A letter from Rhino Times Reader Austin Morris
When I emigrated from the UK in 1983 I was quite proud of the fact that the Head of State, Head of Government, and Mayor of the Capital City were all women (Her Majesty The Queen, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, and Dame Mary Donaldson).
It reflected the decency and open mindedness of the British people.
Britain is often accused by the Left of being a sclerotic, sexist, patriarchal, and misogynistic society, but this reality disproved their lies.
Forty-three years ago Britain was still British.
It is no longer British. The most common baby boy’s name in the UK is now Mohammed. The Mayor of London is a Pakistani Muslim who is – at this moment – performing his Islamist required Hajj – a mission to Mecca that is required of all Muslims.
My brother was shocked just the other day to see a man in full muslim garb walking along a sidewalk in our middle class neighbourhood in Leeds, followed by a woman, six paces behind, dressed in some all covering, completely black vestments (and it was nearly 90 Degrees).
Is this important? Should it give us pause? Let’s just say that in today’s Britain such people would never tolerate women in the three major power positions as their leaders. These are people who force their women to cover themselves, and walk behind them.
If the Left ever wanted to talk about sexist, patriarchal, and misogynistic societies, they only need cast their eyes to the backward Muslim nations of the World. And now the Mohammedans are in Europe, and they vote monolithically for fellow Muslims, as demanded by their cult.
Sadly, this is today’s Britain.
I liked Britain better when it was British.
Don’t let it happen here.
– Austin Morris
2021 Census data = 83% of Great Britian is White. 6% of Great Britian is Muslim.
Yes, Muhammad is the most common name for newborn boys in UK, but not because Muslims babies out number other babies. It is because it is a highly traditional name in the Muslim community that is assigned to male first born where other cultures split their baby names across hundreds of different trendy or modern choices and do not have a similar common name usage that compares to Muhamad. It does not in any way reflect a ‘take over’ of British culture by the Muslim community as implied in this letter.
Whether a woman wearing a burka is a sign of repression is a complex issue as the meaning behind the garment changes completely depending on where the woman is living and why she is wearing it. If mandated by law as in some middle east countries, it is clearly a sign of repression given the lack of personal choice. But in countries like Great Britian, it is not as clear. Sometimes it is due to patriarchal pressure but other times it is an act of religious devotion and personal choice that is hard for people outside of the religion or culture to understand. There are similar practices in the US with the Amish, Jehovah Witnesses, etc… While not as visibly different, they are religious mandates that I personally don’t understand or agree with, yet I fully support their voluntary participation in the practice.
We on the left are very happy to discuss and step up to challenge sexist, patriarchal, and misogynistic societies. BUT, we are not ignorant enough to assume all women want the same things so respect the complexity of the issues put forward in this letter.
Cultural insensitively such as illustrated in this letter is mostly born of ignorance and fear of things that are different. I had similar questions about Muslim culture as it is not something we have a great deal of exposure to here in the south. So, I took advantage when working from Philly to engage with a number of co-workers (male and female) from the Muslim community and learned a great deal. THAT is DEI and Woke behavior. Give it a try sometime. You will learn a great deal.
I fear it is the Right / Conservative’s prerogative to limit women’s rights more broadly in the US in support of their personal religious beliefs. Just look at the recent bill submitted in NC legislature that would declare the death penalty eligibility for women who allow their IVF fertilized eggs to be destroyed. The right-wing movement has long proposed legislation based on religious views that limit women’s rights. Happy to discuss.
Best wishes
—————-
Blah… blah…. blah….
Predictable pedestrian Leftist tripe from a left wing wanker. And he has the nerve to instruct me on how I might learn something. About my own country.
How I wish for a Leftist who’s worthy of debate.
Ugh….no….you might learn something about people from different cultures.
—————
I bet I have experienced more cultures than you have, or ever will, “Professor”.
Throwing hate at other cultures isn’t ‘experience’, its just hate.
————-
Nobody knows what you’re talking about, mate. Everything I say, your reaction is”Hater!”, “Bigot!”, Racist!”.
Nobody takes you seriously here any longer. You’re just a running joke.
I wrote a well-structured statement countering your letter and what did you do? Just more of you ignoring facts and deflecting as you are incapable of defending you letter in the face of those facts as I presented. Not shocked. You can’t even defend yourself against the label of bigot except to say you don’t ‘like’ it.
But you be you.
Cheers
————-
Your response to my letter is pathetic rubbish. It’s points are either incorrect, irrelevant, or addressing charges that I never made.
You’re an idiot – and a pompous pretentious one…. “Professor” (he’s not a professor).
Again, your lack of any details reads as just more deflection for your inability to defend your position on the topic in the face of a well-structured counter argument.
Best wishes
————–
You couldn’t structure a pork pie.
Aaaaaand now we are back to childish tantrums. LOL
————–
And please correct the headline, Scott.
If you need a proof reader, I’ll gladly volunteer (free).
.
So the “Professor” is trying to portray the Muslim subjugation of women as a Western conservative thing.
Wow. I have never seen such a travesty of truth.
That’s not at all what said but I understand the complexity of my position is too much for you to keep up…..
.
– “I fear it is the Right/Conservative’s prerogative to limit women’s rights more broadly in the US in support of their personal religious beliefs.” – Professor, May 28th @ 12:29pm.
———————————-
Your comment is right there in black & white, buddy. You’re trying to portray the subjugation of women as attributable to the American Right, when it is crystal clear that this takes place overwhelmingly in Muslim countries, not in Western countries.
– SO IT IS WHAT YOU SAID.
And here’s a tip. You don’t look very good when you imply that others are too stupid to understand your comments. You just look like a condescending ass*ole who thinks he’s a genius.
And you can’t even carry it off… “Professor”.
You just don’t have it between the ears.
————–
And he clearly doesn’t even understand the meaning of the word prerogative.
You said I framed it as ‘Muslim subjugation of women as a Western conservative thing.’ Which I didnt say and nor did I make that comparison….i just worry more about women in the US more than in the middle east even though not as server as what women face in the middle east. The US is where live and have deep personal relationships with several important women in my life.
I fully understand your lack of reading comprehension abilities and will try to be more direct next time so you aren’t as easliy confused next time.
Hope that helps.
Al Hare,
Well placed shot sir, well placed.
And your Rhodesian double-tap followup was equally good.
.
Thank you Patrick Henry! Yeah, I nailed him dead to rights there – in his own words.
But it doesn’t make any difference. This creep just tries to worm his way out and squirm his way out, whenever he’s been proven wrong.
He is incapable of admitting he’s wrong. He’s not big enough.
Sorry little ass*ole who’s overcompensating for an inferiority complex.
Al Hare,
Please, it’s Patrick to those who express decency and logical sense.
We may have not, and possibly will have disagreements in the future on some subjects, but we still show common decency to one another even then, as do a majority of folks on this forum. But we have all noticed that a LITERAL outsider insists on ATTEMPTING to demonstrate (IMO) superiority over us that have to live in His Omnipotence’s world..
I was admonished and partially censored for using Chris’ full name even though HE has published it on this forum in the past. I did not agree with it, but out of respect to Scott I reverted to my original use.
PS
“Cultural sensitivity”…?
Is he talking about Western Christians getting arrested when they bring a Bible into a Muslim country in their luggage?
Sorry, that’s “cultural Insensitivity”.
Let me begin this response with the facts that I have lived, not with rhetoric that certain people want to spew in ignorance. As an Army brat I have grown up living in many countries around the world. It’s not opinion I’m offering but rather life experiences. At one point in my life our family lived in Turkey, a Muslim country. Every day we heard the calls to prayer like clockwork. We Americans were never to interrupt these times in any way or fashion. We were told to be quiet and respectful of the native people as I hear the term tossed about. (I truly don’t know what else to call an American by the way considering we are about to celebrate our 250th anniversary as a country.) Regardless of how a country is created it still remains the fact that we are all native to America unless you’ve gained citizenship by legal means. Yet I digress. Any way as Americans living in this Arabic country we had to learn the language in order to buy groceries at the local shops, use our own church which was 1 church for every Protestant religion in one service, and not talk about God in any way shape or form to the people who lived there or there would be consequences. My siblings and I had to learn the Turkish language to function in every day life, okay we adapted. But it’s more what I witnessed living there that impacted me the most. The poor living conditions, the women did have to remain covered, and the children were sent out to beg every day to help make ends meet.
This was tragic to my young self because I couldn’t fathom how terrible the men treated the women and children. My mother tried to give clothing to some children begging one day at our apartment bldg (yes we couldn’t buy a house over there we weren’t Turkish citizens) and the next day they brought the clothes back to where we lived and believe me they had been beaten by someone. Lesson here is we adapted to the country we lived in and they did NOT adapt to Americans. Another tid bit about how they treat people over in those countries; when a boy turned 12 he was placed on a horse and paraded thru the streets on his way to be circumcised. Then after the operation he was put back on a horse and paraded once again. Want to talk about mutilation and how awful it would be to ride a horse after that?!? Even I felt sorry for the boys. Again I was so happy when our plane returned us to US soil.
As a D.A.R. I can tell you that my family heritage is one very rich in service for this country and I am VERY proud of that. What I don’t care for is people who insist that when I call my pharmacy or internet provider etc i have to choose between my language or another one. Other countries are not so obliging to Americans.
All of this is to say while I have no problem whatsoever with people obtaining citizenship legally I do have issues with trying to make me adapt to their way of the life which is the one they chose to leave. They come here for a better life so adapt to what is here. It’s obviously worked for 250 years so quit trying to change our country to make it like the one you left!
I am courteous to everyone but I have a problem when someone tries to tell me that I “have to accept” a tradition or a festival that hasn’t been part of the United States since our country was conceived.
I would tell people who don’t understand this reply to please go live in another country for a year or two and see how welcomed you are then come back home and I guarantee you will have a deeper appreciation for this grand ole country, the United States of America. Half of the complainers about this land being “stolen” don’t realize that most countries in the world have been stolen from someone else too. Doesn’t make it right but damn it hasn’t happened in hundreds of years. Get over it because nobody was alive when it all took place so live and learn. History teaches if you let it.
I know that since the American Revolution my family has fought for all of our freedoms and a little appreciation and respect for our country, our traditions, our free way of life due to their service should be honored not belittled thru whining.
Thanks for reading and by the way God bless America, our people and our freedoms.
Thank you for sharing your experiences. Living abroad can certainly provide valuable perspective, and I appreciate the sacrifices families often make while serving or working overseas.
That said, I would caution against drawing broad conclusions about immigrants, cultures, or the American experience from any single country’s practices. The fact that Americans adapted to local customs while living in Turkey does not necessarily mean that cultural adaptation in the United States should work identically. Americans in Turkey were guests living under the laws and traditions of another sovereign nation. Immigrants who become Americans are not simply guests; they become participants in a society that has always been shaped by successive waves of newcomers.
The United States has never been culturally static. Many traditions that are now considered quintessentially American, from foods and holidays to music and religious practices, were introduced by immigrant groups who were once viewed with suspicion. German, Irish, Italian, Jewish, Chinese, and many other communities were all told at various points that they should abandon their customs entirely and assimilate without changing America. Yet over time they became part of what America is today.
It is important to distinguish between accommodation and coercion. Offering services in multiple languages, recognizing cultural festivals, or allowing people to practice their faith does not require anyone else to abandon their own traditions. A pluralistic society can honor both its shared civic values and the diversity of its citizens.
Finally, respect for American history and institutions is not diminished by recognizing that the nation continues to evolve. In many ways, adaptation has been one of America’s defining strengths. The question is not whether America changes—it always has—but whether those changes remain consistent with constitutional principles of liberty, equality, and opportunity for all.
But Chris you forgot 1 very important fact in your reply, what about all of the ILLEGALS that you champion for. You didn’t mention anything about them Especially the part about becoming an American citizen that you have to learn to speak English. If they want to live here, fine then at least learn to speak English
So you “caution” me on my life, interesting. .You are part of the problem. You are passively telling me to adapt which is the purpose of Austin’s letter, to warn against this type of behavior. Lenin has a term for people that have the mentality like yours and they’re called useful idiots. Not going to argue with you just wanted to say that unless you have lived outside the United States in an Arabian country I’m done with this conversation. I would venture you have never lived outside the Piedmont Triad. If I’m wrong on that point I would venture to say that you’ve never lived outside this country and your argument is moot. Have a good time arguing but remember this, “ Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions” Proverbs 18:2.
————-
Brilliant reply !
This guy is a smart alec who knows everything about everything – after 10 minutes’ research on his laptop in his underwear.
He’s a wanker who wanks away between commenting.
Thank you for your real world insight, Nom de Plume.
So your argument is that because you lived in one country decades ago, your conclusions about immigration are valid, but anyone who disagrees with you must first meet a residency requirement that you personally establish?
That’s not really an argument. It’s just a way of declaring yourself the winner before the discussion starts.
You shared your experiences in Turkey. Fair enough. I responded by pointing out that one country’s customs don’t tell us everything about immigrants or immigration in America. Instead of addressing that point, you switched to questioning where I’ve lived and calling me a “useful idiot.”
Ironically, that’s usually what people do when they’re unable to rebut the actual argument.
Your experiences are evidence of what you saw in Turkey. They are not evidence that every immigrant group is trying to make America like the country they left. That’s the leap I challenged, and it’s the leap you still haven’t defended.
Cheers
————–
Thank YOU, Nom de Plume!
In your genuine real life experience you have witnessed the barbarism of Islam. And yet simultaneously you have asserted that you have no quarrel with such people if they choose to come to America – provided they are willing to integrate and accept American values.
That is the issue.
That is the $64,000 Question.
I am an immigrant. I can’t understand why people who despise the USA want to come here, but it seems that many do. Why would you want to live in a country whose values you despise? Unless you want to conquer it.
I’m only a door-to-door salesman here, but I admit that I have done well over the last 30 years with myself and my small team. Most days I say a little prayer after I have succeeded each day – because success is definitely NOT assured in door-to-door selling. It’s a challenging game.
My wife thinks it’s funny. I say “Thank you Jesus for my sales… now it’s time for a couple of ales”.
I’m grateful to be in this wonderful country.
Nom de Plume,
Thank you for the open, intelligent, and informative posting.
I want to especially point out to folks your line” Lesson here is we adapted to the country we lived in and they did NOT adapt to Americans.” Too many times during my tours overseas I watched and was embarrassed by those of my countryman who demonstrated the ‘ugly American’ syndrome. When an Egyptian merchant didn’t understand what they were trying to say, they would begin raising their voice. One time I got so frustrated I approached them and said “He’s not deaf, he doesn’t understand English.” I was cursed out and told to go away BY THE AMERICAN.
I believe immigrants have the right to practice their beliefs, their customs, their traditions up to a point. As with all things, I believe their rights stop at the end of my nose. We have laws. Those laws apply to all equally regardless of where you are from. If you do not like that then thank you for coming, hope you enjoyed your visit, there’s the door.
We are a melting pot. And when you melt things together they meld, no one rises to the top and separates itself.
.
When you put a teaspoon of dirty water into a pitcher of clean pure water, you get a pitcher of dirty water.
Thanks for the update . . . .Chris.
I will not deny that I prefer a homogenous culture in our society. When other cultures are forced, yes forced, on US citizens, native citizens lose. The government forces behavior through laws such as enhanced punishment.
Why are native US citizens forced to accept Somalis into our country because our government allows it? They brought their fraud culture here and it has cost the US taxpayers their own money that was paid into the tax coffers. I did not vote to allow the Somalis here. As far as Muslims, I prefer Muslims stay in the countries from which they came. An American citizen should not have to accept without complaint call to prayer and be confronted with the threat of any law except the one this country was founded on and the one up until the 1960s everyone here lived under. Why would a Muslim move from their own homogenous culture to live in a culture that they despise? Could it be because they have plans to change our western culture to what they prefer?
Professor, you might be tolerant of whatever comes our culture’s way, but I am not and I don’t apologize for that. I live by the code of the camel’s nose.
Native US citizens? Like the Hispanics that have lived in the south western part of the US long before Europeans immgranted here? Good fornyou for supporting thr US’s long storied hispanic cultire.
Um, “professor”, “Hispanic” derives from the Spanish peninsula, known as Hispania historically. So, you are basically saying that the Hispanic conquerors (AKA Europeans) were native to Mexico and Central America? No, Dummy. They speak Spanish and Portuguese in Mexico, Central, and South America because those countries conquered the indigenous people there. Read a history book man. So dumb.
don,
You beat me to the punch. Maybe Chris needs to turn in one of many ‘degrees’.
I understand the confusion of my statement as I simplified the history for brevity’s sake.
While the Spanish did have a few settlements in what the US is today, most of their exploration and settlement was in South America in the limited pursuit of gold versus formation of a new country for immigration as was done 100 years later by European settlers in N. America. (hence my use of the phrase European Immigration versus Spanish Conquests). Furthermore, decades before the Mexican America war, the Spanish had been driven out of north and south America leaving the fully independent Republic of Mexico. Ergo, Mexico was now native to the areas independent of Spain and therefore native the land before the Mexican American war that led to the US purchase of what is today the Southwestern US.
So while certainly technically correct, it is easier to say there were native Hispanics (Spanish speaking) before the land became the US and immigrated to and populated by European settlers. The land was Mexican before it was American is even a better way of getting the point across.
Hope that helps.
Cheers.
So because Spain conquered them first, that’s ok? They are not native Hispanics in Mexico. It is a conquered nation that exterminated the indigenous people for the most part. That’s why no one speaks Mayan or Aztec or what have you. They speak Spanish because they were conquered and destroyed by….the European Spanish. You’re an idiot.
The impact is the same, they were Hispanic (majority spoke Spanish) and were on the land before it was purchased by America after the Mexican American war. Are you arguing they were all direct descendants of Spanish settlers and not native to the land? If you believe THAT, you are the idiot.
History shows that 50% to 60% of population were direct descendants of pre-Columbian inhabitants….many did not speak Spanish except for purposes of trade. These people spoke Nahuatl or Maya. ~20% were ethnically Spanish but born locally and spoke Spanish while the remaining were Mestizos….mixed between Spanish ethnic origin and pre-Columbian inhabitants (and spoke mostly Spanish)….
So yeah, they were native Hispanic prior to US purchase of the land.
So dumb that I don’t even know how to respond. You jump through so many hoops just to avoid saying you made a mistake and end up just vomiting out gibberish that you have clearly pulled from your AI Think-bot.
So dumb, man.
So you are saying the AI is an idiot with your accusation? Weird.
No, you are for relying on it to form your answers. Use your own brain and just admit that you were wrong to say Hispanics are indigenous to Mexico. They absolutely are not any more than blacks and whites are indigenous to America.
I admitted my initial response was confusing due to its brevity. The statement that the ‘US had a long history of Hispanic culture well before the US was fully settled’ is fundamentally accurate but highly oversimplified. Yes, it is confusing but use of the word Hispanic as used today, it is accurate. The word or term did not exist at the time of the US Mexican American war. I get it. So certainly, open to criticism given the more complex history behind who we broadly define as Hispanic today versus during the time of the US purchase of the land from Mexico where there were dozens of languages being spoken. However, Spanish WAS the language of the government of Mexico at the time of the war so while, confusing, technically it still works.
End of the day, what we today call Hispanic was the dominate culture of what is today the Southwestern US. I will be sure to add the ‘what we call today’ before using using the term Hispanic to reflect early Southwestern US culture before the Mexican American war if that makes you happy.
Hope that helps.
————
Don, this poseur gets his superficial knowledge about everything from A.I. – and then presents it as if it’s from his own mind.
He’s an idiot posing as a genius.
Classic Dunning-Kruger effect.
Or just an insecure little prick who’s trying to assuage his insecurities.
Austin, you are spot on.
I research my responses to obtain actual historical facts versus an emotional biased view of the world as Austin uses. I understand using actual historical facts, data, science and research conflicts with Austin emotional views, but is fun pointing out his errors in logic and facts.
Except, of course, for the fact that Hispanics are not indigenous to Mexico.
————–
No, you don’t. You misrepresent the truth, you refuse to accept reality, and you posture as if you’re an intellectual giant.
In case you haven’t noticed, no-one here is buying your BS. Everyone thinks you’re an [deleted].
But you’re really, truly, not here to win others to your point of view, are you?
You’re here to reassure your id that you’re really not a total wanker.
I hope he’s buying it, or you’re in for an even bigger identity crisis, you tosser.
You are correct Don. Again, if you define Hispanics as people who speak Spanish, yes they were present at the time of the Mexican American war. But mostly certainly you are correct that that term didn’t exist at that time and not all people indigenous to the area spoke Spanish yet. I stand firmly correctly on that poorly worded portion of my initial statement, yet principally correct that people of non-European decent have long been indigenous to the southwestern US far longer than European immigrants.
Cheers
————-
I agree, TL. It was Britain’s cultural cohesion that brought it through two World Wars. The Blitz Spirit was real, and represented a homogeneous Christian people with common values and beliefs, who pulled together as a team, to face down the biggest threat yet to our dear little island. Our shared values, beliefs, and history unified us, and held us together under immense stress.
Winston was probably right when he said it was our finest hour.
“Diversity” is just a euphemism for balkanization and the internecine strife and conflict that comes with it. It is entirely corrosive in any nation state, as the Brits are learning.
The ‘Balkanization’ of a country only happens when a society fragments into isolated, hostile tribes wtihout a shared identity. BUT that isn’t the inevitable result of diversity. History shows that when diversity is paired with a strong, shared civic identity – like the constitutional ideals in the US or post-war integration models, it actually drives innovation, economic resilience, and global influence. This issues isn’t diversity itself as much as whether a nation/state succeeds or fails at integrating people under a single framework of laws and shared values.
For example, under Trump’s leadership that uses lies and misinformation to focus only on the negative actions of immigrants (from nations of color), HE is the one driving us to ‘Balkanize’ given that Hispanics have been in the US longer than Europeans and NOT the immigration of additional Hispanics that is dividing this country.
—————
Trump has nothing to do with this issue. It’s an issue that has been going on foe centuries, nay, millennia.
Attempted mixing of cultures, races, and histories always ends in strife and calamity. The British brought Indian Tamils into the Sinhalese island of Sri Lanka. The chronic tension finally flared up in 1983, in a war that lasted decades.
The Republic of Ireland has enjoyed domestic tranquility since it was formed. It is homogeneous.
Northern Ireland has suffered strife, conflict, and misery since it was formed. It is not homogeneous, it has “diversity’!
India enjoyed tranquility too, under British rule, until we left. Then the stuff hit the fan as Hindus and Muslims murdered each other en masse, until the only way to secure peace was by separating them into two nations. “Diversity” didn’t work.
The most cohesive, strongest, safest, and happiest countries are always those that are the most ethnically homogeneous, like the Scandinavian countries. They are the opposite of diverse.
You are so ignorant of reality. Muslims want to live distinct. They balkanize themselves. As far as Hispanics living in the southwest in the territory that was not yet part of the United States, Hispanics were Christians, sharing Judeo-Christian culture; all thanks to the Spanish, hence the name Hispanics.
If you believe that Muslims want to assimilate, consider England, France, Germany or any country where Muslims have integrated. Or, consider Texas where Muslims are attempting to establish “communities” for Muslims only; or, consider a speech given recently by a Muslim woman in the Illinois state capital in which she spoke about Muslims being part of the fabric of America dating back to the 1800s where she gave a prayer to God, which God I do not know; or, Minnesota where, well, we all know what happened in Minnesota by Somali Muslims and maybe Ilhan Abdullahi Omar, Minnesota US House member; or, consider Dearborn, Michigan mayor Abdullah Hussein Hammoud who told a Christian that he was not welcome at council meetings, and would be glad when he moved out of the city; or consider that a total of three (3) Muslims are Michigan mayors. Other than being Muslim, what other distinction do they share? They are all Democrats.
President Thomas Jefferson had the gumption to wage war against the Barbary Coast pirates made up mostly of Muslims that had been harassing and looting American and European ships for years. That is the US’s interaction with Muslims in the 1800s. Where the speaker in Illinois got her information from, I do not know.
professor, I am assuming from your past comments that you are Black. I mention this only because you should know what happens when a majority of like-minded people take control of government, any government large or small. Look at Greensboro and Guilford County. Sad.
TERMLIMITS,
Dealing with Muslims requires Christians to know at least something about the religion Muhammad established 14 centuries ago. Particularly enlightening are five words that expose Islam’s view of the non-Muslim world and help us understand why Muhammad and his followers have consistently treated Christians with disdain.
Kafir. A kafir is “one who covers or conceals the known truth; an unbeliever.” In other words, a kafir is any non-Muslim. Since kafirs reside outside the “world of Islam” and thus are in the “world of war,” they may be deceived, lied to, plotted against, enslaved, subjugated, mocked, tortured, driven from their homes, or killed.
Dhimmi. This is a second-class citizen in a Muslim-dominated society. By signing a dhimma treaty, non-Muslims are offered protection from physical harm or religious targeting. But there’s a catch. Christians under the treaty, for example, may not renovate churches or monasteries, display crosses in public, or conduct religious ceremonies outside the church.
In addition, they must pay the Islamic tax (jizya) equal to 50 percent of their income, shaving their heads and kneeling before Muslim authorities as they render the tax, according to Warner.
Taqiyya. This doctrine of deception empowers Muslims to deny their faith or commit otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts while they are at risk of persecution. It was developed to protect Shi’ite Muslims, who usually were in the minority and under pressure from rival Sunnis. For all practical purposes, however, the doctrine has been expanded to encourage any deceit that advances Islam.
Dawa. Also known as “stealth jihad,” dawa is the spread of sharia law by subtle, non-violent means, including resistance to assimilation; intimidation of critics; exploitation of democratic legal systems; and the portrayal of any scrutiny of Islamic doctrine as “Islamophobia.”
Shirk. This is the unpardonable sin of practicing idolatry or polytheism. For example, the Christian belief that Jesus is the Son of God is blasphemous to Muslims, resulting in hell.
Muslims have a high regard for Jesus, believing Him to be one of Islam’s greatest prophets, and also to be virgin-born, sinless, and a miracle worker. But they deny that Jesus died on the cross or rose from the dead, and they flatly reject His deity.
These are not all. I encourage folks to do their research, in particular in reference to Taqiyya, stating it is permitted practice to deceive when dealing with unbelievers.
Knowledge is power.
TermLimits, you are repeating the same Trope used by white nationalists to support separatist policies and is highly inaccurate.
There are numerous examples of Muslims assimilating into US culture:
Muslims serve in the military.
Muslims hold elected office. (by your own example)
Muslims work in medicine, engineering, law, business, and academia.
Muslim Americans generally speak English and participate in mainstream civic life.
Many Muslim immigrants have high educational attainment and income levels compared with other immigrant groups.
Yes, it is common for people of congregate into communities based on common culture and religion:
Jewish neighborhoods
Amish communities
Mormon communities
Chinatowns
Little Italys
Greek neighborhoods
Hispanic enclaves
Orthodox Christian communities
People often choose to live near others who share language, culture, or religion. The existence of a Muslim-majority neighborhood or a planned Muslim-oriented community does not, by itself, prove rejection of broader society. Just as it doesn’t for the other communities listed above.
Hope that helps.
Patrick,
Knowledge is important, but it only helps if we’re discussing concepts accurately and in context.
Several of the claims here either oversimplify Islamic teachings or present disputed interpretations as if they are universally accepted by all Muslims.
For example:
• Kafir simply means a non-believer or one who rejects the faith. While some extremists have used the term to justify hostility, the word itself does not mean that all non-Muslims may be lied to, enslaved, tortured, or killed. More than a billion Muslims around the world live peacefully alongside non-Muslims.
• Dhimmi was a historical legal status in some Islamic states, much as many pre-modern Christian societies had different legal rights for religious minorities. Whether one views that system positively or negatively, it is not how Muslims in modern America relate to Christians.
• Taqiyya is one of the most commonly misunderstood concepts in discussions about Islam. Historically, it referred primarily to concealing one’s faith under threat of persecution, especially among Shi’a minorities. It is not a general license to deceive non-Muslims.
• Dawa literally means “invitation” or “calling” and refers to sharing or explaining Islam. Equating it with “stealth jihad” is an interpretation promoted by critics, not a standard definition accepted by Muslims.
• It is true that Islam rejects the Christian doctrine of the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus. But theological disagreement is not unique to Islam. Christians, Jews, Hindus, atheists, and others all disagree with one another on fundamental religious questions without that automatically implying hostility.
Most importantly, citing theological concepts does not tell us how individual Muslims behave. If we judged Christianity solely by the worst actions committed in its name over the last 2,000 years, Christians would rightly object. The same standard should apply to Muslims.
The question is not whether Islam and Christianity have theological differences—they clearly do. The question is whether American Muslims should be judged as individual citizens or by the most negative interpretation of their religion. I believe the former is the fairer approach.
One additional point: the claim that Christians under dhimmi universally paid a tax equal to 50% of their income, shaved their heads, and knelt before authorities is not accepted by mainstream historians as a universal rule across Islamic societies. Historical treatment of Christians under Muslim rule varied enormously across centuries and regions.
Happy to discuss further. Best wishes
professor/Cxxxxxxxx X Rxxx/Chris/Polly Pocket/Sybil/whatever
Just out of curiosity, you spent how long living and working among the people there?
He continously lies about immigrants being criminals, rapists, eating peoples pets, etc… all for a single purpose. To great hate against a groupnof people he is bigoted against. Period. Full stop.
The mixing of cultures is what has made America one of the most innovative countries in the world. We ARE the best example of why you are dead wrong.
Only when bigotry, intolerance and ignorance is incouraged is strife allowed to grow and divide.
————–
The United States of America is, and always has been a Western Judeo-Christian culture.
Immigrants from different cultures have been expected to assimilate and integrate, and historically have done so.
Muslims do not.
.
Is it bigotry when Muslim countries execute gays for their sexuality?
Is it intolerance when Christians are forbidden from bringing a Bible into a Muslim country?
Is it ignorance when madrassas teach that the US is The Great Satan?
professor/Cxxxxxxxx X Rxxx/Chris/Polly Pocket/Sybil/whatever,
“To great hate against a groupnof people he is bigoted against.”
What? What are you attempting to say? “To great hate…”? “…a groupnof …” is that some form of German? ” …is incouraged…”?
Are you ok bud? One in a sentence is a mistake, two is lack of attention, three is a possible sign of a stroke.
Feeling some pressure buck o?
You, dear Professor, are so wrong about what made the US great. It was the freedom to innovate; to live life free from government control; freedom of speech, which is under attack; and the freedom to try new things; and the freedom to be left alone. It has nothing to do with mixing cultures. Case in point, our constitutional federal government is the envy of the world and other countries have tried to duplicate it.
Who wrote the Federalist Papers, who came together to form our government, whose ideas were enshrined in perpetuity? White men of European decent. Not one was from Africa, not one was from China, not one was a Muslim, not one was from any other part of the world.
In fact, one could say that the immigrants who came to the US up until the 1960s were mostly White Europeans. So, if you want to believe that it was mixing cultures that made the US exceptional, then you must view what has taken place here since 1965, which is not a pretty sight and certainly not exceptional.
Termlimits,
Certainly, freedom to innovate and constitutional structure are an important part of what has made America great. Immigration is not a contradiction to these values but is the ultimate validation of these very ideas! The Founders themselves were immigrations or the direct children of immigrants. Hamilton was for example born in the Caribbean.
Note that the ‘White European’ immigrants before the 1960s (such as Irish, Italian, and Slavic immigrants) were explicitly excluded, demonized and not considered part of the ‘preferred’ culture at the time. They succeeded because of the American system, proving it is the ideals that matter, not the origin. Based on your belief they should not have been allowed to ‘mix’?
Further, post 1965 the data directly challenges the idea that post-1965 America declined. After the immigration Act of 1965, the US won the Cold War, built the digital age, and established absolute global economic hegemony. Today more than 40% of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their children! The vast majority of our Silicon Valley tech breakthroughs rely on global talent pool.
The beauty of the American experiment is that our system is built on a set of ideas, not an ethnicity or religion. Anyone from any corner of the world who values freedom of speech, innovation, and self-determination can step into our system and help make America exceptional. Immigration is simply the process of importing the world’s most driven people to fuel the exact machine the Founders built.
So yes, immigration is critical and foundational to what has made America Great.
Austin,
While it is true that Judeo-Christian values played a foundational role in the shaping of American laws, the idea that past immigrant groups assimilated seamlessly and Muslims did not, is historically and factually incorrect.
There is a long history of assimilation friction of different groups coming into the US – not for their own fault but for the fault of bigotry against new cultures. Every major immigrant group in American history has face the exact same accusation of being ‘unable to integrate’. In the 1800s and 1900s, Irish, Italian, and Slavic immigrations (who were Catholic and Orthodox) were heavily demonized. Critics claimed their religious loyalty to a foreign Pope made them entirely incompatible with a free, Western democracy. Even German immigrants kep their own language, schools and churches for generations causing Ben Franklin to worry if they would ever assimilate. History proves that integration take time for every group.
Secondly, data from the Pew Research Center and demographic studies show that Muslim Americans are actually a premier example of successful integration:
– Muslim Americans meet or exceed national average for college education, household income, and business entrepreneurship
– They serve honorably in the US military, work in law enforcement and actively participate in our democracy with many holding elected office at local, State and Federal levels
– Polls show that the vast majority of Muslim Americans firmly believe in the core tenants of the American Dream: that hard work leads to success, and that freedom of religion must be protected for all.
American’s strength has never been a requirement for cultural or religious uniformity. The true genius of the American system is that anyone from any faith background can adopt American civic values, contribute to the economy and successfully integrate into the fabric of the nation.
——————–
Bloviating Bulls**t from the Poseur Professor ( as usual).
But he wins the award for the highest number of words.
Inane, vacuous words, but words nonetheless.
More juvenile deflection from Austin. Yawn.
He claims he wants an open debate on topics yet when presented with a well structure counter argument or point of view (I even proofread and edited these comments) he deflects. Just goes to show…..
———–
Hey buddy, just because there were no spelling errors in your comment doesn’t mean that it wasn’t bull[deleted]
And you reckon you’re smart… “Professor” !
Austin ducks and dodges because he can’t respond to actual facts and history, so he resorts to only childish name calling. Classic deflection.
——————-
All the minutiae in your comment prove nothing.
Absolutely nothing.
Funny you can’t actually make any case for defending your position or countering mine…..
expect for….
….whining about it and tossing about personal insults. Getting old and very predictable of you. But don’t worry happy to continue pointing out the massive flaws in your statements and lack of evidence for your claims by referencing actual studies and data.
Cheers
—————–
I’m happy to let the readers decide if your attempted rebuttals are relevant and valid, or just a verbose litany of irrelevant and incidental red herrings (so you can deflect, and derail the argument).
I think the words you are looking for are…..”I quit.”
————–
How many religious communities have produced suicide bombers?
ONE.
How many religious communities have fostered ‘grooming gang’ rapists in the UK?
ONE.
How many religious communities have a substantial minority who “have sympathy” for those who murder people who offend their beliefs?
ONE.
How many religious communities have established a religion based monolithic voting bloc?
ONE.
How many religious communities have attempted to criminalize criticism of their religion as “hate speech”?
ONE.
How many religious communities continually see their followers invoke their deity (Allah) as they commit terrorist atrocities [ “Allahu Akbar” ] ?
ONE.
How many of these things are normal in Western society?
NOT ONE.
The ignorance of your bigotry is showing yet again Austin
– Suicide Bombings are not unique to Muslims. The modern pioneer of suicide bombings as a strategic weapon was actually the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) in Sri Lanka, a secular, nationalist Marxist group with a Hindu background. They carried out hundreds of suicide attacks from the 1980s to the 2000s, including the assassination of two world leaders.
– Your lie about ‘Grooming Gangs’ is old and tired given that the UK Home Office explicitly concluded that group-based child sexual exploitation is not a phenomenon exclusive to a single ethnic or religious background. It found that offenders come from diverse backgrounds, and trying to attribute it to one religion distorts the systemic failures of social services and policing.
– Historically voting blocks align with socioeconomic status, minority protections or urban-rural divides, not just religion. In Western democracies, various religious groups, including evangelical Christians in the US or Orthodox Jewish communities, frequently vote as highly organized, unified blocks to protect their specific interests.
– Blasphemy and Speech laws designed to criminalize the criticism of religion is deeply embedded in Western, Christian history. Many Eastern nations, including Germany, Italy, and Poland still have active blasphemy or ‘insulting religious feelings’ laws on the books. Ireland only repealed its blasphemy law via referendum in 2018.
Extremism and criminal networks exist in the fringes of many societies and faiths. Judging an entire global population by the actions of extremist minorities or authoritarian governments who leverage religion as their tool for subjugating their populace isn’t a fair representation of a very large and itself a diverse group of people from a range of cultures and communities.
But you be you.
——————-
No.
What’s on display here is your unwillingness and inability to accept facts that conflict with your Leftist conceptualization of the World.
[ Incidentally dear readers, I have come to realise that this is the defining trait of Leftists. They are all incapable of seeing reality as it is.
Leftists approach the World with a preconceived notion of how it should be, and try to shoehorn reality into the notions that they have imagined.
Those on the Right see the World as it actually is, and draw conclusions from reality.
My mother was a lifelong socialist. I came to see this pattern over and over again.
She had a profound reality perception problem. ]
I point to facts that directly counter your misinformation, and you claim I am unwilling to accept facts? It is clearly your head in the sand avoid truth so you can maintain your bigotry of Muslims.
But you be you.
———–
Yes, some of what you said is true, but that doesn’t mean it disproves anything I said. For example you say that suicide bombers are not always muslims. I didn’t say they were.
That M.O is however overwhelmingly perpetrated by Islamic terrorists, isn’t it?
99% of suicide bombers are Muslims.
And yes, during the Sri Lankan civil war the Tigers used this strategy too, but that was to further their goal of an independent Tamil state on the island – Tamil Nadu. It was to further a political goal, in a political war, and had nothing to do with religion.
My comment refers to a religious community, so your attempt at rebuttal is doubly irrelevant, and incorrect.
You do not possess the intellectual rigour to discern that your responses are rubbish, just inane attempts to contradict everything I say.
You’re a pitiful little wanker who has a fixation with me.
And I’m not even bothering with the rest of your crap. You’re not worth the time.
———–
As I was falling asleep last night I realised that the name of the state the Tamil Tigers sought to establish in Sri Lanka is of course, Tamil Eelam. Tamil Nadu is the Indian state the Tamils are from originally.
My Sinhalese friends would be ashamed of me for making such a careless mistake. Sorry.
I’m right now drinking tea that was sent to me by one of them, from the Midgrown-Wettasinghe Plantations near Kandy – and very good it is.
Cheers!
Let’s trace your logic here, Austin. You started by claiming that only “ONE” religious community produces suicide bombers.
When I provided a concrete, historical counterexample, you didn’t say, “Ah, I was wrong.” Instead, you moved the goalposts, claimed it was political rather than religious (which was my exact point), and then invented an arbitrary “99%” statistic on the spot to save face.
(note: Terrorism expert Robert Pape pointed out in his comprehensive study ‘Dying to Win’, the primary driver of suicide terrorism historically has been resistance to foreign military occupation, not Islamic fundamentalism. Want to hear about how the Japanese Red Army used suicide bombers? Kamikaze pilots? )
It is also incredibly telling that you chose to declare the rest of my points as ‘crap’ and run away. You cannot refute the UK Home Office reports on exploitation, you cannot refute the existence of active European blasphemy laws, and you cannot refute the history of Western voting blocs.
You came to this armed with slogans, and when met with historical facts, your resorted to insults and a hasty exit. Not shocked.
Take your own advice: see the world as it actually is, not how your biases imagine it to be.
Best wishes.
————–
The Tamil Tigers perpetrated their suicide bombings in pursuit of a separate nation state within Sri Lanka for their own race. They did not do so as a religious quest, or in any way that was at all religious. They did what they did for racial reasons.
[This is another example of how racial mixing causes strife]
All modern suicide bombings – which should be called homicide bombings – are perpetrated by Muslims.
FACT.
And my logic is impeccable. Yours is laughable.
[ I got an A in Elementary Reasoning at UNC-G at about the same time you were there. I remember the brilliant mustachioed professor who taught the class saying he’d renamed the class from Beginning Logic because it intimidated too many prospective students! Can’t remember his name now, but he was a short, black haired guy who drove a Mazda 323, as I recall. ]
professor/Cxxxxxxxx X Rxxx/Chris/Polly Pocket/Sybil/whatever,
” Want to hear about how the Japanese Red Army used suicide bombers? Kamikaze pilots? )”
“…Japanese Red Army…” I went back and checked my Military History note and didn’t find anything there about the IMPERIAL Japanese Army of WWII being Communist. I could be wrong.
Kamikazes were fewer then people make them out to be. They had no real effect.
Austin,
You’ve shifted your position yet again.
Your original claim was that only one religious community produces suicide bombers. When presented with a clear counterexample, your argument became that the Tamil Tigers were political rather than religious. That was precisely my point: suicide bombing is a tactic, not something unique to a religion.
Now you’ve narrowed the claim further to “all modern suicide bombings are perpetrated by Muslims.” Even if we accepted that characterization for the sake of argument (it’s not true given the examples I have already given fall into the 2000s), it still would not establish the conclusion you want it to establish.
A tactic being disproportionately used by some extremist groups that claim a religious justification does not make that tactic representative of the religion’s billions of adherents any more than anti-abortion violence defines Christianity, settler violence defines Judaism, or nationalist terrorism defines Hinduism.
The flaw in your reasoning has always been the same: you begin with the actions of extremists and then generalize them to an entire religious population.
You also continue to ignore the points you cannot answer:
The UK Home Office did not conclude that child exploitation is unique to one religion or ethnicity.
Religious voting blocs are hardly unique to Muslims.
Attempts to shield religious beliefs from criticism have a long history in Christian-majority societies as well.
Notice that every time a factual claim is challenged, the discussion returns to insults, anecdotes, and declarations of victory rather than evidence.
The quality of an argument is determined by the evidence and reasoning presented today, not by credentials or memories from university. Your evidence remains absent given that I have presented evidence/facts that counters even your newest version of your adjusted ‘facts’ . Yes, other non-Muslim groups have used in modern history (1980s to 2000s) suicide bombings. Moving your ‘logic’ shows how weak your argument was at the beginning.
I think your professor would be highly disappointed in your inability to defend your original arguments now that I have shown numerous historical examples that prove your assumptions inaccurate.
Best Wishes. Go Spartans!!!
Patrick, you are confusing the Japanese Army and the Japanese Red Army. They are two separate things. I did comingle them in my comment, so the mistake is understandable.
1) The Japanese military during World War II (the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy)
2) The far-left terrorist organization called the Japanese Red Army, The group was founded in 1971 and sought a worldwide communist revolution and used suicide bombings as a tactic numerous times.
Hope that helps.
—————-
“Professor”, Try to pay attention now.
The question I posed – right there in black & white – was “How many religious communities have produced suicide bombers?”.
You responded that The Tamil Tigers used this strategy. The Tamil Tigers WERE NOT A RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY.
So the correct answer is ONE – Islam.
This is called logic.
The irony of beginning with “try to pay attention” is that you appear to have missed the point for several comments in a row. Not shocked. I will try to write with crayon so you can keep up next time.
My response demonstrated that suicide bombing is not unique to one religion. The Tamil Tigers are relevant because they show the tactic can arise from political, nationalist, ethnic, and ideological movements without any religious basis. That directly refutes the implication that suicide bombing is inherently tied to Islam.
Now you have retreated to a much narrower claim: that the Tamil Tigers were not a religious community. Fine. Nobody argued that they were.
But that observation does not rescue your original argument. It actually undermines it. If a non-religious movement can produce large numbers of suicide bombers, then religion itself cannot be the explanatory factor you claimed it was.
That is the logical point you continue to avoid.
You are treating the existence of Muslim suicide bombers as proof that Islam is uniquely responsible for suicide bombing, while simultaneously ignoring clear examples showing that the tactic exists outside Islam altogether. That is not logic; it is selective reasoning.
The broader problem remains unchanged: you continue to take the actions of extremists and generalize them to an entire religious population of nearly two billion people. I have repeatedly asked for evidence that such a generalization is justified. None has been provided.
The fact that a tactic has been used by some Muslim extremists does not make it representative of all Muslims any more than anti-abortion violence represents all Christians or ethnic nationalist violence represents all members of other faiths.
As for “this is called logic”, logic requires following an argument to its conclusion, not stopping halfway because the conclusion is inconvenient.
But you be you.
—————–
What a load of crap.
Ah, the ‘ol ‘I quit’ the discussion because I can’t defend my position so I will yell an insult and run away approach to public debate. A true classic for the ages.
————–
No, it’s because your responses are verbose garbage, and you know that no-one’s going to take the time and trouble to refute each one of your fallacious points.
You must have a lot of time on your hands. You have made commenting here into a part-time job.
The rest of us have lives.
You just keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.
professor/Cxxxxxxxx X Rxxx/Chris/Polly Pocket/Sybil/whatever,
“Your lie about ‘Grooming Gangs’ is old and tired…”
“A 15-year-old British girl in Leamington was gang-raped by Afghans. She recorded everything on her phone, begging “Help me, please help me, they’re going to rape me.”
Her lawyers said the footage couldn’t be released — it would cause riots across the country.
So the truth is suppressed to protect the narrative.
Afghan rapists. British child victim. Evidence hidden.
This is the grooming gang nightmare on steroids.
The British people deserve the full truth — no more cover-ups.”
Blasphemy and Speech laws designed to criminalize the criticism of religion is deeply embedded in Western, Christian history. Many Eastern nations, including Germany, Italy, and Poland still have active blasphemy or ‘insulting religious feelings’ laws on the books. Ireland only repealed its blasphemy law via referendum in 2018.”
Are they Eastern or Western nations? Make up your mind.
And since you obviously believe we should be dictating to other countries how they should be behaving why only Eastern or Western (which ever you mean) countries. What I hear you saying is we should be telling the WHOLE world how to conduct their business.
What’s the name of someone who thinks like that…what was that again…Hitter, Hiller, Alf, Dur Furor, something like that.
Patrick,
A horrific crime committed by Afghan nationals is exactly that: a horrific crime. The perpetrators should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
What it does not do is establish your broader claim that “grooming gangs” are unique to one religion, ethnicity, or immigrant community. That was the point I made, and it remains true. A single case, no matter how appalling, does not invalidate broader evidence showing that child sexual exploitation offenders come from diverse backgrounds.
As for the video, whether courts, lawyers, or authorities restrict the release of evidence during criminal proceedings has nothing to do with proving a religious or ethnic conspiracy. There are numerous legal reasons evidence may not be publicly released.
On blasphemy laws, you seem to have misunderstood my comment entirely.
I wasn’t advocating that any country adopt or repeal any particular law. I was responding to Austin’s claim that attempts to criminalize criticism of religion are somehow unique to Muslims. They are not.
The historical fact is that Christian-majority countries have had blasphemy laws for centuries, and some European countries still have versions of such laws on their books today. Whether one supports those laws or opposes them is a separate discussion.
So no, I am not arguing that the world should be dictated to. I am pointing out that Austin’s claim of uniqueness is historically incorrect. Nothing you add changes that.
And invoking Hitler because someone cites historical examples is not an argument. It’s just a substitute for one. But thanks for trying.
———-
You’re right, but Patrick that’s nothing compared to the organised ongoing systemic rape gangs that victimized white girls – and they were ALL white British – in the North of England FOR DECADES.
The police refused to investigate properly, or charged a single man in each city. The British Police are unwilling to administer justice to non-whites.
This is playing out right now in Britain. A white British boy, Henry Nowak, was stabbed five times by a non-white immigrant. The British boy had no knife, no defence. The police immediately handcuffed THE BRITISH BOY, while chatting calmly to the murderer. Henry begged for help. The Police ignored him. He bled out and died right there at the scene,
The non-white criminals in the UK see clearly that they can get away with murder. And rape.
So they do.
Yet again, you’re describing crimes committed by specific people and then attributing their actions to millions of others who share a race, ethnicity, or immigrant background.
That’s not evidence; it’s a stereotype.
If a white man commits rape, we don’t blame white people. If a Christian commits murder, we don’t blame Christians. If a Muslim commits a crime, we shouldn’t blame Muslims. The principle is the same in every case.
Criminals should be prosecuted. Police failures should be investigated. But collective guilt based on race, ethnicity, religion, or immigration status is prejudice, not justice.
If Austin applied the same standards to every group that he applies to Muslims, he’d spend all day explaining why he doesn’t actually mean what his own logic implies.
.
Yeah, let’s not judge an entire religious group by the beliefs of 98 % of them….
—————
No “Professor”, I’m just speaking truth.
You are imputing all kinds of nefarious motives to me, but they are nothing more than your febrile and fanciful imaginings.
My account of the death of Henry Nowak is 100% correct, as are all the facts laid out in my letter.
You simply cannot accept them.
Ah yes, the famous 98%. One of the most remarkable numbers in internet debates. No source. No study. No methodology. No definition. Just a suspiciously precise statistic that appears exactly when someone needs a stereotype to sound scientific.
I’m sure once you provide the evidence showing that 98% of nearly 2 billion Muslims across dozens of countries all believe the same thing, we’ll have a fascinating discussion.
Until then, “I made up a large percentage” isn’t really an argument. Just nothing more than an expression of personal bias by Al. Again.
——————
Hey (deleted), I think it’s a safe bet to say that 98% of Muslims believe in Islam.
LOL! This guy’s a moron.
aaaaaaannnnnd more insults and childish personal attacks from Austin. Yawn
That was not what was implied by Al in the context of the comment string. But you be you.
————
You always want to argue with what you claim was implied, but not with what was actually said.
That’s because you know you can’t refute what was actually said, only what YOU imply was said, which is just the usual leftist character assassination of conservatives.
Why are you so full of “hate’? You were once a supporter of the Republican Party, but are now an unhinged, impassioned Democrat. You’re like the anti-smoking crusaders who once smoked 5 packs a day.
There’s something wrong with you.
Weird…you are implying that AL meant 98% of Muslim agree with Islam which is not what he said….it is what you implied he said…….yourself awareness meter must be broken….again.
professor/Cxxxxxxxx X Rxxx/Chris/Polly Pocket/Sybil/whatever,
“Patrick, you are confusing the Japanese Army and the Japanese Red Army. They are two separate things. I did comingle them in my comment, so the mistake is understandable.”
I didn’t “confuse” jack squat. YOU are the one doing the confusing, aka attempting to deceive. The IMPERIAL Japanese Army was a national military organization, aka an army, identical in mission to every other military in the world. The Japanese Red Army is/was a political organization having NOTHING to do with the Japanese government. Its like comparing apples and cow patties.
But I forget you are the All Knowing with filing cabinets full of college degrees on EVERYTHING.
“To great hate against a groupnof people he is bigoted against.”
What?
“To great hate…”? “
”…is incouraged…”?
I’m going to be undeservedly polite to you and again ask…are you having a stroke? Grab that excuse quick before people begin to think otherwise.
Al Hare, TERMLIMITS, Austin, should we cut a sick person a little slack?
Weird, I never claimed that the Japanese Army and the Japanese Red Army had anything to do with each other except that they both used suicide bombing as a tactic. You seem to be reading things that aren’t there……Are you ok? Is this a cry for help? Blink three times if need to assistance.
🙂
————-
Patrick, I think we should let him hang himself with his own rope. Any sentient reader can see through his dissembling, bloviating BS.
I asked Scott if he’s institute an option by which readers can upvote and downvote comments or even just Letters, but the suggestion fell on deaf ears. This would give the Poseur Professor a little reality check, as he’d see how few people he was winning over. Not that it would stop him.
He’s only here to convince his inner child that he’s really not stupid and ignorant… not at all. Not at all!
“Top of the World, Ma!’
It’s all rather pathetic really.
Ah, the challenge for a Popularity Contest now that Austin can no longer defend his argument in the face of facts that show his biased view of the word. His hope is now that he can’t defend his argument any longer, that he will win a popularity contest as conservative on a conservative website. How brave!! LMAO
———–
Austin “can no longer defend his argument”…??
What planet are you living on, Chrissy? Even a die hard liberal will admit that I have defended my arguments here vigourously and repeatedly.
You have some kind of mental illness, mate.
LOL, repeating the same baseless claim with no supporting evidence and declaring victory isn’t defending your argument it’s what people do when they can’t actually support their claims.
You may not have succeeded in proving your claims, but you have been remarkably consistent in one respect: reducing over 2 billion people to a handful of negative generalizations and calling it analysis. That tells readers far more about your biases than it does about Muslims.
Cheers ‘ol chap
—————-
I don’t know what “baseless claim” you’re talking about, but everything in my letter and subsequent comments is factually true.
The problem here is that you can’t handle the truth.
I have shown again and again how baseless your claims are with numerous facts, points of history and basic logic and so far you have come up with:
LOL! This guy’s a moron.
No, it’s because your responses are verbose garbage…
What a load of crap.
And my logic is impeccable. Yours is laughable.
What’s on display here is your unwillingness and inability to accept facts…
…just because there were no spelling errors in your comment doesn’t mean that it wasn’t bull[deleted]
You couldn’t structure a pork pie.
Predictable pedestrian Leftist tripe from a left-wing wanker
blah blah blah
Those aren’t counter points or arguments, they are just typical childish language and personal insults from someone who can’t defend their baseless claims in the face of facts, history and logic.
Cheers Chappy boy.
————-
Yes, of course they’re insults – but the fact remains that you cannot disprove anything I said, because everything I said in the Letter, and in subsequent comments, is true (including the insults!).
Ha, ha, ha….
I have time and time again. You just refuse to acknowledge the errors in your logic that I point and the historical facts that counter your points. Insulting me isn’t defending your position, it is giving up and running away like a spoiled schoolgirl.
Run along little girl. Run along.
——————
“Professor” Chrissy likes to claim, over and over again, that he has disproven the facts in my Letter. But claiming something does not make it true.
He hasn’t refuted a single thing.
He’s tried to spin facts, he’s tried to marginalize their importance, he’s tried to bury them under a torrent of words, but he hasn’t disproven anything – despite his claims.
The irony here is remarkable. You keep claiming I haven’t refuted anything while refusing to engage with the actual arguments I’ve made.
I’ve repeatedly challenged your central claim that immigration is responsible for Britain’s decline:
-I’ve pointed out that the vast majority of violent crime in the UK is committed by native-born citizens, not immigrants.
-I’ve pointed out that declining church attendance, political polarization, declining social trust, and increasingly hostile public discourse have occurred across much of the Western world, including countries with very different immigration patterns.
– I’ve pointed out that anecdotes and childhood memories are not evidence of causation.
Your response to those arguments has not been to refute them. Instead, you’ve responded with insults, complaints about my qualifications, complaints about my political views, complaints about my username, and repeated assertions that your conclusions are self-evidently true.
At this point, you’re not engaging in a debate. You’re simply repeating your conclusion and declaring every challenge to it invalid with no justification other than “I thunk it so it mus be troo”.
So again:
Ignoring counterarguments is not a refutation.
Insults are not an argument.
That’s a useful tactic if your goal is avoiding difficult questions. It’s a terrible tactic if your goal is proving your case.
.
Is it bigotry when Muslim countries execute gays for their sexuality?
Is it intolerance when Christians are forbidden from bringing Bibles into Muslim countries?
Is it ignorance when madrassas teach that the US is The Great Satan?
Yes, Al Hair, it is bigotry when homosexuals are executed by a government. Last i checked, no government represented all people under its governance and neither to all Muslim majority countries have laws that outlaw homosexuals.
It is also bigotry to outlaw equal rights for homosexuals as many propose we do in the United State.
Hope that helps.
professor/Cxxxxxxxx X Rxxx/Chris/Polly Pocket/Sybil/whatever,
“Yes, Al Hair, it is bigotry when homosexuals are executed by a government. Last i checked, no government represented all people under its governance and neither to all Muslim majority countries have laws that outlaw homosexuals.”
“It is also bigotry to outlaw equal rights for homosexuals as many propose we do in the United State.”
I was not aware, professor/Cxxxxxxxx X Rxxx/Chris/Polly Pocket/Sybil/whatever, that the United State had a mandate to enforce our standards and beliefs on other countries and peoples, even if we don’t agree/believe in them. Why are we not invading China or Russia to change their way of life to match ours? Why aren’t we pressuring Saudi Arabia, Libya, etc. to change their ways.
Selective arguments, Your best tactic.
Weird Patty,
I fully agree that the US doesn’t have a mandate to enforce our standards or beliefs on other countries or people. Why would you think I do?
———
A proposal is not a law, and certainly not an execution of a human being. Blatantly false analogy.
Bigotry is bigotry. Yes, some is more harmful than others, but bigotry is bigotry regardless.
————-
What bigotry? Do explain.
Or are you just another Leftist who simply cannot accept any reality that is unpalatable to his Pollyanna preconceptions?
In the US bigotry against the LGBTQ community continues to be openly voiced by conservatives. The newest attack since Trump has taken office in his first term is on immigrants with bigotry driving misinformation such as the Haitian immigrants eating pets, being criminals and rapists, etc… And of course, your example of bigotry against Muslims that you portray here in these comment’ strings and your letter to the editor. Claiming the worst of a group represents the wholes is a classic trick used to promote bigotry by conservatives who want to use fear to promote their grab for power.
Hope that helps.
—————
You cannot point to any bigotry on my part. So you resort to the routine, hackneyed insults of conservatives that you practise here all the time.
You have nothing.
As always.
You’re pathetic.
Austin, your bigotry is illustrated by:
1) Treating Muslims as a monolithic group…you repeatedly describe Muslims as though they all shar the same beliefs, political behavior and attitudes toward women. They don’t. There are billions of Muslims across dozens of countries and cultures.
2) Equating Muslim identity with backwardness….in your letter you refer to ‘backward Muslim nations’ and suggest Muslim immigrants are importing those traits into Britain. The implication you are making is that Muslim cultures are inherently inferior or regressive rather than acknowledging that social conditions vary enormously across Muslim-majority societies.
3) Use of demeaning terminology by collectively referring to Muslims as ‘the Mohammedans’ which is regarded as outdated and often pejorative. Most Muslims do not identify themselves that way. While the term itself does not automatically prove animus, its use in conjunction with the broader argument contributes to an antagonistic portrayal.
That’s just from your letter. Want me to point to the bigotry in your comments as well?
————
Your attempts to smear me are pathetic.
The truth is the truth, and here are some truths for you “Professor” :
* Muslim countries ARE generally backward countries. Go live in Afghanistan or Pakistan.
The only ones that are modern are the ones that happen to sit on oceans of oil.
* It is perfectly acceptable to speak about Muslims when discussing different religious groups. How else would you refer to them… except by the alternative term…
* Mohammedans! Which is and has always been a perfectly acceptable alternative term.
In your desperation to paint me as a bigot you’re just grasping at straws. You’re making yourself look unhinged and full of spite as your smears of me become increasingly absurd and tenuous.
It must be very annoying for you that I keep on disproving your lies and untruths, but try to get over me, if you can.
The truth will set you free. You should try it.
Austin keeps calling it ‘the truth,’ apparently hoping repetition will do the work that evidence won’t. Let me feed you more evidence that proves your bigotry and ignorance.
Saying “Muslim countries are generally backward countries” treats a vast and diverse collection of nations as though they can all be reduced to a single characteristic. It ignores enormous differences between countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia, Jordan, Albania, Qatar, the UAE, and others. No serious analysis of any religious group begins by assuming 50+ countries and nearly 2 billion people can be accurately described with one dismissive label.
Likewise, pointing to Afghanistan or Pakistan does not prove anything about Muslims as a whole. If I wanted to characterize Christians, I could point to some of the poorest and most unstable Christian-majority countries in the world. Like Haiti, S Sudan, or Congo….. but that would be just as misleading.
And while “Mohammedan” has historical usage, it is largely outdated because it inaccurately suggests Muslims worship Muhammad in the same way Christians worship Christ. Most Muslims do not use the term themselves, which is why many people regard it as archaic and often pejorative.
None of this prevents criticism of specific governments, religious doctrines, or cultural practices. Criticizing the Taliban, forced marriages, blasphemy laws, or restrictions on women’s rights is fair game. The issue is when criticism of particular ideas becomes broad claims about Muslims as a people.
But go ahead and repeat your sweeping generalizations again and again to show your bigotry for all to see (and I imagine a few here share)….happy to continue to expand on how wrong your point of view is again and again. It’s a hobby I enjoy.
Cheers
————-
Please do continue to expand ! I think you mean expound,
This is the kind of crap you get when you argue with an idiot.
I don’t know why I bother.
Ah yes, the classic “I can’t refute the argument, so I’ll proofread it instead” strategy.
I wrote several paragraphs explaining why your generalizations about nearly 2 billion Muslims don’t hold up. Your response was to correct “expand” to “expound.”
Thank you for demonstrating which part of my comment you were actually capable of addressing.
——————
Your comments are pure BS. You just run your mouth interminably while saying nothing. For example, your attempt to refute the fact that most muslim countries are backward just says that there are lots of muslim countries. So what? That doesn’t prove anything. You’re an idiot.
And your stupidity also displays itself continually in your pitiful English. You’re so thick that you don’t know how thick you are. There is a term in Psychology for people like you.
It’s called the Dunning-Kruger Effect. You are a perfect example… “Professor”.
You’ve now gone from “the truth is the truth” to a string of playground insults.
Notice that you still haven’t addressed the actual point.
You claimed that “most Muslim countries are backward.” I pointed out that citing Afghanistan and Pakistan doesn’t justify broad conclusions about nearly 2 billion people spread across dozens of countries with vastly different histories, economies, governments, and social outcomes. Including many countries that have highly sophisticated economies.
Your response wasn’t evidence. It wasn’t data. It wasn’t even an argument.
It was:
“idiot”
“thick”
“Dunning-Kruger”
Apparently you’ve mistaken name-calling for a rebuttal.
The irony of invoking Dunning-Kruger while repeatedly reducing a complex global population to simplistic stereotypes is almost too perfect to parody.
At this point, you’ve spent more time insulting me than defending your claim. That’s usually what happens when someone runs out of facts before they run out of confidence.
—————-
I make no apology whatsoever for insulting you. You merit every one of them.
And my arguments are as clear as the facts upon which they are based. . You just can’t accept them because you are a prisoner of your Leftist dogma.
The insults are just an adjunct (and a well deserved one). You’re insulted by many others too.
It’s because you refuse to accept it when you’ve been demonstrated to be wrong.
Patrick Henry, Don, Al, and myself have all blown holes in your claims, but not once have you said “Oh, yeah. Sorry”.
You’re just not big enough.
“Patrick, Don, Al, and I agree with each other” isn’t the devastating argument you seem to think it is.
You’ve mistaken repetition for proof and insults for evidence. The fact that several people can confidently repeat the same unsupported claim doesn’t make it any more true. The strongest part of your argument remains the certainty with which you make it. Unfortunately, certainty and accuracy are not the same thing.
Your confidence remains undefeated. Your evidence, on the other hand, keeps missing games due to injury.
Cheers
————
I have mistaken nothing.
And I’m not going to take advice from someone who is so spectacularly stupid that he can never even quote people correctly.
Face it.
You’re a moron.
Nothing but insults and personal attacks from Austin. Guess we know what that means. Yawn
————–
If that’s an apology for misquoting me and misrepresenting my position, it’s not a very good one.
As I said, you are incapable of ever admitting to your errors, lies, and sophistry.
It wasn’t an apology.
Go ahead and explain how my noting the UK taking out drones and allowing the US to use it’s airbases isn’t done in support of the US’s War with IRAN? Funny how you duck, dodge and avoid that clear fact and say you didn’t change your argument when you restated the lack of support from the UK.
Go ahead. I will wait. But bet you don’t give an actual answer given the inconvenient nature of those facts. you will lkely spew some insult or personal attack and run away as usual with the truth shows your BS to be what it is….
Cheers
———–
But most Muslim countries ARE backward.
Even the ones that are not economically backward are mired in the misogynistic, patriarchal values of the Dark Ages.
THAT is not a fact. That is just your personal opinion and frankly….a well-established biased opinion. And more to the point, saying a country is ‘backward’ has no real meaning other than ‘different’. Yes, most, if not all Muslim countries are different from the US and UK AND….wait for it…..also different from OTHER Muslim countries just as the UK is different than the US.
Duh
————–
Letting our closest ally make use of our airbases, and knocking out a couple of drones that threaten them, is nothing.
And you know it.
If the RAF had co-ordinated with USAF to hit Iran, or the Royal Navy worked with the US Navy, that would have been different. No such support was forthcoming, as Trump said.
British Prime Minister Starmer was paralyzed by the Muslim supporters of his Party.
So, now your argument is ‘not enough support’ versus No support.
Your only supporting evidence is Trump words? LMAO, given how much he lies, exaggerates and misrepresents everything he says is comical.
Yet another change in argument to avoid admitting you were wrong.
Hypocrisy?
“…outlaw equal rights for homosexuals…”?
Really Chris? Really?
Show me where and/or when equal rights for homosexuals have been outlawed. AI Overview; Outlawed describes something that has been made illegal, forbidden, or officially banned. Cambridge Dictionary; to make something illegal or unacceptable.
I know this is silly of me to ask because you are All Knowing, but please enlighten us unwashed masses with your Endless Knowledge on WHERE in the United States where any of these definitions exist in the form of law.
(Taking a bow) Thank you…thank you… I hope you all enjoyed my imitation of professor/Cxxxxxxxx X Rxxx/Chris/Polly Pocket/Sybil/whatever and his argument style…thank you.
————–
Alan, this guy who presents as a professor (he is not a professor) is a sophist and a deceiver. Over years of watching him it’s become crystal clear that he has no intellectual integrity or commitment to truth.
Here’s her to “win” arguments. That’s all.
If he can score points by humiliating others, he gets to feel superior. That’s his goal.
In real life he must be a right Royal wanker.
How cute tinfoil hat man is jumping with the use of AI. Maybe you should use AI to question your own assumptions before you make such silly ignorant statements Alan.
History First: Right to marry was a decades long fight in this country that was only universally forced on States by the SCOTUS in 2015. For centuries, intimate relations between consenting same-sex adults were literally outlawed in the US and enforced by state genal codes across the country.
Current State: While the federal government finally recognized the inhumanity of those past laws and discriminatory practices, there remains significant gaps in equal rights civil protections at the State level. In many states, it is perfectly legal under State Law to fire someone from a job, evict them from housing, or deny them services based solely on their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Secondly, several states have passed laws that target the rights and autonomy of transgender individuals or pass laws often referred to as ‘Don’t Say Gay laws’.
So while the legal landscape has significantly evolved to protect LGBTQ community, federal and state laws have historically outlawed homosexual conduct, outlawed same sex marriage and continue to have gaps in non-discrimination.
Hope, that helps. Take the time next time to do your own research. It has really gotten easy to do online. They even have coloring books that you might be able to handle if you put your best foot forward.
It IS happening here. We are being out-replicated.
. No s**t.
US Rep Ilhan Omar (D) is one of 7 children her parents had.
US Rep Rashida Tlaib (D) is one of 14 children her parents had (no typo – fourteen).
—————-
As an addendum, the London Daily Telegraph reports that in 2025, over 40 per cent of births in the UK were to foreign born parents. Forty per cent of babies born were to foreigners.
The demographic, political, cultural, and racial implications of that are huge.
Britain will soon be unrecognizable.
The fight is on the U.S. now. Who will stand with us? The UK? Canada? NATO? Australia? Germany? NZ? Hardly anyone save Israel, Poland, or Hungary. Anyone else?
We are being invaded, and doing nothing about it. So where could we go?
———–
Miller, here’s what nobody’s saying out loud.
The reason why the UK (and other European allies) gave no support to the US in the war with Iran is because Starmer (UK Prime Minister) is terrified of losing the Muslim vote. He simply cannot be seen to support Britain’s best ally in an attack on an Islamic country.
The UK muslims are already defecting to the further left Green Party. If that becomes a flood, which could easily happen on the instructions of the Imams, the Labour Party is finished, and Starmer knows it.
So the muslims have neutered Europe. We are their next target.
Wow, you can’t even get your facts right with current news:
– Uk has provided significant military support with the Royal Air Force actively shooting down Iranian drones and missiles as well as allowing the US to use British air stations for operations.
– Given that only 6.5% of the total eligible voter population is Muslim, maybe the Tories have a much bigger problem than just the Muslim votes after exhausting voters with controversy after controversy for the last 14 years they were in power. You know, the lies they told about Brexit, ironically, their inability to control immigration, cost of living issues, economic stagnation, threats of welfare spending cuts, etc.. etc…
Conservatives love to blame ‘immigrants’ to deflect from their own failed policies.
Happy to correct your misinformation yet again Austin. Always here to help.
————-
What a load of cobblers.
But you keep on telling me how wrong I am about the country I grew up in. You obviously know much more about Blighty than I ever will.
We have lots of words for people like you.
“Wanker” is my favourite, but “Tosser” is just about as accurate.
I reply with facts and Austin replies with insults.
Growing up in a country doesn’t make someone’s political analysis automatically correct. Evidence does. If you have evidence that Keir Starmer’s position was primarily driven by fear of a Muslim voting bloc rather than broader political, diplomatic, and strategic considerations, present it and we can discuss it.
Otherwise, you’re asking people to accept a speculative claim while ignoring contradictory facts.
But you be you. I am just here to give the fact-based view to counter your misinformation, lies and unsupported opinions.
———————
No, you are just here to tamp down your desperate anxieties and insecurities about yourself.
Hey Chris, it’s okay to have a middling intellect. Just accept it. Then you won’t have to try to prove anything all the time here in these columns.
You could just relax.
Accept what you are.
It’s ok. I get it, your emotions cloud your logic and your inability to support your initial position/logic when faced with numerous historical facts that prove your argument inaccurate and biased. It has to be frustrating. Lashing out with personal attacks and insults is a natural emotional response when you can’t defend even your moving targets of biased logic and points of view.
Hang in there ‘ol chap. Sometimes is best to just walk away and fight another day.
professor/Cxxxxxxxx X Rxxx/Chris/Polly Pocket/Sybil/whatever,
“Uk has provided significant military support with the Royal Air Force actively shooting down Iranian drones and missiles…”
Really? How many compared to the US forces? Define/quantify “significant”.
Having worked with them quite a bit I do not question their desire to do the job. In fact I’d venture to guess they are chomping at the bit. It’s the spineless pro-Iran leadership (read gutless PM) that does not allow it to happen.
But I forgot you have a degree, among your file cabinet of degrees, in foreign policy so how dare I question you.
Are we moving the goalposts here? Again? This is getting tired approach to defending Austin weak position. But fine…….
Austin’s original claim was that “the UK (and other European allies) gave no support to the in the war with Iran.” That claim was factually incorrect. Once that was demonstrated, the argument seems to have shifted from “no support” to “not enough support.”
Those are two very different claims.
As for the suggestion that the UK is somehow “pro-Iran,” that doesn’t fit the facts either. The UK has sanctioned Iranian banks, energy companies, military-linked entities, airlines, shipping lines, nuclear officials, and missile programs. It has reimposed sanctions, penalized Iran for supplying weapons to Russia, and taken action against the IRGC. You can certainly argue that the UK should take even stronger measures, but a government that repeatedly sanctions Iran is not accurately described as “pro-Iran.”
What the UK has not done is automatically support every proposed military action against Iran. That isn’t evidence of support for Iran; it’s evidence that British policymakers reached a different conclusion about the costs, risks, and justification for military involvement.
Disagreeing with a military intervention is not the same thing as being “pro-Iran”.
Cheers
————-
The UK has barely lifted a finger to help the US in the current Middle East crisis.
This is common knowledge, and I have just explained why this is so.
————–
What’s especially amusing is that every time one of your factual claims falls apart, you don’t defend it. You simply replace it with a new claim and act as though everyone forgot the previous one.
“No support.”
Then “not much support.”
Then “common knowledge.”
At this rate, by next week your argument will be that the UK secretly supported the US telepathically.
If you have evidence that Starmer’s policy was driven primarily by fear of Muslim voters, present it. If not, we’re left with the same thing we’ve had from the start: a conclusion in search of evidence.
LOL, but you be you
—————
You can’t even get the basics right, you’re so stupid. You have misquoted me – deliberately I believe. Never said “not much support”.
I said it’s common knowledge that the UK has offered no support to the US in this war, which is true. You can split hairs and say the Brits let the US use British bases, but that’s nothing.
You like to cavil and dispute trivial irrelevancies, thinking it makes you look smart.
No, it just makes you look like a pettifogging little prick.
You just can’t see it (but the rest of us can).
Common knowledge? Funny how facts always disagree with the ‘common knowledge’ of a conservative. Want me to list yet again the actions taken by UK against Iran that proves your ‘no support’ a blatant lie? or are you again vying for the ‘not enough support’ argument again?
————
What’s funny is that you have been caught in a lie.
You have clearly misattributed a quotation to me, but you refuse to retract your error or apologise.
Says a lot about you, buddy.
You’re just a piece of (deleted)
Not a lie. Given I shared the FACT Britian has supported the war against IRAN by the ways i listed, the implication is clear that you shifted the argument to ‘not enough support’. Unless of course, you now claim those facts i shared aren’t true and have evidence of them being a conspiracy? (hint: you don’t)
Go ahead and explain how your continue defense of your statement of lack of support from UK is accurate given those facts without your shift in argument to ‘not enough support’ for the Iran war.
Oh right. You don’t like to be accountable to facts. Just whatever your “I thunk it so it mus be troo” approach to logic and debate. LMAO
Cheers
————-
The lie is where you attributed a quotation to me that I never said, dumb ass.
You’re fond of making straw man arguments, aren’t you?
Not as fond as you are of using a single instance of violence to demonize an entire group of people that YOU deem unworthy of living in the UK while ignoring any act of violence by people YOU deem worthy.
But you be you. Bigotry is your jam. I am just here to call it out each and every time you and others make such claims using bigoted and childish logic.
Cheers.
———–
Are you going to admit to making up quotes, and then attributing them to me?
Or are you just a lying shyster? With no shame. Or honesty.
I await your apology.
————-
Well at least I don’t have to deliberately misquote other people, putting words in their mouth, in order to kid myself that I have scored a point.
You’re pathetic.
—————
And if that’s your apology for misquoting me, it’s not a very good one. But what can we expect? You’re a small, petty little anal retentive wanker who’s not big enough to say sorry, or admit he’s wrong about anything, ever.
As an addendum of data and facts to Austin’s weak attempt to distort the what the data actually means for Britain’s future:
First, The Office for National Statistics (ONS) figures explicitly state that this 40% includes babies who have at least one parent born outside the UK. A significant portion of these births are to mixed couples—where one parent is native-born British—or to parents who are naturalized, tax-paying British citizens. Framing this as ‘40% of babies born to foreigners’ is factually inaccurate.
Second, the shifting percentage isn’t just about immigration; it is a direct result of a collapsing domestic birth rate. The UK’s fertility rate fell to an all-time low of 1.39 children per woman. Native-born Britons are simply not having enough children to sustain the population.
Thirdly, Britain has a rapidly aging population with millions of retirees relying on state pensions and the NHS. If the birth rate collapses entirely without new children entering the system, the economy will face catastrophic labor shortages and a bankrupt welfare state. A child born in a UK hospital, raised in the British school system, and speaking English will grow up as a British worker funding the next generation’s healthcare and pensions. British identity has always evolved, but the economic necessity of a young workforce is a mathematical certainty.”
Bope that helps better frame the actual circumstances in the UK.
Best wishes
————-
Everything I said is true.
Everything “The Professor” said is utterly irrelevant, or just plain incorrect.
What speaks volumes is the lack of Austin’s specifics in his claim that my comments are incorrect or irrelevant. When facts/truth counter his claims, he plays the child and pouts and says ‘Na Uh’ and more times than not uses personal insults to deflect from the poor position of his statements. Common tactic of those who base their personal belief systems on lies and misinformation.
————–
Everything I said is true.
Yet due to your ignoring of broader facts and context, your conclusion is highly inaccurate and clearly motivated by your negative bias of against Muslims.
Happy to help. Cheers
————–
It says a lot about you that you cannot acknowledge and accept the truth.
Classic Leftist.
Austin,
Ask him for his definition/standard for “significant military support”.
I have shown numerous statements you have made in your letter and the follow-up comments as inaccurate, incomplete, and biased. You respond with changing your logic and yet still I show how they are flawed so you resort to childish name calling. LOL I do enjoy our banters.
———–
No, you have not demonstrated any of that – except possibly in your own little mind.
It must be an interesting little world you live in.
————-
Everything I said is true.
Watching Austin confront evidence is like watching a flat-earther argue with a globe. LMAO
He’s reached the point where his commitment to being wrong is honestly impressive.
Cheers
—————
One of us certainly has a reality perception problem.
Maybe it’s the one who likes to call himself “Professor”- when he’s not a professor.
I hope you enjoy your imaginary little world.
You goofballs are the ones that labeled me ‘Professor’. Now that I use it, you are all upset with your own creation. How odd.
And given you aren’t a real ‘Austin Morris’ you don’t have much of a leg to stand on for fake usernames. LMA0, self-awareness isn’t one of Austin’s stronger skills. I am not sure he would even qualify for a participation trophy in the self-awareness games.
But you be you ‘ol chap.
Cheers
—————–
Deflect…. Digress….. Divert.
The issue I’m highlighting with your adoption of the name “Professor” is your chronic and pathetic attempts to appear educated and erudite. This from an individual whose English is that of a primary school child (and who thinks Sri Lanka is in Africa).
That is why you love the pseudonym “Professor”. It makes you look smart.
You’re pathetic in your desperation to appear superior.
And yes, Austin Morris is my pseudonym. I have been clear about this, and – unlike you – I have never used multiple pen names in an attempt to support my own comments, under other names. How pathetic. How pitiful. How dishonest.
But that’s you, isn’t it…. “Professor”?
You gave guys gave me the username. THAT is fact.
If my using research, facts, history, science or data comes across as educated and erudite and that upsets you, I suggest you ignore my comments and move on with your life and limit your engagements to those who agree with your point of view (we call those circle jerks or safe spaces).
I loooooove the username Professor because it upsets you that you all gave it to me and I adopted it. THAT is why I use the username Professor.
I have only switched usernames once after someone used my real name to threaten me and my family. I have only used another username once as an attempt at humor. All the other accusations are just more baseless conspiracy theories.
I have made this clear multiple times but you still want to lie about it….fine. Can’t say I actually care what you think of me given your love of insults and childish personal attacks.
Hugs and kisses.
————-
Here’s a fact : it is impossible for us to give you a name. YOU indicate your “handle” with every comment you submit – and YOU choose “Professor”. FACT.
You lie about everything, don’t you?
Whatever makes you feel better about me adopting the name you all used as some poor attempt at an insult as my new username. LMAO
———
Only a deeply deceiving person could claim that his own username has been forced on him by others at the same time that he types in the name every time he submits a remark in these columns.
Your mendacity is on display, Chrissy. (aka “The Professor”).
Never claimed it was forced on me…..given is the term I use….I chose to keep it.
Weird of you to put ‘words in my mouth’ given how you get upset anytime you are misquoted or someone (ie me) reads into the intent of your statements.
Hypocrisy?
————
The 40 percent number actually UNDERSTATES the issue. Foreigners who were born in the UK are not included in the number. So for example, Axel Rudakubana, the young man who murdered the little English girls in Liverpool last year would be classified as British if he fathered a child in the UK. Both his parents came to Britain from Rwanda in sub-Saharan Africa.
There isn’t a British bone in his body.
But because he was born in the UK, the authorities classify him as British.
For this reason, the real number of births to foreign DNA is higher than 40%.
As usual, the Professor is misrepresenting the truth. He lies.
All. The. Time.
Yet again Austin has to change the subject once his idea is shown as inaccurate in its conclusions once a broader context is applied. But fine, let’s go yet again…….
The statistic being discussed concerned births to foreign-born mothers. Whether that number is 40%, higher, or lower, it is a demographic question.
You then switch from discussing nationality and immigration to talking about “foreign DNA” and whether someone has “a British bone in his body.” That’s not a demographic argument; it’s an ethnic one.
Take your own example. Axel Rudakubana was born in Britain, educated in Britain, grew up in Britain, and was a British citizen. His horrific crimes tell us something about him as an individual. They do not establish that people with Rwandan ancestry can never be British as you wish to claim.
By your logic, how many generations does a family need to live in Britain before they become British? Two? Three? Five? At what point does the “foreign DNA” disappear?
The reality is that British identity has never been determined by DNA testing. Britain has absorbed Celts, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, Normans, Huguenots, Jews, Irish, Caribbeans, South Asians, Africans, and many others over centuries.
You can debate immigration levels. You can debate integration policies. You can debate citizenship laws.
But “foreign DNA” is not a meaningful demographic category, and it certainly isn’t a substitute for an argument. Just pure ignorance and hate from a man full of bigotry against people ‘he doesn’t think worthy’.
Cheers
————
An African man with 100 percent African DNA is not British. No matter where he is born.
As they say here in North Carolina, “Just because a cat has kittens in the oven, it don’t make ’em biscuits”.
So spare us your sophistry, your dissembling, and – as usual – your character assassination of me.
Careful “Professor” , your hate is showing. Try to get over me, buddy.
And I’m not going to take lessons from an arrogant American [deleted] about what it means to be British.
I know what it means,
You don’t.
Imagine calling someone ‘arrogant’ while simultaneously claiming you hold the sole, definitive monopoly on what it means to belong to an entire nation. The projection is spectacular.
———–
But I haven’t claimed that I hold the sole definitive monopoly on what it means to be British.
Stop lying. Stop misrepresenting what other people say, so you can comfort yourself that you have won the argument.
I did claim that someone born & bred in Britain, raised there, educated there, from 100% British DNA, is more likely to know what he’s talking about than an opinionated presumptuous know-it-all from the American South who has probably never even set foot in Britain.
I stand by that assertion.
Stop lying about me. Stop lying about Britain. Just stop lying.
It’s fascinating how often you accuse me of lying while arguing that nationality can be determined with a DNA kit. LMAO, apparently Britain isn’t a country anymore—it’s a genetics project.
You claim you aren’t setting yourself up as the sole authority on Britishness. Yet when someone disagrees with your DNA-based definition, your response isn’t “that’s another perspective.” Your response is:
“I know what it means. You don’t.”
That’s not participation in a debate. That’s announcing the winner and appointing yourself judge.
The irony is that you accuse me of arrogance while declaring that millions of other Britons, along with anyone outside Britain, are disqualified from disagreeing with you. Apparently, Britishness is no longer a nationality, a citizenship, or a culture.
It’s whatever Austin says it is on a given day.
What a joke.
————-
I have said none of those things.
But what I have said, I stand by completely as true.
A black man from Sub-Saharan Africa whose ancestors and DNA are 100% African negro is just not a Brit.
Sorry, it’s just the truth.
A person born in Britain, raised in Britain, holding British citizenship, speaking with a British accent, obeying British laws, and participating in British society is still not British in your view if his ancestry is African.
That means you’ve defined “British” not as a nationality, citizenship, culture, or legal status, but as a racial category.
The interesting part is that you keep calling this “the truth” as though repeating those words transforms an opinion into a fact. It doesn’t. It merely clarifies that your definition of national identity is based on ancestry and DNA rather than citizenship and shared civic identity. Show any source other than your ‘I thunk it so it mus be troo’ that links ancestry as a requirement for British nationality. (don’t worry, I won’t hold my breath)
At least now everyone can see what argument you’re actually making. The bigoted argument of what does and doesn’t define a particular nationality. Let’s just add this to the list of bigoted thinking by Austin.
Cheers
—————
“How many generations does a family need to live in Britain before they become British?’ – The Professor.
Well, we have been living in this island for well over 2000 years, When the Romans arrived they were shocked at the appearance of a race who were pale skinned, blue eyed and red haired (the Brythons).
This was a surprise to the olive skinned dark-eyed people of the southern Italian peninsula.
But as everyone knows, we were last invaded almost 1000 years ago in 1066 when the Normans prevailed at The Battle of Hastings.
It took centuries before they were ever considered British. Even to this day, people with a French sounding name are looked at askance.
So the answer to your question is about a thousand years.
In the meantime it’s simply a statement of truth that we’re being polluted with inferior foreign DNA.
Yeah… go ahead and have a hissy fit now, you little wanker.
LOL!
You spent days insisting this wasn’t bigotry, then solved the debate by arguing Britain is being polluted by ‘inferior foreign DNA.’ That’s not a defense of the accusation; that’s Exhibit A.
Thank you for showing your true colors. Will add this to the list of racist points of view by Austin.
————
The average IQ of immigrants from Sub-Saharan Africa is 70, which is considered mentally retarded in the West. They have no skills, no education, no manners, no graciousness, but they have a clear predilection for criminality and barbaric violence, like the African who tried to behead that Irishman Tuesday in a Belfast street.
We’re not talking about German engineers, Italian artists, Japanese musicians, or Indian surgeons.
They bring nothing to the table but their violence, ignorance, and unremitting coarseness.
Are they polluting Great Britain? Of course they are.
Aaaaaaaaannnnnnd……. we are back to Austin using the definition of a racism yet again as if social economic, governmental policies and environmental facts don’t impact learning development. He also continues to ignore that the IQ test sample he loves to quote was very small and used the same test across regions as if the test wasn’t designed by and for western cultures and therefore not as accurate for non-western cultures.
All this is of course well documented and studied by actual people in science who study learning ability and IQ variation among people and groups of people. But Austin “thunk it so it mus be troo”.
