Posts Tagged ‘immigration’
Wednesday, October 19th, 2016
The West is suffering a Muslim invasion. In the debate, people try and uncover the barbaric nature of Islam, and to convince other westerners of it. Oftentimes it is brought to our attention that Muslims still live in medieval times with laws and culture that are incompatible with those of the West.
Rather than refute that, I would like to bring up something else. Namely the prevailing mental retardation with people swallowing past ideas and becoming followers; and take the opportunity to point out that it would seem a little silly to make comparisons between the retarded as if one retard is more intelligent than the other.
Although we may borrow from the minds of dead people it is no good to leave them to do the thinking on the behalf of the living. It would serve human beings better to verify the truth on their own.
Doing so is a slow process towards maturation. Most people bypass this process, to become a follower because that has it’s advantages. They may become Christians over a cup of tea, but in this they have become insubstantial believers because they don’t know the things that Jesus spoke of. They repeat what the priests say, but do the priests really know anything?
The leftists live in the age of The Enlightenment,™ and Christians live with age-old concepts, and so it is with everyone else. Is it really that much better to be a mindless drone that serve Jesus, than say Mohammed or Marx? It probably isn’t, to the individual, although the culture would be radically different between them.
The intelligent population seek the truth for themselves because they know that that is what matters and what will yield the best results. If faced with politics or religion, it seek to verify or dismiss these things on its own, it does not concern itself with the opinion of people but rather seek to know the truth. That sort of person is very hesitant to become a follower of politics or religion.
If we can put the truth first, then we can learn what Muslims have or do not have to offer us. And we can speak honestly and say that we do not want their culture not because it is bad, but because we have our own, and any other culture will be alien to us and destroy what we have.
Tuesday, October 18th, 2016
In Trump We Trust
by Ann Coulter
Sentinel Books. 182 pages (2016)
The latest from Ann Coulter shows the writer at her fiery best with an urgent message: if Donald Trump is not elected, Democrats will use demographic warfare against the founding ethnic group of America, and there will never be another Republican president. Ever.
Those who have followed the rising movement that became the Alt Right over the last decade will recognize their talking points here. In the In Trump We Trust vision, America is a dispirited land ruined by Leftist policies and its demographic change, which has made its popular dare not to hope. The book tackles every objection raised to the Trump candidacy and points out that not only are his policies workable, but he has been in control since the beginning.
As Coulter sees it, Trump turned politics on its head through the radical idea that the issues that concern Republican voters should take priority over what the political consultants, pundits and insiders think. He zeroed in the fact that immigration is the biggest issue for most Republicans; they see a genocide in progress where they will be dispossessed of control over their nation and reduced to minority status, then destroyed with taxation.
Liberals want mass third world immigration because as soon as they have invincible Democratic majorities, utopia will arrive. Then they’re not going to return the GOP’ phone calls — just like in California.
The GOP had a different set of reasons for supporting mass immigration: the business community wants cheap labor. Not every member of the donor class derives a benefit from mass immigration, but no rich person is willing to become a hate figure by bankrolling the opposition. Republican officeholders ran the numbers and realized the electoral implications won’t be felt for a few years, and by then they’ll be retired. Après moi, le déluge. (166)
This sounds like something straight out of the Alt Right message on immigration in general. The existing parties are in cahoots because they are paid employees of a system that wants to cannibalize the US and EU, and then its members will move on to a new country to parasitize. In Trump We Trust is a call to war that shows Coulter at her vitriolic best.
Much like her other book, the latest from Coulter is structured carefully. She bashes out her main argument in the first three chapters, then fleshes it out with extensive facts and quotations from the mainstream media throughout the latter part. Her specialty is digging up older statements from the media that contradict their current narrative.
The short form of her argument is that America is in the grips of certain pretenses advanced by the Left in the 1960s and 1990s that made it impossible to discuss important issues, which has incensed voters because no one in the Democrat or Republican parties will even discuss these issues.
