|
|
|
Another attempt to explain. Another retreat from the truth. This Telegraph article, Labour’s immigration policy? Lots more of it by Alasdair Palmer, is indicative of a problem affecting all political commentary on the topic of immigration: nobody will say the real reason why mass immigration is happening. Alasdair Palmer is pretty good at saying why it isn’t. He despatches all the usual arguments given by enthusiasts. For example, last week we had the statement from the redoubtable and Blair-friendly (indeed Blair-knighted) Sir Digby Jones, Director General of the CBI. This, as the Blair-friendly BBC reported with glee, ran as follows:-
This and other economic claims for immigration are dealt with firmly by Alasdair Palmer:-
That is all very fine. But if, as Palmer does, one rejects all the stated claims for immigration one soon comes to the question of why it is happening. “Surveys demonstrate,” he writes, “that most immigrants from non EU countries vote Labour - a fact that we can be sure is not lost on the Prime Minister.” Now if one is reduced to suggesting that the Blair government is engaged upon a mighty programme of the year-on-year importation of Labour voters one has not thought as deeply about all this as one is pretending to. Questions of timescale apart, immigrants don’t actually vote in high numbers - witness Operation Black Vote – and they have a distressing leaning towards unpredictable behaviour. In the end Palmer does not answer his own question but skips directly into the standard complaint that it’s all anti-democratic:-
So, a gesture in the direction of the majority will. That’s something, I suppose. But it doesn’t tell us why there is this “cynical and shocking subversion” in the first place. Can it really be that the basic motive is impossible to enunciate? Is it too grotesque or incendiary? Not, of course, for MR. Actually, one feels almost embarrassed by the simplicity of the thing. But here goes:- Liberal western governments want to change their white European peoples for other peoples. That’s what it has come to. No messing around. No need to say more. That’s it. In fact, as soon as one allows the governing elite to construct economic or moral justifications one is drawn into all the turgid and unproductive arguments about pensions, dirty work, ageing society and the rest. None of this is necessary because there are no economic or moral justifications. There is only ideology, disloyalty, deception. So why can’t our mainstream media write about it in such terms? Are they afraid to tell their readers that the slick political people whom they elect just don’t care about their deepest loyalties. Are they, at heart, afraid of the depth of righteous anger they might unleash amongst the majority, afraid of adding to the BNP’s bonfire - and being morally castigated accordingly? I think they probably are. But by this reticence they take the side of the government they affect to critique. Like civil war this is a brutal game with brutal choices. One is loyal or one is not. The mainstream media is not. Comments:2
Posted by Andrew L on Mon, 25 Apr 2005 00:29 | # The further into the abyss they go, and Historical significance has be wartered down, It is Back to the Future, By Ignorant careless Idiots, How deep the abyss becomes ,determines the abillity to recover. Winston’s Philosophy, “Those who do not learn from History are destined to repeat it”. Post modernism’s answer, well change history, and make it up as we go along, Ignorant of what has been before and learnt,Leftism can create. Haaaa,Fairdinkum, Increase the voltage at their next theropy , 40,000 volts will correct their minds. 3
Posted by Stuka on Mon, 25 Apr 2005 00:45 | # Liberal western governments want to change their white European peoples for other peoples. Yes, that’s it! You’ve hit the nail on the head. Incidentally, I note the term civil war has been mentioned more than once on this thread, and not (for a change) by me. 5
Posted by onetwothree on Mon, 25 Apr 2005 04:03 | # You need a different graph. The important figure is that of comparable populations of fertile women. The change-over will occur much, much sooner. 6
Posted by Stuka on Mon, 25 Apr 2005 13:53 | # Why so pessimistic? There are a host of factors that by 2050 or sooner could halt and/or reverse current demographic trends: fertility, civil war, disease, legislation, economic collapse, deportations, etc. 7
