What do you think?
Rate this book
The Diversity Illusion: What We Got Wrong About Immigration & How to Set It Right
2002 - ICM Research polling for the 47 per cent of white Britons believed immigration had damaged British society (a belief shared by 22 per cent of black and Asian Britons) and 28 per cent believed it had benefited it. 2012 - YouGov polling for the Sunday 11 per cent of people believe that immigration in the past decade has been 'a good thing for Britain' - 67 per cent think it has had a negative effect. Not only does a clear majority of the British public now seem to want immigration all but stopped, it has become hugely ambivalent even about multiculturalism, post-war immigration and the very idea of 'diversity'. How could this happen? In this ground-breaking analysis, Ed West investigates who is responsible for Britain's current state of affairs and why mass immigration has never been put to the vote. He uncovers mismanagement throughout a fifty-year state of denial by the British establishment on both the left and the right, and two recent governments increasing immigration for electoral advantage. Ed West compellingly argues that Britain should face up to the real impact of immigration against the mounting concerns -even on the Left -about its consequences. The picture of modern Britain he paints is a forceful warning to stop subscribing to the diversity illusion.
312 pages, Kindle Edition
First published October 1, 2012
55 people are currently reading
337 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
April 30, 2023
This dull, repetitive book has just one argument at its core. According to the author sometime back around 1948 the 'British elites' took the view that the country would be so much better if it embarked on the road to 'diversity'. The motivation seems to be a guilt complex for what went on in the days of empire mixed together with some Marxian-inflected tosh about the country taking its place in the world as a modern, multicultural, nation.
A tremendous reliance is put on the output of race relations organisations to make this argument, which Mr West tells us bases its entire argument for treating people from different ethnic groups as equals on what is essentially a lie about Britain having always been a 'diverse' country. This is not so, he tells us. Indeed the genetic evidence shows that the average UK citizen is a 70% descendant of the Iberian tribes that were in situ even before the Celts got here. It is possible not to care all that much about this sort of thing one way or the other, but the presence of 30% of non-Iberian DNA in the average Brits genome speaks rather loudly of the significant impact of migration in making up the modern population.
West objects to the idea that nations are social constructs that can be figured and reconfigured by circumstance. His argument requires suppositions that are anchored in their own version of supposedly noble myth. In this case it is that a people emerges across a long period of time during which they gradually build up a sense of trust with another, encouraging them to identify with people who share the same characteristics. It is a myth because the business of nation-building simply does not take the form of this supposedly pacific, gradual evolution of a common identity in which everyone agrees to get along. Better historians - notably Linda Colley in her excellent 'Britons' - give an account which roots national-building in what are essentially state-driven processes which produce turbulence and upheaval which lead to people re-evaluating their lives and where they stand in relation to others in circumstances which requires this of people on a do-or-die basis.
The crucible that produced British identity was not, of course, a happy process of cultural alignment of people who looked lime one another - it was the social turmoil of the industrial revolution. As masses were crowded into the new cities they were required to leave behind
the particularities that had previously marked them out and defined the social networks they moved in. Coinciding with other crowd movement at the same time that took the dispossessed further afield as migrants to the colonies, or seafarers or soldiers in the service of a 'Britannic Majesty', the sense that they were 'British' took hold. But this was always an imperfect process. Unlike the citizens of continental countries, or the revolutionary populations of the Americas who were the true forgers of what we now call nationalism, the identity of the Briton sat uneasily alongside that of Scot, Welsh or English - producing the ambiguous state of affairs we see today and which is the source of our contemporary identity crisis.
But West blames this all on immigration. His frankly stupid argument that the placid pool of harmonious nationhood was disturbed by the arrival of so many people who could not be assimilated in so short a time misses the point that anyone who lived at more or less any point in time in the 19th and first half of the 20th centuries would have believed their societies were fractured to the same extent as anyone who saw the immigrants coming after 1948. Neither was the movement of people on this scale driven by such a weak social force as the moods of the governing elites. This could only come about because the forces that were producing these new ages of migration gained their traction from real historical processes with deep social and economic dimensions. Britain felt these, but so did virtually every other market-based country in the capitalist world. The universality of the trend towards migration in the second half of the 20th century, growing deeper as globalisation assumed its full role in the decades after 1980, gives lie to the central claim of the book that immigration took place only because the elites severed their social compact with the citizens of the nation in which they lived.
The evidence that West claims points to the contrary is feeble, centring on trivia gleaned from the reminiscences of politicians and their bag-carriers as they desperately try to recall the moments of history in which they had a personal role. Yes, a strand of New Labour took the view that the tide of immigration that came into the country during their period office, might well work out in their favour given the propensity of the newcomers to vote for centre left parties when they were permitted to exercise the franchise. But the bigger story was that Blair and co were just as spooked as any Daily Telegraph columnist by the wave of newcomers, and struggled desperately to contain the movement through a plethora of tough control measures. If they failed it wasn't because they didn't try hard enough. It was because the century was against them, just as it is against the populists of the new anti-immigrant right. No elite conspiracy is conjuring up today's immigrants - it is happening because of the deep impulse of a fully globalising capitalist system.
A tremendous reliance is put on the output of race relations organisations to make this argument, which Mr West tells us bases its entire argument for treating people from different ethnic groups as equals on what is essentially a lie about Britain having always been a 'diverse' country. This is not so, he tells us. Indeed the genetic evidence shows that the average UK citizen is a 70% descendant of the Iberian tribes that were in situ even before the Celts got here. It is possible not to care all that much about this sort of thing one way or the other, but the presence of 30% of non-Iberian DNA in the average Brits genome speaks rather loudly of the significant impact of migration in making up the modern population.
West objects to the idea that nations are social constructs that can be figured and reconfigured by circumstance. His argument requires suppositions that are anchored in their own version of supposedly noble myth. In this case it is that a people emerges across a long period of time during which they gradually build up a sense of trust with another, encouraging them to identify with people who share the same characteristics. It is a myth because the business of nation-building simply does not take the form of this supposedly pacific, gradual evolution of a common identity in which everyone agrees to get along. Better historians - notably Linda Colley in her excellent 'Britons' - give an account which roots national-building in what are essentially state-driven processes which produce turbulence and upheaval which lead to people re-evaluating their lives and where they stand in relation to others in circumstances which requires this of people on a do-or-die basis.
The crucible that produced British identity was not, of course, a happy process of cultural alignment of people who looked lime one another - it was the social turmoil of the industrial revolution. As masses were crowded into the new cities they were required to leave behind
the particularities that had previously marked them out and defined the social networks they moved in. Coinciding with other crowd movement at the same time that took the dispossessed further afield as migrants to the colonies, or seafarers or soldiers in the service of a 'Britannic Majesty', the sense that they were 'British' took hold. But this was always an imperfect process. Unlike the citizens of continental countries, or the revolutionary populations of the Americas who were the true forgers of what we now call nationalism, the identity of the Briton sat uneasily alongside that of Scot, Welsh or English - producing the ambiguous state of affairs we see today and which is the source of our contemporary identity crisis.
But West blames this all on immigration. His frankly stupid argument that the placid pool of harmonious nationhood was disturbed by the arrival of so many people who could not be assimilated in so short a time misses the point that anyone who lived at more or less any point in time in the 19th and first half of the 20th centuries would have believed their societies were fractured to the same extent as anyone who saw the immigrants coming after 1948. Neither was the movement of people on this scale driven by such a weak social force as the moods of the governing elites. This could only come about because the forces that were producing these new ages of migration gained their traction from real historical processes with deep social and economic dimensions. Britain felt these, but so did virtually every other market-based country in the capitalist world. The universality of the trend towards migration in the second half of the 20th century, growing deeper as globalisation assumed its full role in the decades after 1980, gives lie to the central claim of the book that immigration took place only because the elites severed their social compact with the citizens of the nation in which they lived.
The evidence that West claims points to the contrary is feeble, centring on trivia gleaned from the reminiscences of politicians and their bag-carriers as they desperately try to recall the moments of history in which they had a personal role. Yes, a strand of New Labour took the view that the tide of immigration that came into the country during their period office, might well work out in their favour given the propensity of the newcomers to vote for centre left parties when they were permitted to exercise the franchise. But the bigger story was that Blair and co were just as spooked as any Daily Telegraph columnist by the wave of newcomers, and struggled desperately to contain the movement through a plethora of tough control measures. If they failed it wasn't because they didn't try hard enough. It was because the century was against them, just as it is against the populists of the new anti-immigrant right. No elite conspiracy is conjuring up today's immigrants - it is happening because of the deep impulse of a fully globalising capitalist system.
March 12, 2018
The speed of social change has been such that Ed West's 'The Diversity Illusion' is already out of date in 2018. It serves now more as a prophesy which sadly has come to pass. An excellent and easy read. Laying out the historical facts and stats in an even handed tempered fashion. Its obvious to anyone with eyes that Britain, the entire West actually, is straining under the burden of immigration. The mass media, academia and the political classes are either in denial or propagandising. In the age of the internet keeping the population misinformed for any length of time is impossible and eventually counter productive. Brexit, Trump all have their origins in immigration.
Ed describes where we went wrong (and where we went right) and proffers solutions. Sensible optimistic solutions but impracticable and undo-able in today's world I feel. I'm pessimistic and would love to be proven wrong but I fear it will end in tears and blood.
Ed describes where we went wrong (and where we went right) and proffers solutions. Sensible optimistic solutions but impracticable and undo-able in today's world I feel. I'm pessimistic and would love to be proven wrong but I fear it will end in tears and blood.
January 27, 2022
Only got to page 77, would have been a very easy read if you didn't have to scratch your head and wonder what the heck the author is smoking at every point he made.
I was going to try to finish it but I could not take this utter garbage any longer, just painful. Anyone with half a brain can see it is an exaggeration, relating societal issues to immigration. I especially could not believe the emphasis on immigrants causing high crime rates (this was where I had enough), as if only a few indigenous Britons create disorder or act violently in this country. A shocking, almost laughable, book.
HE EVEN CREATED A DEFENSE FOR ZIONIST ISRAEL AND SKINHEADS. Goodness me.🤦🏽♂️
I was going to try to finish it but I could not take this utter garbage any longer, just painful. Anyone with half a brain can see it is an exaggeration, relating societal issues to immigration. I especially could not believe the emphasis on immigrants causing high crime rates (this was where I had enough), as if only a few indigenous Britons create disorder or act violently in this country. A shocking, almost laughable, book.
HE EVEN CREATED A DEFENSE FOR ZIONIST ISRAEL AND SKINHEADS. Goodness me.🤦🏽♂️
July 29, 2013
In this book, the author makes the provocative argument that social egalitarianism and diversity are incompatible. West suggests that the borderless, non-hierarchy of cultures dreamed of by the inheritors of Marx's communist ideal is a fanciful Utopia, one which all evidence suggests to be based in very few facts. West explores the rewriting of British history to over-exaggerate past immigration, the soaring numbers of immigrants entering into the UK in recent years, the ideological nature of the thinking behind mass immigration (also suggesting that it was a form of national gerrymandering on the part of the Labour party), the increase in illiberal, Kafkaeque laws and Orwellian thought-crimes which he says have accompanied the rise of diversity as a social creed.
For the most part, the book is well documented and the arguments are well-made. On occasions, for example in writing about the Macpherson Inquiry, he is certainly guilty of underplaying the opposite argument to suit his own ends (there were issues of police corruption in the original Stephen Lawrence murder investigation which West blithely pretends did not exist). Yet the central theses are solidly put forwards and argued with a Swiftian eye for the absurdities of social engineering and topsy-turvy thinking.
At its best, the book is a philosophical musing on human nature - can human beings live together in a Utopian world of open borders, a melting pot of multi-cultural love-ins, or does mankind have an evolutionary tendency to be tribal and distrust the alien? The author clearly believes the latter (and argues the point very well) and that the Nation state, bonded by a shared history and literature (a culture) is the best means available for human beings to create a just society. The book is, in fact, so well-argued that the ball now is back in the park of those believing in a Lennon-esque "brotherhood of man" to show, with evidence and reference to past and present history, how that might be brought about without resorting to Stalinesque state-control and oppressive measures.
For the most part, the book is well documented and the arguments are well-made. On occasions, for example in writing about the Macpherson Inquiry, he is certainly guilty of underplaying the opposite argument to suit his own ends (there were issues of police corruption in the original Stephen Lawrence murder investigation which West blithely pretends did not exist). Yet the central theses are solidly put forwards and argued with a Swiftian eye for the absurdities of social engineering and topsy-turvy thinking.
At its best, the book is a philosophical musing on human nature - can human beings live together in a Utopian world of open borders, a melting pot of multi-cultural love-ins, or does mankind have an evolutionary tendency to be tribal and distrust the alien? The author clearly believes the latter (and argues the point very well) and that the Nation state, bonded by a shared history and literature (a culture) is the best means available for human beings to create a just society. The book is, in fact, so well-argued that the ball now is back in the park of those believing in a Lennon-esque "brotherhood of man" to show, with evidence and reference to past and present history, how that might be brought about without resorting to Stalinesque state-control and oppressive measures.
March 29, 2014
This certainly made for an interesting read about the many issues surrounding immigration although having read it I am somewhat torn on how exactly I feel about the issues discussed here. The author certainly put forward an interesting and eloquent case across for immigration ultimately being more of a liability than a strength I cannot help but feel that the central argument that the book rests on is a bit of a red herring. The central argument as I understood it was that ethnically homogeneous states thrive because this is the 'natural' state for humanity, to prefer a society where for the most part everyone is the same and that when others who are visibly not the same enter the equation, this is when problems start due to hostility on account of the difference. The author repeatedly returns to this notion of decreasing trust, decreasing sociability, increasing tension stating that it is a natural result of ethnically diverse society. while this argument that it is a natural state of humanity may be true I cannot help but feel that the notion we should simply accept this and do nothing about it is a dangerous one. surely if we know that inherent within us there is this tendency then the most viable approach is to combat it by focussing on values that are common to all and overcoming the differences between us.
December 19, 2019
This book is essential reading for anyone interested in freedom of speech and thought: Ed West bravely raises issues that are practically unspeakable in the UK and much of Europe - the enormous damage to British and European society caused by multiculturalism and diversity, and the Marxist doctrines of universalism and anti-racism that lie behind them, lunatic ideologies that hold a vice-like grip on society, holding western civilisation underwater to ensure it drowns, outlawing all complaints against Islam and the sacred project of creating an ethnic melting pot in defiance of public disapproval: no one in the UK is permitted an opinion on diversity, multiculturalism and Islam unless it is a supporting one. The United States must cherish their First Amendment and reject efforts by the Left to weaken it.
The British people and press have no more freedom of speech and thought on these monumental issues of our Time than the population of the Soviet Union had. We are ruled by governments that have allowed the Marxist theories of left-wing pressure groups and campaigners, born of the left-wing domination of education and quangos, to rise and subjugate us. Children are taught political propaganda in schools and adults are silenced by the threat of arrest or dismissal from employment. It is to the shame of so-called conservative politicians that they did not and do not reject this leftist tyranny, the loss of freedoms and the right to disagree.
There is background information on Windrush and what the British government at the time actually expected from it - nothing long term - and on where the concepts for multiculturalism and diversity originated. Young Trotskyites found themselves disillusioned with the white working class and the economic failure of socialism and switched their charity to a new oppressed of overseas ethnic minorities they could import to vote for them and destroy the white, bourgeois European society they detested. I believe European leftists were jealous of the Civil Rights movement in the US and wanted to replicate it by destroying the homogeneous white populations of Europe to create their own diverse utopias.
The book references a wide range of studies on the impact of diversity and mass immigration on mental health, social capital, welfare, education, economy and other matters. Ed raises the very sage point that due to the internet, satellite TV and global communications ethnic communities are able to emigrate in body to the west but stay culturally fully integrated into their homelands and not have to integrate in any way into the host country, reinforced by sending thousands of their children back, for example, to Pakistan during their formative years to ensure they do not become westernised.
There are some very interesting facts interspersed in the text: for example that only three in a thousand American professors identified themselves as conservatives in one survey, which reinforces how dominant the Left are in educating the young, and that three year olds are naturally racist without any help from their parents, unless they suffer from a particular brain disorder - no, not Marxism, that comes later from state schooling.
Ed repeatedly reminds us that liberalism and support for the welfare state developed in essentially homogeneous, white societies, and that they cannot coexist with excessive diversity. He reminds us of Enoch Powell's prediction that the Labour party would stop being the party of labour, of the white working class, and this is something we see in multicultural areas in the UK, with seats that were socialist for a century switching to the Right, a fact repeated across Europe for social democratic parties, in France, Italy, Germany and others. As I write this, it is quite extraordinary to see that in the very heartland of European liberalism and the welfare state, in Sweden, opinion polls show above 25% support for a far-right party with neo-Nazi roots in joint first place (which means much higher than 25% support among white people), a similar showing to the support for a far-right party in neighbouring Finland, by far the most popular party in that country. The Left has abandoned the white working class and the white working class is abandoning them.
Ed makes several suggestions at the end on how matters might be improved, and sensible as they are - restricted immigration from poor countries, repeal of draconian politically correct legislation that enforces Marxist doctrine, a withdrawal from automatically accepting refugees - one feels they are way too little much too late. This is an excellent book, stark in its warnings, but solutions are not possible from a political elite bred on a poisoned doctrine and immune to reality.
The British people and press have no more freedom of speech and thought on these monumental issues of our Time than the population of the Soviet Union had. We are ruled by governments that have allowed the Marxist theories of left-wing pressure groups and campaigners, born of the left-wing domination of education and quangos, to rise and subjugate us. Children are taught political propaganda in schools and adults are silenced by the threat of arrest or dismissal from employment. It is to the shame of so-called conservative politicians that they did not and do not reject this leftist tyranny, the loss of freedoms and the right to disagree.
There is background information on Windrush and what the British government at the time actually expected from it - nothing long term - and on where the concepts for multiculturalism and diversity originated. Young Trotskyites found themselves disillusioned with the white working class and the economic failure of socialism and switched their charity to a new oppressed of overseas ethnic minorities they could import to vote for them and destroy the white, bourgeois European society they detested. I believe European leftists were jealous of the Civil Rights movement in the US and wanted to replicate it by destroying the homogeneous white populations of Europe to create their own diverse utopias.
The book references a wide range of studies on the impact of diversity and mass immigration on mental health, social capital, welfare, education, economy and other matters. Ed raises the very sage point that due to the internet, satellite TV and global communications ethnic communities are able to emigrate in body to the west but stay culturally fully integrated into their homelands and not have to integrate in any way into the host country, reinforced by sending thousands of their children back, for example, to Pakistan during their formative years to ensure they do not become westernised.
There are some very interesting facts interspersed in the text: for example that only three in a thousand American professors identified themselves as conservatives in one survey, which reinforces how dominant the Left are in educating the young, and that three year olds are naturally racist without any help from their parents, unless they suffer from a particular brain disorder - no, not Marxism, that comes later from state schooling.
