Ethno-Religious Diversity and the Limits of Democracy, Part Six

The following essay by El Inglés is the conclusion of a six-part series that examines the sociopolitical effects of mass immigration into the Western democracies.

Previous parts: One, Two, Three, Four, and Five

The entire series is now available as a single PDF document.

Ethno-Religious Diversity and the Limits of Democracy

by El Ingles

Part Six: Conclusion

Thus far our discussion has tried to avoid making any moral judgements about the phenomena under discussion or those responsible for them. This has been a deliberate stance, adopted to stress our belief that it is both possible and necessary to consider these matters in a detached, analytical fashion, free of any kneejerk tendency to take sides or assign blame. Readers should in no way interpret this as an indication that we actually take no sides and assign no blame. We do both. But it is not appropriate, when introducing a model for thinking about complex phenomena as we have done in this document, to muddy the waters of discussion with any expression of personal feelings about blame and responsibility. Now that we have delivered our analysis as dispassionately as possible, we feel free to sidestep this restriction and make several observations along these lines.

The first observation to make is that the wielders of political power, in any country, are required to deal with any number of complex problems, in real time, and that it would be unreasonable to expect them to attach categorical importance to the maintenance of the ethno-religious homogeneity discussed herein at all times. As such, we cannot simply point a finger at all politicians allowing or favouring at least some immigration of ethnically distinct peoples and mark those leaders as villains. No country that wishes to be a part of the modern world can completely shut itself to outsiders in the name of maintaining homogeneity.

Secondly, we must observe that what we consider to be the validity of our arguments notwithstanding, some ethnically foreign immigrants will demonstrate such high levels of compatibility with their new countries that even fairly substantial immigration on their part would not result in particularly troublesome polarization on our system diagrams. The admission of large numbers of Armenians to the United States following the Armenian Genocide, in what was then the Ottoman Empire, would undoubtedly have increased political tensions in the US for the reasons we have outlined in such depth in this essay. Similarly, the immigration of large numbers of South Koreans in the last few decades has resulted in various tensions in the areas in which they settle. But it is far from obvious that either of these waves of immigrants constituted or constitutes some terrible threat to the political stability of the US.

The point here is not that this Armenian and Korean immigration were good for the United States or its people, and have created no problems. Korean immigration has resulted in bitter hostilities between those Koreans and the black Americans that often inhabit areas of Korean settlement in large numbers, hostilities that burst to the surface in spectacular fashion during the LA Riots of 1992. Other difficulties may well have been created by the immigration of Armenians a century ago. These are complex and profoundly subjective matters that we can make no pronouncements upon. Our point here is merely that we see no grounds to conclude that either of these immigrant communities is exerting a badly disruptive polarizing effect on American politics as a whole.

If, on the other hand, we were to consider Mexican immigration into the United States since the Immigration Reform Act, both legal and illegal, then for the reasons we have considered in detail in this document, we would be talking about something quite different. The problems and political tensions caused by the presence in the US of so many people of Mexican origin are not trivial. Neither are they subjective and simply a function of one’s point of view. They are as real and undeniable, though not as bitter or damaging, as the tensions between Tamils and Sinhalese in Sri Lanka. One may believe that Mexican immigration into the US is the best or the worst thing that has ever happened to that country. But one cannot deny that it has polarizing effects on the US system diagram, effects which exist objectively despite the difficulties involved in quantifying them.

Our own position is that large-scale immigration of ethnically and religiously alien peoples into the United Kingdom is having and will continue to have profoundly negative consequences for our ability to enjoy the benefits we have come to expect from our democratic form of politics. This should not be taken as an endorsement of unlimited immigration of European peoples from, for example, Eastern European countries such as Bulgaria. Rather, it is simply a statement of our belief that the kaleidoscopic ethnic mix we are creating in, most obviously, our major cities, is not and cannot be compatible with the maintenance of a healthy democratic politics, whether on a local or national basis. Coupled with the attitudes and behavior of Muslim diasporas in particular, its consequences are likely to be extremely destructive.

We must make the observation that, once the necessary conditions for healthy democratic politics have been destroyed, there is no way to recreate them in the now-ethnically diverse societies we inhabit without a level of coercion and disenfranchisement that would have to be described as revolutionary, both in type and scope. Given that there was no reason for these terrible developments to take place at all, we are surely entitled to suggest that those responsible for them would deserve harsh judgement even if they had been guilty of no more than foolish blundering. How much more harshly then, must we judge them if their actions were not the result of a series of blunders, but instead of a desire to derive partisan political advantage from the rapidly growing immigrant communities their policies were creating?

It would strain credulity to suggest that a serious political party, which by its nature can only implement its political platform if it can win elections, does not attach an overwhelming importance to its ability to do so. Staying with our British political context, if we then observe that an immigrant community votes overwhelmingly for the Labour Party, and that the Labour Party introduces or has introduced policies that must result in the rapid growth of that community, there are only two ways we can interpret this. Either the Labour Party considers the policies intrinsically meritorious and discovers, almost to its own surprise, that they also lead to electoral advantage, or it introduced them, at least in part, because of the electoral advantage they would offer. The first possibility here is so absurd that we must disregard it entirely. Thiis leaves only the second possibility, that of a political party quite happily undermining the very foundations of democratic politics, and rendering large swathes of our towns and cities alien, for selfish, short-term gain.

Returning one final time to the Greek post-and-lintel we commenced this document with, we state in closing that the political analogue of this simple structure is being asked to span distances that it cannot span. When it finally collapses, we must hope that amongst the people crushed by the wood and masonry that crash down with it are those who, through their disregard for their own peoples and their desire for political gain, caused the collapse in the first place. Anything else would be unjust.

For previous posts by El Inglés, see the El Inglés Archives.

15 thoughts on “Ethno-Religious Diversity and the Limits of Democracy, Part Six

  1. Whether those who intentionally caused the problem are crushed by the collapse or not is largely a function of whether it collapses when they plan or significantly prior to when they planned. If it goes according to their plan, you can be sure they will be safely ensconced in secure bunkers while the masses die. If it collapses sooner, then they are at grave risk, though of course many of them will escape to their bunkers anyway even if fewer of the bunkers are ready and more of the elites are caught by surprise.

    As it happens, the globalist elite have lost control of events, whether or not they are willing to confront this fact. This is probably a function of their plan being rather stupid in the first place.

  2. It is not for politicians or bankers or indeed anybody to change countries against the will of the national peoples, let alone “elites” who simply due to the power they wield and cash they possess or whatever else they have. Those that have done so are simply criminals as I have always said. One does not care who they are, whom they know, what clubs and schools they went to, nor their politics and family connections- they are criminals and should face the full force of the law.Wealth has never been a suitable criterion for rulership-indeed history supports this. These “elites” are guilty of massive crimes against Humanity and there is only one suitable penalty for the millions they have made homeless, killed and raged war against in their misguided megalomania.
    Even as a Bishop I cannot forgive them and never will.

    • Don’t say you’ll never forgive them. Even I can’t say that, and I don’t even know what “forgiveness” is supposed to mean. Say, rather, that they ought to repent while there is still time…if time there still be.

      • Well, Your Grace, I think you’ve received a kind rebuke. My definition of forgiveness is “the process whereby I come to recognize my part in the conflict”. Laughter is what usually follows…

        • My concern is merely practical. I haven’t the slightest notion what forgiveness is supposed to mean…other than an earnest effort to help someone repent while there is still time.

          And, oh, how my soul yearns that these fools should repent and turn from their evil ways. Even though it is too late to save civilization, a bit of timely repentance in high places now could save so many lives from what is coming.

          • Yes, repentance comes first. THEN forgiveness follows. That is the cycle in human affairs…which includes the practical.

            “None are so blind as those who will not see..” a paraphrase of a saying by Matthew Henry, an English parson from the 17th-18th century.

    • I’m with you, Your Grace, the traitors have ruined most of Europe–knowingly. They are Quislings, and deserve a Quisling’s fate.

      Yet they remain free, honoured even; as are the three arch-traitors, Reinfeldt, Stoltenberg and Cameron. Shame.

      Apology to the memory of Vidkun Quisling, for he was not nearly as bad.

      • I think you’re probably right in saying that calling them mere quislings is unfair to Quisling. On the other hand, I think that many of the public figureheads are nothing more than delusional fools too distracted by grand illusions to know what their handlers are making them do.

        But not all of them.

          • It’s hard to say, I don’t really know any of these people personally. Most of the top leaders seem to be fully cognizant of the evil they do, some others seem genuinely stupid enough to believe this is somehow all going to end well.

            And there’s a very human tendency to avoid confronting truths that imply the need for courage and endurance. Most ordinary people refuse to acknowledge the magnitude of the problems the West faces because it is just too hard to contemplate.

      • The thorough demonization of Vidkun Quisling (Commander of the Order of the British Empire) and the rendering of his surname into a synonym for traitor is a testament to the durability of British war-time propaganda and double standards. If Quisling was a traitor to anything or anybody it was to the British – to whom he owed no allegiance whatsoever. Especially as they planned to invade his, neutral, country in one of the ugliest and most cynical perfidies of modern history. One that is rarely mentioned in the Quisling narrative.

        Using the pretext of rendering Finland military assistance in its defensive war with the Soviet Union, the British and French sought landing and transit rights from Norway and Sweden to land at the northern port of Narvik and move along the railway across northern Sweden to Lulea on the Gulf of Bothnia a way short of the Finnish border.

        The Norwegians and Swedes refused to allow any such encroachment on their sovereignty as they feared the truth: it wouldn’t be “transit rights”, it would be enduring military occupation.

        The Anglo-French goal was not to assist the Finns (as time would prove, if further proof was needed, when the Finns made peace with the Soviets on March 12, 1940, and the Anglo-French plan proceeded), but to occupy the inland Swedish iron ore mines, the railway facilitating the movement and export of the ore and the ports at each end: Narvik (ice-free year round) and Lulea (ice-free summer only). The goal was to deprive the Germans of Swedish iron ore and if that meant invading and occupying two neutral countries so be it. The British mined Norwegian waters.

        The French were even more cynical than the British: the General Staff and Cabinet anticipated that the Germans would respond to the Anglo-French occupation by invading Sweden via Denmark and thus the principal battleground of the war with Germany – and the accompanying destruction and devastation – would take place in Sweden north of Stockholm and not in France. This rationale was stated in the French parliament.

        The Anglo-French maritime invasion fleet – not confined just to the port of Narvik, but four other Norwegian ports as well – was due to set sail on 5 April. There was a delay and it set sail on April 8. The Germans -well aware of Anglo-French plans – set sail on the April 9. But for the three day delay in port Britain and France would have invaded Norway before the Germans. And invaded Sweden.

        No doubt a large part of the British animus towards former defence minister Quisling – who distinguished himself in the 20’s in humanitarian “Nansen” aid missions to the Ukraine and Armenia – is that their invasion plans were thwarted when they were beaten to the punch by the Germans. If they hadn’t I’m sure today we would find plenty of historians and lay chauvinists who would justify the Anglo-French invasion of Norway and Sweden.

  3. Invations lead by the leaders of the European states
    – Enemies of the peoples

    This is what is going on in the former well functioning democracies in the old world. Soon the peoples of the smaller European states will be minorities in their own countries – like we have seen down through history in too many other former Christian lands already – and the former well functioning European states will be forever destroyed. The desert “Peace” is destroying the democracies by the help of the local “democratic” leaders who are welcoming the desert “Peace” for whatever reasons.

    The end of Europe as we knew it.

    And, this will happen sooner than anyone dare guestimate publicly. Desert “Peace”, in our time, most likely.

    Will there ever be any counter power to reverse this tragedy?


    • (Reading the post, part six, after posting my own comment, I realize that our long – Western – cultural history, going back to ancien Greece and beyond, makes us comprehend and describe what is now happening, with history unfolding in front of our eyes, in the same way – intuitively, using the same words and conceptual understanding from our inherited common culture.

      Democracy is the basis of our modern world, and we are now confronted by the weaknesses of this old Greek idea. So we are going back to our roots to explain what is happening.

      We may, all of us, understand this in our hearts, but El Inglés put it in writing. The funny thing is that reading it, is like an echo of one’s own thoughts.

  4. What is interesting is the apparent success that America enjoyed with a similar policy after the Civil War. However, the immigrants were from Europe and not from the Middle East. Baldwin explained this in the context of preventing the black man from enjoying the fruits of his new found freedom. We paid quite a price for that 100 years later and still are. The author is correct in saying that the rulers first duty is to the native populace and then the immigrants if there is room and equitable opportunity.

Comments are closed.