re: End Game in UK

quote:

---

In the scheme of history, it actually is.

---

I agree. The big difference between the current wave of immigrants in the UK and prior immigration waves is the motivation for coming, specifically, the level of welfare benefits. The Windrush migrants in the UK, for example, were invited by the British government because of labor shortages after WWII. Many received temporary housing in hostels or old military barracks but were not put up in long term hotels and given lavish benefits. The 'low IQ' point holds in that prior immigration waves essentially required the immigrants to be able to support themselves very quickly, which likely weeded a lot of undesirables out of the pool, and also encouraged assimilation.

The current model basically encourages anyone to come, whether they can support themselves or not, and gives them benefits and housing indefinitely, preferential treatment by the police, and allows for plenty of time to mill about essentially doing nothing. It's not clear how this benefits the larger society in Britain.

quote:

---

If the WEF/NWO was that strong, the UK never leaves the EU

---

Either you think the leadership made that determination or that they should have cheater harder to overcome the will of the people. Which is it?

quote:

---

The current model basically encourages anyone to come, whether they can support themselves or not, and gives them benefits and housing indefinitely, preferential treatment by the police, and allows for plenty of time to mill about essentially doing nothing. It's not clear how this benefits the larger society in Britain

---

Are you talking about tUK or tUSA?

quote:

---

What does the EU have to do with anything related to the UK, then?

---

But Starmer is mumbling about closer ties to the EU. If he could get them in, he would. Not sure if they can do another referendum to get them in.

quote:

---

What a false choice.

---

You're dodging the distinction.

Brexit proves the voters were still capable of overruling the governing class. It does not prove the governing class accepted that decision or stopped preferring closer EU alignment.

The UK leaving the EU is not a rebuttal to the point. It is the reason many of these people are still angry. Since then, the argument has shifted from open membership to "reset," regulatory alignment, migration policy, human-rights constraints, and closer institutional ties.

So no, "the UK left the EU" does not answer the criticism. It just proves that the public won one round.

quote:

---

You need to decide what you're arguing. You have gone back on your former attempt at a point.

---

1) Mass migrations always lead to next to total disappearance of who was there before.

2) Mass migrations usually take about a 1/2 century to a century to complete.

3) 25 years = not long ago. It is recent memory and part of the current mass migration trend.

There is no point to see. Just truth.

quote:

---

Are you talking about tUK or tUSA?

---

I was talking about the UK, but it really applies to both. The changes in immigration are basically the same.

This is impressive only if the goal is to miss the point as loudly as possible.

No one argued Britain should stop trading with Europe. No one argued the WEF has a magic joystick. The argument is that the governing class can dislike Brexit, accept it formally, and then spend years trying to dilute it through bureaucracy, courts, migration policy, regulatory alignment, and “reset” politics.

You keep calling that a conspiracy because answering it directly would require more than saying “boogeyman” and polishing your own halo.

I am right!

Listen people I am right!

European Republic of China