Category Archives: Immigration

UK and world immigration issues

Immigration

 

 

 

 

 

 

The recent furore over Gary Lineker’s comments about Conservative government migrant policy on the small boats has exposed clearly the hard left mentality that dominates political discourse in the UK. All the usual suspects have come out of the woodwork against the prospective policies of Rishi Sunak and Suella Braverman: the Labour party, celebrities like Lineker, charities, open borders activists and of course the United Nations and so on.

 

At the risk of annoying all those who have already followed this story, Lineker’s contribution to the debate is not really a free speech issue. He is free to say what he likes as an independent person. However, as a very high profile BBC personality he should be aware of impartiality guidelines in view of the effect his words have on BBC viewers and people generally and realise that his take on government migration policy was outrageous considering the comparison with Germany in the Thirties.

 

The government has an enormous fight on its hands now as it finds itself in an epic battle between open borders supporters and those who believe in the nation state and protection of borders. It was once said that liberals tear down fences that already exist whilst conservatives try and conserve fences as they are there for a reason, and this is reflected by the migration issue.

 

Back in the day, when I was growing up in the UK, it was just taken as given that the world was composed of 195 odd countries which all had their own culture and history, and that you needed a passport or visa to cross a border from one country to another. Otherwise you were transgressing a basic, fundamental boundary that was criminal to sever. Most if not all people would have adhered to that outlook.

 

The world is much changed, and now legal and illegal immigration is running at historic and unprecedented levels. There are those that say it’s too late, the demography is irreversible, but you don’t keep digging if you’re in a hole. Demography is literally everything and we must have a discussion about nationhood, patriotism, history, heritage and what sort of future we want. A fundamental difference has to be acknowledged at the basis of any discussion, that there are those that believe in open borders and others, probably the majority, who believe in borders.

 

Those arguing for proper border controls must first of all be utterly confident in their position and have an unassailable arsenal of arguments to support their view, and they must be fearless in their stance, because the nature of the battle is that they are facing a very powerful bullying and intimidating spirit that shamefully resorts to name calling and cries of ‘bigot’ or ‘racist’ to get its way. A calm reasoned approach may not be popular against such opposition but it will chime strongly with the vast majority of thinking people.

 

Culture, history and nationhood are important because they run deep in our consciousness of who we are, and represent a very strong part of our identity. When we say we are British there are deep connections with a long island history, much of which has been positive and has benefited the world, with historic institutions such as the monarchy and Parliament, the judiciary, the army, universities, the country itself which is full of beauty, customs and mores which are seen as uniquely British, and so on. Although some of these institutions have lost some credibility for one reason or another, people are proud of the things these institutions represent, and you cannot just sweep them under the carpet.

 

Religion also historically plays an important role, although it is less understood by the intellectual and governing classes, Christianity has left its mark both on the physical nature of the landscape with its network of cathedrals, churches and chapels but also on the character of the people. Although the majority would not claim to be Christian, the teachings and commands of the Bible have left their mark on generations of inhabitants, and influence the temperament and character of the people today even if they are not specifically followers of Christ. Waves of immigration have brought other religions to these shores, and many of their adherents have assimilated admirably into our culture, such as the Jews, Sikhs and Hindus, but there have been and are strains on the body politic, and we have seen this particularly with Islam. Political Islam is a very strong strain of Islam which does not fit well with UK history and culture, and this must be recognised with immigration policymakers. There have been too many incidents in the last two decades of fundamental clashes. As Norman Tebbitt said, you cannot have two dominant cultures, Christianity and Islam.

 

This leads to another point. Militant Islam thinks strategically, British governments don’t. It is the price of having a democracy that governments don’t think much beyond the five year election cycle. British governments need to think more strategically about demography, culture and nationhood and how exactly it represents the average patriotic voter making up the ‘somewheres’ in the country as opposed to the ‘anywheres.’ We need statesmen who can see at least fifty years ahead.

 

Continuing to allow huge numbers of legal, and illegal immigrants from alien cultures will simply continue the present trajectory of bigger and bigger percentages of the population being foreign born and smaller percentages being indigenous Brits or indeed settled immigrants who have been happy to make Britain their home. Thus any existing historical culture and traditions will come under increasing strain especially with the discrimination and equality strands so strong in western culture.

 

If governments genuinely want to preserve their nation and culture they have to think of policies which encourage marriage, family and having children, as you only perpetuate your culture through producing the next generation. The former Chief Rabbi maybe made a salient point here when he said that Europeans are no longer prepared to make the sacrifices necessary to raise a family. This will involve ‘discrimination,’ but making judgements for the welfare of society is nothing less than eminently sensible. This might involve tax breaks, tax allowances e.g. interchangeable allowances between couples with children, subsidies or vouchers to encourage father and motherhood.

 

The fundamental problem with the open borders apologists is a failure to understand the nuances and discernment needed to have successful border protection. Protecting your own borders is a completely separate issue from racism and is a viewpoint that understands the argument that all human beings are of equal value and are entitled to be treated accordingly with dignity and respect, but nevertheless we all carry the values, lifestyle, religion and culture of the nation in which were born. Because these issues are so diverse and different across the world there will be significant conflict between them as has always been the case, and allowing huge numbers from alien cultures into your nation will inevitably lead to problems.

 

The UK is a tiny state physically. I have just looked at the World Population Review for 2023 and the UK is the one of the most densely populated relatively large advanced economies in the world after South Korea, India and Japan, in other words it is the most densely populated significant advanced western nation period, with 725 people/square mile, over twice the density of France with 306 people per square mile. Germany is the next most densely populated big western country with 617/square mile. If you drill down deeper, the population density of England as opposed to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is even greater. This alone should make policy makers think very carefully about openness to high numbers of immigrants because of the strain on infrastructure that mass immigration inevitably will bring. It’s such an obvious point that it is difficult to take seriously any arguments of mass immigration activists. There is limited road space, railway infrastructure, hospital capacity, housing space, water resources, etc. and unless you accordingly increase such infrastructure continuing mass immigration is simply foolish. I myself have faced this problem as a local Councillor attending a Southern Water workshop where forecasts of water shortages in the future were shared with delegates.

