PAUL AUSTIN MURPHY ON POLITICS
PAUL AUSTIN MURPHY ON POLITICS
The subjects covered in this blog include Slavoj Žižek, IQ tests, Chomsky, Tony Blair, Baudrillard, global warming, sociobiology, Islam, Islamism, Marx, Foucault, National/International Socialism, economics, the Frankfurt School, philosophy, anti-racism, etc... I've had articles published in The Conservative Online, American Thinker, Philosophy Now, Intellectual Conservative, Human Events, Faith Freedom, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), New English Review, etc... (Paul Austin Murphy's Philosophy can be found here
Sunday, 3 November 2013
Whatever Happened to Theresa May's Illegal-Immigrants-Go-Home Campaign?
As many people will know, the Home Office, under the leadership of the Home Secretary, Theresa May, carried out a campaign to to get illegal immigrants to return home.
Vans displaying the message 'Go home or face arrest', drove around the London boroughs known to be home to many illegal immigrants, and there was also a plan to use the vans all around the UK. Predictably, the plans were ditched after critics condemned them.
came in for a lot of stick. This wasn't in the least bit surprising. Leftist and 'anti-racist' activists have very big mouths and loud voices and therefore they get a hell of a lot of air- and text-time on the BBC, in The Guardian, New Statesman and The Independent. They also shout a lot in our regional newspapers. On top of all that, the van campaign had to deal with the considerable political power of the rights and race industries (which are thriving at the moment).
Most of the illegal immigrants Theresa May targeted would have been black or brown. That meant, by Marxist/ leftist definition, that her campaign was automatically racist, in the same way as it's automatically racist to criticise Muslims who happen to have brown skin, or to imprison terrorists or criminals who happen to have brown or black skin. This is the leftist logic which says that when 'people with political power' (i.e., white people) criticise or act against 'people without political power' (i.e., non-white people), it is always and automatically racist.
Of course leftists never put all this in simple English. That's because they know that were they to do so, what they say would be revealed as either utterly banal or completely unacceptable/ false. Hence the weasel words and the pretentious theory and jargon behind all the PC bullshit.
Following on from that leftist catechism (targeting immigrants is targeting brown and black people and is therefore racist), Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said that the 'Go home' van campaign was "divisive". Really? I really don't understand that. The word 'divisive' is clearly Cooper-code for 'racist', but because that word is too blatant or too Dave Spart, Cooper used the word 'divisive' instead. In other words, making Trotskyist noises, even when you're a Labour politician, can often backfire.
What divisions, exactly, would such a campaign have created if the objects of that campaign weren't British in the first place? The 'anti-racist' A-Team would have made damn sure it was divisive simply by trying its best to make the issue all about race and nothing at all about illegality, illegal immigrants taking the jobs of British people, the creation of inner-city conflict and all the rest.
Thus, when someone – such as Yvette Cooper – uses the word 'racist', the entire country – or at least the political establishment – seems to go into thought-death. And that's precisely why Ms Cooper used the scare-word – in order to make capital out of this issue for the Labour Party.
The ironic thing is that Cooper criticises the Conservative Party for not dealing with illegal immigration. Actually, it's not ironic at all. The Labour Party created the problem, so it can hardly criticise anyone else for it. Between 2000 and 2010 the Labour Party engaged in one of the most massive social experiments the UK has ever known when it deliberately flooded the country with over five million immigrants. It did so completely behind the backs of British voters, including Labour voters. Why did it do so? It did so in order to alter the racial and political balance of the UK for its own political and ideological benefit.
Despite all that, let's hear Yvette Cooper out. She said that Theresa May's pilot "proves this was never a serious policy to deal with illegal immigration which has been getting worse". She also said:
"At the same time the number of people who were refused entry and then deported has fallen by 46.4%, it's clear this is a government is [sic] failing on the fundamentals of illegal immigration."
Since the Labour Party has been in favour of mass immigration, and immigrants who were legal yesterday (in Labour-time) are often illegal today (in Conservative-time), we can only assume that Yvette Cooper said what she said simply to score political points against Theresa May and the Conservative Party, not because she has a genuine problem with illegal immigrants. As I said, many of the millions of immigrants who were deemed legal under Labour Party rule (1997 to 2010), would now be deemed illegal. The difference, then, is largely technical, not one of principle.
In terms of the minutiae, the BBC, with yet more of its sly political editorialising, feels the need to tell us the inconsequential and mindless detail that the Home Office took 17 hours to deal with the bogus texts which were sent from people pretending to be illegal immigrants (i.e., from leftist or 'anti-racist' activists). Dear BBC, what exactly are we supposed to make of that supremely irrelevant stat? I know. The BBC wants us to think that the whole illegals-go-home enterprise was pointless from start to finish. That is, the BBC believes that we don't really have a problem with illegal immigration, let alone with legal mass immigration. Or, in Yvette Cooper's words, that the whole campaign was "a complete gimmick".
The extreme Left (SWP-Counterfire-UAF, Respect, Hope Not Hate, etc.), as well as large parts of the law, virtually the whole of the rights and race businesses, the universities, charities, parts of the BBC, The Guardian, etc., are in favour of mass immigration and indeed illegal immigration. They are so for three main reasons:
1) Primarily because they are 'internationalists'. This means that nationhood, and therefore borders, mean nothing to them.
2) They want to significantly reduce the number of white people in the UK because being white (unless you're a middle-class leftist) is in itself 'racist'.
3) The more immigrants there are, the more instability, unemployment, race riots and social chaos there will be. That's a very good thing for Trotskyists. (It will also benefit their totalitarian brothers, the National Socialists.) Instability and conflict, as well as extreme poverty and unemployment, are manna from heaven for the extreme Left. How else will they ever have a chance to bring forward their complete and total revolution?
"The worse it is, the better it is" for revolutionaries, because out of the chaos, the violence and the mass unemployment brought about by unrestricted mass immigration, the phoenix of revolutionary International Socialism (or National Socialism, take your pick) will arise. All this can only be good – if you're a Trotskyist 'progressive' or Nazi.