Characteristics of a Real Refugee

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

Advertisement

“They Could be ISIS”

Tags

America, America 911, American Liberty, Barack Obama, BBC, Britain First, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Defend the modern world, Donald Trump syria refugees, Europe, European Union, Facebook, facebook isis, Immigration, ISIS, ISIS europe, ISIS in America, ISIS refugees, Multiculturalism, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, refugees, refugees or migrants, syrians, trump, Twitter, United States

With one curt reply, Donald Trump solved the conundrum of how Western leaders should react to the Syrian Immigration crisis. Instead of fumbling about for the right excuse, or degenerating into platitudinous psychosis, Trump met the contempt of the Left with a shield of toughest reason.

Should Trump become President in 2016, the Syrian refugees now headed to America (under Obama’s policy of general cultural surrender) will, he said, be made to leave. He gave no detail as to where they will go, but he was decisive (his jaunty, masculine tone never trembling) that they will go. Why? “They could be ISIS” he explained, and much to the chagrin of liberal press infiltrators, the audience receiving this news erupted into thigh-slapping approval.

“They could be ISIS” is such a straightforward, commonsensical rationale that the Left will surely pick at it ruthlessly in the weeks to come. Liberals, after all, don’t like common-sense; it’s far too reminiscent of the working classes they so despise (and pretend to represent). Liberals prefer (and will only listen to) lengthy, pseudo-intellectual theses from bespectacled East-Coast vegans (or even better, granola-crunching Scandinavian Leftists) composed in order to justify or extend the reach of government. Common sense just won’t cut it. Common sense doesn’t even have formal accreditation.

But this commonsensicalism is nevertheless the correct attitude for a prospective Presidential candidate to adopt. In politics, the issues are only as complicated as you choose to make them, and the Syrian immigrant debacle is at heart quintessentially simple. A country filled with hundreds of thousands of violent barbarians is busily issuing forth a stream of undocumented, unidentifiable strangers into the civilised world. The organisation responsible for the destruction of that source country has pledged its willingness to plant operatives in that human stream; their ultimate intention being to wreak a comparable havoc on Europe, as they already have on their own soil. When one considers the pastimes presently popular in ISIS-controlled territory (head-lopping, virgin rape, forced marriages, limb amputation among various others…), it is therefore the height of intellectual clarity to prevent the human stream from penetrating the borders of civilised nations.

I didn’t need to write any of that, of course. Trump made the same point with perfect austerity – “They could be ISIS”. As a statement, it can hardly be improved upon.

Still, if it helps the block-headed leftists better understand the point, perhaps Trump might in future use the analogy of contagious disease. If the human stream issuing from Syria was rumoured to contain carriers of Ebola or Bird Flu, the borders of the civilised world would surely re-appear as if by magic. It is the accepted responsibility of government to prevent the spread of disease where it is possible to do so. Why should this be treated any differently?

Islamisation is markedly worse than any organic malady. Once a country has been Islamised, that is usually how it will stay for many centuries. Ask the Albanians, the Bosnians or the Berbers. Unlike the treatment of a medical condition, overturning a cultural transformation is impossible without revolution, violence and chaos. Collected together, the number of historic deaths related to Islamic conquest – that is, from both Islamising and de-Islamising – runs into the wild millions.

And Islamic conquest is exactly what ISIS plans for us. If they need to move their wolves into position clad in wool, they will do. If they need to shed a few phoney tears for the Western press, they will do. Hell, they’ll almost certainly sacrifice children to the sea in order to forward this vile enterprise.

Any policy able to defend us against this process must be considered.

D, LDN

Germany Bites the Cyanide Capsule

Tags

BBC, Britain First, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Counter-Jihad, Counterjihad, Defend the modern world, Demographics of Europe, EDL, edl edl, Eurabia, Facebook, Germans, germany migrants, germany migration, Islam, Islamism, Kurds, merkel germany, migrant crisis Islam, migrants, migration, Multiculturalism, Muslims, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, syrians, Turks

The gravity of the news that Germany will take an estimated 800,000 ‘refugees’ (in fact, migrants) this year must be given a context in order to be understood. First, one must appreciate that Germany has the lowest fertility rate in Europe and one of the lowest fertility rates in the world, persistently hovering around 1.2 – 1.4 children per woman. For comparison, the average fertility rate in Middle East and North Africa is 3.7 children per woman. Germany’s ‘birth dearth’ is also not a new phenomenon but one that has persisted for over two decades. The effect of this is that Germany’s population (if we factor out immigration) is now declining with each passing year, leaving a worker-retiree ratio that is economically unsustainable.

This context goes some way to explain Chancellor Merkel’s bizarre eagerness in accepting a massive injection of working-age migrants. In Syria – the homeland of most of the coming influx of ‘refugees’ – the fertility rate is 2.8 children per woman, more than double the fertility rate of native Germans. This injection of blood is therefore likely to bear much fruit over the coming decades, leading ultimately to a boost in Germany’s overall fertility rate and an improvement in its worker-retiree ratio. Economically (if only economically), one can make a case for this. It is hugely important that Germany – an industrious economic power and the engine of Europe – avoids becoming a depopulated wilderness. It will be remembered that Japan, although now getting back on its feet, suffered enormously from mass infertility in previous decades. The cost to an economy of a rapidly diminishing labour force can run into the hundreds of billions.

But a nation, it has been said many times before, is more than an economy. Culture, faith, social type and regional character are equally vital to its continued prosperity. A strong market index is hard to appreciate if the country hosting it has been fragmented into a thousand warring hatreds. And with this policy Germany is running just that risk.

The 800,000 Syrians will quickly reproduce into millions, leaving Germany’s bio-cultural make-up eternally altered. Towns and cities across the country will be partly or fully Islamised, their valued eccentricities painted over with state-sponsored ‘harmony’ initiatives and equality workshops. Islamic conversions – in the playgrounds, the prisons and street – will blur the boundary of the native and the alien, in turn threatening the concept of ‘Germany’ itself (a notion already bruised from 100 years of political upheaval).

And then there is crime. My girlfriend, Anja, derives from and still resides in Dortmund, Rhine-Westphalia. She has told me many times (usually in a sunken and maudlin tone of voice) about the link between immigration and crime in Germany, and how it is understood and lamented by every ordinary citizen. How diminutive will her past concerns seem a year from now?

In case the objection is raised, I am fully aware that not every Muslim is a rapist/terrorist/mugger/vandal. But this is only in the same way I understand that not every Romani is a thief. Despite the exceptions, in both cases we have good reasons to fear exactly these crimes from exactly these quarters. And when we consider the scale of the new migration, thousands if not millions of ordinary Germans are being placed in grave and needless danger.

Merkel’s humanitarianism, just like her economics, is hopelessly warped. Doubtless some members of the new German-Syrian community will be grateful to Germany and work in gas stations, supermarkets or healthcare, abiding by the law and paying taxes. But others will blow up trains, shoot civilians and rape innocent women. Does any government have the right to decide this is a pill worth swallowing?

D, LDN.

3 Difficult Questions About the Refugee Crisis

Tags

Afghanistan, Africa, Assad, asylum, BBC, Boats, Britain First, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, death, Defend the modern world, drama, eritrea, Facebook, flood, immigration crisis, immigration uk, Iraq, Islam, Italy, Kurds, migrants, Multiculturalism, No to Turkey in the EU, politics, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, refugee crisis, refugees, Spain, syrian war, syrians, Terrorism, Twitter, UKIP, ukip refugees

When a photograph depicting the corpse of young boy washed up on the shore of the Mediterranean emerged last week, the world was shocked and appalled. Unlike any image before it, the photo has galvanised a massive humanitarian response, some of it deeply moving and morally impressive, from Iceland to Poland, Britain to Greece. Money is being thrown aimlessly into the air. Shelter is being offered across the continent. EU governments, including formerly hard-line and conservative regimes, are now yielding to public pressure for greater quotas of asylum seekers for their respective nations.

When emotion shouts in this way, wisdom struggles to be heard. Questions of a more cynical, less humanitarian nature are in this environment extremely difficult to ask. One risks being accused of ‘heartlessness’, ‘meanness’ or ‘xenophobia’ for casting any doubt, however light, on the official humanitarian narrative. But cast it we must.

Here are 3 questions that must be answered, however difficult and cynical they may – in the shouting short term – be considered.

1. Are the majority of ‘refugees’ actually refugees?

This is obviously the most important question at this juncture. Do the ‘refugees’ pouring into Europe deserve the label, or are they simply opportunists seeking a better material outlook for their family? While it is impossible to give a definite answer (one applicable to every different individual case), the information already gathered allows us to at least make a general estimate. Most, if not all, the refugees attempting to reach Europe are actually migrants.

How do we know this? That’s the answer to question 2…

2. Why isn’t Turkey safe enough for them?

The Kurdish child Aylan Kurdi, whose grim fate now dominates every newspaper in the world, did not have to die. He and his family were already safely in Turkey when they chose to shoot for Europe, and since Turkey is perfectly safe and reasonably affluent, Europe has no moral case to answer for his demise. Indeed, while he was been roundly criticised for it, the UKIP member Peter Bucklitsch was brave and entirely correct to place the blame directly on the child’s parents, remarking that had they not been ‘greedy for the good life’, the tragedy could have/would have been averted.

This isn’t actually a complicated matter (or at least it needn’t be). Once a refugee reaches a country of safety, he or she ceases to be a refugee. If that person then chooses to move on in search of a more desirable haven, that person becomes a migrant. It really is that simple.

3. Who is to blame for the crisis?

The answer to this last question is crystal clear. ISIS/Islamic State are to blame. Their cynical and merciless campaign against the people of Syria has sent ripples of destructive chaos across the whole of Eurasia. The everyday suffering in Raqqah and Palmyra is almost too extreme to be imagined. As we luxuriate in our peaceful suburbs, Syrian men, women and children are being enslaved, beheaded, brainwashed, forcibly conscripted, raped and robbed by a psychopathic gang of desert primitives. I fully understand why ordinary people wish to leave the nightmare being constructed. We would all do – or at least, try to do – the same.

But Europe is a not a charity. It is a continent and a civilisation. We have our own problems, our own impoverished masses and our own economic and politic disorders to contend with. In this time of Muslim suffering, the Muslim world must come to its own aid. More than anywhere else, the money-drenched kingdoms of the Arabian Gulf must allow a massively increased quota of migrants into their own territories. If they truly believe in the concept of an Ummah, let them prove it. Let them impress and embarrass the whole world with their brotherly kindness.

And if they do not, the blame is theirs and theirs alone.

D, LDN.