Author Topic: British Press "opening up" on immigration (Read 885 times)

Telesphorus · « **on:** April 03, 2013, 04:33:10 AM »

What we see in most of the articles is an attempt to frame the debate so as to shut out the right-wing interpretation (that ancestry (race) does matter and that it is a ʝʊdɛօ-leftist conspiracy) of these events. At least Peter Hitchens admits this:

Quote from: Peter Hitchens

When I was a Revolutionary Marxist, we were all in favour of as much immigration as possible.

It wasn't because we liked immigrants, but because we didn't like Britain. We saw immigrants - from anywhere - as allies against the staid, settled, conservative society that our country still was at the end of the Sixties.

Also, we liked to feel oh, so superior to the bewildered people - usually in the poorest parts of Britain - who found their neighbourhoods suddenly transformed into supposedly 'vibrant communities'.

If they dared to express the mildest objections, we called them bigots.

. . .

When we graduated and began to earn serious money, we generally headed for expensive London enclaves and became extremely choosy about where our children went to school, a choice we happily denied the urban poor, the ones we sneered at as 'racists'.

What did we know, or care, of the great silent revolution which even then was beginning to transform the lives of the British poor?

To us, it meant patriotism and tradition could always be derided as 'racist'.

And it also meant cheap servants for the rich new middle-class, for the first time since 1939, as well as cheap restaurants and - later on - cheap builders and plumbers working off the books.

It wasn't our wages that were depressed, or our work that was priced out of the market. Immigrants didn't do the sort of jobs we did.

They were no threat to us.

The only threat might have come from the aggrieved British people, but we could always stifle their protests by suggesting that they were modern-day fascists.

I have learned since what a spiteful, self-righteous, snobbish and arrogant person I was (and most of my revolutionary comrades were, too).

I have seen places that I knew and felt at home in, changed completely in a few short years.

I have imagined what it might be like to have grown old while stranded in shabby, narrow streets where my neighbours spoke a different language and I gradually found myself becoming a lonely, shaky voiced stranger in a world I once knew, but which no longer knew me.

I have felt deeply, hopelessly sorry that I did and said nothing in defence of those whose lives were turned upside down, without their ever being asked, and who were warned very clearly that, if they complained, they would be despised outcasts.

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2013/04/how-i-am-partly-to-blame-for-mass-immigration.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/mar/27/why-left-wrong-mass-immigration

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2297776/SATURDAY-ESSAY-Why-Left-epic-mistake-immigration.html

Telesphorus · « **Reply #1 on:** April 03, 2013, 04:40:55 AM »

Deceased Jonathan Bowden:

Graham · « **Reply #2 on:** April 03, 2013, 05:42:57 AM »

I should refrain from reading comments on sites like the Guardian. They make me testy.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #3 on:** April 03, 2013, 06:03:32 AM »

Quote from: Graham

I should refrain from reading comments on sites like the Guardian. They make me testy.

What's interesting to me is that these points of views are hardly welcome in the USA anymore. Lou Dobbs was fired for it, and Pat Buchanan was also fired for it.

What's more, these points of views are condemned even on extreme sites like this one.

What is shows you is that the cultural manipulators somehow have the ability to subvert people inside institutions that by all appearances should be solidly against them.

It is a mysterious phenomenon, how you can find more intolerance of certain "right" positions (outside of key issues that all must agree with - among so-called "Trad" Catholics it's abortion, and not much else these days) than you will find on the pages of the Guardian!

It really is sinister, and I think one explanation is that the women and other people with similar social antennae try to compensate for their "extremism" by accepting whole-heartedly other parts of the leftist program. This gives them a social opening.

It also explains why so many socially conservatives (including, perhaps, someone like my own father, who was willing to spend a great deal to pay my older sister's way at a prestigious university - but the rest of us went to much less expensive, less prestigious universities) want their intelligent daughters to be high achievers in the secular world rather than as Catholic mothers. It's a form of social credit, to accept certain aspects of the modern world that seem less harmful. (just about anything a person is praised for these days is likely to be bad or indifferent)

Telesphorus · « **Reply #4 on:** April 03, 2013, 06:20:26 AM »

This is what passes for "conservatism" in the USA:

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/jeb-bush-economic-growth/2013/03/31/id/497076

Stubborn · « **Reply #5 on:** April 03, 2013, 06:44:26 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: Graham
I should refrain from reading comments on sites like the Guardian. They make me testy.

What's interesting to me is that these points of views are hardly welcome in the USA anymore. Lou Dobbs was fired for it, and Pat Buchanan was also fired for it.

What's more, these points of views are condemned even on extreme sites like this one.

What is shows you is that the cultural manipulators somehow have the ability to subvert people inside institutions that by all appearances should be solidly against them.

It is a mysterious phenomenon, how you can find more intolerance of certain "right" positions (outside of key issues that all must agree with - among so-called "Trad" Catholics it's abortion, and not much else these days) than you will find on the pages of the Guardian!

It's really not a phenomenon, it's just that no one would listen to those who saw it coming......... Should hate be outlawed? - January, 1959

Most Americans, hearing this question, would answer promptly, “Yes, by all means, hate should be outlawed!” Their eagerness to reply can be accounted for all too easily. During the last decade and a half, they have been pounded with a propaganda barrage calculated to leave them in a state of dazed affability toward the whole world. Those advertising techniques that are normally used to encourage Americans to be choosy in matters of soap and toothpaste are now being enlisted to persuade them that there is no such thing as a superior product in matters of culture and creed. On billboards, on bus and subway posters, in newspapers and magazines, through radio and television broadcasts, Americans are being assured and reassured, both subtly and boldly, that “Bigotry is fascism ... Only Brotherhood can save our nation ... We must be tolerant of all!”

The long-range effects of this campaign are even now evident. It is producing the “spineless citizen”: the man who has no cultural sensibilities; who is incapable of indignation; whose sole mental activity is merely an extension of what he reads in the newspaper or sees on the television screen; who faces moral disaster in his neighborhood, political disaster in his country, and an impending world catastrophe with a blank and smiling countenance. He has only understanding for the enemies of his country. He has nothing but kind sentiments for those who would destroy his home and family. He has an earnest sympathy for anyone who would obliterate his faith. He is universally tolerant. He is totally unprejudiced. If he has any principles, he keeps them well concealed, lest in advocating them he should seem to indicate that contrary principles might be inferior. He is, to the extent of his abilities, exactly like the next citizen, who, he trusts, is trying to be exactly like him: a faceless, characterless putty-man...........

Telesphorus · « **Reply #6 on:** April 03, 2013, 07:13:41 AM »

This was cited in reference to Enoch Powell:

Quote from: attributed to Lawrence Auster

A traditionalist (or a reactionary) recognizes a threat to his society the moment it appears.

A conservative recognizes the threat when it has half-destroyed the society.

A liberal only recognizes the threat after it has completely destroyed the society, or, alternatively, he never recognizes it at all.

The same thing is clearly true about "the Society"

The liberal neotrads are catastrophically destructive and will utterly ruin tradition if unchecked.

The "conservatives" are hopelessly complacent and wish to never be associated with those "nutters"

John Grace · « **Reply #7 on:** April 03, 2013, 07:16:01 AM »

A suppose an Irish example is David Quinn. Whilst I am not aware of him having spoken out on immigration, this Zionist has a column in a newspaper. He was for a time the editor of the Irish Catholic newspaper. It's a rag like the Catholic Herald in England.

Many cheer him on as the "conservative voice" when in reality it could be argued he is no threat at all. A "conservative" voice writing for a controlled media.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #8 on:** April 03, 2013, 07:19:11 AM »

We need to distinguish the genuine conservatives from these political commentators, who may or may not be genuine.

Your typical conservative (someone like my father) only realizes the problem with immigration when he sees that someone like Obama can't be beaten anymore.

Latin America has a history of upheaval caused by left-wing extremism.

In 50 years, (note Peter Hitchens points out that he supported immigration because he was a Communist that hated Britain) the leftists who hate America and Americans now have achieved the means to keep an iron grip on this country that they will remorselessly tighten.

And the "conservatives" were going along with it the whole time so as not to appear "racist"!

John Grace · « **Reply #9 on:** April 03, 2013, 07:24:48 AM »

Quote

Your typical conservative (someone like my father) only realizes the problem with immigration when he sees that someone like Obama can't be beaten anymore.

In England after the riots a few years ago, you had white liberals wearing 'Looters are scuм' T-shirts during the clean-up.

John Grace · « **Reply #10 on:** April 03, 2013, 07:35:09 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Deceased Jonathan Bowden:

I only listened to the first 30 seconds of this but he is correct.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #11 on:** April 03, 2013, 07:47:17 AM »

Quote from: John Grace

Quote from: Telesphorus
Deceased Jonathan Bowden:

I only listened to the first 30 seconds of this but he is correct.

I didn't find anything too offensive in this speech. A person doesn't have to be right about everything to be right about some things.

He was a powerful speaker.

John Grace · « **Reply #12 on:** April 03, 2013, 08:02:22 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: John Grace
Quote from: Telesphorus
Deceased Jonathan Bowden:

I only listened to the first 30 seconds of this but he is correct.

I didn't find anything too offensive in this speech. A person doesn't have to be right about everything to be right about some things.

He was a powerful speaker.

I wasn't offended by the first 30 seconds. I haven't time to watch it. It's a very busy time for me.