Who’s In Charge, Here?

Anthony Milne

IMMIGRATION into Britain may now never be stopped, or even controlled because the politicians are the only people who can pass laws on the subject, but have lost too much power and influence.

In The New Élites – George Walden maintains that Britain is now in a Soviet-type grip of professional egalitarians whose power base lies in commerce, culture and the media. They can now control virtually all of public life. They are extremely mediocre in their abilities, and indeed brag about their ordinariness, but behind their anti-elitist rhetoric lies the old urge to dominate which is as powerful as that of their aristocratic forebears.

[...]

As Walden points out, the élites have always dominated mass societies, and there is a large academic literature on the subject. But in the past there was always a struggle between competing élites with opposing ideas. Britain’s new élites, are instead… virtually totalitarian.

No politicians of any party would now dare to openly propose to withdraw from the Geneva Refugee Convention, which has outlived its usefulness and is actually harming this country because the new élites would shout them down.

Further, the executive branch, in particular the immigration authorities, can do nothing to halt immigration unless there is a change of law initiated by the politicians. Lawyers in the immigration appellate system which is now a growing and monolithic money-spinner for many of them, have to tolerate perjury in court by illegal immigrants – whom they know to be lying – and having refused them asylum, still allow them to stay in Britain because they know that the authorities are simply incapable of removing them in the numbers required.

Decline in standards

The greatest present danger is the decline in journalistic standards, which the new élites have brought about. In earlier times, news reporters were taught not to comment in their copy and be balanced and fair-minded. Not any more.

The present mix of spin, personally biased opinion, public relations chat and celebrity gossip – often all crammed into one article – is now demanded of journalists by their paymasters. In the process they have resorted to lies and half-lies because they know they can get away with them if they express left-liberal opinions. They continually use pejorative adjectives when it comes to describing the Right – again because it is expected of them. Indeed they fear for their jobs if they fail in this regard. They are no longer journalists but Soviet-type propagandists. This is why the Right is always termed ‘extreme’, but never the Left.

Journalists’ names for parties

Journalists will often describe parties such as the BNP (British Nationalist Party), or Austria’s Freedom Party, as ‘anti-immigrant’ but will not conversely report other parties being  ‘pro-immigrant’. They will increasingly point to the unpleasant consequences of race riots in Britain, but will not point to their cause: unbridled immigration.

They will sometimes approve of attempts to remove illegal immigrants, but are only too ready to publish pictures of weeping immigrant children and their mothers being forced onto ships and planes against their will, because their editors demand a more sentimental and ‘caring’ approach to news stories.

By using Non-neutral language, they print glaring paradoxes. An article in the national press that describes an immigrant borough as ‘vibrant’, or one which ‘celebrates diversity’, will be printed alongside stories about tribal butchery in Africa or communal murders in India.

Journalists were once cautioned about using non-sequiturs - stating facts but drawing incorrect conclusions from them. A classic non-sequitur says that ‘anti-immigration’ parties promote ‘hate’ because, as most immigrants are coloured (NON-white), White nationalist parties must therefore “hate coloured people” everywhere in the world. What is a legitimate criticism of an immigration policy, becomes instead, a personal attack on individual Black people in Britain. They pretend not to see the difference between one stance and another.

They write emotively and unthinkingly, and seem fearful and confused. Any talk of controlling immigration will stir up trouble in immigrant communities, so they maintain. They assume that ethnic minorities themselves want immigration to continue ad infinitum, so they avoid publishing criticism of immigration policies for fear of giving offence – offence to the ethnic minorities… NOT to the British host population.

This is partly because they appear not to know what being British is. They have gratuitously redefined Britain as some kind of off-shore Hong Kong, without reference to what the general public, academics and even the politicians themselves believe to be the true reality. Virtually none of the intellectuals who are supposed to be monitoring British society will use the term ‘multi-culturalism’  – a euphemism for multi-racialism.

[...]

The truth is that the growing cultural and linguistic chaos in this country, which the media élite gloss over, adversely impacts upon the immigrants themselves. It is they who are ‘multi-cultural’, not we. The Jamaicans looking like Africans, are now having to live in London streets side by side with real Africans, and the Whites can’t tell the difference.

Anglo-Indians are now having to rub shoulders with other Indians belonging to castes they would not normally wish to live next to… if they were back in India. There is even less ‘multi-culturalism’ going on between Blacks and Browns. Their one common denominator was the Commonwealth, but now all the talk is about ‘Europe’, and immigrants are no more European than they are British.

What is often forgotten is the vast architectural heritage into which the immigrants have come. Each street, borough and town in Britain was built by the British. Each, with just a tiny few exceptions, is named after local history, a history of the British.

This is bound to affect the self-esteem of the minorities: everyone wants to have a homeland they can call their own, and have a pride in their own culture and achievements. You can’t expect diasporas to have a pride in someone else’s culture or history.

America was deliberately created as a receptacle for diasporas, and the new in-comers could then create a new pride in ‘America’ (which was named not after a racial group but after an immigrant called Amerigo).

Our increasing multi-racialism will itself become a kind of self-imposed tyranny, and in the end our institutions will be utterly unreformable.

One of the great ironies of our time is that Eastern Europe, since the collapse of communism, is now freer than the West. Today it is in the West that criticism of racial or historical dogma can end the career of a scholar or politician, and even send him to prison. By contrast, in Eastern Europe and Russia, now the last enclaves of free White people, one can find plenty of books about race or historical revisionism.   -Source-

[...]

ALSO:

Racial “Diversity” Is A Con Game

Destroying European Civilisation

Multiculturalism – A Dividing Force

“A Racial Program for the 20th Century”

Multi-Culti Used To Destroy National Identity

*************************************************

London Riots – 2011

Destroying OUR Nation

So, This Is England 2009?

How Britain Destroyed Itself

Multi-Racial IRELAND?

Has SWEDEN Gone Insane?

One Proud European Nation

*******************************

SWEDISH Reporters Muzzled

Independent Journalists – NOT!

Publisher’s Memo On Immigration

Related articles

• Immigration restrictions are the one policy that can save the Labour Party – but they’re so mesmerised by diversity they cannot see it (blogs.telegraph.co.uk)
• Two-Tiered Riot Enforcement (elliotlakenews.wordpress.com)
• Labour ‘got it wrong’ on immigration, says Ed Miliband (telegraph.co.uk)

Advertisement