Labour say we are all racists

[Loki]

LABOUR SAY WE ARE ALL RACISTS (http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/159888/Labour-say-we-are-all-racists)

Tuesday February 23,2010

By Macer Hall

LABOUR dismissed the British public’s widespread opposition to mass immigration as “racism”, a Government document revealed yesterday.

Officials made it clear that public opinion was strongly against relaxing border controls.

But ministers were urged to ignore voters’ “racist” views and press ahead with a secret policy to encourage migrants to flood into Britain. Whitehall experts even proposed a major propaganda campaign to soften up voters in preparation for the mass influx of newcomers.

The details were laid bare in the original draft of a policy document released for the first time under the Freedom of Information Act.

Last night critics accused the Government of snubbing the concerns of British citizens in their deliberate pursuit of a multicultural society.

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the population think-tank Migrationwatch UK, said: “This report confirms that ministers deliberately rode roughshod over public opinion in adopting a policy of mass immigration.

“They concealed their real intentions in the hope they would benefit from the immigrant vote without losing their working-class supporters. They are now paying the price.”

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: “The Government has simply not been telling the truth about its policies on immigration. More and more evidence is now emerging to show that they deliberately planned a big jump in immigration for their own political purposes."

“Now they are trying to rewrite history to pretend those decisions never happened. Their conduct over all of this has been a complete disgrace.”

Written by staff at the Home Office and Cabinet Office in 2000 in the run-up to the expansion of the European Union into eastern Europe, the report made it clear that voters wanted tougher rather than looser border controls.

“It is correct that public opinion favours relatively restrictive policies on immigration,” the document said. But demonstrating thinly disguised contempt for much of the British public, the document said that this opposition was linked to racist attitudes.

It said: “Recent research shows that anti-immigrant sentiment is closely correlated with racism rather than economic motives. The most negative attitudes are found among those who have relatively little direct contact with migrants but see them as a threat.”

Ministers also ignored warnings that immigration would lead to an explosion in organised crime including trafficking in drugs, illegal migrants and prostitutes. “Migration has opened up new opportunities for organised crime,” the report insisted.

The document, titled Going With The Flow: Managing Migration in the 21st Century, went on to urge the Government to manipulate public opinion on the issue.

“A new approach to migration policy would need to be not only accompanied by, but underpinned by, a clear strategy for public opinion and public debate,” the report argued.

“Government has tended to assume that negative public opinion on migration is a given that is beyond its control. In fact, research (and common sense) suggests that past governments have had a significant influence on public opinion.”

It added: “On other issues, government has been strategic and proactive in addressing public opinion, it could do so on migration.” The document even suggested the more migrants that moved to the UK, the more the British people would come to accept them.

It said: “Education and people’s personal exposure to migrants make them less likely to be anti-migrant.” The document went on to be heavily edited before being officially published in 2001, with all references to public opposition stripped out.

References to migration opening up “new opportunities” for organised crime were also expunged from the final version. The row over Labour’s secret immigration policy erupted last year when former ministerial adviser Andrew Neather admitted the Government had a “driving political purpose” to spread multiculturalism in Britain.

He said ministers had deliberately set out to use immigration to undermine Labour’s opponents and “rub the Right’s noses in diversity”. Border and Immigration Minister Phil Woolas last night rejected the criticism. He said: “This report confirms there was no open-door policy on migration.

“It makes quite clear that migration is not a substitute for Government policies on skills, education and training of British citizens, which the Government has invested in over the past decade. The Home Secretary at the time was also criticised for changes to the immigration policy being too tough."

“We have tightened them still further. Our new flexible points-based system gives us greater control of those coming to work or study from outside Europe, ensuring that only those that Britain need can come. Britain’s borders are stronger than ever before.”

[Jarl]

Why indeed! Being racist is human. It is a part of human nature. Just like the selfish gene and egoism ;)

[Anthropos]

It must be true then. Labour said it.

Seriously, people who say that all people are racists are just as funny as people who say that all people are homosexuals or that all men are animals etc... come on, it's so stupid.

[Sol Invictus]

This article would probably be suited to every single one of the subforums we have here.

Just awful. They don't care they are just out in the open about all of this now.

[Poltergeist]

It must be true then. Labour said it.

Seriously, people who say that all people are racists are just as funny as people who say that all people are homosexuals or that all men are animals etc... come on, it's so stupid.

The very idea of some fixed, unchanging and eternal "human nature", so dear to many so-called conservatives, is also extremely stupid. Essentialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentialism) and determinism of sorts usually comes in package with that. Though it is originally a "conservative" idea, it is often (mis)used also by leftists and liberals of different sorts, in order to justify their agendas.

[RoyBatty]

Labour are correct about something for once. We (as in people, not necessarily Apricity posters) are (mostly) racists.

The difference is that many people are brainwashed and intimidated by governmental and social peer pressure into denying their true nature.

I'm proud to be racist. My people ie those I identify most closely with (for arguments sake call them "Indo-Europeans" or something similar) are Numero Uno! The rest are judged on a case-by-case basis. Some non-Euro ethnic groups are more tolerable than others.

I don't consider this attitude to be in the least intolerant or offensive (except to Liberals, the Rainbow Coalition, brainwashed intellectual amoebas etc) since other races feel exactly the same way! Often they're even more xenophobic than the popular media punchbag known as "Da WHITE Man".

There is no shame in standing up for who you are and defending your community's interests, territory and culture against invasion and annihilation by others. Only us STUPID whites are so dumb as to fall for Zionist / NWO brainwashing about having to be apologetic for who and what we are. Screw that.

And last but not the least, don't let yourself be bamboozled by clowns claiming "race has nothing to do with European / Ethnic Preservation". It has EVERYTHING to do with it. I'm not advocating genetic, DNA and ethnic nitpicking but if you keep it (more or less) white things will be alright. "Experimentation" on the side is for those who prefer the Globalised Multi-Kulti society model.

[Loki]

Indeed, Roy. However, the highlight of this article is not the "racist" part. It is this:



But ministers were urged to ignore voters’ “racist” views and press ahead with a secret policy to encourage migrants to flood into Britain. Whitehall experts even proposed a major propaganda campaign to soften up voters in preparation for the mass influx of newcomers.

[Sol Invictus]

con·spir·a·cy
   /kənˈspɪrəsi/[kuhn-spir-uh-see]
–noun,plural-cies.

1.the act of conspiring.

2.an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.

3.a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.

4.Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.

5.any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

[RoyBatty]

Indeed, Roy. However, the highlight of this article is not the "racist" part. It is this:

It's silly how the media are regurgitating old news and repackaging it as new. That social engineering story came out last year. Imo the issue of "racial perception" of "others" is central to the article.

The terms "racism" and "racist" would be meaningless if they weren't defined. Imo it doesn't mean much else than preferring yer own kin as opposed to a pack of Somalis on asylum and welfare cards. In Labour's upside down universe they make "racism" sound like it's a bad thing when it's simply a form of tribalism.

[Loki]

It's silly how the media are regurgitating old news and repackaging it as new. That social engineering story came out last year. Imo the issue of "racial perception" of "others" is central to the article.

The terms "racism" and "racist" would be meaningless if they weren't defined. Imo it doesn't mean much else than preferring yer own kin as opposed to a pack of Somalis on asylum and welfare cards. In Labour's upside down universe they make "racism" sound like it's a bad thing when it's simply a form of tribalism.

They will always go on about racism. I think by now, most people know to take any mention of that with a pinch of salt, unless of course it is coupled with some violent crime. The "racism" slandering effect has worn off.

[Liffrea]

So we now have hard evidence that the Labour Party has deliberately allowed mass immigration knowing full well the demographic and sociological consequences of the policy.

Coupled with their enmeshing the UK into an EU superstate that the majority of the British electorate do not wish to be part of via a treaty (Lisbon) that Labour promised the electorate a referendum on that they reneged on.

I might be rusty on my definition of treason but this seems to be damn close to it. I think it’s time that a number of members of the Labour government were arrested for treason and the very existence of the Labour Party was brought under scrutiny, there used to be laws against parties that threatened the national interest (now I’m not naïve I know the “national interest” means the interests of various suits but let’s at least pretend we have a legal system in the UK that has some concept of justice).

[Anthropos]

So we now have hard evidence that the Labour Party has deliberately allowed mass immigration knowing full well the demographic and sociological consequences of the policy.

As for them 'knowing full well the consequences' I think it's a debatable statement, but it matters little. Isn't it more interesting to ask what the reasons for it have been? Was there ever any doubt that they - and other politicians - had not just 'allowed' it; that in fact they planned it?

[Klärchen]

Hmmm, I thought this was the central sentence:

"They concealed their real intentions in the hope they would benefit from the immigrant vote without losing their working-class supporters...."
:confused:

Otherwise, here in Germany we have the problem of unemployment - I guess it's more or less the same in the UK? What they need are highly qualified people, but not really more of prospective social welfare recipients. So what should be the intention of that initiative?

[RoyBatty]

I might be rusty on my definition of treason but this seems to be damn close to it.

A definition of "treason" in the context of a Republic is perhaps simpler to define than in the context of the British Monarchy. I'm no legal expert but if memory serves correct I had to swear allegiance to the queen (as head of the monarchy) and not to The Big Brother State.

If that is indeed the case then whatever the Monarchy says is what goes. Since the Monarchy don't appear to be overly critical of Westminster's actions (LibLabCon, not only Labour) one could draw a conclusion that they are satisfied with proceedings. "Treason" against your country (in terms of what the definition of your "nation" or "people" are supposed to be) is not necessarily treason against the Monarch.

If this line of reasoning is correct then it would be true that Labour & Tories & LibDems sold out and committed treason against the Middle Classes of the UK
but not necessarily against the Monarchy.

This then leads to the uncomfortable (and potentially dangerous to the citizen's health) question as to who or what are to be recognised as the supreme authority in the country.



I think it’s time that a number of members of the Labour government were arrested for treason and the very existence of the Labour Party was brought under scrutiny, there used to be laws against parties that threatened the national interest (now I’m not naïve I know the “national interest” means the interests of various suits but let’s at least pretend we have a legal system in the UK that has some concept of justice).

It ain't just Labour mate. They may be grabbing the headlines but the entire system is rotten and "democracy" ain't gonna fix it neither.

[Anthropos]

Hmmm, I thought this was the central sentence:

:confused:

Otherwise, here in Germany we have the problem of unemployment - I guess it's more or less the same in the UK? What they need are highly qualified people, but not really more of prospective social welfare recipients. So what should be the intention of that initiative?

In my opinion, governments care little about unemployment and the real dangers of it, for as long as they think that they can medicate the problem in various ways; something however that they failed miserably at, but who said that they should have been successful? Not me, anyway. I know that one very important reason for mass immigration was and is the interests of big corporations. That is still so regardless of the outcome, but mind you many 'unqualified' or relatively uneducated individuals can be very helpful in carrying out tasks assigned to them in big corporations. And if not, mass immigration can make sure that there are others in abundance waiting in line.

[skyhawk]

I don't think the Labour Party are concerned with trying to bring about better race relations.....they are NOT socialists........I believe the mass immigration seen in recent years is based mainly on..............

A. the usefullness of exploiting migrant workers for the benefit ( profits ) of the employers.........driving down wages
B.the benefits ( for the establishment ) of having a deeply factionalized society........the old divide and conquer routine.

[hereward]

As said before, alot of people are aware of what Labour has done and is doing, but dangerously believe there is little that they can do about it. Most have deluded ideas of greener pastures abroad, or notions of insulating themselves from the world around them. I remember a tory back bencher being interveiwed before the 05 election, he was being asked about voter intentions, he replied that he was more concerned by the 50% who dont vote.
What needs to be realised, is not just labour's engineering, but why is it that what they have done is not much discussed. The media has always known the extant of their grand designs, yet either chooses to remain quiet or actively misleads and coerses the general public. People have got to realise that those who run the west are, at the very least, not interested in democracy, or worse, are intent on carrying out a pernicious ideology. Just look at the last 50 years, examine most domestic policies, they do not sit well with either common sense, nor do they represent the actions of Governments whose interests are a stable, independent nation.

[Anthropos]

I don't think the Labour Party are concerned with trying to bring about better race relations.....they are NOT socialists........I believe the mass immigration seen in recent years is based mainly on..............

A. the usefullness of exploiting migrant workers for the benefit ( profits ) of the employers.........driving down wages
B.the benefits ( for the establishment ) of having a deeply factionalized society........the old divide and conquer routine.

I wouldn't know what is entailed in 'B' there exactly, but something that leftists and unions who are otherwise very concerned with 'worker's rights' forget about is that mass immigration is not so much exploiting the immigrants (who came to the conditions by an active choice and oftentimes exactly because of them) as it is exploiting the indigenous population of the country. There is a veritable blindness to reality that they are not alone in; what I think is that this is the blindness of the 'progressive' and 'civilised' Western minds who think that they are and must always be better and thus somehow safe from harm.

[skyhawk]

The mainstream media is corporate owned............thus they set the parameters of debate and influence mass opinion in a way to support their own ends...............

[skyhawk]

I wouldn't know what is entailed in 'B' there exactly, but something that leftists and unions who are otherwise very concerned with 'worker's rights' forget about is that mass immigration is not so much exploiting the immigrants (who came to the conditions by an active choice and oftentimes exactly because of them) as it is exploiting the indigenous population of the country. There is a veritable blindness to reality that they are not alone in; what I think is that this is the blindness of the 'progressive' and 'civilised' Western minds who think that they are and must always be better and thus somehow safe from harm.

I will try to explain what I meant in B. first Anthropos.

It is a historical truism IMO that migrant labourers imported/invited to the UK ( or anywhere else for that matter ) are not only used as a cheap labour supply, but they are socially demonized, and if we're being honest here racially abused, by stereotyping in the native population so as not to upset the prevailing orthodoxies as set out by the ruling elite of the nation.

Racial and/or religious differences serve as divisions between the masses that can and do last for many years turning worker against worker as opposed to worker against employer.( who is exploiting both )

The Irish are as good an example as any to look at.

When Irish labourers from the colony were brought or arrived through necessity to the mainland to dig the canals, lay railtracks etc they were subjected to a variety of discriminations and abuses........refered to as " root eaters " ( because of their use of the potato )............" bog dwellers ".........they lived in " shanty towns " etc etc...........signs stating " no blacks , no Irish " were commonplace. The legacy of the " thick " Irish still survives to this day.

The stereotype of the " lazy native " ( black ) still endures but what is not taken into account IMO is that that " laziness " is surely a gesture of resistance to being subjugated into the service of others, to be "owned " by another person............looking at it like that it seems perfectly reasonable to me to be unwilling to pull your tripes out for your " master "............is that " laziness "?.............I think not personally


New Labour are not leftists and the Trades Unions have sold out............so its not surprising to me that the exploitation of the " indigenous " worker........which is very real...........has not been fought against by either.

[Óttar]

Racism is a word that is thrown around too much.

My friend once told me that my "racist" solutions to the Muslim problem in Europe aren't viable. I should have responded... Racist? How? I hate white Muslims too. :D

[Kadu]

Racism is a word that is thrown around too much.

My friend once told me that my "racist" solutions to the Muslim problem in Europe aren't viable. I should have responded... Racist? How? I hate white Muslims too. :D

He should have called you xenophobe instead.

[Falkata]

He should have called you xenophobe instead.

What about if the muslim is from his own country? :D

[Kadu]

What about if the muslim is from his own country? :D

The same


As defined by the OED, it can mean a fear of or aversion to, not only persons from other countries, but other cultures, subcultures and subsets of belief systems; in short, anyone who meets any list of criteria about their origin, religion, personal beliefs, habits, language, orientations, or any other criteria.



Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophobia)