Daily Mail: Invasion is nice, and immigration is harmful to the invaders

An article that appeared today at the MailOnline indicates that the Establishment is starting to try to manage the Eastern European immigration disaster (of its own making that is set to overtake it). Robert Hardman is the fawning author of many a book about the Queen; he is therefore dedicated in his ‘literary’ career to maintaining the British dictatorship, and, pretending to be a conservative, is a leading figure in the Mail’s Judas Goat stable (along with the likes of Max Hastings). Hardman was packed off to Boston to create an impression that Eastern Europeans are good for the town, and that the invasion of Boston thus far is a little bit disgruntling, but on the whole does not perturb Bostonians too much.

The first time that we should realise that his is a propaganda piece is when Hardman sends a decoy to all his readers in the very first sentences: ‘there is little talk of “multi-culturalism” here in Boston’, he says, ‘instead, everyone…  talks about “immigration”’.

There are two things to deal with here. First of all, in one sense, it seems as if Hardman is saying that multi-culture is not a hot topic of discussion that Bostonians are  not ‘mincing their words’ about; on the other hand, immigration is. Is that true, though? The following statement is an excerpt from the article, and from the leader of the Tory-controlled council, Mr Peter Bedford:

You walk round town and you hear these loud foreign voices everywhere.You go into the local doctor’s surgery and you have a lot of locals sitting quietly as a loud foreign voice tries to deal with the receptionist. So people think: ‘They’re taking over’.

Language is very much culture, and Boston is multi-cultural, and Bostonians are conscious of their own ways being displaced. But the use of words and phrasing in Hardman’s opening is for the purposes of wanting readers to think that the issue is not about multi-culture and all the inherent dangers, but just about some white people complaining that other white people are coming to the town from abroad and taking their jobs. The Establishment relies on the results it gets by the racial prejudice that it stokes – and British acceptance of culturally damaging Eastern Europeans just because they are ‘white’ is one of them.

Secondly, there is the setting up of an apparent contradiction that gets explained below. Bostonians, Hardman implies, are supposed to have little time for multi-culture, and are against immigration. However, this cannot be true because we are also later told that Bostonians are super tolerant of the inundation of immigrants who bring with them their different culture (Hardman is ‘surprised by the lack of animosity’ caused by the invasion).

Hardman provides evidence. The local school (full of Progressive Zealots, of course) is 100% happy about the immigration. There is the native Bostonian father who is also happy with the school, even though two thirds of his daughter’s friends don’t speak English as a first language. There is also an English Democrat Party member who is in several business partnerships with the newcomers; he also owned Boston’s first Polish food shop. This local councillor’s name is Elliott Fountain, and he seems to do the usual thing in overlooking the need to fix the root cause, which is the overall deliberate obliteration of the economy by corporatism and a stinking welfare society. Elliott seems to thinks that there is not enough casual labour in the whole of the UK to pick cabbages from Boston fields. He seems to be worried that no Eastern Europeans in the agricultural sector would mean that specialist services for them would not exist in the town – by which he must be thinking of the many shops owned by Eastern Europeans (and funded by hypocrite English Democrats?) which the Tory council leader is very proud of. If it wasn’t for the Eastern European shops, Boston would look like any other economically depressed Anglian town; but nothing is mentioned about the decisions on a national level that have created the regional slump.

Then there is a contribution from Mike Gilbert, the Tory councillor in charge of communities, who is either dishonest or completely stupid. As if on cue, he rolls out the old ‘Britons are somehow too lazy’ mantra, and tells Hardman that he is particularly worried how Britain’s schools fail to prepare youngsters for the world of work:

We mollycoddle school-leavers like an endangered species and give them fistfuls of certificates and then wonder why they won’t take factory jobs… Why does this country put its own people on the subs’ bench, let others do the work and create an underclass which corrodes the rest of society?

The answer, oh wise Tory councillor, is the deliberate policies of your party when in Government.

Then there is the amazing fact that even though the local paper, the Boston Standard, lists two thirds of 21 criminals convicted at the magistrates’ court as having Eastern European names, because British names still lead the section for assaults (by how many, we do not know), then Eastern Europeans are still somehow saintly. The idea that Britons only commit one third of the town’s crime is conveniently glossed over and put out of focus.

The accommodating local police, we are told, flatly insist that migration has had no impact on the crime rate, but then they are the Guardians of the Marxist revolution, and it serves to remind that there is nothing coming from the Establishment that can be trusted. Local UKIP man, Bob McAuley, told Hardman that nearly all the contributors to the council’s immigration report (which asserted that Boston was coping with immigration from Eastern Europe, and that a lot of local complaints were unfounded) were ‘on the state payroll and thus had a vested interest in not rocking the boat’. To compound the perception of misrule by fear, Hardman mentions how ‘Bob bumps into two friends who work for the council. They share his views, but say that if I were to use their names for this article, they would be fired.’

Now, this sort of stuff is not indicative of a free country. In fact, it is the paraphernalia of a totalitarian state, and it’s useful in a propaganda piece that is on the surface complaining about such abuse because it offers a chilling effect. It says to the reader, this is what will happen to you too.

Of course, the Establishment’s propaganda writers can always also rely on the subtle demonization:

‘[The solution to immigration is] A padlock,’ says Mandy Exley firmly. ‘I’m not kidding. We haven’t got any more jobs.’

Blimey. Mandy is not a finger-wagging emissary from UKIP or a sepia-tinted reactionary. She is the much-respected ‘community cohesion officer’ for the Lincolnshire Community And Voluntary Service.

See how the UKIP is lumped together with something not savoury? Whatever a sepia-tinted reactionary is, it doesn’t sound very nice.

So, to sum up the article – and even though it doesn’t look like it amounts to this on the surface, Hardman is saying on behalf of the Establishment: everybody loves the Eastern Europeans – or else.

But to apply the final proof, we need to return to Hardman’s opening statements as discussed at the top of this. Who is it, exactly, that Hardman means when he says everyone is talking about immigration? Well, the answer, when one has previously noticed the sense of ownership over Britain that Eastern Europeans seem to possess, is not surprising:  ‘everyone…  talks about “immigration” – none more so, it seems, than the immigrants themselves’.

It goes on:

For as Britain prepares to open up the workplace and the welfare state to the people of Bulgaria and Romania at the start of next year, none will feel the impact more than all the recent arrivals from Poland, Latvia and Lithuania who have made Boston the most Eastern European town in Britain.

Ziedonis Barbaks, leader of Boston’s substantial Latvian community, points out: ‘The Romanians and Bulgarians will just repeat what happened before.

‘The [employment] agencies and gang-masters will start hiring them, at a lower cost, instead of the Polish and Latvians and Lithuanians. Then what?’

If that happens, Britain could find itself with a new welfare bombshell — supporting all those migrants displaced from the workplace as well as all the indigenous British who are out of it already.

You will notice that the voice of logic and valid protest is sounded in the article by an immigrant. Compare this with the way that we are told that the Boston Protest Group couldn’t stage a march because of  fears about ‘local tensions… spill[ing] over into violence’. This is a predictable device both in terms of associating certain rights with violence in propaganda, and also in terms of controlling physical demonstrations of opposition with weasel arguments. Protest isn’t violence, and it isn’t even the prospect of violence, and the Boston Protest Group should not let itself be suckered by local government that has nothing but vile intentions for native born Bostonians.

Getting back to Mr Barbaks – now he comes across in the rest of the article as a fellow who has possibly made an effort to engage his hosts; however, the fact is that Hardman has made a writer’s decision to have him give voice to certain eminently reasonable ideas and objections. This gives Mr Barbaks the sage authority in the piece above all the other councillors and social workers mentioned. On top of this, the events that Mr Barbaks fears will be caused to happen when Romanians and Bulgarians come to the UK have already happened to Britons, but that doesn’t count.

The message of this article is subtly delivered, and what Hardman is telling his audience is that it is the Eastern Europeans who need to be protected from immigration, and have a right to vocalise that need, and are cogent in that vocalisation. On the other hand, the British are already on the scrap heap. As such, the article is more of the same perception-shaping that is meant to make Britons feel like they don’t deserve a homeland and a nation state. And Hardman isn’t even expressing an honest sentiment of care for immigrants who are already here. In a few years time, the Establishment will claim that the Romanians and the Bulgarians will need protecting from other immigrants who will be willing to enter into slavery in order to enter the land of milk and honey. The Establishment hates everyone equally the same, and, loves its own privilege.