I agree with you on the "in your face" issue dodge, but you can be in your face and correct. So I have to disagree with you where you say you fail to see Julian's tendency to pick specifically on islam, or in any case on societies as a whole (what does "that kind of society" mean otherwise?). In any case, I've not half as often seen him make a case for economic factors. The possibility that this is because he thinks it "less rock n roll" worries me profoundly. Though as you say, only Julian knows, and I for one would be glad to read an in your face comment that not only rings true, but is true. Anyway, I think Lord Lucan made a good point in a much more direct way than I am capable of.

I don't think anyone in their right mind would think of JC as a racist.

The problem is when we identify migrants (the individuals rather than the statistical mass) as being very specifically representative of the politcal and social culture of their place of origin and that those individuals are in some way fated to be carriers of an undesirable behavoural sickness that weakens the body politic.

I can't see it myself and, as I note above, if we can't absorb the good and reject the bad (ideas not people) from the flood of new notions that comes with successive waves of immigration (as we have for centuries) then the British body politic is simply too unhealthy to maintain itself in its current form. That's a much more worrying idea than what Bill Hicks describes as the phantom threat of a "brown Islamic tide".