Refugees? Really?

…from the quill of Antisthenes the Younger

With increasing frequency we are receiving anonymous e-mails of varying quality complaining about ills of the society. It is the symptom of the times, when the main stream media, both left and cowed, simply do not publish anything which could conceivably offend Finkelstein/Conroy ‘sInquisitio Haereticae Pravitatis (Inquiry on Heretical Perversity). For that reason we had previously, in October last year, published the Bell letter, gratifyingly not anonymous.

Now again we have decided to publish the following, slightly edited, e-mail. You may have seen it before. Perhaps you think you could express the sentiments contained therein better. If so, please do. You have 9 in 10 chance we will publish it. And a reminder – you could be running out of time. Somehow we fear that under sharia law it won’t be allowed.


The case of the so-called ‘poor refugees’.According to my Oxford Dictionary, a refugee is someone who ‘Escaped to a foreign country from religious or political persecution’.

(F/Chaos – in our Australian Oxford Dictionary: ‘a person taking refuge, esp. in a foreign country from war or persecution or a natural disaster’. And article 1 of the UN Convention on Refugees provides the following definition of a refugee: “A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.”)

Let’s take the case of Muslims escaping from ‘wherever’. They enter Indonesia legally (they are now in a country where their religion is widely practised). They have escapped from their own country and are now in a countrywhere they are not being hounded for their political or religious beliefs. They’re home, they are refugees in Indonesia. They decide to leave the sanctuary of Indonesia (remember that they are refugees and they entered Indonesia legally). They destroy all their papers, pay big money to jump on a boat and come to the ‘lucky country’, AUSTRALIA, without any papers. Upon arrival in Australia, they receive all sorts of handouts from the government and if the paint in the refugee camps is not the right colour, they can get some smart lawyer (on legal aid) to sue the government on their behalf because the colour is affecting their eyesight.

But hang on a minute, what are they escaping from? They are in Indonesia, no one is persecuting them for their religion, no one is persecuting them for their political beliefs; they are safe; why would they want to run away from a country that practices their beliefs? Why would they want to go to a country that practices Christian beliefs when they don’t want to have anything to do with it?

My gut feeling is: The moment those people step onto the boats in Indonesia, they have chosen to throw their ‘refugee status’ away (they were/are safe in that country). They also chose to break Indonesia’s immigration laws by not filling in departure forms (you and I have to). I’d like to know why, upon arrival in Australia, those so-called ‘refugees’ are not charged with being ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS and thrown onto the first available flight out of the country. Remember they ‘were’ refugees whilst they were in Indonesia, they then chose to get rid of their papers; they chose to leave the country that had given them shelter; they chose to pay someone to transport them to Australia; they chose to get on a boat.

But above all they chose to leave the country that gave them sanctuary – Indonesia.

Why is it that honest, hard-working Australians have to pay taxes to keep those illegal immigrants (not refugees) in comfort while some do-gooder lawyer makes money out of the situation by trying to sue the government, to get more money for those ‘illegals’ who shouldn’t be in this country in the first place. 


Well, any normal person knows that. Of course, Fog of Chaos published a number of articles on this subject, for example – Paul Jacko’s Refugee solution by Mossad in April 2011, von Gress’ Ferry service in November 2011, Antisthenes’ Immigration manual in February 2012, Antisthenes’ Incompetence, culpable negligence or design in May 2012, Antisthenes’ Welcome to paradise in July 2012 and Antisthenes’ Illegal immigration in September 2012; so far to no avail. Sorry to say, I do not expect anything sensible in that regard from the Abbott/Turnbull Semi-Politically-Correct-Opposition.

About Antisthenes

A Greek philosopher, a pupil of Socrates. Led a revolt, with Diogenes, against the demands of the city-state and the sophistication of life. Accepted the interrelation of knowledge, virtue, and happiness; and sought the ideal condition for happiness in return to primitivism and self-sufficiency. Rejected all social distinctions as based on convention, scorned orthodox religion as a fabrication of lies, and studied early legends and animal life in order to arrive at a true understanding of natural law. The individual was free and self-sufficient when he was master of his passions, secure in his intelligence, impervious to social or religious demands, and satisfied with the poverty of a mendicant. Needless to say, a person who on the Fog of Chaos adopted the Athenian philosopher's name has nothing whatsoever in common with him.
This entry was posted in Australia, Labour Party, Liberal Party, Refugee and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Refugees? Really?

  1. Pingback: Refugees? Really? | Fog of Chaos |

  2. icouldscream says:

    ALP government is the absolute disaster. What have we done to deserve it?

  3. Gown says:

    The best description would be economic refugees. Any persecution they bring with them.

  4. Liredrachma says:

    This dysfunctional government is bringing in dysfunctional residents. The public condones it.

  5. mohamed says:

    Thank you my dears.Better each time! As a refugee and catholic I agree.

  6. Ex-Christian says:

    Obviously not refugees by any legal definition. But as you allow your government to let them in, you will have to learn to live with them and work harder to support them. Love your neigbour! More neighbours are on the way.

  7. Bree says:

    I’m not sure where you’re getting your information, but good topic. I hope you are right.

  8. Bodown says:

    Not refugees, but future Labor voters.

Comments are closed.