The Myth Of The Hard Working Immigrant

Globalists and large corporations favour immigration because the first wave of immigrants are willing to work long hours for lower wages. They are prepared to do this because the wages in “Western” countries are invariably significantly higher than in their countries of origin. Subsequent generations however often soon acquire the habit of taking from the state, as they become wise to what is on offer from the state purse. This does not particularly reflect badly on those people, because immigrants who came to do the lower skilled jobs will tend to have stayed poor and be living in the poorer areas. The education available to their children will also have tended to be of poorer quality.

The bill for supporting these future generations comes to the ordinary taxpayer, because the globalists and large corporations are expert at tax avoidance. Thus there is an incentive for the globalists to keep promoting the idea that “immigration is good, because immigrants work hard and do the jobs the natives are not prepared to do”. In reality of course immigrants are human beings like everyone else, they respond to incentives.


If we look at Muslim immigration into the UK, this gives us a good example of this pattern. It all started when large numbers of Muslims came from Pakistan to work in mills in parts of Yorkshire and Lancashire. Nowadays a majority of them are unemployed because those industries closed down not long afterwards and very little new industry has been created since in those areas. Then over the years their numbers swelled as they brought in spouses from their countries of origin, often while they were unemployed and while their spouses had no prospects or intention of finding work either. They were coming from cultures which had not in any case acquired the habit of female employment.


British workers are only not prepared to do the jobs the immigrants do because they know there is an alternative, namely the welfare system. Relatively recently, benefit sanctions have come into force which penalize those who do not actively seek employment. If these were being applied equally across the country, the myth of the “lazy British worker” would quickly become a thing of the past. However I suspect that they are not being applied equally across the country. Also there are simply fewer vacancies in some parts of the country, so it is a lot easier in those areas to appear to be looking (or actually genuinely looking), while never actually finding work. So far at least there has been no attempt at imposing a fixed time limit on welfare, so there is little incentive for welfare recipients to seek work in areas further afield.

The UK government is now proposing to stop giving welfare to new immigrant arrivals (the welfare will only be available after a certain period of working). The incentive for governments to continue with open doors immigration policies will remain therefore, because new arrival immigrants will have a much greater incentive to work than those born here. The myth of the “hard working immigrant” will therefore be REINFORCED. Thus, what is sold to the voters as a government policy to discourage immigration, is actually an incentive for governments to continue allowing high immigration levels.


Immigrants on low wages benefit from free healthcare, schooling, better justice. Those immigrants on low wages do not have to foot the bill for these things, it is higher wage earners who have to foot the bill. Once again the globalists and large corporations are the winners, because they benefit from the lower wage immigrant workers, while their armies of expert tax accountants ensure that they pay as little tax as possible.


The idea of “the hard working immigrant” has been used in the propaganda war around the current illegal immigration crisis. However it is quite clear that the current wave of illegal immigrants are not motivated in the same way that normal legal migrants are. These are opportunistic migrants, taking advantage of a humanitarian crisis in a war zone which is far away from them in most cases. Legal migrants are more likely to have qualifications and skills, because those are needed to gain entry in the normal process, especially when coming from outside the EU.

The current wave of illegal immigrants are prepared to live in squalid and dangerous camps, they do not have high expectations. Quite what their expectations are is difficult to know, and very few journalists seem interested in discovering the truth. Some of them may be motivated by pure hatred of the “West” and a desire to spread the Islamic religion, some may even be actual terrorists, but who knows how many. Hopefully some brave journalists may eventually pluck up the courage to try to find out. I have to admit I suspect these illegal immigrants are more likely to exploit our hospitality in every way they can than conform to the mythical stereotype of the “hard working immigrant”.


It is the welfare system that drives high levels of immigration, but not for the simplistic reasons that are normally given. First waves of immigrants are often not motivated by our generous welfare system, but rather the lure of higher wages and a better general standard of living. British unemployed people are no more lazy than anyone else, they respond to incentives just as the immigrants do. They are not motivated to do unpleasant jobs for low wages because they have an alternative, to remain on welfare. The myth of the hard working immigrant – actually a product of government incentives, is likely to remain a feature of government propaganda on immigration policy until those incentives are questioned by ordinary voters. High mass immigration levels are good news for globalists and large corporations who have the resources to exploit the situation to the full. They are bad news for the ordinary people, who suffer from the pressure on housing, school places, and the tax burden. Ordinary people also suffer from a feeling of alienation and a breakdown in community, because the immigrants are usually in much higher numbers in the poorer areas.

