• Why Jihad Watch?
  • About Robert Spencer and Staff Writers
  • FAQ
  • Books
  • Muhammad
  • Islam 101
  • Privacy

Jihad Watch

Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

Boris Johnson on Immigrants Who “Have Helped to Make Our National Culture”

Jul 17, 2019 10:00 am By Hugh Fitzgerald

Among the speeches Boris Johnson has been giving to Conservative Party gatherings as part of his campaign to become the next prime minister, one was of special interest because of what he said, and did not say, about immigrants to Great Britain.

In remarks at a Conservative Party hustings on July 12, Boris Johnson hailed British Jews as one of the immigrant groups who “adapted and they have made their lives and they have helped to make our national culture.”

“That’s what I want for our country, I want everybody who comes here and makes their lives here to be and to feel British,” he said.

In addition to Jewish immigrants, Johnson singled out  two other groups of immigrants — French Huguenots and Bangladeshis — for their contributions to British life and culture. It was a deliberate attempt to include adherents of all three monotheisms, Muslims, Jews, and Christians.

Johnson also said that it was important for immigrants to learn English, in order to be fully integrated better into British life. He complained this was not always the case; that some immigrants were not learning English. When he added that he wanted English to be spoken  everywhere in the U.K., that last comment infuriated some Scottish and Welsh representatives, though of course he had not had them in mind when he made his remarks; the Welsh and Scots are indigenes, not immigrants. Gaelic and Welsh are native to the British isles, and their speakers also know English.

The SNP’s Angus MacNeil, who speaks Gaelic and represents Na h-Eileanan an Iar, said: “The utter arrogance of Boris Johnson is yet again apparent.

“I am delighted that there are places in the current UK where English is not spoken – some of my constituents friends and neighbors would think I was weird if I spoke to them in English rather than Gaelic.

“I’m furious with Boris, displaying the imperialist mindset that deliberately tried to erase the native Celtic languages of these islands in favour of the Germanic import of English.

“This barb is aimed of course at others who have arrived more recently than the English language to these shores but we should celebrate multilingualism and foster the speaking of many languages and ignore the racist dog whistles of Boris.”

æPlaid Cymru MP Jonathan Edwards said: “The crass, dog-whistle, anti-immigrant sentiment of Mr Johnson’s comments is only matched by its stupidity.

Why is it  “anti-immigrant” of Boris Johnson to praise three groups  of immigrants — Jews, Bangladeshis, Huguenots? Is anything less than wholesale praise of all immigrants unacceptable?

“It just proves that Wales isn’t even an afterthought to him.

“Today’s latest gaffe, only reaffirms the fact that this leadership contest is one of the best adverts for Welsh independence imaginable.”

Of course, Johnson was being willfully misunderstood by the Scottish and Welsh nationalists. His target was not the indigenous Welsh and Scots, but those immigrant communities where people do not learn English, live in self-created ghettos where outsiders are not welcome, and where integration into the larger society is discouraged. This applies to only one immigrant group: Muslims, who have tended to live together in neighborhoods where non-Muslims, who are made to feel unwelcome, then move out. In these areas, there is no need to learn more than a smattering of English for daily living: the shops, the restaurants, the groceries, the barbers, the clothing stores, the garages, are places where only Urdu or Bengali need be used. Johnson wants to make these immigrants learn English as a way, so he seems to hope, to help them to integrate “fully” into British life.

