If your goal is to achieve the greatest fulfilment of the greatest number of citizens in society, then rigid Stalinist denial of reality will never get you there. Yet another piece of quantitative research just released shows that systemic ideology ignoring the wiring of our species will produce only a vale of tears. The Slog reports.
The background
Perhaps, like many people, you are creeping about from day to day feeling guilty about having a negative view of uncontrolled immigration into your country. You may be Hungarian, or Polish, French or English. You may be Singaporean or Romanian.
You could be entertaining doubts based on the potential harm to a culture you love. You may simply feel there just isn’t any more room in your land. You might be thinking, “We’re almost bankrupt as it is, so how on Earth are we going to house and provide welfare for new people?” If you’re over 60 – and a bunch of bare-faced, robbing pols just took six years of your pension away with two year’s notice – you’re probably wondering why the Government seems to care more about new arrivals than it does about stalwart senior citizens.
Now, the ‘progressive’ regiments – those with such a high self-regard, they dub themselves ‘good’ to suggest that any other outlook is ‘bad’ – will be very quick to inform you that your views are nasty, bigoted, unnatural and sufficient to render you unrepresentative scum.
Sadly for the anti-empiricist Establishment liberal-Left, yet more research has just been conducted to prove them – as usual – completely wrong.
The News
A new study – by Ipsos Mori – shows that in 22 countries across the globe, over twice as many citizens are opposed to immigration as those who are for it.
To be precise, a negative view of immigration is shared by 45% of people. Only 20% see immigration as a positive thing. The sample size – just over 16,000 – leaves almost no margin for error.
In Italy, France and Belgium, the anti figure is 60%. All three are major players in the European Union, whose official line is that immigration is A Good Thing.
What’s the learning behind the News?
- The first learning is that the Establishment’s opinion leaders aren’t learning anything from four decades of enforcing their bad science on everyone else
- Social anthropologists have been showing – through field studies – over much of that time that the enforcement of liberal myths is dangerous, in that it hands the advantage to rabble rousers like Geert Wilders and Donald Trump
- There is a very real and consistently observable difference between immigrants at odds with the host culture, and those who aren’t. The latter integrate quickly and – on the whole – with minimal unpleasantness
- The biggest single flaw in the multicultural social model is that it refuses to accept the recurring unwillingness of extreme ideologies and religions to adopt the mores and values of the host culture. Ethnicity and nationality are red herrings: the problems begin when an oil culture collides with a water culture. Be they Nazis in the 1937 Sudetenland, Muslims in 1945 India, the IRA in 1970s Ulster or Jihadists in 2016 Brussels, the end result is always the same: murderous atrocities
- The persistent attempt to brand the indigenous rejectors of alien cultures as racists, fascists, Nazis (and other casually applied boo-terms) will in the end produce the collapse of every deaf élite that follows this foolish path.
It is not and never has been my aim to set one gender, ethnicity, age band, sexual orientation or social class against another. Nevertheless, I am bound to point out that it suits the soi-disant progressive tendency to treat every migrant culture as equally assimilable….and thus, every opponent of over-demanding migrant extremism as a catch-all bigot.
A few people in Parliament – like Kate Hoey, Dennis Skinner, David Davis and John Redwood – are wise enough to realise that the aurally challenged Establishment lives in a hermetically-sealed bubble. They regularly defy the Party Line when it is at odds with the voter’s common sense.
But they are a tiny (and shrinking) minority.
Of course our legislators should try to lead by example when confronted with herd bigotry. And many brave MPs did this in the 1960s and 1970s to decriminalise homosexuality, catch the Kray Gang, oppose Wilson’s Uriah Heep support of LBJ, jail City spivs and attack some brutal trade union tactics.
However, there is no courage whatsoever involved in traipsing into the voting lobbies day after day to support the hypocritical and ignorant snobbery of Tim Yeo, Harriet Harman, Boris Johnson and Dianne Abbot.
I support Jeremy Corbyn because his heart is genuinely with robbed pensioners, the struggling disabled, constitutional freedoms and exploited youngsters.
But his rigid “no limits on immigration” will prove to be just one more millstone dropped onto the Labour Party spine; the one, probably, that renders it paraplegic.
The Slog 