the Islamic State’s “best recruiter” by supposedly antagonizing Muslims [Hillary Clinton: Donald Trump ‘Becoming ISIS’s Best Recruiter,’ by Amanda Terkel, Huffington Post, December 19, 2015]. Now Al Shabaab, an Al-Qaeda offshoot active in Somalia, put out a propaganda video containing a clip of Trump unveiling his plan to halt Muslim immigration in between clips of a terrorist leader saying Muslims would eventually be forced to fight against all Western nations [Donald Trump appears in Al Shabaab’s new terrorism recruiting video, by Kellan Howell, Washington Times, January 2, 2016]. The Left is claiming vindication, with the lesser Charles Johnson (not the editor of GotNews)
snarking: “Terrorist group Al-Shabaab is now using Donald Trump’s
anti-Muslim bigotry as a recruiting tool, exactly as Hillary Clinton
stated” [Al-Shabab Terror Group Uses Donald Trump Soundbite in Recruitment Video, Little Green Footballs, January
2, 2016]. Typically, Trump has brushed aside this claim and struck back
hard (“the video that ISIS made was about her husband being a
degenerate”) [Trump dismisses terror video, hits Clinton again,
by Eric Bradner, CNN, January 3, 2016]. But the real question: why are
Americans supposed to care what a bunch of foreigners think?
Clinton’s actual charge was that Trump was featured in propaganda for
the Islamic State, which is currently in an intra-jihadist shooting war
with Al-Qaeda [Think Islamic State has dealt a knock-out blow to al-Qaeda? Think again, by Hugh Naylor, Washington Post, December
26, 2015]. There’s still no proof of that, so Trump’s charge that
Clinton made the whole thing up is still valid. As we all know, You Can’t Stump the Trump.
But never mind. There is a deeper issue here: the Left’s contention
that the only way to defeat Islamic radicalism is through moderate
Mohammedans convincing their co-religionists to leave us alone. Donald
Trump, we are told, is no less than a threat to national security
because he threatens this plan. [USA Today: Trump a ‘threat to national security,’ by Eddie Scarry, Washington Times, December 8, 2015]
But there are problems with this argument. The most obvious: it’s
ridiculous to say Islamic radicals didn’t have a problem with us until
Trump came along. America has been facing Islamic terrorism since well before September 11, all the way back to the Barbary Pirates. [ U.S. at war with Islam since Thomas Jefferson’s time, by Bill Federer, WND, February 15, 2015]
A bigger problem: this theory holds that only foreigners are allowed
to pronounce on the United States. Americans are not even regarded as a
consideration in this mindset. And, as absurd as it sounds, this is
precisely the strategy both the Republicans and the Democrats have been following when it comes to waging the farcical “war on terror.”
An entire generation of Americans coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan can tell us how dangerous it is to rely on the loyalty of people who have no stake in our society. In a story that may remind many veterans of Vietnam,
Americans have poured billions of dollars and spilled precious blood to
build up military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan incapable of fighting
on their own and whom American soldiers and Marines can’t trust.
The death of six American troops just before Christmas was enabled by Afghan security forces who failed to detect explosives [Report: Afghan Security Cleared Taliban Suicide Bomber Who Killed Six U.S. Troops, by Edwin Mora, Breitbart, December
24, 2015]. After 14 years of our trying to win “hearts and minds,” the
Taliban is still able to launch attacks throughout Afghanistan [Taliban outlast 14 years of U.S. combat in Afghanistan, by Rowan Scarborough, Washington Times, December
23, 2015]. We can expect Kabul to fall within hours when America
withdraws—Green Berets recently reported that the Afghan army isn’t
willing to fight [Green Berets reveal Afghan National Army incompetence, by Rowan Scarborough, Washington Times, October 26, 2014].
And that may be the best case scenario—some “allied” Afghan soldiers are quite willing to fight, but only against Americans [Two U.S. troops killed in apparent ‘insider’ attack by Afghan solider, by Sayed Salahuddin, Washington Post, August 26, 2015].
Meanwhile, in Iraq, the soldiers that America spent years training
threw down their arms when the Islamic State emerged. Trump is quite
right that the Islamic State was essentially created by Barack Obama and
Hillary Clinton and “there is no country” in the sense of an Iraq with
functioning institutions [Trump: ‘Hillary Clinton created ISIS with Obama,’ by Colin Campbell, Business Insider, January 2, 2016].
Yet even that isn’t the fundamental issue. Where there are Muslims,
there is the problem of “radicalization.” After all, it’s the unlikely
location of Minnesota which has emerged as a hotbed of recruitment for Al-Shabaab.
Minnesota’s response: spend money to convince them to be basketball coaches instead.
But don’t laugh at Minnesota. Nobody else seems to have a better idea. France’s assimilationist approach has failed. More “Britons,” i.e. Muslims, fight for the Islamic State than Her Majesty. Even Sweden, which has practically become a parody of a country ruled by Leftism, has had no luck transforming its Islamic underclass into patriotic citizens. Even native Swedes are now converting to Islam and rushing off to join ISIS.
It appears introducing huge populations of angry Muslims is a textbook definition of what Enoch Powell would have called a “preventable evil.”
But rather than avoiding this crisis, most Western leaders seem
determined to import the problem and then punish their own populations
for not celebrating it [Angela Merkel: White Renegade of the Year 2015, by Gregory Hood, American Renaissance, December
31, 2015]. To a modern post-Western leader, it is the responsibility of
every civilized nation to import masses of people who will kill you if
you offend them.
(Ironically, those countries who accept the short-term condemnation
of not accepting Muslim populations are the same ones who avoid
long-term accusations of “Islamophobia” and “not doing enough” to
appease Muslims. Japan won’t have to deal with homegrown Islamic terrorism anytime
soon. And we can expect Hungary will experience fewer terrorist attacks
in the future than nations such as Germany, France, or even Sweden,
which have been “friendlier” to Islam).
We see the same kind of self-abasing arguments in the immigration debate: thus Shikha Dalmia of Reason has argued we must oppose immigration restrictions, otherwise most Latinos will eventually vote for “government reparations and programs”—as if they aren’t voting for them now. The historic American nation is to be given no voice over what happens to its own country.
Of course, no one, not even liberals or libertarians, really believes
that free speech in America risks such repercussions, abroad or at
home. You never hear the Main Stream Media worrying about how calling
Vladimir Putin a thug and a murderer will antagonize Russia. No-one is concerned that banning the Confederate flag will anger white Southerners. No one says “Chicano/a” activists, or black protesters risk
offending white patriots when they blatantly desecrate the American
flag while screaming for more programs and preferences from the American
government. And no one in the MSM is saying that the government should
respond to the current standoff in Oregon with concessions for white ranchers.
And that’s the point. To the MSM Narrative Enforcers,
Islamic jihadists aren’t a real enemy. Nor can any non-white group ever
be a threat to the United States. These groups are devoid of agency.
They are only driven to unacceptable actions because of the “root cause”
of white racism.
For the MSM, now and always, the real enemy are European-Americans.
The top priority of the MSM is making sure white Americans remain devoid
of any coherent identity or awareness of their own collective
And this is the real reason MSM journalists hate Trump: His campaign, in some small way, suggests the historic American nation is moving to take control over its own destiny.