Immigration as provocation

Sir John Major was Conservative Prime Minister of Great Britain from 1990 to 1997, and only ever an interim premier after Margaret Thatcher was ousted. All he is really remembered for is that he signed the Maastricht Treaty, which began Britain’s entry into the EU, and the fact that his father was a circus trapeze-artist. Major resembled a cricket commentator (and does in fact love the game) who had gone to the wrong job interview and accidentally ended up as PM.

One off-the-cuff remark of his, however, is worth revisiting in the current British climate of simmering anger over uncontrolled and apparently uncontrollable immigration to the UK, 80% of which is from outside the EU. Only around 16% of that figure enter the UK on professional work visas. Many of them are completely undocumented and are not in any way identifiable, having discarded their passports and phones during their crossing from France via the English Channel. All can be confident that these will be replaced with British versions of both. For how much longer will the British people continue to show the tolerance which is demanded of them by the state?

Step on an Englishman’s foot, said the former PM, and he will apologize. Step on his foot again, and he will apologize. Step on his foot a third time and he’ll knock you down. The first is seen as an accident, the second as an unfortunate repetition of that accident which, while it tries the patience, is tolerable. The third, however, is provocation, and demands an appropriate response. That is the position today’s White Englishmen find themselves in. Where are we in Major’s homily? How many times have English feet been stepped on, and when will the third arrive?

There can be little doubt that a main component of Labour’s de facto open borders immigration policy is intended to provoke the British people, and particularly the English. Starmer wants to “wind the English up”, to use the vernacular, and his party’s current immigration policy echoes the infamous phrase used by Labour’s Andrew Neather in 2009 — albeit critically — when he stated that Labour wanted mass immigration “to rub the Right’s noses in diversity”. Today’s Labour Party have more sinister motives than Neather’s revelation, and intend to rub every White, British, indigenous nose in the same ordure.

The United Kingdom is, of course, composed of four nations: England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. But in the context of immigration, when “the UK” is mentioned, this invariably means England. Criticism of the British Empire, similarly, is not aimed at the Welsh, but always at the villains of the piece — any piece — the English. Immigrants do not risk their lives and their life savings travelling across Europe and crossing the English Channel in dangerous and unsuitable craft to live in Cardiff or Belfast. They are almost all Muslims, and wish to join the ummah in London or Birmingham, England’s capital and second city respectively, and both well on the way to becoming micro-caliphates. And they serve two purposes for Britain’s deep state: Their role in Renaud Camus’ Great Replacement, and the provocation, and resulting dissident violence, that the same deep state wishes to inflict on the White British. Starmer made good use of the rioting after the murders of three little girls in Southport at the start of his premiership, jailing many first-time “offenders” for social media posts (correctly) stating that the alleged killer was a Muslim.

Examples of this goading are numerous, but we will begin with the leading indicator of immigration, the statistics themselves. Whether or not it was Mark Twain who quipped that there are “lies, damned lies, and statistics” is one for the literary historians, but the phrase may as well be wrought in iron over the entrance to the UK’s ONS, or Office for National Statistics.

A novel way in which immigration figures are manipulated is by releasing upwardly revised figures at a later date. Thus, although the net annual immigration figures to June 2023 were originally given by the ONS at 740,000, these have been revised to 906,000, and this reconfiguration allows two things to happen. Firstly, Labour can blame the “error” on the last Conservative government, allowing Starmer to accuse them of conducting an “open borders experiment” as though they themselves were not doing exactly that. This also allows Labour to claim — correctly, given the revised figure — that the same figure to June 2024, 728,000, has dropped by 20%. Thus, Labour can claim to have reduced immigration figures — a promise every incoming government this century has campaigned on — and also to be a credible alternative to the Tories rather than the other side of the same uniparty coin.

The last Conservative government had as its worthless maxim “Stop the boats” but, as the BBC points out, “Labour replaced [former Prime Minister] Rishi Sunak’s ‘stop the boats’ slogan with its own three-word mantra: ‘Smash the gangs’.”  Since the election, Keir Starmer has talked about “smashing the business model of the people-smuggling gangs” working in France, as though talking like the Incredible Hulk proves his resolve. And these are not “people smugglers”. Anything smuggled is hidden, and these migrants are very visible. Strangest of all is the idea of “smashing” a business model. The business model for the migration business is incredibly simple. Migrants pay a great deal of money, in cash, to people who provide inflatable boats in which they travel to the UK. There is no contract, no necessity to offer a guarantee (and therefore no legal protection or insurance for the migrants), and it is unlikely that much business time is wasted filling out tax returns. If there is competition for your business, you shoot them, or they shoot you. The Home Office, like every other branch of British government, is obsessed with models to the extent that they now believe them to be real, and somehow able to be “smashed”.

But the boats remain unstopped and the gangs unsmashed. Where, then, do the British government intend to house these anonymous arrivistes as they join the backlog of unprocessed asylum applications? It shouldn’t be hard to create temporary accommodation. During the early days of the Covid pandemic, the British government quickly built a number of “Nightingale hospitals” at a cost of half a billion pounds, a fraction of the current annual cost of housing immigrants. Now that Covid is in the past, these could surely be decommissioned and used instead to house immigrants.

A report by The King’s Fund in 2021, however, shows that the hospitals were not even considered as migrant housing:

But over summer, 2020, one issue came to define the narrative around the Nightingales – quite simply, they were not seeing many patients. And now, one year after they were built, many of the facilities are either being decommissioned or repurposed as mass vaccination centres or diagnostic centres.

Where, then, are the immigrants to be housed? Presumably, the government would wish to tread carefully and not to show migrants as somehow receiving preferential treatment over, say, Britain’s thousands of homeless people, many of them ex-army. Not so. Let’s take a break and visit a hotel. Depending on what you are used to, the sixteenth-century Madeley Court Hotel in Telford, Shropshire, is both beautiful and luxurious. If you happen not to be an illegal immigrant to Britain, however, you won’t be staying there any time soon, as it is all booked up for the foreseeable future. The “availability” link on its website states that the booking facility is “not accessible” as “some required settings are not defined”. It’s the kind of statement you might expect from HAL, the computer in Kubrick’s 2001.

This report from Britain’s Daily Mail shows the hotel in all its glory, and also informs the reader that it is currently block-booked with immigrants, many of whom have lived there since the time that the Nightingale hospitals were still in existence. One Muslim gentleman interviewed by a citizen journalist had an interesting take on the economic cost of immigration. Speaking from his hotel — which film stars used to do — the man said that, “We don’t know who pays for it. But we don’t need to”. There are other ways of paying, of course. The local people will not be able to enjoy the hotel’s famous Christmas dinner this year, for example, as it has been cancelled.

The Mail’s report is also of interest for what it shows of the media’s collusion with government over what is usually termed the “far Right”. The paper is careful not to show any editorial disapproval of this luxurious accommodation for people who have never paid — and likely never will — into the UK tax system.

Instead, it writes, “The outrage was generated… by a string of right-wing commentators on social media… [and] many social media users have expressed anger” at the arrangement. It is “Right-wing” commentators who are angry, not the newspaper once ridiculed for its levels of outrage.

That there is an immigration industry in the UK has been known for some time, whispered rather than spoken aloud. They have everything one might expect in an industry, those on the front-line, those in the board-room, and those doing the marketing. That would be the media. There has been an interesting incursion recently, a Venn-like overlap between the circle of activism and that of the communicative professions. There are activist journalists now as well as activist university lecturers and public-sector chiefs. The Mail’s piece is more subtly pro-government than the BBC, say, but it is still a part of the immigration industry.

