Beth-In-UK
Beth-In-UK asked:

Does the author have any sympathy at all for the 'new Europeans' (immigrants from the third world) who have arrived here thinking they were welcome....and discovering the truth is uglier and nastier?

Beth-In-UK I do think the main problem that all discussion by the Establishment 'host culture' - from politicians to journalists - is that they cannot extrapolate from (1) individual racism (abhorrent) through (2) non-integration (not necessarily abhorrent per se, but depends on the specific cultural practices, eg, FGM, method of killing animals, veiling of women et al) to the Elephant in the Country which is (3) sheer numbers!

The author rightly deplores that there is a conspiracy of silence, in that (2) and (3) are forever being conflated with (1), which 'automatically' shuts down all rational discussion of the impact on a host society of non-integration and, separately, mass immigration.

(2) may not be a problem for the host culture at all (again, I use my example of extreme Orthodox Jewry, which is pretty 'invisible' to anyone not in the immediate vicinity) (I don't comment on its morality, eg, social separation of men and women, which may, indeed, be regarded as 'unacceptable' to a 'liberal/egailiarian' host society).

(3) is the problem, because it 'forces' (2) to our very obvious notice (DO we offer 'female only' sessions at swimming pools, DO we alter exam timetables for Ramadam, DO we 'cancel Christmas' etc etc).

Most societies I would argue are inherently conservative about things they have a choice over - when 'we' (the electorate') make a positive choice for change (eg, new government, new laws etc) that is, by and large, tolerated even by those who wouldn't have voted for them per se (eg, gay marriage??). But when societies feel they have not been given a choice, in this instance, the SCALE of mass immigration, then they can become resentful and defensive.

The question really boils down to, does ANY society have a moral right to conserve itself - ie, not change! - if that means denying others their 'right' (is it??) to change them without their consent or cooperation or toleration?

If it is argued that no, there is not such 'right' to change a society without that society's consent and cooperation, then there is no 'right' to immigrate into someone else's society.

But, as I say, the host society's consent, cooperation and toleration is significantly affected by the sheer numbers involved - even small British towns have had Indian and Chinese (etc) restaurants for countless decades - who has ever 'protested' about that? Obviously not! It has had absolutely NO impact on the town's population!

These, are, undoubtedly, difficult issues to moralise about, but the question of whether 'self-preservation' (anti-change) is a right that every society 'as is' possesses, is key.
Kerem I didn't think he was unsympathetic to immigrants at all. For example, he discusses horrible tragedies some immigrants wen through quite sympathetically. His concern is much more around lack of integration and hence building up of parallel societies.
Kathy Penney I think he would prefer to think of them as what they really are - immigrants from the third world - not 'new Europeans'. If they were new 'Europeans' in any way they would happily integrate but they don't and they have no intention of doing so. They were initially welcomed by misguided European leaders like Angela Merkel and the more easily-duped European citizens. The word 'caliphate' (the real ugly nasty truth) needs to be examined in order to understand it.
Image for The Strange Death of Europe
Rate this book
Clear rating

About Goodreads Q&A

Ask and answer questions about books!

You can pose questions to the Goodreads community with Reader Q&A, or ask your favorite author a question with Ask the Author.

See Featured Authors Answering Questions

Learn more