Islam and the Media: Sympathy for Hebdo murderers?

A ComRes poll commissioned by the BBC has found that a quarter of Muslims questioned expressed sympathy for the motives of the Hebdo murderers. Unsurprisingly it is being framed in Politically Correct ways  by different media outlets.

No Different From the Rest of Us?

The argument is often misrepresented as saying that if there is a particular problem with violence within the Muslim community then it is being said that all or most Muslims carry out or support violence. But there is no inconsistency between arguing that there is a particular problem  with that one community and acknowledging that most Muslims are not terrorists.

Outlets such as the International Business Times tried to frame this issue as indicating that Muslims are no different from anybody else. It tries to override significance of the size of the minority expressing sympathy by pointing out that most Muslims are not fanatics. This is true, but the statistic is still significant as a quarter is a lot considering the question asked.

They also seem to be implying that the entire Muslim population is seen as an enemy and that this survey has refuted that. But there is no consensus saying that Muslims are all killers. Nor is the case that a population has to be generally homicidal for there to be doubts over attachment to the national political culture as opposed to an alternative. For example, another survey that has been conducted has found that 40 % of young Muslims support the principle of sharia in British law.

It also commends the Muslim population for the fact that most Muslims whom are offended by depictions of their prophet said that they would not support violence in response. So restraining the urge to murder, or to sympathise with it, is something to be proud of? Also it seems that a Muslim only needs to refrain from carrying out or supporting violence to be considered nice. Can you really defend Muslims and have such low expectations from them? A white person doesn’t even have to promote violence to be considered an extremist, just challenge multiculturalism or any left-wing prejudice.

It also tried to portray the wider British population as no different. Absurdly, it acknowledged that while 24% sympathised with the murderers motives it claimed that more than 24% of native Britons would support violence if a poppy was burned. Really? When trying to defend the Muslim population it seems that the charges ought to be put onto the non-Muslim majority. But how many native Britons attempt to murder to Muslims whenever our traditions and national symbols are (regularly) attacked? Never. We have native Britons such as the EDL protesting but this is far different from shooting people up.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/british-muslims-are-not-your-enemy-this-poll-proves-it-1489507

Victimhood

Tendency towards extremism is exaggerated amongst the wider population whilst also being blamed for any support amongst Muslims for violence.

Meanwhile rt.com tries to give voice to the Islamic victimhood narrative. It quotes an Islamic student as implying that the rest of society has a problem, not the community in which a quarter of them express sympathy for terrorist motives. So if we stopped seeing Islamic terrorists as Islamic then there would be no support for terrorism? This is the same absurd logic that blames Western foreign policy for the existence and growth of IS. When our society is the target of Islamic terrorism we are supposed to ignore it or we are victimising the community that the terrorists overwhelmingly come from, apparently. In order to maintain a narrative that is inconsistent with facts it is necessary to stretch logic to its very limits.

We are also expected to maintain the idea that  Islam represents peace, according to another student,  regardless of the amount of Muslims who carry out violence in its name – and quotes Quranic verses justifying them. Allegedly wider society increases support amongst Muslims for violence – by perceiving the Muslim community as violent. So rather than having endogenous attributes the Islamic community is moulded by the perception of  the wider society. So if we view Islam as violent rather than peaceful then the followers of this ‘peaceful’ religion will inexplicably contradict the apparent peaceful fundamental tenets of their faith?

Again apparent violent sympathies are put onto the wider society in Europe by saying that Muslims are facing an attack on their religion, and on themselves,  by the natives. The issue of Pegida is raised. The article claims that Pegida are a ‘far-right’ movement, thereby imposing a loaded label on a popular movement, falsely claiming that they anti-Islam rather than against the Islamification of Europe (which are different positions) and falsely claiming that it wants to ban Islam rather than just stop it from forming the basis of law and culture in Europe.

rt.com/uk/235343-muslims-oppose-cartoon-retribution

It is only a minority so it does not matter?

Outlets such as the BBC will concentrate on the fact that  a majority does not support the motives behind the Hebdo murderers rather than on the minority who sympathised, in order to create a better impression. In our politically correct culture minorities have to be defended regardless and native European majorities blamed. But  32%  is a high number even if it represents a minority – if 32% of white Britons supported the motives behind a murder by white supremacists would not be followed by the headlines that a majority of whites do not support racist murders.  It would be concentrated on the large size of the minority and then characterising the entire white population.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11434695/over-a-quarter-of-British-Muslims-have-sympathy-for-the-Charlie-Hebdo-terrorists.-That-is-far-too-many.html

Conclusion

Our Muslim-friendly media will overlook anything that might portray the Islamic community has having a particular problem, and will portray wider society as having the problem both against the Muslim community and with extremism within itself. When that is not the case then misleading portrayals will be used as well as bad logic to argue for it.

Austria and the Law on Islam

The Austrian Law on Islam is considered by some to be a model of how to integrate Muslims into a European country but I will question this view and argue that if this was adopted by other European countries then it would not go far enough and it will not deal with certain issues in the long-term, even though it deals with certain aspects.

What is the Law on Islam?

The original Law on Islam was introduced in 1912 after Bosnia and Herzegovina was annexed by the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1908. A large proportion of the Bosnian population were Muslim Slavs; a legacy of the Ottoman occupation which the Austria and other states in South-East Europe were at war with over centuries in order to stop Europe falling to Islam. The Austro-Hungarian Empire collapsed at the end of the First World War (as did the Ottoman Empire) after fighting on the side of the Central Powers, and Austria as a single country, inherited the Law.

Vienna wanted to recruit the Muslim Bosnians into the army and considered it necessary to include Islam as an officially recognised religion in Austria-Hungary to integrate them, though Austria itself had very few Muslims living there. So the Law on Islam was considered a solution to a very different situation in a very different time which is why it is now being amended. Islamic organisations within Austria were very pleased with the current law because it gave them a place within the national constitution; the first step to official Islamisation.

The amendment, some argue to appease  the ‘far-right’, is considered to be a backward step. But supporters of the amendment argue that Islamic practices are being allowed to violate Austrian law. This situation is typical in European countries that go out of their way to accommodate Islam. The amendment sounds like a good thing but would it really be effective?

German-Language Qu’ran

The amendment stipulates the all religious texts in Austria should be in German – including the Qu’ran. Immersion in another language would make integration more difficult since linguistic differences would create a barrier since separation from wider society is considered a factor in Austria-based Muslims going to Syria and Iraq to join ISIL. It is often argued that when migrants do not have speak the host country’s language they will secede from wider society. It would be necessary to use the law to force them to adopt the host language.

Predictably the victim card is being played. Despite the fact that this applies to all religions, voices from Islamic organisations such as Amina Carla Baghajati of the IGGIO argues that the bill is intended to target Muslims. This representative of a paranoid mind-set. She argues that it is the ‘spirit of the times’ in which Muslims are being mistrusted – in other words, Muslims and Islam are associated with terrorism despite the fact that most terrorists and groups happened to be Muslim even if most Muslims are not. You do not see the followers of Hinduism and Sikhism forming and joining militant groups. But why should Muslims be trusted? Whenever a European country tries to defend its way of life you will always some Islamic organisations that claim that Muslims are being targeted.

rt.com/news/192768-austria-Islam-funding’koran

In fact what this organisation is arguing for is special status. The fact that Islam is being treated like other religions is considered the problem. It is claimed that the stipulation would negatively effect Islam since the purity of Islamic texts would be compromised if translated from ‘Allah’s language’ of Arabic to a non-divine language such as German- in other words, Arabic is a superior language to other ones but why the Austrians accept this belief in the apparent divinity of Arabic over maintaining the position of their language in their own country.

Muslims believe that the Qu’ran is the literal word of Allah – and that Allah, for some reason, could only communicate properly in Arabic. It would be thought that an apparently omnipotent being could do so in all languages since he is supposed to have invented them all. There is a worry that translation could introduce the element of interpretation into the Qu’ran; but when terrorists cite a passage from the Qu’ran in Arabic to support a violent act we are told that there is the element of interpretation anyway. The minister introducing this bill argues that there would indeed be different interpretations but this could lead to more peaceful ones, and a more flexible Islam, but he misunderstands the religion – according to their beliefs they would be following different interpretation of Allah’s word and so someone would necessarily be wrong. Hence the insistence of the centrality of Arabic.

The insistence on the primacy of the national language within a European country is a positive thing because it makes it easier to maintain a country’s national identity, of which the language is a vital component. But it needs to be enforced and tactics such the playing of the victim card is inevitable but it should not be validated. If you give in to it then it would be waved more often.

Funding from Abroad

The amendment would ban the funding of Islamic organisations from abroad. Christian Zeitz points out that there are close economic ties between Turkey and oil-producing Gulf-states and Austria. This is the case with all European countries. Many mosques and Islamic organisations in Europe receive money from Saudi Arabia and Qatar in particular. These countries fund such organisations in order for these organisations to agitate for concessions from European authorities that would open the way for the Islamisation of Europe. Zeitz points out that these Islamic cultural organisations lead to ‘creeping sharia’ in which sharia is introduced incrementally, and it is argued that this amendments to the law would keep out Sharia – at least from abroad.

gatesofvienna.net/2014/04/a-brand-new-islam-law-for-Austria

It is also argued that funding from abroad can fund terrorism; like other countries Austria has had Muslims based in its country that have gone to Syria and Iraq. In Austria’s case it is estimated that 140 have gone so far. Saudi Arabia and Qatar also fund Sunni militants across the Middle East. Some of these militants have gone around and killed Shias and non-Muslims in the Middle East. They willingly hosted those wealthy individuals that funded ISIL in the early stages before they got out of control.

