STRATEGIES OF THE WAR ON TERROR

Max Publius nails a 17-point approach to getting a handle on illegal immigration and, this war against Islamic bombthrowers.

SAD THOUGHTS, TRUE THOUGHTS

A totally diverse nation is not a nation in any meaningful way, for the concept of a nation is a shared language and culture. For all practical purposes, a common culture means a common religion or national character.

It is interesting but maudlin to note that the desire to socially engineer a "diverse nation" is only prevalent among the political elite of the West. Nowhere else is such a pedantic idiocy given any currency.

Personal identity, and by natural extension, one's "herd identity" is one of the most arresting, and primary psychological compulsions of human consciousness. It functions as both keel and rudder for the personality when the seas are calm as well as rough. When this identity is fractured by opposing forces, the personality as a whole suffers, and the struggle of that personality oscillating within the now competitive but often unrewarding environments of the self and citizen tends to distort those common grounds promised to and now expected by the personality.

In its aim to socially engineer a "diverse nation", the political elite in Europe and even here in America are debilitating the West, modern civilization, and in the near future in a neighborhood near you, creating the conditions for a global war.

No doubt, many will cite "racist" attitudes for the preceding paragraphs. When all else fails, just accuse someone of being racist, the most feared and hence the most preferred albatross to hang around the neck of anyone willing to contradict one of the many dubious spirits of this sorry age. But as noted earlier, it is only the Western dreamy-eyed neo-Marxist rascals who come to this conclusion, and practice multiculturalism with vim and vigor without insisting on the slightest reciprocity by its enemies, as if multiculturalism were a punishing commandment from God, or perhaps, Karl Marx himself.

"What's the difference between an old Marxist and a neo-Marxist?" asks the young eager to please student of his master.

"Not much. Same idealism. Different lies."

But let me be plain here. Global Marxism, or heaven on earth is probably in humanity's future, if man doesn't destroy the earth before we get there. But when? A hundred years from now? A thousand?

That should not concern us. Instead, we must ask ourselves, how do we get from here to there? That is the major question of our times. Planet Earth is simply not ready. We cannot force "our own" idealism upon the world, no matter how righteous it appears to us. Limited force is all-corrupting. All out force is limited to the survivors of such idealism. Even in the 1920s artists and visionaries understood the wide chasm between the dystopian nightmare and any sustainable peace of utopian paramours. Today's ideologues, hell-bent on "serenity now" not just for themselves, but for their distant neighbor too, even if it takes all the force the state can muster, seem to have flung every caution to the wind, all the while muttering, "Peace, now!"

As if thrusting a wish upon a bright star ever really resulted in ushering forth a tooth fairy...

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

By Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch:

NGOs have come a long, and very dismal way, since the dreams of Rene Cassin. They are filled as naturally with creatures of a certain worldview and bent as is the BBC World Service, or The Guardian. What is that worldview? That worldview consists of those who wish to criticize, in the main, what they see as the white, Western world, for not properly making their chief concern, and rescuing from their own misrulers often prompted by ideologies (such as Islam) that the members of those NGOs will never recognize as being the source of the misgovernment, the corruption and cruelty and waste that are such noticeable features of so much of what used to be called (thank god the phrase is falling out of fashion) the "Third World."

Nationalism for them is not acceptable if it is an impulse animating the residents of the advanced West. They are not allowed to take a special interest, have a special affection and tenderness for, their own countries, and histories. They are not allowed to worry about cultural continuity, and cultural continuity as being connected, possibly, to other kinds of continuity, including that of ethnic makeup. These are impermissible for that "white, Western world" —even if perfectly permissible for everyone else (compare, for example, the policies toward immigration and immigrants in Japan, Korea, China, or the same policies toward non-Arabs, directed especially at black Africans, in Egypt, Libya, Chad, and Morocco).

The rest of the world is entitled to preserve itself. We, on the other hand, in North America and Western Europe and the outposts of the former British Empire, such as Australia and New Zealand, are required to give up whatever "local" patriotism, interest and pride in our national histories and cultures, and open ourselves permanently to the world.

Other countries can remain countries.

The United States, Canada, Australia, England, France, Italy, and the other countries of Western Europe, on the other hand, are not allowed to remain countries in that full sense. Their people are not allowed to maintain their own legal and political institutions and social arrangements, or render them less vulnerable to undermining from within by taking control of their own immigration policy. They are not allowed to fully defend themselves, and if they try...well, the NGOs will come down hard.

For those who now staff the NGOs have big plans for the West, big plans for Australia, Great Britain, Canada, and especially for the United States.

Yes, for the United States and other advanced "white, Western" countries (Japan doesn't count, nor South Korea, in this calculation) the futuree is clear.

They are to be transformed. They are to be stripped of that has given them their national identities, treated merely as geogrpahically identifiable places that should be permanently available to all those who wish to come, and those who wish to come will, in the main, be those from comparatively poor and often ill-governed neighbors (in the case of the United States, those neighbors include Mexico, Central America, and some but not all of the countries of South America), or from lands further away where the local despots, or locally-prevailing ideologies, explain the malgovernance -- but those who come from Muslim lands, places that are so unpleasnat and malfunctioning becuase of Islam unfortunately do not see things aright and "flee from Islam," and far from abandoning Islam (refugees from the Nazis or Communists hated Nazism, hated Communism), they bring it with them in their undeclared mental baggage, and unpack it right away.

According to the New Men who have infiltrated and taken over so many of the formerly respectable NGOs, la Lutte Continue, and the hostility they always felt toward their own Western world can now be plausibly, even respectably, channeled into their work at these NGOs, with their highly selective and tendentious indignation.

Their goal for the United States is clear.

The United States is not to remain a country. The United States is, rather, to be transformed, in the determined if unstated view of so many of the ideologues at NGOs, to be turned into, by slow degrees, into one great big...NGO.