|
|
By  David Craig, on September 2nd, 2015 Ever since Blair and Straw and Mandelscum and Campbell opened Britain’s borders in 1997 to rub the faces of the middle classes in multiculturalism we have been constantly told that immigration has been good for Britain. Anyone who has dared question whether 8 to 10 million people flooding into Britain at the rate of 50,000 a month for fifteen years has been good for our country was immediately accused of being bigoted and racist.
Various reasons have been put forward for why immigration is so great – we have an ageing population and so need young workers; we need the skills immigrants bring or even immigrants’ cultures enrich our country (FGM, forced marriages, mass rape, first-cousin marriages, intolerance, violence, terrorism, censorship etc)
Using massive figure-fiddling various, usually left-wing academics have written report after report trying to prove that immigrants make a positive contribution to our economy. One trick these reports use is to claim that immigrants pay more in tax than they take in benefits. But these reports usually don’t mention how much immigrants cost our public services – hospitals, schools, housing, police etc.
There is one report by the UCL which claims to take into account the public services used by immigrants. But one of the co-authors was the ‘expert’ who advised New Labour that only 13,000 Poles would come to Britain. In reality over a million came. I think that tells us all we need to know about this idiot’s credibility and political bias.
Anyway, if immigration is so great, why aren’t the various EU countries crawling over each other to invite the immigrant hordes into their countries? Why don’t countries want the supposed ‘economic benefits’ and ‘cultural enrichment’ we’ve been told immigrants bring?
We all know why. Because immigration has been an economic, cultural and social disaster. Because immigration has led to our schools and hospitals coming close to collapse. Because immigration has pushed up the cost of housing so British people can no longer afford their first homes. Because immigration has overwhelmed our police so they no longer investigate minor crimes and, because of political correctness, no longer investigate any crimes perpetrated by immigrants, especially M*sl*ms.
Yet now, as our borders are overwhelmed by the migrant locust swarms, suddenly our rulers are telling us we must “share the burden”. Ooops. I thought we’ve always been told immigration was a “benefit”. Now our rulers are admitting it is a “burden”. It’s a pity they didn’t realise this 15 years ago.
To end, I’d like to include a Winston Churchill quote a reader posted on yesterday’s blog. Churchill explains why politicians fail to learn from history and why everything our rulers are now doing is pathetically too little pathetically too late:
“When the situation was manageable it was neglected, and now that it is thoroughly out of hand we apply too late the remedies which then might have effected a cure. There is nothing new in the story. It is as old as the sibylline books. It falls into that long, dismal catalogue of the fruitlessness of experience and the confirmed unteachability of mankind. Want of foresight, unwillingness to act when action would be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong–these are the features which constitute the endless repetition of history.”
By David Craig, on September 1st, 2015 Today, I’d like to bring you an almost heartwarming story from Britain’s much admired (by whom? ed) charity industry.
Here, from Scotia Aid’s website is how the charity explains its mission:
“Scotia Aid – Sierra Leone was launched in May 2010 by a small team of businessmen with the mission of creating maximum impact upon the numbers of children, whose lives are controlled by the streets. We work directly with children in their own environment towards reunification with their families, reintroduction to education and the creation of a sustainable home-life for their on-going upbringing”.
The three heroes who set up this supposed ‘charity’ managed to raise £790,899 in 2012/13 and a more impressive £1,020,365 in 2013/14.
Ok, this not a huge amount. But a million pounds can do a lot of good in a country like Sierra Leone where the GDP per capita is $340 (£220) a year and 72% of the population live on less than $1 a day, which is the commonly-used definition of ‘extreme poverty’.
At least, the money raised could have done a lot of good had much of it ever reached Sierra Leone. Sadly (for those the charity was meant to help) a mere £137,819 – just over 13p in every £1 raised – seems to have gone on what most of us might call ‘good causes’. So where did the rest go?
Well, the three selfless saints who set up this charity paid themselves £312,958, up from £197,227 the previous year. So the three founders of this ‘charity’ pocketed for themselves more than twice as much as they used for charitable purposes. The top earner at this £1m ‘charity’ got £116,931. To put this into context, the head of the 5,000+ employee £368m-a-year Oxfam got a mere £109,000. The second best paid took £103,927 and the third of this lucky trio had £92,100 pushed into his bank account making him better-paid than the head of the £59m-a-year Action Aid.
But these three didn’t pay this money to themselves as salaries. Otherwise they might have been subject to income tax of up to 50%. Ouch. Nope. Instead they paid this money to “shell” companies as consultancy fees so the maximum tax would be corporation tax at just 20%. All the so-called “shell” firms have reportedly been registered to the address of the charity’s accountant.
Where else did the money go. Well there were £43,751 in expenses plus another £105,720 in ‘logistics and travel expenses’. There was also £113,975 in ‘telemarketing’ costs, possibly paid to a company owned by one of the charity’s founders. And we mustn’t forget the £12,387 in motor expenses and the £2,105 entertainment costs
One former employee said said: “I left the charity when I became concerned about the way Dan was running it. It was all nights out, huge restaurant bills and big cars”.
Another commented: “The public need to know what is being done under the auspices of charity. They spend their money on a fancy lifestyle and fast cars. Helping people is the last thing on their minds”.
So, if you wanna get loads of money, travel in style to exotic countries and party at someone else’s expense – (here it was at the expense of impoverished children in Sierra Leone) – then set up a charity.
Plus, in addition to trousering a fortune for yourself, you might even get a gong or a knighthood or some other honour for your charitable work.
You can’t lose. Set up a charity! You know it makes sense!
By David Craig, on August 29th, 2015 (Bank holiday weekend blog) Here’s a link to a Channel 4 report by Lindsey Hilsum on the abandoned lorry full of dead refugees found in Austria.
https://www.channel4.com/news/austria-refugees-lorry-dead-migrants-suffocated
You don’t need to watch it. They key bit is Lindsey Hilsum describing the death of these seventy or so migrants as “the consequence of European governments’ failure to deal with the tide of refugees and migrants”.
Why I think this is important is that it’s a perfect example of what I believe are the ‘progressive, liberal’ lies we are constantly being fed by the media and our professional, opinion-leading hand-wringers as they betray our history and culture to their false gods of internationalism and multiculturalism.
But Hilsum is not alone. Day after day after day we’re bombarded with accusations from the media, the UN and other professional parasites blaming us in Europe, and especially Britain, for migrant deaths.
Hold on a minute! What total drivel! The reason the migrants are dead is because they have paid people smugglers so they could flee the poverty, bloodshed and chaos of their home (usually M*sl*m) countries.
So who is really to blame for their deaths, Lindsey darling? We Europeans who are struggling to accommodate the migrant hordes as our own economies sink further into unrepayable debt? Or the stupid, violent, backward, intolerant death cult that has ruined the countries most of these people are fleeing?
And as for those fleeing non-M*sl*m, mostly African countries. Over the last 30 years Lindsey precious, China (with hardly any foreign aid) has taken 800 million people out of poverty. Since 1965, African countries have received the equivalent of a Marshall Plan in aid ($20bn) every year. The Marshall Plan that led to the rebuilding of Europe after World War II only lasted five years, Africa’s ‘Marshall Plan’ has lasted 50 years. Yet there are hundreds of millions more Africans living in abject poverty now than there were 50 years ago when the flood of foreign aid started.
So who is to blame Lindsey babe? We Europeans? Or the greedy, corrupt, incompetent African kleptocrats who have ruined what should be one of the richest continents in the world?
Perhaps you (and idiots like you) should look at my video about foreign aid to Africa, Lindsey sweetie-pie, then you might learn something:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ds7XQJFBYTk
You’re meant to be a foreign affairs correspondent, Lindsey love. But it seems to me that your biased, left-wing, politically-correct agenda prevents you ever telling the truth about what’s really happening in the world as you, and all others of your ilk, (IMHO) try to foist your own bleatingly fashionable, demonstrably false world view on the rest of us.
In my humble opinion Lindsey Hilsum, you and Jon Snow and Krishnan Whatever and all the people like you are either liars or fools. I suspect you’re all quite intelligent (and very well paid). So the only explanation for your (IMHO) ludicrously biased broadcasts is that they are a deliberate attempt to deceive your viewers with what can only be described as palpably dishonest, politically-correct propaganda.
Shame on you all. You are traitors to your country and you are encouraging the destruction of Western civilisation by the barbarian hordes you want to take over our countries.
Here’s a quote from someone much wiser than yourself, Lindsey poppet, that you might consider if you have a spare moment from telling us what’s good for us:
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth.
Clive Staples Lewis (1898-1963)
Oh and by the way, regarding the tragedy in Austria, am I the only person who noticed the giant chicken creeping past the police as they investigate the lorry of death?
I expect the chicken will soon turn up at Calais and then jump aboard a lorry to Britain.
Have a good weekend and watch out for giant migrant chickens trying to sneak into our country
(Tomorrow – wanna get filthy rich? I’ll show you how)
By David Craig, on August 28th, 2015 Looking at my headline today, you might think I am a crazed conspiracy theorist or a frothing Little Englander. But the person who revealed that our rulers’ plans are to use migration to wipe out individual countries’ identities isn’t some raving xenophobe. He’s actually someone at the heart of the ruling establishment – Peter Sutherland, the UN’s special representative for migration – and these plans were reported by our very own BBC.
The EU should “do its best to undermine” the “homogeneity” of its member states, Peter Sutherland, the UN’s special representative for migration said. Sutherland told Peers the future prosperity of many EU states depended on them becoming multicultural.
He also suggested the UK government’s immigration policy had no basis in international law.
He was being quizzed by the Lords EU Home Affairs Sub-committee which was investigating global migration.
Mr Sutherland, who is non-executive chairman of Goldman Sachs International and a former chairman of oil giant BP, heads the Global Forum on Migration and Development, which brings together representatives of 160 nations to share policy ideas.
He told the House of Lords committee that migration was a “crucial dynamic for economic growth” in some EU nations “however difficult it may be to explain this to the citizens of those states”.
Here are some of Sutherland’s views on the desirability of unlimited immigration (click on picture to see more clearly)
Please note in particular the second paragraph “Governments have to lead by giving the positive news that migrants are good for a community, economically and every other way rather than constantly expressing them as a burden because they are not really a burden. Within a very short period of time they contribute positively to the community in which they live”.
Perhaps Mr Sutherland should visit the corrupt, overcrowded, Third-World hell-hole that is Tower Hamlets or the dangerous *sl*mic slums surrounding Paris or one of Sweden’s many immigrant, inner-city no-go areas ?
Mr Sutherland, who has attended meetings of The Bilderberg Group, a top level international networking organisation often criticised for its alleged secrecy, called on EU states to stop targeting “highly skilled” migrants, arguing that “at the most basic level individuals should have a freedom of choice” about whether to come and study or work in another country”.
So, if you’ve ever wondered why the ruling elites are allowing our continent and country to be invaded by (largely *sl*mic) hordes, Mr Sutherland has helpfully provided the answer. The aim is to dilute and then destroy the national identities of nation states so we all become part of an amorphous, borderless mass ruled by unelected self-serving, ‘we know what’s best for you’ bureaucrats and bankers like Mr Sutherland and his friends at Bilderberg.
Peter Sutherland is probably one of the most dangerous people in the world and a lot of lives are going to be lost as a consequence of the elites’ plan to flood developed countries with a tsunami of violent, backward, religiously-intolerant, primitive Third World human effluent.
And if you can stomach it, here are four minutes in which the (IMHO) repulsive, treacherous, lying, arrogant, elitist scumbag Sutherland explains why nation states should be abolished, why the EU should run Europe and why all national homogeneity should be destroyed by mass immigration and multiculturalism. The video starts of a bit slowly with some dopey Swedish politician introducing Sutherland at some conference or other on migration. But after about half a minute we get to hear from Sutherland about the overcrowded Third-World hell the elites have planned for us:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgSsM3MGLuk
Now you know what our leaders have in store for us. Be afraid! Be very afraid!
And when civil war does break out in a few European countries, we can be sure that the police and military will be used to oppress the indigenous populations and force the *sl*mic takeover on us as we are terrorised into committing collective cultural suicide.
By David Craig, on August 27th, 2015 Today’s blog follows on from yesterday’s about population density.
As the migrant swarm swarms in our direction, the professional hand-wringers and preachy, more-pious-than-thou opinion leaders are squawking and bleating about how Britain has a ‘moral responsibility’ to accept thousands upon thousands of migrants (most of whom hate us and will do all they can to destroy our society).
One of the arguments used by the so-called ‘progressives’ in politics and the media is that only around ten percent of Britain’s land is built on and so we have lots of room to house the seemingly limitless migrant hordes. But how true is that?
When most of us think of countries like China with its massive population of 1,371,722,000 or India with its 1,276,180,000 we probably think we’re fortunate to live in ‘England’s green and pleasant land’.
But we would be wrong. Britain may not be particularly crowded. But England, where most migrants will want to stay, is. I was extremely surprised to find that England is actually more crowded than India and has more than three times as many people per square kilometre as China:
(I have given two figures for England’s population density because, as two readers helpfully pointed out yesterday, official figures for our population are at least ten million lower than estimates made by various commercial and farming organisations)
So, do we really have room for a few hundred thousand more primitive, backward, religiously bigoted, violent, parasitic Third Worlders? Not if you go by England’s population density.
After all, is there really much difference now between:
India’s teeming, crowded, excrement-covered cities?
China’s teeming, crowded cities?
And our major cities?
By David Craig, on August 26th, 2015 Our rulers – Jackbooted Mrs Merkel and her poodle Hollande – have demanded that all European countries take their “fair share” of the (mainly M*sl*m) migrant hordes over-running Europe’s apparently unguarded borders.
But how do you decide what a “fair share” is? Merkel and her lapdog will probably try to link the number of migrants to each country’s GDP as that will ensure Britain gets landed with most of the flood of human excrement pouring into Europe.
But I’ve got a better idea. Why not link the number of refugees each country takes to its population density?
Not only that, but I’ve even worked out the numbers for Merkel and her balding, French arselicker-in-chief.
Here’s how I’ve done it. I’ve started with Europe’s most densely populated country – England. England’s population density is 413 people per square kilometre (413 ppl/km2). Then I’ve worked out how many refugees the main European countries could take for them to reach the same population density as Europe’s most densely populated country – England (see table below)
This shows that to reach the same population density as England (413 ppl/km2), Germany could take 67 million migrants, France could accommodate a whopping 160 million and Spain and even larger 161 million. And our close neighbours in Scotland have room for over 25 million! That should please socialist Sturgeon.
In all, just the thirteen European countries (on my table above) could accommodate more than 680 million migrants before reaching the same population density as England.
Well. That seems to solve the problem of deciding how countries should take their “fair share” of the migrant swarm. So, using my calculations, there’s no need for Europe’s most densely populated country – England – to take any migrants at all and our friends in these thirteen countries can comfortably absorb over 680 million migrants.
That seems to me to be giving each country the “fair share” that Merkel and her skid mark Hollande demand!
It’s pity that *sl*mo-Dave has neither the brains to think up such a solution nor the balls to protect our national interests by standing up to Merkel and her used wet-wipe Hollande.
England is full! Let the migrant deluge go somewhere else!
(If you haven’t read yesterday’s blog, please do. It’s short and it’s probably one of the most important I’ve ever written)
By David Craig, on August 25th, 2015 The key word in understanding the Religion of Peace is “supremacist”.
Supremacism is defined as “the worldview that a particular age, race, species, ethnic group, religion, social class, belief system or culture is superior to other variations of that trait, and entitles those who identify with it to dominate, control, or exploit those who do not”
Like the Nazis and Japanese in World War II, *sl*m is also ‘supremacist and will also lead to the deaths of millions unless we defend ourselves. But rather than defending us, our rulers seem intent on allowing an *sl*mic invasion and takeover of our continent.
Apart from the fact that the photos are now in colour, can you really spot any difference between:
The Nazis’ mass murder?
The Japanese army’s mass murder?
And the activities of our friends from the Religion of Peace?
By David Craig, on August 24th, 2015 It seems that the BBC has become so politically correct that if you want to know the truth about any major story, you have to take the opposite position to that promulgated by our once great national broadcaster
Israel and the Palestinians
The longest running BBC lie is probably the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. For decades the BBC has sided with the Palestinians claiming that all they want is to live in peace. Of course, this is garbage. Palestinian leaders have had many chances to sign a peace deal with Israel, but have always backed away and returned to violence because they only want one thing – the complete destruction of the Jewish state and the murder of all Jews. Meanwhile Palestinian leaders have become billionaires through stealing the billions in aid from European countries that never seem to reach the Palestinian people
The EU
For almost as long, the BBC (which gets millions of euros each year from the EU to broadcast pro-EU propaganda) has sung the praises of the EU. Anyone who has dared criticise the corrupt, undemocratic, wasteful EUSSR is immediately branded a ”little Englander” and a “bigot” and is ridiculed by BBC interviewers while pro-EU quislings are given an easy ride.
Man-made Global Warming
Then came the ludicrous myth of man-made Global Warming, which had to be quickly changed to ‘Climate Change’ when the Earth stopped warming about 19 years ago. Some readers might remember a popular botanist, environmental campaigner and BBC presenter – David Bellamy OBE. He was dropped by the BBC when he dared call man-made Global Warming “poppycock”. And now every BBC natural history presenter has to continually warn about the supposedly dreadful consequences of supposed Global Warming (sorry, I meant ‘Climate Change’) to keep their well-paid jobs. Some of our best-loved presenters have even stooped as low as planting explosives in glaciers so they could film the glaciers being ‘destroyed’ by (non-existent) Global Warming (sorry, I meant ‘Climate Change’)
Immigration
After that we got immigration. Since Blair’s New Labour opened the borders fifteen years ago in order to rub the noses of the middle classes in multi-culturalism and create millions more Labour voters, probably over five million people have swarmed into Britain. They are still swarming in at the rate of around 46,000 a month as we have handed over control of our borders to the EU. The BBC has repeatedly produced biased reports claiming that immigration has been good for Britain and that immigrants contribute much more to our country than they take from it. Anyone questioning these lies is quickly called a “racist”. But the reality is that any family earning less than £34,000 a year is getting more in benefits and public services than they contribute in taxes. And are the majority of, usually low-skilled, migrants earning more than £34,000 a year?
The ‘Great Rescue’
And now the latest BBC lie – how European navies are supposedly “rescuing” helpless migrants in the Mediterranean. Here’s how the BBC typically reports this lie “Italy’s coastguard on Saturday successfully coordinated the rescue of around 3000 migrants in the Mediterranean after receiving distress calls from more than 20 overcrowded vessels drifting in waters off Libya”.
Here’s the truth – the people smugglers now just tow boats full of migrants just off the Libyan coast and then send out distress signals knowing that we stupid Europeans will then ferry the migrants all the way to Europe for them. The supposedly ‘impoverished’ migrants are paying around €2,000 (£1,500) per person just to cross the Med. So, in just one day by picking up 3,000 migrants, European ships helped the people smugglers earn around €6,000,000 (£4,000,000). This is not a rescue. It’s a free ferry service. We are not ‘rescuing’ these people, we are helping them invade our continent. As one Italian MP protested “This must a joke. We are using our own forces to do the people smugglers’ business for them and ensure we are invaded”,
And once the mainly M*sl*m migrant hordes get here, they will demand that their culture – hatred, intolerance, backwardness, ignorance, violence and stupidity – be respected until there are so many of them that they can take political power and use this to oppress us. As I suggested on my blog yesterday, *sl*m has only two settings – if M*sl*ms are in a minority, they play victim claiming they are being oppressed and demanding special treatment and censorship of any criticism. Once they become a majority, they oppress all other religious and social groups and there is no criticism as critics tend to end up rather dead.
Time to downsize the BBC?
There are many reasons to cut the BBC down to size – wastefulness, overpaid useless layers of pointless managers, demanding ever more money as we get ever more commercial channels taking BBC viewers and so on. But the strongest argument for cutting the BBC’s bloated £3bn+ a year budget may be that is has blatantly lied to us for decades and continues to do so as BBC bosses betray our culture and history in the interest of grovelling to the false god of “progressive multi-culturalism”.
By David Craig, on August 23rd, 2015 Thanks to a reader who sent me the comment below which was written in response to a national newspaper article about the latest M*sl*m attack on a French high-speed train. It’s apparently written by a Sikh giving his/her view on the religion that our leaders are terrified of criticising. I found the comment quite coherent and articulate:
“I have to say this. No apologies.
The pattern of violence and aggressive disregard for human suffering that is persistent in M*sl*m history and contemporary attitude toward non-believers reflects the message of the Quran, which is one of personal superiority and arrogance.
In today’s world, M*sl*m dominance is characterized by the oppression and discrimination of non-M*sl*ms, while M*sl*m minorities within larger societies are distinguished by varying degrees of petulant demand, discord and armed rebellion.
Few M*sl*ms are uncomfortable with this blatant double standard, in which *sl*m either plays the victim or unapologetically victimizes others, depending on its position of power – and the reason is obvious.
*sl*m is a supremacist ideology in which the role of non-believers is subordinate to the position of M*sl*ms.
Those who resist *sl*mic rule are to be fought until they are either killed or fully humiliated and forced to acknowledge their inferior status by converting to *sl*m or by paying a poll-tax and otherwise accepting the subjugation of their own religion.
I am a Sikh and will never submit to such blatant evil, *sl*m murdered 3 of 10 Sikh Gurus because they refused to convert !
We are just 30 million but will never ever SUBMIT !
There is simply no other religion on earth that draws such sharp distinction between its own members and others, or devotes as much of its holiest text toward condemning and dehumanizing those who merely choose not to follow its dogma.
The apologists are correct in saying that *sl*m teaches love and kindness. But they fail to add that this applies only to the treatment of those within the M*sl*m community.
Loyalty to one’s own identity group is valued above all else and empathy for those outside the faith is optional at best – and even explicitly discouraged in places.
If this is a “misunderstanding” of *sl*m by modern-day “radicals” then it is an error that the founder of *sl*m made as well.
In Muhammad’s time, non-M*sl*ms were put to death merely for speaking out against the new religion and its self-proclaimed prophet.
Likewise, the Jews of Qurayza were summarily rounded-up and executed on Muhammad’s order, even though they had not even fought in battle. Since the life of a non-M*sl*m is cheap, actual physical harm to a M*sl*m is not necessary to justify murder according to the example of Muhammad. It was 50 gold coins for the head of a Sikh.
The Quran meets every criterion by which we define hate speech.
Not only does the message inspire loathing and disregard for others, but the text mandates the superiority of *sl*m, even if the means of establishment is by violent force.
One can always find apologists willing to dismiss the harsh rhetoric of the Quran with creative interpretation, tortuous explanation or outright denial. But their words and deeds almost always belie a concern for *sl*m’s image that does not extend to *sl*m’s victims – at least not with the same sense of urgency – thus proving the point.
Many immigrant groups have settled in the UK and have integrated and done well with some of their customs being adopted by the UK .
However there seems to be one religious group that refuses to and all we get is bang, bang then blame.
*sl*m moreover is a politico-totalitarian concept with many rulings that go against the fabric of this country.
In any society there must be observance of common law and values. Unfortunately many aspects of *sl*mic values are incompatible with democratic norms and the discrimination in the Quran would lead Mohammed to be prosecuted.
The European Court of Human Rights determined on July 31, 2001, that “the institution of Sharia law and a theocratic regime, were incompatible with the requirements of a democratic society.”
One must note how many perpetually offended M*sl*ms rioted and caused much damage over a cartoon or a book .
Where is the outrage and “Not in our name” protests against M*sl*m Jihadi murders in the UK or young M*sl*m men joining ISIL??”
By David Craig, on August 22nd, 2015 The politically-correct were up in arms a couple of weeks ago when Dopey Dave described over a million immigrants swarming into Europe as a ‘swarm’. And, of course, rent-a-gob Katie Hopkins was lambasted when she referred to the migrants as ‘cockroaches’.
As for the constant claims of the BBC and the preachy, self-righteous, professional hand-wringers that many migrants are highly educated and will contribute to our economy. Well here’s a short YouTube video of Eritreans and Sudanese migrants fighting each other in Calais:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zahQq016F14
And here’s another one of Syrians and Afghanis fighting at a refugee camp in Germany:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DN1MMZZgD8
An ignorant idiot like myself might be tempted to conclude that the words ‘swarm’ and ‘cockroaches’ aren’t strong enough. So how about suggesting that ‘a deluge of human (largely *sl*mic) effluent’ is pouring into Europe?
As for our rulers, they’re so cowardly that they they seem impotent in the face of the greatest threat to European civilisation since the Germans’ last attempt to conquer our continent – the coming *sl*mic attempt to conquer Europe could be much more bloody than the Nazis’ efforts.
If civil war does break out in a European country within the next 20 to 30 years, I wonder whose side the military will be on? Will the military support those fighting to preserve the remnants of our civilisation? Or will they suppress those trying to prevent the *sl*mic conquest?
It will be interesting to see.
|
|
