The Big Multicultural Lie

The British have been lied to by the people we should be able to trust. Our government, our democratic mass media and our educational system. And the lie has been a big one. As big as they come. We have been told that we are all benefiting from living in a multicultural society, a society we as a people chose.

Can you ever remember being asked to choose to live in a multicultural society? No. I can’t. Perhaps it happened before my time. But that also is false. No party has ever campaigned on the basis of creating a multicultural society or increasing immigration, just as no party has ever campaigned on the basis of abolishing capital punishment or giving all our decision-making powers away to the European Union. I am not saying that those issues were never mentioned in party manifestos, just that they have never been the driving force of any political campaign because they are not something that the people wanted or could ever be expected to want. It is not and never has been in the interests of the majority of Britain, the working class, to want large numbers of immigrants to come into the country.

It was a kind of madness of the worst kind to invite in immigrants to plug a temporary shortfall of labour when Britain was suffering the consequences of boom and over-full employment. There were jobs to be done that the natives didn’t want to do for the money. In what way was it smart to invite in foreigners to do those jobs and settle here permanently? If these jobs were beneath the dignity of the natives would the immigrants be happy to be a lower paid undignified caste of untouchables for ever?

There is a simple way to get dirty unpleasant jobs done, it works like a charm: you increase the pay to 50% more than average wages and keep the working conditions good, not too many hours, long holidays, pensions and other benefits and so on. You treat the valued workers doing essential jobs as if you valued them and found them essential. If 50% extra doesn’t work try double average wages. This is a radical economic approach, it’s called supply and demand, or the price mechanism. The appropriate response to a temporary labour shortage is wage rises or temporary workers, not permanent migrants. Bust follows boom as surely as night follows day. Migrants drawn in when the economy is expanding are usually just beginning to settle down and start families when the inevitable bust comes.

In a country where welfare is fairly mean to non-existent migrants that aren’t succeeding tend to return home while they still have the fare. After all, if you are going to be poor or underemployed you are more comfortable doing that at home. In countries with generous welfare payments, such as most of western and northern Europe, there is another option, just take the welfare payments and still be better off than the family back in the home village. Welfare payments put in place for our people are easily taken up by migrants. Naturally this breeds resentment, bitterness and anger. When politicians pretend the problem doesn’t exist things rapidly go from bad to worse.

If anybody dares express sentiments against indiscriminate immigration then they are immediately attacked as being right wing and racist. It is not racist to have a sane immigration policy. This has nothing to do with race, unwanted immigrants cause problems because they are unwanted, not because of their race. Were white Australians in the nineteen fifties being racist when they complained about Poms? No. The new immigrants came from the same stock as the earlier immigrants who formed Australia’s white majority, but they were recent migrants, and recent migrants cause problems until they integrate and get up to speed with the community they are entering. Most of the British and Irish who went to Australia in the mid decades of the last century are now fully Australian, they’ve even voted one into becoming their Prime Minister. It is inevitable that in-comers will create some hostility when they first arrive and in their first two years while they acclimatize and acculturate, only the very small-minded make a big issue of this. Most decent people are prepared to give people a fair go, as the Australians have it. However, the degree to which people will accept in-comers is dependent upon how far the in-comers make visible efforts to adapt. When the in-comers make no efforts at all then the host community, and yes, it is appropriate to use the same terminology as biologists use to describe parasites, the host community is fully justified in being aggrieved.

Nobody expects Pakistanis or Somalis to start to go to St Cuthbert’s church and arrange the flowers. It is quite reasonable to expect people to continue their own religion and wear their old national dress when they have family celebrations such as weddings but it is not reasonable for immigrants to make no concessions at all to the fact that they are living in a foreign country without being invited or welcome. It is not reasonable for the immigrants to refuse to fraternize with the natives for fear of moral contagion. Nobody expects the stay-at-home wives of immigrants to speak the language without a hint of an accent but it is reasonable to expect them to speak English to their British-born children. Not to do so is not just a betrayal of the implicit contract of immigration (you try to fit in and we’ll let you) it is a form of child abuse. Bringing up a British-born child without speaking English at home and without any exposure to British media is child abuse and I seriously suggest that the social services treat it accordingly. It is entirely unacceptable that a British-born child is brought up only knowing a minority’s culture and how to speak the language spoken in a community which comprises eight rows of streets in this town and a similar sized area of another blighted town a hundred and fifty miles away. Those are children born and bred to fail, good for nothing but sucking on the welfare tit of a country they are taught to despise.

Refusing to adjust to dress like the natives is not just a quaint peculiarity, it is a sign of rejection, aggression and a belief in their inherent moral superiority. It is one thing to have a youth sub-culture dressing to show their disapproval of mainstream society and its values, teenagers grow up, in most cases at least, it is another thing entirely for such sub-cultures to exist as their own language communities, segregating themselves into different parts of a city and wearing distinctive clothes and identifying themselves with dress codes, passwords and signs for all the world like a criminal gang, except one defined by tribe and religious sect. A gang which indoctrinates its children and reacts with violence when anybody attempts to frustrate that indoctrination with honest education.

Britain has not been benefited by immigration or by multiculturalism. There has been collateral damage and equally accidental benefits which fail to outweigh the harm. Does anybody really think that the chicken tikka masala and the donner kebab are a major advance that we would be immeasurably poorer without? If a food is worth eating we can cook it ourselves. Britain is not awash with Japanese, Thais and Mexicans but we can buy their food. We do have Americans living in Britain but, by and large, American-style restaurants are run by people who have never lived in America, copying a cuisine style is not difficult. Britain could have been a modern outward looking country without ever having to change the composition of the population. We had the wrong leadership and the wrong ideas, we needed a better script and better direction, not a different cast.

Britain has been importing the best of what the world has to offer for years. Free trade is a great thing. So is international travel, so is studying overseas and having students from abroad study with us. You don’t have to have half the world live in your town to be a grown-up sensible world citizen at home in our new electronic global village.

I understand that some people reading my words now will be products of the policy in the past that I am decrying. You really should not work from the assumption that whatever forces made you must be good forces. Would you do that if you were the result of incest, rape or war? None of us owe any special respect for the accidents or mistakes or even the planning behind our birth. My own existence is dependent upon my maternal grandparents’ petit-bourgeois social aspirations and my father’s academic prowess, factors which caused my parents to share the same train to go to different schools, that doesn’t oblige me to support any particular education policy or railway timetable for fear that I will be magicked out of existence by a retro-firing blast of hypocrisy-fuelled karma. Neither does the recognition that the multicultural experiment has failed, and failed spectacularly, require anybody to apologize for their genes or hate themselves. If you are British and living in Britain and you want to live a British way of life then that’s great. I don’t care if you are as black as ebony or whiter than a Scotsman. I don’t even care what your religion is, as long as you intend to live a British way of life while you live in Britain. If you plan to live by a foreign code of shame and honour, violence and prejudice or a system of law of your own then as far as I am concerned you’re not and never will be welcome, and I don’t care what your passport says or what you thought you were lead to believe.

There are a wide variety of ways of being British, we’re not narrow-minded, but neither are we so open-minded that we will accept anything and everything. We maintain a defence system to ensure that we are not invaded, oppressed or coerced by foreign governments. But we also need to be wary about smaller scale and less well-disciplined ad hoc invasions. When people go from one country to another with no intention of fitting in they are invaders or colonizers. Britain has never required a new class of foreigners living here, and neither have we ever requested that people come and give us an injection of a new vital culture, as if we didn’t have the capacity to generate our own novel cultural ideas without the help of some poor foreigners. If we need new foreign ideas we will watch television or even visit the rest of the world and bring the good ideas back, just the ones we like, not all the ones the foreigners happen to like. India, yes please curries and exotic fabrics and a little bit of spiritual enlightenment but multi-armed gods, dowries and widow-burning, caste and grinding poverty and extreme conspicuous consumption, and tuberculosis come to that, no thanks. Thailand, coconut milk curries yes, child prostitution no. Jamaica, Red Stripe and jerk seasoning yes, yardies no. Pakistan, some of your food yes, and errr, that’s about it actually. Somalia. Errrrrrrr. No, nothing at all comes to mind. Sorry about that. You have nothing we want. You’re just one of those places that we need to have to ensure the planet is big enough to provide the gravity we need. You’re ballast. Like Kazakhstan, and almost everywhere South of Melbourne.

There’s a place for doing things in foreign ways. For doing things wrong. It’s called abroad, and our island people have always found that there’s lots of it to choose from.

The exits are clearly marked.

3 Comments

  1. “There is a simple way to get dirty unpleasant jobs done, it works like a charm: you increase the pay to 50% more than average wages and keep the working conditions good, not too many hours, long holidays, pensions and other benefits and so on.”

    Excellent idea and based on sound economic principles. I know the political left gets a lot of the blame for promoting “multiculturalism”, although I believe this was mostly done after the fact when the numbers of immigrants were already large. But I think we should also note the culpability of the corporate class which saw a stream of new arrivals as an unending source of cheap labor and higher profits. While the left, imbued with the communalist elements of liberal Christianity, promoted “tolerance” (while bribing the electorate with the promise of welfare and cementing a relationship with the immigrant community), the capitalists were reaping real benefits.

    1. Just who is behind immigration? It certainly isn’t our people willing the immigrants in on a wave of love, although it does seem like they are trying to fake that welcome now. Why? Can they really believe that if all the poor of the world came to the west they would become hard working successful people and teach us all some new exciting recipes, dances, hairstyles and make up techniques?

  2. I suppose there have been refugees as long as there have been wars. I can see, given our “Christian” culture, that simply turning our backs and denying them a haven might seem a bit harsh. But why not a temporary welcome, a place in an internment facility (a decent one), and free passage back to their country of origin when the conflict is over? I’m assuming that these are innocent people displaced by war, not belligerents deserting the battle. I think any war torn country would welcome a return of citizens who had to flee for their lives.

    As far as economic immigration, it is out of control. Sure, some countries might benefit from an influx of skilled foreign professionals but the proper order of business would be for these potential migrants to apply for visas in their home country through well-established procedures, not to simply arrive uninvited and expect to be welcomed, housed, and hired.

    What troubles my sleep is the suspicion that it is too late for any remedy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.