Multiculturalist Ideology (Part Two): The Rising Tide of Race War Politics

By Michael William

The background against which the multiculturalism arose.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Michael William
• Release date: May 9, 2018
• ISBN: 9780463946343

Michael William

Michael William is a qualified accountant, has an Honours degree in Business Studies, and a Masters degree in Globalization and Governance.

Book preview

INTRODUCTION

The English Rights Campaign blog has published items broadly covering patriotic issues since 2005. The initial 2005 posts contained items that had been written earlier. Included over the years are blog posts covering issues of immigration, multiculturalism and related issues.

The blog is, therefore, a basic record of political events and is a useful source to present the background against which both The Parekh Report and Kymlicka's books (Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights and Politics in the Vernacular: Nationalism, Multiculturalism and Citizenship) were written. As can be seen below, The Parekh Report was a part of the escalating onslaught of hostility against the West, Britain in particular, and Kymlicka was oblivious to the consequences of all around him.

This book presents a collection of English Rights Campaign posts in chronological order. The blog posts chosen are relevant to set out the background in which the present multiculturalist ideology has arisen. The posts, at times, demonstrate the fatuity and dangerousness of multiculturalism.

The conclusion highlights the more important posts and describes the baselessness of the case advocated by The Parekh Report and Kymlicka.

A full analysis of multiculturalism and nationhood is contained in The Genesis of Political Correctness: The Basis of a False Morality and especially in the chapter: 'Citizenship and National Identity'. A full analysis of the economic costs of immigration is contained in The Ponzi Class: Ponzi Economics, Globalization and Class Oppression in the 21st Century in the chapter: 'Ponzi Economics'; the supposed economic arguments in favour of mass immigration are hogwash. Both of these books are available from Amazon, Kindle, and CreateSpace.

Wednesday, February 16, 2005

IMMIGRATION

1968 – Birmingham

‘Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. So insane are we that we actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of founding a family with spouses and fiancées whom they have never seen.’

– Enoch Powell.

posted by erc @ 5:36 pm

Wednesday, February 16, 2005

IMMIGRATION

24 January 2005

As the general election looms, it is time for the Tories to put on a show of getting tough on immigration – especially when they are behind in the polls. This performance has been repeated over the last 40 years.

The latest promises from the Tories are that they will: put round the clock security on ports; curb work permits with the introduction of a points system for immigration; give the UNHCR the role of deciding which asylum seekers enter the UK; and arrange for other countries to hold asylum seekers wanting to come to the UK.

The Tories further committed to withdrawing the UK from the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees, and also amending the Human Rights Act. The Tories further believe that parliament would annually set quotas for the number of immigrants let into the country.

The proposals sound good, but within hours it was all unravelling. The Tories were unable to identify a single country which was likely to agree to allow asylum seekers to be held and processed in their countries. The UNHCR condemned the proposals and said that they would refuse to co-operate.

This is what comes of trying to manoeuvre others into taking responsibility for immigration. Why ever should the UNHCR decide who enters the UK? And the commitment to allow parliament to set an annual total for the number of immigrants is meaningless and not a commitment to end mass immigration at all. Parliament might well set the total at 200,000 each year for all Michael Howard knows – especially near election time, as he should know from when he was Home Secretary and had a tendency to grant more asylum claims (in the name of compassion, of course).

Nor did the Tories take any account of the fact that since both they and Labour have conceded so much power to the EU, then the EU would prevent the Tories making their new policy effective. Quite apart from an EU official stating that the Tory proposals would breach EU law, the fact is that EU citizens have full unrestricted access into the UK. Consequently, anyone granted asylum in any other EU country can automatically come and settle in the UK. UK immigration controls are only as strong as the weakest EU country’s border controls.

The only way of dealing with that, is to leave the EU. The Tories have not the slightest intention of taking the UK out of the EU, and instead are making it clear that they support the admission of Turkey, a relatively poor Muslim country (which borders with Iraq and Iran) with a very high population growth, into the EU as well. The impact of Turkish admission on UK immigration should not take too much puzzling out – even for a Tory.

The Tory policy is an unworkable sham. The Tories are still trying to whitewash over the problem rather than deal with it decisively.

There is no good reason why the UK should accept any asylum seekers and the whole multicultural experiment should be abolished. We need to see a clear end to mass immigration into the UK and the deportation, without exception, of all illegal immigrants and failed asylum seekers.

posted by erc @ 5:02 pm

Tuesday, February 22, 2005

THE BRITISH INQUISITION

14 February 2005

With a budget of £172m per annum, and now run by Lord Kinnock, one of the most recent of Labour’s Nouveau Toffs, the British Council is funding the Common Ground exhibition, which has already been shown in Bangladesh, Malaysia and Indonesia. It is expected to be shown in Middle Eastern countries including Saudi Arabia, Oman, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates in the near future.

The exhibition involves pictures of Muslim youngsters under a hoarding scrawled with racist graffiti, and other grim urban settings. The British Council alleges that the exhibition represents life in Britain for many Muslims.

An introductory essay by Yasmin Alibhai-Brown (a Marxist who recently returned her OBE) alleges: ‘Too many young Muslims are emotionally homeless. Racism makes them believe they cannot belong in Britain.’

The photographer, Anthony Lam, who supplied many of the photographs, said that he wanted to criticise Britain’s asylum system and undermine traditional images of Britain.

The purpose of the British Council, which was set up in 1934, was to promote Britain to overseas countries. It has, as have so many other government institutions, been hijacked by the politically-correct, communist Left as a means of attacking Britain and the English in particular.

As we are supposed to be fighting a war on terror, this exhibition, which can do nothing other than encourage anti-British hatred amongst Muslims, can only be helpful to Al Qaeda and other anti-Western terrorist groups and their supporters.

The exhibition was, thankfully, condemned by the Muslim Council of Britain.

posted by erc @10:46 pm

Tuesday, March 08, 2005

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

The so-called Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) has called for racial discrimination in favour of black pupils and teachers.

Trevor Philips has been impressed by the results of one study in the USA where the segregation of black boys into their own classes has resulted with an improvement in their educational performance, and has now called for segregation in the UK. Trevor Philips is also calling for extra pay for black teachers in order to attract them into the profession and so become a role model for young black boys.

Headteachers and others have attacked the recommendation as being counter-productive if not illegal.

The differences in educational performance are not a matter of race, although the CRE might want to make it one. Children from an Asian background, where family ties are stronger, do better at school and it is that fact which should be taken into consideration, rather than trying to twist the issue into one of race. White children from broken families can underachieve as well.

It is to be noted that Trevor Philips has not called for a change in the law to reinforce marriage.

The CRE does not take into account the impact of pro-black discrimination on the English host population, or consider what might be in their interests.

Others might conclude that this is evidence that the multicultural experiment is a failure, and that it should be abandoned.

posted by erc @10:49 pm

Monday, April 11, 2005

IMMIGRATION/SPANISH PRACTICES

Michael Howard’s recent announcement that he intends to regain control of Britain’s borders is all very well, but it is not enough to talk about stopping illegal workers, demanding bonds or proper embarkation controls – no matter how worthy these things are in themselves.

The fact is that this country’s membership of the EU allows immigrants to gain entry into the UK, by first gaining entry in another EU country. The UK has surrendered its veto on immigration.

The consequences of this have been highlighted by Spain, which recently legalised up to 1.5million illegal immigrants in Spain, who then automatically gain full entry to all other EU countries. ‘Immigration for a socialist government is not just a policy of public order or border controls’, said Consuelo Rumi, the Spanish Immigration Minister.

Now it has been revealed that more illegal immigrants are getting into Spain via the Canary Islands. Already, hundreds of Africans per month are making the trip, and this number is likely to grow given that the Spanish government has introduced a new policy.

After 40 days of having illegally entered the Canary Islands, the illegal immigrants are sent to Spain unless they reveal where they have come from (which they obviously do not). If they can then work, legally or illegally, for 6 months they will automatically gain work permits and residency papers.

At that point, they are free to move to any EU country, including the UK – for so long as the UK remains in the EU.

posted by erc @5:57 pm

Sunday, April 17, 2005

IMMIGRATION/THE WAR ON TERROR

As the issue of immigration dominates the election once again, the seriousness of it is revealed not only by the issue itself, but also by the manner of the debate.

Once again, there are queues of so-called asylum seekers in Calais, receiving their free food and hot soup as the French police watch on. The French police are not bothered about this as they know that the immigrants are on their way to England and so the French will be rid of them. The UK remains a magnet for illegal immigration and the immigration controls remain ineffective, even at a time of the pretended war on terror.

It is ludicrous to speak of immigration controls, let alone of a war on terror, when ports (including Dover) do not have 24 hour staffing by immigration officials (as has been revealed this week). It would of course be very nice if the illegal immigrants entered the UK on a 9 to 5 basis, but unfortunately they are more liable to turn up when they know that the immigration officials have gone home.

As if that is not bad enough, it has also been revealed this week that illegal immigrants who are caught with false documents are allowed into the UK provided that they promise to report back to the authorities within 48 hours for questioning and possibly deportation. This rule was introduced to reduce the workload on the immigration officers and also as a result of the lack of secure accommodation in which to detain the illegal immigrants.

Of course it would be jolly decent of the illegal immigrants if they did report back, but (surprise, surprise) hardly any of them do!

The UK is an international laughing stock. It is no wonder the immigrants (and terrorists) still keep coming.

The inevitable consequences of the UK’s farce of an immigration policy have also been revealed this week. Not only in the coverage of the tragic murder of a Special Branch police officer, Stephen Oake, but also by the fact that his murderer, Kamel Bourgass, was an illegal immigrant who had twice been turned down for asylum and should have been deported several years ago. But no effort had been made to see that he was deported.

Bourgass is an Al Qaeda terrorist who had exploited the facilities of the infamous Finsbury Park Mosque. Even after he had had his asylum application rejected twice, and after he had commenced his terrorist activities, he was arrested by police for shoplifting. The police making the arrest suspected he was an illegal immigrant, knew that he was using aliases, and had contacted the Immigration Service who did nothing. Bourgass was fined for shoplifting and then walked free.

The flat in which he was finally arrested and in which the murder took place was provided by the Islington Council’s Asylum Team. The total cost of his illegal entry into the UK, including the trials of him and his co-defendants and the police investigation, is estimated to be in excess of £40million. The cost of keeping him in jail continues.

As for his 8 co-defendants, they were all so-called asylum seekers. It is now expected that they will all be granted asylum in this country because of the terrorist charges which were brought against them. They are likely to be able to successfully claim that if they were sent back from whence they came that their own governments might take a less lenient view of their activities than the UK, and so they should be allowed to stay here on human rights grounds. Many of the co-defendants were using false passports and aliases.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives have had a kerfuffle after one of their candidates, Ed Matts, doctored a photograph of himself and Ann Widdecombe, changing the placards they were holding from being supportive of an attempt to prevent the deportation of an illegal immigrant family from Africa, to placards promoting ‘controlled immigration’ – which can mean just about anything. This demonstrates that large numbers of the Conservative Party remain in favour of mass immigration and are totally undependable as far as the immigration issue is concerned.

Meanwhile, the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation hid the fact that Bourgass and his co-defendants were illegal immigrants, hid the details of their entry into the UK and, at least on one news bulletin, gave self-appointed Islamic activists the airtime in which to claim that Muslims were victims of discrimination. Given the circumstances, this is very much in bad taste, but is only to be expected from the BBC. Nevertheless, for the BBC to be peddling neo-communist, politically-correct propaganda can only help Al Qaeda and other Muslim extremists.

posted by erc @5:10 pm

Friday, April 22, 2005

RACE WAR POLITICS

The Muslim Council of Britain has issued 10 points which it recommends Muslims should consider and use to question candidates before voting in the general election:

1. Muslims suffer discrimination on the basis of religion. Will you support measures to protect faith groups?

2. Will you support legislation to outlaw religious hatred?

3. Anti-terror laws discriminate against Muslims. Will you ensure no one loses their liberty without due process of law?

4. Some countries such as Israel and India flout UN resolutions. Will your foreign policy be just and fair?

5. The invasion of Iraq was against the wishes of half the country. Will you support withdrawal of British forces?

6. Will you help provide equal opportunities and end social exclusion of Muslims?

7. Muslim pupils are under-achieving in state schools. Will you support state funding of Muslim schools?

8. What will your party do to achieve more political and other representation of the 1.6million British Muslims?

9. Will you ensure debates on moral issues such as abortion and euthanasia are heard?

10. Immigrants contribute to prosperity. What will you do to ensure the immigration debate does not fuel racism?

The Muslim Council’s 10 points are not enough for a section of the more militant Muslims, who invaded the Regent’s Park mosque to disrupt the launch of the voting guide. These militants accused the Muslim Council of being ‘devils’ and much more. One fanatic shouted: ‘Islam is going to take over the UK, whether you like it or not’.

It is often the case that the fanatics make the biggest noise, but as Northern Ireland (as well as a host of other places) has shown, it is the more hardline and extremist elements that tend to rule the day.

Bearing this episode in mind, and looking at the 10 points, it is clear that the Muslim community has not integrated into British society and has formed a society within a society. The 10 points are littered with bald assertions which are untrue and which are pure race war politics.

This all demonstrates the need for an end to mass immigration.

posted by erc @10:55 pm

Sunday, April