The BBC broadcast a lecture by Katy Long. Who is Katy Long? She is an academic whose speciality is immigration and refugees.
What the BBC doesn’t tell us is that she is an ardent, if not fanatical, proponent of open borders and the unregulated, totally unrestricted movement of migrants and the destruction of the nation state. She is also pretty much on the far left economically and is immersed in the language of equality and justice so favoured by the Left as a pathway to imposing their other political ideals….such as open borders and mass migration and the end of the nation state…all ideas with much BBC support.
Her thoughts on the nation state and citizenship…
Our interest in maintaining what are essentially inherited privileges – that 50% lifetime birthplace bonus – begins to look pretty selfish. At some point, borders are no longer self-preservation: they’re greed.
Yep…we’re all terrible people, greedy, selfish, protecting our ‘inherited privileges’….how dare we suggest that it might be welcome that we can get our kids into the local school, or that we can access a GP or the NHS without being put into a long queue or that our children can get a home of their own…especially as it is our taxes that have paid for all this largesse and not the migrant who waltzes in and gets the ‘free’ services from day one. Odd how Long doesn’t label the migrants who come here for economic reasons in the same way as greedy and selfish without a thought for the locals.
She of course also works for that bastion of common sense and rational thought, the UN. Which could explain an awful lot.
Her talk asked ‘What does it mean to belong?’, as in how do you define a ‘citizen’? She very carefully avoided giving a clear understanding of her full intentions concerning open borders and the end of the nation state and merely tried to spin an argument that there is no such thing as a ‘citizen’….for such a thing is surely just an accident of birth which you’ve done nothing to deserve….hence why should not someone from anywhere in the world not also be allowed automatically to be a ‘citizen’ of your area of the world? She neglects to mention of course the long history of a nation, the wars, the political and intellectual development, the science and industry, the thought, the inventiveness, the hard work, the character and spirit of a nation that has shaped both that nation and its people. Nations and peoples have character and a long history invested in that country.
She makes a comparison between Russian oligarchs buying citizenship and the penniless immigrant who can’t buy his way into the country. She asks why citizenship is up for sale. But that is a false and blinkered comparison. Oligarchs can buy citizenship but she neglects to mention the millions of ordinary people that have come here, many who have taken up British citizenship, and all without having to shell out the odd million. Their currency is the skills and the desire to work that they bring with them, in return they are offered citizenship. Where is her argument, especially as we took in over 300,000 immigrants last year alone? Were they all Russian oligarchs? She fails to mention the costs of migrants and why they have to make a contribution in some way. The NHS, for example, is free at the point of delivery, but it ain’t free.
The real point about controlling immigration is numbers. If there were 20 million oligarchs wanting to come here they would not get in regardless of money….it’s a numbers game and not ultimately about what they bring here although that is an essential part of the ‘rationing’ process to decide who is going to make a contribution to society and not just take from it.
It’s interesting what the UN says, and Long quotes…..
…by living and working abroad, such people effectively reduce the competition for jobs and other scarce resources in their country oforigin, and thereby contribute to the peacebuilding process. As far as countries of asylum are concerned, the continued presence of refugees…may make a valuable contribution to the growth and productivity of both local and national economies.
So to have a peaceful country it is best not to be overcrowded, best not to be competing for scarce resources (such as schools, the NHS and housing?), and to have as few unemployed people as possible. The migrant countries export their unemployed and excess population and somehow we’re supposed to absorb that ad infinitum?
You have to laugh at this highly simplistic argument for mass immigration that she makes…..
It is relatively easy to make the argument that freedom of movement furthers global justice. The World Bank has estimated that up to 50 per cent of a person’s income is determined by only one variable – their country of citizenship.
So everybody should move to the UK and their income will automatically rise and life will be fantastic? And what of Hong Kong, or Korea, or Taiwan or China, or India or Brazil…..did they all move here to improve their lives or did they build their own economies and create a more equal society, a richer and more prosperous society? Is it not better to improve a nation than to label it a basket case and give up on it and say you know what, let’s bring the population here and, well, we’ll house ’em somewhere, and get ’em some sort of job, and give them vouchers for the food banks. What of Germany and Japan after the war, did they move here or did they get on with it and rebuild their nations into industrial powerhouses, the envy of the world? And that was a Japan with no natural resources apart from the knowledge and skills of its workforce.
Interestingly in the same UN paper Long reveals that many, up to half, of ‘refugees’ admit they are actually migrating for economic reasons whilst officially claiming the reason as seeking asylum.
Here is her argument in a nutshell:
Yet for champions of global justice, the opposite is true. In 2009, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) determined that migrants who moved from a low-income to a high-income country saw, on average, a 15-fold increase in income, a doubling of education enrollment rates and a 16-fold reduction in child mortality numbers. Framed like this, migration is no longer contributing to the problem of inequality. In fact, on a global scale, it’s the solution.
Immigration, she says, means the immigrant will have a much better life and the country that welcomes him or her will also benefit, as will the country that the migrants leave behind.
She admits that national interests make this argument hard to make…but that is because, she tells us, the people who oppose immigration are wrong, ill-informed, making their judgements based on ‘dubious’ information…
When it comes to politics, global justice arguments can’t simply trump national ones because – at an almost instinctive level – the vast majority of people would claim that nations – communities – are important, and effects of migration at a local level can’t simply be discounted.
It’s therefore important to recognize that the evidence for many claims made about the injurious effects of immigration upon locals is dubious.
Sounds a familiar argument….one that brings us straight to the BBC and indeed the answer as to why the BBC is broadcasting this talk by such an obviously biased, fanatically pro-immigration left wing ‘champion of global justice’ as Long.
The BBC is pro-immigration, it thinks, as Long does, that the British public are prejudiced, racist, and uneducated about the true facts on immigration. They oppose immigration because they don’t understand the enormous benefits it brings them, nor do they have the humane principles and compassion that are the lifeblood of any half decent BBC journalist and which enables him or her to adopt the moral high ground and lecture them rather grandly and piously about the need to open the borders ever wider.
Where are the voices making the opposite arguments on the BBC?
The BBC, still on the immigration campaign trail. News?…what’s that then?
”Definition of Nation from the Latin natio, people, tribe, kin. ” These invaders pouring in from the Third World are not my kinsmen and they never will be, it’s as simple as that.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation
‘ She of course also works for that bastion of common sense and rational thought, the UN. Which could explain an awful lot.”
If you didn’t like “Agenda 21″, then you really are not going to like “The 2030 Agenda”. Next month, the United Nations is going to launch “The 2030 Agenda” at a major conference that will be held from September 25th to September 27th in New York City. Unlike Agenda 21, which primarily focused on the environment, the 2030 Agenda is truly a template for governing the entire planet. In addition to addressing climate change, it also sets ambitious goals for areas such as economics, health, energy, education, agriculture, gender equality and a whole host of other issues. As you will see below, this global initiative is being billed as a “new universal Agenda” for humanity. If you are anything like me, alarm bells are going off in your head right about now.” endoftheamericandream.com/archives/in-september-2015-agenda-21-will-be-transformed-into-the-2030-agenda
UN Agenda 2030 document refers to ”states” not nations,
Holy Effing Sh1t! This is the profoundly anti-democratic, totalitarian (and very real) “NWO” those “tin-hat conspiracy nutters” have been warning us about for years.
We really need to get UKIP elected to put a stop to the UK being utterly destroyed as an independent nation.
“Good evening, and here is the BBC what we’re not going to tell you…”
Interesting complement to such censorship is the propaganda that OFCOM has just nailed them for.
And the response? ‘Lessons have been learned’. Again.
By very well paid folk who don’t appear to know much about accuracy, objectivity or professional integrity.
Broadly speaking, open borders does not relate to the end, beginning or alteration of the nation state. Nations existed with widespread migration for many, many centuries.
Closed borders are a relatively new phenomenon, Japan excepted (?) and strong restrictions on the movement of people are really a 20th century thing.
The other key factor that has changed is world population growth. The question needs to be asked ‘Can we have widespread migration without the provision of the economy to support the migrants?’
Widespread migration was generally referred to using the terms ‘war and conquest’ in the past. The Balkans would be a good example of such beneficial migration, with untoward consequences to the present day. Or the yoke that Spain suffered for 800+ years under the Moors. And the Red Indians didn’t benefit much the arrival of Europeans in North America.
Historically, migration was of the ‘trickle’ variety, with perhaps a few hundred people arriving in this country per year. The largest movements into Britain since the Middle Ages were the Huguenots and Jews, amounting to some 300,000 people over several centuries. Considerably more people now arrive every year. This is only partly a consequence of increased global population, another factor being the ease of transportation. But what we are seeing here is the planned, massive movement of people in order to achieve the specific goal of destroying nations and creating World government. This is what the BBC fails to describe.
I don’t agree with your assertion about world population growth. I think the two factors which are novel and crucial are: the transport technology which has, for the last century, made moving vast numbers of people around the globe easy, fast and relatively cheap; and the overwhelming increase in the bandwidth of communication technology, which now reaches across cultures and to the farthest reacjhes of the earth. The latter has irreversibly altered our perception of the globe, essentially as a single room, filled with the entire population of the earth, all talking at the same time, and all making demands on anyone who has something they can see, but do not possess.
We talk of the dangerous extinction of species through the depradations of human activity. I do not know if this is true, or even important. What I do see is the extinction of cultures, and the possibility of culture, caused by those two revolutions in transport and communication. It is becoming impossible for cultures to maintain their true diversity (ironically, in view of the hammering of this theme as a virtue within our own domestic environment) under current conditions. Cultures need centuries to evolve; they need some periods of peace and isolation, in order to develop and stabilise. If you look at Afghanistan, and other ME states, you see the result of constant warfare on the stability of culture, and its ability to resume when ‘peace’ has been achieved.
What Katy Long and others are asserting is essentially that ‘there is no such thing as culture’. They only assert this in connection with Western Enlightenment culture, and in particular British historical culture. They do not assert that ‘there is no such thing as Muslim culture’.
In calling for the abolition of national boundaries and the sovereign nation-state that thrives behind them, and incidentally re-writing history to support the ‘unnaturalness’ of both borders and nations, they are also reversing Mrs Thatcher’s famous remark, by implying ‘there is nothing but Society’. A chilling thought.
There is much else that needs to be said on this – it is vital to undermine the facade of respectability which clothes these deeply harmful fantasies, and to expose that harm for what it is.
Up2Snuff – Sorry, I didn’t mean that your point about open borders wasn’t a good one. I think that the truth is that, in the past, the state was not synonymous with the nation – for instance in the Napoleonic wars there was plenty of civil interchange between the nations whose states were engaged in that warfare. The exchange of scientific information, not to mention civil travel of those who were not members of the belligerent forces, is well described, I think.
The other factor which closed borders without requiring fencing or policing, was the effective geographic distance between (many) nations, even those with common borders if the border areas were themselves only under the loosest of central government control or influence.
I am very wary of the fear of ‘world population growth’. It is one of the easiest of dystopic futures to portray, and it has been used in many future-fictional narratives. I just think it plays far too easily into the hands of the eugenicists.
Sorry , didn’t mean to press report button
“What of Germany and Japan after the war, did they move here or did they get on with it”
They still get on with it.
A few years ago, Japan had severe earthquakes accompanied by a tsunami, New Zealand had major earthquakes, Australia had the worst floods and forest fires ever recorded. All these events took place in a short period of time.
The reaction in these countries was the same; they buried their dead; they rolled up their sleeves and began rebuilding what had been destroyed.
Not a begging bowl in sight, no frantic appeals for international aid.
Every state can have the standard of living enjoyed in the West. This has been demonstrated in East Asia.
The West has done all the hard work for you. The thinking, the science, the technology, the industry all free, for those with brains. The West is not, currently, demanding reparations for this priceless treasure, although we reserve the right to do so.
The West paid for all the mistakes which accompanied the creation of this advanced system. It was our workers who developed phossy jaw and all the concomitant ills of “progress”. It is our medicine which reduces the impact of Ebola etc.
So get off your lazy bums and work for the economic progress you think you deserve, AT HOME.
Do not come to the UK. You are not welcome, your presence is regarded as contamination.
Unemployed whites in Europe are unemployed because of aliens. Homeless white people in Europe are homeless because of aliens. White people in Europe who are waiting for medical treatment are doing so because of aliens. But 50% of NHS staff are not white, all part of the treasonous plot. That 50%, incidentally provides 90% of medical staff struck off, 90% of the staff whose mistakes cost the NHS zillions, 80% of staff who are investigated but not struck off and 100% of the medical staff who try to blow up airports. No only can the West do without you, we want to go it alone and stand on our own two feet.
We do not want you, we do not need you and we sure as hell did not give you permission to be here.
This “permission” was given by traitors who were not authorised to give it.
This “permission” will be revoked in the future, rely on it.
One of the best posts I’ve read on here. Bravo.
You’re welcome.
Agreed, broadly speaking. I think this is what counts as an alternative narrative! Alternative narratives are much more powerful in opposing those agendas to which we object, than trying to unpick their seams, stitch by lying stitch.
Now that is what you call a solid post, great stuff delenda est.
Excellent post, I wish I could have added the points you make the other day on a different site when discussing immigration.
No copyright.
If it is worth repeating elsewhere,please do so.
Yet for champions of global justice, the opposite is true. In 2009, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) determined that migrants who moved from a low-income to a high-income country saw, on average, a 15-fold increase in income, a doubling of education enrollment rates and a 16-fold reduction in child mortality numbers. Framed like this, migration is no longer contributing to the problem of inequality. In fact, on a global scale, it’s the solution.
…..whilst ignoring the fact that here in Britain more and more immigrants are flooding into the country with little or no expansion of our infrastructure to accomodate them. How long before we have a major water shortage, not to mention ‘lights out’ because our energy capacity is shrinking rather than expanding?
It’s bare naked anti-capitalism which will result in chaos for the West. But hey, she’ll be ok as a UN priveleged person, cocooned in a UN Bond-style fiefdom (assuming there’s any wealth left in the world to pay for it).
This is really not a game anymore, but open warfare against us, the indigenous people and culture of these islands, Europe and the entire West.
I have written these words or something like them for a good while now and have read similar many times and every time they seem more pressing and true. I know the people who post here write the same, so I’m kind of preaching to the choir, but what’s important now, as ever, is finding the words and ideas to counter the evil and naive idealogies that this woman and her ilk, who appear on the BBC, espouse. Counter it by promoting everything that’s good about our heritage and culture. To many of us it’s obvious, and in many ways an easy task: why our culture is good and why it should be preserved. You only need to look around and see what our Western cultures have produced, material gains, beautiful art, incredible scientific discoveries, and in our daily lives: the benefits of liberty and the rule of law. But we can also see how addled many people’s minds are today, which means people like this woman aren’t laughed off the screen. I was in Berlin with some friends a few weeks ago and I ended up with a couple, smart people, the boyfriend I’d met several times over the years (a friend of a friend). Talking about this subject, they asked me not to talk about “our culture being supreme”. I pointed around the street at the buildings and then showed my mobile, “do you think all this just happened? By itself, really?” They asked me not to use the language I was using, so I asked them what it was that I was saying that was untrue. To be fair, the conversation was very civil and friendly and being late as it was and rather than having an argument with relative strangers, I just said quietly, “we are in big big trouble” which seemed to move them a bit. Deep down maybe they realise that we are, but aren’t sure why.
But as I said, we need to counter narratives promulgated by people such as this foolish intellectual, who believes her utopian dreams will trump the real efforts of our ancestors. This means promoting Western culture and civilisation, among which I think the main planks are:
1. Judeo Christian values including compassion, forgiveness, trust et al and perhaps most importantly, personal responsibility which was granted by the idea of salvation through deeds and prayer.
2. The rule of law, which has allowed us to have a flourishing and mostly safe society and is there to protect individuals against tyranny while granting liberty.
3. The use of Reason, which has given us science and logic and has generally allowed us to make better choices for ourselves and our societies. It has allowed us to discover and invent amazing things and better understand the world around us, including our origins and the nature of the universe.
