How To Colonize Britain

Immigration: A Plan To Alter The Nation’s Soul” is a U.K. column written on February 13, 2010, about three months before May’s U.K. general election.

Its author, Janet Daley, describes how the Labour government set out over a decade ago to increase immigration in order to ALTER the composition of the UK’s population. By bringing in large numbers of immigrants, it wanted to create “a multicultural society which would have to reassess its own history, replacing traditional pride with inherited guilt.”

This policy “would require the wholesale de-construction of the country’s sense of its own identity.” In forming this policy, it did not consult with the UK public. Before implementing this policy, it did not ask the UK public to approve it.

The documents that describe this policy were [only] revealed early this year.

Ms. Daley rightly characterizes them as “political dynamite”. Undoubtedly, they contributed to the defeat of Gordon’ Brown’s Labour government. Ms. Daley writes from a partisan viewpoint, but she provides a number of interesting insights into why Labour introduced its high immigration policy.

Obviously, these objectives are very similar to those that are currently in practice in Canada. What is shocking is that all of the five main political parties in Canada support mass immigration which is bringing about the same result as that sought by the UK’s Labour Party. None of our federal parties has ever consulted with Canada’s public or asked its approval. –Immigration Watch Canada

By Janet Daley
The Telegraph

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.

29 JAN 2009 – Tony Blair


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’sforces 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 (White) pride with inherited guilt: all of this could be facilitated by a large influx of (NON-white) 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. -Full Article HERE.


Mogadishu On Our (British) Streets

So, This Is England 2009

How Britain Destroyed Itself

Yesteryear … Late 1950s.



Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s