The Head Of The Spear

     Among the most important things a commentator can do is to speak the facts plainly, without exaggeration or embellishment when they happen to support his thesis, and without apology or qualification when they countervail it. John Derbyshire deserves our applause for this example thereof:

     Two Muslim brothers from Pakistan ran a welfare scam that got them half a million dollars of taxpayers’ money. Brought to trial, they were found guilty. However, the British judge let them off with suspended sentences. Why? Out of concern for their children, who number …eleven. [Two brothers who swapped houses to con taxpayer out of £315,000 walk FREE after judge claims ‘greatest punishment was loss of their good names’, By Mark Duell, Daily Mail, February 11, 2013

     Another random story from Britain: The owner of a beauty salon in the English town of Bicester announced via Twitter that following the Paris attacks she would no longer accept bookings from Muslims, whether British citizens or not. She added: “Sorry but time to put my country first.”

     Police arrested the woman, whose name is April Major, under Britain’s Public Order Act. She has been released on bail until November 30th. If she is dealt with as lightly as those Pakistani welfare scammers, I shall be very surprised.[ Police arrest woman for ‘racially abusive’ Facebook post banning Muslims from beauty salon because it is ‘time to put my country first’, by Stephanie Linning, November 16, 2015]

     That’s the Sceptered Isle of today for you. The entire article is well worth your time. In the process of elucidating his point, Derbyshire notes several other examples of the West’s surrender to Islam, including examples of the process currently being accelerated here in America by Barack Hussein Obama. In speculating on Obama’s motives, Derbyshire delivers a true Sunday punch:

     Here’s Obama speaking in Columbia, Missouri, October 30th 2008:

     We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.

     Clearly Obama didn’t like America the way it was. What he most disliked about it, we can now deduce, was that it was too damn white and too Christian. What he had in mind was a demographic transformation.

     Today, Obama is straining at the reins to grant permanent residence (if not citizenship) to millions of illegal aliens, open the southern border wide, and import a huge slug of “refugees” from the Middle East, most of whom are young, fit men of military age. Ponder that for a moment.

---

     Immigrant groups to these shores have always outbred those of us who’ve been here for a generation or two. It’s been the case ever since the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth. There’s no mystery about it: immigrants to the U.S. almost all come from places where life was harder, and where infant mortality was far higher. Thus, it had been incumbent upon them (and more important, upon their forebears) to produce large numbers of children in the hope that some would survive to become adults. Though reproductive rates tail off in successor generations, the first two or three can substantially transform the nation’s demographics.

     This gives us reason to believe that the current influx of migrants – predominantly from poor Latin American nations and Islamic hellholes – are indeed the head of a demographic spear. If that spear is thrust home, in fifty to a hundred years the United States will differ radically from the nation that won World War II.

     The differences won’t stop at skin color or religious affiliation. Immigrants cannot help but change the culture and, more important still, the attitudes toward government of the population they infect.

     In this regard, note how the political attitudes of immigrants from Southeast Asia vary from those of Latin American origin. The “boat people” we absorbed in the Seventies and Eighties are largely independent-minded and distrustful of the State. The Hispanics display a considerably different attitude.

     Food for thought.

---

     When America opened her doors to the waves of immigration of the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries, we acted under the assumption that the immigrants would assimilate: that is, that they would learn English, conform to American laws and norms, and raise their children to be Americans in all ways. They would strive not to replace but to enhance America’s culture by their admixtures. And indeed, this was largely the case throughout that era.

     It’s not the case any longer. Indeed, the suggestion that assimilation should be expected of today’s immigrants is treated by many as a grotesque insult – and among the “many” are quite a number of native-born Americans whose families have been here for several generations. This is the disease of left-liberal “otherness:” the inclination to disparage one’s own nation, norms, and culture as some sort of “progressive” virtue-signal.

     The immigrants of our time don’t assimilate. Rather, they form exclaves in which they consciously perpetuate the societies they supposedly fled. Thus, contemporary immigration morphs into a new kind of colonialism.

     The starkest examples of this phenomenon are, of course, Muslims from Africa and the Middle East. Muslims are quite literally forbidden to assimilate by their creed. A rational policy toward them would forbid them any ingress other than a short term tourist visa. But as Derbyshire notes in the article cited above, Muslim immigration has doubled since September 11, 2001 – yet another kind of virtue-signaling, at the expense of our national cohesion and Americans’ security both present and future.

     Thanks to “birthplace citizenship” and “chain migration,” the spear is penetrating ever deeper into our body. If we don’t halt the thrust, at some point the wound will become incurable – lethal. We don’t have a great deal of time remaining to begin the extraction.