Researching for my last piece on Enoch Powell, I was more than a little amused to read about the abuse he copped for calling second- and third-generation immigrants ‘aliens’ and including them in migration statistics. It caused a brouhaha then, as it would today – albeit for different reasons. Powell’s complaint in the Sixties was that mass immigration would preclude assimilation. Such a large volume of foreign nationals concentrated so densely in major cities, he said, would inevitably lead to ghettoisation and Balkanisation. Ted Heath’s Wets and the Labor Party were scandalised. They assured Britons that everyone who migrated to the UK would eagerly integrate into mainstream British society and would, in a matter of decades, be Anglo-Saxon in every sense save ethnicity.
But as the volume of immigration increased dramatically, it became obvious that assimilation was indeed impossible. So what did the mass assimilationists do? Did they apologise to the Powellites and take up their calls for much stricter immigration controls? No: they invented a new ideology, called multiculturalism, which said assimilation is actually a very bad thing. Far better that migrants retain their native customs and beliefs. Better yet, see to it they pass them on to their children. That way, Britain can be a glorious panoply of peoples and cultures, rather than drab, drizzly old Blighty. Powell was, once again, proven right. Britain today is a nation of second- and third-generation aliens. And neither the Left nor the Tory Wets would have it any other way.
If you’ve ever wondered what the origins of multiculturalism are – why, despite being the governing ideology of virtually all Western governments, it has neither a manifesto nor a founding congress – here you have it. At the advent of mass immigration, no one would’ve thought it was a good idea. In fact, they’d think it was a fantastically bad idea. The original proponents of mass immigration were post-imperial chauvinists, who believed Britain and her majority-white daughters were so obviously superior to the rest of the world that everyone who came there would leap at the opportunity to assimilate. It was only a minority of conservatives like Powell (and, incidentally, Thatcher) who, feeling such a deep attachment to their own country and its traditions, understood why immigrants would be reluctant to completely abandon theirs.
Of course, integral to this decades-long misdirection is the lexicon of multiculti doublespeak. A community can be ‘diverse’ even if it’s 99 per cent Chinese, or Lebanese, or Sudanese – so long as it’s not Anglo-Celtic. A richly diverse community is one whose main source of income is welfare, while a vibrantly diverse one is plagued by ethnic gang violence. To qualify theirs as a ‘religion of peace’, adherents must crash aeroplanes into tall buildings and cut out babies’ clitorides. You could probably give ten or twelve more examples, whether you realise it or not. You speak multiculturalism fluently, because it’s the official tongue of our media, education system, and political class. Most of my generation – those born in the 1990s and after – are native speakers, and lack even a conversational grasp of English.
This column will go to press just before the Dutch election. But, in a way, the outcome doesn’t matter. Mark Rutte, the establishment centre-right PM, has been working himself into a pseudo-populist tizzy, trying to win back support from the nationalist Geert Wilders. This comes in the wake of a Continent-wide controversy over ministers from the Erdogan regime criss-crossing Europe to organise rallies. They’re ostensibly soliciting support from Turkish expats in his grab for American-style presidential powers, but their agenda is clearly far broader and more insidious. Turks in the Netherlands and France are erupting in pro-Erdogan demonstrations, with more planned in Germany, Austria, and Sweden. It’s abundantly clear that their loyalties lie with Islam, Turkey, and the Sultan. Conservatives and nationalists have warned for years that unassimilated migrants will form a fifth column, and they have. Now Erdogan is sending them out into the streets as a show of power. One pro-regime Turkish newspaper published a graphic that simply read: ‘The Dutch army has only 48,000 troops, but 400,000 Turks are living in the Netherlands’. You connect the dots.
Pundits are calling the Dutch election a ‘bellwether’ for those coming up in France and Germany, which is rubbish. The media’s just trying to convince itself it still has a chance to salvage the multiculturalist status quo. They cannot. Brexit was the real bellwether, and Trump was its confirmation. Now all of Europe’s main centre-right parties are either defeated, humiliated, or scrambling to redirect populist energies. Angela Merkel has promised to ban full-face veiling and deport asylum seekers; she can feel the ultra-conservative Alternative for Germany breathing down her neck. Marine Le Pen’s National Front has eclipsed The Republicans as France’s dominant right-wing party. Now Rutte has banned the pro-Erdogan rallies and expelled Turkish diplomats.
If those establishment right-of-centre parties who survive fail to deliver significant reforms, strictly limiting immigration and enforcing assimilation, the electorate won’t give them a third chance. So while I hope Wilders wins, as you probably do, rest assured: whether the next Dutch PM hails from the VVD or the PVV, multiculturalism will never regain its former prestige. Its fall is inevitable. The writing is on the wall. It’s written in Dutch, German, French, and English. What a pity the Fourth Estate doesn’t speak any.
Subscribe to The Spectator Australia today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator Australia for less – just $20 for 10 issues