First let me answer the easy bit – I haven’t emigrated from the UK, I still hold a British passport, I still have property and other assets in the UK, I still pay taxes there and spend several months of the year there; I am, for all intent and purpose on a long holiday in Cyprus at the invitation of the Cypriot government who want people like me (my money) here and offer us incentives to be here.
Your immigration argument, as I understand it, is still flawed. You still seem to be saying 'People only emigrate because their original countries have failed'. This would mean, as a result of every British person who has ever emigrated to another country, that Britain itself is a failure.
Now let me turn to your allegation that I am xenophobic (a Greek word meaning fear of foreigners).
I know what it means. That's why I did not make any such allegation.
Without getting into semantics I’ll presume you meant racist.
Since I did not make such allegations, I'll presume you're replying to someone else.
That’s a word which is too easily thrown around and which comes loaded with massive negative connotations. In simple terms a racists believes that some races are superior to another. I have suggested that one culture is better than another, not race. I have mentioned Pakistan because, using the universal measure of success, Pakistan as a country is a (relative) failure.
This begs the question - what is the universal measure of a culture's success?
There are other countries which are bigger failures but as Pakistanis are the predominant group amongst the Muslim population of the UK and as this is a Muslim forum it seemed appropriate to mention that country. The question that follows is – why is Pakistan a failure?
Assuming it is a 'failure' according to some mystical universal measure, the main reason is that its government is full of corrupt beuraucrats, which in turn weakens the economy. Most politically aware Pakistanis will tell you this. What this has to do with Pakistani culture I don't know.
Of course it is natural to try and blame someone else and blaming colonialism is always a popular choice. Britain was colonised by the Romans, we didn’t blame the Romans for any failings we had as a nation, in fact, I believe it to be the case that Britons believe we benefited from being colonised and influenced by a superior culture.
Don't be absurd. It's been a matter of centuries since the Roman colonisation of Britain. It's been a matter of decades since the British colonisation of Asia. Some countries take longer to adjust than others. To say the relative slowness of certain countries to adjust than others is due solely to those certain countries' 'inferior' cultures is inaccurate to say the least.
With regards to that excuse and Pakistan the problem is that India was a part of the same colony and compared to Pakistan, they seem to be progressing and prospering. Clearly the Indians and the Pakistani’s are part of the same race so why is that? I believe the reason why Pakistan is less prosperous than India is cultural and I believe the reason why India is less prosperous than the UK is cultural.
I believe you're ignoring the elephant in the room that is the corrupt Pakistani government, as opposed to the 'inferior' Pakistani culture.
Does that make me racist – I suggest not, I am not racists and I am certainly not xenophobic, I am however worried, even fearful of the importation of a culture which has produced failure.
Name me a culture that has never produced any failure of any kind.
Anyway, were a culture you deem to be a 'failure' imported into the UK, how precisely does this lead the entire country to ruin? You know, in practice. Are you downplaying the role of government? Are you saying that products of a 'failed culture' should not be allowed to hold governmental positions?
