Header image  
Culture, politics, science, philosophy  
 

 

Thinking matters
 

Culture, politics, science, philosophy.

General manifesto ***** Immigration manifesto
The deep Crisis of the West
Permalinks


Taking France one step closer to civil war

18.07.2016. "We are on the verge of a civil war." That quote did not come from a fanatic or a lunatic. No, it came from head of France's homeland security, the DGSI (Direction générale de la sécurité intérieure), Patrick Calvar. He has, in fact, spoken of the risk of a civil war many times. On July 12th, he warned a commission of members of parliament, in charge of a survey about the terrorist attacks of 2015, about it. Thus writes Yves Mamou in his article France: The Coming Civil War:

In May 2016, he delivered almost the same message to another commission of members of parliament, this time in charge of national defense. "Europe," he said, "is in danger. Extremism is on the rise everywhere, and we are now turning our attention to some far-right movements who are preparing a confrontation".

What kind of confrontation? "Intercommunity confrontations," he said -- polite for "a war against Muslims." "One or two more terrorist attacks," he added, "and we may well see a civil war."

In February 2016, in front of a senate commission in charge of intelligence information, he said again: " We are looking now at far-right extremists who are just waiting for more terrorist attacks to engage in violent confrontation".

No one knows if the truck terrorist, who plowed into the July 14th Bastille Day crowd in Nice and killed more than 80 people, will be the trigger for a French civil war, but it might help to look at what creates the risk of one in France and other countries, such as Germany or Sweden.

The main reason is the failure of the state.

1. France is at War but the Enemy is Never Named.

France is the main target of repeated Islamist attacks; [...]

[...]

After each of these tragic episodes President François Hollande refused to name the enemy, refused to name Islamism -- and especially refused to name French Islamists -- as the enemy of French citizens.

[...]

As Mathieu Bock-Côté, a sociologist in France and Canada, says in Le Figaro:

"Western elites, with a suicidal obstinacy, oppose naming the enemy. Confronted by attacks in Brussels or Paris, they prefer to imagine a philosophical fight between democracy and terrorism, between an open society and fanaticism, between civilization and barbarism".

2. The Civil War Has Already Begun and Nobody Wants to Name It.

The civil war began sixteen years ago, with the second Intifada. When Palestinians executed suicide attacks in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, French Muslims began to terrorize Jews living peacefully in France. For sixteen years, Jews -- in France -- were slaughtered, attacked, tortured and stabbed by French Muslim citizens, supposedly to avenge Palestinian people in the West Bank.

When a group of French citizens who are Muslims declares war on another group of French citizens who are Jews, what do you call it? For the French establishment, it is not a civil war, just a regrettable misunderstanding between two "ethnic" communities.

[...]

3. The French Establishment Considers the Enemy the Poor, the Old and the Disappointed

[...]

In France, the global elites made a choice. They decided that the "bad" voters in France were unreasonable people too stupid, too racist to see the beauties of a society open to people who often do not want to assimilate, who want you to assimilate to them, and who threaten to kill you if you do not.

The global elites made another choice: they took the side against their own old and poor because those people did not want to vote for them any longer. The global elites also chose not to fight Islamism, because Muslims vote globally for the global elite. Muslims in Europe also offer a big "carrot" to the global elite: they vote collectively.

In France, 93% of Muslims voted for the current president, François Hollande, in 2012. In Sweden, the Social Democrats reported that 75% of Swedish Muslims voted for them in the general election of 2006; and studies show that the "red-green" bloc gets 80-90% of the Muslim vote.

4. Is the Civil War Inevitable? Yes!

If the establishment does not want to see that civil war was already declared by extremist Muslims first -- if they do not want to see that the enemy is not the Front National in France, the AfD in Germany, or the Sweden Democrats -- but Islamism in France, in Belgium, in Great Britain, in Sweden -- then a civil war will happen.

France, like Germany and Sweden, has a military and police strong enough to fight against an internal Islamist enemy. But first, they have to name it and take measures against it. If they do not -- if they leave their native citizens in despair, with no other means than to arm themselves and retaliate -- yes, civil war is inevitable.

Read the entire article at Gatestone Institute. Hat tip Document.no.

Yves Mamou, based in France, worked for two decades as a journalist for Le Monde.

 


«On the verge of a civil war»

13.07.2016. France is 'on the verge of a civil war' which could be sparked by a mass sexual assault on women by migrants, intelligence chief warns, according to The Daily Mail:

  • France is on the verge of 'civil war', the country's head of intelligence says.
  • Patrick Calvar said mass sexual assault of women by migrants may start it.
  • Believes situation so tense another terror attack could also spark backlash.
  • More than 1,000 women sexually abused in Germany on New Year's Eve.

Growing tensions between the ‘extreme Right and the Muslim world’ have pushed France to the ‘verge of a civil war’, the country’s most senior security chief has warned.

Patrick Calvar, head of the General Directorate for Internal Security (DGSI) – France’s equivalent of MI5 – made his claim in the wake of last year’s terrorist attacks on Paris.

A total of 147 people were murdered by terrorists in the capital during atrocities in January and November.

Many of those responsible were French passport holders with North African backgrounds, leading to far-Right politicians calling for a massive clampdown on immigration.

But Mr Calvar, 60, warned there is evidence that radical Right-wing French groups have been massing arms in preparation for their own attacks on mosques and synagogues.

‘I think we will win against terrorism,’ Mr Calvar said, but predicted the ‘confrontation between the extreme Right and the Muslim world’, adding: ‘We’re on the verge of a civil war. I think this confrontation is going to happen. One or two more attacks and it will take place. It is up to us to anticipate and stop all those groups who would trigger clashes.’

The closed inquiry was held on May 24, but Mr Calvar’s dramatic comments were leaked to French media yesterday. He said: ‘Where is the spark going to come from that will light the powder, transforming France into an uncontrollable country where groups take up arms and hand out their own justice? Who sees a crumbling country where violence and vengeance alternates between two camps, where the spiral of attacks does not stop.

‘Nothing is excluded in a country which is already as eruptive as France today.’

Continue reading in The Daily Mail.

 


A symptom of the failure of Western elites

09.07.2016. The decision by U.K. voters to leave the EU is such a glaring repudiation of the wisdom and relevance of elite political and media institutions that — for once — their failures have become a prominent part of the storyline. Media reaction to the Brexit vote falls into two general categories: (1) earnest, candid attempts to understand what motivated voters to make this choice, even if that means indicting their own establishment circles, and (2) petulant, self-serving, simple-minded attacks on disobedient pro-Leave voters for being primitive, xenophobic bigots (and stupid to boot), all to evade any reckoning with their own responsibility. Virtually every reaction that falls into the former category emphasizes the profound failures of Western establishment factions; these institutions have spawned pervasive misery and inequality, only to spew condescending scorn at their victims when they object. Thus writes Glenn Greenwald in his article Brexit Is Only the Latest Proof of the Insularity and Failure of Western Establishment Institutions (links in original):

The Los Angeles Times’s Vincent Bevins, in an outstanding and concise analysis, wrote that “both Brexit and Trumpism are the very, very wrong answers to legitimate questions that urban elites have refused to ask for 30 years”; in particular, “since the 1980s the elites in rich countries have overplayed their hand, taking all the gains for themselves and just covering their ears when anyone else talks, and now they are watching in horror as voters revolt.” The British journalist Tom Ewing, in a comprehensive Brexit explanation, said the same dynamic driving the U.K. vote prevails in Europe and North America as well: “the arrogance of neoliberal elites in constructing a politics designed to sideline and work around democracy while leaving democracy formally intact.”

In an interview with the New Statesman, the political philosopher Michael Sandel also said that the dynamics driving the pro-Brexit sentiment were now dominant throughout the West generally: “A large constituency of working-class voters feel that not only has the economy left them behind, but so has the culture, that the sources of their dignity, the dignity of labor, have been eroded and mocked by developments with globalization, the rise of finance, the attention that is lavished by parties across the political spectrum on economic and financial elites, the technocratic emphasis of the established political parties.” After the market-venerating radicalism of Reagan and Thatcher, he said, “the center left” — Blair and Clinton and various European parties — “managed to regain political office but failed to reimagine the mission and purpose of social democracy, which ­became empty and obsolete.”

Three Guardian writers sounded similar themes about elite media ignorance stemming from homogeneity and detachment from the citizenry. John Harris quoted a Manchester voter as explaining, “If you’ve got money, you vote in. If you haven’t got money, you vote out.” Harris added: “Most of the media … failed to see this coming. … The alienation of the people charged with documenting the national mood from the people who actually define it is one of the ruptures that has led to this moment.” Gary Younge similarly denounced “a section of the London-based commentariat [that] anthropologized the British working class as though they were a lesser evolved breed from distant parts, all too often portraying them as bigots who did not know what was good for them.” Ian Jack’s article was headlined “In this Brexit vote, the poor turned on an elite who ignored them,” and he described how “gradually the sight of empty towns and shuttered shops became normalized or forgotten.”

[...]

Though there were some exceptions, establishment political and media elites in the U.K. were vehemently united against Brexit, but their decreed wisdom was ignored, even scorned. That has happened time and again. As their fundamental failures become more evident to all, these elites have lost credibility, influence, and the ability to dictate outcomes.

Just last year in the U.K., Labour members chose someone to lead Tony Blair’s party — the authentically left-wing Jeremy Corbyn — who could not have been more intensely despised and patronized by almost every leading light of the British media and political class. In the U.S., the joyful rejection by Trump voters of the collective wisdom of the conservative establishment evidenced the same contempt for elite consensus. The enthusiastic and sustained rallying, especially by young voters, against beloved-by-the-establishment Hillary Clinton in favor of a 74-year-old socialist taken seriously by almost no D.C. elites reflected the same dynamic. Elite denunciations of the right-wing parties of Europe fall on deaf ears. Elites can’t stop, or even affect, any of these movements because they are, at bottom, revolts against their wisdom, authority, and virtue.

In sum, the West’s establishment credibility is dying, and its influence is precipitously eroding — all deservedly so. The frenetic pace of online media makes even the most recent events feel distant, like ancient history. That, in turn, makes it easy to lose sight of how many catastrophic and devastating failures Western elites have produced in a remarkably short period of time.

[...]

But there is something deeper and more interesting driving the media reaction here. Establishment journalistic outlets are not outsiders. They’re the opposite: They are fully integrated into elite institutions, are tools of those institutions, and thus identify fully with them. Of course they do not share, and cannot understand, anti-establishment sentiments: They are the targets of this establishment-hating revolt as much as anyone else. These journalists’ reaction to this anti-establishment backlash is a form of self-defense. As NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen put it last night, “Journalists today report on hostility to the political class, as if they had nothing to do with it,” but they are a key part of that political class and, for that reason, “if the population — or part of it — is in revolt against the political class, this is a problem for journalism.”

There are many factors explaining why establishment journalists now have almost no ability to stem the tide of anti-establishment rage, even when it’s irrational and driven by ignoble impulses. Part of it is that the internet and social media have rendered them irrelevant, unnecessary to disseminate ideas. Part of it is that they have nothing to say to people who are suffering and angry — due to their distance from them — other than to scorn them as hateful losers. Part of it is that journalists — like anyone else — tend to react with bitterness and rage, not self-assessment, as they lose influence and stature.

But a major factor is that many people recognize that establishment journalists are an integral part of the very institutions and corrupted elite circles that are authors of their plight. Rather than mediating or informing these political conflicts, journalists are agents of the forces that are oppressing people. And when journalists react to their anger and suffering by telling them that it’s invalid and merely the byproduct of their stupidity and primitive resentments, that only reinforces the perception that journalists are their enemy, thus rendering journalistic opinion increasingly irrelevant.

Brexit — despite all the harm it is likely to cause and all the malicious politicians it will empower — could have been a positive development. But that would require that elites (and their media outlets) react to the shock of this repudiation by spending some time reflecting on their own flaws, analyzing what they have done to contribute to such mass outrage and deprivation, in order to engage in course correction. Exactly the same potential opportunity was created by the Iraq debacle, the 2008 financial crisis, the rise of Trumpism and other anti-establishment movements: This is all compelling evidence that things have gone very wrong with those who wield the greatest power, that self-critique in elite circles is more vital than anything.

But, as usual, that’s exactly what they most refuse to do. Instead of acknowledging and addressing the fundamental flaws within themselves, they are devoting their energies to demonizing the victims of their corruption, all in order to delegitimize those grievances and thus relieve themselves of responsibility to meaningfully address them. That reaction only serves to bolster, if not vindicate, the animating perceptions that these elite institutions are hopelessly self-interested, toxic, and destructive and thus cannot be reformed but rather must be destroyed. That, in turn, only ensures there will be many more Brexits, and Trumps, in our collective future.

Read the entire article in The Intercept.

 


Dangerous stuff

29.06.2016. There’s a delicious irony to Remainers’ branding of Leave voters as confused individuals who have simply made a desperate howling noise, whose anti-EU vote was a ‘howl of anger’ (Tim Farron) or a ‘howl of frustration’ (JK Rowling). Which is that if anyone’s been howling in recent days, it’s them, the top dogs of the Remain campaign. They are howling against the demos; raging against the people; fuming about a system that allows even that portly bloke at the end of your street who never darkened the door of a university to have a say on important political matters. That system we call democracy. Thus writes Brendan O`Neill in his article The howl against democracy (links in original):

In all the years I’ve been writing about political stuff, I cannot remember a time when anti-democratic sentiment has been as strong as it is right now. No sooner had an awe-inspiring 17.5m people rebelled against the advice of virtually every wing of the establishment and said screw-you to the EU than politicos were calling into question the legitimacy of their democratic cry. Apparently the people were ill-informed, manipulated, in thrall to populist demagoguery, and the thing they want, this unravelling of the EU, is simply too mad and disruptive a course of action to contemplate. So let’s overturn the wishes of this dumb demos.

So it is that David Lammy has howled against the ‘madness’ of the vote. We can ‘bring this nightmare to an end through a vote in Parliament’, he said. That nightmare he’s talking about is the people having their say, the throng making a choice. The UN Special Representative for International Migration, Peter Sutherland, has also openly called for the crushing of the people’s will. British voters were hoodwinked by a ‘distortion of facts’, he says — because we’re that stupid — and ‘somehow this result must be overturned’. UN officials condemn African or Asian dictators who ride roughshod over the will of their peoples, yet seek to foment the same in Britain.

[...]

The howl against democracy is driven by a belief that something precious — the EU — is being undermined by an idiot public. But the fury with the demos, the elitist rage against our vote, threatens to destroy something infinitely more precious: the very idea of democracy. If successful, it would weaken democratic politics for a generation; it would tell ordinary people that politics isn’t for them; it would confirm what people already suspect — that they are viewed as a daft, xenophobic blob who don’t know what is in their own best interests. The consequences of such an elitist thwarting of a democratic vote would make the unravelling of the EU look like a tea party in comparison.

Which is why we must defend the result, tooth and nail. The people have spoken and it is tyranny to silence them. The fight on our hands now is no longer between Leave and Remain; that’s done. It’s a far greater fight, a more historic one, one that will shape Britain for decades: a fight between those of us who believe in democracy and those who don’t; between those of us who trust the people and those who think the people are mentally and morally ill-equipped to make big political decisions.

Read the entire article in The Spectator. Hat tip rights.no. See also O`Neill's editorial Why today is a great day for democracy.

 


Grounds for guarded optimism

24.06.2016. The referendum in the UK makes it clear that the British people wants to leave the EU. Let's hope the elites in the UK and Brussels will respect the people's choice. Let's hope this will dampen the arrogance of power and lack of respect for ordinary people so common among the European elites. Let's hope this is the beginning of a process that will result in a major overhaul of the EU project (alternatively, if such an overhaul turns out not to be viable, a liquidation of the whole thing).

Binding cooperation between sovereign nation states: Yes!

Supranational government and abandonment of nation states and true democracy: No!

 


Let the standard response begin…

28.03.2016. Well at least we all know the form by now. This morning Islamist suicide-bombers struck one of the few European capitals they haven’t previously hit in a mass-casualty terrorist attack. The standard response now goes as follows. First the body parts of innocent people are flung across airport check-ins or underground trains. Briefly there is some shock. On social media the sentimentalists await the arrival of this atrocity’s cutesy hashtag or motif and hope it will tide them over until the piano man arrives at the scene of the attack to sing ‘Imagine there’s no countries’. Meantime someone will hopefully have said something which a lot of people can condemn as ‘inappropriate’. Thus begins Douglas Murray his analysis in The Spectator of the aftermath of last week's terror in Brussels.

For a Norwegian translation of Murray's article, see Document.no (hat tip).

 


«Not the far right – [but] the smug left»

28.03.2016. So let's just get this straight. A peace march in Belgium was cancelled over fears ISIS could use it to launch another attack on Brussels. Belgium security forces decided a March Against Fear, however topical, would be ill-advised because the fear is grounded in truth, and marching isn't going to make it go away. This is a bit like the people who say they are standing up to terror by continuing to use the underground. They are not actually standing up to anything. There is no real show of defiance. Everyone is scared to death. In truth, they are gambling on the old adage lightening never strikes the same spot twice. Or for a more modern twist, suicide bombers never target the same subway twice in a week. But if you live in jihadi central, that's a pretty risky bet to place. Thus begins Katie Hopkins her opinion piece in The Daily Mail: The real threat is not the far right – it’s the smug left! When did it become acceptable to water cannon people standing up for their country while turning a blind eye to the destruction of Europe?.

 


Will it be taken over by Islamic fundamentalists?

28.03.2016. A hate fanatic has boasted that Muslims will one day conquer Britain — by having more babies. Speaking at a rally marking 9/11, Anjem Choudary bragged that a birth explosion would let followers of Islam take control of the country. Undercover Sun investigators secretly recorded Choudary telling a young and impressionable audience that they would eventually rule under strict Sharia law. And our team listened in chilled silence as he predicted: “Islam is superior and will never be surpassed. The flag of Islam will rise over Downing Street.” See video recording from the meeting, and continue reading in The Sun.

 


Sowing seeds of radicalism in Europe

25.03.2016. There are many reasons why Belgium has become a hotbed of radical Islamism. Some of the answers may lie in the implanting of Saudi Salafist preachers in the country from the 1960s. Thus reports The Independent in Brussels attacks: How Saudi Arabia's influence and a deal to get oil contracts sowed seeds of radicalism in Belgium.

 


«The final challenge is for us to completely take over the West»

05.03.2016. Hi, my name is Sukant Chandan. I'm 32 years old. I was born in Chandigarh in North India, in Punjab, in April 1978. I always say, teasingly to my parents, they brought me here, in the winter of 1981 without my consent, at the age of three and a half. Thus begins London-based political analyst and filmmaker Sukant Chandan his Monthly Review article Taking Over the West (from 2011, italics in original):

Really I think, for young people and not so young people who have come from other parts of the world and live here, who have traveled and made this their home, the challenge for us is to respect ourselves and who we are. It remains a question whether non-white people can be accepted as who they are in the West. Right now there's a big controversy in the West: the Western governments want people like us to assimilate and integrate, we must know the language, we mustn't support the freedom struggles of our people in Palestine or Iraq or Afghanistan or other places.

We have won, historically, the right to come here, in the 50s and the 60s and the 70s, when the West wanted, literally, us to do their dirty work here and they wanted us out. But we fought for our right to stay here, against the government and against the Far Right and racist organizations and movements. So, we've won our right to stay here. We're here to stay, permanently. That right has been won. Now, I think, the final challenge is for us to completely take over the West. . . .

By 2040-2045, the United States will become a majority non-white country. The majority ethnic group will be Hispanics. In Europe, by 2050, in England, ethnic minorities will comprise about 20% of the population. That's still a small amount -- currently we're only 8% -- but you have to see we are strategically positioned: we are strategically positioned in the metropolitan areas of the West, which are the most important areas. Since the late 40s and 50s, non-white people, especially Black people from the Caribbean, have had a major political and cultural impact in this country [...] We've really transformed the West, and we're continuing to transform the West. And the West is very nervous, because the West is losing its control of the world, and now I think the West is thinking, "Well, we've lost control of the world, we don't wanna lose control of our own countries," which is actually occurring at the moment as well.

Read the entire article in Monthly Review.

See also: We'll come by the Hundreds of Millions and turn Europe Black (short video from 2016). RT Commentator Sukant Chandan called for "all Black and Asian people" to flock to Europe "by the hundreds of Millions" to turn "Europe black" for the past "crimes" of colonialism and alleged exploitation of Muslim nations on an Interview called "Human Tidal Waves" on RT Crosstalk.

 


Some brave exceptions to the rule

02.02.2016. Shocking footage has surfaced online appearing to show a group of young migrants attacking two German pensioners after they stood up for a young women the men were harassing on a subway train. Recorded on a mobile phone, the disgraceful video shows the men - of Eastern European or Arabic origin - holding one man by the arms as they verbally abuse him. The second victim is seen grappling with one of the migrants, before he is held up by the neck and threatened. Munich man Tom Roth uploaded the disgraceful video to his Facebook page. He caught the footage while travelling from Sendlinger Tor station to the Metro's city centre terminal. Continue reading in The Daily Mail.

 


Too feminine to defend their women

29.01.2016. In this article Iben Thranholm argues that in the west men have been programmed to be feminine, and women to be masculine, and that this is a recipe for disaster, already manifesting itself in helplessness in the face of the immigrant 'rapefugee' phenomenon. Europe's Men Are Too Feminine and Can't Defend Their Women from 'Rapefugees' (link in original):

[...] Pundits and politicians assure the public that refugee males now storming the gates of Europe from the Middle East, Northern Africa and Central Asia will be required to learn that Western women are independent and sexually liberated. Such arguments, however, are obviously too weak to have any impact on the male cultures representative of certain refugee groups.

[...]

Instead of a single-minded focus on imposing liberal feminist values on Muslim males, it might well be much more beneficial for Europeans to consider if the feminist war on masculinity might be the underlying cause of the weakness of European culture - feeble and defenseless as it is - against the culture of immigrants and refugees. The irony is that the vacuum feminism has created means that women become victims of an aggressive male culture.

A recent survey conducted by the Pew Research Centre shows that the number of young men in the US who want to marry has dropped to the lowest level ever recorded.

American author Suzanne Venker claims that the pervasive cultural influence of feminism is the cause. Venker states that men explain their lack of desire to marry with the observation that “women are no longer women”; feminism has programmed women to see men as the enemy. As a result, males have been made redundant in post-modern Western culture. Women no longer need men as a provider, protector or father of her children; an anonymous semen donor can do the job of creating a baby if a woman so chooses.

Since the 1960s, modern mothers have raised their sons to be women, soaking them in feminine values like [...], being caring, understanding and attentive, and bend to every wish of the woman. This has produced a generation of soft, insecure men, who are out of touch with their masculine nature, identity and strength.

Today, many boys also grow up with no father in the home and have no male role models. The average modern Western male has been feminized, with no knowledge or habit of manly virtues like courage, resolve, self-sacrifice, justice, temperance, self-reliance, self-discipline and honour. He has no sense of true expression of manliness. Feminism despises and rejects these virtues, and this has had a profoundly detrimental impact on a European culture, the “battered wife” of a feeble continent.

The massive feminization of culture has had a major impact on politics. The prevailing ideology of Western liberal democracy is secular humanism, which is particularly feminine in character. Policy, especially as applied to immigrants, is a motherly embrace of goodness and overbearing indulgence. One could also interpret it as naivety, weakness and accommodation. As the refugee crisis erupted and overwhelmed Europe, its political leaders - spearheaded by German Chancellor Angela Merkel - acted like timid mother hens, not as strong men responsible for guarding their country from an invasion.

[...]

Camille Pagilla, self-professed “feminist dissident”, put it like this in the Daily Mail: “The entire elite class now, in finance, in politics and so on, none of them have military service - hardly anyone, there are a few. But there is no prestige attached to it anymore. That is a recipe for disaster… These people don't think in military ways, so there's this illusion out there that people are basically nice, people are basically kind, if we're just nice and benevolent to everyone they'll be nice too. They literally don't have any sense of evil or criminality.’ According to Paglia, the results are there for all to see in the on-going dysfunction in Washington, where politicians ‘lack practical skills of analysis and construction’”.

[...]

At the same time, immigration is inevitable in a globalized world. If Europe is to survive in an age of mass migration, there must be a male revolution. This revolution will be as important as the struggle for women's rights in the 1960s. It is vital for Western men to acknowledge this need and start building social, cultural and political capital based on masculine virtues to defend the values upon which Europe is based.

Read the entire article in Russia Insider.

 


Have lost their masculinity

29.01.2016. The gender-bending Europeans are finally getting their comeuppance. They are having their asses kicked and their women fondled by normal red-blooded Syrians and Libyans whom they were stupid enough to bomb into total social collapse. [...] Their response has been to cover up the facts, or hand out instructional cartoons to immigrants explaining to them that one shouldn't grope the womenfolk, which most likely simply convinced the immigrants that they can grope all they want because only a wuss would think of something so stupid. Thus writes Russia Insider in Dear European Men: You Are Pathetic Pussies (Video).

HonestThinking comments: The eight minutes long RT interview with Iben Thranholm is highly recommended.

 


Why high IQ people tend to be deficient in common sense

17.01.2016. I just came across a reference to Clever sillies: why high IQ people tend to be deficient in common sense, by BG Charlton (Med Hypotheses. 2009 Dec;73(6):867-70). Here's the abstract:

In previous editorials I have written about the absent-minded and socially-inept 'nutty professor' stereotype in science, and the phenomenon of 'psychological neoteny' whereby intelligent modern people (including scientists) decline to grow-up and instead remain in a state of perpetual novelty-seeking adolescence. These can be seen as specific examples of the general phenomenon of 'clever sillies' whereby intelligent people with high levels of technical ability are seen (by the majority of the rest of the population) as having foolish ideas and behaviours outside the realm of their professional expertise. In short, it has often been observed that high IQ types are lacking in 'common sense'--and especially when it comes to dealing with other human beings. General intelligence is not just a cognitive ability; it is also a cognitive disposition. So, the greater cognitive abilities of higher IQ tend also to be accompanied by a distinctive high IQ personality type including the trait of 'Openness to experience', 'enlightened' or progressive left-wing political values, and atheism. Drawing on the ideas of Kanazawa, my suggested explanation for this association between intelligence and personality is that an increasing relative level of IQ brings with it a tendency differentially to over-use general intelligence in problem-solving, and to over-ride those instinctive and spontaneous forms of evolved behaviour which could be termed common sense. Preferential use of abstract analysis is often useful when dealing with the many evolutionary novelties to be found in modernizing societies; but is not usually useful for dealing with social and psychological problems for which humans have evolved 'domain-specific' adaptive behaviours. And since evolved common sense usually produces the right answers in the social domain; this implies that, when it comes to solving social problems, the most intelligent people are more likely than those of average intelligence to have novel but silly ideas, and therefore to believe and behave maladaptively. I further suggest that this random silliness of the most intelligent people may be amplified to generate systematic wrongness when intellectuals are in addition 'advertising' their own high intelligence in the evolutionarily novel context of a modern IQ meritocracy. The cognitively-stratified context of communicating almost-exclusively with others of similar intelligence, generates opinions and behaviours among the highest IQ people which are not just lacking in common sense but perversely wrong. Hence the phenomenon of 'political correctness' (PC); whereby false and foolish ideas have come to dominate, and moralistically be enforced upon, the ruling elites of whole nations.

The entire article can be downloaded e.g. from nih.gov.

For a mixed review, see Does Super-High IQ= Super-Low Common Sense?, by Andrea Kuszewski.

 


On the Brink

14.01.2016. On New Year’s Eve, in the shadow of Cologne’s cathedral, crowds of North African and Middle Eastern men accosted women out for the night’s festivities. They surrounded them, groped them, robbed them. Two women were reportedly raped. Though there were similar incidents from Hamburg to Helsinki, the authorities at first played down the assaults, lest they prove inconvenient for Angela Merkel’s policy of mass asylum for refugees. Thus begins Ross Douthat his NYT op-ed Germany on the Brink. He concludes as follows:

The underlying controversy here is not a new one. For decades conservatives on both sides of the Atlantic have warned that Europe’s generous immigration policies, often pursued in defiance of ordinary Europeans’ wishes, threaten to destabilize the continent.