As a result, they are energized by Donald Trump. Where previously they thought that they had no options to overthrow this parasitic Soviet-style leadership caste which is commonly called “the Cathedral,” they now have a candidate who has won by ignoring the guilt, political correctness and control gambits of the faux elites. Trump wins because he threw out the accepted playbook and tossed the rules, because he recognized that these rules were made to smash the interests of the historical American people.
In doing so, following on the tone of her groundbreaking 2009 column “At The End Of The Day, Diversity Has Jumped The Shark,” Coulter hammers home the points that Nationalists have made for several centuries now: immigration is abolition of the founding population, and will result in a third-world wasteland.
There’s no question but that the country is heading toward becoming Brazil. One doesn’t have to agree with the reason to see that the very rich have gotten much richer, placing them well beyond the concerns of ordinary people, and the middle class is disappearing. America doesn’t make anything anymore, except Hollywood movies and Facebook. At the same time, we’re importing a huge peasant class, which is impoverishing what remains of the middle class, whose taxes support cheap labor for the rich.
Washington think tanks churned out papers claiming that dumping millions of poor people on the country is “good for the economy.” How can that possibly be good for the people who already live here? No, it’s obviously a net loss for the people already here…They can see their taxes going up, they notice when they don’t hear a word of English being spoken in their neighborhoods, they can see that traditional celebrations are being canceled for not being “inclusive,” and they know their schools don’t have money for programs because it’s all going to English-as-a-second-language classes.
The donor class doesn’t care. The rich are like locusts: once they’ve picked America dry, they’ll move on to the next country. (28-29)
Expect this level of vitriol and clarity to be frequent, as well as the time-honed Coulter formula of inserting absurdist humor every few paragraphs to make the reading process zip along. This book takes no prisoners, and in doing so from the mainstream Right, Coulter has lifted the Alt Right into not only the political dialogue, but the consciousness of everyday Americans.
Friday, October 14th, 2016
Let us take a moment to enjoy creativity, and ponder the potential nightmare for Leftists and salvation for America that would occur with a fully “woke” Donald Trump presidency.
President Trump will inherit a ruined nation, completely divided and facing a recession of epic proportions. He may also be a wartime president as the weak foreign policy of the Obama-Clinton years explodes in worldwide conflicts. In addition, he will face massive opposition at home from the captive media and their audience.
On the positive side, the Obama years will have left him with a clear legal and political precedent for a semi-authoritarian presidency. Much as Obama ruled through executive orders and by commanding government agencies to conspire toward his goals, Trump now has those options open for him.
Imagine, then, that President Trump enacts the following:
End affirmative action.
With an executive order, he outlines a new definition of affirmative action: since race-based selection is not working and expensive, instead the rule will be that all groups including whites are protected equally. This will effectively nullify affirmative action.
He can issue a statement that suggests state governors repeal all rules enforcing alimony in any form, and instruct the IRS to stop collecting data or enforcing them. This will slow and reverse the divorce free-for-all that is currently destroying the American family.
Defund the welfare state.
He can submit a budget that excludes all programs that take from the taxpayers as a whole and give to a smaller group, or declare them unconstitutional, forcing the issue to the courts. He can also redirect welfare agencies toward other spending priorities with executive orders, killing the programs.
Privatize benefits programs.
Using executive order and his regulatory agencies, Trump can mandate that certain programs like Social Security and Medicare be privatized as a precursor to removing them from government entirely. This will return citizens to self-reliance.
No HUD and Civil Rights law.
Applying the same standards that Obama applied to interpretation of immigration law, Trump can make the standards for discrimination far more stringent, such as requiring the person accused of discrimination to be in KKK costume at the time. This will declaw this legislation.
End public education and university loans.
Trump can eliminate these programs from his budget, or issue executive orders mandating that these programs are unconstitutional or contrary to the aims of government, forcing their dissolution. This will make education more abilities-based again.
No disparate impact.
With an executive order, he can advance an interpretation of disparate impact that requires showing actual discrimination in order for the impact to be assessed as discriminatory. Under the guise of clarifying existing law, he can change it to be less destructive.
Deactivate regulatory agencies.
Much as Obama used executive orders to force agencies to change their missions, Trump can re-orient these agencies toward entirely different goals, removing them from function. In reaction, Congress will defund them, resulting in their abolition.
With his power to order investigations, President Trump can explore the impact of racism on whites, and use this to re-shape the dialogue on racism to include racism against European-Americans. This will have a ripple effect through the courts and laws.
Create a better public image.
Where previous presidents have endorse the “Me Generation” style of lax moral authority and indulgence in the degenerate, Trump can instead issue orders that all staff behave according to strict moral guidelines and hire only those who fit the bill.
He will have some powers to directly limit immigration, but following the Obama model, he can command agencies to thwart the adoption of immigrants and raise objections to each new case of citizenship. This will reduce the population bloom and restore a more homogeneous population.
None of the above are extreme, but all sacrifice darlings of the Left by using the Left’s own methods.
The result will be screaming and squalling from the Democrats but, as they are unlikely to have much power in Congress after this election, their power will be limited. If Trump moves gradually and with purpose, he can achieve these results in such a way that the effects are absorbed.
For the economy, his existing plan is the best: drop taxes and regulations, making it easier to do business here, and then bring back firms and encourage new ones. If he uses his executive orders to sabotage the laws that protect unions, and defang the regulatory agencies that enforce them, even more will spring up.
His foreign policy will work as suggested as well. He will demand proportional contribution from all the countries protected by the American defense network. They may back away from the dollar, but he can reverse this by giving low tariffs to nations that use the dollar.
Congress may fight him on his budget, but at this point, the USA has only two paths: it must either cut the over 50% of its budget that goes to entitlements and social programs, or bankrupt itself and go into default, at which point its currency will be worthless. Companies will invest more in America if they feel it is avoiding default.
With the above implemented, the most contentious presidency since the Civil War will push America out of recession and into a state of greater health. Many may move out, which will be an added benefit as we do not need more journalists, web designers, and psychotherapists.
At that point, it is likely that Trump will be elected for more than the 1460 days of his first term, leading him into the next. It is at this time that he can focus on rebuilding the rotting infrastructure and encouraging Congress and the States to repeal the millions of lines of absurd laws they have adopted in a need to “look important.”
With his personality, he will accomplish much of the above and already has. Trump is the return of bottom-line practical thinking about the future of the country in contrast to the tax-and-spend wildfire that has taken over the past seventy years. With the force of the Presidency behind it, he can do even more.
America faces a choice in this election which will either cripple it forever or allow it to rise to new heights. At the end of two terms of Trump, people will look back on the 1990s through 2010s as a bad dream which fortunately, ended with the 1488 days of making everything right again.
Friday, October 14th, 2016
The Left promised us that if it got its way, it would end the constant racial enmity of the other 95% of the world against the 5% of us whose ancestors formed first-world societies. Seventy years later, race riots are common as is ethnic violence and immigrant rapes, murders and violent protests.
As usual, the neurotics have swarmed to tell us that the problem is insoluble, so we had better just accept it. “You are talking about millions of people,” they say. “How will you convince people to leave? They will resist, it will be even worse! No, the only plan is the current plan, even if it is failing.”
This reminds me again that the neurotics love suicide cults and that Leftism is essentially a suicide cult. They love theories like global warming and nuclear war because it gives them an excuse for what has always been their goal: Do-Whatever-You-Want Day.
Although it seems like a collective, the Left is individualistic. Each individual in it wants the benefits of civilization without the burdens; they crave “anarchy with grocery stores.” Together these individuals use collective bargaining, which curiously resembles extortion, to achieve their goal.
For them, it does not matter that a certain idea — say, diversity — will end in the destruction of civilization. They are already thinking of how the seas will rise and swallow us and GMO foods will give us cancer and how everything is just already lost, so we might as well… Do-Whatever-You-Want.
But for those of us who neither wish to die nor leave our successive generations of descendants a terminal failure of a society, the question of solutions arises. We know that diversity does not work because it cannot work — no group gets the self-determination and values it desires — but how can we fix it?
Luckily a two-step process shows us the way:
End the welfare and benefits state. Europeans especially love their cradle-to-grave healthcare, welfare, education, food aid and so on. These things are destructive on their own, but doubly appealing to people from impoverished countries who hear about the “free money.” Remove them and the attraction vanishes.
End affirmative action and anti-discrimination law. Without the legal requirement that non-natives be hired before natives, all the easy jobs go away. Without laws saying that people must rent and sell to the non-natives, all the housing goes away. Poverty returns just like in the motherland.
With this, we remove that which attracts them to us: the easier, more prosperous life without having to create it by themselves as would have to happen in their third-world nations. This makes life back in the motherland more competitive than life here, where they have no guaranteed jobs, housing and welfare.
Back when welfare was proposed, many criticized it along these lines: If you offer free things, you will support parasites as well as those in actual need. What you tolerate, you get more of. And so, you will get more parasites until you drown in them.
Look what has happened. We are drowning in people who come here to take the benefits, but hate us and constantly complain about racism.
Right now, Suzy Allahuackbar can come here and immediately apply for food benefits. She can also take advantage of charities. Then, she can get citizenship and full welfare. If she wants a job, she cannot be turned down in favor of a white person thanks to affirmative action, so she will get it. And then, it is very hard to fire her even if she is totally incompetent. If she is fired, she gets more welfare anyway. She cannot be turned down if she wants to rent or buy housing. If anyone says anything mean to her, she can sue and live really large.
This is not to say that immigrants are bad, only that immigration is. There are many good people among them; however, diversity does not work, and so they do not belong here. Their presence destroys our social order no matter how hard they try to fit in. The only sensible immigration policy is no immigration.
For that reason, sensible people have a “zero tolerance” policy for immigration. It is not that we hate other races, or dislike the individuals we encounter. It is simply that diversity of any form — even “good” groups — causes social breakdown and will destroy us. The only sane response is no diversity, not even one drop.
Civil rights law has shattered America. Instead of acknowledging that slavery was a mistake and sending everyone back to Africa, we decided to become a multicultural state, just as we had with the Indians. Both policies created nothing but misery, and now we have added third-world immigration to make everything more confused and hostile.
Many on the right oppose the policy advocated here of reparations with repatriation. This is how a gentleman ends a bad deal with good people: something went wrong, so we offer reasonable compensation, and end the collaboration. This sets up members of other groups with some seed capital to help out in their own countries.
Africans, who we purchased from African, Arab and Jewish slave merchants, would find themselves returning to a continent full of possibilities. Using their reparations seed capital, they could establish businesses and communities, and re-take the continent from the Arab, Indian and Chinese forces that are currently about to conquer it.
Other groups would go back to their homelands as well. Asians in America can do nothing for Asia but spy for it in our defense companies; back home, they can take American techniques and knowledge and apply it for the betterment of their people. The same is true of Hispanics, Arabs, Jews, Inuit, Indians and the [[[ Irish ]]]. Home is good.
No one sane endorses cruelty. This is why Europeans are reticent to embark on any policy that sounds like it might be retributive. What is being advocated here, however, is redistributive: thank immigrants for participating in our failed policy by giving them money to go home and cutting off their access to free things here.
We can then change our immigration laws to a saner policy, if we have any immigration at all. Our founding group comprises a third of our people and, given a healthier and less insane society, will quickly produce enough children to bring our population to a sane level (150-200 million).
In the meantime, we can stop pretending that there is no solution to this problem. The solution is obvious and always has been, but the neurotics oppose it as they do anything sane and sensible. As more people realize the necessity of removing the neurotics from power, we come closer to ending the toxic policy of diversity.
Wednesday, August 31st, 2016
Does anything noteworthy ever happen in Wyoming? One might not expect it, but that’s where the developed world’s central bank executives met a few days ago, to discuss how to address a problem they’re struggling to find a solution to: The lack of any response to all of their attempts to revive a dying economy.
Two different policies were proposed: Fiscal expansion and increased immigration, the latter particularly for Japan. These two policies are meant to get the economy to start growing again, now that it’s clear that quantitative easing and reducing interest rates are insufficient to achieve the desired effect.