 

If you believe in the validity of the nation state you must always put your own people first, every time. In other words their welfare is more important than looking after any immigrant. Obviously there are genuine refugees and asylum seekers fleeing from catastrophic circumstances and the UK has a responsibility to help such people, but the British government must ensure the safety and security of its own people as priority.

 

Whatever the pros and cons of immigration it is time for the UK to pause and take stock of the implications of its immigration policy over the last forty years. It seems that arguments for mass immigration have centred around the needs of the economy, the need to keep wages low, the need to fill many low skilled jobs that many British people do not want to do, but surely we should be aiming to get our own people back into work before thinking about importing a workforce, and also we should be having a discussion about nationhood, culture and cohesion at this important time in our history.

Letter to Rishi Sunak (How many letters has he received?)

The Rt Hon Rishi Sunak
Prime Minister
10 Downing St
Westminster
London

Dear Prime Minister

Things have come to a head over the illegal immigration into the UK along the southern shore, but it is also the legal immigration that is far too high. I consider successive British governments as complicit in helping to destroy the cohesiveness of our society in allowing these vast numbers to continually come in from abroad, and for that reason alone any party that has allowed this should be annihilated at the next election.
For me immigration is the key and biggest issue facing this nation, far more important than GDP, economic growth, taxes, climate change, the NHS, the lot. Demographics is everything. The UK is a tiny country and is one of the most densely populated countries in the world. It has experienced massive immigration over the last two and a half decades, not supported I suggest by most of the indigenous population. It is utterly unfair on The British people to allow this to continue. Even recently the Daily Mail reports that 1 in 6 of the UK population was born abroad, and it has just been reported that net migration has just risen to half a million. The latest census figures have just come out showing the declining percentage of white people in major cities and the falling percentage of Christians in our society. These trends are very worrying, unacceptable and need an immediate response. You must bring legal immigration right down to a manageable level, in fact there is a strong case for a moratorium on all immigration as there has been far too much. The so-called economic arguments for immigration must be defanged. There are enough people in the UK to make a success of our economy, not least the unemployed and the young who can be trained to fill gaps in the labour market without continually resorting to bringing in people from abroad.
In this regard I see a trade agreement with India is in progress which may entail even more immigration as a condition. I do not want this continual legal immigration. We have had far too much in a short space of time. It is nothing to do with racism and everything to do with preserving the cohesiveness of our society, which is obviously unsettled by continual influxes of often alien cultures. You must stop the policy of allowing family members to enter the UK on the coattails of initial immigrants. Also you must change the law to ensure that no money is paid to legal or illegal immigrants who have contributed nothing at all to our society at least until legal immigrants have been here for, say, five years. Surely we need to think of the usefulness of contributory as opposed to non-contributory benefits.
There are massive strains associated with the level of immigration we have, and none of this scale of immigration has the agreement of the British people. It is obvious to anyone the pressure on roads, railways, housing, health and education services that huge immigration brings. The pressure on the NHS is enormous, and has hit close to home. I suffered a stroke in August and had to wait five hours for an ambulance. There are many other examples. I cannot fathom how politicians cannot see the chaos they are encouraging by not clamping down on immigration, unless of course it is a deliberate policy to destroy the nation, which undoubtedly some people believe.
There are also societal strains especially from importing totally alien cultures into the UK. How does the UK government think in any way it will benefit the country to import so many people from poor developing countries which often have cultures with totally different values? You are allowing for instance many Moslems to come here. The world view of many Moslems is completely in opposition to the historical values of this country which are substantially based on the Judeo-Christian worldview. Even Norman Tebbitt said some years ago that you cannot have two dominant cultures in a country, one Christian and one Moslem. We are stoking up trouble for the future, and any statesman worth his salt would be aware of these things. It is sheer madness to allow so many Moslems to enter the country, it’s not racism, it’s simple common sense.
The British people are going to get increasingly very, very angry over what is happening, and don’t bet on there not being a backlash and a quiet but effective revolution. The political class have no right to allow the level of legal and illegal immigration currently being experienced by the UK. Your first, holy and sovereign duty is to put the British people first and thus to protect our borders. That means robust, strong and decisive unilateral action regardless of what the rest of the world, the French, the EU, the left-wing establishment or media think. I remember the Lebanese border with Israel some years ago. If someone tried to cross the border illegally, a warning shot was fired. If they continued to cross the border, the next shot was not a warning. I am not advocating such a policy, but we are far, far, far too soft, and a laughing stock to those taking advantage of us.
The illegal channel crossings is such a huge issue that if you can sort it I suggest that you can win the next election as Labour has little clue on what to do. I suspect that success on this issue alone would give you enough support for a victory, such is the level of concern. Again this is close to home as I am considering at the moment whether I should rejoin the Conservative party to which I belonged for ten years, or wait for a new Conservative opposition to arise from Reform or some combination of other parties with or without Nigel Farage.
Why don’t you just push the boats back like the Australians did? There is nothing anyone can do, apart from making a lot of noise. Reform say that this can legally be done. We seem to lack the ability to be really hard and ruthless when we need to be, and such a time is now. We must take uniliteral action to impose border control by force if necessary, regardless of what anyone else thinks. If you push the boats back the problem will be solved immediately. Look at what the Hungarians and now the Poles are doing, building a fence or wall and refusing to allow illegals to penetrate their sovereign territory. That is exactly what we should be doing. If we need to leave the ECHR and withdraw from the Human Rights Act in order to be free to protect our borders then the government should expedite this as soon as possible to close every loophole that can be exploited by wicked and unscrupulous people to take advantage of our largesse.
I deeply resent my taxes contributing to paying for the keep of illegal immigrants who have no ties to this country, in fact there is a case for withholding tax because the government is failing in its responsibility to protect our borders and therefore the British people. And why are illegals being put in hotels? This is incredible, why are vast amounts being wasted on this when illegals should be put in the most basic accommodation as a deterrent if they make it to these shores? Old military bases or army camps, or perhaps an old cruise ship that can be anchored mid channel would be far better. You are really treating the British people as mugs in paying for hotels for illegals. Again, it is the indigenous people that suffer from the inability or refusal of the government to do its job. At the very least you should immediately return these illegals simply because they have entered the country illegally, surely that would be a deterrent. If other European countries like Sweden and Germany can do it, surely we can too?
Can I urge you to take swift action to deal with the stupendous scale of illegal migration, and to reduce significantly the legal immigration taking place. The UK is not a giant Heathrow for people to land and take off as and when they wish for economic reasons, but an ancient culture with its own mores and traditions that should be lovingly protected. This has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with taking a principled patriotic stance to carefully steward what has been passed down to us from previous generations. You must change or else the danger is a new political movement that will sweep away the old political order and genuinely put the British people first.
A national emergency should be declared on this issue. The boats should be pushed back to stop the nonsense. At the very least anyone who gets here illegally should be immediately deported. You must not allow any form of amnesty to be brought in to clear the backlog of asylum cases as this will be seen as an enormous betrayal and will send a message that illegal entry will be rewarded with the right to stay here. I expect immediate results on this issue, we need to see numbers of illegals coming right down and being deported straightaway. If I don’t see serious efforts by the Conservatives to reduce legal and illegal immigration with such immediate results I will have to question whether my future is ever to return to the Conservative party. In conclusion, the UK should also seek to disassociate itself from any international migration agreements pushed by bodies like the UN and the WEF which push damaging globalist agendas. They hardly have our interests at heart. You must put our country first, there is enough wisdom and talent within these islands to run our country perfectly adequately without interference from international bodies.
I do thank you for reading this letter, and trust and pray that you will do the right thing for our country,

