People versus Fascism - Get it Yet?

You could be forgiven for thinking that debate is not actually occurring on immigration of course if you lived in Britain, but for those with eyes sharp enough to see and a mind open enough to bother looking, one quick look around the internet will tell you that the UK appears to be the ONLY country not discussing it.

Take this link here for example LINK, which shows not only are other nations debating it but that they've been studying the so called phenomena of immigration for at least a decade.

The global 'Equality and Diversity Forum' for example,will show trends of what people think about immigration in several European countries, in Canada and the USA., as researched by the think tank DEMOS. Note that DEMOS was Julia Middleton's last place of work before she was recruited into Number 10 Downing Street as John Prescott's head of staff, and before she later rose as head of the secret charity Common Purpose, about which ex-naval commander Brian Gerrish has rather a lot of disconcerting information since he's made it his business to find out.

DEMOS is of course a GLOBAL THINK TANK, and that's really all you have to think about when you consider the global issues raised by global immigration as revealed here in this video presentation. This should appeal to those of you who really do want to understand why nations are disappearing without any argument from our politicians and why people are too afraid to ask why.

For example, the American White House presenter gives all the data of her 'research' into the 'social attitudes' of people throughout America, Canada, the United Kingdom and several European countries, but I doubt anyone is very much aware of this research despite that it is used by governments to form policy decision making.

Why not?

You see I have a slight problem with understanding how the research from a think tank, can shape policy making decisions in a democracy when the research, the debate, the information, the rights and wrongs, the pluses and the minuses, are not even debated with the 'demos'...i.e. The People, before they are asked to elect a candidate for government.

There is a widening gaping hole here in terms of what I see as democracy, when I cannot see a party manifesto for instance which explores in detail how a party plans to tackle real questions about jobs, society, taxes and culture, when none of the things which have any bearing on those issues is ever placed into its manifesto, whilst on the other hand, delivering hate speeches against those who raise their voice with concerns to argue against their narrative and the realpolitik, are simply made to keep them silent.

Rather than tackle the core of a problem openly, they will excuse themselves from debate, shout 'racist' and 'Fascist' to their opponents, and charge groups of thugs like the UAF, Searchlight, HopeNotHate, the Socialist Workers Party and others, to demonstrate against free speech in order to silence their opponents.

But this occurs across Europe, in the UK, in Canada and the U.S., and even in Australia for that matter, which basically means that in our democracies, we are prevented from speaking out in defence of our own disappearance as a people.

Yes, I said 'DISAPPEARANCE AS A PEOPLE'

For the problem of diminishing birthrates, coupled with mass immigration simply to bolster a capitalist economic system, is leading to the end of nations and to the end of our race as a people. (That's white people in case you were confused as to what race I was meaning).

Demographic Winter is a good video to watch on this, but here's one I made earlier which explains our problem in about 10 minutes if you're short of time.

Remember that you only have two or three generations left until you become a minority so maybe it would save a bit of time if you just taught your kids about what kind of future they should expect whilst you spend the rest of your 'busy' day sat in front of the TV or in the shopping centre, because you can trust your government to sort it out - SURELY?

Answer: Think again.

Your government was the same government which caused your problem economically, culturally and socially, for your government didn't ask you what policies you wanted them to adopt on immigration.

Why?

Well it's simple.

If you talk about immigration then you must be racist, unless of course you're from the White House and DEMOS who make all the research available so governments can make their policy decisions to continue to let your people disappear because business comes first.

Hence, People versus Corporatism, which is people versus Fascism.

Get it yet?

Because I think Nick Griffin does, and that is why he sees there is an urgent need, greater than the position of who leads the British National Party in Britain, to take the argument into a global arena where it is ACTUALLY being discussed, and he must surely also see the urgent need to demoralise the UK Govt's henchmen who attack him here for voicing the same concerns as others raise.

Hence, you will see Arizona Governor Jan Brewer's Immigration Law has just been foreshadowed by Obama yesterday with news that 'he' intends to give $500 million more to enhance immigration controls in border states, along with providing an extra 1,200 extra National Guard, to clamp down on illegal immigration.
Obama has taken the inititiave so he isn't beaten to a pulp by the Tea Party, and all others will follow the lead of Jan Brewer unless they want to be out of office next election.

I think you can call that a win for nationalists who fight against globalism, and especially when you see the measures being taken in France, Spain and Italy - but not Britain - when ALL European countries are expressing problems with the economic model AND with unbridled immigration.

It means, Nick Griffin MUST widen the British debate into Europe because no one else will.

And it means he MUST be supported in his plan otherwise we will NEVER win the argument in Britain to keep our British culture.

The following article was co-written by the presenter in the first video, Delancey Gustin whose team did the research which has been discussed with policy makers but not with their electorates. You'll note it is really all about economics and mostly 'British' resistance to immigration, and not about the cultural upheaval or deficit to democracy which is caused as 'some' of the downsides of what amounts to an American plan to herald 'America's immigration dream' within Britain and Europe. - Do you see the problem?

Controlling the human tide
Delancey Gustin, Zsolt Nyiri
eSharp
January 18, 2010

When the Lisbon Treaty entered into force on December 1, the European Union took a large step toward establishing a common immigration policy. This is the dream - or the nightmare, depending on whom you ask - of many leaders in Europe. France's president, Nicolas Sarkozy, has been one of the strongest proponents of this move, stating last year that "it would be illusory to imagine we could have 27 different national immigration policies." His wish has been granted.

The new treaty mandates the EU to adopt measures to manage immigration flows, ensure the fair treatment of legal non-EU migrants, and, importantly, enhance measures to combat illegal immigration and human trafficking (though individual countries would still determine the volume and makeup of the legal immigrant populations they admit).

Considering the less-than-enthusiastic public support for the Lisbon Treaty, one wonders how Europeans feel about policymakers in Brussels making decisions about a topic as controversial as immigration. The public opinion survey Transatlantic Trends: Immigration, released this month, gives the views of people in six European countries - Britain, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Spain - on whether decisions about immigration should be taken at the local, national, or EU level. Luckily for supporters of the Lisbon Treaty, large majorities in all continental European countries surveyed were in favour of the EU taking decisions about immigration policy.

The only outliers of the survey were the British, 53 percent of whom want immigration policy to be decided at the national level instead. No doubt sensing this preference, London has opted out of the EU's common immigration policy, though it can opt back in on individual pieces of legislation where it sees fit.

Continental Europeans' desire for immigration policy to be decided at the EU level does not appear to stem necessarily from frustration with their national governments. The survey found that 71 percent of Germans and 53 percent of the Dutch are satisfied with the way their governments are handling immigration, whereas 53 percent of Italians and 64 percent of the Spanish think that their governments are doing a poor job. Yet respondents in all four countries clearly support EU-level immigration management. In fact, those Germans who think that their government is doing a good job are actually more likely to say the EU should be making immigration policy decisions.

Moving forward, the real question will be how the Union formulates common policies, especially on more hot-button issues. One of the biggest tasks will be controlling illegal immigration, a power conferred on the EU by the Lisbon Treaty. Countries bordering the Mediterranean currently bear a large share of the illegal migration burden, with Spain and Italy each having an estimated one million illegal immigrants. These numbers have captured public attention, as have highly publicised stories of African "boat people" attempting to land on European shores in often-unseaworthy dinghies. Frequent reports of migrants drowning in the Mediterranean have transformed the topic of illegal immigration into a humanitarian issue as well.

Perhaps as a result of this connection, the French, Spanish, and Italian respondents clearly indicate that increasing development aid to poorer countries is the most effective means of reducing illegal immigration. Notably, they chose this option over reinforcing border controls as the best tool available. EU politicians should keep these southern European preferences in mind as they ramp up efforts to control illegal immigration; with more development aid, potential immigrants might decide to stay in their own countries rather than risking dangerous days at sea or clandestine life in post-Lisbon Treaty Europe.

You might like to consider the fact that Obama has just ordered another 1,200 National Guard to the U.S. / Mexican border along with a further federal funding of $500 million to enhance border protection and issues caused by illegal immigration. The EU has no policy to order border protection or funds to assist places like Malta, Greece, Italy, Spain or Portugal, or any member state for that matter, so it is virtually impossible for the EU to act cohesively in a similar way to America, unless Europe became a union of federal states. But of course we already knew that!