It takes a nation to protect the nation
The Impending Disunity of the United Kingdom
I'd discussed this with several people in the last few days, and would have loved to have written down my thoughts and observations over the Jubilee weekend. Thankfully someone over at Gates of Vienna has written down my thoughts, and far better than I could.
Whilst the BBC (and those who staged the Jubilee celebrations) made sure some non-white faces were highlighted at various events, those non-white faces were the exception rather than the rule. When the Royal Barge docked near HMS Belfast, the nearest boroughs to that location are all majority non-white boroughs. Yet there was barely a non-white face to be seen in the crowds. (Places like The City and the City of Westminster do not count as "real" boroughs, since most Londoners, and most people in any borough in Britain, do not live in such bizarre conditions of wealth and transience.)
And if one walked north east from Tower Bridge (which abuts the borough of Tower Hamlets), into the almost entirely Bangladeshi Whitechapel, there was barely even a union flag to be seen, let alone a street party. I came across one street party in a rich, white enclave (Narrow Street). And even there, the union flag was probably out-numbered by the variety of flags from other nations.
The future of the UK looks grim.
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/mess-of-pottage.html
“Unity through Diversity”?
by Pierre Picaud
A casual observer opening up the current pages of Britain’s anaemic right-wing press is greeted by an unprecedented expression of optimism and positivity.
The source of all this rapture is the jubilee celebrations presently underway, which mark the diamond anniversary of the ascension of the United Kingdom’s most dutiful long-suffering monarch: Elizabeth II.
From Melanie Phillips in the Daily Mail, to Ed West in the Daily Telegraph, to Fraser Nelsonin The Spectator, there is a palpable sense of relief, joy even, at what is deemed to represent an unparalleled display of patriotism and national loyalty, the likes of which have not been witnessed in Britain for a generation.
As a feast for the eyes and an amazing technical accomplishment, the still on-going celebrations which began with a mesmerising pageant on the River Thames in London and continued last night with a gala concert on The Mall in front of Buckingham Palace, the events are a wonderful success.
(This essay’s title is drawn from the very moving speech given by Prince Charles, in recognition of his mother’s tireless service, at the conclusion of last night’s performance.)
The numbers attending have been dizzying to an extent beyond normal human comprehension: with as many as 1.2 million people lining the riverbank for Sunday’s pageant, mostly in the pouring rain.
The whole spectacle has spawned a new and surprising narrative of national unity and togetherness, which has come as a surprise and a relief to those commentators who had previously found themselves perturbed by and decrying the perceived fragmentation of British society.
Here were the public in central London, in their millions no less, unabashedly displaying and celebrating Britain and Britishness; with a Union flag hanging from every lamppost and waving from every hand, and not a sight of that hated blue-and-yellow EU monstrosityanywhere…
What a relief!
There is, however, one slight problem with this picture that no one is mentioning. A small boy tugging at his mother’s coat at the Emperor’s parade, aching to express a truth that can perhaps only find the light of day at somewhere like Gates of Vienna.
With the exception of very small numbers — that are in essence statistically irrelevant — whether you like it or not, pretty much everybody you see in the multitude gathered in London is white.
To understand the significance of this, one needs to know the demographics of the city.
Greater London, the largest conurbation in Europe, is usually divided into two geographic zones: the suburban ‘outer ring’, and the metropolitan ‘inner city’. London’s inner portion has been majority immigrant territory for some time, and as the years progress even the outer ring is approaching parity between immigrants and native inhabitants.
Thanks to publicly subsidised housing, with the exception of a few isolated pockets the centre of the city is mainly immigrant-dominated.
A visitor to the majority of the primary schools of the boroughs which lined the river down which Sunday’s pageant rowed, would see that the ethnicity which formed 98% plus of the audience for the jubilee, is represented as a rule in less than 10% (in many cases less than 5%) of the demographic makeup of the pupils of those schools.
Where then, one is forced to ask, were the parents of the rest of all these children, presumably a convenient short stroll away from demonstrating and celebrating their “Britishness”?
Why did they not seize this simple and convenient opportunity to declare themselves full, happy, and enthusiastic members of our grand multicultural society, when the vast majority of attendees had largely travelled much great distances in order to do so (according to train company reports)?
The cameras of the BBC, usually anxious to present a picture of multiracial harmony, and whose coverage of the events has been broadly panned as inane, clearly struggled in desperation to find non-white faces in the crowds.
Their failure to do so was even more stark as they linked to outside broadcasts of commemorative street parties up and down the country, particularly in places like Luton, where it was patently evident that wherever the English were in the minority only the English were doing any celebrating at all.
Where were the others? Our fellow “Britons”?
Those perfectly capable of coming out in their tens, even hundreds of thousands; for publicly funded Hindu Diwali celebrations in Trafalgar Square, or the Afro-Caribbean yearly carnivalin Notting Hill (policing cost to the British taxpayer: 34 million pounds a year), or Islamic Eid “festivals” in East London; were all conspicuous by their virtual absence.
This is not an Islamic issue, or even one truly of colour or race. It would have been surprising if any significant proportion of those celebrating this jubilee weekend were Poles, or any of the nearly two million Eastern Europeans who have come to the UK over the last decade, either.
The predominant skin colour of those attending the jubilee has merely provided visual confirmation of how comprehensively the social model into which decades worth of political and financial capital has been invested in Britain has failed.
To be clear: the English (unlike the Scots or Welsh to any similar degree) were told, not outright, but tacitly and subtly; through policy, policing, changes to educational syllabi, deliberate alterations to the cultural framework etc., that Englishness — their identity — would have to be subsumed, altered, diluted, undermined, even to the point of being questioned as having any true cohesive validity.
This was a necessary evil. It had to be done in order not to alienate or marginalise the millions of immigrants arriving mostly in the English portion of Britain, who “yearned to be part of our society” and to make a better life for themselves into the bargain.
Though awkward, this essential transformation would be worth it, and would in turn bring about a fresh paradigm of nationality.
Britishness would be elevated into a new and inclusive form of meta-identity that all could participate in and be welcomed by. A mélange-identity uniting and encompassing all comers.
This new paradigm in turn would have its own founding myths, as do all attempts to unite disparate ethno-religious communities. The myth that a person newly arrived from East Africa was “just as British” as any Englishwoman who might be able to trace her family back to the Norman conquest. The myth that one could achieve, “Strength through Diversity.”
Furthermore, these myths would be reinforced by numerous means.
Television “idents” and programs for example would subtly attempt to communicate harmonious multi-cultural unity, as in this collage. (Compare in particular the ethnic makeup of those attending the faux street party at the end of this BBC jubilee ident with those in thisCNN report of the genuine article.)
And thousands of farcical local council propaganda posters on buses and billboards would show a similar multitude of grinning multiracial faces, regardless of the theme. The golden rule of course being that the more outnumbered the actually English people in the photograph were, the more strained and enthusiastic their smiling had to be.
(This collection of picture exhibits shows the usual progression from the London boroughs of: Southwark, to Camden, to Newham, to Hackney, to Lewisham, to Tower Hamlets.)
This effort was so total and all-encompassing, that it was easy thoughtlessly to fall for it and assume it to be in part true. Particularly as every effort has been made, either by immigrants themselves or by positive discrimination, to advance newcomers through the professions so that they are now over-represented in medicine, media and the law.
Notwithstanding the fact, that the promotion of compulsory allegiance to this narrative has shifted over the decades from a gentle socio-political prodding, to a state of affairs where any who dare to forcibly question it in public face imprisonment.
But it was only required to force allegiance to this mind-set from natives… not, of course, from those who came; that would have been racially presumptuous and monstrously unfair. The one was supposed to magically facilitate the other.
But patriotism and national loyalty are based on the individual’s core willingness to sacrifice; and in modern Britain the balance of sacrificial expectation was set right from the start.
The state had to sacrifice to provide the benefits that would be received by the newcomer, while the immigrant was required to sacrifice and surrender, in exchange for the comforts and opportunities of their new life, well… what exactly?
In the interests of generating a nationally loyal harmony, every multicultural effort has been made to bend over backwards in the promotion of togetherness and inclusivity, up to and including the sacrifice of many essential characteristic elements of a thousand years of English and British history; right down to the abandonment of the most basic things like the promotion of our own language on the one hand, or judicial protections like double jeopardyon the other.
The children of the English, in the schools for which their parents pay through their taxes, are now compulsorily taught not the glories and accomplishments of their nation’s past, but primarily and chiefly its inequities, oppressions and “evils”.
This did not happen by chance. It was a transaction. A deal.
The accurate depiction of Britain’s majestic and impressive history for example, was to be abandoned in exchange for something. Deliberately disowning historical reality (like a thousand and one other such national cultural renunciations) was intended to provide an inclusivity that would in turn guarantee the delivery of an attached, benign and loyal immigrant population.
So where were they then: when a golden and simple opportunity presented itself for the demonstration of their new Britishness? Nothing jingoistic, or confrontational, but a four day series of events designed from the start to be achingly inclusive and multicultural.
Frankly? Our new fellow-Britons were nowhere to be seen.
When the chance arose to show how successful this theory of mutable national identity in fact was, in whose name so much has been forcibly lost, the results are startling — and, for those with an eye to the future, more than a little alarming.
The paradigm hasn’t changed. Our social engineers are either liars or fools.
People always only feel a genuine allegiance and loyalty to a place with which they have a pre-existing hereditary, historic or geographical investment.
The newcomers want no part of it, thank you very much.
Benefits? — “Yes.”
Sacrifices? — “Hmm. We’d rather not, if it’s all the same to you.”
And to be clear: the kind of sacrifice under discussion in this essay is not mounting the lip of a trench to advance into machine-gun fire in defence of your nation’s values or borders, but taking a couple of hours out your bank holiday weekend to stand in the rain for a bit with a flag.
This is the grim harvest we must expect from multiculturalism’s insistence that pre-existing identities should be encouraged to flourish rather than to adapt.
The British, and more chiefly the English, have received nothing in return for their sacrifice: of identity, of tradition, of heritage, and of culture.
They’ve been conned. Duped. The promised transaction hasn’t taken place: there will be no unity in the United Kingdom, and no guarantee of security as a result.
We will not see the likes of this weekend again.
Tags: Diamond Jubilee, jubilee
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Antony on
-
Superb article - the sort of "boy pointing out the multi-culti emperor has no clothes" article you just wish someone would sneak onto the front page of a national newspaper - further to this, the excellent Daniel Greenfield has written on something similar today, its geared towards the USA, but much of it is applicable to Britain ; http://sultanknish.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/great-identity-crisis.htm...
-
-
Permalink Reply by John Carlson on
-
I don't get it Joe. You're in favor of mass-immigration into the UK, and you certainly don't agree to any stopping point in the dispossession of the indigenous British people. So why does it bother you that the Africans and Hindus and Pakistanis don't snap to and salute the Queen? Why would they? Previous British Queens presided over the slavery of Africans and the colonization of Africa, and the humiliation and rape of the Indian subcontinent. Why would people, highly conscious of that historical legacy, stand at attention and wave the Union Jack? It makes no sense at all.
Apparently what bothers you is that they're not properly "integrating." Yes, you definitely want them in the country; you want wave after wave of third worlders to colonize the UK (provided they aren't Muslim, of course). Anything less than that would be racist. But somehow you want to make them loyal to "Western civilization". You want a muscular liberalism that presses these people to act like Europeans – to carry on the projects of the Europeans they will displace.So what's your proposal? Shall we send them to re-education camps where they learn to salute the Queen and wave the flag? I don't think we do because that would be a violation of their human rights. Britain is a free country, and they have the human right to use and despise it. They have the human right to detest the Queen, and wave their own flags high. It's called freedom of conscience and freedom of speech. In short, you can't force people to integrate.
As the article says:
"People always only feel a genuine allegiance and loyalty to a place with which they have a pre-existing hereditary, historic or geographical investment."Which implies that the project of "integration" is doomed.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Joe on
-
Here we have John Carlson falsely attributing views to me once again.
Can you show me where I have said "I am in favour of mass immigration"? Can you show me where I have said I "want wave after wave of third worlders to colonize the UK"?
Indeed, I can point to a lengthy discussion with you where I have elaborated the opposite. Either you were unable to comprehend that discussion, or you are mischievous.
Here is where you falsely attributed views to me before: http://4freedoms.ning.com/xn/detail/3766518:Comment:103215 (Indeed, I didn't pursue the point, but your attribution to me that "muslims are evil" could also be deliberate misrepresentation of my views on your part - http://4freedoms.ning.com/xn/detail/3766518:Comment:103236 ). Doing this once can be considered laziness. Doing it twice looks like a flawed character. Doing it three times looks like a policy.
People can follow the discussion here, to see how John Carlson has relocated that discussion in order (he thinks) to harry me.
http://4freedoms.ning.com/group/theology/forum/topics/islam-jihad-war
This misrepresentation is a violation of the Code of Conduct 4.2.3 http://4freedoms.ning.com/group/admin/forum/topics/behaviour-standa... Here is where I made it clear that I was not for mass immigration:
despite repeated attempts by you to corral me into the position of supporting mass immigration, I made it clear I am against any immigration that results in immigrants not being assimilated into the host country. As I made clear, I am not opposed to immigration per se, but I am opposed to it when it is unworkable.
This harrying by you looks like you are playing cat and mouse. It is one thing to pursue someone for consistency in their views, it is another entirely to lie in order to attribute inconsistency to the person.
Having used this post to register your bad behaviour, I will deal with the substance of what is left of your post later. If I did not engage in these objections to your behaviour nor to your implication that I must be advocating some kind of Stalinist "re-education" programme, it would leave me looking like a thoroughly nasty person.
Why would a member of our community wish to portray another member in this way?
John Carlson said:I don't get it Joe. You're in favor of mass-immigration into the UK, and you certainly don't agree to any stopping point in the dispossession of the indigenous British people.
[...]
Apparently what bothers you is that they're not properly "integrating." Yes, you definitely want them in the country; you want wave after wave of third worlders to colonize the UK (provided they aren't Muslim, of course). Anything less than that would be racist. But somehow you want to make them loyal to "Western civilization". You want a muscular liberalism that presses these people to act like Europeans – to carry on the projects of the Europeans they will displace.So what's your proposal? Shall we send them to re-education camps...
-
-
-
There is, in fact, further misrepresentation in this.
1. I am not asking anyone to salute the queen. But in order to misrepresent my views, you are asserting that is my position.
2. You are adopting the traditional leftard view that a) the British should be singularly ashamed of their involvement in enslaving black people (when Britain has more to be proud of in ending the slave trade than almost any other country), b) that the empire was necessarily bad for those countries who were part of the empire (individuals I've met from African countries which were not part of the British empire have expressed sadness that they were not colonised by Britain, and on a more general note, I suggest you read Niall Ferguson's book http://www.amazon.co.uk/Empire-Britain-Made-Modern-World/dp/0141007540 ). You've been involved with 4F for some years now. How is it that you retain these popular, but mistaken, ideas?
3. Since immigration of non-white people into Britain has been happening since before I was born, of course I want them to continue to integrate. Just like many of the afro-caribbeans who arrived here in the 1950s and 1960s integrated (I'm related to one such lady). Just like the millions of Irish immigrants integrated. Just like the Flemish weavers integrated. Just like the Huguenots integrated. Just like the jews integrated. If the opposite of multi-culturalism and mass immigration had been put into place in the 1980s we should be seeing plenty of non-white people at an event like that, in a city that is probably 50% non-white.
4. Why do I need a proposed solution in order to draw attention to a problem? Are you mistaking me for an omniscient being? Those in power (principally the capitalists) want mass immigration. It has to be enough that we are gadflies pointing out the lies, distortions and misrepresentations. We don't have the power to stop them, so why waste time coming up with solutions that they will ignore and that will not work? You seem to forget, that several of us on 4F recognise that the destruction (or Balkanisation) of europe is inevitable, following the trajectory of the last 40 years or so.
John Carlson said:I don't get it Joe. You're in favor of mass-immigration into the UK, and you certainly don't agree to any stopping point in the dispossession of the indigenous British people. So why does it bother you that the Africans and Hindus and Pakistanis don't snap to and salute the Queen? Why would they? Previous British Queens presided over the slavery of Africans and the colonization of Africa, and the humiliation and rape of the Indian subcontinent. Why would people, highly conscious of that historical legacy, stand at attention and wave the Union Jack? It makes no sense at all.
Apparently what bothers you is that they're not properly "integrating." Yes, you definitely want them in the country; you want wave after wave of third worlders to colonize the UK (provided they aren't Muslim, of course). Anything less than that would be racist. But somehow you want to make them loyal to "Western civilization". You want a muscular liberalism that presses these people to act like Europeans – to carry on the projects of the Europeans they will displace.So what's your proposal? Shall we send them to re-education camps where they learn to salute the Queen and wave the flag? I don't think we do because that would be a violation of their human rights. Britain is a free country, and they have the human right to use and despise it. They have the human right to detest the Queen, and wave their own flags high. It's called freedom of conscience and freedom of speech. In short, you can't force people to integrate.
As the article says:
"People always only feel a genuine allegiance and loyalty to a place with which they have a pre-existing hereditary, historic or geographical investment."Which implies that the project of "integration" is doomed.
-
-
-
Joe:
1) Joe: Can you show me where I have said "I am in favour of mass immigration"?
You absolutely are in favor of mass immigration. It's obvious. You came into me both barrels blazing the minute you detected a whiff of opposition to immigration. Remember this little nugget:
Joe: I'm also not interested in helping "far-right (anti-immigrant) parties". I'm the son of immigrants; my boyfriend is an immigrant. I live with another immigrant. Two of my siblings are married to immigrants.
Have you mistaken 4F for an organisation dedicated to opposing immigration?And you did not spend a lengthy thread "elaborating the opposite" of mass immigration. The best you came up with after my lengthy teeth-pulling operation was that: 1) you want the *culture* of Europe to survive, and 2) immigrants should be integrated. Sorry, but neither of those things indicates any genuine opposition to mass immigration.
2) Let's also examine your bad behavior Joe. In the other thread, you accused me of "wanting to keep the whip-hand over non-white people in the US." (Link) I'd like you to point out: a) anywhere I said anything of that nature, or b) anywhere I said anything that could justify a slur with that degree of malice.
3) "Why do I need a proposed solution in order to draw attention to a problem?" You need a proposed solution because your entire position is based on the idea that immigrants must integrate. Yet you're incapable of describing how that integration should be achieved. On the face of it, that means your idea of "immigration + integration" is deeply flawed because you have no idea at all how to force immigrants to integrate. In short, your "immigration + integration" plan is actually just an "immigration without integration plan".
4) "We don't have the power to stop them, so why waste time coming up with solutions that they will ignore and that will not work? You seem to forget, that several of us on 4F recognise that the destruction (or Balkanisation) of europe is inevitable, following the trajectory of the last 40 years or so."
At this point in time, Britain is close to 90% European; the Muslim population is about 6%; and 71% of the British people believe there are "too many immigrants" in the country. And you've already thrown in the towel. Pardon me while I puke on the floor. I hate to be frank, but if you have mentally given up, you are a loser, a threat to morale, and a shitty example to everyone around you.
-
-
-
1. As far as you're concerned, unless someone opposes immigration, they are for mass immigration. I pointed out elsewhere that I am not prepared to blame immigrants for doing what they were encouraged to do, which is why I will not support "far-right (anti-immigrant) parties".
2. In that other thread I have provided direct quotes from you that substantiate my characterisation of your position. I have invited you to provide a significantly different summary of your views (please provide it in that thread, if you don't mind - people will be able to follow the link back to see for themselves if I was wrong).
3. I notice that you have taken a comment from point 4, and put it as if it is a response to point 3. Thus you completely ignore the evidence in point 3 above, and instead mount a claim that goes against that evidence. In my point 3 above I show you that for hundreds of years immigrants to Britain did integrate successfully. I do not need any kind of proposal for turning the tide other than what I pointed out: multi-culturalism needs to be stopped and put into reverse, as I had already stated. But given the path we have been on for 20 years, if nothing is done, then we are going to see at the very best, the Balkanisation of Europe. I'm not clear that you would be opposed to stalinist "re-education" camps; your principal concern appears to be that such education camps would be against the law.
4. I couldn't care less what you think of me. I don't expect to be taken as an example, shitty or otherwise. As for being "a threat to morale": where do you think you are, in the Marines? The only association I have with you is one where I seem to be continually challenging your obnoxious views: damaging your morale would seem like a positive benefit IMO. I've pointed out that when the power elite (the capitalists, the politicians, the media, the trade unions) are all working against the people, what can the people do? I've already proposed that what is needed is a revolution. But what is not needed is to blame immigrants, which is what you appear to want to do.
Since you and I share so little in common, and responding to you is a pain in the ass, I propose to ignore you, as I ignore other useless people on 4F. Cheerio.
-
-
-
Having read this thread I thought I would re-acquaint myself with the basic tenants of this site. Am I not right to summarise these as standing against any kind of racism or supremacism, standing for the 4 civil rights of freedom of speech, of election, from discrimination and from religion, much of this being focussed on the subject of anti-jihad. To have a stance which was anti-mass immigration, or even anti-immigration, would therefore not be particularly compliant with the main tenants of anti racism or anti-supremicists - is nationalism not a form of supremicism?
I often ask myself why the anti-jihad movement does seem to attract, both in the eye's of the main stream media, but also in the reality of some of its members and supporters, those who are anti-mass immigration, anti immigration, patriotic, nationalist or in anyway right wing?
I am personally genuinely concerned and worried about the impact the Islamist/jihadi/sharia movement is going to and in many cases is already having on those moral principles which I hold dear. However, I can share this concern without being in the slightest bit concerned about mass immigration or any immigration. For example, I for one am incredibally pleased about the very large number of Eastern Europeans who have come to the UK post EU expansion and feel the UK is a much better place thanks to the Poles, Lithuanians, Hungarians, Estonians, Latvians, etc. I also prefer to live in areas which are enriched with other cultures, be they Indian, Thai, Malaysian or Jamaican. I consider my moral views frequently to be best represented by the policies of the Liberal Democratic party. I have never considered myself either patriotic or nationalist, and I am generally fairly pro-European. Some might describe my views on Diversity issues such as homophobia, disability, gender and race to be quite left wing. In fact it is the latter aspect of my personal moral compass which puts me in such a strong position of opposition to the intolerance and fascism of Islamists.
I am sure I would not be wholly alone in this community in holding such a collection of views, however, I am willing to accept that this is a broad community, with a broad collection of views and that many (possibly most) in this community would not describe themselves as unpatriotic, lilly livered Liberal Democratic pro-Europeans such as me!
