The shooting at the mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand that resulted in the deaths of 49 people was a national tragedy for their country and an incident that has caused international mourning and anger. The anger and pain has resulted in memorials across the globe, and backlash against even the most “tolerant” of political and social figures. Even a pregnant Chelsea Clinton was verbally assaulted and blamed for causing the shooting by a Muslim student activist at a New York University memorial service. There’s never a reason for this kind of violence. Yet, there are so many questions left behind that are going unasked, perhaps because no one wants to talk about that big elephant in the corner.
The name of the city, alone, begs these questions, yet no one is asking “Why are there multiple mosques in a city named after a Judeo-Christian messiah?” and, “Since when did a community that has been (for hundreds of years) over 90%+ White Anglo Saxon Protestant (WASP) of English descent, develop a large Muslim community and population that would require multiple mosques?” and, finally, “What is prompting white males to join white supremacy terrorist groups at a faster rate than ever?”
These are questions that are certainly not politically correct or sensitive, and may make you feel uncomfortable or you may knee-jerkingly assume that only a white supremacist would ask these questions. But there is a reason we should be asking these questions. This is not about demonizing a group of people from a particular region of the world, whether we agree with their religious positions or not. This is about questioning the U.N. migration policies and the consistent backlashes it is causing across the globe.
This is about sending Muslim refugees from countries like Syria and Afghanistan and Palestine into cities that are historically not demographically diverse, and then blaming the “whites” for hate crimes when the backlash and violence breaks out. This is about forcing communities to globalize and integrate, and then demonizing those same communities who attempt to protect and preserve their own cultures when the migrants fail to assimilate. The question should be asking is, “What did we expect?”
If a community feels invaded, how will this play out?
New Zealand, like many countries, works with the U.N. for their “Refugee Resettlement Program” which, without consulting the communities in which these refugees are placed, designates new homes for people whose countries are in crisis around the globe. On their government website it states, “New Zealand Refugee Quota Programme: New Zealand is one of around 37 countries that take part in the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) regular refugee resettlement programme.“
There are quotas, by country, of the number of annual refugees resettled into various communities. While New Zealand is certainly not even in the Top 5 in terms of quantity of migrants resettled into their country, the pressure due to lack of assimilation is clear. For a region that has spent hundreds of years with a consistent culture of 90% WASPs like Christchurch, the impact of introducing thousands of people from across the globe who practice a religion known (or believed, at least) to be dangerous to Christians and Jews, can be overwhelmingly negative.
The U.N. is not interested in the demographic or historical and cultural makeup of these communities in which they drop the refugees; only that they have enough financial resources, wealth, housing, educational, health and social assistance programs for the migrants to become established. There’s no polling of the citizens to determine if, as a whole, they’re okay with an entirely new culture establishing an overnight foothold in their communities. There is absolutely no consideration of the existing culture. After all, if they’re white, they need to be more inclusive. A white, Judeo-Christian culture is not, in the eyes of the U.N. or socialist geopolitical hacks, a culture worth preserving.
The resettled migrant refugees are not expected to speak the language of the land, nor are they expected to assimilate in any way. Their religious, cultural and dietary needs are taken care of, often at the seeming expense of the pre-existing communities’ cultures, in their new cities. They are granted voting rights and are able to impact communities’ economic and political directions without having invested time, effort, or resources in those communities. The citizens and original community members, however, are expected to change their culture and behavior to embrace these new groups and their religions and cultures. If the existing, predominately white communities do not embrace these changes, they are seen as intolerant and hateful, racist and Islamaphobic.
Here is an excerpt for how citizens should now conduct themselves with their new neighbors from the New Zealand Resettlement Programme Syrian Refugee Quota site: https://www.immigration.govt.nz/documents/refugees/syria-quota-refugee-factsheet.pdf
- If you are sitting in front of a Syrian, do not cross your legs with the sole of your shoe facing him/her (it is considered insulting).
- Syrians stand close to each other and may hug or clasp hands. People of the same gender sometimes walk hand in hand. They may also touch you on the shoulder.
For Afghans, New Zealanders are instructed this way:
- Women and men will never shake hands.
- Eye contact should also be avoided between men
For Palestinians, New Zealanders are told,
- Men should not initiate contact with Palestinian women – wait for them to offer a handshake, or alternatively, place your right hand over your heart and very slightly bow your head.
- Equally, women should not offer a hand to a Palestinian
man but wait for one to be proffered.
Rohingya refugees have special considerations for New Zealanders as well:
- Every compact village forms a social unit with the mosque as its centre for the regulation of social life of the inhabitants of the area. The eldest, most pious, and influential man in the society is recognised as the head of the village society (Samaj) who decides all disputes among them with the help of village elders.
- The Rohingyas practise endogamy (marrying only within the limits of a local community) and sometimes polygamy.
- Women typically do not work outside the home. They may do some street selling and domestic work close to home
And the list continues through a large number of mostly Muslim cultures. New Zealanders (and other westernized communities across the globe) are expected to embrace these new cultures without hesitation, learn the various rules and social queues, and accept the religious, political and economic impacts of these strangers for fear of being blacklisted as racist or Islamaphobic or otherwise intolerant.
All refugees are also granted the “assistance of mainstream services such as health, education, housing and Work & Income” courtesy of the New Zealand taxpayers. They are given permanent resident status and protections under the law. This is also the same in other countries.
What’s worse? Most of these resettled refugees are not in crisis, but what the U.N. admits are “normal” circumstances. So often these individuals are not in dire need. The U.N. report in 2017 stated that 92.5% of the resettled refugees were individuals “”where there are no immediate medical, social, or security concerns which would merit expedited processing”. Less than half of the refugees resettled meet the criterion claimed necessary to warrant the U.N.’s relocation. Which begs another question, “Why are they relocating majority Muslims into Western cultures at a pace of 150% over the actual need?”
If a person in Japan preserves their culture and traditions, no one complains. It’s admired and even expected. If a person from Nigeria, or India, or Pakistan, or Syria, or China, or Thailand, or Chile, or Cuba, or any other country where the people are not mostly white, protects and preserves their cultures and their religious and social traditions, it is absolutely understood to be a positive thing. Which makes me wonder, “Since when did it become a negative thing for a white, Judeo-Christian culture to protect itself?” and “If it’s okay for people of color or race other than white to protect and preserve their cultural traditions, and they accomplish that through exclusivity in their mosques or communities, should they be forced to assimilate if they relocate to new areas that are predominately white and Judeo-Christian? What would that assimilation even look like?”
We absolutely need to humanely address the crises that are leading to the needs of the people of these countries and create solutions for them to be able to go home, which, I imagine, is what they truly want. I cannot imagine the fear of being displaced due to persecution and war. And while I feel compassion towards the plights of those that are truly impacted by these violent events, I also see the need for the communities in which these migrants are being relocated to preserve their own cultures without being vilified for resisting these forced migration programs. The same people being accused of being racist and intolerant did not ask to have their communities changed overnight.
The lunatic in Christchurch was a criminal, a murderer, a terrorist, and a coward who took the lives of innocents who, from what is being reported, were mostly relocated to that city by the U.N. and in agreement with the government of New Zealand. There is nothing, ever, that can justify the use of violence and murder against any group of people. We all deserve to live and raise our children in peace, free from the fear of harm. But what the U.N. is doing is clearly not working for communities that do not have a history of the “melting pot” as their societal norm.
Perhaps it is time we demand an open and global review of how the U.N. and our governments are handling this issue and how communities are clearly unprepared to deal with these fast changes to their demographics. These changes are obviously causing increases in unease and openings for White Supremacy groups to increase their recruitment programs. Perhaps also we also need to openly decide whether a white Judeo-Christian culture is as valuable and as worth preserving as all other races and cultures, and if it is not, to be intellectually honest about the real intent of this U.N. Refugee Resettlement Program, which suspiciously looks more like an effort to destroy the westernized white, Judeo-Christian communities through forced migration than an effort to help victims of persecution, based on the statistics. And finally, if the culture of the western, white Judeo-Christian is worth preserving, teaching people to live together, in harmony and tolerance and appreciation for each other while simultaneously encouraging assimilation of migrants into their new communities.