The day they started talking Integration - Updated 15th June

Today, the 14th June 2007, should go down in English history as the day the Establishment began to speak “Integration”.  It is a language based on the ancient liberal root of Coercion.  All the presumptive nouns are Coercive, especially the one used to re-classify those unfortunates who are

were inconveniently English.  You can learn that and many other new Integration words here (PDF).

It’s the final report of the The Commission on Integration and Cohesion, a fine body of superdiversity-loving, glocalists who have been meditating upon Our Shared Future.

For that’s the title of their 168-page opus published today.  It is a tour de farce of inclusion-speak, informed as it is by such One-Guardian-Buying-Man-Bands as multikulti.org, Clever Ted Cantle’s Institute of Community Cohesion, Big Wide Talk, One London, Clever Ted Cantle’s IDeA, and such luminaries as our old friends, Sir Keith Ajegbo and Clever Ted Cantle, and the altogether more formidable and dangerous Steve Vertovec.

Now, it isn’t fair to ask you to wade through 168-pages of the direst, most self-deceiving drivel ever written by a man named Singh.  So I’ve sort of speed-read it for you ... well, bits of it anyway.  And here’s what I have learned.  Whether we are black, white or Singh-coloured we are all British together and we going to stay that way - got it?  And we all need to be helped by skilled mediators (that’s Integrationist for The Clever One) to understand our shared humanity and completely unexpected interest in chapati-baking.  La la la.  Dah doo ron ron.

I also did a bit of searching through the pdf to see how my perpetually house-moving but, of course, integration-mad “group” can be described, should one ever wish to do so for some utterly unimaginable reason:-

Indigenous - 0 results

Native - 0 results

English - 51 results, 50 of them about the learning of the English language.  Generously, the other one says:-

Our interim statement clearly set out the importance of speaking English – with 60% of respondents in our MORI polling identifying language as the main ingredient of “being English” – and we have been heartened that much of the feedback we have received since has strongly agreed with this principle.

So, no acknowledgement that an ancient people actually own these islands.  Our “main ingredient” is that we speak a language everybody else can learn.  And that’s all there is, really.  Except for the “w” word ...

White - 29 results, 16 of them referring to skin-colour.

Yay ... in Integration-speak I am white.  White I am.  White.  And white are we.  As white as a white person who arrived in Southampton yesterday from Poland, or in London from Turkey, or in Slough from charming, gypsyless Slovakia.  White, white, white.  Yes, England was always a country of immigrants.  Some of them as white as The Seven Sisters and old as the Henge.

But so what?  There is obviously nothing to stop us mutually-respecting, Pidgin English-speaking, glocalist, vibrant rainbow-Brits from doing just as the smiling Mr Singh and his cohesive friends desire.  Tolerance here I come.

Well, not quite.  Because at 1 hour 40 minutes into today’s BBC Radio Five Live Matthew Bannister Show a 21-year old, hijab-wearing economic migrant and Respect member named Rania announced that the BNP must be banned from public life.  Something to do with hate, apparently.  Possibly because a remarkably tolerant Nick Griffin had just negotiated an hour-long interview by Bannister beforehand without a snag.

You will enjoy listening to that more than wading through the Cohesion crap.  Look out for Bannister’s friendly telephone interview with the frightful Prof Sally Tomlinson, a fluent speaker of the Integrationist tongue.

UPDATE, 15th June

The Daily Mail has produced a very helpful, quick-reference table that shows the direction this report recommends.  The ineffable flimsyness of “Cohesion by Cantle-light” is plain for all to see:-

The Ins

English lessons:  A seemingly solid proposal, but what is the proportion of “permanent” migrants who speak no English (ie, not itinerant and seasonal workers)?  Is this largely code for Moslems?  Don’t other factors reinforce Moslem exclusion?

Citizenship ceremonies:  Pure fluff.

Citizenship GCSEs: Social engineering and mind control.  A disgrace not in the tradition of English rights.

Welcome Packs:  Fluff.

