The face of failure, according to officialdom, is a Muslim immigrant with a bona fide visa blowing people up. This is a blinkered perception, as it is not explosive Islamists who represent the greatest threat, but the West’s mute acceptance of a culture and mores antithetical to our own.
Said Turkey’s President Erdogan after the New Year Islamic terrorist attack in Istanbul, “They are trying to trying to create terror, to demoralise our people and destabilise our country…we will retain our cool-headedness…and we will never give ground to such dirty games.” After each Islamist terrorist atrocity, in whatever country, we are told by an array of political leaders and men and women in the street that “we” won’t be cowed. The terrorists will win, we are told, if they succeed in their aim of getting us to change our behaviour. What a lot of old rope this all is.
Why does anyone believe the terrorists are so dim-witted that they think their attacks will seriously disrupt the normal business of everyday life? During the Blitz in Britain people got on with their lives. They did keep calm and carry on. Was this heroic? I don’t think so. Exactly what else could people do? It would quickly wear you out if you started running around in a panic, and claustrophobia and hunger would wreak havoc if you remained locked indoors under the bed. And my point is exactly what?
My point is that Islamic terrorist attacks have no ulterior motive. The motive is that they want to kill infidels, as instructed by their scripture. (That is, those parts of it that Western apologists seem not to want to read.) That is it, full stop, end of story. Their end game is to take over. But this, they recognise, will not be accomplished by terrorist attacks. Such attacks, tragic though they are for the victims and their families, are trivial in the scheme of things. They are needle pricks on an elephant.
Hold on, I might be wrong. I am wrong. There is an ulterior motive to terrorist attacks; though I seriously doubt that it is appreciated by suicide bombers and their ilk. Terrorist attacks are a classic diversionary tactic.
Donald Trump talks about “extreme vetting”. What is the purpose of such vetting? When I have heard it being discussed, its purpose, apparently, is to ensure that terrorists are not let in through the front door. Politicians, security services, police forces, and immigration officials are singularly focussed on this objective. The face of failure is a Muslim immigrant, with a bona fide visa, blowing people up. This blinkers our perception of the existential threat which has nothing to do with Islamic nut jobs blowing people up. Al-Hijra (immigration) and fecundity are the real interconnected weapons of mass (cultural) destruction.
Muslims stream into the West and multiply, without the slightest inclination among 99%-plus of them to deliver death with a bomb, gun, knife or truck. In fact, many are fleeing Islamic death dealers. You have to admire the sheer chutzpah and wizardry of it. ‘More Muslims than infidels are killed by Muslim extremists’ is the conventional narrative and therefore must flee in vast numbers to Dar al-Harb (effectively the West), where they erect mosques and don hijabs to embrace the very same creed out of which supremacism, intolerance, hate and terrorism inevitably spew forth.
And all the while this happens, feeble-minded apologists tell us how peaceful and moderate are most Muslims. Sure they are, but they will still be out flag-waving as and when each Western city and country succumbs to the Muslim majority and becomes part of the house of Islam (Dar al-Islam).
