The two factors Farage enumerates are the glaringly primary factors in the current peril to the West. If it's somehow detrimental to either "national security" or "personal safety" to say so, we are at a grim juncture indeed.Once again we are ruled by a Dictatorship of Grief. Ever since the death of Princess Diana, we have been subject to these periodic spasms when everyone is supposed to think and say the same thing, or else.We were told on Friday that ‘politicians from all sides’ had lined up to attack Ukip’s Nigel Farage for supposedly ‘exploiting’ the Paris massacre.Mr Farage had (quite reasonably) pointed out that the presence of Islamist fanatics in our midst might have something to do with, a) uncontrolled mass migration from the Muslim world, and b) decades of multicultural refusal to integrate them into our laws and customs.Rather than disputing this with facts and logic (admittedly this would be hard), the three ‘mainstream’ parties joined in screeching condemnation.The Prime Minister, whose government was busy exploiting the tragedy to shore up the (already vast) snooping powers of the State, said it was not the day to make political arguments.Why ever not? What could be more political than discussing how to defend ourselves against this sort of crime? If it is not political, then why is he talking about it at all, instead of leaving the matter to the Archbishop of Canterbury?The Home Secretary, Theresa May, a hungry headline-seeker and reliable sucker for any scheme to diminish freedom that her civil servants drop on her desk, said Mr Farage was ‘irresponsible’.Why? Was he any less irresponsible than the chief of that sinister organisation MI5, who seized his chance to make our flesh creep with scare stories, and simultaneously apologise in advance for not actually being able to protect us?
Sunday, January 11, 2015
The West has lost the will to exist - today's edition
If there is still someone at the remote perimeter of society who doubts the veracity of the assertion enshrined in this post's title, herewith:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Not sure these tragedies can be prevented here any more than the Columbines and the Auroras here stateside. Invading whole sovereign nations does not seem to quite do the trick either. Can't you see this is what these crazy terrorists want? They want a world war. So do you, apparently. Lord knows we try to prevent this calamitous crap. Are we to live in fear and stop doing what we do? That was not the message I ever got from the Cheney/Rummie/Bush crowd. Who are the Pub preemptors going to line up for this next time? Romney again or Bush III? Maybe the American electorate can rise to the occasion of Rand Paul and a whole new crew in there giving it a try.
ReplyDeleteThey're not "tragedies" and they're not random events of unstable people cracking up like Columbine and Aurora. They are acts of war by a worldwide jihadist movement.
ReplyDeleteWe don't really "try to prevent this calamitous crap." That's why it keeps occurring.
But who do we preempt now?
ReplyDeleteFor starters, you have the US president (well, that's the first step: have a US president) call these acts radical Islamic terrorism in his very first response to each one. You take the measures to restore morale in the nation's intelligence community, so there's motivation to do whatever it takes to find out whatever we need to know about each and every plot being hatched anywhere. You restore relations with key allies: UK, Canada, Israel, Japan, Australia. You immediately stop nuke talks with Iran. You restore America's military might to what it was prior to the MEC's rule. You keep Gitmo open and quit releasing detainees. Then you're ready for the next step: build a real coalition with real ground troops to go into the ISIS caliphate and liberate it. Do likewise with the Boko Haram stronghold in Nigeria.
ReplyDeleteTell Pakistan and Afghanistan that we make rooting out al-Qaeda and Taliban strongholds a higher priority than respecting their sovereign borders.
ReplyDelete