That, however, doesn’t mean they are free of blame, far from it. The results of the 2011 census show that in 10 years Blairites allowed a staggering four million immigrants to settle in Britain.
As a result, only 45 percent of Londoners identify themselves as white British, and 25 percent of British families have no member who speaks English as first language.
Having said that, many native Brits speak English in a way that makes one wish they didn’t, and indeed wonder if it’s really English they speak, but that’s beside the point. Or is it?
The whole situation is mad, but many commentators correctly assume that there is method to that madness. In today’s thoughtful article in The Mail Stephen Glover places the blame firmly at Labour’s door. He correctly identifies the party’s immigration policy as an attempt to create an electoral base for future victories.
Even if we didn’t know that most new arrivals tend to vote Labour, this would be an easy guess to make. After all, one way or another immigrants depend on state handouts, at least initially. Human nature is such that they’d be more likely to vote for a party that promises – and has been known to provide – more assistance.
Being a diplomatic man, Mr Glover feigns incredulity that a political party could so cynically put its own interests before the nation’s. But deep down he knows as well as we all do that not just Labour but also the Tories are more than capable of such cynicism.
You don’t seriously think that, if Dave could import a few million potential Tory voters, he would refuse to do so out of principle? Of course you don’t. Neither does Mr Glover.
Yet what frightens me isn’t just the statistics, but what lies behind the statistics. For this insane, suicidal, uncontrolled immigration is symptomatic of something much more worrying than merely Labour buying their votes with our money.
The clash under way isn’t between parties but between civilisations, and ours is losing. We are witnessing not just a systematic shift to the political left but a massive transition of Britain, and the West in general, to post-Christian paganism.
I’m using Christian to describe not just the religion as such but the whole civilisation the religion has produced. Christendom has had its ups and downs, but on balance there’s little doubt that it’s by far the most successful civilisation in history.
Its politics, laws, economics, general – if variable – tolerance, all rooted in Christianity, provided for unprecedented liberty and prosperity, accompanied by unmatched achievements in arts, sciences and indeed every area of spiritual and intellectual endeavour.
Yet once the umbilical cord tying the civilisation to its religious underpinnings was severed, the civilisation was cast adrift. It became vulnerable to the kind of human folly that had been more or less kept in check for centuries.
Like cancerous cells that attack the weaker areas in the human body, assorted knaves jumped on the Western body politic, getting their teeth and claws into the flesh of Christendom.
This process has an accelerator built-in: the longer it lasts, the faster it goes. The oncological analogy works here as well: as the body weakens, its resistance wanes, and those rogue cells find it easier to do their murderous work.
Our political class is now made up of such cancerous cells. For the first time in the history of these Isles it works not for the nation but against it. Fully aware of its own incompatibility with traditional civilisation, the political class craves to destroy it, for otherwise it itself will be destroyed.
Wittingly or unwittingly, they perceive traditional civilisation as a crumbling fortress that can be brought down by judiciously applied battering rams. Mass immigration of cultural aliens is one such battering ram, but not the only one.
For a robust, dominant culture is capable of absorbing into itself huge numbers of outsiders who are then forced by the very ethos of the country to come inside the culture. Just look at foreign invaders who succeeded in conquering England.
The Normans had already abandoned their Scandinavian heritage, and it was as Frenchmen that they followed the Conqueror in 1066. Yet within a couple of generations they became English not just linguistically, but also culturally. The same can be said for the Dutch administrative class taking over England in 1688. Arguably this too represented a conquest, yet the new arrivals became English in an historic instant.
The only way for immigrants to weaken the traditional culture, rather than adapt to it, would be for the groundwork to be laid in advance. Hence, for example, the consistent, cross-party effort to create an ignorant populace that not only would be unable to defend our traditional culture but would in fact have no idea of what it is.
The debacle started with Shirley Williams, but it wasn’t party-specific. For example, when she was Education Secretary, the sainted Margaret Thatcher closed down more grammar schools than any Labour leader ever did. Thus Poles or Pakistanis unable to speak proper English join many similarly handicapped Brits as two facets of exactly the same phenomenon.
Educated native subjects of Her Majesty feel it only right that new arrivals should be given a test on British politics, history and culture. Few ask themselves how many of their compatriots would be able to pass such a test. Not many, would be my guess, for creating an ignorant, pagan populace is a sine qua non for the victory of modernity.
Nor is the catastrophe limited to education. Every brick in the foundations of Britain, including her very sovereignty, is being knocked out. It’s to this, for instance, that we owe the pathetic state of our economy, made so by the government’s policies that are described by many good people as irresponsible. And so they would be if the government pursued the traditional economic goal of prosperity spread as widely as possible. As it is, the goals are entirely different, and they are destructive, not constructive.
None of this is to suggest that members of our political class get together and plan an onslaught on what they perceive as potential dangers. They don’t because they don’t have to.
As they are all children of post-Christian modernity, their innate moral imperatives do not include bono publico. They function on a totally different plane from that on which our traditional civilisation used to live, and the two planes vindicate Euclid and defy Lobachevsky by never intersecting.
So yes, of course Stephen Glover is right when suggesting that Blair’s Labour deliberately imported millions of potential supporters. One just wishes that were all there is to it.