What Johnson did not ask is whether there might be something else, other than a lack of English, that helps explain the inability, or unwillingness, of Muslim immigrants to integrate. He needs to know that the Qur’an tells Muslims not to take Jews and Christians as friends, “for they are friends only with each other.” (5:51) The Qur’an also tells Muslims that they are the “best of peoples” (3:110) while non-Muslims are the “worst of created beings” (98:6). Surely this inculcated distrust and contempt for Unbelievers is more than enough to explain the unwillingness of Muslims to truly integrate. What’s more, Muslims are told not just avoid taking Jews and Christians as friends, and to despise them, but also to fight them. Still worse, 109 Qur’anic verses tell Muslims to wage violent Jihad against Unbelievers, to “fight” and to “kill” and to “smite at the necks of” and “to strike terror in the hearts of” Unbelievers. Given those unambiguous commands, how could a true Believer in Islam possibly want to integrate into a polity created by the “most vile of created beings,” the Unbelievers? Perhaps Johnson does not yet know the Qur’an sufficiently to grasp the significance of these verses. Or perhaps he does know these verses all too well, but remains reluctant to discuss them in public, given the hysterical outcry from Muslims that would result, accusing him of “Islamophobia” and “racism” for daring to bring up Qur’anic verses that, we will be told with a great show of wounded sincerity, “Boris Johnson simply doesn’t understand. He doesn’t realize that all those verses apply only to enemies of the Muslims from nearly 1,400  years ago, and have nothing to do with attitudes today. He is creating rancor, and spreading racist  falsehoods  that can only benefit the far-right.”

As for the three groups Johnson cited as  immigrant success stories, he was not quite accurate about the Jews, whom he described as having arrived after fleeing from Tsarist Russia. British Jews go much farther back than that. There were Jews in Britain who arrived with William the Conqueror and the Norman Conquest in 1066; a few may even have come with the Romans centuries earlier. They were certainly in England in 1290, when they were expelled by Edward I (who promptly took possession of all the property they left behind, which was likely the main motive for the expulsion), and they returned in 1656 when England was governed by  Oliver Cromwell.

When Johnson singles out three immigrant groups — Jews, Bangladeshis, Huguenots — for their contributions to British life, they are impliedly similar in the significance of their contributions. But they are not. Let’s leave aside, in this discussion, as far too remote in time, the French Huguenots who fled to England after Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes in 1685.

Let’s see why Johnson is so enthusiastic about Jewish immigrants as a great success story. You can  study the impressive list here of celebrated British Jews. Take a long look. You will find find endless numbers of well-known academics, statesmen, artists, writers, philosophers, musicians, inventors, judges, as well as financiers and businessmen. And even that astonishing list is far from complete, for it does not include figures from before the 19th century.

Now take a look here at the Bangladeshis who, according to Boris Johnson, have made notable contributions to British life. Four novelists, a few television presenters, several restaurateurs, a kickboxing champion, two people who had minor roles in the Harry Potter movies, a hip-hop artist, the British High Commissioner for Bangladesh, a cook known for his “curry hell,” another who founded the British Curry Awards, the first elected mayor of Tower Hamlets (who was later removed for electoral irregularities), the head of the Muslim Council, a businessman who was also a contestant on The Apprentice. Sports stars, especially cricketers. Now go back to the list of British Jews. Compare. Contrast. ‘Nuff said.

I wondered why  Boris Johnson singled out this particular group of Muslims — those with roots in Bangladesh — for his approbation as model immigrants. Why Bangladeshis? Why not Muslims from elsewhere?  I naturally looked at the online list of “notable” British Arabs, and found exactly five names:

Lowkey, musician

Shadia Mansour, musician

Julia Sawalha, actress

Zaha Hadid, architect

Jade Thirlwall, member of Little Mix (half Arab)

That’s it. Five names, and only two of them known outside the U.K.: Julia Sawalha (for her roles in BBC TV dramas), and the internationally-known architect,Iraqi-British architect Zaha Hadid.

Then I looked for notable British Pakistanis. The Wikipedia list was a good deal longer than that for British Arabs. Writers, artists,  politicians were all listed, but only two dozen were recognizable. Among them, the half-dozen best known are Hanif Kureishi, the writer, Sajid Javid, the Home Secretary, Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London, Razia Iqbal, a presenter for the BBC, M.P. Raz Shah, and Baroness Warsi, a member of the House of Lords. There were a great many unknowns from the lesser media, politicians equally unknown, though they sat in Parliament or were Lord Mayors.

There were four people listed under “Militants” — three of them took part in the 7/7/2005 bombing, the fourth was “sentenced under the Terrorism Act 2000.”

Under “Science and Medicine,” I found the following seven names of “prominent” British-Pakistanis:

Haroon Ahmed – prominent scientist in the fields of microelectronics and electrical engineering

Qanta Ahmed – physician specializing in sleep disorders. She is also an author and a newspaper columnist

Rozina Ali – microvascular reconstructive plastic surgeon and consultant with a specialist interest in breast reconstruction; television presenter

Nadia Bukhari – pharmacist and youngest female fellow of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society; an honour bestowed to those who have achieved excellence and distinction in their pharmacy career.

Hasnat Khan – heart and lung surgeon who was romantically involved with Diana, Princess of Wales

Mohammad Naseem – qualified GP and the chairman of the Birmingham Mosque Trust

Asim Shahmalak – hair transplant surgeon and broadcaster, and proponent of such surgery; in 2009, he performed the UK’s first eyelash transplant

All but one seem to have become “notables” not because of serious contributions, as researchers or practitioners, to science or medicine, but because they are celebrities of a kind — prominent in the media, connected to the royals, or high up in a local mosque. Though the category is “Science and Medicine,” only one of those listed — Haroon Ahmed — is in physics; all the others are in medicine. Haroon Khan’s claim to fame has nothing to do with his professional abilities, but only to the fact that he was the lover of Princess Diana. Mohammad Naseem is a “qualified GP” — in other words, an ordinary General Practitioner, no different from tens of thousands of other GPs; he made the list not for any contributions to medicine, but because he is also “the chairman of the Birmingham Mosque Trusts.” Qanta Ahmed “specializes in sleep disorders,” but has made the list because she is a columnist. Rozina Ali is interested in “breast reconstruction,” but her main claim to fame is as “a television presenter.” Nadia Bukhari is famous for being the youngest female fellow of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society; a pharmacist, not a scientist, and her chief claim to fame is her youth. Asim Shahmalak is a plastic surgeon; his specialty is “hair transplant” and he is a broadcaster. Shahmalak’s “hair transplants” and Ali’s “breast reconstructions” (presumably, breast enlargements) are not so much medicine as cosmetic surgery, where there is lots of money to be made. No cardiologists, no oncologists, no  pathologists, no kidney specialists, and not a single researcher among them — just hair transplants, breast reconstruction, a young pharmacist, a GP of no apparent distinction, and someone listed not for his contributions to medicine but only for his link to Princess Di.

As for British Pakistanis in the Humanities, the list is similarly unimpressive:

Khizar Humayun Ansari OBE – He is the director of the Centre for Minority Studies at the University of London, known for his work in the field of race and ethnic relations.

So Ansari is not  the kind of  historian that you and I would recognize as legitimate; he lives, and thrives, in that brand-new self-contained world of race and ethnicity studies, sex and gender and queer studies, and “intersectionality” studies with all of the above — all those things that have made academic life today so often depressing and absurd.

Sara Ahmed – former professor of Race and Cultural Studies at Goldsmiths, University of London and academic working at the intersection of feminist theory, queer theory, critical race theory and postcolonialism.

See comment on Khizar Human Ansari above; it applies with equal force to  Sara Ahmed.

Tariq Ali – academic, historian and novelist.

A leftist, a former Trotsykite, still a great supporter of Cuba and of the “Bolivarian Revolution” in Venezuela. No fan of the West, with a special unsurprising dislike of the United States, and of Israel. He’s a great fan of Che Guevara and Edward Said. You get the picture. His wife, unsurprisingly, is the editor of the New Left Review.

Sarah Ansari – professor of history at Royal Holloway, University of London

Judging by her wikipedia entry, she is a serious historian of south Asia, especially of Pakistan.

Yasmin Khan – historian of British India and Associate Professor of History at The University of Oxford.

Again, thankfully, a  no-nonsense historian of British India in the 20th century.

Ziauddin Sardar – scholar, writer and cultural critic.

According to Sardar himself, his special fields of interest are “Islam, Islamic Science, Futures, Postmodernism and Transmodernity, identity and multiculturalism and Postnormal Times.” He also spent five years in Saudi Arabia studying the Hajj. In his journalism, he’s a stout defender of the faith.

Shabbir Akhtar – philosopher

Akhtar’s fields of interest are  “political Islam, Quranic interpretation, revival of philosophical discourse in Islam, inter-faith dialogue as well as Islamic readings of the New Testament.”

Mona Siddiqui — professor and journalist

Siddiqui is a professor of Islamic Studies and Public Understanding at the University of Glasgow, as well a regular contributor to BBC Radio 4, The Times, The Scotsman, The Guardian and The Herald. As that regular contributor, her sole subject of interest is — give a wild guess — Islam.

Out of the millions of British Pakistanis, the list of notable contributors to the Humanities consists of eight names. On closer inspection, one realizes that six of the eight listed are people trapped within the mental confines of Islam or of the academic fashions of race, ethnicity, sexuality, gender, queer and, of course, “intersectionality” studies. Only two of them, Sarah Ansari and Yasmin Khan, come across — if you look into their writings — as serious historians of south Asia.

Boris Johnson wanted to offer an example of Muslim immigrants who had done well, who had made notable contributions to British life, who “had helped to make our national culture,” just as Jewish immigrants had managed to do. He may not have realized that by inviting comparison with Jewish immigrants, he had done British Bangladeshis no favors. For whether you look at British Bangladeshis, British Arabs, or British Pakistanis, they suffer by that  comparison. And should intrepid journalists, intrigued by Johnson’s remark on Jewish, Huguenot, and Bangladeshi immigrants, do some investigating and comparing of immigrant achievements on their own, the results would likely be too embarrassing or impliedly “islamophobic”  to publish.

How have British Bangladeshis “helped to make our [British] national culture”? They have had a permanent effect on cuisine — the curry takeaways on every second street — but what else can be claimed as a Bangladeshi contribution to British national culture? Where are the intellectual and artistic contributions from British Bangladeshis that have changed the “national culture”of Great Britain?

What Boris Johnson might have said, as a general proposition about immigration, is this:

“Immigrants are welcome to enter our country, in reasonable numbers, as long as they are willing and able to integrate into our society. Never before have we in Britain had immigrants  arrive, unbidden, in such numbers, mainly from societies outside the West. Obviously there have been problems with such immigrants that cannot be ignored; whistling in the dark is not a policy. If certain groups of immigrants find that they cannot, or do not wish, as a matter of deep belief, to integrate into our society, and would instead like us to change to accommodate them, then it makes sense to reconsider their presence here. Integration requires that immigrants  not shut themselves off from the larger society, not preach dislike or hatred of those among whom they have been allowed to settle and from whom they have received such generous support. It means accepting our system of parliamentary democracy. It means upholding the equality of men and women instead of promoting misogyny. Above all, it means supporting the freedom of speech, that is, the right to express one’s views, including the right to criticize or mock deep beliefs, political or religious, without being threatened. In the democracies of the West, these rights must always  be non-negotiable.”

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Follow me on Facebook

Filed Under: Featured, Hugh Fitzgerald, immigration, United Kingdom Tagged With: Boris Johnson


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. mortimer says

    Jul 17, 2019 at 10:33 am

    I imagine that Boris was trying to paraphrase this: Immigration without assimilation is invasion. No reasonable person would disagree.

    Obviously, there are many famous immigrants who brought talents and innovations that improved the lives of Britons. Sir Alec Issigonis and Michael Marks are two of the most obvious. On the other hand, many Muslim immigrants want to bring totalitarianism and supremacism, though most Muslims in UK are obviously not very political. Most British families now have one curry meal every week, a taste acquired during The Raj.

    I’m sure Boris was not criticizing Gaelic-speakers in Scotland.

    • Tom says

      Jul 17, 2019 at 11:40 am

      “In remarks at a Conservative Party hustings on July 12, Boris Johnson hailed British Jews as one of the immigrant groups who “adapted and they have made their lives and they have helped to make our national culture.”

      “That’s what I want for our country, I want everybody who comes here and makes their lives here to be and to feel British,” he said”

      That was a clear swipe at Muslims who refuse to integrate in the UK culture.

      I think Boris may just be the guy to start turning things around in the UK.

  2. mortimer says

    Jul 17, 2019 at 10:42 am

    The Normans truly invaded England and did NOT assimilate much, imposing their language and customs on the resentful Anglo-Saxon Britons. This is when the Robin Hood legends developed. The Normans made the greatest number of changes to the British culture before them or since.

    If today’s immigrants hate the UK and its culture and people so much that they can’t be bothered to even learn the language, they cannot be said to have any level of commitment to the country. They probably won’t care what Boris thinks either. Islam creates a culture that is largely fatalistic and apathetic.

    • Crusades Were Right says

      Jul 18, 2019 at 5:38 pm

      What a pity the silly Anglo-Saxons didn’t appreciate the “diversity” they were being handed on a plate! lol

      But I’m sure it will be much more amicable with the Bangladeshi, Nigerian and Somali newcomers, since they aren’t so distant from Brits in terms of ethnicity, religion and culture as the Normans were. lol

  3. CRUSADER says

    Jul 17, 2019 at 11:28 am

    Simple as the A B C s…
    —————————–

    America for America

    America for Americans and Americana

    …

    Britain for Britain

    Britain for Britons and Britishers

    …

    Canada for Canucks !

    • Giacomo Latta says

      Jul 18, 2019 at 10:07 am

      But if Scotland and Wales love Islam so much then let them accept all of Britain’s immigrating Muslim hordes. We in North America shall welcome their native Scottish, Welsh, Pict, Cornish and other native emigrating hordes.

  4. Westman says

    Jul 17, 2019 at 11:41 am

    Strangely, Bangladeshi students are performing, marginally, better than White students, yet the majority of trouble-causing Muslim gangs in the Tower Hamlets area are Bangladeshis. What explains this inconsistency, or, is this another evidence that Islamic radicalism is unrelated to education?

    • TheBuffster says

      Jul 17, 2019 at 7:36 pm

      Westman – “Strangely, Bangladeshi students are performing, marginally, better than White students, yet the majority of trouble-causing Muslim gangs in the Tower Hamlets area are Bangladeshis. What explains this inconsistency, or, is this another evidence that Islamic radicalism is unrelated to education?”

      Unless the better-performing students are the same individuals that are joining gangs and causing trouble, I don’t see any mystery here. Some people in an ethnic group are intelligent, hard-working, and have decent values and others are criminals and join gangs.

      Also, some Bangladeshis will be die-hard Muslims, others luke-warm, and others won’t be Muslims at all.

    • TheBuffster says

      Jul 17, 2019 at 8:01 pm

      Also, Westman, what is a “trouble-causing Muslim gang”? Is it a gang of people from a Muslim background who do what other gangs do, including taking and selling drugs and committing crimes? Or is it a bunch of Islamic ideologues ‘policing’ neighborhoods for correct Islamic behavior and meting out Islamic ‘correction’ to those who don’t conform? Or are we talking about grooming gangs? (As I understand it, most, if not all, of the grooming gangs are primarily Pakistani.)

      It’s true that when it comes to jihad, educational levels don’t seem to matter. But do the better-educated jihadists join street-gangs, or do they carry out their missions by other means? As to the grooming gangs, I’ve seen a lot of photos of those guys and most of them look like the dullest pencils in the box. There are lots of inbred-looking creeps in those gangs. I don’t think they’re the cream of the crop.

