Despite Non-Stop Propaganda Puffery from Media, the Academy and Officialdom, Many Aussies Are Healthily Wary of Islam
“There is a very strong feeling that immigrants from Islamic countries are part of a culture war pitting their way of life and beliefs against ours”, the report says.
‘First, let’s dispel the nonsense that Islam is a race; it is a religion, and it is plainly absurd to try to paint people as diverse as the Sudanese, Persians, and Bosnians as a single race.
The living shiite:
It is the right of every Australian to “peaceful assembly”. How can that happen with a bunch of screaming bigots trying to prevent people rallying or hearing their speakers. Time to ban “Counter Rallies”. People with differing views are entitled to rally and have there say—at another time and location.
Merkel’s Muslim Madness
by DANIEL GREENFIELDOctober 23, 2015
German Chancellor Angela Merkel insisted that refusing to take in Muslim migrants is a “danger for Europe.” Merkel as usual had it backward. It’s her program of taking in Muslim migrants that represents the gravest threat to the freedom and future of Europe since the fall of the Soviet Union.
Merkel may have already doomed Germany. The Bild newspaper published a leaked secret government document estimating that the number of migrants invading Europe this year might reach 1.5 million.
And that bad news gets much worse because the document estimates that each migrant will bring in as many as eight family members once they’re settled in, bringing the year’s true total to 7.36 million.
That’s almost 10 percent of the population of Germany. In just one invasion.
And the migrants are mostly young men entering a rapidly aging country whose young male population is under 5 million. Germany’s Muslim population already approaches 5 million. The median age of Germany’s Muslim population is 34, while the median age for the overall population is 46.
Merkel has rapidly sped up the rate at which Germany’s young male population becomes Muslim.
The document predicts up to 10,000 invaders entering every day. It foresees no end to the arrivals even when it gets cold. These words add up to the end of Germany and the end of Europe.
With numbers like these it’s no wonder that Merkel is frantically trying to shift the burden, berating Eastern European countries for their nationalism and failing to learn from history even though as a former Communist and a German leader, she represents the two political forces that historically did the most to deprive these nations of their national rights and their independence.
Merkel invokes the Berlin Wall to claim that fences don’t work. But the Berlin Wall kept people from leaving. The fences that Hungary has built are constructed in self-defense, not to keep Hungarians in, but to keep invading Muslims out. It’s Merkel whose EU totalitarianism represents a new Berlin Wall that mandates open borders for Muslim migrants while preventing countries from leaving the EU.
When Merkel states, “The refugees won’t be stopped if we just build fences. That I’m deeply convinced of, and I’ve lived behind a fence for long enough,” she is not only deliberately mangling the moral difference between a fence that keeps invaders out and a fence that keeps people in, but her own complicity in these fences. East Germany needed a fence because people wanted to flee its totalitarian regime. The European Union needs political fences to keep countries from escaping its political regime.
The choice isn’t between open borders and the Berlin Wall. Rather the open borders that Merkel advocates are another form of the Berlin Wall. Communist countries don’t make immigration difficult. They make emigration impossible. Free countries make immigration difficult, but emigration easy.
That’s how democracy is supposed to work. It allows the people of a nation to decide who can enter while allowing anyone to leave. Merkel’s EU brings back the USSR’s ‘Prison of Nations’ where everyone can enter, but no one can leave.
Merkel warns European countries that refusing Muslim immigrants is “not negotiable.” This is the type of language that totalitarian regimes use.
Europeans are told that they will lose their credibility if they don’t take in Muslims. “Who are we to defend Christians around the world if we say we won’t accept a Muslim or a mosque in our country?” she asks. “That won’t do.”
But taking in Muslims has prevented Germans from defending Christians even in their own country, not only in the Middle East.
Christian refugees in Germany report being persecuted, threatened and beaten by Muslims. An Iranian Christian refugee spoke of death threats from Syrian Muslim migrants. An Iraqi Christian family was beaten and told, “We will kill you and drink your blood.”
A Lutheran pastor says that he is asked by refugees, “Will we have to hide ourselves as Christians in the future in this country?”
That question is better addressed to Angela Merkel and her mad Muslim vision for Germany.
Islamizing Germany will not enable it to defend Christians in the Middle East. Instead it will make the government even more vulnerable to terrorist blackmail and political pressure from Muslims. And if Merkel were really concerned about Christians, she wouldn’t be fighting European countries that want to take in Christian refugees instead of Muslim migrants. Not only hasn’t her appeasement of Muslims done anything to help Christians in the Middle East, but it has endangered Christians in Germany.
Despite resistance from her own party, Merkel continues doubling down. She has seized control of refugee policy from her own interior minister, who was skeptical of her action and who may have helped leak the Bild document, and she continues to ignore calls for refugee limits from her own party.
Meanwhile Muslims in Germany are vocal about refusing to accept any limitations of Muslim immigration.
Merkel isn’t really an open borders fanatic. She’s a political hack who made a tragic mistake and is desperately trying to dump it on the rest of Europe. After originally taking the correct line, Merkel folded and rather than admit that she made a mistake whose implications will destroy her country, she is desperately manufacturing one ridiculous excuse after another to defend her actions.
Her calls for sharing the burden amount to dumping the consequences of her unilateral policy on the rest of Europe. It’s exactly the type of behavior she condemned from Greece, only to hypocritically practice a version of it that is far more disastrous, both from the standpoint of security and economics.
Merkel’s plan is to unilaterally demand that the rest of Europe “share” in the welfare, crime and terrorism of the Muslim migrants that she chose to take in. And there’s nothing fair about that. But the Eurocrats can’t wrap their heads around the idea of border fences. The closest they can come to the idea is to hypocritically plead with Turkey to secure the borders that they refuse to secure.
The Turkish solution still requires Europe to take in another 500,000 Muslims from Turkey in exchange for its tyrannical Islamist ruler agreeing to secure its borders. This means outsourcing European border security to a hostile Muslim country whose ruler dreams of reviving the Ottoman Empire and boasted, “The mosques are our barracks, minarets our bayonets, domes our helmets, the believers our soldiers.”
That’s the sort of man that Europe will be turning over its security too. Meanwhile those 500,000 Muslims will also have to be “shared” all across Europe.
Merkel claims that the migrants “present more opportunities than risks.” What opportunities are these exactly? Half the Muslim “youth” in Germany are already unemployed. Barely a third of Muslim immigrants earn a living through professional employment.
What opportunities will adding millions of Muslims to the welfare rolls accomplish except to create more jobs for the government bureaucrats who sign their welfare checks?
Merkel’s allies claim that she deserves the Nobel Prize. She certainly does. Hitler and Stalin were both nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. And Merkel has done more damage to Germany and Europe than any leader since these two worthy gentlemen before her had.
Daniel Greenfield is a blogger, columnist and freelance photographer born in Israel, who maintains his own blog, Sultan Knish.
Read more: Family Security Mattershttp://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/merkels-muslim-madness?f=must_reads#st_refDomain=&st_refQuery#ixzz3pT6NA200
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
The imperviousness to reason:
Simon Schama is a great historian. I love his books on the French and Dutch revolutions.
But one of the great disappointments from Schama is the disconnect between his analysis of historical events and contemporary ones. His great talent in Citizens, in particular, was to explore the disconnect between intentions and ghastly consequences, between fine feelings and facts.
Yet when it comes to contemporary events, such as the invasion of Europe this year by nearly 500,000 illegal immigrants, Schama no longer sees those disconnections, no longer makes those distinctions. He is into virtue signalling – more concerned with how good he seems than in how clearly he sees. And he does not even see what he seems is actually a frightful snob.
Example, this debate with Rod Liddle of The Spectator:
Simon ended a splenetic diatribe by calling me ‘suburban’, which raised a few eyebrows and indeed the accusation of snobbery… Talking about the ‘refugee’ crisis, the art historian divested himself of a stream of emotionally incontinent non-sequiturs — and it was when I pointed this out that he became incandescent with pique.
The problem, as I saw it, was that Simon had simply not made any sense at all. It seemed to be sufficient to say that these people — the migrants — were ‘human beings’ and that feeling kindly disposed towards them was sufficient, in itself, to solve what many fear is the gravest crisis we have faced since the second world war.,,,
What I realised after that edition of Question Time is that the facts, the practicalities, the realities of the situation, do not matter one jot….
Eight months ago everybody was very worried about the number of migrants drowning in the Mediterranean sea, en route to western Europe in flimsy boats. The very voluble minority started screaming: we must do more! Send more boats! It was clear to me then — and to many others — that this would only exacerbate the problem, for the migrants and for us. More would drown because many more would set sail, expecting to be picked up. A more sensible solution — to deny access and deport any migrants arriving illegally by sea — had already been tried, and had worked, in Australia.
But we listened to the clamorous minority, despite their lack of reason and logic — and many more migrants have drowned as a consequence. We did the wrong thing…
And again, the imperviousness to reason. A largely Muslim charity recently reviewed the work its people had been doing to relieve the misery and squalor on the Sangatte refugee camp in Calais. A worker with the Human Relief Foundation visited the notorious ‘Jungle’ encampment and concluded, with some alarm, that 97 per cent were economic migrants rather than refugees. Further, they were almost exclusively fit young men who were not fleeing danger at all and were not in the least desperate.
An executive added: ‘I thought they had a valid reason [to be there]. They do not have a valid reason.’ The charity immediately curtailed its relief efforts. But present these facts to those who simply scream ‘Let them in!’ and ‘We must do more!’ and it makes not the slightest difference to their point of view; it washes over them without leaving so much as a trace.
Since last Saturday 58,000 migrants, many fleeing the war in Syria, have arrived in Slovenia, shifting their route to the west after Hungary sealed off its borders.