Labour exposed in secret document

[Skybird]

This speaks for itself, and so far is the most smoking of all smoking guns about the left's real political agenda.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1249797/Labour-threw-open-doors-mass-migration-secret-plot-make-multicultural-UK.html

Consider what I already quoted the head of Germany's Greens, J. Trittin, with:

"It is not about working for forming parlamentaric majorities in the Bundestag, but it is about securing Deutungshohheit (= "monopole of interpretation") in public discussion by enforcing the dominance of our minority."

Offsprings of one and the same spirit.

[Schroeder]

Hmmm....Daily Mail......:hmm2:

[Skybird]

Hmmm....Daily Mail......:hmm2:
My first thought, too, but - have they lied? It seems not. And that the left uses migration to strengthen it's power position by importing it's own future voters, is not really a secret, but a problem in most of Europe.

[Skybird]

Prewarnings of this story already in autmun, and even earlier, 2008, I just learned. And no, this time it is not the Mail. ;)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23761212-blairs-think-tank-airbrushed-link-between-crime-and-immigrants.do

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23467548-lords-report-exposes-labours-lies-on-the-benefits-of-mass-immigration.do

[Letum]

You talk about it as if it's a bad thing.
Personally I have only benefited. It's no so many years ago that the
UK's doors where always open to all the commonwealth countries. It's
a shame we no longer extend such hospitality.

[Tribesman]

Didn't Andrew Nether say his story about the think tank paper has been twisted out of all semblamce of reality.


And no, this time it is not the Mail
OMG the Standard:har::har::har::har:
So thats the low end local version of the Mail that is owned by the Mail but is given away free.
Thats good, its not from the crapfest paper its from their giveaway version so its more reliable.

[antikristuseke]

After having read the daily fail article, and the quotation from the supposedly secret documents, whats the problem?

[Platapus]

After having read the daily fail article, and the quotation from the supposedly secret documents, whats the problem?


Since skybird posted it, I am sure it has something to do with "Dem Mooslims" and their evil plan. (oh noes!) :doh:

[Letum]

Since skybird posted it, I am sure it has something to do with "Dem Mooslims" and their evil plan. (oh noes!) :doh:


:rotfl2:
Haha! You think?
I smell a rant on the way...

[Happy Times]

No surprise, they could have planned it together with their sister parties.


After having read the daily fail article, and the quotation from the supposedly secret documents, whats the problem?

The problem is we cant afford the "multicultural" experiment.

[Happy Times]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html

In his column, Mr Neather said that as well as bringing in hundreds of thousands more migrants to plug labour market gaps, there was also a "driving political purpose" behind immigration policy.

He defended the policy, saying mass immigration has "enriched" Britain, and made London a more attractive and cosmopolitan place.

This enrichment argument is used a lot by the multiculturalists in Finland also. Its not something you can measure or verify tough, or give a price tag, you just have to experience the bliss i guess. :damn:
That must be the reason the costs of this "richment" are kept from the taxpayers.

[Skybird]

they claim multiculturalism in Berlin, too. Meanwhile old berliners have moved out of the city in escape, and people who can afford it, especfially the social middle class, the highly trained specialists and experts, flee the city too. In come social low class from other nations, mainly turks, that are jobless, reject integratiuon and Germqany, and live by social wellfare. The police confesses that they do not patrol in certain no-go areas, since their officers must fear to get beaten up in areas where the sovereignity of the German state is openly challenged and rejected and police gets threatend on open street with uncovered weapons. The left senate tackled that by inventing "De-escalation teams", that acchieved that the number of injured policemen during riots reach record marks. a lot of alternative culture projects go into the city, which are neither an alterntice to solid economic, nor a form of valuable clture, and the city - which I can compare over the past 30 years now) has been pretty badly gone down the drain. Berlin, german capital, is one of the poorest cities in germany, and has the bhighest share of children living on social wellfare (one in three). What is unquailfied and poor, goes there. What is qualified and enjoys some better material standard, has left.

How is it with the capital in your country? ;)

Muilticulturalism often is used as the final, the deciidng, the ultimately terminating argument. But I still do not see the solid positives in it. It causes more costs than it creates economic benefits, and creates plenty of integration-unwilling parallel societies. when I want a taste of exotic places and foreign folklore music, I travel to the according country. I do not try to bring it into the street where I live.

