Monitoring Muslims

Donald Trump’s presidency will undoubtedly expose Muslims to increased scrutiny. Because adherents to Islam are disproportionately hostile to Western European values, it’s difficult to argue how something like an Islamic registry — done judiciously, for prospective citizens — is a bad thing. We advocate, for example, routine colonoscopies for middle-aged men because of their susceptibility to cancer on the principle that we shouldn’t play games when a life is at stake. Likewise, devout Muslims may put many lives at stake by merely existing in an environment opposed to their own Islamic values. Their resulting frustration is understandable. But to not periodically investigate them would be statistically negligent. Ideally, this investigation would take place before emigration from a Disney-esque principality like Sudan or Somalia and intensify until her compatibility with the West is confirmed..

I’m not going to argue that Western values are superior to Islamic values. That’s not why I’m here. I will, however, argue that every Muslim immigrant should be ethically audited to determine their compatibility with European lifestyles. To not do so is gross negligence for the sake of pompous virtue-signaling or the protection of feelings; a philosophy that has enabled the exploitation of the Western world by Islamists (as an r reproductive strategy) for over a decade. Instead, the immigrant experience should be a competitive and challenging one — like potential employees, they should be subjected to extended interviews and an applicant pool slug fest.

Critics designate Islamic registries as a ‘slippery slope’ precipitating our society’s descent into Orwellian social stratification. But there really is no connection between the two; Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Wiccans, Agnostics and Atheists have proven themselves to be unilaterally trustworthy. They don’t need to be watched because here is no statistical justification to do so. If Muslims don’t want to be investigated and monitored, they should not come here — of course, they are always welcome to try, but not without due scrutiny. Why imperil our citizens and their wealth for the sake of ideologically opposed outsiders who, half of the time, have no interest in assimilation?

The progressive’s answer is inadvertently platitudinous: “What about ‘Give us your poor, hungry, etc’”. This argument is merely sentiment; translated into adult, it means ‘Because helping poor, benighted people makes me feel noble’. Perhaps this mawkishness was acceptable two centuries ago when America needed immigrants, but it’s aged poorly. Trump, denounced as a bigot, has the better answer: “[We need a] total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” Of course the world at large has branded him a bigot.

How is figuring out what is going on a bad thing? Can anyone tell me why we need more Muslims entering the United States? It’s like taking a girl out on date after date, paying for her dinners and picking her up, and instead of fucking you, she spits in your face. Let’s start ‘nexting’ immigrants. Why would you consider wasting resources on a person who gives back nothing, or less than nothing?? “Becaaaaause, that’s not who we areee” is NOT a valid answer — it’s sentimentality. And even if it’s not who we are, why isn’t it who we should be?

A Response to Obama’s Final Address

“For native-born Americans, it means reminding ourselves that the stereotypes about immigrants today were said, almost word for word, about the Irish, Italians, and Poles.  America wasn’t weakened by the presence of these newcomers; they embraced this nation’s creed, and it was strengthened.”

The platitude of A better life’ is not justification enough; rather, we must ask if these immigrants possess the capability to make American life better. It is for this reason that the Irish, Italians and Poles are incomparable to the Syrians, Somalis and Afghanis. Their cultural values have always been divergent from Christian-influenced, western, European societies.

While discrimination against Catholics was violent and frequent — as Obama speciously observes —  immigrants from Ireland and Italy were expected to kowtow to America’s nationally acknowledged identity, which was Protestantism. Eventually, we were able to put religion aside and work together — something Muslims can’t seem to do. No such expectations to adhere, to earn their citizenship, are placed on immigrants today; in fact, it is us, the native-born, European Americans who are told to ‘check our privilege’ and diversify, and grovel for a job.

Technology makes it worse. For modern immigrants, the urgency of assimilation is mitigated by the immediacy of social networking applications.  Entities like Whatsapp and Facebook can virtually anchor an immigrant to their previous country, decreasing their motivation to network or learn English. Integration begins to seem optional, even undesirable. Understood by no one, understanding only those like herself, the immigrant develops resentment towards American culture whilst reactively fortifying her favoritism towards her home culture. If the immigrant is Muslim, so much the worse: Islam was created by a governor for the purpose of governing, and Islamic immigrants are likely to point to its absence as an excuse to avoid assimilation; moreover, a secular government — being completely foreign to them — inspires Islamic animus, provoking violent retribution, economic exploitation, and sexual assault from opportunistic ‘refugees’. The latter case is especially true in men with poor marital prospects, who have a hard enough time not raping their own women, let alone Europeans or Americans.

Our fanatical insistence on diversity actually encourages radicalization. We take in refugees and ignore their intellectual progression; we don’t bother interviewing Muslims to ascertain whether or not they’re disgusted by miniskirts or homosexuality; when people fail to assimilate, we offer emotional support groups instead of tickets back home. Even if a potential citizen has made significant intellectual and emotional progress, we should pay them to return to their home countries; if they accept the money, clearly, we know why they came in the first place. Living in America is a privilege, like going to an Ivy League college: they mostly accept students from the best schools, so let’s mostly accept immigrants from the best countries. Succeed or go home. In the past, that’s what happened.

Islam doesn’t play well with the west — especially the type of Islam received through refugee programs and student visas. Generally, these are wayward young men with mediocre IQs and little or nothing to contribute. For every refugee who graduates or becomes well-assimilated, there are three who overstay their visas or ‘double-down’ on their identity as fundamentalist Muslims. American minority politics is suicide by altruism.

The Consequences of Islamic Refugee Asylum

Islam’s destructiveness is a product of Muslim animus towards lifestyles divergent from those established in the Quran and Sunna: Islamic sentiment towards homosexuality.

In light of this data, the Trumpian concept of subjecting Muslims to greater scrutiny seems less prejudicial, more practical. While it’s true that only a minority resort to terrorism, there exists a non-negligible correlation between the two, much like the minor but non-negligible correlation between HPV and cervical cancer. Although only a minority of HPV cases precipitate cervical cancer, doctors encourage screenings because it’s better to be safe than sorry. And Europe has spent the better part of the decade feeling sorry — publicly or otherwise — despite clear indication that settling droves of illegal Muslim immigrants is A Very Bad Idea. These indications turned out to be true: Here, Here, and Here

Notice how the importation of refugees clashes with the progressive notion that minority groups should be coddled and cherished; indeed, if liberals had a modicum of consideration for homosexuals, secularists, or sexually liberated women, they’d mind the data by not inviting their testosterone-addled antitheses to America on bogus college scholarships where their exposure to unislamic influences will be highest. This is a recipe for disaster — just ask Angela Merkel, Mark Rutte, or the victims of Omar Mateen; a disgruntled Muslim who, weeks before massacring 60 homosexuals, was observed by the FBI consorting with sheikhs who preached that homosexuals can be killed with impunity.

Our legislative branch and its enforcers have vulvas for frontal lobes. You see, they can’t protect gays from getting murdered, or pubescent girls from rape, because then they’d be racist. Better to be dead than racist. Fresh allegations of racism would crack their mask of sanctimony and dispel their blessed commitment (because it’s their virtue that matters) towards minorities; moreover, if Islam’s amoral pragmatism were exposed, it could threaten the ‘equalist’ fallacy and jeopardize Islam’s tenuous status a religion of peace. Public awareness of Islam’s nature as practical rather than peaceful must be avoided, lest the narrative collapse.

Muslims wouldn’t be so ethically malnourished if their religion had an internal filtration system. Had Marcus Robertson advocated gay genocide to room full of Christians, somebody, perhaps even the FBI, would have done something, anything, to address the potential threat. Yes, I understand that most Muslims are harmless; they are also more reluctant to suppress, even condemn, their brethren who are harmful. (34% would inform the police if they thought somebody they knew was getting involved with people who support terrorism in Syria)   The umma protects its own. A significant minority revels in terrorism or any theatrical stunt — no matter how vile —  in the name of Allah, as Islam is incomplete without its megaphone. And there’s no better megaphone than an unemployed 24 year old willing to blow himself up for kudos on ISIS’ Tinder account.

Islam’s young, violent, burgeoning population must be addressed. Seven out of ten of the most fertile nations are predominantly Islamic, with birth rates averaging about six children per mother. These nations are chronically poor and self-destructing, propped up by busybody colonial powers who, through a combinations of deal-cutting and virtue signaling, insist on importing wayward malcontents to intellectually superior civilizations like America. If Islam is a problem now, it’s going to get worse, and it’s going to be our fault:  At the rate of five or six children per female refugee, America’s white ethnic core — and even its nonwhite ethnic core — will be displaced with unanticipated rapidity. According to the Pew Research Center,  Muslims will outnumber Christians by 2070. (I believe the number is closer to 2050, for reasons I’ll explain later.) We’ll be living in a house of Democracy inhabited by squatters who shit on the ottoman while we pay the mortgage. Al ‘Ulama are aware of the West’s low birth rate and repeatedly announce their intention exploit it. If Western Secularism can’t be defeated in war, it will be defeated in bed.

We want to be good people, but we must first be good to ourselves. We can’t feed strangers while our families starve. Extending gratuitous kindness to a demographic incapable of censuring extremism and trimming its ideological hedges is suicide-by-politeness. What is to be done? While the concept of an ‘Islamic Registry’ is admittedly Orwellian, some measure must be taken against allowing extremists — or even opportunistic refugees — into America. Perhaps mandatory and extensive assessments of prospective immigrants’ ideological leanings. We’re not interested in homophobic high school dropouts, even if they’re seeking to escape violent civil war. I extend my sympathy, but Al-Assad isn’t an excuse. Get a weapon and choose a side. If you’re not willing to fight for your own country, why should we allow you into ours?