Mass uncontrolled immigration has ruined our country:


Just buy a house, Pull yourself up by your bootstraps,  Stop wasting money on designer clothes and lattes. The people dishing out this advice are the same ones who got to play the property game on easy mode. They bought homes when they were ultra cheap than and rode a wave of government-backed policies that turned their modest investments into golden tickets.
And now? They look down from their ivory towers—built on decades of speculative growth—and wag their fingers at people without a home and call them ‘lazy’ & ‘entitled’. The thing is, they don’t have a clue what it’s like to save in an economy where every dollar is worth less by the day, where rent eats up half your paycheck, and where house prices have skyrocketed to the point that even a shoebox in the suburbs feels like a pipe dream.

Bobby. wrote on Jan 26^th, 2025 at 10:37pm:


Quote:


You know that this was originally a rich peoples joke? It is physically not possible to do this. The joke is try all you like your not going to make it. They are laughing at you.

Bobby. wrote on Jan 26^th, 2025 at 11:09pm:


Quote:


Incompetent or greedy ? I don't think selling out to money was an accident.

The deracinated romantics who set the terms of much of the debate are enthralled with diversity. They consider it a virtue to declare oneself a citizen of the world. The influx of the supposed dispossessed amounts to the cleansing of the colonial soul, the overturning of tyranny and the revenge of the oppressed.

In practical terms, however, the clash of languages, cultures and peoples strains the social fabric. Shared values once taken for granted, and therefore rarely articulated, are contested. A multicultural nation is by definition one which lacks a shared historical core.

Governments’ attempts to strengthen the social fabric have only made matters worse. The state-funded multicultural industry encourages the formation of ethnic fiefdoms with vested interests in favour of sectarianism. Human rights bodies harvest grievances and reinforce the state of victimhood. Institutional bias quickly develops; the emphasis is on difference rather than the ties that bind.
Nick Cater

Augusto Zimmermann

‘Diversity is strength; tolerance is natural,’ says the Prime Minister of Australia on his official website.

This may be a lovely statement, but it is not supported by historical evidence. To the contrary, history clearly teaches us that too much ‘diversity’ is a leading cause of social conflict and national fragmentation.

In his seminal On Democracy (Yale University Press, 1998), Robert Dahl, emeritus professor of political science at Yale University, explains how too much ‘diversity’ may lead to serious ‘cultural conflicts’:

Cultural conflicts can erupt into the political arena, and typically they do: over religion, language, and dress codes in schools, for example; or discriminatory practices by one group against another; or whether the government should support religion or religious institutions, and if so, which ones and in what ways; or practices by one group that another finds deeply offensive and wishes to prohibit … issues like these pose a special problem for democracy. Adherents of a particular culture often view their political demands as matters of principle, deep religious or quasi-religious conviction, cultural preservation, or group survival. As a consequence, they consider their demands too crucial to allow for compromise.

David Betz is a long-standing professor of ‘War in the Modern World’ in the Department of War Studies at King’s College London. He came to public attention a few months ago when he published a two-part academic paper titled The Civil War Comes to the West. In these two academic papers, he contends that there is a significant chance of a civil war breaking out in most Western European countries, where mass immigration and multiculturalism risk civil unrest verging on civil war.

Multiculturalism has never been just a fair and impartial understanding of different cultures. Samuel Huntington, the late Harvard political scientist, once defined multiculturalism essentially in terms of an ‘anti-Western ideology opposed to Eurocentric concepts of democratic principles, culture, and identity’. He contends that, above all, multiculturalism is ‘anti-Western and anti-Christian’. Indeed, according to the late British historian, Paul Johnson:

Multiculturalism has been, and will be, exploited by a few social engineers to dismember the elements of existing societies, especially those of the West with their deep Christian underpinnings, and reconstruct them according to new blueprints – to provide legal accommodation, for example, to practices such as polygamy.

As a state-sponsored policy, writes British political commentator Douglas Murray, multiculturalism is basically ‘the idea of the state encouraging people to live parallel lives in the same country and particularly in living under customs and laws that stand in opposition to those of the country they are living in’. He then informs us that there is a ‘growing public concern about such parallel societies growing across Europe. The sharpest cause of this growth’, according to him, ‘is the increasing tally of terrorist attacks and thwarted terrorist attacks involving people brought up in Europe’.

Murray’s opinion was fully endorsed by the late British political philosopher, Roger Scruton. He contended that, due to state-sponsored multicultural policies, ‘If people come from immigrant backgrounds that preserve the memory of a religious law, they will often revert to a religious experience of membership and define themselves in opposition to the territorial jurisdiction by which they are ostensibly governed.’

This helps understand the findings of a study commissioned by Policy Exchange, whereby it has been found that four out of ten young British Muslims have a desire to live under Sharia (Islamic) Law. In answer to the question, ‘Do you personally have any sympathy with the feelings and motives of those who carried out terrorist attacks?’ 24 per cent of them answered in the affirmative, with 13 per cent expressing ‘a lot’ of sympathy to terrorists.

According to Dr Munira Mirza, the scholar who conducted this survey:

The emergence of a strong Muslim identity in Britain is, in part, a result of multicultural policies implemented since the 1980s which have emphasised difference at the expense of shared national identity and divided people along ethnic, religious and cultural lines.

Professor Betz’s articles are particularly relevant because they explain how the acceptance of identity politics is overtly post-national and ultimately socially divisive. Accordingly, identity politics is defined by him as politics in which people with religious, ethnic, social, or cultural identities tend to promote their own interests with no regard to the interests of any other national group. It is this kind of socially fragmented environment that makes civil strife not only likely, but practically inevitable, in his opinion.

"Cultural suicide" is definitely what is happening.  It's beyond rhyme or reason.  I just do not know my country any more.  I do not recognise it because it's changed irrevocably.  The lunatics are now in charge of the asylum. 

It is a shame that he and you don't know or understand "Multiculturism", Soren.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...