Like many I have mixed feelings regarding immigration, which has been a feature of the developed world since time began. The real question regarding this country and the influx of immigrants is that our infrastructure has lagged well behind. We are unable to cope with this yearly influx at the present rate; and we will continue to fall steadily back and never be able to close this ever widening gap.
One has only to see the problem Auckland now finds itself in, mainly with this almost uncontrolled entry of immigrants; especially when the present world is poised on the edge of a new robotic industrial and commercial employment revolution.
Immigration such as now happening in Western Nations and especially in this country needs a careful re-assessment, otherwise we will see a return of the long despised but true Malthusian theory re-merging as a controversial front line problem. A theory which still haunts those in the corridors of power!
Also the extra costs that will be placed upon our society will demand a new thinking in terms of increasing our exports to pay for the new infrastructure. As agriculture is so despised and blamed for so many ills by the Green Lobby, any increase will further their fury and misleading rhetoric. It is obvious that they remain totally silent on any possible alternative, if indeed they think that far ahead!
Add this to the constant requirements by the many fractions of our public for more resources mainly into social issues, with a complete disregard for either central or local government finances.
.Then there are the ethnic problems posed by the almost unrestricted entry of refugees into New Zealand and the threat which comes with the entry of Muslims into our community. Terrorism does not necessarily come from the first wave of these immigrants, but as in the U.K. and France from their descendants; proving conclusively that they do not assimilate like other immigrants into the existing community. Just how can they, when their religion (Koran) demands the elimination of non-Muslims?
Why do our Parliamentarians in this country in concert with other Western Nations continue with a policy in accepting Muslims in greater numbers? Seemingly humanitarian concerns promoted by the United Nations (safely ensconced in their New York Ivory Tower) override the realities of future conflicts. The United Kingdom and Europe already has its fair share of problems with Muslims; ranging from a terrorist-sympathising Islamic Mayor to frequent terrorist attacks committed in the name of Islam.
New Zealand has seen to date, very little of the scale of terrorism that has been experienced in other countries, but one can but wonder, just how long this fragile peace will continue and what messages to the faithful emanate weekly from Mosques in this country? Just how long will it be before the dreaded Shari law is established into this country along with the other practices?
It was laughable decades ago to think that Western Nations would ever have enclaves dominated by a particular sect or religious group, and more importantly due to the weak apologetic political non-action and failure to inform of the consequences that these groups now pose in demands for their own religious laws. Which has resulted into areas in which Common law and Justice is no longer valid.
Already in Australia they have felt the growing Islamic independence in the demand for private areas in which Muslim men can express views (and no doubt anger) which are not acceptable in a democratic society.
With another election upon us concerned mainly with internal issues and the race to handout more financial sops to ensure political votes, it is doubtful whether any politician will have the time, the resolve, the courage, or indeed the intestinal fortitude to raise the actual issues of Immigration.
Brian Arrandale is a keen scholar and writer with a background in farming and management.
4 comments:
SECOND GENERATION JIHADIS
Intuitively, one would expect the second- and third-generation offspring of Muslim immigrants to be more acculturated to living in the West, and thus less likely than their parents to be involved in terrorist activity. Naive liberals are constantly suprised that this is not the case.
There’s a simple explanation as to why most acts of domestic terrorism in the West are carried out by second- and third-generation Muslims.
Imagine Ahmad, a peace-loving "Muslim in name only" who thinks Islam means peace. He's a nice guy. He's never read the Koran, but his parents are Muslims, so he considers himself Muslim.
Ahmad’s parents moved to the West to get away from the strictures of living in an Islamic society and welcome the religious tolerance and pluralism that is an essential part of Western culture.
They don’t practice any of the five pillars of Islam, but identify themselves as Muslim, since in the Islamic Community, apostasy is difficult, uncomfortable, and even dangerous. So they go with the programme, and say things like, "the Koran is the perfect and final word of Allah," because they're supposed to.
Aged 18, Ahmad goes to a mosque to explore his roots a little. He meets someone there who has read the Koran, studied it and believes in it. He says to Ahmad, "Do you realise your parents are hypocrites?"
And what rebellious young man trying to find his own way in life is not willing to hear that? As Theodore Dalrymple postulates: “It [Islam] … successfully squares the adolescent circle: the need both to conform to a peer group and to rebel against society.
The recruiter gives Ahmad a copy of the Koran. He tells him to read it, and talks to Ahmad about what it really says: that he must follow its teachings or he has no chance of getting into Paradise and every chance of burning in Hell forever.
What does Ahmad learn once he starts reading the Koran, which he’s been told almost since birth is the direct word of Allah? He discovers that jihad is an essential element of Islam. It is a core tenet. This isn't some fringe teaching that nobody cares about. It is a central purpose of Islam. Jihad is obligatory for all Muslims until all non-Muslims have been subjugated to Islamic law.
This political goal is a Muslim's religious duty. Mohammad didn't approve of meditation or navel-gazing. He said the way to prove your devotion to Allah is by action. This is made clear at Koran 4: 95: “Allah prefers Jihadists who strive hard and fight above those who sit home. He has distinguished his fighters with a huge reward.”
And what is this reward?
Islam teaches that one can never be certain of his or her ultimate "salvation." It teaches that the only certain way to enter paradise is to die in an act of martyrdom for Allah. That's how you get a “home-grown” terrorist.
And that’s what makes Islam so dangerous. Any Muslim, particularly if he’s a disaffected, troubled young man, is one Imam away from becoming a terrorist. As Theodore Dalrymple reminds us: “Jihad is a concept perfectly suited to giving psychopaths the idea that their viciousness serves something other than their own gratification.”
We must also be mindful that Islamic terrorists are only the visible face of Islamic jihad. Mainstream "moderate" Muslims are also active, constantly working toward the end-goal of worldwide Islamic dominance.
They do it by paying their zakat (or temple tax) to the mosque. This goes to supporting Muslim causes (which are almost entirely political causes).
They do it by having lots of children, to give Muslims a demographic advantage in democratic countries.
They do it by making every non-Muslim they meet think that Muslims are harmless and well-meaning.
They do it by crying "racism" and “Islamophobia” every time every time Islam is criticised, though they know full well Islam is not a race. They say this because it gets the desired result: It shuts people up.
Misleading the non-Muslims as to the true nature of Islam is jihad. This is known as “jihad of the tongue” or “jihad of the pen.” As Muhammad said, "War is deceit." Muslims are even permitted to disavow Islam and Muhammad if it is not a genuine heartfelt rejection. Muslims know that concealment of a truth is not an abandonment of that truth if it benefits Islam.
They may appear very sincere. In fact, they are sincere when they lie for their own protection or in the cause of Islam. They have permission to lie. Muslims have no hope for eternal salvation without their good works, so they must keep working to advance Islam. If a few lies will accomplish that goal, then lying is not bad but good. If they can get good publicity for Islam by lying, then lying is acceptable, even desirable. The Muslim is earning his way to Allah’s paradise by lying to non-Muslims.
As noted above, no Muslim can be certain that his works are good enough for Allah’s paradise. The only Muslim who knows for sure that his eternal destiny is secure and he will wake up to find himself in a delightful garden filled with 72 virgins on soft green cushions is the one who dies in an act of jihad against non-Muslims.
Most Muslims probably lack the inclination to become a jihadi martyr, but every true Muslim must be involved in making the nation in which he lives a Muslim nation. They do this by supporting terrorists with money, succour, and cover. Sure, they are aiding terror against the West that has short-sightedly welcomed them with open arms, but since they believe they are doing Allah’s will, any deception is acceptable.
Muslim criminals can even justify their criminal behaviour by reference to Islam, as long as their crimes are committed against kafirs.
Robbing kafirs is an act of jihad, since Islamic scripture says that their property is ulitimately forfeit to Muslims.
Selling drugs to kafirs is an act of jihad, since it saps the vitality of their youth, rendering them incapable of resisting the coming Muslim take-over.
Raping kafir women is an act of jihad, since the Koran and example of Muhammad teaches that non-Muslim women are destined to be Muslim sex slaves. Raping their women also demoralises the kafir menfolk, leaving them less able to resist the advance of Islam.
It’s all jihad.
And no question of it, right now Muslims are winning the war.
ENDS
Good point about agriculture and exports having to pay for everything. Cities might be creative and have agglomeration benefits but they still live off resources far and wide.
The country runs on short-term thinking and hope - all cheered on by economists on $200,000 p.a. (and working for vested interest).
A fair consideration of Islam will bring the observer to Turkey's President Erdogan's position, that "there is no such thing as moderate Islam, there is Islam "
I am concerned that we are introducing "Muslim Refugees" to smaller New Zealand communities without rigorous investigation. We don't seem to be catering for threatened Christians too well.
It is becoming established and known that our open border systems are at at their weakest for the Islamic front line at the emotional level of Refugee sympathy.
And of course Economic "Refugees"
Islam is here to conquer the world and impose Sharia law, in the name of Allah.
Post a Comment