Immigration into Britain may now never be stopped, or even controlled, because the politicians, the only people who can pass laws on the subject, have lost too much power and influence. In The New Élites, George Walden maintains that Britain is now in a Soviet-type grip of professional egalitarians whose power base lies in commerce, culture and the media. They can now control virtually all of public life. They are extremely mediocre in their abilities, and indeed brag about their ordinariness, but behind their anti-elitist rhetoric lies the old urge to dominate which is as powerful as that of their aristocratic forebears.

Above all, they remain left-liberal and internationalist. Although Walden is careful not to mention it, it is clear that inverted snobbery and their "tolerance of foreigners which is regarded as a sign of superiority", as he puts it, means that pro-immigrant sentiment will continue to be peddled by the élites.

As Walden points out, élites have always dominated mass societies, and there is a large academic literature on the subject. But in the past there was always a struggle between competing élites with opposing ideas. Britain's new élites, instead, are virtually totalitarian. No politicians of any party would now dare to propose openly to withdraw from the Geneva Refugee Convention, which has outlived its usefulness and is actually harming this country, because the new élites would shout them down.

Further, the executive branch, in particular the immigration authorities, can do nothing to halt immigration unless there is a change of law initiated by the politicians. Similarly, the lawyers in the immigration appellate system, which is now a growing and monolithic money-spinner for many of them, have to tolerate perjury in court by illegal immigrants - whom they know to be lying - and, having refused them asylum, still allow them to stay in Britain because they know that the authorities are simply incapable of removing them in the numbers required.

Decline in standards

The greatest present danger is the decline in journalistic standards, which the new élites have brought about. In earlier times, news reporters were taught not to comment in their copy, to be balanced and fair-minded. Not any more. The present mix of spin, personally biased opinion, public relations chat and celebrity gossip - often all crammed into one article - is now demanded of journalists by their paymasters. In the process they have resorted to lies and half-lies because they know they can get away with them if they express left-liberal opinions. They continually use pejorative adjectives when it comes to describing the Right - again because it is expected of them. Indeed they fear for their jobs if they fail in this regard. They are no longer journalists but Soviet-type propagandists. This is why the Right is always termed ‘extreme’, but never the Left.

Journalists' names for parties

Journalists will often describe parties such as the BNP, or Austria's Freedom Party, as ‘anti-immigrant’ but will not at the same time say that the other parties are ‘pro-immigrant’. They will increasingly point to the unpleasant consequences of race riots in Britain, but will not point to their cause: unbridled immigration. They will sometimes approve of attempts to remove illegal immigrants, but are only too ready to publish pictures of weeping immigrant children and their mothers being forced onto ships and planes against their will, because their editors demand a more sentimental and ‘caring’ approach to news stories.

By using non-neutral language, they print glaring paradoxes. An article in the national press that describes an immigrant borough as ‘vibrant’, or one which ‘celebrates diversity’, will be printed alongside stories about tribal butchery in Africa or communal murders in India.

Journalists used also to be warned about using non-sequiturs - stating facts but drawing incorrect conclusions from them. A classic non-sequitur says that ‘anti-immigration’ parties promote ‘hate’ because, as most immigrants are coloured, white nationalist parties must therefore "hate coloured people" everywhere in the world. What is a legitimate criticism of policy becomes instead a personal attack on individual black people in Britain. They pretend not to see the difference between one stance and another.

They write emotively and unthinkingly, and seem fearful and confused. Any talk of controlling immigration will stir up trouble in immigrant communities, they maintain. They assume that ethnic minorities themselves want immigration to continue ad infinitum, so they avoid publishing criticism of immigration policies for fear of giving offence - offence, that is, to the ethnic minorities, not the British host population.

This is partly because they appear not to know what being British is. They have gratuitously redefined Britain as some kind of off-shore Hong Kong, without reference to what the general public, academics and even the politicians themselves believe to be the true reality. Virtually none of the intellectuals who are supposed to be monitoring British society will use the term ‘multi-culturalism’ voluntarily, because it is not true within its own terms, or is known to be used as a euphemism for multi-racialism in certain urban areas.

Non-recognition

‘Multi-culturalism’ means that the inhabitants of one country have a knowledge of, and respect for, the other cultures they see around them. Nothing remotely like this happens in Britain, and the sociologists know it. If local people cannot even recognise the foreign languages spoken in their street or on the bus, let alone understand them, then Britain cannot be a ‘multi-cultural society’.

Even if the above were true - in the sense of Britain being a patchwork quilt of different languages and races - this admission would have a dramatic impact upon academic disciplines. Professors would have to explain why this had happened, and why they were unable to predict it would happen. Sociologists who, up to 25 years ago, were writing about mods and rockers and working-class voting patterns, are now supposed to be discussing anthropology instead: the study of human tribes, languages and races - but all mysteriously to be found co-existing peacefully in Britain! Most of their earlier theories would thus have to be chucked out.

The truth is that the growing cultural and linguistic chaos in this country, which the media élite gloss over, adversely impacts upon the immigrants themselves. We don't like it, of course; on the other hand, it is they who are ‘multi-cultural’, not we. The Jamaicans, looking like Africans, are now having to live in London streets side by side with real Africans, and the Whites can't tell the difference.

Similarly, the post-war Anglo-Indians are now having to rub shoulders not just with the white British, but with other Indians belonging to castes they would not normally wish to live next to if they were back in India. There is even less ‘multi-culturalism’ going on between Blacks and Browns. Their one common denominator was the Commonwealth, but now all the talk is about ‘Europe’, and immigrants are no more European than they are British.

What is often forgotten is the vast architectural heritage into which the immigrants have come. Each street, borough and town in Britain was built by the British. Each, with just a tiny few exceptions, is named after local history, a history of the British. This is bound to affect the self-esteem of the minorities: everyone wants to have a homeland they can call their own, and have a pride in their own culture and achievements. You can't expect diasporas to have a pride in someone else's culture or history. America was deliberately created as a receptacle for diasporas, and the new in-comers could then create a new pride in ‘America’ (which was named not after a racial group but after an immigrant called Amerigo).

Our increasing multi-racialism will itself become a kind of self-imposed tyranny, and in the end our institutions will be utterly unreformable. One of the great ironies of our time is that Eastern Europe, since the collapse of communism, is now freer than the West. Today it is in the West that criticism of racial or historical dogma can end the career of a scholar or politician, and even send him to prison. By contrast, in Eastern Europe and Russia, now the last enclaves of free white people, one can find plenty of books about race or historical revisionism.