The man arrested after the killing of the Labour MP Jo Cox outside her constituency surgery near Leeds was charged early today with her murder.
Tommy Mair, 52, is suspected of decades-long links to far-right groups after police found extremist propaganda during a search of his house in Birstall, West Yorkshire.
He is accused of shooting and stabbing the MP repeatedly as she arrived at her surgery in the town on Thursday. Mr Mair was said to have shouted “put Britain first” before the attack.
The suspect had allegedly been a supporter of National Alliance, the American neo-Nazi group that inspired Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, and has been called “the most dangerous hate group in America”.
Hmm.
Going to be a bit of a leap from there to Leave the EU but no doubt they’ll try.
I was really proud of the official Leave campaign when they called that press conference to roundly condemn UKIP’s racist poster.
“No place is our public discourse for this” said Johnson.
“We disassociate ourselves from this odious, inflamatory imagery” said Gove
Well said those proud public servants
The poster showed a large number of men aged 18-40ish who even the EU has said are mostly economic migrants. They are coming from areas riddled with lunatics and we cannot reliably identify the lunatics from the non lunatics.
It is not (for me) about skin colour. it’s about culture and religion and education. No-one I know is bothered about sikhs or hindus, who are more reliably brown than muslims (who come from every corner of the earth), and we would be quite happy to accept Syrians or Libyans or indeed anyone else on a work permit system (even one which led to citizenship after x years) but we do not want uncontrollable numbers of people from third world hell holes with active animus against the west coming here.
Merkel’s decision to allow them into Germany means an unknown number (but likely to be millions over time) will have EU citizenship by the end of the parliament after next.
They will then have the right to move here, and many will.
That poster merely opens a window on our future.
Anyone who objects to it is essentially sharing responsibility for many future rapes and terrorist attacks and a great deal of lower level misery. If you don’t believe in borders and countries you are a traitor and should be treated accordingly.
> police found extremist propaganda during a search of his house
The Leave campaign flyer?
Interested – that’s pretty racist.
They’re not all rapists and terrorists!
Some of them are also drug dealers.
“No place is our public discourse for this” said Johnson.
Rilly? No place in our public discourse for a picture of ‘migrants’?
What a collection of perfumed pansies the party of Churchill has become.
@TI Steve
I appreciate you’re joking, but I wasn’t suggesting they were all anything. I might be in the minority here, but I think a lot of them are probably just blokes trying to get to a better place. I’d do the same.
However, while I feel sorry for them, my first duty is to my family and my country and some of them will definitely end up as rapists and terrorists (and drug dealers, most of our heroin coming in via Islamic channels).
If we could find any way of sorting the Islamist scum from the non Islamist scum, and then further sorting who might contribute to the UK and who wouldn’t, I’d be okay with it. We can’t.
I would legalise the scag personally, but rape and blowing people up are not legalisable and for that reason the door stays shut (if I were in charge).
Steve – You really aren’t that thick
Dom Cummings way clever. He pretended to have a hissy fit over Peston interviewing Farage. The result was that journos have never really pressed Leave on racism. Why have Johnson and Gove not been more outspoken? They haven’t needed to.
But official Leave are good cop to UKIP’s bad. And it was working a treat until…
The most extreme “far right” group in the UK, and by a wide margin, is…..Islam.!!!!
Interested – Yar. To be honest, I don’t give a toss about their sob stories. They can all fuck off.
Putting aside the threat of crime or terrorism for one moment, why does Britain need them? We have established that most are economic migrants, so asylum can be ruled out.
Why do we need a quarter of a million, half a million mostly uneducated, illiterate young males? Don’t we have lots of them already? What will they actually do for a living?
Rob – don’t be a thick.racist.prick, now.
Can’t you see all the doctors and rocket surgeons in that poster?
They want to come here to pay our pensions and star in our Olympic opening ceremonies.
And the gang-rapes of little girls is a huge misunderstanding. They probably mistook them for hairless boys.
If we’re coming back to that bloody poster, some of us don’t like it purely, purely because it deliberately courted the kind of controversy we’re seeing. If Leave was losing in the last few days then fine, beat the bushes and take a chance. But why do this when you’re winning?
I think ersatz Steve must be a group of paid commentators. There’s no way that much stupid can fit into one person.
Henry Crun: There’s no way that much stupid can fit into one person.
Oh I don’t know, though: look at Richard Murphy. Lots of pies AND lots of stupid.
Henry – I think ersatz Steve must be a group of paid commentators.
My theory is two midgets in a big coat.
“I might be in the minority here, but I think a lot of them are probably just blokes trying to get to a better place. I’d do the same.”
I agree entirely.
“However, while I feel sorry for them, my first duty is to my family and my country and some of them will definitely end up as rapists and terrorists”
Well, yes. Some native born Brits will definitely end up as rapists and terrorists, too. The problem is figuring out how to identify them and punish people for their crimes before they commit them.
It’s hard to prosecute people for crimes they haven’t committed yet (lawyers, eh?), so it’s a lot easier to find some other non-criminal category that is correlated with the crime in question, and prosecute/punish/regulate people for that instead. When there’s pressure on you to “Do Something”, this is at least doable.
So, for example, there are some men who like to get their dicks out in railway carriages and show them to radical feminists. We can’t actually tells which ones will until they do, by which time it’s too late, but we can of course identify the separate category of ‘men’, which is correlated with the category ‘men who get their dicks out for the feminists’. Hence if we introduce restrictions, regulations, and punishments to be imposed against all men, we can be sure of catching most of the exhibitionists.
It’s a generally applicable tactic. To justify the authoritarian restrictions you want to impose on group A, you find some other group B for which other people will agree restrictions are justified, and that overlaps with group A, and then blur the distinction. Restricting the freedom of group A is justified because some of them are members of group B and group B needs restricting. QED.
The sad fact is most rapists are men, most violence is carried out by men, most criminals are men, and most terrorists are men. They’re the obvious and most easily identifiable category to deport and block at our borders if we want to reduce the incidence of rape and terrorism in our country. The logic is inescapable.
The opposing philosophy – that we only restrict the freedom of the actual criminals, not those of any related but in themselves harmless categories – does indeed result in a higher crime rate. Blackstone’s dictum that “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer”, long-regarded as a foundation stone of British Common Law, inevitably lets more guilty people escape justice than the alternatives do. We used to think it was worth the price.
The question is: is that a value we still want to stand for? Is it still “British” to think that way? What ‘British values’ are we fighting to preserve?
But I might be in a minority here.
NiV
Alas, the economic migrants trying to get in are not UK citizens, so that doesn’t apply. They have no right to enter the UK and we have no obligation to let them in.
Again, why does the UK need a quarter of a million uneducated young men from a completely alien culture? Can anyone answer that?
Asked his name the defendant in the dock says “My name is death to traitors, freedom for Britain.”
Rob,
“Why do we need a quarter of a million, half a million mostly uneducated, illiterate young males? Don’t we have lots of them already? What will they actually do for a living?”
That’s not what it’s about. It’s about the proggy mindset of “sharing the wealth”. People who think there’s a magic money tree available. “We’re a rich country” is a very easy thing to say when you own multiple houses or have a couple of good earning jobs.
‘Mr Mair was said to have shouted “put Britain first” before the attack.’
The Remain camp never ceases to tell us that they are fighting for Britain’s interest, so this nutter may simply have been listening to Remainers’ arguments and agreed with them on the importance of putting Britain first.
And yet, Remainers are now trying to claim that arguing in Britain’s interest in fact amounts to hate: which logically means that their own message is one of hate.
Unless they’re now saying that remaining in the EU is *not* in Britain’s interest?
What knots they do tangle themselves into in their sickening efforts to make political capital out of the completely unrelated murder of a young woman.
They have no shame, no decency, no morality and no case.
@NiV
“Well, yes. Some native born Brits will definitely end up as rapists and terrorists, too. The problem is figuring out how to identify them and punish people for their crimes before they commit them.”
Just because we already have native murderers and rapists here doesn’t make a compelling argument to import more of them.
NiV-The bleeding Heart that bleeds verbal diarrhoea.
As far as I can make sense of the bullshit NiV thinks that “innocent until proven etc” means we should let millions of illiterate 18-30 yobs into the UK cos not all of them might be crims.
They all are very likely to have bad attitudes. .As polls asking islamics world-wide show they do. Attitudes which, if a white man expressed them , would lead to mass verbal attack and demands for exclusion from leftist scum.
They are mostly ignorant and illiterate and would be hard pressed to take jobs because they don’t speak the lingo . So the already bankrupt UK govt will have to borrow or print billions more to keep them going. UK natives who pay the taxes get ever less return while the bungling state struggles to stop the failed socialistic systems in this nation from collapsing for a while longer. Including subsidising a breeding campaign amongst those who despise our values and will impose their own barbarity as soon as they can. If you like bikini girl posters to brighten up your Tube journey–tough tittie eh?
NiV is a fuckwit.
As is Dear little Stevie–young snot holder of the Junior CM badge. He hates waycists –unless they hate and are actively trying to destroy white people.
Asked his name the defendant in the dock said “Allah whatever–and from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs”
These nutters –what’ll they say next?
@NiV
“Well, yes. Some native born Brits will definitely end up as rapists and terrorists, too. The problem is figuring out how to identify them and punish people for their crimes before they commit them.”
Yes but this is a cunt’s argument. Of course we have rapists. Do we want more?
These guys are coming from a culture and religious background which does not value women. I grew up in the Middle East and have seen it first hand. I have young daughters. I don’t mind intelligent and educated Muslims coming here – unintelligent (and half will be below average) and uneducated (and few are socially or academically educated in western ways) Muslims I don’t want.
The fact that we have our own stupid and uneducated is no reason to import more.
Mair has just given his name in court as “Death to traitors, freedom for Britain”. So that’s it then.
NiV – on why we should let hordes of (more) kiddy fiddlers, drug dealers and jihadiwadis from the sweaty bumcrack of the planet swarm here and live off us:
Blackstone’s dictum that “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer”, long-regarded as a foundation stone of British Common Law
You are the
Real Ale Twat and I claim my £5.
Ian – Mair has just given his name in court as “Death to traitors, freedom for Britain”
This is what happens when you give your kid a trendy name.
Blackstone’s dictum that “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer”, long-regarded as a foundation stone of British Common Law
I bet he didn’t say better that we let in thousands of useless foreigners than let one innocent suffer
Rob: “Again, why does the UK need a quarter of a million uneducated young men from a completely alien culture? Can anyone answer that?”
Well, maybe to train up in software development?
Lighten Up Ian.
If Brexit depended on a small pack of gutless CM sucking fools who might just have been influenced to vote Leave we have had it anyway.
Johnson’s bullshit about Farages poster is more damaging that the “nutters” narrative. But Johnson is a self-serving traitor who will opt for more re-negotiation and a second vote if Leave wins.
The idea that people wont vote to save their nation because of some nutter who holds “extremist” ideas killed somebody–its beyond stupid. Such gutless worms were never gonna vote for Brexit anyway.
We will be leaving the EU–because the EU will be leaving us. It will collapse. But this is our chance to get out with minimum pain.
Perhaps the population of this country have to have their noses rubbed in the shit before they finally wise up.
Call it the human condition.
Ms Arbuthnot suggested that a psychiatric report should be prepared, saying: ‘Bearing in mind the name he has just given, he ought to be seen by a psychiatrist.’
I wonder if she also pondered why he was being charged at Westminster for a crime that happened in Yorkshire?
They only have a few days to get the propaganda out Julia. Can’t take a chance on provincial bunglers.
Countries like Poland without any Muslims don’t have any problems with Islamic terrorism we should learn from them.
“Countries like Poland without any Muslims don’t have any problems with Islamic terrorism ”
Though to be fair those Catholics were amongst the keenest participants in the Holocaust.
wat – Good point.
To be fairer though, the War of Jenkins’ Ear.
“Alas, the economic migrants trying to get in are not UK citizens, so that doesn’t apply. They have no right to enter the UK and we have no obligation to let them in.”
That’s what we call a labour union closed shop.
“Again, why does the UK need a quarter of a million uneducated young men from a completely alien culture? Can anyone answer that?”
The exact same logic applies to young British-born men entering the workforce at 16. Chavs from the council estates; uneducated, stupid, uncultured, violent, criminal, and breeding like rabbits. Are you proposing to deport them? No?
Then it’s group A being blamed for the trouble caused by group B.
“Just because we already have native murderers and rapists here doesn’t make a compelling argument to import more of them.”
True. But the question is about whether that justifies also blocking import of the *non*-rapists and *non*-murderers among them.
If you allow men from other towns to come to your town, some of them will be rapists and murderers. Is there therefore any good case for allowing it?
“NiV – on why we should let hordes of (more) kiddy fiddlers, drug dealers and jihadiwadis from the sweaty bumcrack of the planet swarm here and live off us:”
Ummm. Chavs from council estates… blah, blah, blah…
“I bet he didn’t say better that we let in thousands of useless foreigners than let one innocent suffer”
The way you control it is the same way you control internal migration; people moving from one town to another. People will only move if there’s a better job waiting for them that they can get. The useless ones won’t come, or won’t stay long if they do, because they can’t get jobs. When the jobs run out, so do the people. And there are only jobs available for as long as it benefits us to offer them.
Free market principles apply just as much to the supply of labour as they do to the supply of any other good. Erecting barriers to trade costs society more than it gains.
“You are the Real Ale Twat and I claim my £5.”
🙂
What could be more quintessentially British than Real Ale? Are you one of those ‘traitors’ who drinks these imported foreign lagers? Tut!
“My name is death to traitors, freedom for Britain.”
Spontaneous ejaculations all round… How jolly convenient.
NiV – What could be more quintessentially British than Real Ale?
Dogging? 🙂
Are you one of those ‘traitors’ who drinks these imported foreign lagers? Tut!
God, no. I’m far worse than that.
I’m one of them namby pamby poncy non-drinkers. When I gave up drinking my dad said “Well don’t expect me to stop, you poof!”
They have no right to enter the UK, and we have no obligation to let them in.
“That’s what we call a labour union closed shop.”
You might. It’s what I call a nation…
IanB
“So that’s it then.”
You cannot know that – yet. And there are no strong and few reasonable grounds for fearing it. Nobody knows, yet. If Remain win by 10%, it will have been irrelevant. If Remain win by 0.01%, then quite probably it will have had some effect.
My hunch is that most people will express sympathy with Mrs Cox’s children and deplore the accused’s alleged actions, but in the privacy of the polling booth will be not be influenced by either. Much as many people will say they want more money spent on public services, but will not vote for higher taxes.
Moreover, people like you who are already declaring that Leave has lost because of Mrs Cox’s murder are unintentionally creating a post-Referendum narrative that will let the Leave campaigns off the hook, if (as has always been likely, though far from certain) Remain wins. Leavers have had decades to get their arguments and organisation ready for a referendum, but they have been divided in the campaign.
NiV–So because we are not deporting our own scum–most of whom have been helped to be what they are by the welfare state and its rotten consequences–mass bastardy etc,–we have no reason not to add to our troubles by importing legions of 18-30 yobs with even worse “values” than our own trash?
We can’t compete with you on logic NiV–you are the man.
But lets try a little experiment first.
We’ll flood where you live with these imports and see how you and your neighbours ( cos –sorry–it isn’t all just about you) get on. No doubt a multi-culti champ like you will get on with them like a house on fire.
After all, to paraphrase what some Buddhist bloke said “The Great Way is not difficult for those who are gutless, crawling, self-abnegating worms”.
@PF
a bit more topical than claiming to be Napoleon Bonaparte and launching into La Marseillaise.
It would seem that he’s a medicated crazy – how much play that gets compared to the attention given to his utterances is going to be interesting.
The BBC aren’t obviously bothered by Contempt of Court at the moment – I’ve just has a “Death to Traitors” ticker on the BBC web front page that didn’t survive being sent to the Wayback Machine.
I think this is a matter where the Wayback MAchine might well prove very useful indeed – and some of the more contentious and nasty stuff is going to get a screen capture for good measure – I urge you all to do the same….
On an earlier thread SMFS had dug this up:
“The Syrian Civil War was one of Cox’s main campaigning issues … she … [argued] … that British military forces could help achieve an ethical solution to the conflict in Syria. … Cox launched the All Party Parliamentary Friends of Syria group, becoming its chair. In the subsequent vote … Cox abstained … as she did not consider the intervention to be part of an effective comprehensive strategy to tackle the Syrian conflict including dealing with President Bashar al-Assad.”
So she was an extreme right-winger, it would seem, keen to invade a country where there was no vital British interest, and orphan Syrian mites. There would have been British soldiers’ mites orphaned too, no doubt.
Why is this fascistic warmonger being accorded secular sainthood? If she’d had her way British forces might have killed more people in Syria than Mussolini did in “pacifying” Libya.
“We’ll flood where you live with these imports and see how you and your neighbours ( cos –sorry–it isn’t all just about you) get on.”
You mean the sink council estate where they moved all those white British benefits scum from the London overspill? Already got them.
It’s a free market.
Ah, I answer my own question. Killing Syrians ad lib would have been fine because it would have been “ethical”. Makes all the difference, don’cha know?
So you live on a sink estate NiV.?
Good for you.
But I somehow doubt it. If you actually were on the receiving end of the shit that goes on in such places–even with just local scum–you would not be so keen on the import of more trouble.
@NiV – what? Is that your argument? Because we can’t get rid of one lot of bad people we have no choice about bringing more in? It’s not MENSA level stuff is it?
NiV,
There is a strong libertarian argument for not allowing millions of Muslims into the country.
That argument being simply that freedom would be snuffed out. There will be no liberty.
Also, your other arguments are ill-reasoned, confused and basically all wrong.
Taking just one example (and that not the most egregious): “Free market principles apply just as much to the supply of labour as they do to the supply of any other good.” Well yes, but there is nothing free market about having to pay welfare payments to immigrants, provide heavily subsidised housing and healthcare, and educate their children for free. As Milton himself said, you can’t have both open immigration and a welfare state.
“So you live on a sink estate NiV.?”
I used to live here:
http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/48226656.jpg
But nowadays I just live close to one. There are a few problem cases, but most of them are actually quite nice people.
“@NiV – what? Is that your argument? Because we can’t get rid of one lot of bad people we have no choice about bringing more in?”
No. It’s that you don’t blame group A for the problems caused by group B.
If you want to stop group B, then by all means go ahead – if you can identify them. But using it as an excuse to persecute and constrain the freedoms of group A – most of who are entirely innocent – is illiberal authoritarianism.
They have no right to come here and they are a drain on us.
Even if not crims they are breeding at our expense and then acting ( and voting) in ways that undermine our freedoms and civilisation– and facilitate a nice life for themselves.
Crim or no they can all bugger off. As can you NiV.
When some Islamic nutters murder people we are told we must address the root causes of their ‘alienation’. When a neo-Nazi nutter murders someone……………..
“When some Islamic nutters murder people we are told we must address the root causes of their ‘alienation’. When a neo-Nazi nutter murders someone…”
… we are told we must address the root cause of their alienation?
That’s what you all seem to be doing, anyway…
Party around NiVs house lads. Coke and hookers. He’ll let us in and buy the drugs, to not do so would be ‘illiberal authoritarianism’
she … [argued] … that British military forces could help achieve an ethical solution to the conflict in Syria
Facepalm.gif
These charidee bints don’t half get some daft ideas.
“If you want to stop group B, then by all means go ahead – if you can identify them”
By asking them ‘Are you a Muslim?’, for example?
Except NiV — that the RoP nutters are part of a worldwide network with millions of active and passive supporters. Approx 20 % of Islamic believers polled worldwide support jihad and bombs. Their own book tells them to do so.
Compare and contrast with one nutter in Batley –who has been denounced by the very groups he is supposed –and supposed is still the word–to have admired.
Lots of people have had a bellyful of the CM elites and the scummy UK/EU establishment of scum. We are trying to change matters peacefully–as with this referendum. Which those same CM scum have bent heaven and earth to try and force or cheat in their direction. By lies, then pathetic threats–and now disgraceful propagandising around the tragic death of one of their own.
“By asking them ‘Are you a Muslim?’, for example?”
‘Muslim’ isn’t the problem. ‘Terrorist’, yes. ‘Rapist’, yes. ‘Slaver’, yes. ‘Paedophile’, yes. ‘Honour killer’, yes. ‘Gay-basher’, yes. ‘Authoritarian’, yes.
“Approx 20 % of Islamic believers polled worldwide support jihad and bombs.”
Cool! Identify that 20% and keep them out, then. The other 80%, you agree, *don’t* support jihad and bombs.
A lot more than 20% of the British support socialism. Do we lock out *all* the British for the sake of that more-than-20%?
Group A. Group B.
Yeah –because those traits are found in zillions of population groups eh NiV?
None have them have anything to do with the RoP right?
Just because they form a cluster of charming habits which are found all together in –which other group in the modern world again NiV?
NiV?….NiV?
“‘Muslim’ isn’t the problem. ‘Terrorist’, yes. ‘Rapist’, yes. ‘Slaver’, yes. ‘Paedophile’, yes. ‘Honour killer’, yes. ‘Gay-basher’, yes. ‘Authoritarian’, yes.”
And how exactly does one go about determining if Abdul who has turned up at Dover has any of the proscribed attitudes? Mind meld? Ask him to give a gay man a blow job? Show him pictures of young children and see if he gets excited?
Now you know the secrets of all hearts eh NiV?
A fellow with that skill should be a billionaire. so how come you aren’t?
The answer is obvious –but the rest of us are not super-mindreaders either.
So we should let them in–even tho’ they are resource-draining freeloaders if not any worse type of harmer–and when they commit crimes we’ll know who is who.
Just fuck off NiV. You are wasting electrons.
“Just because they form a cluster of charming habits which are found all together in –which other group in the modern world again NiV?”
Men. As I pointed out above.
“And how exactly does one go about determining if Abdul who has turned up at Dover has any of the proscribed attitudes? Mind meld?”
Exactly the point I made above. You can’t tell *which* men are the exhibitionists-to-feminists, so ban them all. It’s the same logic the SJWs use, and which you lot (quite rightly) called them out for.
NiV,
“Muslim” is precisely the problem.
Islam is a cruelly oppressive system of control as much as it is a religion.
The evilness of the creed is there in the Koran for all to see. The evilness of Islam in action – in Sharia Law – is sickening in its barbarity and intolerance.
If it were purely a secular movement it would be denounced for the evil that it is. *You* would denounce the followers of such as a blatantly intolerant and barbaric political movement. And yet, as it invokes a magical pixie it gets a free pass. And excuses from you.
The simple truth is that anyone who adheres to a demonstrably evil creed is, by definition, evil. And evil people should be stopped at the border.
All those traits are exclusive to men?
Wrong again mangina.
There are female terrorists, rapists, slaveowners, paedos, acid-splashers, gay-bashers *, and more female authoritarians that you can shake your dick at.
You couldn’t connect with reality if Hell had could you?
* acid splashers, gay bashers–its starting to sound like a Ronnie Barker sketch now.
“Hell had you”
Preview Tim–get a kid to help you if you can’t work the computer yourself.
So let me get this straight – your argument is that because we can’t tell exactly which members of our society are the criminals and anti-social elements (because we aren’t omnipotent and can’t read men’s minds) we must therefore let in hundreds of thousands of Islamic immigrants to add to the criminal and anti-social elements we already have?
Its insane. Forget the pro-immigration/anti-immigration argument. Lets assume that we want lots of immigrants, its just a case of where to let them in from. Wouldn’t it make more sense to draw them from populations that don’t (to your own admission) contain 20% of people who are actively opposed to Western society?
“Islam is a cruelly oppressive system of control as much as it is a religion.”
Yes. If you live in an Islamic society, you had better conform, or you’ll get persecuted. So a lot of people who otherwise wouldn’t have anything to do with it are forced to say they’re a Muslim. The penalty for apostasy (and a whole lot of other things) is death.
Quite a lot of those people would like to get the hell out of there. Quite a lot of those people would much prefer a fake version of Islam which is to *real* Islam what the Church of England is to the Spanish Inquisition. They’ll still say “Yes, I’m a Muslim” because they’ll get cut off by their friends and family if they don’t (possibly literally). But they’re not.
I’m in favour of freedom of belief. I don’t like Islam – for all the reasons you give – but yes, I’ll give a pass to those bits of it that don’t harm anyone else if that lets people avoid persecution.
The liberty argument is the main reason I think so. But there’s a strategic reason, too. The best way to break Islam’s stranglehold is to offer something better. Maintaining cultural contact between the West and Islamic societies spreads Western ideas and ideals through their society. Their kids grow up listening to American pop music and wearing jeans/T-shirts. The next generation will be a lot less inclined towards that sort of traditionalist idiocy. But that only work if we maintain contact, and it works best if we can maintain contact in circumstances *we* control, out of reach of the religious police enforcing orthodoxy.
Osama bin Laden’s argument was that contact with the West was corrupting Islamic society, and he wanted them kicked out. Isolation allows totalitarian states to maintain control. The free exchange of ideas, together with the freedom to follow them, weakens them.
You give everyone the freedom to choose, and then you make sure *your* culture is visibly more attractive, visibly better. And it is. Muslim kids are being Westernised far faster than we’re being Islamicised. It was the same argument they had with the American embargo on Cuba – you could tell which system was better by which way the boat people were all headed.
They’re coming here because they think our society is better. That’s something to build on, not block.
“So let me get this straight – your argument is that because we can’t tell exactly which members of our society are the criminals and anti-social elements (because we aren’t omnipotent and can’t read men’s minds) we must therefore let in hundreds of thousands of Islamic immigrants to add to the criminal and anti-social elements we already have?”
So do you think that just because we can’t tell which *men* are the criminals and anti-social elements, that we should allow *men* to travel from town to town freely?
It’s the same argument.
Unless every street is to become its own fortress we have to take some chances NiVwit.
But to say that we should not stop a crew who are known bad news –free loaders and tyranny supporting voters–even if they aren’t all straightforward crims and rapists–is beyond stupid.
In terms of your own stupid analogy–if we knew a busload of yobs was heading towards town then stopping them and turning them back is a good tactic.
“Unless every street is to become its own fortress we have to take some chances”
Yes. Exactly.
“In terms of your own stupid analogy–if we knew a busload of yobs was heading towards town then stopping them and turning them back is a good tactic.”
Well, that, at least, is consistent.
So long as we’re clear on what you’re policy is – that it’s not just about foreigners; that you’ll apply it to any of the British you don’t like, too.
If an ex-patriot colony of British had been living in the Mid-East long enough to have picked up all the nasty habits of the RoP and then wanted to return “home”–they could fuck off as well.
If the migrants were British in all but colour and had our standards, values and customs their arrival would be of no concern to me. Western civilisation would continue unaltered but in a slightly darker hew. So what.
But don’t come it that that is the case.
They are freeloaders with very bad mores, a bad culture and a lot of very bad habits. As well as supporters of tyrannical and poisonous belief systems. Who have amongst their numbers a substantial percentage of criminals and yobs with even nastier habits than the majority of them.
Ergo they can fuck off–as, once again, can you NiV.
“So do you think that just because we can’t tell which *men* are the criminals and anti-social elements, that we should allow *men* to travel from town to town freely?”
Yes because the positives outweigh the negatives. If all men were confined to barracks so to speak, society would grind to a halt.
Society won’t grind to a halt however if we don’t allow thousands of untrained and illiterate young men in from societies that contains considerable amounts of people who are actively opposed to Western society. In fact Western society will be strengthened in that case, so its a very good idea to do it.
“If the migrants were British in all but colour and had our standards, values and customs their arrival would be of no concern to me.”
A lot of the British have a freeloader culture, too. (The “council estate chavs”, argument…) They also voted in our current crop of politicians. So as long as you openly advocate applying the same rules to them.
“If all men were confined to barracks so to speak, society would grind to a halt.”
You think women can’t do anything men can do? 🙂
“Society won’t grind to a halt however if we don’t allow thousands of untrained and illiterate young men in from societies that contains considerable amounts of people who are actively opposed to Western society.”
British youngsters coming straight out of our modern socialist schools (see all the arguments about grade inflation, modern teaching methods, etc.) are also untrained and illiterate, and hold beliefs opposed to the best interests of Western society.
In fact, quite a lot of the immigrants are a lot better educated than them. Americans. Canadians. Japanese. Australians, New Zealanders. Germans. Swedes. etc. etc.
So how about we have a swap? I’ll let you set educational limits on the newcomers if we can set the same standards on the native-born British. Anyone who doesn’t get at least three STEM A-levels gets kicked out of the country…
Would you vote for that?
NiV,
You are a weapons grade tosser. Quite clearly a nation looks after its not so bright, but that doesn’t mean that you’d import more people who will be heavily dependent on society.
Anyway, who gives a toss? England won a magnificent victory and Wales lost, all is well in the world.
“Quite clearly a nation looks after its not so bright, but that doesn’t mean that you’d import more people who will be heavily dependent on society.”
Thanks for making my point.
All the arguments here are of the form of blaming group A for the sins of group B. Group A being immigrants, Group B being illiterate freeloaders, in this case. When offered the opportunity to discriminate against group B directly, e.g. by setting objective educational standards and deporting anyone who doesn’t meet them, it turns out that you’re not so bothered about Group B after all! You’ll cheerfully pay to support illiterate freeloaders so long as they’re British illiterate freeloaders.
Clearly, it’s still all about your hatred for Group A; bringing up Group B was obviously just a tactic to try to justify it to other people. You don’t actually care about illiterate freeloaders yourself (so long as they’re British), but you think that other people do, (or at least might accept it as an understandable/acceptable position,) and that I’ll somehow miss the logical sleight-of-hand by which you substitute one for the other.
Try coming up with an argument that isn’t just another variant on the Group A / Group B one. Because I’ve already seen that one, and it’s not working. 🙂
“You are a weapons grade tosser.”
…apart from that one! It doesn’t work, either.
🙂
NiV: ‘They’ll still say “Yes, I’m a Muslim” because they’ll get cut off by their friends and family if they don’t (possibly literally). But they’re not.’
Great. Liars. People who’ll say whatever they think will get them what they want.
Yes. We need more of these in the UK.
Do you see any objection, Honorius old boy, to our letting these Anglo-Saxons in? I mean, they’re not all berserkers, and anyway we could use their help against the Picts.
Good point, Antoninus. Let ’em in; what have we got to lose?
NiV we already have a system to discriminate against ‘group B’ only it’s called applying for a fucking visa.
Moronic doesn’t cover it NiV.
Native freeloaders –most of whom are the products of socialism–should be gradually–or in some cases–not so gradually–weaned off the state’s tit.
Go tell your RoP pals that they will be given nothing in this country. Except savage punishment for wrongdoing. And that they WILL learn our language and follow our ways whether they like it or not. And the Tube will be full of tits and London full of gay bars regardless of their wishes because we wish otherwise.
And they will have no vote and no state-subsidised breeding program. Lets see how many even want to come here then.
“NiV we already have a system to discriminate against ‘group B’ only it’s called applying for a fucking visa.”
Do British kids have to apply for a ‘fucking’ visa?
