That every British government over the last quarter-century set out to disfigure Britain’s demographic face is a fact.
Why they wanted to do so is a different question, and it’s worth asking – especially since most answers currently available are either mendacious or misguided.
But the facts first. Between 1997 and 2010 net migration to Britain was a whopping 2.2 million. That’s twice the population of Birmingham, and any visitor to that great metropolis would probably confirm that even one Birmingham is more than enough.
The annual net number of immigrants quadrupled under Labour, and such dramatic increases are never accidental; they betoken deliberate policy.
Tom Bower, a fine investigative reporter, has just published a book about it, which I haven’t read yet. However, familiar as I am with Mr Bower’s work, I’m sure he gathered an amazing corpus of evidence proving that there indeed was a conspiracy behind that massive influx.
The details he must have uncovered are doubtless impressive, and I can’t wait to read the book. However, the gist of the conspiracy has been known at least since 2013, when Blair’s hatchet man Peter Mandelson openly talked about it.
“We were not only welcoming people to come into this country to work,” boasted Mandelson, “we were sending out search parties for people and encouraging them, in some cases, to take up work in this country.” Or, that failing, to come and claim benefits, something the spin doctor was too modest to mention.
Mandelson was a mechanic of power rather than its ideologue. Hence, if asked why he and his master felt the need to import millions of people, most of them cultural aliens, he’d probably play hard to get at first, but then admit that the reason for that maniacal hospitality was to create a new bloc of Labour voters.
It’s true that English people (a minority group in London and many other cities now) tend to vote Tory. In fact, if they were the only constituency in the elections Blair won, he wouldn’t have won them.
Labour can only come to power by mobilising electoral blocs made up of ethnic minorities and the denizens of the Celtic fringe. Therefore, Mandelson’s innermost convictions are hard to fault on pragmatic grounds. But he wasn’t the one who called the shots. Those who did had less cold-blooded motives, which is why Mandelson’s explanation is false.
Blair was closer to the mark when saying that he wanted the country “to see the benefit of a multicultural society”. His speech writer Andrew Neather clarified his boss’s meaning by explaining that the aim was “to rub the right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.”
Mr Neather’s statement blends Blair’s afflatus with Mandelson’s pragmatism into one towering monument to most refreshing cynicism. But the blend is as disingenuous as its individual constituents.
First, no such thing as a multicultural society exists, nor can exist. A society lacking one dominant culture can be many things, except one: a society, a concept that presupposes a certain homogeneity.
This doesn’t mean a successful society has to be monoethnic – far from it. In fact, our urban civilisation would be lethally dull if, say, London were inhabited by Englishmen only. All cities, and certainly all major cities, have to be cosmopolitan to a healthy degree.
But ‘healthy’ is the operative word. For cosmopolitanism is like red wine: a couple of glasses a day are good for you; 20 glasses a day will kill you.
There is some limit beyond which a critical mass is reached. Some diversity makes society healthier and more interesting. Too much diversity, such as native Brits being outnumbered in their capital, smashes society to smithereens.
Second, the notion of rubbing the right’s face in diversity gets closer to the truth, without actually reaching it. Here the emotional satisfaction of getting the opposition’s goat overlaps with the Mandelsonian practicality of getting the opposition’s vote.
But the real reason for this lot’s (and I include the current ‘Tory’ government into that collective entity) desire to destroy Britain qua Britain isn’t electoral. It’s existential.
They aren’t endowed with real minds, but they do possess an animalistic nose for danger. And this unerring instinct tells them that the traditional traits of English society, traditional Englishness as such, represent a real threat of extinction to their whole tribe, that of denationalised, denatured, depraved spivs seeking to lord it over the country they neither like nor understand.
The self-reliance, emotional restraint, pragmatism, sentiment untainted with sentimentality, quiet, usually unspoken patriotism, love of freedom through justice, visceral conservatism of the English are the bugbear of our spivocracy. Hence the society that fosters such qualities has to be put to the sword.
Simple demographic dilution of Englishness with foreign, ideally alien, admixtures is one of many stratagems activated here, but it’s one of the prominent ones. Add to this education that doesn’t educate, an economy that doesn’t economise and a wholehearted commitment to destroying England’s political tradition, and the picture is complete.
It looks more like Munch’s Scream than a Constable landscape.
It was a revolutionary attempt to create a ‘New Jerusalem’ in the UK, where the majority of the electorate would vote Labour for ever in eternal gratitude. That idea didn’t turn out very well, did it? As someone else (thank you Mr. Boot) said, the problem with revolutionaries is twofold:firstly, they have to destroy something to implement their ‘ideals’ (see Scots Nationalism); secondly, they always invoke the law of unintended consequences! They usually drip-feed their changes so no-one notices it so much, but on this issue they pulled out so many bricks in the Temple! It is only just standing…Since being a member of the EUSSR really doesn’t help matters (just ask Frau Merkel how her plan is going), I see no good reason to stay in. Sadly, as always, the perpetrators (traitors?) seem to get away with it.
I don’t think you’re right.
The reason for Blair deliberately embarking on a policy to flood Britain with non-Europeans – and particularly, with muslims – was in fact decided upon by the EU.
Peter Sutherland, while EU Commissioner, had succeeded in cementing in place a secret EU Commission policy which aimed to ‘undermine racial homogeneity’ right across Europe, in order to progressively undermine and eventually destroy the EU’s greatest enemy, and the one and only real obstacle to achieving its objective of a Single European State – namely, Europeans’ sense of national identity.
Merkel last year decided to massively accelerate this strategy of flooding Europe with non-European immigrants, because she had become very fearful that rising nationalist parties in some EU countries would soon reach power – and that the departure of one or a few EU countries from the EU would likely follow that, leading to the collapse of the EU project.
And that is why Merkel and the EU have done everything possible to facilitate the movement of vast numbers of muslims into Europe – claiming that they are ‘refugees’, even though, very clearly, many of them come from countries where there is no war going on.
The choice of muslims is very important: there is little usefulness in pumping vast numbers of foreigners into European countries if your objective is to break down the host countries’ populations’ sense of national identity, unless the immigrant flood is composed of people of very different culture – and most desirably, of muslim culture.
Why muslim? Because history has shown that muslims don’t integrate with their host countries. And that makes them perfect to serve as weapons to destroy national identity in the countries to which they are sent.