One can be forgiven for questioning why the economy needs to grow in the first place. The answer to this question is that the developed economies have saddled themselves with a variety of obligations to fulfill. These nations have large debt loads, as well as a variety of entitlement programs that people expect to receive money from when they retire. The problem with debt is that it’s easier to pay a debt back when your income is growing. When your income declines, it becomes difficult to pay back your debt.
When it comes to the two policies proposed, a short explanation will suffice. Fiscal expansion is a word used to mean “spending a lot of money by increasing the national debt”. This of course, is just another way of passing the buck to people in the future. They’ll be faced with even higher debts, but we will reap the benefits in the form of an economy that’s more active because we decide to borrow from the future. And as debts in the future will be higher, they’ll be forced to figure out some way to keep the economy growing too.
If this wasn’t insidious enough, consider the suggestion of immigration as a measure of last resort. The idea here is that the main problem the economy faces is a lack of demand. When more people enter the nation, all those extra people will need to be provided for. Every new family needs its own house, couch, television, refrigerator, school to send the children to and all the other requirements part of the Western lifestyle. As a result, manufacturers can continue to peddle their wares and keep their workforce busy.
If you haven’t noticed yet, there are similarities here with pyramid schemes and Ponzi schemes. Participants are paid money that wasn’t genuinely earned. To keep the system going, new participants have to be sought. There is also an underlying unrealistic belief in very high rates of return in the future, as our policymakers seem convinced that this era of low economic growth is temporary and will come to an end through their intervention.
What has happened here is something far more troubling than the idea of a conspiracy: The law of unintended consequences has struck. In the 19th century, upper class and middle class Britons figured out that the cost of raising a child and sending them to out to be educated was very high. It was similarly undignified for your daughters to work, so until they married they were a financial burden on your household. To preserve their economic position for the next generation, they decided to limit the size of the next generation. The working classes, with no social class to lose, didn’t bother restricting their fertility.
As progressives took power across Western Europe, working class citizens were emancipated and found themselves faced with a comfortable existence. Child labor was made illegal, children would now be sent to school. This turned children from a source of income into an economic burden. Because you would now receive a pension in old age, you no longer had a need to have a lot of children. The incentive to reduce your fertility had spread from the upper classes to all except for the underclasses and a handful of religious fundamentalists.
When it became too expensive for us to produce new humans to replace ourselves, we embarked on a radical new solution: Import people from other countries to replace us! For someone in Somalia or Morocco to raise children to the age of eighteen that spend their days herding goats requires a lot less investment than it does for people who have to send their children to daycare, speech therapy, school, a hockey club, a class trip to an amusement park and a child therapist. To “outsource” reproduction to the third world starts to make financial sense.
Those programs we set up for the elderly similarly proved quite difficult to deal with. Back when we introduced them, a fair share of people never even reached the age of 65. Medical interventions soon allowed us to extend most people’s lives to the point where their bodies and minds become frail. It might be possible to extend our life expectancies by ten years, but extending the period during which we can be a productive member of the workforce by the same amount of time has proved more difficult. As a result, an obligation emerged to keep the economy growing. The elderly became a Moloch.
Escaping this predicament has proved difficult. Western Europe and the United States have already succumbed. Japan managed to hold back the tide for a long time, but now their failure to grow is starting to threaten to take down the whole economic system. Attempts to address the underlying problem have been made. Japan has consistently sought to increase its fertility rate for decades, but nothing worked to stop the slump. Thus they now find themselves faced with no other option.
The resistance Japan and South Korea put up against mass immigration is stronger than that in Europe and the United States, but it seems inevitable that they too will import millions of people from third world countries to prop up their stagnating economies. Having learned from Europe’s experience, they will probably look for non-Muslim migrants, perhaps from the Philippines or India. Propaganda in the media and the education system will serve to normalize the experience of being replaced and to place a stigma on those who find it upsetting, just as it does in the West.
This is what I would refer to as the technological trap: You start out with steam engines and spinning jennies, you end up handing your country over to the third world. It’s easy to come up with a variety of scapegoats, but the reality remains the same: We failed to anticipate the long-term consequences of the societal changes we implemented, so now we pay the price.
