PETER HITCHENS: We won't save refugees by destroying our own

[cronus]

PETER HITCHENS: We won't save refugees by destroying our own country

Actually we can’t do what we like with this country. We inherited it from our parents and grandparents and we have a duty to hand it on to our children and grandchildren, preferably improved and certainly undamaged.
It is one of the heaviest responsibilities we will ever have. We cannot just give it away to complete strangers on an impulse because it makes us feel good about ourselves.

Every one of the posturing notables simpering ‘refugees welcome’ should be asked if he or she will take a refugee family into his or her home for an indefinite period, and pay for their food, medical treatment and education.
If so, they mean it. If not, they are merely demanding that others pay and make room so that they can experience a self-righteous glow. No doubt the same people are also sentimental enthusiasts for the ‘living wage’, and ‘social housing’, when in fact open borders are steadily pushing wages down and housing costs up.

As William Blake rightly said: ‘He who would do good to another must do it in minute particulars. General good is the plea of the scoundrel, hypocrite and flatterer.’

Britain is a desirable place to live mainly because it is an island, which most people can’t get to. Most of the really successful civilisations survived because they were protected from invasion by mountains, sea, deserts or a combination of these things. Ask the Russians or the Poles what it’s like to live without the shield of the sea. There is no positive word for ‘safety’ in Russian. Their word for security is ‘bezopasnost’ – ‘without danger’.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... z3lFv89tYh
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[Hermit]

If a 60 million strong culture could be destroyed by a million asylum seekers it deserves that fate. Do I need to point out that once upon a time Great Britain succeeded in repelling a concerted effort by a much greater force to destroy it?

What are you reduced to, Scumple? That's right; a whimpering fuckwit who sees mortal danger in every beggar in dire need of alms. Voting UKIP, I guess.

More likely still, you have joined the ranks of intellectuals like this one:

[cronus]

http://forward.com/news/breaking-news/3 ... ng-israel/

[Rum]

Peter Hitchens is a cunt.

[cronus]

Peter Hitchens is a cunt.

Jealousy.

[Hermit]

http://forward.com/news/breaking-news/3 ... ng-israel/

Yes, medievalism needs to be opposed. No doubt about that. We should engage in a witch hunt to wipe it out. How the fight against medievalism might be effective by shutting asylum seekers out, however, escapes my comprehension.

[Brian Peacock]

Peter Hitchens is a cunt.

My name is Brian Peacock, and I endorse this message.


The idea that some essential quality of 'Britishness' is being diluted by a swarm of foreigners is as laughable as is it errant as it is divisive as it is a deflection from what's going on - for it suggests that whatever passes for Britain, Britishness, and British values is so delicate and fragile that it could all come tumbling down with a few more brown children in our schools and a few more exotic restaurants in our suburbs. Then again, P Hitchens longs for the good old days, when we displayed default respect for the old school tie and bobbies could give children a clip round the ear and fathers had dominion over their families, and whatever other asserted wonders of a non-existent golden age he can pull out of his fundament.

The man's a joke.

[Hermit]

...some essential quality of 'Britishness'...

...is actually French since 1066. Also Danish since before the. Also Saxon since...

I'm told there are a few Poms left with Celtic DNA.

[Brian Peacock]

Aye. We're as much a bastard nation as any.

[cronus]

Progressive social values such as gay rights and the vote for women could suffer if we are culturally infected with a lower social order. I recall spending some time with 'low life' and you can't help but take on their values. And Islam as a religion suffers no survivable get out clause. These people should be in Saudi Arabia where the money is to look after them, the culture is to accept them.

[Hermit]

...you can't help but take on their values.

You are not speaking for me. I would no more take on the values of Muslims than those that mark out the 75% of other theists among the population I am currently surrounded by. And, looking around me, I am confident I am not the only individual who finds it easy not to let myself be "culturally infected" by the values of whatever it is you mean by the expression "a lower social order".

[JimC]

Leaving aside his regressive, class-based social stance, and accepting that western nations such as the UK can and should take a somewhat higher number of refugees and/or provide more funding for existing camps, there are some other questions:
1. Is there some form of limit on the increase in refugee numbers, beyond which serious economic, environmental and social damage occurs, or do we just accept an open-ended increase with no thought of limits?
2. How many of the refugees will be ISIS moles, inserted to cause future damage?
3. Is the world incapable of a united, possibly military solution to the turmoil in Syria, with the aim of creating enough safety and stability for at least many to return?

[NineBerry]

Leaving aside his regressive, class-based social stance, and accepting that western nations such as the UK can and should take a somewhat higher number of refugees and/or provide more funding for existing camps, there are some other questions:
1. Is there some form of limit on the increase in refugee numbers, beyond which serious economic, environmental and social damage occurs, or do we just accept an open-ended increase with no thought of limits?

Yes, over 9000.

[Hermit]

Is there some form of limit on the increase in refugee numbers, beyond which serious economic, environmental and social damage occurs, or do we just accept an open-ended increase with no thought of limits?

Excellent question, Jim. As always, you are being so reasonable.

Let all the nations work out acceptable levels of economic, environmental and social damage. That should be easy enough to do, for we know exactly how damaging those reffos are per unit when they shit in our toilets, are not permitted to work and cause friction on account of all of the dunny paper they deprive us of. Then we share out acceptance of them accordingly and tell whoever is left to go jump in the lake, go back to where they bloody well come from, recesstle in some other cesspool of a country or whatever. Not our business, sorry. Then we just feel great for what we have done and glad that our supply of gin has not been affected.

[Rum]

The reality is it wouldn't make much difference even if there was. They simply can't be stopped. The borders are more or less porous as things stand.