French President Hollande’s tough initial response to the ISIS attacks on Paris gave me hope that this time it would be different. This would mark the first time that Western governments acknowledged that multiculturalism was a bad idea—that replacing ethnic Europeans with third-world Muslims was a recipe for disaster.
However, subsequent events have demonstrated that my hope was misplaced. The events in Paris will join all the Islamic terrorist attacks that have been explained away as being a result of the “hijacking of a peaceful religion.” Nothing of substance is going to change. Even worse, it appears that Western elites are going to use the events to further their own goals that have nothing to do with curbing terrorism.
Islamic immigration will not only continue, Europe will be destroyed even more quickly
In the words of American humorist Will Rogers, “If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.” To solve the problem of Islamic terrorism, the first step is to stop increasing your pool of potential terrorists.
Halting all Islamic immigration into the West will not prevent all future attacks because Western nations already have sizable Islamic populations, but at least it would minimize the number of people that security agencies need to track on the “watch list.” While the usual suspects would call this policy “racist,” it represents the only sane course of action.
However, Hollande did not opt for stemming the tide of Islamic immigration. The borders remain open. France even announced that it is taking yet more “Syrian refugees.” Instead of commonsense measures, Hollande is repeating the same tired tropes. At a memorial service for the Paris victims he said:
Music was insufferable for terrorists. We will multiply songs and concerts, we will keep filling stadiums.
And the ISIS terrorists will gladly attack those stadiums as you sing and hold hands.
Ottoman Turks Redivivus
In Germany, Chancellor Merkel is starting to feel the pressure of her deeply unpopular open door policy towards migrants. In response, she has reversed her initial position on admitting an unlimited number of migrants and now talks about having quotas. But her solution to the problem will only hasten Europe’s demise.
Merkel’s solution is to pay Turkey $3.4 billion to temporarily keep two million refugees in Turkey. This deal only slows the tide of refugees—those migrants will still be allowed into Germany eventually, at up to half a million per year. More importantly, in addition to the money Turkey would also receive fast track status into the European Union and Turkish citizens will be granted the ability to travel to Europe without a visa.
But admitting Turkey, a nation of 77 million Muslims, to the EU will only cause more problems for Europe. Turkey has changed dramatically over the years. It is no longer the secular democracy that it was when it joined NATO in 1952. Rather, with the election of the Erdoğan government in 2003, Turkey is returning to its Islamic roots.
The recent downing of a Russian jet by Turkey demonstrates where Turkey’s loyalties now lie. Ostensibly, the reason Turkey shot down the Russian jet was because it violated Turkish airspace for several seconds.
But Russian President Vladimir Putin indicated that there was more to the story. He accused Turkey of illegally importing oil from ISIS:
At the moment we have received additional information confirming that that oil from the deposits controlled by Islamic State militants enters Turkish territory on industrial scale. We have every reason to believe that the decision to down our plane was guided by a desire to ensure security of this oil’s delivery routes to ports where they are shipped in tankers.
Opening what remains of Christian Europe to an Islamic Turkey will deliver the final coup de grâce to European civilization.
President Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel is famous for having said, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste.” What he meant was that when people are scared, it is a good time to advance your agenda, even if it doesn’t really have anything to do with solving the crisis itself. The Obama Administration has not been shy about using this principle to reward supporters, punish its opponents, and implement the President’s vision for the country.
While Emanuel is famous for having popularized the concept, all governments throughout the ages have used it. The Bush Administration’s response to the terrorist attacks of 9-11 is a good example of this. Rather than focus on hunting down al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, the administration fell under sway of neoconservative political theorists who led us to believe that Iraq would be the ideal place to begin democratizing and liberalizing the Islamic world.
The ill-conceived invasion of Iraq and toppling of Saddam Hussein didn’t lead to American soldiers being greeted with girls throwing flowers. Rather, it destabilized the entire Middle East and ushered in the chaos and bloodshed that we are witnessing now.
ISIS attacked Paris—So let’s take out Assad!
In the wake of the Paris attacks, President Obama has called for the elimination of ISIS. But he also called for the removal of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The reason that this is strange is that the Syrian government is actually an enemy of ISIS. By removing Assad, the US would be doing ISIS a favor, as it would allow them to capitalize on the power vacuum.
The US campaign against ISIS, which started in August 2014, has been amazingly weak and ineffective. This is mainly because the interests of US allies are at loggerheads with destroying ISIS.
Broadly speaking, ISIS formed due to Sunni disenfranchisement after the toppling of Saddam Hussein. As a Sunni Muslim organization, ISIS is a natural ally with Saudi Arabia and Turkey, and it is an enemy of the current Iraqi government and the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, both of which are part of Shia Islam.
The Assad regime is also an enemy of Israel so it is in Israel’s best interest to see him ousted. Although ISIS is no friend to Israel, it is better for Israel if all of its enemies are toppled. A bunch of bearded fanatics riding through the desert in pickup trucks looking for 9-year-olds to rape poses less of a threat to Israel than an organized state like Syria.
Thus, US policy has been half-assed in its approach to eliminating ISIS. The US’s real goal has been to remove Assad. Syria poses no threat to the US so this will be sold as a way to appease Sunni Muslims and end the Syrian civil war. However, in every case where the US has toppled an Arab dictator, the result has been bloodshed and further Islamic radicalization.
The other factor in removing Assad is that Syria is allied with Russia, which has begun heavy bombing of ISIS targets. Any direct attack on Assad risks engaging Russian forces. Is the risk of starting a war with Russia over Syria really worth it? President Obama and his men seem to think so.
Far from forcing European leaders to confront the Islamic invasion, the Paris attacks have enabled those leaders to proceed even faster with their project of fundamentally remaking Europe.
Generations of European men laid down their lives fighting Muslim hordes to preserve their families, their faith, and their land. Right now it appears that the current batch of European leaders will allow to happen in one generation what those Muslim armies could not achieve over the course of a thousand years of aggression.
Meanwhile, the conflicts of interest that the US has over the Middle East are putting us in a very real danger of war with Russia over a country that poses no threat to Americans. As much as I disagree with President Obama, his general distaste for armed conflict in this case is a good thing.