Universal Suffrage – Alternatives

Part two of a two part series questioning universal suffrage.

First part: Universal Suffrage Was A Mistake

The rights of prisoners to vote has become something of a first battleground over suffrage in recent years. Of course the left tend to be more lenient towards prisoners, so they are more likely to vote left. There is no doubt at all in my mind that people who have been convicted of crimes, and are now having to be housed at huge cost to the taxpayer, should NOT have the right to vote.

Beyond that I have found the question of exactly who should have the right to vote quite a difficult one. Of course the concept of universal suffrage is a very simple one, one person one vote, any alternatives are likely to be more complicated. However I think there is a very good argument to be made that anybody that is not working and is dependent on the state financially should not have the right to vote. Thus those on any kind of welfare benefits but also those on state pensions and students in receipt of grants as well would also lose the vote.

Some people would go further and say only taxpayers should have the right to vote. Why should those who are not paying any tax have a say in how that tax is spent? A problem with limiting the vote to only taxpayers is that governments don’t just spend taxes, they also pass laws. Everyone is affected by the law, regardless of whether they pay tax, it might lead to unjust laws. Such a restriction would mean housewives without their own income would lose the vote. Such a restriction would also exclude pensioners who had worked hard throughout their lives, and responsibly saved to provide for themselves in their retirement. These people are often the wisest members of society, their wisdom earned from a lifetime of experience. For these reasons I don’t think that the right to vote should be limited only to taxpayers.

Some people would go further still and say only taxpayers should have the vote AND they should get a proportion of the vote in line with the AMOUNT of tax they pay. Why should someone who pays only £1 tax have the same voting rights as someone who pays £1 million? However, in addition to the objections I raised in the last paragraph to the general idea of taxpayer only voting rights, there is also the problem that rich people are not necessarily the wisest. George Soros is a very rich man, as are Leonardo di Caprio and Paris Hilton. I think that giving the rich a disproportionately high share of the vote would be likely to narrow the electorate too much.

Some people would say that public sector workers should also be excluded. This is a tempting proposition, because public sector workers often vote left, generally they are more in favour of state power. They are likely to vote for a government that will give them more pay and shorter working hours. However for similar reasons to the above I think this would be a step too far, it would narrow the electorate too much.  Public sector workers such as the police, fire service, armed forces also risk their lives for the public good, it would hardly be right to exclude them.

An objection to all these restrictions on universal suffrage might be that in time of war, every able bodied man of a certain age, would be required to fight in defence of his country. No doubt the sacrifices of so many men in World War I was a contributory factor in the granting of universal suffrage in the first place. However, after nearly a century of universal suffrage, I think the drawbacks have become too obvious and there is now a real risk that the left will actually destroy “Western” civilization if they are simply allowed to continue. There are simply now too many people dependent on state largess.

Another restriction I have heard mooted is that there should be some sort of literary/knowledge of public affairs based test for voters. However I see this as impractical as it would be easy for the answers to the questions to be widely distributed.

In summary then I think the right to vote should be taken away from prisoners, those dependent on welfare and state pensions, and students who are dependent on government loans. Possibly the latter might be excluded simply by raising the age of suffrage back to 21. The vast majority of those under 21 years of age have either contributed little or nothing at all so far in taxes, so I think this would be fair.

Universal Suffrage Was A Mistake

Part one of a two part series questioning universal suffrage.

The concept and application of universal suffrage, one person one vote, is actually a relatively recent phenomenon in human history. In this post I will be explaining why I believe universal suffrage has been a factor in the decline of “Western” civilization. I will be referring specifically to the experience of the UK, but I believe the trends are in fact common to most “Western” countries, which have followed a similar course.