And when I walk a part of some city in Germany and cannot orient myself anymore since all people on the streets are non-Germans, all shops and bars have Arabic signs only, and in general I feel like being in the Orient again, then at the latest mentioning "multi-culturalism" brings me into arms.

[Tribesman]

Meanwhile old berliners have moved out of the city in escape, and people who can afford it, especfially the social middle class, the highly trained specialists and experts, flee the city too.

That sounds rather like the early Victorian era.
The social middle class moving out to other places outside the city.
Is it true that the old little crossroads miles outside London which is now called Surbiton has something to do with a name for places where people live outside the cities?

[CaptainHaplo]

Now Now Happy Times and Skybird, keep talking like that and OTH or Tribesman will accuse you of being racist.

It doesn't matter whether you can afford it or not. What matters is that everyone else is afforded the same standard of living you are. Since some people - regardless of race, ethnicity or religion, choose to sit on their arse and not conform to the expectations of the society around them, the only way to put everyone on the same "footing" is to bring you down to the same level.

It is just a redistribution of wealth on one side, combined with a varied group on the other that by refusing to integrate, tries to force the system to conform to their ways - which for the two groups become a symbiotic situation for a time. The folks who suffer - are those who are the ones whose traditions, countries, heritage, wealth and ways of life are diminished or destroyed.

[Tribesman]

Now Now Happy Times and Skybird, keep talking like that and OTH or Tribesman will accuse you of being racist.

The word I would use is mug.
It must have been a slow news day and the Mail couldn't find a new immigrant scare story so ran an old one again and hoped its puppets wouldn't remember that it ran the story before and the story had turned out to be nothing.

tries to force the system to conform to their ways
Would that be like trying to rewrite science and history books in the school system because science and history are a challenge to those with fundamentalist views?

[Skybird]

Now Now Happy Times and Skybird, keep talking like that and OTH or Tribesman will accuse you of being racist.

It doesn't matter whether you can afford it or not. What matters is that everyone else is afforded the same standard of living you are. Since some people - regardless of race, ethnicity or religion, choose to sit on their arse and not conform to the expectations of the society around them, the only way to put everyone on the same "footing" is to bring you down to the same level.

It is just a redistribution of wealth on one side, combined with a varied group on the other that by refusing to integrate, tries to force the system to conform to their ways - which for the two groups become a symbiotic situation for a time. The folks who suffer - are those who are the ones whose traditions, countries, heritage, wealth and ways of life are diminished or destroyed.
One thing first, I think that soceity'S expectations cannot be the only criterion to decide whether or not somebody needs to accept a job offer or not, because it can very well be that the expecations then become exaggerated or abusive, by demnanding the individual to accept slavery loans, unacceptable working conditions or submissive obedience to the state. We already have skyrocketing low-wage-jobs exploding in number, whcih make explciit use of the unemployed and weak who desparately search for a job. The wages payed by companies in Germany can become as low as just one Euro - their aegument is they could not compete if they pay more adequate wages. So, the tax payer has to compensate for the rest the individual needs to form a (miserable) existence. Capitalism meets socialism here, making some strange company in bed!

Beyond that, claiming in general that society rules over individual, is totalitarianism, and opens door and gate to capitalistic exploitation that makes profit by abusing the weakness of the unumployed worker needing to accept any job. Maybe you have not meant all this, I just want to point out at some obvious implication, if you leave your formulation in such a generalised form.

Yesterday I was in an exchange of PMs with Respenus, about "socialism", "being social" and "social responsibility". He accepted that I quote from my reply, since it does not include any personal stuff at all.


so it is about "being social", "social responsibility", and "socialism".

Cutting it short, being social means to be a team player, to understand that man is a zoon politicon.

The social responsibility of a community as well as an individual is that it should not leave behind those who without their own fault are weak, ill, have been hit by bad fate, or struggle to make a living by their work, like so many today. Here, the community should offer help and needed assistance. To give people reasonably comparable starting conditions in form of access to education I also include here. For all this, the "solidarity principle" must be mentioned: a rule that a community hopefully has consensus on to apply, and that also justifies why the state is given the power to collect taxes. Different to popular belief I do not subscribe to the populöar and populstic understanding that collecting taxes or accepting social repsonsibility is a question of "jutsice", the term justice imo has no place and validity in this conception. To be social and collecting taxes simply is a modus operandi a majority has agreed upon, so is the solidarity I mentioned - but a oiral obligation, a legal duty for it I do not see. Justice is not in taking form the one and give it to the other, it is - quite the opposite - highly arbitrary. And it can easily become unfair towards those expected to pay.

Some days ago I flew over a short essay mentioning that Clinton had understood that he had to cut too excessive social wellfare: during his reign statistics showed that the more social wellfare there was, the more young, unmarried girls became pregnant na dneeded to raise their kids alone, with help from the state. After he tackled social wellfare and dfriove it back a bit, statistics showed a drop in numbers for such girls. - Don't ask for details, I really only flew over it. But it supports me in my belief that social help should try to help by making people able to help themselves, and that the clssical family structure is the more threatened the more excessive social wellfare becomes. Of course they are also threatened if there is too little social help. But usually the argument is that the more social wellfare there is, the better. I think that is wrong. From the disucssion about homosexuals and gay marriage you remember that I give the traditional family scheme utmost prioprity for the sake of the longtermed interest of the community as well as the state organising it.

I see little or no obligation to endlessly support somebody who can not come up for his living by his own unwillingness, and parasitic selfishness. Social responsibility means to care for those who are in trouble without being responsible for that. And that are quite many. But the parasites, that also exist, do not deserve solidarity, imo. however, I do not buy the argument that the majoi9rty of people - at least native Europeans - intentionally and aparsitcally live by social wellfare. With certain kinds of immigrants, this obviously is something different.
When you contribute to a society in times when you can afford that, you earn the right to get supported when you are in trouble. When you refuse to contribute, you have no demands to rasie. You do not have only rights. You also have duties.

Social responsibility also means to balance egoism versus altruism. This is especially true in a capitalistic environment.

Socialism now is a term that has seen a more and more widening of definitions. I do not claim to give a complete definition, if you look at definitions on the web you see that there are very many theoretical concepts using the term, but all differ from each other in some aspects. The term may have had a precise meaning, once (or not), but today, that is not as precise anymore.

Some see it as an early stage that inevitably transforms into communism (especially Americans), which from a certain perspective is hard to counter. In the past months I learned that the close nearness of many socialists in germany to extreme left, communist positions in the traditoon of Maoism and Marxism indeed seems to indicate that close link, which also is claimed by Marx himself. I had to change my opinion accordingly.

But the understanding of the term today does not seem to be limited to that puristic defintion only. The key characteristics of modern understanding of socialism in my perception are mostly negative ones. It is about establishing a form of social organisation that reduces the focus on private property and increases the focus on collective property, and replaces the traditionally capitalistic concept of competition with a model that discourages both personal risk and personal responsibility for maximising everybody's "security" indifferently. This imo comes at the cost of preventing creativity, accepting reasonably calculated risks, and discouraging initiative. Sopcialism also has a strong tatse of collectivism, and denying qualitative differences between individual people. In europe we see a massive widening of this type of socialist thinking when we see European states, I especially think of Germany, being turned into all-embracing omnipotential providers that cares and accepts responsibility for all and every needs. Even conservative parties have become more socialistic in this meaning, since it offers them to fish for thankful voters. That way it becomes overregulatory, it becomes quite totalitarian, and it lulls a population that more and more lives by the impression that everybody just can take and take, but nobody needs to pay (and those who do, get ignored or even diffamated as evil capitalists and elitists who truly deserve to be robbed more and more in form of taxes. The historic goals of equality and justice become perverted and turned into rejection of any hierarchic structure, and qualitative differentiation. Equality becomes featurelessness, justice becomes indifference. Right the problem we have with societies being uncritical and tolerant towards all and everything, considering that to be "just" and "balanced" (referance to the Islam debate intended)! That is one of the reasons why governments and administrations running by socialistic rules often showed to be so extremely unflexible.

One thing I react allergic to, is socialism's and communism's tendency towards collectivism, and enforcing it by more or less totalitarian means. It certainly is a consequence of the historic role the Anglosaxon model of capitalism has played, but the roots for it reach back to earlier times. While the West certainly is obsessed with a too exaggerated understanding of the unlimited value and rights of individuals and their individuality, I see this collectivism of asian or socialistic nature also as an extreme. The truth lies somewehre in the middle, and closes the circle to what I would call social responsibility while still being an individual. Capitalism denies social responsibility of the individual. Socialism denies the role of the individual, and very often generalises up to the level of abstract absolutes. In the end, both extremes tend to accept totalitarianism if it suppoorts their own views. Left political concepotions are hardly a remedy or an opposite to the rightwinged dictatorships they often claim to protest again.

You don't believe it? Consider that the Nazis wanted to be socialists - it is called National-Socialism. L.v. Mises points out that of the listed ten programmatic points of the Communistic Manifest, eight have been picked up and copied by the Nazis in the Third Reich.

[CaptainHaplo]

Skybird, in many ways you and I agree on this. However, I think where we disagree is the role of "social responsibility". Society and government do have the responsibility to see that capitalism doesn't run amok - thus causing the abuses (and others) you reference. I have no issue with that. However, social responsibility is something I think (and correct me if I am wrong) you feel is an "undeniable" responsibility on every person. By that I mean every person in society should be willing to give to a point to help their fellow person. While that would be ideal, I feel that any person who does not want to contribute (through tax funded social programs) to the helping of another should be able to opt out of it.

I also feel that "social responsibiltiy" is a 2 way street. That means that someone on unemployment or welfare or whatever other name is out there, should be meeting certain requirements that demonstrate they are trying to move themselves forward. For example, I have no problem stating I think every welfare and unemployment recipient should have to pass a drug test before they get benefits, as well as randomly as they collect them. I also think that they need to either enroll in school, in a training program, or have much greater "job search" requirements (which currently average 2 or 3 resumes sent out a week - and they can be "blind" sends - meaning just pick 3 companies in the phone book at random and mail them a resume). Those who are using our tax money have an obligation to the society that supports them to use that "hand" as a hand up and not a hand out - taking that opportunity to better their situation long term.

Until these types of steps are taken, the welfare rolls will continue to grow. The unemployed who can sit home will claim "that job is below me" even when it pays a decent wage. And - you will continue to have those groups who refuse to integrate and instead demand more from the society they "invade".

[Skybird]

Skybird, in many ways you and I agree on this. However, I think where we disagree is the role of "social responsibility". Society and government do have the responsibility to see that capitalism doesn't run amok - thus causing the abuses (and others) you reference. I have no issue with that. However, social responsibility is something I think (and correct me if I am wrong) you feel is an "undeniable" responsibility on every person. By that I mean every person in society should be willing to give to a point to help their fellow person. While that would be ideal, I feel that any person who does not want to contribute (through tax funded social programs) to the helping of another should be able to opt out of it.


Agreed. If that person lives completely disconnected from any communal context, does not benefit from any communal effort and service (like street building, public schools, public hospitals, electricity, central heating, etc). In other words if you have a isolationist living autark on an island, and it'S just just him alone. That is utopic nowadays. you have no other choice but to live in a context that connects you with the social envrionment in which your life is embedded. And that is why a certain ammount of social responsibility is not voluntary, but mandatory. But where the line is to be set between what is a justified mandatory social responsibility, and collectivism/socialistic totalitarianism, is another question. I do not see it as heavily libertarian like conservative americans and capitalists see it. But I also do not see it as far-reaching in obligations, like socialism. I used to think of Europe's so-called "social market economy" as a good compromise, but in recent time I see this structure having been massively eroded and corrupted by parties both from the left and right end of the political spectrum, and also having been blown up to proportions that are unreasonable in that even reasonable managing of a national economy cannot compensate for the costs anymore. The Cost-effect-calculation is totally off balance, and it seems every political power is working for worstening this even more in order to benefit from some shorttermed powerpolitical benefits for itself. You remember my long essay some weeks ago.


