KRudd's Gitmo?

Andrew Bolt Blog

Will the Left now demonise Kevin Rudd as it did John Howard?

THE KRudd Government has been forced to open the $400 million detention centre on Christmas Island in an embarrassing admission it is struggling to cope with an influx of boat people…

The Age understands the Government was extremely reluctant to open the centre, because it sends a message it is losing the battle against people smugglers and validates the Howard Government’s decision to build it.

Right both times.

And note the triumph of spin over decent treatment of the new boat people:

There are already 135 Afghan, Iranian and Sri Lankan asylum seekers on the island, but they live in a construction camp, the old detention centre at Phosphate Hill, or in the community.

Stick ‘em anywhere – even in an old camp or ageing facility – rather than be embarrassed by putting them up in a modern centre that John Howard built.

Hugh comments:


Why should any Muslim from a Muslim-dominated country be considered for asylum status? Only those who are not Muslims should be allowed to seek “asylum” from a Muslim-dominated country, and then only after extensive checking for fraud, or to see if such people — such as “Palestinian” Arab islamochrisetians — in fact will further the Islamic agenda in Western Europe, and pose a special danger — on campuses, on the streets — to Christians who are not yet post-Christian, or to the Jews who despite everything have remained in Europe, and who long ago fully integrated into, and have been contributing to the cultural advancement of the societies of Western Europe, and surely do not deserve to have their situations and security, physical and societal, put at special, heightened risk by the influx of such clearly unintegrable and hostile Muslim “asylum-seekers.” 


Posted by: Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 18, 2008 5:46 AM

Ethoman comments:


Here is another fact you should check on. Is there a historical precedent, either contemporary or historical, to support the idea that Islam can peacefully integrate into any non-Islamic society? Does contemporary Islamic Orthodoxy support the idea of equality between Muslims, and non-Muslims in Islamic societies? What do these questions mean for the future of any country that faces a future where its Islamic population is doubling every 10 years, while its native population is decreasing by 3% in the same time frame? What sort of future do you envision?

Posted by: ethoman [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 18, 2008 4:06 PM

3 thoughts on “KRudd's Gitmo?”

  1. “Will the Left now demonise Kevin Rudd as it did John Howard?”

    Sheik, is this a trick question? The media are hopeless in this also.
    Check out this piece in the Age. I thought I was hallucinating that they even published it.

  2. #1.

    “Asylum” from what? Muslims fleeing from Muslim countries? Why do they need asylum? Explain what the word “asylum” means. Only Christians and Jews and Hindus and Buddhists and other non-Muslims require “asylum” from Muslim countries. Muslims don’t. If there is economic backwardness, if there is political despotism and warlordism, if there is a mess – that’s what Islam brings. That comes with the package of Islam. No Muslim needs to be given “asylum” from what can be attributed to Islam itself. Otherwise half the population of the Muslim world would be entitled to “asylum” in the advanced, non-Muslim West.


    “Those who have just arrived here say they notice that life is quieter and very different to the country of their birth but say they have finally found peace here, and want to make it their home.”

    “They have finally found peace here” in the place they “want to make…their home” but they fail utterly to realize that what they are fleeing is Islam itself, and its natural consequences. And what they find — that “peace” — is the result of the steady buildup over time of the advanced nation-states of the West, entirely by non-Muslims, and with advances, political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral — impossible under Islam. People fleeing the Nazis or the Communists, who found “peace” in, for example, the United States, knew exactly what they were fleeing and would never have worked, once in the United States, to further Nazism or Communism. It was that which they detested. But Muslims fleeing the chaos and wretchednees of Muslim-dominated lands do not recognize the fact, cannot allow themselves to recognize the fact, even as they take every advantage of what Infidel nation-states offer them, that it is Islam itself that they actually fled, Islam that explains the miseries that they are attempting to avoid. The hostility, the aggression, even the noisiness of Muslim life (where everyone speaks to everyone else in voices far louder than anywhere in the non-Muslim world — it is the constant din, the constant hysterical screaming, that most impresses an Infidel visitor to Muslim lands), the inshallah-fatalism, the inability to recognize the rights of others, but non-Muslim peoples (a real inability, a deep intellectual and moral lapse or paralysis) — all this comes from Islam, and it is all this that they bring with them and seek, whether in the first generation, or later generations, to spread and impose on non-Muslim states into which they have been allowed to come, and to settle deep within.

    It’s an extraordinary thing. Muslims themselves, save for a handful — the handful who become apostates — can never allow themselves to recognize what Islam itself causes, and so they work to bring about the very conditions that they have fled from.

    It is up to the Infidels to understand this, and to act to protect themselves. The time for sentimentality, for thinking that Muslims are simply “humans in distress” and can be allowed into Western lands, should have passed long ago. No more should be allowed into Western countries, and those there should be discouraged, at every step, from remaining — if, that is, they insist on continuing to believe in Islam, and in what the Qur’an, the Hadith, and the Sira naturally inculcate. Begin by cutting off all that Saudi and other outside Arab money that pays for mosques and madrasas. End all government support for those who violate the law — for example, by continuing to practice polygamy. Make the acquisition of citizenship dependent on a deep knowledge of the culture, the history, the legal and political institutions, of the Infidel nation-state, and require an oath of loyalty to those legal and political institutions. Make sure that perjury in the swearing of such an oath will be grounds for being stripped of that citizenship, which is a great privilege. And work to immunize the Infidels against the spread of Islam by educating them as to what it is, a collectivist Total Belief-System, with a clear politics and geopolitics, that imposes the duty of Jihad on all Muslims — the duty, that is, to remove all obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam everywhere in the world. Make sure that Infidels understand how Islam discourages free and skeptical inquiry, forbids most forms of artistic expression, promotes the habit of mental submission — in other words, stunts moral and mental growth, in a hundred different ways.

    This can be done. It is not impossible, and it is far more important, to the survival of the West, and the turning back of the menace of Islam, than whatever “freedom” or “prosperity” or some such naive goal, is worked for, at such colossal and hopeless expense, in Iraq, in Afghanistan. Muslim states are always and everywhere, to the extent that they take Islam seriously, going to be “failed states.” Let them be “failed states.” Just minimize Infidel efforts to prevent Muslims from having to endure, and then ultimately to recognize, the failures that are a result of Islam itself. In Dar al-Islam, and in Dar al-Harb, where so many arrive, delighted with the peace and safety of an advanced non-Muslim state, but still, bringing with them, and clinging to, the Islam that is part of their mental baggage.

    Posted by: Hugh at December 19, 2008 11:57 AM

Comments are closed.