By Max Musson:
Hot on the heels of the high profile resignation from government of Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, and at a time when the Prime Minister David Cameron is still trying to fool the British public into believing that the Tories are serious about controlling immigration, we find Conservative ex-Prime Minister John Major asserting the fundamentally ‘conservative’ nature of Britain’s immigrant population, in a similarly disingenuous bid to promote the Conservative Party’s flagging fortunes
In an interview with the historian Peter Hennessy for the BBC Radio 4 programme, Reflections, which will be broadcast tomorrow, an talking about his time as a young man when he lived in modest circumstances with his family in Brixton, south London, former Tory leader John Major said, “There was a different social value placed on immigration.
“They shared my house. They were my neighbours. I played with them as boys.
“I saw immigrants at very close quarters in the 1950s, and I didn’t see people who’d come here just to benefit from our social system. I saw people with the guts and the drive to travel half-way across the world in many case to better themselves and their families, and I think that’s a very Conservative instinct.”
However, what John Major needs to realise is that all peoples want to better themselves and their families, both the industrious and the indolent, and that such a desire is no great distinguishing feature, and is certainly no significant indicator of ‘conservative’ instincts, whatever they are.
Furthermore, John Major appears not to realise that irrespective of whether or not 1950s immigrants hoped to benefit from our ‘social security system’ when they immigrated to Britain, they have in common with all Third World immigrants that have arrived here since, been handed all the benefits of our ‘social system’ on a plate.
You see, it takes very little “guts and drive” to engage in international travel these days, especially when upon leaving, one is leaving a medieval subsistence lifestyle, in the sure knowledge upon arrival, that one will benefit from one of the most advanced social systems with a 21st Century, high technology economy.
What would demonstrate “guts and drive” would be a determination on the part of Third World populations to stay in their ethnic homelands and to drag their backward nations into the 21st Century through their own efforts and by the sweat of their own brow.
No one handed we Western nations the advanced economies and societies that we have today. They are the product of the foresight, planning, hard work and sacrifice of our ancestors applied over many centuries, and they were intended for the benefit of our posterity, not for the opportunistic migrant populations of the Third World.
By Max Musson © 2014
# # # #
frederickdixon
- Edit
Excellent Max. Bettering oneself and one’s family may be admirable ambitions but what do they have to do with “conservatism”? That word, as defined by the Conservative party, is about one thing, and one thing only – money. People who “better themselves” make more money and that is what makes them “Conservative” (capital C). Major’s observations are of a piece with Cameron’s remarks, whenever he speaks of immigration, “we want people who want to get on and do well”.
But “conservatism” (small C) is not about money at all, it’s about something much more profound, it’s about belonging – belonging to a race, a nation, a country. The Conservative party will never understand that.
Brin jenkins
- Edit
John Major was our Prime Minister, and I used to sit on the edge of my seat waiting for him to take an affirmative action to save our crippled industry and economy. People were hurting and many just gave up the struggle settling for the benefit culture developed by Labour.
With the prevalent attitude that only the young had drive, managers took the early redundancies offered and with the young running things we entered the just in time crisis management era. Major was at best a care taker PM, achieving nothing that was short of treason such as the Maastricht treaty. We were ready for a political change, any change seemed better than Major. We thought we were getting Labour and John Smith. He seemed very decent man and having prepared the grounds for labour, died? Tony Blair came from nowhere taking advantage of Smiths demise, and bringing in the most destructive policies of any Prime Minister in History.
John Major should be ashamed of his role in this affair.
Albert
- Edit
For a man from a so called working class background he really does not know what he is talking about, Most immigrants who come here come for what they can get out without putting in, they have no loyalty to this Country, also what about the 80% of muslims who are on benefits, Its unbelievable that he was once a Prime Minister of this Country….what a idiotic traitor.
PharmaPhil
- Edit
Too true, he should just stick to watching cricket, he’s done enough damage already.
PharmaPhil
- Edit
If immigrants are assets then we have done their countries a disservice by depriving them of a resource, if not, then we are squandering ours, we can never meet the demands from all of them.
A line has to be drawn somewhere but no mainstream politician says where that is.
AAA
- Edit
The “Conservative instinct” that Major alludes to is of course well-entrenched in immigration (Tory capitalists’ urge and success in suppressing the wages of the native workforce.)
.
It all of course started that day in 22nd Jone, 1948 with the arrival of the Empire Windrush and a boat load of scab labour shipped in to undercut and negate the shop stewards in the union movement who upon realising their worth after the war, due to a slight shortage in manpower, began to agitate for better pay and working conditions. On the watch of Clement Attlee (one of our least-worst Prime Minsters) the strength of the labour movement began to be assuaged.
.
But perhaps the unions welcomed the immigration? You see, to the modern-day union movement a worker is a worker. There is no concern for the abstract “British worker”. (Come one, come all, it’s a f**king free-for-all.) And so the “Left” and the “Right” make comfortable bedfellows. Communism and capitalism: different cheeks of the same filthy backside.
.
This unholy union was foreseen by Wyndham Lewis in his 1926 work ‘The Art of Being Ruled’ where he conceived the concept of “Left-wing capitalism” (the polity of Britain and the West today where it seems the Reds have been neutered and co-opted into the Establishment ).
.
Reds are a spent force of class traitors who in their unbridled support for immigration have hugely benefited the ruling class. Reds are to the Establishment what whore is to pimp.
Matt
- Edit
For trade unions I would view it as how the trade unions and the political left were subverted from the Labour movement that originated in the 19th century to the Neo-Marxism of Antonio Gramsci aka the revisionist frankfurt school of cultural marxism. While the original Labour movement flirted with traditional marxism it was still Nationalistic and certainly would not support the decreasing in workers’ wages brought by increasing the labour supply nor the subversion of society.
In Neo-Marxism the ‘economic struggle’ of the proletariat . Likewise, rather than the revolution being from the ground up it is from the top down. The traditional Marxist ‘bourgeois’ institutions of the state: Education, Religion, News Media, Law & order, Arts & Entertainment and business interests in Neo-Marxism have in practice become the ‘revolutionary’ institutions. Today it is the ‘bourgeois’ attempting to subvert the ‘proletariat’. The modern day conservatives aka neo cons are controlled opposition who, like you said, are just the other cheek of the same backside. The political orthodox of the ‘left’ and ‘right’ are redundant. They are both internationalists.
The ‘bourgeois’ institutions of today:
Education: From nursery school onwards European children are indoctrinated to be followers of an artificial political identity which supports the elites aims
Religion: The Church is staunchly pro-immigration as it offers little opposition as throughout history it will attempt to remain politically relevant
News Media: Owned disproportionately by a group who do not like the Native Europeans… They are out for profit but also recognise that they must keep the political system appearing like it represents the people. Media barons like Rupert Murdoch have further internationalist interests e.g. oil drilling in the Israel/Syrian Golan Heights which the political elites are happy to assist in
Law & Order: The Police and Judiciary are willing enforcers of the Political Elites ever increasing anti-White policies. The system is such that the more politically correct and narcissist you are the greater opportunity you have for career progression (aka economic prosperity).
Arts & Entertainment: From producing material that empowers and celebrates the native people’s achievements, history and national intended it is instead used as a tool to subvert society.
Business interests: Open borders provides free trade and abundant labour. Capital can flow to where it brings the highest reward irrelevant of the native people and abundant labour means employment conditions can be low. Zero hour contracts, low holidays, no sick pay, the expectation to work overtime at short notice and less compensation for the work undertaken.
Shaun
- Edit
Matt, you’re so right about the neo-labour movement. In the past, the labour movement was grounded in the interests of the White working class!
Kier Hardie, the founder of the Labour Party, was vociferous with his criticism of eastern Europeans undercutting the native British worker. His intentions were very clear: he worked towards the social improvement of the people of his own country.
In Australia, it was the socialist movement that drove the Chinese out of the country during the late 19th century. Then as now, the bourgeoisie (the owners of capital) sought to use Chinese labour to increase their profits, but the socialists battled with these greedy, worthless corporations until they secured victory. This activism expressed itself in the White Australia Policy.
The same thing happened in South Africa in the 1920s. It was the same story. The greedy, worthless capitalists sought to use a Negro labour force to increase profits. The socialists defeated them through driving the Negros out of the mines. Later on, the political system that supported these determined, hardy men expressed itself in the apartied regime.
Nowadays, the Cultural Marxists are supporting the internationalists with their open borders, one world rubbish because this lowers wages for the working class and creates a heterogonous work force that is almost impossible to unionise! My friend, the left haven’t got a leg to stand on — nationalists are the only people who stand for the people and that must be understood at a mass level.
A Swain
- Edit
Well, when we consider what the word ‘conserve’ from which the political term Conservative is derived actually means in linguistic terms then pray what have alien invaders (commonly known as immigrants) conserved in OUR ancestral British homelands?
——————————————————————
conserve (kənˈsəːv) verb
to keep from changing, being damaged or lost. We must conserve the country’s natural resources; This old building should be conserved. conservar, preservar, proteger
noun
something preserved, eg fruits in sugar, jam etc. conserva, confitura
ˌconserˈvation (kon-) noun
the act of conserving especially wildlife, the countryside, old buildings etc. conservación
ˌconserˈvationist (kon-) noun
a person who is interested in conservation. ecologista
conˈservatism (-vətizəm) noun
dislike of change. conservadurismo
conˈservative (-tiv) adjective
1. disliking change. Older people tend to be conservative in their attitudes; conservative opinions. conservador
2. in politics, wanting to avoid major changes and to keep business and industry in private hands. conservador
Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary © 2006-2013 K Dictionaries Ltd.
Additionally, the term can be applied to denote a way of life, traditions, laws, values etc.
—————————————————————–
Have immigrants conserved and/or strived to conserve the indigenous cultures, values and traditions of the countries they have invaded looking for a better life?
Have they conserved the rights of the indigenous British peoples of England, N. Ireland, Scotland and Wales to always remain the majority populations who decide the future of the United Kingdom, its politics, judiciary and belief systems?
The answer to both is a resounding
NO.
In other words, the direct opposite is the truth.
Alien non-White hordes have been continually agitating and conspiring to destroy the rights, cultures, traditions and belief systems of the indigenous host nations they have invaded as a precursor to taking them over and imposing their own beliefs, cultures, politics and laws.
Cry Havoc!
- Edit
Rabbit-lipped Major should hop back into his burrow. Arrogant man after the damage that he and his ilk have caused Britain.
PharmaPhil
- Edit
Funny enough there is a nuclear bunker with a dummy of him in it!
Shaun
- Edit
People should be careful whenever these treacherous polticaians open thier mouths about an issue as important as mass immigration. They are all the same. They are liars. Major is using a very obvious propoganda-tactic with his recent pro-immigration comments: he is framing the context of the debate.
He is saying these immigrants are good for the economy, so, if you’re not careful, the ‘argument’ revolves around how each economic unit (that’s how the so-called elites view us as indiviuduals) is performing in the markets. Don’t fall for it.
The argument should be based on what is happening: the slow genocide of the White race and its culture through mass immigration and Cultural Marxism! Why is this happening? We all know: the Zio-globlaists want to denationalise the nation states so the people can be brought into supra-federations such as the EU and an eventual World Government! They want One Culture, One Man, and One people, so they don’t have as much resistence as they centralize power and control the resources for their own benefit — they are the powerful family dynasties, the major banks, and some (but not not all!!!) of the major corporations.
Major is just a mouthpiece for power sructures ways outside his limited understanding. The guy is an idiot. It’s a shame he was our PM, but that’s the System we were all born into.