Ed repeatedly reminds us that liberalism and support for the welfare state developed in essentially homogeneous, white societies, and that they cannot coexist with excessive diversity. He reminds us of Enoch Powell's prediction that the Labour party would stop being the party of labour, of the white working class, and this is something we see in multicultural areas in the UK, with seats that were socialist for a century switching to the Right, a fact repeated across Europe for social democratic parties, in France, Italy, Germany and others. As I write this, it is quite extraordinary to see that in the very heartland of European liberalism and the welfare state, in Sweden, opinion polls show above 25% support for a far-right party with neo-Nazi roots in joint first place (which means much higher than 25% support among white people), a similar showing to the support for a far-right party in neighbouring Finland, by far the most popular party in that country. The Left has abandoned the white working class and the white working class is abandoning them.
Ed makes several suggestions at the end on how matters might be improved, and sensible as they are - restricted immigration from poor countries, repeal of draconian politically correct legislation that enforces Marxist doctrine, a withdrawal from automatically accepting refugees - one feels they are way too little much too late. This is an excellent book, stark in its warnings, but solutions are not possible from a political elite bred on a poisoned doctrine and immune to reality.
June 29, 2020
One of those books which, once again, had me wanting to underline just about every other paragraph and highlight every sentence I read. Ed West writes clearly, concisely and engagingly about a topic which, whilst rather divisive, also involves looking at and assessing a lot of statistics around population demographics. Thankfully he strikes the perfect balance in getting his point across in a straightforward, easy-to-digest manner, with just the right amount of humour injected here and there to remind you that the author is a human being like everyone else discussed in the book.
Immigration is never an easy subject to broach; especially in times such as these which seem to demand that each of us pick from one of two, radically polarised political positions, and sit entrenched in them, allowing for all of our subsequent opinions be dictated by our left/right allegiance. This book however, just presents the statistics surrounding immigration: the numbers of migrants into Britain (that we know about), the increase in size of various ethnic groups over the past 100 years, the changing shape of cities & towns because of these changes, the impact (housing issues, welfare costs, elevated crime levels etc) these people have had on the country etc...
Some people will still of course try to find fault and allege that by even suggesting you look at this book, you are in fact a racist/xenophobe/bigot etc. But let's be honest. If you're even considering reading this book in the first place, you've likely already gotten over all the 'shame' that the wokerati try to cover you in and you really don't care what some jumped up little "progressive" thinks of your choice in reading material. Which is good. Because it's a great book. You'll get a lot out of it...AND find a wealth of further reading at the end of it, to take you on your next reading adventure in the world of books that many would like to see banned.
9/10, would recommend to anyone whose curiosity is unimpeded by ideological proscription.
Immigration is never an easy subject to broach; especially in times such as these which seem to demand that each of us pick from one of two, radically polarised political positions, and sit entrenched in them, allowing for all of our subsequent opinions be dictated by our left/right allegiance. This book however, just presents the statistics surrounding immigration: the numbers of migrants into Britain (that we know about), the increase in size of various ethnic groups over the past 100 years, the changing shape of cities & towns because of these changes, the impact (housing issues, welfare costs, elevated crime levels etc) these people have had on the country etc...
Some people will still of course try to find fault and allege that by even suggesting you look at this book, you are in fact a racist/xenophobe/bigot etc. But let's be honest. If you're even considering reading this book in the first place, you've likely already gotten over all the 'shame' that the wokerati try to cover you in and you really don't care what some jumped up little "progressive" thinks of your choice in reading material. Which is good. Because it's a great book. You'll get a lot out of it...AND find a wealth of further reading at the end of it, to take you on your next reading adventure in the world of books that many would like to see banned.
9/10, would recommend to anyone whose curiosity is unimpeded by ideological proscription.
October 6, 2014
Everyone should read this, his arguments are flawless and compelling.
January 24, 2020
A different point of view, but not a very forensic one
The odd interesting stat, which I tended to fact check as I went, because so much of the rest lacked the sort of forensic rigour (correlations, causation, etc) that I think would be needed to make its thesis stick.
I don’t think there’s nothing to learn from this book, and it’s good to take in a perspective that very much isn’t my own, but there’s some bizarre and ill-supported attitudes and contradictions.
The central premises being argued seem to be:
1) Middle classes like (ethnic) diversity due to virtue signalling, new recipes and economic benefits, but the rest don’t like it, and so we shouldn’t do it. There isn’t much digging into the “why” beyond “it’s human nature”, and no concept that this could change over time (we used to have boarding house signs saying “No Irish” and now we don’t...)
2) homogeneity within a nation state is necessary for consensus, and without consensus we are doomed. Little explanation as to why ethnic diversity is such a special case to him (why under this logic wouldn’t we split into nations of right and left wingers, or of rich and poor? The proposed remedies certainly seem ridiculous in this light)
3) It’s the pace of immigration that causes the most friction. This is probably the most interesting and least developed argument.
4) immigration from other rich countries is fine actually, because they probably share our liberal values (but then names several that don’t).
The odd interesting stat, which I tended to fact check as I went, because so much of the rest lacked the sort of forensic rigour (correlations, causation, etc) that I think would be needed to make its thesis stick.
I don’t think there’s nothing to learn from this book, and it’s good to take in a perspective that very much isn’t my own, but there’s some bizarre and ill-supported attitudes and contradictions.
The central premises being argued seem to be:
1) Middle classes like (ethnic) diversity due to virtue signalling, new recipes and economic benefits, but the rest don’t like it, and so we shouldn’t do it. There isn’t much digging into the “why” beyond “it’s human nature”, and no concept that this could change over time (we used to have boarding house signs saying “No Irish” and now we don’t...)
2) homogeneity within a nation state is necessary for consensus, and without consensus we are doomed. Little explanation as to why ethnic diversity is such a special case to him (why under this logic wouldn’t we split into nations of right and left wingers, or of rich and poor? The proposed remedies certainly seem ridiculous in this light)
3) It’s the pace of immigration that causes the most friction. This is probably the most interesting and least developed argument.
4) immigration from other rich countries is fine actually, because they probably share our liberal values (but then names several that don’t).
October 25, 2020
The norms of different societies differ and their change depends on the scale of migration: only a few immigrants will take over the norms of the host country more will adhere to their own norms and a very large number of immigrants may even change the norms in the host society. Even before the mass immigration of Muslims, it was clear that immigrants in European countries remained to follow their own norms even more so by second and third generation immigrants, emphasizing their distinctiveness in order to emphasize a different identity. P. Collier, who is a professor of economics at Oxford, highlights three other key factors: the difference between the native and host cultures, the size of the immigrant community, and the policies of the host country. There is a clear tendency that the greater the cultural difference, the larger the immigrant community itself and the greater the legal freedom not to adopt the culture of the host country is, the lower are the chances of integration. In addition, these factors are mutually reinforcing itself - a larger immigrant community facilitates the further immigration of their compatriots by providing life with „relatives“ without the need of integration. The more members of an ethnic group there are, the more difficult it is to influence their identity through political means. The policy of multiculturalism generally rejects any demands for the takeover of local culture and presents it as something humiliating and immoral, thus it‘s clearly contributing to the scale of immigration. If immigrants use the official language of the country of residence instead of their mother tongue in their daily life, identification with the country increases, social capital (trust in strangers) as well as the tendency to cooperate for the provision of public goods, which is particularly important in Western societies with a high level of redistribution. The capitalist economic system automatically programs growing exclusion and in the West it‘s agreed that the duty of governments is to alleviate it. However, cultural diversity reduces the support for redistribution and the possibility of such policies by programming social conflict, both between social and ethnic groups. Moreover, as Robert Putnam’s study showed (which was ignored by proponents of openness), cultural diversity undermines trust not only among groups in society, but also among members within them, thus destroys the fabric of society necessary for civic coexistence in general. The level of trust in society is by no means an ideological issue: it‘s important for the left, which supports more state intervention because of redistribution and for the right, which is for less intervention because of the organization of citizens and independent initiatives. The problem of social capital and the redistributive opportunities that directly depend on it, is relevant to the entire Western world, but especially to the Nordic countries, which have built their welfare states on the basis of complete national homogeneity. Recent research by Swedish sociologists clearly shows that the growing number of culturally foreign residents in the country is undermining the level of trust in Swedish society. This is also significant for a number of growing tensions in society that have not yet received political attention, despite (or precisely because of) the fact that since 70‘s the entire Swedish political elite agreed to pursue a multicultural, rather than an integrative society model. It can be agreed that such strategy (most clearly distinguishing between the Danish and Swedish welfare state models) could have worked successfully up to a certain level of „diversity” in society. However, the Nordic countries did not stand out only with their welfare state model. Being an exceptionally Western in every sense, Sweden has most vividly revealed the changes taking place in all Western societies. Another distinctive feature of Sweden and to a lesser extent the whole of Europe, was the high standards of public safety, the low crime rate. This has changed completely in recent years. In the last few years, the number of murders, rapes, drug trafficking and the phenomenon of gang wars, which is alien to the Nordic countries in general, have increased in the country. The most obvious problem is rape, which is why Sweden is being called „The rape capital“. It is true that the statistics are significantly inflated by Sweden's exceptionally broad definition of rape, but despite it it‘s obvious that the problem is real. The „accounting" of rape in the country was changed in 2005, but the drastic increase in the number of sexual crimes began only in 2012. The number of armed killings has increased tenfold since the 1990s, from really low to the European average. In addition to the relatively common crimes in Sweden, new phenomena has arised - riots and terrorist attacks. Unresolved issues naturally take on political expression. The Swedes are not happy. Since 2016, the majority of the population in the polls are in favor of repatriation of newcomers, the second most popular party has become the only Swedish party that is against immigration and its popularity has been only growing. In recent years, even Swedish Social Democrat politicians, who have traditionally supported open border policies, have begun to publicly acknowledge that immigration policy in Sweden