◄►Bookmark◄❌►▲ ▼Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Can we cut the cr-p, kids? Forgive my language, but, as Ecclesiastes teaches, there’s a time for everything. The time to cuss is now.
“Radical Islamic terrorism”: He has to be able to say it! This, preach conservative talking heads, is the acid test for electing the next American president.
Is this convoluted concept one you can even remember?
“Radical Islamic terrorism” is like the LGBTQ acronym, it’s a mouthful. It’s unmemorable, unintuitive and does not accurately describe the vile men and women who menace us in our American, English and European homelands.
“Radical Islamic terrorist” is, very plainly, wrong.
Language mediates behavior. In order to properly respond to these vipers among us who elect to kill us despite our kindness toward them, stateside, we do indeed need to properly describe them.
To be vested in linguistic accuracy is to be vested in the truth. The closer language cleaves to reality, the greater the likelihood that correct, and corrective, action will follow.
Certainly the term of choice must reflect reality, not ideology, Right or Left. Why so? If we don’t describe exactly who these killers are, we’ll be unable to eject them from our midst.
“ISIS” is not attacking us; certain Muslim immigrants are. The Islamic State simply inspires them the way progressive rock guitarist Yngwie Malmsteen might move me.
The more abstract the expert Idiocracy gets in defining our problems, the more removed will be their solutions—removed from solutions that are the legitimate purview of limited government. You and I will be forced to pay for their elaborate schemes.
So don’t be fooled.
ISIS and an abstract ideology called “radical Islamic terrorism”—a redundancy, if ever there was one, since Islam is radical—are not attacking us. Men and women upon whom we’ve conferred the right to live among us are.
These are individuals who are part of us, not part of ISIS. ISIS is happy they kill us. It’s pleased to continue providing inspiration, even training. But the ephemeral ISIS did not send them to kill us. We invited them here in the idiotic believe that they were like us.
These Muslim killers are Americans, Europeans and Englishmen. We’ve made them so.
This is how American citizenship has been rubbished. Not by ISIS, but by your representatives: State officials who regard all of us impersonally. The same officials and overlords, who squint at Middle America from behind their parapets on the Potomac. The same sorts who call us “deplorable,” for wanting neighborhoods that are safe, recognizably American, maybe even a tad monocultural.
No. These Muslims who strike at our families live among us. They live among us, but are not of us.
As an allegory for the vipers imported by Western liberal leaders—this includes “conservatives”—Donald Trump has aptly adopted Al Wilson’s poem, “The Snake.” In Mr. Trump’s rendering, “The Snake” becomes an allegory of the beguiling refugee, who bites his generous savior while nestling in her arms.
In reality, the snake’s saviors are likely romantic, left-liberal women—many carrying the Y Chromosome—with an erotic fixation on saving dark, handsome, exotic-looking strangers. We live or die by their hormones (or their replaced hormones, in the case of Hillary Clinton and Angela Merkel).
A naturalized, French Muslim runs amok screaming the name of his vampiric God and stabs a rabbi. The State’s position is “mental illness.” Conservatives—as well as that dreadful little man, the French prime minister—say “bomb the Middle-East.”
A Muslim woman in Montreal, Canada—where it’s legal for her to commandeer a car—runs over two police officers. Liberals say “alienation.” Conservatives call for the implementation of “The Bush Doctrine.”
As dumb as Obama, Genghis Bush’s dictum of fighting them over there so they don’t come here failed to consider that thanks to his liberal immigration policies, the snakes were hibernating among us. (And also that the two facets were not mutually exclusive; terrorists can lob bombs and chew gum at the same time.)
Fort-hood, Chattanooga Tennessee, Boston, San Bernardino, Orlando, Nice and Paris; a darling old priest decapitated in an ancient village in Normandy—so sad!—and an American woman gutted in central London: It was not ISIS in the Levant or ISIS in the abstract that killed these—our—people.
This was murder-by-Muslim-immigrant.
America’s latest Muslim specimen of choice to dabble in the lifestyle is Ahmad Khan Rahami, linked to explosions in New York City and New Jersey’s Seaside Park.
Not only was he a naturalized citizen from a wonderful country, a source for wonderfully compatible migration, Afghanistan, but, on coming to the U.S., his family, give credit where it’s due, had quickly acculturated to the thing that distinguishes any good American immigrant:
Sue the authorities, in this case the city and the police department, for Islamophobia.
No. A country that acculturates its immigrants into militant identity politics and multiculturalism has no business bringing in immigrants who will do just that: Act against their hosts or just lie-in-wait, and be as miserable and resentful as our own left-liberal population. Do we need more of them?
Of course, these Muslim murderers—be they the American, Canadian, European or Englishmen whom liberals call mentally ill, alienated, unassimilated—they did not act alone.
Behind almost every murder-by-Muslim-immigrant are the State’s central planners:
Policy-makers, immigration authorities, immigration attorneys, local networks of Islamic organizations, media agitating for more Muslim immigration, and an FBI erecting protective barriers around bad actors—civil liberties, they call it. But oh, how easily they violate ours.
Jihad is intricately tied to Islam. We can’t war against Islam. It’s futile. Reformation of Islam is not ours to undertake.
You, Hillary Clinton’s “deplorables,” will pay with your sons (and one or two daughters) if the establishment has its way and we “bomb the hell out of them.” Look at what bombing Syria looks like. You can’t find ISIS. You can’t tell friend from foe, and you kill kids galore. It’s a bad idea. You can make it constitutional; you can’t make it moral.
So don’t listen to the expert Idiocracy.
The truth is that the threat we face is not from ISIS in the Levant, but from murder-by-Muslim-immigrant at home. And it’s more often than not an invited and legal threat.
Use precision language, not dumb bombs, and the solution will present itself—a solution that’s compatible with classical conservatism, or with the nightwatchman state of classical liberalism.