Assimilation or integration?

Just read the Quiet Man’s piece and this post is in roughly the same area. Chuckles sent a link to this and the article was not bad but one of the comments [from “gogb”] was, IMHO, definitive. I reprint in full:


For years, the British public has been force fed the myth that immigration is a cultural and economic benefit, and this may well be the case with managed immigration when skilled and educated migrants fill job vacancies, and while retaining recognition of their own heritage, integrate with the host society. But this has NOT been the case with the uncontrolled, mass immigration of the past 20 years.

The major difference between America, which has thrived on immigration, and the UK which is in danger of being destroyed by it, is that migrants to the US have pursued “the American dream” while those coming to the UK have been fed the myth of multiculturalism encouraging them tobelieve they can enjoy all the advantages of living in an advanced, Western democratic, welfare state, while retaining unchanged and unchallenged the customs, culture and allegiances of the countries they’ve left.

Those who have gone to America have been obliged to adopt a culture of self-dependency which views welfare, except in extreme cases, as fundamentally detrimental to the US work ethic with social services like medical care the responsibility of the individual not the state.

Hardly surprising therefore the UK tends to attract a different sort of immigrant. For those from third world countries, free education, the NHS, social housing, child benefits and all the other welfare entitlements available in the UK must seem like heaven. To achieve the American dream immigrants had to work for it. For those coming to the UK it is delivered gift wrapped. Beveridge’s “cradle to the grave” welfarism, designed for the indigenous UK population, is now available for anyone who can make it to these shores.

Encouraged by the flawed myth of multiculturalism many immigrants groups have been encouraged to develop separate ghetto societies outside and often antagonistic towards the mainstream culture. Those on the liberal-left in their efforts to produce a cultural revolution in the UK similar to that pursued by the Red Guards in China, their stated aim was to destroy what they described as the “four olds” – old customs, culture, habits and ideas – have deliberately sidelined and denigrated the host culture in order to accommodate those of immigrants. And without any mandate or consensus from the majority population they will achieve this now through the significantly higher immigrant birth rates that already account for a quarter of the current UK population growth.

But at what price?

Government social surveys on everything from use of the NHS to prison populations and gun, knife and sex crime statistics – particularly in London – show immigration has in fact contributed to a net increase in crime, unemployment, disease, ignorance (in educational terms) and poverty. And that unfortunately is no myth.

The disastrous results of the Red Guards’ revolution in China could always be corrected as they only affected the indigenous population. Not so the far greater changes Britain is already experiencing and will increasingly experience in the years ahead.

The other dishonest myth that that has been used to justify this “revolution” is that throughout its history Britain has continually accommodated waves of new immigrants. This is yet another lie by the liberal-left. In fact apart from the early movement of (mainly Anglo-Saxon) European tribes which affected the whole continent in the early centuries of the first millennium, plus the arrival of some 300,000 Huguenots from France at the turn of the 17th. and 18th.centuries, and a similar number of Jews, mainly from Russia, at the start of the 19th. , the demographic record attests that since the Norman invasion the population of the British Isles remained virtually settled and ethnically unchanged for almost a 1,000 years until the arrival of the Empire Windrush in 1948.

What remained true for centuries if not millennia has been overturned in decades, and it will have been brought about by the arrogant, myopic, self-deluded fantasies of those on the liberal-left whose Alice in Wonderland politics appear to be based solely on a masochistic, self-flagellating, liberal guilt over the perceived evils of Britain’s colonial past and the supposed racism on which it was allegedly based.

It must surely rate as the biggest peacetime betrayal any indigenous population of any country in modern history.



There’s the tale by the second generation Italian whose father went to Australia and set to reading up about cricket, walked into the local cricket club and began offering opinion, knowledgeably, about the latest test and who should have been placed where.

Language and customs.

We’re past that now in this country and the damage has been done. Those sex gangs, the gangs of youths roaming the streets of London and Leicester, the whole lot of it – it’s a total mess. For an indigenous people to lose their own land and have to move out is almost as bad as the EU takeover itself.

That list of the various percentages in the population is so accurate. Look at this excerpt, including the bit about halal meat and then look at the publication date – 2005. That’s some prediction.


As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:

United States — Muslim 0.6%

Australia — Muslim 1.5%

Canada — Muslim 1.9%

China — Muslim 1.8%

Italy — Muslim 1.5%

Norway — Muslim 1.8%

At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs.

This is happening in:

Denmark — Muslim 2%

Germany — Muslim 3.7%

United Kingdom — Muslim 2.7%

Spain — Muslim 4%

Thailand — Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for

Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:

France — Muslim 8%

Philippines — 5%

Sweden — Muslim 5%

Switzerland — Muslim 4.3%

The Netherlands — Muslim 5.5%

Trinidad & Tobago — Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris , we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:

Guyana — Muslim 10%

India — Muslim 13.4%

Israel — Muslim 16%

Kenya — Muslim 10%

Russia — Muslim 15%


And so it goes on. The book was controversial, obviously but not inaccurate. This is indeed the situation when the percentage of any non-assimilating minority gets a toehold. So yes, some are more equal than others. It’s hard to get accurate figures and the government would have us believe it it 90 plus percent white British but a glance at cities in Britain shows that to be rubbish.

The best figure I could get on Muslims was 4.8% in 2011, which puts it around that 5% mark [see list] above.

But it’s not only non-integrating ethnic groups which are the problem – it’s also the politically correct madness, Common Purpose culture, the new EU derived issues and so on which are changing the face of the nation for the worse. Single mother families are a good example where it is not an ethnic issue but an age/cultural issue.

And the courts are working hard to criminalize the ordinary people and get an actual criminal underclass going – presumably the stormtroopers of the future.

One publication which tried to argue against the malaise was the government’s Commission for Racial Equality – just think about that title for a moment – and their report on attitudes to this ethnic bludgeoning and floodgating from above:

attitudes to immigrants

“Most white participants were distressed by the perceived decline of Britishness.”

In that one line is the political chasm. No, I do not see myself as “white” at all. I am not a left-liberal who views populations through colour differences and to lump me in that category is offensive.

It also spoke of indigenous distress – the correct name for it – and indigenous means native ethnic groups going back hundreds of years – so English and the other home countries, Celts, Manx, Cornish, whatever. So please don’t give me this rubbish about us being African by descent or from monkeys or whatever – you know exactly what I’m referring to.

Now, this racist C for RE at least recognized the issue but saw it as an issue to be overcome, rather than taken on board.

I have a question. Do you ever see gangs of Germans and French, of Spanish over here? Do you hear of troublemaking by the Swiss? Why not? What about Canadians, South Africans, Australians and New Zealanders? Apart from a bit of banter at the sports events, do you know any of these who are demanding their own schools and that the meat sold in supermarkets conform to their rules? Are the Danes a troublesome minority?

Do you know anyone who would want them deported?

So it does, does it not, come down to assimilation and integration. Are they the dame thing? To assimilate is essentially to absorb another people. To integrate is for another people to work in with a host culture, retaining some identity but largely becoming part of the host nation, just as I did in Russia. It was a triumph for me to be mistaken for a Russian on the occasions it happened. When natives saw me as “pribaltika”, it was a bit of a putdown but nowhere near the putdown of being called for what I was. It was like being halfway there.

So perhaps the word we’re looking for is integrating. And certain groups do not.

One of those groups has now become hostile and is getting way too big. It needs reversing.

4 comments for “Assimilation or integration?

  1. john in cheshire
    February 25, 2013 at 8:45 pm

    Kenya and Uganda knew how to deal with their muslim problem, why can’t we do the same?

  2. Voice of Reason
    February 26, 2013 at 12:04 am

    Here in the US, the fear is of both Muslims and the Catholic Hispanics, with much the same rhetoric.

  3. February 26, 2013 at 4:38 am

    Back in 1960s Crawley I used to think it was me – the Pakistanis couldn’t really be giving me nasty looks, could they?

  4. Furor Teutonicus
    February 27, 2013 at 4:35 pm

    XX The best figure I could get on Muslims was 4.8% in 2011, XX

    Similar here.

    So why does every one of that 4,8% of the population of Germany, choose to use the same U-Bahn as me every morning???

Comments are closed.