Friday, October 23, 2009

Burying culture

Could Nick Griffin be right, that there has been a deliberate attempt by political elites to destroy the prevailing culture of Britain?

If this article is to be believed, then the answer is, shockingly, "yes".
Labour threw open Britain's borders to mass immigration to help socially engineer a more multicultural country, a former Government adviser has revealed.

The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

He said Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote".

This policy might alienate the "working class vote"? Oh, y'think?

Mind you, this would explain why NuLabour seem to be so keen to expel skilled migrants who want to work—they are likely to be too far right, far too conservative, far too hard-working, to achieve the change that the NuLabour scum apparently wanted.

No: import the unskilled, the radical, the lazy and the stupid. And don't forget to import their families too. Fuck me, what's next—Labour paid for their fucking flights over here?
As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants.

Critics said the revelations showed a "conspiracy" within Government to impose mass immigration for "cynical" political reasons.

Mr Neather was a speech writer who worked in Downing Street for Tony Blair and in the Home Office for Jack Straw and David Blunkett, in the early 2000s.

Writing in the Evening Standard, he revealed the "major shift" in immigration policy came after the publication of a policy paper from the Performance and Innovation Unit, a Downing Street think tank based in the Cabinet Office, in 2001.

He wrote a major speech for Barbara Roche, the then immigration minister, in 2000, which was largely based on drafts of the report.

He said the final published version of the report promoted the labour market case for immigration but unpublished versions contained additional reasons, he said.

He wrote: "Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.

"I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn't its main purpose – to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date."

The "deliberate policy", from late 2000 until "at least February last year", when the new points based system was introduced, was to open up the UK to mass migration, he said.

What this actually reminds me of is Sean Gabb's recent speech (which I commented on). In that, Sean revealed what he thought the NuLabour government's real aim was.
The purpose of the Government that took power in 1997 was to bring about a revolutionary transformation of this country—a transformation from which there could be no return to what had been before.

That summation is beginning to look more and more plausible.

Fucking hellski.


Gareth said...

So you can't put it all down to incompetence then!

The anti-immigrant sector of society is surely tiny. At a guess most people would be more interested in helping genuine asylum seekers, welcoming productive immigrants who integrate and wanting people to be treated fairly. What they're not keen on are loads of bogus asylum seekers, preferrential treatment and ghettos condoned by the authorities. Yet the Labour bods seem to have conflated a quite reasonable view on managed and beneficial immigration with the much more isolationist and extreme stance and thought they had to tackle a gigantic ghastly ogre that didn't exist.

This was then made worse by gerrymandering so many people out of work that we needed floods of productive foreigners to prop up even the basics like labouring, tradesmen and whatnot.

Perhaps the general plan was Anything But British?

thefrollickingmole said...

So rather than convince the British public by using their skills of logic, they chose to smash it instead?

Nick the dick might be a tool, but until either of your parties actualy dares to ask if the public want mass immigration he will continue to pick up votes. Neither of your major parties is prepared to defend migration, so why should people have any faith in it?

Still how evil an act is it to govern in order to actively cause a crisis (so you can "fix" them of course).

Mitch said...

Wouldn't this count as treason?

Von Spreuth. said...

IF you had listened to the wannabe commy twats in your school common rooms and sixth form centers of the late 70s, this would come as NO surprise. They were ALL saying EXACTLY this then. And NOW those bastards are the "Government", the councillors, the leaders of "Government advisory bodies" etc etc, and guess what? The leopard has NOT changed it's spots.

Roger Thornhill said...

Treason? It way well be a form.

Thing is I have been banging on about the real threat: not the enemy at our gates but the traitorous, treasonous Fabians within, turning our fortress into a prison in plain sight.

Techno Mystic said...

Re: social transformation.

Peter Hitchens has been saying this as well - see his book The Broken Compass. He used to be a Trot so he would know.

I used to think it was paranoid but I increasingly came round to believing it to be true.

cuffleyburgers said...

This story, confirming that which we suspected but didn't quite belive that any government could be so staggeringly cycnical, should be enough to destroy Labour for ever.

But at a bitter cost to the nation.

John East said...

Surprise, surprise, who'd a thunk it.

I heard Galloway on the radio last night commenting on Thursday's Question Time studio audience demographic, which I believe was around 65% non "ethnic" British, and he made his position clear.

He didn't just accept the situation, as most of us have done to a greater or lesser degree, but made it clear that the concept of a town or city with predominantly English inhabitants was anathema to him. He stated that he was happy that the towns and cities of his youth, in which only white faces were seen on the streets, were now gone forever.

Let's face it, they've won.

Short of a complete break down in society and a bloody massacre, which doesn't seem likely any time soon, then there is nothing Griffin or anyone else can do.

For my part I mourn the passing of the English culture, but you cannot blame immigrants for it's demise. Once the old ruling class was destroyed after WW2, it was replaced with a new English ruling elite which was decedent, amoral and greedy, ruling over a populace that became increasingly lazy and selfish and thought the rest of the world owed them a living.

The result we see progressing today is inevitable outcome.

Katabasis said...

The whole thing is making my flesh creep.

It now means our worst fears about the plans for EU regionalisation may well be true. What *else* are they hiding from us?

Three years ago I worked as an Immigration Caseworker. I ended up resigning on principle because the entire system is completely unfit for fucking purpose. The wrong people get in and the right people don't. The "wrong" people also happened to be the easiest ones to process.

I've written about this - and its very serious dangers - here and here.

The only real sea change has occurred very recently with the points based system. And if anything the main result of this has been to make it even more difficult for legitimate migrants who wish to come here to work.

Working at the Home Office was nothing short of unbelievable. The culture for years was "If they have a pulse, and a passport, they get in".

It would also go through a completely fucked up cycle in response to tabloid stories and/or some fuckwit minister handwringing (and never actually checking what the situation was like with front line staff).

A story, (or minister) would break with the "news" that too many people were getting in without proper checks. Then for three months we would actually be encouraged to do our jobs - which meant assessing every application carefully and fairly (or at least as fairly as the stupid rules allowed).

Then after three months there would be a backlog. Guess what!? Another "shock" story in the tabloids and some stupid minister demanding that "something is done". Something was done. We were told to let them all in without proper checks.

I fucking hate these cunts so much.

Just to reiterate what DK has said above though - the people seeking Work Permits were always hit hardest. You'll find most of the bogus migrants came in under the student visas.

John B said...

Guide to reading Telegraph articles: "revealed" = "lied".

Guide to interpreting people's views on immigration: if they're against it, they're dicks.


John B said...

(also, what's a 'bogus migrant'? Someone who pretends to have moved to the UK but actually hasn't...?)

AMcGuinn said...

It is plausible that the government has been deliberately encouraging low-human-capital immigrants over high-human-capital immigrants because the former are more likely to support them, as you say.

But there is an alternative explanation that the government just has so much more power over people with fixed addresses, bank accounts and public or professional reputations, than it does over people with none of those things, who are immune from most of its pressure.

Von Spreuth. said...

Katabasis said...

The only real sea change has occurred very recently with the points based system.

And THAT is a load of shite as well. Doctors and nurses are at, or near the top of the list, yet last year, and the year before, HOW many THOUSAND newly trained doctors could not find places to work? HOW many nurses were made redundant?

Anonymous said...

It's funny how this as just come to light after QT and with a mass Muslim demonstration outside parliament on the 31st Oct demanding sharia law be forced into British law?

It's just like the government are trying to provoke civil unrest? and of course civil unrest means they can order in the Emergency Act, Bye Bye General Election...

Henry Crun said...

Guide to John B's comments:

JohnB = lefty fuckwit trying to be clever; has no friends; desperate to be liked.

Anonymous said...

I shall be buying shares in a rope factory.

Dave H said...

John B
Guide to reading Telegraph articles: "revealed" = "lied".

Wrong. The Telegraph reproduces quotes from an Evening Standard article by Mr Neather himself.

Not really surprising that a policy of "we will have mass immigration because the UK is hideously white" didn't find its way into a manifesto. The idea that people from more corrupt, violent or oppressive cultures than the UK will tend to bring corruption, violence and oppression with them was never aired.

Labour may soon be kicked out, but we'll be dealing with the crime and social instability bequeathed by their social experimentation for generations. Bastards.

Anonymous said...

Welcome to Bosnia-Lebanon-Ulster.
racially, religeous, diverse Nations nearly always end up in turmoil ,always.
Maybe "Knocker Powell" was right after all.

James Higham said...

DK, haven't I been saying this since 2006? That there is a deliberate attempt to do this. It's documented, for goodness sake - it's not even in the realm of speculation. Even EU Serf was writing on this in 2005.

Prodicus said...

James is absolutely right. It's the worst kept secret in British 20th century politics. The witchfinders' did a thorough job of suppressing discussion of it in polite society but I think their time may be up.

thefrollickingmole said: 'how evil an act is it to govern in order to actively cause a crisis (so you can "fix" them of course).'

And not even new. It’s in Chapter One of the oldest Communist Party training manuals from, I dunno, about 1919, I think. Read this from an ex-hard line Communist cadre. Gloss over his religious faith if you like, but learn from the horse's mouth how the Comrades think and operate. They have never changed.

I paraphrase: 'Make yourself indispensable. Find an old lady with a grievance and do your best to fix it. A leaking roof, anything. No grievance? Create one. Cut a hole in her roof. Just don't get caught. Get the council in and have a blazing row with them in front of her. Make sure they fix her roof. You’ll get the credit and she’ll be forever grateful. Then on to the next grievance. Do the same. Become the local fixer, the Friend. Later, when you seek control, they will support you. When you are opposed, they will defend you. Never forget that grievance is your toolkit, your path to power and control.'

Look at the Bolsheviks promising to redress the grievances of the starving Russian infantry of which they then took control, turning it into the Red Army. Hitler did the same, of course. He knew his Communist handbooks backwards, being a Socialist. The only bit of International Socialism he didn't like was the ‘Inter’ bit so he just knocked it off. He didn't change much else. Added a few refinements of his own, like gulags. Or was that the Soviets?

Lenin was the man. He went straight for the big time: ‘To hell with old ladies' leaky roofs. Let's have a full-on fucking civil war.' No, let's be fair to the man. He didn’t say fucking. Lenin was a middle class gentleman. Think of Hilary Benn but with brains and real ambition.

Speaking of civil war, old Vladimir Ilyich would have mightily approved of Labour's immigration wheeze. I just thank God I won’t be here if (when?) the grandchildren have to fight a second English Civil War.

But hey - well done, the Socialists. Ruthless, power-grabbing bastards. Always were, always will be. Democracy? Sod that – the voters are just cannon-fodder. And Socialists are incompetent, too. Every Socialist government Britain has ever had – every single bloody one – has left the economy in ruins. Not on Gordon's scale, I admit.

But hang on… was it incompetence? Or traditional Marxoid planning? Gordon is an historian of Socialism, after all. No, not an economist - that's just a front, and not much of one at that.

‘The economy may be in trouble but recovery is just around the corner … any time now… please don’t throw us out… we’re fixing the crisis… the other lot would make it worse… we are your Friends...’


Still, never mind, eh? Vote Labour.

Pavlov's Cat said...

So what now? Vote for fascism and blood on the streets, or grit ones teeth and accept things?

howitis said...

Pavlov's Cat said

or grit ones teeth and accept things?


Vote for fascism and blood on the streets,

No, the facists will just put those they can on the next plane out of here, others will probably just go because they're no longer wanted/needed! The rest will have to grit their teeth if they want to stay.
No need to spill blood.

Anonymous said...

A fixer of grievances and leaky roofs.

Wasn't that the sort of job Obama had in Chicago?

Anonymous said...

I can't help wondering if the initial report by Neather in the Standard was embargoed until after the QT broadcast. Because it would have been dynamite if Griffin, or anyone in the studio, had raised it during the broadcast.


Antipholus Papps said...

Vote for fascism and blood on the streets

We already did, in 1997.

Anonymous said...


Can we FOI the Performance and Innovation Unit report?

Just asking...


JuliaM said...

"Because it would have been dynamite if Griffin, or anyone in the studio, had raised it during the broadcast."

Well, he can always raise it on his next appearance, can't he?

JohnB:"Guide to interpreting people's views on immigration: if they're against it, they're dicks."

Guide to interpreting Johnb's coments: ...

Atually, why even bother reading them?

laurence said...

I've thought that the whole thing was a deliberate plan for years now. Also people like Peter Hitchens have been pointing it out for some time. Also the endless drivel about 'celebrating diversity' etc. from govt. and local authority commissars have made it pretty obvious.
A couple of years ago I met a man who worked for the Labour party socially and for various reasons he assumed I was one of them. Amongst other delightful things he said was that he 'agreed with Ceauscescu - some parts of the UK needed forced migration' to make them properly diverse. He wasn't joking - a rare moment of sincerity from a NuLabour apparatchik!
Re the idea of a deliberately provoked crisis leading to emergency powers and no General Election someone mentioned. I would say this is the best thing that could happen, as it would provoke a major upheaval that just *might* bring about radical change. Otherwise it will be just more of the same under 'Dave' and his pals and inexorable integration into the EUSSR and the final swamping of what's left of British identity.
Although I find Griffin quite distasteful, I think he was absolutely right to say London is no longer a British city - my home town has felt alien to me for years now!

Elby the Beserk said...


Dear fuckwit.

Immigration is neither good nor bad. It is a word that describes something. It is how it is handled that may be seen as good or bad. So, immigration has benefited us in the past, no doubt, and benefited us who have joined us here.

But only an idiot would deny that Labour's immigration "policy" has not only caused problems, but has stored up major problems for the UK - particularly England, which is of course the country Labour loathes. It is the Scots and the Welsh who keep them in power, so they are more than happy to fuck us off with their mad social engineering schemes.

The story in the Telegraph has been denied by no-one ... bar you, it seems.

You must be very, very special.

Or very, very stupid.

Plato said...

Elby - that is a very good point.

Where is the denial or even non-denial-denial?

Ian B said...

DK, if you're really surprised at all by this, rather than faux-surprised for the sake of effect, I'm really disappointed. Of course it's bloody well true. Have you actually bothered to spend even five minutes studying the Enemy's beliefs and strategy? Did you really think that open immigration was being imposed for some kind of liberal reasons?

My god man. You're not really that naive, are you?

Gareth said...

Andrew Neather's original article is here.

Don't listen to the whingers - London needs immigrants

It's hard to avoid the conclusion that a metropolitan, colonialist, big Government elite wilfully opened the floodgates so they could still have their cleaners, street sweepers and nannies just have them in a different colour because it is quaint, whilst making itself indispensible to the welfare underclass it has trapped on benefits and miseducated out of the workforce.

They are treating minorities differently because of the colour of their skin. Their desire to change the face of Britain is as racialist as the BNP.

Anonymous said...

"...that there has been a deliberate attempt by political elites to destroy the prevailing culture of Britain?"

Well it took a while but at last you've twigged what the REAL agenda has been not just for the duration of the current Neue Arbeit incarnation of UK 'governance' but since immediately post-war.

But we were just being racist in pointing this up? I don't expect any kind of apology, more likely an unremarked execution "behind the chemical shed"!

The Guvnah

CC Truckston said...

Upon reading this, it now becomes clear to me that this same strategy likely is being applied in the US by the (current) powers that be. So who says the special relationship is dead?