Immigration

There is a view, commonly held, that people have a right to move about the world and pitch their tents anywhere they please. If the intention is to produce a polyglot population, at one level it may seem to be succeeding, at another it can never be successful.

England is a microcosm of what is happening. The same cannot be said for Scotland or Wales; for one thing the weather in those parts is not inviting and far more importantly nor are the economic prospects.

Asylum seeking is largely a fraud. It is an attempt to elicit sympathy for immigrants instead of hostility. Asylum seekers could, in most cases, find sanctuary very much closer to home. That is evidence enough that their real motive is not safety but economic advantage.

The ultimate impossibility of this process of movement can be easily demonstrated. There are 2 billion Chinese the majority of whom supposedly would be better off if they lived in England. There are a billion of Indians of whom for the most part the same could be said. Does anybody suppose that they could be accommodated here or that they could be supported. The presence of even a fraction of them would destroy the very thing they sought to enjoy. Much smaller numbers are already having the same effect.

England, the apparent Mecca for the world's population, was created by the English painfully over centuries (we must not be grudging in our recognition of much help received from the Scots and the Welsh). It is by no means perfect in their own eyes but it is what they have achieved so far. It is theirs. In my view they have a right to say who comes and who goes.

For more than half a century the English have been denied that right by ideologues whom they elect to Parliament and the consequences are all around us. What has been created is not a polyglot society. It is not a society at all but a collection of communities generally not communicating with one another.

A much maligned very senior politician of the last century was wont to say that numbers are of the essence. A few foreigners he would say presented no problems. It is when they are in such numbers as to coalesce into societies of their own that trouble is likely to arise. That is what has happened in England.

Southall near Heathrow was perhaps the first example. For 50 years apart from the buildings it has been barely recognisable as an English town. The indigenous population has moved out. The shops cater for Indian customers and may well be Indian owned. The cinemas show Bollywood films and so on. In areas in Birmingham it has become the same. Likewise in parts of Yorkshire and Lancashire. I saw somewhere that Jack Straw has 30 mosques in his constituency of Blackburn. London itself is a hotchpotch of nationalities. We are told that we should celebrate diversity but it is an untidy mess.

There is nothing new in this. The English (and the Scots) did it in India. If you go into major cities around the Mediterranean you will find a French quarter, an English quarter, a Greek quarter and so on. And the residents in these areas try to recreate their own familiar environment

In Britain today we talk of the Muslim community, the Bangladeshi community, the Kurds, the Somalis, the Afro-Caribbeans and so on, and these communities number themselves not in hundreds but in thousands and tens of thousands. They are able to communicate internally in languages which exclude the natives from any knowledge of what they are up to. The most striking example of this are the Chinese. This language bond is a major factor in keeping them together and defines their separateness.

They also import their own particular crimes. Knife carrying is not an English thing. People smuggling certainly is not. The wholesale so called sex trade, drug smuggling, fraud of every kind including electoral fraud certainly on the scale which exists have been imported.

The real trouble is down the line. Occupation of territory is only one step from owning it. There are two stories which should give those concerned for the future reason to ponder.

The first of these is Fiji. It was a happy go lucky fortunate society. It was blessed by bountiful nature with vegetables in the ground, fruit on its trees and fish in the sea. They wanted nothing more.

Then in the 19th century some enterprising westerners discovered that although the crop was unknown there the climate was ideal for growing sugar cane. In establishing their plantations the same westerners encountered a problem. The Fijians were not inclined to sweat around sugar cane in order to have things for which they had no need. So labour was imported from India. Over more than a century which has passed those few labourers have become the majority population and demanding majority rights they have been supported by the ‘international community‘ and the native Fijians have been effectively dispossessed.

The other case is more recent. Kosovo has been part of Serbia from way back when. However Albanian settlers have moved in and over time have become again the majority population. Again the West/International community is trying to bully Serbia into recognising the independence of Albanian occupied Kosovo. They (the United States and Britain ) bombed the defenceless city of Belgrade, the Serbian capital, in order to dissuade the Serbs from defending their own territory. The aim is to dispossess Serbia. Unfortunately there is another factor here in the existence of significant mineral deposits.

The dream of a polyglot society will never be achieved. Integration, which is said to be the aim, is not happening and will not happen. The indigenous population was intimidated at one time by the fear of being called racist which in the eyes of our ideologues is the greatest crime. Not any more. It is the minorities themselves who are most conscious of their separate identity and determined to maintain it. Moreover there are deep seated hatreds between some of the groups which could produce violence in the streets, which would have nothing to do with Britain, in arguments over territory, over women, over honour, over dignity and the rest. Potentially they are like ferrets in a sack.

Immigration is a threat to every established population. The greater their success in the past the greater the threat. The only way to counter it is by foresight and resolute action. Current generations of politicians are not only blind to the problem or afraid to tackle it but many of them in their heart of hearts want to see the process completed. That is to say that they want to see populations mixed, nation states with their exclusive loyalties eradicated, a world government established and with it the establishment of a professional politician's dream of heaven.