Sunday, 4 July 2010

Pensions and immigration.

Copper up, love. I think you're going to need it.

I wrote most of this article the other week,  but I had been trying to find footage or audio of a certain BBC "reporter" who blatantly linked the two issues of pensions and immigration together - in the old stereotypical way of implying we need immigrants to pay for pensions and support the working age/pensioner structure.  Sadly, I could not find it - so you will have to take my word for it that it did happen.

The "reporter" in question was the 'blind mole' faced "political correspondent" Nick Robinson. I put the term reporter in quotation marks because the BBC (especially with the likes of Nick Robinson, Andrew Marr etc) are no longer reporters who tell you what the news is.

No, in the last 20 years they have become much more than that. They take on the role of speculators, gossip mongers, propagandists and opinion formers.

The days of sitting behind a news desk and informing the public of the plain, less biased, news from which they can form their own conclusions are long gone. Admittedly, it was always 'selective' news before, but they do not even bother to hide the manipulation now.

However, it did prompt me to dig out (from my archive of material) an old study from the Royal Society, originally based from studies by the Department of Social Policy and Social Work, University of Oxford, 2001.

I am not a financial expert, I have enough of a time trying to look after my own financial affairs never mind start contemplating complex national monetary policies - but I do remember reading through a spate of boring academia about ten years ago to try and understand the argument that kept being put forward for having mass immigration to cover our older age structures. The rest of the article will be essentially selected parts cut from one of them.

The pension to immigrant link was pretty much publicly destroyed as being unworkable, perhaps several years ago now. It has not featured all that much in immigration debates since that time as a result. 

The pro immigration lobbyists had been found out to be liars, and only fools or the completely shameless would continue to present the idea. This is why I thought I would stick up some of the contents of the academic work, to try and prevent the old chestnut of the pro-immigration lobby being wheeled out again to the masses - who can tend to have the memory capacity of a dysfunctional goldfish. 

The following is from the report:


In many Western countries, the search for appropriate responses to manage future population ageing and population decline has directed attention to international migration.

It seems reasonable to believe that international migrants, mostly of young working age, can supply population deficits created by low birth rates, protect European society and economy from the economic costs of elderly dependency, and provide a workforce to care for the elderly.

Particular prominence has been given to this option through the publicity attendant on a report from the UN Population Division in 2000 on ‘replacement migration’, which has been widely reported and widely misunderstood.

Although immigration can prevent population decline, it is already well known that it can only prevent population ageing at unprecedented, unsustainable and increasing levels of inflow, which would generate rapid population growth and eventually displace the original population from its majority position.

{This paper} concludes that there can be no ‘solution’ to population ageing, which is to a considerable degree unavoidable. However, if the demographic regime of the United Kingdom continues to be relatively benign, future population ageing can be managed with tolerable inconvenience without recourse to increased immigration for ‘demographic’ purposes.

In 2000, the prospect of demographic salvation from population ageing by migration was awakened among the credulous by a report from the UN Population Division (United Nations 2000a) on replacement migration

Coming at a time of intense debate about the desirability or otherwise of the current very high levels of immigration to the Western world, this report informed the less fertile nations of the industrial world that they would have to think again about international migration.

The impression given was that substantial increases in immigration, some of them astronomical, were the only option in many cases to prevent declining population, declining workforce and declining PSR (potential support ratio).

{However} any population with sub-replacement fertility that attempts to maintain a given population size through immigration would, accordingly, acquire a population of predominantly, eventually entirely, immigrant origin. Populations can only adopt this solution to stabilize the numbers at the risk of a loss of their original identity.

In the United Kingdom, the average annual inflow of 1.2 million immigrants ‘required’ {according to the UN} for this purpose would double the population in 50 years, and then more than double it again by the end of the century and so on ad infinitum.

Thus, the UK population would exceed 100 million even by 2030, 200 million by 2070 and 300 million by 2090.

The difficulty of correcting ageing through immigration, except through very high population growth, has also been underlined by a comparative analysis from the European Commission (1996, 1998).

Although it would ‘only’ take between 500 000 and one million additional immigrants per year to avert population decline in the European Union in the earlier part of the next century, to preserve the current age structure of the 15 EU countries would require 4.5 million (net) immigrants per year by 2007 and seven million net per year by 2024. This would generate substantial population growth.

