Evan Davis was being a bit economical with the actualite the other day when he said that ‘we don’t often talk directly about demographics‘. The BBC is quite happy to discuss them – not only that, but to discuss them in a context of conflict or civil disorder – as long as they’re a long way away.
Here’s Jim Muir’s famous ‘I saw it coming all along‘ Iraq piece.
Iraq is a patchwork country, an ethnic and confessional cocktail, of Arabs and Kurds, Turkomans and Chaldaeans, Sunnis and Shiites.
Such countries are usually held together by a strong centralised dictatorship, which could be benign or tyrannical.
I don’t understand. Why isn’t he celebrating the diversity ?
Same with the troubles in Urumchi – about as far away at the back of Central Asia as one can get.
The violence in Xinjiang has not occurred completely out of the blue.
Its root cause is ethnic tension between the Turkic Muslim Uighurs and the Han Chinese. It can be traced back for decades …
Uighurs are ethnically Turkic Muslims
They make up about 45% of the region’s population. 40% are Han Chinese
China re-established control in 1949 after crushing short-lived state of East Turkestan
Since then, large-scale immigration of Han Chinese
Uighurs fear erosion of traditional culture
Large scale immigration into the capital, ethnic tension, fears of erosion of culture ? These Uighurs sound like terrible racists, ill at ease, failing to come to terms with their new multicultural capital and harking back to some Golden Age that never was. I’m surprised the BBC are publicising their scare-mongering and myths when they should be refuting them. Certainly not the kind of thing you’d find the BBC reporting, about, say, London.
UPDATE – it’s also interesting to compare the Chinese state media coverage of the rioting in Urumchi (admittedly far more destructive of human life than anything here) with the British state media coverage of rioting in the UK.
"Such countries are usually held together by a strong centralised dictatorship, which could be benign or tyrannical."
No doubt this is what segments of the left desire as the end result of mass immigration. They realise perfectly well that a UK made up predominantly of native Britons will not fall for authoritarianism, dictatorship, revolution or radical social engineering. Only by fragmenting the country by the immigration large numbers of disparate groups will such a project become viable.
They would view such a dictatorship or at least authoritarian regime as benign, as would the regime itself. But then almost every dictatorial regime bar perhaps the most venal views itself as doing "the right thing". Hitler, Stalin and Mao all strongly felt that they were doing what was right.
The BBC reported :
"Mohammed has become one of the most popular names for baby boys in England and Wales.
It entered the top 20 most commonly chosen names for 2004 baby boys for the first time ever, according to the Office for National Statistics."
That was back in 2004, since then…. silence.
Did it drop out of the top 20?
Like fuck.
' Daily Express' has this, close to home example, but not BBC:
"Paris park where migrants plan new life in UK"
By Sarah Westcott and Christopher Thompson (7/7.)
"An idyllic park in the heart of a fashionable district of Paris has become the latest departure point for hundreds of immigrants seeking a new life in Britain.
"Parc Villemin has been identified by the British embassy as being at the centre of a major illegal immigration network.
"At night the small gardens – a short walk from the Eurostar terminal at the Gare du Nord – resemble a refugee camp, with dozens of young, mainly Afghan, migrants, lying in sleeping bags underneath children’s swings.
"Every morning, many leave to try to sneak into the UK – with fresh arrivals soon taking their place.
"The park, nicknamed 'Little Kabul' by locals, was raided by police in March. Eleven people were arrested, accused of running a network smuggling hundreds of Afghans into Britain via Iran, Turkey, Greece, Italy and France. Each migrant was charged about £6,000.
"The arrests put a temporary halt to the activities – but the Daily Express can reveal that they have now resumed.
"Our reporters watched as Kurdish people traffickers moved in to the area. Prices of around £700 are negotiated and pick-up points arranged.
"UK-bound migrants are driven to Calais, then smuggled into Dover or Folkestone. 'This is the Eurostar for us,' said 17-year-old Mohammed Idriss, from Ghazni in central Afghanistan. He said he hoped to find 'work and a house' in Britain.
"Another, Mohammed Ali, 25, from Kandahar, said: 'All Afghans know you can come, wait here and plan your trip. If someone can wire you money you go to one of the traffickers and bargain for a seat to England.'"
Unexpected consequences?
The BBC has largely supported the action in Afghanistan (although any support for British troops seems to catch in its corporate throat) vs. it's consistent attempt to sabotage the parallel Iraqi operation and smear its initiators.
If the overthrow of the Taliban had not occurred there would have been no illegal immigration from Afghanistan. No one would have been able to leave.
The word: 'DIVERSTY', the BBC's favourite word:
Hugh Fitzgerald:
"This word" [DIVERSTY] "has entered, not the language, but the collective conscious, as a Good Thing, something we are all supposed to agree cannot but be good. Many people do not agree. The Japanese famously do not, limiting severely who can become Japanese – so severely that even Koreans whose families have lived for generations in Japan, who attend Japanese schools, who speak perfect Japanese, may never become Japanese. In Korea it is the same, toward all non-Koreans. In China too. Indeed, in most of the world the easygoing admission of others into a specific country and society is not celebrated but treated with great wariness. It is only in one small part of this world, in Western Europe and north America, that Diversity has become an idol of the age. The word itself is used most often in the United States; it simply hasn’t become popular in Western Europe, though the ideal of Tolerance – Tolerance for everyone, no matter what they may think – is a variant on Diversity.
"It is not at all clear to me that this country" [United States], "which save for its black population was, until very recently, derived almost entirely from Europe, and with a political and legal system, a language, and a literature, all taken from England, so that once no one would have questioned the realism of that now semi-comatose organization, the English-Speaking Union, still possesses an elite that understands that this country remains European in its background, and that cultural coherence, if that is, as I think, indispensable to survival beyond the level of mere economics, demands that it remain largely so. We say to ourselves that 'diversity is our strength.' But just how much 'diversity' makes us strong and at what point does it weaken?"
( Extract from article by Hugh Fitzgerald, "Strategies of Denial" 'New English Review.org' featured articles, July 2009.)
haha! absolutely brilliant post!
Foreign news on the BBC, while often as poor as its home news, doesn't have the same purpose as the BBC's home news.
The home news is part of a much wider project of patronising, authoritarian social influence which includes the rest of the the BBC's trash like Eastenders and Casualty.
The BBC advocates MASS IMMIGRATION into Britain.
Compare Paul Weston on 'Mass immigration':
"Mass immigration is undemocratic. A survey carried out in 1970’s Britain showed that 90% of the population was against mass immigration, which at the time was not quite as 'mass' as it is now. Recent surveys, although no longer as high as 90% (a testament perhaps to the power of forty years incessant drip feed propaganda) still suggest that the majorities in Western countries are against further immigration, yet Western governments everywhere have disallowed a referendum on this important issue whilst increasingly flooding their countries with anti-Western, unassimilable immigrants.
"Race and minority status are relative. To be a Pakistani minority in Britain is all well and good, but there are one hundred and sixty million Pakistanis in Pakistan and therefore outnumber the British by one hundred million people. One cannot, in a reasonable world, come from such large a group and claim the ethnic spoils available by dint of minority status in a different country, simply because one chose to leave one’s country of origin. This argument holds equally for Africans and Muslim Arabs.
"White Europeans internationally are a global minority themselves, making up only fifteen percent of the worlds population, and declining. In the case of continental Europe the EU Institute for Security Studies predicts that by 2025 white Europeans will make up only six percent of the global population.
"Ethnic colonisation and ethnic political advancement operate only in countries with white European majorities. Whites who historically built bases in foreign climes were deemed guilty of colonisation and subsequently expelled. No non-white country today makes special exceptions for white minorities. Indeed, those parts of the world where whites have a final scrabbling toehold actively discriminate against them to the point of ethnic cleansing. Witness Zimbabwe and South Africa."
(Extract from 'paulweston101.blogspot.com', essay on 'Multiculturaalism'.)
Immigration a subject that is NEVER in a party manifesto. The UK citizens have never been told why has it been allowed in such quantities. As pointed out, a problem elsewhere, but celebrate multiculturalism and diversity here.
So good for us the BBC has to promote it all the time and the government has a section of the communities secretariat to monitor ethnic tension and throw the population a bone every now and again to keep them quiet.
Paul Weston's comment: "Whites who historically built bases in foreign climes were deemed guilty of colonisation and subsequently expelled" is not entirely accurate.
British and European colonisers did not simply "build bases" ; we established those countries themselves. They did not exist as countries, or at least as modern states, until we created them as such.
After being given independence, many of those countries slid down into a morass of corruption, violence and squalour. Hence the desire of their inhabitants to move to Europe, or to Australia or North America, where civilised European standards still prevail.
Somehow one cannot imagine the BBC acknowledging any of these facts in its coverage of immigration as an issue. Indeed, the BBC prefers not to cover it at all.
Ed
I agree witn you, That has been my view as well, for a long while.
It is basically "divide and rule", by importing a large number of disparate immigrants, the more inasimmilable (Muslims), the better.
A survey carried out in 1970’s Britain showed that 90% of the population was against mass immigration
Well now it is just 70% of the population. Progress!!
The other 20% of those polled now come from Pakistan and Somalia.