From the Washington Post:
U.K. Independence Party surges in elections
LONDON — ... The anti-immigration U.K. Independence Party staged a dramatic surge Thursday in local elections in England and Wales, with results on Friday showing voters delivering a brutal whipping to the Conservatives and their junior coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats.
Political pundits said the results represented one of the strongest showings by a nontraditional party in Britain since World War II, with the gains underscoring the rise of populist and nationalist parties across Europe.
At the core of the party’s platform are aspirations to withdraw Britain from the European Union and impose new curbs on immigration, and the powerful showing sets U.K. Independence up to be an increasingly influential force in British politics. In recent months, its growing support in national polls had already sparked Britain’s three major parties — the Conservatives, Labor and the Liberal Democrats — to float increasingly strict proposals aimed at stemming the tide of foreigners. ...
“We have been abused by everybody, the entire establishment, and now they are shocked and stunned that we are getting over 25 percent of the vote everywhere we stand across the country,” Farage told the BBC. “This is a real sea change in British politics.”
The performance by a party Cameron once described as being filled with “fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists” raised the question of whether its gains amounted to a temporary protest vote or signaled the birth of a more powerful political movement. ...
In fact, analysts said Labor’s failure to pick up even more seats despite Britain’s prolonged economic malaise suggested that its leader, Ed Miliband, had thus far failed to put the party on a clear victory footing ahead of the 2015 general elections. It also suggested that rather than moving to the political left, a significant portion of Britons unhappy with the current Conservative-led government was instead shifting further to the right.
This is all perfectly natural during economic hard times, and just shows how bizarre and artificial is the media push for more immigration in the U.S.
Posts
56 comments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6veKwfPxVuY
We not only need open immigration from the Caucasus region but we need to clone them x 100 million. The most beautiful people in the world.
It's like watching the Cullen clan in TWILIGHT.
"Almost one in three children born in England and Wales now has at least one foreign-born parent, with Britain set to become the most ethnically diverse Western nation after 2050"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/10029547/Third-of-children-born-in-England-has-foreign-born-parent.html
A little late methinks. But better late than never, perhaps.
"The figures - obtained after a parliamentary question by Mr Soames - show that 64.9 per cent of babies born in London in 2011 had either one or two parents born outside the UK. The next highest percentages were seen in the West Midlands, where 28.7 per cent had at least one foreign parent; followed by the South East at 27.7 per cent, and 26.9 per cent in the East of England, which covers counties to the north and east of the capital."
London - mainly Bangladeshi Muslims (and people from all over what used to be called the Third World)
West Midlands - mainly Pakistani/Kashmiri Muslims
East of England - Poles and other Eastern Europeans.
The EDL was nearly bombed (it only failed because of Pink Panther-like incompetence), but we WERE bombed.
Yet here we are still offering to be boardinghouse to the world. We'll do the job the Brits won't do. I suppose that's the one job we can do that foreigners can't -- let in more foreigners to do the work we won't do.
If the political climate would become an anti-immigrationist utopia, what would you write about then, Steve? I can imagine that should the PC multi-cult bubble in Britain or Europe burst before the US does, the US would follow sooner or later.
Or am I smoking some serious crack?
Nah! You know what the UK needs? Even MORE immigration!! They need to take on a few hundred thousand more Afghans and Pakistanis and just watch diversity work its magic
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18519395
"The EU should "do its best to undermine" the "homogeneity" of its member states, the UN's special representative for migration has said.
Peter Sutherland told peers the future prosperity of many EU states depended on them becoming multicultural.
He also suggested the UK government's immigration policy had no basis in international law.
He was being quizzed by the Lords EU home affairs sub-committee which is investigating global migration.
Mr Sutherland, who is non-executive chairman of Goldman Sachs International and a former chairman of oil giant BP, heads the Global Forum on Migration and Development, which brings together representatives of 160 nations to share policy ideas.
He told the House of Lords committee migration was a "crucial dynamic for economic growth" in some EU nations "however difficult it may be to explain this to the citizens of those states".
(...)
I'm not sure if it's their intention to suggest it but UKIP isn't primarily an anti-immigration party. They are an anti-immigration party, but that's not the key issue of this election.
I'm not sure Americans really understand the EU issue, but the big one is simply the economy.
but is anti-immigration actually rightwing or is it leftwing?
Mass immigration lowers wages. It is Capital, that pays wages, that wants mass immigration. If you are anti-immigration, you are fighting against Capital and instead fight FOR Labor. Labor wants higher wages.
Labor vs Capital--that is the real fight.
Is'nt fighting against Capital and fighting FOR Labor a LEFTwing act and not a RIGHTwing act?
Also, mass immigration decreases unity among the population, thereby making it harder for the majority to unite and elect representatives that can be held accountable. Stopping mass immigration increases unity by decreasing factions in the populace. This increases democracy. Isn't increasing democracy by stopping mass immigration a LEFTwing action and NOT a RIGHTwing action?
True Democracy is what Labor wants. Capital dislikes true democracy and instead wants pseudo-democracy.
Labor vs Capital. Democracy vs PseudoDemocracy. Basic stuff. Why are these fundamental concepts ignored both in the mass media and in internet political discussions?
Why am I the only person in America asking these questions?
Yup.
In all truth, UKIP was the only winner of Thurday's poll and the three 'establishment' parties all lost. Nigel Farage is now the main man of British politics, everyone else is now just an also-ran.
In the coming days expect lib, lab and con to fall over themselves in a Dutch auction trying to outbid each other in who's tougher on immigration and the EU. Compare this to their pomposity and disdain on the issue 10 years ago.
Biggest political earthquake in the UK since 1945. Under the British first-past-the-post electoral system it is exceedingly hard for small parties to make a breakthrough into the big time. This protected the immigrationist from any pay-back from a sceptical and hostile public.
After enormous provocation (from New Labour), this has all changed.
Good.
also, it is not "bizarre and artificial" for the corporate media to be pushing for more mass immigration. Corporate media is owned by large corporations. The majority of all large corporation shares are owned by rich investors.
Furthermore, the lifeblood revenue of the mass media is advertising. Advertisements in the corporate media are purchased by large corporations, Again, these shares are primarily owned by rich investors. Multi-millionaires. Zillionaires. Billionaires.
Mass immigration lowers wages. That means more profits for rich investors. Also, higher corporate profits means more money available for advertising purchases. These ad buys are the lifeblood revenue of ....wait for it...the corporate media! Mass immigration FEEDS the corporate media.
Now tell me what is so 'bizarre and artificial' about the corporate media pushing pro-immigration propaganda down our throats 24-7?
The same year Thatcher died seems to be the same year Britons finally realize she was you, and they've run out of other people's money.
"bizarre and artificial" pretty much sums up our Ruling Class.
The Media are monkeys who fling the poo in chrous. Someday - perhaps sooner than we think - they'll be studied in Zoos and Labs. A mutant offshoot of homo sapiens that isn't sapient, man, but very Homo of course.
If there was a poll that told Americans how much the immigration "reform" bill would cost in social services, the bill would not get 5% support.
I keep thinking about Marx's concept of the reserve army of the unemployed. That's really what this is about. Capitalists want the low wages, and thus their natural constituency of "conservative-blooded" people are abandoning them.
I suppose in the US this rebellion will manifest in the Republican grass roots punishing those who are for open borders. Rubio is toast. Never liked him anyway, actually.
Steve:
Consider using the term "immigration control."
(Compare to "immigration reduction," "anti-immigration," "anti-immigrant," "restrictionist")
You think there should be immigration control.
Other people are not pro-immigration or pro-immigrant, they are against immigration control.
Michael Fabricant, the Conservative Party's vice-chairperson, confessed he was unsure what voters were saying. "'I hope there will be some serious research about exactly WHAT message UKIP voters are giving: none-of-the-above, or specific issues," he said in a Twitter message.
These guys totally need to import some top GOP consultants to sort this all out.
Even many otherwise liberal, left-wing white British people tire of doing things to address the symptoms of mass immigration, like opposing Sharia law, female genital mutilation, gender segregation, religiously sanctioned rape(child marriage), terrorism, riots and death threats over "insults" to Islam, when it makes a billion times more sense to address the actual cause of these problems - Don't let people who want to destroy your country into your country in the first place!
http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2013/may/03/los-angeles-alternate-realities/
Forget it, Steve. America is not Europe. The temperamental difference is just too massive. The blood and soil connection to the land that comes from generations of your ancestors living in the same area cannot be achieved in a nation of immigrants. Americans do not have the experience of looking at the mountain and saying "ah my grandpa and his grandpa climbed that mountain". Americans do not have the ability to see a sparrow and say "Ah this bird's grandpa and my grandpa probably grew up together". Americans do not see a river and get reminded of the generations of their family, stretching into the foggy past, that lived on its banks.
No, Americans all know perfectly well that they are immigrants.
America will have more immigration, end of story. Now focus on something more productive.
Headlines in British papers: "More Fruitcakes, Loonies, and Closet Racists in Country than Previously Thought"
Example:
"Opponents of immigration control say..."
its amazing to hear the tory opposition to UKIP - i think they are going to pull a 'mccain' and say 'we got the message' and once they lure voters back in, ignore them.
They will also work with labour to put in place irrevisable demographic replacement policies.
Same crowd funding them and labour there as here (see lord levin scandal)
but is anti-immigration actually rightwing or is it leftwing?
...
Labor vs Capital. Democracy vs PseudoDemocracy. Basic stuff. Why are these fundamental concepts ignored both in the mass media and in internet political discussions?
Why am I the only person in America asking these questions?
You left out the discussion of culture. Mass immigration of third world peoples dilutes the culture. And preserving our culture is definitely a right wing thing, think Patrick Buchanan.
Is'nt fighting against Capital and fighting FOR Labor a LEFTwing act and not a RIGHTwing act?
No, there is no intrinsic connection between labor and the left.
Originally, when the terms originated in France, the Right was the defender of Church and Crown, and the Left were the forces oppposed. In France today, the terms retain similar meanings: the Right is the party of order, and the Left is the party of movement.
A concern for workers can be part of a policy of "class cooperation" (an orderly social arrangement), as opposed to class conflict (a state of disorder), in which case it is a policy of the right.
Of course, a putative concern for the interests of the working class can be used to fuel class conflict, and, to the extent that it is the case, it will be a policy of the left, just as faux concern for Blacks and women is now a policy of the Left. Since the Left now finds more utility in fueling racial and sexual conflict, it no longer backs the workers who are now attacked as inveterate racists and sexists.
Moreover, immigration quite literally constitutes "movement" and is therefore a policy of the Left.
The blood and soil connection to the land that comes from generations of your ancestors living in the same area cannot be achieved in a nation of immigrants. ...,
No, Americans all know perfectly well that they are immigrants.
You are describing cosmopolitans. A lot of Americans do have that blood and soil connection. The cosmopolitan view just gets more attention because one must have it, or pretend to have it, if one is to have a career in the public eye. It wasn't always so. In the past one would have probably had to espouse a more blood and soil attitude. But today's elite comes from a different stock. So I assume this might lead people to believe that most of America thinks this way.
But you don't have to look too hard to find a large number of people who are not of this stock and not of this cosmopolitan mindset. There are more blood and soil types than you think.
Nesta Webster.
hardly: Forget it, Steve. America is not Europe. The temperamental difference is just too massive. The blood and soil connection to the land blah blah blah blah Americans...are immigrants blah blah blah
Could someone direct this poor lost neocon straggler back to CPAC or National Review or 2005 or wherever or whenever it is he wandered in from? Poor thing's getting hysterical.
5/4/13, 9:01 AM hardly said...
America will have more immigration, end of story. Now focus on something more productive.
4/3/13, 8:21 AM hardly said...
25 yo Male Indian (dot not feathers).
The Rad C: Labor vs Capital. Democracy vs PseudoDemocracy. Basic stuff. Why are these fundamental concepts ignored both in the mass media and in internet political discussions?
Why am I the only person in America asking these questions?
You're not, but you're probably one of the few people in America who don't read things on the internet but do post things on the internet.
keep thinking about Marx's concept of the reserve army of the unemployed. That's really what this is about. Capitalists want the low wages, and thus their natural constituency of "conservative-blooded" people are abandoning them.
I suppose in the US this rebellion will manifest in the Republican grass roots punishing those who are for open borders. Rubio is toast. Never liked him anyway, actually. This is why for the past 30 years the movement is back and forth. People on the right who hate illegal immirgants getting welfare but favor business being able to hire what they please. If more non Republicans supported the movement it probably would have stopped illegal immirgation being as high in California in the late 1980's.
Hardly said: Forget it, Steve. America is not Europe. The temperamental difference is just too massive. The blood and soil connection to the land that comes from generations of your ancestors living in the same area cannot be achieved in a nation of immigrants. Americans do not have the experience of looking at the mountain and saying "ah my grandpa and his grandpa climbed that mountain"
Wrong. Just watching the world of my LIVING ancestors crumble before my eyes is sufficient. Great great grandpa is little more than an abstraction. Grandpa, grandson and their long, slow displacement are very, very real.
-The Judean People's Front
Rohan Swee said...
quoting me:
" The Rad C: Labor vs Capital. Democracy vs PseudoDemocracy. Basic stuff. Why are these fundamental concepts ignored both in the mass media and in internet political discussions?
Why am I the only person in America asking these questions?"
....
You're not, but you're probably one of the few people in America who don't read things on the internet but do post things on the internet.
====================
my response: I do read things on the internet.
I used to read upwards of 100 books a year until I was about 40 or thereabouts, which was in about 1997. But now I mainly read stuff off the internet. Any books I read tend to be technical--and some non-fiction.
Also, I never watched TV until I was about 10 years old. And I grew up in west texas, isolated. My parents were/are iconoclasts--my father grew up as a sheep rancher in rural west texas. My mother was a jehovahs witness, which is an iconoclastic sect.
Plus I have worked blue collar, white collar, been around the world in the navy, and been all over america.
My formal education is in law, liberal arts, and science.
So my brain is very different from most americans. That probably explains some of why I think differently.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
quoting me:
but is anti-immigration actually rightwing or is it leftwing?
...
Labor vs Capital. Democracy vs PseudoDemocracy. Basic stuff. Why are these fundamental concepts ignored both in the mass media and in internet political discussions?
Why am I the only person in America asking these questions?
.................
You left out the discussion of culture. Mass immigration of third world peoples dilutes the culture. And preserving our culture is definitely a right wing thing, think Patrick Buchanan.
-------------
my reponse:
yes, I did. But why is a single culture important? Let's peel back the onion and do some analysis instead just observing. If a nation has more mass immigration, the culture is less unified, yes. But what is the effect of that? OK. If the voters in a political electoral district have more diverse cultural background, then they share fewer common interests than if they all had a single unified culture. So what? Well, if they share fewer common interests, then that makes it harder for them to elect a political representative that can then REPRESENT those common interests. If a political districts has multiple ethnicities and nationalities and cultures and race, but has a single political representative, that means that representative cannot be held as accountable to representing the people, because "the people" hardly exists. To paraphrase/summarize/quote james madison, the father of the constitution, once a political district has been factionalized (more factions created within it) the majority cannot unite and discover their common interests. This idea is why the federal government was created in the first place when the founding aristocrats disposed of the Articles of Confederation and installed in their place the pseudo-democratic federal constitution: they wanted to enlarge the political districts and thereby create more factions therein. The same reasoning was in play when the elite in western europe created the EU.
Culture, sure. But that is a superficial analysis. Culture is just one side-effect/face of factionalization that is the primary divide et impera tool of the upper class.
Hey! You guys don't own this Country, in fact you have zero connection to it! So, turn it over to me & mine. And be quick about it!
I have 20 family members with a deep & abiding spiritual connection to our Homeland, who want to be here yesterday.
ben tillman said...
Is'nt fighting against Capital and fighting FOR Labor a LEFTwing act and not a RIGHTwing act?
No, there is no intrinsic connection between labor and the left.
==============
my response:
fight for your political tribe, you political warrior!
LOL....
The truth is the truth. There are good reasons anti-immigrant parties enjoy so little public support in America.
You can blame the vast zionist conspiracy, or whoever else you want to, but the bottom line is that ethnocentric xenophobic sentiment, which is the deep core of anti-immigrant parties, is much less prevalent in the US compared to Europe or other regions. May have cultural reasons due to the recent immigrant history, as well as HBD-outbreeding reasons of the sort that hbdchick writes about.
NB as someone correctly pointed out, I am Indian. Doesnt prevent me from having sympathies with other people. There are plenty of White Hindu Nationalists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koenraad_Elst), and Christian Israel lovers.
Ethnocentrism and xenophobia are natural things and a more xenophobic America will serve India well by setting a better example. Right now my country is following your country down the drain because our english-educated elites soak up all the PC nonsense and universalist mumbojumbo that comes out of Harvard and California. We would have fared much better had our medium of instruction not been english, we would have been less exposed to liberal lies. Now every other kid with a computer in india is reading Slate and NYtimes and r/atheism.
America will never see a successful large scale anti-immigrant party. Not in America. In Europe, it certainly will happen. Those are ethnic nation states. USA is not.
Your intellectual resources are better expended on thinking about something like expatriation or secession. Or protecting the few remaining states like Kansas from Washington.
JPF: Wrong. Just watching the world of my LIVING ancestors crumble before my eyes is sufficient. Great great grandpa is little more than an abstraction. Grandpa, grandson and their long, slow displacement are very, very real.
My own great-grands do go back far enough to imbue the landscape (no blood and soil, my ass.) But it's the visceral attachment you speak of here and elsewhere that separates the Americans from the carpetbaggers, whatever the ancestral vintage.
It is a commomplace to speak of two (or however many) nations, but I don't think that has it quite right. There is one nation here, and its members, existing in the same territory also currently occupied by Amalgamated Megamericorp and its employees and rent-seekers.
The truth is the truth.
But then truth truth and American media pravda fed forward by foreign national truth are maybe not quite the same thing....
There are good reasons anti-immigrant parties enjoy so little public support in America.
American public opinion is not one of those reasons.
We did a poll last month with more neutral and honest wording. (I’m afraid it wasn’t featured in the New York Times.) Here’s the wording of our comparable question: “Would you prefer to see illegal immigrants in the United States go back to their home countries or be given legal status?” The results were 52-33 for going back home.
http://www.cis.org/krikorian/adventures-manipulative-polling
Immigration polls slide after bombing, border enforcement concerns
http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/02/amnesty-polls-slide-amid-bombing-and-distrust/
CBS/NYT poll: 49 percent of Americans think legal immigration raises terrorist threat
http://washingtonexaminer.com/cbsnyt-poll-49-percent-of-americans-think-legal-immigration-raises-terrorist-threat/article/2528635
It's worth noting that the UKIP is really an English separatist party, even if it hasn't quite realised it yet. In Scotland, the SNP is in government and is (IMO) likely to win a yes vote in an independence referendum next year.
The "established" parties are scared. Labour and the Liberal Democrats are fanatical supporters of unlimited mass immigration and membership of the European Union (which guarantees unlimited mass immigration from within the EU, including non-Europeans who manage to put down any kind of root anywhere in Europe). Labour makes reluctant noises about taking this or that measure to limit immigration, but no one believes a word they say.
The Conservatives are divided on Europe, but are fairly solidly in favour of remaining in the EU, so until the party splits it is effectively no different from Labour or the Lib Dems.
People here are a bit spooked. Labour opened our borders to much of eastern Europe in 2004, and told us, with comical precision, that 13,000 immigrants would come. No one has really been able to count the true numbers, but they are in the millions. History is repeating itself with the huddled masses of Romania and Bulgaria months away from unrestricted access to our land, jobs, benefits and resources, and the government of the day reassuring us that hardly any of them will come. Of course, no one believes it. The recent census (see above posts) has alarmed a great many people. And the economy continues to tank. I think there's a creeping realisation that we are now an endangered species in our own country, and that something needs to be done.
yes, I did. But why is a single culture important? Let's peel back the onion and do some analysis instead just observing. If a nation has more mass immigration, the culture is less unified, yes. But what is the effect of that?
Paleoconservatives like Pat Buchanan do not just want to preserve the culture, they also want to preserve the racial and ethnic demography of the nation. They believe that a culture and a people are tied together, and that without the people, the culture will not last.
