In the wake of the terrorists’ murder of ten Charlie Hebdo staff and two police officers, London-based commentator Paul Joseph Watson asked on Twitter, ‘To what extent has mass uncontrolled immigration contributed to incidents like the #ParisShooting?’ Watson answers his own question in ‘Paris Shooting: What they’re not telling you’ (Infowars.com, 7 January 2015), talking about the failure of the media to report, and governments to notice, the tragic connections between Islamic extremism and a number of attacks by immigrants (and their children) on people in the nations that have accepted them as residents and citizens.
In March 2014 we asked on this blog ‘Is immigration good for Britain?’ We answered then, ‘No, but it’s worse for Australia’. At the same time, English author David Goodhart published The British Dream: Successes and Failures of Post-War Immigration. He previewed his book in The Guardian under the title ‘Why the left is wrong about immigration’.
Predictably, Goodhart’s work has attracted defensive negative reviews from ‘the left’ – see for example David Edgar in The Guardian. (*) A more favourable review of The British Dream was published by David Sexton in the London Evening Standard.
We can now share with our readers an Australian review that is highly critical of the book, badging it as ‘genocidal’. The reviewer acknowledges Goodhart’s worthwhile criticism of the multiculturalism associated with high levels of immigration from non-traditional source countries, but strongly condemns Goodhart’s commitment to open-ended, mass-immigration-induced multi-racialism.
The shift from dream to nightmare is already a reality for victims of the crimes perpetrated by immigrants in the countries that have given them refuge. Britons are waking up to how fast their society is changing and are quitting London in droves. Last month, the Sydney siege showed ‘how the screen door of citizenship has been left open to criminal elements‘. Sweden is facing ‘suicide by immigration’, while Norway’s crime rate dropped significantly when failed asylum-seekers were deported. The massacre in Paris is the latest recurrence of France’s ongoing nightmare.
Immigration policies must be changed to recognise the folly of accepting individuals from groups that cannot accept the values and standards of the community they seek to join.
We’re with Mark Steyn who has blogged: ‘I’d rather die laughing than live in the cowed, craven serf state the malign alliance of totalitarian Islam and a cowardly western leadership is building for us.’
If you agree with our views, please use every opportunity to share them with decision-makers in government. In Australia, voters in the forthcoming Queensland and New South Wales state elections can take further action by annotating their ballot papers with the REDUCE IMMIGRATION message.
* Readers might like to reflect on earlier views once held by ‘the left’ on immigration. The founders of the Fabian Society expressed the need for an immigration policy to ensure that Britain excluded ‘human rubbish’ [their words, not ours!] so as to maintain its social equilibrium: see Fabian Essays in Socialism, 5th edition, 1931, page 129.