I love David Thompson's ephemera postings, which he does every Friday. Buried in among the fun and games are often things with a bit of a message, in favour of Thompsonism and against horribleness.

So, today, for instance, there is a link to three lists, of top migrant destinations, top emigration countries, and top "migration corridors", migration corridors being country pairs, from and to. List one says how many people in each country were not born there, and the second list says how many people who were born there have now gone.

I have always believed that how people have been voting with their feet is one of the most potent judgements there can be at any particular moment in history, on the varying merits and demerits of different countries and different political and economic systems. The USSR bombarded the world with high decibel claims about the wonderfulness of itself and of its various national possessions, but could not explain why so many people wanted out, and so desperately, and so few in. How come the Berlin Wall only pointed in one particular direction? How come they were the ones who built it?

Contrariwise, the world's anti-Thompsonists of an earlier time cursed the hideous exploitation of the emerging sweatshop (then) economies of South East Asia, but could not explain why people would swim through shark-infested waters, in order to be hideously exploited.

Such numbers also register how welcoming or unwelcoming different countries are towards being "flooded" with incomers. The USA, of course, is the country that positively defines itself as the country of migrants. That the USA, now as always, is by far the top migrant destination, leaving the rest in a clump far behind, says it all about the continuing vitality of the USA as the go-to superpower of the world, still, despite all the blunders its rulers are now making and which the USA itself is so good at drawing everyone's attention to.

Russia and Saudi Arabia must also be doing something right, despite the stories you hear, and at least compared to the alternatives for those flooding in. Money plus labour shortages would be my guesses, in both cases.

The UK features in the top ten both for migration in and emigration out. That is a telling fact, is it not? India and Russia are also on both lists.

The biggest upheavals are surely the big numbers that pertain to countries with small populations. When you talk percentages, Australia looks to me positively USA-like in its eagerness to attract newcomers. That China, despite its colossal size and formidable recent economic vitality, is not on the top destination list is also quite telling, is it not?

These numbers are more than just ephemeral curiosities, I would say.

I realise it is only April, so there is ample time for someone else to win the much vaunted Samizdata prize of 'oddest remark of the year', but this has to be a real contender:

However, Prof Rowthorn said the most likely victims were British-born school-leavers who had never had a job, having failed to find the kind of casual work they might have walked into a few years ago. The claim will fuel a political row over the prospects for a generation referred to as "Neets" (not in education, employment or training).

The professor said: "We are looking at the most vulnerable, least skilled and in some ways least motivated members of the local workforce. The problem that eastern European migrants pose is that they are good workers."

So the fact good workers are arriving in the UK is a 'problem' and that employers have them to hire rather than having to try and coax an honest day's work out of the least unmotivated native born lumpen is... a bad thing for people in Britain overall? Hmmm.

Also as the total number of job has been rising steadily for quite some time, it is hard to hide the fact the children of the British 'welfare' state are simply acting as the state has conditioned them to act. Of course the irony is that the people in some part replacing them are high initiative individuals arriving from former communist countries in search of better opportunities. And such people filling jobs grows the economy, so again the advantages overall take wilful blindness not to see.

Locals who cannot compete with Eastern European need to ask themselves why that is. My guess is that they are not really trying to compete very hard because after all, they can always just sign on for the dole. I find it hard to be sympathetic when a person's poverty is simply a function of a lack of motivation.

Of course one is not suppose to say things like that. My bad.

Rob Johnston has produced a very interesting essay on the true soulmates of Green Politics in Britain

• Forbid the purchase of corner shops by migrants
• Stop people from inner cities moving to the countryside to protect traditional lifestyles
• Grant British citizenship only to children born here
• Boycott food grown by black farmers and subsidise crops grown by whites
• Restrict tourism and immigration from outside Europe
• Prohibit embryo research
• Stop lorry movements on the Lord’s Day
• Require State approval for national sports teams to compete overseas
• Disconnect Britain from the European electricity grid
• Establish a "new order" between nations to resolve the world economic crisis

These are the policies of one of Britain’s most influential political parties: a party that has steadily increased its vote over the last decade; a party that appeals overwhelmingly to whites; and a party that shares significant objectives with neo-fascists and religious fundamentalists.

Perhaps - the BNP? Despite its attempts to appear modern and inclusive and the soothing talk in its 2005 General Election Manifesto, of "genuine ethnic and cultural diversity" [1].

Or UKIP? It harbours some pretty backward-looking individuals - but would they stop Britain buying electricity from France if necessary?

Or, maybe, the Conservatives? Could that be a list of recommendations from one of Dave’s lesser-known policy groups - chaired by the ghost of Enoch Powell - quietly shredded to avoid "re-contaminating the Brand"?

Actually, affiliates of the progressive consensus may be surprised to learn that all the reactionary policies in the first paragraph are from the Green Party’s Manifesto for a Sustainable Society (MfSS) or were adopted at the party’s Autumn Conference in Liverpool over the weekend of September 13-16, 2007 [2].

Of course, the Green Party will protest against the accusation of reactionary politics. However, in an article critical of the G8 leaders in June, George Monbiot, (capo di tutti capi of the green movement) advised readers to judge politicians for "what they do, not what they say".

For example, as well as supporting ethnic and cultural diversity, the BNP says it accepts:

"... the right of law-abiding minorities, in our country because they or their ancestors came here legally, to remain here and to enjoy the full protection of the law against any form of harassment or hostility..." [3]

But, use Monbiot's argument, disregard the rhetoric and look at what the rest of the BNP manifesto promises would actually do and it remains a party of racist and neo-fascist ideology - internationally isolationist and domestically reactionary.

The trouble for Greens is that their manifesto pledges would result in many of the same outcomes as the BNP programme.

You will not find the words "Boycott food grown by black farmers and subsidise crops grown by whites", in the Green Party’s manifesto, but consider Monbiot’s advice about the effects of these policies:

"The Green Party recognises that subsidies are sometimes necessary to protect local, regional and national economies and the environment, and we will support them in these instances" [4].

"Controls such as tariff barriers and quotas should be gradually introduced on a national and/or regional bloc level, with the aim of allowing localities and countries to produce as much of their food, goods and services as they can themselves. Anything that cannot be provided nationally should be obtained from neighbouring countries, with long distance trade the very last resort" [5].

The paradox of arguing for Fair Trade while refusing to buy African vegetables because of "food miles" has been noted many times, but it is a paradox the Green Party simply ignores. According to the Guardian, Britain has two black farmers [6], so any policy to subsidise domestic produce and erect barriers to outsiders will, ipso facto, support white farmers and disadvantage black farmers. Even if supplies are "obtained from neighbouring countries", white European farmers benefit at the expense of poor farmers in Africa and the developing world.

On agricultural policy in general, Greens will agree with the following sentiments:

"Britain's farming industry will be encouraged to produce a much greater part of the nation's need in food products. Priority will be switched from quantity to quality, as we move from competing in a global economy to maximum self-sufficiency for Britain, sustainable agriculture, decreased reliance on petro-chemical products and more organic production" [7].

However, those promises come from the BNP 2005 General Election Manifesto - in a section indistinguishable from the Green Party manifesto:

"To be able to fulfil all our basic food needs locally. To grow as many other products as we can to meet our basic needs (e.g. for textiles, fuel, paper) on a local or regional basis. To enable all communities to have access to land which can be used for growing for basic needs. To ensure that all growing systems use only natural, renewable inputs and that all organic waste outputs are able to be recycled back into the soil or water system" [8].

Perhaps this is why, according to the BNP:

"We are the only true 'Green Party' in Britain as only the BNP intends to end mass immigration into Britain and thereby remove at a stroke the need for an extra 4 million homes in the green belts of the South East and elsewhere, which are required to house the influx of 5 million immigrants expected to enter the country under present trends over the next twenty years" [9].

Greens agree with the BNP about migration and the green belt. They promise to: minimise the environmental degradation caused by migration; not allow increased net migration; and end the pressure on the Green Belt by reducing population and stopping growth-oriented development [10]. Reduction in non-white tourism and immigration would be an inevitable consequence of government restrictions on air travel. Few refugees from Iraq, Darfur, Zimbabwe manage to get all the way to Britain without a large carbon footprint, neither can tourists from beyond Europe.

How about the accusation that the Green Party would:

"Stop people from inner cities moving to the countryside to protect traditional lifestyles and prevent crime; forbid the purchase of corner shops by migrants."

Here, are the relevant resolutions from the MfSS:

"Communities and regions should have the right to restrict inward migration when one or more of the following conditions are satisfied: [11]
a) The ecology of the recipient area would be significantly adversely affected by in-comers to the detriment of the wider community (eg. National Parks, Antarctica).
b) The recipient area is owned or controlled by indigenous peoples (eg Australian aboriginal people) whose traditional lifestyle would be adversely affected by in-comers.
c) The prospective migrants have, on average, equal or greater economic power than the residents of the recipient area and they or their families were not forced to leave the area in the recent past."

"Regions or communities must have the right to reject specific individuals on grounds of public safety" [12].

The examples (breathtakingly disingenuous) assert that they intend simply to stop Richard Branson driving a new main line through Stonehenge, Rupert Murdoch building a printing press on top of Uluru or Caesar’s Palace opening a casino at the South Pole.

Surely the Greens, of all people, know that Britain has hardly any desolate tundra and few Australian aboriginal communities. In practice, these policies would give the "indigenous" white folk of a quaint rural hamlet the right to rebuff a Leicester Bangladeshi purchaser for its corner shop because she has "greater economic power" than the villagers – whose "traditional lifestyle" would be "adversely affected" by her ethnicity and religion. They could also keep her out "on ground of public safety" because her inner city Muslim children are more likely to be criminals than their own offspring.

Not surprisingly, the BNP agrees with the Greens about the "right of all peoples to self-determination and that must include the indigenous peoples of these islands" [13]... Alas, not every small community is Ambridgely-correct – thrilled to embrace a half-Irish gay couple, a Vicar with a Hindu girlfriend and a mixed-race child, and an African husband for the daughter of the Lord of the Manor with the same enthusiasm it has for organic ciabatta and carbon trading.

In the 1980s, when the Thatcher government restricted immigration to Britain to those with at least one grandparent born here, it was accused of constructive racism. Thatcher claimed her measures were not racist – any discrimination against nonwhites was just an incidental consequence of the need to maintain what is now called "community cohesion". Green Party policy would go even further down the road of constructive racism than Mrs Thatcher, refusing citizenship to children born overseas even if their parents hold British passports [14].

The Macpherson Report into the murder of Stephen Lawrence identified "unwitting racism" in the police that can arise from well intentioned words or actions that arise out of uncritical self-understanding born out of an inflexible ethos of the "traditional" way of doing things:

"It persists because of the failure of the organisation openly and adequately to recognise and address its existence and causes by policy, example and leadership. Without recognition and action to eliminate such racism it can prevail as part of the ethos or culture of the organisation" [15].

By its uncritical acceptance of "traditional" ways of doing things - from the "spiritual link between ourselves and nature" [16] in agriculture, to anti-globalisation, to making the home "an important centre of economic activity" [17] - the Green Party allies itself with some of the most reactionary contemporary political forces in the land. And the "traditional" way of doing things is usually a reactionary approach to modern social issues.

Green Party agreement with Christian fundamentalists on at least two issues requires no textual analysis: MfSS policy number EU523 would ban lorry movements on Sunday throughout Europe and H329 calls for an immediate ban on embryo manipulation and cloning for any research, therapeutic or reproductive purposes [18].

Policies EU532 and 533 would scrap all connection of electricity grids throughout Europe - partly because interconnectivity allows nuclear generated power to creep along the wires [19].

For national sports teams, CMS871 would require politicians to determine "whether it is appropriate for the team to take part in competition against a country with whom normal friendly, respectful, or diplomatic relations are not possible” [20].

It is frequent for parties on the extreme fringes to share an analysis of contemporary politics - and Greens and BNP certainly share a lot of analysis. From the BNP 2005 Manifesto [21]:

"For most of human history, the existence of such ethnic and cultural diversity among humanity was so obvious and apparently unchallengeably natural that the political theorists and philosophers of past generations simply took it for granted. Only in the last few decades has this been changed forever by the advent of mass passenger travel, the insatiable desire of the globalised capitalist economy for cheap labour, and the worldwide reach of US consumerist culture through film and television."

"That poison is in large measure the blind economic force of global capitalism, with its insistence on the unrestricted flow of goods, capital and labour to wherever in the world they will make the maximum short-term profit ... It is not about 'love' and 'tolerance', it is about profit."

From the Green Party Manifesto:

"Formidably powerful and publicly unaccountable transnational companies are becoming ever more footloose, their strength and mobility facilitated both by technological advances, and by the progressive withdrawal of investment controls by governments and by multilateral institutions such as WTO. TNCs are now increasingly able to exploit differences in social and environmental standards between countries in order to maximise profits" [22]. "The rush towards globalisation is neither inevitable nor desirable. It is leading to the sharp reduction in powers of local and indigenous communities, states, and even nations, to control their futures, as economic power is transferred to global institutions. A worldwide homogenization of diverse, local, and indigenous cultures, social and economic forms, as well as values and living patterns increasingly reflect the new global monoculture" [23].

To solve these "problems" the Green Party calls for an international "new order" to address a "global economic … cris[i]s" [24]. That language requires a very special kind of historical ignorance. Can no one in the Green Party have noticed that the last ideology to emphasise the spiritual oneness of man and nature ("blood and soil") and used the phrase "new order" was the fascism of the mid-20th century? A fascism represented in contemporary politics by the BNP. Similar analyses may be common for parties on opposite wings of politics, but it is not so common to posit the same solutions.

No doubt, when the Green Party adopted its manifesto there was no deliberate intention to implement a reactionary and racist strategy. But the Green Party is overwhelmingly white: of more than three dozen individuals listed as speakers and discussion leaders at its Autumn Conference only one was obviously a member of a visible ethnic minority (VEMs to those in the know) [25]. Even the discussion on issues affecting women from ethnic minority communities was led by a white woman and just 2% of Green Party candidates in the 2006 local elections were VEMs [26]. Perhaps the absence of minority members in Green Party counsels results in the same sort of "canteen culture" that affects the police, making it oblivious to the right-wing, pseudo racist nature of its plans for Britain.

