PETER HITCHENS: “Non è stato perché ci piacevano gli
immigrati, ma perché volevamo distruggere la società.”
Peter Hitchens ex radicale di sinistra che oggi ha aperto
gli occhi, scrive sul Mail on Sunday. La sua è una confessione e una denuncia:
Come
io sono in parte responsabile per l’immigrazione di massa
Viene pubblicato come tassello della pratica inglese di
distruzione della “innata
societas” (società naturale) europea; eseguita, in prima battuta, con
la guerra di aggressione alla Germania del 3 Settembre 1939, onde tentare il
salvataggio del traballante, agonico, schiavistico impero inglese della finanza
mondialista apolide. Articolo di ravvedimento tardivo dell’autore: chiudere
la stalla quando i buoi sono scappati è inutile!
Hitchens è stato membro del Trotskyist
International Socialists dal 1969 al 1975, membro del Labour Party
dal 1977al 1983.
Un componente una comunità naturale che riconosce il
tradimento del legame più intimo con le proprie radici e i propri fratelli
dovrebbe trarre la logica conseguenza di essere inutile, definitivamente,
quindi provvedere. L’appartenenza non si può perdere nè cancellare, solo
sospendere, ripristinabile in forme opportune. Olodogma
Il post è parte di un articolo più ampio. (articolo originale)
Peter Hitchens: “Non è stato perché ci piacevano gli
immigrati, ma perché volevamo distruggere la società.”
Peter Hitchens ex radicale di sinistra che oggi ha aperto
gli occhi, scrive sul Mail on Sunday. La sua è una confessione e una denuncia:
Come
io sono in parte responsabile per l’immigrazione di massa
Quando ero un rivoluzionario marxista, eravamo tutti a
favore di più immigrazione possibile.
Non perché ci piacessero gli immigrati,
ma perché non ci piaceva come era la società britannica. Abbiamo visto gli
immigrati – da qualsiasi luogo – come alleati contro la società conservatrice
che il nostro paese era ancora alla fine degli anni Sessanta. Volevamo usarli
come grimaldello.
Inoltre, ci piaceva sentirci ‘superiori’ alle persone
comuni – di solito delle zone più povere della Gran Bretagna – che
videro i loro quartieri improvvisamente trasformati in presunte “comunità
vibranti”.
Se avevano il coraggio di esprimere le obiezioni più miti, subito
li accusavamo di razzismo. Era facile.
Noi studenti rivoluzionari non vivevamo in tali aree
“multietniche” (ma venivamo, per quanto ho potuto vedere, per lo più dalle zone
ricche e le parti più belle di Londra).
Potevamo vivere in luoghi ‘vibranti’ per alcuni (di solito
squallidi) anni, in mezzo a degrado e bidoni traboccanti.
Ma noi lo facemmo come dei vagabondi senza responsabilità e
in modo transitorio, non avevamo figli. Non come i proprietari di
abitazioni, o come genitori di bambini in età scolare, o come gli anziani che
sperano in un po’ di serenità alla fine
delle loro vite.
Quando ci laureammo e cominciammo a guadagnare soldi seri,
in genere ci dirigemmo verso le costose enclave di Londra e diventammo molto
esigenti su dove e con chi i nostri bambini andavano a scuola, una scelta
che felicemente abbiamo negato ai poveri delle città, quelli che abbiamo
sbeffeggiato come “razzisti”.
Ci interessava e ci siamo curati della grande rivoluzione
silenziosa che già allora cominciava a trasformare la vita dei poveri inglesi?
No, per noi significava che il patriottismo e la tradizione
potevano sempre essere derisi come ‘razzisti’.
E significava anche servi a basso costo per i ricchi
della nuova classe media privilegiata, per la prima volta dal 1939, così come ristoranti
a buon mercato e – in seguito – costruttori a buon mercato e idraulici
che lavoravano in nero.
Non erano i nostri salari che erano depressi
dall’immigrazione, o il nostro lavoro che finiva fuori mercato. Gli immigrati
non facevano – e non fanno – il genere di lavoro che facevamo noi.
Non erano una minaccia per noi. Ma per la gente
normale.
L’unica minaccia per noi, poteva venire dai
danneggiati, dal popolo britannico, ma potemmo sempre soffocare le loro
proteste, suggerendo che erano ‘moderni fascisti’.
Ho imparato da ciò, che ipocrita snob e persona arrogante
ero (e la maggior parte dei miei compagni rivoluzionari erano).
Ho visto posti che ho conosciuto e nei quali mi sentivo a
casa, completamente cambiati nel giro di pochi anni.
Ho immaginato come sarebbe stato, crescere in uno di
quei posti, bloccato in un quartiere squallido come un inglese
qualunque, strade strette dove i miei vicini parlavano una lingua diversa.
E a poco a poco ho iniziato a diventare un solitario, traballante straniero
in un mondo che conoscevo, ma che non riconoscevo più.
Mi sono sentito profondamente, irrimediabilmente triste per
quello che ho fatto e per non aver detto nulla in difesa di coloro le cui
vite sono state stravolte, senza che fosse loro mai stato chiesto il
permesso, e che sono stati avvertiti in modo molto chiaro che, se si fossero
lamentati, sarebbero stati disprezzati e reietti. Definiti “razzisti”. (…)
(articolo originale)
link: http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2013/04/how-i-am-partly-to-blame-for-mass-immigration.html
Sembra l’Italia di oggi, dove se ti ribelli, sei “razzista”.
Dove, o sei a favore della società multietnica, o sei “fuorigioco”, sei
senza voce: perché chi e quando parla lo controllano loro. E se qualcuno rompe
il monopolio, deve essere eliminato.
(Fonte:
http://identità.com/blog/2013/06/16/la-confessione-dellex-marxista-perche-volevamo-sempre-piu-immigrati/)
Fonte: visto su Identità.com
HOW I AM PARTLY TO BLAME FOR
MASS IMMIGRATION
The following article, on Mass Immigration, its history and
importance, was published in the Mail on Sunday on 31st March:
WAS this Britain? Every group of people I passed was
speaking Russian.
The shops were full of black bread, pickled cucumbers and
vodka, the faces were Slavic.
The advertisements in the windows were in the Cyrillic
script I had come to know so well when I lived, many years before, in Moscow.
Yet here I was in the shadow of a lovely English Gothic
church tower, half-way to dear old Skegness, surrounded by fields of English
turnips, leeks and sugar beet, under an English heaven.
This was Boston, Lincolnshire, which I had first seen three
decades ago as a somnolent, slightly shabby market town where a kindly traffic
warden had found me a parking space, saying: 'We can always find room for a
foreigner.'
In those days, a visitor from London was about as foreign as
it got in Boston.
Now they were talking Portuguese in the pubs, Polish in the
cafes, Latvian and Estonian on the buses.
If I had fallen into the river and called out 'Help!', I
couldn't even have been sure that anyone would have understood.
Somehow this transformation was more of a shock, more
disturbing and perplexing, than any of the other migration-driven changes I had
seen.
And that tended to be the attitude of the older residents -
not anger, hatred or hostility, we are not like that - but bafflement that such
a huge thing could have erupted into their peaceful lives, without anyone
warning or asking them.
We had all got used to London being different, long ago.
The former mill towns of Yorkshire and Lancashire, with
their huge new mosques and veiled women, were a place apart.
But Lincolnshire?
If it could come here, into Deep England, then it would come
to everywhere.
It really is not much good the Prime Minister turning round
now and saying to the people of Boston 'this must stop'.
Even if anyone believed he can or will do anything (and his
various schemes are as firmly based as Theresa May's promises to get rid of Abu
Qatada), the event has happened.
The greatest mass migration in our history has taken place.
The newcomers are lawfully here.
They have the jobs, live in the houses, use the NHS.
Their children are in the schools.
Come to that, they are paying tax.
Our leaders only had to go to Boston, any time in the past
five years, and they would have known.
But all our leading politicians were afraid of knowing the
truth.
If they knew, they would at least have to pretend to act.
And the truth was, they liked things as they were.
And it was at least partly my own fault.
When I was a Revolutionary Marxist, we were all in favour of
as much immigration as possible.
It wasn't because we liked immigrants, but because we didn't
like Britain. We saw immigrants - from anywhere - as allies against the staid,
settled, conservative society that our country still was at the end of the
Sixties.
Also, we liked to feel oh, so superior to the bewildered
people - usually in the poorest parts of Britain - who found their
neighbourhoods suddenly transformed into supposedly 'vibrant communities'.
If they dared to express the mildest objections, we called
them bigots.
Revolutionary students didn't come from such 'vibrant' areas
(we came, as far as I could tell, mostly from Surrey and the nicer parts of
London).
We might live in 'vibrant' places for a few (usually squalid)
years, amid unmown lawns and overflowing dustbins.
But we did so as irresponsible, childless transients - not
as homeowners, or as parents of school-age children, or as old people hoping
for a bit of serenity at the ends of their lives.
When we graduated and began to earn serious money, we
generally headed for expensive London enclaves and became extremely choosy
about where our children went to school, a choice we happily denied the urban
poor, the ones we sneered at as 'racists'.
What did we know, or care, of the great silent revolution
which even then was beginning to transform the lives of the British poor?
To us, it meant patriotism and tradition could always be
derided as 'racist'.
And it also meant cheap servants for the rich new middle-class,
for the first time since 1939, as well as cheap restaurants and - later on -
cheap builders and plumbers working off the books.
It wasn't our wages that were depressed, or our work that
was priced out of the market. Immigrants didn't do the sort of jobs we did.
They were no threat to us.
The only threat might have come from the aggrieved British
people, but we could always stifle their protests by suggesting that they were
modern-day fascists.
I have learned since what a spiteful, self-righteous,
snobbish and arrogant person I was (and most of my revolutionary comrades were,
too).
I have seen places that I knew and felt at home in, changed
completely in a few short years.
I have imagined what it might be like to have grown old
while stranded in shabby, narrow streets where my neighbours spoke a different
language and I gradually found myself becoming a lonely, shaky voiced stranger
in a world I once knew, but which no longer knew me.
I have felt deeply, hopelessly sorry that I did and said nothing
in defence of those whose lives were turned upside down, without their ever
being asked, and who were warned very clearly that, if they complained, they
would be despised outcasts.
And I have spent a great deal of time in the parts of
Britain where the revolutionary unintelligentsia don't go.
Such people seldom, if ever, visit their own country.
Their orbits are in fashionable London zones, and holiday
destinations.
They are better acquainted with the Apennines of Italy than
with the Pennines of their own country.
But, unlike me, most of the Sixties generation still hold
the views I used to hold and - with the recent, honourable exception of David
Goodhart, the Left-wing journalist turned Think Tank boss who recognises he was
wrong - they will not change.
The worst part of this is the deep, deep hypocrisy of it.
Even back in my Trotskyist days I had begun to notice that
many of the migrants from Asia were in fact not our allies.
They were deeply, unshakably religious.
They were socially conservative.
Their attitudes towards girls and women were, in many cases,
close to medieval.
Many of them were horribly hostile to Jews, in a way which
we would have condemned fiercely if anyone else had expressed it, but which we
somehow managed to forgive and forget in their case.
We have recently seen this in the distressing and
embarrassing episode of Lord Ahmed's outburst against a phantom Jewish
conspiracy.
But I recall ten years ago, in a Muslim bookshop in the
backstreets of Burnley, seeing on open display a modern edition of Henry Ford's
revolting anti-Jewish diatribe The International Jew, long ago disowned by Ford
himself.
It is unthinkable that any mainstream shop in any High
Street could sell this toxic tripe.
Many of these new arrivals, though we revolutionaries
welcomed them, knew and cared nothing of the great liberal causes we all
supported. Or they were hostile to them.
Many on the Left still lie to themselves about this. George
Galloway, the most Left-wing MP in Parliament, owes his seat to the support of
conservative Muslims.
Yet he voted in favour of same-sex marriage.
It would be interesting to be at any meetings where Mr
Galloway discusses this with his constituents.
Of course, all political parties are compromises, but there
is a big difference between splitting the difference and flatly ignoring a
profound clash of principles.
This sort of cynicism has been at the heart of the deal.
Immigrants have been used by those who wanted to transform
the country.
They have taken the parts of them they liked, and made much
of them.
They have ignored the parts they did not like.
Mr Galloway likes the Muslims' opposition to the Iraq War
and their scorn for New Labour (and good luck to him). But he does not like
their views on sexual morality.
The same is true of many others.
One of the most striking characteristics of the majority of
migrants from the Caribbean is their strong, unashamed Christian faith, and
their love of disciplined education.
Yet the arrival of many such people in London was never used
as a reason to say our society should become more Christian, or our schools
should be better-ordered.
At that time, the revolutionary liberals were hoping to wave
goodbye to the Church, and were busy driving discipline out of the state
schools. So nobody ever said 'Let us adapt our society to the demands of these
newcomers'.
They had the wrong sort of demands.
Instead, the authorities made much of the behaviour of a
minority of such migrants, often much disliked by their fellow Afro-Caribbeans
- men who took and sold illegal drugs and who were not prepared to respect
British law.
If proper policing of such people could be classified as
'racist', then the drug laws as a whole could be weakened, and the police
placed under liberal control.
This is why the so-called 'Brixton Riots' of April 1981 were
used as a lever to weaken the police and undermine the drug laws, rather than
as a reason to restore proper law and peace to that part of London.
Something very similar happened with the Macpherson Report
into the murder of Stephen Lawrence.
Few noticed that the report openly urged that people from
different ethnic groups should be policed in different ways - and actually
condemned 'colour-blind' policing.
In whose interests was this?
And wasn't this attitude, that different types of behaviour
could be expected from different ethnic groups, racially prejudiced?
But what did that matter, if it suited the revolutionary
liberal agenda of purging the police of old-fashioned conservative types?
The same forces destroyed Ray Honeyford, a Bradford
headmaster who - long before it was fashionable - tried to stand up against
political correctness in schools. He was driven from his job and of course condemned
as a 'racist'.
Yet it would have been very much in the interests of
integration and real equality in Bradford if his warnings had been heeded and
acted upon.
As it is, as any observant visitor finds, Bradford's Muslim
citizens and its non-Muslim citizens live in two separate solitudes, barely in
contact with each other. Much of the Islamic community is profoundly out of
step with modern Britain.
Once again, revolutionary liberals had formed a cynical
alliance to destroy conservative opposition.
Their greatest ally has always been the British Tory
politician Enoch Powell who, in a stupid and cynical speech in 1968, packed
with alarmist language and sprinkled with derogatory expressions and
inflammatory rumour, defined debate on the subject of immigration for 40 years.
Thanks to him, and his undoubted attempt to mobilise racial
hostility, the revolutionary liberals have ever afterwards found it easy to
accuse any opponent of being a Powellite.
Absurdly, even when Britain's frontiers were demolished by
the Blair Government and hundreds of thousands of white-skinned Europeans came
here to work, it was still possible to smear any doubters as 'racists'.
It couldn't have been more obvious that 'race' wasn't the
problem.
The thing that made these new residents different was
culture - language, customs, attitudes, sense of humour.
Rather than them adapting to our way of life, we were
adapting to theirs.
This wasn't integration.
It was a revolution.
Yet nobody - especially their elected representatives -
would listen to them, because they were assumed to be Powellite bigots,
motivated by some sort of unreasoning hatred.
I now believe that the unreasoning hatred comes almost
entirely from the liberal Left.
Of course, there are still people who harbour stupid racial
prejudices.
But most of those concerned about immigration are completely
innocent of such feelings.
The screaming, spitting intolerance comes from a pampered
elite who are ashamed of their own country, despise patriotism in others and
feel none themselves.
They long for a horrible borderless Utopia in which love of
country has vanished, nannies are cheap and other people's wages are low.
What a pity it is that there seems to be no way of turning
these people out of their positions of power and influence.
For if there is to be any hope of harmony in these islands,
then it can only come through a great effort to bring us all together, once
again, in a shared love for this, the most beautiful and blessed plot of earth
on the planet.
Fonte: visto su Mail Online
del 1 aprile 2013
Link: http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2013/04/how-i-am-partly-to-blame-for-mass-immigration.html
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento