There is no law saying anyone has to take Donald Trump seriously and until recently not many did, even his wives. For most he represented the ugliness of American capitalism, admirable in its energy but unpleasant to look on in all its raw vulgarity.

His attempt to grab the US presidency was a vainglorious joke. There are always ludicrous candidates in the long, long sidle up to the White House. But on December 7th this week,  that changed. Overnight the pratt in the wig became a terrible threat not just to the US Republican Party keeping its hold on Congress, but to all we hold dear, including good old western values and democracy itself.

Among his constant stream of non-PC remarks, in a campaign statement at a rally in South Carolina, he let slip the idea of a ban on Muslim migration to America which ‘should remain until the US authorities ‘can figure out,’ as the press reported, ‘Muslim attitudes to the US.’

What he actually said was not widely reported. He said, migration should stop until America could work out why Muslims hated the US so much. His statement about Muslim hatred of the US was unacceptable to many news agencies.

Condemnation was swift. The White House said his comments were, ‘contrary to US values and its national security interests.’

Republican Jeb Bush, a merciless proponent of capital punishment, who has sent women to their deaths, called him, ‘unhinged.’

David Cameron quickly called his remarks ‘divisive, unhelpful and quite simply wrong’. Labour MP Stella Creasy and the Scottish National Party’s Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh condemned Trump as a ‘hate preacher,’ which of course is a criminal offence.

He even came under fire from that most PC of left-wing quangos, the British Police. Scotland Yard broke off from investigating the heavyweight boxer Tyson Fury, who is under police scrutiny for his recent remarks about gay men, and switched their attention to condemning Trump. They were in a hissy fit because he had said: ‘We have places in London and other places that are so radicalised that police are afraid for their own lives’.

After the death of Lee Rigby almost everyone in London is afraid for their own life but truth has nothing to do with this. Trump was guilty of saying the unsayable. Boris Johnson hastily got involved, saying the fat Republican was speaking ‘utter nonsense’ adding: ‘The only reason I wouldn’t go to some parts of New York is the real risk of meeting Donald Trump.’

Less than twenty four hours after spouting his heretical remarks, a petition on the UK government website to ban him from Britain on the grounds of hate speech had attracted more than 29,000 signatures.

Trump’s crowd-pleasing words (well he gained loud applause in South Carolina, following yet another Muslim outrage last week, the deadliest terror attack since 9/11, when a Muslim couple, believed to have been radicalised, opened fire and killed 14 people at a health centre in San Bernardino).  They also follow hard on the slaughter of young people in Paris.

For some unfathomable reason, our enemies, the people who wish to destroy us and have set about doing it, with guns, knives, bombs and aeroplanes, are above reproach. For the first time in our history, perhaps following a truly Christian precept, we are forced to love our enemy and if we can’t manage that, at least we are not allowed to criticise it. Trump crossed the line. He chose to attack one of the three groups, the others being homosexuals and women who are beyond criticism on all matters.

The only people who are now free to speak their minds in the democratic West are millionaires like Trump, who don’t have a job to keep or a boss to worry about, self-made outsiders who can put two fingers up at the world and also small, often poor, nations which, luckily for them, have been relegated by the West to a role somewhere between harmless eccentric and unknowing child.

These rare individuals and failing states have acquired the role once allotted to village idiots and court jesters who were given licence to say what others could not. Japan is perhaps the strongest contestant for this role. A once booming economy, years of Americanisation and close ties to NATO have not put paid to its own unique (thankfully) take on the world. They have a horrible penal system and hang many people a year, but no one takes any notice of that. Culturally, they are just not on the map and so can do and say what they like.

In the 1980s one  Michio Watanabe, a leader of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party, fought to keep the, ‘ Little Black Sambo’  books in Japanese shops, despite sharp protests and threats of consumer boycotts from black groups in the United States. Worse, speaking generally about Americans, he said: ‘They use credit cards a lot. They have no savings, so they go bankrupt. Among those guys over there are so many blacks and so on, who would think nonchalantly: ‘We’re bankrupt, but from tomorrow on we don’t have to pay anything back. We just can’t use credit cards anymore.’ ’

There were also comments from Yasuhiro Nakasone, then Prime Minister. While the correct translation of Mr. Nakasone’s statements is still debated, he seemed to suggest that American minority groups had lowered either the national intelligence level or the national literacy rate. Which was probably true, but you can’t say it, unless you are in Japan.

In 1991 their government referred to the redoubtable Edith Cresson, then French trade minister, as a ‘crowing hen.’

More pertinently perhaps, they do not allow Muslims into Japan, except as individuals on short-term visas. There will be no mass migration to the ‘Land of the Rising Sun.’

There is no reliable estimate on the Japanese Muslim population, it is now being disputed. Some on the left in Japan claim there are thirty thousand living there, mainly from Indonesia. Others say there are only a few hundred. That is probably the number who openly practise Islam. In 2013, the former president of the Japan Islamic Association, Abu Bakr Morimoto said, ‘Frankly, only one thousand. In the broadest sense, I mean, if we do not exclude those who became Muslims by marriage, and do not practise then the number would be a few thousand.’

Another leader of the Muslim community in Japan, Nur Ad-Din Mori, gave the number as, ‘one in a hundred thousand.’ Japan’s population is 130 million people, so if those Muslim leaders are correct, there must be around 1300 Muslims in Japan. But even if they have lived there for many years they have little chance of citizenship. But it should be added, Japan grants permanent residency to very few foreigners of any kind.

Japan officially forbids exhorting people to convert to Islam (Dawah), any Muslim who actively encourages conversion to Islam is seen as proselytising for a ‘foreign and undesirable culture.’ They face deportation and sometimes jail. Arabic is taught by very few academic institutes.There is an Arabic Islamic Institute in Tokyo, but the language is not taught at the prestigious Tokyo University. The Koran is only permitted in an adapted Japanese version. Islamic dress is not seen on the streets and I am told that Halal food is hard to find except in Indonesian restaurants.

India does not like Muslims of course, neither does Burma, even under the influence of the sainted Aung Sang Suu Kyi. This goes back to the 1750s when Muslims were forbidden to use Halal ritual slaughter as it offended Buddhists.

Russia regards Islam as a lingering threat. Moscow insists on absolute loyalty on the part of its Muslim citizens and refuses to fulfill demands for further autonomy from any of its Islamic republics.

New members of the EU, outside the Balkans, are encountering Muslim immigration for the first time, and have turned it down flat. Hungary and Poland have recently shown themselves outrageously lacking in the trans-continental religion of PC. Last September, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban sent a clear message for the European-bound Muslim refugees fleeing war in Syria and Somalia: ‘Do not come here.’

Speaking outside the European Union headquarters in Brussels, he said: ‘I think we have a right to decide we do not want a large number of Muslim people in our country. We can’t guarantee that you will be accepted.’

He later backed up these sentiments by building a fence along his Serbian border.

Cultural differences between Christians and Muslims were boldly presented as an argument against accepting asylum seekers in Poland. According to the Polish Archbishop Henryk Hoser, Muslim refugees would face challenges when it comes to understanding and accepting Christian values. In defiance of the Pope who ordered Poles to welcome migrants, he said, ‘Undoubtedly, it is much easier for Christians to assimilate in a country which is of Christian origin.’ He also added, ‘Muslims [arriving in Poland] could be condemned to a kind of ‘ghettoisation’ and this must be avoided.’

We haven’t had them before and we don’t want them now was his message, and the Poles have largely agreed and got away with it. Not so Trump, as a would be leader of the Western world, he is not allowed childish freedoms of thought or speech. He is in deep trouble even though he has  not said that Muslims should be deported from the US, only that more should not be allowed in, until a later date, when he says, the Americans will have ‘worked out the problem.’

He has been condemned for ‘hate speak’ but he is not really talking about race. Islam is not a race, and he was clumsily addressing the effects of deep cultural difference. In this case fear, based on reality. Many more people would surely welcome Muslims in, if they would agree to change and integrate, but that is not happening. Trump entered the forbidden zone by talking about hate; theirs not  ours.

This is forbidden, as it contradicts Muslim and left-wing propaganda which sees them as victims of western oppression. This is sadly a them and us situation and it is the people in power in the West, from Obama to Corbyn, who deny that hatred, refuse to stand up to it and firmly assert those good old American values that are the real mystery. They are the problem that Trump and his followers will have to fathom out.


(Image Courtesy of Gage Skidmore, Flickr)


  1. “a petition on the UK government website to ban him from Britain on the grounds of hate speech had attracted more than 29,000 signatures.”

    …and it was still gathering signatures at a rate of 11,000 per hour at 2am this Thursday morning.

    Far be it from me to suggest that “end justifies the means” hard-left activists have rigged the poll, and others like it.

    • It has hit 400,000 now. And let us not forget that the British govt ignored a petition of over 600,000 when redefining marriage….

    • Let us also remember that Pamela Geller is still apparently forbidden from entering the UK. A travesty, but apparently UK Gov’t are convinced that appeasement will work this time.

      • It’s the hypocrisy that is so ridiculous. In a nutshell, they want to restrict somebody’s travel because he wants to restrict somebody else’s travel….

      • A complete travesty
        In that period the Government were still condoning & the taxpayer funding, the hate preacher Anjem Choudary

    • Hmm

      The most cursory inspection of the petition on the HoP website using the map facility shows that the most faux outrage seems to be in Labour constituencies and not in neighbouring Tory/LibDem ones

      Most of the UK can’t care less

      Some determined petition manipulation going on I think

    • More than a million petitioned for Jeremy Clarkson to be re-instated; that was ignored too. Over 400,000 petitioned for an end to immigration into the UK last month–also ignored. My petition for Danny Cohen to be dismissed from the BBC under the name of a well known Islamic activist and jailbird got 3200 petitioners and he resigned a month later.

    • 10.50 pm on Thursday and it’s at 486,761, with 11,182 signatures in the last hour.

      Insane people out there.

  2. ” … when a Muslim couple, believed to have been radicalised, opened fire and killed 14 people at a health centre in San Bernardino).”
    I do wish people would stop using this idea of people being “radicalised” as though perfectly ordinary, peaceful people suddenly catch a virus, are hypnotised against their will, or perhaps catch an ice-splinter from the Ice Queen in the corner of their eye. It all sounds as though it is beyond their control, someone else made them do it. Whereas in fact they are, and always were, murderous scum.

    • The trouble is that exposure to the Koran and Hadith renders people susceptible to extreme radicalisation – as the words of hate are already in there and it doesn’t take much to push them into direct action.

    • I think it is probably correct that some Muslims can be ‘radicalised’. Those who live peaceful lives and are good Muslims usually have little real knowledge of Islam and the Koran – for them it is a cultural thing (just as so many people in this country are merely ‘cultural Christians’). If any decide to take their religion seriously they either become radicalised or cease to be Muslims (except perhaps culturally), become secularists or become Christians – dangerous for them unless they leave their Muslim community.

  3. Thank you. Succinct, and clearly put. This is an important message which needs saying. The ‘bury your head in the sand’ approach is not working.
    We are facing a real problem, and the failure of (most) Western governments to address this, though they must surely recognise it (and actively appear to welcome it), is extremely worrying.
    I wish you well with the tidal wave of right-on internet hatred about to be unleashed upon you, and salute your bravery in saying what a lot of us believe.

  4. Trump’s proposal is an extremely intelligent and perceptive one. We
    may all in future have to ask whether people are Western citizens or
    moslems first.

    islam itself is not simply a religion in the
    western sense – it is also a political system inimical to our values.
    There’s no long term place in Europe or the US for mohammedan colonies.

    • “Otherwise they, and we, have to ask why any moslem immigration was ever permitted.”

      We are coming up on the half-century mark of the Rivers of Blood Speech. Another man many found repellent asked questions about the advisability of easy immigration. But hey, let’s forget there was plenty of forewarning.

      • They should put a statue of Powell in the House of Commons, and facing it, start each day with an apology to his memory.

        • Forgotten in all this is that Enoch Powell, prior to that, had been part of the effort to decriminalise homosexuality. That’s another discussion for another day (perhaps appropriate here, in a tenuous shari’a law context?), but, “the good men do is oft interred with their bones…”. Absent the RoBS, he would be remembered quite differently by certain demographic segments.

          • Of course, there was never a RoBS. It was actually a LTRISTTSTRTFWMBS*. But, of course, RoBS suited, and continues to suit, the needs of those who wish to vilify Powell (and I do realise that you are not one of them, of course).

            *”Like the Roman, I seem to see the River Tiber foaming with much blood.”

          • As with, oh well, just about everything else, the mainstream media, then as now, oversimplifies for the benefit of the less-quick-witted amongst us, and breaks it down to digestible little bite-size portions– however misleading those may be. How many people, when hearing the name of Powell (assuming they know who he even was), must think he was speaking of rivers of blood in the streets or some such. Most, I should wager. My only reason for using the “shorthand” was that to have called it anything else would have been a straying into the weeds of, e.g., “Enoch Powell’s speech of [such-and-such date], commonly though erroneously called the Rivers of Blood speech,” etc. etc., blunting the point I was trying to make.

  5. Western civilisation is at stake and our donkey”leaders” are just “HEE-HAWING” telling us everything will be alright!

  6. We know that many Moslem people deeply resent Western society and its peoples. We know this because many of its preachers tell us so. We know that many Moslem people hate Western society and its peoples. We know this because they kill and maim many of our number with bombs and bullets and various other weapons. We know all this, and some of us are a wee bit anxious as a consequence. However, “respectable people” rush to tell us how despicable it is to harbour such anxieties because, no matter how many are killed and maimed in its name, Islam is a religion of peace.

  7. I am waiting, a long time I think, for Tories, toffs and the wealthy to receive the same slavish ptotection as everyone else.

  8. Things have got pretty bad when we have to hold Trump in any kind of high regard. He does expose the states dirty washing, but for the wrong purpose. He still sees the state as the mechanism for correcting social failures, when they are I fact the key cause of them.

    We don’t need to ‘welcome in Muslims’ or any other religious/cultural group. What the state fails to do is to protect basic, individual human rights which should be its sole purpose. When it fails in its basic duty, then it goes flailing about into increasingly wide sector of issues totally unrelated to its key responsibility.

    Muslims should not be ‘forced to integrate’, instead we should all be free to discriminate. That right to discrimination should be protected. The right to go peacefully about ones business should be protected. This must apply in religious, cultural or any other kind of group as it does to any unrelated individual.

    I noticed a piece in the speccy today in which Cameron congratulated himself on his establishment of homosexual marriage. Yet, government should never have been in the position of preventing homosexual marriage in the first place and now it’s forcing homosexual marriage onto those that don’t wish it. In other words the same oppression metered out to homosexuals has now been exacted on yet another group. Cameron clearly does not see it. Conservatives/republicans are, in many ways, far more socially statist and interventionist than labour/ democrats.

  9. “After the death of Lee Rigby almost everyone in London is afraid for their own life”

    Are they? Are there are statistics to support the claim in the article, or is this simply a convenient fiction?

    I’m not afraid for my own life, my family are not, my friends are not and those colleagues I have talked to are not. People who visit me, from all over the world, are not. An entirely unscientific sample, but we are certainly not ludicrously optimistic individuals.

    Random violence by sad and possibly unhinged individuals happens. I was much, much more concerned about my safety in London before the police began to get a reasonable grasp on gun crime. I’m more worried when crossing the road. Both of these are statistically much more likely to threaten me than one off unusual events. But perish the thought we act rationally.

    • Absolutely agree. The vast majority of people I know and meet in London are not afraid for their lives from the sort of attack that killed Lee Rigby. Yeah, it is an unscientific way of assessing things, but no more so than the furious assertion of the author.

    • My wife travels into central London every day and is worried about such things now. She changes tube carriages if she doesn’t like the look of certain people. Common sense.

  10. I would like to see a religious demographic of the people who signed the Trump petition. I suspect there is a bit of organised chicanery.

  11. I am one of those few foreigners who has gained permanent residence in Japan. Some of what you say about the attitude to Muslims is inaccurate, in fact some commercial enterprises provide Muslim prayer rooms and suitable food, but only because in Japan ‘ the customer is king’. There are also a few Muslim refugees accepted from Myanmar.

    But you are right in principle. The Japanese authorities just don’t take any nonsense from immigrants. Any trouble and you are out, visa revoked and no explanation necessary. Sure, you can appeal the decision from overseas, at great expense and all in Japanese, if you can find a lawyer to take the case. And lose.

    The UK should smarten itself up and stop putting up with all this politically correct, hand-wringing leftie tosh. Stand up for your own values, beliefs and way of life and if any Muslim doesn’t like them they can proceed to the Islamic hell-hole of their choice.

    • “The UK should smarten itself up and stop putting up with all this politically correct, hand-wringing leftie tosh.”

      Ah, if only. If only…… 😉

      • The worm may be turning. Earlier this week the Guardian ran an article of the usual ‘Nothing to do with Islam’ variety. There were huge numbers of comments, of which the vast majority rejected this appeasement and a lot of them said they were sick of the said leftie tosh. Yes, the Guardian.

        • Leftie tosh is a theory. A model that has been tried and tested.

          No good hanging on to a model that does not work .

          Like clinging to the notion of a flat earth

          Leftie Tosh theories sound fine but have been proved to be wrong over the last 50 years or more. . They desperately need new ideas. ( Mind so do the right. Their solution in the form of the CP is to steal left wing ideas by the truckload and call them Conservative ideas)

  12. Half the people in the world back Trump, but the only people whose views matter in Britain are the intolerant left….The BBC have deemed it so, so of course it must be true, because the BBC are totally neutral…(sic)

  13. And of course non Muslims are free to practice their faith in such tolerant countries as KSA, Pakistan, Sudan, etc etc without fear or discrimination.

  14. The left adopted Islam, as a minority to champion, over a generation ago. Part of
    their promotion of minorities that might weaken the old English Christian establishment,
    which is the big enemy to liberals. Since then the confidence and influence of
    the Anglican church has steadily declined. The growth in numbers and confidence
    of Islam, on the other hand, has been remarkable, with some areas of our cities
    becoming predominantly Muslim in character. If I didn’t care for the church’s
    witness and for our country I would be amused to sit back and watch to see when
    our liberal superiors will eventually wake up to the fate that awaits them.
    Islam will dominate our country long before it reaches 50% of the population.
    Its discipline, cohesion and deep faith give it far more hitting power than
    the transient, flimsy and amorphous belief system of liberal atheism.

    • You’re right about the CofE’s loss of confidence. Does the Archbishop of Canterbury, or any of his bishops, actually believe in God? Just asking …

    • Not sure its a loss of confidence by the CoE or rather it becoming another victim of the Long March through the Institutions. Many of its clergy, e.g. Giles Fraser, seem more rooted in left wing politics than in faith and there seems to be a strong agenda to recast Christian religion as communist religion.

  15. If we want permanently to remove the threat to our way of
    life from various groups round the world, we should move as quickly as possible
    to renewable energy for all our needs.

    Do the two things seem unconnected?

    As an example of this truth, Syria today has approximately
    23 million citizens; Iraq just over 34 million. Yet the lives of these 57 million
    people have for years been completely ruined by, at the very most, 200,000
    followers of the currently infamous group. The lives of many more globally have
    been taken or damaged.

    Imagine if this situation were inverted through a complete
    lack of oil revenues in the producer countries and their resultant failure even
    to approach balanced budgets. In this case the millions of ordinary people mentioned
    above would revolt, rightly demanding access to jobs, housing, healthcare and
    education, with justified questions about where all the oil revenues had gone.
    Certainly we can imagine that such a situation would focus the minds of the
    countries’ leaders more closely on their domestic issues, rather than on
    allegedly funding fighters of foreign adventures, whether for political or
    religious affiliation.

    Naturally, this would also eliminate the revenues such fighters
    derive from their own, illegal sales of oil. In both cases, this would be a
    permanent change, as no-one would choose to return to a fossil-fuel based

    We can imagine that the problems at that point in the
    countries of the Middle East, South America and Russia would make current conflicts
    seem like a sunny summer’s day.

    This is not an hypothesis, but an observation of what will
    inevitably happen in the next few years as our use of renewable energy
    inexorably increases. It is up to our politicians to manage the situation and
    to minimise the risks for us all. We are already ‘Overoil’; we are just taking
    time to wean ourselves from it.

    A cleaner planet with no threats from those who would
    destroy our way of life: now who would want that?

    See my books on this and other subjects at:

  16. I am still ambivalent about my reaction but I can’t understand why – when Trump and Fury express an opinion – it is a hate crime worthy of hysteria and investigation but anyone who chooses can spew out hatred and venom against the west and it is merely freedom of speech. When I get an answer to that, maybe it will help me to resolve how I feel.

    • The media don’t care about the consequences of their manipulation; they only care about acting morally superior.

    • The clue is that it’s nothing to do with “hate”, but all about suppressing any point of view which is, let’s say, inconvenient.

      And that’s why anti-West “hatred” is allowed, whereas any criticism – ooops, sorry, “hatred” – of (e.g.) Islam is not.

  17. Politicians want fill your country with Woodpile Dwellers, because they are much more reliable voters, and are easily bought on the cheap.
    So politicians get to stay in power, and keep on getting richer.

  18. Great article. Trumps comments and the response to them from the PC brigade, throw into relief the kind of delusionally nihilistic world that brigade lives in. They would rather be sacrificed on the altar of Political Correctness (literally in some case) than give up their sense of victimhood-by-proxy for a group of people whose religious belief is that all non-muslims are evil and deserve death.

    I suspect this debate wil not stop here. As more muslims commit atrocities against the West, there will be more Donald Trumps to tell us we are mindless slaves to political correctness. I just hope they are never silenced.

  19. Have I got this right: jihad’s kill 130 in Paris and Hollande (Socialist) says we’re at war, freezes France’s borders to keep Muslim extremists killers out, declares state of emergency, bombs Raqqa, and organizes arrest of over 300 suspects? Applauded for new found resolve all of
    the world goes French, tricolor and Marseillaise displayed and sung.

    Jihadi’s kill 14 in San Bernardino and Trump (capitalist) says we’re at war, calls for temp freeze on new Muslim migrants until America is sure Muslim extremists killers can be kept out… Booed to high heaven, universal condemnation, Trump called racist, neo-fascist bigot, not a star
    spangled banner to be seen.

    Is it the body count? Is it the fact one is an incumbent socialist the other an insurgent capitalist? Or is it that American lives don’t in fact matter?

  20. For me the important thing is that Mr. Trump (who I have no time for myself) is protected by his country’s constitution in saying what he will without getting investigated by the police. And his opponents of get to give a goodly repost. I was interested in a Channel 4 (or was it Newsnight?) piece in which a Trump supporter and American Muslim were given the space to set out their view. The british “anchor” was clearly hostile to Trump but what I was impressed by was the two Americans. Both expected and did set out their opinions and evidence, assumed the right to say things and be rebutted and appealed to their constitutional right to disagree. Frankly I was struck by the contrast with the juvenile nature of our supposed debates in public which often appear to end in wanting “teacher” (the Police Employer Parliament) to shut up the nasty person disagreeing with the “official line”. Somehow we have become so easily censored compared to our former colonies. Clearly the European Convention on Human rights is not fit for purpose if it cannot guarantee freedom of speech and belief like the Constitution of the USA.

    • Despite the “Je Suis Charlie” nonsense the UK has a worrying problem with the police interfering in and suppressing freedom of speech. Whether or not they prosecute their “investigations” into what people have said or written have a ‘chilling’ effect on free debate. The rot probably set in with New Labour’s bad laws but it seems to have got much worse recently with exactly the sort of juvenile “tell teacher” intolerance you describe.

      Never thought I would live in an England where the police investigate what people say or write, or where their investigations are so blatantly partisan and politically motivated.

  21. If an unfortunate repeat of the Paris attacks were to occur in the UK
    our politicians and press would never admit they should have listened to
    Trump. They would explain that it was all Trump’s fault for offending
    our Muslim friends.

  22. There are two related but separate issues, here. One is Muslims, the other is Islam.

    For the past couple of centuries, the West has been immersed in an ideological civil war. It’s something of a cold war, but it is nonetheless a struggle for dominance between Christianity and Atheist Secularism. And, for the most part, our once-Christian society has been hoodwinked into thinking that not only must they give Atheism (as opposed to atheists) a place at the table, but that it is to be a privileged place.

    Note that ideologies are not neutral; by their nature, they are aspirational. The Christian and the Atheist may well be able to dwell together as neighbours, but their Ideologies must struggle for ascendence or die.

    Into this mess comes Islam. It is a third ideology, and is in conflict with both Christianity and Atheism. A wise and robust society would respond “your people may come and go, but your ideology must remain outside”. Yet we are weakened by our conflict, and do not have the wisdom or stomach to realise what a third player will do to shatter the uneasy Ideological cold war in which we find ourselves.

    • You can spin it all you want, but the only good Muslim is a Muslim in the Middle East miles away from the civilized world.

      A religion that actually has a word for deceiving Infidels – Taqqiyah – does not exactly encourage trusting even apparently decent Muslims.

  23. Every day I see an article that articulates why we should shut down the cursed BBC and end the TV Tax. The BBC is capable of hounding anyone who does not share their narrative until the pressure becomes unbearable. Shut it down, it is undemocratic, it spreads propaganda, it does not represent us, and it does not report and inform.

    • After watching QT in Bath last night something does need to be done about the BBC. Despite the conservative majority in Bath the audience appeared to be mainly Corbyn supporters. When Dimbleby asked the audience if they all supported Corbyn there was a noise wall of clapping, cheering and whooping that embarrassed even him.

  24. So glad I read this article…makes me sad to live in the UK knowing we are probably too far along the path to ever turn around….in a few decades the Muslim numbers will be enough to take the whole country…The rest of Europe too…..

  25. The sad morons and the dregs of society(as you refer to them in an older post) are the people who react hysterically whenever anyone has the temerity to express an opinion which disagrees with the current politically correct consensus. If Donald Trump had said something truly repellent such as “All Muslims should be killed”, then the reaction we’ve seen to him about banning him would have been understandable.

    As it is, he has simply asked that, after numerous murderous atrocities by Islamic fundamentalists, it’s perhaps time that the U.S. (as a temporary emergency measure) stopped all known foreign muslims entering the USA. For many years, the USA banned all known communists or communist sympathisers. Charlie Chaplin was banned from entering the USA because he once had mildly communist sympathies. I don’t recall the British banning any American politicians in the past because of the American government’s ban on known communists.

  26. Fascist! Would that be Mussolini’s or Hitler’s National Socialism? Or don’t you know the difference? Terrorist sympathiser

  27. Cameron/Blair etc support bombing the **** out of muslims – why is that morally better than not letting them immigrate?

  28. I’m sure that you’re parents a so proud that their little darling turned into a full-time, internet-trolling, clueless imbecile.

    Than again, I guess not.

Comments are closed.