Brits love their migrant nurses
by Daniel Barge
The existential battle lines have been drawn in Britain's great struggle to survive. Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick recently resigned, saying that:
"A million new people coming in to our country every year is damaging our ability to integrate those people successfully."
Yes, apparently all those newcomers can't "Brit up" fast enough!
This is leading to "communities where people are leading parallel lives" and not supporting the British government's policy on Gaza, LOL.
That's his critique. That's as far as it goes. There's nothing else, not even a solitary "White people make this world a better place" or a single "Some people no longer recognize the neighbourhood they grew up in."
That's his critique. That's as far as it goes. There's nothing else, not even a solitary "White people make this world a better place" or a single "Some people no longer recognize the neighbourhood they grew up in."
Maybe this is a shot in the dark, but I guess "parallel lives" in this context means that two groups of people don't associate with each other. I don't remember this being a major problem before in a country that has long cherished its class divisions and regional cultures.
Etonians living parallel lives to other Brits. Not a problem
"Parallel lives," to be honest, is a normal feature of any society that is not based around giant socialist canteens and Khemer-Rouge-style work parties. Is Jenrick advocating true Communism, here, instead of the kind that actually existed, which was also pretty much characterised by "parallel lives"? Or is he just being mealy-mouthed as usual?
The Jenrick argument just boils down to this:
"We don't mind any amount of mass immigration racial replacement as long as everyone learns English and economically interacts with society."
Essentially that is what is happening now and is not an argument to do anything different from this or previous UK governments.
In fact, England is so beset by extreme regional working class dialects (created by having a French-speaking elite for around 400 years) that a case could be made that the English themselves have to be integrated into England, in accordance with the logic of Jenrick's argument.
UK Welfarism has also warehoused large sections of the population so that they don't economically interact with the rest of society in a meaningful way.
But does "integration" mean anything else besides learning a bit of English and economically interacting with the other people in society? It definitely doesn't mean being Church of England or some other cultural marker, like believing in two genders. Nor does it mean being "woke," because occasional grumbles against wokeness are allowed now. As for following the government's line on Gaza, it's definitely not that, as the main break there seems to be generational.
It's really hard to see what the Jenricks of this world mean by "integration." It's more like an invitation to read into the word whatever you want to read into it, or a dogwhistle word for "Ahem, could we have a bit fewer Muslims or Black people?" If that's what he's saying, he should spit it out.
In fact, England is so beset by extreme regional working class dialects (created by having a French-speaking elite for around 400 years) that a case could be made that the English themselves have to be integrated into England, in accordance with the logic of Jenrick's argument.
UK Welfarism has also warehoused large sections of the population so that they don't economically interact with the rest of society in a meaningful way.
But does "integration" mean anything else besides learning a bit of English and economically interacting with the other people in society? It definitely doesn't mean being Church of England or some other cultural marker, like believing in two genders. Nor does it mean being "woke," because occasional grumbles against wokeness are allowed now. As for following the government's line on Gaza, it's definitely not that, as the main break there seems to be generational.
It's really hard to see what the Jenricks of this world mean by "integration." It's more like an invitation to read into the word whatever you want to read into it, or a dogwhistle word for "Ahem, could we have a bit fewer Muslims or Black people?" If that's what he's saying, he should spit it out.
Or maybe "integration" means that any incoming demographic should synchronise its fertility rates with that of the "natives," i.e. around 1.5 children per woman (or a 25% generation-on-generation population drop), thus ensuring yet more waves of mass immigration.
Within the present unrevolutionary parameters, mass immigration into the UK is an unavoidable fact.
At present, the UK is going into an election cycle, and the UK political parties on both sides are pathetically, but completely insincerely, kow-towing to populist anti-immigration rhetoric. But it is so obvious that the recent measures taken by the Tory government to temporarily push numbers down will be scrapped by whichever of the parties wins the election.
At present, the UK is going into an election cycle, and the UK political parties on both sides are pathetically, but completely insincerely, kow-towing to populist anti-immigration rhetoric. But it is so obvious that the recent measures taken by the Tory government to temporarily push numbers down will be scrapped by whichever of the parties wins the election.
The simple fact is the UK is addicted to mass immigration. So, continue to expect millions of foreign students and their families, continue to expect millions of foreign health workers and their families, and continue to expect millions of these students and health workers moving into other areas of the economy, freeing up places in universities and hospitals to suck in yet more migrants from overseas. This is the simple demographic flow model of a low-fertility society.
The UK has at least two important choices to make:
(1) Does it want to preserve its racial essence or not?
(2) Does it want to enjoy the economic benefits of mass immigration, while avoiding the political demerits?
Preserving its already radically altered racial essence involves dealing, first and foremost, with the fertility question and reversing the holocaust of feminism and individualism. This is definitely not an easy thing to do in a Liberal democracy, where people are most concerned about "muh freedoms."
.jpg)
Dubai, built by migrants, but not owned or controlled by them.
Avoiding the political demerits of mass immigration is also hard, but not as hard.
The main political demerit is that migrants end up becoming citizens and voting, often well before they "integrate" or "assimilate," which can take many generations. This means they vote in ways that undercut the power and interests of the long-established population.
The solution to this is probably something along the lines of the Gulf States, which also rely heavily on mass immigration, but manage to limit citizenship, welfare rights, and the suffrage to the core population.
The main political demerit is that migrants end up becoming citizens and voting, often well before they "integrate" or "assimilate," which can take many generations. This means they vote in ways that undercut the power and interests of the long-established population.
The solution to this is probably something along the lines of the Gulf States, which also rely heavily on mass immigration, but manage to limit citizenship, welfare rights, and the suffrage to the core population.
We need more creativity on the pro-natalist front. Sadly there is a contingent of the British Right, not content with their own lack of children, who are of the “why should I pay for other people to have kids?” mindset, seemingly oblivious to the fact that someone’s kid will need to wipe their arse when they’re 90 and demented.
ReplyDeleteGive women financial incentives to marry and have children in their 20s. This can be achieved any number of ways. Currently women with university degrees (the kind that actually give you decent job prospects) have no incentive not to spend all of their 20s climbing the career ladder. In 21st century democracy the must absolutely appeal to female voters and if they don’t the increasingly shrill ‘muh patriarchy’ crowd will continue to dominate the discourse and the birth rate will continue to plunge.