“The United Kingdom’s most valuable resource is our diverse and cohesive democracy.”
This could be read in the introduction to the Khan Review, the Government’s plan for social cohesion, published on 25 March 2024, only a few weeks before Keir Starmer assumed office as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
And of course, the British must choose a Pakistani to write an assessment of British democracy. The author Sara Khan was born in Bradford, a highly multicultural city with a long history of immigration, particularly from countries in South Asia such as Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh. According to the 2021 census, Pakistanis constitute 25.5 per cent of the population. There are also large groups from Eastern Europe in the city, as well as refugees from countries such as Syria and Afghanistan.
Both of Khan’s parents are Pakistani.
The very fact that the plan had to be drawn up might perhaps suggest something else, but at that time the leaders of the multicultural state at least still attempted to maintain the façade.
This is written by Laurie Wastell in The Spectator.
In recent decades, the British have experienced terrorism, a massive influx of new migrants, countless rapes, something exacerbated by persistent serial rapes of young British girls, predominantly carried out by Pakistani perpetrators. This had been occurring long before the Khan Review was published.
The Labour government and Starmer continue along the same path, and on 9 March this year released their community cohesion strategy, Protecting What Matters.
“By any reasonable measure, the United Kingdom can be proud of its approach to social cohesion.”
But is “diversity” truly a “resource” for the United Kingdom and the rest of Western Europe? Or is it a problem that ought to be addressed?
At the same time, the public is desperately urged to be “fair”, rather than critical, in its assessment of this.
The policy measures in this plan appear highly stringent. Prime Minister Starmer’s foreword provides a revealingly bleak picture of how the state views the nation it governs. The world is now so “dangerous” and so “unstable” that we find ourselves in nothing less than an “emergency” in matters of integration, Sir Keir openly admits.
Starmer may be no Churchill, but he nonetheless hopes to issue a unifying “call to action” to the British public, for “quiet acts of resistance against the forces of division”. What does he mean by stating that this effort is a responsibility for “the whole of government” and “the whole of society”? What is that supposed to signify in practice?
In the second foreword, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Steve Reed, advances banalities such as picking up litter or teaching English as part of a grand civilisational struggle. The general public is told that integration must be a “two-way street”.
But neither Britons, Norwegians nor other Europeans have undertaken that task voluntarily. Not even the vast majority of those who stood in the streets shouting Refugees Welcome choose Muslim neighbourhoods as places of residence.
The myths of “successful multi-religious democracies” and our “communities of communities” are evidently pure falsehoods, writes Wastell.
In a development that no one ever asked for – and which has certainly never been set out in any post-war manifesto – the multicultural madness leads to a new Blitz. Once again, Britons must fight if they are to preserve their own country. The situation is almost equally grave in Norway.
When “Protecting What Matters” examines the details more closely, the picture becomes even bleaker. An overview of “demographic” challenges admits that the previous government’s immigration policy was “unsustainable” and that it has placed “enormous pressure” on wages and public services.
Nevertheless, it must concede that the problems of “social cohesion” are in fact not new. It goes all the way back to the Cantle Report on the riots in Oldham and Khan’s home town Bradford in 2001 to illustrate the “parallel lives” that many immigrant communities live today, which we are warned may “exacerbate tensions and limit the opportunities that a diverse society offers”.
One might just as well conclude that the riots precisely demonstrate the opportunities that a diverse society offers us.
For small Norway, immigration costs the few working taxpayers up to approximately NOK 500 billion each year. Our reward is division and crime, combined with steadily deteriorating economic conditions. Quite an array of opportunities, indeed.
At the same time, “extremists” are presented as the real threat. They “create division and target British institutions, including schools, universities, charities and even local bodies such as Standing Advisory Councils on Religious Education, to serve their purposes”.
But who are these extremists? What are their purposes? We are never told, yet we know nonetheless. And is not the principal problem widespread criminality, as well as the lack of ability to provide for oneself?
Amid complaints about “malign foreign influence”, “hostile states” with their “hybrid strategies” and “the storms of this unstable world”, we are reminded of the success story of “a community that came together and, with government support, restores its local pub in Tafarn y Plu”.
That one pub is restored is celebrated. But thousands of British pubs, which are an icon of genuine British culture and cohesion, close every single year. Many of the closed pubs in areas such as Tower Hamlets have been converted into Islamic community centres or mosques.
Amid warnings of declining trust in institutions, “frayed” cohesion and “extremist narratives and disinformation”, we are presented with the banal primary-school cliché that “people show pride in their country and their community through their work supporting friends…”
This surreal attitude is reflected in the policy measures, which combine the banal and the authoritarian. The industrial-scale rape by grooming gangs and the billions spent on asylum hotels for incoming migrants are merely a new version of the “UK Town of Culture” competition.
But in that competition the first prize is £3 million. In the nightmare of multiculturalism, the reward for the most fortunate is that daughters are lucky enough not to be raped and sons avoid being stabbed or shot.
Britons are encouraged to report “hate crime” against Muslims, but are imprisoned if they demonstrate against the rape of young British girls.
Approximately £1.5 billion will be spent on “cultural organisations”, with a further £150 million to “rebuild trust in our high streets”. At the same time, youth gangs attack shops and steal everything they can, as Clapham has recently experienced. There are few white Britons participating in these disturbances. Employees who resist are dismissed.
The British will draw up an action plan against waste crime, and Ofcom will pursue “harmful” content on Netflix. The Online Safety Act (OSA) may well be strengthened with additional “emergency powers”, as Whitehall continues to act as though the Southport killings would never have occurred had it not been for social media.
Despite all the extensive concern regarding harmful “extremism” and destabilising global trends, it is apparently online expressions that nervous officials have determined to be the real cause of our problems.
To address what Steve Reed calls “online echo chambers amplified by malicious algorithms”, the government states that it must proceed to “secure online spaces” as soon as possible.
The current powers of the OSA are to come into force “as soon as possible”. The Chief Scientific Adviser, who leads SAGE, is to prepare a report on “misinformation”.
Parents and carers in Yorkshire and the Midlands will be offered “practical tools to help children build resilience against harmful, divisive and polarising content online”. Whether any of this will genuinely improve “cohesion” is highly doubtful, and measures against immigrants who commit rape and serious violence do not appear on the list.
The Labour government’s cohesion plan is, like many before it, presented as the path to making the United Kingdom more “confident, cohesive and resilient”. In reality, this bizarre smorgasbord of restrictions on expression, municipal cultural initiatives and unsubtle ethnic appeasement will do little to achieve these aims.
Both Britons, Norwegians and other Europeans require rather more honesty. Our leaders must acknowledge that multiculturalism does not function, and that mass immigration was always indefensible, foolish and entirely undemocratic.
Our ineffectual politicians have imposed upon us an enormous social burden that urgently needs to be addressed. It is likely already too late.
It is for this reason that prominent academics are now warning of an imminent civil war. For ordinary Europeans have had enough.