There was a well-publicised (by the BBC, etc.) demonstration in London on Saturday, September 17th. The theme of the demo, “Refugees are welcome here.” (Interestingly enough, the last “refugees welcome here” demo in London was on the 12th of September; only five days before!)

Various Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and/or charities attended. They included Oxfam, Medecins Sans Frontieres, Amnesty International, the Refugee Council, and the Stop the War Coalition. The actual demo was organised by a “charity coalition” called Solidarity with Refugees.

The protestors pointed their fingers at the British Prime Minister, Theresa May.

They chanted: "Theresa May, you will say, refugees are welcome here". Various refugees, celebrities, and religious leaders also spoke at the rally in Parliament Square.

The end result of protests like this is that the UK is now going to accommodate another 20,000 refugees. This will need financing. By the evil rich? Well, not entirely.

According to the Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, local authority housing departments have promised to house -- under the Vulnerable Persons Relocation Scheme -- the said 20,000 refugees,

In terms of each refugee, the government will spend £8,500 on each refugee. That will include housing, health care, etc. So that's £8,500 times 20,000; which is £170 million pounds.

But all that, apparently, is not good enough. It's never good enough. You attack the state at every opportunity. You even “demand the impossible” in order to create instability and radicalisation. Thus Solidarity with Refugees director, Ros Ereira, has complained about the state of things regarding refugees. She seems to see this in geopolitical terms. That means that she wants UK PM to play "an important role on the global stage" (at next week's UN Summit for refugees and migrants in New York) by helping as many refugees as possible. 

On the charities or NGOs which “collaborated on the demo”, such institutions can be deeply political entities. Don't let talk of 'charity' or 'humanity” fool you. Helping refugees isn't always an act of moral selflessness: it can be an action carried out to bring about certain political results. In addition, as the revolutionary Left puts it: “political activity and conflict radicalises”. Amnesty International, specifically, is well-known for letting left-wing politics pollute its actions and statements.

It was also interesting to see the many Socialist Workers Party banners on this protest. At least one in three were trademarked with the 'Socialist Workers Party' logo. You see, “tapping into the revolutionary potential” of refugees is almost as good as tapping into the revolutionary potential of Muslims. In fact, it's often the very same thing.

It is no surprise that the SWP was there is large numbers -- even the BBC tells us that “Stop the War Coalition collaborated for the demonstration”. The StWC is a child of the SWP. Nonetheless, it has made a pathetic attempt to hide its true revolutionary nature simply by pretending to be a “single-issue group”: a group which simply wants to “stop war”. But the facade is ridiculous. The StWC and the SWP are run by similar types of people, politically. Sometimes they're literally the same people! As I said, major instability -- caused by refugees and mass immigration -- will be a godsend to StWC and the SWP. After all, “the worse it is, the better it is” for the revolution.

“Actor and campaigner” Vanessa Redgrave was there too. She's been a lifelong revolutionary Marxist and she was a well-known activist in the Workers Revolutionary Party in the 1970/80s. She's another upper-middle-class individual hooked on Trotskyism and the idea of transforming the working class -- and others -- into better, more revolutionary people.

What did she have to say? Something predictably political; but with a hint of lawfare thrown in. Thus:

"The present government and previous governments, both Labour, coalition and Conservative, have been breaking international human rights law. We must hold them to account."

Let's analyse that phrase “refugees are welcome here”.

The demonstrators -- made up almost exclusively of students, professors, those with a charity to sell (not forgetting a few refugees/immigrants) -- don't look like the sort of people who would “welcome refugees here” -- if 'here' means in their own homes. No, they want “the state” to deal with the problem. And that means putting them in homes which have often been taken from working-class English families and which are in areas in which mainly poorer people live. In other words, this is helping refugees at a distance.

Will members of the middle-class Left want their taxes to rise in order to pay for all this? Of course not! They want the platonic “rich” to pay for it. The rich are sometimes only marginally better off than they are, but without the Stop the War t-shirts and jeans.

Finally, it may seem heartless and cruel not to care about refugees. By we should also care about our own people and the conflicts -- even civil wars -- which will happen in the future. These are the very high prices to pay for grandstanding piety and being self-indulgently nice. This isn't to say that the said charities never do any good. They no doubt do. However, this fusion of charity/NGOs and revolutionary Leftism can only be a bad thing for the working class and the indigenous English generally.