Australian journalist Nick Cater has written a diatribe about the failure of immigration policy in Britain in the Australian. It’s an excoriating attack on the saga to date and especially the first few weeks of the new Labour Government. He also has a warning for Australia. The story is behind a paywall and is likely to go largely unnoticed in Britain, but here’s an extract:
The eruption of ethnic tension in dozens of British towns and cities is a reminder of what happens when governments lose control of immigration.
Boats transporting illegal migrants land so frequently they no longer make the headlines. Since Keir Starmer became Prime Minister at the start of July, there have been 87 “uncontrolled landings”, as the Home Office delicately calls them. That’s another 5,000 asylum-seekers to be fed, housed and processed as guests of the U.K. Government on top of the 31,000 who arrived under the Conservatives last year, and the 96,000 who arrived in the three years before that.
The Labour Government’s response to the crisis is to do precisely nothing. The last thing it wants to do is incur the wrath of the European Court of Human Rights, to which Britain remains beholden, nine years after the British people voted for Brexit.The government won’t confirm how many provincial hotels have been requisitioned, and editors are discouraged from publishing their names. Still, the BBC reported last year that 395 hotels had been requisitioned, housing 51,000 asylum-seekers at a cost of more than £6 million ($12 million) a day, or around $4.4 billion a year, a figure that appears to be a gross underestimate.
The political class may have lost control of the borders, but it has an iron grip on the narrative. To suggest there might be underlying causes to the recent civil disturbances is strictly taboo. Those who come close stand accused of justifying hate crime or may even face charges of being an actual hate criminal, the equivalent of being labelled an enemy of the people in Enver Hoxha’s communist Albania.
It is a catch-all charge laid against anyone who deviates from the party line, which is that the multicultural, globalist project would work fine if these people would only shut up.
The alternative interpretation is that the riots are a manifestation of the pent-up frustration among many Britons who want a say in who comes to their country and how they come. The longer the British establishment keeps its ear turned and tries to suppress serious discussion, the more it will fester.
The truth, however unpalatable, is that the vision of the anointed has turned out to be a horrible, socially destructive and probably irreversible mistake. Trust in the British Government’s ability to control immigration has disappeared outside the London bubble. The British stiff upper lip is being tested every day in provincial towns and cities where wedding receptions are cancelled, business conferences relocated, and golf courses fenced off to make room for the archipelago of mini-Christmas Islands housing people with no cultural connection with Britain or its people.
By comparison, immigration in Australia appears to be working like a dream, at least on paper. It has twice as many overseas-born residents per capita as Britain, the highest concentration in the OECD, excluding Luxembourg, which is different. Australia is the kind of country one goes to seek one’s fortune, while Luxembourg, with its generous tax rules, is the kind of place you go to keep it.
Labor appeared to restore its support for sovereign borders in opposition but, as we now know, the malevolent growth of progressive ideology continued below the surface. Anthony Albanese’s misguided belief that the Australian government has a duty of care to displaced people from a lawless terrorist enclave is entirely consistent with his long-held belief that the Howard government should have accepted the Tampa asylum-seekers.
It stems from the dangerous idea that Australia’s commitment to universal human rights overrides its duty to protect the safety of its own citizens. It assumes that expenditure of compassion on a category of people in a faraway land should be a higher priority than the rights of its citizens, who merely want to know that new arrivals will keep the law and invest in the Australian dream.
No post-war prime minister has tested the limits of public acceptance of an active migration policy as much as this one nor tested the strength of the social fabric by dismissing legitimate grievances. The lesson from the disastrous diversity experiment in Britain is clear: stop it before it is too late.
If you can access the website, the story is worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Haven’t a clue regarding the question posed ATL but seems that Natural England have jumped onto the destruction of farming & food production bandwagon in Cornwall using a more subtle approach than that of the Dutch government to force the farmers off the land.
https://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/2023-07-03/cornwall-farmers-feeling-rejected-neglected-and-ignored-by-new-rules
I posted a similar article about a week ago from Farming UK. The moors are significant precisely because they have been farmed for hundreds of years. Sheer bloody evil at play here.
Coming soon no doubt to a Saddleworth Moor near me.
https://www.farminguk.com/news/farmers-to-take-part-in-one-of-uk-s-largest-landscape-programmes_62960.html
And here’s more bloody interference which is doubtless causing misery for many farmers.
Ultimately, the only thing that can end this is the dismantling of the giant organisations we’ve allowed to control our lives: the UN, the EU, the ECHR, BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, the Open Society Foundations and the breaking up of giant corporations. The bigger and more controlling these organisations become, the less they recognise the rights of the individual and the small group.
“For instance, how do we weigh up the huge death tolls of communism against its lifting of hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and illiteracy?”
Sorry, what? When did that happen?
It’s a popular Chinese Communist Party claim that disregards the hundreds of millions it murdered, imprisoned, tortured and enslaved.
Selectively focussing on fascism/Nazi atrocities for decades results in Communism not looking so bad despite the body count. Benefits anyone who wants to try again with Communusm.
Yes I was going to say exactly the same thing. Preposterous claim.
Well for a start, Capitalism also lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty – without causing millions of deaths.
The communists had to adopt a form of capitalism.
I recall hearing that it was like ice cream. There are 92 flavours, but all made by one company. You have choice, but it is an illusion. If you want ice cream theres only one place you can go.
I think that the more extreme the ‘solution to climate change’, the greater the push back. There will be a ‘snap’ point, probably airports or digital currency when the masses stir.
When all but three airports close, then air travel is banned, will likely be the snapping point. But we’ve got another 25 years of diminishing liberty at the behest of giant organisations to get through.
Or more likely, only available for the rich, as it was in the past.
It is a religion. Millenarian, doom, end of the world, self loathing, self flagellation, a cult of end times. Humans need a religion. Corona Fascism and Gaia Fascism provide the irreligious with their gospels, rituals and rites of faith. Yes both are idiotic, but we never said that the average IQ was that high. People will succumb to endless propaganda. Look at the quackcines, not 1 in 100 can name 3 ingredients or how they are made, but they were on the verge of shooting unstabbeds like myself.
I think you are right about the need for a religion, although I was born an atheist and stayed that way. I recently saw a short video of David Icke speaking in 1994 and I found a free copy of his book The Robots’ Revenge. I haven’t finished it yet but he describes it as being about a conspiracy to control the human race. His answer is to turn to spiritualism for a meaning to life and he has suffered because of it, but it is harmless compared to the new religions which are effectively corrupting scientific knowledge.
“What Will End the Grip of the Net Zero Cult?”
Expose cui bono.
Follow the money.
Covid demonstrated that people will put up with all sorts of nonsense if you can get the messaging right. So my gut feel is that the grip will not be ended until it is too late and our civilisation has been irrevocably destroyed.
I think our civilisation already is dead. The maggots are only just starting to devour the corpse. The key thing is that enough people start to look for a bolthole to take our learning and our history with us to ride out the coming dark ages, so there can be a second Renaissance in the future.
I don’t like admitting this but I agree tof.
We shall see. The next thing that’s going to happen is the irrevocable death of all remaining boom babies and how true their children stay to the silly partylines once the parents who invented them 1970s are gone remains to be seen. It is – after all – about ruining their own future.
Has to be people power.
The politicians, MSM, police, corporations are all on board to climatism, but there’s more of us than them.
There is a distinct religious element to it all. ——They speak of “apocalypse” and “armageddon”. If you don’t subscribe to their secular religion you are a heretic. Those who don’t live by the Green Commandments are “sinners”. ———–Irrational fear of climate change relies mainly on the will to believe rather than on any evidence. It’s disciples base their world view on faith and emotion rather than fact and reason. Todays “environmentalism” is all about attracting followers and is mostly an incoherent jumble of people who know next to nothing about climate or energy, and who think all we need to do is get rid of coal oil and gas and replace it with wind and sun and everything will tick along just fine with the added bonus that we will be “saved”. ———Nope.
Nobody ever found heaps of dead bodies in Auschwitz because Auschwitz was blown up and evacuated by the SS before the Red Army reached it.
https://www.upday.com/uk/uk-needs-to-adapt-buildings-to-rising-temperatures-most-radically-study-finds?preview=true&utm_source=upday&utm_medium=referral
Now our buildings are too warm so we have to cool them down.
Pseudo-science and stupidity rolled in to one great big fraud ball.
My house is so warm it costs me several hundred pounds a month to heat it
Hotter summers are our new normal: we must learn to adapt to them and to mitigate the harms that extreme hot weather will bring.
I would greatly appreciate a bit of hot summer because I could then hang out the washing in the garden and actually expect it to dry. In the current climate, where it’s usually overcast and showering and rather cool even when clear, there’s no chance in hell for this to work.
Someone really needs to tell these people that 2018 is over. They should have noticed that because of the so-called pandemic which occured since then but apparently, the year is hard-coded in the AIs they’ve been implanted instead of brains. That’s also the cause for them being so repitive.
We had three or four decent weeks of sunshine, but I only had to use my electric fan once at night to keep the temperature down. At the moment it keeps on raining and we’ve had a good three weeks of mediocre summer. I see the Daily Mail is running a heat apocalypse story, pretty saying the UK will boil in the next few weeks. It’s be nice if it does, because we’ll be heading straight into autumn afterwards!
It’s actually Spain, Italy and Greece and temperatures don’t look out of the ordinary for summer in either country.
I find it strange how anything that allows the expression of a saviour complex and regressive taxation is supported by our political class.
I like the idea that the climate change thing is a culture. Maybe one could also omit the last three letters and call it a cult. One way to tame it is to discredit it, and the Daily Sceptic has done a good job in dismantling the models by questioning their validity.
My take is simple; the climate is changing, but it always has and always will – the question is why. If, every time someone bats on about fossil fuels one asks what percentage of warming is attributable to them, against other climate-altering things such as El Niño, underwater volcanic eruptions in the Antarctic, deforestation in the Amazon and Himalayas, water diversion from the Aral Sea, even hardened believers will start to question their belief. Oh, and don’t forget lower atmospheric turbulence from wind farms. Then ask what the carbon footprint of lithium ion batteries is – not in their use, but in their manufacture. The economics can be discussed once they have satisfactorily answered those.
I suspect many who have previously been believers, like me, may falter once confronted with such questions. Like me!
“how do we weigh up the huge death tolls of communism against its lifting of hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and illiteracy?”
Seriously? You actually think that communism lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty and illiteracy? Commuism didn’t just kill millions. It also destroyed the culture and economic progress of a huge country (Russia) and wrecked the economies of many others. Basically, far from lifting people out of poverty and illiteracy, it caused poverty and illiteracy.
And then we have this gem:
“Climate catastrophism globally is hugely dependent on its relationship with the mainstream faiths”
That really is total nonsense. The Church teaches salvation through Jesus Christ, not through climate action. The Church of England may be gripped by the green cult, but that isn’t true of more mainstream churches, and it certainly isn’t true of Islam.
And the claim that “climate catastrophism has a tight grip on society” is unduly pessimistic in my view. I believe there are clear signs of weakening commitment to it amongst the public, and opinion polls show steadily reducing support for it internationally.
Overall then the article is bunk. Sorry.
It does seem to be based on some form of religion or cult needs of humans. I tend to think it is a form of self-punishment or self flagellation found in religion. I have heard many times the comment that ” we have been burning fossil fuels for many years, it’s time we paid for that”, as if it has been totally destructive and we have all benefitted too much. There have been over 50 years of high level propaganda by the enviro activists pushing their radical and false messages , enough to make us all feel guilty for our successes.
Those complaining about the burning of fossil fuels should consider that without that there would be a tree left anywhere.