The lessons of the Macpherson Report’s "institutional racism" could be expanded to include "institutional reactionaryism" and should be learnt not only by the state apparatus and large companies, but also by the Green Party - which declares its desire for a fair and just society.

References:
1.BNP 2005 General Election Manifesto: Rebuilding British Democracy (BNP 2005) pg 3 http://www.bnp.org.uk/candidates2005/manifesto/manifesto2005.pdf
2.Green Party Autumn Conference 2007: http://www.greenparty.org.uk/files/conference/2007/Final_Agenda_Autumn07.pdf
3.BNP 2005: pg 21
4.Green Party Manifesto for a Sustainable Society (GP MfSS): EU413 http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/mfss/
5.Ibid: EU443
6.The Guardian Monday June 26, 2006 “Meet Britain's other black farmer” http://www.guardian.co.uk/country/article/0,,1805973,00.html
7.BNP 2005: pg47
8.GP MfSS: AG500, AG501, AG502, AG503
9.BNP 2005: pg 48
10.GP MfSS: MG200, MG400, CY561
11.Ibid: MG204
12.Ibid: MG207
13.BNP 2005: pg 3
14.GP MfSS: NY515
15.Rachel Morris, Cardiff Law School: Summary of Macpherson Report: http://www.law.cf.ac.uk/tlru/Lawrence.pdf
16.GP MfSS: AG100
17.Ibid: EC403
18.Ibid: EU523, H329
19.Ibid: EU532, EU533
20.Ibid: CMS871
21.BNP 2005: pg 18-19
22.GP MfSS: EC902
23.Ibid: EC903
24.Ibid: EC900
25.Green Party Autumn Conference 2007 Timetable. http://www.greenparty.org.uk/files/conference/2007/Liverpool_timetable_full.pdf
26.Green Party Candidates for May 4th 2006 http://www.greenparty.org.uk/files/election/2WebverLE06cand.htm

Patrick Crozier has views on the saga of footballer Al Bangura

Many of you will be vaguely aware of the Bangura affair. Al Bangura is the Watford footballer who is about to be deported to Sierra Leone, where, according to him, he is likely to be killed. For extra colour there is some stuff about a voodoo cult and the bizarre ruling that his being a professional footballer with excellent prospects do not count because Sierra Leone is not one of the top 75 football teams in the world. Go figure.

I should point out that I am a half-hearted Watford fan but this does not affect what I am about to say. I would say the same if the guy played for L*t*n. All it means is that I am slightly more familiar with the case.

I have no idea if what Bangura says is true. Frankly, it could be a pack of lies for all I care. Given the stakes involved: the best job in the world or exile to some African shithole, it would hardly be surprising if he were telling the odd porkie. But it does not matter. The way I see it the guy has every right to be here. Not because he is fleeing persecution, not because he is a good footballer, not because he pays his taxes or 'enriches' British culture...

But because he is a human being.

I think everybody should be able to live everywhere, subject, of course, to the usual libertarian provisos about property rights.

My guess is that sense and political manipulation of the judiciary will prevail. This has the potential to become a real cause celebre - you can just imagine the stink if he gets sent back to Sierra Leone and does indeed wind up dead - and because of that I do not think it will happen. Or if he does get deported he will soon find a job somewhere else. I hear LA Galaxy are looking to strengthen their midfield.

But it makes me think about all those who are not professional footballers - the ordinary joes who just want to make better lives for themselves or to escape the hope-crushing Kafka-with-machetes world that is so common in Africa. They have to face the more ordinarily-Kafkaesque world of the immigration system without the support of football clubs and their umpteen thousand supporters. For them the difference between prosperity and poverty hangs on a civil servant's whim. The more honest must be tortured by debates over when to tell the truth and when to lie like crazy. It must be agony.

Over on The First Post, Richard Ehrman has written an article called Immigration: Britain’s wake-up call that gives us a splendid example of how the left and right generally share 'meta-context' (the unspoken axioms that we take for granted when we discuss something):

The new population projections are shocking [...] Over the next 25 years, the Office of National Statistics expects the British population to rise to 71million, from 60m today. After that, it is on course to hit 75m by mid-century. [...] And because we are not producing enough children to replace ourselves, most of this dramatic growth will be due to immigration. [...] Population projections have proved wildly out in the past, so this latest version should be taken with a pinch of salt. But it should serve as a wake-up call, too.

If we are going to rely on immigrants to pay our pensions and do the jobs we don't want to do, we are also going to have to build an awful lot of new houses, roads, schools and hospitals to accommodate them.

The fact the population is growing in Britain is shocking, apparently. Okay, yet for some reason I am not shocked. However why is this something we should regard as a "wake up call"? Personally I am hearing something more like a dinner bell being rung. Richard Ehrman is associated with Politeia, an allegedly market-friendly think tank, so why should 'we', by which I very strongly suspect he means 'we-as-taxpayers', be building houses, roads, schools and hospitals for anyone? In less benighted times the arrival of more people would have been referred to as a 'growing market' (i.e. a good thing) rather than an impending liability which needs a "wake-up call" to alert us to a problem.

Let me quote something very germane that was uttered yesterday at the Libertarian Alliance conference in London, by Shane Frith of Progressive Vision on more or less the same subject:

"The claim that immigration puts strain on 'vital public services' is a myth. The reality is that immigration only puts 'pressure' on the inefficient state sector such as state schools and NHS hospitals. Vital public services provided by the private sector welcome the additional customers. In the vital field of food supply, you don't hear Tesco complaining that they hadn't planned on the increased business - we face no food shortages. Neither does Vodafone struggle with the technical demands of providing mobile phones to all these immigrants. Immigration merely highlights the existing failure of the inefficient, unreformed state sector."

Quite! If indeed much of Central Europe is decamping from their homelands and heading for this Sceptred Isle, what an excellent time to abolish the decrepit socialist legacy systems (which are rather like running 1980's era computers in 2007 and then wondering why things do not work) that have inexplicably survived into the Twenty First century. Time to replace them with adaptive market driven approaches that are neither distorted nor crowded out by an idiotic and fantastically inefficient state run medical system, preposterous public sector housing and ever more dumbed down state schools. None of these things, not one, is logically something the state should have anything to do with. As I have argued before, perhaps the changing demographic realities may force exactly the sort of changes that should have been introduced decades ago.

And if that is true, it is yet another reason to thank the latest wave of immigrants. Guys, you might actually save us from ourselves.

Vitajte v Londyne!

He could have taken his article to this conclusion but perhaps he thought the baggage that would come with it would distract from his intended points. In order for my 'friendly amendment' to make sense, it is important to understand what "multiculturalism" really means. Multiculturalism is not a recent ideology. Only the name is new. Most of you are far more familiar with it as "separate but equal". Wikipedia says:

Multiculturalism is an ideology advocating that society should consist of, or at least allow and include, distinct cultural and religious groups, with equal status.

Separate but equal ... segregationism. Multiculturalism as an ideology is diametrically opposed to integration and assimilation. Some have noted a difference in the formation of terrorists in America as compared with Europe but without necessarily attributing it to America's still comparatively high cultural emphasis and expectation of newcomers to assimilate.

The absence of significant terrorist attacks or even advanced terrorist plots in the United States since Sept. 11 is good news that cannot entirely be explained by increased intelligence or heightened security. It suggests America’s Muslim population may be less susceptible than Europe’s Muslim population, if not entirely immune, to jihadist ideology. In fact, countervailing voices may exist within the American Muslim community.

So what does this have to do with Richard Miniter?

He wrote an excellent article published in The American Legion Magazine reviewing several researcher's findings on what traits terrorists have in common.

Miniter says [my underscore]:

Terrorism is an extension of politics by deadly means. Its goals are inherently political, not economic. The chief aim of most significant terrorist campaigns – from the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka to al-Qaeda – is to force a government to yield sovereign control to the terror group over some slice of territory. ... These are not economic goals, but political ones.

I emphasized that point because wherever control is extended, whether in the banlieues of France, by withdrawal of troops from other regions by Spain, or communities anywhere in the first world where policing is stymied and made ineffective by a cultural barrier, terrorists have achieved their goal and are ready to extend their ambitions.

In his review of the studies, Miniter makes a list of three phases in the making of a terrorist.

Alienation. Sageman’s sample reveals that 80 percent are in some way totally excluded from the society in which they live. They are foreign students who do not fit in, or they are immigrants to Europe who do not assimilate. Seventy percent of the terrorists in Sageman’s sample joined a terror group when they were living outside their home countries.

This is where multiculturalism excels. By preventing pressures for, and benefits of assimilation, multiculturalism creates and entrenches precisely the metrocosms where terrorism best germinates. Healthy societies embrace newcomers. While sometimes sloppy or crude, this social embrace is always far better in the long run than encapsulating aliens in a cocoon of 'respect'. This misguided segregation and self censorship is the surest way to leave people from other cultures feeling alien and unwelcome.

Personal bonds. Eighty-eight percent of terrorists in the Sageman study are related by blood, marriage or friendship to other terrorists. Sixty percent worship at one of 10 mosques worldwide or attended one of two now-closed schools in Indonesia. "You’re talking about a very select, small group of people," Sageman concludes.

Like this one, perhaps? Once a mindset of terrorism has caught flame, it needs protection and encouragement to develop. It benefits from cultural isolation with highly constrained outside contact and networks independent of the host culture. There must be cultural barriers in place that confine bonding and loyalties to the like-minded. Terrorism cannot thrive in a diverse and interactive community where the structure of the society compels interaction with the larger community. We see this also in some communities in the US where it is considered preferable to shield a violent criminal than to 'snitch' to the outside police.

Group dynamics. Once a network of friendships evolves into a cell, certain group dynamics take over. Cell members feel they cannot betray their friends. The suicide bombers in Spain are a perfect example, Sageman writes. "Seven terrorists sharing an apartment and one saying, 'Tonight we’re all going to go, guys.' Individually, they probably would not have done it.

Once the mindset is established and the ambition is formed, it needs to grow, protected, so that it can finish its material and spiritual phase of preparation. It must be located in a place wherethe law and law enforcement is held at bay and, when it cannot be, is at least unable to recognize or understand the dynamics and significance of what little it does see. Terrorism comes from a social group that seals itself against outside discovery and investigation.

Multiculturalism allows each layer of protection to exist like a matryoshka doll. The inner most doll is the terrorist with each of the outer dolls representing another of the necessary shells protecting it. It is this final phase at which most of our interventions are occurring. It should be small consolation to us that we are catching terrorists only after they leave the protection of the many shells and begin taking position for their attack, when we are simultaneously harboring the incubation of a steady supply of them as a consequence of our multicultural policies.

We need to recognize Multiculturalism for what it is. "Separate but equal" in a politically correct wrapper.

The other day I was watching the news and saw a story about a sudden influx of Romanian gypsy children into Slough (of all places). Several things struck me about the story.

Firstly, the children they interviewed were entirely candid about the reason they arrived in the UK: state welfare. They had come to Britain because they learned that all you have to do is turn up and you will be provided with free housing and food which is better than what they had in Romania.

They were entirely honest what their motives were. So I suppose unlike in Romania, they do not have to steal to support themselves, they are counting on the British state to do it for them. That said, several shopkeepers were also interviewed and they were aghast at the prospect of these new arrivals.

The second thing that really stuck me was the sheer idiocy of the spokesman that was quoted (I assume he was from Slough Council), who said "we are working to figure out how to reunite these children with their parents", or words to that effect... as if these parasites were washed up after a storm rather than having intentionally travelled from Romania to Slough. Quite rightly the reporter commented that there was no indication these children were likely to oblige as they were clearly very satisfied with what they were being given.

However my guess is that once they have established themselves, they will indeed be "reunited with their parents"... who will arrive in the UK to do exactly the same.

It is interesting to contrast this with the highly successful influx of Polish, Czech, Slovak, Hungarian and now Baltic immigrants into the UK over the last few years. High initiative, quickly integrating Eastern Europeans attracted by the more dynamic economy of Britain, have joined the work force and broader British society generally to the noticeable benefit of everyone... but in this case in Slough, the welfare system has attracted the worst kind of bare faced parasites from a predatory sub-culture. An interesting contrast and proof yet again that 'immigration' is not a problem, it is immigration-plus-welfare-handouts that causes the problems.

Myself I do not think the state should be in the business of subsidising housing. But if it is in that business then I do not think it is tolerable for the state to pick and choose whom to subsidise on the basis of other than individual circumstance - not group belonging.

New Labour minister Margaret Hodge begs to differ. She writes in The Observer today:

We should look at policies where the legitimate sense of entitlement felt by the indigenous family overrides the legitimate need demonstrated by the new migrants. We must debate these difficult questions.

If you have an ounce of conscience or historical background the questions [sic] are not difficult at all. Someone's sense of entitlement does not trump someone else's need - by which she necessarily implies it should curtail the second person's legal rights - because the first person is 'indigenous'. We know where that leads.

I have often suggested that the New Labour programme is a 'soft' form of fascism. I wonder now whether I was rude enough.

Mark Steyn is one of those writers on the "right" who, I suspect, are admired by the sort of folk who read this blog. He is very funny: some of his takedowns on movies and politics have got me laughing out loud. (P.J. O'Rourke remains the Emperor and tends to be less pessimistic and is more libertarian). I mostly supported Steyn's take on the case for overthrowing Saddam - although I get the impression that he has gone rather quiet due to the mess of the subsequent Coalition occupation of that tortured country. More recently, Steyn has pushed the following thesis: Europe is headed for an Islamist takeover because Those People are, to use the late Orianna Fallaci's charming expression, "breeding like rats", and that in 20 years' time, they'll be beheading criminals in Birmingham, forcing women to cover up on the Cote' D'Azur, and they'll be no more boozing in the Munich Oktoberfest. We are, as Private Frazer would say in Dad's Army, the old British sitcom, all doomed. No wonder a certain kind of American who tends to despise those "commie Europeans", is lapping it up.

Steyn bases his thesis on demography. It is both the core but also the main weakness of his book. The problem I have with all such predictions is that the variables have a nasty habit of changing. Even a small change in the birth rate can have a huge impact on the subsequent growth rate of a population set. It is a bit like the law of compound interest. Even a small increase in cost of borrowing money or the yield on a stock can, over 10 years, make a big difference to a mutual fund or the size of your mortgage. Population growth statistics and predictions are like that. Remember the doomongering population scientist Paul Ehrlich? He bet that, by around now, the world's population would have expanded so fast that we would be starving to death. As the late Julian L. Simon pointed out at the time, Ehrlich's prediction was hooey. Erhlich overlooked a rather universal trait: as people get richer and no longer have to rely on big families to support parents in their dotage, birth rates fall. It seems to happen pretty much everywhere, including in those countries with very different religious and cultural traditions.

