“…but this is what the refugees are fleeing from!”

The Religion of Peace strikes again.  Just when I thought we were going to get a break from being lectured about the Crusades.

Does this change the wisdom of letting millions of African Muslim barbarians into Europe?  Not really–that would be an insane thing to do even aside from terrorism.  The main argument against mass immigration has always been preservation of the native culture.  I think of myself as being actually pretty moderate on this issue.  If immigration advocates want to argue that the cultures of white European Christians will be able to survive their policy, I’d be happy to listen and maybe even drop my objection.  But they won’t even give me implausible assurances.  They either refuse to acknowledge the concern at all or they condemn people for having it.  Plenty of them openly acknowledge wanting to exterminate our culture.

Proposition A:  “Most of the Muslims arriving in Europe are fleeing terrorism and war and want to settle somewhere peaceful”

Proposition B: “Letting a bunch of Muslims into your country will turn it into the sort of violence-torn shithole that people become refuges from.”

Proposition A is a lie.  Sending one’s military-aged men in mass to another country is either invasion or economic migration.  Putting that to the side for the moment, it should be emphasized that A and B actually don’t contradict each other.  Think of infected people fleeing the plague, bringing what they fear with them to wherever takes them in.

I’m perfectly willing to accept that the people leaving “Syria” don’t like it in “Syria”.  Let’s assume for the moment that what they don’t like is civil war and terrorism (even though this is a lie).  The reason people have civil wars is because they disagree about what a livable peace would be.  Westerners assume that someone who wants peace must be yearning for the peace of liberal, secular tolerance, as Westerners understand these words.  However, one can flee violence while preferring the peace of having all power in the hands of one’s own brand of Islam.  Such a person may very well choose to go to Europe anyway, given the promise of Western comfort now and Islamic conquest later.  (The liberal’s peace is more similar to the “intolerant” Muslims’ than we often realize–peace from the dominance of their own zealous and chiliastic cult.)  One can flee to Europe and immediately take on the role of aggrieved minority, burning with hatred for the natives.  This is so common we should expect it even in genuine refugees.

“We can’t let Europeans refuse to take in the Muslims or else they might expel us next!” I’m always reading Jewish groups say.  I used to think this was stupid.  Why can’t we block one particular group without turning in general hostility to all other groups?  Now I’m starting to see their point.  If you expel the Muslims and don’t expel the Jews aren’t you just going to be facing the same issue again in another decade, with a rich and influential minority demanding that the majority abolish itself and let in millions of Muslims?  Yes, but there’s just no getting around this.  It’s the job of each generation of Christians to say “no” to the Jews anew.

I get it that Sunnis and Shiites like to kill each other, but why do they both have to go running to Europe?  The natural thing, one would expect, would be for war and persecution to continue until the sects are effectively separated.  This is how the wars of religion ended in Europe.  The fairy tale is that Catholics and Protestants were killing each other until Enlightenment philosophes inaugurated the reign of tolerance, but in fact Europe pacified about a century before the Enlightenment and the bloody persecutions it inspired.  It would be better to say that killings, expulsions, and conversions dropped off once Europe was sufficiently sorted and one religion or the other had achieved dominance in each region.  Are we doing anything but dragging out this process, giving them our ancestral home as another one of their battlefields in the process?