The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information

 TeasersiSteve Blog

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
🔊 Listen RSS

Radio comedian Will Rogers is often said to have sagely advised, “If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.” Western Europe has found itself in a hole over the last generation, having imprudently admitted large numbers of Muslims. Germany’s two-pronged solution:

- Double down

- Bully Germany’s eastern neighbors into the same mistake so German politicians don’t look so bad in comparison to the Eastern European politicians’ attempts to learn from the Western European politicians’ mistakes.

From the NYT:

Eastern Bloc’s Resistance to Refugees Highlights Europe’s Cultural and Political Divisions
By RICK LYMAN SEPT. 12, 2015

WARSAW — Even though the former Communist countries of Central and Eastern Europe have been asked to accept just a fraction of the refugees that Germany and other nations are taking, their fierce resistance now stands as the main impediment to a unified European response to the crisis.

Poland’s new president, Andrzej Duda, has complained about “dictates” from the European Union to accept migrants flowing onto the Continent from the Middle East and Africa.

Slovakia’s prime minister, Robert Fico, says his country will accept only Christian refugees as it would be “false solidarity” to force Muslims to settle in a country without a single mosque. Viktor Orban, Hungary’s hard-line prime minister, calls the influx a “rebellion by illegal migrants” and pledges a new crackdown this week.

The discord has further unsettled a union already shaky from struggles over the euro and the Greek financial crisis and now facing a historic influx of people attracted by Europe’s relative peace and prosperity.

When representatives of the European Union nations meet on Monday to take up a proposal for allocating refugees among them, Central and Eastern Europen nations are likely to be the most vocal opponents. Their stance — reflecting a mix of powerful far-right movements, nationalism, racial and religious prejudices as well as economic arguments that they are less able to afford to take in outsiders than their wealthier neighbors — is the latest evidence of the stubborn cultural and political divides that persist between East and West. …

Few migrants, in fact, are particularly interested in settling in Eastern Europe, preferring to head to Germany or Scandinavia, where social welfare benefits are higher, employment opportunities greater and immigrant communities better established. In that sense, migrants are aligned with leaders in Eastern and Central European capitals, who frequently argue that the 28-member bloc should focus first on securing its borders and figuring out a way to end the war in Syria before talking about mandatory quotas for accepting refugees.

But that’s not the point, the point is to use the Muslim influx to crush resistance in Eastern Europe.

But as often as not, the political discourse in these countries has quickly moved toward a wariness of accepting racial and religious diversity.

“This refugee flow has outraged the right wing,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. “If you scratch the surface, why are they so upset? It’s not about jobs or the ability to manage them or social welfare. What it is really about is that they are Muslim.”

Unlike countries in Western Europe, which have long histories of accepting immigrants from diverse cultures, the former Communist states tend to be highly homogeneous. Poland, for instance, is 98 percent white and 94 percent Catholic.

“And the countries that have very little diversity are some of the most virulently against refugees,” said Andrew Stroehlein, European media director for Human Rights Watch.

But we have a plan for fixing that.

Even mainstream political leaders eager for closer ties to Brussels, the European Union’s headquarters, feel pressure to appeal to this growing nationalist wave.

“By toughening up their rhetoric and showing a strong hand toward the Roma minority, facing down the E.U. and refusing a common solution to the refugee crisis, they are trying to outbid the far right and keep the traditional political parties in power,” said Zuzana Kusá, a senior research fellow at the Institute for Sociology of the Slovak Academy of Sciences.

It’s called representative government.

In Hungary, Mr. Orban has taken a particularly uncompromising approach, demanding more help from Brussels in dealing with the tens of thousands who continue to enter his country while insisting that Hungary is under no obligation to endanger its traditional Christian values by accepting large numbers of Muslims.

Advice to Mr. Orban: When talking to the American media, don’t say “our traditional Christian values,” say “our traditional Judeo-Christian values.”

What exactly is all this frenzy to crush Eastern European dissent about, anyway?

Part of it, no doubt, is to inflict upon the East the bad decisions made in the West. The East can’t be allowed to learn from the mistakes of the West, because that would signify that the decisionmakers in charge in the West have made mistakes. And that would raise questions about whether they should be replaced with better decisionmakers. And we can’t have that.

If you are Japan, China, South Korea, or Taiwan, pay attention to what’s going on. You may think you are insulated, but, if, say, Hungary can be broken on the Wheel of Diversity, your time may come, too.

🔊 Listen RSS
The Serious People are extremely mad at Germany for not plunging precipitously into war in Libya for the second time in 70 years.

Daniel Larison rounds up some representative comments. For instance, Roger Cohen writes in the New York Times:

We stand at a high point in French postwar diplomacy and a nadir in German. … Germany often conveys the sense that it now resents the agents of its postwar rehabilitation — the European Union and NATO.

Timothy Garton Ash, a columnist for the lefty Guardian, is hopping mad:

But how could Germany not support a UN resolution backed by its principal European partners, the United States and the Arab League? … A word that springs unbidden to my mind is Dolchstoss (stab in the back).

How could Germany not go along with starting an unprovoked war alongside France, Britain, the U.S. and a few small Arab countries? I dunno … Because Germany is a sovereign nation and doesn’t have to start a war if it doesn’t want to? Because Germany is a republic, and its voters would have punished any Chancellor who did that? Because the Germans thought it sounded like a bad idea? Because the guys starting the wars didn’t have a plausible plan for how they would win? Because Germany manufactures BMWs, not Renaults, Jaguars, Chryslers, or camels? Because Germany’s attitude toward War in the Desert is Been There, Done That? Because Germans don’t take Bernard-Henri Levi seriously enough?
Keep in mind that my title, a play on Thilo Sarrazin’s book Germany Abolishes Itself, is a joke. The Serious People are mad at Germany not for asserting itself, but for refusing to be involved in starting a war. When Obama and Co. decided to attack, the Germans were preoccupied with what the Japanese nuclear meltdown meant for Germany’s many nuclear power plants. Should they scrap all their nuke plants and replace them with renewable energy? The Germans felt more like spending money on windmills than on bombs. Bad, bad Germans …
The joke is that even Germany at its Greeniest Weeniest enrages the Serious People, which would be pretty funny if it weren’t also kind of serious.

(Republished from iSteve by permission of author or representative)
• Tags: Germany 
🔊 Listen RSS

The continuing success of the German high wage economy relative to the Anglo-American low wage / high finance system is raising worries among the global great and good that a newly confident German public might start thinking for itself on…immigration!

Particularly agitating to transnational elites is that Social Democratic central banker Thilo Sarrazin published an immigration restrictionistbook, Germany Abolishes Itself. (Here’s Rafael Kosk i’s informative review of Sarrazin’s book in Since August, it has sold a million copies. (Trust me when I tell you that’s an astonishing total for a statistics-heavy social science work.)

Germany’s economic model requires, on average, a highly productive population with strong human capital. Germans deeply value extensive technical education or demanding apprenticeships in the skilled crafts. But high investment parenting means that, especially in a crowded country like Germany, children are expensive. Thus, the main long-term threat to Germany’s high investment / high wage model is the below-replacement birthrate among Germans.

Sarrazin advocates policies to boost the birthrate so that Germany won’t abolish itself. Yet there’s an obvious problem: incentives to reproduce would tend to appeal more to parents who don’t invest as much in their children’s human capital, especially Germany’s Muslim immigrants.

Germany is now into its third generation of Muslims. As Sarrazin documents, they tend to lag behind in achievement, much as Mexicans do on average here in the U.S., even after four generations.

What are the causes of these gaps? Genes? Culture? Or whatever?

We’ll eventually find out for sure. But meanwhile, this is the pragmatic take-home message: these disparities have been long enduring. Therefore, they can’t just be assumed away when discussing immigration policy.

Conclusion: immigration restriction is a logical necessity.

This is especially true in welfare state Germany. There, immigration from the Muslim world since the abolition of guest worker programs in the 1970s has been more or less an elaborate form of welfare fraud carried out through marriages arranged to obtain “family reunification” visas. As Christopher Caldwell pointed out in Reflections upon the Revolution in Europe, Reflections upon the Revolution in Europe, from 1971 to 2000, the number of foreign-born people inGermany rose by 150 percent—but the number of foreign-born workers didn’t go up at all.

Neighboring Denmark, the epitome of a civilized country, has had an immigration-restrictionist party in the ruling coalition since 2001.The Danish government has actually cracked down to some extent onarranged marriage immigration scams by not accepting foreignspouses under 24.

Like American scientist James Watson in 2007, Sarrazin was quickly forced to resign his post. Here, when somebody gets fired for political incorrectness, the general assumption is that he must have had it coming. Yet the German people have responded by assuming that if the ruling elite is desperate to silence Sarrazin, he must have something important to say.

Elite efforts to dissuade anyone from listening to Sarrazin’s analysis have now spread to America.

Godwin’s Law famously states: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.” A corollary is: Whoever mentions Hitler first loses the debate.

Nevertheless , the New York Times recently played the Nazi Card flagrantly, frontpaging an article about some museum exhibition in Berlin called “Hitler and the Germans: Nation and Crime”.

Michael Slackman’s October 15, 2010 article, Hitler Exhibition Explores a Wider Circle of Guilt, made clear that the political point of the exhibition (and, in turn, his article) was to shame 21st Century Germans through guilt-by-descent into not standing up for themselvesover current political issues such as immigration:

“But one curator said the message was arguably more vital for Germany now than at any time in the past six decades, as rising nationalism, more open hostility to immigrants and a generational disconnect from the events of the Nazi era have older Germans concerned about repeating the past. …”

Sarrazin’s book is Exhibit A in what must be covered-up:

“Increasingly, Germans have put the guilt of the past behind them, reasserting their pride in national identity in many positive ways. But there also have been troubling signs seeping from the margins into the mainstream. A best-selling book by a former banker promoted genetic theories of intelligence and said that Muslims were ‘dumbing down’ society.”

And similarly, on October 28, the Times ran a long op-ed, Leadership and Leitkultur, by the celebrated German philosopher, Jürgen Habermas, a Marxian Establishmentarian, complaining that today’sGermans want to talk about things he doesn’t want them to talk about:

“Since the end of August Germany has been roiled by waves of political turmoil over integration, multiculturalism and the role of the ‘Leitkultur,’ or guiding national culture. This discourse is in turn reinforcing trends toward increasing xenophobia among the broader population.”

Habermas’ magnum opus is entitled The Theory of Communicative Action. In theory, Habermas is all for Communicative Action.

In practice…not so much. He writes:

“These trends have been apparent for many years in studies and survey data that show a quiet but growing hostility to immigrants. Yet it is as though they have only now found a voice: the usual stereotypes are being flushed out of the bars and onto the talk shows, and they are echoed by mainstream politicians who want to capture potential voters who are otherwise drifting off toward the right.”

Over the years, Habermas has written at vast, Teutonic length about communicative rationality in the public sphere.” But to demean Sarrazin’s arguments, the empirically-outgunned philosopher resorts to transparent fallacies routinely exploded in Logic 101 classes, such asargument by assertion and appeal to authority. For example,

“It all began with the advance release of provocative excerpts from Germany Does Away With Itself, a book that argues that the future of Germany is threatened by the wrong kind of immigrants, especially from Muslim countries. In the book, Thilo Sarrazin … fuelsdiscrimination against this minority with intelligence research from which he draws false biological conclusions that have gained unusually wide publicity.”

Well, I guess that wraps that up. Habermas has asserted that Sarrazin’s conclusions are “false”—so what more evidence do we need?

In case you aren’t fully persuaded, however, Habermas has anotherarrow in his communicative quiver: appeal to authority. Unfortunately, Habermas appeals to an authority that almost nobody in America has ever heard of:

“After half-hearted responses in the press by a handful ofpsychologists who left the impression that there might besomething to these claims after all, there was a certainshift in mood in the news media and among politicians toward Mr. Sarrazin. It took several weeks for ArminNassehi, a respected sociologist, to take thepseudoscientific interpretation of the relevant statisticsapart in a newspaper article. He demonstrated that Mr.Sarrazin adopted the kind of ‘naturalizing’ interpretationof measured differences in intelligence that had alreadybeen scientifically discredited in the United States decadesago.”

Armin Nassehi?

In case you are skeptical about this Nassehi person’s authority, let me remind you that Habermas calls Nassehi “a respected sociologist”, so that’s all you need to know about the content of his argument. If you can’t trust “a respected sociologist”, who can you trust?

While nobody has bothered to translate Nassehi’s article into English, a glance at it shows that Nassehi, in turn, tries to befuddle Germans by appealing to the pseudo-authority of the usual suspects from theEnglish-speaking world:

“Besonders einflussreich war etwa die evolutionsbiologische Kritik von Richard Lewontin, Steven Rose, Leon J. Kamin und Stephen Jay Gold [sic] gegen den genetischen Determinismus …”[Die Biologie spricht gegen Biologismus, October 18, 2010]

Few well-informed Americans take Stephen Jay Gould and Company seriously anymore. But the poor Germans, who have been shielded from all this, might assume that the Four Horsemen of Disinformation know what they are talking about.

You can turn Nassehi’s article into quasi-English at Google Translate. It’s the usual hoo-ha: The Bell Curve is outdated! Epigenetics! Neuroplasticity!

Let me repeat: whether or not the cause of lower achievement in Muslims in Germany or in Latinos in the U.S. is caused in part by genetics is not terribly relevant to prudent immigration policy. The facts are that these gaps have existed for generations. And despite expenditures of billions over the last 45 years, nobody has shown that they can make them vanish.

Habermas blusters onward in the New York Times:

“The poison that Mr. Sarrazin had released by reinforcingcultural hostility to immigrants with genetic argumentsseemed to have taken root in popular prejudices. When Mr. Nassehi and Mr. Sarrazin appeared at the House of Literature in Munich, a mob atmosphere developed, with an educated middle-class audience refusing even to listen to objections to Mr. Sarrazin’s arguments.”

In other words, Sarrazin defeated Nassehi in open debate. (You can read a lengthy description of the evening here.)

That sounds like Communicative Action in action to me. But Habermas, intellectually impotent against Sarazin’sresearch, can’t let up on his use of embarrassingly loadedterms like “poison” and “odious”:

“Amid the controversy, Mr. Sarrazin was forced to resign from the Bundesbank board. But his ouster, combined with the campaign against political correctness started by the right, only helped to strip his controversial arguments of their odious character.”

Habermas’ obvious subtext:

Why doesn’t everyone stop talking about things I know nothingabout? I’m the expert on Communicative Action, and nowGermans are taking action to communicate about subjects thatconfuse and scare me.

Why don’t they just shut up and listen to me lecture like theyused to?

Poor Herr Doktor Habermas, the recognized heir to Kant, Hegel, and Marx, a man as used to enjoying adulation as President Obama, is now petulantly annoyed that the big issues in 21st Century Germany turn out to be two topics—immigration and intelligence—upon which heappears to be simply ignorant.

Sound familiar?

[Steve Sailer (email him) is movie critic for The American Conservative.

His website features his daily blog. His new book, AMERICA'S HALF-BLOOD PRINCE: BARACK OBAMA'S "STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE", is available here.]

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Germany 
No Items Found
Steve Sailer
About Steve Sailer

Steve Sailer is a journalist, movie critic for Taki's Magazine, columnist, and founder of the Human Biodiversity discussion group for top scientists and public intellectuals.

The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?