Final Message

[Fire and Ice]

Sadly, over the last few decades our leaders have been using us as lab rats in a multi cultural experiment, it has gotten to the point where if you even murmur the opinion that uncontrolled immigration is not a good idea then you would be pilloried, this attitude is a double edged sword as now even the leaders cannot suggest such things... Their only way out is to allow things to become so intolerable for the indigenous population that they turn on the immigrants and those who support immigration, thus permitting the leaders a way out and allowing armed force to be used against the immigrants... Perhaps a solution similar to that used in the Sudetenland would end up the least bad outcome... Just my opinion.

 

[Himaginn]

It happened in Palestine, millions of European migrants overwhelmed the indigenous people and the result has been anarchy.

An inaccurate account of what happened.

Finally, in 1947 the United Nations decided to intervene. However, rather than adhering to the principle of “self-determination of peoples,” in which the people themselves create their own state and system of government, the UN chose to revert to the medieval strategy whereby an outside power divides up other people’s land.
Under considerable Zionist pressure, the UN recommended giving away 55% of Palestine to a Jewish state – despite the fact that this group represented only about 30% of the total population, and owned under 7% of the land.

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/

The powers that be(the British government) stood aside and let it happen,

Again, not accurate.

Jewish insurgency in Mandatory Palestine refers to a violent campaign carried out by Jewish underground groups against the British forces and officials in Mandatory Palestine between 1944 and 1947.
The conflict lasted until the termination of the British Mandate for Palestine and the establishment of the State of Israel in May 1948.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_insurgency_in_Mandatory_Palestine

the same process is under way in Europe,

Another inaccuracy. More than a million migrants crossed into Europe in 2015. That compares to 742.5 million indigenous people in Europe.
At this rate the migrant crisis will have to continue for 742.5 years before the population of Europe is 50% migrant.

 

[Fire and Ice]

Another inaccuracy. More than a million migrants crossed into Europe in 2015. That compares to 742.5 million indigenous people in Europe.
At this rate the migrant crisis will have to continue for 742.5 years before the population of Europe is 50% migrant.

Interesting. Have you allowed for the difference in rates of reproduction between the two sections and the difference in death rates?

 

[Himaginn]

Sadly, over the last few decades our leaders have been using us as lab rats in a multi cultural experiment, it has gotten to the point where if you even murmur the opinion that uncontrolled immigration is not a good idea then you would be pilloried, this attitude is a double edged sword as now even the leaders cannot suggest such things... Their only way out is to allow things to become so intolerable for the indigenous population that they turn on the immigrants and those who support immigration, thus permitting the leaders a way out and allowing armed force to be used against the immigrants... Perhaps a solution similar to that used in the Sudetenland would end up the least bad outcome... Just my opinion.

Immigration can be discussed but your prejudiced statements such as "we're being used as lab rats" "multi-cultural experiment" "allow things to become intolerable" "turn on the immigrants" "armed force to be used against the immigrants" demonstrates your prejudice and is merely a rant.
But as this is just your opinion and we know from experience that you will refuse to substantiate your opinion, I suppose your "opinions really aren't worth Jack." They're just a rant.

 

[Himaginn]

Another inaccuracy. More than a million migrants crossed into Europe in 2015. That compares to 742.5 million indigenous people in Europe.
At this rate the migrant crisis will have to continue for 742.5 years before the population of Europe is 50% migrant.

Interesting. Have you allowed for the difference in rates of reproduction between the two sections and the difference in death rates?

Your comment is again loaded with prejudice.
Perhaps you'd like to explain the reasoning behind your comment, with real data.

 

[Fire and Ice]

Another inaccuracy. More than a million migrants crossed into Europe in 2015. That compares to 742.5 million indigenous people in Europe.
At this rate the migrant crisis will have to continue for 742.5 years before the population of Europe is 50% migrant.

Interesting. Have you allowed for the difference in rates of reproduction between the two sections and the difference in death rates?

Your comment is again loaded with prejudice.
Perhaps you'd like to explain the reasoning behind your comment, with real data.

I suspect that If I were to invite you for tea and biscuits, then you would view it as being loaded with prejudice....This is a really funny forum.

 

[noseall]

....This is a really funny forum.

Do you take your own posts seriously?

 

[tony1851]

With the controversy over Cecil Rhodes statue going on at the minute, free speech is in danger of being suppressed, to the point of 1984 becoming real.. And free speech is what used to make this country great. It also means that whilst you may not agree which what someone else says, they should (within reason) have the right to say it; and anyone trying to take that right away, should be ashamed of themselves. Unless the rest of us stand up for those rights, then the high minded bigots will have won.

Interesting that you mention Cecil Rhodes. It's a bit (or a lot) like the confederate flag, he's/it's associated with imperialism, apartheid, and racism.
So, maybe the flag, and Cecil Rhodes statute was acceptable back then, when apartheid was acceptable. but now we are more enlightened, is it acceptable to continue to flaunt those symbols?

Rather like Jimmy Savile, times were when he was admired and revered, but now...... well times change and symbols should change with times.

Presumably some good came out of Rhodes' bequest to the University, and which is still helping students today.
Nothing good came from Savile - that's the difference.
We should not try to re-write history.

 

[Himaginn]

With the controversy over Cecil Rhodes statue going on at the minute, free speech is in danger of being suppressed, to the point of 1984 becoming real.. And free speech is what used to make this country great. It also means that whilst you may not agree which what someone else says, they should (within reason) have the right to say it; and anyone trying to take that right away, should be ashamed of themselves. Unless the rest of us stand up for those rights, then the high minded bigots will have won.

Interesting that you mention Cecil Rhodes. It's a bit (or a lot) like the confederate flag, he's/it's associated with imperialism, apartheid, and racism.
So, maybe the flag, and Cecil Rhodes statute was acceptable back then, when apartheid was acceptable. but now we are more enlightened, is it acceptable to continue to flaunt those symbols?

Rather like Jimmy Savile, times were when he was admired and revered, but now...... well times change and symbols should change with times.

Presumably some good came out of Rhodes' bequest to the University, and which is still helping students today.
Nothing good came from Savile - that's the difference.
We should not try to re-write history.

Granted. However one must feel some empathy with some African students who are there because of the scholarship, and their response is: "it wasn't his money to give in the first place. It was money taken from the resources of Africa and Africans."
As I understand it the uni have now placed a plaque recognising the scholarships but disowning his policies:

"In acknowledging the historical fact of Rhodes' bequest, the college does not in any way condone or glorify his views or actions."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-35328444

Incidentally, Rhodes was an admirer of Hitler, hence is inclusion of German students into his scholarship.

 

[Fire and Ice]

....This is a really funny forum.

Do you take your own posts seriously?

Yes, don't you?

 

[noseall]

oops.

 

[noseall]

Yes, don't you?

You are right, this is a funny forum.

 

[fender]

Yes, don't you?

You are right, this is a funny forum.

........

 

[WalksWithTurkeys]

It happened in Palestine, millions of European migrants overwhelmed the indigenous people and the result has been anarchy.

An inaccurate account of what happened.

The statement was not that inaccurate.

Finally, in 1947 the United Nations decided to intervene. However, rather than adhering to the principle of “self-determination of peoples,” in which the people themselves create their own state and system of government, the UN chose to revert to the medieval strategy whereby an outside power divides up other people’s land.
Under considerable Zionist pressure, the UN recommended giving away 55% of Palestine to a Jewish state – despite the fact that this group represented only about 30% of the total population, and owned under 7% of the land.

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/

The powers that be(the British government) stood aside and let it happen,

Again, not accurate.

Actually Palestine was the Mandate of Palestine, administered by Britain from about 1917 to partition, during which time the British allowed massive Jewish immigration into Palestine against the wishes of the Arabs, hence the Arab riots. It was a gross injustice against the indigeneous peoples.

Jewish insurgency in Mandatory Palestine refers to a violent campaign carried out by Jewish underground groups against the British forces and officials in Mandatory Palestine between 1944 and 1947.
The conflict lasted until the termination of the British Mandate for Palestine and the establishment of the State of Israel in May 1948.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_insurgency_in_Mandatory_Palestine

A large proportion of the Jews fighting the British would have been survivors of the Holocaust. They were displaced from their homes, where neighbours connived with the Nazis so they could steal their homes and possessions. They could hardly return, and wandered round Europe, unwanted by anyone, so they made their way to Palestine to establish a Jewish homeland. The UN voted for the partition of Palestine, and no doubt many countries who voted had never before heard of Palestine, whilst others wanted to get rid of Jews, and establishing a homeland served that purpose. Edward Said, the late Palestinian academic, said that Israel was created by the Nazis. As an aside, the father of my half brother fought in Palestine and said that "the Jews were worse than the Nazis". He was not expressing anti-semitism, but the simple view that they were aggressive dirty fighters, no doubt driven by a cause and years of suffering when the rest of the world ignored their plight.

the same process is under way in Europe,

Another inaccuracy. More than a million migrants crossed into Europe in 2015. That compares to 742.5 million indigenous people in Europe.
At this rate the migrant crisis will have to continue for 742.5 years before the population of Europe is 50% migrant.

Yes, the two are not comparable.

 

[WalksWithTurkeys]

Sadly, over the last few decades our leaders have been using us as lab rats in a multi cultural experiment, it has gotten to the point where if you even murmur the opinion that uncontrolled immigration is not a good idea then you would be pilloried, this attitude is a double edged sword as now even the leaders cannot suggest such things... Their only way out is to allow things to become so intolerable for the indigenous population that they turn on the immigrants and those who support immigration, thus permitting the leaders a way out and allowing armed force to be used against the immigrants... Perhaps a solution similar to that used in the Sudetenland would end up the least bad outcome... Just my opinion.

I have often said that immigration is out of hand, as have most of my neighbours. None of us have been pilloried. It is a quite respectable view. Maybe there is something about the way you express the opinion? Or maybe you are saying something different.

There are several reasons why out 'glorious leaders' might like immigration. Firstly most immigrants tend to vote Labour, hence Blair would have liked them. Secondly they are cheap labour, for picking fruit and other poorly paid work which the natives do not want to do. Thirdly we have a state pension that is a Ponzi scheme. Money paid in is paid out without being invested. The population is aging so to finance the scheme we need young blood.