Does the 'EU' play into the hands of the BNP & Brown?
It’s inevitable isn’t it. Talking about immigration being a problem. When the EU was formed, and greater rights accorded citizens of member nations when it came to immigration, this would necessarily require an eventual curtailment of the numbers coming from elsewhere.
Putting it this way, any party, or PM, racist or not, by membership in the EU, would necessarily, and proportionately, be biased toward a ‘white’ prostitute as opposed to a ‘black’ humanitarian given that the EU is largely populated by ‘whites’, and the rest of the world, not. In this, I wonder if membership in the EU makes one a racist by definition, if not in inclination.
At the end of the day, the EU is the best effort toward the maintenance of an all-white Britain. And any racist party or person can take the helm and prefer the ‘indigenous’, whilst not mentioning one word about race. When we unite purely on the basis of geographical proximity, we are going to lose far more, perspectivally that is.
Whilst I did vote for Labour back in the 90s, after which, but not because of which, they were returned to power, I know who won't be getting my vote next May.
eX
That's an interesting perspective. Then, any country could be perceived as 'racist'when exercising control on immigration based on geographical reason? It just seems inevitable that there would bound to have a race that is the majority people in a country. You would expect to see Indians in India, Chinese in China. Would you then say that India and China are racist? Appreciate your thoughts. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteHello Amran,
ReplyDeleteInteresting question.
I don't really have a problem with immigration controls, but the kind of control that emerges with the 'EU' is best relegated to a non-globalised past where one is more likely to be 'swamped' by people because of their geographical proximity since planes and portals have yet to be invented.
But to give preference to people on the basis of geographical propinquity or 'shared history' tends to replicate the past in the present as opposed to making the most out of that which is yet to be shared, and which can easily be facilitated by a 15 hour flight.
The 'races' of the past are, relatively, naturally occurring phenomena where the fusion of people was faciliated by their sharing a particular space for want of contemporary transportational implements. So the races that emerged could largely be seen as the best that could be given the constraint of technological decrepitude.
However, with that infirmity addressed by planes and mice, it would be as natural for new 'races' to be formed and all previous 'races' to move to being dialect groups.
If i go to India or China, I would expect to see Indians and Chinese respectively, not because that is mandated by heaven but facilitated by a relatively insulated past given the absence of fibre optics and airports.
What the Chinese elite are doing in s.e.Asia now is building a firewall against naturally occurring fusion between peoples by resolutely replicating a past borne of insulation in the present and in the face of, and in opposition to, difference - for the purpose of maintaining a mass subservience engendered by a culture formed as a coping and complementary mechanism to complement the continual hegemony of the elite.
Given a relatively globalised condition, new races ought to be emerging via the fusion of peoples in new lands. But with the 'EU', for instance, and the emerging Confucian-style 'asian democracy' in s.e.Asia, we are replicating history as opposed to progressing from the debilities emerging from an insulated past we could not easily get past.
As for 'Indians', I've often appreciated that term as one denoting 'multiculturalism' or 'cosmopolitanism' given the boon of a relatively philosophical, political and culturally 'unstable' history.