Please, go ahead and tell everyone how your use of the actual definition of racism isn’t racist? It’s always cute when you do that.
Cheers
————–
Every reader here can Google average Sub-Saharan IQ, or whatever, and see the scores of studies and anaylses that have all reached the same conclusion about African intelligence – because it’s true.
Only naive liberals deny reality and pretend that we’re all equally intelligent.
All Leftists have a reality perception problem and live in their own little imaginary world.
professor/Cxxxxxxxx X Rxxx/Chris/Polly Pocket/Sybil/whatever,
I’ve noticed how you are bobbing, weaving, and dodging my question on how long you lived and worked among the people in the Middle and Far East that would give you such a broad base of experience on the area and knowledge of them and their religion you seem to express.
Ah, the classic ‘gatekeeping knowledge’ strategy. Let me know when you finish your fieldwork in ancient Rome so we can finally discuss the Caesars.
professor/Cxxxxxxxx X Rxxx/Chris/Polly Pocket/Sybil/whatever,
What? What ever does that mean except to attempt to obfuscate.
Again I ask you how long you lived and worked among the people in the Middle and Far East that would give you such a broad base of experience on the area and knowledge of them and their religion you seem to express.
I have no problem with continually asking. Or you can man(?) up and answer, not that THAT is going to happen.
This thread has been a masterclass in confirmation bias.
When a member of a disliked group commits a crime, it’s presented as evidence about the group. When a member of a favored group commits the same crime, it’s treated as an individual failing.
That’s not a search for truth. That’s starting with a conclusion and collecting anecdotes that support it.
If your argument requires holding entire races, religions, or immigrant populations responsible for the actions of a handful of people, you’ve stopped making a case and started making excuses for prejudice.
I’ve learned that in this thread, the sample size is always one and the conclusion is always millions.
But as always…….You Be You.
———–
Completely incorrect analysis. The facts in the Letter and the thread speak for themselves.
The only confirmation bias here is “The Professor” – who is busy agreeing with himself.
So are you saying a Christian committing murder doesn’t reflect on all Christians but a Muslim committing murder reflects on all Muslims? Or a group of Christian condoning murder of certain people doesn’t speak to all Christians as a group around the world but a group of Muslims condoning murder of certain people does reflect all Muslims from around the world? Or a ‘white’ government killing hundreds or thousands of innocent people is ok but Muslim government ordering the killings of hundreds or thousands of innocent people condemns not just that country but all other countries that share the same dominant religion?
Seems very biased point of view their ‘ol chappy boy. Oh right, you ignore anything bad by people who are similar yourself and use the acts of extremists to condemn billions of people who share a very diverse religion that is practiced across many different countries around the globe.
Yeah, I think my analysis is dead on. But you be you.
—————
Well you just carry on agreeing with yourself then. That’s intellectual masturbation – which is why you are called a wanker.
It’s the perfect moniker for you.
“Wanker Boy” – much closer to the truth than “Professor”, because you’re not a professor, are you?
More deflection…yet again you refuse to even attempt to counter the points I am making that are very basic and clear…….I think that says all that needs to be said.
Cheers
.
Looks like the Defense Sec. and Vice-Prez agree with Austin that mass immigration to Europe from Third World countries is a big problem.
Hegseth today in a D-Day speech in France, and Vance many times.
yes, their openness about hatred of immigrants is well documented. Bigotry is the cornerstone of the modern conservative movement. Nothing motivates a conservative more than hate.
professor/Cxxxxxxxx X Rxxx/Chris/Polly Pocket/Sybil/whatever,
Again I ask you how long you lived and worked among the people in the Middle and Far East that would give you such a broad base of experience on the area and knowledge of them and their religion you seem to express.
Or is it impossible for you to admit you are not the All Knowing you attempt to put out.
What a childish response attempting to gatekeep basic facts and history. LMAO
So the new rule is that nobody can discuss a country, religion, or culture unless they’ve personally lived there? That’s going to come as quite a shock to historians, journalists, academics, diplomats, and apparently most of the people commenting here.
The beauty of evidence is that it works regardless of where your mailbox happens to be located.
If you disagree with my argument, explain why it’s wrong….oh right….you can’t so you deflect or just use insults. Not shocked.
professor/Cxxxxxxxx X Rxxx/Chris/Polly Pocket/Sybil/whatever,
Damn son, You are almost good at deflecting, dodging and doing the Tea-berry Shuffle.
Again I ask you how long you lived and worked among the people in the Middle and Far East that would give you such a broad base of experience on the area and knowledge of them and their religion you seem to express.
If you consider the basic simple facts that I have shared as broad-based experience, you must live a very shallow life that certainly doesn’t qualify you to gatekeep topics that are easily experienced via reading.
Best wishes.
professor/Cxxxxxxxx X Rxxx/Chris/Polly Pocket/Sybil/whatever,
“So the new rule is that nobody can discuss a country, religion, or culture unless they’ve personally lived there?”
Once again Rice twists things to create cover for his own 4th point of contact in addition to creating “rules” that have no bearing.
Let me help you…”I have never gone to or spent time in those locations. I will admit my information is based on what I read about the experiences of other people.”
Glad to help.
December 16th, 1773
That’s an idiotic objection because it applies equally to you.
Of course I haven’t lived in every Muslim-majority country. Neither have you. Neither has Austin. Most of what any of us know about foreign countries, religions, and cultures comes from history, journalism, academic research, travel accounts, and the experiences of people who have lived there.
The issue was never whether someone can discuss a culture they haven’t personally lived in. The issue was whether anecdotes from a handful of countries justify broad claims about 2 billion Muslims spread across dozens of nations, languages, ethnicities, and cultures.
You seem to think “I read about other people’s experiences” is some kind of admission. It isn’t. That’s how knowledge works. (Why do conservatives hate education and learning so much?)
The argument isn’t about who has a passport stamp. It’s about whether the conclusions actually follow from the evidence.
But you be you
September 17, 1787
.
So you were a hater when you were a Republican.
Right?
Or are you just a hypocrite?
The conservative movement and I parted ways years ago, largely because I became increasingly uncomfortable with some of the directions it was taking, particularly on issues involving immigrants, minorities, and social inclusion. As well as its anti-science and anti-education shift.
I don’t view my political beliefs as a team sport. My views are based on principles and evidence, not loyalty to a party label. When a political movement changes, I don’t feel obligated to change with it.
Some people may disagree with where I draw those lines, and that’s perfectly fair. But I have no interest in embracing narratives that I believe are rooted in fear, prejudice, or hostility toward entire groups of people.
But you be you.
—————
As the attorneys point out when a witness has embodied one position only to reverse themselves to an incompatible position later….
“So were you right then,or are you right now?”
“Professor” was once a conservative. Now he’s a liberal. So we know his judgement is wrong, we just don’t know in which direction.
Are you assuming that political parties don’t change over time? Weird….history will strongly disagree with you on that….
—————
Great example of your sly sophistry! I never said anything about political parties.
You were previously a conservative and are now a liberal. That’s a fundamental reversal in personal beliefs. Nothing to do with any political party, buddy.
So….. Were you wrong then, or are you wrong now?
Answer the question, “Professor”.
Your objection is odd.
You claim I can’t mention the Republican Party because you were talking about conservatism. But in the United States, the Republican Party has been the primary political vehicle for the conservative movement for decades. Of course they’re not identical. Not every Republican is conservative and not every conservative is Republican.
But when discussing how American conservatism has evolved, it would be rather strange to ignore the party that has represented and shaped conservative policy, messaging, leadership, and priorities for generations.
So yes, I referenced the Republican Party because that’s where modern American conservatism has largely expressed itself politically.
More importantly, you still haven’t addressed the substance of my point.
The conservative movement I identified with emphasized fiscal responsibility, evidence-based policymaking, free trade, strong alliances, and limited government intrusion into private life.
Today’s movement spends far more time promoting election conspiracies, culture-war outrage, religious nationalism, and fearmongering about immigrants.
If you disagree, defend those changes. But pretending conservatism and the Republican Party exist in completely separate universes is just another deflection. Again.
Cheers ‘Ol Chappy Pants
——————-
What a load of crap. Answer the question.
Wrong about what? wrong for being a republican prior to Trump? Can you read? I was not wrong…..but the party moved right and I shifted left. What are you going on about other than more deflection from the actual topic at hand…..your bigotry, ignorance and hate of immigrants for falsely believing (and I believe you really believe it) they are the blame for all you don’t like about the UK.
Are you ever going to address the FACT that the majority of violent crime in UK is from white natural born citizens and NOT immigrants?
————-
Well I should hope that most crime in the UK is committed by whites.
Muslims – who are generally brown – and blacks together still constitute a relatively small percentage of the British population, but commit a disproportionate amount of the crime.
Just like in the US.
The key to notice yet again about Austin…..lack of evidence or source. Also…
As always when someone can’t defend their position in a debate, the target keeps moving. First the problem was immigrants. Then Muslims. Now it’s brown and black people. Those aren’t the same categories. A Black British citizen born in London isn’t an immigrant, and a White Romanian who arrived last year is. If you’re going to make sweeping claims about who is responsible for Britain’s problems, the least you can do is define the group you’re talking about.
Remember the 5 Ds of Dodgeball: Dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge
—————
Is “The Professor” mentally ill?
Austin and Al Hare,
He tries every trick in the book to bob and weave instead of of outright confronting the fact can’t answer without showing himself as the poser he is. My step-father was the same way…’I know it all. I am infallible. How dare YOU question ME.’
So once again professor/Cxxxxxxxx X Rxxx/Chris/Polly Pocket/Sybil/whatever, I ask you…how long did you live and worke among the people in the Middle and Far East that would give you such a broad base of experience on the area and knowledge of them and their religion you seem to express.
Patrick has not addressed the central challenge to HIS assumption….i.e…..ducking and dodging:
1) I have relied only on straightforward, observable facts to identify flaws in the reasoning you and Austin have used that relies on broad generalizations to characterize over 2 billion people across diverse countries and cultures.
2) Direct presence in these countries is not required to evaluate the logic or identify these issues.
At this point, the failure to engage with these points is not a matter of disagreement—it is a clear avoidance of the argument itself. Constructive discussion requires directly addressing the substance, not sidestepping it.
THAT is YOU ducking and dodging. but I get it, self-awareness is not your strong suit just as it isn’t for Austin.
Cheers Chaps
Aaaaaaaaand we are back to personal insults. Austin’s go to debate approach and the tactic used by most people who can longer defend their position, logic or statements in the face of facts and history.
Not shocked.
professor/Cxxxxxxxx X Rxxx/Chris/Polly Pocket/Sybil/whatever,
So once again professor/Cxxxxxxxx X Rxxx/Chris/Polly Pocket/Sybil/whatever, I ask you…how long did you live and work among the people in the Middle and Far East that would give you such a broad base of experience on the area and knowledge of them and their religion you seem to express.
Let me help you a little…I spent approximately 7 years over my career.
There, how hard was that?
————–
He won’t answer you Patrick, because it will expose his ignorance. He even has the nerve to lecture me about Britain, when he’s never set foot in the UK.
He’s just a know-it-all wanker.
I have answered your silly question. Just because you don’t like the answer and ask the question again isn’t going to change my answer.
Tootles.
You can’t change what you never said, but I’ve made my point.
———-
And then, when finally cornered, he lies. He never did answer your question and everyone can see it (correct as of right now, 2026/6/11 07:30).
He dissembles, he obfuscates, he diverts, he digresses, he deflects, and he lies.
Then he wonders we he is the object of such abuse and obloquy.
I’ve noticed a recurring pattern.
I answer the question.
You don’t like the answer.
Instead of explaining why the answer is wrong, we get a fresh round of insults, credential policing, deflections, and the same unsupported assertions that started the conversation.
For people who are very confident in their position, you spend an extraordinary amount of time avoiding direct engagement with the arguments challenging it.
Not Shocked
June 21, 1788
————-
And I have noticed your inability to refute any of the facts I have presented.
Oh, you go on about implied conclusions, but that’s just you putting words into my mouth so you can try to smear me as a bigot – but I never said any such things.
Careful Professor… your febrile eagerness to smear conservatives is showing.
One more thing. There is no such thing as “bigoted logic”. Logic is logic. If you don’t like its conclusions it just means that you can’t handle the truth.
Which is true, isn’t it?
Is this a debate or a boxing match?
Thank you Professor. Thank you Austin.
Appreciate hot debates.
They are fun. Dive in and enjoy. Even if you disagree with my take, Austin has gotten a bit predictable in his pattern of ignoring my point and just attacking me personally versus actual engagement on the topic in question.
————-
Everything I have said about Britain is true, and the “Professor’s” verbose verbal vacuity has not altered anything.
————-
Ho, hum… Another day, another barbaric attack on a Brit by an “asylum seeker”. That’s what they call illegal immigrants now in the UK.
A Belfast man was pushed down and then repeatedly and violently stabbed in the face by a 30 year old African from Somalia. The savage claims asylum in the UK (which means he fears persecution in his own country), but he somehow managed to travel through several other safe countries in which he would have been granted asylum, if his claims were true.
Stephen Ogilvie might die, and if he lives, his life will never be the same again. He’s lost his eyes, so at least he won’t be able to see his grossly disfigured face.
This sort of thing is happening all the time in Britain. Only the most horrific and shocking cases make headlines.
Britain has become unrecognizable. My dear old country is lost.
Ho Hum….another day of Austin attempting to use poor logic to attribute a single act of violence to degrade an entire class of people he doesn’t think ‘worthy’ of living in the UK.
Here are some basic statistics for countering Austin poor use of logic:
In England and Wales, official police data shows that White individuals account for the vast majority of suspects for violent crime, making up roughly 79% of offenders where ethnicity is known. Minority ethnic groups account for the remainder, with Black suspects at 7%, Asian at 8%, Mixed at 4%, and Other at 2%
Classic poor logic that is no different than If I only posted crimes committed by left-handed people and I could probably convince myself left-handedness was destroying civilization too. LMAO
Can’t wait for Austin’s counter point of ‘na uh’ followed with a personal insult.
Cheers
—————
Everything I said is true.
Everything I said is true and you know that as well…..it is your logic that is deeply flawed and your conclusion that is wrong and an obvious lie with no basis of truth as the statistic I shared prove.
“Britain has become unrecognizable. My dear old country is lost.” this is based on bigoted logic and is in no way true.
But you be you.
—————
I’m sorry, but it’s true. I’m blessed to be able to remember things from a very, very early age. I remember Churchill’s funeral because “Bill & Ben Flowerpot Men” was not on the TV, and I was annoyed. I remember the 1966 World Cup Final which England won, and the Devaluation of the Pound.
More to the point, I remember a Britain where we could walk freely at any time, any where, without the fear of crime even occurring to us. I remember a Britain where strangers would routinely smile and nod if you caught their eye. I remember a Britain where the churches were packed on Sundays.
I remember a Britain where political debate was cordial and civil, in fact, all interaction was gracious and respectful.
The problem with admitting Third World foreigners is that these standards are destroyed, since human interaction invariably devolves to the lowest common denominator.
——————
None of those things are true any more.
So it’s perfectly accurate to say that Britain has become unrecognizable. There is no logic (or bigotry) involved. It is simply a statement of fact.
And let me say here and now, that everything in this specific comment is also true. Your anticipated response will only serve to demonstrate that (a) you can’t deal with reality, and (b) you are only here to demonize conservatives, as bigots, haters, rednecks, tin-foil hat people, and every other insult you have used against us.
You’re a sick, bitter little man.
Now Austin,
You know how that professor/Cxxxxxxxx X Rxxx/Chris/Polly Pocket/Sybil/whatever is knowledgeable on EVERYTHING, and how dare we peasants challenge him on anything.
As we used to say in the military, he’s been everywhere, done everything and has the tee shirts to prove it.
If I may borrow a quote from you…what a wanker.
Again, all you have is Nostalgia, subjective judgments, and personal causal claims with no supporting facts, data, sources or valid analysis from reliable sources.
The only valid fact you have stated…. is that Britain has changed since the 1960s. Duh, every developed country has changed since the 1960s. Everything else is just hollow unsupported opinions of an angry little man full hate……and wait for it…….bitterness.
What you’re doing is taking a collection of memories—friendlier neighbors, fuller churches, more civil politics, lower fear of crime, and simply asserting that immigration is the cause of all of them. That’s not a fact. That’s a conclusion.
Church attendance has declined across much of Europe, including countries with very different immigration histories. Political polarization has increased throughout the Western world. Trust in institutions has fallen in countries with low immigration and high immigration alike. Social media has made public discourse more hostile almost everywhere. [happy to share evidence of all of this if you require]
You remember a Britain where people smiled at strangers. Fair enough. But you’re comparing your memories of an idealized past with your frustrations about the present and then blaming one group of people for every change you dislike.
And if Britain was truly as uniformly gracious and respectful as you describe, it’s worth remembering that the 1960s also had sectarian conflict, football hooliganism, racial discrimination, political extremism, and plenty of crime. The past was many things, but it wasn’t a national Norman Rockwell painting.
The strongest evidence that this isn’t a statement of fact is that you’ve offered no evidence at all, only memories. Memories can tell us what life felt like for your personally. But, they can’t by themselves prove why society changed. No matter how many times your repeat it or how loud you yell it.
So when you yell that everything you said was true……its not….it is a lie…..it is nothing more than your emotional feelings about the issues facing the UK today. No matter how insulting you are about it….doesn’t make it a fact. Just your emotional opinions.
I on the other hand, I shared data and facts showing that crime is still driven by a vast majority by white UK citizens. Proportionate to their population percentage of 80%. If you have any data, studies, etc… that say different….go ahead and share them. I doubt you do.
But you be you. Bitter.
Patrick….Internet Internet….Patrick
Patrick….books Books…..Patrick
Now that you all have met, take the time to explore an amazing amount of information, data, science, ideas, art, cultures, and cat videos.
Claiming only YOU know about the Middle East because you have been there is typical gatekeeping to avoid having to acknowledge the ignorance and biased views of the world by people like Austin who think pointing to research of a response is an insult to the person who posted the comment.
Let me guess, you were there in a military capacity? Was your exploration of the culture blowing it up and shooting them? Just curious.
But you be you.
————–
Thanks Patrick. The epithet suits him perfectly, doesn’t it?
And he’s totally unaware of its appropriateness,, even as he accuses us of lacking in self-awareness.
He also claims that we have forced a pseudonym on him, which is impossible. But if we could, “WANKER” would be the most apt.
Glad you agree.
I have never claimed the name Professor was forced on me. It was given as an attempted insult I suppose and I adopted it.
How dare you misquote me! LMAO
Austin,
Apparently I touched a nerve. And what is this “gatekeeping” keeps ranting about?
“Claiming only YOU know about the Middle East because you have been there…” Again I must have touched a nerve that he’s making things up.
Rice…
Let me guess, you were there in a military capacity? Was your exploration of the culture blowing it up and shooting them? Just curious.”
That statement right there shows his vast lack of understanding. And for the record professor/Cxxxxxxxx X Rxxx/Chris/Polly Pocket/Sybil/whatever, there were times combat was part of it. But there were also times of working with people, helping them. There was also times of exploring and learning.
But thanks for painting our military, in your mind, as just a bunch animals with no morals and or concerns about other people.
And yes I know you had a spawn in the military.How much did he blow up and how many did he shoot?
Just curious.
—————
This guy who goes by “Professor” (he’s not one) is a small child.
I say he is sick and bitter, so his response is ” Well… YOU are sick and bitter! So there!”
The rest of his verbal diarrhea is not worth addressing. It’s pure crap, as you can see.
————-
PS
If everything I said in my comment of June 11th at 7.28pm is a lie, go ahead and try to refute any of it.
Just one piece of it.
Go on. Bet you can’t.
Oh there will be lots of words, and flannel, and bloviating, and bullsh*tting, but no refutation, even as you present yourself as a greater knowledge on Great Britain 60 years ago than I am.
And I lived through it, there and then.
You’re just full of [delted] mate.
You mean you comment form June 11, 2026 7:28 AM?
The little trippy down Austin memory lane comment? I addressed the flawed LOGIC of your CONCULSIONS that you refused to address in your reply and instead just….yet again….deflected with personal insults? Shocker
How about you defend your rose glassed memory lane with actual data or statistics…..show anything that validates your implied claim that immigrants as destroyed the UK? Any stat that immigrants are more violent than natural born citizens in UK? Nope. Any statistics that UK has become more violent than any other time history as a result of current immigration into the UK? Nope.
As always, you offer nothing but your baseless accusations against immigrants based on your personally biased opinion with no supporting evidence beyond some tripe about how happy your childhood was…….
So here’s a simpler challenge:
Can you provide evidence that immigrants are the primary cause of Britain’s decline?
Just one piece of evidence. evidence = not merely an assertion, belief, memory, or opinion. It is information that allows others to evaluate whether a conclusion is justified. Data? Studies?
Go on. Bet you can’t.
——————-
So you can’t refute anything in my statement.
Deflection, deflection, deflection….
————
“Professor”, you have repeatedly claimed that we bestowed that fake name on you. But YOU choose your published name with every single comment you make.
You like it because it gives you a fake air of erudition and legitimacy, even though it was initially levelled as sarcasm because of your patronising arrogance and know-it-all demeanour.
You’re not impressing anyone, buddy.
Again, Austin avoids addressing a single point made in my comment. Not shocked Guess that means he can’t.
I have never used the phrase ‘bestowed’……but yes, you all gave me the name and I chose to adopt it…funny you trying to change your argument again when proven wrong….your last accusation was that I claimed the name was FORCED on me….which is a lie. Now you change the accusation that I claim the name was ‘bestowed’….(a word I don’t use often and have never used in this context.) My statement has always been the name was ‘given’ to me? Yes. Forced? Nope. Adopted? Yes
You are so obvious in your weak attempt to change your argument mid-stream once proven wrong…..kinda sad it is so obvious.
Cheers
————-
Hey buddy, don’t have a thrombo.
I’m glad you were amused by the word bestowed, but it’s really not relevant to the point. The point is that you can’t claim that your pseudonym was forced on you by anyone else – because YOU USE IT IN EVERY COMMENT YOU MAKE.
And take a deep breath.
And get a life.
—————
I haven’t changed anything about the points I made.
And “bestowed” is not a phrase; it’s just a word.
Are you an idiot?
You change your arguments when shown the flaws in your logic all the time….even more often then I make typos….I NEVER said the name was FORCED…..so you changed the argument to BESTOW….I NEVER used that word…..so you change the debate about my use of the term phrase versus word….
Keeping up with your changing in positions on a subject is like chasing is like herding cats in the rain.
Still waiting for how UK taking out drones and allowing US use of an airbase = NO SUPPORT for Iran war. Can’t wait for how you twist ‘what you said’ in that one excuse….oh right….you will just use your go to and toss personal insults.
Cheers
————–
Forgive me Scott since this isn’t relevant, but I just listened to the most heavenly piece of music on WCPE 89.7FM. I was faffing about absentmindedly but slowly became enchanted with its beauty as it played. It was composed three centuries ago by a German named Biber and it’s his Passacaglia for Solo Violin. I had to go to the radio station’s website to learn what it was – theclassicalstation.org. Then I went to YouTube which has 2 interpretations, each lasting about ten minutes.
If you can disengage and relax for ten minutes you will experience a small piece of heaven. The artistry of the violinist is as exquisite as the music is ethereal. When it ends you feel dismayed to be returned to this vale of tears.
Just wanted to share. Maybe a reader will experience it as I have.
Music is how feelings sound.
Thanks for sharing. I will check it out.
—————-
You’re welcome. As I searched YouTube last night I realised there were more than two renditions. The most captivating one is by Elicia Silverstein (sp.?)
It’s exquisite… but then I’m a sucker for black & white photography.
.
Milton Friedman said that you can’t have a welfare state AND open borders. The Brits are learning this the hard way!
The borders are not open in the manner as Milton is referring to in his statement….I understand that conservatives think Too Much Immigration is the same thing as Open Borders, but saying it doesn’t make it so. As with the US, there is a clear argument that there is too much too fast of immigration into the UK and the US as allowed by Biden but in no way were the borders opens with the free flow of people crossing and living in the UK and US.
A data point to consider:
– The UK’s own independent Migration Advisory Committee reported in 2025 that the cohort of Skilled Worker visa holders arriving in 2022–23 is expected to make a lifetime net positive fiscal contribution of roughly £47 billion
BUT
Since the immigration has been allowed to spike, it HAS cause negative economic impacts such as housing shortages (especially in large urban cities) and it strains local services such as education and health services.
I am a fan of immigration if well managed and that it allows a range of both high skill works and general labor at a pace that has a positive economic impact without too high of short-term costs. This is especially applicable in countries with aging populations where you need additional younger working age people to support the public safety nets of public entitlement programs.
THAT is how immigration should be debated in my opinion, versus creating lies and hate about refugees eating pets, and immigrants driving up crime rates, or claiming they are polluting the gene pool or other garbage like that so loved by the modern conservatives…..
But you be you.
Chris the gene pool in America started becoming polluted in the 70’s and has gotten worse. The results are very obvious
What evidence do you have for this belief beyond “I thunk it so it mus be troo”?
Most people who use that view do it to promote their racist views but science has long debunked the gene link to individual IQ, Crime, etc….
Share your evidence or just admit what you know to be true about your ‘belief’ but won’t admit to yourself……..
Cheers
professor/Cxxxxxxxx X Rxxx/Chris/Polly Pocket/Sybil/whatever,
Still waiting for you to admit your lack of time spent in that part of world. But then I’m also waiting for the Tooth Fairy to bring me my unicorn pony and we both know the the chance of both is two, slim and none, and slim is wadding up his towel to throw in.
Still waiting for you and Austin to respond the topic at hand…..the lie that immigrants are destroying UK with crime, yet the vast majority of crime in the UK is committed by white natural born citizens (80%+). As well as other the counter points to y’alls BS I have shared ample times now and only received deflection and weird questions with no relevance.
————-
Try reading some of the previous comments then, “Professor”.
And understanding them – if you can.
Austin,
I noticed Rxxx paid me a compliment by posting the date June 21st, 1788 at the end of one of his rants. This is the date listed as when the Constitution officially became the framework for the U.S. government.
OK, but what does that have to do with my posting the Date of the Boston Tea Party, Descender 16th, 1773? My posting is a personal rallying cry for the people of Skip the Omnipotence’s fiefdom to rise up. What that has to do with June 21st, 1778 I have no idea.
Could it be an attempt to look clever and pertinent? If so, nice try but let me give you a small tip…relevance to the subject. But hey, I’m just a dumb high school educated grunt.
A compliment? Are you taking credit for the tea party?
The point is that the Constitution protects all those in the US and extents freedoms to all…. citizens, immigrants, visitors, etc…. No exclusions. Give it a read sometime.
—————
Patrick, your comments are invaluable if only because you’re one of the few who won’t let “Professor” Chris get away with his deceptions.
But in order to refute his torrent of fallacies, fabrications, and fantasies, you’d have to spend an hour on the internet. He counts on it that most people are unable or unwilling to devote that much time and energy to debunking a guy who doesn’t possess the intellectual integrity to admit he was wrong anyway.
The little tosser has made commenting here into a part-time job.
The rest of us have lives.
Austin,
Thank you for the undeserved compliment. I guess because of my background and that I’m an old man have a problem with ignorance seasoned with stupidity. Add to it too much time on my hands.
It’s always interesting to watch him when he gets backed into a corner as he tries to retaliate by becoming what he accuses other people of being.
professor/Cxxxxxxxx X Rxxx/Chris/Polly Pocket/Sybil/whatever, you are not a lot things, and a Constitutional scholar is definitely not one of them. But you go on being egotistical you.
Austin, raise a pint for me sir.
Show your intellectual integrity and admit that the UK has supported the US in the Iran war given that they have shot down drones with use of RAF assets in the region and allowed the US to use their airbases is providing NO Support?
I will wait…… once you admit that one…we can walk through all the other points you refused to acknowledge or changed the argument to fit a new narrative once your original position was proven inaccurate.
Cheers
—————- ——————-
My apologies to any readers that are still with us. I didn’t mean this to devolve into a tiresome slugfest, but as you can see, there’s an individual here whose mission is to engage in the character assassination of conservatives. “Bigotry is the cornerstone of the modern conservative movement” – “Professor”.
And so he misrepresents what people say, putting words in their mouths, asserting implications that were never there, and so on, in a desperate attempt to vilify others. He’s consumed with spite and anger for conservatives, which is strange since he admits to previously being a Republican.
I intended my Letter as a warning. I have seen firsthand what large scale immigration from incompatible societies does to Western pluralistic countries, and I pray that America will not suffer the same fate.