Sir Andrew’s e-petition

Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 09 November 2011 00:26.

No to 70 million

Responsible department: Home Office

Over the past ten years the government has permitted mass immigration despite very strong public opposition reflected in numerous opinion polls. We express our deep concern that, according to official figures, the population of the UK is expected to reach 70 million within 20 years with two thirds of the increase due to immigration. While we recognise the benefits that properly controlled immigration could bring to our economy and society, this population increase, which is the equivalent of building seven cities the size of Birmingham, will have a huge impact both on our quality of life and on our public services yet the public has never been consulted. So we call on the government to take all necessary steps to get immigration down to a level that will stabilise our population as close to the present level as possible and, certainly, well below 70 million.”

So reads the immigration e-petition posted on the Downing Street petitions site by Sir Andrew Green of MigrationWatch. It is doing a brisk trade. Only two petitions so far have scraped together the 100,000 signatures that triggers a House of Commons debate. The government allows a full year for this total to be reached. The immigration petition did it inside a week.

Of course, it’s weak tea stuff. Sir Andrew is involved in the balanced migration campaign, which only seeks to match immigration numbers with those emigrating. But it’s a start, and the explosive success of the e-petition is not an endorsement for balanced migration.

Some time in the next two years the government will have to make time for a debate on the 70 million issue. The debate itself will be no less controlled than the EU debate of a few days ago. Nothing will come of it. It is inconceivable that there will be another large-scale rebellion among Tory MPs. But the petition could easily be several hundred signatures strong by then. It will feel very lonely in the “we love migrants” camp.

I have signed the petition. Every loyal Brit should do so.

Tags: Immigration

Comments:

Posted by danielj on Wed, 09 Nov 2011 01:12 | #

Maybe Brimelow could do something useful like that over here.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 09 Nov 2011 01:25 | #

That’s a good idea. Why not mail him the link to the Downing Street petition. But ask for his comment. Don’t let the idea just disappear into the ether.

Posted by danielj on Wed, 09 Nov 2011 02:04 | #

Done.

Maybe some fellow MRers could follow suit? It would give my appeal a little more force.

Posted by Lurker on Wed, 09 Nov 2011 03:31 | #

Just been checking the petition, nice to see the numbers creeping up steadily, it is the wee small hours of course. Should only be a day before it hits 110k at this rate.

Posted by Dan Dare on Wed, 09 Nov 2011 03:35 | #

Signed, number 109,494.

Posted by Lurker on Wed, 09 Nov 2011 09:41 | #

Yes, obviously Ive signed too.

I see its already passed the 110,000 mark.

Posted by Lurker on Wed, 09 Nov 2011 14:21 | #

Come on folks, dont be shy, pitch in at this thread, we’re having great fun:

Why not listen to the voters on immigration

Posted by bebes on Thu, 10 Nov 2011 06:37 | #

Des conseils et réponses à toutes vos questions sur le développement de <a >bébé</a>

Posted by Robert Reis on Thu, 10 Nov 2011 10:03 | #

What makes leftists leftists.

http://home.roadrunner.com/~rdfuerle/liberals.html

Posted by SuperJoe on Thu, 10 Nov 2011 19:41 | #

It’s hard to get excited about this kind of thing. It sounds so wimpy.

“Please Mr. Left, we love all the beautiful people who hate Whites that you flood us with, please decrease the rate slightly. Having 70 million people in this country would be a disaster, although it would be mitigated a bit if they all hated Whites as much as Labour does. Inshalla. Vote Labour or you’re a nazi.”

What would be an improvement is a petition is

“We, the native sons and daughters of the UK, reject the genocidal attempt the Left has forced on our collective people for the last 60 years. All Asians, Africans, and others not of European descent are to evacuate the whole of the UK forthwith. All ranking members of Labour are encouraged to report to the police for processing. Failure to do so will make it hurt worse later.”

That is a petition I could get excited about.

The current version makes it sound like they are unhappy because they will have 70 million people. If the UK were 50 million pakistanis, that’s great. But 70 million, May Lenin-mohammed save us!

Note the groveling tone. The people are begging the Labour party for the right to exist. Instead of the other way around.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 10 Nov 2011 22:54 | #

Social science can do little, if anything, to help resolve the structural tensions and contradictions underlying the economic and social disorders of the day. What it can do, however, is bring them to light and identify the historical continuities in which present crises can be fully understood. It also can—and must—point out the drama of democratic states being turned into debt-collecting agencies on behalf of a global oligarchy of investors, compared to which C. Wright Mills’s ‘power elite’ appears a shining example of liberal pluralism. More than ever, economic power seems today to have become political power, while citizens appear to be almost entirely stripped of their democratic defences and their capacity to impress upon the political economy interests and demands that are incommensurable with those of capital owners. In fact, looking back at the democratic-capitalist crisis sequence since the 1970s, there seems a real possibility of a new, if temporary, settlement of social conflict in advanced capitalism, this time entirely in favour of the propertied classes now firmly entrenched in their politically unassailable stronghold, the international financial industry.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Thu, 10 Nov 2011 23:12 | #

