Syrian Refugee In Germany Burns Down His Hotel Accomodation, Spray Paints Swastikas On Walls To Implicate People Who Warn About The Dangers Of Muslim Refugees

This story is hardly uncommon these days.

It’s all part of Islam in its new home: The West.

A SYRIAN refugee has admitted smearing swastikas and starting a fire at the asylum centre where he was staying because he wanted to be moved to a better location.

The blaze badly damaged the hotel in the town of Bingen am Rhein in Rhineland-Palatina last week

The blaze badly damaged the hotel in the town of Bingen am Rhein in Rhineland-Palatinat, Germany, last week, where a number of refugees and seasonal workers were living.

The apparent racist attack caused outrage in Germany, and was widely reported in local media with demands that those responsible be tracked down and punished. 

The 26-year-old Syrian told police he was fed up with the cramped living conditions in the hotel. 

He had been living there for six months when he started the fire which left four residents and two firefighters needing treatment for smoke inhalation, police revealed.

The refugee sprayed the swastikas on the building in a bid to put responsibility for the blaze on right-wing extremists.

Detectives arrested the man after other residents identified him as the arsonist.

He is currently being held in custody.

His arrest came a secret plan devised by Brussels was revealed, which could see countries in the European Union take on 250,000 migrants from Turkey every single year.


Austria, Germany: One In Two Refugees Facing Criminal Charges, Refugees Commit Minimum 50% Of All Crimes

This is no surprise to anyone.

Last week we reported that based on newly released statistics from the German government, 45% of all crimes come from Merkel’s new “refugees.” Well, Germany’s southern neighbor, Austria, has confirmed Germany’s conclusions through its own statistics. According to their numbers, a minimum of 50% of all crimes are committed by these new “refugees.” Not only that, but Austria has proved these numbers are consistent going back as far as 2003.

The mathematical statistics bear out what everybody else knows from lived experience: the refugees are the source of the problems.

From the Kroner:

Statistics from the Federal Criminal Agency show that in the period 2003 to 2014 one of of every two asylum seekers had criminal charges filed against them. In this it is striking that most of the crimes were committed by people from Algeria (155 per 100 asylum applicants), Georgia (151) and Nigeria (129). According to a “Presse” report, among Syrians the number is around 8 – however the year 2015, in which the major flow of refugees from Syria set in, is not included. 80% of the crimes were committed by men.

From 2003 to 2014 the annual clear-up rate for crimes in Austria was between 40 and 45 per cent. In three to five per cent of cases, asylum seekers were determined to be the perpetrators. That is relatively high as the share of asylum seekers in the entire population – depending on year – was only around 0.1 to 0.3%. The statistics only include migrants who also receive basic provision pay-outs from the Austrian state.

Muslim Refugee In Germany Throws Children, Aged Seven, Five, And One, Out Of Two Story Window

Wonder why this one didn’t make the news, given that one time when everyone on earth repeatedly heard all about Michael Jackson dangling his kid over the balcony for a moment?

Or that one time anyone hurt their children?

I guess we’ll never know.

I couldn’t find any English-language news reports on this incident. However, an article at is fairly clear in machine translation.

The asylum center is in Lohmar in Rhein-Sieg-Kreis. The 35-year-old Syrian father was arrested after his children were thrown from the windows of the center. Police suspect that he may have deliberately attempted to kill them.

Many thanks to Nash Montana for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for subtitling this news report from RT:


1:00 At the scene we found three injured children ages five, seven and one year.

1:04 The five- and the seven-year-old children are apparently severely injured

1:10 and have been transported to the trauma center. The one-year-old child

1:13 was injured only lightly and it was brought to the children’s clinic.

1:22 According to witnesses the two heavily-injured children fell

1:26 from two different windows. What happened with the third lightly-injured child

1:30 is at this point not clear yet.

