Image by Gates of Vienna

--

In his recent essay considering Donald Trump and his proposed ban on Muslim immigration published at Gates of Vienna, Jeff Nyquist cuts a diamond, exposing sparkling new ways of thinking through the murk.

What is unusual about this essay, which is here, is its explication of first things -- patriarchy, nation, posterity, Constitution, etc. -- which restores to them, for want of better languague, the essential decency, which has been perverted, for want of a better label, by the Left. It is, of course, a story of Good and Evil, and Evil is winning. The age-old struggle. As limned by Nyquist, however, "It is a war against our ancestors and against our posterity which is waged by our present leaders."     

Some excerpts:

Everyone, of course, has heard of the Constitution of the United States. It is the supreme law of the land. The first ten amendments to the Constitution are known as the “Bill of Rights.” Americans today hear a great deal about “rights” and very little about the practical measures needed to ensure those rights. Many Americans have forgotten that you cannot have a constitution unless you have a country; and you cannot have a country unless you defend it against enemies, foreign and domestic.

This simple statement defines America's crisis of leadership, and Donald Trump's elemental appeal.

Nyquist:

At bottom, every constitution must be construed so that national security is not compromised by a growing tangle of individual and minority rights that choke off those measures necessary for self-protection.

So here we are, wrestling with the question: Do Muslims have a right of immigration into the United States? Does the Constitution’s right of religious freedom extend to foreigners who want to come here and whose religion has proven to be hostile?

That we have to ask these questions -- and ask them we must! -- shows how much we have lost of ourselves as a nation. Such loss is evidence of the twin-victories by the conservative-universalists and the liberal-mutliculturalists who have dominated our leadership and institutions since FDR entered office in the decade before the Second World War.

Back to Nyquist:

Whatever we think of the Constitution, it cannot protect Muslims from the enmity which Islam generates wherever its standard has been raised. In fact, the Constitution was not written to protect the nation of Islam, or various colonies of that nation planted in our midst. The Constitution nowhere says that Muslims have the right to come to the United States, build mosques, or establish their own culture as part of a multicultural patchwork celebrated as a new kind of nation (self-negated). This is not why the Constitution was established.

...

Furthermore, we should pay careful attention to the objectives of the Constitution. How does the presence of millions of Muslims in the United States make a “more perfect Union” or “insure domestic Tranquility”? Clearly, the presence of an alien colony in our midst serves to promote disunion and unrest. How would the Arabs react if we insisted on a right of immigration to Arabia? How would they react if we began erecting Churches in Mecca?

...

We might as well write a new Preamble for the Constitution — “in order to form a more perfect Disunion, establish Political Correctness, insure domestic Disorder, sabotage the common defense, promote general mayhem, and secure the Blessings of Military Dictatorship to ourselves and our Posterity.” Then, at least, the words would properly describe our current leaders’ objectives — which Mr. Trump has dared to contradict.

...

As may be readily apparent to the wise, it is backwards to imagine that a constitution comes first and a nation comes second, as if the nation was created for the constitution instead of the constitution for the nation. Concepts of individual or group rights cannot trump national existence. There is no legitimate right which effectively disintegrates the nation that observes it.Not only does the individual have a right to self-defense, but the nation also has a right of self-defense. For if there were no nation, there could be no basis for organizing the effective defense of the individual. Furthermore, we should not pretend that national suicide is somehow an enlightened ideal. It is nothing of the kind. And those who despise the nation state are not progressive, but follow a path leading back to the Dark Ages.

...

In this matter ask yourself why America is denied the right to defend its sovereignty and its culture. The answer is that the Left dreams of a world without America on the assumption that America is the fountainhead of capitalism, sexism, racism and war. In truth, there will never be a world without war, just as there will never be a world without capitalism, sexism and racism. These are, in reality, the very ground of human existence: the market, the division of labor between the sexes, and man’s inveterate tribalism. To decry what is human, as if some post-human regime were possible, is crazy. It is the demagogy of those who want total power over mankind. To such as these, the United States represents a barrier that must be knocked down; for it stands in the way of all those revolutionary lunatics dreaming of mankind’s secular salvation. Of all countries, it is America that stands in the way of the great socialist commonwealth, that butcher’s block and slaughterhouse at the end of history. Here we see what kind of weapon multiculturalism is, and what it aims to achieve. In this context, Islam merely serves as the “icebreaker of the revolution.”

The reader may see, quite clearly, that all issues — from feminism and abortion to immigration and terrorism — are interconnected. What our ancestors accepted as wise and prudent we dismiss as sexism and racism. Therefore, we have embraced feminism to the detriment of our birth rate; and we have embraced multiculturalism to the detriment of our national security. Both feminism and multiculturalism belong under one and the same heading: National Suicide. And those mock leaders who raise the banner of these mock faiths are the destroyers of their country. .... 

Read the essay in its entirety here.