Wonder what the result will be here, eh?

The home secretary has ordered research into why men convicted of grooming-gang sex crimes are disproportionately of Pakistani origin.

Sajid Javid, whose own family roots are in Pakistan, said that establishing the “particular characteristics” of the perpetrators was “critical to our understanding” of offending in places including Rotherham, Telford and Newcastle.

167 thoughts on “Wonder what the result will be here, eh?”

  1. White men are to blame, somehow?

    The new head of the Crown Prosecution Service thinks ISIS murderers are lovely young lads who just need to be “integrated”. Also, he wants to ban the term “Islamic terrorism”.

    Ecksian solutions when?

  2. Have they committed an offense on our territory? If not, why should we care, it’s the juristiction where the crime occurs that has juristictional soverignty. Does nobody remember the inequity of the Chinese Concessions?

  3. “jgh

    Have they committed an offense on our territory?”

    Depends whether you consider Rotherham, Telford and Newcastle to be our territory.

  4. ‘Disproportionately’ – an interesting word to choose. It’s as if the author expects there to be a natural population of ‘grooming-gangsters’, of all races and sects, and the inquiry is simply to investigate why so many of them are of Pakistani origin.

    Vocabulary choices can be very revealing. I had never heard of this phenomenon before we were culturally enriched.

    Related:

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6857964/sarah-champion-security-asian-gangs/

    Notice how they are described as ‘Asian’, which is incredibly insulting to law-abiding Indians, Chinese, Japanese, et al.

  5. At least he’s acknowledging the issue, even if it’s only ‘research’ at this stage. I’m not holding my breath for any positive action though.

  6. Because they’re raised in a conservative, traditional culture that tries to restrict, control, and repress pre-marital sexual behaviour, and which strictly segregates men and women, but where the age of consent is puberty – as biology dictates. They are raised to believe men are naturally inclined to be sexual predators, and women have to cover themselves up to avoid being predated upon. Because they have no experience, and therefore no clue, how to engage in normal, healthy relations with the opposite sex – those being forbidden. Because they’re young men raised in a sexual desert, who see girls as exotic, unobtainable treasures that they desire with every fibre of their being, but are forbidden to approach. Because they take the traditional view on equal rights for women, which is that the women in a relationship do what the men tell them to.

    Because they’ve been dropped into the middle of an alien culture where the women aren’t segregated or forbidden, are allowed to have sex whenever they like, where women don’t wear body bags to hide themselves from the eyes of predatory men but wander round in public half-undressed, in deliberately sexy and provocative clothes like miniskirts (which their own culture interprets as wanton and ‘up-for-it’), because the adult local women are years ahead of them at relationships and difficult to deal with, because teenaged girls are just as horny, and just as rebellious against parental prohibitions as boys, because girls raised in care don’t have the same level of loving parental supervision, and they’re easily persuaded by older men willing to shower them with gifts and treats, and who are willing to treat them as adults.

    It’s basically the same reason that youngsters get drunk and start fights all over the city centres every Friday night nowadays. Or why there are gang wars over the supply of illegal drugs. If you forbid something, it makes people want to do it even more, and forces it underground where there are no rules or safety net.

    It’s ultimately because this sort of behaviour is *absolutely* and *unequivocally* forbidden and banned in conservative-thinking Islam! Prohibition doesn’t work – it makes things worse.

  7. NiV is reliability wrong as usual. Muslims don’t rape because they’re repressed. They rape because that’s what invaders do, particularly when they’re following the example of a prophet who did the same thing.

  8. I wonder if they’ll find and report a difference between Ahmadi and Sunni young men of Pakistani heritage

  9. “NiV is reliability wrong as usual. Muslims don’t rape because they’re repressed. They rape because that’s what invaders do, particularly when they’re following the example of a prophet who did the same thing.”

    No. Those are slaves captured in war, for which there is a specific exception. The behaviour found here is very definitely forbidden by Islam.

  10. I suppose it is just possible that this is a Nixon in China moment, and that Javid is the bloke to pull it off.

    Incidentally, NiV, given your remarks above about their culture, and how they’ve been dropped into an alien culture, as explanations for why they behave like this, where do you now stand on the question of whether we can and should filter immigrants for desirability?

    I understood your position to be that all are welcome and that none of us is entitled to prevent this …

  11. NiV – Pro tip: make sure the Windolene has evaporated before you osculate the double glazing.

    First, you tried to convince us that it’s the mean old “conservative, traditional culture” which drives poor Muslim men to organise in gangs and drug, beat, rape and kill little English girls in their thousands while the authorities turn a blind eye.

    Nice argument, except for the fact that it’s absolute bullshit.

    We don’t have rampaging gangs of rapey Orthodox Jews, Jehovah’s Witnesses, or Hindus, and their culture/religions are also sexually conservative.

    Second, you pretend to be an authority on Islam (a religion which would have you put to death for your sexual proclivities, by the way):

    The behaviour found here is very definitely forbidden by Islam.

    No it fucking isn’t. Else it wouldn’t be so common. The Koran is quite clear about what rights the infidels are to be permitted: none.

  12. The Meissen Bison

    NiV – it’s not because it’s forbidden, it’s because they can mostly get away with it – that goes for the groomers as well as the drunken yobs.

  13. Steve

    Your use of the term ‘Ecksian solutions’ – Remember that outfit ‘Executive Outcomes’ who were used in Sierra Leone to overthrow a coup – Ecks could set up something similar here – ‘all purpose purges and eradication of CM undertaken’

  14. “Incidentally, NiV, given your remarks above about their culture, and how they’ve been dropped into an alien culture, as explanations for why they behave like this, where do you now stand on the question of whether we can and should filter immigrants for desirability?”

    The same place I stood before. Cultures are changed by one another only by close social contact. The closer the contact, the faster the change. We’re fighting a culture war – our culture is attempting to seduce and corrupt them into following our ways. It’s a slow process – it took *us* 60 years to move from Victorian prudery to the Swinging Sixties! It’s not going to happen overnight. But it *is* progressing at a rapid pace (by historical standards), and we *will* win.

    I don’t think the issue is about filtering them for desirability at the border – it’s about how they’re expected to behave once they get here. The point of the “free market of ideas” is to give people a *free choice* about how they personally live, so that we can be sure that however they choose to live is the best option available for them. If they *choose* to pray, abstain from pork and alcohol, and wear body bags – they’re free to do so. But what they’re *not* allowed to do is *impose* that decision on anyone else – by force, threat of force, or similar nastiness. We’re too lax, in my opinion, about people who impose their own social norms on others by force or threat.

    But of course, as a society, we’re still not entirely in a position to lecture others. We’ve still not entirely escaped ourselves from our history of religious traditionalism with regard to imposing our own social norms on other people’s sexual behaviour. We need to lead by example a bit more, to practice what we preach, as well as to make due allowance for the time it takes for societies to change.

    “I understood your position to be that all are welcome and that none of us is entitled to prevent this …”

    No. I don’t welcome active authoritarians in our society. But I don’t make any distinction, there, on the basis of race, religion, or nationality.

  15. But I don’t make any distinction, there, on the basis of race, religion, or nationality.

    Or genital configuration.

  16. Interesting that these are Pakistani gangs and not Bengali gangs.

    Plenty of Bengalis (Bangladeshis, but also from Indian Bengal) in the UK – about two-thirds as many as the Pakistanis. Just as Muslim as the Pakistanis. But you don’t hear about their gangs.

    Suggests that it’s not simply Islam.

  17. How can it be forbidden in Islam? Mohammed was supposedly the perfect man (huge dollops of camel shit be upon him) and he was into pre-pubescent girls. Bottom line is that Islam is a cult founded by a bastard no less evil than Jim Jones, David Koresh or Marshall Applewhite. The only reason that it has survived so long is timing, it arrived on the scene at a time of superstition, ignorance and conquest. In the medieval shitholes where Islam is the dominant culture, the common people continue to be kept in unquestioning ignorance. What I find bizarre is that you can have well-educated Muslims. If you are a questioning, intelligent person, why can you not see Islam for the complete and utter bollocks that it is?

  18. “Second, you pretend to be an authority on Islam (a religion which would have you put to death for your sexual proclivities, by the way):”

    I am an authority on Islam. And you’ve *no idea* what my sexual proclivities are – you’re making assumptions on the basis that because *you* wouldn’t defend anyone else’s rights unless you was a member of the group being persecuted, you assume that everyone else is as selfish/stupid. Niemoller was right about you.

    “The Koran is quite clear about what rights the infidels are to be permitted: none.”

    Completely and utterly wrong! I’ve even given links to the Sharia sources before! The specific rights of non-Muslims in the Muslim state are listed in section o.11 of Umdat al-salik wa-‘uddat al nasik by Ibn Naqib al-Misri, and mentioned in many other sections.

    It’s exactly this sort of ill-informed easily-falsified made-up *crap* that enables the Islamic apologists to persuade the authorities and thepublic that the people who oppose them are nothing more than ignorant bigots with no real knowledge of Islam outside their fevered, conspiracy-theorist, racist imaginations, and can be safely ignored.

    You are ‘crying wolf’. And when the Islamists can demonstrate that there *is* no wolf where you say, because you’ve not taken the time to research it, everybody dismisses your warnings as the ravings of an ignorant nutter and misses the *real* wolves!

  19. Docbud

    “If you are a questioning, intelligent person, why can you not see Islam for the complete and utter bollocks that it is?”

    Isn’t the same question valid for any other variation where one is required to regard some sky fairy as a deity?

  20. The result should be that these white girls are kuffur/kaffir and as such can be raped at will by Muslims. It’s in their book.

  21. NiV – I am an authority on Islam

    Scouring Grindr to get Aladdin doesn’t make you an authority on Mohammedanism, bigot.

    And you’ve *no idea* what my sexual proclivities are

    Please. Everyone knows. You’re as transparent as those creepy guys who always talk about how “ebolaphilia” is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, HONEST! from paedo stuff.

    The specific rights of non-Muslims in the Muslim state are listed in section o.11 of Umdat al-salik wa-‘uddat al nasik by Ibn Naqib al-Misri, and mentioned in

    Is that between the exhortations to “slay them wherever you find them”, “don’t take unbelievers as friends” and how the infidels will be “punished with terrible agony in this world and the next”?

    Taqiyya no worky no more.

    You are ‘crying wolf’. And when the Islamists can demonstrate that there *is* no wolf where you say,

    Blah blah blah. Do you actually believe this shite? The only people who haven’t already made up their minds about the religion of peace are the fools who will probably cry “at least I’m not raaacciiiissss–” as they’re chucked off a building.

  22. PF,

    Yes, but some cults are more manifestly so than others. The history of Mohammed is clearly one of a charlatan using supposed revelations from a fictional god to control his followers. It is a great shame that the Mohammedan cult didn’t go the same way as those modern cults, a mass suicide in Medina in the seventh century would have saved the world a lot of pain.

  23. “Or genital configuration.”

    🙂 Yep!

    “Bottom line is that Islam is a cult founded by a bastard no less evil than Jim Jones, David Koresh or Marshall Applewhite.”

    Ultimately, all these rules originated with Moses. Mohammed’s argument was that the Jews and Christians had corrupted the pure religion of God, as handed down by the prophets, and he was simply restoring it. If anyone was evil, it was the bastard who raped, slaughtered, and enslaved entire nations all the way to the ‘promised’ land.

    Granted, there are plenty of other bastards responsible who have come along since, who could have changed things but didn’t. But that’s authoritarian religions for you.

    “The only reason that it has survived so long is timing, it arrived on the scene at a time of superstition, ignorance and conquest.”

    It’s more or less how we all used to be. Because the Enlightenment started here, and cultures spread slowly, we’ve progressed in the direction of liberality more than they have. But frankly, we’re not at the finishing line yet, either. We’re probably about 100 years ahead of them.

    “What I find bizarre is that you can have well-educated Muslims. If you are a questioning, intelligent person, why can you not see Islam for the complete and utter bollocks that it is?”

    That’s the way culture and cultural norms work. It’s like ‘imprinting’. People pick up the rules from the community they live in when they’re young, and that becomes just the way things are, the way they’re supposed to be, and it usually doesn’t occur to them that things could be any other way. Intelligence makes no difference to it – Isaac Newton and his contemporaries devoted large tracts of their mathematical works to theology, and speculations about the physics of angels and spirits. It wouldn’t have occurred to them not to.

    We can all see it in others, when we read about the different culture our society had in the past. What’s far harder is to accept that the same thing must apply to us today. There are some animals that can recognise themselves in a mirror, and others that can see only a threatening rival.

    “How can it be forbidden in Islam? Mohammed was supposedly the perfect man (huge dollops of camel shit be upon him) and he was into pre-pubescent girls.”

    No. In Islam you can marry them before puberty, but you can’t have penetrative sex with them until after puberty (first menses), and you can’t do anything with them outside marriage/slavery.

  24. You guys need guns. And balls.

    The key here isn’t coming to an understanding of what makes Pakis do what they do, it’s having the Pakis come to an understanding that they will be shot down in cold blood the minute they try to do what they do.

    The last terrorist we had try something in Central Ohio was shot dead in the street. Haven’t had much action since then.

  25. I’ve even given links to the Sharia sources before!

    So fucking what? Christianity is a religion based on love and forgiveness, but Christians burned each other for heresy once.

    You can quote all the scripture you like, but Islam is not what is in the book, Islam is what Muslims practice. This does indeed vary, but none of it is good.

    Islam prohibits both paedophilia and homosexuality, but shagging little boys is widespread in Afghanistan and the Imams manage to be OK with it, just as Imams elsewhere OK the fiction that is the Shariah mortgage.

    Rape and exploitation of women is widespread in the Islamic world, because the Islamic world consists of backward peasants and because Islam enables it. Uncontrolled immigration and arseholes like you pussyfooting around the ‘rights’ of stone age peasants to continue their backwardness has led to areas where Muslims are able to do what they like, and what they like is exploiting women, fucking over the kuffar, evading taxes and electoral fraud, just like back home.

  26. NiV:
    “I don’t welcome active authoritarians in our society.”

    “I am an authority on Islam.”

    Best fuck off, then.

  27. Dennis- indeed.
    Perhaps the most important factor is that they formed a favoured group whose crimes were covered up for decades.
    If people you know have been getting away with doing what they liked all their lives, why would you think you couldn’t?
    I suspect that the success of Islam came because it arose at a time when Rome and Persia were weak from both warfare and disease, it arose in a place that dominated the east-west trade routes, and it can by careful selection of texts (read to an illiterate audience) be used to encourage peaceful co-existence or fanatical warriors as required.

  28. Mohammed was a bandit and murderer, I think it is safe to say he was a bastard, and his character justified the behaviour of his followers.

    If you lust after a six year old, even if you don’t penetrate her until she is nine, you are a pedophile, and we also have this:

    (Suhayli, ii. 79: in the Riwaya of Yunus i. I. Recorded that the apostle saw her (Ummu’lfadl) when she was a baby crawling before him and said, ‘if she grows up and I am still alive I will marry her.’ but he died before she grew up and sufyan b. Al-aswad b. ‘Abdu’l-asad al-Makhzumi married her and she bore him rizq and lubab… [Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad, Karachi, p. 311]

  29. The next thing I’d point out to the wogs in the audience is that this isn’t about the failings of Islam, it’s about the moral and physical cowardice of both the English authorities (at all levels) and the English public (at all levels).

    I’ve worked inside an Islamic community for over 16 years, and have two mosques as clients. That didn’t keep me from informing a rather obnoxious young Muslim who told me that one day I’d be a slave to Islam that I’d shoot him dead on the spot if I ever heard him say that again. Evidently he believed me, because he refused to come to work after that. When his employer (a devout Muslim) called to find out what I’d done to inspire such terror, I explained it to him completely honestly. His reaction? He fired the guy and told him it was a good thing he’d said to me rather than someone else, because someone else might have just pulled out a gun and shot him on the spot.

    There have been two times when I’ve been disrespected by a Muslim (the above incident being one of them), and I’ve dealt with both of them loudly and publicly, making sure a lot of other people in that community know how I dealt with disrespect. Guess what? Not only do I not get disrespected, I gained respect.

    For some reason the Muslims around here don’t get real pushy… Don’t know why… A real mystery.

  30. Dennis – and then the entire Dairy Queen burst into applause, and the manager offered you a free ice cream, and that Dennis The Peasant’s name? Albert Einstein.

    Tales of internet badassery aside, threatening to murder people isn’t really a practical solution.

  31. NiV – “we’re in a culture war”

    And our fucking useless government has already run up the white flag

    All we grunts can do is push to ensure a) the fuckers are encouraged to integrate b) punished severely for their crimes and c) the inflow is reduced to as near zero as possible

  32. Tales of internet badassery aside, threatening to murder people isn’t really a practical solution.

    Fine. Carry on. Keep looking for that nuanced solution to this very complex problem

    It’s all part of how you ended up with Pakis boffing your kids in the first place.

  33. Steve –

    It’s really sad that the idea of individuals enslaving and sexually abusing children evolves no reaction from you, but me threatening some smartass punk does.

    Congratulations, you’re at least half way to dhimmitude.

  34. @NiV “Because they’re young men”

    54 year old taxi drivers shagging underage teenage girls while insulting them and finishing off by urinating on them?

    You excuse that as the exuberance of youth?

    “they’re raised in a conservative, traditional culture that tries to restrict, control, and repress pre-marital sexual behaviour, …They are raised to believe men are naturally inclined to be sexual predators”

    So they’re conservative, traditionalists who are also sexual predators?

    Respect and honour women but, you know, gang rape them?

    FFS.

  35. @Dennis

    FWIW, I’m with you.

    Shooting people might not solve all our problems but I think it might solve some of them.

  36. “Is that between the exhortations to “slay them wherever you find them”, “don’t take unbelievers as friends” and how the infidels will be “punished with terrible agony in this world and the next”?”

    Yes. You might be interested in the rest of the verse, after the bit you quoted.

    And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

    There is a communal obligation on all Muslims to wage jihad and conquer the lands of the unbelievers. Polytheists have no options but to convert or die, but if they convert, or if they are monotheist and submit as dhimma, then they can live under Islamic rule subject to lesser rights and protections. However, these rights are not “none”, as you stated.

    If you know about taqiyya, you ought to already know about dhimma too.

    “So fucking what? Christianity is a religion based on love and forgiveness, but Christians burned each other for heresy once.

    You can quote all the scripture you like, but Islam is not what is in the book, Islam is what Muslims practice. This does indeed vary, but none of it is good.

    Islam prohibits both paedophilia and homosexuality, but shagging little boys is widespread in Afghanistan and the Imams manage to be OK with it, just as Imams elsewhere OK the fiction that is the Shariah mortgage.

    Rape and exploitation of women is widespread in the Islamic world, because the Islamic world consists of backward peasants and because Islam enables it.”

    Yep. I agree with all of that. The Christian world, too.

    I just think we ought to do something to fix it, rather than simply walling them out and letting their victims continue to suffer. “Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it.” – Abraham Lincoln.

    “Perhaps the most important factor is that they formed a favoured group whose crimes were covered up for decades.”

    Agreed. See link above.

    “Mohammed was a bandit and murderer, I think it is safe to say he was a bastard, and his character justified the behaviour of his followers.”

    Agreed. Although not everyone who claims to be a follower really is – just as is the case with Jesus.

    “That didn’t keep me from informing a rather obnoxious young Muslim who told me that one day I’d be a slave to Islam that I’d shoot him dead on the spot if I ever heard him say that again.”

    Ah! Free speech! First Amendment! American values!

    Certainly, if he tried to actually enslave you, shooting him dead would be fully justified. I’m no fan of slavery.

    “All we grunts can do is push to ensure a) the fuckers are encouraged to integrate b) punished severely for their crimes and c) the inflow is reduced to as near zero as possible”

    I agree with a and b, not c. Two out of three ain’t bad? 🙂

  37. Dennis – Congratulations, you’re at least half way to dhimmitude.

    Eh. You’re literally collaborating with the Somali colonisation of Minnesota, when you’re not telling us what a mean hombre you are. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    Here’s what happens in the real world when you make death threats against people:

    http://monopoly.wikia.com/wiki/Go_to_Jail_(card)

  38. Only NIV could see this as a positive -“And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful”
    Honestly you accuse me of being ignorant and then say islam is great because if it doesn’t kill me then i’ll be a slave. And to say that islam is only 100 years behind the west – laughable.
    It is obvious that you are in dire need of intensive psychiatric help – perhaps you can find a good muslim psychiatrist – though might be difficult. – many muslims don’t believe depression exists in islamic communities. A survey shows that in morocco 50% of the population has mental or psychological disorders. https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2017/07/224718/mentally-ill-mental-health-care-morocco/ I don’t know if this is indicative of all muslim societies though i see nothing to suggest that this isn’t prevalent throughout the muslim world.

  39. “Honestly you accuse me of being ignorant and then say islam is great because if it doesn’t kill me then i’ll be a slave.”

    Oh, FFS! I’m *not* saying Islam is great! I’m saying that you give it a pass if you spout easily-refutable made-up crap about it that any apologist can use to prove to everyone that you’re ‘lying’. If you get stuff wrong, they can use those errors to discredit the rest of your warnings.

    There’s more than enough *real* dirt in Islam to condemn it, without making false stuff up! Get it right. Accuracy matters!

  40. I was about to say “Only NiV” but Moqifen beat me to it!

    NiV, your problem above is that pretty much anyone reading what you wrote there will have interpreted it the same way Moqifen did (imho).

    And then you worry about other people getting it right! Accuracy is not simply what you say (or omit). More importantly, it’s about how something is perceived or understood.

  41. NiV is a fantasist.

    Our dear friends in the RoP treat their own women pretty much the same. Any Saudi women even in the full black postbox who is out and about without the male who owns her is regarded as fair game.

    Steve–Thanks for your confidence. Better if you join UKIP for just one or two years until Brexit is largely complete. If one tenth of all Brexit voters joined UKIP that would be 1.7 mil members –more than twice all the other parties combined. May would be changing her knickers on the quarter hour. £30 for one year when the 40 billion rip off will cost everybody in the UK more than that alone.

    We should–even if we don’t like all their policies –for the moment regard UKIP as a single issue join for one purpose: to deliver Brexit when all the others have proved traitors and double-crossers. A Brexit insurance policy. You can take out the policy without leaving your main party for £30. That and the trivial cost of stamps and e-mailing will do the trick. But only if folk work at it.

    Join UKIP and encourage everybody you know to join. The swelling numbers will put colossal pressure on the sell-out MPs.

  42. @ NiV
    “f anyone was evil, it was the bastard who raped, slaughtered, and enslaved entire nations all the way to the ‘promised’ land.”
    Who was that?
    The Israelites enforced the death penalty in the case of rape.
    No nations got enslaved on the way – one *town* did after Joshua arrived in Canaan, after Moses died, because it tried to trick Joshua (and briefly succeeded).
    Did you say something about accuracy?

  43. How about you Theo?

    Not leave the Tories but just for one year join UKIP as well to help put the shits up your own sellouts and May. Despite your opinion of UKIP even you cannot deny that watching UKIP numbers climb is the fastest and best way to deliver a dose of reality to a Westminster Bubble badly in need of just that. You don’t have to like UKIP or do anything on their behalf beyond just adding one more nail to May’s coffin. Indeed no one in your circle other than yourself need ever know about it.

    Can you honestly think of a move with more bang for the buck that can be done quickly to damage the FFC. You would pay £30 in flash to help if you could discover something else as damaging to May. You are simply increasing the pressure you can bring to bear. From within and without so to speak.

  44. You’re literally collaborating with the Somali colonisation of Minnesota, when you’re not telling us what a mean hombre you are.

    I’m in Ohio, asshole. Never been in Minnesota in my life.

    So now that you’ve shown off your reading comprehension skills, you want to tell everyone here more about what I do and how I do it?

    And it’d take a fucking wog to not understand the difference between assimilation and colonization. How fucking British can you get?

  45. NiV: just for once I wish you were a woman in a conservative Muslim community to experience just what a misogynist nightmare it is. I have had patients from that community, women kept at home or covered so that their babies get rickets, malnourished women because the men eat first and the womenfolk must hover in the kitchen while they feast, raped old women, young women, underage girls, prepubescent girls, babies, by their menfolk, in their homes, women reluctant to tell what happened, making up improbable stories about falls, unwilling to lay charges or be witnesses, always chaperoned with a “spokesman”. As an apologist for evil you would deserve the humiliations and pain millions of real women endure from the ummah.

  46. In these chats of ours, I’m reminded of the joke about the UN football team. Who(m) would they play, asks Jim Hacker? Israel, says Sir H.

    I’m bound to say NiV, old Scout, I did not find your explanation at 1.03pm a convincing one.

    Cultures may well be changed by close contact, as you say. They may find a middle ground, or they may swing towards one or other competing extreme. But then, why take the chance?

    But equally, that does not answer the question. I mean, if we’re fighting a culture war, why are we fighting a culture war? Who wants that? What’s the point? It’s one thing to have a few thousand purple-haired, tattoed agitators pushing for it because they’re grollies, and quite another to invite a few million more to assist them.

    You’re similarly evasive in saying that it’s not about filtering them for desirability at the border. Why not, given your observations about them? You say it’s about assimilation once they get here? Why? What possible reason can you have for castigating that culture as you have, then giving its members a laisser-passer (sic?), before saying it’s all about what then happens after they’ve got on board? How is that even remotely sane, given your judgment on that culture?

    And how does it make sense, given your judgment on that culture, that you do not wish to exercise filters at the border?

    Bear in mind, this has real world consequences. You’ve said before that it’ll be all right in the end. And I’ve said to you, fine, but what about the misery caused in the meantime? I know of it personally. I was stabbed in the neck, int. al. by one of these RoPers. And I have professional experience running to hundreds and hundreds of cases of them (and others, admittedly) killing, maiming, torturing, immiserating and depriving otherwise decent people.

    What is it? You can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs?

    It’s not an issue, filtering them at the gate? Really? Tell it to the child of a man killed by a member of a culture (one among a number, I grant) who wasn’t filtered at the gate? Have you ever had to do that? How did you carry it off? It’s all part of life’s rich pattern, part of living in a modern city (albeit one inhabited by prehistorics)?

    You have bottomless pity for people suffering from what I shall, I hope, neutrally, call gender confusion, or confoundment.

    Where’s your sympathy for the maimees, their families? For the ravishment and pillage of decent people not filtered at the gate, at your insistence and at that of your fellow travellers, so concerned are you that the real problem is what happens to them once they’re over the wall?

    Your final paragraph. You “don’t welcome”. What does that mean? You support an active policy of discrimination and exclusion, by force of arms if necessary? Yes?

    DtP, well done. But grow up, or at least develop a sense of perspective.

  47. I just want them gone, the liberal ones, the westernised ones, the apostate ones, you get the idea….every fucking one of them and I really don’t care how, oh and fuck nuance.

  48. thud

    “every fucking one of them”

    every fucking one of “what”?

    I’m a bit confused. If they are apostate, what do you want gone?

    Or (in your case) is it simply a race issue? How far – European, mixed race, Irish, Anglo-irish, Scousers – where are you drawing the line…

  49. I am a bit nuanced. I am shacked-up with a Mohammedan. Before that, I was shacked-up with a Christian of similar racial origin. I reckon I am one of the world’s foremost experts on the perils, even at the upper, most benevolent end, of “multiculturalism”. For nearly 30 years.

    It has compensations.

    Or at least, gentle, womanly women, being womanly, at least outwardly, beat black t-shirted over-‘educated’ wimminz of what remains of the Western world.

    But it also has its stressful conflicts. It’s not unicorns and rainbow farts. Much less Benetton ads.

  50. Ecks

    Your interesting suggestion re UKIP.

    Can I recommend that they immediately get themselves (again) a high profile, highly charismatic leader. And shift more back to “single focus” (leaving) so that those who may not be natural bed fellows are not put off.

    A strong leader would also increase significantly the leverage that any “number of members” would have on Tess. Farage has talked about “later, maybe, if the UK has not left by March 29th”, but it really needs to happen now, if May is to get the message before September / October?