Eurabia: Europe’s Descent Into The Islamic World 

The “Islamic World” was once known as Classical antiquity and was one half of a very large Christian empire, just like the rest of Europe.

Muslims invaded it on a jihadic conquest and in a mere decade, it became an Islamic empire.

Looks like Islam is going to take the rest.

Unless something happens, and civil war is very much a possibility here, then Eurabia will become the reality that many of us have warned for a long time.

Bill Muehlenberg’s recent article is an important read:

Plenty of people are now asking, ‘Whither Europe?’ It has been in serious trouble for decades now, and with the twin problems of Christianity in decline and Islam in the ascendency, the situation continues to further deteriorate. Mistaken policies of multiculturalism and immigration, along with a complete blindness to the threat of expansionist Islam, are killing the continent.

In a recent article political analyst Judith Bergman asks this question, “Is Europe Giving Up?” She concludes her article this way: “Europe seems to have learned nothing from the past decades. Its problems with immigrant Muslim populations continue to deteriorate. Accommodation has not solved these problems; more accommodation will undoubtedly not solve them either. More accommodation will make them, if anything, worse.”

Things certainly are getting worse. The rape culture in Europe which has exploded following decades of mainly Muslim immigration is getting worse by the day, as Cologne and other cities recently demonstrated. While women are being raped and Europe is being ravaged, we still have clueless lefties demanding more foreigners be allowed in.

And sadly some of these “come on in” lefties have become the victims of all this. Consider the tragic case of Elin Krantz. As one write-up states:

[She was] once a beautiful blond woman, young and full of life, is now dead in the ground and six months decomposed. Supposedly, she was a member of the “We Like Diversity” Facebook page, called herself “multicultural” and a supporter of Third-world immigration into Sweden, the country of her birth. Maybe in those last few moments of life, she changed her mind about a few things, as if it made any difference. On that day, Elin and her African immigrant killer were riding the same tram to the Hisingen neighbourhood in Sweden.

Shortly thereafter Krantz was found raped and murdered in a wooded area not far from the tram stop. Her 23-year-old African “refugee” (who supposedly once lived in the US) killer was arrested shortly after the killing. He was charged with murder and aggravated rape. According to the prosecutors, the attack was one of “extreme ruthlessness”.

The religious lefties pushing open slather for asylum seekers go on and on about how we are supposed to treat women and children kindly, etc. I am all in favour of treating women and children kindly, but when it is primarily young males who are pouring into Europe as refugees, then we need to start asking some hard questions.

Indeed, things are getting so bad that some places now have a huge imbalance of males to females. Consider the shocking case of Sweden:

In Sweden, unaccompanied male minors made up 21 per cent of all new arrivals from the Middle-East and Africa last year. Among that number there was only one girl for every 11.3 boys, according to figures from the American website Politico. The figures also showed that from 18,615 refugees who entered Sweden last year, only 2,555 were girls.

Adding those numbers to those of Swedish nationals from the same age group, the total number of boys in the country comes to 121,914 compared to only 99,079 girls. That disparity is greater than China’s, a country renowned for its male-heavy population, where there are 117 boys for every 100 girls. Sweden, together with Germany and Denmark, has been one of the most generous European countries when it comes to hosting refugees. But Swedes’ tolerance towards the new arrivals is ebbing.

The country’s leftwing government has moved to impose border controls after opinion polls revealed the opposition party, the extreme-right wing Sweden Democrats, now enjoys a 20 per cent support from the public. In 2015 more than a million refugees arrived in Europe, mostly from Syria, Africa and South Asia.

All of this is simply unsustainable, and Europe may well be on its last legs. Some are already saying that civil war may be the way things pan out in Europe. Theodore Shoebat says “There Is Going to Be a Civil War In Europe Between Muslims and Non-Muslims”. He continues:

A German official named Hansjoerg Mueller, of the Alternative for Germany party, said that because of Merkel’s open door policy allowing the floods of Muslim immigrants the country is ‘sliding towards anarchy’ and risks becoming a ‘banana republic without any government’. He also said that it will push the nation to civil war. The official said: “Germany now is somewhere at the edge of anarchy and sliding towards civil war, or to become a banana republic without any government.”

