Tag Archives: immigration

Use the Ex-Force

American journalist, Tim Pool, has been sending back some excellent reports from his visit to Sweden.

Pool decided to visit Sweden for himself, following Trump’s rather clumsy comments about “last night in Sweden”. His trip was partly funded by Paul-Joseph Watson, a vlogger who offered to pay to send any journalist to Malmo.

Pool’s approach from the start seems to be a refreshing change in its objectivity. We have grown so used to media spin on stories and selective reporting to conform to an editorial position that we have forgotten what decent journalism is. You don’t get opinions from Pool, but straightforward reporting on what he encounters (good and bad) and some great interviews where he poses open questions. It’s nice that he leaves the opinion-forming in the hands of the reader/viewer again. So many outlets now are built on conjecture pieces—and the BBC has become especially guilty of this form of journalism—that it’s a very refreshing change.

Many people who follow current affairs are aware that things are not well in Sweden. And despite Trump’s clumsy attempt to confine Sweden’s problems to one night, only the most unobservant or willfully ignorant person could claim that Sweden remains the bastion of peaceful, harmonious, socially liberal democracy it was recognised as being for decades.

Yesterday, Pool uploaded his interview with Mustafa Panshiri: a refugee from Afghanistan who became a Swedish policeman, but recently resigned from his position to concentrate on educating newly-arrived refugees about Sweden’s and the West’s cultural norms, because, unlike the open-borders fanatics, Panshiri has personal knowledge and experience of these matters from both perspectives and understands that cultural values which are perfectly normal in Afghanistan are not normal (or in some cases even legal) in Sweden.

Why does it take a recently-resigned Swedish policeman, who happens to be an Afghan immigrant and nominal Muslim to point out the bleedin’ obvious? This guy is just full of common sense, and it’s so frustrating that what he says is not mainstream opinion.

It’s frustrating, but obvious why this is the case.

Panshiri can say these things because he himself is an Afghan Muslim immigrant to Sweden, and so can be accused neither of Islamophobia nor racism. It’s a very sad state of affairs when only a member of a perceived oppressed group can speak on these issues to make people listen.

Some things apologists for uncontrolled immigration need to understand:

  1. As Panshiri states, different cultures have different values. His own background is from one where women just don’t have rights. For the elimination of doubt, he tells you this himself. Perhaps doubters will finally grasp this rather self-evident fact.
  2. People’s values don’t magically change when they cross borders. They need to be properly integrated and told that that their own religious views are trumped by western values of secularism and tolerance. Yes, we can criticise your religion, and no, you don’t get to react violently in response. In some cases, immigrants need to be taught how to use toilets.
  3. There is a reason Sweden stopped releasing data on the national origins of criminals in 2005 and has actively blocked the subsequent release of these, even though they are recorded. Why do you think that was? If the ‘far-right’ crowd is wrong in its assertions, these could be swiftly dismissed by releasing these figures. Not releasing the figures not only fuels speculation on this issue, but such reticence merely leads to conjecture that things are far worse than anyone thinks! Release the figures and set the record straight by showing that there is no link between mass immigration and crime.
  4. The first victims of dogmatic identity politics are the victims of the crimes themselves.
  5. The second victims of dogmatic identity politics are the fellow migrants who accept the secular rules of western societies and are happy to integrate, but who are the victims of indiscriminate reprisals.
  6. The third victim of dogmatic identity politics is wider liberal democracy.

Members of society, faced with the daily onslaught of the crimes of backward savages (yes, I’ll happily call them that), and the media and mainstream political apologism for these actions, have increasingly come to the conclusion that the mainstream does all it can to not feed into any racist narrative by taking the opposite approach of denying that there are any problems with large, indiscriminate immigration from backward societies. But ordinary people aren’t stupid. They, unlike the media and political leaders, don’t have the luxury of isolating themselves from what is actually happening on the street.

A further video, again by another immigrant to Sweden (this time a Bosnian immigrant who goes under the moniker the Angry foreigner), takes the Swedish government to task over its rebuttal to widespread assertions over the ongoing issues in Sweden, including the standard response to Sweden’s high rape figures being down to Sweden’s different methodology of recording sex crimes.

It’s well worth a watch.

So, if mainstream politics and media do all they can to cover up these problems, even going so far as to stop gathering inconvenient data, exactly whom do you think the people turn to and elect? If nuance is no longer possible and you either choose to excuse the actions of backward cultures unleashed on western societies or to side with the only people opposing this from the so-called “far right” of politics (which roughly translated, means anyone to the right of centre in SJW-speak), where do you think the direction of travel is likely to be?

Has the penny dropped yet?

Gypsies on Benefits and Proud

Commercial channels are becoming increasingly keen to produce the kind of programmes designed to polarise viewers and provoke angry debate; shows with dialogue which is overtly designed to divide. We recently had Benefits Street, and the latest attempt designed to stir up trouble has aired over the last few days.

In Channel 5’s Gypsies on Benefits and Proud, we see people who are simply trying to do what’s best for themselves and their families – who come from countries where they don’t have access to free medical care, can’t find work, often face state discrimination, and live in real poverty in UK terms – and they find out that they can freely move to settle in another country with the help of a gang master, who will cram several of them into a house and get them sorted with an NI number, at which point they have access to all our state’s services and benefits and earn a minimum wage several hundred percent higher than they could get at home.

You really can’t blame them at all. I would do exactly the same if I could. You’d be bleedin’ mad not to!

But these programmes set out to polarise, and that is exactly what they do.

Based on social media comments, you get a bunch of people who get really angry at those using the system on the one hand – many of their comments blatantly racist, offensive, generalising, and outright aggressive towards the subjects of the shows, who are doing nothing more than legally moving to another EU member state, which they are perfectly entitled to do, and simply using a system to get most out of it, in a way which oddly enough mirrors the way large companies exploit the tax system to cream the maximum profits possible through tax avoidance schemes.

And then you get those who will absolutely not concede that there is anything wrong with the current state of affairs. In the case of Gypsies on Benefits and Proud, there are those who appear to support a completely open door on immigration (thanks to the crazy EU notion of expansionism and of open borders between nations with massively varied economies and living standards) or an internationalist or cultural Marxist agenda.

Their first criticism is that the programme demonises a whole ethnic group based on the actions of a few. Well, I can’t say I saw any assertion on the part of the programme-makers that this was a widespread phenomenon (it mentions 200,000 Roma who have moved to the UK) and applied to all Gypsies or to the wider immigrant community. Perhaps I missed that bit, or perhaps the proponents of the current system just want to shut down any attempt at reforming it by playing the racism card.

Proponents of an open-door immigration policy will absolutely refuse to comment negatively about the current system. Rather, their utmost priority is to prevent others from seeing how some can exploit our benefits system to the maximum. Their comments betray their desire to stop the programme airing, lest viewers be lulled away from the standard, politically-correct view of how the system works. Many have been raised seemingly without critical facilities of their own, but have a simple, naive understanding of the world where all people are pretty much the same, apparently have access to the same benefits wherever they live, and share the same world view and cultural values. So, yes, we may have swathes of unskilled, poverty-stricken people and their families move to the UK to benefit from our benefits, but Brits go abroad to work too, so it all evens out in the end… apparently.

They are probably puzzled when seemingly decent father-figure, Ion Lazar says he will come to the UK and wilfully claim the maximum benefits. He will be supported in how best to exploit our welfare system to raise money for his family, send child benefit home, which he is still entitled to do, of course – although the government wants to change that (good luck getting agreement from the other 27 EU members there, Dave), and, if necessary, he will turn to crime. Yes, he has done so before. He needs to make enough money through UK work and benefits to build a new house back in Romania, which he reckons will take him one or two years.

“I know it’s very, very easy to take benefit in England. She’s give me home free, yeah. She’s give me money free. She’s give me everything.”

It was easy to feel for disabled Viorel Dinu, who lost both his legs as a child in a railway accident and used to have to beg in Romania, but now receives £750 per month in handouts from the UK. But here at least was someone who had a long-term desire to establish a life in the UK, to learn English, to work and to integrate into UK society.

The funny thing in all this is that there are a large number of ordinary people in the middle of all this debate, who see the flaws in the system. We believe in the nation state – that the primary responsibility of care of a government is to its own people – not to the world’s population at large. We don’t really resent those who exploit the system, but are critical of a system which allows exploitation. We are critical of a system which, on the one hand, allows large, pro-EU companies with great lobbying powers to exploit tax system loop-holes, but we are also critical of a system which allows those who have no birthright in our country to exploit our social welfare schemes which are far more generous than those in their country of origin.

We feel that it is imperative that countries which share an open border policy have similar economies, social conditions, and levels of pay – otherwise, brain drain occurs. We have plenty of historic evidence of this, notably in eastern Germany in the 1950s – a migration of skilled people which resulted in the construction of Walter Ulbricht’s ultimate means to stop the migration – the Wall.

Finally, we are critical of a system which enables massive population increases without due consideration of the pressures on our already strained schools, hospitals, and housing stock. At a time when we should be trying to decrease population and mitigate the need to build more, our political masters are happily embracing the opposite course of action in opening our borders.

We have long known that the more we build, the more we cause surface runoff and flooding, and yet according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Britain is heading for a property shortage of more than one million homes by 2022. The inevitable consequence of such a building plan is not only the loss of more green fields, but of further localised and wider flooding. It’s odd that the Green party is not more vocal about this and keen to stop this population increase – especially when migrants often come from cultures of large families.
As one of the programme’s subjects, Peter, a Slovakian Gypsy who lives who lives with his wife, Katarina (a woman sanctioned by JSA on multiple occasions for failure to seek work and criticised by her Romanian support worker for steadfastly refusing to learn English and for her failure to make any attempt to integrate), 11 children, and 11 grandchildren in Rotherham stated, with barely-contained incredulity and glee,

“England give me house, give me doctor, give school… benefit. England good. Thank you so much, England. Thank you very much.”

You’re welcome, buddy.  In your shoes, I’d feel the same way and do exactly what you’ve done.