Yesterday at least 50 people were executed in Florida for the crime of being gay during Ramadan.
Take a look at Social Media commentary in Britain, on the Pulse nightclub massacre, and one thing becomes clear. The horrific events in Orlando – in which a Muslim from a migrant family gunned down innocents just having a good time – are driving people to a realization.
it is a realisation which was inevitably going to dominate the home stretch of a desperate and eye-wateringly dishonest campaign to ensure the UK remains a member of the European Union, in the referendum set for June 23.
In ten days’ time, after two generations, one nation and one alone is to be permitted a vote of consequence on the issue of mass immigration. It is no exaggeration to say that Britain’s reputation as a historic defender of the West hangs in the balance, as no country is likely to be given an identical chance ever again.
Not of a mere vote in a General Election – for politicians discussing the subject with crossed fingers held permanently behind their backs – but an actual referendum whose result will compel and require government to reassert genuine control over its country’s borders.
If Vote Leave wins next Thursday it is likely to be the beginning of the end, but solely for a cosy political consensus. A political consensus which maintains the pretence that controlling who comes in and out of a country, and how many do so, is something that cannot and should not be done in our century.
Yet doing so is actually a central function of every sovereign government that might lay claim to being either independent or legitimate. However should the Remain camp prove successful in making a what should be a question about sovereignty and self-determination into one focused on spurious economics instead, you can already hear what comes next.
‘The issue of mass migration is settled,’ our politicians will say. ‘The British public clearly found the arguments against it voiced in the referendum campaign unconvincing,’ they will add.
With the loss of a chance for Brexit, the British people would not merely be locked into the EU in perpetuity.
European Union criminal laws would deny them the freedom of speech to respond negatively to the consequences of mass migration, while corporate controls on internet companies recently imposed by the Commission, would remove even their freedom to be heard.
As you might expect several Orlando narratives are already being desperately propagated by the mainstream media, at the expense of victims and their families, in an effort to conceal several truths from the public.
The first of these is that the primary enabler of the Islamic butchery committed by Omar Mateen, a registered Democrat and “known quantity” to federal law enforcement, born to parents originally from Afghanistan, is the lack of gun controls in the United States.
The worst mass shooting in American history took place in a gun-free zone, where the presence of citizens able to defend themselves, would have sent the Islamic State acolyte to the afterlife with a lot less collateral damage than his holy book demanded of him.
The second is the charge of cynical exploitation, a strategy that nakedly dishonours the dead, and an accusation most rightly levelled at the pundits and media outlets addicted to making it instead.
The condemnation currently being heaped on Donald Trump, for example, for his own commitment to what a one-time British politician called “the supreme function of statesmanship” – namely, alerting the public to preventable evil – is a case in point.
The treatment of the presumptive Republican nominee’s defiance post-Orlando, mirrors that already meted out to a handful of uniquely courageous politicians in Europe.
Having already endured Muslim assassination plots and press opprobrium, for their cautioning of the inevitable consequences of mass Islamic immigration for decades, they then have to pay the further price of being proved right, because their warnings were not heeded.
The most pernicious deception propagated, however, lies in the determination to somehow differentiate between so-called ‘home-grown terrorism’ committed by those born in the West, and acts of Quranically sanctioned mass murder, engaged in by those who travel from Muslim countries with the express purpose of carrying it out.
The purpose executed by this final narrative, is to lay moral culpability on American society for somehow marginalizing, discriminating or excluding the offspring of those who are offered an infinitely richer, more prosperous, more welcoming and more comfortable life in the West than they would ever receive in any Muslim land.
The reality lies in the intimate interaction of both foreign-born fundamentalist recruiters and operatives on the one hand, and the immature resentments of young western-born Muslims on the other.
This trend is no more new, than the fact that what lies between both these phenomena are the open borders obsessions of an out-of-touch political establishment, eager to grasp any opportunity to distract public attention from them.
The first evidence lies way back in 2005, when intelligence documents revealed the key figure in the London bombings committed by four British-born Muslims.
Al-Qaeda’s top European bomb-maker, codenamed ‘Q,’ having already travelled the continent, took up residence in the small town of Luton near the British capital, finally motivating and equipping the mass murderers before skipping the country.
The same interaction, with ‘freedom of movement’ at its heart, proved key in the backgrounds to both Paris attacks in 2015, and the massacre in Brussels committed on March 22 this year.
Thankfully as a result of the First Amendment, Americans will be able to freely discuss the true causes of yesterday’s massacre. This stands in contrast to citizens in the European Union who increasingly face prosecution for daring to do so.
George Igler is a political analyst based in the City of London and the director of the Discourse Institute.
Listen to the discussion of this article on Breitbart News Daily on SiriusXM: