That it’s difficult might be true

Doctors in Germany on Tuesday spoke out against proposals for medical tests to check the age of asylum-seekers.

Leading politicians have called for compulsory tests amid allegations that migrants are lying about their age and posing as minors in order to avoid deportation and claim extra benefits.

But senior doctors warned that medical tests would not be reliable and risked harming asylum-seekers’ health.

“The investigations are complex, expensive and laden with great uncertainty,” Prof Frank Ulrich Montgomery, the president of the German Medical Association said. “If you carried them out on every refugee, it could interfere with human wellbeing.”

Perhaps it’s something that is used sparingly. That three foot one over there, w’ll assume – in the absence of a beard – that it’s a child not a dwarf. That 6 ‘ 8” hulk trying out for the basketball team, perhaps that claim of being 15 should be checked?

But “we’ll not test because that would be nasty” is perhaps not the way to go.

One of the interesting things about Germany is that there are lots of rules. Also, that the population think there should be lots of rules and also that they obey those lots of rules. To the point of following the listings of whose turn it is to sweep the communal courtyard etc.

Going to be interesting to see what happens with the addition of large numbers of people who don’t think there should be lots of rules nor that they should be followed.

How much does “ordnung” depend upon people being Germans in the first place?

94 comments on “That it’s difficult might be true

  1. But they do think that there are lots of rules and that they should be followed. By everybody, not just by them. It’s just that their rules are very different from German rules.

  2. What I find puzzling on the one hand and scary on the other is the extent to which the authorities, in Germnay but in the UK and other places as well, blithely assume that they can continue to implement mass immigrant policies which anyone with half a brain can see are stoking up vast resentment among the indigenous population who a) have to pay for the idiocies and b) have to live with all the other negative consequences (of positive consequences I don’t think there are any).

    Surely they must realise that matters will come to a head sooner or later and the results won’t be pretty.

    It really does not take much intelligence to realise that the sooner they address the entirely legitimate concerns of reasonable people, the less chance there is of events being taken over by unreasonable people.

  3. How much does “ordnung” depend upon people being Germans in the first place?

    Entirely. Culture is more or less unchangeable. You cannot make law abiding Germans out of goat f*ckers.

    So what if such tests harm the well being of said goat f**kers? There is a solution to that. Accept none. If Germany did not take lying sh!ts they would not have to test to see how bad those lying sh!ts are. Especially as those doctors are burying the lede here:

    The demands for medical tests have intensified since the killing of a 15-year-old girl who was stabbed to death with a kitchen knife in the street in south-west Germany last week.

    That girl was killed by Merkel. And members of her cheer squad like our very own Rusty. How exactly are those doctors looking after her medical well being?

    The German government has one job – protecting its own 15 year old girls from being raped and murdered. It does not have the slightest duty of care to Afghan goat f**kers.

  4. “Going to be interesting to see what happens with the addition of large numbers of people who don’t think there should be lots of rules nor that they should be followed”

    Not sure “interesting” is the right word. Maybe “shit” or “tragic” would be more appropriate as we witness the death of a once great people.

  5. Maybe German doctors should be reminded just who it is that pays their wages? Come to think of it, our doctors are overdue a reminder as well…

  6. “Surely they must realise that matters will come to a head sooner or later and the results won’t be pretty.”

    Europeans don’t rebel very easily, and that is what they are banking on. The frog is almost boiled now, it is probably too late.

  7. There was a time when German doctors were quite enthusiastic about conducting medical tests on people.

  8. They need to take a step back. The point of distinguishing between under/over 18 is because somewhere they decided that that was the age for asylum eligibility. But why on earth does someone aged 17 and 364 days qualify for asylum, whereas someone a day older doesn’t?

    The press and aid agencies use very young children in their emotive imagery; there’s no reason why the asylum system shouldn’t apply the same rule. Are you photogenic and clearly pre-pubescent? In you come. Stubble or pubic hair? Sorry, back to your homeland with you. This system doesn’t even need doctors, as any border guard can spot a beard.

    A side-effect would be all those Vietnamese nail bars turning into Brazilian wax salons for hirsute migrants.

  9. Mmm… Peoples from the Middle-East who settle in Europe but prefer to retain their own culture & not integrate. Don’t we have an historical example of what might befall them?

  10. Prof Frank Ulrich Montgomery

    Is that Prof Frank Ulrich Montgomery of Alamein?

    Intrigued to know his background.

  11. Culture is more or less unchangeable. You cannot make law abiding Germans out of goat f*ckers.

    Goatfucking cultures, cultures based on religion and tribalism, are difficult to change. However, secular, liberal, western culture is very vulnerable to unwanted change, particularly given the Great Liberal Death Wish…

    As a wise man once said:

    We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependents, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre.

  12. “Mmm… Peoples from the Middle-East who settle in Europe but prefer to retain their own culture & not integrate. Don’t we have an historical example of what might befall them?”

    WW2 neutered Europe’s ability to do anything similar again. The shame industry connected to it makes sure to keep the rightthink going in Europe.

    And it didn’t work out so badly for those other middle eastern immigrants in the end, did it?

  13. How much does “ordnung” depend upon people being Germans in the first place?

    There will be less “ordnung”, diminishing as time goes on and more arrive. Noticing this will first be impolite, then dangerous, then finally illegal. Murders like this girl, if reported at all, will be bland four line bulletins in local papers with no reference to the perpetrator.

    Meanwhile “far-right fringe” parties will continue to attract support to the point where they are the majority and the fringe are the establishment extremists, but the 65% majority will still be denounced as the extremist fringe by the hysterical and now very frightened Progressives still clinging onto power. Then things get very messy indeed.

  14. “WW2 neutered Europe’s ability to do anything similar again. The shame industry connected to it makes sure to keep the rightthink going in Europe.”

    Are you a troll, an undercover agent of the right-on trying to make chez Timmy look bad, a moron, or just a humongous cunt?

  15. Just as the millionaire Ed Miliband and his fellow millionaire MPs don’t give a toss if their utility bills rise to £5,000 a year, so they think that mass immigration will never trouble them.

    They quite like being Green racist-haters without a care in the world.

  16. Meanwhile “far-right fringe” parties will continue to attract support to the point where they are the majority and the fringe are the establishment extremists…

    You are forgetting that the goatfuckers will be arriving in ever-larger numbers, outbreeding the white population and voting for the progressives…

  17. BIS: I seem to remember that that other desert tribe got some bad press for doing things like letting in the present set of foreign invaders into Constantinople. And they are doing the same again now.

    Hopefully, no quarter will be given either group this time round.

  18. “WW2 neutered Europe’s ability to do anything similar again.”
    If you believe that, I’ve a bridge you might be interested in buying.

    “German Jews did integrate”
    Yes & no. Germany had a long term Jewish population who were thoroughly integrated & regarded as Germans. It also had a population that had settled in Germany after fleeing the pogroms in the Russian Empire. Culturally very different.
    There’s a similar thing in London. Jews who are Londoners who just happen to be Jewish. Accepted by the community & who accept they are part of the community. And Jews who do not wish to part of the community. Who regard themselves as separate. Hassidim etc Generally speaking they’re the descendants of that same diaspora from Eastern Europe.

  19. Tut tut. All decent people know that white Europeans are interchangeable 1:1 with Africans and Asians! The only problems that arise are caused by white supremacy.

    After all, they’ve given us curry! What’s a few tens of thousands of rapes and murders compared to that?

  20. “You are forgetting that the goatfuckers will be arriving in ever-larger numbers, outbreeding the white population and voting for the progressives…”

    The goatfuckers will only vote for the progressives while they are insufficient in number to set up their own political party with mandatory goatfucking, starting in places they have ghettoized and spreading.

  21. I seem to remember that that other desert tribe got some bad press for doing things like letting in the present set of foreign invaders into Constantinople.

    That’s a myth put about by anti-semites. The Kerkoporta was being used as a gate for sorties against the Muslim horde. A returning sortie did not bar it promptly and the attackers seized the opportunity this afforded. See The Fall of Constantinople by Sir Steven Runciman.

    And they are doing the same again now.

    Hopefully, no quarter will be given either group this time round.

    Oh dear…false and vile…

  22. “Are you a troll, an undercover agent of the right-on trying to make chez Timmy look bad, a moron, or just a humongous cunt?”

    Thought Gang: you are projecting; in fact you are all of these things.

    I am interested to hear what it is you disagree with- that Europe is less likely to respond to foreign invaders with violence as in WW2, or that there is a shame-industry actively involved in perpetuating the blame felt by Europeans, particularly Germans, for what they did to Jews? Both of these statements are demonstrably true.

  23. TS: “WW2 neutered Europe’s ability to do anything similar again.”

    BIS “If you believe that I’ve a bridge you might be interested in buying”

    A lot of hostile invaders have arrived in Europe and a lot of damage has been done to Europe and its people as a result.

    So far there has been no effective response, and the invaders continue to arrive in huge numbers.

    Let me know when this changes and I might update my opinion. Until that time, and since this frog is pretty much boiled already, I will stick to the evidence my eyes and ears present me with.

  24. @tomsmith
    Look at European history. Europeans are probably the nastiest most vicious bunch on the planet. We murder wholesale rather than retail. Why we were able to carve most of the rest of the world up into European empires. Just because we’ve flirted with civilisation for a few centuries, hasn’t changed us. Just look at what we did to our own continent in the last century. It takes European culture to firestorm entire cities or level them with atomic weapons. No other culture even comes close.

  25. Oh, the irony. Read in conjunction with your ASI blog on the NHS, Tim, the frank admission that socialised healthcare may damage the health of those examined…

  26. “No other culture even comes close” because no other culture had the same technology. All cultures can be vicious to enemies (end) but Europeans had the most advanced weaponry (means).

  27. BIS: yes Europeans have produced the greatest culture and the highest technology the world has ever seen, and it is true that Europe has fought for a long time against different cultures, almost always winning, as well as constant warfare being the norm among the different European peoples.

    But this time, for whatever reason, things are somehow different, and Europe is not reacting to the threat. Obviously the people of the old Europe would have done something about the problem by now. But the new Europe, shackled by new belief systems and a new economic model, is not acting at all. In fact things are getting worse.

    We can debate the reasons for this inaction, but simple demographics means that time is limited, and if the people of Europe do not react soon, then the situation will not be recoverable. Europe will be gone, like the Persian and Greek/North African Christian civilisations before it.

  28. “The goatfuckers will only vote for the progressives while they are insufficient in number to set up their own political party with mandatory goatfucking, starting in places they have ghettoized and spreading.”

    No evidence of that, yet, Paul. Goatfuckers like their handouts from white progressives too much.

  29. Europeans need leaders in order to act. We currently lack real leaders, and those holding power do not wish to act, because they think differently to the majority of the European people. We are not in a good situation.

  30. “If you carried them out on every refugee, it could interfere with human wellbeing.”

    Not interfering with human wellbeing, according to doctors: abortions and sex changes.

  31. “…but the 65% majority will still be denounced as the extremist fringe by the hysterical and now very frightened Progressives still clinging onto power. Then things get very messy indeed.”

    Indeed. As the Instapundit says, “you don’t get Hitler because of Hitler, you get Hitler because of Weimar.”

  32. The problem for any future Europe trying to act against this population change in its own best interests is that America (and Israel), will be opposed..

  33. He’s a funny cove your Jerry.

    Lots of official rules which he follows like a fvcking robot. But put a few of them into (say) a baker’s shop to buy bread and all hell breaks loose. Survival of the fittest while they barge their way to the front counter elbowing old ladies and children out the way. This was the standard behaviour in Dusseldorf when I was living there. They seemed to me to be one step away from their barbarian origins.

  34. BraveFart, are you familiar with the expression “the German is either at your feet or at your throat”?

  35. “The problem for any future Europe trying to act against this population change in its own best interests is that America (and Israel), will be opposed..”

    Yes, Israel has a vested interest in Europe changing from liberal social democracies into raving Islamic hell holes like those surrounding it. And we’ve already seen Trump not talking to Europe about the importance of maintaining western values; and dissing May for doing too much against Islamic extremists.

    What bollocks.

  36. dearieme

    yes I am. Must admit I found the Dusseldorfers a thoroughly unpleasant species in general when they were not acquaintances of mine. Other cities or parts of Germany I understand to be better

  37. Import a million people who have never known democracy, a free press, equal rights for women, a generally fair justice system, who still smoke and think corruption is a way of life.

    What could possibly go wrong?

  38. So if these goatlovers cannot become German but other people who move to Germany can, what is the distance from Germany whereby someone can become German after moving from there to Germany?
    200 miles? 500 miles? 1000 miles?

    And why Germany in particular? We’ve had people move from thousands of miles away to the UK who have become British. I used to work with a girl from New South Wales who had been living and working here for a few decades. As British as they come. Except the hair and the skin colour.
    If she had instead moved to Germany at age 14 instead would she have been prevented from becoming German by distance and culture?

  39. Simple, Northern Europeans can adapt easily to other Northern European societies due to cultural and genetic similarities. People from other places cannot. Most people from New South Wales are Northern Europeans from a Northern European society.

  40. Martin: Come on, are you seriously suggesting that you encountered an assimilable Abo, the ultimate in NAXALT? I’m sorry, but even with the Australians having increased the number of aboriginals vastly since settlements that’s a little hard to believe. They are even lower than pikies.

