Re the Brussels bloodbath, I mentioned on Tuesday that an attack on the section of the airport outside the security perimeter was entirely predictable. Yours truly in 2009:
The second thought that strikes you is that the ever-longer lines to get into the "secure" area are now the least secure area in America. Why not blow up the security line? You could kill as many people as on an airplane, and inflict more long-term economic damage. But don't worry. The TSA has plans to expand the "secure" area, so the insecure perimeter will be somewhere else, with even more vulnerable people standing around waiting to get into it.
As I added on Tuesday:
Clearly we need a secure zone outside the secure zone - maybe, say, outside the concourse. So everyone has to crowd on the sidewalk. And then when they blow that up we can move it back to the perimeter of the airport. And then...
But you can't parody the reaction of a western ruling class determined to punish their own citizens for the consequences of the elite's lunatic immigration policies. And so inevitably:
Security scanners could be installed at the entrances to airports, under proposals to be discussed next week in the wake of the Brussels terrorist attack, the Telegraph understands.
The case for installing a security perimeter outside of airport arrival halls will "definitely" be examined at an emergency meeting of experts that has been called for March 31, according to EU sources.
The meeting will be attended by experts from each country, the European Commission's transport department and officials from the European Aviation Safety Agency.
The terrorists have won. If we're going to move the security perimeter back, why don't sovereign nations move it back to their own national borders by not importing and expanding the high-risk population in which terrorism incubates?
But no, that's apparently too obvious. Europe would rather destroy itself than retreat from the delusions of multiculturalism. And so once free peoples must get used to ever more indignities and inconveniences, and ultimately a lot less of core liberties like freedom of expression and freedom of movement. The geniuses of the EU political class have decided not to solve the problem but to manage it, via ever more constraints on you.
~What's the next phase? Well, Brussels is currently about 25 per cent Muslim and they're mostly young. Conversely (as I pointed out in America Alone), the Flemings and Walloons are getting a bit long in the tooth. In any society, who provides the policemen and soldiers and security guards? The fit and healthy - ie, the young, the ones who can pass the physical. So increasingly the chaps responsible for keeping an eye out for Muslim terrorists will themselves be Muslim. Via Laura Rosen Cohen, here's a story from the Belgian papers from last June:
A Belgian municipal security officer is facing dismissal after saying he would kill "each and every Jew" during a debate on Facebook this past Friday.
That's some "debate".
"The word Jew itself is dirty. If I were in Israel, frankly, I would do to the Jews what they do with the Palestinians — slaughter each and every one of them," wrote the officer, who was only referred to as Mohamed N. in Belgian media.
That's Mohamed N standing next to the mayor of Molenbeek, Françoise Schepmans, in the picture at top right. A year before Mohamed N's "debate", four Jews were gunned down at the Jewish Museum in Brussels. This week the authorities told Brussels Jews to forget about Purim because they can't guarantee security. That's hardly surprising when "the authorities" include chaps like Mohamed N. How likely is a fellow who believes "the word Jew itself is dirty" to be alert to future threats against the Jewish Museum? Indeed, if you're higher up the security chain, how do you tell the difference between the chatter of the "radicalized" "extremists" and the views of your own men?
Mohamed N was a "guardian of the peace" in Molenbeek, the Brussels suburb that's been tied to November's Paris bloodbath, the Charlie Hebdo attacks, the Jewish Museum murders, the assault on a Paris-Brussels train thwarted by three Americans, etc, etc. Is it so surprising that the Belgian state is so clueless about what's going on under its nose when its eyes and ears on the ground are the likes of Mohamed N?
To repeat: the constabulary and soldiery are jobs for the young, and in a city that's expected to become majority Muslim circa 2030 the young will be Muslim. Here's a 2006 Pew poll on the percentage of young Muslims (18-29) in the west who think suicide bombing is justified:
Young German Muslims 22 per cent;
Young Spanish Muslims 29 per cent;
Young British Muslims 35 per cent;
Young French Muslims 42 per cent.
I wonder what the percentage in Brussels is today.
~Without an end to half-a-century of European immigration policy, there is not even a possibility of a happy ending. Will the Europeans demand that from a reckless radical elite that's condemned them to this? As George Orwell remarked after what he felt was an insufficiently riled up meeting of mine workers, "There is no turbulence left in England." There is certainly not much sign, amid the candles and teddy bears, of turbulence in Belgium. In my 2011 bestseller After America, I quoted from an interview in the Belgian newspaper De Standaard with the writer (and Brussels gallery owner) Oscar van den Boogaard:
Mr van den Boogaard is a Dutch gay "humanist", which is pretty much the trifecta of Eurocool. He was reflecting on the accelerating Islamization of the Continent and concluded that the jig was up for the Europe he loved. "I am not a warrior, but who is?" he shrugged. "I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it."
Doesn't work that way, not for long. For a less fatalistic view, try this Belgian:
I am not prepared to surrender an inch of the civilised world to barbarians, which is the choice that we have been faced with. And I'm not prepared to watch the lights go out on Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Slovenia, Belgium and Luxembourg and Canada and Australia, and then think that you can have one little redoubt where liberty will thrive. I take the same view to the civilised world that Islam takes to the Dar-al-Islam: once we hold this, we hold this forever and we will not surrender it.
Oh, wait. That was me in my speech in the Danish Parliament. And I'm only semi-Belgian. But those are the stakes - and the policy of the European governing class is to surrender civilization incrementally but remorselessly.
~Speaking of Brussels and the Continent, many readers enjoyed the re-post of Part One and Part Two of Michelle Malkin's ten-year-old interview with me re a certain highly prescient, timelier-than-ever bestseller of mine. We talked Europe, Islam, jihad and demography - all the fun stuff. Here's Part Three:
For part four, see here.
~On a related theme, a week today I'll be marking April Fool's Day by debating the "refugee crisis" in Europe and around the world with former UN Human Rights Commissioner Louise Arbour and distinguished historian Simon Schama on one side and me and UKIP honcho Nigel Farage on the other. For more details, see here. For tickets, see here.
Comment on this item (members only)
Viewing and submission of reader comments is restricted to Mark Steyn Club members only. If you are not yet a member, please click here to join. If you are already a member, please log in here: