I have been wondering why the political left, and to some extent the right, has been so enthusiastic about Muslim immigration. Islam is just not compatible with the liberal traditions of the West. So why the continued efforts to import Muslims ?
There’s no economic argument for importing Syrians or Turks. Muslims are overwhelmingly represented on the welfare roles. In Denmark, people from MENA countries make up 5% of the population, but consume 40% of welfare benefits. This is a story across Europe. It is not just the new arrivals. Turks in Germany have been there for a couple of generations and have been the worst performing economic group in the country. Estimates put the total working population at 20%, while the rest live off welfare benefits. Then there is the issue of sky high Muslim crime rates.
The incident in London yesterday made clear that assimilation is not going to solve the problem. The terrorist was British born. Most of the sexual abusers in Rotherham were British born to Muslim immigrants.
In September 2012, investigations by The Times based on confidential police and social services documents, found that abuse had been much more widespread than acknowledged.[24][25] It uncovered systematic sexual abuse of white girls by British Asian men (mostly of Pakistani origin)[26] in Rotherham for which people were not being prosecuted.
Not only were they not being prosecuted but the British authorities had been covering up the abuse for years Why ?
Is there popular support for importing these people, despite their uselessness as citizens? Again, there’s no data to suggest this is the case. European leaders could have put the issue to the voters, but they fanatically avoid it. In fact, anyone who dares run on the issue is branded a Nazi. Politicians love democracy when they are assured of winning. They avoid it when they are assured of losing. Therefore, it is safe to assume they don’t think this is a winner for them.
So, the politicians seem to favor the immigrants over their own citizens. Why ?
If it is not good economics or good politics, why is the European ruling class hell bent on replacing their native population with openly hostile foreigners? Mass insanity is the tempting response, but that’s just another way of blaming magic. If it were mass insanity, it would have some sort of external cause, like a virus that strikes middle-aged white politicians. How come it only seems to cause hyper-altruism among people in political power? It’s a fun thing to say, but it is not fruitful speculation.
A better answer may be that this is the inevitable result of the feminization of Western civilization.
Here, we might be getting somewhere. What is this about ?
Look at the reaction to Donald Trump among the ruling class of the United States. He is detested, mostly by upper class women. Their reason is he has a penis and enjoys using it. As a comparison, Le Pen’s support is lowest among upper middle-class women in France. Sweden, which now runs on the principles of the womyn’s studies department at your local university, is also the poster child for immigration restriction. The broads in charge of that country have destroyed at least two of their cities with Muslim migrants.
The speculation is amusing and might even have a point. What about male politicians?
The trouble is the men of the political class are mostly pussies. Look at the men in positions of authority in the West. Barak Obama was a wigger dork. Paul Ryan is a ridiculous pussy, afraid of his own shadow. The males in Western politics are effeminate, fragile peopel, who spent their youth in the library. There are no tough guys, former soldiers or adventurers in Western politics. It’s all power-skirts and the men who secretly wish to dress like them. The result is the female side is creating drama and the male side is sobbing in the corner, promising to hold the camera steady.
And boy do they hate Trump !
But that’s not a “why?”, is it? Why would females want such a thing?
It’s not so strange at this point why leftists want unlimited immigration–they’ve lost a lot of their support among native populations–the question is what were their grandparents thinking? Why did the Labor Party in England open the doors starting so soon after they took power after WWII? Granted, the doors were opened only slightly at first, but even letting in a couple hundred migrants from Jamaica, etc., made quite clear that there was no public support at all for it. They had a stranglehold on the English working class, why did they feel the need to start to replace them with foreigners?
My sense is that a lot of leftist politicians at that time were the sort of communists who come from the mines and the factories, but they were gradually replaced by the commies from the universities, who are an entirely different creature, and who in general have zero affinity or affection for actual workers.
More on “Known Wolf attacks like London.
No concern noted by western governments. Two in two days including Belgium.
Western pols expected Muslim immigrants to vote to keep those same pols in power (UK), and/or to be available as low-wage workers in countries where the natives had been having few children (Germany).
Is there popular support for importing these people, despite their uselessness as citizens?
This statement begs the question. It may be that many of these people are bad citizens because western govts expected little of them and didn’t insist they assimilate. The US experience hasn’t been without problems, but on the whole it looks as though we’ve done a better job of it by encouraging Muslim immigrants (like other immigrants) to assimilate into American culture. Our main mistake may have been to reduce or eliminate in recent years the emphasis on assimilation.
I have been wondering why the political left, and to some extent the right,
Give me a break, It’s not left or right, simply put it’s your faults all.
First by accepting this sort of “rubbish” in your society despite their behaviors for decades, their attitude against the western world.
They eat & fed by western turn around to unrein on you
I put to you these stories from Britton, read it and think about those ugly faces are the most poisonous ever and filthy guys sadly having been accepted and living in western world.
Forgot your democracy and freedom, these guys do not deserve it from start they laughing on you.
Brits either use them in some place around the word which a history telling us, now their breads scorpion that kills hiddenlly the west societies because they kept them
London’s Metropolitan Police said its investigators had so far identified 5795 different individuals as possible victims of News of the World phone hacking.
Hook-handed hate cleric
Waiting for the fatwa
BBC, Thursday, 15 August, 2002, 17:06 GMT 18:06 UK
You know what you should do:
Any one who did not obey the rules of law in western world, strip their citizenship documents send him and his family mumblers back to his origin land, then you will leave safe and happy.
This the only way that the western should do and nothing else that kill this cancer from the western society.
Hook-handed hate cleric
Abu Hamza’s family is allowed to STAY in £1.25m home and claim £33,800 benefits
This isn’t going to last, one way or another, duh.
The various European governments that have nothing to say about the murder of their own citizens will not survive. The mainstream left is too heavily committed to mass immigration to remain intact, and the mainstream right is worthless and irrelevant.
I obviously can’t predict the future, but I suspect that the first real break will be France. My present hypothesis: I expect Marine Le Pen to lose. The winner will double-down on appeasing the muzzies, which will succeed every bit as well as the Munich conference succeeded in appeasing Hitler. At some point the French state will collapse into widespread chaos- I mean, even more so than now. The violence will of course continue- but this time some of it will be directed at Muslims. This will result in yet more violence, with the French state as usual siding with the Muslims.
