Demographic Bombing and Moral Considerations on Immigration.

With the migrant invasion of Europe reaching crisis proportions, New Zealand media is on a crusading beat-up to increase the country’s refugee quota, and will take submissions from anyone as long as they support the issue.  With Helen Clark and John Key both saying the quota should remain as-is, some of the political heat has been taken out, leaving it more in the moral domain.  So how would an independent moral thinker construct an argument for or against increasing the refugee quota?

TRUST

The first consideration is what makes for a good society and I will argue in an essay on Mandated Heterophily that the prime requirement is for a high level of trust.  The success of the Westphalian nation-state model and the acceptance of the Hobbesian social contract depend on it.  This in turn relies on societal homogeneity and vital to this is the swift integration of immigrants.  We know from our own and European experience that of all immigrant groups, the one least likely to integrate is Muslim.  Islam is tearing Europe apart.

MOTIVE

The second consideration is the push and pull factors causing the upsurge in migrants.  For the most part these are well known – the chaos caused by Islam’s inability to reconcile modernism with fundamentalism, and the attractiveness of Europe’s success, due in no small part to national homogeneity.  But there is an unspoken factor here that we were warned of decades ago.  The current migration crisis was promised by Middle East and North African (MENA) state leaders. 

·         Algerian president Houari Boumedienne, “One day millions of men will leave the southern hemisphere of this planet to burst into the northern one. But not as friends. Because they will burst in to conquer, and they will conquer by populating it with their children. Victory will come to us from the wombs of our women.”

·         Libyan president Muammar Gaddafi, “We have 50 million Muslims in Europe. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe.”

·         Palestinian leader George Habash, “The Arab goal was to wage war against Europe and America and to ensure that henceforth there would be no peace for the West.  The Arabs would advance step by step. Millimetre by millimetre. Year after year. Decade after decade. Determined, stubborn, patient. This is our strategy. A strategy that we shall expand throughout the whole planet.”  

The evidence shows they were neither boasting nor lying.  The Arabs have used their experience in slave trading to route hundreds of thousands of illegal migrants at high financial and mortal cost to Europe.  They have fed them stories of bountiful welfare, jobs, houses, and the right to live anywhere they like.  Judging by images of these migrants, few fall into the category of tired, poor, huddled masses, the wretched refuse, the homeless tempest-tost.  The vast majority appear to be young men, well-dressed and equipped.  As foot-soldiers for an invading army, taking advantage of the Trojan horse of Islam’s chaotic consequences, they look ideal.

THE RELIGION OF CONQUEST

The third factor is Islamic conquest, a fait accompli in Europe as I will argue in a forthcoming essay.  The global domination of Islam is a scriptural requirement and incumbent on all Muslims to ensure that this is the case, in the process known as jihad.  The demographic bombing occurring in Europe does not leave us immune here.  Islam’s hegemonic aspirations apply here just as they do in Europe, no matter how long it takes.

EXTREME LEFT-WING POLITICS

A fourth factor is the role of the extreme Left.  The Fabian Left of old, with which I identify, has lost its way.  Not, however, its revolutionary fanatics, who, I intend to argue in an essay on the role of Gramsci in Cultural Repudiation, have secured a bond with Islamists.  Finding workers less than sufficiently revolutionary, they now rely on Islamists to create the chaos required to destroy the old regime and institute the perfect society.  After which, each party expects to destroy the other and reign supreme.  I’m glad I won’t be around to experience either phase.

CONCLUSION

I argue here that the basis for a good society is trust.  Anything which we know will compromise this must be rejected.  Anything that tries to change society by means other than democracy as we know it now must be rejected.  Any one group which intends to subvert the process of democracy by flooding a country with ideologically-driven voters must be rejected.  Revolutionary zeal has no place in a smooth functioning society.  There is thus no moral case for allowing Muslims into this country. 

In order to fulfil international obligations New Zealand should support a policy of pre-emptive containment whereby we help finance the temporary accommodation of refugees in suitable locations near to their home country, in the expectation of their returning home once peace is achieved.

New Zealand should permit refugees to be selected on the basis of swift integration.  It must limit its quota to Christians or atheists from the MENA region, who we know to be under the greatest persecution, then with a clear conscience we can increase it by all means.