We really mustn't let the wankerati panic us into a policy on Syrian refugees which we'll later regret

Refugees welcomed by: Saudi: 0, Kuwait: 0, Qatar: 0, Emirates: 0, Bahrain: 0

The BBC has never made any pretence of neutrality over what it feels Britain should do about the current Syrian refugee crisis: the whole country should burst into tears and take in as many migrants as want to come here. If they were to get their wish, the BBC and the rest of the left-liberal media could then spend the next five years attacking the government for failing to provide sufficient housing, school places, jobs, benefits, and hospital beds to meet Britain's needs, while carefully avoiding any suggestion that fresh migrant hordes might in any way be responsible for any perceived shortages. Similarly, any increase in Islamist terrorist incidents would be the fault of our bumbling security services and the failure of indigenous Britons to understand and empathise with the sensibilities and concerns of vast numbers of young Muslim foreigners who have no liking for the West or its liberal values.

It would, of course, all be the fault of white British racists in general and the Tory Party and UKIP in particular.

From the moment Europe decided not to do everything in its power to dissuade migrants from landing on its shores by very publicly and noisily not allowing a single one of them to settle here (as Australia has so successfully done), the unfolding of the current crisis simply couldn’t have been any more predictable. By encouraging increasing numbers to undertake the hazardous journey, the EU guaranteed not only an increasing death toll, but also virtually every other depressing aspect of the current deranged international cluster-fuck.

Now, of course, all the lefties who cried out against the UK taking sides in the Syrian conflict by bombing Boy Assad’s forces are now wringing their hands and demanding we let in thousands of migrants - mainly young Arab Muslim men – because it’s our humanitarian duty. Well, sod that for a game of soldiers. We might indeed have some responsibility for refugees from Libya, in whose affairs we did interfere militarily (with disastrous consequences) – but our parliament’s decision not to interfere in Syria means that we have no duty of care to those fleeing the civil war in that benighted country.

I’m only too happy for Britain to accept genuine asylum seekers – i.e. people persecuted by fascist regimes for speaking out in favour of genuine democracy, or for being Christians, for instance: there are many truly revolting totalitarian regimes in the world, many of them in Muslim countries. But when one of these countries descends into civil war, expecting Europe to offer a safe haven for potentially hundreds of thousands of refugees who don't share our languages, our culture or our religion strikes me as an act of cultural suicide.

Of course, left-wingers and One Nation Tories regard anyone voicing these opinions as a heartless racist who wants more children to drown in the Mediterranean. Nonsense, of course. Cameron was right – guaranteeing migrants the right of permanent settlement in Europe will lead to even more deaths, not only among those undertaking the journey, but among those left behind (where, exactly, are all the old people – why are so many of the refugees arriving in Europe young men?) I don’t consider myself a racist – but I am definitely a “culturist”: I believe European civilisation, even in its current desiccated, degenerate form, is worth preserving and nurturing in order to hand it on to succeeding generations. I’m not sure that the wholesale importation of young Muslim men has ever proved particularly beneficial to liberal democracies (many of them seem to bring rather unpleasant habits with them, as well as many views which the majority of the indigenous population find abhorrent). Let’s get real, many of the would-be immigrants aren’t fleeing here in order to enjoy the fruits of democracy so much as to enjoy the economic benefits offered by liberal democracies compared to the economic misery offered by Third World dumps controlled by ruthless tyrants or equally ruthless theocrats.  Otherwise, why are they all demanding to travel to Germany, which just happens to be the richest country in Europe?

Many Muslim countries have taken in large numbers of Syrian refugees, including Turkey (over 2m), Lebanon (just under 2m), Egypt (130,000+), Jordan (1.4m), and Iraq (nearly 250,000). Yes, they’re mainly housed in camps, which, were European countries to do the same, would cause our left-wing wankerati to rent their garments and gnash their teeth and wail at the top of their self-righteous voices – just imagine the heart-rending BBC reports about the inhumane conditions Syrians were being forced to endure! Syrian refugees arriving here would inevitably end up with full citizenship, plus the host of rights, protections and benefits that accompany citizenship – is that the case in Muslim countries? I doubt it.

As the cartoon at the top of this page (misappropriated from this Daily Mail article) poignantly highlights, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Emirates and Bahrain appear to have given asylum to NOT ONE SINGLE SYRIAN REFUGEE! Why not? After all, they’re fellow Arabs and co-religionists. If these incredibly wealthy Arab Muslims won’t help, why the hell would a small, crowded  Northern European, nominally Christian country do so? Not only that, but Britain has provided more aid money for Syrian refugees that either Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. What the hell is going on?  Why doesn’t the EU get its act together and  make a deal with these rich Arab countries? If they genuinely offer to take in and genuinely integrate and give citizenship to 80% of those who still wish to flee Syria, then the EU will agree to take the other 20%.  Sounds a good deal to me. Maybe the UN could broker the deal? (That was a joke, by the way.)

One of the many reasons for the extraordinary success of Britain and its mainly white former colonial offshoots for much of the past five hundred years (apart from common law, jury trials, an independent judiciary, free market economics, the concept of fair play, Protestantism, the English language, constitutional monarchy, and democracy) is a marked preference for not rushing hysterically into action with passions inflamed and  without any desired outcome in mind.  What exactly would the desired outcome of opening our borders to thousands of Syrian refugees be? Would it cut the current death toll? No. Would it embarrass rich Arab countries into re-assessing their policies towards Muslim refugees? Nope. Would it guarantee Britain the undying gratitude of the Islamic world? No (nothing ever does). Would it increase the wealth of this country or add to our talent pool? Unlikely. Would it make us safer? Almost certainly not. Would it benefit the British people in any way whatsoever? Doubtful.

What it would do, of course, is allow people like Emma Thompson, Piers Morgan and Jeremy Corbyn – and all the other members of the socialist wankerati who have been frenziedly emoting in the media this week about how “we” need to respond to this crisis with boundless generosity - to feel all warm and fuzzy inside. And, personally, I reckon anything which makes that lot feel even better about themselves than they already do is likely to be bad for the rest of us.

The logic of the current nauseatingly sentimental demands for the UK to open its borders (as if they're not already wide open) is that the populations of numerous failed states throughout the world simply up sticks and decamp to Europe. I don't find that a particularly appetising prospect.