Now that might sound harsh to some people. But I imagine that view would be shared by other peoples around the world. I imagine the Japanese would not wish to be replaced by foreigners in Japan so long as the foreigners maintained the Japanese language and culture. They rightly would believe that the Japanese people are the only ones who can maintain the Japanese culture. Would any nation, save the current suicidal Euros ones of today, feel any differently?
You argument that a nation having mass immigration becoming less unified is something Buchanan points out a lot. Nothing new there. But to him and other paleos, it is really about European versus non-European. I imagine if we were getting immigrants from Germany instead of Africa, he would not express as much concern.
Even with mass immigration of fellow Europeans, such as Italians, the culture has changed. But since those other Europeans were similar enough in appearance, religion, and lived side by side with other Europeans in developing the art, music and other cultural icons of European Civilization, they tended to be better able to assimilate.
Bottom line the culture issue to paleos is also closely tied to the racial and ethnic makeup of the nation. I doubt a USA 200 years in the future, consisting entirely of Africans, Mestizos and Asians, would still sit around and revere Washington, quote Jefferson, and listen to Beethoven.
I think Europe is better off in this regard than us. In Europe you can´t tell native people´s that they are descended from immigrants so they have to be sympathetic. Even though, this argument is a bunch of horse-manure, it can, and does, work in America
Rohan Swee said:My own great-grands do go back far enough to imbue the landscape (no blood and soil, my ass.) But it's the visceral attachment you speak of here and elsewhere that separates the Americans from the carpetbaggers, whatever the ancestral vintage.
It is a commomplace to speak of two (or however many) nations, but I don't think that has it quite right. There is one nation here, and its members, existing in the same territory also currently occupied by Amalgamated Megamericorp and its employees and rent-seekers.
Well, as a half-breed, I do have Anglo-Celtic ancestors that drew pensions in their old age for revolutionary war service. That said, my first generation grandfather also reacted with visceral anger to the Mexicanization of what he says "used to be my town."
My point is not that a centuries old blood and soil connection does not exist stateside, rather that one needn't live in a picturesque ancestral village to object to cultural, physical, and demographic destruction mangling the landscape of one's beloved homeland.
Visions of the mid-twentieth century California idyll are just as stirring for me as dreams of Antebellum Virginia are for the most romantic of southerners.
Since "hardly" cannot seem to grasp the concept of national attachments formed after the invention of the steam engine, maybe he should listen to Morrisey's admittedly mediocre "Irish Blood, English Heart" for a taste of what some of us feel.
-The Judean People's Front
hardly said: Right now my country is following your country down the drain because our english-educated elites soak up all the PC nonsense and universalist mumbojumbo that comes out of Harvard and California. We would have fared much better had our medium of instruction not been english, we would have been less exposed to liberal lies. Now every other kid with a computer in india is reading Slate and NYtimes and r/atheism.
I lack the intimate knowledge of Indian culture necessary to form a strong opinion about it, one way or the other. I do know enough of contemporary "American" culture to hope that it doesn't destroy what is of value in yours.
Cheers from the eighth circle (fraud)
-The Judean People's Front
"I think Europe is better off in this regard than us. In Europe you can´t tell native people´s that they are descended from immigrants so they have to be sympathetic. Even though, this argument is a bunch of horse-manure, it can, and does, work in America"
This line is attempted in Europe, though. In Britain, certainly, it's common for politicians and the intellectual/punditocracy class (many on the right as well as the left) to bubble on about our being a "nation of immigrants", because at some impossibly remote point in the past what is now our land mass was not populated, and subsequently did become populated. Of course, by this standard every country in the world is a "nation of immigrants" and the term becomes meaningless.
Even if you accept this moronic premise, just because we had immigration in the past, does that mean we have to have immigration now? In the past we had indentured servitude, the divine right of kings, feudalism, capital punishment, a severely limited franchise, etc etc etc. Does the fact that we used to have these things mean that we must have them now and for evermore?
I find this a fairly effective line of argument against leftist immigratioholics.
Of course, it's preferable to take down the "nation of immigrants" meme directly, but this can take a bit of time to argue fully.
The best article yet about the Chechen Question:
http://alternativeright.com/blog/2013/5/4/meet-the-chechens
Forget it, Steve. America is not Europe. The temperamental difference is just too massive. The blood and soil connection to the land that comes from generations of your ancestors living in the same area cannot be achieved in a nation of immigrants.
That's ridiculous. Europe is far more densely populated and urban than the US, which means that Europeans have far less conection to the land, on average.
We did a poll last month with more neutral and honest wording. (I’m afraid it wasn’t featured in the New York Times.) Here’s the wording of our comparable question: “Would you prefer to see illegal immigrants in the United States go back to their home countries or be given legal status?” The results were 52-33 for going back home.
And your results would have been even better if you had made the question more even-handed, like “Would you prefer to see illegal immigrants in the United States (a) go back to their home countries or (b) be given a special type of citizenship that entitles them to affirmative action and racial preferences that most American citizens don't get?"
"The blood and soil connection to the land that comes from generations of your ancestors living in the same area cannot be achieved in a nation of immigrants. Americans do not have the experience of looking at the mountain and saying "ah my grandpa and his grandpa climbed that mountain"."
Huh!?! Do you know anything about Americans? Apparently not. Sounds like you just know about a bunch of recent immigrants and think you know about Americans. You are very mistaken.
Indeed, I think it's probably the other way around. A considerable chunk of Americans, it might even be a majority, are among the most national-aware and homeland-aware people in the world. These days they are too busy doing things like working to spend a lot of time whining about things, but don't assume they are not watching and learning.
You can learn a lot by just watching, and lately Americans and others in the West are getting lots of opportunities to learn many things about many other peoples.
From the Daily Telegraph blogger Damian Thompson. It speaks for itself. If true, it shows how far from being a democracy the UK now is.
You've seen the Ukip scandals mysteriously breaking one after the other just before the local elections. Let me keep this short and sweet.
"A few weeks ago a journalist who works for another newspaper was contacted by someone from CCHQ and asked if he needed any help researching possible links between Ukip and the English Defence League.
Interesting, no?"
"No, Americans all know perfectly well that they are immigrants.
America will have more immigration, end of story. Now focus on something more productive."
If America keeps on allowing the mass migration of Latin American settlers (see Huntington for the difference between settlers and immigrants) and the will no longer be a United States.
"End of story" is a more apt phrase than you realize...
Re: "It's worth noting that the UKIP is really an English separatist party, even if it hasn't quite realised it yet. In Scotland, the SNP is in government and is (IMO) likely to win a yes vote in an independence referendum next year."
You're right about UKIP being an English separatist party without realizing it, but I'll bet you a few pounds (or if you prefer, euros) that Scotland doesn't vote for independence. Despite the Scottish Nationalists being in power in Scotland, not a single opinion poll has shown a majority of Scots in favour of independence.
The whole thing's a joke.
The truth is the truth.
The opener of the sociopath.
JPF: My point is not that a centuries old blood and soil connection does not exist stateside, rather that one needn't live in a picturesque ancestral village to object to cultural, physical, and demographic destruction mangling the landscape of one's beloved homeland.
Visions of the mid-twentieth century California idyll are just as stirring for me as dreams of Antebellum Virginia are for the most romantic of southerners.
Oh, I agree completely. (That "my ass" was directed at the denizen of Amalgmated Megamericorp we were addressing.) I have the same split in my family - pre-Revolution on one side, just about FOB on the other - and I can assure anyone that the latter are just as passionately and viscerally attached to this land, and the history that preceded their arrival, as the former.
Visions of the mid-twentieth century California idyll are just as stirring for me as dreams of Antebellum Virginia are for the most romantic of southerners.
I hear ya. (Ah, the good old days, when I was just pissed off about ol' Virginny...)
How crazy is it for a human being to claim "immigrant" as an identity, anyway? If someone's whole identity is "immigrant", does it not behoove him to keep moving along to the next country? One can't keep being an "immigrant", otherwise, right? If you're a member of "the nation of immigrants", what are you still doing here?
England is smaller and more densely packed so it's harder for the media to maintain the lies. The recent white flight from London is equivalent to what happened in the states years ago but there's much less space to run.
Wall Street Pravda reported on the success of UKIP without mentioning immigration. WSJ puts the ministry of truth to shame
Post a Comment