The ability of liberals to carefully construct an alternative reality that prevents them from dealing with the difficult aspects of actual reality never ceases to astonish. Here are some of the questions that this artfully crafted fantasy never comes close to addressing:
* What are the violent crime rates, by nationality, of different immigrant groups?
* How often are illegal migrants actually removed from the country? How often are migrants who are convicted of violent crimes *not* removed from the country because they might face some inconvenience? Which countries are able to send an infinite number of migrants to the UK, because due to "human rights," zero of them may be returned to their own country?
* What is the rationale for allowing millions of low-skilled migrants who will be a fiscal burden for their entire lives? Even The Economist, head cheerleader for mass migration, has been forced to concede that every low-skilled migrant is a fiscal burden.
* How often do the police caution members of the public for making critical comments about the sacred dogmas of immigration and multiculturalism? In what sense does this constitute "freedom"? Why does liberalism, which is nominally committed to open debate, throw itself so enthusiastically into the cause of suppressing and silencing dissent about its fundamental dogmas (e.g. migration and multiculturalism)? Why does liberalism remain unable to account for its critics except in terms of emotion-driven pseudo-categories such as "hate"?
* How is it an advance for liberalism to have multiple MPs elected on an openly sectarian, pro-Gaza platform?
* What does it imply about the legitimacy of a political system, when the public repeatedly votes for one thing (less immigration) and gets the opposite (more immigration)? How can such a system be considered legitimate? What, in the liberal view, is the actual purpose of elections? (A rhetorical question of course: the liberal answer is that "when the people vote for less liberalism, we give them more liberalism and that is the essence of democracy.")
* What percentage of housing in London -- one of the most expensive cities in the world -- is social housing? What percentage of this housing is occupied by migrants who have made no contribution to the country other than arriving there, and immediately receiving social housing based on their 'need'? What percentage of this housing is occupied by the multiple families of polygamous patriarchs?
* What is the number of new immigrants to the UK over recent decades, in comparison with the quantity of new housing built over the same decades?
In what possible sense could this system be considered to "basically work"?
The author is correct that Tommy Robinson is a distasteful, nasty character. So too is Donald Trump. Liberals might wish to reflect on how it is that such figures come to receive the support of millions. A simple theory is the following: Most people want less immigration, or at a very minimum, that foreign criminals, benefit spongers, and those who do not share the host country's values (e.g. about blaspheming the Prophet) should not be admitted. Liberalism declares that meeting these demands is utterly impossible. Under no circumstances will foreign criminals be deported if they might face 'harm'; under no circumstances will any migrant be hindered from immediately receiving social housing for life; and if anyone raises objections to the blasphemy laws (e.g. about Koran desecration) being implemented by 'community leaders', the police will caution the objector, not the theocrat. So, after all other options have been exhausted, the public will hold its nose and vote for the nasty character. A simple alternative to this would be for liberals to 1. Take seriously the public's rational concerns about immigration, 2. Implement a minimally sane migration policy that does not entail having the public's generosity abused by foreign benefit scroungers and criminals. Denmark has actually done this to some extent, and, hey presto, the so-called 'far right' is not a problem there.
But instead -- again and again -- liberals prefer to construct for themselves comforting fairy tales in which their opponents are motivated by lurid fantasies with little relationship to reality, and comfort themselves by assuring themselves that if the official narrative of the BBC and Westminster is simply repeated often enough, and if dissenters are silenced firmly enough, it will somehow all work out in the end. Good luck with that!
Naw, ya'll are so far left and that normal ideological values are falsely branded as such.
True "far right" circles all the way back around to adopt racism and totalitarianism... you know, the thing that liberal progressives in the US and liberal EUtards demonstrate today. But desiring cultural cohesion and national sovereignty are just center moderate values.
One characteristic of extremism is reading a broadly sympathetic article from a person with a different ideology than you and reacting with vitriol and retaliation.
The comments here from supporters of Britain’s parties right of the Conservatives—what might less-clunkily be called the “far right”—do more to paint their movement as composed of retarded fanatics than does the article they’re criticizing.
Overall, this is a reasonably balanced article. However, I doubt that most people understand the enormity of the grooming gang scandal. From a June 25, 2025 article in The Economist:
“Lady Casey begins by observing that, even now, it is impossible to know the scale of this problem. That is in part because these are horribly complex cases, victims fear coming forward and investigations were badly botched. Police forces failed to collect data. Grooming gangs have been identified in dozens of towns and cities. In Rotherham alone, thanks to an unusually thorough police investigation led by the National Crime Agency (NCA), 1,100 victims were identified. Our rough calculation suggests that tens of thousands of victims could be awaiting justice.”
I cannot think of a bigger leadership failure in any developed country in modern times. There was much more than fear of being accused of racism going on here. The elite members of British society did not and do not value these working-class girls. The lack of decency and compassion numbs the senses and offends the conscience. The disregard for the de facto peasant class was and is prolonged and flagrant.
What more is there to be said about the quality and decency of leadership?
I don't know if it's different in Britain, but in America, if people aren't getting what they say they want on immigration, maybe it's not about some Nefarious Elite Plot but because actions speak louder than words. If people's words say "We don't want them" but their actions say "We want their work", what do you think's going to happen?
The ability of liberals to carefully construct an alternative reality that prevents them from dealing with the difficult aspects of actual reality never ceases to astonish. Here are some of the questions that this artfully crafted fantasy never comes close to addressing:
* What are the violent crime rates, by nationality, of different immigrant groups?