This also shows the importance of alternative media and their role in the government’s provocative use of immigration to rile the indigenous English. Yorkshire Rose are citizen journalists who visit migrant hotels, and below is a video of their visit to Madeley Court. I have watched a number of these videos, and there is a theme. Every video features a confrontation with security staff, and almost all the security guards featured are foreign to the UK. They are often surly and aggressive, and regularly tell those filming that they are on private property. Technically, that is correct, although hotel grounds have public right of access, otherwise it is difficult to see how guests could get from their car to their room. Usually, this type of video would be quickly taken down, but these remain. They are integral to the government’s program of stepping on English toes a third time.

There remains a tendency in the British media, alternative as well as what there is of right-of-center outlets, to attribute increasingly uncontrolled immigration as a sign of government incompetence. Terms such as “crazy”, “insane”, “lack of common sense” are regularly used to describe the influx and government failure to stop it. There is more than an element of the Dunning-Kruger Effect here, in which a person believes themselves far more capable of performing a task or job than they actually are. It simply is not credible to view uncontrolled immigration as government incompetence. It is intentional, malevolent, and designed to cause problems for the indigenous British firstly at a local level, and later at a national one.

I have discussed the British uniparty here at The Occidental Observer, and there is a clear sense that 14 years of nominally Conservative government was intended to prepare for Starmer’s accelerated program of flooding Britain with migrants, like a warm-up act for a rock band. This illusory transfer of power allows the two regimes to work retrospectively in tandem.

What might be termed “malevolent immigration” differs between the US and the UK. For America, the primary physical danger is Latino gangs and the cartels, in the UK it is Islam. The logistics of housing ever-more Muslim immigrants means that, along with the lack of employable skill-sets and low social capital the UK is importing, Muslim immigrants also bring their sectarian differences with them. Finding yet another hotel for 200 ungrateful migrants is difficult enough, but further complicated if 100 of them are Sunni and 100 Shia. And so, the British people have internecine tribal squabbles to look forward to in their city centers as well as the more general threat to their security and that of their children. Diversity is not seen as “our strength” in Arabic countries. And, day by day, the numbers increase.

There are approximately 110,000 British soldiers barracked in the UK. In the year ending September 2024, almost 100,000 immigrants claimed asylum, and there are several times that figure in the country, many unaccounted for, many anonymous and unverifiable. One of the most popular phrases used to describe the new arrivals is “fighting-age men”. How many standing armies comparable to the British Army have already been assembled? And when might they be mobilized?

The final, intolerable stepping on of English feet may be foreseen in Germany’s recent atrocity in Magdeburg, in which a Saudi immigrant mowed down pedestrians at a Christmas market. At the time of writing, five victims are dead and a further 200 injured, many seriously. It is a complicated case — Taleb A is “far right” only in that he doesn’t like Muslim religiosity but his beef was with Germany because they didn’t allow enough people like him to immigrate. Many Germans have taken to the streets to voice their displeasure. Should such an event occur in England — surely an inevitability — the English may feel that their feet have been stepped on for the third and final time.

Indeed, a similar event happened in London on Christmas day, although the police assure us that it was an isolated incident and not terror-related. It will interesting find out his background—if the police are kind enough to release the details.

Regarding Taleb A.:

He was critical of German authorities, saying they had failed to do enough to combat the “Islamism of Europe.” He has also voiced support for the far-right and anti-immigrant Alternative for Germany (AfD) party [then why kill German Christians].

Some described Taleb as an activist who helped Saudi women flee their homeland. Recently, he seemed focused on his theory that German authorities have been targeting Saudi asylum seekers.

And of course the left want to ignore any connection to immigration:

“To the AfD, I can only say: Any attempt to exploit such a terrible act and to abuse the suffering of the victims is despicable,” the Social Democrat (SPD) politician told the newspapers of the Funke Media Group in comments published on Wednesday.

She added, “It only shows the character of those who do such things.”

Following the attack on the Magdeburg Christmas market last Friday, the AfD held a rally in the city on Monday, which, according to police reports, was attended by around 3,500 people.

AfD chairwoman Alice Weidel, referring to the perpetrator identified as Taleb A, said that anyone who despises the citizens of the country that grants them asylum “does not belong with us.” During the event, chants of “Deport! Deport! Deport!” were repeatedly heard.