Diversity is no buffet

In 2000 Jack Straw, the then Home secretary, made the notorious statement that the English as a race have a “propensity for violence and aggression”. There may be some merit to this claim, it is certainly true that the British soldier has a long and well earned reputation as a ferocious fighter. Furthermore, it would be disingenuous for any English person to deny that a number of our young men, and progressively more of our young women, have a propensity for binge drinking and hooliganism, albeit we are certainly not alone in respect of the latter, as various examples of football violence across Europe demonstrate.

However, ignoring the accuracy, or otherwise of the statement, and the fact that the English are one of the few races on Earth about whom a Western politician would dare make such a comment, it is an unequivocal acknowledgement of the fact that individual racial and cultural characteristics exist, and that some of these characteristics are less than desirable.

This fact that other races might have undesirable characteristics is something which is always ignored by those who sing the benefits of diversity and multiculturalism. Invariably they will highlight the perceived benefits whilst seeking to obscure the disadvantages. This is, of course, somewhat dishonest, a multicultural society is not a buffet table from which you can pick and choose small spoon-fulls of the dishes you prefer, whilst leaving the less appetizing offerings untouched. Diversity does not offer a pick-and-mix option, when you opt for multiculturalism you have to take the whole carcass, including the horns, offal and stomach content.

Although it may not be politically correct for the likes of Jack Straw to make a similarly blunt appraisal of the cultural or racial propensities of other races, it would be ludicrous to claim that the English are the only race on earth to have undesirable characteristics. It follows, therefore, that because of mass immigration, instead of having one cultural problem to deal with we have now imported dozens more. Furthermore, the problems we are importing not only make existing problems worse, but they are introducing us to a whole new range undesirable issues, albeit some quite exotic ones.

This is even more the case in relation to immigration from third world countries, many of which have serious social problems, including high levels of crime, corruption and violence. There are various reasons for those problems, and some could be the result of culture and ideology. If so, only a fool would imagine that people would or could change their culture or ideology by the mere process of getting on a plane and flying to Heathrow, indeed the supporters of diversity would be appalled at such a suggestion, they insist that new cultures and ideologies brought to our shores by the new arrivals, enrich our culture and must be embraced. Unfortunately, we are consequently, obliged to embrace things which damage our communities in addition to those which allegedly enhance them. Let us consider some examples:

The heavy involvement of those of Jamaican and Somali origin in both street and gun crime is not merely anecdotal, the levels are now so overwhelming that even the Community cohesion censors in the media can no longer hide the fact that members of the West Indian and Somali communities feature to a staggeringly disproportionate degree as both the victims and, even more so, as the perpetrators of such crimes. Indeed the very existence of Operation Trident is official acknowledgement of the seriousness of the levels of gun crime within those communities.

As a possible explanation for this it is worth remembering that Jamaica and Somalia are two of the most dangerous countries in the world, with terrifying rates of crime and murder, indeed Somalia is all but a bandit state. If we are to accept that, as Jack Straw tells us, the English have a propensity for violence, is it then racist to wonder if either Jamaicans or Somalis have cultural propensities which might have contributed, in some measure, to the state in which their countries find themselves? Is it further racist to wonder whether, when we welcome them to our land we are welcoming the bad side of their culture as well as the good?

Almost nightly on our TV screens we see horrible scenes of inter-ethnic violence in Africa, in the Middle East or amongst rival groups in Pakistan, do we really imagine that there is something in the water in those countries which makes them behave in the way they do and that as soon as they have drunk a glass of good old Thames water they will suddenly develop moderate western ways?.

From these links to various “isolated incidents” over the last six yours, it seems not. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4989202.stm
http://www.thepressnewspaper.co.uk/NewsDetails.asp?id=1169
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2102470.stm

I know that whenever race riots are mentioned the apologists remind us of Teddy Boys and Rockers fighting in Brighton during the '50s, but did they really use machetes?

This is not to deny that all races have good and bad amongst them, however, just like the English each nation and each race has its own unique cultural problems, so, by tolerating such high levels of immigration as we now do, we are inevitably adding new and diverse problems to our home grown ones.

There have always been indigenous white criminals, who have committed a variety of crimes, but we are now seeing new types of crime, which were not previously common in Britain. Muti murder, female genital mutilation and honour related violence, only effect small sections of the immigrant community, however, other forms of imported crime impact on all of us.

For instance a highly controversial, and long suppressed, Channel 4 documentary during the 1990's revealed how the numbers of gang rapes committed by the indigenous white population was statistically minute, in fact they could find no record of any gang rapes in Britain in the ten years leading up to the programme, which had not been committed by a black or mixed rape gang. Yet the numbers of gang rapes are increasing each year.

Those who remember that programme, may also remember the outcry it caused, not unlike that which happened when they attempted to expose the problem of under aged white girls who being groomed for sex by Asian men. However, once again, the main thrust of the complaint was not that the allegations were untrue, but that making them, was in itself racist, would cause racial tension. (You can be sure that if it were white people committing gang rapes and grooming Asian girls, these same people would be shrieking for its widest possible exposure and community cohesion can go hang.)

The Advertising Standards Authority and The Financial Services Authority issue rules and codes of practice requiring firms to give equal prominence to the disadvantages of the products they advertise as they do to the benefits.

It seems that no such rules are applied to those who wish to promote racial diversity and ever increasing levels of immigration. Whereas although the supposed benefits of inward migration are trumpeted as undisputed fact, any mention of the very many disadvantages is all but prohibited, and as the Bishop of Rochester discovered can result in howls of outrage and death threats.

It is time that those who make the laws which have such impact on our lives, and who have opened our boarders to allcommers, admit that this multicultural social experiment they have inflicted upon us has a downside, because, by the day it is becoming clearer just how deep that downside is, and that, by comparison, the alleged English propensity for violence pales into insignificance.