Obviously it goes a bit further with many ideas added along the way, but allowing our culture and people to be swamped by hostile cultures, thereby ensuring its destruction is a looming tragedy, as our culture, imperfect as it may be, has allowed human beings to really fulfil their potential and be possibly the best they can be.
It has allowed humans the scope to use their growth and adaptibility; innovation and imagination; humility and understanding; trust and cooperation. It has placed us on a journey where our efforts and their benefits can be felt beyond our lifetime. All this could be curtailed (as it has been before) while spreading more untold misery.
We need to take this fight to the people who would destroy it now, and those that would let it happen out of a misplaced sense of compassion and goodness. That is our task. 🙂
PS The BBC sucks balls
MLTSBED
Correct, there is a war on.
Plenty of time for all this humility and understanding – when we have won the war, and not before.
Time to make some very large omelettes.
Plenty of time for all this humility and understanding – when we have won the war, and not before.
Don’t worry, I know what you mean. I’m not being a hippy dippyish hand wringer. I agree with you: Compassion is fine, but there is a time to reap and a time to sow, a time for peace and a time for war.
I’m merely trying to defeat the idealogy people like this woman put out, but just like you did so well in the post above. I’m not doing it by attacking her dreams but by promoting our reality.
Right now the war we’re in is still “cold” and although it will heat up very soon, we can martial our people while we still have time. After all, the greatest elements in the leadership of Churchill and Hitler was their ability to motivate their people through their words and oratory. Many of us know what we’re fighting against but what are we fighting for? Too many of us still don’t know what we stand to lose. This is why everything good about our culture is so often attacked and denigrated, and we’re almost embarrassed to stand up for it.
Those reasons I gave above are some of the reasons why the West and the free world have been so dominant over other countries and societies over the last few centuries. I read them recently and only shared them because I thought it might help others whenever they want to try promote our way of life. And trust and compassion are huge parts of that. It allows us to have greater cooperation which makes us much more formidable.
The article below, written by an American soldier, is really fascinating and explains why Islamic culture will always come 2nd best in this regard, especially when it comes to war. It’s the lack of trust. You can never trust anyone if you live in an Islamic society. Of course totalitarian societies of the left are just the same.
Really worth reading.
http://www.meforum.org/441/why-arabs-lose-wars
This is really not a game anymore, but open warfare against us, the indigenous people and culture of these islands, Europe and the entire West.
Exactly. The gloves are off and the battle has started in earnest. The BBC’s stance is very clear, aligning itself with the open aggression of the UN, Greens and every subversive leftist group in the UK that would see our country as we know it diminished into nothing more than a melting pot of primitive third world cultures.
“Judeo Christian values…”
I was with you all the way there until the religious bit. I think you’ve alienated most of the population there. I would like to know what a Judeo Christian value actually is.
I’m not entirely sure either (but maybe I’m showing my ignorance). But I do know what Christian values are – a quick glance at Christ’s parables and the Beattitudes will give you a flavour. Regardless of whether or not you believe in God, Christ’s teachings are a pretty damn good template for how we should live our lives. It seems the further we’ve drifted from those teachings – particularly during childhood – the more selfish, self-obsessed and materialistic our society has become.
I have no doubt that Christ’s teachings are – on the whole – good, but I don’t believe Christian values are exclusive when it comes to moral goodness. It could be argued that The New Testament was written as a progressive attempt to lighten the mood of The Old Testament. All religions claim to be what you are claiming Christianity to be.
I would say that Britain is built on common sense values rather than religious values. Christianity is very different today than it was only a hundred years ago, and that’s because religion adapts to social trends rather than the other way around, unless, of course, you’re a religious fundamentalist.
Is gender equality a Christian value? Same-sex marriage? The abolition of the death penalty? I would say not, but they are good things in my opinion, although I must admit I’m against same-sex marriage in principle – legalising it is good, but marriage is a religious institution which should remain in the hands of religion and not government.
When you break down British values into their component parts you would struggle to find many that you could say are influenced by Christ or The Bible. Even then you need to embark on the discussion about the existence of God because the idea is that Christ’s teachings could not come from a mere mortal sinner. Really?
How can it be good for the country you go to as well as good for the country you left? Clearly if leaving a country is good for that country then you must be bad for that country in which case you can’t be good for the country you go to.
But then when did logic ever come into any left wing ideology?
With reference to the ‘right’ as it were or normal people I like to think not getting the right of reply, the radio is very much the same now Five live and LBC now only have ‘experts’ from one spectrum of thought.
Demonising reason by howling it down or scoffing at it, by tarring it with the brush of ‘elitism’ or ‘divisiveness’ or even, ‘selfishness’ for heaven’s sake.. these are the tactics of those who control mobs.
I think the rot set in with the Poll Tax riots. They effectively overturned Mrs Thatcher’s previous victories over the unions. People realised that violence and civil disruption could ‘work’ once again in mainland UK, for the first time in a century and a half. They realised how fragile true democracy was, and they have worked at undermining it ever since.
We now have a national broadcaster that is complicit in a deeply undemocratic process of igniting civil disruption, challenging our sovereignty on multiple fronts, and we have a government that is cowed and morally derelict in the face of an existential threat to our nation.
If they cannot put a stop at home to a lying broadcaster of wholesale propaganda, then they will never succeed in defending our nation against the substantial and unrestrained animosity we face from other quarters.
The tide of humans pouring in from Africa is not that of qualified engineers and high-tech businessmen. They are almost all of them of low intelligence, and uneducated young men. Even if they were highly qualified people, does not give them the right to break into our nations.
What further distinguishes these invaders is they are battle hardened soldiers of allah for the most part, with a proclivity for unrestrained violence (an African trait).
It is totally unacceptable that European politicians are breaking immigration laws to allow entry to people who are breaking the borders of nations with force. In effect, EU politicians have made immigration laws null and void. And to do so for people who are using force to gain entry, and have a culture of unrestrained violence, is beyond credence.
Watch this video of an old woman who lives opposite the migrant camp in Calais. She can’t speak so her daughter speaks for her. Of course she’s arrested by the police at one point even though her mother’s house is broken into several times. You get an idea of the kind of people who are coming here. Citizens abandoned by the people who are meant to protect her. Boils my p1ss.
https://youtu.be/bHDM8U6J51I
Man. She’s a good talker.
Our (and clearly the French) liberal leaders are so stupid. They hate the Right but seem do everything to make the citizenry run to their open embrace.
The logic of the argument is that we end up with an average for all. However given the discrepancy in numbers can you envisage living in the world average condition? Housing, education, healthcare – all at the world average? Fine if you are already third world but do they honestly expect all of us in the West to accept a massive drop in our living standards? The ultra-rich will always be just that and the sandal-wearing, bike riding yurt dwellers will welcome the opportunity to show their saintliness but the other 98% in this country? Far better to encourage the raising of third world standards by fair trade, technological assistance and development aid than to drop our standards
An alternative viewpoint was given to me recently by someone who owns a factory in China: Suppose the average Briton has, say, £10,000 a year to spend on goods and services. Suppose the average Chinese person only has £1,000. However, China has 20 times the population of the UK, meaning as a country it offers twice the market potential of the UK. With this sort of mindset it is not difficult to see why an “average-for-all-world-economy” is not necessarily a problem for the capitalist.
Fine if you are already third world but do they honestly expect all of us in the West to accept a massive drop in our living standards?
That is exactly it, and they are not expecting it but demanding it. Agenda 21 is basically about ‘social justice’ i.e. redistribution of wealth and ‘sustainability’ i.e. banning fossil fuels and reducing consumption generally, which would mean a radical downgrading of our living standards – but not theirs, of course, as Al Gore has amply demonstrated.
The logic is that of the zero-sum game – the gains of one side are inexorably matched by the losses of the other side.
It is otherwise known as rationing by artificial shortage. It is a tool that has proven very useful to all governments of the fascist left, and has been practised at all levels, from local government (eg the manipulation of planning regulations to restrict housing and commercial development), through national administrations, and now international organisations. A prime example at global level is the current intention to ration energy for purposes of social policy.
To create a shortage is to create the necessity for extended government, in order to manage that shortage. The corollary of this is that those on the Left will inevitably see society in terms of such shortages, as they provide opportunities to extend the hand of the state into the lives of the people they ostensibly represent. Nowadays the easiest technique is globalisation, which removes the link between power and accountability very effectively. The globalisation of shortages is the globalisation of unaccountable socialism.
Donald Trump is gathering support for a wall between the US and Mexico. He compares it with the Great Wall of China.
Nice one – it worked in China; there are no Mexican illegals there.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/08/12/trump_my_wall_wont_even_be_as_big_as_the_great_wall_of_china_and_mexico_will_pay_100.html
One day an anthropologist just might remind us all that human beings are basically tribal creatures. It is completely unnatural for us to accept strangers of different cultures & from far off places into our fold to stay. Yes, we naturally help them to see them on their way, we are also philanthropic. Trying to ignore this is like sealing a lid on a kettle, one day it will explode. We live naturally by first, family, then community, then finally nationality, we need these three to reassert us of our individual identity. Break down these & we become like overcrowded rats in a cage who will eventually turn on each other with violence.
I am impressed by many of the points raised by contributors above. But for me the issue is much more basic than many of these complex arguments. Basically I don’t want immigrants living near me and I don’t want our country and our culture swamping either.
People may call that racist if they wish but I don’t think that it is. I am sick to death of the liberal left and their fog horn BBC ramming mass immigration down my throat. I am sure that mass immigration is a threat to our country. Why didn’t Labour have a referendum on whether the British people wanted mass immigration? After all it is a decision once taken that is very difficult, if not impossible, to row back from. Of course we know that the answer is that any referendum would have given them the answer NO!
History shows us that many things we believe to be impossible have actually happened before – and sometimes more than once.
For that reason I do not believe it is impossible that we will one day see forced repatriation take place and I really believe that the cultural suicide bid undertaken by the Labour Party, supported by the BBC and other cultural Marxists, has made it much more likely that this might one day happen.
If it does (and it would be extremely unpleasant and violent) they will only have themselves to blame.
It took the Spanish 700 years to remove them, but they did it, because they had the will to do it.
I don’t understand this. We are told that the RoP welcomes all religions and is of great benefit to society. So why on earth did the Spanish even want to push them out? We didn’t push the Angles out, or the Normans – we assimilated to become British within that timescale. Is it possible that Muslims are not as nice as they say they are once in the ascendancy?
Dutch Christian missionaries turned up in Japan in the 1600s, the Japanese threw them out, they were right to do so to preserve their culture. Europeans turned up in the New World, the Native Americans didn’t throw them out and look what happened to them.
Which brings us on to Britain, our capital city is now majority invader and our most popular boys name is Mohammad. This was brought to you by LibLabCon.
“…Where are the voices making the opposite arguments on the BBC?”
*tumbleweed.jpg* ©BBC Impartiality
It is indeed true that open borders and the destruction of the nation state would create equality. They would create world-wide poverty.
This theoretical nonsense is so similar to the idiocy of Marxism and the terrible pain and destruction it brought to the twentieth century.
The far-Left really are disgusting in every way.
“Muslim immigration, if it continues, will be more decisive in deciding the fate of the West than Islamist terrorism. For the world is invading the West.” Pat Buchanan.
On 18 August the Beeb ran a piece from Katrin Nye about “UK volunteers taking aid to the Calais migrant camp”. Nye works on the Devonshire team. In Ms Nye’s own words “My specialism is Britain’s diverse communities so I explore issues such as race, religion, extremism and immigration. My most recent work has seen me travel on two aid convoys to Syria, covering the horrific murder by Isis of Salford taxi driver Alan Henning whom I met on those convoys, looking at the rise of the far right in Germany, a long-term project looking at life in immigration detention centres and a documentary exploring the appeal of a Caliphate to British Muslims. ”
BBC Watch’s views on Nye’s work in Syria are not so effusive: http://bbcwatch.org/tag/catrin-nye/
This woman’s fantasies are standard pod stuff. The usual reality denying bullshit.
What interests me is that our society by increasing it’s living standards and creating vast wealth since the end of WW2 has enabled a class of intellectual drones to grow and thrive. In other words there is surplus wealth availble to pay them and add to their numbers by creating jobs in quangos , state bureacracies and all manner of organisations.
The UN itself is a giant job creation scheme as is the EU ..
The BBC is also one such.. A poor society could not afford it.
Too much time for these otherwise unemployable to think up new problems and new ways of interfering with reality and our lives.
We could close down and abolish most of these quango outfits and shutting most of the useless universities would be a good start.
Although it would probably be personally painful for most of us a serious economic collapse might benefit our civilisation no end.
The old left seems to think that it would be the beneficiary of such a collapse but that left is now a middle class university/media /metropolitan rump and what they term the right could very well take power.
Nobody can be sure.
What is certain is that the views of Katy Long bear no relation to the reality of the world..It is the very success of our culture that enables her to agonize and go on field trips , write papers and give lectures. Like all leftwingers ( liberal) she does not understand how a complex culture creates wealth and how she has been the beneficiary of it’s success.
I am currently struggling to digest the doctoral thesis of an American feminist academic (who, I’m sure, will go quite far – at least, I hope so. Alaska would do fine). Every word you have written applies both to this pile of tripe and its author.
Sadly, it is absolutely typical of the dross being churned out of universities throughout the Western world. Until we address that, and excise these people from any positions of power and influence, we will not even begin to haul ourselves out of the deep mess we are in.
Yes. The politicisation of learning poisons the air that civilisation breathes.
From Islamic schools and ‘universities’ to feminist or Green ‘universities’, truth itself, and the processes of acquiring knowledge, are being not just abandoned, but actively trampled on.
This has happened before of course – I remember classes in Marxist ‘history’, ‘economics’ and even ‘science’ being held at the LSE, Essex and other universities and colleges during the sit-ins and occupations of the 60’s and 70’s.
But we do know that falsehood is in the end propagated only by force, whereas truth, in the end, propagates itself.
In the end.
Truth is never, ever, sponsored by those in power. So the process of establishing and propagating it is always going to be pursued in the teeth of opposition from the Establishment.
Giving the Truth legs, wind and a voice is a matter of weaving it into a narrative that has the power of a very good, very powerful story about the world and ourselves.
Better to captivate people with a compelling vision and offer a shape to their lives that is otherwise lacking. Pointless to attack other people’s stories – be seen as a creator of coherence, not a carping critic snapping at the heels of someone else’s agenda.
I am trying to feel my way towards something constructive here, something which makes the Greens’, the Islamists’, the Socialists’, the SJWs’ visions seem shoddy and lifeless by comparison. I am certain such a thing will arise, but only if we can construct it.
We all know ‘Everyone’s a critic’ – so we need instead, writers and weavers, to create a better vision of the future and attract people away from the crazy cults and movements that currently crow loudest on the dung-hill.
What I’m saying is, tell everyone how you’d like the world to be, tell it often, and join it up to what other people are saying about how they’d like the world to be. Eventually, a story will emerge, so ‘build it, and they will come’.
Thought provoking stuff indeed. I try to make my grandchildren aware of the continuity of life in this country and how we are the inheritors of the work of past generations. That the real way to look at the world is as a compact between past present and future generations.
Today I gave my oldest grandson my late uncle’s Burma Star to give to his father ( my son ) to keep safe for the future.
In doing so I was able to tell him something of my late uncle’s life and how much working the land meant to him and how he was left to cope with the after effects of his terrible war alone and yet remained kind and maybe content.
This continuity and the passing on of family experiences and ways of living is what the cultural marxists really cannot stand and what they fear as it makes a man independent of mind and hard to break. It is what builds and strengthens a people and a nation
No wonder they need to control the education of our children.
No wonder they really need social media and the rest.
The steady telling of a family’s and a people’s story and the day to day commenting on the world around the child is what is really important and what ensures the continuation of culture and ultimately of civilisation itself.
This is what we all must do.
Well said Dave S
Brings to mind a certain ‘B’ Ark.
One show now transmitting their propogonda on Asylum seekers..