Interesting, isn’t it, how this lefty PC tag, supposedly intended to avoid any nasty and specific ethnic or religious labels, manages to create a label far, far worse. In one deft swipe, this approach manages to do one thing and one thing only: label everyone of ‘Middle Eastern’ appearance.
So, why not call it what it is?
In the context of our ongoing unpleasantness at the hands of the gangs of youths of ‘Middle Eastern’ appearance (so-called), by identifying them as ‘Lebanese’, we ensure we aren’t tarring others from the same region. By identifying them as ‘Muslim’, we ensure we aren’t tarring the Christians from that same country, and who aren’t going about whacking people with baseball bats or spitting on small children swimming at the beach. By identifying them as ‘Lebanese Muslim’, we aren’t tarring all Muslims. By identifying them as ‘gangs’ we ensure we aren’t tarring those Lebanese Muslims who aren’t taking part in the baseball bat antics, and who might also get the bums rush from any backlash that occurs as a result.
There. ‘Lebanese Muslim gangs’. Not so hard, is it, MSM? So where's the problem?
Let’s look a little closer at why this deliberate blurring, in terms of identifying specific problems, might (seemingly paradoxically - given the ideological context - read on) be seen as something of an advantage – by some. Look no further than the potential result of doing just that: widespread and ongoing racial and ideological/religious tensions. Widespread, because that blurring effort effectively stimulates the alienation of all, not just those causing the problems. Ongoing, because by installing such a generality, we are effectively prevented from identifying a specific problem, and so our hands are tied completely (because we can't punish them 'all', and nor should we).
The result is obvious for everyone who wants to see.
I want to get one thing straight. I don’t believe this is a migration problem, as such. I don’t even believe it’s a religious problem (which is easily dealt with). I believe it’s our problem. To be more specific, an internal discipline problem. I have no issue with someone who wants to quietly practise their religion and get on with their life - good luck to them. The radicals who threaten us, however, should be utterly crushed without fear or favour.
Certain of our ideological opponents, however, have bitterly opposed and prevented us from doing any such thing (unless that crushing solely applies to 'us'). What purpose does this serve? There’s an internal cold war being fought here; an ideological cold war we’ve been struggling with for nearly a century and that has peaked over the last thirty years; a battle with those forces in our midst that have sought to systematically undermine our culture and society, and everything it once stood for.
So, as one small example of just one product of this war, I’ll leave it to you to consider who started this particular PC approach, this deliberate muddying of these turbulent waters, and what it is they think they might have to gain by the widespread social dislocation it helps to create. . .