Historical experience offers little guide to the social and political consequences of the much greater numbers and more pronounced cultural differences at stake in the postwar migrations to Europe, especially from the Muslim world. The incompatibilities are much greater.
The nub of the problem is that contemporary European civilization is secular, whereas Muslim civilization is religious. In Europe, religion has lost its authority over law, legislation, education, morals, and business life. The Islamic world has undergone no comparable process. There is no systematic separation of faith and state; the family, not the individual, remains the basic social unit. The essential elements of modern European political life – individual rights and duties, and the accountability of government to the governed – are lacking, particularly in the Arab Middle East.
Hints:
1. It’s not Steve Sailer
2. He is known mostly for his contribution to economic biography.
3. His macroeconomic views are not at all conservative.
I didn’t even try to guess, but it’s a great, short article.
failed integration, not terrorism, is the main danger we face.
Actually, tho, it’s both. Assuming only 1/10 of 1% of Muslim migrants are terrorists or active supporters of terrorists, in 100,000 migrants that’s still 100.
Assuming that 10 terrorists murder 50 natives, how many migrants have to be accepted to make that acceptable? In fact, for most natives, it will never be acceptable. Those who argue for accepting tiny % of terrorists plus real migrants, are essentially in denial about migrant terrorists.
It’s a danger to think of it as a religious problem. By the second or third generation many Muslim immigrants have substantially given up their religion in any serious way. Yet these not too observant Muslims are actually more likely to be radical then first generation religious Muslims.
They are also more likely to be engaged in a kind of minority western underclass culture merged with their existing culture. Even when they don’t become terrorist, they engage in petty crime, sexual harassment, lord over sharia court enclaves in ethnic neighborhoods the police dare not go, riot, and generally live of the welfare state. They are also reliable leftist vote block clients, engaged in a purely spoils system political relationship with a left that lost the consent of its core citizens long ago and relies on votes of people who don’t even share its values but want its welfare handouts. Every once in awhile one of them finds this dissatisfying, sees an ISIS recruitment video, and decides to shoot up the place after adopting a shallow level of Islam (though in fairness, their violent interpretation is close to whats actually in the Koran, even if their understanding is shallow).
However, I think we can agree that even if they don’t become a terrorist, everything I listed above makes them a net liability to society. And this primarily isn’t a religious/idealogical/cultural problem. The problem is in the genes. Regressive Islam is a solution for holding together violent, clannish, low IQ societies. Western values would never work for them, they don’t have the genes to make it work. Holding out hope that some kind of cultural outreach or sheer time will be enough to assimilate them is a mistake, since the problem began at birth and can’t be fixed. You simply need to keep them out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSPvnFDDQHk
One of the hardest things for moderns to accept is that we aren’t what we choose to be, but are mostly born a certain way. We can do our best to become the best of what we are, but we can’t change what we are. And in some cases people are born with such different natures that no reconciliation can be afforded.
I have two guesses, I can’t remember their names. One is the guy who writes on Keynes. Two is the guy who wrote the big book. Now all I can think about us how to find these names.
(I just checked the link, your hint were too good.)
Btw, just stop blowing people up. Does anyone even understand why you’d attack France? Do the terrorists? I guess it is the closest thing to evidence they hate secularism.
I got it based on hint #2 with a helping of #3.
I thought it was one of those “look at what this guy said a long time ago,” so my first thought was Keynes and Heilbrenner for some reason. From there the hints made it easy.
It appears the writer is more bothered by the diminished role of religion in Europe and believes Middle East Muslim can not make the transition to the post-religious Europe.
To the discerning reader, that is not a conservative opinion. For grins, here is a conservative version. “Radical Muslims seek to capture,the power of totalitarian government. This results from their cultural origin arriving from countries whose governmental rapaciousness was not tempered by religious traditions that emphasize individual rights.”