The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information

 TeasersSam Francis Blogview

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
🔊 Listen RSS

To the amazement of the British political establishment, a new report on last summer’s race riots in the United Kingdom has come to the conclusion that British society is polarized along racial lines. You have to guess that people who actually believed that mass, multiracial immigration into a historically white nation would not cause problems really are surprised at the report’s findings. The riots that ripped apart several large towns with sizeable Asian minorities in northern Britain last June were what the New York Times, reporting on the new study, calls, “the worst outbreaks of racial conflict in Britain in 20 years,” causing some $15 million in property damage and injuring more than 300 policemen. Once the riots were over, the eggheads went to work and came up with the aforesaid study, commissioned by the Home Secretary, who is a bit like our Secretary of the Interior.

The authors of the study, as the Times reports, say they “were dismayed and shocked by their findings.” They were “particularly struck by the depth of polarization of our towns and cities, and the extent to which these physical divisions were compounded by so many other aspects of our daily lives.”

Yes, well, shocking it all may be, but surprising is another matter. More than 30 years ago British politician Enoch Powell foresaw what he called, quoting the Roman poet Vergil, “rivers of blood” running in Britain as a result of the mass immigration that was just beginning. Powell effectively ruined his career with the speech, which was denounced and repudiated by both political parties. Last summer, his grim prophecy came true.

Let us hear no more of being “surprised” at what mass immigration has done to Britain.

And let us not be too surprised at what the future holds if mass immigration continues. Britain is now estimated to be some 7.1 percent nonwhite, and the nonwhite portion of the population is growing at a rate 15 times that of the white portion. In the 1990s, British whites increased by a mere one percent, as opposed to a 37 percent increase among African blacks, 30 percent among Bangladeshis and 13 percent among Pakistanis. Britain is estimated to become a majority nonwhite country by 2100–50 years after the United States, but not for want of effort.

The report apparently tries to spread the blame for the racial polarization. Some of it is dumped on “far-right and racist groups” that supposedly “exploited the differences and contributed to the violence.” What that probably means is that some right-wing political groups like the British National Party have been warning against mass immigration for years and have recruited supporters because of it.

But the report also blames immigrants themselves. The Home Secretary, David Blunkett, said in commenting on the report that “immigrants had to shed traditions like forced marriage s and genital mutilation if they wanted to live in Britain and that they needed to learn to speak English and adopt ‘British norms,’” according to the Times. In other words, immigrants need to assimilate, which the report found they clearly aren’t. The problem is that it’s now too late for that.

“Mr. Blunkett has insulted us all,” sputtered a column in The Independent by Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, an Asian writer. (send her mail) “I feel no obligation to bring my daughter and son up to drink themselves to death in a pub for a laugh.”

That’s what “British norms” mean to her, you see.

The report also recommended an oath of allegiance to British laws. The response to that wasn’t much more encouraging. One immigrant leader denounced the idea as “clearly divisive” and said “it goes against the fabric of a multicultural society.”

And indeed so it does. You can’t have it both ways, which is what the Home Secretary and his pals in the British–and for that matter the American–establishment haven’t figured out yet.

You can’t let millions of immigrants of different races, religions, cultures, and nationalities into a country with a fairly homogeneous identity for centuries and expect it to remain the same.

You can’t allow the immigrants to gain political and cultural power and then expect them to become British.

Once they come, they will gain power, and once they gain power, they have no reason to assimilate.

It’s like being a little bit pregnant.

Prophets like Enoch Powell, and not a few in parties like the British National Party, figured all this out long, long ago and won nothing but vilification and political ostracism for their pains. Now the Labor Party eggheads are “dismayed and shocked” by the horror their party, along with that of their rivals, has permitted to come into being.

What kind of party, and what kind of leaders, will it take to undo the damage the elites of Atlantic society have inflicted on their own people?

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Britain 
🔊 Listen RSS

Having enjoyed the exhilarating experience of two major race riots in less than two months, the British government of Tony Blair is eagerly searching for a white scapegoat to blame them on. The most convenient such goat is the minute “white nationalist” political party called the British National Party (BNP) which some in the British political establishment would like to ban outright, if only to smother a potential rivals in its cradle before it grows up.

In May, race riots erupted in Oldham and three other northern British cities when mainly Asian immigrants attacked white-owned shops and bars, burned cars and beat up cops and civilians alike. Some whites fought back, and none too gently. Last week much the same kind of violence blew up again in Bradford, also in the north, with more than 100 police officers injured in the course of nine hours of Asian rioting.

The BNP, a small fringe party that opposes non-white immigration and wants to encourage non-whites already in Britain to leave, ran candidates in all the cities where riots broke out—and won its largest returns to date. The party holds no seats in Parliament or anywhere else, but its national leader, a Cambridge lawyer named Nick Grifffin, did wind up with some 16 percent of the vote in Oldham. For a political system in which the two establishment parties hold a virtual monopoly on office-holding, that’s enough to be scary, and some are calling for the party to be banned. That would eliminate a possible future rival that not only challenges conventional wisdom about immigration and multiracialism but also could some day take votes from Labour as well as from the mainstream Tories.

The Washington Post was quick to blame (“Party Stokes Racial Ire In Britain,” July 10, 2001 Page A18) the racial violence on the BNP itself as well as on other far-right groups that were active in the area, but it’s by no means clear that the blame can stick. In fact, blame can just as easily be plastered on a far-left gaggle calling itself the “Anti-Nazi League,” which sponsored rallies in Bradford just before the rioting started.

But of course it’s the right that always gets the blame, and the Post, as well as British papers, sniffed out the appropriate immigrants to regurgitate the proper responses. “The BNP, they lit one match, two match, and start the fire,” the Post quoted one worthy Oriental gentleman as telling it. But others denied that the BNP did or said anything that Asians didn’t do themselves. It was, after all, the Asians who started the violence, not whites.

Mr. Griffin, the BNP leader, denies his party had any role in instigating violence and emphatically rejects the idea of violence for political purposes. “Multiracial societies always end in violence,” says Mr. Griffin. “The reason for the trouble in these cities is that racial tension was already there, as it always is in mixed-race societies. Yes, we urge white people to stand up for their rights, but it is the Asians who are burning the cities this summer.”

Mr. Griffin may not be entirely correct to say that “mixed-race societies” always end in violence. Sometimes they end in despotism, since the rule of force is all that can hold such societies together. There’s a good reason why the empires of ancient times like that of the Romans were both multiracial as well as despotic; it’s the same reason such multiracial conglomerates as the Russian and Habsburg empires were authoritarian in more recent times. The only way to hold different races and cultures together in the same political-territorial unit is by clobbering whoever steps out of line. Those who push for the outlawing of the BNP and similar groups are bringing modern Britain closer to the same outcome.

In any case, Mr. Griffin is by no means the first to warn that multiracialism breeds results other than peace and tranquillity. “As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding,” the late Conservative political leader Enoch Powell told his countrymen 33 years ago, in warning against non-white immigration into Britain. “Like the Roman, I seem to see ‘the River Tiber foaming with much blood,’” as a consequence of the naive belief in multiracial harmony.

Powell was politically ruined for his forthright remarks [Peter Brimelow says no!], but what has happened this summer in Oldham, Bradford and elsewhere and promises to recur far into the future as Britain changes from a majority white to a majority non-white society bears out his grim prophecy. Instead of searching for convenient and unpopular political rivals to blame, the British establishment in press and politics—not to mention the United States—ought to pay a little more attention to the warning Powell issued three decades ago, before more blood starts foaming in their country’s rivers.

• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Britain 
🔊 Listen RSS

Having just voted overwhelmingly for the socialism of Tony Blair, the good folk of Great Britain are now amazed and alarmed to discover that what they are getting in return are the logical consequences of the socialism they voted for. Last week, the British government announced that the convicted teenage killers of a 2-year-old boy would be released from prison—because they now present “no unacceptable risk to the public.”

The killers, Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, both now 18, have been in the slammer for all of a whopping eight years, in place of what should have been a life term. Eight years in prison, of course, is less than many crooks serve for stealing cars, but the crime that Venables and Thompson committed was an act of almost unprecedented brutality in a country that has given the world Jack the Ripper and the Moors Murderers of the 1960s.

At the age of 10, the two kidnapped 2-year-old James Bulger from a shopping mall, sexually abused him, tortured him and then laid his body on a railroad track where it was cut in two—all for the sheer fun of it. The crime made headlines not only in Britain but in other Third World countries as well. When they were convicted, most people, including the Brits, thought they would end their days in prison.

But after what the Home Secretary assures the world was “very careful consideration,” the two are now loose again. It’s true they can’t see each other or go to the county where they committed the crime, and they’re supposed to live under the false identities the government has given them. Moreover, as the government also hastens to say, they can be taken into custody any time there is “any evidence that they present a danger to the public.”

How comforting. In the first place, what more, exactly, would two men who kidnap, torture, molest, mutilate, and murder a young child for fun have to do to suggest that they just might present a danger to the public? In the second place, if there is any evidence that anybody presents a danger to the public, he or she can also be taken into custody, so what special protections against the future fun of these two killers does the public have?

Many in Britain, not least the mother of the butchered James Bulger, are outraged, but what did they expect? What they need to grasp is that the bland denial of justice the government has perpetrated by releasing the killers comes precisely from the world-view embraced by the British—and to no small degree, all Western—government today.

The socialism espoused by Prime Minister Blair and his party is based on the supposition that human beings are merely the products of their social environment, that crime, poverty, war, racial bigotry, religious prejudice and all other evils are caused by exploitation, largely capitalist in origins but nowadays believed by the more progressive elements amongst us to be due in part also to racial and sexual stereotypes. In order to cure these evils, we have to cure the social environment itself.

But we can do that, you see, only if the state is big enough and powerful enough to overcome the resistance of selfish vested interests and only if the right experts are empowered to do the social engineering. In the case of Venables and Thompson, we are assured, they were. “All the experts have testified to the remorse and the change in these two young men,” their lawyer tells the press.

The same socialist state that plans the economy and redistributes wealth also purports to remove the “root causes” of crime in the minds of human beings. There is no human nature, no in-born disposition to behave one way or another, let alone such quaint notions as individual responsibility or justice, consisting of reward when people do good and punishment when they do bad. There are only “social constructions” that have been built up artificially and can be deconstructed. That’s what the progressive element claims to have done to Venables and Thompson.

People who vote for socialism get not only its economic consequences but also its moral and social consequences. What they shouldn’t expect to get is justice, so why should they be amazed when a socialist government not only lets real murderers go free but, sooner or later, as most socialist governments of our time have done, starts murdering people itself? If you think human beings are merely gadgets to be constructed and reconstructed by experts, you will probably wind up tying them across railroad tracks for the fun of it yourself. My guess is that we haven’t heard the last of Venables and Thompson. Some day they might even get elected to Parliament.

• Category: Ideology • Tags: Britain, Crime 
Sam Francis
About Sam Francis

Dr. Samuel T. Francis (1947-2005) was a leading paleoconservative columnist and intellectual theorist, serving as an adviser to the presidential campaigns of Patrick Buchanan and as an editorial writer, columnist, and editor at The Washington Times. He received the Distinguished Writing Award for Editorial Writing of the American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE) in both 1989 and 1990, while being a finalist for the National Journalism Award (Walker Stone Prize) for Editorial Writing of the Scripps Howard Foundation those same years. His undergraduate education was at Johns Hopkins and he later earned his Ph.D. in modern history at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

His books include The Soviet Strategy of Terror(1981, rev.1985), Power and History: The Political Thought of James Burnham (1984); Beautiful Losers: Essays on the Failure of American Conservatism (1993); Revolution from the Middle: Essays and Articles from Chronicles, 1989–1996 (1997); and Thinkers of Our Time: James Burnham (1999). His published articles or reviews appeared in The New York Times, USA Today, National Review, The Spectator (London), The New American, The Occidental Quarterly, and Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture, of which he was political editor and for which he wrote a monthly column, “Principalities and Powers.”