J.R. Nyquist is a commentator on national security issues and the author of Origins of the Fourth World War. The following guest essay discusses the current furor on the Left generated by Donald Trump, and its relationship with the larger culture wars.
Donald Trump Versus the Counterfeit Morality of Political Correctness
by J.R. Nyquist
Presidential candidate Donald Trump suggested that Muslim immigration into the United States should be temporarily suspended. In saying this, Trump did not break one of the Ten Commandments. He did not deprive anyone of their rights. He did not vilify anyone. He did not advocate genocide or racism. But here in America, in the West, we know perfectly well that he transgressed. In saying the same thing, we might expect to lose our jobs, our relationships, our standing in the community; for we have been indoctrinated to believe that everyone is equal, and all religions are equal. We have been told that the unfairness of the world cannot be allowed. This is our new morality — a counterfeit morality which has become more precious to us than our continued national existence.
Trump is said to exemplify racism and sexism. When he says, in genuine consternation, that he is merely talking common sense, his elite listeners shake their heads. When Trump says that his own Muslim friends agree that he is right about temporarily suspending Muslim immigration, the elite refuse to believe him. He must be demented or insane. He is not to be taken seriously. It is some kind of “stunt.” Trump tries to explain that he is motivated by considerations of public safety and prudence. The elite sneer because they believe he is merely trying to win over bigots and yahoos. From this we may infer that our present media elite regards our Founding Fathers as malicious oppressors whose sexism and racism was every bit as heinous as the most rabid Nazi. Of course the Founders were patriarchs. They believed that women and children had to be protected. They believed that raising children and taking care of a family required fully engaged mothers. Any other course would have been a disaster (and now is a disaster) They also knew that alien religions and foreign tribes were not easy to assimilate — as the long and violent race war between red Indians and white settlers amply demonstrated.
To our politically correct politicians and pundits, our Founding Fathers were class oppressors whose policies included genocide and slavery. And it is, indeed, a funny thing to have benefited from these same forebears, decrying their prudence as racism and their foresight as sexism. It is no wonder our mainstream media do not appreciate Donald Trump.
It does not occur to our modern geniuses that restrictions on immigration might be prudent under the circumstances — and might save the country from future heartbreak. It also doesn’t occur to these same people that skepticism toward abortion and feminism might have nothing to do with animosity toward women, but might stem from concerns about the survival of a nation and its culture. Such concerns are not sexist, just as concerns about Muslim immigration are not racist. Every nation and every people should consider their posterity. And so this illustrates, in a particularly vivid manner, the war that is really going on in our time. It is a war against our ancestors and against our posterity which is waged by our present leaders.
Everyone, of course, has heard of the Constitution of the United States. It is the supreme law of the land. The first ten amendments to the Constitution are known as the “Bill of Rights.” Americans today hear a great deal about “rights” and very little about the practical measures needed to ensure those rights. Many Americans have forgotten that you cannot have a constitution unless you have a country; and you cannot have a country unless you defend it against enemies, foreign and domestic. At bottom, every constitution must be construed so that national security is not compromised by a growing tangle of individual and minority rights that choke off those measures necessary for self-protection. So here we are, wrestling with the question: Do Muslims have a right of immigration into the United States? Does the Constitution’s right of religious freedom extend to foreigners who want to come here and whose religion has proven to be hostile?
Whatever we think of the Constitution, it cannot protect Muslims from the enmity which Islam generates wherever its standard has been raised. In fact, the Constitution was not written to protect the nation of Islam, or various colonies of that nation planted in our midst. The Constitution nowhere says that Muslims have the right to come to the United States, build mosques, or establish their own culture as part of a multicultural patchwork celebrated as a new kind of nation (self-negated). This is not why the Constitution was established. As stated in the Preamble, our Constitution was established “in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity….” It is worth repeating that last phrase — “to ourselves and our Posterity….” There is no reference to Muslims, explicit or implicit. They do not belong to our nation. They are not “ourselves and our Posterity.” Furthermore, we should pay careful attention to the objectives of the Constitution. How does the presence of millions of Muslims in the United States make a “more perfect Union” or “insure domestic Tranquility”? Clearly, the presence of an alien colony in our midst serves to promote disunion and unrest. How would the Arabs react if we insisted on a right of immigration to Arabia? How would they react if we began erecting Churches in Mecca?
The politically correct will say that Muslims are not our enemy. Islam, after all, is a “religion of peace.” Insofar as Muslims are like Unitarians, they are no enemy. Insofar as they take the more violent teachings of the Koran seriously, their enmity is established by precept. Such cannot be Americans. They must hate America as something that stands against Allah. In writing this, I only repeat what Muslim scholars have affirmed again and again. It is important to say once more: If a Muslim is only a nominal follower of the Prophet, there is no harm in him. He might leave his faith, and become an American. On the other hand, if a Muslim is a Muslim in earnest, consistently and conscientiously following the teachings of the Prophet, then he cannot be a citizen of the United States in good faith. His allegiance is to Allah and to the Nation of Islam. He cannot serve two masters; for Mohammed did not instruct his followers to “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars….” The Muslim faith does not agree with this saying.
For this and other reasons, Muslim culture cannot easily coexist with American culture. The God worshipped by Muslims is different from the God worshipped by American Christians and Jews. This is what the multiculturalists have not understood, and if their project continues it will vouchsafe a religious war to our posterity. We might as well write a new Preamble for the Constitution — “in order to form a more perfect Disunion, establish Political Correctness, insure domestic Disorder, sabotage the common defense, promote general mayhem, and secure the Blessings of Military Dictatorship to ourselves and our Posterity.” Then, at least, the words would properly describe our current leaders’ objectives — which Mr. Trump has dared to contradict.
