Sunday, May 6, 2012

European politics - unPC edition

Marie Le Pen describes globalization:

“Getting slaves to make things abroad to sell to unemployed people here".

Brilliant.

I really like her.

So, Sarkozy, the Sayan Mossad agent has lost and Hollande has won.

Whoop dee doo.

What is really interesting in this French election to me is the predilection of speaking in code words and even uttering an occasional un-politically-correct statements.

Sarkozy has promised to cut illegal immigration into France (chiefly from Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Cote d'Ivoire and other assorted, mostly moslem, hell holes, of mostly uneducated, low IQ retards - and yes, I have been to Paris and seen it with my own eyes).

He has promised to cut it from 200,000 to 100,000 annual... now, France has only 65,350,000 people in it, so that number seems to be a drop in the bucket...

But those immigrants do not live in the countryside, but mostly cities, and mostly Paris, Marseille, and, frankly, there are no-go areas for police and French natives and night is not safe for normal people and especially tourists, especially if they step the landmarks like Trocadero or Champs d'Elysee.

100,000 immigrants from North Africa and deep, hellhole Africa is a BIG number for a country like France to process, integrate, find jobs for (and/or train them for), etc.

And the problem becomes acute when they DO NOT want to integrate, when 5 million "French" are moslem, well, it is insurmountable.

Of course, no one expected Sarkozy to actually fulfill his promises - after the Tony Blair example.

Please recall:

Tony Blair, the Great Britain Prime Minister, in 2004:

Blair pledges immigration review, dated April 27 2004:

Tony Blair has ordered a "top-to-bottom" review of the immigration system just days before the biggest enlargement in the EU's history.

He told business leaders that new restrictions on the right to welfare benefits would help tackle abuses, especially after EU expansion.


Tony Blair, the good guy!

In his speech to the CBI conference in London, Mr Blair insisted that migrants from eastern Europe who do not work will not have access to council houses and will be prevented from "benefit-shopping."


Tony Blair, working for the common UK citizen!

He told business leaders: "Migrants will not be able to access social housing unless they are here legally and are working.

"No-one will be able to come to the UK from anywhere in the enlarged European Union simply to claim benefits or housing.

"There won't be support for the economically inactive. The same goes for migrants from elsewhere in the world... they must be self-sufficient."


Tony Blair, telling it like it is!

Tony Blair in 2005 was still being the populist (Boo! Populism is a dirty word, as it means that a politician has the welfare of his constituents at heart! Boo! Hiss! Say the elites).

Guardian: Full text: Tony Blair's speech on asylum and immigration, dated April 22 2005:

I said at the manifesto launch that I would deal with the issue of asylum and immigration during this campaign. I do so today, and have chosen to do so in a detailed speech so that this issue can be examined in detail and in perspective.

Concern over asylum and immigration is not about racism. It is about fairness.

People want to know that the rules and systems we have in place are fair - fair to hard-working taxpayers who deserve to know that others are playing by the rules; fair to those who genuinely need asylum and who use the correct channels; fair to those legitimate migrants who make such a major contribution to our economy.

People also want to know that those they elect to government get it. That we are listening. We do get it. We are listening.

It is precisely because we have been working hard at it that, over the past few years, asylum claims have fallen in Britain faster than anywhere else in Europe. But we know we have to tighten the asylum system further.

I also understand concern over immigration controls. We will put in place strict controls that work. They will be part of our first legislative programme if we are re-elected on May 5. These controls will include the type of points system used in Australia, for example, to help ensure our economy gets the skills we need.


Amazing!

How populist of him (Boo! Hiss!).

Of course, when one visits London, one is magically transported into an exotic Pashtun bazaar and an Bombay back street, and of course one cannot forget the fantastic people from the Congo making friends; read this, yes, really, read it, it's fun and free aaaaand there is a video of the frivolicking Congolese at play.

So what happened?

What happened to the "we are listening to you, we get it"?

What happened to immigration review, what happened to "controls will include the type of points system used in Australia, for example, to help ensure our economy gets the skills we need"?

Tony Blair, a politician, said one thing and did exactly the opposite.

Blair defends opening the door to mass migration and says it had a very positive impact on Britain, MailOnline, dated October 2011:

Tony Blair has defended Labour’s controversial mass immigration policy by claiming that Britain cannot succeed unless it opens its borders to more people from different backgrounds.

The former prime minister said it was 'right’ that the country was made up of different cultures and faiths mixing together.

Mr Blair added that migrants had made Britain 'stronger’ and said those calling for greater curbs on foreigners entering the country were wrong.


Interesting how what he did when elected and what he says now, after election and destroying the country, is completely opposite of what he said before he was elected.

A defiant Mr Blair insisted his party’s policy on immigration was the right one. He said: 'It’s been a very positive thing and there is no way for a country like Britain to succeed in the future unless it is open to people of different colours, faiths and cultures.’

Under Labour, up to 5.5million people born outside the UK arrived as long-term migrants.


Tony Blair, no longer the dirty populist, yey!

The elites approve!

In an interview with Eastern Eye newspaper, Mr Blair said: 'The vision of a country of different cultures and different faiths mixing together is the right one.


This is a stunning quote.

This means that this man lied before he was elected to his people, and then proceeded to change the country. For ever. There is no going back for the UK from 5.5 (or more?) moslems, Congolese, etc. The Eastern Europeans (Poles, etc) might go back as they are economic migrants and they probably prefer to make money and go back home if at all possible, spending a few years making some money (of course the UK jobs pay more than the same ones in Poland, especially for low skill labor like bartender, waitress, baby sitter, factory worker and the like).

The immigrants from the Congo, Pakistan, Kashmir are ALSO economic migrants, but do you see them EVER going back to their shitholes after getting acclimated (usually with substantial government "dole" help; free money from welfare) in, say, London?

This means that this Blair, this odious, repulsive creature lied, subverted and then executed a plan to change the UK forever.

Mr Blair added that the anti-immigration debate was one of the ‘past’. ‘I think the majority of people in Britain today are not prejudiced and can understand the benefits of migration.


Clearly - saying or even thinking anything else is gauche, racist and, worst of all, not politically correct, making one a pariah of all civilized peoples.

Tory MP Priti Patel, said: ‘As the daughter of immigrants, there is no question that those who work hard and make a positive contribution do enrich the fabric of our society.

‘But what Tony Blair has failed to recognise is that while he was in power, he opened the floodgates of mass and uncontrolled immigration which has left a damaging legacy in our towns and cities.’


That woman is so racissss... Priti Patel... oh, right, she cannot be, only White people can be classified as such.

But why would a politician choose to implode his country and make his people suffer?

For the lulz?

Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser, dated October 2009, Telegraph UK:

The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

He said Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote".


Amazing, this is.

To not alienate the "core working class vote", the people who had jobs as waiters, car mechanics, factory workers, and the like (emphasis on the word had), the elites simply lied.

This Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett, has said:

Writing in the Evening Standard, he revealed the "major shift" in immigration policy came after the publication of a policy paper from the Performance and Innovation Unit, a Downing Street think tank based in the Cabinet Office, in 2001.

He wrote a major speech for Barbara Roche, the then immigration minister, in 2000, which was largely based on drafts of the report.

He said the final published version of the report promoted the labour market case for immigration but unpublished versions contained additional reasons, he said.

He wrote: "Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.

"I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn't its main purpose – to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date."

The "deliberate policy", from late 2000 until "at least February last year", when the new points based system was introduced, was to open up the UK to mass migration, he said.


Cynical political reasons.

OF course, that is the mainstream newspaper viewpoint.

But if you look to the right, notice the "Can't see the forest for the trees" quip.

If this was done in the UK to "rub the Right's nose in diversity", i.e. for the lulz, for shits and giggles, as a practical joke to the other party (haha?)...

And the massive immigration into Germany was done to keep the country strong (no kidding, Leading German Economist Demands More Workers from Abroad, from Spiegel 2010 edition)...

And the massive immigration from deep Africa, the Arab world into Sweden (Yes, a rival blog article) is done because... actually, WHY is there such a massive immigration into Sweden? They don't need workers and the country is economically strong and... happy (List of Happiest countries on the planet).

And the massive, massive immigration of Maghreb (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia) into France, massive African immigration into Greece, massive immigration into... well, every Western European country... all are explained with different reasons (which "rubbing the right's nose" is perhaps the dumbest of, designed for REALLY naive and stupid people) for each country, yet the pattern, the overall pattern ("Can't see the forest for the trees").

Why?

I was shocked that Sarkozy felt he needed the "Tony Blair strategy" of utilizing lying about limiting immigration pre-election (and then, of course, showing his true colours a la Blair and becoming the opposite of a dirty, prole populist [Boo! Hiss!]).

But Hollande also has uttered some amazing unPC quips "My enemy is the world of finance".

No, really - google it.

Now, the clueless Americans (or perhaps not so clueless - they are paid to obfuscate... then again, no, they are idiots) political pundits and reporters analyzed this as an anti-market stance to the population which has seen financial shenanigans implode their countries' (in this case France) economies just like happened in my country (USA, if anyone is asking), as a (Boo! Hiss!) populist quip, a sop to throw to the desperate, unemployed and suffering masses (Haha, make them think the elites care about them, snort!).

The smart ones in the room - as in, "that kid in the special ed class with the mother who only used crack once" smart - went deeeeeeeper and thought that this harkens back the FDR's statement (alas, it is mostly bloggers who are even this smart - after all, their viewers are people who can READ, and are interested in non MSM sources, as opposed to the typical Cheetoh stained fingers morbidly obese "winner".

But of course, the Europeans and the rest of the world read this statement differently.

Sarkozy, you see, is a Jew, and Jews very much predominate in the world of high finance, effectively being the power behind the throne (Well, that is what those racists Europeans like myself believe, the non-racist Americans know better).

Racist Europeans: Survey: 31% of Europeans blame economic crisis on Jews, YNet 2009.

Europeans are so racist - thank goodness they get those massive waves of immigrants, which will soon make them forget about high politics and high level finance and bring them back to the ground, to the street level so to speak - where they will worry less about whether Jews run the world and more if Hassan O'Congo is behind that corner, ready to bash their head in and steal their groceries.

Fortunately, this belief that Jews run the world is limited to those racist Europeans and due to the measures already being implemented they will get what's theirs... Wait a moment...

Book alleging Jews run the world and control global wealth becomes bestseller in country , Ynet again, 2009.

The country in this instance being... China.

BEIJING – Who's to blame for the current global financial crisis? According to a bestselling book in China, which is leading the sales charts in the country, the answer is clear: The Jews.


My gawd, that is soooooo unPC, soooo racist!

In the eyes of most Chinese, Jewish people are considered "smart," "rich" and "good at making money." Bookstores in China offer a variety of self-help books titled, "How to make money like Jews," and "The secret of Jews' global success."


Lies!

Jews in America are not successful, are not the majority of the FED, of Goldman Sachs and other investment "banks" boards of directors and CEO's!

You take that back about Jews being successful (or we will kill your career like that loser's Sanchez).

Oh, I might as well list this happenstance, as it was quickly forgotten in the Usian media:

Rick Sanchez: Jon Stewart A 'Bigot,' Jews Run CNN & All Media :

The conversation began with Sanchez decrying "elite, Northeast establishment liberals" who "deep down, when they look at a guy like me, they see a guy automatically who belongs in the second tier, and not the top tier.

"I think to some extent Jon Stewart and [Stephen] Colbert are the same way. I think Jon Stewart's a bigot," he said. "I think he looks at the world through, his mom, who was a school teacher, and his dad, who was a physicist or something like that. Great, I'm so happy that he grew up in a suburban middle class New Jersey home with everything you could ever imagine."

When asked who Stewart is bigoted against, Sanchez said "everybody else who's not like him."


"Everybody else who's not like him", which means that what this Sanchez guy said is... Stewart (and his ilk) are bigoted against anybody who is not like them, i.e. a Jew.

Even better, he spoke the truth about our (American) media establishment;

But he made a larger point when Dominick suggested that Stewart could understand being part of an oppressed minority group because he is Jewish.

Sanchez scoffed at the claim, snickering and suggesting that CNN and the rest of the media is run by Jewish people


Get a load of this:

Very powerless people... [snickers] He's such a minority, I mean, you know [sarcastically]... Please, what are you kidding? ... I'm telling you that everybody who runs CNN is a lot like Stewart, and a lot of people who run all the other networks are a lot like Stewart, and to imply that somehow they -- the people in this country who are Jewish -- are an oppressed minority? Yeah. [sarcastically]


Of course, to prove that the Jews do not run the American media and are not all powerful, Sanchez was fired a few hours after said interview.

Which, of course, makes the Europeans and Chinese racists who believe that "Jews run the world" and are "good at making money" racists, and, worse, unPC, and, what the hell, bigots.

Unlike the smart Americans who are, uhhhhhhh, smart, and believe no such thing.

But I digress...

Both Sarkozy (shades of Tony Blair "snake oil" immigration election speeches) and Hollande (pandering to the racists who believe that voting for the sayan Sarkozy is voting for global finance, aka "The Jooooooos!") said some extreme un PC quips, and the media was in a tizzy.

I, however, will end this with the quip I began with, from Mdme. Le Pen:

“Getting slaves to make things abroad to sell to unemployed people here".

Edit:

What the hell, I like my own media ready quip also:

"Populism is a dirty word, as it means that a politician has the welfare of his constituents at heart".

5 comments:

james McGrath said...

I also like Mde Le Pen, she is telling the truth and being surprisingly forthright, if she were in America or England, she would have been arrested by now.

I'm thankful that that insufferable man Sarkozy is gone, but lets be honest, Hollande won't change much. We will have to wait until 2017 to see if Le Pen can go all the way then.

Occidentalist said...

When I was in college I always used to wonder why even far left Marxist professors used the term populist as a term of derision. After all Marxists are supposed to care about the working class right?

Usually the adjective 'populist' is affixed to the term 'demagogue'. That way if calling a politician a populist isn't derogatory enough, even ordinary people should recognize that they are supposed to frown up on any 'populist demagogue' and regard his words with a cynical ear - unlike the words of establishment politicians.

I now understand that "populist" is subtle way of hinting that a politician is a fascist, or someone who may as well be a Nazi. It's a dogwhistle that mostly Jews can hear, and few others.

Forinstance, take a look at the comments posted by antifa anarchists in this discussion on Reddit talking about the need to stamp out any expression on neo-fascist politics:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/t60o7/violent_antifascism/


"Fascism is a populist movement, it has to be fought in the streets...

The only good fascist is a dead fascist. Take the fight to them wherever they are and never let them get a foothold anywhere.

Do you not realize that by letting fascists get a tiny hold in a community it blows up to something like the EDL. Preemptive self-defense is still self-defense, especially against a poisonous idea that during hard economic times easily infiltrates the minds of the poor and disillusioned because it offers and easy scapegoat.
You are more than welcome to counter protest them and my comrades and I will physically confront them and we'll see who does a better job of driving them out.

Comment: It seems like countering them with facts and logic would be better than a violent confrontation.
Reply: You would think so but unless you've dealt with fascism you don't understand the inherent issues with that.



Anarchists claim to to represent the masses, but they realize their cause is severely threatened by populist politics. They are so threatened by it that they are aligned with the establishment in seeking to stamp out populist politics, except they are fanatical and willing to be violent is stamping out opposing views.

And what are populist politics? Well in American politics Governor Huey Long in Louisian is an example, as is William Jennings Brian.

Here is one of my favorite political speeches from a populist politician in the UK:

Nick Griffin speaks about the ‘Credit Crunch’


This speech is explicitly critical of capitalism. I can't imagine any American politician voicing such sentiments or speaking at such length about policy matters.

WQhat's interesting is that nationalist parties like the BNP or FN in France are despised by the left. Socialists, Marxists, anarchists all hate them, even though their economic policies are quite similar.

It took me a while to realize this, but the agenda of the far left is about more than 'economic justice' and minimizing exploitation. The far left is perfectly aligned with the center and mainstream politics in Christendom in promoting 'globalization' and the deracination of all Western countries to the point where each western country would resemble a multi-racial, multi-ethnic polyglot that is a micro-cosm of the whole world.

Ironically, this is destroying real 'diversity' in the world thru culture-leveling homogenization. And the left is such a champion of this cause that they would never, ever align themselves with the nationalist right in spite of obvious similarities in their economic agenda.

Kai Murros seems to have come to a similar conclusion. You can hear an interview of him here.

Anonymous said...

I see from your blog writings that you previously lived in a communist country so I assume you must have a broad range of experience. Therefore I'd like to ask you if you think the actual behavior of France and Britain, along with the lies of their leaders, is attributable to those countries being capitalist? Is it just the raw power of capitalism that has captured the workings of the state, or is there something more nuanced at work?

Anonymous said...

Hollande party is full of jews, even more than Sarkozy party:

DSK, Pierre Moscovici, Pierre Cohen, Julien Dray, Daniel Goldberg...

Blogger said...

Get daily suggestions and methods for making $1,000s per day FROM HOME for FREE.
GET FREE ACCESS NOW