“the diversity illusion”

if you don’t follow me on twitter, you will have missed my flurry of quotes yesterday from telegraph journalist ed west‘s excellent new book, The Diversity Illusion: What We Got Wrong About Immigration & How to Set it Right. (john derbyshire likes it, too, btw!)

the book is about the situation in britain, but an awful lot of what west has to say can be applied to the u.s. and elsewhere as well. i’m about halfway through it, so i still haven’t gotten to the “setting it right” part yet, but i’m gonna share some of my favorite bits so far with you right now (some of these might be a repeat from yesterday — sorry!). ok, here we go:

“In over sixty years of enormous change such debate [about immigration] had been restricted by taboo, fear and mockery. Immigration is the most thought about and least talked about subject in British history. [kindle locations 173-175]
_____

Never in modern history has a free population simply suppressed discussion of a major issue. As Kevin Myers noted, the people of Britain and Ireland ‘have taken a secret, Self-Denying Ordinance not to discuss immigration or race in any meaningful way’. In living memory barely a newspaper article, radio or television show has seriously questioned the diversity orthodoxy, and even in the intelligent Right-wing press scepticism has had to be couched in such a cryptic way that the paper’s horoscopes are more candid.” [kindle locations 202-205]
_____

“Labour’s attempts at creating a truly multicultural society have unquestionably succeeded. But why did the Government do this? What drove them towards imposing such an enormous change on England, one that will have profound, long-lasting and irreversible effects? And why did the entire political class go along with it? What, indeed, are the benefits of diversity? …

“[E]veryone in a position of power held the same opinion. Diversity was a good in itself, so making Britain truly diverse would enrich it and bring ‘significant cultural contributions’, reflecting a widespread belief among the ruling classes that multiculturalism and cultural, racial and religious diversity were morally positive things whatever the consequences. This is the unthinking assumption held by almost the entire political, media and education establishment. It is the diversity illusion. [kindle locations 344-346 and 386-389]
_____

A belief in the benefits of a multicultural, multi-racial society is an article of faith in today’s largely atheist society; to not believe is to not be in communion. [kindle locations 411-412]
_____

Liberalism on race (and many other subjects) is a status signifier…. If ‘Pygmalion’ were performed on the stage today Eliza Doolittle would not blurt out ‘not bloody likely’ but ‘bloody immigrants’.” [kindle locations 731 & 737-738]
_____

[R]acism, or what anti-racists understand as racism, is a universal part of human nature, ‘as human as love’ as novelist Thomas Keneally put it. Racial *hatred*, however, is different, a pathological variation of that human preference for sameness and kinship. One might regret that, just as one might regret that greed, lust and violence are part of human nature, but building a society based on the assumption that they can be driven out through re-education is an optimistic idea.” [kindle locations 1009-1012]
_____

“Writing about Tibet, liberal blogger Dave Osler once stated that China ‘has resettled Han Chinese colonists there to the point where Tibetans are at risk of becoming a minority in their own homeland’. On his own country he declared that ‘further mass immigration obviously has the potential to rejuvenate the population of this island once the politicians can get their head round the idea’. Tibetans becoming a minority in their country are a threatened species; the English are being ‘rejuvenated. Of course the Tibetans have no choice in becoming a minority, yet when the British express their opposition to ‘rejuvenation’ they are condemned as racists.” [kindle locations 1145-1150]

heh.
_____

“Globalism has many benefits, but mixed with universalism it can become an ideological dogma that ignores the human consequences. Phillippe Legrain asks: ‘Why can computers be imported from China duty-free but Chinese people not freely come to make computer here? Why is it a good thing for workers to move within a country to where the jobs are, but a bad thing for people to move between countries for the same reason?’ That is because human beings are not computers. Goods can be freely moved about only because they can be discarded when they are no longer useful; humans cannot. Immigration is long-term and has permanent effects for everyone involved. [kindle locations 1279-1284]
_____

“The universalist ideal rests on the belief that human beings are willing to share such a collective system with the rest of humanity. But evolutionary psychology suggests that humans have developed kin selection, those tribes with the strongest sense of in-group altruism being the most likely to survive…. No universal altruism has evolved because a sense of universal altruism would have no evolutionary advantage. Garrett Hardin argued in a 1982 essay, ‘Discriminating Altruisms’, that a world without borders or distinctions is impossible, because groups that practise unlimited altruism will be eliminated in favour of those that limit altruistic behaviour to smaller groups, from whom they receive benefits.

“An extreme example of this is the white liberal environmentalist who decides, for the good of the planet, that he or she should remain childless – the result being that future generations will contain fewer white liberals (some might argue that that’s not a terrible thing).” [kindle locations 1660-1669]
_____

finally:

The latest projections suggest that white Britons will become a minority sometime around 2066, in a population of 80 million, which means that within little over a century Britain will have gone from an almost entirely homogenous society to one where the native ethnic group is a minority. That is, historically, an astonishing transformation. No people in history have become a minority of the citizenry in their own country except through conquest, yet the English, always known for their reticence, may actually achieve this through embarrassment.” [kindle locations 142-146]
_____

great stuff!

i’ll stop there because i can’t (or shouldn’t) reproduce the entire book here. (~_^) read it yourselves! i highly recommend it.

(note: comments do not require an email. diversity FAIL!)

49 Comments

  1. It’s interesting how he repeatedly interchanges between England and Britain, despite there being large differences in the levels of immigration amongst the different countries of the UK.

    For example, from a quick look at wikipedia, % of natives, and % of natives + rest of UK/Eire countries. (2011 census)

    England – 79.8 – 80.8 (The first figure lists White-British, so White-English may be lower)
    Northern Ireland – 88.84 – 95.5
    Scotland – 88.09 – 96.45
    Wales – 72.66 – 94.51 (Most of the difference between these figures is White-English)

    Going by these figures, it’s predominantly England taking the brunt of the immigration. Wales you might expect to have a significant minority of English for historical reasons, but Scotland and Northern Ireland have solid native populations, even more so if you look at it from a White-British angle. Scotland’s non-native population may even be exaggerated by the numbers of foreign & RUK students who stay only for the period of their education, leaving only a few percent of non-native permanent residents.

    Reply

  2. Those are good quotes. I will pass them around. Do you suppose there will come a tipping point when, quite suddenly, discussion of this issue is no longer taboo?

    Reply

  3. I have wondered how much of the attraction of “accepting other cultures” is that it provides intellectual cover for abandoning the religious and sexual values of one’s parents. It is certainly true that many in the rising generations speak as if that has all just been amply demonstrated somehow, everyone knowing that’s not the right way.

    I don’t claim it is all the reason. I do wonder how much it is.

    Reply

  4. I just ordered it for my kindle, but I’m afraid it will will be depressing. I don’t see how the situation can be set right. We seem to be headed for the same fate as such multicultural paradises as Lebanon and Yugoslavia.

    Reply

  5. ““[E]veryone in a position of power held the same opinion. Diversity was a good in itself”

    From the point of view of a globalist ruling class multi-culturalism is classic divide and rule.

    Reply

  6. “The claim that white britons will become minority is far fetched and dubious”

    People said that about London – and America.

    Reply

  7. “the result being that future generations will contain fewer white liberals (some might argue that that’s not a terrible thing)”

    You should have bolded this. ;)

    Reply

  8. @stakhanovite – “It’s interesting how he repeatedly interchanges between England and Britain….”

    keep in mind that i’ve taken these quotes from several different chapters and so they don’t hang together. don’t take them out of context.

    Reply

  9. @luke – “Do you suppose there will come a tipping point when, quite suddenly, discussion of this issue is no longer taboo?”

    dunno! some researchers found that if ten percent of a population holds an idea, that’s the tipping point. don’t know if we’re there at all with mass immigration or not. and i don’t know if that applies to taboo topics.

    Reply

  10. @melykin – “I just ordered it for my kindle, but I’m afraid it will will be depressing.”

    it is depressing, i’m afraid. sorry.

    Reply

  11. @soxy – “The claim that white britons will become minority is far fetched and dubious”

    well, oxford university researchers don’t seem to think so (this is west’s source, btw):

    “White Britons to become minority by 2066”

    “Foreign workers will ‘change national identity’ according to a population expert, unless the flow of immigration is dealt with.

    “The white British-born community (defined as English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish-born citizens) will fall to less than half of the overall population in just over 50 years.

    “The warning from Professor David Coleman, from Oxford University, comes ahead of an announcement today by the Migration Advisory Board of its recommendation for the proposed immigration cap for people outside the EU.

    “Figures from the Office of National Statistics show that if immigration remains at a long-term rate of around 180,000 a year the proportion of the white British-born population will fall from 80 per cent to 59 per cent by 2051.

    “In that time the white immigrant population will have risen from four to 10 per cent and ethnic minority population from 16 to 31 per cent.

    “Writing in Prospect magazine, Prof Coleman wrote: ‘On those assumptions the “white British” population would decline to 45 million by 2051.

    “‘Were the assumptions to hold, the “white British” population of Britain would become the minority after about 2066. It’s a milestone that would be passed much earlier in younger age groups.’

    “He said this would ‘represent an enormous change to national identity – cultural, political, economic and religious’….”

    Reply

  12. No intention of taking them out of context. My point was that demographics appear to be far more an English problem than it is for any other country in the British Isles, whereas the author appears to be considering it as a British problem in general and at times switching between English and British as a synonym. (Most notably in the extract mentioning Tibet) Which just happens to get my back up as a Scot. :)

    Reply

  13. @macstakhanovite – “Which just happens to get my back up as a Scot. :)”

    oh, you scots! you’re so clannish! (~_^) (sometimes i have the feeling that about half my readership is scottish, btw. do scots have a particularly strong interest in hbd, or what’s the story?)

    @macstakhanovite – “My point was that demographics appear to be far more an English problem than it is for any other country in the British Isles….”

    well, you know, last time i checked, there was free movement of people between the nations of the u.k., so i think you guys in scotland ought to be more than a little concerned about the huge numbers of immigrants in england. until you leave the union, that is — but then you might want to make sure to rebuild hadrian’s wall. (~_^)

    keep wearing that kilt, btw! (^_^)

    Reply

  14. @HBDCHICK,the oxford researcher conveniently excluded eastern europeans from white british.It doesnt matter as long as majority population stays white.

    Reply

  15. This is similar tactic used by people who claim white people are becoming minority in usa by 2042.They exclude white hispanics from there calculations.

    Reply

  16. More than half of the hispanic population in usa identify as whites.The removal of hispanic category from census is of great benefit.

    Reply

  17. @soxy – “the oxford researcher conveniently excluded eastern europeans from white british.”

    eastern europeans are not brits — english, welsh, scottish, or northern irish. (duh.)

    @soxy – “More than half of the hispanic population in usa identify as whites.”

    and i identify as a pink unicorn (only when there’s a full moon, tho), but that doesn’t make me one.

    Reply

  18. @hbdchick I think we just crawl out of the woodwork when we get called English. (and British too, depending on the individual) Maybe it’s our own biological mutation, a sixth-sense for when it happens…

    It’s true that we have an open border, but most migrants appear to land in England and have no desire to move on. Possibly that’s due to family/tribe/friend factors, more air/train/ferry links to get to England, and arriving in the same place as established communities. Maybe England just has a better reputation internationally, and it doesn’t rain there once every two days.

    There’s a relatively high amount of migrants in Glasgow, Edinburgh, maybe St. Andrews, Aberdeen and Dundee, but I would say most go for the universities (far better financially for EU citizens than shelling out for an English university), and most leave after their studies. Would be interesting to see the demographic percentages if you discounted those students.

    The only generational migrants I can think of are South Asians (India/Pakistan), a smaller group of Chinese (HK mostly), and Irish descendants. Possibly a small core of South Europeans but barely significant enough to mention.

    Maybe we’ll be alright if, as you say, we can get Hadrian’s wall back up. Maybe get the Antonine wall going as well just incase… ;)

    Reply

  19. @stakhanovite – “It’s true that we have an open border, but most migrants appear to land in England and have no desire to move on.”

    yes, but i’m thinking of the future, you know? england’s already crowded … and it’s getting more crowded. maybe everyone will want to stay planted in england forever, but you never know. i’d be freaking out if i were in scotland/wales/n.i. and saw the figures for england. =/

    Reply

  20. For soxy, a rule of thumb: if you can identify a person’s ethnicity from two blocks away they are not white. There are serious genetic differences and they are more than skin deep.

    Reply

  21. @hbdchick

    You’re right, the English might try to move to Scotland!

    As a whole the UK is about 50th on the list for population density, so isnae as bad for now. By 2066 though? Could be interesting, and yer right in a sense. If the shit hits the fan somewhere along the line in England, we’re one of only two countries with a land border that would be easy to cross.

    We’ll see if there’s a United Kingdom or an EU by then of course…

    Reply

  22. @stakhanovite – “You’re right, the English might try to move to Scotland!”

    (^_^) (^_^) (^_^) the horror! the horror.

    @stakhanovite – “We’ll see if there’s … an EU by then….”

    hopefully not. =/

    Reply

  23. Move to Scotland…it could easily happen. A lot of places in America doubled or trebled in population with very little increase in percentage of black or hispanic folks. White New Yorkers moved to Vermont, white Massachoosers to NH. And very white. Not even so many Sicilians or Greeks. They moved to places that looked that their childhoods once were.

    Or if they have an enviro twist, they moved to the places they went to camp – because in their imagination, that is what “nature” is supposed to look like.

    Reply

  24. @HBDCHICK,I hope you are being sarcastic.There are large percentage of hispanics who have minimal indian blood and for all purposes they should be identified as white.I hope you are not one of the nordic purists.

    Reply

  25. When the dam breaks in the UK and elsewhere in Europe, it may become interesting, in the Chinese sense. The problem is, those who ought to pay for their treason may not be the ones who end up paying. Personally, I don’t blame Those-Who-Must-Not-Be-Blamed. Or the Queen.

    Reply

  26. @Squartz Phinx, I read in the (liberal) paper that many of those leaving Holland are in fact liberals who claim to be escaping from racism. Some of these multiculturalist have an inability to accept responsibility that is similar to what you find among psychopaths.

    Reply

  27. People who moved 7000km to a different continent will not move 500km across the same island, and people are whatever race they write down on a government form, regardless of their genes. Some of the things I learn on HBD blogs.

    Reply

  28. soxy – “There are large percentage of hispanics who have minimal indian blood and for all purposes they should be identified as white.”

    Correct. Among other things these whites compose almost the entire ruling class of Mexico. Did you know that? After 500 years of sharing the same country the dominant elite in Mexico still largely unassimilated. And what a bunch of racist bastards they are.

    This points up the most serious problem societies face when populations with large genetic distances between them try to live together harmoniously. Diversity is a challenge and, by definition, not all challenges are met, at least not in ways compatible with the American ideal of human equality — an ideal which I subscribe to btw. We seem headed for a racially stratified class society, a six layer cake, riven by racial and ethnic tensions. Easy pickings for cynical politicians of the future who, predictably, will resort to the time-tested strategy of divide and conquer. Knaves beat fools every day of the week.

    P.S. I’m not totally pessimistic about America’s future however. I think (hope?) that if the lower orders of society had access to a truly good life — by which I mean one that was in some ways more attractive than the elite lifestyles near the top — then a lot of the status anxieties that fuel the racial divides might evaporate. That’s why (well, one reason why) I push this idea: http://facingzionwards.blogspot.com/

    Reply

  29. @soxy – “There are large percentage of hispanics who have minimal indian blood and for all purposes they should be identified as white.”

    @luke – “Correct.”

    well, that statement is only correct if you’re talking about latin america and throw in argentinians and chileans and white cubans, but even then i don’t know how “large” the percentage of hispanics with “minimal” indian blood is.

    in any case, i believe that soxy was talking about hispanics in the u.s. in an earlier comment he said:

    “More than half of the hispanic population in usa identify as whites.”

    but as bleach suggested above, it doesn’t matter one jot what people identify themselves as. what matters is what they really are.

    there are quite a few cubans in the u.s. (ca. 1.8M), and most of them are of european descent, but the greatest number of hispanics in the u.s. by far consists of mexicans, and mexicans are mostly mesitzos, i.e. mixed native mexican and european, with the balance of the average number of genes being more native than european.

    on top of that, mexican mestizos are more native indio the farther south you go in mexico [pdf], and since most mexican immigrants to the u.s. today come from the southwest of mexico, and since most mexican immigrants to the u.s. today are relatively recent immigrants (there are more immigrants in the u.s. today than at any other time in our past), i think it’s safe to guess that most or a large percentage of mexicans in the u.s. today have more indio than european genes. third and fourth generation mexican-americans in new mexico and, especially, texas probably have more european genes, on average, than native genes, but they are a minority of mexicans in the u.s.

    so, yes, some hispanics are white since they are largely of european descent, but the vast majority of hispanics in the u.s. are mestizos, i.e. mixed native indio and european (white). they can’t be called white any more than they can be called indians. they are part white and part indian. they should be called mestizos or some other such word, ’cause that’s what they are.

    Reply

  30. @stakhanovite – “You’re right, the English might try to move to Scotland!”

    @avi – “Move to Scotland…it could easily happen.”

    ed west actually talks in the book about how many english folks have moved to wales and the resultant changes taking place there (scotland, you’re next! (~_^) ):

    “While another little known casualty of Britain’s diversity drive may be the Welsh language; post-war immigration has caused perhaps the biggest shift westwards since the Anglo-Saxon invasion, as Londoners and Brummies flock to the West Country and Wales, including Welsh-speaking areas. Children in London’s schools may speak up to 150 languages, but what impact will it have on Britain’s oldest native tongue?” [kindle locations 1878-1881]

    Reply

  31. @staffan – “I read in the (liberal) paper that many of those leaving Holland are in fact liberals who claim to be escaping from racism.”

    oh my lord. are you saying that the dutch leaving the netherlands are leaving because they think it’s too racist there?! *facepalm*

    Reply

  32. @Soxy: To add to what hbd* chick said, also see my post on Hispanic genomic diversity for more data on genetic admixtures. The category “Hispanic” as used in the US is very broad – indeed, there are 20 subgroups and even among the five highlighted in my post, there are major genetic differences between them. In addition, even the more accurate categories of “mestizo” (White/Amerindian admixture) and “mulatto” (White/Black admixture, though it can also refer to Black/Amerindian admixture – e.g. the Garifuna), don’t tell the whole story vis a vis race…

    Reply

  33. “There are large percentage of hispanics who have minimal indian blood”

    And the distribution of those is uneven. As pointed out above, most Cuban immigrants in the U.S. are mostly European, and iirc, most Puerto Ricans are a mix of European and African with very little Native American. Mexicans in New Mexico and Texas are, from reports I’ve heard, somewhat more European and less Native American than those in California. (I’d guess that most of the native Spanish-speaking people I’ve seen on construction sites in the past 10 years are more than 50% native American.) Those Hispanics who are primarily European, like me, generally identify as white, except where there’s a government benefit to not being so.

    Reply

  34. stakhanovite

    “My point was that demographics appear to be far more an English problem than it is for any other country in the British Isles.”

    Ireland is also being targeted iirc at an even faster pace than England but from a lower base.

    Immigration is being directed to England (really the southern 3/4) and not Wales, Scotland (and the northern 1/4 of England) for divide and rule purposes. They don’t want resistance everywhere at once.

    .
    “As a whole the UK is about 50th on the list for population density, so isnae as bad for now.”

    As you mention yourself the immigration is being directed to England so obviously the population density of England would be the relevant statistic.

    Reply

  35. @Greying Wanderer

    You’re right to point that out. Did a quick calculation, and here’s the density for Scotland and England by square km:

    Scotland – 67.55
    England – 406.45

    Which leaves England at 31st in the world, and Scotland at 138th. Granted, a lot of Scotland is mountainous and not particularly good for habitation, but there’s a massive difference.

    @Assistant Village Idiot

    Is Wales an exception, or they’re really being put under demographic pressure by the English? Historically Wales was regarded as a possession of England rather than a country, and even now, there’s a few appear to want to be English rather than identify as Welsh. (I say appear, I can only judge from online observations, I’ve never been to the country. I might be talking shite.)

    @hbdchick

    It would be interesting to know what you make of the referendum in 2014. If we all tend to make decisions that benefit our family and tribe, why is it that opinion polls show a lack of desire for independence? Is it a few centuries of mixed-breeding, are we not different enough for tribal/national feelings to take precedence, or is it simply the media and opinion pollsters obscuring the real feelings? The only reason I include the last is that the last opinion polls had the current SNP govermant losing the Scottish elections, yet they gained an overall majority in a PR system in the end.

    Reply

  36. hbd chick – “mexicans are mostly mesitzos, i.e. mixed native mexican and european, with the balance of the average number of genes being more native than european. . .”

    Interesting. Somehow I was under the impression it was the other way around. Wonder where I got that idea?

    Reply

  37. @Staffan

    I read in the (liberal) paper that many of those leaving Holland are in fact liberals who claim to be escaping from racism. Some of these multiculturalist have an inability to accept responsibility that is similar to what you find among psychopaths.

    Or malignant narcissists. Tho’, to be fair, if I were still a liberal, I’d be finding it harder and harder to admit my responsibility as the consequences of liberalism become clearer and clearer. David Goodhart is beginning to admit the truth, but I’d say he’s only being about 55% honest at the moment:

    Why the left is wrong about immigration

    Reply

  38. @stakhanovite – “If we all tend to make decisions that benefit our family and tribe, why is it that opinion polls show a lack of desire for independence? Is it a few centuries of mixed-breeding, are we not different enough for tribal/national feelings to take precedence, or is it simply the media and opinion pollsters obscuring the real feelings? The only reason I include the last is that the last opinion polls had the current SNP govermant losing the Scottish elections, yet they gained an overall majority in a PR system in the end.”

    it’s not mixed-breeding that’s the issue, but rather outbreeding (as opposed to inbreeding).

    the working theory is that, with long-term outbreeding (which is what europeans, esp. northwest europeans, have had) you get a society that is founded upon individuals and their nuclear families. this is versus inbreeding societies that are founded upon extended families and clans.

    the individualistic societies wind up with a moral or ideological system that is universailistc — all individuals in society (and, eventually, everywhere) ought to be treated the same. the clannish societies have a moral/ideological system that is particularistic — what is moral is what benefits my family/clan first, to h*ll with everyone else.

    the english are some of the most outbred, individualistic, universalistic of the northern europeans (see the mating patterns in europe series in the left-hand column below — particularly the stuff on the english). so are the dutch, btw. this is partly why the english don’t feel so nationalistic these days — or why, rather, they so easily buy all the multiculturalism, “we are the world,” “join europe together” cr*p.

    the scots: mixed group, i think, the scots. the highland scots had a much longer history of inbreeding than the english and were clannish for much longer, although not so much anymore (at least not compared to the medieval period). the lowland scots i think started outbreeding sooner than the highland scots, so they’re closer to the individualistic english, but still not as outbred as them. so i’m not surprised that the scots are more insular than the english.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s