Thoughts for St Patrick's Day

 

Catherine Connoly, President of Ireland, yesterday opined that immigrants are as welcome in Ireland as was immigrant St. Patrick.

There's a difference, however between St. Patrick and the 3rd world immigrants now flooding into the Emerald Isle.   St. Patrick came to save Ireland.   Those 3rd-world immigrants mean to destroy Ireland.

Primarily Muslim, but not insignificantly from other parts of the developing world, these recent immigrants come not because they value Irish culture, but rather because they see the generosity of the Irish people as an opportunity to permanently embed their culture within the existing Irish culture — fully expecting that by doing so, they will make their own culture dominant with the fullness of time.

In particular, Islam requires of its adherents that they have no higher loyalty.   That is, they may not be so loyal to their 'adopted' country that their loyalty to Islam takes second place.   The reason for that is that Islam is not focused on the eternal;   it is a temporal ideology that seeks world-wide domination of the temporal (as opposed to the eternal) space.

The Irish, alas, seem thoroughly infected with 'suicidal empathy'.   Their concern for their fellow man persists even when their fellow man declines to reciprocate and, in fact, has concern only for their own long-term goal of an Islamic Ireland.

St. Patrick weeps.

 

Posted Without Comment

 

Regarding Islam

 

Have You Met Amelia?

 

The socialist, Islamophilic British government, smarting from fresh criticism over arresting 12,000 of His Majesty's subjects for unlawful tweeting, launched a propaganda program aimed at British youth: 'Pathways', an online 'game' in which the main character, Charlie, is being subverted by a Goth chick, Amelia, (blue hair, black velvet choker, pink mini-dress, purple cardigan) into rejecting his new neighbors from third-world countries.   The game has students trying to help Charlie defend against the verbal assaults of the hateful poisonous far-right Islamophobic revanchist Amelia.

Oddly, reaction from the actual students to the program content seems to be that they consider Amelia's opinions and positions to be common-sensical.

Oops...

Overnight, content creators have materialized Amelia into a modern-day British equivalent to Joan of Arc, but the government can't burn this one.   To see what Babbage hath wrought, pop on over to YouTube and search for 'Amelia'.   Page after page of AI-generated videos of Amelia, appropriately costumed, delivering British patriotic anthems of ages past: 'Jerusalem', 'I vow to thee, my country', and more, pressing into service modern rock diatribes as well.   One video has Amelia confronting Keir Starmer: "How did we get all the way from Churchill to you, you git?"

This would be no story except for the fact that popular support for Amelia has gone into low Earth orbit.   'Off the charts' simply doesn't do it justice.   The British people, it now seems, have only been waiting for someone to give voice to their unspoken — and untweeted — thoughts.

Even better, there is now a Swedish version, Inga, and a German version, Maria, and there's said to be an Australian version, but I haven't seen it.   All over the Western world, Amelia has spread like an engineered virus.   Various governments are furiously trying to put the genie back in its lamp and failing, predictably.

If you had asked me three weeks ago what I thought of the UK, I would have told you that I was sure it was 'a lost cause' soon to be overwhelmed by third-world in-migration and becoming, itself, part of the third-world.   Now?   As Churchill once opined: "This is not the end.   It is not even 'the beginning of the end'.   But it may be the end of the beginning."

You go, Amelia!

 

Citizenship

 

A person not a citizen of the United States by birth or inheritance must obtain citizenship via naturalization.   The process for becoming a naturalized citizen involves an oath of allegiance:

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

A Muslim, whether practicing or not, must be presumed to be unable to "swear this oath" as that term of art is typically understood.   Why is this so?

Islam has as a basic tenet that there can be no other allegiances superior to Islam.   It is analogous to the First Commandment of Judeo-Christianity.   But the oath asserts that the person swearing the oath will "support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic", and "bear true faith and allegiance to the same".   No Muslim can do this, since it (potentially) places Islam in an inferior position relative to the Constitution.

But many Muslims do swear this oath.   Have they committed perjury?   To non-Muslim eyes, the perjury is clear, but to Muslims (whose first and only duty is to Islam) the issue is not-so-clear.   The Koran, the 'holy book of Islam', carves out an escape clause: taqiyya.   Taqiyya, simply put, allows a Muslim to lie to an infidel (any non-Muslim) if doing so advances the cause of Islam.

Further, they cannot "take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion", since evasion is exactly the purpose of obtaining citizenship.   Obtaining U.S. citizenship is seen as a necessary first step toward the primary goal of Islam: establishing a world-wide caliphate governed by Sharia law.   Taqiyya is permissible.

Summarizing:   Muslims who take the Oath of Allegiance to the United States can only do so by resorting to taqiyya, an action that otherwise constitutes perjury and invalidates the oath ab initio.

No Muslim should be offered United States citizenship under any circumstances.   Muslims who have been granted citizenship via naturalization should be immediately de-naturalized.   Muslim citizens-by-inheritance should be considered national security risks.

 

The Time Has Come

 

"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes — and ships — and sealing-wax —
Of cabbages — and kings —
And why the sea is boiling hot —
And whether pigs have wings."

It's time, also, to consider what the Founders meant by the text of the First Amendment.  Did they, I wonder, mean to include political ideologies bent on world conquest that protect themselves by wrapping a camouflage cloak of 'religion' around them?  Did they really mean that we should clasp such a viper to our breast?

I speak, of course, of Islam, a religion-in-name-only, adherence to which involves a committment to the destruction of the western values upon which the United States was based.  It seems counter-intuitive that the Constitution (which we are assured is not a suicide pact) requires us to harbor within our midst persons who are dedicated to our destruction.

It's time for Congress to assert that Islam and its practice is not a religion as the term is normally understood, and that Islam is not a religion as the term was understood at the passage of the Bill of Rights.  That is: the Bill of Rights was never meant to protect a conquering army merely because it claims a religious exemption.

Why now?  What happened that suddenly makes this "an issue"?

Early this morning as revelers in New Orleans (LA) celebrated the start of a new year, an Islamic terrorist, possibly aided by presently unknown co-conspirators, drove a truck bearing an ISIS (black) flag into the crowd killing 15 and injuring many others.  Some of the deaths were due to the terrorist shooting into the crowd with, some reports say, firearms reported stolen in New Jersey.  A few hours earlier, the same scenario played out in several places in Western Europe.  We are at war.

The practice of Islam must be treated as we treated Communists.  We didn't allow them to enter the country.  If they somehow got in by hiding their Communist bona fides, we revoked their citizenship and deported them.  It was merely a matter of self-protection.

Failure to do this — and soon — means facing eventual dissolution of the United States of America.

 

The Theory And Practice Of A Welfare State

 

In a welfare state, wealth is transferred from those who have wealth to those who don't.  Ideally, the recipients of welfare state charity are those who are needy through no fault of their own and who are making an effort to become self-sufficient.  Too often, however, the modern welfare state provides support for those who have no ambition to become self-sufficient, and which is a primary factor in how they became 'needy' in the first place.  A modern industrial society can actually tolerate a certain number of able-bodied slackers, although it's never a good idea since it tends to encourage others to take that low road.

In a modern industrial society, those with ambition and talent can live in comfort not generally available to welfare beneficiaries.  This is, in fact, the primary element that makes the welfare state possible: some people are producing wealth far beyond what is actually necessary for subsistence, and that extra wealth can be tapped in order to provide for those whose wealth-generating ability is below what is necessary for subsistence.  Voila!  A source of wealth and a place to use it.

If the recipients of welfare largesse are encouraged, cajoled, or coerced to end their reliance on public charity, a welfare state can operate for a very long time, and the more robust the underlying economy, the longer the game can be played.

We know, however, that entropy always increases, and this is true even in a modern welfare state.  As benefits become more lush, more people find themselves comfortable with the idea that they are wards of the state.  Eventually, that group becomes a powerful voting bloc, and at that point, the system, like a star that has run out of fuel, is on the path to a spectacular end.  In fact, without a mechanism that forces welfare recipients off the dole after a limited time, that path begins when the welfare state is first established.  As the number of participants who produce no wealth grows, the burden on the actual wealth-producers becomes more and more onerous.  If the number of wealth-producers is also falling (as it is in America today) the collapse of the system is easy to foresee.

Things get out of control when newborns are eligible for state-supplied welfare because there is an incentive, usually in the form of larger payments than are strictly necessary for the newborn's survival.  That is: having a baby becomes profitable and the incentive to become productive and leave the welfare rolls decreases, even if only slightly.  This also moves society toward the point where welfare recipients constitute a voting majority.

In Minnesota recently, a modern scam involving their welfare system threatens to bankrupt their economy.  Working mothers whose income is under a certain figure are eligible for $1,000 per child per month for child care expenses.  A company is formed for the purpose of delivering 'child care' and subscribes a group of families.  It then hires those mothers as 'attendants', and pays them minimum wage for 25 hours per week to watch their own children!  The company bills the state for the 'care' at the maximum allowable rate and, it appears, funnels the excess offshore.  It should not come as a surprise that the proceeds of this scam are used to bring Mom's relatives over from the home country so that they can apply for and get welfare benefits here.

Meanwhile, the sources of the funds for doing all this are having children at a much decreased rate.  The next generation will be much smaller, but supporting a much larger group of welfare clients.

This can't go on.

 

Arab Culture and Other Myths

 

Jamal Khashoggi, a Washington Post reporter critical of the Saudi regime. strolls into his local Saudi embassy and is never seen again.  Turkey claims that he was killed by strangulation seconds after entering the building, dismembered, and the body parts spirited away, although how they might know this is anybody's guess.

Two sisters, Saudis, go missing in Virginia and are only found when their lifeless bodies, bound back-to-back waist and ankles with duct tape, wash up on the shores of the Hudson River.  They had applied to the United States for political asylum.  The cause of death is unknown, but a preliminary autopsy reveals that they were alive when they went into the water.  'Drowning' is not, apparently, within the coroner's vocabulary.  Their family has been ordered by the Saudi government to return home immediately.

In Pakistan, a Christian woman must have said something she shouldn't have.  She was arrested for blasphemy, a capital offense there, tried, and convicted.  This week, an appeals court overturned her death sentence and now one of Pakistan's political parties is calling for the death of the judges who deprived them of the joy of seeing her head lopped off by a scimitar.

President Trump, Mike Pompeo, and scores of others are trying to make nice with the Saudis for reasons that are not at all clear.  It may have something to do with the $1.3 billion they're planning to spend at Northrop-Grumman, Lockheed-Martin, and a clutch of other military equipment suppliers.  The American people may be starting to notice that we're supplying one of the most murderous regimes on Earth with equipment they may one day turn on their former friends (us), just as they are now doing in Syria.

There are two kinds of Muslim.  The first kind wants to kill all the unbelievers.  The second kind wants somebody else to kill all the unbelievers.

Selling these people things they can kill with is an absolutely insane foreign policy.

 

A Muslim majority?

 

What happens if Islam becomes the majority religion in America?

There is already a Muslim mayor of London, so don't think it's not possible.  That same mayor just announced, in response to the recent terror attack on Parliament, that such things are part of the price for living in a big city and that people should get used to it.

The first thing that will happen in a Muslim-majority America is that the 1st amendment to the Constitution will come under attack.  Long before that, Islam will have become a major religion among the U.S.Congress and the several statehouses, and that's where the process starts.  Either 2/3rds of both houses propose an amendment or 2/3rds of the states call for a convention.  Why the 1st amendment?  Well, technically anyone may broadcast or print negative words about the Prophet.  This cannot be tolerated in an Islamic country or by Muslims anywhere.  The first has got to go.

"The First Amendment to the Constitution is hereby repealed."  If 3/4ths of the states, either by ratifying convention or by the legislatures ratifying on behalf of the people, accept this, it could then become a crime to speak against the Prophet or Islam, even if what you say is true.  There would be no escape, either, for those who merely make such remarks among family and friends because, as we have seen from recent events, the government has the ability to spy on us even in private via our phones and television sets, and that spy apparatus would be in the hands of a largely-Islamic government.

It would then also be possible to have a state religion, and it would be Islam.  As in nearly all other Islamic nations, the practice of other religions would be forbidden.  Media outlets that took adverse positions could be lawfully shuttered.  There would be one voice throughout the land, and it would deliver a single message, and the Republic would be no more.

There comes a point in such a struggle that the tide sweeps the victor onward to inevitable victory, and we are too, too close to that point for comfort.

"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed;  if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly;  you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival.

"There may even be a worse case.  You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

— Winston Churchill

 

More 'community outreach' from 'The Religion of Peace'

 

I'm sure there are people who honestly believe there is a difference between 'radical Islam' and 'mainstream Islam'.  There are others who are convinced there is no difference.  The mass-murder-by-truck in Nice, France yesterday brings those two camps closer together, and the movement, I assure you, is toward 'no difference'.  Incident after bloody incident, the world is coming to realize that Islam and Western Civilization are incompatible.  One of them has to lose to the other.  It is becoming less and less possible to sustain the belief that Islam can peacefully coexist in the West.

France seems to be a particular target for reasons which are not at all clear.  Perhaps it is merely that, in their zeal to be seen as a cultural leader, they have allowed Islam to more deeply infiltrate their country.  Perhaps it is because France has a tradition of being a 'Catholic country' and toppling the polity that drove the Crusades in the 12th century is seen by Islam as the jewel in the crown for the 21st century.

