Immigration And The Elites In An Age Of Endemic Terrorism

Robert Mariani Contributor
Font Size:

Communism is a bad system of ideas. No statement might seem more obvious, but the reasoning behind it would be regarded by cultural tastemakers as “problematic” if it were applied to Islam.

Even if the core prescriptions of communism are regarded as, at least, a well-intentioned flight of fancy, we can still have a grown-up conversation about it being a worldview that leads to human suffering.

Discussing communism, fascism, and even capitalism in this way passes the dinner table test, but Islam is somehow different. Why? It withers under the exact same type of criticism as the belief systems we all love to hate – the numbers speak for themselves. Taking a look at the list of the deadliest terror attacks in history shows a picture much different than the one that we’re expected to believe.

I first wrote this article following a major addition to that list last week, when 84 people were killed in Nice, France by a terrorist who drove a semi-trailer truck into a crowd. Since then, an axe-wielding man in Wurzburg, Germany went on a rampage that left more than a dozen injured. Surprising approximately nobody, both of these men shouted “Allahu Akbar” during their attacks.

Incidents like these have become routine. So have the responses. The only thing about terrorism that can still shock us is when someone has the audacity to promote a solution as taboo as it is obvious: reducing Muslim immigration to the West.

Elites will trip over each other promoting every just about every other solution without much fuss from the media: Installing a government backdoor into every consumer device, banning guns, expanding military operations overseas, increase the depth and breadth of the surveillance state and putting soldiers equipped with body armor and automatic rifles everywhere you can expect a large crowd.

We’re expected to accept anything as necessary, whether it be living under the constant threat of terrorism or living in an Orwellian police state, if it means the continual importation of a third-world underclass. In fact, all responsible authorities tell us that the real problem but the fact that Islamic terrorism fuels anti-immigration sentiment, rather than the fact that the population is forced to live in fear, or, for the unlucky ones, were robbed of their lives.

This might seem weird in a vacuum, but it should always be remembered that elites have their legitimacy buttressed by their apparent commitment to diversity and inclusion. But for anyone who is paying attention, asking this much from the electorate is a bridge too far. The belief that racism is the insurmountable evil that warrants the suppression of all other goods might be nearing its expiration date, and the foundations of the power will shift accordingly.

That isn’t to say that racism isn’t evil, but a smarter way of looking at it might be that it’s instrumentally evil rather than evil per se. Could anyone be so bold to take this position in polite society, to say that racism is only bad because it hurts people? The U.S. Department of State already has.

The agency proposed a rule in May surprising that would effectively ban Chinese nationals from being researchers at U.S. universities over fears of espionage. There are one million Chinese students in the U.S., and this law would put a ban on them just because of their national origin. This is racist, if we want to be fashionable and use a broad definition of the term. The strange part is that nobody freaked out about the proposal except for university administrators, who were worried that it would put their labs at a disadvantage. The State Department merely made a calculation and came to the conclusion that discrimination would help a lot more people than it would hurt.

In contrast to the handful of outlets covering the proposed Chinese student ban, the idea to clamp down on immigration from countries where Islamic terrorism is common caused a surfeit of spittle-flecked think pieces when Donald Trump added it to his platform. His prescription was essentially the same as the State Department’s, but the difference is that it’s an election year and Donald Trump isn’t the kind of elite we’re used to.

The calculus is clear, after all: Terrorism is common in Muslim countries, Western countries are importing more Muslims, and terrorist attacks are on the rise in the West. And Donald Trump, whether you like him or not, is separating himself from just about every politician in the Western world by expressing his willingness to point out that the emperor isn’t wearing any clothes.

Take a look at Poland, a country with two-thirds the population of Metropolitan France and nearly four times the population of Belgium. While the size of these two countries comparable, the amount of terrorist attacks are not – Wikipedia’s page on terrorist attacks in Poland is populated by assassinations and train bombings from the early 20th century. The equivalent page for France shows that country facing a very serious contemporary threat.

The obvious difference is that 7 percent of France is Muslim but close to 0 percent of Poland is. Countries with demographics similar to France are learning that living with the constant threat of Muslim brutality is their new reality. Their leaders have invested so much into solidifying political correctness as the ideology of power that it’s the hill they are willing to die on.

Another useful twin study is Nigeria, where Christians and Muslims each make up roughly half of the population and have similar socioeconomic statuses. However, there is no Christian equivalent to Boko Haram, the Nigeria-based Muslim terrorist group that has claimed 20,000 lives in just seven years.

Polls show that twenty-five percent of British Muslims think that terrorism is justified, and that even among those fleeing from Syria, 13 percent have favorable views of ISIS. Combined with a majority of Muslims supporting Sharia law, the illegality of homosexuality and death for apostasy, it’s hard to pretend that endemic terrorism has to do with anything other than large Muslim communities providing comfortable environments for radicals to swim in. In these communities, often terrorism is justified and ISIS is viewed favorably.

Many have argued that the United States suspending immigration from only Muslim countries is unconstitutional. Maybe, but operating under a largely unchanged constitution throughout most of the U.S. history, the country discriminated against any potential immigrants who weren’t from Western Europe.

For most countries in the West, though, addressing this type of violence is much simpler. Citizens just need to no longer accept the political energy that pushes for post-national utopianism but can only offer a lit-up Eiffel Tower and an expanded security state when barbarism strikes yet again.