Post Paris: The Bigots Are Out in Full Force

It’s been six days since the tragic November 13 massacre in Paris. As expected, it drew out all the stupids on the left and right about the refugee crisis from the Middle East. On the left you’ve got post-colonial apologists like UK Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn saying it’s an attack on a ‘multicultural’ city but that the west has created a ‘situation’ for this to occur (no we didn’t Mr. Corbyn). And of course you’ve got all the loons from the right frothing at the mouth with an almost schadenfreude ‘I told you so’ glee. The Paris tragedy cemented justification in their anti-immigrant, xenophobic and racist views.

Some of the choice responses from the Right are:

“[The refugees] could be ISIS — I don’t know”

“They’re all men, and they’re all strong-looking guys. … There are so many men; there aren’t that many women. And I’m saying to myself: Why aren’t they fighting to save Syria? Why are they migrating all over Europe? Seriously.”

“Military tactics are very interesting. This could be one of the great tactical ploys of all time. A 200,000-man army, maybe. Or if they sent 50,000 or 80,000 or 100,000 …  that could be possible. I don’t know that it is, but it could be possible.”

“If I lose, I guess they’re staying. But if I win, they’re going back [to Syria].” – Donald Trump

 

 

Even as chaos rages in Paris, we need to take immediate, commonsense steps to preserve our own safety. We need to consult closely with our NATO allies who may be targeted for additional attacks. We need to immediately declare a halt to any plans to bring refugees that may have been infiltrated by ISIS to the United States. We need to redouble our efforts to prevent ISIS agents from penetrating our nation by other means. – Ted Cruz

 

“I do not trust this administration to effectively vet the people who are proposed to be coming in, in order to protect the safety and security of the American people, so I would not permit them in,” Christie told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt.

Hewitt pressed Christie on the possibility of even accepting “orphans under the age of 5,” but the governor held firm.

“We can come up with 18 different scenarios. The fact is that we need appropriate vetting, and I don’t think orphans under 5 should be admitted into the United States at this point,” Christie said.

“They have no family here. How are we going to care for these folks?” he asked. “The fact is, you can come up with a number of different scenarios, Hugh. But in the end, I don’t trust this administration to effectively vet the people that they’re asking us to take in. We need to put the safety and security of the American people first.” – Chris Christie 

I reject both of these reactions. The left apologist attitude is every bit as infuriating as the xenophobic and racist attitude from the right. The west has nothing to apologize for terrorist attacks and killing of innocent people. The west have nothing to apologize for when foreigners come to our countries and shit on our values and way of life. The west is liberal and secular and as a result of such freedoms, there are things which leave a lot to be desired result, but we like our hard won freedoms, even if we have to put up with The Kardashians and Jersey Shore. It’s the price you pay for freedom.

The colonial past of the West is appalling, there’s no denying it, but it’s got nothing to do with the slaughter carried out by ISIS in France, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and elsewhere. These people would have done what they’ve done regardless if the Middle East was colonized or not. They are sick, twisted, demented beasts who aren’t fit to be called human, nothing they do can be justified.

As Paris was in turmoil, radical Islamists in the UK convened a meeting in Bedford, England stating it’s every Muslim’s duty to establish an ‘Islamic State’ in the UK and to enforce Shariah Law. I have no problem telling these people to pack their shit and go home, and if they are second generation Muslims they can follow their parents back to their countries of origin and see how they like it. Really, go back to whatever hell hole you came from and preach your hate there. Stay there. Live in third world conditions where healthcare isn’t free and you aren’t entitled to welfare benefits if you can’t find work. Please. Do us all a favor and wage your sick twisted jihad there.

The duty of every immigrant, migrating to any place in the world is first and foremost to respect the laws, customs and culture of the host nation. This is not to say you can’t celebrate your own heritage and practice your faith and cultural customs but you cannot expect your host nation to accommodate your every demand. The immigrant has to assimilate while the host nation need to be gracious and sensitive to the needs of newcomers. Integration is a two way street.

If for any reason, I, a very liberal western and Christian woman, have to move to a Islamic country for work, I would respect said country’s customs and dress modestly and cover my hair if that is required of me. I would not seek to stand out like a sore thumb with my western clothing or my hair exposed as it would offend the sensibilities of a modest society. I also wouldn’t go to a local restaurant and demand they cook me a rack of babyback ribs and when they don’t shout abuse at them. I also wouldn’t go to an Islamic country and preach my Christian beliefs and if I am criticized proceed to denounce them as heretics and apostates and call them intolerant bigots (if I am not locked up first). If I find the restrictions and customs of a  traditional Muslim society too restrictive for me, I’d seek a job transfer and if I can’t, I put up and shut up until a time when I can leave. It’s that simple.

Due to harsh economic conditions, war, internal conflict, there is a mass movement of human migration right now (something humans have always done throughout history when conditions get tough). It’s not just people from Afghanistan, Syria or Iraq, people from the African continent are migrating northward to Europe too, crossing the same treacherous seas in search of a more tolerable life, even if it’s one at the bottom of the economic heap. It’s not a political discussion of pro or anti-migration or what a bunch of brown and black people will do to a secular white Europe, it’s happening because the conditions in the world right now drive people to migrate. There’s nothing anyone can do to stop it, just like the United States couldn’t stop Mexicans and Central Americans from crossing the US border illegally, sometimes multiple times if they fail. It’s the nature of humans to fight or flight. Many right-wing European governments blame Angela Merkel’s largess and generosity for the refugee crisis, but it’s not her fault, they are coming anyways. All she did was propose a humane and responsible solution to the crisis. She didn’t start the war in Syria, she didn’t order the German army into Iraq and dismantle the whole government on false intelligence, she didn’t order troops into Afghanistan, she was minding her own business in Germany. The refugees came to her doorstep and she chose the moral high ground above all the noise and proposed a solution instead of dithering, unlike what she did with every other crises that went before her.

The United States have agreed to take in 15,000 registered Syrian refugees in the next two years and by 2017, 100,000 Syrian refugees will be resettled in the United States . These refugees are chosen from the UN Refugee Resettlement program, which means they need to be formally registered with the UNHCR and prove their status as refugees. It’s also the only way they can receive aid from the UN. The argument from the Republicans is there is no way to vet every single one of them to make sure they have no nefarious ties to ISIS. Fake Syrian documents are everywhere right now and can be purchased for a price, all of this is true, but does this mean as a nation we can turn away desperate people who’ve lost everything? And by the way, there is no ‘fail safe’ system, human or machine. There’s no fail safe way to detect welfare fraud, food stamp fraud, public housing fraud, immigration fraud, none of it. You put in the best anti-fraud process in place along with diligent due process by humans and you hope for the best. This doesn’t sound encouraging or promising but believing that we can create a fail safe process for any system is naive, foolish and unrealistic. So when the FBI director was asked if we can one-hundred percent guarantee no ISIS infiltrators can pose as a refugee and come to the US. The honest and prudent answer is of course ‘no’.

The immediate assumption by right-wing parties in Europe and the US is Syrians, especially Syrian Muslims, have no clue about western culture and values. They will bring their backward and barbaric ways with them, their supposed intractable conservative views (about same-sex relationships, liberal attitudes towards sex etc) are not compatible with western liberal attitudes of live and let live. This is a fallacy of gross proportions. And some Republican candidates and European leaders differentiate Christian Syrian refugees v. Muslim Syrian refugees with the belief (again, wrong) at least the Christians are more civilized because Christian people, just by virtue of being Christian, are civilized (cough gag cough). Because they are Christian, they will be more amenable to a secular western society. Again, all assumption not based on facts.

There is no question any immigrant coming to America needs to respect our laws, our customs and our culture, however repugnant they find it. They don’t have to like it but they must respect it. Not even Americans like everything about America, but it’s our home, our country so we give it proper respect.

For all the governors who are rejecting Syrian refugees, many whom have small children, shame on you. You call yourself Christians? You don’t know the first thing about being Christian, which is ‘love thy neighbor as you love yourself’ – and to clarify ‘neighbor’ means other people you encounter, not your literal nextdoor neighbor. You do not get to shame my religion by being a bigot. And the ‘religious test’ as some geniuses recommend be given to every Syrian refugee before they resettle in the US, the Republicans will fail it at every turn.

 

11 thoughts on “Post Paris: The Bigots Are Out in Full Force

  1. As far as I know none of the terrorists who carried out the attack in Paris were Syrians. They were mostly European born and largely middle-class. If you were going to infiltrate the United States, it would be much easier to find a rich Saudi sponsor to buy your way in than to pose as a refugee anyway.

    As far as “western” values go, I don’t think the United States and France are identical. The United States has plenty of xenophobes like Trump, but it does manage to assimilate most of its immigrants. American materialism may not be such a bad thing in this respect. Once you have money, Americans tend to accept you, whatever your origins.

    France is a very different story. Paris is ringed with segregated immigrant ghettos full of people who never get to assimilate into the mainstream. It’s not really a question of the Muslims not wanting to become French. It’s more about the French not letting them.

    I need to read Corbyn’s full speech. If he says this is partly a result of western meddling in Syria, he’s not blaming anybody, just pointing to the inevitable blowback that comes from imperial adventures.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. By Western values, I don’t mean the different specific cultures across different western countries (UK, US, Germany, France etc), I mean the basic fundamental western values of tolerance (even in bigoted America), live and let live, liberal attitudes towards same-sex marriage, sex, women and their sexuality and how they choose to express that etc., and just minding your own goddamn backyard when it comes to sex and morality (which in Islamic societies, they are unable to do).
      The French do have an appalling record of integrating their immigrants, but the mastermind is really from Belgium. He infiltrated France on the orders of the butchers in Syria.
      In America, besides having money, if an immigrant wishes to become American and adopt American ways, they can fit it. I speak from personal experience as half of my family are immigrants and we are by no means ‘rich’ but they all feel ‘American’ and quite happy to be, and most were not even born here.
      Corbyn, irrespective of the statement he put out about Paris attacks, is an unapologetic left wing apologist to the point where I want to punch him and I am quite liberal. I am not socialist or communist but liberal enough, and I can’t stand him and his ‘conscientious objections’, even if the the British Isles is facing invasion, he’d still try to talk his enemies out of shooting his people BS, and constantly apologizing on behalf of the white people or westerners for the sins of our ancestors. I do not need him to represent me, I do not need him to speak on my behalf and I do not feel the need to apologize for things that happened generations before I was born. I feel deeply apologetic about the foul foreign policies the US enacted from when I was born until now, but anything before I don’t.

      Like

      1. Do we know enough about the motivations of the terrorists to make any generalizations about their motives? People spoke about Dylan and Klebold for years as nerds who acted out of having been bullied. It was only a decade later that Dave Cullen did enough research to point out that they were in fact the bullies.

        The idea that they bombed the concert hall because of “tolerance” has been knocked around the media but it still seems too early to tell. One of the few interviews they did, with one of the terrorists ex-wives, revealed that he was a “stoner” who never went to the mosque.

        Islamic societies vary widely as to their tolerance. Ironically the leas tolerant Saudi Arabia is an American ally. One of the most tolerant, as least as far as religion and women’s rights go, was Assad’s Syria. How ironic therefore that “we” are selling hundreds of millions of arms to Saudi Arabia (partly in order to overthrow Assad).

        Note: I’m no more a fan of Assad, even if he did make it safe for Christians, than I am of Israel, even if it is fairly easy to be gay in Tel Aviv but I think this is whole past few years between Syria and the “west” isn’t a simple matter of good guys vs. bad guys.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. No it’s not so simple and yes Assad was a friend to Christians – another uncomfortable fact. Saudi Arabia is the worst in all this. They are too fat and lazy to build their own army and pay proxies and mercenaries to fight for them instead. Assad – and I am no fan, but as long as you minded your own business and was not politically inclined and didn’t threaten the ruling class, life was ok for the average Syrian. It’s a country where the minority ruled the majority, and Assad was very aware of this fact. None of it is democratic or fair but the regime largely left you alone.
          As for terrorism, motives do not matter. Once you start ‘explaining’ their actions or motives you open the door for excusing them. Millions of people around the world are marginalized, oppressed and racially and ethnically discriminated against, most of them do not become terrorists.
          And if you need or want a motivation, it’s the need to feel important in their otherwise degenerate lives. Most of these people never picked up a Koran until their 20s. Most are not well versed enough in Arabic to even read it themselves unaided.

          Like

        2. And Islamic societies at large are conservative. Even in liberal places like Lebanon, Jordan and the former Syria there is only so much ‘liberal’ you can do before society at large comes down on you. They may not have moral police on the streets but there’s inter family policing. I know this from personal experience of which I don’t wish to get into. And this is what some commentators mean when they say their ‘values’ are incongruent to the west. Especially the policing of women and their private activities.

          Like

  2. I think a key point is the difference between conservatism and weaponized conservatism. The Amish, for example, are conservative. My grandparents’ generation of Eastern and Southern European Catholics were conservative. Neither group weaponized their conservatism.

    The United States has weaponized the conservatism of the Islamic world for decades, from the use of the mullahs in Iran to overthrow Mohammad Mosaddegh to the use of the Mujahadeen against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan to the current use of “moderate” Islamists to overthrow Assad.

    As far as why young men become fundamentalists, I actually think a relevant book is one by a French Islamophobe, Whatever by Michel Houellebecq. Sexual “liberalism” leaves a lot of young men out in the cold (the Elliot Rodgers of the world). Sexual conservatism tends to find a place for everybody.

    Here’s the relevant quote.

    “It’s a fact, I mused to myself, that in societies like ours sex truly represents a second system of differentiation, completely independent of money; and as a system of differentiation it functions just as mercilessly. The effects of these two systems are, furthermore, strictly equivalent. JuTisserand, for whom sex really is the problem, is an object onto which he can project his own rage. st like unrestrained economic liberalism, and for similar reasons, sexual liberalism produces phenomena of absolute pauperization. Some men make love every day; others five or six times in their life, or never. Some make love with dozens of women; others with none. It’s what’s known as `the law of the market’. In an economic system where unfair dismissal is prohibited, every person more or less manages to find their place. In a sexual system where adultery is prohibited, every person more or less manages to find their bed mate. In a totally liberal sexual system certain people have a varied and exciting erotic life; others are reduced to masturbation and solitude. Economic liberalism is an extension of the domain of the struggle, its extension to all ages and all classes of society. Sexual liberalism is likewise an extension of the domain of the struggle, its extension to all ages and all classes of society. On the economic plane Raphael Tisserand belongs in the victors’ camp; on the sexual plane in that of the vanquished. Certain people win on both levels; others lose on both. Businesses fight over certain young professionals; women fight over certain young men; men fight over certain young women; the trouble and strife are considerable.”

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Well, as I said, we really don’t know the motivations of the terrorists in Paris yet. The idea that they were attacking western “tolerance” is mere speculation at this point.

        I was merely pointing out one source of the impulse to become “conservative” (both in the Christian and Islamic world) and suggesting that “liberal” sexual mores leave a lot to be desired.

        For a lot of people in the Muslim world (both men and women) sexual liberalism looks more like exploitation than liberation. The French have prevented Muslim women from wearing Hijabs. That doesn’t necessarily mean the French government wants to liberate Muslim women so much as force them into “marketing” themselves according to their looks.

        The whole process has long been part of the western imperialist imagination. Here’s a good example of what I mean, an article by the far right wing Daily Caller about “hot Syrian refugees.” This thing makes *me* want to pick up a Koran.

        http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/18/13-syrian-refugees-wed-take-immediately-photos/

        I’m not really optimistic about Hillary Clinton as president. To be honest, I’d rather have Corbyn. The idea that “we” can liberate Muslim women with military force is bound to make things worse.

        Like

        1. People need to want to liberate themselves. And I agree the hijab ban was a bad move and a highly discriminatory one. After all, a lot of catholic women wear a hear cover when they go to church and stuff.
          As for looks and this sounds horrible, anyone with any ounce of good looks men or women will seek to accentuate it market it to their own benefit even if the benefit is vanity and feeling good about yourself. People who don’t have good looks on offer always drone on about exploitation. Just my take.

          Like

  3. The vast majority of people though don’t really fall into the “extremely good looking” category or the “totally undesirable” category. It largely depends on how you “market” yourself.

    Michel Houellebecq the Islamophobe and racist speculates about how sex in the west has become a parallel marketplace, that we look at it the same way we look at the job market.

    I have my criticisms of Michel Houellebecq but his views seems a lot closer to reality than the idea that sexual liberalism in capitalist societies benefits everybody. It really doesn’t. It *tends* to benefit the well-off. The working class, even the secular working class, just doesn’t have much time or energy to get laid very much. They’re too busy making a living.

    Add racism and the failure to assimilate immigrants to the mix, and it provide a very fertile recruiting ground for Islamic (and Christian) fundamentalists.

    Like

    1. This is a late response, but about the poor working to hard to get laid…umm, not so much LOL. And not to wade into lookism and political incorrectness, but we’ve all seen people our couples together and you wonder how he is even married or has a girlfriend (and vice versa, we’ve all thought it or said it about someone, anyone who says they didn’t is lying). Also, one of the major reasons people fall into poverty and stay there is having too many kids they can’t support. And where do kids come from??
      You have seen ex-cons, drug dealer, people with questionable backgrounds have many children with multiple women and you see these multiple women crying over these men, as if they are the last men on earth.
      And Houellebecq’s analysis is close to reality, but all that really says is if one tries hard enough to make themselves even remotely attractive to the opposite sex, they will get laid. We’ve all seen it and wondered aloud who the heck did that happen. As for Roger Elliot, despite his family connections and relatively wealthy parents, in other words a ‘good catch’ on paper at least, he turned women off because of his personality, Elliot wasn’t ugly either. Due to him suffering from Asperger’s or some other form of personality disorder, he was off putting to women. His parents for all their money failed to get him proper treatment and socialization skills to navigate the waters of society, especially for someone in his class which is very important, especially if he wants to get laid. There are tons of books on how to attract a mate designated for either sex, but if you cut through the BS it essentially says, market yourself in the best light with whatever you got and that takes confidence in yourself, improve yourself, when your inside is pretty it’ll transfer to the outside. How do you think guys with tattoos all over their body including the face get laid? Granted, for some women it’s a turn on, for me, I run the opposite direction.
      Again, the not getting laid, therefore shooting up anyone who is is an old, tired, beaten argument. It’s does explain the frustration but it’s no longer ‘valid’ to explain any sort of violence. And I wish people would stop bringing this up as a possible explanation for one’s frustrations and anger in life.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s