I have a confession to make.
As insightful, reasonable, and well-written as most articles are at Counter-Currents, I really don’t enjoy reading them. The same goes for articles found on American Renaissance, VDARE, and similar sites. Who would enjoy the kinds of articles published by the Alt Right these days? These sites reveal not only how genetic differences among human races lead inexorably to discord, strife, and violence, but also how the mainstream (and mostly white) elites of Western civilization continue to ignore this central fact of life despite the discord, strife, and violence piling up all around them.
No one likes being told they are unequal to others. No one likes to see their hopes and dreams for a better tomorrow buried under the wet blanket of genetic fatalism. No one enjoys watching their own kind creep its way to extinction with open borders, cultural Marxism, and unhinged liberal policies.
I don’t read the Alt Right for enjoyment. I read it for Truth.
I read it for evidence and arguments with which I can bolster the political beliefs that I wish I didn’t have. In fact, I wish the liberals were correct in many of their views. I feel like I’m traipsing through a Beach Boys song as I think about it. All races are equal. Wouldn’t it be nice? We’re all descended from Rousseau’s noble savage? Wouldn’t it be nice. Free college, free cellphones, free healthcare, free money, free everything for everybody. Wouldn’t that be nice!
So what this amounts to, in my life at least, is my well-educated, well-read, well-intentioned liberal friends constantly offering pleasing evidence to show how they are right, while I counter with evidence that absolutely sucks to show how I’m right. Essentially, it’s Walter Sellars’ “Wrong and Wromantics” against “Right and Repulsive” me.
A case in point is the topic of what to do after the Brussels bombing. A friend of mine argued that the key to beating ISIS is to understand that ISIS targets Muslims more often than non-Muslims. He claims we need to ally ourselves with these “good” Muslims and fully integrate them into our society in order to prevent Muslims from ever wanting to commit acts of terror in the first place. Then we can starve ISIS and other terror organizations of oxygen until they desiccate and disappear. A nice story, isn’t it?
I, on the other hand, responded by saying that the key to beating ISIS is to keep killing them until they aren’t around anymore.
Pretty big difference, wouldn’t you say?
Anyway, as “evidence” my friend presented an astonishingly stupid and dishonest Politico article called “Inside the FBI’s Secret Muslim Network.” It basically told him everything he wanted to hear, namely that when Muslims are woven into the multi-ethnic, rainbow-colored AIDS quilt of liberal America, they start ratting on each other. They become our allies. They become one of us.
The article sings the praises of Dearborn, Michigan, a town with a large Muslim population and a Muslim chief of police, one Ron Haddad. Dearborn, the article claims, could not be more different than Molenbeek, Brussels, the Muslim neighborhood which harbored a Muslim terrorist after the Paris attacks. In Dearborn, for example, the police chief
makes regular visits to Dearborn’s 38 schools and its many mosques. He sponsors a program called “Stepping Up,” which includes an annual awards ceremony . . . for residents reporting crime. At least twice in the past several years, fearing influence from ISIL or online propaganda on their children, Haddad says, Muslim fathers have turned in their own sons. In another case, it was students at a largely Muslim high school calling about a troubled peer.
Twice in the past several years, huh? According to the religionofpeace.com, as of March 30th, 2016, there have been 28,052 deadly Muslim terror attacks in the 5,313 days since 9-11. So let’s do the math. That’s nearly 5.3 attacks per day. Assuming that each of these wayward sons intended to launch an attack of his own, the Dearborn Muslims have reduced this rate by 3.76 x 10-4.
So, I’m feeling safer. How about you?
I love how the article mentions crime. We in America are not really concerned about Muslim crime per se. We have the blacks and the Hispanics for that. We are worried more about Muslim terror. 9-11, Fort Hood, Boston Marathon, San Bernardino, that kind of thing. We are also worried about how the threat of terror makes Muslims more intimidating when they encroach upon our culture and way of life.
Notice also how the article refers to a potential terrorist as “troubled.” No, a troubled youth is someone who dies her hair purple and sticks safety pins in her cheeks because she’s overweight and has given up on being popular. Someone who seriously contemplates Jihad at age 14, on the other hand, is not troubled. He’s psychotic.
The article then claims how US Muslim communities “on the whole” have been cooperative with US law enforcement vis-à-vis reporting terror, as if this were a good thing. What does “on the whole” mean anyway? 80 percent? 90 percent? These numbers are too low. We should not be prepared for anything less than 100 percent cooperation with US law enforcement when it comes to entire communities. That was the attitude we took at Waco, Texas in the early 1990s, wasn’t it? Well, why not now with Muslims? This article is basically saying that there are some Muslim communities in America that don’t cooperate with law enforcement. On the whole, isn’t that a bad thing?
Essentially, we have to abandon the idea of the glass being half-empty or half full with regards to Muslims. Given their blood-soaked recent history, we can’t afford to. Instead, we need to view the glass as either full or not full. 98 percent ain’t gonna cut it. You’re either on board 100 percent or you’re the enemy.
Here’s another gem from the article:
The result, U.S. officials say, is that Muslim neighborhoods here are cooperating against Islamist terrorists to a degree that can’t be found among their counterparts in Europe.
Is this supposed to be reassuring?
First of all, there are a lot more Muslims in Europe than in America. So that might account a wee bit for some of the differences we’re seeing. Secondly, Islamic terror, violence, and cultural encroachment are really bad in Europe and getting worse daily. So we deserve pats on the back because compared to Brussels we’re doing pretty well?
The article then delves into how law enforcement plans to
get closer to the source of alienation, and “off-ramp” young people drawn by ISIS or other radical propaganda, bringing them back to society with therapy and counseling before it’s too late.
To accomplish this, the FBI will be forming “Shared Responsibility Committees” which will join forces with an all-unicorn team of therapists, social workers, educators, and religious leaders across the country in order to “come up with intervention strategies” to deal with potential terrorists. Given the trail of blood that Muslims leave behind everywhere they go, such an approach is jaw-droppingly stupid. This is something Muslim mothers and fathers should be doing to their kids when they’re four. It’s not our responsibility. It’s their responsibility.
Of course, the article fails to mention how much this well-meaning outreach is going to cost the taxpayers.
The article continues by tut-tutting law enforcement for entrapping Muslims like the Newburgh Four and complaining absurdly that such hardline tactics only create more terrorists. It then concludes by claiming that the (relatively mild) anti-Muslim rhetoric of the GOP is threatening to harsh the carefully-laid mellow that law enforcement believes it has achieved with American Muslims. The article points to two whole instances of terror attacks being spoiled by American Muslims, one in 2010 and the other in 2014. It also offers a quote from a Department of Homeland Security official who claims “unequivocally” that “Arab Muslim and South Asian communities across this country have become one of the greatest resources of protecting homeland security.” This official, one George Selim, has an Arabic name and is presumably an Arab and a Muslim himself.
Insert sarcastic comment about how much we believe this person .
What the article does not include (and what would be most frightening to read) is that Muslims, who, according to the article, make up less than one percent of the US population, have been responsible for nearly 50 percent of American deaths caused by terror attacks since 9-11. If you include 9-11, then that percentage rises to something like 98 percent. And if you include all terror-related deaths of American servicemen in Afghanistan and Iraq, well, then we’d be able to draw a nice asymptotic line towards 100, wouldn’t we?
The point here is that whatever our law enforcement is doing with the miniscule amount of Muslims we already have in America, it isn’t working. And if one percent of the population is responsible for fifty percent of our terror deaths, then it is reasonable to conclude that five percent would be responsible for five times that number, or 83.3 percent.
So, wouldn’t it make sense to ban all Muslim immigration indefinitely to keep this from happening? Wouldn’t it also make sense to investigate and police Muslim Americans enough to make the ones prone to terror want to leave the country, thereby reducing this number even further? Wouldn’t this all cost less and be more effective than Ph.D. group hugs from Shared Responsibility Committees?
Yes, this is bad news. But we on the Alt Right have to be vigilant these days about being the bearers of bad news. We cannot let up with the wet blanket on all the wromanticism of well-meaning liberals. We cannot shy away from being repulsive. For instance, if there were fewer Muslims, blacks, and Hispanics in America and we returned to the 90 percent white majority we had in 1965, America would be a safer, stronger, wealthier, and more cohesive country. This is a true statement. There is no reason why it shouldn’t be said, regardless of how repulsive it may sound to some.
This reminds me of an encounter I had with another liberal friend. After I barraged her with arguments similar to the ones above, she shuddered and complained that what I was saying was distasteful.
I responded by saying, “Yes, it is. Yes, it is.”