if not invasion, what?

calling things by their names

so here’s an honest question.

i’d like you to keep it in mind as you read the rest of this:

if we are not to call much of what has been going on in the west of late “an invasion” then what, candidly and frankly, are we to call it?

what are the words?

what is the name of this thing?

when large numbers of violent people come from abroad with no intention of joining a civilization but rather to pillage, attack, and to dominate it, how is one to describe this course of events?

and when the host nations themselves invite it in with open arms, defending and excusing it, what then are we to call that?

i’m not going to answer this question.

but i think you should.

because we are playing with the most dangerous of fire here and the stakes are about as high as stakes get.

yet again, this time in sydney, in a notably “gun free zone,” we see murderously effective attacks by devotees to the self-styled “religion of peace” upon innocents merely seeking to celebrate a holiday in peace. (in this case hanukkah) two islamic jihadis with rifles started shooting into crowds. they fired a great many times over 10 or 20 minutes, repeatedly stopping to reload. this was managed with what looked like bolt action rifles. ~16 were killed (reports vary) and another ~40 were injured. a car load of bombs/IEDs was also discovered. it has been posited this was for a “second wave” or potentially as a means to massacre first responders (police, ambulance), a common terror tactic that both produces more fear and makes responders hesitate in the future.

it likely would have been worse had not a brave (and unarmed) bystander tackled one of the shooters and disarmed him.

this was an incredibly courageous move, especially as there was still a second active shooter. monday morning quarterbacking about “why didn’t he kill him?” seems unjust here. this was an astonishing and selfless act at great personal risk. the man is a legit hero and i do not use that word lightly.

there appear to have been at least 4 armed aussie cops on the scene. none did anything during most of this shooting. they did not return fire. they just milled around (or actually hid) like uvalde’s finest. this also seems like an awfully meager number for a place like bondi (i used to live in sydney so i know the area well).

the shooters appear to have been motivated by a desire to massacre jews.

i’m sure we’ll get the full raft of “just a good boy, loved reciting his quran and loved his family” but let’s get real for a minute:

good boys don’t shoot up parks full of peaceful people.

you would not know it to hear the aussie press speak. they have taken a tone as predictable as it is terrible “gee, we just cannot speculate as to what the factors are that contributed to this awful tragedy…”

you may think i’m exaggerating. see for yourselves:

it’s all passive voice and handwringing about “tragedy” as if this were some accident or chance mishap. “don’t want to speculate.” “people lost their lives.”

no, they were killed.

say it out loud in active voice.

this was premeditated murder and those who did it were hoping to kill a lot more people than they did.

“the real problem is the narrative of being different and we need to “detoxify” the way we think about people who are not like us.”

what is one to even say in response to such a framing?

the phrase “suicidal empathy” seems altogether inadequate a descriptor.

this is a frog that once stung would like another scorpion.

the matter is made all the more complex by the fact that the man who tackled the shooter was ahmed al-ahmed a sydney resident, father of two, and small business owner (a nearby produce market). ahmed is also a muslim and a first-generation immigrant, apparently from lebanon.

so, it just goes to show you, there are good people everywhere, a fact that once made selected and selective immigration so beneficial to the west.

i suspect it’s the memory of this and the fact that, indisputably, there are some great folks mixed in with the problem people in these recent immigration waves that makes this all so difficult to parse.

you want to protect the innocent and allow the good ones. i did. i still do.

but i have lost confidence that in most cases we can.

we do not want it to be true that some people are this awful and that they exist in such large numbers, that this flow of alleged lambs is laden with wolves. i sure as hell didn’t. but past a certain point, it gets pretty hard to keep accepting the same tired justifications.

and past a point, “the good ones” stop being worth the price. i hate it. you want ahmed al-ahmed in your country. seems like a helluva stand up guy. but if the price of him is “these other two” the calculus rapidly goes sour.

if you had a wasp’s nest on your deck and you kept getting stung when you went outside, would you say “well, not all the wasps in this nest have stung me, let’s give them a chance?”

maybe once.

maybe twice.

probably none if you have any sense, wasps being wasps, but regardless:

past a point, wasp’s nest is a wasp’s nest, and you cannot have it near where you live.

not even if some of the wasps are lovely, pleasant, productive insects.

past a point, the bad apples ruin the barrel.

with remarkable prescience, christopher hitchens warned of this 20 years ago.

“the right to complain will be taken away from you.”

an entire way of life in europe is being demolished because it has become first “impolite” and increasingly “illegal” to criticize those seeking to immolate it.

again, what are we to call this? what does one call those who come to your land to do this?

and what does one call those who apologize for and appease them?

the savagry of it is something with which the west has lost familiarity, and this lack of imagination has placed the west in danger.

an attack was foiled this weekend in bavaria. the plan was to ram vehicles into a christmas market killing as many people as possible. this was planned in and encouraged by the local mosque.

so, you tell me, is this “islamophobia?” because from where i sit, it’s the christmas markets that all need (seemingly with justification) crash barriers to protect them and yet the mosques are all wide open and safe.

if this were prejudice and predation against muslims, it would be the other way around, no? christmas would be safe and prayer rugs at risk. is it “phobic” to fear something that keeps attacking you? to claim such seems like propaganda. it seems like “stop being foxphobic chicken, there are many valuable vulpines in our community.”

a special class of inhabitant has arisen here.

even when mosques plan atrocities such as this one, will anything happen to them? will they be shut down, proscribed, will indivuduals, at least, be held to account? probably not.

it won’t happen because these groups are highly tribal, highly unified, and will rage and riot if you try. and once you let them get to a certain size, there’s just no spraying the wasps nest anymore because there are too many others around. attack one and all will come to sting.

so governments lose power in their own land to uphold laws, peace, and morals.

they live in fear of a foreign people resident upon their own soil.

and so, i ask again, what are we to call this dire loss of sovereignty, of a state living in fear of its imported inhabitants, if we are not to call it invasion?

what is such a state if not one of conquest?

and how odd it occurs only in certain places and not in others…

and in the end, this is why the arguments about “but the good ones!” and “not all scorpions!” fail. you cannot separate them excpet by most careful opt in policy. and mostly that gets done wrong. you can’t make it work.

what does one even do around a set of inclinations and practices like this?

sure, it’s never “every one” but at what point must one simply decide “no more?”

there are just too many bad ones. the numbers don’t lie.

allowing immigration is a choice, a choice of both how many and whom to allow.

and this is not a gray area, some unjust ascription of malice and intent to a blameless people just seeking to join us and adopt our ways.

the very day of the attack in bondi, we get a march for intifada in birmingham. reports are that many were chanting “honor the martyrs.” i suppose one could legitimately ask “does this mean bondi or some other martyr?” but in the end does it in any legitimate manner matter? and does not the fact that there are so many to choose from itself speak volumes?

nothing about this is accidental or incidental.

they very people who leap at the opportunity to move to your country and live off its welfare will openly tell you that they despise you, find you degenerate, will never assimilate, and wish to tear your culture down.

meet mohammed nusairat, an “islamic scholar” in chicago.

this speech is from one month ago, 11/14/2025 at the noon islamic center, a group with ties to hizb ut-tahrir, a transnational group banned in a number of countries for promoting islamic supremacy.

given the sentiments, it’s not difficult to see why.

“Islam did NOT come to co-exist. Islam is ALWAYS superior.

Nothing is above Islam.” “It didn’t come to live with other religions… Islam came to CORRECT all that. To REMOVE the oppression of those religions. It’s the ONLY way to justice.”

no one else gets a share of truth. islam is the ONLY truth. it cannot exist as a religion among religions (or among nonbelievers). it must be the only religion. and everyone must believe.

again, not my words. hear them for yourself. this is neither subtle nor in any manner said in jest. this is a group telling you exactly what they want and how they see you. and keep in mind that when they say this, they seem islam and sharia as inseparable from government, law, and life. this is not a culture of “live and let live.” it is a culture of absolute theocratic conquest.

astoundingly, this group is banned in egypt, jordan, saudi, syria, libya, and tunisia as well as kazakhstan, uzbekistan, kyrgyzstan, tajikistan, and turkmenistan, india, pakistan, turkey. even the UK calls them terrorists and banned them.

but in illinois?

this is the special kind of stupid that afflicts the high trust, high function society at its apogee. it has been so long since such societies had anything to fear that they have forgotten about the concept of danger. lambs walk right up to slavering wolves sure in their little lamby hearts of hearts that they must all be good doggins who just need a kind word and a chance.

and london seethes with the seeds of secarian violence with marches for intifada (this was from last night) surging through picadilly circus in the time generally held aside for christmas celebrations.

all is chaos and no authority lifts a finger to stop it.

it’s an astonishing inversion of power. touch one of these people and you’ll do time. hell, meme about it and the bobbies will come for you.

but block downtown with flares and chants for global intifada (which let us not forget is literally a call for insurrection and conquest) and all good mate. not a copper will care. i don’t know how to say “bob’s your uncle” in arabic, but i fear a lot of britons are about to learn.

for any cause, this sort of disruption and behavior would be intolerable, but in support of intifada at christmas on the day after a massacre and in a europe whose christmas markets now need fallujah-level anti-vehicle protection, this gets pretty wild. it’s pure provocation and domination.

the mayor of london is sir sadiq kahn. the lord mayor of birmingham is zafar iqbal MBE. it’s always the same game: when these groups are in the minority, they demand minority rights. and once they take power, they afford none to anyone else.

it literally says this on the outside of the box. they proclaim it proudly in their own words. this plan is not a secret and it is being run with ruthless ambition, violence, and theft. hamas supporters are attacking/harassing a holiday celebration in amsterdam. this is all stuff that never, not ever, used to happen in the west. and (apart from momena shoma) this has all happened just this weekend.

but tell me again about religions and peace…

those unwise enough to let this go too far become prisoners in their own land, aliens in their own culture, their way of life sacrificed upon an altar they mistook for cultural enrichment.

it seems to fail to “go hot” in the US in quite the same way because the same critical mass has not been reached and because americans are too well armed to menace in quite the same way, but you can see the intensity of the tribal grift and stealing in minnesota and other large concentrations of folks who inhabit the venn intersect of the religion of conquest and low trust, tribal war based cultures where the purpose of the state is to codify which tribe gets to plunder which others.

the game is ever the same and the history of it is well past rhyming and into pure repetition.

and the game sucks. everyhting about it sucks from losing your society to being forced to lump the good in with the bad and start gatekeeping them all and sending folks home by the freighter load and encouraging the rest to self-deport by cutting off access to benefits, welfare, housing, and services.

this is a game of only cruel choices. the only way to win was not to play and most of the west already botched that one. (places like poland and the baltics are looking very smart on this one)

in the play to come, head in sand tolerance, fearful submission, and squeamishness are going to be ruinously expensive luxury beliefs. none of this is a joke, it’s deadly serious, like “will your granddaughter be allowed to appear uncovered in public” serious, like “will any high trust western system or economic flourishing survive” serious. we can all not like these choices all we want, but none of them will go away or get better by ignoring them.

islamic conquest as a core religious tenet has persisted for 1400 years. since that time, the west has seen a great attenuation of religious fervor. catholicism, protestantism and judaism are little like the ferocious faiths of those times. one might even argue that they have become over-tepid and more performative than sincere. but this is not true of islam. if you have not traveled in that part of the world, you really do not understand. there is a depth of faith, a centrality to it, that one does not experience in the west. the average muslim in rural egypt is more committed to islam than the most acute zealot anyone is likely to meet in the west, especially in europe.

the west forgot what “deeply religious” means. the islamic world did not and their faith is explicitly one of intolerance and dominance. pretending you can share a pluralistic society with it is self delusion. they will tell you you can, right up until they are too big to fight and resist, and then they take control. again, this is not conjecture. they speak of this explicitly.

never make peace when you are powerful.

always ask it of the powerful when you are weak.

and now they are here, growing in number, growing in political power, and growing in violence against the unbeliever. and if you think it’s violent now, wait until you see what happens when they get more numbers and more power. in much of europe, it’s at a tipping point right now. laws are being passed to criminalize criticizing this takeover. that’s how you know the power shift has begun to affect institutional capture. lose that one, and the noose goes awfully tight, awfully fast.

and so if the west would avoid being subsumed and conquered, one cannot put off this question any longer.

decide the name by which this ought be called and call it.

and if that means hurting people’s feelings or getting called “phobic” by the kind of people who are going to yell that at you anyway, well, cookies, crumbling, so be it.

the goal of islam is sharia through jihad.

it does not apologize for this.

it expects you to thank it for correcting you, for showing you the way.

“the beloved’s fist is as sweet as raisins.”

that’s not a joke. it’s a saying about beating your wife.

many religions once had ideas like these in common currency. but this one never great out of it. and no, it’s not everyone, but it’s an awful lot of them, in many places, most or all. even those more moderate (fewer than you think) will almost never speak against the more extreme.

and no, it can’t be reasoned with or talked down. it’s fundamentalist. it has held onto this for 1400 years.

it embeds great violence against women and outsiders as a centerpiece of its morality all while espousing peacefulness.

and if you fall for that one, well, you’ll basically fall for anything.

and that which you once called civilization shall not long remain yours.