Thursday, May 23, 2013

Man hacked to death in South London in alleged terrorist incident


Two attackers savagely killed a man believed to be a British soldier just outside an army barracks in an apparent terrorist attack in southeast London today, telling eyewitnesses the killing was "as an eye for an eye ... because Muslims are dying by British soldiers every day."
Elementary as Holmes said. We mind our own business regarding the Middle East. Buy oil from them and that’s IT. If we did that, no sane person would want to attack us, including in the street. (No 9/11s.) If you choose to move here; welcome. Hack our people to death and back to Hellholistan you go.

10 comments:

  1. Do you realize how hilarious your 'one-bite' rule for immigrants is? 'Welcome to the West, but hack people to death on the street and you are on the first plane back, pal. Economy class!'

    You shouldn't impose radical social experiments on others that you wouldn't try on your own home or family.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think someone's right to move, but imposing our do-no-harm rule on him, is a radical social experiment.

      Delete
    2. The radical social experiment is trans-national movements of antithetical peoples. Historically, it was known as invasion. Again, your post hoc one-bite rule is something you wouldn't subject your family or yourself to, so you shouldn't insist other people follow it.

      Also, I have asked you about a "right to move" before. You have admitted it is just some sort of feeling you have.

      Delete
    3. These people were born and breed in the United Kingdom. Africa was as foreign to them as it is to me. Just because they are black doesn't mean they are foreign. British born and bred, they are children of the UK.

      Delete
    4. Somebody elsewhere pointed that out to me. So it's simply a murder case but what I wrote about motive stands.

      Delete
    5. They're no more 'British' than I would be 'Korean' if I had been born in Seoul. It actually underscores how awful and myopic this government policy is: Britain is not importing Nigerians, Britain is importing Nigeria. The UK is already devolving into its constituent Anglo and Celtic nations, and now they're adding an African/Muslim one to the mix.

      Balkan-style warfare is not a good thing to bequeath your children.

      Delete
  2. I'm instinctively sympathetic to the idea that people should be able to move where they like, but if I understand it correctly, the real problem is often with the second generation, or those who come as children, in which "regression to the mean" results in a failure of assimilation and the attendant social ills. Mom and Pop chose willingly to move from Hellholistan to Firstworldia, but their children didn't, and may not like it. Young men with lots of testosterone like to fight; if they grow up in a country to which they feel no real loyalty, they cause trouble. If they make enough trouble, the costs of cleaning up their messes may outweigh the economic gains of letting their parents into the country- for example, the manhunt for the surviving Tsarnaev brother probably resulted in several hundred million dollars in losses from closed businesses, (though admittedly, the authorities may have overreacted a bit). One of the things we forget is that, in those ancient and Medieval states which made ethnic diversity function reasonably well, they nearly all 1) Were undemocratic, and 2) Made explicit allowances for ethnic minorities to live under their own separate legal system (often in a prescribed set of districts). This sort of "separate-but-equal" arrangement is pure anathema to most modern democratic states (though I understand German citizenship is still mostly based on jus sanguinus).

    A nation can be democratic, free from corruption and strife, or ethnically diverse- choose any two.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good points. I don't have an answer right now other than it's none of the government's business as long as the newcomers and their progeny obey our golden rule.

      Delete
    2. I don't have any answers either, though my inclination (were it politically feasible) would be to adopt some sort of German-style jus sanguinus principle, in which people would be free to come, but not gain full citizenship until at least, say, the third or fourth generation of good behavior, with wide authority given to immigration officials to undertake deportations swiftly and decisively (i.e., no American-style eternal appeals process). That way, you can easily expel troublemakers and bad eggs without disturbing everyone else. It also prevents immigrants from forming a tribalist voting bloc that pursues its own interests at the expense of everyone else and politically fights against the enforcement of immigration laws (since non-citizens can't vote). Another suggestion I've heard is requiring every immigrant to be "sponsored" by a native-born citizen, who would have to put up a substantial bond, which would be forfeit if the immigrant, say, gets convicted of a crime or winds up on the welfare rolls.

      Politically, though, I can't foresee any suggestions like these gaining any traction, so as it stands now, I find myself a somewhat reluctant immigration restrictionist, at least until someone prominent floats a better suggestion. A healthy, well-governed, confident country could handle large-scale immigration sensibly and fairly. We do not live in a healthy, well-governed, confident country. It's not the fault of Mexican immigrants that we can't get our collective act together, but that doesn't mean that inviting more of them in won't massively exacerbate the problems we already have.

      Delete
    3. Immigration is a local phenomenon, but it's treated as national policy. That is one huge contributing flaw.

      Delete

Leave comment