Another recent piece on all this is worth quoting from at length. What Ross Douthat says about Germany – it is “on the brink” – could be said of much of Europe as well:

The underlying controversy here is not a new one. For decades conservatives on both sides of the Atlantic have warned that Europe’s generous immigration policies, often pursued in defiance of ordinary Europeans’ wishes, threaten to destabilize the continent. The conservatives have made important points about the difficulty of assimilation, the threat of radicalization, and the likelihood of Paris-style and Cologne-style violence in European cities.

But they have also trafficked in more apocalyptic predictions — fears of a “Eurabia,” of mass Islamification — that were somewhat harder to credit. Until recently, Europe’s assimilation challenge looked unpleasant but not insurmountable, and the likelihood of Yugoslavian-style balkanization relatively remote.

With the current migration, though, we’re in uncharted territory. The issue isn’t just that immigrants are arriving in the hundreds of thousands rather than the tens of thousands. It’s that a huge proportion of them are teenage and twentysomething men.

He concludes his piece with these words:

In the German case the important number here isn’t the country’s total population, currently 82 million. It’s the twentysomething population, which was less than 10 million in 2013 (and of course already included many immigrants). In that cohort and every cohort afterward, the current influx could have a transformative effect.

How transformative depends on whether these men eventually find a way to bring brides and families to Europe as well. In terms of immediate civil peace, family formation or unification offers promise, since men with wives and children are less likely to grope revelers or graffiti synagogues or seek the solidarity of radicalism.

But it could also double or treble this migration’s demographic impact, pushing Germany toward a possible future in which half the under-40 population would consist of Middle Eastern and North African immigrants and their children.

If you believe that an aging, secularized, heretofore-mostly-homogeneous society is likely to peacefully absorb a migration of that size and scale of cultural difference, then you have a bright future as a spokesman for the current German government.

You’re also a fool. Such a transformation promises increasing polarization among natives and new arrivals alike. It threatens not just a spike in terrorism but a rebirth of 1930s-style political violence. The still-imaginary France Michel Houellebecq conjured up in his novel “Submission,” in which nativists and Islamists brawl in the streets, would have a very good chance of being realized in the German future.

This need not happen. But prudence requires doing everything possible to prevent it. That means closing Germany’s borders to new arrivals for the time being. It means beginning an orderly deportation process for able-bodied young men. It means giving up the fond illusion that Germany’s past sins can be absolved with a reckless humanitarianism in the present.

It means that Angela Merkel must go — so that her country, and the continent it bestrides, can avoid paying too high a price for her high-minded folly.

Let me finish with the words of Baron Bodissey who discusses “The Larger Motive Behind the Groping Jihad”:

The wave of “refugees” entering Europe in 2015 was an instance of the Islamic hijra, or migration, into infidel lands. It is one of the principal phases of jihad. In their migration Muslims are following the example of Mohammed, who made hijra to Medina and forcibly established Islam there. When the number of Muslims in the new land increases sufficiently — by further migration, or by da’wa, proselytizing to convert infidels — then violent jihad can be launched, and the final conversion of the new territory will be complete.

Europe is experiencing the earliest stages of a major hijra operation. The behavior of the migrants is decentralized and lacks a command structure, but its uniform aim is to achieve an acknowledged purpose, and it is operating according to a well-defined plan. And what is that plan? What was the Groping Jihad trying to achieve in the Cologne Hauptbahnhof that night?

The first motive was the obvious one: a bunch of sex-deprived testosterone-infused men were out on the town to have a bit of fun with the “uncovered meat” left lying around by the infidels. These culture-enrichers come from a society where women are property, and have no protected status unless their ownership (by a man) is clearly indicated. Uncovered, shamelessly dressed women with no owner accompanying them are considered prostitutes. Or simply objects for the satisfaction of whatever man happens upon them. That was the clear, immediate, unambiguous motive for the molestation and rape of young Western women.

The second layer of purpose reveals itself in the way these young men formed into disciplined small groups and acted in a coordinated fashion, simultaneously in dozens of different cities:This was warfare. The events of New Year’s Eve were jihad, war against the infidel.

And they were also a form of terrorism. Allah commands his followers to strike terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, and that is exactly what the Groping Jihad did. German women (and presumably many of the men) are now terrified of the Hosts of Mohammed.

Yes this is war. Of course Islam has declared war against the West for 1400 years now. The only question left to ask is this: will Europe side with its enemies and commit continental suicide, or will it wake up and respond before it is too late?

Europe’s Limited Immigration Options

It is certainly Christ-like to help people and if refugees are in the West, then Christians should invite them into Christian community and help them towards independence in their new homeland. 

Governments, on the other hand, are established to protect the people they govern and opening the borders of the West to millions of refugees does not protect people, it endangers them – native and refugee alike.

On top of this, it enables Middle Eastern and African governments to escape their own responsibilities to their people, something they really don’t need our help in doing.

So what is happening today in Europe really is the makings of serious civil conflict, even civil wars. 

For the moment, we can all pat ourselves on the back for taking in unsustainable numbers of refugees but when the religious and cultural baggage they bring drives us into inevitable conflict – it’s already happening – then our politically correct righteousness will be exposed for what it really is: idiocy.

Here’s an interesting article by Antony Carr that sums up Europe’s limited options in the face of mass immigration:

In Africa and the Middle East whole countries are emptying. But from what are their people fleeing? In essence, they are fleeing from themselves, and when they enter other countries they bring with them all that implies: failed cultures, intolerant insularity and ancient animosities

In recent months, we’ve seen pictures and read reports of thousands of people, mostly males from Muslim lands, swarming into Europe, overpowering all attempts to halt the flow. Just a few years ago, this was unimaginable to almost everyone except Osama bin Laden, who is proving to be the prophet of the age and whose death, according to Jeremy Corbyn, the new leader of the British Labour Party, was a tragedy. What will happen now? Here are three possible scenarios.

Scenario 1: There is no change from the present – border controls remain down, people continue to pour in, numbers grow to millions, governments bleat helplessly, disorder spreads, the welfare state collapses under the strain, society haemorrhages, the young migrate and a new European dark age begins.

Scenario 2: Barriers are put up to prevent the invasion and colonisation of Europe. John Howard’s approach is adopted – “We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.” Pleas from the usual suspects are ignored; legal objections are overruled or circumvented. Those attempting to breach the borders are repelled with whatever force is necessary. Those who evade the border controls are rounded up and expelled. National and regional border controls are reintroduced to ensure defence in depth.

Scenario 3: Europe tackles the problem at source – effectively taking control over the failed states concerned and ensuring they are run properly for at least a century.

Scenario 3 is clearly impractical. Europeans do not have the belief, the confidence, the will or the financial and military capacity to undertake such a herculean task.

Scenario 2 will certainly be attempted but, from what we can see at present, in a half-hearted, spasmodic and ineffective fashion, for nationalism is now considered wicked — akin to racism — and multiculturalism implies that all cultures and religions must be given equal respect. The political classes, Brussels bureaucrats and others of their kidney throughout Europe will sponsor endless statements condemning violence and pleading for community understanding, and they will promote a plethora of ineffective laws. But the situation will prove beyond them. If the people fail to rise up and throw out their betters, one can foresee their retreat to protected compounds where they will lament the death of the European dream (for which they will blame the unenlightened lower orders, not themselves) and adopt the foetal position if and when crowds bent on loot pound on their gates.

In Africa and the Middle East, whole countries are emptying. But from what are their people fleeing? In essence, they are fleeing from themselves, and when they enter other countries, they bring with them what they fled from. We can expect all the toxic hatreds that have festered for centuries in their countries of origin to be imported with them. Is this the end, a kind of zombie apocalypse? Has the once robust civilizational confidence of Europeans been so undermined in recent years that they will be helpless in the face of those who would destroy them, the fate eerily foreshadowed by the French writer, Jean Raspail, in his 1973 novel Camp of the Saints.

Why are so many reduced to wittering helplessly? Perhaps in large part it’s due to the Western world being weakened by the malign cultural influence of the left, many of whose members have followed the precepts first advanced by the Italian Communist, Antonio Gramsci, who proposed that rather than standing for elections, which they would lose, those on the left should bring about a cultural revolution by infiltrating key institutions. This has been substantially accomplished. Educational institutions and much of the media throughout the Anglosphere now spread the message that Europe’s record in relation to the rest of the world is one of racism, xenophobia and oppression — the Australian story, for example, being one of exploitation, cruelty and dispossession. How can a people, so unworthy, with faith in neither God nor themselves, resist a people whose religion insists they should have primacy, that they are entitled to what they seek as of right?

Ethnic conflicts in the past were resolved with borders, partitions, ghettos – devices that were always necessary to keep the peace unless there was a hegemon, such as the British Raj. Expulsion of whole peoples would sometimes occur. For example, after World War II, at least 12 million ethnic Germans were expelled or fled from Eastern Europe.
History has shown that the Europeans are capable of anything and with the collapse of the European project we can expect new leaders to emerge from the ruins, many of whom will not be nice. There will be new Nazis, new Communists. New Identities, loyalties and borders will be established. Our descendants will live in interesting times!

Covering Up The Islamic IKEA Beheadings In Sweden

The mainstream media has seemingly had a blackout on this story since the early reports made it clear that Eritrean asylum seeker culprits were very likely Muslims.

It seems they don’t want to mention that (warning: it’s graphic) at least one of the victims appears to be beheaded in photos posted at Walid Shoebat’s website:

The Swedish government and media are doing their best to conceal any evidence that the Eritrean knife attackers who killed two people in IKEA were Muslims. But an independent photo obtained appears to show that at least one of the victims was beheaded in the store.

Thanks to Vlad Tepes, we now have a photo that the mainstream media will not post. Nothing is yet confirmed, but expect more to come out about this apparent Islam-inspired beheading of two infidels. Of course, police were quick to point out that they didn’t think the murders were “politically motivated.”

Police in central Sweden have increased security at MUSLIM asylum seeker lodgings, fearing a backlash after two Eritrean asylum seekers were detained on suspicion of murdering two people at an IKEA store. Police said there was no evidence of any political motive. The victims did not have any connection to their attackers, police said. The store temporarily halted knife sales as the attackers used knives from the shelves there.

Per ABCNews: Security camera footage from the brutal attack reportedly shows the 35-year-old man grabbing two knives from the kitchenware section just before two shoppers are attacked. He is seen stabbing and then hacking at the neck of one victim, according to Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet.

The government has blocked any footage from being released, in order to quell “Islamophobia.” And for two full days, they would not permit the police from even telling the public a Muslim was involved — using that time to deploy troops to “protect” centers where Muslim migrants are publicly housed.

The Express reports the suspect had met with migration officials just hours before the attack, and was soon to be deported. He reportedly got another Muslim Eritrean to join him in the IKEA attack, which was likely religiously or ethnically-motivated out of anger. Both victims were white native Swedes.

These men were asylum seekers! Surely someone has to start asking why they came Sweden to kill people?

This is the future of the West in an IKEA nutshell.

Islamic Terrorism In IKEA, Sweden: Asylum Seekers Murder Two Citizens, Another Critical

I waited on this story to learn more information but it seems my instincts were correct – Islam!

These men were “asylum seekers” in Sweden and this is sadly an all too common narrative, with significant crime occurring at the hands of guests to this country and many others across Europe.

Here’s the initial report:

Two people have been killed and one has been seriously injured in a knife attack at an IKEA store in Sweden.

The attack took place in the city of Vesteras, about an hour west of the capital Stockholm, Swedish media reported on Monday.

Police said they received a call reporting injuries at the IKEA store about 1:00pm on Monday (local time).

They found three stabbing victims in the kitchenware department.

“We found a man and a woman who had knife injuries and who later died of their wounds,” Vastmanland police said in a statement.

A man aged around 35 was seriously injured.

He immediately underwent surgery at local hospital, spokeswoman for the regional health care authority Eva Lindahl said.

The police said two suspects had been arrested over the attack.

One of the suspects was arrested at the scene and the second, who was seriously injured, was picked up at a hospital a few hours later, commanding police officer Per Agren said at a press conference.

How the suspect was injured was not clear.

The suspects were two men born in 1992 and 1979 who probably knew each other, Mr Agren said.

They had no connection with the victims and the motive for the attack was not known, he said.

The victims had been shopping at IKEA and were known to each other, police said.

Police said they had yet to establish a motive for the killings.

Local daily VLT, quoting the store manager, reported the victims were “ordinary shoppers” and the attack took place in the store’s kitchen accessories section.

These guys couldn’t find a “motive” if it hit them in the face!

Perhaps the reason people have to seek asylum from the Middle East is because of men like this, who murder you as you try to buy furniture – only this time, the murderers slipped through.

It gives some credit to those who demand tight border security, doesn’t it?!

Here’s the consequent fallout:

Police in central Sweden have increased security at asylum lodgings, fearing a backlash after two Eritrean asylum seekers were detained on suspicion of murdering two people at an IKEA store.

A man and a woman were killed in a knife attack at an IKEA store in the city of Vasteras on Monday.

Two suspects were detained by police, one of whom was seriously injured.

One suspect has denied involvement, while the other is hospitalised. Both had been staying in the same asylum centre, police said.

Police said there was no evidence of any political motive. The victims did not have any connection to their attackers, police said.

“Local police across the region have been tasked with taking these measures, to be there for safety purposes for everyone there – those who work there and those who live there,” Vastmanland police spokesman Per Agren told Sweden’s TT news agency, referring to asylum centres in central Vastmanland county.

Sweden has been one of Europe’s most generous recipients of asylum seekers. In 2014, it received 81,200 applicants, 13 per cent of the total in the European Union.

The anti-immigration Sweden Democrats, who in 2010 took seats in parliament for the first time, have become the third-biggest party, arguing that record numbers of asylum seekers are undermining the country’s cherished welfare model.

The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention said this week the number of suspected hate crimes — attacks motivated by the victim’s religious, sexual or racial identity — hit a record level last year.

In one of the latest incidents, two homeless migrants were shot at as they slept in a car in the northern Swedish town of Boden last week.

It’s interesting that the reference at the end there to the “number of suspected hate crimes — attacks motivated by the victim’s religious, sexual or racial identity — hit a record level last year” seems to suggest that it’s the immigrants who are the victims when it’s actually the native Swedish female population who are being raped because they are white.

Even though these asylum seekers have murdered people, the ABc can’t help but turn the blame back on the Swedes – that sounds a lot like racism to me, and from the left, defenders of racial justice in all the cosmos!

God is clear that we should be merciful to the alien and the foreigner and indeed, Sweden has a massively generous welfare system and immigration policy that makes it very easy for people to escape the hellhole of the Middle East and find safety in beautiful and peaceful Scandinavia.

At the same time, wisdom says that opening your borders to anyone is a dangerous game. While I am not claiming this to be a direct parallel, at least  consider the foolish actions of king Hezekiah in Israel:

“At that time Merodach-baladan the son of Baladan, king of Babylon, sent envoys with letters and a present to Hezekiah, for he heard that Hezekiah had been sick. And Hezekiah welcomed them, and he showed them all his treasure house, the silver, the gold, the spices, the precious oil, his armory, all that was found in his storehouses. There was nothing in his house or in all his realm that Hezekiah did not show them. Then Isaiah the prophet came to King Hezekiah, and said to him, “What did these men say? And from where did they come to you?” And Hezekiah said, “They have come from a far country, from Babylon.” He said, “What have they seen in your house?” And Hezekiah answered, “They have seen all that is in my house; there is nothing in my storehouses that I did not show them.” Then Isaiah said to Hezekiah, “Hear the word of the Lord: Behold, the days are coming, when all that is in your house, and that which your fathers have stored up till this day, shall be carried to Babylon. Nothing shall be left, says the Lord. And some of your own sons, who shall be born to you, shall be taken away, and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon.” Then Hezekiah said to Isaiah, “The word of the Lord that you have spoken is good.” For he thought, “Why not, if there will be peace and security in my days?”” ‭‭2 Kings‬ ‭20:12-19‬ ‭ESV‬‬

Hezekiah was exploited and even when he is told of coming disaster, he is unmoved because he won’t be there to deal with the coming catastrophic consequences.

That sounds a bit like the West’s lax approach to Islam – even now we are being terrorized in our own nations but still they claim that we just need to be even nicer and Muslims will come around to secularism. Certainly, many do but a vast number equally disdain our freedom in the West because to them, Islam and sharia are “freedom”.

One day, when the Muslim populations have grown in the West, we might find our temple being plundered and perhaps that generation (which is closer than people seem to think) will look back at the leftist, open-the-border Marxist types of our generation as the dangerous, short-sighted fools that they are.

As Christians, we can show love and welcome to Muslims and many will come to Christ, glory be to God, but what’s happening here is bigger than individuals – it’s the next phase of the clash of cultures.

It took many wars and stern determination by the church of medieval Europe to hold off the invading Islamic forces then and I don’t see that same constitution in the West today.

Jesus still wins and he rules over all but I would prefer to live in peaceful times rather than during a world war. How about you?

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.

Wisdom Prevails: Labor Agree To Turn Back The Boats

Approximately 1400 human beings have drowned attempting to come to Australia as refugees and asylum seekers by boat since 2001.

Even so, there are still plenty of people so committed to their dangerous ideologies that they refuse to acknowledge that the policy behind Tony Abbott and the Coalitions “Turn Back The Boats” is one that actually saves lives.

Simply, if people cannot enter Australia by boat, they stop trying to. That means people stop dying and human traffickers stop profiteering. In spite of the evidence, a lot of people persist in petitioning the government to allow people to come to Australia by boat.

While some of these people do sincerely care for asylum seekers, other ideologues are so invested in allowing anyone to come to Australia by any means possible that they are willing to sacrifice at least 1400 people to get their way. They claim they care about the lives of these asylum seekers but quite tellingly, so many of these great lovers of human life are equally obsessed with the state sanctioned right to murder children in the womb.

So if their devotion to letting the boats float is not about saving refugee lives, as I am firmly claiming, what is it actually about?

There are a few factors.

Firstly, the ideologues demanding boat people be accepted often desire the eradication of the influence of Christian culture from the West. The relativistic humanist West hates Christianity because it calls good good and evil evil while it wants to celebrate the perverse and silence anyone who won’t join them. If the West celebrates all cultures and traditions, then Christianity is reduced to a small slice of a mish-mashed cultural pie. In this way, Islam becomes the means to their end of no more Christian influence. That’s also why they heavily promotes other tiny miroities in our society including those who comprise homosexual and transgender communities.

Secondly, mutliculturalism becomes a means to the aforementioned end. Mutliculturalism is pushed so fiercely because it claims all cultures are equal and none should dominate, especially Christianity with all its rules and moral prohibitions. The continued propagation of mutliculturalism as a positive influence upon society means that this ideology is pushed at the expense of the lives of refugees and without thought as to the actual consequences of multiple cultures forced to live alongside each other.

It’s important to understand that Multiculturalism is quite simply a failure for the logical reasoning that the culture most willing to dominate will dominate. The West is not yet willing to murder people to force its ideology while Islam, an ideology that seems to produce the greater majority of the refugees and asylum seekers coming to Austrlaia, has been doing exactly that for fourteen centuries. Ironically, while Islam produces these boat people, a majority of them are still Muslims, at least at a cultural and social level, if not educated in Islamic doctrine and history. Trends suggest that these Muslims come seeking a peaceful life and often live it out but the second and third generation of children find their way back to genuine, violent Islam. So when the West and Islam live together, history shows that Islam is plenty willing to violently force their culture. Ergo, Islam will dominate the West sooner or later.
Of course, the full dominate of Islam over the West is not the goal, merely proportionally increased dominance to displace Christianity.

Thirdly, these ideologues desire to eradicate all boundaries, especially national ones, on the way to a global government. They’ve spent the best part of the last century breaking down moral boundaries, such as dissolving the family unit and opening the way for government to reach into our personal lives but they know that even greater power is found in a global, centralised government that controls most, or all nations.

There can be no sexual immorality if society has firm sexual boundaries defined by the Christian faith, so Christianity needs to be thrown out. In the same way, international government cannot interfere in a sovereign state unless the boundaries to that state are removed, be they militaristic, social, cultural, etc. 

One effective way to remove those boundaries is to shift the culture away from nationalism and national identity and this has been going on rampantly in Australia for decades.

Consider the attacks on Australia Day as “non-inclusive” and even “racist” by leftist, so-called progressive types. Why can’t a nation celebrate itself? Because that keeps it seperate from other nations, giving it an identity outside of the collective of nations and separating it from them.

And that is what the leftist ideologues want and have been working decisively to change!

So if we celebrate Austrlaian traditions, leftist universities do studies that say we are non-inclusive and if we fly Australian flags, they tell us it’s because we are racist.

How does this connect to asylum seekers?

Immigrants bring their own ways and traditions and celebrations and the leftist education and media systems teach us that we must be tolerant by giving special place and privilege to these new ways, lest we become intolerant, bigoted racists.

We are told constantly that we must be ashamed of the colonial period, of Gallipoli, of Vietnam, and of our white, racist ways. We must accept other cultures like Islam, even though asylum seekers flood out of Islamic nations like a torrent. We must accept homosexuality, even though one in every nine men who have sex with men have HIV. 

We must allow everything except firm rules and boundaries based on the Judeo-Christian tradition.

National boundaries, which are not just physical but encompass the social and cultural all add up to a national identity. Like people, when you get a heap of different nations into a room together, it can be impossible to get them to agree on anything. If you weaken their personal identity, you can make them more agreeable and agreeable people can be controlled.

Look at all the nations struggling with the issue of asylum seekers and refugees – Australia, The U.S., Europe. There a reason why nobody flees to the Middle East but rather away from it and there’s a reason why the West is alway the final destination. 

There is also a reason why leftist leaders across the world are making every effort to allow significant numbers of asylum seekers to enter their nations and why those same leftist leaders are always proponents of increasing global, centralised power.

So the Australian Labor Party’s shift on turning back the boats really is one that defies the odds – namely, it actually serves individual human beings rather than leftist ideologues.

It helps to reduce crime in the form of human trafficking and helps to preserve the lives of refugees and asylum seekers. It helps protect Australians from people who may not be legitimate refugees and asylum seekers. In itself, it does not stop refugees and asylum seekers from coming to our nation legitimately but actually encourages them to use legitimate channels where drowning is not a risk.

It’s a policy that makes sense.