UK violance agaionst Police.

High Level Of Violence’ Against Manchester Airport Police

UK is sin deep trouble.

 

Matthew Goodwin
The Telegraph

"This is how mass migration will change Britain beyond recognition"

Link: https://archive.is/qlbJL

Quote: "Britain will be unrecognisable by the end of this century. Unless things change, and change fast, the population of the UK will be permanently transformed by mass immigration. White Britons will become a minority by the year 2063. The foreign-born and their immediate descendants will become a majority by 2079. And nearly one in four people in the UK will be following Islam by the year 2100; this figure would rise to around one in three among under-40s."

 

A mix of racism and xenophobia with a side of the Great Replacement Conspiracy. I expected nothing less.

 

If a native ethnic culture is truly at risk of becoming a minority in its own country, I see the concern over the matter (change from majority to minority status) as perfectly legitimate. Small-scale migration has never bothered me, since it doesn't lead to such drastic cultural changes. I don't think that you need to posit any conspiracy to draw conclusions from demographic studies.

 

What ethnic culture is at risk here? British culture? Most of British culture is just bits and pieces stolen from the people they colonized.

 

Cultures are a mix of influences. But that doesn't negate their distinctiveness. Unless you believe that Pakistani culture is interchangeable with native Danish culture and so on. Colonialism is one way to impose foreigner rule upon a culture. Large-scale immigration is another.

 

Ya, I hear you. I made it more as a tongue in cheek comment because alot of the best aspects British claims of their culture were just adopted from others. It isnt a bad thing, it is just bad the way the British did it through colonization.

Now the sentiment that people bring in new cultural experiences somehow destroys the current culture is just based in fear. Cultures are dynamic. For much of the British Empire, this so called “British culture” was in the minority and imposed on colonies. It changed alot over time. Assimilation also happens.

The fear here seems to be based in the immigration of non-white people. Projections and models are not facts, they are just that.

 

While you're right that immigration in itself is not inherently coercive, the distinction becomes blurred when immigration is used strategically by groups who refuse to assimilate and instead aim to shift the political and cultural balance of their host country.
In such cases, it's fair to describe this process as a form of “colonization from within.”

In some European cities, we've seen immigrant-majority neighborhoods where local laws and customs are openly rejected in favor of imported norms—sometimes even enforced through informal community policing or intimidation, as seen in parts of Malmö, Sweden, or certain suburbs of Paris.

In the UK, entire school boards and municipal governments have faced takeovers—like in the 2014 “Trojan Horse” scandal—where Islamist groups were accused of trying to infiltrate and control public schools to promote a particular religious-political agenda, in defiance of national values.

In Lebanon, the influx of Palestinian refugees and later Syrian migrants significantly altered the sectarian balance, contributing to long-term political instability. What began as immigration ended up reshaping the national character and power dynamics of the country.

So yes, immigration is not necessarily coercive. But when large-scale immigration is accompanied by ideological resistance to integration, and when it is leveraged to influence or replace the host society's cultural, legal, or political institutions, the term “reverse colonization” becomes more than just rhetoric—it becomes a meaningful, even urgent, warning.

Democracy should not be a tool for undermining itself.

 

I may be mistaken, but from what I’ve read, only around 20% to 30% of immigrants from those regions pursue careers in fields like tech or medicine. That’s commendable—but the question remains: what about the rest?

From what I’ve heard, there are also local imams who preach harsh condemnation—not just of Western norms, but particularly of issues like alternative lifestyles and other core values of liberal democracies. This creates a tension that shouldn't be ignored.

I still believe the U.S. remains one of the last bastions of successful assimilation. But it’s important to recognize that immigrant communities, like any other group, are not monolithic. There are streams within them—some well-integrated and liberal-minded, and others holding more rigid or extreme religious and cultural views, which can conflict with broader societal values.

 

20 to 30% are intellectuals and don't hold Jihadi believes or extreme views, majority gradually more extreme and loyalty is with religious authorities.

 

So Muslims not in tech or medicine are Jihadists? I dont see any other way to interpret your claim.

 

Yes, I messed up, I was going to say 20 to 40% support Jihad, 60 to 80% if asked reject violent Jihad. I remeber 2005 and 2015 Pew reports.
After 2023 Gaza war more support violent Jihad.
So I stand corrected, my earlier post was a mess up from my side.

 

Aah okay, so you also got this from a Trump quote:

On “Fox News Sunday,” Wallace said that among the 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, “according to the best experts, think tanks around the world, they say at most, 100,000 people are fighting for jihadist causes. That’s less than — it’s a tiny fraction of 1 percent.”
Trump said Wallace’s figure was “about as wrong as you can get” and that “27 percent, could be 35 percent, would go to war.” Trump cited Pew as his source.

It is a false claim. No surprise here.

https://www.factcheck.org/2016/03/trumps-false-muslim-claim/

 

It is best to assume everything coming out of Trump’s mouth is a lie until one verifies the information. The Washington Post counted over 30,000 lies and misleading statements from Trump in his first term.

 

If polling consistently shows that a population of a given country wants to see strict limits on immigration and the ruling elite refuses to heed the democratic majority and continues to open its doors to even greater numbers, we are dealing with a coercive situation. In many parts of Europe, the population has not signed up for mass immigration and swift cultural change. I believe that a democracy without an occasional referendum on such important issues of collective concern is closer to an autocratic regime than many would like to admit. If an honest referendum (without propagandistic statements on the ballot) is carried out and it turns out that a population is fine with large immigration intake (It would also be good to showcase the numbers of projected admitees to the voter), I will recognize this as a legitimate democratic policy. In the current situation, I refuse to recognize the policy as democratic and uncoerced.