has not been successful. However, the origins and religion of immigrants, which are directly linked to the country's new problems, are still not recognized. Recognizing the link between the public security concerns that have arisen in Sweden, United Kingdom and many other countries that have adopted mass Muslim immigration and the religion of immigrants, has been and remains a difficult task in many places. Any talk of Islam as the cause of these problems is limited by double censorship: a sincere belief that blaming Muslims will set the society against them and fears that naming the problem will cost a reputation or even a career. Both journalists and officials in many countries have acknowledged that not talking about the nationality and religion of criminals is a political decision. Across Western Europe, there is the creation of de facto Sharia courts and no-go zones where the police is simply unable to uphold the rule of law. The port of Marseilles in France already has 30-40 % Muslim population and claims to become the first Muslim-dominated city in the country, while at the same time facing uncontrollable gang crime. All of these problems in Europe did not arise immediately with Muslim immigration and could have been avoided. The first generation of post-war immigrants from Muslim countries was grateful for the opportunity to live a safe life, worked hard, respected the norms of European countries, and did not cause similar problems. However, immigrants that came later and especially their children born in Europe, have understood the Western welfare system and learned to use the slogans of human rights and diversity appropriate for them as „vulnerable minorities“. Their way of living was seen as something valuable for reasons incomprehensible to anyone. Europe, which was striving for unity in diversity at the time, started to promote cultural diversity and transformed integration policies into multiculturalism, allowing everyone to live within their customs. Although in the 90‘s there was a huge debate over Muslim burqas, Europe had broadly positive attitude towards the spread of Muslim culture. It was like it until the 9/11 attacks in the United States and explosions in Madrid and London in 2005. At the time, the horrors of terrorism also led to a more cautious approach to Islamic culture. Pope Benedict XVI publicly condemned Islam in his lecture. In 2010 Merkel, Sarkozy and Cameron declared death of multiculturalism. The importance of these declarations has been greatly exaggerated. Politicians who said it still continued on committing to further immigration and openness. The actual policies of these countries have not changed – politicians keep on condemning the terrorist attacks, but at the same time promotes understanding and openness to Muslim culture as if its lack were the cause of radicalization. The fact is - neither the attitude of Muslims towards their host countries nor the attitude of local Europeans towards Muslims and themselves has changed. The Charlie Hebdo attack was perpetrated by Muslims born in France, who also attended its public schools. They are the clearest evidence that the education system does not foster patriotism, loyalty to France and respect for its laws. Despite it, the same tendency to search European people‘s fault for Muslim behavior persists especially in France, where after all assassinations a positive perception of Muslims has even increased. It seems that Europe and its law are foreign to Muslims, but the cultural norms dictated by Islam real and their very own. No Western school teaching guilt and repentance history of colonialism will change this choice. In order to change the mindset of Muslims and indigenous citizens, European countries should once again start to form loyalty and respect for the host state through education and offer an emotionally binding glue, which is called collective identity. France and Great Britain have been doing exactly that since the Middle Ages and for the longest in Europe, but stopped it after the war and today they don‘t seem capable of doing it again. Summa summarum - integration depends on the interaction between cultures, the number of migrants and the host country's integration efforts. There are no such efforts right now, meanwhile more and more Muslims are moving to Europe including the Islamic State members.
November 29, 2020
Into the Mind of Anti-immigration
I read this out of curiosity. I wanted to know the basis for an intelligent thinker to oppose immigration. It lived up to expectation.
It is founded on a refusal to live together and make it work. Perhaps this is understandable given that to make diversity work, people have to be free to express themselves, including their misgivings with diversity. The book rightly argues that such freedom of expression has successfully been prevented. This is lamentable and makes anti-immigration the next logical step.
The book collates interesting statistics and results of research on ethnic relations and immigration. It is a good read in this respect even for those coming to it from a point of opposing its basic message.
The book fails on the economic argument for anti-immigration in as far poor countries are concerned. WTO and donor aid terms by the World Bank, IMF etc have ensured that poor countries open up their goods trade markets to foreign imports. Loss of local jobs has created some of the pressure of immigration to the West. Arguing that labour markets should not be opened (regardless that it brings similar global benefits as opening up the goods markets) because investors can freely move operations to cheap labour countries leaves poor country citizens at the mercy of more industrialised countries who decide what to export to poor countries and what production to place with poor countries. Really free markets require that each market agent should be able to rationally decide the most optimal option. Poor country buyers should be able to decide to buy cheaper but higher quality products from more industrialised countries; investors should be able to invest where labour is cheapest or where labour is most skilled etc; labour also should be able to decide to sell its services to whomever will pay highest, including where this means moving country. Any adherent of liberal economics should not be willing to compromise on this. If labour mobility can be opposed due to the welfare concerns of western country citizens losing their jobs (and desired national identity), then free trade should be possible to oppose based on the concerns of poor country citizens losing their jobs.
