10 reasons why uncontrolled immigration is a bad idea

1. "Multiculturalism" encourages immigrants to maintain their own customs, language, and culture, rather than assimilate into the mainstream, leading to social division and the formation of ghetto's in the short term. In the long term, large numbers of immigrants can change the demographics in a community so dramatically that the original population is "swamped" and has its culture replaced with the immigrant culture.

2. In the long term, "Multiculturalism" destroys diversity. When all different races have spent long enough interbreeding and the worlds cultures have been merged long enough, there will no longer be any racial or cultural diversity!

3. Immigrants who have not assimilated into the mainstream are not likely to be loyal to the nation in the event of an attack.

4. It becomes easier for drug dealers, religious fantatics, terrorists and other criminals to enter the country and attack the values, identity and safety of that country

5. Diseases from forign countries can spread more easily into ours

6. Immigrant workers may be chosen by employers over native workers, if they can get away with paying them less. This can act to depress wages, and can create unfair competition for low skilled native workers.

7. Low paid immigrants are not likely to pay much tax, if any at all. Poorer individuals are not likely to have savings in case of job loss or health insurence, and are therefore likely to demand use of the countries welfare systems, without contributing to them.

8. Skilled imported labor into our country is depriving the immigrants country of origin of badly needed skills (causing a "brain drain")

9. Mass immigration can lead to overcrowding on the streets, in school classrooms, hospitals and so on.

10. Our countryside gets slowly destroyed by the building of more housing and shops for immigrants

Life under Islam

Islam is not only a religion, but also forms the basis for a whole system of "divine law" derived from its central religious text- the Qur'an. This is known in Islam as "Sharia law", and is used in large parts of the Middle East such as Iran and Saudi Arabia. The law is enforced by religious police.

Under Sharia law, there is no democracy, no seperation of faith and state. People dont make or question the rules- the rules are in the Qur'an. The government is clergy, a theocracy.

The Qur'ans Sharia law allows courts to hand down severe punishments such as the cutting off of hands for stealing, flogging for adultery, and 40 to 80 lashes for drinking alcohol. The punishment for resisting the subjugation of Islam is execution or the cutting off of hands or feat.

Non-Islamic faiths such as Christians and Jews are prohibited to openly practice their faith, and must pay a tax known as the "jizya", for the "privilage" of living under Islam and as material proof of being submissive to Islam.

Sharia law teaches that men are superior to women, that a mans testimony in court is worth more than a womans in court, that men should recieve double the share of inheritence than a woman should, and that husbands have the right to beat their wives.

Sharia law also allows polygamy (for men only).

These are just a few examples which show very clearly that Sharia law is totally at odds with western values.

Some elements of Islam, support the use of terror and violence to impose Islamic law on non-islamic societies. Other elements of Islam do not advocate the use of violence, but are intent still on gradually changing non-islamic societies into ones governed by Islamic law. This is being carried out by such processes as mass immigration, support for legislation that prevents free speech critical of Islam or celebrations and practices offensive to Islam and demands (initially) for limited introduction of Sharia law. Other Muslims tend to form local Islamic Ghetto's, and refuse to integrate into the mainstream.

In 2006, an ICM poll, taken from a sample of 500, found that 40% of Muslims backed the introduction of Sharia law in the UK, with 19% unsure. The high level of support allegedly came from areas of Britain that are "predominantly Muslim". 20% of those survayed also felt sympathy with the July 7th Bombers motives. That was 2 years ago, and bearing in mind that the sample was only a small fraction of the numbers of Muslims living here in Britain, and that polls are not always 100% accurate, one can only wonder what the extent of the true situation is today, especially in the "predominantly muslim areas".

It is estimated that there are 1.6 million muslims in the UK, according to government figures. Taking those figures, and the 2006 ICM which only survayed 500 of them, taking this literally would mean that 640,000 Muslims want Sharia law in the UK. However, it must also be noted that this would mean 1,599,500 Muslims did not take part in the opinion poll. Not only that, but the population figures themselves are just government estimates, many people suspect the number of Muslims living in the UK is actually much higher.

How petrol is fueling the creation of a global caliphate

Let me first of all express that I am not an environmentalist in the political sense. In fact I am opposed to political environmentalism. Why should we all be forced (or pressured) into recycling, having green business, green transport and so on, and be punished, fined and taxed if we don't?

However, I have no problems with voluntary environmentalism and private sector environmentalism. So bearing this in mind, I don't believe it's such a bad idea that we all develop the capability to start driving cars that are not fueled by petrol. First of all, because many people need a car, and simply to keep raising the price of petrol (with no real improvements in public transport) is not going to achieve much except make more people live on a shoestring budget.

