The present crisis started when refugees began fleeing Tunisia by boat in the wake of January’s revolution. Italy was a natural destination: its island of Lampedusa lies south of Tunis and just 70 miles off the African coast. These refugees were joined by others from Libya, and by late May almost 40,000 had arrived. (NY Times - Immigration in the EU)EU nations are talking of reestablishing border controls because they don't know what to do about their immigrant problem. I guess, "stop letting them in," is too unsophisticated for the European mind.
The issue has been simmering for years, but unrest in the Middle East and North Africa and fears of a new wave of migrants have brought it to a boil. Of course, closing off Europe to newcomers violates the cosmopolitan vision on which the European Union was built... (NY Times - Immigration in the EU)
A liberal democracy will not survive being swamped by people bringing ancient hatreds and intolerant ideologies with them. Especially when these immigrants are well-versed in agitprop jujitsu, using a state's liberties against itself to stifle free speech and criticism and to enshrine special status for themselves and their abhorrent cultural practices.
All of this is eerily reminiscent of a gripping novel French author Jean Raspail wrote back in the early 1970's. Entitled Camp of the Saints, it remains controversial to this day. He describes a sagging third-world flotilla bringing millions of benighted poor to the shores of Europe, and the liberal powers that talked a good game about the brotherhood of man don't know what to do. They cannot appear as hypocrites, so they dither and talk, acquiescing by inaction to the invasion.
Raspail has been branded a hateful racist by the Southern Poverty Law Center, and was unsuccessfully sued in Europe for writing an anti-immigrant article in Le Figaro. It is unfortunate that the multiculturalists have succeeded in equating defending your culture with racism. Like most progressive ideas, the very notion of multiculturalism goes against human nature. For better or worse, we are tribal:
That scorn of a people for other races, the knowledge that one’s own is best, the triumphant joy at feeling oneself to be part of humanity’s finest—none of that had ever filled these youngsters’ addled brains, or at least so little that the monstrous cancer implanted in the Western conscience had quashed it in no time at all. (Raspail - Camp of the Saints)Loving your culture and wanting to preserve it against newcomers who would turn it all upside down is not hateful
Especially the way Raspail expresses it. Yes, he employs dark-skinned people as the protagonists, but his pointed and sustained scorn is aimed at squishy western elites, not immigrants. Indeed, he understands why they are sailing to Europe and he is sympathetic.
The novel is dark. While employing unflattering terms for the immigrants and the elites who pretend to care for them, the author displays a marked Christian sympathy for the poor of the world. It is a complex novel, but his simple message seems to be that we can and should help them, but not by inviting them all here.
Jean Raspail speaks of eternal realities...
Man never has really loved humanity all of a piece—all its races, its peoples, its religions—but only those creatures he feels are his kin, a part of his clan, no matter how vast. As far as the rest are concerned, he forces himself, and lets the world force him. And then, when he does, when the damage is done, he himself falls apart. (Raspail - Camp of the Saints)Western Christendom is falling apart. We are ashamed of our culture and our elites caution us to tone down the flag waving and displays of cultural pride. Meanwhile, those who immigrate but refuse to assimilate despise us for our weakness.
Related: Western Hero - Angry Islam Incompatible with European Liberalism
NY Times - Immigration in the EU
Islam vs Europe
24 comments:
Nice, piece Silver. Unfortunately those who lead within our western life are nothing but namby pamby, touchy, feely, bleeding hearts who have not a clue of the destructive nature of their multi-culturalism.
" . . . the very notion of multiculturalism goes against human nature." Is human nature always inclined towards the good?
I saw a logical fallacy in your thinking. At one point, you think it is noble for a people to maintain their cultural identity and resist change, and then in the next moment you deride immigrants for not assimilating. Is it good to maintain your culture and resist change or not?
Requiring immigrants to assimilate seems to be fairly antithetical to the idea of liberty. Now, while I agree that it would be a good thing for an immigrant to at least learn the language of the country he or she has moved to, so long as the person follows the law and doesn't try to cause discomfort to anyone else, then they should be allowed to maintain whatever cutlural identity they wish.
I don't believe that it's hateful or racist to wish to maintain your cultural identity and values, but it seems pretty close minded to not even consider the merits of another culture. It's okay to reject another culture once you've given it a thorough going-over, but anything before that point smacks of fear of the unknown.
John Kenneth Press's book Culturism takes the same position: that a culture has a right to defend itself against invading cultures.
One cannot bring in those "barbaric" to the dominating culture of a country and expect that country to hold together.
Multiculturalism = cultural suicide.
Jack: It depends on who's territory you're standing on.
We should not be inviting people here who refuse to assimilate, and instead demand that we natives all change to accommodate them. That is madness.
By the same token, we should not be crashing around overseas trying to build nations and remake whole societies.
People sitting in their lands, be they North Americans or Asian Pashtuns, are within their rights to protect their culture from outsiders demanding they change.
Also, there is nothing wrong with believing in the superiority of ones culture. We've built up a pretty good life for ourselves here, and I find it laughable when someone from a third world hole gains a visa and citizenship and uses his new position to denounce us.
It his culture is so superior, why doesn't he go back to the medieval torture chamber that spawned him?
AOW: Thank you for the book suggestion. I googled the book and it looks like an interesting non-fiction work that reinforces what Raspail is saying in his fiction novel.
What I find quite interesting is how Raspail wrote this almost 40 years ago but the characters are right out of today:
The venal politicians spouting multicultural platitudes while secretly hoping the immigrants die in transit, the media that makes money playing both sides, the media-cultural elite-government cabal that conspires to propagandize the citizenry into "correct thinking" by wielding the whip of racism accusations, the immigrant activists who use these wishy-washy politicians as a lever to tip over the society they hate...
"the media that makes money playing both sides"
I'm predominantly aware of the media inciting fear and mistrust of migrants. How do they play to the other side?
I speak specifically of all news now treated as a cliffhanger to keep us tuned in.
Also included are outrageous people of all striped given a national soapbox because it sells advertising.
Our media is not about informing. It's about propagandizing us and entertaining us.
If culture were never subject to change, then we'd still have slaves.
I think you might be mistaking multiculturalism for the whole "melting pot," theory. Multiculturalism basically says what you're saying, that it is right to preserve one's culture. You're right to say that immigrants who demand we change are wrong to do so, especially since they are offended when we demand that they change.
For reasons of practicality and respect, they should adapt their behaviors to those that are conducive to positive public discourse. But being polite to one's culture does not necessitate a change in culture.
Jack, terminology aside (I indeed may not be using the correct terms), I think we are in agreement...
@Jack: You're right to say that immigrants who demand we change are wrong to do so, especially since they are offended when we demand that they change.
If you hate a place, why go live there? If a place conflicts with your basic values, why move there?
An immigrant has the right, I suppose, to try to change the culture of his newly-adopted home, but the natives have the right to resist that change.
It is inconsistent to call the immigrant's efforts legitimate, but the native's racism.
Silverfiddle,
I bought the book when it was first released. Worth the money.
I think you might be right Silver, that we're more in agreement than I originally thought. And you're definitely right that the native persons of a culture should not be called "racists," or "nativists."
As for the immigrants, not all of them leave their homeland under the freedom of choice, if freedom of choice is defined as a decision made uncoerced and when not under duress. The Libyans are fleeing the country for their lives, and we can hardly fault them for that.
It's also no worse if someone comes here for a better life. Most of us are descended from immigrants who came here looking for the "streets paved with gold." We owe our very lives to them.
But I maintain that it is folly to reject a culture entirely without first examining it. We should also widthold value judgments on cultures that do not necessarily go against the universal values of human rights.
All cultures are flawed, and those cultures that seem to reject human rights are just that: flawed. It doesn't make our culture "better," just more evolved. Plus, some cultures that don't seem to care about human rights only give us that impression because of those who wish to infringe on those basic necessities. We can't say that Chinese culture doesn't care about human rights simply because the government rejects the idea. The people are living under the thumb of opression, and opressed peoples are often not allowed to express the finer nature of their culture.
Oh, Jesus Christ, give it a rest. "Western Christendom" isn't going anywhere. The only thing threatening Western Christendom is the ususal list of sins we perpetrate on one another. Besides, the percentage of Muslims in the Western World is still very small, and they are not powerful or wealthy. So, really. Give it a #..... rest.
JMJ
And what a horrible man Enoch Powell was … for daring to stand up in Parliament and tell the truth which no one wanted to hear. But he was right, after all, and now Britain has too many smelly fish and no one possesses the courage to do what is right and proper to maintain British culture. Europe follows suit; America is not far behind. And why is that? Because Americans no longer adore our founding principles: Come here, one and all ... but, become Americans with us, or be gone!”
JMJ ... you are profane man.
The fall of Rome all over again. The barbarians are at the gates,
A return to unabashed nativism -- the natural state of all the various human tribes -- is the only hope of preserving our unique Anglo-European culture.
After all both Japan and Israel are avowedly racist states. Both are tolerated on the world's stage, and the latter is extolled for its insistence on being "The Jewish State."
This should not mean that all the various ethnic, racial and religious elements have to hate and be at war with one another -- far from it.
It used to be said that "travel broadens." I think that meant when exposed to various societies with radically different customs, mores, architecture, art, music, etc. we tend to grow in appreciation of the great richness and variety of ways that life is lived all over the world. The preservation of that very variety could be achieved only by encouraging native populations from all corners of the globe to stay put.
It's great to be cordial to visitors and to learn there are more viable ways to get through life than those we learned at our mothers' knees, but it is not all right to be expected to commit ethnic and cultural suicide in a vain attempt to spare the feelings of others and to accommodate distinctly alien values and cultural norms.
I might be able to move to France and learn to speak the language perfectly, but that would never make me a true Frenchman, just as I could never go to live in China and expect to become a Chinese.
We are all human, but there are vast differences among us. That's what makes the world such a fascinating -- and perplexing -- place.
The truest "Celebration of Diversity" would be achieved only by firmly remaining -- well -- diverse.
Would anyone seriously want humanity transformed into one medium brown people with slanted blue eyes, woolly blond hair, hooked noses, prominent lips and flaring nostrils where all knowledge of human history was obliterated, where religion was forbidden, except for universal worship of an Almighty and Ever Living Central Power, and no language was allowed to spoken other than Esperanto?
Please! Don't be ridiculous.
~ FreeThinke
the barbarians are inside the Gates and elected officials!!!! happy Wednesday~!:)
I think we have to remember that assimilation is often a two way street. Yes, people came here, and they assimilated. They learned English, and went to work. At the same time, those immigrants implanted parts of their culture and traditions into ours, even if in a modified form. Every thing from Christmas trees, to different ethnic foods (that we may no longer see as ethnic) all have made America at least more interesting, if not better.
The real threat is to the more foundational aspects of our culture: The ideas of self reliance, and that our rights come from God, and not the state. That concept of individual freedom, private property ownership, and even self ownership are under attack. When immigrants come here and embrace those aspects of our culture, they rise quickly. When they come here with the intent of changing those core ideas, they are destructive.
Well said Matt
When immigrants come here and embrace those aspects of our culture, they rise quickly. When they come here with the intent of changing those core ideas, they are destructive.
You've described perfectly the difference between immigrants and invaders, Matt.
Most Americans don't seem to realize it, but we are effectively being COLONIZED without a shot being fired.
The immigration act of 1965 was deliberately designed by crypto-Marxists and liberal Democrats to shift the balance to non-white immigration in order to upset and eventually do away with the America of our forefathers. Whether the motivation was to achieve "justice" or simply a power grab doesn't really matter, because results are all that count.
Maybe we deserve it, because that is how our ancestors founded this country -- they moved in on the Indians and then took over their lands. Invasion and subjugation of one kind or another -- and the long series of chain reactions these produce -- seems to be the history of humanity. But ethnic religious and cultural suicide in the name names of fairness and equality are unnatural, and I suspect the motive for perpetrating this mess have been nefarious. MARXISTS are DESTRUCTIONISTS.
~ FreeThinke
"I guess, "stop letting them in," is too unsophisticated for the European mind."
And ya' know Silver? The problem is that the European mind is more sophsiticated - and more moral.
That's why they're stuck with this. Decent people don't let people suffer when they can do something about it.
This is why libertarianism is such a selfish, adolescent ideology. You're a conservative, not a libertarian. Conservatives are charitable people. They are perfectly consistent when they acknowedge what's happening with the refugees is problematic, as opposed to illegal immigration for money and opportunity.
Don't blame Europe for being a moral, Christian society.
JMJ
Europe? Christian?
Jersey, while you're bashing libertarianism why don't you give this some thought: Charity at the point of a gun is robbery.
I'm a Libertarian and you can go **** yourself.
It'll be quite a show, watching euro liberal trash learning the hard way about their glorious multi-culti. It'll be even more fun watching their counterparts weaseling and squirming around the truth, most unwilling to accept what's staring them in the face.
Finntann, I just clicked the invisible "Like" button on your comment.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.