{...}

In the extreme case, preserving the current PSR in Korea would require the entire current population of the world to go to live there by 2050 (United Nations 2000a, p. 56).

{...}

The results of these hypothetical calculations have implied that very high proportions of the populations concerned—eventually a majority—would be of immigrant origin.

The UN report made some simple calculations to that effect, assuming for the sake of simplicity that immigrant fertility immediately declined to that of the host population and that no previous immigrant-origin population existed.

Neither of these assumptions is correct, but the UN data provide a baseline.

Fertility levels of immigrant populations are usually higher than those of Western host populations. It is generally expected that the fertility of immigrant populations will eventually converge with those of the host population (Coleman 1994), although so far only a few populations of less-developed-world origin have completed this process.

Indeed, in the case of Bangladeshis in the United Kingdom, the period fertility rate reported in the mid-1990s seems to be higher than that in Bangladesh itself.

In the long term, the minority will become the majority in a country if there remains even one region in which the proportion of the minority continues to increase through immigration and/or higher birth rates (Steinmann & Jager 1997).

Only a few long-term population projections have explored these prospects. In the United States, for example, the displacement of the white non-Hispanic population from its majority position is officially projected to occur around 2050 (US Bureau of the Census 1993).

No European population projection is so decisive. The trends, though all pointing in the same direction, are mostly slower pace than in the United States. For example, the total population in the Netherlands is projected to flatten out at approximately 18 million people from about 2030 onwards.

In that 18 million, the population of foreign origin (defined as immigrants and their children) will have risen to six million (33% of the total)by 2050 and will still be increasing. That six million is projected to comprise four million people of non- European origin and two million Europeans (each population in 2000 numbered about 1.4 million).

By 2050, the European-origin foreign population will have ceased to grow, whereas that of non-European origin is projected to be growing rapidly thanks to the momentum inherent in its age structure, even though fertility is by then assumed to have fallen to replacement level or less (Alders 2001; Alders & Schapendonk-Maas 2001).

To explore the effects of demographic change on population ageing, two approaches are possible.

The first is to follow the example of the UN Population Division (UNPD) in setting ‘targets’ for constant population, workforce and PSR, and computing the level of net migration required to meet those targets in specified years.

The approach of the UNPD was to consider only the effects of migration on the demographic problems posed by population ageing or decline. Other demographic variables, as well as the benefits or costs of migration itself, were ignored.

However unintentionally, the report has given to many journalists and public figures the mistaken impression that population ageing can in some sense be ‘solved’.

The alternative approach is to assess the various ways in which developed societies might adjust to these changes in the structure of their populations with minimal disruption.

This approach accepts that previously high levels of PSR (potential support ratio) were a historical contingency unlikely to be repeated, and that some degree of population ageing is unavoidable.

The UN scenario to preserve today’s PSR {in the UK} requires net immigration peaking at 1.8 million per year between 2025 and 2030 (mean 1.1 million per year). That figure more than doubles the population to 136 million, of whom 59% are post-1995 immigrants or their descendants, assuming equal birth rates.

Since the 1970s, the flow of immigrants to most European countries has not been driven primarily by regular labour demand. Instead, they comprise mostly spouses, dependants, students, asylum seekers and others.

Not surprisingly, unemployment among foreign populations as a whole is up to 40% compared with 9% generally in the Euro-zone populations, while workforce participation rates of immigrants, especially females, are often low.

Although the immigration of dependants and the arrival of asylum seekers and illegal entrants will continue, they do not seem to be very relevant to Europe’s foreseeable economic needs, or helpful to the coherence of its society.

More broadly, reliance on the apparently easy option of importing labour from overseas, the employment of illegal immigrants for low wages and the consequent diminution of training in employment, might not help Europe’s central economic problem, that of low productivity.

Europe has already experienced one episode of mass migration, which has still not ended. It has not prevented population ageing and, although labour migration is generally judged to be economically beneficial, overall it is less clear if the migration process as a whole has had demonstrably favourable consequences either for the immigrants or for the host populations.

Opinions still differ widely about the appropriate measures to encourage the integration and possibly the assimilation of the growing populations of immigrants, foreigners and their children (Coleman 1992). Some such groups are now very successful, others remain marginalized, subject to high levels of discrimination, unemployment, poverty and, in the younger generation, disproportionate underachievement and involvement in crime (Smith 1994) and disorder.

Resolution of these problems might be an appropriate goal before any further resumption of mass immigration is contemplated.

The debate on future population growth or decline, and population ageing, has been conducted almost entirely in terms of its effects on economic growth and material living standards, and the supposed political imperative to protect living standards from these and other threats.

It should be noted that a parallel debate has proceeded for decades on population, in the shadow of the first and in isolation from it, with different priorities and different views {such as integration and the environment}.

Here, protagonists are concerned with the sustainability of the environment, not of pensions systems, believing that levels of consumption are already too high in the developed world, and that the global resource base and environment are being degraded by the current economic system (Goudie 1994), not least because of the effects on the sustainable level of world population through global warming. 

On this view, low fertility and population decline in the developed world are to be welcomed (Willey 2000), irrespective, it would seem, of their effects on population ageing. Thereby, the numbers of high consumers in the world ecosystem would be reduced (Myers 1998).

Immigration is {therefore argued} unwelcome because it transfers population from low-consumption to high-consumption societies. On a more parochial level, population growth is opposed, at least in the United Kingdom, because of the pressure it exerts, through leisure and housing demand, on the rural environment (Barker 2000).

UK countryside pressure groups, however, seldom make the connection between population growth and immigration.

There is more, of course, but I had best not bore you all too much.  Those were the prime paragraphs of interest to me. I have had to shorten and restructure the paragraphs in some cases so that they make sense when shunted together. 

The original document is called "Replacement migration, or why everyone is going to have to live in Korea: a fable for our times from the United Nations" and can be found in PDF format here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1692968/pdf/12028794.pdf 

10 comments:

  1. (Part 2)

    The "care for the elderly" within our society truly pisses me off. Firstly, elderly people should have had children when they were younger who should today be looking after them and not putting them in care homes, where their properties are sold to take care of them at ludicrous costs of up to and over £700 a week!!

    Our demographic has dropped because women want to have careers instead of being mothers. And today the usual retort at any man saying such a thing is "sexist, fascist" or of course dinosaur, which ironically is exactly how the white race will end up thanks to women's selfishness. And of course there's also the "well why don't fathers stay at home and look after the children while the mothers go out and work?" Again nothing but complete propaganda, forced into the way our society now thinks, thanks to 50 years of Marxist subversion of our society.

    Being a full time mother is a job in itself. It's a natural thing to do, to bond with the children, to nurture them. Sadly the many mothers within society we do see are single, either working or not working and have no father of their children in their life, for many reasons, but society of course always looks to blame fathers before single mothers - I could tell you many stories of friends I know, whose ex partners ended their relationships like that, getting the council house, the state income, chasing the new boyfriend and of course them for support money for their children, they've just destroyed a family for.

    Thus this whole situation ties in with our society and the continuation of the white peoples.
    Were women, not being selfish and materialistic, chasing careers when there's already a perfectly natural one waiting there for them, our procreation rate would not be a pathetically low 1.4 but at least 2 meaning that the workforce continues to be replenished, no need for immigrants to come here and of course no need for "rip off" care homes, as families would be looking after their parents instead of selfishly shipping them off to institutions which bleed them dry of every hard, earned penny.

    The UK is completely and utterly f*cked up. It is a selfish, materialistic society that cares for no one. And when I mention that immigration played a large part in this, people laugh and say "don't be stupid" completely naive on the impact of foreign culture upon our own.

    ReplyDelete
  2. BA, (long post as per usual)

    Good article.

    What no one dare mention regarding the elderly and looking after them is just how much British society has changed when it comes "to the elderly."

    Let's take a typical British family before the war. Granny and Grandad lived with Mum and Dad - look no further than Roald Dhal's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. We had a system in place where the sons and daughters looked after their parents. We were very much like all other European societies and their care for the elderly.

    Now let's move forward in time. The 2nd world war had decimated a generation of Brits and thus they needed immigrants to rebuild the UK, well that's what they told us. What they really wanted was a cheap workforce but more importantly setting about the culture destruction of the UK. This was all planned.

    Now let's move a little bit forward. The feminist movement, which I like to call the rise of the misandrists decided that they hated men, they could do their jobs and they were sick of being looked upon as baby making machines (even though that was naturally their prime role in life). Women wanted a career and as far as society was concerned - f*ck it!

    Look at British society since the war? How much has society changed? Everything about Britain is a polar opposite to 60 years ago compared to 60 years or even 120 years before the war.

    "Immigration pays for our pensions" - bollox!

    What immigration does is allow the minimum wage to remain static, businesses to profit more and more having a larger workforce on a lower wage, but continuing to put up their prices while forgetting about cost of living for the worker. Immigration also changes the ethnic makeup of the country. More so immigration destroys the economy for unlike indigenous Brits who will spend their money here, it's guaranteed that much of the savings of the immigrant will go back to their indigenous lands. Staggeringly, the yearly wage of a Somalian is £250 or so. They could earn that in one week thus, should they work in the UK for a year they could go home and retire. Back in the 70's when the Pakistanis were coming over to work in the mills, their yearly wage was £20. They could make that easily in a week. Again same scenario with the Somalians and now we see that the Pakistanis are our largest Asian demographic, with Somalians set to be our largest African one.

    ReplyDelete
  3. (Part 3)

    It angers me when I see families shipping off mum and dad to the care homes, to be left to be cared for by others when they should be doing the job themselves, as gratitude for mum and dad feeding them, clothing them, being there for them and protecting them when they were young. This is the gratitude they get, with such excuses as "they're just too much" and "they'd be better off in a care home amongst their own age group." What utter piffle. It's selfishness. People don't care.
    In the olden days, mum would look after the children and keep and eye on granny and grandad, also doing their part to educate and play with the children, while did went out to work, brought home the bread and when he could, would pop down to the pub with dad for a pint and castella, as well as trips to the countryside on the weekends.

    What was it Hockenheimer of the School of Frankfurt said again of Western society?

    "We'll make the west so corrupt that it stinks!"

    This is the legacy we now live in of allowing successive governments and our major establishments to be infiltrated by Marxist critical theorists, who have literally sh*t on everything we held dear and utterly obliterated everything good about our society that took centuries to create, all because it they hated us and hated the way we are.

    I know this may come as a surprise to you, especially after my initial stance on Islam, but in all honesty I truly can't think of anything better than the Islamisation of the UK. Why? Well I'll tell you:

    1. Islam looks after its elderly. You won't see any Muslims in care homes will you? No, they're being looked after by their children as they should be.

    2. Islam still has respect within its ideology, that is, youngsters don't go around mugging the elderly, but show them the respect that they rightfully deserve for having been on this planet longer than they.

    3. Islam maintains and promotes the family unit, the natural family unit and sticks two fingers up at feminism and rightly so, realising that if women want to go off doing the work a man should be doing, that means their demographic will suffer and they only need look to the west to see this is the case.

    ReplyDelete
  4. (Part 5)

    6. And lastly, Islam is 100% against usury, Jewish finance, the very finance that Christ attacked, turning over their tables in the market place. It is ironic but they speak of Sharia finance today and of course its link to terrorism, yet look at the bigger picture? Who invaded Iraq and Afghanistan? Who's sending our soldiers off to die as invaders instead of heroes as our media promotes them as? Did Saddam have anything to do with 9/11? Hell no, Saddam Hussein, put in place by the West decided to put his oil on the market place in Euros instead of dollars and this simply could never be. I am against usury. Our whole banking system has been hijacked by Zionist Jews who make £90 out of thin air from every £10 the public gives them. Of course they don't want this banking system to stop, with the bringing in of Sharia finance, because it makes them incredibly rich. After all, can we just invent money like them? Of course we can't.

    I know I changed subject, slightly but it all ties in to our society, losing its roots in the protection of their elderly. We all have as much to blame for its demise as the governments whom we elected to do our bidding, but allowed them to take control of the whip and dictate to us.

    We would have no immigration into the UK, were our society educated. We would have no ghettos within the UK were our society educated. But more importantly were our society united and proud of who they were, which alas, many never will be for continually being fed guilt by the ZIONIST controlled main stream media.

    You spoke of how you felt in your Newsnight post. You spoke of finding it hard to hold onto your beliefs. Yet your beliefs are nothing but common sense and in all realty BA, it is the rest of society that has completely lost it. This is why you find it so hard, for the simple reason that you have not been indoctrinated by the media as the rest of society; you have not been brainwashed under the education system like the rest of society; you have realised that our history, our culture and our people are being destroyed, unlike the rest of society who actively are helping in its destruction.

    "As a nation we are building our own funeral pyres...." Yes, you know these words and how true are they? Our ignorant fellow indigenous Britons, fellow only in indigenous makeup, but alien in every other aspect, are building their funeral pyres, yet no other race are and they're laughing every day at the Caucasian lemmings.

    ReplyDelete
  5. (Part 4)

    4. Islam is against homosexuality. Although I do not agree in killing them for their sexual choice, I do agree 100% that they should never be parents and certainly not create families or be married in a place of worship, that strictly forbids the practice of same sex coupling and coitus. There was a time when I was pro homosexuality, but having had to endure years of gay rights, pink parades, the enforcement of their sexuality in my face all the time, protection for homosexuals over heterosexuals meaning tougher sentences if assaulted and of course their desire to be clergy, get married, have children and have families, that was the straw that broke the camel's back. They have become abominations within society, those that is that choose the latter paths. And worse still they will argue until they're red in the face that it's their right to have a family and children if they want to and f*ck the natural progression of life.

    5. Islam is against feminism. It sees how dangerous feminism is. Feminsm to humanity is like a lion that won't kill other animals to eat. It spells the rapid demise of its life. Islam knows fully too well that women have power, that of sexuality and women not happy in having that power, want it all. Have you ever worked for a woman? have you ever been in the company of women in the workplace. Have you seen the amount of bitching that goes on, the deceit and rumours spread all over the place? Now I grow older, I realise why women have been "held down" over the ages for the simple reason that allowing them power, chaos is the ultimate situation that devolves. Plato spoke of in the past that societies run by women always turn into anarchies. They're not meant to lead, but women think differently and hence why our societies have so many liberty destroying laws in order to protect them from those who would usurp their power. These laws have been no different to Delilah cutting of Samson's hair. Muslims therefore see the dangers in allowing women power and again, all one needs do is look at decadent Britain, where women wander the streets, trying to emulate men, vomiting and lying on the pavements, paralytic with their skirts up to their shoulders. Feminists don't just hate men, they want to be men and control men. They just hate the fact they weren't born with a penis. Islam also knows that feminists don't just want control over and to turn into men, they also want to feminize them as well, thus removing any threat to their supremacy within society over them.

    ReplyDelete
  6. (part 7)

    We should really know everything about what I've just spoken of but we don't. Why don't we? We don't because our media is no longer a reporter of the truth but merely a mouthpiece of the many corporations who are parasiting off of society and doing their best to "smash and grab" before everything goes belly up.
    Michael Ruppert and Gerald Celente (and many others) speak of investing in gold and silver. These are commodities that will always have value and simply put, in the future, pound notes and dollar bills will simply be paper and nothing more. We cannot sustain our society anymore. The population of this world is far too big for what it should be and it is because of the Oil boom.

    The benefit of the collapse though will be a huge change in the way people think, how they go about their lives. We will see communities again, where people will have to work together, farm the land etc in order to survive. There will be no room for freeloaders. And THERE WILL BE NO MORE CARE HOMES. We may also very well see a situation where our society says NO to immigrants who will flock over even more as their lands will be full to the brim, thanks to their overpopulation because of huge procreation numbers.
    Communities, as I said, will evolve and you'll have to work to survive, the way it used to be. The days of the capitalist, the fat bankers, the record label owners, who sit on their fat backsides, raking in the cash while others run around doing all of the work, will come to a sudden stop.

    Who knows BA, this may be the very thing that actually saves the white peoples of the north, realising that mass immigration from the many peoples of other lands will spell their demise and it will be staring them stark blankly in the face.
    We can't continue the way we have been.
    Our society is built on a structure that' about to collapse and we have no alternative to replace it.
    There will be massive change about to happen in our society and people in Britain are about to experience what poor people have had to endure in the 2nd and 3rd world lands. It will be good for them because unlike the false dogmas of many political parties who preach the words BACK TO BASICS, we, as a people will have no other choice.

    All the best.

    ReplyDelete
  7. (Part 6)

    To finish off this long post, of late I've been reading a hell of a lot about the energy situation (Fossil fuels: Oil, Natural gas, coal) and especially the writings of Michael Ruppert and Gerald Celente.
    In a nutshell, society's f*cked and I do mean f*cked! Excuse the use of expletives, but really I can't find any other word that best describes society's future. The production of Oil and Natural gas is in huge decline. We've already hit and passed PEAK OIL. It means simply that the world is about to experience, as Michael Ruppert, an event as catastrophic to humanity as the meteor that hit earth was to the dinosaurs.

    Michael Ruppert and other Peak Oil theorists have been saying the same thing for years that oil is running out. The governments, but worse still, the media haven't been listening, yet know it to be true, for the reason that they don't want to promote worldwide panic.
    Our whole society over the last 150 years, the massive growth of the worlds population has been because of oil and yet here we are today, oil running out rapidly and we have no alternative energy source to run our society. We have built our whole world on oil and when it runs out the world simply stops. It's truly frightening when you realise just how much our society depends on oil and natural gas. And people are blissfully unaware thinking that "it's ok, once the oil runs out, we've got tidal power, wind power and solar power" yet fail to realise that Oil and Natural gas are vitally important in the creation of the machines that will create these powers. More so, the above alternative energies would be unable to cope with the demand that fossil fuels fill. Wind turbines only turn when you have wind, solar power with sun and tidal power really doesn't produce that much electricity....

    To cut a long story short BA, we're all about to see a massive drop in world population, because medicines and food will no longer be produced on the massive scale they are. Millions of jobs will disappear overnight and I hate to say it but the only people who will survive are those who are willing to follow others who know how to farm the land, how to give first aid and how to live off the land. So WW3 I used to think was inevitable, but they'd better hurry up or else they won't have the war engine to fight their war because of no oil.

    Sorry for the doom and gloom BA but I'm just throwing a different take on the situation and really energy is what makes the world go around, not money and our energy system we know of is about to disappear.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Once again, quite a reply! Thankyou very much.

    So much to reply to....hmmn. Where do I start?.

    For the moment, I will just write about the Islamic aspect.

    Throughout the years, whilst I have never been supportive of Islam for obvious reasons, I bet if people dug out my old replies to newspaper comments, forums and such they would find that I am critical of Islam and Islamic society but at the same time I have also often allowed myself to appreciate the aspects within it which have been pretty much destroyed in the western world.

    Take for example the post I did about the bitterness and resentment. In that piece I also alluded to the idea that they still have something which we don't, as it has been beaten and manipulated out of us.

    Another example on this site may be to do with Islamic schools - where I think I mention somewhere that it is obvious why they do not want to send their children to the general schools > because they do not wish them to be indoctrinated and brainwashed to follow the same path of destruction that befell our Christian ethos and ethics.

    They know to have their children succumb to such influences like excessive "feminism" will be the end of Islamic society.

    Without their womenfolk willingly taking the role which Islam permits for them, without women following the societal role and being imbedded into Islam as a faith and life structure, the menfolk of Islam know their faith will be dead and buried.

    That is why I feel the men-folk make rather a big deal of (in their own way) protecting their women-folk in the way they do - by essentially restricting them in some ways, to limit what they see as a corruption of Islamic values.

    The crazy thing about some Muslim women though is that they actually choose to be slaves to Islam whilst believing they are free. They buy into the idea that the tenets set down for them by the male orientated structure are freedom - but it is all a matter of opinion.

    For example, if we were tucked away, behind bars which we made for ourselves, where we were looked after, fed, clothed, watered, entertained and were made to feel to have a sense of purpose - that could be seen as "freedom" from the pressures of the rest of the world. People would willingly slave themselves for such a life and learn to see it as freedom when it really is not.

    Whilst I would not wish to emulate the attitudes of Islamic dogma, I do feel that our own womenfolk (and menfolk for that matter) have gone far too far in the opposite direction.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Cont'd

    It is not such a coincidence either to discover that at the same time as ever more people going to elderly care homes, that Muslims/Asians own a vast majority of these elderly care homes.

    They may not necessarily run them day to day, but many are owned by them.

    They are not stupid - they have identified all the pitfalls of our demise and have learnt how to make money from the nature of our society and how to supplant us in the process.

    They have also learnt what to avoid for themselves, and such will always look after their Islamic interests.

    What tends to annoy me though is that we used to have a lot of these values ourselves, with our own moral and societal values which were often almost completely founded in the Church/Christian faith.

    Even when faith and the engagement with the Church was declining, we still hung on to the coat tails of what preceded us and went through the motions.

    My position is that we do not need to learn any lessons from Islam. We had our own highly successful society - and whilst it was never perfect, it will always, always be my preference to try and re-establish some of those civilisational values without feeling the need to look at Islamic society or Islamic systems as answers or methods of imbuing these things.

    That is one of the dangers we face, and something which I find the majority of Nationalists reluctant to think about or acknowledge as a possible occurrence in the future.

    I am talking about Islam being pushed into view as a rejection of the current malaise of "liberal-leftism" where its structure and its greater sense of society will be attractive to people who do not fulfil the "chav" or "footie hoolie" approach to life.

    To expect the "white" indigenous population not to eventually start looking into Islam as an alternative to the decaying "anything goes" society we have become is somewhat naive, I think.

    But, we need to regain our own ways, not seek answers in imported ways.......but I know that you were not suggesting anything otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  10. (cont'd)

    Even forgetting the role of faith systems, the line of approach to life by a 'Genuine Nationalist' (TM)(C) is also hard to aspire to, as we all have our own faults and flaws.

    My ideals of a perfect society are often tainted by my own limitations - as I am a sad product of society around me, just like anybody else.

    For example, I do not know if I have it in me as a person to be a full time carer for my parents when they sadly reach that age of deterioration.

    I already fear my father has the slow onset of dementia and is covering it up as best he can (although touch wood, hopefully not) - and quite frankly the prospect of looking after the needs of both my parents in such circumstances scares me to death.

    I have become quite a selfish and hard-souled person after decades of being bitter and resentful about the situation happening outside. I have lost a bit more of my "humanity", even to my own family, than otherwise would be ordinary for me.

    I am used to my own space, my own life, and being single for quite a while I have learnt how to live alone and in isolation. Involving other people into my life is strange enough as it is.

    On other issues pertaining to being a wholesome person (and living by my own values which I prescribe as being that of a "Nationalist"), I do try and uphold the best morally guided life I can - and this is something which I believe is lacking in the wider Nationalism movement.

    For example, "nationalists" who take drugs (smoke dope, snort coke, whatever) or wish to legalise drugs, "nationalists" who binge drink every weekend, get into fights, roll around in the gutter whilst telling people about "fucking Asians" etc in the next breath.

    People who go and watch films at the cinema which they know are propaganda but desire the entertainment and socialising more than their principles, people who rant on about ethnics and Muslims and then go for a kebab after a piss up.....I could go on, but you will know what I mean.

    I live quite a clean-cut lifestyle and I am quite a man of principle.

    It can be very hard to do, but I hate being a hypocrite and so I do my best to live correctly and uphold decency and standards which I see as being the hallmark of Nationalism.

    If only others could rise to the challenge, we could be seen as a better way to live life ourselves.

    We are going to be competing for ideas and ideals, and we have to raise the game and head off criticism and challenges.

    But back to the post topic.....I hope it conveys to people that we were lied to about the need for immigration to "cover our pensions".

    When will people realise that they are being lied to all the time, on a whole host of issues?

    If people think we Nationalists are the ones making it up and lying all the time, why is it we always end up being proven right?

    For example, Nationalists have been talking about sustainability and self reliance needs for decades - and accused of scaremongering, hatred, you name it.

    Now, it seems it is becoming a more wider held notion - but they still do not credit us with being there first!!, and still assume we are all a smokescreen for some new smoke-stack/chimney building programme.....

    This written example of the state of affairs possibly relates to your doomsday scenario's triggering factors:

    http://www.citywire.co.uk/money/morning-line-population-growth-and-scorched-public-services-an-explosive-mix/a413027

    Something is going to happen, that is almost a certain - but what, and when, and in what format, and who will be on what side, etc...I do not know.

    ReplyDelete