Mass murder in New Zealand, and the history of Islam and the West

Four gunmen opened fire at a mosque in New Zealand, killing at least 49 Muslim worshippers:

One person has been charged in connection with a “well-planned” terrorist attack that killed 49 people and injured dozens more in two New Zealand mosques on Friday, authorities said.

The New Zealand police said four people — three men and one woman — were in custody in connection with the mass shooting at both places of worship in the city of Christchurch. The charged male suspect is expected to appear in court Saturday, Police Commissioner Mike Bush told reporters at a news conference. He said the principal suspect was a 28-year-old Australian-born citizen who earlier claimed responsibility for the attacks.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said none of the suspects were on any security watch lists.

“These are people who I would describe as having extremist views, that have absolutely no place in New Zealand,” Ardern said.

Bush clarified that police found two improvised explosive devices in one vehicle after the shooting. One was disabled and police were working to defuse the second Friday night.

Needless to say, this is tragic and horrific. And yet, we might have seen it coming.

For going on twenty years, we have witnessed extremist Islamic attacks on non-Muslims throughout the West…beginning with 9/11 in 2001, and continuing with the more recent ISIS-inspired attacks.

We have seen second-generation, supposedly assimilated Muslims riot in Paris. In Stockholm and Cologne, young Muslim males have sexually assaulted “infidel” unveiled women.

None of these things in any way justifies what happened in New Zealand.

Nevertheless, human nature being what it is, it was only a matter of time before a lone band of extremists in the West responded in kind. (Frankly, I am surprised that it took twenty years.)

Now there will be a violent backlash from Islamic quarters, of course. And another backlash from some hothead in the West. That is the way these things always go. The cycle of violence. History tells us as much.

History also tells us that Islam and the West don’t mix. Read the history of interaction between Islam and the West, from the Muslim invasions of outer (Christian) Byzantium in 638, to the Frankish atrocities in Muslim Jerusalem in 1099.

In 1990 the United States sent troops to Saudi Arabia to check  the ambitions of Saddam Hussein, who had just absorbed Kuwait. We went at the invitation of the Saudi king. But this infuriated many Muslims who objected to “infidel” troops on the holy Arabian peninsula. The ultimate result, a decade later, was al Qaeda, and the 9/11 attacks.

A few years after that, the US attempt to build “democracy”in Iraq was a failure. Iraqis, by and large, did not want democracy…or at least our version of it.

Mass Muslim migration into Europe has been an unmitigated disaster.

The lesson of all of this is that Islam and the West are best kept apart. I repeat: Islam and the West don’t mix. The multiculturalist experiment was based on the premise that you could place two mutually hostile cultures side-by-side, in close juxtaposition, and everyone would hold hands and sing Kumbaya. The headlines tell us otherwise.

As we discovered on September 11, 2001, placing large numbers of Westerners in Muslim territory results in a violent backlash. We have since discovered that placing large numbers of Muslims in the West is a recipe for violence, too.


John Kasich: a man without a party

In an op-ed on CNN, John Kasich asks congressional Republicans to defy Trump’s declaration of a national emergency on the U.S.-Mexican border:

“Sometime soon, Republican senators will have the opportunity to demonstrate — as 13 Republicans did in the House — their love of country and their commitment to constitutional values by voting for the resolution to disapprove the President’s emergency declaration. Instead of acting like they’re afraid of their own shadows, Senate Republicans must use this vote to — at long last — stand up and defend the Constitution.”

One has to feel sorry for John Kasich. He’s not nearly far left enough to be a Democrat nowadays. At the same time, he’s clearly not aligned with the majority of Republican voters.

It isn’t that John Kasich makes no appealing arguments. In an ideal world, President Trump would not have declared a national emergency. In an ideal world, both parties would be eager to secure the border. Border security would be a bipartisan issue. (Securing the border is, after all, the first imperative of any national government.)

Two factors prevent this, however.

First of all, the Democratic Party recognizes that border security is not in its own best interests. To put the matter crudely: The more immigration we have—whether legal or illegal—the more Democratic votes we will have.

Everyone knows why, though few commentators (even on the right) like to talk about it: New immigrants from Third World countries are predisposed to favor economic redistribution—which is what the Democratic Party is all about. If the GOP’s natural constituency is white voters in so-called “red states”, the Democratic Party’s natural constituency can be found in the millions who are desperate to cross the U.S. border. If only they could all vote in US elections…we would never elect another Republican again!

Secondly, the Democratic Party has taken a sharp left turn in recent years. The new blood of the Democratic Party—Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib—all identify as socialists. The party is also in the grip of identity politics hysteria. The Democratic Party now sees the “browning of America” as a way to purify America of its past racial sins. This makes mass immigration from Latin America an almost spiritual imperative.

In short, the Democratic Party has become a haven for leftwing fanatics. More frightening still is the fact that the fanatics did not vote themselves into office. Someone—many people, in fact—voted Omar, Tlaib, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez into the House of Representatives.

Everyone knows this. Even moderate members of the Democratic Party know it. The fact that John Kasich does not seem to know it shows how out of touch he has become in the Republican camp.

So why doesn’t John Kasich simply join the Democrats? John Kasich is relatively popular among Democrats at present, because he has willingly stepped into the role of anti-Trump Republican. Were he to formally switch sides, he would run afoul of the anti-white sentiments that currently dominate the Democratic Party. (Nor can I envision Kasich declaring himself a Marxist, along with Ocasio-Cortez, et al.)

This is a shame for John Kasich, who is probably a moderate Democrat in his heart of hearts. Bill Clinton won two terms in the White House in the 1990s as a moderate Democrat, but those were different times.  There is no market for moderates in the Democratic Party of 2019.

Unfortunately for John Kasich, there is also no market for Republicans who are unwilling to acknowledge the untenable situation of the porous U.S. border.

Kasich wants to be seen as a nice guy who is the friend of immigrants, most of whom, it should be said, are perfectly decent people. But the immigration question is inextricably bound to the Democrats’ desire to remake America as a country that is a.) socialist, and b.) ethnically reengineered. This is a radical project that will transform the United States into Venezuela, if it proceeds according to the fevered dreams of those on the left.

Like it or not, now is a time for taking sides in regard to border control. You’re either for open borders, and the social/economic experiment that entails, or you’re for secured borders, and controlled, measured immigration. You can’t have it both ways.

But John Kasich insists on having it both ways. This is why John Kasich is occasionally interesting as a commentator, a philosophical gadfly of sorts…the tortured conscience of the Trump-dominated Republican Party.

This is also why he’s unlikely to ever hold a major public office again, either as a Democrat or as a Republican.