I just don’t bloody understand how these folks can see facts pointing to a necessary policy of zero Muslim immigration and mass expulsion. Neither the numbers nor history support that claim.
It’s this kind of moral, scientific, and historical illiteracy that I just won’t accept from anyone who wants to stand as a guardian of “Western Civilization”.
My expanded response to the article “Manchester and the Lies We Tell Ourselves About Terrorism” follows.
Conservatism should never run from its principles or the facts. So let’s apply good old Western Civilization to this in the spirit of Burke, Smith and Aristotle: observe, measure, and verify.
First, why would “no cartoons about Mohammed” be the best example of terrorism affecting everyday life? Were there so many of us doodling the founder of Islam before the Hebdo murder? The claim itself is weak: Boston Marathon attendance has gone up every year since the 2013 attack; the gay nightclub scene in Orlando is alive and well after the 2016 shooting; military enlistment hasn’t decreased since attacks like Ft. Hood; Google, Walmart, artificial intelligence and robots have done more to change the world economy than the 9/11 hijackers; and people still shop in public despite the Mall of the Americas attack (and when they do stop it will be because of Amazon, not Al Qaeda).
Another critical self-deceptions is that (1) immigration screening, deportation, and surveillance are more important than effective trade and aid strategies attacking the roots of transnational criminal organizations like ISIS/Daesh. That’s total baloney.
We Conservatives shouldn’t cede this subject to Neocons (occupy the host country and transform it) or the Left (massive UN-administered subsidizing of healthcare, food aid, public utilities, etc.) You hardly have to twist the arm of anyone on the Right about more regulated immigration and targeted surveillance, but why do we have to pull their teeth to get support for smarter intervention overseas (trade and investment to complement smarter military/espionage activity)? Disrupt the conflicts = disrupting refugee flows. Spend resources over there, instead of creating a military police state over here.
(2) The hybrid Malthus-Le Pen hypothesis of “critical mass” demographics. There’s neither historical nor scientific evidence that Muslim immigration and birthrates are exponentially increasing.
If anything it’s the opposite: “The Muslim world is facing the fastest demographic or population decline ever recorded in history.”
And once you factor for refugees, rates of immigration from Muslim countries go *down* these past years.
Countries with more open markets see a higher quality of life, lower birthrates , and more of the best immigration (skilled knowledge workers, entrepreneurs). That’s a real trend. Just like the predictions of Japan’s 1980’s world economic conquest, Malthus’ own overpopulation predictions, and the inevitability of Hillary’s election – the real numbers belie popular sentiment.