There is no doubt that Europe is presently in the throes of a serious struggle with migrants, and there is also no doubt that this issue is being exasperated by the many individuals of a liberal and progressive and even anarchist persuasion who are encouraging the migrants and the mass quantities of immigration into their European lands, and since the wave of migration into Europe is, in my view, something that is seriously undesirable and will cause massive problems in the near future–problems which are eminently avoidable through a sane migration policy–but also given that we do not necessarily wish to restrict the desires and freedoms of those European progressives wishing to have migrants enter their country, then one way that I propose to both solve the migrant crisis and to make the pro-migrant cheerleaders put their money where their mouth is, is to offer the simple solution that migrants are welcome into a European country, but they are only welcome so long as a European person or family is willing to sponsor them and have them live in the same residence as the person or family for a set period of time, such as one-to-two year; by doing this, we would achieve two things, the first of which would be exposing, once again, the utter hypocrisy of the leftist liberal progressive given that no doubt few of them would actually offer their own homes to house migrants even though they are more than ready to “compassionately” offer other people’s towns and neighborhoods for the migrants so long as the progressive himself is not personally affected by his own “benevolent” policies, and the second outcome, derived from the first, would be a massive drop in the amount of migrants flooding into the country given the lack of progressives who actually would be willing to personally do what they demand so many other people do, namely house the migrants in their own towns, neighborhoods, and homes…and so, in this way, we could, so to speak, kill two birds with our one stone, for we would expose the progressives for the hypocrites that we all know that they are and drive immigration down to a trickle, and yet because this idea would be so effective, it is obviously the reason it won’t be done in Europe today (and note that I in no way think that we should not help refugees in their own country, but that is a different issue).
In this current time and age, with its extreme divides in politics, cultural outlook, and civilizational desires, a question which we in the West can no longer avoid, and one which we thus must muse about seriously, is the question of whether or not it is time for Western Civilization, and the individual countries that make up that civilization, to consider dividing itself into essentially two separate and distinct entities, with one group espousing and maintaining views traditionally associated with orthodox Christian religion, conservatism, individualism, nationalism, and natural law morality (essentially, Christendom), and with the other group being composed of the secularists, leftists, collectivists, globalists, and moral relativists (essentially, the modern progressive welfare state), and the reason to suggest that such a separation is needed is due to the fact that when you have massive chunks of a population so divided about the most fundamental issues in existence–God, religion, morality, the concept of the human person, immigration and national identity, the right to life, sexual mores, and so on and so forth–then in one country, you actually no longer have a nation or a society or a culture, but rather you have numerous different “nations” and societies and cultures simply placed together on one land mass with borders around it, and as history can attest (with the former Yugoslavia being put one recent example), when tensions rise, these separate-but-in-one-country societies and cultural / ethnic groups, if not allowed to fracture peacefully, will do so by force, for force, in such a divided country, will be the only option left for one side or the other, for indeed, when a country is so divided concerning the most foundational issues, then the only way that one side or the other can achieve its aims against the other cultural group that totally opposes it is through the coercion and legal power of the state, which is what we are presently starting to see occur against Christians and conservatives, by leftist progressives, in the West today, and which is what we saw the reverse of only a few generations ago, and so indeed, the potential need to separate the West into a “progressive” area and a “conservative / traditionalist” one (to use these terms as commonly understood) may be the only way to avoid a fate that could potentially be much worse than mere separation; after all, just imagine that if any married couple were as divided about the most core cultural and social and moral issues as many countries in the West are divided today–and especially the United States–then such a couple would have been divorced long ago, and if they did not divorce peacefully, then the pressure and tension and hatred of one for the other would only grow, until such a time as arguably only force or the threat of force (or blackmail / intimidation) could cause one spouse to do what the other wanted, and also until either one spouse either became totally submissive or else the whole situation exploded, and this, I contend, might very well be what will happen to the West if the real possibly of amicable separation is not at least seriously considered in the future….let the progressives live among themselves and rule themselves as they like, and let the conservatives do the same, for, in the end, both groups would no doubt be happier with such an arrangement.
In the West one of the things that we hear about from many sides of the political spectrum when discussing the issue of ‘terror jihad’ that is presently emanating from numerous Muslims across the world is that these murderous jihadists, while claiming to be Muslim, are actually inspired to commit violence not due to Islam itself, but rather due to such factors as poverty, and/or disenfranchisement, and/or oppression, and/or unemployment, and/or marginalization, etc., for essentially, what is contended is that it is nearly everything but Islam which is the motivating force for these violent Islamists, and that their Islam is almost incidental to their motivations, and yet, the problem with this claim is that the very fact that the “Islamist-excusers” appeal to such an utterly wide and disparate range of other motivating factors literally undermines their point and shows that the only connecting factor is Islam itself, for when 1) you have jihadists and Islamist suicide bombers who come from all sorts of economic backgrounds and ranges, and 2) who come from all sorts of different countries across the world, and 3) who come from all sorts of different ethnicities and cultural groups, and 4) who are both converts and life-long Muslims, and 5) who come from both main groups of Islam (Shia and Sunni), and 6) who come from varying education levels, and 7) who come from both relatively open societies to repressive societies, and 8) who come from Muslim majority countries to countries with barely any Muslims, and 9) who come from countries with no history of non-question-begging grievances against the West to countries with such grievances, and yet whose one main and cleared shared trait among these violent jihadists is a strict and literal interpretation of the Koran and other foundational Muslim texts, as well as the emulation and copying of Muslim jihadists, right down to Muhammad himself, who have been attacking the West since the origin of Islam, then those two just mentioned facts are, in and of themselves, a strong and rational reason to believe that maybe, just maybe, the main problem and the primary driver of these jihadists is indeed Islam itself, not some outside factor like “poverty” (or, more specifically, the main motivator are the commands in the Koran and other Muslim texts, as well as the life of Muhammad); so do not be fooled by the attempts to push the problem away from Islam itself, for if the motivating factor of the jihadists were some outside force or forces, we would expect that factor to be shared across the board by most jihadists, and yet the only factor that we really see shared by all violent Islamists is a strict and literal understanding of the Koran and a desire to follow the commands therein to the letter, and this fact is rather telling about their main motivation, is it not?
In our modern age, in this, the twentieth and sixteen year of our Lord, it is time that we traditional Christians in the West stop kidding ourselves and realize that the attacks that we face from both liberal leftist “Christians” and the secular progressive liberal left against our common-sense morality and orthodox ethical views are not, primarily, done for the purpose of seeking equality, or fighting against discrimination, or seeking tolerance, for what these attacks are primarily targeted at is our Christianity itself, and these attacks against our Christianity are thus meant to be insidiously couched in more pleasant language about toleration and diversity and so on, in order to lull us to sleep while the enemy strikes, and while I do not contend that this is necessarily some type of concerted or coordinated or conspiratorial effort in this case, it is still nevertheless true that these are attacks against orthodox Christian theism, and the way that we can know this to be true is quite simple, for consider the following truths:
1. We see liberal progressive leftists actively seek out and target Christian bakers, or florists, or whatnot in an effort to be able to bring cultural and societal sanctions against these people, but we do not see one iota of effort from the same people in seeking out Muslim or Orthodox Jewish businesses that would refuse the same services as the Christian parties do;
2. After every Muslim terror attack, we hear calls from the left not to be ‘Islamophobic’ and that not all Muslims are like that and that, most likely, the attack was “somehow” caused by the far-right, and that the worse thing would be an anti-Muslim backlash, and yet when some Catholic priests are convicted of sexual abuse, there is no cry to avoid ‘Catholicophobia’, and no calls not to paint all priests as abusers, and no attempts at making excuses, but rather, the progressives actively and joyously use the sexual abuse crisis as a stick with which to beat the Catholic Church as a whole, something that they would never do with Muslims (just like when a Muslim causes an attack, the left tries to avoid mentioning his religion for as long as possible, but if a “Christian” or “right-winger” causes an attack, it is almost the first thing mentioned, and it is repeated over and over and over again);
3. Progressive feminists, who, under the law, enjoy full equality in the formerly Christian West, spend inordinate amounts of time whining and complaining about the most idiotic and minor things that happen in Western societies while not only ignoring the horrors against women that occur elsewhere in the world, such as in Muslim countries, but even covering up for crimes against women committed by these other ‘victim groups’;
4. History and facts are utterly distorted by leftist progressives in order to make what was formerly Christendom and Western Civilization and Western culture seem abhorrent and horrendous, when, in reality, the West’s sins were absolutely no greater than those of any other culture, and were arguably much less so, and were also readily offset by the great cultural and political benefits that the West brought to the rest of the world which no other culture did;
5. We see leftist progressive politicians and businesses in the West condemn and refuse to do business in areas and states that enact laws to protect Christians from secular progressive discrimination, and yet, all the while, these politicians and businesses are happy to do business in countries that are actively and horrendously hostile to progressive ideas and ideals (China, Sauda Arabia, Turkey, Cuba, Iran, etc.) and yet which also just happen to persecute Christians too, so so long as Christians are somehow receiving the lash–both literally and figuratively–these progressive politicians and businesses are happy;
6. While secular progressives are happy to attack crosses in public spaces or prayer in schools due to the need for the ‘separation of church and state’, they dutifully ignore Muslim segregation of girls and boys in schools while they are literally praying in schools and ignore the chanting from minarets across all public spaces, just to name a few issues of this sort;
7. While Christians are routinely harassed and stopped and punished under hate speech laws enacted and enforced by progressives in the West, these laws, strangely, never seem to be used by progressives against Muslim hate-preachers or secular bigots, but mainly against orthodox Christians;
8. While progressives will claim that criticism of Islam or other non-Western religions is racist–a claim which is non-sensical to begin with–they would laugh if you called their criticism of Christianity racist or discriminatory;
9. Finally, while we see leftist progressives talk about aiding the needy and helping the destitute, we almost never hear them speak about the fact that the most persecuted victim group in the world are ‘Christians’, for Christians the world over are harmed and killed by their non-Christian country-men more so than any other religious group, and yet about this, you will rarely hear the left make a sound;
…and so, it is for reasons like these, and others, that we can reasonably come to believe that the progressive left is not aiming at using social tools for a “better” world, but rather, they use their power to seek a world without traditional Christianity, but of course, to the progressive left, those two things are synonymous, and the sooner Christians realize this, the better.
Although not an outright contradiction, there is a serious intellectual tension and general incoherence in the overall thrust of the progressive narrative in today’s day and age, for consider, for example, that, on the one hand, we are told by the progressive side of the political spectrum that there is a great deal of male privilege (generally white male privilege) in our modern society, and that it is extremely difficult and under-privileging to be a female in our Western civilization, and yet, at the same time, we are also advised by progressives that, like magic, it is also possible, in our present progressive age, for a woman to become a man, and be treated like a man by society, merely by a magical verbal incantation and emotional fiat, without even having to go through any serious physical change or even change of dress, and yet, when we think of the combination of these factors, there seems to be a strange incoherence in the fact that, if there is such privilege in society for men, and if women, without making any major changes, can become men simply by claiming to be men, then it is a wonder why more women don’t simply “become” men in order to not only enjoy the male privilege that allegedly pervades our society but also to transform the “patriarchy” from the inside out; and indeed, the reason that this issue is such a wonder is because the fact that it does not happen more often–namely, that women don’t “become” men much more often in today’s society–seems to indicate a progressive dilemma that either 1) male privilege is not nearly as powerful or existent as it is proposed to be, and thus women don’t really need to become men to experience the same power and privilege as men, or else 2) that even progressives know that women cannot just “become” men by magical verbal fiat because manhood is determined by one’s physical sex (or some other objective physical fact) not by what one feels and tells other people, nor by some mutilating anatomical surgery, and so either way that you slice it, the very fact that modern progressives, while preaching both male privilege and gender-transformism, do not actually transform themselves into men more often, shows that at least some aspect of their progressive narrative is undermined by their very behavior, for their behavior shows that they do not really believe at least some part of what they are preaching…and if progressives don’t really believe in aspects of their own narrative, then why should you!
In recent years, the idea of “microaggressions” have come out into the mainstream of society, and microaggressions are, as the pushers of this idea often claim, small and even unconscious biases and prejudices in the way that one person–of course, nearly always a white male–makes against another person in speech and action, and what is apparently of particular perniciousness about microaggressions is that quite often, neither the individual causing the microaggression nor the individual being microaggressed actually know that they involved in a microaggressing interaction, and thus only an outside observer–an expert in “microaggressions” perhaps–can see the microaggression in action; now, though many decent but ignorant people may think, merely upon hearing the term “microaggression”, that stopping such a thing is a good and noble task, for stopping any type of unnecessary aggression is a good, but make absolutely no mistake that the intent and the dark underbelly of the idea of microaggressions is fundamentally about power and control, for when 1) you have an “aggression” that you might not even know you are committing, and 2) the receiver does not even know that he is receiving such an aggression, and 3) for which you need a third party to “advise” you of your microaggression, and 4) when the term itself is so vague, amorphous, and flexible that essentially anything could be a microaggression to someone, then you have a recipe for where the microaggression commissars can suddenly bear down on almost anything you say or do that is culturally or socially relevant and thereby control your speech and your behavior by simply claiming that you have committed an unconscious microaggression which you need to cease committing, and soon, the fear of microaggressing–for those who let themselves fear such things, that is–will eventually cause you to self-censor not only your own speech but your very way of thinking, and in so doing, you have essentially conceded your power and autonomy to the new political priestly caste of microaggression perceivers, and you will have done so not through your own reason, but through the subtle coercion of social and cultural pressures that make many weaker men bend the knee to the sins of their times…so make no error in this matter: the core purpose of the idea of microaggressions is as a tool to allow others to exercise power over you, and to do so in a way that literally makes you and your mind begin to shape itself into the very intellectual and political mold that the modern day Social Justice Warrior desires, and there could be no hell worse than that.
In this thought I wish to make an analogy that many would consider utterly shocking and even “offensive”, but since we are after the truth here, and since offensiveness takes a far back seat to facts, we thus proceed nonetheless, and so in proceeding, we can thus ask the interesting question of whether illegal immigration is, in certain important ways, like rape (or at least assault), and before such a comparison is rejected as obviously ludicrous, consider that just as a nation is an interlinked connection of different systems all functioning together to make life possible, namely the life of a specific society and the specific people of that nation, so too is a body an interlinked connection of different systems all functioning together to make life possible, namely our life as a person, and just as a nation has a border which delineates it from other nations, so too does the body have a border–namely, our skin–which delineates it from other bodies, but now note that when one body breaches the border of another body without consent, we call that rape, and we obviously call such an action immoral and wrong, and so should we not, by analogical extension, also see illegal immigration as a type of rape (social rape, perhaps), for it is the non-consenting breach of the border of one nation / social organism by the “fingers and appendages”–in the form of people–of another nation / social organism, and note also that the motives of those breaching these borders are immaterial to the fact that they are doing something immoral and wrong, for just as an illegal immigrant may simply be seeking the pleasure of a better life for himself by doing something illegal, could not it be said that perhaps a rapist is also simply trying to seek some pleasure by doing something illegal, and also note that the consequences of the act matter not to the morality or immorality of the breaching of the border, for even if, say, a person somehow physically enjoyed the experience of being raped (it is logically possible, after all), that consequence would do nothing to negate the immorality of the rape itself, and so by analogy even if illegal immigration was somehow “good” for the invaded society, that consequence would do nothing to remove the immorality of the initial act of breaching a nation without consent, and so from all these facts, we can see that there is a case to be made that illegal immigration is, for a nation and society, indeed similar to a person being sexually assaulted by another person; now, I am not saying that this analogy is necessarily perfect, for no analogy is, but my point in making this analogy is to help awaken people who might otherwise be blinded by their emotions or feelings or cultural propaganda concerning the immorality of illegal immigration by showing its similarity to something which we all immediately know is immoral and wrong–namely, rape–and thus, by understanding that illegal immigration is analogous to rape (or, at the very least, analogous to something like assault), we can, at least in part, wash the scales from our eyes and view the whole debate about illegal immigration from a perspective which might have never occurred to us.