What has brought about this change is the unhealthy and irresponsible rise in immigration since New Labour came to power, coupled with the European Union's open borders. Immigration has been vital to the development of the UK over centuries and was inevitable when you consider our ties with Commonwealth countries from the former Empire.
What socialists have done is used immigration to divide and rule. A high proportion of ethnic minorites do traditionally vote Labour, which is one reason why Labour and socialists generally encourage uncontrolled immigration. But inevitably when there is a reasonable level of immigration those migrants, and their families, assimilate and in many cases will turn to other political parties as they become more and more integrated into national life. Integration doesn't suit socialists, because socialists thrive on conflict.
They welcome new migrants with the offer of protection from the evils of British life and some of it's supposed nastier elements. Much the same as it does by cutting other people in society off into splinters from the mainstream, such as gays and disabled people. 'Wimmin' are downtrodden, in charges Harriet Harperson to champion their cause. Where no 'equality issues' exist, create them. Create the threat, perceived or otherwise, proclaim yourself the protector and they will become dependent upon you to look after them.
In that vein there was a very intersting article in today's Daily Telegraph Online by Ed West. The article is about the discovery of Labour's plan to encourage irresponsible immigration in order to attack the non-socialist mainstream of British politics in the most cynical and inhuman fashion. Here is an extract:
The document released yesterday suggested that Labour originally pursued a different direction. It was published under the title “Migration: an economic and social analysis” but the removal of significant extracts suggested that officials or ministers were nervous over references to “social objectives”.
The original paper called for the need of a new framework for thinking about migration policy but the concluding phrase — “if we are to maximise the contribution of migration to the Government’s economic and social objectives” — was edited out.
Another deleted phrase suggested that it was “correct that the Government has both economic and social objectives for migration policy”.
Sir Andrew Green, the chairman of Migrationwatch, said the document showed that Mr Neather (former government speech writer), who claimed ministers wanted to radically change the country and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”, had been correct in his account of Labour’s immigration policy.
The following extract is also interesting as so many people on the left sneer if the term 'indigenous British' is ever used:
It is almost impossible to exaggerate what a revolution Britain has undergone in the past dozen years, a demographic change not just unprecedented in our history, but in almost any country’s. This island was quite fantastically undiverse until recently – before the Second World War between 70 and 75 per cent of British DNA had been British for 13000 years, and later migrations made a neglible impact, with even the largest and most culturally influential, the Anglo-Saxon invasion, comprising only about 4 per cent of British DNA. Last year a quarter of births in England were to foreign mothers.
I use that quote not to profess support for some form of racially purity, that idea is absurd, but to demonstrate that everybody especially the left, need to face the facts and not shirk the realities. There is such a thing as 'Britishness' and an 'indigenous' population, the word 'indigeous' does not only apply in Asia, Latin America and elsewhere in the world, it also still applies in the decadent West that the left loathe so much.
What I always find interesting about people of a left-wing multicultural persuasion is the level of their sheer hypocrisy. One thing that gets me is their use of the term 'native American', as if people whose forebears have been there a mere 250 or 100 years are not actually 'native'. Then they attack people who question the 'Britishness' of people whose families arrived in the UK in the '60s or '70s.
In the same vein why is Obama constantly referred to as 'First African-American President' rather than plain old President Obama? Isn't that setting him apart from others, therefore racist?
Similarly why do so many on the left worship multiculturalism as a marvellous improvement in the UK and the West generally, but hate and detest it elswhere? The Swiss should build mosques in Switzerland but McDonald's style imperialism is pure evil when their 'restaurants' appear all over the world destroying, apparently, local culture and customs.
They love the exoticism of places like Brick Lane, with it's profusion of Bangladeshi restaurants and shops, but deplore Benidorm because British holiday culture has ruined the Spanishness of the place. I prefer to avoid Benidorm myself and love Brick Lane, but each to his own. The left don't see the hypocrisy of their positions on so many of these issues.
Under the current overbearing state and its excessive welfare provision reasonable immigration control is necessary, based purely on numbers and resources. In an ideal world there will be free movement of people, but we will only move to places where we know we can sustain ourselves and our families and live financially independently of others, or more accurately other states. Until that day we must fight the exploitation of race and immigration by the left and the right, two sides of the same coin in reality.
Ultimately the left have known for many years that the West will not fall to socialist revolutionaries. Instead they use the tactics of political correctness, instill self-loathing and self-hatred that destroys a nation's culture and institutions then, with the minimum of bloodshed, build your alternative society.