Turning immigration into a tool of social engineering

The British elite is Leftist and love all Leftists despises the association in which it lives. It has been using barely-controlled immigration like a way of destroying that society and asserting its own moral superiority

In recent decades various UK governments at various different times allowed a certain number of migrants to enter Britain for economic reasons in order to compensate for a shortage of labour or to boost a flagging industry. Under the New Labour government of the past 13 years something rather different new and dangerous occurred: migrants were allowed into Britain for political reasons to achieve social objectives rather than economic ones.

Under New Labour the number of migrants entering Britain rose exponentially. 鈥?Amongst the elite taking a 鈥榩ro-immigration鈥?stance has get a way of espousing its supposedly superior values of cosmopolitanism liberalism official tolerance and official anti-racism and of disciplining and policing those who do not possess such values. Such cynical politicisation of immigration has potentially increased community tensions further racialised everyday life and contributed enormously to the contemporary distrust of mainstream politics.

Social objectives

In recent months there have been many interesting revelations about New Labour鈥檚 immigration policy except in keeping with our era of dumbed-down political dispute the revelations have either been downplayed or have been used to fuel conspiracy theories.

At the end of last year a former government adviser revealed that ministers frequently discussed 鈥榦pen[ing] up the UK to mass migration鈥? But their aims were as much political and social as they were economic. Indeed there was a 鈥榙riving political purpose鈥? ministers鈥?faith- that bringing in more immigrants would make manifest their ideal of a 鈥榯ruly multicultural society鈥?and let them to 鈥榬ub the right鈥檚 nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date鈥?(4). Here we can see how 鈥榙iversity鈥?is looked upon by New Labour as more than a fluffy value 鈥?it is also considered an explicitly political tool that might be used to boost Labour鈥檚 fortunes and denigrate its critics.

At the start of this year government documents released under a Freedom of Information assert confirmed what the government adviser said. In one written in 2000 officials discussed their desire to 鈥榤aximise the contribution鈥?of migrants to achieving the government鈥檚 鈥榮ocial objectives鈥? The document makes plain that New Labour unlike previous governments is keen to exploit the 鈥榮ocial benefits鈥?of increased immigration. It argues that it is 鈥榗learly correct that the government has both economic and social objectives for migration policy鈥?and lists the 鈥榮ocial impacts鈥?of immigration as including 鈥榓 widening of consumer selection and significant cultural contributions鈥? 鈥楳igration policy has both social and economic impacts and should be designed to contribute to the government鈥檚 overall objectives on both counts鈥?the document proposed describing this as 鈥榓 considerable progress on the previously existing situation [where immigrants were allowed in principally for economic reasons]鈥?(5).

Unfortunately these interesting revelations have not generated any interesting or serious debate about New Labour and immigration. Liberal commentators have brushed them aside as unimportant. Right-wing commentators talk about a vast conspiracy by the New Labour government to remake Britain in its own image. Incapable of political nuance New Labour鈥檚 critics have railed against what one commentator describes as 鈥楾he secret plot to destroy Britain鈥檚 identity鈥?(8). Others have accused Labour of 鈥榰sing immigration to turn Britain into a nation of Labour voters鈥?(immigrants are more likely to vote Labour than Tory) where Labour has 鈥榙eliberately tried to re-engineer Britain for its own political advantage鈥?(9).

The idea that the government鈥檚 attraction to the 鈥榮ocial benefits鈥?of immigration was driven by a simplistic desire to magic up readymade Labour voters both overestimates the elite鈥檚 internal coherence and underestimates the profound moral and political crises that have combined to reshape the immigration issue through the past decade. There has been no plot or conspiracy by the political elite 鈥?rather it is drawn instinctively to immigration since it is an issue that allows it to distance itself from Britain鈥檚 past and to redefine itself as cosmopolitan and constantly changing. And this is not about simply winning votes 鈥?rather the reshaping of immigration has been driven by an historical and profound crisis of values amongst an elite which now sees more virtue in what newcomers can bring to Britain than in what its own predecessor elites created and achieved.

Disavowing the past

Those who claim that New Labour relaxed immigration controls in order to remake Britain in its own image are missing the main point: that New Labour鈥檚 instinctive attraction to immigration is a production precisely of its lack of real values of its cultural and political disorientation and uncertainty about what to make Britain into. What the elite likes most about the immigrant is the idea that his arrival and his presence constantly remakes Britain so that the absence of core British political and moral values can be glossed over with the positive-sounding notion that ours is a nation of forever-changing values reflecting in the words of one government minister 鈥榯he influences of the many different communities who have made their home here鈥?(10). Indeed there has been an important shift over the past 30 years from emphasising the assimilation of immigrants into the values of British society to celebrating British society鈥檚 assimilation of the immigrants鈥?values.

For the contemporary elite taking a 鈥榩ro-immigration鈥?stance is a way of creating a distance between itself and 鈥極ld Britain鈥?a way of disavowing elements of the past whether it is imperial values outdated ideas of 鈥楪reat鈥?Britain the old-style education system or aspects of British culture. As the former government adviser said at the end of last year one of the reasons ministers wanted to increase immigration was to 鈥榬ender [the old right鈥檚] arguments out of date鈥?(11). In a report and report published in 2001 New Labour argued that there was little fixed about 鈥楤ritish identity鈥?and that the 鈥榗hanging ethnic composition of the British people themselves [through immigration]鈥?can only 鈥榮trengthen and renew British identity鈥?(12). Behind the PC-sounding language it is a profound discomfort with the 鈥榠dentity鈥?of Old Britain 鈥?fixed homogenous nationalistic 鈥?which leads the elite to congratulate the impact of immigration on British identity today.

In April 2001 Robin Cook then New Labour foreign secretary gave a key speech on immigration to the Social Market Foundation. The speech is best remembered for Cook鈥檚 line describing chicken tikka masala as 鈥榓 correct British national dish鈥?yet the rest of it was extremely revealing. Cook outlined the reasons why his government was determined to relax immigration controls and made clear his hostility to 鈥榦utdated鈥?ideas about Britishness. 鈥楾he British are not a race but a gathering of countless different races and communities鈥?he said. And this lack of a singular notion of Britishness is precisely what gives Britain its strength: 鈥榌Our] pluralism is not a burden that we must reluctantly accept. It is an immense asset that contributes to the cultural and economic vitality of our nation.鈥?(13)

The most striking aspect of Cook鈥檚 speech was the times in British history he was most keen to distance himself from: the 100 years from the Victorian era to the Second World War. With remarkable historical illiteracy Cook argued that Britain had 鈥榓lways been multicultural鈥? 鈥業n the pre-industrial era鈥?Britain was unusually open to external influence first through foreign assault then through commerce and imperial expansion. It is not their purity that makes the British unique but the sheer pluralism of their ancestry.鈥?

However there was a period when unfortunately in Cook鈥檚 view British identity was relatively homogenous: 鈥楾he homogeneity of British identity that some people presume to be the norm was confined to a relatively concise period. It lasted from the Victorian era of imperial expansion to the aftermath of the Second World War and depended on the unifying force of those two extraordinary experiences.鈥?For Cook New Labour鈥檚 celebration of diversity today is in keeping with an older British history one that preceded and thus was not tainted by the now largely discredited modern industrial era. 鈥楾he diversity of modern Britain expressed through devolution and multiculturalism is more consistent with the historical experience of our islands鈥?he argued (14).

Here we can see what underpins the contemporary elite鈥檚 embrace of immigration: a desire to distance itself from a past it feels increasingly estranged from by elevating the contribution of external actors to British society and identity. Feeling ever-more alienated from the values and advances of modern Victorian and post-Victorian Britain 鈥?from the growth of industry to the celebration of high culture from old-style morality to values such as the 鈥榮tiff upper lip鈥?鈥?today鈥檚 elite contrasts the dynamism of the contemporary flow of 鈥榤any cultures鈥?into the UK with the 鈥榟omogeneity of British identity鈥?that existed in what is now seen as the problematic modern era.

For all Cook鈥檚 and others鈥?seemingly progressive attacks on 鈥榩urity鈥?and 鈥榟omogeneity鈥?in favour of 鈥榙iversity鈥?and 鈥榤ulticulturalism鈥?what they are truly questioning is the idea that there should be any overarching defining values in British society. They are effectively dressing up Britain鈥檚 crisis of values its uncertainty about what it stands for in the positive language of a 鈥榗onstant churn鈥?of values from outside (15) where the immigrant is celebrated precisely for his lack of accessory to and origins in Britain鈥檚 traditional culture.

This is what underpins the ethos of multiculturalism itself: a desire to re-present a crisis of values as something positive. Fundamentally multiculturalism is officialdom鈥檚 response to the profound identity crisis of Western society brought about as a result of the collapse of common values national institutions and political networks. Multiculturalism is about adding a positive gloss to this identity crisis where the lack of common values is sexed up as 鈥榗ultural pluralism鈥?and divisions within communities are relabelled 鈥榙iversity鈥? Likewise the contemporary elite鈥檚 celebration of society鈥檚 鈥榗ontinually changing values鈥?as a result of unpredictable migrant flows re-presents a crisis of core values as something purposeful and positive.

Indeed the most striking thing about immigration over the past 10 to 15 years is how the elite now advertises its assimilation of immigrant culture rather than calling for immigrants to assimilate into British culture. One historian of immigration in Britain writes that in the 1950s and the 1960s 鈥楾he first official British response [to mass immigration] was to declare that immigrants must be assimilated to a unitary British culture鈥?(16).

Now in New Labour鈥檚 words 鈥楤ritain absorbs and adapts external influences. Our lifestyles and cultural horizons have also been broadened [by immigration]鈥?it reaches into every aspect of our national life.鈥?(17) There were many problems with the old idea of immigrant assimilation but it was at least built on the notion of a core society into which immigrants could be welcomed. The new idea of Britain 鈥榓bsorbing and adapting鈥?and being constantly altered by the arrival of migrants effectively says there is no such thing as society (updating Thatcher鈥檚 dictum) only various cultures.

Where the politics of assimilation spoke to a society that needed migrant workers and wanted them to be well-behaved the politics of absorption speaks to something worse: a society that welcomes immigrants for the narrow political good of the elite which hopes that the arrival of outsiders will somehow refresh and renew a corroded and confused nation alienated from its traditions. This is the political equivalent of slumming it.

Disciplining the working class

If the elite now expresses its discomfort with Old Britain through the immigration issue it also expresses its disdain for the lower orders through it too. In many ways a perfect issue for a fundamentally middle-class party like New Labour the 鈥榩ro-immigration鈥?stance allows the contemporary elite both to distance itself from the traditional elites of the past and from the working classes of today from the old order and from the new masses.

For decades the British elite used the politics of racism as a way of keeping the working classes in their place ratcheting up immigration fears and racial tensions in an effort to win native workers鈥?loyalty. Now it uses the official politics of 鈥榓nti-racism鈥?and 鈥榩ro-immigration鈥?to do a comparable job. One of the most efficient ways in which the working classes are policed today is through the monitoring of their allegedly problematic attitudes to immigration and their failure to embrace the apparently superior cosmopolitan values of their rulers鈥?

The 鈥榩ro-immigration鈥?pose of the contemporary elite allows it to advertise its alleged moral superiority over the uneducated mob. Today the elite defines itself as superior to the masses not through its traditions its role in history or its defence of Great Britain and British values but through the very opposite: by affecting a cultural disdain for traditionalism nationalism and sovereignty in favour of the modern values of cultural flux cosmopolitanism and what Robin Cook described as a 鈥榤odern notion of national identity [not] based on race and ethnicity鈥?(25).

It is the elite鈥檚 apparent capacity to raise above the squalid traditions of the past that marks it out as superior today. And one of the key ways it does is this is by celebrating (controlled) immigration for 鈥榮haking up鈥?British values and forcing the illiberal lower orders to confront their prejudices or else have them fixed by a heavy dose of intervention by the Department of Communities鈥?

Racialising everyday life

There are many problems with the elite鈥檚 adoption of a 鈥榩ro-immigration鈥?stance for cynical social and political reasons. It is built on dishonesty and censorship where the facts and the truth are kept away from the public lest they inflame our prejudicial instincts. It is driven by a disdain for some of the gains of the past and for the views of today鈥檚 working classes.

Most worryingly it can only further racialise everyday life in Britain. Already thanks to New Labour virtually every aspect of our existences 鈥?from politics to schools to the workplace 鈥?has been racialised where everyday interaction and speech is governed by a plethora of diversity codes and a super-sensitivity about racial matters. The politicisation of the immigrant and his elevation as superior to the white working classes threatens to receive this racialisation to another level鈥?/p>

More here

Scientist attacks 鈥榝undamentalism鈥?of British atheist Dawkins

The 鈥渟cientific fundamentalism鈥?promoted by the atheist Richard Dawkins was criticised yesterday by the winner of a prize he had attacked.

Professor Francisco Ayala who won the 拢1 million Templeton Prize for scientific thought said that attacking religion and ridiculing believers provided ammunition for religious leaders who insisted that followers had to select between God and Darwin. 鈥淩ichard Dawkins has been a friend for more than 20 years but it is disastrous that he goes beyond the boundaries of science in making statements that antagonise believers鈥?he said.

Professor Ayala of the University of California Irvine who is an authority on evolution and genetics won the prize for his contribution to the question 鈥淒oes scientific scholarship contradict religious belief?鈥? The prize the largest of its kind was founded by the late entrepreneur Sir John Templeton to honour scientists who contribute to progress in religion.

The professor who was born in Spain and is a naturalised American says science and religion cannot be in contradiction because they oration different questions. It is only when either subject oversteps its boundary as he believes is the case with Professor Dawkins that a contradiction arises he said. 鈥淭he scientific fundamentalism proposed by Dawkins implies a materialistic view of the world. But once science has had its say there remains much about reality that is of interest. Common sense tells us that science can鈥檛 tell us everything.鈥?/p>

This week Professor Dawkins an evolutionary biologist at the University of Oxford attacked the US National Academy of Sciences for hosting the Templeton ceremony. He said on his blog: 鈥淭he US National Academy of Sciences has brought ignominy on itself by agreeing to host the announcement of the 2010 Templeton Prize. This is exactly the kind of thing Templeton is ceaselessly angling for 鈥?recognition between real scientists 鈥?and they use their cash shamelessly to satisfy their doomed craving for scientific respectability.鈥?/p>

Professor Ayala was ordained as a priest in 1960 but left the priesthood to study genetics. He maintains links with the Vatican but would not reveal whether he believed in God. 鈥淢y arguments are valid independent of my personal beliefs鈥?he said. Professor Ayala has been a fierce opponent of the teaching of creationism and intelligent design in schools alongside evolution 鈥渇or the same reason that we don鈥檛 teach witchcraft in medication or alchemy in chemistry classes鈥?

Man鈥檚 鈥渇lawed鈥?design made evolutionary theory more consistent with the idea of a benevolent creator than intelligent design. 鈥淏ecause of the flawed design of our reproductive systems more than 20 per cent of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion鈥?said Professor Ayala. 鈥淒o you want to scold God for that? No science has provided an answer. It is the clumsy ways of nature and the evolutionary process.鈥?/p>

The Duke of Edinburgh will present the prize to Professor Ayala on May 5 in a private ceremony at Buckingham Palace.

Paul Davies a cosmologist at Arizona State University and previous winner of the prize said that the rise of fundamentalism had dampened what was once a productive dialogue between scientists and the religious community. 鈥淢ost people do concern whether there鈥檚 a deeper meaning to life and the Universe鈥?he said. 鈥淪ome of the founders of science were religious thinkers. This prize is part of that tradition.鈥?/p>

SOURCE

The calorie conqueror: Herbal pill 鈥榗an cut your appetite by a fifth 鈥?and even cure a sweet tooth鈥?/b>

Here we go again: A quick and dirty study with no long semester follow-up and no mention of side effects from the strong stimulants used. Some of the women taking it were probably as well shaky to eat!

It could be the answer to your weight loss prayers 鈥?and there is no punishing exercise regime required. Women can cut their everyday calorie intake by almost a fifth if they simply take a herbal diet pill research reveals today.

The supplement has also been shown to help those with a sweet tooth 鈥?reducing the temptation to indulge in sugary snacks.

Zotrim which is based on three South American plants and is freely available from supermarkets and chemists was tested by scientists at the University of Liverpool.

They found that women who took the pill with their breakfast had a much lower appetite at luncheon time 鈥?cutting their calorie intake by 17.6 per cent. Of 58 volunteers who were given either Zotrim or a dummy pill in the morning those on the herbal supplement only picked at their afternoon meal.

The subjects some of whom were overweight were observed at a test lunch buffet where they were told to eat as much they wanted. Those on Zotrim ate on average 132 fewer calories 鈥?the equivalent of a Milky Way or can of cola.

If the effects were replicated throughout the day the pill would cut a dieter鈥檚 daily count by 400 or 500 calories equivalent to two bars of chocolate or a kebab.

Zotrim is designed to make the user feel fuller for longer. But it also appears to take the edge off a sweet tooth cutting the women鈥檚 selection of biscuits and chocolate mousse from the buffet by 27 per cent.

The women taking the herbal pill finished eating round three minutes earlier than the others 鈥?indicating they did feel full sooner the British Feeding and Drinking Group conference will hear today.

Researcher Dr Jason Halford an obesity expert said the findings suggest that Zotrim has a 鈥榬obust鈥?effect on a dieter鈥檚 appetite which could help them lose weight.

The pill which costs 拢22.99 for a month鈥檚 supply contains caffeine and other ingredients from herbs Guarana Yerba Mate and Damiana.

The cocktail delays the rate at which the stomach empties by about 20 minutes. The process is not dangerous because it merely extends the length of time taken to incorporate the food.

However it makes it hard for dieters to overeat because they feel uncomfortably full sooner. It is hoped this will make them change their eating habits stopping them from piling the pounds back on when they stop taking the supplement.

Previous research has shown that Zotrim can help overweight women lose an average of two inches from their waists in just four weeks. Some of those taking part shed five inches from their middles.

Another study credited the pills with helping women lose an average of 11lb in six weeks 鈥?those taking a dummy drug lost less than 1lb.

But not all studies of Zotrim have had such good results. A report by consumer watchdog Which? concluded that although there was evidence of significant weight loss in the short-term the results of long-term follow-up studies have been 鈥榙isappointing鈥?

Zotrim inventor Dr Lasse Hessel said the pill 鈥榟elps people deceive on their own stomach鈥?

Source

Traditional science experiments 鈥榙isappearing鈥?from British schools

Science experiments are disappearing from the classroom amid mounting concerns over pupil behaviour crowded timetables and health and safety rules according to research.

Almost all science teachers and lab technicians said they were now being prevented from staging certain practicals in biology chemistry and physics lessons it was claimed. The study 鈥?by Science Learning Centres a network of teacher training colleges 鈥?said more than two-thirds of staff admitted axing experiments because of a lack of space in the curriculum. Four-in-10 blamed the demands of exams and assessment.

According to the study some 28 per cent of teachers had been forced to drop classroom practical because of bad behaviour among pupils while one-in-10 cited health and safety fears. It said that activities such as ripple tanks dissection and microbiology 鈥?once commonplace in schools 鈥?were now becoming 鈥渆ndangered species鈥?

The survey which questioned more than 1300 teachers and technicians found that pupils had fewer chances to conduct experiments as they moved up through secondary school.

Ministers have invested hundreds millions of pounds in programmes designed to boost the number of pupils taking science at GCSE and A-level. In the Budget this week the Government announced supplementary funding to allow more students to study science and maths at university suggesting that more highly-skilled professionals were needed to boost Britain鈥檚 economic recovery.

But experts fear that children are being turned off science at a young age because lessons are becoming increasingly safe.

Professor John Holman director of the National Science Learning Centre said: 鈥淟earning science without practicals is the equivalent of studying literature without books. 鈥淓xperimental evidence is the mainstay of science and the UK has a very strong tradition of scientific practical job in schools. 鈥淚t concerns me that for a range of reasons many teachers currently feel unable to devote as much time to practical work in the classroom as they would like to and today鈥檚 students therefore have fewer opportunities for exploratory learning.

鈥淲hile it is certainly not the case that schools are being forced to desert all practical work I am alarmed by this tendency and struck by the obstacles that teachers say they are facing.鈥?/p>

SOURCE

Tombola Bingo advert gets banned in Britain

We read:

鈥淚t seems to be more of an issue of political correctness than the suggested presenting of a negative racial stereotype as the latest Tombola Bingo advert gets banned by ASA. This bingo sites latest advert prompted just two complaints but this is all it took for ASA to consider whether the complaints about the Tombola Bingo advert were justified or not.

Obviously it would not be appropriate to get into a debate as to whether the decision to ban the Tombola Bingo advert was the right thing to do. However this bingo sites advert which featured a coloured man playing a ukulele repeating everything that the white man next to him was saying was deemed to imply that black people are less intelligent than white people.

This is not the first time that Tombola Bingo has had to pull a TV advert off air. One of this bingo sites previous adverts was also banned behind it was deemed to appeal to the younger generation.

Source

鈥渁ppeal to the younger generation鈥? How shocking!