Thursday, April 22, 2010

Replacing the English

A replacement population. You're not cool to look at. The natives of Britain are aesthetically boring to the elitists who prefer their landscape peopled by colourfully clothed and exotic beings, happy and smiling peasants working in the fields, far enough away that the smell of them isn't offensive to the upper-classes as they peer across the grounds to see the farm workers toiling honestly at the soil. Class contempt. Welcome to the world of Labour Aristocracy.

Do English people have a natural right to stop England from being over-run by Muslims intent on implementing shari'a in England? do English people have a right to maintain the heritage of England? Do they have a right to a "nation" at all?

Derek Devereaux's graphic of the day illustrates the question nicely. Below that, a bit of exposure of the class-hatred of the English ruling classes of the rest of the English, not docile enough, not colourful enough to make the landscape attractive to those looking past the reflecting pools either side of the walk way to the fields beyond, the deep-cut trench holding back wandering cattle and the working class and their low style of living.

The release of a previously unseen document suggested that Labour’s migration policy over the past decade had been aimed not just at meeting the country’s economic needs, but also the Government’s “social objectives”.

The paper said migration would “enhance economic growth” and made clear that trying to halt or reverse it could be “economically damaging”. But it also stated that immigration had general “benefits” and that a new policy framework was needed to “maximise” the contribution of migration to the Government’s wider social aims.

The Government has always denied that social engineering played a part in its migration policy.

However, the paper, which was written in 2000 at a time when immigration began to increase dramatically, said controls were contrary to its policy objectives and could lead to “social exclusion”.

Last night, the Conservatives demanded an independent inquiry into the issue. It was alleged that the document showed that Labour had overseen a deliberate open-door ­policy on immigration to boost multi-culturalism.

Voting trends indicate that migrants and their descendants are much more likely to vote Labour.

The existence of the draft policy paper, which was drawn up by a Cabinet Office think tank and a Home Office research unit, was disclosed last year by Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

He alleged at the time that the sharp increase in immigration over the past 10 years was partly due to a “driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multi-cultural”.

However, the full document was made public only yesterday following a Freedom of Information request by Migrationwatch, a pressure group. A version of the paper was published in 2001, but most of the references to “social objectives” had been removed. In the executive summary alone, six out of eight uses of the phrase were deleted.

Labour has overseen an unprecedented rise in immigration, which has led to a rise of about three million in the UK population since 1997. Until recently, it accused opponents who called for tougher controls of playing the “race card”. Labour was forced to change its rhetoric amid concerns that the economic and social reality of immigration had alienated voters in its heartlands.

Gordon Brown pledged to secure “British jobs for British workers” as the recession led to a rise in unemployment and, just four months ago, he was accused of a U-turn when he insisted that it was “not racist” to discuss the issue.

The document released yesterday suggested that Labour originally pursued a different direction. It was published under the title “Migration: an economic and social analysis” but the removal of significant extracts suggested that officials or ministers were nervous over references to “social objectives”.

The original paper called for the need of a new framework for thinking about migration policy but the concluding phrase — “if we are to maximise the contribution of migration to the Government’s economic and social objectives” — was edited out.

Another deleted phrase suggested that it was “correct that the Government has both economic and social objectives for migration policy”.

Sir Andrew Green, the chairman of Migrationwatch, said the document showed that Mr Neather, who claimed ministers wanted to radically change the country and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”, had been correct in his account of Labour’s immigration policy.

“Labour had a political agenda which they sought to conceal for initiating mass immigration to Britain,“ he said. “Why else would they be so anxious to remove any mention of social aspects?

“Only now that their working-class supporters are deserting them in droves have they started to talk about restricting immigration.”


There will always be an England. The question is, will there be any Englishmen left there to live in it free or dhimmified? will it be a land of Muslim masses and the satisfied Labour aristocrats gazing down at them all in bliss that things are all in their proper order, the poor knowing their place? Now we know:

“If the government doesn't trust the people, why doesn't it dissolve them and elect a new people?” Berthold Brecht.


Viking said...

What weaselly dastards!

which may an insult to weasels..

Labour u-turn now they realise people have got wise to their scam. May they die a (political) death.

CGW said...

A frightening article. Are we next?

Dag said...

If Obama pulls off an amnesty for illegal alien residents in America, they'll likely vote for him, all five million or so of them. Who can take away their right to vote if Obama gives them citizenship? We'll be over-run by people who care naught for our laws to start with, who care nothing for our culture, who care nothing for our nation. And they will vote.