At some point there will be an open break, with ethnically French soldiers defying the government to defend their ethnically French fellow citizens. As the crisis continues and escalates, eventually this will turn into a real war with real killing. Either France will clean out their Muslim minority, or France will cease to exist. Either way, there will be myriad dead, and likely myriad refugees as well. Similar events will likely play out in the rest of Europe as well.
I just don’t see the feminist-dominated zeropean political classes remaining relevant to this struggle, period.
There is a deeper, psychological connection that is missing here.
Both the progressive/marxist/socialist ruling elites and the muslim community in general, and the extremists certainly, are hostile to many of the basic tenets of western technological, vaguely capitalist, and generally tolerant society.
Anywhere you look in western society, the progressives, whatever they call themselves, have subverted the educational and political systems to teach and act against the major elements of classically liberal society.
Islam is a totalitarian theocratic ideology which epitomizes the fascist doctrine of “everything from the state, nothing outside the state”, by replacing state with sharia law.
The end result is the same—an end to the rule of law and respect for individual rights, to be replaced by the dictates of whichever politician or imam has gained sufficient power to become the spokesman for the correct ideology or the deity.
Their seeming alliance is purely a marriage of convenience, as each side secretly believes the other is weak and flawed, and that, once the common enemy is destroyed, the alliance can be terminated, along with their former allies.
Is there truly any doubt that, once a totalitarian progressive state was in power, purges of its backward muslim elements would quickly follow? Or, in the reverse case, that an islamic state would not immediately begin to cleanse itself of any contaminating ideas derived from non-koranic sources?
The 20th century saw the flowering of collectivist ideology, producing the poisonous fruit of fascism, communism, socialism, and various despotisms of one flavor or another throughout Asia, Africa, and South America, in a frenzied laboratory of social experiments that left hundreds of millions dead, and whole cultures impoverished and destroyed.
Allowing the continued rise of either of these two toxic ideologies, whose only true objective is the destruction of western liberal society, will surely lead to an immensely destructive period which might very well eclipse the slaughter of the last century in every way.
The only avenue which can lead to a successful outcome against these powerful adversaries is the rediscovery, and re-emphasis, of the primacy of the rights and liberties of the individual against any and all collectivist fantasies, secular or religious.
As an aside, it is amazing to behold the endless provocations by the islamic fascists, and the endless ability of the elites to pretend it isn’t happening, in a Europe whose entire history is soaked in the blood of one religious war after another, and which within living memory tried to send an entire faith into the ovens to protect its culture.
What lunacy drives these provocations, and what lunacy they will provoke in the native populations, will be a fearful spectacle to behold as it all plays out over the next generation. I truly doubt the end results will be anything either side expects to happen, nor will either group survive the coming conflict, although what replaces them may very well be just as bad or worse.
Veryretired: great comment!!
There are times when brutality is the only answer. They are war with us and right now we don’t have the stomach to win this.
This should should be fought covertly with spies and electronic bugging. Those who instigate the violence should simply dis-appear along with their followers. Nasty? Sure,but the only thing some will understand.
The ‘Guilt’ peddlers did not intend this as a result. It is, however, what they will accept because it is still their basis for power. Popular votes are avoided when possible because the general populace is never to be allowed to see how much their opinions differ from their elite rulers’ opinions.
Thus, the US got Obama telling us we can ‘absorb’ terror attacks. The UK got a London mayor telling them terror is ‘part and parcel’ of life in the city. They got Rotherham, ongoing for over a decade, because their rulers dared not expose what they had wrought with their ‘progressive’ policies.
Swedes, Norwegians, Danes, Belgians, French, etc, all are getting the SAME results from the SAME policies. And it all has to be accepted because the ‘progressive Left’ requires it for their positions of power.
I don’t think “feminization” is a very parsimonious solution. I think it has more to do with the equality and fairness based ideology of the Left. Visit websites like Huffpo, Talking Points Memo, Daily Kos, and read some of the relevant articles and I think you’ll see the connecting thread. The predispositions that manifest themselves as a desire for fairness and equality are part of our evolved human nature. Of course, there are other, sometimes conflicting aspects of our nature, but these two happen have been very prominently expressed on the left of the ideological spectrum for some time. The current result is an ideology whose ideal is a world of perfect equality between individuals with no boundaries and, consequently, equal opportunity for all.
Essentially the same ideology has been with us for more than a century, and was the “root cause” of the genesis of the Blank Slate debacle. The problem is that human individuals and human populations are not equal, physically or mentally. In other words, the current leftist ideal is a utopia, divorced from reality. The relevant predispositions referred to above exist because, at some time in the very distant past when our environment was radically different from what it is now, they happened to promote the survival and reproduction of individual genes. Obviously, it cannot be assumed that the same genes accomplish the same things in the modern civilizations we live in today. In fact, they don’t. What the leftists are doing by blindly and thoughtlessly responding to the same emotions in the context of modern civilization is risking a dysfunctional society at best and mass suicide at worst, and making every effort to drag the rest of us along with them. The problem is that so few understand what is going on. As this post demonstrates, we have a great deal of trouble putting our finger on the real problem because of this lack of understanding.
It would not surprise me at all to learn that there is also some ghastly psycho-sexual sadistic urge at work among those feminists/socialists who are all keen on Muslim immigration into Western European countries. It’s as if (having reduced their native males to emasculated sitzsprinklers) they long to be brutally dominated by the exotic barbarian “other”. Or see younger and prettier women be brutally dominated by the unashamedly masculine “Other” in some kind of psychic revenge.
“the politicians seem to favor the immigrants over their own citizens”: it’s no mystery. Blair admitted floods of immigrants to Britain expecting them to become Labour voters.
Some relevant discussion at Bookworm, especially comment by JanetC:
http://www.bookwormroom.com/2017/03/22/bookworm-beat-terrorist-attack-london/
“I think we mostly view Muslims’ relationship to their religion the way Christians in the west relate to their religion, which is pretty informally. Yeah you baptize your kid and you might go to church on Christmas, and maybe you even have a cross necklace you wear occasionally, but you don’t really believe that you’re eating the actual body of Christ. You don’t literally think that Jesus rose from the dead. Obviously Mary was not a real virgin. They think Muslims are the same way. Yeah their cranky uncle might kvetch about jihad every Ramadan, but they probably just roll their eyes and walk away with their hummus.”
Jonathan… go to the Pew or Gallup web sites — either will do — and look up the polls they’ve done throughout the Islamic world re: death for apostasy, stoning for sex out of wedlock, etc.
For Jordan, supposedly a ‘moderate, secular’ state the percentages are 86% and 70% respectively IN FAVOR. That is typical. The only outliers are Turkey and Lebanon, where perhaps one in seven or eight people favor the primacy of sharia law and amputating that hands of thieves.
Muslims are religious fascists. That is their operating system. They do not live in peace alongside other peoples. There are no exceptions in the human record. None.
Okay, let’s get rid of all of this BS and get down to the real reason why leftists want this immigrants: another victim group to own for decades.
They’re losing the unions as a victim group, so they are desperately in need of a replacement victim group. They have most of the blacks and all of the feminists and most of the Hispanics and LGBTQ-whatever alliance. But without the traditional union support (white, blue collar, religious, family-oriented), they simply are running into a wall. The leftists have shown a preference for urban tech over rust belt manufacturing because that is where the money is. But that preference has lost them votes. So Muslim immigrants are the next big voting bloc for the future.
Now, as to the self-destructive right-wing politicians who support this immigration, it boils down to a “we are just as enlightened as the liberals” about these non-assimilating groups. The problem is that the leftists aren’t in any way enlightened; they are simply working the system for their own self-interest. The right wing boobs who trail along haven’t a clue.
I’m remembering something written by the late David Yeagely, a Comanche Indian who blogged under the traditional name Bad Eagle. Here he is describing an incident in a class he was teaching at Oklahoma State.
“LOOK, DR. YEAGLEY, I don’t see anything about my culture to be proud of. It’s all nothing. My race is just nothing.”
The girl was white. She was tall and pretty, with amber hair and brown eyes. For convenience’ sake, let’s call her “Rachel.”
I had been leading a class on social psychology, in which we discussed patriotism – what it means to be a people or a nation. The discussion had been quite lively. But when Rachel spoke, everyone fell silent.
“Look at your culture,” she said to me. “Look at American Indian tradition. Now I think that’s really great. You have something to be proud of. My culture is nothing.”
“You’re not proud to be American?” I asked.
“Oh, I’m happy to be American, but I’m not proud of how America came about.”
Her choice of words was telling. She was “happy” to be an American. But not “proud” of it.
On one level, I wasn’t surprised. I knew the head of our American History department at Oklahoma State University-OKC, and I recognized his hackneyed liberal jargon in Rachel’s words. She had taken one of his courses, with predictable results.
Yet, I was still stunned. Her words disturbed and offended me in a way that I could not quite enunciate.
and
As I lay awake that night, I thought of an old story by Kay Boyle, written in 1941, called “Defeat.” It’s about the French women in the German-occupied village of Pontcharra. All the French men were away at war. It was the 14th of July, Bastille Day, when Frenchmen were usually proud to be French. The village women, however, chose that day to give in to the German men.
They did it innocently enough. The women just wanted to wear their fancy holiday dresses. They wanted to drink and dance. And the Germans were the only men around with whom they could do it.
So they gave in.
The Cheyenne people have a saying: A nation is never conquered until the hearts of its women are on the ground.
and
When Rachel denounced her people, she did it with the serene self-confidence of a High Priestess reciting a liturgy. She said it without fear of criticism or censure. And she received none. The other students listened in silence, their eyes moving timidly back and forth between me and Rachel, as if unsure which of us constituted a higher authority.
and
By giving in to the German conquerors, those French women in the Kay Boyle story had betrayed their men. But it was an understandable betrayal. Their men were gone. The Germans were in command.
Who had conquered Rachel’s people? What had led her to disrespect them? Why did she behave like a woman of a defeated tribe?
media Ver Terrorists
“Why did she behave like a woman of a defeated tribe?”
Because the insipid men, whom the women of her tribe have made that way, and whom they despise, who disgust them, make her and all women of her tribe desperate for men, for conquerors.
LONDON’S TERROR ATTACK EXPOSES A RIGHT-WING FALLACY
BY ISOBEL THOMPSON, MARCH 24, 2017 8:30 AM
The leaders of Europe know the stupidity started by America’s reaction to 9/11, has created vast destruction and mass exodus of peoples, from a series of wars, that they too are responsible for. They feel guilty.
The young America woman had some idea about the genocides committed in the securing of the country she was born in. She feels guilty.
The young Muslims displaced by the aforementioned wars, are in transition between very strict religious states, and the freedom that the west takes for granted. They also have the trauma of defeat, and all that will make all kinds of crazy things, seem like good ideas.
You were expecting something different, as a result of the history we have created? Not me.
A major part of Europe’s problem is that all the Alpha males were killed off in the two World Wars. All that’s left are Betas (or worse).
The Vikings will never arise again to defend Scandinavia; ditto France, ditto Germany. The necessary bloodlines have vanished.
The “E” in “Europe” stands for “Eloi.”
I think it’s pretty clear that: what is going on is so bizarre that it can’t be explained by mere bad reasoning/bad judgment on policy matters; there has to be a major psychological component.
I’m remembering a post that appeared at the short-lived blog Joy of Knitting, which was written by a woman in Italy.
Cupio dissolvi”¦These words have been going through my mind for quite a long time now. It’s Latin. They mean “I (deeply) wish to be annihilated/to annihilate myself”, the passive form signifying that the action can be carried out both by an external agent or by the subject himself”¦Cupio dissolvi”¦ Through all the screaming and the shouting and the wailing and the waving of the rainbow cloth by those who invoke peace but want appeasement, I hear these terrible words ringing in my ears. These people have had this precious gift, this civilization, and they have got bored with it. They take all the advantages it offers them for granted, and despise the ideals that have powered it. They wish for annihilation, the next new thing, as if it was a wonderful party. Won’t it be great, dancing on the ruins?
Another Joy of Knitting post that is relevant to the discussion here:
In an argument I have often observed people instinctively side with the aggressor even if personal safety was not at stake. The attacker is stronger, faster, more determined. By his nature fated to triumph over his enemy, he becomes an object of admiration. Sheer destructive violence is more fascinating to many than playing by the rules. I believe that siding with the aggressor is a primeval survival trait. Along with death wish, desiring the extermination of all rivals, being on the side of the winner ensured a longer life. These traits were superseded with the onset of civilisation, but they never disappeared. Nowadays we can see death wish fuelling peacenik rage, but it’s a death wish that turns against the very society in which they were born, bred and pampered so much that they never grew up into responsible adults. Likewise, instead of siding with boring, humdrum democracy, they support those who want to destroy it. In their boundless love for violence they identify with the aggressor so much that they glamorise terrorism, sincerely believing that in the final Armageddon the enemy will be grateful and spare them. He won’t. Once I read a sentence, maybe in Cyril M. Kornbluth’s “The Marching Morons”, that went “nobody invites the hangman to the victory banquet”. These babes in the wood will realise it only when it’s too late. As they cloak their deadly hatred of Western civilisation under a pretence of pacifism, so they justify their passionate love for the aggressor by pretending he’s the helpless victim. The intellectuals’ secret love for violence must also be taken into account. Living secure lives, hermetically insulated from reality, they long for excitement. Once they inebriated themselves contemplating Mussolini’s “masculine figure”, then they were all agog for proletarian violence, now they enthuse about the guerrilla of the month. Living mostly in their heads, they want a bit of action and revel in the total destruction they can only dream about.
None of these reasons makes the slightest sense. Try to think outside the box, and maybe it will become obvious to you.
It’s really very simple.
It goes back to the traumas of World War I and World War II. Consider this narrative:
In 1914-1918, the nations of Europe, under the influence of patriotism and national pride, engaged in four years of incredibly bloody war. It isn’t just that it happened, it’s that it went on for years, with millions of young men pushed into the slaughter of trench warfare.
Then in 1939-1945, Europe’s strongest nation, gone mad with national and racial pride, fought another bloody war, and also committed gigantic crimes.
The post-World-War-II program of the European elite had a goal: NEVER AGAIN. Nationality and racial identity were seen as the roots of the horrors; they had to go. The Common Market and European Union were created to bring about a “United States of Europe”, ending the sovereignty of Europe’s nations, and their ability to make war.
The Nazi crimes came from their beliefs about racial and cultural differences. Therefore, any idea which resembled Nazi thinking in any way was presumed wrong. No respectable person could ever think any such thoughts.
The political and cultural “establishment” trained itself – conditioned itself – to reject all such thoughts. Recognizing any problematic ethnic or cultural difference is unconsciously (and sometimes consciously) equated to Nazi demonization of Jews and idolization of Germanness.
They have programmed themselves not to see such differences, ever. I have seen a Dutchman write that the present wave of MENA immigration will be no problem for the Netherlands, because the Golden Age of the Netherlands also followed a wave of immigration. That previous wave was the movement of Protestants from the “Spanish Netherlands” (what is now Belgium) to Holland in the late 1500s. The different qualities of the two migrations are obvious, but he literally can’t see the differences.
The “establishment” controls the schools, the mass media, and the news organs. No one is allowed to see the problems or think about them – except wicked outsiders like Wilders.
That’s what paralyzes Europe in this area.
Early on this blog we often commented about a culture that believed neither in reproducing nor in protecting itself.
Now, in 2017, we’re deeper in the pit, twice electing Obama who figuratively spat on our culture and literally decimated our military; modern culture & his health system produced a nation where the average man’s life expectancy is shortening.
I thought Trump was a really irritating guy, but he won and I listened to him and I saw that cabinet take shape and his grandchildren holding his hand and I thought, maybe, maybe we can shake off this stagnation. Energy seemed to go from him to those around him and we saw people look released, free.
Gorsuch spoke with the kind of quiet certainty of a certain kind of (alpha) man; his horizons seemed wide and his sense of the rule of law lovely. Tillerson’s voice was resonant and Haley’s was firm.
And today, the health bill fails; speculation about the surveillance: whatever it was, it was dark, weird, deadening.
Any renaissance, any revolution is not going to be easy. Indeed, the tone of you all’s comments implies it may not be possible. (I’m not arguing, just wish you were wrong.) Hell, even the Pope has hazy demography and insufficient passion for the life force. And our culture knows only unamerican American history. I think the doubts on this thread are less about capacity – we could rev up the factories in 1941 and rev up the school system in 1959 – are we that less capable today? They are, really, all about will – will to somehow put together a health bill that brings the productivity of free enterprise, the will to offer a fight but also an alternative to the nihilism of ISIS. Most of all we need to look at the last 300 years or so and really acknowledge and be thankful for what the free market, the dignity of the bourgeois, the scientific method, high literacy, etc. etc. have, intertwined with political and religious liberty, brought,
What we have to find again is the sublime. The sublime is muscular – David is no metrosexual. But it is also procreative. So probably accepting sex as important might not be a bad beginning.
Rich R…much truth in what you say, but not the *whole* story, I think….the same phenomena we are seeing in Europe are also present in the US, albeit at what is (for now, at least) a lower decibel level.
It’s interesting, and somewhat supportive of Rich’s comment, that Marine le Pen is described as “far right” for her immigration and antiMuslim policies. She is actually a pretty standard French Socialist on economic maters. “Far Right” seems to be an all encompassing term for what we don’t like.
David Foster: Oh yes. There are related phenomena. In the 1800s, and continuing into the 1900s, European imperialists (and American white supremacists) committed a great many crimes which they rationalized with bogus ideas about race. Ending those crimes required defeating those ideas. In the view of the liberal or progressive, those ideas are insidious. To suppress them, it was not enough just to mark them “Wrong”, they had to be made crimethink, along with any idea that resembled them, or could possibly support them.
Stephen Pinker has a story in his book The Blank Slate: a neuroscientist showed that the visual cortex of a cat is largely formed before birth, and another scientist promptly called him a fascist. WTF (you may say)? Well, if important brain characteristics develop before birth, they must be genetically determined, i.e. hereditary. And if brain characteristics are hereditary…
This is compounded by the Left’s emotional attachment to “fighting racism”. The defeat of racism was the last great victory of liberalism. There is some retro-rationalization about this today on the Right, but the history is clear: it was liberals and progressives who did the heavy lifting; conservatives were indifferent or even hostile.
The Left wants to relive that battle even more as their economic program has collapsed; it makes them feel good. Thus the present mania for seeing racism everywhere, and fanatical rejection of anything that might be “racist” – including acknowledgement of ethnic differences in crime and other behavior.
Here is an older article supporting the same conclusion:
How the Feminists’ “War against Boys” Paved the Way for Islam
https://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1300
Racism, like mainstream global-warming science and other lefty enthusiasms, is a racket in the modern USA. The racket is run by academic race-studies departments, equal-opportunity bureaucracies, anti-racist NGOs and pols and media people as a fundraising and political trolling tool and manipulative tactic. There’s lots of money in it since so many non-racists in the white majority genuinely want to do good, can be bullied into participating in anti-racist or anti-white rituals of correctness (including by donating money), and can be forced to pay up big-time in financial penalties for violating any of the many anti-racist rules and regulations that are now built into our laws, regulations and institutions.
Of course there is real racism but there is much less of it than there used to be. If this were not true appeals to anti-racism wouldn’t be as effective as they are with the white majority. But such appeals have been vastly overdone, and there is a political reaction as people have come to notice that only members of some groups are accused of racism, that the accusations are often false, that racism by members of other groups goes unremarked, and that the Left’s favored remedies for racism tend to incentivize rather than discourage new findings of racism. Trump’s election was among other things a symptom of this reaction.
““Far Right” seems to be an all encompassing term for what we don’t like.”
I remember when the anti-Gorbachev coup plotters were described by the MSM as being ultra-conservative. Yeah, that’s just the perfect word for unreconstructed commies.
“Stephen Pinker has a story in his book The Blank Slate:”
I have read most of his books. I was reading “The Blank Slate” when I was on a trip with my daughter who is very bright but a lefty. When I finished, I suggested she should read it. She said she would read it when I read Stephen Jay Gould’s “The Mismeasure of Man,” which basically endorses conditioning and the ability to create a “New Soviet Man. She said she would not read it until I did. I told her I had read it and it was in my bookcase if she wanted to look.
She said she still wouldn’t read “The Blank Slate.”
CS Lewis had it right; “Men without Chests.” Instead of fighting for the legacy left by their forefathers, they make heart shapes with their hands and take pictures. Evil always finds the weakest point.
The “why” is twofold.
1. The upper class has been brought up to believe that no culture is better than another and that any problem is basically a misunderstanding that can be corrected through awareness and dialog.
2. They believe they’re the smartest people in the room and if they say it is so…it is so.
OK – heres an odd mix of ideas. just something to consider.
One phenomenon that I have seen at a few work places: An incompetent boss that is aware that his job position is tenuous (because he is aware he is incompetent) will purposely hire workers that are marginal. He supervises them, writes up their reviews, has regular staff meetings at which he is the smartest one in the room, reprimands them, fires them eventually, and starts looking for the next unqualified person. The boss’ boss just believes that this must be the way it is, and business goes on as usual so long as the work is somewhat done. Hiring and managing these iffy workers gives the boss job security.
The only thing i can think of is that the ruling class in America thinks it would be in their best interest to add people like this because they can just keep their jobs forever, and have so much more control. As a bonus, our rulers can follow the example of Mao’s cultural revolution, and get the current population to turn on each other. The little red book that the progressives have are used to beat down any of the Americans brave enough to voice their opinions.
The know-nothing media is full of people that have never, ever had a real job – they have the arrogance of teachers that teach 7 year olds their letters and numbers year after year, and get this completely false narcissistic self righteous tone because they truly are the smartest one in the room most of the time. Except they forget the rest of the world are not 7 year olds. You know that they are brittle because they can’t consider criticism.
The media holds onto their version of the ‘truth’ more than a stupid girl that defends her bad boyfriend (the kind that actually stay with a bad guy longer just to prove everyone is wrong). For some reason, the media is willingly fine with the ruling class and pushes their agenda (which doesn’t work in the real life of their readers).
Reality WILL happen. Things will eventually change. Christ’s message will always survive, but I’m not so sure if America will.
At least we have the foundation of Christ’s message of love and the constitution – if these survive there will always be hope.
On a separate note, the worst advice i ever get is from other women. I remember a friend telling me ‘everyone deserves a second chance’ and that i should give a bad boyfriend another chance – that just wasted years of my time and money. My mom told me i should never say anything rude or disagreeable to anyone no matter what. I should never fight back or defend myself because its unpleasant and rude. Have you ever worked with construction contractors on civil engineering projects? Yeah, that ideology will get you fired when they start playing the blame game. As a general habit, i keep a respectful distance from most other women because they can actually make life worse instead of better. When i see some of the women politicians start talking emotionally, trying to shame other people, or giving really bad advice on how things should be – i think of the worst advice i’ve gotten from other women. The reason i haven’t had much bad advice from men is because they simply don’t care what happens to me – which is not especially a redeeming quality, but hey, that was actually kinder than the unasked for advice from women friends and family.
Yeah, I know i’m all over the place, but I feel much better for having said it.
This question is one I have been wondering about for a long time.But it is even bigger than “why are they enthusiastic about immigration”, it is “why are they suicidal”. And my evolving theory is similar to what a few commenters already mentioned-the wars of the Twentieth Century. I believe the world as a whole suffers from P.T.S.D. The things that countries did to each other are atrocious- obliterating entire armies, entire cities, from the face of the earth. Systematically destroying the young brave men of dozens of countries. So now we suffer from the loss of these men, and women and children. But we suffer from collective guilt too.
Why? Because they dislike the same groups. The Islamic world and the global leftist world share disdain for Christians, Jews, and Americans. And for some strange reason(ignorance of history and current events, they view Islam as a victimized minority.
The Left seeks power, total and absolute.
The cannot win it in a healthy, productive country. They must destroy it first.
They bring in the most destructive allies they can find.
This doesn’t scare them, the camps and ovens will be built when it is time.
That time will be when they have the power to do so.
Remember, the Left cares nothing for people, any person or people.
They lie that they welcome and care for refugees and immigrants.
They only want their destructive power. For a time.
