Tony Blair has defended Labour’s controversial mass immigration policy by claiming that Britain cannot succeed unless it opens its borders to more people from different backgrounds.Blair is as irredeemably illiterate as so many of his fellow Brits these days, having no cognizance of the fact that Britain practically ruled the world before it was bestowed with the gift of vibrancy. He also seems to think that just because he's the former PM that we will all believe his blatant lies.
The former prime minister said it was 'right’ that the country was made up of different cultures and faiths mixing together."Right", n., whatever advances the agenda of the left, esp. concerning a genocidal assault on European and American people.
Mr Blair added that migrants had made Britain 'stronger’ and said those calling for greater curbs on foreigners entering the country were wrong."Wrong", adj., right. "Stronger", adj., weaker.
His comments come just days after official figures revealed that the population is expected to soar by the equivalent of a city the size of Leeds every year for the next decade.His comments also came just days after it was determined that non-white immigrants and their "strengthening" offspring comprised a majority of those arrested in the recent massive riots all over England.
A defiant Mr Blair insisted his party’s policy on immigration was the right one. He said: 'It’s been a very positive thing and there is no way for a country like Britain to succeed in the future unless it is open to people of different colours, faiths and cultures.’
Under Labour, up to 5.5million people born outside the UK arrived as long-term migrants.
Up is down, black is white, diversity is strength, population replacement is an opening to the world: these are the lies that people like Blair tell on a daily basis and then expect that we'll believe them. The reality is the PC has most people so cowed that they won't question the lies, which is the very purpose of both PC and the lies.
The reality is the PC has most people so cowed that they won't question the lies, which is the very purpose of both PC and the lies.
ReplyDeleteContrast this to the Founders who faced the gallows yet sacrificed their lives and fortunes by signing the Declaration and conducting the Revolution. If only King George III had a weapon as powerful as thought control he might have held onto his colonies.
I wonder how the Founders would react today, especially given their love of open debate in both the oral and printed field. I imagine they'd be shocked to find so much of the population alien and unrecognizable to them. But I imagine it would hurt them more to see their actual descendants too afraid to debate and defend their culture.
A common reactionary/alt right theme is the "suicide" of the West, e.g. Pat Buchanan's latest or many of his books, and how Western nations are "destroying themselves from within."
ReplyDeleteBut this is a fundamental misunderstanding; from the viewpoint of the people in power, all these things are positive. Mass immigration is bad for the natives of Britain, but for the class of people Tony Blair represents it enhances their power.
British person here.
ReplyDeleteA lot of the cause of the destruction of our country is emulation and weird kinds of competition with America. This particularly common in TB's class of people, actually (probably less so the real proletarians, if anything).
Lots of people in Britain sadly want to live in America. Lots of people obsessed with American style, American news, American celebrities, American coastal lifestyles. Which would be halfway OK if they looked at the things that made America strong and exciting - it's isolation, it's ability to build new infrastructure from the bottom up, the youth bulges and relatively high fertility in its history, to some extent it's genuinely highly skilled minorities of migrants (but then, we've plenty of Jews in Europe anyway!), it's massive resources, the ethic of its founding stock. (Frankly, I'd rather they went to America though, if they love it so much).
Instead the concentrate on the gaggle of Blacks as if these were what make America great, a leading society and a special and rich place to live (or really contributed to much of anything except pop music). And that this is something - the main thing or the only thing - to emulate. This is something which the American Mass Media push though, so I can't blame us totally.
Also, I've noticed that lots of British people have a weird "tolerance competition" with America. They are more interested in not having segregation and having "equality with Black people" because America historically hasn't had it perfectly, than they are in it for its own sake. This is true of a lot of Europe I think. I guess we feel like we can't compete with Americans on economic dynamism, so we end competiting on lame tolerance romantic rubbish instead, like attitudes to Blacks and gays.
Note that Blair is a papist. And the pope recently called for a global bank and world state.
ReplyDeleteThinking about what's happening to England makes me physically ill. The country and people which gave us great literature, architecture, scientific discoveries, explorers, soldiers, and statesmen . . . now a multicultural sh--hole. I was channel-surfing this morning and briefly watched a Wealth TV show about Westminster Palace and the Houses of Parliament. The Pakistanis destined to be the bulk of England's population in future could not today, 1000 years after its construction, build a similar structure nor construct (let alone maintain) a functioning parliamentary government. Had I been given a choice, I truly would not have chosen to live during the decline and fall of the West. Watching the darkness closing in is excruciating and enraging and devastating.
ReplyDeleteDennis, when are you going to stop the white idealism and realize that countries like Britian are doing this because the majority of there population are avowed liberals who support this, not because some random leader is forcing it on people.
ReplyDeleteAfter the uprising of the 17th of June
ReplyDeleteThe Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?
Perhaps one day history will know Tony Blair by his rightful name.........Vortigern:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortigern
"Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteDennis, when are you going to stop the white idealism and realize that countries like Britian are doing this because the majority of there population are avowed liberals who support this, not because some random leader is forcing it on people."
They go along with it, certainly, just as many Americans do. But the idea did not originate with them, just as it did not originate with the white majority in this country. Going along with something that you have been told is inevitable is not the same as instigating it.
The flooding of western countries with immigrants has been the deliberate policy of the political elites, and there has been a long, well-funded, and concerted propaganda effort to foist this crap off on us.
"Dennis, when are you going to stop the white idealism and realize that countries like Britian are doing this because the majority of there population are avowed liberals who support this, not because some random leader is forcing it on people."
ReplyDeletePeople in the UK and every other Western country overwhelmingly want less immigration, according to practically every poll ever taken.
Charles Kingsley, 1864, part 1
ReplyDelete"But in order to convey to the uninitiated some idea of the state of society under Cæsarian rule, and which a Cæsarian rule, so far as mere government is concerned, if it does not produce, has never shewn any tendency to prevent, let us give reins to imagination for a moment, and picture to ourselves a few social and political analogies in our own England of the nineteenth century.
‘An entire revolution has taken place in our principles, manners, and form of government. Parliaments, meetings, and all the ordinary expressions of the national will, are no longer in existence. A free press has shared their fate. There is no accredited organ of public opinion; indeed there is no public opinion to record. Lords and Commons have been swept away, though a number of the richest old gentlemen in London meet daily at Westminster to receive orders from Buckingham Palace. But at the palace itself has broken out one of those sanguinary conspiracies which have of late become unceasing. The last heir of the house of Brunswick is lying dead with a dagger in his heart, and everything is in frightful confusion. The armed force of the capital are of course “masters of the situation,” and the Guards, after a tumultuous meeting at Windsor or Knightsbridge, have sold the throne to Baron Rothschild, for a handsome donation of £25 a-piece. Lord Clyde, however, we may be sure, is not likely to stand this, and in a few months will be marching upon London at the head of the Indian Army. In the mean time the Channel Fleet has declared for its own commander, has seized upon Plymouth and Portsmouth, and intends to starve the metropolis by stopping the imports of “bread-stuffs” at the mouth of the Thames. And this has become quite possible; for half the population of London, under the present state of things, subsist upon free distributions of corn dispensed by the occupant of the throne for the time being. But a more fatal change than even this has come over the population of the capital and of the whole country. The free citizens and ’prentices of London; the sturdy labourers of Dorsetshire and the eastern counties; and the skilful artizans of Manchester, Sheffield and Birmingham; the mariners and shipwrights of Liverpool, have been long ago drafted into marching regiments, and have left their bones to bleach beneath Indian suns and Polar snows. Their place has been supplied by countless herds of negro slaves, who till the fields and crowd the workshops of our towns, to the entire exclusion of free labour; for the free population, or rather the miserable relics of them, disdain all manual employment: they divide their time between starvation and a degrading debauchery, the means for which are sedulously provided by the government. The time-honoured institutions of the bull-bait, the cockpit, and the ring, are in daily operation, under the most distinguished patronage. Hyde Park has been converted into a gigantic arena, where criminals from Newgate “set-to” with the animals from the Zoological Gardens. Every fortnight there is a Derby Day, and the whole population pour into the Downs with frantic excitement, leaving the city to the slaves. And then the moral condition of this immense mass! Of the doings about the palace we should be sorry to speak. But the lady patronesses of Almack’s still more assiduously patronize the prize-fights, and one of them has been seen within the ropes, in battle array, by the side of Sayers himself.
Charles Kingsley, 1864, part 2
ReplyDeleteNo tongue may tell the orgies enacted, with the aid of French cooks, Italian singers, and foreign artists of all sorts, in the gilded saloons of Park Lane and Mayfair. Suffice to say, that in them the worst passions of human nature have full swing, unmodified by any thought of human or divine restraints, and only dashed a little now and then by the apprehension that the slaves may rise, and make a clean sweep of the metropolis with fire and steel. But n’importe—Vive la bagatelle! Mario has just been appointed prime minister, and has made a chorus singer from the Opera Duke of Middlesex and Governor-General of India. All wise men and all good men despair of the state, but they are not permitted to say anything, much less to act. Mr. Disraeli lost his head a few days ago; Lords Palmerston and Derby lie in the Tower under sentence of death; Lord Brougham, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Mr. Gladstone, opened their veins and died in a warm bath last week. Foreign relations will make a still greater demand on the reader’s imagination. We must conceive of England no longer as
“A precious stone set in the silver sea,
Which serves it in the office of a wall,
Or as a moat defensive of a house.”
