Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Australian Politics » Take them at their word

Take them at their word

SimitarI “love” the way that my Latte sipping friends want to insist that Islam and its nutters do not want to conquer the world . Mainly because it seems to me to be a valiant imitation of the ostrich’s defensive head burying behaviour. The fact of the matter is that among the motivated believers  a world dominated by their faith is what they imagine on their pillows every night, they desire a homogenised world where the only vision of the deity is their own. Fortunately for the world there is  a greater percentage of the faithful who are rather more interested in the welfare of their families than in building the caliphate.

None the less  I think that it is wise to take note of what these nutters actually say that they want to do, in fact I think that we should take them at their word when they say they want to rule the world:

“There is no doubt that the huge growth in the population of Asia, together with its economic and military development, will make Australia into lebensraum — to use the European term,” writes Mr Hamid. Lebensraum, meaning living space, was a term used by Nazi Germany as a motivation for territorial conquest.

Asia, Mr Hamid writes, is facing a population explosion “while Australia is nearly empty of people, apart from scattered groups of white residents”.

Residents of “the Israeli outpost” at the other end of Asia are likewise warned to return to their countries of origin or face an “unequal conflict”.

These warnings, however, are marginal to the central vision offered in the article — the emergence of a vibrant pan-Asian identity in which Islam, and the Taliban in particular, constitutes a powerful moral and cultural force but not an exclusive one. Its emphasis on pan-Asian political identity rather than pan-Islamic sets it apart from al-Qa’ida ideology. The Taliban article does not call for jihad, although it hints at the possibility of “peaceful Islamic expansion” and the linchpin role in the “Asian Age”, as the author terms it, is ceded to non-Islamic China.

Western power is fading fast, he writes, “to the benefit of Asian giants, and first and foremost among them the colossal economic and human power of China”.

Of course  the reality of our geography make a storming of our beaches most unlikely, and even less likely to succeed, but the real threat comes from those we allow into the country who share  the same vision of the world as Mr Hamid then actively seeking , as Jean Luc would say,  to “make it so” .  The best way to avoid this happening  would have to be ensuring that all of our people have a primary identity as Australians and that we should  discourage the creation of insular ghettoes as they have failed to do in places like the UK and the Netherlands. Just look at the social problems there and you can see what we can expect in the not too distant future if we don’t address the problem now.

A lot of the problem is a side effect of the information revolution. When my family came here in the early sixties communication with my homeland was either slow or too  expensive. There was no choice but to become fully invested in this country. Now the net  and cheap telephony makes the sort of disconnection form the homeland that any  migrant needs to fully commit to the new life almost impossible and we see too many people who are here physically but their loyalties  remain entirely with their old life and their old culture with all of its old  baggage .

Am I the only one who thinks that this is the  problem?
Cheers Comrades

🙂


34 Comments

  1. Ray Dixon says:

    Iain, you have made a quantum leap in logic here. The author is merely saying that, in his view, Australia needs to (a) populate (b)assimilate better with our Asian neighbours or (again, in his opinion) we will eventually be invaded by Asian forces.

    You then say that our geography makes such an invasion unlikely and the real danger comes from immigrants. Huh?

  2. Iain Hall says:

    Keep in mind that the author is speaking on behalf of the Taliban and that he has a religious agenda that he is clothing in some sort of larger political vestments.
    That said my point is that we have to be vigilant about the way that we “do” immigration and the way that encourage the new people to integrate with the larger community because if we follow the models in Europe and the UK then we risk getting into the same situations h that they have there. There are parts of multiculturalism That I think are great but we just don’t need the sort of de facto apartied that seems to happening in the cities of Europe with very large immigrant populations.

  3. Ray Dixon says:

    Iain, you’ve done it again. Where is the link between what some crank in Afghanistan is saying about a possible invasion of Australia and Australia’s immigraion policy?

  4. Len says:

    Western power is fading fast, he writes, “to the benefit of Asian giants, and first and foremost among them the colossal economic and human power of China”.

    I think this is the most important part of the article, in my opinion. To the extent, that the author is saying, that western non Islamic powers are pandering to them, is absolutely correct. The Islamic powers come from countries with enormous wealth, usually oil, of which the rest of the planet is utterly dependent. Hence, they have enormous financial resources at their disposal, whilst the majority of their populations remain destitute.

    That is the main problem for non Islamic faiths, trying to compete as it were. .

    Again, religion is the problem. Islam is merely the latest, in it’s attempt to dominate all others. It is going along, at great speed, converting all it can, to spread it’s venom. With it, governments fall. Brings back vivid memories of “The Yellow Peril” of the sixties, and I am not talking about that monstrosity in a Melbourne park somewhere ?

    The old threat from the north. The fear spread by those who wanted both the Korean and Vietnam wars. Fortunately, China is into Buddhism, thank God, not Islam, or the concern rate would be at fever pitch ?

    I said similar in a post previously, (https://iainhall.wordpress.com/2009/10/29/they-dont-need-to-integrate-if-they-dont-want-to-or-find-it-difficult/#comments), that I am still surprised, that no one has chipped me on.

    I think the theory is valid. But, we are apathetic in the matters of overseas politics. Hell, we barely take interest in our own politics, let alone what is happening in the desert somewhere. Unless it affects our hamburgers, petrol for our cars et al, we generally don’t give a toss do we ? That is unfortunate. That is where the threat will come. Quietly, and over time. That is the way of subversion. It may be an alarmists’ view of the situation, but call it what you will, that is exactly what will happen, slowly over time.

    Fortunately, we are still an isolated island continent. We have enourmous mineral wealth, but small areas of population. The extent of our apathy to the ‘perceived threat’, will dictate the extent of the future damage to our society of that ‘perceived threat’ ?

  5. Abu Chowdah says:

    Ray: “Iain, you have made a quantum leap in logic here. The author is merely saying that, in his view, Australia needs to (a) populate (b)assimilate better with our Asian neighbours or (again, in his opinion) we will eventually be invaded by Asian forces.”

    The author: “Residents of “the Israeli outpost” at the other end of Asia are likewise warned to return to their countries of origin or face an “unequal conflict”.”

    Ray, your comment, when contrasted with the article, suggests you simply don’t want to comprehend what is being threatened.

  6. Ray Dixon says:

    Huh? Abu, when the author says we could face an “unequal conflict” he is referring to the possibility of an invasion by Asian forces.

    What do you think is threatening us, other than that (unlikely) invasion? Immigrants?

  7. Abu Chowdah says:

    “Israeli outpost” not have any significance for you?

    I agree there is no ‘serious’ threat of an invasion of this nature, but it is an expression of insane Islamofascism intent. It is an expression of their colonial ambitions and, to be fair, Iain is right: why not take people at their word?

  8. Ray Dixon says:

    Yeah, take a crackpot at his word. Okay, makes sense to me.

    As for ‘israeli oupost’ he’s simply drawing an irrelevant analogy. The guy’s a whacker.

  9. Abu Chowdah says:

    He’s not alone.

    But perhaps I am more familiar with the genre than you, having read a lot of jihadi rhetoric.

  10. Ray Dixon says:

    You not only read a lot of rhetoric, Abu, you sprout it. Now stop talking in riddles and make a point. The post is about Iain’s contention that our real threat comes, not from the prospect of “an invasion of Asian forces” but from immigrants – i.e., I presume, certain types of immigrants, meaning muslim immigrants. Somehow Iain (and you it seems) are suggesting we are threatened by this. Can you, for once, actually discuss the issue?

  11. Iain Hall says:

    Ray
    The problem is NOT “Muslims” per see, I have always maintained a distinction between the Jihadist extremists and the greater Muslim Diaspora but the ideology of Islam is not as benign as you seem to think it is. The faith has lots of things that maybe it problematic for we unbelievers, the way that it encourages violence towards those who do not submit to it is the primary reason for concern as is its profoundly misogynistic attitude to women. Its profound discomfort with any notion of a secular society (that we hold so dear) means that in time there will be advocacy for the imposition of Sharia law as there has been in every European country with a large minority population. The threat certainly is not imminent here in this country but if we keep doing as the countries that have a problem now have been doing then we will share their fate somewhere further down the line.
    The point I was trying to make in this post is that this country has a chance now to try to address these problems NOW while preventative measures have a chance to work. Discouraging Ghettoes and ethnic enclaves has some merit as does encouraging some level of integration with the mainstream. My point is that the net and cheap telephony actaully works against the making a harmonious Australia in a way that was unheard of when the previous waves of migration happened in the past.

  12. Abu Chowdah says:

    I have made a point, and I cannot be responsible if it is too subtle for your powers of reason. While you have grasped half of what Iain is saying, you (ironically) haven’t grasped the nettle on the issue of Leftist interpretation of this issue.

    The first sentence of Iain’s article:

    “I “love” the way that my Latte sipping friends want to insist that Islam and its nutters do not want to conquer the world .”

    Is then followed by an example of Jihadi rhetoric, framing Australia as an outpost of Israel, a country that Jihadis want to take over from “al nahr il al bahr”. While Iain notes an invasion fueled by such hate is unlikely, his point is really why do Left-leaning commentators choose to ignore or rationalise such rhetoric away? While an invasion is ridiculously unlikely, the ambition expressed in such rhetoric fuels acts that challenge democracy and freedom and will continue to do so. And so, people like you should take it seriously instead of scoffing at concerns expressed by those who do.

    Now, you have a lovely day, Ray.

  13. Ray Dixon says:

    Rubbish Abu, Iain’s main point is here:

    the real threat comes from those we allow into the country who share the same vision of the world as Mr Hamid then actively seeking , as Jean Luc would say, to “make it so.

    Iain is clearly trying to suggest that because some nutjob jihadists want to “take over the world” we shouldn’t let muslims into Australia as migrants and I think you agree with him but you just don’t have the balls to say so – and that’s why you talk in condescending riddles

  14. Iain Hall says:

    No Ray
    I am saying that if Muslims share Mr Hamid’s world view then we should be most reluctant to let them in. In other words Muslims who are happy to live in our secular society, on the same terms as the rest of us, then they are welcome but if they are nut job supporters of the Taliban then they can stay in their caves elsewhere. The test is not do they claim Mohammed as their prophet but do they want to impose their own belief upon others by the sword or the bomb.
    Can’t you see the distinction that I am drawing here?

  15. Ray Dixon says:

    Iain, you are saying “not welcome” to all muslims because you cannot make that distinction via an immigration test. How can you determine what is in someone’s mind? How about we include a question in the immigration test: “Do you want to take over this country and kill us?” How many would say yes?

    You can’t draw imaginary lines through thoughts Iain. And you can’t ban people on the basis of their religion, which is the only way your idea would work.

  16. Abu Chowdah says:

    Iain has explained his point quite clearly Ray. No need to get hot.

    Although I agree with you – it’s not an easy thing to determine who the nutjobs are. But that’s the joy of Islam. Moderates are people who don’t really read the Quran or who don’t interpret it literally or narrowly. The problems usually start when they move to a new country, feel a little insecure and seek solace in the book.

    Those people are the nutters who want to rule the world. Even moderate Sheikh Ibrahim al Buleihi reminds his fellow Saudis that they often speak of domination of Rome and the rest of Europe.

    All religion is shit, but Islamic fascism and imperialism is some dangerous shit and I’m surprised at how many Lefties think cultural relativism is the appropriate response.

  17. Ray Dixon says:

    We don’t think that at all. We just think people like Iain & you are overstating the problem and that your motives are to stir up fear-based hatred.

    Btw, I’m actually feeling quite cool!

  18. Abu Chowdah says:

    “fear-based hatred”?

    You need to read Andrew Anthony’s book, The Fallout. Your Leftie tactics to shut down discussion are showing. See my website link for details. Next you’ll be playing the Racist Card.

  19. Ray Dixon says:

    Abu, how can I be shutting down a discussion that you won’t even enter? You never state your position, you never debate. You just say read this or read that. No thanks, I’m not going to bother. You’re like the boxer who refuses to get in the ring but runs up & down the aisles shouting “I’m the greatest”. You’ve never even landed a blow!

  20. Abu Chowdah says:

    So you practically accuse Iain and me of race hate and now this avoidance tactic? No one’s arguing the way you want them too? Not enough soft pitches for you to knock out of the park?

    You really are a slippery little bugger, Raymond.

  21. Ray Dixon says:

    How am I avoiding the issue Abu?That’s your tactic, not mine. Look, I’ll ask you one straight forward question and I bet YOU don’t answer it:

    Are you saying Australia is under threat by bringing in muslim migrants, yes or no?

  22. Len says:

    That’s a loaded question Ray, designed to draw an emotive response. The danger is not from Islam, it is from Fundamentalist Islam. There is a difference !
    If the latter most definitely yes

  23. Ray Dixon says:

    Len, how on earth can you describe that simple yes/no question as “loaded”?

    You see, when you say Australia is “under threat” from Islam, you need to also say how we are under threat – by invasion or by importing Islamic fundamentalists as immigrants. Anf if you, Iain & Abu will not address that simple and straight forward question, then you have no underlying premise from which to debate your position.

  24. Ray Dixon says:

    The how is Australia under any threat from Islamist fundamentalism?

  25. Len says:

    Ok, the how ?

    Loaded in the way the question is asked. It is so broad, that you could land a jumbo in it Ray.

    Hmm, take a look at western Sydney should be a bit of a tip off. Gather 200 or more people, rally the local council for permission to build a mosque, and watch as the neighbourhood begins to transform. There is nothing wrong with that, except when people are too frightened to walk the streets ?

    Again, run of the mill Islam is not the problem. It is the fundamentalists, that demand all follow, toe the line or else. That is what is happening overseas, and we certainly don’t want that here do we ? Again, maybe an alarmist’s view, but having seen the problem overseas first hand, no thanks.

    Fundamentalism, lacking mainstream credibility, attempts to enter a society by subversion, and over a long period of time. That is the way of subversion. Fundamentalism is not the only religion to try this by the way. Hell, even good old Christianity did the same, in the time of the crusades ? They sense the fear, apathy, and desperation in a society, and then infiltrate that society, promising the world.

    Nowadays, the infiltration comes under the guise of promising economic relief for the desperately poor, as well as political protection. Game over ?

  26. Abu Chowdah says:

    Wait a minute. Does this mean you spoon feed me a series of questions which I am now expected to answer? That would be an interrogation or an exam. But I think you’ll find this is a blog. No one calls the shots.

  27. Ray Dixon says:

    No Abu, no exam, I just wanted to establish your position on exactly where this threat is coming from and how it will arrive. God knows you’ll never make that clear. Anyway, so I guess if we are not going to be invaded and if the problem does not stem from muslim immigrants it’s just going to materialise out of thin air? Okay, good argument – very similar to Iain’s & Len’s.

  28. Abu Chowdah says:

    Reread the first sentence of Iain’s blog. It’s a point I agree with and wanted to note that I agreed with it. That is all.

    My position is:

    a) Not all muslims are bad;

    b) Islamofascists DO want to rule the world.

    c) I know this because I speak Arabic and have studied the issue, not from idle blog grazing;

    d) People who scoff at b) are fools

    e) Happily, the people defined at b) do not present a serious existential threat to Australia at present;

    f) since a) is true, but the Quran is the source of b), it’s a bit difficult to know what to do about the issue;

    g) current Australian laws will have to suffice married to a serious political commitment to free speech and pluralism, including on Left and Right wing blogs.

    See you tomorrow,

    Abu

  29. Ray Dixon says:

    Thanks Abu, that’s so much clearer now …. ?????????

  30. Abu Chowdah says:

    You slippery little bugger. I jump through your hoops and it’s not enough for you. Tch, tch.

  31. JM says:

    “the reality of our geography make a storming of our beaches most unlikely, ”

    True enough Iain. After all I’m sure our strategy for dealing with any armed landing on our northern shores is just “let ’em wander around for a bit and die of thirst”

    But I need some clarification here about what to do with the hordes of muslims (and hindi’s apparently) – otherwise known as “refugees” or “asylum seekers” – slavering to expel us from our fair land and take over:-

    What would you do with that “army”? Surely if they have malevolent intent letting ’em wander in the desert is too good for ’em?

    And if we do that, what threat are they anyway?

  32. Iain Hall says:

    I really don’t know what you are asking here JM, would please clarify.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: