England headed for A Caliphate

[Derec]

Only people that think all the migrants are Islamists need to be replaced.

Literally nobody is saying that.

And the only reason Farage (and AfD in Germany, and RN in France) are now more popular is that the mainstream parties failed to deal with mass migration. For that matter, Trump got elected and reelected to a large extent because his opponents, both inside the party (like "illegal immigration is an act of love" ¡Jeb!) and also Democrats, many of whom support a more permissive immigration policy and hands-off approach to illegals (see "sanctuary cities"), have been so bad on immigration.

 

[Derec]

None white anglicans so they should be killed; sink the boats and drown them at sea.

Surely, there must be some middle ground between "let them all in as long as they show up in the vicinity of our borders" and "kill them all".

 

[Derec]

If she is a candidate then she is an adult. Since she arrived as a child she has been in UK for many years, is obviously now a citizen, and should be judged by her words and actions since she became a citizen, not by her skin-colour, original nationality, or presumed religion.

Skin color, where one was born and where one's parents are from are incidental and immutable attributes. Religion is different. An individual can change their religion, and religion informs one's thoughts and actions to a large extent.
Why do you say "presumed"? Abdi-Wali is a hijabi, and thus most definitely a practicing Muslim, and more on the conservative side of that practice at least.

I notice that you didn't say anything about the Greens candidate.

The Greens chief is a nutcase and he would warrant his own thread. I wonder if the success of the Greens in attracting the Islamist vote is why Labour only considered Muslims for candidacy in St. Pancreas.

In any case, go Barmy Brunch!

 

[Derec]

That's the type that is coming over in these boats. Is that proof that all of them are? Of course not. But vast majority of them are, and mostly from countries like Afghanistan where the people are highly Islamist.

I wonder why they wanted to leave...

It's mostly economics, like for these Pakistanis:

When Muhammad Aslam sold his house in Gujranwala, Pakistan, to finance smuggler fees for his two grown sons, he imagined it would pay off when they landed safely on the shores of Europe.
Aslam's sons, Qasim, 36, and Munir, 24, along with two other male relatives, informed their family the trip for the group of four would cost around 10 million rupees, nearly $35,000.
[...]
As they prepared to depart, the men were excited about the prospect of leaving their area in rural Punjab — a cluster of mud-walled houses on the edge of agricultural land where their family members work as contract farmers. Once they made it to Europe, they planned to find jobs as laborers. They expected to earn enough money to cover their living expenses and send funds home to support their wives and children as well as an extended family of around 40 people.[...]
Families of migrants who undertook the journey from Libya say the rising cost of living and lack of options for employment fueled the desire to get out of Pakistan. "Everyone in Pakistan is looking to go outside," said Ibrahim Khan, a close friend of Makhdoom Sadiq, a missing Pakistani passenger from the village of Goleki in Punjab. "If the situation in Pakistan or business was good, nobody would want to leave."

The article goes on explaining why these people migrate illegally into Europe.

Just because they want to enjoy the more affluent life available in the West does not mean that they do not keep their Islamist convictions and ideology.
Others may be Islamist, but belong to the wrong franchise. Like Hazara Shiites in Afghanistan. Or, in case of Arab secular governments, the reason they are at odds with the government is that they are Islamist. So they go to Europe where the hapless governments mostly leave them be to spread their toxic ideology.

Some may indeed be more secular. I have never advocated blanket bans, but basing it on the individual. Which means that I oppose letting in people just because they show up at the border (or waters in the vicinity of a European country) and/or claim "asylum".

I know why my sister in law’s husband’s family left Pakistan and it sure as shit isn’t to start a caliphate or live in what the GOP is trying to create for the Heritage Foundation.

Note that I have never advocated for blanket bans. But existence of Pakistanis who integrate well into European societies does not mean that most Pakistani would-be migrants are not Islamists or that individual migrants should not be vetted.

There is unfortunately a lot of "all or nothing" attitude with these issues. For example, the response to Trump's excesses regarding illegal migration should not be to not enforce immigration at all, as some Dems demand.

Or you can see it with Pood. He rejects Christian nationalism, and so in his mind, he must defend Islamism as the preferred alternative for western countries.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The first part of your response was the essential part I had pointed out previously.

I diagree.

Those "similar" cases are packaged in another thread, but if this thread has any meaning and focus beyond Primal Scream Therapy, they are not relevant to how the UK is failing and its particular potential solutions, which no one has yet to describe.

What "another thread"? If you mean "Europe submits voluntarily", that one hasn't been active in ages.

That hasn't stopped anyone from resurrecting a thread before.

As to potential solutions, UK (and western countries in general) must vet all migrants thoroughly.

They already do. In fact, comprehensive security vetting is a major reason why the asylum processing backlog takes so long.

Anybody who comes illegally should be deported.

In the first place, it is actually not technically illegal to cross a border and immediately state you are seeking asylum under UN treaties that the UK is a signatory to. Even if the UK were not a signatory to such agreements, they would still face the hurdle that they also cannot simply send persons back to a dangerous country because of other conventions the UK is signatory to. Lastly, even if the UK were to exit all those conventions, they'd still have to contend with the reality that they cannot enter another country's airspace to return civilians--assuming they can accurately figure out which country--and leave them there on a tarmac.

And when somebody is dangerous, either because of embrace of Islamist ideology or because of violent crime, they should be deported even if their home country is "dangerous".

I agree that the UK should try to make every effort to deport dangerous criminals. See above argument:

They already do. In fact, comprehensive security vetting is a major reason why the asylum processing backlog takes so long.

Instead, the Burnham government is about to accept even more Islamic mass migrants.

You just switched between Muslim and Islamist (again). Obviously, Islamists are a subset of Muslims, but if there is vetting, i.e. removal or minimization of Islamists, then the complaint is off-base, unless you are actually complaining about Muslims, not Islamists. So which is it?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Only people that think all the migrants are Islamists need to be replaced.

Literally nobody is saying that.

But you do keep switching back and forth between Islamicisation (Muslims in general) and Islamists and between Muslim hordes and Islamists. Islamic mass migrants and Islamists.

 

[pood]

“Muslim hordes.”

I am much more concerned with the sleeper cells of aging white male racists who are MAGGOTS, and who religiously watch Fox News and read The Daily Mail, and who reside right here in the U.S. They are the real threat.

I’m thinking a huge influx of Muslims into Europe, and especially the UK, would be a good thing. England consists of a bunch of decrepit old gas bags who still mourn the loss of their ill-gotten empire.

In any case, the human-caused climate change that Swizzle denies is going to bring an avalanche of climate refugees from the brown countries, so that by itself will put an end to contemporary UK and Europe. Too bad, so sad.

And then some people on here will deny that there is such a thing as islamoleftism, i.e. an alliance between far left and Islamist ideologies. Pood is pretty much the type specimen for it. And note how he rejoices in the idea of western societies coming to an end due to Islamic invasions.

And also notice the utter hated Pood has for white people, and especially white men. Even using dehumanizing language like "maggots" and "decrepit old bags". As to "ill-gotten empire", I guess Pood and his Ilk only think Islamic empires are justly gotten.

This is your usual total crap.

I have no hatred for white men. I AM a white man, and an aging one at that. For cluless people like you, I often critique aging white men to turn the tables on them for their bigotry against Muslims, blacks, brown people and others that they actually hate.

MAGGOTS is dehumanizing language? It’s a play on MAGA, whose members appear to hate everyone except their own ilk. Again, I am turning the tables on them, and giving these fucks a taste of their own medicine. If that happens to include you, tough shit.

And yes, the British empire consisted of ill-gotten gains.

I don’t “rejoice” in western societies coming to an end, even despite the atrocities they have inflicted on so many, far greater than Islamic societies have. I simply note that their time is coming to an end, for a variety of reasons, including the climate change they have infiicted upon the world in their grubby greed.

I have no hatred for anyone. I have hatred for vile acts, which are rife in Western societies. See: support for genocide in Gaze for a contemporary example. There are many other historical examples.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

And then some people on here will deny that there is such a thing as islamoleftism, i.e. an alliance between far left and Islamist ideologies. Pood is pretty much the type specimen for it. And note how he rejoices in the idea of western societies coming to an end due to Islamic invasions.

What I find so interesting here is not what pood has said, but your reaction to it just after having denied being a Great Replacement conspiracy theorist. In your emotional kneejerk reaction, you are forced to concede some of your beliefs: (1) there is a secret "alliance between the far left and Islamist ideologies." (2) These leftists rejoice "in the idea of western societies coming to an end due to Islamic invasions." (3) You've gone again to speak to Muslims in general, i.e. "Islamic" while also mixing in "Islamist." (4) Though here you do not mention it, in other posts in the past you have stated that things to similar to "Islamophobia isn't real. The fear is legitimate."

 

[Derec]

What I find so interesting here is not what pood has said, but your reaction to it just after having denied being a Great Replacement conspiracy theorist.

I reject it being a "conspiracy theory" because there are people like Pood who do support white Europeans being replaced by third world mass migrants, mostly Muslims.
And even the UN has a domument about "replacement migration". So, how is it a "conspiracy theory".

In your emotional kneejerk reaction, you are forced to concede some of your beliefs: (1) there is a secret "alliance between the far left and Islamist ideologies."

It's not very secret, but there is definitely an islamolefist alliance. Just look at how strongly some of our resident leftists defend Islam and Islamism.

(2) These leftists rejoice "in the idea of western societies coming to an end due to Islamic invasions."

I point you to Pood as the type specimen..

(3) You've gone again to speak to Muslims in general, i.e. "Islamic" while also mixing in "Islamist."

It's not like the two are unrelated. Islamism just means the ideology Islam controlling politics and government. Islamism is widespread among practicing Muslims, especially from areas like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia or Palestinian territories.

(4) Though here you do not mention it, in other posts in the past you have stated that things to similar to "Islamophobia isn't real. The fear is legitimate."

It most definitely is to anybody who has a modicum of understanding of Islam.

 

[pood]

I love how it's 2026 and people still pretend they don't know what Derec is all about. That baffles me. Most people have been here for over a decade.

And what would that be? Not willing to submit to Islamism like e.g. Pood is so eager to do?

Pood is not eager to submit to “Islamism,” whatever that is. Pood is eager to promote worldwide humanism, via Krishnamurti, among other sages. In that vein, Pood is not eager to excuse the multiple atrocities of western “civilization,” which you appear to support.

 

[pood]

And, @Derec, we know exactly what you are all about.

 

[Derec]

But you do keep switching back and forth between Islamicisation (Muslims in general) and Islamists and between Muslim hordes and Islamists. Islamic mass migrants and Islamists.

Look at where the bulk of Islamic mass migration comes from. And then look at how many of them support Sharia.

Again, that does not mean that every single individual from these areas is bad, but if you let in everybody who shows up, you end up with a lot of bad apples.
In other words, there is a difference between individual people, and the overall negative influence of Islam itself. When immigration is small scale and based on the individual, that is quite different than the mass migration we have been seeing lately. With the latter, the negative effects of Islam are unavoidable both because of sheer numbers and also because individual immigration decisions become almost impossible.

 

[Derec]

And, @Derec, we know exactly what you are all about.

Ditto for you, pood.

 

[Derec]

Pood is not eager to submit to “Islamism,” whatever that is.

You wrote above how Europe falling under Islamic rule would be a good thing.

Pood is not eager to excuse the multiple atrocities of western “civilization,” which you appear to support.

What about the far more numerous, and severe, atrocities of Islamic "civilization", which you are so eager to excuse?

 

[Derec]

I have no hatred for white men. I AM a white man, and an aging one at that. For cluless people like you, I often critique aging white men to turn the tables on them for their bigotry against Muslims, blacks, brown people and others that they actually hate.

You being a white man does not change anything. One hallmark of the western leftist extremist is the hostility toward their ingroup.

MAGGOTS is dehumanizing language?

Yes, it most definitely is.

It’s a play on MAGA, whose members appear to hate everyone except their own ilk. Again, I am turning the tables on them, and giving these fucks a taste of their own medicine. If that happens to include you, tough shit.

One can reject the excesses of MAGA without drifting into what you are doing - rejecting western societies and thinking that Islamic world is somehow better and that it should dominate the West.

And yes, the British empire consisted of ill-gotten gains.

Which empire didn't?
But you seem to think that Arabic and other Muslim conquests are fine. You see the same thing with the land of Israel. The left see it belonging to Arabs because Arabs conquered it, and Arab/Muslim imperialism is acceptable to them. But Israelis liberating the land in 1948 is considered "settler colonialism" by them.

I don’t “rejoice” in western societies coming to an end, even despite the atrocities they have inflicted on so many, far greater than Islamic societies have.

Bullshit on both grounds. The post I quoted to ld shows that you are positively giddy over the prospect of Islam ruling Europe.
And it's also bullshit to claim that western world committed atrocities "far greater" than Islamic societies.

I simply note that their time is coming to an end, for a variety of reasons, including the climate change they have infiicted upon the world in their grubby greed.

You cannot help yourself. "Grubby greed". Another reference to maggots (aka grubs).
And you are positively giddy over the prospect of western societies coming the end to be replaced by some kind of Islamic utopia.

I have no hatred for anyone. I have hatred for vile acts, which are rife in Western societies.

Bullshit. You hate the West. That's why you exaggerate the speck that are the faults of the West, while ignoring the beam that is the faults of the Islamic world.

See: support for genocide in Gaze for a contemporary example.

There is no "genocide" in Gaza. There was an attempted genocide by the Gaza Islamists (Hamas, Islamic Jihad) that you gloss over, but which started this war by murdering >1,200 Jews and kidnapping hundreds of others.

There are many other historical examples.

Far more of both historic and contemporary examples for the faults of the Islamic world.

 

[pood]

Pood is not eager to submit to “Islamism,” whatever that is.

You wrote above how Europe falling under Islamic rule would be a good thing.

Please read, if you can even read, what I wrote above about this.

Pood is not eager to excuse the multiple atrocities of western “civilization,” which you appear to support.

What about the far more numerous, and severe, atrocities of Islamic "civilization", which you are so eager to excuse?

This is, again, just a libel against anyone who does not buy into your filthy crap. I do not support atrocities of ANY kind, by anyone, anywhere. You seem to have willfully ignored the fact that I pointed out, which is that Western “civilization,” over the centuries, has commited far more atrocities than current Islamic terrorists. I should also add, which I have noted before, that the VAST majority of Muslims are NOT terrorists.

 

[Derec]

Please read, if you can even read, what I wrote above about this.

You wrote that Islamic takeover of Europe would be a good thing.

This is, again, just a libel against anyone who does not buy into your filthy crap.

It's not libel.

I do not support atrocities of ANY kind, by anyone, anywhere.

But you are very dismissive of any atrocities that are not by people of European descent.

You seem to have willfully ignored the fact that I pointed out, which is that Western “civilization,” over the centuries, has commited far more atrocities than current Islamic terrorists.

[emphasis added]
Typical improper comparison you leftists love to engage in in order to justify your islamophilia. You are comparing centuries of Western civilization with only contemporary Muslims. And not even all contemporary Muslims, which would also include things like human and women's rights or abuse of foreign laborers in majority Muslim countries, but only Islamic terrorists. That's like concluding that Canada is far more dangerous than the US by comparing the number of all crimes in Canada over its entire history with the number of burglaries in the US in 2025.

No, if you were intellectually honest, you'd have compared like with like. Entire history of Western civilization vs. the entire history of Islamic societies, and here Islam is far worse. Just look at things like when slavery was abolished.
Or you look at how these societies look right now - and again, Islam is far worse than the West.
Additionally, you are dismissing Western civilization by using scare quotes. Shows your biases quite clearly.

I should also add, which I have noted before, that the VAST majority of Muslims are NOT terrorists.

But a heavily disproportionate number of terrorists are Muslim. And terrorism is just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[bilby]

None white anglicans so they should be killed; sink the boats and drown them at sea.

Surely, there must be some middle ground between "let them all in as long as they show up in the vicinity of our borders" and "kill them all".

OK. So what is that middle ground? How does it work?

A boat is intercepted approaching the Kent coast. Its occupants have no papers, and refuse to say where they originated. What happens next, in your ideal world?

How does it differ from what currently occurs? What laws and international treaties (if any) would need to change to permit your preferred course of action? How many nations would need to change their laws?

 

[laughing dog]

Pood is not eager to submit to “Islamism,” whatever that is.

You wrote above how Europe falling under Islamic rule would be a good thing.

You wrote that Islamic takeover of Europe would be a good thing.

You need to produce an actual quote, because if you are referring to his "I’m thinking a huge influx of Muslims into Europe, and especially the UK, would be a good thing. ", that does not mean what you claim.

A huge influx of Muslims is not equivalent to Europe falling under Islamic rule nor does it mean an Islamic takeover of Europe. It literally means lots of Muslims, and only that. There are many possible reasons for someone to think that is a "good thing", none of which involve religious beliefs.

Without a quote of pood's to support your claim, your claim is, at best, a result of incredibly poor reasoning.

 

[Patooka]

None white anglicans so they should be killed; sink the boats and drown them at sea.

Surely, there must be some middle ground between "let them all in as long as they show up in the vicinity of our borders" and "kill them all".

OK. So what is that middle ground? How does it work?

A boat is intercepted approaching the Kent coast. Its occupants have no papers, and refuse to say where they originated. What happens next, in your ideal world?

How does it differ from what currently occurs? What laws and international treaties (if any) would need to change to permit your preferred course of action? How many nations would need to change their laws?

How does it work? By showing less empathy you idiot.

Duh.