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.

Cindy George – Symbol of Victimhood

On the face of it, the cause of the deaths of Cindy George and her three children in Ashburton in early July 2015 lay between rank stupidity and abject ignorance.  The facts as known indicate George left a car running in a closed garage with the interior door opened, and they died of carbon monoxide poisoning.  It may be that given it was a cold winter’s night she kept the door open to use the heat from the car’s exhaust to warm the house. 

Poison experts waxed specific on carbon monoxide being odourless and an insidious killer, which while true wasn’t relevant, since it was the car’s exhaust fumes that killed the family and these are certainly not odourless.  Indeed they are quite unpleasant, which makes one wonder why a mother would permit such fumes to pervade the house. The press seemed to make excuses for George’s actions and could have been exhibiting a form of racial prejudice, mitigating her responsibility on the grounds of primitivism given that Mrs George was a Cook Islander and perhaps unfamiliar with both cold climates and car exhausts. 

That four bodies lay for up to six days without being found no doubt weighs heavily on the conscience of her community and will contribute to expressions of grief.

While there is little known evidential support, there could be another explanation for these four deaths.  The police will conjecture that for reasons of insanity or revenge George chose to kill her children then herself.  Were it found to be the case, this essay would have to be deleted as too many points would be irrelevant. 

Tweets and Responses

Beyond the deaths and their cause, the accident raised a curious response initiated by a ‘gossip columnist and socialite’ called Pebbles Hooper.  Whatever criticism I might have about a mother burdening her children with Google-whacking names that look like a bad Scrabble or Lexicon hand, Jetejura and Telyshaun (or Teiyzshwaun – the press couldn’t make their minds up), it was tempered by a woman named after an eternal baby from a 1960s cartoon that did more to place dinosaurs coexisting with humans than weird Christian thinking ever could.

Hooper illiterately tweeted that this was ‘natural selection’.  This laconic off-the-cuff remark was well grounded.  The George accident was a candidate for the Darwin Awards, ‘chlorinating the gene pool’ as the Awards site says, and one needed to balance the sex ratio favouring men 89% to women’s 11%.  That three young children sadly lost their lives by the actions of a mother whose prime purpose was to protect them will likely mean George won’t make it to the finals.  This, at least for those who knew them, is what turns farce into tragedy and Hooper’s tweet from joke into cruel insensitivity.

Response to Hooper’s tweet was as quick as it was condemnatory and forced her resignation.  Yet only a few years ago an event like the George’s would have raised a brief flurry of slightly off-colour jokes via word of mouth or email that Hooper’s comment would have formed part of.

But no longer.  What has changed?

For this we need to consider societal changes generated by the political Left.  It had achieved many of its goals but was atomised by the libertarian Right’s attack on unions and its transfer of wealth from the Nation State to a new and detached oligarchy.  Bereft of its Fabian roots and unable to escape the new governmental paradigm created by economic liberalism the Left had no alternative but to reposition itself. 

It did this by creating a whole new class, not of workers, but of victims.

And therein lies a whole new essay.

Women and Innovation

TV3’s The Nation occasionally takes a crusading line as my essay concerning their item on child poverty and retirees of 14 June 2014 shows.  This time its subject was the lack of women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics.  I do wish they could do this with greater consideration for issues that underpin the case as presented. 

Lisa Owen said in her introduction to this item some curious and unsupported statements.  “The lack of women in STEM is an ongoing problem.”  But what is the problem?  If women are half of the workforce as Ms Owen states, it is hardly one of employment.  There is no evidence that the industry, or the education for it, is hampered by the lack of women or that it would be enhanced by increased numbers of them.

Ms Owen continues by saying that women “outnumber men in gaining degrees and diplomas two to one.”  I will take her at her word that this is true, but surely that is a far, far greater problem than a low representation of women in a traditional male role?  It astonishes me that Ms Owen let that go without qualifying it.

She goes on to say, “Some say things are getting worse and that there are concerns it’s holding back innovation.”  The only evidence concerning innovation was anecdotal, provided by interviewee Dr Michelle Dickinson who said that the industry was “missing out on a massive amount of innovation” from not having more women involved.  Massive?  Really?  This is totally unsupportable hyperbole and while Dr Dickinson may wish it to be, this sort of comment shouldn’t have been included in a serious current affairs programme.

TV3’s The Nation occasionally takes a crusading line as my essay concerning their item on child poverty and retirees of 14 June 2014 shows.  This time its subject was the lack of women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics.  I do wish that this could be done with greater consideration for issues that underpin the case as presented. 

Lisa Owen said in her introduction to this item some curious and unsupported statements.  “The lack of women in STEM is an ongoing problem.”  But what is the problem?  If women are half of the workforce as Ms Owen states, it is hardly one of employment.  There is no evidence that the industry, or the education for it, is hampered by the lack of women or that it would be enhanced by increased numbers of them.

Ms Owen continues by saying that women “outnumber men in gaining degrees and diplomas two to one.”  I will take her at her word that this is true, but surely that is a far, far greater problem than a low representation of women in a traditional male role?  It astonishes me that Ms Owen let that go without qualifying it.

She goes on to say, “Some say things are getting worse and that there are concerns it’s holding back innovation.”  The only evidence concerning innovation was anecdotal, provided by interviewee Dr Michelle Dickinson who said that the industry was “missing out on a massive amount of innovation” from not having more women involved.  Massive?  Really?  This is totally unsupportable hyperbole and while Dr Dickinson may wish it to be, this sort of comment shouldn’t have been included in a serious current affairs programme.

Dr Dickinson gives just the one example of car airbags having been designed by men and thus responsible for the deaths of many women and children because it did not cater for the physiques of women and children.  I would suggest firstly, that it is car crashes that are responsible for killing people, and airbags in fact save lives.  Secondly, as a scientist Dr Dickinson should be aware of the evolutionary method of mechanical design and not criticise flaws in the early stages.  Thirdly, it is preposterous to assume that having women on the design team would have removed such flaws.

The ‘nature versus nurture’ debate is being superseded by doctrinaire political correctness which prevents the examination of these issues at a deeper level.  It masks the obvious fact that women’s physiology and psychology are focussed on reproduction, resulting in the self-referential empathy necessary for child-rearing and cultural continuity.  Men, excluded from this function by nature, focus more on mastery, competition, systematisation and accomplishment.  In the real world, ignored by The Nation, it is by virtue of these natural drives that the masculine side of human nature pushes the boundaries, innovates techniques, experiments, develops, and in the most precise definition of civilisation, continuously refines every aspect of it.  In contrast, women act as muse and prize, carrying out the most crucial act of all living species, reproduction, thus giving men’s functions perpetual significance.  Vive la différence. 

The Nation can be excused for eschewing profundity on the grounds of its target demographic.  All the same, some indication that the superficiality of cultural change is unable to shift human nature and that it has effects beyond its best intentions would be helpful.

Take, for example, employment.  Unless STEM careers increase (and there is no indication that more women means more jobs), The Nation’s crusade would replace men with women leading to greater male unemployment and increased demotivation.  Women’s greater empathy results in greater social involvement, as evinced by The Nation’s comment that women predominate in healthcare, retail and education (and not mentioned, child-raising), means the very nature of society will always require these roles for women.  Not so men, whose primary identity is provided by occupation and career.  Why does The Nation wish to penalise men in this manner by treating women as victims?  The Nation needs to be aware of the socially damaging forces it supports when it crusades in this manner.

Ignorance of consequences is a child-like attribute cured by experience.  Ignoring consequences, such as male joblessness, alienation and apathy, is a culpable route to chaos and is inexcusable. 

Treating women in this way, as victims who require special treatment, is symptomatic of the pervasive view that anyone who is not white and male is a victim of anyone who is white and male.  There are consequences of this world view that are too complex to describe adequately here, and are unlikely to be understood anyway except through the narratives of future historians.  But it does mean that much of what The Nation stands for is under severe threat. 

Mark my words