The Dumbest Immigration Policy (2001)

Dalrymple has written hundreds of articles
About this forum
Dalrymple has written a lot of articles. We suggest that in order to comment on a particular article you first run a search for it. If you find it, comment there. If not, please begin a new topic with that essay title.

The Dumbest Immigration Policy (2001)

Postby Gavin » 27 Apr 2013, 13:11

This article is more than a decade old and in it we see, I think, one the clearest outlines of TD's views on immigration and multiculturalism.

He uses the word "xenophobe" quite a lot - saying, for example:

"The xenophobes fear that strangers will so swamp the country that the original inhabitants will no longer be able to recognize it as their own."


I didn't agree with everything TD said. As I have mentioned before, I don't mind who comes here but I would expect them to want to integrate with our people and with the better aspects of our culture and our way of life, and not to enter illegally. I would also expect them to support themselves, and that's where I do agree with TD. Most of all, though, I think our focus should be on encouraging an enterprising spirit among our own people.

When TD wrote this article it was only three years into Labour's first term and, though some areas of the UK were certainly already very foreign to the natives, the mass immigration programme was perhaps not fully underway. It makes me wonder whether, when TD looks at (or hears about) society today, he still holds the very same views.
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3432
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: The Dumbest Immigration Policy (2001)

Postby Elliott » 27 Apr 2013, 20:15

It's an interesting article that makes several good points, but let's be quite honest: he's talking in 2001 with the psychological education of 1965, and as such he either doesn't know the unpleasant racist realities of mass immigration, or is compelled not to perceive them.

You might be right, Gavin, that he would write this article differently today. But as I was recently discussing with another forum member, I think TD is very much of his time. He represents the best of the Baby Boomer generation; the most discerning of that fundamentally liberal generation that, frankly, destroyed the Western world. He can see aspects of that destruction which fit with his world-view, but he can't see those aspects of it which directly contradict his world-view; namely, it is imperative that, whatever he notices and reports, nothing must contradict the BB's cherished beliefs that all people (races) are fundamentally equal, and that white people are uniquely inclined towards racism.

Indeed, there's a certain irony here:

The multiculturalist liberal believes that all cultures are equal, except for his own, which is uniquely wicked and imperialist.
...
The xenophobes


I say this is ironic because he is specifically and solely referring to British xenophobes. It never occurs to him that immigrants, however slothish or enterprising they might be, could also be xenophobic. According to TD, problems with immigration stem solely from British people, by way of individuals' racism and the State's bureaucracy. Therefore, he is himself behaving like the multiculturalist liberal, believing that his (white, British) culture is uniquely wicked and imperialist, whereas the scions of the Third World are, certainly by comparison, blameless.

Well in 2001 this was no doubt a sustainable belief. 9/11 hadn't happened, 7/7 hadn't happened, Madrid, Boston and Glasgow Airport hadn't happened, the Muslim paedophile scandals hadn't happened, and Kriss Donald still had his tongue. But now, if Dalrymple made similar claims about immigrant goodness vs. innate British racism today, I would actually stop reading and never read his material again, because I would regard him as the worst (because the most sophisticated and subtle) traitor to his own people.

Of course, the very idea that he has "a people" would presumably strike Dalrymple as racist. See what he says here:

the fundamentally racist view that immigration is a cultural threat, because culture is passed on through the blood rather than through the mind


And note that despite the above he has no objection to immigrants favouring their own people:

the lack of public assistance would promote mutual aid among immigrant groups, who would help their compatriots on condition that they deserved it


So the immigrants can help each other, they can have a kinship with each other, but if white Britons do it they're racist?

Sorry, this is all just so last century.

On another angle (and I'm sorry to criticise TD again as I actually do regard him as probably the best writer active today!), I think this sort of thing displays another shortcoming of his writing:

The medical students of Indian origin, for example, are invariably more attached to and deeply versed in traditional British culture than their "native" colleagues, because their parents so desperately wished them to be. Though these students are bilingual, their English is almost always more cultivated than that of their classmates. They are considerably less susceptible to the allure of modern popular culture—which is more of a solvent of traditional culture than immigration could ever be—than are their "more British" fellows. Their parents have sent them to music and drama lessons, and they straddle two cultures with great aplomb. Far from being a threat to British culture, they are the brightest hope of its preservation and development.


The shortcoming is that he is writing from a narrow band of experience and claiming, rather lazily, that it is universal. Other people have criticised him for this. I wish he would write more about the white middle-class, because I think he thinks all British people are like the underclass, which we're not. But here, with immigrants, he does the opposite: he writes only of that small number of aspiring Indian medical students rather than the massive number of Muslim dole claimants, or the equally massive number of black thugs/rapists/murderers. I'm sorry but that just isn't good enough.

I think he is deriving the very pleasure of being above the rest of his countrymen that the multiculturalist liberal derives. Well, reality is hitting home now. The British might be capable of boorishness and all the rest of it, but they're at least half-good, which is more than can be said for a large number (not all) of our Third World immigrants.
Elliott
 
Posts: 1800
Joined: 31 Jul 2011, 22:32
Location: Edinburgh

Re: The Dumbest Immigration Policy (2001)

Postby Paul » 27 Apr 2013, 21:11

Quite damning there Elliott.

I wouldn't be so harsh. TD is considerably older than you, even a deal older than me. It's natural to relax one's views at times, as time goes by. 'Nothing is new under the sun' as TD might say, we've heard it all before.

I'm not expressing it very well. It's best not to be too strident about things all the time. This is very difficult at 20-something. All that energy, even all that testosterone.

I think I can see where he was coming from with this article. He, more than I, and so more than you, has witnessed such massive changes, as much in the national (indigenous) character as in many other things. Eventually, one becomes weary, to the point of deprecation, of one's countrymen. No wonder he concentrates on the underclass. They have had further to fall (than a newly-arrived) and fall they have. And he will have far more experience (and so bitter disappointments) with such people than most of his readers will. Maybe more than all of them.

I am the same. I agree on all the other big issues such as Islam, benefit-migrants, etc, but am probably more concerned and disgusted with the attitude of far too many British people than those issues themselves. I know and see Asian shopkeepers. There's a clutch of them (Sri Lankans actually) who operate a small mini-market not too far from my home and they are charming and pleasant. Compared to some of the boors and youth that congregate outside, drinking, swearing and being a nuisance (though it's got better these last couple of years) there is simply no comparison. If I had a choice of which group should live next door to me then it would be an immediate and simple choice. And the Sri Lankans are up with the larks every day, including Sundays, and open up the store at 7am prompt. Meanwhile, half of their customers won't be aware of two 7 o'clocks in a day. They will only know the later one. And if the Lankans weren't here and running the place it would more than likely be closed down.

He is the most complimentary about the Indians, throughout many of his articles. The non-Islamic ones at least. On the other hand he has freely and often wrote quite the opposite about Muslims, from any place ...... though he does often note that many of them tend to hail from Pakistan more than India.

It's hard to decry the stories he quotes above. It is an immigration policy that seems dumb. We will allow entry to all the very worst elements, but slavishly pursue and prosecute those who are plainly decent citizens. In fact, it almost tempts one to believe in a conspiracy.

I agree that it might be expressed differently today. Twelve years ago is a long time, particularly these days.

Still, I think the article is a very good one - as usual. In it he alludes to that other infuriating British trait - bashing the successful. It's almost a national sport: Build someone up, or even just witness their own advancement ..... and then attack them for their success. The Brit press do a fine job of this, the most extreme in the world (so I'm told) but the people in general all too easily slip into criticism too. And it's all related to a culture of resentment and it's bedfellow - self-entitlement. It is in fact part of the attitude that saw the working-class inimical to change and being insular and dogmatic and distrustful of enterprise and ensuing success.

I think he's right to laud successful and hard-working and honest immigrants. Lord knows we need such stories to prevent our utter despair. He has vast experience of the Health Services too and where would those services be without immigrants? He will be acutely aware of this.

If there's one thing only that I disagree with TD upon (and in which I think he errs badly), is his insistence that all music other than that which he prefers is worthless, tasteless and damaging. I think that's quite selfish actually and, dare I say, a little foolish, to nail one's colours so firmly without really knowing much about that which you have decided to dislike. In fact it's quite insular! But it's only musical taste and not that important in the scheme of things, not alongside the other problems the world faces. So I don't take him too seriously on this and, all the more, would not wish to become strident about it.
Paul
 
Posts: 512
Joined: 02 Aug 2011, 11:37
Location: Lancashire, England.

Re: The Dumbest Immigration Policy (2001)

Postby Elliott » 27 Apr 2013, 23:55

Paul wrote:Quite damning there Elliott.

Well, in general I praise TD, but on this issue I think he was, if not wrong exactly, painting a rosy picture, and a rosy picture which has led to a lot of crime, pain and despair.

I wouldn't be so harsh. TD is considerably older than you, even a deal older than me. It's natural to relax one's views at times, as time goes by. 'Nothing is new under the sun' as TD might say, we've heard it all before.

I take the point that TD is older than me. I take it seriously, in fact, because I believe that one should respect one's elders. But, there comes a point when an older person says something you strongly disagree with, and it would be cowardice, not decency, which made you stay silent.

It is true that hot-blooded young men (unfortunately I'm not in my twenties anymore, just hit the golden thirty!) are prone to hot-headedness. It is also true that older men calm down and become rather sanguine about things which, in their youth, may have moved them to fury. That is good in that it holds you back from unnecessary action; it is bad in that it may hold you back
from necessary action. That lackadaisical "nothing new under the sun" attitude might seem like the crowning glory of six long decades on this Earth, but it may actually be their emasculating denouement. An elderly man who sees his country transform out of recognition and the children of his people being raped and just smiles and shakes his head at the whimsical strangeness of it all is, as much as he might be taking a broad and mature view of life, also indulgently retiring from it, and to everyone else's cost.

I would also take issue with the idea that there is nothing new under the sun. At least three million immigrants since 1997, our capital city lost to Third World immigrants, and our own police covering up the gang rape of our children by Muslims? That is new. It is startlingly new. It has never happened before, and nothing else in TD's lifetime could compare to it, so I don't think he - or anyone else of his generation or even older - has any special insight into it, and I think it would be very dangerous for my generation (who will have to deal with the aftermath) to believe that our elders have any special insight: they would only tell us that what they (the BB generation) had done was right, and it'll all turn out well in the end.

Frankly they're a generation that is hard to admire, and it's really because of this contempt they seem to have for their own people.

Now, on that matter, I fully agree that many British people fall into one of two unpleasant categories: middle-class insincerity/pretension or working-class boorishness/stupidity. I have written enough about both of those things to show that I am fully aware of them.

And yet, if it comes to a choice between siding with those pretentious champagne drinkers and those dreadful underclass louts, or siding with Third World immigrants who want to take the country over, then there's no contest. My people come first in my concern; not because I'm a knee-jerk racist but because they're my people, and despite their flaws I like them, and I have weighed up their culture and that of Islam, Jamaica etc. and found British culture (of any class) to be superior.

There is a place for criticising the British. God knows they deserve it. But there comes a time when sophisticated detachment is not helpful, when you have to actually choose sides. History was gentle for TD's generation so it's not surprising that he has this detachment. But history might not be nearly as gentle for me and my children. We can't afford to be detached anymore. Criticising the British underclass is necessary but it is small potatoes. The real debate that needs to happen means that you won't get called a snob, you'll get called a racist. That's the fight that I don't think TD is equipped to take part in, yet it's the one his generation brought on us all.

I think I can see where he was coming from with this article. He, more than I, and so more than you, has witnessed such massive changes, as much in the national (indigenous) character as in many other things. Eventually, one becomes weary, to the point of deprecation, of one's countrymen.

I agree that the British have changed in TD's lifetime, and for the worse. But my point is, it's much easier to criticise them than to put one's head above the parapet and say that it might not have been a good idea to let the Third World into the West. It was never Arcadia, but it was better than this.
Elliott
 
Posts: 1800
Joined: 31 Jul 2011, 22:32
Location: Edinburgh

Re: The Dumbest Immigration Policy (2001)

Postby Jonathan » 28 Apr 2013, 10:49

Elliott wrote:It's an interesting article that makes several good points, but let's be quite honest: he's talking in 2001 with the psychological education of 1965, and as such he either doesn't know the unpleasant racist realities of mass immigration, or is compelled not to perceive them.


Or he has limited space in which to make his point, and he wants to concentrate on the Brits, not on the immigrants.

I say this is ironic because he is specifically and solely referring to British xenophobes. It never occurs to him that immigrants, however slothish or enterprising they might be, could also be xenophobic.


I've read many articles by Dalrymple in which he makes precisely the point to which you think he is blind - that minorities are often violently xenophobic against each other and against the majority. He is perfectly aware of this phenomenon.

Now, I have not paid close attention to the dates of his various articles, so it is possible that this belief of his emerged after 2001, but I do not think this is so. In any case, it would require a fairly detailed analysis of his articles to prove it one way or another.


Of course, the very idea that he has "a people" would presumably strike Dalrymple as racist. See what he says here:

the fundamentally racist view that immigration is a cultural threat, because culture is passed on through the blood rather than through the mind



I think that Dalrymple would define "a people" by their culture, not by their blood. With this definition there is nothing racist about the concept of "a people". If you doubt whether he uses this definition, consider his family history (his mother fled from Nazi Germany) and the fact that he considers himself to be quite British.


But here, with immigrants, he does the opposite: he writes only of that small number of aspiring Indian medical students rather than the massive number of Muslim dole claimants


I think the broadness of your conclusions requires an exhaustive analysis of his work over a certain period of time, rather than a minute examination of one article.

I think it is fair to say that until 2001 the main problems which Dalrymple observed came from a decay of British culture and society. The influx of unassimilated aliens was a secondary concern. He did not think it a panacaea, or a cure for the ills of society, or a phenomenon without disadvantages. After September 11th, more attention was drawn towards Muslim immigrants, both in society at large and in his writings.

At worst he was no more prescient than the rest of us, but consider also that he may have been right, even before 2001: A robust, confident England would have had no trouble coming up with sane policies to deal with immigration problems.
Jonathan
 
Posts: 411
Joined: 03 Aug 2011, 05:14
Location: Israel

Re: The Dumbest Immigration Policy (2001)

Postby Gavin » 28 Apr 2013, 11:57

I think Elliott makes some good points but so do others.

I agree with the point about TD and his apparent take on music. If I ever meet him (again) I'm going to subject him to some of the non-classical from my collection, maybe even some of my own ;) Maybe it's the leftism of all the artists and the vacuity of the lyrics that puts him off pop and rock - this can be tiresome, but the melodies and instrumentation can be very good.

Maybe he is a big jazz fan or something but doesn't write about that. More to be uncovered there, perhaps!
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3432
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: The Dumbest Immigration Policy (2001)

Postby Paul » 02 May 2013, 09:51

Gulp, that's me told then Elliott. I'm sorry if I upset you a little. I didn't mean to.

Jonathan has stated it better than I did.

I'm not sure it's correct to say that history was kinder to TL's generation. That's a bold statement to make. I know that many of the pressures of today didn't exist back then, but the entire 20th century up to the 1960s was very grim in many ways, as you will know.

I still like the Sri Lankans who are nearby. They're definitely nice people. Having said that, they can only be here, doing what they do, for a healthy profit. Any other reason would be insane. It's embarrassing really. What disdain they must have for so many Brits. I make a point of going in their shop, just for milk, or a postage stamp, and make a point of chattering with them.

Yes, it is doubtless even more alarming for those of your age group who see the writing on the wall. I'm sorry I failed to grasp that fully.
Paul
 
Posts: 512
Joined: 02 Aug 2011, 11:37
Location: Lancashire, England.

Re: The Dumbest Immigration Policy (2001)

Postby Paul » 02 May 2013, 10:11

Gavin wrote: I agree with the point about TD and his apparent take on music. If I ever meet him (again) I'm going to subject him to some of the non-classical from my collection, maybe even some of my own ;) Maybe it's the leftism of all the artists and the vacuity of the lyrics that puts him off pop and rock - this can be tiresome, but the melodies and instrumentation can be very good.

Maybe he is a big jazz fan or something but doesn't write about that. More to be uncovered there, perhaps!



Good idea that is Gavin.

Better still to subject him to some proper music ...... from the 1970s (grin). It would likely appeal more to any sense of nostalgia he has, but also, seeing as he is a classical music fan, then some of the rock epics of that decade would be more likely also to 'convert' him. And of course the lyrics were good also. I suggest he is broken in with some classic 1970s Genesis, almost classical in one sense and of course public school (Charterhouse) educated (Banks, Rutherford and Gabriel), classically trained and highly intelligent.

Here's a track he will like though it's post-Gabriel and so with Phil Collins on vocals. The lyrics will evoke pleasant nostalgia for any Englishman of a certain age and the instrumentation is completely classical.

Paul
 
Posts: 512
Joined: 02 Aug 2011, 11:37
Location: Lancashire, England.


Return to Articles

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron

Login Form

Who is online

In total there are 2 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 2 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 175 on 12 Jan 2015, 18:23

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests
Copyright © Western Defence. All Rights Reserved.