Back when I was in elementary school, we had a mutt named Dude. Dude was a good-natured outdoor dog who loved life. He had a doghouse, of course, and even an enclosed porch, with plenty of chain to achieve a good walking radius. Most importantly, we kids were pretty good about taking him off the chain and playing with him regularly. Life was good for Dude until one fateful evening when there was an especially punishing and prolonged thunderstorm.
Dad gave in to our pleas to let him in for the duration of the storm. I fondly remember the next couple hours. There’s never been a happier dog in all of canine history. The big clumsy outdoor dog ran around in circles Marmaduke-style, jumping up on furniture, checking out all the exotic indoor rooms, investigating all the unique indoor smells, and basking in that sweet sweet climate control. The family was all there, actively playing with him. It was the stray mutt’s equivalent of dying and waking up in the midst of 72 nubile virgins.
But then the storm passed, Dude went back outside, and life went on as it had before. There was just one little thing different. Dude knew what he was missing out on. Every time we passed by him to go inside, he barked and whined profusely. When we took him off his leash to play with him, he ran up to the door to be allowed inside. This went on until he died of old age several years later.
Angela Merkel’s declaration that her nation can and will welcome all of the Middle East’s refugees, that her nation will care for and support them, and that her citizens will welcome them with open arms is the diplomatic equivalent of the cruel act of unthinking pity we subjected Dude to. Had ISIS been around back in the late eighties, and were Islamic culture not so hostile to dogs, Dude’s alienation and impotent rage about his circumstances would have made him a prime candidate for ISIS recruitment.
Contemporary pundits, still stuck in their 20th Century political and military paradigms, keep carrying on about the likely number of ISIS militants among the refugees. In the near term, that number matters. But in the long term, it’s of barely any consequence. ISIS is just the latest dysphemism for a disgruntled Sunni Middle Easterner, and the real powder keg is going to go off when the economic migrants shuffling about in makeshift dwellings throughout Europe have that gut punch realization that Merkel lied to them, that they aren’t even on track to enjoy the second-rate European experience afforded to earlier Middle Eastern migrants to Europe.
The elites will of course blame the people; they always do. Never in the history of mankind has a more gullible, giving, and gratuitously friendly general public existed than exists now in Germany and Sweden. And, yet, even then, there’s simply not enough friendliness and funds to make this immivasion work out for the economic migrants. Court historians will blame the souring public mood in the wake of this recent and impending terrorist attacks as the reason everything went to hell, implying that had the European people just maintained their manic Whoville-like attitude, it all would have gone as they planned.
Reihan Salam’s prescient (for mainstream media sources) response to Pope Francis‘s display of anti-European pathology disguised as cloying Christian mercy insisted that we should send the migrants back and heavily invest in economically supporting them at home.
But what about those who will tell you that “we” ought to accept refugees yet who balk when they are presented with the possibility that these refugees will be resettled in their neighborhoods, or that they will attend the same public schools as their children? What should we make of it when parents who are open-hearted and generous in the abstract abruptly change their tune when told that resources at their children’s schools will have to be diverted to meet the needs of newcomers?
His mealy-mouthed argument failed to touch on the very real threat of terrorism in their communities, the gang activity, the chronic bullying, and the astronomical rates of rape and sexual assault coming to their neighborhoods. For a National Review writer, it all boils down to economics. “What’s the GDP impact of dumping a thousand sullen foreigners on an idyllic Bavarian village?”
One gets the feeling that he’s trying to argue as forcefully as he can against the rivers of blood on the horizon without risking his cloistered sinecures in the mainstream media. Not being Jewish, and belonging to an expendable model minority, he’s capable of saying more than a white guy, …but not all that much more.
In the wake of the attacks in Paris, Salam is doubling down.
The large-scale resettlement of Syrian refugees in Europe was a bad idea before the Paris attacks, and it is a bad idea now.
You could’ve been a bit more clear and forceful about that before the bloodletting began, Reihan. Oh, well. Within the elite ivy league circle of “respectable” political pundits, you were still way ahead of the curve.
The reason large-scale resettlement in Europe is a mistake is not that Syrian refugees are dangerous. Rather, it is a mistake because large-scale resettlement will require an equally large-scale commitment of resources that European governments, and European voters, are unwilling to make.
“Incapable” might be a more appropriate word. Even a veritable Marshall Plan-style blank check to assimilate, integration, educate, and gainfully employ these millions of foreigners would take decades to achieve limited success with the genuine Syrian refugees, and is doomed to fail with the refugees who are dramatically less intelligent and capable than the relatively middle-class and assimilable Syrians themselves. Besides, as you’ve noted from your own upbringing, bringing people over in massive migrations guarantees that assimilation won’t happen the way it happens when you have a single Fez airdropped into small-town Wisconsin.
Even if Europe invests eleventy billion dollars and breaks out into Whoville-style chorus after each godawful terrorist massacre, it still ain’t gonna work. Even worse, your proposal that we send them all back ain’t gonna work, either. Earlier this week on Twitter, I observed an identitarian and a Leftist arguing about the refugee crisis. After going back and forth for about an hour, the Leftist issued a challenge. “How do you expect to deport millions of people who don’t want to leave without going FULL NAZI?”
That identitarian, like Reihan, refused to follow his logic to its conclusions. Reihan drops the chalk halfway through resolving the equation. Europe must either go “full nazi” or resign itself to the history books as a safe, secure, and biologically and culturally unique family of nations. Nazism is a historical phenomenon which belonged to its unique time and place, and Hollywood Nazism is a parody of it which adds a comically sadistic edge to the whole thing, but we know what the Leftist girl is trying to get at, …and she’s absolutely right. Europe must abandon the multicultural experiment in its entirety, seal its borders, and start racially and religiously profiling its inhabitants to weed out and forcefully remove those who don’t belong.
The one thing more unthinkable than action is the inevitable consequence of indecision.
And if they don’t also weed out and remove the Jewish community from Europe, their children and grandchildren will have to deal with the whole problem again and again. If the Jewish community and the globalist corporations aren’t driven out of Europe, Europe will be driven out of existence. They’re the ones directly responsible for this madness. They’re the ones who created the unrest which propelled them all here and the ones who threw open the gates for them to enter. You can call me a Nazi and other names, you can refuse to hire me to write for the National Review (still haven’t heard back on my resume submission, btw), but you can’t coherently challenge the basic mechanics of the situation. Either the non-Europeans go home or the Europeans go to hell.
Pick one. There is no middle ground.
My question for Reihan Salam is this, “Which side do you pick?” Are you going to side with your adoptive Western Civilization or are you going to side with your Jewish and globalist paymasters. Are you going to carry on being a junior partner in the project to destroy Western Civilization, or are you going to live up to your noble breeding and fight alongside us?
Don’t just assume that you’re on the anti-White team because you’re brown. This is a global struggle between identity and tradition on one side and the global merchants (Jewish and gentile alike) on the other. You may have had a thoroughly Westernized and Americanized upbringing, but you’re well-read and sharp as a tack. A sense for this struggle and your rightful role in it is embedded in your very DNA if you can take a step back from your status-seeking and rent-seeking to listen for it.