The latest migrant outrage from the UK is that the government is planning on moving 1,200 single adult male asylum seekers into Linton-on-Ouse, a rural village with only 600 inhabitants. It's not the only place getting this treatment: the village of Piddington, with a population of approximately 350, will be receiving 1,250 single adult male asylum seekers. But the UK leadership doesn't care:
Residents held a symbolic independence referendum in which 96 percent voted to leave the United Kingdom in protest. Children wrote letters pleading with the Prime Minister not to destroy the only home they have ever known. Parish council chairman Tim McNally has repeatedly warned that the scale is neither fair, safe nor responsible.
Prime Minister Andy Burnham has responded by doubling down. He insists that “all parts of the country need to play their part” and that middle-class and leafy areas can no longer be shielded while poorer communities carry the load.
Borders minister Anna Turley has defended the approach as creating a “more fair and equitable system,” even while acknowledging that concentrating arrivals in deprived areas previously fuelled “civil unrest.”
All of this brings to mind how Anonymous Conservative begins his daily news briefs with the following, which I have rephrased as a question: "have [you] wondered how we got flooded with migrants we did not want, how our money is sent to causes overseas we do not care about, why our leaders, who should want to curry the favor of the citizens in order to get elected, do not care a whit about what we want or the well-being of our nations, or why our nations perpetually teeter at the brink of civil wars[?]"
Because our ruling class want it. Rod Dreher recently reposted an X-post featuring a video of one of the leaders of the largest far left political parties in France. Key point:
Jean-Luc Melenchon, leader of the biggest far-left party in France, explains why the alliance between progressives and Muslims is necessary.
“If you’re counting on white Christian workers to bring about socialism in France, it won’t happen. But our Muslim brothers and sisters will.”
This is the same playbook being used by the left in all Western countries.
And its true. But it doesn't have to only be Muslims. For instance, the Left in the United States supports mass immigration from Latin America for the same reasons as European and British Leftists support mass Muslim migration: because those populations are already primed to vote for socialism. The only difference is that we know that the Muslims will eventually turn on their putative masters.
John Wilder's latest, "Know Your Enemy," discusses those who hate and wish to destroy all that is good and beautiful: those he (and many others) term the GloboLeft and the GloboLeftElite. Their excuses for this invasion varies. Jean-Luc Melenchon, as noted above, wants the flood of migrants to advance socialism; as John makes note in his piece, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops wants them because it is worth nearly $200 million to flood our country with them and Utah Senator John Curtis ostensibly wants them here to undercut American wages.
The point, though, is that none of the forgoing elites represent or even care about the common man and woman of their respective countries. As John writes:
The GloboLeft and the GloboLeftElite are not tied to the countries they live in.
Instead, they are tied to their class. A professor from Boulder can glide into a conference in London or Paris or D.C. and feel exactly the same: the same polite applause, the same correct opinions, the same network of people who went to the same schools, read the same journals, and never once had to fix a carburetor.
The nice hotel room, the brandy, and the bacon-wrapped shrimp taste identical whether the view is of the Flatirons, the Thames, or Islamabad on the Seine. These people deal almost exclusively with other members of their class.
And "class" is the correct word to describe them. As Angelo M. Codevilla explained in his seminal article, "America’s Ruling Class—And the Perils of Revolution," explaining why the elites on both sides of the political aisle held such disdain for the "Tea Party" (bold added):
Never has there been so little diversity within America’s upper crust. Always, in America as elsewhere, some people have been wealthier and more powerful than others. But until our own time America’s upper crust was a mixture of people who had gained prominence in a variety of ways, who drew their money and status from different sources and were not predictably of one mind on any given matter. The Boston Brahmins, the New York financiers, the land barons of California, Texas, and Florida, the industrialists of Pittsburgh, the Southern aristocracy, and the hardscrabble politicians who made it big in Chicago or Memphis had little contact with one another. Few had much contact with government, and “bureaucrat” was a dirty word for all. So was “social engineering.” Nor had the schools and universities that formed yesterday’s upper crust imposed a single orthodoxy about the origins of man, about American history, and about how America should be governed. All that has changed.
Today’s ruling class, from Boston to San Diego, was formed by an educational system that exposed them to the same ideas and gave them remarkably uniform guidance, as well as tastes and habits. These amount to a social canon of judgments about good and evil, complete with secular sacred history, sins (against minorities and the environment), and saints. Using the right words and avoiding the wrong ones when referring to such matters — speaking the “in” language — serves as a badge of identity. Regardless of what business or profession they are in, their road up included government channels and government money because, as government has grown, its boundary with the rest of American life has become indistinct. Many began their careers in government and leveraged their way into the private sector. Some, e.g., Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, never held a non-government job. Hence whether formally in government, out of it, or halfway, America’s ruling class speaks the language and has the tastes, habits, and tools of bureaucrats. It rules uneasily over the majority of Americans not oriented to government.
The two classes have less in common culturally, dislike each other more, and embody ways of life more different from one another than did the 19th century’s Northerners and Southerners — nearly all of whom, as Lincoln reminded them, “prayed to the same God.” By contrast, while most Americans pray to the God “who created and doth sustain us,” our ruling class prays to itself as “saviors of the planet” and improvers of humanity. Our classes’ clash is over “whose country” America is, over what way of life will prevail, over who is to defer to whom about what. The gravity of such divisions points us, as it did Lincoln, to Mark’s Gospel: “if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.”
But rest assured that they do not represent or care about the common people. In the article, "Inequality All The Way Down"--a discussion of Peter Turchin’s book End Times: Elites, Counter-Elites, and the Path of Political Disintegration--the author relates (bold added):
... If you have money, you can easily influence the public opinion, by pushing your narratives in the media. Also, you can invest in lobbying and buy your access to politicians directly. There is an extensive piece of research about this by the political scientist Martin Gillens. He gathered thousands of policy issues between 1981 and 2002. For each of those issues he checked what was ultimately decided and how public opinion was thinking about the issue. He found the political outcomes in the United States only aligned with the interests and wishes of the richest 10 % and their interest groups. Everybody else’s preferences were simply not reflected in national policy decisions. ...
And, as John explains in his post, the elites don't want their preferences challenged:
The GloboLeftElite need the middle class to comply, and they need the anarchy from below to justify their own continued existence as managers of the chaos. The violent and the non-productive are their power base and their enforcers while the middle class represent the last pool of money they haven’t sucked up. After they’ve done that, they’re desperate to replace you.
Read the whole thing.
