Failure to assimilate

Turkey’s recent election, which further enhanced the Islamist totalitarian powers of Recep Erdogan, shows how far that nation has come from the secular society Kemal Ataturk intended.

The votes by Turks living abroad are even more telling, and should be noted:

About 1.4 million expatriate Turks voted in Turkey’s referendum to grant President Erdogan near-dictatorial powers, with three quarters of them residing in Austria, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, and France. These Turkish voters, living in some of Europe’s most liberal countries, overwhelming cast their ballots for Erdogan’s illiberal reforms of Turkish society…

Life in liberal Europe is not having the impact people hoped—Turks in Europe are not any less nationalistic, less authoritarian or less Islamist than their compatriots at home—rather they are more of all these things..

If assimilation is failing with long established Turks in affluent, full employment Germany, what can we expect with other communities in less prosperous European countries?

The measure squeaked by at home, with just over 51% saying “yes.”  For the Turks living abroad, “Yes” had anywhere from 15 to 25% more support!  That would tend to confirm the thesis that the massive wave of ‘refugees’ in the past couple of years represents an ideological vanguard of Islamism that intends to make Europe submit to it, not the other way around.

The author of the quoted piece seems puzzled that good economic conditions in Germany haven’t produced assimilation.  That’s because assimilation is a primarily a cultural issue, not an economic one.  In the past, Western European nations and the Anglosphere (U.K., U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc) fully expected newcomers to adopt their language, follow their laws, and to give their undivided loyalty to their new nation.

Immigrants today don’t have to cut the cord with the “old country” the way past generations did.  With global communication, the ability to travel and the tendency to settle into specific ethnic enclaves in their new land, immigrants today have far less motivation to assimilate.  Let’s face it: for Mexicans in the U.S., “home” is next door, you live in barrios with people like yourself, you can watch Spanish-language TV such as Univision, and even wave the Mexican flag while watching the U.S. play that country in soccer.  These are not Mexican-Americans.  They are Mexicans living in America.  The same is true of the Turks in Europe.  Even at the height of the Cold War, with Turkey a key partner in NATO, Europeans were strongly divided over whether or not to consider Turkey “European.”  Its current regression to pining for the days of the Ottoman Empire should answer that question.

The West has basically allowed a substantial fifth column to develop in their midst — a development our traitorous leadership class has encouraged.  While the resulting attacks rarely amount to more than a single actor at a time right now, I suspect that won’t remain the case much longer.  Even the “lone wolves” usually have ideological and communication ties with the Islamist movement.  At this stage of the game, Turks should be carefully watched, not welcomed in with no restrictions.  It’s time to shut the doors for a while and deal with what we’ve already admitted, rather than keep the welcome mat out for anyone with a pulse.

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?

Quote of the Day

While listening to Trump’s address last night my overall impression was favorable, with a couple of concerning objections (more on that in a later post).  But since there’s a lot of talk in the air about increasing defense spending, and expanding the war on ISIS and related groups, this quote in Foreign Policy magazine is well worth pondering:

As a soldier, I welcome additional funds for training, personnel, and equipment.

But as a citizen I have concerns. Money will not fix what ails our military. ((emphasis added))  We don’t have a supply problem, we have a demand problem created by poor strategy. We have a military doing missions often beyond its purview, acting as the lead government agency in areas it is not qualified to do so, bearing impossible expectations in the process. As military professionals, we fail if we don’t achieve national goals (end states); the corollary to this is simple, we must demand clear and achievable goals. Our lack of both skews defense decisions.

The entire piece is deserving of your time and attention.

Well… who’da thunk?

Note: this is a lengthy post in part because I’m refuting secularists who misuse scripture to justify the ongoing invasion of the West.  If you arrived on this site’s main page be sure to click on “Continue reading” below.

Both a judge in Washington and an appeals panel of the 9th Circus Circuit Court of Appeals have stayed President Trump’s executive order banning entry to the country by people from seven nations considered to be high risk (incidentally, it was Obama who first flagged these nations as problematic).  Both courts claimed there was no evidence to support such a ban.

Truth is, they just didn’t look for any.  After all, pesky facts would get in the way of their legislating AND presiding from the bench:

A review of information compiled by a Senate committee in 2016 reveals that 72 individuals from the seven countries covered in President Trump’s vetting executive order have been convicted in terror cases since the 9/11 attacks. These facts stand in stark contrast to the assertions by the Ninth Circuit judges who have blocked the president’s order on the basis that there is no evidence showing a risk to the United States in allowing aliens from these seven terror-associated countries to come in.

Let me repeat that: 72 people from the countries on Trump’s list arrived in the United States since 9/11, and were later convicted of terror-related actions.

This is why I can’t stand the Transportation Security Agency — it’s security theater, not real security.  Real security comes from keeping terrorists out of the country, not from harassing citizens at airports.

This is why I can’t stand the open borders crowd.  Either we are a sovereign nation or we’re not.  Sovereign nations have every right to control who is allowed to enter and under what circumstances.

Continue reading

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.

The sound of one side fighting

…while the other refuses to see–much less respond to–the ever-clearer pattern:

european_daily_terror_timeline_7-26-16-1

Far more troubling than the mounting body count and ever-more-frequent attacks is the flaccid response of Western “leaders.”  French Prime Minister Manuel Valls has said his countrymen must “learn to live” with terror attacks.  Germany’s Interior Minister warns his nation should expect more “lone wolf attacks,” while studiously avoiding the subject of how so many of those lone wolves are recent arrivals under a disastrously lax and greatly abused refugee policy.

Nor are these attitudes — or attacks — confined to the eastern side of the Atlantic.  Several years ago President Obama touted the ability of the U.S. to “absorb” another 9/11-scale attack.  In the time since, one could argue he’s made the likelihood of one much higher by importing hundreds of thousands of people from the war-torn Middle East.  Certainly we’ve seen the fruit of these attitudes in San Bernardino, Orlando, Boston and elsewhere.  So much for the idea of “fighting them over there.”

These “leaders” don’t care about the deaths of priests, doctors, or children out for a stroll on a national holiday.  All they care about is promoting their globalist aspirations and personal virtue-signalling, no matter the expense to their own people.  Globalists and multiculturalists are by definition traitors to their nation, and given the apparent consequences of their policies should be treated as such.

For the heart-on-the-sleeve hand-wringers out there who reflexively oppose any suggestion that immigration needs a time out, I have a few questions:

  1. How is it “compassionate” to support a policy that clearly results in the random deaths of your own countrymen?
  2. How is it “compassionate” to support a policy that results in seething resentment toward a group of aliens who are encouraged to migrate without assimilating, and live on the public dole?   This is no way to build bridges between peoples!
  3. How is it “compassionate” to allow such a large number of immigrants that your own nation’s cultural norms are threatened in the name of multiculturalism and tolerance?
  4. Is your compassion strong enough to lead you overseas to help, or only something you’re willing to satisfy at the expense of your own community by bringing the problems here?

I’m not immune to recognizing the suffering that goes on in other parts of the world — I’ve seen some of it first hand.  Which is why I’m not a fan of utopian “we are the world” policies that are far more likely to import such suffering here than they are to do anything else.

If our “leaders” want to show their humanitarian side, let them do it by personally going to the suffering areas of the world and working to alleviate and resolve the issues.  But let’s stop pretending the solution to all the world’s ills is to erase all the borders on the globe.  That’s clearly making the world even more of a mess.

Unless we find the backbone to shrug off juvenile name-calling as we do what needs doing to protect our own society, the war drums will only get louder as the Fifth Column gets larger.  If you think what Trump has to say on security and immigration looks scary, just let the trend depicted above continue for another election cycle or two.  His proposals will look downright cuddly compared to his political successor — and the public will be demanding even more hard lines.

There’s NOTHING “compassionate” about taking that path.  We’ve allowed the problems to fester for too long already — there are no easy, painless solutions.  And the longer we wait, the more pain will be involved.

Secure the borders – NOW!

Deport known criminals (including illegal immigrants) – NOW!

Throw the globalist traitors out of office – NOW!

Is the Pope Catholic?

As I’ve written before, the Pontiff has made some very unorthodox (and unBiblical) statements.  Here’s the latest, as part of an interview:

– The fear of accepting migrants is partly based on a fear of Islam. In your view, is the fear that this religion sparks in Europe justified?

Pope Francis: Today, I don’t think that there is a fear of Islam as such but of ISIS and its war of conquest, which is partly drawn from Islam. It is true that the idea of conquest is inherent in the soul of Islam. However, it is also possible to interpret the objective in Matthew’s Gospel, where Jesus sends his disciples to all nations, in terms of the same idea of conquest.  (emphasis added)

With all due respect, there is simply no such comparison to be made, and any attempt at moral equivalence between the Gospel and Islam is simply a slanderous lie from the deepest pit of hell, no matter who is saying it.  Whereas the founder of Islam clearly taught the temporal spreading of that religion by the sword, Christ had a much different take toward the spreading of the Gospel:

  • Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”  (John 18:36)
  • …Jesus said to him, “Judas, would you betray the Son of Man with a kiss?” And when those who were around him saw what would follow, they said, “Lord, shall we strike with the sword?” And one of them struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear. But Jesus said, “No more of this!” And he touched his ear and healed him.  (Luke 22:48-51)

The Gospel of Christ and the message of Mohammed were spread by very different means, and as Christ said, “the tree is known by its fruit.”  In its first century, the Christian Gospel spread in no small part through the martyrdom of its adherents.  By contrast, in the first century after Mohammed’s death, Islam spread rapidly through the violent conquest and forced conversion of its neighbors — including martyring many Christians in North Africa, once a center of Christian intellectual life under great minds like Augustine.

Despite the abuses of the trappings of Christianity by the later Roman emperors and medieval Popes to sanction actions Christ would never have condoned, the essence of the Gospel remains the same: a personal decision to place one’s confidence of salvation in the sacrifice of Christ, and to commit one’s life to honoring that sacrifice through willing obedience and discipleship.  This is not something that can be externally coerced.  Islam, on the other hand, likes to confuse the issue by deceitfully reducing the Koranic concept of jihad to what many would consider a similar inward struggle for holiness.  Yet its history shows it is instead a violent force that compels at least outward obedience, on pain of social sanctions or death.  This is the Islam the Pope obliquely acknowledges as the inspiration of ISIS and al Qaeda.  Whereas the Reformation returned the Christian church to the core, essential doctrines of Christ, Grace, Faith, Scripture and the Glory of God, the modern movements to return Islam to its roots are clearly producing very different results.  Those who closely follow the example of Christ and those who closely follow the example of Mohammed will lead very different lives–and will impact those around them in very different ways.

I get that an atheist might want to simply lump all religions together as troublemaking mythology.  But that the head of the Catholic Church would indulge such lack of discernment is highly disturbing.  Not only is Pope Francis giving his parishioners ample reason to doubt the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility; his very elevation to head of that church shows a substantial portion of its leadership has been ensnared by many of the teachings of this world, from marxist liberation theory to moral equivalency and an overemphasis on ecumenicism.

Nobody–not the West, nor Muslims, nor the Christian brothers and sisters currently persecuted by Islamic fundamentalists–is edified by such careless comparisons.