Search Box

Sunday, November 15, 2015

Paris and Missouri

I don't really have anything to add to either story, other than to point out that it's a coincidence that both would happen at about the same time, since both reflect, directly or indirectly, a new high water mark for Western insanity.

It seems almost sacrilege to link the tragedy in France to the teapot tempest in Missouri, but both incidents are inevitable outcomes of the long period of liberal ascendancy.

The Muslims who have come to Europe don't go there because they want to assimilate. They want to take advantage of the generous welfare benefits the Northern Europeans offer, and, in some cases, because they want to get away from the cesspools they have turned their own countries into.

But what they want most of all is to have Europe assimilate to them -- and they have said as much. Even if they don't intend to become suicide bombers, they want Sharia law, and intend to outbreed and out-proselytize native Europeans.

Most of these Muslims have zero loyalty for the countries they emigrate to. More British Muslims have joined ISIS than have enlisted in the British Army.

The Muslims who live in the banlieus on the outskirts of Paris regularly riot and burn cars and attack outsiders who enter their neighborhoods. All of which demonstrate the same basic sentiment motivating the terrorists who attacked Parisians with AK-47's and hand grenades.

Yet Europe, hamstrung by political correctness, remains willfully obtuse. Will Europe finally heed this latest wake up call? Or will they, as they did after the Charlie Hebdo massacre, act horrified for a day or two, then hit the snooze button and continue to accept more immigrants who feel nothing but contempt for them?

At the University of Missouri, 200 protesting students pressured Tim Wolfe into resigning as President. His crime was to have not reacted with the requisite hysteria to recent racial incidents, and for having refused to stop his car to listen to protesters during the annual homecoming parade.

Since Missouri erupted, there have been similar incidents at Claremont McKenna College, Smith, Yale, and Amherst. The students have conflated words they don't like with "violence," and some have asked for "safe spaces," i.e., those where dissenting voices are not allowed.

The Left has come a long way since the Free Speech movement of the 1960's.

These protests seem to be pushing middle-of-the-roaders to the right. I've recently spoken to several people who've never been particularly partisan, including at least two who voted for Obama in '08, and all are disgusted by the protesters' ridiculous self-indulgence. One of the Obama voters said he'll vote for the Republican in '16 no matter who the candidate is.

Just as the attacks in Paris will help the National Front, the Missouri protests will help the Republicans.


PeƱaflor said...

The Black Lives Matter movement is about crushing not only any opposition but also even skepticism toward its view that Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin had done nothing wrong. Many of the Democrats who probably are secretly worried by the protests have probably convinced themselves that they are a necessary evil, justified by the racism and discriminatory practices of prior centuries. Or as the great social justice hero, Donald Rumsfeld, once said, "stuff happens."

John Craig said...

Penaflor --
You're right, and it's not only the BLM movement but the mainstream media which enforces that view. It's telling that one side feels fully comfortable with airing their grievances all the time, whereas the other side feels it has to speak in a whisper. But quick glance at the statistics on whites and blacks killed by the police shows that, if anything, blacks are underrepresented among those deaths, given the disparity in murder rates by the two races.

Mark Caplan said...

To paraphrase George W. Bush, the French don't have a word for naive.

The bloodbath in Paris reminds me of do-gooders who adopt a full-grown pit bull at an animal shelter and then are dumbstruck when the dog mauls their children.

John Craig said...

Mark --
Ha, excellent analogy.

Terrekain said...

John: It seems almost sacrilege to link the tragedy in France to the teapot tempest in Missouri, but both incidents are inevitable outcomes of the long period of liberal ascendancy.

Your instincts are mostly correct.

What connects the Paris attacks and Mizzou?

It's a cultural dynamic so it requires a bit of elaboration. You've probably already heard this since it's common knowledge in many parts of the US, particularly in US Military communities and sympathetic cultures.

The answer lies with the identity of the "Refugees", the fact that a new generation of Anti-War Protesters is growing up (after a fashion), and their growing need to hide information - from the history of the War on Terror, to the history of previous wars which would give current events their context.

A sardonic background can be found here in the comments section shadow-boxing with an Anti-War Protester named Steve Hsu, but I'll add a little more:


When US veterans resettled in America in 1973-75, it caused a cultural upheaval. Unsurprising, since most upheavals have demographic origins. It is similar to the cultural upheaval of the returning World War II veterans which ushered in a political-economic-cultural Revival in 1945 and overturned the US government in 1947, revolutionizing its relationship with the American People (to this day, teaching its history is heracy in Universities). In addition, the WWII vets brought "European" refugees and wives (particularly British), just as the Korean War vets brought "South Koreans".

Needless to say, the American Vets judged these foreign refugees to be "compatible" with American values ("pre-screened" in modern lexicon).

In 1975, the Vietnam Vets brought with them "South Vietnamese". The South Vietnamese, in particular, humiliated the Left in America to the point that no journalist, college administrator, artist, celebrity, etc wanted so much as to acknowledge their existence, let alone talk to them about the Vietnam War. By the end of the Carter Administration, the millions of Anti-War Protesters had gone to ground, "disappeared" from public view, while Vietnam veterans became so honored in American Society that they were being impersonated by...Anti-War Protesters. They didn't disappear in the 80s, 90s, and beyond, they were only humiliated into hiding their political histories, their political identities...

...and that humiliation is what motivated them to retreat into the academies, the media, the arts and create their system of safe spaces, their "fetal position".

This is not unique in history; it is cyclical because every populace, of any era, will produce both warriors and cowards of some measure. WoT veterans have been taught this by the Vietnam vets ( Fathers, Uncles, COs, NCOs and Drill Sergeants to Son, Nephew, Private and Recruit). The Vietnam vets themselves were taught by the World War 2 and Korean War vets, who were themselves branded as Anti-semites and Genocidal murderers in their respective wars by their generation's Peace protesters.

[End Background]

How is this connected to the Paris attacks and Mizzou?

The "Refugees" are one of the keys (obviously).

The Vietnam War is a very important epoch in understanding why today's elites - themselves Anti-War Protesters (aka Communists) in the Vietnam era from Bill Ayers to Bill Clinton - are bringing in "Syrian" refugees specifically.

Terrekain said...

John: "The Muslims who have come to Europe don't go there because they want to assimilate. They want to take advantage of the generous welfare benefits the Northern Europeans offer, and, in some cases, because they want to get away from the cesspools they have turned their own countries into."

Why are the "Syrians" being welcomed as refugees by Western elites into Western countries?

You are forgetting a very big piece of the larger puzzle:

A better question to ask is:

Why are "Syrians" (those who killed American servicemen in the Iraq War and who spawned ISIS) being welcomed as refugees while "Iraqis" (those who supported America and have even been vouched for personally by American servicemen) are being turned away to the slaughter ... at the hands of "Syrians"?

And the answer becomes obvious when you consider the leadership (and their political history) who are still humiliated by the "South Vietnamese" (Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, Chinese, Phillipino, etc) who were saved by the US Military in Operations Eagle Pull and Frequent Wind ,as well as by Vietnam Veterans themselves. The South Vietnamese have always been hated by people like Obama and Clinton.

Coming face-to-face with the "South Vietnamese" they pretended to Champion is not a situation the Anti-War crowd wants to repeat with "Iraqis", particularly "Iraqis" who can live peacefully with Americans and their servicemen.

In the same way that Anti-War Protesters wanted the "South Vietnamese" to go away (aka die en masse at the hands of their Communist heroes in North Vietnam or drown in the Pacific), so too does Hsu and Obama and the media want the "Iraqis" (Kurd, Assyrian, Yizidi, secular Shiite or Sunni, etc) to just go away, as silently as possible at the hands of their Islamist heroes.

The Military community (and sympathetic communities) will voice quite openly that they want the "Syrians" to be turned back, die, or drown in the Med. Military communities know the "Syrian" refugees are the same enemy populace that supported killing so many of their family members, their friends, their comrades, as well as the "Iraqi's" under their protection. Simply stated, the "Syrians" are Anti-American Islamists, typifying a culture that is a threat to our way of life.

One side is too ashamed to admit its reasons for denying the "Iraqi" refugees safety, while the other side states its opposition to the "Syrian" refugees openly as a matter of common sense.

Terrekain said...

In conclusion:

These mismatches of ideological viability, among others, are why people like Hsu and Obama are dependent on (and purveyors of) safe spaces, political correctness, newspeak, and censorship like those at Mizzou. As with similar subjects, they don't have a good rationale to reject the "Iraqis", let alone inviting "Syrians"... except to hide their lies and shame, and the knowledge that they will be exposed without enforcing Communist safe spaces, greenhouses meant to protect their ideological beliefs that would wilt if exposed to embarrassing information and harsh realities.

The Paris attacks are simply a reminder that there are worse things to fear than embarrassment... which I would remind "Conservatives": remember that what drives Evil people and cultures to suicide is the resolve that such people would rather die (and take as many people as possible with them) than bear the humiliation they are due.

Which is why Steve Hsu posts a picture of the Eiffel Tower with an ambiguous cliche, disingenuously stripped of the very context he'd rather not think about or be reminded of as he retreats into his safe space. Meanwhile Obama is literally turning Operation Frequent Wind on its head by inviting "North Vietnamese" into the US, and leaving "South Vietnamese" to rot, wither, and die at the hands of his freedom fighters.

The North Vietnamese vanguard were treacherous and even suicidal fighters that hated Western society, and America in particular. Needless to say, Vietnam veterans had no interest in vouching for people who set bombs for them, and the Vietnamese under their protection, on roads, in marketplaces, in bars, etc, for their EOD teams to disarm - or "clean-up" after. Even Carter knew to reject their refugees during the Sino-Vietnam War. Truman was not partial to the North Koreans either, nor was Ike partial to the Chicoms in his support for the Taiwanese.

There's a reason why American Servicemen and "Syrians" are enemies.

There's also a reason why American Communists and "Syrians" are allies.

Veterans have seen this all before.

Except for Obama's sick little twist.

What connects the Paris attacks and Mizzou?

If you want to be generous: the Vanity of people like Hsu and Obama.

But if you want to dispense with the political correctness and use a a more appropriate, but forbidden word in US political dialogue:


Anonymous said...

And to think that these wonderful Muslim refugees have enterd and continue to enter our country, many of them having an agenda - destroy the USA, the final goal being that the whole world becomes Muslim.


John Craig said...

Terrekain --
Thank you for those long and thoughtful comments.

In response to your first comment: I agree that the wives of returning vets from WWII and the Korean War were effectively prescreened, and obviously none of them turned into terrorists once stateside, though I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the American government was "overturned" in 1947. I was certainly unaware that WWII soldiers were branded as anti-Semites (weren't they going over there to SAVE the Jews?).

I agree with your analysis about how the people who avoid service, "cowards" as you put it, often feel obliged to disrespect the sacrifice of those who do, and we saw it most clearly during Viet Nam. But I think that dynamic has changed, and these days -- in fact, since the Gulf War of '91-92, soldiers have for the most part been honored (even if certain elites tend to look down on them and their values).

I honestly think that the reason Obama is bringing in Syrian refugees is because he sees them as further weakening the white Christian majority in this country, and people with his basic worldview tend to see that as a priority.

In response to your second comment: That's a great point about our attitude toward the Syrians vis-a-vs the Iraqis. The way we've left some of our former allies at the mercy of our former enemies is shameful.

The problem with taking sides in the Middle East though is that it's so complicated. I think most people agree now that instead of encouraging the Arab Spring we should have left Hussein (pre-Arab Spring), Mubarak, and Gaddafi in power. Yes, all three were bad guys, but at least they provided stability and were preferable to what we have now, anarchy and ISIS. I see Assad in Syria as another guy cut from the same cloth. He hasn't been great to his own people, but he represents stability and another anti-ISIS player, and we need allies in that battle. Plus, now that he has Putin's backing, he's got pretty good guarantee of staying in power anyway. For us to get involved in these age old Shi'ite vs. Sunni rivalries will not profit us in the long run, but we should at least recognize that the Shi'ites usually represent more stability.

John Craig said...

Birdie --
Yes, it's sickening.

John Craig said...

Terrekain --
Again, thanks for that analysis. In response to your third comment: You've just described the essential narcissism -- and even sociopathy -- of Obama's worldview well. He'll never acknowledge he's made mistakes, not even to himself. And it's only that kind of self-justifying personality that is capable of the constant lying that he's done during his political career. when you think about it, Alinsky-ism, which Obama taught, is actually a great metaphor for sociopathy: pretend to be something you aren't, demonize the opposition, and get your way sneakily.

Steven said...

As you know, I have my own concerns about Muslim mass migration to Europe and I think such concerns are legitimate but I find your portrayal of the Muslim migrants too hostile. I'll take it point by point.

"The Muslims who have come to Europe don't go there because they want to assimilate. They want to take advantage of the generous welfare benefits the Northern Europeans offer"

This is certainly the reason why Muslim migrants are attracted to particular countries more than others, namely Germany and Sweden. All people respond to incentives and if a country offer generous welfare, people will come.

However, I think enough of them are willing to work that your statement about their intentions to take advantage of generous welfare is an unfair generalisation. I don't know the employment stats of the 1st generation but certainly a majority of 2nd generation Muslims work.

I think its fair to assume that Muslim migrants have a general desire for a better life, just like to the Irish people who got on a ship to America because of the poverty in Ireland and their belief that there was more wealth in America (ie rumours of streets paved with gold). They don't see themselves as the enemy- they are attempting to get to a better life. If there is an opportunity for a better life elsewhere, people will make the journey- its not a bad reflection on them to do so.

"Even if they don't intend to become suicide bombers, they want Sharia law, and intend to outbreed and out-proselytize native Europeans."

I doubt that most Muslim migrants are travelling to Europe with a conscious agenda to outbreed and displace European populations. I don't think they are thinking that big. I think are probably more motivated by individual/familial self-interest of the mundane sort.

Furthermore, the idea of fecund Muslims with much higher birth rates than Europeans is at least semi-myth. Outside of sub-Saharan Africa, most countries in the world have quite low birth rates rate, e.g. Syria 3, Pakistan 3.3, Bangladesh, 2.2. These countries have seen dramatic declines in fertility since the 1970's due to such things as family planning and economic development. They will probably to come even more in line with European norms in the 2nd and 3rd generations, and over time in Muslim countries.

"Most of these Muslims have zero loyalty for the countries they emigrate to. More British Muslims have joined ISIS than have enlisted in the British Army."

I think that this is a dodgy indicator. A survey in 2011 showed that a slightly higher percentage of Muslims than non-Muslims said they were proud to be British (both were around 80%). But there is widespread disapproval amongst British Muslims of British foreign policy and what they perceive to be unjust military campaigns in the Muslim world (remember the illegal and ill advised invasion of Iraq).

We might recall that the Indian Army was the largest volunteer force in both world wars and that it was 40% Muslim. 400,000 Muslims are said to have fought for Britain in the first world war.

John Craig said...

Steven --
Fair enough, I'm sure a lot of Muslims want to work, eventually. But the welfare remains a huge draw, for now.

I think you underestimate how seriously most Muslims take their religion. A few imams have been quoted as saying things to the effect that the Europeans are a tired population with a low birthrate, and the Muslims will replace them. Most Muslims take their religion seriously, and when they do, they prefer Sharia law. They realize they're a minority now, but when their numbers increase and they become the majority in various areas, I think their demands for that will become stronger.

I recently heard that the proportion of British-born Muslims who've joined ISIS is in fact now three to four times higher than the proportion who join the British Army. When you have a population group whose loyalty is not to their "home" country but rather to their ethnic cohorts who are fighting the European coalition, that's a huge problem. I'd say the dodgier measure is what people say about whether they're proud of Britain or not. A lot of people say yes and no for different reasons, including that they think they ail be identified through the survey, so I wouldn't put too much stock in that. Actions do speak louder than words.

I hadn't been aware of those numbers regarding WWII; they are impressive. But that was a far different era, with different dynamics, than what we are facing now.

Steven said...

I know that Muslims take their religion seriously and that when they do, they prefer sharia law.

Incidentally, the criminal part of sharia law, the part with barbaric punishments, is currently only applied in a minority of Muslim countries.(

In Nigerian where they are about 50% of the population, the Muslims in the north have sharia law and the Christians in the south don't. They are most likely to demand it for themselves.

Besides, they can want it all they like. Its only realistic if they become a majority. Its still up to us whether we allow that to happen.

I'm not sure what we can tell from the statements of 'a few imams'. Is such a thing the plan of most Muslims moving to Europe? I doubt it.

My point wasn't to argue about whether Muslim migration to Europe is a good idea- if I were in charge, I would limit Muslim migration to Europe. I just felt your post made a one sided, negative portrayel of them. It seemed like propaganda.

Muslims wont join the British army but a few hundred of them joining ISIS does not mean they are loyal to ISIS as a 'population group'. This is the facebook status update of a Muslim guy who was in my class at uni:

"Whats on your mind? Well.... These fu***** terrorist ba******* f***the lot of u! Your not muslims your not human your not dogs your not rats hell your not shit!!! I hope u burn in hell and pull your own skin and eat it and then eat shit!!!"

He hates ISIS personally, emotionally. The leading authorities of Sunni Islam have denounced ISIS. That's not to deny that the most regressive forms of islam are barbaric or that the religion has some violent tendencies and some doctrines that are easily used by extremists, but the majority of the Muslim world are agaisnt ISIS. Muslims don't want to live under that kind of regime, which is why so many have left their territory.

John Craig said...

Steven --
I wish there were more Muslims with his attitude. There've been polls taken in the US which show that up to 70% of Muslims refuse to condemn terrorist acts. I wonder if that's how he really feels or if that's a pose he takes to ingratiate himself with his non-Muslim friends. I hope the former, but I can't be sure. Also, keep in mind that some people get religion ate; the girl who donned the suicide vest and tried to take some French police with her the day after the Paris attacks was a former party girl who drank, smoked, and fooled around with men before she decided to go the other way.

Steven said...

That's a bit paranoid...I knew this guy and I'm confident that he means it. I've known several Muslims and they were not religious extremists. They were regular people with regular interests and concerns and a moderate interpretation of and adherence to their religion. They are basically just ordinary people, born into an Islamic culture, just as other ordinary guys are born catholic. The average Muslim is not an extremist or excessively religious; it takes a special kind of person to be an extremist. Actually, my experience is that a lot of Muslims actually buy into the idea that Islam is a benign religion of peace and don't know the scriptures in any more detail than a lot of Christians know the old testament.

I have also seen several polls of Muslims. My overall impression is that they do support conservative Islamic policies with regards to social issues and sharia law but they aren't in favour of terrorism, violence, or ISIS. For example, there was a Gallup poll of the Muslim world. It involved 50,000 interviews in 35 countries (the largest ever poll of the Muslim world) and it concluded that 93% of Muslims condemned 911, while the 7% of supported it, justified it politically, or with an argument based on reciprocity, rather than religiously.

A recent poll in Britain made headlines by claiming that 1 in 5 Muslims supported ISIS when the question never mentioned ISIS, just people going to fight in Syria. But even if they all took it to mean for ISIS, that's 1 in 5, not 3 or 4 in 5.

Its interesting that you mention the girl who killed Diesel the police dog and her formerly hedonistic lifestyle because that is not a unique case but a distinct pattern with the terrorists who have attacked the west in recent years. Most of them have been former drug takers, with similarly loose lifestyles. My guess is that the sociopathic individuals who deem it acceptable to kill innocents are also the kind of people who might, in different circumstances, adopt hedonistic, parasitic lifestyles, take drugs and engage in low level criminality. Incidentally, a lot of these types get sent to prison and are radicalised there. One study showed that religious piety, counter intuitively perhaps, actually protects against violent extremism.

Have a read of this..persist past the part that relates to nature vs nurture (I think the point is a human tendency to attribute ones own actions to circumstances and other's actions to their nature).

John Craig said...

Steven --
Maybe it's paranoid, but it could also be true. I've known plenty of people who hide their true feelings and attitudes toward other races and religions when they meet new people. In fact, I'd say the majority of people do that to some extent; mostly, it's a matter of putting a public face on, part of it is just having good manners, but most people do it.

I've known a few Muslims personally, in fact dated an ethnically Indian girl who was Muslim before I got married. The only way I knew she was Muslim was that her last name was Ali, and I asked her about it. She seemed perfectly normal, very Americanized, and I'm sure there are plenty of others like her.

Interesting point about sociopathic individuals expressing their sociopathy through their religion; that could well be true. It's always been my contention that the people who arrange for OTHER people to be suicide bombers are more likely to be sociopaths, whereas the suicide bombers themselves tend to be True Believers who think they are doing something noble and worthwhile.

I tried opening up that article twice, but both times it made my computer crash, so I'm not going to try again, sorry.