. They like to see themselves as internationalist and righteously claim a long but unsubstantiated anti-racist tradition. The left has seen immigrants as prime voting fodder to keep them in power – a characteristics found in too many other countries.
Despite all the sometimes contradictory evidence the reality, so the BBC maintains, is that in the Labour years there was net foreign immigration of three and a half million (3½ million) – only one in five of those was actually from the European Union. Compared with 10 years ago net migration from the EU is 67,000, or 10 times higher than it used to be.
American had its flirtation with the ‘new conservatives’ (Neo-Cons) during George W Bush’s administration which ended in disaster and Britain has had a secret 10-year-long love affair with immigration. According to some, politics now has a new twist up its sleeve, it is going to quietly colonise our minds with thoughts it approves of and thinks is in our best interests.
Brendan O’Neill the editor of “spiked”, a much respected and accurate on-line magazine, gave a speech a few months before the British 2010 general election. The subject was “Do they know what we’re thinking ? Changing attitudes to the electorate” and in summary he was of the view that it was becoming ever more clear that the political class views the electorate as an ‘incomprehensible, inscrutable blob.’ 
The main problem that we face today was not, as he saw it, that the political elite doesn’t know what we’re thinking – it’s that the political elite doesn’t care what we’re think.
- “It is becoming increasingly clear that the political oligarchy which rules Britain looks upon the mass of the population as simply the targets of its various initiatives. It doesn’t look at us as rational political actors whose minds should be engaged; it looks at us as an incomprehensible, inscrutable blob whose behaviour must be managed. It is not interested in what we think; it is only deeply concerned about how we behave.”
Politicians are no longer ‘one of us’ but use us as a ‘means to an end.’ we are a virgin territory ripe for capture profiting from and then and taxing – a new Sparta with the public being the helots.
- NB. Tied to the land, Helots worked in agriculture as a majority and economically supported the Spartan citizens. Their exact status is hotly disputed some historians say they were “slaves” while others say they occupied a status “between free men and slaves.”
According to the outspoken but clear-thinking left-winger Brendan O’Neill:
- “We live under an elite which conceives of itself as an isolated bastion of liberalism, cosmopolitanism, tolerance and official anti-racism, and which conceives of everyone else as caricatured Daily Mail readers with base instincts and vulgar passions who must somehow be remade.”
Political parties have bought into the ‘social brain project’ – this is the lust to see all brains as infinitely malleable. The general public has no idea what is going on behind closed doors. The elite is not interested in what you think about the recession, or the economy, or capitalism – it is only concerned with controlling your inner Daily Mail demon. http://www.spiked-online.com/site/printable/8499/
With something as momentous as the recession what was the elite’s first reaction ? One of the first things the government did was publish a report called ‘Real Help Now for Women’ in which it promised to protect women from an expected rise in wife-beating. New Labour’s Baroness Scotland warned that ‘domestic violence will rise with increased financial worries’. Has it ? Concerns were also expressed that women would be disproportionately impacted more than men in being made unemployed.
The next thing government did was launch a campaign against what one government minister described as ‘credit crunch racism’. Government officials said that the ‘permanent and embittered underclass’ (their words) might take their anger out on ethnic minorities. Then the government announced that it would train an army of therapists to deal with what it labelled ‘the epidemic of anxiety’ that the recession would cause. Once again, has it ?
Controlling your ‘inner Daily Mail demons’ can be seen in virtually every political issue of today – from immigration to terrorism, from the recession to the workplace – the political oligarchy doesn’t care what we actually think about any of those important issues, it is only concerned with regulating our passions in relation to them. By social engineering they manage our behaviour, by bestowing some of their ‘enlightened cosmopolitanism’ on us the moronic masses.
A classic is to compare attitudes towards homosexuals 20 years ago and their normalisation into the mainstream of cultural life today (a project that was launched in the mid 1970s). Ditto for the single unwed mother and the illegitimate child.
Who now dare raise their voice against them now that they have ‘minority’ status ? Have we been cowed or do we honestly think our free speech does not legitimately extend that far ?
This is all deeply Orwellian. There’s a powerful element of Doublethink. Another speaker joining Brendan O’Neill on the panel used the term ‘libertarian paternalism’ to describe the power of nudge politics to steer people in the right direction – which brings to my mind the slogan ‘freedom is slavery’ from George Orwell’s book “Nineteen Eighty Four” (people are often systematically irrational so why care about them ? Care should only be directed at making them rational somehow, by reshaping their nature).
The fuss caused by the 2005 election posters (“Are you thinking what we’re thinking ?”), revealed how cluelessness were both the political class’s about what we think – but also the fear of what we think.
On the one hand we had the Tory Party arguably stoking up the fires of unrest while on the other we had the liberal elite’s fear of the masses which left them not wanting to know what we were thinking. The prospect was too terrifying for them and so not unnaturally they were angry with the Tories for asking the question in the first place.
Incomparably, this demonstrates that the political elite genuinely thinks of itself as a superior race – a superior race of liberals, if you like, with the rest of us as a mongrel race of reactionaries.
G. K. Chesterton is an exceptional author from the beginning of the 20th century. Known for his extravagant, satirical, amusing but often cutting remarks he has proved remarkably prophetic. In his 1914 novel “The Flying Inn” Chesterton predicts a future England dominated by Islam. 
The book is about England altering her laws and culture to mollify Islamic tradition and practice; however, it is not about the Islamification of Europe although that does appear to be emerging in various guises.
The basis he utilises is the blanket blindness and utter intolerance of the US Temperance Movement – reminiscent of the 17th century’s Ranters, Diggers and Levellers – and later the Shakers.
Political figures and manipulators recruit Islam to enforce their ideal which is the prohibition of all alcohol.These political figures think they are actually working to modernise the culture and their concepts of modernism involve the slow modernisation of mankind too. Lord Ivywood is that archetypal modernist who rejects the spiritual and cultural patriarchy of the Christian tradition in England but does not embrace Islam but uses it simply as a catalyst for his agenda.
The following exchange between Mr. Crooke and Lord Ivywood powerfully sums up the motivation for the modernisation and shows that Ivywood fascination with Islam is not about Islam itself but is about creating a new man:
- Mr. Crooke: “Do you think you made the world, that you should make it over again so easily ?”
- Lord Ivywood: “The world was made badly and I will make it over again.”
The terrorists, as the state perceives them to be, are a tiny underground group of two or three men who spread unrest by being armed only with a by now forbidden Inn sign, a large cheese, and a barrel of rum, who personify traditionalist virtues. They roam the country in their cart with a barrel of rum in an attempt to evade Prohibition, exploiting loopholes in the law. Eventually the heroes and their followers foil an attempted coup by an Islamic military force and this leads to a revolt against a perplexed Ivywood.
The government’s own immigration target was to get net migration down to the tens of thousands by the end of this Parliament. The new Home Secretary, Theresa May MP pledged at the Conservative Party conference to restore ‘sanity’ to immigration.  Prime Minister David Cameron had also promise reduced immigration:
- ‘No ifs. No buts. That’s a promise we made to the British people.’
Labour’s Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper MP was well within her rights to point out that the migration figures released in May 2012 showed a failure and a broken promise.
However the situation would seem to be more intractable than anyone could have imagined – anyone that is outside the Home Office as Steve Moxon relays.
Devolving operations Home Office such a visa and immigration controls to smaller separate and outwardly independent bodies has not solved the inherent problems The truism of “garbage in – garbage out” would seem to apply outside the computer world and into the new bureaucracies that are now imported the same strain of Home Office virus.
Britain’s new Eurostar terminal is far younger than Heathrow yet between 2007 and 2011 500,000 people were allowed to enter via the purpose-built St Pancras station without being checked against a warning index.  This is in addition to Robert Brodie Clark’s decision in the summer of 2011 to waive all fingerprint checks at Heathrow airport (see Archaic machineryabove).
