Britain’s suicide a drain on France 10

Muslims of the Middle East, Far East, North Africa and anywhere else, your attention please!

Great good news – if you haven’t already heard it! Just get yourself into Britain and say you’re a ‘refugee’ and ask for ‘asylum’, and you will immediately be given money and a place to live; you can import a wife or several wives, and they’ll all be given ‘benefits’ including ‘child-support’; your children will be given a free education and all of you will have free medical treatment. When you feel nicely settled you can carry out your duty of jihad by demanding that Britain adopt sharia law, or, if you fancy martyrdom, by suicide-bombing trains and buses to kill some British infidels.

From the Mail Online:

Migrant gangs [of Muslims – JB] in Calais are targeting British holidaymakers in terrifying ‘highway robberies’.

Would-be illegal immigrants are forming human roadblocks to force motorists passing through the French port town to stop. Travellers are then robbed at knifepoint by the migrants, who are desperate for funds to help them sneak into the UK. …

Since the closure of the Red Cross refugee centre at Sangatte in 2002, would-be migrants have been sleeping rough in and around Calais while they attempt to sneak on board cross-Channel trains and ferries. There are currently around 2,000, many living in a squalid camp known as the Jungle, which the French government has said will not be cleared away until next year.

In April immigration minister Eric Besson vowed to bulldoze the litter-strewn shanty town … after admitting it had become a hotbed for people smugglers and criminal gangs. But he has now said the camp must remain in place until it can be dismantled ‘in a dignified manner’.

French politicians have blamed Britain for the return of migrant camps to Calais.

The mayor of Calais, Natacha Bouchart, said the lure of the UK’s ‘enormous’ state handouts to asylum-seekers was the reason why thousands of foreigners are using the French port as a staging point to get across the Channel.

Mrs Bouchart said the UK Government’s policies were ‘imposing’ thousand of migrants on the town, costing the local economy millions of pounds.

  • aeschines

    On a completely different note, I've always been fascinated by the fact that the British abused the Irish for so long (well into the 20th century), yet the British seem to head-over-heels in love with Muslims.

    I seem to remember that one of the justifications of the abuse of the Irish was that the Irish were trouble – a view that was confirmed in many British eyes by the fact that many Irish terrorist groups have bombed London at one time or another.

    Why the British embrace the Muslims so differently, I cannot tell.

    • rogerinflorida

      In what way have the English/British “abused” the Irish?

      • aeschines

        Really? Isn't pretty obvious?

        1. The Black and Tans – a brutal, almost sadistic form of law enforcement for Ireland that Britain decided upon as being best for the country.

        2. Bloody Sunday at Croke Park (14 Irish civilians killed)

        3. The Bogside massacre

        4. Possibly unintended (or maybe even intended) support of the UVF and other Ulster terrorist organizations. Keep in mind that it wasn't the IRA who started the Troubles, or most of the conflicts up in Northern Ireland. It was the Unionist/Loyalist forces of Ulster.

        5. Postponement of home rule for years. The British would find any excuse to deny Ireland any form of autonomy.

        6. Horrifying years of oppression by the British in other ways – assassinations, torture, denial of political status to prisoners – in fact, too many to count here.

        I'm not justifying the IRA – I don't like their methods either – but the British have one hell of a nasty record in Ireland.

        • rogerinflorida

          Very little in history is obvious.
          The fist Norman/English pale in Ireland was granted by the Pope in 1171 and was in the context of the time completely legal. Norman/English settlers took over part of Ireland in the current location of Dublin. This settlement gradually melded into the wider Irish society. It was the establishment of the Anglican Church, Cof E and Cof Ireland that framed the schism between the Irish and English. It is impossible to understand the history of English/Irish strife without knowledge and appreciation of the role of the catholic church. There never was such an organisation dedicated to ignorance, superstition and it's own power and wealth. Beside the bishops, cardinals and popes, the modern immans and mullahs of islam are mere pikers.
          The Protestant plantation in Ireland occurred after the English civil war, in which the catholic forces of France, Spain, Austria and Ireland allied themselves with the royalist cause in England and attempted to crush the protestant reformation and return the English people to popish slavery. A casual glance at a map will show that England is vulnerable to attack from directly across the channel and by flank through Ireland or Scotland. This the catholic church has tried many times. The purpose of the protestant plantation was to prevent happening again what had happened in the English civil war.
          Perhaps you don't know the extent of Irish immigration into England; there is hardly a family in England that does not have Irish relatives. During and after the potato famine millions of Irish settled in England, far more than settled in America, Australia or Canada combined. This is not something that would have happened had the English been perpetrating a genocide against the Irish. In the early 20th century there was progress in setting up home rule for Ireland, but understand that Ireland was represented, in fact way over represented, in parliament at Westminster, Ireland was not a vassal state, Dublin was the second city of the Bristish empire, after London. Unfortunately the great catastrophe happened and the move for complete separation became unstoppable. Even then there was a great possibility of a peaceful settlement, see Winston Churchill's meetings with Michael Collins.
          You talk of the Black and Tans; they were a paramilitary police force set up to support the Royal Irish Constabulary, who were an unarmed force, against murderous attacks by the IRA. These attacks were not only against the RIC but any persons who did not support Sinn Fein. The victims were mainly protestant but loyal catholics were also targeted, the black and tans were a response, not a provocation.
          I should say that I have some family connection to this, beside being at least 1/8th Irish myself, and married to an Irish woman, my Mother in law, as a 10 year old girl witnessed the summary execution of two of her Uncles on the doorstep of their home in North Co. Dublin, by a patrol of black and tans who had just been themselves ambushed.
          Before you mutter about how evil they were consider the US Army and USMC, who have killed thousands of Iraqi and Afghanstani civilians in the course of two wars not even remotely as important to the US as Ireland has always been to England. Are our US forces evil, as you claim the black and tans are.
          Finally, I would draw your attention the 1948 Republic of Ireland Act, passed by the Bristish parliament, which conferred on any and all citizens of the Republic of Ireland, who were or became resident in Britain, full British citizenship immediately on entry, including the right to vote, access to NHS health care, pension eligibility and all other services of the British state equal to natural born citizens.
          You have a comic book view of history, you need to study and find out the real story.

          • aeschines

            “Very little in history is obvious. The fist Norman/English pale in Ireland was granted by the Pope in 1171 and was in the context of the time completely legal.”

            The Spanish Inquisition, was, in its time, also completely legal. Eugenics also had its day. Can we agree that morally right or wrong things transcend the fickle back-and-forth of time?

            …And don't you go on to curse the Catholics virulently in the following paragraphs? I don't understand this – Catholics are the devil's own children, but when a Pope says something that you agree with, it's all legal and good.

            “Norman/English settlers took over part of Ireland in the current location of Dublin. This settlement gradually melded into the wider Irish society. It was the establishment of the Anglican Church, Cof E and Cof Ireland that framed the schism between the Irish and English. It is impossible to understand the history of English/Irish strife without knowledge and appreciation of the role of the catholic church.”

            No disagreement here.

            “There never was such an organisation dedicated to ignorance, superstition and it's own power and wealth.”

            Unlike, of course, the noble Anglican church. Ian Paisley – is that you?

            “Beside the bishops, cardinals and popes, the modern immans and mullahs of islam are mere pikers.”

            So I forgot, when did St. Francis Xavier start encouraging Christians to become suicide bombers?

            “The Protestant plantation in Ireland occurred after the English civil war, in which the catholic forces of France, Spain, Austria and Ireland allied themselves with the royalist cause in England and attempted to crush the protestant reformation and return the English people to popish slavery.”

            As opposed, of course, to wonderful Protestant slavery. Alright, so were the Penal Laws that oppressed the Irish for so long justified because of that? http://local.law.umn.edu/irishlaw/subjectlist.html

            “A casual glance at a map will show that England is vulnerable to attack from directly across the channel and by flank through Ireland or Scotland. This the catholic church has tried many times. The purpose of the protestant plantation was to prevent happening again what had happened in the English civil war.”

            But you're wrong here. The Protestant Plantations occurred during the Tudors. The LAST of these plantations occurred during Cromwell. Obviously, the Plantations couldn't be a reaction to the Irish Civil War during that period (in fact, the Irish Civil War at that time was cause by said earlier plantations).

            “Perhaps you don't know the extent of Irish immigration into England; there is hardly a family in England that does not have Irish relatives. During and after the potato famine millions of Irish settled in England, far more than settled in America, Australia or Canada combined. This is not something that would have happened had the English been perpetrating a genocide against the Irish.”

            So where is your proof for that? Besides, you seem to be forgetting that the English have wanted to wipe out Irish culture for years, so integration with them would be understandable in this circumstance.

            “In the early 20th century there was progress in setting up home rule for Ireland, but understand that Ireland was represented, in fact way over represented, in parliament at Westminster, Ireland was not a vassal state, Dublin was the second city of the Bristish empire, after London. “

            You do know that these positions were under the control of the Protestant Unionists anyway. Remember the Ulster Volunteers, the precursor to many Ulster terror organizations, was formed specifically to discourage British attempts at proclaiming Home Rule in 1913. Keep in mind that the UVF received millions of pounds in support from many high-ups in the British government at that time.

            That Home Rule wasn't even true Home Rule, either. It was minimal, according to Tim Pat Coogan (“The IRA: A History”). It barely gave a measure of local government power under the Crown – who could police it in any way fit.

            Moreover – “Ireland's MPs remained for most of the 19th century highly unrepresentative of the society they nominally spoke for, ” according to http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O245-Westminst….

            “Unfortunately the great catastrophe happened and the move for complete separation became unstoppable.”

            Great catastrophe? Was it also a “great catastrophe” when the US left the Empire? I don't get how the formation of an independent republic is so hateful to you. Now the Irish have a state of their own, where they decide to do what they want. I find that much preferable to a situation in which England dictates the politics of a nation for which England cares so little.

            “Even then there was a great possibility of a peaceful settlement, see Winston Churchill's meetings with Michael Collins. “

            There was a peaceful settlement in 1921 with the Establishment of the Irish Free State. It was not until '49 that she gained her official and complete independence.

            The peaceful settlement of the conflict was due in no small part to a threat by Britain to bring even more of its forces into Ireland. The Irish government was forced to either sign the treaty, or face British reprisals. The representatives of the Irish opted for the marginal autocracy, but adoption thereof by the Dail threw Ireland into a nasty civil war.

            “You talk of the Black and Tans; they were a paramilitary police force set up to support the Royal Irish Constabulary, who were an unarmed force, against murderous attacks by the IRA.”

            The RIC? Unarmed? I find this rather odd, then, that Webley and Enfield made firearms for them as early as 1868 (http://www.antiquearmsinc.com/british-lee-enfie… also see Schwing's Standard Catalog of Firearms and just about any old gun book or site). Maybe the RIC didn't use firearms – they just collected them for fun. It's also very odd that the RIC trained like military soldiers, living in barracks and training regularly with carbines. I guess they just found that sort of stuff amusing.

            It should be noted that Britain has a long history of unarmed police work everywhere, with the exception of Ireland.

            “These attacks were not only against the RIC but any persons who did not support Sinn Fein.”

            Wrong again. Sinn Fein had problems with keeping the IRA in line at times – many times the IRA (or Sinn Fein) split. Such a simplification betrays a lacking understanding of the situation. Major splits between the organizations occurred during the Troubles and during the Irish Civil War.

            “The victims were mainly protestant but loyal catholics were also targeted, the black and tans were a response, not a provocation.”

            Indeed, the many IRAs seemed rather vicious at times. I do not approve of most of their actions. Just like the British Army and the Ulstermen, the IRAs killed both Catholic and Protestant.

            I'd say most of the actions of the Black and Tans were pretty damn provocative. That's just me, though. I kinda find pulling out fingernails and teeth like the Black and Tans to be rather provocative. In fact, their methods horrified even the British and RIC. According to “The IRA,” by J. Bowyer Bell, “They were likely to prove a blunt and brutal instrument.” He later goes on to detail their atrocious actions in trying to preserve a Union that should have been broken long ago. If anything, the Black and Tans mobilized the rest of Ireland into greater rebellion.

