[W]e might, equally reasonably, expect to see balancing anecdotal coverage like this:
…In February 1993, a gang of Middle Easterners, (mostly illegally overstaying after entering on non-immigrant visas—one banned as a terrorist but admitted on a tourist visa in error) blow up New York's World Trade center, killing six and injuring more than 1,000!! In December 1993, a Jamaican immigrant (admitted as a student, but stayed, illegal status automatically regularized after marriage to a U.S. citizen) opens fire on commuters on New York's Long Island Rail Road, killing six and wounding 19!!! WHAT'S GOING ON??!!?"
I quoted that in my piece on immigration and terrorism on September 19, 2001, in the hope that America might wake up and smell the coffee. Nothing was done about immigration, including immigration from terrorist countries. (The American government has a list of terrorist countries—"State Sponsors of Terrorism." It has never tried to restrict immigration from any of the countries on the list.)
In foreign policy, the wars have been run on what some people have called "Jacksonian Wilsonianism." The Wilsonian component is that the wars, intended as revenge for 9/11, or an attempt to prevent a future attack, are now being run for the benefit of the enemy.
American troops can't come home because it will be bad for Afghanistan or Iraq? If they're the enemy, war is supposed to be bad for Afghanistan or Iraq!
And 9/11, instead of producing a normal revulsion against the Muslim ideology that inspired it, and the anti-"profiling" ideology that facilitated it, has actually made acceptance of both much stronger. On September 23, 2001, Peter Brimelow quoted a Detroit Muslim activist who said:
"I feel sorry for people who don't understand yet what America has become," he said, referring to Americans who scapegoat their countrymen based on skin color or religion. "For them, I'm afraid, life is going to be miserable." [Arab-Americans Are Finding New Tolerance Amid the Turmoil, By Blaine Harden, September 22, 2001]
"For them… life is going to be miserable." And as Peter pointed out, "them" equals you.
This is not "backlash", it's frontlash, by Muslims against normal Americans, and it's caused by the fact that the 1965 Immigration Act admitted huge communities of Arabs, Sikhs, Somalis, and dozens of others, so that you, reader, are more likely to be fired from your job for reading VDARE.com than any Arab-American is to be fired from his for supporting terrorism, or attending a terrorist-supporting mosque.
He has Eric Holder on his side. You don't.
While there has been no single act of terrorism to equal the attacks of September 11, 2001, immigrant mass murders of all kinds continue unremarked. And while the Wall Street Journal fought immigration enforcement on the grounds that you couldn't apply to illegal cheap labor ("busboys") the laws meant to prevent Arab terrorism, they forget that Mexican illegals kill more Americans than terrorists do. (Mexican illegals are not as bad as Arab terrorists, which is not saying much, but there are millions of them, and one way or another, they kill a lot of Americans.)
So we won't remember 9/11, beyond this short article, but instead we'll try and remember the people who were shot by an immigrant just the other day. You heard about it, didn't you? You didn't? Actually, what you probably heard was that a Springdale doctor opened fire in a church.
Well, if you had read past the headline, you would have found that his first name was Mahmoud, and that he had come to America from Jordan. But if you blink, you miss it.
That was the only outstanding difference about 9/11. It was too big to hide.
James Fulford [Email him] is a writer and editor for VDARE.com.