Wednesday, 10 July 2013

Did anyone else notice how, about a year or two ago, the mainstream media started using the word 'migrant' instead of the word 'immigrant'? It's a subtle change but one that mutes the negative connotation now inseparably attached to the word 'immigrant'. The term 'migrant', of course, is ambiguous. It could apply equally well to emigrants as well as immigrants. So the emotional charge generated by the implicit image of a brown-skinned alien is softened with the suggestion of our own kind leaving to live elsewhere.

The most curious thing about this change, however, is how pervasive it is (even the Daily Mail, usually considered an anti-immigration newspaper, has adopted the new term) and how sharp the transition was from the use of one word to the other. It was if our media had somehow received instructions from on high to make the switch, as if we were living in some kind of Soviet system where journalists took directions from their controllers.


Anonymous said...

Those amongst us who are Traditionalists still use the correct terms: illegal alien and/or invader. Regarding the way the Media en masse suddenly appears in goose step with its vocabulary (note the Nazi reference, absolutely de rigueur when mentioning the gauleiters of totalitarianism): that's easy to explain. Most 'journalists' in Western countries are members of a National Union of Journalists (there is also an International Union of Journalists). In Britain, the NUJ has a department within it called the Black Members Council which consists of various minority groups (Asian, African, Jewish, Moslem, etc). There are no Caucasians allowed as members of this body and it is this body which determines Policy Guidelines for all member journalists on how they are to deal with, present, discuss certain issues (race, immigration,employment of minorities, minorities committing crimes, Islam, Jews, EU, 'Third World' etc) and also the acceptable terminology to use which changes according to circumstances. It's long been commented upon by fair-minded people, that using the term 'Asian' is entirely inaccurate, and grossly insulting to an entire race, when it used (as a form of obfuscation) in any mention of the Rape Jihad being perpetrated by thousands of Moslem rape gangs against British children and young girls (their victims include Hindu and Sikh children and those religions' national organisations have complained, without any sympathetic response, to the NUJ and the 'media' in general. It is an object lesson to all minorities that the position of favoured minority can change in a heart-beat, especially when fear, money and power are involved.

Passer by said...

It's not just that.

"Immigrant" is a person who moves to another Country/Nation to settle. The term "immigrant" is not used to describe people who move from London to Manchester for exaple.
"Migrant" however, is a person who moves to another Region/Area to settle.

The second term was mostly used in the context of a single country. This is also another reason why it sounds more innocent than "immigrant". When used in the context of many countries, it also has clear globalist overtones, as if people are simply "migrating" to another "region" or "area", and countries/nation states no longer exist.
There are journalist guidelines what words to use and these things are decided from the top.

Anonymous said...

The term "migrant" is used to make it sound like a an irresistible force of nature--like birds migrating--rather than deliberate planned policy.

And yes, I do believe that the change was instituted deliberately. Most media outlets have "editorial guidelines" and they are very easy to update.

Anonymous said...

The daily mail has been taken over by left wing radicals!

Blog Archive

Powered by Blogger.

Blog Archive

Total Pageviews