We Are All Intolerant And It Can Be A Great Thing So Let’s Be Honest About It

Everybody is intolerant.

That’s one of the beautiful things about freedom – you don’t have to tolerate everything. In fact, necessitating tolerant is a sure sign that freedom is absent.

This is where the West is headed it seems – the façade of perfect tolerance.

And to get there, all it requires is being intolerant of everyone and everything that doesn’t fit the vision of this socially harmonious utopia. Yes, the irony obvious to some of us is that this is no different to any society that has ever existed – tolerant of what they want and intolerant of what they don’t.

Back when language meant what it meant, this was known as “intolerance” but now that doublespeak and language revisionism applies here, there, and everywhere, this intolerance is now called “tolerance” and it comes with a scenic view from the utopian moral high ground.

For those familiar with the dangerous and heretic “name it and claim it” false doctrine touted by people exploiting Christianity for personal gain, this is the postmodernist equivalent: “I think I am tolerant, therefore I am.”

Looking at biblical Christianity, our religion is an exclusive one which means it is an intolerant one. Jesus made exclusive, intolerant claims perhaps best summed up in this:

“Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”” ‭John‬ ‭14:6-7‬ ‭ESV‬‬

Claimed equality with God is the same as saying listen to me because I am in charge and don’t listen to anyone who contradicts what I say.

So if you claim to follow Jesus and affirm that he is indeed the son of God, you can’t be a follower of Mohammed who himself made exclusive claims about Islam. Nor can the Christian practise cannibalism, theft, homosexuality, or adultery and maintain the claim that they are following Jesus. Neither can the church accept these practises from and within our community.

The following article Toleration Is Postmodern-Speak For Bigotry by Richard Samuelson outlines the catastrophic contradictions and double standards behind the contemporary misuse of the concept of tolerance:

Religious liberty is not an indulgence a superior gives to his inferiors, toleration for practices and beliefs he regards as repugnant, as one tolerates one’s in-laws.

Is “toleration” becoming a new word for “bigotry”? During oral argument in the recent gay-marriage litigation, Justice Alito asked the solicitor general if the precedent of the Bob Jones University case would apply to institutions that reject the new definition of marriage. In that case, the Supreme Court had said our government may discriminate against certain religious institutions, if they practice invidious discrimination—in the case of Bob Jones University, they prohibited interracial dating, and, therefore, lost their tax exemption. The logic might very well follow from Justice Kennedy’s opinion, as the solicitor general conceded it might when the question came up.

If our government pursues this logic, which follows naturally from Justice Kennedy’s claim in his gay-rights decisions that only invidious animus can explain one’s rejection of gay marriage, it could be used to require all priests, ministers, rabbis, imams, etc. to preform same-sex weddings, or lose their legal ability to officiate at weddings. (Sure, the argument would go, clerics are free to believe whatever they want, but the right to sign a marriage license is a right government confers, and, as such, the government ought to deny that right to those who would discriminate in its application).

A similar logic would apply to all orthodox Jewish institutions. The law would force an orthodox Hebrew day school (and most Jewish day schools are orthodox), for example, either to employ men and women who not only engage in practices orthodox Jews regard as sinful (that category includes just about everyone—few of us are saints), but also those who publicly reject Jewish teaching about what is sinful, not to mention teachings about the nature of man, of woman, and of marriage. The same would apply to Christian and Muslim institutions.

Some may believe (hope?) these teachings will change. But that is probably a false hope. Down this road lies a postmodern tragedy—orthodox Jews forced out of America, all in the name of toleration and diversity of course.

The Old Presumptions of Liberty

These problems might seem to be entirely new. No one, or almost no one, had ever thought that the term “marriage” might be fitting for a homosexual relationship until yesterday, historically speaking. I recently picked up Milton Himmelfarb’s collection, “The Jews of Modernity.” In one essay from 1971, he quotes the great Rabbinic commentator, Rashi: “They do not write a marriage contract between males: for though the pagans are assumed to practice homosexuality, and in fact, do practice it, they are not so far gone in derision of the commandment against it as actually to write a marriage contract.”

It is also worth remembering that until the 1964 Civil Rights Act, American law had far more respect for the liberty of association.

That marriage was for men and women used to be regarded as common sense on the subject, even in cultures in which homosexuality was not frowned upon. By contrast, the prohibition on interracial marriage was an aberration in history. Bans on out-group marriage have not been uncommon in history. Christianity, with its universalism, has probably been more responsible than anything else for attacking that practice. That distinction is important. When choosing between a definition of marriage that has survived the test of time and a novel, new-fangled one, it may be incorrect, but, despite Justice Kennedy’s claim, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the new definition will not last.

It is also worth remembering that until the 1964 Civil Rights Act, American law had far more respect for the liberty of association among private individuals, charities, churches, businesses, and other members of civil society than it does now. The presumption was not that the government, in allowing ministers to sign legal marriage contracts, or in allowing all citizens to incorporate a business, creates a right, and therefore, may put any restrictions it chooses upon it. On the contrary, the presumption was that the government was merely helping private citizens, either as individuals, or in groups (often groups classed as “corporations”), to enjoy their liberty, and citizens were, therefore, given a wide birth in their decisions about how to act either as individuals or collectively in civil society.

Even so, the problem of balancing the rights of conscience with the obligations of citizenship is as old as the republic. That balance is difficult to achieve and maintain in a regime dedicated to the rights of men. Increased regulation of civil society makes the issue more complicated, but the fundamentals do not change.

How Protected Classes Threaten Freedom

With that in mind, we could do worse, and perhaps could not do better than to consider how President Washington thought about the problems of civic obligation and religious liberty. As we do that, we should remember that the First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The creation of ‘protected classes’ in American law is becoming a threat to our right freely to exercise our religions.

After the Second World War, the Supreme Court decided that the Fourteenth Amendment expands those taboos to all governments in the United States, not merely federal legislature. That being the case, we need to consider the first two prohibitions: no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The former limits government’s entanglement in religion, or perhaps merely the government’s ability to favor any single religion; the latter limits government’s ability to limit our right to live in accord with our consciences. Viewed from this perspective, the creation of “protected classes” in American law is becoming a threat to our right freely to exercise our religions.

President Washington’s most famous comment on religious liberty is found in his Letter to the Hebrew Congregation at Newport. In the letter’s best known passage he declared:

It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

Religious liberty is not an indulgence a superior gives to his inferiors, “tolerating” practices and beliefs that he regards as repugnant, as one tolerates one’s in-laws. Neither ministers nor other citizens need to be given a license from the government to practice their religions. On the contrary, the United States “which gives bigotry no sanction” allows congregants of all religions “the exercise of their natural rights.” The Declaration of Independence notes that “among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” implying that there are other inalienable rights which government exists to secure.

The rights of conscience would be high on the list, as would the liberty of association. As the right to “pursue happiness” entails a right to live as one’s conscience dictates, (one can hardly be said to be happy if one is forced to act in bad faith), but individually and with one’s neighbors, one could argue that the rights are linked by an inescapable logic.

People Can’t Be Happy if They Can’t Exercise Belief

The free exercise of religion, however, presents some complications. The rights of conscience are self-evidently inadequate if one is prevented from acting upon one’s beliefs. Can Americans be free to pursue happiness if the government makes it impossible to work peacefully at one’s business, to conduct that business according to one’s conscientious beliefs, to raise one’s children according to those same beliefs, etc.?

The rights of conscience are self-evidently inadequate if one is prevented from acting upon one’s beliefs.

To take a particular case, religious liberty would be inadequate were Jews free to believe that sons must be circumcised on the eighth day after they are born, but, at the same time, American law prohibited circumcision. A recently proposed initiative to ban circumcision in San Francisco was struck from the ballot. But such initiatives have a habit of returning. It is wise to be bearish on the future sometimes. Efforts to ban circumcision and the kosher slaughter of meat are having some success in Europe.

Sure, the logic goes, Jews have their beliefs, but it is wrong to mutilate the body of an infant who cannot consent. Similarly, the argument goes, animal-rights laws are broadly and equally applicable. There is no reason to give special exemption from the law to anyone. After all, the law applies equally to all citizens. The American Left usually follows “enlightened” European opinion in such matters.

It is emphatically the job of government to make laws for the common good. Moreover, lawfulness is a basic attribute of good citizens. As Washington noted, “they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.”

Is Civil Disobedience the Answer?

What are we to do when conscientious beliefs and the demands of law conflict? Henry David Thoreau gave one answer to this problem: refuse to obey the law. But Thoreau radically denigrated government. In the second paragraph of “Civil Disobedience,” he proclaimed:

This government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way. It does not keep the country free. It does not settle the West. It does not educate. The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way.

Civil disobedience is based upon an extreme denial of the good that government might do. Thoreau found the Mexican War so repugnant that he refused to obey the law and went to jail, as civil disobedience dictates. (He was, however, bailed out after one night in jail.) But can a society function when each citizen holds that he may stand in judgment of each law on a regular basis? Antinomianism does not provide much of a political foundation. On the other hand, given the Left’s affection for Thoreau, can his radical libertarianism be reconciled with the modern administrative state? Perhaps it is that combination that is the true source of today’s troubles.

Can a society function when each citizen holds that he may stand in judgment of each law on a regular basis?

What happens when conscience opposes not a particular war, but war in general? The United States has experience with exactly that case. We call Quakers “conscientious objectors” for a reason. In good conscience, they refuse to fight in the army. During our Revolutionary War, General Washington found this frustrating. It did not make sense to him that a group of people who wished to enjoy their liberty would refuse to fight to preserve that liberty when it was under threat. (Quakers may have seen the matter differently, of course). In his “Autobiography,” Benjamin Franklin has similar reflections on the Quakers’ refusal to fight.

Shortly after he became president, Washington penned a brief Letter to the Annual Meeting of Quakers. Washington began by noting that government exists, according to American principles, to allow men to live conscientiously: “Government being, among other purposes, instituted to protect the persons and consciences of men from oppression, it certainly is the duty of rulers, not only to abstain from it themselves, but, according to their stations, to prevent it in others.”

His letter ended by pointing to the tension that can exist between the obligations of citizens and the obligations of conscience: “I assure you very explicitly, that in my opinion the conscientious scruples of all men should be treated with great delicacy and tenderness; and it is my wish and desire, that the laws may always be as extensively accommodated to them, as a due regard to the protection and essential interests of the nation may justify and permit.” In other words, Washington held it is the duty of government, if at all possible, to make space for Americans to live according to their consciences, even for those who refused to pick up a gun when the British were invading.

I’ll Fight for Your Right to Not Fight

In the middle of the letter, Washington noted that Quakers, as a rule, made exemplary citizens. They were law-abiding, worked hard, educated their children well, provided food and shelter for themselves and their families, and gave charity to the poor. Yet Washington found them wanting in one key regard: “Your principles and conduct are well known to me; and it is doing the people called Quakers no more than justice to say, that (except their declining to share with others the burden of the common defense) there is no denomination among us, who are more exemplary and useful citizens. “ On that “except their declining to share with others the burden of common defense” hangs a great deal.

The principles of 1776, Washington held, suggest that America must seek an accommodation with conscientious objectors.

To refuse to fight for one’s rights, and, at the same time to be determined to enjoy them was, as far as Washington could tell, to be a free rider. Even so, Washington knew he had no right to insist that Quakers join the military, for such a demand would violate the very principles for which he had risked his life. In other words, the principles of 1776, Washington held, suggest that America must presume the good faith of conscientious objectors to our laws and, the rights of conscience being of paramount importance, must seek an accommodation with them for minister and laity alike.

Regarding the Quakers, America’s founders faced three options. They could simply demand that all citizens help defend the republic, and hold that the Quakers could believe whatever they wished, but the government could force them not to act in accord with those beliefs. (The result would have been a de facto expulsion of Quakers.) The second option would be to allow the Quakers not to fight, but only after paying a special penalty or tax. The first option was unacceptable, for it was unreasonable to create such an abject separation between belief and action. The second was, in some ways, worse than the first, for it would create a second class of citizens, requiring Quakers to purchase their liberty. That left the third option—allowing Quakers to refuse to fight.

However problematic Washington held the Quakers’ pacifism to be, he also recognized that he had to respect it.

To reject the Quakers’ beliefs, or to impose on Quakers special burdens as the cost of their liberty, would be a return to the older definition of “toleration,” according to which we hold our noses and tolerate people and practices we find repugnant. Instead, Washington welcomed a robust diversity of belief and practice, respecting in the Quakers a belief he, personally, thought was illogical and inconsistent with liberty.

However problematic Washington held the Quakers’ pacifism to be, he also recognized that he had to respect it, as much as humanly possible, for the principles of 1776 demanded he do so. In other words, Washington recognized that this was a political problem. Although it involved key questions of principle, or, perhaps, because it involved principles on both sides, its resolution necessarily entailed some political negotiation.

Why Toleration Is Intolerant

As the scope of American law has grown, the areas of conflict between the rights of conscience and the demands of law have increased considerably. (To cite one instance, absent the demand that employers provide health coverage, the Little Sisters of the Poor would be free to purchase or not purchase whatever policy they decide is fitting.) Meanwhile, the percentage of Americans, particularly in our elite and governing classes, who hold that religions (perhaps only non-Progressive religions) are a barbarous relic of a bygone age has increased considerably. Hence they refuse to recognize the rights of conscience.

What is called a ‘culture war’ might be better understood as the problems that come with the creation of a postmodern religious establishment.

Seen from this angle, we can recognize that what is called a “culture war” might be better understood as the problems that come with the creation of a postmodern religious establishment—an establishment that takes on most of the roles of the old establishments, yet defines its beliefs, conveniently, as “not religion.” The result is that it feels free to impinge on the rights of conscience in the name of “toleration” and “diversity.” Meanwhile, since national government has taken up the police power (the authority to regulate health, safety, and morals), a power that even Alexander Hamilton denied belonged to the federal government, it exacerbates the conflict.

With that in mind, we Americans of the twenty-first century would be wise to recall Washington’s example. If Washington understood that it was essential to respect the rights of conscience, even when America was fighting for its survival, then surely we can do better in finding ways of respecting the religious beliefs and practices of cake bakers, photographers, florists, nuns, and of Americans in general in their diurnal affairs. Such are the demands of religious diversity.

The alternative is to weaken America’s status as a land of liberty. If we continue down the road we are going, I fear that America will be the latest instance of the ancient tragic pattern, but with a twist—for in twenty-first-century America, this bigotry claims the mantle of “toleration” and “diversity.” Even so, we should recognize it for what it is.

Christians really need to understand these issues because we are the ones becoming the victims of them.

If we refuse to fight now, while it is still relatively easy, will we have the conviction to stand when the pressure is firmly applied?

““Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.” ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭5:10-12‬ ‭ESV‬‬


The Media Are Obsessed With Reporting Racism But, Conveniently, You Won’t Hear A Word About This…

Classical Antiquity in many ways encompassed the height of science, art, philosophy, language, culture, architecture and politics. 

Then Islam moved in.

And now the Middle East is a place that people flee from as refugees and asylum seekers.

The following article Why Muslim Rapists Prefer Blondes: A History by Raymond Ibrahim describes some of what changed the former into the latter:

The Muslim penchant to target “white” women for sexual exploitation—an epidemic currently plaguing Europe, especially Britain and Scandinavia—is as old as Islam itself, and even traces back to Muhammad.  

Much literary evidence attests to this in the context of Islam’s early predations on Byzantium (for centuries, Christendom’s easternmost bulwark against the jihad). According to Ahmad M. H. Shboul (author of “Byzantium and the Arabs: The Image of the Byzantines as Mirrored in Arabic Literature”) Christian Byzantium was the “classic example of the house of war,” or Dar al-Harb—that is, the quintessential realm that needs to be conquered by jihad. Moreover, Byzantium was seen “as a symbol of military and political power and as a society of great abundance.” 

The similarities between pre-modern Islamic views of Byzantium and modern Islamic views of the West—powerful, affluent, desirable, and the greatest of all infidels—should be evident. But they do not end here. To the medieval Muslim mind, Byzantium was further representative of “white people”—fair haired/eyed Christians, or, as they were known in Arabic, Banu al-Asfar, “children of yellow” (reference to blonde hair).  

Continues Shboul:

The Byzantines as a people were considered as fine examples of physical beauty, and youthful slaves and slave-girls of Byzantine origin were highly valued…. The Arab’s appreciation of the Byzantine female has a long history indeed. For the Islamic period, the earliest literary evidence we have is a hadith (saying of the Prophet). Muhammad is said to have addressed a newly converted [to Islam] Arab: “Would you like the girls of Banu al-Asfar?” Not only were Byzantine slave girls sought after for caliphal and other palaces (where some became mothers of future caliphs), but they also became the epitome of physical beauty, home economy, and refined accomplishments. The typical Byzantine maiden who captures the imagination of litterateurs and poets, had blond hair, blue or green eyes, a pure and healthy visage, lovely breasts, a delicate waist, and a body that is like camphor or a flood of dazzling light.[1]

While the essence of the above excerpt is true, the reader should not be duped by its overly “romantic” tone. Written for a Western academic publication by an academic of Muslim background, the essay is naturally euphemistic to the point of implying that being a sex slave was desirable—as if her Arab owners were enamored devotees who merely doted over and admired her beauty from afar.[2]

Indeed, Muhammad asked a new convert “Would you like the girls of Banu al-Asfar?” as a way to entice him to join the jihad and reap its rewards—which, in this case, included the possibility of enslaving and raping blonde Byzantine women—not as some idealistic discussion on beauty.  

This enticement seems to have backfired with another Muslim who refused Muhammad’s call to invade Byzantine territory (the Tabuk campaign). “O Abu Wahb,” cajoled Muhammad, “would you not like to have scores of Byzantine women and men as concubines and servants?” Wahb responded: “O Messenger of Allah, my people know that I am very fond of women and, if I see the women of the Byzantines, I fear I will not be able to hold back. So do not tempt me by them, and allow me not to join and, instead, I will assist you with my wealth.”[3] The prophet agreed but was apparently unimpressed—after all, Wahb could have all the Byzantine women he desired if the jihad succeeded—and a new Sura for the Koran (9:49) was promptly delivered condemning the man to hell for his reported hypocrisy and failure to join the jihad.   

Thus a more critical reading of Shboul’s aforementioned excerpt finds that European slave girls were not “highly valued” or “appreciated” as if they were precious statues—they were held out as sexual trophies to entice Muslims to the jihad.  

Moreover, the idea that some sex slaves became mothers to future caliphs is meaningless since in Islam’s patriarchal culture, mothers—Muslim or non-Muslim—were irrelevant in lineage and had no political status. And talk of “litterateurs and poets” and “a body that is like camphor or a flood of dazzling light” is further anachronistic and does a great disservice to reality: These women were—as they still are—sex slaves, treated no differently than the many slaves of the Islamic State today.  

