Immigration: playing games
RICHARD NORTH
While the political attention is on Starmer’s welfare “reforms”, life goes on and the grand conspiracy to ensure that the stupid inherit the earth continues unabated.
That much seems to be evident from the launch yesterday of a new “year-long commission” to fix “deepening polarisation” in British society. It is to be led by Pakistani-heritage Sajid Javid, the former Conservative cabinet minister, and the former Labour MP Jon Cruddas.
I’m being generous in assuming stupidity, but that was my first reaction to the commission’s website which opens with the assertion that, “The UK is a thriving, multi-ethnic and multi-faith democracy where most people in towns, cities, and rural areas get on with each other”.
This is straight out of the Fraser Nelson playbook, which is perhaps not surprising as Nelson is on the 22-member commission, along with other dubious characters such as Sunder Katwala, Caroline Lucas and Tim Montgomerie (he of Reform fame).
The obvious fatuity of the opening statement would be laughable, and one can only suppose that those who would endorse it are short on the brain cell count, unless one accepts that darker forces are at play and the nation, once more, is being outrageously gaslit.
In an authored piece co-written by Javid and Cruddas in The Times, the pair try to give an overview of what their commission is all about, the article headlined: “A tinderbox of disconnection and division threatens our democracy”.
It is the sub-head that gives the game away, though, expressing the words of the authors who say: “We must find out what unites us to avoid divisions such as those that led to the racist attacks after the Southport knife attack from deepening further”.
They go on to tell us: “Our commissioners reflect the full breadth of modern British life, from business and faith to civil society, academia, the media and more. In the months ahead, we will begin a UK-wide process of engagement, reaching into communities that are too often left out of national conversations. Asking: what unites us? What divides us? And what would bring us closer together?”.
Speaking personally, even if these were tasks that lay within the realm of the possible, I see the commission members as a group least likely to achieve them. But what they are setting out to do lies not so much in the realm of the impossible as in a fantasy world that only the terminally stupid or the irredeemably wicked could embrace.
In the Telegraph, Javid tries to obscure the issues even further, telling us that communal life in Britain is under threat like never before and intervention is urgently needed.
Rather than pin it on mass immigration, he wants us to accept that: “There have been long-term, chronic issues undermining connections within our communities for several decades now, such as the degradation of local infrastructure from the local pub to churches, the weakening of family units, growing inequality, declining trust in institutions and persistent neglect from policy-makers”.
Only then does he concede that there have been “in more recent years, new threats like the mismanagement of immigration”, but he ties these in with cost of living pressures and social media driven extremism, which he asserts “have begun to turn this crisis of social disconnection into an acute threat of social division”.
He then warn that these multifarious issues are now “converging into something dangerous”, adding: “The country is now sitting on a tinderbox of disconnection and division”.
Collectively, his band of commissioners hope their project can help capture “a shared vision of how we want to live together”- without specifically mentioning immigration – and form a policy agenda to take us towards it.
They also hope to be able to “prompt a national conversation about the kind of country we want to build”, asserting that “if, as citizens, we decide we want to build a country based on kinder, closer and more connected communities, politics will have no choice but to follow”.
What these stupid (or malign – make your own choice) people do not allow for is the premise that would undoubtedly attract the majority support of the indigenous population; simply that we don’t want to live together, not in a multicultural society saturated by million of unassimilated third-worlders who neither want to be part of our society nor are capable of subscribing to our values.
But an equally substantive point is that there are very large and growing ghetto communities which have no intention of integrating and – as I suggested yesterday – are seeking (and securing) cultural dominance in the ever-expanding areas that they occupy, while gradually subverting civic society and the democratic process, moulding institutions to serve their sectarian needs.
On that basis, even if we made the effort to define “how we want to live together”, the ethnic communities who themselves are fracturing our society are not disposed to listen. And it would be fruitless forming a policy agenda to put that vision into effect, as those communities have their own agendas.
The fact is that, after decades of unrestrained – and unwanted – mass migration – we are no longer in a position to define the shape and tenor of our society. Those decisions have been taken from us and lie in the hands of aliens in our midst who threaten in the not-too-distant future to outnumber us, fundamentally changing the character of our nation.
To set up this commission, therefore, is waste of time. The prospect of “kinder, closer and more connected communities” is a distant, unrealisable dream – that ship sailed long ago.
Given this, one might suspect that the commission is merely as cynical exercise aimed at diverting our attention from the need urgently to contain the existential threat posed by the influx of alien souls.
Very few will actually be interested in the findings of this commission as the indigenous population are increasingly defining their own remedy, in terms of mass deportation, or remigration if you prefer.
In the interim, the real need is to devise policies which will reduce the impact of immigrant communities on our society and, in particular, reduce the harmful effects of their sectarian behaviours.
Yesterday also I was writing of academic Patrick Nash’s observations on the Mirpuri baradari kinship groups, which he said, “represent one of the most underappreciated threats to democratic governments in the 21st century”.
The diasporas are gaining increasing political and electoral influence over Western societies, he said. In the UK, for example, foreign policy towards South Asia is now “strongly influenced by a skilful and far-reaching Pakistani lobby” whose members ‘constitute an important – perhaps even decisive – political constituency in some marginals”.
What increasingly becomes apparent, though – if it was not already obvious – is that there is no single “immigration problem”. Each of the ethnic communities create their own problems, so that the stresses created by Mirpuri baradari kinship groups in Bradford and many of the northern towns are not the same as those created by gangs of feral youths of Jamaican extraction (the real Windrush legacy) in the inner London boroughs and elsewhere.
Should a remigration policy be adopted, even its most optimistic proponents acknowledge that this will be some way off and will have to be phased in over a period of years. In the interim, therefore, there is still and will continue to be a pressing need to mitigate the worst effects of the different cultures imposed on us.
With so many different cultures, it stands to reason that, in many cases, the actions taken will have to be tailored to specific communities – there are no (or very few) one-size-fits-all solutions.
For the Mirpuri baradari problem, academics such as Patrick Nash see a partial solution in banning cousin marriage which he sees as the Velcro which acts as a social ‘sealing mechanism’ to block cultural interchange.
That point is picked up by Matthew Syed, who argues that the groups are cemented by cousin marriage, a view endorsed by Tory MP Richard Holden who is leading a campaign against it. Even Badenough is taking an interest.
For my part, I am not sure they are right in their focus. Baradari is a social structure which demands consanguinity, so cousin marriage is an effect, not the cause of the problem. Ban it in the UK and marriages will take place in Kashmir, as they already do, making the practice almost impossible to stamp out without the active cooperation of the Pakistani authorities – which is unlikely to be achieved.
What this does show up is the remarkable ignorance of the nature of the Kashmiri baradari – Nash and Syed call them clans, which they are not – and the way they have mutated in the British environment, some becoming Mafia-like crime syndicates. We should be tackling the source of the problem, rather then the symptoms.
This is an area to which I will devote more attention in future blogposts and if the Javid/Cruddas commission was at all honest in its intent, it would be doing likewise, addressing real issues rather than seeking to create fantasy communities, on the basis of spurious ills.
And even if their failure to do so is malign rather than stupid, they are certainly exhibiting profound stupidity if they believe that we are at all taken in by their games.
This article (Immigration: playing games) was created and published by Turbulent Times and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Richard North
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply