John Derbyshire, VDare, June 19, 2016
The very first thing I heard about the Orlando shooter, on the CBS news over my car radio, was that he was an American citizen. They just couldn’t wait to tell us that.
Whether it was precisely CBS who were eager to tell us, or Orlando law enforcement, with CBS just passing on what they got, I don’t know, and it doesn’t much matter. It shows the mindset of authorities at all levels in our society. The thought behind it is the one uttered out loud by General George Casey after the Fort Hood shooting: “As horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.” [Fort Hood: diversity rules, NY Post, October 29, 2012]
That is actually how people in authority think: not merely editors of liberal newspapers or TV stations, but managers and leaders in the military and law enforcement, corporate bosses, bureaucrats and politicians, college administrators, all the way down to schoolteachers and librarians.
It’s also a big fat lie.
I really don’t know what it will take to knock that big fat lie on the head and kill it for good. Nine-eleven should have done it in all logic; but no, we just doubled down on our diversity gamble, admitting more Muslims for settlement in the decade after 9/11 than we had in the decade before. [Federal Data: U.S. Annually Admits Quarter Of A Million Muslim Migrants, by Julia Hahn, Breitbart, September 14, 2015]
And yes, Omar Mateen was a U.S. citizen, born in Queens Borough of New York City–just like Donald Trump, as all the Main Stream Media outlets have been gleefully telling us.
I don’t even need to compose my thoughts. I only have to quote the relevant passage from my tremendous 2009 bestseller We Are Doomed. Edited longish quote from Chapter 10:
The English word “assimilation” derives from the Latin prefix ad-, which indicates a moving towards something, and the same language’s verb simulare, “to cause a person or thing to resemble another.” You can make a precisely opposite word using the prefix ab-, which marks a moving away from something. Many immigrants of course assimilate to American society … Many others, however, especially in the second and following generations, absimilate …
Of the four men held responsible for the London terror bombings of July 2005, three were English-born. (The fourth immigrated at age five from Jamaica.) In December 2008, writing in PajamasMedia.com, terrorism expert Patrick Poole noted that many U.S. citizens of Somali origin were leaving the country to train as terrorists in Somalia …
Assimilation, absimilation: If you let great numbers of foreigners settle in your country, you will surely get both.
All right; Omar Mateen was second generation, and he absimilated away from American culture. What about the first generation–which is to say, his parents? Why were they given settlement rights in our country from Afghanistan?
Mateen Senior, first name Seddique, became a naturalized citizen in 1989 after coming to this country from his native Afghanistan in the early 1980s. I haven’t been able to discover what kind of visa he came in on. The leading possibilities are: (a) he came as a refugee, via the United Nations and our own State Department, or (b) he was performing some service to the U.S.A. against the Soviet forces then occupying Afghanistan, or (c) some close relative of his–or some person he persuaded to swear he was a relative–was performing such services, or was a refugee, and Mr Mateen got in on the family-reunification boondoggle.
It wasn’t likely an employment visa. Mr Mateen has been making a living selling life insurance since 1991. I don’t recall there being any critical shortage of life-insurance salesmen in the early 1980s.
Bearing in mind possibility (b) above, it’s possible that Mateen, Sr. risked his life to assist the U.S.A. with policy objectives in Afghanistan. This was the Cold War, remember; and as I remind younger listeners and readers, the Cold War was a very big deal, with nuclear annihilation in play. The Mujaheddin fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan were our allies. Islam was not at that point committing acts of homicidal lunacy in Western countries.
So it’s possible that Mateen, Sr.’s admission to the U.S.A. was justified even by the very strict Radio Derb standards–which, just to remind you, would allow permanent settlement to spouses and dependent children of U.S. Citizens, certified geniuses, persons who’ve performed some meritorious service to U.S. policy goals, a few Solzhenitsyn-type high-profile dissidents, andnobody else at all.
It’s possible, but is it likely? Not really. Quote from an authoritative website:
Prior to 1978, only about 2,500 Afghans lived in the United States. Between 1980 and 1996, more than 32,000 were admitted as refugees, along with 40,000 under regular immigrant visas, most as part of the family reunification program.
That’s 72,000 Afghans, exceedingly few of whom, I imagine, put their lives on the line for U.S. policy goals under the Soviet occupation. And it goes without saying that of those 32,000 refugees from the Soviet occupation, very few–quite possibly none at all–returned to Afghanistan when the occupation ended in 1989.
Mateen, Sr. seems to be some kind of a crackpot–an anti-American kind, among other things. He hosts a satellite TV show and runs a YouTube channel, both given over mostly to Afghan affairs, in both of which he frequently expresses anti-American views.
It would probably be a slight improvement to the U.S.A. at large, and only a very minor loss to the life-insurance industry, if we could strip this guy of his citizenship and send him back to Afghanistan, which has been free of Soviet occupation now for 27 years.
After all, I’m sure people like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton would be happy to strip me of my citizenship and send me back to Airstrip One.
So what’s to be done here? Well, as the saying goes, when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing is to stop digging. We may not be able to rectify the errors of the past–but we absolutely should not be permitting any further settlement by Muslims.
And if a presidential candidate comes along with the good sense and courage to say that out loud, we should vote for him.
But how did our politicians react to the Orlando killings?
As usual, I’ll frame this in sectionalist terms–in terms of what I call the Cold Civil War. As with our country’s actual Civil War a hundred fifty years ago, the conflict — this time a cold one, thank goodness–is between two big blocs of white people who can’t stand the sight of each other: Goodwhites and Badwhites. The Goodwhites draft in battalions of colored people to dig latrine trenches and feed the horses, and to act as figureheads for Goodwhite values, as with our current President.
So when something like the Orlando atrocity happens, the task for Goodwhites is to frame it as the fault of Badwhites, or at least to pin it to Badwhite values somehow.
That was how the Goodwhites proceeded. Badwhites love guns; Badwhites are not enthusiastic about the promotion of homosexuality; Badwhites think our Judeo-Christian culture is threatened by mass Muslim immigration. So the Goodwhite reactions stressed gun control and fighting homophobia, and tried to avoid mentioning Islam at all.
President Obama gave a speech twelve hours after the shooting. He’d just come from a meeting with the FBI Director, he told us, and so at this point he surely knew the killer’s identity. He had nothing to say about it, though, other than “What is clear is that he was a person filled with hatred.” [Remarks by the President on Mass Shooting in Orlando, June 12, 2016]
OK, but what was the source of this hatred? Obama didn’t specify, but he implied that the fault lay with us Americans, by which of course he meant Badwhites: “May [God] give us all … the strength and courage to change.”
This massacre is therefore a further reminder of how easy it is for someone to get their hands on a weapon that lets them shoot people in a school, or in a house of worship, or in a movie theater, or in a night club.
Hillary Clinton made a much longer speech in Cleveland on Monday: three thousand words, none of which began with “i-m-m-i-g-r.” “Weapons of war have no place on our streets,” said the lady; and “The terrorist in Orlando targeted LGBT Americans out of hatred and bigotry.” [Read Hillary Clinton’s Speech About the Orlando Shooting, by Ryan Teague Beckwith, Time.com, June 13, 2016]
The word “Islam” did at least show up once in Mrs. Clinton’s speech, albeit grudgingly.
Still, as I have said before, none of us can close our eyes to the fact that we do face enemies who use their distorted version of Islam to justify slaughtering innocent people.
Is the ISIS version of Islam really distorted, though? As the blogger Iowahawk has pointed out, Abubakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS, has a Ph.D. in Islamic studies. So his view of Islam is surely more authoritative than Mrs. Clinton’s.
Donald Trump also made a speech on Monday, also three thousand words, addressing forthrightly and unflinchingly the key issues here. Ctrl-F on “i-m-m-i-g-r”: 29 hits. Hit number three, quote:
We have a dysfunctional immigration system which does not permit us to know who we let into our country, and it does not permit us to protect our citizens.
Why can’t our President say that? Why can’t the Democratic Party’s presumptive nominee say it?
Trump also spoke about what a friend of mine calls “Narrative Collision.” The Narrative here is the one promoted by Goodwhites: the narrative of Badwhites filled with hate, endlessly seeking to harm or humiliate designated victim groups–blacks, women, Latinos, Muslims, homosexuals. Narrative Collision occurs when two different aspects of the Narrative contradict each other: for example, blacks raping women, or Muslims beating up homosexuals.
The Orlando killings were classic Narrative Collision–so much so, there was some subdued crowing about it from the Dissident Right. I don’t condone this, but it expresses very understandable and widespread resentment at the endless rain of Narrative propaganda.
I myself got eight or ten emails from listeners along the following lines–I’m not quoting any particular emailer, just condensing the sense of the group: “So a crazy Muslim shoots up a hall full of black and Hispanic homosexuals. As a straight white Christian (in one case, Jewish) person, why should I care?”
Yes, it’s mean, but that’s how a lot of people feel after decades of diversity propaganda about the wickedness of normal white Americans.
Trump was not of course as cynical as my correspondents, but he did nail the Narrative Collision aspect:
Hillary Clinton can never claim to be a friend of the gay community as long as she continues to support immigration policies that bring Islamic extremists to our country who suppress women, gays and anyone who doesn’t share their views.
She can’t have it both ways. She can’t claim to be supportive of these communities while trying to increase the number of people coming in who want to oppress them.
How does this kind of immigration make our life better?
How does this kind of immigration make our country better?
My emphasis. Those two closing questions were rhetorical as spoken; but I hope that when debating Mrs. Clinton, Trump asks them directly. They are damn good questions.
Let me close by noting two other, related, horrors in the civilized world last week.
In an outer suburb of Paris, an ISIS militant stabbed an off-duty police captain to death outside the officer’s home Monday evening. Then he went inside the home; police arrived; there was a three-hour standoff. When the police stormed the place, they found that the Muslim guy had also killed the officer’s wife in front of her three-year-old son.
The Muslim himself died in the assault, but the infant survived. The poor kid is said to be “traumatized,” which I can very well believe.
An interesting aspect of this case is that the killer, name of Larossi Abballa,was on a police watch list of individuals thought to be a danger to public security. He’d been arrested in 2011 and given a three-year sentence for terrorist-related offenses. [Who was French police killer Larossi Abballa?BBC, June 19, 2016]
The moral of the story here is that you really need to watch the people on your watch list.
NBC News describes Abballa as born in France, so presumably this is another case of second-generation absimilation.
Then on Thursday this week, a young female Member of Parliament named Jo Cox was stabbed and shot to death in the street outside her constituency office.
This really does seem to have been a case of a crazy Badwhite snapping. The killer, arrested nearby shortly after the murder, was a 52-year-old white English loner, unmarried and childless, named Thomas Mair. He seems to be a mild-mannered sort, no criminal record, but apparently dealing with mental health issues.
The Muslim angle here: the killing happened in West Yorkshire ( in a town called Birstall) where there’s a very big Muslim population, mostly Pakistani. The nearby town of Bradford was 25 percent Muslim in the 2011 census, up from 16 percent ten years earlier. On a linear extrapolation, it’s likely now over thirty percent Muslim. The town of Rotherham, where hundreds of white English girls were made sex slaves by Muslim men, and police refused to act for fear of looking racist, is just 22 miles away.
Ms. Cox is described on the Middle Eastern website albawaba.com as a “passionate advocate for Syrian refugees and Muslim immigrants.”
That website further notes that “after being elected last year, Cox used her first speech to Parliament to extol the benefits of having Muslims and other immigrants move to Britain.”
With Ms. Cox when she was killed was her assistant, a young Muslim woman named Fazila Aswat, shown wearing a headscarf in the new pictures. Ms. Aswat gave a very affecting account of Ms. Cox’s last moments.
So while the motive here was not Islamic terrorism, it wouldn’t be very surprising to learn that the killer was pushed over the edge from instability into lunacy by watching the Islamization of his country, and the favoritism shown to Muslims in cases like the Rotherham abductions, and by the “passionate advocacy” of politicians like Ms. Cox on behalf of foreigners over native English people.
Once again, in France and England as here, those two questions asked by Donald Trump on Monday hang in the air:
- How does this kind of immigration make our life better?
- How does this kind of immigration make our country better?