* How often are illegal migrants actually removed from the country? How often are migrants who are convicted of violent crimes *not* removed from the country because they might face some inconvenience? Which countries are able to send an infinite number of migrants to the UK, because due to "human rights," zero of them may be returned to their own country?
* What is the rationale for allowing millions of low-skilled migrants who will be a fiscal burden for their entire lives? Even The Economist, head cheerleader for mass migration, has been forced to concede that every low-skilled migrant is a fiscal burden.
https://www.economist.com/content-assets/images/20250315_FNC123.png
https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2025/03/13/your-guide-to-the-new-anti-immigration-argument
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-fiscal-impact-of-immigration-in-the-uk/
* How often do the police caution members of the public for making critical comments about the sacred dogmas of immigration and multiculturalism? In what sense does this constitute "freedom"? Why does liberalism, which is nominally committed to open debate, throw itself so enthusiastically into the cause of suppressing and silencing dissent about its fundamental dogmas (e.g. migration and multiculturalism)? Why does liberalism remain unable to account for its critics except in terms of emotion-driven pseudo-categories such as "hate"?
* How is it an advance for liberalism to have multiple MPs elected on an openly sectarian, pro-Gaza platform?
* What does it imply about the legitimacy of a political system, when the public repeatedly votes for one thing (less immigration) and gets the opposite (more immigration)? How can such a system be considered legitimate? What, in the liberal view, is the actual purpose of elections? (A rhetorical question of course: the liberal answer is that "when the people vote for less liberalism, we give them more liberalism and that is the essence of democracy.")
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4230288
https://www.slowboring.com/p/a-boring-theory-of-the-populist-right
https://www.chathamhouse.org/2017/02/what-do-europeans-think-about-muslim-immigration
* What percentage of housing in London -- one of the most expensive cities in the world -- is social housing? What percentage of this housing is occupied by migrants who have made no contribution to the country other than arriving there, and immediately receiving social housing based on their 'need'? What percentage of this housing is occupied by the multiple families of polygamous patriarchs?
* What is the number of new immigrants to the UK over recent decades, in comparison with the quantity of new housing built over the same decades?
In what possible sense could this system be considered to "basically work"?
The author is correct that Tommy Robinson is a distasteful, nasty character. So too is Donald Trump. Liberals might wish to reflect on how it is that such figures come to receive the support of millions. A simple theory is the following: Most people want less immigration, or at a very minimum, that foreign criminals, benefit spongers, and those who do not share the host country's values (e.g. about blaspheming the Prophet) should not be admitted. Liberalism declares that meeting these demands is utterly impossible. Under no circumstances will foreign criminals be deported if they might face 'harm'; under no circumstances will any migrant be hindered from immediately receiving social housing for life; and if anyone raises objections to the blasphemy laws (e.g. about Koran desecration) being implemented by 'community leaders', the police will caution the objector, not the theocrat. So, after all other options have been exhausted, the public will hold its nose and vote for the nasty character. A simple alternative to this would be for liberals to 1. Take seriously the public's rational concerns about immigration, 2. Implement a minimally sane migration policy that does not entail having the public's generosity abused by foreign benefit scroungers and criminals. Denmark has actually done this to some extent, and, hey presto, the so-called 'far right' is not a problem there.
But instead -- again and again -- liberals prefer to construct for themselves comforting fairy tales in which their opponents are motivated by lurid fantasies with little relationship to reality, and comfort themselves by assuring themselves that if the official narrative of the BBC and Westminster is simply repeated often enough, and if dissenters are silenced firmly enough, it will somehow all work out in the end. Good luck with that!
"Far right".
Naw, ya'll are so far left and that normal ideological values are falsely branded as such.
True "far right" circles all the way back around to adopt racism and totalitarianism... you know, the thing that liberal progressives in the US and liberal EUtards demonstrate today. But desiring cultural cohesion and national sovereignty are just center moderate values.
One characteristic of extremism is reading a broadly sympathetic article from a person with a different ideology than you and reacting with vitriol and retaliation.
The comments here from supporters of Britain’s parties right of the Conservatives—what might less-clunkily be called the “far right”—do more to paint their movement as composed of retarded fanatics than does the article they’re criticizing.
This isn’t Twitter.
Overall, this is a reasonably balanced article. However, I doubt that most people understand the enormity of the grooming gang scandal. From a June 25, 2025 article in The Economist:
“Lady Casey begins by observing that, even now, it is impossible to know the scale of this problem. That is in part because these are horribly complex cases, victims fear coming forward and investigations were badly botched. Police forces failed to collect data. Grooming gangs have been identified in dozens of towns and cities. In Rotherham alone, thanks to an unusually thorough police investigation led by the National Crime Agency (NCA), 1,100 victims were identified. Our rough calculation suggests that tens of thousands of victims could be awaiting justice.”
I cannot think of a bigger leadership failure in any developed country in modern times. There was much more than fear of being accused of racism going on here. The elite members of British society did not and do not value these working-class girls. The lack of decency and compassion numbs the senses and offends the conscience. The disregard for the de facto peasant class was and is prolonged and flagrant.
What more is there to be said about the quality and decency of leadership?
I don't know if it's different in Britain, but in America, if people aren't getting what they say they want on immigration, maybe it's not about some Nefarious Elite Plot but because actions speak louder than words. If people's words say "We don't want them" but their actions say "We want their work", what do you think's going to happen?