Posted by Steve Edwards on Mon, 25 Apr 2005 16:47 | # Christ Stuka! You don’t think disease and civil war are grounds for pessimism? Look chaps, while you are certainly right that the real agenda is population replacement, you still haven’t explained why. Why do the elites want to replace their own populations? For the same reason that the UN issued a report last year on multiculturalism, funnily enough declaring it to be a “success”, and calling for more mass immigration; for the same reason that we now have an International Criminal Court with potential powers over the entire globe; for the same reason that religious vilification laws are being promoted across the globe; amongst many other parallel developments. The real agenda here is to create a tyrannical world government. Beginning with the dissolution of European countries into the EU, the gradual emasculation of America, and the destruction of Western Civilisation, the elites wish to midwife a gigantic global bureaucracy with unlimited powers extending to every square inch on the planet. There are too many threads leading back to this agenda for it to be a coincidence. Until anyone comes up with a better theory, I’ll stick with this one. 8
Posted by Kubilai on Mon, 25 Apr 2005 17:41 | # Steve, You bring a viable “why”, now the “who” is even more clandestine. Care to take a stab at it? I read an article here… http://www.bestwriters.com/good/archives/00000031.htm where this writer is the first that attempted to pin-point a “who”. I am curious to hear other’s opinions. 9
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 25 Apr 2005 17:44 | # Steve, Such an explanation is feasible only if the entire political class of each of the nation states involved - and there are, I suppose, currently a couple of dozen of them - are of one mind on the issue. Furthermore, the media, academia, the law ... all the elements of the establishment must also be of the same mind. Now, I happen to think that this is not a sustainable argument. But there IS a sustainable argument that does serve well. And it is ... advanced liberalism! The total political environment in which we live is not a fixed entity. It is a dynamic, and its motion is towards the consumption of all of the traditional (or surviving traditional) status quo. Liberalism actually feeds on this. Every element of the liberal establishment is swept up in this great engine of change, among them the politicians of the right. They know no better and, anyway, they are too feeble to oppose its direction. It would take a great man leading a great people to do that. 10
Posted by Steve Edwards on Mon, 25 Apr 2005 18:53 | # It’s the same people that keep coming up with the same opinions for the same reasons - the CFR, The Economist, the entire political class of Europe, the US political class, most academics, journalists, NGOs, etc. Not every ruler everywhere in the world is quite onboard, but the ideologues are trying to assimilate them, too. They are all leading in the same direction - to give up national sovereignty - and they all promote the same line on immigration. Multiculturalism on a “national” level is a roadtest for world-wide multicivilisational global government. In the meantime, by eroding each nation’s sense of “self”, they create a greater impetus to hand over long cherished freedoms to the globalist elite. Mikhail Gorbechev and Maurice Strong are the prime movers and shakers in building NGO support behind the UN’s Napoleonic pretensions. Astonishingly, the UN is even laying claims to the spiritual, via it’s bizarre Earth Charter initiative: http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/09-23-2002/vo18no19_religion.htm Liberalism is just a useful ideology to serve this power-hungry, totalitarian, one-world agenda. 11
Posted by Dan Dare on Mon, 25 Apr 2005 19:15 | # Liberal western governments want to change their white European peoples for other peoples. That’s what it has come to…- Guessedworker Sorry GW, this is an appealing hypothesis but I don’t believe that it holds water on closer inspection, if only because it implies a strand of continuity between early post-war governments in, say, Britain, France and Germany, and our present afflictions. It is well-documented that early post-war immigration from non-European sources was stimulated by post-colonial cringe on the one hand, and corporate greed on the other. I can’t subscribe to the notion that governments headed by the likes of Churchill and Adenauer were intent on displacing their native populations. As far as the present day is concerned, I feel it is more the case that the contemporary political classes, having for the most part reached their formative years during the 1960s, have become so throughly deracinated that they honestly don’t understand what all the fuss is about. I just can’t warm to the idea that the likes of Blair, Schröder, and Chirac are all part of a conspiracy to turn Europe into a homogeneous coffee-coloured Erehwon. To believe so would require an acceptance that our political elites are capable of embracing a project on so large a scale. But these are not visionaries like a Hitler, or even a Churchill, they are just grey mediocrities content to bumble along, snout firmly in the trough. 12
