Forty per cent of people think British culture is undermined by multiculturalism and that migrants do not properly integrate, according to a new survey, conducted by ICM and 60 citizens’ panels, carried out on behalf of the thinktank British Future and the anti-racism group Hope Not Hate over the past two years. The report reflects widespread frustration at the government’s handling of immigration; only 15% of respondents felt ministers have managed it competently and fairly.

More than a quarter of people believe MPs never tell the truth about immigration and half the population wanted to see a reduction in the numbers of low-skilled workers coming into Britain from the EU. “The lack of trust we found in the government to manage immigration is quite shocking,” said Jill Rutter, the director of strategy for British Future. “People want to have their voices heard on the choices we make, and to hold their leaders to account on their promises.”(BBC September 17, 2018)

One could write a similar piece about many Western countries, where people feel overwhelmed by the number of immigrants. The interests of the businesses, who want cheap labour, are opposed to those of the man in the street. Some of the latter are jobless, feel they cannot live on the incomes immigrants receive, and see a way of life changing without their being consulted. The businesses win every time. Of course, many immigrants are temporary, arriving in Britain to make a good wage for a while and then returning home, an ever-moving population. The most important point is that country needs them – nurses, doctors, plumbers, electricians etc for those jobs which are ever vacant and hard to fill. heartfelt thank-you to them!

But, liberal though I am on most things, on multiculturalism I just don’t get it. I like the improvement in British cuisine, and rely on skilled immigrants to keep a roof over our heads. But I admit to being skeptical about the people who go on about multi-culturalism. What really is it and what are the real, hard benefits? Do they outweigh the social upheavals and right-wing politics they have spawned? Is the recreation of a Peshawar street market in a poor part of Manchester that valuable an addition to the country, colourful though it might be? I would like to understand.

Women in the United States are having fewer children and at older ages than at any time in the last 30 years. This applies to all races and for both rural and urban America, including Hispanics. Between 2007 and 2017 the total fertility rate fell by 18% in large metropolitan areas, 16% in smaller metro areas, and 12% in rural areas, The biggest drop in the birthrate has been among teenagers (whose peak in the rate occured in 1991, and has fallen ever since) and people in their 20s. From 2007 to 2017 the birthrate of Hispanic women dropped between 26% – 30%, and is now beneath replacement rate.

If the birthrate age is too high, young people can’t find jobs; if it is too low, the economy contracts and a smaller broup of young people have to support a large retired population.

Germany and Japan have both experienced large drops in population, but have managed their workforces to maintain high productivity. The key is education, which is not valued by many people on the American Right and is starved of money and resources in areas all over the US.
Those visiting the zuS from countries shich take ecucation seriously, are appalled at the ignorance of people about the Constitution and the government system, about science, the environment, and even the writing skills. Something needs to be done urgently, but this takes money, and the country has a massive and growing deficit. The people who are cossetted and spoiled are the super-rich.

So why is the birthrate dropping? One can point to stagnant incomes, job insecurity, sky- high health costs, and lack of affordable housing. These are all factors, but I suspect that one motive for avoiding children is a gloomy, negative view of the future – global climate change, probable huge movements of displaced populations, political instability, warfare, and a breakdown of law and order. I personally wouldn’t have children were I young- for all the above reasons. Can you imagine current governments having the motivation and determination to do something positive about safeguarding the future? Nor can I. Young Americans are just being smart.

A Liberty University-produced film called “The Trump Prophecy,” claims that Donald Trump’s election in 2016 can be attributed to divine intervention, and that Trump is the King Cyrus of our times.

Cyrus the Great was the king of Persia in the second half of the sixth century BCE. He conquered the Babylon and established a huge empire. He allowed the Israelites, who had been exiled there some 50 years earlier, to return to their native land, to govern themselves and to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. For this, the book of Isaiah declares that Cyrus was “messiah”, anointed by God to deliver the Israelites.

For the creators of “The Trump Prophecy,” the comparison with Cyrus has obvious appeal. It emphasizes the global power of the U.S. presidency. It implicitly condemns the previous administration: the exile from God that Trump is now reversing. And it makes Trump out to be the savior of God’s people, permitting them to live and worship as they please.

Although he may be beloved of the Christian right, Trump is no man of God. He is, like Cyrus, a pagan and a “tool of God”. This is often admitted by Trump’s “court evangelicals”. But to evangelicals Trump’s election was God’s plan.

But why would Cyrus do it in the first place? Here is where the equation with Trump becomes most interesting, and potentially revealing. The restoration of peoples to their lands, and the permission for them to self-govern (with Persian imperial oversight), was a broad policy under Cyrus. It was not just the Israelites he treated this way. It is easier to supervise a relatively self-governing group than it is to enforce Persian laws in a foreign and resistant land — but also, and perhaps predominantly, the policy was a propaganda coup. By appropriating local religious beliefs, he cemented his imperial domination and curried favor with the conquered peoples.

This is what happened in Israel as well. The declaration in Isaiah that Cyrus is God’s anointed ruler is not Israelite prophecy; it is Persian propaganda. The biblical writers bought what Cyrus was selling, and elevated him to the level of a David or Solomon. The parallel with Trump and his evangelical prophets is close. Trump too has effectively spoken the language of the religious right, promising them a return to their cherished customs and beliefs. (They’ll be able to say “Merry Christmas” again!)

Like Cyrus, Trump doesn’t care about the actual religious beliefs he is supporting. What he wants is free rein to do as he likes — with the support of those whose local authority he is propping up. He has offered influence, but not real power itself. And they have bought what he is selling. He is quite literally, to be a messiah figure.

It may all seem utterly ridiculous, of course, but there is an important historical lesson here. For though Cyrus restored Israel to self-governance, there would never be another Israelite king. The ceding of power to Cyrus marked the end of Israel’s native form of government. Proclaiming Trump to be a modern-day Cyrus is, implicitly and perhaps even unconsciously, to suggest that our own native form of government may have come to its untimely end. (Joel Baden, professor of Hebrew Bible, Yale Divinity School, published on Religion News Service : https://religionnews.com/2018/10/04/the-trump-prophecy-includes-troubling-parallels-for-american-democracy/).

The support of evangelicals for a man who is a self-adoring huckster and whose every third word is a lie, a man who despises the poor, women and minorities – all this disqualifies them as a Christian sect. They are a political sect, manipulated constantly and expertly. Even evangelicals overseas do not regard them as christians.

A short while ago the hard-line Brexiteers of the European Research Group were expected to finally reveal their detailed plan. The group of some 80 Tory MPs, led by the ubiquitous Jacob Rees-Mogg, was going to publish “a Brexit plan to rival Theresa May’s”.

Some in the Prime Minister’s camp feared that it would be “the final nail in the coffin” for her Chequers proposal. But in the event, the ERG’s plan B never materialised. The group’s fractious MPs were unable to agree on a united vision. Insiders revealed that the blueprint had been shelved over concerns about its “accuracy and eccentricity”: it included some off-the-wall ideas, such as a plan to build a Star Wars-style missile shield to protect Britain from nuclear attack, and an expeditionary force to defend the Falklands. “The truth is that we reconsidered,” said Rees-Mogg.

So instead, the ERG pushed ahead with a series of smaller announcements. First, they confidently asserted that a no-deal Brexit would leave Britain better off. According to a report by the pro-Brexit group Economists for Free Trade, far from unleashing doom, a no-deal would result “in a £1.1 trillion boost to the economy over 15 years” (how, exactly? Ed. They have no idea). Rees-Mogg endorsed the report heartily, which was surprising. “To have any idea where the economy will be in 15 years is erroneous,” he harrumphed when the Treasury forecast in January that a no deal would cut growth by 8% in 15 years. The ERG later released its own plans for solving the sticky Irish border question. The Irish government called the plan “dreamland stuff”.

Rees-Mogg and friends have had ample time to research their proposals. Yet with only a few months to spare, they have come up with a prospectus that is embarrassing. Their plans are studded with basic mistakes: they don’t seem to grasp, for instance, that the EU simply cannot give the UK access to the single market on the basis of a vague promise that our product standards will be equivalent.

It’s clear now that the ERG does “not deserve to be taken seriously”. Hopefully the whiplash from the recent car crash will jolt most of them to their senses “after a summer spent huffing and puffing and threatening to blow Chequers down”. The rebels have had their chance and they’ve fluffed it. Now they can only save face by abandoning their fantasies and accepting that a Chequers-style deal is inevitable. (from The Guardian, The Spectator, The Times & Daily Telegraph).

How do these closns get elected? They help blow up the United Kingdom in a xenophobic fit, but haven’t the intellect to study the problem and come up with grown-up ideas. It makes a farce of democracy. Where did all the grown-ups go? (Hint: not to the United States).