S.Africa: Farm murders

S.Africa: President Jacob Zuma wipes his bum on the Farmers who want to meet him...

Date Posted: Thursday 29-Apr-2010

I hear that so far the President has not responded in any way at all to the Transvaal Agricultural Union's request to meet him.

We have mentioned that little if anything may happen to Julius Malema.

Its an interesting situation.

One Afrikaner leader was saying to me: Perhaps people must start wrapping their minds around what to do if there is no response.

Firstly, the lack of response and the actions of the Govt speak loudly to me. So far, all it shows is a total lack of interest in Farm murders. It shows a total lack of interest in Julius Malema's racist stance. Well, let me be more accurate:-

o It shows that Govt condones farm murders.
o It show that Govt thinks commercial farmers are of NO CONSEQUENCE in this country.
o It shows that BLACK RACISM RULES, and the future desire is genocide.

That's what it shows me.

My own attitude always is that one must never allow oneself to be dependent on the co-operation of others. If someone does not co-operate with you, ignore them and more on to someone else.

What is important though, is that in many ways we ARE GETTING AN ANSWER TO A DIRECT QUESTION. THE ANSWER OF SILENCE IS TELLING US VOLUMES ABOUT WHO WE ARE DEALING WITH HERE.

I feel the issues are important, and if the Govt and the President wipe their bums on commercial farmers, then people must think of other ways forward. There is always a way forward.

It could also be that there is a certain arrogance and that the ANC is used to everyone kissing their butts.

It is something worth mulling over.

I was watching an incredible documentary about farming and how agricultural developments 11,500 - 9,000 years ago laid the foundation for great civilisations to follow. I will write more about it. A scientist investigated the idea of inequality, and he came to the conclusion that food production is CENTRAL to the development of any successful society. No farming = no civilisation - PERIOD. And he studied it from across the world.

In many ways, Mugabe has taken Zimbabwe back to BEFORE 9,500 BC. The ANC also wants to go there.

The President and the ANC's attitude might be: You farmers - WHAT CAN YOU DO?

Its like when Stalin met Churchill during WWII. Churchill told Stalin: "The Pope supports us" (something along those lines). Stalin responded: "And how many (army) divisions does the Pope have?"

The ANC's view of the farmers may be similar. Jacob Zuma might be thinking: "So how many MACHINEGUNS DO THE FARMERS HAVE?" The theory being: If they have none... the who are they?

This is a fascinating point.

I have been sitting back and mulling over the situation that faces the ANC at this time, but unfortunately, it would be most counter-productive to give out my analysis and my assessment of their situation.

One is sitting in quite a spot. The ANC would not doubt like us to come begging at their door, but I think that is the wrong approach. If we do not learn to STAND OUR GROUND WITH FIRMNESS then we will forever be buckling FW De Klerk style. Unfortunately, this habit is now so ingrained, that I think it will be hard to break out of this mould.

It is situations like this where one needs seriously CLEVER leadership and DETERMINED leadership on our side. You see, in these situations there are games being played. Its almost like poker. Each side has their cards. Whose bluffing and who isn't? Any what does each side have?

This is what made Western civilisation great, and this is the point which separates the truly great from the mediocre. This is where true genius comes into play. You need to deduce the other guy's cards, and you have to make many extremely calculating moves. This is what separates the men from the boys.

In my view, this is just another hurdle that one faces, and like all hurdles there are ways around it. The bottom line is: HOW DETERMINED IS A PERSON?

This is also where strategy comes into play. You need to be able to deal with all sorts of upsets.

One thing one must NEVER allow, is for someone else to totally control or block using simple tricks. This is a most important lesson that I think whites need to learn. And don't accept junk excuses either and laugh politely about it and make as if nothing happened. All negotiation should be DIRECT and HONEST. If there is proof of insincerity then take that as a big fat: NO. But you need to operate in an open, direct manner. All this deception and under the table collusion is a serious issue. As I've pointed out before with respect to Zille and Mulder, Helen Zille is right on this one. None of this talk under the table, behind closed doors in a darkened room with black curtains type stuff. It must be OUT IN THE OPEN. If talks can't be OUT IN THE OPEN then they have no value.

But to sum up: The main issue here is that President Jacob Zuma is wiping his bum on the commercial farmers of this country, and President Zuma clearly condones racism. He clearly condones the hate speech of Malema. Zuma clearly agrees with the sentiment: "Kill the Boer". That much we can deduce.

One way forward is to simply accept this as FACT. One made an honest, public statement, over and above the fact that this went through the normal Government machinery. If they pretend not to hear it... or they come back later with some half-baked, lame, excuse... that also won't cut it. If they claim this, or claim it was lost or overlooked, etc - just don't buy any lame nonsense.

If the ANC Govt is anti-white, and has evil intent, then I think that must be clearly stated and brought to wider attention.

I think one must see a NON-REPLY as a clear REPLY. And one must then take this to the next level - which is probably to bring in international players. And let me leave it at that. Let's see what the next move is and who makes it.

As a final thought: The ANC no doubt wishes to wangle its way out of all these issues and to quietly sneak Malema out of the spotlight and to hope that the whites forget about it. That let's them off the hook.

The ANC has got away with this type of behaviour for far too long. We would be complete fools to let this happen again. The ANC must be brought to task. The ANC is NEVER accountable for anything... and this type of ongoing behaviour and our acceptance of it leads to only worse problems. If we leave things this way, it will lead to much worse things in the future.
Posted By: Jan
AfricanCrisis Webmaster
Author of: Government by Deception

“Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”
(George Orwell)

http://www.africancrisis.co.za/Article.php?ID=75119&M=D&

From the Art of Olivia de Berardinis

http://www.thepinupfiles.com/olivia2.html

Edgar Mitchell, Apollo Astronaut, Chats About UFO

Edgar Mitchell Apollo Astronaut Chats About UFO, Alien Belief by Irene Klotz

Edgar Mitchell, an Apollo 14 astronaut and moonwalker, says his belief in UFOs and aliens being real is nothing new -- contrary to what tabloid reports might imply. Credit: NASA

Apollo astronaut Edgar Mitchell returned from his mission to the moon a changed man. He has spent the last 35 years trying to use the tools of science to figure out what happened. Along the way, he says that people knowledgeable about an alleged crash of an alien spaceship in Roswell, N.M., shared the information with him.

He's been speaking out ever since, most recently on a radio talk show that tripped off an unexpected wave of media attention. In a telephone interview with Irene Klotz, Mitchell sets the record straight -- as he sees it.

Irene Klotz: Hi Dr. Mitchell

Edgar Mitchell: Just a minute ... I'm sorry. My dog jumped in my lap and knocked over my coffee cup. It's OK. Go ahead.

IK: What's your dog's name?

EM: Oh, that's Cutie (Q.T.?)

IK: Cutie?

EM: Yup, I've got two of them and right now they're telling me that it's their suppertime and I must come in and fix their supper ... at least that's what they want.

IK: Well first of all thanks very much for making a little time. I wanted to ask you if there was anything about the radio interview you did that was different from what you've said in the past.

EM: No, there's nothing different. Several of (the reports of the interview) that I've seen come around have some flaws in them. Some of the reports pushed it or spun it incorrectly. NASA had nothing to do with anything I've done. I wasn't briefed by NASA. There haven't been any sightings as a result of my flight service there, so if that part of it comes out on anything you've seen it is just totally wrong.

IK: Yes, I did want to clarify that.

EM: My major knowledge comes from what I call the old-timers, people who were at Roswell and subsequent who wanted to clear the things up and tell somebody credible even though they were under severe threats and things -- this was back in the Roswell days. Having gone to the moon and being a local citizen out in the Roswell area some of them thought I would be a safe choice to tell their story to, which they did. Even though the government put real clamps on everybody, it got out anyhow.

Subsequent to that, I did take my story to the Pentagon -- not NASA, but the Pentagon -- and asked for a meeting with the Intelligence Committee of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and got it. And told them my story and what I know and eventually had that confirmed by the admiral that I spoke with, that indeed what I was saying was true.

IK: You mean what had been told to you was true?

EM: Yup, in other words. There was a UFO crash. There was an alien spacecraft. This gentleman tried his damndest to get me in and like so many others in the administration over the last 60 years, since JFK's time, was unable to. He was told 'Admiral, you don't have a need to know, and therefore go get lost,' essentially.

IK: Have you ever come out and said who this person was who briefed you?

EM: No, I have not.

IK: Would you at some point?

EM: No, it is out and around but I don't feel like I have the liberty to do that.

IK: When did you have your meeting at the Pentagon?

EM: It was in the late '90s in Washington when I was there working with The Disclosure Project, trying to get all those opened up with another Naval officer by the name of Will Miller and Steven Greer, who you probably heard of. Steven and I don't really work on this anymore together, but we did at that point and getting to the Pentagon and seeing what we could do there to try to get this opened up.

IK: Why do you think the government hasn't acknowledged that there is life outside of Earth? I thought that was sort of the point of NASA.

EM: Well most people in government don't know. The government is highly compartmentalized. You could work next door to somebody for 30 years not knowing what they're doing in certain areas. The whole point of all of this ... goes back to World War II. This Roswell incident took place right at the aftermath of World War II when the U.S. Army Air Corps was split off and became the Air Force and the OSS (Office of Strategic Services), which was the intelligence service of World War II, was disbanded and eventually became the CIA. At that point the Cold War was just starting to move under way and we were at odds with the Soviets.

The Air Force was brand new and supposedly in control of the skies and didn't know what they were doing, and the CIA didn't know what they were doing, so Pres. Truman was in a big problem here: Here people were telling him there were aliens around and nobody knew if they were hostile or what they were and what was he going to do about it?

So he formed a committee, a very high-level military and academic and intelligent people -- politically powerful people -- and said 'You guys work on this.' And that was called ... the MAJIC 12. And they did pass a National Security Act, or so I'm told, under highly classified auspices, that gave this committee virtually unlimited power to deal with this issue, which they have done for the last 60 years, slowly excluding everybody -- including presidents.

You may remember that Pres. Clinton tried to send (Webster) Hubbell to find out about this at Wright Patterson. He got rejected. And Barry Goldwater, back in the '60s when he was getting ready to run for the presidency and who was a brigadier general in the Air Force Reserve tried to get information about it. He got rejected. And I'm told that Jerry Ford tried to do some finding out and he got rejected.

Jimmy Carter announced his observation of UFOs, but that never went anywhere so obviously he made no progress. Only in recent years has the public interest become acute enough and enough stories leaked out so that people are starting to believe that it's all real. And the fact of the matter is, it is.

They're still around and there's a lot of stuff going on.

Are you aware of the so-called Phoenix Lights Incident? That wasn't our stuff.

IK: I'm sorry. Can you say that again?

EM: Lights. Just a few years ago. Three humongous craft flew over Phoenix, very slowly in the middle of the night that clearly were not -- I happened to be on the phone with people out there when that happened and have had pictures of it -- clearly those were not, to those of us who know aviation and spacecraft, clearly those were not local stuff, home-grown stuff.

IK: So you're saying the incidences are becoming more prevalent among the general public? People are having their own sightings?

EM: Just several weeks ago, this so-called incident at Stephenville, in Stephenville, Texas. Another one. And naturally a lot of discounting and unfortunately the press, the giggle factor got up and the press tended to ignore it, but the fact of the matter is this is the real stuff we're dealing with. We're not alone in the universe. And it has nothing to do with NASA. As far as I know it has to do with what's going on and has been going on for a long time.

IK: As a man of science and engineering, how did you make this leap from doing what you needed to do to be an astronaut to what you're doing today?

EM: Because I was told by people who were utterly sworn to secrecy under severe penalty if they talked and because I'd been to the moon, because I was a local resident of Roswell when the so-called Roswell incidenttook place, some of them thought I was a safe person to tell before they passed on so that the knowledge didn't die. There are others like me, people out here who have done an enormous amount of investigation who have seen through the facade and seen through the cover-up and can talk chapter and verse, better than I can. We know it's real.

IK: Can you describe what changed you after you were in space? How did that happen?

EM: Well I've got a research foundation that has been working on that problem for 37 years.

I was coming back from the moon after completing a successful mission on the moon. My job was being responsible for the lunar spacecraft for the lunar surface activities. So on the way home, my successful job had been mostly completed and we were just coming home. We still had experiments and work to do, but the big stuff was done.

We were orientated such and rotating in order to keep the thermal balance of the spacecraft so that every two minutes you could see the Earth, the moon, the sun and a 360-degree panorama of the heavens came through the window every two minutes. That's powerful stuff, particularly since it's space. Without the atmosphere to block, the stars don't twinkle, and there's 10 times as many as you could possibly see on Earth because of the lack of interference and it's much closer to what you could see through the Hubble Telescope these days, with those pictures and I hope you've looked at some of those: it's overwhelming -- and I realized as that happened, because I do have a PhD from MIT and I studied astronomy at Harvard and MIT and knew that molecules of matter in my body and in the spacecraft and in my partners' bodies were made in some ancient generation of stars. That's where matter is created.

Suddenly I realized that the molecules in my body were created in an ancient generation of stars and suddenly that became personal and visceral, not intellectual and I had never had this experience. It was accompanied by bliss, an ecstasy I had never experienced.

Later -- and I'm making this long story short -- with some discovery and some help from scientists at Rice University in Houston, I discovered in ancient transcripts that this type of experience -- a transformational, transcendental experience where you see things as you perceive them but experience them viscerally and emotionally as one, as a part of it -- is called samadhi. In doing more research, I found that it has taken place in every culture on Earth. The political and cultural expression of that turns out to be religion.

The experience is the same -- a heady, overwhelming experience. But when it gets politicized, put into the culture, those things get lost on the people who had the experience and it becomes something else. So that's what it was: a deep, deep cultural experience that is in the culture of our civilization in hundreds of places.

IK: Is that what the Noetic Institute is for? To bring this consciousness ...

EM: I'm trying to use the tools of science to understand precisely these types of knowledge.

IK: Wow, that's quite a calling.

EM: That's exactly what I've spent the last 35 years doing.

IK: What's the tie-in between this pursuit and your experiences with understanding that there are other life forms that have come to Earth?

EM: Well it's just an extension of the cosmology of what's this whole universe about and what are we about and coming to the conclusion that we are not alone. That's some of the most important knowledge that we could discover.

http://dsc.discovery.com/space/qa/alien-ufo-edgar-mitchell-02.html

S.Africa:42% of Black youths want to flee SA

S.Africa: 2010 - Total SHOCKER: 42% of Black youths want to flee SA - only 33% of Whites & Indians want to...

Date Posted: Tuesday 27-Apr-2010

[Check out this stunning article from THE SUNDAY TIMES of South Africa.

As I pointed out with Zimbabwe, Liberal Western theory there failed. Liberal Western theory of society goes like this: "The Middle Class is what holds Europe and America together... ergo... in Africa to fight communism/Marxism, you build a BLACK MIDDLE CLASS... give them a stake in the country and THEY WILL BE THE NEW LEADERS AND WILL FIGHT Marxism/Socialism and will raise up Africa."

Nice theory. Totally backed up by the historical facts. Bummer is: Despite all that - the concept flops to the ground in Africa! When faced with evil... what did the PROFESSIONAL BLACK MIDDLE CLASS IN ZIMBABWE DO? 600,000 of them fled to BRITAIN!

The sissified, molly-coddled Black Liberals of Africa are a lot like the sissified, white Liberals of the West who spawned them. The basic credo of the Liberal is: When someone comes at you with a gun, YOU RUN AND SWIM AS FAST AS YOU CAN TO GET AWAY. When said communist/terrorist corners you eventually (when there's no room on the planet to run away any more): YOU SURRENDER TO HIM. That is basically what Liberals do. Sorry, but that's how I see it. I reckon if Conservatives and Liberals went to war, there would be no war because Liberals would all run anyway.

It is the people who are made of tougher stuff who stand and fight. So instead you see the completely ridiculous situation in Zimbabwe. You had 13 million blacks and 100,000 whites left. The ones standing up to Mugabe were not the 600,000+ black professionals - who immediately relocated to the UK, but the 100,000 whites, most of them aged 60+ and the other blacks too dumb to be Liberals. They were the ones who put up the real fight in the face of impossible odds.

In South Africa you may yet see that most despised of creatures, the White Afrikaner as being the last bastion before this country becomes a 100% bonafide communist state. Even outnumbered, more than 10:1, you might find, to your amazement that it is not the Black Liberals of South Africa who will try to stop the ANC from turning this country into another Zimbabwe (because the Black Liberals of South Africa will all be living in Europe) - but the Afrikaners - who REFUSE TO GIVE WAY. Stick around. It is the whites, who in the face of completely impossible odds may be trying to make the last stand for civilisation and decency in this country. Jan]

Just Who Is This Guy, Obama?

Just Who Is This Guy, Obama?

SK – via Four Winds August 30, 2009

Barack Obama is less of a person than an image— a brand. People see what ever they want as they do on a Rorschach test.

But does anyone really know him? In fact, he is:

* A man with no birth certificate.

* A man whose birth records, both in the United States and Kenya, are sealed by government order.

* A man whose childhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, spied on U.S. military installations in Hawaii for the Soviet Union, edited a communist newspaper, authored pornographic novels, and wrote poetry in praise of Joseph Stalin.

* A man who promised transparency in government, but has spent over a million dollars in legal fees hiding information that would determine his eligibility to be President.

* A man whose academic records are sealed from kindergarten through law school.

* A man who arrived in New York in June of 1981 without enough money to get a hotel room, but one month later flew to Indonesia and Pakistan.

* Why did he go?

* Who paid his expenses?

* A man who traveled to Pakistan when it was illegal for U.S. citizens to do so. So what country’s passport did he use?

* A man whose Law School Admission Test scores and grades at Columbia University are known to have been mediocre, but was admitted to Harvard Law School through the intervention of a Saudi named Khalid al -Mansour.

* A law review editor who never published an article in any law review.

* A lawyer with no significant accomplishments in the law and no reputation in the legal community.

* A former State and U.S. Senator, who never authored a piece of legislation.

* A disciple of the Marxist Saul Alinsky.

* A product of the Chicago political machine—the most corrupt political organization in America.

* A man who selects Marxists, corrupt politicians, and criminals as his close political associates and personal friends.

* A man whose presidential candidacy was endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America, the Socialist International, and the Workers International League.

* A man lauded for the literary brilliance of two memoirs, both of which were ghostwritten by others.

* A so-called Christian who says that knowing when human life begins is “above his pay-grade,” but somehow knows that abortion is permissible at any stage.

* A man who thinks “waterboarding” is immoral, but that partial-birth abortion is moral.

* A man who publicly laments slavery in America—which was abolished 150 years ago—but praises Islam, which still practices both slavery and the sexual mutilation of young girls.

* A man who speaks endlessly about helping the less fortunate, but gives almost none of his sizeable income to charity—not even to his half-brother, who is living in squalor in Kenya.

* A man who had the most left-wing voting record in the United State Senate, but was predicted by the press to “govern from the middle.”

* A man who has never created a job, met a payroll, or even operated a lemonade stand, but wants to tell Detroit how to make cars.

* A President who has never before served as an executive in either the private or the public sector.

* A Commander-in-Chief who doesn’t know how to shoot a rifle, throw a hand-grenade, drive a tank, fly a plane, or con a ship.

* A Commander-in-Chief who has publicly divulged some of our nation’s most important intelligence secrets.

* A man who has been put in charge of the largest economic engine that ever existed, but has never invested in the stock market and admits total ignorance of it.

* A President who says that science will guide his administration, but has no education in the sciences.

* A man who is proficient in reading what is written for him on a teleprompter, but jerks and stammers his way through any off-the-cuff speaking.

* A man whose health records are sealed from childhood to the present day.

* A man who spent 20 years in a church whose pastor espouses Marxist Liberation Theology, anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Semitism, but claims he never heard his pastor utter anti-American, and anti-Semitic statements.

* A man who added more to the National Debt in 120 days than all other Presidents did in the past 220 years, yet feels qualified to lecture Americans about “fiscal responsibility”.

* A man who publicly expressed disdain for the U.S. Constitution on a Chicago radio station because it limited the government’s ability to “redistribute wealth.”

* A man who sits and listens submissively while his country is castigated by Daniel Ortega—a Communist thug whose own daughter accused him of raping her.

* A narcissist who gave the Queen of England a present from the United States –an iPod containing recordings of his own speeches.

* A so-called Christian who officially declared “Pride Month” for a lifestyle that the Bible calls an abomination.

* A man who wanted Americans to ignore his Muslim name during his election campaign, yet boasts of his Muslim name when he travels to Muslim countries.

* A man who can name hundreds of America’s shortcomings, yet none of its great accomplishments.

* A President who claims the moral high ground by closing Gitmo yet supports the transfer of terror suspects to countries where horrific torture is certain.

* A President who scoffed at being called a socialist yet acted to nationalize the auto industry, the banking industry, and the insurance industry . . . and now seeks to nationalize the healthcare industry.

* A President who violates private property rights, the sanctity of contracts, and the rule of law—three essential principles that go back over a thousand years in the Common Law tradition.

* A man who promised 95% of all Americans a tax cut, but is increasing taxes on 100% of the population through inflation—the cruelest tax of all.

* A lawyer who represented ACORN—an organization now indicted in several states for voter fraud—whose stated goal is to get as many people on welfare as possible in order to destroy our financial system.

* A President who cheated GM’s bondholders by giving their property to the UAW in a political payoff.

* An American President who frequently criticizes his own country when speaking in foreign countries, but never praises America’s generosity, goodness or greatness.

* A President whose Secretary of the Treasury cheated on his taxes—as did several other appointees and advisors.

* A President who scoffs at being called a socialist, yet has appointed 28 “Czars” to circumvent constitutional government, including:

* A “Science Czar” who has advocated compulsory abortions for American women and the “surrender of sovereignty” to a “comprehensive Planetary Regime.”

* A self-professed communist as his “Green Jobs Czar”. A "Pay Czar” to regulate the pay of corporate executives.

* A President who swore an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic,” yet has nominated a domestic enemy of the Constitution to the Supreme Court.

* A President whose Homeland Security Chief classified pro-lifers, veterans, and supporters of traditional marriage as terrorists.

* A President who stood silent while the Iranian government hacked unarmed protestors to death with axes, because it was an internal matter, but freely offers his opinions about the internal affairs of Israel and Honduras.

* A President who decreed that true acts of terrorism must now be described as “man-made disasters.”

* A President who cracks hurtful jokes about Special Olympians.

* A President who refused to intercept or inspect a North Korean ship virtually certain to be carrying Weapons of Mass Destruction to Burma.

* A President who wants to cancel all missile defenses while rogue nations are developing long-range ballistic missiles.

* An American President who blames the violence in Mexico on America.

* A Commander in Chief who claims to have been unaware that Air Force One was taken on a terrifying, low-level photo-op over Manhattan.

* A President who berates American CEO’s for flying in private planes at private expense on company business, but whose wife spends hundreds of thousands tax payer dollars flying to Paris for a shopping spree.

* A President who promised a transparent administration, but requires all questions be screened before “impromptu” appearances.

* A man who freely admitted that his energy policies are designed to bankrupt the American coal industry.

* A President who has presided over the loss of 14.7 million jobs and whose “energy policy” will cause the loss of another 1 million jobs.

* A President whose “energy policy” will increase the average American’s utility bills by over $2,000 a year in the middle of the Great Recession.

SOMEONE KNOWS

The vast majority of Americans do not know who he is, but someone surely does. Someone paid for his travel expenses to Pakistan and Indonesia.

Someone engineered legal challenges to all of his election opponents for the State Senate and had them disqualified.

Someone straightened and leveled his path to the U.S. Senate when a Democrat Judge made public the child custody records of his Republican opponent. When he was a candidate for the U.S. Senate, someone arranged for him to speak at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

Someone saw to it that all of his records were sealed, both at home and abroad. Someone assembled the massive organization for his run for the Presidency. Someone knows all about him.

Who? The answer is George Soros-connected to the Rothchilds.
http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/government/obama_government/news.php?q=1251826356 

Sunday, 11 April 2010

Dissolving the European People

By Richard Spencer

"The government should dissolve the people and elect another one," quipped the Communist playwright Bertolt Brecht after the East German riots of 1953. For good or ill, the U.S. political elite seems to be acting on his advice.~Peter Brimelow, 1992

As much misery as it caused, the German Democratic Republic never actually tried to displace the German people. The natives of Britain haven't been so lucky:    

Nearly every one of 1.67m jobs created since 1997 has gone to a foreigner
Daily Mail
By James Chapman
8 April, 2010

Immigration was at the centre of the election campaign today as it emerged that virtually every extra job created under Labour has gone to a foreign worker.

Figures suggested an extraordinary 98.5 per cent of 1.67million new posts were taken by immigrants.

The Tories seized on the revelation as evidence that the Government has totally failed to deliver its pledge of 'British jobs for British workers'.

{snip}

Mr Brown rejected the idea of an immigration quota, which he said would do 'great damage to British business'. 

This report rhymes with Andrew Nether's revelations from last fall.   

Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser
The TelegraphBy Tom Whitehead, 
23 Oct 2009

The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

He said Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote".

As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants.

Critics said the revelations showed a "conspiracy" within Government to impose mass immigration for "cynical" political reasons.

Mr Neather was a speech writer who worked in Downing Street for Tony Blair and in the Home Office for Jack Straw and David Blunkett, in the early 2000s.

Writing in the Evening Standard, he revealed the "major shift" in immigration policy came after the publication of a policy paper from the Performance and Innovation Unit, a Downing Street think tank based in the Cabinet Office, in 2001.

(I discuss this affair in more detail here.)

On the heels of Nick Griffin’s appearance on the BBC comes this fascinating headline in the Telegraph:

Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser

In other news, Playboy subscribers have announced that they don’t read the magazine just for the articles.

The story continues: 

The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”, according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

He said Labour’s relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to “open up the UK to mass migration” but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its “core working class vote”.

As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants.

Critics said the revelations showed a “conspiracy” within Government to impose mass immigration for “cynical” political reasons.

Mr Neather was a speech writer who worked in Downing Street for Tony Blair and in the Home Office for Jack Straw and David Blunkett, in the early 2000s.

Writing in the Evening Standard, he revealed the “major shift” in immigration policy came after the publication of a policy paper from the Performance and Innovation Unit, a Downing Street think tank based in the Cabinet Office, in 2001.

He wrote a major speech for Barbara Roche, the then immigration minister, in 2000, which was largely based on drafts of the report.

In Monsieur Neather’s Evening Standard column, he positively revels in the little social experiment he helped concoct:

It didn’t just happen: the deliberate policy of ministers from late 2000 until at least February last year, when the Government introduced a points-based system, was to open up the UK to mass migration.

The results in London, and especially for middle-class Londoners, have been highly positive. It’s not simply a question of foreign nannies, cleaners and gardeners—although frankly it’s hard to see how the capital could function without them.

Their place certainly wouldn’t be taken by unemployed BNP voters from Barking or Burnley—fascist au pair, anyone?

Translation: right-wingers and traditionalists are stupid and disgusting people who are rightly shunned from society. Those Third World migrants, on the other hand…

[T]his wave of immigration has enriched us much more than that. A large part of London’s attraction is its cosmopolitan nature.

It is so much more international now than, say, 15 years ago, and so much more heterogeneous than most of the provinces, that it’s pretty much unimaginable for us to go back either to the past or the sticks.

Field and Soames complain about schools where English is not the first language for many pupils.

But in my children’s south London primary school, the international influence is primarily the large numbers of (mostly middle-class) bilingual children, usually with one parent married to a Brit.

My children have half- or wholly Spanish, Italian, Swiss, Austrian, Croatian, Bulgarian, Congolese, Chinese and Turkish classmates.

London’s role as a magnet for immigration busted wide open the stale 1990s clichés about multiculturalism: it’s a question of genuine diversity now, not just tacking a few Afro-Caribbean and Bengali events on to a white British mainstream. It’s one of the reasons Paris now tends to look parochial to us.

If you had only read Neather’s column, and hadn’t, say, visited London, you might think your average refugee was a dashing and genteel flaneur with a famous Austrian Duke as an uncle and a habit of peppering his speech with foreign bon mots, to the delight and cultural enrichment of his hosts. And the rest are “Polish plumbers.” In Neather’s imagination, he and Tony turned London into a dazzling salon that puts old Paris to shame (a city which, by the way, has experienced much the same demographic transformation). Neather doesn’t dwell too long on who the immigrants actually are. (For your information, the vast majority of them come from the Pakistan region, followed closely by Africans and Afro-Caribbeans.) My impression upon visiting London recently was that it’s become a crime-ridden, vulgar, dysfunctional, generally unpleasant counterfeit of its former self. I probably should have stayed away and just read about “diversity” in the Evening Standard. 

Neather also makes no bones about the brazen deception involved in the scheme:

But ministers wouldn’t talk about it. In part they probably realised the conservatism of their core voters: while ministers might have been passionately in favour of a more diverse society, it wasn’t necessarily a debate they wanted to have in working men’s clubs in Sheffield or Sunderland.

In part, too, it would have been just too metropolitan an argument to make in such places: London was the real model. [Tony Blair’s immigration minister Barbara] Roche was unusual in that she was a London MP, herself of east European Jewish stock.

But Labour ministers elsewhere tend studiously to avoid ever mentioning London. Meanwhile, the capital’s capacity to absorb new immigrants depends in large part on its economic vitality and variety. There’s not a lot of that in, say, south Yorkshire. And so ministers lost their nerve.

And as is so often the case with disastrous government projects, Blair’s immigration policy can be traced back to some highly connected think-tank that’s accountable only to the Prime Minister (the Performance and Innovation Unit) and some unelected “minister” (in this case, the adorable Miss Roche.)

In another outburst of honesty, Neather correctly states that it’s not a case of the London economy needing tons of immigrants in order to be efficient and dynamic; it’s the other way ‘round: only a pre-existing dynamic economy would be able to “absorb” millions of Third World newcomers. I don’t think I’m overstating the matter when I write that Neather is arguing against most everything everyone always tells us about immigration. (We’ve always had the horse in front of the cart here at Takimag, however.)

The line from Neather’s column that will probably go down in anti-racist lore reads,

I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended—even if this wasn’t its main purpose—to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.

It wasn’t only “the Right” who got their noses rubbed in diversity, and one hopes that the British people will make Blair, Neather, Roche, and the whole crew bewail the unintended consequences of their immigration policies. 

http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/euro-centric/dissolving-the-european-people/