Or perhaps, looking at these potential voters and these potential virtue signalers, the elite choices indicate they wouldn’t do well on the marshmallow test. Nor do they even see the institutions they are destroying. Gorsuch saw the institution and they seemed unable to understand what he was talking about,
OK, that was snarky. It’s just that wars have always been bloody – the biggest percentage of European Americans killed was in King Philip’s war – and that’s not counting the Indians.
But I’ve always thought that an alienation between body and self, between procreation/the great life force versus the untethered ego, asserting its distinction from religion, art, family that are and embody that force was first a crisis with women. At the turn of the century and into the 20’s you can see that in Wharton’s House of Mirth (though maybe even more painfully in Ethan Frome; in Kate Chopin’s The Awakening, then in Willa Cather’s Lost Lady and then Nella Larsen’s Quicksand. The problem is one Henry Adams sees as he contrasts the great churches with their emphasis upon the Madonna and child versus turn-of-the-century mechanical power. Some of this was before even the horrors of trench warfare – and these aren’t a matter of violence but of a nihilism, a lost sense of meaning. Sure, the Gramscian damage happened; it had its own purposes, its own schemes. And maybe what produced that vision produced those sad, beautiful, lost heroines.
Ginny…interesting…could you develop these thoughts further?
This is a response to David – its pretty off topic.
David, I used to be obsessive about the life force versus modernity (Adams’ cathedral versus dynamo) and searching Chicagoboyz, I found my references to it were ridiculously often. Here’s one – Chopin/Adams. In this one the comments move into Catholic/Protestant as well (not surprisingly for Lex & Scotus).
As the years went by, more novels seemed to fit into that category (the most impressionistic is perhaps Larsen’s, where the heroine ends up with a man neither attractive nor respectful, but who, somehow, draws her to him.) Adams had his own short sightedness, perhaps, but he couldn’t have been more right about the divergence: we have unisex bathrooms and men and women together in the close quarters of battleships, women see it as an insult to warn them that heavy drinking with men you don’t know has its drawbacks – then we have Beyoncé/Miley Cyrus videos that leave little to the imagination and mass distributions of condoms. And then we are surprised that somehow we are having fewer and fewer babies. I figure at some time nature will reassert itself – but maybe modernization has permeated our culture – for, of course, we all, women as well, want to develop our selves, to be individuals, to assert ourselves. And thinking like that we don’t want to be defined by our bodies but by our wills. We want purpose – but religion softens its edges and offers little, art (perhaps incidentally or not) of all kinds turns from the sublime to the tawdry.
Ginny…I believe romance novels (female-targeted, of course) typically have settings that are in pre-modern times and hierarchical societies…is this perhaps relevant to your theme?
of course, we all, women as well, want to develop our selves, to be individuals, to assert ourselves. And thinking like that we don’t want to be defined by our bodies but by our wills.
I’m not sure this applies to everyone. Midland cities in Britain are filled with drunken nihilists who probably would be insulted, if sober enough to realize it, when someone asked about their “purpose.”
“defined by our bodies but by our wills.’
I think those girls, lying in the street vomiting, are defined by their bodies. Not just girls, of course, but the role of drunken girls in public is fairly new.
“I’m not sure this applies to everyone. Midland cities in Britain are filled with drunken nihilists who probably would be insulted, if sober enough to realize it, when someone asked about their “purpose.””
Oh Mike, do you not understand they are killing themselves, on purpose? You have led sheltered lives, many of you. The reason people do that is because they have lost all hope, have probably several things they regret, seriously, and want out. That’s their purpose. Why is interesting.
“I think those girls, lying in the street vomiting, are defined by their bodies. Not just girls, of course, but the role of drunken girls in public is fairly new.”
Not even close. Gin ran Britain for centuries, still does. Lots of fascinating pictures of drunken women going back, for a long time. Dickens is instructive.
What’s happened is again not hard to understand. People abused since birth, and there are far more than you would like to think about, tend to seek oblivion as well. Again, causes interest me.
“The reason people do that is because they have lost all hope, ”
Yes, he welfare state will do that. Also Gramsci has been the guardian angel of Marxists for decades.
Some of his terminology became household words on the left, the most important of which, and the most complex, is the term “hegemony” as he used it in his writings and applied to the twin task of understanding the reasons underlying both the successes and the failures of socialism on a global scale, and of elaborating a feasible program for the realization of a socialist vision within the really existing conditions that prevailed in the world.
After his death, his ideas have permeated the new Left. The culture war has been one if his most successful programs.
We see the results in midland Britain.
PenGun….”People abused since birth, and there are far more than you would like to think about, tend to seek oblivion as well.”
May be true, but does not explain what appear to be the extreme levels of drunken behavior at universities, the majority of whose students were surely *not* abused since birth.
“May be true, but does not explain what appear to be the extreme levels of drunken behavior at universities, the majority of whose students were surely *not* abused since birth.”
Really? Kids just let out to play, away from the control they were subject to, are gonna party. There is nothing more complicated going on.
Getting drunk, stoned is perfectly natural behavior. Humans have been fooling with their chemistry since they could. Pathological behavior is not really the same thing.
Mr Kennedy, I respectfully disagree.
The real reason, you see, the West spreads its legs for Muslims is power.
Power.
Simple as that.
Why?
Immigrants give the left a vote bank.
Terrorist immigrants give the state the excuse to gradually control all aspects of society. (Know any Christian bakers recently? Write anything too critical on Facebook recently? Know anyone who lost their job for “talking” recently?)
Offended immigrants (encouraged by the left) give the state, the media and academia an opportunity to censor and create “hate speech” rules and laws – the real reason is not PC politeness; the real reason is to stifle any political opposition.
Immigrants harm the interests of the working and middle class – who are the enemy of the ruling class: the limousine liberals, the petty bureaucrats, the journalists, the academics – the left.
Immigrants who cause terror justify the “forever war”. There will be no “blacklash” in Britain over Westminster; there will be something called “drone warfare”, however. Muslims in Europe, meanwhile, grow angry and….
Immigrants rile up the proles and other carping malcontents who vote for the establishment right (or Donald Trump) – this harms the left at the polls, and it allows the proles a feeling of illusory victory. This benefits the ruling elite – because they don’t believe in democracy anyway, and they certainly don’t believe in Sanders or his socialism. A Sanders or a Corybn will never – ever – be in a position to perform a “political revolution”; the proles, the browns and the blacks won’t vote for them. Funny that, when you think about it – when you really think about it.
Everything in war is simple. In the West, the simplest thing is the easiest to achieve: democratic divide and conquer. One half of the poor against the other. Muslims against Jews and Christians. Jews against Christians. Christians against Muslims. Blacks against whites. Men against women………………..
Cui Bono?
The communists, of course. Who else? What did you expect: the Spanish Inquisition?
Gentlemen, America has only one real problem, just one, only one.
The problem for America is that America is a communist country.
And I mean communist, not Communist.
In the FDR days, there were many “fellow travellers”, even out right traitors (such as Alger Hiss); however, the type of communism that the West has (Albion has it too, thanks to the Fabians) is not prole communism, but upper-middle class Bobo, Harvard style communism.
The object of Bobo communism is not the “withering away of the state” but the withering away of the proles and the stolid, conservative, Christian middle-class under a storm of immigrant and minority anarchy and an avalanche of bureaucratic tyranny.
America is a communist country – communist, not for the workers or for the farmers, but for the blacks, the browns and now, the Muslims.
Oh yes!
Special rights, special privileges, special treatment for the heart and soul (fists and feet) of your communist nation: blacks, browns, queers and little-red-headed-radfem-dears.
Oh My!
Quotas for communist women in the tech industry? Of course, Comrade. Gays in the military? Of course, Comrade. Men in the women’s bathroom, brown aliens in the girl’s toilet, in a high school, raping away? Naturally, Comrade. Affirmative action? Absolutely Comrade. Special mortgage rates for blacks and browns? Why not Comrade? Equality Comrade! Equality!
Gentlemen, Stalin was a prole. A tough prole granted, a smoking, drinking, belching prole. A Communist yes. But still a prole. What would Comrade Stalin, or Comrade Mao think of men pretending to be women and pestering women in the ladies toilet? What would they say, if they were told that it was legal and good and gay? Could Comrade Stalin, who ordered the deaths of millions, even conceive of such idiocy? Could Mao? What would Lenin think of the fact that there are now more than 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 genders?
Lenin said: “the worse it gets, the better it will be.”
You see, the Soviet Union only – only – centrally planned the economy; USG centrally plans your birth, education, employment, marriage, divorce and death. USG centrally plans what you must think – via its organs of the universities and the press. USG centrally commands, via its most august and revered organ: The Supreme Court – Priests in Black Robes, Commissars of the Court, America’s Masters and Commanders.
The managerial elite will tell you what you can and cannot think, read, eat and fuck – or not.
Gentlemen: how long will you suffer this dishonour? This shame and disgrace? Your grandfathers, who fought and died against tyranny, for a free America, would have have slapped you round the face for your indolence, cowardice and moral weakness.
Yet, it was they who voted in the beast: F. D. R. and allowed his shredding of the final shreds of the constitution to go unmolested and uncorrected. As We Go Marching indeed.
The men who did stand up…. what was his name?…. Some dude…………. McCarthy…. and some bloke named…. Enoch, in Blighty.
What happened?
They got crushed. Yet, has history not proven them right? Has the blood not flowed on the streets of England! Rivers of blood indeed. Does the Thames not weep tears in shame?
Would the prophet Enoch not quake the land of Albion at the sad and furious knowledge of the rape and torture of thousands of English children!
Yet, she still sleeps. Our Albion. She still sleeps.
Communists! Enemy of Man and God and All.
Whence cometh the enemy?
What is the command, control and communication centre of the enemy?
Why, the universities – the hatchery whose spawn go on to invest the judiciary and the civil service (the permanent government) and, of course, the press.
Communism (low c) is American “as apple pie.”
O my!
Gentlemen, the communists (c and C) have killed tens of millions of people between them.
Gentlemen, these people know what they doing – they have been at it for decades; indeed, a good few centuries even.
There is nothing and no one who is safe from their quest for control.
Yet, they are, everywhere, going down to democratic defeat, sometimes slowly as in the Netherlands, sometimes bigly – as in America.
Democratic defeat of the communists is not enough. Not even close to being enough.
Because the communists don’t believe in and don’t want democracy.
They think themselves an aristocracy, yet these managerial elites are nothing more than an oligarchy.
No to democracy! No to oligarchy!
What type of government do you have left then?
Aristotle says there are three types of government.
What is it called again? What type of government? Democracy…..Aristocracy…….
America’s problem is that it’s a communist country and Harvard is ground zero – the central policy making, and cadre training centre. Where did Obama come from? Where did Samantha Power come from? Where did Amy Goodman come from? Where did Elena Kagan come from? Where did George Bush come from? Wilson, Roosevelt and Kennedy too? Where did Walter Lippmann, or Sam Francis Adams jr come from?
Harvard: America’s Vatican, America’s Church, America’s Mecca, America’s Forbidden Palace.
America has no Pope, no Caliph and no King – just millions of inferior men and women scrambling and lying for power: a managerial, bobo communist oligarchy.
What does America need? What can solve America’s problem?
No democracy. No oligarchy.
The solution to America’s problem is monarchy.
America needs a king. America must have a king. America will have a king.
America needs an Augustus.
One man to step forward and lead the nation. One man to rule the nation. One man to direct the men who need directing. One man who is capable of judgement and capable of choosing other men capable of judgement.
One man “with a pen and a phone” to order the closure of Harvard University, the closure of the New York Times, the suspension of the Supreme Court and the arrest of certain academics, journalists and judges for fraud, malfeasance and treason. Yes. Treason.
One man to set the civil service back to work, under executive authority.
One man to return power and authority back to the states, the cities and the towns – liberty, safety and dignity back into the hands of the long-suffering American people.
One man to direct the battles that need to be fought against the enemies of the American people: white, black or brown; male or female, gay or straight; Jew or Gentile.
One man to make the business of America business (again).
One man to make America great again.
One man.
A King.
The oligarchs – the petty little public servants who cozen for power fear this. That is why they, and their big money backers, do everything they can to destroy the nation. What better method can there be than to flood it with millions of hostiles, a veritable democratic army.
America and Albion can bomb Muslim countries with impunity, but they are not racist because, you see, immigration is the key – the key to “diversity”.
Democracy is division. Division is disorder. Disorder is destruction. Destruction is death. Death is darkness. Democracy is therefore darkness. Democracy does not “die in darkness”. No! Democracy is darkness.
And that is why Muslims are welcomed with open arms – because the decaying and desperate, communist, ruling elite need them. That is the only reason why they need them – power.
Better to rule in hell, than serve in heaven, after all.
So, it has nothing to do with women, or women’s nature.
We have truly have met the enemy, and he is, indeed, us.
David, I really don’t know anything about romances – which are, of course, often historical novels. They may deal with this.
What I’m talking about is the consciousness of being rent from others, being rent from one’s self. It is the restlessness that Douglass so powerfully describes as coming from learning to read, and reading the Scottish common sense writers. That can of course lead to a desire to join with another, but also a desire to leave an individual mark in this world. It is true that a woman awash with oxytocin – whether from powerful love or breastfeeding – often feels more complete, more grounded – and my impression is that those novels see such moments as quite important. But the novels I mentioned, in the turn of the century, psychological realist mode and full of “she thought he thought she thought” as far as the writer (and we) can go – interactions more carefully captured than later or earlier works – are primarily concerned with that consciousness. Douglass may celebrate it, but to someone who has no meaning (like, say Edna in The Awakening, the awakening may be to a quite desolate and pointless life. Several of these commit suicide – the growing cause of death for white men in America, coupled with the effects of too much alcohol. I just think that desolation can be dramatized in heroines who are young, beautiful, talented but desolate nonetheless more dramatically. Much as Poe argued the best topic was the death of a beautiful woman, we see extra poignancy because, I suspect such a heroine is at the age of procreation – that act that renders two one and in the child connects man to future generations. The naturalists emphasized that man is small at the mercy of natural forces. I hated them when I was young for that kind of desolation, but I’ve grown to see them to have part of the truth but to have rejected the greater, sublime truth.
” the extreme levels of drunken behavior at universities,”
I have noticed a tendency toward more drunken behavior although I participated a bit in my time. A difference is that more girls are doing it and, of course, the change in sexual mores.
The girls I’m talking about, however, are the welfare generation in Britain who show pathology similar to the black inner city residents with the exception of the primitive violence shown in American inner cities. Maybe this is “The Warrior Gene” or just more severe pathology. I read Theodore Dalrymple to try to understand.
They are definitely not university students.
Given the causes of more early deaths and the lowered life expectancy (esp of white men but also esp of non-college ones) is that surprising it affects women? Reading Murray’s Coming Apart explains Eberstadt’s demography.
Folks, a lot of discussion has gone on here and I worked my way through it all. Some interesting thoughts but a lot of tangential topics as well. But nothing appearing to deal with the topic at hand. Which I thought was “What is driving this immigration thing in the west?”
I have only observed in broad brush, the more recent symptoms and like the author and intrigued by the seeming insanity of what is going on. It makes no sense to me. In Europe or in the U.S.
Yes, in the more distant past, immigrants were sought to shore up the employment ranks. Certain groups were encouraged to immigrate be they Turks to Germany, Pakistani’s and Indians to England, or Mexicans to America (as a for instance). But of late, it seems to me that someone is using this as a trojan horse since the early 2000’s and the war’s in the sandbox. There have always been wars. There have always been migrations of people seeking safety from war zones to relative safety. But that occurred from one border to another, not movement of hundreds of thousands across many countries to destinations with welfare systems welcoming uneducated, unskilled, largely groups of young men of fighting age who have no intent on working, paying taxes, and providing for the common good. Theirs is only to “take” and wait as sleeper cells until the demographics have shifted to their favor where either political force takes over or should that fail, then the violence numbers can be unleashed.
Everyone is aghast at the attacks that happen with somewhat regular frequency. But these are “lone wolf” attacks that are testing various aspects of the infrastructure. Learning responsiveness. Adapting. The people are being put into place. The weapons are not even talked about. We are deceived by people driving trucks into crowds as if we are to believe the enemy has no other weapons. It is all deception … psyops.
So, the question is, with all the various countries from the U.S. to Canada, to all the western European countries opening their arms for a loving embrace of all things diverse and tolerant (like hosting a gathering of snakes, poisonous arachnids, and other vermin into your home somehow makes you immune to their attack). Someone has organized and funded the ferrying of the hoards across the Mediterranean to Europe’s shores. These refugees are not stealing and then returning these craft after they are used. No, they return to their harbors to pick up the next load of those escaping war torn lands! Right!
And where is the Arab neighbors that could, if they so chose to, host these refugees? Why is it the refugees must, must trek thousands of miles to western Europe for sanctuary? Who is providing the trekkers with way stations, food, clothing, shelter during their trip. This is no small migration. And it is never ending. Is this an action complicit with NGO’s, the UN, Brussels, George Soros, The Clinton Foundation, and others? There has to be a paper trail. Follow the money. Has no one embedded themselves in the group of migrants to get an “in-side” look at the goings to make a first hand report? Where are our vaunted Journalists?
The public is being set up. The media is complicit … again. And still we have no more clue about what is going on. Just a bunch of speculation. We need action on this to put the politicians to shame. We know they are only tools for others who pay them. But just why are they doing this? What are their goals? Why would they think they can survive such insanity? Why do they believe the death of western civilization will bring a better future? We know what is happening, but not why? That is what I want to know.
I generally do go off topic, but I’m going to take another stab at it nonetheless:
In most countries nationalism is defined by the tribe – and so in times of tension, xenophobia is likely to reign. America is charged with such xenophobia but that is problematic – for most of us (and this goes from Roger Williams’ colony to Paine’s argument in Common Sense to the mass migrations of the 1880-1920 to America to the lifeboat movies of the 40’s (with a streetwise Italian New Yorker and a Jew from Brooklyn and a Swede from the midwest, etc.) open armed acceptance of the American way is what defines an American. When the open arms became all that being American was, we lost our ability to see the Trojan horses for what they were.
And there has always been a strain of skepticism so great that it spilled over into anti-americanism – now the forces that pushed us over that cliff have become stronger. Those forces are described in the gramscian essay, in the de codeville one, and been encouraged by the greater cocooning of the American life – independence requires virtue and self-reliance. I’m not sure we nurture those as much as we did.