"Anarchy in the U.S.A."

Oftentimes if you what to know how to fix something look to what was done with the past.

Dealing with terrorist Muslims is easy. Kick them out.

This is from Taki's Mag and was written by Steve Sailer.

The latest Muslim massacre has driven the mainstream media absolutely berserk with fear and loathing…but not, though, of the Muslim terrorist who murdered 49 Latino gays in Florida. Instead, the bad guy is Donald Trump for having been demonstrated to be right about immigration policy.

The GOP candidate offered a sensible speech on Monday on reforming our immigration system to work better for Americans:

But the current politically correct response cripples our ability to talk and think and act clearly…. The bottom line is that the only reason the killer was in America in the first place was because we allowed his family to come here…. We have a dysfunctional immigration system which does not permit us to know who we let into our country, and it does not permit us to protect our citizens.

Of course, Trump’s pragmatism was also calibrated to drive mad with rage the bipartisan Washington establishment that has grown rich off the conventional wisdom of Invade the World/Invite the World. Trump noted:

That is the choice I put before the American people: a mainstream immigration policy designed to benefit America, or Hillary Clinton’s radical immigration policy designed to benefit politically correct special interests….

Ask yourself, who is really the friend of women and the LGBT community, Donald Trump with his actions, or Hillary Clinton with her words? Clinton wants to allow radical Islamic terrorists to pour into our country—they enslave women, and murder gays.

The New York Times, for example, threw aside all pretense of objectivity, “reporting”:

"Mr. Trump’s speech…represented an extraordinary break from the longstanding rhetorical norms of American presidential nominees. But if his language more closely resembled a European nationalist’s than a mainstream Republican’s, he was wagering that voters are stirred more by their fears of Islamic terrorism than any concerns they may have about his flouting traditions of tolerance and respect for religious diversity."

This characterization of Trump’s rhetoric reveals more about the momentum of the conventional wisdom—anything other than Open Borders is Hitlerism—than it does about the candidate.

“When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.”

The Orlando Latino gay slaughter is a nightmare for the establishment because Florida is a purple state with 29 electoral votes. And while the mainstream efforts to elicit Hispanic racialism haven’t gotten all that far outside of La Raza circles, gays have become a popular sacralized group. Trump’s alt-center offer to defend gays from Muslims is part of his clever divide-and-rule strategy aimed at the obvious (but henceforth unspeakable) divisions among the Obama Coalition.

As I’ve been pointing out for years, the Democrats’ coalition of the fringes has been held together only by the KKKrazy Glue of egging on paranoid fantasies against straight white men.

But the GOP upstart is asking gays: Who is more likely to be on your side: Donald Trump or Omar Mateen?

Personally, I’ve been to Trump Tower, and I’d guess that the GOP candidate employed more than a few gay men to decorate it.

Trump’s speech on Monday even touched on a sore point that I’ve been noting since the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing by two nephews of the former son-in-law of top CIA insider Graham Fuller: that the American imperial apparatus negligently rewards overseas allies, like the Tsarnaev brothers’ Uncle Ruslan, an international pipeline lawyer, with visas for their unstable relatives. Trump briefly pointed out:

The Boston bombers came here through political asylum.

Back in 2013 the editor of the New York Times editorial page was so annoyed by rare examples of skepticism about letting in the Tsarnaevs as refugees that he expounded:

"And when did the United States start excluding immigrants from dangerous places? Seems to me that [the Tsarnaevs] fall into the categories of “huddled masses yearning to breathe free,” not to mention 'wretched refuse” of teeming shores and the 'homeless, tempest-tossed.'"

After all, the fact that everybody in the world has the civil right to immigrate to America is written into the Zeroth Amendment to the Constitution. Granted, it’s not actually a law that any American ever voted on, it’s just an 1883 poem by Zionist Emma Lazarus. But how dare any candidate for president not treat it like holy writ just because it’s all bogus retconning by the New York media?

Some of the press’ rage is due to the craven assumption that if we don’t roll over and let in more Muslim immigrants, then the ones who are here already will get really mad and kill us all for sure. After all, the reasoning goes, the U.S. has already let in many Muslims, so therefore we must let in more. As Christopher Caldwell noted in 2009:

One moves swiftly and imperceptibly from a world in which affirmative action can’t be ended because its beneficiaries are too weak to a world in which it can’t be ended because its beneficiaries are too strong.

Thus, the mainstream’s main talking point since the Orlando carnage has been that the Muslim terrorist was an 'American citizen.' (Omar Mateen was born an anchor baby in the U.S.)

So if any efforts are made to limit Muslim immigration in the future, the current Muslims will have every right to go nuts and slaughter Americans in countless numbers. Or something. (You are supposed to believe that this argument that it’s too late to change so don’t even think about it has nothing at all to do with powerful and influential people trying to evade responsibility for bad decisions they’ve made in the past.)

Of course, the reality that several of the most notorious Muslim terrorists of recent years have been brought up here or even born here is an extremely bad argument for more pedal-to-the-metal immigration policies. Instead, it suggests that America’s Magic Dirt doesn’t automatically assimilate Muslims. That Muslim immigrant terrorism is likely to go on for at least a generation is, rationally speaking, an argument for heightened prudence, not an argument for increased negligence. When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

And yet, the United States has been plagued before by immigrant terrorism, and completely solved the problem.

How? Largely by selective deportations of radical immigrants and cutting back on future immigration.

Immigrant terrorists committed many of the most heinous crimes during the anarchism plague of the first third of the 20th century. Anarchists are largely forgotten today, but they were a spectacular annoyance a century ago.

Even Marxists despised anarchists as childish show-offs who only provoked bourgeois reaction with their vicious antics. When communists and anarchists nominally teamed up during the Spanish Civil War of the late 1930s, Joseph Stalin devoted far more energy to murdering his anarchist allies than to fighting the right.

Anarchist terrorists in the U.S. tended to be leftist atheists from either Catholic or Orthodox countries in Southern or Eastern Europe. Shooting heads of state or blowing up banks was known as “propaganda of the deed.”

For example, in 1901 President William McKinley was assassinated by Leon Czolgosz, a second-generation Pole. The last hurrah for anarchist terrorists may have been Giuseppe Zangara’s attack at an appearance by president-elect Franklin Roosevelt in 1933, which wound up killing Chicago mayor Anton Cermak.

The peak of anarchist terrorism in America came soon after WWI in an era of broad nervous breakdown across this country.

In 1919, followers of the Italian immigrant anarchist Luigi Galleani mailed three dozen letter bombs to prominent citizens. When the housekeeper of a U.S. senator had her hands blown off, an alert postal worker recognized that the bomb was the same as sixteen packages that had been set aside in his office due to insufficient postage.

The thwarted cheapskates then set off bigger bombs outside the homes of eight political figures, including Woodrow Wilson’s Attorney General, A. Mitchell Palmer, where an Italian terrorist managed to blow himself up. (One of his body parts landed on the doorstep of Palmer’s neighbors Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt.) Palmer eventually responded by deporting 556 leftists, such as Emma Goldman and her former boyfriend Alexander Berkman, who had tried to assassinate industrialist Henry Clay Frick.

Then, in 1920, a couple of Italian-immigrant followers of Galleani, Sacco and Vanzetti, were arrested for murdering two workers in an armed robbery in the Boston area. The innocence of Sacco and Vanzetti became an immense cause célèbre for progressive intellectuals in the 1920s, although, as in so many similar recent fiascos, Sacco was likely the killer and Vanzetti his accomplice.

In September 1920, a huge bomb went off outside J.P. Morgan’s bank on Wall Street, probably as vengeance for the arrest of Sacco and Vanzetti. It killed three dozen civilians, mostly messenger boys and the like.

The Republicans, hugely victorious in the 1920 election, responded to these outrages with immigration restriction laws in 1921 and 1924.

The relevant question is: Did this democratic response drive Italian-Americans and Polish-Americans to new levels of violence, as so many now assume that any attempt to trim the levels of Muslim immigration would lead to even more Muslim domestic terrorism?

No, not really.

In fact, following this assertion of citizen authority over immigration policy, America calmed down rather quickly. The ’20s were less agitated than the teens, and Depression America was remarkably stable. The thirty years from the apparent assassination attempt by an anarchist on FDR in 1933 to JFK’s murder by a communist in 1963 were among the most cohesive in American history.

A country that had appeared to be coming apart at the seams in 1919–20 went on to enjoy world-historical triumphs, with rapid assimilation to American norms by immigrants who were no longer reinforced by newcomers. Rather than answering with rage, Italians and Poles largely seemed to respond to this assertion of leadership by founding stock Americans as right and fitting.

Perhaps this historical analogy is an overly optimistic guide for a contemporary America dealing with a different set of immigrant groups.

But if we don’t try, how will we ever know?