Death of a thousand paper cuts

That’s what the alleged “war on terror” has become.  The latest cut comes just outside the British Parliament, a key symbol of the long struggle in the West to establish representative government and personal liberties.

Yet even though once again the perpetrator was “Asian” (which in Britain means Pakistani), all the talking heads are more worried about a potential backlash against that ever-growing demographic than they are the continued drip, drip of jihad:

We’ve seen this rise of a kind of a right-wing movement here and throughout Europe. And this is only going to put wind in the sails of those who would say that this is an issue that needs to be looked at, that needs to be examined in terms of refugees.

(MSNBC reporter Matt Bradley, just after the attack)

Thus does the western media play Wormtongue once again: the threat isn’t from Islam, you see.  No, the real threat is from those who point out that massive Muslim immigration seems to correlate with the rise of Sudden Jihad Syndrome in various western nations.

Enough with the “diversity is our strength” pablum.  Pouring hundreds of thousands of Muslims into Europe (and, to a lesser but still significant degree, the U.S.) doesn’t enrich society.  It dilutes it.  It fragments it.  This isn’t about importing a few exotic neighbors with whom you can trade cooking tips.  It’s about enabling an invasion and importing a culture that is completely alien and overtly hostile to Western-style representative government and culture – and always has been.  Just over a year ago I traveled to London.  My son and I visited the Whitechapel district.  The moment we got to street level from the Underground my first impression was that I was deployed back to the Middle East.  Needless to say, we didn’t stay long.  When you travel to England and find the Emirates instead, something is terribly amiss.

I dare these treacherous reporters to name one Muslim-majority nation that is freer than the United States.  Name one that produces more advances in science and technology.  Name one that permits the upward social and financial mobility available to those who would work hard in the West.

It can’t be done.

Our chattering classes are permitting and encouraging civilizational suicide by the West.  On their hands will be the blood of thousands of Westerners and Muslims.  The longer their spell keeps people passive, the greater the eventual response when the public realizes their betrayal and rises to act.

The question of the era is whether that awakening will take place before or after it’s too late to fight back.

Where is our modern Charles Martel?  Where is the spirit that defended the gates of Vienna?  Will their descendants meekly submit to the same oppressive worldview that has already tried twice to conquer Europe?

Where are the Men of the West?

The world needs the U.S.

…more than the U.S. needs the world.  And it’s about time we started acting that way:

Approximately 30 countries are refusing to accept the deportations of illegal immigrants who have committed serious crimes in the U.S., according to Texas Rep. Henry Cuellar.

While these countries are refusing to accept the deportations of these criminals, the U.S. government is still issuing visas and student visas to citizens of those countries, according to the Texan congressman. There is already a law on the books which allows the U.S. to hold visas from a country that is not taking back its criminals, but according to Cuellar, the U.S. is not enforcing it.

“We’re not enforcing it, which is amazing. So now my intent is to go back to our committee on appropriations and affect their funding until they do that,” Cuellar told Sharyl Attkisson, host of Full Measure, in an interview.

Cuellar, a Democratic member of the House Committee on Appropriations, told Attkisson that the Supreme Court has ruled that illegal immigrants arrested for criminal activity can only be held for a certain period of time before they must be released.

And releasing illegal criminal immigrants puts the U.S. population at risk.

As others have already noted, our response to this intransigence should go beyond refusing to issue any kind of visas to countries that won’t take back their criminals.  We should also halt any foreign aid that goes their way (which we shouldn’t be in the business of anyway), as well as putting a 100% tariff on any goods imported from that country.

The United States has the largest economy in the world and its third-largest population (after China and India).  We have a wealth of natural resources, and technology such as fracking is allowing us to access even more of this potential.  Simply put, the world needs access to our market and economy far more than we need anything from overseas.  Were it not for the debt we’ve recklessly assumed over the last half century (much of it from playing GloboCop), we could stand utterly independent of the world.

Want to make America great again?  Send all known illegal immigrants to Guantanamo Bay (which our last president unwisely all but emptied) until their home nation agrees to receive them.  Let’s stop pretending foreigners enjoy the same Constitutional rights as citizens.  They are endowed with the protection of life, liberty (as long as they are law-abiding) and the pursuit of happiness (subject to being in America’s interest to accept them).  As long as there is a foreign national being held because of their country’s refusal to take back deportees, cut off all access to the United States and its markets.

And while we’re on the subject, killing the H1-B visa is long overdue.

It’s time the American government (all branches of it) put America first.  We don’t need “citizens of the world” running our country.  We need patriotic, hard-headed realists.

The GOP doesn’t seem to have many of those.  Making America Great Again will require action in the 2018 election, too.  Do you know how your representatives are voting?  You should.  Don’t count on Trump to change the direction all by himself.  Even if he did, that way lies future problems with executive overreach.  Punish the globalists in Congress, and give Trump a legislature he can work with.

Then let’s let the world tend to itself for a while.  We’ve been bailing it out since 1917.  After a century, we deserve to shed the role.

Can the candles, already

For the past several years, a pattern keeps repeating:

1. Jihadist(s) conduct an attack in a Western country

2. Facebook allows users to “stand with ______” by changing their profile pic to include attacked country’s flag, while locals place piles of candles and flowers at the scene of the latest carnage.

3.  The chattering class preemptively expresses grave concern that the attack will cause locals to look less favorably on Islam, or provoke retaliatory assaults (how many of those have actually happened, by the way?).  None of our intrepid media moguls dig into the warped but widespread Islamic ideology behind the attacks…so these events are always “lone wolf” attackers, supposedly not representative of Islam itself.

4.  Authorities confirm the event was conducted by foreigners recently allowed into the country, often by requesting “asylum” (which, by the way, is where they need to be, not what they need to be given!).

5. Migrants continue to pour into the West, aided and abetted by our transnational ruling class, and the terror networks reload for the next round.

And we wonder why nothing changes.  Take, for example, this picture and caption that accompanies the Daily Mail’s (UK) coverage of the attack in Berlin:

is-this-defiance

How, exactly, do “flowers and candles defy the terrorists?” If I were a member of ISIS, I’d see photos like this as proof the West is the “weaker horse.”  Rather than create makeshift memorials, those who want to express concern should be putting extreme pressure on their ‘leaders’ to seal the $#%@ borders and start repatriations!  Why are people like Angela Merkel still in office?  The press spends more time trying to make the alternatives (like AfD or UKIP or the National Front) look like evil, when potential future assailants are being allowed into their countries daily!

When will people tire of this pattern?

When will the men of the West stand up to protect their women from a barbarous culture that places no limits on what can be done to them?

When will Westerners realize that Islam is fundamentally incompatible with our own civilization, and stop trying to force the two to coexist?

I wonder why that is?

Ohio State University seems to be the scene of the latest outbreak of Sudden Jihad Syndrome:

An Ohio State University student posted a rant shortly before he plowed a car into a campus crowd and stabbed people with a butcher knife in an ambush that ended when a police officer shot him dead, a law enforcement official said.

Abdul Razak Ali Artan, 18, wrote on what appears to be his Facebook page that he had reached a “boiling point,” made a reference to “lone wolf attacks” and cited radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.

Naturally, there was no way to anticipate such action.  After all, Artan had come from Somalia to America by way of Pakistan, like all good peaceful immigrants do.

Even with such a distinguished travel record, Artan claimed in the student newspaper to be concerned over how students might react to him praying during the Muslim prayer times.

I wonder why?

After all, for the life of me, I can’t think of a single reason why Americans would be concerned about Muslim immigrants…

To invert Ronald Reagan’s challenge to Gorbachev, “Mr Trump, build up the wall!” And roll up the welcome mat for a while.

Where to draw the line

Last week I had the unhappy chore of taking a flight (those familiar with my opinions of the TSA will understand the phrasing).  As I once again stood in the queue to have my privacy and dignity compromised in the name of ‘security’ by a government that refuses to secure its own borders, I had to marvel at the target they’ve created.  Were I intent on doing harm to many people (which, for the record, I am not), I no longer need to get inside the ‘secure area’ of a terminal.  I only need to become part of the crowd bottled up waiting to get inside.

That, of course, is what the bombers did in Belgium last week, while I was traveling.  As Mark Steyn points out, it seems the best our officials can do in response to bombers exploiting the system we’ve created is to further expand said system… which doesn’t eliminate the vulnerable bottleneck of travelers, it merely moves it elsewhere:

Security scanners could be installed at the entrances to airports, under proposals to be discussed next week in the wake of the Brussels terrorist attack, the Telegraph understands.

The case for installing a security perimeter outside of airport arrival halls will “definitely” be examined at an emergency meeting of experts that has been called for March 31, according to EU sources.

As Steyn says, if we’re going to keep moving the perimeter, why not move it to where it belongs: our national borders?  This would mean getting serious about preventing unauthorized crossings, as well as stopping the suicidal admission of hundreds of thousands of people–and their social trappings–from the very culture that incubates the international violence whose continued increase seems to have taught our leaders absolutely nothing (except that they can actively plot to replace their constituency with a foreign polyglot more to their liking and the people will let them get away with it).

The West continues to be subjected to the largest invasion of migrants in human history — a historic development that is destroying our civilization.  We are constantly lectured about the “strengths” in diversity, but where are these to be found?  In the sectarian strife we’re importing?  In the dilution of commitment to the values that once made the West the most successful civilization on the planet?  In the toleration of barbaric practices more suited to the 11th Century than the 21st?  The science fetishists seem to overlook the fact that sociology shows diversity weakens social bonds, it doesn’t strengthen them.  Rather than stop the invasion, we have been given security theater to condition us to relinquish the hard-won rights that have been the very hallmark of our civilization. And in the meantime, our leaders continue to import more of the peoples at the heart of violence around the world, despite the expressed concerns of their own nations (whom they arrogantly dismiss as ignorant, bigoted, or some other slight).

At what point do we say “enough?”  Not just at the ballot box, but in the streets and in person?  Our current president once recommended his followers “get in their faces and punch back twice as hard.”  The ongoing loss of our very patrimony would seem a just cause for putting that advice into action.  Sure, we’ll be called ugly names.  But remember – it’s a function of projection.  The real bigoted racists are the ones in power who have decided on their own that the Western peoples and way of life have no value worth protecting.  They have forfeited their legitimacy as leaders.

It’s well past time we find some others to take their place.  Otherwise, New York, Boston, Paris and Brussels were just warm up acts to the chaos that’s to come.

Confronting reality

This is a longer-than-usual post.  Only read if you have time to think (not emote) it through.  Much time has gone into synthesizing my thoughts on the topic (hence the dearth of posts lately)

I’ll give Donald Trump this: he knows how to get people talking.  Unfortunately, most of what I’ve been reading online (while not having much time to blog) has been pure emotional reaction and not careful consideration.

If we, as a people, are to set good, solid policy that will “secure the blessings of liberty, to ourselves and our posterity,” we must rise above gut reactions and soberly assess the regrettable environment in which we find ourselves.  I’ve already stated on this blog that I find Trump personally distasteful.  He is not what I envision when I imagine ‘presidential,’ with one important exception: he does not fear the backlash from saying what he thinks.  If only more of our alleged ‘leaders’ (who, in truth, are mere followers of what certain chattering classes have deemed ‘acceptable’) would do the same.  Our political ‘elite’ has yet to get the fact that this one element alone accounts for most of Trump’s popularity.

But I’m not writing today to blog about Trump the man.  I’m writing about some of the things he’s said, and it’s high time Americans learn to separate the two.  Failing to do so has already turned this election cycle into one long fallacy of ad hominem appeals.  That’s not how you arrive at informed judgments.

So here we go: The Donald has proposed that we ban immigration by Muslims and/or from Muslim countries until we can get a handle on the jihadist problem.  Naturally, half or more of the electorate immediately shrieked “Hitler!” (has there ever been a more rapid example of Godwin’s Law?) and started quoting Martin Niemöller.   This is what’s known as ‘false equivalency.’  Preventing a foreign group of people from immigrating TO your country is undeniably NOT the same thing as rounding up a group of people already IN your country and sending them to gas chambers.  So get off the fainting couches, folks.

“But… but… that’s discrimination!”  the shrinking violets protest.  So is ANY limitation on immigration, since that means some people are allowed to come and others are not.  Let’s get to the heart of the issue, then: is there an automatic, inviolable right for anyone in the world to be able to move to the United States?  If you say yes, then you might as well leave your house unlocked every day and open so anyone whose economic condition is not as good as yours can move right in.  Otherwise, I call hypocrisy.  Claiming a nation has no right to secure its borders and bar entry has economic and social consequences every bit as much as claiming families have no right to secure their home and property.  The consequences of the former take longer to manifest, but 50 years after the Immigration Act of 1965 it should be apparent to anyone with a clear head that these consequences are already occurring.

“But… but… you can’t discriminate against Islam, because it’s a religion of peace!”  Like hell it is (and I mean that in the most literal sense).  There are individual Muslims who may be peaceful (I’ve met–even befriended–a number), but Islamic civilization and society is one a long, sad history of repression, regression and violence against outsiders.  Historically, there is no denying that when Islam is allowed to take root in a new land, it provides a growth medium in which extremism and jihad flourishes until that land is under submission to the same misery as the rest of the Dar-al-Islam.  Therein lies the problem: individual Muslims may not pose a threat, but Islam itself does.  We don’t have to like that fact any more than we like the other imperfections of this world.  We DO have to confront it, though.  As a system Islam does not seek to coexist; as soon as it is in a position to do so (say, through mass migration of its adherents…), it seeks to dominate.  Our nation’s early leaders were far more clearheaded about the incompatibility of this militant cult with Western Civilization:

Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. That war is yet flagrant; nor can it cease but by the extinction of that imposture, which has been permitted by Providence to prolong the degeneracy of man. While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men. The hand of Ishmael will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him. It is, indeed, amongst the mysterious dealings of God, that this delusion should have been suffered for so many ages, and during so many generations of human kind, to prevail over the doctrines of the meek and peaceful and benevolent Jesus.  (John Quincy Adams, 1830)

“But… but… it’s unconstitutional to single out a specific group and refuse them entry!”  Thus does ignorance blather on yet again.  First of all, the Constitution and its protections apply to citizens of the United States, NOT to the entire world (unless people are suggesting we are responsible for all of humanity at all times and places.  Ready to take on that burden?).  In our historically generous spirit, prompted by the influence of Christ on our society’s development, we do seek to treat even foreigners according to the general principles of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”  That’s all well and good.  But what happens when allowing the “pursuit of happiness” by foreigners directly threatens the “life and liberty” of those already in America?  Our government cannot and should not be neutral in such instances: its first duty is to its own people and their descendants (the machinations of traitorous globalists notwithstanding).  We used to understand this, which is why we didn’t allow unrestricted immigration from Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan at the same time we were at war with their societies, and why (Democrat) President Jimmy Carter barred travel to the U.S. by Iranians after their new (Islamic fundamentalist) regime became fond of the phrase “death to America.”

“But… but… Trump’s also proposed rounding up Muslims in the U.S., like we did the Japanese.”  He’s done no such thing.  Trump is but the blowhard center of a raging national conversation that, frankly, is long overdue.  Those around him sometimes seek to add or subtract their own agendas.  For instance, it was a reporter, not Trump, who suggested a Muslim-American database.  You can legitimately choose to criticize Trump for not dismissing the notion, and for some serious ambiguity in his follow-on communication, but it was not his talking point to start with.  As for his comment that we need to look at mosques very, very carefully, events in France should suffice to show the man has a solid point.

To sum up, there are a large number of Americans who believe we should continue to allow the immigration of large numbers of people whose social system has historically been highly problematic, and that once in the U.S. we have to treat them with kid gloves and not keep an eye on their community.  This is simply a national suicide wish painted over with a veneer of humanitarianism.

But I ask you this: which is more humane… to stop the continued mass immigration in the first place, or to allow it to reach a point where Americans may one day beg not just for databases but for the wholesale roundup and violent removal of that community (as was done with the Japanese)?  The former option causes inconvenience and hurt feelings; the latter is a road we don’t want to go down as a nation.  So why continue a status quo that leads that direction?  As for the Syrian refugees, the excuse everyone wants to use to prop the door open for everyone, would it not be equally humane to carve out a safe place for them to live in their own homeland?  How many of those touting their plight so earnestly would be willing to join the military and be the boots on the ground in the Middle East to protect them?  …That’s what I thought.  Since we know ISIS and others intend to take advantage of our open doors, exactly how many dead Americans is this utopianist posturing worth to you?

You see, ultimately a lot my take on this is influenced by my time in the military (at least I admit and try to control for my biases).  I spent an inordinate amount of time away from my family after 9/11 under the idea that we would fight Islamic extremism “over there” so we wouldn’t have to fight it “over here.”  How’d that work out for us?  If America submits to the “we are the world” utopian impulse that allows our nation to be overrun with immigrants not just from the Middle East, but from many places whose culture and norms are incompatible with our historic form of society, it owes an apology to every servicemember who died trying to keep the nation both independent and secure.

You want to “thank me for my service?”  CLOSE THE FREAKING BORDER.  And if you want to ensure nobody calls it discriminatory, here’s a suggestion: STOP LETTING ANYBODY IN.  (Maybe there’d be more jobs for Americans, then.)  Be serious about confronting the problems, or stop complaining when a jihadist shoots up a neighborhood, or mass immigration continues to cause American workers’ wages to plummet.

We’ve got enough problems here already.  We don’t need to import more.  My biggest concern about Trump is that he’s a harbinger.  You don’t have to like the messenger (I don’t), but the message cannot be ignored, unpleasant as facing reality is.  Most importantly, if our ‘leaders’ don’t figure this out soon, the next standard bearer for these concerns may be the actual devil that people currently want to cast Trump as.  If our ‘leaders’ want to reduce the growing nationalist sentiment, then it’s high time they take care of the nation.  The longer we put our heads in the sand about the world we now live in, the worse it will be in the very near future.

Civil and profitable discussion is welcome in the comments.