A couple of months ago I watched a BBC documentary about Slough in England called ‘Life in immigration town’. The white British population there is now down to 34% and some of the remaining whites, seeing there hometown is now unrecognisable from the place where they grew up and feeling this is no longer their home, are moving away to places that still resemble the Britain of old.
To give the BBC credit, at least they made this documentary about immigration, and I thought the program was fair-minded enough, interviewing all sorts and not just lovely foreigners and bulldog-like Brits.
The position of the reporter himself, Richard Bilton (pictured above), seemed to be that since unemployment in Slough was only 1%, thus proving that immigrants were not taking jobs from the locals, and since many local businesses preferred to employ foreigners to Brits because the former were often better workers, then what was there to get upset about unless, of course, you are a far-right racist bigot? Since Richard Bilton clearly thought that there was nothing wrong with the 34% figure, I started wondering if there was a percentage of Brits in a British town that he would consider too low. 24% perhaps? 14%? 4%? His position seemed to be that immigrants could replace the entire British population of Slough, or even of Great Britain come to that, and as long as the economy was thriving it really didn’t matter.
At one point he accused the Slough police of racism when one officer he interviewed agreed with the Slough public that only the Gypsies caused significant social problems. This completely accurate observation was apparently racist because it was a generalisation about a whole ethnic group. Presumably Richard Bilton knew, or had heard talk of, a Gypsy somewhere in England who wasn’t a thieving, anti-social rat.
This is an argument often used by people keen to show how open-minded they are. They refuse to see patterns in group behaviour. They are happy enough to let pass the claim that blacks are better than whites at sport, or that men are more aggressive and get paid more than women, without adding ‘in general’ or ‘on average’. However, if you say that Gypsies are more antisocial than other groups, that the knock-out game is a black pastime and that Muslims integrate less well and pose more of a danger to western populations than other groups, you will be called a racist and bigot for tarring entire ethnic groups, races and religions with the same brush.
Yet even if you do remember to qualify your claim with ‘in general’ or ‘on average’ the Richard Biltons of this world have an answer for that too. They, unlike bigoted you, see people as individuals and not as representatives of a group. Why, they exclaim, they barely even notice if the person they are talking to is black or white, man or woman, able-bodied or wheelchair-bound. They are blind to such artificial and divisive categories. They won’t indulge in pigeonholing because an individual belongs to many diverse groups at the same time. He is a father, a grocer, a Muslim, an Asian, a pensioner and Labour voter all at the same time. Besides, categorising people was what the Nazis did and look where that ended.
Really? All Nazis categorised people? Isn’t that pigeonholing Nazis? Whatever. These people have trained themselves not to notice certain patterns in human behaviour because they believe that would be racist or sexist. Yet humans can’t help but notice. And if we treated everyone and everything we encountered as a one-off then nothing in the world would make sense to us.
The purpose of their argument is of course to find equivalence everywhere. So if they can find a single white person who has ever taken part in the knock-out game, or spot a lone east Asian in the crowd at the London Riots, or point to a suicide bomber who isn’t Muslim then, they claim, there are no patterns to detect, only prejudice and bigotry.
The more time goes by, the more I see the split on immigration between the BBC ideology on the one hand and the British National Party ideology on the other. In the real world these are manifested less extremely by liberal America (BBC) and Japan (BNP). The first is a ‘proposition nation’ where if you agree with our ‘proposition’, you’re one of us. Japan is more about having native Japanese genes and if you have them, you’re one of us. Both positions look odd at their extremes. If a Somali arrives in New York today and claims to agrees with the American ‘proposition’ – whatever that is – then he’s as American as George Washington. And if some thick-as-two-short-planks scumbag has our native genes, he is ‘one of us’. Really? More so than the educated, urbane Asian doctor who lives down the road?
For England I naturally lean towards the Japan model for a couple of reasons. One is that if our island were under-populated I would welcome ‘good’ immigrants from anywhere. But England is already over-populated. We don’t need any more people.
Also, if there were some way of rounding up all our stupid, ignorant, feckless white chavs and shipping them out to some rock in the middle of the Atlantic and dumping them there in exchange for industrious, civil Asian doctors then of course I would do that. The problem is that that isn’t allowed and we are stuck with our white trash whatever we do.
Lastly, it seems to me the Japanese model is more stable in the long term and has fewer ‘fault lines’ running through it i.e. social divisions, or what some breezily call ‘diversity’.