I also feel that "social responsibiltiy" is a 2 way street. That means that someone on unemployment or welfare or whatever other name is out there, should be meeting certain requirements that demonstrate they are trying to move themselves forward. For example, I have no problem stating I think every welfare and unemployment recipient should have to pass a drug test before they get benefits, as well as randomly as they collect them. I also think that they need to either enroll in school, in a training program, or have much greater "job search" requirements (which currently average 2 or 3 resumes sent out a week - and they can be "blind" sends - meaning just pick 3 companies in the phone book at random and mail them a resume). Those who are using our tax money have an obligation to the society that supports them to use that "hand" as a hand up and not a hand out - taking that opportunity to better their situation long term.

In principle I do not disagree, maybe on the intensity of some of your details, but in general: no. However, I also said above that somebody accepting the help of society and thus having also obligations, should not be pushed so far that his weakness is being abused for making profit by exploiting his situation to the max. There are parasites, yes. But I refuse statements that have been made in past discussions that they are the general norm. They are a norm in certain social subgroups (and whether people want to hear that or not: Islamic migrats leading in that statistic). Nevertheless, you have to look close and check the individual case, both with native european inhabitants of Europe'S states, and foreign migrants.

I certainly think that in far too many cases social wellfare is being thrown after far too undeserving people. But in Germany I know for sure that also this is true: far too many people try as best as they could, but don't get a chance or are under-supported by social wellfare, or - like the working poor in America - work their a##es off like crazy and still earn only so much that they are already lucky if they still last at the end of the month. there is no chance to put aside reserves for a future, when they have come of age, or become ill. that is a big social explosive europe is building. And at some time in th future it will blow up.

I agree with that - typically american - criticism that europe in general is shifting towards the socialistic end of the spectrum. that is wanted by the left as well as the conservatives, since it fosters parties' hopes that if the state gets established as the great provider of goods and comfort, people will be thankful and voting for those establishing this. And here I close the circle to my criticism as expressed in my former post. the scandal in Britain over Labour migration policies is no surprise to me. It just is an obvious illustration for that things are not going wrong by accident, but intentionally. That'S what makes the story the "smoking gun".

The older I get, the more American I become. :shucks: When I'm 60 I will ask them for political asylum. :D

If then they let me in is something different. :haha:

Until these types of steps are taken, the welfare rolls will continue to grow. The unemployed who can sit home will claim "that job is below me" even when it pays a decent wage.

In some social milieus where you look, such people will be a prominent group, yes, in others they will be a small minority, the exception from the rule. Better don't generalise, therefore. Also, the economy and private business has found many ways to make profitable use of these people'S defencelessness by paying criminally low wages. In Germany hundreds of thiousands of regular jobs have been killed i order to create more low-wage jobs and increase the mass of people in need of work - high unemployment is no curse but paradise for capitalistic business. And still many people accept these jobs. Because they think that slavery wages may be a mean thing, but still make them feel better and stay more honest, than if they just sit at home and refuse themsleves to society but demand it to pay for them. Stop the generalisations, Haplo, you may mark some justified cases if you do, but you also do a lot of injustice to honest people out there.

And - you will continue to have those groups who refuse to integrate and instead demand more from the society they "invade".

Ööööh - yes. :DL My sermon.

[CaptainHaplo]

If that person lives completely disconnected from any communal context, does not benefit from any communal effort and service (like street building, public schools, public hospitals, electricity, central heating, etc). In other words if you have a isolationist living autark on an island, and it'S just just him alone. That is utopic nowadays. you have no other choice but to live in a context that connects you with the social envrionment in which your life is embedded. And that is why a certain ammount of social responsibility is not voluntary, but mandatory. But where the line is to be set between what is a justified mandatory social responsibility, and collectivism/socialistic totalitarianism, is another question.

Ok - I think I see where we are both headed here - and I suspect we would agree. The examples you give, such as roads, are things that just about every member of society makes use of on a regular basis. To that end, I have no issue with saying that those who use such things should share a responsibility with the rest of society to pay for those things. Same goes with police and fire services, etc. You asked where the line is - and there I think is where the real crux of the question is. To me - the line is the social program - aka safety net. Any program that is not a regularly used service or thing provided by the government that the majority of society uses on a consistent basis should not be paid for by compulsion. That may be worded badly - but I think you understand. Certain services - road maintenance, protection from fire and crime, external invaders, etc are all services that the average citizenry benefits from on a continual and constant basis. The police intention is to keep crime down, and they do this to the benefit of all society, not just show up when you have been robbed as an example. Some things are socially beneficial to almost all of the society at all times and thus should be considered for determination as possibly a social responsibility of all. (I can't wait till someone uses that arguement for universal healthcare however - because the arguement doesn't apply - though someone will try). However, those social programs which are funded by all - but do not provide benenfit for all on a consistent basis, should not be mandentory.

There are parasites, yes. But I refuse statements that have been made in past discussions that they are the general norm. They are a norm in certain social subgroups (and whether people want to hear that or not: Islamic migrats leading in that statistic).

You used this and discussed the "underserved" - those who work and can't get the help they need. I can't help but point out that if it were not for the leeches, the underserved could be served. I can't speak to Europe, or its Islamic migrants leading the "leech" category there, but in the US it is not Islamic migrants that lead there. Sadly- it is not migrants at all (though illegal migrants do make up a SIGNIFICANT portion), the majority of leeches are actually natural citizenry.

Note: Last numbers I saw (from last year) were leechers broke down to about 50% American citizen (of all "races: Caucasian, Hispanic, Amerindian, etc), 45% Illegal (or undocumented) immigrant (where the majority is hispanic, but all foreign born illegals are included) and the remaining 5% were legal resident non-citizens (its really hard for them to get aid as without a job usually their work visa is revoked). I don't recall seeing any statistical breakdown by religion, but the above would indicate that Islam is not likely to be a major player if such an analysis were done.

The older I get, the more American I become. :shucks: When I'm 60 I will ask them for political asylum. :D

If then they let me in is something different. :haha:

Well - if I get my campaign off the ground and get elected as president - I would do all I could to let ya in - your sheer brutal honesty without being politically correct would be an asset to the US. We need more people like that - even though we do disagree on some things.

In some social milieus where you look, such people will be a prominent group, yes, in others they will be a small minority, the exception from the rule. Better don't generalise, therefore. Also, the economy and private business has found many ways to make profitable use of these people'S defencelessness by paying criminally low wages. In Germany hundreds of thiousands of regular jobs have been killed i order to create more low-wage jobs and increase the mass of people in need of work - high unemployment is no curse but paradise for capitalistic business. And still many people accept these jobs. Because they think that slavery wages may be a mean thing, but still make them feel better and stay more honest, than if they just sit at home and refuse themsleves to society but demand it to pay for them. Stop the generalisations, Haplo, you may mark some justified cases if you do, but you also do a lot of injustice to honest people out there.

Well, on this one I don't think I do any injustice. I do not begrudge those who refuse to take a "slave" wage - and I do think that certain capitalist practices (such as eliminatiing a full time position and replacing it with 2 part time ones so no benefits must be paid) should be penalized. Perhaps it is the differences in countries - because I could point to the times when we have had extremely high unemployment and there were all kinds of jobs available, but because they involved actual work, many refused to pursue them. A perfect example is here in the states, the agricultural market constantly needs people - mainly to harvest in the fields. Yes - it often hot, uncomfortable work. And yes - I am fully aware that these jobs are often filled by "migratory" workers. But when companies offer 150% or more above minimum wage and cannot find American citizens to do the work, because its "too hard" or "below them" - so those citizens choose to sit on their a$$ and collect welfare or unemployment, there is not JUST a problem on the corporate side, but also one on the worker/societial side as well. When this happens, you have people choosing to sit on the dole and merely exist by sucking from the government breast by collecting less than they could if they went out and WORKED. Is it a generalization? No - because I don't claim that it is representative of every person or situation. What I do say is that it is those that do this that need to be kicked OFF the dole, so that those trying all they can who need the help can get it.

Personally, I am a big fan of stating that if your on unemployment or welfare you need to be in school, trying to get a job or volunteering your time to society via community service for a minimum of 20 hours a week. After all - if you were working - it would be for twice that amount of time.

[Steel_Tomb]

I'm not really surprised at all to be honest. This Government is rotten to the core. Soon as I can, I think I'll be looking to leave this god forsaken place behind... don't know where to yet... but its deffinately on the cards. I have friends in Canada, beautiful country... far nicer than this place.

I'm sure you guys have made good posts... but I turned off when I hit the multiple walls of text lol :88).