Sorry, but ‘sorry’ isn’t good enough


by Archbishop Cranmer
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2012/06/sorry-but-sorry-isnt-good-enough.html

Ed Miliband is apologising today for Labour’s open, generous and unlimited immigration policy, which saw millions of foreign nationals flood into the country ostensibly to meet the needs of the economy. Forget how many billions it cost the taxpayer in housing, welfare benefits and translation services. Forget how many schools have been forced to employ dozens of ‘support staff’ in order to deal with half a million children who do not speak English as their first language. Forget how many indigenous Britons were bypassed for council housing in favour of ‘higher priority’ immigrants with greater needs (ie more children). Forget the impact on hospital waiting lists, or to getting an appointment with a GP or dentist. And forget how much irreversible damage all this has had on community cohesion.

When Ed Miliband apologises for Labour’s immigration policy, he has statistics in his head, political posturing in his heart, and absolutely nothing in his soul. This is no sincere or meaningful apology, because there is no attitude of regret and not a shred of insight or analysis into the culture of equality and interminable political correctness which produced the policy.

Remember Gordon Brown calling Gillian Duffy a ‘bigot’ merely for expressing concern about immigration? Her response was natural, human, compassionate and concerned about her community and way of life. To Labour, she was simply a ‘bigot’. Gordon Brown grovelled and squirmed, but his apology was hollow, for we all knew what he really thought and believed in his heart.

Labour’s immigration policy has not been merely a matter of money: it has destroyed trust. Immigration has been on such a scale for so long that entire ghetto communities have imported their customs and cultures and refused to integrate, forcing Britons not out of their homes but out of their country. Among the ethnic restaurants and foreign corner shops there is fear, a lack of understanding, an absence of compatriotism, unity, cohesion.

And there is an increase in fundamentalist religion, of the sort which has no time or tolerance of the mores and traditions of liberal democracy. For some of these immigrants – the undoubted minority but very vocal – there is an aggressive assertion of divine law, an intolerance of apostasy and religious freedom, and a total rejection of the foundational principles of the Enlightenment.

Labour’s immigration policy was not about economic charts, employment figures or equality tables: it destroyed lives, killed trust, harmed communities, and challenged our very sense of what it means to be British.

True sorrow means repentance, which necessitates profound change way beyond the rhetorical flourish of political posturing. If Labour were truly sorry, they would need to bring forward policy proposals to regain sovereign control of our borders. And that would mean not only reconfiguring welfare and benefits to deter bogus claims for asylum; it would involve fundamental reconsideration of the unconditional ‘free movement of people’ within the EU. And that would set us on the path to withdrawal.

Sorry, Ed, but unless you’re prepared to go there: your apology is worthless.

About these ads

19 responses to “Sorry, but ‘sorry’ isn’t good enough

  1. Pingback: Before It's News

  2. Libertarian fail.

    Can you faux-libertarians please stop calling yourselves libertarians. You’re giving real libertarians a bad name.

    • Faux libertarians, eh? Giving people like you a bad name? Well, since you haven’t had the goodness to tell us your name, I hardly think you’ve any right to complain about those of us who do give our names.

  3. To ABC:-
    Libertarians favour free movement of people. As a British Nationalist Libertarian and Classical Liberal myself, I feel happy that people want to come to my country to live: it says good things about us, and we as a people, and as a nation. Libertarians also do not, in the main, oppose the idea of minimalist-Nation-States, freely agreed to by their inhabitants.

    (I say “British” because on balance I favour continuing the Union, if the terms can be defined levelly, and not as they are now. I am quite equable about “deciding to let Scotland Go” – and Wales too if I hear the slightest whinge or muttering imprecations under their breath – if proper recognition of England as the Paramount Power in the Islands cannot be agreed. If I end up as an English Nationalist Libertarian, I will have failed in one objective.)

    What we are objecting to, as stated in Cramner’s article, is the deliberate acts done to the British nation as follows, by GramscoFabiaNazis, many of whom have cheerfully stated what their objective was. This was the forced importation of millions (it is more than several millions in reality) of specially selected individuals. These were to come from certain particular cultures which would satisfy two aims of the GramscoFabiaNazis.

    These were (a) to not happily or willingly integrate – which is to say: become British in public cultural outlook, whatever they did behind the doors of their homes (no concern to us so long as it didn’t involve doctrinal coercion, violence, abuse of women etc) – and (b) could be publicly and expensively patronized by the GramscoFabiaNazi establishment and apparatchik-brigades so as to be farmed for socialist/Nazi votes, thus recreating “pocket boroughs”. Many of these have now been created, both at Council Ward level and constituency level.

    What the left’s traditional supporters might think of this was to become – and has become – irrelevant. The GramscoFabiaNazis have succeeded in “Electing A New People”.

    This is what the article is about, ABC.

  4. Always, I’ve stood astride both camps in the matter of immigration – that is: those who consider it a good thing and those seemingly millions who do not – I must add, that I wanted to because I never imagined just how far it would be allowed to grow… and grow. This growth, to me at least, was never considered to be a possibility, or have the potential to grow into the major problem it evidently is.

    The UK’s loss of its position as an industrialised nation; its deteriorating work ethic and the growing lack of pride in itself as a civilised country was much more important to me; or so I thought.

    Now, my many Asian friends are surely becoming increasingly concerned at what only they seem to have the collective wisdom to see. In recent years, the new and older generation alike talk more and more about the possible future threat posed to them by continuing mass immigration. They believe that dozens of small, militant anti-immigrant gangs of unemployed and hungry young men and women might formed out of sheer boredom or genuine fear. They worry that terrorist gangs such as these might easily morph into a right-wing army able to mount real and effective campaigns. As yet though, they worry more about why it is UK politicians stubbornly refuse to return the lid to the immigration bottle. Discouragingly, I’m also told by many that later arrivals are actually being encouraged by schools to teach their children that their own customs and religions are preferred to those of the host nation.

    I’m very impressed with the concern, and no-nonsense thinking, used in the above article. As W. Somerset Maugham said, ‘Tolerance is only another word for indifference.’ And in many respects it really is isn’t it?

    Generations of UK politicians have exceeded themselves in that regard at least. Too busy collecting enough public cash together to buy safe-havens abroad for themselves I suppose!

  5. John, our politicos (nearly all British, I might add) are doing it to us because they have been taught by the Gramscians to hate liberalist (which is to say, in the main, English) culture and society.

    A very old and wise friend of mine, Peter Richey (his father was Paul Richey who flew Hurricanes with No-1 Squadron in France even before Dunkirk and later became an author and journalist) said more than 30 years ago that socialism was/is/will always be a specifically anti-English phenomenon. I have always kept this in mind in my spotting, and my strategic-targetting, of liberalism’s prime enemies.

    This process of deliberately-unsustainable/anticulturally-focussed immigration is being done, specifically, _BY_ the British Political EnemyClass, _TO_ the classes that this EnemyClass despises and wants to de-elect: that is, what they say are the ordinary British people, on purpose. The forced _NON-integration_ of the communities so formed, be they ever so harmless by themselves, is being fostered, under the heading of “diversity in a vibrant multicultural society” _by_ agents of the same Political EnemyClass.

  6. I hate living in any “multicultural” area in Britain, just full of sour faced immigrants milking my country like a cash cow, enjoying all the benefits of a modern society that they did nothing to create , truly soul destroying seeing it. when you look these people in the eye they look away, they know they are taking full advantage of our stupid immigration policies.

    What possible reason is there to let people from useless failed countries come and live here, and abandon their own homeland for supermarket shopping and benefits payments.

    The truth is we need reverse immigration now to clear up the mess, but that is near impossible to get through paliament.

  7. I say that ABC is a troll. I actually facebooked him as that, but it’s up to him to prove otherwise. As this is our blog and therefore our front parlour, I gave him a sound and considered answer anyway as he’d turned up, on the assumption that he isn’t actually a real troll.

  8. According to his e-mail address, he’s at Keele University. I could probably find his name, but won’t.

  9. It doesn’t matter.

  10. I am not a troll.

    I just hate seeing/hearing/reading libertarians who bang on about immigration. It does give us a bad name, and it is why we are so quickly dismissed by the left.

    If we’re going to complain about immigration, let’s do it properly. Let’s complain about how it’s been used by Labour as a tool to expand its vote, how its

  11. sorry, accidently pressed post before I’d finished writing.

    …and about how it’s caused an unacceptable swelling of the welfare state.

    But I don’t see a problem with a multicultural society, providing all cultures coexist peacefully. The free movement of people is an essential element of the free market. But the deliberate coaxing of people into the country to gain votes and overpower the overburdened welfare state is something we can all agree – I hope – is bad.

  12. Ok ABC, that’s all right then. I delete my suspicion that you were a troll, and apologise.

    We too have no problem with the theroetical construct of a multicultural society. Indeed, Sean Gabb’s chum Richard Blake, who writes a lot about the latter days of the Roman and early Byzantine empires in Southern Europe, would be the first to admit that the Roman Empire, when it was rather successful as a state, was quite multicultural.

    However, the sort of “multiculturalism” being imposed, by force and threat of law, in the indigenous white working classes (on whom the greatest inconveniences of it always will be designed (by the GramscoFabaiNazis) to fall) is not really honest multiculturalism. Would i be right in thinking that you’d agree with us about this?

    Would you agree then that, when ordinary people (not really the likes of intellectual, articulate, highly-politically-read, libertarians) talk about “immigration”, they are actually trying to put wordflesh on the bones of something that, in its present historically-allowed form, has caused them great upset?

  13. I agree with you entirely. My original criticism stemmed from my reading of the article. Maybe I took it the wrong way, but it came across as a complaint about immigration per se, rather than Labour’s nefarious policy of state-enforced multiculturalism.

    Seeing as it appears we really are singing from the same hymn sheet, I apologise if my initial comment came across as trollish/insulting. As I said, I just mistook the article. And there are a lot of faux-libertarians out there who want to close the borders.

    The only reason I choose not to use my name when commenting is that I find comment sections on blogs can and usually are highly charged places and debates and discussions often become personal.

  14. Etjon Basha

    I’d suggest Greece as an (improbable?) example of decent immigration management. Immigration to Greece has been, for all practical purposes, free until lately but, and what a big but, only a tiny proportion of those immigrants have been given citizenship. That mean they cannot vote, cannot claim benefits, etc. so, whoever wants to come must come to work. At every level, I feel this is the soundest policy.

  15. There can be no open borders until there is no welfare state.

  16. Etjon Basha

    I’m terribly sorry but I neither speak a word of Greek (be it old or new) nor care very much for the place. Their peculiar approach to immigration is just familiar to me from what I hear of friends and relatives.

  17. Concerned Briton

    So, it seems that ABC has no problem with the dispossession of the native British people of their own homeland, appears to be a “racial nihilist”, maybe a little bit of a relativist, and an advocate for the extermination of the entire white race itself from planet Earth – through allowing open borders and “free movement of people” to the degree we cannot survive intact, anywhere.

    ABC must also believe that Africans and other races and civilisations flocking here are prime Libertarian candidates, who are capable and willing to help manifest Libertarian values (of the white western world) for the future, after we who gave birth to it (and are still generally the ones who continue to try to uphold it) are first marginalised and then eventually gone altogether.

    Yes, Pakistan, Somalia, Turkey, Nigeria, and another hundred such places are renowned for being bastions of Libertarian ideals and models to aspire to. As soon as their populace slip into the borders of Britain, they will surely bring that magic here.

    Even they don’t, the whiff of the English countryside and the picturesque cliffs of Dover will evoke within them (and their offspring) the ideologies and values of a libertarian society. Wonderful. It is obviously a huge success so far, as have been ‘multiracial’ and ‘multicultural’ states currently and throughout history.

    ABC must also believe that this open borders attitude will thus increase freedoms and peace in this country, and not possibly risk violent civil war, impose draconian measures to keep everybody in check to the orthodoxies of the liberal elites, or generally help construct a global governance via racial and cultural conformity and the removal of meaningful nation states and national identities, as discussed very openly just recently by Peter Sutherland. ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2163969/UN-migration-chief-calls-EU-force-member-states-multicultural-says-Britains-quota-legal.html )

    How nice. How “sophisticated” and “enlightened”. (How Genocidal).

    God forbid we don’t overburden the welfare state or talk about race or a national identity that is meaningful and part of stability or achieving any sort of free society through general homogeneity and its protection…..but hell, ignoring the gradual ethnocide of the host society is apparently fine, eh!

    Good job we have well-intentioned (and no doubt pious “non-racist”) types like ABC about who probably loathe the idea of “closed borders” (or any other such perceived “bigoted” views) that may prevent these kinds of ultimate libertarian one world ideas taking place, or we would really be done for.

    Oh, hang on a minute……we are done for, in part because of these kinds of ideals.