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 25 Apr 2005 22:59 | # Dan, I’ve blogged on the death of national feeling among the political class here:- I don’t accept the colonial guilt argument. The same lack of confidence in nation affected all Europe, not only those parts of it that maintained dominions overseas. Furthermore they were affected at the same time and with extraordinary speed. This happened from a base of supercharged national identity during the five years of war and war psychosis. By only 1948 in Britain it was possible for the Windrush to dock at Greenwich. No, the death of national feeling arose outside of the de-colonising process and prior to it. There were two quite independent factors involved in this. The lesser of them came courtesy of the ending of war and the institutionalised anti-nationalism imposed by the western Allies upon the Axis powers. In Germany it involved forcing war-guilt and guilt for genocide upon the whole German people as a matter of expedient policy and even though the hierarchy in Washington and London knew it to be untrue. It was a policy which proved to be viral. We all caught it. How? Because, as with any disease, we were susceptible to it. That susceptibility was factor number two: liberalism itself, a dynamic in which the unchosen and therefore personally limiting tie of nation could, when the opportunity arose, be swept aside - like all limits on self-chosen identity. That, you see, is the kind of freedom in which people living in a liberal polity believe. Now, note that in this post I use the phrase in bold: “That is what it has come to.” This I did because I wished to indicate that the replacement of population is not what happened earlier, in the immediate post-war years. It has come to pass because of the degeneration in our sense of nation, among other things, since. For that is what advanced liberalism decrees. As for One World Government, one does not need conspiracy theory to explain what has happened to us, and is happening still. One need only understand that liberalism is (a) the politics of the self-authoring individual, and (b) all - all - of our political life, including such feeble and befuddled Conservatism as still obtains post-1832. It is our discourse, our ideology, our method. It is our political air. We breathe it. It is our vessel. We travel in it to whatever future and whatever bastard “freedom” it can fashion. Everything is contained within it, save race, nation, family, gender, sexuality. And that brings me to one last point. If nation were really to have been the victim of a “post-colonial cringe” then equivalent cringes would have to have been found to account for family, gender and sexuality, which have suffered too. But, really, it’s all just advanced liberalism. 13
Posted by Geoff Beck on Mon, 25 Apr 2005 23:19 | # Steve: > the elites wish to midwife a gigantic global bureaucracy with unlimited powers extending to every square inch on the planet. Agreed. There is no conspiracy needed. That’s what WTO, GATT, EU, NATO, and the US Military-Industrial complex is all about. They may argue, fight, and compete with each other, but they do that as loyal participants all headed in the same direction. 14
Posted by Steve Edwards on Tue, 26 Apr 2005 04:21 | # To create a total state, with complete control over the citizens, you must promote mass immigration. The resulting frictions between the polyglot tribes become an endless pretense to expand the power of the multicultural state. All independent, sovereign, units of society must be “assimilated” to this model - feminism was encouraged to break down the family (and to lower birth-rates) and thus force citizens into a closer relationship with the state; mass immigration was supported to address the already manufactured “birth crisis”; the welfare state was extended to solve poverty, and instead entrenched poverty; and so on. Once you have deconstructed the citizenry, and disarmed them completely, they no longer value their autonomy, and will acquiesce to everything the elites ever wanted to achieve. The monster is the sum of many, seemingly harmless, individual body parts. When you add up everything that has happened over the last 40 years, you can only reach the conclusion that we are being sold down the river to a tyrannical global regime. For some time, I have been advocating an alliance between libertarians and cultural conservatives (as I am a moderate economic libertarian and a cultural conservative). But we must first show libertarians where their ridiculous immigration policies ultimately lead to (read Hans-Herman Hoppe’s brilliant writings). Once they come to grips with that, and get over their cultural marxist social policies, it will be possible to begin to dismantle the emerging world state. 15
Posted by john rackell on Tue, 26 Apr 2005 04:43 | # GW, would you vote for the BNP if they were standing in your district? The BNP doesn’t mince words regarding immigration and what to do about it. I get the sense you’re waiting for everyone to get some kind of Damascene conversion to your definition of conservatism, which may never happen. But the clock is counting down right now. For people who don’t agree with the BNP on their economic policies for instance, voting BNP would be a hard choice, but consistent with the way the brutal game has to be played.
Spelled out in much greater detail at 16
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 26 Apr 2005 07:07 | # John, I use my vote to encourage Conservatives towards Conservatism. Accordingly, I have voted for UKIP and for the Referendum Party before it. I could certainly vote for the BNP if that was a means to the same end. But if you ask me whether I want Distributism in our economic lives, I may demurr. However, our votes are pretty useless unless, as Peter Oborne demonstrated so eloquently in last night’s Channel programme, one is among the 800,000 marginal constituency voters in the Westminster electorate. The promulgation of ideas is the only real means of influencing the national debate. 17
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 26 Apr 2005 07:33 | # ”...we call for an immediate halt to all further immigration, the immediate deportation of all bogus asylum seekers, all criminal entrants and illegal immigrants, and the introduction of a system of voluntary resettlement whereby those immigrants and their descendants who are legally here are afforded the opportunity to return to their lands of ethnic origin assisted by a generous financial incentives both for individuals and for the countries in question.” (—quoted in John Rackell’s comment) “GW, would you vote for the BNP if they were standing in your district? The BNP doesn’t mince words regarding immigration and what to do about it.” (—John Rackell) I’m not a Brit but I’d vote for the BNP without hesitation whatsoever. (I almost don’t see how any MR.com regular could even pose that question.) By the way, a complete halt to further immigration and the immediate deportation of immigrants and their families here illegally are not a complete policy platform for our side as long as they don’t include, in addition, provision for repatriation of those already let in legally but in excessive numbers by the schemers and plotters on the other side who thought they were going to force the issue by flooding the place with incompatibles in a hurry, before our side realized what was happening and before it could organize effective opposition. They thought they could win by simply placing us before the fait accompli, placing us before the “done deal,” betting we wouldn’t have the guts to declare ourselves in favor of restoration of the status quo ante. They bet wrong. We intend to restore exactly that: the status quo ante, by means of all reasonable, humane repatriation measures including generous financial compensation (together, of course, with all manner of policy change having the effect of de-leftifying the country so that incompatibles will no longer be given precedence over whites in whites’ own country and will gradually deport themselves electively). If reasonable, humane repatriation measures (including financial compensation) be not included in our side’s recommendations for a sane immigration/demographics policy, potential adherents to our cause will lose interest because they will view the battle as already lost: the other side has already managed to flood the place to bursting, so whether or not we win a complete halt to further immigration, if we do nothing about legals already here excessively, demographics and leftist policies and laws granting preferences to non-whites over whites will complete the deliberately-engineered race-replacement over time. People potentially on our side who see this will lose heart and will feel scant motivation to join in the struggle. 18
Posted by Kubilai on Tue, 26 Apr 2005 12:23 | # http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050424-022724-3604r.htm Walker’s World: Nightmare of social Europe By Martin Walker Brussels, Belgium, Apr. 24 (UPI)—Former Czech Prime Minister Vladimir Spidla thought he had timed his departure from the snake pit of his country’s politics rather well. But now installed in Brussels as the European Union’s Commissioner for social affairs, Spidla finds he has exchanged the frying pan for the fire. Social affairs has become the most controversial issue of public policy all across Europe. Having defined itself for a generation by the generosity of their welfare states and an insistence of “social solidarity” rather than a robust clash of interests between labor and capital, Europe is grappling with three separate threats to its future. Any one of them could well prove fatal to the EU’s social model. Combined, they are devastating. The first has been the sharpening of competition, with its consequent pressure on wages and on employment, which helps explain why France and Germany are grappling with double-digit unemployment. The second threat to Europe’s social model is the demographic disaster. This is far more serious than America’s concern with the future of Social Security as the baby boomers retire. Europeans are about to start dying out. The third threat to the European social model is immigration, which is ironic, because immigration was supposed to be part of the solution to the demographic disaster. ~~~~~~~ But as Europe grapples with the iron laws of demographics and competition, Spidla is on the front line of a battle that probably cannot be won—unless the women of Europe can somehow be persuaded to start having four and five babies again. Good article. I tend to agree with GW that “advanced liberalism” is the problem. It is a multi-tentacled entity that has led to, amongst other things, decreased fecundity in the European peoples. That in essence is the crux. If we cannot replace ourselves, someone else will. 20
