If You Wanted to Ban Foreigners from the US to Stop Terrorist Attacks—

Spiritual malaise = non-violent. Spiritual virility = violent. That’s a pathetic argument.

We shouldn’t ban French and Belgian visitors, but I would look closely at “French” and “Belgian” ones – that is, Arab Muslims, which is what the attackers were, regardless of citizenship.

How many of their parents were born in France and Belgium, Sparky?

The Paris filth was as European as Osama bin Laden was Pakistani.

Muslim fundamentalists are an international blight.

@nationalist
And you were doing so well right up to your last non-sequitur sentence.

This is addressed to the nationalists and “race realists”: what do you do with those of a mixed race? Say someone with a French father and an Algerian mother or perhaps an American mother and Hispanic father? Where do they go? What is their place in your separate and unequal dream?

Has anyone else noted that as the testosterone level goes up, the intelligence level goes down? 😈

“Have we lost our collective minds for the last 12 years?”

Only 12? More like going on four decades by my count.

And being duped by disinformation was only part of it. Being sold out by the privileged members of our communities was important too. No Jonas Salks in that cohort!

“The very essence of Cultural Marxism is the support of mass immigration / open borders.”

“The end goal of Cultural Marxists is white genocide.”

“Political correctness is Cultural Marxism.”

“Cultural Marxists have taken over the institutions of the media, education, mainstream Christianity (conservative and liberal), law, and finance. Their goal is the annihilation of Western Civilization in general and white people in particular.”

what’s bad about any of these talking points? down with polarization, i say.

That is of course, ignoring the whole biological determinism of the “blood” reference.

Wow, Ian. You are in the big time now as you seem to have attracted the trolls of the wing nut, nativist, reactionary right. Most likely paid trolls in the NSA or Koch industries basement.
If they were honest, they would be asking questions. Cui bono? Who benefits? Why has ISIS been able to ship oil out of east Syria and north Iraq until the Russians just this week decided to bomb the trucks? Why have we put up with 75 years of tolerating the flow of extremist fundamentalist ideas and money from Saudi Arabia? The KSA royal family has been bankrolling this crap from the beginning. Why have we taken out secular, modernist dictatorships to have them replaced by chaos, repeatedly? Read your history people, think a little bit and don’t let the sociopathic trolls cause you to piss your pants.

Well, my amateur use of HTML linked the entire second paragraph to the Guardian article. At least it sort of worked.

You should try to keep up. The “French and Belgian citizen” terrorists are the children of former Muslim immigrants.

With the emphasis on “former.” ie, they are not meaningfully immigrants, but French or Belgian, mostly, and the failures principally belong to French and Belgian society in se and not their immigration policy.

RE MANDOS:

“Because you will have to accomplish this by force.”

If the aliens will not leave voluntarily, then I have no problem using force.

“There is nothing “natural” about your notion of “nation”, except insofar as mass murder is natural.”

Nice lol.

People naturally group to their own kind. This is STILL reflected in the major cities where there is de-facto natural segregation, despite decades of prop and gov policy in the other direction.

“Eventually, we will have to abolish nation-state citizenships.”

Citizen of the world! No nations or borders! Brotherhood of Man! Peace on Earth! There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus!…oops

Scratch a leftist and you find the primitive Xianity that arose in the mongrel slums of the old Roman empire. Circling back…down the drain.

If the aliens will not leave voluntarily, then I have no problem using force.

I know.

People naturally group to their own kind. This is STILL reflected in the major cities where there is de-facto natural segregation, despite decades of prop and gov policy in the other direction.

That isn’t “natural.”

Scratch a leftist and you find the primitive Xianity that arose in the mongrel slums of the old Roman empire. Circling back…down the drain.

No. It wasn’t just Christianity. Although you’ll find here that even though I think Ian is an agnostic, he has no need to be “scratched” to laud Christian universalism. There’s no circling back. The kind of nationalism you espouse was but an episode.

@Mandos,

That isn’t “natural.”

What is your basis for this? Seems like an unsupportable statement to me.