            “I should say that I have some family connection to this, beside being at least 1/8th Irish myself, and married to an Irish woman, my Mother in law, as a 10 year old girl witnessed the summary execution of two of her Uncles on the doorstep of their home in North Co. Dublin, by a patrol of black and tans who had just been themselves ambushed.”

            I really don't see how that lends any validity to what you have to say. I'm Norwegian, yet I don't have any special insight into the Vikings.

            In fact, your position has been weakened significantly by the mother-in-law's anecdote. Was that doorstep execution just a simple (and justified) “response” by the Black and Tans? You just gave my initial point that the British abused the Irish all the proof it needs. I'd like to see what your mother-in-law has to say about the Black and Tans.

            “Before you mutter about how evil they were consider the US Army and USMC, who have killed thousands of Iraqi and Afghanstani civilians in the course of two wars not even remotely as important to the US as Ireland has always been to England. Are our US forces evil, as you claim the black and tans are.”

            I like fish too, but I've been served too many red herrings lately. Thanks anyway.

            “Finally, I would draw your attention the 1948 Republic of Ireland Act, passed by the Bristish parliament, which conferred on any and all citizens of the Republic of Ireland, who were or became resident in Britain, full British citizenship immediately on entry, including the right to vote, access to NHS health care, pension eligibility and all other services of the British state equal to natural born citizens.”

            NO Irish Republican rebellion ever set out to get “British citizenship” and all the resulting benefits. It was to have a Irish Republic, free and Gaelic – that was the dream of Wolfe Tone 200 years ago, and it remained the dream of many ever since.

            This part of the act was merely was a gesture to try to preserve a crumbling British empire.

            “You have a comic book view of history, you need to study and find out the real story.”

            Are we talking about Hark a Vagrant comic book view of history? If so, I will take that as a compliment.

            Since you really addressed none of my points, and rather assumed many things about my position, I'd say you need to learn to read a bit better.

            • rogerinflorida

              aeschines:
              Right or wrong has nothing to do with it, what is being sought, protected and extended is sheer naked power.
              Please note that I did not say that I agree with the Pope, neither did I deny that abuses occurred, they most certainly did as my anecdote illustrated.
              There is no comparison between the Anglican church, an organisation limited to Britain and parts of the British empire, to the church of Rome, onetime de-facto rulers of all Europe and whose power has spread to every continent on earth.
              The Vatican was furious at Henry 8th for setting up his own church, of course he wanted nothing to do with Protestantism, he wanted his own catholic of which he and his progeny would be the popes.
              Let's define the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism; it essentially comes down to this; under Catholicism the church dispenses truth to the congregation, under Protestantism the congregation dispenses truth to the church.
              The catholic church certainly encouraged Christians to wage wars and so committed many Christians to certain death, how is this different from the mullahs call to die for God?
              The Protestant fears about home rule were soon realised, as Protestants were chased out of the Republic of Ireland by the triumphalist catholics.
              Do you deny that an Irish army invaded England during the English civil war, and that the aim of that army was to impose catholicism on the English people?
              I should have been more specific when I used the term “Great Catastophe”. The Great Catastrophe was the First World War, the event that virtually destroyed European civilisation. Devolution of political power down to individuals is almost always a good thing, Irish independence was a good thing for Ireland and Britain. It is a pity that the Constitution of the Irish Republic made that state explicitly catholic, as an aside, Ireland became the “Celtic Tiger” economically when the power of the church in Ireland was reduced.
              The independence of the Irish Republic was enough for that country to remain neutral in WW2, and for the Govt. of Eamon DeValera to be pro Nazi, but then that was the position of the catholic church, which approved of and encouraged NAZI atrocities against Jews, and then went to great lengths to assist the perpetrators to escape justice.
              The black and tans were recruited from WW1 veterans, they were brutal men who had been brutalised themselves. My Mother in law hates them, but then she would be thrilled to receive a card from the Queen celebrating her 100th birthday next October.
              When I left England my Irish (catholic) brothers in law were appalled; “How can you leave England , this is the greatest country on earth”.
              I am sorry about the people killed in Croke park, and about the people killed on bloody Sunday. There was no intention to commit those atrocities and the English people were as appalled as everyone else. As you point out, it was partly revulsion in England at the acts of the Black and Tans that got them reigned in and a settlement reached.
              You say that no Irish republican ever set out to get British citizenship, strange that, as there are more Irish in greater Liverpool than there are in the whole of Ireland. From the setting up of the Free State to the late eighties Irish streamed into Britain.
              I guess I just want to tell you that the situation is more nuanced than you seem to believe.
              Please allow me to deliver another red herring. During the Vietnam war, in which approx. 3.5 million vietnamese civilians were killed as a direct result of American military action, a particularly ghastly program was enacted, it was called “Phoenix”. The objective of the Phoenix program was the indiscrimate murder and resultant intimidation of Vietnamese people who had the audacity to set up nationalist political projects to administrate areas under nationalist control. The main organizer of this program was William Colby, who just happened to a member of Opus Dei, just like the organisers of the provisional IRA, who directly targeted protestants, particularly using the tactic of blowing them up with car bombs as they left church on Sunday mornings. You think these actions were maybe approved of by the Vatican?

  • rogerinflorida

    British people:
    You want to do something about this?
    Vote BNP.

    • samwestrop

      “I am well aware that orthodox opinion is that six million Jews were gassed and cremated or turned into soup and lampshades. I have reached the conclusion that the 'extermination' tale is a mixture of Allied wartime propaganda, extremely profitable lie, and latter witch-hysteria.” – Nick Griffin writing in his own publicaiton The Rune

      Or Andrew Brons MEP for BNP, who walked through Leeds in Yorkshire shouting “National Front” and screamed “white power” and “death to Jews”.

      The BNP who wish to nationalise the supermarkets – pure socialism.

      The BNP who have economic policies based on the socialist mixed economy ideas of the Nazi party under the helm of Hjalmar Schacht.

      I am surprised that anyone who rejected political Islam would then call for a party whose idea of the judiciary is just as appalling as Sharia Law; whose economic ideas are just as constricting as Islamic finance prohibition of 'riba' or usury and share the same opinions that 'World Jewry' controls finance; and a party that calls for social interference that almost eclipses the appalling affront to liberty that Political Islam presents.

      A vote for the BNP is a vote for ignorance. It is the same kind of ill-considered emotional reaction to a country's state of being that led to the democratic election of the heinous Nazi Party.

      • rogerinflorida

        OK so we can all agree that the Jews got their asses kicked 60 to 70 years ago. Can we start thinking about the future now?
        I would guess that Andrew Brons is quite angry, and in my opinion with good reason, he is probably sick and tired of third world shites coming into England and bringing their crap with them.
        Top priority of BNP: Nationalise Sainsburys, wow, way to understand what going on and strike fear into the populace!
        Hjalmar Schacht was a genius banker/economist, he certainly got the German economy humming, would you care to name any British politician, past or present who achieved as much?
        The only policy of the BNP that counts is their commitment to end immigration and expel those in Britain who are working against the British state. If enough people vote BNP then maybe the British political establishment will wake up and finally do something about the destruction of Britain.
        Incidentally, we have a similar situation in the US, despite an unemployment rate approaching 20% (US Dept. of Labor, U6) we are still importing 150,000 legal immigrants per month. This is a bipartisan policy, so although 80% of the US population disaproves of this policy there is no chance of it being ended.
        Consider also that illegal immigration from Mexico and Central America is actively encouraged by both parties and that these policies will result in the european decended population of the US being a minority by 2040. Now you may be one of those who think this doesn't matter, I disagree, I have travelled widely including many places in Mexico, I do not want to import their attitudes and I don't want the US to become like Brazil, where a completely fractured population live in enclaves.
        A vote for the BNP is a vote to wake up the political establishment. There is only one real issue, the issue of survival.

    • aeschines

      Like samwestrop said, BNP is baaaaaaaaad business. BNP is definitely an ultra-leftist, fascist-socialist group that is hell-bent upon nationalizing everything they can.

      http://www.politicalcompass.org/extremeright