This makes me wonder a bit about whether Steyn is over-egging the point. Demographics is clearly a vital issue, not least in explaining why European growth rates might remain sluggish in the decades ahead. But I cannot help but wonder that Steyn is making the sort of bold extrapolations on population that he would be the first to mock if it was, say, the latest prediction about global warming. Conservatives like Steyn are usually skeptics about Big Predictions, so it seems a bit odd that he has taken up the demographic prediction game with such enthusiasm.

I do not think Steyn is a racist, although in a rather overheated review of his latest book, Johann Hari comes close to making that charge, although even Hari admits that Steyn makes some important points about the follies of multiculturalism and agrees that there is a serious problem with Islamic fundamentalism. But I think Hari does make the important point of questioning whether Steyn has let his own pessimism get the better of him.

It is of course too much to expect much rationality in the debate about immigration occurring on both sides of the Atlantic at the moment. I keep getting completely deranged e-mails from an outfit calling itself Conservative News NYC from across the puddle who are claiming that the USA and Mexico are in a de facto state of war due to the 'invasion' of the USA by illegal aliens. They also take the view that anyone who takes a more measured opinion on this is clearly a vile traitor. This is the same outfit who thinks any American who supports Israel is also a traitor, a word they rather like it seems, although of course they preface this with "but we're not anti-Semitic". No, of course not, perish the thought.

Now just because I think the fine fellows of Conservative News NYC are barking moonbats that does not mean all is well when it comes to immigration. There are indeed two groups in the USA (and one in the UK) who really are a problem. On both sides of the Atlantic we have an increasingly radicalised and non-integrating community of Muslims amongst whom support is very widespread for values completely antithetical to post-Enlightenment western civilisation.

Add to this in the United States the quite similar, at least in outlook if not action, ethnic fascists of La Raza, the one form of overt in-your-face racist fascism that seems to be quite acceptable for members of the American left to praise and with whom they are quite happy to share a stage (I guess being racist to white people is not really racism, eh Hilary?). At least one good thing about La Raza is that they are a lunatic fringe amongst Hispanics in the USA (much as Conservative News NYC are a radical lunatic fringe amongst US Conservatives). Of course the same could probably be said of Samizdata in many ways as we are hardly mainstream in many of the views we take, so it is not like I am against lunatic fringes per se.

Sadly the same cannot be said for much of the Muslim community who do indeed appear to share a wide range of views with the people we quite incorrectly call 'extremists'... I say incorrect because it appears they actually reflect increasingly mainstream Muslim opinion, particularly in the UK. They are not extremists, they are merely practising Muslims who actually believe what their religious texts tell them to believe. The problem is not extremism, it is Islam itself and anyone who actually takes it seriously.

One thing both of these groups have in common is that they must be relentlessly confronted and cannot be compromised with or appeased in any way whatsoever. It really is 'them or us'.

However...

Most immigration is actually a very good thing and has for the most part been a resounding success. In particular the current large wave of arrivals in the UK from Central and Eastern Europe has been a fantastic boon to this country, both economically and socially. Not only are we being inundated with highly motivated skilled people from Poland, Slovakia, Czech Republic and Hungary, these folks are rapidly assimilating and the overwhelming majority quickly find employment.

And that brings us to what makes some immigration good and some bad.

In short, if people come to another country in order to sponge off its welfare state, that is bad. If they come to fill skill shortages, take jobs others do not want and to benefit from a greater freedom to pursue opportunities, that is very, very good.

So welfare states attract the 'wrong' kind of immigrant (and frankly pander to the 'wrong' kind of indigenous people as well), whereas an employment and entrepreneurship friendly environment attracts the 'right' sort of immigrants. Quelle surprise!

A good indication of which of those are in the majority in any immigrant community is to see if they are asking for tax funded schools for their children in their own languages and for various other things provided by the state at taxpayer expense but exclusively for their own ethnic or religious community.

And by that test, yes, we really do have a problem with a significant portion of the Muslim communities in the West and to a (much) lesser extent, a few elements of the Hispanic community in the USA (and the politicians who pander to them). It makes no sense for supporters of immigration such as myself to pretend otherwise.

Yet overall, free for the baleful influence of government, immigration works just fine... like so many things in fact once you get the dead hand of the state out of the way.

... is they are all racists, apparently. The paradox inherent in such a declaration might not be lost on Trevor Phillips, were he not now one of the official arbiters of what is and is not forbidden thought and speech in Britain.

How extraordinarily coincidental that this line should emerge from a New Labour appointee just before the Home Secretary is due to announce that settlement of Bulgarians and Romanians here will still be controlled after they become EU citizens.

Much is made of bogus asylum seekers (with considerable justification) but in truth, the basic principle of countries in the west being a haven for those who are oppressed for reasons of their belief is a very righteous one indeed.

And that brings me to the case of 'Isaac Shrödinger', the pseudonymous Pakistan born ex-Muslim blogger who is currently seeking asylum in Canada. If ever there was something I would like to see more of in the west, it is ex-Muslims, apostates if you like, who are willing to talk about Islam and say it the way it is.

Read his article and perhaps do as I have done and drop your mouse heavily on his PayPal button to help with his legal expenses... it will give you some serious blogospherical karma points.

What I am about for argue for may strike long time readers of Samizdata as strange, given that I have written so many articles deploring racism, calling for open borders and taking various pro-immigration positions. None of my views on those things have changed one iota but clearly Britain and the western world generally has a problem with the Muslim communities in their midst. If Muslims really do share a broad consensus of opposition to free speech and the social liberalism that defines us, then Muslims are quite unlike any other community who have demonstrably integrated and assimilated over time, such as the Irish, Poles, Afro-Caribbeans, Sikhs, Hindus, Chinese, etc.. If Britain's Muslims wish to both be separate but also have a veto over how non-Muslims are permitted to discuss them, then they are a cohesive political and social problem. So how does a tolerant, cosmopolitan, pro-immigration, free market capitalist, social individualist ('libertarian' if you insist) react to the threat posed by an intolerant and even barbaric cultural-religious minority in the midst of his society? Here is where I put myself 'beyond the pale' with some people. The short answer is... discrimination.

I have long argued that intolerant Islamic values are a problem that needs to be opposed, not accommodated. However people in the Muslim community need to be opposed not for being Muslims but for refusing to integrate into British society. As so many ethnic groups have successfully (even if not always effortlessly) integrated and assimilated into tolerant British society, the problem is not mass immigration, the problem is Islam and the antithetical values it brings. In short, the problem is Muslim mass immigration and the refusal to reciprocate tolerance for tolerance.

However it is important to keep in mind that Islam is not a race or an ethnicity, it is a religion, and therefore it is a choice. As a result, when the BBC says that the police have arrested a group of "Asian men on suspicion of terrorist offenses", they are doing everyone a great dis-service by making a remark which is by any reasonable definition racist in the most literal sense. It does not matter that the people in question are 'Asian', what matters is that they are Muslim. Race and ethnicity is not the issue and to suggest otherwise is racist: the political consequences of a specific religion and its associated culture, that is the issue.

Social mechanisms are the natural defence against people who do not integrate. Inter-marriage and economic participation are the natural rewards for people who do. The evidence that Afro-Caribbean people are now well and truly 'British' is the high levels of inter-marriage. But although the state does not force individuals to marry others against their will, it does indeed force the owners of the means of production to rent houses to, and offer jobs to, un-assimilated people. In short, the law prevents discrimination on pretty much any basis. And I would argue that although blanket discrimination against a person on the grounds of their race or ethnicity is almost always a bad thing, discrimination on the basis of a person's beliefs can be a very good thing indeed. Few Guardian readers seem to have a problem 'discriminating' against racists.

If if a woman walks into my office in a burqua and asks for a job, clearly she has not assimilated and I frankly I would rather not hire her for that reason alone, which of course can get me in trouble with the authorities for 'discrimination'. Yet it is discrimination that is the natural pressure that entourages assimilation. Why should I have to associate with people I do not wish to? If I have the right to free association, surely that must include dis-association. For me to be willing to hire that woman she need do nothing more than take the damn burqua off and make me comfortable that she is not likely to be deeply alien to the rest of my employees. The carrot for assimilating (or at least accommodating) the host culture is economic participation and social harmony, the stick is discrimination and it is a stick the state does not allow people to use. As usual, the state is not your friend, unless you are a Muslim bigot of course.

That is a mistake. We do not need to restrict immigration to defend ourselves, we just need to make people who refuse to integrate a great deal less welcome. Islam and the intolerant social values it imposes are a choice, not a matter of genes, and if you cannot judge a person based on their choices, you cannot judge them for anything, which is preposterous. If most Muslims really do reject the core values that make Britain what it is then they cannot complain if increasing numbers of British people reject the core values of what makes Islam what it is and react accordingly. It is really quite simple to adopt the trappings of 'Britishness' and fit in. Jews do not have to stop being Jews to also be British, cannot Muslims also find a way? Perhaps not. But the consequences for not assimilating need to be significant. If Muslim separatists dislike the reception they get, the solution is both simple and quite inexpensive.

Anyone with the slightest knowledge of economics is aware what a scam a 'minimum wage' is. When an artificial bottom placed on hourly rates is raised ,there are only two rational responses an employer can make: fire anyone whose value is now less than their cost; or raise prices to cover the added cost of doing business.

The raising of prices following a minimum wage hike sends ripples through the economy, like those of a handful a pebbles tossed into a farm pond. At some point everything damps out and the steady state returns. No new value has been created by the higher wages so the end result is roughly enough inflation to wipe out the change.

This analysis misses a detail however. The economy does not respond instantaneously. There is a time lag during which recipients have more purchasing power. They will pay for it later of course: TANSTAAFL. But from the viewpoint of a politician if the gain can be timed to properly coincide with something of value to them, say an election, it is a win. The pain comes later and memories are shorter than the interval betwixt elections.

I realized this morning there is a way in which politicians can hide much of the pain indefinitely: illegal immigration. Think it through. Raise the minimum wage in an environment where there is cheap, willing labour, undocumented and outside the system. What is the rational employer response? Raise wages for legal employees and export the costs to the undocumented workers. Illegal immigrants are not voters so this is a win-win situation to both the ruling class and those who keep them there. The voters get a higher real wage and living standard because the inflationary cost has been shifted. The pain has been exported outside the political game.

Statist politicians cannot do anything about illegal immigration because if they stop it, the deferred inflation will cause prices to rise enough to erase the excess income of their constituents. Employers will have to either drop low end jobs or else raise prices to support them. Voters will not be happy and it is well known the wallet is a bigger determinate of election outcomes than just about anything else. So, QED, illegal immigration is now a structural requirement of the centralized Western bureaucratic state.

A second force drives the need for cheap labour: the demographic transition in modern societies leads to a lowering of birthrates and a consequent labour shortage. Some places, like Japan, are looking to solve this with robots: the real deal kind. Less closed societies are covering the short fall with immigration of both legal and illegal varieties.

There is simply no practical way out of the situation in the short run and politics is all about delaying pain in hopes it will either go away or happen after you are gone.

There's plenty of action going on in my last post on immigration. Much is being made in the comments about the distinction between legal and illegal immigration. As 'permanant expat' put it:

"Unrestricted" immigration, as practiced by most (Socialist) European governments is a BAD THING.....period. Anyone unable to understand that is living on another planet.
Illegal immigration is a TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE THING.....period. Anyone who doesn't understand that lives far, far away in another galaxy....
Immigration is a "Death Star".....but there's no Luke Skywalker anywhere to be seen.

Out here on the planet Liberty, it strikes me that this distinction between legal and illegal immigration is spurious. Immigration should be discussed on its merits, and merit is NOT something that is dispensed by legislative agencies.

It always surprises me that many 'libertarians' who shout the loudest for the free trade in goods and services, are apparently willing to turn around and argue all for government intervention when it comes to the freedom of movement in people.

There are few topics in the world that get people heated up more then immigration, and in both Australia and the United States, societies that have been built by mass immigration, the topic is in the news.

In the United States, the question is based more on what to do about the millions of illegal immigrants that have consistently been keen to seek opportunity in that great country, and have taken the dubious path of avoiding the proper legal channels to do so. In ordinary times this would not have been such an issue. However, since 2001 the United States has become naturally very sensitive about who enters its borders. I am actually surprised that it has taken this long to surface.

The United States immigration question is particularly interesting. You might think that a society that has built itself on mass immigration would be in favour of more immigration, but this is not the case, and generally never has been the case. In general immigration is tolerated, rather then actively embraced by the general populace, but when times get tough, the political mood can turn quite quickly on newcomers. This was as true in the recession of 1819 as it is today.

This is because the costs of immigration are felt and paid for by individuals, but the benefits of immigration are diffuse and spread right across society. It is a shame that many defenders of the right of the free movement of people refuse to admit that there are costs to immigration. The worker who finds his wages undercut or loses his job entirely, or the victim of violence or the householder who finds his property values eroded is naturally going to feel distressed and angry at what he or she sees as the ‘cause’ of his or her loss. People find themselves surrounded by people of different appearance, religion, and cultural conditions, and worry about how the newcomers will assimilate.

These natural concerns of individuals become political fodder for political ratbags and racist hate mongers who wish to exploit individual discontents to promote their own grab bag of political statism and worse. In Europe this has become a particular problem because of the disconnect between mainstream politicians and ordinary voters caused by the ‘democratic deficit’.

Nevertheless the society that receives immigrants is usually much better off for having them. Immigrants are usually the best and the brightest of their societies, and the most driven. Having uprooted their lives to make a fresh start, they are open to new ways of doing things, and are thus an engine of innovation. In this era of ‘baby drought’ they boost the population and the dynamism of their new societies, and increase the purchasing power of their economies. However, because these effects are spread widely, few people identify their prosperity with immigrants.

In Europe, the situation is rather different, mostly because generous welfare provisions that are provided from the start tend to reduce the benefits and increase the costs to a host society of immigration. This situation used to apply in Australia, but a change in the law that made new migrants wait two years before being eligible for welfare has not only changed this dynamic, but taken a lot of the political heat out of the issue.

So it takes political leadership of high calibre to stand up for immigration despite the obvious merits of the cause. The freedom of the individual to choose the place of his or her residence is a precious one worth defending, but the sad fact is that in this day and age, standing up for freedom is not a cause that political leaders in the West are that happy to embrace.

Not content with bullying its own population, the British Government is now spending taxpayers' money to export the culture of fear. This from the website of Her Britannic Majesty's Embassy to Romania:

With approximately 100 illegal immigrants deported from Britain to Romania every month and 250 Romanian asylum seekers registered last year in the UK, the Home Office and the International Organisation of Migration (IOM) decided to launch this publicity campaign in March 2005.

The existence of the IOM 'Managing migration for the welfare of all' is unwelcome news to me.

[...] But how does a state achieve the balance between the need for control of its borders and the need to facilitate movement across its borders for legitimate purposes such as trade, tourism, family reunion and education?

...asks the IOM, seeking to explain its purpose, but begging the question. The assumption is that states will naturally ban travel and trade (which is what 'control their borders' means) and then decide what are 'legitimate purposes' for permitted movements. But this is a convenient doctrine invented by states in the 20th century, a generalization of the conditions of the Tsarist police-state and the petty, nationalist bureaucracies that emerged in the 19th.

Where - let alone why - I choose to live or travel is no business of states, unless I am doing injury to their citizens. By going from place to place I do accept that places are different legally as well as culturally and physically. If there were no differences there would be no point in travel. But the natural condition of borders is openness. They are just lines on a map.

Anthony Browne, writing the main feature article in this week's Spectator, says policymakers have underestimated, or quite possibly fibbed, about the scale of immigration into the United Kingdom from Eastern Europe. I do not want to get into all the cultural arguments that have been aired a lot here in recent months. Suffice to say that Browne makes some good, if slightly alarmist, points about the ability of a small crowded island like Britain to go on taking more and more people, never mind from often very different cultures.

He seems to make the mistake, however, when discussing the impact of immigration on wage rates, of what is known as the "lump of labour fallacy": the notion that there is a fixed amount of work to be performed in an economy. It seems a bit odd that Browne, who calls himself an economic liberal, should fall prey to this fallacy. After all, as surely the late economist Julian L. Simon pointed out, every additional person is not just another mouth to be fed, but another brain and pair of hands to create wealth.

My first posting on the Globalization Institute's blog is about the almost hidden but massive transfers of cash by migrants workers to their families in under-developed countries. The following quote comes from Time magazine:

Mass migration has produced a giant worldwide economy all its own, which has accelerated so fast during the past few years that the figures have astounded the experts. This year, remittances - the cash that migrants send home - is set to exceed $232 billion, nearly 60% higher than the number just four years ago, according to the World Bank, which tracks the figures. Of that, about $166.9 billion goes to poor countries, nearly double the amount in 2000. In many of those countries, the money from migrants has now overshot exports, and exceeds direct foreign aid from other governments. "The way these numbers have increased is mind-boggling," says Dilip Ratha, a senior economist for the World Bank and co-author of a new Bank report on remittances. Ratha says he was so struck by the figures that he rechecked his research several times, wondering if he might have miscalculated. Indeed, he believes the true figure for remittances this year is probably closer to $350 billion, since migrants are estimated to send one-third of their money using unofficial methods, including taking it home by hand.

There are two things I especially like about this growing trend. One is that unlike other forms of aid (including private giving by Westerners), the money tends to be better spent, because the donor is immediately related to the recipient. The second is I think unique to migrant workers. Normally there is a dependency trap: the money coming in is for a set term and will only be renewed if the recipient pleads continuing poverty. But migrant workers who leave their families behind have a strong incentive to watch out for improving economic conditions back home. As families achieve a tolerable standard of living they tend to reduce the amount of migration. The whole bureaucracy of aid is bypassed.

Thinking about it, perhaps giving a Christmas bonus of �100 to the office cleaner from Ghana or the Ukraine does more to make the world a better place than �200 given to an aid charity. We often hear about the benefits of cutting taxes, but here's a new one. For each pound in taxes saved by low-income migrant workers, up to 40p will be transferred to a family in the developing world. That's got to be a better return than the government makes of our money.

Joel Kotkin, in a fine article at the Wall Street Journal, draws out these telling facts on the European economy's lousy job-formation record in recent years:

Since the '70s, America has created 57 million new jobs, compared with just four million in Europe (with most of those jobs in government). In France and much of Western Europe, the economic system is weighted toward the already employed (the overwhelming majority native-born whites) and the growing mass of retirees. Those ensconced in state and corporate employment enjoy short weeks, early and well-funded retirement and first dibs on the public purse. So although the retirement of large numbers of workers should be opening up new job opportunities, unemployment among the young has been rising: In France, joblessness among workers in their 20s exceeds 20%, twice the overall national rate. In immigrant banlieues, where the population is much younger, average unemployment reaches 40%, and higher among the young.

Kotkin goes on to contrast the lack of entrepreneurial (good French word, ironically) vigour in countries like France with that in the United States. There are plenty of other statistics to back up his points, but you get the general idea.

As the French rioting has gone on, I remain to be completely convinced that we are seeing some sort of European "intifada", as a number of commenters on this blog and other blogs say. Islamist radicalism may not be the primary cause, though it is a contributing factor, no doubt. I do certainly see the frightening potential for radical Islamists to exploit the situation and turn it to their own ends. This may already be happening. But I think the primary problem has been a refusal of the EUropean political elites to realise that the Big Government, and a highly protected labour market is a recipe for disaster and alienation. Coupled with the slowing dynamic of a greying population, falling economic growth and so forth, you have a serious problem of a stagnant economy. For example, the article I cite goes on to point out that hundreds of thousands of young Europeans now work abroad, in the U.S. and in Britain, since the work opportunities are so much better. Left behind is an increasingly state-dominated workforce and a huge population of tax-eating bureaucrats and welfare recipients. Not a great foundation for social peace.

Magnus Linklater, meanwhile, points to a worrying trend in Britain of young thugs hurling stones, firing rockets and other projectiles at firefighters in the course of their work. There have been hundreds of these incidents, many of them hardly reported in the media. Only a few years ago, firefighters were heroes, widely praised by all. Now they are almost routinely attacked in the tougher parts of this country.

Mihir Bose has a very interesting and though provoking article in the Telegraph about why many of the lessons of the American 'melting pot' have little resonance or even relevance to Britain.

The difference is simple but profound: America can impose a coherent historical narrative on immigrants because the countries they come from had no previous involvement with America. Settlers are able and encouraged to discard their native histories and accept the American version.

But the vast majority of non-white immigrants to Britain have come from our former colonies, and bring not only their own cultures but also their own versions of our shared history. So, in trying to construct a single coherent narrative for this island, we are faced with trying to marry two historical streams: the "home" version and the "export" version.

I am not sure I agree with the entire thrust of the article but it certainly provides considerable food for thought. Certainly I have always found it curious how, at least in my experience, race relations in Britain have been (generally) far better compared to the USA (and I only speak from my personal observations) and with far less government intervention forcing that state of affairs to be the norm, at least until quite recently. Perhaps Mihir Bose's article contains some of the reasons underpinning that. That could be worth pondering.

Those of us who believe in an open immigration system acknowledge that this should not mean we let in those who support terrorism. So hurrah say I to this news:

"The Home Secretary has issued an order revoking Omar Bakri Mohamed's indefinite leave to remain and to exclude him from the UK on the grounds that his presence is not conducive to the public good," a Home Office spokesman said.

The wording "not conducive to the public good" comes from the Immigration Act 1971. The government says it needs new powers to deal with terrorism. The funny thing is that I cannot remember anyone talking about being able to exclude preachers of hate if they are "not conducive to the public good" before this last week. Could it be that the government does not actually know what powers it has?

Favouring open immigration into integrationist societies within the context of an eventual end to the welfare state and strengthening of civil society is a view widely shared in these parts. But I can also say will little fear of contradiction that not one of the regular writers for Samizdata would describe themselves as a multiculturalist.

The term did once have some appeal but in the end what it has come to mean is someone who thinks all (non-western) cultures are as desirable as each other. However I do not believe that all cultures are equally worthy and I doubt that in reality all too many other people really think that either is you dig deep enough. For all its many and varied flaws, the modern dynamic, secular and above all tolerant western civilisation of the early 21st Century is considerably superior to the alternatives. But of course even within the west, not all the societies that make up that great civilisation are as dynamic and successful as each other.

But what is a society? Definitions vary. In the crudest sence it is a group of people who interact with each other by simple virtue of their proximity (something the internet may change), and as a result follow broad (but often loose) cultural norms which have evolved to facilitate interaction and order. So by this very simple (prehaps even simplistic) definition is also pointless to pretend that having long term un-assimilated communities with certain key antithetical values within western societies is anything but a recipe for catastrophic strife.

The stunning and very under-reported race riot by Arabs and North Africans in France last month shows what happens when the state interferes for decades by subsidising parasitic behaviour based on identity politics and pretending that state fiats can either enforce or obviate the need for integration. When the French state bans chadors and all other religious symbols in French educational conscription centres (schools), it is not a case of France 'defending western culture' but rather admitting that civil society has so decayed under the weight of generations of politicization that natural social mechanisms no longer exist to integrate newcomers as effectively as once was the case. In the end nothing gets done in France without it being planned and implemented politically by the enarques in Paris and racial no-go areas are the result.

The solution in the end may be less government so that civil society can actually regenerate but in the short to medium term it is hard to see how the French political class, not a group known for frank introspection and honest analysis, can prevent France gradually sliding into ever more atavistic violence. Even Britain, which has far better race relations than France, learned in 2001 that playing identity politics and handing out other people's money based on ethnicity is a dangerous thing to do. But whereas in the USA the 1992 Los Angeles riots spurred some soul searching in the USA and the emergence of excellent bipartisan social organizations aiming at economic and social integration, in France a significent race riot barely makes it into the press and in Britain, far from looking to enhance integration and the adoption of western cultural norms, we find that we now risk prosecution for making critical remarks about Islamic culture.

Is it any wonder so many Americans react to the European political classes' pretensions of moral superiority with little more than a contemptuous and well deserved sneer?

For many Americans who see the state as being the central and most important institution there is, the axis around which civil society orbits, the whole idea of 'dual nationality' is deeply disturbing. A person born in a different land can assimilate into civil society, adopt the mores, trappings and affectations of the place in which they now live and even accept being marked as a political subject of the government (become a citizen) but if they do not in fact repudiate being a subject of their previous home, to a statist American the question often asked is "can that person really be an American?"

I have heard people in the US say that of the many Jewish Americans who also hold Israeli passports and now increasingly that question is asked of Mexican Americans who retain ties to Mexico. Cosmopolitanism is seen as somehow dangerous and almost wicked. That dual nationality is particularly disturbing to some Americans is not surprising seeing as how the USA claims a proprietary interest in Americans nationals even if they do not live within the lands within which the US state claims sovereignty over (to the extent that even foreign people with US green cards who are not US subjects and who no longer live within US territory are still supposed to make US tax returns and incur US tax liabilities!). In most of the rest of the world, the moment your cross a national border, the nation you lived in generally looses interest in most of your economic and political activities, making dual nationality rather less emotive an issue other than in times of war between the two nations in question. Being a US 'citizen' is like having a big brand on your arse which stays with you regardless of where you go, making claims that US citizenship is somehow superior because it is not 'ethnic based' somewhat odd... it is more analogous to creating a new ethnicity, at least politically speaking, called 'American'.

But for many, probably more who hold dual nationality, it is just a means of being able to live where they please and cross borders to places where they have friends and family without being harassed by the state's border guards and pettifogging officials. The truth is that for the great majority of people the state is not the axis around which their life revolves and the bit of coloured cloth that flaps over them is really not a big deal.

As a 'rootless cosmopolitan' myself, I make no secret that I see collecting as many citizenships as possible as useful way to dilute the influence that states have over people. That does not mean I am blind to the possibility of political leaders in one country making mischief in another country by appealing to notions of 'Volk' or 'La Patria'... yet political antics can be trumped by simply allowing the natural (yes, natural) process of assimilation to run its course, rather than distorting and delaying that process with crazy 'identity politics' which reward primitive tribalistic attitudes, and social welfare programmes that invert the traditional motivate for people to become immigrants in the first place.

Guy Herbert wrote in with this strangeness a while ago, but for some reason it was trapped by the overzealous Samizdata.net spam filters, only to be discovered today. Better late than never!

This is a very strange story, given the British authorities' current obsession with illegal immigration. Three Albanian men have been arrested for trying to leave Britain and others charged with trying to help them. What's really strange is that it is heavily implied by police that the men were illegally present in the country, but there's no suggestion yet that they are fugitives from the law for any other reason. So what on earth is the point of trying to keep them here? Is it that self-deportation shows up the Immigration Service's incompetence in that department?

Britons are now inured to (the entirely extra-legal) requirement to show a passport before being permitted to travel abroad on planes, trains, and ferries. That causes no outrage, and I confidently predict this arrest will not either. But it should.

If one may not leave nor enter the country without government permission - which is what these arrests imply - then we are already living in a (rather large) open prison, even before everyone is numbered and tagged.

Guy Herbert

So Britain will indeed remain more enlightened than the Continent, allowing people from the new EU member nations in Eastern Europe to live here: the proviso being that they will not be allowed to partake of state benefits for a few years.

So in other words, they are welcome (and they certainly are welcome by me) to come here and work just so long as they leave the theft of other people's money (via the state, of course), to native English people or resident French, Germans, Italians etc... or our very own local Arab terrorist supporters, come to think of it.

On a related note, it never ceases to amuse me to hear how politicos can make dissembling use of language. Following an attack by that paragon of liberal values and freedom, Tory leader Michael Howard, in which he asked "Will the government do what other countries are doing, and what the prime minister said he was looking at, will he impose transitional controls on immigration from the accession countries or not", Tony Blair replied:

"The position as I set it out is this. There is free movement of people after May 1, free movement of workers, however, is a concession we are prepared to grant � but not in circumstances where it can be abused," said the prime minister [...] The prime minister insisted there was no contradiction in government policy. The "free movement of people is distinct from the free movement of workers" he argued.

And this is presumably because workers are not... people? Anyway, I thought it was only a problem when the people in question turn out to not to be 'workers'. In reality, most of the 'Old' EU is not allowing free movement at all but rather highly regulated and restricted movement.

Although the EU is expanding eastwards, clutching more of the nations of Eastern Europe to its regulating breast on May 1st, only Britain and Ireland will actually be welcoming the people of those countries as residents.

Britain and Ireland may soon be the only two states willing to open their doors entirely to the 73 million people joining the European Union in May. Countries such as Sweden, Holland, and Denmark, which initially pledged to let migrants from the 10 new states work freely in their countries from day one have changed their minds. They fear an influx will drive down wages and overload their welfare systems. Per capita incomes in the ex-Communist countries are just 40 per cent of EU levels.

And yet even officials at the benighted EU admit...

Privately, EU diplomats say the Poles, Czechs, Slovaks and others are ideal guest workers. Well-educated, they bring fresh blood and dynamism to an ageing Europe. If they stay, it is usually because they inter-marry. Their "migration profile" is starkly different from Muslim groups, who studies suggest are resistant to assimilation and who prohibit their children marrying into the host society.

On the purely non-scientific observational evidence of my own eyes, there do seem to be rather a lot of happy looking English blokes wandering around London with eye-widening tall blondes from east of the Oder-Neisse line, so that seems about right... which makes me wonder why the Netherlands is not welcoming the Eastern Europeans with open arms! Well if the rest of western Europe cannot see past the 'waves of gypsies' scare stories and see the huge benefits of well educated, easy to assimilate Slovaks, Czechs and Poles, then their loss will be Britain and Ireland's gain when the best and brightest (amongst other things) decamp from the east and move en-mass to London and Dublin. Excellent!

Vitajte v Londyne!

Telegraph has an article about an official parliamentary report that notes that Holland's 30-year experiment in trying to create a tolerant, multicultural society has failed and led to ethnic ghettos and sink schools.

Between 70 and 80 per cent of Dutch-born members of immigrant families import their spouse from their "home" country, mostly Turkey or Morocco, perpetuating a fast-growing Muslim subculture in large cities.

While the report praised most immigrants for assimilating and for doing well at school, it attacked successive governments for stoking ethnic separatism. The worst mistake was to encourage children to speak Turkish, Arabic or Berber in primary schools rather than Dutch. The report concluded that Holland's 850,000 Muslims must become Dutch if the country was to hold together. It proposes cheap housing in the leafy suburbs to help ethnic groups assimilate with the rest of the 16 million population.

The major parties in the centre-Right government dismissed such solutions as insufficient. Maxime Verhagen, the Christian Democrat leader in parliament, said one had to be "either naive or ignorant" not to understand that the policy had led the country into a cul-de-sac.

Immigrants in the Netherlands top the 'wrong' lists - disability benefit, unemployment assistance, domestic violence, criminality statistics and school and learning difficulties.

Holland used to be an example of multi-ethnic tolerance, spending large amounts of funding to welcome immigrants and running 'ethnic diversity projects' that included 700 Islamic clubs that are often run by hard-line clerics.

Two years ago, Pim Fortuyn voiced the resentment that had been building up behind the 'multi-culti' facade. The European Union's Racism and Xenophobia Monitoring Centre has catalogued a rash of anti-Muslim attacks, leaving girls too frightened to go out wearing head scarves. The violence has been on the increase since the September 11 attacks. The Dutch intelligence service, AIVD, has warned that the al-Qa'eda network is stealthily taking root in Dutch society by preying on disaffected Muslim youth with Jihad video cassettes circulating in mosques, cafes and prisons.

This is what happens when the state interferes with natural social processes, such assimilation. The example of the US shows that the melting pot approach works just. It is only when the state decides to promote one group or another the social sets in. As always, the state is not your friend.

Today is 'Asylum Day', at least on the BBC which is devoting a whole series of programmes to analysis and discussion of immigration.

From what I can gather, these programmes will include a discussion on the plight (or otherwise) or real-life immigration cases and members of the public will be invited to join in with their views (which, knowing the BBC, will be carefully edited).

I do not believe that the timing of these broadcasts is accidental. For several years now, the debate about immigration has been growing more intense and widespread, despite (but maybe because of) the entire issue being kept scrupulously off the mainstream political agenda. The last few years, in particular, have witnessed a cavalier and wholly dishonest wielding of the 'R' word whenever any public figure has tried to get the matter on the agenda.

Even this attempt by the BBC at public discussion is being frowned upon by the Home Office:

"Asylum raises many complex and emotive issues and we always welcome debate on them - it is important, however, that the debate is rational and measured," she said.

"The BBC has often covered these issues in considered manner, but we have some serious concerns about some of the content of the BBC's 'asylum day'."

I get the feeling that by claiming that 'we always welcome debate', Ms.Hughes is really saying that she doesn't want any debate at all. Just what is she so frightened of? I hardly think the BBC are going to turn this media event into a platform for extreme nationalism. Does she think that any public airing of these issues is going to open the floodgates to an atavistic army of potential 'ethnic cleansers'? If so, it betrays just how little confidence our public officials have in the public they preside over.

I take the view that slamming the lid on this issue does not help matters. It has resulted in the fomentation of surly resentment and widespread hostility without such things being countered by intelligent or rational argument. It is another example of why free speech is, in fact, so less harmful than paranoid attempts to prohibit so-called 'hate speech'.

However, it is because the existance of this resentment is no longer deniable that, I suspect, the BBC feels it is time to grasp some sort of nettle and open up the debate but I equally suspect that they will generate more heat than light. There is an immigration problem in Britain but it is a problem caused by the fact that the regulation is based on the entirely wrong-headed premise that we should only permit 'political refugees' to settle here but keep 'economic migrants' out (hence 'immigrants' are now referred to as 'asylum-seekers'). Critics of the current system claim that, despite alleged controls, economic migrants are still getting in and that we must 'tighten up' the system so that only 'genuine' political refugees are offered a home in Britain.

To my mind this is fluorescent absurdity. What we are really saying is that we must shut the door in the face of people like Charles Forte but extend a big, warm welcome to people like Abu Hamza. Surely this should work precisely the other way around?

Of course the idea of letting in only political refugees is intimately related to the welfarist principle which, in my view, is the root of the poison. It is almost an article of faith among the 'chattering classes' that native British opposition to immigrants is driven by 'xenophobia' and 'racism' and is, therefore, all bad. However I disagree with this. I think a lot (maybe most) of the animus towards immigrants is in fact motivated by a wholly justified resentment of foreigners benefitting from a welfare system to which they have never contributed.

The British are not, by nature, an insular or tribal people but they do possess a profound sense of fairness which is currently being sorely tested by an unfair arrangement; an arrangement which wrongly turns away bright, talented contributors and actively encourages dependent, tax-consuming burdens.

It is a high time that there was a more open public debate about immigration because the current system does not need 'reform' it needs to be turned on its head. I am not at all confident that the attempts by the BBC to manage this debate will go any way to achieving a desirable and workable outcome.

Given its intimate association with brutal and murderous 'ethnic cleansing' it is entirely understandable that the term 'population transfer' raises more than a few hackles.

But it need not necessarily be something to fear. Provided it is thought of in terms of free trade, then I can see a peaceful and voluntary process of population transfer as a beneficial thing.

Indeed, the process already appears to be underway:

A husband and wife in Minnesota, a college student in Georgia, a young executive in New York. Though each has distinct motives for packing up, they agree the United States is growing too conservative and believe Canada offers a more inclusive, less selfish society.

"For me, it's a no-brainer," said Mollie Ingebrand, a puppeteer from Minneapolis who plans to go to Vancouver with her lawyer husband and 2-year-old son.

Nor are these itchy feet to be found exclusively in the USA. There are people in Britain too, like this correspondent to the Guardian (concerning the death of Dr.David Kelly), who see Canada as the 'Golden Medina':

I think he HAD TO BE RUBBED OUT. He knew too much, where the bodies were buried, so his had to be buried as well. Maybe you're more honest than we are: the media and the government are co=conspirators here. So good luck. I"m moving to Canada, land of the free.

Some may see this as a tragedy but I see it as an indirect means of slashing public spending. Surely it is preferable for all these guardianistas and tax-consumers to converge upon one country where they can stew in each other's misery rather than staying where they are, demanding entitlements and whining interminably about the unfairness of it all. Together, they can truly build the kind of society they want to live in.

Of course this process need not, and should not, be a one-way street. Canada has no shortage of ambitious, hard-working people who might see their futures as somewhat sullen in the Land of the Puppeteers. The easiest solution is for them to pack their bags and head off to less stultifying climes where their talent and energy will be both appreciated and rewarded.

In fact, that is what loads of Canadians have been doing:

But every year since 1977, more Canadians have emigrated to the United States than vice versa � the 2001 figures were 5,894 Americans moving north, 30,203 Canadians moving south.

Quite what this means for Canada in the long run I dare not even imagine but for the rest of us it can only be good news. Carry on, I say.

[My thanks to the Brothers Judd for the link and to Peter Cuthbertson for the Guardian letter.]

In a comment on a posting in the small hours of this morning (how time does the opposite of fly (it's the blogging that flies) when you are blogging) about the fall of the Roman Empire, Terence Kealy, etc., Guessedworker said this:

If one is looking at parallels with the present day they exist a-plenty. The starkest and most fundamental is the destruction we allow of our own traditions and mores, by and large in the pursuit of self-gratification. Close behind that is the weakness of understanding, the blind altruism that permits a river of foreign humanity to flow into our midst.

These are great moral failings then and now, against which any failing in the promotion of science and technology is decidedly minor.

To which I replied thus:

Guessedworker

I couldn't agree with you less.

One of the very best things about the best bits of the West (USA and the UK definitely tagging along behind) is the way that rivers of humanity flood in and join in, and absolutely central to this is the radically progressive tradition of technological activity that is now thoroughly bedded down in our civilisation, unlike in Ancient Rome. There's nothing altruistic about the USA's immigration policies. They're one of the big reasons the USA is racing ahead of (e.g.) Japan now.

It's the stagnant social and economic systems which don't attract foreigners, like (again) late Imperial Rome, whose population fell, as Kealey explains.

And for from the pursuit of fun being an attack on our great traditions, that's one of them, for goodness sakes.

And nor do immigrants "flooding" into the USA challenge USA tradition. THEY ARE USA TRADITION!!!! And they damn well know it. They quickly become state of the art Americans, and raise state of the art American families.

I'm less optimistic about similar processes working their magic in the UK, and even less so about the same thing in continental Europe, but somewhat optimistic about that even so.

And the always quotable T. Hartin then offered this distinction:

Not to highjack this thread into an immigration flamewar (which, come to think of it, we haven't had for awhile), but this is primarily true with respect to legal immigration only, and even in that arena is less true as the ideal of assimilation into American culture is diluted by multi-culti diversity crackpottery.

Illegal immigration and unassimilated immigrants (illegals tend not to assimilate) are a potentially major problem for any nation, especially one built primarily on a shared culture rather than a shared ancestry.

At which point I did another comment saying, we'll have this argument around a new posting, please. (Although my exact words were not "please" but: Sieg Heil!)

Personally I am fairly optimistic that multi-culti diversity crackpottery is not nearly as strong as the cultural DNA of the USA, but the legal/illegal thing I am less sure about.

But one thought: it's surely true that the children of illegals, born in the USA, then become fully legal legals themselves, do they not? And won't they want to join the cultural mainstream, learn English, shave the corners off their religious complaints about the USA, etc. etc.?

Joanne Jacobs has some good stuff over at her blog about the desire of USA Hispanics to be educated in English, rather than bilingually. If that's so, that's the kind of thing that makes me an optimist about this stuff.

Pluls, at the risk of hijacking this posting, I wonder, is there a tendency for citizens of the USA not to quite see how strong and distinct their own culture is, because they live right inside it and can't see it from outside, and in particular they can't see the enormous contrast between it and other cultures, most especially non-Western ones?

And am I, being British and having hardly done any serious travelling, similarly blind to the distinctiveness and strength of British culture, and hence am I liable to miss just how much, e.g. Brit Muslims, are already rapidly becoming British? It's a thought.

This is just the kind of thing that Samizdata commenters, who never cease to impress me, could illuminate really well.

By now, quite a few Samizdata readers will have learned of the infuriating plight of my good friends and fellow bloggers Andrew Ian Dodge and his lovely fiance Sasha Castel. They were able to spend just a few days in the UK owing to officials carping about (alleged) glitches in Andrew's paperwork. Andrew and Sasha were forced to fly back to Maine earlier this week.

What is obviously incredible, considering that these are two citizens from Britain's No 1 ally, is that they were treated in this way while, of course, thousands of folk enter this country successfully on false papers, or with no papers at all. Often many such folk disappear. Such people may even pose a security risk. The contrast between the treatment of Andrew and Sasha on the one hand and that of folk possibly entering Britain with hostile intent hardly needs to be stressed.

I guess this shows that as far as rules about emigration and immigration are concerned, we need a thorough overhaul in ways that encourage enterprising and good folk to live here like Andrew and Sasha. On a more positive note, may I recommend readers to look at Jim Bennett's An Anglosphere Primer, which sets out ways in which these issues might be resolved.

In the meantime, my best wishes to two of the feistiest bloggers in the business. Britain has lost the chance to be host to two fine writers, not to mention two of the biggest heavy rock and opera nuts around!

Sir John Stevens, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner warned the British public today in a television interview that Islamic terrorists linked to al-Qa'eda remain at large in Britain and pose a continuing security threat. He believes that Osama bin Laden and his henchmen are seeking to make use of existing terror networks in plans for further attacks.

"We know that there are certain links with al-Qa'eda and, of course, the link with North Africa is proven."

Presumably, this has nothing to do with Britain's policy on asylum seekers that allows a Taliban soldier who fought British and American troops in Afghanistan to be granted asylum here because he fears persecution from the new Western-backed government in Kabul (as already mentioned by Perry in the post below).

Although this is the first known case of a Taliban soldier being granted asylum in this country, I have no doubt that many have entered Britain with false documents and identities. They may need not bother anymore. Unless the policy changes, the successful application may open the doors to hundreds of other similar requests.

I wonder whether in few months' time the police chief will insist that his officers are 'on top of' the situation. It seems that the left hand does not know what the right is doing.

Indeed, the state is not your friend.

I have long known that the world is essentially a madhouse with no locks on the doors, but when I read that a former Taliban soldier who fought against British and US forces in Afghanistan will be given asylum in Britain because the pro-western government in Kabul is 'persecuting' him, I start to really wonder at what the word 'asylum' really means. Did rational people object to former members of the National German Socialist Workers Party being 'persecuted' in the aftermath of World War Two?

A few days ago, American bloggers Andrew and Sasha arrived in Britain, neither of whom have ever fought against British soldiers, or called for the death of Christians and Jews, or joined any organisations like Al-Muhajirun which aims to make Britain a muslim caliphate...

...and yet they were nevertheless detained at the airport upon arrival in the UK on Thursday and grilled for nine hours before being provisionally allowed into the country. In fact Sasha's blog was examined by the Immigration agents and its content used as the excuse to initially deny her entry. It is strange that the content of Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad's website does not seem to get him kicked out of the country.

The state is not your friend.

As an anti-statist, free market capitalist libertarian, I am often 'accused' of being on the political right. Yet as so many libertarians will tell you, many of my ilk refuse to accept the statist left/right axis as having any relevance to us. One only has to listen to a pro-immigration libertarian such as myself and then listen to most Tories in the UK/Republicans in the USA to see an issue which shows the differences.

We often find that neo-conservatives agree with libertarian antipathy to Marxist and Keynesian state centred economics and the wealth & liberty destroying regulatory state. Yet to think that advocating laissez-faire makes us 'right wing' is to misunderstand just how large the cultural and philosophical gulf is between most true (i.e. capitalist) libertarians and most conservatives. Conservatives are about conserving, they are about continuity above all else... however libertarians are about liberty, conserving it where it can be found but also tearing down whatever impeeds it, regardless of whose sacred cows get gored in the process. We may wish to conserve what is objectively good but otherwise we are as Promethean as the Marxist left.

In the Daily Telegraph article Britain risks huge influx of east Europe migrants by Philip Johnston, Home Affairs Editor, we see loaded language even in the title: 'risk'. How about calling the article:

'Britain opens doors to those formerly oppressed by Communism'

or maybe:

'Britain steals a march on Continental Europe in grab for east European labour'

But no. The thrust of the article is that only the wonderful Tories want to 'protect us' from the Eastern Hordes.

Ministers said that allowing migrant workers from these countries into Britain at the earliest opportunity would help the economy. But Oliver Letwin, the shadow home secretary, challenged the Government to explain why it had not made use of the transitional arrangements. "We live in a small and crowded island," he said. "Why does the Government consider it appropriate not to have transitional controls when other EU countries have imposed them."

Well it just so happens that the Telegraph article I am quoting from actually links to an article here on Samizdata.net from the Telegraph external links sidebar (cheers, guys!) called Why do people think that Britain is overcrowded? It really is not overcrowded and the idea we are somehow not going to be able to assimilate other Europeans is laughable. Oliver Letwin does not really care about providing the British economy with high initiative eastern European workers and entrepreneurs, he is just concerned with playing politics and attacking anything the dismal Blair government does, even when it is entirely correct.

Perhaps this is my own personal jaundice and nothing else but I seem to have found myself in an 'issue-trough'. I think this is what journalists call a 'slow news day'. I can seem to find anything worthy of truly sinking my teeth into and grinding away. I do detect the onset of a series of 'Great World-Shaking Events' in the offing but they're teetering back-and-forth on the precipice so tantalisingly that they're starting to lull me into a hypnotic trance.

Well, something will come along pretty soon, I'll bet. But, in the meantime, I shall use this hiatus in the global narrative to indulge in a bit of mischief-making.

It's becoming quite clear that the EU is adopting an increasingly anti-American character. As illustrated in this post from Perry a while back, the EU elites are actively marketing their project as being the plausible rival to the American 'hyperpower', the antidote to US-style 'cowboy' diplomacy and vigourous (which they see as 'virulent') market ideology.

The grumbling and foot-dragging from various European governments over US plans for Saddam Hussein are a symptom of this background antipathy not the cause of it. It's already causing a rift in relations and that rift is only going to get worse. Having given up trying to forge an identity for their superstate, the EU elite are having to rely increasingly on an anti-identity and that anti-identity is Anti-American.

So, what could the US government do about this? Work round it? Fight against it? Try to mollify it? Options which are all expensive, difficult and far from guaranteed to succeed.

No, I can think of a better solution: open up the US to immigration from Europe.

It's a policy that would have nothing but nothing but benefits for the US:

1. It would attract vast numbers of bright, young, well-educated Europeans grown weary of the burden of their increasingly fossilised economies. They would sprout wings and fly in the more entrepreneurial environment of the USA.

2. European immigrants would be able to assimilate seamlessly in a heartbeat and, more importantly, they would want to.

3. It's a no-cost policy. Not a penny of US taxpayers money would have to be spent.

4. It's a politically winning policy. The American left could hardly object unless they want to stand on an anti-immigration platform; the isolationist right won't mind because, let's face it, the overwhelming majority of Europeans are white, and libertarians cannot possibly have any cause for complaint. Thus all potential political opposition within the US is neutralised.

5. America gets progressively richer and more dynamic while Europe's enarques are left lording it over a constituency consisting of pensioners, cretins and Al-Qaeda sleepers.

So, if the EUnuchs get too far up George Bush's nose, may I suggest that a heady revenge can be obtained by a mere stroke of the Presidential pen by which he could consign the aforesaid EUnuchs to a slow, lingering, humiliating death. It really is a win-win-win-win policy. In fact, from an American point of view, I cannot think of a downside.

Oh yes, sorry, I can think of a downside; some Americans living in the vicinity of any Ports of Entry risk being trampled to death in the rush.

So. Okay. Like right now, for example, the Haitians need to come to America. But some people are all: "What about the strain on our resources?" But it's like, when I had this garden party for my father's birthday, right, I said R.S.V.P. because it was a sit-down dinner. But people came that, like, did not R.S.V.P. So I was like totally buggin'. I had to haul ass to the kitchen, redistribute the food, squish in extra place settings, but by the end of the day it was like, the more the merrier. And so, if the government can just get to the kitchen, rearrange some things, we could certainly party with the Haitians. And in conclusion may I please remind you that it does not say R.S.V.P. on the Statue of Liberty. [Applause] Thank you very much.
-Cher (Alicia Silverstone) in the movie Clueless

I don't like "Yes you did" "No I�didn't" conversations in newsgroups so I'm wary of doing so here. Brian refers to the horrors faced by mixed-married couples in Yugoslavia. I think we'll find that these are precisely the people who didn't start looking for an ethnic or religious war with their neighbours. Oscar Wilde would no doubt have suggested that matrimonial strife was amply sufficient. Alexander the Great tried to solve racial problems by ordering his officers to marry Persians. Napoleon suggested that if the French all married blacks then the issue would be ended once and for all. Both were poisoned for their pains. Next time someone compares these tyrants to Hitler I'll dig out the reference.

As for my awkward posts: suck eggs Brian! and let's look forward to Zinedine Zidane (a Moslem who's idea of terror is firing footballs into a goal full of terrified innocent defenders) versus Nicky Butt in the second round, assuming Cameroon don't cripple half the England team in the 'friendly'.

Brian Micklethwait should try applying an individualist approach to the problem of Islamic fundamentalism. Is Mohammed Al Fayed a viper in the nest of free-market(ish) Europe? Perhaps, but he's not a threat to Western Civilization because of his religious beliefs. The Turkish kebab shop in Tachbrook Street (now demolished by predatory developers ) with the Galatasaray and Arsenal football fan may be included on census forms as a "non-white European" to terrify drawing room society, but I was less frightened of his political opinions than I am by some of Sean Gabb's, and his cooking was a lot less threatening than Brian's.

Go to an Italian restaurant in central London. Many of the raven haired waitresses are no more Italian than I am, and no more Catholic than Osama bin Laden. They're wine drinking economic migrants from Kosovo whose parents had "Moslem" on their communist era identity cards. Sure, add them up and you get 40 per cent of the population of a grotty flat in Finchley or Norwood. The other 60 per cent are as likely to be Serbs, Croats or Slovaks all with their nominal ethnic or religious hatreds. How come they aren't slaughtering each other in Ballards Lane or West Norwood High Street? As individuals, Moslems are no worse than Glaswegians. It's when a mob looking for a fight at a football match run into you that they're a nuisance.

The problem isn't immigration... Its immigration and a welfare state. We have to choose one or the other. I make no bones in saying that the NHS, comprehensive education, state benefits, council housing, free abortions (no charge to the user) all have to go. All that immigration has done is accelarate the process of creating an underclass. If we'd had the welfare state in the seventeenth century the Jews and Dutch would have a reputation in Britain for being alcoholics, single mothers, violent etc. No doubt Jewish fundamentalist groups attacking the decadence of the West would be scaring Gabb and Micklethwait with demands for shop closures on Saturday,�modest clothing for women and demands for apologies for anti-semitic persecutions. Instead some of them went into banking.

Launching an air strikes on Harrods and rounding up all Moslem males over the age of five for an unstated purpose is not the answer, it seems more likely to worsen matters and destroy the moral meaning of the West. Actually the libertarians got it right who said that the best way to prevent another Oklahoma bombing would be to get Clinton out of the White House, and a relatively non-interventionist government in her place.

The best way to improve race relations in the UK is for the state to get out of welfare and stop appearing to spend white taxpayers money on layabouts who happen to be�black. The state should however either get out of policing, or vigourously enforce laws against violent crime and crimes against property. Islamic sentences for property crimes would seem to me preferable to the present lunacy in Western Europe.

Fundamentalist terrorism is not uniquely Islamic. The shopkeeping Moslems are as afraid of a nuke in London as anyone, they are also pretty worried that they might become scapegoats for Brian's fears. War on Moslems because of Bin Laden is like having a war on Californian hippies because of Charles Manson.

In the early hours of Sunday morning (the 19th - last night as I finish this) I watched BBC News 24, although following that link will probably only get you the operation as a whole, not the story I'm about to refer to. Which was: John Simpson talking, in Holland, with a Dutch journalist, who interestingly had just returned to Holland after spending a decade in South Africa. I didn't see the beginning of the interview and I therefore didn't catch the name of the Dutchman. Peter something, I think. It was on just before 3 am.

For the time being anyway, democracy is doing its job. There was mass unease in Holland, and the ballot boxes had registered it. In Pim Fortuyn, Holland � indeed I would go further and say Europe � found a major politician who knew how to talk about "multiculturalism" and all that, in a way that does justice to the fears that regular people (by which I mean non-Muslim people) have about it, without being blatantly racist in the manner of the BNP (British National Party), or, if I understand him and his followers correctly, Jean Marie Le Pen.

Simpson mentioned that interview he did with Fortuyn a few days before Fortuyn's death. He recalled that when he had said that something that Fortuyn had said to him "sounded very like racism", Fortuyn had got extremely angry, for this was a distinction Fortuyn (unlike Simpson, it would seem) well understood. Islam is not a race, and being hostile to it, as Fortuyn was (and as I � a convinced atheist � also am), is not racism. Islam is a body of ideas, predominantly false and - insofar as Islam has anything to say about the likes of me - aggressively nasty ideas, in my opinion. It is a culture, political as well as religious. I congratulate John Simpson for reporting his conversation with Fortuyn accurately. His own opinions about "racism" are silly, and hit the nail squarely in its surrounding timber. But when Fortuyn told him this he reported Fortuyn's reaction for the important fact that it is.

Maybe Fortuyn's answer � stop immigration now � isn't yet very appealing, and may never be workable in a way that is remotely humane, but his question cannot now be funked. There is, as Fortuyn insisted, a clash of civilisations going on within Europe, never mind between Europe and other places. Muslims now make up forty per cent of the population of the big cities of Holland, and will soon be in a majority in them, or so the Dutch journalist said. If some Muslims then start taking the idea of majority rule seriously, the bad times could begin. At that point democracy may stop working, and become the justification of and provocation of major conflict instead of the means of avoiding it.

For the last few decades, the idea in the West has been that the severe conflicts that have erupted between Islam and the West over the centuries could be made to go away by us all pretending that there was no problem and refusing to talk or even think about it. Since 9-11, and now since the shooting star that was Pim Fortuyn's political career, that notion is in the process of being junked. Ever since 9-11, the internet has pulsated with infidels analysing Islam, explaining its doctrines, describing its foundation ideas, reflecting upon the career and example of Mohammed himself (not good news in my opinion), gasping with horror at the virulently anti-Semitic grotesqueries of the Middle Eastern press.

Personally I am extremely pessimistic, and see no lower limit to how nasty things may eventually get, down to and including genocide. I further believe that looking such horrors in the face makes them less likely, rather than more likely, to happen, which is why I believe in trading these moderately insulting insults now.

What makes the situation particularly horrible is that there is little that "individual decent Muslims", of which there are huge numbers, can do about all this. Islam itself, as Fortuyn insisted, is the problem. Individual Muslims, however genuinely decent, and however desperate they may be to escape from the economic stagnation and political nastiness of the Mulsim heartlands and hence desperate to live instead in a country like Holland, are nevertheless the carriers of an inherently antagonistic culture. They seem doomed eventually to destroy the very havens they are now moving to in such numbers, by their very presence in such numbers. Until Islam undergoes fundamental changes, there'll always be trouble between it and its neighbours.

Or, of course, Western culture could be profoundly altered. We could accept Islam. Let me give a passing nod to political correctness, and temper the savageries in the previous paragraphs by saying that there is, of course, a quite different way of alluding to these same notions. Instead of Islam being blamed, it could equally well be said that we infidels are the basic cause of all the trouble between ourselves and Islam, because of our stubborn refusal to submit to it. Either way, as far as the formerly or still Christian West is concerned, we are talking about two fundamentalisms here, not just one. Something very big has to give between us and Islam if these two now utterly distinct and antagonistic cultures are ever to learn to get along in a state of prolonged and intermingled amicability.

This is the problem that Holland is now squaring up to. Should Muslim newcomers be forced to learn the Dutch language? Should there be some kind of oath of allegiance which all, of all cultures, must swear? Or what?

All this stuff should be and will be of intense interest to us in Britain, because our demographics are heading in a similar direction.

Tolerate v.tr. 1 allow the existence or occurrence of without authoritative interference. 2 leave unmolested 3 endure or permit, esp. with forbearance

Accept v.tr. 3 regard favourably; treat as welcome 4 a believe, receive (an opinion, explanation etc.) as adequate or valid. b be prepared to subscribe to (a belief, philosophy etc.)

The assassination of Dutch cultural nationalist Pim Fortuyn has raised many questions about the nature of tolerance and liberty. Orrin Judd suggests that Fortuyn was not a libertarian as some have claimed and in this I agree. Fortuyn was indeed informed by some very libertarian principles but sought to apply them within a statist context that placed him at least somewhat within the stranger wing of a Euro-conservative fringe with more than a few touches of the 'classical liberal' about him.

In truth Fortuyn defied easy categorisation but in some ways his views on immigration were just dealing with the inherent contradictions between distributive statism's prerequisite of homogeneity (the need for a quantifiable unit called 'citizen') and the dis-incentivization for cultural assimilation and social integration inherent in welfare statism. Much of what he said has also been said by Ilana Mercer (who is a top flight pukka libertarian with whom I just happen to disagree regarding the implications of immigration in a free society) as well as many cultural conservatives.

Orrin Judd takes the view that the essence of Fortuyn was just about advocating sexual licence (a word loaded with political meanings I reject) whilst himself not tolerating religious based distaste in others for Fortuyn's overt homosexuality. Yet having read some of what he said and trying to filter out the political populist crap that all democratic political figures encode their words with, it seems clear to me that what Fortuyn really opposed was the fact within the Muslim community in the Netherlands were elements who wanted to translate their lack of acceptance into intolerance.

Fortuyn was not insisting Muslims or for than matter Christians like Orrin Judd accept, which is to say agree with his sexual predilections, just that they tolerate them and for him this was non-negotiable (and I happen to think he was correct in that view). And therein lies the fatal flaw of all democratic state centred societies rather than classical liberal civil societies with the state just as 'nightwatchman'... if political manipulation of the state gives the more cohesive sections of that society the ability to back their lack of acceptance with force (i.e. to make the laws of the state reflect their views), then a legitimate lack of acceptance becomes illegitimate intolerance. Fortuyn feared that in a democratic state, a cohesive alien Muslim cultural bloc lead by people for whom society and state were logically one and the same, would start to move the state away from being the guarantor of tolerance for people largely not accepted: of which homosexuals are a classical example being as they are both ubiquitous and always a minority.

Tolerance however is not a value neutral condition, far from it in fact. To tolerate something is to not accept it. One does not tolerate one's friends, one accepts them. I tolerate people listening to heavy metal music even though I think most of it is drivel, for the simple reason it is none of my damn business what other people listen to. It only becomes my business if they are playing it loudly in the next house at four o'clock in the morning but then it is not a matter of 'tolerance' any more, it is a matter of unwillingly imposed real cost regardless of the type of music involved. I tolerate smokers because if they want to kill themselves and smell like ashtrays, that is their business not mine. I do not accept it as a good idea however. What is wrong is to use the violence of the state to prevent people doing what they want to themselves and others of a like mind and there is the problem with some conservative Christians and more or less all radical Muslims: they want to criminalise what they see as sin rather than criminalise the violation of the objective rights of others. Opposing that is not intolerance because tolerance does not mean tolerating intolerance, any more than it is tolerance to tolerate anything which actively seeks to violate your self-ownership. If you believe homosexuality (or eating pork or looking at pictures of naked women) is a sin, well fine, that is up to you, feel free to not engage in gay sex (or pork dinners or Playboy). If that then induces you to vote for people who will use the violence of the state (laws) to discriminate against homosexuals (or ban pork butchers and Playboy magazine), well that is not fine.

Just remember that what is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander. In a democratic state, no one group ever monopolizes power for ever. If the people who, on the basis of religious non-acceptance, want to legally disadvantage (i.e. no longer tolerate) certain people because of their sexual peccadillos... and then use their transitory political clout to actualise that, well don't be too surprised if one day the object of that discrimination tries to use the state to legally discriminate against the religions which are seen as the source of the intolerance towards them. In a democratic state, any large cohesive voting bloc with intolerant rather than just non-accepting views is a potential threat. The more truly democratic a system is, the greater such threats are.

The BBC's John Simpson was shown on last night's TV news interviewing the late Pim Fortuyn. Fortuyn said something along the lines of: "we have guests who are trying to take over the house." Said Simpson: "That sounds very racist to me." Replied Fortuyn: "Give me a definition of racist." At which point the BBC report ended.

I sympathise with Fortuyn on this. If ever there was a word that can mean several different things within the same conversation, or even the same paragraph or sentence, that word is "racist". David Carr and I had an exchange on Samizdata not long ago in which I said that the number of definitions of "multiculturalism" was two, while he replied that it was zero. Number of definitions of "racist"? Well, let's see how many we can think of.

• Believing that races differ from each other.
• Believing that races differ from each other in important ways, like intelligence or physical abilities.
• Believing that races differ from each other in important ways, like intelligence or physical abilities, for genetic reasons rather than because of cultural or environmental circumstances.
• Believing that because of such differences, members of different races should have different political rights.
• Believing that a particular group of people who are racially different are also different in their culture.
• Believing that a particular group of people who are racially different are also different in their culture, for genetic rather than historically contingent reasons.
• Not liking the different culture associated with a different race and wanting that culture changed, opposed, corrected, or confronted.
• Because of believing that a member of a different race is likely to be different in a particular way, believing that this particular member of the different race is himself likely to be different in this particular way.
• Believing that this particular member of a different race is different in this way, even when you have got to know him individually and know that it isn't so.
• Believing that all the members of a particular race should be murdered.

I haven't polished this list, or tried to make it exhaustive. I've listed ten different meanings, but if you took as long doing your version of the list as I have just taken doing mine, it would probably contain a different number of items, and if you took as long as you needed to get yours exactly right, your list would probably be a lot longer (as would mine). But my point here is not to start a "how many meanings and exactly what are they?" debate.

My point is merely the simpler one that according to some definitions of "racist" almost everybody is racist, while according to other definitions, hardly anyone is.

Who does not believe, for example, that races differ from one another? Who but a total ignoramus about the world and its ways sincerely believes that there is no such thing as a cultural difference associated with any racial difference, anywhere?

But, so frightened are we of being called racist that we would sooner deny everything on the list, whoever compiled it, rather than risk being thus labelled. The few brave or perhaps brutal souls who are prepared to admit to "racism", that is, who tick yes to some of the items on the list, even as they strenuously deny others, demonstrate with their fate why denying everything makes sense.

Yet for the majority of thinking people to be denying everything is also very dangerous, because important truths get neglected in public debate, such as the exact truth about Muslim culture, and the exact things that ought, and ought not, to be done about this truth.

Equally dangerous is that if, under challenge from someone like Mr. Le Pen, any of the items on the list are admitted through clenched teeth to be true, it is then liable to be assumed that therefore the entire racist agenda, racist by any definition, has been acknowledged to be correct, when in fact defensive lines can be dug in between different items, and should be. It is assumed, that is to say, that the one huge defensive line must be drawn this side of "racism" by any definition. But this is to concede that no worthwhile lines can or should be drawn between different items on the list.

It is this latter syndrome that the nastier racists stand ready to exploit, as soon as any of their more obviously true complaints are conceded to have merit. I can see why lots of the people who read things like Samizdata want even quite nasty racists to do well electorally. Few of such readers are themselves nasty racists, but they want some of the more obvious truths about racial matters to be faced rather than funked in public debate. The trouble is that the nasty racists won't stop there. They'll use what power they are able to garner with the truth to spread untruths and to do truly nasty things.

For further intelligent thoughts on this subject, see Natalie Solent's posting last night. As for what she posted in the morning, let me just say: my sentiments exactly. Thanks Natalie.

I would like to thank Daniel Antal for his lucid and informative observations about Pim Fortuyn and for illustrating the many reasons why it is wrong for me to bracket him in with Jean-Marie Le Pen.

I have no doubt that there are qualitative and ideological differences between all of the so-called 'far-right' politicians in Europe but it does occur to me that they have all, to a greater or lesser degree, ridden to power on the back of the anti-immigration tiger. That they are all perceived as racists is due to the fact that the current political-media establishment is unable to grasp the difference between 'racist' and 'culturalist'.

Well, when he is not a fascist... Daniel Antal, a Hungarian economist currently visiting London, takes the view that David Carr was wrong to tar Dutchman Pim Fortuyn with the same brush as the neo-fascist Frenchman Jean-Marie Le Pen

I have to disagree with some of David Carr's analysis in What say ye, Fukuyama? regarding the extreme nationalist 'right-wing' successes in Europe recently. I do not think Jean-Marie Le Pen is comparable with Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands or the Schiller Partei in the German local elections in the Bundeslander. I think these parties have challenged a profoundly decadent strain of European cultural relativism. I have not completely read through through Schiller's or Fortuyn's manifestos yet, but my first impression is that Dutchman Pim Fortuyn is the first populist leader who started a strong movement to defend the current level of liberties and democratic institutions rather than being behind some atavistic fascist movement.

Fortuyn is not racist: he discriminates on the issue of Dutch language skills as a measure of cultural integration. The Muslim immigrants refuse to learn Dutch and are thus seen as being 'unavailable for democratic dialogue'. Fortuyn says that he wishes a new anti-discrimination paragraph in the Dutch constitution because he wants to criticize the Islamic immigrants who refuse to accept western norms of human rights. He says that inciting violence against these groups should be banned, but not merely criticizing them. He is a sociology professor and proud to be gay, and he says he is quite thankful for the Dutch Liberal democracy for the fact that he need not hide away all his life because of his sexual orientation. He accuses the non-Dutch speaking immigrants of hatred towards homosexuals, extreme oppression of women, sexism and such things, thus he should not be lumped in with the 'far right' like Le Pen.

The shocked left-wing, whose 'multi-cultural' agenda is facing its strongest challenge in the last three decades, accuses Fortuyn of discrimination when he says things like: "Islam is a backward religion, whose followers see us Westerners as an inferior race." And he questions the first article of the Dutch constitution, which bans discrimination. "If it means that people are no longer allowed to make discriminatory remarks, I'd say this is not good. Let people say what they want. However, there is another important line to be drawn: one should never incite violence." In short, Fortuyn is advocating an approach not unlike the US First Amendment.

Also not indicative of neo-fascist views is Fortuyn's anti-militarism: he wants to have a Dutch navy only, but no army or airforce. He wants a smaller government, a cause close to the heart of any libertarian. He wants to change the Dutch election system, in which currently people vote for party lists and thus the political elite never changes and there is no personal responsibility in the system. This is a far from undemocratic or unreasonable aim. Fortuyn attacks segregation in the cities, denouncing it as 'city apartheid'. However, he gives a 'right wing' answer to the problem: Dutch education without cultural relativism. He says that refugee welfare benefits should be contingent on Dutch schooling: only those should receive Dutch education, learn the Dutch language and some aspects of the achievements of the broader Dutch culture will qualify for welfare benefits. This is not exclusion: this is a new and 'politically incorrect' way of rejecting the exclusion of ghettoization.

I do not want to praise Fortuyn too much before knowing more about his manifesto. But I believe that people who are proud of their liberties and the culture from which they sprang should listen to him carefully. Analyse the left wing media with caution and bemused skepticism: they are not beyond outright lying when a populist politician like Fortuyn seems to be not just challenging the unquestioned world view of the left from an unexpected direction but doing it successfully.

Daniel Antal (London/Budapest)

Tony Millard writes in from Tuscany in Italy to express his views on Le Pen, multi-culturalism and over-enthusiastic well-diggers

I am now a regular reader of the Samizdata (or the Lib Sam as I like to call it) and enjoy most of the articles. What I find depressing at the moment is that as I raise my gun to shoot a topical bunny I see hundreds more all around me - Le Pen, the UK Budget, Italian politics, NHS, multi-clutch-and-graspism, blah blah. It has taken a while to start shooting them down as I currently have a well-digger on my farm here in Tuscany. Charming chap, though he has a habit of trying to reach magma in order to enhance revenues (they are paid by the foot) so I'm keeping an eye, as they say.

Whilst overseeing the keen well-digger, I heard a number of things on Radio 4 yesterday that disturbed me, to say the least. Most of the afternoon's bulletins were taken up with a slanted condemnation of Le Pen by an almost constant referral to the "thousands" or, in extremis, "tens of thousands" of protesters on the street. Not one single reference was made to the fact that he did after all garner the votes to oust Jospin from the fight. Odder still was my recollection that by comparison last year's Countryside Alliance pro-hunting march in London was supposed to have produced in excess of half a million people on the streets. However, the general reporting slant was decidedly unfavourable. Hmm.

I am not exactly sure of Monsieur Le Pen's precise political destination and would probably find it on the crude side. I am not a supporter by any stretch of the imagination, so no skin off my nose, if he doesn't win the presidential seat. What I do find shocking though is the childishly obvious suppression of any voice that dissents from the European melting pot theory, and the assumption that any anti-immigration stance implies a shaved head and a tattooed forearm.

The problem does not reside in the shape (or lack) of a haircut or the pattern of a tattoo. We are wasting time arguing about the mode of travelling when the real need is to decide on the destination. What happens if we 'prove' that the mass immigration of 40 years ago to date was 'wrong'? The argument is sterile (and therefore futile) as the situation is with us and cannot be humanely reversed. We might as well argue and debate a meritocracy based on the colour of people's eyes. On the basis that someone born in Europe is an honorary Caucasian, most of the population is on a level. What we must therefore focus on is the evils of the tiered language and cultural gap currently opening and prompted by the left. Le Pen is gaining support from the Franco-Jewish population (courtesy of Radio 4 news) and why? Buried at around 3.30pm in the yesterday's programme was a possible answer - they are apparently regular victims of Muslim violence in the Parisian suburbs and have had enough. Allowing a separate 'nation' to grow within the EU is societal suicide. I am, in accordance perhaps with the previous Lib Sam articles (see related article links below), a fervent supporter of anti-multiculturalism in its accepted sense � that is I believe it's a load of rubbish and smacks of left wing appeasement and head-buried-in-the-sand denial of reality.

Realpolitik is that we like our neighbours to be like us and we all, whatever our racial origin, need to face up to this reality. Incidentally, my oldest friend is from Sri Lanka. Unless you saw him, you would not know. He is an Englishman, like Nathan Rothschild aspired to be and in the end considered himself to be. Perhaps, more needs to be done to foster the true concept of Englishness or Frenchness or whatever, and less time should be spent on muddled searches a là: Mr Blair for a sort of crypto-Britishness that is designed to please and appease rather than make sense of cultural and racial diversity.

Tony Millard (Tuscany, Italy)

Jean-Marie Le Pen is not President of France and is unlikely to become President of France but I don't think that it is an exaggeration to say that his success in the first round of the presidential elections is already sending shockwaves across Europe and maybe the wider world.

Why? Anyone who has been following events in Europe over recent months cannot help but have noticed Nationalist politicians of the Le Pen variety notching up stunning electoral success all over the continent, including Holland, Denmark, Austria and Italy. The success of Le Pen, in this context, is not so much an eruption as part of an ongoing pattern. Something is radically changing in Europe and the ruling jacobin elites have no idea how to respond much less stop it. They are worried. They are right to be.

The settlement of post-war Europe was a centrist consensus built around an all-encompassing welfare state where high taxes and generous benefits were seen as a type of 'enlightened' self-interest; people happily paid into the system to help their less fortunate neighbours and friends in the sure and certain knowledge that the system would care equally well for them as and when the time came. But, whatever we say about the inquities of tribalism, the fact appears that those same people were less enthusiatic about providing such bounty to strangers from faraway lands with whom they felt no affinity or kinship. Is this an admission of racism? Well, yes, it most certainly is. Why try to invent anaesthetising euphamisms for it?

The massive third world immigration into Europe in the last twenty years or so has seen the system stretched to breaking point resulting in a surly, resentful and thoroughly balkanised polity that is starting to express itself through people like Le Pen in France and Pym Forytun in Holland. The ossified Eurocrats are starting to reap what they have so blithely sewn.

But it isn't just the Napoleonic welfare-state which is to blame. The post-war political class was shot through with post-colonial guilt and haunted by the horrors of Nazi Germany to the extent where they saw 'European culture' as something which had to be curbed, repressed and, preferably, phased out. Europeans were required to demonstrate open-ended 'tolerance' while immigrant communities were required to do quite the opposite. It was an appallingly misconceived and damaging bit of social engineering that may yet have terrible reprecussions.

There are those who will point to 9/11 as a turning point but that would not be entirely true. These tensions have been fomenting in Europe for years. What may be true is that both 9/11 and the Israel-Palestinian conflict have further radicalised the large Muslim minorities in much of Europe, particularly in France and Holland. How many Europeans have visualised, rightly or wrongly, homicide bombers devastating the pavement cafes of Paris or Amsterdam and shuddered? Failing to find comfort in their mealy-mouthed and morally relative incumbents, have they turned to other sources for their salvation?

Of course, this could all just be a protest vote rather than a long-term trend but the former sometimes has a knack of of morphing into the latter even if nobody meant it to. I have a sense that the world is shifting in tectonic ways and moving the plates of history around under our feet.

Thanks for the response, David. Here are my corrections.

I just plain disagree that "multiculturalism" has no meaning. I said it has two meanings and I stick to that. Hence the problems I diagnose. If the word meant nothing, it wouldn't be such a trap. To say that it does mean nothing is to surrender the verbal field to the "multicultural outcome" enemy.

I said: watch out for this word. I did not say (although it sounds as if you think I said): I will go on using this word even though it's a dodgy word. I favour the search for different and better words, as do you.

However, your suggested alternative word is a bad one. "Monoculturalist" has similar problems to "multiculturalist", and if anything even worse ones.

Does "monoculturalism" mean re-establishing the white, pre-coloured-immigration "monoculture" that we once had, by chucking lots of coloured people out? Does it perhaps mean keeping the "monoculture" we could now have if we kept the coloured people we've got, but shut out any more? Those are both reasonable guesses as to what the word might mean and they're both racist meanings, especially the first.

Perhaps "monoculturalism" means lots more people coming into Britain, but only from the white Anglo-Saxon world � from white America and the white Commonwealth? Or maybe white folks from anywhere? Again, reasonable guesses, and again, decidedly racist meanings.

And another reasonable guess would be that it means people becoming part of a monoculture when they (from wherever) get here? This is the meaning you attach to the word.

Even more ambiguous. Even worse confusion. Even worse traps to dodge.

Just to be clear about what I want, although I favour a "monocultural" and "British" (in the sense of all this taking place in Britain) outcome, I don't expect or want this monoculture to be white British folks plus lots of other folks behaving exactly like white British folks. I favour a genuine melting pot with the resulting combined culture containing influences and ingredients from all the new arrivals from the many different feeder cultures.

In my original posting I used the phrase "melting pot", and this is a much better phrase for what I believe in than "monoculturalism". "Melting pot" communicates both the extreme diversity of the cultural ingredients I want us and expect us to welcome in, and the unified nature of the combined outcome that I likewise want and expect.

To bring all this down to earth and back to life, when I started writing this last night I was also watching the small-hours-of-Friday-morning repeat of CD UK. After a two year silence, Oasis are playing their new single called, if I heard it right, "Hindu Times". This is good hard Oasis-rock with a scrawny, bearded Gallagher brother doing high-decibel mid-Atlantic Manchester-Irish whining at the front like it was 1997, but with the backing spiced up with sitars - or maybe sitar-like guitars, I couldn't tell - twanging and singing away in among the drums and bass. Melting. pot rock. Oasis have been listening to bhangra rock (itself a classic melting pot phenomenon) unless I'm much mistaken. It sounded good to me.

Sometimes, Brian, it can take a lot less than twenty minutes.

Correct me if I am wrong (and you will do so unhesitatingly, I'm sure) but you take the view that you don't in the least mind foreigners coming to live in Britain so long as they adopt and adapt to a culture which is particularly and identifiably British.

In other words, aren't you a monoculturalist?

This is an issue that often brings out the divisions amongst libertarians. There are two broad camps on this matter:

Most libertarians take the view that it is just a matter of free association and thus the state has no business preventing people from seeking opportunities wherever they are found. Within this group, most also hold that the new arrivals should not be given access to welfare or other transfer payments, taking the view that such redistributions of wealth are just theft in any case and should not be made to anyone, let alone immigrants.

The other camp of people with more or less libertarian views, such as Ilana Mercer and Hans-Hermann Hoppe take the view that unrestricted immigration is actually a facet of statism, not liberty. They argue that as all property should be private, mass immigration only occurs when the state takes a hand to prevent people from excluding the new arrivals from privately owned housing and jobs in the manner they assume existing property owners would naturally choose to pursue.

The two main reasons held up to justify this opposition to open immigration is firstly that of the risk of swamping their freedom loving culture that is evolving towards libertarian understandings... and secondly that new and economically unproductive arrivals often hugely increase demand on social security and welfare systems, thereby leading to an increase in unjustified appropriation by the state of tax monies.

The first argument, to which Hans-Hermann Hoppe addresses at great length has two main strands. Firstly the risk of crime and violence posed by a large underclass of non-assimilated immigrants and secondly the moral right of 'citizen' peoples to naturally form communities of cultural affinity and 'dis-affinity' (i.e. to accept and reject certain types of people without being coerced by the state).

The argument goes that it is the state which 'imposes' immigrants on communities and to make it worse there is little motivation to assimilate but rather to just line up for welfare handouts. Additionally, without the coercion of the state, societies in their natural form have deep genetic, racial and ethnic elements which will militate towards evolving to a series of economically interlinked but spatially separated communities, presumably rather like ancient Greek city-states. Whilst the corrosive effects of welfare are undeniably true, the foundation of both these ideas is, I believe, quite false.

It is only due to active state efforts to prevent assimilation (called 'multiculturalism') that the ghettoization of sections of society are more than a passing phase in the immigration process. Unless they are uprooted forcibly (as was the case with the arrival of Africans as slaves in North America), people do not emigrate great distances to a foreign land in this modern era because they are happy with their existing way of life and culture. For an Indian or Chinese family to move to Britain, it does not mean they are completely rejecting their original culture and family ties, but it does mean they are making a value judgement that life and culture is at least in some significant measure superior in their destination of choice. Thus to argue that it is intrinsically rational to reject immigrants from different cultures if natural social forces are allowed to work seems to misunderstand why people become immigrants in the first place.

Some like Hans-Hermann Hoppe have what I believe to be quite incorrect understandings of not just the inevitably fluid nature of society in a modern extended order but have also failed to grasp the dramatic effect of capitalist trade based economics on making societies more dynamic and adaptive when they interact increasingly globally. As a result, Hoppe takes an extremely non-Anglosphere, quintessentially Germanic view of the nature of civil society when viewed separately from the state: at its core he sees a blood and soil Volk, racially, genetically as well as culturally based and therefore leading to self reinforcing communities of 'like cultures'.

Thus he takes the view that were it not for the imposed integration of the state, whilst people may wish to trade with anyone, they would inevitably not freely wish to live and work in close physical proximity with different cultures, races and lifestyles. Different races, homosexuals, libertines, people who take siestas in the afternoon etc. etc. (i.e. anyone who was not a member of the Volk either racially or culturally) would be either excluded from the community of free property owning citizens all together or at the very least banished to enforced ghettos like medieval Jews. I do not feel I am overstating Hoppe's position (see ch.9 'On Cooperation, Tribe, City, and State' in 'Democracy-The God that failed' (2001, Transaction Publisher)).

Yet I look around at London and see a very different world to that of Hoppe. It is abundantly clear that when the state does not enforce distorting multiculturalism, social values will naturally evolve not to Hoppe's hypothetical future libertarian neo-tribalism but rather to cosmopolitanism, right here and right now. The only Volk of the future is the Volkswagen. When people of different cultures and races actually interact economically, the inevitable consequence is familiarity, cultural confluence and ultimately miscegenation, not a regression to atavistic tribalism. One only has to walk down the streets of London to see the truth of that.

Sure, areas of minority racial and to a lesser extent cultural concentration can be found in Britain, yet one does not have to look far to see an expanding and entirely British black and Asian population already in the mainstream of cultural and economic life of the country... and not just flipping burgers and digging up roads. In racial flash points, such as Oldham, it is racially ghettoized low income supporters of socialist largess who exchange barrages of bricks and bottles over which community is getting the bigger handout from local government. In less radically separated and far less state dependent majority black communities like Clapham in London, for instance, economics un-mediated by the state lead to a very different and altogether better result.

Ilana Mercer makes several excellent points as to the harmful effects of the welfare state on creating an 'acculturation' to largess. In this as in so many things she is manifestly correct. Certainly people who see political favour rather than economic interaction as the means to support ones self are indeed the 'wrong' sort of immigrant (not to mention the wrong sort of domestic 'citizen') who are little more than muggers-by-proxy. However this is not then an argument against open immigration on economic grounds but rather a self-evident argument against the welfare state and all other forms of democratically sanctioned criminality that falls under the 'redistribution of wealth' category.

As far as I am concerned Hans-Hermann and Ilana are free to feel distaste at the idea of the close proximity of alien cultures, races and lifestyles (clearly the case for Hoppe) but for them to then deduce that their sentiments are in fact what would be the 'natural' sentiments of the majority if it were not for state enforced integration is not really born out by the evidence.

I share the view that socialist multiculturalism is in fact just an attempt to dismantle Anglosphere civil society with its dynamist adaptive nature and replace it with 'social' values more amenable to state centred stasis collectivism. However again this is not an argument against immigration but against state interference in the values of civil society. In reality I am probably much more of a cultural chauvinist than Ilana Mercer and Hans-Hermann Hoppe are. They fear the 'other' out of alarm for the fate of liberty based civil society in the face of more primitive collectivist based social values that they see as inevitably (and often incorrectly) defining Third World newcomers.

However I do not fear the cultural alien at all because it is the anti-culture of collectivism which should be afraid and not Anglosphere civil society. I am so convinced of the seductive, viral nature of the core value of our civil society (severalty, unenumerated rights, free contract, personal choice) that unless the dead hand of the state actively prevents it from spreading (i.e. by enforcing 'multiculturalism' legislation), the triumph of liberty's cultural underpinnings is pretty much just a matter of time. The reason for this is that the modern dynamist technological networked extended order is so much more economically effective than every single one of the collectivist state centred stasis based alternatives... all we have to do to 'win' is continue to produce the things other societies want and yet are incapable of actually producing.

Just as Hoppe's 'Volk' based understanding of what lies at the core of society was archaic and false even 100 years ago, it is reduced to complete nonsense by the subversive, dynamic, eclectic and market driven screech of the modem, the convenience of the mobile phone and TV screens filled with The History Channel, Australian Soap Operas, Star Trek, Monty Python and Baywatch (quite possibly dubbed in Urdu) and other irresistible bourgeois banalities. Do not fear the immigrant because freed from the baleful distortions of statism, they wish to be us, only more colourfully so. Let them get on with it and thereby enrich us all.

Let me state that I do not expect a paleo-conservative like Pat Buchannan to actually agree with libertarian views, but what I do expect is that, if he is going to comment on them, that he actually takes the time to figure out what libertarian views actually are before opening his noise making apparatus.

I have had numerous e-mail on his ludicrous article called Does libertarianism lead to statism?. Over on Dodgeblog, there is also a rubbishing of Buchannan that speculates what his real motivation for the remarks might be. The section of Buchannan's article that best sums up his complete lack of comprehension regarding what libertarians actually do stand for is:

As these immigrants are also far poorer than Americans, they are disproportionate users of social services -- i.e., health care, food stamps, rent supplements, legal services and general welfare. Immigrants have become the principal propellants of the growth of the welfare state.

Libertarians to Buchannan: Read this carefully

The state has NO legitimate role in health care, food stamps, rent supplements and 'general welfare'... Libertarians do not support the very existence of the theft based welfare state! Eliminate that and the only people who will be willing to emigrate to another country under those conditions are self selecting high initiative folks who want to avail themselves of employment and entrepreneurial opportunities...i.e. exactly the sort of people who came through Ellis Island and made the USA the wealthiest nation on earth. I fail to see a problem with that!

So in essence Pat Buchannan's thesis of genius is that "libertarianism leads to statism because non-libertarians have imposed welfare policies that libertarians regard as both immoral and economically unsound". D'oh!

Thanks to Virginia, Andrew, Hank, Ann, Anne, Ivan, Jorge, Margarthe, Will and Dieter for also baring their fangs via e-mail regarding the utterly clueless Buchannan article. I have never received so many e-mails that made almost exactly the same points on the same issue!