“Home Grown” Rotten Fruit

So I’m reading this article … and it suddenly becomes crystal clear what I’m being sold and how it’s being sold:

Allowing a terrorist disguised as a refugee is a possibility, Sandweg said. But he added, “talk to any professional and they will probably say what keeps them up at night is the homegrown terrorist.”

In Paris, where 129 were killed in a combination of shootouts and bombings, some of those responsible were radicalized French or Belgian citizens.

“There is a notion that refugees are the source of the problem.  Recent events show the opposite.  Individuals get radicalized at home and it’s not the wolf slipping in in sheep’s clothing.”

Let’s take a look at the wording up there.

“Homegrown terrorist.”

And “homegrown” terrorists are grown from what sort of seed, in general?

Next sentence “some of those responsible were radicalized French or Belgian citizens”.

Some of them.  They didn’t even say “most” of them.  And you know darned well that if they could say “most” of them, they would.

Second, if we look at the “radicalized” citizens, what was their path to said citizenship?  I’ll bet francs to beignets they weren’t multi-generational French people named “Pierre” or “Francois”.  Immigrants become citizens unless they’re there illegally.  Refugees who have children have children who are citizens at the very least.

Now back to my first question … who is it being radicalized?

By saying “homegrown” and “citizens”, they are intentionally disguising the problem, and that is the problem of setting up a culture clash in your own country.  It might not happen often in the first generation … but that’s not what’s been going on in Europe, is it?

This is exactly what one would expect when you import people from radically different cultures and bend over backward to allow them not to assimilate.  This leaves, after a generation or two, a large population of unassimilated people who have thus not been able to successfully integrate into society, most of whom probably therefore have crappy jobs and don’t mix with their new “home” countrymen.  And they understandably feel “separate” and “other”.  And it just so happens that their religious cohorts in their families’ original home countries and around the world are all to willing to provide the spark needed for radicalization, even self-radicalization.

But it all happened here at home, so don’t worry about bringing more in.  Nothing to see here.  Move along.

 

This entry was posted in "H8", Leftist Unreality, This Post is "Racist" by philmon. Bookmark the permalink.

About philmon

Part mountain junkie, part decent amateur photographer, part survivalist, part not-so-decent amateur musician, part sysadmin. Husband, step-dad, grandpa, and music freak who digs mechanical clocks, barometers, and Gil Elvgren pinups. Studied Meteorolgy & Computer Science. And the U.S. Constitution.

One thought on ““Home Grown” Rotten Fruit

  1. This is also the mindset that refuses to acknowledge the ideology behind Moslem attacks, especially individual, unorganized attacks like Ft. Hood. Now, it doesn’t matter why someone commits a crime, a crime is a crime. So “hate crime” really just means “thought crime”. But I digress, a little.

    So while we shouldn’t treat crime by Moslem terrorists who are citizens and differently from any other crime, we should recognize that in general people who subscribe to that ideology do commit these crimes at a higher rate than people who don’t. So people who come from countries who mostly share that ideology are also more likely to commit these crimes than people who don’t, especially when those countries of origin have a higher than average rate of Islam-inspired crime, even if those countries haven’t yet managed to export those criminals here. But I digress again.

    It’s certainly easy to see why an American would say Moslem crime is under-reported in traditional news outlets in the United States. The news organizations seem to bend over backwards to avoid associating crimes that are obviously Islam-inspired with Islam. Eventually they have to acknowledge that it is, and then they get all huffy when someone points out their initial reluctance (“fake news”, if you will). Like the Boy Who Cried Wolf, we don’t believe them any more, even when they’re telling the truth.

    But the LA Times article is right, even though they don’t know it. Refugees are not the source of the problem. What they won’t admit is that the problem is Islam. I’ll go ahead and qualify that; radical Islam is the problem. “Radical” means “as supplied by the manufacturer”. However, the Times goes on to say “recent events show the opposite.” That’s not the case. The problem is the same. It’s Islam.

    We quarantine people with infectious diseases so they don’t affect healthy people. We need to make sure that we protect uninfected people from whoever is carrying radical Islam, whether those carriers are citizens, refugees, visitors, or an invading army. It’s tough to do that with citizens, they have more rights than refugees. But that shouldn’t stop us from making sure refugees aren’t infected.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *