Saturday, 5 September 2015

We really mustn't let the wankerati panic us into a policy on Syrian refugees which we'll later regret

Refugees welcomed by: Saudi: 0, Kuwait: 0, Qatar: 0, Emirates: 0, Bahrain: 0

The BBC has never made any pretence of neutrality over what it feels Britain should do about the current Syrian refugee crisis: the whole country should burst into tears and take in as many migrants as want to come here. If they were to get their wish, the BBC and the rest of the left-liberal media could then spend the next five years attacking the government for failing to provide sufficient housing, school places, jobs, benefits, and hospital beds to meet Britain's needs, while carefully avoiding any suggestion that fresh migrant hordes might in any way be responsible for any perceived shortages. Similarly, any increase in Islamist terrorist incidents would be the fault of our bumbling security services and the failure of indigenous Britons to understand and empathise with the sensibilities and concerns of vast numbers of young Muslim foreigners who have no liking for the West or its liberal values.

It would, of course, all be the fault of white British racists in general and the Tory Party and UKIP in particular.

From the moment Europe decided not to do everything in its power to dissuade migrants from landing on its shores by very publicly and noisily not allowing a single one of them to settle here (as Australia has so successfully done), the unfolding of the current crisis simply couldn’t have been any more predictable. By encouraging increasing numbers to undertake the hazardous journey, the EU guaranteed not only an increasing death toll, but also virtually every other depressing aspect of the current deranged international cluster-fuck.

Now, of course, all the lefties who cried out against the UK taking sides in the Syrian conflict by bombing Boy Assad’s forces are now wringing their hands and demanding we let in thousands of migrants - mainly young Arab Muslim men – because it’s our humanitarian duty. Well, sod that for a game of soldiers. We might indeed have some responsibility for refugees from Libya, in whose affairs we did interfere militarily (with disastrous consequences) – but our parliament’s decision not to interfere in Syria means that we have no duty of care to those fleeing the civil war in that benighted country.

I’m only too happy for Britain to accept genuine asylum seekers – i.e. people persecuted by fascist regimes for speaking out in favour of genuine democracy, or for being Christians, for instance: there are many truly revolting totalitarian regimes in the world, many of them in Muslim countries. But when one of these countries descends into civil war, expecting Europe to offer a safe haven for potentially hundreds of thousands of refugees who don't share our languages, our culture or our religion strikes me as an act of cultural suicide.

Of course, left-wingers and One Nation Tories regard anyone voicing these opinions as a heartless racist who wants more children to drown in the Mediterranean. Nonsense, of course. Cameron was right – guaranteeing migrants the right of permanent settlement in Europe will lead to even more deaths, not only among those undertaking the journey, but among those left behind (where, exactly, are all the old people – why are so many of the refugees arriving in Europe young men?) I don’t consider myself a racist – but I am definitely a “culturist”: I believe European civilisation, even in its current desiccated, degenerate form, is worth preserving and nurturing in order to hand it on to succeeding generations. I’m not sure that the wholesale importation of young Muslim men has ever proved particularly beneficial to liberal democracies (many of them seem to bring rather unpleasant habits with them, as well as many views which the majority of the indigenous population find abhorrent). Let’s get real, many of the would-be immigrants aren’t fleeing here in order to enjoy the fruits of democracy so much as to enjoy the economic benefits offered by liberal democracies compared to the economic misery offered by Third World dumps controlled by ruthless tyrants or equally ruthless theocrats.  Otherwise, why are they all demanding to travel to Germany, which just happens to be the richest country in Europe?

Many Muslim countries have taken in large numbers of Syrian refugees, including Turkey (over 2m), Lebanon (just under 2m), Egypt (130,000+), Jordan (1.4m), and Iraq (nearly 250,000). Yes, they’re mainly housed in camps, which, were European countries to do the same, would cause our left-wing wankerati to rent their garments and gnash their teeth and wail at the top of their self-righteous voices – just imagine the heart-rending BBC reports about the inhumane conditions Syrians were being forced to endure! Syrian refugees arriving here would inevitably end up with full citizenship, plus the host of rights, protections and benefits that accompany citizenship – is that the case in Muslim countries? I doubt it.

As the cartoon at the top of this page (misappropriated from this Daily Mail article) poignantly highlights, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Emirates and Bahrain appear to have given asylum to NOT ONE SINGLE SYRIAN REFUGEE! Why not? After all, they’re fellow Arabs and co-religionists. If these incredibly wealthy Arab Muslims won’t help, why the hell would a small, crowded  Northern European, nominally Christian country do so? Not only that, but Britain has provided more aid money for Syrian refugees that either Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. What the hell is going on?  Why doesn’t the EU get its act together and  make a deal with these rich Arab countries? If they genuinely offer to take in and genuinely integrate and give citizenship to 80% of those who still wish to flee Syria, then the EU will agree to take the other 20%.  Sounds a good deal to me. Maybe the UN could broker the deal? (That was a joke, by the way.)

One of the many reasons for the extraordinary success of Britain and its mainly white former colonial offshoots for much of the past five hundred years (apart from common law, jury trials, an independent judiciary, free market economics, the concept of fair play, Protestantism, the English language, constitutional monarchy, and democracy) is a marked preference for not rushing hysterically into action with passions inflamed and  without any desired outcome in mind.  What exactly would the desired outcome of opening our borders to thousands of Syrian refugees be? Would it cut the current death toll? No. Would it embarrass rich Arab countries into re-assessing their policies towards Muslim refugees? Nope. Would it guarantee Britain the undying gratitude of the Islamic world? No (nothing ever does). Would it increase the wealth of this country or add to our talent pool? Unlikely. Would it make us safer? Almost certainly not. Would it benefit the British people in any way whatsoever? Doubtful.

What it would do, of course, is allow people like Emma Thompson, Piers Morgan and Jeremy Corbyn – and all the other members of the socialist wankerati who have been frenziedly emoting in the media this week about how “we” need to respond to this crisis with boundless generosity - to feel all warm and fuzzy inside. And, personally, I reckon anything which makes that lot feel even better about themselves than they already do is likely to be bad for the rest of us.

The logic of the current nauseatingly sentimental demands for the UK to open its borders (as if they're not already wide open) is that the populations of numerous failed states throughout the world simply up sticks and decamp to Europe. I don't find that a particularly appetising prospect.


  1. Beautifully written and flawlessly argued, as always. Bravo!

    I find myself distressed by one element you haven't touched on - the way in which the reaction of what is apparently a small number of wankerati, because it is expressed via social media, influences government out of all proportion.

    As far as I have been able to make out, even commenters on the Guardian have show that the majority do not want the wholesale importation of the young, male, Syrian middle class. This has been consistent across the media, apparently.

    And yet Cameron (no doubt under the influence of his emotionally incontinent, hippy wife, as Fraser Nelson recently confirmed) has chosen to dance to the BBC's and Twitter's drum, rather than that of the electorate.

    I do not want to be governed by the sort of people who live on social media. I don't imagine most people do.

    1. Thank you, GCooper!
      Fascinating Survation poll in the Mail today, showing that (1) more Brits want to leave the EU than stay, (2) 29% of Brits don't want to accept ANY Syrian refugees and the majority of Brits don't want to accept more than 3,000, come what may, and (3) only ABs are cool with accepting lots of Syrian refugees, and (4) the further down the social scale you are, the less keen you are - presumably because it's C2s, Ds and Es who end up having to live with the consequences of immigration. ABs are also the keenest on remaining in the EU. We appear to be living in a Two Nation Britain with "One Nation" Dave unsuprisingly backing the richer one, which benefits from higher immigration and EU membership to the detriment of the other.

  2. The Dianafication of British politics and the printed and broadcast media is now virtually complete. The Spectator is a notable exception. And this blog of course.

    1. Thank you!

      And a knighthood for Douglas Murray, pronto!

      Biased BBC and Breitbart London are also pretty damned solid.

    2. I second that. We knew we could depend on the blogmeister.

      It was good to see the Fraser Nelson of the Speccie holding the line, "it is not war, but money ...".

      Calling on the wisdom of Uncle Jo, Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian assured us that "this one small life has shown us the way to tackle the refugee crisis".

      Matthew Parris in the Times disagrees, "e remedy for the refugee crisis is no more apparent now that we have seen a picture of a lifeless toddler than it was before it" and advises us to "stop crying if you’re serious about migrants".

      And Dominic Lawson was immaculate in the Sunday Times, "It’s all about how we feel about ourselves, not about what is in the interests of the country that is actually in most need of help: Syria itself", "Hungary, Slovakia, Romania and Bulgaria ... But the migrants don’t want to settle there — and if they are given EU passports, there’s no way they can be made to stay in those countries rather than move on to western Europe", "how does the EU deal with the next wave? It will assuredly be a much bigger one", "few emote about [Aylan Kurdi's mother and brother], just as they don’t about the 71 Syrians suffocated in a van meant for animal carcasses while being smuggled into Austria", ... "the death of Aylan and Galip Kurdi really isn’t our fault. It is not all about us".

      "That photograph", I told Mrs Moss last week, "will be used as a picture of Britain's guilt". "What are you talking about, what photograph?", she wanted to know. She's been working on the matter of a complex settlement with HMRC's legal hawks and, separately, on an inquiry launched by the tax authorities of one of the EU's more exotic jurisdictions. Never was anyone more innocently occupied.

    3. Yes, news folk often find it hard to believe that not every single person in the country is hanging on their latest piece of propaganda. Auden's "Musée des Beaux Arts" and all that.

  3. Two years ago pictures of dead chidren who had been gassed by the Assad regime did not move the leftie press.But the recent photo of one dead child has 'forced' the hand of an entire continent Funny that.
    I'm paraphrasing from The Telegraph's 'Why The Migrant Crisis is Not Going to End.'
    Jan 111 Sobieski must be turning in his grave.

    1. I'll admit, Mr. Jones, that I had to look up Jan III Sobieski online. Fascinating!

      The left is only moved to tears by photos of dead children when they can somehow blame the death on heartless white Europeans, the children are not Christians (photos of Christian children beheaded by ISIS don't seem to agitate their tear ducts to the same degree) and there's absolutely no question of any horrible, brutal, oppressive, colonialist Western soldiers or airmen getting involved and the "solution" to a pressing problem requires spending humungous quantities of taxpayers' money, annoying conservatives and the destruction of Western Christian culture, which is, of course, horrible, brutal etc.

  4. An excellent post.
    When I looked at all the young Germans clutching pink balloons who had turned out at various airports to welcome the current waves of "asylum seekers" to their country with enthusiasm and "their faces asinine with stupidity" I wondered why they were so keen to destroy their national identity. They should take a trip up to Sweden where the project is far more advanced and then decide if that is where they want to go.
    As far as the dear old BBC is concerned they are currently intoxicated by emotion [ I mean, who gives a monkey's about facts or statistics or implications when you suddenly get presented by thousands of human interest stories?]. This was epitomised by the BBC reporter standing up to his knees in water at a beach in Lesbos shouting triumphantly at bedraggled refugees splashing ashore "You are in Europe" and then the inevitable "How do you feel?". The implicit branding of the news item was "The BBC was the first to greet the refugees to Europe."
    For years I have been looking for an opportunity to employ the word "pusillanimous", but now I use it whenever I see an image of David Cameron and feel comfortable about it. Whisper it not, but is he turning out to be worse than Gordon Brown?
    I listened with contempt to the revolting Diane Abbot's response to the question about how many asylum seekers the UK should accept during the current crisis. "As many as we can afford!" she fluted hysterically. Is Cameron's " As many as the media demand? " any better?

    1. The main differences between Caneron and Brown is that the former isn't actually mad, and doesn't have a single principled bone in his body." As many as the media demand" - how very spot on.

      Oh Lord, how I would love it if every insufferable, preening, virtue-signalling pillock demanding that "we" (i.e. you and me, not them) spend as much money as possible on these economic migrants were to receive a tax demand in the post for an extra £10,000, thus allowing them to offer incontrovertible proof of their infinite compassion. I'd also welcome the news that fleets of coaches stuffed with Syrians were at this very moment heading to the homes of every lying hypocrite who has publically stated that they'd be only too willing to house migrants under their own roofs. The first stop should be Yasmin Alibhai-Brown's place, with one of Bob Geldof's many homes next (for the more adventurous migrant, obviously).