I can't say or write this any better myself, so I'll let this gentleman sum up my thoughts in 6 minutes of excellence. Enjoy.
Monday, 7 September 2015
A few more thoughts on the migrant crisis.
Firstly, I 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 fact.
Peter 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.
Secondly, 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.
Finally, the 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.
Friday, 4 September 2015
This refugee 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.
No, Ms 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.
No, 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.
Our western, 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 hole.
In addition, 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.