See other Immigration Articles
Title: What’s Worse: Banning Them or Bombing Them?
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://takimag.com/article/whats_wo ... m_jim_goad/print#axzz3um2pZKtF
Published: Dec 19, 2015
Author: Jim Goad
Post Date: 2015-12-19 08:56:37 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 147
Comments: 3
Lawdy, lawdy was there an eruption of sanctimonious gasping and self-righteous snorting and pearl-clutching and face-fanning and catching the vapors last week when Donald Trump proposed a temporary ban of all Muslim immigration to the United States. The highly visible public displays of chest-thumping moral outrage were far more intense and pervasive than anything I witnessed the week before, when a husband-and-wife team of radical Islamists in California went on a shooting rampage that ended up with 14 American bodies being planted in the ground. Any era in which mere words are considered worse than murder is a dangerous era indeed. The problem seems to be that far too many people are sensing danger in all the wrong places. The obvious reason why public displays of moral outrage are more about social signaling than they are about morality is the simple fact that most people are far more social than they are ethical. “Banishing all members of a religion from the country? Why, that’s what HITLER did!” they screeched loudly enough so that everyone within earshot would realize that they are good people. “Can anyone explain why a temporary immigration ban is far more objectionable than continuing to bomb the shit out of the Middle East?” Yeah, but Hitler bombed foreign countries, too, and I don’t see you freaking out over the fact that the USA has been bombing the Middle East into prehistoric oblivion for nearly 15 years. I don’t recall even the most strident opponents of US foreign intervention expressing such shock and vitriol about these stupid, bungling, and insanely expensive wars that the US has been waging since shortly after 9/11. The reaction to Trump’s immodest proposal about immigration was a quantum leap beyond anything I’d seen from even the most rabid peaceniks. Speaking of Hitler—because many people can’t seem to help themselves from speaking of him—our children’s schoolbooks teach that he killed six million Jews, right? According to some estimates, US intervention in the Middle East since 1990 has killed around four million Muslims. I mean, that’s two-thirds of a Holocaust. Shouldn’t that count for something? Can anyone explain why a temporary immigration ban is far more objectionable than continuing to bomb the shit out of the Middle East? I posed that question on Twitter, and my favorite response was that you can’t accuse bombs of being Islamophobic. Someone else suggested that indiscriminate bombing doesn’t discriminate. And because the military-industrial complex hates intolerance. Others stated that moral outrage over US foreign policy is muted or silenced because it disrupts the high holy project of “greater Israel” over there and the possibly even holier project of bringing “blood and unrest” here to “assist growth of the SJW [social justice warrior] police state.” Would there even be a so-called “refugee crisis” if the US hadn’t been routinely bombing the Middle East and raining hellfire over there for so many years? Why did John McCain’s sick “Bomb Iran” Beach Boys parody not generate nearly the degree of shock and disgust that Trump’s temporary immigration ban idea did? Hillary Clinton, the emergent Queen Bee of the SJW Police State, wiped Huma Abedin’s Islamic-scented vaginal juices from her lips long enough to declare that Trump’s comments had “crossed that line” and “gone too far.” Trump retorted that Hillary had “killed hundreds of thousands of people with her stupidity” while Secretary of State. Trump’s proposal has historical precedent—among Democratic presidents, at least. In the late 70s when Middle Eastern countries started turning their backs on Westernization and going full-throttle jihad—pretend it has nothing to do with American support of Israel—Jimmy Carter canceled the visas of Iranian citizens and would-be Iranian immigrants. And then there was FDR’s internment of Japanese citizens during World War II, which are roundly condemned even by Democrats, although they don’t like to talk about that too much because FDR is a hero for expanding the federal bureaucracy well past the point of no return. The Immigration Act of 1924 explicitly banned all Arabs from entry to the USA. The ban wasn’t lifted until the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965—the single law that has proved to be the demographic death knell for Americans of European ancestry. The late vehicular woman-slaughterer Ted Kennedy infamously made the following promises about the 1965 Act: First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same ... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset…Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the law] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and economically deprived nations of Africa and Asia. In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think. Thirdly, the bill will not permit the entry of subversive persons, criminals, illiterates, or those with contagious disease or serious mental illness. As I noted a moment ago, no immigrant visa will be issued to a person who is likely to become a public charge. First, our cities are being flooded with almost exactly a million immigrants annually—but those are the legal ones. Even lowballing the estimates, there are at least 300,000-400,000 entering illegally every year. Second, the ethnic mix of this country has been tremendously upset—when that law was passed, 85% of Americans were white. In about 25 years, whites won’t even be a majority anymore. Thirdly, the bill—combined with nearly nonexistent immigration enforcement—has permitted the entry of subversive persons, illiterates, and those with contagious diseases and serious mental illness. And a majority of immigrants have become “public charges”—i.e., “on welfare.” And as we learned in San Bernardino, it has also granted entry to those who seek to destroy a country naïve enough to grant them entry. Many Americans—far too many of them—are still so hopelessly dumb that they don’t realize that their government lies to them from dawn ‘til dusk and twice on Sundays. And many others have far too much emotion invested into their ideology of choice to admit that the nice black guy Barack Obama and that nice white woman Hillary Clinton have been complicit in America’s ongoing destruction of Muslim countries that lie far, far away from the American heartland. Personally, I think banning them temporarily is more ethical than bombing them eternally. Then again, Hitler may have felt the same way. It’s hard to tell how many other Americans feel that way. I’d reckon it’s far more than the media would like to admit. At least as the cultural narrative is dictated to us for now, the bongo beat must plod onward with the same tiresome chant of Give me your tired, your poor, your cheap labor, your unassimilable, your ineducable, your culturally hostile, your subversives, your do-nothings, your rapists, your drug dealers, your nonwhites…. Please share this article by using the link below. When you cut and paste an article, Taki's Magazine misses out on traffic, and our writers don't get paid for their work. Email editors@takimag.com to buy additional rights. takimag.com/article/whats..._goad/print#ixzz3um6GFo9S
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Ada (#0)
Ban 'em and bomb them?
How about that we do neither. Then maybe they would not dislike us. Face the facts: the US of A had bomb the crap out of a lot of countries for no good reason and people wonder why they dislike us
Bombing them is worse because if the US hadn't done that to begin with we wouldn't be debating about banning them. You destroy their home and they'll come here. And if Americans are too dense to make the connection, then we deserve to be overrun. Why do Americans think that only they deserve to live in a peaceful stable society? The world is too small to destroy other peoples homelands and not suffer the consequences. And the dimwits who advocate nuking this or that country will see an influx of refugees that will make the current crop look like day tourists. John Howard says: There are 4 schools of economics: How to End the Refugee Flood
#2. To: Ada (#0)
#3. To: Ada (#0)
Marxism: steal everything
Keynesianism: steal by counterfeiting whenever needed
Chicago school (Milton Friedman): steal by counterfeiting at a steady, predictable rate
Austrians: don't steal
'Wiped off the Map' – The Rumor of the Century
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest