Friday, January 09, 2004

 
Sigh, Derbyshire, Goldberg, Stuttaford, and I suspect even most of the gang at VDARE just "don't *get* it" or pretend for tactical reasons not to. (I'm sure that I've hated most of the uses of "don't get it," given that most of the time those who use it don't get or admit to themselves what they're actually talking about.) I'm prepared to admit the possibility that somethings are more difficult to "get" given a relatively high level of intelligence, knowledge, virtue, greatness of soul and so forth and that I'm probably deficient in all of those qualities compared to all of those cited in the first sentence. Still, it sometimes seems obvious when someone is rejecting certain realities or at least arguments without serious thought.
[They would have no difficulty in agreeing with the assertion reportedly made by a Japanese general that even after their victory at Pearl Harbor the Americans would not sue for peace until Washington D.C. was occupied. Or that the North Vietnamese could not have been defeated or even decide to cease its war against the South without use of U.S. land forces on their soil or at least the threat of that use. They might not agree that Islamicists will continue to make war on us until most Moslems(and not just their elites, leaders, and terrorist commanders) are deeply terrified of us(the prospect of being liberated by the West, while appealing to many if not most Moslems, but will hardly compell them to risk their live taking action against their terrorist brethren) or are annihilated, but might be able to think seriously about that proposition.]
An aggressvie program of deporting illegal immigrants once apprehended as advocated by JD would be better than the current state of affairs, but does he really believe that such a "catch and release" policy will be a sufficient deterent for many? Something like a 20 year prison sentence would deter many if not most potential immigrants not facing actual starvation in their homelands. The cost of imprisoning millions, even if as expensive as current per capita expenditures would be worth avoiding genocide. Large parts of American cities might be set afire if immigration laws were seriously enforced, but better sooner than later. Those who cannot sanction the use of the law to deport or imprison illegal immigrants should at least not favor the use of the state against our highly armed citizens, many of whom would gladly do what the law does not currently allow. And if one recoils at the thought of indiscriminate slaughter (Hey guys! Let her go; Ms Malkin is one of the *good* guys!)they shoud rethink their position against the use of state power against illegals.