Sunday, February 28, 2010

The Great Immigration Scandal

The true scope of the Labour project has now become clear.

“The Government embarked on a policy of mass immigration to change Britain into a multicultural society — and they kept this momentous aim secret from the people whose votes they sought.

Worse still, they did this knowing that it ran directly counter to the wishes of those voters, whose concerns about immigration they dismissed as racist; and they further concealed official warnings that large-scale immigration would bring about significant increases in crime.

The truth about this scandal was first blurted out last October by Andrew Neather, a former Labour Party speechwriter.

He wrote that until the new points-based system limiting foreign workers was introduced in 2008 — in response to increasing public uproar — government policy for the previous eight years had been aimed at promoting mass immigration.

The ‘driving political purpose’ of this policy, wrote Neather, was ‘to make the UK truly multicultural’ — and one subsidiary motivation was ‘to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date’.

Misters, however, went to great lengths to keep their real intentions secret from the public — with, said Neather, a ‘paranoia’ that these would reach the media — since they knew their core white working-class voters would react very badly.”


The evidence for this claim seems to be mounting. Steve Moxon made the same claim in his book ‘The Great Immigration Scandal’.

Moxon was employed by the Home Office as an Entry Clearance Officer, and he wrote the book to expose corruption and malpractice in the service, forcing the resignation of the then immigration minister, Beverley Hughes.

He also claimed in his book that it was Labour’s clear intention to use mass immigration as an instrument to destroy, quite deliberately, the traditional character of British national identity.

Some naïve voters still think that the Labour Party is ‘the party of the working man’. It is not. It probably has not been that since the 1950s. The party traditionally represented the interests of the working-class, particularly males employed in heavy industries, like coal, steel and ship-building. This was the working-class that I was lucky enough to see the final years of. This industrial ‘labour’ force no longer exists. Those industries finally disappeared during the Thatcher years, and in many places, were not replaced with anything.

The disappearance of traditional industries resulted in the disappearance of the working-class. Where is ‘the working-class’ today? Once a Left-wing Shibboleth, it is an expression you almost never hear any more. Now we have an ‘under-class’ instead.

It was inevitable that Labour was going to have to re-invent itself. But who was it going to represent?

They know from their market research who votes for them. Public-sector employees. Benefit recipients. Ethnic minorities. It should come as no surprise to find that they went out of their way to maximise the population of all three groups, in order to build their new voter base.

The number of people on benefits has massively increased under Labour. We now have the largest public sector workforce since World War 2. Around three million immigrants have arrived in the UK since Labour came to office. This seems to be part of a cynical master-plan to keep themselves in power.

What they have done, in fact, is to open the door to neo-fascism. We are seeing, for the first time since the 1930s, a racist party gaining significant support, on an anti-immigration platform. This, as well as the rest of the economic and social chaos we see around us, is the result of Labour's grand strategy.

I am not alone in feeling that Labour’s plan is verging on treason. What a great legacy they will leave behind. Borderline treason. International war crimes. Economic and social ruin. As the philosopher Karl Popper said, "Those who promise us heaven on earth, have only ever delivered hell".


Anonymous said...

simone ramsey (DJ) said...

i believe that should be brought to your attention, not as a counter point, but as something relevant to the topics of this blog


Heretic said...

I have received a couple of interesting links here. Thanks for that. I intend to write a response as soon as I get time.

BrusselsLout said...

Simone -- the Ecomonist is a pro-feminist rag. Interestingly, it is not known for supporting the pro-life view. Yet now, when it's baby girls being aborted, it is running a sensational article in favour of "life".

Moreover, when it's boys who are aborted or the gender is not specific, the somewhat inhuman title of "foetus" is attached, showing us where the Economist is coming from. Here, these are very human "girls".

The paper is living in the 80s. It STILL believes in ridiculous myths like the pay gap and that women are as able as men in business and academia.

This is a world-leading paper on economics and business? I don't trust it. I stopped reading it a long time ago.