Thursday, 13 February 2014

Ed Miliband's Speech on Immigration

First posted: 14th December, 2012

Ed's dad, Ralph, didn't have much faith in Parliament - in terms of socialism. In terms of Islamisation, Shahid Malik has a lot of faith in Parliament. But that's Muslim demographics for you. Socialists never got around to breeding enough socialist kids.

Ed Miliband systematically failed to mention the legions of immigrants, mainly Muslims, who are on benefits. There is huge recent-immigrant unemployment alongside whole ghettos of immigrants (mainly Muslim). Talk about 'our need for foreign labour' is simply not relevant when talking about these people. (They are also mainly unskilled and unqualified.)

Does Ed Miliband believe in the United Kingdom's long and continuous traditions? Doesn't he believe that such traditions depend on cultural and political homogeneity? And is it wrong to think in terms of the totality of a nation - of the United Kingdom?

I would say that you certainly don’t even have a nation in the first place if that geographical place doesn’t have at least some long and continuous traditions. Without them, there is no unification throughout the geographical unit and thus no real nation. We may not agree with, or accept, all or certain of these traditions which we inherit, but there still remains the need for traditions of some kind or other.

Without such traditions we would have political and social heterogeneity rather than homogeneity. Let's not mince our words here. We may indeed have conflict and possibly even civil war without such traditions. We may have the balkanisation of the British Isles, or even, possibly, Islamisation through more and more sharia law and the concomitant demographic rise of Islamic ghettos (or 'enclaves' as the French call them).

In addition, in order to stop such disintegration or balkanisation it’s also necessary for the government/state, as well as its citizens, to be able to conceive of the totality of a nation. This isn't a demand for total conformity. It’s more a desire that a country's inhabitants at least share some fundamentals of various kinds (whether a belief in parliamentary democracy, free speech, a national health service, the Sun or Mirror newspaper, even bacon or whatever).

Complete social and political heterogeneity can, or could, lead to “rivers of blood” because it has done many times in the past and also in very many other countries! Whether or not it did in Enoch Powell's day is another matter. I would say that, on the whole, it didn't. Then again, in some respects it did!

Ed Miliband tells us that a change in the constitution of the population has occurred. What follows is the interesting bit. He argues, implicitly, that it is Labour’s business to manage that change, not to prevent it, nor to reserve it.

There are strong arguments to the effect that once immigrants are here there is little that can be done - at least on the mass scale. But isn’t Miliband also saying that the Labour Party should not prevent it today or in the future? And he certainly doesn’t believe in any policy of reversal. But who says that mass immigration can’t be prevented? Many want mass immigration to be stopped. Many others think it can be stopped. Surely, of all people, Labour politicians should never happily say that some terrible situation is beyond our, or their, ken. No politicians should ever say that with ease.

It simply doesn’t follow that because we have mass immigration now, and have indeed had it in the past, that it must be the case that we simply accept it both today and in the future. Of course there are political and economic arguments which state that mass immigration is necessary in modern economies, etc. These positions can be argued against too. Not to do so would be equivalent to Francis Fukuyamo’s idea that the way things are in the West today is the way things *will always be from this day onward*. (He was referring to ‘liberal capitalism’.)

Labourites and Conservatives argue that opposing mass immigrations is equivalent to banging your head against a brick wall. What incredible arrogance and defeatism! What an abrogation of the very nature of politics! This appears to be a claim that mass immigration (plus perhaps other political, social and economic realities) is a logical necessity in modern economies; not a contingent fact!

What sort of immigrants is Miliband talking about anyway? Muslim fundamentalists/Islamists or Indians who want to join the British Army or work in a UK charitable organisation? Is he also talking about the immigrants who claim benefits in our country or those who work the NHS? Immigrants who want to bomb us, or live off the dole; or immigrants with skills or expertise the UK requires? He doesn’t make these distinctions at all. You cannot be for immigrants - certainly not mass immigration - unless you make such distinctions. If you don’t, you are nothing more than a mass-immigration fundamentalist, as many leftists and left-liberals are.

Do we really need mass immigration, rather than immigration, to solve our economic problems? More pertinently, do we really require loads of immigrants who will go on benefits - never mind immigrants who hate our country? So many mass-immigration fundamentalists, including people in the Labour and Conservative parties, don’t make any of these distinctions.  
Basically, Ed's dad didn't think socialism could be achieved through Parliament.

(Incidentally, Ed Miliband referred to his immigrant father, Ralph Miliband the well-known post-war Marxist theorist. He failed to also tell us that Ralph Miliband hated British society and thought it was racist, war-like and imperialist. In fact, as a Marxist revolutionary, Ed’s dad wanted to destroy the very country that saved his life – just like many Muslims do today!)

No comments:

Post a Comment