.jpg#mediaviewer/File:Counquest_of_Jeusalem_(1099).jpg){kind=link}
Well over a thousand people voted in the XYZ Viewer Poll asking, “Do you support Donald Trump’s executive order issuing a temporary immigration ban on ‘Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern’?” The overwhelming response (63%) was a resounding yes – a clear refutation of the MSM narrative, indication of strong support for Donald Trump, and a signal to patriotic politicians that that there exists deep community concern regarding Islam and immigration from Islamic countries.
These results are unsurprising. Given there have been over 28,000 Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11 2001, such strong support for increased scrutiny of those carrying the Islamic political philosophy is understandable, indeed to be hoped for. What is really interesting is that nearly 30% of respondents believe that Donald Trump’s actions do not go far enough.
Therefore it is important to discuss what possible actions could have been taken by Donald Trump in addition to the temporary ban on travel from terror-prone regions. I have taken the liberty to suggest three categories:
- It may have been clever politics to only ban travel from countries identified by the former Obama administration as being of “concern”, as it made it easy to quickly improve US national security while simultaneously skewering political opponents who cry “racism” or “islamophobia”. However, given it excludes countries such as Saudi Arabia, home to most of the 9/11 hijackers, and the Wahhabists who fund the Islamisation of the West; or Pakistan, where Osama bin Laden was able to hide for many years, and from where both of the murderers in the San Bernadino massacre originated, it is reasonable to argue that the net could be cast more broadly.
- Given that Islam is a political ideology which states as its goal the complete domination of the earth, given that as Mark Steyn has argued for years, terrorism is but the symptom, what really matters is demography, given that Western/European/White people across the Western world are reproducing at below replacement levels, and that the combination of high immigration from Islamic-majority countries and the high birth-rate of Islamic migrants in the West mean that large portions of the West, if not the entire West itself, may become majority Muslim in the coming century, perhaps even leading to the entire replacement of indigenous European populations, i.e., genocide, then it may be necessary to halt all Islamic immigration.
- Given that even if we halt Islamic immigration into the West entirely, the gap between the high birthrate of Islamic populations and the low birthrate of European populations may lead to demographic displacement, and even replacement of European populations, regardless, it may be necessary to expel the infidel, and by infidel we mean Islam, from the West entirely.
Obviously, these are sensitive topics which will need to respect the difference of opinion between those who see the Islamic Question as one of terrorism vs demography on the one hand, or simply a matter of halting immigration vs expulsion on the other. As long as this is done in the spirit of openness, accountability and with the embrace of a diversity of views, such a debate on the expulsion of the infidel can be a fruitful, uplifting experience for all.
Deus Vult.
It’s your XYZ.