Sunday, November 15, 2015

Barend Vlaardingerbroek: Fortresses Under Siege from Within and Without


“… they thought that their fortresses would protect them…”
- from an Islamic State press release after the Paris attacks
  
One of the African delegates at the Malta conference addressing illegal migration into Europe last week made a disparaging reference to ‘Fortress Europe’.


Cities from ancient times until the Middle Ages were often walled, with battlements and towers from which defenders could repel invaders – these cities were literally fortresses. The term ‘Fortress Europe’ originated in WW2 in allusion to the Atlantic Wall, a chain of gun emplacements and machinegun ‘pill boxes’ put up as a defensive structure against an Allied invasion. Nowadays, the term is used more figuratively.

Human beings are territorial creatures. They stake their claim to a chunk of land and will henceforth ardently defend it from unwanted intrusions. The key word here is ‘unwanted’. There may well be a considerable flow of people entering or moving through, but it is people who are considered desirable, or at the very least tolerable, to whom the privilege is extended. 

The ‘fortress mentality’ is about exercising tight control over the movement of people into one’s territory. In modern times, this control is exercised through bureaucratic means such as entry visa procedures rather than through the flexing of military muscle, although the latter can be called upon if required.

The ancestors of most of today’s Europeans started making an appearance from about three and a half thousand years ago, claimed their block of turf and put down roots in it, giving rise to the mosaic of languages and cultures that we see today. There has always been some movement of peoples within Europe, and even into it from outside, but Europe has not been a sink for mass immigration for millennia. It was movement out rather than movement in which characterised migration patterns for some 400 years until the middle of the 20th century. Europe was a focal point of emigration, not immigration. Faced with an invasion of millions from Africa and the Middle East, it is hardly surprising that the kneejerk reaction of most Europeans is to want to stop the torrent. 

As a result of the net efflux of people mainly between the 17th and 19th centuries, numerous colonies – a word which until last century referred to outposts to which people from an imperial power moved as settlers (the French word for ‘settler’ is ‘colon’) – arose. Settlers also came into these from other places. The USA, Canada, Australia and NZ were among the products of this mass migration from hither and thither, albeit in their case mainly from Britain, a heritage that continues to be reflected by their language and systems of governance.

Ironically, it is an ‘immigrant society’, namely Australia, which has been at the receiving end of a lot of scathing comments of late for exhibiting a ‘fortress mentality’. The soubriquet ‘Fortress Australia’ has been around for some time, but had new life breathed into it by the policies Australia adopted towards illegal migrants coming in from the sea.

The ‘turn them back’ policy has been translated into the rather questionable  (in terms of international law) practice of towing boats back out into the high seas, while the practice of detaining illegal migrants in off-shore reception centres – not to mention farming them out to a neighbouring third-world country (PNG) – has come under the glare of the international spotlight. More recently, the practice of moving foreign undesirables to Christmas Island has been in the headlines.


The policies are popular at home, and have also been lauded by some commentators in Europe. Geert Wilders has lavished praise on the Australian response to the so-called ‘refugee crisis’ in the Dutch parliament and has urged European nations to follow their example. Needless to say, the PC-Left regards Wilders as a bĂȘte noir and constantly hurls slanders such as ‘racist’ and ‘xenophobe’ in his direction.

Wilders has also drawn attention to what he calls the ‘testosterone time bomb’, the vast majority of illegal immigrants being young men. The frequency of reports of sexual harassment of local girls and young women from communities in which ‘refugee’ centres are located suggests that this ‘bomb’ has a short fuse. There are other outlets for all that pent-up sexual energy too, as agitators and recruiters for terrorist groups well know.

With declining birth rates, we in the West do need immigration. But it has to be on our terms. We owe it to nobody to let them in. We do owe it to our own people to ensure that immigrants add value to our societies, and are not a permanent drain on us. Using figures from Holland, each ‘asylum seeker’ costs the Dutch taxpayer €36,000 per year. They get the full range of social benefits straight off (and more). They get preferential treatment for housing ahead of long queues of Dutch people waiting for affordable rental accommodation. Given that most of them are economic opportunists and not genuine refugees, this is morally wrong.

Most importantly, we owe it to our own people and heritage to ensure that immigrants fit in and assimilate rather than creating ghettos and sowing havoc among us. We have a right and a duty to maintain public order, which includes upholding our culture and customs.. The outrages in Paris in January and again on Friday night show what happens when we don’t do all these things.


Immigrant Britain: In Dewsbury (indigenous British population = 1%), even the ice-cream lady wears a burka (from Mail Online).

The walls of Fortress Europe have been breached. What we need to do now is repair them, re-man the towers, halt the influx, flush out the intruders who shouldn’t be there from our midst, and send them back to where they came from or to some holding bay until they can be repatriated. This may involve revoking the naturalisations of some of these characters.

At the time of my writing this piece (Sunday morning), the BBC had already identified one of the Paris attackers as a man who had entered Europe as a ‘refugee’ in October. Another man had been identified as Omar Ismail Mostefai, who the BBC referred to as “a Frenchman”. He may have had a French passport, but he was no Frenchman.

‘Fortress Australia’ is an example to us all. Was it my imagination or did I hear someone mutter something about ‘Fortress NZ’? Good on ya, mate!

Barend Vlaardingerbroek BA, BSc, BEdSt, PGDipLaws, MAppSc, PhD is at the American University of Beirut and is a regular contributor to Breaking Views on political and social issues. Feedback welcome at bv00@aub.edu.lb .

12 comments:

Brian said...

UNDER SIEGE, AND UNDER THE UNITED NATIONS POLITICAL IDEOLOGY.
Fortress New Zealand, well it was I guess some time ago, but now our Political Masters are hell bent in kowtowing to the incessant and dubious ethnic demands from the United Nations. Obsessed as they are with “Indigenous Rights, Indigenous Colonial Oppression and a desire to return ex colonies back to the original inhabitants (Whoever they are...much dispute over this one...”The Welsh reclaiming London, (A case for a new pop song “I’ve got Druids on my mind”. Not to mention the Scots returning to Ireland!!! And the Anglo-Saxon English? back to Germany with the lot of them!
Oh how I wish that here in God’s Own our Political Leaders had the courage, the fortitude, and a long distance view point regarding illegal immigrants arriving on our coasts. Regretfully like many of their ilk our leaders are imbued with the desire to please everyone; and their Spin Doctors enforce this daily by stating the obvious, that to stand against the wind will not gain any votes at the next election. Australian leaders are made of sterner stuff it seems.
The present influx from the Middle east and from Africa reflect the a secret but deliberate policy of the U.N. to mix up everyone to such a degree that the only choice left is World Government by of course the United Nations. America is a sticking point, but no doubt the Democrats have a couple more Obama’s tucked away somewhere in the wings.
The Mass Migrations of the 5th century AD are now being repeated and show that as Western Nations we have little stomach for returning these illegal’s back, or more to the point demanding that the United Nations deal with the crisis at its source. Namely, the rampant oppression and policies of these third and fourth Countries which they are inflicting upon their citizens, forcing them to seek an Eldorado in the West.
Frau Merkel may go down in history as the only humanitarian Political figure in a divided Europe, but she is an absolute godsend to the emergence of a new Nazi Party.
Brian

paul scott said...

We should say no to the appeasers and pansies in UN and the overpaid dreamers in Brussels.
We need to overhaul our Immigration policy. Here comes Winston Peters 2017 with 10% votes.

Mike K said...