Yours faithfully

Link

The world is in a bit of a quandary over the American elections. I said earlier this year that Brexit and a Trump victory in the US will be better for the world if they happen, and I stand by this. Just a few thoughts however from an Englishman who has been through Brexit.

I in no way condone Trump’s past behaviour or attitude to women, his outrageous statements on various groups Iike Mexicans, or his intemperate remarks on a range of issues. There are all sorts of reasons why people would not want to vote for him, and these are just some of them, just as there are many reasons why people will not vote for Hilary Clinton. The highest level of character and integrity are what you look for in a national leader, yet here we have two candidates with serious flaws, they do not measure up to want you want to see in a national leader. Many people will not vote for them because they refuse to give their vote to people they see as morally or spiritually bankrupt. That is their right, although I believe the stakes are so high that those people should still vote, including the significant bloc of evangelical Christians some of whom particularly disapprove of both candidates. You could say that Trump and Clinton are a symptom of the state of the nation rather than a cause. American society has produced two such candidates and they are merely a reflection of what America now represents. Just as in the U.K. we say we get the government we deserve.

l still say that there is a bigger picture at work, things will be difficult for America with either Trump or Clinton, but Trump I believe is the lesser of two evils. Again I see Trump as a Cyrus figure, a wrecking ball or bulldozer meant to smash the establishment and expose corruption, including the powerful hold of political correctness on the American authorities and especially the Democratic party. At least he stands for some conservative values, control of borders, slashing tax rates to encourage business, protection of the American Constitution and a realistic attitude to militant Islam. On the other hand Hilary Clinton is a hard left candidate who represents open borders, a hemispheric common market, continuance of the entitlement mentality, destruction of the Constitution and a dangerous appeasement towards militant Islam, as well as social transformation with the further pushing of dangerous agendas like partial-birth abortion and the transgender movement. Then we have the email debacle, the evidence of corruption in the Clinton foundation which has taken money from regimes like Saudi Arabia and Qatar. In essence Hilary represents a party that is totally on board with the agenda that is speeding the destruction of western civilisation and destroying anything left of our Judeo Christian heritage.

Supreme Court nominations is another issue. Presidents get to nominate new Supreme Court justices and once they are in they are in for life. Hilary Clinton will ensure hard left candidates for those roles. At least Trump is more likely to appoint conservative judges. Presidents only get eight years maximum, Supreme Court justices are there for life unless they choose to retire or resign. This means they have the ability to remake massively the social and political landscape of America over the long term that a president would never achieve. If Clinton wins, expect judicial activism and a liberal totalitarian social agenda on a grand scale.

Trump has already referred to this as a Brexit election and to some extent he is right. The same forces are at work to a degree. People are fed up with the downgrading of any cultural or historical sense of nationhood, they are tired of the mass migration that is fast changing the nature of our societies, and they are very wary of the policy of allowing so many Moslems to migrate to the west. If Trump gets in, just as with Brexit, it is a sign of the revival of the nation state which has been so inaccurately caricatured in recent decades. People want their own country with a sense of pride in its nature and traditions, and there is nothing wrong with that. They don’t want a globalist agenda imposed upon them. It was inevitable that a pushback would take place, a sign that there is still some backbone left in the west.

One characteristic that defines Trump whatever you say about him is that he has courage. Courage is perhaps the most essential and the most rare commodity in western society today, courage to speak the truth without fear or favour. Too many in the west have been intimidated by a spirit of fear, which stops them from saying what they think. We need leaders who will tell it like it is, before it is too late. Unfortunately too many leaders fit the mould of what is an ‘acceptable’ politician these days. Trump has broken that mould.

The other thing that could be in Trump’s favour is that if he gets a good team around him this will mitigate some of the potential disasters that people anticipate. It won’t be a one man band. Cool heads planted around him can provide a healthy siphon for any excess. The outlook is positive on this front as you see men like Mike Pence, his running mate, Ben Carson, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, trusted generals, some decent conservative leaders around him. Trump can’t do it on his own, a strong team around him will bring stability. He would be wise to recruit those who can get the job done.

Also don’t believe the polls! We have learnt this in the UK both with last year’s General Election and this year’s Brexit vote. Both results were unexpected and leave some faith in democracy against those who argue that elections are rigged. I was up all night at the Brexit vote witnessing the vote count and it is heartening to see the order and level of professionalism displayed in running the count, although it was an area of the country not likely to see much voter fraud! Whether you hold your nose and vote for him or you are a die hard Trump supporter, I still predict that he will win. The alternative in my opinion is frightening, it could spell the end of America as we know it. Just look at this video to sum up Trump’s role as a wrecking ball:

 

 

Trump and Brexit

There are two events this year that could have an enormous effect on the future of the world. One is the presidential election in the USA and the other is the Brexit vote in the UK. If Donald Trump is elected president of the USA and the U.K. votes to leave the European Union this will be an enormous setback for the elite money men, socialist political leaders, corporatist interests, global companies that know no borders, in fact everything that epitomises the internationalist, globalist agenda, the virtual Tower of Babel that finds its ultimate manifestation in the superstate under construction that is the EU. All those who represent the New World Order and world government will get a kick in the teeth and have to move back in the queue just as the Brits will have to do of course if they leave the EU and try and form a trade deal with the USA! As Lord Obama said of course.

This is why so many people are up in arms about the Donald, as he is stirring up a hornets nest, attacking the forces of political correctness like a bulldozer. Nothing epitomises this direct challenge to the evil power known as ‘political correctness’ than Trump’s proposal to ban all Moslems from entering the USA ‘until we know what’s going on.’ Moslems are at the top of the food chain of the far left’s ‘victim’ groups. Trump has faced Islam down head on.

Trump might be seen as like a ‘Cyrus’ in the Biblical sense, raised up by the Almighty to destroy the spirit of control that is now spreading all over the western world like a lethal virus, causing decent people to hesitate about speaking common sense. In the Old Testament Cyrus was a heathen King who was used by God to decree the return of the exiled Jews to Israel. Trump likewise is poised to give a poke in the eye to all those who think they have the world locked into a one way trajectory. Yes he may not be to every conservatives taste, he may flip flop on a number of issues, he may even be seen as an immoral man, but he is not afraid to confront issues that need to be dealt with, and he is the only politician of a major western country that is prepared to say things about Islam that need to be said.

Meanwhile nothing would give the enemies of the U.K. more joy than to lock her irreversibly into a superstate which would shackle her potential ingenuity and creativity for ever. The land of Magna Carta, the mother of parliaments and the greatest empire the world has ever known finally tamed and neutered. Believe you me the influential ‘remainers’ as they are called in the UK are desperate to keep the UK submitted to the European project. If Britain leaves however, I believe it could be a wonderful release which can enable Britain to enjoy much greater freedom of movement.

Sadly, the U.K. doesn’t have leaders with a clear eye at this time, only the First and Second Lords of the Treasury, who some would say are acting like snake oil salesmen, Cameron and Osborne, who come with an ever more ludicrous narrative to try and bully the British people to stay in the corrupt and totalitarian EU. The referendum campaign in Britain demonstrates the stranglehold the BBC, the media and the establishment have on controlling the agenda. One of the saddest things about the campaign is the emphasis by the remainers on the importance of the economy. They have managed to get a profound debate on an issue close to the hearts of many concerning liberty and democracy down to the level of pounds, shillings and pence, when pecuniary interest should be the last issue in the debate.

However a UK set free from the straightjacket of Europe and able to make more of her own decisions would be a potential force for good in the world. There is enormous scope for developing the relationship with the Commonwealth which would have more natural allegiance to the monarchy and British traditions than could ever be drummed up from our European partners. The U.K. would be able to break free from all the tentacles of the EU octopus that have inveigled themselves into the UK body politic and to set a course which suits herself. Trade would be established with new markets unburdened by EU regulation, and last but not least the UK could help to free other nations also shackled by Brussels. A Brexit could initiate a domino effect that could reverberate through the whole EU.

So these two events give a great chance to the two great old champions of the free world, now much diminished, to make a bid for freedom. If the American people, thoroughly fed up with the political class go for Trump, and the British people show a little courage to break free from the powerful manipulative spirit of the EU, there may be more for the world to rejoice about at the end of the year than there was at the beginning. We can only live in hope.

 

Viktor Orban – a hero for our time

The political class in Europe and their acolytes are now an extreme danger to their own people. The papers are full of it. Under Angela Merkel Germany has agreed to take in 800,000 migrants this year. This is a country I have grown quite fond of having visited it over the last few years. Yet I feel that they are building their own funeral pyre.

In the present migrant crisis that is facing Europe you have to be hard headed and realistic, and ask some very pertinent questions. Yes there are genuine refugees who are entitled to help, such as Syrian Christians who are being wiped out by jihadists, but to treat all migrants making their way to Europe as such would be unbelievably naive. That is why it is wise to step back from some of the hype over this issue, especially when 400,000, plus people sign a UK petition to help migrants.

I find it highly disturbing the behaviour of some of the migrants pouring into Europe. One would expect genuine refugees to have a somewhat docile demeanour and to cooperate fully with the authorities in whose country they find themselves, rather unsure of the largesse they might enjoy from their hosts. However we have had stories of migrants refusing to disembark off a ferry from Germany to Denmark unless they are allowed to go on to Sweden, throwing away provision such as water given to them, and failing to cooperate with the lawful authority in the territory they find themselves in. A Head of a UNHCR camp called Syrian refugees ‘the most difficult refugees I’ve ever seen.’ Refugees in Italy were throwing rocks at police whilst demanding free wifi. It reminds me of the attitude of some of the migrants in Calais trying to illegally enter the UK. You say they are desperate. Hmm… Desperation is no excuse for lawlessness. If so called refugees are willing to behave like that in a supposedly desperate situation, what regard will they have for the law when they come to your country?

Viktor Orban, president of Hungary speaks the truth amongst European leaders and makes the rest of Europe’s leaders look like political pygmies. He has stated the foolishness of opening European borders to the mass migration that is now taking place across Europe from the Middle East and Africa, especially the Moslem immigration. He points out that Europe is historically at least a Christian continent, although now it is busy attacking its own Christian values, and that letting Moslems in who do not integrate and may have an agenda is deeply unwise. I suggest there is a connection between Europe losing its spiritual soul and the mass immigration of Moslems of recent years. Any leader worth his salt needs one quality amongst many, and that is discernment. You always and every time have to protect your own people, so what possesses European leaders to let in so many from a totally alien culture and civilisation within the European borders?

Victor is showing qualities which are sadly lacking in European politics. Not least the quality of courage. He is prepared to say what so many politicians in Europe are not prepared to say because they do not wish to offend. Political correctness is rooted in fear. But that is not showing leadership. Viktor is demonstrating leadership by telling the truth, that Islam is incompatible with western values and will only bring trouble and strife to western lands, just as it already has. In doing so he is putting himself in the firing line against the forces arrayed against him that have built an iron stronghold of multiculturalism and political correctness in Europe. They will no doubt try to bully him into backtracking but he must stick to his guns.

Also, Viktor probably has a pretty good sense of history. In the year 1000 King Stephen 1 founded the State of Hungary as a Catholic country. Hundreds of years later in 1526 the Turkish army defeated the Hungarian royal army at Mohacs, and the country split into three parts in about 1541. It was 150 years before the Hungarians reunited and drove out the Turks. The Turkish baths in Budapest are a legacy of this period. Countries have long memories. Eastern Europe faced the hordes of the Ottoman Empire in their history and know far more about the Islamic mentality than most armchair critics in the west who have never witnessed the iron grip of militant Islam when it gains control of your territory. They have had to fight for their survival and now see the Islamic enclaves that have been established in so many western cities where there is just a failure to integrate, and they have witnessed the growth of jihad in the west aided and abetted by clueless western politicians. They do not want the same problems.

No doubt Viktor is aware that amongst the migrant hordes trying to enter Western Europe are highly dangerous jihadists who have had specific instructions from ISIS to cause murder and mayhem in Europe. And they will lie according to the Islamic doctrine of takiyya and claim to be refugees of course, taking naive westerners who think everyone else in the world thinks like they do for fools. And so the western reporter believes them when they say they are refugees from Syria. Some may be, but all of them? A great cover to dupe trusting westerners, especially. when you can easily get a fake Syrian passport.

There is one big question here that has not been satisfactorily answered. Why on earth are the other Moslem nations neither helping nor expected to help to look after their own for the Islamic ummah? Rich Arab nations like Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar. Surely they should be looking after their own brethren rather than letting them flow to Europe. Won’t they be happier in an Islamic country rather than coming to traditionally Christian lands? Well maybe, just maybe they are committing Hijrah, Islamic migration to establish a bridgehead for the burgeoning caliphate. Surely not? Far too much of a conspiracy theory! And then you have western nations loath to take Christian refugees from nations where they are being wiped out by Islamic jihad. They now put anti discrimination legislation before doing what is right.

Of course there is another possible explanation for this, and that is that pompous and arrogant elites that are trying to build a new world order are engineering this migration as it is in their interests. This may even be beyond the dangers of islamisation that those such as Geert Wilders foresee. These so called elites are directing the politically correct left who rule in Europe. They know that it will destroy what is left of European Christian civilisation, and of course it is Christianity they must destroy to bring In their socialist/communist world utopia. The EU is just a building block. It will also help usher in their phoney counterfeit world religion that will be a syncretism of different world religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam and state Catholicism, as they know they need a religion to help rubber stamp their ghastly vision of heaven on earth. The fulfilment of a truly wicked plan, the replacement of Judeo-Christian culture with a massive counterfeit system that will be rooted in coercion and totalitarianism.

Time for the warrior spirit to arise! You never know!

Bring back our borders!

Looks like an outbreak of common sense has struck Germany. Yes, because of the massive influx of refugees, the police have requested that passport controls be carried out at borders just like the good old days. So Germany would become a proper country again. Poor old Germany is being forced to face reality as a borderless EU Schengen area is absolutely hopeless at dealing with the unforeseen and massive influx of refugees from the Middle East and Africa. You have to feel sorry for Germany with its massive landlocked border as part of the Schengen area, that area of 26 European countries that have got rid of passport and any other sort of border control on their common borders. Yes, it’s a European Union policy. As anyone can see, the Schengen area operates as one country for travel purposes. Once you enter Europe  you can melt into a vast area of about 420 million people, and have some leeway over which country you would like to settle in. Germany right now is experiencing a vast influx of refugees from Africa and the Middle East which will further change the population structure of the country. The article reports that a figure of 500,000, is expected to try and enter Germany this year. Staggeringly, statistics released In early August from the German Federal Statistical Office show that one in five people living in Germany have an immigrant background. No one is saying you have to lack compassion for genuine refugees from war and strife, but there has to be a better way of dealing with the situation.

One would hope that Germany being what it is, a very big boy on the European block, that it would have some influence now on the rest of Europe over this matter. If it gets back its own passport control it can then send refugees back immediately to the country from which they entered the Schengen area. It will be far harder for migrants or refugees to just move from one country to another if every EU country restores proper border controls. Then perhaps a more realistic and effective cooperative policy can be worked on to deal with the migrant crisis.

Here is the link:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3193887/Bring-borders-German-police-demand-reintroduction-passport-controls-Europe-cope-influx-refugees-make-easier-send-home.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Calais

In the Observer newspaper this last Sunday we see the headline ‘Church attacks David Cameron’s lack of compassion over the asylum crisis.’ Well as a member of the church myself I beg to differ. Unfortunately I believe the church here has a misplaced sense of compassion. Thank god that they don’t run the government. Now I’m not saying there is no room for compassion, of course there is, but when it comes to policing international borders, there should be a very high barrier to entry for any potential immigrant to any country worth its salt. Given that we haven’t a clue as to who these people are in Calais without rigorous checks, and the propensity of people to lie through their teeth to get what they want, hearing that the UK is ‘El Dorado,’ we have to be very careful about accepting any stories about asylum seekers.

Always and ever time the government’s first responsibility is to protect its own people, otherwise what is the point of having a nation state? The Calais crisis exposes the continental open borders policy that we have opened the door to through being members of the EU and by listening to people like Peter Sutherland, special representative of the UN Secretary- General for international migration and development, whose views on people migration should quite honestly be consigned to the dustbin of ideological nonsense.

The present crisis in Calais is concentrating the minds somewhat of the the British people. As yet there seems to be no adequate response to the migrant situation that has plagued this area for years and is now escalating to dangerous levels. However it is a very loud trumpet sound to the British people about the glories or otherwise of the EU, and as Matthew D’Ancona points out, a potent illustration of just why being a member of the EU might not be a good idea according to the euro sceptic mob.

There is no way any of these people should be let into the UK under the present regime. The very fact that some of them are pushing objects in front of lorries, threatening lorry drivers, brazenly resisting legitimate authority and wielding weapons should bring us to the swift conclusion that no such person should be allowed to enter the UK. The fact that some of them are also causing criminal damage by destroying fencing, breaking into lorries and trains, as well as indirectly disrupting the south east of England is even more reason for them not to come.

It seems that the incredibly enlightened policy of EU open borders is now proving to be a chocolate teapot in dealing with the flow of migrants across Europe. As far as economic migrants are concerned, British is under no obligation to take anyone as we have already taken hundreds of thousands of immigrants in a very short time period. As far as asylum seekers are concerned, they should be claiming asylum in the first country they reach, not travelling the length and breadth of Europe to go where they want. It seems that they are far too easily being allowed to transport themselves across the continent to their own favoured destination. If you were of a cynical disposition of course you would think that certain countries in Europe just don’t want to be bothered about processing people entering their countries, why not just wave them on to a country that will take them? Or if you were even more cynical you might believe that there is a policy at a very high level to make the UK the plug hole of Europe!

David Davies of the Conservative party echoed calls for the army to be sent to Calais and proposed camps in place like North Africa where migrants can be properly processed. Genuine asylum seekers can then be filtered out. Under no circumstances would anyone be allowed to travel without proper documentation. Any propensity to destroy your documents on your travels to ease your passage i.e. bare faced lawlessness, should be robustly dealt with. Back to the camp to get new documents! This is only one of the least worse solutions that could be discussed.

The most worrying thing about Calais to me is the potential invasion that it represents. Many of the migrants in Calais appear to be young men from Africa and the Middle or Far East. We have no idea how many of them are on assignment to cause mayhem in the UK. How many are militant Islamists who have been given their instructions. ‘Get to London at all costs where you will be given further instructions?’ We are beyond naive in our attitude to this issue.

We are now facing a vicious and utterly ruthless foe in the Middle East in the form of ISIS who have a plan to establish a caliphate. That caliphate no doubt has visions to be worldwide, for of course if you are a committed Islamist, the whole world is a mosque yet is divided into two, the house of war and the house of peace. If you are a good Moslem you are in the house of ‘peace’ but if you are in the house of war you are the kuffar or infidel, to be dhimmified, taxed and discriminated against until you bow the knee to Allah. How many ISIS fighters have smuggled themselves into every west European state and also into the U.S. through their southern border on the pretext of ‘asylum seeker’ or ‘economic migrant,’ but are now about to try to unleash terror and bloodshed on an unprecedented scale. This year has been full of warning signs, Paris, Copenhagen, Brussels, and of course Tunisia.

And then here he is again, the one man globalisation phenomenon, yes none other than Peter Sutherland, giving us the benefit of his all knowing wisdom on the subject. You can predict what is going to come out of his mouth. Now let me see, surely as day meets night, he will use the word ‘xenophobia’ at some point; his is the sort of trumpet herald we get from on high these days in the UK, making us of course ‘racist xenophobic little Englanders.’ I’d say that’s a flowery euphemism for ‘absolutely normal common sense thinking.’

Here is the article:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11773836/Britain-xenophobic-to-demand-economic-migrants-kept-out-says-UN.html

If it is the first responsibility of any government to protect its own people, that means you discriminate in favour of your own people every time bar none. It goes without saying that you have to know exactly who is coming into your country so that you know they will not present any threat to your own nation.

I feel sorry for countries in mainland Europe that are much more at the sharp edge of what is going on. Imagine a country like Germany which is mostly landlocked and is taking massive numbers at present, or France which has a lengthy border with other European countries. You might count it as in the providence of God that we are an island, otherwise we would surely be finished as a nation by now. It should be far easier to police our own borders.

Having said this, we are coming to the end of an age. This is a new paradigm when the British people will have to contemplate doing things and taking the type of action that we thought was no longer needed, things that we perhaps deemed unacceptable in an ‘enlightened’ society based on human rights and tolerance. We live in a world which includes extreme wickedness which if it poses a threat to our heritage and culture must be dealt with very robustly and it will necessitate tough love and ruthlessness. Being nice won’t work any more. Instead we must do what is right for the sake of survival and for the sake of our children and grandchildren. Trouble is, have we forgotten how to fight? Interesting times!

Immigration 2015 style

‘ A nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation.’ Ronald Reagan

A staggering statistic came out this week that should be marked up as a massive reality check before the coming elections. The Guardian reports that the migrant population of England increased by 565,000 in three years between 2011 and 2014, with about two thirds of the arrivals born in other EU countries. This represents nearly 1% of the UK population of an estimated 63,489,234 in July 2015 (0.89% to be precise). The numbers are estimates of course, but anyone with half a brain can see what is going on. We are to celebrate this of course. The natural bedfellow of mass immigration is government sanctioned diversity. Celebrating diversity has got to be the UK’s greatest achievement of the last 50 years, up there with the 2012 London Olympics.

We are told that the greatest increase in the amount of foreign born residents has been in the capital, with an estimated 200,000 more foreign residents living in London between 2011 and 2014. I have just been reading the comments on this article in the Guardian blog and there are plenty of them not quite sure of if not downright against this mass immigration idea.

The project is almost complete some might argue, and some people in high places must be rubbing their hands with glee. Soon the UK could be no more, utterly demolished by a mixture of misplaced white guilt, bowing down to other cultures, rubbishing our own culture and religion, and using the word racist to brand anyone who ever dared to question the wisdom of opening the floodgates to the world. Again I am reminded of the meeting I went to all those years ago when it was proposed that New Labour had instituted a deliberate policy of mass immigration to destroy the culture of the nation, and this was well before Andrew Nether, the New Labour speech writer let the cat out of the bag when he told the UK that New Labour wanted to rub the right’s nose in diversity.

When I voted for David Cameron in 2010 I was not particularly voting for him as a leader as I have never been a big fan, but I was hoping that the Conservative party was actually going to do something Conservative about immigration when they took power after 13 years of direct assault on the soul of this nation by the apparatchiks of New Labour. Dave assured us that those immigration figures would be brought down but hardly a thing has been done. The sad thing is that the policies of successive governments in this area could make the English people racist. There has been warning after warning about the consequences of all this but the government appears to have a death wish, especially when it comes to dangerous Islamists being allowed to settle in this country.

Institutionalised ‘diversity’ must be one of the greatest deceptions foisted on the world ever, and it has been very successful because the purveyors of this policy have forced it into the public sector, the universities, the schools, and even into the corporate world, where you will be a heretic if you dare to stand agains the prevailing orthodoxy.

Will the British people wake up before the next election as they realise there might be a plan? Is what is being done to their nation part of a plan that has been carefully prepared and used to infiltrate every nation of the old Anglosphere. At the moment UKIP is the only hope to call some sort of halt.

I watched Newsnight the other night and there was a big piece about the housing crisis in the UK. Not enough homes, not enough new homes being built, young people not able to afford a house, escalating rents and so on. House prices are set by supply and demand, which in turn are influenced by many factors such as desirability of area, quality of schools, job market, family break up, interest rates, availability of loans, price of land and so on. The piece said barely a word about immigration, but it should be pretty obvious that over half a million people entering the nation in three years could be a pretty significant driver on the demand side of housing shortages as well as house prices and rent levels.

 

My Thoughts on ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech by Enoch Powell

‘The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature.’

The above quote is a line from Enoch Powell’s famous Rivers of Blood speech. Not the sort of line that you hear from your average politician these days. I’d say that it really has the quality of thinking of a statesman, not just a politician. I’d also say that it’s a line that’s pretty difficult to disagree with if you have any sort of concern for the future of your nation. Enoch Powell had a better grasp of the profound issues of our time than most, perhaps as somebody said he was the best Prime Minister Britain never had. He had more insight in his little finger than a lot of current politicians in a month of Sundays.

I have just read Enoch Powell’s infamous speech and am struck by how relevant it is to today. I wonder how many people have actually read the speech rather than relying on other peoples’ interpretation of the speech. It is commonly known that left wing thinking has dominated the political debate since that speech, but what Powell said had much support amongst the so called working classes. You only have to note the letters he has received as well from constituents.  I have just made such an effort to read it and it’s well worth it. There’s a copy for you to read on the website. I have to ask the question how much of it is really racist? A profound concern about huge numbers coming into the country and the effect on the culture is hardly racism. I would say that Enoch Powell displayed extraordinary prescience and perception, the message is nothing less than prophetic. The first five paragraphs demonstrate his ability to see the big picture with the quality of a statesman. The speech indicates to me that this man, who also had an incredible intellect, stood head and shoulders above his peers in his foresight and sheer grasp of the big picture. As an article written by Simon Heffer recently said, Enoch Powell was right on the big issues. I myself remember reading his biography years ago. He was right on the EU for sure, encapsulating the problem in one single sentence which cuts through all the obfuscation and dissimulation that surrounds this issue. His simple conclusion was to the effect ‘Do you want to be ruled by an external authority?’ This says it all in a nutshell. Grand panjandrums in the House of Lords hinting that the British cannot be trusted at present with such a complicated question of whether we should stay in the EU or not would no doubt have suffered his scorn.

Despite his enormous intellect, he also understood that man was not the measure of all things. Of Northern Ireland and its intractable problems he once said to Northern Irish MP Geoffrey Donaldson that only God was the answer. A giant intellect can actually believe in God. Well whatever next?

Reading about his life you realise that this was a man who had a profound love for his country although he might have been somewhat patrician and old fashioned in his bearing. If he was still alive today I imagine he would weep for his country if he saw what had happened to it and how misguided politicians and leaders had busily built up what many would consider is indeed a funeral pyre for this remarkable nation. Many people knew that what he said was absolutely right, but the political elite and opinion formers built a giant shibboleth that shut down the debate for far too long. Now that shibboleth has to be destroyed, rooted up from the ground. Free movement of labour within the EU and New Labour’s shameless immigration policy, key drivers of the current immigration debate,  are now being seen for what they are.

He was well aware of the demographics, saying that the immigrant population would amount to five to seven million by 2000. The actual census in 2001 showed a figure of 4, 896,600, not too far off the lower estimate of Enoch Powell. The actual figure for 2011 was 7.7million, or 13% of the population. This compares with a figure of 2,118,600 in 1951, when immigrants made up 4.2% of the population (all official census figures).

He did suggest a solution to the problem, one which would now be unthinkable to many people in 2014, and that was repatriation fuelled by assistance.

This is how he saw it in 1968: ‘The answers to the simple and rational question are equally simple and rational: by stopping, or virtually stopping, further inflow, and by promoting the maximum outflow. Both answers are part of the official policy of the Conservative Party.’

Such are the numbers and strength of immigrant populations that this is just unrealistic. However, the State has every right to expel from the country anyone who foments sedition, preaches hatred or tries to undermine the rule of law. Certainly there should b e a debate on whether it is now time for a moratorium on immigration and to concentrate on removing from the UK all who should not be here.  Somehow I think that would be pretty popular.

There are so many elements in this speech that touch a nerve. His constituent telling him that he would like to emigrate and that the country will not be worth living in for his children. The remarkable thing is that this speech could have been written yesterday, it has such clear echoes with comments made in newspapers, on blogs, in the pub and on the street this very hour, about people being strangers in their own country, having to wait in line for their hospital appointments, struggling to get their children into overcrowded schools, etc.

The speech also shows that Enoch Powell had got it over the whole antidiscrimination agenda, that every natural born Englishman and citizen who has immigrated has the full rights to citizenship in this country, therefore there is no need for ‘anti-discrimination’ legislation as all are equal before the law. Wow, we need a good dose of what it means to be a true Englishman now. Anti discrimination, equality and human right legislation has now built a state enforceable code to replace the natural ways and mores of a mature culture that Enoch Powell would have been able to predict all along:

‘There could be no grosser misconception of the realities than is entertained by those who vociferously demand legislation as they call it “against discrimination.’

The accusation that Powell was a racist is unconvincing. There is nothing in the speech that suggests that he thought that immigrants were in any way inferior to British people. His attitude towards the 1959 Hola camp massacre in Kenya during the closing days of the British Empire which the British government tried to cover up was not one of a racist as he reminded us of the high standards that should apply to colonial governance.

Hola camp was a detention camp where a massacre took place in 1959 during the Mau Mau uprising against British colonial rule in Kenya. A plan was forged to force some of the uncooperative workers to work and as a result of this action 11 detainees were clubbed to death. 77 surviving detainees ended up with serious permanent injuries.

The Guardian said in an article on the 5th October 2012 that ‘Enoch Powell suggested it would be a betrayal of everything England believed its colonial mission was about if the authorities tried to evade responsibility for the massacre of Mau Mau suspects at the Hola detention camp.’

Here is an excerpt from Powell’s celebrated speech in Parliament at the time:

‘Finally it is argued that this is Africa, that things are different there. Of course they are. The question is whether the difference between things there and here is such that the taking of responsibility there and here should be upon different principles. We claim that it is our object—and this is something which unites both sides of the House—to leave representative institutions behind us wherever we give up our rule. I cannot imagine that it is a way to plant representative institutions to be seen to shirk the acceptance and the assignment of responsibility, which is the very essence of responsible Government.

Nor can we ourselves pick and choose where and in what parts of the world we shall use this or that kind of standard. We cannot say, “We will have African standards in Africa, Asian standards in Asia and perhaps British standards here at home.” We have not that choice to make. We must be consistent with ourselves everywhere. All Government, all influence of man upon man, rests upon opinion. What we can do in Africa, where we still govern and where we no longer govern, depends upon the opinion which is entertained of the way in which this country acts and the way in which Englishmen act. We cannot, we dare not, in Africa of all places, fall below our own highest standards in the acceptance of responsibility.’

Pray tell me where there is any racist attitude in this speech?

The ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech has a prophetic edge from a person who could see more clearly than anyone the future of the nation. Prophets upset people because they confront people with reality even if that reality only comes to fruition in the future. They didn’t take too kindly to prophets in the Old Testament who would point out to Kings and rulers the error of their ways and impending judgment on the nation. If you offended the ruling elite by telling the truth you ended up being hounded, thrown in a pit, imprisoned or killed. In our more ‘genteel’ society the punishment is not quite so severe, but even in 1968 it spelt the end of Powell’s favour in high places. Now increasingly it means social ostracism, verbal and sometimes physical abuse, possible court cases and the day is not too far away when it will mean prison, especially if we stay in the EU. Meanwhile, the Titanic continues to speed towards the iceberg.

Then we have the ‘thin edge of the wedge’ argument. Here is another excerpt from the speech:

‘The Sikh communities’ campaign to maintain customs inappropriate in Britain is much to be regretted. Working in Britain, particularly in the public services, they should be prepared to accept the terms and conditions of their employment. To claim special communal rights (or should one say rites?) leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society. This communalism is a canker; whether practised by one colour or another it is to be strongly condemned.’

All credit to John Stonehouse for having had the insight to perceive that, and the courage to say it.’

This excerpt  encapsulates all that has gone wrong in the UK in recent decades, the fruit of a multicultural ideology which refuses to discriminate and differentiate between different cultures, which is terrified of offending , and has not the clear moral foundations to stand clearly for something. It is utter poison that has been injected into the UK bloodstream. It reminds me of the famous story of Sir John Charles Napier, the British army’s commander in chief in India in the days of the British Empire, who would have immediately been sent on a diversity course if alive today because of the grave sin of offending another culture. When faced with the barbaric practice of suttee whereby the widows of Indian men were burnt on their husband’s  funeral pyre, he uttered the following words

“You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.”

I’d venture to say this man had a governing spirit about him, and knew exactly what he stood for. Great Britain right now is crying out for this type of unequivocal cultural confidence. Trouble is, the so called opinion formers and elite in this country do not seem to stand for very much apart from the overarching doctrine of ‘equality,’ and this doctrine has wormed its way into the highest levels of government, the courts and even the church.

Tom Winsor, the chief inspector of Constabulary, this week said that there are certain communities in the UK where the police never go because they are never called, the communities supposedly deal with their own troubles. These are people that he refers to as ‘born under different skies.’ No prizes for guessing that they don’t hail from deepest Somerset or the Lincolnshire Wolds. Peter Hitchens has picked this up in today’s Daily Mail, noting it as a very significant admission and indictment of the way our society is going.

I’m pretty sure that Enoch Powell would be devastated if he were alive today but would have been able to predict that this would happen from his experiences in India after the war of witnessing the break-up of India and intercommunal relations. And so the continuing establishment of parallel societies continues its remorseless pace.

As a footnote it is interesting to note that he distinguishes between those who come here for study or education and those who come here for settlement. The former are not immigrants and should not be classed as so. Students should not be classed as migrants or lumped in with general immigration policy.

Decide for yourself whether you think he was a racist.