Following up on the post The Great Immigration Assimilation Scare, which argues there is more of it going on than many folk care to realise, guest poster Mark argues there is a fundamental truth behind assimilation that many are completely missing—and seem keen to ignore.
To grasp this truth does not require statistics showing Muslim crime is not a problem, or a politically-correct outlook that says all cultures are equal; but it does require a calm head, and some historical perspective.
When there are competing belief systems—one being generally practical and leading to success, and one that doesn’t and leading to poverty and failure – then provided they are openly competing, the better belief system will ultimately win. This is for exactly the same reason that a better business will ultimately outlast an inferior competitor in an open market. History is full of examples to demonstrate this.
A belief system at odds with the practical requirements of day-to-day life only lasts so long as it can remain isolated from better ideas. That is why North Koreans know nothing about the outside world; it is why the Soviets erected a wall down the middle of Berlin; and it is why every dictatorship requires censorship. It is also why medieval monks were sent to live in isolation from the rest of the world: because it was the only way they could come close to practising their religion in such a literal way.
Consider also the atrocities committed and the poverty caused by the Chinese communists about 50 years ago; and consider today that the same ruling party with the same professed ideological adherence is still in power. Despite that lack of overt change there is growing wealth and freedom in that country. How has that happened without a regime change? It’s because the Chinese were forced into increasing accommodation with western values as a practical requirement of modern commerce – even though nothing has changed in terms of their explicit ideology. Ultimately that conflict will reach its end game with either the communist regime ceding power, forced to give up any illusion that they’re still practicing communism - or they will revert to poverty and dictatorship. I don’t know which way that will go, but I do know that it’s only because of exposure to the West, and a degree of open trade and open immigration that the communists grip has been weakened.
Summary: when two competing systems are openly competing, the better belief system will ultimately win.
Now, with that in mind, take a Muslim who is born into a culture where Islam predominates, and drop him into Western civilisation where it does not. You will get a range of possible outcomes.
- If he continues to take his religion literally, that will conflict with every requirement of day-to-day life in the west. His employer for instance is unlikely to supply a mosque where he can stop four times a day to pray towards Mecca. As a result of this clash there is a small chance he will reject Western values completely, go on welfare, go completely nuts, and become a jihadist.
- There’s also a small chance he will reject Islam completely, just like Ayaan Hirsi Ali has, and go on to to become an ally for civilisation, and a knowledgable and powerful foe of the barbarians.
- The vast majority of people however will lie somewhere between those extremes. They will retain their nominal Muslim status, but find some compromise in terms of how literally they practice it. In other words the stranglehold that Islam has on their thinking and actions will be weakened to varying degrees as a result of being in the west. With successive generations, in most but not all cases, that grip will become weaker over time. [And as Bosch Fawstin points out, virtually every Muslim is morally superior to Muhammad and to their own religion, because {like Christrians) most Muslims today “don’t allow and need not allow Islam to dehumanise them; they still retain their humanity.” – Ed.]
This is a very basic point, what I’ve outlined here, so offering examples of Muslims who are not integrating perfectly changes nothing in terms of that basic point. I haven’t studied the statistics, but if it were true that Muslim’s are over-represented in certain crimes, it wouldn’t surprise me; and it wouldn’t surprise me precisely because their starting point is a belief system that is at odds with western values, particularly the equal rights of women.
The point however is that most will move closer to western thinking as a result of being in the west. That is how cultures change, and how inferior belief systems eventually fall by the wayside. [You can see in this context how guilty the modern western disvalue of multculturalism (the illusory idea that all cultures are equal) inhibits rather than helps this benevolent process. – Ed.]
Keep in mind too that once you identify the evils of Muslim culture, you may realise that most of its victims – and certainly most victims of Islamic terrorism – are Muslims themselves. It is not just a battle between Shias and Sunnis; it is largely a battle within Islam between those on one side who want Sharia law and a literal interpretation of the koran, and those on the other who want some accommodation with the practical requirements of modern life. If we chose to erect our own ‘Berlin Wall’ and isolate ourselves as some folk propose, we are only making the former stronger and making it harder for the latter to win.
No great civilisation has ever lasted by building a fortress round itself and waiting for the attack - but rather by engaging with the rest of the world, and allowing those who start from different cultural perspectives to benefit from a better belief system.
RELATED POSTS:
- “I do not object to pictures used merely as illustrations, after it has been made clear that the pictures have no evidentiary significance. What I object to is pictures used cognitively, in an abstract discussion, i.e., pictures used to try to solve, or even help solve, a problem in philosophy or politics. A picture used in such a manner represents the antithesis of thought, of logic, of rational argument.
“To understand why, ask yourself what such a picture does to the viewer's mind. ... In epistemological terms it causes you to drop the context. In other words, the picture seduces you into responding to a concrete example while blithely ignoring all of the surrounding information that would enable you to interpret the picture rationally. ..”
“A picture is not an argument” - “American identity in the United States (similar to Australia, Canada, and New Zealand) is not based on nationality or race nearly as much as it is in the old nation states of Europe, likely explaining some of the better assimilation and integration outcomes here. … Immigrants and their children are assimilating well …. We shouldn’t let assimilation issues in Europe overwhelm the vast empirical evidence that it’s proceeding as it always has in the New World.”
The Great Immigration Assimilation Scare - “… multiculturalism did not require that those immigrants assimilate into European life … The liberal policy-makers left themselves no moral room to assert the rightful dominance of the central ideas that their own civilisations were built on … ”
Unity through Diversity Equals Cultural Death - “So, these disenfranchised immigrants are, by and large, products of the European welfare states. Likewise, heavy labour restrictions - particularly so in France - are preventing immigrants from working their way up the social ladder. Without any way to get up, many young immigrants turn to crime and gangs to make up for lost self-esteem. This can also lead to the spread of dangerous ideas such as jihad, among Muslim youth. The welfare state and French-style social democracy provide a disincentive and make it harder to climb the social ladder and assimilate into the local culture, be it French, British, Italian or Greek.”
Welfare Strikes Again
40 comments:
Mark, I take it from your article that your essential thesis, is 'don't worry Muslims will integrate into the west, all will be well.'
Unfortunately, your theses does not fit with present day reality in Britain, nor I expect in much of Europe, notably France and Belgium, but also Sweden, Norway and Denmark.
Take for example this article today from Trevor Phillips, the former chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission in the Britain. He is quoted as saying:
"Muslims are 'not like us' and we should just accept they will never integrate."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3418620/Muslims-not-like-just-accept-never-integrate-says-former-racial-equalities-chief-Trevor-Phillips.html
This from someone who formally held a role that was infused with political correctness in a nation where civil servants refused to report child sexual abuse by Muslim immigrants that was taking place on an industrial scale because they feared being called racist.
Sure, some will assimilate, and I have employed them, and have friends who are 'nominal' Muslims, but as I suspect you are not religious yourself, you underestimate the pull of religion on the human mind, and the hold both religion and culture has particularly over Muslims, even when they come to western nations.
I wish it were otherwise.
May I say once again that just as it's impossible to talk about immigration without also talking about welfare, it's impossible to talk about assimilation without talking about multiculturalism.
Case in point, you say: "This from someone who formally held a role that was infused with political correctness in a nation where civil servants refused to report child sexual abuse by Muslim immigrants that was taking place on an industrial scale because they feared being called racist."
To which I can only repeat what I said above (with my editor's hat on): "You can see in this context how guilty the modern western disvalue of multiculturalism (the illusory idea that all cultures are equal) inhibits rather than helps this benevolent process [of assimilation]."
"Mark, I take it from your article that your essential thesis, is 'don't worry Muslims will integrate into the west, all will be well"
No I'm not, and I don't know how you could have interpreted it that way if you processed what I said. We certainly have a problem with Islam. I'm saying that putting up the barricades and locking all Muslim's out (even the ones who are victims of ISIS, etc) will make things worse, not better.
Mark, if it seems risible that someone can't even assimilate a simple argument when you make it as clear as you have, then that's probably because it is.
They may not choose to accept it, of course; but it would be nice of they actually digested it before commenting.
'When there are competing belief systems—one being generally practical and leading to success, and one that doesn’t and leading to poverty and failure – then provided they are openly competing, the better belief system will ultimately win.'
I suspect the argument that good wins is correct but also think Brendan is correct about the present reality. Screwed up ideologies seem to self destruct eventually but history shows some of those collapses are pretty ugly with great suffering. What really worries me is that I don't think the west and Islam are even openly competing - one cause is being helped along by stupid politicians who are looking to ban open debate.
It follows that if we have a better system (and compared to Islam we surely must) why would we seek to have the fight here when we can keep it at arm's length? It seems madness to import a fight that we need not have in the first place just to prove we are better, more enlightened and so on. I don't think the Muslims that matter give a stuff about the facts or enlightenment.
I don't think militant Islam will go away any time soon - the zealots have a sniff of victory again and the moderate Muslims, whatever the heck they may look like, will be of no consequence when the demands for understanding and tolerance become strident.
3:16
I agree with Brendan McNeill's comment.
Hi Peter
I'd like to think I had digested the argument before commenting. It's not a specifically new argument, or one that has not been well rehearsed before.
To state as the article does:
"In other words the stranglehold that Islam has on their thinking and actions will be weakened to varying degrees as a result of being in the west. With successive generations, in most but not all cases, that grip will become weaker over time. [And as Bosch Fawstin points out, virtually every Muslim is morally superior to Muhammad and to their own religion, because {like Christrians) most Muslims today “don’t allow and need not allow Islam to dehumanise them; they still retain their humanity.” – Ed.]"