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 26 Apr 2005 13:54 | # “unless the women of Europe can somehow be persuaded to start having four and five babies again.” (—quoted in Kub’s post) Four or five? Where’d that come from? Sorry, but two-point-one’ll do very nicely, thank you (or somewhere between 2.1 and 3, to make up for the women’s libbers, lez or otherwise, who refuse to have babies because they’ve been successfully brainwashed by the Marxists into imagining women are more fulfilled by career-plus-barrenness than by babies). Four or five??? We want whites to replace themselves, not engender a population explosion. In writing the deliberate lie “four or five” this author, Martin Walker, is signaling his solidarity with the Noël “Let’s exterminate white Christians” Ignatiev crowd. (If it’s the same Brit Martin Walker who until a year or two ago was on U.S. TV news-discussion shows a fair amount, it’s no surprise—that Martin Walker was a sniveling extreme liberal, a really obnoxious leftist.) The white birth rate has to be kept at replacement level, not at flood tide, and there has to be one-hundred-percent resistance to replacement races being brought in by the usual suspects in order to “make up for any white population shortfall manifesting as (supposed) labor shortages” or whatever. The Greens aren’t completely wacko—they do make some valid points: we don’t need or want unliveable Malthusian population explosions going on (although if the only alternative is white extinction at the hands of this unprecedented Marxist/Wall-Street alliance that’s got us by the throat and is demographically strangling us to death let’s by all means gin up the biggest population explosion of whites the world has ever seen). Clearly there’s an alternative to extinction on the one hand and population explosion on the other. Birth rates can be, and are, pushed up or down by government policies, just like inflation rates and other things. (And please let’s avoid use of the term “fertility” where the proper one is “birth rate”: there’s nothing whatsoever wrong with white women’s fertility.) Right now in all white countries birth rates are being very forcefully pushed way down by a whole variety of governmental policies acting on them directly and indirectly, and the resulting actual and anticipated dearth of whites is being used as an excuse by the capitalists to replace whites with races that make cheaper, more docile workers and by the Marxists to replace whites with races that won’t stand as stalwartly as whites have done in the way of the establishment of worldwide totalitarian Stalinist/Castroite communist dictatorship. White countries can do as Japan is doing (avoid population explosion and at the same time keep our race). The race-replacers don’t want us to know that, of course. 21
Posted by Kubilai on Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:30 | # Is Kubilai a Pakistani name? - Steve LOL It is the name of Kubila Khan, grandson to Ghengis. Mongolian ruler. No real reason I use this id, except that that history is interesting to me. I am 100% of European stock.
Thanks for the info re: Walker and your insight, as usual. One point about “fertility”. I find that fertility AND birth rate is down amongst European women. The reason for this is multifactorial. Having children later in life as is the accepted behaviour currently, reduces fertility. OCPs(birth control pills) has an effect as well. So does multiple partners that may have led to recurrent gynecological infections. If you ever happen to go into an infertility clinic, you would see ONLY White women. Never any Blacks, Asians etc. So, while I do agree with you that we need to replace ourselves with the “2.1” number, I would prefer 3 in the medium term to bolster our sagging population numbers. No question about it, there will be a period of “discomfort” due to our selfish behaviour in this regard. 22
Posted by Kubilai on Wed, 27 Apr 2005 00:20 | # Fred, Retraction. Sorry, however I was wrong regarding decreased fecundity of Whites and you were correct. Apparently statistics and data do not bear this out and in fact show an essential equalization of infertility rates amongst the races. Higher SES people seek help from infertility clinics and that is why they are filled with nearly White women. Post a comment:
Next entry: Did Anglo-Australia really exist?
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by John S Bolton on Sun, 24 Apr 2005 20:30 | #
It can be predicted that, once the left gets the emergency powers that they crave above all else, as a result of having started a civil war of race or religion or both, the minorities become useless dependents to be deported or partitioned off as convenience would command. This is a completely ruthless struggle for power, like the Castroite movement, it offers no rational arguments, but relies on saying that all those who oppose the decolonization of the majority, (even though indigenous) are simply expressing racism. Contrary to reason, and in contradiction to all that is known of the redistributional character of the welfare state, it is brazenly pretended that mass immigration of those with a trivial chance of being net taxpayers, mainly do contribute in this way. Those who want to establish dictatorship will lie; they have to. Don’t suppose that these educated power seekers actually want the minorities to win such a country; their goal is absolute power, which the majority does not want to give them. They have to create a national emergency, and one that only dictatorship can answer to. A deliberately provoked and government maintained civil war, mainly on the basis of characteristics that people can’t change or fake, is their last alternative. This could be the last chance for the left; thus the dreams of nearly all sorts of intellectuals are riding on the outcome.