In 2008, the mantra of the political
left was “if you do not vote for Barak Obama for President you are a racist.” I’d venture that many
Americans didn’t like the epithet of
“racist,” so
they voted for Barak Obama. Of course,
history has it that Mr. Obama was elected. America had proved, at
least in a superficial fashion, that it wasn’t racist. It had
elected a black President.
However, it seems
that Americans are still racist”. The man whom they’d elected is
calling them racist. “In spite of the fact that you’d voted for me,
if you don’t receive refugees from Syria you’re still racist” he declares.
Mr. Obama’s appeal to the guilt-ridden “racist” left, as farfetched as
this may sound, is, in my humble opinion, a prelude
to the greatest holocaust in human history and here’s why I say so.
First of all, allow me to examine
the rationale behind the receiving of Syrian refugees: At face value, it seems like the compassionate thing to
do. “People who are destitute… whose lives are in danger, are being
rescued.” That sounds good, altruistic and loving but it is the very
antithesis.
a. It seems
that the people who are willing to bring the refugees in are willing to risk
the associated danger which is fine, but
they neglect the reality that they’re willing to risk the danger of fellow
citizens in the process.
b. The pro-refugee folk's apparent justification for this risk seems to be that
those not willing to take such a risk acquire the label of “coward,”
“Islamophobe,” and “racist,” and therefore, are deserving of the consequences
of their “heartless,” fearful” and “hateful” attitudes. Thus,
in reality, it is they who are passing judgment on others.
c. They risk
the lives and safety of their sons and daughters and replace that for the
alleged well-being of others. Such a decision causes one to doubt
whether they love their sons and daughters at all. The veracity of this accusation will become more evident as I
continue.
Secondly, bringing Syrian refugees
onto American or European soil is irrational. It does not solve the
problem as to why there are Syrian refugees in the first
place. Syrian refugees, like any other refugee, are refugees fleeing
to the West because, in one way or
another, life is better in the West than it is in Syria. I
propose here, an outline of four ways for solving a refugee problem.
a. The first is
not to let anyone in, and build border
fences or walls to prevent people from
coming in who’ve not been thoroughly vetted particularly through the naturalization
process. Wall building lacks
desirability simply because it returns the refugees to the allegedly horrid
circumstances from which they’re fleeing.
b. The second
remedy for this problem is the most desirable and gets to the heart of the
reason for the refugee problem in the first place. I
confess, however, that there’s a major
problem with the remedy that I propose. It’s not going to
happen!
In essence, this remedy builds itself upon the rather obvious premise
that the refugee problem exists because there’s some evil which makes life
miserable for those refugees. We know that in the situation at hand,
Syria is dominated by a dictator by the name of Bashar Al Asad. He’s
trying to hold onto his power and has, therefore,
resorted to violence to repel anyone or
any entity that would seek his overthrow. The resulting civil war
has turned into a bloodbath which is
responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands already. As evil as
Mr. Asad is, it seems that his opposition is even more evil. ISIS is already known far and wide for its
cruelty. So it seems that not too many parties within the boundaries
of Syria are particularly nice people.
The most desirable
remedy to our problem, however, is that Mr. Asad and his enemies shake hands,
sing kumbaya, make peace, set up mutually agreeable boundaries and have the
refugees return to Syria which would then be called “Happy Land” (in Arabic of
course). I think you see why this will not happen.
c. The third
remedy would be to obliterate those belligerents who won’t make peace with one
another by the above remedy, and by so
doing, get rid of those who are making life unbearable for the
immigrants. Safe places can be established for the immigrants
within their homeland, buttressed by international “Peace Keepers” who blow the belligerents to
smithereens. Once that’s accomplished the refugees can live in peace
in the land of their birth (assuming that there aren’t clandestine belligerents
already in the midst of the refugees).
d. The fourth
remedy is to bring the refugees in and hold out the welcome
mat. That, it seems, is the plan
that many of the politicians of the west, such as Angela Merkel and Barak Obama
have taken. The refugees come in. They introduce the
actualization of multiculturalism to the American and Western way of life and
because of the resulting clash of incompatible cultures, a sort of homeostasis
takes place in which life in the United States and Europe becomes as
intolerable as life in Syria. Hence, refugees will no longer want to
come in. That will most certainly end the influx of further
immigration! In essence, terrorist instigated violence will
erupt, and law enforcement and domestic related military intervention become necessary to diminish the violence which
will nevertheless, become greater in
frequency because of the inadequacy of law enforcement to cover all
eventualities. The only possible outcomes will either be civil war
temporarily delayed by peacekeeping
militia” or a police state with loss of liberties accompanied by occasional or
perhaps even frequent acts of violence. It seems likely that the
former will morph into the latter. A police
state is destined to become the natural universal outcome everywhere on our
planet which all of us allegedly call home. In essence, it will grow
to be a less and less comfortable home in which to live with time except for
those who reside at the top of the political spectrum.
Thirdly – How do I know that the
fourth remedy will be as disastrous as I predict?
A vast plurality of Syrian
refugees is men of combat
age. Apparently, they’d left
the women and children behind to fight ISIS which, it seems, at least to me, is
not exactly the manly thing to do. Besides, women have served as terrorists as
well. Furthermore, there is absolutely no way to adequately vet
these refugees because there’s no way that customs officials are sufficiently
trained (let alone psychiatrists) to read people’s minds.
b. The
incidences in Europe, of refugee-instigated
terror attacks, including beheadings, mass murders rapes, especially of young,
virgin girls as well as their enslavement, and other atrocities have risen exponentially since the influx of
these refugees has begun.
c. Muslims do
not have a history of assimilating into western culture. To a very
high degree, Muslims have displayed a disdain for western law and particularly
secularization.
d. And how can
I assume that almost every refugee who
has shown up on Western shores is a Muslim? Boatloads of refugees that have arrived on the north side of the
Mediterranean had thrown Christians overboard before
their arrival onto Western shores. No such behavior has been
documented to have occurred at the hands of Christians.
e. Since the vast majority (if not all) of this influx of refugees is Muslim,
and in light of the reality that a large plurality of these refugees is men,
it’s easy to assume that many of them do not have a benevolent attitude towards
their well-meaning western hosts. Islam is a worldview bent on world domination and the
establishment of Sharia law all around the globe. It is naïve
to think that Muslims think in the same manner
as western folk. They don’t. Islam, when
implemented as Sharia, offers no rights for women. Islam
allows for polygamy, and the most radical/religious/orthodox among them provide
loopholes in their interpretation of Sharia law which allow for homosexuality
and bestiality. Women wear hijabs
and burkas, not because it is an indication of piety and modesty, but
because the men don’t have the self-control to reign in their lusts and
passions. Hence, the incidences of rape in Europe are skyrocketing
because the lifestyle of young Western
women and girls does not require the sort of attire demanded by Sharia
law. Furthermore, the one
doing the raping blames the victim for wearing her comparatively skimpy attire.
f. But this is
not the only way that Muslims think differently than people in the
West. The word “Islam” means “submission.” To the Muslim mind, Muslims are
expendable. The only thing that counts is the expansion of
Islam. Out of servitude, therefore, the truly devout Muslim will
offer up his life for the cause. Why else is there this enormous
prevalence of suicide bombings? Like ants that sacrifice themselves
to make bridges by which armies of ants can cross a stream, Muslims are
sacrificing themselves to cross the Mediterranean to get into
Europe. Already many have died, but that’s OK as far as Islam is
concerned. They’ve died as martyrs. Their deaths prick
the conscience of the compassionate but misguided West. This tact is
also useful in garnering anti-Israel sympathy. No life means
anything to Islam and so Palestinians, whether willingly, or otherwise, are
placed in harm’s way so that they’re either maimed or killed by an Israeli
ordinate and by so doing serve as nice photo-ops for appearing on CNN or some
tabloid, thus garnering sympathy for the cause.
g. Ultimately
Jihad requires either the subjugation of non-Muslims or preferably their
deaths. What ISIS does to the Christians and Yazidis in Iraq and Syria it will surely do to the people of the
West. Armies won’t stop them because they will be among the people
of Europe and America. They will each have a face.
h. Islam in its
fundamental, unbridled form, appeals to the most base of human instincts that
being sex, self-indulgence, power, and
sadism. The accompanying behaviors associated with these instincts
are hidden in the West only because such behaviors would give Islam a bad
name. In Islamic countries, however, these behaviors run rampant.
A book authored by William Golding
in 1954, entitled “Lord of the Flies” depicts the gradual moral and behavioral
decay of a group of boys stranded on a desert island who are unbridled by
Law. They begin to indulge in cultic practices until finally, they kill the most likable among them. This book
is nothing more than a depiction of what is common in the gang community where
gang members join as a result of deprivation, particularly
of paternal love and instruction. Gangs have their own set of
laws. Islam like a giant gang filled
with initiation rites. Initiation into the gang requires some
evidence of loyalty. As gang members get initiated by killing some
other gang member or robbing some old lady on the street, so, radical
Muslims will be required to kill some Muslim of a different (wrong believing) sect or some unbeliever as proof of his or her
loyalty. Why else, do you see evidence in the news of ISIS killing
other Muslims for not being “real” Muslims? Just like in the case of gangs, leaving the gang can mean death, so,
in Islam, leaving Islam can be punishable by death.
To him whom we would call the
“radical Muslim,” Islam makes perfect
sense. It appeals to the most basic of human
instincts! It assumes that man
originally was that way. Armies
cannot stop this way of thinking and, in light of the “end game” resulting from
the homeostasis approach to the immigration problem mentioned above, the “bad
guys” in Syria will win. They allegedly get rid of the people that
they don’t want and foist those individuals upon the people of the unsuspecting
West. Evil wins because lawlessness infiltrates the West. Anarchy and an unconfined “gang-like”/self-indulgent
and sadistic mentality enter its midst under the guise of “religion.”
So what is the true solution to the
immigration problem? The only genuine solution to the immigration
problem is the 2nd remedy mentioned above. But that
remedy runs counter to human nature. Rather than giving in to the
self-preservation and sadistic instincts found in Asad, ISIS and others, these
individuals ideally should replace such
instincts with selflessness, compassion, humility and benevolence…traits that
run counter to human nature and yet embody nobility and strength of
character. These are traits can only be found in their fullness and perfection in the person of
Jesus of Nazareth, the Jewish Messiah.
Our politicians have done a great
disservice to those they allegedly serve. They attribute credibility
to a worldview that is thoroughly
sadistic and destructive. Its only rationales for credibility are
that it has the moniker of “religion,” it
expands its domain, not through reason
but violence, and a façade of religiosity covers the reality that it is
unloving and lawless.
And what feeds into this “creeping
Jihad” that would vote a politician into office who would open the floodgates for the entrance of this cancer into
the midst of the West? Simply put, it’s moral relativism.
The people of the West have
determined that it is better for a woman to be lascivious, and kill a baby
because nurturing that baby is too big of a responsibility and denies her of
her freedom.
The people of the West have
determined that it is better for a man to “be free” rather than assume the
responsibility of protecting and nurturing the woman he’s “screwed,” and the child he’d created.
The people of the West have
determined that ”freedom” is synonymous with the term, “license.” Abandoning a spouse contrary to
the vows of fidelity which one has taken is OK because it means “freedom.” Indulging in sexual
behaviors contrary the laws of nature (as opposed to the laws of human nature)
is not only acceptable but rewarded as “brave.”
The people of the
West have determined that cheating is OK because they’ve determined that
success, wealth and reputation are more important than honesty, transparency,
humility and a clear conscience before a God whom they would prefer did not
exist because their lifestyle could not endure His scrutiny.
The moral relativism of the Western
mind can no longer discern between good and evil. It can only see
the “color of one’s skin.” It
does not see (As Martin Luther King Jr. eloquently put it) the “content of
one’s character.”
The people of the
west have replaced the morally pure, righteous and, dare I say holy, Jesus,
with morally relativistic self-indulgent and arrogant politicians. These
politicians who along with their cohorts in the media have been in the process
of opening the floodgates of the West to people who own a worldview which
sounds good at face value but which is nevertheless fundamentally cruel and
sadistic.
The liberal of the West attempts to
assuage his guilt of self-indulgence and lawlessness by offering asylum to
those whom he assumes to be in need. But he lets the bad guys win
and ultimately offers asylum to those who will execute his demise.
