April 1, 2013

David Goodhart in The Daily Mail on immigration

Yesterday, I posted David Goodhart's essay promoting his new book The British Dream in the broadsheet Guardian. Here's his article in the Most Interesting Newspaper in the World (tm), the tabloid Daily Mail.
SATURDAY ESSAY: Why we on the Left made an epic mistake on immigration 
By David Goodhart 
PUBLISHED: 18:21 EST, 22 March 2013 | UPDATED: 18:21 EST, 22 March 2013

Among Left-leaning ‘Hampstead’ liberals like me, there has long been what you might call a ‘discrimination assumption’ when it comes to the highly charged issue of immigration. 
Our instinctive reaction has been that Britain is a relentlessly racist country bent on thwarting the lives of ethnic minorities, that the only decent policy is to throw open our doors to all and that those with doubts about how we run our multi-racial society are guilty of prejudice. 
And that view — echoed in Whitehall, Westminster and town halls around the country — has been the prevailing ideology, setting the tone for the immigration debate.

But for some years, this has troubled me and, gradually, I have changed my mind.  
... I am now convinced that public opinion is right and Britain has had too much immigration too quickly. 
For 30 years, the Left has blinded itself with sentiment about diversity. But we got it wrong. 
I still believe that large-scale immigration has made Britain livelier and more dynamic than it would otherwise have been. I believe, too, that this country is significantly less racist than it once was. 
In many places immigration is working as the textbooks say it should with a degree of harmony, with minorities upwardly mobile and creating interesting new hybrid identities in mixed suburbs. 
But it has also resulted in too many areas in which ethnic minorities lead almost segregated lives — notably in the northern ‘mill towns’ and other declining industrial regions, which in the Sixties and Seventies attracted one of the most clannish minorities of modern times, rural Kashmiri Pakistanis. 
In Leicester and Bradford, almost half of the ethnic population live in what are technically ghettos (defined as areas where minorities form more than two-thirds of the population). Meanwhile, parts of white working-class Britain have been left feeling neither valued nor useful, believing that they have been displaced by newcomers not only in the job market but also in the national story itself. 
Those in the race lobby have been slow to recognise that strong collective identities are legitimate for majorities as well as minorities, for white as well as for black people. 
For a democratic state to have any meaning, it must ‘belong’ to existing citizens. They must have special rights over non-citizens. Immigration must be managed with their interests in mind. But it has not been.

The justification for such a large and unpopular change has to be that the economic benefits are significant and measurable. But they are not. 
One of the liberal elite’s myths is that we are a ‘mongrel nation’ that has always experienced high inflows of outsiders. But this isn’t true. From 1066 until 1950, immigration was almost non-existent (excluding Ireland) — a quarter of a million at the most, mainly Huguenots and Jews. 
Post-World War II immigration has been on a completely different scale from anything that went before. These days, more people arrive on our shores as immigrants in a single year than did so in the entire period from 1066 to 1950, excluding wartime. 
... By 2066, according to one demographer, white Britons will be in a minority.
This is already the case in some towns and cities, including London, Leicester, Slough and Luton, with Birmingham expected to follow in the near future.

Okay, Slough (all I know of it is John Betjeman's poem), but London ... That's as crazy as giving California away to foreigners.
If Britain had a clear and confident sense of its national culture and was good at integrating people, then perhaps this speed of change would be of little concern. But this is not the case. 
We are deep into a huge social experiment. To give it a chance of working, we need to heed the ‘slow down’ signs that the electorate is waving. And all the more so given that the low economic growth era we are now in means people’s grievances cannot easily be bought off with rising wages and public spending. 
The fault lies with our leaders, not with the people who came for a better life. There has been a huge gap between our ruling elite’s views and those of ordinary people on the street. This was brought home to me when dining at an Oxford college and the eminent person next to me, a very senior civil servant, said: ‘When I was at the Treasury, I argued for the most open door possible to immigration [because] I saw it as my job to maximise global welfare not national welfare.’

I was even more surprised when the notion was endorsed by another guest, one of the most powerful television executives in the country. He, too, felt global welfare was paramount and that he had a greater obligation to someone in Burundi than to someone in Birmingham. 
Such grand notions run counter to the way most people in this country think or arrange their priorities. 
The British political class has never prepared existing citizens for something as game-changing as large-scale immigration, nor has it done a good job at explaining what the point of large-scale immigration was and whose interests it was meant to serve.  

Probably because the answers were:

Q. Whose interests it is meant to serve?

A. Not yours, dear voters, not yours.

Q. What is the point of large-scale immigration?

A. To rub your noses in diversity. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a human nose being rubbed in diversity — forever.
Crucially, they failed to control the inflow more overtly in the interests of existing citizens. On the contrary, the idea that immigration should be unambiguously in the interests of existing citizens was blurred from the start. 
Then, whenever there were problems with immigrant communities, the tendency was for the host society to be blamed for not being sufficiently accommodating or for being racist, rather than considering the self-inflicted wounds of some minority cultures.

Parts of white working-class Britain believe that they have been displaced by newcomers not only in the job market but also in the national story itself
Thus, the absence of fathers in many African-Caribbean households was excused as a cultural trait that just had to be accepted rather than a dereliction of duty that needed addressing. 
Yes, being a newcomer can be hard, even in a liberal society such as Britain’s that today offers undreamed of protections and rights compared with earlier eras. But what has been largely ignored is that mass immigration makes big demands on host communities, too, and a successful strategy must engage the attention, consent and sympathy of the host majority as well. 
Democratic common sense demands that politics and law cannot concern themselves only with the problems of minorities. The majority must have a voice, too, in how we manage a multi-racial society.

What, for example, do we say to the elderly white people of the Pollards Hill estate in Merton, in South-West London — which I visited on my travels — many of whom feel displaced and disrupted by the arrival of a large Ghanaian population in recent years?  
To the local whites, the Ghanaians are not fitting in but imposing their own way of life on the neighbourhood. Similar small battles are taking place in thousands of other housing estates up and down the country.  

57 comments:

Auntie Analogue said...

Goodhart makes a start, but what's really needed is anther man who won't mince words the way Goodhart minces them and pulls his punches, what's needed - in Britain, in Europe, and here in the U.S.A. are men with the spine and fearless honesty of Enoch Powell.

Instead of our present elite political/Media-Pravda/one-percenter class haggling over finding ways to re-tie the immigration Gordian Knot, we need a man who will just draw his sword and cut the damned knot: just show the will and determination to deport all illegals, to shut, fortify, and defend our border, to end the visa lottery and other massively-scammed visa schemes, and to begin a twenty-five year moratorium on legal immigration. In short, we need a real American leader, not another flannel-mouthed bromide-spewer who will simply find new ways to impose evermore multiculturalism upon us, the people.

Anonymous said...

Steve:

Could you, in addition, just summarize in a sentence or two what is different between the two articles. The first one you posted was lengthy.

Anonymous said...

Well put, Auntie Analogue.

Mark said...

The comment from the ex-senior civil servant at Oxford more than reinforces my opinion that graduates of humanities courses - including the elite schools - got to be the dumbest f__ks that walk the planet. With these morons running the show, no wonder we're in such deep shit.

slumber_j said...

The first lines of The Jam's "Eton Rifles," released in 1979:

Sup up your beer and collect your fags,
There's a row going on down near Slough,
Get out your mat and pray to the West,
I'll get out mine and pray for myself.

I took a cab to the Slough RR station a couple of months ago from Heathrow. I know one isn't supposed to say this, but it didn't feel too English around there...

William Gaunt said...

Peter Hitchens had a pretty good article on mass immigration in The Mail on Sunday.

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2013/04/how-i-am-partly-to-blame-for-mass-immigration.html

It's marred by a few paragraphs near the end, in which Hitchens shakes his fist at Enoch Powell and delivers himself of a few doubleplusgood cliches---e.g., "It's not race, it's culture." Other than that, it's a fine description of Britain's immigration disaster.

Whiskey said...

Making England into Eat-Pray-Love territory is the whole point. It lets rich old White women have an endless supply of young non-White gigolos, makes native Whites without money and power third class citizens.

That's the real reason: class struggle among Whites, with the new aristocrats, lacking landed estates but aristocrats none the less, ruling over all.

Guardian readers love that -- Whites being minorities in their own country. And it will never change, only accelerate. There are more and more non-Whites wishing to come, less and less political and social power, and more and more control by elites.

Camp of the Saints looks more and more prophetic every day.

Anonymous said...

"But it has also resulted in too many areas in which ethnic minorities lead almost segregated lives — notably in the northern ‘mill towns’ and other declining industrial regions, which in the Sixties and Seventies attracted one of the most clannish minorities of modern times, rural Kashmiri Pakistanis."

So, what is he saying? If all those immigrants culturally assimilated, had kids with white British women, guzzled beer at soccer games, and supported 'gay marriage' and welfare spending, he would have been delighted and would not be opposing immigration? He would want more to come?

There is one true reason to resist the invasive tide: the same reason that the Algerians and Vietnamese drove out the French.
Your nation is sacred soil, the historical homeland of your people, the land on which countless generations of your ancestors lived and died and where their bones are buried. If this guy doesn't have such emotions in his heart, he is useless.

Globalist Jews have undermined white nationalism not because Jews hate nationalism per se but because they want whites to serve Jewish nationalism and tribalism. Nationalism means to take your own side. Jews take their own side, and to further their own interest, they don't want whites to serve their own interests because such may stand in the way of Jewish domination.

Jews are not against nationalism. They've vilified white nationalism to makes whites serve Jewish nationalism.

Anon87 said...

Related?

Compare US VS British Murder Rates

Anonymous said...

https://twitter.com/David_Goodhart

Anonymous said...

Goodhart is brave. His views are probably controversial among much of the Guardian-reading public.

Of course the elite wants lots and lots of immigration. They want to drive down the wages of the non-elite. Also ethnic conflict could take the energy away from class conflict.

Risto

Anonymous said...

Yeah sure, immigration has made Britain "livelier" all right. Those Tottenham riots were very exciting.

Anonymous said...

What the Brits need is massive immigration of uneducated, unskilled Pakis who want to impose Sharia on all Britain. Then watch the liberals react.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 4/1/13 5:57 PM

Globalist Jews aren't nationalist Jews. The globalist Jews think that they have transcended petty nationalism. How does criticism of Netanyahu's anti-immigration activities by the Israeli Left and liberal Jewish academics serve the interests of Jewish nationalism? Likewise, how does Israeli leftist criticism of Israeli governments' handling of the Palestinian popoulation serve Jewish nationalism? Those guys aren't in favor of population transfer. It is a mistake to conflate the interests of all Jews as you do.

Matthew said...

"what's needed - in Britain, in Europe, and here in the U.S.A. are men with the spine and fearless honesty of Enoch Powell."

No, because so long as the HVAC works, the telly works, and there's food in the fridge, voters hate anything that comes off sounding "mean." The pro-enforcement side needs to be firm but polite.

Anonymous said...

If this Goodheart guy had some balls he would join the BNP instead of copying their rhetoric. BTW, Yanks can send the BNP.org.UK donations, or buy their cheeky cuff links, but only after sending money to vdare.com .

Anonyia said...


"Making England into Eat-Pray-Love territory is the whole point. It lets rich old White women have an endless supply of young non-White gigolos, makes native Whites without money and power third class citizens."

Yes, Whiskey, the entire point of liberal immigration policy in Britain is to keep those famed Pakistani lotharios rolling in for suburban grandma.

Anonymous said...

Of course the elite wants lots and lots of immigration. They want to drive down the wages of the non-elite. Also ethnic conflict could take the energy away from class conflict.

Judaism doesn't necessarily mind class conflict. It has often used class conflict to disguise ethnic conflict. (See, for example, Bolshevism.) Judaism often thrives on ethnic conflict, too--but the right kind, that is, conflict among Gentiles. (See, for example, American Civil Rights Movement conflicts, conflicts between the United States and Muslim nations.)

Anonymous said...

Globalist Jews aren't nationalist Jews.

False. Most globalist Jews are Zionists.

The globalist Jews think that they have transcended petty nationalism.

They seek to transcend the nationalism of Gentile nations, but not Jewish nationalism. Most globalist Jews are Zionists. Yes, they see Gentile nationalism as "petty" or, rather, undesirable.

How does criticism of Netanyahu's anti-immigration activities by the Israeli Left and liberal Jewish academics serve the interests of Jewish nationalism?

It's just a damage control-good cop/bad cop charade. The tell is that it is completely ineffectual.

Likewise, how does Israeli leftist criticism of Israeli governments' handling of the Palestinian popoulation serve Jewish nationalism?

By giving the world the impression that the Jews are interested in stopping their bestiality against Palestinian Gentiles.

It's just damage control. More good cop/bad cop tactics. And completely ineffectual, which should be the tell.

Those guys aren't in favor of population transfer. It is a mistake to conflate the interests of all Jews as you do.

More Jewish colonists swept into Palestinian territory under Ehud Barak (Labor) than under any prior premiership (Likud). Support of a right of return of Gentile refugees who fled Jewish depredations in 1948 and 1967 is nil among Jews. "Liberal" Zionist historian Benny Morris has waxed sympathetic about the possibility of further transfers of Gentiles out of Israel.

Matthew said...

"If this Goodheart guy had some balls he would join the BNP instead of copying their rhetoric. BTW, Yanks can send the BNP.org.UK donations, or buy their cheeky cuff links, but only after sending money to vdare.com."

The BNP is finished. Voters don't join parties that sound like they were founded by the thuggish white bully from highj school who could barely do arithmetic.

UKIP is the better option. It has no history of racism or nastiness, and its leader, Nigel Farage, is incredibly likeable and eloquent. Note on the second video at 5:30 Farage's mention of "cabbages rotting in the fields." The meme has gone global.

Note also, in talking about the potential for a massive influx of Bulgarians, how the Left constantly tells us to rely on "common sense" when telling us that the worst predictions won't come to pass. "Of course a million Bulgarians won't come pouring into Britain after the doors open! Of course this amnesty bill will only cover a million people." Etc., etc., etc. The Left is never willing to write the law so that the worst predictions won't come to pass because they want the worst predictions to come to pass.

Svigor said...

Making England into Eat-Pray-Love territory is the whole point. It lets rich old White women have an endless supply of young non-White gigolos

Like many emotionally disturbed people, Whiskey projects his mommy's behavior onto all women of (vaguely) similar ancestry.

John Derbyshire said...

If you like Betjeman's "Slough" you may enjoy my Washington, D.C. version.

Svigor said...

Globalist Jews aren't nationalist Jews. The globalist Jews think that they have transcended petty nationalism.

Riiiight. Which is why they're BFFs with Israeli Jewry.

How does criticism of Netanyahu's anti-immigration activities by the Israeli Left and liberal Jewish academics serve the interests of Jewish nationalism?

How does it thwart them?

Likewise, how does Israeli leftist criticism of Israeli governments' handling of the Palestinian popoulation serve Jewish nationalism?

How does it thwart it?

Those guys aren't in favor of population transfer. It is a mistake to conflate the interests of all Jews as you do.

Israeli Jewry (Jewish National Socialists, basically) and American Jewry (faux liberals) = BFFs, bosom buddies.

Compare US VS British Murder Rates

A fellow fan of thegunwire.com?

Globalist Jews have undermined white nationalism not because Jews hate nationalism per se but because

Like all creeps of their ilk, they want to be the only ones in town with nice things.

Anonymous said...

@Anonymous 4/1/13, 6:33 PM

It is a mistake to conflate the interests of all Jews as you do.

This is a strawman. His post did not refer to all Jews, but to tribalist and nationalist Jews.

Anonymous said...

David Goodhart - I am now convinced that public opinion is right and Britain has had too much immigration too quickly

Essentially he is concerned the water in the pan is too hot, the frog is being boiled too quickly. Still, I suppose we should take any crumb of comfort from our betters.

Anonymous said...

It is a mistake to conflate the interests of all Jews as you do.

While well-intended people of Jewish descent are of course welcome here and should have a home in our community, this statement reminds me of a standard Zionist rhetorical move, according to one Israeli writer:

Jews are not so silly as to recognise their guilt and apologise. Nobody yet has got an apology from a Jew. A Jew would reply with: “Did ALL Jews do it?”. This marvellous reply can be equally well used by all of us.

Anonymous said...

"Essentially he is concerned the water in the pan is too hot, the frog is being boiled too quickly. Still, I suppose we should take any crumb of comfort from our betters."

Technically, if immigration was slowed to the rate of 1 person per year in perpetuity, I think most iStevers would be happy. No doubt there would be a fundie or two who would be still up in arms but most of us would be ok with it.

I'm most surprised to be reading about this stuff in the Guardian, usually the Daily Mail has the most race real stuff in the UK from what I've seen (e.g. at the time of the riots). To most Guardian readers, even with the equivocating this sort of article must read like Mein Kampf.

Goodhart:
"Most of us are no longer asked to risk death for our country, but we are asked to pay around one third of our income into a common national pool and, in return, the state manages large bits of infrastructure for us — such as defence, transport, energy, public services, welfare and so on.

For this to work, the modern citizen is expected to conform to a thicket of rules and regulations. And in order to sustain this level of sharing and co-operation, we need at least some sense of ‘emotional citizenship’, the belief that, despite many different interests, we’re also part of the same team.

I fear that large-scale, poorly managed immigration is endangering this social contract."

Exactly. This social contract has not just been endangered - it has been torn up and shat upon. At this point the whipped horse of the white demographic may as well sit down in protest as continue to pull a growing number of laughing, cajoling free-riders.

This hideous dystopia that the left has thoughtlessly midwived into being while having convinced themselves that they were creating the opposite - it is disintegrating before their eyes. Watch as the leftist rats desert their sinking ship in the manner of Hitchens and Goodhart.

Anonymous said...

Peter Hitchens confesses his misplaced love of mass immigration with this damning acknowledgement:

It wasn't because we liked immigrants, but because we didn't like Britain.

Anonymous said...

Technically, if immigration was slowed to the rate of 1 person per year in perpetuity, I think most iStevers would be happy. No doubt there would be a fundie or two who would be still up in arms but most of us would be ok with it.

Technically you are quite right but in real world terms that would be the same as zero immigration. I suspect Goodhart still wants some discernible level of immigration, what he and other 'reformers' want is drop the rate to the point where the natives stop grumbling.

What they are aiming for is not a position where immigrants outnumber the natives but one where the descendants of immigrants outnumber the natives. A slower rate of immigration delays but does not stop that.

Because (in British terms) that means they are British too and thus any complaint about them is racist. Too many foreign born in the mix gives cause for legitimate complaint under the current paradigm, much as the elites strive to make that 'racism' just as unsayable it hasnt quite worked.

The US debate seems more about legal vs illegal immigrants. The debate is steered toward the illegals (insofar as its allowed at all) and as we can see, when the time is right illegals will be magicked into legal. And then the elite can say "What are you guys complaining about? They're legal now, thats the problem solved!"

Thus the invaders and their offspring will be citizens and then the deal is the same as in Britain. It will be about race in the end. Can the elite crush the natives before they throw off the stigma of 'racism'?

I think Goodhart is just saying to the elite; "We need to slow down, smooth the way to the end game more gently."

Anonymous said...

Well done Steve, for linking to the 'Andrew Neather' revelations.
The Andrew Neather revelations (he was a very senior apparatchik during the disasterous New Laboour maladministration of the early 2000s. He sat at cabinet meetings and had the ear of the biggest of big Labour knobs), are the real smoking gun of Britain's immigration catastrophe, the equivalent of the Zinoviev letters. If we achieve nothing else we must make damned sure that future generations of historians are fully aware of the neather relevations and quote them as persuasive authority about the *truth* of what was going on in the accursed Blair cabinet. They are an inavaluable source worth their weight in gold.

Anyway, one of the most disgusting aspects of present-day British politics is the way the Labour Party is trying to disown and repudiate a policy which evidently was so dearly held. The fact that UKIP is breathing down their ass, has, nothing, of course, to do wih it.

Matthew said...

"Anyway, one of the most disgusting aspects of present-day British politics is the way the Labour Party is trying to disown and repudiate a policy which evidently was so dearly held."

Labour today is led by Ed Miliband, whose brother David is also a high-ranking leader of the party. Ed & David are the red diaper babies of Ralph Miliband, a Belgian-born Marxist academic. His family fled Belgium shortly after Germany invaded, whence England took them into its bosom. Nevertheless he wrote this of the English people who had spared his family's life:

"The Englishman is a rabid nationalist. They are perhaps the most nationalist people in the world...When you hear the English talk of this war you sometimes almost want them to lose it to show them how things are."

Got that? Ralph Miliband thought the English were rabid nationalists... during a war for their very survival. How very gauche of them.

If you think Ed Miliband feels the least little sorrow over the mass immi-vasion of Great Britain by people of foreign religions, cultures, and values - by people who loath everything British about the Britons; who have come there only for the wealth - then you are sorely mistaken. In their hearts, the Miliband brothers are sworn enemies of the British people, who would be absolute fools to let Labour back into power.

But fools they well may be, willing to sell out their nation for a few lousy coins of welfare borrowed from their future. They will pay every penny of Labour's handouts back, and with usurious rates that would make the rates of a payday lender look by comparison like a bargain. Milibanditry, you could call it.

Liberal-Dem leader Nick Clegg is little better. He is a thoroughbred post-Briton internationalist. His mother is Dutch. His paternal grandmother was Russian. Nick's own wife is a Spaniard, and their three children all have Spanish given names and are being raised Catholic, though Nick himself is an atheist.

Clegg has stated: "There is simply not a shred of racism in me, as a person whose whole family is formed by flight from persecution, from different people in different generations. It’s what I am. It’s one of the reasons I am a liberal."

Got that? 100% white Nick Clegg is more enlightened than ordinary, racist Britons because he's 3/4ths non-British and his great-grandfather was "persecuted" due to having been...a high ranking official in the Russian Empire.

These are the men who would lead the Britons to their extermination as a people whose history dates back to the last ice age - 10,000 years of it, gone in the insanity of a single generation.

Matthew said...

"Technically you are quite right but in real world terms that would be the same as zero immigration."

The open borders lunatics take advantage of useful idiots who don't understand that any given level of immigration will have a larger impact than absolute amounts of immigration would suggest.

Take two groups of a million in a country with basically replacement birthrates (nevermind sub-replacement rates). The first million is a cross section of the natives. In ten years time 1,000,000 may grow, perhaps, to 1,020,000. Infants are born, old people die, and we all live a bit longer, so it grows, but not by much.

The second million consists of immigrants. This group, however, does not have the same age profile as the natives, nor the same cultural beliefs. Their population has both higher birthrates AND a skewed age profile.

The USA has a lot of 80 and 90-year-olds, but the immigrant population includes almost no 80-year-olds. Disproportionately (overwhelmingly, even) the immigrants are of breeding age - 20s and 30s - but haven't yet started breeding. In 10 years time a million immigrants could easily become 1.8 million, next to the natives' 1,020,000 or so.

Further, people breed in generations, not years. If a generation is about 25 years long, and you allow in 1.2 million immigrants per year, like the US does, then you are adding 30 million immigrants per generation, not counting the children those immigrants will bear. The 30 million immigrants alone constitute about 10% of today's population. That much change in a single generation.

And the population growth in the US bears this out. Native birthrates have plummeted to slightly below replacement level, but the population increased by 13.2% from 1990 to 2000 and 9.7% from 2000 to 2010. From 1987 to 2012, the US grew by about 70 million people, or more than 28%, in the space of a generation, despite birthrates that were barely replacement level.

But too many voters and politicians don't understand this, and don't try to.

Aging Hag said...

Steve, You make such great points on this website about a variety of subjects, immigration being tops in my book, but the people who blame everything on Jews drag the quality of the site into the toilet. It's disappointing and disturbing. How many Jews does Sweden have? Germany? And yet both countries are killing themselves by allowing open immigration. The British Jewish community is, compared to the US Jewish community, small and not especially influential, apart from individuals. And then there is Ireland. Jews? Hardly any. Yet these countries are all killing themselves with immigration.

The reason for the suicidal tendencies of the West is Christian maternalism. Taking care of every sick kid is part of Christianity. And puritanical utopianism of the Yankee sort is the worst.

Read Colin Woodard's book about this, American Nations. The Abolitionists were not Jews. The Confederacy had a small but loyal Jewish community.

Anonymous said...

Matthew,
Britain, with a land area a mere fraction of the USA's and a population around 6 times smaller lets in about 600,000 immigrants per annum or half the USA total.
England, as distinct from Britain, where the vast majority of immigrants wind up has just about the highest population density in Europe. London and the south-east are absurdly overcrowded, to the point of inducing mania.

And your talking about a nation dependent on imports for food and fuel and with a chronic housing crisis which always manages to hobble the economy once things start moving.

Anonymous said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmOvg7JKjVI

Peter Hitchens was right. Brits got bored with themselves, esp after loss of empire.

Anonymous said...

Matthew - lets not forget that David Cameron also has some jewish ancestry too.

Anonymous said...

In a nutshell, Jews and gays are discovering 'too many Muslims' is causing problems for them and may be leading to rise of British nationalism.

Notice how a lot of these mention Poles when Poles can easily assimilate.

Anonymous said...

Thanks! That was perfect.

ben tillman said...

It is a mistake to conflate the interests of all Jews as you do.

Quite the contrary. The mistake we repeatedly make is to focus too much on Jews (plural) rather than the Jewish comunity (singular).