I recommend this book for anyone interested in making diversity and integration work. We need to be shown enough of the challenges for us to fully grasp the huge task ahead. Diversity cannot be left to its own devices.
I read this out of curiosity. I wanted to know the basis for an intelligent thinker to oppose immigration. It lived up to expectation.
It is founded on a refusal to live together and make it work. Perhaps this is understandable given that to make diversity work, people have to be free to express themselves, including their misgivings with diversity. The book rightly argues that such freedom of expression has successfully been prevented. This is lamentable and makes anti-immigration the next logical step.
The book collates interesting statistics and results of research on ethnic relations and immigration. It is a good read in this respect even for those coming to it from a point of opposing its basic message.
The book fails on the economic argument for anti-immigration in as far poor countries are concerned. WTO and donor aid terms by the World Bank, IMF etc have ensured that poor countries open up their goods trade markets to foreign imports. Loss of local jobs has created some of the pressure of immigration to the West. Arguing that labour markets should not be opened (regardless that it brings similar global benefits as opening up the goods markets) because investors can freely move operations to cheap labour countries leaves poor country citizens at the mercy of more industrialised countries who decide what to export to poor countries and what production to place with poor countries. Really free markets require that each market agent should be able to rationally decide the most optimal option. Poor country buyers should be able to decide to buy cheaper but higher quality products from more industrialised countries; investors should be able to invest where labour is cheapest or where labour is most skilled etc; labour also should be able to decide to sell its services to whomever will pay highest, including where this means moving country. Any adherent of liberal economics should not be willing to compromise on this. If labour mobility can be opposed due to the welfare concerns of western country citizens losing their jobs (and desired national identity), then free trade should be possible to oppose based on the concerns of poor country citizens losing their jobs.
I recommend this book for anyone interested in making diversity and integration work. We need to be shown enough of the challenges for us to fully grasp the huge task ahead. Diversity cannot be left to its own devices.
January 22, 2016
This is a book I would classify as essential reading for anyone who wants to address honestly the political issues raised by decades of unrelenting (and ongoing) mass immigration. Ed West is excellent in discussing the socially divisive character of multiculturalism calmly but explicitly, without pulling his punches. It is a brave book in that he tells the truth (it always takes courage to tell the truth in contemporary society) and his analysis of the true nature of "diversity" and the way that this concept is currently misrepresented by the political class is especially good, as is his acknowledgement of how the English working class have been betrayed by their obsessively multiculturalist middle-class rulers. The only criticism I would make is that the "and how to solve it" in the subtitle is slightly misleading in that he only really suggests "how to solve it" in the last half dozen pages. (But this is excusable since there is unlikely to be any solution in reality; he probably just wanted to end on an optimistic note!) The only people who will fail to recognize the society that West describes in these pages are those members of the establishment elite who are too vain to permit themselves to admit that they were wrong. For the rest of us, this book tells us what we know to be true and it states the case with devastating clarity. Strongly recommended.
July 26, 2017
I think he sets out an argument that is rational but lacks the evidence required to make the arguments whole, the positions he takes that ignores basic discrimination as a cause as well as culture clashes...it feels as though he was grabbing at straws to make points that would have been just as coherent if he had made arguments that took into consideration all variables. So the negative reactions to Caribbeans during windrush and the systematic institutional discrimination is a cause of a basic ostracision from the formal econony, it is regardless therefor proof that multiculturalism is flawed from the angle of social capital. Makes him sound like a closeted racist rather than a empirical objective researcher.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
July 16, 2023
This book covers some very contentious issues, which are have come into public discourse in recent years such as migration and demographic changes. It was an enjoyable read with data and statistics used to make arguments.
November 26, 2013
Very good. Gets to the heart of the political issues in a calm and sensible manner. He will be inevitably be misunderstood or ignored.
August 14, 2017
Worrisome
A worrisome future dates us if we don't recognise the risks we are taking. There are some reasoned arguments here.
A worrisome future dates us if we don't recognise the risks we are taking. There are some reasoned arguments here.
December 4, 2022
Thought provoking
Very thought provoking. Provides an alternative perspective on the issues facing modern Britain . Data rich, evidence based, one may not agree with the conclusions but it will definitely make one think.
Very thought provoking. Provides an alternative perspective on the issues facing modern Britain . Data rich, evidence based, one may not agree with the conclusions but it will definitely make one think.
February 3, 2025
Write the book again in 2025 UK post brexit
Seeing the lack of workers in so many areas after the disastrous consequences of Brexit makes the book irrelevant in so many aspects. A new edition would be interesting.
Seeing the lack of workers in so many areas after the disastrous consequences of Brexit makes the book irrelevant in so many aspects. A new edition would be interesting.
June 6, 2023
Got to page 7 and threw this in the bin - awful
November 28, 2023
What in the alt-right, racist ideology did I just read?
August 9, 2013
A better read than Goodhart's book.
March 27, 2016
Well written, well argued, worth a read, but he does make some massive leaps and talks some mash.
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews