Tag: archaeological

Malta was a British colony founded in the 1700s. Its population is a mixture of indigenous islanders (who possess an ancient culture recorded in the extraordinary archaeology), Moors (Black and Arab Africans), Spanish, and English. Somehow, all these cultures (and languages) mixed and integrated – forming a unique (voluntary) identity. Malta has not been subject to the destructive mass immigration demanded by the US via the EU. Within European countries, millions of workers are forced to migrate for work – thus creating a pool of cheap labour that destroys the economy for indigenous workers (indeed, mass migration is a deliberate policy designed to attack the working-class and prevent strong unions and grass-roots worker organisations from developing). The England voted to leave the EU in 2016 to escape this cycle of imposed cultural and socio-economic destruction. Even so, the Human Rights Act imposed on all EU member states prevent each constituent country from “deporting” those who commit crime. For instance, the UK is NOT permitted to deport individuals representing a certain “Abrahamic religion” (who hail from a third-world country the US has given nuclear weapons to) – when they form grooming gangs that “rape” British children – as the law states this action would be a “violation of their Human Rights”. I think Malta has every right to deport those who do not respect their laws and act appropriately. Of course, Malta is being careful from a legal perspective. This ruling does not apply to Maltese citizens. Furthermore, those subject to this form of deportation (tourists and holiday-makers) possess the right of an instant appeal process. It may be that Malta could well end-up being trapped by the current Human Rights Act – which is written in such an outdated manner that it ends-up protecting the criminals – whilst punishing the law-abiding citizens (who are forced to continue to live next-door to these reprobates because they possess citizenship). What’s odd about all this is that Starmer authorised the deportation of 10,000 Brazilian men, women, and children from the UK (people who lived quietly and did nothing to us) – illegally depriving the children of their British citizenship (these children were born in the UK and were therefore “British”). Starmer decided to target an innocent group in the UK – whilst continuously ignoring another group. Indeed, Starmer placed 12,000 British people in prison for sharing posts about this group’s criminal tendencies. The Human Rights Act needs to be re-written so that criminality is discouraged and not rewarded. We shall see how practical this Malta initiative turns-out to be.