Psychopolitics – Dissimulative language example

Asylum applicants should be called ‘sanctuary seekers’, says new report

The word “asylum” should be phased out in relation to foreigners seeking safe haven in Britain and replaced with “sanctuary”, a new report said today.

A poll for the Independent Asylum Commission found that only 28% of people viewed “asylum” positively, and 33% viewed it negatively.

‘Asylum’ seekers are being seen in an increasingly bad light in the UK, mainly because of mass immigration and the resulting strain on public services, the tax burden, employment opportunities, language conflicts, isolationist actions of immigrants and other issues which are well documented in studies on the effects of mass immigration on nations and their peoples.

Stopping immigration is out of the question for our collectivist masters. The goal of mass immigration is the breaking of cultural and social identity of the sovereign nation, making it easier to facilitate the legal and political takeover of the country by foreign interests.

The next best thing, to try and manipulate public perception, is simply to change its description of it to something more ‘acceptable’. This is the exact same methodology used to reinvent eugenics as transhumanism and is used consistently throughout politics. Unfortunately it keeps working.

In comparison, more than 81% thought “sanctuary” had positive connotations. Slightly more people – 31.3% – most associated the word “asylum” with a place for the mentally ill rather than with safety for the persecuted, the poll said.

Ahead of the launch of the report today, a spokesman said there was “grave misunderstanding” among the public which threatened to undermine Britain’s long tradition of offering help to those fleeing persecution.

The definition of ‘fleeing persecution’ is almost completely irrelevant in this context. By definition, fleeing persecution means you must ask for asylum in the first stable country you enter. You may claim to be ‘fleeing persecution’ from Somalia, but you can’t possibly still be fleeing it while in France, or Spain, or Italy or any other country one must pass through to arrive at Calais.

Remember Britain is an island.

Put simply, they want to reinvent the term to present a more ‘positive’ image of it. Nothing in reality changes however. Just the perception.

Ifath Nawaz, president of the Association of Muslim Lawyers and co-chair of the Independent Asylum Commission, said: “The public have to understand and support sanctuary and the system that provides it for those fleeing persecution.

“And that is why the commission is calling for a campaign to win hearts and minds and ensure we have a system that is in line with the values of the mainstream British public.”

I will be dealing with Islam on a separate site soon enough, but note the language here. The public HAVE TO understand. What they mean is the public must be forced to accept anyone claiming persecution.

Co-chair and former High Court judge Sir John Waite said: “Unless we take action to restore public support and confidence, the outlook for the UK’s tradition of providing sanctuary to those fleeing persecution is bleak.

“The public overwhelmingly supports the idea that we provide sanctuary to those who need it and they are on the whole proud of our history as a safe haven – but there is a profound disconnection in the public mind between the sanctuary they want the UK to provide and their perception of asylum seekers and the asylum system.”

The survey of 1,000 people aged over 17 was conducted by Efeedback Research.

This is more than a perception, that is a reality. The immigration/ asylum system of Britain is wide open to abuse, and is manipulated by many claiming persecution and actively encouraged by our socialist government in the hopes of destroying national identity. Still, there is no serious discussion about the effects of the vast number of immigrants arriving or at what point the government must start putting the rights and desires of the British people first, instead claiming that millions of affordable (taxpayer funded) homes that are occupied by immigrants, predominantly on (taxpayer funded) benefits has little effect on the country. Another example of using different wording to simply avoid an issue.

This article is only interested in obfuscating an issue with the hope of continuing the same old policy.

Also note that any talk of immigration by the government revolves around immigrants from outside the EU.

Technically, under the The Amsterdam Treaty 1997, all EU countries must accept an open border policy to all citizens of the EU. ‘Free movement of goods and people’. (One can become a citizen of the EU via any EU member state, so tightening the policy for out-of-EU migrants will makes almost zero difference). Another reason to vote for any party talking about leaving the EU.

I have been informed that Camden Council, of London has a Somali language session, from 9.30am to 12.30 on Wednesdays. Here is the booklet advertising this. (Page 5). Would go some way to explain the huge number of Muslim Somalis in the area.

8 thoughts on “Psychopolitics – Dissimulative language example

  1. AMan, the authors name is Albert Pike, there is much literature on him, this is a good intro:

    Albert Pike – Who is He?

    I agree, there is definitely a world war Dialectic being fermented, it’s hard to say for sure what the plan is, but there is definitely something afoot.

    I also agree with your statement about Nuclear. These megadeath loving psychopaths would love to use such a device, (I’m talking about elitists, not dumb two-bit terrorists that don’t have two bullets to rub together). To think, I remember the time when no one anywhere would dare mention the world nuclear, it being a complete atrocity against Mankind.

