Tags
afghans, American Liberty, apostasy, Christianity, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Defend the modern world, dogma, Europe, Facebook, facebook twitter, Germany, hadith, Iraqis, island, Liberalism, liberalism vs leftism, migrant crisis, Multiculturalism, No to Turkey in the EU, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, refugee crisis, refugees, refugees welcome, syrians, Twitter, West, west east
The vast majority of Muslims seeking ‘asylum’ in Europe, whether from Syria, Afghanistan, Iran or Iraq, are not real refugees. If they were, as has been said countless times before, they would have settled in the first peaceful country they arrived at after fleeing their own.
It is now clear to all but the most doctrinaire Leftist that these people are actually migrants, most of them seeking solely material benefit and financial reward. They are economic refugees, then, not political ones (as the media would have us believe). Not that we should allow political refugees in either, of course, since the first-safe-country principle is also valid in that case.
The only possible exception to this principle – and thus the only conceivable justification for allowing, say, a Syrian or Afghan asylum seeker to settle in Europe – is if the person in question were proven to qualify as a cultural refugee; that is, someone who is fleeing not merely the violent excess of Islam, but Islam itself. While this remains vanishingly rare, it will cost us nothing to briefly define what such a case would be like.
Imagine if in the future a man in his twenties washes up on the southerly coast of Spain. After being taken into custody he is revealed to be a Moroccan citizen who has swam the distance from North Africa to Europe alone and without any possessions. To the surprise of his interrogators the man speaks very good English and announces – convincingly – that he has had enough of living in the age of religious barbarism and wishes to join the Dar al-Harb permanently. He emphatically identifies himself as an atheist, or a Christian (or whatever other non-Islamic identity you care to imagine), and he can eloquently back up his self-identification with detailed arguments and sincere passion.
What to do with him? The response would almost certainly depend on and reflect the deepest ideological poise of those who are asked the question. A nativist, or ethno-nationalist, for example, would politely decline the stranger or perhaps unceremoniously throw him back into the Mediterranean. A Leftist meanwhile would also rather the stranger return to his land of origin, since there is enough ‘Islamophobia’ in Europe already.
Me? I’d demand a probationary period of police vigilance on the fellow, and after that a path to citizenship. In my 3 years as a blogger, I’ve found that ex-Muslims are a very potent resource of resistance to Islam, far more indeed than the average Native. And surely this hypothetical case is exactly what an asylum law is designed for. Just as in the time of Communism we generously admitted those Russians and Eastern-Europeans who wished for freedom, but did not admit Communist sympathisers or state bureaucrats (for reasons of security). So in the age of political Islam must we admit those opposed to barbarism and keep out those dedicated to it.
Whenever a native of the Muslim world shows up at the Free World’s borders, one question should be asked before all others: Why are you leaving? If the answer is not in English, the answer should be treated with suspicion. If the answer is in English but is nevertheless punctuated with inshallahs, al-hamdu lilahs and salaams, the response should be a swift refusal. But if in reasonable English the native says something like the following: “I am looking for freedom. I want to live in the modern world and leave behind the darkness of Islam and its primitive, undeveloped society”, a more generous and warm response is surely merited.
One cannot reasonably ask that the native returns to the first safe country he or she came across, because the first safe country might no longer be safe for an infidel. A more reasonable action would be to inter the individual while background checks are carried out, and then if the individual is clean of connections with Jihad relocate that person to an appropriate part of the Dar al-Harb. It might not be somewhere as illustrious as London or Berlin, but there are many options available.
Over time, a policy like this would lead to the only logical resolution we can hope for in our clash with the Islamic world; geo-cultural segregation. The Free and the Unfree kept apart, and never to merge again.
D, LDN
Defend the Modern World 
As you will be aware, we in Australia have been dealing with this problem of “refugees” for quite a few years now. Our federal conservative government of the 1990s easily understood that the majority of “refugees” arriving from the Middle East via south east Asian countries were in fact illegal migrants & failed to satisfy the requirement of the Geneva Convention regarding the first safe country of arrival. Unfortunately their left wing successors reversed the refugee policy when they were elected & we now have over 40,000 uninvited guests which the new conservative government now has to deal with. Fortunately, the off-shore processing policy now prevents leftist advocate lawyers from challenging government refusals of applications.
But the moral of this story is – don’t expect that the rational argument that these are economic refugees will persuade the “progressive” left. It falls on deaf ears!
LikeLike
You’re absolutely right. The left is in complete denial about the nature of the ‘refugees’ and the consequences of their settlement. How I wish we had an offshore processing facility here.
LikeLike
The Muslim world has long declared a war on the non-Muslim world. They say so, openly, in numerous videos and ‘religious’ lectures. You just have to get on the Internet to look for it. Yet, the politicians, media and the mainstream intelligentsia in the non-Muslim world (this phenomenon is not confined to the West alone, I see this is India and other non-Western countries as well) seem to willfully ignore this declaration of war.
Is it the unwillingness to accept that there’s a war on and the probable discomfort in abandoning their comfortable and peaceful lives that they are leading, if they have to actually fight, or is it that many of them truly believe that all cultures are equally benign in a sort of warm glow of multiculturalism and diversity, or are they so infected by leftist dogma that they believe that non-Muslim culture in inferior and must bend to the Islamists?
This war was in a way declared in Modern times on 9-11, and the Western world, if they had recognized it as a declaration of war, could have saved themselves a ton of trouble by a simple tactic of being more rational in their immigration policy. But, some strange madness, death wish and wishful thinking seems to have taken over the Western elite and mainstream. I cannot, honest to God, understand this death wish. Is it white guilt? Or, more importantly, have the decision making institutions in the West infiltrated by Islamist apologists bankrolled by Saudi (& other) oil money?
LikeLike
The death wish is often simply denial. Denial is a very powerful psychological force. Left-wingers have had it drummed into their heads that only white people can be conservative, cruel or fascistic. When non-white cultures are at fault, they instinctively blame the white world for this as well. As long as whites can be more tolerant, the problem will go away by itself. This kind of circular thinking is what lies behind our current policies.
LikeLike
I recently went to one of the ‘prestigious’ university campuses in London.
The amount of Left-wing and openly Marxist propaganda there was astounding and disgusting. It was practically the only propaganda that was there on the Campus, apart from the usual Islamist ‘Peace’ lectures and an occasional Christian prayer group by Spanish Catholic students. I was so enraged that I tore off several of these propaganda leaflets off the walls and binned them.
The left HAS to be confronted and defeated!
It’s the battle for the soul and therefore the very existence of Western culture and Western values, which are after all nothing but Universal values that happened to be first discovered by the West. The coming ideological and probably military conflict (WW3?) will be the defining battle of ours and our following generation and it cannot be won unless the ‘regressive’ are ideologically defeated, just like Soviet style Communism was defeated and binned in the dustbin of history.
LikeLike
Which university did you visit? I went to open days at quite a few. Very lefty. All of them.
LikeLike
University College, London near Euston Square station. It was a short walk from St Pancras station.
A quote from a Hungarian Conservative newspaper “There are no bastards on this earth more abominable and more destructive than these liberal pigs who are digging Europe’s grave,” wrote the conservative news site Magyar Idök.
How is that the former Communist Eastern Europe is so aware of the problem and the former ‘Capitalist’ and free Western Europe is so in thrall of Insidious Marxism?
http://www.thelocal.de/20160113/criminal-complaints-in-cologne-rise-to-561
LikeLike
Eastern Europeans are more aware than others of the deficiencies of Marxist-Communism. The famines, economic hardships and state oppression will always be remembered. We in the West do not have direct experience of the ultimate effects of such political thinking. We only have a foretaste.
LikeLike
Yes, I know UCL. A lot of liberal figures are educated there. It’s not a bad place if you ignore the student politics.
LikeLike
It is interesting to note that the Eastern European cultures that are anti-Islam are only relatively recently out of the veil of communism, or at least ultra-socialism. They know well the dangers of a foreign ideology becoming law of their land (the Soviets).
If we want to maintain infinite growth, as per the current norms in modern economic theory, then Westerners must breed. That is the only reason that these migrants are being welcomed into Western Europe is to populate. We are caught in a vicious cycle though: people can not afford children in cities like London where I read the average house price is over STG500,000 – well out of reach of ordinary working classes.
I fear the growing tide of Muslims being welcomed into Germany will create a class system that is reminiscent of the middle ages, with the serfs being the immigrant class…a recipe for revolution down the track.
The Japanese model of no immigration could be applied to Europe, but then our economic masters would have to be prepared for the new paradigm of no growth…both economically and demographically.
LikeLike
It’s a tough one. Even though it is hyped up by the pro-Islam left, there really is a demographic shortfall marked in the European future. This could potentially wipe out economic growth for decades. As you suggest, the emphasis must be on the family unit and against the culture of perpetual singledom.
LikeLike
If there is a demographic shortfall and therefore a predicted lack of economic growth, how is it solved by taking in millions of people, who hate you, your culture, your values and everything that makes the West livable and pleasant, people who want to replace all of it with a dreary culture of their own at the first opportunity, either by getting political power or by demographics or by a combination of these two.
There are literally millions of ALREADY Westernised people in India, South-East Asia, Africa and South America who not only love the West but also give their lives, if necessary, to defend it, and who would LOVE to even visit the West, would consider it the ultimate blessing to be considered a Western citizen. They will also contribute enormously to Western economy and Western creativity, for most of these already Westernised people will thrive in Western societies as they are not shackled by the endemic corruption that is the fate of their parent societies. (Expatriate Chinese and Indians are some of the most successful immigrants into America, for example, in stark contrast to China and India)
Instead, the Western leftists are importing millions of people who would be permanent welfare users and because of their hostility to the native Western population, the cost of policing them, monitoring their ‘extremists’ and ‘radicals’ and ‘training’ them to not to rape etc is only going to grow and grow exponentially. Where, please explain to me, is the economic ‘benefit’ in this mad scheme? The only people who are the economic beneficiaries of this scheme are the ‘immigrants’ or ‘invaders’ themselves and the losers are the native and Westernised-immigrant tax payers.
LikeLike
I agree. We need more immigration from civilised parts of the world; Japan, China, parts of India and Latin America etc… Latin America has been particularly neglected as a source of manpower. I’d have no problem with an influx of educated Colombians.
LikeLike
Athena, I agree with you whole-heartedly.
I suggest the reason that Europe is welcoming these people with open arms and placards, and not thinking far enough ahead (in terms of Europe’s rich history, and how the demographics will be forever changed) is because there is still this inevitable sense of guilt, thus self hatred of colonisation and empirical values that Europe once stood for.
I actually believe there is a solid argument for a modern version of this: exporting Europe’s values, rather than importing medieval values to Europe and the West.
The simple fact is that it is very hard for leftists to understand that the reason that the West is involved in so much conflict overseas is because if we were not, the world would be a much more dangerous place.
LikeLike