RACE WAR POLITICS
The left wing think tank, Demos, has caused a small brouhaha this last week with the publication of a report written by Vince Cable MP, who is the Lib Dem Shadow Chancellor.
Mr Cable is the MP for Twickenham. Although born in Yorkshire, he attended and was a lecturer at Glasgow University, and was also a Labour councillor in Glasgow from 1971-74. He is married to a Goan. He has spent much of his life abroad. This background might help explain his views.
In his report, Mr Cable states the following [italics are English Rights Campaign emphasis]:
It is to be noted that Mr Cable only condemns English nationalists as being on a par with white supremacists and Islamic fundamentalists - not the Scottish or Welsh nationalists, nor even the Irish nationalists of Sinn Fein/IRA. He singles out the English.
The English Rights Campaign is not an English nationalist blog, in that it does not advocate the breakup of the UK. What it does, is demand that the English are granted equal treatment within the UK, that they should not be treated as second class citizens in their own country, and it further campaigns against the evil of political correctness [which Mr Cable describes as being ‘much maligned’].
However, it is clear that Mr Cable is attacking the views of this blog regarding the rights of the English and definitely attacking the views of this blog regarding political correctness.
Mr Cable’s report is called ‘Multiple Identities: living with the politics of identity’. The report is written as a follow up to a previous report written by Mr Cable for Demos called: ‘The World’s New Fissures: Identities in crisis’ in 1994.
To promote the report, Demos has issued a press release entitled, ‘Abandon Multiculturalism’, and says:
Trevor Phillips, the chairman of the so-called Commission for Racial Equality [CRE], criticised multiculturalism last year. Although it is clear that many who supported Trevor Phillips’s criticisms did not properly read what he was saying and/or did not understand the full implications of it.
Mr Cable also demands that the UK adopt a new racial political creed:
Mr Cable’s report does not confine itself to the UK, but comments upon many countries from all around the globe [eg USA, Botswana, Uruguay, France, Sri Lanka, Brazil, South Africa, Australia, India and Iceland]. It makes no mention at all of the unfairness of the Barnett Formula [which guarantees the Scots and Welsh extra subsidies], or the undemocratic outrage of the West Lothian Question [whereby Scots and Welsh MPs vote on English affairs] and the manner in which Labour have rigged the constitution in order to rig the election and hence cling onto office.
Instead, Mr Cable prefers to adopt a sociological approach and theorises as to how the world should be. His analysis is that the world has moved on since the end of the Cold War. That the old Left-Right politics are no longer relevant. Instead, he believes the real political debate is about identities, between those who advocate exclusive group identity, and those who advocate inclusive multiple identity.
Put simply, Mr Cable argues that the concept of exclusive group identity is basically nationalism and a belief in the nation state, whereas inclusive group identity no longer recognises the nation state as the primary source of allegiance or identity. Mr Cable advocates the concept of an inclusive multiple group identity and believes that there is a gap in the UK political spectrum, ‘and the Lib Dems are well placed to fill it’.
Needless to say, Mr Cable believes that there should be yet more government intervention:
Of course management of the economy is something for which government is responsible, whereas the management of people’s beliefs and sense of cultural identity is less under government control. Indoctrination is the antithesis of a free society.
The “mixed economy” of which Mr Cable speaks was a failure and large parts of the government sector were privatised by the Thatcher government in the 1980s. Those nationalised industries that remain, such as the NHS, remain a failure.
To launch his concept of multiple identity Mr Cable makes the following assertion:
Mr Cable then goes on to cite the Huguenots and Irish immigrants among others. Ireland was of course an integral part of the UK, which Mr Cable ignores. The immigration of previous centuries was a minor fraction of what it is today, which Mr Cable also ignores. More immigrants enter the UK in a few months today, than entered in many whole previous centuries put together.
The reference to region, class [a traditional communist obsession] and religion is simply an attempt to exploit any differences within a country as a means of denying the nation ever existed. It is a neo-communist trick and should be ignored.
The fact is that Britain was a homogenous and harmonious country. It may have consisted of a union of more than one country, and there may well have been debates as to the future direction in which the country should go. But that is a part of a healthy democratic debate of a healthy democratic country, and is certainly not a justification to allege that Britain has never been united or a justification for mass immigration and race war politics.
Mr Cable openly acknowledges the scale of immigration:
Other Western countries [eg USA, Canada, Australia] are immigrant countries and promote immigration into their underpopulated territory. Other European countries, such as Holland and France, have their own immigration problems. Britain is traditionally an emigrant country, not an immigrant country. This island is already overpopulated and does not want or need immigration.
Britain is already occupied.
The doubling of the size of immigrant communities as a proportion of the total population every 20 years will inevitably lead to the English becoming a racial minority in England within roughly 50 years. That is an arithmetical fact. Needless to say, Mr Cable does not deal with this at all.
Mr Cable’s view is that:
People are, of course, not inanimate objects. They have beliefs, customs, needs etc.
Mr Cable misrepresents the current history of immigration:
In fact, this country was an emigrant country, which is how countries such as Australia, USA, Canada and New Zealand were colonised, up until the late 20th century when immigration overtook emigration. The scale of gross immigration is at double the level cited by Mr Cable.
[According to the Office of National Statistics, the total number of people immigrating into the UK with the stated intention of staying for more than 1 year in 2003 was 407,000, excluding British citizens returning from abroad. Then there is illegal immigration. Net immigration in 2003 was 151,000.]
The changing composition of the UK population is a problem in itself, especially since most immigrants settle in England and it is England which is so dramatically affected.
Mr Cable deals with so-called asylum seeking separately and states [italics are English Rights Campaign emphasis]:
The principle of the concept of asylum seeking is most definitely an issue. The English Rights Campaign has raised the issue before [eg the blog entries dated the 28 June 2005, 16 February 2005 for the item dated the 31 December 2004, and Futurus report in the blog dated the 26 February 2005]. There is no justification at all for a never ending tide of so-called asylum seekers, mostly fit young men, to be paying organised crime rackets to smuggle them across a multitude of countries and even several entire continents before they are then smuggled into England where they then destroy their identity papers and use the magic words: ‘I claim asylum’.
The UK should unilaterally withdraw from the 1951 UN Convention and refuse to accept any further asylum seekers. The continuance of so-called asylum seeking is not only impractical, not least due to the scale of abuse and the complete breakdown of the system, but is also morally indefensible.
Mr Cable has not made out any case for the continuance of so-called asylum seeking at all.
Regarding immigration proper, Mr Cable avers that what is needed is another quango to decide how many immigrants are allowed in:
And that:
In fact the overwhelming majority of English people wish to see an end to mass immigration. Mr Cable takes no account of that view. There is no need for another bunch of neo-communist quangocrats to be advocating mass immigration.
But as a means of foisting mass immigration upon the country and in furtherance of his neo-communist desire to destroy the British nation state, he advocates his concept of inclusive multiple group identities. His views of the English and English interests are openly contemptuous:
And:
And:
So much for the war on terror!
Supposed disadvantage, or poverty, or supposed inequality, had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the 7/7 bombings in London. The terrorists who carried out those attacks included people who had been white water rafting in Wales, and who had been globetrotting to Pakistan. Those in poverty cannot afford such jaunts.
Those bombings were the result of a hatred of this country and its people. They were the direct consequence of race war politics and mass immigration which have encouraged and enabled those who do not consider themselves to be British at all, to carry out terrorist attacks against the host population. Those terrorists who were born in this country did not consider themselves to be British. They were Muslim fundamentalists. Needless to say, Mr Cable ignores all this.
The English do not want to live in an England riven by war, or ‘near war’, or terrorism. Nor do they want to be treated as second class citizens in their own country. They want to be able to exercise their rights as any other independent and free people.
Mr Cable does not believe in the nation state. His concept of multiple identities asserts that people’s allegiances are to other entities such as the EU, or regions, or religion. Even regarding the EU he condemns the ‘strong resistance to the historically important task of enlargement to incorporate Muslim Turkey’. He does not even have the gumption to respect public concern over that.
Mr Cable has no concept of patriotism or the importance of it. The lack of it is one factor behind the recent terrorist bombings. Patriotism is a force for good and needs to be nurtured and encouraged.
Mr Cable is quite happy for people to describe themselves as ‘British Jews’ or ‘Scots and British’. But English and British? His report does not mention such a concept. He even makes an erroneous comment about ‘English nationalist parties like UKIP’. In fact UKIP is strongly hostile to an English parliament. It is not an English nationalist party in any sense.
Mr Cable’s report is disgrace. He does not make out the case for asylum seeking at all. He boldly asserts 2 falsehoods [that the British were never unified and that there has always been mass immigration] and then extrapolates a whole line of argument based on those falsehoods.
He compares English nationalists with neo-Nazis, organisations such as Hizb ut Tahrir and the Saviour Sect, and the likes of Omar Bakri, Al-Masari, Abu Qatada et al. It is a grubby smear to cover up the grubby and evil creed of political correctness.
