Pete Hoekstra, Former Chairman of House Intelligence Committee: 'Eric Cantor Probably Lost Touch With the People Back Home...'

Some awesome commentary from former GOP Representative Pete Hoekstra, at CNN.

Compare Hoekstra's commentary to former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson's comments, where he says Cantor's defeat means that the Democrats will likely keep their Senate majority in November. Seriously, the dude's in another reality or something, and by the end of his comments Hoekstra's just shaking his head in disbelief.

Click that link above for the video.

And ICYMI, "Dana Bash on #VA07: 'You Can See I'm Speechless. It's Not Often That I'm Speechless. And I'm Not Alone In This Town...'"

'Chaos in the Marble Halls...' — #VA07

At Twitchy, "‘Chaos in the marble halls’: In wake of Eric Cantor loss, Congress goes into full freak-out mode."

LIGHTS ARE ON ALL OVER CAP, leadership aides/members in the building, chaos in the marble halls....
— Robert Costa (@costareports) June 11, 2014

READ: Cantor loss throws Congress into disarray http://t.co/oJVqPlbyUz

— Robert Costa (@costareports) June 11, 2014

The Endless Invasion of America

From Patrick Buchanan, at VDare:

For 10 days, Americans have argued over the wisdom of trading five Taliban senior commanders for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.

President Obama handed the Taliban a victory, critics contend, and imperiled U.S. troops in Afghanistan when the five return to the battlefield. Moreover, he has inspired the Haqqani network and other Islamists to capture more Americans to trade.

But which represents the greater long-term threat to the safety and security of our people and nation: sending those five Taliban leaders to Doha, and perhaps back to Afghanistan, or releasing into the U.S. population last year 36,000 criminal illegal aliens with 88,000 convictions among them?

According to a May report of the Center for Immigration Studies, of the 36,000 criminal aliens who, while awaiting deportation, were set free by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 193 had been convicted of homicide, 426 of sexual assault, 303 of kidnaping, 1,075 of aggravated assault, 1,160 for stolen vehicles, 9,187 for possession or use of dangerous drugs, and 16,070 for driving drunk or drugged.

Those 36,000 criminal aliens are roughly equivalent to three-and-a-half divisions of felons and social misfits released into our midst. [ICE Document Details 36,000 Criminal Alien Releases in 2013, by Jessica Vaughan, CIS, May 2014.]

And this does not include the 68,000 illegal aliens against whom ICE declined to press criminal charges last year, but turned loose.  How goes the Third World invasion of the United States?

More.

Eric Cantor Defeat by Tea Party Shakes Republican Politics to Its Core

Heh, perhaps the major dailies should have a contest for most dramatic headline.

I nominate this piece at the Los Angeles Times.

Dana Bash on #VA07: 'You Can See I'm Speechless. It's Not Often That I'm Speechless. And I'm Not Alone In This Town...'

Dana Bash is CNN's chief congressional correspondent. She earned a lot of creds with conservatives for her honest and dogged reporting on the Anthony Weiner scandal a few years back. She's definitely a journalistic insider on Capitol Hill, and she's genuine here in admitting she was completely flabbergasted yesterday at Majority Leader Eric Cantor's epic defeat.

VIDEO: Dave Brat Victory Speech — #VA07

Previous Eric Cantor earthquake blogging here and here.



More at WTVR CBS 6, "WATCH: David Brat victory speech."

Mark Levin on #VA07 Earthquake: 'People Are Tired of Centralized Government...'

A great interview, with Sean Hannity earlier:



Lots more at Memeorandum.

"Brat has accused the House majority leader of being a top cheerleader for 'amnesty' for immigrants in the U.S. illegally..."

Heh, that's the juicy quote from a WaPo piece last Friday, "Tea partier takes aim at Cantor in Va. primary."

And see Michael Patrick Leahy, at Big Government, "Cantor Primary Challenger David Brat: Anti-Amnesty Mailer 'Act of a Desperate Campaign'":

Eric Cantor's primary challenger David Brat ripped the Majority Leader as “the number one Republican supporter of amnesty” in a dramatic press conference steps away from a rival event by a liberal Democrat intended to paint Cantor as the face of GOP intransigence on immigration.

The day after Cantor portrayed himself as an anti-amnesty warrior in campaign literature, Brat accused Cantor of coordinating with Democratic Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), the Democrat holding the rival press conference, to provide him political cover in his moment of greatest need.

Cantor, Brat noted, had previously visited sites with Gutierrez in a pro-immigration reform tour. "You would have to be pretty gullible not to see a link there," Brat said.

The long-shot challenge from Brat has improbably gained national attention after Cantor was booed and heckled by a crowd of Tea Party activists at a recent Republican party event. Cantor has had to go on air with attack ads fact-checkers have criticized as misleading and adopt the language of anti-amnesty hawks in his mailers, clashing with his “making life work” rebranding effort.

Typically, party leaders are able to win reelection easily, especially in primaries, so the concerted efforts by Cantor are seen as deeply embarrassing for the Virginia Republican considered Speaker John Boehner's heir apparent.

"This is the act of a desperate campaign," Brat said about the mailer.

More.

BONUS: You gotta love it, at the leftist New Republic, "Immigration Reform Died With Eric Cantor's Shocking Loss to a Tea Party Challenger."

And at BuzzFeed, "Only President Obama Can Help Undocumented Immigrants Now, Advocates Say."

Eric Cantor's Concession Speech

Oh boy, Brat crushed Cantor nearly 56 to 44 percent.

Megyn Kelly is on right now with an early repeat Kelly File, where we'd normally be watching O'Reilly reruns.

I'll have more.

Here's Cantor at the clip, "Obviously, we came up short."

And at Politico, "CANTOR LOSES":

LIVE FROM CANTOR HQ: The Cantor team appears to have shut off the projector screen showing the primary tally.
— Jake Sherman (@JakeSherman) June 10, 2014

RICHMOND, Va. — It wasn’t enough that Eric Cantor spent $1 million in the weeks leading up to the election, when his primary opponent hardly had $100,000 in his campaign coffers.

It didn’t matter that the House majority leader, 51, branded Dave Brat a liberal hack, and himself as the guardian of the Republican creed. On Tuesday night, Cantor, who was swept into the majority leader’s suite in a tea party wave, was swept out by the same movement.

Cantor conceded the race around 8:25 p.m. — shortly after the Associated Press pronounced Cantor’s 13-year political career at least temporarily over. With nearly 98 percent of precincts reporting, Brat had 55 percent of the vote, while Cantor had 44 percent. People close to Cantor said internal polls showed him hovering near 60 percent in the runup to the race.

It’s one of the most stunning losses in modern House politics, and completely upends the GOP hierarchy in both Virginia and Washington. Cantor enjoyed a meteoric rise that took him from chief deputy whip, to minority whip to majority leader in the span of 13 years.  Cantor was seen by many as the next speaker of the House, biding his time until Ohio Rep. John Boehner wanted to retire.

But now, Cantor has just six months left in Congress. He is the second incumbent to lose this primary season: 91-year-old Texas Rep. Ralph Hall was the first.  The loss will ripple across Washington, too: from political consultants who worked for Cantor to his aides who decamped for K Street, there will be reverberations...

More.

Shailene Woodley Says 'No' to Lesbian Revolutionary Feminism — #RadFem

At the New York Times, "Who Is a Feminist Now?":

In a recent interview with Time magazine, the actress Shailene Woodley was asked if she considered herself a feminist.

“No,” said Ms. Woodley, 22. “Because I love men, and I think the idea of ‘raise women to power, take the men away from the power’ is never going to work out because you need balance.”

It was a somewhat surprising response from an actress known for portraying strong-willed women in films like “The Spectacular Now,” “Divergent” and “The Fault in Our Stars,” to be released soon.

“She’s hardworking and talented, and the fact that she can open a movie is feminism in action,” said Melissa Stack, a screenwriter who wrote “The Other Woman” (a film Ms. Woodley called “really neat” in Time for “creating a sisterhood of support for one another versus hating each other”).

Ms. Woodley has a reputation for being outspoken about environmental causes and has aired her support in numerous interviews. But the online backlash to her comment about feminism came quickly.

Jennifer Weiner, 44, a novelist, took to Twitter to write, “Dear Young Actresses: Before you sound off on feminists and how you’re not one, please figure out what feminism is.” Zerlina Maxwell, 32, a political analyst, chimed in with, “Here’s another actress rejecting a feminist label she can’t define properly.”

Open letters addressed to Ms. Woodley showed up on The Huffington Post and on YouTube.

“My reaction was, ‘Oh, no, not again’,” said Sarah Marian Seltzer, 31, who wrote one such retort, “Dear Shailene Woodley,” for the website the Hairpin. “There is this pattern of celebrities immediately saying, ‘No, I’m not a feminist, I love men,’ and there’s not a chance for a follow-up learning experience for anyone.”

Ms. Woodley’s age is a likely factor in her distance, said Leonora Epstein, 28, who co-wrote the generational guide “X vs. Y: A Culture War, a Love Story.” Ms. Epstein said that, “She’s technically a millennial, but a young one, and it makes me wonder if they grew up with less oppression, and therefore never felt they needed a tool like feminism to fight or empower.” ...

Isn't this classic? All the so-called "genuine" feminists attacking Ms. Woodley because she refuses to endorse the PC definition of feminism as infinite oppression. That, and of course Ms. Woodley rejects "PIV is always rape." In other words, she's not a lesbian revolutionary socialist.

More here, in any case.

And at the Other McCain, "Anonymous, Paranoid and Unverifiable: Radical Feminism’s Anti-PIV Madness."

Why Tina Brown Must Cry

At Althouse, "You Won't Believe These Mockups of How Websites Today Would Have Reported the Monica Lewinsky Scandal."

The last one's not a mockup: "And that's why we have the websites we have, and Tina Brown must cry."

Jenny Beth Martin Makes More the $450,000 Annually as National Coordinator of Tea Party Patriots!

I read this story last night on my iPhone, but I'm just gobsmacked at the salary Jenny Beth Martin's taking in. The anti-establishment basis of the tea party is one of its enduring strengths that take it beyond partisanship toward good government. But five years on, this story blows up the notion that the tea party is an outside insurgent force against entrenched political interests. And sadly, it says a lot about Jenny Beth Martin. She cashed in.

See, "Tea party PACs reap money for midterms, but spend little on candidates":

The problem of Tea Party candidates being starved of donations by groups scamming their donors is real & serious http://t.co/NTxDJ7FUkx

— Dan McLaughlin (@baseballcrank) April 27, 2014

MT @PeterHambyCNN: Jenny Beth Martin pays herself $450K/year, but Tea Party Patriots spent just $185K on candidates http://t.co/4QeQx0289L

— Zeke Miller (@ZekeJMiller) April 27, 2014

Martin, the super PAC’s chairwoman, oversees all its expenditures, according to Broughton, meaning she sets her own $15,000 monthly fee for strategic consulting — payments that have totaled $120,000 since July.

She also draws a salary as president of the Tea Party Patriots’ nonprofit arm — getting more than $272,000 in the 2012 fiscal year, according to the group’s most recent tax filing.

Her twin salaries put her on track to make more than $450,000 this year, a dramatic change in lifestyle for the tea party activist, who had filed for bankruptcy in 2008 and then cleaned homes for a period of time to bring in extra money.

Martin, through Broughton, declined to comment. But Broughton said Martin’s fees could not “objectively be considered unreasonable.”

“She works the equivalent of two full-time jobs,” Broughton said. “When I say she probably works 90 to 100 hours a week, that’s not an exaggeration.”

Nope. She's making too much money running an organization purportedly established to shrink government and restore liberty. So of course Ms. Martin declined to comment. Her salary figures are obscene.

Still more at that top link.

And it's not just Tea Party Patriots. See last year's piece at BuzzFeed, "Sources: Cash-Strapped FreedomWorks In State Of Financial Disarray."

'Officer Bledsoe, meet the Streisand Effect...'

At Instapundit, "KNOW YOUR PLACE, PEASANT! Man ordered to take down police officer’s name and picture from Internet."

Yep, the video's here.

Tom Morello, Guitarist for Rage Against the Machine, Plays the Kennedy Center Honors

You gotta love it.

From Adam White, at the Weekly Standard, "Radical Chic at the Kennedy Center":

One trusts that the Kennedy Center Honors' organizers and audience were completely ignorant of Morello's body of work when they invited him to perform, even if it's not the first time that Morello's graced the Kennedy Center's stage. (Last time, he managed to out-activist an entire Woody Guthrie tribute show, interrupting "This Land Is Your Land" to hector the audience with the usual revolutionary bromides.) ....

Still, the scene of President and Mrs. Obama cheering Morello's fret work among the rest of the assembled celebrities, echoes Tom Wolfe's Radical Chic: "Shootouts, revolutions, pictures in Life magazine of policemen grabbing Black Panthers like they were Viet Cong—somehow it all runs together in the head with the whole thing of how beautiful they are. Sharp as a blade."

RTWT.

A classic.