For example, during a recent sex slave auction held by the Islamic State, blue and green eyed Yazidi girls were much coveted and fetched the highest price. Even so, these concubines are being cruelly tortured. In one instance, a Muslim savagely beat his Yazidi slave’s one year old child until she agreed to meet all his sexual demands.  

Another relevant parallel between medieval and modern Islamic views exists: white women were and continue to be seen as sexually promiscuous by nature—essentially “provoking” Muslim men into lusting after them.

Much of this is discussed in Byzantium Viewed by the Arabs by Nadia Maria El Cheikh. She writes:

Fitna, [an Islamic term] meaning disorder and chaos, refers also to the beautiful femme fatale who makes men lose their self-control. Fitna is a key concept in defining the dangers that women, more particularly their bodies, were capable of provoking in the mental universe of the Arab Muslims. 

After explaining how the fair haired/eyed Byzantine woman exemplified Islam’s femme fatale of fitna, Cheikh writes: 

In our [Muslim] texts, Byzantine women are strongly associated with sexual immorality…  

Our sources show not Byzantine women but [Muslim] writers’ images of these women, who served as symbols of the eternal female—constantly a potential threat, particularly due to blatant exaggerations of their sexual promiscuity…. 

Cheikh documents how Muslims claimed that Byzantine (or “white Christian”) females were the “most shameless women in the whole world”; that, “because they find sex more enjoyable, they are prone to adultery”; that “adultery is commonplace in the cities and markets of Byzantium”—so much so that “the nuns from the convents went out to the fortresses to offer themselves to monks.”

Concludes Cheikh: 

While the one quality that our [Muslim] sources never deny is the beauty of Byzantine women, the image that they create in describing these women is anything but beautiful. Their depictions are, occasionally, excessive, virtually caricatures, overwhelmingly negative….

Such anecdotes [of sexual promiscuity] are clearly far from Byzantine reality and must be recognized for what they are: attempts to denigrate and defame a rival culture through their exaggeration of the laxity with which Byzantine culture dealt with its women….

In fact, in Byzantium, women were expected to be retiring, shy, modest, and devoted to their families and religious observances…. [T]he behavior of most women in Byzantium was a far cry from the depictions that appear in Arabic sources.”[4]

Based on all the above, some historic facts emerge: Byzantium was long viewed by early Muslims as the most powerful, advanced, and wealthy “infidel” empire, one highly desired—not unlike modern Islamic views of the West today. And Byzantine women, or “white women,” were long viewed as the “femme fatale” of Islam—from a carnal perspective, the most desired, from a pious perspective, the most despised of women.

Turning to today, we find all these same patterns at work—including the idea that “white women” are naturally promiscuous and provoke pious Muslim men into raping them. Thus last December in the UK, while a Muslim man raped a British woman, he told her that “you white women are good at it”—thereby echoing that ancient Islamic motif concerning the alleged promiscuity of white women.  

The UK is also home to one of the most notorious Muslim-led sex ring scandals: in Rotherham and elsewhere, thousands of young native British girls have been systematically groomed, trafficked, beaten and sexually abused by Muslims—even as the “multiculturalist” authorities and police stood by and watched. (For more on the UK scandal and Islamic law on sex slavery click here).  

In fact, all throughout Europe—particularly in the Nordic nations—thousands of “Byzantine-type” women have been violently raped and egregiously beaten by Muslims. In Norway, Denmark, and Sweden—where fair hair and eyes predominate—rape has astronomically risen since those nations embraced the doctrine of multiculturalism and opened their doors to tens of thousands of Muslim immigrants.  

According to Gatestone Institute, “Forty years after the Swedish parliament unanimously decided to change the formerly homogenous Sweden into a multicultural country, violent crime has increased by 300% and rapes by 1,472%.” The overwhelming majority of rapists are Muslim immigrants. The epidemic is so bad that some blonde haired Scandinavian women are dying their hair black in the hopes of warding off potential Muslim predators. 

Nor is this phenomenon a product of chance; some modern day Muslims actually advocate for it. Back in 2011, a female politician and activist trying to combat sexual immorality in Kuwait suggested that Muslims import white sex slaves. After explaining how she once asked Islamic clerics living in the city of Mecca concerning the legality of sex slavery and how they all confirmed it to be perfectly legitimate, she explained:

A Muslim state must [first] attack a Christian state—sorry, I mean any non-Muslim state—and they [the women, the future sex slaves] must be captives of the raid. Is this forbidden? Not at all; according to Islam, sex slaves are not at all forbidden. [See here, here, and here for more on Islamic law and sex slavery.]

As for what sort of “infidel” women are ideal, the Kuwaiti activist suggested Russian women (most of whom are fair haired and eyed; ironically, Russia is often seen as Byzantium’s successor):

In the Chechnya war, surely there are female Russian captives. So go and buy those and sell them here in Kuwait; better that than have our men engage in forbidden sexual relations. I don’t see any problem in this, no problem at all.

In short, the ongoing epidemic in the UK, Scandinavia and elsewhere—whereby Muslim men sexually target white women—is as old as Islam, has precedents with the prophet and his companions, and, till this day, is being recommended as a legitimate practice by some in the Muslim world. 


1. Shboul’s essay is found in Arab-Byzantine Relations in Early Islamic Times (ed. Michael Bonner, Burlington: Ashgate Publishing, 2004), 240, 248.

2. This apologetic approach is also found in modern academic works discussing the janissaries—European Christian boys who were seized by the Ottoman Empire, converted to and indoctrinated in Islam, trained to be jihadis extraordinaire, and then unleashed on their former Christian families. Although young, terrified boys were seized from the clutches of their devastated parents, modern academics claim that Christian families actually hoped their boys would be taken and trained as janissaries, as this would ensure that they have a “bright future” in the Ottoman hierarchy.

3. Arabic tafsir here: http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=5&tSoraNo=9&tAyahNo=49&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1 A shorter version of the narrative also appears in Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad (trans. A. Guillaume, NY: Oxford University Press, 1997), 602-603.

4. Nadia Maria el Cheikh, Byzantium Viewed by the Arabs (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004), 123-129.

Where is outcry about this from all the leftist media establishments, if they do indeed care so much about identifying and scolding racism?

The fact is that the West has long experienced the consequences of Islam and we presently face yet another genuine threat from this demonic ideology, even if our media keep the blinders on.

There is a hope for every victim of Islam, including Muslims, and his name is Jesus. 

You won’t hear about him from the media either.

“Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. Not only that, but we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us. For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.” ‭Romans‬ ‭5:1-11‬ ‭ESV‬‬

If Adam Goodes Is Booed Only Because He Is Aboriginal, Why Aren’t Other Aboriginal Players Booed Too?

It’s a question that we should all be asking, especially given that the leftist media have swarmed on this as though it’s the most critical news occurring at the moment.

Now many of us can agree that people are equal and deserve to be treated with respect. I don’t believe we should boo anybody and I include footballers in that.

The media have been swift in their condemnation of all white people, even ones who don’t like football and never attend along with white people who don’t know who Adam Goodes is. 

This is supposedly the proof of our ingrained racism – white people that is and no other ethnic or national origin.

The media collectivises all white people together, as though we were ants functioning as one mind.

Why is this acceptable?

Because some white people have done wrong in the past.

The so-called “progressives” love these kinds of stories and that’s why the media is saturated in it. They always prance in declaring themselves as the mature adults who have come to chide the foolish children, represented by white people in general.

White racism seems to be the only acceptable form of racism because apparently only white people have ever wronged others based upon superficial features like skin colour. 

We must be able to look throughout all history and find only a harmony of multicoloured utopia, where everyone accepted each other and civilisations rested at peace.

But that’s a total farce.

Consider how well non-Arabs are received in many parts of the Middle East and why the population of Japan is almost entirely homogenously Japanese for a start.

Does anyone really believe that different appearances were never a factor in the myriad of wars in human history?

As I have stated, there will always be people who judge purely by appearance and treat people differently accordingly and as I have stated, we should not do this because we are all made in God’s image and are precious to him.

But we need to stand against the constant barrage of lies about white Australians being the only racists that ever existed. 

Former footballer Jason Akermanis has done just this in speaking out against Goodes and the media’s collective accusations:

Brisbane Lions great Jason Akermanis has told Adam Goodes to stop “playing the victim” and says those who label the booing of the dual Brownlow medallist as racist are kidding themselves.

As AFL and NRL players rally behind Goodes, who has taken extended leave and is reportedly considering retirement, Akermanis said fans had the right to boo anyone they like, whenever they like.

“Any stupid journalists who said that they’re racist is kidding themselves,” the Brownlow medallist and triple premiership player told Fox Sports on Thursday.

“I got booed and no-one ever said it was racist. (Former rugby league star) Benny Elias got booed when we were in Queensland because he was from New South Wales. Umpires get booed every week.

“Adam Goodes has got to stop looking like a sook and stop making it about him in this sense, and also he should stop trying to play the victim.”

Akermanis said it would be a shame if Goodes decided to retire over the controversy, outlining the 35-year-old needed to make a decision about “whether he’s for the club or for himself”.

“If you don’t play, who’s winning?” Akermanis said.

“For Adam and for me and for anyone else who’s been booed, which I have over many years and got called even worse names than what he did, you cannot let them win.”

While I certainly don’t agree with everything he says, he does make some valid points and I certainly remember watching Akermanis get booed time and time again last decade. If anyone can relate to Goodes experience, Akermanis is one of those people.

Interestingly, my recent discussions about this matter have confirmed that other people are getting sick of being lumped together with legitimate racists just because we all share the same skin colour.