      • CRUSADER says

        Jul 17, 2019 at 11:58 pm

        Well, if, Buffster, “trouble-causing Muslim gang”
        were a description of the former AND the latter
        (as with the case from Maajid Nawaz’s past),
        then it wouldn’t be much different than the end-up
        no where but a dead end….and causing the same
        result upon others. Therefore, must be resisted
        and diminished.

        “Radical: My Journey out of Islamist Extremism”

        Book by Maajid Nawaz

        Hmmm…. “better-educated jihadists” USE street-gangs
        as their tools for whatever agenda they have to perform
        — mainly upon Kafir/Non-Muslims as their victims….

        Does it take cream of the crop to do disastrous damage?
        What of Lee Harvey Oswald?

        Note the effects of this movie: how the smart use the dumb….

        BBC production of “Dirty War”:

        About a dirty bomb in London, and the jihadist team putting it all together,
        at various levels… as well as the counter team trying to prevent it from happening.

        Head turning documentary….

        Worth viewing.
        (Particular moment is at minute marker 15:30) that
        explains the plotters on a schematics chart.

  5. Jayell says

    Jul 17, 2019 at 2:10 pm

    “Boris Johnson hailed British Jews as one of the immigrant groups who “adapted and they have made their lives and they have helped to make our national culture.”

    Absolutely right! They made sure that they fitted in with things as much as possible, mostly adopting the local dress code and even anglicising their names to show that they identified with traditional British values. There have been dozens of well-known ‘Brits’ who have done fantastic things for the people and reputation of this country that I never even realised were Jewish until recently – and they hardly ever scrounged off society. And those who ‘made it’ were all people who got where they got through their own ability and NOT through any kind of ‘special consideration’.

    Now, the main difference between our Jewish friends and the more recent arrivals that ‘grace our shores’ is that, whereas the former felt they had a duty to identify with, and work hard to, make a contribution to the life and people of the UK as a whole, our ‘friends’ from Bangladesh, Pakistan, etc. etc. seem quite convinced that the people of the UK have a duty, like unpaid hotel staff, to contribute to a better lifestyle for THEM whilst they continue to behave and misbehave exactly as they did ‘back home’ – and whilst we pander to their every need. So it’s no wonder that, on balance, they’ve contributed little or nothing of value to the UK apart from increasing the welfare bill, the crime figures, and the destruction of the British nation in the name of so-called ‘diversity’.

  6. James Lincoln says

    Jul 17, 2019 at 3:19 pm

    Jayell says,

    “our ‘friends’ from Bangladesh, Pakistan, etc. etc. seem quite convinced that the people of the UK have a duty…to contribute to a better lifestyle for THEM…

    Exactly!

    JFK once said:

    “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”

    I guess the Muslim invaders, wherever they invade, never cared much for that quote…

    • Jayell says

      Jul 17, 2019 at 5:49 pm

      Our ‘friends’ from the Indian Subcontinent have actually proudly declared that they don’t see themselves as ‘British’ – which is no more than we expect of them, because we don’t see them as ‘British’ either since they don’t stand a chance of ticking any of the boxes when it comes to conforming with the definitive ‘British’ identity. Yet when they’re given their marching orders because they’ve contravened their visa conditions or broken the law they’ll procrastinate for years and try every trick in the book to avoid being kicked out, no doubt because they know full well that they won’t get the free housing and meal tickets back in their native cesspits. Yes, these are the specimens whose contribution to the UK Boris Johnson thinks we should celebrate. I wonder what fairy stories he reads at bedtime?

      • TheBuffster says

        Jul 17, 2019 at 8:17 pm

        Jayell – “Our ‘friends’ from the Indian Subcontinent have actually proudly declared that they don’t see themselves as ‘British’ – which is no more than we expect of them, because we don’t see them as ‘British’ either since they don’t stand a chance of ticking any of the boxes when it comes to conforming with the definitive ‘British’ identity.”

        Which “friends from the Indian Subcontinent” have made this declaration? This is a genuine question. I don’t know about this.

        I’m pretty sure that many people from the Subcontinent – especially those born in Britain or whose families have been there for a couple of generations – do see themselves as British, despite what some spokesmen may say.

        The best paragraph of Hugh’s article above is the final one. And I whole-heartedly agree with this:

        “…It [integration] means accepting our system of parliamentary democracy. It means upholding the equality of men and women instead of promoting misogyny. Above all, it means supporting the freedom of speech, that is, the right to express one’s views, including the right to criticize or mock deep beliefs, political or religious, without being threatened. In the democracies of the West, these rights must always be non-negotiable.”

        Some individuals from other cultures, including the Subcontinent and Muslim countries, are happy to integrate and others are not. Some flee to Western countries precisely because they believe in those values Hugh highlights and want to live where their rights as individuals are respected. And, as we well know, others have different motivations.

        • CRUSADER says

          Jul 17, 2019 at 11:06 pm

          Many folks in Britain, who are not “Traditionally” Britons,
          are very British. They relish in it, and continue on the customs.
          I have quite a few friends who are of that “tone” and “tenor”.
          And they are outstanding British citizens. They would be among
          the first to stand with “Traditionals”….and sing “God, Save the King!”
          (I’m looking ahead, obviously!)

  7. Prabh says

    Jul 17, 2019 at 10:53 pm

    📺🔫ik uncleji now mine luv 4TheeThou i s PakkaAtal.
    SatnamWahegru.
    ♥️

  8. CRUSADER says

    Jul 17, 2019 at 11:03 pm

    Idiocy by Prabh’s dithering diarrhea

    • Prabh108 says

      Jul 18, 2019 at 12:56 am

      📺❄️U nonveg either have constipation, diarrhea from travel to delhi stay out india is fullup, or worse u r literally impotent because u r not a yogi
      Furthermore u think ur neonate is a born sinner
      Grow up at the level of atma,
      Sincerely,
      Pr101🌻

  9. jim says

    Jul 18, 2019 at 3:11 am

    “You can study the impressive list here of celebrated British Jews. ”

    Oh yes, the impressive accomplishments such as inviting in the flood of third worlders in the first place. Barbara Roche, David MIliband, etc etc. What ethnicity were they, precisely?

  10. Jay Bhattacharjee says

    Jul 18, 2019 at 4:23 am

    This clown Boris Johnson, who is also partly Turkish, is a moron of the highest order. To pick Bangladeshis, and not Indians, for their positive contribution to the UK (in every sphere) shows what a pathetic jerk he is. Brits. of Indian origin have contributed infinitely more to their adopted country than the Pakis and the Bangladeshis. These two groups rank at the bottom of the ladder in any index of achievement or success that you can think of.

    You can wager your bottom penny that joker Johnson will destroy Limeyland as completely as possible. And as quickly as possible. The Scots, the Welsh and the Ulster lot may just survive the lunacy of the English.

    • marc says

      Jul 18, 2019 at 11:48 am

      Having lived 40 years in London, I’d agree Indians, Hindu, Sikh and Jain, industrious, hardworking, inventive, my kids never had issues with them school (very important gauge).
      And what about West Indians, they came in the ’50s and made a massive contribution post war, and who doesn’t love Jerk Chicken with rice and peas.

      • Jay Bhattacharjee says

        Jul 18, 2019 at 1:17 pm

        Thanks, Marc, for your perceptive observations. A few other readers seem to have missed the bus on this issue. One of them lumps all the people from the Indian subcontinent in one basket. He is clearly out to lunch. The Pakis (who are nearly at the bottom of the heap in all socio-economic indices) and the Bangladeshis are massive problems for both India, the U.K. and the world. Admittedly, the current Bangladesh government is reasonably mature, but Pakistan is the virus that might take the world down, if the Iranians and the Saudis don’t do it earlier.

  11. Crusades Were Right says

    Jul 18, 2019 at 5:01 pm

    “Jews, Bangladeshis, Huguenots”

    Spot the odd one out. Has anyone ever met a Huguenot? Of course not – they were quickly and easily absorbed into the British population centuries ago. In fact, everywhere they went they were completely absorbed. Does anyone in his right mind think that will happen with the Bangladeshis or Jews? The Jews will remain distinctive and separate as always, while Mohammedans will swell in numbers and push for imposing THEIR values on the natives. Judging by what happened in many other lands that had Islam introduced into them, it will be the BRITS who will be absorbed, I strongly suspect, not the other way around!

  12. Crusades Were Right says

    Jul 18, 2019 at 5:05 pm

    “There were Jews in Britain who arrived with William the Conqueror and the Norman Conquest in 1066; a few may even have come with the Romans centuries earlier”

    One of the benefits from being conquered? lol

  13. Crusades Were Right says

    Jul 18, 2019 at 5:24 pm

    Immigration is, generally speaking, bad news for natives in Western countries:

    If the immigrants are doing well for themselves, it is usually at the expense of the natives, e.g. out-competing them in the job market.

    If, however, the immigrants are languishing on social welfare, it’s a financial burden on the natives.

    Supporters of Third World mass migration often cite the population movements of Europeans to North America and Australia, for example, as a “You did it too!” justification. Did not work out too well for the natives in THOSE places either, I seem to recall! lol

FacebookYoutubeTwitterLog in

Subscribe to the Jihad Watch Daily Digest

You will receive a daily mailing containing links to the stories posted at Jihad Watch in the last 24 hours.
Enter your email address to subscribe.

Please wait...

Thank you for signing up!
If you are forwarding to a friend, please remove the unsubscribe buttons first, as they my accidentally click it.

Subscribe to all Jihad Watch posts

You will receive immediate notification.
Enter your email address to subscribe.
Note: This may be up to 15 emails a day.

Donate to JihadWatch
FrontPage Mag

Search Site

Translate

The Team

Robert Spencer in FrontPageMag
Robert Spencer in PJ Media

Articles at Jihad Watch by
Robert Spencer
Hugh Fitzgerald
Christine Douglass-Williams
Andrew Harrod
Jamie Glazov
Daniel Greenfield

Contact Us

Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Archives

  • 2020
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2019
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2018
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2017
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2016
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2015
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2014
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2013
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2012
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2011
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2010
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2009
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2008
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2007
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2006
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2005
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2004
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2003
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • March

All Categories

You Might Like

Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Recent Comments

  • gravenimage on Uighur leader: ‘We’re actually quite worried’ about what Biden might let China get away with
  • OLD GUY on Iranian top dogs approve bill to end UN nuclear inspections, increase enrichment
  • gravenimage on Uighur leader: ‘We’re actually quite worried’ about what Biden might let China get away with
  • OLD GUY on UK: Woman converts to Islam, distributes Islamic State jihad terror videos
  • OLD GUY on Al-Qaeda Calls on Jihadis to Kill Non-Muslims With Poisoned Coronavirus Masks

Popular Categories

dhimmitude Sharia Jihad in the U.S ISIS / Islamic State / ISIL Iran Free Speech

Robert Spencer FaceBook Page

Robert Spencer Twitter

Robert Spencer twitter

Robert Spencer YouTube Channel

Books by Robert Spencer

Jihad Watch® is a registered trademark of Robert Spencer in the United States and/or other countries - Site Developed and Managed by Free Speech Defense

Content copyright Jihad Watch, Jihad Watch claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to their respective owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and you do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.

Our mailing address is: David Horowitz Freedom Center, P.O. Box 55089, Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-1964

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.