FMJRA on NYT's 'Gender Equity' Case Study

That's Brooke Boyarsky at the front page of today's New York Times. She's the Harvard Business School graduate who pulled herself up by pluck to emerge as one of the great standouts of her class.

And I wanted to post a FMJRA for Blazing Cat Fur and The Other McCain, who both linked my entry.

Also linked at Bad Blue. Thanks!

Added: Bob Belvedere links, "Warning to the West: Leftist Re-Engineering Unbound."

Thanks!

Radical Feminist Takeover at Harvard Business School

You've heard it a thousand times: radical leftist ideology strives fundamentally for the total reengineering of society, the complete makeover of social relations, by any means necessary, including coercion and force.

But we don't often have perfect case studies of this at the highest levels of institutional power and prestige, especially at Harvard University, a private university where the normal decelerating processes inhibiting disruptive social change would be least in play.

So read this piece at the New York Times as a window to the programmatic world of the leftist institutional subversion. Importantly, mentioned at the top of the piece is Harvard President Drew Gilpin Faust, a gender-drenched radical historian pushing an extreme-left program, including booting the university's ROTC program from campus.

See, "Harvard Business School Case Study: Gender Equity":

The country’s premier business training ground was trying to solve a seemingly intractable problem. Year after year, women who had arrived with the same test scores and grades as men fell behind. Attracting and retaining female professors was a losing battle; from 2006 to 2007, a third of the female junior faculty left.

Some students, like Sheryl Sandberg, class of ’95, the Facebook executive and author of “Lean In,” sailed through. Yet many Wall Street-hardened women confided that Harvard was worse than any trading floor, with first-year students divided into sections that took all their classes together and often developed the overheated dynamics of reality shows. Some male students, many with finance backgrounds, commandeered classroom discussions and hazed female students and younger faculty members, and openly ruminated on whom they would “kill, sleep with or marry” (in cruder terms). Alcohol-soaked social events could be worse.

“You weren’t supposed to talk about it in open company,” said Kathleen L. McGinn, a professor who supervised a student study that revealed the grade gap. “It was a dirty secret that wasn’t discussed.”

But in 2010, Drew Gilpin Faust, Harvard’s first female president, appointed a new dean who pledged to do far more than his predecessors to remake gender relations at the business school. He and his team tried to change how students spoke, studied and socialized. The administrators installed stenographers in the classroom to guard against biased grading, provided private coaching — for some, after every class — for untenured female professors, and even departed from the hallowed case-study method.

The dean’s ambitions extended far beyond campus, to what Dr. Faust called in an interview an “obligation to articulate values.” The school saw itself as the standard-bearer for American business. Turning around its record on women, the new administrators assured themselves, could have an untold impact at other business schools, at companies populated by Harvard alumni and in the Fortune 500, where only 21 chief executives are women. The institution would become a laboratory for studying how women speak in group settings, the links between romantic relationships and professional status, and the use of everyday measurement tools to reduce bias.

“We have to lead the way, and then lead the world in doing it,” said Frances Frei, her words suggesting the school’s sense of mission but also its self-regard. Ms. Frei, a popular professor turned administrator who had become a target of student ire, was known for the word “unapologetic,” as in: we are unapologetic about the changes we are making.

By graduation, the school had become a markedly better place for female students, according to interviews with more than 70 professors, administrators and students, who cited more women participating in class, record numbers of women winning academic awards and a much-improved environment, down to the male students drifting through the cafeteria wearing T-shirts celebrating the 50th anniversary of the admission of women. Women at the school finally felt like, “ ‘Hey, people like me are an equal part of this institution,’ ” said Rosabeth Moss Kanter, a longtime professor.

And yet even the deans pointed out that the experiment had brought unintended consequences and brand new issues. The grade gap had vaporized so fast that no one could quite say how it had happened. The interventions had prompted some students to revolt, wearing “Unapologetic” T-shirts to lacerate Ms. Frei for what they called intrusive social engineering. Twenty-seven-year-olds felt like they were “back in kindergarten or first grade,” said Sri Batchu, one of the graduating men.

Students were demanding more women on the faculty, a request the deans were struggling to fulfill. And they did not know what to do about developments like female students dressing as Playboy bunnies for parties and taking up the same sexual rating games as men. “At each turn, questions come up that we’ve never thought about before,” Nitin Nohria, the new dean, said in an interview.

The administrators had no sense of whether their lessons would last once their charges left campus. As faculty members pointed out, the more exquisitely gender-sensitive the school environment became, the less resemblance it bore to the real business world. “Are we trying to change the world 900 students at a time, or are we preparing students for the world in which they are about to go?” a female professor asked.

Well, naturally. These Harvard hacks are Stalinist bureaucrats implementing five-year plans. They're infantilizing fully-grown adults and attempting to crush their individuality and creativity in order to squeeze them into their self-described Utopian one-size-fits-all laboratory boxes. It's obscene.

Now, it's a long piece and folks need to read it all.

Part of the program's reengineering is the focus on women faculty members, who are considered badly disadvantaged relative to men, who've often had long careers in real world business, compared to most of the women who were academics. Administrators have bored down on improving the teaching ability of these women, recall with those private coaches and by jettisoning the famed HBS case-study method in favor of scripted "Field" groupings that assign students into problem-solving teams to avoid the kind of cold-calling case teaching made famous by John Houseman's character, Professor Kingsfield, in "The Paper Chase." Inexplicably (really, administrators can't say why), faculty evaluations improved dramatically for the female members of the school. (Perhaps teaching evaluations went up along with student grades, you know, with those "stenographers" installed in every classroom like Communist Party apparatchiks to equalize student performance in the classic mode of egalitarian leveling.)

But of note more than anything is that so much of the problems at HBS are the things that can't be easily controlled by administrative fiat. There's a huge hierarchy of wealth and prestige among students attending. Surely if administrators could destroy these inequalities they would, but the sources of such difference originate outside the confines of the campus laboratory. Women students realized that much of their success would be climbing these social ladders and making connections beyond the classroom.

The article implies that this isn't such a great thing but in the real world, outside of such rarified laboratories, it's called "networking." Moreover, women are judged on their physical attractiveness, which proves that even the most determined gender feminist administrators will always contend with that most sublime human lottery known as the gene pool. And one of the most successful women of the class, Brooke Boyarsky, was something of an ugly duckling who figured out that to succeed she had to both blow off hopes of winning the hotness factor sweepstakes while simultaneously losing 100 pounds as she made her way through the program, eventually turning herself the woman who everyone wanted to emulate. In other words, she grew personally and adapted, just like anyone does in any challenging environment. The article doesn't credit the administration's gender equality enforcement as the basis for Ms. Boyasky's success. It was her own willingness to break out personally and open up about painful issues of social acceptance. She gave a speech at the concluding Baker Scholars Luncheon, where only the top 5 percent of the class are invited. Her theme was to discuss how she developed the courage to overcome painful obstacles to change.

But again, Ms. Boyarsky's successes aren't credited to the gender equality experiment. It looks more like she simply bucked herself up and stood tall against the competition. That's what happens in a place you'd expect to be predicated on excellence, like Harvard.

In any case, one more thing really sticks out about story, and that's the situation with Professor Frances Frei, who is described at the beginning of the piece as sparking "student ire" for her militant stand as "unapologetic about the changes we are making." There's more on Professor Frei deeper into the article, at the beginning of the section titled, "A Lopsided Situation":

Even on the coldest nights of early 2013, Ms. Frei walked home from campus, clutching her iPhone and listening to a set of recordings made earlier in the day. Once her two small sons were in bed, she settled at her dining table, wearing pajamas and nursing a glass of wine, and fired up the digital files on her laptop. “Really? Again?” her wife, Anne Morriss, would ask.

Ms. Frei been promoted to dean of faculty recruiting, and she was on a quest to bolster the number of female professors, who made up a fifth of the tenured faculty. Female teachers, especially untenured ones, had faced various troubles over the years: uncertainty over maternity leave, a lack of opportunities to write papers with senior professors, and students who destroyed their confidence by pelting them with math questions they could not answer on the spot or commenting on what they wore.

“As a female faculty member, you are in an incredibly hostile teaching environment, and they do nothing to protect you,” said one woman who left without tenure. A current teacher said she was so afraid of a “wardrobe malfunction” that she wore only custom suits in class, her tops invisibly secured to her skin with double-sided tape.

Now Ms. Frei, the guardian of the female junior faculty, was watching virtually every minute of every class some of them taught, delivering tips on how to do better in the next class. She barred other professors from giving them advice, lest they get confused. But even some of Ms. Frei’s allies were dubious.

That passage does a lot of explanatory work. Notice that without any fanfare the piece slips in the bit about Professor Frei's wife, Anne Morris, with which she has "two small sons." It's all so casual to be unexceptional, that is, if you're a New York Times correspondent or a faculty member at Harvard University.

Professor Frei's pictured second from right at the photo below (from the article), although I'm sure readers would figure out so much on the basis of (an obvious) stereotypical assessment as to which of these four best fits the model of the crusading queer feminist smashing the hetero-normative gender hegemonies of America's hetero-patriarchical social order. Seriously, a chunky butch lesbian dressed like a man? No wonder the woman's generating all that "student ire." She ramming the "radicalism of the women’s movement" right down the throat of every business student in the program.



Professor Frei's administrative style might be called "jackboot helicopter mentoring." She uses loaded feminist terminology such as the purported "incredibly hostile environment" to justify an authority profile in which she literally controls faculty outcomes herself, from "watching virtually every minute of every class" to barring "other professors" from giving advice to female faculty members, lest they be "confused" by their mansplaining troglodyte colleagues. (And I love how she considers herself a "guardian," an image of control that could be ripped perfectly from the totalitarian system of Plato's "Republic.")

And it bears noting that HBS is considered the premiere business school in the nation, but here you have top administrators who are essentially cultural Marxists whose main goal is smashing the capitalist-embedded systems of male domination, gender apartheid, and alleged epidemic cultures of sexual harassment. It all boggles the mind. Reading the stories of female students who arrived at HBS after very successful undergraduate careers and business experience, it makes sense that they asked themselves if they "had made a bad choice." One is Neda Navab, the "daughter of Iranian immigrants" who'd "been the president of her class at Columbia, advised chief executives as a McKinsey & Company consultant and trained women as entrepreneurs in Rwanda." She was shocked to find, in 2011, that a women's seminar on learning how to raise one's hand to be recognized was considered conducting "an assault on the school’s most urgent gender-related challenge."

No kidding. Behold regressive leftism at its most infantilizing manifestation.

I personally would be very hesitant to recommend any student for Harvard Business School, to say nothing of any major radically-submerged institution of higher education. But at least with the Harvard case study we have hard proof that fish indeed rot from the head down.

'Turn Coat Mofo'

Never heard of this Goldie Taylor lady, but she sure does have the leftist plantation thing down cold.

At NewsBusters, "MSNBC's Goldie Taylor: CNN's Don Lemon a 'Turn Coat Mofo' for Agreeing With O'Reilly on Race."

And by the way, I think Lemon does a great job at the original commentary, "CNN's Don Lemon Backs Up Bill O'Reilly: 'He Doesn't Go Far Enough' In Criticizing Black Culture."

Teen Feminists Face Hate Campaign of Their Own Imagination

No one denies that women face difficulties in modern life, but achieving full equality isn't one of them.

A few anecdotal examples of idiot boys saying mean things and acting like untrained children is not evidence of a "hate campaign" against women.

But see Jinan Younis, at Guardian UK, "What happened when I started a feminist society at school."

Also, from Jill Filipovic, "Serena Williams, like the rest of us, lives in a woman-hating world."

We live in a political and cultural climate that is hostile to women and still toxic for rape victims. Just listen to Rush Limbaugh.

Disagreeing with women is sexism.

Okay. Got it.

Immigration Has Completely Altered the United Kingdom

From Douglas Murray, at Britain's Standpoint, "Census That Revealed a Troubling Future":

To study the results of the latest census is to stare at one unalterable conclusion: mass immigration has altered our country completely. It has become a radically different place, and London has become a foreign country. In 23 of London's 33 boroughs "white Britons" are now in a minority. A spokesman for the Office for National Statistics (ONS) hailed this as "diversity".

Of course there are numerous claims as to how it all occurred. One — made in 2009 by the former Labour adviser Andrew Neather — is that Tony Blair's government wilfully aimed to "rub the Right's nose in diversity" and create what it unwisely took to be a new client class. Another theory, not running entirely counter to this, is that the whole thing was a bureaucratic cock-up which ran out of control under successive governments, only doing so spectacularly under New Labour.

Whatever the cause, the public response has been surprisingly uniform. There have been no significant or sustained outbreaks of racism or violence. Most of us feel absolutely no personal animosity towards immigrants. But — as poll after poll has shown — a majority do worry very much about what all this means for our country and its future. And they are right to worry. For nobody has any idea of where are we heading next.

RTWT.

RELATED: Video: "Gordon Brown 'Bigot' insult to Gillian Duffy."