6 Comments

1. 

   costin

   3 March 2010

   Documente secrete ale Partidului Laburist au fost date presei. Se pare ca milioanele de imigranti care au intrat in Marea Britanie nu au fost un accident.

   Telegraph – Immigration: a plan to alter the nation’s soul

   The government’s policy of mass immigration was intended to remodel the social fabric of the nation, says Janet Daley

   So now we know what Labour’s immigration policy was really about. The „open door” was not simply held ajar in order to admit a fresh workforce that would help to fill gaps in the growing economy. Nor was it just a gesture of hospitality and goodwill to those who were fleeing from repressive or inhospitable regimes in order to seek a better life. Both of those aims would have been credible – if controversial and not thought-through in all their consequences. And so would the longer-term view that dynamic, cosmopolitan societies are generally healthier and more productive than in-bred, isolated ones, or that immigrants who tend to be ambitious for themselves and their families could help to counter the passivity and defeatism that tend to be endemic in the British class system.

   But as it turns out, the policy was motivated by something far more radical and fundamental than any of this. The full text of the draft policy paper composed in 2000 by a Home Office research unit – the gist of which had already been made public by a former Labour adviser – was released last week under Freedom of Information rules. Properly understood, it is political dynamite. What it states quite unequivocally was that mass immigration was being encouraged at least as much for „social objectives” as for economic ones. Migration was intended specifically to alter the demographic and cultural pattern of the country: to produce by force majeure the changes in attitude that the Labour government saw itself as representing.

   Tony Blair’s „forces of conservatism” speech; his improbable presentation of Britain as a „young country”; the advocacy of a multicultural society which would have to reassess its own history, replacing traditional pride with inherited guilt: all of this could be facilitated by a large influx of migrants whose presence in the population would require the wholesale deconstruction of the country’s sense of its own identity.
   This may all sound rather far-fetched now, but try to recall just how much hubris the New Labour tide brought with it in the beginning: the contempt for history and the Year Zero arrogance with which they set about „modernising” the nation’s institutions. It was, in this respect, a prime example of the new direction which Left-wing parties were forced to take in the wake of Marxism’s collapse. Having lost the great economic argument of the 20th century, the Left had to switch its focus to society itself: if humanity could not be transformed through the redistribution of wealth and the socialist command economy, then it would have to be transfigured by altering social relations.

   The object of the exercise was still to produce, in the words of an old Left-wing protest song, a „new world” based on a „new man”. But now the new man (sorry, „person”) would be formed not by changes in the power of capital or the ownership of the means of production, but in cultural attitudes and behaviour. The revolution now had to be confined to what went on in people’s heads: to their values, their assumptions and their reactions to each other.

   cititi mai departe aici: Immigration: a plan to alter the nation’s soul

   Reply

2. 

   camil

   3 March 2010

   în curând va fi the United Kingdom of Immigrants

   Reply

3. 

   euNuke

   3 March 2010

   din pacate acest partid de eunuci post-britanici a reusit sa’si implanteze o ganganie sinistra in Comisie si nu oriunde ci chiar in fruntea politicii externe a UE; mda, nenorocirea se numeste Catherine Ashton, tovarasa-baroneasa, o contopista comunista cu radacini intr’un ong cu iz kaghebist [cel putin asa sustine V Bukovsky], o oximoroanca de rang inalt care ne reprezinta tara-schiopa cu nume de nimfa in fata maimarilor si maismecherilor acestei lumi; imi si imaginez o intalnire de afaceri foarte straine intre gospodinu Putin si gogoasa Ashton si nu imi rezulta decat pene zburatacite si firimituri la botu ursului.

   dintre toti socialistii europenii laburistii mi se par a fi de departe cei mai gaunosi, vicleni si nocivi politicieni ajunsi sa guverneze un stat european, asta pentru ca prin pozitia lor aparent pro-americana si pro-capitalism constant asumata si proclamata au reusit sa creeze senzatia ca masurile si politicile lor sunt parte dintr’o platforma liberala, de centru-stanga, democrata in esenta, si nu asa cum se prezinta in realitatea socio-politica decriptata cu minutie: o doctrina penala orientata impotriva propriilor cetateni din ce in ce mai lipsiti de aparare [fata de hoardele barbare dar si fata de abuzurile functionaresti permise de suprareglementare], un sistem public de asigurari monstruosce scartaie deja din toate incheieturile, o deschidere fara precedent fata de islam marcata printre altele de tolerarea shariei in launtrul justitiei britanice, o relaxare suspecta a securitatii granitelor in privinta unor refugiati palestinieni si nu numai etc; intr’un recent si sumbru film [Harry Brown] am vazut politisti timorati, terifiati chiar si’n birourile lor de bandele de cartier, sugrumati de reglementarile procesuale si incapabili sa mai produca probe chiar si’n infractiunile petrecute in spatiile publice…si nu stiu ce sa cred, daca neorealismul filmului are vreo legatura cu realitatea cotidiana din uk, daca ghetoizarea marilor orase este atat de raspandita si de hidoasa, dar daca asa se intampla atunci le doresc englezilor sa scape cat mai repede de naparcile laburiste, cea mai neagra napasta in care a intrat vreodata imperiul.

   Reply

4. 

   despina

   3 March 2010

   Eu l-am auzit acum mai bine de un an la un interviu pe Dinu Patriciu raspunzand la intrebarea:
   Ce ne facem cu tinerii care emigreaza, cu mesterii instalatori, electricieni, constructori, etc?
   Raspuns:
   „Nu-i nimic, are cine sa vina la noi : sunt o multime de africani, pakistanezi, indieni care sunt saraci si pot fi adusi aici ,oricand”

   Este clar ca exista acest plan : cui nu-i place sa plece, avem pe cine sa aducem in loc.
   Principalul este ca noi sa conducem .

   Imigratia devine o metoda de ocupatie.
   Cum au facut si rusii cu R.Moldova- colonizare, deznationalizare, au fortat populatia ramasa sa preia cultura rusa.Cine n-a vrut a fost deportat,iar mai nou, in ultimii ani a emigrat( daca a mai avut unde)

   Reply

5. 

   charlesmagne

   3 March 2010

   Îţi ia cu forţa copilul de 2 ani şi îl predă orfelinatului, deoarece ai refuzat să urmezi sfatul medicului de a-l hrăni cu ciocolată, biscuiţi şi cips. Sfatul medicului e mai hrănitor decît mîncarea gătită acasă

   iar acolo parintele poate are norocul ca copilul sa fie incredintat unui functionar al statului plictisit. Si spun noroc ca e doar plictisit, ptr ca au fost cazuri de pedofili in astfel de institutii (in canada parca). Cum poate o institutie de functionari platiti cu ora, sa inlocuiasca iubirea parinteasca si caminul familial ? Cu siguranta ca sunt capabili sa produca explicatii abracadabrante si ptr asta

   Reply

6. 

   despina

   3 March 2010

   Iau copii.Ii tin pana la 18 ani-fara parinti.
   Apoi ii lasa liberi .Copii se apuca de furat si ajung la inchisoare.Simplu .

   In loc sa-i lase la parinti,chiar daca este familie monoparentala.
   Am auzit o multime de cazuri de acest fel

   Reply