The 4 Freedoms Library

It takes a nation to protect the nation

In any political battle, it is essential to have a clear understanding of the polls.
There are two key points for framing a stance on immigration:

1) 90% of the British people reject a policy "ending all immigration".
2) Substantial majorities of all categories of the British people favor massive cuts of >80% in current immigration levels. (See below)

So the official stance of the EDL on immigration should be:
"We do not advocate a complete halt in immigration. We do advocate very steep cuts in the current immigration levels."

If this approach is taken, the EDL is very much not on the "far right", and in fact is in the "mainstream center". They are speaking for the majority of British people, and they should boldly assume the confidence and high-ground which that gives them. They must reiterate over and over that they are speaking for the majority of the British people, and that those who stand against them are fringe elements of the far left who have no support from the public.

Here are the stats to back up the point I am making:

******
72% think the government is handling immigration poorly.
41% think immigration does more harm than help to the country.
59% think that immigration has had little or no effect on their local area.
36% think immigrants might pose a threat to public order and safety.
52% think immigrants might pose a threat to employment.
62% think that immigration might lead to Britain losing its identity.
[ORB Poll, Nov. 2007]
Link

*****
63% think immigration should be "much tougher" while a further 11% say there should be no more immigration.
There are significant differences in the way the issue is viewed by men and women — with many more females saying they do not believe that immigration is good for Britain.
[Ipsos MORI Poll, Aug. 2006]
Link

*****
54% think there are too many immigrants in this country.
58% think the Islamic faith treats women as second class citizens.
90% reject a policy of "ending all immigration".
[ICM Poll, October 2009]
Link

*****
- 76% want to see net immigration cut from its present level of 237,000 a year to 50,000 or less a year. Of that 76%, 32% want to see a policy of “one in, one out” while 22% want to see no immigration at all.
The party affiliations are also of interest:
- A sharp cut in immigration (to 50,000 a year or less) was supported by 85% of Conservative, 70% of Labour[1] and 65% of Lib Dem voters.

[YouGov Poll, July 2009]
Link

*****
-70% want immigration cut by over 80%
17% believe net foreign immigration should be reduced to 50,000 a year
39% thought there should be no net immigration
16% thought there should be more emigrants than immigrants.
-79% were concerned or very concerned about the issued of immigration.
- Over half ABC1s (52%) and C2DEs (58%) thought that immigration should be cut to either no net immigration or there should be more emigrants than migrants.
-Young people also think that immigration should be drastically reduced: a total of 63% of 18-34 year olds thought that net immigration should be either 50,000 a year, or there should be no net immigration; or that emigration should be greater than immigration.
-65 % of Londoners think that net immigration should be cut by 80% while 50% think that there should either be no net immigration, or emigration should be greater than immigration.
Link

Tags: qimmigration

Views: 123

Replies to This Discussion

A key point:

Limits on immigration are the best way to chop the process of Islamization off at the knees. It's a powerful way to limit muslim numbers, and thus suppress their demographic muscle. It is also easy to push because a large majority of the British public backs it. In short, this is a strong tactical combination which can deliver a major setback to the muslims.
perhaps this sounds a bit strange as I am (was, actually) imigrant to the UK myself but I am fully agree with all the palns to reduce immigration drastically. you, british people, should have better control who and why is comeing to the uk. for example, speaking about my own nation, if you carefully select which polish workers are really needed by uk's economy and limit the amount of those who unnecesarly compeet with native british workers, that would contribute significantly to building common respect, understanding and integration. mayby my opinion is not very popular among other poles, but that is what i think!
welcome polish bastard was you getting fed up over on our main site lol
also cut down the air bridge between here and pakistan, i used to own an offf licence a couple of yrs back, and used to talk to the indian lkds who ued to get their supplies at the same wholesaler, and they told me it was practicly an air bridge between here and the indian sub-continet, he told the reg varnies didnt even stay here they used to send many mebers to the uk as cheap labour to work their corner shops and theyd comer over now and again just to see how things were going and send the monies back home to pakistan, so one man owns a string of corner shops but he's hgot 50 familiy members working as cheap labour over here on dodgy student visas!

I think the stance on immigration/migration needs to be more nuanced.

Migration is only good if the people are needed here in this country, and for human rights concerns, AND if there is a genuine proven track record of certain migrant populations making a genuine positive contribution to the country, in the long haul.

By this last point I mean to say that Islam teaches Muslims:
To not fit in;
To separate themselves from non-Muslims;
To push push push for the implementation of Sharia law in all aspects of life in this country;
To use our tolerance to promote intolerance of non-Muslims;
That their first loyalty is to the umma, the nation of Islam;
That they should only marry Muslims;
That it is okay to cheat the system in order to promote and live a Muslim life, like a man having more than one wife;
That Muslims who leave Islam should be killed,
That Muslim men are superior to Muslim women, etc

I could extend the list but I trust you get my drift.

The government needs to learn more about Islam and begin to filter out migrant populations which have a proven unwillingness to do anything other than subvert and change the country in which they reside into a country like any number of Muslim-majority countries in the Middle East and elsewhere.

While the individual Muslim is not necessarily a problem, Islam always is. The problem occurs when the population of individual Muslims become a significant percentage of the population in any locale or country. Then the Muslim organisations step up a gear and start pushing for extra social and political rights.

not at all, but if I understand the EDL strategy corectly, this is supposed to be the main EDL internet site, isn't it?
The problem with the selective immigration policy is that it is hard to implement. All the past few governments had such policies but failed to implement them successfully. Its the disconnect between theory and reality. "No immigration of any form whatsover" is a policy which is not open to obfuscation and administrative failure and debate.

But your statistics are incontrovertible, so I guess I'll just have to mollify my stance a bit.

I'll add these very useful stats to the Statistics Room.
Adopting "no more muslims" as an explicit stance on immigration has two big problems:

1) There is no evidence that the majority of British people support a policy of "no more muslims". (If they did, I would agree with you, but we don't have that poll number yet.)
2) It exposes you to the criticism of being racist for discriminating on a religious group. That's a powerful rejoinder, and in fact is the main talking point of Mehdi Hasan, Salma Yaqoob and other muslims against the EDL: you're racists because you stand against all muslims, not just extremists. You shouldn't concede them that point.

Yes, I agree that it would be great if we could knock-out Islam with a big left hook (i.e., enforce a "no more muslims" immigration policy). Unfortunately, there's a strong guard up to prevent that punch from landing, as I've indicated above. It's far better to go for the mid-section, where they have no defense. Adopt a stance not of "no more muslims" but along these lines:

1) No ban on immigration, because some is valuable.
2) Enforce major reductions in immigration volume of 80% or more. Reduce net immigration per year to 50,000 or less.

This has a real good chance of becoming real, because it is supported by large majorities of the British people -- middle class, working class, Londoners, young, conservatives, labour and liberal dem. So hit them with the punishing mid-section shot they can't block. Lop off 80% of muslim immigration. Go for the low-hanging fruit first.

Then, when you have mass-immigration stopped, step up the nuanced approach.

The important thing is to take the stance which is backed by 70-80% of the British people, as indicated above. Then there is no way they can credibly call you "far right", and you can very credibly call anyone opposing you "far left". Just cite the poll numbers.
This part is very instructive:

63% think immigration should be "much tougher" while a further 11% say there should be no more immigration.
There are significant differences in the way the issue is viewed by men and women — with many more females saying they do not believe that immigration is good for Britain.


Note the last bit about "females". This suggests that the EDL is not tapping into a major source of support. Where are the women? I've seen the EDL guys marching, and they're all young, strong, good-looking people. Why aren't they bringing their girlfriends? That's a quick way to double the numbers, and would also put a softer face on the demonstration to lure in more women and other mainstream participants.
Some women are interested, but are afraid of violence at the demo or complications in later days.

However, I am a tad disappointed that there aren't more women (and Jews and gays) involved in this struggle, for obvious reasons.
i take the ukip stance on the issue.

RSS

Page Monitor

Just fill in the box below on any 4F page to be notified when it changes.

Privacy & Unsubscribe respected

Muslim Terrorism Count

Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Mission Overview

Most Western societies are based on Secular Democracy, which itself is based on the concept that the open marketplace of ideas leads to the optimum government. Whilst that model has been very successful, it has defects. The 4 Freedoms address 4 of the principal vulnerabilities, and gives corrections to them. 

At the moment, one of the main actors exploiting these defects, is Islam, so this site pays particular attention to that threat.

Islam, operating at the micro and macro levels, is unstoppable by individuals, hence: "It takes a nation to protect the nation". There is not enough time to fight all its attacks, nor to read them nor even to record them. So the members of 4F try to curate a representative subset of these events.

We need to capture this information before it is removed.  The site already contains sufficient information to cover most issues, but our members add further updates when possible.

We hope that free nations will wake up to stop the threat, and force the separation of (Islamic) Church and State. This will also allow moderate Muslims to escape from their totalitarian political system.

The 4 Freedoms

These 4 freedoms are designed to close 4 vulnerabilities in Secular Democracy, by making them SP or Self-Protecting (see Hobbes's first law of nature). But Democracy also requires - in addition to the standard divisions of Executive, Legislature & Judiciary - a fourth body, Protector of the Open Society (POS), to monitor all its vulnerabilities (see also Popper). 
1. SP Freedom of Speech
Any speech is allowed - except that advocating the end of these freedoms
2. SP Freedom of Election
Any party is allowed - except one advocating the end of these freedoms
3. SP Freedom from Voter Importation
Immigration is allowed - except where that changes the political demography (this is electoral fraud)
4. SP Freedom from Debt
The Central Bank is allowed to create debt - except where that debt burden can pass across a generation (25 years).

An additional Freedom from Religion is deducible if the law is applied equally to everyone:

  • Religious and cultural activities are exempt from legal oversight except where they intrude into the public sphere (Res Publica)"

© 2022   Created by Netcon.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service