How the UK is buggering itself with its racist immigration policy
Of course, some might say, ‘well, this is our country/region, so we’ll do what the hell we want to.’ To which, i’d say, ‘sorry mate, but the moment your ancestors took it upon themselves to plunder the lands of the ‘new world’, and its resources utilised to beef up your economy and your technological edge, we became silent investors, and part producers and owners of your economy.‘
You could say that the EU ‘privatises‘ the contribution of previously colonised lands in the hands of the ‘whites’, or more accurately, in the hands of the descendants of ‘white’ labour and elite.So, with the European free trade area, within which goods, services, labour, and of course, prostitutes, gangsters, unskilled workers and unemployment figures, can be freely traded across the imagined boundaries of those states comprising the ‘EU’, the claim of the descendants of those whom were enslaved by the colonialists for the latter’s profit, is forestalled. You could say that the EU ‘privatises‘ the contribution of previously colonised lands in the hands of the ‘whites’, or more accurately, in the hands of the descendants of ‘white’ labour and elite. I suppose, that way, ‘white’ labour can still feel a bit special when given a preferential place at the foot of the elite’s banquet table.
This preference for EU citizens favours the white male gigolo over a professional African or Filipina.So now the British Lib-Con government is doing the *Confucian thing of investing in air fresheners instead of clearing up the shit. They’ve promised to bring the number of migrants down from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands. This can easily be paraphrased with, ‘the number of non-white migrants down from the hundreds of thousands to.....’ As stated, whilst it is on the one hand racist in consequence, and also enables any government to harbour racist intentions without coming across as such, this preference for EU citizens favours the white male gigolo over a professional African or Filipina. In that, the overall number of professionals the UK can accommodate is cut significantly in favour of ‘whites’. With the EU, the term ‘migrant’ will begin to refer more to those who aren’t from the EU, and when any government attempts to address the influx of more people into the UK, they would simultaneously be attempting to address the influx of non-whites. From such redefinitions, they can come across as truly attempting to solve migration-related issues without coming across as grossly bigoted, or favouring less skilled white workers over relatively higher skilled non-white workers.
On the other hand, restricting immigration can contribute to an increasing focus on professionalising their own population instead of compensating for local stupor with foreign skills. Singapore, for instance, is quite the prime example where the state chose to keep the population appropriately stupefied via a combination of state-sponsored racism, pogrom against multiculturalism, elevation of ‘chinese culture’(legalism-confucianism to be accurate - it produces a whole host of bigotries and is quite stupefying as it severely compromises one's ability to be attentive or appreciative of detail, contradiction and contrasts), and proscriptions on the freedom of thought via proscriptions on the freedom of expression. Whilst this delivered a people whom were dumbed down enough to not want more for not knowing better, it also necessitated the importation of foreign talent, or more accurately, foreign intelligence since the local population didn’t possess much of it. However, as stated, the relatively closed-door policy of the EU could produce a more skilled and professionalised people. But on the other hand, the racial and cultural bias of the EU will itself serve as ceiling on producing greater intelligence amongst its people. It is an interesting situation indeed.
The Brits really ought to sit down and give this whole EU thing more thought - as they already do, and admirably so, in quite a few other arenas.
* [i say that this is a ‘confucian thing’ because whilst all cultures and peoples tend to attempt to solve a problem by getting around it, they also tend to address problems at its source. However, with the practitioners, or victims, of Confucian ‘culture’, the overarching status quo is left alone and people tend to generally view getting around a problem as the solution, whilst the problem they attempt to get around is deemed to be a ‘natural’, or in their words, ‘it’s like that one’(that’s the way it is) - quite similar to Americans and their view of capitalism, its ensuing evils, and the juvenile, ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ stance.). It is from this approach that chinese pragmatism takes its meaning - though one does not have to be a chinese to be a confucian, and not all chinese are confucians. So it would be more accurate to say ‘confucian’ than ‘chinese’. But such distinctions are more true in the west than in s.e.asia where there is a strong identification between the chinese and confucianism.]
[above image from UGCS]