Sunday, August 21st, 2016
The broken souls in the mainstream media are beating that tin drum again about how it is bad to be white, and how everyone else is better than you, despite their lack of accomplishments as civilizations and in any area beyond athletics:
The games can be read as something of a physical rejoinder to Trump. “The performance of immigrants and children of immigrants in the Olympics really contradicts Trump in two ways,” Roger Pielke, Jr., a University of Colorado political scientist with an upcoming book on sports, told me in an email. “One is that America is already great (look at the medal count!) and the second is that immigration is a big factor in what makes America great in sports (and business, and culture).”
Ever wonder why people are not enthralled with the Olympics, and really have not been since 1984? It is no longer a national contest. When it was ethnic Germans versus ethnic French, it was an interesting look into humanity that encouraged each group to surpass itself. Now it is diverse teams from all over the world, which effectively look identical with zero actual diversity between them, competing for green cards, or something of that nature.
The bigger point is that being anti-diversity is not about thinking that immigrants are bad in themselves, but that they are bad to have here because diversity itself is toxic. Diversity destroys the majority culture as it contorts to accept the newcomers, even if they are slaves or temporary labor. This in turn destroys social trust, obliterates any sense of mission or values in common, and creates an alienated wasteland where people avoid each other.
In other words, this is not about any group being bad, but diversity being bad. If Sweden flooded itself with Japanese immigrants, who have high IQs and high abilities including athletics, it would destroy itself just as surely as if it admitted Somalis. In the same way, if Nigeria admitted ten million Irish people, its people would be destroyed through the resulting indirect genocide, and its culture would die long before that.
Diversity is death. It is a crazy policy based on emotional gestures, like socialism and zero tolerance policing. It has nothing to do with reality because in reality, people like to be with others like them. That allows them to have social standards, values in common, culture and shared goals; these are essential for the human spirit and sense of well-being. All diversity is toxic, even one drop.
Noted HBD writer Steve Sailer weighs in with a reminder of the associated problems of immigration:
Mo Farah’s brother jailed again after he tried to break into an elderly couple’s home – his 20th offence in a string of convictions
Omar Farah admitted one count of attempted burglary with intent to steal. The younger brother of Olympic hero Mo left his fingerprints at the scene. Farah, 21, tried to break into a west London house in March 2013. He was jailed for 15 months at Kingston Crown Court by Judge Jones. Judge Jones described Farah’s 15 previous convictions as ‘unimpressive.’
However, even if these immigrants were not criminals, they would be toxic — and not from any properties of themselves. The presence of the Other in any form destroys communities and erases culture, which is a consistent goal of the Left as it wants to destroy anything that can compete with ideology as a control principle. Culture, values, heritage, the family and even behavioral standards must die so that equality stands above all else.
Another commentator, Alastair J. Roberts, brings up a series of related points about groups and behaviors:
In reality, people exhibit group effects, group dynamics, group belonging, and group affiliations. You can also tell a surprising amount about someone by the groups they are associated with or fall into.
Much of the time we have very little information about individuals. As children, there was probably not a great deal to distinguish Mo from his brothers. In such a situation, we should focus upon what we know about the groups they belong to and what patterns we have seen in their group behaviour over time.
What track record of integration into Western society do Somali immigrants have? At what pace and rate do they integrate? What burden of adaptation do they place upon the indigenous population? How about their children and grandchildren? What are their marriage practices (do they extensively intermarry with other groups? Are they clannish in their marriage patterns?) and what forms of family do they have? What are their religious beliefs and cultural practices? How compatible are these with the historic practices of our Western societies? Are they vulnerable to radicalization? What skills do they have to offer? Do we need those skills? Are they jeopardizing the strength and cohesion of the communities and the security of the employment of more vulnerable groups in our own native population? What are their patterns of settling in Western societies? What are their education and employment rates? Have we been able to provide previous generations of immigrants from these groups with secure employment and respected social status (and, if we haven’t, we are we taking in more?)?
What are the demographics of current immigrants? What long term effects might these demographics have (e.g. in Sweden there is now a ratio of 123 males to 100 females in the 16-17 age range, while immigrant groups take about ten years to gain even 50% levels of employment—such statistics should ring warning bells)? Etc., etc.
These are the sorts of questions that need to be asked. Rather than ‘tarring everyone with the same brush’, what we need is the prudent application of the knowledge that comes with probability patterns. Such probability patterns may not give us direct knowledge specific to a given individual (although they can give us real knowledge about risks associated with persons of their type), but they tell us a lot about groups.
But this misses the point: it is not the groups that are the problem, it is diversity. Diversity destroys civilization. It forces people into a society they hate because it is actively working against their values and interests. As a result, those people become selfish and begin to destroy their own society. This pattern repeats again and again, but humans are too pretentious to admit that it is what they are seeing.
Monday, August 15th, 2016
Multiculturalism means “more than one ethnic group living in the same nation.” This is indistinguishable from what the French Revolutionaries wanted, which was “internationalism,” or an abolishment of borders so that the underclasses of the world could unite without the complexity of national identity.
In order to slowly reverse the disastrous changes of the Left, Donald Trump has embraced Internationalism Version A instead of Internationalism Version B, by promoting multiculturalism based on assimilation to the majority culture.
In a speech on foreign policy and radical Islam delivered Monday in Youngstown, Ohio, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said that new immigrants would be expected to assimilate to American culture — not the other way around.
Trump described a vision of inclusion different from that of the multiculturalism of the left, which has left the intolerance that many immigrants bring with them — particularly from the Islamic world — intact.
Trump has taken a sensible course, which is to reverse internationalism to its earlier form and, in doing so, to re-introduce questions about its viability. The early form of internationalism requires immigrants to come here in a subordinate position and to prostrate themselves before the host culture, essentially begging for inclusion on its terms and not their own.
Naturally this will fail just like Version B has done, because it steals from people what they need most: their pride and sense of well-being through the notion that people like them are in control, succeeding and making a society for others like them. But that is some time off. For now, Trump is demanding an end to pluralism, but he is doing so indirectly, by asserting a majority culture — even if that culture does not exist, because the adulteration caused by multiculturalism will destroy it.
The most sensible approach is to simply admit that diversity of any form does not work, but that offends the pretense of the majority of people, who are essentially creatures of habit without reflection. This leaves them with only one mode of “thought,” which is to be offended when a sacred cow is slaughtered, and the diversity sacred cow is actually camouflage for the equality sacred cow, which allows individuals to demand inclusion in the benefits of civilization without having to be responsible for contributing to it.
As this venal modern age dies in gasping exhaustion, the distractions and illusions will die slowly as people cling to them stubbornly out of nothing but fear. They do not understand the world beyond these illusions, so their inner monkey panics and demands the broken illusion over reality instead of taking what to them is an unfathomable risk. But, as these illusions die, they will be dispossessed of their sense of security entirely, and forced to look toward alternatives.
Tuesday, August 2nd, 2016
Whatever the eternal optimists of the Pinker school assert about the decline of violence in general, the fact is that over the last couple of years terrorist attacks have been happening on European soil at an exponential rate. Despite 2016 being just over half way through, the continent has experienced at least ten jihadist atrocities. 2015 saw six attacks, there were two in 2014, one in 2013 and, well, you get the picture. These numbers, which I gleaned from Wikipedia, don’t take into account terrorism in Istanbul, or random stabbings, or the orchestrated sexual assault of dozens of women in cities across Europe.
Given Angela Merkel’s staggeringly irresponsible decision to open up Europe to millions of young men from Africa and the Middle East, it stands to reason that many Europeans would associate the rise in terrorist incidents with the rapid influx of Muslims. It’s true that ISIS has been sending young men to Europe with instructions to kill as many people as possible, but this is a small minority. Blaming the recent wave of immigrants for the continent’s present ills is shortsighted and distracts us from the real issue, which is the nature of mass migration and how it is reshaping the demography of Western Europe.
Syrians were involved in a machete attack in Stuttgart and the Ansbach suicide bombing, but it’s important to realise almost all recent acts of terrorism in Europe have been carried out by EU citizens. Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel, the man who killed 84 people by driving his truck down a packed promenade in Nice, was living in France for over a decade. Of the five men involved in the Brussels bombing attacks, four were Belgian citizens and the other was Swedish. All nine perpetrators of the November 2015 attacks in Paris that killed 137 people were citizens of the European Union.
By constantly invoking the danger of the “Syrian refugee” whenever there is an attack we shift the focus away from the demographic that is lethal right now (homegrown jihadists) and allow the “Refugees Welcome” crowd to score points with a suicidally altruistic European public. Every time a terrorist attack is carried out by a “Belgian” or “French-Tunisian” rather than a recent arrival from Syria the Left appears vindicated: “You see? The Syrians are victims. They’re running away from the barbarians of ISIS. The terrorist was actually French. Refugees welcome!”
That the majority of terrorists in Europe are homegrown is even more terrifying than the idea that ISIS is training and dispatching young men to murder innocent Europeans. We hold the palantír in our hands; we have already witnessed men born and raised in Europe transmogrify into jihadists. We have seen French and Belgian citizens — bestowed with the kind of dignity, freedom and relative prosperity that are a fantasy for millions across the Maghreb — turn to Islamism despite all this. Utopianists might blame the “racism” and “Islamophobia” of Europeans for these outcomes, but it’s naïve to think that young men whose faith requires them to avoid the kind of vices Europeans indulge in daily will all simply…integrate. It is unrealistic to not acknowledge that among this population there will always be frustrated loners considered outsiders by the natives. One wonders how on earth the current generation and their children will turn out any different when overall hostility to Muslims increases every time there is a terrorist attack.
The most recent mass shooting in Europe, in Munich, was carried out by a so-called German-Iranian who by all accounts seemed to have been something of a loner. Only 18 years old, Ali Sonboly had already spent time in psychiatric care, and when police raided his room they discovered a book entitled Why Kids Kill. A link to Islamism has been all but ruled out in this case (the press spun it as a “far-right” Breivik-inspired murder though they provided no hard evidence for this), but by closing the book on the case so quickly and filing it under “crazed lone wolf” we disregard the broader lesson to be learnt: that even if the vast majority of newcomers never commit a terrorist attack, long-term multiculturalism fails.
One British rapper of Pakistani ancestry recently discussed in The Guardian the nature of his identity, and his experiences surely apply to many young Muslims in Europe: “I don’t feel British. When I go to Pakistan, I don’t feel Pakistani. But I do know that I’m a Muslim – Islam fills that gap”. We can’t blame Britons for this, nor can we blame the Pakistani for feeling alienated, but we can blame globalism. We can blame an agenda that encourages the mass movement of people of radically different values all the while claiming it to be an inherent good even when the facts tell us something different.
Sonboly was of Iranian ancestry, a country I visited on holiday in 2011. It is a beautiful place with the kind of architecture and historical sights that make your head spin. The people are overwhelmingly friendly and curious. However, I don’t think a million Iranians transplanted to Ireland (where I’m from) or Thailand (where I live) would be beneficial to either country. Despite Iran’s charms, its conservatism is of a breed quite foreign to me. I knew I was in a different civilisation from the moment my plane started its descent into Shiraz and local women began to cover their hair. Similarly, I don’t think a million Swiss or Japanese transplanted to Iran would do the Iranians any good. There are exceptions of course and many would thrive, but in general the cultural differences would be insurmountable, and such scenarios would end badly. Sonboly was the product of Iran and Iranian parents. The German kids at his school knew he was different. Maybe they bullied him for it. He grew up in a society of pork-lovers and beer-drinkers; in a city of liberals for whom the intermingling of the sexes and pornography and prostitution are normal; in a society of atheists and Christians and neo-hippy Buddhists and pagans who do hot yoga and pilates.
Like the British Pakistani rapper, Sonboly was neither fully German nor Iranian. He was like the millions of Muslims who have inhabited the continent for years and like the hundreds of thousands who have just arrived. He lived, as millions do, in that purgatory of multiculturalism where there exists no shared history, culture, traditions or heritage; only the babel of voices telling him that diversity makes him stronger.