“We have many migrants who make a deeply valuable contribution to our country, including in our healthcare system and hospitality sector and we depend on them to make our country work. We do not want this terrible tragedy to be used to divide people or fuel hostility.”
If a member of your family had been left comatose after a Sudanese migrant attempted to behead them, is this how you’d respond? Can you imagine your own tone being so conciliatory — or your own words tacking so closely to the establishment view on migration?
Apparently, this is how the family of Stephen Ogilvie expressed themselves, after watching his attempted beheading on the streets of Belfast. The Ogilvie family’s statement is eerily similar to those issued by the family members of other victims, in cases which might be termed politically sensitive.
[…]
All we can say for sure is that the British state is secretly working to shape how you think about, and respond to, politically sensitive events. Mass migration isn’t going away and multiculturalism will be upheld, regardless of what voters may think or instinctively want.
As such, these state agencies take a keen interest in what people say online, about subjects like race, immigration and Islam. They view certain positions on those issues as inherently dangerous and extremist — and if William Shawcross is to be believed, its definition of which views constitute “extremism” is very expansive.
– Anonymous (unsurprisingly)
What is the motivation for successive governments of all parties, and also our bureaucrats to promote multiculturalism?
I am aware of only a few possible explanations. Either a coterie of Marxists and/or Frankfurt School adherents who actively hate, our culture and wish to bring it down. Or for the right to gain political advantage by importing cheap labour to the benefit of their industrial friends and also to boost the country’s GDP, during their term in government. Or on the political left, the thinking is to import poor people, who they believe, are more likely to vote left. Perhaps there is some truth in any or all of the above, but for me these motives, in total or individually, are not sufficient. What I have I missed?
External actors working via socials and funding of dissident groups to have effective ‘colour revolutions’ in Western countries.
– white people are bad
– white people are racist
– white people are oppressors
– white people are colonisers
– white people are destroying the planet
– white people need to breed less
Then duplicate all of these for heterosexuals and males.
It all then forms a non virtuous cycle of nonsense.
It is not just Britain – it is all Western nations. Even in Japan, in defiance of the elected government, state owned television pushes the narrative that Islamic migrants have always been in Japan (a lie), and that they make a massive positive contribution to society (another lie).
The international agenda (formally endorsed by the United Nations and other international bodies – both governmental and corporate) is that the populations of advanced countries are to be replaced by Third World migrants and their natural increase (births) for they know that assimilation (real assimilation NOT association football and pop music – assimilation in the sense of real principles, beliefs) mostly does NOT take place – even over generations, in reality this is one culture (one people or nation) being replaced by another – whether it is Dearborn Michigan, Paris France, Birmingham England – or wherever.
And YES – in both the United Kingdom, the United States (under a government agency set up under the Act of 1964 – yes that far back) the families of murder victims are, basically, given scripts to read – to prevent “racial or ethnic conflict” they have to trot out platitudes (and lies) and ignore the racial and religious motivations that were behind the murder of their loved ones.
All this is justified in two ways – the already mentioned “to avoid racial and ethnic conflict” (which does not seem to include the murder of whites, that is a treated as a less important matter – look, for example, at who really kills who in the United States, which neither the media or the education system mention), but, more recently, the justification has been “look how low the fertility rate is” – meaning the fertility rate of the once dominant ethnic group “we must have lots more migrants, and hope they have large families – otherwise who is going to pay the pensions of the elderly, and who is going to pay for the medical care of the elderly”.
Why migrants, and other-such, should be willing to pay the pensions and fund the medical care of people of a different culture, is not explained – nor is the fact (and it is a fact) that the migrants do not tend to be high tax payers, they tend to be net “tax eaters” (contrary to the nonsense trotted out by the Cato Institute – for it is not just the left who seek to deceive about this matter).
Lastly WHY is the fertility rate of the traditional peoples (the English in England, the French in France, the Italians in Italy, the Japanese in Japan, the Koreans in Korea, and so on) so low? It is low because government (and corporate – for the big corporations are joined at the hip with governments, nationally and internationally) policies have MADE it low – quite deliberately.
From the 1960s onwards there has been a drive to reduce fertility rates – by “getting women out to work” (they would be so much happier as Corporate or Government drones – rather than having families, supposedly this is “feminism”), and by making raising a family both financially and culturally more difficult – again this is not an accident, it was done on purpose. Done by a whole range of economic and and cultural (social) policies – designed to reduce the fertility of the traditional populations (the nations) of advanced countries.
There is an old Russian saying (and the SOVIET UNION was the first nation on Earth to push all this – from abortion to the great mass of women working outside the home) “first they smash your face in – then they say you were always ugly”.
First the governments (and other such) reduce the fertility rate with their policies and cultural propaganda (the “social revolution” and all the other top-down, and it was top-down – it was NOT natural change, stuff) – then they say that mass migration (and the natural increase of the new populations) “must” happen – because of the low fertility rate.
In Germany a politician whose daughter had been murdered by a migrant, made a big show of giving money to a “charity” – whose mission was to bring MORE migrants.
In American a person whose daughter had been murdered by an illegal immigrant made the standard speech about “I love tacos and the other cultural contributions of…..” and (of course) condemned “Trump” (who serves the function of “Goldstein”, of “1984”, for the international establishment – four-minutes-hate and all) for “exploiting the death of my daughter”, even though DJT had not mentioned it.
All that was missing was the “as a Soviet person, I am disgusted by…..” – it is all scripted, and if the family members do not play ball, the nice people from some government (or corporate) body, ask the standard questions “you are not a RACIST are you?” “you are not seeking to promote bigotry and racial/ethic violence are you?”
Orwell’s 1984 was supposed to be a warning, not a template or a how to do it manual.
I think that it is absolutely a bad thing to hate all immigrants because of the actions of a subset of immigrants. It is a natural human reaction to these kinds of incidents but I would hope that we should know better. Illegal immigrants are a different matter, they have already shown contempt for our laws by barging into our country uninvited.
Rather than being a racist I would say that I’m more of a culturalist. Our culture is vastly superior to most other cultures in the world, I think that is demonstrably true. I think that many immigrants recognise that and as a result adapt our culture and fit right in. The ones currently committing crimes of violence come from cultures where such behaviour is normal, inferior cultures in other words, vastly inferior. The problem isn’t with immigration, in my view it is indiscriminate immigration that is the problem.
Stonyground, what if the main population commits crimes at a 1% rate, Group A of immigrants commits crimes at a 3% rate, and Group B of immigrants commits crimes at a 10% rate?
Am I being immoral if I look suspiciously at most of the members of Group B?
There are neighborhoods in my city in which the bulk of the people are not thugs, but the percentage of them that ARE thugs is high enough so that I simply avoid that area.
Am I being irrational or unfair in doing so?
The original definition of “discrimination” is “the cognitive ability to recognize differences, tell things apart, or exercise good taste and discernment.”
Stonyground – our culture has dramatically changed, it is not really the same culture any more.
For example, the late Ted Turner (creator of CNN) was expelled from Brown University (a generally very relaxed university – not strict at all) for having a girl in his room – now the only problem with that would be that it was a girl not a boy, I am not exaggerating – for example the murderer of Charlie Kirk seems to have been O.K. before he went to university (the “room-mate” and all that – a whole culture of what used to be called perversions, of various sorts, that now dominates the “education” system, increasing even in childhood). The culture of, say, 1960 was a different culture to the culture of today.
But still I do NOT disagree with you – I still think that even the remains of Western culture are superior to other cultures, but people from those other cultures do not agree – and they are not going to assimilate, not in things that matter.
For example, the 7-7 bombers (my birthday is the 7th of July sticks in my mind) were all born in England, they knew all about Association Football and Pop Music (knew far more than I do – as I do not much care for such things), and had just been on a white water rafting holiday in Wales as a “team building exercise” (their very words).
And what was the task of the “team”?
To kill as many infidels as possible – that was the task.
They were not “assimilated” not in the principles that really matter – and neither will their community or other communities. They have their own culture. They are not interested in joining the West – they wish to destroy the West.
As for the long term problem the United States has – the 1954 Supreme Court decision and the 1964 Civil Rights Act was supposed to finally end racial divisions – sadly the approach did not work.
Booker T. Washington and modern thinkers such as Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell understood that the political approach will not work.
An interesting example in Britain was the vote for independence in 2016 – for most “leave” voters ending mass immigration was the major point of principle.
But then the British people were told we had NOT voted for independence, we had voted for “Brexit” – which meant whatever the establishment wanted it to mean, and the last thing they wanted was independence.
So mass immigration was actually INCREASED – massively.
For example, the National Health Service used regulations and subsidies (thousands of Pounds for each foreign nurse hired by a hospital) to keep newly qualified British nurses on the dole – whilst employing migrants.
And that was just one of many state interventions all designed to maximize immigration – in order to first urinate on, and then (eventually) destroy the British people.
Politicians were either powerless – or choose to go along with it.
That is sort of my point. You can’t judge individual people using percentages. One of my daughter’s best friends is the daughter of immigrants from The Lebanon. She is one of the nicest people that I know. She doesn’t go around beheading people. Do you get what I’m saying here?
The problem, as I see it, is that we should discriminate, ruthlessly, about who we let into our country, and enforce our decisions to the letter, ruthlessly. But all of our problems are caused because we don’t.
The one virtue in the statements the regime (and the word “regime” is fully justified – indeed rather too mild) makes family members read out after their loved ones are murdered, is that the statements are so obviously propaganda.
They are so obviously written by the state (or its corporate or “NGO” associates – “non government” really meaning, “joined at the hip with government”) that they convince no one.
Just read the first sentence in the post – it is incredibly crude propaganda, so badly composed that it is liable to have the exact opposite effect to the effect the regime, at least supposedly, intends.
It is much the same in the United States and other Western nations.
Ordinary people see right through this stuff, and the propaganda angers ordinary people – this propaganda makes them dislike the invaders, and the natural increase of the invaders, far more than they would without the propaganda.
Still the regime may NOT care about that – in the Soviet Union it was often, privately, said that the purpose of propaganda was not to convince – but to humiliate.
Basically “we are going to tell obvious lies, and we are going to make YOU speak and write obvious lies, in order to humiliate and degrade you – by rubbing in that there is nothing you can do about any of it”.
I am very much aware that our culture is not what it once was. So many values that I once thought were fundamental are being abandoned by people who simply don’t understand their importance. Free speech and equality before the law being the most obvious examples at present.
Other principles, while being sound, are often used against us. Freedom of religion is vitally important but is exploited by the Islamists. They take advantage of the rights while ignoring the responsibilities. That brings me back to my original point, not all of the followers of Islam are like that, many understand the value of religious freedom which is why they choose to live in The West.
Let me introduce you to our huge Minnesota population of Somalis!
They came here legally a decade ago, most all are now US citizens, and they have assimilated not one iota. 85% of Somali families here are on welfare. Many speak rudimentary English at best. As a group, they are hostile to everyone else.
In my area, they are one of the biggest Muslim communities.
I stay out of their central areas, because they will rob outsiders, assault them, and usually act very insulted by my presence.
I understand what you’re saying, and I know that, by avoiding all Somalis, I have probably missed out on some great people.
But statistically, they are a risk to me. There are other risks that I can take in life that have more possibility of profit and less of pain, and so I take those. But the payoff/pain ratio is too high with Somalis.
Stonyground, I’m curious: is the family of your daughter’s friend Muslim, Christian, Druze, or one of the several other religious groups in Lebanon?
“You can’t judge individual people using percentages. One of my daughter’s best friends is the daughter of immigrants from The Lebanon. She is one of the nicest people that I know. She doesn’t go around beheading people. Do you get what I’m saying here?”
Well if you can invent the ‘Look inside a man’s (or woman’s) head and see what their inner thoughts are’ machine, we can indeed filter would-be immigrants in exactly the way you would like.
Until then, we have only statistical analysis to help us decide who to let in, or not.
“Freedom of religion is vitally important but is exploited by the Islamists.”
Freedom of religion is obviously central to Western Culture (we don’t want the Thirty Years War again do we?) but it is not to Islam which is The One True Faith from it’s first prophet, Adam. Wes Streeting (the second most annoying Wes after Crusher) wants Islam to be protected under “race” laws which makes no sense at all because the Qur’an itself declares Islam to be the natural religion of all humanity from the start to the end of the Universe. Islam is perhaps exploiting freedom of religion to impose That One True Faith. Essentially the problem is allowing (encouraging) a faith that wants to extinguish all others.
Jim,
I believe in “innocent until proven guilty”. I judge individuals by their own actions. “Statiscal Analysis” of people is the utter anathema to any form of liberalism (as ever I use the “L” word in the old skool sense). It sounds somewhat Marxist.
Muslim but only pretty nominally. I was initially rather surprised when I visited their house and saw all the booze in their kitchen.
Thanks Stonyground. I wish there were more of those.
Stonyground – I partly agree with you, but I am not interested in “niceness” (perhaps because I am deeply un-nice myself), I am interested in principles – what people really believe. And everyone has beliefs.
Someone having booze in their kitchen does not really show what they believe – what they think the world should be like.
