Turning Immigrants into Anglo-Saxons

Only the gullible were suprised on 7/7 when the sons of immigrants bombed those trains and buses in London.

It seems this lovely “terrorist-in-training” lad from Yorkshire agrees with you Geoff. 

We rock the boat

Today’s Muslims aren’t prepared to ignore injustice

Dilpazier Aslam
Wednesday July 13, 2005
The Guardian

If I’m asked about 7/7, I - a Yorkshire lad, born and bred - will respond first by giving an out-clause to being labelled a terrorist lover. I think what happened in London was a sad day and not the way to express your political anger.

Then there’s the “but”. If, as police announced yesterday, four men (at least three from Yorkshire) blew themselves up in the name of Islam, then please let us do ourselves a favour and not act shocked.

Shocked would be to imply that we were unaware of the imminent danger, when in fact Sir John Stevens, the then Metropolitan police commissioner, warned us last year that an attack was inevitable.
Shocked would be to suggest we didn’t appreciate that when Falluja was flattened, the people under it were dead but not forgotten - long after we had moved on to reading more interesting headlines about the Olympics. It is not the done thing to make such comparisons, but Muslims on the street do. Some 2,749 people were killed in the 9/11 attacks. To discover the cost of “liberating” Iraqis you need to multiply that figure by eight, and still you will fall short of the estimated minimum of 22,787 civilian Iraqi casualties to date. But it’s not cool to say this, now that London’s skyline has also has plumed grey.

Shocked would also be to suggest that the bombings happened through no responsibility of our own. OK, the streets of London were filled with anti-war marchers, so why punish the average Londoner? But the argument that this was an essentially US-led war does not pass muster. In the Muslim world, the pond that divides Britain and America is a shallow one. And the same cry - why punish us? - is often heard from Iraqi mothers as the “collateral damage” increases daily.

The Muslim community is no monolithic whole. Yet there are some common features. Second- and third-generation Muslims are without the don’t-rock-the-boat attitude that restricted our forefathers. We’re much sassier with our opinions, not caring if the boat rocks or not.

Which is why the young get angry with that breed of Muslim “community leader” who remains silent while anger is seething on the streets.

Perhaps now is the time to be honest with each other and to stop labelling the enemy with simplistic terms such as “young”, “underprivileged”, “undereducated” and perhaps even “fringe”. The don’t-rock-the-boat attitude of elders doesn’t mean the agitation wanes; it means it builds till it can be contained no more.

· Dilpazier Aslam is a Guardian trainee journalist

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1527323,00.html

I have NO CLUE as to why the entire Muslim contigent from all European and European derived countries is not systematically deported.  Throw in ALL Negroes, Asians, and South Asians.  Let’s not forget the Hispanics in the US either.  Can someone please explain to me how much simpler can it be stated for the elite, like Blair the Buffoon, that not all immigrants are the same.  Not all ideologies are the same.  Not all people deserve equal “air time”.  While I agree with this idiot on Iraq, his kind do not deserve to walk on European soil.  The arid topography of their shitholes should suffice them for the next 300,000 or so years.  Give or take a million.

Zach, you’re right of course. The Germans and Dutch in Australia assimilated most easily. For a long time the Irish stood apart, for reasons of church and history, and some Irish members of the Labor Party were distinctly unprotective of the mainstream Anglo identity (though I think the number of Irish in this category has fallen dramatically in recent decades). Some of the more northern Italian types assimilated well, but in general the Greeks and Italians were at the forefront of multiculturalism, and though there’s been a fair bit of intermarriage there are still third generation Italian migrant kids who wear their Italian colours to the school I teach at.

Virtually every real Irishman is contemptuous of Americans and Canadians who say with their North American accents “Oh, I’m Irish too”. “Plastic Paddies” is one term used to describe them.

I used to think it was positive that these ethnic Irish, Italian, and other North Americans remembered where their ancestors came from - there’s far too little ancestor-worshipping these days! However, in my experience (mostly with “hyphenated Canadians") when you scratch the surface their claims to be Irish or whatever usually have more to do with a loathing of North America and thus a desire to be a part of some other society.

Matra’s got a good understanding of American History, not bad for a Canuck.

Its funny, my earliest impressions of Canada were that of concentrated population of Scots, Welsh and English. You know, the mounties, red plaid, and all that. Boy, things sure have changed in that regard.

Matra,

I’m sure you know, and this is sad news, the American South is being destroyed, not only by Third World immigration but by internal immigration. The Scots-Irish tint to the South is being wiped out.

What part of Canada is the Scots-Irish part? Ontario and the Western Provinces?

What part of Canada is the Scots-Irish part? Ontario and the Western Provinces?

Small town southern Ontario and some rural parts of the Maritime provinces (particularly Nova Scotia) still have considerable Scots-Irish populations. Toronto (Canada’s New York!) used to be dominated in every way by Scots-Irish and regular Scots but mass immigration (more than double the US yearly average per capita) resulted in the former establishment being swept away decades ago. Greater Toronto was the number one destination of Protestants from Northern Ireland throughout the 20th century. But we are still greatly outnumbered by immigrants from Asia and the Caribbean.

which place is safer and will survive with the least amount of societal, cultural, and racial damage: the UK(Europe) or North America(USA)?

As a citizen of Canada and the UK contemplating the future I often think about this question. On the plus side for North America there is more room here so if things get bad in one area there are plenty of ethnically homogenous regions - mostly small rural towns. However that may possibly be a long term disadvantage as it merely delays the day of reckoning. On the other hand that extra space could some day be used to build new nations. For instance there’s a small but growing separatist movement in right wing Alberta, which is larger than many European nations put together and rich in oil and other resources.

On the plus side for Europe, based on my experience Europeans care more about preserving their particular identity than most North Americans. They may be helped in this respect by the fact that a considerable proportion of their immigrants are Muslims who don’t often marry Europeans, thus leaving the core ethnic groups intact. Here in Canada mixed marriages are quite common and I think it is similar in the US.

Also, Europe is already starting to deport illegals (in a very tepid way but it’s a start) and incidents like 7/7 and the murder of Theo Van Gogh may force Europe to deal with the issue sooner rather than later. All in all I think the future looks a little less dark (so to speak) in the old continent.

The don’t-rock-the-boat attitude of elders doesn’t mean the agitation wanes; it means it builds till it can be contained no more.

A two-edged blade, that.

> I’d trade America in in a heartbeat if I knew that ensured Europe’s future.

This is very painful thing to contemplate. But perhaps it is time for the white man to come home to Europe to save it, to war with the barbarians there. Obviously, we need he agreement of the folks in the old country.

Knights poured in from all over Europe into Spain to get rid of the Muslims, during the Reconquest of Spain (1200-1400).

The main problem in Canada are the Federal Liberals who favour an insane “open-doors” immigration policy because old and new immigrants vote overwhelmingly for the Liberals.

Quebec has a fairly strong nationalist/separatist movement but French-speaking nationalists/separatists go out of their way to sound racially “inclusive” and arguing that their nationalism is only based on language and not ethnicity.

The problem is that virtually solely the French vote for independence during referenda and for the separatists at provincial elections. For e.g., 2/3 of the French voted for independence during the ‘95 referendum (the “yes” option lost by less than 1 %); yet, that option lost because of the ethnic vote (as the provincial leader at that time famously said the night of the defeat - he actually blamed federal money poured into the publicity campaign, i.e. scare-mongering, prior to the voting and the ethnic vote. He was right, of course, on both counts but had to nevertheless risign after that “truth-telling” episode. As an aside, the federal government significantly accelerated the process of making new Canadians (i.e., naturalization) just before the referandum vote was held.

Sadly, the independence movement has a few strikes going against it: poor demographics (French women have the lowest birth-ratio in the Western world) and savage immigration (not to mention old leaders, a lack of vision and new ideas from the Parti Quebecois).

As an aside, the federal government significantly accelerated the process of making new Canadians (i.e., naturalization) just before the referandum vote was held.

A source for that would be neat-o.