2005 July 28 Thursday
New Zealand Politician Warns Against Muslim Immigrant Terrorists

The leader of a minor New Zealand political party that has been polling about 10% of the vote warns against Muslim immigration to New Zealand.

Moderate Muslim groups are sheltering fundamentalists who may be plotting terror attacks on New Zealand soil, New Zealand First leader Winston Peters claimed yesterday.

In a speech directly linking "open- door immigration policies" to radical Islam, Mr Peters said the country's history of religious tolerance and free speech was threatened by Muslim migrants who "do not share our traditions".

"We cannot take our tradition of toleration for granted when we are importing fanatics for whom that tradition is alien," he said.

"In New Zealand the Muslim community has been quick to show us their more moderate face, but there is a militant underbelly here as well.

"These two groups, the moderate and militant, fit hand and glove.

"Underneath it all the agenda is to promote fundamentalist Islam - indeed these groups are like the mythical Hydra, a serpent underbelly with multiple heads, capable of striking at any time and in any direction," Mr Peters said.

I do not see why Western nations should let in Muslim immigrants at all. The idea of letting them in always strikes me as "It's being-hit-on-the-head lessons in here." We have no shortage of people. We have huge selection of people who want to come to Western countries for the most part because we have higher living standards. So why not be incredibly choosy and let in only those who will provide a large net benefit?

Peters is a member of the New Zealand parliament and former deputy prime minister. If you are curious about Peters then click on the two Wikipedia links I embedded in the first paragraph of the article.

A nationalistic speech that does not hesitate to represent the people of one's nation as somehow better or deserving of preservation against the influx of others is a rare thing to hear these days and sounds shocking to anyone conditioned to today's leftish political mores. This guy sounds like the late British parliamentarian Enoch Powell. Check out John Derbyshire's aricle on the London bombings entitled "Thinking About 7/7: Enoch Powell’s Revenge?" for an essay on how far nationalism has eroded in Britain and in much of the Western countries.

Nick Hume of the London Times has joined the list of British commentators who think that British self-hatred has helped to create the intellectual environment that terrorists living in Britain use to justify their attacks.

Perhaps it might have something to do with the way that, from the moment they arrive here, asylum-seekers are told that Britain is a racist hellhole that deserves what it gets. And they first receive that message not from some fringe Islamic preacher, but from the heart of our self-flagellatory culture. Those bombing suspects came to a society that seems intent on denying that there is anything good about living here. Britain gave them schooling. But what exactly would they would have been taught?

Think of the miserabilist images of society that we are all subjected to these days. Britain is portrayed as institutionally racist and increasingly Islamophobic at home and abroad, a darkly degenerate place full of violent drunks and drug addicts, disrespectful “hoodies” and child abusers, pregnant teenagers and sexually transmitted diseases, whose people believe in nothing except football and getting fat in front of the television.

If the British were told they had many things to be proud about they'd act in ways more consistent with that pride and the place would be better for it.

Hume's essay is similar in tone to Anothony Browne's longer and excellent article from The Spectator entitled The Left’s war on Britishness (requires free registration which is worth your time).

No, the real answer to why Britain spawned people fuelled with maniacal hate for their country is that Britain hates itself. In hating Britain, these British suicide bombers were as British as a police warning for flying the union flag.

Britain’s self-loathing is deep, pervasive and lethally dangerous. We get bombed, and we say it’s all our own fault. Schools refuse to teach history that risks making pupils proud, and use it instead as a means of instilling liberal guilt. The government and the BBC gush over ‘the other’, but recoil at the merest hint of British culture. The only thing we are licensed to be proud of is London’s internationalism — in other words, that there is little British left about it.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2005 July 28 02:36 PM  Immigration Terrorism


Comments
Stephen said at July 28, 2005 5:47 PM:

Is it just me (probably), or does anyone else feel that we are trivialising complex and long-run changes in societal values by merely attributing them to a 'left' or 'right' conspiracy (whether in part or in whole)?

PS: Always keeping in mind that this is Randall's site, and his prodigious output, and he is entirely free to write what he chooses.

PPS: oh, unless its about the wonders of line dancing - if that happens, I'm out of here.

Randall Parker said at July 28, 2005 6:17 PM:

Stephen,

I realize that not all people who are on the Left have been attacking nationalism. For example, you strike me as more leftward leaning than rightward leaning. But I doubt that you attack the history of America as one long history white male capitalist oppression. But the critiques of America as a wonder thing and of nationalism have come from people who are on the Left. They don't vote Republican. They don't label themselves as conservatives.

Though just in the last few years there are now neocons who are now dropping the neo from their label due to the bad name that neocons have. But these people are not conservatives.

John S Bolton said at July 28, 2005 6:32 PM:

It does not necessarily imply conspiracy, if people do things the same way at the same time. Prove that someone was suggesting a conspiracy, unless you are a completely hopeless irrationalist. The evil motivation of the leftists who campaign to wave in moslem enemies of civlization is manifest. It is easy to know that such hostiles are hostile, they make it obvious. Openness to hostiles is itself demonstrative of hostility to civilization. Officials and their depraved professoriate enthuse over openness to waving in moslem hostiles, and this signifies hatred against civilization such as only government money for education propaganda can generate. Sweep out the moslem enemies wholesale, only the leftist subhuman believes in the right of freedom for aggression.

Stephen said at July 28, 2005 7:08 PM:

Randall, I'd like to think that my world view is sufficiently subtle that catch-all phrases like left/right don't really sit well. I'd like to think the same applies to many who post here.

John, I'm confused (admittedly my natural state of being), but first you say "Prove that someone was suggesting a conspiracy, unless you are a completely hopeless irrationalist", then you go on to use phrases that suggest conspiracy...

"...leftists who campaign to wave in moslem enemies..."

"Officials and their depraved professoriate enthuse..."

After that last one (how very marxist of you), I'm fully expecting a quote using either 'lumpen proletariate' or 'bourgeoisie'.

M.Robinson said at July 29, 2005 5:37 AM:

There is nationalism that makes one proud of a nation states history, culture, institutions etc. I feel the nationalism that is being espoused here goes to the extreme of the 'far right' rather than the 'right'. I prefer not to use such terms but unfortuatelty I am being 'forced' to do so. Extreme nationalism is a dangerous concept (good examples are Nazi germany, Mussolini's Italy and imperialist Japan) that eventually is detrimental to the population as a whole.

One aspect of nationalism that is being used without any problems is the attack on the moslem people as a whole, This is not very far from the attacks that were made against the jewish people by 'european nationalists'. whereas the europeans had a history of anti-semitism, the people of USA are being fed a similar line against the moslems.

In britain we the British are proud of our achievements, but we are critical of certain aspects. this is to be expected as we are a democracy, where people are allowed to be critical of the prime minister, whereas in the USA if you criticise the President then the assumption seems that you are criticising the whole of US society, which stifles debate against the government.

John S Bolton said at July 29, 2005 6:21 AM:

The Jews were not waging a holy war on Europe, but pious moslems are commanded to do so. Nationalism and patriotism of a virtuous kind are not to be equivocated, and especially not in such manner as to smear the patriotic with some bloodthirsty nationalistic movements' associations. Apparently there are no rational arguments for the British governments policy of appeasement and large scale harboring of terrorists. Again, it does not suggest conspiracy to say that people of a certain class of beliefs tend to believe and act similarly to each other and distinct from other groups. When governments fail to repond to the presence of enemies in their territory, the enemies multliply and increase their hostilities. Officials know this; and their lassitude indicates that they must want such hostilities to multiply.

crush41 said at July 29, 2005 10:17 AM:

M,

That is an ethnocentric view you espouse. Virtually the only place you will find self-loathing of one's own culture is within white elitist circles--that method of thinking is very culture and class specific.

The "attack on the Moslem people as a whole" is not at all analagous to the antisemitism in Europe. Antisemitism was imbedded in nearly two thousand years of disdain and consequently it was irrational in the 30s and 40s. There were no Jewish groups committing terrorist acts or preaching the overthrow of Christian culture. It was baseless hatred as opposed to the feelings of disdain of Islamic culture that are very grounded in fact today. In addition, West European Jews were tremendously successful and a net asset of the nations they lived in. In Berlin, for example, an astounding 75% of the city's doctors and 80% of the city's theatre directors were Jewish, even though Jews represented less than 1% of the country's population. Muslims are, on average, liabilities everywhere they go and not only do they drag the economy down, extremists among them seek to literally blow it up. Jews in Europe were the antithesis of Moslems today (ritual murder was a sham). The enmity of Moslems towards the West is but a continuation of the hatred the NSDAP spewed against Jews in Hitler's Germany--in that sense it is a dangerous nationalism indistinguishable from Nazi Germany only in that Himmler, Hitler, and Heydrich had higher IQs than the extremist Moslem leadership today.

Shanika said at July 29, 2005 11:59 AM:

I'm cool with Parker's idea to keep muslims out. Here's a problem I see----muslims be coming out of prisons even when they wasn't muslims going in. So muslims be coming into the country from the inside, not just the outside.
Muslims be bigots and racists, you see that in europe and england. Muslims want to rule the whole world and make everybody miserable like muslims. Otherwise they be killing everybody.

M.Robinson said at July 30, 2005 5:35 AM:

hitler and other anti-semites played on the fact that after world warI, there was an attempt by certain groups to take power by force(infleunced by communist takeover in russia), these groups were overpowered by the military, in these groups there were quite a few members of jewish descent. the Nazi party played on this to attack all jews, as the enemy within.

there are a large number of muslim doctors(in proportion to the population) employed in the NHS, There are lawyers, Pharmacists and members of parliament. The vast majority of these are second generation, born in britain. the overwhelming of the first generation were uneducated, because there were no real facilities for education in their respective countries of birth. The majority of immigration to Britain was at the behest of the British government, as we paid a Heavy price in casualties in world war II, and the population was not willing to do late and long hour shifts to bring the economy up, the government decided to give immigration visa's.

These immigrants,majority of whom were muslim have worked hard in setting up businesses from scratch, working 12-14 hours a day to get their own businesses of the ground, so this idea that they drag the economy down is a LIE peddled my anti-muslims. Very much in the same way the racists and anti-semites peddle lies about jewish people.

SHANIKA, if this is your true Indian sounding name....
do you think the Hindu religion and its people should be judged on the actions of BJP(fundamentalist hindu party), who were instrumental in the destruction of a mosque and the murder of thousands of muslims. or is Modi (chief minister of mahrashtra), who was denied a US visa, because of his involvement in the murder and rape of over 2 thousand muslim (indian)civilains using the police in that state.

I know of many decent hindu's who are horified at what the BJP, RSS,VHP and bajrang dal are doing in the name of hinduism.
There are extremists everywhere, both religious and secularists. In Britian there have been cases of animal rights organisations targeting research establishments, on one occassion using explosive devices. what do we do here lock up the 'vegetarians'.

This crap about a holy war being waged against the west(very Pat robertson) by the muslims, you seem to forget that our ancestors waged the holy wars(crusades), it was our ancestors who colonised much of africa and asia.

Ask the native americans as to how they view the settlers from europe. The answer will not be pleasing.

As a lecturer once told me, the difference between USA and Canada is that in the US the settlers went in first and in Canada it was the Law enforcers that went in first.

Randall Parker said at July 30, 2005 8:03 AM:

M.Robinson,

There are a large number of South Asia doctors employed by the NHS. But from accounts I've read a disproportionate number are Hindus, not Muslims. The Muslims are underperforming the Hindus and the native whites in school.

As for your hard working Muslim immigrants: Yes, the 1st generation was. Then immigrants' kids always work less hard. In the case of less hardworking Muslim immigrant kids some become radicalized and alienated. It only takes a small percentage to cause big problems. Given that well over 10% hold radical Islamic views why let in more Muslims? One would have to be masochistic or foolish to want to let in more.

Canada versus the USA: The Tories fled north after the British were defeated. So Canada got the Englishment who held authority in thrall.

Colonisation is not holy war. You have been brainwashed by Britain's dominant leftist intellectuals.

Marvin said at July 30, 2005 10:34 AM:

I was quite impressed by Oriana Fallaci's recent articles "The Enemy We Treat As a Friend", presented over at mysteryachievement.blogspot.com. Ms. Fallaci lives on the front lines of the muslim invasion. She is a grand old lady of the Italian intellectual left, and one of the casualties of the alliance between the socialist/communists and the islamist invaders. She is dying of cancer, but she will not let the left/fascist/islamist alliance, that has taken over the Italian judicial system , force her to keep quiet. A courageous woman, one of the rare leftist intellectuals who still loves western civilization.

John S Bolton said at July 30, 2005 2:25 PM:

The lie is to pretend that foreign born are not on net public subsidy, when you have so many of them on outright welfare. Low incomes, unemployment rates several times that of the majority, cannot be balanced by anecdotes about ethnic storekeepers. If they have children in government schools, and their average incomes are not much higher, but actually considerably lower, than the total population, this equals huge net public subsidy to the foreign born. For a foreigner to move into a country and breed on net public subsidy is a hostile act, not a contribution to the lessening of the burden of the net taxpayer. Socialism makes an ideal out of mass murder, this is why they have to equate disagreement with a move towards greater socialism, as by assisted immigration of moslem hostiles, with racism nazism and so on. There is no rational argument for increasing the hostilities on the citizenry and the net taxpayer, only fallacies such as ad hominem can be used.

Kenelm Digby said at July 31, 2005 5:17 AM:

What's the betting that "M. Robinson" is not M. Robinson" but "Shahid Malik" or "Deepak Patel"?

Roy said at July 31, 2005 6:31 AM:

M.Robinson,

The Crusades were a response to Islam's first having conquered large portions of "Christian" territory. Why is is that Islam can invade vast territories without ever having to apologize, but Eropeans are supposed to feel bad for simply responding?

Sam said at July 31, 2005 10:27 AM:

Roy,

The crusades are far more complex then the reason you have stated. No one is saying the Europeans should feel bad about the Crusades, they happened so long ago that people should not be using them to help support their beliefs nor feel anything personal about what happened.

"you seem to forget that our ancestors waged the holy wars(crusades)", M.Robinson.

Excuses like the crusades and colonialism only bog everyone down in the mistakes/choices/actions of people that lived a long time ago. Lets move on to what the real issues are.

M.Robinson said at August 1, 2005 7:55 AM:

What I fear is the amount of disinformation being spread by extremists (irrespective of where they come from) about particular people, because what seems to happen is the lies are told enough times to the public at large, so much so that they are assumed to be the truth.now in the modern age YOU can fool majority all the time.
I am very much for different views, as long as they are not based on lies, or racist, or anti-semitic ideology.
We must look to the past to look to the future, its no point making the same mistakes.
Thats why we should make it a point of call to remember what happened in World war II, in Rwanda in Srebrenica, in cambodia, and try earnestly to do our bit to stop somethings like this from occuring.
The world did nothing when people were being butchered in Rwanda, was it that world powers did not have the means , or was it just that its only 'africans' killing each other.
The Bosnians were massacred in Srebrenica by the serbs, this was done infront of UN(Dutch) troops, but when the Iranians started to supply the bosnians with weapons to defend themselves, then only did NATO step in.

crush41 said at August 1, 2005 1:34 PM:

M,

The historical analogies you are trying to make are irrelevant. Anti-semitism was absurdly irrational, based on lies like the Protocols and allegations of ritual murder. That Middle Eastern Muslims form enclaves in Western society that are breeding grounds for extremism in addition to being a net economic liability is factual. Keeping people out of a sovereign nation is not comparable to the systematic murder/civil infighting of your examples. You can easily use the "world did nothing" argument with Iraq--do you support that action as well, or is it selective moral indignation?

yogi-one said at August 1, 2005 5:32 PM:

The problem does have some complexity, but not that much, really. The enemy is an extremist philosophy that advocates killing of innocent people and attacks against the community. The Muslims have to take back their religion from the extremists. It is up to them to renounce extremism in their worldwide community, and to prosecute the extremists. There rae plenty of ways to be a good Muslim without having to murder people and/or kill yourself.

Being Muslim is OK, but the problem is that the Muslims have nurtured a network within themselves that provides money, shelter, and impressionable young people to the hands of extremists whose sole intention is commit acts of violence.

Some have argued that oppression is the cause of the martyr movement, but I specifically reject this idea. There are now, and have throughout history, been many waves of immigrants to the West, and many minorities who have had to struggle against class and racial prejudice, but never have any of them responded by creating an extensive network of suicide bombers supported by religious charities.

It is not Islamophobic to call a spade a spade, and put the responsibility for the bombings where it rests - with the extremists, and the networks of charities, madrassas, and extremist clerics who teach the art of suicide bombing, and then actively recruit young people to brainwash for their purposes. The muslims are responsible, and if they don't want the world to treat them as terrorists, they have to do the work that is before them - namely, to purge their religion of the death-cult that claims to speak for all Muslims at this time.

On the other hand, simply blaming all Muslims is Islamophobic, and calling for the opposite kind of extremism that simply lashes out at people based on their religion and/or nationality, has the effect of fanning the flames, increasing racial and religious hatred on both sidees, and escalting acts of violence on both sides.

Fortunately, there are lots of Muslims who are moderate and would like to rid their religion of the suicide bomber death-cult. They can refuse to fund charities that give to extremist militants. They can teach their own children the dangers of extremist philosophy. They can form a counter movement within Islam that consists of millions of Muslims (a number impossible to kill with suicide bombers, who would then be forced to simply declare Jihad on Islam itself, or give it up). The majority of Muslims can stand up to the extremists, jerk their support networks out from underneath them, and insist that their kids be taught a more compassionate interpretation of the Koran.

Until they do that, unfortunately, we do have to fight them in the streets.

But we should be willing to work alongside moderate Muslims because they too want to end the plague of extremism that defiles the name of Islam and results in thembeing persecuted as well.

Yogi

Paul B said at June 12, 2009 6:06 AM:

Winston Peters is right, islamic immigration should have been stopped long ago, or we will be facing the problems Europe is having with muslims now.
What we are finally begining to realise is the fact that Islam/Sharia are completely incompatible with any form of democracy and this will become more obvious by 2015,and we will see the truth of Mr Peters statement.
Being Jewish myself and having seen the hatred muslims show toward me and my family i will be happy to see them all deported, and then they can praise their false god elsewhere.

Jim said at October 9, 2009 3:42 AM:

"Islamophobic" 1/2 the world is Islamophobic now and with good reason, islam is a godless cult of savage murderers who have no respect for human life and freedom, Keep muslims out of western nations!

Ibrahim Ali said at March 24, 2010 6:54 AM:

Our LORD Appreciated Christians asPer Quranic Verses 3:55,5:82,57:27,28 Except Quranic Verses 5:14,15,16 and 57,9:31. As per Quranic Versus 4:59 and 83, it is our duty to spread the following messages to all concerns towards public peace, security, health and wealth of mankind in the world as per our website www.goldenduas.com. The following message ought to have published to all the members of the group so far.As per quranic versus 4:59 and 83 it is a duty to spread the following messages in the interest of public peace, health and wealth. "please download from web site WWW.GOLDENDUAS.COM for peace, security, health& wealth for mankind and the same may be published to all members of the group based on quranic verses 2:2,10:57,17:11,16,28:59,39:55,57,13:37 &65:8. Otherwise it will amount to refusal to follow our Lord Order, guidance and direction as per Quranic verses 6:26" Please kindly arrange to post the above said message in the group website/as news item in the interest of public to know all concerns in the interest of peace, security, health and wealth of all mankind. Otherwise it will amount to refuse to follow our Lord Order, guidance and direction as per Quranic verses 6:26"

With kind regards
U.IBRAHIMALI


ibrahimali said at November 23, 2010 1:20 AM:

The Islamic Govts and all other Islamic organizations in the world failed
to notice that Christians are not arrogant and amongst them are priest and monks according to
the Quranic verse 5: 82.In the absence of the same ,there is no peace between the 2 largest
population of the world.Once the Holy Quran recognized Christianity ,

then no Christian can criticize that Islamic community is false or Satanic community.

All the Muslims in the world are the followers of Our Prophets Jesus ,Moses and

Muhammad ( peace be upon them). We have no other intention except to spread

the messages to all the communities in the world posted in our website www.goldenduas.com
to promote harmony, peace and security of mankind in the world. The
question of converting Christians and all other communities in the
world into Islam does not arise on the reason that the Holy Quran
banned compulsory conversion as per Quranic verse 2:256. The Christians
in the world are service minded people,who work towards peace, research, etc. to
serve public in the world and as such no one can act against
Christianity in the world . Please check our homepage www.goldenduas.com.Please
cooperate and advertise to all persons,to allow all the communities in
the world to visit and download from our website www.goldenduas.com.
in the interest of public peace,humanity,jobs,business,security,health and wealth of mankind
in the world and oblige.
With Kind Regards,
Ibrahim Ali.


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©