If your daughter’s friend claims to be a Muslim that means they accept the teachings and personal example of Muhammed – if they do NOT accept these teachings and personal example, then, under Islamic law, they are a “hypocrite” and the penalty for that is death – Muhammed made that clear.
And if they do not really believe in Islam – what do they believe in?
This does not just apply to Muslims – or to immigrants.
“Kim” Philby and the other Cambridge spies were very nice people, the life and soul of the party, very cultured and with a great sense of fellowship – and they were from very good families.
And none of that matters – what mattered is that they were Marxists, and, therefore, wanted all non-Marxists dead or enslaved – even if it was “nothing personal” indeed they were “friends” and “liked you personally” – you still had to be dead or enslaved.
I remember, in my childhood, reading some of the spy works by “John Le Carrie” (not his real name) – other boys were fascinated with working out who the traitor was – but, to me, it was obvious that the author (the writer) was a traitor – he allowed the Marxist characters to spout propaganda (indeed, as they were fictional characters, it was HIM, the writer, who was coming out with this Marxist propaganda) and no one contradicted their false claims, no counter arguments were presented in the books.
And so it turned out to be – “John Le Carrie” turned out to be a Red, and always had been one. No doubt he was a good writer, and a very nice man, and all the rest of it, but he was still an enemy. He should never have been allowed in a position of trust – such as being an intelligence officer, which he had been.
“You are demanding an ideological test”.
Yes I am – and if that makes me nasty, so be it.
If someone is an enemy of the West they should not be allowed into the West – and if they are born here, but are an enemy, they should NOT be allowed to be in a position of trust.
And I am not interested in the “I do not really believe in anything” tap-dance – everyone has beliefs, it is a matter of finding out what they are, what they really are (not what they pretend to believe).
Remember it was “moderates” such as Denis Healey who undermined the British armed forces, especially in the Middle East and Far East – but NOT confined to this, in the late 1960s – and who imposed taxes on investment of over 90%. No economy, no society, can survive that for a prolonged period of time (it can be survived for a few years – but not in the long term) – the aim of such a policy must be to destroy society, destroy the nation. It would take someone well below average intelligence not to understand this – and Mr Healey was highly intelligent.
Such “moderates” were just as much enemies as the open “extremists”.
As the late Commander Brown asked Mr Healey – you admit to being a Marxist in your youth (he admitted that because it was well documented – so he could not deny it), when did you stop being a Marxist, and what were your reasons for rejecting Marxism?
Perfectly civil questions – to which such “moderates” seldom have convincing answers.
The same questions apply to such people as John Brennan (former Director of the CIA) and Barack Obama (former President of the United States).
You admit to being a Marxist in your youth, you admit this because you know we have the evidence – so you can not deny it. When did you stop being a Marxist – and what were your reasons for rejecting Marxism?
Again – these are perfectly civil questions.
Paul:
Not true, at least not in the sense that’s relevant to this discussion. Most people do believe that violence is a bad thing, problem is that most of them are never forced to answer the question: yeah – but when is it a good thing after all? Is violence a good thing as a reaction to violence (such as self-defense)? Is it a good thing towards infidels or political opponents? There are only two scenarios when most people are forced to actually think about these things: one is when they personally encounter violence – either towards themselves or towards others; the other is when they are in a position of power, as you put it. So I’m all for ‘keep them out, sort them out later’ approach when it comes to potential immigrants. However, when it comes to those who are here legally since childhood, not to mention born here, the only time when they should be vetted is when they try to attain such positions of power – i.e. either run for office or apply for a sensitive government job. And yes, I know about John Brennan :-\
BTW:
Well, it depends what you mean by ‘good families’, at least when it comes to Philby.
“I believe in “innocent until proven guilty”. I judge individuals by their own actions. “Statiscal Analysis” of people is the utter anathema to any form of liberalism (as ever I use the “L” word in the old skool sense). It sounds somewhat Marxist.”
Ah well just let them all in then.
Insurance companies often function by estimating risk across groups (‘statistical analysis’) and pricing policies accordingly. I have had some bad experiences with health insurance companies but I never realised they were Marxists!
Alisa – I meant that everyone has beliefs about basic principles.
Perhaps someone with a massive brain injury really does not – but most people do. They have some idea about what they think is morally right and what they think is morally wrong.
As for this context, does someone believe that Muhammed was a good man who taught good things?
For example, King Charles the III and the entire British (indeed Western) establishment think so – and they are utterly wrong, and their opinion is leading to tragic consequences.