Contracts between migrants and localities:  Meaning the migrants makes promises to a Town Hall employee to be very, very nice.  Fluff.

Community Day and Week:  Double fluff.

Myth-busting:  The “myths” in question being about priority treatment for asylum-seekers.  Just an attempt to throw the BNP a loop, and a hostage to fortune.

Three paid days off work for community volunteers:  Do-gooding at your employer’s expense.  Fluff.

Neighbourhood policing:  Somali constables sent to vibrantly crime-fight in Solihull ... English constables sent to hideously do the same in Bordesley.  Whatever happened to the old policing shibboleth that policeman must look like the people they police?  And what if the Somalis aren’t up to standard?

Superdiversity, meaning immigrants from many countries:  Not a proposal, just an elite crime, indeed genocide - the drenching of England by every kind of foreign national.

The Outs

Translation:  Want a bet?

Money for groups, for example Somali women:  Meaning that battered but vibrant Somali women will now be able to empathise with their battered English sisters in the same refuge, the presumption being that battered women have some purchase on the National Question.  Who thinks up this stuff? 

Relying on equality laws and rules:  So the admission is that racial equalitarianism cannot be regulated into existence.  Time for Clever Ted to try socialising it.

Social housing for exclusive groups:  So now it’s coercing poor people who would rather live apart to live together.

Shutting out existing residents from social housing:  Surely, that’s a myth, isn’t it?  I thought all that sort of thing was going to be “busted”.

All-white councils: Name one.  In “superdiverse” areas public sector employment is where the invaders go.  As for electing them to serve as councillors, let the three main parties push the envelope as far as they can.  It will only help the BNP.

Censuses that miss out thousands of migrants:  I certainly approve of accurate invader figures.  Very useful to us.

“Marginalisation” of settled white communities:  Oh, thanks for thinking of us, Ted.  But we already know we are on the way “out”.  That’s the problem (not yours, of course - you’re Jewish).

Institutional racism:  The Mail means that blaming everything on the irredeemable sin of the English is “out”.  But I’ve checked the report, and the word “institutional” does not appear, nor any reference to “racism” of that kind.

Multiculturalism:  No longer hip.  Instead, the report uses what, obviously, its authors hope will become the new buzzword: superdiversity.  A correct term would be: “English dispossession and marginalisation”, and that is not “out” at all.

What this re-direction of the MultiCult is supposed to produce is this staggeringly naive vision of la-la land:-

Imagine the open communities1 of 2020 ... thriving and prosperous places where people from all different backgrounds are equal, and where everyone matters – whether old or young, settled or new, Black or White. There are local places where all groups feel that they are treated fairly, and that they have a responsibility to others that transcends the differences between them. Places where people are not fearful of meeting their neighbours, and where they don’t see individual differences as a barrier to the success of the whole community.

Imagine the local towns and villages where shared spaces – parks, community centres, villages and estates – are a reflection of what binds people together. Where people have been inspired to get out and work together to solve problems – regenerating their physical spaces, or bringing young people together for shared activities that have resulted in a strong civic spirit. Imagine places where people are confident about change and the benefits it brings, who are not threatened by others, and who are able to welcome newcomers and offer them the support they need. Where people themselves are the catalysts for change in their local communities – working to bridge the gaps between groups, and to mediate through tensions and conflicts. Where people recognise that while there will always be difference, it need not always be divisive.

Of course, no reason is given as to why this vision should come into being.  Why is it better than an English England?  No one on the Commission has troubled himself to get back to first principles.  They just presume that English genocide is OK with us, and the only thing that matters is the removal of any obstruction to that.  Buried away on page 104 is a single expression of the author’s interests:-

Our fear is that in the current climate, the majority will be pandered to, with immigrant rights being removed or freedoms being restricted.

Everything flows from that.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, June 14, 2007 at 07:00 PM in
Comments (3) | Tell a friend

Comments:

Next entry: Announcing majorityrights wiki

Previous entry: Let’s do the math, Landsburg