The influence of such countries also involves imams in mosques so the law would also involve the banning of foreign-appointed imams in mosques. Home-grown imams can be a problem but foreign-born ones could come from extremely conservative countries that would try to finally conquer Europe for Islam after the failure of the Moors and Ottomans. Greater non-Muslim government control over who can and cannot become an imam would be preferable. Foreign-appointed imams have been linked to recruitment for groups that propose greater militancy that is more common in authoritarian Muslim countries than in Europe.

This includes the Islamist-run government of Turkey under Erdogan. A fifth of those foreign imams that would be effected are Turkish. Because Turkey was the country behind the Ottoman Empire, and Austria was the front-line of the war against Christendom at its most extensive in 1529 and 1683, so this is symbolically significant. It is possible that the Turkish government understands the significance.

Demographics

Muslims in Austria make up at least 6% of the population. In 1990 this was 2% and it is expected to reach 9.5% in 2030 (when Belgium is expected to become majority Muslim). The Muslim population is concentrated in the capital because Muslims outnumber Roman Catholics in secondary and middle schools in Vienna; schools represent the demographics of the future.

The law changes will do nothing for demographics. If Muslims become a majority they could use the majoritarian aspect of democracy to abolish any restrictions on sharia anyway.

The Law on Islam would need to be used alongside tough border controls in order for its aims to be achieved.

Conclusion

There are aspects of the Law such as those that deal with foreign funding of Muslim cultural organisations and mosques that ought to be replicated and strengthened in other European countries. But the problem is that the Law recognises Islam in the first place and so it will continue to have an effect on our treacherous politicians.

It needs to be used alongside tough border policies, and other policies, that deal with the demographic transformation happening across Europe. Muslims have a right to live in Islamic countries but they ought to live in countries that are already Islamic if they want to live in an Islamic country and allow other countries their own non-Islamic traditions and identities.

Other references

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/02/us-austria-muslims-idUSKCNOHR27320141002

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/10/03/Austrias-Law-on-Islam-Overhauled-Amid-Growing-Distrust-of-Muslim-Community

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4229/austria-muslims-vienna-schools

Islamic Teaching in State Schools: Propaganda or Education?

In the new national school curriculum there will be a module on Islamic history in order to meet the demands that history education ought to move away from British and European history to ‘world history’. The movement behind this are concerned that if British children are taught about their history then they may become patriotic. The idea is if they are taught that Britain retarded the development of everyone else to give ourselves an advantage (despite this not being true) then this tendency towards patriotism, which according to Leftist logic, would lead inevitably towards supremacism (despite there being no logical reason why this would necessarily happen), will be replaced by a fanatical devotion to Diversity and self-loathing.

Originally the Islamic module was not going to be included in the new curriculum but then Gove changed his mind. The reason that he changed his mind was that he was forced to by the Muslim lobby led by the Muslim Council of Britain. The Muslim lobby has significant power since their growing numbers means that they are growing electoral force, and the oil-wealth of the Gulf States can be used to influence our politicians.

Why Should There Be an Islamic Module on the National Curriculum?

There are various justifications for this foisting of Islamic propaganda onto British schoolchildren. Salim Mulla, of the Lancashire Council of Mosques argued that there is an ignorance of Islam amongst Christians (what about vice versa?). What does he mean by ignorance? It is typically thought that anybody who knows anything about Islam would necessarily be supportive of it; conversely opposition to it indicates ignorance regardless of how many violent passages that you can recall from the religious texts. Since it would be the case that he would want children to have a positive view of Islam the passages that support violence against non-Muslims and the takeover of societies would not be included. In other words, what would taught is propaganda.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/16/islamic-history-will-now-be-foisted-on-all-british-kids-in-school

Others argue that it would decrease ‘Muslim alienation’ but why should our own history be pushed aside to accommodate the sensibilities of a particular community who apparently reject any historical narrative that does not include them; it is often assumed that they do. The argument is based on the premise that Muslims will opt out of our society if they are not.given credit for the rise of Western civilisation, and is the historical equivalent of the argument that Muslims will only integrate into our society if it reflected them; as regards our relationship with our own society and history, we are expected to embrace anything even if it does not reflect us. This apparently vital contribution to Western civilisation includes the ‘Muslim’ discovery of the number zero which our civilisation would not have happened without – allegedly.

But Europeans had the concept of nothingness so would have invented a sign for it anyway as with other mathematical signs. Even if Muslims had invented ‘zero’ it was still Europeans who made the breakthroughs that created the modern world but there is a movement that aims to promote the idea that Europeans stole these breakthroughs and it was really non-Europeans that ought to be given the credit for them. That advancements amongst Europeans only happens through accident or theft, and true innovation can only happen amongst non-European civilisations is disseminated . This nothing to do with fact but with disparaging an entire race of people but this would only be considered wrong if it was non-Europeans being disparaged. Allegedly, if white self-esteem is not dismantled then we would inevitably become supremacist, since according to some pathologically-defective people, this is the only way that white people can be, and that if the self-esteem if other races is raised then, for whatever reason, they will develop notions of peace and equality between people. This the Politically Correct Marxist paradigm that has paved the way for Islamic history to get onto the curriculum.

Empires and Imperialism

But will children be taught about Islamic imperialism, including in Europe? It is unlikely since it is the Politically Correct narrative that imperialism is only a European disease led by an apparently innate drive to dominate everyone, but non-European empires bring civilisation. While European empires are considered necessarily bad it is often argued that the Islamic Moorish empire in the Iberian Peninsula (711-1492) was a beacon of tolerance within backward Europe because the Muslim rulers allowed other religions to exist. Islamic tolerance is measured by a much lower threshold than Europeans. It is not mentioned that the most tolerant rulers did allow other religions to exist but imposed a tax for that pleasure and deprived non-Muslims of the same political rights as Muslims. Islamic scripture says that Christians ought to be subdued, and if they resist, they must be fought until they are overcome (Bernard Lewis, in Islam and the West). Other Andalusian rulers persecuted non-Muslims completely.

There was of course the Ottomans in the East who, in 1529 and 1683 got as far as Vienna. The Ottomans were on a Jihadist mission to subject Europe to Islamic rule, and overthrow Christianity. If it is taught than it would be portrayed as a defensive mission because, according to Politically Correct narratives, in European and non-European relations it is necessarily Europeans who act aggressively and the non-Europeans in self-defence. But in fact, modernisation could have been stifled in Europe by Islam in the same way that scientific and medical advances (built on Greek, and therefore European, texts) was stifled in the Islamic world after its ‘golden age’ in the 10th and 11th centuries. These advances happened despite Islam, not because of it.

The Ottoman influence in Europe is often cited as one of the reasons that Europe modernised. But one aspect of European modernisation was the Reformation leading to Protestant work ethic, increase in secularism (in the sense that there was an increasing separation between the spiritual realm and temporal governance) and growing importance of empirical scientific methods. As to how an invading jihadist Empire can be cited as the reason for these developments is not clear. This argument would be based on the premise that they presence of anything non-European in Europe can only have good consequences despite the atrocities carried out by the Ottomans (based in modern Turkey), especially in the Balkans, and favouritism granted to Muslims and those Europeans who converted to Islam. These events influenced the Balkan wars in the 1990s (as well as previous ones) because the Balkan Muslims are a legacy of the occupation. Yet according to Politically Correct narratives, modern problems only come from European empires.

Multiculturalism

It has also been argued that the role of Muslims in creating a multicultural Europe should be taught since children, and the rest of us, are already told that multiculturalism is absolutely a good thing and that anyone who disagrees is deranged individual harbouring Nazi sympathies. So they will obviously be told that the demographic transformation happening is a positive thing; that indigenous Europeans would somehow benefit from becoming a minority in our own homeland while our cultural identity is dismantled due to the Marxist belief that our cultural identity is a burden that we need to be relieved from  because of our ‘imperialistic’ history – yet this would not apparently hold true for Islamic culture despite its more extensive imperialist legacy. Again, one standard applies to Europeans and another to non-Europeans. Our ‘imperialist’ legacy amounts to a few hundred years over the millennia while Islamic imperialism has been non-stop process for 1300 years.

Children won’t be taught about the rape epidemic happening in Europe with the tacit approval of European authorities, riots in major cities and tensions resulting from the clash between incompatible cultures. Nor will they be taught about the grooming gangs in the wider context of multiculturalism. Instead they will be taught the Islam is contributing to a utopia.

http://www.barenakedislam.com/2009/04/16/rape-by-muslims-epidemic-in-Europe-and-headed-this-way-thanks-to-ever-increasing-muslims-immigration-to-the-u-s/

europenews.dk/en/node/63520

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/10193809/Second-night-of-riots-in-Paris-over-burka-ban-fine.html

Why Islam in Particular?

Our schools already accommodate Islam so this curriculum change would represent another step in an already existing trend. Schools are already offering halal only menus and, in some areas, pork is banned even though there are non-Muslim students. The dietary requirements of Muslims seem to represent another example of Islamic exceptionalism because halal meat would contravene the religious requirements of Sikhs because their religions would forbade eating ritually-slaughtered meat, and beef is not banned, for example, to accommodate Hindu students (not that it should be, of course!).

Islam is generally given an exceptional status in our society that is not given to other religions. In fact the number ‘zero’ originated in Hindu India which was conquered by the Mughal Empire which established Islamic rule, destroyed Hindu and Sikh temples an to the Islamic world, and those whom want to end any criticism of Islam wants to give the religion credit for anything they d enslaved and killed tens of millions between 1000 AD and 1575. The number ‘zero’ amongst other things were then taken back to the Islamic world and found its way to Europe through the trade routes between Europe and Asia. Islam is given a prominent place in history in order to match its prominent place in modern Britain. Maybe if other religions developed their own jihadi movements while creating a sense of victimhood then they may get the same exceptional treatment. According to Marxist logic, the more someone hates us the more therefore we have done wrong to them, rather than non-Europeans being capable of prejudice – an apparently European-only evil. This would therefore require greater favouritism towards their religion.

Conclusion

Questionable ‘history’ will be deployed since European achievements will ‘given’ to the world. The fact that the Greek texts were utilised indicated that it was knowledge gained in Europe that was used by the Muslim world. These texts were seized in military expeditions against Christian Empires in the East  so were therefore taken away from Europeans in the first place, and rather than being given back by advanced Arabs to help backward and savage Europeans civilise as the Politically Correct narrative says, these were seized back during the Crusades to regain the Holy Land seized from Christians in the first place by the Islamic world. This led to Scholastic philosophy as theologians attempted to reconcile pagan Greek philosophers with Christian providence, amongst other things. As for medical advances, these were based on Greek texts and it cannot justifiably be argued that if these were not made then Western Civilisation (Classical civilisation seen as a precursor to Western civilization) would not have happened.

Because the Islamic lobby are powerful enough to get Islamic history put on the curriculum then it can be certain that they will influence the content; in fact the inclusion on the curriculum is based on hopes that it would end ‘Islamophobia’. In other words, British children would be open to the establishment of more mosques and the encroachment of Sharia into British public life through having their view of historical and contemporary events distorted. .

Why Britain is the Convenient Object of Blame for the Problems in the Middle East.

The sectarian divisions within the Middle East is spreading to Iraq with the advance of ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham). It is a Sunni organisation that is considered too extreme even for al-Qaeda. It is intent on establishing 7th century Sharia law within areas that it takes over. It is attracting other Sunni militias and former members of Saddam Hussein’s Ba’athist party. They want to depose the Shia dominated government of Nouri al-Maliki in Baghdad. As ISIS approach Baghdad and important Shia shrines (at time of writing) Shia militias are rallying to the defence of the government. Shia Iran has been involved on the side of the government leading to further alienation of Sunnis because Maliki has been accused of being Iran’s man in Baghdad.

Maliki’s government has been accused of side-lining Sunnis thereby alienating a significant section of the Iraqi population; Sunnis had been ruling Iraq since the 17th century until the US-led invasion to remove Saddam Hussein.

Iraq is just another Middle-Eastern in which there are sectarian problems. Neighbouring Syria is seeing an attempt by Sunni Islamists to remove the Alawite president Bashar al-Assad. The Middle East is known for instability and violence.

Why is instability in the Middle East intractable? It is common to blame Britain and France because these two countries established the present-day borders. So do the current borders actually mean that instability is inevitable? There are definitely other factors involved and there is no reason why the borders as they are should necessarily override everything else. Would different borders manage to prevent or contain sectarian violence.

For many on the left, and those too lazy to check the facts, there is a tendency to blame Britain for anything as a default explanation. Exponents of this view point to the post-World War One carve-up of the conquered Middle-Eastern territories of the defeated Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire was based in present-day Turkey and it encompassed much of the Middle East, South-East Europe and much of North Africa. Its height was in the 17th century but by the First World War it was diminished and on the verge of collapse. It took the side of the Central Powers in the hope of restoring its Jihadist mission to impose its rule over Christian Europeans. It was therefore necessary for European powers to destroy it.

After the war Britain and France had much of the Middle East under its control as victorious powers. British politician Sir Mark Sykes and the Frenchmen Francois Georges-Picot divided up the Ottoman territories between Britain and France, wisely, without telling the US. They divided it up with French influence on the North side of North-West divide and the Britain had the South, including Iraq, as its area of influence. It is historically usual for victorious military powers to ensure it’s influence. It is this act of division that lead people to blame Britain for todays problems.

Some people have argued that the source of instability between different factions is the combination of factions into states – Iraq is a combination of three Iraqi provinces. This is typical of the implication that multi-cultural or ethnic states in Europe will lead to greater unity but in the Middle East it is the cause of inter-communal strife. The implication is that therefore single ethnic states in the Middle East would have been preferable.

Sunni-Shia: Could This Really Be Contained By Borders?

The divide goes back to succession of their prophet Mohammed (people often refer to him as The Prophet as if he was an actual prophet and, if he was, the only one). After Mohammed died there was the issue of who would run the Caliphate, the empire he put together through military conquest. One faction wanted traditional tribal leaders to succeed him – this faction become the Sunnis- and the other side supported Mohammed’s bloodline – the Shias. This culminated in a battle at Karbala in the 7th century in which Ali, Mohammed’s son-in-law and nephew was killed, and the Sunnis gained the upper hand. Shias still revere Ali.

Islamist Sunnis consider Shias to be apostates or unbelievers. The two sects differ on their interpretations of the Hadith, the book that reputedly recounts Mohammed’s life. Shias also have their own distinctive rituals in addition to a clerical hierarchy. In numbers globally, the Shias amount to about 20% with the rest being Sunni, although in Iraq, as in neighbouring Iran, Shia’s are in the majority.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/the-vicious-schism-between-sunni-and-shia-has-been-poisoning-islam-for-1400-years–and-its-getting-worse-9139525.html

Single sectarian or one-sectarian dominated states can still be used as instruments for the spread of hard or soft sectarian power. Saudi Arabia, a power that resulted from the Sykes-Picot agreement , and Shia Iran, which was not, use their respective influence to enhance the power of Sunnis and Shias respectively. Even if the agreement had created Sunni or Shia only states there could still be instability as each state attempts to ensure the dominance of its own sectarian faction.

The particular borders cannot be blamed for 1400 year old sectarian divisions. Even if Britain and France had just abandoned the Middle East after the fall of their Turkish masters it would not necessarily be the case that this schism would be contained by Arab-drawn borders. The Ottoman was a very centralised empire and the collapse of such empires often result in a bloody war over the newly freed up territory up for grabs – this would have been further fuelled by pre-existing sectarian divisions that are particularly fierce in Islam. It seems likely that Sykes and Picot had an impossible task.

If Britain had left the Middle East to get on and sort themselves in viable nation states, and violence resulted as in the Indian sub-continent, then Britain would be blamed on the basis that we did not divide up the area. In the eyes of the blame-Britain-for-everything brigade Britain just cannot win.

Why Is The Ottoman Empire Not Blamed For the Problems In the Middle East or the Balkans?

When Britain is blamed for problems in areas where we had an empire a causal relation is posited between the existence of the empire in the past and any problems afterwards. According to this logic the Ottoman Empire, or its successor Turkey, ought to be held at least partially responsible for problems in the Middle East and the Balkans because its empire encompassed those areas, But in fact it is not. European countries can be held accountable and blamed for their empires whereas non-European empires are just historical facts. Any causal connections between such empires and modern issues do not have blame attached to them.

There are Ottoman, and by extension Turkish, legacies within the Balkans. The Islamic Slav population within Bosnia, and other places where they are a minority, are the result of the attempted Ottoman conquest of Europe for Islam. Converts to Islam gained privileges because the Ottomans, in line with Islamic rules on dhimmitude (treatment of non-Muslims under Muslim rule), treated non-Muslims as second class citizens. Antagonism between Muslims and Serbs and Croats were a factor in the Balkan wars of the nineties. There were significant minarets dating from Ottoman times that were destroyed by religiously motivated Orthodox Christian militias as symbols of Ottoman imperialism; Catholic Croats would have pictures of the Virgin Mary (Hitchens in God Is Not Great). So were the Turks considered responsible for this situation in mainstream opinion? No, nationalism was blamed. Why pin any responsibility to the non-European colonial power in that region when there is a responsibility to attribute another war to nationalism. One universal logic applies in Europe and another outside Europe.

In the Middle East, the Ottoman administration is not widely blamed for the problems there but it is unlikely that there is no connection between the administration in the area and the subsequent situation after the collapse – in Africa Britain is blamed for not preparing the Africans for independence, yet such an accusation is not directed at Turkey as the successor to the Ottoman Empire. Britain’s presence in the area therefore presented an opportunity to attribute blame to the European colonial power rather the non-European (and Islamic) power.

How Can Britain Be Blamed for the Tribal Aspect of the Problem?

Middle-Eastern society is highly tribal and traditionalist. Tribal identity represents a lower sub-identity that can be more immediate than their sectarian and national identity thereby providing a formidable obstacle to national identity- tribes themselves can be split into clans or extended families. Conflicts could arise at any of these levels and thereby splitting the state- in Iraq the state itself is splitting along sectarian and ethnic lines with tribal factors influencing political allegiance. It is not clear how Britain can be blamed for enmity between clans and tribes. There are levels of allegiance within the Middle East that could split any state based along sectarian lines.

The sectarian issue goes down to the tribal and clan level because these tribes and clans tend to subscribe to a particular faction of Islam. When Britain was trying to establish order in Mesopotamia (modern Iraq) it faced both Sunni and Shia tribal militiamen murdering British soldiers; entire expeditionary parties sent to relieve isolated British garrisons were wiped out (Barr in Lines In The Sand). This has parallels with today when both Shia and Sunni militants would fight British soldiers, and now that we are no longer there, they are now killing each other. The Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr, a Shia militia, that fought British soldiers are now confronting Sunni ISIS.

The tribal structure of that area will exist regardless of Britain. They represent a shifting set of loyalties that always have the potential to unsettle a country – tribes of the same sectarian side do not necessarily get along since tribes will often want to get one of their own into power.

Conclusion

This represents another exercise in blaming European powers based on the assumption that indigenous factors can be excluded or considered minor factors whenever there is an opportunity to blame a European colonial power.

It was necessary for the defence of Europe that the Ottomans were defeated and Britain and France found itself with an area intractably divided at many levels with each level from clan up to national level influenced by fluid loyalties. The important factors are indigenous, not European powers.

Blair made the mistake of latching onto America’s campaign due to his messianic arrogance but he helped to stir up an area that is prone to instability anyway and we need to ensure that we do make the same mistake.

 

White Privilege Theory- Profound Insight or Dangerous Nonsense?

White Privilege stems from the Critical Race Theory – itself a derivative of Critical Theory. This is Marxist theory invented by the Frankfurt School, a research institute. This institute centred around a collection of researchers and theorists whom sought to critique contemporary capitalist system. This extended into areas beyond economics including culture and race. They therefore erroneously conflate culture within the West with the capitalist system, or at least that the former stems from the latter. This article will analyse where White Privilege Theory is wrong and why it is not only subversive to capitalism.

The theory on race centres around the idea that the system within the West, and globally by extension, advantages white people based on skin colour – and conversely, disadvantage those who are not white. As to how this could be the case will be analysed and it will be demonstrated as to how this idea is wrong.

Minority Experiences

Proponents of this theory describe a romantic picture in which minority groups go through a unique and noble experience of suffering and struggle – regardless of how much wealth and success they enjoy, presumably. This experience is the sole property of minorities that we white people cannot understand, but we need to try in order to feel sufficiently guilty. Harvard University in the United States has put together a course called Know Your Privilege 101. This is designed to instil a sense of guilt into white, male students before they are set free in the world to maintain white privilege whilst instilling a sense of grievance in minority students to drive them as they battle their way through obstacles of disadvantage. This must be discouraging if you are white because you could come from a poor background, scrape together money in part-time jobs, work hard to earn a degree – to then be told that you do not deserve it.

If you are white but come from a working-class background it is strange to be told that despite your actual circumstances far removed from power and wealth, your skin colour gives you an advantage and that you are privileged. Of course, you are privileged compared to someone growing up in a Brazilian favela, for example, but this would seem to be relative based on locations and not race or skin colour.

A student in the United States wrote an essay regarding his experience of guilt-instilling on the indoctrinating course. He had to do some research on his background in order to find out that how was privileged for this assignment. Noticed that it is assumed that he was privileged beforehand- no-one putting the course together would have known about his life history, but since he was white he must be privileged regardless of socio-economic background.

The response from an academic at Harvard demonstrates the intransigent and arrogant attitude that is typical of White Privilege Theory advocates. Scanlan says,

Tal Fortgang [the student in question] has a few more years to learn to look for his own privilege and learn solidarity with people who don’t enjoy it. I hope Princeton can teach it to him.

(Source: http://www.chronicle.com/blogs/ conversation/2014/05/12/check-your-history)

In other words, if you are white and do not feel guilty of your background then you are ignorant or defective in some way.

Working class white males occupy a strange position in the Marxist world-view since we are not wealthy but are considered a part of a demographic that has an identity that says that we are- despite that most white males are not wealthy.

Yet even if we are not aware of privilege we apparently benefit from it. You can be stuck within an overwhelming depth of self-loathing, and yet if you are white you are benefiting from racism in some way. If you cannot see how you are benefitting from it then that is because this privilege is invisible or you are intellectually defective. If you are white, male, aware of your privilege and do not feel guilty then you are just a horrible person.

White people apparently have a greater extent of freedom than non-white people. I cannot attest with the experience in the US since I am from the UK but a (non-white) can openly call for violence, and if he got arrested it would be through great reluctance, but a white person can be prosecuted for criticising immigration policy. A black person could be commended for his prejudice when he proclaims that there are too many white people for his liking but if it happened the other way round the offending individual would be censured or arrested before they knew what was happening. If white people have greater freedom, then it is not immediately apparent where there are greater restrictions on free speech and political activity for non-whites than whites. Those with least freedom seems to be those white people whom have little wealth or little power. An economic divide within the white population, not a common interest that seeks to disadvantage non-whites.

Statistics that point to greater average wealth of white people could be accounted for by the fact that those countries with higher incomes and living standards tend to be indigenous white or otherwise white majorities. Many non-whites also have higher living standards if they live in these countries than they do in other countries. WPT would therefore assert that if you are a white male you should be penalised for this statistic, that is actually no fault of your own. Your achievements would apparently be undeserved due to the failure of other societies, and the success of your ancestors and the ability of successive generations to maintain build on what went before. This would mean that we ought to make it up to non-whites in our own country, even if they are well-off, because of incompetent governance in other parts of the world that maintains an overall statistic.

WPT holds the success of North America and Europe to be permanent if not intentionally undermined. The fact is that various parts of the world outside of Africa had been most successful at times throughout history. This has been the case for Europe over last few centuries. Before then it was in Asia; relatively Asia is growing stronger again. WPT is fundamentally Euro- and white-centric. It has placed white people at the top because over the last few centuries the most successful countries and societies have been in areas of the world where white people are in the majority. This does not give white people an in-built advantage based on our skin colour. Rather than basing the theory on history as it actually happened, WPT bases it on a fictitious Marxist one where history proceeds in stages eventually culminating in an unsustainably oppressive dichotomy which then collapses. The oppressor would fall and then disappear creating an equal society. If consistent with WPT, the white race would fall and would disappear (whether through genocide or assimilation, not sure) and an equal non-white society would happen (somehow inequalities between non-white peoples would vanish, too).

Is Race A Social Construct?

Race is considered to be absolutely central to everything. If you are not aware of race you are therefore perpetuating privilege – so therefore race must be at the forefront of our minds. What they mean is that the thought of white privilege must continually eat away at your conscience. Even if you’re white, male and poor you must feel for that underprivileged middle class black or Asian family down the road. Statistically, as a white male you are better off even if you are not individually. Even if that non-white family appear to be well off it is actually the case that they would have been even better off if wasn’t for your privilege.

Many of the bankers and rich industrialists within the Western world are white – reflecting the demographic reality within Europe and North America. Many bankers and rich industrialists outside of Europe and North America tend to be non-white, reflecting the demographics there. The former is attested as evidence of white privilege whereas the latter is ignored because it does not back this theory. Multinational investment in Africa is labelled neo-colonialism, and evidence of white privilege, if it is by a Western corporation- ignored if it is an Arab company or the Chinese government since this would not support the WPT. According to WPT the privilege of a wealthy, white, male is also the privilege of a working class white, male. This is not considered the case when attention is shifted purely onto a economic means when the former and latter are on opposite sides of a Marxist dichotomy – our interests are only one when it considered from a race perspective. So reality shifts according to what particular Marxist pre-occupation is the immediate object of focus.

WPT asserts that race is a ‘social construct’, thereby implying artificiality.  It asserts that white people invented race in order to entrench power – as to why this particular distinction would emerge or this particular section of the population had power to begin with is unclear. This begs the question as to who ‘invented’ this distinction and from what. The truth that the distinction between white and non-white is nothing to do with power because it is a conceptualisation of actual biological and genetic distinction of the indigenous population of Europe- someone of European descent could be identified from their genome. Non-white would be someone who is not an indigenous European because they are indigenous to another part of the world such as Asia and Africa. So there is not an artificial distinction but a natural one.

If race is natural then why would WPT say that it is artificial? Because the important thing for WPT is not what is true but what can be achieved through someone believing something to be true. For example, if we believe that race is an invention then we will act as if it is, and cultural identities within Europe and any Western area will lose their ethnic basis. So rather than us having an ancestral attachment to our culture we would instead possess no special attachment to our cultural heritage and would simply accept an alternative being imposed on us via multiculturalism and mass immigration because no one culture is preferable to another. Distinctive nation-states would vanish.

WPT ignores the fact that populations have distinctive physical features in different parts of the world, and that indigenous populations tend to have features that suit them to that part of the world thereby suggesting that evolution has been acting on us since the appearance of ‘modern man’ over 100,000 years ago. Light skin is more suited to low-light levels since light-skin needs less sunlight to produce vitamin D that can ward off certain illnesses, while dark skin offer protection against strong sunlight and the Tibetans can survive at altitudes that would kill other peoples since they have undergone evolutionary adaption over the last 3,000 years, for example. So the distinction between white and non-white would appear to be the culmination of evolution and not via a conspiracy by an elite to entrench power.

Doesn’t Meritocracy Offer Equal Opportunity?