With the ‘Representation of the People Act 1918’ all men over 21 in the UK gained the vote (previously voting had been restricted by property ownership constraints). This was followed by the ‘Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act 1928’ when all women over 21 also gained the vote. This paved the way for socialism to gain the upper hand in UK politics. After the Second World War, politics swung heavily to the left with the election of a very socialist Labour government under Clement Attlee.

This government introduced the National Health Service and the Welfare State. A large scheme of council housing began, over a million new homes were built by the government. A huge program of nationalization of industries took place including the railways, telephony, coal mining and steel production to name just a few. There’s no question that in the beginning the living and working conditions of large numbers of people had been improved rapidly. Quite how quickly the free market would have produced the same improvements we’ll never know.

By the 1970s however things were not going so well. High inflation led the government to cap public sector pay increases and trade unions reacted by going on strike. Coal production fell and electricity consumption had to be rationed, leading to a 3 day working week for a time. A Labour government was elected and wages were increased again to placate the unions. However soon even the Labour government could not keep the trade unions happy and there were widespread strikes during the “Winter of Discontent” (1978-1979). Finally the Conservatives were elected under the leadership of Margaret Thatcher, and politics swung heavily to the right, and a large program of denationalization began. Even the Labour government elected later in 1997 was quite right wing in comparison with the Attlee era.


Since the 1950s, the UK has experienced fairly high levels of immigration. However, this greatly increased from the “New Labour” period onward (1997 – present). At least in part this was due to a deliberate policy by that left wing government. A secret memo later came to light that that government was deliberately “rubbing the Right’s nose in diversity” by allowing in huge numbers of people from poor countries. Of course, these poor immigrants were expected to become Labour voters, as they would be on low wages and benefit from the more generous state handouts promised by Labour, as well as free education and health care. Thus this immigration policy can be seen as a hugely irresponsible form of gerrymandering by the left – altering the population to increase the left’s vote in the future. Quite how much these immigrants have contributed to the economy is disputed. Of course many are hard working but there is a tendency of the children of immigrants to not be so hard working and many end up on benefits.

A Conservative government was elected in coalition with the Liberal Democrats in 2010, partly thanks to their promise to vastly reduce the rate of immigration, which was causing disquiet among the general population. They have completely failed to deliver this, net migration has continued at very high levels. This situation is in part due to the UK’s membership of the EU, which is heavily dominated by left wing ideals and is also committed to free movement of people.


In the present day many UK voters were born and lived in an era of prosperity and they have no recollection of the most problematic days of socialist governments. Many new arrivals from foreign countries near and far are also quite ignorant of this history. Extreme left-wing ideas are once more on the rise and the Labour party have a new leader called Jeremy Corbyn who is ready to promise the earth to gullible voters who believe that money grows on trees. He has quite literally suggested that a government under his leadership would print money and give it to poor people.

Despite the fact that relatively right wing politicians have been in power since 1979, many of the left wing changes brought about by Attlee’s government remain. The welfare state and the free health care service are still intact.  Most children receive free education.  Students in higher education receive generous loans which often are never repaid. Some welfare reform has been achieved, but very large numbers of people are still dependent on handouts from the state. In addition, increasing life spans have increased the numbers of people living on state pensions. The state is struggling under a huge national debt burden, something like £1.5 trillion. A lot of taxpayers’ money is simply servicing this debt.

All these burdens are being carried by the less than half of the population who are taxpayers. There are only 29.3 million taxpayers out of an official population of 63 million (2011 census). The actual population of the UK may be considerably higher due to illegal immigration. Furthermore, of those taxpayers quite a substantial number are public sector workers. Of course these people provide some value in services, but their wages are paid for by the state through the taxes of those working in the private sector, so in a sense the taxes they pay are merely token. Thus, substantially less than 29.3 million people, maybe as little as 30% of the population, are supporting all the rest to varying degrees (19% of the workforce are employed by the public sector but not all of these will be taxpayers).

The left are also now pushing for another form of gerrymandering, through the further lowering of the voting age to 16 years. Of course, younger people are more likely to be left wing, as they have less experience of the realities of life.