But there is a much bigger point to this argument, and that is, who is getting very rich from our use of petrol. The worlds leading petroleum exporter is indeed Saudi Arabia- a country dictated by Islamic Sharia law.

In Saudi Arabia, both Corperal and Capital punishment are parts of the legal system. This includes public beheadings for "crimes" such as being suspected of witchcraft, as well as the amputations of hands and feet for robbery and physical lashings for homosexuals, drunkards and other "serious crimes". These lashings may be any number from a few dozen, to several thousand (carried out over time). To make matters worse (if that is possible), the Saudi sharia legal system fails to offer fair trials, and is open to manipulation and false accusations. Non-muslims may not even testify in court, whereas women are "granted the right" to testify in some special circumstances but her testimony is regarded not as fact but as a presumption. This, according to Saudi law is because:

• Women are much more emotional than men and will, as a result of their emotions, distort their testimony.

• Women do not participate in public life, so they will not be capable of understanding what they observe.


• Women are dominated completely by men, who by the grace of God are deemed superior; therefore, women will give testimony according to what the last man told them.


• Women are forgetful, and their testimony cannot be considered reliable.

In some cases where women have suffered gang rapings, courts have punished the woman (yes thats right, the victim), with months in prison and hundreds of lashes for violating Saudi laws which dictate segregation of the sexes- the "crime" being that the woman was in the presence of unrelated men at the time of the attack.

Religious police in Saudi Arabia enfoce wearing the viel (Niqab) on women, including forign women, and subject violations of this rule to fines or canings. Women are not allowed to be admitted to a hospital, examined by a doctor, travel abroad or leave the house without the express permission or company of an immediate male relative. Women are also not allowed to vote.

Homosexuals can expect to face lashes, imprisonment or even execution. The practicing of any other religion out side of Islam is forbidden. The list could go on.

Think about this next time you are filling up your car with petrol. Most of the money is boosting the economy of Islamic fundamentalists.

The left-wing and it's obsession with racism

Browsing through jobs today, I must say I am sick and tired of seeing versus such as the following:

"We are an equal opportunities employer. We are keen to ensure improved representation in terms of black and minority ethnic backgrounds"

Some might be quick to call me "racist" for saying this, because the word "racist" now is often used in a thoughtless, childish way, as a tool to silence and demonise peoples opinions that they do not agree with. In fact, every time the word "racist" is used as a tool to restrict free speach in this manor, it acts to cheapen and insult the very real and original definition of the fight against racism.

I am a little sick of the hypocrisy of left wing politicians who claim to want a "colour blind" society, and then pass legislation that judges people based on the colour of their skin. I am a little sick of hearing about "equal opportunities" which is always quickly followed with some sort of implication that if you are of a certain faith or skin colour, that this will increase your chances of getting the job, because it helps the organisation to look "diverse". Not only is this an insult to peoples charactar and ability, this is not "equal"- because it seems, some are more equal than others!

If a white person happens to be more qualified than a black person, then give the white person the job! If a black person happens to be more qualified than a white person, give the black person the job! It really is that simple. Instead, we have people being thrown into positions they may not be fully qualified to handle, simply because of their ethnicity. This is clearly unfair- not only to the qualified person missing the opportunity, but to the unqualified person who is placed in a difficult position.

If a certain industry happens to be "dominated" by a particular gender or ethnicity, why should the government start imposing legal requirements for this industry to quota different genders and races simply to look more diverse? Let me make it clear that I am not saying anyone should be excluded on the basis of their gender or race. But it seems left wing politicians are so obsessed with judging people by their gender and race that they simply feel a complusion to use people like materialistic objects- and throw them in, regardless of their ability, simply to make the picture "look more diverse". Of course it only draws praise on the shallow basis of appearances, and legislated appearances at that.

This is real racism. Why dont we remove those passages from job application forms, and simply say that the organisation is committed to hiring people on the basis of charactar and ability? Why even have to mention race? Why have to tick a box saying what race you are every time you fill in a job application? Should it matter? The original fight against racism wanted to simply make race a non-issue. That way, whatever someones physical attributes, if they get the job, they can be proud of themselves- and proud that they have been judged on who they are as a person, and what they are capable of as a person.

I am not saying that this would wipe out racism all over the world. It is an unfortunate aspect of our world that there will always be shallow, agressive people. However, without doubt, a more "colour blind society" would come when left-wing politicians stop constantly talking in terms of race, and legislating in terms of race.

10 warning signs of a New World Order CULT

So, they may tinker with their ideologies a little, but most groups that want to take over the world tend to have a number of major things in common. There also tends to be a familiar pattern of events, leading up to the rise of oppressive, violent regimes.

We have seen such examples of Communism and Nazi Germany. This generation has not yet had to fight for it's freedoms, but rather, it takes them for granted. I believe that we should not be so complacent. In my opinion, dark clouds are once again forming over Europe and the western world, with the threat of Fundamentialist Islam.

Presented below, is my list of some of the key charactaristics which tell you trouble is not far round the corner.

1. Undemocratic authoritarian leadership by a charming individual (or elite) who claims to know "the absolute truth" for mankind

2. The group leader, and members, openly voice opposition to values such as freedom and democracy

3. Belief in liquidation of seperate nations and identities, in favour of a completely uniform worldwide community

4. Seductive promises to heal social problems with an all pervasive state

5. A victim mentality: the group is encouraged to feel oppressed, and thus that they must "fight" those who are not part of the group.

6. The development of Intolerence, aggression and scapegoating towards non-conformists

7. Persecution of group members who question the leadership or try to leave the group.

8. The group applies unrelenting pressure on media and legal systems to grant them a series of seemingly never ending entitlements, gradually serving to turn members outside the group into second class citizens with eroded free speach rights.

9. The group employs a public street presence of gangs of "thugs" who act to intimidate people into obediance and submission

10. The established government and media of the day develop a policy of appeasement towards the group.

Stars in their eyes: European President special

Time to start evacuating Europe!

The UK "Consocialist" party

It has been the party that has seen such leaders as Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher. It has historically been the party that wanted to cut down big government spending spree's, lower taxes and let the private sector do more. It set out to create a property owning democracy, help family life, create school choice, get the trade unions under control, come down hard on crime and have "zero tolerence on drugs". It has wanted strict border controls, limited immigration, a proud Britain with a strong parliament and a strong military defense. A soverign Britain, resisting moves towards a federal Europe.

As recently as the 2005 general election, the party ran on a platform of lower taxes, controlled immigration, more police, cleaner hospitals, school discipline, and accountability.

But what of the Conservative party today? Almost 3 years later, under the leadership of David Cameron?

Cameron has certainly done a lot to change the Conservative party, and has refered to himself as "the heir to Blair", encouraging his MP's to give Blair a standing ovation when he resigned as PM. One of the first major changes Cameron made was to adopt a policy of "not opposing the government for the sake of opposing them". This sounds fair enough, but in many ways, it has done more to create the feeling that all three main political parties are roughly the same.

Just like Blair, Cameron has been quick to give the Conservative party an image overhaul, with slick presentation, and a seeming focus on style over substance. This is something the Conservative party spent many years criticising New Labour for doing.

The party has now joined the left in becoming "politically correct". In November 2007, Nigel Hastilow wrote a newspaper column, claiming that Enoch Powell's "rivers of blood" speech was "right" about Immigration, and was subsiquently pressured into handing in his resignation after the comments sparked a controversy. Cameron himself has called the UK independence party, a party advocating withdrawal from the European Union and limited immigration as a "bunch of fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists".

Following further in the steps of Tony Blair, Cameron introduced shortlists with the aim of getting more women in parliament. However, even senior Tory MP Anne Widdecombe branded the lists an "insult to women". Cameron has also pulled off a number of initiatives to get more ethnic minorities and faiths into the Conservative party, feeling that the Conservative party is "too white" and "too male".

Cameron, elected in hopes that his youth would widen the parties appeal, typically seems smug, having been an "old etonian" (and having formed a cabinet also full of Old etonians), creating a cabinet which is largely out of touch with "real life".

For a party that used to have "zero tolerence on drugs", Cameron himself has been revealed as using Cannabis and Cocain, when studying at University. Cameron, in his first major speech as leader, also voiced his support for state help for same-sex unions. He has become famous also for his "hug a hoodie" speach.

Cameron has changed the Conservative party to have a large focus on the environment, even ditching the party's bold torch logo in favour of a scribbled tree, advocating the use of taxes to control "harmful emissions" for example, on aircraft. Cameron even boasted about using a bike to travel (despite having a personal driver following him to carry his briefcase). Once again, this is just like Blair, way back in 1997, calling for "green issues" to be at the heart of government.

Politically correct, environmentalist, women and ethnic minority short lists, style over substance, abandoning tradition- Cameron has effectively created a party that is almost trying to out-do labour and the Lib Dems for "most left-wing party of the parliament award".

The fact is, there really is no choice anymore between the three main parties. Sure they might quibble over the little details, and make some empty promises when the voters are kicking up a fuss, but Britain may as well be a one party state- with the Lib/Lab/Con alliance.

Is it any wonder there is such low election turnouts these days, with such a complete lack of choice?