The demographic boom of Africa and world future trends

The local underestimation on government record is deliberate, by appearing smaller in number, they can extract more Western resources because coping.

Africa will continue to be a problem, probably the world’s biggest demographic problem (everybody’s problem), for at least the majority of this century. Yes, century, due to demo momentum.

There is plenty of arable land and resources… and the Chinese are greedily trying to buy these up. I suggest we shift White Man’s Burden onto these Asians who want to profiteer from Africa, wash our hands of the issue once and for all. Let them sort it out, they bought a lemon with those tenants. Most illegal immigrants to Europe are able, young male workers, but Africa doesn’t have any to spare (and those are the best they have, which says something).

Africa is a much larger landmass than we’ve all been led to believe, the maps we grew up with were corrected to fit well on maps and children’s globes (for memory) and make the oceans appear proportional to their real size, as a consequence Africa has been vastly under-depicted.  The NGOs have kept this lie because it’s hard to ask for money to give to an entire continent which dwarfs your own and, rightly, should be the ones supporting you instead.

So no, the Africa Problem / Calais Crisis / EU Invasion Issue is NOT going away by a long shot. It’s here to stay and even by conservative estimates, it is set to get much, much worse.
I’m not happy about this, but it’s the truth.

The UK can fit into Africa over 120 times.

You deserve a slightly better explanation so I dug this up.

…the fact that most people do not realise how much the ubiquitous Mercator projection distorts the relative sizes of countries.

A sphere cannot be represented on a flat plane without distortion, which means all map projections distort in one way or another. Some projections show areas accurately but distort distances or scales, for example; others preserve the shapes of countries but misrepresent their areas. You can read all the gory details on Wikipedia.

Gerardus Mercator’s projection, published in 1569, was immediately useful because it depicts a line of constant bearing as a straight line, which is handy for marine navigation. The drawback is that it distorts the shapes and areas of large land masses, and the distortion gets progressively worse as you get closer to the poles. (Africa looks about the same size as Greenland under the Mercator projection, for example, even though it is in fact 14 times bigger.) This was not a big problem for 16th-century sailors, of course, and the Mercator projection remains popular to this day……

Yes, I know, I’m a genius, but it’s mostly the old study of oceanography maps. It isn’t that hard, merely niche knowledge.

…An alternative and arguably more rigorous approach would be to repeat the exercise using an “equal area” projection that shows the countries’ areas correctly while minimising shape distortion. These two properties are the hardest to balance when showing the whole world on one map. I decided to rework Mr Krause’s map using Gall’s Stereographic Cylindrical Projection (1855) with two standard parallels at 45°N and 45°S. Distortions are still evident at the poles, but for most countries shape is maintained, and their areas are shown correctly. As you can see (below), the results are distinct from Mr Krause’s map. But however you look at it, his point is a good one: Africa is much bigger than it looks on most maps….

Drumroll plz

Needy, or Greedy?

Millennial women rejecting feminism, long for hearth and home

…The increasing conservatism of the younger generation is not something that has gone unnoticed by the left and right-wing alike. Guardian columnist John Harris reacted with utter horror after meeting real young people all across Britain as part of the Guardian’sAnywhere But Westminster exercise in trying to find “real politics”, and finding them to be remarkably conservative – even if they didn’t self-identify as ‘big-C’ Conservatives. He said:

“I was reminded of another very modern syndrome: the fact that as you progress down the age range, opinions about the job market and welfare state tend to harden, to the point that droves of twentysomethings sound like devout Thatcherites… this has become almost a given. Quiz people under 30, in short, and you’re more than likely to hear echoes of the kind of on-yer-bike, sink-or-swim values that decisively embedded themselves in British life when they were mere toddlers”….

Like I said in Best Post, we aren’t falling for it. We’re women, not workhorses.

We’ve seen all the divorced, the spinsters and the bitter and gone –

Yet the Left don’t see these people weren’t brainwashed, they grew up in a time of Leftist dominance. They know they’ll be on the target list eventually, useful pawns for their ideology. They refuse to be further used. What has the Left done for us? Replaced our jobs with immigrants, shut down our lolz on social media, nixed our hobbies for imaginary offences, crashed our parties with people who refuse to grow up and we can’t get a decent savings account, let alone a car (insurance, all those safety regulations) or a house.

Video: Enoch Powell on what will happen in the future

Quite an astounding video. It’s two minutes, watch the thing in its entirety, knowing now what we do. How oracular.

Yes (we’re still heaping on the funeral pyre) I suppose I’ve been guilty of under-estimating (explanation of statistics). My estimates regarded with such ridicule and denounced by academics were less than the official …reported at the beginning of this year. I have leaned toward under-estimation of the magnitude and of the danger.

Politicians of all parties will say “Well Enoch Powell’s right, we don’t say that in public but we know it in private, Enoch Powell’s right and it will no doubt develop as (hesitation) he says. But it’s better for us to do nothing now, and let it happen perhaps after our time, than to seize the many poisonous nettles which we would have to seize if we were at this stage going to attempt to avert the outcome. So let it go on until a third of Central London, a third of Birmingham, Wolverhampton, are coloured… until the Civil War comes, let it go on. We won’t be blamed, we’ll either have gone or we’ll slip out from under somehow.”

In 1977, coloured was the PC term.

2012: White ethnic Britons in minority in London

The surge of immigration has been especially striking in London, where more than one in three people – 37 per cent – were born outside the UK.

That isn’t pre-existing. That is a single influx change between data collections. The time he refers to is literally this time. When were the London riots? 2011.

Same census data from 2011. No less authority than The Guardian reported on Wolverhampton as 72% indigenous. Ipso facto, approximately a third (28%) are not.
Outer London, which Enoch didn’t predict, is 62% indigenous. 38% are not. City of London is 60% I. (40% not).
Inner London is 55% I. (45% not).
LONDON overall is 59.5%, most of it, as you can see, curiously clustered around the edges. (Semi-white flight?)
Birmingham is 63% indigenous. 37% is not.

I wonder why a third is significant in terms of a facsimile of cohesion/unrest. Vote swings?

As for the canary in the coalmine:


26 million UK Muslims by 2051?

….All of that is true, and might be a reasonable objection to the calculations presented above. So might the possibility that non-Muslim British birth rates could rise, thus more than off-setting any Muslim increase. Indeed, there is some evidence that this might be happening in some European countries.

However, for a high immigration country such as Britain, it’s a matter of when that British Muslim demographic transition happens.

At the moment there is little sign of British Muslim birth rates significantly falling. According to the Office for National Statistics, Pakistan-born women in Britain have an average of 4∙7 children, while Bangladeshi women in Britain have 3∙9, both significantly above that average British birth rate of 1∙6 children.

Furthermore, as Britain continues to attract a high number of relatively poor Third World immigrants, inherited cultural patterns of large families could remain an enduring feature of Britain’s immigrant community.

In those circumstances, the demographic transition date could well be indefinitely postponed….

Demographic lessons for Europe from Will Durant, Gibbon re the Romans

“If we had, each of us, upheld the rights and authority of the husband in our own households, we should not today have this trouble with our women. As things are now, our liberty of action, which has been annulled by female despotism at home, is crushed and trampled on here in the Forum … Call to mind all the regulations respecting women by which our ancestors curbed their license and made them obedient to their husbands; and yet with all those restrictions you can scarcely hold them in. 1f now you permit them to remove these restraints . . . and to put themselves on an equality with their husbands, do you imagine that you will be able to bear them? From the moment that they become your equals they will be your masters” (Will Durant, Caesar And Christ, P. 89) source

Which ideology does that sound like?

Will Durant saw the decline of a civilization as a culmination of strife between religion and secular intellectualism, thus toppling the precarious institutions of convention and morality. This is happening everyday as rule of law is being undermined by those that have lost touch with our god-given morality for secular philosophy. To quote Durant:

“Hence a certain tension between religion and society marks the higher stages of every civilization. Religion begins by offering magical aid to harassed and bewildered men; it culminates by giving to a people that unity of morals and belief which seems so favorable to statesmanship and art; it ends by fighting suicidally in the lost cause of the past.

For as knowledge grows or alters continually, it clashes with mythology and theology, which change with geological leisureliness. Priestly control of arts and letters is then felt as a galling shackle or hateful barrier, and intellectual history takes on the character of a “conflict between science and religion.”

Institutions which were at first in the hands of the clergy, like law and punishment, education and morals, marriage and divorce, tend to escape from ecclesiastical control, and become secular, perhaps profane. The intellectual classes abandon the ancient theology and-after some hesitation-the moral code allied with it; literature and philosophy become anticlerical. The movement of liberation rises to an exuberant worship of reason, and falls to a paralyzing disillusionment with every dogma and every idea.

Hello, Atheism Plus.

Conduct, deprived of its religious supports, deteriorates into Epicurean chaos [DS: hedonism]; and life itself, shorn of consoling faith, becomes a burden alike to conscious poverty and to weary wealth. In the end a society and its religion tend to fall together, like body and soul, in a harmonious death. Meanwhile among the oppressed another myth arises, gives new form to human hope, new courage to human effort, and after centuries of chaos builds another civilization.source

Finally, this entire article;

Had every Roman father been teaching his sons righteousness instead of war, and every mother making a home for her children; had all parents assembled their children in their homes instead of the circuses and public baths; had they taught them chastity and honor and integrity and cleanness; would Rome still be a world power? Certainly it was not the barbarians from the north but the insidious moral termites within that destroyed the Roman world empire….

The story of the civilizations of the world is a continued story of the same weaknesses that leave a country helpless and disintegrated.

In our own time on both sides of the Atlantic and the Pacific and in the north and the south, we seem to be following the same trends. Our successes bring us to extravagances, to our seeking for high amusement. We control childbirth and reduce our families. We divorce and break up our homes. Many of our children become orphans in one way or another. We become irreligious and practice evil ways. We indulge in the bestial satisfactions. We crave social activities at the expense of our family life and … we lose our sense of rightness, of goodness, of devotion.

It is easy to see the resemblance between our modern-day situation and that of ancient Rome. According to Will Durant [an eminent writer and student of civilization], “Prostitution flourished. Homosexualism was stimulated by contact with Greece and Asia; many rich men paid a talent ($3,600) for a male favorite; Cato complained that a pretty boy cost more than a farm. But women did not yield the field to these Greek and Syrian invaders. They took eagerly to all those supports of beauty that wealth now put within their reach. Cosmetics became a necessity, and caustic soap imported from Gaul tinged graying hair into auburn locks.

Women won the free administration of their dowries, divorced their husbands or occasionally poisoned them, and doubted the wisdom of bearing children in an age of urban congestion and imperialistic wars. Already by 160 Cato and Polybius had noted a decline of population and the inability of the state to raise such armies as had risen to meet Hannibal. The new generation, having inherited world mastery, had not time or inclination to defend it; that readiness for war which had characterized the Roman landowner disappeared now that ownership was being concentrated in a few families and a proletariat without stake in the country filled the slums of Rome. Men became brave by proxy; they crowded the amphitheater to see bloody games and hired gladiators to fight before them at their banquets.” (Will Durrant, The Story of Civilization, Caesar and Christ, pp. 89–90)

My brothers and sisters, I beg of you to study history—the history of the world. Look at Babylon in Assyria. Look at Jerusalem. Read about Sodom and Gomorrah. The story of Rome and its dissoluteness is in every library. Other cities likewise slipped from high plateaus to low marshes and defilement.

Rome gained the world and lost its soul. As Durant says, “Every new conquest made Rome richer, more rotten, more merciless. She had won every war but the class war. … Now through a hundred bitter years of revolution, Rome would pay the penalty of gaining the world.” (Durant, p. 108.)

His epilogue summarizes: “A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself within. The essential causes of Rome’s decline lay in her people, her morals, her class struggle, her failing trade, her bureaucratic despotism, her stifling taxes, her consuming wars.” (Durant, p. 665.)

We have been concerned with the rapid rise of a public notion that families should be reduced. A congressman whom we know proposed a program of limiting the family to two children. Again, study the history of countries that have done this. It seems that imported laborers, slaves, uneducated criminals often take the place of the children who would have been under supervision and training.

Will Durant queries:

What had caused this fall in population? Above all, family limitation. Practiced first by the educated classes, it had not seeped down to a proletariat named for its fertility; by a.d. 100 it had reached the agricultural classes. … Though branded as a crime, infanticide flourished as poverty grew. Sexual excesses may have reduced human fertility; the avoidance or deferment of marriage had a like effect, and the making of eunuchs increased as Oriental customs flowed in to the West. …

“The rapidly breeding Germans could not understand the classic culture, did not accept it, did not transmit it; the rapidly breeding Orientals were mostly of a mind to destroy that culture; the Romans, possessing it, sacrificed it to the comforts of sterility. Rome was conquered not by barbarian invasion from without, but by barbarian multiplication within.

I could make a joke about British mass immigration but it already is one.

“Moral decay contributed to the dissolution. … Men had now, in the middle and upper classes, the means to yield to temptation, and only expediency to restrain them. Urban congestion multiplied contacts and frustrated surveillance; immigration brought together a hundred cultures whose differences rubbed themselves out into indifference. Moral and esthetic standards were lowered by the magnetism of the mass; and sex ran riot in freedom while political liberty decayed.” (Durant, pp. 666–67.)

The real tragedy is the large number of innocent children who live with only one parent after a divorce or family breakup. In a city not far away from Salt Lake City, 38 percent of all the children under 18 are short of parents. Only one parent is their best record. When children drop to a one-parent basis, that is the announcement of the failing civilization, and it means social disorganization. One survey stated that 70 percent of male prisoners in the United States came from broken homes where they lived with only one parent. (“Home: the Place to Save Society,” Ensign, January 1975, 3)

Ezra Taft Benson (Quorum of the Twelve)

As a free people, we are following very closely in many respects the pattern which led to the downfall of the great Roman Empire. A group of well-known historians has summarized those conditions leading to the downfall of Rome in these words:

“… Rome had known a pioneer beginning not unlike our own pioneer heritage, and then entered into two centuries of greatness, reaching its pinnacle in the second of those centuries, going into the decline and collapse in the third. Yet, the sins of decay were becoming apparent in the latter years of that second century.

19th Century – Industrial Revolution.
20th Century – Computer and Electronic Revolution.
21st Century – ???

“It is written that there were vast increases in the number of the idle rich, and the idle poor. The latter (the idle poor) were put on a permanent dole, a welfare system not unlike our own. As this system became permanent, the recipients of public largesse (welfare) increased in number. They organized into a political block with sizable power. They were not hesitant about making their demands known. [£$£$£$£$£$] Nor was the government hesitant about agreeing to their demands … and with ever-increasing frequency. Would-be emperors catered to them. The great, solid middle class—Rome’s strength then as ours is today—was taxed more and more to support a bureaucracy that kept growing larger, and even more powerful. Surtaxes were imposed upon incomes to meet emergencies. The government engaged in deficit spending. The denarius, a silver coin similar to our half dollar, began to lose its silvery hue. It took on a copper color as the government reduced the silver content.

“Even then, Gresham’s law was at work, because the real silver coin soon disappeared. It went into hiding.

“Military service was an obligation highly honored by the Romans. Indeed, a foreigner could win Roman citizenship simply by volunteering for service in the legions of Rome. But, with increasing affluence and opulence, the young men of Rome began avoiding this service, finding excuses to remain in the soft and sordid life of the city. They took to using cosmetics and wearing feminine-like hairdo’s and garments, until it became difficult, the historians tell us, to tell the sexes apart.

cracking up dawn french

“Among the teachers and scholars was a group called the Cynics whose number let their hair and beards grow, and who wore slovenly clothes, and professed indifference to worldly goods as they heaped scorn on what they called ‘middle class values.’


The morals declined. It became unsafe to walk in the countryside or the city streets. Rioting was commonplace and sometimes whole sections of towns and cities were burned.

Like a London Riot?

And, all the time, the twin diseases of confiscatory taxation and creeping inflation were waiting to deliver the death blow.

“Then finally, all these forces overcame the energy and ambition of the middle class.

“Rome fell.

“We are now approaching the end of our second century.” (Address by Governor Ronald Reagan of California at Eisenhower College, New York, 1969.)

In 1787 Edward Gibbon completed his noble work The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Here is the way he accounted for the fall:

1. The undermining of the dignity and sanctity of the home, which is the basis of human society.

2. Higher and higher taxes and the spending of public monies for free bread and circuses for the populace.

3. The mad craze for pleasure, sports becoming every year more and more exciting and brutal.

4. The building of gigantic armaments when the real enemy was within the decadence of the people.

5. The decay of religion—faith fading into mere form, losing touch with life, and becoming impotent to warn and guide the people.

Is there a parallel for us in America today? Could the same reasons that destroyed Rome destroy America and possibly other countries of the free world?

For eight years in Washington I had this prayerful statement on my desk: “O God, give us men with a mandate higher than the ballot box.”

The lessons of history, many of them very sobering, ought to be turned to during this hour of our great achievements, because during the hour of our success is our greatest danger. Even during the hour of our great prosperity, a nation may sow the seeds of its own destruction. History reveals that rarely is a great civilization conquered from without unless it has weakened or destroyed itself within.

The lessons of history stand as guideposts to help us safely chart the course for the future. (“Watchmen, Warn the Wicked,” Ensign, July 1973, 38)

Scientific Accomplishment is European

It makes complete sense when you realize Science aka The Scientific Method philosophy, was invented during this little-known time period called The Enlightenment….. by Europeans (or NA-dwelling WASP stock, descended thereof). Duh, we’re good at it.

How to have a sensible conversation about immigration

The left wing are beginning to doubt themselves in the face of losing power.

Block 1 Around 40 per cent of the population of poor countries say that they would emigrate if they could. There is evidence that suggests this figure is not a wild exaggeration of how people would behave. If migration happened on anything approaching this scale, the host societies would suffer substantial reductions in living standards. Hence, in attractive countries, immigration controls are essential.

Block 2 Diasporas accelerate migration. By “diasporas”, I mean those immigrants and their descendants who have retained strong links with their home societies, rather than cutting loose and integrating into their host societies. These links cut the costs of migration and so fuel it. As a result, while diasporas are growing, migration is accelerating. Diasporas continue to increase until immigration is matched by the rate at which immigrants and their offspring are absorbed into the general population. A crucial implication of this interconnection is that the policies for migration and diasporas must be compatible.

Block 3 Most immigrants prefer to retain their own culture and hence to cluster together. This reduces the speed at which diasporas are absorbed into the general population. The slower the rate at which they are absorbed, the lower the rate of immigration that is compatible with stable diasporas and migration. By design, absorption is slower with multicultural policies than with assimilative policies.

Block 4 Migration from poor countries to rich ones is driven by the wide gap in income between them. This gap is the moral horror story of our times. The difference in incomes is ultimately due to differences in political and social structures: poor countries have political and social systems that are less functional than those in rich ones. Their dysfunctional systems persist in part because they are embedded in the identities and narratives of local cultures. Migrants are escaping the consequences of their systems but usually bring their culture with them.

Block 5 In economic terms, migrants are the principal beneficiaries of migration but many suffer a wrenching psychological shock. As far as can be judged from the net effect on happiness, the economic gains and psychological costs broadly offset each other, although the evidence on this is currently sketchy.

Block 6 Because migration is costly, migrants are not among the poorest people in their home countries. The effect on those left behind depends ultimately on whether emigrants speed political and social change back home or slow it down. A modest rate of emigration, as experienced by China and India, helps, especially if many migrants return home. However, an exodus of the young and skilled – as suffered by Haiti, for example – causes a haemorrhage that traps the society in poverty.

Block 7 In high-income societies, the effect of immigration on the average incomes of the indigenous population is trivial. Economies are not damaged by immigration; nor do they need it. The distributional effects can be more substantial but they depend on the composition of immigration.

In Australia, which permits only the immigration of the skilled, the working classes probably gain from having more skilled people to work with. In Europe, which attracts many low-skilled migrants, the indigenous poor probably lose out through competition for social housing, welfare, training and work. The clearest effect on the jobs market is that new migrants compete with existing migrants, who would consequently be substantial beneficiaries of tighter controls.

Block 8 The social effects of immigration outweigh the economic, so they should be the main criteria for policy. These effects come from diversity. Diversity increases variety and this widening of choices and horizons is a social gain.

Yet diversity also potentially jeopardises co-operation and generosity. Co-operation rests on co-ordination games that support both the provision of public goods and myriad socially enforced conventions. Generosity rests on a widespread sense of mutual regard that supports welfare systems. Both public goods and welfare systems benefit the indigenous poor, which means they are the group most at risk of loss. As diversity increases, the additional benefits of variety get smaller, whereas the risks to co-operation and generosity get greater. Each host society has an ideal level of diversity and hence an ideal size of diasporas.

Block 9 The control of immigration is a human right. The group instinct to defend territory is common throughout the animal kingdom; it is likely to be even more fundamental than the individual right to property. The right to control immigration is asserted by all societies. You do not have the automatic right to move to Kuwait; nor do the Chinese have the automatic right to move to Angola, although millions would if they could. Nor do Bangladeshis have the automatic right to move to Britain and claim a share of its social and economic capital.

It sometimes makes sense to grant the right to migrate on a reciprocal basis. Thousands of French people want to live in Britain, while thousands of Britons want to live in France. Yet if flows become too unbalanced, rights derived from mutual advantage can be withdrawn: Australia, for instance, withdrew them from Britain. The expansion of the EU has created these unbalanced situations and the original reciprocal right may therefore need modification.

Block 10 Migration is not an inevitable consequence of globalisation. The vast expansion in trade and capital flows among developed countries has coincided with a decline in migration between them.

These ten building blocks are not incontrovertible truths but the weight of evidence favours them to varying degrees. If your views on migration are incompatible with them, they rest on a base too fragile for passionate conviction.

Once accepted, the building blocks still leave plenty of room for disagreement as to their application to particular societies at particular times. Yet they do not leave room for existential confrontations between polarised positions. Liberal intellectuals want to combine rapid immigration, the multiculturalism that entitles migrants to remain within a distinct cultural community, and an egalitarian society. This is a noble vision but unfortunately the desirability of a policy combination does not ensure that it is technically possible.

In economics, there is a well-known “impossible trinity”: the attempt to combine open capital accounts with targets on exchange rates and interest rates is doomed to fail. I fear that the open door, multiculturalism and generous provision of public services may be the social policy equivalent – another impossible trinity. This is because the major social risk posed by rapid migration combined with multiculturalism is not that the society polarises but that it atomises. It’s not that England would descend into violence but that our tacit norms of co-operation and generosity would gradually be undermined.

British society depends on these norms that, for the most part, we take so much for granted that we are barely aware of them. The weight of the evidence suggests overwhelmingly that if a society fragments between an indigenous population and a variety of diaspora communities, co-operation will weaken. More surprisingly, diversity even appears to weaken co-operation within the indigenous population: as indigenous networks are disrupted, people withdraw into more isolated lives.

The evidence for these adverse effects of diversity is partly analytical, partly statistical and partly the results of experimental games. In a magazine article such as this, however, there is not enough space to present it all, so you will have to make do with a practical example of a social convention that could be threatened by immigration.

A diaspora is not a race; it is a cultural network. It only becomes synonymous with race if there is no cultural absorption. Multiculturalism, as its name implies, is about culture, not race. Its objective is to slow or prevent the absorption of diasporas into mainstream indigenous culture. In so doing, it reduces the rate of migration compatible with a stable diaspora and hence with stable migration.”

Close. Genes generate culture.

“With an open door, migration keeps accelerating beyond this level so that diasporas keep expanding, thereby increasing diversity. In turn, beyond a point diversity starts to undermine the co-operation and generosity on which egalitarian policies rest. This is why the trinity of policies judged desirable by liberal intellectuals may be impossible.”

Sharia law wouldn’t take too kindly to the likes of Stephen Fry.

“In these circumstances, liberal intellectuals who dismiss concerns about future migration, as distinct from the complaints about its past effects, are being cavalier at other people’s expense. It is the indigenous poor, existing immigrants and people left behind in the countries of origin who are potentially at risk, not the middle classes.”

When have they done otherwise?

“One of the key insights of recent research is that the composition of migration matters more than its rate. Migrants are more beneficial if they are skilled and employable. Whereas skill can be assessed by a points system, employability can only be assessed by employers and so a sensible requirement is that migrants should already have a job offer. Existing migrants want to bring in their dependants. This occupies migration slots that could otherwise have been occupied by skilled workers; it is likely to slow the rate at which diasporas absorb into mainstream society and increases the burden on welfare systems.”

Points system.

“Parents naturally want to pass on their culture to their children. This is true both of immigrants and of the indigenous English population. It has become an article of faith in liberal and official discourse that cultural diversity should be respected and promoted. However, not all cultures are equally functional. The cultures that immigrants from poor societies bring with them have some attractive features but they are implicated in the social failures from which these migrants are escaping. For example, poor societies typically have far lower levels of trust and higher levels of violence and intolerance. There is therefore a solid, objective reason why we should want the children of immigrants to absorb English culture.

Left to their own inclinations, migrants cluster. In Britain, clustering is getting more pronounced. This reduces the rate of absorption of even basic attributes such as language. High concentrations of diaspora clusters in schools are so likely to slow absorption that it may be sensible to cap the proportion permitted. Other countries have had more active policies of dispersal: location is made part of the package of rights and obligations.”