Tuesday, September 8, 2015

The “Refugee Crisis”

     “If everything’s a crisis, where’s the crisis?” – Arthur Herzog, The B.S. Factor

     First, a few simple facts:

  1. Populations are not identical to one another.
  2. Populations experience different kinds and degrees of pressure.
  3. Populations under different pressures move in different directions and at different rates.
  4. The legal membranes that separate populations, which we call borders, are real and critically important.
  5. The social differences between populations, which we call cultures, are just as real and can be even more important.

     The advocates of a borderless world dismiss facts 1, 2, and 3 as “irrelevant” and reject facts 4 and 5 as “xenophobia.”

     As usual, I have a few questions. How can the evidence of the senses be “irrelevant” – especially to those who claim to be members of “the reality-based community?” What do such...persons gain from so baldly counterfactual a stance? What implications flow from their insistence that the U.S. and other First World nations have a “duty” to succor the “refugees” currently streaming out of the Middle East?

     Return your seatback trays to their storage positions and check that you’re securely belted in, Gentle Readers. This one could get rough.


     It’s been observable for quite some time that when a Leftist finds some demonstrable fact to be inconvenient to him, he simply dismisses it, sometimes by claiming that “that isn’t so,” or that “you’re exaggerating the case.” Eric Hoffer would tell us that this is part and parcel of the Left’s “compact and unified church.” Their creed requires them to put The Agenda above all else, including nasty contrary facts. So in the time-honored tradition of pseudo-scientists of every era, if the facts don’t fit their theory, they dismiss the facts.

     Mind you, this isn’t a perfectly uniform behavior. Remember the ideological pyramid:

Level 1: The Pinnacle: Strategists and Theorists.
Level 2: The Cadre: Committed activists engaged in promotion.
Level 3: The Cannon Fodder: Persons who support the Agenda with money and votes.

     Pinnacle Leftists are seldom seen or heard; they work in the shadows, developing the Agenda and its supporting tactics. The most visible and vocal Leftists are Cadre, whose faces are familiar to any devotee of Sunday-morning talk shows or (shudder) MSNBC. Many of them hold or have held high public offices, or aspire to doing so. Cannon Fodder Leftists are our neighbors, who might voice their opinions now and then but are important to the Agenda mainly as a source of funding and votes. It’s the Cannon Fodder Leftists who are under strict orders to dismiss or deny important facts; Cadre Leftists mostly know how to talk around them, and will only dismiss or deny them when they’ve unwisely accepted an invitation to appear on Fox News. Pinnacle Leftists seldom have to deal with unpleasant facts in public.


     The gains to the Left from denying the importance of differences among populations, the different dynamics they display, and the importance of borders are considerable. The Left’s approach to coalition politics prospers greatly whenever it can identify and seduce a mascot group. Hearken to Thomas Sowell:

     It is not only the consummated policies of the anointed which reflect their vision. So do their crusades still in progress. The pattern of thinking involved in this vision shows up as strongly in trivial crusades against particular kinds of maps as in crusades over something as deadly serious as AIDS. The function of the vision in enhancing the self-esteem of the anointed is also revealed in the particular groups chosen as targets and in the particular beneficiary groups chosen to symbolize their moral stances. The symbolic function of these latter groups is to serve as team mascots. A mascot’s own well-being is not so crucial as its role in enabling others to “make a statement.” Many social groups are treated as the human mascots of the anointed, whether or not that works out to the benefit of those groups themselves.

     The Left’s approach to employing mascot groups is flexible and clever. If the group can be promoted to the general public as “oppressed” – i.e., being denied its “rights” – the consequences can include major changes in federal legislation. If the group can be galvanized as a voting bloc, Cadre Leftists can target it come campaign season. Finally for this brief examination, if the group can be used to “blockbust” a particular district that has resisted Leftist incursion, it will be encouraged to colonize that district by any means necessary. (Note how important that last tactic has been in the American Southwest.)

     Many elements of the Left’s Agenda depend on the employment of mascot groups to weaken institutions and practices that function as America’s social pillars. Consider in this connection the transformation-by-illegal-immigration of the U.S. into a multilingual nation. Consider also the fates of other, previously peaceful nations that have suffered such a transformation. Strife within a nation is always favorable to the Left’s aspirations.


     We come at last to the “refugees” currently besieging Europe...and who will soon besiege America.

     A “refugee” is one who seeks refuge: i.e., a person who is fleeing a threat. The great majority of the “refugees” of the moment originated in Syria and the portion of Iraq being oppressed by ISIS. No doubt some of them have good reason to deem themselves at hazard of life or limb should they remain in their previous homes...but virtually all of them had to cross Turkey, a reasonably tolerant nation where safety could be had, to knock on Christendom’s gates. So why did they continue on to Hungary and Austria?

     There is no single reason. Some are attracted by the more prosperous economies and generous welfare states of Europe. Some seek to join relatives in those lands. Some, the trickle of Christians in the flood, would be uneasy about remaining in Islamic Turkey, especially given the Islamist leanings of its current government. And some are engaged in hijrahjihad through immigration – from dar al-Islam to dar al-Harb, the “house of war” where Islam does not dominate.

     Most of the “refugees” would benefit greatly from being allowed to colonize Christendom. Christendom would not:

  • Its businesses would be pressed to accommodate the “refugees” in numerous ways;
  • Its welfare states would be severely burdened by the influx of destitute “refugees;”
  • Its cultures would be diluted and weakened by alien modes of living and ways of thought;
  • Its political structures would be threatened by the Islamic drive to dominate the world;
  • Its nation-states would accumulate exclaves such as have already arisen in England (Luton), France (the banlieus), and Sweden (Malmo).

     To permit the “refugees” to enter Europe and settle there would be as one-sided a demographic transaction as has been observed since the institution of slavery.


     Finally for this tirade, have a few citations of other excellent pieces on the subject:

     ...and reflect on this: pressure is already mounting for the U.S. to involve itself in amplified “refugee relief.”

     Be afraid. Be very afraid.

1 comment:

  1. I hate to say it, but the esteemed Col. B. Bunny's "Hate Trump" piece below makes me wonder who populates the three levels on the Left's opposition, and what the actual motives are of Level 1.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are moderated. I am entirely arbitrary about what I allow to appear here. Toss me a bomb and I might just toss it back with interest. You have been warned.