but rather as open to the inroad of every foe whom her aggressive and colonizing genius has provoked. The red man of the West, the Caffre, the Sikh, and the Sepoy, Chinese braves, and fierce orientals of all sorts, are hovering on her frontiers in “numbers numberless,” as the flakes of snow in the northern winter. They are not the impotent enemy which we know, but vigorous races, supplied from inexhaustible founts of population, and animated by an insatiate appetite for the gold and silver, purple and fine linen, rich meats and intoxicating drinks of our effete civilization. And we can no longer oppose them with those victorious legions which have fought and conquered in all regions of the world. The men of Waterloo and Inkermann are no more. We are compelled to recruit our armies from those very tribes before whose swords we are receding!
‘Doubtless the ordinary reader will believe this picture to be overcharged, drawn with manifest exaggeration, and somewhat questionable taste. Every single statement which it contains may be paralleled by the circumstances and events of the decadence of the Roman Empire. The analogous situation was with the subjects of this type of all good government, always a possible, often an actual, state of things. We think this disposes of the theory of Mr. Congreve. With it may advantageously be contrasted the opinion of a man of more statesman-like mind. “The benefits of despotism are short-lived; it poisons the very springs which it lays open; if it display a merit, it is an exceptional one; if a virtue, it is created of circumstances; and when once this better hour has passed away, all the vices of its nature break forth with redoubled violence, and weigh down society in every direction.” So writes M. Guizot. Is it the language of prophecy as well as of personal experience?’
Charles Kingsley, 1864, part 3 and final
ReplyDeleteMr. Sheppard should have added, to make the picture complete, that the Irish have just established popery across St. George’s Channel, by the aid of re-immigrants from America; that Free Kirk and National Kirk are carrying on a sanguinary civil war in Scotland; that the Devonshire Wesleyans have just sacked Exeter cathedral, and murdered the Bishop at the altar, while the Bishop of London, supported by the Jews and the rich churchmen (who are all mixed up in financial operations with Baron Rothschild) has just commanded all Dissenters to leave the metropolis within three days, under pain of death.
I must add yet one more feature to this fearful, but accurate picture, and say how, a few generations forward, an even uglier thing would be seen. The English aristocracy would have been absorbed by foreign adventurers. The grandchildren of these slaves and mercenaries would be holding the highest offices in the state and the army, naming themselves after the masters who had freed them, or disguising their barbarian names by English endings. The De Fung-Chowvilles would be Dukes, the Little-grizzly-bear-Joe-Smiths Earls, and the Fitz-Stanleysons, descended from a king of the gipsies who enlisted to avoid transportation, and in due time became Commander-in-Chief, would rule at Knowsley in place of the Earl of Derby, having inherited the same by the summary process of assassination. Beggars on horseback, only too literally; married, most of them, to Englishwomen of the highest rank; but looking on England merely as a prey; without patriotism, without principle; they would destroy the old aristocracy by legal murders, grind the people, fight against their yet barbarian cousins outside, as long as they were in luck: but the moment the luck turned against them, would call in those barbarian cousins to help them, and invade England every ten years with heathen hordes, armed no more with tulwar and matchlock, but with Enfield rifle and Whitworth cannon. And that, it must be agreed, would be about the last phase of the British empire. If you will look through the names which figure in the high places of the Roman empire, during the fourth and fifth centuries, you will see how few of them are really Roman. If you will try to investigate, not their genealogies—for they have none—not a grandfather among them—but the few facts of their lives which have come down to us; you will see how that Nemesis had fallen on her which must at last fall on every nation which attempts to establish itself on slavery as a legal basis. Rome had become the slave of her own slaves".
Original here:
http://www.archive.org/stream/romanteutonserie00kinguoft#page/20/mode/2up
"People in the UK and every other Western country overwhelmingly want less immigration, according to practically every poll ever taken."
ReplyDeleteThen why did they elect the socialist labor party Tony Blair to rule there country? Why did the US elect leftist Obama?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK)
International affiliation
Socialist International
European affiliation
Party of European Socialists
Look at there colors, it is red, like communists.
Dennis, when are you going to stop the white idealism and realize that countries like Britian are doing this because the majority of there population are avowed liberals who support this, not because some random leader is forcing it on people.
ReplyDeleteWere the majority of Germans under Weimar Germany "avowed liberals" who supported the conditions of Weimar Germany?
Growing up in '70's California, our teachers had us read Orwell, including "Politics and The English Language." I had always assumed his influence would be a kind of innoculation against the bold lying of someone like Blair. I've been quite surprised as to how Orwell seems to have made very little effect against proliferation of a culture of lying.
ReplyDeleteThen why did they elect the socialist labor party Tony Blair to rule there country? Why did the US elect leftist Obama?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1222769/Dishonest-Blair-Straw-accused-secret-plan-multicultural-UK.html
'Dishonest' Blair and Straw accused over secret plan for multicultural UK
"Jack Straw and Tony Blair 'dishonestly' concealed a plan to allow in more immigrants and make Britain more multi-cultural because they feared a public backlash if it was made public, it has been claimed."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/7198329/Labours-secret-plan-to-lure-migrants.html
Labour's 'secret plan' to lure migrants
The Government has been accused of pursuing a secret policy of encouraging mass immigration for its own political ends.
Were the majority of Germans under Weimar Germany "avowed liberals" who supported the conditions of Weimar Germany?
ReplyDeleteNo. But last I saw, we ain't livin' in Weimar Germany.
they feared a public backlash if it was made public
Well, it has been made public. Where is the backlash?
I have no doubt that the common people strongly disagrees with the ultimate destination of liberalism. But they do not disagree with the next step, so their opposition is only theoretical and ultimately meaningless.
To take an example: gay marriage would be an unthinkable demand even in the 1960s. If it had been the demand after Stonewall, there would have been no normalization of homosexuality. Even liberals wouldn't have bought that. But people did not oppose the small step that was taken then, and a succession of small steps has left us where we are today. Ditto for the rest of the liberal framework.
If the common people do not oppose the next small step, and they don't; if they are all Keynesians about the long-term prospect which they can see and dislike (I mean the Keynes of "in the long run we'll all be dead"), and they are - then I see no reason to absolve them from the guilt.
No. But last I saw, we ain't livin' in Weimar Germany.
ReplyDeleteThere was great decadence and degeneracy in Weimar Germany. You could just have easily said "the people" then actually supported the decadence and degeneracy because they hadn't formed a sufficient, practical opposition to curb all the small steps leading up to that situation, despite all the negative sentiment about the situation they actually held.
so their opposition is only theoretical and ultimately meaningless.
At this point, for their opposition to move beyond theory and meaninglessness, it would have to be extremely disruptive, likely semi-violent or violent. People, especially demoralized and relatively powerless people, do not automatically coalesce into a sufficiently disruptive practical opposition. As in Weimar Germany, they require a leading group or force to articulate and channel their sentiment into a practical opposition.
Alat, the 'common people' are not moral agents. They will do what they are told, induced or brainwashed to. Its meaningless to say that a fictional 'we' deserve the utter decadence that has been forced of us, because masses of 'common people' have sold their votes to leftists.
ReplyDeleteYou are using the wrong frame, this is not about 'guilt' or lack of it. Its about agency. Who is moving the strings? for what purpose?
Dennis, when are you going to stop the white idealism and realize that countries like Britian are doing this because the majority of there population are avowed liberals who support this, not because some random leader is forcing it on people.
ReplyDelete--
Immigration is too high, say four in five Britons
Anon and spandrell,
ReplyDeleteI don't really disagree with your points. I don't expect people in general to be interested in political philosophy; they will, as they always have and always will, defer to those in position of authority. Since we currently have degenerates in these positions, we get what we have.
That, however, does not absolve the people of moral responsibility. Western elites have failed Western civilization, but common Westerners have also failed to replace their elite when it turned against them. Yeah, it's tough and how could they have done so, I know, but the judgment of history won't change because of that.
Anon, your comment give me the impression that you think it's too early to do something useful, and that things will have to get worse before they get better. (Sorry if I'm reading your mind incorrectly). I disagree: it's too late, because the people is corrupted. Weimar Germany, to take your example, was voted out of existence by the people in 20 years. (The people actually chose something worse, but that's another matter). How many decades till the people votes liberalism out? And they will replace it with what?
And here I get to spandrell's last point. To me, it **was** about agency, who's moving the strings, but we're past that.
Let me try metaphor (it's not mine, but I don't recall where I saw it): We're in a house set on fire by an arsonist. We can try to discover how the arsonist got in, and where he started the fire (and many in the alt right apply great erudition to this issue, though the answers unsurprisingly differ). If we had gotten to the place just minutes after the fire was started, we could have put it out, and the house would be safe. But no longer: now the whole building is on fire. We can stamp out the original fire, we can even jail the arsonist, but the building will burn down anyway: the foundations are compromised.
If only the elite was corrupted, we could hope to replace it with a better one. But if the corruption of the elite has contaminated the people at large - and I submit it has done so irrevocably - not even that would help much now. I don't see how you can possibly get a virtuous elite out of a corrupted people - only how a virtuous elite might impose itself from the outside as conquerors, and then reignite the cycle of emulation of the masses towards those in positions of authority in a good way. But foreign conquest is exactly what we're trying to avoid...
I lived in Britain (London, Fulham) in 1975-6 and worked with lots of 22-25 year old university grads. It stunned me how much they hated Britain (not as much as they hated America, of course...).
ReplyDeleteI, being an English major and Anglophile, had a hard time understanding. Of course, those people are now the leaders, and their hatred of Britain must be guiding their policies.
Maybe some UK subject can enlighten me as to WHY Brits born 1950-1960 and educated at university hated their country and their people so much?
One question is why someone like Blair can, without being challenged, or bothering to provide any justification, openly propagate the patently absurd notion that Britain's economic success depends on the importation of a tidal wave of third world immigrants.
ReplyDeleteAnother question is why he would hold these views, or apparently hold these views, in the first place. If you look at who he's let in, it's not the random collection of faiths and cultures he talks about; rather, it's heavily skewed to a particular demographic. I don't see lots of Hindus flocking in, or Jews from Russsia, or Congolese Pygmies. This must be the key: who actually benefited, and who got paid.
I say, follow the money. Even he cannot literally believe what he says; and even if he is a white extinctionist, the sheer magnitude of what happened strongly points to some form of lubrication.
Anon.
Gokart-mozart wants to know why the English hate their country and their own people so much. I think it is because of the greatness of England's past. They look around and see that neither their leaders nor their fellow Englishmen match up at all to their ancestors and they end up despising them.
ReplyDeletethere is no way for a country like Britain to succeed in the future unless it is open to people of different colours, faiths and cultures
ReplyDeleteI don't know that Blair is lying here. He may well believe everything he is saying. That's even more depressing than the possibility that he is being dishonest, in my view.
What he is articulating is "the American disease". Substitute America (or New York, or California, or Texas) for Britain and those words could have been spoken by almost any American politician of either party. It's one of the core beliefs of the Western ruling class.
No, they have simply been indoctrinated by a squalid army of "teachers" and "journalists".
ReplyDeleteIn future, the fate of the UK will be studied as a prime example of how propaganda can succeed in turning a people against themselves.
Only someone like Cromwell can really clean them up.
Anon.
One question is why someone like Blair can, without being challenged, or bothering to provide any justification, openly propagate the patently absurd notion that Britain's economic success depends on the importation of a tidal wave of third world immigrants.
ReplyDeleteHow is he any different from the average American politician in this respect?
They are all singing from the same hymn-book.
ReplyDeleteAnon.
@ATBOTL
ReplyDeleteAlso, people overwhelmingly want to eat healthy and lose weight. And yet MacDonalds keeps on making money hand over fist.
"Also, people overwhelmingly want to eat healthy and lose weight. And yet MacDonalds keeps on making money hand over fist."
ReplyDelete--
Perhaps you are confusing sets and subsets. If a subset of the population patronizes fast-food restaurants, one should not conclude from this that the larger set (the people as a whole) patronize food vendors geared towards those of a low socioeconomic status.
McDonald's 365-Black
Also, people overwhelmingly want to eat healthy and lose weight. And yet MacDonalds keeps on making money hand over fist.
ReplyDeleteYes, there is lots of money to be made and power to be gained by exploiting people's weaknesses.
Fjordman on modern Western elites and their attempts to systematically undermine the nation-state:
ReplyDelete"On both sides of the Atlantic, Western nations seem to have trouble upholding their borders, and I suspect this is partly because most of the political, cultural and financial elites don't want to uphold them. Maybe in the old days, the interests of the elites largely coincided with those of their nation states, which were used as a vehicle for gaining as much wealth and influence as possible. Now, in our globalized world, increasing segments of these elites no longer feel any emotional attachment to their nations, and desire larger entities to enhance their personal power and prestige. This is why they are building regional economic blocks in both Europe and North America.
This process has gone further in the smaller nation states of Europe, where post-national and transnational elites have even usurped legislative powers which override national constitutions and parliaments, but still, the developments are related. There was never a debate in the United States on whether to merge the country demographically and economically with Mexico, the elites just quietly implemented it. Likewise, there has never been any debate in Europe about merging the continent with the Arab world. Since the people probably wouldn't have agreed to this, they simply weren't asked.
The problem is, it is actually possible to do this in the 21st century, because wealthy nations will face constant pressures from migration that are unrivaled in human history. Powerful elite groups can thus permanently change the demographic make-up of their countries by simply abstaining from upholding their countries' territorial integrity. They don't have to stage any public debate about it.
According to Singapore's long-time leader Lee Kuan Yew, it is demography, not democracy, that will be the critical factor shaping the 21st century. I don't know whether that's true, but it is true that countries that cannot control their demographic future will not be able to control their democratic future, either. Maybe our democratic system will break down because our elites are no longer interested in supporting the nation states it is based upon. Not a nice thought, but it needs to be asked."
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/007730.html
"Jack Straw and Tony Blair 'dishonestly' concealed a plan to allow in more immigrants and make Britain more multi-cultural because they feared a public backlash if it was made public, it has been claimed."
ReplyDeleteIt makes me so angry when I see articles, not even just from left wing press, stating that "We (as in the whole of British society, or even a majority) have long since 'decided' Britain is going to be a multi-cultural society, so why are the people of Britian expressing sentiments against this?".
No one ever decided this, or gave their assent to it. A Labour party cabal made the decision after being voted in on the back of providing better public services and everyone was convinced, during the good years, that they should not speak up for the sake of their reputation, while the extent of it was hidden. That's nothing like a decision made by the people.
People in Britain talk as if the Proposition Nation rhetoric, which is again something foisted on Americans as "have away been our values", has even a tenth of the antiquity in this country it does in the USA.
Just to amplify what Fjordman said. I'm surprised that people astute enough to read a blog like this still blame voters for their predicament. It shows great political naiveté. Western democracies have been immune to the popular will, for a very long time (in the US since FDR, longer in W. Europe). Decisions like this are taken in secret and carried out by the bureaucracy, the Deep State. They will never stand a ballot, and any fitful attempts by elected officials to do anything about it will be stuck fast in red tape. So it goes. Look what is going on at the Arizona border. The Federal Government decided to just stop seriously enforcing the border. And now who can make them? The State of Arizona is trying to fill the breach, for its trouble it is now being sued by the Feds. Can the voters elect the court that will try the case, or appeal the decision of the judges? Of course not. And even if the legal challenge is survived, there are infinite tricks the Feds and other institutions can resort to in order to foil Arizona's attempt to guard her borders. Should we blame the voters for that? The elites have revolted against their own people and no election will stop them. They really despise us you know, and they use their privileged positions in society to wage war on us.
ReplyDeleteThe only hope is that the collapse of Western governments and the Western ruling elite will proceed faster than the demographic point of no return. And there are at least small signs that this may in fact happen.
Alat,
ReplyDeleteIf you're trying to say that the people have been brainwashed, corrupted to the core, and consequently we're doomed beyond hope.
We'll you have a point. I do also think that Western Civ has we knew it is beyond repair.
But I don't like framing it as "moral responsibility". It has no real meaning. People have been duped and coerced into believing a bogus religion, which is helping the demise of the polity. Can we reverse it? Can the people be brought back to common sense?
That's the real question, not byzantines tirades about 'deserving' and 'moral responsibility'. That's theology, and its not helpful. Discussing the sex of angels and all that.
"I'm surprised that people astute enough to read a blog like this still blame voters for their predicament. "
ReplyDeleteWith the authority comes responsibility.I live in a Western European country where everybody knows by now that the local variant of Labour supports immigration. A lot of people loathe immigrants but keep voting for this party, why? The answer is they want to have free goodies the party promises. Sorry, but those who dance must pay the fiddler.
“Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.”
ReplyDeleteTheodore Dalrymple, 2005
I'm not sure that "political correctness" is relevant here. It's not the fear of offending NAMs, or "sensitivity", or repenting for European imperialism, that motivate Tony Blair.
ReplyDeleteHe simply believes that the proper model for a 21st century state is multiracial and multicultural. It's refreshing that he's not making any excuses for it.
By the way, I don't engage with "anonymous" anymore.
ReplyDeleteWhat is happening? I take keyboard in hand to mention that I am in a European city with very few diversisti other than obvious tourists. The hotel rooms are cleaned by white women, not unattractive. Breakfast is served by young white men. How is it possible to function without North Africans or Somalis? Who are these whites who work damn hard in three or four languages? Someone please explain.
ReplyDeleteEvery once in a while something happens that demonstrates to the elites that there are limits to how much they can push. The last time this happened was the French Revolution, or maybe the Russian Revolution.
ReplyDeleteIn between, they forget what can happen if they push too much.
IHTG said...
ReplyDeleteHe simply believes that the proper model for a 21st century state is multiracial and multicultural. It's refreshing that he's not making any excuses for it.
He quite likely professes that because his power base depends on more people. People who will vote for them and purchase the goods and services they offer. However, the sensible whites in the UK have cut their fertility because of the expense of family formation.
sabril said...
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I don't engage with "anonymous" anymore.
That's all to the good because we don't find you engaging.
(signed by) the Union of Anonymous Posters
The idea that England should cease being a Celtic/Germanic country and instead become a multiracial country thru mass invasion was the idea of jewish politicians, individuals and groups in England. It is just a copy of what jews have done in the USA. Jews feel they are much safer in a multiracial, multicultural England than they would be in a Celtic/Germanic England. Jews feel their safety justifies destroying other peoples countries.
ReplyDeleteTony Blair is simply another English leftist who has adopted jewish ideology.
Prof. Richard Lynn remembers what happened: "... Up to around 1950, Britain was an all-white society. I do not remember ever seeing a non-European before this time. This began to change as a result of two developments.
ReplyDeleteThe first was the British Nationality Act of 1948, which conferred citizenship and the right to live in Britain on all members of the Commonwealth and Empire. The Commonwealth comprised Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa, while the Empire consisted of the Indian sub-continent, about one third of sub-Saharan Africa, Hong Kong, Malaysia, most of the Caribbean islands, and a number of smaller territories. This act meant that huge numbers of non-Europeans—some 800 million—had the right to live and work in Britain. Curiously, the probable consequences of this act were not much debated in the House of Commons..."
The second was the signing the international refugee act, a humanitarian gesture, that forces every country to accept countless refugees from African hellholes.
Once the immigrants become a sizeable part of the voting population, it is only natural that politicians will befriend them. Mr Blair is a very successful British and growingly International politician, competing for popularity with the voters. Is that too difficult to see?
By the way, Mangan, why is Blair lying? Does anybody expect a politician to tell what he really believes? (if he has any strong beliefs, which is doubtful).
American politicians will necessarily suck up to Mexican and other immigrant groups. No need for orders from Wall Street, they just want to be elected to office, very much so.
I think Athenians were right when in their democracy only propertied men could spoke in the assembly and vote. Maybe I am too reactionary...?
Given the topic is PC here is an interesting documentary put together by William Lind in the 1990s about the origins of political correctness which he terms cultural marxism. Some of you have probably seen it, but for those who haven't, it is a good presentation. Lind's thesis is that PC goes back to the time of WW1 and the founding of the Frankfurt School.
ReplyDeletethere is no way for a country like Britain to succeed in the future unless it is open to people of different colours, faiths and cultures.
ReplyDeleteOddly enough, Britain was most successful when it was least diverse, and the decline of Britain's success tracks precisely with the increase in diversity.
"WHY Brits born 1950-1960 and educated at university hated their country and their people so much?"
ReplyDeleteI noticed that in the indifference of people like the Beatles, when referring to "the war and all that..." There seemed to be no pride, and only reluctant gratitude for the sacrifices of their parents. Maybe their parents were openly bitter, in fact I know they were because they so quickly voted in Churchill's opponents before the war ended.
Maybe it's a combination of, we can never rise to the greatness of the past, and we weren't worth saving anyway.
"Nicholas Stix said...
ReplyDelete“Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.”
Theodore Dalrymple, 2005"
That was an astute observation on Mr. Dalrymple's part and, I think, a very important point. The purpose of political correctness is, by making us complicit in the lie, to cow us, to break us, and to bend us to their will.
When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself.
ReplyDeleteThere are four lights!
I must admit I'm sympathetic to the anonymous (make up a name you lazy pricks!) commenter who suggests that the silent majority must shoulder their part of the blame for the demise of our Western nations.
ReplyDeleteWhile the majority may profess to oppose mass immigration, the reality is they are quite happy to render this as a secondary consideration and vote for Leftist (or CINO) political parties based on whatever middle/lower-class hand-out is being offered to them.
As much as those of us on the alt-right direct vitriol towards our political elites I increasingly believe our situation is a case of us (the West) getting the leadership we deserve.
Wasn't the Labour Party created to protect the interests of the British working class? What happened between then and now?
ReplyDeleteVibrancy has reached surreal extremes in England. The Onion wouldn't dare invent something as crazy as this for fear of satire leaving reality too far behind.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2054915/Clifford-Denty-carer-Curtis-Smith-murdered-family-wants-sue-NHS.html
"WHY Brits born 1950-1960 and educated at university hated their country and their people so much?"
ReplyDeleteThey knew Britain was finished as a world power, so they decided it didn't deserve to exist at all. A demographic and cultural scorched earth policy followed from the idea that if Britain can't be top dog, it should be nothing.
anon said, "Oddly enough, Britain was most successful when it was least diverse, and the decline of Britain's success tracks precisely with the increase in diversity."
ReplyDeleteActually, it's not odd at all. There is NO evidence that "diversity" EVER benefits ANY society, and there is an abundance of evidence to the contrary.
All social science research, as well as the accumulated experience of humanity, agree that the more diverse a society is, the more conflict prone, the less secure, and the less successful it is.
Diversity is not our strength. It's our suicide.
Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.
ReplyDeleteThe Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.
Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to "assimilate," i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.
What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?
How long would it take anyone to realize I'm not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?
And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn't object to this?
But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.
They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.
Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.
"Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries."
ReplyDelete...
attribution: Bob Whitaker
(a different Anonymous)
"Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries."
ReplyDeleteBetter for the third world developing countries to improve to the level where all their residents WANT to stay there. That is happening in my country, India. There was a time a few decades ago when the brain drain was huge. Now we are relunctant to leave our home, family, and culture just to chase the American dollar. Our own currency and economy is growing and with that, our standard of living is improving, so we are simply not taking up MNC offers that 10 years ago we would have jumped at. There are also many of us who after living abroad for a number of years, are choosing to return to India to settle down, marry and educate our children in our math-centric schools and our indigenous religious traditions and culture.
As far as Whites "dying out" and "genocide" - that is on YOU. I can't tell you how many White people I have met for whom marriage, children and family simply DO NOT MATTER. They are unconcerned with marriage because they can "get laid" without it. And their "rugged individualism" and fetish for freedom ensures that they sure as heck don't want children to bog them down.
If Whites die out, its because they prefer independence over the ball and chain of marriage and family.
http://gfactor.blogspot.com/
ReplyDeleteHOW BRITAIN HELPS ITS (MAINLY BLACK) RIOTERS
The disgraceful and frightening summer riots (in Tottenham etc.) proved again that taxpayer-supplied ‘disability benefit’ was one of the biggest scams going. Hundreds of arrested young thugs (mainly Black in London and Birmingham) were disability or incapacity claimants — but not too incapacitated to hurl trolleys through shop windows and carry off 36” widescreen plasma TVs.
40% of all of England’s 2K convicted rioters of that August week turned out to have been on benefits of some kind (Sun, 25 x; Classic FM, 29 x, 10:00). {Likewise, a third had been excluded from school; and two thirds had “special educational needs” [i.e. were below IQ 80] (Vicki Helyar-Cardwell; Director, Criminal Justice Alliance; D.Telegraph, 27 x).
More than half of those charged with offences were from a Black or ethnic minority (i.e. Pakeshi) background, compared with 42 per cent who were White, Ministry of Justice figures showed. ‘Gang culture’ – much beloved of the MSM commentariat – had not been the problem: only 13% of apprehended youths belonged to gangs. But father-absence probably was – the Sunday Mail’s Peter Hitchens guessing it as a factor in 90% of cases.}
Robert in Arabia
As with Michael Bloomberg's statements about needing open borders to be able to compete in our New Globalized Economy, I would love to hear Tony Blair's explanation for how Japan, Finland, etc are able to succeed in high tech industries with only negligible immigrant populations.
ReplyDeleteLook how culturally dull Britain was in the 1960s!
ReplyDeleteEnrichment
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2055813/Marion-Hedges-left-fighting-life-kids-throw-shopping-cart-her.html
Robert in Arabia
Interesting to read the comments suggesting that voters are being bribed to vote against their long-term interests.
ReplyDeleteI think inertia is another, ever more basic problem. I try to talk to people in real life about the things we talk about here, especially immigration. On one hand, people are far more receptive than one might assume. Most people are anti-immigration and few get offended if I bring up the racial aspect.
On the other hand, none of it really resonates. They know intellectually that immigration is a disaster, but they don't really "know" it emotionally. America has been prosperous their whole life, so it's tough for them to imagine a future when it's much worse off.
It's kind of like the national debt. Everyone knows we can't keep running trillion-dollar deficits, but it's not an immediate problem and we've never had a government debt crisis before, so it just doesn't register with people.
If the UK were in a healthy state, Blair would be tried for treason and permanently exiled to Sub-Sahara Africa.
ReplyDeleteThe only salvation for the U.K. is renewed Luftwaffe raids and the installation of sharia law.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/8863960/Fathers-denied-a-right-to-see-children.html
Robert in Arabia