Ops-Normal.org

The 'migrant problem' started hundreds of years ago when Poms went roaming to infest the entire world with their spawn. Now chickens come home to roost.

Migrants out of Africa started 250,000 years ago -ish.
Migrant problems started as soon as the second wave pushed out into the land the first lot had settled in, approximately 215,000 years ago.
The modern migrant problems started as soon as western governments started ignoring their own laws on a wide scale, approximately 25 years ago.
And migrants aren't even the biggest of the problems resulting from governments being highly selective about which laws they enforce on the rest of us, and which they don't.
They don't enforce any on themselves, of course.

Fox3WheresMyBanana wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 15, 2022 7:37 pm

Migrants out of Africa started 250,000 years ago -ish.
Migrant problems started as soon as the second wave pushed out into the land the first lot had settled in, approximately 215,000 years ago.

But that is not seen as part of any modern 'immigration problem'.

The modern migrant problems started as soon as western governments started ignoring their own laws on a wide scale, approximately 25 years ago.

Absolute Horse Radishes! There have been race riots in the UK for a century or more, from the UK National Archives:-

In 1919, a series of violent riots in Glasgow, South Shields, Salford, London, Hull, Newport, Barry, Liverpool and Cardiff saw street fights, vandalised properties and five people killed. Thousands-strong white working-class crowds in these port towns directed their anger at black and minority ethnic communities, blaming colonial workers – whose numbers had increased to meet war time shipping needs – for post-war job shortages.

The sense of menace and the lingering effects of racism continued into the 1920s was most evident in the comments of the immigration official E.N. Cooper, who wrote to the Home Office after visiting an employment centre for seamen: ‘…we found ourselves the only white men in a surging sea of 500 negroes pressing around us offering their services, assuming that I was the ship’s captain who had come into the room to engage a crew’ (HO 45/11897/332087/100).

The 1919 riots were one of the most severe incidents of unrest in 20th century Britain. Known as ‘race riots’, they came to national prominence via the newspapers of the day, making many aware of the presence of black and minority ethnic communities in Britain. The coverage was often hostile and racist in tone, suggesting that the problem of communities unable to mix was long-standing.

Note the reference to 'colonial workers' who were in the UK as a direct consequence of Poms exploitation of their home countries. Cluck, cluck.

The modern migrant problem generally refers to migrants who are not part of any official immigration scheme, and do not have legal jobs to come to.
That is what I take it to mean anyway.
Whether wanted or not, the colonial workers you refer to were part of official policies.
I think it's important to concentrate on the migrant problem, and not conflate it with the race problem, or the official colonisation problems.
I understand that you think the migrant problem is a follow on from the colonisation problem.
Please tell me, ref your post #741, how you think one caused the other.

I think the ultimate causes, as I've stated earlier, are the demand by big business for cheap, compliant labour, coupled with government control and taxation making indigenous workers unable to compete.
Essentially, the migrants can only undercut indigenous workers by breaking western government laws, everything from accommodation through health and safety to taxation, and western governments are complicit in said breaking of laws by the migrants.
Personally, I would have no problem with migrants coming here (or anywhere) if I was allowed to break the same laws and restrictions they do. I know I can outcompete on quality and efficiency. However, I will get prosecuted and they don't.
Same applies to me starting my own business to compete with the big businesses who want the cheap, compliant labour. Government is fundamentally biased towards big business, with literally millions of regulations that put a disproportionate burden on small business, whilst big businesses get all the breaks when governments are dishing out exemptions, freebies and contracts.

The race riots you mention were, as the quote says, fundamentally about jobs.

Fox3WheresMyBanana wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 15, 2022 9:10 pm

The modern migrant problem generally refers to migrants who are not part of any official immigration scheme, and do not have legal jobs to come to.
That is what I take it to mean anyway.

That is only part of the problem, people do not set off to migrate just on a whim you know! There is something that drives them to leave home.

I understand that you think the migrant problem is a follow on from the colonisation problem.
Please tell me, ref your post #741, how you think one caused the other.

You must be wearing a rather special kind of spectacles if you think countries were colonized out of benevolence. Poms, and other European powers, colonized in order to exploit the people and their country. The legacy of this exploitation is what drives the migration we see today.

Cluck, cluck!

Migration has pull factors as well as push factors.

I expressed no opinion on why colonization happened. Please do not suppose my attitude.
I'd still like to know exactly how you think "the legacy of this exploitation is what drives the migration we see today". Indeed, what do you think the legacy is?
The UK's biggest problem, as far as I can tell from the DT, is Albanians. The UK has never colonized Albania to my knowledge.
If the migrant problem were a colonial legacy, why are other countries as well as the UK getting large numbers of migrants from countries they never colonized?
I don't recall Sweden colonizing Somalia.

Why is it that all these migrants are invading so called white supremacist countries? If these countries they wish to peacefully? invade were so bad one would think they would be leaving, not invading but going back to their faultless countries.

It could only be, apparently, according to these figures out of America, that white supremacy is only a figment of the agitators' political mindset.

https://www.bizpacreview.com/2021/02/20 ... s-1032784/

Fox3WheresMyBanana wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 15, 2022 9:49 pm

I expressed no opinion on why colonization happened. Please do not suppose my attitude.

But you refuse to recognise that colonization was about plunder and exploitation.

I'd still like to know exactly how you think "the legacy of this exploitation is what drives the migration we see today". Indeed, what do you think the legacy is?

Exploited countries share in a wide range of tragic circumstances. Including such as corruption, civil unrest, crime, poor economy, food shortages, unobtainable health care, poor to no prospects for young people. What did the Aboriginal people of Australia get from colonization? What did African people forcibly transported to the Americas get from the British colonies?

I wonder where Aborigines from Tasmania figure in the UK immigration statistics.

But you refuse to recognise that colonization was about plunder and exploitation.

You haven't asked me to recognize it.
I haven't refused anything.
And whether I recognize it or not shouldn't affect the logic of your argument.
Looks to me like you are trying to change the subject.

Exploited countries share in a wide range of tragic circumstances. Including such as corruption, civil unrest, crime, poor economy, food shortages, unobtainable health care, poor to no prospects for young people.

All of those apply to a lot of countries that were not colonized, including those who are neighbours of those that were. They were and still are exploited by their indigenous rulers.
Are you attempting to suggest that these countries were not corrupt, etc, before the colonists arrived?
Remind me how much healthcare the average Indian peasant got under the Maharajahs. How much effort did they put into relieving famines?
Does the Indian caste system not provide absolutely no prospects for some young people?
Did they not have that before the British arrived? Do they not still have it now?

And you still have to explain why migrants from countries the British didn't colonize come to Britain, or those the Americans didn't colonize come to America.
Sweden and Somalia? Canada and Vietnam?

Fox3WheresMyBanana wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 16, 2022 12:08 am

All of those apply to a lot of countries that were not colonized, including those who are neighbours of those that were. They were and still are exploited by their indigenous rulers.

Some fire trucks may be red but not all red trucks are fire engines.

Are you attempting to suggest that these countries were not corrupt, etc, before the colonists arrived?

That matters not a wit, what is important is that those countries were left in such parlous conditions after years, centuries, of colonial rule.

Remind me how much healthcare the average Indian peasant got under the Maharajahs. How much effort did they put into relieving famines?
Does the Indian caste system not provide absolutely no prospects for some young people?
Did they not have that before the British arrived? Do they not still have it now?

See previous comment.

And you still have to explain why migrants from countries the British didn't colonize come to Britain..

I do not have to explain that at all and Britain is not the only country guilty of colonial oppression.

...or those the Americans didn't colonize come to America.

Citizens of countries left crippled by colonial oppression and exploitation may seek a better life wherever they think they will find it.


Cluck cluck!

I must remember that socialists can't do reasoning.

You never do.

Just random errors and opinions, with half-baked ideas and personal attacks as responses.

Yes, it completely matters what the state of the country was before colonization. You have stated the problem was due to colonisation, which means you need to logically justify why it wouldn't have happened from those countries if they hadn't had colonisation, and come up with a different reason why never-colonized countries produce problem migrants. You do neither, and refuse to do so. Which means you are wrong. It's not an opinion, it's just wrong.

Fox3WheresMyBanana wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 16, 2022 2:05 pm

I must remember that socialists can't do reasoning.

You never do.

Just random errors and opinions, with half-baked ideas and personal attacks as responses.

Thank you for your kind words.

Yes, it completely matters what the state of the country was before colonization. You have stated the problem was due to colonisation, which means you need to logically justify why it wouldn't have happened from those countries if they hadn't had colonisation.

Just one example for you to consider.......

As the historian William Dalrymple has observed: “The economic figures speak for themselves. In 1600, when the East India Company was founded, Britain was generating 1.8% of the world’s GDP, while India was producing 22.5%. By the peak of the Raj, those figures had more or less been reversed: India was reduced from the world’s leading manufacturing nation to a symbol of famine and deprivation.”

.........now about 2.5% of the UK population are, or descended from, migrants from India. Pakistan about 1.9%.

and come up with a different reason why never-colonized countries produce problem migrants. You do neither, and refuse to do so. Which means you are wrong. It's not an opinion, it's just wrong.

I always appreciate constructive criticism.

I am a migrant. I am happy to be so!

I dare any of you weak Englishmen here to defy me with his with his weak, broken, jaw.

Speak you weak effeminate English bastards!

You can't even play rugby... you nanny suckers that you all know that you are!



"Said in Afrikaans" (Klaarblyklilk, julle bliksemse Engels manne" to cause chaos, and a hugely enjoyable fight in the army in Pretoria, years ago"

The worst of it is that despite my perfect Afrikaans, I was more English than most of them.

Shame on me!

In what state was your country of birth at the time when colonialism came to an end?

Did the colonizers exploit South Africa?

I try to recall the modern history of South Africa but if I recall correctly 'colonialism' in a formal sense ended about early 1960's? And was replaced by a continued form of colonialism where a class of people of colonial heritage set themselves up as lords over the lesser mortals? No doubt taking the American model one could say colonialism ended at the earlier time or should we say it continued during the Apartheid era?

John Hill wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 16, 2022 7:47 pm

In what state was your country of birth at the time when colonialism came to an end?

Did the colonizers exploit South Africa?

I try to recall the modern history of South Africa but if I recall correctly 'colonialism' in a formal sense ended about early 1960's? And was replaced by a continued form of colonialism where a class of people of colonial heritage set themselves up as lords over the lesser mortals? No doubt taking the American model one could say colonialism ended at the earlier time or should we say it continued during the Apartheid era?

We should have beaten those savages harder, and I am not talking about the fuzzy-wuzzies, I am talking about the khakis, the English, man...

One last migrant...

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=397&p=355282#p355278

Translate the song before you react..,.

TheGreenAnger wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 16, 2022 10:13 pm

Translate the song before you react..,.

OK,done that, I guess it looses a little in the translation but I think I grasp the sentiment.

As ek die woorde geken het, sou dit reg wees op die bakkiedek.

John Hill wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 15, 2022 9:39 pm

Fox3WheresMyBanana wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 15, 2022 9:10 pm

The modern migrant problem generally refers to migrants who are not part of any official immigration scheme, and do not have legal jobs to come to.
That is what I take it to mean anyway.

That is only part of the problem, people do not set off to migrate just on a whim you know! There is something that drives them to leave home.

I understand that you think the migrant problem is a follow on from the colonisation problem.
Please tell me, ref your post #741, how you think one caused the other.

You must be wearing a rather special kind of spectacles if you think countries were colonized out of benevolence. Poms, and other European powers, colonized in order to exploit the people and their country. The legacy of this exploitation is what drives the migration we see today.

Cluck, cluck!

JH the people we discussed about in this thread are forcing themselves in our society insisting they only have rights (housing, medical treatment, allowances) and not a single obligation.

People in those countries have voted for more than 40 years and still can't figure it out how to run their countries despite substantial amount of international aid.

Of course those people have rights, they have the basic rights of all humanity.

The Universal declaration of human rights can be found here, https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universa ... man-rights

In addition to any formally declared rights most immigrants to Europe are owed moral rights due to exploitation and colonial pillaging in the past by countries including the leading powers of Europe.

The USA is not innocent in the exploitation and crippling of countries to suit their needs which is leading to increasing pressure for immigration from countries south of the US.