Category Archives: Multiculturalism

Upper-Crust Brit Publication Blames Enoch Powell’s 1968 Immigration Warning For … Everything Bad

Britain, Criminal Injustice, Government, IMMIGRATION, Multiculturalism, Nationhood, Race, Racism

The Economist claims Enoch Powell’s 1968, April 20th “rivers of blood” speech, “before an audience of Conservative Party activists in the Midland Hotel in Birmingham,” was completely wrong in its predictions.

More than wrong. Not only does The Economist assert that Powell’s claims have been “disproved”; but that despite Britain’s relatively recent “superdiversity”; the “conflagration that Powell predicted has not materialised.”

Nice to know. And, if only.

First, a refresher:

… Powell’s “rivers of blood” speech, so named after the peroration … was a direct and provocative assault on immigration from the Commonwealth, quoting the fears of one constituent that “in 15 or 20 years’ time, the black man will have the whip hand over the white man.” It caused outrage at the time—Powell was sacked from the Tories’ front bench—and still does. Many objected even to an actor reading out his words in a recent BBC radio programme to mark the anniversary. …
… Powell’s main contention was that if mass immigration continued, there would be civil strife. “Like the Roman,” he warned, “I seem to see ‘the River Tiber foaming with much blood’.” The line was from Virgil but the apocalyptic tone was borrowed from America, ablaze with riots after the murder of Martin Luther King on April 4th that year. Powell, “filled with foreboding”, implied that Britain could not continue to absorb the current number of immigrants without mass violence. …
…The subsequent 50 years have disproved that idea. Today’s levels of immigration dwarf those at the time of Powell’s speech (see chart). About 14% of Britain’s population is foreign-born, nearly treble the proportion in 1968. Non-whites made up 14% of the population at the last census, in 2011; non-British whites (mainly Europeans) a further 5%. A tenth of adults reported that they were in mixed-race relationships. All this might have shocked Powell, who died in 1998. Yet the conflagration that he predicted has not materialised. …
… Birmingham itself provides as good a case study as any. Today half of all the non-white people in Britain live in the three largest cities of London, Birmingham and Manchester. Birmingham exemplifies the trend towards what academics call superdiversity. In the past, minority ethnic groups tended to cluster together. Now, unprecedented numbers of people of different ethnicities are mixing. No ward in Birmingham has fewer than 32 ethnic groups, says Jenny Phillimore of Birmingham University. At the extreme is Handsworth, whose 31,000 residents hail from 170 different countries. Here, says Ms Phillimore, “virtually everyone can fit in”.

That “everyone can fit in” may be true if you ignore the nobodies in this equation: white-British and Irish people.” There is,

less contact between whites and ethnic minorities. There has been some “white flight” from superdiverse areas … as whites have moved out of the poorer areas where migrants gather, to the suburbs. The end result is that “minorities are mixing with each other, but less so with the white British.”
… An official review into integration in 2016 by Dame Louise Casey found that white-British and Irish people were the least likely to have ethnically mixed social networks.

Alas, “Perfidious Albion” is not worried about “white-British and Irish people,” presumably there before the rest—but about “Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities. They have the lowest levels of English-language proficiency of any minority group; more than a fifth of Muslim women cannot speak the language well.”

NEW COLUMN: Is Diversity Driving Decline In The White Population?

America, IMMIGRATION, Multiculturalism, Race, Racism, The West

NEW COLUMN: “Is Diversity Driving Decline In The White Population?” It’s now on WorldNetDaily.com and American Renaissance.

And excerpt:

An “aging white population [is] speeding [up] diversity,” blared a headline in The Hill.

Could this be a case of confusing cause-and-effect? Are the two trends—whites dying-out and minorities thriving—really spontaneous and strictly parallel?

The reverse is likely true. Corrected, The Hill headline should have read:

Could speeding up diversity contribute to a decline in the white population?

We learn that “there are growing signs that the rate of change is increasing.” Well of course. America welcomes well over 1 million, mostly non-white, immigrants a year.

If white lives mattered at all to the liberal establishment, an inquiry would ensue:

Is it possibility that an enormous influx of legal and illegal migrants over decades is playing a role in the decline of America’s founding population? (A similar, sad fate was visited on their predecessors, the Amerindians.)

On the one hand, we have the drastic, ongoing decline of America’s white population; on the other, a massive, incessant inpouring of minority immigrants, since 1965. A correlation between the two is not impossible.

A large, well-controlled national survey conducted by Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam, in 2006, found that diversity immiserates and that the historic population is most affected.

Perhaps protracted misery associated with loss of community hastens death?

The logic posits a zero-sum game. The native population has been swamped over time. Resources are scarce—especially when allocated by a wastrel, white-hating Administrative State. In hating on whites, civil society’s institutions are as culpable.

Is it not highly plausible, then, that immigration social engineering, compounded by state policies that privilege non-white newcomers, could contribute to a population decline in white America? …

… READ THE REST. “Is Diversity Driving Decline In The White Population?” is now on WorldNetDaily.com and American Renaissance.

Trashing Populism: Dim-Bulb Academic Vs. Deplorables

IMMIGRATION, Multiculturalism, Nationhood, Political Economy, Political Philosophy, Populism

The NEW COLUMN, “Trashing Populism: Dim-Bulb Academic Vs. Deplorables,” exposes populism-bashing elites like Kevin D. Williamson, formerly of National Review, who said this about about Deplorables: “The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die”:

An excerpt:

To say that academic elites don’t like ordinary folks is to state the obvious.

To them, Lanford, Illinois—the fictional, archetypal, working-class town, made famous by Roseanne and Dan Conner—is not to be listened to, but tamed.

A well-functioning democracy depends on it.

Taming Fishtown—Charles Murray’s version of Landford—is the thread that seems to run through  a new book, “The People vs. Democracy,” by one Yascha Mounk.

You guessed it. Mr. Mounk is not an American from the prairies; he’s a German academic, ensconced at Harvard, and sitting in judgment of American and European populism.

If only he were capable of advancing a decent argument.

“The number of countries that can plausibly be described as democracies is shrinking,” laments Mounk (“Populism and the Elites,” The Economist, March 17, 2018):

“Strongmen are in power in several countries that once looked as if they were democratizing … The United States—the engine room of democratization for most of the post-war period—has a president who taunted his opponent with chants of ‘lock her up’ and refused to say if he would accept the result of the election if it went against him.”

Elites ensconced in the academy are likely selected into these mummified institutions for a certain kind of ignorance about political theory or philosophy.

Plainly put, a chant, “lock her up,” is speech, nothing more. This Trump-rally chant might be impolite and impolitic, but on the facts, it’s not evidence of a “strongman.”

Notice how, deconstructed, nearly every utterance emitted by the technocratic and academic elites turns out to be empty assertion?

Even the subtitle of the book under discussion is sloppy political theory: “Why Our Freedom is in Danger and How to Save It” implies that democracy is the be-all and end-all of liberty. Quite the opposite.

America’s Constitution-makers did everything in their power (except, sadly, heed the Anti-Federalists) to thwart a dispensation wherein everything is up for grabs by government, in the name of the people. …

… READ THE REST. NEW COLUMN IS “Trashing Populism: Dim-Bulb Academic Vs. Deplorables.” It’s available also on WND.com, Constitution.com, the Unz Review, and others.

UPDATE III (4/27): Land Confiscation? Fuhgeddaboudit! More Myth-Making About South Africa. This Time From The Economist

Africa, Crime, Individual Rights, Media, Multiculturalism, Private Property, Propaganda, Socialism, South-Africa

Here they go again. The know-nothing, groupie media.

South Africa’s President, Cyril Ramaphosa, has only just announced he’ll proceed apace with land confiscation. But no sooner than a new South African tyrant shows his true colors, than old idiots show theirs. The Economist ignores—or is unprepared to wrestle with the meaning of—the despicable promise made by the new president. Instead, they get down to the business of perpetuating the myth of a multicultural, peaceful country bequeathed by Saint Mandela, and subverted by one man alone: Jacob Zuma.

But the reality is that, “In Africa, You Oust A Tyrant, Not Tyranny”:

The seductive narrative about the ANC’s new boss, Cyril Ramaphosa, gets this much right: There is nothing new about the meaningless game of musical chairs enacted throughout Africa like clockwork. The Big Man is overthrown or demoted; another Alpha Male jockeys his way into his predecessor’s position and asserts his primacy over the people and their property.

The delusions via The Economist:

Mr Ramaphosa steps into the presidency he will be able to tap a deep well of goodwill that he earned in his previous careers, as a trade unionist and then as a businessman. In less than two months since Mr Ramaphosa became head of the party, South Africa’s currency rose to its strongest level against the dollar in almost three years. The prospect of his presidency has already inspired some of the optimism that greeted that of Nelson Mandela, who was elected president in 1994 and who had wanted Mr Ramaphosa to be his successor.

After Mr Ramaphosa lost out to Thabo Mbeki, who was elected president in 1999, he told friends he would not be outfoxed again. His record as a negotiator, leading the ANC side in talks to end apartheid, had already marked him as patient and prudent, and he put both attributes to use in his long struggle to supplant Mr Zuma. Optimistic South Africans speculate that he may pick up Mandela’s mantle.

UPDATE I (3/12):

Right to self-defense?

Right to life?

And the carnage continues:

Socialism is the default position of the evil and the envious. And thus of most of humanity. Socialism is a secondary issue in South-African politics. It’s dumb to reduce race hatred etched on thousands of mutilated bodies to … Stalinism:

Joel Pollak:

Complete convergence of liberalism & conservatism on South Africa:

Handing over commercial farms to subsistence “farmers”:

Refugees:

It was on the cards. Always:

Didn’t have to “predict” land theft. The ANC was candid. They promised it.

UPDATE II (3/26):


Peter Dutton:


And always, RIP:

UPDATE III (4/5-018): Crime beloved country.

UPDATE IV (4/27): Ramaphosa is off to England, where his Highness will get the royal treatment.