In very nearly every geographical location local Muslim are in dispute with local non-Muslims, be it Christians in Pakistan and Nigeria or Buddhists in Burma and Thailand (2009 – 2012), or the Philippines (since the 1980s).
Why should this be ? Is it the intolerance of locals or the intolerance of Muslims ?
The Rohingya are a Muslim ethnic minority found in Burma and Thailand and are having to flee from civil unrest house burning etc. to Bangladeshi refugee camps.
Is there something of a ‘victim culture’ lurking deep within Islam yet co-existing with a rampant resurgence and a divine right to overwhelm all ‘infidels’ ? A curious reblending has emerged where infidel which once meant someone who did not believe in any one single God, has today been replaced by anyone not believing in the prophet Mohammed.
Above: In Rome mobs of Muslims roam the streets [allegedly] hunting for Peruvians and Ecuadorians.
Some of us can recall a more peaceful coexistence with Islam of 50 or 40 years ago. Indeed, Islam has contributed to medical science and the humanities for over 1,000 years.
In that context the past 20 years should perhaps seen as an aberration which will hopefully correct itself – perhaps when the majority of Muslims, who want a quiet life and to enjoy their families just like everyone else, put a strangle hold on their own radical groups. Then they will be seen as joining in and being part of the host society.
If it is any comfort James Bissett, a former head of the Canadian Immigration Service, has suggested that the lack of any credible refugee screening process, combined with a high likelihood of ignoring any deportation orders, has resulted in tens of thousands of outstanding warrants for the arrest of rejected refugee claimants. This is the same best practice Canadian system that the defenders of the London Metropolitan University were citing.
According to James Bissett, there is little attempt at enforcement and a 2008 report by the Auditor General, Sheila Fraser, stated that Canada has lost track of as many as 41,000 illegal immigrants.
It is therefore fitting that governments should currently see the emergence of groups like the English Defence League not as an expression of the voter but as hostile and a threat to public , ie it’s own, stability. Though the rationale has long since past, old bureaucratic habits are hard to unmake. The plot of Chesterton’s novel and the adventures of the ‘terrorist’ heroes (e.g. the EDL), forced to roam the country having flash demonstrations simply to exercise their democratic rights fit uncomfortably into the contemporary scene.
That the political landscape has permanently changed is beyond doubt but what will happen next is open to speculation.
E N D
Estimated overseas-born population resident in the United Kingdom, by country of birth – Oct 2010 to Sept 2011
USA – Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status: Fiscal Years to 2011
 IPPR, 10th Jan 2012, http://www.ippr.org/articles/56/8491/does-immigration-cause-unemployment
 See also http://www.ippr.org/articles/56/8491/does-immigration-cause-unemployment Overall, around 400,000 students come to British colleges and universities each year and make up the major component of the UK’s £15bn-a-year education exports
 Whites Account for Under Half of Births in U.S. May 2012 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/us/whites-account-for-under-half-of-births-in-us.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.www
 “Minority Births Are New Majority”, May 17th 2012, Wall St Journal
 In 1996 TANF replaced “Aid to Families with Dependent Children” (AFDC).
 Anno Bunnik is a political analyst from the Netherlands. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/09/201291192756398991.html
 Living the legacy of Pim Fortuyn, BBC 17 Feb 2004, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3496961.stm
 Italian riots (Milan) have involved Muslims fighting with South American immigrants.
 “Never have we seen immigration on this scale: we just can’t cope” by Robert Rowthorn, 02 Jul 2006, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3626107/Never-have-we-seen-immigration-on-this-scale-we-just-cant-cope.html
 ‘In defence of the white working class’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3634265/In-defence-of-the-white-working-class.html
 G. K. Chesterton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Flying_Inn The first of Chesterton’s novels was The Napoleon of Notting Hill (1904), which begins in a London of 1984 is the date merely coincidental ?
 Tuesday 04 October 2011