    Subversion of morality was always a cornerstone of Communism/ Collectivism.

  2. fmwatkins ,

    If you remember the name of the author or the book make a post. Would like to read it.

    Muslims vs Christians (Slaughterhouse)
    Currently the Muslims countries don’t have an industrial military complex and I don’t see it occurring within the next few decades. Most of the food, goods, heavy weaponry comes from abroad. Everything that they need for a war is imported from mainly the abroad. It would be a slaughterhouse, and the Muslims would lose rather quickly.

    I kind of agree that they are trying to set it up so Muslims and Christians fight it out, but they want it in “small” wars like the one in Iraq. One after another, sequentially conquer them.

    However, I think there is going to be unintentional consequence of bringing in real powers into the fray. It will be Eastern powers vs “Western” Powers and it will be over the Middle East and Africa.

    So it is most likely going to be East vs West and Third World caught in the middle, and most likely it would go Nuclear.

  3. I agree with both of you. Conflicting ideologies, cultures and whatnot are pitted against each other in a double edged sword the elites hold. It creates chaos, enabling them to consolidate power in the madness, and then grab more power under the guise of ‘fixing’ the mess they created in the first place.

    For the life of me, I can’t remember his name right now (long day) but it echoes the theory put forward by one of the first Illuminists speaking of the final world war being between Christian’s and Muslims, with the non-religious caught up in between. The idea is that they all destroy each other, leaving the psyche open to a new world religion (from guess who) and a world government to create the Novus Ordo Seclorum.

    That isn’t even the worst of it as far as I’m concerned. Such a desire for power is part of human nature, it will always be. It’s the ignorance of the public and their cognitive dissonance that pisses me off.

  4. I agree with the Hawaiian Libertarian post. But would like to take it a step further and say the biggest enemy is the men behind the state. The government is a mere tool and the most powerful tool against the public.

    I think there will be another holocaust. This time it will be the Muslims turn. We are at war with them, simply because the elites want their resources also they are a hard to submit to the NWO.

    There has been quiet a few demonstrations by some hostile Muslim extremist in the last few years, which in itself is not an issue. But what is surprising was that the demonstrations were allowed to continue and be filmed even when some of the signs had death threats. Police just stood there like morons! One has to question why? More peaceful demonstrations had strong police crack-down, yet these demonstrations were allowed and one must come to the conclusion there’s a hidden reasoning behind this. Little doubt that the new bogey men are Muslims.

    One can’t blame asylum seekers. The WTO, proxy wars, puppet regimes and other crap that Western elites force on them makes them harder for their countries to come out of the rut. And when they leave, most likely they would go to countries that appear not to be mere puppets. Currently the West in one way or another rules most of the world.

    Most of Africa is being thoroughly f’ed by International Corporations, who are mainly Western based. They have no desire to allow these countries to develop simply because as they develop they will being to challenge the West, but worse than this is the fact that the resources that currently go to the West will go to them. Henry Kissinger explained well in the ” “National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests.”

    We don’t have any control on our aggressive (corporate) foreign polices but also we don’t have any control of our national policies. We’ve been thoroughly castrated; sheep waiting to be slaughtered.

    We are heading towards a new world war, and it won’t be against the rag tag army but the rising Eastern powers. The outcome won’t be as fortunate as the previous world wars.

  5. I just read an excellent article by Llew Rockwell that covered the exact motivation of the entire “immigration” debate in the Western World.

    From The Enemy is Always the State

    Throughout modern history, the state has used immigrants as a tool to ratchet up power for itself. This takes the form of requiring tax-funded services like public schools and medical services, or in browbeating the citizens to love and embrace all newcomers while enforcing anti-discrimination law. Nor are citizens under these conditions permitted to notice the rise in crime that accompanies some immigration or the demographic upheavals that people resent. The result of immigration waves is to diminish liberty for American citizens. {Or such as in your case, the UK – HL}

    At the same time, anti-immigrationist sentiment can also be used by the state to expand its power. In the name of a crackdown, the state invades the rights of business and demands the documentation of every employee. It sends its bureaucrats all over the country and works toward a national ID card. It makes it virtually impossible for corporations to hire people, even temporary workers, from other countries, all in the name of national security or stopping immigration. The state is happy to whip up nativist frenzy in the name of loving the homeland in order to enhance its power. This harms productivity and makes us all less free.

    So you see the problem here. The state uses both pro- and anti-immigration sentiment in its favor.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s