And is that some sort of license to have sex? 🙂
“Native freeloaders –most of whom are the products of socialism–should be gradually–or in some cases–not so gradually–weaned off the state’s tit.”
Hooray! Finally, a solution I approve of!
You are an SJW troll NiV–with a particular hatred for women I think.
Not only do you want them in extra imported danger on the streets , in train stations and public places but you want it fixed so they can’t even hide safely in the ladies bog for all the perverts your bleeding heart bullshit would allow to swarm there.
British kids are the responsibility of Britain. The queue of migrants are not. It really is that simple.
We can and do discriminate on which migrants we allow in not on the colour of their skin but on what they can do for our society. You’re claiming we can’t do that but we do every time someone applies for a working visa. If that queue is full of doctors and nuclear physicists they won’t have a problem.
dearieme got there just before me.
Put another way, if only Bonaparte had clothed his Grande Armee in Bermuda shorts and send them over on day-trip flotillas he’d have had us singing the Marseillese (sp?) without a shot being fired.
“Free market principles apply just as much to the supply of labour as they do to the supply of any other good. Erecting barriers to trade costs society more than it gains.” – NiV.
Trouble is, there’s no free market in labour where a comprehensive welfare state (among other things) exists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlqXgXwzkPg
Spot on.
Also re Brexit–19 minutes–worth watching.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNJ05NfM-4Y
“British kids are the responsibility of Britain. The queue of migrants are not. It really is that simple.”
Sure. But don’t pretend then that it’s their ability to contribute to society that’s the cause of your problem with foreigners. You’re a socialist, for wanting to pay our kids benefits, and a nationalist for discriminating on nationality. It’s a seductive philosophy, but one that’s been tried before!
“You’re claiming we can’t do that but we do every time someone applies for a working visa. If that queue is full of doctors and nuclear physicists they won’t have a problem.”
We do every time someone applies for a job. If they don’t have the skills and qualifications, they don’t get a job, they don’t get any income, and they either starve or go somewhere else their skills are more needed.
The problem for your argument is that they *do* get jobs. They do have the skills we need. (e.g. plumbing!) They can do jobs we want doing, cheaper than we can otherwise do it. Economically, that’s good. From a protectionist/socialist mindset, that’s bad. It’s like the 1970s union closed shop happening all over again.
“Trouble is, there’s no free market in labour where a comprehensive welfare state (among other things) exists.”
Yes! Exactly!
It’s the welfare state that is the problem, not immigration. Fix the root problem, and the other problems will fix themselves.
Most nations around the world get to pick and choose who they allow to settle in their country, they even get to screen asylum seekers. Australia is quite clear that, ordinarily, only the educated with skills useful to Australia are welcome. And why shouldn’t it be? Why import freeloaders when you have enough of your own?
A few genuine refugees who do not fit the desired profile are admitted, but one hardly wants hoards of them. It is more than clear that the probability of successful integration of a person is much lower if that person is a Muslim, so why not use that information and simply refuse to admit most Muslims? I’m certain any poll with the question: should this country reduce Muslim immigration? would be successful in any western country. Most of us just don’t want dumb fuckers with such ridiculous Medieval, barbaric beliefs living alongside us.
I don’t ‘want’ to pay British kids benefits, I’d rather they learned they had to get off their arses to survive. But that has nothing to do with what I said.
You claimed we can’t or don’t discriminate against only the useless/rapey ones and use that as an excuse to be evil Nazis or something. I simply pointed out that we do have a system to do so and anyone is welcome to use it. The system might not be perfect but it’s there and it doesn’t discriminate on skin colour.
I pretty much agree with you otherwise, except we also may want to keep out those who might be economically useful but like the odd gang rape at weekends. Problem is that in reality we do have a welfare state that’s not going to go away before Merkel’s guests do.
“Australia is quite clear that, ordinarily, only the educated with skills useful to Australia are welcome.”
I quite agree. That’s why I say you let employers employ who they like, so they can have the pick of the global market. The bigger the market, the easier it is to find the best.
“It is more than clear that the probability of successful integration of a person is much lower if that person is a Muslim, so why not use that information and simply refuse to admit most Muslims?”
Why not make it legal for employers to use the degree of integration as a criterion for deciding whether to employ someone? It will soon becomes known that better integration pays off, in more and better job offers. They’ll want to integrate voluntarily, out of self-interest. Those that don’t will get out-competed in the job market by those that do.
“Most of us just don’t want dumb fuckers with such ridiculous Medieval, barbaric beliefs living alongside us.”
I agree. But I think the same of some British people with medieval, barbaric attitudes too. I just don’t see why nationality makes a difference to the acceptability of medieval barbarism.
Its a very interesting society NiV is positing here – a country that selects its population not on birth but on a sort of global meritocracy. If you’re born in the UK and there’s someone in Syria who cleverer/more hard working/more honest then sorry son, you’re out, Abdul’s in.
Of course the trouble with this idea is that there’s lots of Abduls already here who would have to be given the boot as well, and I doubt that would go down very well with the usual suspects…………………then of course there’s the problem of what to do with those born here but no longer needed, but I’m sure a good socialist would come up with some sort of solution.
It’s not a matter of economics. Unfortunately many people who would not consider themselves Marxists and even anti-Marxist think, like Marxists, that everything else is superstructural to economics and all you need is the right mode and means of production. A lot of Libertarians end up in this strange ideological place, in my experience. So long as your mode is capitalist and your ownership of the means is private, you get Utopia.
Economics is one consideration, but it is not the structure on which everything else is a superstructure. There are lots of things which are the most economically efficient but not acceptable for other reasons. Euthanasia of the unproductive and eugenics are examples. Slavery may be more efficient in some circumstances than free employment. And so on.
The debate about national sovereignty, democracy and the like cannot be reduced to a discussion of economic outcomes. It’s just the wrong model.
In other news…Lord Guthrie has changed from Remain to Leave…and a French minister has said that the UK would be become like Guernsey if we vote to leave. Also, I am waiting from some drunken outburst by Juncker. So there’s all to play for.
“There are lots of things which are the most economically efficient but not acceptable for other reasons.”
It depends on whether you’re talking about ‘money’ or ‘utility’.
A lot of people (particularly the ‘usual suspects’) tend to think of economics purely in monetary terms, and believe that it ignores all issues of personal preferences, aesthetics, ethics, and so on. We’d replace all the parks and gardens with factories, because factories make money and parks don’t.
But economics is really about solving people’s problems, meeting as many of their needs, desires, and ambitions as can be achieved with precisely the amount of effort we think is worth the benefits. Money is just the tokens we use to keep track of the calculation – all the promises made to do something for others in exchange for the good things they do for us. We like parks. We’ll pay to own land and keep it as a park, even though we don’t get any money back from our investment, because we prefer the park. In utility terms, that’s still a profit.
We paid a lot of money (and blood) to end slavery, because the end result was worth it to us. In economic terms, that’s a straightforward purchase. We wanted something enough to buy it.
Free markets aren’t perfect – mainly because they’re not able to be applied to everything. Public goods and externalities are the classic exceptions. But in the cases where markets *are* applicable, the free market approaches the Pareto optimum allocation of resources. It’s not perfect, but it’s the best thing we’ve got.
Protectionists always want to point to the imperfections of free markets as an excuse for continuing business as usual. But if free markets don’t achieve utopia, protectionism *certainly* doesn’t.
“Its a very interesting society NiV is positing here – a country that selects its population not on birth but on a sort of global meritocracy.”
I don’t think that’s it, exactly. What he’s suggesting is that the overriding priority in British society should be providing employers with opportunities for labor arbitrage, so cheaper foreign labor may be preferred over more expensive domestic labor, even if domestic workers are more productive on a one for one basis.
And culture has utility, if you really want to follow this route. And culture depends on who the people are. So maximising that utility often means restricting access to citizenship.
The example I normally reel out at this point is the Vegan Nudist Commune. It will only retain its identity as a Vegan Nudist Commune if it limits membership to Vegan Nudists. If it is required to allow anyone in, it will rapidly be swamped by Non-Vegan Clothes Wearers, because that’s what most non-members are.
It may be otherwise more efficient to include the omnivorous textiles. You may have higher levels of production in the commune if you do that. But its raison d’etre as a place for vegan nudists will not continue. Thus, the nudist vegans will naturally institute border controls. This is not racism, bigotry or hatred. It is simply maintaining their place as they wish it to be.
And that is what this argument is about. Not the efficiency of businesses.
Theo – a French minister has said that the UK would be become like Guernsey if we vote to leave
That sounds… quite good, actually.
It’s a dire threat if it means Lawrence Whelk moving back to the mainland.
In other, more amusing news:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-36567396
The “People’s Assembly” (whoever the fuck they are – Communist splinter group I imagine) and the Stop the West coalition, contributing a fair chunk of carbon emissions in this ridiculous stunt.
I-Steve
“That sounds… quite good, actually.”
Quite so. And it helps Leave. More, please, Frogsters!
Ecksy – Arnus likes his billet, I suspect: he can be bilious in relative comfort there.
NiV, if you agree that there is no free market in labour – effectively, that we have a welfare problem more fundamentally than we have an immigrant problem – why do you argue for unrestricted immigration before or in the absence of arguing for the abolition or drastic restriction of welfare?
It’s a nice theory – but it clearly isn’t working out that way. The current generation of Muslims is the most westernized in history – they’ve grown up with pop music and blue jeans (and TVs and iPhones). It’s also the most determined and aggressive in promoting Muslim fundamentalism and expansionism in the last three or five centuries, which is directly contradictory of this expectation.
“so cheaper foreign labor may be preferred over more expensive domestic labor, even if domestic workers are more productive on a one for one basis.”
If they’re more productive, they’ll be cheaper to employ. Productivity is the ratio of outputs to inputs. Goods produced per pound spent. Any businessman will cheerfully pay twice the salary for four times the output. They won’t pay twice the salary for 10% more output.
“The example I normally reel out at this point is the Vegan Nudist Commune.”
Sure. If you own the land, or the business, or whatever, you can accept who you want. If you own a business in Britain, you shouldn’t have to employ cheaper foreign immigrants if you don’t want to. Your costs will be higher, but that’s your choice. Maybe the utility you gain from the restriction is worth the higher price you pay as a result. Competition will decide the matter.
The issue is when you tell businesses that you *don’t* own that they’re not allowed to employ foreign workers either, or buy foreign goods, or let foreign people live in their houses or walk on their land.
It’s not your land. They’re not your goods. It’s not your business.
NiV-
That argument applies only if you’re taking the anarcho-capitalist approach that the nation state has no validity. If you do believe there is such a thing as a nation and a people (and many do, including myself) then the nation state is a communal or tribal property, like the Vegan Nudist commune (which may also have internal private property within it).
Humans are natural tribalists. There was the tribal land long before the idea of dividing it up into plots (for agriculture, basically). There is Us, and there is Not Us.
If you want to abolish the nation state and any such communal land holdings, fine, that’s a valid position. But it’s not a rational position to desire nation states without borders.
The other point being that if you did attempt an anarcho-capitalism type approach, you’d rapidly end up with communalisations of property as people segregate into communities of “people like us”, which would be to all intents and purposes micro-nation states. And then you’re back where you started, telling them to open their borders so that business can be more efficient, and round and round we go.
People who say ‘after the murder of Jo Cox, how could anyone vote for Leave?’ should be very careful, for they are effectively saying ‘political assassinations should be allowed to influence political decisions’.
Not a precedent anyone should want to set.
“It’s also the most determined and aggressive in promoting Muslim fundamentalism and expansionism in the last three or five centuries, which is directly contradictory of this expectation.”
It’s not half as aggressive and determined as the expansionism of Western culture.
Cultures evolve, like species do, by conflict and survival of the fittest. Isolate yourself from predators, and it’s like those birds that live on tropical islands – they turn into dodos. Our culture was built on a world empire, with *plenty* of experience dealing with restive natives, and accelerated its cultural power exponentially as it switched to the globalised economy. You think some medieval theocrat loons have a chance against that?
Our culture and our technology go together – they are equally powerful, because people can easily see that adopting one is their path to acquiring the other. They can no more defeat us culturally with their ability to recite the Qur’aan than they could defeat stealth bombers and missile-armed drones with their AK47s.
It takes time. Cultures change as each generation grows up and learns how to live in its environment. It will probably take another 50 years for the economic prosperity that goes with the culture to spread that far. They’ll make a lot of noise in the meantime, but 50 years ago there were virtually no Westernised Muslims, and now there are lots of them. They’re already losing.
Frankly, I’m a lot more worried by the authoritarian slippage in our own societies (the SJWs and their ilk) than I am by the beardies.
“But it’s not a rational position to desire nation states without borders.”
All I’m doing is taking the position we currently hold with respect to goods and services, and applying it to the market for labour.
If I want to buy a book, I go on Amazon and see who does it cheapest. I can get 10% off by buying it from a shop in the US? Great! Ship it tomorrow. The world did not end because I no longer have to buy British. In fact, the world does a lot better.
So why should that be any different when I want to buy the services of a labourer? When I buy goods from abroad I’m buying the product of foreign labour, just the same. It so happens that sometimes it’s more efficient to bring the labourer over here to do the work. Is there any advantage to erecting barriers to trade to specifically prevent me doing it more efficiently? (Go read Bastiat’s Sophisms again if you want reminding of the answer to this one.)
It’s true that nation states evoke strong feelings among their members. Back in the 1970s, labour unions did the same. People spoke about supporting the brotherhood of the workers, and had feelings of loyalty and pride for it very much like nationalism. The ‘scabs’ who crossed the picket lines and broke their monopoly were viscerally hated, the same way immigrants are today. The economic principle was the same, too. Legislate so that only members of the union can supply a particular service, and with the legal monopoly the price will go up, and the members will be able to demand higher wages. It’s the same argument as legislating that only members of a particular nation can work here, so local wages will be kept higher.
We know how well unionism worked for the economy of the 1970s. Nation states are doing the same thing, albeit more mildly, today.
It’s basically just common garden protectionism – socialist flavour. And yes, people are very much attached to it emotionally, just as they’re attached to socialist policies. That doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.
Is it rational to wish for a world without unions? Arthur Scargill would have said no.
They can’t defeat us in ANY way other than numerical takeover-from-within and they can’t do that without the conNiVance of the scum of the left, numb-nuts fellow travellers like you and the gormless, media-created passivity of the AFCs. “Move on–nothing to see hear(sic)”.
And –as Cohagen said “You’re fucking making it happen”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBYwCoCLj7g
No you’re not, you’re applying it to people, and that’s where your argument breaks down. Labour is a service that people can supply. But you are not importing “labour”, you are importing people who may supply labour and that is a different thing entirely.
If you can’t see the difference, try discussing slavery as “buying and selling labour”. It isn’t. It’s buying and selling people which we all (hopefully) find repugnant.
It’s different because people are agents whereas goods and services are not. We do not have to consider the values, rights and entitlements of goods and services because they don’t have any. If you can find a way to siphon off the labour from the person and put it in a bottle, well done and feel free to ship your bottles of labour back and forth at will. Until then, this is about the person, a complete package of agency, identity, values and numerous other characteristics and you have to consider it on those terms.
Apparently we have to let all these young men in because they are in fear of their lives and fleeing a war zone.
If/when ISIS is defeated won’t that description for all the ISIS soldiers? I do hope the SHE’s have lots of spare rooms.
SJWs
C’mon: hard line Muslims aren’t all bad. Here, they’re behaving just as you or I would: http://news.sky.com/story/1713869/extremists-attack-radiohead-fans-in-turkey
“No you’re not, you’re applying it to people, and that’s where your argument breaks down.”
No. I employ the person for their labour. That person then employs a landlord to supply a house, supermarket staff to supply food, the water company to supply water and sewerage services, and so on. The person employed carries out certain transactions as a cost of doing business, in order to provide the service I want.
The issue with slavery it’s that it’s not a voluntary transaction for mutual benefit, which is what is required for free trade to converge on that optimum allocation. In this case, it *is* voluntary and for mutual benefit.
I I go on holiday to Orlando in Florida, I engage in a transaction with a foreign company for their labour – but instead of me shipping them over here for them to supply me with the service, they ship me across to them, to supply me with the service on their home turf. Is the package holiday industry therefore a form of slavery, since it’s shipping people as commodities around the globe?!
All trades are bidirectional – both sides give and take.
Can’t be bothered about reading every post but to pick up on something NiV said above:
What’s un-libertarian about discrimination? Libertarianism is supposed to be about being free to chose. If we chose to discriminate against Muslim immigration, it’s entirely libertarian to do so. As it would be to chose not to buy goods from Israel or eat GM rice or listen to rap music or shop on Amazon or search on Google or vote Labour or donate to Greenpeace. There’s a market in immigrants & we chose not to invest in Muslims. .
“What’s un-libertarian about discrimination? Libertarianism is supposed to be about being free to chose.”
You want to read my 7:04 reply to Ian B’s Vegan Nudist Commune.
But as I said, you can’t import labour. You have to import people. And the rest of the person is now part of the society, even if you are only interested in their labour.
As I said, if you can figure out a way to import just their labour (actually, teleworking is this; get them to email their production to you) great. But you’re not arguing for labour to be free to cross borders, you are arguing for people to cross borders.
And I was not arguing that immigration or anything else is slavery. I’m not sure if you misunderstood me or are being deliberately obtuse. I was using slavery as an example of why persons are distinct from goods and services and you cannot use arguments which are legitimate for one with regard to the other.
As I intimated above, this view as humans equalling labour is the same error as the marxists, for whom economics explains everything. Or the post-marxists, for whom class power relations explain everything. This thing isn’t about economics. Stop thinking about economics. It’s nothing to do with frickin’ economics.
“You have to import people.”
The only people who “import” people are the airlines.
When I employ a foreign person, I don’t buy their plane ticket, or pay their rent. *They* do that. They ‘import’ themselves. Once they’re here, I simply employ them like I would do anyone else living here.
We do it already with foreigners working on a visa. The only difference is being able to do it without a chitty from the government saying my employee is allowed to live here and work here if he wants.
We do it already when someone living in Newcastle moves to Manchester to work for a company there. The Manchester company has not ‘shipped’ the employee from Newcastle to Manchester as a chattel. It’s the same thing.
National boundaries are just like town boundaries, only drawn with a thicker pencil.
“I’m not sure if you misunderstood me or are being deliberately obtuse.”
I guess I misunderstood, if that’s what you intended.
@NiV
I think I’d give you the same reply as IanB. If I felt obliged to give you a reply. Which I don’t. As a libertarian I don’t feel obliged to justify my choices. My discrimination. They’re my choices.
At which point your whole argument collapses because I haven’t the slightest interest in listening to it. They’re your choices, not my choices.
Guestworker programs can be kind of like importing labour only, depending on how they’re run. Imigration obviously encompasses a lot more that that, particularly within the context of a social welfare state like the UK.
NiV-
You’re just playing with words now. It doesn’t have any significance whether you move them or they move themself. The issue is the crossing of a boundary.
Which comes back to whether our Vegan Nudists may have a fence and decide who comes through their gate, or not. And I rather think they have that right of setting a boundary.
Maybe I’m getting old, but I find I’m increasingly giving responses like the one above. I spent (wasted) about 2 hours listening to someone badgering on about why I should do something would be distinctly in their interest. And I repeatedly asked, why would I want to do this? What’s in it for me? In two hours I wasn’t presented with a single reason. I’d say much the same to NiV..
Which is completely orthogonal to the argument you were making, that closer daily contact with the west would moderate muslim fundamentalism. Which was dead wrong, and which you seem to have given up defending.
“At which point your whole argument collapses because I haven’t the slightest interest in listening to it. They’re your choices, not my choices.”
Your choices are your choices. My choices are my choices. You’re saying that you can legislate to get the government to force my choices on me. How is that libertarian?
If you choose not to employ foreigners, that’s your choice. What if *I* want to? Where’s *my* choice?
“You’re just playing with words now. It doesn’t have any significance whether you move them or they move themself. The issue is the crossing of a boundary.”
Why is that an issue?
Why is it *not* an issue if we draw the boundary around Manchester, instead?
I don’t understand what your objection is. Unless it’s that the state owns the people, or something. (Does Manchester not ‘own’ the Mancunians, then?)
“Which comes back to whether our Vegan Nudists may have a fence and decide who comes through their gate, or not.”
Yes, if they own the land.
But I have a fence around *my* land and I want foreigners to be able to come through it and work for me. By the same principle that the Vegan Nudists own the rights over their boundary, why do I not own the rights over mine?
How come the state gets to tell me I can’t trade with certain selected people? Why don’t they get to tell the Vegan Nudists they’re not allowed to discriminate against clothed carnivores? Or the Mancunians that they can’t employ people from Newcastle without government permission?
“If you choose not to employ foreigners, that’s your choice. What if *I* want to? Where’s *my* choice?”
I choose not to let them into my country. So you can’t chose to employ them. As I said, what’s in it for me?
“I choose not to let them into my country. So you can’t chose to employ them. As I said, what’s in it for me?”
You ‘own’ the country? Including my bit of it?
Isn’t this collectivism?
If you choose not to employ foreigners, that’s your choice. What if *I* want to? Where’s *my* choice?
Maybe this works in some kind of ideal libertarian/Randian utopia, but your choices affect other people in the real world.
If you bring in 100 immigrant fruit pickers or whatever because you can pay them low wages, who pays for all the social services that their families consume? You? No, not you. Some other taxpayer…maybe some other employer who doesn’t benefit from cheap immigrant labor. So they subsidize your cheap fruit pickers…is that fair?
Yep, dcardno is right. It’s pretty obvious that this fond hope of greater exposure to Western values making people more like Westerners is a fantasy.
“If you bring in 100 immigrant fruit pickers or whatever because you can pay them low wages, who pays for all the social services that their families consume?”
If you bring 100 people down from Newcastle to Manchester to work, who pays for all their social services?
As a rule, the immigrants themselves do. They pay taxes, the same as everyone else, and on average pay in slightly more than they take out.
The “cost to the taxpayer” is a bad argument, anyway. It’s the same one the health nazis use to ban smoking, due to the cost to the NHS. First because it introduces authoritarianism by the back door. If the government promises to pay you for drinking until you’re sick, they can justify banning you from drinking due to the “cost to the taxpayer”. Elegant, but bogus! And second, it implies a sort of “you should get out what you pay in” equivalence which is entirely antithetical to the basis and purpose of welfare. The richest 3,000 people in Britain pay more income tax than the bottom 9 million. So almost *all* of us get out more than we pay in. If that’s so bad, why isn’t it bad when *we* benefit? Why do those 3,000 have to subsidise *your* business?
Is that “fair”?
NiV, you seem to be saying that nations, with borders, do not, or should not, exist.
If that’s a correct interpretation of your position, what do you say about plundering and pillaging hordes? They’re ok so long as they cross the “border” peacefully, after which they’re just part of the general law and order problem that we’d have anyway?
“I spent (wasted) about 2 hours listening to someone badgering on about why I should do something would be distinctly in their interest. ”
Vodaphone are being a real pain in the arse at the moment. Forward socialism.
“NiV, you seem to be saying that nations, with borders, do not, or should not, exist.”
No. I’m saying that under free market principles the government shouldn’t interfere in the market for labour, any more than they should for any other goods and services being traded internationally. The free movement of labour works like the free movement across borders of food, or books, or steel, or whatever. It’s the same as the argument against tariffs and subsidies, or bans on international trade generally. It’s all the same stuff Bastiat was going on about so long ago.
Whether there are other legitimate, non-substitutable roles for government, besides interfering with free trade, is a separate topic. I’m not saying there are not.
Ok, so there are nations with borders and governments charged with maintaining those borders.
Do you then say that as long as a million vigorous young man do not cross those borders in uniform then, no matter what they get up to once they’re here, it’s fine because that’s just an economic exchange?
My point is, while I agree with you that the absence of a welfare state, minimum wage, etc., is likely the best solution, you appear to have abolished the concept of invasions.
I struggle to see how abolishing that concept is helpful, from any point of view.
All fantasy bullshit NiV.
There is not going to be any experiment with anarcho-capitalism using millions of 18-30 yobs with bad attitudes, low IQs and already hag-ridden by one of the two worst belief systems on the planet.
The most your stupidity can do is facilitate demographic takeover of the West by the RoP.
If there is to be a future for mankind the state must go. But the hope of that is in the gradual awakening of mankind not fucking stupid Grand Plans from nitwits whose cups run over with schemes for the better organising of us all. Either EU or the troubled brain of NiV- Age 22 and a quarter.
“Do you then say that as long as a million vigorous young man do not cross those borders in uniform then, no matter what they get up to once they’re here, it’s fine because that’s just an economic exchange?”
Is it voluntarily agreed and mutually beneficial activity? No? Then it’s not free market economic exchange.
You seem to be saying that the principle of free trade necessarily implies the freedom of Amazon to ship parcel bombs to everyone in the world. No, I really don’t think so.
Haven’t you guys ever come across the arguments for free trade, before? Here. Read this. http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/bastiat-economic-sophisms
“As a rule, the immigrants themselves do. They pay taxes, the same as everyone else, and on average pay in slightly more than they take out.”
That’s obviously nonsense. The reason you’re hiring them is that you don’t have to pay them much, do you think low-age workers pay enough in tax for all the services they consume?
What you’re advocating is known as privatising the profits and socializing the costs.
Its like talking to a fucking brick wall with this one.
Turn back to the Paul Joseph Watson vid I posted earlier and re watch a hall full of self-declared “moderate” muslims declaring by near unanimous vote that gays must be executed. And that this is a mainstream Islamic viewpoint. Then tell me what that has to do with freedom, free trade or free markets.
Meanwhile, Remain is now back in the lead. What a surprise.
“That’s obviously nonsense.”
See chapter 6 here:
http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Immigration/
It’s rather old, and the free version doesn’t have the tables, but the economic understanding of immigration applies more generally and still today.
Julian Simon was of course the guy who had the argument with Paul Ehrlich and the environmentalists about resources runnig out and over-population. He was right about that one, too.
“The reason you’re hiring them is that you don’t have to pay them much, do you think low-age workers pay enough in tax for all the services they consume?”
A lot of immigrants are *not* such low wage earners, same as with native people.The richer immigrants pay for the poorer ones, just as the richer natives pay for the poorer natives.
Like I said, it works the same way when people move from Newcastle to work in Manchester. Who pays for the services they consume? It’s no different.
Services provided by businesses are paid for through the money they charge their customers. More customers means more business. Government services are paid for by taxes levied on the population as a whole – both rich and poor. Same applies with rich and poor immigrants. People like the Hinduja brothers, Lakshmi Millal, Prakash Lohia, the Arora brothers, Anil Agarwal, Ranjil Boparan, Jasminder Singh, or Anwar Pervez are all worth more than a billion each, and they’re all immigrants. You reckon you pay more tax than they do?
NiV,
– ” I’m saying that under free market principles the government shouldn’t interfere in the market for labour, any more than they should for any other goods and services being traded internationally. The free movement of labour works like the free movement across borders of food, or books, or steel, or whatever. It’s the same as the argument against tariffs and subsidies, or bans on international trade generally.”
It’s not about free markets, it’s about freedom. And they are not always synonymous.
Britain fought expensive hot and cold wars in the last century to maintain democracy, but apparently all the Communists and Nazis had to do was take off their uniforms and walk into the country. Because to stop them would be to interfere with labour movement.
Uncontrolled and uncontrollable Muslim immigration is a severe and immediate threat to British democracy and British freedoms. If they were trying to enforce their creed through the sword you’d take issue with it, but the fact that they instead just plan on walking in and perpetually voting away individual liberty is somehow acceptable to you.
So you’re entirely misunderstanding the issue if you think it’s about choosing the path of greatest prosperity. It isn’t. It’s about individual liberty.
“Turn back to the Paul Joseph Watson vid I posted earlier and re watch a hall full of self-declared “moderate” muslims declaring by near unanimous vote that gays must be executed.”
You didn’t seem so terribly fond of them, yourself. I’m not going to be lectured at by *you* on LGBT rights.
one day -as you get older – you might realise that bigotry and racism looks out for you in a way that all other ‘isms won’t.
“Britain fought expensive hot and cold wars in the last century to maintain democracy, but apparently all the Communists and Nazis had to do was take off their uniforms and walk into the country.”
… and get jobs. Anyone here got jobs for ten million Nazis?
All they really had to do was go on holiday. That’s far easier.
“one day -as you get older – you might realise that bigotry and racism looks out for you in a way that all other ‘isms won’t.”
Yes. They might decide to target *you* with their bigotry and racism.
(As with the SJW pursuit of white male conservatives and homophobes… Beware of the precedents you set.)
I’m just going to point out again that labour and people are not synonymous. Labour is one of the things that people (may) do. They are not the same thing.
“I’m just going to point out again that labour and people are not synonymous.”
Yes, I agree.
“Labour is one of the things that people (may) do. They are not the same thing.”
I agree with that too. But what’s your point?
If a Manchester company employs a Newcastle man, and he moves to Manchester to live when he does so, is the Manchester company buying the labour or the man? If he instead moves from New York to Manchester, why is this different?
I seriously have no idea what you’re talking about.
“You didn’t seem so terribly fond of them, yourself. I’m not going to be lectured at by *you* on LGBT rights”
Getting a bit hot under the collar numb-nuts?
Prob being unable to face having your hypocrisy pointed out to you.
You can’t be the big LGBT defender while advocating the forced import of millions of gay-haters and potential gay criminalisers.
And you are correct. I don’t think much of sodomy at all. But I am seemingly much kinder and more concerned about the lives of gays than a rambling nutlob like you. You are after all the one determined to let the biggest anti-gayers anywhere flood this country.
And you are anti-woman as well for the same reason –as I pointed out in an earlier post.
You are much too thick to be “lectured” by anybody
“Prob being unable to face having your hypocrisy pointed out to you.”
Doesn’t seem to bother you. Why would you think it would bother me?
“You can’t be the big LGBT defender while advocating the forced import of millions of gay-haters and potential gay criminalisers.”
Personally, I’m in favour of importing them and converting them to gay-tolerance! 🙂 That seems far better than leaving them as they are.
The rules here are that they have to tolerate gays. We (as a country) impose it on the British, so we impose it on Muslims too. So we *are* in fact challenging their cultural depravity. What are *you* doing that’s half as effective?
It’s not quite how I’d like to do it – I’d rather lead by example and persuasion, instead. But it does at least offer the prospect of a solution.
Forcing somebody to obey a law is not the same as changing their mind, NiV. Native minds actually do change, because of conformity to preferential social values. For many immigrants, the social values they care about are not those of Britain, but of their ethno-religious community. In other words, a different peer group.
The sad thing about Progressives is that they don’t understand why their “reform” programmes have been successful in their host cultures, and thus fail to understand why they won’t work on other cultures.
“Personally, I’m in favour of importing them and converting them to gay-tolerance! That seems far better than leaving them as they are.”
Working well isn’t it numpty. You are some kind of wet-behind-the -ears babyboy. 15 year-olds might be dumb enough to believe the shit you sling. As a solution for the miserable state this nation–and the world–is in, bullshit is the only adequate description.