    And the fee, as someone else said – have a substantially discounted rate. And an “option” to repay the difference for any that have just joined so as not to piss those off. No more than an option, as many would not take it up, but it’s useful goodwill.

    If you want serious numbers that is? You have to “show” people that don’t ordinarily do this kind of thing (join political parties) that it is easy, and can be worth their while (ie they can see it could be effective)? And if lots of people start doing it, that also creates its own momentum (a bit like Labour’s £3 did – no pun intended?).

    Two pennies?

  51. Dennis – I’m in Ohio, asshole.

    My mistake. So you’re collaborating in the Islamisation and Third Worldification of Ohio. Literally working for the extinction of your nation.

    Great job, internet tough guy!

  52. Hmm, could it be a) because they come from cultures that treat free women as fair game to any predator around and, b) because the police had made it clear that they wouldn’t do anything to them if they acted out on their impulses for fear of looking ‘racist’?

  53. “NiV, your problem above is that pretty much anyone reading what you wrote there will have interpreted it the same way Moqifen did (imho).”

    Nope. It only happens here. You keep on making assumptions about my position (some sort of pro-Islam left-wing SJW) which leads you into equally false assumptions about my meaning.

    “No nations got enslaved on the way – one *town* did after Joshua arrived in Canaan, after Moses died, because it tried to trick Joshua (and briefly succeeded).”

    Numbers 31:18.

    So what do you think they wanted 32,000 virgins for, exactly?

    “Did you say something about accuracy?”

    Yes?

    “NiV: just for once I wish you were a woman in a conservative Muslim community to experience just what a misogynist nightmare it is. […] As an apologist for evil you would deserve the humiliations and pain millions of real women endure from the ummah.”

    I *know* what a misogynist nightmare it is. You keep on (falsely) accusing me of being an apologist for it, when all I’ve ever done here is argue *against* it, and every other authoritarian culture like it.

    How can you people read me writing something like “Because they take the traditional view on equal rights for women, which is that the women in a relationship do what the men tell them to.” and think I don’t know?!

    I’m not an apologist for evil – your problem is that I’m not a one-sided apologist for evil. I don’t only condemn it when the other side do it, and I don’t do it where it’s not deserved, which is what makes you assume I must be on the ‘other side’.

    “But equally, that does not answer the question. I mean, if we’re fighting a culture war, why are we fighting a culture war? Who wants that? What’s the point?”

    “Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it.”

    The *point* is the ultimate defeat and destruction of Islam!

    You seem to keep on thinking of it in terms solely of *your* liberty – as if you think that so long as *you* are free and safe, fuck everybody else in the world. But the preservation of your freedom depends on reciprocity. If you won’t fight for anybody else’s freedom, nobody else will fight for yours.

    “You’re similarly evasive in saying that it’s not about filtering them for desirability at the border. Why not, given your observations about them?”

    I thought that was obvious. The strategy is to *convert* them, to corrupt their ideological purity by tempting them with Western wealth, Western pleasures, all the advantages of Western culture. And you obviously can’t do that if you have no contact with them – if you lock them out at the border!

    “Bear in mind, this has real world consequences. You’ve said before that it’ll be all right in the end. And I’ve said to you, fine, but what about the misery caused in the meantime?”

    Because you’ve only got a limited time left to do it. Their numbers are multiplying faster than ours, and the third world is developing economically. If they catch up economically (as Hans Rosling suggested would happen by the end of the century) and we haven’t reformed their culture, we’re going to have all sorts of trouble.

    And because shutting them all out at the border doesn’t stop the misery for all those millions trapped in those countries, who want reform, prosperity, equality, and liberty – what you really meant is that it keeps the misery away from *you*.

    “And I have professional experience running to hundreds and hundreds of cases of them (and others, admittedly) killing, maiming, torturing, immiserating and depriving otherwise decent people.”

    About time we tried to stop it then, yes?

    “Tell it to the child of a man killed by a member of a culture (one among a number, I grant) who wasn’t filtered at the gate?”

    Tell it to the ones who died because you wouldn’t let them in at the gate.

    “our final paragraph. You “don’t welcome”. What does that mean? You support an active policy of discrimination and exclusion, by force of arms if necessary? Yes?”

    “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” Libertarianism is not pacifism. It uses force.

    “b) because the police had made it clear that they wouldn’t do anything to them if they acted out on their impulses for fear of looking ‘racist’?”

    Their problem is partly that racists are flinging around so many unfounded/untrue/distorted accusations that the real ones are lost in the noise. Eventually they just tune them all out. Accuracy matters. It’s the problem of “Crying Wolf” again.

    But the main problem is that nobody wants to be associated with racists, because we remember them being associated with the *last* wave of evil to trouble the world. Who would trust the judgement of someone like that?

  54. My mistake. So you’re collaborating in the Islamisation and Third Worldification of Ohio. Literally working for the extinction of your nation.

    You’re not bright enough to understand this, but I’ll put it up anyway… some of the rest will.

    What you don’t understand is this: The way you assimilate people into your culture is by drawing clear boundaries and enforcing those boundaries with firmness. So, when some young Muslim punk crossed a boundary with me, I informed him of that fact in a manner he could not misunderstand, and I also informed him that a continuation on the wrong side of that boundary would have certain – rather unpleasant – consequences. He learned a lesson that day. A valuable lesson that will allow him to live his life in the USA in a manner that is appropriate for a citizen and acceptable to other citizens.

    Anyway, I find it amusing that on the one hand you condemn me for being thuggish towards a Muslim and on the other you condemn me for helping them destroy the USA via ‘Islamisation’. Oh well, there’s no cure for stupid.

  55. I’m not an apologist for evil – your problem is that I’m not a one-sided apologist for evil.

    Actually, you are a one-sided apologist… You are forever on the side of whatever happens to be fashionable amongst leftist intellectuals (psuedo-, mostly) at any given moment.

  56. Fuck off Dennis, you’d shit your own pants before you threatened to kill anyone, you daft old cunt. Apart from anything else, if you actually shot someone for making a stupid threat of some impossible variety that might happen at some point in the distant future, your bold land of the brave and free would in most states turn you into a pork pop tart ten years later. We can read, you know, and some of us have lived and travelled abroad.

    Mr Lud – great post, you ask the most important question. So we’re fighting a culture war we have no fucking need to fight WHY exactly?

  57. DtP, what you’re missing is that, apparently, where you live, you can get away with that. Jolly good. I’ve no doubt there are large parts of the US where you could not. And you can’t over here. So we all indulge in Ecksian elysiums but in reality until that moment when the dam breaks and all bets are off, your solution, since it is not more widely backed by the gangsters currently lording it over us, is not a practical one for us. Nor is it for most Americans. So, again, well done. But I don’t imagine you could’ve done this in NY or SF. And woggishness or not, don’t imagine you’re the only one who’s physically stuck his neck above the parapet in relation to our respective cultural enrichment. Or maybe you do. Maybe you’re the only brave bloke around among, what is it? 320m Septics and 65m limeys.

    I don’t know. I’ve got NiVs to address. As someone once said, “I can’t come to bed, darling. There’s someone on the internet, and he’s wrong!”

  58. PS I understand Ironman was nicked outside the HO today for yelling that Savid Javid was Islamophobic, and generally carrying on like a bellend.

  59. Bloke in North Dorset

    I’m with DtP when he says we brought it on ourselves.

    I was born in Bradford and brought up in Dewsbury and Huddersfield in the ’60s and ’70s. All my grandparents, uncles and aunts still lived there during that period and Dewsbury itself was one of the areas affected.

    It shouldn’t be forgotten in the ’50s and to a lesser extent ’60s we invited young men in to work in the mills as cheaper labour in a vain effort to help save mill owners. During that period there was moves to let them bring their wives over and anyone who objected was a racist.

    When the mills eventually failed they were allowed to stay because there was still a general shortage of labour and they were here. Anyone who objected was a racist. Then there was a call for them to be allowed to bring their extended families over and anyone objected was a racist.

    By then we’re getting to the ’70s and people were objecting to some of the cultural practices, but they were denounced as racists and we started to pass laws to jail those racists and protect the cultural practices. Councils were falling over themselves brag about the number of languages they were printing their council leaflets and forms in, and if anyone pointed out that this wasn’t helping them integrate they were denounced as racists.

    One of my uncles was on the hard left doing some of the denouncing. His eldest daughter became a social worker so she could help them and was on the hard left doing some of that denouncing. Last time I saw her about 10 years ago she’d moved well away and had changed her tune. I know longer have any extended family living in those former northern mill towns.

    Instead of insisting on integration in those large northern cities we allowed them to live by their own cultures and accused anyone who complained of being thick racist bigots. As I’ve said before, we weren’t becoming multi cultural, we were becoming multi-monocultural. The problem was that most of those doing the denouncing were living and working in London and to be fair London, like most capital cities is a bit multicultural.

    And now we have Ljh ( a GP for those new to these parts) telling us what one of the consequence has been:

    I have had patients from that community, women kept at home or covered so that their babies get rickets, malnourished women because the men eat first and the womenfolk must hover in the kitchen while they feast, raped old women, young women, underage girls, prepubescent girls, babies, by their menfolk, in their homes, women reluctant to tell what happened, making up improbable stories about falls, unwilling to lay charges or be witnesses, always chaperoned with a “spokesman”. As an apologist for evil you would deserve the humiliations and pain millions of real women endure from the ummah.

    To add to the rape of young white girls and all the other problems

    If it looks like I’m blaming those who did the denouncing and didn’t insist that they integrate and accept the host culture then damned right I am because we know that Muslim Pakistanis can be integrated. I worked with a devout one in London. She didn’t wear a headscarf or demand any special treatment. She would even sip champagne if we were toasting someone’s success (something I told she shouldn’t do if it was against her religion. I would never insist on a tea-totaller drinking to be seen to be part of something).

    Calls to throw them all out are complete fantasy but we need to sort this out and make them integrate. That may mean breaking more than a few eggs, it will mean metaphorically breaking a few heads of family. We should insist, like the Danes, that children are taken in to school at an early age and taught English and our history and whey we are moving to equality. If we have to separate families then so be it. We need to take steps to make sure girls arem’t shipped of to Pakistan or other countries to marry someone they’ve never seen, and if that means violating their human rights by not issuing passports to any girl from a country where these barbaric practices are accepted then fuck the HRC.

    I’ll finish by saying that if all these practices are cultural, then I’m a culturarist, if its race, then I’m a racist and if its religion then I’m an Islamaphobe. And proud of it.

    I don’t care what people call me I just want to see it fixed.

  60. PF It’s more than obvious I mean anyone ever associated with the civilisation killing infection masquerading as a religion….simple enough for you?

  61. Interested, thank you.

    NiV, we don’t keep making erroneous assumptions about you as some SJW. The problem is that what you claim as libertarian equivalence or balance is indistinguishable from the invasionist wheel-greasing of the SJWs.

    So, for instance, yes, you argue against authoritarianism of all shades. But then we get your refusal to countenance the only logical conclusion of your perfectly reasonable observations about certain of our Mohammedan brethren. Because, as I understand your argument, you want to embrace them in order to convert them. Because you fear we shall otherwise be overwhelmed, or because you think that is the right thing to do.

    Yet you fail at every turn to consider the harm to us that is done in the meantime, even assuming your aim is achievable.

    You fail to answer why it is that we should give a damn, save for the suggestion that we shall otherwise be overwhelmed by … what’s that word? an invasion? Which we are, by any historical guiding light not merely entitled but eminently capable of repelling.

    Frankly, I read your last comment mostly as an humanitarian exhortation on behalf of the benighted of the earth.

    Fair enough.But it doesn’t answer the open borders question. It doesn’t answer to the harm meantime caused in pursuit of what you think is your benevolence. Your benevolence is very selective.

    So is mine. I favour English chaps. If I’m feeling expansive, I shall extend that to chaps a bit like me, unless they’re French (by which I don’t mean their world cup team; I mean blokes called Alphonse and Gustave). Beyond that, I’m prepared to be open-minded. But I’m damned if I can see why I should get stabbed in the neck, among other places, so as to stop, as you put it, the misery in all those other places.

    Can you tell me why I, and countless others should put up with it? Other than to make you feel good? And on that point, you write that it’s all about keeping the misery away from me. By George, there I think you got it!

    Have you ever been stabbed in the neck, NiV? Burgled by a Somalian? Buggered by a Pakistani?

    And yes, because I am relatively sane, I’ll say this to the families of those who died because I wouldn’t let them through the gate*. Because as far as I am concerned my life, and that of those who matter to me, is more important to me.

    * And they did not really die because they weren’t let in, did they? Be honest. They died because some other bastard killed them. In their country. For which they are responsible.

  62. NIV – you keep on saying you don’t like islam, but why are your posts always so long winded and written in sucha way that you leave your readers in doubt. Try being succinct and stop with the endless quotations or links. Personally i think islam is full of cunts. Muslims are supposed to emulate the actions and life of mohammed a self declared paedo, slave owner, murderer , liar, untrustworthy, mentally deranged sociopath- in fact one of the biggest cunts in history. If you follow him and think he was the perfect example for all mankind – then you are bound to end up a cunt. I’m with thud – get rid of the lot of them – i know it’s impossible but don’t we all wish we had never heard of islam and all the shit that comes with it. The world would be a much better place if mohammed had never existed. Yes and before you start NIV – i know some people believe he never did – but muslims believe he did and that is what counts.

  63. Unlike me, my brother is right on and trendy and lefty and pc. So he befriended a Somalian immigrant. Who repaid him by sexually assaulting two of his underage teenage daughters over a number of years.

    And I know such crimes are committed by British natives.

    But that’s a point. We have enough predatory sexual perverts of our own. We don’t need to import more.

    At least our perverts are brought up in a community where their behaviour is discouraged, rather than some wogland where marrying your 12 year old neice is the catalyst for a big family party.

  64. Talking of integration, anyone know how long it took the Romans and Norman’s to be integrated to the point where the invasions and differences were forgotten? 10 generations? 20?

    Is that NiV’s solution? Wait until 2250 cause we’ll all be living in harmony by then?

  65. thud

    “simple enough for you”

    Very, and didn’t really answer the the more nuanced question – there is always a line.

    For example (and for amusement), Raheem Kassam (alongside Farage) would quite possibly be more kosher than you are, and yet would clearly still be on your list… LOL

    I was mildly curious, but you’ve answered the essential gist.

  66. PF….More kosher than me? oy vey….I’m pretty sure my lot have been on these Islands since people first arrived plus as a catholic I mildly follow a religion with roots here nearly 2000 years old with our ancestors pre Roman beliefs grafted on. Anybody ever involved with Islam is a potential purveyor of its destroying ways and prone to sudden onset jihadi syndrome at the drop of a koran. Anybody else here who takes part in our culture is fine by me….my 4 kids being half Chinese kinda shows my thoughts there.

  67. “NiV, we don’t keep making erroneous assumptions about you as some SJW. The problem is that what you claim as libertarian equivalence or balance is indistinguishable from the invasionist wheel-greasing of the SJWs.”

    It’s easy to distinguish. I disagree with all forms of authoritarianism – SJWs are authoritarians – therefore I disagree with SJWs.

    Like I said, because I’m not entirely on your side either (although I’m a lot closer than I am to SJWs), and don’t agree that your solutions are logical, you can’t seem to distinguish that from being SJW.

    “So, for instance, yes, you argue against authoritarianism of all shades. But then we get your refusal to countenance the only logical conclusion of your perfectly reasonable observations about certain of our Mohammedan brethren.”

    Why is it the *only* logical conclusion? Why is it even ‘logical’? Are you taking it for granted?

    “Because, as I understand your argument, you want to embrace them in order to convert them. Because you fear we shall otherwise be overwhelmed, or because you think that is the right thing to do. Yet you fail at every turn to consider the harm to us that is done in the meantime, even assuming your aim is achievable.”

    “Embrace” is probably the wrong word. We do need to socially interact with them.

    I try to consider the harm down *all* paths, and pick the path with the least overall harm. I don’t believe there is *any* path available that causes no harm. But all the arguments I’ve seen on this only count the harm to *’us’*, and then only in the short term. I agree, I don’t do that.

    “You fail to answer why it is that we should give a damn”

    And this I think is a genuine difference in our values, which I can’t really argue – since you can’t deduce an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’.

    From my point of view, “If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.” The same goes for freedom generally. If we don’t believe in freedom generally, for everyone, we don’t believe in it at all, and we don’t deserve it ourselves either. Freedom only for ourselves is just another way of power grabbing. Why should we “give a damn”? Why should anyone “give a damn” about *you*, and *your* freedoms?

    This seems to just repeat half of the old authoritarian refrain – they want power over other people, but object loudly at other people having power over them. You’re demanding that other people have no power over you. That’s not a belief in liberty – that’s a belief in your own personal privilege.

    You’re entitled to your belief, but it’s not one I share.

    “So is mine. I favour English chaps. If I’m feeling expansive, I shall extend that to chaps a bit like me, unless they’re French…”

    Quite so. You get Niemoller’s point, don’t you?

    “Can you tell me why I, and countless others should put up with it? Other than to make you feel good? And on that point, you write that it’s all about keeping the misery away from me. By George, there I think you got it!”

    I do too. And I think it answers your question, as well. Why the hell – taking your approach – should we care about you getting stabbed in the neck, so long as it’s not us? Invite them all in! It’s no skin off *our* noses!

    As it happens, I *do* care. You have my sympathy. But so do those people in Pakistan who got burnt to death by the mob because someone spread a rumour that they had desecrated a Koran. You think *you’ve* got problems?

    “In their country. For which they are responsible.”

    I’m not sure you’ve really appreciated how a theocratic dictatorship works. It’s a highly dubious assertion even in a democracy. Are you, for example, personally ‘responsible’ for all the laws in this country? If so, I’ve got a few complaints…

    “NIV – you keep on saying you don’t like islam, but why are your posts always so long winded and written in sucha way that you leave your readers in doubt.”

    I’ve tried being short, and it doesn’t help. It makes things worse.

    “Personally i think islam is full of cunts. Muslims are supposed to emulate the actions and life of mohammed a self declared paedo, slave owner, murderer , liar, untrustworthy, mentally deranged sociopath- in fact one of the biggest cunts in history. If you follow him and think he was the perfect example for all mankind – then you are bound to end up a cunt.”

    Totally with you, so far.

    The problem is, the penalty for *not* claiming to be a follower, having been raised in the religion, is *death*. So it’s not fucking surprising if a lot of people who frankly are not very keen on a lot of parts of it keep very quiet about that, and don’t exactly like anyone else pointing out that that they’re quietly not following the rules.

    We’ve commented before on the slight difference, for example, between the comments Jesus made concerning camels and the eyes of needles, and the financial practices of the Borgia Popes. Not everyone who claims to belong to a religion always follows all its tenets. I don’t think this is a controversial assertion, is it?

    Because of the nutters, it’s not easy for the majority to simply say “We’re not Muslims any more.” Nor do they really want to entirely abandon their cultural history and traditions. They’re OK with the praying and the fasting and so on, but they don’t hold with this ‘jihad’ stuff. And they’re gradually coming round to the idea that women ought to have *some* extra rights. They’re changing stuff, but it’s all a bit awkward because they can’t officially *admit* that they’re changing stuff, because you’re officially not allowed to change it.

    And given that it took us 40 years to get from the 1970s attitude to women’s right to today, even without the beardy Jihadi nutters threatening to kill us (Mary Whitehouse doesn’t count), we’ve hardly got any right to demand that they should do the same overnight. Cultures don’t work like that. You know yourself, from your *own* reaction to transgender issues, that people don’t change their attitudes just like that.

    Yes, Mohammad was a bit of a bastard, even for his time, and Islam is an authoritarian atrocity. Muslims, on the other hand, are people. Some believe in all of it, most believe in some selected bits of it, and a fair number don’t believe in any of it but don’t dare admit it. They’re the same as any other people. Do Christians agree with the Biblical proscriptions on homosexuality, or pornography? Some do, some don’t. It’s the same thing. And I’m not going to blame every Christian for every atrocity perpetrated by the nutters within the Church. So I’ll extend the same courtesy for the Muslims, too, because frankly I don’t see that there’s all that much difference in this regard. Most Muslims are not, strictly speaking, Muslim any more, any more than Christians are strictly Christian.

    “Is that NiV’s solution? Wait until 2250 cause we’ll all be living in harmony by then?”

    The longer you leave it before you start, the longer it will take.

    At the rate it’s currently going, I’d estimate about another two generations before there’s any sort of ‘peace’, so 50 years. But yes, it will take longer than that to erase all differences entirely.

    However, the only way to speed it up is even closer contact. It’s a trade-off.

  68. 79 comments.

    That means NiV has splashed into the thread like that late night turd that just won’t flush no matter what you do….

  69. NiV, why do we need to socially interact with them? And what does that have to do with your humanitarian concerns, or fear of being overrun? Which is it?

    I’m quite happy for liberty to be experienced by those in the more benighted parts of the worlds. But I don’t see why my country should be debauched to achieve it.

    Neimoller was talking about the situation in one country, under the Nazis. Even if you extend his concerns to Czecho, Austria, Poland, the fact is until we started to become a Muslim country, we were nowhere near such and in no danger of being overrun by any.

    We overthrew dictatorships here. Why can’t they, there?

    Demanding that people have no power over me is not a belief in liberty? Sleight-of-hand, NiV. I demand liberty in England. What happens elsewhere is rarely any of my concern, or yours.

    The fact remains that your position boils down to advocating maiming and immiseration for your own country, in the belief that it will last for *only* a few generations, so that people elsewhere get the chance to live freer lives here. Regardless of whether they’re interested in freedom once they’re here, because their grandchildren, you hope, will be. That may be open borders libertarianism, but it is also indistinguishable from SJW invasionist wheel-greasing.

    I’ve asked you this before: on your open borders principle, how do you tell when an invasion is occurring? There are bashi-bazouks or stormtroopers marching down the Mall having met no opposition, and your answer is, give it 50 years or so, and they’ll be one of us?

    But fundamentally, the fact that your concerns for Abdul and Fatima in Karachi are identical to your concerns for Bert and Doris tell me all I need to know about you.

  70. Libertarian open borders requires that those coming in do not infringe upon the liberties of those already here. The Muslim invasion mostly certainly does not meet this requirement.

  71. The Meissen Bison

    Good work, m’Lud. As an aside, your dislike of brother froggy dispenses you from striving for accuracy on laissez-passer – the first bit being an imperative and the second an infinitive.

    What eludes me is the argument that importing people from, say, Pakistan can do anything for the freedom of people remaining in Pakistan. Presumably we need to import the lot for freedom to flourish.

  72. Libertarian open borders requires that those coming in do not infringe upon the liberties of those already here. The Muslim invasion mostly certainly does not meet this requirement.

    Which is why, unfortunately, libertarianism fails when faced with the real world.

    At an ideological level, I would love to see open borders and free movement of products, people and services. In the real world, I have no option but to support strictly controlled immigration.

  73. NiV / Lud

    NiV’s arguments frequently come down to an absence of belief in hierarchy or priority in how we relate to other people / groups.

    Most of us (not here but anywhere) instinctively prioritise kin first, friends / community / or whatever is important next, then (at some stage) nation (ie some more substantial form of “identity”) before other peoples, species, etc. or some variation of that (if you can’t stand your family!).

    If some aliens arrived, “with clear different intents”, the planet “coming together” to defend itself would be perfectly logical, rather than “but, we are all life forms”. Obviously, we care more about ourselves and our own (depending on the circumstances) than others.

    NiV, I routinely see in your various arguments, when one is trying to understand the principle as why there is an argument, this simple issue. You don’t appear to have the same sense of hierarchy prioritisation as most other people (and apologies if I am not articulating this particularly well). And that has nothing to do with authoritarianism or anything like that. It’s more to do with basic alliances and that help to protect ourselves.

    Hence, on many issues such as this, it’s usually easy to understand pretty much instantly *why* the argument will never resolve – many are simply not ever going to agree with you at the most basic value level. And not just here – as it’s generally core to the success of groups.

  74. BiND – Yarp, but also a bit narp.

    “Integration” in the face of Islam (and non-trivial numbers of Third World peoples in general) is a fantasy. Might as well try to integrate a beehive into your bathroom. You’re gonna get stung.

    And it’s connected to Longrider’s observation about the contradiction of libertarianism. By and large the only people on the planet who’ve ever given a damn about libertarian principles are geeky white guys.

    Let’s leave aside the rape, murder and poverty imported by immigration for a sec…

    So in the United States, where Dennis the Destroyer runs about threatening people with guns, when he isn’t respectfully taking his shoes off in mosques, “diverse” immigrants and their children and grandchildren overwhelmingly – by about 80% to 20% – vote socialist.

    Similar figures in Britain and Europe. Immigration means dragging politics inexorably leftward as diverse enrichers vote to fill their pockets with more and more entitlements at the expense of their hosts.

    It’s actually not much comfort if they’ve “integrated” to watching LOVE ISLAND and having a cheeky Nandos. We can’t go on like this.

  75. “NiV, why do we need to socially interact with them?”

    Because cultural transfer only occurs through close social interaction.

    When people live in the same space, work together, shop together, etc. there are constant incidents of friction where their practices conflict, which they then subconsciously ‘negotiate’ a commonly agreed protocol for. Because when they see what their neighbours have, they want one too.
    Because people naturally try to fit in.

    Because when people are divided into ‘us’ and ‘them’, where ‘them’ are anonymous, out of sight, elsewhere, it’s easy to dehumanise them, turn them into ‘the enemy’, dismiss their human needs, and see no need to compromise with them, or indeed any advantage in doing so. They don’t know what they’re missing, they don’t see the advantages to changing. If you live in a ghetto surrounded entirely by ‘enemies’, it forces you to ‘stick together’.

    “And what does that have to do with your humanitarian concerns, or fear of being overrun? Which is it?”

    Both. Their culture is both hurting them and threatening us. By fixing it, both are helped.

    “But I don’t see why my country should be debauched to achieve it.”

    Do you mean you don’t understand why we need to be the ones to teach them (who else?), or do you mean you don’t want to pay the price of teaching them?

    “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.” – Thomas Paine.

    “Neimoller was talking about the situation in one country, under the Nazis.”

    Niemoller was talking about a general principle of human behaviour, that people often stand up only for themselves, and how it can be defeated with a divide-and-conquer strategy.

    To destroy freedom, you don’t attack everyone’s freedom at once. You start with the groups nobody likes. Pick them off, get everyone used to the idea, then you gradually shift the border, one group at a time. Like, you start with smoking, get the principle established, then move on to booze, ‘junk food’, etc. It’s like saying “I wasn’t a smoker, so I did nothing when smokers were taxed and excluded. Now they’re starting with the ‘sugar tax’ and I don’t have a leg to stand on arguing against it.”

    Niemoller’s principle is far more widely applicable than just Nazi Germany.

    “We overthrew dictatorships here. Why can’t they, there?”

    Partly because they’ve got modern weaponry, modern communications, modern surveillance. Saddam Hussein and Bashar Assad both gassed entire towns that tried to rebel!

    Partly because revolution is a cultural thing, first. You have to foster the *desire* for revolution, persuade people that it’s safe to join in, and give people the knowledge to run things better after. We’ve recently had the ‘Arab Spring’ when a lot of the younger generation rebelled against some of the old guard. But it was only because the younger generation knew what they were missing that they were motivated to do it.

    It took us centuries to figure out how to do it on our own, with nobody to teach us. We don’t have that kind of time.

    “Demanding that people have no power over me is not a belief in liberty?”

    Any tyrant or slavemaster demands that others have no power over them! Clearly that’s not a belief in liberty!

    It’s only ‘liberty’ when you demand it for everybody.

    “I’ve asked you this before: on your open borders principle, how do you tell when an invasion is occurring?”

    You look at who is copying whose culture. Are British kids suddenly all buying burkhas as the latest fashion? Or are Arab kids buying t-shirts and jeans?

    “But fundamentally, the fact that your concerns for Abdul and Fatima in Karachi are identical to your concerns for Bert and Doris tell me all I need to know about you.”

    Yes. And the fact you don’t tells me all I need to know about you.

    “What eludes me is the argument that importing people from, say, Pakistan can do anything for the freedom of people remaining in Pakistan. Presumably we need to import the lot for freedom to flourish.”

    There’s much more cultural interchange between British Muslims and Pakistani Muslims. They’re family. They’re in the same “us”.

  76. More NIV drivel. Islam wants to dominate the world. It does not want to integrate. Even if NIVs argument that most of them can’t wait to ditch islam and the only reason they don’t is fear of the head choppers – they also know that if islam takes over – they will be the masters and us infidels will have to pay the jizya tax so that they can live like lords without lifting a finger- ie like they already do with various estimates of 50 -70 % not working and claiming benefits. Why would they not want to be recipients of the jizya and be treated as first class citizens especially as the koran and hadiths etc already tell them that. If they see Islam winning they have no incentive to dump it. There is nothing in the history of islam that suggests that they will integrate – islam is the great destroyer of civilisations and the perpetrators are muslims. You are fucking deranged if you think anything is going to change that . In fact you are a cunt on an epic scale as you actually want to enable that in the vague believe that suddenly after 14 centuries of death and destruction they decide – nah lets all study womwn’s studies and sing kumbiyah

  77. Longrider, I’m with Mark Steyn on borders. Their existence gives us somewhere to escape to, should it be needed. I don’t oppose people escaping to England. My own forebears were Huguenots. I do however oppose it happening on such a scale that it becomes an experiment in wholesale transformation and not necessarily for the better.

    NiV, why, then, do we need cultural transfer with entire populations of prehistorics? What’s in it for us? I believe I understand why you want it. But why should I? They are not my problem – provided our borders are properly enforced.

    Your answer to my invasion question is absurd. If you saw bashi-bazouks marching down the Mall, you’d muse on how long it took them to start wearing jeans, then you’d know they’d been defeated?

    Mr Bison, thanks.

  78. Lol.

    Apparently the West is going to reform global Islam by inviting lots of religious fanatic Muslims to live in the West and get them looking at porn or something.

    Great plan Stan. Hows that going so far?

    I wonder if this would have worked with the Nazis. That Mr Hitler and his pals are nasty pieces of work. Lets invite lots of Germans to live over here so we can show them that playing cricket is a far better way to spend your spare time than slaughtering the untermenschen and looking for more Lebensraum.

  79. “NiV’s arguments frequently come down to an absence of belief in hierarchy or priority in how we relate to other people / groups.”

    I agree.

    “Most of us (not here but anywhere) instinctively prioritise kin first, friends / community / or whatever is important next, then (at some stage) nation (ie some more substantial form of “identity”) before other peoples, species, etc. or some variation of that (if you can’t stand your family!).”

    Yes, it’s instinctive. Humans naturally form tribal groups of about 30-60 people. “Us” and “them” is wired in at a very basic level. The history of civilisation has been one of breaking down those barriers to form ever bigger groups.

    “Which is why, unfortunately, libertarianism fails when faced with the real world.”

    I don’t agree. Libertarianism often fails to gain any traction, even in situations where there is no threat of rights being infringed. Unless you redefine ‘right’ to mean ‘the ruling culture’s right not to be annoyed by stuff other people do’.

    Take the debate on smoking in pubs. There’s a border at the pub door, with non-smoking culture ruling inside, and smokers stuck outside. Should we open the border? Did we not do so because the smokers were acting violently or criminally?

    No, I think libertarianism fails because most people always think in terms of themselves always being in charge, and making the rules. People are wired to classify everyone as ‘us’ or ‘them’, see it as their natural and obvious right to impose the norms of ‘us’ on ‘them’, and are totally unable to see the mirror symmetry.

    That sort of ‘mirror recognition’ requires a highly developed form of emotionally-detached abstract thinking, which is probably why libertarians are often ‘geeky’.

    Most people only understand when they’re on the losing side (sometimes), and by then it’s usually too late.

  80. moqifen

    if it’s being handed to you on a plate, “no thanks” is perhaps not the most obvious / most likely response

    Well indeed.

  81. “They are not my problem – provided our borders are properly enforced.”

    And so long as you never, ever go abroad… 🙂

    I can’t teach empathy to someone who doesn’t feel it. Morality tales are full of examples of what happens when people say “Why should I care? What’s in it for me?” If you don’t know by now, I can’t explain.

    “Your answer to my invasion question is absurd. If you saw bashi-bazouks marching down the Mall, you’d muse on how long it took them to start wearing jeans, then you’d know they’d been defeated?”

    If you mean military forces in other people’s countries, that was one of Osama bin Laden’s primary complaints. Western troops are marching all over the Middle East. I can’t remember the last time I saw Iraqi troops marching around Britain or America…

    So by your criterion, who has ‘defeated’ who?

    “Great plan Stan. Hows that going so far?”

    Fine, thanks.

    “I wonder if this would have worked with the Nazis. That Mr Hitler and his pals are nasty pieces of work. Lets invite lots of Germans to live over here so we can show them that playing cricket is a far better way to spend your spare time than slaughtering the untermenschen and looking for more Lebensraum.”

    That’s what the EU was originally about. The idea was to tie the Germans into economic interdependency with the rest of Europe by means of trade. They’d not invade again, because it would destroy their own economy. They would be seduced by the economic advantages for themselves of cooperation and compromise. The result of which is the Germany we see today. No Nazis, you’ll note.

    The Maginot line and the Versailles Treaty, which sought to confine them and punish them – not so successful…

  82. NiV

    You’re pursuing abstract concepts against the reality of the here and now.

    A suggestion – let’s see the current lot here fully integrated first (you claim yourself that’s what you want?), and openly abandoning the more extreme elements (ie, Islam in the UK is fully enlightened).

    As that happens, then *that’s* the example for anyone else wanting to come in. Not simply to join their non integrated families in their sharia havens receiving benefits (the taqiyya) from those very kind people that invited them (the infidel).

    You suggest there isn’t enough time. That’s nonsense – Islam (if left to its own devices) will never politically and militarily dominate the planet.

  83. NIV – how many young girls – either as victims of muslim rape gangs or blown to pieces at music concerts are you willing to sacrifice for your unobtainable utopia ? Are you willing to sacrifice members of your family – mother? sister? significant other? Child? or even yourself in pursuit of a fantasy. Odds are that you live as far away from a muslim ghetto as it’s possible to get. What is the price is ruined lives, deaths and maimings do you think is a fair price for this fantasy. How many must die for you to feel that your plan is not working ? I bet if a member of your family was executed every time an immigrant killed an innocent person for his god you might reconsider. I stand by NIV = no intelligence visible

  84. “That’s what the EU was originally about. The idea was to tie the Germans into economic interdependency with the rest of Europe by means of trade. They’d not invade again, because it would destroy their own economy. They would be seduced by the economic advantages for themselves of cooperation and compromise. The result of which is the Germany we see today. No Nazis, you’ll note.”

    Fuck me, you’re either the most dense person ever, or such an ideologically driven fanatic that you’ll make any argument regardless of facts to support your point (oh hang on you’re a Lefty, sorry I forgot, its the latter).

    There’s a rather significant period of time you’ve conveniently airbrushed out of this little bit of history – the bit where millions of people died in order to rid Germany of Nazis, and Nazi ideology. They didn’t just give up, faced with the superior culture of their opponents. They had to be fought to the last, in case you hadn’t noticed. And then the remaining ringleaders hung, and a systematic program of de-nazification proceeded with for a number of years.

    When can we expect this in the UK for Muslims then?

  85. It’s interesting note how many have passed over the heart of my argument to get into the particulars of how I handled a situation with someone. Rather than address the argument, Steve and Interested decide to focus on my manhood. Edward Lud attempts to deflect by noting that ‘things are different’ where he is.

    Well, that’s fine guys. What you haven’t shown is that you even understand the problem you are facing. Nature abhors a vacuum. So does the brotherhood of man. If you withdrawal from some sphere of activity, some other person (or peoples) will move in. If you are too enervated or afraid (or sophisticated) to defend your way of life in your own homeland, you won’t have a homeland for long. It will become someone else’s homeland.

    Did Neville Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement in any way blunt the ambitions of Adolph Hitler? Of course not. Hitler saw a vacuum and moved forcefully to fill it. Why? Because he could. All Chamberlain did was confirm for Adolph Hitler the vacuum existed.

  86. Most people only understand when they’re on the losing side (sometimes), and by then it’s usually too late.

    Oh, I understand it, ok. I also understand that millions of others don’t. Hence my comment. The ideology when faced with the pragmatism of the real world fails. It will only work if we are all playing the game to the same rules. The Islamic world has no desire to play by our rules.

  87. They don’t need troops, NiV. We invite them in regardless, then they blow us up. Then we invite some more, to be on the safe side.

    I’ve got a lot of empathy for some. Like the parents of the girls blown up in Manchester for attending a pop concert. You don’t need to teach it to me. I’ve got some empathy for the people recently killed in Pakistan. But we, whitey, did not do it to them.

    And it’s not the same as a morality tale in which someone learns the lesson, ‘why should I care?’ The question I pose is, if it entails maiming and immiserating me, and other people in my country, then what is in it for us? Maiming and misery. That’s your morality tale: suck up the maiming and the misery, to show you care.

    It’s not my problem if I don’t go abroad? What about New Zealand, Japan, Andorra, Russia, Hungary?

    Or was it a Freudian slip when you seemed to conflate abroad with the Muslim world. All the world is Muslim …?

    By the way, if my point-of-view is hardwired [hands out Anderson shelters], but I am to do the opposite, where does that leave those transsexual men hardwired as women?

  88. Dennis, I actually agree with you, and with Bloke in North Dorset.

    But I can tell you what would happen where I live if I did what you did. I’d be charged with making a threat to kill, which carries a maximum custodial sentence of 10 years (ie five). I’d probably also be charged with some form of racially aggravated abuse. I’d have my life ruined. The muzzie wouldn’t learn a lesson, he’d be emboldened. Because the authorities where I live side with him, not so much with me.

    The point is, you can get away with what you did where you live.

    Yes, we let this happen, just as BiND describes it. We should not have. But until we manage to change the ruling architecture, gestures such as yours are doomed not merely to fail but to encourage these RoPers.

  89. But until we manage to change the ruling architecture, gestures such as yours are doomed not merely to fail but to encourage these RoPers.

    With all due respect, that’s self-validating nonsense. If you are unwilling to stand up for yourself, or to even contemplate how you might be able to stand up for yourself, you certainly aren’t going to have what it takes to wrest power from the ‘ruling architecture’.

    But I’ll give you this much credit: You actually understood that what I was doing by calling it a gesture. A punk tried to intimidate me. I called his bluff. I don’t carry firearms and certainly would never carry one onto the premises of a client. The punk wasn’t frightened that I was going to shoot him, he was frightened that I was going to humiliate him. Our conversation happened in private, but it just as easily could have happened in front of 20 of his peers and co-workers. If I’d made an issue of it in front of them, he’d have had the choice of backing up his words or backing down.

  90. You’re right, Dennis. I’m a coward, Europe and England are full of us. Only in the US are the rock-ribbed found.

  91. Actually, thinking about it, I think my preferred approach to your miscreant would’ve been to tell him his aspiration would be achieved over my dead body. Assuming he then issued a threat, I’d have been within my rights to respond accordingly. Not even the English police would quibble (too much) with that.

    What I would not have done was threaten to kill him for telling me I’d be enslaved by his religion.

  92. “I just think we ought to do something to fix it, rather than simply walling them out and letting their victims continue to suffer. “Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it.” – Abraham Lincoln.”

    Lincoln, the President who suspended habeas corpus and locked up 30,000 political prisoners? Lincoln, the President who denied freedom for the Southern States?

  93. Mr Cock, I know this isn’t your point, but Lincoln’s “those who deny freedom to others” is not the same thing as NiV’s “free Pakistan now by inviting it here, or you’re denying them freedom”.

    Sorry about the Mr Cock bit. Couldn’t resist. I’ll get my coat.

  94. I’m smiling.

    Note the St. Abe didn’t do a damn thing to free slaves in their native countries.

  95. @ Dennis
    I used to think like you about Chamberlain (not having been born in 1938 and relying on the BBC and history books) but, having read a lot in the last couple of decades, I have come to the conclusion that he was unfairly blamed for a mess that he inherited from Ramsay MacDonald and Baldwin who failed to re-arm because they were afraid that they might lose an election to the Pacifist Lansbury’s Labour Party that was trying to exploit the slump caused by the 1929-31 Labour Government.
    Chamberlain came home saying “Peace in our time” and immediately started a massive re-armament programme four years too late. The UK built planes faster than Germany from 1938 onwards which was a major reason why we won the “Battle of Britain” in 1940 but we should probably have lost it in 1938.

    i

  96. You’re right, Dennis. I’m a coward, Europe and England are full of us. Only in the US are the rock-ribbed found.

    If you want to wander into Steve/Interested territory, that’s on you.

  97. John 77 –

    While I invoked Chamberlain, the lion’s share of the blame lay with those he represented. The only real quibble is the degree the weakness he displayed was his own. Some was, but as you noted, most was that of the body politic itself.

  98. Uh-huh.

    How many Mexicans have you kicked out, Dennis?

    On a different note, ironically, I was last night asked by my diminutive, highly feminine, very beautiful, fragrant, obliging, beloved to say the words ‘allahu akbah’. Just for grins, natch.

    Given my immediate response, I suspect the request is on hold for now. But will come back. My initial thought was, despite my own godlessness, to get her to recite the Lord’s Prayer before I did any such thing. Even for grins.

    Anyhoo. This cultural transfer stuff. Complex, innit?

    #NiV’steamwe’rewinning!

  99. Vietnam War slogan: “We had to destroy the village in order to save it”

    NiV culture war slogan: “We have to destroy our village to save their village”

  100. Oh, very good!

    That’s a bumper sticker I could live with, even on my Ghibli. Not on the Continental, though. Obviously.

  101. Jim, “Apparently the West is going to reform global Islam by inviting lots of religious fanatic Muslims to live in the West and get them looking at porn or something.

    Great plan Stan. Hows that going so far?”

    NiV, “Fine, thanks [only 43 underage girls this year have reported being raped, down two from last year; a mere 270 people have died as a result of conflicts with people who otherwise would not have been here; and frauds and burglaries are costing us at least £500 million less this year than last; plus, I personally, am tickety-boo; nothing wrong with me and no one I care about has been hurt, so it’s all good]”.

    What’s your point, Jim?

  102. I cannot imagine a more perfect recipe for national suicide. Closer contact with an aggressive politco-religious sect who openly say they’re going to repopulate our nations with their children, all paid for with the taxes of the locals. In another age you’d have been exiled from the city to live among the barbarians, too bad we no longer punish treason.

  103. “NIV – how many young girls – either as victims of muslim rape gangs or blown to pieces at music concerts are you willing to sacrifice for your unobtainable utopia?”

    [Rolls eyes] Let’s say the feminists propose that all men are jailed for life. Only men are rapists, rape is the worst crime ever, therefore all men are criminals who must be jailed. If you object, then you must answer their question: “how many women and young girls – as victims of rape – are you willing to sacrifice for your unobtainable utopia?”

    Or do you actually *agree* with my hypothetical feminists that there *is* an equal justification for jailing all men?

    Like: “Jim, “Apparently the West is going to reform toxic masculinity by inviting lots of men to live in the West and get them looking at porn or something.”

    Great plan Stan. Hows that going so far?

    Isn’t that exactly your point, Jim?

    “Fuck me, you’re either the most dense person ever, or such an ideologically driven fanatic that you’ll make any argument regardless of facts to support your point (oh hang on you’re a Lefty, sorry I forgot, its the latter).”

    I’m not a lefty. And if you’re basing your arguments on false premises like that, it’s not me that’s being dense!

    “There’s a rather significant period of time you’ve conveniently airbrushed out of this little bit of history”

    People keep telling me off about being too long-winded! Then they shout at me for leaving stuff out, demanding I fill in more detail!

    OK, no problem. More detail coming up.

    ” – the bit where millions of people died in order to rid Germany of Nazis, and Nazi ideology. They didn’t just give up, faced with the superior culture of their opponents. They had to be fought to the last, in case you hadn’t noticed. And then the remaining ringleaders hung, and a systematic program of de-nazification proceeded with for a number of years. When can we expect this in the UK for Muslims then?”

    We’ve just had wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria to defeat their military powers. And we have “de-radicalisation” programmes running both there and in the UK. But as each of those conflicts have taught us, military operations can only take you so far. You can’t impose freedom by force – that’s a contradiction in terms. The best you can do with military force is to create a space in which a more liberal local culture can grow without getting immediately stomped on.

    You plant the seeds, fight off the weeds, and wait. And wait, and wait, and wait. Seeds take a long time to grow into flowers, but you can’t force it. Gardening is not for the impatient.

    “If you are too enervated or afraid (or sophisticated) to defend your way of life in your own homeland, you won’t have a homeland for long.”

    It’s not about being afraid. It’s about throwing the liberties the Founders fought and died for in the garbage can in the rush for a little security. It’s about your attitude to the First Amendment. Defending your homeland against an *actual attack* is one thing, making death threats because you didn’t like what somebody *said* is ‘un-American’.

    “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Benjamin Franklin.

    “Oh, I understand it, ok. I also understand that millions of others don’t. Hence my comment. The ideology when faced with the pragmatism of the real world fails. It will only work if we are all playing the game to the same rules.”

    It will only work when most people understand what libertarianism is about, and why it’s better. That’s a long way off.

    “The Islamic world has no desire to play by our rules.”

    True. But the people who live in it do, since they want iPhones and cars and computers and McDonald’s and MTV and so on. That’s why the Islamists are demanding cultural isolation, and trying to build walls around their world to keep out the Westernisation that’s destroying their traditions. They sound ever so familiar…

    “The question I pose is, if it entails maiming and immiserating me, and other people in my country, then what is in it for us? […] That’s your morality tale: suck up the maiming and the misery, to show you care.”

    The price of freedom is that at the same time as good people get the freedom to do good things, bad people also get the freedom to do bad things. So for example, if you let people have guns, people will get shot. If you let people have knives, people will get stabbed. Maiming and immiseration. So we should ban guns and knives…?

    Allowing Muslims to immigrate results in good things (girls escaping forced marriages) and bad things (people getting stabbed). Are you arguing that the existence of *any* bad things should mean we reject all the good it can do? Or are you arguing that there are no good things?

    And do you apply the same principle to everything else that can lead to bad things happening, like guns, knives, cars, electricity, fire, and men being allowed to walk around free and unjailed?

    “It’s not my problem if I don’t go abroad? What about New Zealand, Japan, Andorra, Russia, Hungary? Or was it a Freudian slip when you seemed to conflate abroad with the Muslim world. All the world is Muslim …?”

    What, you think all those places are going to ban all Muslim immigration, too?

    “By the way, if my point-of-view is hardwired [hands out Anderson shelters], but I am to do the opposite, where does that leave those transsexual men hardwired as women?”

    Everyone is hardwired to categorise people into “us” and “them” sets, but the category definitions are not fixed. So one way round the programming is simply to put everyone into the “us” category.

    You can’t change human nature, but you can use it.

    “Lincoln, the President who suspended habeas corpus and locked up 30,000 political prisoners? Lincoln, the President who denied freedom for the Southern States?”

    Doesn’t make what he said wrong, does it?

    “NiV culture war slogan: “We have to destroy our village to save their village””

    How about: “If you can’t beat them, join them”? 🙂

  104. “We’ve just had wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria to defeat their military powers. And we have “de-radicalisation” programmes running both there and in the UK. But as each of those conflicts have taught us, military operations can only take you so far. You can’t impose freedom by force – that’s a contradiction in terms. The best you can do with military force is to create a space in which a more liberal local culture can grow without getting immediately stomped on.”

    Yeah right, cos a limited war where our forces have such limited rules of engagement that they’re only allowed to shoot at the enemy when he shoots first is comparable to WW2.

    Bollocks. We destroyed Nazism by destrying the entire society that allowed it to grow up. We totalled it. We killed millions of people (many if not most who were not Nazis) just to eradicate the virus completely. To be honest the de-nazification stuff they started after the war didn’t work, it couldn’t too many people were implicated, and anyway they gave up after about 5 years as we had the Communists to deal with anyway. The way we de-nazified Germany was to kill as many as possible, and so totally destroy the entire country that anyone afterwards who got up and started spouting about the Master Race would have been laughed at, they’d just been totalled. Thats how you get rid of evil ideologies, you make ordinary people laugh (and despise) at the people who espouse them. Thats what allowed post war Germany to grow into a liberal democracy, the utter society destroying violence imposed on them previously that made it very clear to the survivors what was and what was not considered correct behaviour. You CAN impose freedom through violence, it all comes down to what you do afterwards. We got it wrong in 1918, we learned our lesson and got it right in 1945.

    You don’t impose freedom on evil ideologies by going , ooh look we are nice to our women in the west and let them wear bikinis, why don’t you try it too Mr Aziz? By the way hows the benefits claim coming along?

  105. @NIV -you are a fucking coward. Not prepared to answer my questions truthfully – only misdirection and evasion, a complete and utter weasel. A fraud of the first order. So dishonest and plain stupid that you make the potato seem logical. In fact in the words of the potato – you time here is done. This thread has shown the depths of your intellectual dishonesty. As suspected you live as far away from these vibrant communities as possible whilst willing to inflict the results on everyone else. Contemptible.

  106. How about: “If you can’t beat them, join them”?

    I’d like to try and beat them a little longer, I don’t think we’ve tried hard enough yet, in fact, domestically we haven’t tried at all, we just let them march in and start making demands and calling anyone who made a peep about it an Islamaphobe.

  107. The best (and safest, and most humane) way to defeat Islam as an ideology is to separate ourselves physically from it, allow no Muslims to live in the West. You want the West’s advantages, renounce your Islamic ideas. You want to be a Muslim, live in a Muslim country. Then there will be a real battle of cultures, via ideas and information flow. It worked in the Cold War – the reason the Iron Curtain fell was that despite the limited flow of information the people behind it knew what life was like in the West. And with modern communication methods that flow of information is orders of magnitude greater today. So all we need to do is physically separate ourselves, and let the ideas and information flow. Then if people who live in Islamic shitholes want to live Western style lives, they’ll either have to reform Islam to achieve them or renounce their religion.

    What we are doing currently is letting them have the best of both worlds, live in West with all the advantages of that, but none of the disadvantages that living in a majority Islamic society would bring. So they can continue to be Islamic cunts, safe in the knowledge that no other Islamic cunt will murder them or such like (as would happen in a real Islamic society – the most likely murderer of a Muslim is another Muslim).

  108. ” But the people who live in it do, since they want iPhones and cars and computers and McDonald’s and MTV and so on. That’s why the Islamists are demanding cultural isolation, and trying to build walls around their world to keep out the Westernisation that’s destroying their traditions. They sound ever so familiar…”

    Ex-fucking-actly! So don’t allow any of them to come here to get iPhones, and Sky boxes and Sex and the City DVDs. Keep them locked away in Islamic hellholes and wave those things metaphorically under their noses. Look boys what not being an Islamic cunt gets you! Let them stew in their own juices. Eventually (as we see in Iran) there will be a push back. Allowing Muslims to be half in and half out of Islam by emigrating to the West is releasing the pressure back home. We’re allowing them to be ‘Islamic’ but have Western lifestyles built with our values, not theirs. Force them all to live in the shitholes that Islamic values creates, with no escape, and they’ll have to reform Islam themselves. By allowing some out we’re condemning the rest to suffer indefinitely.

  109. NiV:
    ” ‘NiV culture war slogan: “We have to destroy our village to save their village” ‘

    How about: ‘If you can’t beat them, join them’? “

    Yeah, that works pretty well for you too, Mr Authoritah on Islam.

  110. Bloke in North Dorset

    “Turkish immigrants in Germany are probably the largest and oldest group of Muslims in the west, how well are they integrated after all these years:”

    Germany did set out with the intention of not integrating them and making that it clear they weren’t welcome and would be sent packing when not needed. As with our Pakistanis in the North that didn’t work out too well.

  111. “@NIV -you are a fucking coward. Not prepared to answer my questions truthfully – only misdirection and evasion, a complete and utter weasel.”

    What questions? This is nothing but playground insult and invective – hardly demonstrates any intellectual depth, does it?

    “Then there will be a real battle of cultures, via ideas and information flow. It worked in the Cold War – the reason the Iron Curtain fell was that despite the limited flow of information the people behind it knew what life was like in the West.”

    Mmm. So you would be stood with a rifle on a tower overlooking the Berlin Wall, shooting anyone who made it out past the barbed wire, would you?

    The Soviets had exactly the same problem. They knew that if they allowed close social contact between our cultures, they would lose. So *they* built a wall to try to stop it happening! And despite that, they *lost* the war, too! Building walls doesn’t work.

    “Keep them locked away in Islamic hellholes and wave those things metaphorically under their noses.”

    So you’re going to have to go into the Islamic hellhole to do that waving, yes? Or how do you think they’re going to see them, or know about them? State TV?

  112. Niv you have completely jumped the shark in this thread. Unable to answer simple questions -“NIV – how many young girls – either as victims of muslim rape gangs or blown to pieces at music concerts are you willing to sacrifice for your unobtainable utopia?” you then go on about feminism and all men are rapists. A complete fraud. How you expect anyone to take you seriously i don’t know. Go back to your village it’s missing it’s idiot.

  113. “Unable to answer simple questions -“NIV – how many young girls – either as victims of muslim rape gangs or blown to pieces at music concerts are you willing to sacrifice for your unobtainable utopia?””

    Easy. The answer is the same as the number *you* would sacrifice to rape by not jailing all men. It’s the same number *you* would sacrifice to getting shot and stabbed by not banning guns and knives. It’s the same number *you* would sacrifice to lung cancer by not banning smoking, the children that *you* would allow to be mauled to death by dogs by not banning dogs, the children *you* would condemn to death in traffic accidents by not banning cars, or not insisting that cars have governors fitted limiting them to 5 miles per hour, how many *you* would allow to be robbed or assaulted by criminal scrotes who were not jailed because we insisted on fair trials and due process, or any other stupid prodnosed liberty-stealing campaign based on that eternal screeching “But think of the children!”

    Liberty *always* implies that bad people get the freedom to do bad things. And so long as you accept that as an argument, you can never have liberty, because some enemy of liberty will always stand up, point to some atrocity committted by someone taking advantage of that liberty, and demand that the liberty be taken away!

    The correct answer to your question is “none”. I don’t “sacrifice” any, because I’m not responsible for what other people do with their freedom, *they* are. Just as people who steal other’s liberty are responsible for that.

    I’m all in favour of stopping or blocking criminals, if you can identify specifically who they are. I am *not* in favour of banning entire classes of innocent people who happen to share one characteristic with them. I’ll agree to jailing all rapists, I won’t agree to jailing all men.

    So now it’s *your* turn to answer the question. How many women would *you* willingly sacrifice to be raped if we decide not to jail all men? Or would you jail us all?

  114. “So you’re going to have to go into the Islamic hellhole to do that waving, yes? Or how do you think they’re going to see them, or know about them? State TV?”

    They know now you twat. Even the mullahs can’t stop the flow of information. We could beam the stuff in, daily broadcasts of girls in bikinis if necessary. Hell, electronics are so cheap now we could drop mobile phones on them by the millions and give them all free internet connections via satellite. they’d soon know everything about life in the West.

    “So you would be stood with a rifle on a tower overlooking the Berlin Wall, shooting anyone who made it out past the barbed wire, would you?”

    No, because the people who were escaping Communism weren’t (unless they were double agents) trying to recreate Communism in the West. If anything there were the most vocal critics of Communism, having experienced it. We didn’t have to worry about those leaving the Eastern Bloc, they’d renounced Communism by trying to leave. Thats not the case with Islamic immigrants. They are not renouncing Islam, they’re bringing it with them, because they economic migrants, not religious refugees. Like I said they want the best of both worlds, be a Islamic cunt in private, get the benefits of liberal democracy in public. And we shouldn’t allow it.

    You only have to look at the real world – what do you do when you have a dangerously virulent and lethal virus? You isolate the ones affected. Hard luck on them for sure, but its imperative to keep the infection away from the healthy. You don’t mix the sick with the healthy and hope the health rubs of on them. Some sometimes all that can be done is allow the sick to die, and not spreading the infection is the best one can do.

    Bad money drives out good, and bad ideas unopposed will drive out good ones. You seem to think that destroying nasty ideologies can be done by just being ‘nice’ to everyone and treating them all the same. Well you can’t. At some point you have to make a decision, which side you’re on, the good or the bad. One’s got to go, so best its the bad eh?

  115. “How many women would *you* willingly sacrifice to be raped if we decide not to jail all men? ”

    It is of course a false analogy. Men can be divided in two groups, those who are rapists ( a very very very small proportion) and those not (the vast vast majority). Ergo, like many things its a risk/reward situation. Apart from the practicalities (how can 50% of the population support themselves and the other 50% who are locked up?), one has to balance the greatest good – 99.9999% of men being wrongly imprisoned vs 0.0001% of women (whatever the figure is) who will get raped. Incidentally not all rapes are committed by men, so what do we do about that?

    Whereas Muslims all subscribe to the same book, and the same set of values. All Islamic societies are shitholes, that murder rape and subjugate those Islam considers beneath it. So they really are no ‘good’ Muslims, they’re all on a spectrum for sure, but even the best ones aren’t anywhere near even the nastiest most authoritarian end of a liberal democracy. Fundamentally they all believe in the subjugation of women, at best merely the imprisonment of homosexuals, and the abolition of free speech and the ability to criticise Islam (or leave it). These are not values that are at all compatible with liberal democracy. They aren’t in the same book, let alone the same page.

    The equivalent of a ‘lock up all men to stop rape’ scenario would be if say 5-10% of men were prepared to rape pretty much as and when they felt like it (the equivalent of the % of Muslims prepared to be involved in actual violence to further Islam), another 10-15% weren’t prepared to rape anyone, but would help anyone who did to escape/hide, and might raise money etc for those that did, another 10-15% who would tacitly agree with what was going on but wouldn’t get involved (but also wouldn’t snitch on anyone). And the remainder who didn’t believe that women should be actually raped, but were fair game for copping a feel now and again, and generally being demeaned and denigrated and controlled by men.

    In those conditions I’d agree, all men should locked up to stop rape. Ironically those conditions are probably only to be found in an Islamic society………….hows them apples?

  116. “Whereas Muslims all subscribe to the same book, and the same set of values.”

    And that’s the issue – no they don’t!

    That was the entire point of ISIS – they were responding to the corruption of Islam over the past couple of centuries by trying to restore the original orthodox “by the book” version of Islam. And the Muslim countries around there were rather prominent in helping us to stomp on them.

    They no more subscribe to the same book or the same set of beliefs than Christians do. How many kids has the Catholic Church raped? Do you propose to condemn all of Christianity, because they subscribe to the same book as those Catholic priests?

    “The equivalent of a ‘lock up all men to stop rape’ scenario would be if say 5-10% of men were prepared to rape pretty much as and when they felt like it (the equivalent of the % of Muslims prepared to be involved in actual violence to further Islam)”

    We already did this one. The number of people killed by Islamic terrorism in the UK since 2001 is a little under 100, which means they average about 6 deaths per year, from about 2.6 million Muslims. If 5% of them were able to kill, say, 20 people each per year (not really difficult, at least initially), we ought to be getting around 2.6 million victims.

    And if you’re going to do it on the basis of people *wanting* to do something, then I’m forced to ask you what percentage of men do you think *want* to have sex with women?

    ‘Wanting’ is not a crime. Only ‘Doing’ is a crime.

  117. “I’m forced to ask you what percentage of men do you think *want* to have sex with women?”

    All of them you idiot, its not illegal, with consent of course. Whereas stabbing people in the street, or blowing them up outside concerts is illegal, and no-one consents to it. Its probably illegal even with consent thinking about it. So the two are utterly incomparable. Try again.

  118. “All of them you idiot, its not illegal, with consent of course.”

    Do you need consent to *want* to have sex with a woman? Is there any man who has first checked for consent before wanting it?

    And is it illegal to *want* to stab someone, but not doing so?

  119. “And if you’re going to do it on the basis of people *wanting* to do something, then I’m forced to ask you what percentage of men do you think *want* to have sex with women?”

    Apples indeed… LOL

    NiV – Everyone knows you’re bright, but which leaves people with few alternative conclusions.

  120. It will only work when most people understand what libertarianism is about, and why it’s better. That’s a long way off.
    My point, precisely.

  121. “NiV – Everyone knows you’re bright, but which leaves people with few alternative conclusions.”

    I’m simply trying to establish the general principle that people should only face penalties for crimes they have actually committed, or attempted.

    Not for crimes they might have wanted to commit but didn’t, or where they sympathised with the criminals, and most definitely not for crimes that someone else of the same sex, skin colour, nationality, religion, or political opinion might have committed or wanted to commit. You think that’s bad?

    Blackstone’s Formulation is considered one of the corner stones of English law. What conclusion should I draw about people who would argue that it should be reversed?

    I ask you, is one of these “alternative conclusions” you mention the one Oliver Cromwell invited the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland to consider? Because I’ve got a feeling it’s not, and never will be.

    Longrider,

    Too true!

  122. “Do you need consent to *want* to have sex with a woman? Is there any man who has first checked for consent before wanting it?

    And is it illegal to *want* to stab someone, but not doing so?”

    You’re comparing wanting to have sex, which is a legal (and indeed entirely natural) activity (assuming consent) with wanting to stab people, or blow them up, which isn’t legal, even with consent I suspect.

    The world is full of men who want to have sex. This is not a bad thing. A world full of men who want to stab people, even if at that very exact moment in time they’re not, is a VERY bad thing. Got it?

  123. NiV

    Try searching for “want” in the relevant pary of Jim’s 5.03pm post. Whatever you now say above, it looks at best like blatant conflation.

  124. “A world full of men who want to stab people, even if at that very exact moment in time they’re not, is a VERY bad thing. Got it?”

    No.

    I’m simply trying to establish the general principle that people should only face penalties for crimes they have actually committed, or attempted.

    “Whatever you now say above, it looks at best like blatant conflation.”

    Or paraphrase.

  125. You’ve also done a very nasty little side shift and conflated wanting to rape someone with wanting to have sex. The example I set out was the % of men who wanted to rape women, not have sex with them. Maybe sex = rape in your world, in mine not so much.

    “I’m simply trying to establish the general principle that people should only face penalties for crimes they have actually committed, or attempted.”

    So where does incitement fit into this? If a religion decrees that homosexuals are immoral and should be put to death (but no one actually does it, yet) has a crime been committed? If an entire religion thinks that is it not inciting a crime? Which is a crime in itself?

  126. JIm

    You’ve also done a very nasty little side shift and conflated wanting to rape someone with wanting to have sex. The example I set out was the % of men who wanted to rape women, not have sex with them. Maybe sex = rape in your world, in mine not so much.

    Actually, it’s more than that. You said “prepared to rape”, which is a further step removed from “want”. But no, it’s still just “paraphrasing” – honest guv.. 🙂

  127. “So where does incitement fit into this?”

    ‘Incitement’ is basically about getting the one who gives the orders. If you tell people to do something knowing or expecting them to do so as a result, that’s incitement. Telling people without any such expectation, or declaring you think they ought to isn’t.

    “If a religion decrees that homosexuals are immoral and should be put to death (but no one actually does it, yet) has a crime been committed?”

    No.

    Freedom of belief and freedom of expression say you can believe it, and say it, and even argue passionately for it, but doesn’t give you any right to actually do it. Or to plausibly threaten someone you’re about to do it, or order that it be done with the expectation/intention that it will be.

    The Bible isn’t illegal. But doing some of the things it tells you to do would be. We expect and require people to disobey.

  128. “Freedom of belief and freedom of expression say you can believe it, and say it, and even argue passionately for it, but doesn’t give you any right to actually do it. Or to plausibly threaten someone you’re about to do it, or order that it be done with the expectation/intention that it will be.”

    Well you’re a fucking moron then, and when you’re being led to the the first set of crane gibbets the Islamic nutters set up when they take over in the UK (which they will if we follow your prescription) then I expect you’ll be gibbering ‘But this is all against my human rights!’

    A liberal democracy cannot allow a growing minority to espouse policies that would destroy that liberal democracy if the minority were to gain power, even if to start with they don’t do any of it. Its a bit late once they start to ‘do’ stuff, to try and impose penalties, when they have the whip hand. You seem to imagine that Islamists would play by Parliamentary rules and play nicely nicely. They might do to get power, then once they’ve got it, the gloves are off, the hands in those gloves too no doubt.

    You really are a dangerous twat. And government is stuffed with morons like you.

  129. “A liberal democracy cannot allow a growing minority to espouse policies that would destroy that liberal democracy if the minority were to gain power, even if to start with they don’t do any of it.”

    Interesting viewpoint. One of the foundations of a liberal democracy is Freedom of Speech. You’re espousing a policy that would destroy that, if your viewpoint was ever to gain power. What, therefore, are we to do with you? Hmm?

  130. “One of the foundations of a liberal democracy is Freedom of Speech.”

    Nope it isn’t. Certainly not in the UK today. Try being a Christian preacher, preaching the Bible in public, they’ll arrest you for it. Try espousing the violent destruction of the State, they’ll arrest you for that too, especially if there’s enough of you espousing it. Try espousing anything to do with children and sex and they’ll arrest you for that too (rightly). Try being Tommy Robinson. There is no universal right to free speech in liberal democracies, never has been never will be, there’s always a limit somewhere. The line moves over time, this way and that, but its always there. There has to be a line, because eventually someone comes along who wants to destroy the liberal democracy and if you give them and their supporters free rein to say exactly as they please they will achieve their aim, and everyone loses. The idea you give your enemies the same rights you want for yourself is a recipe for your own destruction.

    You’re under the impression that I have to give free speech rights to people who want to kill or enslave me. I don’t and I won’t.

    Like I said before, ultimately you have to pick a side, us or them, who is right? Just pretending that all ideas are equal and we must treat them all alike leads to your own destruction.

  131. The Bible-preaching case was about where he was rather than what he was preaching. I’ve seen Mr Ecks espousing violent destruction of the state, and I’ve not heard that he was arrested for it. Romeo and Juliet is one of the jewels of English literature. And Tommy Robinson was about contempt of court, where his actions could have resulted in a bunch of paedophiles getting away with it.

    There are certainly proposals afoot to abridge freedom of speech, which I and others have criticised on the grounds that they have no place in a liberal democracy. It’s true that our society is not perfect in this regard. But it’s long been seen as an important principle of British society worth preserving.

    “Like I said before, ultimately you have to pick a side, us or them, who is right?”

    The belief that this is so is why the authoritarian cycle keeps on turning. Each group of authoritarians enforcing one set of rules is replaced by a different set of authoritarians enforcing a different set of rules. They all lose power, eventually, and only then suddenly realise the virtues of liberty and freedom.

    Like I said, “Us” and “Them” is hardwired. It’s the root cause of wars, genocides, massacres, persecutions, invasions, and atrocities – all the evils of history. “Us” and “Them” thinking is what drove the Muslims to empire – they call it “Believers” and “Infidels”, but it’s the same way of thinking.

    Everybody who uses the “Us” and “Them” pattern is basically the same. It’s not a question of which of you is right, because you’re mirror images of one another. You’re all equivalent. And you’re all equally wrong.

    “Just pretending that all ideas are equal and we must treat them all alike leads to your own destruction.”

    Not all ideas are equal, and following some paths leads to destruction. But we are all blind to the flaws in our own ideas, which is why we need to be able to debate and argue the case. We have to be able to *express* any idea, so that they can be examined and we can make an informed decision.

    Shutting down the opposition without listening to it is indeed one of those ideas that history has taught us leads to our ultimate destruction.

    I don’t have the time or space to be able to give the full explanation. (!! 🙂 ) But your question has been dealt with at length by the moral philosophers of the Enlightenment. Go read JS Mill, think about that, and consider also why society over the past 150 years has regarded the sort of liberty the Enlightenment philosophers defined so positively. Why do so many people claim to want liberty, as opposed to simply wanting to win?

    Shutting down free speech and freedom of belief, even for your enemies, means you’re opposed to liberty. And history has not dealt kindly with any of the others who did so.

  132. Jim, you’ve been manoeuvred into typing more than NiV. You have to accept that there is no reasoning or persuasion possible here. Any somethingist or whateverarian is a self-righteous anorak with an internal mental and moral jujutsu.

    It is better to prod and point and laugh (even bleakly), for your entertainment and that of other grown-ups. A picture of Lee Rigby’s body lying in an English road with the blood-stained British-born Muslim killer posturing in blue jeans is a better response than any essay to idiotic claims of a garment indicator of cultural victory.

    You’re right – NiV is a twat. The piss is there to be taken.

  133. The Danes, peace be upon them, seem to think that quoting religious texts can be incitement.

    http://www.france24.com/en/20180724-danish-imam-charged-over-call-kill-jews

    One would think it would especially be so for religions. The adherents are, by definition, irrational, so it is highly likely that there will be someone sufficiently irrational among them to carry out a killing to please their god or hasten the day of judgement. Allah is particularly a bastard because the man who made him up was such an utter bastard.

  134. Actually NiV is utterly wrong on his ‘Free Speech demands we give free speech to people who would deny it to us’ legal twisting argument. No right survives its own breaking. There is a universal right to life yet if someone tries to murder me I may end his life, legally, while still retaining my rights. Similarly theft does not gain good title to the items stolen, so no right to possession is gained. The response to the breach of the right has to be proportionate, so one may kill a murderous assailant, but not someone who steals your wallet. But the principle is clear – if you trespass on the rights of others, you cannot expect them to respect your rights universally. This is entirely within the principles of the rule of law and of a liberal democracy.

    So the right to free speech is not absolute, if you break it by attempting to deny it to others, as Islam does, by demanding that criticism of it be legally prevented and punished, then it loses the right to free speech itself. Again, the reaction has to be proportionate – a single person saying free speech should be banned for everyone else in the country is a nutter and can safely and humanely be ignored. Millions of people collectively saying the same thing cannot, and should not, its incredibly dangerous.

    We in the UK have gone down precisely the wrong road, restricting the free speech rights of the majority in order to protect the feelings of the minority, when we should have been proactive in telling Muslims living in the West means that anyone can say what they like about your poxy beliefs and if you don’t like it fuck off. 25 years ago we had our Rhineland moment – the Satanic Verses affair. And we flunked it because people like NiV screamed racism and refused to defend free speech. If we had put down a marker then, arrested anyone who protested and chucked them out of the country, and held that line ever since, then all the current mess, in the UK at least, could have been avoided. But we appeased the monster and we know where that leads, a far bloodier confrontation eventually.

  135. Hopefully, the Danish case will put the Koran on trial and in so doing open peoples’ eyes to what an evil piece of fiction it is.

    I’m frequently amazed at the ignorance of many people in the West with respect to who Mohammed the Bastard was, they often simply assume that he was a Jesus like figure rather than the murdering, slave owning, slave trading, slave raping, thieving pedophile that he was, an interesting choice for the perfect human being.

  136. “You have to accept that there is no reasoning or persuasion possible here. Any somethingist or whateverarian is a self-righteous anorak with an internal mental and moral jujutsu.”

    You have to accept that you have to use reasoning to persuade, and that if you’re wrong there’s no way to construct a valid argument that makes that ‘right’.

    “The Danes, peace be upon them, seem to think that quoting religious texts can be incitement.”

    It can be – it depends whether you can consider it to be “giving instructions” or simply expressing a general desire or belief that it happen. From the description, I wouldn’t have said it was incitement in this Danish case, but it’s certainly not impossible.

    “One would think it would especially be so for religions. The adherents are, by definition, irrational, so it is highly likely that there will be someone sufficiently irrational among them to carry out a killing to please their god or hasten the day of judgement.”

    That argument doesn’t work. If there are people irrational enough to interpret Radio 4 headlines as coded instructions to start a war, that doesn’t mean you can arrest John Humphrys for ‘incitement’.

    Unless you know specifically that there are people out there whose irrationality takes the form of doing whatever you tell them to, there’s no causal chain.

    Don’t you think there are nutters out there willing to murder members of Parliament, and who would take one of the periodic calls to “hang them all” here as an encouragement to murder, and thereby overthrow liberal democracy? But was that the intention when the call was made, or was it rhetorical hyperbole, just a way to express the depth of your annoyance?

    “Actually NiV is utterly wrong on his ‘Free Speech demands we give free speech to people who would deny it to us’ legal twisting argument. No right survives its own breaking.”

    Quite so. You can’t deny free speech to people who would deny free speech, without *becoming* them.

    What you really mean is “Free speech for us, not for them”, which of course is not free speech. SJWs support ‘free speech’ for SJWs. Muslims support ‘free speech’ for Muslims. Soviet Stalinists support ‘free speech’ for other Soviet Stalinists. Join the club.

    Free speech includes the freedom to *say* speech should not be free, but not to *enforce* it. Advocacy and enforcement are distinct.

    “We in the UK have gone down precisely the wrong road, restricting the free speech rights of the majority in order to protect the feelings of the minority, when we should have been proactive in telling Muslims living in the West means that anyone can say what they like about your poxy beliefs and if you don’t like it fuck off.”

    Yep. Agreed.

    “And we flunked it because people like NiV screamed racism and refused to defend free speech.”

    Not me. I was arguing for free speech back then, too.

    “If we had put down a marker then, arrested anyone who protested and chucked them out of the country”

    No! That’s not free speech!

    Protesting and complaining is fine. They’re allowed to do that. The problem was only when they tried to *enforce* it. Anyone who tried to kill Salman Rushdie for what he had written could be arrested and tried. You could even argue that the fatwa issued against him was incitement to murder. But they’re welcome to complain and have a debate about it.

    And then we can ask them about that story in al-Tabari’s ‘Ta’rikh al-rusul wa’l-muluk’ where Mohammed gets in trouble with the Arab tribes of Mecca for insulting their religion and attacking their Gods, and he’s defended from their retribution by his uncle Abu Talib, a non-Muslim. Should Mohammed have been killed for insulting the Arabs’ religion?

    “Hopefully, the Danish case will put the Koran on trial and in so doing open peoples’ eyes to what an evil piece of fiction it is.”

    You couldn’t do that without putting the Bible on trial, too.

    Nobody ever did get around to telling me what they thought Moses wanted 32,000 virgin girls for, either…

  137. You couldn’t do that without putting the Bible on trial, too.

    Why, was the imam quoting from the bible as well?

  138. “Why, was the imam quoting from the bible as well?”

    The defence lawyer would just point out that if the Bible says the same sorts of things and is allowed, then by the same standard so must the Koran be.

  139. Though, by putting the Koran on trial, I’m not expecting it to be banned (though arguably it should be), I’m merely wanting people to wake up to what an evil book it is, which will lead them to realise, as the Koran is supposedly the direct words of Allah, that reformation of Islam is impossible and reconciliation with western values is equally impossible.

  140. “Does the bible call for the killing of Jews?”

    Are Jews the only people you can’t call for the killing of?

    Deuteronomy 20:16-18

    16 But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:

    17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee:

    18 That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the Lord your God.

    Or on a slightly different topic, how about Leviticus 19:20-23?

    20 And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.

    21 And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering.

    22 And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the Lord for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him.

    There are entire websites devoted to quoting evil bits of the Bible. I’m pretty sure the Book of Revelations doesn’t conform to the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war, either!

    But you already knew all that, and so does everyone else. Nobody is going to accept that the Koran is significantly worse than the Bible. The only difference is that older, more traditional/conservative Muslims are closer to still believing in it.

  141. “Though, by putting the Koran on trial, I’m not expecting it to be banned (though arguably it should be), I’m merely wanting people to wake up to what an evil book it is,”

    I’m fully in agreement with that. But you don’t need a trial for that. All you need to do is to tell people about the history and beliefs of orthodox Islam, without hysterics or over-the-top invective that could get it labeled as ‘racist’ and dismissed without being read. However, I’d argue that accuracy is critical, if you’re not going to discredit everyone else trying to do so, and it helps to quote the original, authentic Islamic sources, rather than Daily Mail editorials.

    And if you seriously want to do so, I’d not use the Koran to do it. The stuff in there is too ambiguous and ‘poetical’ to be very convincing, without a lot of patience and background knowledge regarding its interpretation. Instead I’d recommend using al-Misri’s ‘Reliance of the Traveller’ – the English translation of Umdat al-Salik. It’s much clearer, less ambiguous, and much harder to wiggle out of.

  142. When a priest stands up in the pulpit and calls on his or her parishioners to kill Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites (if they can find them) based on the bible, arrest him or her. The reality is that no Christian preacher would do such a thing, and I guess no Rabbi would either, whereas imams have no problem calling for the killing of Jews and infidels based on the text of their fictional sacred texts.

  143. Quite so. It’s not what the sacred texts say or what people did long ago that matters. It’s what people believe now, today. And what people believe today can be very different to what their sacred texts say they should believe.

    Yes, there are people with dangerous, violent, angry beliefs, and they need to be exposed to public scrutiny and argued with. And if they move towards putting them into practice, stopped.

    However, there are a whole load of ‘Muslims’ who bear the same relationship to the Jihadis that the average British CofE Christian does to Moses, or Cesare Borgia, or the Catholic paedophile priests. Many modern Muslims, like most modern Christians, don’t have a clue what’s in the history or orthodoxy of their own religion. It’s a jolly social event, that they might pop along to once every few weeks to keep the older folks happy, and they leave all the heavyweight theology and politics to others.

    Some are genuinely dangerous, rather more are armchair internet blowhards, and the majority are ignorant and clueless. There’s a rather higher percentage of them with ‘traditional’ attitudes to social mores – as on homosexuality, promiscuity, drinking, sex equality, and so on – but we had similar attitudes not so long ago. (As my many arguments here demonstrate, some of us still do!) It’s something we should be applying pressure on, and not giving a pass to, but it’s also something that isn’t cast in stone.

    If people are genuinely dangerous, I agree something should be done about that. But if we are not to abandon the standards and freedoms that makes us better than them, we have to be fair about it and only punish those who truly deserve it. Freedom of speech, and freedom of belief are principles that our forebears fought and died for. They’re still important, and more so in the face of ideological threats like this.

    We need to beat them by being *better* than them, not simply by being stronger.

  144. “You can’t deny free speech to people who would deny free speech, without *becoming* them.”

    No No No. As I’ve pointed out and you ignored it, once you step over the line you no longer have the protection of the line. You try to murder someone and in defending themselves they kill you its not murder. Your ‘right to life’ is not valid any more, by your own actions you’ve forfeited it.

    Similarly once you step over the line (as Islam has done) and demand free speech for the rest of society be removed you lose their own protection of it, and the rest of society is perfectly entitled to remove your right to free speech. Then, as in a fight, it comes down to a trial of strength.

  145. “No No No. As I’ve pointed out and you ignored it, once you step over the line you no longer have the protection of the line.”

    You can’t deny free speech to people who would deny free speech, without *becoming* them.

  146. Nonsense. By that argument all killing is murder, even if defending yourself, getting your possessions back from a thief would theft etc etc. All human rights have an attached responsibility to behave in a certain manner in order to qualify for that right, they are not unlimited and unqualified.

  147. @ Jim
    In a fight it is not just a trial of strength – it is largely a trial of how the relative values of how much pain one is willing to tolerate compared to how much the other person is willing and able to inflict. The problem is that militant Islam is much more willing to inflict pain than the West, whether Christian or secular.

  148. “All human rights have an attached responsibility to behave in a certain manner in order to qualify for that right, they are not unlimited and unqualified.”

    The only qualification for human rights is to be human. Hence the name.

    If somebody *argues* for removing people’s human rights, without enforcing it, a proper response might be to *argue* for removing theirs, without any intention of doing so. Speech is met with speech. Only force is met with force.

    Part of the point of free speech is to be able to explore dangerous ideas safely. Someone can propose abridging free speech, or introducing socialism, or reviving eugenics, or building an untested and unstable AI and giving it control over our nuclear arsenal, and then we can all sit around and explore the consequences of that, and why it’s such a bad idea. If you try to shut down dangerous ideas to stop them spreading, you don’t stop people passing them on anyway in secret, but now there’s nobody there to explain why it’s a bad idea. There is a certain glamour to forbidden knowledge.

    There are a whole load more reasons why we need dangerous ideas to be discussed out in the open, not in secret. (Go read JS Mill, or Milton’s Areopagitica for more details). If we start applying selective bans to certain rights-breeching ideas by threatening to take their human rights away if anyone proposes it, it’s just censorship.

    And my point remains. By the very fact that you have just proposed to take away their right to free speech, you meet the criteria of your own ban and would lose your own.

    Authoritarians always have an excuse. They say “Of course I believe in Free Speech, but ‘free speech’ obviously doesn’t include…” and then they add in all their exceptions.

    There can be no exceptions! All words (as such) are permitted, actions can be restricted, and only words that constitute actions can be indirectly banned if the action does someone harm. Thus, laws on fraud, incitement, slander, breach of privacy, official secrets, and so on can lay down consequences for the harmful action that results directly from speech.

    “In a fight it is not just a trial of strength – it is largely a trial of how the relative values of how much pain one is willing to tolerate compared to how much the other person is willing and able to inflict.”

    It can also be a trial of how much pleasure you are willing and able to offer. When Apple and Microsoft fight, part of it is about how much damage their lawyers can do to the other, but it’s mostly about who offers the better product.

    But regarding the pain, it’s a lot more limited than you would suppose from the blaring headlines and all the security theatre. As noted above, Islamic terrorists in Britain average about 6 deaths per year, which is considerably safer than sitting in a chair (50 deaths falling out of them), lying in a bed (100 deaths falling out of them), and walking down stairs (650 deaths falling down stairs).

    The terrorists I’m sure could do better if they tried – but it isn’t really about hurting people, it’s about getting headlines, and publicity for the cause, and applying political pressure. They want to apply enough pressure to make a few concessions politically worthwhile, but not enough to provoke a real response, like 9/11 provoked Afghanistan and Iraq. The government plays along because it helps them justify their own security agenda.

    And to some degree, we play along because it keeps the Islamists happy that their jihad is going on nicely and they don’t need to escalate, while keeping the damage to a minimum. In the meantime, their flock are slowly slipping away from them.

    Ultimately, like Apple and Microsoft, it will come down to who offers the better product. But people who only know one operating system find it difficult in the short term to switch to the other. They don’t know how to do the basic stuff, that existing users grew up with and think of as natural. So it’s not just about which is bigger or which is better, but which makes it easier for customers of their opponent to switch sides.

  149. There very much are exceptions to human rights, as I’ve repeatedly pointed out the Right to Life is not unconditional. If you attempt to remove another persons right to life, they are entitled within the law to remove your life in defence. Thus Human Rights are not 100% unconditional and universal, nor is mere ‘being human’ required for them to qualify for them. Not attempting to breach anothers human rights is also required.

    I do not wish to remove Muslims right to talk about their religion, and how wonderful it is. Or even for them to trash talk other religions and how awful they are and you shouldn’t follow them. I’m merely using my right to self defence because they wish to remove MY freedom of speech (and would given the power to do so). By the time they have that power its to late for me to do anything, so I (and the rest of free society) have to act to defend our free speech rights now.

    The right to self defence is totally within the concept of human rights. You do not have to respect a murderous assailants right to life, he has forfeited his right by his actions. Thus a society does not have to respect the rights of a minority who start agitating to remove the rights of the majority.

    All you are doing is protecting the ability to Muslims to agitate for the removal of other people’s rights, and saying everyone else must not defend themselves. Its like to telling anyone who is attacked with a knife ‘You must respect your opponents right to life at all costs, even your own life!’ What sort of society do you think that would create? One where the murderous can murder with impunity because no one can defend themselves. Similarly societies have to defend themselves from people who wish to remove free speech rights, including if necessary, removing their free speech too.

    It is pure self defence.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *