“Labour is not incompetent, but malignant”

There have been many stories in the British press this week (which I have yet not gotten around to covering) about the House of Lords report showing that immigration has not brought the economic benefits so widely promised by the Labor government. As though the left-wing promoters of open borders gave a damn about the economy! Just as in America, left-wingers use the economic argument to push what they really want—the transformation and destruction of the country via mass unassimilable immigration.

Writing in the Telegraph Simon Heffer makes the same point, speaking of

the deliberate decision taken at the time when Jack Straw was Home Secretary, and maintained (though he often protested to the contrary) by his successor, David Blunkett, that immigration controls should not be enforced.

Why was this decision taken? It was because of a doctrinally driven determination by the new Government in 1997 to destroy our national identity and to advance multiculturalism.

On issue after issue, Heffer says, the social catastrophe of today’s Britain is blamed on the government’s incompetence, when in reality it is the result of the government’s malicious intent:

When one applies the doctrine on non-incompetence more widely, one hears other echoes. We have lived beyond our means not because economic growth has not, or will not, live up to its earlier billing, but because Mr Brown’s priority was to create a client state of feather-bedded Labour voters.

Knowing it would harm economic stability, he set about printing money and borrowing excessively to put people on the public payroll, and to cushion hordes of the undeserving, Labour-voting poor with welfare benefits. This was not incompetent, however it might look: it was deliberate and stunning in its calculation.

So, too, for a further example, was education policy. A Marxist-driven philosophy of anti-elitism forced down standards: but if the level of attainment required to pass a public examination is forced down too, then, voila! we all look much cleverer than we used to be….

Mr Brown also had a policy of making fathers redundant in families, by downgrading the state’s respect for marriage, and providing a career structure for single mothers that included state-provided childcare.

Coupled with the Blairite policy of turning the police into a weapon of social engineering from one of crime fighting, he has presented us with today’s under-achieving, feral youth, with its knives and guns, going around killing each other and making our cities seem like the dirtier suburbs of Los Angeles.

I know it is tempting to call these terrible things the results of government incompetence. They really are not. Mr Blair and Mr Brown between them chose to do these things, or allowed ministers and officials to do them.

They were all part of the plan for “change” (oh, how we love that word) after 18 years of Tory misrule.

We need to reflect more, indeed hourly, on how well those plans have turned out; and what should happen to those still in office who remain responsible for inflicting their bigotries and stupidities on the rest of us, under the guise of “progress.”

I had a similar thought in the early 1990s during the mayoralty of David Dinkins. Walking through my neighborhood one day where there were more and more homeless people and shelters for homeless people, more and more general disorder, I suddenly realized; This is not the result of social problems. This is the way the left wants it to be. They want the society to be a mess. That fulfills their view of America as being an unworkable mess full of poverty and gives them the license to continue the very policies that have caused the mess. As Simon Heffer would have said, it was not incompetence at work, it was conscious malice.

There are many comments following the Heffer article, including this, by Rosemary A.:

All of the ills now taking place in our country, and to our country, have long been predicted by the British National Party.

They have tried to tell you.

At last, much of the population is pulling their heads from the sand.

The British National Party is the ONLY party that cares about Britain.

The British National Party is the ONLY party that cares about those millions of brave souls who have suffered and died to keep a free Britain.

Look at their website and study it with an open mind.

Just type BNP into Google, etc, and you will be joyfully amazed that there is a Party that loves Britain and the British.

I’ve got to start reading the BNP site more regularly. I am starved for signs of life in Britain.

- end of initial entry -

Bert R., who sent the Heffer article, writes:

The BNP site is a party political website, with the limitations that entails. However the occasional article by Nick Griffin suggests to me that he is a capable individual and that he would have been successful as a lawyer or as an Establishment Party politician, had he not stood by his principles.

Griffin recently spoke at Michigan State University. When they shouted down his speech he responded by taking any and all questions from the floor. In my opinion that was an exceptional performance and I cannot envision the Establishment Party leadership of Nick Clegg, Gordon Brown or David Cameron successfully dealing with such a situation for an instant, never mind a whole hour.

John D. writes:

“I had a similar thought in the early 1990s during the mayoralty of David Dinkins. Walking through my neighborhood one day where there were more and more homeless people and shelters for homeless people, more and more general disorder, I suddenly realized; This is not the result of social problems. This is the way the left wants it to be. They want the society to be a mess. That fulfills their view of America as being an unworkable mess full of poverty and gives them the license to continue the very policies that have caused the mess. As Simon Heffer would have said, it was not incompetence at work, it was conscious malice.”

How can we speak like this and deny any element of truth to some (certainly not all) of the allegations of someone such as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright? As I see it, the main problem with Wright’s ideas is that he blames whites for these government conspiracies instead of putting the blame specifically on the left where it should properly belong, were the allegations true. Wright just can’t seem to look any further than his own color (which also gives him the necessary excuse to hate whitey). I have long thought about the correlation between the created welfare state and all of it’s damning societal implications including the demise of most all social order and tradition, and the amazing amount of power and wealth that it coincidentally brings to the ever growing mega-state through this constructed social chaos.

Traditionalism will never be allowed to resurface until the welfare state is brought down. These are not at all unintended consequences. I certainly agree with the thought you have proposed here.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 04, 2008 01:02 PM | Send