This diversity referred to what Labour intended to rub the Right's nose in was to become, in fact, the greatest social experiment ever entered into since the the existence of Communism. It would entail increasing immigration onto these shores and codifying the result into an ideology known as Multiculturalism.
While it had its political attraction in demonising the Right as racists if they dared question such a manoeuvre, there was also a more enticing, and potentially beneficial outcome that the Labour government hoped would have far reaching consequences for the survival of New Labour.
When Tony Blair came to power in 1997, the New Labour Project, as he called it, was meant to transform the old class based arrangement, whereby the working class was, through their unions, able to provide the financial foundation that held up the Labour superstructure, and transform it into a more open party where, particularly, the middle class, could find a home.
It is to his credit that Tony Blair succeeded with his New Labour blandishment and secured three electoral successes due to his hanging on, not to the working class vote, but to his appeal to the middle classes. But such a fluid arrangement was not based upon class loyalty, as had been the case historically with the working class; for the middle class could never be relied upon to vote like chimpanzees with a red rosette, unlike many Labour constituents in the North of England had done.
The working class were becoming ever more irrelevant to New Labour. They were fewer in number and considered racist in outlook, while the minorities were, on the whole, there to be harvested as New Labour voters. So began the party's replacement of the working class with both the loyalties of minorities as well as the votes of as many new immigrants they could jamb up this island with, and this is what has happened.
Politician's love what we call a blue print but what they call ideology. The Labour Party would no doubt dismiss Multiculturalism as an ideology; but it did emanate from a human brain as all such contrivances do; only to disappoint - Karl Marx is but one procurer who felt the wrath of praxis.
Multiculturalism was the idea of a Labour politician, but one who left the party to help a rival to Labour when they had moved to far to the Left in the early 1980s. Roy Jenkins was the inspiration for Multiculturalism on the political stage. . . a move he later (it has been said) came to regret.
MULTICULTURALISM IS THE ANTITHESES of a multiracial society; which is what I advocate. A Multicultural society allows the different minorities to pursue their own cultures while living in the United Kingdom. But British culture is separate from these histories; as well as their religious and democratic politics. Those in a multiracial society who come to live among us must accept our laws and customs and believe in them or leave.
In a Multicultural society the different cultures are allowed to make demands upon our British identity in order to advance their own cultural interests.
This present Con-Lib government has not in any way abandoned the Multicultural agenda. They have not put forward a multi-ethnic agenda, which leaves me to believe, on this topic at least, they differ little from the last Labour government.
I TRULY DESPAIR OF THIS NATION'S FUTURE. We have been the first to allow, under the last government's readiness to sign the Shenegen Agreement, the people from Eastern Europe the freedom to come to our shores; two years before other European Nations were prepared to do so. If this is not confirmation of New Labour's dream of a multicultural 'haven', then what is?
I believe that any of those who wish to come to live among us from foreign lands should adapt to our culture, rather than that we should have to adapt to theirs through Multiculturalism; which is what Multiculturalism seeks to demand from us. Under Multiculturalism our own culture will always remain secondary to any other.
Thus is it little wonder that so many people vote for, or support the BNP? We must lay ground rules under which those wishing to live among us have to obey. Other European countries like Belgium and France have imposed, or are in the process of opposing, for instance, the wearing of the Burka. Muslim countries in the Middle East allow Christian churches to exist, but demand that they should be hidden within surrounding walls. Yet Mosques are allowed, under political correctness to flourish in this country without any kind of restriction.
People who think like myself are not racists; I revile the term. But what I want is the preservation of our own indigenous culture and its 2000 year history.
This is not racist; just as Japan or China's wish to preserve their own mono-cultures and prohibit the kind of Multiculturalism we in Great Britain are forced to accept, does not make them racists: and to suggest so is racist. All they want is to preserve their own national identity and culture. These countries are two of the most important economies in the Global Market. But for them Multiculturalism has never been a precondition for being part of the Global Market, as our country's last government seemed to suggest we must become.
To succeeded, as the last government seemed in doing, to effectively change the demography of this country for political advantage; will lead to this nationhood's ultimate ruination. The last government sounded the death knell of the British Nation. They did it because under the concept of New Labour, their traditional voter, the working class, had gone of the rails as far as they were concerned. The word chav entered the lexicon during Labour's last reign and it was an embarrassment to the Party.
New Labour sought a new constituency. This comprised whatever parts of the middle class they could prise away from the Tories, plus the new immigrants they sought to encourage. To Tony Blair the old class based arrangement had fallen with the demise of communism. No longer were the working class to be the pivotal point of Labour's existence.
No comments:
Post a Comment