Is to claim that integration is just a question of time, the pull of secular materialism will do to Islam what it has done to Christianity over the last 100 years, that is to push it into the outer regions of polite discourse, into the private realm and out of the public square - Muslims will eventually embrace the dominant meta narrative that is 'rightly' expressed by ideological secular liberalism.
It is the same argument endlessly rehearsed by our political elite, particularly those in Europe who despite the facts on the ground continue to believe that their ideology will triumph in the end.
I read an interesting article today where the writer drew an analogy between Europeans and the plight of the Moriori, who once occupied the Chatham Islands.
http://gatesofvienna.net/2016/01/maoris-moors-and-migrants-a-history-lesson-for-civilized-humans-facing-an-ork-invasion/
There is no doubt who was the most civilised when it came to the cultural choice between the Moroni and the Maori. In the end, those with the superior culture and numerical advantage lost to the barbarians.
This is a 'close to home' example of the kind of naivety that presently occupies the minds, not just of our politicians, but of a public that has been brainwashed into thinking western civilisation is a permanent feature of the political and cultural landscape. It will be of course, right up to the day it's not.
Read the article and enjoy.
Brendan
Considering most of the Paris attackers were born there, what superior aspects of western culture would they not be aware of?
Like Brendan said, you really don't seem to get how deeply ingrained these backwards beliefs are. The major issues they are having in Europe is evidence of this.
Although it's good to see you finally acknowledge that there are indeed major issues with Muslim immigrants in Europe.
Brendan: Actually, it's nothing like the argument put forward by the elites, because it's those very elites -- who are too scared even to promote Christmas, for fear their fellow multiculturalists (chanting "all cultures are equal except ours") might shun them -- who are perpetrating the problem that helps make assimilation more difficult.
To say it bluntly it is not what "the pull of secular materialism will do to Islam": it is what the the pull of western values will do increasingly to individual Muslims, *if* those folf who are already morally superior to their prophet are allowed to experience them uncontaminated by cultural cringe.
And sorry to disabuse you. Moriori were not killed and eaten because they were civilised. They were killed and eaten because they were pacifists. (I see your article, and raise you one of mine.)
NB: Note too that as mentioned in Part One of this piece, Europe has the added problem of modern tribalism that the new world countries don't. As the article says: “American identity in the United States (similar to Australia, Canada, and New Zealand) is not based on nationality or race nearly as much as it is in the old nation states of Europe, likely explaining some of the better assimilation and integration outcomes here. … Immigrants and their children are assimilating well …. We shouldn’t let assimilation issues in Europe overwhelm the vast empirical evidence that it’s proceeding as it always has in the New World.”
Barry: Good to see you finally acknowledge that most of the terrorists in Paris, and virtually everywhere in recent years, are homegrown. As I've been saying all along.
Which is to say that the problem is not primarily the immigration of today, but the tolerance of evil of yesterday. As I've been saying all along.
In other words, that the problem is largely that multiculturalism makes westerners too silent about the west's virtues (and if westerners seem too timid to praise their own values, why would anyone new to the west see their value?), and too tolerant of evils they see in front of them.
So while *new* migrants who *have* come from barbarism are generally very eager to embrace the western values they escaped barbarism to enjoy, the children of those migrants aren't really introduced to real western values--and don't finally realise the barbarism of their own stunted views until or unless they find themselves flying a plane into a building, or being decapitated by those they foolishly flew to the Levant to serve.
PS: Problems have never been unacknowledged. But nor have they been exaggerated based on little or no evidence.
Anonymous/3:16: YOu say "the moderate Muslims, whatever the heck they may look like, will be of no consequence when the demands for understanding and tolerance become strident.
But this is why I say you should look at how the IRA and Provos ended their campaigns of terror and saw peace break out: because their very supporters rose up and said: not in our name any longer. The courage and forthrightness of the McCartney sisters should be an example to all, especially in how tribal/religious campaigns of terror can be ended.
Hi Peter
For the sake of context, I suspect we agree on more than we disagree. I note your emphasis on multiculturalism being the problem. Both Merkel and a senior minister in her Government are on record as saying multiculturalism has failed. That is the idea that it's OK for parallel cultures to live side by side in Germany, or in fact any other nation state.
To that end, Germany is now focused on integration as the way forward for immigrants. I call these politicians naive because they believe you can integrate Islam successfully into western cultures. You can have the appearance of success as we do in NZ where Muslims make up just 1% of the population, albeit even then we have 50 or more on the SIS terrorist watch list - people who would do us harm. However, when they make up 8 - 10% as they do in France, with higher concentrations in the larger cities of Europe, like Paris, Belgium, London etc, then you quickly realise that integration is a fantasy. It hasn't happened, and it is not going to happen.
Then when you realise that most of 'native' Europe is not reproducing itself with birth rates ranging from 1.1% in Spain through to 1.7% or thereabouts in Germany. When 2.1% is needed just to keep the population the same, you begin to understand three things.
First, Muslim immigrants are the babies the Europeans couldn't be bothered having, and the Politicians believe are necessary to keep the Welfare state ponzi scheme from rapidly collapsing over the next decade. Hence the desire to import these immigrants with only casual concern that they may or may not be coming from Syria.
Second, that demographics is destiny. While European couples are have 1.5 babies Muslims in Europe are having 3 -5 babies. The future belongs to those who turn up for it, and in both Britain and Europe, those who are turning up in 10 - 20 years time will not be Winstone and Mary, but Ahmed and Khadiha.
Furthermore, while there are 80 Million people in Germany, there are only 10 Million in the 20+ age range, many of whom are existing Turkish Muslim immigrants. Merkel has invited between 700,000 and 1.0M Muslim men in the 20+ age group into Germany. Quite apart from the demographic cultural impact, who are these young men going to... hmm, have sex with and potentially marry? Does New Year's rape and sexual abuse give us any indication with respect to answering the first half of that question?
Sweden is the rape capital of Europe by a large margin. Want to guess why that is?
Up till now the European mainstream media has been complicit with the political elite in hiding the reality of Muslim migrant atrocities. The outrage is now growing to such an extent that it has become impossible for them to keep up the charade.
This doesn't necessarily mean a change in immigration policy. The public in Britain has been angry about immigration for along time, but it has made no difference regardless of who is in government.
There is no meaningful parallel between the IRA and Islam. Active IRA combatants would have numbered in the hundreds at most at any one time. There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, and even if only 15% are hot for jihad and following the example of Mohammad, and the dictates of the Koran, then we have a problem. Contd..
This is not a new problem. There is 1,400 years of bloody Islamic expansionist history into North Africa and Europe that is there for anyone to read. It's just that for the last 100 years, the world of Islam has been humiliated by lost wars, and the technological superiority of the Infidel. Today they have woken up and realised that if you have the will, the numbers and ferterlizer bombs, you can defeat any infidel nation, regardless of their technological superiority if they lack the will and the cultural confidence to push back.
For the Islamic jihadist, death is a bonus come early. That's why they say 'we love death more than you love life'.
We are ill prepared for the asymmetric jihad that has begun in our cities, and so long as we continue to treat these acts as simply 'criminal' rather than the acts of war that they are, then the barbarians will ultimately win.
My point is that we in New Zealand don't have to follow down the same path of Muslim immigration as the reset of the western world. We can see for ourselves how it plays out in Europe. Why not have a moratorium on Muslim immigration at least until they learn to play nicely with each other, and with the west?
There is no immigration test that allows us to determine if the second generation of Muslim immigrants will become the London Tube Bombers of Auckland. It's a risk we have no need to take, and given what we see happening internationally, we are simply stupid to take it.
You however seem prepared to hope that a couple of Muslim women might arise to walk in the footsteps of the McCartney sisters and bring an end to jihadist terrorism. Honestly, if you really believe that, you should apply for a role in the European parliaments of the world. :-)
Brendan, you say, "I suspect we agree on more than we disagree."
I say: No, Brendan. No we do not.
You say for example: multiculturalism = "the idea that it's OK for parallel cultures to live side by side in Germany, or in fact any other nation state."
This is not just wrong, but dangerously wrong. Multiculturalism is the notion that all cultures are equal; they are not. That multicultural virus suggests we should tolerate the intolerant; we should not. To this, we should be opposed.
So just for the record, I think that I disagree with virtually every other sentence of yours, from your factual claims (no, Sweden is not "the rape capital of Europe"; no, Syrians are not being imported to keep paying for the welfare state) to the fatuous demographics (the real argument is not about babies, but ideas); to your inability to understand the shared principle between what the McCartney sisters did and what any number of Muslims can do.
Brendan, you say, "You however seem prepared to hope that a couple of Muslim women might arise to walk in the footsteps of the McCartney sisters and bring an end to jihadist terrorism."
If that's the lesson you've drawn from what I've said about this over many years, then I can only say that you're wrong. That's not what I mean. Which means I've either explained it poorly, or you fail to understand. Given your erroneous summary of what you claimed to be Mark's fairly straightforward "essential thesis," I suspect it's the latter. But of that, I could be wrong.
I don't think that a few thuggish Irishmen playing violent games to massage egos and political desires, and in contradiction to the theology they profess to follow, is comparable to Islam which is doing what its theology says they should by what ever means is required. Islam is playing a very long game with very large numbers and muted dissension. I lived in England for three years in supposedly dangerous times and the worst effect on me of the IRA threats was to have to leave Petticoat Lane market one afternoon before wifey spent a wack of money. No bomb went off, or was even found, as far as I recall. I found Europe peaceful as well - never felt that anyone would top me although I missed the Munich Beer Fest bombing by just one day. These were just isolated events with no real plan to dominate Europe on the part of the ruffians of the day. I'm not sure 2016 is like that.
3:16
If the terrorists in Paris were 'homegrown' (not really since Islam got to Europe via immigration) then that debunks your optimistic assimilation thesis. They grew up immersed in superior western culture yet still decided to be martyrs for Allah.
You can't reason with these nutters that western culture is better, since their beliefs aren't based on reason in the first place.
Brendan, no doubt you are scratching your head as to why your straightforward reasoning isn't getting through. What you have to understand is that Peter subscribes to the open immigration dogma of Ayn Rand.
No evidence you bring up will change his mind. Unless you can find an old Rand quote where she enunciates the abject insanity of mass Islamic immigration.
Hi Peter, well I guess if you don't bother doing any fact checking for yourself, but simply rely upon making assertions it's difficult to engage in constructive debate with you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics
Scroll down to Sweden.
Thanks for your explanation Ben. I don't usually visit Peter's site - your explanation is helpful.
I came here because of a tweet from Mark Hubbard. We all operate out of a set of presuppositions, myself included. I'd like to think however that when the facts conflict with my previously held beliefs, I'd be open to changing them, or at the very least re-examining them. At least Peter appears to permit a range of views being expressed on his blog, which in itself is commendable. People are free to judge for themselves.
That's a bit rich Brendan considering you haven't come close to acknowledging the very basic point I'm making, which is really just common sense if I make it even more simpler and break it down to 2 key points:
1. A Muslim is likely to become more western iliving in a western culture compared to an Islamic one, and
2. No inferior belief system has EVER beaten a better one in the long term when the two are in open competition (I challenge you to give me one example)
One can acknowledge those points and still disagree with my conclusion (as 3:16 has done, and I will aim to address in due course) - and one can agree with my conclusion and still call for limits and tighter controls on Islamic immigration. But you and Barry have done neither. You've just clung to your pre-held views and recycled your arguments as if my post was never written. I suspect that's because of a concrete bound approach that is unable (or unwilling) to think in principles on this issue, or consider Islamic terrorism in the context of other threats to the west that have come and gone throughout history. This is evident not only in your failure to grasp my point, but also your glib dismissal of Peter's Irish example and what it means.
On some level I think the jihadists understand my point, and their violence is essentially a reaction to the all pervading influence of the west which is compromising their religion. In a broader historical context this is their 'last stand', and I think they would love it if the West goes into isolationist mode, because that's their only chance of survival. Fundamentally they are weak, but you/Barry/Richad/etc grant them a power they don't deserve.
The West has more to fear from westerners who can't think in principles, and don't have confidence in the strength of their own culture than it does any jihadist.
Ben - the only "dogma of Ayn Rand" I can see evident in Peter's writing is the ability to adhere to principles. If that makes one a 'dogmatist' in your eyes I'll happily accept that label too.
Hi Mark
As to point (1) - clearly that's true, but it's a question of degree. From my observation in Europe, and even walking around Auckland recently, western influence is insufficient to facilitate Muslim integration into western culture at any meaningful level.
As to point (2) Well the Romans did succumb to the barbarians, vandals and the goths, but your question implies an objective standard as to what is an inferior / superior culture. No such objective standard exists. A good many Muslims would suggest that the West's embrace of promiscuity, pornography, and drugs clearly demonstrates that western culture is inferior to that of Islam, and that they are fully justified in their attempts to destroy it. (don't you think?)
I agree that Islam is a brittle ideology, but the problem is that we in the west are suffering from cultural exhaustion, and self doubt. We don't have any coherent cultural framework for Muslims to integrate into when they arrive in NZ, or Europe. Having embraced cultural and moral relativism we have no sound argument for rejecting their worldview and promoting our own.
There are 1.6 Billion Muslims world wide and if you think this is their 'last stand' you are truely mistaken.
I have often said the problem is with 'us' not with 'them'. They are consistently expressing the tenants of their faith and religious worldview. We have forgotten the meta narrative that established the liberties we now enjoy in what is left of 'western civilisation'.
Finally, it is not always those with the superior idea that win. It is those who have the most commitment to their idea and are prepared to die for it.
Who in the west is prepared to lay down their lives for secular materialism? We have lost our narrative of transcendence, meaning and purpose. The followers of Islam have not.
"your question implies an objective standard as to what is an inferior / superior culture. No such objective standard exists"
I emphatically disagree Brendan - and in precisely that belief of yours lies the problem, not immigration. This is the multi-culturalism that Peter keeps talking about; the belief that all cultures are equal. You should judge a culture like you judge a machine, by how well it works in delivering human prosperity and happiness. If we're no better than Muslim culture than we're doomed anyway, and there's nothing to defend.
On much of what you say about the West now you are correct, but the answer to that is not to give up, and keep out the invading hordes as long as we can; but to re-establish the principles that made the West great.
Funny you mention the Roman Empire, because I think it illustrates my point perfectly. It ultimately succumbed because it dropped the principles that made it flourish, became corrupt, and developed a siege mentality - the exact mentality I am trying to warn against. What made republican Rome so successful prior to the empire was not primarily it's armies, but it's recognition of Roman rights (in a proto form) to people in conquered lands. It became generally in the conquered's interests to co-operate with Rome, and it was only when that mutually beneficial relationship end did things start to fall apart. They were able to hold off the barbarians for a few centuries following that with their armies alone, but by that stage the die was set.
I see the West in a similar situation now in terms of that crucial turning point, and what I am warning against. You either go forth, engage with the rest of the world and share the benefits, encouraging those with a less than an ideal belief system to benefit from Western civilisation; or you give up, develop a siege mentality, and wait for the inevitable end to come.
Brendan, I strongly suggest you check your own facts. We've discussed Sweden's rape statistics here many times. What they reflect is not that Sweden is a "rape capital" (even if that did say anything about muslim immigration; what they do say is that Sweden changed the way it measured rape statistics that saw the figures radically jump, not the rapes. They claims that are made repeatedly ignore this.
FWIW, Brendan, many followers of Ayn Rand, including her intellectual heir and the head of the Ayn Rand Institute, have called for a temporary end to open borders. I don't agree with them.
Hi Mark
So what is the objective standard?
If your 'objective standard' is 'how well it works' then that's entirely subjective. We don't think Islamic cultures work well, Muslims don't think ours does.
Yes, I fully understand the multicultural narrative, and I agree its nonsense.
I have not given up on the west, but I am tending towards the pessimistic based upon our present cultural trajectory. We are effectively basking in the sunset of a 1,000 years of western civilisation that was animated by the Christian faith, and the enlightenment. You cannot continue enjoy the fruit of western civilisation if you have abstracted it from its roots. Unless there is significant change in our culture and soon, the remaining light is going to extinguish. Historically there has been change in the past. The preaching of Wesley in England, the 'Great Awakenings' in the USA, all brought about significant cultural and social change which transformed those societies for the better and arguably in the case of England at least, rescued them, from the kind of atrocities experienced in the French revolution. So, we are not without hope, but we face significant challenges.
Where we differ is in our world view, and consequently our response to our present context.
I have no problem with 'going forth and engaging with the rest of the world', obviously we must do this. However the question is how do we engage? If the present example of Iraq and Afghanistan is the model, then it's very broken.
On the other hand, if you think that Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or Iran is likely to reject Islam once we have properly explained to them the benefits of western civilisation then I suspect you will be disappointed. They know already what we have on offer and their response is 'death to America, death to the great Satan'. In Bangladesh just over 12 months ago, 500,000 Muslims marched on their capital insisting upon the death penalty for atheism.
We cannot view the Muslim world through the lens of the western mind.
When it comes to preserving what remains of western civilisation at home, I'm increasingly an isolationist, and in particular from the world of Islam. Immigrants from other cultures, including Asian cultures integrate easily. Islamic cultures not so much.
To use the human body as an analogy, if we are health we can easily resist infections and overcome viruses. If we are weak, then what we could easily have resisted when healthy may kill us. Cultural and moral relativism has made us week. The liberal values of tolerance and diversity are insufficient defence against political Islam.
This is not a 'siege' mentality, it's just common sense. You put the patient into isolation until they recover. The open question is 'will we recover'?
Imagine a hypothetical conversation between Mark and the family of one of the Paris attack victims:
Mark: "Sorry about your loss, but we should open the floodgates to Muslim immigrants so they can learn our culture is better."
"They're already well aware of what our culture has to offer, and they want to destroy it."
"Sure there may be a whole lot of terrorist attacks in the short term, but in the long term our superior culture will prevail. Only a minority of the 1.6 billion muslims are terrorists."
Notice how nuts that is? An immigration policy based on principles that aren't rational is a recipe for disaster.
Muslims have iPhones, TV, internet; they are well aware western societies are better to live in but they don't care. Why? because this life is all about submission to Allah. To them, the next life is what's really important. This is a crucial point you are missing.
Imagine several hypothetical conversations with Barry:
* * * *
PC: "Terrorist acts have overwhelmingly been carried out by those who grew up in the west."
Barry: "Yes, ban immigrants."
* * * *
PC: "Sweden changed the way it measured rape, measuring it differently to other countries, against whom its figures look much higher."
Barry: "Yes, Sweden is the rape capital of Europe."
PC: "?"
Barry: "I haz evidence. 'The foreign rape figures at 77.6% Muslim has been anonymously confirmed by Swedish polish in a phone conversation.' [Actual quote supporting Barry's actual 'evidence']"
* * * *
PC: "Syrian migrants escaping butchers are likely to be the best-qualified to point out who the butchers are."
Barry: "Yes, we should alienate everyone. All Syrian migration should be banned."
* * * *
Barry: "We have nothing to gain from Syrian migrants."
PC: "Steve Jobs' parents were Syrian migrants."
Barry: "We have nothing to gain from Syrian migrants.We have nothing to gain from Syrian migrants.We have nothing to gain from Syrian migrants."
* * * *
PC: "The evidence shows that in New World countries like ours, immigrants of all persuasions generally use less welfare than locals and assimilate very well.
Barry: "Yes, muslims never assimilate anywhere."
* * * *
PC: "Evidence suggests that previous generations of migrants assimilated more readily in the days when immigrants were treated more as individuals, and western values were promoted."
Barry: "Here's a link to a picture from 2005."
* * * *
Barry: "Evidence suggests the reason assimilation is less successful in Europe than in New World countries like ours is that Europeans base their identity more on race and nationalism."
Barry: "Bloody foreigners."
* * * *
Actually, you don't need to imagine it. These have all been the gist of actual conversations here at NOT PC in recent months . . .
Peter, in my previous comment I asked for references to back up your assertion that it's just the reporting rather than the number of rapes that have changed. I have now looked into this in more detail myself. Probably the best collected reference can be found here:
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape
Yes. Twenty-one research reports from the 1960s until today are unanimous in their conclusions: Whether or not they measured by the number of convicted rapists or men suspected of rape, men of foreign extraction were represented far more than Swedes. And this greater representation of persons with a foreign background keeps increasing:
1960-1970s – 1.2 to 2.6 times as often as Swedes
1980s – 2.1 to 4.7 times as often as Swedes
1990s – 2.1 to 8.1 times as often as Swedes
2000s – 2.1 to 19.5 times as often as Swedes
Even when adjusted for variables such as age, sex, class and place of residence, the huge discrepancy between immigrants and Swedes remains.
and...
How is it, then, that in 2008, Sweden's neighbor Denmark only had 7.3 rapes per 100,000 inhabitants compared to 53.2 in Sweden?
Danish legislation is not very different from Sweden's, and there is no obvious reason why Danish women should be less inclined to report rape than their Swedish counterparts.
In 2011, 6,509 rapes were reported to the Swedish police -- but only 392 in Denmark. The population of Denmark is about half the size of Sweden's, so even adjusted for size, the discrepancy is significant.
In Sweden, the authorities do what they can to conceal the origin of the rapists. In Denmark, the state's official statistical office, Statistics Denmark, revealed that in 2010 more than half of convicted rapists had an immigrant background.
Read the entire article.
Actually PC, someone not suffering from cognitive dissonance would see the gist of our conversations as:
PC: "Terrorist attacks have overwhelmingly been carried out by those who grew up in the west"
Barry: "So Muslims immigrate, don't assimilate, then their children become terrorists. Can't you see that immigration is still the problem?"
PC: Looks up in the sky "La la la la"
Barry: "Sweden and Germany have such major issues with rape committed by Muslims their police have been caught trying to cover up the epidemic."
PC: "No, I refuse to believe that despite all the evidence."
Barry: "What are the actual figures for rapes committed by Muslims in Sweden then?"
PC: "La la la la la"
PC: "Syrians have made a real mess of their country. We should let an unlimited number of them migrate here, even though we can't effectively screen out terrorists"
Barry: "Really? what have you been smoking?"
PC: "Steve Jobs' parents were Syrian migrants"
Barry: "Out of millions of refugees and thousands of terrorists there might be a Steve Jobs. Can't fault that argument."
PC: "Evidence shows immigrants generally use less welfare than locals and assimilate very well."
Barry: "That's a good argument as long as you ignore the fact that you are diluting the figures for Muslims with all the other immigrants."
PC: "Migrants assimilated more readily in the days when immigrants were treated more as individuals, and western values were promoted."
Barry: "Migrants were treated more as individuals in the days before there were high levels of Islamic immigration, before the Islamic ghettos they wish to run according to Sharia law.
You said earlier that most terrorists in Europe grew up there. What western values could be promoted to them that they wouldn't already be well aware of?"
PC: "La la la la"
PC: "The reason assimilation is less successful in Europe is that Europeans base their identity more on race and nationalism."
Barry: "You think so? I'd say it's because Europeans don't like their women being sexually assaulted by packs of Muslim men. Did you know some Scandinavian blondes are dying their hair black to reduce the chance of sexual assault?"
PC: "I don't care! I have principles! Europe could be in flames and I would still be advocating for open door immigration!"
Barry: "I think your favourite hat may have been made using mercuric dye."
Mark. If you have open unmitigated Islamic immigration into the West, it will no longer be the West. So you defeat your whole argument. Have you seen my post to you over in part one?
Peter is treating rights as intrinsic and dropping the context. By your policies, there will be no West. There will be no sanctuary from which to escape the worst ravages of Islam, because anyone trying to escape it will find it right where they are escaping to. That is what is happening, and fast. The number one priority should be to defend what is left of liberty. Not arguing for a speeding up of the process that is helping destroy it. I see Libertarianism as the process of working towards a fully private society. That should relegate the promotion of open-immigration to the least important rung on the ladder. A fully private society would not have open-immigration. It would actually be an impossibility. I'm beginning to wonder if open immigration isn't more of a statist concept. It certainly goes hand in hand with International Socialism.
I'm not advocating unlimited Islam immigration into the West. I recognise we're fighting a war against Islam, and explaining why a total ban on Islamic immigration would be a mistake in that context.
How do you determine who is and who isn't a threat?
There can be no absolute guarantees, just as there could be no guarantees that pre WW2 German immigrants weren't Nazis, or that Vietnamese refugees in the 70's weren't communists, or that southern Italians weren't violent mafia. If you expect a guarantee then you're guilty of the 'precautionary principle' that afflicts environmentalists and bureaucrats; the presumption being that unless you can prove that something is 100% safe it should be banned. If mankind had followed that principle we never would have emerged from the caves.
Consider that some of the Germans who fled Nazi Germany eventually went on to help America win the arms race against the Nazis to create the first atomic weapon. If we'd reacted with a blanket ban to all Germans, the outcome of the war may have been different.
The point I am making in terms of the downside of an immigration ban stands regardless. Whether that downside is outweighed by the threat is open to debate, and the manner in which we control immigration and screen refugees is also open to debate. But the failure of you/Barry/Brendan to even acknowledge that point (instead flying off the handle and trying to put words in my mouth as to what I 'really mean') is the most disturbing aspect. It's not conducive to rational debate, and Barry's responses in particular suggest a knee jerk and emotional reaction.
I don't pretend to have the perfect answer on how we screen potential Muslim immigrants. but off the top of my head we could:
1. With the help of intelligence develop a list of groups or factions that are violent or even threaten violence against the West. Publicise these openly. Make it clear that anyone found to be associated with these groups is ruled out from immigration. Aside from keeping the worse ones out it would also provide a strong incentive for potential immigrants to abandon the violent factions if they aspired to come to the west.
2. Have a monotarium for any new immigrants of say 5 years. If they are found to breach certain conditions (commit a violent crime, express sympathy for one of the above listed group, etc) they get deported.
And I'm sure there are other things you could but that would be start, and would allow you to get rid of most of the dirty bathwater without also throwing out the baby.
Mark
I have been around long enough not to expect 100% guarantee of anything in life. And you are making a fatal error. German does not = Nazi. Nazi = Nazi, just as Muslim = Muslim. A Nazi is a follower of a particular system of ideas, as is a Muslim. Muslim is not a race or a nationality, and Islam is a particular system of ideas. The West should only allow in Muslims who do not take Islam seriously, and I say that because I do take Islam seriously. Unless you start addressing the root - and your two proposals do not - then you are not offering any solution. Just more suicide.
Just putting it in its proper place:
I have been around long enough not to expect 100% guarantee of anything in life. And you are making a fatal error. German does not = Nazi. Nazi = Nazi, just as Muslim = Muslim. A Nazi is a follower of a particular system of ideas, as is a Muslim. Muslim is not a race or a nationality, and Islam is a particular system of ideas. The West should only allow in Muslims who do not take Islam seriously, and I say that because I do take Islam seriously. Unless you start addressing the root - and your two proposals do not - then you are not offering any solution. Just more suicide.
@ Mark 1 Feb , "consider some of the Germans[?] who fled Nazi Germany..." Is this a reference to Jews? Or, if this is too disturbing a name, use Jooz. 'Jooz' is avoided on this site. The Golem here is Muslim. These Germans[?] were special immigrants for other reasons, 'Operation Paperclip'. Very industrious = MK-ULTRA and Monarch and Hollywood Propaganda and MSM and Monsanto, etc.. There is also Coudenhove-Kalegri and his plan to destroy the White European Race by implementing the Zionist plan; Miscegenation of Christian Europe by forced immigration. Also, Barbara Lerner Specter, wife of a rabbi living in Sweden, this Jooez IS advocating 'White Genocide'. Soros, the rich Joo who pays for all the social unrest. Also, ADL and B'nai B'rith and the hundreds of Joo orgs. doing the Hasbara thing. Oy Vey! Was the topic @ Immigration to NZ? 65.000 p a. Does NZ need these? Who says? Who benefits? Only Food Distribution and Construction. Those who own these shill loudest for more social unrest.
Post a Comment