RSS
Nuance
From the NYT:
A Close Look at Brussels Offers a More Nuanced View of Radicalization
By ANDREW HIGGINS APRIL 19, 2016BRUSSELS — Around the world, this city of great, if often ramshackle, charm has become Exhibit A in the case against immigration, particularly when it involves large numbers of Muslims.
I was in Brussels in 1994. It didn’t seem “ramshackle” then.
Donald J. Trump called the Belgian capital “a hellhole” while Lubomir Zaoralek, the foreign minister of the Czech Republic, recently cited the city to explain why his and other Eastern European countries had steadfastly resisted a plan by the European Union to spread Syrian and other Muslim refugees around the Continent under a quota system.
“All the people in the Czech Republic and in other countries see what happened in Molenbeek,” he told a security conference in Slovakia over the weekend, referring to the Brussels borough where many of those involved in the attacks in Paris on Nov. 13 and in Brussels on March 22 grew up.
A closer look at what has happened in Molenbeek and other heavily immigrant parts of Brussels, however, provides a far more nuanced picture than just a generation of badly integrated young Muslim immigrants running amok. In some ways, it debunks the view that Islam is a one-size-fits-all faith that fuels terrorism.
It is true that all those so far identified in connection with the Paris and Brussels carnage were young Muslims from immigrant families.
Indeed.
But that’s so un-nuanced.
But a more significant marker than their faith was their shared origin in North Africa, especially Morocco. None was from Brussels’ large community of Turks, who share the same religion and the same discrimination, as well as other hardships that are often cited as a root cause of jihadist rage against the West.
Of course, for most of 80 years, from 1922, when Mustafa Kemal drove out the Greeks, until 2002, when Erdogan came to power, the Turkish government was stridently Islamophobic.
Brussels first became a magnet for Muslim immigrants in the 1960s, when the Belgian government eagerly invited workers from Morocco and Turkey to move to Belgium to take jobs in factories and mines. …
Together, Belgians of Moroccan and Turkish origin today account for the vast majority of the capital city’s Muslim population, and both groups are heir to a fairly relaxed form of Islam that has none of the reactionary dogmatism of Saudi Arabia and some other Arab states.
So how was it that some Moroccans became so angry, alienated and, in some cases, radicalized? “There is a malaise within the community of Moroccan origin,” the mayor of Molenbeek, Françoise Schepmans, said, dismissing arguments that terrorism is a byproduct of religious faith.
Left-wing politicians and community leaders, she said, had missed and amplified the trouble brewing in Molenbeek by treating young Belgian-Moroccans as victims who had no chance of succeeding. “There is a strong sentiment of victimhood,” she said, noting that “Turks have also endured discrimination but there is a force in their community.”
Much of this force comes from the Turkish state, which controls many of the mosques attended by Belgian-Turks and keeps a close eye on potentially wayward elements in the community through a well-established network of local leaders and imams who are trained in Turkey and then sent to Belgium at the government’s expense. …
In contrast to Belgium’s Turks, the Moroccan community is far more divided and resistant to authority, in part because many of the early immigrants came from the Rif, a rebellious Berber-speaking region often at odds with the ruling monarchy in Morocco. “When emigration to Europe started, the king was happy to get rid of these people,” said Bachir M’Rabet, a youth worker of Moroccan descent in Molenbeek.
It’s much like what Donald Trump said when announcing his Presidential candidacy last June: Mexico’s rich ruling class is dumping their unwanted, inconvenient people on America. Of course that was the worse thing that anybody ever said, at least until the next million things Trump said.
Another source of anger in his community, he added, is that many Turks often speak poor French and no Dutch, Belgium’s two main languages, and cling to their Turkish identity, while most Moroccans speak fluent French and aspire to be accepted fully as Belgians. This, he said, means that many Moroccans feel discrimination more acutely and, at least in the case of young men on the margins, tend to view even minor slights as proof that the entire system is against them.
Philippe Moureaux, who served for two decades as Molenbeek’s mayor, described this as “the paradox of integration.” A less-integrated Turkish community has resisted the promise of redemption through jihad offered by radical zealots. Yet, a Moroccan community that is more at home in French-speaking Brussels has seen some of its young fall prey to recruiters like Khalid Zerkani, a Moroccan-born petty criminal who became the Islamic State’s point man in Molenbeek.
“The Turks suffer much less from an identity crisis,” Mr. Moureaux said. “They are proud to be Turks and are much less tempted by extremism.”
Suspicion of and hostility toward authority, particularly the police force, run so deep among some North African immigrants in Molenbeek that when the police mobilized in the area this month to prevent a group of anti-immigrant right-wing hooligans from staging a rally, local youths, mostly young men of Moroccan descent, began hurling abuse and objects at the police.
Molenbeek immigrants of Turkish or other backgrounds generally have a less hostile view of the police. A Turkish shopkeeper who runs a general store near the police station said he feared not the police but aggressive North African youths who accuse him of being a bad Muslim because he sells alcohol. He noted that the youths steal, which is also forbidden.
But then this Turkish shopkeeper is clearly an Islamophobe prone to stereotyping. Or something. It’s confusing, but I’ve been to college so I’m not going to worry about these contradictory facts. I’m well educated so I know that it’s just all the fault of white men. As you should know too if you had nuanced views.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Everyday is Halloween for Muslim women, lol.
That may be the inflection point to break the back of incumbency in Congress, which is the essential step at a political level to reversing 50 years of collective blind stupidity.
Sentiment changes first, then politics, then law. In that order.
Somewhat OT:
The worm is turning. Check out the comments.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/04/20/court-rules-extended-stay-solitary-confinement-broke-breiviks-human-rights/
Yeah, no kidding… An acquaintance of mine is the son of a Rauf Denktash-era general who helicoptered in from the mainland to pick out a house for himself during the 1974 unpleasantness; anyway he holds the genuine-Muslim opinion that mosques back in Istanbul shouldn’t be permitted to have services in Arabic. These NYT “special correspondent” tyros often read as if they’ve cribbed all the background from Wikipedia or Yelp.
Here’s another calorie-free “local color” dispatch from the same newshound 5 months ago:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/30/insider/reporters-notebook-brussels-returns-to-normal.html
The dogged, penetrating reportorial style of this guy would qualify him well for script adviser to “Let’s Go! Europe; with Rick Steves”
See the bright side. If European travelers want to visit the Middle East and Africa, they can save on air fare. Just walk outside their homes, and they are in Arabia and Africa.
Instant-travel. The World at Your Doorstep.
My Grandfather lived in the Garfield Park neighborhood of Chicago when he was a kid. It was “ramshackle” then either.
education is propaganda
Article has interesting insights. I had an inclining that Maghrebis (Algerians and Moroccans) were bad news. I always thought Pakistanis especially Pakistanis in the UK were the worst immigrant group in the Western world. But I guess Maghrebis and Pakistanis are tied.
Both groups produce a lot of terrorists but are different in personalities. Maghrebis are in your face confrontational while Pakistanis are not physically aggressive so Maghrebis account for more street crime. But Pakistanis appear more engaged in politics (running and voting as a group) so they are able to build power through elections and enable the bad behavior of their people.
I think if Pakistanis and Maghrebis were not allowed to immigrate to the West (or at least a 90% reduction) then half or maybe even more of the strain on the open society in the West would be relieved.
Do you hear that Soros people? Work on policies that curb Maghrebis and Pakistanis immigration and you can achieve your goals.
I've known plenty of Pakistani-Americans in the US. No problem. Was good friends with a bunch who were among the most patriotic(though ridiculous) Americans I've met. Joined the US military, anti-communist, and all that. (Always cracked me up how they loved to tell Hindu Asian jokes. Nothing offends a Pakistani more than being confused with cow-worshipers or dotkins.)
But I can see how Pakistanis are a problem in the UK cuz there are TOO many of them. But UK would be worse off if each of those Pakman were a black.
As for Algerians and Moroccons, they are Moor-like and have some black blood. That accounts for the shade of ghastliness.Replies: @SFG, @Anonymous
I met woman in Turkey who had done some sort of legal or social work for Turks in Brussels. She said because that their Turkish dialect was so incomprehensible to her, communicating in elementary French was more practical. They might not be intransigent Moroccans, but they’re no prize among the Turks either.
The takeaway Nuance is that we must differentiate among various degrees of awfulness. The Moroccans are really bad, so people whose presence in Brussels is at best pointless become good and noble.
So integration is even worse as it leads to microagressions.
Malaise: “a feeling of general discomfort, uneasiness or pain, of being ‘out of sorts’, often the first indication of an infection or other disease.” (Wikipedia)
I have never heard a Muslim announce that he killed out of “malaise”, “uneasiness”, or “discomfort”. Muslims kill, as they proudly and forthrightly proclaim, as an act of submission to the will of Allah.
One wonders what motivation the Lady Mayor of Molenbeek would perceive if a Molenbeek mosque was bombed. Would she wait to see who the bomber was? Or would she announce her decision at the outset: “If the bomber is European, he is a racist beast. If the bomber is Muslim, he was ‘out of sorts’.”
OT (or maybe not): http://apprecs.com/vis/democrat-republican-name?tid=a_inl
I see that “Mohammad” is currently the #1 name most associated with support for Clinton. I was a little surprised by this given that Hillary seems just as likely as any neocon to support bombing the hell out of the ME, but then perhaps they’re taking the long view: They know she’ll continue the policy of allowing other Mohammads to flood into Europe and the US, thereby assuring their eventual victory. And the more she bombs the ME, the more excuses she’ll have to invite in the savage flood.
The author is simply blaming a subculture instead of a culture at large. That just makes him a notice-r on a smaller scale.
When do the Houthi rebel refugees from Saudi aggression start coming in? They seem as if they’d be a nice addition to any European country. The elites of various countries dump their surplus populations on others and the media, owned by the elites, urge everyone to just accept and adjust to it.
Riffians are kind of like Chechens in their behavior and their resistance to larger neighbors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rif_War
Indeed, there is a correlation between islamist radicalization and ethnic origins with arabs, pakistanis, somalis and chechens as champions of terrorism while turkish, indonesian and bangladeshi immigrants are less “problematic”, but that doesn’t take into account very possible future risks.
If something happens in Turkey will turkish diaspora become radicalized?
A recording from 1994 in Antwerp, Belgium of the “force” keeping the Turkish community from “radicalising”:
We stand by and watch trannies and thugs get pedestalized by our smug elites in media and academia while welcoming in Muslims who openly call for the reestablishment of the Ottoman empire under the banner of Islam.
They want to win and we don't even know who we are anymore and what little we do know we feel bad about.
Sorry folks but Trump can't fix this mess.
Invade is ramshacklish or ramshekelish too.
Anyone see Iraq, Libya, and Syria lately? Or Gaza?
A certain group is dominant in both invade and invite. And that group is secretly happy about the tensions between whites and Muslims. Both gentile groups are too busy hating each other to address those who are pulling the strings. Divide and rule.
“We’ll smash your homeland, and put out a welcome mat when you come to the West.”
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2010/09/invite-invade.html
If we didn’t treat like Muslims like crap then we wouldn’t have a problem with terrorism.
The most logical solution is to make whites a minority so that institutional racism can end and everyone has equal opportunity
I salute you.
OT: From Jackson to Trump: The Problem of American Whites; URI Professor: “I think all of this lets the real culprits of American crimes off way too easy: white people.”
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2016/04/from-jackson-to-trump-the-problem-of-american-whites
This kind of madness is breaking out all over and in more severe forms every day. In the interests of epidemiology, I am proposing a system for classifying the various etiologies and prodroma that characterize crazeeee progressive behavior from delusional and nasty to utterly insane and vile beyond belief:
(1) Virtue Display (VD) – loudly denouncing someone for being rational, e.g., “I don’t think that’s the least bit funny!”
(2) Conspicuous Virtue Display (CVD) – VD but taken to a higher level, e.g., doing the same but on the oped pages of a newspaper
(3) Virtue Signaling (VS) – performing some act that demonstrates your virtuous madness to other “progressives”, e.g., saying your four year old son wants to be a girl and therefore should be allowed to peepee in the girls bathroom of his elementary school. Extra CVD points for telling someone who asks whether he’ll pee sitting or standing, “That’s not the least bit funny.”
(4) Conspicuous Virtue Signaling (CVD) — Virtue Signaling done in a particularly egregious manner or in support of something so utterly insane that even some “progressives” blanch, e.g., The recent situation where a convicted sex offender starts a movement to make all public toilet facilities in North Carolina open to all combinations of men/women/boys/girls without exception. Extra points for demanding that a respect for children’s autonomy requires an additional law preventing parents from accompanying children into such public toilet facilities.
(5) Displays of Power (DoP) – DoPs occur when SJWs use whatever resources they have to crush and humiliate normal people (and hopefully cause them physical, economic and psychological harm), e.g., a homosexual pair engaging in a travesty of the wedding ceremony and successfully putting a bakery out of business by suing when the owners refuse, from religious scruples, to make their “wedding” cake.
(6) Conspicuous Displays of Power – CDoPs are DoPs at the community, state, or national level. CDoPS typically involve passing laws that outrage most of a community or restrict the rights of most members of a community for the latest SJW fad, e.g., almost any “progressive” legislative agenda and most policies of the BO administration.
George Orwell, the prophet of our times.
Wait until the first video surfaces of a burka-clad woman suicide bomber in the USA. (Keeping a wrap on that will be Job One for politicians, of course.) Can one imagine if instead of Timothy McVeigh, it was a female Muslim Ninja that parked the truck?
That may be the inflection point to break the back of incumbency in Congress, which is the essential step at a political level to reversing 50 years of collective blind stupidity.
Sentiment changes first, then politics, then law. In that order.
But, but, that other guy in the previous post was just telling us that the problem was the lack of integration, communities isolated from each other.
Well, I guess he did say it was a “paradox”. And at least, having identified the paradox, we can devote our energies (and funding) to addressing its thorny paradoxosity, and not waste any more time or resources on fruitless concern about Islam, refugees, immigration…
Nuancity is our strength!
The New York Times has a tic where their correspondents give descriptions of cities that don’t really fit. No one else would think of calling Brussels, which after all is the European version of DC, “ramshackle”. Incidentally, it is, or at least was, a good place to visit.
The claim about the problems with the North African migrants being due to their being from North Africa, not their being Muslim was funny. This actually doesn’t affect whether or not you want to import these people. The Moroccan soldiers the Allies used in World War 2 were known for being fierce fighters, but for raping any woman they came across. Actually attempts to use Muslim mercenaries recruited from North Africa in Europe have been made repeatedly throughout history, and keep running into this problem. I was just reading about the Napoleonic Wars and Napoleon’s experience with the Mamluke cavalry he recruited in the Imperial Guard. They were great if you needed to scare civilians in places like Spain, but their numbers had to be kept limited because they kept overdoing it.
OT – Trump takes on the Tubman $20.
This article was really not deserving of Fisking. I thought that it was basically honest reporting and did NOT try to place the blame on white people. In fact the article clearly REJECTS a leftist analysis of the situation and states that leftism only makes thing worse: ” Left-wing politicians and community leaders, she said, had missed and amplified the trouble brewing in Molenbeek.”
Implicit in the article is the idea that since the Belgian Turks have to deal with the same “racism” as the Belgian Moroccans and have NOT taken to terrorism, the problem must somehow lie with the Moroccan community rather than with whites.
Just as in the US with Mexicans and Central Americans, the people moving to Belgium were not the urban elite of Morocco – these were people from impoverished mountain villages who were ill prepared to deal with integration into a modern society of any kind, let alone a foreign one. Even in their native country they were alienated from their central government – they were proto-typical hill people who are mistrustful of authority. In Belgium, their kids fell easily into gang culture and petty crime before being recruited to radical Islam. In the US, we see the same intersection between Islam and prisons – Islam is very popular among black prison inmates and even some Hispanics. But somehow it has not turned into terrorism.
The Turks could in a sense be seen as an even greater failure – even after decades in Belgium, many can’t speak the local language(s) and retain their identity as Turks. But at least they are a controllable population. However the keys to their control lie in Turkey, not with Belgium – as long as the Turkish government gives them peaceful marching orders they remain peaceful. Implicitly, this could change or even the threat of changing this could be used as a bargaining chip by Erdogan. In some ways, they are potentially even scarier than the Moroccans, who are too disorganized to get beyond the rabble stage and who have the language skills to integrate if they wanted to. The reporter sees the fact that the Turkish government maintains a network of Turkish government controlled mosques in another country as benign, even helpful, but it sounds pretty scary to me.
That’s great. Try to integrate them and they become deracinated from their culture and are susceptible to becoming angry. Don’t integrate them and they become a less angry, though contented underclass.
Either choice doesn’t seem to add much to the overall social cohesion of the society.
Lookie.
Human Sacrifice is back.
Sacrifice Europeans to the god of diversity.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/11/ilana-mercer/racist-xenophobic-ignorant-stingy-rednecks/
The claim about the problems with the North African migrants being due to their being from North Africa, not their being Muslim was funny. This actually doesn't affect whether or not you want to import these people. The Moroccan soldiers the Allies used in World War 2 were known for being fierce fighters, but for raping any woman they came across. Actually attempts to use Muslim mercenaries recruited from North Africa in Europe have been made repeatedly throughout history, and keep running into this problem. I was just reading about the Napoleonic Wars and Napoleon's experience with the Mamluke cavalry he recruited in the Imperial Guard. They were great if you needed to scare civilians in places like Spain, but their numbers had to be kept limited because they kept overdoing it.Replies: @a reader, @fox, @This Is Our Home
introducing the Marocchinate.
I was just reading about this. It means, "getting the Moroccan Treatment." No thank you.
So. This journalist is saying that the Turks are lax Muslims who are closely watched for signs of radicalization & they DON’T become terrorists.
Whereas the Moroccans are devout Muslims who are not watched for signs of radicalization & they DO become terrorists.
Ergo, countries that do not want terrorists in them should keep out devout Muslims & closely watch the Muslims in the country for signs of radicalization.
Sounds like hate speech to me. I can’t even.
The claim about the problems with the North African migrants being due to their being from North Africa, not their being Muslim was funny. This actually doesn't affect whether or not you want to import these people. The Moroccan soldiers the Allies used in World War 2 were known for being fierce fighters, but for raping any woman they came across. Actually attempts to use Muslim mercenaries recruited from North Africa in Europe have been made repeatedly throughout history, and keep running into this problem. I was just reading about the Napoleonic Wars and Napoleon's experience with the Mamluke cavalry he recruited in the Imperial Guard. They were great if you needed to scare civilians in places like Spain, but their numbers had to be kept limited because they kept overdoing it.Replies: @a reader, @fox, @This Is Our Home
then why aren’t turks not becoming terrorists.
The only reason should be TOO MANY FOREIGNERS alter the character of the nation.
Look at Hawaii. It's no longer Hawaiian cuz too many whites and yellows.
Suppose 20 million wonderful nice kindly Hindus move to Hungary. It doesn't matter how nice and productive they are. Hungary won't be Hungary anymore.
So, race, culture, and territory are what it's about.
This hype about terrorism and crime won't work in the long run. After all, even most Arabs are NOT terrorists. And even if many of them have nutty attitudes, the West is filled with nutty ideas too. I mean what do expect of Americans who think 25% of Americans are 'gay'? And where is sanity among whites who cheer Clinton's commencement speech that whites will be a minority? I think whites are nuttier than Muslims. Gayria and PC are as nuts as Sharia and Islamia.
Creating homogeneous communities in foreign territory is imperialism and could even amount to genocide in extreme means.
But ensuring that your homeland belongs to your people is what patriotism, freedom, and liberation are all about.
The invasion of Europe is globalist-led genocide. It is foreigners invading and messing up European homelands(even nations that never held overseas empires). They must be called 'invaders', 'intruders', 'conquerors', or 'trespassers', not 'migrants' or 'refugees'(though US and its allies must take responsibility for messing up Middle East and North Africa).
Post WWII liberation movements were about driving out foreign imperialists to have native-dominant homelands in Africa and Asia and Middle East.
What is good for non-whites is good for whites ON WHITE LANDS.
The idea that white people don't even have the right to keep white countries white is globalist imperialism and amounts to UN definition of 'genocide'.
And people who push this nonsense are not national patriotic leaders but traitor collaborators of globalists.
The only significant difference between Turkey and all other muslim countries is Ataturk force-fed muslims modern civilization a looooong time ago.
So they will assimilate, to a point, in a way that somewhat reflects the hallucinations of the NYT, but never forget it took a man who was a cross between Mohammed and Mick Jagger in the minds of the Turks to do it.
Someone who carries that much sway, and the intelligence to use it wisely comes once in a century if we’re lucky. I don’t see anyone on the horizon.
Without an Ataturk, you have one big pile of unassimilated muslim shit, acting at the whims of the local cross-eyed mullah.
It’s interesting that bloggers as of late have been popping off about R. Kipling’s “White Man’s Burden” poem, complaining about it being a racist cheerleader tome for imperialism.
First time I read it, I thought it was intended as a dire warning. Seemed to me he was trying to talk us out of it. “The Man Who Would be King” seals the deal. He seemed to be saying we don’t have what it takes to tame the heathens, and we never will.
The Stranger
The Stranger within my gate,
He may be true or kind,
But he does not talk my talk—
I cannot feel his mind.
I see the face and the eyes and the mouth,
But not the soul behind.
The men of my own stock,
They may do ill or well,
But they tell the lies I am wonted to,
They are used to the lies I tell;
And we do not need interpreters
When we go to buy or sell.
The Stranger within my gates,
He may be evil or good,
But I cannot tell what powers control—
What reasons sway his mood;
Nor when the Gods of his far-off land
Shall repossess his blood.
The men of my own stock,
Bitter bad they may be,
But, at least, they hear the things I hear,
And see the things I see;
And whatever I think of them and their likes
They think of the likes of me.
This was my father's belief
And this is also mine:
Let the corn be all one sheaf—
And the grapes be all one vine,
Ere our children's teeth are set on edge
By bitter bread and wine.
Implicit in the article is the idea that since the Belgian Turks have to deal with the same "racism" as the Belgian Moroccans and have NOT taken to terrorism, the problem must somehow lie with the Moroccan community rather than with whites.
Just as in the US with Mexicans and Central Americans, the people moving to Belgium were not the urban elite of Morocco - these were people from impoverished mountain villages who were ill prepared to deal with integration into a modern society of any kind, let alone a foreign one. Even in their native country they were alienated from their central government - they were proto-typical hill people who are mistrustful of authority. In Belgium, their kids fell easily into gang culture and petty crime before being recruited to radical Islam. In the US, we see the same intersection between Islam and prisons - Islam is very popular among black prison inmates and even some Hispanics. But somehow it has not turned into terrorism.
The Turks could in a sense be seen as an even greater failure - even after decades in Belgium, many can't speak the local language(s) and retain their identity as Turks. But at least they are a controllable population. However the keys to their control lie in Turkey, not with Belgium - as long as the Turkish government gives them peaceful marching orders they remain peaceful. Implicitly, this could change or even the threat of changing this could be used as a bargaining chip by Erdogan. In some ways, they are potentially even scarier than the Moroccans, who are too disorganized to get beyond the rabble stage and who have the language skills to integrate if they wanted to. The reporter sees the fact that the Turkish government maintains a network of Turkish government controlled mosques in another country as benign, even helpful, but it sounds pretty scary to me.Replies: @ben tillman, @AndrewR, @ReaderfromGreece
Read the sentence containing the words “often cited”.
It is entirely possible to have a "nuanced" view of the situation (i.e. that not all Muslims are equally prone to violence) and yet come to the conclusion that there is NO Muslim group whose immigration has been beneficial to Europe. As I mentioned before, the Turks seem to me to be equally problematic (if not, so far at least, as violent) because they have steadfastly been unable/unwilling to integrate into Belgian society even a little. This may yet come around to bite the Belgians in the ass even WORSE than the Moroccans.
Ultimately, all of these problems are failures of capitalism, if not in the way that leftists mean. What happened (just as in the US with blacks from the south and with Latinos) is that you have businesses who have a desire for cheap labor, so they recruit a population that will come work for cheap. So far so good - the factory gets the amount of labor that it needs and at a cheap price, the immigrants are delighted to be making more money than they could have dreamed of back home.
Then fast forward a couple of decades. The factories have closed - the employers have figured out that they can source the stuff EVEN CHEAPER from China, Mexico, Eastern Europe, etc. They lay off the workers (and never even hire the next generation) and their responsibility ends. But the workers came on a one way ticket - they (and especially their children who have never even been to their native lands) have no intention or desire to go back to the poor places that they left. So they become society's problem. It is a problem of "externalities" , just like a factory that saves money by dumping its toxic waste into the nearest river or into the air - you can increase your bottom line if you don't have to pay the full long term costs of your actions. Or , you can see it as a form of "privatizing profits and socializing losses" .
The way that the environmental problems in America were correct was legislatively - the government said to manufacturers that YOU are going to have to bear the cost of pollution. In some cases, polluters were even made to retroactively go back and fix things that they had dumped decades ago. But cleaning up this new kind of "toxic waste" is going to be a MUCH bigger problem.Replies: @AnotherDad, @AnotherDad
Implicit in the article is the idea that since the Belgian Turks have to deal with the same "racism" as the Belgian Moroccans and have NOT taken to terrorism, the problem must somehow lie with the Moroccan community rather than with whites.
Just as in the US with Mexicans and Central Americans, the people moving to Belgium were not the urban elite of Morocco - these were people from impoverished mountain villages who were ill prepared to deal with integration into a modern society of any kind, let alone a foreign one. Even in their native country they were alienated from their central government - they were proto-typical hill people who are mistrustful of authority. In Belgium, their kids fell easily into gang culture and petty crime before being recruited to radical Islam. In the US, we see the same intersection between Islam and prisons - Islam is very popular among black prison inmates and even some Hispanics. But somehow it has not turned into terrorism.
The Turks could in a sense be seen as an even greater failure - even after decades in Belgium, many can't speak the local language(s) and retain their identity as Turks. But at least they are a controllable population. However the keys to their control lie in Turkey, not with Belgium - as long as the Turkish government gives them peaceful marching orders they remain peaceful. Implicitly, this could change or even the threat of changing this could be used as a bargaining chip by Erdogan. In some ways, they are potentially even scarier than the Moroccans, who are too disorganized to get beyond the rabble stage and who have the language skills to integrate if they wanted to. The reporter sees the fact that the Turkish government maintains a network of Turkish government controlled mosques in another country as benign, even helpful, but it sounds pretty scary to me.Replies: @ben tillman, @AndrewR, @ReaderfromGreece
Lovely strawman
The simple answer is that if the Moroccans don’t like Belgium, then they should go home.
But, alas, that simple truth is just hard for some to understand.
Please note: “…anti-immigrant right-wing hooligans” try to stage a rally.
But: “…local youths…began hurling abuse and objects at the police.”
And: “…aggressive North African youths…steal…”
Got it, NYT. Young North Africans breaking the law are youths. Young Belgians protesting their behavior are hooligans. Sounds nuanced enough for me.
Come to think of it, it’s true that one rarely if ever hears about individual Islamist terrorists who are Turkish. The same can be said – weirdly, it might seem, given their nation’s policies – about Iranians. What sets them apart? A couple of things occur to me, but I’m no expert and could be way off base.
The Turks, like the Persians, are emphatically not Arabic. Part of their identity is built around not being Arabs. The Persians in particular (don’t know if this is true of Turks) look down on Arabs as uncivilized yokels.
Also, both peoples have histories of empire built around their nationality rather than their religion.
In short, they have strong national identities; they are Turks and Persians/Iranians first and everything else second. Perhaps this makes them less susceptible to the appeal of radical Islam. (I realize that the Iranians are Shia, making them hostile to Sunni radicalism, but there does not seem to be the same kind of Shia radicalism. Their version of terrorism seems to be of the more traditional, organized, state-sponsored kind.)
(1) Virtue Display (VD) – loudly denouncing someone for being rational, e.g., “I don’t think that’s the least bit funny!”
(2) Conspicuous Virtue Display (CVD) – VD but taken to a higher level, e.g., doing the same but on the oped pages of a newspaper
(3) Virtue Signaling (VS) – performing some act that demonstrates your virtuous madness to other “progressives”, e.g., saying your four year old son wants to be a girl and therefore should be allowed to peepee in the girls bathroom of his elementary school. Extra CVD points for telling someone who asks whether he’ll pee sitting or standing, “That’s not the least bit funny.”
(4) Conspicuous Virtue Signaling (CVD) -- Virtue Signaling done in a particularly egregious manner or in support of something so utterly insane that even some “progressives” blanch, e.g., The recent situation where a convicted sex offender starts a movement to make all public toilet facilities in North Carolina open to all combinations of men/women/boys/girls without exception. Extra points for demanding that a respect for children’s autonomy requires an additional law preventing parents from accompanying children into such public toilet facilities.
(5) Displays of Power (DoP) – DoPs occur when SJWs use whatever resources they have to crush and humiliate normal people (and hopefully cause them physical, economic and psychological harm), e.g., a homosexual pair engaging in a travesty of the wedding ceremony and successfully putting a bakery out of business by suing when the owners refuse, from religious scruples, to make their “wedding” cake.
(6) Conspicuous Displays of Power – CDoPs are DoPs at the community, state, or national level. CDoPS typically involve passing laws that outrage most of a community or restrict the rights of most members of a community for the latest SJW fad, e.g., almost any “progressive” legislative agenda and most policies of the BO administration.Replies: @Eustace Tilley (not), @dc.sunsets
I could not find “prodroma”. I assume it is your faux-Latin translation for “prodromes”, but the Latin etymology of “prodrome” is “prodromus” , so its plural would be “prodromi”.
You were in such a rush to publish your little lecture that you used “CVD” as the abbreviation for both “Conspicuous Virtue Display” and “Conspicuous Virtue Signaling”.
I do hope you do not interpret my criticisms as microaggressions into your safespace.
prodromus
prodromī
prodromō
prodromum
prodromō
prodrome
prodromī
prodromōrum
prodromīs
prodromōs
prodromīs
prodromī
but it's Greek anyway
πρόδρομος
Prodromes? Prodromata?? Anyone? Bueller ..
Prodrome - the final "a" was a typo actually and obviously has Greek roots. Your attempt at Latin "scholarship" is actually a demonstration of ignorance. "Prodrome" is a medical term. You can look it up in Dorland's Pocket Medical Dictionary (page 559 in the 22nd edition). And how clever of you to have found a second typo.
You need to get better references. The OED citation for "prodroma" (page 1421 middle of column 2) says the word is of Greek - not Latin - origin, that this is the plural form, and that it is a medical term for preliminary symptoms. It is your erudition that is faux. You owe Just Saying an apology.
The most logical solution is to make whites a minority so that institutional racism can end and everyone has equal opportunityReplies: @fish, @TWS, @tris, @anon
You are the Unz equivalent of “Million Dollar Bonus” at Zero Hedge.
I salute you.
If you happen to be near the Stanford campus tonight, you can find out if Islam is a Threat to the West – and from a Turk, no less.
http://events.stanford.edu/events/600/60051/
I did and it makes my point – the author says that the Turks have the same “hardships” but that this doesn’t cause them to blow up airports and shoot up concert halls, ergo the “hardships” are not the cause.
It is entirely possible to have a “nuanced” view of the situation (i.e. that not all Muslims are equally prone to violence) and yet come to the conclusion that there is NO Muslim group whose immigration has been beneficial to Europe. As I mentioned before, the Turks seem to me to be equally problematic (if not, so far at least, as violent) because they have steadfastly been unable/unwilling to integrate into Belgian society even a little. This may yet come around to bite the Belgians in the ass even WORSE than the Moroccans.
Ultimately, all of these problems are failures of capitalism, if not in the way that leftists mean. What happened (just as in the US with blacks from the south and with Latinos) is that you have businesses who have a desire for cheap labor, so they recruit a population that will come work for cheap. So far so good – the factory gets the amount of labor that it needs and at a cheap price, the immigrants are delighted to be making more money than they could have dreamed of back home.
Then fast forward a couple of decades. The factories have closed – the employers have figured out that they can source the stuff EVEN CHEAPER from China, Mexico, Eastern Europe, etc. They lay off the workers (and never even hire the next generation) and their responsibility ends. But the workers came on a one way ticket – they (and especially their children who have never even been to their native lands) have no intention or desire to go back to the poor places that they left. So they become society’s problem. It is a problem of “externalities” , just like a factory that saves money by dumping its toxic waste into the nearest river or into the air – you can increase your bottom line if you don’t have to pay the full long term costs of your actions. Or , you can see it as a form of “privatizing profits and socializing losses” .
The way that the environmental problems in America were correct was legislatively – the government said to manufacturers that YOU are going to have to bear the cost of pollution. In some cases, polluters were even made to retroactively go back and fix things that they had dumped decades ago. But cleaning up this new kind of “toxic waste” is going to be a MUCH bigger problem.
Capitalism under a nationalist regime is just fine. The response to rising labor prices is ... more capital to replace labor. This is what the US auto companies have done continuously. The US has a fraction of the autoworkers it had when i was a kid, though its producing record volume of vehicles--50 or 60% higher than when i was a tyke. This capital for labor--plus just figuring out how to do stuff better--is why we live so well with such material comfort.
It's anti-nationalist, cheap labor shilling--undermining this basic capital-for-labor substitution paradigm of capitalism--that is at fault here.
But also, Europe's late 60s, early 70s golden age is now at least 40, approaching 50 years in the past. The immigrant numbers taken in back then, however bad are not the primary issue.
No doubt it varies by European nation, but the real killer was then the leftists and the cosmopolitan nation-wreckers decided that immigration must continue, and that opposition to it was "racist". They've continued to take in immigrants well after the European post-war heyday of "labor shortage", into times of European high-unemployment, with the immigrants entitled not to jobs but to welfare. These insanely high immigration levels of recent decades serve no capitalist purpose whatsoever (just adding to the tax burden), but serving a political purpose of increasing state power, and sticking it to the natives (white men).Replies: @Jack D, @Corvinus
Essentially places like Molenbeek are superfund sites, but with a biological, rather than just chemical infestation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/30/insider/reporters-notebook-brussels-returns-to-normal.html
The dogged, penetrating reportorial style of this guy would qualify him well for script adviser to "Let's Go! Europe; with Rick Steves"Replies: @Priss Factor, @Jenner Ickham Errican
Returns to New Normal.
See the bright side. If European travelers want to visit the Middle East and Africa, they can save on air fare. Just walk outside their homes, and they are in Arabia and Africa.
Instant-travel. The World at Your Doorstep.
Isn’t it strange how the NYT never offers a “nuanced” view of “racism”, “anti-Semitism”, “misogyny”, “homophobia” or “transphobia”?
Both groups produce a lot of terrorists but are different in personalities. Maghrebis are in your face confrontational while Pakistanis are not physically aggressive so Maghrebis account for more street crime. But Pakistanis appear more engaged in politics (running and voting as a group) so they are able to build power through elections and enable the bad behavior of their people.
I think if Pakistanis and Maghrebis were not allowed to immigrate to the West (or at least a 90% reduction) then half or maybe even more of the strain on the open society in the West would be relieved.
Do you hear that Soros people? Work on policies that curb Maghrebis and Pakistanis immigration and you can achieve your goals.Replies: @Priss Factor, @LKM, @Discard
No, blacks are the worst.
I’ve known plenty of Pakistani-Americans in the US. No problem. Was good friends with a bunch who were among the most patriotic(though ridiculous) Americans I’ve met. Joined the US military, anti-communist, and all that. (Always cracked me up how they loved to tell Hindu Asian jokes. Nothing offends a Pakistani more than being confused with cow-worshipers or dotkins.)
But I can see how Pakistanis are a problem in the UK cuz there are TOO many of them. But UK would be worse off if each of those Pakman were a black.
As for Algerians and Moroccons, they are Moor-like and have some black blood. That accounts for the shade of ghastliness.
Immigrants of any race or ethnicity can reasonably assimilate if the arrived group are educated enough. For considering which group is the worst immigrant in the West I am considering the average type.
So your examples relying on experiences with Pakistanis in the US aren't well suited. I also can't imagine how Caribbeans or Black Africans are the worst.Replies: @Romanian
The most logical solution is to make whites a minority so that institutional racism can end and everyone has equal opportunityReplies: @fish, @TWS, @tris, @anon
Tiny sick duck, Getting better but you need to imply that whites should be subject to genocide not state it outright. Keep up the performance art but work on understatement it’s much more powerful.
Terrorist or non-terrorist, criminal or non-criminal, these aren’t the main issues.
The only reason should be TOO MANY FOREIGNERS alter the character of the nation.
Look at Hawaii. It’s no longer Hawaiian cuz too many whites and yellows.
Suppose 20 million wonderful nice kindly Hindus move to Hungary. It doesn’t matter how nice and productive they are. Hungary won’t be Hungary anymore.
So, race, culture, and territory are what it’s about.
This hype about terrorism and crime won’t work in the long run. After all, even most Arabs are NOT terrorists. And even if many of them have nutty attitudes, the West is filled with nutty ideas too. I mean what do expect of Americans who think 25% of Americans are ‘gay’? And where is sanity among whites who cheer Clinton’s commencement speech that whites will be a minority? I think whites are nuttier than Muslims. Gayria and PC are as nuts as Sharia and Islamia.
Creating homogeneous communities in foreign territory is imperialism and could even amount to genocide in extreme means.
But ensuring that your homeland belongs to your people is what patriotism, freedom, and liberation are all about.
The invasion of Europe is globalist-led genocide. It is foreigners invading and messing up European homelands(even nations that never held overseas empires). They must be called ‘invaders’, ‘intruders’, ‘conquerors’, or ‘trespassers’, not ‘migrants’ or ‘refugees'(though US and its allies must take responsibility for messing up Middle East and North Africa).
Post WWII liberation movements were about driving out foreign imperialists to have native-dominant homelands in Africa and Asia and Middle East.
What is good for non-whites is good for whites ON WHITE LANDS.
The idea that white people don’t even have the right to keep white countries white is globalist imperialism and amounts to UN definition of ‘genocide’.
And people who push this nonsense are not national patriotic leaders but traitor collaborators of globalists.
It is standard stupid to blame “the Jews” for mass Muslim immigration on the theory that Jews want nothing more than being drowned in a sea of Muslims, and having lots and lots of Muslims in a Western nation is good for Jews. That’s stupid, and stupidity driven by a refusal to see the real driving issue behind Mass Muslim immigration: Nice White Ladyism run amok. I.E. Calvinism, the Protestant Work Ethic, social conformity, universal utopianism, and the taking from Christianity of universal humanity. Even the Pope, has fallen prey to this Protestant niceness.
In moderation, like working out every day, all that stuff is good — it produced universal female literacy, rights for women, good treatment for animals, non violent men, male cooperation, the nuclear family, in short the 1950s America that was the pinnacle of decent society.
But like roiding till you drop dead like a WWE Wrestler at age 50 or so, taken to extremes you get insane status competition for most conspicuous virtue, witch finding and heretic hunting, extreme social conformity that both Ibsen and Munch criticized (as did Nathaniel Hawthorne), and the leap-frogging loyalties that SJW White people have as higher IQ vulnerability.
Jews being more vulnerable than most, being on average higher IQ (but not on average high enough to see reality behind the dogma) adopt CHRISTIAN viewpoints of universal humanity and the status rush of being the holy in substitution for the traditional Jewish identity seen in say, Bibi Netanyahu and other Israelis confronted with reality unavoidably every day. [People wanting to kill them for being Jewish.] This is why you see Jews in SJW status mongering professions like media, government, finance, law etc. and absent the military, spy agencies, etc.
[Who has more real power — someone like Ike, Grant, De Gaulle, etc. or a talking head on TV? Some SJW lawyer or SPLC scam artist or the head of the NSA able to mass blackmail people?]
The whole Nuance approach is just whistling past the failure of the whole Post-Christian Universal Utopian approach to post WWII and the Cold War; and the revival of blood and soil nationalism as the only thing that matters and gives value to ordinary people not engaged in a ruthless but pointless Seinfeldian Status War.
Oh, actually now I think of it I do know Jews who did exactly that.
Steve, any thoughts on the passing of the person formerly known as Prince? Maybe we can put him on the $20 instead of Tubman.
I’m sure that made more sense in your head.
I see that "Mohammad" is currently the #1 name most associated with support for Clinton. I was a little surprised by this given that Hillary seems just as likely as any neocon to support bombing the hell out of the ME, but then perhaps they're taking the long view: They know she'll continue the policy of allowing other Mohammads to flood into Europe and the US, thereby assuring their eventual victory. And the more she bombs the ME, the more excuses she'll have to invite in the savage flood.Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
Absolutely. This is that sweet spot intersection of Zionism and Social Justice Warfare where neocons reside. Steve Sailer succinctly captures the madness with his phrase, “Invade the world! Invite the World!”. Add the plutocrats and K Street banditry and Steve’s “Go in debt to the world!” becomes an added relevancy.
Many of the Turks in Belgium belong to the Alevite sect of Shia islam. One that is commonly seen as less violent than other brands of islam. Others are just country bumpkins that wouldn’t be able to radicalize since they are content with their way of life. They are conservatives, not radicals.
When I was a little boy, first grade, I bought one of those scholastic books. I don’t remember the title but I remember the story. A hedgehog type animal lost his home and was invited to live in a rabbit hole, with the nice rabbit owner. After a while life in the crowded hole became unpleasant for the rabbit and the rabbit said to the hedgehog: I don’t like the hole now, it is too crowded, please leave. And the hedgehog said: Really? I think it is very pleasant here, so I don’t see any reason to leave at all, I’m staying. And he was big and the rabbit small, and the rabbit left. And even then at age 7, that struck me. I would love to find that book if any reader remembers it. It was far more sophisticated than the NYTimes. It may be the reason I am anti-immigration.
Steve has discussed this before, and written about the movie The Man Who Would Be King. I’ve read the poem closely myself, and while I wouldn’t bet the farm on its meaning, there has to be at least an element of satire in there.
The most logical solution is to make whites a minority so that institutional racism can end and everyone has equal opportunityReplies: @fish, @TWS, @tris, @anon
sure, that worked out really well for whites in Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe, and for whites in South Africa, most of whom are trying to get out.
The claim about the problems with the North African migrants being due to their being from North Africa, not their being Muslim was funny. This actually doesn't affect whether or not you want to import these people. The Moroccan soldiers the Allies used in World War 2 were known for being fierce fighters, but for raping any woman they came across. Actually attempts to use Muslim mercenaries recruited from North Africa in Europe have been made repeatedly throughout history, and keep running into this problem. I was just reading about the Napoleonic Wars and Napoleon's experience with the Mamluke cavalry he recruited in the Imperial Guard. They were great if you needed to scare civilians in places like Spain, but their numbers had to be kept limited because they kept overdoing it.Replies: @a reader, @fox, @This Is Our Home
In many neighbourhoods the sense of seething hatred is palpable.
I really don't know what the author was talking about. By the standards of American cities, there is NO part of Brussels that looks like a slum. Even deepest darkest Molenbeek has neat well kept streets.
Translation: But a more significant marker than their faith was their shared origin in North Africa where 99% of the people share that faith.
“introducing the Marocchinate.”
I was just reading about this. It means, “getting the Moroccan Treatment.” No thank you.
The takeaway Nuance is that we must differentiate among various degrees of awfulness. The Moroccans are really bad, so people whose presence in Brussels is at best pointless become good and noble.So integration is even worse as it leads to microagressions.Replies: @Forbes
I seem to recall that France had some involvement in Morocco and Algeria in the 19th and 20th centuries. Both countries use the French language in government and the media, and it is taught in the schools. Algeria is the second largest Francophone country and is considered bi-lingual, while in Morocco, 32% speak French (according to wiki). French language proficiency by Moroccans and Algerians in Belgium seems rather unremarkable–and not particularly indicative of an aspiration to accepted as Belgians.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/30/insider/reporters-notebook-brussels-returns-to-normal.html
The dogged, penetrating reportorial style of this guy would qualify him well for script adviser to "Let's Go! Europe; with Rick Steves"Replies: @Priss Factor, @Jenner Ickham Errican
Rick Steves has done an invaluable service by beautifully documenting Europe before it is completely overrun. His luminous “European Christmas” special is going to be an unbelievable future artifact.
I seem to remember that it was the Greeks who wanted the population exchange and Kemel accepted it
Both groups produce a lot of terrorists but are different in personalities. Maghrebis are in your face confrontational while Pakistanis are not physically aggressive so Maghrebis account for more street crime. But Pakistanis appear more engaged in politics (running and voting as a group) so they are able to build power through elections and enable the bad behavior of their people.
I think if Pakistanis and Maghrebis were not allowed to immigrate to the West (or at least a 90% reduction) then half or maybe even more of the strain on the open society in the West would be relieved.
Do you hear that Soros people? Work on policies that curb Maghrebis and Pakistanis immigration and you can achieve your goals.Replies: @Priss Factor, @LKM, @Discard
The worst are probably Somalis. They combine the least-desirable traits of blacks and Muslims.
These two groups make up a small part of overall immigration to the West but account for most of the highest levels of stress against the idea of opening borders. So if that open borders crowd was smart they would figure out how to limit by stealth immigration by those two groups to achieve their overall strategy.Replies: @anon
Random tangents:
The Czechian observation about Brussels, etc, meant that they didn’t want to Czechmate their country.
Moroccans, and Tunisians, were once the ones doing the jobs that Parisians, for example, just wouldn’t do. Think lousy jobs like garbageman. Maybe the new style youths have decided that there are jobs that no one will do.
Re: the jobs issue. Weren’t the original Turks brought to Europe as “guest workers”? If you are brought in as a guest worker, then you know you are not meant to stay. They keep saying that Europeans didn’t do this or that to accommodate the muslims. But the muslims share the blame too. They originally came as guest workers, then reneged on the guest portion and refused to leave.
The people responsible for all the clan rapes in the ex cotton mill towns of northern England were originally brought in to work the night shift at the mills for less money (which annoyed the locals from the start obviously). Then the mills closed down anyway and everyone was unemployed.
While me, my wife & my toddler son were in the waiting room of the pediatrician’s office, there was a Muslim woman in a full Hijab waiting with us. My son blurts out for everyone to hear, “Mommy, is she pretending to be a ghost?”
OT: RIP Prince
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/21/entertainment/prince-estate-death/
We got a Bowie thread…
“Much of this force comes from the Turkish state, which controls many of the mosques attended by Belgian-Turks and keeps a close eye on potentially wayward elements in the community through a well-established network of local leaders and imams who are trained in Turkey and then sent to Belgium at the government’s expense.”
That’s a striking difference right there. Turkey finances and trains the clergy of Turkish mosques, and up until Erdogan took power, Turkey strove to keep Islam relatively toothless.
In contrast, I would bet my right eye that Moroccan mosques receive much of their funding from Saudi Arabia, or from other forces trying to spread Salafi and Wahabi Islam. People who accept Wahabism usually regard Islamic terrorism sympathetically.
A smart move would be to shut down mosques which promote Wahabi Islam, while showing tolerance towards mosques which oppose it.
literary rohypnol from the NYT designed to keep the victim sedated
Turks have higher average IQ than north Africans so are probably in a better economic position on average.
yes, mountain clans
The most logical solution is to make whites a minority so that institutional racism can end and everyone has equal opportunityReplies: @fish, @TWS, @tris, @anon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirates
OT Nuance:
“I’m not a woman, I’m not a man, I am something you will never understand.”
RIP Prince.
You and Pat Buchanan were right about everything way back in the 80s.
The “beekeeper in mourning” look.
The Turks, like the Persians, are emphatically not Arabic. Part of their identity is built around not being Arabs. The Persians in particular (don't know if this is true of Turks) look down on Arabs as uncivilized yokels.
Also, both peoples have histories of empire built around their nationality rather than their religion.
In short, they have strong national identities; they are Turks and Persians/Iranians first and everything else second. Perhaps this makes them less susceptible to the appeal of radical Islam. (I realize that the Iranians are Shia, making them hostile to Sunni radicalism, but there does not seem to be the same kind of Shia radicalism. Their version of terrorism seems to be of the more traditional, organized, state-sponsored kind.)Replies: @PapayaSF
This gives me pause:
But apparently not proud to be Belgians….
The Czechian observation about Brussels, etc, meant that they didn't want to Czechmate their country.
Moroccans, and Tunisians, were once the ones doing the jobs that Parisians, for example, just wouldn't do. Think lousy jobs like garbageman. Maybe the new style youths have decided that there are jobs that no one will do.Replies: @anon
This is a banking mafia lie and has always been a lie.
The immigrants were brought in by employers to undercut the wages of the people already doing those jobs – the idea that they were forced to bring people in because no one would do those jobs is a total lie. Millions of people were deliberately pushed out of employment and very often those same jobs were then off-shored a few years later leaving both natives and immigrants unemployed.
(And garbage man is a great job for left-side people and not at all bad for a right-side person either if you like a job you can do while thinking about something else: outside, physical exercise, small crew – jobs like that when a small crew really gels are great. I mention that specifically because jobs like garbage man are considered specifically good by the sort of people who are supposed not to want them. Educated people believe the lies because *they* wouldn’t want to do it.)
You may be speaking in good faith but they’ve been getting away with these lies for decades so it annoys me.
Furthermore, at least in Germany, the employers also started the trend of not sending them back. The employers made more money from a worker who had his family in Germany too. The less turnaround, the less training.
Short term gains for now insoluble forever problems.Replies: @anon
It varies from country to country; they were in Germany; I don’t know the deal in Belgium.
The people responsible for all the clan rapes in the ex cotton mill towns of northern England were originally brought in to work the night shift at the mills for less money (which annoyed the locals from the start obviously). Then the mills closed down anyway and everyone was unemployed.
It is entirely possible to have a "nuanced" view of the situation (i.e. that not all Muslims are equally prone to violence) and yet come to the conclusion that there is NO Muslim group whose immigration has been beneficial to Europe. As I mentioned before, the Turks seem to me to be equally problematic (if not, so far at least, as violent) because they have steadfastly been unable/unwilling to integrate into Belgian society even a little. This may yet come around to bite the Belgians in the ass even WORSE than the Moroccans.
Ultimately, all of these problems are failures of capitalism, if not in the way that leftists mean. What happened (just as in the US with blacks from the south and with Latinos) is that you have businesses who have a desire for cheap labor, so they recruit a population that will come work for cheap. So far so good - the factory gets the amount of labor that it needs and at a cheap price, the immigrants are delighted to be making more money than they could have dreamed of back home.
Then fast forward a couple of decades. The factories have closed - the employers have figured out that they can source the stuff EVEN CHEAPER from China, Mexico, Eastern Europe, etc. They lay off the workers (and never even hire the next generation) and their responsibility ends. But the workers came on a one way ticket - they (and especially their children who have never even been to their native lands) have no intention or desire to go back to the poor places that they left. So they become society's problem. It is a problem of "externalities" , just like a factory that saves money by dumping its toxic waste into the nearest river or into the air - you can increase your bottom line if you don't have to pay the full long term costs of your actions. Or , you can see it as a form of "privatizing profits and socializing losses" .
The way that the environmental problems in America were correct was legislatively - the government said to manufacturers that YOU are going to have to bear the cost of pollution. In some cases, polluters were even made to retroactively go back and fix things that they had dumped decades ago. But cleaning up this new kind of "toxic waste" is going to be a MUCH bigger problem.Replies: @AnotherDad, @AnotherDad
Don’t buy this. Cheap labor shills a problem–absolutely. But the problem ideology here isn’t “capitalism”, but “globalism” or “anti-nationalism”–and then “leftism”.
Capitalism under a nationalist regime is just fine. The response to rising labor prices is … more capital to replace labor. This is what the US auto companies have done continuously. The US has a fraction of the autoworkers it had when i was a kid, though its producing record volume of vehicles–50 or 60% higher than when i was a tyke. This capital for labor–plus just figuring out how to do stuff better–is why we live so well with such material comfort.
It’s anti-nationalist, cheap labor shilling–undermining this basic capital-for-labor substitution paradigm of capitalism–that is at fault here.
But also, Europe’s late 60s, early 70s golden age is now at least 40, approaching 50 years in the past. The immigrant numbers taken in back then, however bad are not the primary issue.
No doubt it varies by European nation, but the real killer was then the leftists and the cosmopolitan nation-wreckers decided that immigration must continue, and that opposition to it was “racist”. They’ve continued to take in immigrants well after the European post-war heyday of “labor shortage”, into times of European high-unemployment, with the immigrants entitled not to jobs but to welfare. These insanely high immigration levels of recent decades serve no capitalist purpose whatsoever (just adding to the tax burden), but serving a political purpose of increasing state power, and sticking it to the natives (white men).
You are not describing capitalism here in this context. There is an implication that a capitalist ought to first and foremost honor their nation; that is, their financial actions must focus on citizens rather than outsiders. Except capitalists do not operate in that fashion. They emphasize maximizing profits and minimizing costs. Companies feel the pinch with regulatory burdens. Blame unions and American citizens for those unnecessary barriers. /sarcasm As a result, corporations have the liberty to move their operations from their host country.
“This is what the US auto companies have done continuously. The US has a fraction of the autoworkers it had when i was a kid, though its producing record volume of vehicles–50 or 60% higher than when i was a tyke. This capital for labor–plus just figuring out how to do stuff better–is why we live so well with such material comfort.”
Yes, automation has enabled manufacturers to make more stuff. What is the COST to native workers? Should not capitalists who are nationalist focus more on the human side of the equation rather than the technological aspect?
“It’s anti-nationalist, cheap labor shilling–undermining this basic capital-for-labor substitution paradigm of capitalism–that is at fault here.”
Companies want to keep costs down and profits up. Nationalism may play a role in their decision to contribute in some way to their host country, but CEO’s tend to focus on the bottom line. If they can get cheap labor from other places, or locate their factors to where there is cheap labor, they will exercise their liberty to engage in such practices. From your perspective, are their actions “anti-nationalist”? If yes, how would you propose to “control” those actions?
One could argue remove the regulatory burdens placed upon those companies, and they will be more likely to remain at home. But for every incentive, there is a cost. Companies proved during the “robber baron” age that, with limited or no oversight, they focused on profits, not people. Remember, Rockefeller and Carnegie helped to build the country using cheap foreign labor. They employed their liberty to hire and fire workers.
“No doubt it varies by European nation, but the real killer was then the leftists and the cosmopolitan nation-wreckers decided that immigration must continue, and that opposition to it was “racist”.”
The 1965 Immigration Act had broad support by the left and the right at that time.
“These insanely high immigration levels of recent decades serve no capitalist purpose whatsoever (just adding to the tax burden), but serving a political purpose of increasing state power, and sticking it to the natives (white men).”
Corrected for accuracy —> Companies who seek immigrants as a cheap alternative serves their goal of generating additional capital for their operations, for their employees, and for their stockholders. There is also a political purpose involved, one that has been found throughout American history.
Moreover, “natives” to the United States are not simply “white men”. Those people born in America are natural born citizens and thus “native”, which includes white and non-white.
OT: The Camp of the Saints has made its arrival in the Western Hemisphere. 600 Africans crossed the Atlantic by boat to Brazil, and made their way northward, headed for the U.S., before getting detained in Costa Rica.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/04/600-africans-stranded-sailing-costa-rica-160421091642240.html
Trump can’t get elected fast enough.
What are the logistics of this? What do they eat? I do get they're the African middle class but where do they get the money from? Eating and clothing for 4 months doesn't come cheap, let alone in the middle of the Amazon, subject to preying by local gangs.Replies: @Jack D, @anon
It is entirely possible to have a "nuanced" view of the situation (i.e. that not all Muslims are equally prone to violence) and yet come to the conclusion that there is NO Muslim group whose immigration has been beneficial to Europe. As I mentioned before, the Turks seem to me to be equally problematic (if not, so far at least, as violent) because they have steadfastly been unable/unwilling to integrate into Belgian society even a little. This may yet come around to bite the Belgians in the ass even WORSE than the Moroccans.
Ultimately, all of these problems are failures of capitalism, if not in the way that leftists mean. What happened (just as in the US with blacks from the south and with Latinos) is that you have businesses who have a desire for cheap labor, so they recruit a population that will come work for cheap. So far so good - the factory gets the amount of labor that it needs and at a cheap price, the immigrants are delighted to be making more money than they could have dreamed of back home.
Then fast forward a couple of decades. The factories have closed - the employers have figured out that they can source the stuff EVEN CHEAPER from China, Mexico, Eastern Europe, etc. They lay off the workers (and never even hire the next generation) and their responsibility ends. But the workers came on a one way ticket - they (and especially their children who have never even been to their native lands) have no intention or desire to go back to the poor places that they left. So they become society's problem. It is a problem of "externalities" , just like a factory that saves money by dumping its toxic waste into the nearest river or into the air - you can increase your bottom line if you don't have to pay the full long term costs of your actions. Or , you can see it as a form of "privatizing profits and socializing losses" .
The way that the environmental problems in America were correct was legislatively - the government said to manufacturers that YOU are going to have to bear the cost of pollution. In some cases, polluters were even made to retroactively go back and fix things that they had dumped decades ago. But cleaning up this new kind of "toxic waste" is going to be a MUCH bigger problem.Replies: @AnotherDad, @AnotherDad
Jack, your analogy to corporate pollution is a good one. The irrevocability–hence serious insanity–of immigration sloppiness is something i’ve pointed out many times. (People are living organisms … they breed!) But i like the analogy to toxic waste. I’ll steal it.
Essentially places like Molenbeek are superfund sites, but with a biological, rather than just chemical infestation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bCH7sHKlMMReplies: @Dave
And this is why Islam is overtaking the West. The Turks revel in the past victories of the Ottomans and fervently believe in resurrecting that glory by bringing the West to it’s knees while we in the West apologize for our ancestors and their success.
We stand by and watch trannies and thugs get pedestalized by our smug elites in media and academia while welcoming in Muslims who openly call for the reestablishment of the Ottoman empire under the banner of Islam.
They want to win and we don’t even know who we are anymore and what little we do know we feel bad about.
Sorry folks but Trump can’t fix this mess.
That's a striking difference right there. Turkey finances and trains the clergy of Turkish mosques, and up until Erdogan took power, Turkey strove to keep Islam relatively toothless.
In contrast, I would bet my right eye that Moroccan mosques receive much of their funding from Saudi Arabia, or from other forces trying to spread Salafi and Wahabi Islam. People who accept Wahabism usually regard Islamic terrorism sympathetically.
A smart move would be to shut down mosques which promote Wahabi Islam, while showing tolerance towards mosques which oppose it.Replies: @anon
Yes, Saudi influence is a big part of the mosque aspect of it but they have deep pockets and politicians have greedy fingers hence why it’s ignored.
Implicit in the article is the idea that since the Belgian Turks have to deal with the same "racism" as the Belgian Moroccans and have NOT taken to terrorism, the problem must somehow lie with the Moroccan community rather than with whites.
Just as in the US with Mexicans and Central Americans, the people moving to Belgium were not the urban elite of Morocco - these were people from impoverished mountain villages who were ill prepared to deal with integration into a modern society of any kind, let alone a foreign one. Even in their native country they were alienated from their central government - they were proto-typical hill people who are mistrustful of authority. In Belgium, their kids fell easily into gang culture and petty crime before being recruited to radical Islam. In the US, we see the same intersection between Islam and prisons - Islam is very popular among black prison inmates and even some Hispanics. But somehow it has not turned into terrorism.
The Turks could in a sense be seen as an even greater failure - even after decades in Belgium, many can't speak the local language(s) and retain their identity as Turks. But at least they are a controllable population. However the keys to their control lie in Turkey, not with Belgium - as long as the Turkish government gives them peaceful marching orders they remain peaceful. Implicitly, this could change or even the threat of changing this could be used as a bargaining chip by Erdogan. In some ways, they are potentially even scarier than the Moroccans, who are too disorganized to get beyond the rabble stage and who have the language skills to integrate if they wanted to. The reporter sees the fact that the Turkish government maintains a network of Turkish government controlled mosques in another country as benign, even helpful, but it sounds pretty scary to me.Replies: @ben tillman, @AndrewR, @ReaderfromGreece
You might be interested to follow @hbdchick on Twitter, who has an ongoing theme of linking many of the recent terrorism attacks to Maghrebi culture/ethnicity.
Google knows all!
Seeking refuge from the cold, a porcupine asked to share a desirable cave for the winter with a family of moles. The moles agreed but, theirs being a small cave, they soon found that they were being scratched each time the quilled porcupine moved about. Finally, they asked the porcupine to leave but the porcupine stood his ground, saying, "If you moles are not satisfied, I suggest that you leave." The poor moles, burdened with a permanent guest, had learned their lesson: "It is well to know one's guest before offering him hospitality."
If that's the moral of the story, then that Aesop guy must have been some sort of racis'. If he had a TV gig now he'd lose his job for telling fables like that.
In the new version, the porcupines teach the moles new recipes and songs and the moles benefit greatly from having their cave diversified.
Capitalism under a nationalist regime is just fine. The response to rising labor prices is ... more capital to replace labor. This is what the US auto companies have done continuously. The US has a fraction of the autoworkers it had when i was a kid, though its producing record volume of vehicles--50 or 60% higher than when i was a tyke. This capital for labor--plus just figuring out how to do stuff better--is why we live so well with such material comfort.
It's anti-nationalist, cheap labor shilling--undermining this basic capital-for-labor substitution paradigm of capitalism--that is at fault here.
But also, Europe's late 60s, early 70s golden age is now at least 40, approaching 50 years in the past. The immigrant numbers taken in back then, however bad are not the primary issue.
No doubt it varies by European nation, but the real killer was then the leftists and the cosmopolitan nation-wreckers decided that immigration must continue, and that opposition to it was "racist". They've continued to take in immigrants well after the European post-war heyday of "labor shortage", into times of European high-unemployment, with the immigrants entitled not to jobs but to welfare. These insanely high immigration levels of recent decades serve no capitalist purpose whatsoever (just adding to the tax burden), but serving a political purpose of increasing state power, and sticking it to the natives (white men).Replies: @Jack D, @Corvinus
Bringing the rural population of the Mississippi Delta to Detroit and Chicago, etc. did not involve crossing national boundaries, but I think the problems caused by this population being “dumped” when American industry was done with them was as damaging to those cities, if not more, than what has happened in Brussels.
I've known plenty of Pakistani-Americans in the US. No problem. Was good friends with a bunch who were among the most patriotic(though ridiculous) Americans I've met. Joined the US military, anti-communist, and all that. (Always cracked me up how they loved to tell Hindu Asian jokes. Nothing offends a Pakistani more than being confused with cow-worshipers or dotkins.)
But I can see how Pakistanis are a problem in the UK cuz there are TOO many of them. But UK would be worse off if each of those Pakman were a black.
As for Algerians and Moroccons, they are Moor-like and have some black blood. That accounts for the shade of ghastliness.Replies: @SFG, @Anonymous
Honestly, I think we just mostly get a better class of Muslim here, probably due to the greater distance.
Also, ironically (or not), our greater diversity may actually encourage assimilation. You might not ever be able to become a German, but anyone can become an American if they want to.
No, that’s not a sneaky argument in favor of immigration–if there’s too many of your kind over here, you’re going to want to hang out with them instead of assimilating, because it’s easier, and most people are lazy.
Right. Americanism has just come to mean globalist consumerism. So, people around the world become 'American' even before they become American.
In the city elementary school I went to, there as a Filo kid who came recently. He already spoke English though with accent, and he grew up watching Hollywood movies, American TV, and reading American superhero comics in Filo-land.
So, he could fit in right away.
There was a time when it wasn't so easy to assimilate. Americanism meant Anglo-Americanism. It meant history. Anglo-American narrative was sort of Jewish-like. The conquest and struggle to create a new Jerusalem in the New Land. It had specificity. To become American meant you had to know and appreciate that story through books in schools and movies such as Westerns.
But Americanism went from Jewish-like-ness to Christian-like-ness.
To be Christian, you don't have to know any history or anything. Just beliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiieeeeeve in the Lawd and pray to Jesus. That's all you need. If you go to a Christian pastor and say you know NOTHING but you love Jesus, he will praise you.
But if you're Jewish and tell a rabbi that you know nothing of Jewish history and heritage, he will tell you to get lost.
Americanism once had a specificity in history. You had to know and appreciate the great Anglo-American narrative. The story of the Great White Man.
But with immigrant-centrism, Americanism is not about what-once-was but about what-will-be. After all, it is a 'nation of immigrants'. So, original Americans must defer to newcomers, not the other way around.
If there is American past history that must be known by all, it is the slave and racial discrimination history. That way, all the non-white immigrants will be led to see Old White America as evil and wicked, an America that had banned their own kind from coming. Old White America was bad to blacks and banned non-whites.
So, new good America must be all about redeeming the Old Bad America that denied blacks rights and denied non-whites to arrive in huge numbers and take over.
Another history all Americans must know is the Holocaust. Why? Didn't it happen over there in Europe? yeah... but for some reason, all of humanity must apologize for that one.
And if white Americans want to feel some kind of tribalist patriotism, they must do it for Israel. Why? I dunno. Gee, I wonder why.
And for the spiritual faith of America? jesus died so that 'gays' could get 'married' and men in dress can go wee wee and poo poo in women's washroom.
So, it's easier to assimilate to Americanism than to Europeanism.
but that can't be the whole story. Why? EU is now just an extension of Americanism. Europeans no longer listen to classical music. They don't even read much. And they don't even make great art films like they used to. Watch today's French movies, and so many French just seem like Americans who speak French. See older French films, and French are distinctly French in everything. No longer.
And UK is just the 51st state of the US.
Europeans have no identity, no pride, no sense of religious heritage(churches are empty), no nothing. Their faith is homo-worship. Search for French pop 2015 and it's just same MTV rap crap. EU sports are filled with blacks just like in the US. Interracism is official faith.
And if anything, Europeans without guns and holocaust guilt(more debilitating than even American 'racist' guilt) are more wussy and accommodating to newcomers.
So, why all the tensions? It is very easy to become 'German' since your average German or French or Swede today is a deracinated globalized freak.
The problem in the EU is because most of the newcomers are nutty Muslims and black Africans, two most problematic peoples.
In the US, the big newcomers are Mexers who are problematic but mostly docile(unless near areas with drug trade) and yellows and hindus.Replies: @Cwhatfuture, @Corvinus
No they can't.
Steve had written some articles about jobs that Americans wouldn’t do, and my observation was to add an international twist to that the notion.
In moderation, like working out every day, all that stuff is good -- it produced universal female literacy, rights for women, good treatment for animals, non violent men, male cooperation, the nuclear family, in short the 1950s America that was the pinnacle of decent society.
But like roiding till you drop dead like a WWE Wrestler at age 50 or so, taken to extremes you get insane status competition for most conspicuous virtue, witch finding and heretic hunting, extreme social conformity that both Ibsen and Munch criticized (as did Nathaniel Hawthorne), and the leap-frogging loyalties that SJW White people have as higher IQ vulnerability.
Jews being more vulnerable than most, being on average higher IQ (but not on average high enough to see reality behind the dogma) adopt CHRISTIAN viewpoints of universal humanity and the status rush of being the holy in substitution for the traditional Jewish identity seen in say, Bibi Netanyahu and other Israelis confronted with reality unavoidably every day. [People wanting to kill them for being Jewish.] This is why you see Jews in SJW status mongering professions like media, government, finance, law etc. and absent the military, spy agencies, etc.
[Who has more real power -- someone like Ike, Grant, De Gaulle, etc. or a talking head on TV? Some SJW lawyer or SPLC scam artist or the head of the NSA able to mass blackmail people?]
The whole Nuance approach is just whistling past the failure of the whole Post-Christian Universal Utopian approach to post WWII and the Cold War; and the revival of blood and soil nationalism as the only thing that matters and gives value to ordinary people not engaged in a ruthless but pointless Seinfeldian Status War.Replies: @anon, @Jack D
I agree it would be a very stupid thing to do and I for one don’t know any Jews who spent decades being screamingly open borders, constantly attacking those white people who opposed it for being racist and yet after one or other of the guerrilla attacks switched to screamingly attacking white people for deliberately bringing Muslims to the West because they wanted to get Jews.
Oh, actually now I think of it I do know Jews who did exactly that.
In moderation, like working out every day, all that stuff is good -- it produced universal female literacy, rights for women, good treatment for animals, non violent men, male cooperation, the nuclear family, in short the 1950s America that was the pinnacle of decent society.
But like roiding till you drop dead like a WWE Wrestler at age 50 or so, taken to extremes you get insane status competition for most conspicuous virtue, witch finding and heretic hunting, extreme social conformity that both Ibsen and Munch criticized (as did Nathaniel Hawthorne), and the leap-frogging loyalties that SJW White people have as higher IQ vulnerability.
Jews being more vulnerable than most, being on average higher IQ (but not on average high enough to see reality behind the dogma) adopt CHRISTIAN viewpoints of universal humanity and the status rush of being the holy in substitution for the traditional Jewish identity seen in say, Bibi Netanyahu and other Israelis confronted with reality unavoidably every day. [People wanting to kill them for being Jewish.] This is why you see Jews in SJW status mongering professions like media, government, finance, law etc. and absent the military, spy agencies, etc.
[Who has more real power -- someone like Ike, Grant, De Gaulle, etc. or a talking head on TV? Some SJW lawyer or SPLC scam artist or the head of the NSA able to mass blackmail people?]
The whole Nuance approach is just whistling past the failure of the whole Post-Christian Universal Utopian approach to post WWII and the Cold War; and the revival of blood and soil nationalism as the only thing that matters and gives value to ordinary people not engaged in a ruthless but pointless Seinfeldian Status War.Replies: @anon, @Jack D
I was with you until you got to the last sentence. Why is blood and soil nationalism as the only thing that matters and gives value to ordinary people ? How is that possible if nationalism barely existed in many places and periods until it really got going in the 19th century? How does America fit into that model? Didn’t blood and soil lead to certain, uh, unpleasantness in Europe in the ’30s and ’40s?
It could be that the differences between the Turks and the Moroccans in Belgium has to do with the extent that they are visible minorities. Due to Islam we may think of Turks as brown-skinned Middle Easterners, but in fact many of them are physically indistinguishable from Europeans. Blond hair is not at all uncommon. In contrast, Moroccans seldom if ever can pass for European. As a result, the Moroccans in Brussels stand out much more than the Turks.
Of course physical appearance isn’t the whole story; as another recent article noted, the Congolese in Brussels are much more integrated than the Turks or Moroccans even though they look nothing whatsoever like Europeans.
If you think about it “The White Man’s Burden” meme is guilt manipulation again – aimed at the people in the middle getting malaria for £2 a week by the people at the top who owned the diamond mines. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Kipling’s wasn’t satire.
Nowadays its much better, but back in the day, there were many parts of DC that were pretty ramshackle. I remember being shocked the 1st time I visited in the early ’70s, how close the ghetto was to the White House and the Capitol. Of course that was before trillions in tribute poured into our new imperial Washington.
I really don’t know what the author was talking about. By the standards of American cities, there is NO part of Brussels that looks like a slum. Even deepest darkest Molenbeek has neat well kept streets.
no worries – i lose my temper over it because i used to know the people who used to do the jobs “no-one” would do (and garbage man was one of their favorites)
Before that it was blood and soil tribalism and before that it was blood and soil clannism and before that it was blood and soil bandism.
This is actually a retelling of one of Aesop’s fables – the Porcupine and the Moles:
Seeking refuge from the cold, a porcupine asked to share a desirable cave for the winter with a family of moles. The moles agreed but, theirs being a small cave, they soon found that they were being scratched each time the quilled porcupine moved about. Finally, they asked the porcupine to leave but the porcupine stood his ground, saying, “If you moles are not satisfied, I suggest that you leave.” The poor moles, burdened with a permanent guest, had learned their lesson: “It is well to know one’s guest before offering him hospitality.”
If that’s the moral of the story, then that Aesop guy must have been some sort of racis’. If he had a TV gig now he’d lose his job for telling fables like that.
In the new version, the porcupines teach the moles new recipes and songs and the moles benefit greatly from having their cave diversified.
No, non, nee, nein or nej could have spared us endless columns, tears and confusion. Sensible gatekeeping could have saved us from these ‘preventable evils’.
Belgian Highways the nicest ones when driving south to France. Fewer cars, fewer maniacs (on roads), more flowers.
2nd declension
prodromus
prodromī
prodromō
prodromum
prodromō
prodrome
prodromī
prodromōrum
prodromīs
prodromōs
prodromīs
prodromī
but it’s Greek anyway
πρόδρομος
Prodromes? Prodromata?? Anyone? Bueller ..
Most of that problem was due to some people who were willing to spill blood for someone else’s soil.
Heard Rick on local npr a couple of months back. Migrant crisis? What migrant crisis! Europe needs young people! Besides you won’t even notice them, just step around the fake Gucci bags and trinket salesman. It’s vibrant! Rick has made himself rich ruining a few places, rue cler and cinque terre come to mind, but I’m sure there are others. Après lui le deluge. My fantasy is he gets mugged on camera infront of the pantheon by some vibrant immigrants yearning for a better life. But life is rarely just
Most people who can both read and think recognize it as a warning. Try reading “White Man’s Burden” while actually involved in some WMB activities, it’ll strike to your core. I couldn’t get the lines out of my head while overseas. Kipling is eerily on point when it comes to some things.
The Stranger
The Stranger within my gate,
He may be true or kind,
But he does not talk my talk—
I cannot feel his mind.
I see the face and the eyes and the mouth,
But not the soul behind.
The men of my own stock,
They may do ill or well,
But they tell the lies I am wonted to,
They are used to the lies I tell;
And we do not need interpreters
When we go to buy or sell.
The Stranger within my gates,
He may be evil or good,
But I cannot tell what powers control—
What reasons sway his mood;
Nor when the Gods of his far-off land
Shall repossess his blood.
The men of my own stock,
Bitter bad they may be,
But, at least, they hear the things I hear,
And see the things I see;
And whatever I think of them and their likes
They think of the likes of me.
This was my father’s belief
And this is also mine:
Let the corn be all one sheaf—
And the grapes be all one vine,
Ere our children’s teeth are set on edge
By bitter bread and wine.
Welcome to Belgistan:
Thanks – same exact (basic) story but mine was even for a younger age. “Rabbit and Skunk and the Big Fight.” It was one of the first books I ever read so my memory did not serve me perfectly – the large animal was the woodchuck. I am sure it would be banned now as a anti-immigrant.
If you want to see a really un-pc children's book, check out Edward Gorey's "The Bug Book," available on YouTube as a slideshow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoRN_cMxWXs
Cute multi-colored bugs are having a great time until a big black bug shows up in the neighborhood and starts bullying everyone and waylaying travelers. They have to kill it.Replies: @Discard
“but anyone can become an American if they want to.”
Right. Americanism has just come to mean globalist consumerism. So, people around the world become ‘American’ even before they become American.
In the city elementary school I went to, there as a Filo kid who came recently. He already spoke English though with accent, and he grew up watching Hollywood movies, American TV, and reading American superhero comics in Filo-land.
So, he could fit in right away.
There was a time when it wasn’t so easy to assimilate. Americanism meant Anglo-Americanism. It meant history. Anglo-American narrative was sort of Jewish-like. The conquest and struggle to create a new Jerusalem in the New Land. It had specificity. To become American meant you had to know and appreciate that story through books in schools and movies such as Westerns.
But Americanism went from Jewish-like-ness to Christian-like-ness.
To be Christian, you don’t have to know any history or anything. Just beliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiieeeeeve in the Lawd and pray to Jesus. That’s all you need. If you go to a Christian pastor and say you know NOTHING but you love Jesus, he will praise you.
But if you’re Jewish and tell a rabbi that you know nothing of Jewish history and heritage, he will tell you to get lost.
Americanism once had a specificity in history. You had to know and appreciate the great Anglo-American narrative. The story of the Great White Man.
But with immigrant-centrism, Americanism is not about what-once-was but about what-will-be. After all, it is a ‘nation of immigrants’. So, original Americans must defer to newcomers, not the other way around.
If there is American past history that must be known by all, it is the slave and racial discrimination history. That way, all the non-white immigrants will be led to see Old White America as evil and wicked, an America that had banned their own kind from coming. Old White America was bad to blacks and banned non-whites.
So, new good America must be all about redeeming the Old Bad America that denied blacks rights and denied non-whites to arrive in huge numbers and take over.
Another history all Americans must know is the Holocaust. Why? Didn’t it happen over there in Europe? yeah… but for some reason, all of humanity must apologize for that one.
And if white Americans want to feel some kind of tribalist patriotism, they must do it for Israel. Why? I dunno. Gee, I wonder why.
And for the spiritual faith of America? jesus died so that ‘gays’ could get ‘married’ and men in dress can go wee wee and poo poo in women’s washroom.
So, it’s easier to assimilate to Americanism than to Europeanism.
but that can’t be the whole story. Why? EU is now just an extension of Americanism. Europeans no longer listen to classical music. They don’t even read much. And they don’t even make great art films like they used to. Watch today’s French movies, and so many French just seem like Americans who speak French. See older French films, and French are distinctly French in everything. No longer.
And UK is just the 51st state of the US.
Europeans have no identity, no pride, no sense of religious heritage(churches are empty), no nothing. Their faith is homo-worship. Search for French pop 2015 and it’s just same MTV rap crap. EU sports are filled with blacks just like in the US. Interracism is official faith.
And if anything, Europeans without guns and holocaust guilt(more debilitating than even American ‘racist’ guilt) are more wussy and accommodating to newcomers.
So, why all the tensions? It is very easy to become ‘German’ since your average German or French or Swede today is a deracinated globalized freak.
The problem in the EU is because most of the newcomers are nutty Muslims and black Africans, two most problematic peoples.
In the US, the big newcomers are Mexers who are problematic but mostly docile(unless near areas with drug trade) and yellows and hindus.
Who says this? How did they arrive at this conclusion? See, if you are going to make this statement, there must be context involved. Americanism refers to the qualities regarded as definitive of America or Americans. Certainly, being a consumer of products from around the world is ONE aspect, but there are also other traits. You are offering a generalization, which is fine, but there lacks the requisite background information.
“So, people around the world become ‘American’ even before they become American.” Not entirely accurate. A person becomes an American through citizenship, which is the political part. The social part of an American? Your mileage may vary.
“To become American meant you had to know and appreciate that story through books in schools and movies such as Westerns.”
Are you living in the 1950’s?
“But Americanism went from Jewish-like-ness to Christian-like-ness.”
Americanism was never exclusively about one group of people, since the English founded one part, the French founded another part, and the Spanish founded yet another part. From European and Native American and African peoples eventually arose a distinct American group. While white Anglo-Saxon Protestant themes were prevalent early in our history, as more “outsiders” came in, they added to this identity. You act as if white Europeans, collectively, were on board with one another politically and culturally from our inception as a nation, which is patently false.
“To be Christian, you don’t have to know any history or anything. Just beliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiieeeeeve in the Lawd and pray to Jesus. That’s all you need.”
According to who? How do you know Christians as a group neglect to understand their history?
“If you go to a Christian pastor and say you know NOTHING but you love Jesus, he will praise you.”
You take a generalization and make it to be entirely true, then based your argument on that generalization. That’s not how it works in discourse.
Christian pastors will also preach that in order to love Jesus, you must know Scripture and be able to apply it. They are not going to give what amounts to a “free pass”.
“But if you’re Jewish and tell a rabbi that you know nothing of Jewish history and heritage, he will tell you to get lost.”
So, in EVERY circumstance? In ALL cases? See, that is why your argument falls woefully short when you rely on such statements.
“Americanism once had a specificity in history. You had to know and appreciate the great Anglo-American narrative. The story of the Great White Man.”
“That way, all the non-white immigrants will be led to see Old White America as evil and wicked, an America that had banned their own kind from coming. Old White America was bad to blacks and banned non-whites.”
What you are referring to is part of the narrative, not the entire story.
“EU is now just an extension of Americanism. Europeans no longer listen to classical music. They don’t even read much. And they don’t even make great art films like they used to. Watch today’s French movies, and so many French just seem like Americans who speak French. See older French films, and French are distinctly French in everything. No longer.”
Opinions are not evidence.
“And UK is just the 51st state of the US.”
In what specific ways?
“Europeans have no identity, no pride, no sense of religious heritage(churches are empty), no nothing.”
None, huh. Absolutely zilch. So how are you able to draw upon these conclusions?
The contrast with the Netherlands and especially Germany is instructive. There are lots of Turks there and they’re well integrated. They speak the language and are largely contributors to society.
I think that there is something to the strong national/ethnic identity that Turks have, compared to Morocco, and Tunisia and Algeria, which are more oppressive and decrepit societies. (At least before the past few years of Erdogan.). Turks have a sense of superiority, or at least ethnic dignity, compared to the downtrodden Africans.
The pattern is similar in the Gulf. Turks are well-regarded, and Gulf Arabs admire Turkish culture. They run many successful businesses, whereas Moroccans especially are problem residents, disproportionately into prostitution and other criminal activities. Qatar and UAE don’t really want Moroccans, except the pretty (and permissive) women.
Thought I’d nailed it…
If you want to see a really un-pc children’s book, check out Edward Gorey’s “The Bug Book,” available on YouTube as a slideshow.
Cute multi-colored bugs are having a great time until a big black bug shows up in the neighborhood and starts bullying everyone and waylaying travelers. They have to kill it.
We all know the answer to these problems. Embrace diversity!
Child brides sometimes tolerated in Nordic asylum centers despite bans
I haven’t heard anything out of the ordinary bad about Somalis. However Maghrebis are associated with terrorism in France and Belgium and Pakistanis with Rotherham.
These two groups make up a small part of overall immigration to the West but account for most of the highest levels of stress against the idea of opening borders. So if that open borders crowd was smart they would figure out how to limit by stealth immigration by those two groups to achieve their overall strategy.
Sound like the kind of people one should welcome with open arms http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/09/2012924103333182505.html
I've known plenty of Pakistani-Americans in the US. No problem. Was good friends with a bunch who were among the most patriotic(though ridiculous) Americans I've met. Joined the US military, anti-communist, and all that. (Always cracked me up how they loved to tell Hindu Asian jokes. Nothing offends a Pakistani more than being confused with cow-worshipers or dotkins.)
But I can see how Pakistanis are a problem in the UK cuz there are TOO many of them. But UK would be worse off if each of those Pakman were a black.
As for Algerians and Moroccons, they are Moor-like and have some black blood. That accounts for the shade of ghastliness.Replies: @SFG, @Anonymous
You describe Pakistanis in the US. Lots of university educated Pakistanis came to the US. Average Pakistanis went to the UK.
Immigrants of any race or ethnicity can reasonably assimilate if the arrived group are educated enough. For considering which group is the worst immigrant in the West I am considering the average type.
So your examples relying on experiences with Pakistanis in the US aren’t well suited. I also can’t imagine how Caribbeans or Black Africans are the worst.
https://pando.com/2014/03/28/the-war-nerd-who-exactly-are-the-jihadis-and-why-arent-there-more-of-them/Replies: @Anonymous, @anon
I think that there is something to the strong national/ethnic identity that Turks have, compared to Morocco, and Tunisia and Algeria, which are more oppressive and decrepit societies. (At least before the past few years of Erdogan.). Turks have a sense of superiority, or at least ethnic dignity, compared to the downtrodden Africans.
The pattern is similar in the Gulf. Turks are well-regarded, and Gulf Arabs admire Turkish culture. They run many successful businesses, whereas Moroccans especially are problem residents, disproportionately into prostitution and other criminal activities. Qatar and UAE don't really want Moroccans, except the pretty (and permissive) women.Replies: @ReaderfromGreece
Eh, Turks don’t hold any Arabs in high regard (and absolutely hate it when they are erroneously lumped in with Arabs). Turks have a worryingly consistent history of violence and cruelty towards practically everyone but themselves, so it’s a good thing they have a high “national self-esteem”, because truthfully, no one else likes them, including Arabs as far as I can tell. Maybe Gulf Arabs are an exception? Any historical episode relating to Turkey will invariably include this trajectory: “There was progress/peace/cooperation/agreement, but then the Turks stabbed _____ in the back.”
My handle instantly betrays bias, and I own up to it. (Though it may surprise you that I love and also identify with many aspects of Turkish culture.)
These two groups make up a small part of overall immigration to the West but account for most of the highest levels of stress against the idea of opening borders. So if that open borders crowd was smart they would figure out how to limit by stealth immigration by those two groups to achieve their overall strategy.Replies: @anon
I doubt you’ve heard Albanians dominate the slave trade either… or that there is a thriving slave trade
(but there is and they do).
If the media ever started telling the truth you’d be in for such a shock.
(my guess as to who will win the current battle for top dog among all the dozens of organized crime groups there are now is between the Albanians and Somalis)
but your general point is correct – the harm is concentrated among some groups
re Somalis – no doubt there are exceptions but if you think back to the scenes in Godfather set in Sicily the ones I’m talking about are like that (as are Albanians) – a culture of small clans constantly at war with each other.
Time to push Zionists out of positions of influence in the West, then. Otherwise the abuse of Muslims will continue.
As for institutional racism, that too is something Zionists and Muslims (Arabia is a multiculti slave empire) excel at, so Zionist rule and Muslim immigration both mean more institutional racism, not less.
Have white folks really lost their minds?
http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/19/news/australia-ranch-sold-chinese/index.html?sr=twmoney042016australia-ranch-sold-chinese0201AMStoryLink&linkId=23612881
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/04/21/my-wife-and-i-are-white-evangelicals-heres-why-we-chose-to-give-birth-to-black-triplets/
https://www.rt.com/news/340464-bomber-worked-brussels-airport/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/04/20/britain-issues-warning-for-lgbt-travelers-visiting-north-carolina-and-mississippi/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_wv-britain-lgbt-805pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36095659
http://newobserveronline.com/178882-invaders-year/
I have also read that the employers in some cases ASKED for country bumpkins, even illiterates, as they would be less likely to try to start forming unions.
Furthermore, at least in Germany, the employers also started the trend of not sending them back. The employers made more money from a worker who had his family in Germany too. The less turnaround, the less training.
Short term gains for now insoluble forever problems.
White criminals against black criminals – I don’t think that would be much of a contest.
If this has not been posted already — fringes not behaving
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/apr/21/nus-president-malia-bouattia-must-redress-concerns-over-antisemitism-say-jewish-students
Both groups produce a lot of terrorists but are different in personalities. Maghrebis are in your face confrontational while Pakistanis are not physically aggressive so Maghrebis account for more street crime. But Pakistanis appear more engaged in politics (running and voting as a group) so they are able to build power through elections and enable the bad behavior of their people.
I think if Pakistanis and Maghrebis were not allowed to immigrate to the West (or at least a 90% reduction) then half or maybe even more of the strain on the open society in the West would be relieved.
Do you hear that Soros people? Work on policies that curb Maghrebis and Pakistanis immigration and you can achieve your goals.Replies: @Priss Factor, @LKM, @Discard
Why allow any Moslems or Africans? What is the upside? Did we not win WW2 and go to the moon as a nation of Europeans? Why invite predictable trouble?
What do Somalis do that make them the Worst Immigrant Group in the Western World?
A pretty sound rule is that immigrants re-create their homeland. Wherever Somalis move, there you will find Somalia 2.0: highly clannish and quarrelsome, with little regard for maintaining the infrastructure.
2) A lot of organized crime now revolves around supplying prostitutes for the huge numbers of legal and illegal unskilled young males imported by the corporate oligarchy for cheap labor - this process includes ***vast*** amounts of (1). This is being hidden because the truth would demolish the cheap labor lobby.
3) As (2) is being mostly hidden the groups dominating it are being mostly hidden also.
4) Those groups best suited to organized crime dominate it.
5) The groups best suited to organized crime (once they are transplanted to the West) come from very violent clan based raiding cultures -> lots of genes for violence, very tight-knit "no snitching" extended families, limited ability for most to rise above unskilled labor in any way other than crime etc.
Now maybe there's an urban element who are different but if so they will have exactly the same attitude towards the clan raider types and almost certainly have their own disparaging name for them.
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2016/04/from-jackson-to-trump-the-problem-of-american-whitesReplies: @Maj. Kong
Quite the disgusting ferment, reminds one of the old Pravda.
No, we apparently fought the wars as Lucas’ RedTails to unleash degeneracy and for the “muh feelz” of white liberals.
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/apr/21/nus-president-malia-bouattia-must-redress-concerns-over-antisemitism-say-jewish-studentsReplies: @AndrewR, @Jack D
“First they came for the whites and I did not speak up because I only claim to be white when I want to take the heat off my tribe”
If you want to see a really un-pc children's book, check out Edward Gorey's "The Bug Book," available on YouTube as a slideshow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoRN_cMxWXs
Cute multi-colored bugs are having a great time until a big black bug shows up in the neighborhood and starts bullying everyone and waylaying travelers. They have to kill it.Replies: @Discard
That was not a children’s’ book. The vocabulary is too advanced.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/04/600-africans-stranded-sailing-costa-rica-160421091642240.html
Trump can't get elected fast enough.Replies: @spandrell
Africans sail to Brazil, move all the way to Costa Rica, get stopped. 4 months of trip.
What are the logistics of this? What do they eat? I do get they’re the African middle class but where do they get the money from? Eating and clothing for 4 months doesn’t come cheap, let alone in the middle of the Amazon, subject to preying by local gangs.
Which is not as strange as it sounds when you consider the UN's unofficial policy of replacement.
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/migration/migration.htm
Rick does have a Pollyanna-ish, ‘Ned Flanders’ presentation. The future will not be kind to okely-dokely types.
What was the better thing that anybody ever said?
Time for someone to do some field research.
A pretty sound rule is that immigrants re-create their homeland. Wherever Somalis move, there you will find Somalia 2.0: highly clannish and quarrelsome, with little regard for maintaining the infrastructure.
Of course physical appearance isn't the whole story; as another recent article noted, the Congolese in Brussels are much more integrated than the Turks or Moroccans even though they look nothing whatsoever like Europeans.Replies: @Romanian, @Jefferson
They should thank the ancient Anatolians, others who assimilated and the Balkan peoples that paid them tribute in slaves for enabling their phenotypical transformation (statistically speaking).
What are the logistics of this? What do they eat? I do get they're the African middle class but where do they get the money from? Eating and clothing for 4 months doesn't come cheap, let alone in the middle of the Amazon, subject to preying by local gangs.Replies: @Jack D, @anon
The payoff on getting in is enormous – the present value of your future income stream goes up by hundreds of thousands of $, even if all you get in the US is a low end job. So this justifies taking on a lot of risk. You might borrow money from your entire family to fund this and you probably have a LOT of cousins, brothers, etc. Maybe you have a cousin who already made it to the US and he lends you some money. Also the smugglers will sometimes operate on the installment plan, where you pay them part of the money after you get into the US. You might spend the 1st couple of years in the US paying off your smuggling debts.
Were there any African (Americans) involved with winning WWII?
However, they did excel at getting venereal diseases.
I served with Blacks, decades ago. For the most part they were worse than useless.Replies: @Anonymous
Ask George Lucas.
Immigrants of any race or ethnicity can reasonably assimilate if the arrived group are educated enough. For considering which group is the worst immigrant in the West I am considering the average type.
So your examples relying on experiences with Pakistanis in the US aren't well suited. I also can't imagine how Caribbeans or Black Africans are the worst.Replies: @Romanian
Education and socio-economic status are not THE main determining factor in Sudden Jihadi Syndrome onset (they are important though). Plenty of jihadis come from privileged backgrounds, like bin Laden. Many were educated, like all those engineers blowing themselves up. It is rather the social network, the culture and the issue of social status that drives these things. And good old fashioned hate.
https://pando.com/2014/03/28/the-war-nerd-who-exactly-are-the-jihadis-and-why-arent-there-more-of-them/
The first is high info people who get radicalized by text, ideas and watching the news - these have been the main kind so far and as you say are often the most educated.
The second kind are low info people who first get involved in crime and eventually get radicalized, often in prison.
I'd suggest Europe is at or near the tipping point where the second kind is about to become overwhelmingly dominant.
(I don't think economic status is the main factor. I think low economic status in combination with being a religious and racial minority is the trigger. In Morocco the rich look like them. In France they don't.)
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/apr/21/nus-president-malia-bouattia-must-redress-concerns-over-antisemitism-say-jewish-studentsReplies: @AndrewR, @Jack D
Sounds like she would fit in well with some folks here – she loves to talk about Zionist dominated media, etc.
Knee biting – a sport of the intellectually challenged.
Prodrome – the final “a” was a typo actually and obviously has Greek roots. Your attempt at Latin “scholarship” is actually a demonstration of ignorance. “Prodrome” is a medical term. You can look it up in Dorland’s Pocket Medical Dictionary (page 559 in the 22nd edition). And how clever of you to have found a second typo.
I was overhearing this conversation between a posh elderly English grandee and a young Indian American academic.
I almost fell off my chair when the posh lady said “oh I love football, I watch all the games.” English eccentrics really are one of a kind!
At any rate the Indian American academic made a strong point that she referred the US to the UK because while the former had some issues with racism (especially vis a vis Afram minority), Americans were much more likely to accept immigrants as one of their own.
Whereas in Britain where racism is very subtle and benign (if it exists) she was constantly asked where she was from. Even if she said the States they would then follow up with “where are you actually from?”
For Europeans in general (perhaps with the exception of France) the blood and soil nature of the identity is far too hard to shake off. The EU essentially is a club for Gentiles (Christendom) and the question whether Christian minorities in the Levantine or Caucasus qualify is always a question about borders. Where do the borders of Christendom lie is for Brussels to determine but Constantinople is no more and is forever lost to it.
Finally I also notice that American Gentiles are significantly more philo-Semitic than European Gentiles. White America certainly has had its issues vis a vis its Black and Native population but immigrants on the whole have been absorbed fairly well (exception being internment of Japanese Americans during WW2)..
https://pando.com/2014/03/28/the-war-nerd-who-exactly-are-the-jihadis-and-why-arent-there-more-of-them/Replies: @Anonymous, @anon
Maybe at the individual level socio-economic status is not an overwhelming predictor but the socio-economic status of the Muslim community in a Western country does matter a lot to forming terrorists.
Grammar Nazi:
You need to get better references. The OED citation for “prodroma” (page 1421 middle of column 2) says the word is of Greek – not Latin – origin, that this is the plural form, and that it is a medical term for preliminary symptoms. It is your erudition that is faux. You owe Just Saying an apology.
Furthermore, at least in Germany, the employers also started the trend of not sending them back. The employers made more money from a worker who had his family in Germany too. The less turnaround, the less training.
Short term gains for now insoluble forever problems.Replies: @anon
Yes exactly. The short term benefits (for them) made sense. The leadership of a country ought to be made up of people who look further than that because sometimes short term benefit come with a long term cost but it didn’t happen.
Dunno – the clannish thing is a massive help in conflict at a small scale (like organized crime) and I’d say it outweighs IQ to an extent. On the other hand Albanians are clannish too but maybe not quite as much. I could be wrong but I’d still go with 50/50 for now.
(1) Virtue Display (VD) – loudly denouncing someone for being rational, e.g., “I don’t think that’s the least bit funny!”
(2) Conspicuous Virtue Display (CVD) – VD but taken to a higher level, e.g., doing the same but on the oped pages of a newspaper
(3) Virtue Signaling (VS) – performing some act that demonstrates your virtuous madness to other “progressives”, e.g., saying your four year old son wants to be a girl and therefore should be allowed to peepee in the girls bathroom of his elementary school. Extra CVD points for telling someone who asks whether he’ll pee sitting or standing, “That’s not the least bit funny.”
(4) Conspicuous Virtue Signaling (CVD) -- Virtue Signaling done in a particularly egregious manner or in support of something so utterly insane that even some “progressives” blanch, e.g., The recent situation where a convicted sex offender starts a movement to make all public toilet facilities in North Carolina open to all combinations of men/women/boys/girls without exception. Extra points for demanding that a respect for children’s autonomy requires an additional law preventing parents from accompanying children into such public toilet facilities.
(5) Displays of Power (DoP) – DoPs occur when SJWs use whatever resources they have to crush and humiliate normal people (and hopefully cause them physical, economic and psychological harm), e.g., a homosexual pair engaging in a travesty of the wedding ceremony and successfully putting a bakery out of business by suing when the owners refuse, from religious scruples, to make their “wedding” cake.
(6) Conspicuous Displays of Power – CDoPs are DoPs at the community, state, or national level. CDoPS typically involve passing laws that outrage most of a community or restrict the rights of most members of a community for the latest SJW fad, e.g., almost any “progressive” legislative agenda and most policies of the BO administration.Replies: @Eustace Tilley (not), @dc.sunsets
All examples are subsumed under the heading, “Two Minutes Hate.”
George Orwell, the prophet of our times.
Right. Americanism has just come to mean globalist consumerism. So, people around the world become 'American' even before they become American.
In the city elementary school I went to, there as a Filo kid who came recently. He already spoke English though with accent, and he grew up watching Hollywood movies, American TV, and reading American superhero comics in Filo-land.
So, he could fit in right away.
There was a time when it wasn't so easy to assimilate. Americanism meant Anglo-Americanism. It meant history. Anglo-American narrative was sort of Jewish-like. The conquest and struggle to create a new Jerusalem in the New Land. It had specificity. To become American meant you had to know and appreciate that story through books in schools and movies such as Westerns.
But Americanism went from Jewish-like-ness to Christian-like-ness.
To be Christian, you don't have to know any history or anything. Just beliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiieeeeeve in the Lawd and pray to Jesus. That's all you need. If you go to a Christian pastor and say you know NOTHING but you love Jesus, he will praise you.
But if you're Jewish and tell a rabbi that you know nothing of Jewish history and heritage, he will tell you to get lost.
Americanism once had a specificity in history. You had to know and appreciate the great Anglo-American narrative. The story of the Great White Man.
But with immigrant-centrism, Americanism is not about what-once-was but about what-will-be. After all, it is a 'nation of immigrants'. So, original Americans must defer to newcomers, not the other way around.
If there is American past history that must be known by all, it is the slave and racial discrimination history. That way, all the non-white immigrants will be led to see Old White America as evil and wicked, an America that had banned their own kind from coming. Old White America was bad to blacks and banned non-whites.
So, new good America must be all about redeeming the Old Bad America that denied blacks rights and denied non-whites to arrive in huge numbers and take over.
Another history all Americans must know is the Holocaust. Why? Didn't it happen over there in Europe? yeah... but for some reason, all of humanity must apologize for that one.
And if white Americans want to feel some kind of tribalist patriotism, they must do it for Israel. Why? I dunno. Gee, I wonder why.
And for the spiritual faith of America? jesus died so that 'gays' could get 'married' and men in dress can go wee wee and poo poo in women's washroom.
So, it's easier to assimilate to Americanism than to Europeanism.
but that can't be the whole story. Why? EU is now just an extension of Americanism. Europeans no longer listen to classical music. They don't even read much. And they don't even make great art films like they used to. Watch today's French movies, and so many French just seem like Americans who speak French. See older French films, and French are distinctly French in everything. No longer.
And UK is just the 51st state of the US.
Europeans have no identity, no pride, no sense of religious heritage(churches are empty), no nothing. Their faith is homo-worship. Search for French pop 2015 and it's just same MTV rap crap. EU sports are filled with blacks just like in the US. Interracism is official faith.
And if anything, Europeans without guns and holocaust guilt(more debilitating than even American 'racist' guilt) are more wussy and accommodating to newcomers.
So, why all the tensions? It is very easy to become 'German' since your average German or French or Swede today is a deracinated globalized freak.
The problem in the EU is because most of the newcomers are nutty Muslims and black Africans, two most problematic peoples.
In the US, the big newcomers are Mexers who are problematic but mostly docile(unless near areas with drug trade) and yellows and hindus.Replies: @Cwhatfuture, @Corvinus
Perceptive. Excellent.
1) There’s a subjective element here in terms of what an individual thinks are the worst crimes – in my case it’s sexual violence against children/teens.
2) A lot of organized crime now revolves around supplying prostitutes for the huge numbers of legal and illegal unskilled young males imported by the corporate oligarchy for cheap labor – this process includes ***vast*** amounts of (1). This is being hidden because the truth would demolish the cheap labor lobby.
3) As (2) is being mostly hidden the groups dominating it are being mostly hidden also.
4) Those groups best suited to organized crime dominate it.
5) The groups best suited to organized crime (once they are transplanted to the West) come from very violent clan based raiding cultures -> lots of genes for violence, very tight-knit “no snitching” extended families, limited ability for most to rise above unskilled labor in any way other than crime etc.
Now maybe there’s an urban element who are different but if so they will have exactly the same attitude towards the clan raider types and almost certainly have their own disparaging name for them.
How come Slavic communities of economic immigrants in Western countries aren’t breeding grounds for terrorism then? Arab/Muslim terrorism in the West and low SES (and lack of education) are only weakly correlated. If you want to inquire into it on your own, henryjacksonsociety.org is a good place to start. This discredited idea is precisely where the loud media accusations of Islamophobia arose. As in various other contexts, when the theory that poverty is to blame for a group’s woes and bad doings is empirically disproved, blame often shifts to the less measurable accusations of systemic racism, or this case, Islamophobia.
What are the logistics of this? What do they eat? I do get they're the African middle class but where do they get the money from? Eating and clothing for 4 months doesn't come cheap, let alone in the middle of the Amazon, subject to preying by local gangs.Replies: @Jack D, @anon
I don’t know about this case but there are NGOs helping people get to Greece and they get mobile phones from the UN.
Which is not as strange as it sounds when you consider the UN’s unofficial policy of replacement.
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/migration/migration.htm
https://pando.com/2014/03/28/the-war-nerd-who-exactly-are-the-jihadis-and-why-arent-there-more-of-them/Replies: @Anonymous, @anon
I think there are two main aspects.
The first is high info people who get radicalized by text, ideas and watching the news – these have been the main kind so far and as you say are often the most educated.
The second kind are low info people who first get involved in crime and eventually get radicalized, often in prison.
I’d suggest Europe is at or near the tipping point where the second kind is about to become overwhelmingly dominant.
(I don’t think economic status is the main factor. I think low economic status in combination with being a religious and racial minority is the trigger. In Morocco the rich look like them. In France they don’t.)
Capitalism under a nationalist regime is just fine. The response to rising labor prices is ... more capital to replace labor. This is what the US auto companies have done continuously. The US has a fraction of the autoworkers it had when i was a kid, though its producing record volume of vehicles--50 or 60% higher than when i was a tyke. This capital for labor--plus just figuring out how to do stuff better--is why we live so well with such material comfort.
It's anti-nationalist, cheap labor shilling--undermining this basic capital-for-labor substitution paradigm of capitalism--that is at fault here.
But also, Europe's late 60s, early 70s golden age is now at least 40, approaching 50 years in the past. The immigrant numbers taken in back then, however bad are not the primary issue.
No doubt it varies by European nation, but the real killer was then the leftists and the cosmopolitan nation-wreckers decided that immigration must continue, and that opposition to it was "racist". They've continued to take in immigrants well after the European post-war heyday of "labor shortage", into times of European high-unemployment, with the immigrants entitled not to jobs but to welfare. These insanely high immigration levels of recent decades serve no capitalist purpose whatsoever (just adding to the tax burden), but serving a political purpose of increasing state power, and sticking it to the natives (white men).Replies: @Jack D, @Corvinus
“Capitalism under a nationalist regime is just fine.”
You are not describing capitalism here in this context. There is an implication that a capitalist ought to first and foremost honor their nation; that is, their financial actions must focus on citizens rather than outsiders. Except capitalists do not operate in that fashion. They emphasize maximizing profits and minimizing costs. Companies feel the pinch with regulatory burdens. Blame unions and American citizens for those unnecessary barriers. /sarcasm As a result, corporations have the liberty to move their operations from their host country.
“This is what the US auto companies have done continuously. The US has a fraction of the autoworkers it had when i was a kid, though its producing record volume of vehicles–50 or 60% higher than when i was a tyke. This capital for labor–plus just figuring out how to do stuff better–is why we live so well with such material comfort.”
Yes, automation has enabled manufacturers to make more stuff. What is the COST to native workers? Should not capitalists who are nationalist focus more on the human side of the equation rather than the technological aspect?
“It’s anti-nationalist, cheap labor shilling–undermining this basic capital-for-labor substitution paradigm of capitalism–that is at fault here.”
Companies want to keep costs down and profits up. Nationalism may play a role in their decision to contribute in some way to their host country, but CEO’s tend to focus on the bottom line. If they can get cheap labor from other places, or locate their factors to where there is cheap labor, they will exercise their liberty to engage in such practices. From your perspective, are their actions “anti-nationalist”? If yes, how would you propose to “control” those actions?
One could argue remove the regulatory burdens placed upon those companies, and they will be more likely to remain at home. But for every incentive, there is a cost. Companies proved during the “robber baron” age that, with limited or no oversight, they focused on profits, not people. Remember, Rockefeller and Carnegie helped to build the country using cheap foreign labor. They employed their liberty to hire and fire workers.
“No doubt it varies by European nation, but the real killer was then the leftists and the cosmopolitan nation-wreckers decided that immigration must continue, and that opposition to it was “racist”.”
The 1965 Immigration Act had broad support by the left and the right at that time.
“These insanely high immigration levels of recent decades serve no capitalist purpose whatsoever (just adding to the tax burden), but serving a political purpose of increasing state power, and sticking it to the natives (white men).”
Corrected for accuracy —> Companies who seek immigrants as a cheap alternative serves their goal of generating additional capital for their operations, for their employees, and for their stockholders. There is also a political purpose involved, one that has been found throughout American history.
Moreover, “natives” to the United States are not simply “white men”. Those people born in America are natural born citizens and thus “native”, which includes white and non-white.
Right. Americanism has just come to mean globalist consumerism. So, people around the world become 'American' even before they become American.
In the city elementary school I went to, there as a Filo kid who came recently. He already spoke English though with accent, and he grew up watching Hollywood movies, American TV, and reading American superhero comics in Filo-land.
So, he could fit in right away.
There was a time when it wasn't so easy to assimilate. Americanism meant Anglo-Americanism. It meant history. Anglo-American narrative was sort of Jewish-like. The conquest and struggle to create a new Jerusalem in the New Land. It had specificity. To become American meant you had to know and appreciate that story through books in schools and movies such as Westerns.
But Americanism went from Jewish-like-ness to Christian-like-ness.
To be Christian, you don't have to know any history or anything. Just beliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiieeeeeve in the Lawd and pray to Jesus. That's all you need. If you go to a Christian pastor and say you know NOTHING but you love Jesus, he will praise you.
But if you're Jewish and tell a rabbi that you know nothing of Jewish history and heritage, he will tell you to get lost.
Americanism once had a specificity in history. You had to know and appreciate the great Anglo-American narrative. The story of the Great White Man.
But with immigrant-centrism, Americanism is not about what-once-was but about what-will-be. After all, it is a 'nation of immigrants'. So, original Americans must defer to newcomers, not the other way around.
If there is American past history that must be known by all, it is the slave and racial discrimination history. That way, all the non-white immigrants will be led to see Old White America as evil and wicked, an America that had banned their own kind from coming. Old White America was bad to blacks and banned non-whites.
So, new good America must be all about redeeming the Old Bad America that denied blacks rights and denied non-whites to arrive in huge numbers and take over.
Another history all Americans must know is the Holocaust. Why? Didn't it happen over there in Europe? yeah... but for some reason, all of humanity must apologize for that one.
And if white Americans want to feel some kind of tribalist patriotism, they must do it for Israel. Why? I dunno. Gee, I wonder why.
And for the spiritual faith of America? jesus died so that 'gays' could get 'married' and men in dress can go wee wee and poo poo in women's washroom.
So, it's easier to assimilate to Americanism than to Europeanism.
but that can't be the whole story. Why? EU is now just an extension of Americanism. Europeans no longer listen to classical music. They don't even read much. And they don't even make great art films like they used to. Watch today's French movies, and so many French just seem like Americans who speak French. See older French films, and French are distinctly French in everything. No longer.
And UK is just the 51st state of the US.
Europeans have no identity, no pride, no sense of religious heritage(churches are empty), no nothing. Their faith is homo-worship. Search for French pop 2015 and it's just same MTV rap crap. EU sports are filled with blacks just like in the US. Interracism is official faith.
And if anything, Europeans without guns and holocaust guilt(more debilitating than even American 'racist' guilt) are more wussy and accommodating to newcomers.
So, why all the tensions? It is very easy to become 'German' since your average German or French or Swede today is a deracinated globalized freak.
The problem in the EU is because most of the newcomers are nutty Muslims and black Africans, two most problematic peoples.
In the US, the big newcomers are Mexers who are problematic but mostly docile(unless near areas with drug trade) and yellows and hindus.Replies: @Cwhatfuture, @Corvinus
Right. Americanism has just come to mean globalist consumerism.”
Who says this? How did they arrive at this conclusion? See, if you are going to make this statement, there must be context involved. Americanism refers to the qualities regarded as definitive of America or Americans. Certainly, being a consumer of products from around the world is ONE aspect, but there are also other traits. You are offering a generalization, which is fine, but there lacks the requisite background information.
“So, people around the world become ‘American’ even before they become American.” Not entirely accurate. A person becomes an American through citizenship, which is the political part. The social part of an American? Your mileage may vary.
“To become American meant you had to know and appreciate that story through books in schools and movies such as Westerns.”
Are you living in the 1950’s?
“But Americanism went from Jewish-like-ness to Christian-like-ness.”
Americanism was never exclusively about one group of people, since the English founded one part, the French founded another part, and the Spanish founded yet another part. From European and Native American and African peoples eventually arose a distinct American group. While white Anglo-Saxon Protestant themes were prevalent early in our history, as more “outsiders” came in, they added to this identity. You act as if white Europeans, collectively, were on board with one another politically and culturally from our inception as a nation, which is patently false.
“To be Christian, you don’t have to know any history or anything. Just beliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiieeeeeve in the Lawd and pray to Jesus. That’s all you need.”
According to who? How do you know Christians as a group neglect to understand their history?
“If you go to a Christian pastor and say you know NOTHING but you love Jesus, he will praise you.”
You take a generalization and make it to be entirely true, then based your argument on that generalization. That’s not how it works in discourse.
Christian pastors will also preach that in order to love Jesus, you must know Scripture and be able to apply it. They are not going to give what amounts to a “free pass”.
“But if you’re Jewish and tell a rabbi that you know nothing of Jewish history and heritage, he will tell you to get lost.”
So, in EVERY circumstance? In ALL cases? See, that is why your argument falls woefully short when you rely on such statements.
“Americanism once had a specificity in history. You had to know and appreciate the great Anglo-American narrative. The story of the Great White Man.”
“That way, all the non-white immigrants will be led to see Old White America as evil and wicked, an America that had banned their own kind from coming. Old White America was bad to blacks and banned non-whites.”
What you are referring to is part of the narrative, not the entire story.
“EU is now just an extension of Americanism. Europeans no longer listen to classical music. They don’t even read much. And they don’t even make great art films like they used to. Watch today’s French movies, and so many French just seem like Americans who speak French. See older French films, and French are distinctly French in everything. No longer.”
Opinions are not evidence.
“And UK is just the 51st state of the US.”
In what specific ways?
“Europeans have no identity, no pride, no sense of religious heritage(churches are empty), no nothing.”
None, huh. Absolutely zilch. So how are you able to draw upon these conclusions?
I need a nuanced car.
So now we are going to replace the “racist” term “vibrant” (of progressive origin) with “nuanced” ? Tell me true , will it make it any less deadly for a white man to live in a “nuanced” neighborhood than a “vibrant” one ?
Oh for the days when my uncle , the principal of the local HS told me a racist joke . Now the local HS is the racist joke .
“You might not ever be able to become a German, but anyone can become an American if they want to.”
No they can’t.
Truck drivers, stevedores, burial details, cooks, and one tank battalion and one fighter group as showpieces. One entire Black infantry division was broken up for guard details, as they were not combat ready and didn’t look to ever becoming so. Their absence would not have lengthened the war by a month, and might have shortened it by allowing White men to get on with the work.
However, they did excel at getting venereal diseases.
I served with Blacks, decades ago. For the most part they were worse than useless.
The infantry division must have been highly selected like the one black fighter group, which had an excellent record. That suggests that the black infantry would have also done well because of selection and motivation to show that they could do it.
That they were not sent to fight is likely an example of white racism in the high command.Replies: @Discard
However, they did excel at getting venereal diseases.
I served with Blacks, decades ago. For the most part they were worse than useless.Replies: @Anonymous
“One entire Black infantry division was broken up for guard details, as they were not combat ready and didn’t look to ever becoming so.”
The infantry division must have been highly selected like the one black fighter group, which had an excellent record. That suggests that the black infantry would have also done well because of selection and motivation to show that they could do it.
That they were not sent to fight is likely an example of white racism in the high command.
Marine divisions were highly selected. Army Airborne divisions were highly selected. Black infantry divisions were selected for Blackness, a very low bar.
Not that I object to White racism in the high command, but an all-Black Army division is a disastrous defeat waiting to happen. Had I been an anti-racist general during WW2, I would have wanted them broken up for guard details in order to avoid embarrassing their race. Blacks work best under close supervision, not operating independently as an independent unit.Replies: @Anonymous
Of course physical appearance isn't the whole story; as another recent article noted, the Congolese in Brussels are much more integrated than the Turks or Moroccans even though they look nothing whatsoever like Europeans.Replies: @Romanian, @Jefferson
“Due to Islam we may think of Turks as brown-skinned Middle Easterners, but in fact many of them are physically indistinguishable from Europeans.”
You forgot to add Southern to Europeans when talking about physically indistinguishable. I have never mistaken a Turk for a Scandinavian for example.
Greek Goddess Andrea Tantaros can easily pass for a Turk, but the WASPiest bitch on the planet Hillary Hildabeast Clinton would never be mistaken for a Turk. Her phenotype is just too Northern.
“Were there any African (Americans) involved with winning WWII?”
Ask George Lucas.
The infantry division must have been highly selected like the one black fighter group, which had an excellent record. That suggests that the black infantry would have also done well because of selection and motivation to show that they could do it.
That they were not sent to fight is likely an example of white racism in the high command.Replies: @Discard
The Black fighter group had a decent record, but nothing special. The all-White 4th and 56th fighter groups had excellent records. They each shot down over 1000 German aircraft.
Marine divisions were highly selected. Army Airborne divisions were highly selected. Black infantry divisions were selected for Blackness, a very low bar.
Not that I object to White racism in the high command, but an all-Black Army division is a disastrous defeat waiting to happen. Had I been an anti-racist general during WW2, I would have wanted them broken up for guard details in order to avoid embarrassing their race. Blacks work best under close supervision, not operating independently as an independent unit.
"However, the 56th had been late arriving in its patrol area and had encountered the German fighters after they had already attacked RAF Stirlings of 38 Group, shooting down 15."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/56th_Operations_Group
Marine divisions were highly selected. Army Airborne divisions were highly selected. Black infantry divisions were selected for Blackness, a very low bar.
Not that I object to White racism in the high command, but an all-Black Army division is a disastrous defeat waiting to happen. Had I been an anti-racist general during WW2, I would have wanted them broken up for guard details in order to avoid embarrassing their race. Blacks work best under close supervision, not operating independently as an independent unit.Replies: @Anonymous
The black fighter group did an excellent job in its mission of protecting bombers. Only a few were lost. The 56th by that measure were screw ups. For example in a major failure they responded late and that meant 15 British bombers in the 56th’s area of responsibility went down in flames.
“However, the 56th had been late arriving in its patrol area and had encountered the German fighters after they had already attacked RAF Stirlings of 38 Group, shooting down 15.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/56th_Operations_Group
I read the link. The 56th fighter group was late to its patrol area because they were fighting Germans, and shot down 15 FW190s. Not screw-ups. After all, they were the second highest scoring fighter group in the USAAF.
The Tuskegee Airmen, like the 442nd RCT, have a greatly inflated reputation, for political reasons.