The Western Response to the “Refugee” Crisis

The recent incident in the square outside of Cologne Cathedral illustrates the Western response to the Islamic invasion of the West.  Attacks on women in Cologne and other German cities resulted in over 600 criminal complaints.  According to an eyewitness there was at least one stabbing and one individual was beaten severely when assailants jumped on the victim’s head.  Yet the initial press release from the police described the event as “A mood of exuberance - largely peaceful celebrations." The police response was echoed in the press.  ZDF (Zweiten Deutschen Fernsehens) was forced to apologize for its decision not to report on the attacks until four days after they occurred.  Deputy chief editor, Elmar Thevessen wrote, “It was a mistake of the 7pm Heute show not to at least report the incidents.”  ZDF has a policy of not reporting Muslim crime stories because, according to their Editor in chief, Ina-Maria Reize-Wildemann, “We don’t want to inflame the situation and spread the bad mood. [The migrants] don’t deserve it.”  Cologne’s Mayor, Henriette Reker, claimed, “There’s no evidence that the molesters were refugees.”

Numerous examples exist of crimes that have not been reported.  The rape of a 13-year-old girl in Detmold was not reported for nearly three months, until local media published a story about the crime.  On July 26, a 21-year-old Tunisian asylum seeker raped a 20-year-old woman in the Dornwaldsiedlung district of Karlsruhe. Police kept the crime secret until August 14, when a local paper went public with the story.  An editorial in the newspaper, Westfalen-Blatt, claimed, “police are refusing to go public about crimes involving refugees and migrants because they do not want to give legitimacy to critics of mass migration.”  A female ‘No Borders’ activist working in a migrant camp on the France-Italy border remained silent about her gang rape by Sudanese migrants for over a month because “the others asked me to keep quiet.”  This suppression of news is not confined to Europe.  Authorities in Portland, Maine arrested three Somali-American refugees in connection with the brutal killing of a man and moved quickly to seal the case from public view.

Social media has played a leading role in publicizing news of crimes that the government and media would like to suppress.  However, the government has found a solution for this problem.  Chancellor Angela Merkel met with Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook.  Zuckerberg commented, “we need to do some work” on this issue.  Merkel asked, “Are you working on this?” Zuckerberg responded “Yeah.”  At this point the conversation was cut off.  Debbie Frost, a spokeswoman for Facebook, wrote, “We think the best solutions to dealing with people who make racist and xenophobic comments can be found when service providers, government and civil society all work together to address this common challenge.”  Facebook and other social networks along with the German government will be working with ex-Stasi agent Anetta Kahane to root out “xenophobic” posts.  According to the authorities these posts can be very threatening.  Ralf Jaeger, the Interior Minister of North Rhine-Westphalia claims, "What happens on the right-wing platforms and in chatrooms is at least as awful as the acts of those assaulting the women."  Of course determining what is hateful is somewhat subjective.  A former Stasi agent may have a more demanding standard for “hate speech.”  This can be very significant.  A person can face incitement charges in Germany, “for comments aimed at creating hostile or triggering violence against a particular race, religion or ethnicity.”  By Jaeger’s standards the penalties must be at least as severe as for rape.

People who oppose the government’s immigration policy are frequently labeled as “far right,” “Neo Nazi,” or Nazis.  Commentators must walk a fine line in order not to be associated with these groups.  Could the Wall Street Journal have crossed that line?  Their reporter Bret Stephens wrote, “Among the hard lessons of our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, surely one of them is that it’s foolish to expect that backward and often barbaric societies can be transformed into functioning liberal democracies. So why do liberals seem so surprised that so many people from these societies behave in barbaric ways after they’ve shoved their way into the West?”  Cologne’s Mayor Reker might find herself under investigation.  She commented, “there’s always the possibility to hold a certain distance.  More than an arm’s length in other words, not even seek a greater closeness with people who one finds to be foreign and with who one doesn’t have a trusted relationship.” 

The West will have to make many adjustments to accommodate its new arrivals.  Since Sweden opened its doors to mass immigration cases of rape have skyrocketed 1400%.  The fashion industry will have to be completely reformed.  Women and children will no longer be unaccompanied when away from home.  Common areas, pools and parks, will have to be closed.  Westerners will have to adjust, but the new arrivals will also have to make changes.  The New York Times ran a story about classes for new arrivals in Norway and Denmark on the topic that rape is wrong and unacceptable.  A sign posted outside of Cologne’s Cathedral reads, “One doesn't beat women - not even with flowers."  (This is sure to persuade immigrants.)  A sign posted in Germany reads, “Bitte nicht in die Duschen kacken,” in English and Arabic: “Please don’t poop in the shower.”  Once these migrants are educated these problems will be solved.

The problem in the West is not Islam.  It is the West itself.  George Orwell wrote in The Lion and the Unicorn, “However little we may like it, toughness is the price of survival.  A nation trained to think hedonistically cannot survive amid peoples who work like slaves and breed like rabbits.”  Sociologist Edward Shils wrote in “Dreams of Plentitude, Nightmares of Scarcity,” “Where authority abdicates through failures, ineptitude, and weakened self-confidence, it invites aggression against itself.”  The Western elite has invited this aggression. 

Movie Review - 13 Hours

            There is so much disinformation about the Benghazi incident that it will be impossible to get an accurate picture of what really transpired during the attack.  This has led to all kinds of conspiracy theories.  Informed commentators frequently refer to the compound in Benghazi as a consulate.  It was not a consulate and that is significant.  There are certain requirements for a consulate that the compound did not meet.

            Only the President has “cross-border authority.”  The President had a full day planned for September 12 and did not want to be disturbed.  Can you imagine how it would go at his campaign stop in Las Vegas if he did not get a full night’s sleep.  According to Senator Lindsey Graham the President did not even bother to call any government officials in Libya until long after the attack.   He had no problem in granting the military authority to cross the border to attack Qadaffi.  The media has shown a curious lack of interest in what he was doing during the attack. 

            Much has been made of the “stand down” order.  A CIA spokesman, Ryan Trapani, has announced that there was no “stand down” order.  This brings to mind a quote from Otto von Bismarck: “Nothing is proven until it is officially denied."

            Ambassador Stevens was more than likely CIA.  He met with the Turkish Consul General immediately prior to the attack.  He was in Benghazi to oversee the arms collected by the CIA that were shipped to Syrian rebels through Turkey.

            Security in Libya was reduced prior to the attack in spite of Steven’s requests.  The movie could have stressed Steven’s concerns.  The lack of security was Bush’s fault, or maybe the Republicans who cut security spending.  However, the State Department still has enough money to purchase $5 million worth of crystal from a company owned by a campaign contributor.  Relying on the indigenous population for security, specifically the February 17 Martyrs Brigade, seems unwise: something like a bank hiring the Barrow/Parker Bank Security Company.

            One thing the movie pointed out was the sophisticated video communications between the contractors and their families.  Was the government video equipment less sophisticated than the contractors?  Could people in Washington view events in Benghazi as they were happening through the cameras in the compound?  If this is the case I suggest they hire a consultant.  Probably any 13 year old girl could fill them in.

            The movie shows that there was a conscious effort to destroy classified material at the CIA annex.  Ambassador Stevens did not have this opportunity.  He undoubtedly had classified material at the compound.  The first people to have access to any classified material were the attackers.  Pity the people who had relations with the U.S. and did not want their identities known.  Three days after the attack a CNN reporter found the ambassador’s diary in the “largely unsecured” compound. The FBI sent a team to the compound two weeks after the attack.  Understandably they did not spend much time there.  A Washington Post reporter found “sensitive document” only “loosely secured” in the wreckage of the U.S. mission over three weeks after the attack.  A television station in the United Arab Emirates, Alaan TV, reported in November that documents written by US consulate staff in Benghazi were found in the “Tactical Operations Facility” of the compound.

When Will The Perpetually Dissatisfied Be Satisfied

It should not be controversial to state that the United States is the greatest country in the world.  It is far from perfect.  However, it surpasses every other nation in its level of tolerance and the benefits it offers.  Our underclass suffers far more fatalities from obesity than starvation.  A high percentage of them have cell phones.  According to the Census Bureau 22,000 people living in “poverty” have a heated swimming pools or Jacuzzi.  Poor neighborhoods have an abundance of beauty salons and liquor stores although they may be supermarket and hardware store deserts. 

There are few countries that are more tolerant of homosexuals, where women have a higher status, or where blacks have a higher standard of living and acceptance.  Yet there are few places where the level of discontent has reached such a high level.  What is the origin of this discontent?  Vladimir Lenin might provide the answer:

There is no single segment of the industrial society, no class in the population without a circle, however small, of discontented and maladjusted and alienated individuals-predisposed target audiences for radical hate propaganda-who can be hooked up to a revolutionary mass movement.

Much of this discontent is manufactured by “community organizers.”

It appears that people are often protesting for the sake of protesting.  In the classic movie, The Wild One, the character played by Marlon Brando is asked, “Hey Johnny what are you rebelling against?”  His response was, “Whadda Ya Got?”  This is similar to 1960s radical Jerry Rubin’s statement, “Satisfy our demands, and we’ve got twelve more.  The more demands you satisfy, the more we got.”

Recent college protests are reminiscent of the protests of the 1960’s.  The establishment responses to these protests are also similar.  Students make “non-negotiable demands” and the administration immediately caves in.  Homosexuals have protested for the acceptance of homosexual marriage and a variety of other homosexual demands.  Black Lives Matter has not only protested against police brutality but against place names and statues of historical figures.  Accusations of racism elicit fear similar to the results of charges of witchcraft in 17^th century Salem.

These protests have achieved a high level of success as they did in the colleges and universities of the 1960s.  Protesters are aware of the weakness of their opposition.  David Horowitz, who took part in the protests of the 1960s, stated, “In our attacks on the ‘repressive’ institutions of the university culture, we were pushing largely on open doors.”  Sociologist Edward Shils wrote in Dreams of Plentitude, Nightmares of Scarcity, “Where authority abdicates through failures, ineptitude, and weakened self-confidence, it invites aggression against itself.” If this weakness were confined to the universities it would be bad enough.  However, it appears that this weakness has permeated our entire society. Alexander Solzhenitsyn has remarked, “from ancient times a decline in courage has been considered the first symptom of the end.”

At some point the answer to “Whadda Ya Got?” becomes a problem.  The universities have acceded to every demand and protesters have run out of legitimate issues to protest.  What else can be demanded?  Here is where it becomes Kafkaesque.  Students at Oberlin College in Ohio are protesting what they consider poor efforts at multicultural cooking.  They are accusing the campus dining department and Bon Appétit Management Company of “cultural appropriation and cultural insensitivity.”  Students from the Afrikan Heritage House are demanding more fried chicken.  Other students protested the fact that General Tso’s chicken was made with steamed instead of fried poultry.  Michele Gross, Oberlin’s director of dining services, responded, “in our efforts to provide a vibrant menu, we recently fell short in the execution of several dishes in a manner that was culturally insensitive.”  Harvard will no longer use the term “House Master” to describe those people who are in charge of the residential and educational facilities called “Houses.”  In the view of the protesters the term “master” evokes slavery, and thus must go.  Harvard quickly acceded to their demand.  Harvard’s House Masters unanimously agreed that the title was offensive.

Where does it end?  It does not.  As Jerry Rubin stated, “Satisfy our demands, and we’ve got twelve more.”  We have already witnessed the removal of many religious symbols.  There have been large protests over the celebration of Columbus Day.  There have been several incidents where the American flag has been banned or burned due to its offensive nature.  Even the name of the nation’s capital might need modification.  After all, is it not named after a slave owner?