UK: Immigration vs Non Immigration

 

Immigration vs Non Immigration

When it comes to immigration, we must remember that a country is basically the people living in the country.

We must then decide what kind of country we want to live in. What kind of values do we want? What makes us feel safe or unsafe? What allows us to have a future and what does not allow us to have a future. People have preferences. Some communities prefer to live among those they see as their own. This is particularly visible in many parts of Britain. Certain cities and certain parts of those cities tell you the full story. People want to live with people who look like them, behave like them, have similar values and even people who speak the same language that they speak. 

This is why we find everywhere conglomerates of people of the same race, same religion and same language. You can choose certain neighbourhoods only to find out that practically the entirety of the said neighbourhoods are inhabited by people who come to Britain from certain countries. For many of those living in the said areas the main language is not English. You can find people who have been born and bred in Britain that do not speak the national language or have a very poor command of the national language. Across Britain you can find what we could, without a shadow of a doubt, call ghettos. And this is clear example of a total failure to integrate with the rest of society.

There is class divide, racial divide, religious divide and social and cultural divide and this is not an example of a healthy country. There is a point when so called Diversity is Apartheid.

We can encounter people who have lived in Britain practically their entire lives and cannot have a conversation in the language of the country, people who need to have an interpreter to use public services. Without the most basic communication tools, they will be forever limited, because in real terms they have never lived in Britain.

The issue about managing immigration is to ensure that all newcomers do not live in close communities that are de facto ghettos. 

Paris burns: the consequences of uncontrolled migration and poisonous Multiculturalism that creates ghettos

 

France is burning as a consequence of uncontrolled migration and failed integration and Britain will follow next.

There goes the saying: when you see the beard of your neighbor on fire, put your beard inside a bucket of water.

It is like the forest fires in Canada. It comes the point when there is no use to try and stop them and huge areas will be consumed by fire.

This is the direct consequence of left-wing open-door policies and multiculturalism. Multicuralism is about creating ghettos. Multiculturalism is a kind of dangerous mental disease. Regardless of race, people should have been able to build a common identity to be able to live in pease. Instead, divisive Multiculturalism lead to riots and war. Britain is full of ghettos, but is still in much better shape than France when it comes to integration. Unfortuntely, Left-wing ideology promotes war by dividing society, constantly promoting gender wars, race wars and class wars.

David Amess: Victim of the lack of true integration

 

David Amess

The life of yet another Member of Parliament comes to an abrupt end. Britain as a country is under attack because Britain has dared to be open and welcoming to people who do not share Britain’s values because they were brought up in a very different environment and very different culture. We can talk about integration until we become red in the face, but the reality is that some might live in Britain for many years, some might be born in Britain and grow up in Britain enjoying what Britain has to offer and still reject Britain and see Britain as a foreign land. Many might not even speak the language of the country even where they were born in the United Kingdom.

David Amess, a family man who was Member of Parliament for several decades and earnt the respect and admiration of his peers and of those he represented, lost his life because of the gap that exists between the aspirations regarding integration and the realities of the lack of integration. It is about understanding that integration is not possible while there are ghetto realities. The attacker did not act alone. This was a premeditated attack. Ali Harbi Ali grew up in Croydon, Southeast London. Ghetto realities are exactly the opposite of integration.

Diversity when diversity does not include a common British identity is not acceptable. We must respect peoples’ diverse cultures, but we must all share values that unite us regardless of backgrounds and this should be a fundamental point starting with education so that children – regardless of backgrounds – grow up together and learn together as one. 

Talking about respecting differences, allowing ghetto realities with people living in Britain that often not even use English as their main language, without fostering a true national British identity, is one of the main reasons why David Amess was murdered while he was doing his job, the job he was elected to do. 

Trevor Phillips in the eye of the political storm regarding Islam

Trevor Phillips in the eye of the political storm regarding Islam

Trevor Phillips

Nick Griffin

These two main went to war some years ago when the challenge was the Constitution of the British National Party. The struggle costed the political organisation a critical amount of resources and initiated the process leading to electoral losses in the British National Party. Not long afterwards in what was effectively a coup within the BNP, Adam Walker and Clive Jefferson orchastred the expulsion of Nick Griffin and the organisation became a phantom organisation without any real political purpose because the Leader and the Deputy Leader became invisible. 

Nick Griffin was crucified for denouncing that Muslim gangs were preying on vulnerable boys and girls. The BBC called Nick Griffin 'racist'. More than a decade later, Nick Griffin was proven right, but still the political establishment and the mass media who spread so much poison against Nick Griffin couldn't bring themselves to apologize for having wrongly accused Nick Griffin and for having looked the other way while thousands of British children were being sexually abused, raped, plied with drugs and alcohol and even tortured and killed. In far too many cases, the culprits were never found. Now we face the absurdity of a government that doesn't want to publicise reports of those who were found and convicted in British courts.

Throughout the years, Trevor Phillips views on some issues have changed and now he himself has a different stance. The former head of the EHRC (Equality and Human Rights Commission) stated that UK Muslim population is 'different'. For having the courage of being frank and open, Trevor Phillips has been suspended by a Labour Party that stands accused of hatred against Jews. Suspending Trevor Phillips was a logical thing to do by a Labour Party that has direct links with Islamic terrorist organisations and has been openly attacking the State of Israel.

This is about the Labour Party's revenge against Trevor Phillips because Trevor Phillips and 23 other public figures wrote last year to The Guardian newspaper stating that they would not vote for the Labour Party because of the association of the Labour Party with Anti-Semitism.And what is the EHRC doing right now? The EHRC is investigating the Labour Party for Anti-Semitism and the Conservative Party for Islamophobia. So this goes beyond Anti-Semitism and Islmamophobia. This is a political struggle with geopolitical angles and goes to the root of what Britain stands. This is also - critically - about National Security.

The Labour Party sold out to Irish terrorism by becoming extremely close to the IRA. The Labour Party looked the other way when in places like Rotherham they ignored the plight of vulnerable boys and girls attacked by Muslim rape gangs. It must be said that - althrough not all involved in such criminal activities can be classed as Muslim - a disproportionate number are of Muslim Pakistani descent and some have stated that this could be do to cultural and religious issues and the ghetto realities of Britain. In quite a few cases, Diversity has been exactly the opposite of genuine Integration.

 

Austria bans Muslim headscarf in primary schools

Austria has passed a law intended to ban Muslim girls from wearing a headscarf in primary schools. The Jewish yarmulke and Sikh patka are not included in the new measure.

(source Deutsche Welle)

Austria's parliament has passed a law intended to ban Muslim girls from wearing the headscarf in primary schools, a measure that is likely to be challenged as discriminatory in the constitutional court.

The bill passed with the support of the governing center-right People's Party (ÖVP) and the far-right Freedom Party (FPÖ). Almost all of the opposition voted against it. To avoid the impression that it targets Muslims, the text refers to any "ideologically or religiously influenced clothing which is associated with the covering of the head."

The government said late Wednesday that the patka head covering worn by Sikh boys or the Jewish yarmulke would not be affected because the law refers to head garments that "cover all of the hair or large parts of it." Exceptions are made for head coverings for medical reasons or protection against rain or snow.

Practicing Muslim girls usually begin wearing a headscarf at puberty, and the governing parties have admitted the law is intended for Muslim girls.

ÖVP lawmaker Rudolf Taschner said the law was meant to "free girls from submission," while FPÖ education spokesman Wendelin Mölzer said it was about sending a signal "against political Islam" and promoting integration. 

Former Social Democrat Party education minister, Sonja Hammerschmid, accused the government of trying to make headlines instead of resolving integration or education issues.

Austria's official Muslim community organization, IGGÖ, has said it would legally challenge the "destructive" law that "discriminates exclusively against Muslims."

The ÖVP and FPÖ formed a coalition in 2017 on a strong anti-immigration platform. The law was passed as Muslims celebrate the holy month of Ramadan.

On the said article there are two positions: 1) getting rid of headscarves would facilitate integration. 2)getting rid of headscarves doesn't help integration. Whichever position you agree with the fact remains that the way we dress has an impact in terms of how we interact with others. It has to do with differentiation. Here is the question: Do we feel prone to interact more with those we see as being like us or do we tend not to interact with those that look alien? 

Having gone through centuries of conflict based on religious beliefs, going around using garments as a statement of religious affiliation is not the best anyone can do if he or she intends to be seen as 'one of us'.  There is a historical example of how differentiation was used for political purposes. In the 1930s and 1940s, Jews were forced to have the symbol of the Star of David attached to their clothing so that they could be easily identified as Jews for the purposes of discrimination and persecution.