am absolutely disgusted to hear that the surrounding Arab/Muslim countries have
refused point blank to help these refugees. Thus far they haven't accepted a single
refugee. That to me speaks volumes about how compassionate, united and open the
Islamic faith really is. If these wealthy and large neighbouring countries
can't and won't even help their fellow Muslims, what does that tell you about
the religion of peace? The dark irony here is that if these refugees were
allowed to settle in those countries it would be far easier for them to
integrate into those societies, given that they share a similar culture,
religion and values. Instead, the idiots over here have started another ill
thought out, bleeding heart campaign, welcoming the migrants. As I mention in
my last post, once these people leave the first safe country they come to,
whilst fleeing the horrors in Syria, they are no longer refugees, they then
become economic migrants. You may think that is cold and harsh, but it is a
Hitchens wrote an excellent article in his MOS column yesterday about the
migrant crisis. As usual he hits the nail on the head with everything he has to
say about it. He also echoes many of my fears about the impact that allowing
several thousand more Muslims (possibly up to 40,000) will have on our
communities, our schools, hospitals and housing. I believe he also talks about
how this influx will help to weaken our own native culture and destroy our identity,
and possibly help speed up the rate by which this country could soon be
converted into a predominantly Muslim one. We must NEVER allow that to happen.
I hate violence and confrontation nor am I condoning, encouraging or wishing
for it. However, if it came to a civil war I would fight with everything I had
to make sure this country was not taken over by the vile quasi-religious
culture that is Islam. I make no apologies for wanting to protect my Anglo-Saxon,
English values, cultures and democracy, which I strongly believe is far
superior to that of Islam. Furthermore, in terms of security, the papers are today full of stories about how IS are bragging that they've used the cover of the migrants to secretly get lots (possibly thousands) of their sleeper agents/bombers into Europe. Now, granted, that may be all bluster and rubbish and I hope that it is. However, something tells me there is more than a grain of truth to those statements. If that does indeed prove to be the case Europe and Britain are in HUGE trouble. This is another reason why we should NOT be taking in anymore migrants until we have purged the middle-east of these nut jobs. As I said in my last post, I am not without sympathy for these poor people, but we must look after our own country first and protect our own people before helping anyone else. In this regard, I completely agree with Australia's stance on migrants. Yes it may be cold and harsh, but at least they have the balls and the guts to put their own country and people first. If only we had politicians with the stomach to do the same.
another interesting point that was made about this crisis, both by Peter
Hitchens and by a few people I know who have recently travelled through Calais,
is that the vast majority of the people who are coming across the Mediterranean
and ending up in places like Calais are young men in their 20-30s. Many of them
are also from Africa, not just Syria and Libya, but the rest of the continent.
Now, call me cynical, but doesn't that further emphasis that this is far more
about economic migration, than simply a refugee crisis? Of course the MSM and
the bleeding heart liberals won't dare mention this as it doesn't fit their
narrative. This just goes to prove the old saying that in war the first casualty
is always the truth.
last thing which has really disturbed me this weekend was when I saw the father
of those two little drowned boys going back to the family home in Syria to show
journalists around. Something about that struck me as terribly wrong. If things
in Syria really are so bad and horrible with the civil war and IS breathing
down your neck; so horrible that you rightly and understandably flee with your
family to the safety of Turkey and then try and get into Europe, which results
in the heartbreaking death of your children. Why on earth would you go back to
the country you were fleeing from? To my mind, even if he is trying to show the
world the horrors they were trying to escape, it still makes his children's'
death a sham and a slap in their faces. In any case that idea doesn't work on me. To me if things are so bad (and I'm not saying
they're not) you do NOT go back to Syria for ANY reason. I would argue that you
don't sully the awful deaths of your children by going back to the hell hole you were
desperate to flee from. There was just something about seeing that which didn't
sit right with me and made me feel very uncomfortable. I'll leave it up to you, readers of this blog, to make up
your own minds as to why the father decided to do that.
crisis is the direct result of our idiotic western politicians and their stupid
vainglorious, misguided belief that you could bring democracy to a part of the
world that is locked in a deep rooted, tribal and fundamentalist culture and has been since the 9th century.
Today in the
Express newspaper, Anna Soubrey claims that this refugee crisis could have been
avoided if we'd bombed Syria. God give me strength! Spare me from the idiotic
and uneducated prattlings of deluded idiots.
Soubrey, bombing Syria would have made this crisis worse you ignorant woman.
This migrant/refugee crisis is the result of IS, which came about as a direct
result of the much lauded, at the time, 'Arab Spring' in Libya, Syria Egypt et al.
Those of us who know and understand that part of the world were all but
screaming at those idiots over here who were basically dancing in the street
and rejoicing at how wonderful it would be to finally have democracy in that
part of the world.
democracy as we understand it can't and won't EVER be possible in the middle
east because of the violent, tribal and deep rooted quasi religious cultural
practices that have been going on nearly since the dawn of time. 98% of that part of the world adheres to a deeply fundamentalist
version of Islam and it is the total antithesis of what we understand as
democracy in the west. Ergo, it was NEVER going to work/happen. Again, those of
us who know the history and culture of that part of the world could just see
the void being filled by the more extremist elements, who had been waiting
decades to finally seize power from the likes of Ghadafi and Assad. Ghadafi
himself warned several years ago that without him in charge of Libya the
hard-line, Islamist factions would swarm through his country and into Europe.
How right he was. Now, in no way do I think he or Assad are/were good people; yes they are/were brutal dictators, but say what you like, both men kept those extremists at bay and
held their countries together. Much like Saddam. However, these problems didn't start with the bombing of Iraq in 2003, these problems have been simmering under the surface for centuries. What we did was to remove the safety nets that had kept a lid on all this historical/cultural evil.
idiotic politicians are therefore partly to blame for this refugee crisis, we caused it by our
own arrogance. We, blindly believed that a part of the world that is locked in
primitive, tribal and cultural practices could free itself of that 9th
century, fundamentalist dogma and embrace westernised values. What a sick joke!
If we had
bombed Syria and overthrown Assad, IS would have completely taken over that
country and the horrors and evil we hear about would be even worse. Again, it
just shows how deluded and vainglorious our Westminster cretins really are.
Give me strength!
The only way
you are going to beat IS and I mean this very literally, is by deploying several million soldiers all at once (that goes
for all the other countries too) and we need to go through the middle east and
purge it of radicals. Then, here's the important bit, we (or more accurately America) need
to adopt our old Colonial systems and governance and be prepared to run that
part of the world for at least the next 30-50 years, following the models that
we had when Britain was an empire (granted we can't do that anymore as we don't
have the resources/money - this is why America
would have to do it)
That is the
only way you will ever beat IS and bring relative peace to that part of the
world. It must be completely purged of the evil of IS and then totally colonialised. Until we are
prepared to go down that road, that part of the world will forever be a hell
Britain should not be taking in anymore refugees. We are a relatively small
island and our infrastructure can't cope. Cameron can claim all he likes that
it will only be 4000, but once you back down and let them in, I can promise you
there will be thousands flooding our country. Furthermore, in terms of security
there could quite possibly be up to a thousand of those 4000 refugees who are IS
sleeper agents. IS have threatened to use this tactic themselves, so I'm not being over dramatic. Plus, by importing more Muslims into our country and their higher birth rates we are arguably speeding up the rate at which this, alien, quasi-religious culture will take over this country. At the rate they are out breeding us, it could be as little as 30 years before us indigenous, white English become the minority and are ruled over by Islam, We should be fighting back and stopping this from happening, not taking in more of them. From that standpoint I
totally agree with the Hungarian PM who doesn't want to take ANY migrants
because he doesn't want his country infected by Islam. God for him, if only we
had a PM with the balls to say things like that. Also, am I the only one who
absolutely hates the sick, emotional blackmail that is being thrown at us by
the spineless, bleeding-heart media?
Whilst I do
have sympathy for those poor people who are fleeing God knows what horrors, and
whilst I can accept that the blame for the destruction of their homelands does
lay partly with us. If they are genuine refugees, you get to the first safe
country and YOU STAY THERE; once you then decide to move on, as far as I'm
concerned, you then become an economic migrant and are no longer a refugee.
Harsh, maybe, but true. Now, whilst photos of dead children are heartbreaking and hard to take; who could not feel sadness for the little boy? That child's death is NOT our fault We should not be emotionally blackmailed into feeling
bad that we don't want to take in swarms of these migrants. Something to keep in mind is that over many decades,
since the second world war actually, Britain has taken in more genuine refugees
than any other country in Europe, we've done our bit.
Yes, I feel
sorry for these people but our country is at breaking point. We have a housing
shortage, countless people using food-banks, elderly and disabled people being
forced out of their homes, having their benefits cut. Charity begins at home
and until we have sorted our own people out and sorted this mess of a country
out, we should not be allowing more immigrants in. I will not be made to feel shame and neither should anyone else in this country. We in Europe are doing a great deal to set up camps in other middle-eastern countries. These camps might not be great, but they are safe and the refugees are being looked after. As far as I'm concerned that is enough and if we REALLY want to help these people we need to purge the middle-east of IS and then reintroduce complete colonialisation for at least 50 years.