The English are perfectly entitled to demand that their nationhood and nationality is respected, and have every right to object to the manner in which they have been denied that. They have every right to object to the scale of the subsidies which they are having to pay to Wales and Scotland, and the rigged constitution which allows Welsh and Scottish MPs to continue to vote on English affairs.
The English are perfectly entitled to be consulted about these matters, and are perfectly entitled to their own parliament.
Mr Cable can keep his grubby little smears to himself.
Mr Cable is the MP for Twickenham. Although born in Yorkshire, he attended and was a lecturer at Glasgow University, and was also a Labour councillor in Glasgow from 1971-74. He is married to a Goan. He has spent much of his life abroad. This background might help explain his views.
In his report, Mr Cable states the following [italics are English Rights Campaign emphasis]:
‘Anecdote is reinforced by fact: census data confirms that a significant majority of non-white ethnic groups living in Britain regard themselves as British or British in conjunction with other identities.
The threat to harmonious social relations in Britain comes from those who insist that multiple identity, including Britishness, is not possible: white supremacists, English nationalists, Islamic fundamentalists. This is the opposition and they have to be confronted.’
It is to be noted that Mr Cable only condemns English nationalists as being on a par with white supremacists and Islamic fundamentalists - not the Scottish or Welsh nationalists, nor even the Irish nationalists of Sinn Fein/IRA. He singles out the English.
The English Rights Campaign is not an English nationalist blog, in that it does not advocate the breakup of the UK. What it does, is demand that the English are granted equal treatment within the UK, that they should not be treated as second class citizens in their own country, and it further campaigns against the evil of political correctness [which Mr Cable describes as being ‘much maligned’].
However, it is clear that Mr Cable is attacking the views of this blog regarding the rights of the English and definitely attacking the views of this blog regarding political correctness.
Mr Cable’s report is called ‘Multiple Identities: living with the politics of identity’. The report is written as a follow up to a previous report written by Mr Cable for Demos called: ‘The World’s New Fissures: Identities in crisis’ in 1994.
To promote the report, Demos has issued a press release entitled, ‘Abandon Multiculturalism’, and says:
‘Britain must abandon multiculturalism if it wants to build a strong, tolerant and inclusive sense of national identity, a new report argues.’
Trevor Phillips, the chairman of the so-called Commission for Racial Equality [CRE], criticised multiculturalism last year. Although it is clear that many who supported Trevor Phillips’s criticisms did not properly read what he was saying and/or did not understand the full implications of it.
Mr Cable also demands that the UK adopt a new racial political creed:
‘We should focus on multiple identities and on individuals rather than on obsolete models of multiculturalism, and that we need to address a series of issues, from immigration and Europe to localism and strengthening of global institutions, in ways which draw the sting from the dangerous, exclusive forms of identity politics which are now presenting a direct challenge to our shared public life.’
Mr Cable’s report does not confine itself to the UK, but comments upon many countries from all around the globe [eg USA, Botswana, Uruguay, France, Sri Lanka, Brazil, South Africa, Australia, India and Iceland]. It makes no mention at all of the unfairness of the Barnett Formula [which guarantees the Scots and Welsh extra subsidies], or the undemocratic outrage of the West Lothian Question [whereby Scots and Welsh MPs vote on English affairs] and the manner in which Labour have rigged the constitution in order to rig the election and hence cling onto office.
Instead, Mr Cable prefers to adopt a sociological approach and theorises as to how the world should be. His analysis is that the world has moved on since the end of the Cold War. That the old Left-Right politics are no longer relevant. Instead, he believes the real political debate is about identities, between those who advocate exclusive group identity, and those who advocate inclusive multiple identity.
Put simply, Mr Cable argues that the concept of exclusive group identity is basically nationalism and a belief in the nation state, whereas inclusive group identity no longer recognises the nation state as the primary source of allegiance or identity. Mr Cable advocates the concept of an inclusive multiple group identity and believes that there is a gap in the UK political spectrum, ‘and the Lib Dems are well placed to fill it’.
Needless to say, Mr Cable believes that there should be yet more government intervention:
‘A more positive approach is to give more thought and attention to how issues of cultural identity should be approached and managed. After all, vast creative energy has been devoted to the issue of how to manage “mixed economies” to secure the optimum mix of markets and government intervention. Much less sustained attention has been devoted to the question of how cultural identity can be reunited with powerful competing claims of local identity, and wider, cross-border or global identities.’
Of course management of the economy is something for which government is responsible, whereas the management of people’s beliefs and sense of cultural identity is less under government control. Indoctrination is the antithesis of a free society.
The “mixed economy” of which Mr Cable speaks was a failure and large parts of the government sector were privatised by the Thatcher government in the 1980s. Those nationalised industries that remain, such as the NHS, remain a failure.
To launch his concept of multiple identity Mr Cable makes the following assertion:
‘There are hardly any countries in the world which could be described as ethnically homogenous in any meaningful sense: possibly Botswana, Iceland and Uruguay might qualify ... A useful starting point for the UK is to debunk the myth that before the arrival of black and Asian migrants in the decades after the Second World War, Britain was a homogenous and harmonious unicultural society. Quite apart from deep historical differences of region, class and religion, there had in fact been previous waves of immigrants...’
Mr Cable then goes on to cite the Huguenots and Irish immigrants among others. Ireland was of course an integral part of the UK, which Mr Cable ignores. The immigration of previous centuries was a minor fraction of what it is today, which Mr Cable also ignores. More immigrants enter the UK in a few months today, than entered in many whole previous centuries put together.
The reference to region, class [a traditional communist obsession] and religion is simply an attempt to exploit any differences within a country as a means of denying the nation ever existed. It is a neo-communist trick and should be ignored.
The fact is that Britain was a homogenous and harmonious country. It may have consisted of a union of more than one country, and there may well have been debates as to the future direction in which the country should go. But that is a part of a healthy democratic debate of a healthy democratic country, and is certainly not a justification to allege that Britain has never been united or a justification for mass immigration and race war politics.
Mr Cable openly acknowledges the scale of immigration:
‘The identifiable, ethnically distinct, non-white, part of the population - now roughly 4.2 million - has doubled between 1981 and 2001 but at 8.5 per cent of the total is not large in relation to other Western countries.’
Other Western countries [eg USA, Canada, Australia] are immigrant countries and promote immigration into their underpopulated territory. Other European countries, such as Holland and France, have their own immigration problems. Britain is traditionally an emigrant country, not an immigrant country. This island is already overpopulated and does not want or need immigration.
Britain is already occupied.
The doubling of the size of immigrant communities as a proportion of the total population every 20 years will inevitably lead to the English becoming a racial minority in England within roughly 50 years. That is an arithmetical fact. Needless to say, Mr Cable does not deal with this at all.
Mr Cable’s view is that:
‘In a more open, integrated world, a liberal approach to the movement of people is both inevitable and to be welcomed. The idea that goods, services, capital, news and information should flow freely across frontiers while people remain sealed in nation states is absurd and untenable.’
People are, of course, not inanimate objects. They have beliefs, customs, needs etc.
Mr Cable misrepresents the current history of immigration:
‘Until the mid-1990s immigration was roughly balanced by emigration of British people, so the question was essentially one of the changing composition of the UK population. But with gross immigration of 200,000 a year or more in recent years and net immigration of over 100,000 there clearly is an immigration issue.’
In fact, this country was an emigrant country, which is how countries such as Australia, USA, Canada and New Zealand were colonised, up until the late 20th century when immigration overtook emigration. The scale of gross immigration is at double the level cited by Mr Cable.
[According to the Office of National Statistics, the total number of people immigrating into the UK with the stated intention of staying for more than 1 year in 2003 was 407,000, excluding British citizens returning from abroad. Then there is illegal immigration. Net immigration in 2003 was 151,000.]
The changing composition of the UK population is a problem in itself, especially since most immigrants settle in England and it is England which is so dramatically affected.
Mr Cable deals with so-called asylum seeking separately and states [italics are English Rights Campaign emphasis]:
‘There are practical problems surrounding the definition of asylum in the case of people fleeing political persecution, of determining asylum claims, and of dealing humanely but firmly with failed claims; but the principle of granting asylum should not be an issue.’
The principle of the concept of asylum seeking is most definitely an issue. The English Rights Campaign has raised the issue before [eg the blog entries dated the 28 June 2005, 16 February 2005 for the item dated the 31 December 2004, and Futurus report in the blog dated the 26 February 2005]. There is no justification at all for a never ending tide of so-called asylum seekers, mostly fit young men, to be paying organised crime rackets to smuggle them across a multitude of countries and even several entire continents before they are then smuggled into England where they then destroy their identity papers and use the magic words: ‘I claim asylum’.
The UK should unilaterally withdraw from the 1951 UN Convention and refuse to accept any further asylum seekers. The continuance of so-called asylum seeking is not only impractical, not least due to the scale of abuse and the complete breakdown of the system, but is also morally indefensible.
Mr Cable has not made out any case for the continuance of so-called asylum seeking at all.
