Roche Motel Revisited: The Comfort of an Atomized Society
There is no Nobel Prize for Mathematics, which is ridiculous. But there is a Nobel Prize for Economics, which is risible. Mathematics is to economics rather as astronomy is to astrology. True, economics isn’t a pseudo-science, but it still offers plenty of room to charlatans and phonies. Exhibit A: the “charmless, pompous and mediocre” Jonathan Portes, a Jewish economist who dedicates his life to telling British Whites that only mass immigration can save their nation from economic collapse.
Portes, who still regularly appears at the Guardian and BBC, was central to New Labour’s successful plan to flood the country with cheap labour and left-wing voters while concealing what they were up to from their traditional supporters. But he has a devastating response to those who allege that New Labour plotted in secret to open the borders: he calls this a “conspiracy theory.”
Traitors at the top
What more need be said? On Planet Portes, that is the end of the matter. So it was a waste of time for the Daily Mail to serialize a new biography of Tony Blair that sets out in great detail how the conspiracy took place. Tom Bower, the book’s author, conducted “interviews with more than 200 senior civil servants, ex-ministers and other insiders.” He gathered abundant proof that Blair “did not want the public to know his true plans on immigration” and that Blair “ordered his Labour government never to discuss in public the supposed ‘advantages’ of the unprecedented influx.”
Why did he bother with all that? Does he not realize that he is peddling a conspiracy theory? But this isn’t the first time that the Daily Mail has brazenly published the truth about what Portes and his fellow conspirators got up to:
Labour let in 2.2million migrants during its 13 years in power – more than twice the population of Birmingham. Lord Glasman, 49, had already told BBC Radio 4 recently [in 2011]: ‘What you have with immigration is the idea that people should travel all over the world in search of higher-paying jobs, often to undercut existing workforces, and somehow in the Labour Party we got into a position that that was a good thing. Now obviously it undermines solidarity, it undermines relationships, and in the scale that it’s been going on in England, it can undermine the possibility of politics entirely.’
The academic, who directs the faith and citizenship programme at London Metropolitan University, criticised Labour for being ‘hostile to the English working class’. He said: ‘In many ways [Labour] viewed working-class voters as an obstacle to progress. Their commitment to various civil rights, anti-racism, meant that often working-class voters … were seen as racist, resistant to change, homophobic and generally reactionary. So in many ways you had a terrible situation where a Labour government was hostile to the English working class.’ (Miliband ally attacks Labour migration ‘lies’ over 2.2m they let in Britain, The Daily Mail, 16th April 2011)
Note that Lord Glasman is Jewish. It is not true that all British Jews are hostile to the White majority or enthusiastic supporters of mass immigration. Unfortunately, it was the anti-White, pro-immigration Jews in New Labour who controlled policy. Jonathan Portes is one example. Barbara Roche is another. I wrote about her in “We Hate UKIP: Turning Britain into a Roche Motel.” Now she’s turned up in Tom Bower’s book:
The most incredible revelations [about New Labour’s conspiracy] concern Barbara Roche, a little-known MP who was immigration minister between 1999 and 2001. During this period, she quietly adopted policies – with Mr Blair’s approval – that changed the face of the UK. … Like [Jack] Straw, Blair was careful never publicly to mention the rising number of immigrants from India and Pakistan who could now enter Britain. Nor did he consider how to provide housing, schools and healthcare for an additional 300,000 people arriving a year.
Least of all did either of them question whether the immigrants would have any effect on the lives of the British working class. (Nine years later, a report by the Migration Advisory Committee found that 23 British workers had been displaced for every 100 foreign-born workers employed here.)
Could this chicanery get any worse? It did — with the appointment of Barbara Roche as Junior Immigration Minister. Blair’s only instruction to her was to deport bogus asylum seekers. But Roche wasn’t playing. In her first conversation with a senior immigration official, she was candid: ‘I think asylum seekers should be allowed to stay. Removal takes too long, and it’s emotional.’ Even the word ‘bogus,’ she maintained, created a negative feeling.
‘It was clear Roche wanted more immigrants to come to Britain,’ recalled Stephen Boys-Smith, the new head of the immigration directorate. ‘She didn’t see her job as controlling entry, but by looking at the wider picture “in a holistic way” she wanted us to see the benefit of a multicultural society.’ Jack Straw never openly contradicted Roche — it simply wasn’t worth the risk of alienating the Labour Party. So she set to work on a speech, in which she outlined the advantages of reducing controls to immigration and portrayed asylum seekers as skilled labour. She didn’t discuss what she was going to say with Straw. …
‘Well done, Barbara,’ Blair told Roche soon [after the speech]. Despite its controversial content, her speech passed relatively unnoticed. But migrants quickly grasped its importance and passed the news on to their friends and family across the world. Labour was letting more people in, they told them, and — unlike other European countries — Britain would provide benefits and state housing. …
One of Roche’s legacies was hundreds more migrants camped in squalor in Sangatte, outside Calais, where they tried to smuggle themselves onto lorries. News about the new liberalism — and in particular the welfare benefits — now began attracting Somalis who’d previously settled in other EU countries. Although there was no historic or cultural link between Somalia and Britain, more than 200,000 came. Since most were untrained and would be dependent on welfare, the Home Office could have refused them entry. But they were granted ‘exceptional leave to remain’. [Et cetera ad nauseam] (Conman Blair’s cynical conspiracy to deceive the British people and let in 2million migrants against the rules, The Daily Mail, 26th February 2016)
Barbara Roche is obviously hostile to Britain’s White majority, so it’s interesting to ask how she got the post of immigration minister. Will Israel ever appoint an anti-Semitic goy to control their immigration policies? No, that’s impossible. Israel is a Jewish state and determined to remain so. But it’s evil and hateful for a White Christian nation like Britain to retain its ethnic and religious identity.
Combating anti-semitism and xenophobia
That’s why a Jew like Barbara Roche was an ideal person to oversee immigration here. Like Jonathan Portes and Moshe Kantor, she isn’t anywhere near as famous as she should be. But it isn’t difficult to find out what motivated her while she was immigration minister. She was educated at the Orthodox Jewish JFS in London, which was once called the Jews’ Free School and was the largest Jewish school in Europe. In 2001, a Guardian interview said that her “parents were part Spanish, Portuguese, Polish and Russian, and she had entered politics – she still emphasises this today – to combat anti-semitism and xenophobia in general.”
Ten years later, the Black journalist Hugh Muir interviewed her again in the Guardian. Unlike Portes, Muir was prepared to consider the possibility of a New Labour conspiracy to open the borders. But how to test that possibility? Simple: you just ask Barbara Roche, who must have “been up to her neck in it,” if there actually was one. It’s well-known that conspirators always admit the conspiracy if you ask them. Well, Hugh asked Barbara and she shook her head emphatically: definitely not, “there wasn’t” a conspiracy.
What more need be said? On Planet Muir, that is the end of the matter. But Roche was happy to reveal her true feelings about “diversity”:
Friday rush hour. Euston station [in London]. Who’s here? Who isn’t. A kaleidoscope of skin colours. The world in one terminus. Barbara Roche can see it over the rim of her cup of Americano coffee. “I love the diversity of London,” she tells me. “I just feel comfortable.” (Hideously Diverse Britain: The immigration ‘conspiracy’, The Guardian, 2nd March 2011)
Why does Barbara Roche “love” an atomized society? Why does she feel “comfortable” there? I’d suggest that it’s because she doesn’t stand out as a minority and so doesn’t feel paranoid. In the stale pale Britain of the past, there were periodic outbreaks of inexplicable and irrational anti-Semitism, from the expulsion of Jews by Edward I in 1290 to the “pogrom” that swept the Welsh valleys in 1911.
Barbara Roche obviously feels that such uncomfortable events are much less likely in an atomized Britain. As the late Larry Auster put it in an American context: “it is not surprising that these Jews look at mass Third-World and Moslem immigration, not as a danger to themselves, but as the ultimate guarantor of their own safety, hoping that in a racially diversified, de-Christianized America, the waning majority culture will lack the power, even if it still has the desire, to persecute Jews.”
Britain is supposed to be a democracy, or a nation under majority control. It isn’t: like the United States, it’s an oligarchy, or a nation under minority control. The minority in question is Jewish. There has never been a democratic mandate for mass immigration, but the wishes of the White majority didn’t matter. Instead, the oligarchic mandate of Jews like Jonathan Portes and Barbara Roche opened Britain’s borders to terrorists, rapists and fraudsters from the Third World, and will eventually make Britain’s native peoples into a minority in a land they have settled since the Ice Ages.
Britain has been been turned into a Roche motel because Jews feel more comfortable in an atomized society. It’s as simple as that. After all, if mass immigration goes wrong for Jews, Jonathan and Barbara can always seek refuge in Israel, which keeps its borders firmly closed to Third-World enrichment and doesn’t let hostile outsiders take control of its politics, media and universities.
But the prospect of their departure raises a disturbing question. Would Britain survive the loss of its most altruistic ethnic minority? Well, we didn’t do too badly after Edward I expelled Jews en masse in 1290. I suspect we could manage again if the worst happens and Barbara has to pack her bags for Tel Aviv.
Comments are closed.