I think it correct to expose the obvious lies of the right, by pointing out the population stats etc but that, on its own, plays the BNP game. We should also point out that even if Muslims constituted 50% of the population, so what?
A short click away, at Stroppyblog, the hypocrisy of the Mail never fails to raise the old feminist blood pressure :
I can't help feeling that should "so what ?" A come to pass, then the Stroppers wouldn't like the answer to "so what ?" B.
Like it or not, women like sex as much as men and if they have lots of it with many people then so what ? Some actually prefer men, or women, that do not judge and are not so insecure in their sexuality to be threatened by women who like sex and know what they want.
17 comments:
I am reminded of the French Left, who were striking and occupying factories as late as 1938 in their conflict against their traditional enemies, the French military, Church and bourgeoisie. They occupied military factories to deny material to the army, despite the clear and obvious threat of Hitler.
The Yazzmonster is another 'so what if we become the majority of the population' wallah.
(Her 'we' meant BMEs, at other times her 'We' means all the British.)
Yaaz and her kind pretend that the biggest change in European history is really not that big a deal and inevitable anyway. What the Left wants is always inevitable.
Laban's comparison show that it will be one way or another.
Jockney
Laban, I see in your comment on the article you profess to not be a believer in the 'Eurabia' thesis. I'd love to know what you think is really going on then. The Marxist left having a field day while the all the old money, conservative establishment types sit back powerless to do anything about it?
What is it going to take for you and others like you to realise that this drive for world government that is euphemistically referred to as the New World Order is very, very real? Not only that but that the engine is right here in this country.
The late Carroll Quigley (Bill Clinton’s mentor), Professor of History at Georgetown University, member of the CFR, stated in his book, "Tragedy & Hope":
"The CFR is the American Branch of a society which originated in England (the Royal Institute of International Affairs), and which believes that national boundaries should be obliterated, and a one-world rule established."
"To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism, and religious dogmas."
Brock Adams, Director UN Health Organization
"What is it going to take for you and others like you to realise . . ."
Someone a bit less pompous than you would be a good start.
Not so long ago I was walking down the street. A man in front of me collapsed on the ground, and started banking his head on the pavement. At first I though he was having a fit, and rushed over to help, but he turned out to be a Muslim praying.
In the same moment, a pair of homosexual women came past holding hands.
I kid you not.
And I thought - where is this heading?
David Milliband confirmed Eurabia with his proposal to create a "Mediterranean Union".
It is clear that our leaders are genuinely insane.
But nevertheless on Eurabia, one does not need racist and xenophobic conspiracy theories written by evil Zionist Jews like "Bat Yeor". One only needs the look at the speeches of Muammar Ghadaffi.
Well, y'know... the left has always been defined by what it hated rather than having anything positive to say.
Hay, you can't get more proof of that than seeing how the femiloons are just enraged by an article in the Daily Mail even when it's endorsing Skank Britannia. It's totally Pavlovian: Daily Mail = BAD!
Yap, believe me it's not pomposity it's sheer exasperation. You may also have noticed it was a question and not a statement.
The point I was attempting to make is that to see the numerous issues surrounding immigration, multiculturism and political correctness in isolation is to miss the bigger picture. The agenda for world government. Sorry if that sounds 'pompous'.
Antisocialist, much as I like Laban’s blog, I empathise with you here. I don’t know if Laban prefers to avoid discussing certain topics because he wants to reach out to liberals or because he’s just not interested. But taking this blog at face value, Laban’s view seems to be that our elites want mass immigration for the economic benefits, and that they have not thought enough about how mass immigration undermines our national identity. Several commentators on this blog have put forward the view that our elites want mass immigration because they actually want to undermine our national identity. Since Laban and these commentators can agree on the fact that mass immigration is happening because our elites want it (and there are many naïve liberals who do not even realise this) it is strange that Laban characterises the latter point of view as a ‘conspiracy theory’ but not the former. Meanwhile, the facts on the ground are that mass immigration is undermining our national identity, and that the economy is in a mess as well. Furthermore, several of our near neighbours are in a similar situation.
As for ‘Eurabia’, I haven’t read Ba’at Ye’or’s book, but I’ve visited sites such as Brussels Journal, and I find their focus a little narrow.
"Laban’s view seems to be that our elites want mass immigration for the economic benefits, and that they have not thought enough about how mass immigration undermines our national identity"
Not at all, although the employer class as a whole probably enjoy the cheap labour. The economic benefits to the nation are debateable to put it mildly.
No, our rulers are the sixties and seventies student revolutionaries - and they didn't give a hoot about national identity until 7/7. That's why we have mass immigration. Having agreed that it was racist to object to, say, 30,000 immigrants arriving in the 1970s, they found that the logic of that position was that any objection to any amount of immigration was racist. Combine that leftist guilt with an economic drive to reduce wages and you have a perfect storm of immigration ...
Brussels Journal publishes nothing less than underground classics of our time. We, who are hated, feared, and despised are more vital and know more about what is going to happen than anyone alive on the planet at this time.
"No, our rulers are the sixties and seventies student revolutionaries - and they didn't give a hoot about national identity until 7/7."
Laban, the owners and controllers of the banking system and large multinational corporations are our rulers. The Marxist left students of the sixties and seventies are just the product of the indoctrination they received in the education system.
Former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Reginald McKenna told of the power of the bankers when he said: "I am afraid the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that the banks can and do create money. And they who create and issue money and credit, direct the policies of government and hold in the hollow of their hands the destiny of the people."
Nobel Laureate Dr. Frederick Soddy also wrote: “The ‘money power’ which has been able to overshadow ostensibly responsible government is not the power of the merely ultra-rich but is nothing more or less than a new technique to destroy money by adding and withdrawing figures in bank ledgers, without the slightest concern for the interests of the community or the real role money ought to perform therein…to allow it to become a source of revenue to private issuer's is to create, first, a secret and illicit arm of government and, last, a rival power strong enough to ultimately overthrow all other forms of government. An honest money system is the only alternative."
