Wednesday, April 26, 2006

Can't We Just Deport The Liberals ?

Given that the chief excuse for the Conservatives electing David Cameron was that he was a political genius, it’s interesting to see his cunning plan to defeat the BNP. As his far saner namesake shows, urging people to vote for anyone else sure covers a lot of ground. More to the point, here's a party that markets itself as the natural home for people left on the kerb by the political establishment - calling for the formation of a cartel is not the obvious way to undercut their message, the more so when it involves coddling up to Communists, Islamofascists and stoners.

Of course this sort of thing has quite a track record. Following July 7, we were told that we had to understand the root causes but now, faced with the prospect of people voting in a way they disapprove of, the self-same people are starting to sound like Little Green Footballs commentors. So, let’s just check the scorecard here: mass slaughter requires understanding, voting the wrong way deserves carpet bombing. It makes perfect sense!

For the record , I think prophecies of a breakthrough for those of a BNP tendency are overblown – just like the last 3000 times Liberals have raised that bogeyman. Nevertheless, something is happening, just not what Liberals say it is.

Liberals claim that folks opposed to immigration are all secretly obsessed with racial purity, but the wheels have come off ever since half the population of Gdansk moved here. The Poles have suffered a lot, but no one ever accused them of having a natural sense of rhythm.

The flip side of that is that Britons of Indian descent are now supporting the BNP. At one level that’s insane. After all, the BNP is the natural home of the Dulux Warriors – folks who want to run round the country with colour charts checking who’s really British and who’s only pretending (and I don’t think grandparents in Madras really help). On another level though, it makes perfect sense.

Suppose your dad came to this country and worked sixty hour weeks as, say, a postman. You yourself have dedicated years to the long and arduous process of becoming a neurosurgeon, now the Liberals not only want to bleed you dry to pay for free houses for some ‘splodey dope from South Yemen, but they think you should be happy to support Islamoloons because, hey, you’re all the same, right ?

Seems to me that all the talk of race is coming from one side of the political divide. Opposing giving free money to any maroon who can make it through the channel tunnel is no more evidence of racial prejudice than opposing agricultural policies is evidence of an unhinged hatred of farmers.

This is the thing, of course. Liberals are so keen to talk about race not only because forty years of monopoly control of the institutions has left them barely capable of anything else, but also because the debate brings into question some other Liberal sacred cows.

Inusrance companies well understand the phenomenom of ‘moral hazard’. Basically, this is the idea that if your pride and joy is insured, then you take less care where you park it than if you had to buy a replacement yourself. But the welfare state goes one better. If insurance worked like the DSS, then you’d be able to firebomb your own Fiat and get a BMW delivered the next day. That’s always been the problem with the welfare state or, more particularly, with the Liberal insistence that payouts be based on (perceived) need, but it has been thrown into sharp relief by folks running off the plane at Heathrow shouting ‘Show me the money!’. We’re told, for example, that immigrants get first choice of social housing because their bigger families means they’re in greater need, to which I reply ‘So ?’ Anyone who moves somewhere else ‘needs’ a house. Enough with the ‘need’, how about we start talking about ‘desert’ ?

But there’s a wider issue here than just the financial. Most people would find the kind of two-faced whining here nauseating, yet it’s the perfect example of what Liberals mean by citizenship. Just as when Liberal talk about helping ‘working families’ they mean non-families where no one works, so any talk of social responsibility means taxing the productive to pay for freebies for their clients. The idea that citizens have actual responsibilities to the nation (emphatically not the same as the state) ? Forget it. Again, this was always an underlying theme in Liberalism, but a terrorist demanding the British government rescue him from the consequences of waging war on Britain sure rams the point home.

Equally, when L3 top brass suddenly claim that large parts of Britain have too many native Britons, they’re simply making explicit the hatred of Britain that has always been a key part of Liberalism.

Immigration is an important issue – perhaps the issue – but it’s not the whole issue. That thing again, the Culture War. Immigration policy shows us the Britain Liberals seek to create. That’s why people object, not because of some insane obsession with racial purity, and that’s why Liberals call them racists, because to engage with their objections would mean admitting to the true nature of Liberalism. As ever, Conservatives are weird and nasty, but it’s Liberals who won’t give you a straight answer as to what they believe.

No comments: