Doug Saunders despises British Whites as much as the Bolsheviks detested the Kulaks
By Ricardo Duchesne
Professor of Sociology, UNB
Doug Saunders, the sweet-faced sales boy of multiculturalism for the Globe and Mail, wrote a rather charming column a few days ago (“Britain has an Ethnic Problem: the English,” December 07, 2013) about the inability of the White British “to integrate into modern post-industrial society.” The native Brits, apparently, can’t handle the competition brought in by industrious and studious immigrants from Pakistan, Ghana, India, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, and Vietnam. They are falling behind these groups “educationally and economically as a whole, self-segregating into ethnic enclaves, becoming increasingly prone to violence, rioting and substance abuse.” See http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/britain-has-an-ethnic-problem-the-english/article15792740/
Saunders thinks these Brits are ‘losers” and is quite upset with the way they are reacting to their inability to cope with the times. After all, didn’t they get the message that immigration and diversity are intrinsically good for everyone? He wants them to man up to the rigors of Asian and African excellence. But instead these traditionalist Whites “have begun to vote for ethnic extremist parties that threaten to undermine basic British values.” He claims they are endorsing the “anti-immigration nastiness” of the UK Independence Party, which has the temerity to seek an end to immigration. To Doug, a Pakistani who arrived a month ago is more attuned to “basic British values” than a nationalist Brit whose ancestors date back thousands of years.
Multiculturalism and mass immigration were supposed to “improve” the native Brits, broaden their minds out of their parochial attachment to antiquated (pre-1960s) national symbols and customs, liberate them from their chauvinistic pride in the Union Jack, and, ultimately, nurture a new type of British citizen adorably attached to a multiracial society promising harmony and solidarity. But in recent years a “problem” has surfaced: the White British are refusing to assimilate to this society. He says, “Some 600,000 white English people moved out of the mixed-ethnicity districts of London between 2001 and 2011 for less integrated areas, while other ethnic groups moved into areas of higher diversity.”
The non-Whites love diversity and ethnic neighbourhoods, but the Whites are not integrating. British women are not marrying healthy male Nigerians. The Brits are even losing their self-reliance, living “on welfare benefits” in their ghettoes, eating unhealthy foods— can’t they appreciate Indian meals? — abusing alcohol , etc. In short, they are failing to stay afloat in the fast moving world of open labor markets and global entrepreneurship.
Saunders has spent most of his journalistic career promoting immigrant multiculturalism. He is a typical member of the Western elite in believing that this ideology is the best thing that open-minded individuals have come up with since the end of WWII. It is the “Final Solution” to war, world poverty, and human inequality. He cannot comprehend how any sensible, normal person could disapprove of such a society. After all, the success of multiculturalism seemed like a sure thing in Britain in the 1990s, as this ideology was officially embraced by the state, supported by all mainstream parties and media outlets, and backed by massive funding and unrelenting educational campaigns pushed through all the institutions.
So why the recent and growing criticisms of multiculturalism? Saunders has no answers except to blame the very ethnic group who are the victims of its implementation. He dares not attack the privileged Whites who implemented it. He, a self-proclaimed champion of social justice, somehow sees nothing wrong with trashing the weakest members of Western societies, the working and dispossessed Whites who have paid the price for the multicultural “experiment”. That’s because Doug and his ideological colleagues would never lower themselves to mix with those Brits who have been forced to compete with cheap immigrant labor and whose children are required to listen to teachers berating the Anglo-Saxon heritage. Nor does Doug associate with the middle classes who have seen housing and rental prices go up under pressure from rich foreigners and masses of immigrants.
One has to wonder whether Doug and all the diversity promoters who insist that white countries and neighborhoods “must” be “improved” through immigrant diversity have a deep seated dislike for White people. Do they despise Whites who refuse to forgo their ethnic cultures in the same way the Bolsheviks despised the peasant Kulaks who refused to join the collective farms in the 1930s ? Millions of Kulaks were encircled by the Bolshevik secret police and armies, forced to hand over their private plots, and then slowly starved to death. The goal of immigrant multiculturalism is similar in the UK : the permanent liquidation of white British identity.
Saunders disguises his hatred by writing this article tongue in cheek, as it were. He says, “Don’t get me wrong about the English. I know quite a few English people who are rather decent (including my dear old Mum and Gran), and their culture is not without its charm.” But to Doug, this quaint little culture of an aged people had better adapt to globalization and learn how to contest with Jamaicans and Hindus. The irony of the article aside, its accusations against Whites are seriously meant, but with a double meaning, playfully taunting Whites who blame England’s troubles on immigrants by pointing to the failures of Whites and the successes of immigrants. Inaccurately, he says ,“Riots led by ethnic English youths tore the cities of England apart in the summer of 2011, while ethnic Turks, Bangladeshis and Africans guarded shops and became heroes for rescuing people from the riots.”
Similarly, Saunders is, and has been, utterly silent about the “Asian” gang rape epidemic in England targeting young White British girls in lower income areas. Doug’s beloved Muslims were involved in grooming gangs engaged in “appalling acts of depravity on children.” Doug thinks there was nothing unusual about these rapes; as he writes in another context : “rape is a terrible crime everywhere, and it probably remains under-prosecuted and all too commonplace and hidden in many places in the West” (January 6, 2013). In Doug’s warped mind, White Brits are as responsible for gang rapes. It escapes his sensitivity that a disproportionate number of rapists and murderers in England are immigrants and that Sweden, Norway, and Denmark, once peaceful countries with very low crime statistics, are now places experiencing rape epidemics led mostly by Muslims and Africans.
Both the liberal corporate right and the academic/media left (Doug included) have joined hands arguing that all Western nations “face a choice” : more immigrants or stagnant economies. Doug says that immigration rates in Britain, and across the West, “will need to double” if their economies are to avoid a major downturn in the near future. The Europeans need to be replaced by Asians and Africans if they are to reach a higher level of prosperity, civilized behavior, and cultural attainment.
Saunders’ column should be taken as a not-so-subtle message to White Canadians who don’t approve of mass immigration. In an earlier Globe and Mail column (May 17, 2012), he called upon Canada’s leaders to increase the population size to “at least 100 million”. Bringing Angolans, Sudanese, Somalis, Jamaicans, Mexicans, and Saudi Arabians, he insisted, would allow Canada to “maintain its standard of living against the coming challenges.” Its “universities, magazines, movie industries, think tanks and publishing houses” would flourish. “All it takes is a sustained and determined increase in immigration.” (For a scientific and opposite view, see
We now know what Saunders will say about those White Canadians who can’t cope with Canada’s current mass immigration policy !