The diversity of opinion about what is best for "the Jews" is generally resolved through an elaborate organizational structure, and the weight of the community's resources is put behind the prevailing opinion.

fnn said...

Steve, You make such great points on this website about a variety of subjects, immigration being tops in my book, but the people who blame everything on Jews drag the quality of the site into the toilet. It's disappointing and disturbing. How many Jews does Sweden have? Germany? And yet both countries are killing themselves by allowing open immigration. The British Jewish community is, compared to the US Jewish community, small and not especially influential, apart from individuals.


Jews, or rather Jews as part of the progressive Judeo-Puritan ruling elite, are the ruling class of the American Empire. The states of Western Europe (and, most especially, UK and W Germany) have been semi-colonial protectorates of the US since 1945. So left-wing Jews and similar miscreants don't have to be physically present in all the outposts of the Empire to have their will imposed.


Do a site search for "1945" on the half-Jewish Moldbug's site to get an idea on how this works. See Derbyshire's articles on the post-1945 Americanization of Britain to expand your horizons even further.
Read observant Jew Paul Gottfried's trilogy on the managerial state to see how Political Correctness came out of America to conquer Europe.

Also, read the recently deceased Lawrence Auster's treatise on Jewish radicalism:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/024334.html

ben tillman said...

Steve, You make such great points on this website about a variety of subjects, immigration being tops in my book, but the people who blame everything on Jews drag the quality of the site into the toilet. It's disappointing and disturbing. How many Jews does Sweden have?

Enough to own most of the mass media.

Moreover, how does it work that the influence of U.S. Jews stops at the borders? What about the US mass media and entertainment industry, whse products are broadcast around the globe? And the US military? Surely, the influence of US Jews is felt in Israel and the broader Middle East. Why not in Sweden?

Twenty years ago, in the course of enforcing multiculturailism in Yugoslavia, NATO's supreme commander warned Europe that "[t]here is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states. That’s a 19th century idea and we are trying to transition into the 21st century, and we are going to do it with multiethnic states."

And have you thought about checking the actual history of multiculturalism in Sweden?

It turns out that "[t]he ideological change started in 1964 when David Schwarz, a Polish born Jew and Holocaust survivor who immigrated to Sweden in the early 1950s, wrote the article “The Immigration problem in Sweden” in Sweden’s largest and most important morning newspaper – the Jewish-owned Dagens Nyheter ('Daily News')." This happened at a time, incidentally, when the Rightist Party's leader, Gunnar Heckscher, was of Jewish descent.

Svigor said...

the people who blame everything on Jews drag the quality of the site into the toilet. It's disappointing and disturbing. How many Jews does Sweden have? Germany? And yet both countries are killing themselves by allowing open immigration. The British Jewish community is, compared to the US Jewish community, small and not especially influential, apart from individuals. And then there is Ireland. Jews? Hardly any. Yet these countries are all killing themselves with immigration.

At some point I should just sit down and write out boilerplate responses to all the same old points, I suppose. I've been rewriting them over and over, lo these past ten years. In fact I just responded to this point preemptively in another thread:

I don't claim to have a solid explanation, but as Whiskey's always inadvertently pointing out, America has a Jewish-dominated media and far more Jews in power than Europe, and has a big immigration problem and essentially no nationalist political representation; Europe has a far smaller Jewish presence in the media and political elite, and a far smaller immigration problem and much better nationalist political representation. Britain is an English-speaking country with strong ties to the US, which might explain why it has a bigger immigration problem than most of Europe and less nationalist political representation.

Or maybe it's the Parliamentary system that predominates in Europe? And the fact that Europe wasn't recently colonized? Or all three, inter alia?

You definitely won't catch me disputing your point that Yankees are the enemy.

Answer me this, though, Hag; considering both camps' (philo-Semites and ANTI-SEMITES!!!) arguments, don't you think the ANTI-SEMITES!!! make a more compelling argument? As in:

If the philo-Semites are right, and we suddenly found ourselves without any Jews, would the trains stop running on time? No. We'd lose some intelligent and valuable people, but viewed from a national perspective, it wouldn't be a big deal.

If the ANTI-SEMITES!!! are right, and we suddenly found ourselves without any Jews, we'd stop the ship from sinking. It would mean the difference between dying, and surviving. At the very least, our problems would suddenly become much easier to deal with.

Note I'm not suggesting getting rid of Jews, I'm just laying out a thought experiment. Basically I'm asking you to tell me why I should give a damn about Jews or their interests or what they or their water-carriers find disappointing and disturbing; what's in it for me?

The reason for the suicidal tendencies of the West is Christian maternalism. Taking care of every sick kid is part of Christianity. And puritanical utopianism of the Yankee sort is the worst.

Read Colin Woodard's book about this, American Nations. The Abolitionists were not Jews. The Confederacy had a small but loyal Jewish community.


I think it's reasonable to suppose that a substantial Jewish population tips the balance in favor of national destruction. In other words, a necessary, but not sufficient condition of our current plight.

Anonymous said...

"but the people who blame everything on Jews drag the quality of the site into the toilet. It's disappointing and disturbing. How many Jews does Sweden have? Germany? And yet both countries are killing themselves by allowing open immigration...The reason for the suicidal tendencies of the West is Christian maternalism...And puritanical utopianism of the Yankee sort is the worst."

So criticizing certain aspects of Jewish behavior is obsessive and anti-Semitic, but criticizing Christians, or WASPs, or whomever else is perfectly alright?

You don't have to hate Jews or blame them for everything or hold to bizarro conspiracy theories to know that have disproportionate influence and generally push this country further to the Left than it otherwise would be, especially on matters like immigration which shape our very population. You don't have to hate Jews to know that they (and by "they," of course, I mean most of them, not by any means all of them) are incredible hypocrites on matters like quotas and affirmative action, where it's standard to insist on equality of outcome between whites and blacks but never between Jews and gentiles.

As for immigration, here's the Senate vote for the 2006 amnesty, which passed by 62-36. It's too much work to figure out which senators are "Christian maternalists" or "puritanical utopian Yankees," but it's quite clear that neither of those groups voted entirely for amnesty. On the other hand, I can tell you exactly what share of the 11 Jews then in the Senate voted for amnesty - 100%, including the lone Republican, Arlen Specter.

Matthew said...

"Matthew - lets not forget that David Cameron also has some jewish ancestry too."

I don't give a rat's ass about Cameron's Jewish ancestry. I care about the loyalty of the leaders of the British political parties to the people they're supposed to serve. If you have anything critical of Cameron to write, then feel free to write it.

n/a said...

"How many Jews does Sweden have?"

Under 20,000, according to this source: "In other words, of the seven largest news papers in Sweden, six are either owned by or edited by Jews. And please note, there are fewer than 20,000 Jews in Sweden making up roughly 0.2% of the total population."

"Germany? And yet both countries are killing themselves by allowing open immigration. The British Jewish community is, compared to the US Jewish community, small and not especially influential, apart from individuals."

Yes, I think we can all agree that no Jews ("apart from indviduals") have ever wielded influence over Britain or Germany.

"And then there is Ireland. Jews? Hardly any. Yet these countries are all killing themselves with immigration."

With hardly any Jews in Ireland it is funny how so many end up with vitae like:

Ronit Lentin Head of Sociology, the director of the MPhil in Race, Ethnicity, Conflict, Department of Sociology and founder member of the Trinity Immigration Initiative, Trinity College, Dublin.

Alan Shatter, Fine Gael TD for Dublin South and currently Minister for Justice and Equality and Minister for Defence.

Mervyn Taylor, former Labour Party T.D. and Minister for Equality and Law Reform.

June Levine, feminist, journalist and writer.

Maurice Levitas (1917–2001) (born Dublin) was an anti-fascist who took part in the Battle of Cable Street and fought in the International Brigades during the Spanish Civil War. He is the father of Ruth Levitas.


I'm guessing they come to their politics merely by aping the Puritan local Irish Catholic elites, though.

n/a said...

"Jews, or rather Jews as part of the progressive Judeo-Puritan ruling elite, are the ruling class of the American Empire."

There is no "Puritan" elite today, and it's been at least 250 years since a cohesive "Puritan ruling elite" existed anywhere in the world.

ben tillman said...

And then there is Ireland. Jews? Hardly any.

The point of centralization of wealth and power is to enable as few as possiblel to do as much as possible. Ireland's Minister of Justice Alan Shatter (who is Jewish) is a perfect example of a single person making a huge difference.

Anonymous said...

For the past two years Ireland’s immigration policy has been in the hands of Alan Shatter, a Jew and an outspoken partisan of Israel. Alan Shatter, born and bred in Dublin of Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe, has made it Irish policy to increase Third World immigration to the Emerald Isle. As Minister of Justice, Equality, and Defence, Shatter is exerting his considerable clout to skew the Republic’s Middle East policy, formerly supportive of the Palestinians and critical of Israel, toward Zionist aims.

Before Shatter, the Irish government had taken steps to reduce non-European immigration, including abolishing automatic citizenship for children born to foreigners in Ireland and drastically reducing the admission of asylum seekers. Since taking office in early 2011, after his Fine Gael party ousted the ruling Fianna Fail amid Ireland’s continuing economic woes, Shatter has busied himself with increasing the numbers of Africans and Asians resident in Ireland.

Immigration to Ireland from outside Europe during 2011 was twice that of the previous year. Last year, the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service granted visas to 91 percent of the 88,000 non-Europeans who applied for them (citizens of the twenty-six other member states of the European Union can travel to Ireland without having to obtain a visa). An additional 115,000 migrants from outside Europe were given permission to remain in Ireland in 2012, with India, China, Nigeria, Turkey, and the Philippines among the top six countries of origin. To be sure, the number of permits to non-Europeans to reside in Ireland has declined over the previous two years—but only because Shatter’s ministry has been granting them citizenship, at several times the rate of the preceding years.

Shatter is aggressively promoting new measures to further increase non-European immigration, including making immigration easier for investors and entrepreneurs and their families. More ominously still, he is working industriously to replace existing Irish legislation on foreign immigration, including applications for asylum, with a bill that will, according to Shatter’s stated priorities for the current year, will “radically reform and modernize” Irish immigration law.

Shatter has attempted to veil his immigration policies under the subterfuge of streamlining administrative procedures. After all, while exposed to the same globalist propaganda and pressures as America, the Republic of Ireland is a small and still largely homogeneous nation. It is also a land in which cant about “a nation of immigrants” won’t sell: until only a couple of decades ago, Ireland was a nation of emigrants. And today, Irish unemployment continues to hover at around 15 percent, twice the stated rate in the U.S.


http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2013/03/the-misplaced-minister-ireland-and-israels-alan-shatter/

THE GOVERNMENT in the 1940s did nothing to oppose the extermination of the Jews in Europe, Minister for Justice and Defence Alan Shatter said yesterday.

He also warned that the international community today had to stand up to those such as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran who not only denied the Holocaust but were actively seeking to destroy the state of Israel.

Opening a conference to mark the centenary of the birth of Raoul Wallenberg, the Swedish diplomat who saved more than 50,000 Hungarian Jews from the death camps, the Minister said there were many who did nothing in the face of the industrialised genocide and destruction of European Jewish civilisation.

“Indeed the Irish government of the day sat on its hands. And even after the death camps were liberated, the Irish government denied Jews refuge in Ireland. To those who asked ‘What could I have done?’, the answer must be, ‘Look at what Raoul Wallenberg did’.”


http://www.irishtimes.com/news/state-did-nothing-to-save-jews-says-shatter-1.529216

Anonymous said...

Detroit used to be a great classy highbrow city too--if only the paleos' advice of nuking the Toyota HQ back in the 80s had been followed... Dang immigrants

fnn said...

There is no "Puritan" elite today, and it's been at least 250 years since a cohesive "Puritan ruling elite" existed anywhere in the world.

True, but you have to use some term to designate degraded, deracinated WASPs.

Anonymous said...

"Jews are not so silly as to recognise their guilt and apologise. Nobody yet has got an apology from a Jew. A Jew would reply with: “Did ALL Jews do it?”. This marvellous reply can be equally well used by all of us."

Very good tip actually.

.
"Goodhart:
"Most of us are no longer asked to risk death for our country, but we are asked to pay around one third of our income into a common national pool and, in return, the state manages large bits of infrastructure for us...I fear that large-scale, poorly managed immigration is endangering this social contract."

Support for the welfare state is crumbling with diversity - because people only want to pay into a welfare state if the money is going to their kin. This is a threat to the caste that developed to administer the welfare state who up till now have been the main cheerleaders of mass immigration.

.
"The reason for the suicidal tendencies of the West is Christian maternalism. Taking care of every sick kid is part of Christianity. And puritanical utopianism of the Yankee sort is the worst."

"For the past two years Ireland’s immigration policy has been in the hands of Alan Shatter, a Jew and an outspoken partisan of Israel."

Does Mr Shatter, or any of the 1000s of pro-immigration Jewish pundits in the MSM support unlimited mass immigration into Israel?

.
"Peter Hitchens was right. Brits got bored with themselves, esp after loss of empire."

Nope. A coalition of minorities went to war against the majority population and the dominant culture and they won, mostly because they mounted a successful Pearl Harbor attack on the media and academia before their main assault.

Svigor said...

True, but you have to use some term to designate degraded, deracinated WASPs.

What's wrong with "Anglo-Saxons," you boob?

Matthew said...

"For the past two years Ireland’s immigration policy has been in the hands of Alan Shatter, a Jew and an outspoken partisan of Israel."

Last year Shatter's department approved over 80,000 visa applications, equal to about 1.7% of Ireland's population of 4.7 million. Put that in perspective: if most o those people stay, and if that rate is maintained for 20 years, Ireland's population will increase by 1/3rd from immigration alone, and over 30% of Ireland's population will be immigrants or their children. In just 20 years. The largest share of immigrants come from places like India, China, and Africa.

Shatter has set Ireland on the path to demographic suicide.

Given the amount of bitching we in the USA hear from Irish-Americans about how put-upon their immigrant ancestors were, I'm quite tempted not to care. If any country falls first I'm quite happy to let it be Ireland. But the Irish should sure as hell care.

fnn said...

What's wrong with "Anglo-Saxons," you boob?

That makes it better somehow? Go bite Moldbug, Gottfried, Thrasymachus, David Hackett Fischer and the others who have generated the "Puritan" meme.

fnn said...

"The reason for the suicidal tendencies of the West is Christian maternalism. Taking care of every sick kid is part of Christianity. And puritanical utopianism of the Yankee sort is the worst."


I guess you missed the Redemption and Jim Crow. The White Southerners caused the Yankees to give up on their utopian plans and surrender to white rule in the South after 1876. The issue never regained salience until the rise of the Frankfurt School and Jewish anti-white radicalism when Southern soldiers had outlived their usefulness for the radicals after 1945.

Anonymous said...

Your observations are spot on Whiskey. I Wonder why Bogo over at Spbdl, dislikes you so intensely .

Anonymous said...

You couldn't be more mistaken about globalist Jews. They harbour an intense dislike for all forms of nationslism, especially when it comes to their own people . Small wonder why some of the most vicious critics of Israel are internationalist, leftwing Jews . They're self hatered deluded them into thinking that if the biggest symbol of overt Jewisness disappears of the face of the earth, the rest of the world will forget who they are and will embrace them as their own.