Our German translator JLH sent this one more than a week ago, but I have been dilatory in posting it. In the interim there has been a second Trump-Hillary debate, and I assume you all know how that one went.
Here’s what JLH said about his essay:
This is the result of a vigorous exchange that began when someone I thought I knew — who has lived for a long time in a deep blue state — asked me what I thought of the first Clinton-Trump debate. What follows is just my side of the exchange, but it represents a lot of what I think and have not communicated so fully and all at once at the get-togethers in my hometown, where homage is regularly paid to multiculture and groupthink. Think of it as the shortest epistolary novel in the English language.
A One-Sided Conversation
I thought Trump was typical — he thought he knew better than his advisers and was right, for about 30 minutes, then he ran out of extemporaneous power to counter reasoned arguments.
His big mistake, of course, was the aftermath, when he couldn’t let go of the bait she threw at the end and the media ran with it, making his situation with educated women worse than ever. How ludicrous that is, in view of what happens on the other side, I will not comment on.
Some people believe that the only real chance against the Clintons would have been another candidate. I believe that Trump — faults and all — was and is the only possibility against an essentially criminal enterprise and brilliant PR machine. Because he is the only one who is willing to blow up the mind-numbing PC regime that has grown to a point where it is impossible to express an opinion without being in danger of losing your job or even being accused of a crime.
Either we change direction now (see the speech by Viktor Orbán on the eve of Hungary’s referendum) or we stay the course we are on — led by a criminal enterprise in place of a convinced enemy of the constitution and patriotism of any kind — and watch the dreams of our grandchildren adjust themselves to a third-world level of government.
We will clearly never agree on whom to choose between a loose cannon and a failed and corrupt secretary of state, and their respective foundations.
As to the “citizens” who become radicalized, check out how many unsolicited groups of refugees are steadily being settled in places from Kansas to Maine. Latest count is something like tens of thousands of Muslims and about 70 Christians this year. (The Christians are the folks who are the targets of something close to genocide and begging for help and not getting it). There are also a few newspaper stories about what happens to girls of five or older who happen to encounter a few of the male imports at school, and what legal steps are — or aren’t — taken. No, they are not disturbed — they are acting as they believe they have a right to. And when they shoot up a school or night club, it is not because they are disturbed, but because they have every right to do that. We already have our own brand of crazies. We don’t need to import people who can be convinced that it is their sacred duty to kill us.
As to domestic racism, if you have been tracking the comments or silences of our president and his successive AGs about every incident with racial overtones since the “beer summit” and the Black Power sentries at the polls in Philadelphia, you may have noted a consistent theme. If not, I will not belabor the point.
We certainly do need fewer groups like KKK, but we also need fewer rent-a-mob activists like those that cluster around Black Lives Matter. And we really don’t need to re-empower the people who gave their friends permission to sell off our military technology to the Chinese in the nineties, or more recently worked out a deal for the Russians to corner a massive amount of uranium. They do have principles — see The Godfather.
Mouthing off about Putin’s leadership qualities is hardly worse than Hillary causing the end of Khaddafi and then blaming everything on some poor sod who made a video (and went to jail in our land of freedom of speech), or lying in the faces of the survivor families, then throwing a tantrum in Congress and saying “Some Americans died. What difference, at this point, does it make?” Or creating a “restart button” and allowing relations with Russia to swirl down the drain.
I think you missed the point about whom we do not take. We currently favor Muslims over Yazidis, Christians and even Muslim Kurds, who are clamoring to get in. (We also allow the Kurds — our only visible allies in the current wars — to be cut to pieces, while we lavish arms on the Iraqi army, so it can run away and leave them to ISIS.) We had been accepting Iraqis and other Muslims for quite a while — they lived among us quietly and helped build a lot of cars in Detroit. What you apparently fail to see in talking about “deporting everyone” is the difference between always having the possibility of nutcases and dealing with a strongly organized, internet-supported campaign to convince Muslims living here and in Europe that it is their duty to turn Dar al Harb (land of war = us) into Dar al Islam (Land of Peace/Total Subjection) where everything is subjected to Allah. There is a prescribed method for conquering, either by strength, or by immigrating and weakening, to prepare for the time when the whole world will be subjected. (Note the omnipresence of CAIR in the background of cases like the attempt in Tennessee to institute sharia law. And before you ask what difference that would make, take a long look at its provisions, and the effects it has had in London.) Contributing to the camouflage of this campaign are the official sources that rush to say: 1)We don’t know why he/they did it: 2) It was inspired by ISIS, but they are just “lone wolves.” How many lone wolves does it take to make a pack?
No, if someone gave me the power to deport, I would not start with our most recent citizens, or even our most notorious ethnic gangs, but with the gormless bureaucrats who wring their hands and wonder what we did to be so hated. E.g, the Army Chief of Staff after Major Hasan gunned down 12 of his army comrades and wounded 31 others, who said his real concern was the possible backlash on Muslims. So how often has that happened? Did Muslims get massacred after Boston? Or San Bernardino? Orlando?
The “few newspaper stories” may seem paltry to you, but there are not just a few, and they are not carried by the Globe or NYT or CBS, etc. Ask yourself why you are so well-acquainted with every ridiculous misogynistic thing Trump has ever said, or may have said, and have heard next to nothing about what the angry survivor families say. Or why it is possible to run a story on Trump’s insensitivity to the subject of PTSD for days, without hearing from the staff sergeant who asked him the question that the entire statement has been distorted. Probably you smile when someone mentions media bias.
As to “rent-a-mob” — I have been watching the so-called anti-fascist mobs in Europe and recognize the difference between spontaneous demonstrations and organized violence. Inevitably, the violent members of the crowd are the ones paid to be there. In a less toxic atmosphere, perhaps we could have the cops wade in, make mass arrests and put the real offenders away in a cell at least for the night. But what happens if the mayor says they should stand back and pretend it isn’t happening? This has happened at a couple of Trump rallies, and some people were thoroughly beaten up.
When it comes to “taking the bait,” what bait drew the Tsarnaevs to their old homeland and then back to Boston to perpetrate their massacre? Same with the couple from San Bernardino. How does it happen, after decades of Muslims living among us in peace as citizens, that they are suddenly inspired to “self-radicalize”? We may not think we are at war. They do. And we have to recognize the fact or let the numbskulls presently in charge keep on with Bush’s inane “Islam is a religion of peace.” How can any thinking person look at the Middle East, Asia, Europe, here — anywhere in the world where Muslims have decided to settle — and not recognize the effects of a malign, organizing intelligence that is transforming the world as we thought we knew it. You say it will be easier to recruit the next Tsarnaev — how did they recruit this one? Did we follow the older brother home and insult his family? No, they do not “want to incite a holy war” — they are conducting one, and if we keep on as we are, we are like the fellow described recently by one of the few outspoken Jewish journalists in Germany today:
A man who has jumped from a tall building and is falling rapidly toward the street says to himself: “Well, so far it’s going well.”
Obviously you are paying no attention to whom — and how — we are admitting. We are in the process of accelerating importation. Deportation only works if you have sensible criteria. We don’t, and there is no interest in having any. Importation without true vetting makes deportation, domestic police actions and anything else a side issue. There are a lot of people in Western Europe who only months ago took their cue from the government and still objected to “irrational fear” and are now feeling it. Cf. the Malmö police in one of the favored immigration areas of Sweden — where the king visited just a year or so ago to celebrate the integrated schools — who are now publicly calling for help from anyone, because they can’t keep the lid on anymore. A few years ago, the problems were “only” native blondes being favorite rapist prey and the occasional indigenous male being beaten to a pulp. And that is not a country I would want to live in.
Yes, and the same thing has happened in reverse, including the mob actions I mentioned. No Trump mobs yet that I know of. I believe that there is a process for vetting refugees — it just doesn’t work when the president decrees a certain number, and the assumption is that everyone is running from persecution, etc. There are already impromptu prepping classes in Turkey, at the Syrian border, and in Egypt, among other places, called “How to be a Syrian” Former intelligence leaders and AGs have stated clearly that it is presently impossible to vet the unidentified numbers coming in, just as the TSA is not up to passing the tests that are run on it. And why do you think that letting in 68,000 Muslims and 70 Christians — no Yazidis — is the only way to be compassionate? Do they deserve our sympathy more because they are “different” and we have to show we are not prejudiced? Why only Muslims from an area that is killing the others off with great purpose and where, for instance, the Assad regime has been one of the few who actually protected its minorities?
As to being who we are, from ca.1928 to 1945, our immigration policy was “no immigration” so the country could absorb and integrate the many who had arrived. In 1965, Congress passed a law sponsored by Teddy Kennedy, removing the strictures that favored (northern) Europeans over other immigrants. (His people were already here anyway.) The existence of those restrictions explains how it had been possible until that time to absorb new people into the system, because they understood what we were up to, and wanted to be part of it. After WWII, however, the idea of democracy was no longer just a thing for Europe and America. The Japanese, among others, had showed us that anyone could be integrated and productive, if they were allowed to and wanted to. There was a natural magnetism that brought people here to share in this kind of government. There were exceptions in every ethnic group, like the Tong, the Triads, the Mafia, more recently MS-13, etc., but the mass of each group settled down and found a way to participate — some of them even predictably being what they had always been, like the Portuguese fishermen in Massachusetts. We don’t have any “self-radicalized” Cambodians, Vietnamese, Indians, Filipinos.
And there are the illegals — not long ago one of the largest groups of illegal residents was the Irish, believe it or not. And then there is a steady stream of Puerto Ricans who are both citizens and, in their own way, also immigrants. What makes this stew viable is the attitude of those who come here asking only to have a chance to work and succeed, and of those of us who are wiling to see them as our neighbors. But our government has a duty to protect the interests of the citizens who are here, and not make the fatal mistake the Europeans have made, of saying that anyone who is fleeing anything is welcome, even if they come here thinking/knowing that our way of life is anathema to their religion. Even the Israelis, with enormous immigration pressures from non-Jews as well as Jews, must contend with this, and they at least try to distinguish by screening very carefully. There must be a clear and competent decision to preserve what is good about this country, or just relax and watch and hope.
Before the US was much more than an idea, the extremely Catholic Habsburg Empire lasted a long time, successfully holding numerous Germanic, Slavic and Magyar groups together, and finally decided to extend religious freedom to its newly acquired Muslim citizens. Even though Vienna some centuries before would have fallen to the Turks, if the Polish army had not saved it. That is the humanistic spirit the Europeans and we have maintained, and why Germany and Japan became our allies after their catastrophic defeats.
Now take a look at the world map and ask yourself where there are hotspots in the world, impacting Hindus, Buddhists or Christians — who is the enemy, which originally arrived there by force of conquest? We can even include some of our favorite bad guys, who are also fighting bitter actions against Islam — China and Russia. But India, Southeast Asia, the Philippines did not acquire their Muslims by conquering them, but by being invaded. Europe is in the process of discovering what that is like. I think we are about eight years behind Germany and the other West Europeans in the process. Logic dictates that I will not be around to see the outcome. But I grew up believing in a democracy that gave everyone a chance, and did not slap them down for disagreeing. That welcomed hard- working people who did not immediately ask “What are the benefits I get?” That did not pass people through because of reverse racism or a warm feeling. And I am sad to see that instead of a lifeline, it has become a soup kitchen and potential mugging victim.
More and more frequently, the deep irony of our times reminds me of the title lines from a British rock song the teenagers of the seventies liked:
I don’t want to start any blasphemous rumors,
But I think that God has a sick sense of humor,
And when I die,
I expect to find him laughing.