January 12, 2016

Immigration w/o Assimilation

... equals invasion.

The New Year has once again, I believe, reaffirmed the point that in today's world, many young men from the Middle East are plenty happy to spread across the world, with little interest in local assimilation.

Add in the wobbly-kneed whites in the western world offering a beckoning finger where we can run a new chapter on the "Stockholm Syndrome" and add this to the script we saw play out in Cologne (and a few other N.European cities), right down to the corrupt police, mendacious media and craven politicians who, in John Hiderocker's words:

[the] political class doesn’t really care what happens to citizens. It’s all about their power. In Europe, that power is threatened by “far right” parties that speak for the people on the issue of immigration.

I first heard about this sort of rape jihad going on in Gothenburg, back in 2005. It's a power struggle, and the good guys are misinformed, slandered, and even actively silenced.

I am fine in principle with large #'s of immigrants, even from the ME. I am not fine with it at this time, with the triple threat presented in Rotherham, Stockholm and Cologne, that is in full play in the good old US of A, in the White House and in the Democratic primary race. Dorothy Rabinowitz highlights the case in Philly:

To hear the mayor of Philadelphia was to grasp, more clearly than ever, the fury that has led to Donald Trump’s success in attracting voters—the fury of citizens who know official lies when they hear them, whether about border security, immigration, or the ever-expanding requirements of multiculturalist dogma.

So, while local officials are either encouraging them, overwhelmed by them, or turning a blind eye to them their leaders gilt their rose-colored glasses and collect accolades from media (Merkel was Time's Person of the Year), academia and L/W think tanks, what are these "asylum" seekers doing? Well, some 10-20,000 were told by a prominent Islamic-leaning statesman that assimilation is a crime against humanity

McCarthy adds more, calling them Unassimilable, reminding us that no-go zones are active all across Europe.

From a report on Rotherham, we saw an echo in San Bernadino, where neighbors didn't report the suspicious activity of the soon-to-be mass killers, so as to avoid profiling (of themselves!):

the fear of appearing racist was more pressing in official minds than enforcing the law of the land or rescuing terrified children. It is one of the great scandals of our lifetime.

Open borders some day, but not today.... the nation state needs to be en vogue.

Dem2016 Primary Immigration Posted by nanobrewer at January 12, 2016 11:15 PM

Were we in Europe, I'd perhaps say "Hear, Hear!" (or "Ja,Ja" or something).

Your nation-state argument is a core belief of mine. The type of republican, minarchist sovereignty I seek requires Westphalian boundaries and borders.

But my border is to delineate where my government will protect my rights -- not some cage to keep me in and the other guys out. I'll borrow a Boulder word and suggest that it is not sustainable to set up the US as a gated community.

The problem with Europe is that they have lost confidence in the Enlightenment. The Syrian crisis has exacerbated this, but we've discussed it as long as we've had a blog. Thankfully, New York is not Rotterdam. Yet.

Even our extraordinarily pusillanimous feminist community would not react to the New Year's Eve attacks with "they had it coming." And if they had tried it in Red states, they'd have got their asses shot.

With all due respect, the path to keep our Enlightenment values is not to keep certain race/religion/country-of-origins out. We must rather keep the (Lockean) faith in. Europe lost it years ago.

Posted by: jk at January 13, 2016 10:14 AM

Proof: [Mercedes's] AMG Sport was originally meant to bridge the gap between the regular cars and the AMGs. Now the AMG Sport models will simply become Mercedes-AMGs


Posted by: jk at January 13, 2016 4:05 PM

Can anyone explain how the loss of Enlightenment values led to the formation of no-go zones for European police agencies?

One might say that would never happen in the USA. Look what happens when, for example, people exercising their religious traditions take multiple wives. This precedent must surely mean that conspiring mass murders and physical assaults could never be protected by the thin veil of "religious liberty." Or could it?

Or, one might say there should be places that police are prohibited from going. But this breaks down when the clandestine activities cause harm to others, or make preparations to cause harm. That is all I require anyone "assimilate" to: That every person has an inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Even the infidels.

Posted by: johngalt at January 13, 2016 4:16 PM

And yet... http://www.thelocal.at/20160113/boom-in-demand-for-weapons-in-vienna-and-styria

Posted by: Jk at January 13, 2016 9:23 PM

I'd argue that an excess of "Enlightenment Values" [aka, multiculturism etc.] and a lack of Lockean common sense [property precedes government and government cannot "dispose of the estates of the subjects arbitrarily."] is what's causing Europe's problem. JK can jump in, and perhaps he considers the Westphalian sovereignty concept as a centerpiece of the Enlightenment?

Throw in a lack of duty to one's country (and, by extension its citizenry) and an overzealous approach to world citizenship or more generally the "I want to be a UN hot shot in my next guise." If true, this does indeed suggest that Merkel unt allies have lost the concept of the social contract and have ceased ruling in the interests of the electorate.

Certainly the disdain of the political elites as widely documented and blogged upon is showing through here, Enlightened or not, and is thoroughly saturating our shores (well, from Manhattan to the Beltway and on the Left Coast as well). Who was it that said

no matter how much you hold DC in contempt, it's nothing to how much contempt they hold over you!

Posted by: nanobrewer at January 14, 2016 12:30 AM

When you say "social contract" nb, I think "communitarian" which is awfully close in many respects to "collectivism." I currently view right-communitarian to be the domain of the RINO or "big-government conservative."

To me, "Enlightenment values" means the classical liberalism that elevated individual rights to the top of the social pyramid, directly above "duty to one's country" and miles above "the interests of the electorate."

That last bit, "interests of the electorate" - can it be interpreted differently than "majority rule?"

Posted by: johngalt at January 14, 2016 2:14 PM | What do you think? [6]