The conservatives have made important points about the difficulty of assimilation, the threat of radicalization, and the likelihood of Paris-style and Cologne-style violence in European cities.

But they have also trafficked in more apocalyptic predictions — fears of a “Eurabia,” of mass Islamification — that were somewhat harder to credit. Until recently, Europe’s assimilation challenge looked unpleasant but not insurmountable, and the likelihood of Yugoslavian-style balkanization relatively remote.

With the current migration, though, we’re in uncharted territory. The issue isn’t just that immigrants are arriving in the hundreds of thousands rather than the tens of thousands. It’s that a huge proportion of them are teenage and twentysomething men.

[...]

If you believe that an aging, secularized, heretofore-mostly-homogeneous society is likely to peacefully absorb a migration of that size and scale of cultural difference, then you have a bright future as a spokesman for the current German government.

You’re also a fool. Such a transformation promises increasing polarization among natives and new arrivals alike. It threatens not just a spike in terrorism but a rebirth of 1930s-style political violence. The still-imaginary France Michel Houellebecq conjured up in his novel “Submission,” in which nativists and Islamists brawl in the streets, would have a very good chance of being realized in the German future.

This need not happen. But prudence requires doing everything possible to prevent it. That means closing Germany’s borders to new arrivals for the time being. It means beginning an orderly deportation process for able-bodied young men. It means giving up the fond illusion that Germany’s past sins can be absolved with a reckless humanitarianism in the present.

It means that Angela Merkel must go — so that her country, and the continent it bestrides, can avoid paying too high a price for her high-minded folly.

Read the entire op-ed in The New York Times.

 


Threatened by sex imbalance

07.01.2016. The recent surge of migration into Europe has been unprecedented in scope, with an estimated 1 million migrants from the Middle East and North Africa this past year alone, making for a massive humanitarian crisis, as well as a political and moral dilemma for European governments. But one crucial dimension of this crisis has gone little-noticed: sex or, more technically, sex ratios. Thus begins Professor Valerie Hudson her article Europe’s Man Problem - Migrants to Europe skew heavily male—and that’s dangerous:

According to official counts, a disproportionate number of these migrants are young, unmarried, unaccompanied males. In fact, the sex ratios among migrants are so one-sided—we’re talking worse than those in China, in some cases—that they could radically change the gender balance in European countries in certain age cohorts

[...]

But fear of terrorism might not be the only reason to be leery of highly abnormal sex ratios among the young adult population. As my co-author Andrea Den Boer and I argued in our book, societies with extremely skewed sex ratios are more unstable even without jihadi ideologues in their midst. Numerous empirical studies have shown that sex ratios correlate significantly with violence and property crime—the higher the sex ratio, the worse the crime rate. Our research also found a link between sex ratios and the emergence of both violent criminal gangs and anti-government movements. It makes sense: When young adult males fail to make the transition to starting a household—particularly those young males who are already at risk for sociopathic behavior due to marginalization, a common concern among immigrants—their grievances are aggravated.

There are also clearly negative effects for women in male-dominated populations. Crimes such as rape and sexual harassment become more common in highly masculinized societies, and women’s ability to move about freely and without fear within society is curtailed. In addition, demand for prostitution soars; that would create a deeply ironic outcome for Sweden, which invented the path-breaking Swedish abolitionist approach to prostitution.

Europe is famously progressive on women’s rights, and some European governments have even created voluntary classes for migrants to understand how the treatment of women may be profoundly different in their new homes. But even with such efforts there is the potential for real regress when the young adult sex ratio is so high. And what is often invisible in the debates over migration is that the women left behind by this largely male exodus are usually left in dire situations: In displaced persons camps in Syria or refugee camps in Turkey, Jordan and surrounding countries, female-headed households live in fear and penury, prey to exploitation and abuse. Sweden’s foreign minister, Margot Wallström rightly emphasizes her country’s “feminist foreign policy”—but can Sweden really consider its migration policy to be feminist?

While the humanitarian needs of the refugees streaming into Europe must be foremost in our minds at this time, policymakers in Sweden and other countries should also think of the long-term consequences of an unprecedented alteration in the young adult sex ratios of their societies. The Canadian approach should be carefully studied, and perhaps adapted by other countries. After all, if the sex ratios of the migrants’ countries of origins are balanced, is it not odd to accept predominantly male migrants for asylum?

As anthropologist Barbara Miller has persuasively argued, a normal sex ratio is a “public good” and therefore deserves state protection. For Sweden—or any other European country—to wind up with the worst young adult sex ratios in the world would be a tragedy for European men and women alike.

Read the entire article in Politico Magazine.

 


German women report string of sexual assaults by 'Arab and North African men'

05.01.2016. Mayor of Cologne to investigate "outrageous" series of New Year's Eve attacks on women by large gangs of men “of Arab or North African appearance”. Thus reports The Telegraph:

Police in Germany are investigating an alarming series of sexual assaults on women trying to celebrate the New Year by large groups of single men “of Arab or North African appearance”.

Authorities in the city of Cologne are to hold a crisis meeting on Tuesday after police described a group of some 1,000 men who took over the area around the main station on New Year’s Eve.

Women were robbed, groped, and had their underwear torn from their bodies, while couples had fireworks thrown at them.

Police have received 90 criminal complaints, around a quarter of them for sexual assault, including one case of rape.

Police in Hamburg say there was a series of similar incidents in the city’s Reeperbahn red-light area. Witnesses described groups of five to 15 men of who “hunted” women in the streets.

[...]

A 27-year-old witness named only as Anne told Spiegel magazine’s website she was shocked by the crowds when she arrived at the station with her boyfriend.

“The whole place was full and almost only with men,” she said. “Only a few frightened women, who were being stared at.”

A short time later, she said, she “felt the first hand on my behind”.

The men began firing fireworks directly into the crowd.

“I saw people jump and run, because a rocket had been fired at their legs,” she said.

“Shortly after midnight, the first women came to us,” an unnamed police officer told the local Express newspaper.

“Crying and in shock they described how they had been severely sexually harassed. We went to look for women in the crowd. I picked one up from the ground. She was screaming and crying. Her underwear had been torn from her body.”

[... ]

An unidentified male witness told WDR television he and his girlfriend had been surrounded in Cologne by “drunk and aggressive” men who threatened them and groped her.

“They weren’t of European appearance,” he said.

“The crimes were committed by a group of people who from appearance were largely from the North African or Arab world,” Wolfgang Albers, the Cologne police chief, told a press conference.

“It is intolerable that such offences are committed in the heart of the city,” he said.

In Hamburg, witnesses described groups of young men who followed women calling out “Bitch! Ficky ficky!”

“Some girls were chased like cattle,” a 17-year-old woman told Bild newspaper. “I’m stunned that such a thing is possible in Hamburg. It makes you scared to celebrate in the neighbourhood.”

[...]

Henriette Reker, the mayor of Cologne, has called an emergency meeting of the city authorities on Tuesday to address the incidents.

“We cannot tolerate a legal vacuum here,” Ms Reker said, describing the attacks as “outrageous”.

The state government of North Rhine-Westphalia, where Cologne lies, vowed to take action.

“We will not take gangs of North African men humiliating defenceless women with brazen sexual attacks,” Ralf Jäger, the state’s interior minister, said.

Read the entire article in The Telegraph. See also The Daily Mail.

HonestThinking comments: It is worth noting that this kind of unprecedented phenomenon (according to German police) appeared simultaneously in at least three cities (Cologne, Hamburg, Stuttgart). It is also worth noting that these outrageous events did not become generally known until today.

 


Home

Permalinks to older articles

 


 

Search HonestThinking

 


Norsk stoff - Norwegian material

Norske og skandinaviske lesere vil kunne finne stoff på norsk her.

 


 

HonestThinking is dedicated and committed to the art of thinking honestly. Yet honest thinking is not the same as true thinking, for it is possible to think honestly, but be mistaken. For the same reason, honest thinking is not identical with objective thinking either. Honest thinking is striving to get things right. This involves being truthful about whatever one publishes, but just as importantly, it involves an uncompromising dedication never to suppress relevant data, even when data collides with dearly held prejudices. Such an approach may sometimes cause hurtful revisions in one’s belief system. That’s what HonestThinking is all about! Read the entire manifesto.



Provoked or enthusiastic?

Please send e-mail to postmaster at honestThinking.org (replacing ' at ' with '@') if you would like to tip us about a web resource that we should link to, or if you wish to submit an article for publication here. Quality contributions are welcome from anyone.

 



 

The current European immigration and integration policy is profoundly disrespectful of both Muslims and Islam, because it is built on the tacit assumption that the Muslims will become like us. One claims to have respect for Islam and for Muslims, but one also expects Muslims to give up their orthodox faith when they come here. At the same time one is assuming that Islam will be reformed and modernized as soon as the Muslims become integrated and understand and appreciate how superior our Western culture is compared to their own. This is cultural shauvinism and arrogance indeed! The unspoken premise for this scenario is that Western socities are superior to Islam. Read more.

 


 

 

Human rights and democracy are under pressure. One threat comes from the Western world, in the form of lack of or dishonest thinking. There exists a peculiar Western "tolerance" which is so "tolerant" that it even tolerates totalitarian or anti-democratic ideologies. A tacit assumption underlying such an attitude is that all cultures, world views, and religions are really equally good. As a consequence of this assumption one is cut off from the possibility of critically examining the above mentioned ideologies. Read more.