'Multiculturalism has failed'

Just because I have different methods to those of white men/white women does not mean that I hate them though. Obviously there are many things that I have in common with them. Multiculturalism does not mean that people are FORCED to segregate themselves on the basis of ethnicity or even culture. They are free to pick and choose from different cultures. Multiculturalism itself was not something 'implemented' by the 'ruling classes'.

I have long suspected that much of the complaints regarding 'militant Islam' are really disguised cries about these people's economic situation. Economic insecurity is far more of a threat and reality for these people than 'militant Islam' is. Why it has not occurred to these people not to conduct their march on Downing Street/Westminster is very strange.

What do you mean by the 'upper half' of society being monoculturally English? In financial terms, there is not much stopping determined immigrant men reaching those same economic stations.

But the overwhelming majority of people of non-English ethnicity in those regions are actually British-born. They are not immigrant men who came to a new society for the purpose of profit. Their motivations may be different to ours.

Primary interactions with native males and native females are likely to be from the workplace, but in any workplace there is usually an after-work social aspect - and therein arises the opportunity to socialize with native males/native females in a non-working environment. Of course there may be many sports etc. in which both native males/native females and immigrant males/immigrant females are interested in playing where the primary motive for interaction is not economic.

>Implying a immigrant British citizen can't vote?

U mad brah!!! Hating on someone because I disagree with immigration?

You've yet again failed to answer my question, Why outside the border control is there always migrants queuing to get a visa? They will be housed at tax payers expense, And considering these people look fresh from Afghanistan and off a lorry who are they benefiting?

No it was forced upon the British public by the Labour government.

Why kind of bull**** argument is this, You've now stated they are man this is why they created it?

GTFO with your logic that deserves to be used in somewhere in the middle east.

>Implying we are soon going to get immigrants entering the country by email?

It's called border control, Better policies, It's also a reason the current government are unsure of questioning it, as like the St.George's day problem I presented you, Question anything to do with immigration and your instantly labelled the next Nick Griffin.

We wern't even given a referendum to the E.U

Statistics? Then answer me as to why some Labour strongholds are majority migrant areas?

Your logic doesn't make sense in insinuating migration is the best thing to happen to the UK?

Yet again, Me > You

The people that pull the strings are old rich white men, likely public schooled at eton or harrow.

Don't you see some logic in my point about multiculturalism being akin to divide and rule? If you've got everyone living in their own little groups and society as a whole is fractured and people are suspicious of one another, they are far easier to control.

No, my point being that nobody is destroying Saudi Arabia and Pakistan from the inside with Multiculturalism- regardless of how well the country is performing economically.
Why does a country specifically need 'multiculturalism'? What is the advantage of it?

It doesn't matter whether where they were born, they are choosing to segregate themselves from mainstream society simply because of the colour of their skin and their religious dogma. An ugly phenomenon either way.

Correct. You are not aware there was an election last year ? You know, the one where the PVDA were proposing a 60% tax rate ?

This governemnt has been here since october 2010. Of course they can`t fix all problems caused by the PVDA over the last 30 years.

I am aware of that election. What are all the problems caused by the PvDA over the last 30 years?

Those people may think they pull the strings. But in what is today a far more economically competitive world than what was the case 50 years ago - we don't really need to listen to those old greying white men anymore. What exactly are they going to do if we stick two fingers up at them?

If there was a policy that veered on apartheid where people were actively encouraged to SPECIFICALLY not socialize/interact with people on the basis of their ethnicity then that would be akin to divide and rule. But multiculturalism isn't like that - people are more than free to adopt the cultural methods of a different group, be that in cuisine, dress sense, family structure, hobbies, interests, work/life balance, socializing patterns etc. It happens in London every day.

30 years of Socialist policy, bankrupting the country, mass imigration

So when the government seperates people it's apartheid.

When (mostly poor)people are encouraged to "celebrate their cultures" seperately, self segregate and seperate themselves from each other it's somehow enriching.

It's actually a very subtle, intelligent way of dividing people and diluting the power base of reformists. It's so subtle, you're defending it. It's actually quite masterful the portrayal of how right on and liberal multiculuralism is, when it's just keeping the lower classes from working together and fostering suspicion between people.

I'm sure there are white males in Europe who enjoy playing with motorcycles, although my white male acquaintances in Bangalore have been reluctant to race motorcycles with us.

Shall we chastize these innocent white men for refusing to 'integrate' into our culture? Maybe they prefer flirting with the intoxicated white women than tearing around the city with us.

You are not FORCED or PREVENTED for engaging in nationalism.

This is your choice. Do not pretend that the government or a multicultural environment are 'forcing' you to do these things.

So is reciting incantations of Shakespeare racist now? I believe it is still taught in schools. How about recitations of William Wordsworth - are they 'racist' too?Is Morris Dancing racist? Is football racist? Are full English breakfasts racist?

It won't be one of our men who label you racist for engaging in these activities.

If some white male wishes to cover his body with a white flag with a red cross on it it simply is NOT affecting the lives of men such as myself.

We would NOT care about it. It doesn't interfere with our lives. If your authorities have an issue with it then I suggest you direct your complaints at them - not at us.

As I said earlier, why would we consider a white flag with a red cross on it 'offensive'? It's not like an image of a mutilated child, is it?

No - the whole point of multiculturalism is that there are multiple cultures.

Nobody is FORCED or even encouraged to embrace the methods of other cultures. They are simply free to choose whichever they prefer.

Are you seriously suggesting that immigrant men like myself do not sometimes embrace the methods of the Westerners? Haha.. if we didn't, then how would we do business with them.

Remember that our primary motivation in this continent is to enrich ourselves

One being my ability to communicate in your language,

What are 'ethnically cleansed' areas?

I never said that every migrant is beneficial to the UK economy.

In economic terms of net input versus net output less than 25% of people resident in the UK are net 'contributors'. People who are incredibly determined to enter the UK by illegal means are likely to be successful after multiple attempts.

Only if you really convince them that life in the UK is economically worse than in their own lands would they stop.

She is migrating to the UK as a refugee. Obviously unlike economic migrants refugees are entitled recourse to public funds.

But they are not permitted to work like immigrant men such as myself are. Hence their earning capacity is never really going to compare with those of economic migrants. Handouts are a pittance.

Most immigrant children are not from wartorn backgrounds though. You are most likely confusing them with refugee children.

Poor Geert is laughed at by binnenlanders and buitenlanders alike. His policies are not affecting immigrant men like myself in the slightest. 50% of Amsterdam's inhabitants are foreigners. Unless he can convince ethnic Nederlandse mannen and ethnic Nederlandse vrouwen to produce lots of children rapidly, or send the Dutch economy to ruin - it is unlikely those demographic figures will change.

What aim to get an education for Australia?

Haha - You realize there are numerous immigrant men/women in Australia too,

right? You are aware that that whole society was built on immigrants, right?

Also, were you and I to go there,

we would be immigrant men/women ourselves, wouldn't we?

Incidentally, my company do have Australian offices so there is a possibility of an intra-company transfer although in most industries I think there is still more money to be had in Europe, no?

In theory yes, but you would have to reduce the expenditure on other government departments. And the rate of taxation would most likely have to increase... and usually the electorate get annoyed by that.

So you could reliable tell a Somalian from somebody from eastern Ethiopia?

That isn't enough - they need documentation in order to be return to those nations.

The cost of doing that is far more excessive than 'dumping' then in France.

And once you have 'dumped' these people there they can simply attempt to re-enter the UK again.

Hence why many supporters of an amnesty feel that it is simply not worth going to all this hassle. Besides, there is money to be made in France too, no?

Of course illegal immigrants are not going to hand themselves in. Hence why it will cost more in terms of time and money to actually find these people.

Hence why many supporters of an amnesty simply do not see the point of wasting money like that when it is highly unlikely that it will be fully successful.

I see those articles and the people who are receiving that money are always asylum seekers or refugees. They are not economic migrants. As I said earlier, why would young, fit, capable, resourceful coloured men like myself be 'in need' of British taxpayers money?

Why do you doubt it is true? As I said earlier - what would be the logic of handing a pittance to young, fit, capable, resourceful, money-hungry coloured men like myself? If you doubt this - go visit the UK Immigration & Nationality Directorate's website to find out who is and who is not permitted access to public funds.

If there is only so much money that is in the UK government's welfare budget then surely your government would prioritize who required this money rather than handing it out to anyone and everyone?

You are aware that there were fears that credit rating agencies such as S&Ps, Moody's and Fitch Ratings would downgrade your government's credit rating and thus lead to their borrowing costs increasing alot (as has happened with Greece of late). So why would your government feel the need to throw money at men such as us when we would be perfectly capable of earning it ourselves in the private sector?

Those people 'looked after by the taxpaper' are not economic migrants. They are successful asylum applicants or refugees.

Of course refugees/asylum recipients are given food and homes since they are PROHIBITED from working.

You either have to allow them to work or pay for their basic essentials.

The aim is to house them until it is deemed safe for them to return to their country of origin.

Why would the British government 'hand out' passports. It is a valuable document.

Once I got my filthy brown hands on that purple passport I had (legal) access to the whole EU employment market.

If a commodity is precious and you can charge for it, why wouldn't they? In order to be ELIGIBLE to apply for a UK/EU passport you have to prove 5 years of permanent and law-abiding residence in the UK

and also pass a citizenship test

and then pay a fee in excess of £700 (it was £680 when I paid in 2008). Why would you think they hand this document out when you can make money out of charging people for it. Given your government's level of borrowing, surely the immigration authorities would try this tactic, no?

Practically all immigrant males who are economic migrants from outside the EU work.

When I was studying in the UK I worked 30 hours per week in the evenings. This kind of behaviour wasn't as popular with the white men/white women since it is likely that their priorities are different from ours.

Unless of course they are able to subsist of a relative.

But men like myself came to Europe specifically for financial gain. You can make good money in this continent. There really is very little incentive to even attempt to claim unemployment benefit after naturalization. As a single male I would receive £50/week from that.

My current employment provides me with over £750 week after taxation. Surely the choice is obvious? Even on a salary that paid minimum-wage there would still be no incentive for men like us to attempt to claim benefit.

In order to be granted indefinite leave to remain, supposing you are NOT from an EU member state - then you must fulfill the criteria of a Tier 1 Highly Skilled Migrant. I suggest you ask Damian Green. I have addressed your example of a Somalian female who did not fit those criteria. She would only be legally permitted access to the UK as a relative on a family visa or granted residence on account of a successful asylum application.

If the majority of the UK electorate wished to deport all immigrant males and immigrant females they have had the opportunity to vote for such parties.

For some reason they have not. Obviously I would see no incentive to vote for a party that wished to deport me

- but the point is that I was UNABLE TO VOTE. As a foreign male I am NOT awarded voting rights.

Have I made myself clear. Obviously a naturalized migrant is not going to be liable to deportation anyway, are they?

I have walked through numerous areas in the UK. I have always been in the minority in ethnic terms.

I have never been threatened. Most people have far better things to do than threaten random people who they do not know.

You realize you as a white male are FREE to walk through this supposedly 'ethnic' area of town, likewise a non-white male is FREE to walk through a supposedly 'non-ethnic' area of town.

There are no restrictions on this. Did they actually say 'What is this white guy doing here'? Somehow, I think not.

You are allowed to celebrate St. George's Day. Do not pretend that you aren't.

Do not pretend that immigrant men such as myself would be offended. Do not try to play the victim.

This is a matter for Englishmen/Englishwomen such as yourself to sort with your government.

Whether or not you wish to or are permitted to engage in your customs is not the business of immigrant men such as myself. Just because one ignorant foreigner screams 'racist' does not actually make it racist, does it.

Racism implies hatred of people based on racial characteristics. As far as I am aware a celebration of St. George does not involve hatred so you know full well that it would not be deemed 'racist'. Either you are confused, or your authorities are.

You said this: "that in Britain we have been forced to accept multiculturalism by the last Labour government".

The Labour Government did not create it. And they did not force you to accept it. Please explain how it was forced.

I never understand what they mean by 'celebrating' their cultures. We don't 'celebrate' our culture - we just practice it. It is just a mundane part of who we are. As South Asian men we like playing snooker, billiards, and playing with motorcycles. The white men and white women are free to do this.

The last Labour government had a policy of state sponsored multiculturalism. They had policies designed to change the demographic face of Britain - brilliantly described by an insider as an attempt to "rub the Rights nose in diversity" and that "driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multi-cultural".

The Labour Party cynically forced multicultural and demographic changes on Britain in order to benefit themselves politically.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/7198329/Labours-secret-plan-to-lure-migrants.html

LOL

All those things you mentioned you like doing as part of your culture, are all things created by white people. They are bits of white culture you have adopted not the other way around as you are suggesting. Of course white men and women are free to do those things, they are white culture. If it wasn't for whites you'd be playing around with your donkeys instead of motorcycles. hahahahahaha

Just because one Labour politician had cranky ideas such as that does not mean that the Labour Government could actually have *implemented* multiculturalism. They may have liked multiculturalism but they did not have the power to 'implement' it. The manner in which immigrant men such as myself behave, the customs we engage in etc. are done of our own volition - not because some Labour minister 'encouraged' us or 'discouraged' us. You do realize we can simply ignore them. As can you.

Well as soon as the are a British citizen then they are no longer considered a foreigner so they would no longer be liable to deportation.
Hence they could easily vote for a party that advocating deporting immigrants

because they would specifically be referring to foreigners. It is of course not possible to deport a British citizen from the UK, is it?

Why do you think they are queuing to get a visa? Visas are not awarded so easily.

If you are from outside the European Union then you will either require a family visa or a Tier 1 Highly Skilled Migrant Visa for temporary residence.

You are aware that they are far more likely to be refugees or asylum applicants.

If they were economic migrants but who did not fulfill the Tier 1 criteria they would not just present themselves to the border patrol personnel, would they?

It was not forced on you by the Labour Government or even created by the Labour Government. It was simply created and imported by immigrant men such as myself.

The Labour Government are not in any way to 'blame' for 'multiculturalism'. It is simply a byproduct of our presence here.

What makes you think that a cabal of old white men and old white women in Westminster could 'impose' multiculturalism. Did they actively advertise exactly which customs were to be made compulsory? I think not.

Wrong again. Email and telecommunications are an easy way by which cultures can spread. You do not require physical immigration of peoples. How do you think parcouer came to England?

What exactly would happen if the government 'questioned it'. Nothing.

If the British electorate are so vehemently opposed to multiculturalism then surely the government's 'questioning' of it would increase the Coalition's popularity.

You have quite clearly questioned immigration on this thread... and nobody has labelled you the next Nick Griffin. You have just proved yourself wrong.

You were not given referenda on military intervention in Iraq or Afghanistan.

You were not given referenda on whether RBS should have been nationalized.

You were not given referenda on when the UK Base rate should have been raised/cut.

What is your point?

This is easy. The Labour Party have traditionally done well in urban areas.

I never insinuated that migration was the best thing to happen to the UK.

In a world where people are mobile to pursue the best economic opportunities available it just happens to be more of a reality.