Americans ought to read the history of Islam. Here they will find a religion spread by the sword; a militant zealotry that swept away the Roman Empire, conquered Africa, Spain and the Balkans. Here is a war that raged for centuries in which millions of Christians were slaughtered and enslaved. When exactly did Islam declare that their war against Christendom was over? When did the Muslims return those lands taken from the Christians? Yet the doctrine of political correctness would have the West apologize to Muslims for the Crusades!
Given the history of Islam, and the history of the United States, only a fool would imagine that Islam and America could be safely blended together. But today we have this formula, invented and carried forward by the political Left, called “multiculturalism.” In fact, multiculturalism is merely a denial of American culture, and a rejection of the notion that immigrants must assimilate and become Americans. Yet the price may be very high, and assimilation may be a fantasy when a Muslim couple in California puts on body armor and attacks an office Christmas party with assault rifles. This is not assimilation, but war. Consider, as well, when Muslim students hijacked four airliners and crashed two of them into the country’s largest skyscrapers, collapsing the World Trade Center. Members of that same team of hijackers plowed another airliner into the Pentagon. Think of the price our country has already paid for its hospitality to Muslims!
A nation is a group of people united during the course of generations by cultural and social ties, by language and history, by common values and folkways. It cannot be an amalgamation of every people and every culture, with tenuous connections and contrary folkways. Such is not a nation but a Tower of Babel. Yet we have been told to become this Tower of Babel, and thereby lose our unique national identity while engendering a civil war. This doctrine would eradicate America entirely, leaving nothing but a cratered landscape. To allow millions more Muslims into the United States, and say they are Americans by decree, is a kind of insanity — unless, as I said before, they are nominal Muslims.
If a Muslim wants to become an American, it is certain that he must give up his religion in its fundamentalist sense, or else we should give up our country; for he cannot believe in Islam while faithfully swearing allegiance to the Constitution. The Prophet Mohammed would not have approved of the United States Constitution. He would have called for its negation, and for the creation of a Caliphate, and many of his followers today understand this. On the American side, it is clear that the Founding Fathers did not establish this country as a place for Mohammed’s followers to colonize and subvert. This was not the Founders’ intention, nor would they look favorably on descendants who interpreted the Constitution as an instrument for the protection of an Islamic colony inside the United States. They would account any such interpretation as incredibly stupid, belonging to some new species of American idiot. And furthermore, Islam is not a race. It is a religion, and the American people cannot benefit by bringing this religion under the protection of the Constitution.
As may be readily apparent to the wise, it is backwards to imagine that a constitution comes first and a nation comes second, as if the nation was created for the constitution instead of the constitution for the nation. Concepts of individual or group rights cannot trump national existence. There is no legitimate right which effectively disintegrates the nation that observes it. Not only does the individual have a right to self-defense, but the nation also has a right of self-defense. For if there were no nation, there could be no basis for organizing the effective defense of the individual. Furthermore, we should not pretend that national suicide is somehow an enlightened ideal. It is nothing of the kind. And those who despise the nation state are not progressive, but follow a path leading back to the Dark Ages.
If anyone should reproach the nation state with being the principle cause of war, they should reflect that wars have existed from the beginning of human history, and have occurred between city states, clans, tribes and empires. It is a mistake to blame war on the nation state. War is part of the human condition. Men will fight each other whether or not they are organized under nation states or under feudal barons. It is an affliction of all states at all times, not peculiar to the nation state.
In this matter ask yourself why America is denied the right to defend its sovereignty and its culture. The answer is that the Left dreams of a world without America on the assumption that America is the fountainhead of capitalism, sexism, racism and war. In truth, there will never be a world without war, just as there will never be a world without capitalism, sexism and racism. These are, in reality, the very ground of human existence: the market, the division of labor between the sexes, and man’s inveterate tribalism. To decry what is human, as if some post-human regime were possible, is crazy. It is the demagogy of those who want total power over mankind. To such as these, the United States represents a barrier that must be knocked down; for it stands in the way of all those revolutionary lunatics dreaming of mankind’s secular salvation. Of all countries, it is America that stands in the way of the great socialist commonwealth, that butcher’s block and slaughterhouse at the end of history. Here we see what kind of weapon multiculturalism is, and what it aims to achieve. In this context, Islam merely serves as the “icebreaker of the revolution.”
Does a weapon, deployed against us by the revolutionary Left, have rights? No. Does an enemy have rights? The American reader should ask himself, at the end of the day, what would happen if Islam or socialism had its way in America. What if Islam took over? What if a truly progressive regime came to power? In that case, wouldn’t it be fair to describe America as a country occupied by an internal enemy? How is it, then, that we tolerate the open subversion of our country? How is it, then, that we are unable to name our enemies (excepting the ones hiding in distant caves)? Don’t we have the right to recognize those who are against us? Or are we already conquered?
The reader may see, quite clearly, that all issues — from feminism and abortion to immigration and terrorism — are interconnected. What our ancestors accepted as wise and prudent we dismiss as sexism and racism. Therefore, we have embraced feminism to the detriment of our birth rate; and we have embraced multiculturalism to the detriment of our national security. Both feminism and multiculturalism belong under one and the same heading: National Suicide. And those mock leaders who raise the banner of these mock faiths are the destroyers of their country. Their execrable policies deserve the universal condemnation of the country.
The real leader here is Mr. Trump, who is concerned for the safety of his country while the others feign concern for the plight of foreigners. How can people who do not even care for their own posterity feel genuine concern for a religion which is, in fact, as hostile to them as they are to themselves?
But then, the answer can be found in the question.