I think that’s fair.

The reality is that plenty of other Aboriginal players are not getting booed any more than non-Aboriginal players so it seems to be more than black skin behind this controversy.

And if white player start sticking it to the crowd, they should expect to be booed just as Goodes has.

Condemnation can be rightly levelled at people who are actually racist but claiming everyone is to justify being racist against white people is as equally wrong as racism against Adam Goodes.

My white skin doesn’t determine my behaviour but to some people, skin colour seems to be everything and they just can’t move past defining people, both individuals and groups, by this superficial feature.

And I’m writing mainly about the so-called progressives and their bullying media empire here.

“Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.” ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭7:3-5‬ ‭ESV‬‬


Bullying Programs: A Convenient Excuse For The Homosexual Lobby To Access And Indoctrinate Children In School Using Tax Payer Funding

It was Vladimir Lenin who said: “Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.”

Marxists know that future depends on and is shaped the children – that’s why they have worked so hard to infiltrate the education system with their ideologies. They did that a long time back and now those children constitute significant portions of Western governments.

It’s also why, if you study any culture throughout all history, you will never find one that has shifted so greatly and so quickly in its values as has the West.

Needless to say, someone worked real hard to achieve that.

And now that the West is increasingly accepting of homosexuality, thanks to a solid century of Marxist undermining of our Christian foundations and of objectivity itself, we find that the homosexual lobby can easily welcome itself into schools and directly teach children to practise all manner of sexual immorality.

If you are in any way doubtful of the intentions of the homosexual lobby, please do your research. You will discover, as I once did, that many people – both homosexuals and otherwise – are doing overtime to lead innocent and impressionable children into sexual depravity. Most disturbingly, they are using the schooling system and tax payers dollars to do it.

Consider this recent example that, as is becoming the norm, happened beyond the knowledge of the parents:

As a parent, how would you feel if you found out that your child(ren) was sent to a conference that taught them about homosexual sex by their public school?

That’s what parents in Iowa discovered earlier this year. In April, middle school students were sent to the Iowa Governor’s Conference on LGBTQ Youth. The conference was billed as an anti-bullying conference to promote acceptance of LGBTQ students, however there is no mention of bullying in the title or the stated mission of the conference:

“The mission of the Annual Governors Conference on LGBTQ youth is to a) engage and educate students, and b) encourage networking and activism.”

Afterwards, parents found out that the conference spent more time instructing their middle school kids about homosexual sex rather than anti-bullying. To make matters worse, it was all done with taxpayer dollars. One attendee told The Family Leader:

“There were only two sessions (among the more than 20) that had anything to do with bullying. It’s a conference teaching kids how to: how to be confidently homosexual, how to pleasure their gay partners – one session even taught transsexual girls how to sew fake testicles into their underwear in order to pass themselves off as boys.”

Several teachers and students left the conference early because of what was being taught. One father reported that his daughter was very distraught at what she was exposed to. He told The Family Leader:

“She thought she was attending this conference to learn how students can be supportive of their homosexual peers, how they can bring unity to her school. She went thinking it was going to be on bullying, and she wanted to learn how to be more supportive, inclusive and accepting.”

“When she got there, it wasn’t really on bullying; it was basically a sexual education class for same-sex couples. It was crude. One presenter told students who asked whether anal sex hurt that, as a lesbian, it really depended on how big the device is that their partner straps on.”

“My daughter went to listen to the comedian, Sam Killermann, thinking it would at least be funny, but instead, Killermann explained how pleasurable it is for gay couples to eat each other’s behinds and how to use different flavors of [oils] to make it taste better.

“It’s totally unacceptable, above and beyond anything we should have our children subjected to. It was over the line, especially for a conference supported by prominent Iowa businesses.”

The Family Leader had a representative attend the conference and reported:

“Our observer also reported on the day’s final speaker, a drag performer named Coco Peru, who delivered an expletive-laden presentation filled with song and a startling piece of advice for the hundreds of high school students bused in from around the state.”

“Peru’s performance included a song with the lyrics, ‘People suck. They don’t give a f— about you. People thrive on smashing our pride to the ground. People that suck, f— you.’”

“Toward the end of the performance, Peru told the kids if they see a car with a bumper sticker that reads, ‘It’s Adam and Eve for a purpose,’ they should, ‘Reach down inside yourself and give them a blessing … then slash their tires!’”

“Peru’s performance was clearly a far cry from an ‘anti-bullying’ speech.”

You may be surprised to learn that the conference was sponsored by Principal Financial Group, Nationwide, Office Depot, The TJX Companies Inc. (TJ Max, Marshalls, HomeGoods and Sierra Trading Post), Iowa State Education Association, University of Iowa, Iowa Association of School Boards, School Administrators of Iowa and the Episcopal Dioceses of Iowa.

An LGBT activist group known as Iowa Safe Schools has condemned all of the negative comments made about the conference. They are also claiming that next year’s conference will be even bigger and better than this year’s.

Parents are speaking out against the conference and demanding action be taken. Concerned Citizens has filed a petition with Humboldt School District in Humboldt and Dakota, Iowa to prevent their students from attending future conferences. They claim that the conference is completely inappropriate and a waste of taxpayer money.

Humboldt School Superintendent Greg Darling told the local media that a campus club was raising money so they could attend the conference next spring. He said:

“We support all clubs in the school that meet the policies and procedures. We are an equal opportunity school and do not discriminate against anyone. We strive to have a positive learning environment in the district but we do not support any group of individuals who uses profanity in presentations.”

Darling sounds like a typical public school liberal who will ignore the demands of concerned parents and will most likely allow students to attend next year’s conference.

This is one of many reasons why I can’t advocate homeschooling or private school enough. Parents have an obligation to protect their children from this kind of filth and what God calls abominable. If parents don’t have any other alternative but to send their kids to public school, then it would be their duty to keep their kids home the day of the conference. If the school takes disciplinary actions against the students who don’t attend, then I strongly suggest the parents contact one of many legal organizations such as Liberty Counsel, Christian Law Association or the Rutherford Institute to help them protect their kids from being brainwashed by the hideous monster known as public school.

Does any parent feel comfortable with someone teaching their school-aged children “…how pleasurable it is for gay couples to eat each other’s behinds and how to use different flavors of [oils] to make it taste better”?

I sure hope not but Marxism has been a busy little bee in our culture for a very long time. Talk to school-aged children and a large number of them will exclaim their support for homosexuality – that’s how far down the rabbit hole we are and it’s a sickening glimpse into the relative, amoral future of Western leaders.

This age is the only opportunity the accuser has to pervert sex and marriage – it seems neither will appear in the Kingdom of God, except of course the marriage supper of the lamb.

This doesn’t mean we give up fighting but it does mean we can look forward to the end of this madness and of the fight once and for all.

“Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.” And he who was seated on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” Also he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.” And he said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment. The one who conquers will have this heritage, and I will be his God and he will be my son. But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”” ‭‭Revelation‬ ‭21:1-8‬ ‭ESV‬‬

China’s Economy On The Rocks

Things are not so good for China at the moment. It seems that a bigger and louder sequel to the GFC is well on the way:

Shares in mainland China have recorded their biggest one-day fall for more than eight years following a sell-off towards the end of the trading day.

The Shanghai Composite closed down 8.5% at 3,725.56 after more weak economic data raised concerns about the health of the world’s second largest economy.

Profit at China’s industrial firms dropped 0.3% in June from a year ago.

That followed data on Friday indicating that factory activity in July saw its worse performance for 15 months.

Bernard Aw, market strategist at trading firm IG, said the surprisingly weak manufacturing data “added to worries that there could be further weakness in the Chinese economy, after the patch of recent economic data showed signs of stability”.

The Shanghai market’s fall was the biggest one-day loss since February 2007.

Karishma Vaswani, Asia business correspondent, BBC News

It’s been a roller coaster ride for investors in Chinese shares.

First, the heady highs: a massive rally in a span of 12 months – stocks soared by some 150%. Then in late June of this year, a dramatic 30% fall which caused both traders and the government to panic.

Trading was suspended, companies cancelled their planned listings and the Chinese government was forced to step in to the market by getting brokerages to buy stocks – backed by central bank cash.

Many criticized these measures – saying they were illusory and a short term attempt to prop up the market, without fixing real economic problems.

And now analysts say it’s the lack of confidence in the government measures that has led to the fall in share prices this Monday.

It’s thought that rumours the government may soon be withdrawing these support measures also has some investors spooked.

Recent economic data has also been weaker than expected – and all of this is contributing to renewed fears about the outlook for the world’s second largest economy.

Government support

While there was little to explain why shares were being sold at such a level, analysts said fears that China might hold off from further measures to boost the economy had contributed to concerns among investors.

The stock market has been benefitting from a series of support measures from the government and regulators after it lost a third of its value in the three weeks from mid-June.

Since late June, Chinese authorities have cut interest rates, suspended initial public offerings, eased margin-lending and pushed brokerages to buy stocks, backed by money from the central bank.

Chinese shares had recovered about 15% of their value before Monday’s plunge – showing some signs of stabilisation.

But on Monday, stocks fell across the board, including benchmark index heavyweights such as China Unicom, Bank of Communications and PetroChina.

More than 1,500 shares listed in Shanghai and Shenzhen fell by their daily downward limit of 10%.

We are due for a transfer in the world reserve currency and we seem to be pretty close to the end of the age. 
My guess is that this one is going to be big.

Sitting For Truth As Labor Sinks To New Lows

Speaking out against homosexuality takes guts these days. Do it and the ad hominems start to fly your way. Social media bullies will copy discussion you’ve had with individuals and post it everywhere they can to rally gangs to intimidate you into silence.

It’s animal behaviour – a gang mentality – that I’ve had used against me on a few occasions. They figure that like the cowards they are, you will be silenced through fear. But who should we really be afraid of? Mere men? Or God?

While I managed to find one good thing about Labor recently as they agreed to the “turn back the boats” policy, it comes to a grinding halt right there.

Everything else about the ALP is really a downward spiral into social and sexual chaos that rips the Christianity out of our behaviour and licenses anything and everything destructive.

Lyle Sheldon sums up the disaster that was the 47th National Labor Conference:

Labor’s 47th National Conference in Melbourne at the weekend marked the party’s end of tolerance for the natural family as the gold standard for children.

It’s been a slow burn but it is now official. The party’s capitulation to the sexual revolution and Greens’ social policy is complete.

After 2019, any Labor parliamentarian who votes to support marriage as one man and one woman will be automatically expelled from the party.

There is now no room in the party for an aspiring candidate for office who wishes to uphold the definition of marriage that is in the best interest of a child.

As Labor’s president Mark Butler put the motion, the ‘ayes’ were loud and proud.

“All those against?” A solitary “no” which sounded like WA Senator Joe Bullock rang out. I was sitting up in the bleachers so it was hard to tell for sure.

Earlier as Penny Wong, Labor’s lesbian Senate leader, rose to speak she was greeted with a sustained standing ovation.

One man, the former head of the Australia’s largest trade union, Joe de Bruyn, could not bring himself to genuflect before the rainbow regime.

It takes courage not to go with the crowd. It takes even greater courage to do this when the crowd are the people of the party for whom you have given your life.

Someone with an iPhone snapped Joe and put him on Twitter. His decision not to bow was ridiculed with almost 200 re-tweets.

What the mockers will never understand is how much courage that took.

Earlier in the conference, Labor voted to make it their policy to support access to assisted reproductive technology for same-sex attracted people.

Watch now for Australia’s prohibition on commercial surrogacy to begin to be chipped at.

There was no debate about the ethics of denying children their natural mother or father, a necessary by-product of ART.

The irony of all this was hearing on the radio on the drive to work this morning the victims of the forced adoption practices of the 1950s-1970s telling heart-wrenching stories of removal.

Do we seriously think a boy growing up with lesbians will never have an ache in his heart for his dad?

I see how my kids love and relate to their mother. There is a maternal bond that two men cannot fulfil no matter how much the law tries to pretend otherwise.

The Greens and Labor talk a lot about the natural environment for birds and plants. Labor’s conference said nothing about the natural environment for a baby.

And if you think I am being partisan, I am not. It is a Liberal, Warren Entsch, who is leading the charge to abolish husband and wife from the Marriage Act when Parliament resumes in August.

Our political class has fallen victim to a culture that has lost its capacity to reason.

Yes, it is a sad day to see the alternative party of government vote to expel anyone who wants to support marriage as the best environment for a child.

But we must use this seminal moment in Australian politics to wake ourselves up and resolve to re-build a marriage culture.

Doing this will require speaking. It will require challenging the assumptions of our friends who have put a rainbow wash through their Facebook profile.

Ideas have consequences. If bad ideas are the only ones prosecuted in the public square, as was the case at Labor’s conference, then we should not be surprised if viral ideas take root in our culture.

Truth always resonates with ordinary people but it can only resonate if it is spoken.

By remaining in his seat, Joe de Bruyn stood for truth.

We all need to take a leaf out of his book.

Joe de Bruyn is the subject of social media character assignation now – and this rubbish isn’t even in law.

What happens to the dissenters if the laws are changed to redefine marriage?

Lawsuits? Imprisonment? Execution?

Tyrants have done all the above throughout history so it would be unwise to think it won’t happen again.

Christians ought to prepare themselves and their children for social exile at best and even death because it seems we’re about to stroll down the violent, isolated isles of history once more in the West.

We can be sure that Jesus Christ will never leave us, even in death. We can be confident that even death cannot seperate us from his love. But let us not choose the world over Jesus because judgment is coming to the world. Let’s aspire to love God with the same zeal that he loves us, even if that means we suffer greatly now.

The Truth About Accusing White People Of Being Racist


The convenience of grouping people together without any of the responsibility of treating them as individuals.

Tyrants love collectivism.

Germans are the Master Race. Jews are rats and pigs. White people are racist.

Grouping people according to common traits irrespective of personal difference just rolls off the tongue, doesn’t it?!

Let’s hone in on white people being racists.

I don’t know about other white people (not being much of a collectivist and all) but I sure get sick and tired of the people who say “white people are racist.”

Now, some of these accusers are more clever than others. Rather than just calling all white people racists, they say the same thing but in more subtle ways.

For example, the recent furore over the constant booing of AFL star Adam Goodes has opened the floodgates for white people being called racist but with an edge of finesse:

The furore over booing Adam Goodes reveals white society still hasn’t learnt to embrace the Indigenous one, even in football. We’ll give on our terms, appreciate on our terms, but when it’s not on our terms, we turn on it, writes Jeremy Stanford.

Whoops – no finesse in this one. So apparently it’s okay to just come out and collectivise all white people together as racists.

Now imagine if the same was written about black people! Or Jews! or Christians (though apparently this one is also acceptable these days).

Back to Stanford’s article though, calling someone a racist based upon their skin colour is…well, it’s racist. Even if it were mere rhetorical hyperbole to make a point, I’m guessing making hyperbolic racist comments about Africans or Asians probably wouldn’t fly given that racist jokes don’t seem to.

That’s a good thing too but with Stanford here, the glaring, shovel-to-the-face double standards of the left are on ominous display and it’s comments like this that expose their mischievous hand.

Let’s see what else Stanford has to say:

I’d be happy to see every Indigenous player from now on perform the war dance every time they kick a goal. That would rub it in all our white faces until we truly got the message that you are part of this culture on your own terms and not on the terms that white society deems to be acceptable.

Racist. Tick.

Self loathing. Tick.

It can only be the ideology of the “progressive” left motivating Stanford here and it seems he’s taken a strong dose of what he is trying to force upon us.

The leftists, working on the basis of cultural Marxism, are out to erase any trace of Christianity from the West and so it should come as no surprise that they are eager to make “white people”, who they see as the primary representatives of Christianity, feel so guilty about some legitimate past evils that they allow them to take total control of our culture.

Yes, some white people have done very evil things. The revealing problem is that some white people haven’t.

So when people point to American slavery of Africans and say look at the evils white people did, they conveniently forget to point to the abolition movement that, hey hey, prominently featured white people. Cross the ocean and you would run headlong into white Wilberforce, who fought against white people and eventually won to end slavery in Britain.

Did you notice that – the aforementioned white people actually did not act like a hive mind but rather as individuals, with some choose good and others evil.

So when you actually think about it, skin colour is irrelevant. What does matter is our beliefs and our actions.

You could almost say that we should judge people based upon their individual actions rather than based upon whatever collective we can slot them into.
It’s funny then that when leftists insist that we look back on Western history (yes, they dose with white guilt) with shameful disgust, simultaneously insist that we revere people like Charles Darwin, a man who was by every definition was a racist, and Margaret Sanger, a woman who was so super-crazy racist that she set in motion plans that make Adolf Hitler look like a reasonable guy. It’s worth remembering that Sanger was hoping to wipe out black people using abortion, something she and her contemporary ilk have made a pretty good go of.

Referring back to the Adam Goodes issue, some AFL supporters would be genuine racists who don’t like him because of skin colour. The important question though is are there any other reasons to dislike Goodes?

Well, I’ve seen good players (and he has been one of the greats without a doubt) get booed continually simply because supporters of the opposing team don’t like them and want to put them off their game. It’s not a good quality but it sure isn’t “racism”. I’m pretty sure this kind of thing happens in other countries too where, believe it or not, the spectators are not white.

Furthermore, Goodes is getting in the media a lot because of racist attacks on him and journalists are rushing to accuse all white people ever of being racist because some kid or Eddie McGuire said something stupid. I’m sick of being lumped in by the simple fact of being white so perhaps other people are too.

Maybe they boo Goodes because they are tired of hearing about him, sort of like how many people are also sick of Eddie McGuire. It may even appear, in some people’s eyes, that Goodes and McGuire are like a duo of clowns hogging Australian television airtime and people are just sick of it.

Having been to sporting events and concerts, I’m also aware of the influence of the crowd. Perhaps some people start booing just because the crowd is booing – I’ve seen that kind of thing happen. People boo or cheer even as they are trying to figure out why they are doing it. It’s kind of funny and some people do it just for kicks.

And there one more important point that perhaps the racist media should consider – white people aren’t the only ones who go to the football and boo players. Yet, people like Stanford above make it clear that they aren’t referring to the many different cultures that make up Australian society – a fact that they love to promote as part of their attack on the West.

So which is it – is Australia multicultural and therefore it’s not just white racists booing Goodes? Or is our whole nation white and therefore only whites are to blame for the booing?

The ideology of the so-called progressive left plays out like a bad movie with plot hole after plot hole revealing that there is no substance behind the façade.

All these ad hominem attacks on white people, simply because they are white, is as racist as it gets and they have no problem breaking their own rules and living in double standard land in order to get what they want.

So if you are white and a racist, stop being a racist because God made us all equally human and equally valuable. If you are black and racist, do the same. Asian, Jew, Arab, whoever – we all have the same instructions in Christ.

And to all those white people who are constantly slandered with false accusations of “racism”, you have no need to feel guilty for something that you do not do. Don’t be played by these political and cultural strategists – they are always looking for power and they love to start fights and create social upheaval by pitting collectives against one another, be it men and women or blacks and whites.

They divide people and rise to power as we all fight it out – to the death if necessary. That’s how Marxism always applied itself and it’s tactics really aren’t that different today.

Jesus Christ, on the other hand, brings peace between people of all nations, no matter their skin colour, sex, ethnicity, or whatever it is that makes us different. God has created one new humanity is Jesus Christ and his house will be called a house of prayer for all nations.

So let’s abandon the so-called social justice and the bullying of the left and just treat everyone how God says we should treat them. Naturally, that does. Or mean we fall for the tricks of the left even as we treat them like human beings precious in the eyes of God. We must also have wisdom and discernment.

“for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.” ‭Galatians‬ ‭3:26-29‬ ‭ESV‬‬

“Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all. Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony. And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body. And be thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God. And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” ‭‭Colossians‬ ‭3:11-17‬ ‭ESV‬‬

Evolution: Always Learning And Never Able To Arrive At The Knowledge Of The Truth

The theory of evolution has consumed our culture because people do not want to acknowledge God.

A world where there is nobody to answer to suits the individualist, self absorbed pursuits of the West and it is a convenient excuse that I once held dearly myself.

While evolution – the idea that all life originated from one organism – has become sacred ground where ne’er a foot may tread, it has been corroding many under-publicised cracks for centuries.

Even when these gapping holes are reported, they are forced through the naturalist lens as some great mystery that continues to evade understanding:

A community of lizards from the Caribbean, preserved for 20 million years in amber, have been found to be identical to their modern cousins, say researchers.

This suggests the different niches inhabited by the lizards have – incredibly – changed little over the past 20 million-year, report the team, in this week’s Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“These fossils were really surprising because of how much detail they contained, allowing us to see how these lizards would have looked in real life,” says the study’s lead author Dr Emma Sherratt of the University of New England in Australia.

Sherratt says amber fossils are usually just a hollow impression, but the new fossils of anolis lizards from the island of Hispaniola, provide phenomenal detail – including the colour of the lizard, what it was last doing, and whether its eyes were open or shut.

“Most of ours had full skeletons, and details of the skin were impressed on the amber, providing very detailed images of tiny scales on the body and on the sticky toe pads,” she adds.

“You could have taken a lizard today, embedded it resin and it would have looked like one of these creatures. That’s how realistic and modern they look.”

Another impressive aspect to the study is the large number of amber fossils analysed.

While previous research has mostly looked at individual specimens, this study involved 38 lizards fossils from various locations on Hispaniola.

Obtain from museums and private collections – one was even a pendant in a necklace – the community of fossils represent the largest group of vertebrates encased in amber.

“Nothing like this has ever been described before,” says Sherratt.

Evolutionary models

There are over 400 species of anolis lizards spread across the islands of the Caribbean, with each species adapting to a specific ecological niche.

Earlier DNA studies indicated anolis lizards began colonising the Caribbean about 40 million years ago, quickly diversifying into different niches such as the forest canopy, tree branches, main trucks, leaf litter on the forest floor, or grasslands.

As different groups began occupying different niches, their body shapes, leg length, and the little scales on their toe pads that help them climb like geckos, changed accordingly to suit each niche.

Using x-ray microcomputer tomography to produce three dimensional reconstructions of the fossils inside their amber cocoons, the researchers showed that the diversity of lizards that resulted 20 million years ago is the same seen today.

“Given we see the same range of morphological features this means the community of lizards has remained unchanged all this time,” says Sherratt.

Steady niches

Sherratt says it is “very striking” that the lizards don’t seem to have changed at all during this long period, during, over which all the main animal types evolved.

“Evidence of anolis lizards living unchanged in different niches for 20 million years, indicates these niches have been stable for that period of time,” she says.

“That’s quite surprising because these lizards have gone to other islands and over to the Florida mainland where they seem to evolve very rapidly. So it’s not that they don’t have the propensity to change, it’s just that the structure of the environment has been stable enough that they haven’t needed to change in 20 million years.”

Available evidence suggests that ecological communities change rapidly over the short term, says Sherratt.

However, she says, the findings are among the first to look at long term stability of ecological communities, and show that niches and the communities they support can remain stable over millions of years.

This article reads like an exercise in irony – see how many nods and winks they can pack into its brief duration:

“identical to their modern cousins”

“This suggests the different niches inhabited by the lizards have – incredibly – changed little over the past 20 million-year (sic)”

“You could have taken a lizard today, embedded it resin and it would have looked like one of these creatures. That’s how realistic and modern they look.”

“the researchers showed that the diversity of lizards that resulted 20 million years ago is the same seen today.”

“Given we see the same range of morphological features this means the community of lizards has remained unchanged all this time,”

Sherratt says it is “very striking” that the lizards don’t seem to have changed at all during this long period, during, over which all the main animal types evolved.

“That’s quite surprising because these lizards have gone to other islands and over to the Florida mainland where they seem to evolve very rapidly.”

“Available evidence suggests that ecological communities change rapidly over the short term, says Sherratt.”

If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck!

“Oh, but niches and communities can stay the same over millions of years,” they tell us. They do throw in “incredibly” though, as in “that’s really unexpected.”

I’m all in favour of the unexpected but sometimes, Occam’s Razor just needs to be embraced.

Scripture has long declared that there are those who are:

“always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth.”             ‭‭2 Timothy‬ ‭3:7‬ ‭ESV‬‬

So perhaps the underlying assumptions of evolution are wrong?!

20 million years doesn’t really compare to the 66 million the coelacanth has supposedly remained virtually unchanged. These aren’t the only examples that put a dent in the theory either but there’s always an additionally complex theory to cover the leak – even for the blood discovered in dinosaur bones.

The battle line is drawn and anyone who refuses to twist the biblical scriptures must acknowledge that Darwinian evolution is simply incompatible with the biblical record of history, which is what this all boils down to: competing worldviews

Since God is the only available record-keeper and record-revealer, being from everlasting to everlasting, I will continue to trust him and when the irrefutable evidence surfaces, as it so often does, I will praise him for being faithful and true.

I encourage you to do likewise.

Islamic Terrorism In Melbourne, Australia: Weapons Supplier Charged In ANZAC Day Plot To Murder Police

The reason I continually highlight a small number of the myriad, myriad examples of Islamic jihadi terrorism that occur every day is because so many people just want to pretend it does not exist. It’s easier and more comforting to pretend it’s just a few individuals and that it will never happen to them.

It’s time to wake up because it does exist and Islam is a legitimate threat to the entire world, just as it has been across fourteen centuries of violent, conquesting history.

Please don’t in any way assume that I hate Muslims because I don’t hate people (though many frustrate me greatly, just as I am sure I frustrate others)  – I hate ideologies and I hate any and every ideology that is not the gospel of Jesus Christ. 

It’s nothing personal against any individual – I simply must stand with truth and I unequivocally throw my whole being, every word and action, behind the truth that Jesus Christ is the only way humanity can be saved. 

Jesus death on the cross was actually his moment of victory, where the judgment and penalty for sin that all humanity deserved was taken upon himself, even though Jesus was innocent. His resurrection from the dead demonstrated once and for all that God is just and restored humanity into relationship with God. We need only trust what God has done in Jesus to obtain a reward that we never deserved but that Jesus freely bestows upon any who ask – eternal life!

Furthermore, Jesus is coming again to bring justice to the world and that is fantastic news! He will rule as king over all nations from Jerusalem and he offers everyone – and I do mean everyone – the opportunity to know God and become a member of God’s family.

As far as promotions go, there are none bigger than having God as your father and Jesus as your brother – forever!

By contrast, Islam does not even promise Muslims will make it to “paradise” – it’s up to them to earn their way in through good works and service to Allah, who is not a father or a personal god but rather a distant figure too grand for any mere mortal to personally interact with.

There is one certain way for the Muslim to enter “paradise” and that is through suicidal jihad. Naturally, I don’t want any Muslims killing themselves and others to get a “reward” from Allah – a false god and not a “god” at all.

So as the news pumps out item after item about Muslims doing the following kinds of things, I want them to realise that it is Islam that is the problem here:

Mehran Azami, the accused weapons supplier for the Melbourne Anzac Day terror plot, has pleaded guilty to 22 charges.

Azami, of Narre Warren, in Melbourne’s south-east, pleaded guilty in the Melbourne Magistrates Court to 19 charges of importing weapons, including tactical knives, 61 knuckle dusters and Tasers.

He also pleaded guilty to three other offences.

Azami was 19 years old at the time of his arrest earlier this year.

Asked by the judge if he understood the charges and what was happening to him, he replied “Yes”.

At an earlier court hearing in April, police said they had intercepted phone calls between Azami, Haurun Causevic, 18, of Hampton and Sevdet Besim, 18, of Hallum.

Causevic and Besim have been charged with conspiring to commit a terrorist act in relation to a plot to attack a police officer on Anzac Day 2015.

Azami was remanded in custody to appear in the County Court in October.

So turn to Jesus today, not to Isa (Jesus according to Islam) but to Yeshua HaMoshiach, Jesus Christ, the one and only begotten Son of God, who is fully God and fully man, the rightful inheritor of the throne of David and the coming king of Israel and of the nations. Jesus, whose death on the cross absolved us of deserving judgment from God and opened the way for us to know God as Father.

“John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne, and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen. “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”” ‭‭Revelation‬ ‭1:4-8‬ ‭ESV‬‬

Islam Creates Asylum Seekers, Refugees, and Boat People

I recently wrote about the ALP’s change of policy to “turn back the boats” and save the lives of the many people dying as they attempt to reach Australia but the question over why they are trying the reach Australia is something everyone should be asking.

The simple answer is Islam.

Seriously, have you ever heard of refugees fleeing to the Islamic World? Clearly, I do not mean people crossing into another Islamic nation on the way to somewhere else as they try to flee the Middle East or Northern Africa. 

I mean have you ever heard of a Westerner seeking asylum in Islamic nations?

Did Snowden or Assange ever think of Iran or Sudan when they were compiling a list of potential safe havens?

Does anyone ever think Iran or Sudan in connection with the idea of “safety”?

No, people don’t flee to Islamic nations specifically because it is not safe and while it is easy to usher stand why many people do flee these nations, we need to deal with the reality that Islam creates hellholes wherever it goes and that includes Western nations.

One of the sad realities is that many Muslims cannot see that their own religion is the cause of their desire to escape the Middle East and while it is my desire that all refugees and asylum seekers be helped, the reality is that this task goes far beyond the capabilities of the West, which has its own problems.

Jesus Christ alone can bring peace and prosperity to the nations and before he does that, we all need to give some serious thought to the path our nation goes down.

That doesn’t mean we don’t accept asylum seekers because many of these people are legitimate and need help but at the same time, the safety of the West was not cultivated in connection with Islam. On the contrary, it was in many ways cultivated in direct opposition to it. Therefore, we should be very wise in who we do accept and in understanding the potential side effects, such as an increasing percentage of Muslims in our nation.

The following article Population, Religion and Immigration by William B. Rubenstein addresses many of these concerns and it is an essential read. We should understand these issues and be wise in Christ, yet also tempered with his mercy towards those who have a legitimate need.

Why did so many embark on leaky boats, rather than present themselves as ordinary economic migrants? Because they have no marketable skills, little education and no jobs waiting for them upon arrival. What many do boast is a troubling insularity borne of loyalty to fundamentalist Islam
Many, perhaps most, of the difficulties and malaise currently being experienced by the West, including Australia, stem in large measure from two factors: the unprecedented increase in population in the Third World, and the replacement of secular, universalistic ideologies, especially Marxism, by religious fundamentalism. Neither underlying trend has been widely discussed here, and the aim of this article is to examine these factors on the context of Australia’s policy towards immigration and political extremism.

The statistics of population increase throughout the Third World in recent decades are simply staggering. Although everyone is aware that there has been a worldwide population explosion, and that this has occurred primarily in the under­developed world, in all likelihood few know just how astronomical this increase has been. Here is a table of the populations of various randomly selected Third World countries in 1950 and today (numbers in millions):

                                       1950 2015 % increase

Afghanistan 8.2 26.6 324

Bangladesh 45.6 158.5 348

Brazil 53.4 204.1 382

Cambodia 4.5 15.4 342

China 563 1369 243

Congo (Kinshasa) 13.6 71.2 524

Egypt 21.2 88.3 417

Haiti 3.1 10.9 352

India 370 1269 343

Iran 16.4 78.2 477

Liberia 0.8 4.5 560

Nigeria 31.8 183.5 577

SouthAfrica 13.6 54.0 397

Venezuela 5.0 30.6 612

Zimbabwe 2.8 13.1 468

These extraordinary rates of increase, which have occurred in virtually every Third World country, have taken place even in states which have experienced local man-made and natural catastrophes—in Cambodia, for instance, whose population has more than tripled since 1950 despite Pol Pot’s genocide; in Afghanistan and Liberia, with their endemic wars and conflicts; in Bangladesh (formerly East Pakistan), where monsoons kill tens of thousands virtually every year. The main reason for this phenomenal rise in population has been the availability of Western medicine—the one form of “Western imperialism” whose “shackles” are never to be “thrown off”—as well as the integration of the economies of most Third World countries into the international economic system. Without the West, no Third World nation could have supported more than a fraction of its current population.

While this great rise in numbers has occurred everywhere in the Third World, it is probably in Africa where it has been most marked. The total population of the African continent increased from only 229 million in 1950 to 1,125 million in 2014, with profound consequences. Kinshasa (formerly Leopoldville), the capital of the so-called Democratic Republic of the Congo, consisted a century ago of a series of fishing villages. In 1947 its population was only 136,000, less than that of Geelong today. By 1970 it had climbed to 1.3 million, while today its population is 7.8 million, only slightly less than the population of London. Delhi’s urban area now numbers 25 million, and is the second largest urban conurbation in the world, behind only Tokyo. Not far behind are the urban areas of Mexico City (21 million), Mumbai (21 million), Cairo (18 million) and Dhaka, Bangladesh (17 million). The metropolitan area of Delhi has a greater population than all of Australia.

As a general rule, the rate of population growth in the Third World has been inversely proportionate to economic development and per capita income, with the highest rate of population growth almost always occurring in the poorest, most backward countries. Of the fifty-two countries in the world whose population increased by 2 per cent or more a year from 2005 to 2010, thirty-two are in Africa (headed by Liberia, whose population increased by 4.5 per cent a year, despite its genocidal civil war), while ten are in the Islamic world. At the other end of the scale are most Western countries, as well as the states of the former USSR and Japan, whose populations have hardly increased at all or, in some cases, have actually declined.

By and large, and not to put too fine a point on the matter, much of the Third World remains a cesspool of benighted backwardness, endemic corruption at every level of society, constant wars, and shattered hopes for development and improvement, with sub-Saharan Africa almost always at the bottom of a very deep barrel. For example, of the sixteen countries in the world with the lowest access to private sanitation facilities, fifteen are in sub-Saharan Africa. Of the thirteen countries with the lowest access to improved drinking water, eleven are in sub-Saharan Africa. Among the 35 million people currently living with HIV/AIDS around the world, 25 million are in sub-Saharan Africa, compared, for instance, with 1.6 million in Latin America. Forty of the fifty countries in the world with the lowest per capita incomes are in sub-Saharan Africa.

Claims that the developed world is neglecting the Third World’s economic growth are dubious. In 2013 the developed world gave US$135 billion in foreign aid to the Third World, with the United States donating $32 billion, Britain $18 billion and Australia $4 billion. Independence came to most former colonies in the Third World between fifty and seventy years ago, obviously ample time to have shaken off whatever were the negative effects of European rule.

To be sure, some Third World countries have developed and prospered beyond recognition, among them South Korea, and especially China. After ridding itself of Nehru socialism, India has emerged as a high-tech centre, while even some African countries like Kenya are prospering. Nevertheless, the enormous population bulge which has occurred throughout the Third World has produced an army—almost literally—of millions of impoverished people, especially young men with near hopeless prospects, who either turn to extremism and violence, or attempt to emigrate, legally or not, to the developed world.

This vast array of the dispossessed is probably greater in number today than at any time in the past, while communication and ease of transport are greater now than at any time in the past. As a result, a tidal wave of immigrants has entered the West, often by illegal means. Throughout Europe (and to a much lesser extent here, because of our stricter immigration rules) whole areas of many major cities have been flooded with Third World immigrants, making these areas virtually unrecognisable to those who had lived there before. This has been facilitated by most governments, but in particular by left-wing governments, keen to prove their anti-racist and politically-correct credentials, while using the (automatically left-wing) votes of the immigrants as an increasing component of their electoral base, which (as with the Labour Party in Britain) would otherwise be constantly declining. In Britain, there are apparently now nearly three million Muslims, as well as several million others from the Third World. In size, this wave of immigration has no historical parallels: for example, in 1930 there were only 300,000 Jews in Britain, after—at the time—relatively heavy immigration from eastern Europe. Similar post-1950 migration waves exist in most European countries, with their governments unable or unwilling to halt them. Indeed, Western Europe may become the first place in history to commit suicide through political correctness.

These demographic trends would be alarming enough, but they have occurred alongside what is arguably the most important political transformation of the recent past, but one whose importance is virtually unnoticed: the virtual end of widely held belief in secular, universalistic ideologies, especially Marxism, and their replacement as popular causes, everywhere but in Western Europe and in most other Western countries like Australia, by a religious fundamentalism and extremism that is deeply engaged in politics. The end of communism in Europe and its effective end in most of Asia have led to the end of Marxism everywhere as an ideology attracting new or young supporters in either the West or the Third World.

In the West, the Left by and large has transmigrated to some variant of the Green movement, which has many of the radical ideological aspects of previous Marxism, but without its hard edge and rigour or its central direction from Moscow or from a local communist party. But in the Third World (and, to a lesser extent, in the United States), the vacuum left by the end of communism has given fundamentalist religion a new lease of life, most obviously and violently in the Islamic world. Whereas fifty or sixty years ago most disaffected students and youth throughout the Islamic world would have embraced some variety of Marxist insurgency, usually mixed with a strong dose of anti-colonialist nationalism, and with Islam present, if at all, as a subsidiary loyalty, now most turn as a matter of course to one or another variety of Islam, each generally more extreme than the next, in a kind of Dutch auction of barbarism. Islamic fundamentalism has, of course, been paralleled in many other cultures—by the rise of the BJP in India, by various Buddhist movements in South-East Asia, by Charedi Judaism in Israel, and, in a sense, by the “Moral Majority” in the United States.

By and large, however, the rise of religious fundamentalism has been entirely absent from the West, which is incorrigibly secular and where there are few signs of any religious revival. In Russia and Eastern Europe, however, religion and religious practice have made remarkable comebacks since the end of communism (and, indeed, before that). In Russia the Orthodox Church has, de facto, been restored to its pre-1917 position after seventy years of persecution, with thousands of churches reopening since the fall of communism. (One little-known but potent example of the sheer resilience of religion in Russia may be found in the career of Georgy Malenkov (1902–88), one of Stalin’s most loyal underlings, who served as Premier of the Soviet Union between 1953, when Stalin died, and 1955. Malenkov was purged in 1957 and fell into complete obscurity. In his later years, however, he became a devout member of the Russian Orthodox church, and served as a reader (the equivalent of a curate) and as a choir singer, an official church position. When Boris Yeltsin died in 2007, he was the first Russian head of state to be buried in a Russian Orthodox funeral service since Tsar Alexander III in 1894.)

The central place of fundamentalist religion, and religious violence, in the contemporary world is, of course, strongly associated with militant Islam, the source of most murderous violence and terrorism today. In the past, there were successful and unsuccessful attempts to introduce Western liberal reforms into Islamic states, most obviously by Kemal Ataturk in Turkey. Much less well known were the efforts by King Amanullah Khan in 1929 to introduce far-reaching reforms, including the emancipation of women, into Afghanistan, of all places; for his pains he was immediately deposed by conservative tribesmen and clerics. The Marxist regime which held power there between 1978 and 1992 also attempted to institute the same range of reforms, in the context of Marxist repression, but was also overthrown. Arab nationalist dictators like Nasser and Saddam Hussein also imposed many secular reforms, sometimes with persisting results, sometimes not. Today, however, the importance of fundamentalist religious ideologies in the Islamic world is clearly greater than ever.

Islamic terrorism is most apparent in the Muslim world, both as a result of Sunni–Shi’ite rivalry and as a means of persecuting non-Muslim minorities. But it has been brought to the West by the tidal wave of Muslim immigration during the past forty years or so, a major component of Third World immigration to the West. The presence of significant numbers of Muslims in the West is entirely novel—there were few Muslims in the West before the 1950s—and has occurred as a component of the vast population increase throughout the Third World, by much higher birth-rates than among the majority population, and by some conversions to Islam.

Bearing all these points in mind, what can one say about Australia’s approach to immigration? By and large, it has been fairly sensible compared with Europe, and its points-based system has often been recommended for copying elsewhere. The Australian points system effectively prohibits the migration here of those without education, marketable skills, job offers or family connections, and thus—in theory—rules out unskilled and semi-skilled would-be migrants from the Third World (or elsewhere). Generally, of course, Australia’s post-1945 immigration is seen as a model of success.

But it is far from perfect. We arguably admit far too many migrants. In 2013-14, Australia admitted 190,000 migrants (up from 100,000 in 2003-04) and 13,500 refugees, a number which is due to rise to 20,000. In contrast, the United States, whose population is thirteen times larger than Australia’s, admitted 990,000 legal migrants in 2013 and only 58,000 refugees. If Australia allowed in the same per capita number of immigrants as the United States, it would have let in only about 76,000 migrants and 4400 refugees; both figures appear far more reasonable, given the current state of our economy. The negative impact of high levels of immigration on, for example, the cost and availability of housing here, is discussed all too infrequently, and seldom or never by prominent politicians.

Australia’s generosity stems in part from nostalgia for the very successful immigration of the post-war decades, when there was a consensus that Australia had to “populate or perish”. But those days are over. After the Second World War, Australia was one of only a handful of countries which had already industrialised but was not laid waste by the war. The world wanted what it produced, and Australia was crying out for unskilled and semi-skilled labour for its factories, mines and farms. Protected by high tariff walls, for decades Australian unemployment rates seldom exceeded 1 per cent. Today, it goes without saying, all that has changed. Australia has no tariff protection, little manufacturing industry, competition from every corner of the globe, and an unemployment rate stubbornly stuck at over 6 per cent.

Old-style New Australians: A migrant family enters their hostel accommodation for the first time in 1965

In those days, too, an immigrant family settling in, say, Carlton in Melbourne, often worked literally down the street or a ten-minute tram ride away in the Melbourne CBD. Today, poorer immigrants and refugees are forced to live in remote, under-serviced ghetto-like suburbs such as Dandenong in Melbourne, on the outer fringes of now vastly larger metropolitan areas, often unemployed—and perhaps unemployable—for years on end. (Recent refugees to Australia remain unemployed on average for four years—which means that half are unemployed for even longer.) Unskilled and semi-skilled jobs are scarcer than in the past and ought, as a matter of elementary fairness, to go to Australians who need the work, not to those brought in from abroad, except in limited and controlled numbers.

Refugee immigration here still remains in the wake of the first Rudd government. In an act of sheer folly, that government mandated onshore refugee processing, thus facilitating the birth of a new and vast industry: people-smuggling. This demented policy was reversed by the second Rudd government, but not before 50,000 illegal immigrants entered Australia and 1200 died at sea. Under the present government, the number of unauthorised boat arrivals has declined from 50,000 to zero, once it was made absolutely clear that any such arrival would be sent to Papua New Guinea, Nauru or Cambodia, and that none would be allowed to settle here. This decline in such numbers to zero is prima facie evidence that the overwhelming majority were not refugees but economic migrants, attempting to come here to better themselves.

All at sea with new-syle multiculturalism

During the Second World War, European Jews —who, after 1940, were forbidden to leave Nazi-occupied Europe, prior to genocide—who managed to escape had to spend the war years in unpleasant places like Mauritius and Shanghai. Despite this, every Jew in Nazi-occupied Europe would have given literally all they had to escape to Mauritius, Shanghai or anywhere on earth beyond the reach of the SS. Not one would have declined to leave Europe because their destination would not be New York. So, if they are in mortal danger, why are today’s boat “refugees” so reluctant to migrate to Papua New Guinea and Nauru? The evident inference is that they are not in mortal danger, but want to come to a wealthy First World country like Australia in order to better themselves and their families.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to migrate to Australia for its economic benefits and the promise of upward social mobility for oneself and one’s family—I have personally twice been an economic migrant for these reasons, and so have millions of other people—provided that the migrant stream is carefully controlled, the pace not set by smugglers, and that would-be migrants do not lie about their status. So why did so many do exactly that rather than apply to come here as ordinary economic migrants? In many cases, because they know that they have a zero chance of success: they have no marketable skills or requisite education, let alone a job waiting for them upon arrival, and would certainly be denied admission as ordinary migrants. In contrast to the barriers set up for would-be economic migrants, refugees to Australia need have no skills of any kind, or speak English, or even be literate. They are a small and unfortunate component among the hundreds of millions in the Third World who see themselves with no futures where they are.

It is not generally realised just how widespread deception actually is among would-be migrants. According to official government statistics, of those who applied to come to Australia as refugees under the Special Humanitarian Program in 2012-13 (the most recent year for which there are statistics) 78 per cent were refused admission: their claims to being “refugees” were invalid. For almost all recent years, the percentage of such applicants denied admission as “refugees” has also been in the 78 to 85 per cent range. Presumably, all or most of these are simply poor, unskilled inhabitants of Third World countries who want a better life, but can only realistically be admitted to Australia as refugees, which they are not.

Like every other Western nation, Australia is faced with an entirely new danger from Islamic terrorism, almost always the product of a revived Islamic fundamentalism. It is self-evident that Islamic terrorism presents a clear and present danger to Western democracy that must be suppressed by any means. While with a few prominent exceptions Australia has been free of this plague, we currently have a Muslim population of nearly 500,000, ten times as many as forty years ago, a figure which has escalated astronomically in the same way as in Britain and Europe.

There is, of course, no unified Muslim community, which is composed of people from a wide variety of national cultures from the Balkans to Indonesia. (In fact, most Arabs in Australia are probably not Muslims, but Lebanese Christians and Egyptian Copts.) Most Muslims here are, like anyone else, simply minding their own business, while it must be stressed that the vile and barbaric aspects of Islamic fundamentalism—honour killings, female genital mutilation, systematic discrimination against women, and so on—have no necessary relationship with Islamic terrorism. Nevertheless, the clear and immediate threat posed by Islamic fundamentalism is one central reason why Third World immigration here, fanned by an ever more astronomical population of the impoverished in the underdeveloped world, should be carefully controlled and curtailed; any would-be immigrant from the Third World who presents the slightest threat to our security ought to be automatically barred from coming.

Although there is an apparent consensus among the two main parties as to the dimensions of our immigration policy, the organs of the Left, such as the Greens, the Fairfax press, the ABC and various left-wing groups, are constantly pressing for more open borders, regardless of the impact of any such policies on Australia, and regardless of their electoral poison. As usual, the sheer perversity of the Left, with its permanent zeitgeist towards national suicide, is its most notable feature.

What then can be done about the population of the Third World, its endemic poverty and, in many cases, hopelessness? Realistically, Australia can do virtually nothing to ameliorate conditions there beyond what it does at present with its foreign aid, aid workers, and the provision of training and medical care. Australia has no control over the internal affairs of any Third World countries, with the possible exception of some local neighbours with which we have traditional ties, such as Papua New Guinea. Nor is there any obvious international solution to the problems of the Third World. Australia can, basically, only put up the drawbridge and hope for the best.

As followers of Jesus Christ, our hope is in something far greater than “the best”, something the author of the above article seems to sadly lack.

As I wrote above, we need to temper our response with mercy but Rubenstein is correct in many regards here: national borders are an important defence against dangerous ideologies like Islam that create dangerous societies like those littering Africa, the Middle East, and even the West.