[lit-ideas] Re: Hard core ideology
- From: Judith Evans <judithevans001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 23:12:00 +0100 (BST)
Lawrence, yes, we have been here before...
>>>>>>>>
, but if
there are large segments who won’t, if they form themselves into
enclaves and prey upon the weak, damage property and disrupt society,
something has gone seriously wrong
<<<<<<<<<<
The London (etc.) rioters/looters were not Muslim (I don't mean no Muslims took
part, it seems almost impossible that *none* took part).
>>>>>>>>>
I have
read that idealistic European leaders sought these immigrants to some
extent in order to make up the shortfall in entitlements due to
dwindling populations, but this doesn’t seem to be working.
<<<<<<<<<<
Wrong. The Gastarbeiter programme came about in (West) Germany at a time of
economic boom and a shortage of unskilled workers (made worse by the Berlin
Wall's removing the supply of East German workers (Belgium and The Netherlands
had similar, smaller, programmes). The "guest workers" came, by agreement with
the relevant government, from Italy, Spain, Greece, Turkey, and (later)
Yugoslavia. There was nothing remotely idealistic about the programme/s and as
I have suggested, the host country did not expect and did not want the workers
to "integrate". The Turkish workers who remained indeed settled in ethnic
enclaves, but really, they had little choice.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
but
whenever I’ve Googled these subjects to see if these writings are
correct, I see photos of riots, people killed, cars were burned, etc.
<<<<<<<<<<<
in France? the Muslim rioters there rioted as the French riot. In Britain?
The buildings burned to the ground, the cars and buses torched, the shops
looted? Not the work of Muslims.
You googled; yes... I googled before replying, to try to confirm an account of
some young Muslims here finally losing patience -- in the face of the murder,
by some rioters, of three young Muslim men -- and throwing bricks at the bus of
some fascists returning from their march through an Asian neighbourhood I
could not find the original mainstream news reports, instead, I found accounts
by the fascists and their friends. If you google something like "Muslim
violence", you'll find reports of precisely that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I have
read that a large part of the problem is that a majority of the common
people of Europe don’t want these immigrants moving into their nations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
there is a lot of anti-immigrant feeling, yes, stoked by lies. If you were
trying to get welfare benefits and failing, and were told "immigrants" could
just turn up in the UK and get all the standard welfare benefits and more (a
gross lie) might you not turn against "immigrants"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why didn’t European leadership know that? Why force unwanted
immigrants into a society that rejects them?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Britain needed workers, not to fund welfare benefits, as you seem to think, but
to do the jobs white Britons would not or could not do. (South Wales depended
on GPs -- primary care doctors -- from India.) This is how post war
immigration began (it's a simplistic account, but it accords with the facts as
I know them)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The passengers on board the Windrush were invited to come to Britain after
World War Two, to assist with labour shortages.
Many of the passengers had fought for Britain during the war.
They later became known as the 'Windrush Generation.'
Later, Enoch Powell, the Tory Health Minister from 1960-1963,
was to invite women from the Caribbean to Britain to train as
nurses.
It was he who several years caused an uproar with his
anti-immigration 'rivers of blood' speech.
In reality the response to the call for labour was minimal and
by 1958 only 125,000 workers had arrived in Britain from the
Caribbean islands.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Was it immoral to bring these workers into a society that
shunned and scorned them and on occasion met them with violence? A society
certain of whose pubs etc. bore signs saying "No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish"?
Certainly.
>>>>>>>>>>>
I’m not saying it is right
that these Europeans reject them merely that this is the case to a
considerable extent. European leadership seems bent on solving this
problem by making laws punishing the common people for not accepting
these immigrants. Does that seem right to you?
>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes Lawrence, I support this country's anti-discrimination laws
wholeheartedly. They should remain. And they should be enforced regardless of
the "immigrant status" of the victim. Yes.
Judy Evans, Cardiff
.
--- On Tue, 6/9/11, Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Hard core ideology
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tuesday, 6 September, 2011, 22:08
Judy, We’ve spoken about integration before. Yes, there are some that
integrate, but if there are large segments who won’t, if they form themselves
into enclaves and prey upon the weak, damage property and disrupt society,
something has gone seriously wrong. I don’t say it is entirely their fault,
but it is someone’s fault. I have read that idealistic European leaders
sought these immigrants to some extent in order to make up the shortfall in
entitlements due to dwindling populations, but this doesn’t seem to be working.
I don’t live in Europe and must rely on newspaper articles, journalistic
writings, etc., but whenever I’ve Googled these subjects to see if these
writings are correct, I see photos of riots, people killed, cars were burned,
etc. And in places like the Netherlands and Scandinavia the common people,
people Jack Sprat worries about in other circumstances, rebelling against what
they describe as an unwanted influx
of immigrants. I have read that a large part of the problem is that a
majority of the common people of Europe don’t want these immigrants moving into
their nations. Why didn’t European leadership know that? Why force unwanted
immigrants into a society that rejects them? I’m not saying it is right that
these Europeans reject them merely that this is the case to a considerable
extent. European leadership seems bent on solving this problem by making laws
punishing the common people for not accepting these immigrants. Does that
seem right to you? You asked what I meant by “Social Security shortfall.”
Social Security was initially set up, if memory serves me, like an insurance
policy. It was not intended to be an entitlement. Social Security Insurance,
however, depended upon a growing population so that more people would be
putting money into it than taking it out. All Western nations today are being
faced with
dwindling populations such that a time can be foreseen when there will not be
enough money being paid into these insurance policies to pay the people who
want to retire. The common fix has been to encourage immigration so that these
immigrants can pay into the policy and thereby let old people continue to
retire. I am suggesting that this expedient doesn’t seem to be working very
well. Why not, I ask, make Social Security an entitlement and pay for it with
tax money – instead of counting on immigrants to pay for it. Lawrence
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Judith Evans
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 11:44 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Hard core ideology (Lawrence)
>>>>>>>>>>
The West has no intention of giving it up so when it discovers that its
population isn’t growing, it imports workers from elsewhere. That would work
out if the imported workers fit the pattern we have in America, but in much of
Europe they have been importing Islamic Fundamentalists who have no intention
of integrating into European society. It would be better, in my opinion for
these nations (and ours) to decide to pay for the Social Security shortfall as
another entitlement. If foreign workers can’t or won’t integrate, it would be
better for all concerned if they stayed in their own countries.
<<<<<<<<<<
I take it you mean "importing Muslims". Various European countries indeed
imported Muslims (and others from former colonies) as "guest workers", whose
chances of integrating were minimal. Though those programmes have faded,
immigration restrictions have taken their place, and most Muslim entrants to EU
countries, now, are asylum seekers or family members. "Integration", well, it
depends what you mean. I could name some notably integrated British Muslims --
that is, notable Britons who are Muslim and whom I'd call integrated -- but I'm
not sure there's much point.
I don't know what you mean by "pay for the Social Security shortfall as another
entitlement".
Judy Evans, Cardiff
Other related posts:
