Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - 'White enclaves' get cash to combat extremism

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

'White enclaves' get cash to combat extremism
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

mises

Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:13 am Post subject:

That is exactly why the multi-culties are useful idiots. They think they're playing the role of a radical, providing intellectual cover for importing millions of have nots that will push the progressive cause and undermine capitalism and white patriarchy etc. But these useful idiots are really doing nothing more than undermining support for their welfare state and enriching the business elite.

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 12:18 pm Post subject:

mises wrote:

That is exactly why the multi-culties are useful idiots. They think they're playing the role of a radical, providing intellectual cover for importing millions of have nots that will push the progressive cause and undermine capitalism and white patriarchy etc. But these useful idiots are really doing nothing more than undermining support for their welfare state and enriching the business elite.

Er....no. You are still clinging to your old ideas - you've got a new (far more sensible theory) but are still trying to link it to your old beliefs about multi-cults (a term I've only ever heard from you) and lefties being responisble for immigration.

What privateer points out is exactly right. I tried to have this conversation with you a few years ago - back in the day when you still had that foot fetish. But it still seems you are still not quite ready - can't let go of old fixations. Immigration has not occurred in anyway whatsoever (at least in Britain) because of naive tree-hugging black-baby-kissing long haired multi-cults bent on making the UK a diverse and beautiful rainbow world. Immigrants poured into England after the second world war as cheap labour to help rebuild it, and there were no lefty liberal multi-cults swanning around back in those days - or if they were they were neglibible.

Successive governments have let immigrants in due to cold hard economics. And I've never heard of lefties demanding that we let more in - that we need more immigrants because we need more diversity. This is bollocks.

In fact, I know that in Australia, the conservative Howard government let in more immigrants than ever before. They were streaming in under a right wing government. Good for big business. And that's it. Yes, I understand that you now understand that that is the primary reason. But it sure as hell hasn't needed any help from the mythical multi-cults either. And it happens quietly - without any need of the multi-cults radical 'intellectual cover.'

On the other hand

Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue

Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 12:34 pm Post subject:

Quote:

And I've never heard of lefties demanding that we let more in

Well, there is something in Canada called No one is illegal, which advocates "open borders", which I take to mean anyone who wants to should be able to live anywhere in the world that they choose.

And yeah, they're generally considered a left-wing group. Not sure how much support they have anywhere to the right of the left-wing of the NDP, though.

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 12:38 pm Post subject:

On the other hand wrote:

Quote:

And I've never heard of lefties demanding that we let more in

And do they have the government's ear? And have they persuaded the general population to let all these lovely rainbow people in? They're really influential right? Having a big impact on immigration policy?

mises

Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 12:38 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Immigration has not occurred (at least in Britain) because of naive tree-hugging black-baby-kissing long haired multi-cults bent on making the UK a diverse and beautiful rainbow world.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1222613/Labour-let-migrants-engineer-multicultural-UK.html

Quote:

Huge increases in immigration over the past decade were a deliberate attempt to engineer a more multicultural Britain, a former Government adviser said yesterday.

Andrew Neather, a speechwriter who worked in Downing Street for Tony Blair and in the Home Office for Jack Straw and David Blunkett, said Labour's relaxation of controls was a plan to 'open up the UK to mass migration'.

As well as bringing in hundreds of thousands to plug labour market gaps, there was also a 'driving political purpose' behind immigration policy, he claimed.

Official policy: Huge increases in immigration over the past decade were 'a deliberate attempt to engineer a more multicultural Britain'

Ministers hoped to change the country radically and 'rub the Right's nose in diversity'. But Mr Neather said senior Labour figures were reluctant to discuss the policy, fearing it would alienate its 'core working-class vote'.

In case you want to do the Daily Mail blah blah :

Quote:

Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett, claims earlier drafts of the report had suggested the huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country.

He said Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6447526/Immigrant-crime-fear-airbrushed-from-Government-report.html

Quote:

Successive governments have let immigrants in due to cold hard economics.

The economics work against mass-immigration. Letting in highly skilled migrants is a benefit. Low skilled by the millions? Huge drain on the purse. It is a good thing when wages rise. Well, good for those who earn the wages.

The other story is that migration helps clean up demographic issues down the line (aging society). This claim has been taken down my the CD Howe Institute and McKinsy Global Institute.

Quote:

And I've never heard of lefties demanding that we let more in - that we need more immigrants because we need more diversity.

Actually, that was what Labour was up to. Partially. Importing a new electorate. Just like in the United States. The Democrats want amnesty because they want Hispanic votes. More Hispanics lessens the Republicans (the white christian party) chances of winning.

Quote:

In fact, in Australia, the conservative Howard government let in more immigrants than ever before. They were streaming in under a right wing government. Good for big business. And that's it.

Nope, that's not "it". But right-wing governments like the wage deflation and lefties want to dilute the white working class vote.

The guy above has partially changed his story:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/26/labour-immigration-plot-andrew-neather

Quote:

"Multiculturalism was not the primary point of the report or the speech. The main goal was to allow in more migrant workers at a point when � hard as it is to imagine now � the booming economy was running up against skills shortages," Neather wrote in the Standard.

He admitted he had a sense from several discussions at the time that there was a subsidiary purpose of boosting diversity and undermining the right's opposition to multiculturalism, but Neather insisted it was not the main point at issue.

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 12:50 pm Post subject:

mises wrote:

Quote:

Immigration has not occurred (at least in Britain) because of naive tree-hugging black-baby-kissing long haired multi-cults bent on making the UK a diverse and beautiful rainbow world.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1222613/Labour-let-migrants-engineer-multicultural-UK.html

Quote:

Says some chap called Andrew Neather? I find it very hard to believe. The government conspired to make Britain more multicultural? I suspect it is absolute bollocks, and I'd need more than hearsay from some speechwriter before I bought this.

Quote:

In case you want to do the Daily Mail blah blah:

Quote:

Different paper - same man. This is still on the word of Andrew Neather. An exciting news topic - but no evidence except the word of some Mr Neather.

Quote:

The other story is that migration helps clean up demographic issues down the line (aging society). This claim has been taken down my the CD Howe Institute and McKinsy Global Institute.

Yep. But that feeds into economic reasons.

Quote:

And I've never heard of lefties demanding that we let more in - that we need more immigrants because we need more diversity.

Now that's a new theory I've never heard before. Smile

Quote:

In fact, in Australia, the conservative Howard government let in more immigrants than ever before. They were streaming in under a right wing government. Good for big business. And that's it.

Nope, that's not "it". But right-wing governments like the wage deflation

Yes.

Quote:

and lefties want to dilute the white working class vote.

There were no such lefties in the Howard government. Believe me.

Quote:

The guy above has partially changed his story:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/26/labour-immigration-plot-andrew-neather

Quote:

So the proof of the mulitcult policies was Neather's sense of it. Well, at least you were honest enough to include it.

On the other hand

Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue

Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 1:29 pm Post subject:

Big_Bird wrote:

On the other hand wrote:

Quote:

And I've never heard of lefties demanding that we let more in

Well, like I say, they have a bit of a following among people on the left-wing of the NDP(think the pre-Blair Labour Party), and points leftward. I know quite a few people who sympathize with their position, but then, that's the circles I tend to run with.

But no, even if the NDP were to come to power, you almost certainly wouldn't see open boders come to Canada. Sections of the government might be more open to paying lip service to the idea, but that would be about it.

My main reason for posting that was just for information purposes, since you said that you had never even heard of people advocating that view. So yeah, it does have a following.

On the other hand

Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue

Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 1:38 pm Post subject:

Quote:

I suspect that Labour's immigration policies have a lot more to do with securing their electoral base than with(as the Mail claims) an ideological commitment to multiculturalism.

Quote:

Huge increases in immigration over the past decade were a deliberate attempt to engineer a more multicultural Britain, a former Government adviser said yesterday.

The bolded part, which seems to prove Mises' claim, is actually a parphrase of Neather's actual comments...

Quote:

Andrew Neather, a speechwriter who worked in Downing Street for Tony Blair and in the Home Office for Jack Straw and David Blunkett, said Labour's relaxation of controls was a plan to 'open up the UK to mass migration'.

As far as I can tell, Neather doesn't say that the government was doing this out of some starry-eyed commitment to a multicultural UK. His comments do not contradict the idea that Labour was just trying to secure their electoral base by increasing immigration.

And of course, the Labour government can't come out and say "We want more immigrants so we can keep winning elections", any more than the Tories can come out and say "We want fewer immigrants so we can keep winning elections". So both parties frame their policies in terms of high-sounding platitudes, which in Labour's case means "multiculturalism".

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 1:54 pm Post subject:

Well from the Guardian article that mises last posted:

Quote:

"Somehow this has become distorted by excitable rightwing newspaper columnists into being a 'plot' to make Britain multicultural. There was no plot. I've worked closely with Ms Roche and Jack Straw and they are both decent, honourable people who I respect � What's more both were robust on immigration when they needed to be. Straw had driven through a tough Immigration and Asylum Act in 1999 and Roche had braved particularly cruel flak from the left over asylum seekers."

In the Commons, Grayling challenged Labour ministers over the controversial claim. "Can I invite you to put the record straight � what was the motivation behind the very rapid increase in immigration under this government?" he demanded of Labour's immigration minister, Phil Woolas, who responded by telling him that the Tories' 1961 Immigration Act had brought the most significant postwar increase in migration to the UK

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/26/labour-immigration-plot-andrew-neather

It does seem that immigration is at least as high under conservative governments as it is under left-wing governments. I'd like to see more stats on it, but it does seem a point that I've heard regularly pointed out over the years - that the perception is that leftwing governments allow more immigration when it is in fact the opposite. It's certainly been true of Australia in recent decades.

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:30 pm Post subject:

mises wrote:

[You sound like Mark Steyn. .

Well, I googled the guy.

Wikipedia wrote:

Eurabia
Mark Steyn believes that Eurabia � a future where the European continent is dominated by Islam � is an imminent reality that cannot be reversed. "The problem, after all, is not that the sons of Allah are 'long shots' but that they're certainties. Every Continental under the age of 40 � make that 60, if not 75 � is all but guaranteed to end his days living in an Islamified Europe."[25] "Native white populations on the continent are aging and fading and being supplanted remorselessly by a young Muslim demographic."[26] Steyn claims that Muslims will account for perhaps 40 percent of the population by 2020, but Globe and Mail correspondent Doug Saunders labels the assertion false:

Slightly more than 4 percent of Europe's population is Muslim, as defined by demographers (though about 80 per cent of these people are not religiously observant, so they are better defined as secular citizens who have escaped religious nations). It is possible, though not certain, that this number could rise to 6 percent by 2020. If current immigration and birth rates remain the same, it could even rise to 10 percent within 100 years. But it won't, because Muslims don't actually have more babies than other populations do under the same circumstances. The declining population growth rates are not confined to native populations. In fact, immigrants from Muslim countries are experiencing a faster drop in reproduction rates than the larger European population.[27]

In his book "America Alone", Steyn posits that Muslim population growth has already contributed to a modern European genocide:[28]

Why did Bosnia collapse into the worst slaughter in Europe since the second World War? In the thirty years before the meltdown, Bosnian Serbs had declined from 43 percent to 31 percent of the population, while Bosnian Muslims had increased from 26 percent to 44 percent. In a democratic age, you can't buck demography � except through civil war. The Serbs figured that out, as other Continentals will in the years ahead: if you cannot outbreed the enemy, cull 'em. The problem that Europe faces is that Bosnia's demographic profile is now the model for the entire continent.

Author and U.C.L.A. Public Policy Professor Mark Kleiman fears that Steyn is "justifying genocide, both retrospectively in Bosnia and prospectively in the rest of Europe."[29] Andrew Sullivan calls Steyn's book "an intellectually vulgar diatribe based on the crudest demographic reductionism"[30] and also wonders, "is Steyn actually advocating genocide? When you read the full context of the paragraph in the book (pages 4-6), there are no exculpatory words around it."[31]

Steyn responded to such criticisms by saying:[32]

My book isn't about what I want to happen but what I think will happen. Given Fascism, Communism and ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, it's not hard to foresee that the neo-nationalist resurgence already under way in parts of Europe will at some point take a violent form.

Criticism of multiculturalism
See also: Criticism of multiculturalism
Steyn has commented on divisions between the Western world and the Islamic World. He criticizes the tolerance of what he calls "Islamic cultural intolerance." Steyn explains that multiculturalism only requires feeling good about other cultures and is "fundamentally a fraud... subliminally accepted on that basis."[33] In Jewish World Review, Steyn argues "Multiculturalism means that the worst attributes of Muslim culture - the subjugation of women - combine with the worst attributes of Western culture - licence and self-gratification." He states, "I am not a racist, only a culturist. I believe Western culture - rule of law, universal suffrage - is preferable to Arab culture."[34]

Christopher Hitchens believes that Steyn errs by "considering European Muslim populations as one. Islam is as fissile as any other religion, and considerable friction exists among immigrant Muslim groups in many European countries. Moreover, many Muslims actually have come to Europe for the advertised purposes; seeking asylum and to build a better life."[35] Nevertheless, Hitchens' review of his book America Alone was extremely favorable, calling it "admirably tough-minded."[36]

After a piece in which Steyn ridiculed Ayatollah Khomeni for giving advice on child abuse and bestiality,[37] Scott Horton, lawyer and Harper's writer, commented on Steyn's writing, saying "it would be quite an understatement to call this language intolerant. Indeed, it can easily be paralleled with ethnic stigmatization that has occurred in the most vicious societies in modern times."[38] Steyn replied to this commentary, and others like it, by illustrating that his reference was founded in factual citation of the writings of Ayatollah Khomeni.[39]

No wonder you are acquainted with him.

bigverne

Joined: 12 May 2004

Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:43 pm Post subject:

Quote:

And I've never heard of lefties demanding that we let more in - that we need more immigrants because we need more diversity. This is bollocks.

Your bible, the Guardian, has been running with the 'diversity is our strength' line for the last 10 years in response to any call to tighten immigration policy.

mises

Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:21 pm Post subject:

Big_Bird wrote:

No wonder you are acquainted with him.

Yes, no wonder. Though I'm only with him on this one issue. He's against gay marriage etc and loves the wars. I'm against both attacking and importing the third world. I want to leave them alone. They have their own path.

Here's a great vid of Steyn. Sums him up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdEGJb5W5ks

He got me with one quote from America Alone:

Democracy, immigration, multiculturalism. Pick any two.

He's from Canada but speaks with an odd quasi-English accent and now lives in NH. Odd, but so it goes.

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:27 pm Post subject:

bigverne wrote:

Quote:

And I've never heard of lefties demanding that we let more in - that we need more immigrants because we need more diversity. This is bollocks.

Your bible, the Guardian, has been running with the 'diversity is our strength' line for the last 10 years in response to any call to tighten immigration policy.

The Guardian does (and always has) run opinions I do not agree with. It employs writers of various opinions, and some of them do not even agree with each other.

Isn't that a surprise?

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:33 pm Post subject:

mises wrote:

Big_Bird wrote:

No wonder you are acquainted with him.

Later, when I have a little time, I shall watch the link you provided. Whatever his opinions, he's probably quite interesting at least.

Reggie

Joined: 21 Sep 2009

Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 2:32 am Post subject:

mises wrote:

white patriarchy

What is white patriarchy? Laughing

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Page 3 of 4

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe