Humanitarianism and Sweden

This is another one on Sweden – a country at the centre of self-defeating altruism. According to a journalist talking to Fox News, the Swedish government hides migrant crime statistics. The claim is that this is done to protect ‘vulnerable migrants’. Protect them from what? The establishment across Europe are afraid that Europeans will want to defend the interests of their families and communities and demand controls over borders. Why? The Swedish establishment has an evangelical commitment to being a ‘humanitarian superpower’. But what are the consequences?

Humanitarianism seems to demand that any danger to the native population is deemed irrelevant – or at least less important than any hypothetical harm done to migrants.

In the name of humanitarianism Sweden had taken 160,000 migrants last year and it has a population of under 10 million. Sweden sees migration as an opportunity to become a superpower – hence the term ‘humanitarian superpower’. Sweden is neither a economic or military superpower. But if the social, demographic and cultural costs are so high then why try to become a ‘superpower’ at all? The fact is that having open borders does not mean that a country is a superpower – it just means that it does not defend its borders.

Humanitarianism will lead to a greater focus on a devotion to abstract values than to concrete reality. The establishment in Sweden does not seem to care who arrives – all that matters is that Sweden adhere to ‘humanitarian’ principles.

The concept is often justified by saying that it welcomes those seeking safety from war but open borders, and a generous welfare system, will inevitably attract economic migrants.

Society and Law and Order

Trying to be ‘humanitarian’, for the sake of itself, does not lead to integration nor does it lead to social harmony. Very few migrants from outside Europe will find employment and these communities often live separate from mainstream Swedish society (no evidence that this is down to ‘racism’ – a common knee-jerk suggestion). This is no recipe for social harmony.

There are police voices in Sweden that complain that they cannot cope. The single-minded commitment to humanitarianism is leading to law and order being overlooked and sacrificed as crime waves happen that overwhelm the police. Police officers who put their head above the parapet will face the inevitable charge of being ‘racist’ when they point out that these are disproportionality linked with migration. There is no point in being a ‘humanitarian superpower’ if your people are less safe as a consequence.

The authorities seems to see that there ought to be some limits to the ‘humanitarian superpower’ concept as they have been making attempts recently to limit numbers – it could turn out that too many will take up the offer and a society will only have a limited capacity; ‘compassion’ does not build homes or create jobs. The nationalist Sweden Democrats are gaining in popularity, and border controls have been put in place on Sweden’s bridge border with Denmark. But being a ‘humanitarian superpower’ would compel a government to manage public opinion. Those at the top can feel good about themselves but the concrete price will be paid by the public.

The policy could lead to people being admitted who could pose a threat to both Swedes and other migrants. There are reports of there being some support, or even membership, of Islamist organisations within some migrant communities. For example, Middle Eastern Christians fleeing persecution could find their persecutors joining them in Sweden – as Sweden gives out permanent residence very easily. If you offer anyone around the world asylum and access to welfare you are deluded if you believe only the victims or the good guys take it up.

Authoritarianism

A single-minded commitment to an ideology does not often tolerate dissent. Any Swede who questions that wisdom of the policy can expect a visit from ‘anti-fascists’ – despite opposing the cultural and demographically suicidal immigration policy not actually meaning that someone is a fascist. Members of the Sweden Democrats can face being violently assaulted whilst members of the political elite could just shrug their shoulders. Dissenters can be tracked down on-line so this suppression operation is very organised. People are kept in line using fear.

Demographics

Following the principle of humanitarianism blindly can lead to demographic shifts. In Sweden the foreign-born population is growing faster than the Swedish-born population. This means that ethnic Swedes, if trends continue, will become a smaller and smaller proportion of the population of their country. Between 2000 and 2013 the number of those with a foreign background increased by 713,000 and the Swedish number by 50,000. Quite a price to pay for some virtue-signalling.

Humanitarianism can have a dislike of the native population behind it. Swedish politicians have expressed a contempt for Swedes and their culture. Mona Sahlin of the Social Democrats has been quoted as ludicrously saying that Swedes do not have a culture and history whilst migrants do and a former PM has said that Sweden belongs to migrants rather than Swedes. So the migration policy is slowly replacing one population with a preferred one. The ‘humanitarian superpower’ creates a virtue out of self- loathing.

Fiscal problems

Being a ‘humanitarian superpower’ is expensive. Sweden dos not have enough resources to pay for all the ‘refugees’ it is receiving. It has resorted to asking the European Commission for extra funds to cope with the recent surge of migration into Europe.

The policy will lead to more demand for housing; it is simple more people will mean more housing is needed. A shortage in housing is one factor in why the nationalist Sweden Democrats are increasing in popularity. When you have a housing crisis you do not then rapidly increase the demand – or at least you wouldn’t if you dealt with reality. In its attempt to be a humanitarian superpower the government is prepared to allow pressing supply issues to get worse. This would mean that either Swedes or migrants will have to be homed or be homeless and the it would seem likely that the government would prioritise the latter. For many European government it is not real compassion to help their own people.

When integration fails taxes could have to increase to pay for it. Non-integration creates more demand on welfare and this is expensive. If there is a small number of tax payers compared to those whom claim benefits then the amount that each one pays would need to increase. When you add to the population that does not work then a greater burden is placed on those that do, and Sweden’s open immigration policy does this. A recent report found that it takes on average 9 years for half the migrants to find work. Being an humanitarian superpower will put a big burden on a welfare system.

Conclusion

Sweden should be seen as an example of how not to manage immigration. The feel-good factor of being a humanitarian superpower has a high price and that price is paid for by ordinary people. Britain, and other countries, should definitely not use Sweden as a model.

Sources

breitbart.com/national-security/2015-04-20/self-loathing-Sweden-should-only-welcome-persecuted-immigrants-not-the-persecuting
express.co.uk/news/world/768980/Sweden-cover-up-migrant-rape-violent-crime
gatestoneinstitute.org/7463/Sweden-migration-industry
gatestoneinstitute.org/5108/Sweden-failed-state
newsinfo.inquirer.net/737754/migration-tests-swedens-humanitarian-superpower-image

Diversity and Education: How ‘Ignorance’ of Other Cultures Amongst White Children Can Shut a School.

The country’s schools are used as instruments of Politically Correct indoctrination. White children are expected to have greater knowledge of other cultures than their own, but this ‘knowledge’ is not necessarily what is accurate but is in fact a view consistent with Political Correctness.

The Durham Free School in the North-East is being shut down after apparently failing an Ofsted inspection. Pupils were said to have ‘discriminatory’ attitudes towards other cultures, but how this was defined is not clear but one pupil was said to have made a connection between Muslims and terrorism when asked what a Muslim is – despite the fact that most terrorists are Muslim, which is a striking pattern considering the respective numbers of Muslim and non-Muslim communities.

Durham Free School is a Christian school and so representative of the Majority culture and the social revolution has it in for any aspect of the Majority culture so a Christian school would be an easy target for state ideologues. The Majority is also seen as a bastion for intolerance and as a ‘threat’ to Minorities, regardless of how inaccurate or unfair this assumption is. Although calling it an assumption can imply a more rational and less pathological angle when it comes to enforcing Diversity – this is carried out with a zeal reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition in the Middle Ages.

The closure was justified by claiming that pupils will not be prepared for ‘life in modern Britain’ if they do not have Politically Correct views on Diversity. By ‘modern Britain’ it is meant Majority Minority and Minority Majority. But then if a child grows up with the ability to criticise the absurdity of the Diversity drive then they may well be drummed out of any career that they are in so they may not prosper. A school will have considered to have failed if it does not mould it pupils for the indigenous minority society planned in the future – education is secondary. Genuine education can be seen as a threat since it can lead to independent thinking.

Other Faiths

Schools are expected to ensure that majority pupils have not only knowledge of other religions and cultures but actively celebrate them. Yet it is not the case that just because a pupil does not celebrate Ramadan that they will develop and instinctive dislike of other cultures nor would it be the case that celebrating other cultures means that someone will see it in a positive light.

Yet pupils are not expected to have knowledge of the indigenous culture. If they are taught about it then they are given a Marxist hatchet job in which it is blamed for everyone’s problems, and that a morally upstanding indigenous person would have contempt for their heritage. After the school was criticised for not celebrating non-Christian festivals teachers justifiably argued that a Christian school should not have to go beyond teaching about them.

But is not considered up to teachers what is taught unless they teach the ‘right’ things. Ideological zealots won’t leave anything to chance.

Islam

Teachers are expected to deliver pro-Islamic propaganda that ignores whole swathes of the religious scripture and portray Islam as peaceful. Pupils won’t be shown passages that declare war on non-Muslims and encourages the subversion and takeover of non-Islamic societies. The unsustainable view that groups such as ISIS are non-Islamic will be taught despite the groups following the religious scripture closely. A school could face closure if it does not.

They would probably be taught about apparent historic Western oppression of Muslims in line with the propaganda of Islamism. The Moorish and Ottoman invasions and occupations of large areas of European territory will be ignored as it will be inconsistent with the leftists narrative in which Europeans are the unqualified oppressors, and everyone else victims of imperialism.

The scandal in which Muslim schools were hijacked by fundamentalists has led to a backlash against Majority schools. Whenever authorities try to deal with fundamentalism in Muslim institutions ‘community leaders’ will claim that the community is being singled out, in order to maintain the same victim narrative that recruits young Muslims to violence. So the government has targeted Majority schools with the intention of finding ‘discrimination’ towards Minorities, so Muslims feel less picked on but how many terrorists operate in the name of the Majority culture?

Family Structures

The Politically Correct ideologues in the education authorities also seem to believe that if children do not know ‘what lesbians do’ by the time they are ten then that child will not grow up normal. Children get asked about homosexuality and ‘alternative families’ as one did at the Grindon Hall Christian School in Sunderland, that has now gone into special measures (despite its good GCSE results the previous year) for not failing to sufficiently indoctrinate its pupils. The Politically Correct wants to ensure that in return for their state funding that schools ensure that children do not growing up believing in the importance of the traditional family. The traditional family is seen as threat because it is seen as a bastion of independence.

They are also concerned about gender identity – in other words there could children as young as primary school age that are gay or could identify as the opposite gender – really?

Central Government

The Department of Education is withdrawing the school’s funding thereby forcing it to close. This is how central government can force the indoctrination of children and stifle independent and critical thinking. State education systems are a means by which central authorities can enforce an ideology. Our system has been captured by a Gramscian march through the institutions. The governments will attempt to justify this by claiming that it is enforcing British values in wake of the Trojan Horse scandal.

But the term ‘British values’ are not actually anything to with values that are British when spoken of by the government. It is  based on the idea that traditionalists in the Majority are dense and irrational and will instinctively support anything called British, but ‘British values’ are actually multiculturalism and social revolutionary values in a patriotic disguise. Education Secretary Nicky Morgan seems to have no idea of British values. She claims that traditional values are ‘old-fashioned ‘ and ‘outdated’ . Well, traditions tend to be old; as Burke pointed out they are the accumulated wisdom of previous generations. It does not make them wrong.

It illustrates just how ingrained this Politically Correct mania is when the supposed conservative party of that nation actively undermines its traditional values and the indigenous culture. Conservative parties are supposed to, well, conserve. Instead the Conservative Party of Great Britain is running the country like a centralised socialist state.

Academies would remove schools from local authority control but not central government control. The government allows independent private schools for their own children that price out everyone else.

Conclusion

Our schools are being used as instruments in a campaign to undermine the Majority culture; this illustrates that a schools ability to stay open is dependent upon it moulding its pupils values according to dogmatic Politically Correct thinking.

References

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/jan/19/

http://www.inquisitir.com

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11358797/

Is Political Correctness Condescending?

John Cleese rightfully points out the condescending nature of Political Correctness that treats Minorities as delicate little things who may get upset if someone makes a joke rather than as adults who can take it in their stride or makes jokes about other groups themselves.

John Cleese has upset the PC Brigade by questioning the doctrine that they adhere to religiously. He argued that Political Correctness is condescending  because it assumes that certain groups are so fragile and weak that they cannot withstand any jokes – or the very existence of a Majority culture. In response to the issues of jokes about Muslims raised by Bill Maher (himself has fallen foul of the PC brigade when he forgot that you can attack Christianity but not Islam because it is wrong to attack someones religion) he claimed no one would dare to because Muslims would kill them. He was predictably criticised for this; despite the fact that when someone makes jokes about Muslims or Islam there are usually Muslim individuals who will seek to respond violently even if the entire population don’t descend to your door. In our PC climate there is an obligation to overlook any violence connected with Islam in order to maintain the blatantly false belief that Islam is peaceful.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/former-monty-python-john-cleese-political-correctness-is-condescending-9891121.html

He insisted that he was talking about fundamentalists but this would not satisfy the PC brigade. According to their doctrine the fact that was talking about Muslims at all meant that he was talking about them all. Yes it is illogical, but Political Correctness is not based on logic. He says that he finds fundamentalism funny so he should therefore view the PC brigade with a sense of humour.

He also referred to nationality arguing that you can joke about nationalities such as Swedish, French, German, English, Canadians and Americans but not about Mexicans because some nationalities cannot look after themselves, according to some; if you make a joke about the latter the audience will be ‘aghast’. He claims that this is condescending because it implies that the Mexicans are too feeble to look after themselves. So basically if you come from a white majority background you are considered to be more resilient – or deserving to be the object of ridicule. The PC brigade likes to consider other peoples to be equal but in fact that seem to have a paternalistic relationship with them; Minorities (non-whites generally) need to be protected like children and are considered to be incapable of looking after themselves hence why they need the help of the Guardian-reading liberal white middle-classes.

So why do these ‘liberals’ believe that they can set the parameters of acceptability in comedy? They believe in the apparent infallibility of their own judgement because they read the Guardian, or its equivalent elsewhere. This belief in their own infallibility also sustains a belief in their own superiority over us who do not worship at the altar of Political Correctness.

These people also tend to be wealthy in addition to having socialist views. This creates cognitive dissonance . To resolve this problem they create helpless, struggling and voiceless groups and appoint themselves as the guardians of the disadvantaged in the face of ‘attacks’ from the nasty and privileged ‘right-wingers’. They can convince themselves that they are ‘good’ people despite having wealth. They are the modern day equivalents of those public schoolboys in the 19th century who argued that people in Africa are deserving of European levels of social and political development but have not managed to do so. Therefore Europeans needed to help them to do it.

The condescending nature of Political Correctness is inconsistent with its alleged belief in equality between people. The PC brigade deal with this confusion by creating victim and victimisers.

Universities and Immigration

Universities argue that any attempt to control our borders will harm universities but this is false. Many types of immigration do not affect universities and the problems that are caused in society by mass immigration can affect universities too.

Amidst the debate on the need to limit immigration university vice-chancellors are making their usual warnings of doom and gloom for universities if we do not have open immigration. They claim that foreign students will not want to go to British universities (and pay full tuition fees) if we as a country do not openly support mass immigration.

Our universities are important and enhance our international prestige but the interests of wider society should not necessarily outweigh the concerns, legitimate, of universities who are often more concerned with tuition fees that international students bring.

Immigrant numbers

Despite their fears significant numbers of immigrants could be barred from this country while not affecting students who would enrol at a British university. The year up to September 2013 saw net immigration at 212,000, and if you add the emigration numbers, the gross total would be over 500,000; though emigration figures, due to the government’s incompetence over this issue, could be an overestimate. According to the government’s own figures 206,814 student visas were issued, and many of these do not do degree courses. Therefore the immigration figures could easily accommodate a dramatic fall in immigration while leaving student numbers untouched.

But student visa themselves could be cut without affecting enrolment at universities because student visas are a means of illegal entry to this country. Migrants on student visas could work in the black economy and not attend a single lecture. Clamping down on bogus students would not be detrimental to universities. In the year up to 2013 universities reported 106,698 cases of students abusing their visas so this is a real and widespread problem.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/immigration/10041104/Bogus-students-UK-Border-Agency-deports-only-one-in-1000-suspected-cases.html

Those issued with student visas may go to colleges that do not offer degree courses or colleges that are completely bogus themselves. So student numbers can be further cut without affecting universities. Vice-chancellors, with the lure of non-EU student tuition fees, tend to panic about the hypothetical loss of income.

Unskilled Migration

Clamping down on unskilled migrants would not be detrimental to the universities. Unskilled migrants can pushed indigenous youngsters out of the employment market and onto benefits. The unskilled migrants themselves will most likely end up in low-wage jobs and so will pay very little income tax, if any, and will be entitled to in-work benefits that will far outweigh their tax contribution. Not to mention the cost that any dependents will create in terms of education and healthcare. So there are problems that need to be dealt with that extend beyond universities and that do not benefit universities themselves.

Imported Criminality

Universities would not suffer if we checked potential migrants for criminal convictions and the public would be safer if we did. We have record numbers of foreigners in our prisons costing up to £50,000 a year per prisoner.

Diversity

The universities also claim that they would suffer from a lack of diversity. Basically, if our indigenous culture is too strong then our educational reputation will apparently become worthless in the minds of students potentially wanting to study here. They will apparently take in less of their course content if too many people speak English in our society. It would be difficult to see how universities would benefit from being situated amongst a society in meltdown amidst ethnic conflict and breakdown. Rapid transformation can atomise and destabilise a society as is happening in Britain.

The wider country does not have to undergo fundamental demographic and cultural transformation for university campuses to be diverse. They can be islands of diversity amidst a strong (now relatively speaking) homogenous society. However too much diversity on campuses imply a far reduced indigenous presence. There is seemingly no actual benefit to this but in our society diversity is treated as the very essence of what is good.

It also seems to reflect an underlying belief that foreigners will hate our culture as much as we are told we ought to by the cultural revolutionaries; that our cultural identity is somehow a slur on our country. But we have traditions of government that are respected across the globe and history that draws tourists. I would not imagine that many of these tourists are attracted by Newham’s mosques rather than the Tower of London or Buckingham Palace for example.

Debate on Immigration: Off-Putting?

They argue that potential students will be put off if we discuss immigration because they will feel unwelcome but the potential consequences of not controlling it will be more off-putting because this country will become less stable and more unsafe. Wider society should not suffer either just to make potential students feel more comfortable.

It is being argued that the ‘negativity’ of the immigration debate means that potential students from abroad feel that they are not welcome but it is the pro-immigration side that is mischaracterising the other side as anti-foreigner rather than pro-border control and patriotic desire to preserve our national identity. It is not the fact that border controls are being discussed that could put people off it, is how one side is trying to portray the whole debate.

They claim that the fall in student numbers is down to the publicity surrounding UKIP (UKIP has apparently made the news in India) but this could be a way of denigrating UKIP for ideological reasons because others point out that the drop in student numbers from Asia, in particular (Indian students fell %15 and Pakistanis %35 amid overall %6 fall in non-EU numbers), could be down to the global recession and the increase in tuition fees; the drop in numbers followed the increase in fees, and non-EU students pay full fees.

Economic Contribution

They argue that international students contribute £7.9 billion to the economy  but this not an argument against controlling the borders. Those whom use student visas merely as a means of getting into the country may not contribute and may work in the black market. Migrants may live on benefits or they may claim in-work benefits that far outweigh tax contributions. They use public services such health and if they have children they will incur educational costs. So even if international students spend money here there are many migrants who do not make a net contribution; if we controlled migration to ensure that someone would make a contribution this could dwarf the international student contribution through savings. The £7.9 billion itself could be mitigated by other international migrants on student visas imposing costs or being bogus.

Economic arguments do not outweigh the threat to the indigenous culture from mass immigration nor do the tuition fees that the (legitimate) students pay decrease the instability caused.

Constitutional Accommodation of Islamic Blasphemy Laws

There is a controversy in the German state of Bavaria where the authorities have been accused of spying on activists opposing the building of a mega-mosque. Mega mosques are designed to dominate an area and are statements; the advocates of these argue that they are a practical means of allowing Muslims to pray but this is nonsense. A mosque does not have to be ‘mega-‘ for Muslims to be able to pray. Anti-mosque activists in this case argue that it would be a platform for Islam throughout Europe.

Anti-mosque activists argue that the use of state surveillance is meant to intimidate them. This is likely because authority is used all across Europe for the purpose of clamping down on anything that may prevent the establishment of Islam in Europe.

A court in Bavaria has declared that it is legal for the authorities to spy on the activists according to the constitution. So how would a constitution in a European country make it acceptable to spy on anti-mosque activists? The Bavarian interior minister has resorted to smears because he claimed that the opposition is arousing ‘prejudice against Muslims’. This is a common tactic; vague phrases that ascribe an ulterior motive against a group officially considered vulnerable (‘vulnerable’ refers to a favoured group rather than one facing any particular danger). It is not considered necessary to prove this; only speculation is considered necessary to smear someone.

He also referred to anti-mosque activists as ‘right-wing extremists’. This is a tactic to try and distance ‘respectable’ opinion away from opposition to the mosque. This is designed raise the spectre of Nazism. The fact that not wanting your country to become Islamic does not at all indicate any disposition to extreme ideologies is not considered relevant; the important thing is for people to believe it.

But the interior minister consider them to be engaged in unconstitutional activity. So apparently the constitution there guarantees the ability to build a mosque and trample over local opinion. European constitutions therefore do not guarantee protection for political identities, and are willing to accommodate its own subversion. These constitutions are interpreted by those whom want indigenous political cultures subverted; constitutions are designed to protect citizens but they are used to do the opposite.

Critics argue that the constitution guarantees free speech. In theory they do that but any constitution contains qualifications. Authorities do not want to give citizens too much power but want to retain it for themselves. These qualifications are often based on vague terminology. This is the typical tool for trampling on rights that are meant to be protected in a constitution. This is how constitutions can become the means of clamping down on anyone who wants to protect indigenous political cultures in Europe.

Politicians see in the growing Muslim population a secure voting base if it can be secured in the first place. In Britain we are seeing the majors fighting over the Muslim vote. Wealthy proselytising Gulf states invest in European countries, enriching our establishments, and  return they adopt an Islamic friendly stance. In Germany, like in other European countries, Islam is defended from criticism regardless of how valid. It is possible to be prosecuted for ‘offending Islam’ for factually stating verses from the Qu’ran, and detailing persecution of Christians in the Middle East. This is the order that is threatened; it should be.

Constitutions are being used to subvert our indigenous political cultures because they are being interpreted by an elite that is hostile to European nation-states and favourable to Islam.

For more information: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4820/munich-mega-mosque

Britain: The EU’s Cash-Cow

The EU has sent Britain a bill for £1.7 billion and given us until 1st December to pay up. They claimed to have recalculated the size of our economy and found that it was bigger than they thought. Therefore they claim that we have to pay more since contributions are based on the size of the economy. Conversely, France and Germany are struggling because they did not have the sense to avoid  the single currency so they will receive a rebate in the hundreds of million of pounds.

Calculating the size of a national economy is not an exact science because you would need to find a way to quantify and to take into account all the economic activity within a given area. As part of their attempt to do this the EU’s stats agency took into account the black market such as prostitution in addition to more mundane sectors. How would they have accurately done this? They would have needed to have taken into account all the financial transactions between the prostitutes and their clients, and it is unlikely that the prostitutes would have included this on their tax returns.  It is therefore guessing, although they would come up with a more technical term than ‘guessing’. You can be certain that they would be erring upwards to increase the size of the bill.

They would want to get as much money as possible out of economies that are not in recession or in the euro (though they also charged Greece too; guess Germany wants to get some of its money back now that it isn’t growing). It could undergo the same austerity measures that it wants to impose on member countries but the Brussels budget is considered sacrosanct. If it had less money then it would have less to hand out to NGOs and sub-national authorities to act propagandists on its behalf. Then there is the Brussels gravy -train to fund too. Those bureaucrats need their champagne after all.

They won’t care about the accountability of this decision to national electorates since the Commission actively intends to subvert the accountability of national governments with its own technocratic rule. They would give us a say on matters that they consider less important such as the composition of the impotent European Parliament. If they did not want to give us a say on an issue , such as its budget, then they would call it a ‘technical’ matter rather than political one.

The EU argues that this was done in accordance with rules agreed by member states. This could be the case since EU rules have a lot wrong with them. The nature of EU rules is that they are not enacted to benefit and to suit all the member states but are compromises put forward by the commission (to increase its own power) and accepted by squabbling nations as a less bad option. It is also likely that the Commission included various clauses in the small print because it is unlikely that these rules are concise and clear. Bureaucrats like to obscurantism because it creates loop-holes for them to exploit later on.

If we left then we would not be subject to such a stitch-up and would not be surprised by sudden demands for payment. Many Europhiles are also unhappy with the demand for more money but for the reason that it would play into the hands of EU-sceptics. They worry that ordinary people would be more likely to vote for EU-sceptic parties. Hopefully this would be the case.

Cameron is unhappy with it because it puts him in a difficult situation. He wants to stay in but this would make it more difficult to persuade the British people that our interests lie within the EU. He will portray himself at odds with the unaccountable EU bureaucracy but this would be for the benefit of those considering voting UKIP.

The EU just gives us more reasons to leave; it will do the job for those wanting the return of national autonomy.

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. .

Rotherham Grooming Case and Diversity Training

In Rotherham over 1400 girls as young as 11 fell victim to paedophile gangs from the Pakistani community in that town between 1997 and 2010. It was know amongst the Labour-run authorities that this was going on and nothing was done, according to a report by Alexis Jay.

A researcher seconded from the home office produced a report on the case in 2002. She interviewed about 270 girls and their families and produced horrific reports such as girls being covered in petrol and threatened with being set alight if they resisted rape. It turned out that some the girls, some of them in care, were groomed and assaulted under the nose of the authorities charged with caring for them. It was also reported that in town where 8% of the population were of that ethnicity, that nearly all the perpetrators of the scandal were Pakistani. This is a striking pattern that you would think would be impossible to ignore but the authorities did. They pressured the researcher to change her report and leave out that pattern but she refused and she was threatened with the sack and sent to diversity training.

Why did social workers send the researcher to diversity training rather than publish her findings? Well, first of all, they did not want the ethnicity of the vast majority of the perpetrators to be released. The reason for this is that the social workers, and their bosses, had undergone brainwashing, sorry, ‘diversity training’. How did this lead to the ridiculous reaction to the scandal?

Fear of Being Called Racist.

This fear paralyses to many people within authority and therefore increases the chances of stupidity within the authorities. The word ‘racist’ is used to control white people since the diversity fanatics consider insolent white people to be a threat to the harmonic and vibrant society that the proponents of multiculturalist argue for it. Diversity training is used to instil this fantasy within the cogs of the state machine.

This case would imply that Diversity Training can instil a condition in the mentality that can stifle logical thinking and create an astounding ability to ignore what is in front of you. In order to make it a more effective method of control the common usage of the word ‘racism’ is very broad in definition. But beyond all this the word does have a narrower definition in reality – a belief in the inherent superiority of one race over another. So are we to believe that if anyone notices the striking pattern of the perpetrators then they are secretly a white supremacist? In the name of racial equality we should allow Muslim gangs to emulate their prophet and take young non-Muslim girls as sex slaves? Only sick mind would consider this – therefore Diversity Training instils a sickness in the mind as well as shrinking it.

Maintain the Delusion that Multiculturalism can Create a Harmonious Country

The social workers clearly came to the conclusion that anyone who does not know to ignore wrongdoing by anyone who happens to be of a ethnic minority needs to Diversity Training in order to loosen their grasp on reality. After all, if you are immersed in reality it is more difficult to shut it out.

One way that you can lose yourself into fantasy is to delve entirely into theory. More specifically Marxist-derived theory. You would not be explicitly told that multiculturalism and Diversity is ultimately derived from Marxism, specifically Gramscian and Frankfurt School varieties, because since the Soviet Union and the crimes committed by the state within it it is more difficult to do so effectively. If it is instead draped in a benevolent cover, for example, to promote peace and harmony and defending ‘vulnerable groups’, then soft-headed people can be brought round and those whom disagree with the madness would implicitly have their characters slandered. This is another reason for diversity training; they wanted the researcher to ‘learn’ that she would harm a ‘vulnerable group’ if she proceeded with the truth. Clearly then the social workers considered the 11 year old white girls being drugged and abused to be less vulnerable than their abusers.

Priorities are determined by ideology. Children’s services intervened in Rotherham when it found out that adoptive parents supported UKIP, and so took their children away because they would not teach the children to support multiculturalism. So supporting UKIP is considered to be a greater crime than raping under-age girls.

They were afraid that the local white population may stop passively accepting the ideological relegation of their interests since it was considered necessary to stop people voting BNP. Diversity training clearly teaches that it is good to allow  sexual slavery in order to keep votes out of the hands of a party that may mobilise the local population to react against their subjugation in the name of an ideology designed to create an indigenous minority and  replace the indigenous cultural identity with a more fashionable one. Without Diversity training there is the risk that the authorities may act in the interests of local people.

Adherence to Diversity can Boost the Career Prospects of a Local Authority Worker

It was claimed that there was pressure coming from the management so clearly it is in the interests of individuals further up the hierarchy. Management in local authorities are likely to be fully signed up members of the Diversity agenda  because it is through adherence to Diversity that one climbs the career ladder. Sending someone to Diversity Training can look good for a manager.

Enforcing the Diversity ideology can look good for social workers at the bottom in their ambitions to achieve higher office and salaries. This is also the case for the police too. Knowing when to ignore the law can be learnt in Diversity Training. According to Jay’s report one girl, well under 16, was abused and the police officer in question claimed that it was consensual – despite legally a person under 16 cannot legally give consent so the girl was the victim of statutory rape by the much older abuser. Diversity teaches you what to ignore of you want to improve your career prospects (and salary).

This is all designed to create an institutionalised means in which the Diversity agenda is furthered and enforced. The researchers data for the report was stolen from her office in the council’s outreach centre for vulnerable youngsters. The council denies it but it is suspicious that the council had access, there was no break-in and only the data was stolen. Many local authorities, particularly those run by Labour, seem to model themselves on East Germany. Tactics are often used by ideologically -driven authorities. People can be driven by fear in such a climate hence why people may be so keen to be seen to be enforcing Diversity.

Conclusion 

We live in a country that claims to be democratic but the structure of the state is saturated by an ideology that is put before the interests of ordinary people. In order to prosper it is considered necessary to be seen to enforce the ideology; people who cannot resist this may want others to succumb to so that their own weakness and lack of independent mindedness can be hidden behind an apparent belief in a principle.

This is why Diversity training has been used against thoughts can contradict the intentions of the Diversity agenda. It is assumed by those who are immersed within the alternative reality that Diversity inhabits that anyone who diverges from it has a defect that needs correcting. Because this ideology is all-encompassing a scandal as happened in Rotherham (and no doubt elsewhere) is considered an inconvenient detail that needs to be hidden.

The Labour Party is to Blame for School Place Shortages.

The Labour Party has been trying to divest itself of any blame for the shortage of school places. They typically deploy this tactic. When anything go wrong they are never to blame but are responsible for anything that want to be seen as responsible for. Critics however blame Labour’s policies on immigration and education when they were in power between 1997 and 2010.

Nicky Morgan, whom recently replaced Michael Gove as Education Secretary, has claimed that Labour is responsible for the current crisis in primary school places because cut school places in a baby boom. Labour typically blame the next government when the negative effects of its policy come into effect even though they clearly forgot that the children these were produced by the baby boom would one day go to school.

It has been claimed that a quarter of a million extra school places would be needed for the 2014/15 intake. The reason why is sharp rise in the number of school-age children in Britain. Children are less likely in many parts of the country to get their first choice primary, would have to travel longer distances to get to school, be taught in mobile or oversized classes once they got into one (National Audit Office; Department of Education). Children reaching school age now would have been born under a Labour government.

How is Labour Responsible?

Labour’s policies rapidly increased demand because of its immigration policies. It not only admitted everyone who wanted to come in but it actually sent out search parties to look for potential migrants, according to Peter Mandelson. According to the Office of National Statistics Labour let in a extra 4 million people in just 12 years. Labour, in all its cynicism, hoped to create a more reliable Labour-voting base than the white working class whose voting patterns had allowed non-Labour governments.

These migrants would be overwhelmingly of child-bearing age, and would have more children than indigenous women whom have a below replacement fertility rate, which is endangering our position as a majority in our own country. Between 1998 and 2008 (when Labour was in power) total births in this country increased even though births by UK-born women fell by 3.2%. This is because the birth-rate amongst foreign-born women rose by 134%. Foreign-born women’s proportion of births as whole increased from 14% in 1994 to 25% in 2009 (Migrationwatch.org/briefingPaper/document/204). Today it stands at 26% even though total number of births to foreign-born mothers fell. The migrants whom Labour let into the country raised the birth-rate significantly in a short amount of time.

By absolving itself of responsibility it hopes to get back in so it can finish the demographic transformation even though it has no need to worry because Cameron is prepared to do that for them. Immigration to March 2014 was 234,000.

There are other factors, of course, but it is undeniable that Labour’s policies are responsible for a significant part of it. Other factors includes the number of over 40s having children (something to celebrate if they are indigenous)  but immigration accounts for over half of the population increase (ONS). This population increase includes children brought over and subsequently born to these migrants.

It has been pointed out that the worst shortages are in areas that had the biggest increase in population due to migration. Areas of London, Birmingham and Peterborough, particularly since the admission of east Europeans in 2004, have seen rapid population increases, and shortage of school places.

Labour blames the present government. Margaret Hodge blamed the Tories for not funding school places (they should now that they are needed and tackle immigration to control demand), but they failed to foresee that the new population would have children since they claimed that migrants wouldn’t generally settle, and would intend to just work and pay for our public services. This was Labour doing what it does best -lying. At the same time they let in large families so it would have been obvious that there was an intention to settle.

Tristram Hunt blames free schools. His logic is that free schools are built where they are not needed and that therefore schools are not built where they are needed. Maybe or maybe not, but this does not change the fact that the Labour Party’s policies rapidly increased demand and it did not plan for when the children of the migrants that they let in would reach school-age.

Labour is responsible for the current problems over school places and its denial of this fact is down to its tendency to distance itself from unpopular effects of its policies and blame someone more convenient – and claim credit for anything it wants to.

 

 

 

EU Bureaucracy: Will We Be Better Off Outside?

There are those that argue that Britain would be better off inside the EU because we would apparently become, in effect, an economic pariah. I will argue that our removal from under the control-freakery of Brussels bureaucracy would be an opportunity.

There is a cost to comply with directives and regulations emanating from Brussels. The Commission, in effect the civil service and the executive of the EU, practice the extent of power that is usually reserved for democratically elected governments; but the EU is undemocratic institution.

It has been estimated, by the EU Commission of all people, that the cost of EU regulation amounts 15% of all EU GDP – the equivalent of the GDP of the Netherlands (The Telegraph). It is called a Single Market but this does not mean that there is less bureaucracy, because it can impose as many regulations as a large state. In fact, there can be more because it is considered necessary to harmonise 28 different countries, so we are getting strangled by regulation designed to bring us into line with the continent.

Regulations in certain areas can effect certain industries negatively. For example, energy intensive industries such as manufacturing are being effected detrimentally by EU energy directives since this is threatening British jobs if companies cannot afford to operate in Britain. Directives intended to increase the proportion of energy from renewables including inefficient wind-farms has put the cost of energy up. According to Business for Britain, a Eurosceptic group, has claimed that this is costing the British economy £93.2 billion pounds a year. Efficient energy- producing plants are being shut down to comply with EU directives. There is generally complaints over the cost of implementing EU regulation.

If we removed ourselves from the EU then we could have the flexibility to create laws or remove certain regulation in order to safeguard British jobs.

There are those that would argue that the EU would not trade with us if left. But this is only scaremongering intended to create a vision of a dystopian vision of our apparent future life in the wilderness. The EU would continue to trade with us because it would against their interests to not to since they run a trade surplus with us – they export more to us than we export to them. With the EU seemingly going back into recession there does not seem to be the prospect that the Eurozone in particular will be awash with the money to buy our exports any time soon.

If this is the case then you would logically increase your trade ties with someone who has the money to buy what you export. If we did this then we could hope to run a trade surplus with the world rather than shackle ourselves with the Brussels based bureaucracy overseeing an economic area that is struggling to grow. We could only be held back. It is difficult to see what benefits EU bureaucracy could provide to outweigh the export market that could be found outside the EU.

Our membership of the EU means that EU rules stop us from establishing trade relations with other countries around the world since any trade relations have to be as part of the EU. The slow nature of the EU, which is the inevitable result of 28 countries trying to act as a single country, means that it is difficult to get anything done as a single voice; the European Central Bank (which oversees monetary policy in the Eurozone has delayed implementing counter-deflationary measures with typical inaction). If we left we would have more flexibility.

So if we left we could still trade with them but there are those that argue that we would be subject to its rules but would not have a voice in Brussels. This argument however wrongly assumes that we have an influence. We can be outvoted so decisions that go against our interests can go ahead which means that all sorts of disruptive directives would start pouring out from Brussels. If we try to press for agendas that are perceived to against the agenda of the EU then we will be ignored or ostracised until we come around so there is no real point being at the table. The ‘point’ of being at the table is so that you can agree with the Commission decisions (which is the result of 28 nations disagreeing and the subsequent need for someone to make a decision) and make it look like those decisions are compliant with your national interests, and that therefore you have an influence. The only countries with an influence are Germany and its lesser partner, France. We might as well adopt a Swiss style relationship which can export to the EU (minus the free movement rule that it is subject to) while having trade deals with economically vibrant parts of the world; like us Switzerland has a large financial centre.

Britain would not necessarily be less bureaucratic than the EU but at least there is an opportunity to instil the right amount or sort of regulations that are in our national interest- an agenda that is not the concern of Brussels which is all about creating a European super-state and extending its control. This is clearly stifling countries in the Eurozone and holding back countries that are not.

It is clear that there are significant costs to being inside the EU and lucrative opportunities outside. It would seem that the best course of action would be to leave, negotiate an exit trade deal and explore the opportunities the world has to offer.