In the liberal utopia of standard economic theory, the view of economics as ‘scientific knowledge’ teaches citizens and politicians that true justice is market justice, under which everybody is rewarded according to their contribution, rather than their needs redefined as rights. To the extent that economic theory became accepted as a social theory, it would ‘come true’ in the sense of being performative—thus revealing its essentially rhetorical nature as an instrument of social construction by persuasion. In the real world, however, it did not prove so easy to talk people out of their ‘irrational’ beliefs in social and political rights, as distinct from the law of the market and the right of property. To date, non-market notions of social justice have resisted efforts at economic rationalization, forceful as the latter may have become in the leaden age of advancing neoliberalism. People stubbornly refused to give up on the idea of a moral economy under which they have rights that take precedence over the outcomes of market exchanges. In fact where they have a chance—as they inevitably do in a working democracy—they tend in one way or another to insist on the primacy of the social over the economic; on social commitments and obligations being protected from market pressures for ‘flexibility’; and on society honouring human expectations of a life outside the dictatorship of ever-fluctuating ‘market signals’.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 11 Nov 2011 01:01 | #

For clarification, those two quotes by Graham are from a 29-page paper by the sociologist Wolfgang Streek titled The Crisis of Democratic Capitalism, which he has mailed me this evening. The first of the quotes is actually the final paragraph. The representation of the post-nation, which is what it is, as a debt-collecting agency working “on behalf of a global oligarchy of investors” is all too true.

The international financial industry has to be brought down. There can be no freedom for our people unless viable alternatives for the organisation of currency and trade are intellectualised, and carried into their respective public arena by the West’s anti-Establishment groups. Streek talks of “the propertied classes now firmly entrenched in their politically unassailable stronghold.” What makes them unassailable? Their international position? The protection of the Establishment across the West? Fear of change and disbelief that it is possible?

Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 11 Nov 2011 09:02 | #

Streek talks of “the propertied classes now firmly entrenched in their politically unassailable stronghold.” What makes them unassailable? Their international position? The protection of the Establishment across the West? Fear of change and disbelief that it is possible?

(GW)

When leftists say “steal from the rich”, it inevitably gets translated into “steal from the hardworking ordinary people in order to support the gold-plated pensions of hordes of government ‘workers’”. That is, the bourgeoisie recognizes that the Leninists who thrive on calls for revolutionary wealth redistribution will ruin their savings and futures as well. And we won’t tolerate that!

Far wiser for WNs to align themselves with the propertied, as Hitler did, against the socialist rabble, who these days are also fierce multiculturalists (and often nonwhite parasites themselves).

Really, you people need to brush up on your pre-WW2 German history.

Posted by J Richards on Fri, 11 Nov 2011 09:35 | #

@Haller

Haller speak: Far wiser for WNs to align themselves with the propertied, as Hitler did, against the socialist rabble, who these days are also fierce multiculturalists (and often nonwhite parasites themselves).

Really, you people need to brush up on your pre-WW2 German history.

So you know your pre-WW2 Germany history well? The NSDAP was a socialist group and it respected private property that wasn’t ill gotten. The NSDAP had absolutely no interest in protecting the “private property” of usurers and swindlers, and wanted it confiscated.

Details: http://www.majorityrights.com/uploads/NSDAP-25-points.zip

Excerpts:

A fundamental discussion cannot be presented here, but whoever understands the concept of work can have no doubt that the products of labor must accrue to the laborer. The worker cannot conceive that the results of his labor, or equivalent value, should belong to an incomprehensible generality. Neither can he understand that the fruits of his labor should go to one individual capitalist. From this necessarily evolves, within the genuine concept of work, the concept of private property.
.
.
.
the greedy Jew, the capitalist, does not want permanent ties to one place. His highest ideal is a large safe stuffed with stock certificates, bonds, mortgages, and debentures. His goal is wealth—not wealth in real property, but wealth in mortgaged property of others. He does not labor; and yet he does not rest until he has possession of a certain amount of debenture paper. This allows him to wield the whip of interest over his “debtors” even though they are not really indebted to him. Our program will place limits on this situation.

The kind of private property you want protected is what the NSDAP would’ve taken away. And the irony of who’s conspicuously missing from your list of multiculturalism promoters and parasites…

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 11 Nov 2011 13:44 | #

JR,

For me, the “property” in question has been bestowed upon what in consequence is “the propertied classes” by the “global oligarchy of investors”, or at least by the neoliberal system these “investors” have settled upon the world. The propertied classes are the rent-seekers ... the goys who have gained so hugely from the power that dateline corporations and international finance exerts over the politics of the West. As well as the managers in the system, they include the internationalist political class and the hangers-on of the Third Sector and the media. Tony Blair, who has acquired tens of millions of dollars since leaving office, is a classic example.

The wealth they gain is sucked out of the middle-class, and comes through the cooperativeness of the political class. They have eliminated the principle of commercial competition, except as it suits them. They strong-arm the system and leech off the public purse.

There are two levels of enemy within globalism, one which is very largely dynastic, Jewish and financial and which runs the salon politics, the other this vast managerial collective.