WPT theory claims that the concept of meritocracy is designed to disguise white privilege. They claim that this concept is socially constructed (according to WPT most things are ‘socially constructed’ since this provides a get out clause within difficult debates so they can claim that any cogent argument against them is a symptom of this hegemony). So apparently disadvantaged people would think that they were given a fair chance of the success and only failed because they had less ability then another candidate, when in fact a white male was given a job by a white male because they were both white males. The problem with this is that this theory would come into difficulty when a non-white intentionally chooses a non-white for a job over a white male based on race. In Tower Hamlets, a London local authority, has a cabinet entirely chosen from the Bangladeshi community by its Bangladeshi leader. No white male privileging a fellow white male here.

This theory also fails to explain why  ‘positive discrimination’ would be allowed to happen if this was a white male driven society for white males because ‘positive’ discrimination seeks to provide non-white males with advantageous access to jobs or education, although a WPT advocate would wield their get-out clause and disingenuously argue that you were under a false consciousness since it is claimed that if you cannot see it then it is invisible – a WPT advocate can apparently see what is invisible to the rest of us. As to why they have this special vision and no-one else does is unclear.  Basically it is a case of ‘ it is invisible, but trust me, it is there’. The case for ‘positive’ discrimination presuppose the existence of privilege based on being white and male.

So All Minorities Would Fail, Then?

No, they wouldn’t and necessarily don’t. To support the theory that meritocracy is a con argument they point to unequal outcomes between different racial groups. Misleadingly they selectively compare certain racial groups that statistically do worse than white people in certain areas such education and income – and ignore those that statistically do better such as East Asians and Indians, in Britain, at least- than the white population.

In Britain white working class boys are doing worse than any other group apart from travellers and gypsies. So would a system that intends to maintain white privilege really allow all these white males to languish academically? If the system is constructed to ensure that white males prosper and non-whites do not, then it has clearly failed.

The argument also assumes that if opportunities were equal, however you define that, then every racial group would do equally as well as measured by outcome. The presumption is that every racial group has identical underlying abilities since we are the same under the skin and skin colour has no bearing on ability; but as has been established differences are more than skin deep and penetrate to the genetic level- genetics account for a significant percentage of intelligence and other abilities according to research on twins.  However, different underlying abilities could account for differences in outcome as well as culture. Certain groups do consistently worse educationally while other peoples possess a greater emphasis on academic success within their cultural backgrounds then others. These two factors can both be true for others. A system that is loaded against non-whites seems to be an unsatisfactory explanation for different outcomes.

It has been argued that the theory could become self-perpetuating if it leads to non-whites doing worse in life if they believe that there are insurmountable hurdles to overcome. So WPT could lead to non-white people doing worse than the white average. But with WPT us ‘privileged’ white, males would hate ourselves and offer the poor struggling non-white groups a leg-up.

Conclusion

WPT creates an misleading dichotomy that does not explain or would solve anything. It proclaims certain people to be privileged when they are not and proclaims victimhood where there is none and that can be an excuse for failure, or a disincentive to try. It can create resentment towards white people by instilling a burning grievance within other groups.

References

legalinsurrection.com/2014/05

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/05/13

Delgado, R (ed), Critical Race Theory

Lund, C, White Privilege and Racism: Perceptions and Actions

Preskar, G., White Privilege and Wheel of Oppression: The Hoax of the Century

Tyson, L, Critical Theory Today: A User-Friendly Guide, 2012

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJpvFnL6dOK

 

Will The Conservatives Meet Their 100,000 A Year Net-Immigration Plan?

The Conservative Party have responded to the public demand to curb immigration by promising to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands for the first time since 1998. Is this merely a means to get our votes or do they intend to meet it? I start from a sceptical position and it will be unlikely that I will have changed my mind at the end.

The pledge on the Conservative Party website states:

• Clamping down on benefit tourism – so that we only welcome those who want to work hard and contribute to our society.
• Cutting non-EU immigration to its lowest level since 1998 – to ease the pressure.
• Introducing a new citizenship test with British values at its heart.

There are many reasons to doubt their willingness or ability to meet these pledges. Although it is really an attempt to divert from votes from parties that actually would seek to combat the problem.

Can they meet the target?

Party chairman Grant Shapps has claimed that they can meet the target. He has said that non-EU migration is at lowest since 1998. It is not clear as to how he would know this because the statistics do not reflect the numbers in this country. Due to the fact that the government has (intentionally) lost control of the borders through their dismantling it means that whatever the statistics say it is certain that actual immigration would be higher. The government would not even know if the numbers miraculously fell below 100,000.

The statistics in the year up to 2013 said that migration rose by 58,000 to 212,000. This means that the statistics themselves are more than double the intended target by 2015. Add the unknown number on top of that and it is left to your imagination. It is inconceivable that it would be brought below 100,000.

Cable has also claimed that the target cannot be met but it is likely that his intention is for everyone will give up since he wants unlimited immigration for ideological reasons. He argues that there are factors that cannot be controlled- in practice it is the case that there is an unwillingness to control them. In this he is wrong because they could be met by a government that is willing to – it is just that the government won’t deprive its donors of their supply of cheap labour by controlling these ‘uncontrollable’ factors or withdraw us from the European Union.

He argued that we could not control emigration. There is merit to this argument as a criticism of controlling net migration. If migration fell then a corresponding fall in emigration would therefore mean no fall in net migration. If emigration fell faster than net migration there would be an increase in the net migration. This relates to the relative advantages of a net-immigration approach as opposed to an absolute-immigration approach, and this will be covered in the next section.

He also argued that we cannot control the influx of EU migrants. Well, you cannot if you remain within the EU or follow its cherished free movement rules, but you can if you do not. There are large wage disparities within the EU ever since membership was expanded into Eastern Europe as wages are lower there – especially so amongst Romanians and Bulgarians. As one of the countries at the higher end of the disparity we therefore attract those from the lower end in significant numbers. It is absurd to say that you can keep net migration below a particular figure when you give free access to your jobs market and benefits system to the citizens of 27 other countries…or to the world, come to think of it, despite the protestations about apparent controls on non-EU migrants.

The Conservatives claim that they will address the pull factors. A significant pull factor is our benefits system, as well as our jobs market in which there plenty of employers willing to take advantage of cheap, flexible and compliant labour. It would be impossible to stem migration with an open border if you offer access to benefits for citizens from 27 other countries – it is not just the EU because if someone from outside the European Union claims asylum then they can access allowances despite the protestations that migrants need to pass certain conditions in order to receive any help. In order to withdraw benefits from migrants the government would have to ignore Brussels, whose rules state the non-British EU citizens cannot be treated differently from British citizens despite the obvious difference in the two cases. The Conservatives will not do this since British governments tend to tow the Brussels line – more so than other EU nations, especially the French. So the Conservatives are claiming that they will bring net migration down while keeping the borders open and incentivising migrants to come here.

Is this target suitable?

Liam Fox has cast doubt on the use of a target that meets net immigration rather than absolute numbers. One advantage to this is that it would make the emigration argument against controlling immigration irrelevant. If numbers are kept down to an absolute minimum net migration would certainly come down too. The target has therefore made it more difficult with the arithmetical nature of its migration-minus-emigration target.

Another point should be made that a net-migration target could encompass the demographic replacement of the British population. For example, 100,000 indigenous Brits emigrated and were replaced by 100,000 migrants this would amount to a net 200,000 swing against the indigenous population. Influx of African and Asian migrants would account for a swing against the European population here.

Even UKIP’s target of 50,000 net migration, to the extent that it can be believed, would add significantly to the population in the face of unprecedented pressure on public services and housing costs, whether social housing, private rent or ownership.

The net migration does not take into account  the quality of migrants. For example, it would seem axiomatic that a migrant who has genuinely needed skills, earns enough so that they pay tax but claim little back, obey the law and respect our culture would be better than a unskilled, idle criminal; our governments have tended to accept anyone, even people accused of war crimes.  An absolute numbers approach with an emphasis on quality over quantity would be superior.

Conclusion

The pledge is a flawed one and the Conservatives will not meet it, both because they will not. They choose not to address the factors that are keeping the numbers at a high level.

Migration targets should be based on absolute numbers as a proportion of the population with a downwards emphasis, not on net migration. Refusal of migration should be the default option with the burden of proof placed on the migrant.

References

The Conservative Party website

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/

http://www.politics.co.uk/news/

 

 

Asylum Seeking: Why We Cannot Reasonably Appeal to So-Called Obligations.

An obligation to asylum seekers has no secure basis and can only create problems for already overwhelmed industrialised countries such as ourselves. The definition of an asylum seeker is too broad, and the conditions of creating asylum seekers could increase in the future thereby leading to more of them claiming to be. National governments in industrialised countries should look after their own citizens.

The Syrian conflict has created a large number of asylum seekers. There are now over a million. This has led to the debate over what is to be done with these asylum seekers. Predictably industrialised countries are expected to take in a significant number of asylum seekers in addition to high immigration numbers.

The British government has pledged to take in hundreds of the most needy. Other European nations are taking numbers in the thousands so will likely to have a large number of additional Muslims dependents on their welfare systems. Yet refugee groups and organisations want us to give a chance for asylum seekers to fall on their feet here. This is wrong.

These arguments are based on the existence of an obligation to asylum seekers. This obligation is assumed and based on various other concepts and words.

Appeals to abstract concepts…or just words

It has been argued that if people need protection then we have an obligation to admit them. Again, the existence of an obligation is assumed. Just because somebody needs protection it does not logically follow that we should offer it. However the number of people who may need protection, and seek it from us, could exceed our capacity to take them. Taking them all could be injurious of people already here as resources, some increasingly scarce, is directed to them. If we only admit what we could, in practice a very tiny number, then what ones?

It would be no use claiming that, for example, Syria should be made an exception. Every case could be considered an exception if isolated. How many other ‘exceptional’ cases will emerge in the future?

It would be irrelevant to claim that the numbers of Syrians claiming asylum in Britain and Europe is small as a proportion of overall Syrian asylum seekers as Antonio Guterres, the UN Commissioner for Refugees, has claimed. This argument is flawed because these numbers would be in addition to the considerable numbers of asylum seekers and economic migrants that presently flow into industrialised countries. The issue of asylum seekers is not distinct from the wider issue of immigration.

Caring…about whom?

Other erroneous arguments base the myth of on obligation in the apparent need to demonstrate in practice that we care. This argument assumes that we can absorb a significant flow of refugees and that if we do not admit then we do not care. This is logically flawed. That is not necessarily the case- it may not be practical to admit significant numbers of people.

There are other ways to care. If people want to demonstrate to everyone that they care then they could donate to a charity. When asylum seekers are accommodated it is wider society that bears the cost because homes and benefits are provided by the taxpayer.  It is easy to be generous with other people’s money.

In Britain we have a significant problem with the level of migration comprising both economic migrants, both EU and non-EU, and asylum seekers, both genuine and bogus. Housing and infrastructure are struggling to cope. Like large numbers of economic migrants, asylum seekers put pressure on housing supplies thereby providing competition to indigenous claimants.

Asylum seeking should be considered part of the general problems facing us from mass immigration. Caring for the plight of (genuine) asylum seekers should be expressed in other ways. We should care about indigenous people suffering under our governments that only differentiate by name. This is the direction that obligation should go.

Morality

To claim that it is a moral issue is to miss the point. Compassion does not cause housing supplies to keep up with demand. Compassion does not lead to greater capacity and efficiency in energy production. It does not pay our benefits bill. Traumatised refugees will put demand on this section as well as the NHS. Mental heath issues such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, if they are genuine, will put pressure on a health service that is already under-pressure. It is difficult to see how the cost will be recovered, not to mention the social costs in terms of a decline in the quality of access to those already here and probable increase in death rates.

Accepting asylum seekers, especially as a routine course of action, creates a rod for an industrialised country’s back. The greater number diasporas that a country accumulates within its borders, and more prominent that the diaspora becomes then the increased likelihood that it could receive more refugees in the future as asylum seekers will try to join their relatives and friends.

The problem could be exacerbated if instability increases within the world and the length of time that instability lasts within a particular country. Unstable countries would produce more asylum seekers to join relatives and friends within industrialised countries, most probably claiming benefits since low-income immigrants pay less tax and will claim more public benefits. Somalia has been unstable for over two decades and the presence of a Somali diaspora has accumulated in soft-touch countries such as Britain and Sweden to a significant level that are causing social problems related to poverty, crime and terrorism. This leads to  global situation in which such countries attract asylum seeker and economic migrants from other relatively unstable and poor countries to then establish a diaspora that will then act as magnet for further asylum seeking and economic migration from Third World countries.

Morality would then disappear under practical problems that people in industrialised countries will pay for. It is easy to talk about obligations when in a comfortable position but unfortunately living in a ‘safe’ industrialised country does not guarantee such a comfortable position. If you live in a leafy suburb you will be less likely to feel the effects than someone struggling to get by on a sink estate.

What Precedent?

Another position is to argue for an obligation from precedent – we have let in asylum seekers before, so therefore we should carry on doing so. Examples put forward tend to be Huguenots and Jews escaping from the Nazis. This is problematic because one set of asylum seekers is assumed to be a necessary precedent for any group. Particularities such as the nature of the group, numbers, chronology and circumstances are left out as if they are irrelevant. This is a mistake.

‘Asylum seekers’ since the Second World War come from outside Europe so this means that any ‘asylum seeker’ has to cross dozens of safe countries to come here – coincidentally a country that has a more generous welfare than other European countries, with the exception perhaps of Sweden. For the Huguenots and the Jews in the Second World War this was the closest safe haven because of geographic proximity, and the modern welfare state was not in existence since it was brought in after the war so welfare was less of a magnet for economic migrants posing as asylum seekers.

Even if it has been possible in the past to take in asylum seekers it does not mean that it is possible in the present or will be in the future. Or if it is possible or will be, then only in certain numbers as part of overall immigration.

If the continuation of our cultural traditions was given as much prominence by the asylum lobby as they give to our ‘tradition’ of taking in refugees. But those who cannot take pride in our cultural traditions must clearly find something to take pride in, even if it is a mythical history.

Obligation to international treaties and bodies

There are more institutional arguments. The United Nations Council for Human Rights has been pressuring industrialised countries to take in asylum seekers based on the existence of an obligation enshrined within  treaties such as the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. This defines the status of a refugee, their rights and state obligation. In 1967 all geographical restrictions were removed meaning that asylum seekers from everywhere could go anywhere, meaning to wealthy states to be looked after by generous welfare provisions. Why should our governments be obliged to respect such treaties and organisations over the welfare of their own people?

These treaties and organisations themselves base the existence of the obligations ultimately on abstract concepts. These treaties were an attempt to embody such obligations and the institutions to oversee the exercise of these obligations. The validity of these abstract concepts have been covered within this article but the institutions themselves must not be allowed to dictate to sovereign states. These institutions are less concerned with the welfare of people in countries admitting asylum seekers then with the enforcement of the treaties, and their own power and influence.

A responsible government would look after their citizens, not international treaties and organisations.

What is an Asylum Seeker?

Just because someone claims to be an asylum seeker it does not mean that they are genuinely are because people pretend to be in order to increase their chances of gaining entry. Many migrants claim to be from a countries in conflict despite experts pointing out that their accent, language and lack of knowledge of that society suggest otherwise. Many of these people use human rights law to avoid deportation.

It is also debatable as to what should constitute an asylum seeker. Is it just someone escaping civil war or death or torture at the hands of an authority an asylum seeker or is the term more broad? In some cases an asylum seeker has defined, in practice, as someone escaping poverty. Due to our position as one of the wealthy countries this can merely be an excuse for an economic migrant to work here and/or access our welfare state. Thereby broad and problematic definitions of an asylum seeker, entangling of welfare and human rights, risk of increased instability in the world and an increasing, and increasingly mobile, population would lead to an obligation that is completely unsustainable for already overwhelmed industrialised countries.

If decreasing access to resources combine with an increasing population to make war more likely then this would create a more restless population that is more inclined to claim asylum.

Human Rights and the entangling of the two issues

It is also wrong to argue that we should provide, as a matter of human rights, basic needs as result of civil war or a failure of their own countries to provide them. It is argued that because these people do not have housing, welfare provisions, enough food or water and education it is then up the industrialised countries with an apparently unlimited supply of these things to provide them for the rest of the world when needed. The problem with this argument is these provisions are limited even within wealthy countries so people already here can lose out. Also people are not privileged just because they live in a wealthy country so there are people in need within wealthy countries that their governments need to look after.

The connection between welfare provision and human rights is problematic so it fails to provide a secure foundation for concepts of obligation to asylum seekers.

Conclusion

There is a continuous theme of an appeal to abstract conceptions of obligations over practicalities driven by a blinding degree of sentimentality. However the ‘obligation’ is too problematic and is a means for liberal Westerners to feel better about themselves and for others to gain access to wealthy countries.  However there are practical consideration and obligations to a governments own citizens – the citizens that elected them and pays their wages and expenses that they enjoy claiming. The issue of asylum seeking is not distinct from the immigration issue.

There are people in need within wealthy countries, especially the ones with a high level of inequality. Admission of large numbers of asylum seekers would therefore add to this problem.

It would represent another source of immigration that could overwhelm Western nations demographically and culturally where indigenous birth rates are low. Such a situation is a threat to national identities in Western states. European states are nation states with a cultural heritage – not giant refuges for the worlds poor.

References

http://www.dailymail.co.uk

wwwguardian.co.uk

http://www.unhcr.com

http://www.telegraph.co.uk

http://www.reuters.com

the refugee council

Mark Duggan: Another Mythologisation That Is Designed To Make Us All Feel Guilty

Mark Duggan’s case in another example of how a Politically Correct narrative can build up to sustain a socialist mythology.

In order to serve their narrative the Left ignores the facts. Evidence suggest that Mark Duggan was a criminal. He was a prominent member of a Tottenham gang that participated in drugs and violent crime. It is because that the police had him under surveillance that events led to his shooting. Police say that he had just come back from a dealer from whom he had just bought a gun. If he had just bought a gun it is therefore reasonable to conclude that he could have been armed when he was confronted. It becomes difficult to sustain the idea that he was a victim therefore.

Yet we are supposed to believe this case represents an injustice. Why? Because he was an unarmed man. This illustrates that taking a single statement out of context can transform an entire narrative. It was discovered that when he was shot he was not holding a gun. However a gun was found within 20ft on grass verge so he was likely to have had one very shortly beforehand before throwing it.

This is where the predictable conspiracy theories come in from minority interest groups and their allies amongst the trendy and loony Left.  It has been claimed that the police planted the gun to frame an innocent man whom they shot, presumably, for fun. Of course there is no evidence. But then conspiracy theories do not require evidence. The jury concluded, reasonably, that Duggan had thrown the gun just after he got out of the taxi and before he was confronted by the police. After all what is more likely? That this known criminal had a gun that he then discarded or police wanted to frame this particular individual.

It was concluded that Duggan was lawfully killed on the basis that the shooting copper thought Duggan had a gun. The fact that there was not a gun in Duggan’s hand when he was killed is not the most important thing here. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but sometimes the only way to be sure that a suspect is armed is to wait for them to fire. By then however an innocent person could be killed.

Duggan was of mixed race (though for the sake of the narrative he black) so predictably this has become a race issue. Any chance to stir up ethnic minorities against the majority is not bypassed. It has been absurdly claimed that police shot him because he was black. He was the first person to be shot dead by police in London for 4 years. So why do more young black men not get shot if police shoot black people for fun?

It usually follows that us white people should feel guilty. If an ‘injustice’ is committed against one person from an ethnic minority then it is usually considered a crime against that minority or all minorities simultaneously – but not vice versa because if a crime is committed by an ethnic minority against a white person then that apparently stemmed from ‘discrimination’. Translation – it is our fault. Us white people are placed on the ‘oppressive’ side of the Marxist narrative; we apparently, through the nature of our existence, uphold racial relations that discriminate against minorities.

The police are portrayed as a instrument of the capitalist state that for some reason has an interest in ‘keeping the black man down’ rather than turning them into wage-labour – or at least potential reserve labour to keep wages down. Duggan’s shooting has been portrayed as a continuation of the ‘sus’ laws in the 1980s in which young black men were routinely stopped and searched. However, searching an innocent black man without good reason and shooting a known armed criminal are completely different. They certainly did not seem to presume anything about Duggan.

This illustrates the process of Politically Correct mythology-making. A sober look at the facts indicate a non-racial issue in which a known and persistent criminal who lived by the gun died by it- not a cause celebre for the heroic minority facing oppression from a racial elite.

The verdict has stoked fears of another riot like the one in 2011 that was triggered by Duggan’s shooting. That demonstrates the use of fear within the narrative that is supposed induce us majority into acting on our supposed obligations to the struggling minority – if we do not become more ‘socially aware’ we run the risk of another explosion of despair of the urban underclass like in 2011.

In fact the riots was an explosion of criminal opportunism and orgy of destruction for the sake of it. Suspects brought in had an average of 11 previous conviction each. Gang masters were orchestrating gangs of youths emptying shops and moving the loot for sale later on. Despite being told that rioters were hungry due to cuts there were gangs of youths breaking into shops and helping themselves to the latest trainers and phones – not very tasty, not that I have tried them personally. Greed, not desperation, were at the root of the riots. It was not a cry for help by an oppressed underclass – individuals from affluent backgrounds were caught up in the opportunism too.

Such a simplified dichotomy needs to ignore many things to uphold itself. There is much victimisation of white people. If the police were in place to uphold apparent white privilege then why would they have allowed young white girls to be used as sexual playthings by Muslim paedophile gangs despite being repeatedly told? Ever since the MacPherson report greater levels of restraint has been imposed on speech. This has been greater on white people. An ethnic minority can declare that there are too many white people and get invited onto the BBC as an ‘anti-racist’- a white person can declare that there are too many ethnic minorities in Britain and will have more chance of getting arrested than of being given a platform. Therefore there is a level of discrimination towards white people.

People may claim that this is balancing an existing injustice but this false. This idea that there is an injustice is based on the existence of a majority of white people in prominent positions – but with this being a European country there is an indigenous white majority. In Africa you would find black majorities, for example.

Anyway, even if there is a self-serving white elite then why would this elite want to balance things up? Why would they allow there to be a white working class? White boys are falling behind Indian and East Asians boys in school. If there is a white elite that is trying to maintain white privilege then why it allow an education system in which whites would not come out on top? The fact is that discrimination in Britain is not overly based on race- when it is then it is ‘positive discrimination’ consciously applied against whites overwhelmingly by whites, and called for by ethnic minorities. It certainly seems that white people in power are not looking out for other whites- our elites are looking out for themselves. They would work with other ethnic groups to preserve their privileges against other white people. Minorities do possess power in Politically Correct Britain.

Members of ethnic minorities that position themselves as spokesman for their particular minority are not necessarily concerned with benefiting their ethnic group to the extent that it would help them personally. They are just trying to claim prestige within their particular group and within the eyes of the trendy Guardian readers. Duggan’s shooting is an opportunity for such people. Before anyone absorbs the victim mythology this needs to be considered.

If the police has a white ideal then that would not explain its obsession with diversity. Then underlying current of the state dogma of diversity is that non-white is a sign of progress from whiteness. In other words, the less white British society is, the better. Not exactly a police force trying to uphold whiteness in society. Don’t be surprised to see greater levels of ‘positive discrimination’ to buy social order for a little while longer. Through fear of mass unrest that are common in France ethnic minorities hold power over the police and the authorities. The majority are passive so we do not.

To conclude, the narrative racial victimisation surrounding the Mark Duggan case needs to be rejected because it does not reflect reality. The Left needs to create an underdog. In siding themselves with the underdog they therefore feel better while trying to make everyone else feel worse. There is nothing to feel bad about. Mark Duggan was an individual who made bad choices; not everyone from inner-city areas become criminals. But this case was a case of a criminal dying the way he appeared to live.

There is no racial oppression dichotomy. Reality is in fact complicated and messy.

Why Jobs Should be Saved for British People and As Apprenticeships for Our Young People

We do not need the vast majority of immigrant workers. The government just needs to train British workers and expand apprenticeships, and introduce or toughen conditions on benefits.

We are constantly told that migrants take jobs that we Britons will not do so therefore our borders must be opened up. Holes in this argument constantly open up.

British companies advertise thousands of jobs in Romania and Bulgaria, not to mention the adverts that are placed in other countries. In the past year over 8,000 jobs have been placed in these two countries.

These jobs can include jobs that pay wages that could attract unemployed Britons. One of the jobs advertised included taxi driver. A particular vacancy in London offered wages of up to £2000 a month. Given that most Britons can drive, this wage would undoubtedly attract British candidates if advertised in Britain. Another position in Scotland as a bus mechanic offers a salary of £25,000 to £30,000 a year; again, wages that would attract British candidates. Companies cannot be allowed to employ foreigners instead of Britons.

The government has often extolled the virtues of apprenticeships. Because there are about a million young people in this country apprenticeships are needed. The bus mechanic position mentioned above could be opened to British apprentices from amongst the unemployed youth already here. If the government is serious about getting young people into jobs then it should bar jobs being advertised abroad and ensure that they are made available to British youth.

If this provides routes to careers for young British people then this would decrease welfare payments to young people; both when they are young and probably when they grow older, and they would pay tax.

Social consequences and their corresponding costs in monetary terms would also be lessened since there is a connection between long-term unemployment and mental health and crime according to research. Mental health and crime has significant costs to the country.

This would imply therefore that giving jobs to foreigners rather than British people could uphold or increase social problems emanating from long-term unemployment amongst British people. This must be offset against the apparent benefits of migration in addition to claims on public services.

A report from the University College London concluded that the EEA (European Economic Area) would be beneficial in terms of tax paid. Researchers from the think-tank Civitas has claimed that the methodology of the report is flawed because it lumps, for example, skilled workers from wealthier economies in with low-paid, unskilled workers from South-East Europe.

Taxes that migrants pay would not necessarily pay for social consequences of long-term unemployment. Many jobs advertised to migrants abroad would pay minimum wage of £6.31. With income tax threshold going up to £10,000 a year this means that many migrants would hardly pay income tax, or any at all, because 20% of anything over that threshold would be paid in tax, so will not pay their way let alone the benefit payments of British people left out of the jobs market.

This would mean that the government is either ignorant of these connections, believes that other things outweigh the effects of long-term unemployment or just don’t care.

However this situation creates favourable conditions for companies. Mass immigration creates insecurity for the employed and forces natives to compete with migrants so that this creates downwards pressure on wages. The boss of Dominoes has claimed that this country needs to increase the six-figure number of migrants coming in every year in order to fill a 1000 vacancies. Otherwise it would need to increase the wages it offers. So mass immigration allows companies to avoid paying a living wage. If the border are controlled then British people would be likely to be able to command a living wage.

Keeping wages down would increase the profit rate – or so companies hope. After all, the 2008 economic crisis came after record levels of immigration in Britain so mass immigration does not necessarily lead to economic growth, and does not necessarily prevent crashes.

Such a view is short-term and narrow-minded. Employing British people and extending positions to British apprentices would mean that a greater proportion of the population are engaged in meaningful and productive activity. This would increase demand within the British economy anyway through more people earning. An immigration policy geared towards the national interest rather than company labour costs would protect wages and living standards.

The Left would have to be faced down. The Left views immigrants as the raw material for their social revolution. They know that demographics would transform the cultural and ethnic face of the country and would lead to the dilution of the national identity that the Left hate so much.

The Left can adopt free-market sounding economic arguments that disguise their revolutionary intentions since arguments extolling the apparent economic benefits of immigration. However, such arguments underlie ignorance. The Left claim to support the interests of the working class but in supporting mass immigration they are actually helping to consign large proportions of the indigenous working class to marginalisation from the jobs market. The beneficiaries are the companies who benefit from reduced labour costs and migrants who find themselves employed on wages that they could only dream of back home.

Welfare reform would further increase the indigenous demand for jobs because it would reduce the level of benefits against potential wages, especially if border controls reduces, ends or reverses the downward pressure on wages. This would increase the benefits of working against claiming benefits. This would also avoid or lessen the socially destabilising effects of mass immigration and long-term unemployment.

This would be unlikely to lead to the unification of the marginalised for revolutionary purposes that the Left would like to see. Instead this would just create an indigenous marginalised class. Rather than create a schism between the rest and the ‘ruling class’ it would lead to schisms based on religion and ethnicity if trends in heavily multicultural countries throughout European are anything to go by.

It is therefore imperative that Left revolutionary agendas are uncovered from their economic exteriors and exposed as misguided. The issue must be brought round to the dangers of mass instability of mass immigration and leaving a generation of young people out of the jobs market.

Conclusion

There is therefore a necessity to base our immigration policy on long-term sustainability and not on short-term concerns about profit-sheets. This requires that British unemployed, and especially British youth, are given exclusive access to the British jobs market. The only exception that can be justified is if there is no chance of finding a British person, and the industry is vital.

However this can be an excuse because this can mean that British people are not trained for these jobs, as British apprentices can be and should be. Benefit claimants can be used to do seasonal work with strong conditions attached to their benefits.

So we do not actually need the vast majority of immigrant workers; it just saves the government from training Britons or companies from offering wages that can be lived on.

References

The Daily Mail

http://www.telegraph.co.uk

Migrationwatch

Civitas

The Guardian

Institute for Economic Affairs

Institute for Public Policy Research

 

Why Opposition to Diversity is not Racism: The Error is in Equating Support for Diversity with Anti-Racism

It is often assumed that there is racism because there is insufficient diversity or insufficient acceptance of diversity; most often these are directly equated. This is false and illogical.

Diversity

First of all, what is diversity? In the context of political debate in Britain it means the presence of a plurality of cultures and ethnicities within a certain area, either an entire country or parts of it. It also has a negative meaning; an extensive proportion of non-whites. Because diversity is celebrated, at least by a very vocal minority and, grudgingly, by an even larger number of the population, this would mean that the decline of the white majority is considered a good thing – even by white people.

Diversity is in contrast to homogeneity; this represents a cultural commonality, in which there is a distinctive monoculture. This commonly refers to an area that is predominately, or completely, white.

Why should acceptance of diversity be considered desirable?

A common falsity is that diversity is considered objectively good and therefore it is considered acceptable to enforce as akin to a national religion. It is in fact entirely subjective; witnessing an extensive multitude of cultural practices may be considered good from certain perspectives, but not others. If you are attached to the indigenous culture that dominates within homogenous areas of the country then you will not appreciate seemingly every culture in the world establishing themselves in this country; if you hate that culture, or just no particular attachment to it, then you will be more partial to it. Followers of either position will not generally agree on the meaning of ‘good’.

Dissenters do, however, possess an objection with an objective basis; when you diversify a homogenous country, as Britain, for the vast majority of its history, has been, the identity of that country necessarily changes. It’s disappearance is fact. In this case, why should diversity be desirable? It is not clear as to why anyone who possesses this view necessarily is racist – meaning someone who believes in racial supremacism. After all, to speak of culture is not necessarily to speak of race; anyone of any race can attempt to blend in with a particular culture. To assert our own culture, therefore is not to necessarily reject on the basis of race.

Diversity fanatics base much of their belief on what can be described, at best, optimism and, at worst, utopianism. They ignore the destabilising effects that diversity, or diversification, can cause in a historically homogenous nation; there many examples of diverse countries around the world, especially in Africa, that are riven by factions and infighting. The empirical evidence is clear; diversity can be destabilising. The idea that diversity can be sustained is based on the idea that it could work; the Left believe that it can, so therefore it can, regardless of what experience shows. After all, what is experience when we have wishful thinking, or to be more accurate, the diversity brigade has wishful thinking. It can convincingly be argued that diversity creates a greater amount of opportunities for fighting. Rather than coming together and settling our differences, we may rather see inter-cultural and inter-ethnic competition. Cultural homogeneity at least provides stability. It is not clear as to what superiority diversity necessarily has.

It is falsely claimed that Britain has always been diverse. However, Britain, since the 8th century, has been Christian; any non-Christians, and non-whites, through out the vast majority of British history has been so small in number that they are insignificant. There were certainly not the large, and varied, communities that exist in Britain today. The proponents of the mythical diversity position often claim that x was black and lived in Britain in the 19th century, for example, so therefore Britain was diverse. This is false, and ignores scale. Thus, opposition to the diversity agenda can be based on cultural preservation; this not racism.

Thus, they claim, it is wrong to oppose diversity because it has ‘enriched’ our history, as well as our present. In this context ‘enrich’ means ‘rewriting’. Divergence from this narrative can have consequences. The producer of Midsomer Murders, Brian True-May, faced an onslaught from diversity fanatics because he claimed that traditional homogenous English villages are the ”last bastion of Englishness” – in other words villages in Midsomer Murders tend to be hideously white, because they tend to be since immigrants tend to settle in cities, leaving rural areas more indigenous. He was right. For someone not signed up with the diversity agenda truth is no defence. Midsomer now has minorities. No doubt the poor citizens of Midsomer, suffering in their homogeneity, are now grateful. Nothing against minorities, but it is not clear how diversification is beneficial, especially if your quiet traditional village life is altered; wanting to avoid rapid change when you are content with your situation is hardly racism. While Midsomer , obviously, is fictional this represents an actual problem for many areas.

Diversity seems to be a means of advancing the interests of ethnic minorities. For example, diversity is often equated with making workplaces less white, on the basis that it would make the workforce more efficient (how is a white workforce less efficient?). It is not clear how it would, but as long as you do not oppose it, or express apathy, you will not be accused of having racist ulterior motives. The equating of diversity with performance is often made, and not challenged, but it is unsubstantiated. Therefore, opposition to the diversity agenda could be based on scepticism rather than racial hatred. It is not clear as to why someone would work better because they have a minority colleague, rather than only white ones. Surely it is the case of ability rather than the existence of plurality that determines performance. You could take a useless white individual, a useless black individual and a useless Muslim individual and put them to together to perform a task, and they will still be useless collectively.

The diversity brigade should stop indoctrinating people with nonsense, and allow employers to employ, or anyone else to recruit, on the basis of ability. The link between opposition to diversity and racism do not stand up to scrutiny no matter how much anyone imagines ‘hidden prejudice’ as a motive. How this is seen if it is hidden is not explained.

Therefore the arguments for diversity are based on unsubstantiated or false claims.

How can divergence from the diversity agenda be racism?

Racism is a belief that one race is superior to other races and the hatred of other based purely on race. The issue of whether any particular area should have one dominant culture or a plurality seems to have nothing to do with racism, because the plurality of cultures is nothing to do with race; it is a case of culture and cultural preservation. Race and culture are not synonymous.

What about ethnicity? When ethnic diversity is objected to it is not necessarily the case that it is objected to because the objectors hate minorities or believe that they are inferior. Britain, as a European country, is historically white; its historical identity is therefore tied in with not being ethnically diverse. This would, in turn, by tied in with the wider cultural identity of Britain as a West European country. Thus, this is not racism, it is not the case that people are opposed to diversity because of racial hatred. To associate opposition with racism is merely used to stifle dissent, or is indicative of the stupidity of the individual making the accusation.

Agendas

There are agendum behind the equating of racism with a non-acceptance, or enthusiastic support, of diversity. This alongside sheer innocence in many cases in which people do not think critically about anything, and cannot see the fault in the reasoning or the ulterior motives behind the campaign.

Diversity breaks down the historical homogeneity in Britain; if someone hates the traditional homogenous majority then diversity will seem attractive for this reason. For this reason, of course, someone attached to the traditional homogenous majority will oppose diversity for this reason, not for reasons that are often attached, purely on speculation, to opponents of diversity.

This is the reason that much of the main thrust of the diversity agenda comes from the far -Left – in origin. The ancestor of the current movement is the 1960s radicals that now occupy the establishment and given the diversity agenda an official status, to the extent that it has become the official policy of companies and the government. Diversity training is used to indoctrinate workers and managers; this involved making unsubstantiated claims about the supposed benefits of diversity. Examples include claims that diversity enriches; this is not an argument, it is making an assertion that involves calling a word another word. Refusal to accept such nonsense would involve speculation about hidden racist motives. This is driven by idiocy, the fertile ground for the diversity agenda, or something more cynical, such as wanting to stifle dissent.

Thus,there seems to be many false assumptions underlying the view that anti-racism is intertwined with support for diversity.

There seems to be a confusion between a positive assertion of a traditional identity and rejection of other ones. The former means the belief that there is value in a particular identity, not that there is value in only that identity, the latter mean the rejection of other cultures for its own sake. Rejection of diversity, if based on the former, is not equated with racism because to assert your own identity is not to imply race, let alone assert any supremacist belief. The traditional identity in Britain in incompatible with diversity, or at least to the extent that diversity can threaten the traditional identity. Therefore in targeting proponents of that view the anti-racism brigade are mistaken.