Regarding immigration proper, Mr Cable avers that what is needed is another quango to decide how many immigrants are allowed in:
‘There has to be some form of regular, objective assessment about what the overall level of immigration should be, taking into account the state of the economy and social impacts. The model of the Low Pay Commission, setting a reasonable level for a minimum wage, is a plausible one.’
And that:
‘The temptation to use work permits as a route to a Swiss/German “gastarbeiter” system should be resisted in favour of an American-style Green Card approach which acknowledges from the outset the probability of settlement and incorporates that assumption in the overall limit.’
In fact the overwhelming majority of English people wish to see an end to mass immigration. Mr Cable takes no account of that view. There is no need for another bunch of neo-communist quangocrats to be advocating mass immigration.
But as a means of foisting mass immigration upon the country and in furtherance of his neo-communist desire to destroy the British nation state, he advocates his concept of inclusive multiple group identities. His views of the English and English interests are openly contemptuous:
‘It is, however, perhaps best not to be too romantic about localism which can be parochial, selfish and occasionally - thoroughly nasty. Nothing sets the pulse of many a local community racing faster than the sight of a gypsy caravan... Local identity is part of the multiple identity which will keep a diverse society together.’
And:
‘Minorities make good scapegoats and disadvantaged minorities can in turn align themselves with co-religionists or related ethnic groups overseas rather than their fellow countrymen. It is altogether too facile to attribute breakdowns in ethnic relations, where they occur, let alone terrorism, to poverty and inequality. But in Ulster, in some Muslim groups in Britain and France, and among black minorities in the US and the UK, inequality, real and perceived, is an issue reinforcing other forms of alienation.’
And:
‘We should be equally grown up in accepting that, provided the law is fully respected, and there is no violence or threat of it, some British Muslims will wish to identify with some deeply obnoxious and reactionary regimes and individuals. Where war, or near war, exist, tolerance will be strained, perhaps to breaking point. But it is a tribute to the maturity and stability of Indian democracy that, despite three recent wars and the threat of nuclear confrontation, some Indian Muslims feel able to fly the green flag at Indo-Pakistan cricket matches [while others support India]. Britain could do no worse.’
So much for the war on terror!
Supposed disadvantage, or poverty, or supposed inequality, had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the 7/7 bombings in London. The terrorists who carried out those attacks included people who had been white water rafting in Wales, and who had been globetrotting to Pakistan. Those in poverty cannot afford such jaunts.
Those bombings were the result of a hatred of this country and its people. They were the direct consequence of race war politics and mass immigration which have encouraged and enabled those who do not consider themselves to be British at all, to carry out terrorist attacks against the host population. Those terrorists who were born in this country did not consider themselves to be British. They were Muslim fundamentalists. Needless to say, Mr Cable ignores all this.
The English do not want to live in an England riven by war, or ‘near war’, or terrorism. Nor do they want to be treated as second class citizens in their own country. They want to be able to exercise their rights as any other independent and free people.
Mr Cable does not believe in the nation state. His concept of multiple identities asserts that people’s allegiances are to other entities such as the EU, or regions, or religion. Even regarding the EU he condemns the ‘strong resistance to the historically important task of enlargement to incorporate Muslim Turkey’. He does not even have the gumption to respect public concern over that.
Mr Cable has no concept of patriotism or the importance of it. The lack of it is one factor behind the recent terrorist bombings. Patriotism is a force for good and needs to be nurtured and encouraged.
Mr Cable is quite happy for people to describe themselves as ‘British Jews’ or ‘Scots and British’. But English and British? His report does not mention such a concept. He even makes an erroneous comment about ‘English nationalist parties like UKIP’. In fact UKIP is strongly hostile to an English parliament. It is not an English nationalist party in any sense.
Mr Cable’s report is disgrace. He does not make out the case for asylum seeking at all. He boldly asserts 2 falsehoods [that the British were never unified and that there has always been mass immigration] and then extrapolates a whole line of argument based on those falsehoods.
He compares English nationalists with neo-Nazis, organisations such as Hizb ut Tahrir and the Saviour Sect, and the likes of Omar Bakri, Al-Masari, Abu Qatada et al. It is a grubby smear to cover up the grubby and evil creed of political correctness.
The English are perfectly entitled to demand that their nationhood and nationality is respected, and have every right to object to the manner in which they have been denied that. They have every right to object to the scale of the subsidies which they are having to pay to Wales and Scotland, and the rigged constitution which allows Welsh and Scottish MPs to continue to vote on English affairs.
The English are perfectly entitled to be consulted about these matters, and are perfectly entitled to their own parliament.
Mr Cable can keep his grubby little smears to himself.
posted by erc @ 4:25 pm
<< Home