Others may reply by saying that immigration has allowed the entry and growth of Islamism within the country, however, I would point out that the benefits of immigration to this land have been vast and that I for one would not turn back the clock to prevent any immigration for the gains of preventing the arrival of Islamists. Many people die by crossing the road, yet we don't ban cars. Similarly we should not ban immigration to prevent the Islamification of this country. So lets make the road safer, not all start walking!
So now I've got all that off my chest - John Carlson - what problem would you have with anyone on this site being pro mass-immigration?
-
-
-
Steve - mass muslim immigration is used as a tool of islamification, and mass immigration overall has had a deletarious effect on both British society and its economy - surely you have read enough stats etc on this site on this subject ?!
-
-
-
I think its true to say we agree that immigration benefits us.
Joe made a point.
Quote;
'' I made it clear I am against any immigration that results in immigrants not being assimilated into the host country. As I made clear, I am not opposed to immigration per se, but I am opposed to it when it is unworkable'''. end quote.
I don't see anything in opposing un workable immigration. that doesn't mean your against immigration.
We have to be prepared to strike a balance in our country that reflects our willingness to accept immigration, to our ability to cope with the ammount that we allow in.
If i live in a house that can healthly hold 7 Adults, what happens if i allow 11 adults to live there. Then what happens if i allow 15 adults to live there. What if i allow any amount of people to live in the house.
There has been very sucessful immigration in the past. At the moment its causing problems. It would be wise to address those problems. Some people just want a moment to solve the problems that we have in the here and now.
We are unprepared to accept more and more immigration. That doesn't mean we are racist, or illibral. It means the house is full, we can't get to the bathroom or tiolet and that being forced to let more people in without having an extension built is going to cause more problems.
Those who want to allow mass immigration without any thought about what MASS means , and those that want no immigration at all suffer from the same problem. No thought about the consequencies.
What is wrong with honest debate. The ruling class's are social engineering on the hoof. We the people are not allowed a say in this plan for the future, we are just left with putting up with the consequences.
It is not immigration that upsets people, its the continual flow of immigration that seems to serve no purpose other than to increase the numbers of the unimployed, and put a strain on infurstructure.
It also seems that a large disproportionate amount of those immigrants come from a group of countries whos citizens don't intergrate very well and have a culture that wants us to change to suit them.
Now there seems to be people FOR immigration, and those AGAINST immigration. What we need is more people who are prepared to talk about immigration. Before talk turns to fight.
To say your for immigration doesn't mean you want MASS immigration. What ever figure MASS is. And because your against MASS immigration doesn't mean your against all imigration. I don't see any conflict in those statments. Whats wrong with accepting legal, managable amounts of immigrants.
-
-
-
Steve Charls:
1) My views on immigration are simple and straightforward. I believe that moderate immigration is beneficial to a country, particularly if the candidates for immigration are selected based on their qualifications, education etc. I am staunchly opposed to mass immigration into Europe which threatens to reduce the indigenous European people to a minority in their own lands.
2) Do you disagree with me? That is, do you advocate that indigenous Europeans allow in so many Arabs, Asians, Sub-Saharan Africans and other foreigners that they become minorities in their own countries? (Note: That's the controversial issue, not immigration per se. We all favor *some degree* of immigration.)
3) Yes, I advocate deeply slashing the number of people allowed to immigrate into Europe each year. Can you explain to me why you believe that is "racist" or "supremacist"? Or why it conflicts with principles of freedom?
4) I would point out that a very large majority of the British people agree that immigration numbers should be slashed. See link and link. Surely you aren't suggesting that immigrants should be shoved down the throat of the British people against their democratic will?
5) Are you opposed to immigration by Muslims? If so, then it would seem you yourself are guilty of the "racism" and "supremacism" you decry. If you're not opposed to immigration by Muslims, then what are you doing on this website? It's completely asinine to simultaneously claim that: a) Muslims are a lethal threat to our civilization, and b) We should continue to allow mass immigration by Muslims.
6) You say that benefits of mass immigration to the UK have been vast. What concrete evidence do you have to support that claim? Detailed studies in Holland have found just the opposite – that mass immigration is extremely costly to the indigenous people who have to pay for it (link).
-
-
-
Anarchy in the UK - Child Rape http://frontpagemag.com/2012/06/12/anarchy-in-the-uk/?utm_source=Fr...
and further to the above statement of Steve Charls about the supposed economic benefits of mass immigration ; http://www.scottishsundayexpress.co.uk/posts/view/326005/Crackdown-...
I used to live in Hackney, and I can't say I found the levels of yardie crime,crack & heroin dealing, muggings, pimping etc to be especially "culturally and economically enriching".
-
-
-
So many points to respond to!
Anthony - "mass muslim immigration is used as a tool of islamification" - I'm not sure I agree. Used as a tool by whom? Are you saying the British authorities are seeking to Islamify the UK - if so exactly who, how and most importantly why - sorry but that appears a slightly balmy conspiracy to me. "mass immigration overall has had a deletarious effect on both British society and its economy" - what stats and exactly how do you measure deleterious effects on society, in a direct cause and effect manner?
Paul C - I agree with you, willingness to accept immigration and our ability to cope are paramount. Debate about immigration has been stifled and shut away due to paranoia about racism. However, in regard to capacity for immigrants being reached, I am not so clear. You only need to look out the window when flying in to the UK to realise the small proportion of our land which is corrently inhabited. The vast proportion of our land is rural, and much not actively being used for farming. I therefore hesitate to objectively agree with the statement that the Inn is full. However, there clearly is a problem that both immigrants and UK citizens are concentrated in to urban areas to the point of overcrowding and that infrastructure problems are significant. I personally would be wary of a conspiracy to describe this all as "social engineering on the hoof" - but maybe I am just naive! The absolute numbers show that Net migration to and from the UK between 1991–2008 (Source: Office for National Statistics) as:
John - I dont understand why you classify immigrants as either European or Non-European. Your prime concern appears to be the "indigenous" nature of the person, i.e. their race. To me race is wholly irrelevant. A family of Chinese moving in to the house next door to me is really going to cause me no concern whatsoever. However, if a family of Essex-born converts to Islamism move in next door to my my blood will be boiling. I.e. it is the religious beliefs and islamist values and behaviours which will challenge my moral compass more than the colour of the person's skin, racial background or place of birth. This surely is not an argument of indigenous or not, white skin or not, European or not - but Fascist Islamist or not!!
No I have no problem with Arabs or Asians moving to the UK - some (many) of them are actually Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, and atheists. I only have a problem with Islamists - have I not already made that clear?
I ask the question whether it is racist or not as you appear to use the classification of European frequently in your argument. I personally may feel I have more in common as a North European with a Siberian or Mongolian than a hot-headed Mediterranean.
I have a problem with people in the UK - whether British born or not (many of the July bombers and subsequent plotters were UK born and bread - being Islamist fascists. And going back to my banning cars cos people die crossing the road comparison - I would not stop migrants coming here, because 'some' of them have have been Islamists. The solution is to deal with Islamism in the UK - by statute and enforcement.
Immigration has been beneficial to me personally - both in my personal life and working life. Personally I moved from a very white location to a very culturally enriched area (South coast to London) - yes it may include crack dealers, but they aint had any impact on me and believe me I've lived in some interesting areas! Funnily enough you cant pop out in Portsmouth and buy a goat curry, rice n peas, a bowl of borsht, or some pierogi. I am also married to an immigrant! In terms of work it has enabled me to recruit into jobs which quite frankly not that many 'indiginous' folk appear to want to do and immigrants are quite happy to work their bollocks off in!
-
Welcome to 4 Freedoms!
(currently not admitting new members)
Page Monitor
Just fill in the box below on any 4F page to be notified when it changes.
Muslim Terrorism Count
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)"
© 2023 Created by Netcon.
Powered by