The words of economist William Lyon Mackenzie King, who later went on to become Canada’s longest serving Prime Minister, are also quite pertinent. He said: "Once a nation parts with the control of its currency and credit, it matters not who makes the nations laws. Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation. Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognised as its most sacred responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of parliament and of democracy is idle and futile."
I'm sorry, but power does not lie with student revolutionaries. They are a symptom not the disease. Many of them were and are graduates of the London School of Economics, which was itself set up by Sidney Webb, the founder of The Fabian Society.
You only have to look at the history of the Fabian Society to see one strand of the larger conspiracy at work. That is a world socialist government.
Alan Watt the Scottish researcher now living in Canada said on his radio show: "I always remember Bertrand Russell who said we must create a form of APATHY amongst the public. Well how would you create apathy? You make them feel that everything is out of control around them and that they truly are insignificant. You have no power to change things. That’s the technique that’s being used. So, when you feel really down and you’ve got a little panic coming on, JUST SHRUG IT OFF and remember, THIS SOON WILL PASS, because we’re going into the Brave New World scenario at a gallop.
A socialist controlled society with the fascist at the top, of course, where every part of your life from birth to death will be planned for you. There’ll be no guess work involved. A lot of people will like socialism because they don’t like having to make big decisions on anything. But then, there’s others who don’t like it at all. HG Wells in his own book, called The Open Conspiracy, said thousands will die fighting this New World Order and no doubt they’re ready for that too. We’ve watched them build up an army [and slowly but surely a 'Big Brother' style police state) to take care of that.
Here's another quote from Russell which speaks volumes about life in Britain today. The role of 'mass psychology' or 'mind control' in Britain cannot be understated. The centre for this is the Tavistock Institute here in Britain.
In 1953 'The Impact of Science on Society' by Fabian Socialist Bertrand Russell is published in which he declares: " I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology....Various results will soon be arrived at: that the influence of home is obstructive....although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen....Educational propaganda, with government help, could achieve this result in a generation. There are, however, two powerful forces opposed to such a policy: one is religion; the other is nationalism....A scientific world society cannot be stable unless there is a world government.
Laban, the owners and controllers of the banking system and large multinational corporations are our rulers.
An argument that the real rulers of the managerial state(virtually identical in the US and the UK) are the civil service/media/academia:
http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2008/05/ol7-ugly-truth-about-government.html
NOTE: it was composed by a half-Jewish red-diaper baby
Since, of course, the post-WW2 US was the source of PC/Multicult the following seems to be relevant.
The late Marxist and the editor of the journal Telos Paul Piccone(in a discussion of Carl Schmitt) on American democracy's transition to the the managerial state.
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/piccone_ulmen.htm
(...)
Although defined by the Cold War, the postwar years were also characterized by an American administration attempting to fine-tune the New Deal--a collectivist project of socio-economic reconstruction that had been strengthened considerably by war mobilization, but remained unable to legitimate itself fully on the basis of those deep-rooted Protestant values of decentralized governance and local self-determination embedded in the US Constitution. Consequently, with the gradual shift from isolationism to imperialism and from classical to managerial liberalism, which had begun toward the end of the 19th century, but had stalled temporarily in the 1920s (in reaction to WWI), American historiography broke with its traditional exceptionalism. What took its place was a slight variation of the unilinear theory of history espoused by its managerial-liberal and, even more, its former communist opponents. The "pursuit of happiness," previously left to the discretion of particular communities, was redefined in terms of full and equal participation in a well-administered,professionalized society (a euphemism for socialism and social homogenization), projected as the inevitable outcome of all historical developments. As with all secularized versions of the Christian theory of history, deviations from such a path came to be seen as pathologies or breaks, rather than as legitimate alternatives.
(...)
The objective of this inflation of Schmitt's ideas as the possible juridical justification for an ever-present fascist/Nazi threat is to provide increasingly conformist Left academics with the kind of legitimation and content their "emancipatory" socialist ideology needs after bureaucratic centralism became discredited with the collapse of the USSR. Thus, anti-fascism has become the eschatological core of an otherwise vacuous Left ideology now reconfigured as the legitimating arm of the managerial state. (38) No longer able to present themselves as the vanguard of progressive forces paving the way for a bright socialist future, they have now regrouped as part of an academic rear-guard entrusted with protecting "civil society" and liberal values against the market and other forces of darkness--a kind of quixotic kathekon seeking to prevent a recurrence of the fascist experience in a context where there has never been any such threat.
(...)
Universalized out of their cultural and historical context, these traditional liberal values are no longer seen as the particular achievement of a particular people. Rather, they are viewed as absolute norms and inviolable principles derived from the kind of rationality accessible only by New Class intellectuals, experts and professionals, whose objectification in "the role of law" can override any allegedly "fascist" choice, no matter how much democratic legitimacy they may have. As in the theological critique of idolatry, the idol displaces the spirit, and precipitates the kind of reification identified so forcefully by Western Marxists and other critics as the fundamental problem of modern society. Along with any fundamentalism that refuses to regard itself as binding only for those willingly adhering to its norms, a "rule of law" deduced from allegedly apodictic rational principles chokes democratic prerogatives and, because of its inescapable in determinacy, paves the way for arbitrary interpretations, instrumentalizations, and the worst possible excesses.
(...)
what does "eschatological" mean ?
"eschatological"
Theories that pertain to describe the ultimate meaning and end of the world
i.e. When the sky turns blood red Jesus will return to earth, crush his enemies and rule from a golden throne for a thousand years
Post a Comment