But enough do that one wonders about the game of frog and scorpion Western leaders are playing. It’s as if virtue signalling to one’s peers is more important than small things such as survival. If these people were hosting these cuckoo’s eggs in their own nests — they are not going to New York or San Francisco — there would be a certain self-sacrificing nobility in it, but as we just noted, they are not, they are sending them to Manchester, NH or Kalamazoo, Michigan. (Indeed, the number 1 destination for islamist refugees and their embedded terrorist fraction is Texas, thanks to a Federal desire for disruption and the efforts of nihilistic “non-profits.”)
Consider Vox Day’s Three Laws of SJWotics from SJWs Always Lie. Whatever you think of Day, the book is a superior framework for understanding the Social Justice Warrior tactics of frame-and-shame shut-uppery that are in the forefront of modern discourse. The Three Laws are:
- SJWs always lie
- SJWs always double down
- SJWs always project.
And let’s add to that, the Law of Refugees from SFQC:
- Experience teaches us that one in ten of refugees coming from an enemy or denied area is either working directly for, or at least reporting intelligence information to, the enemy.
We expected, if these laws are truly laws, for the social-justice obsessed refugee savers to respond to the Paris massacre as follows:
- To assert that the refugees are no threat in the future, and indeed, have never been a threat in the past.
- To insist on even more refugees.
- To suggest that those who would exclude terrorists, not those who welcome them, are a threat to the institutions of the country;
And those things all have happened.
We would further expect:
- To see more terrorist attacks committed by refugees.
The last, only time will tell, but the first three reactions can already be seen, adding a data point to the data set supporting Day’s theses.
We’re using a bad definition of refugees here
The usual usage of the word refugee suggests a temporarily displaced person longing to return home once the natural disaster or war has abated. No one seriously thinks these are that kind of refugee. These people are looking for permanent resettlement — and some non-zero subset of them are expecting to get permanent resettlement, on perpetual welfare. They are not looking for traditional resettlement, like, for example, the Free Poles that remained in Canada and Britain after World War II rather than return to their Russian-enslaved homeland in 1945. Those people ultimately became the parents of fully-assimilated Canadians and Britons, for whom the Old Country and its ways are little more than an ethnic surname and perhaps some ancestral comfort-food recipes.
Our new wave don’t see themselves going back to their third world hellholes. Yet they don’t feel at all grateful for resettlement — egged on by Western “inequality” preachers, they feel entitled.
The most probable outcome of these camps or nests of hostile moslems and Arabs in our nation is to see permanent, hard-shelled cysts of unassimilated foreigners embedded in our society.
1. The Lie: “The Refugees Pose No Threat”
Yes, they’re already saying that. Want examples? Barack Obama, the President. David Miliband, former British Foreign Secretary. Hillary Clinton, the Heiress Apparent. Nancy Pelosi, from San Francisco, which is promised zero of the wave (Pelosi’s speech at the link also credits the French government for sending the revolutionary Lafayette to America. No, Louis XVI did not send him). Let’s not just pick on the Democrats. Here’s Jeb Bush. Marco Rubio. And why stick to politicians? For the Brookings Institution, armchair expert Dan Byman sneered days before the Paris attack that “ISIS Doesn’t work that way.” That was, of course, before they “worked that way” the living crap out of Paris, but don’t expect a change in position from Byman (he’ll follow the Third Law).
And yeah, we even have statements that they have never done it, based on the fact that only three of the ISIL attackers in Paris have been positively ID’d as refugees so far. And only two of the Boston Marathon bombers.
We even had the Associated Press run a report that one of the firearms in the Paris attacks came from the United States. (It didn’t. The reporter made it up. That’s what they do).
Indeed. Remember Flashbang and Speedbump? The two “refugees” who absorbed millions in welfare and then committed mass murder with TATP-filled pressure cookers at the Boston Marathon?
Another specious claim we hear is that the US has always welcomed refugees. You know, like this kid:
OK, maybe he’s not a good example, illustrating as he does that (1) for some Americans, the Cuban government is more beloved than our own, and (2) most Federal Agents will do literally anything if given an order. Look at the guy in the picture. Would he put Jews on cattle cars or push them into gas chambers? Would he shoot Polish officers in the back of the head? You can see at a glance that he would. The character and humanity has been trained out of him, and anything that can be rationalized, he would do.
So, if Elián González is a bad example, how about this one:
These unwanted refugees fled an otherwise friendly but functionally state-atheistic government that is so opposed to their homeschooling, that the parents will be stripped of their children on arrival back “home”. They have been ordered deported, but the deportation order has been stayed pending further legal proceedings (and Congressional intervention).
Yay! More room for future Flashbangs and Speedbumps.
2. The Double Down: Even More Refugees
After seeing what an open door to unassimilable jihadi refugees gets you, President of France François Hollande closed French borders. For a couple of days. Then he announced he would take 30,000 more refugees, ergo, 3,000 more terrortists. (What does this wright, in due course? President Le Pen, for one).
Im the article linked above, David Miliband says the US must accept 100,000 Syrians a year.
And he doubles down, suggesting that the US reduce its minimal (and, frankly, ineffective, but that would be another post) screening of the “refugees” for terrorists, because
the current process is needlessly slow.
So the US should…
…eliminate unnecessary time lags and get desperate refugees to safety quicker…
Yeah, Dave. All our trains and planes are not gonna bomb themselves, damn it. We need the 10,000+ terrorists in that bunch, stat!
Miliband suggests we should trust the UN, which
… identifies the families most in need…. screens each family, painstakingly documents their family composition and history of flight from Syria, then refers those who best qualify for the U.S. resettlement program on to the federal government.
That’s the same UN that stored rocket launchers for Hamas? The same UN that prints grade school textbooks for Palestinian “refugees” in which they learn math by counting grenades and RPGs, and word problems about how-many-Jews-has-Abdul-got-to-kill? That UN?
The same UN that sent a known foreign intelligence agent to collect against our base camp in Afghanistan? The UN that’s increasingly an arm of the Islamic Conference? The UN that has outlived its usefulness by decades? That UN?
The UN has been in the pocket of Arab and Islamic terrorists for fifty years, and no one with more than single digits of firing synapses should be willing to trust them to walk the dog, let alone sponsor terrorists into the USA. Frankly, UN sponsorship should be viewed with the deepest suspicion in the light of the wannabe world government’s rocky history with terrorism.
And Miliband goes on to make the false equivalency argument: the US resettled 320,000 Vietnamese in two years, where’s our appetite for Islamic terrorists in similar numbers? This is specious. The Vietnamese were the men who fought alongside ours, and their families, who fled their country under credible threat of death. If any of these so-called refugees were fighters against ISIL, they ought to be back home, fighting against their enemy, who hasn’t won yet. Somebody’s back there fighting, and it’s not the teeming jihadis in the UN Camps, getting their three hots, a cot, and if UN refugee camps run true to form, instruction in marksmanship and bomb-making.
They don’t assimilate at all. In Belgium, the nation’s entire population of 640,000 moslems, who are mostly isolated from Belgian society, has produced 516 known terror jihadists, not counting the ones recently exposed by the Paris attacks. That’s a rate of 1/1260 or 0.079%, a small percentage, but that’s against a whole national population. Against the US moslem population of 6.2 million that the US immigration policy is expected to produce, that means about five thousand terrorists… if they’re as effective as the Paris attackers (exchange ratio 15.75:1), they could murder 77,500 Americans.
3. The Projection: “Wanting a Safe America is Un-American!”
You knew this was not long in coming. The same suspects are arguing that excluding these terrorists who claim to be refugees is somehow un-American, as if nothing is more American than laying your head down on the stump like Isaac and hoping to hell that the guy with the axe is Abraham.
Folks, many, many Americans, hundreds of thousands of us, have been to the sort of paradise produced by Islamism, and have engaged the sort of creatures this fanatical belief produces of humans. And by “engaged,” we don’t mean the Beltway style of having a no-consequences virtue signaling exchange of pleasantries: we mean exchanged fire with.
The nearest thing, in the popular culture, is the zombies of the Walking Dead, except with the ability to cooperate against the living. When someone chooses Islamism, he has chosen Death, for himself and anyone in range of his TATP onesie, and we can see no compelling reason to open the doors for him to try to make of this country the Mohammedan dystopia he has made of his own.
Counterargument: They’re Not All Terrorists
And you know what? We’ll concede that. They’re not all terrorists. They’re not even mostly terrorists, only a small minority, a percentage is (although what we’ve seen from polling and from studies of 2nd-Generation Refugees indicates that the SFQC Estimate was low).
But 10% of the 100,000 Syrians that Miliband and the UN insist we take per annum is 10,000 terrorists a year. If they are as effective as the Paris attackers, who managed an exchange rate of nearly 16 to 1 against French civilians and security forces, that means they will kill more than a million and a half Americans.
The US Refugee policy has been extremely imbalanced, also, not accepting Kurdish and (until recently) Yazidi refugees, only Moslems, the most likely terrorists. Christians, who are subject to the same extermination threat as the Yazidis, remain excluded. A curious refugee program, that refuses the oppressed and welcomes their oppressors.
But then again, the US has always had a strain of irrationality in our politics. In 2016, it seems like Tip O’Neill’s aphorism needs to be updated, and all politics is irrational.
Finally, so what if they’re not terrorists? If every single one of them is the purest Enlightenment liberal, their kids revert to the ancestral religion — and the ancestral love of homicide — at the drop of a hat. Accepting these “refugees,” just like starting the various wars that spawned them, and just like fleeing from the consequences of starting those wars, is a voluntary, unforced error. However, unlike the war-starting and bug-out errors we’ve already made, it’s an error that can still be interrupted in the act of commission.