The causes of this problem are two inherent issues within Islam that affect both Islamic societies and those they interact with. The first is that the Koran specifically instructs devotees to expansionism and in the process to 'strike the heads' from non believers. Thus, as the Jihadists claim, Muslims who don't engage in violent Jihad are arguably not being faithful to their religion. Islam has never managed to coherently marry the violent instructions from the Koran to the need to live peaceful, tolerant lives that most Muslims claim to aspire to and desire. It's unlikely it ever can or will.
The second is the tradition of taking multiple wives, especially in the Middle East. Inevitably the wealthier men engage in this practice, reducing the pool of available women. Poor women are inevitably attracted to the more comfortable lifestyle offered, while poor young males are left without prospective mates. Thus there is a considerable group of young, poor, frustrated males with none of the moderating ties that relationships and children can bring. Excess testosterone meets violent religious instruction and off they go.

jh said...

People forget that the Asian countries don't think like us at all. Western liberals have this idea that we can and should absorb and fix everyone else’s problems (they see themselves as the evolving hyper-person). The Asian is more practical. Take our housing policy: needs based; Singapores policy: deserving first? Is it Western affluence that has seen Western liberals lose touch?

Unknown said...

After the paris killings I read an article which linked to the European Project (saying it was dead). The project talked about how globalisation could solve problems nation states couldn't without being specific: (easy-peasy) population shoots up to 80 million just got to nation with 5 million etc.
Herman Daly takes the other view detailing the problems of globalisation; people acting at a national level acquire credits by their collective behaviours.

Anonymous said...

Allah’s prophet, Muhammad, is Islam’s ideal man. Muslims regard everything he said and did as moral simply because he said and did it. The manner in which Muhammad spread Islam defines for all time the content of its doctrine and tells us exactly what Islam means.

It is no coincidence that Muslims who model themselves most closely on Muhammad and his actions espouse a violent and expansionist world view. Whether less observant Muslims like it or not, the backbone of Islam as exemplified by the life of Muhammad is jihad. Islamic Jihadists see this clearly and act on it.

The life of Muhammad can be divided into two distinct parts.

For the first 13 years of his prophethood, Muhammad lived in Mecca, achieving less than 150 voluntary conversions over this period. His failure to spread Islam by non-violent means was not so much because he was peaceful, but because he was powerless. Eventually, he made such a nuisance of himself that his relations, who were Mecca’s ruling family, expelled him as a disruptive influence.

It was only after moving to Medina, through criminal activity and aided by a large gang of followers that Muhammad managed to seize power. He accomplished this by changing Islam to reflect the fact that the only way it could survive and spread was through brute force.

Applying Allah’s conveniently timed “revelation” that Islam can and should be spread by the sword, Muhammad led an army of Muslims across Arabia in the first Jihad. Violence became Islam’s way in the world.

Today, acting on Muhammad’s words (“War is deceit”), Muslims deploy earlier “peaceful” Koranic verses from when Muhammad was still trying to win converts by persuasion in Mecca as a propaganda weapon against the ignorance and goodwill of infidels.

Anonymous said...

Islam operates under a “religion of peace” public relations strategy until powerful enough to flex its muscles and kill. Those peddling this line selectively quote Koran 2: 256: "There is no compulsion in religion" and Koran 25: 63: “The worshippers of the All-Merciful [Allah] are those who tread the earth gently and when the ignorant speak to them, they reply ‘Peace.’” These are suras (verses) of the early period, when Mohammed was living in Mecca, had a mere handful of followers, and was still trying to win converts by persuasion.

The deceivers don’t tell us that according to Islamic doctrine, the Koran’s earlier suras are abrogated by Muhammad’s subsequent revelations once he was strong enough to disclose his real agenda. This was taught by Muhammad at Koran 2: 105: “Whatever verses we [i.e., Allah] cancel or cause you to forget, we bring a better or its like."

Pakistani social and religious critic, Kunwar Khuldune Shahid, sums up thus:

“[U]nderstanding the context of the violent and peaceful verses is rather simple – it moves in synchrony with the militaristic strength of the Muslims at the time, and the political agenda. This is why most verses that propagate peace are from Makkah – when the Muslims were barely in their hundreds – or from the early days in Medina, when Muslims were still establishing themselves as a power to be reckoned with. And as soon as they had enough power to ‘subdue’ the non-believers by forcibly converting them or compelling them to pay taxes, voila! The commandments arrived ordering precisely that.”

Bukhari: V1B2N25 makes clear that next to “Islam” or submission to Allah, the highest Muslim duty is to “Jihad” or Holy War. “Allah’s Apostle was asked, ‘What is the best deed?’ He replied, ‘To believe in Allah and His Apostle Muhammad.’ The questioner then asked, ‘What is the next best in goodness?’ He replied, ‘To go out for jihad, religious fighting in Allah's Cause.’

Muslims are ordered to fight and kill until Islam is the only religious and political institution. Koran 8:39 enjoins: "Fight them [non-Muslims] till all opposition ends and the only religion is Islam," at Koran 9: 5: “Fight and kill the unbelievers wherever ye shall find them,” and at Koran 47.4: "When you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads." Under the Islamic doctrine of “abrogation,” these verses cancel 124 earlier verses enjoining Muslims to be peaceful and tolerant.

Koran 4: 95 excuses Muslims whose circumstances (age, gender, infirmity) mean they can’t actively engage in jihad, though they still have a duty to fund it. Jihadists, however, are accorded the greater status: “Allah has granted a rank higher to those who strive hard, fighting jihad with their wealth and bodies to those who sit (at home). Unto each has Allah promised good, but He prefers jihadists who strive hard and fight above those who sit home. He has distinguished his fighters with a huge reward.”

Anonymous said...

The more devout, the more passionately committed a Muslim is to Islam, the more he comes into alignment with Islam’s inherent extremism. While we keep telling ourselves what Islam means, Muslims keep showing us what Islam means. Islam is teaching us every day about what it actually is through the behaviour of its most devout followers.

Muslims who aren’t very Muslim lead liberals to conclude that they must be practising a more enlightened form of Islam. They’re not. They are practising life in non-Muslim countries, where they’re free to live as they choose.

But even “moderate” Muslims grow up steeped in notions of Islamic supremacism. Islam is very clear in teaching that there is no equality between believers and unbelievers. Hence there is no basis for friendship, which is a relationship between peers.

Allah tells Muslims at Koran 3:110: “Ye are the best of Peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah.” Kafirs, on the other hand are, according to Koran 98.6: “worse than beasts.”

Koran 5: 51 enjoins: “"Be not friends with Jews and Christians; for they are friends only of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them.” A Muslim who genuinely befriends a Kafir joins him in his unbelief, leaving him liable to be killed by any more pious co-religionist.

Feigning such friendship, on the other hand, is encouraged, but only this is temporary and tactical. Koran 3: 28 Chapter 3, Verse 28 of the Koran allows Muslims to pretend to be friends with non-Muslims if those Muslims live in a non-Muslim society and fear for their safety.

The evidence from other jurisdictions 30 years further down the track of encouraging mass-scale Islamic immigration is that once Muslims have achieved critical mass in a non-Islamic country, the more pious and observant begin to pressure those who are less so to segregate from their host community, and to flex their religious muscles.

Judeo-Christian culture is a “guilt-based” culture, meaning if one has been correctly socialised, moral standards are internalised and self-policed. Islam, on the other hand, is a “shame-based” culture. Moral standards are externally imposed based on being seen by fellow-Muslims to be living in an Islamic manner. Put another way: if nobody sees you doing it, then you aren’t doing anything wrong.

When just a handful of Muslims are living in a non-Islamic country, there’s no identifiable Islamic community to condemn how a “Muslim in name only” elects to live. This soon changes once there are enough Muslims to see themselves as a separate Islamic community.

As Islam takes greater root in a non-Islamic country -- increasing its number of followers and constructing more mosques and ‘cultural centres’ – the greater the likelihood a certain number of its adherents will encourage one another to act on the requirement of the Sharia to use violent jihad as the vehicle to further Islam.

For those who want to make this about Muslims and not Islam, there is Islam and there are Muslims. Muslims who closely follow Islamic doctrine are at war with us and Muslims who don’t are not. But any Muslim is one Iman away from becoming a Jihadist.
ENDS

Anonymous said...

Islam’s message to the non-Muslim world has never changed since the time of Muhammad: submit or be conquered. The only time Islam is not actively at war with infidels is when the Islamic world is too weak or divided to make war effectively. This is called “hudna” (strategic truce) and is regarded by Muslims as merely temporary and tactical.

Where the greater strength of the non-Muslim world requires the jihadist to take an indirect approach, the natural attitude of a Muslim towards infidels must be one of deception and omission. Openly declaring the ultimate goal of Islam to conquer and plunder the non-Muslim world when the latter holds the military trump cards would be highly imprudent.

Fortunately for jihadists, most infidels don’t understand how the Koran is to be interpreted. Nor do they bother to find out what Muhammad actually did and taught. This makes it easy for Islamic deceivers to misrepresent Islam as a “Religion of Peace.”

A key strategy of Islamic Jihadists practising hudna is for Muslims to migrate to non-Muslim countries for the purpose of spreading Islam demographically. The Muslim Brotherhood calls this “Civilisation Jihad.” Their ultimate goal is to destroy the West and bring it forcibly within the Islamic world.

Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR) is a “mainstream” lobby group dedicated to sugarcoating Islam, whitewashing it as a “religion of peace,” and blackening opponents as “bigots.” Its founder, Omar Ahmad, said this to a group of American Muslims in 1998:

“Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”

Mohammed Akram, a Muslim Brotherhood leader in America, wrote a memorandum, later obtained by the FBI, asserting that Brothers “must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilisation from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and by the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

Civilisation Jihad is best understood as a “pre-violent” form of jihad. Based on Muhammad’s strategy when he first arrived in Medina to present as peaceful and law-abiding while building up his power through immigration, this is considered an integral, even dominant element of jihad that is at least as obligatory for Muslims as violent jihad.

Such tactics are ostensibly “non-violent” (and thus “moderate”) not because the jihadists abstain from violence out of principle, but because they have decided that this phase of battlefield preparation is best accomplished by deception and obfuscation. Hence Civilisation Jihad can be considered “Stealth Jihad.”

Civilisation Jihad is a form of political and psychological warfare that includes multi-layered cultural subversion, the co-opting of senior leaders, influence operations, propaganda and other means of insinuating Islamic Sharia law gradually into Western host nations.

Anonymous said...

Many Muslim migrants have no long-term intention of integrating or adopting Western values and culture. The question of whether these migrants are Muslim or Dutch, Muslim or German, Muslim or Danish, Muslim or English, Muslim or American, Muslim or Australian, Muslim or New Zealander, is simply a rhetorical one.

As former Muslim, Ali Sina confirms in his book Islam and Understanding the Muslim Mind: “Muslims will never assimilate … for to do so would mean they would essentially have to relinquish their faith, to compromise for something that cannot be abided, nor allowed under Islam, which is full acceptance of the equality between Muslim and non-Muslim.”

Nonie Darwish observed on moving to America in 1978 that those attending her local mosque “were told not to assimilate” and to “show your pride in Islam by being noticed as Muslims in America.” Women were “encouraged to wear Islamic clothes” as a political and religious statement, even if they were from a relatively moderate Muslim country like Egypt and had never worn such garments before.

Darwish noted that mosques were being built all over America with Saudi Arabian money and staffed with radical Saudi clerics, with predictable results: “I started seeing Egyptians and other Arabs getting radicalised right here in US mosques.”

When Darwish asked why more mosques were being built than the American Muslim community needed, she was told “[W]e are here to fill them with Americans; to bring Islam to America and change America’s Constitution to the Koran. I heard some say ‘congratulations, Europe is now dominated by Muslims; may God bless America with Islam too.’”

