Vanhan kommunistin kitinää massamaahanmuuton seurauksista (in English)

[Lemmy]

Monikulttuurin luvatusta hölmölästä kajahtaa artikkeli suoraan otsalohkoon.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2301743/How-invasion-immigrants-corner-England-mockery-PMs-promise-close-door.html

Mehän kaikki tunnemme nämä brittiperäiset "monikulttuuritutkijat", jotka elävät pää pilvissä (vaiko perseessä) - kirjoituksesta selviää hyvin mikä sairas ideologinen mato heidän aivojaan syö.  Ilmeisesti kun sitten joutuu realiteettien kanssa tekemisiin, alkaakin toinen ääni kajahdella kellossa.

[siviilitarkkailija]

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.

Ainakin osittain myös omasta syystäni. Kun olin vallankumouksellinen marksilainen, kannatimme niin paljon maahanmuuttoa kuin mahdollista. Se ei johtunut siitä että olisimme pitäneet maahanmuuttajista vaan siksi koska emme pitäneet Britanniasta. Näimme maahanmuuttajat- mistä tulivatkin-  liittolaisina valtiota vastaan, konservatiivista yhteisöä vastaan jollainen maamme oli vielä kuusikymmentäluvulla. Lisäksi halusimme tuntea ylemmyyttä "nuivia"- köyhillä alueilla asuvia ihmisiä kohtaan- kun naapurustonsa muuttuivat "eloisiksi yhteisöiksi". Niitä jotka kehtasivat edes esittää vaatimattomia epäilyksiään, kutsuimme rasisteiksi!

Noin..suomennos mielestäni olennaisesta kohdasta.

[-PPT-]

Hienoa, että edes joku tulee katumapäälle ja julkisesti myöntää sen. Valitettavasti ihan kaikista ei voi sanoa samaa.

[MikkoAP]

Peter Hitchens on jo vuosia(vuosikymmeniä?) sitten vaihtanut linjansa radikaalimarxistisesta konservatiivikristittyyn suuntaan ja on profiloitunutkin briteissä epämuodikkaiden mielipiteiden laukojana, toisin kuin edesmennyt veljensä Christopher, joka piti vasemmistolaista linjaa loppuun asti.

Hitchens siis ei ole viimeaikoina kelkkaansa kääntänyt, vaan hitchensin kolumnissaan mainitsema David Goodheart.

[Lemmy]

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.

Olenkin nykyään sitä mieltä, että perustelematon viha tuleekin liberaalilta vasemmistolta. Tottakai vieläkin on ihmisiä, joilla on typeriä rotuennakkoluuloja. Mutta suurin osa niistä, jotka ovat huolissaan maahanmuutosta, ovat viattomia moiseen.

Naukuva ja sähisevä suvaitsemattomuus tuleekin hemmotellulta eliitiltä, jotka häpeävät omaa maataan, halveksuvat isänmaallisuutta muissa eivätkä itse tunne sitä. He unelmoivat kammottavasta rajattomasta Utopiasta, jossa rakkaus kotiseutuun on kadonnut, lapsenpiiat halpoja, ja muiden palkat alhaiset.

Mikä harmi, ettei näytä olevan mitään keinoa saada näitä ihmisiä pois vaikutusvaltaisista asemistaan

Ei olis kannattanu äänestää niitä vihervasemmistolaisia kukkahattutätejä meidänkään.

[Lemmy]

Hitchens siis ei ole viimeaikoina kelkkaansa kääntänyt, vaan hitchensin kolumnissaan mainitsema David Goodheart.

Äännntinen stalinisti Goodheart kirjoitti juuri kirjan, ilmestyy huomenna http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/mar/27/why-left-wrong-mass-immigration

[siviilitarkkailija]

Tavallaan Heidi Hautalan tapauksessa paljastuu ihmisten hyväksikäyttö paljaimmillaan koska se on juuri yhdistetty hallitsemattomaan ja rikolliseen ihmiskuljetukseen. Silti monet vasemmistolaiset ja vähävaraiset ihmiset houkutellaan vihervasemmistolaisen roskamedian avulla luottamaan ja luulemaan että Heidi Hautalan kaltaiset ihmiset olisivat jotain "pyhimyksiä" kun asia on aika tarkkaan päinvastoin.

Työn ja palvelutyön tekijälle pitää maksaa palkkaa jolla hän tulee toimeen. Tämä on korporaatikommunisteille ja vihervasemmistolaiselle roskaväelle mahdoton ajatus. Heidän mielestään on kestävää kehitystä että tuotetaan ihmsiä joiden palkan ja elinkustannukset maksetaan verovaroista että nämä toimijat voivat nauttia verottoman työvoiman edullisuudesta.

[matkamiehiii]

Niin se demokratia yhdistettynä korkeaan elintasoon tuppaa toimimaan --> kaikenmaailman maailmanparantamissekoilut jotka on tuomittu epäonnistumaan tulee saamaan paljon kannatusta ja jälki sen mukaista.

Olettiko joku jotain muuta tapahtuvan?

[Lalli IsoTalo]

Suomennetut lainaukset ovat dynamiittia.

[akez]

Suomennetut lainaukset ovat dynamiittia.

Näyttävät pätevän suoraan sellaisenaan myös Suomeen.

[törö]

Näinhän se mennee: reikäpään pitää uskoa tyhmyyksiin vain siksi että olisi mahdollisimman paljon eri mieltä kuin joku toinen reikäpää.

Eivät ne mitään järjellä ajattele vaan mölinää hallitsevat tunteet. Yksi rääkyy yhtä ja toinen toista, ja kumpikin vaatii muita valitsemaan puolensa.

Järjettömän ideologian tunnistaa ilmaan syvällistä perehtymistä siitä, että se on kyhätty jonkun
näköisen vastakkain asettelun päälle.

[akez]

On siinä määrin painavaa tekstiä, että poimin tähän mielestäni jutun keskeiset kohdat. UK:ssa tuo on jo toteutunutta historiaa, mutta meillä tämä sama on tapahtumassa juuri nyt. Siksi on tärkeää yrittää hahmottaa mistä on oikein kyse. Paralleeli nykypäivän Suomeen on hämmästyttävä. Avaat melkein minkä tahansa lehden tai median, niin siellä UK:n historia ja kehityskulut ovat muuttumassa todeksi täällä juuri nyt ja täysin samoin teemoin.

(...)

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.
(...)

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.
(...)

But, unlike me, most of the Sixties generation still hold the views I used to hold ...

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.
(...)

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. ...
(...)

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. ...