  41. Forgive my pop psychology, but I think a lot of Germans are very angry inside. They suppress their anger, and their obsession with rules could be a symptom of this. Over the years, I’ve noticed that Germans often behave badly in foreign countries. Once, in a small supermarket in rural Greece, I saw a German tourist rant ferociously at the staff because he had to wait while the cashier made a fuss of a local woman’s baby. The German had no toleration for local ways of life, no sense of going with the flow. To him, this was not how things would be done in Germany, so it was unacceptable anywhere.

  42. The problem for any future Europe trying to act against this population change in its own best interests is that America (and Israel), will be opposed..

    Maybe a couple of years ago. Trump, and to a lesser extent Bibi, are our friends.

  43. “They are even lower than pikies.”

    Of course, because they don’t do European culture very well and so fail to fit well into society.

  44. “Maybe a couple of years ago. Trump, and to a lesser extent Bibi, are our friends.”

    Well let’s hope so. Do you think it will be more than a blip?

    And of course Europe still has to re-grow a backbone.

  45. Again I would say look at the actions that have caused the current migration crisis. Who did it? Two countries in particular, including their satellites, stand out.

  46. Again I would say look at the actions that have caused the current migration crisis. Who did it?

    Merkel. Maybe give half a score to Erdogan.
    What’s your point?

  47. “Merkel caused war and toppled leaders in the Middle East?”

    Ah, that’s it. The “we created the problem because Balfour / Iraq / [insert guilt]” school of thought. As if these hordes wouldn’t have come anyway, since it’s a long standing policy of the Muslim Brotherhood to occupy the West via migration.

    This is an invasion, not a refugee crisis. We should act accordingly.
    Beginning to think Ms Coulter’s joke was correct.

  48. “The “we created the problem because Balfour / Iraq / [insert guilt]” school of thought.”

    What an odd tangent of thought to take.

  49. @BraveFart, January 3, 2018 at 3:29 pm

    He’s a funny cove your Jerry.

    Lots of official rules which he follows like a fvcking robot. But put a few of them into (say) a baker’s shop to buy bread and all hell breaks loose. Survival of the fittest while they barge their way to the front counter elbowing old ladies and children out the way. This was the standard behaviour in Dusseldorf when I was living there. They seemed to me to be one step away from their barbarian origins.

    Example: Schumacher, Vettel and Rosberg in Formula 1 – if on podium regularly booed by crowd for on-track unsporting behaviour..

  50. BiS:
    “Look at European history. Europeans are probably the nastiest most vicious bunch on the planet. We murder wholesale rather than retail. Why we were able to carve most of the rest of the world up into European empires. Just because we’ve flirted with civilisation for a few centuries, hasn’t changed us. Just look at what we did to our own continent in the last century. It takes European culture to firestorm entire cities or level them with atomic weapons. No other culture even comes close.”

    Exactly what I was about to write. If/when western Europeans decide they have had enough and get violent, nothing and nobody will stop them. If it does come to that, I hope I’m not around to see it. Won’t be pretty at all.

    (This is an observation, not a race-war wish list BTW.)

  51. I blame the French. Because they are French. But specifically for refusing to allow reform of the CAP which puts tariffs on imported food so these countries can’t get wealthier by exporting to Europe leading to frustrated, unemployed youths who then try to escape that poverty by invading Europe.

    I know it’s a gross simplification but I hope you see my point.

  52. Who or what caused emigrants to migrate is largely irrelevant. What matters is why they are being admitted, and what can be done to deter others and repatriate those already here.

  53. “But this time, for whatever reason, things are somehow different, and Europe is not reacting to the threat. Obviously the people of the old Europe would have done something about the problem by now.”

    The people of the old Europe you’re referring to in such glowing terms lost the war, if you’ll remember…

    They’re trying a different approach this time. The modern European approach to stopping those constant wars is mutual dependency and economic self-interest. We infect *their* culture with *ours*. We make sure they see the benefits of our trade, technology, and freedom, and then offer them the choice of Western luxuries versus Islamic backwardness and repression. We buy them off, and corrupt them. But cultural change is a generational thing, so it takes about 20-40 years to take effect.

    They’re 25% of the world population. We can’t kill them all. We’re not going to out-breed them. The only option left is to convert them to our way of thinking. And the only way to do that is by constant and intimate cultural interaction. People learn their culture by rubbing up against their neighbours, and figuring out how best to fit in with them. It’s a human instinct. You just need to make conversion and assimilation the more attractive proposition.

  54. Theophrastus: “Who or what caused emigrants to migrate is largely irrelevant”

    On the contrary, the reasons for the migration are crucial, and they tell a lot about why it is happening. Merkel and other European “leaders” do their bit with the pull factor, making it desirable and easy to get here, but the push is still an essential part.

  55. “They’re 25% of the world population. We can’t kill them all. We’re not going to out-breed them. The only option left is to convert them to our way of thinking. And the only way to do that is by constant and intimate cultural interaction. People learn their culture by rubbing up against their neighbours, and figuring out how best to fit in with them. It’s a human instinct. You just need to make conversion and assimilation the more attractive proposition.”

    And if you’re wrong? The aggressive backward culture does not assimilate and eventually overcomes the peaceful advanced culture? What are you left with then?

    Seems to me that the very same people who are telling us that we must use every inch of the Precautionary Principle when it comes to Global Warming, are prepared to play cultural Russian Roulette when it comes to whether Islam can be made to play nicely with everyone else.

    I mean its not like we have had any progress on the matter so far have we? All evidence to date shows that Islamic immigrants become less integrated as the generations progress, not more. And we continue to import more of them. We in the UK have had Islamic immigrants since the 60s at very least, so half a century. We’re on to the 3rd gen of British Muslims, yet far from becoming more integrated, they’re increasingly trying to kill us.

    That REALLY doesn’t suggest that importing a few million more (plus the ones who will be born here) is going to improve things, does it?

  56. Niv – you look at 1400 years of islamic history – 1400 years of invasion and extermination of native cultures and come to the conclusion that we can convert them. You are even more stupid than i thought you were.

  57. “And if you’re wrong? The aggressive backward culture does not assimilate and eventually overcomes the peaceful advanced culture? What are you left with then?”

    What if we’d lost against the aggressive backward European culture of the late 1930s? There’s a war on, and you obviously have to pay the price and win wars if your culture is to survive. But this time it’s a culture war, because that gives us the best odds of winning with our own culture intact and still something worth saving. You think you can save the “peaceful advanced culture” we have now by ceasing to be one?

    The way to win the cultural war is to stick to that “peaceful advanced culture” just as hard as you can. To make its advantages clear, and to set an admirable and attractive example. You have to be the sort of good and principled people they would want to emulate.

    Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. You have to act towards them as you would want them to act towards you. If you want them to sit in their socially isolated, echo-chamber ghetto and rage angrily at the changes in their culture, calling for acts of violence to drive out and defeat the hated enemy, then do the same.

    “Seems to me that the very same people who are telling us that we must use every inch of the Precautionary Principle when it comes to Global Warming, are prepared to play cultural Russian Roulette when it comes to whether Islam can be made to play nicely with everyone else.”

    What on Earth gives you the idea that they’re the same people?!!

    Anyway, it’s not much of a risk. Culturally, Islam is losing hands down on every front. Their kids wear Western-style clothes, listen to Western music, participate in Western social media, and want Western freedoms. They’re under pressure to change their most illiberal laws. They got rid of legal slavery under pressure from the West. They’ve toned down the religious police. The Saudis gave women the right to drive cars last year. The Iranians are marching in the streets right now protesting against the theocracy. Where do you think all that came from?

    “I mean its not like we have had any progress on the matter so far have we? All evidence to date shows that Islamic immigrants become less integrated as the generations progress, not more.”

    I don’t have the latest data on it – I last studied the matter closely about 10-15 years ago. But as I recall, it works about 90% of the time. If they grow up in Pakistan, 90% of them grow up with a strong Islamic nutcase culture. If they grow up in Europe, 90% grow up with a strong European culture. The 10% who revert are a problem, certainly, and can generate lots of headlines in the more excitable elements of the press. But it’s a smaller problem than you’d have otherwise.

    The problem is that some people are expecting/demanding that immigrants switch culture virtually overnight. That’s unrealistic. It’s always going to be a compromise – a mix of their former culture and their new one. They give way on some points and not others, some give way on more points than others. It is, as I said, a generational thing – it takes 20-40 years to take effect. The Islamic culture we see today is radically different from the one we had 40 years ago, and the difference from the original model is outstanding. When the ISIS bunch tried to revive that original culture, the contrast was stark. And when we went and kicked their butts, none of the usual suspects in the Islamic world objected – ISIS did Islam’s image no good at all with that stunt!

    “We’re on to the 3rd gen of British Muslims, yet far from becoming more integrated, they’re increasingly trying to kill us.”

    Don’t be daft! There are 2.7 million Muslims in the UK, if even half of them were trying to kill us, there’d be more than a million deaths a year!

    The security services estimate about 23,000 jihadis in the UK, who might conceivably want to kill people (most of them likely being internet blowhards with no real intention of actually doing anything). That’s a little under 1%.

    Between 1971 and 2001 there were 430 terrorism-related deaths in the UK, 125 of them due to the Irish thing (and was anyone calling to end Irish immigration?) Since 2001 there have been about 100 deaths. In the same time, about 40,000 people have died in road traffic accidents. It’s been reported that “the number of people arrested over terrorism-related offences in Britain has risen by 54% to 400 in one of the most intense periods for attacks in recent history.” Four hundred! In a population of 2.7 million! It’s an utterly trivial threat. It’s played for publicity, politics, and security theatre – to justify security crackdowns and surveillance and more rules and regulations.

    “Niv – you look at 1400 years of islamic history – 1400 years of invasion and extermination of native cultures and come to the conclusion that we can convert them.”

    Our culture is stronger.

    Ever looked at the history of the British Empire? We took over a rather larger slice of the world in a rather shorter time – Mo was an amateur.

    “We can if we have to.”

    No we can’t. And no we don’t have to.

  58. FFS. You’re equating physically fighting Nazis to inviting them to come and live in the UK in the hope they stop being Nazis and start playing cricket? Is that what you think we should have done in 1939? Open our borders and allow any Germans to come and live here? How exactly do you think that might have ended up?

    You’re insane. There’s absolutely no advantage to allowing Islam to be imported into the West None. Zilch. Nada. All we get is a Fifth Column of the enemy inside our borders. As we are seeing they are increasingly killing us. Not integrating, killing.

    I mean what do you think the reaction of the UK population would have been in say 1990 if asked ‘We need to let all these Muslims in, 90% of them will be OK (not exactly integrated because they’ll all live together and those areas will look like Karachi) but 10% of them will be religious nutters who will start to kill people. I think thats a proposal we might have been able to turn down.

  59. “FFS. You’re equating physically fighting Nazis to inviting them to come and live in the UK in the hope they stop being Nazis and start playing cricket?”

    No. You knock out their military capability, and then convert them culturally. German deaths in WWII were about 8 million, in a population of 70 million. 90% of them were left alive! The big change was the post-war de-Nazification programme, that turned the Nazis into the modern Germans. And we did that through close cultural contact and economic integration.

    We knocked out the Islamic empire as a military threat in WWI, when the Ottoman empire collapsed and we carved their territory up into new Western-run nations. Now we’re engaged in de-Islamification.

    “You’re insane. There’s absolutely no advantage to allowing Islam to be imported into the West None. Zilch. Nada. All we get is a Fifth Column of the enemy inside our borders. As we are seeing they are increasingly killing us. Not integrating, killing. “

    100 killings over a 17 year period? An average of 6 people per year? And you think *I’m* insane?!

  60. We haven’t knocked out the Islamic worlds military capacity, are you mad? All Islamic countries have armies, they are fully functioning sovereign states. What the fuck has the Ottoman Empire got to do with it, 100 years ago?

    If you want to use the Nazi analogy, we ground them physically into the dirt. Unconditional surrender. All however million Germans there were (and they weren’t all Nazis remember, maybe 10% were active Nazis, which is ominously similar proportions to Muslims today, terrorists vs non terrorists) were forced to have their country ruined, they families killed, their women raped (not by us of course). We didn’t negotiate – reduced the entire country to nothing. Good and bad German alike, all suffered.

    Then and only then did we (if not the Russians) show our magnanimity in victory, by not slaughtering the lot of them, or putting them into bondage, but by giving them money and helping them reorganise their society into something better. Thats the way to show the superiority of your culture – utterly defeat your enemy then show him mercy.

    What we are doing is allowing our enemy into our house in the hope he won’t kill us. And all evidence show that he will.

  61. “100 killings over a 17 year period? An average of 6 people per year? And you think *I’m* insane?!”

    So thats an acceptable death toll is it? For your grand plan? So ignorant religious bigots can be made into ‘better people’ innocent Westerns have to die?

    Its only been that low because so far we’ve managed to keep on top of things, and they are so ludicrously unorganised (and fucking stupid). That won’t always be the case. The number of Islamic terrorist attacks in the West continues to rise. At what point are you going to accept there is a problem? Or will you be blathering on about integration as the bomb explodes that kills you, or the knife slices through your neck?

  62. “We haven’t knocked out the Islamic worlds military capacity, are you mad? All Islamic countries have armies, they are fully functioning sovereign states.”

    What, like Saddam Hussein? How many days did he last?

    “If you want to use the Nazi analogy,”

    I don’t. That came from: “Obviously the people of the old Europe would have done something about the problem by now.”

    Yes, the Nazis were an easier proposition. They had no deep history. They had no religious underpinnings. There were a lot less of them. And they’d been knocked back further. It still took us 10 years before we could end the occupation safely.

    It’s going to take longer to deal with Islam. But the process is well in train.

    “And all evidence show that he will.”

    Again, an average of six killings per year from 2.7 million Muslims does not “show” this. The evidence is against you.

    But I really don’t expect that to make any difference.

    When the most immature and authoritarian in any society are thwarted in their demands for everyone else to conform to their culture, they always get angry and want to lash out with violence, and facts don’t matter. But for most, shouting about it relieves their frustrated feelings sufficiently that they don’t have to actually do it. Muslims are much the same.

  63. And I don’t see why we need to have Islam here in the West to culturally dominate it. We didn’t do that with Communism. The people of the Eastern Bloc couldn’t come here, yet they knew what the West was, and what we had, and wanted it for themselves. And eventually got it, for them, in their own countries.

    Surely that is a better cultural assimilation process? Islamic people in Islamic countries, non Islamic people in non Islamic countries. They can come on holiday, study here even. But not come here to live. They they’ll have to go back to their Islamic shitholes and work out ways of making them better, rather than letting millions come and live here and turn the place into an Islamic shithole.

  64. “So thats an acceptable death toll is it? For your grand plan? So ignorant religious bigots can be made into ‘better people’ innocent Westerns have to die?”

    In the same period, 40,000 people dies so that we could drive cars around on the roads. That’s an acceptable death toll, is it?

    “At what point are you going to accept there is a problem?”

    I already accept there’s a problem. I don’t agree with your solution.

  65. “And I don’t see why we need to have Islam here in the West to culturally dominate it. We didn’t do that with Communism.”

    Yes we did. There were plenty of Communists in Britain. Still are. Ask Ecksy.

    “The people of the Eastern Bloc couldn’t come here, yet they knew what the West was, and what we had, and wanted it for themselves.”

    Exactly!

    We wanted cultural contact. It was the *Communists* who built the walls to isolate their own people, because they knew perfectly well what would happen if they saw what Western freedom bought, and compared it to what their culture had. Anyone who managed to jump over the wall, we welcomed.

    As the Americans say about Cuba, you can tell who’s winning the culture war by counting how many people are crossing the border in each direction. Americans were not dying in their hundreds sneaking across the Atlantic on makeshift rafts to get into Cuba!

    And the Americans let them come, yes? They didn’t ship them back and tell them to put their own house in order.

  66. You really aren’t getting it. Islam isn’t like any other culture, just as Nazism wasn’t. Islam is fundamentally convinced of its own superiority over everyone else. Not just the Christians, the Hindus, the Buddhists, the secular, everybody. They view all non Muslim as sub humans, rather as the Nazis did to the non Aryans. Its pretty much the same shtick, just one has a sky fairy, the other had a flesh and blood ‘god’. You can’t convince such a person of your superior culture by being nice to them, they will just take what you give (the ability to live Western lifestyles in the West at our expense) and think you a fool for being so stupid.

    You cultural assimilation model does work, and has worked for pretty much every combination of races creeds and colours, bar one – any combination involving Islam. Islam does not integrate, does not assimilate. Every country that has a Islamic minority has trouble with them. Eventually you have to conclude, like the woman who has dated a string a bastard men one after the other, that perhaps the problem lies within.

  67. “As the Americans say about Cuba, you can tell who’s winning the culture war by counting how many people are crossing the border in each direction. Americans were not dying in their hundreds sneaking across the Atlantic on makeshift rafts to get into Cuba!

    And the Americans let them come, yes? They didn’t ship them back and tell them to put their own house in order.”

    If 10% of the Cubans escaping Cuba were fanatical Communists who wished to take the war to the Great Satan, and started killing people in Florida, what do you think would be the response of the US authorities? Welcome all escapees with open arms? Send them all back to make sure? Vet every single one and send back any they were unsure about?

  68. Incidentally, you accept that Nazism was an evil ideology that had to be destroyed root and branch, so why could Islam not just be a similar (but a lot larger) human construct? If humans managed to create Nazism, that means they can create other evil ideologies. What makes you so sure Islam is not such an ideology?

  69. “You really aren’t getting it. Islam isn’t like any other culture, just as Nazism wasn’t. Islam is fundamentally convinced of its own superiority over everyone else.”

    I know that. But by that same standard, most of the Muslims aren’t Muslim any more. Islam is ISIS – a tale of atrocities and horrors. The typical Western Muslim would have been executed as an apostate in the Islamic State.

    Roughly 50% of UK Muslims never go to the mosque, and only about a third go once a week or more. Bearing in mind that the absolute non-negotiable requirement is 5 times a day, they’re pretty unobservant! But of course they can’t admit to no longer being Muslims, partly because of that looming death penalty, partly because they’re only part way through the assimilation process.

    “You cultural assimilation model does work, and has worked for pretty much every combination of races creeds and colours, bar one – any combination involving Islam.”

    Yet.

    The same principles apply. But when cultures change on a timescale of many decades, and the internet age demands instant action in months or at most years, it can sometimes feel like it’s not working. It is.

  70. “Incidentally, you accept that Nazism was an evil ideology that had to be destroyed root and branch, so why could Islam not just be a similar (but a lot larger) human construct?”

    Of course it’s evil! Of course it has to be destroyed!

    I’m just saying it has to be destroyed by the seduction/conversion of Muslims to Western ways, through their own free choice. Violence and oppression only harden the resistance, and perpetuate the authoritarian cycle. It turns us into an image of them.

  71. “The same principles apply. But when cultures change on a timescale of many decades, and the internet age demands instant action in months or at most years, it can sometimes feel like it’s not working. It is.”

    How can you say that? Were westerners being beheaded in the streets in 1965, despite there being Muslims living here? Or 1975, and there being more Muslims? Or 1985 and more still? And eventually after 50 years of Muslim immigration they’ve integrated to such an extent they start bombing the Tube, and driving cars into people, and stabbing at random, and blowing people up with suicide bombs. Does that look like a progression of positive integration? Do the burka clad hordes in certain towns and cities look like any sign of integration? There is none.

    You keep saying that the 90% of Muslims want to live peaceably. But they aren’t prepared (or able)to throw out the 10% who don’t. Its the Nazi situation all over again. The average German soldier wasn’t a Nazi, he’d have been much more happy working in the fields of Bavaria than fighting the Russians on the steppes. Yet we killed them all, men women and children because the Nazi virus was so virulent we couldn’t take the chance any given one was an adherent.

    And I’m afraid Islam is just the same if not nastier. The 10% are as violent and psychotic as the Nazi’s were, the 90% are not very nice in all other terms (even the ‘moderates are homophobic and sexist). They just don’t fit in with the rest of society – is Mohammed going to allow his 8 yo daughter to an Ariana Grande concert with all her non Islamic school mates? Indeed will she have any non Islamic school mates because so many schools are now majority Islamic, even in the State sector?

    If what you say should be done were real it would require specific policies to prevent Muslim ghettos forming, to prevent any school being more than the average number of Muslims vs non Muslims. You would have to have massive nationwide social polices, quite draconian ones, to force integration on people who don’t want to integrate. But we have nothing like that. We have Muslim ghettos which are no go zones for anyone else. We effectively have segregated schooling now too.

    Everything points to increased polarisation between Muslims and the rest of society, because every time they demand special treatment we cave in and give them what they want. So most Muslims live in the West economically, but socially they might as well be back in their historical homeland. They have not integrated one jot . They can’t – their religion forbids it.

  72. “And eventually after 50 years of Muslim immigration they’ve integrated to such an extent they start bombing the Tube, and driving cars into people, and stabbing at random, and blowing people up with suicide bombs.”
    #
    Sigh. I’ve explained that three times already. You’re not listening.

    “If what you say should be done were real it would require specific policies to prevent Muslim ghettos forming, to prevent any school being more than the average number of Muslims vs non Muslims. You would have to have massive nationwide social polices, quite draconian ones, to force integration on people who don’t want to integrate.”

    It’s the same principle as in a free market. You don’t destroy the competition by introducing draconian laws to outlaw or exclude them from the market. You destroy the competition by being better than them. You only use force to give people the freedom to choose, and then you win by offering a better, more attractive proposition that people will choose freely. If you’re genuinely better, you’ll win. If you only think you are, you won’t. That’s how we avoid tyranny and optimise human happiness.

    Some people seem to find the concept of liberty to be utterly beyond their comprehension! They just don’t understand the idea, or why anyone would want it. If other people don’t live as or do what they want, then people must be *made* to behave how they say. The only measures they can ever think of for solving a problem are bans and barriers, state regulation backed ultimately by violence.

    It’s exactly the same evil as that underlying Islamic theocracy; the same methods and principles. You’re not doing it by showing that you’re any better than them; only that you’re more effective and powerful tyrants. We simply replace one set of authoritarians with another. Ironic, really.

  73. “It’s the same principle as in a free market. You don’t destroy the competition by introducing draconian laws to outlaw or exclude them from the market. You destroy the competition by being better than them. You only use force to give people the freedom to choose, and then you win by offering a better, more attractive proposition that people will choose freely. If you’re genuinely better, you’ll win. If you only think you are, you won’t. That’s how we avoid tyranny and optimise human happiness.”

    OK, in this free market of ideas, why are all the Muslims now going around in burkas when they didn’t when they first came here? Why are they increasingly living in Muslim enclaves, working together, being schooled together, basically operating exactly as they would back home, with zero contact with whitey but with whitey paying for it all? Its been 50 fucking years and its going backwards. How long are you prepared to go before you finally admit ‘You know I might be wrong about this’? Do you ever even consider that? I notice you studiously ignored my simple question – what if you are wrong?

    See, if I’m wrong, all that happens is Western Culture continues as before. However if you are wrong, Western Culture dies.

    So follow my prescription, Western Culture survives. Follow yours, it may or may not, you don’t know. You like to think you know, but as it the future, you don’t.

    To be honest I have no idea why we need to take on Islamic culture at all. Its not (as you admit) a military threat, so why not just seal ourselves away from it, and let it stew in its own juices? If Muslims want to live in shitholes let them. Maybe when they’ve lived in a shithole for long enough, and modern communication certainly allows them to see what its like in non Islamic countries then maybe they’ll do something about improving their shithole. Why can’t we set a shining example from a distance instead of having them next door and blowing up our kids?

  74. “You are defending the indefensible and sounding increasingly deluded and brainwashed.”

    I’m not defending it. You’re an illiterate idiot if you think I am.

    “OK, in this free market of ideas, why are all the Muslims now going around in burkas when they didn’t when they first came here?”

    Because the first ones to get here were the most Westernised and rebellious – who were at most risk back home. Later ones are more a mix of cultures.

    Anyway, burkas are not a problem, if it’s voluntary. We’re policing what people are allowed to wear now, are we?!

    “Why are they increasingly living in Muslim enclaves, working together, being schooled together, basically operating exactly as they would back home, with zero contact with whitey but with whitey paying for it all?”

    Because you don’t exactly make them feel welcome? Why do Brits abroad live in British enclaves?

    And “whitey” doesn’t pay for it all. They mostly pay their own way – more than a lot of the poorer whites do.

    The trick, of course, is to make them *want* to make contact with you. Despite what you say, most do (if only to sell you stuff). If they never had any contact, you’d not know about them and there’d be no problem. But I can see I’m talking to someone not in contact with reality.

    “How long are you prepared to go before you finally admit ‘You know I might be wrong about this’?”

    Right up until someone provides some effin’ evidence.

    You talk a load of shit out of the Daily Mail or Stormtrooper Weekly or wherever you get it, and never answer any of the points I make.

    The statistics say the average number of deaths from Islamic terrorism over the past 17 years is about 6 per year. Compared to many other causes of death which we consider tolerable, that’s absolutely trivial. Have you refuted the statistic? No! Have you justified it or excused your moral panic over it? No! How long are you prepared to go before you finally admit ‘You know I might be wrong about this’? Probably forever! Because you’re an ignorant jackass who just *knows* their Daily Stormtrooper inspired beliefs just have to be totally right, and *damn* the evidence.

    “Do you ever even consider that?”

    Do you?!

    No, I didn’t think so.

    “I notice you studiously ignored my simple question – what if you are wrong?”

    I didn’t ignore it.

    But let me ask you the same question. What if *you* are?

    “See, if I’m wrong, all that happens is Western Culture continues as before.”

    No. What happens is that first you turn Western culture into an authoritarian shit-hole that bans entire religions just like the theocrat’s you’re supposedly opposing, polices people’s beliefs, and institutes a surveillance state to detect the infidels and implement the ban. You wind up hurting a lot of people who have done nothing wrong for no reason, and probably only fled here to escape that sort of authoritarian crap. Second you justify the Islamic nutters, proving them absolutely right both about you and about their right to do what they do, and provoke a civil war with the 2.7 million Muslims already here, raising the death toll from 6 to half a million per year. Third, you split the Westerners between those who believe in liberty and those who believe authoritarianism in their own causes is justified, setting off a second civil war. And fourth, you establish a precedent that allows the government/society to rule on what *other* beliefs people are allowed to hold.

    Whereas if I’m wrong, then we can always start the war a few years later, when it’s clear that it’s necessary. We’ll still win.

    “You like to think you know, but as it the future, you don’t.”

    Ah. And you have a totally infallible prescription for foretelling the future. Pardon me if I don’t believe you.

    “To be honest I have no idea why we need to take on Islamic culture at all.”

    The continued existence of freedom depends on people fighting for it. Why should anyone else care about our freedom, if we don’t care about theirs?

    It ought to be intolerable that anyone, anywhere doesn’t have freedom. Besides the self interest motive, it’s just a matter of human decency. Are you even *worth* saving from theocratic oppression, if you’re such a piece of “I’m all right Jack, Fuck the rest of you” piece of shit?

    “Its not (as you admit) a military threat, so why not just seal ourselves away from it, and let it stew in its own juices?”

    Because they eventually overflow.

    “If Muslims want to live in shitholes let them.”

    Most of them don’t. What about them?

    Oh, I know. You don’t care, just so long as *you’re* alright.

    “Maybe when they’ve lived in a shithole for long enough, and modern communication certainly allows them to see what its like in non Islamic countries then maybe they’ll do something about improving their shithole.”

    Oh, yes. I recall when the city of Hama tried that. They rebelled against their Muslim ruler, and got nerge gassed. Or how about the Yazidi? I think they tried to improve things, and wound up as raped sex slaves or dead. The Iraqis rebelled several times and got put down forcibly by Saddam before the war – that’s what he acquired the WMD for in the first place. And the Iranians are trying – I suspect figuring that with Donald Trump in office they might have a better chance. But of course all the “I’m all right Jack, Fuck everyone else” crew are going to wash their hands of them, and watch them get slaughtered in interesting ways. Because it’s not really about whether the Islamic dictators’ have tried to improve things, it’s about them getting to keep their comfortable and peaceful lives, undisturbed by any need to make an effort to *defend* any freedom but their own.

    “Why can’t we set a shining example from a distance instead of having them next door and blowing up our kids?”

    Because they can’t see it so clearly from way over there, and they don’t have to continually compromise with it to get along, which is what changes cultures.

    But mostly, because we’re not like them. We don’t set laws on what other people are allowed to believe. We don’t raise barriers forbidding people to go to certain places, or do certain things, or mix with certain people. We grant people the liberty to do whatever the hell they want, so long as it’s voluntary and it hurts nobody else. (And we ban only the ‘hurting people’ part, not anything incidentally associated with that.) Because we believe in freedom.

    And if we don’t, it’s hardly a shining example, is it?

    The problem, of course, is that some of us *are* like them. We see a problem – we try to ban it. And banning Muslims from our shores won’t get rid of them, because they’re already here in the non-Muslim population too. It’s human nature, I’m afraid.

  75. “No. What happens is that first you turn Western culture into an authoritarian shit-hole that bans entire religions just like the theocrat’s you’re supposedly opposing, polices people’s beliefs, and institutes a surveillance state to detect the infidels and implement the ban. You wind up hurting a lot of people who have done nothing wrong for no reason, and probably only fled here to escape that sort of authoritarian crap. Second you justify the Islamic nutters, proving them absolutely right both about you and about their right to do what they do, and provoke a civil war with the 2.7 million Muslims already here, raising the death toll from 6 to half a million per year. Third, you split the Westerners between those who believe in liberty and those who believe authoritarianism in their own causes is justified, setting off a second civil war. And fourth, you establish a precedent that allows the government/society to rule on what *other* beliefs people are allowed to hold.”

    a) We already ban people from being involved in public life and associating together. We ban terrorist organisations and we ban people like the BNP from public office. We are not some free for all you like to imagine. You probably forget this because you agree with the BNP being effectively a proscribed organisation, but if it can be so can Islam.
    b) The Islamic nutters don’t hate us because we’re authoritarian you muppet, they hate us because we’re not Muslims. We’re far too liberal for their liking not too harsh. They’d respect us more if we were!
    c)The government already controls what people are allowed to think – have you not heard of all the ‘hate crime’ bollocks?

    You seem to think we have some laissez faire everybody can do as they please country here – we haven’t. We have a quasi police state that is run for the benefit of the immigrants over the indigenous population. The State is increasingly using its power to stop the natives from voicing their increasing fears about what is happening and using force to stop anyone who tries to do anything about it, while allowing the Muslims to say what they like and do as they please. If the EDL parade down a street with placards that read ‘Kill those who insult Christianity’ they get arrested,every man jack of them. We know Muslims can freely parade down a street with the reverse because they have. Thats the reality – the State is working against its own people.

  76. “You probably forget this because you agree with the BNP being effectively a proscribed organisation”

    I *DON’T* agree with the BNP being a proscribed organisation, even though I don’t agree with the BNP.

    “The government already controls what people are allowed to think – have you not heard of all the ‘hate crime’ bollocks?”

    Yes. This is exactly my point. You’re turning Islam into a ‘hate crime’ and then doing the same.

    Whenever somebody comes up with one of these schemes to ban this or ban that, the objectors ask them “But don’t you believe in freedom of speech/freedom of belief?” And they always reply “Yes of course we do, but free speech doesn’t include…” and then they list all the reasons why they don’t believe in freedom.

    Free speech doesn’t include the right to offend against someone else’s religion. Free speech doesn’t apply to blasphemy. Free speech doesn’t apply to hate speech, or obscenity. Freedom of belief doesn’t include racism, or homophobia. Or climate scepticism. Or nutty cults like Scientology. Or religions/sky fairies/magic generally. Or ‘fake news’. Or Neoliberal Capitalism. Or Marxism. Whatever it is we’re against.

    The entire point of freedom of belief and freedom of speech as principles is that they apply even to the stuff we don’t like! And this is something the enemies of freedom can never seem to understand. Of course, they believe in freedom… for all the stuff they approve of. “Everyone has the freedom to do as I say.”

    “The Islamic nutters don’t hate us because we’re authoritarian you muppet, they hate us because we’re not Muslims.”

    I didn’t say otherwise.

    “You seem to think we have some laissez faire everybody can do as they please country here – we haven’t.”

    I’d like to point out the contrast here with:

    “We’re far too liberal for their liking not too harsh. They’d respect us more if we were!”

    It’s relative. We’re not as liberal and laissez-faire as *I’d* like, but we’re a hell of a lot more liberal and laissez-faire than the Islamic nutters. That’s what I’m talking about.

    As far as I’m concerned, it’s not the specific beliefs of Muslims that are the problem – I don’t give a toss what other people choose to wear or choose to eat or if they choose to bang their heads on the floor while reciting mumbo jumbo five times a day. The evil is based entirely in the fact that they don’t consider it optional. The evil is that they oppose freedom of belief, and freedom of speech. You can’t criticise Islam, or Mo, or they’ll kick up a riot and smash stuff. You can’t go off and marry the non-Muslim boy you want, or we’ll honour-kill you.

    We don’t allow that; not simply because we’re non-Muslim, but because we believe (in a broken, some-of-the-time sense) in the principle of freedom. If we ever stop believing in that, we’ve lost the war, even if we win the battle.

    “We have a quasi police state that is run for the benefit of the immigrants over the indigenous population.”

    Yes, that’s evil.

    But what I’m saying is that the evil is inherent in being a quasi-police state denying equality under the law. It would be *equally* evil to live in a quasi police state that is run for the benefit of the indigenous population over the immigrants. It’s the same thing, only you’re on the ‘winning’ side. It’s *you* being evil instead of *them*.

    I don’t consider that acceptable. Evil is evil, whether we do it or they do it, and you can’t consistently complain or argue against them doing it when they have the opportunity if you plan to do it yourself whenever you do. Every justification for it you use, they can use too. You’re just as bad as each other, and society gains nothing if we replace them with you, or replace you with them. The authoritarian cycle goes on.

  77. “We don’t allow that; not simply because we’re non-Muslim, but because we believe (in a broken, some-of-the-time sense) in the principle of freedom. If we ever stop believing in that, we’ve lost the war, even if we win the battle.”

    Then by your own words we’ve already lost. Because we can’t criticise Islam without be arrested for hate crimes. So Islam is now a protected philosophy in Western countries. In which case how can ‘our values’ defeat its evilness? We aren’t allowed to point the evil out, or we get arrested. So how exactly is this great free market in values going to take place?

    Answer it can’t, because Muslims in Western countries are a protected species, beyond criticism. Christianity can and is regularly excoriated for its (very minor) transgressions against modern ‘equality’ mores, while the mosque down the road spews misogyny, homophobia and anti-semitism of the vilest order (often recorded on tape no less) and no-one says a thing. No one is allowed to debate Islam as an evil philosophy, merely because they believe in a sky fairy. Indeed one wonders if Neo-Nazis declared Hitler a God and said they were worshipping him and his earthly writings, how it would be any different.

    So by your own measure we have already lost.

  78. “Then by your own words we’ve already lost. Because we can’t criticise Islam without be arrested for hate crimes.”

    Yes you can, although you do have to be a bit careful about when and how you do so (and I agree you shouldn’t have to). The battle isn’t lost, but it’s not been won either. It’s always in progress.

    The issue is the tactics you use for doing so, assuming you want to win.

    The first thing I’d say is that you have to take extra care to be absolutely, provably correct about everything you say. Get caught out saying daft things like the Muslims are all murdering us on the streets, when anyone can point out that the terrorism rate is 6 per year, and you lose all credibility. Everyone things you’re stupid and all the rest of the claims made as part of your cause equally wrong. But if you’re able to cite some of that misogyny, homophobia, and anti-semitism, and produce the tapes (and don’t shoot yourself in the foot by getting caught spewing misogyny and homophobia yourselves), then you have a much better argument. If you can cite the Islamic texts, Islamic history, and the official endorsements of them to support your claims, that’s even better. You need to know the difference between stuff that’s part of Islam, and stuff that’s actually against Islam but which Muslims often do because of all the repression. Most people can still be persuaded to listen, but their default assumption will be that you’re wrong (because that’s what they’ve been taught) and you need a large amount of extremely high quality evidence to overcome that.

    The second thing I’d say is that you need to be very precise about what you’re asking for, because nobody is going to give you preferential treatment over the Muslims – so whatever rules you propose, you have to be willing to abide by the same rules yourself. If you want the right to free speech to criticise Islam, then you have to grant them the right to free speech. If you want the right to freedom of belief to believe what you do, then you have to grant everyone else the same. If you want the right to live within your own culture without outside interference, then everyone else gets the same. If you want the right to walk the streets without being constantly hassled or assaulted for your beliefs, they get that too. If you want the right to insult them and their beliefs, they get the right to insult yours (although frankly, simply setting out the facts and skipping all the childish insults is more persuasive). If you want other people to go out of their way, and take risks, in defence of *your* freedom, especially when they don’t like you or agree with you, then you have to support freedom generally, not just for yourselves. And so on.

    The basic principle of liberty is that *everyone* can say and believe what they like, but they can’t tell other people what to *do*, or do anything to them, except to preserve these freedoms for everyone and prevent non-consensual harm to others. Advocating that, you preserve your own freedom, but you have to allow everyone else theirs too.

    We have lost a certain amount of freedom, largely because society has been persuaded that hate speech is a danger to society, in the same way you want to persuade people Islam is. It should be possible to get it back. But you won’t get it back by arguing for exactly the same sorts of measures to be applied against the groups *you* are concerned about. You can’t argue for your own freedom of speech by demanding *their* beliefs be outlawed and *their* misogynistic/homophobic/anti-Semitic speech banned. You can’t fight an evil philosophy if your own philosophy is just as evil.

    I sympathise with your situation, and I agree Islam is a serious problem we urgently need to defeat. But it’s going to take a very specific means applied over a very long time to defeat it. Banning it is the wrong approach.

  79. “I agree Islam is a serious problem we urgently need to defeat. But it’s going to take a very specific means applied over a very long time to defeat it. Banning it is the wrong approach.”

    Well its all moot. We are past the point at which we can do anything about that won’t cause a civil war. We may still get that civil war at some point, its possible that there will be a reaction to some outrage at some point, and a vote of the magnitude of Brexit will elect a hard man with a mandate to act, but even then it’ll be bloody. But to be honest if blowing up little kids at a concert wasn’t going to do it, then nothing will. The frog is boiled.

    The only thing left to watch is the West slowly being dissolved. I’m just glad I’ll be dead before it comes fully to pass.

  80. @Jim,

    Rational posts.

    .
    A solution:

    Moslems are still living in 800AD

    Western Christians revisit 1600AD and ban Islam. Sentence for guilty: Burning; Hanging; Deportation; Transportation to Rockall.

  81. @NiV

    Yep, Christians/Whites do live in enclaves in Moslem countries.

    However, they don’t rape, murder, bomb, incite sedition, impose Western laws etc.

    When in Rome…

    As I said, you are defending the indefensible and supporting terrorists.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.