web analytics

THEY HAVEN’T GONE AWAY

By Pete Moore On April 26th, 2013

Just another day in British courts.

Mohammed Sheikh, Hamza Ali and Suran Uddin are jailed for abducting a 13-year old girl, drugging her and repeatedly raping her for four days. Two of them “could face deportation to Somalia, their home country”. None of them are in their home country.

Eleven-strong terrorist cell jailed for a total of nintey years for planning attacks with rucksack bombs and firearms, poisons and running over pedestrians in cars fitted with blades. Another bunch of Abduls.

Well done, each and every one of you immigrationists who inflicted a total catastrophe on our country. Well done.

65 Responses to “THEY HAVEN’T GONE AWAY”

  1. There was never any crime before the immigrants came.

  2. None by immigrants.

  3. “There was never any crime before the immigrants came.”

    What a stupid comment!
    Of course there was crime before immigration.
    So why would we want more?
    There was no terrorism before immigration being committed by British citizens either.
    Why would we want to import it?

  4. Weren’t some of you recent antecedents immigrants to that country Pete?

  5. Immigration from wildly incompatible cultures is about the worst idea that one can imagine.

  6. That’s an interesting on Phantom. How would incompatible cultures be defined and would it also bar perfectly law abiding people based on where they’re from?

  7. You tell me.

    Are all cultures compatible?

  8. ” How would incompatible cultures be defined and would it also bar perfectly law abiding people based on where they’re from?”

    Wahhabi Islam:-

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1571144.stm

    Sunni Islam:-

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/subdivisions/sunnishia_1.shtml

    Shia Islam:-

    http://www.patheos.com/Library/Shia-Islam.html

    Shari’a Law:-

    http://www.euro-islam.info/key-issues/islamic-law/

    Sikhism Hinduism Buddhism and of course Judaism have found a way to coexist with our post Christian Liberal Democracy that avoids conflict.
    On the other hand the extremists in the various Islamic sects tend towards a more severe interpretation of their faith, and some make no secret of their desire to bring all non believers into the fold of Islam.

    As far as historical experience can be relied upon, it is not a religion of peace and it is difficult to see what it contributes to either our freedoms or our morality. But apart from all that, it is entirely compatible with Western liberal democratic values.
    Go for it Paul!

  9. You tell me

    I’m not the one making the suggestion.

    What difinition would an incompatible culture take. If, for example, Pakistan was branded an incompatible culture what would happen to perfectly law abiding Pakistanis? Would that also apply to Indians and if it did would only apply to Indian Muslims or would it also affect Indian Sikhs, Hindus etc?

  10. I am going way beyond abiding any law.

    Some people respect you and your ways, and some despise you and your ways.

    Some can fit in, and some can not or will not.

    You’re a smart guy, and you are well aware of what’s what and who’s who.

  11. I’m sick and tired of seeing pictures of bearded fanatics who want to commit mass-murder in the name of their sky-god (peace be upon his name). It can only be a matter of time before the next attack that succeeds.

  12. There does seem to be a need for stronger and more sensible immigration (and deportation) procedures. It should be much easier to deport than it seems to be.

  13. Some can fit in, and some can not or will not

    Absolutely. So shouldn’t that incompatible culture comment be changed to incompatible individuals?

  14. As far as I’m aware, immigrants, (and I’m not sure the terrorist cell where immigrants), are not responsible for more crime (Per head), than Brits, but I could be wrong.

  15. The two Boston murderers would have flown below any radar screen.

    You import people from certain places, you also inherit all of their many hatreds.

  16. You import people from certain places, you also inherit all of their many hatreds.

    I’m sure the vast majority of them don’t hate. Like most people they just want to get on with their lives.

  17. Even if 90% don’t hate, that 10% is gonna cause a lot of problems.

  18. Even if 90% don’t hate, that 10% is gonna cause a lot of problems.

    So what’s the solution?

  19. As far as I’m aware, immigrants, (and I’m not sure the terrorist cell where immigrants), are not responsible for more crime (Per head), than Brits, but I could be wrong.

    Yes, you are wrong:

    “At 30 June 2011, the latest published data, over one-quarter of the prison population whose ethnicity was recorded were from a minority ethnic group. Among British nationals 20% of the population were from a minority ethnic group.”

    Link here (pdf)

  20. Dave

    For starters, zero immigration from problem countries.

  21. Peter. Informative PDF thanks. The religion of prisoners stat is interesting.
    Phantom;

    For starters, zero immigration from problem countries.

    It would have to be for starters. You would also have to stop tourists and student visas. And how do you define a problem country. (Most of the 9/11 terrorists where Saudi and I’m not sure the US would want to stop them.) Even if you did all that, they would still find a way to commit atrocities because that’s what terrorists do.

    I think if you went down this road, you would lose more than you would gain and in some ways, the terrorists would win. Thousands of Americans die on the roads each year but no one is suggesting banning driving, even if that would go a long way towards reducing deaths. I agree that terrorist acts are sickening, but they are thankfully rare.

  22. Discriminatory? Yes, so what?

    Your spouse is from a problem country? Go there and cheer them up.

  23. We’ll get by with our British Japanese Chinese and Canadian tourists and students – I can live without those from Pakistan and Yemen and God help us Somalia.

  24. Dave Alton –

    “I think if you went down this road, you would lose more than you would gain ..”

    The UK and US did quite alright without importing vast numbers of aliens from problem countries. We’d get by.

  25. We’ll get by with our British Japanese Chinese and Canadian tourists

    Except some of the 7/7 bombers here where British. What would stop the likes of them traveling to America if you allow Brits?

  26. That is a problem.

    One which was brought about by immigration from bad countries.

  27. “Except some of the 7/7 bombers here where British.”

    They were obviously not British.

  28. //Immigration from wildly incompatible cultures is about the worst idea that one can imagine.//

    Like Africa, Ireland, China, Italians, eastern European Jews, Mexicans, Swedes.

    Yep, folks, that E Pluribus Unum thing sure was the worst idea ever.

  29. Pete’s 847 is actually true.

    They weren’t culturally British, they surely did not regard themselves as British.

    Only in the most tortured legalistic sense ere they British. They’re about as British as a koran school in Yemen.

  30. Peter.
    I’m sick and tired of seeing pictures of bearded fanatics who want to commit mass-murder in the name of their sky-god (peace be upon his name). It can only be a matter of time before the next attack that succeeds.”

    As I said earlier what real, positive and tangible benefit has (in particular) Islam brought to the West?

    Okay,
    we know some of them see us as decadent,
    unclean (we eat pigs and keep dogs as pets),
    that most are irreligious
    that our women have freedoms and dress as they want.
    that we tolerate/accept homosexuality.
    Fair enough.
    But what have they brought that could be seen as truly beneficial to our way of life?
    I see nothing. So by all means respect them, treat them fairly, where possible work with them, but let’s not kid ourselves that they have brought us anything more than any other ethnic or cultural group.

    Then let’s look at Paul’s point.

    “Absolutely. So shouldn’t that incompatible culture comment be changed to incompatible individuals?”

    I think what he says is partly true and partly false. If we look at the whole of the Islamic world, we see evidence of strife and in fighting of all the groups and against other non Islamic groups as well. If Islam regards itself as the One True religion, then inevitably there will be the same kind of clashes that happened in the history of the Church in the West, mostly but not exclusively in the Middle Ages.
    So even though most Muslims are presently peaceable, like any other group they are not immune to the effects of deliberate incitement by those wishing to bring strife.

    True all over the world of pretty much all peoples. Even Northern Ireland, Paul.
    Like saying my people the English brutalized Ireland..

    So yes, there are incompatible people, and it is how we deal with them; and perhaps more importantly how much damage they do to US and our innocents. that causes the most concern.
    We can’t turn back the clock. We are a multicultural society. But for my money we have to assert the supremacy of our own laws and values over everyone else’s in the land, because if we do not we will surely come to resemble any one of the nations around the world torn apart by factions and cultural and religious strife.

  31. So why are white countries importing masses of 3rd-worlders? The completion of a long-term plan:

    http://revolutionharry.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/mass-immigration-and-new-tower-of-babel.html

    Richard Nikolaus von Coudenhove-Kalergi is credited with being the founder of the first popular movement for a United Europe. In the early 1920s he joined a Masonic lodge in Vienna. Later, in 1925, he wrote a book called ‘Practical Idealism’ in which he clearly described the genocidal roots of the European Union. In it he said:

    “The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today’s races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals.”

    Coudenhove-Kalergi was very much of the European ‘blue blood’ elite whose own roots could be traced to ‘Byzantine royalty via Venetian aristocracy’. It is this ‘blood line elite’ who appear to make up the majority of the Satanic oligarchy behind the New World Order. References to ‘vanishing prejudice’ give the illusion that there was some sort of altruistic element to their desire for a united Europe. Make no mistake, the idea of encouraging mass immigration from Asia and Africa has long been part of the European Union ‘project’. The intention wasn’t only to destroy the indigenous populations of Europe but also to create a new, more easily controlled, slave race capable of serving the ‘blue-blood’ royalty and aristocracy who still, to this day, really control things.

    When the President of the European Council Herman Von Rompuy, in November 2010, declared that, ‘the time of the homogeneous nation-state is over’, we can see the arrogance of this genocidal policy being pursued by the European ‘elite’.

    But this ‘mongrelising’ of the masses is but one part of the enslavement agenda. Bertrand Russell, in his book ‘The Impact of Science on Society’ (1953) p49-50, gave a clear indication of the long term goals of the Satanic ‘elite’:

    “Gradually, by selective breeding, the congenital differences between rulers and ruled will increase until they become almost different species. A revolt of the plebs would become as unthinkable as an organised insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton.”

  32. Bertrand Russell – Fabian socialist, eugenicist, hero of the New Left.

    Our world would have been vastly better if his mother had aborted him.

  33. In the early 1920s he joined a Masonic lodge in Vienna.

    The masons. I knew it was the masons.

  34. A8

    Totally agree with your 9.12

    But I prefer “multiethnic” to “multicultural”. Rome in AD 300 was a bit like London in 2010, a hotch potch of immigrants. But they were all Romans and they all spoke the language and they integrated. London 2010 is ghettoised. That would be acceptable if integration was the norm, but too many too soon has made that impossible. Ask any primary school teacher about the number of children in the class who do not speak English as their first language, and whose parents can barely speak a word of it.

  35. It was Jackie Mason wot done it?

  36. The masons. I knew it was the masons.

    Well it makes a change from the Jews.

  37. Peter.
    What do you see as the difference between multicultural and multiethnic?
    Whilst Rome made all incomers citizens and subject to Roman rule, nevertheless yhe values and religious influences of those “immigrants” became stronger and stronger as Rome itself lost confidence in its roots.
    Much more complex than that, but the fact is that importing different ideas will eventually change the host culture.

  38. “Rome in AD 300 was a bit like London in 2010”

    Unfortunately, an army of Teutons isn’t about to sweep away the Oriental infestation.

  39. A8

    I’m no expert on Rome, but I understand that all the immigrants became Romans.

    Multicultural I take to mean that immigrants can keep their own culture which may include things like forced marriage and wearing the veil. And that no value judgments can be made against them because “all cultures have equal value”, even if they oppress women. This is essentially the position of Ken Livingstone and George Galloway.

    Multiethnic I take to mean that immigrants can keep their ethnic background, for example marry within their own race/faith and attend their sky-god of choice, but they learn the language and generally integrate in terms of dress code and basic values such as non-oppression of women.

  40. //I’m no expert on Rome, but I understand that all the immigrants became Romans.//

    They certainly didn’t. Even by as late as the early 3rd C AD, probably between a third and half of people in Rome were slaves. There were also various other categories of freemen who were not Roman citizens, and Roman citizens probably made up only around one third of the total population.
    In the rest of the empire the % was of course even less.

    //Bertrand Russell – Fabian socialist, eugenicist, hero of the New Left.//

    Aren’t you two the right eegits.
    When Russel was writing this he was talking – very tongue in cheek – about some future scenario. He no more hoped for that outcome than Orwell hoped for Big Brother.

  41. One can easily complain about the presence of masses of 3rd-worlders who turn our lands into the 3rd-world but it takes a bit of thinking to ask who are importing these useless masses (look at their lands of origin) and why. Unfortunately, from the lame responses above, thinking above the level of the pleb is rare from ‘contributors’ to ATW at the moment. It never used to be so but it certainly is now. Bertrand Russell was treasonous scum but he wasn’t necessarily wrong.

    Agit – I missed your comment on having watched the short excerpt from that North Korean documentary. Hopefully it made sense to you and some of the comments above would reinforce the central truth of the excerpt.

  42. Noel

    I meant Romans in the sense of speaking the language in the city of Rome.

  43. Peter –

    The immigrants didn’t become full Roman citizens. Citizenship was a stratified concept which afforded the fullest rights to Romani, then fewer rights to Latins, Socii, Provinciales and then finally, foreign riff-raff. It wasn’t until the 3rd-Century that full Roman citizenship was given to everyone in the empire. This followed inflationary degradation and was done for political reasons.

  44. Right Noel, Bertrand Russell was just on a wind up.

  45. Pete

    Yes, I did mention 300 AD.

  46. When Russel was writing this he was talking – very tongue in cheek – about some future scenario.

    Noel – Really? Here is the book and it is not tongue-in-cheek.

    http://archive.org/stream/TheImpactOfScienceOnSociety-B.Russell#page/n7/mode/2up

    “The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen.” – p41

    Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so.” – p62

    “There are three ways of securing a society that shall be stable as regards population. The first is that of birth control, the second is that of infanticide or really destructive wars, and the third that of general misery except for a powerful minority. All these methods have been practised: the first, for example, by the Australian aborigines; the second by Aztecs, the Spartans and the rulers of Plato’s Republic; the third in the world as some Western internationalists hope to make it and in Soviet Russia.” – p117

    (on population control) War, as I remarked a moment ago, has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove effective. If a Black Death could spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. There would be nothing in this to offend the conscience of the devout or to restrain the ambition of nationalists. The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of it? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people’s.” – p116..p117

  47. //It wasn’t until the 3rd-Century that full Roman citizenship was given to everyone in the empire. //

    What was that school you went to?

    Slavery continued not only past the 3rd C but even well past the time when Christianity became the official Religion, and even survived the Empire.

    And apart from slaves, even aristocratic Roman women didn’t have full citizenship rights at any time during the Republic or Empire.

  48. Thanks, Allan. You are nothing if not dilligent.

    And your link (did you read it?) shows that I was dead right and you dead wrong.
    He is imagining a future scenario, and one that he certainly is not looking Forward to.

    He starts by talking about political movements enamoured with science, going on to mention the Soviets and the Nazis. He talks about Nazi “scientific” experiments in the CCs, and muses

    “If (the Nazis) had survived, they would probably have soon taken to scientific breeding. Any nation which adopts this practice will, within a generation, secure great military advantages. The system, one may surmise, will be something like this:”

    ..and then come your quotes. He is talking about a nightmare scenario, which I think should have been obvious to anyone who knew anything about Russel.

  49. Noel – yes. I read it and he certainly wasn’t dissociating himself from his own musings. Russell was an integral part of the ‘elite’ and his writings reflect that. ‘Tongue-in-cheek’ is an inappropriate term.

  50. O Allan, Allan, if you still can’t understand what is written in that quote, there is really little hope for you, as it shows that your wish to misunderstand is stronger than plain English. This of course goes a long way to explain the mad ideas you have and how you get them.

    This example of the Russell quote is of course a gross example of how things are taken completely out of context by those loon Websites, and in fact made to mean the exact opposite of what they were meant to.

    Let me reproduce the fuller context of the Quote. I know it still can’t change your mind by this stage, but it will show anybody else reading this the level of misrepresentation you are capable of.
    The last sentence below is the one you quoted.

    “A totalitarian government with a scientific bent might do things that to us would seem horrifying. The Nazis were more scientific than the present rulers of Russia, and were more inclined towards the sort of atrocities that I have in mind. They were said – I do not know with what truth – to use prisoners in concentration camps as material for all kinds of experiments, some involving death after much pain. If they had survived, they would probably have soon taken to scientific breeding. Any nation which adopts this practice will, within a generation, secure great military advantages. The system, one may surmise, will be something like this:
    except possibly in the governing aristocracy, all but 5 per cent of males and 30 per cent of females will be sterilised. The 30 per cent of females will be expected to spend the years from eighteen to forty in reproduction, in order to secure adequate cannon fodder. As a rule, artificial insemination will be preferred to the natural method. The unsterilised, if they desire the pleasures of love, will usually have to seek them with sterilised partners.

    Sires will be chosen for various qualities, some for muscle others for brains. All will have to be healthy, and unless they are to be the fathers of oligarchs they will have to be of a submissive and docile disposition. Children will, as in Plato’s Republic, be taken from their mothers and reared by professional nurses. Gradually, by selective breeding the congenital differences between rulers and ruled will increase until they become almost different species.”

    But of course, none of this context should have been needed for anyone who knows the first thing about Russell, who was a champion of freedom of the individual . Because of his strict principle of independence of mind, he was kicked out of a top job (a professorship at Cambridge) and even suffered imprisonment. He was of impeccable liberal pedigree (his grandfather was even Liberal Prime Minister of Britain, I believe). Once the Liberals offered him candidacy for a very safe Liberal seat, but only on condition that he didn’t speak openly of his atheism. He refused to be silenced and didn’t get the seat.

    This is the man you and Pete Moore think was looking forward to a future where the state raised a nation of slaves. Well, well..

  51. Regarding remarks about Roman citizenship, the pedants* amongst us get excited about missing or generalised comments used in illustrating a greater truth regarding the problems that can occur when a previously monocultural society becomes multicultural -as happened in Rome over the centuries.
    That there were slaves and freedmen and native born is of course true, but as we are talking about Now, the relevant part of the Roman analogy is how Roman values and laws were kept preeminent, whilst at the same time Rome was being changed by the influx of new ideas, religions and cultural practices.

    So by nitpicking about the details left out in the analogy we move away from the central discussion on how our country is being changed by (unlimited) immigration and the influx of foreign criminals and extremists along with the majority looking for a better life for themselves.
    The thread started off talking about the abduction,intoxication and repeated rape of a vulnerable young girl from a broken background** by a group of Muslim men.

    FewsOrange makes the (imo) dumb observation that crime existed here before immigration in large numbers took place, and we went on to talk about cultural differences and their effects and their contribution to British life.
    The pedants’ contribution?
    To get off on the status of and makeup of Roman citizenry..

    * definition therof .. “A person who is excessively concerned with minor details and rules or with displaying academic learning.”

    ** Should we next have a pedantic discussion on the definition of a broken background?

  52. Noel Cunningham –

    “a champion of freedom of the individual”

    Oh nonsense. He was a socialist who believed in one global government. He also wrote that the state should issue colour-coded procreation cards, in order to prevent the gene-pool of the elite being polluted by inferior humans.

    Why don’t you tell us what he thought about “negroes”?

  53. From my post at 9.22pm and not withstanding Noel’s vain pleas on behalf of Bertrand Russell, it is evident that the ‘elite’ has long plannned the importation of 3rd-world masses in order to “mongrelise” the people of Europe and produce an even more stupid, servile mass over which this same ‘elite’ shall have unchallenged control. Whether your name is Hermann van Rompuy, General Wesley Clark (Kanne) or Professor Noel Ignatiev of Harvard, this has been declared by then as their ‘common purpose’ and is not out-of-context. That’s why mass immigration is supported by all of the Establishment’s political parties and why anybody who objects is a ‘racist’.

  54. //He also wrote that the state should issue colour-coded procreation cards, in order to prevent the gene-pool of the elite being polluted by inferior humans.//

    //the ‘elite’ has long plannned the importation of 3rd-world masses in order to “mongrelise” the people of Europe//

    I think by now we all know that what makes you two believe these kind of things is what made you also believe the exact opposite of what Bertrad Russell actually wrote, as I showed above.

  55. These kind of things?

    The revered pacifist, disarmer and philosophical titan, Bertrand Russell, dreamed up a wheeze that would have made even Nazi Germany’s eugenicists blush. He suggested the state issue colour-coded “procreation tickets.” Those who dared breed with holders of a different-coloured ticket would face a heavy fine. That way the high-calibre gene pool of the elite would not be muddied by any proletarian or worse, foreign, muck.

    Jonathan Freedland, Master Race of the Left, The Guardian

  56. Pete, he was probably fooled by the same “sources” that fooled you and Allan about thtt “Gradually, by selective breeding …” quote.

    After all, we’ve just seen here once again that there are literally no limits to how wrong rightwing readers can get things when they really want to.

  57. I can’t say I am expert on the life and times on Bertrand Russell, but given his background, status and culture which he existed in, I find it hard to believe he would have made such a suggestion with serious intent.

    Surely this would have been written along the same lines as Jonathon Swift’s famous ‘modest proposal’ ?

  58. Noel –

    Rightwing readers? Jonathan Freedland of The Guardian and The New York Times? I think not.

  59. Colm –

    Much history has been re-written or quietly but deliberately dropped. Recently in here we saw that the deified FDR said things about Germans and Jews which were so surprisingly that I was accused of channeling Goebbels when I pretended to hold those views.

    If the statements of people such as FDR can be airbrushed away, anyone’s can.

  60. Pete

    The statement of FDR weren’t airbrushed away. After all, you found them. However, It doesn’t really matter what people like FDR said when out of power, it is what they did in power that gets remembered and recorded more prominently into the historical record. He was part of the winning side against the Nazis, and that is how he will always be known.

  61. Indeed Colm – Pete and I find these statements because we can be bothered to look for them and not sit back and accept everything that we’re told.

  62. Allan

    Yes, you find them quite easily on the internet and then claim they have been airbrushed out of existence. Very logical !

  63. Colm –

    I suppose even an airbrushing leaves a trace. In a way you demonstrate how easily history is shaped. You said of FDR: “He was part of the winning side against the Nazis, and that is how he will always be known.” Yes, this is true. He’s remembered for that and the New Deal, primarily.

    By why? Because this is the official history in the books, which is put there as the deliberate exclusion of other details.

    Why is FDR not primarily remembered for saying that the Germans “had justified complaints against the Jews”? Why is he not remembered for saying – in 1943 – that Jews ought to be spread as thinly as possible throughout the world? Why not for proudly proclaiming that there is no Jewish blood in his veins?

    It’s simply because court historians choose to turn a blind eye to inconvenient details such as these. However, he held these opinions and he made those statements.

  64. //It’s simply because court historians choose to turn a blind eye //

    No, it isn’t. It’s simply because these remarks obviously had no consequences (apart from maybe his reluctance to help the Jews as much as he could have), but the actions Colm referred to had and have enormous consequences, one of which is that Nazi Germany was defeated and you now live in a free country.

  65. Pete

    If he had acted on those comments then they would have resonated through history. He is judged on his actions as a president, not on his ephemeral expressions.