Phrenology: it could come back.
In what way are the following examples not part of a full-scale cultural war?
Huge increases in immigration over the past decade were a deliberate attempt to engineer a more multicultural
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. 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'. The published version promoted the labour-market case for immigration but Mr Neather said unpublished versions contained additional reasons.
'Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the
Mr Neather defended the policy, saying mass immigration has 'enriched'
All this deliberate change was unannounced and indeed disguised as a labour-market adjustment.
No matter what the cost to (and the possible destruction of), public order and the civil society which had formerly consisted of native people growing up and living together under common rules and accepted, established institutions – Labour had a plan to frustrate the Tories, UKIP, LPUK, and (presumably) the BNP.
Never mind that we were sure to lose our country’s precious habit of abiding by the laws of the land when Britain was purposefully restocked from regions where the only laws are brute force or the absolute and arbitrary rule of the eldest man in a family, or the teachings of a religion that insists on a permanent and merciless war of conquest and oppression by believers against everyone else.
No thought was taken into account of the economic effect that this would have on British people at the lower end of the earnings scale when cheap labour was pumped into the catering and hotel trades, and garages, retailing and residential care industries. No account at all was taken of the likely financial cost to services such as schools, hospitals and General Practitioners, and housing, transportation and public leisure facilities; let alone of how whole neighbourhoods and entire city areas would have their character changed forever by unassimilated and intolerant colonists who would insist that the native British alone should change our ways.
We just don’t matter in our own home, we British, we don’t count for anything, nor does our civilisation – not when the United Left has a plan.
They did it on purpose, with malice aforethought as a convenient by-product of their building-boom, housing boom bubble.
And this from the telegraph on the ideological onslaught against our fee-paying schools.
Last week, Dame Suzi Leather, the head of the Charity Commission, made an unusual concession. She announced that schools which charge fees will have more time to prove that they provide a "public benefit". The commission has already decided that two fee-paying schools should lose their charitable status because they do not do so.
What is the Charity Commission, an unelected, unaccountable quango, doing deciding whether or not fee-paying schools should remain as charities?
For decades, a political argument has raged about whether private schools should be entitled to charitable status and the tax benefits that go with it. They have enjoyed that status since the Reformation. In a democracy, most of us would expect a decision to abolish it to be made democratically.
But in 2006, when Parliament passed the Charities Act, Labour found a way of changing that without any need to go through the tedious process of gaining electoral support for it. Its Charities Act dropped the old assumption that organisations devoted to education, the promotion of religion and the relief of poverty are of "public benefit" and should automatically count as charitable enterprises. Instead, it lets the Charity Commission decide what counts as "public benefit": which means it can decide when an institution can be counted as a charity, and when it will lose that status.
Does anyone imagine that any Islamic ‘charity’ will face such threatened loss of ancient, traditional rights? Still, good idea to finish off the hard core of the last few competent schools.
Finish off this creep’s work.
It is certainly true that "fewer people equals a greener planet" is simplistic. In 2050, 95% of the extra population will be poor and the poorer you are, the less carbon you emit. By today's standards, a cull of Australians or Americans would be at least 60 times as productive as one of Bangladeshis.
As a result, NGOs such as Oxfam, for whom I've just written a report on climate change's impact on humans, insist that dealing with consumption in the rich world is much more important than tackling population growth.
Is there any part of this Better that more westerners were dead talk recognizes anything of worth in the culture whose population that Green philosophy is cheerfully condemning as a pestilence?
And the Tories have bought into the whole deal. They either won’t fight – afraid of the ultimate witch-hunt and being accused of raaaacism and so that their alternatives to open-door-breed-the-Tories-out and to hell with the white working class are woefully inadequate.
Here’s their limp-dick answer to Labour’s people-herding social engineering.
Bet that’s got the Somali warlords and their clitoris-cutting crones shaking in their council flats, right? Not much to say about the unintegrated millions already here, though, is there? Locking the barn door after the horse has bolted was made for the
Oh, no, silly me, they’re going to ‘tackle..unacceptable cultural practises.’
How, I wonder: handcuff the brutal old biddies until their knife-hands fall off? How about chartering Ryanair flights and a couple of dozen hefty coppers a week and flying off into the wild blue yonder back to Africa with all the parents and grandparents of any mutilated children who were born here, and adoption for the surviving kids into nice, well-integrated Afro-Caribbean families? Or white ones?
No. Not the clueless, spineless, Office Yes Please But Real Power No Thanks
So they can fanny around with the edges: shave a fraction off a tax rate there. new truncheon for the police there. Maybe stop them persecuting Christians for expressing age-old prejudices here.
But they’ll never rule; never govern in anything but name. Not until they realise that fighting and winning the culture wars is the only way they can translate their policy ideas into anything like good governance.
When large swathes of a country’s cities are populated by people with no affection for, or loyalty to, the host culture; when its public servants actively seek to destroy its ancient institutions (and some of the few schools that deliver anything like a good education); and when many of its natives hate their own kind so much they are happy to use genocide as an example of good planetary management, then the colour of the rosettes and the name of the Prime Minister are pretty much irrelevant – he might as well be a corrupt and effete Bourbon or a late Romanov, because the real power lies elsewhere.
What happens in the streets and the benefits offices; the ‘schools’ and education authorities; the ports and airports; in pubs and homes and council chambers; in the police stations and town halls and quangos matter. Power lies in the minds and imaginations of people:
It’ll never change until someone at Tory HQ goes down to their IT people and borrows the lart (Luser Attitude Reconfiguration Tool) – also known as the Clue Bat, off the people who fix the computers and make the email go out. Then it’s upstairs to the suits for some reconstructive phrenology. Don’t hold your breath.