Allowing those who only take from the state to vote is a little bit akin to parents giving their children an equal say in how their household finances should be run, clearly a recipe for disaster.  The introduction of universal suffrage has led to the election of left wing governments in the UK whose policies have been based on promises of unrealistic state largess. Even the current “Conservative” government is in fact quite left wing in many ways, in part because they know that they simply could not get elected on a more right wing manifesto.

Furthermore, the left’s hold on politics has deliberately been strengthened by mass immigration and they are trying to strengthen it further by lowering the voting age. It has also been strengthened, crucially, by the sheer numbers of people now dependent on the state financially. Large numbers of immigrants arriving in the country have also increased the vote for the left because the left favours more immigration, and immigrants want to be able to bring more of their relatives and people from their culture here to join them.

Reducing any of these unrealistic expectations is extremely difficult politically because all those dependents of the state have a vote. A return to property ownership based voting rights would not be a fair option, because many hard working people who pay taxes also rent their homes and own no property. In the next post I will examine other possible alternatives.


Dysgenics and Solutions

In the last two articles I have talked about why I believe that average intelligence is falling in the “Western” world. In this article I will talk about how we can reverse this trend. Firstly attitudes will have to change. We must break the taboo and force the subject of dysgenics into the mainstream media. None of the necessary changes in government policy are going to come about until voters are forced to face reality. I appreciate that this is a huge task but the debate is already taking place in the alternative media and blogosphere to some extent. Even if those working couples who are having children currently increased the number of children they had just a little, we could soon be back to sustainable levels. If they could be made to see that the children they are having face a bleak future if average intelligence continues to decline, then they might be persuaded to have just one or two more. Couples must also be persuaded to have children earlier to reduce the risks of birth defects.

Secondly we simply have to reduce the welfare bill to reduce the burden on working families. To have children whilst you are unemployed is to abuse the system. The smallest necessary change is to stop child benefit payments altogether to those who have children while they are not working. As shown in the last article these payments directly lead to an increase in birth rates among the least intelligent members of society.  Trying to fight poverty by giving unrestricted welfare to people who will not work merely creates more poverty. A change to flexible retirement age for state pension payments should be considered to relieve the financial pressure on working families. Some people argue that we should go even further and abolish the welfare state altogether. I think we should take this suggestion seriously. However whatever is done should be done in stages, otherwise hardship will be acute and people will resort to crime, endangering the stability of society.

Another pressure seldom mentioned is the pressure on housing. In the UK we have strict planning laws, with correspondingly low rates of house building and yet very high rates of net migration into our country. We don’t want to turn our green and pleasant land into a concrete jungle, so instead we should regain control of our borders and stop immigration in its tracks. The key to a peaceful and happy future is sustainability and stability in all things. At the moment even those working couples who want to have children are thwarted by the astronomically high house prices in the UK.

Till now, successive governments have used mass immigration as a solution, for example simply propping up the NHS by importing doctors and nurses from other countries. The Labour government dramatically increased the wages of doctors partly in order to attract doctors from foreign countries. This is morally indefensible. The countries affected can scarcely afford to lose these people. In any case, eventually those countries will start to object and we will be left with a shortage of new doctors. We must return to a sustainable situation where the middle classes have enough children so that there are enough children born here capable of becoming the doctors of the future. The same applies to all other professions as well. There may in fact be a large brain drain effect occurring as the “West” draws the most intelligent people from less developed nations. This could even be a significant factor in the breakdown of stability in these countries. It may even explain why some countries continue to be basket cases even with the wide availability of new technology such as mobile phones.

If we fail to change direction, then our decline will continue until our current democratic system collapses altogether. The burden on taxpayers will just grow to the point where the state is bankrupted. Those who wish for such an outcome should think carefully about it. Banks could collapse. The police, emergency services, army would all be unpaid. A complete breakdown in law and order could occur, with no doctors and nurses available to treat the casualties of the huge crime wave that would result. Far better to at least attempt to achieve a managed transition to a better society.

Dysgenics and Welfare

It is now over half a century since the creation of the modern welfare state in the UK. The modern welfare state did not embody the principle that William Beveridge laid out that unemployed men should be supported by the state “but with complete and permanent loss of all citizen rights – including not only the franchise but civil freedom and fatherhood.”

To many people that statement seems quite shocking today. But, after so many decades of welfare without such limitations, where are we now? We have a large and growing underclass of people who have not only never worked but actually generations have now been born and grown up entirely supported by the welfare state.

We have a large and rapidly growing population of Muslims in the UK (this population doubled in a single decade according to census statistics). A disproportionately large percentage of Muslims (especially Muslim women) are not working and are supported by the state. Welfare is not only directly fueling the growth of this population, but is encouraging the least intelligent members of it to have more children. The tendency of this particular population to intermarry among cousins is also leading to more genetic defects in children, increasing the cost of care provided by our free healthcare system, the NHS.

Of course there are problems in the non-Muslim underclass as well. Parents who are addicted to drugs, alcohol and tobacco are damaging their children both in the womb and after birth. Parents on welfare may not only tend to be less intelligent in the first place, they are more likely to impair the development of their children’s brains during brain development as well.

Here is a study that shows there is a link between more generous welfare payments and birthrates of the recipients:

Click to access wp0809.pdf

No surprise there really. Why is it so controversial to talk about such an obvious problem? Welfare is taking money away from hard working families through taxation, making it more difficult for them to afford to have children.

An even larger problem for the hard working people is the growing state pension bill. This is a very large part of state spending. As people are living ever longer the cost continues to grow, making it still harder for hard working families to have children.

To summarize, our current generous welfare system is making it increasingly difficult for hard working members of society to afford to have children. Lazy and incapable people meanwhile are continuing to have children without restriction, courtesy of those hard working people. Its more than likely that average intelligence is falling as a result of these pressures.

Christianity And Western Decline

I have often encountered the view that a revival of Christianity is what is needed to stop the decline of the “West”.  I take a rather opposite view however, as too often it seems to me that Christian beliefs are actually contributing to that decline.

When we are faced by a ruthless and implacable ideology such as Nazism, whose followers have no hesitation whatever in using the most brutal acts of violence to achieve their ends, turning the other cheek is not a strategy that has ever been successful.

The current Pope has been accused of being a Communist, but is he perhaps really just propagating the teachings of the New Testament, as discussed here:

In Victorian times in the UK, there used to be a distinction made between the deserving and the undeserving poor.  In the 20th century, the welfare state was created and gradually this distinction was forgotten.  For decades, whole generations have been raised on welfare and the church has never once to my knowledge challenged the wisdom of this.  This has resulted in a growing underclass of people.  Then in the later 20th century and early 21st century the idea of “multi-culturalism” became fashionable, paving the way for an unprecedented flood of immigration.  The underclass now includes a large number of Muslims, many of whom are very hostile to our most important freedoms, including freedom of speech.

Not only did the Anglican church see no problems arising from this developing state of affairs, they have in some ways almost encouraged it.  A former archbishop suggested that we should allow Sharia law to become part of our legal system.  A bishop welcomed the call to prayer from a mosque in his diocese.  Of course there is nothing to say that the clergy cannot oppose the growing influence of Islam, but so far at least our clergy in the UK have made no attempt to do this.  In earlier times they sent brave missionaries out to far away lands to convert people and do charitable works, but political correctness is still the order of the day in the Church in our age.

Our bishops have a right to sit in the House of Lords, there is not the separation of church and state that was so wisely enshrined in the U.S. constitution. Our bishops have urged us to take in more migrants, even those attempting to enter the country illegally, regardless if they are hostile to democracy and free speech. Some of the migrants may even have terrorist sympathies, many probably have no skills to offer, but the bishops do not seem to be concerned about those things. The bishops also routinely interfere with attempts at welfare reform, the idea of the protestant work ethic does not seem to figure in their thinking.

In summary I would argue strongly that we should move beyond religious thinking, towards a more rational age.  If the church is to play a role in the salvation of our society and way of life, then they must learn again to be more pragmatic and realistic about the not always pleasant realities of the world.  As I have mentioned above the Church has not always been feeble and too literalist as they are today.  Regardless of whether they can regain this realism, I believe that for the UK, we should recognize that the separation of Church and State is important for a democracy to function well, and therefore we should remove the Bishops from the House of Lords.