The number of Muslims living in the West is increasing rapidly, not just from immigration, but because Muslims are reproducing almost three times faster than Westerners. Current birth rates mean that in a few decades, Muslims will swamp non-Muslims demographically. That’s why Islam is the world’s fastest-growing religion, not because hordes of non-Muslims are converting to it.

Even if the West wins some kind of military victory over Al Queda and ISIS, it will still almost certainly lose the "population war." The Islamic demographic explosion threatens to overrun the already dwindling populations of many Western countries.

The future belongs to those who reproduce. They’re the ones with the burkas and the babies. With every new baby born to a Muslim family in the West, the threat of Islam grows, while the hope for democracy and freedom dwindles. Each new Muslim birth in the West increases the pace of that threat exponentially.

We should also be aware of the bigger picture. Militant Islam was brought back onto the world stage by Russia, China, and North Korea to wage a proxy war against America, Israel, and Western culture and values. It was these countries that historically supplied Muslim states with their armaments, and their terrorist groups with training.

Modern Islamic radicalism traces back direct to the Muslim Brotherhood (a front for Marxist-Leninist agitprop amongst Arab university students), which was set up in the 1920s after Stalin identified Islam as a force that could be harnessed and directed to serve Soviet regional aspirations.

The Communists later recognised that Islam could be mobilised into a dialectical conflict with Western culture and values on a far broader stage. If your goal is a one-world Socialist state, you can march a long way beside those whose goal is a one-world global theocracy before you must part company.

This explains why Islam was deliberately imported into Western nations and has ostensibly replaced Communism as the ideology of confrontation with the West.
ENDS

Anonymous said...

THE TROJAN HORSE OF ISLAM

The West’s chattering classes and politicians continue to provide us with a very shallow analysis of the Middle Eastern “refugee” problem. Behind this current are the Socialist One-Worlders of the UN, which has always seem itself as a One World Government in the making.

For upwards of 30 years, the One Worlders have been promoting salad-basket (a variety of separate but equal cultures in the public square rather than a single common culture to which all are required to broadly subscribe) multiculturalism as a subversive force. Their agenda was (and is) to dissolve the nation state into a global multi-culture, then argue that since we are all one world demographically, we should also be one world politically.

But the nation state displayed unexpected rehabilitative powers. While the first generation of immigrants from any destination wanted their children to marry others like them, succeeding generations were left to make their own choices, becoming increasingly assimilated via the melting pot.

Enter Islam. Islam will always be an ever-growing cancer in the body politic of any non-Islamic host country, because Muslims can only marry other Muslims. Any Muslim who marries a non-Muslim who doesn’t convert is according to Muhammad and the Koran required to be killed as an apostate.

Many in the West are waking up to the likelihood of a planned Muslim demographic takeover referred to in Muslim Brotherhood documents as “Civilisation Jihad,” meaning the pace of Islamic immigration must be stepped up to reach a tipping point as rapidly as possible.

Islamic Jihadists can be likened to the members of a pickpocketing gang who distract the mark so he doesn’t notice his pocket is being picked. ISIS is a convenient “radical” sideshow that has created a conflict displacing millions of “moderate” Muslims, who are flooding into the West apparently to get away from it. The Socialist One-Worlders and their liberal “useful idiot” enablers then pressure the West to admit all these “migrants” on compassionate grounds, thus hastening the demographic advance of Islam.

None of the oil-rich Middle Eastern states that are not war-torn are putting up their hands to take in fellow Arabs and Muslims. One reason might be they don’t want to admit a mass of potential troublemakers. But they are well-content to insert it into the West to further swell the already burgeoning Islamic demographic there.

Charity clearly begins in the West, not at home. Saudi Arabia, for example, has an empty tent city in the desert near Mecca set up for the use of Haj pilgrims with a capacity of more than 3.5 million people. The only aid advanced by the Saudis is an offer to fund the building of 200 mosques (aka Islamist hate and indoctrination centres) in Germany to help the "refugees" acclimatise.

Behind the women and cute children shown front and centre in television news reports, at least 80% of the “refugees” are young, fit men of military age, travelling in groups, carrying cell phones and wearing designer trainers. This is clearly an orchestrated and controlled migration movement, a Hijrah to colonise new Islamic lands, emulating the manner in which Muhammad relocated to and took over Medina.

We cannot know for sure how many of these young men are ISIS fifth columnists. Sheer numbers mean the “refugees” will receive at best a cursory processing, meaning a significant contingent of unidentifiable Islamists will be hiding inside this Trojan Horse. The aggressive young Muslim men in transit through Greece chanting obscenities and "Allahu Akbar" while refusing donated food and water did so because the Red Cross is a “Christian” symbol.

Anonymous said...

If these young men are so hostile to the barest manifestation of Judeo-Christian culture when they are hungry and thirsty, how much more hostile are they likely to prove once comfortably housed in a Muslim ghetto in a Western country?

The West ought to be offering asylum to the relative handful of the war-torn region’s persecuted Christians who have escaped being brutally done to death by Islamic Jihadists rather than admitting more unassimilable Muslims. Christian refugees are clearly a better fit with our existing Judeo-Christian culture and won’t further swell the pool of potential Islamic Jihadists already here.

Syrian Muslim refugees (the so-called "moderates" fleeing ISIS) are already showing their true colours towards Christianity by bullying and threatening Christian refugees. These Christians fled Syria to escape Islamic persecution, only to be persecuted by Syrian Muslims upon taking refuge in Sweden. Having made it what they thought was safety, the Christians were forced out of a group refugee house by Muslims, who refused to allow them to use the public areas of the house, and also made them hide their crucifixes.

Refugee policy must be made on the basis of a sober analysis of whether it will be in The West’s long-term interest rather than whether or not it makes liberals feel virtuous. Admitting large numbers of Muslims will certainly have a profound long-term effect on New Zealand’s body politic, and on the evidence of Europe, 30 years further down this path than we are, not a good one.

Europe already knows (or ought to) that Muslims are only peaceful until there are enough of them to create a recognisable Islamic community. Once this occurs, those who formerly just wanted to “get along” are pressured by the more pious and observant into following the commandments in the Koran to self-segregate and wage perpetual war on non-Muslims.

Muslims are simply the latest force or current the Socialist One-Worlders have identified that can be mobilised into dialectical conflict with the West against a common enemy, the West’s Judeo-Christian culture. They have long understood the unassimilable nature of Islam, which is why Islam has ostensibly replaced Communism as the ideology of confrontation with the West.

After all, if Judeo-Christian culture and its democratically elected limited government, rule of law, religious pluralism, secure private property rights, and individual rights and freedoms stands squarely in the way of your One World Government project, you can march a long way beside those whose agenda is a One-World Religious Theocracy before you have to part company.

After the Muslims have annihilated Judeo-Christian culture and killed off large numbers of its most committed adherents, the Communist One-Worlders expect to forcibly put down Islam and erect their One-World Government on its corpse.

But just who will quell whom? Iran’s Shah was overthrown by a coalition of USSR-backed local Communists and Islamists. After the Shah was ousted those who were prepared to die for their totalitarian religion soon proved stronger than those who were unprepared to die for their totalitarian secular social religion.

Whoever wins out, those left alive of any faith will eagerly accept the authoritarian solutions proposed by either the One-Worlders or the Islamists in order to live in apparent peace and harmony. All will become serfs on the One-World Government Plantation or ants of Allah.

As O’Brien, the torturer in George Orwell’s “1984”, told Winston Smith during his interrogation: “If you want an image of the future imagine a boot stamping on a human face --forever.”
ENDS