Monday, 31 October 2016

Europe Is Our Homeland: Douglas Murray wants to discuss asylum seekers from first principles


This video clip is well worth 6 minutes of your time.

Douglas Murray
 is wonderfully lucid on why Europe has to discuss what to do about asylum seekers before Europe is transformed. As he points out, Jews can go to Israel but gentiles have nowhere to flee to if asylum seekers transform Europe. The late Lord Weidenfeld made the same point on BBC radio not long before he died.

An ex-Muslim British Pakistani friend of mine made this comment on the clip.

He's very good but he doesn't emphasise that almost all asylum seekers are bogus and really nothing but economic opportunists. And bogus asylum isn't something recent either, it's been going on for decades. British people are incredibly gullible. You know I have yet to meet an 'asylum seeker' here who didn't admit to me he made it all up. Because I'm not white they expect me to pat them on the back for it.
Every day the nightmare gets worse. Today Reuters has this story on how Syrian refugees are shocked by how 'conservative' mosques in Germany are. 'Conservative', Reuters readers know, means unreasonable, extreme and baleful. Older readers will recall that the BBC described Chernenko and Ligachev as conservatives, despite the distance that separated their stern, unbending Bolshevism from the ideas of Edmund Burke.


  1. I still do not understand why the debate is not pursued along clearly-defined boundary lines: (1) refugees from conflict = temporary "guests", preferably in a place close to their homeland. (2) immogrants, accepted based on stricti criteria serving the long-term priorities of the destination country; must include cultural criteria pointing to full integration/assimilation; (3) seasonal workers (also known as "guest workers") filling temporary, usually unskilled positions in an economy, with the requirement to go home again after 6 months (and re-apply, if they wish). The atter category not only serves the short-term economic needs of the desitnation country, but it allows a far greater pool of foreigners to come and even save money before going home again. it is ethically a far better way to serve the greatest number of under-employed, under-privileged (billions) across the world. Let the real debate begin!

    1. I'd like to allow asylum seekers to enter Europe, on the very strict condition that they must leave after a maximum of three years. As Australia does. Many will leave voluntarily and return home, but the majority will not and once in Europe it would prove very difficult to make them leave, even did the will to do so exist. They would mostly disappear.

      So that won't work. What would work would be to fund the refugee camps in neighbouring countries - as Saudi Arabia is doing - and turn back the people smugglers instead.

      What would also work is for EU countries to allow suitably qualified immigrants to enter and work in Europe on the understanding that their right to stay ends when their contract does. In this way we get the economic growth Europe needs and preserve European countries as organic communities, as nations.

      The only alternatives to my suggestions are Fortress Europe or an immigrant society that draws people from every part of the world, what America, Canada and Australia have become since the 1960s.

    2. American type non ethnic states would be a tragedy.

  2. "How many of the Jews fleeing Nazi Germany to other countries were picky about it?" Quita a few. Many had to go from place to place for economic reasons. The one Guttmann family fled in 1933. The father could not practice as a doctor, so they hopped through Italy, Holland, Palestine and then Canada. Other family members ended up in London later. Just one example of many.

  3. British Muslims very much dislike the Eastern European influx and the same with British Hindus, British Blacks and indigenous white Britons. Young British Muslims are opposed to a Muslim influx too btw. Nobody wants to live in a country with no continuity, no identity and no stability; just an economic zone to be sqeezed dry and then discarded by globalist capitalists, along with their lefty allies. This is what's happening to Britain.

    1. Young British Muslims are opposed to a Muslim influx too btw.

      Something that is often overlooked is that established immigrant communities can often be surprisingly anti-immigration.