When Trump suggested a temporary ban on Muslims being allowed into the US it brought a deluge of protest from the European Loonie Left and calls to ban him from visiting Britain and Europe. The Scottish Nazi Party even went so far as to strip him of honorary tasks bestowed by Scotland. Naturally, US Democrat politicians also tried to exploit the statement in an attempt to damage the one Republican Presidential candidate they fear. All very predictable and showing more of what the Loonie Left is responsible for than what Trump stands for.
As a US politician running for high office, Trump is entitled to say what he likes as part of his campaign. If it resonates with US voters that is their decision and it does seem that he is consistently reflecting the pulse of US voters. If he uses words, phrases and concepts that inflame, it is what politicians do and it shows that he has the instincts to be at least a substantial US President, in contrast to the turkey who currently holds the position. It is a basic principle that democracies must allow all shades of opinion to be debated. If the voters don’t like an opinion, they can demonstrate that by voting against any candidate for office that strongly favours that opinion.
Trump did in fact give a more measured speech than the Loonie Left credit him with, but then the Loonies believe it is OK to rewrite speeches in an attempt to smear, demonize and close down debate. What Trump actually said was that the US might need to consider a temporary ban on Muslims visiting or immigrating to the US until the nature of the current Islam-related threats is better understood. A similar position is followed by a host of Islamist States, notably Saudi Arabia, who have not only considered a similar policy, but fully implemented it. They refuse to accept fellow Muslims because they consider the threat to their own communities is far too great. They actually understand just how much of a threat is posed by migrating ‘refugees’ Jihad is.
What is pretty obvious from the Loonie Left histrionics is that the real problem for the current Islam-related crisis engulfing Europe and North America is Political Correctness and the part played over decades by the Loonie Left to destabilize their own societies. This may be an expression of hatred for their fellow citizens, or it may just be a combination of stupidity and ignorance.
The reality is that the Abram religion has divided several times in history and the splinters have divided further. All of the three basic strands, Hebrew, Christian, Muslim, are based on the same values and beliefs and the same family tree. That is the product of Middle Eastern societies several millennia ago when life was cheap, justice was brutal and life was short. There was also a belief in the afterlife as the main event, with life on Earth being an apprenticeship to prepare each person for the glorious afterlife, or the possibility of eternal damnation should they fail the tests of their apprenticeship. Unlike new religions that have appeared in recent centuries, the three main groups of the Abramic religions are a combination of secular law and religious law. Dietary requirements are based on what were originally sound health protection. Female Genital Mutilation was considered only from the view point of a man. The slavery of women was a perfectly normal part of society. As such, a man was entitled to rape and assault women, who were no more than chattels and breeding machines, to be discarded for a newer model when the man became bored with them. Paedophiles were common and their practices were accepted where the victim was female. As a man could do no wrong in his treatment of women, it naturally followed that a raped woman was not a victim, but the perpetrator who merited only a brutal death by stoning, strangulation, or beheading. The punishment was required to match the perceived crime. Mutilation was therefore considered a humane alternative to execution for a first offence. As the development of a healthy breeding line to produce an expanding population was important, homosexuals presented a very specific threat to society. As such, the religions required immediate and brutal execution. The concept of ‘honour’ killings was a natural consequence of the acceptance that only a man could be head of a family and any refusal to accept his will should be dealt with by killing.
The exception came to be the Christian faith, although it was initially not much different from the other two main strands of Abramic religion. That was because Greco-Roman pagan beliefs took over early Christianity. The teachings of Jesus were given a makeover to help Saul to peddle his new sect in the Roman world. As the Roman Empire crumbled, successive conclaves suppressed original teachings of Jesus and his Disciples, subverting the original message, which was not unlike the theory of Communism, developed by a group of monks or teachers who lived alongside the Dead Sea. In its first thousand years, Christianity was every bit as fundamentalist and brutal as either of the other two strands of Abramic faith. That placed the Church at odds with the secular rulers. Kings tried to constrain the Church and the Church tried to frustrate their secular rulers, to grab wealth for the Church. As Christianity fractured and threw up new sects, there was bitter warfare and Christianity began to fight back against Muslim invaders with increasing success. Reform factions developed amongst the Hebrews and some of the original teachings of Jesus began to surface in Christianity. Kings began to curb the power of the Church in secular matters. The result has been that Hebrews and Christians have developed new structures that have moved on from early brutality and become liberal in the broadest senses. However, the Old Testament still exists and provides potential for any new Christian bigots to cite ancient laws in a fundamentalist way not unlike the evil morons who make up Daesh. Unfortunately Islam has not made a similar transition to that of Jews and Christians, continuing to combine religious belief and secular law, clinging desperately to the brutality that was common at the time of its foundation.
The reality is that Islam presents a clear threat to other faiths and societies. Those who fail to convert are regarded as suitable only to be slaves, or to be brutally killed. Any artefacts from history that are not Islamic have to be destroyed. That means that conflict between Islam and the rest of the world is inevitable. It means that Islamists are incompatible with other societies, but there are Muslims who are equivalent to Reformed Jews, or modern Christians, in that they do not follow the evil letter of the Muslim teachings, see a need for a secular law that is open to all citizens, and see many ancient Muslim practices as barbaric. They are not new to the world of Islam, with Islamist scientists preserving older knowledge from Egypt and Greece and adding to it. Potentially, Islam does allow personal development, there are comments that no man should stand between another man and Allah. That suggests that in Islam each person is free to develop his or her own faith but Islamist fundamentalists do not agree and loudly claim that their perverted interpretations are the only valid form of the faith.
In opinion polling in Britain, the results suggest that nearly 40% of all Muslims in Britain fully support the fundamentalist version of Islam and that a further 25% of British Muslims are sympathetic to extreme views. That suggests that a clear majority of British Muslims are in fact a Fifth Column for Deash, AKA Islamist Scumbags Islamist Scumbags. However, it also suggests that a large minority are not and many of these are strongly against fundamentalist Islamic teaching. The result is that although a very significant threat exists from immigrant Islamic communities, it is not the full picture. What is less clear is how that picture matches the new waves of Islamist immigrants attempting to force their way into Europe and North America. Clearly there is a strong element which is no more nor less than an invading army that must be resisted. Therefore, it is not unreasonable for a politician to call for a temporary ban on Muslim immigrants until the nature of the problem is fully understood.
One considerable problem is that identifying the evil anti-social elements in Islam can be very difficult. Extremist cells have survived undetected for some time, before coming out and attacking innocent people. The liberal instincts of many in Europe and North America fear that they could be driven to take action that will harm the minority of Muslims who have integrated to at least some extent in the communities they have migrated to and where they may now be regarded as worthy members of the community. It is a risk and the choice may be to become victims or create other victims. Not an easy choice but one that must be considered. It can be argued that moderate Muslims should stand tall and decry those amongst them who wish evil to triumph in a perversion of Islamist faith. That is easier said than done because they risk beheading by extremists in whose midst they may live.
Now it is possible to claim that Muslims are a threat to any civilized society and therefore the real problem, but that is not really the case. The real problem in developed countries is that Political Correctness has been building an explosive situation that was entirely avoidable and can be reversed. There are so many areas where enforcement of existing laws can reduce many of the problems. In Britain, the Christian Church of England is the official faith and the Head of State, HM The Queen is also the head of the Church of England. British law has been influenced by some of the finest components of the CofE faith. The concept of marriage between man and woman now provides real equality and limits legally any man or woman to only one marriage partner. That has further been expanded to allow same sex marriage. Islam threatens this marriage concept and civil partnerships. In the benefit system a man with multiple wives is able to claim benefits for all wives and children, even if they are not resident in Britain. That is an insult and should immediately cease. If religious belief permits multiple wives, it is incompatible with British law but there is no reason why a man with several wives cannot live quietly together at his own expense. As Sharia Law is not British Law, it should have no status in Britain. Religious dress should not be permitted in public, where it presents risk to the public. If an white English Christian fundamentalist decided to adopt concealing dress and claim it as part of his or her religion it is highly unlikely that this would be accepted. There should be no area where British Law is in effect suspended to accommodate an alien culture. It only happens as a result of Political Correctness which is equally incompatible under British Law. Elizabeth Tudor wisely decided, at a time when Roman Catholicism posed a similar threat to that presented today by Islam, that she would not wish to see into men’s souls. As long as Roman Catholics practised their religion in private and obeyed all the laws of the land, they would not be restricted or persecuted. However, once they stepped out against the law, they were dealt with appropriately.
Britain and the US are countries with a tradition of accepting migrants and those fleeing persecution. That acceptance worked reasonably well before the emergence of the PC Brigade. Acceptable levels of immigration helped society and the economy. Many immigrants were highly trained and filled gaps in skill shortages, helping to expand the economy. As long as the immigrants were able and prepared to integrate with the existing society, race riots and other problems were avoided and most immigrants became fluent in the local language and observed all of the laws. Their children adapted readily and soon identified with the society they had joined. That was destroyed by the PC Brigade and its perverse desire to introduce apartheid, with the new migrants being encouraged to create their own countries within the host nation, also creating no-go areas where the indigenous population and its law enforcement were not only unwelcome but likely to be treated violently if they entered the area.
The US is a sovereign nation and therefore has the ability to elect politicians who will look after the interests of the citizens and ensure a single clear legal system that applies equally to every citizen. If a majority of the electorate see a need to make changes to the legal system, it can happen. Britain, and other former nations in Europe, are not so blessed. In the interests of expanding their control over citizens, the unelected and unaccountable PC Brigade of Eurocrats prevents any form of border control and has a ‘court’ that upturns the judgements of courts in what were once sovereign nations. That makes border control a non-option in any part of the EUSSR without the dead hand of the Eurocrats. It also makes it impossible to protect taxpayers and voters from the depredations of uncontrolled immigration and the ability of EUSSR citizens and immigrants to raid the social benefits available in the most generous societies.
To this mess is added the imposition of draconian measures to solve the non-problem of ‘global warming’ in the most costly and asinine fashion, and the self flagellation by politicians like ‘Chicken Dave’ Cameron to borrow huge amounts of money to give away to some of the most undeserving nations and corrupt politicians in nations around the world, while slashing spending on things like flood defences and fire fighting at home.
Britain is one country with a well-developed legal system that has been copied by many other countries and which had an evolved system of legislation before subversion by the EUSSR Eurocrats. Many of these very reasonable and well structured laws are still on the British statute book in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and a broadly similar system exists still in Scotland. It is only PC Brigade efforts that have frustrated the use of this legislation to ensure fairness and equally in a diverse environment of many races, cultures and faiths.
For European countries, the only way to address the current mess created by the PC Brigade is to fight for independence from the clutches of the arch PCers in Brussels.
An independent Britain would be able to do what Australia and the US are free to do – democratically decide what society they want and then set out to protect its citizens.
A key first step would be to introduce a clear and fair immigration policy and a definition of what constitutes a refugee, with a profile that can be accepted by those manning the borders.
A refugee should find shelter at the first democratic nation. In the case of Britain, that should require the refugee to present genuine passport and identity documents at the port of entry on a direct trip from his/her own country. A reasonable extension of that could include the presentation of documents to a British Embassy in the refugee’s home country or in a country to which they have escaped. The British Government is then able to make decisions in British interests, fairly and transparently.
For all other migrants, a fair and transparent points system can be adopted to suit British requirements and needs. At all stages, Britain would decide who to welcome to the country and provide the ability to prepare all of the necessary resources to ensure that accepted refugees and migrants are given adequate living conditions and help to integrate or to benefit from a comfortable temporary residence. That reasonable and understandable entry control system is fair to all. Anything less means that Britain is not a sovereign nation in control of its own destiny. It contrasts with the PC view that uncontrolled migration is OK, separate development is morally acceptable, new comers can set up their own alien legal systems and create replica states based on those they came from and that they should be exempt from British laws dealing with rape, murder and paedophilia.
The current preoccupation of the the PC LibLabConScotsNazi Party with benefits for migrants is a diversion from the very real problems caused by their anti-British PC policies.
The welfare state with its health care and financial benefits packages was set up for British citizens and is paid for by British citizens. The Loonie Left bang on about the NHS being free, but nothing provided by the State is free. Everything is paid for by tax payers and many of those taxpayers are earning less than is paid to others in benefits. A real debate about benefits and welfare is long overdue. There should be free access at the point of need for British citizens for health care and there should be a safety net benefits system, but there is no reason why that has to be based on a 70 year+ concept of how funds are collected and dispersed. Much has changed and much will change again. The welfare systems have to respond to that change. The unemployed need a better package for the relatively short time that most will use in finding fresh employment. There is a very urgent need for genuine retraining and relocation packages. When the last mine and the last steel works have closed, the unemployed workers need new work and that almost certainly requires retraining and relocation. Help is needed here. For those who cannot find new work during the first six months, they will need more support and a single one-size-fits-all is unlikely to provide what is really required to help them most effectively.
How that applies to new entries to the country should not be a separate matter. Any authorized migrant will qualify for entry under a points system. That system can ensure that migrants qualify by having a job to go to and funds to support them for a minimum period. As a result, they will not impose on the welfare system. They may be required to produce proof of health insurance. Refugees would be somewhat different because the very nature of their situation means that they may have nothing beyond the clothes in which they stand. A caring country must make adequate provision to protect and support all those refugees they decide to admit. Once in Britain, the refugee should have no automatic right to remain, or to full British citizenship, and that is not just a matter of British interests. If people flee war or despots, that situation will be time limited. When conditions change for the better, the refugees’ native country will need them back and it would be unfair for Britain to retain those people. Whatever systems a state introduces, they must be flexible and fair, with the staff providing for the system also being fair and flexible. That requires some careful rebuilding and the retraining or replacement of staff.
In legal matters, Britain should have a legal system that is enforced fairly and transparently without PC Brigade fear or favour and without interference from foreign courts. The police must be able to enter any public areas in Britain and have facilities for warrant entry of private areas. The law must apply equally to all, with no one above or outside the law.
Of course all of these beneficial changes requires Britain to achieve independence from totalitarian control, to be a free and sovereign nation once again. It will take real effort by Britons to again be free and there will be a period when the mess left by the PC Brigade has to be cleared up. This will not be easy but if it is not done, it will eventually be impossible to clean the mess up without bloodshed and pain. The first step must be for individuals to stand up and express their democratic opinions without being shouted down by the PC Brigade.