Poor France!  Their citizens are disarmed prey against a wave of refugees whose primary goal, it seems to outside observers, is to destroy that beautiful country and its peaceful people.  What a tragedy it will be for Western civilization when the Islamic barbarians finally dynamite those blasphemous buildings: Notre Dame de Paris, Sacre Coeur, and the cathedrals at Chartres and Rheims.  Hopefully, all the portable art work will already have been transported to safety by the time the Louvre becomes a mosque.  We know that it will happen should Islam gain a majority.  We've seen it happen elsewhere.

If the Islamic tide is to be turned, it must be turned soon.  France does not have a First Amendment, as do we.  They can declare Islam an ideology that threatens the stability of the nation and eject its practitioners back to where they came from.  For the United States, the problem is different:  for as long as Islam is considered 'a religion', they are protected by a constitutional prohibition against government action.  Therein lies the key.

We must develop a consensus that Islam is not, in fact, 'a religion' in the sense that word is used in the Constitution.  It is, in fact, an ideology bent on the conquest and destruction of competing cultures.  When Islam is seen as 'just another ideology' it will be constitutionally possible to deny entry to those who subscribe to it, as we did with anarchists and communists in decades past.  To fail to protect our Western culture is to surrender it to the barbarian hordes of Mohammed.

Choose now:  Freedom or Islamification.  There is no middle path.

 

Should We Tolerate Muslims?

 

An American filmmaker (I use the term in its broadest, most inclusive sense) makes a film critical of Islam and Mohammed.  The Muslim World goes nuts (not exactly something unusual) and now the U.S. Ambassador to Libya is dead along with three others, and the embassy in Tripoli is ashes.  A CNN blogging-head suggests that it's not really the fault of those Muslims because they've all been raised under dictatorships and don't understand esoteric concepts like 'freedom of speech'; they think the U.S. government should have prevented the production of that film just as their own government would have.  Americans, by and large, are shocked at how thin-skinned Muslims seem to be.

Yeah, well, this isn't the first time we've run afoul of Muslim hypersensitivity and it assuredly won't be the last.  What to do?  What to do?

Here's what I'd do:  I would immediately cut off foreign aid to Libya and any other country we know or suspect implements Sharia law until such time as they demonstrate that they can act like adults and not merely petulant children.  I would warn Americans that travel in those parts of the world are extremely hazardous and that they should expect no diplomatic or consular help should they step on the wrong crack on a Muslim sidewalk.  I would immediately impose severe visa requirements on all those countries, cancelling all existing visas, and expelling any here on those cancelled visas.  That includes diplomats, and I would pull all of our foreign service personnel from their countries.

Left to their own devices, the Muslim world would quickly devolve to its natural state — a ninth- or tenth- century culture, complete with slaves and beheadings on the town square (something that actually still happens in places like Saudi Arabia).  Since this appears to be what they so desperately desire, we should strive to make them happy by cutting them off from all our decadent 21st-century technology.  Set them adrift.  Isolate them from the civilized world.

Someday, possibly far in the future, Islam, the Religion of Peace, will discover The Golden Rule and internalize it to their theology.  They will stop 'converting by the sword' in the name of a god who apparently isn't awe-inspiring enough to gain adherents merely by the strength of hir philosophy.  Until then, Islam cannot claim to be a religion in the true sense of the word.  Until then, Islam is merely ideology.  Since it's not a real religion, the First Amendment doesn't apply, and we should forbid the practice of Islam, just as we would squelch Communists and anarchists.  Should Islam ever overtake America, you can be sure they would see it exactly that way as regards Christianity, Judaism, and any other religions.

We've already got more than our fair share of ideologues here in America.  Let's not go looking abroad for more.  Cut them loose.

 

Searching For Truth

 

Every true thing was first believed by one person, then hundreds, then millions, then everyone.  Once upon a time, it was obvious to everyone that the stars were mere holes in the crystal sphere of the night sky, that if you were poor or sick it was because God wasn't pleased with you, that the Sun wheeled around the unmoving Earth, and that the Earth was flat.  Today, anyone who tries to convince you that the Earth is stationary is most likely to be judged a dangerous lunatic.

Today we are asked to believe just as many things whose truth is suspect:

• People who vacation in Paris are stupid because the French hate Americans.
• The Moslem world hates us because we're so good and so free.
• Julian Assange and Bradley Manning are traitors who want to see the Western democracies destroyed.
• Ron Paul is an isolationist who can't possibly beat Barack Obama.
• Sometimes you just have to hold your nose and vote for the lesser of two evils.
• Bullshit doesn't stink and is actually quite tasty and nourishing.

In fact, none of that is true.