Also as for hypocrisy–you don’t have to like any group to advocate that they not be murdered or jailed for engaging in consenting activity with their fellows (no pun intended). Shame your pals don’t share that viewpoint–go review the video again–as many times as it takes to sink into your thick skull.
Got a timetable worked out for the repentance, contrition and amends-making of your RoP friends yet?
“Forcing somebody to obey a law is not the same as changing their mind, NiV. Native minds actually do change, because of conformity to preferential social values.”
Agreed. I don’t like the way the SJWs are doing it. But the provocation of the SJWs and MPWs like Ecks here make it all but inevitable. The SJWs can justify their authoritarianism to the rest of society by the intransigence of the gay-haters.
Just as Ecksy tries to justify his hatred of Muslims to me now by appealing to their murderous treatment of gays, so the SJWs can justify their hatred of conservatives by appealing to the conservatives’ similarly appalling treatment of gays, such as Ecksy’s fine display of it earlier. The irony is thick enough to iron shirts with.
The conversion part sounds reasonable. It also sounds reasonable to me that we should wait for the tolerance programme to succeed before letting them into western Europe and the UK.
Well, I was supporting gay rights before it was fashionable, so you don’t get me on that hook.
But my point wasn’t complaining about how the SJWs work, it’s that they don’t understand why what they do works. Their approach works very well in the guilt-moderated European Christian culture (especially Northern European protestants). It doesn’t work (well, in my opinion) at all well on people with other cultural heritages- firstly because they are shame rather than guilt cultures, and secondly because they do not consider themselves to be in the same peer group as I intimated above. And thirdly because Human Universalism is a uniquely Christian concept. And fourthly, because no-one expects the Spanish Inquisition.
People really don’t grasp how different Christendom and Islam are in terms of social forces.
“Just as Ecksy tries to justify his hatred of Muslims to me now by appealing to their murderous treatment of gays, so the SJWs can justify their hatred of conservatives by appealing to the conservatives’ similarly appalling treatment of gays, such as Ecksy’s fine display of it earlier. The irony is thick enough to iron shirts with.”
Again off to the races.
I don’t think highly of sodomy but you are working to have gays criminalised or murdered. You can talk a lot of shit about re-educating the RoP but short of re-education commissar style you know that is a non-starter. And not even then. Or you truly are the epic junior-school dickhead you appear to be and then some.
Strangely I struggle to remember the last time a “conservative” murdered 49 homosexuals in cold blood–but there must be lots of such incidents I have forgotten because young NiV says conservatives treatment of gays is just as bad as Islam’s.
As for the SJWs whose fellow traveller you are–most of their problems stem from trouble with middle-class Mummy and Daddy. Socialist horseshit is just a displacement activity.
” It also sounds reasonable to me that we should wait for the tolerance programme to succeed before letting them into western Europe and the UK.”
It would be nice, wouldn’t it?
Unfortunately, it requires extensive exposure to Western culture to achieve it. That’s happening slowly in Muslim countries – they’re sensitive to the criticism, and have started on providing equality for women, and ending slavery. LGBT rights will take a little longer.
We can achieve much more comprehensive exposure in the West, though, holding a majority, and with control of the actual laws and their enforcement. Westernisation proceeds many times faster in the West.
Personally, I’m confident that Western culture is much stronger and more resilient, and more used to interacting with other cultures. It’s like putting stealth bombers up against bows and arrows. But it’s uncomfortably slow – operating on a timescale of generations.
Ecksy and his pals, and their racist, misogynistic homophobia are passing the same way. They’ll likely not be converted themselves, but eventually they all get old and die, and the new generation makes a fresh start. It works the same way that *we* passed from the homophobia of the 1950s (like the way we treated Alan Turing) to our far more enlightened attitudes today. It didn’t happen because we were all persuaded intellectually, and then when it was safe the gays all came out into the sunlight. It happened because they came out anyway, challenged and conflicted violently with society, and we eventually got used to them. (It helped that they were such good musicians and entertainers. They were good to us, so we feel more obliged to be good to them in return.)
If we can do it to ourselves, we can do it to the Muslims the same way. I’m not sure if we can do it to Ecks. He’s definitely more like an Islamic fundamentalist beardy type!
NiV, you’re overlooking the fact that despite your Whiggish enthusiasms, social “progress” isn’t naturally forwards. As I have often pointed out regarding the liberalism of the 1960s and 1970s which went into hard reverse in the 80s such that we’re now under the Puritans again.
You may also want to note that the “homophobia” was ignited in the late 19th century by the, er, Progressives with their never-ending cleaning up society programme.
Alan Turing by the way ended up where he was because this man in his late 40s picked up a teenager for sex, who he then tried (ineptly) to frame for burgling his home. Remind me again about current enlightened attitudes to middle aged men having sex with teenagers, will you?
You see, there isn’t an arrow of Whiggish progress. It’s a drunkard’s walk. Calling wherever we are now as automatically more “enlightened” is the Texas Sharpshooter in action. Clement Freud (if the story is true) probably thought it was more enlightened to introduce a 14 year old into his marriage bed with his wife, to hell with those silly stuffy old conservatives and their morals, etc.
Mass immigration from different cultures is simply the most obvious means to undermine what liberalism we still have left. It is the height of arrogance to think you can reprogramme tens of millions of people to accept your values. And by the time you recognise your hubris, it will be too late.
So its the Arnold ploy now is it? Don’t engage with points made just keep repeating the same shite over and over.
“We can achieve much more comprehensive exposure in the West, though, holding a majority, and with control of the actual laws and their enforcement. Westernisation proceeds many times faster in the West.”
Noise that tale about in Orlando numb-nuts. See if they agree with you.
“Personally, I’m confident that Western culture is much stronger and more resilient, and more used to interacting with other cultures. It’s like putting stealth bombers up against bows and arrows. But it’s uncomfortably slow – operating on a timescale of generations.”
Me,me,me.” I’m much more confident”– blah.blah. What about what everybody else has staked in your little game ego boy? Their lives, families, futures etc–it should all ride on your genius level intellect should it.?
“Ecksy and his pals, and their racist, misogynistic homophobia are passing the same way. They’ll likely not be converted themselves, but eventually they all get old and die, and the new generation makes a fresh start. It works the same way that *we* passed from the homophobia of the 1950s (like the way we treated Alan Turing) to our far more enlightened attitudes today. It didn’t happen because we were all persuaded intellectually, and then when it was safe the gays all came out into the sunlight. It happened because they came out anyway, challenged and conflicted violently with society, and we eventually got used to them. (It helped that they were such good musicians and entertainers. They were good to us, so we feel more obliged to be good to them in return.)”
Arrogance off the scale. The whole world is going to see the light that shines out of this little SJWs arsehole. Including a crew that has been in the people-bashing business for 1400 years. Go to the video yet again and take a look at your potential new recruits for your reformed Village People band. Look at their faces. I would love to see you trying to sling your shite at them in person NiV. And the media photos of your bashed-up face that would rapidly follow.
“If we can do it to ourselves, we can do it to the Muslims the same way.”
No you can’t you stupid arrogant little prick. Most people in the West are tolerant of homosexuals these days because they have become indifferent to their existence. They don’t endorse the activity beyond saying people should be free to do their thing with other volunteers. They also don’t sit around all day imagining blokes sticking their dicks up each others stained arses and thinking “What a marvellous lifestyle”. They mostly don’t think about gays at all. That is tolerance not some glorious Revolution. The jumped up, in-your-face obnoxious turds at Stonewall still annoy a lot of people–as do all sanctimonious preachers like you.
“I’m not sure if we can do it to Ecks. He’s definitely more like an Islamic fundamentalist beardy type”
I’ll prob be gone in 20 years tops. So I will miss the worst of it. But there will be–unless turds like NiV are defeated and thrown down– 40-50 million islamics in this country–the majority. And the white population will be the one undergoing “persuasion” from the people-bashers.
Lets hope NiV is still around to get his share of the pain.
NiV,
– “Personally, I’m in favour of importing them and converting them to gay-tolerance! That seems far better than leaving them as they are.”
Written in the same week that 50 gays were massacred by a Muslim in Orlando.
And how is this policy of yours working for Europe’s Jews, fleeing in record numbers thanks to large-scale Muslim immigration?
I respect people who leave Islam, and once upon a time Britain provided a safe refuge for those fleeing violent oppression and persecution. What they didn’t do was fling open the doors to the murderous persecutors themselves.
You propose letting in them in by the millions on economic grounds, but then admit it is not an economic proposition at all in the presence of a welfare state. Then you propose admitting them by the millions on the grounds that they will be converted, but there is no equivalent of the de-nazification program. On the contrary, their evil creed is pandered to at every level. You are simply spreading the disease.
You come across as a teenager who has read some snippets of classical liberal thought on the Internet but who, in place of synthesising them, is capable only of proudly regurgitating them here unexamined.
Islam is unreformable because its adherents believe that the Koran is the word of Mohammed’s made up god, Allah. Consequently, Islam must remain an evil, barbaric, Medieval cult for all time. Some Muslims may choose to live their lives as if this were not the case, but it is not because of some different, peaceful interpretation of the Koran, it’s because they choose to dilute their faith. Islamic violence will never go away because that is the nature of Islam. Muslims in the West are always at risk of being persuaded that they are not being true Muslims by people simply using the words of the Koran.
Actually, it isn’t happening at all – repeating the same bullshit doesn’t make it true. What we actually see in muslim countries is that increasing exposure to western culture has increased the intent and the ability to strike out against western civilization. Unfortunately, we see the same pattern in muslims accepted into western countries as refugees: the first generation are grateful – the second generation are resentful and violent.
“Do you then say that as long as a million vigorous young man do not cross those borders in uniform then, no matter what they get up to once they’re here, it’s fine because that’s just an economic exchange?”
Is it voluntarily agreed and mutually beneficial activity? No? Then it’s not free market economic exchange.
**That is sleight of-hand, NiV. I am quite sure you understand that I am suggesting a subterfuge in which the voluntarily agreed and mutually-beneficial economic activity gives way to something more sinister. And we don’t need jobs for all those Grande Armee soldats or Wehrmacht squaddies, all we need is hotel rooms and flat shares, while they pick up their stipends from [insertevilforeigndictatornameofchoice]**
You seem to be saying that the principle of free trade necessarily implies the freedom of Amazon to ship parcel bombs to everyone in the world. No, I really don’t think so.
**I’m saying that on the principle you advance, namely that I do not get to say who comes to my country because what-do-I-know-about-who-is-desirable and anyway it’s-only-my-country-to-the-extent-that-I-own-a-bit-of-it, human suicide bombs (not parcel bombs) are, especially in the absence of a free market in labour, inevitable. Besides which, your switch from free movement of humans to free movement of inanimate objects – parcel bombs – is informative. Because surely the point about a parcel bomb is that it’s easily detectable as such. A human, less so. It’s Ian B’s point about the distinction between the importation of labour and the importation of humans. If, then, you do not propose to abolish the concept of invasions, and you accept that there is a legitimate interest in preventing the importation of ‘nasties’, be they humans or inanimate objects, then is not the better solution to develop screening and filtering of both rather than applying it only to Amazon parcel bombs? And I repeat the question I put to you earlier, which I suspect you did not see: if the precondition to your claims is a free market in labour, why do you not pursue or argue for the a free market in labour before you argue for the unlimited immigration?**
@NiV
If you think you can use the changes i Western attitudes to homosexuality as an example of anything you’re on a hiding to nothing. There hasn’t been much change.
Generally, ordinary people have always been largely indifferent to the subject. It was “right thinking people” in the church & certain parts of the intellectual establishment who were determined to whip up homophobia. Now the same “right thinking people” have done a 180deg U-turn & are whipping up anti-homophobia. The change in attitudes of the ordinary bloke in his own head? Maybe they’ve ratcheted a couple of notches in the gay-friendly direction. Maybe they haven’t.
But as IanB says above, we’re a guilt driven society. Where we we’re once expected to disapprove of the queers down the road, despite the fact we got quite well with them, now ‘the love that dare not speak its name’ shouts it from the rooftops & we give lip service approval of people we find a complete pain in the arse (or might). Because it’s expected of us.
Now you might get a 180deg reversal in the “right thinking people” who moderate Islamic values. And you might get a successful banana plantation in northern Greenland
NiVs argument is the teenage party that gets out of hand made into a country. A group of people have some wealth and decide to share a bit of it with others, by invitation. Then some people who weren’t invited turn up, and no-one stops them joining the party. At first its OK, there’s only a few extra, there’s enough beers to go round, everyone’s having a laugh. Then word gets around about the ‘free party’ and suddenly there’s several hundred there, undesirable elements arrive, steal anything worth nicking, trash the rest, and the wealth that was being shared is totally destroyed.
Well done NiV, that was a good troll. Arguing against a country having any discrimination against who enters it, a policy that no country of any political ideology has ever implemented, due to its obvious drawbacks. Well done indeed.
“NiV, you’re overlooking the fact that despite your Whiggish enthusiasms, social “progress” isn’t naturally forwards. As I have often pointed out regarding the liberalism of the 1960s and 1970s which went into hard reverse in the 80s such that we’re now under the Puritans again.”
Not at all. I’ve described it as like evolution by natural selection, and it is. Gazelle’s are so fast and graceful because lions eat the ones that aren’t. Dodos are slow and stupid because there are no predators allowed on their isolated island. We’ve been fighting this war between liberals and authoritarians for centuries. We’re a lot more open to allowing opposition and conflict. And as a result, we’re more resilient to cultural challenges in the same sort of way that gazelles are.
We allow social progress. Whether it’s “forwards” or not depends on your frame of reference. Islamic theocracies don’t.
Like with the gazelles, there will never be one final breakthrough in which we defeat the authoritarians/puritans once and for all, and live forever after in a sunny liberal utopia. They adapt, too. Every generation has to fight the war all over again. But the result is that we’re very much used to fighting cultural wars, know all the best techniques, and have plenty of experience.
The Muslim beards are used to a world in which their authority is unchallengable on pain of death. When challenged, all they’ve got is to threaten you with death, but in the West they don’t have that power in any significant quantity, and if you can’t *reliably* bring that penalty home to every single challenger, you just end up making everyone hate you. The biggest dodo, used to pushing around all the smaller dodos, tries it on with a lion.
“You may also want to note that the “homophobia” was ignited in the late 19th century by the, er, Progressives with their never-ending cleaning up society programme.”
Homophobia dates back at least to Moses, and his “clean up society” programme! The Authoritarians have taken many guises over the millenia.
“Alan Turing by the way ended up where he was because this man in his late 40s picked up a teenager for sex, who he then tried (ineptly) to frame for burgling his home.”
Wrong. Alan Turing, then 39, started going out regularly with a 19 year old man, who on some occasion had described Alan’s house to a friend of his. That friend figured they’d be unlikely to report it to the police, being gay, and therefore burgled Alan’s house. When Alan suspected that his boyfriend was involved, he challenged him on it. At first he tried to defend his burglar friend, but then admitted that he knew who had done it, although wasn’t involved in it himself. Alan got back together with his boyfriend, but told the police about the burglar. Alan did try to keep his relationship out of it, but eventually had to explain the background to the events under police questioning.
“Remind me again about current enlightened attitudes to middle aged men having sex with teenagers, will you?”
We’d regard 19 as over the age of consent, and would reckon that a 39 year old man who got a 19 year old girlfriend was a very lucky guy! That she had some rather more disreputable friends is a common complaint. I know at least two entirely heterosexual people that had more or less the same thing happen to them as happened to Turing.
“You see, there isn’t an arrow of Whiggish progress. It’s a drunkard’s walk.”
Or evolution.
“Mass immigration from different cultures is simply the most obvious means to undermine what liberalism we still have left.”
You’re assuming liberalism is fragile. But we’ve been fighting the authoritarians for centuries, and we’re still here. Your “drunkards walk” analogy works the other way round, too. Just as you can’t look at it as a continual climb towards the sunny peaks of liberalism, you equally can’t see it as a continual descent into authoritarian darkness. It’s not impossible – if we relax our guard, it might happen. But we’d be stupid to do that, wouldn’t we?
“It is the height of arrogance to think you can reprogramme tens of millions of people to accept your values.”
We do it with every single new generation.
Kids learn the rules by observing the society around them. Those rules become “normal”, and anything else is unnatural. Kids brought up in Western countries where all the people they meet at school or later in the workplace, all their friends, the people they want to influence, all behave a certain way, and they’ll learn that way too.
The only way the beards can stop it is to maintain complete social isolation. That’s precisely why Sharia forbids Muslims from living long-term in Infidel countries, or socialising with infidels more than the absolute minimum needed to conduct business. The way to break it is to make friends with them, socialise with them, do business with them. Don’t let them retreat into their ghettos. Don’t treat them as pariahs and outcasts. Treat them as normal people.
It’s the pariahs and outcasts that turn into suicide bombers and mass murderers. Why *shouldn’t* they kill the society who rejected them, and that so obviously hates them? Social isolation feeds that. But it’s psychologically a lot harder to kill people you see as friends.
Not everyone can be changed that way, true. Older people learnt a different, earlier culture, and sometimes get “locked in”, where they can’t accept that standards can change. They tend to be the authoritarian types, imposing their standards on others with a “firm hand”, they never learn to bend. Then when the rising tide finally sweeps them away, they become angry, issuing fiery denunciations of the sins of the world, and the end of civilisation.
Watch Ecksie here for an example. He’s probably found that swearing a lot, insulting people in scorching terms, and being generally unpleasant gets him what he wants. People either give in to avoid the nastiness, or go away. Personally, I just think that stuff’s funny. I’ve argued with Hizb ut Tahrir recruiters, and Islamic beards, and religious zealots, and global warming fanatics, and committed socialists declaiming against the scabs and traitors who sabotaged the glorious brotherhood of the working classes on the eve of their victory. Ecksie’s an amateur by comparison. It doesn’t take very much prodding to get them foaming, and that hardly does their image with any bystanders very much good, does it?
The question is, how fast does he learn from the failure of one tactic that he needs to find another? I’ve not found many of the ‘fire and brimstone’ preachers to be very fast at all. Lack of experience with determined opposition, I think.
The SJWs do the same thing. Push LGBT rights, because they know that’ll get people like Ecksie foaming, so they can justify pushing through their authoritarian agenda on the back of public sympathy for a minority being bullied by “right-wing bigots”. To get back to the original topic of this post, it’s what they were trying to do with regard to the killer of Jo Cox.
It’s just another tactic in the war, with an easy enough counter if we choose to use it. It will take a while, but eventually I’m sure we’ll figure it out.
NiV. You’re predicating your stuff on the notion we’re interested in having a dialogue with muslims. It fairly obvious from the responses you’re getting, that we aren’t. We’re buyers here, not sellers & we ain’t buying at any price you care to name. No interest. Nada. Why do you think we should have?
Jo Cox ( then Jo Leadbeater ) was quite critical of the EU in her time with Oxfam. Contributed to papers with titles like the ‘EU sugar scam’, and critical of EU members for not giving 0.7% of GDP in foreign aid ( UK would be excepted as we do now ). What is it about going high in the modern Labour Party that made her take a more favourable view of the EU?
What is it about going high in the modern Labour Party that made her take a more favourable view of the EU?
The EU reformed its sugar subsidies as Oxfam rightly demanded, so that it’s now a net importer of sugar.
“NiV. You’re predicating your stuff on the notion we’re interested in having a dialogue with muslims.”
No. I’m predicating it on the idea that you’re idiots for not having a dialogue with Muslims. You’ll lose if you don’t.
“It fairly obvious from the responses you’re getting, that we aren’t.”
Obviously. Same as always.
Hence the victory of the “right-wing hate groups” meme in the public debate. You keep on complaining about them doing it, but you never seem to want to do the obvious thing about it.
What is the point of having a dialogue with Muslims? They are as completely deluded dumbfucks as the those who followed David Koresh or Jim Jones. No rational, intelligent human being could be a Muslim, you either have to be as thick as pig shit or kept in ignorance as Islamic societies aim to keep their citizens.
We know all we need to know about Islam. It was made up by a murderer, bandit, slave trader, slave owner, rapist and pedophile. There is no point in talking to anyone who reveres such an utter bastard, they just need to be told to take their evil beliefs and fuck right off out of civilised society.
“What is the point of having a dialogue with Muslims? They are as completely deluded dumbfucks as the those who followed David Koresh or Jim Jones.”
I’ve talked with quite a few, and no they’re not. Most of them are just normal people getting on with their lives for 90% of the time.
Most of them actually know very little about what Islam says, in the same sort of way that very few modern Christians could debate the theological details of the more fruity bits of the Old Testament, or know much about the bloodier bits of the history of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, or how someone like Cesare Borgia got made Pope. Modern Christians go to church to sing a few hymns, collect loose change for charity, and natter with their friends over tea and buns. Most Muslims are much the same.
And this is what turns people off your message. They meet the Muslims, who seem like quite nice people, and then they meet you, saying things they know from personal experience are just not true, and they see *you* as the deranged, deluded dumbfucks so blinded by hate and ideology that you’ve got to be either thick as pigshit or mentally ill.
Hence, as I say, the victory of the “right-wing hate groups” meme in the public debate. They look at you, and all they see is “scary screaming skinhead neonazi thug with swastika tattoos that I don’t want anything to do with”. You drive them away from your position. So they end up sympathising with the Muslims, even the bad ones, and crack down on anyone who says anything even remotely critical of those poor persecuted people. Well done!
All the good done by the sight of Muslim beards ranting about the infidel West is completely undone by the sight of you ranting about people like the guy who runs the 24 hour convenience store on their street who’s always happy to stop for a natter about the football or the weather, or the waiter at the Indian restaurant who talks to them about the kids, as if they were the raping slaving second coming of the antichrist.
Normal people just regard you as bad as one another, and want nothing at all to do with it. That’s why they’ll tell *you* to “take your evil beliefs and fuck right off out of civilised society” too.
I’ve been told things *just* like that, just for admitting that I’m “right-wing”, because they confused me with people like you. It’s annoying. It means I can’t even argue the case for the right, because as soon as I state any sort of mildly right-wing position I’m tarred as a screaming nutter and racist bigot.
And that’s what you think is a good way to make friends and influence people?
Quite honestlty, NiV, can’t say I’ve much time for the religious christians either & certainly not interested in the finer points of the testaments, old or new.. Although they do, thankfully, refrain from murdering as a way of spreading their faith. Mostly. Recently.
But if muslims regard westerners as psychopathic, crazed islamophobes, that suits me just fine. Maybe that’ll deter them from coming west.
“Although they do, thankfully, refrain from murdering as a way of spreading their faith. Mostly. Recently.”
Precisely the point. The faith today is not what it was even half a century ago, let alone three and a half centuries.
“But if muslims regard westerners as psychopathic, crazed islamophobes, that suits me just fine. Maybe that’ll deter them from coming west.”
I’m saying that Westerners think right-wingers are psychopathic, crazed Islamophobes. Muslims think you’re idiots. Does that suit you?
A talk with islamics would be easy compared to NiV and his electrically boosted ego.
“Watch Ecksie here for an example. He’s probably found that swearing a lot, insulting people in scorching terms, and being generally unpleasant gets him what he wants.”
What I want? What I want is a world free of tyrannical shite –and dangerous, stupid dickheads like you NiB. Small chance of that.
“People either give in to avoid the nastiness, or go away.”
None of the commentators on here have ever done either to my memory.
” Personally, I just think that stuff’s funny. I’ve argued with Hizb ut Tahrir recruiters, and Islamic beards, and religious zealots, and global warming fanatics, and committed socialists declaiming against the scabs and traitors who sabotaged the glorious brotherhood of the working classes on the eve of their victory. Ecksie’s an amateur by comparison. It doesn’t take very much prodding to get them foaming, and that hardly does their image with any bystanders very much good, does it?”
What you mean NiV is you’ve wasted some midnight oil on the Net. You give yourself the great CV but that is it.
You don’t even rate as an annoyance sonny. What makes me angry is that we live in a world that could be far better and happier than it is but a world filled with shite that ranges from brainless to actively evil. Who spoil everything.
You are a dozy little git who –by reason of stupidity–is happy to throw your dear leftist friends– women and gays under the bus because of your bullshit personal theories.
It is the stupidity of NiB that is really the worst thing about him. That the scum of CM will throw women/gays into the pit to preserve the senior anti-white line of their doctrine is easy to understand. They are evil down to the roots of their twisted souls. They never, ever gave a crap about any of the minorities they have used as useful idiots. But NiB is just a dumb juvo who gets his theories off Love Heart slogans. It will take him decades to work his way up to fortune cookies.
“Watch Ecksie here for an example. He’s probably found that swearing a lot, insulting people in scorching terms, and being generally unpleasant gets him what he wants.”
“blah blah tyrannical shite blah dangerous, stupid dickheads like you blah shite that ranges from brainless to actively evil. Who spoil everything. You are a dozy little git blah stupidity blah dear leftist friends blah women and gays under the bus because of your bullshit blah blah stupidity blah worst thing about him blah the scum blah evil down to the roots of their twisted souls blah crap blah useful idiots blah dumb juvo blah blah blah.”
Point made?
Putting myself into play alongside the ball, my significant other is Muslim. She’s an a la carte religionist, however: takes the bits she wants, ignores the rest. Doesn’t see any relationship between herself and the nutters. But, from time to time, she is exposed to unwelcome nutterish pressure. I think sometimes she finds that difficult.
On the other hand, about eight years ago, I was nearly murdered by a knife-wielding Afghan, right here in London. He was plainly a dysfunctional nutter. Whether he was devoted to Islam, I have no idea.
On the other other hand, in my practice at the Criminal Bar, I have been struck by the existence of a tidal wave of immigration-driven crime. It’s real and it’s caused widespread, deep distress to many decent, harmless people.
If even the most open bordersy among us – NiV – are willing to countenance filters to catch bombs posted from overseas by Amazon, we should prepared to do the same with immigration. Sure, mistakes will be made. But we need to do a lot better to restrict the access of nutters.
“I’ve talked with quite a few, and no they’re not. Most of them are just normal people getting on with their lives for 90% of the time.
Most of them actually know very little about what Islam says, in the same sort of way that very few modern Christians could debate the theological details of the more fruity bits of the Old Testament, or know much about the bloodier bits of the history of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, or how someone like Cesare Borgia got made Pope. Modern Christians go to church to sing a few hymns, collect loose change for charity, and natter with their friends over tea and buns. Most Muslims are much the same.”
What a patronising cunt you are Niv. Everybody except NiV –of whatever faith is a bumbling likkle person. Whom the great NiVster, in his wisdom, judges as being harmless. Even if they are not NiV knows that 1400 years of a particular set of beliefs can soon be wiped out by exposure to the West–and people of the NiVster’s calibre. How does he know this–he’s clever is our NiV. He’s been around–he’s spoken to people he has. Lots of people, lots more than you and NiV knows–so he does. NiV was a personal friend of the late Alan Turing and has first hand knowledge of the circumstances of his unfortunate demise.
“And this is what turns people off your message. They meet the Muslims, who seem like quite nice people, and then they meet you, saying things they know from personal experience are just not true, and they see *you* as the deranged, deluded dumbfucks so blinded by hate and ideology that you’ve got to be either thick as pigshit or mentally ill.”
So these same ordinary little people—who are certainly only superficial in their thought, lives and personal beliefs(–for has not the Great NiV said so?–) can judge for themselves who is a jihadi or not? from encounters in a corner shop no less? When polls taken suggest–to give just one example– 52% of UK muslims want homosexuality made illegal? Of course polls are only valid if the support leftist causes and who are we to question the colossal intellect and vast personal experience of so great a man as NiV?
“Hence, as I say, the victory of the “right-wing hate groups” meme in the public debate. They look at you, and all they see is “scary screaming skinhead neonazi thug with swastika tattoos that I don’t want anything to do with”. You drive them away from your position. So they end up sympathising with the Muslims, even the bad ones, and crack down on anyone who says anything even remotely critical of those poor persecuted people. Well done!”
“The plane Boss–the plane!”
“All the good done by the sight of Muslim beards ranting about the infidel West is completely undone by the sight of you ranting about people like the guy who runs the 24 hour convenience store on their street who’s always happy to stop for a natter about the football or the weather, or the waiter at the Indian restaurant”
If it is an “Indian” restaurant it is just as likely that the waiter would be a Hindu–so much for the cosmopolitan NiV.
“who talks to them about the kids, as if they were the raping slaving second coming of the antichrist.”
At last I get it!! NiV lives in Albert Square.
“Normal people just regard you as bad as one another, and want nothing at all to do with it. That’s why they’ll tell *you* to “take your evil beliefs and fuck right off out of civilised society” too.”
Nazi Germany was full of ordinary people too NiVve–and when push came to shove they did what their leaders told them too regardless of how “nice” they may have been personally. Which is what “nice, ordinary” muslims will do–will have to do unless they want to suffer the wrath of said leaders–once their numbers have grown large enough.
“I’ve been told things *just* like that, just for admitting that I’m “right-wing”, because they confused me with people like you. It’s annoying. It means I can’t even argue the case for the right, because as soon as I state any sort of mildly right-wing position I’m tarred as a screaming nutter and racist bigot.
And that’s what you think is a good way to make friends and influence people?”
I,I, I , me,me,me–That’s a good way to influence people?
It seems to be the only way you have son
“Putting myself into play alongside the ball, my significant other is Muslim.”
I’m impressed! I just talk to some of them.
“She’s an a la carte religionist, however: takes the bits she wants, ignores the rest. Doesn’t see any relationship between herself and the nutters.”
That’s been generally my experience as well. The nutter tendency is significant, but not a majority in western countries.
“But, from time to time, she is exposed to unwelcome nutterish pressure. I think sometimes she finds that difficult.”
I sympathise. Would you agree that our support against that sort of thing would help? Or get in the way?
“On the other hand, about eight years ago, I was nearly murdered by a knife-wielding Afghan, right here in London. He was plainly a dysfunctional nutter. Whether he was devoted to Islam, I have no idea.”
Me neither. It’s possible, but there are a lot of nutters, for all sorts of reasons.
“On the other other hand, in my practice at the Criminal Bar, I have been struck by the existence of a tidal wave of immigration-driven crime. It’s real and it’s caused widespread, deep distress to many decent, harmless people.”
Agreed. There always is, with immigrants. When we had a lot of Irish immigrants we had the same sort of problems.
I think it’s more to do with poverty, though. Immigrants are often coming in at the bottom of society, and the costs and benefits of crime make it a beter deal for the poor. They’ve got more to gain and less to lose. As they get richer the longer they stay, that problem goes away.
“Sure, mistakes will be made. But we need to do a lot better to restrict the access of nutters.”
I’d agree with that – assuming you can identify them. We also need to do a lot more about challenging their attitudes and views from a mainstream perspective (i.e. without looking like nutters ourselves). The politically correct carte blanche is as bad an idea as the blanket ban.
—
“Blah blah patronising cunt blah bumbling likkle person blah the great NiVster blah.”
Still on point, Ecksie?
I’ll be there as long as you are NiB.
But since you have your plan to avoid answering any points made–which you can’t–I’ll just stick to insulting you–it’ll save time.
“The politically correct carte blanche is as bad an idea as the blanket ban.”
But which are we more likely to get? There just isn’t any institutional method for ‘challenging their attitudes’ is there? The State has blatantly refused to discriminate against brown people because of their attitudes and opinions – it just ignores them in the hope they’ll stop or something.
If FGM was being practised by the white native Britons the State would have no problem with nailing a few exemplary cases to the wall in every town pour encourager les autres and instituting various polices of reporting and prosecution throughout the NHS and educational system. But because its brown people doing it nothing as actually done. Lots of talking, and middle class white people making careers out of talking about it, and writing papers about it, but no actual action on the ground to stop it happening.
The last 40 years have shown there is no State appetite to in any way force immigrants to change their views from those prevalent in their countries of origin to those of a Western liberal democracy. It just doesn’t want to do it. In fact it attacks those who suggest we should do exactly that.
So we are left with a binary choice – either allow people in without discrimination and get what we’ve got for the last 40 years, or stop letting people in from the places that have more than the average number of people who don’t approve of western lifestyles. There is no middle way.
“But which are we more likely to get? There just isn’t any institutional method for ‘challenging their attitudes’ is there? The State has blatantly refused to discriminate against brown people because of their attitudes and opinions – it just ignores them in the hope they’ll stop or something.”
We don’t want the State doing it! Their job is to empty the bins and keep the pot holes filled, not to do social engineering.
It’s the rest of society – ordinary people they come into contact with daily, that need to challenge them.
“If FGM was being practised by the white native Britons the State would have no problem with nailing a few exemplary cases to the wall […] But because its brown people doing it nothing as actually done.”
Fine. Good example. Publicise the cases, and publicise the officials failing to do anything about it, but without saying it’s something *all* Muslims do, or believe in. Find out the facts. Let people know.
“The last 40 years have shown there is no State appetite to in any way force immigrants to change their views from those prevalent in their countries of origin to those of a Western liberal democracy. It just doesn’t want to do it. In fact it attacks those who suggest we should do exactly that.”
Yes. A lot of that is due to the success of the “right-wing hate groups” meme. No right-wing politician wants to get tarred with that brush. And the left, as we’ve discussed before, are more interested in using the more hysterical reactions as a stick to beat the right with.
It will take a while to undo the damage done to the image of anyone criticising Islam. But if we can, the trick is to distinguish ‘ordinary’ muslims from the nutter tendency, and to visibly do it in partnership with the sort of Muslims who want to reform Islam. (Yes, there are some.) You also need detailed and *accurate* information on the religion, so that people can see you know what you’re talking about.
Besides that, all it takes is to be friendly, but without giving in to political correctness over the less savoury aspects of the religion. It doesn’t need to be run as any sort of campaign – just people socialising as normal.
And no, we don’t want the state taking a hand.
—
“But since you have your plan to avoid answering any points made–which you can’t–I’ll just stick to insulting you–it’ll save time.”
Why bother answering ‘points’ when you give me so much free ammunition like that? Carry on!
How may islamics have you personally turned to the light NIv?
“Putting myself into play alongside the ball, my significant other is Muslim.”
I’m impressed! I just talk to some of them.
**Well, what can I say? I did not plan my life this way, it just turns out I’m an equal opportunities shagger.**
“She’s an a la carte religionist, however: takes the bits she wants, ignores the rest. Doesn’t see any relationship between herself and the nutters.”
That’s been generally my experience as well. The nutter tendency is significant, but not a majority in western countries.
**It does not need to be a majority, nor anything like a majority, to be deeply influential. Revolutions are usually effected by a minority at the metropolitan centre.**
“But, from time to time, she is exposed to unwelcome nutterish pressure. I think sometimes she finds that difficult.”
I sympathise. Would you agree that our support against that sort of thing would help? Or get in the way?
**Very difficult to say. I emphasise that it’s only nutter-ish – not jihadi. To give you three examples, first, currently it’s their fasting month. Personally, I think it’s a bloody stupid idea, and appalling when pushed on children and I’ve said as much to her. Where she works is full of co-religionists, many of whom are ostensibly quite pious about this and they police everyone else. At the very least it would raise eyebrows to be seen eating, at worst, accusations of being a bad Muslim. She hides under her desk when others leave the room and sneaks a few bites of something. I daresay others, even and perhaps especially the pious ones, do something similar. I think she’d like in theory to tow the line, but finds it difficult and certainly does not beat herself up about not quite making it from dawn to dusk without food or water. But the pressure is there. Other than pointing out the health risks of doing, or trying to do, what they do, I am not sure what other support there is.
The second example, fairly trivial of itself, was a time she was in an Islamic bookshop with a female friend. Her dress-sense is 99% Westernised, and she has a cracking figure and likes to show it. So, she was wearing a slightly above-the-knee skirt and the owner of the bookshop turned to her friend and said words to the effect of, “you should tell your sister to dress more modestly, or she’ll be a bad Muslim”. It was embarrassing for her. She knows I’m keen on how she dresses, however, and she’s always enjoyed a lot of attention, from women and from men and she appreciates that.
The third example is that her female peer-group back home (she has ILR, and is not officially naturalised) has overwhelmingly adopted the blasted headscarf. Now, this girl has beautiful hair. It frames her face exquisitely. By way of, er, supporting her, I’ve told her I’d be distinctly unhappy were she to start sporting the same headgear.
And yet. As Ian B said, above, it’s a shame- rather than guilt-based culture (and that gulf is indeed profound). I can, in my darker moments imagine her doing the Islamic equivalent of getting to a convent. Now, the surrounding culture is broadly supportive of her, but secluded islands of Islamic culture – a bookshop, an office, whatever – can be as powerful. Self-segregation exists and is widespread. I have no religious faith, but try to respect that of those who do, as I try with any differing beliefs, as much as I may disagree with them, provided my correspondent is courteous, good-humoured and honest. But it’s difficult to tread a line between support and scorn – especially where something as daft as day-long enforced starvation and dehydration are concerned. And, again trying feebly to answer your question, there’s a difference between us. What is appropriate for you, in terms of support, or leaving people alone, is not the same as for me who lives with a person subjected to nutterishness.
Which is my circumnavigatory way of saying I do not know the answer to your question, but cultural difference is real and serious. Oh, and sometimes she tells me she wants me to give up pork (er, no, won’t happen) and were we to marry, I’d have to convert, even though she’d know it was a sham on my part. So perhaps the closest I can get to answering your question is that support implies a preferential position on the part of the person offering support. It’s a bit more of a two-way street than that. Buggered if I’m giving up pork, though.**
“On the other hand, about eight years ago, I was nearly murdered by a knife-wielding Afghan, right here in London. He was plainly a dysfunctional nutter. Whether he was devoted to Islam, I have no idea.”
Me neither. It’s possible, but there are a lot of nutters, for all sorts of reasons.
**True, but moreso from countries where boys – as you yourself previously, and quite correctly, said, males are overwhelmingly the criminals – are raised in the wreckage of places like Afghanistan or Somalia. Drawing also on my professional experience, the knife-wielding nutter end of the spectrum is over-represented by people from countries like that. Swedes, Frenchmen, white-bread (sp?) Septics, Japs, not so much.**
“On the other other hand, in my practice at the Criminal Bar, I have been struck by the existence of a tidal wave of immigration-driven crime. It’s real and it’s caused widespread, deep distress to many decent, harmless people.”
Agreed. There always is, with immigrants. When we had a lot of Irish immigrants we had the same sort of problems.
**Not on the same scale, by many orders of magnitude. And I’m not blasé about it, where my sense is that you are cool with it, as a sort of price-to-be-paid. I think the cost-benefit analysis needs to be much, much more rigorous.**
I think it’s more to do with poverty, though. Immigrants are often coming in at the bottom of society, and the costs and benefits of crime make it a beter deal for the poor. They’ve got more to gain and less to lose. As they get richer the longer they stay, that problem goes away.
**I think that’s the blasé thing I’m getting at. How many ruined lives are there to be on the way the acclimatasing, acculturating and raising into prosperity the meek of the earth? And whilst I can see that imported poverty is not necessarily a determinant of immigrant life outcomes – except, sometimes and spectacularly, inversely – it’s also not a bad indicator of the quality of individual imported. I’m not, by the way, suggesting it’s the only potentially useful indicator.**
“Sure, mistakes will be made. But we need to do a lot better to restrict the access of nutters.”
I’d agree with that – assuming you can identify them. We also need to do a lot more about challenging their attitudes and views from a mainstream perspective (i.e. without looking like nutters ourselves). The politically correct carte blanche is as bad an idea as the blanket ban.
**In school, in an argument with the son of an Irish immigrant, I learned about 30 years ago (and it turns out to have been a lesson helpful to my professional life) that losing your temper in an argument is a bad idea, because if you find our you’re mistaken, it’s impossible to back-down: I think – I may be wrong – but I think you are now conceding there is merit in pre-screening immigrants, as faulty as the endeavour may be, rather than just opening the doors and seeing what happens. If so, thank you for your honesty. If not, where have I misunderstood?
Mr Ecks, your question is brutally on point. As I say, I live with one. Not that I’ve gone out of my way to turn her, nor she me. It’s a human relationship. You rub the rough edges off each other in the interests of something larger: there’s disagreement, and agreement to disagree. Yet she remains and, I have no doubt, always will remain, Muslim. And I remain agnostic and not-terribly-interested.
“Yes, if they own the land.
But I have a fence around *my* land and I want foreigners to be able to come through it and work for me. By the same principle that the Vegan Nudists own the rights over their boundary, why do I not own the rights over mine?”
You are ignoring the externality imposed upon your neighbours of importing Islamism, an idea which seeks to destroy Western Culture (including free markets) into their locality.
Nation states are suposed to address this kind of externality by providing things like borders and national defence, which the market does not provide.
“I’m saying that under free market principles the government shouldn’t interfere in the market for labour, any more than they should for any other goods and services being traded internationally. The free movement of labour works like the free movement across borders of food, or books, or steel, or whatever. It’s the same as the argument against tariffs and subsidies, or bans on international trade generally. It’s all the same stuff Bastiat was going on about so long ago.”
Governments exist primarily to defend their people and their geographical area. They have every right to act against the import of foreign aggressors from a different culture which hates and wishes to destroy Western Culture. This is why they are there. You seem to believe that governments are not legitimate and therefore we should import these people. This is not a pragmatic position and doesn’t reflect reality. It is also a minority position, important when talking about the existence or non existence of governments
Let me be clear: if you are proposing that employers be allowed to import labour from anywhere to fill labour shortages then I agree that the government has no right to stand in their way. But such employers should aloso be liable for every single labour providing person they import; it is not legitimate for those people to leave the property of their employer, to access welfare, to mix with the native population, or to be afforded the freedom of a citizen. They are there to provide labour, nothing more. The employer is liable for any externality imposed upon their neighbours by any labour they import.
This makes sure the cost of importing cheap foreign labour, especially from cultures hostile to ours, is bourne by the employer rather than by the society at large.
“It’s the rest of society – ordinary people they come into contact with daily, that need to challenge them.”
Are you insane? Can’t you imagine the shit storm that would descend on a person who attempted to ‘challenge’ the illiberal views of a Muslim? Lets say you’re at work and a Muslim colleague makes a homophobic remark. You pick them up on it and say that such attitudes are not acceptable in Western society, and they should alter their views. Do you really think HR is going to into bat for you when they make a complaint about your behaviour? Don’t be stupid, you’d be fired for racial abuse or religious intolerance or some such within 10 minutes. Your arse wouldn’t touch the ground.
The State has poisoned the well for native individuals to confront any immigrant for views that don’t conform to Western liberal standards. The concept of moral equivalence of different cultures has been made very clear.
You’re advocating something that is impossible from where we are. It might be possible if you were starting a mass immigration policy from scratch, but we aren’t. We have 50 years of multiculturalism, of being told our Western culture is not superior to non-Western, and we can’t impose our culture on theirs, even though they have moved to our country, leaving theirs behind. You can’t now just say ‘OK everyone you’ve got to confront illiberal immigrant behaviour/views. Good luck! Oh and by the way the laws on racial/religious hate crimes are all still in place, so make sure you don’t fall foul of them when tell a bunch of Muslims that they shouldn’t throw rocks at homosexuals, or beat their wives with sticks’.
Tell you what, take a wander down to the most ‘culturally enriched’ part of wherever you live, strike up a few conversations with the locals, ask them their views on women, gays, non-Muslims etc and then tell them in no uncertain terms that such views are not acceptable in British society today, and they must change them. Make sure you get a friend to film all this, preferably from a reasonable distance away in a car because a) it’ll be fun to watch, and b) they’ll need the footage to identify your assailants later.
“Personally, I think it’s a bloody stupid idea, and appalling when pushed on children and I’ve said as much to her.”
For me, it’s one of those activities that comes under the rubric of “Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.” If someone *chooses* to fast, for religious reasons, that’s OK.
As for children, it depends what you mean. Under Sharia, fasting is definitely not required of children before puberty. Muslims ought to know better than to suggest it. If you mean post-puberty but before what we would call adulthood, then yes, it’s a conflict.
“I think she’d like in theory to tow the line, but finds it difficult and certainly does not beat herself up about not quite making it from dawn to dusk without food or water. But the pressure is there. Other than pointing out the health risks of doing, or trying to do, what they do, I am not sure what other support there is.”
If there are health risks, it’s not obligatory. Likewise if you’re ill.
And there are a few other exceptions too if you want to play that game. For example, women are not allowed to fast during menstruation (which is an excuse you can use at least once in a month if you’re caught), and there’s an exception if you’re traveling out of town more than 50 miles one way and leave before dawn (handy if you commute to work on the train).
“the owner of the bookshop turned to her friend and said words to the effect of, “you should tell your sister to dress more modestly, or she’ll be a bad Muslim”. It was embarrassing for her.”
One (rather legalistic) alternative there is to point out that ‘commanding the right and forbidding the wrong’ is only a requirement if the person doing it believes it will be effective and that they’ll not cause any problems for themselves doing it. If you point out that their words are not going to be effective, and moreover could cause ‘image’ issues with non-Muslim society if they were overheard, then they’ll be excused the embarrassment of having to point it out. That’s not likely to help with a devout believer – they’ll still disapprove even if they stop saying so. But if you suspect the others are only saying it because the rules require it, it’s a way to achieve a sort of mutual non-aggression pact.
Another way – I think the most common way – is to argue that standards of ‘modesty’ vary from society to society. A lot of the Sharia rules are a mix of an absolute part based on the Qur’aan and a contextual interpretation of it based on the society of medieval Arabia. The Qur’aan is rather non-specific about the precise details of dress, and all the stuff about showing only face and hands is based on the customs of the day. The main purpose of modest dress is to avoid impure desires in others (you may need to keep quiet about how much you appreciate her figure!), and that can be achieved with a less severe alternative in western society.
But I think really it’s a question of what you believe. Islam does have an ‘official’ definition, for which those sort of things are required. But I know there are plenty of Muslims who pick and choose which rules they want to follow, and it sounds like your other half is one of those. I’m OK with that – that’s what freedom of belief is all about. By the same logic, they can leave out the rules about jihad, too, and I’m definitely OK with that!
So that’s a variety of Islam that I’d want to support and encourage. The only bit I have real difficulty with is being honest about what you’re doing. There’s no doubt that by the letter of the law, those critics are right and it’s being a ‘bad muslim’ under the book definition. Trying to pretend to outsiders that the book version of Islam actually *allows* such freedom is dishonest, and verges on trying to hide the dangers by-the-book Islam poses. If it’s presented as a *personal* version of Islam, acknowledging that the Imams would undoubtedly disagree with it, that’s OK. But there are risks to such an approach – mainly that the rest of the community likely would not agree with her interpretation, and are able to bring considerable social pressure to bear (not all of which you might be aware of) to enforce a more orthodox interpretation. That’s tricky – can we demand that someone put themselves at risk for the sake of that honesty?
So the various sorts of support one might consider include having a network of friends outside Muslim circles so you don’t end up isolated and cut off if the other Muslims decide to make an issue of it, supporting the idea of ‘personal’ versions of Islam with as many of the rules as you feel you can or should follow, finding other Muslims with the same sort of a la carte approach and forming a social network for emotional support, and making it clear that while warning someone that they’re breaking the rules is part of the game, that you don’t consider it acceptable in British society to go any further than that in visiting unpleasant consequences on non-conformists.
But there’s a possibility that such outside support could be seen as an attempt to corrupt Muslims, or to corrupt Islam itself with a heretical version of it. That could be dangerous. Some communities don’t like outsiders interfering, too. So my question was mainly directed at whether such outside support and help would be seen as helpful, or more likely to cause problems. Others I’ve talked to seemed to appreciate the help, but I’m always interested in more opinions.
“**Not on the same scale, by many orders of magnitude. And I’m not blasé about it, where my sense is that you are cool with it, as a sort of price-to-be-paid. I think the cost-benefit analysis needs to be much, much more rigorous.**”
Solving poverty is one of the biggest reasons I *want* free markets. It’s not a price that I think *should* be paid, if we have any choice in the matter. But I don’t think we have any choice. You can’t get to a prosperous and well-educated society in a single step. It takes time, and there’s unavoidable unpleasantness along the way.
The choice is really between not solving the problem of poverty but allowing the already prosperous to enjoy their prosperity undisturbed, or to proceed as quickly as possible to solve poverty but cause some disruption to the prosperous along the way. I’ve made *my* choice, but I do sympathise with those who suffer problems along the way, and I can understand that others might choose differently.
“I think – I may be wrong – but I think you are now conceding there is merit in pre-screening immigrants”
My main point is that if screening has merit, I wouldn’t confine screening it to immigrants. I don’t see that granting access to native nutters is any more acceptable than foreign ones. The problems are those to do with telling whether someone has criminal intent before they commit the crime. That’s tricky, on many levels.
—
“You are ignoring the externality imposed upon your neighbours of importing Islamism, an idea which seeks to destroy Western Culture (including free markets) into their locality.”
Importing Western Culture (including free markets) into Islamic societies will necessarily destroy Islam. (Whether it intends to or not.) The by-the-book version of it, anyway. That’s precisely what Osama bin Laden was complaining about.
Does that mean they’re entitled to form armies to stop it?
—
“Let me be clear: if you are proposing that employers be allowed to import labour from anywhere to fill labour shortages then I agree that the government has no right to stand in their way.”
Good! That is what I’m proposing.
“But such employers should aloso be liable for every single labour providing person they import; it is not legitimate for those people to leave the property of their employer, to access welfare, to mix with the native population, or to be afforded the freedom of a citizen. They are there to provide labour, nothing more.”
I’d agree on the welfare (although I’d not distinguish immigrants here – I’d operate some sort of insurance scheme instead), but some of the other stuff sounds unpleasantly slave-like. What’s “the freedom of a citizen”? Equality before the law, for example? Right to a fair trial?
—
“Do you really think HR is going to into bat for you when they make a complaint about your behaviour?”
Our HR dept. would say that you shouldn’t have told the person off yourself, you should have reported the matter to your line manager or HR. And yes, they’d not accept religious excuses for someone making homophobic remarks. (Technically, Sharia doesn’t require saying such things, so being a Muslim is not an excuse.) They’d address the issue privately with the person, making sure not to reference the person’s nationality, race, or religion at all (your mistake was saying “in Western society”), and record evidence or ensure witnesses to that fact. They get training in how to do it properly. You don’t.
Let’s see what the President of the Australian National Imans Council has to say on a number of issues:
https://tifrib.com/shady-alsuleiman/
This gentleman was invited by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to a multi-faith dinner last Friday to mark the end of Ramadan. Mal’s table wasn’t overly multi-faith, comprising mainly tame Muslims, but being a progressive lefty at heart, he feels most comfortable with victimology’s premier group.
Back to Shady, in the 21st century, that people hold such backward views is staggering. It is still staggering even when you know that the utterly vile bastard who made up the Islamic cult to suit his own ends held such views. Surely, with the benefit of hindsight and a modern education, intelligent people can see that such views do not have a place in the modern world? But, no, this guy is the head of the peak Imams body in Australia (at least for Sunnis) so it is reasonable to assume his views are representative of that body. These are the people who we’d be having a dialogue with. There is no middle ground, they are totally wrong and the only appropriate response is to tell them so, to tell them that their evil ideas will not be accommodated and that civilisation will not be put in reverse.
The problem is not secular or largely secular Muslims. I know Muslims who are professionals, many drink alcohol, if they come to a party I’ve never heard them check on the Halalness of the food. Religion rarely, if ever, comes up as a topic as most people are not interested in what strange beliefs others might hold.
The problem is the large numbers who have been brought up in a culture where they are expected to be devout Muslims and to accept the teachings of Islam without question.
How much intolerance of our way of life, how much misogyny, how much homophobia, how many child brides, how much FGM, how many gentle wife beatings, how many sexual assaults, how much terrorism should we consider acceptable in order to accommodate those who believe in Islam and who do not feel compelled in anyway to modify their beliefs to enable them to live alongside non-Muslims?
Picking and choosing which rules one follows is not a variety of Islam, it is a dilution (or perversion) of it. Large numbers prefer to do so, but they are always at risk of being accused of not being true or good Muslims. For this group, this can be a justification for violence against them.
How much intolerance of our way of life, how much misogyny, how much homophobia, how many child brides, how much FGM, how many gentle wife beatings, how many sexual assaults, how much terrorism should we consider acceptable in order to accommodate those who believe in Islam and who do not feel compelled in anyway to modify their beliefs to enable them to live alongside non-Muslims?
None. I have Muslim friends. There’s no need for me to treat any of those things as acceptable with them.
There are Muslims who would find my views unacceptable. And Christians too. And Jews. And commentators here. That’s their problem.
Most people adopt their parents’ religion. Most people go along with the tenets of their religion when in a religious context. And they go along with the tenets of the society they live in when in a social context. Which may involve them in some inconsistency. Emerson had wise words about that.
Indeed.
Of course, over the relevant period of time, faith in western civilization has become less virulent, less aggressive, and less inclined to violent confrontation. Over that same period, faith in the muslim world has moved in exactly the opposite direction; it is more expansionist, less tolerant of other faiths or of its own internal differences, and more prone to violent response to other faiths (or lack of faith), apostates, or schismatics in its own ranks.
Given that the direction of travel in the muslim world is exactly opposite of that which would support your position to welcome them to our society, is this really the argument you wish to make, NiV?
I was thinking a little broader than your circle of friends, SJW.
“Most people adopt their parents’ religion. Most people go along with the tenets of their religion when in a religious context. And they go along with the tenets of the society they live in when in a social context. Which may involve them in some inconsistency. Emerson had wise words about that.”
SJW: The “ordinary people” tripe again.
Push comes to shove ordinary people will do what their leaders –not the British state in this case–will tell them to do. That is what makes them ordinary.As they did in Nazi Germany and so many other shitholes–socialist and otherwise–throughout history.
How many of your nice middle-class islami friends are down the mosque every Friday making a name for themselves as opponents of hate? Not too many despite your talk.
Still waiting to hear how many RoP supporters of jihadi, female subjugation, homosexual hatred , etc whom NiV has personally converted to the cause of (rainbow-hued?) light. And his evidence for knowing that he has done so.
“Importing Western Culture (including free markets) into Islamic societies will necessarily destroy Islam. (Whether it intends to or not.) The by-the-book version of it, anyway. That’s precisely what Osama bin Laden was complaining about.”
Importing people is not the same as importing products and ideas. Importing labour does not entail some right to change the population of the country.
“Good! That is what I’m proposing”
No you appear to be proposing that employers be allowed to import people who are directly opposed to the culture of the place they are coming to with no responsibility for the externality imposed by these people upon their neighbours. Importing labour is not the same as importing people.
“I’d agree on the welfare (although I’d not distinguish immigrants here – I’d operate some sort of insurance scheme instead), but some of the other stuff sounds unpleasantly slave-like. What’s “the freedom of a citizen”? Equality before the law, for example? Right to a fair trial?”
You seem to wish to deny that countries are run the way they are. Citizens are full members of whatever society they are a member of. This is a birth right. If the people of a country wish to institute democratic government and then vote themselves welfare then there is not much that can be done about that.
But without asking those people directly it is not ok to import a completely different group of people who actively hate the first lot, and allow them full membership of that society as well. Such an action is directly against the primary purpose of having a government in the first place (defence).
In an economically free capitalist society it is difficult to argue that a government is justified in standing in the way of an employer sourcing labour from wherever they like, provided people will come. But it is labour they are importing, not people.
Importing people is not a question for individual employers unless the society is anarcho capitalist, which the UK is not (and never will be). Even in an anarcho capitalist society I think that employers would be sued if they imported hordes of hostile barbarians who wished to damage the host society (and then did).
“Picking and choosing which rules one follows is not a variety of Islam, it is a dilution (or perversion) of it.”
According to the by-the-book version, yes. But it’s a question of definitions. Which comes first, the belief or the believer? Is a Muslim defined by whether they believe in ‘book’ Islam, or is Islam defined as what Muslims believe?
If Muslims no longer believe those rules are part of Islam, and further, no longer believe the the rule about not being allowed to pick and choose beliefs is part of Islam, why is that any different to the days when Muslims believed they were and it was? Islam was only thought to be unchangeable because Muslims believed it to be so. Is there any ‘absolute truth’ to refer to, to tell ‘true’ beliefs from ‘false’, or is there only a system, a network of shared human beliefs?
The philosophy is an interesting topic. In this case, it actually has a practical application.
“Large numbers prefer to do so, but they are always at risk of being accused of not being true or good Muslims.”
Yes, that’s the problem we need to fight.
“How much intolerance of our way of life, how much misogyny, how much homophobia, […] should we consider acceptable […]?”
You could ask Mr Ecks that one. 🙂 I don’t think it’s any different whether people believe that sort of stuff because of a religion or for any other reason. Freedom of belief applies even to views we detest, or it’s not freedom of belief. The line is drawn where it is translated into action.
“Of course, over the relevant period of time, faith in western civilization has become less virulent, less aggressive, and less inclined to violent confrontation. …”
And yet we have the SJWs, the great splits between left and right that seem to be deepening and getting more virulent and hate-filled.
” … Over that same period, faith in the muslim world has moved in exactly the opposite direction; it is more expansionist, less tolerant of other faiths or of its own internal differences, and more prone to violent response to other faiths (or lack of faith), apostates, or schismatics in its own ranks.”
Islam has split. By far the greater bulk of it has become less intolerant, more Westernised. A small but very noisy and by no means insignificant rump are fighting a rearguard action against the changing of their world and everything they value, and becoming more angry and violent.
You could argue (and the beards certainly do) that the modern version is not “true” Islam, and there is certainly a severe danger in trying falsely to claim that it is and always has been, when there’s plenty of historical and scriptural evidence proving otherwise.
But that modern version is our best hope for defeating the threat. Isolation preserves it. Force and threat hardens its resolve, recruits defenders for it. Muslims must be seduced away from it, with the promise of prosperity from Western modernity, and towards a better way (for both them and us). You’re not going to turn them into atheists in one easy step. You might have a chance to turn them into a Muslim Church of England.
“No you appear to be proposing that employers be allowed to import people who are directly opposed to the culture of the place they are coming to with no responsibility for the externality imposed by these people upon their neighbours.”
The only people who bear any responsibility for their actions are the people themselves. Same as with anyone, anywhere.
If people cause trouble, the justice system is used to deal with them – the same way if they’re immigrants as for native troublemakers. Nationality doesn’t make such trouble acceptable. You apply the same rules and standards of behaviour to everyone.
“If the people of a country wish to institute democratic government and then vote themselves welfare then there is not much that can be done about that.”
If the people of a country vote to implement socialism and slaughter their minorities, there’s not a lot we can do about that, either. It doesn’t make it right.
“Importing people is not a question for individual employers”
No? Who else is there?
“Employers” are everyone in the society. If you walk into the local 24 hour convenience store, run by Pakistanis, and buy a carton of milk and a newspaper, you are an ’employer’. You make a choice which shop to walk in to. Choosing to buy from the cheap store run by immigrants, rather than the expensive one run by Brits, you make that choice yourself, and profit by it too.
If they’re known to be thieves and rapists, nobody is going to shop there. They go bust and have to leave. The people get to choose. The market supplies what people want. If people want British shop assistants more than they want cheaper goods, the market will supply it.
The problem I think you have is that the people don’t actually want what you think they ought to want. And so you want the State to enforce your chosen rules. It’s an old, old story.
“Even in an anarcho capitalist society I think that employers would be sued if they imported hordes of hostile barbarians who wished to damage the host society”
No, you sue the hostile barbarians. They’re the ones who did the damage.
What damage would be done to society by prosecuting one person for the crimes of another? How is that justice? What sort of society are you trying to build?
Still waiting to hear how many imported RoP supporters of jihadi female subjugation, homosexual hatred etc NiV has personally converted to the cause of light. And his evidence for knowing that he has done so.
“Islam has split. By far the greater bulk of it has become less intolerant, more Westernised. A small but very noisy and by no means insignificant rump are fighting a rearguard action against the changing of their world and everything they value, and becoming more angry and violent.”
What evidence have you for this? Point to just one Islamic country that is democratic and tolerant.
Or are you just saying that there are no democratic tolerant Islamic societies, just ones that aren’t as nastily theocratic and intolerant as they used to be? (I’m not even sure this is true to be honest – what example can you give?) If so thats hardly a reason to bring lots of people from intolerant societies into the West (which is democratic and tolerant). If they’re slowly moving in the right direction surely the best thing to do is keep them at arms length until the virus of Western ideas does its work (which you say it is already)?
“What evidence have you for this? Point to just one Islamic country that is democratic and tolerant.”
Britain.
I’m not talking about countries and I’m not talking about Islam; I’m talking about people. A lot of people don’t agree with the way the society they live in is run. That’s usually why they want to leave it.
You live in the EU, which is neither democratic nor tolerant (from a purist point of view). As a member and representative of an undemocratic, intolerant society, should you therefore be allowed to leave it? 🙂
“Our HR dept. would say that you shouldn’t have told the person off yourself, you should have reported the matter to your line manager or HR. And yes, they’d not accept religious excuses for someone making homophobic remarks. (Technically, Sharia doesn’t require saying such things, so being a Muslim is not an excuse.) They’d address the issue privately with the person, making sure not to reference the person’s nationality, race, or religion at all (your mistake was saying “in Western society”), and record evidence or ensure witnesses to that fact. They get training in how to do it properly. You don’t.”
Well you’ve just contradicted your own argument. You said the State wasn’t to to be involved in the ‘re-education’ of immigrants, it was to be the duty of the population to do it, personally. Now you’re saying they shouldn’t do it personally they should complain to HR (which of course only works in a large business or organisation, not small businesses/personal interactions) and let them deal with it. And HR will only be applying the law (as decreed by the State) not their own moral judgement of what is right and wrong.
If HR get the ‘training’ to confront illiberal immigrant attitudes, why are you requiring that the entire public do exactly that, with no training?
Interesting article on the Spectator site today, given the discussion in this thread: http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/istanbuls-european-side-seeing-freedom-eroded-away/