Jonathan Haidt is not a conservative, but he found that diversity decreases social trust, social capital. A key finding was that even people of the same ethnic group trust each other less when diversity increases.

From the standpoint of world history, diverse groups in close proximity means war. What are your examples of successful multi-ethnic societies? Or maybe you want to destroy diversity by intermarriage? Do you have some kind of utopian vision of a global monoculture?

Wow, what a fascist sewer pit this post brought out. Is there a flush option on the comments? 😛

BlizzardOfOz –

This is guaranteed, because Western societies have utterly failed to assimilate them.

Good grief. This is exactly how Italians were described at the turn of the last century. See this study. It’s almost word for word quoting your hysteria and fear mongering. There are numerous examples of diverse cultures and religions living together, including the caliphate, of all places. War is a given, diversity is not anomalous, nor is it the catalyst for random slaughter.

Ridiculous.

I hadnt realized ‘Mandos’ was an immigrant. I’m now also guessing that he is non-white. If that is so, then what he says makes sense–acting in his self interest to live as a parasite in a western country that doesnt belong to him.

Enjoy the time you have left. Nationalism is coming back, and you wont be welcome in the new order.

But, although I am non-white, I only immigrated from a western country to a western country. Of course, you don’t believe that the country I was born in is my country. For this ‘crime’, you want me to die.

I came from Canada—but I don’t think that’s what you mean. There is no biological memory. I won’t go willingly where you want me to go. That’s what it means for there to be no borders. I don’t have to go where you tell me to go. I don’t have to be born where you think it convenient for me to be born, so that your theory works and you get your idyll of purity.

Mandos,

For every small handful of terrorists very connected to current events in the Middle East, with alienation brought on, as far as I can tell, by inadequate integration policy

Is this just a priori “every problem is due to insufficient leftism”, are are there specific policies you mean?

there are thousands and thousands of French Muslims who live normal lives.

All it takes is a few. Sweden went from a peaceful socialist country to the rape capital of Europe.

With better integration policy, there is every reason to believe that future immigrants from Muslim countries can do better.

And with nationalist sentiment rising, what are the chances of better integration policy being enacted, than when the wind was behind its sails?

Rome was not successful? The Ottoman Empire wasn’t successful? Both of them were massively multi-ethnic and lasted centuries.

Those are empires with colonial rule. A multi-ethnic empire with ethnic provinces administered from a capital is very different than airlifting thousands of Somalis into Minneapolis, or forced integration of schools and neighborhoods. Regarding the Romans, note that it was the attempt to enlist Germanic invaders that led to the fall of the Western empire.

The point bears repeating, there’s absolutely no upside to mass immigration. I can see why you would think it’s good for you personally – you want to import other minorities so you don’t stick out as much – but for the country as whole, the best you can say is, if everything breaks right, maybe it won’t be a catastrophe.

And with nationalist sentiment rising, what are the chances of better integration policy being enacted, than when the wind was behind its sails?

That very much depends. The failures of the French elite are on multiple grounds, such as a commitment to austerity. So they (inadvertently?) programmed in the rise of the FN, because nationalist movements like that thrive under conditions of artificially-induced scarcity. So they may require the experience of a season of an old evil to inoculate them in the future.

All it takes is a few. Sweden went from a peaceful socialist country to the rape capital of Europe.

I won’t get into this debate except to say that the statistics and instruments of measurement of this famous claim are suspect at best.

Those are empires with colonial rule. A multi-ethnic empire with ethnic provinces administered from a capital is very different than airlifting thousands of Somalis into Minneapolis, or forced integration of schools and neighborhoods. Regarding the Romans, note that it was the attempt to enlist Germanic invaders that led to the fall of the Western empire.

A lot of things led to the fall of the Western empire. That is a matter of yet ongoing debate, as I understand it.

You can find all sorts of post hoc justifications for exceptions to your social theory. Nation states and transport systems such as we have now were not in existence then, only the Ottomans survived into the Westphalian order.

The point bears repeating, there’s absolutely no upside to mass immigration. I can see why you would think it’s good for you personally – you want to import other minorities so you don’t stick out as much – but for the country as whole, the best you can say is, if everything breaks right, maybe it won’t be a catastrophe.

It’s already not a catastrophe. As I said, most French Muslims lead normal lives. Most Canadian minorities of various stripes live normal lives. There is something positive to be said about Hispanic “illegals” in the USA. You can read ulterior motives into my position on the matter — and I won’t entirely deny them, I could never be anything other than hostile to the idea that ethnic purity is an ideal to be striven for. Because, to achieve it, you have to destroy the lives of whose who don’t fit your template, and you have to use force to do so. And yes, I’m one of them.

And so I don’t believe nationalist when he says he doesn’t want to kill me. He “merely” wants to drive me out at knifepoint. For fearing the hatred he aims at me and mine, I sound like a “five year old”, because what you’ve worked for your whole life is just some “candy store”. No, multiculturalism or bust. If it doesn’t work, then we’d pretty damn well make it.

You could ban visitors with dual nationality where their French or Belgian nationality is the secondary one.

I’ll have to give Nat credit for one thing–unlike fundamentalist authoritarian right-wing “Christians”, at least he recognizes the contradictions of trying to be both a Christian and a right-wing ideologue.

Nat has chosen the latter.

Except for my having had black hair instead of blond hair when I was young, I’m white enough to satisfy Nat’s ethnic purity standards, but I have chosen to follow Jesus Christ–imperfectly, of course, but He forgives sins.

Jesus promises me an eternal life of joy and peace for following His way.

Can Nat make me a better offer than that? 😆

I expect the bulk of the racist vote in the USA will succumb to “calendaritis” before long, sending the few younger ones back under their virtual rocks on Da Intertoobz.

Of course, the events currently encouraging the racists would not have happened if our masters, the global plutocrats, did not want to own the planet and everyone on it. They created the Sunni jihadi movement(s) to use as geopolitical foils against nations which stand in the way of that goal of global control. If some of their jihadi attack dogs slip their leashes and kill a few of the plutocrats’ serfs once in a while–hey, that’s not a bug, it’s a feature, because it makes the serf population willing to accept more restrictions on their civil liberties, which makes them more docile serfs.

Now, if the attack dogs ever find a way to start mauling the plutocrats, and are stupid enough to do it–why, then, and only then, will the attack dogs be put to sleep.

Unless Putin, that magnificent bastard, puts them to sleep first. 😈

“Do we need an Inquisition…”

Well, I wasn’t expecting that… 😉

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ixgc_FGam3s

Oops — I meant to type “various ilk,” but fundies of various “ills” does add a bit to the comment.

@nihil obstet,

All this glosses over the fact that the United States has been an overwhelmingly Protestant north-western European country for its entire history until the floodgates were opened in 1965. Racially diverse countries have big problems and tend to cluster into racial enclaves which then become stratified (ie, Brazil). But what France is doing, deliberately importing massive numbers of Muslims, is uncharted territory.

it did include kidnapping and boatlifting thousands of West Africans into Charleston, a practice defended and protected in the U.S. constitution. Somehow a pretty strong country came out of all of this.

It’s incredible that you would cite African slavery as a success for your preferred policy. The best thing you can say about it, is that we survived. Its fruits are a permanent underclass with high levels of violence and dysfunction; utter destruction of formerly great American cities; half a million dead in a civil war. Would anyone voluntarily repeat this?

Mass deportation of Moslems and Jews didn’t work all that well for Spain.

How so? Spain is still a first-world country, unlike all Arab Muslim countries. How would it have worked out in the alternative, letting them stay?

I have a list of other religions that I’d much prefer to see outlawed if we’re going to white out the religious freedom clause in the Bill of Rights.

Muslim immigration fans are quite fond of strawmen like this. It’s fairly simple: if you don’t admit in the first place, then there’s no need to outlaw anyone’s religion. On the other hand, if you do let them in, you can expect the further erosion not just of their but of everyone’s civil rights.

It’s incredible that you would cite African slavery as a success for your preferred policy. The best thing you can say about it, is that we survived. Its fruits are a permanent underclass with high levels of violence and dysfunction; utter destruction of formerly great American cities; half a million dead in a civil war. Would anyone voluntarily repeat this?

African slavery was a great injustice — to the slaves. And it took 500K dead to alleviate some of that injustice. But the country itself benefitted massively from it. The whole idea of racial purity as a panacea, leaving aside the fact that it is actually exceptional beyond the village level and relatively unachievable, involves massive and constant moving of goalposts to defend. “Oh the Romans are not a real example! [moves goalposts to to exclude the Roman Empire]” “Oh the USA is not a real example! [moves goalposts to exclude USA]” It’s clear that the only “success” criterion can be success under the terms that white nationalists want that success to be achieved — anything else, even if it actually is successful, is trivial to define as failure, if you brick over your end zone.

Mandos mentioned success.

In WW2, the “mongrel” Allies stomped a mud hole in the ethnic-purist Axis and walked it dry.

‘Nuff said, true believers! Excelsior! 😆

Mandos is correct about the impossibility of “purity” in the modern world.

Even if we decided to grant Bliz’s and Nat’s argument that isolation would be desirable, genetic isolation is impossible in a world with globe-girdling transportation, and cultural isolation is impossible in a world with globe-girdling communication.

Somewhat ironically, Islamic fundamentalism has emerged largely as a reaction to the end of the relative (though never more than partial), isolation of Islamic civilization in the face of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire (after its leaders bet on the wrong horse in WW1), and the resulting confrontation of relatively isolated Muslim societies with an emerging global civilization, which was, and is not, nearly so much Christian as Mammonist.

Is your command of the facts really that woeful? I wouldn’t make an argument like that, but on your own terms your argument fails utterly. In 1939 the USA was 90% white, and it hasn’t won a war since the 1965 Immigration Act.

It hasn’t won a war because the wars it has fought have been fought on grounds poorly thought through by its leaders, sometimes even people with publicly nativist proclivities, not because of some sort of diversity-induced demotivation.

What Haidt actually found is that conservatives place roughly equal value on the six moral foundations he identified (purity or sanctity/degradation is just one). Liberals on the other hand value only three (harm, fairness, liberty), neglecting the others.

American left-liberals not only value only three of them, liberals pathologize the other three; ie, they see them in contradiction with harm/fairness/liberty, if we want to adopt Haidt’s terms. In other words, the garden-variety conservative who values all six inevitably finds himself at a point where his true metal is tested; there are lots of situations where fairness and purity are mutually exclusive. Such as in any discussion over immigration.

What Haidt would like such liberals to do is to engage in massive and very fundamental form of moral relativism over and above what liberals are usually accused of…. and treat the pathologized traits simply as equal moral characters to his other three. He is in effect calling for one-sided political disarmament to no apparent benefit, because the contradictions remain whether or not you pretend.

Folks like nationalist and presumably yourself go one step beyond garden-variety conservatism — it’s clear to me that you value purity, authority, etc, well over the other three, ie you have decided to resolve the contradiction in favour of loyalty to your presumed/self-ascertained community, and interpret that loyalty as a mandate for purity. In that utopia, there’s no room for anyone else who doesn’t fit the template. It is proof-positive that Haidt’s agenda is unworkable and his analysis suspect. We must either reject those moral characters in part be intolerant that way, or we must adopt them and be intolerant to people who do not fit particular community templates.

Mandos,

“Oh the Romans are not a real example! [moves goalposts to to exclude the Roman Empire]” “Oh the USA is not a real example! [moves goalposts to exclude USA]”

Your examples do not auger will for successful mass-immigration of Muslims. The Roman Empire was not a racially mixed or integrated nation, but an empire that subordinated foreign peoples. When Emperor Valens under external pressure admitted the Goths into the heart of the empire, they effectively occupied the territory (not unlike the no-go zones held by Muslims outside Paris).

The USA was overwhelmingly white protestant until 1965, that nonetheless admitted some ethnic minorities. Note that, unlike the Syrians you want to admit, those ethnic minorities were mostly Christian, or converted to Christianity. And some of them still caused a lot of problems.

I don’t think even western liberals are happy with the countries they are creating. You think you are importing reliable liberal voters. And indeed your Syrians will probably vote left for the free stuff you promise them, but how much do you think they care about climate change for example? What will it do for social equality to import yet another low-IQ ethnocentric tribe? The future of Western countries along this path is either Brazil — racially diverse, but balkanized, effectively ruled by whites, Jews, and other high-IQ groups — or crackup and formation of separate countries.

OK, why did my comment end up in moderation? Are there certain words we need to avoid using? If yes, a list of them would be nice.

Kudos, Ivory Bill. The Spanish Inquisition may have been a hanging curve that you hit out of the park, but “Haidters gonna haidt” is cogent summary.

Rabbi Steinlauf is using a cultural definition of “whiteness”, which in some contexts may indeed be more accurate than the purely visual definition I was using.

Your examples do not auger will for successful mass-immigration of Muslims. The Roman Empire was not a racially mixed or integrated nation, but an empire that subordinated foreign peoples. When Emperor Valens under external pressure admitted the Goths into the heart of the empire, they effectively occupied the territory (not unlike the no-go zones held by Muslims outside Paris).

As I told you: no matter what example I give you, you will find some reason, no matter how picayune, to show that is not sufficiently analogous to the present situation. History doesn’t repeat, it rhymes. The Roman empire was a massive colonial enterprise…but through this, it dispersed and integrated many populations across its empire.

Lo and behold, the most apparently problematic of the immigrant populations at issue…are legacies of colonial dominion, and their problems are directly traceable to those circumstances. So too are even social stratifications in former colonies like Brazil, etc. There is no need to resort to baroque theories of IQ and racial reassortment — colonial supremacism and its aftereffects remains by far the most parsimonious explanation.

But there is one difference from ancient Rome that is significant. The modern colonial powers, even as they continued to possess colonies, went through paroxysms of the newer idea of nationalism, of which variants exist in the late 19C and early 20C that make direct appeal to “nature” via what we now happily recognize as pseudo-scientific justifications for racially exclusivist politics. We continue to live, sadly, with the results of this thinking to this very day, even though its strongest proponents were defeated in a disaster of their own making in the middle of the twentieth century. If there is something that could truly hinder integration, it is precisely the legacy of that nationalism — what has been seen (the bitter utopia of racial purity) cannot be unseen, as they say.

As for the Goths, I understand the analogy that Sailer is trying to make—that the populations fleeing Syria are analogous to Gothic invader populations. But just as your attempt to *break* the analogy with Rome and the Ottoman empire resided in excessive selectivity of relevant characteristics, Sailer’s attempt to *make* this analogy is similarly flawed—extremely selective. The key characteristic of *that* history is the importation not only of refugees, who have fled in numbers regularly throughout history, but the importation of an entire military apparatus into a single area without the planning to properly disperse its members through the empire.

Fortunately, we understand integration a little better now, especially after the problems of colonial-legacy immigrant populations in Europe. The Syrian refugees, etc, are not an organized army, but consist heavily among other things of draft dodgers. And while no success can be guaranteed, proper eventual dispersion of them through various parts of European society is achievable, with forethought. So, happily, even if there were an analogy to the situation of the Goths in Rome, it can well be averted, unless you are attached to certain types of historical determinism. Which I guess you are.

On the matter of “no go zones”, it happens that even Daniel Pipes, no friend to Muslim immigration (although I still don’t know how much that counts for you as he is Jewish), admits that no such thing exists in Europe.

http://www.danielpipes.org/15432/europe-no-go-zones

Instead, he notes that what exist are deliberately tolerated zones of exception — to which he is assuredly not a friend, but he recognizes that in reality, the state has neither given up its sovereignty nor jurisdiction, merely made accommodation for a limited autonomy to a minority. He considers this to be unprecedented—but about that, he is wrong. If there is a state of nature, it is actually that one. Much more common than the binding of race to state to territory.

I don’t think even western liberals are happy with the countries they are creating. You think you are importing reliable liberal voters. And indeed your Syrians will probably vote left for the free stuff you promise them, but how much do you think they care about climate change for example? What will it do for social equality to import yet another low-IQ ethnocentric tribe?

It is impossible to control the future. What I do know is that if majorities follow your prescription and construct your utopia, and permit people like nationalist to drive out people like me at the end of their machetes, the future you will build will have no resemblance to the one that western liberals will be happy with, as opposed to might having no resemblance. How can you build a liberal future by evaluating and regulating the world illiberally?

Since you are likely to presume things about my motivations, let me ask you this about yours. Say I were to show you a complete, convincing plan of how to make multiculturalism and mass immigration “work”. Is there a condition under which you would accept that it does “work”? Or would its success be a source of sorrow to you? Are you motivated by a regretful belief that multiculturalism and mass immigration cannot work, or a fear that it can?

cesar tort journey of self discovery out of his childhood abuse lead him to alice miller. later as he mulled his observation that non-westerners treated their children more harshly than westerners, he discovered the world of white nationalists, like kevin macdonald and william l pierce. what’s he on to?

I don’t have any problem adopting sweeping ethnic/cultural bans on immigration provided
a non-interventionist foreign policy is simultaneously adopted inclusive of curtail of all foreign aid to all parties, emphasis where it belongs, on Israel.
Naturally, the globalists, the neocons, the neolibs, the liberal interventionists, the libertarians all have a problem with this.
Thus the collapse of Empire will proceed on Destiny’s schedule.

http://s26.postimg.org/b8quaefix/Eiffel_Tower_King_quote.jpg

As I don’t think a return to ethnic nation-state migrationless autarkies is possible without mass death, the inevitable conclusion is that nation-state citizenship—in the sense of a means of exclusion—while it won’t be “banned”, must somehow wither away.

I nominate Ian as a candidate for sainthood for allowing these wretches on the blog at all.

Oh, sometimes we must take these things out of their dank little boxes in the attic and gaze upon them. Especially in a time when our leaders are failing us; it is during these times that the bad utopias come out of these little boxes to play.

You yourself are guilty of the special pleading you accuse me of. The existence of racial stratification doesn’t count because of racism, discrimination, and cultural legacies. Nevermind that those things are endemic to multicultures — the beatings will continue until morale improves.

In the murky practice of historical analogy, there is no avoiding some amount of special pleading this way—on all sides. The way to judge whose pleading is better is to make the question explicit. To me, the question was: can a multicultural civilisation prosper? And the answer is: yes, of course it can; these things last for centuries, often as the most prosperous civilisations there are.

Then the next questions to ask is: what makes this time different from all the other times? That is a more complicated question to ask, why this time is exceptional. There are many possible reasons for this, it is admittedly a very complex question. But one thing we know, for the present conflicts to even exist, one must reify the concept of kinship and its relationship to territory in a manner than the Romans and the Ottomans and so on did not. The Romans surely had a notion of romanitas, but it wasn’t anywhere near congruent to some political idea of natio Romana. The thing you value is a key innovation of the last two centuries or so. You could argue that we would be happier and more prosperous were we to adopt it, but that’s a strong claim. In some sense, multiculturalism is merely the pre-nationalist order reasserting itself under present-day conditions.

So, *next time* we’ll get it right, we promise. You want us to just take the risk and trust you.

By my understanding, the argument is that by the practice of racial/ethnic/whatever purity we will achieve a state of lower internecine social conflict and therefore more prosperity. I dispute some links in this chain, but that is neither here nor there. But we know that attempts in the past to achieve this resulted in great suffering, because the default state of the world—the state of nature if you will—is actually a more chaotic, interconnected, intermingled social structure, at least beyond the village/small town level, other things being equal.

So then, as you have already stated, you would argue, why make it worse? But, if we are merely talking about the material aspect, there are many counterarguments to restricting immigration out of racial motive, at least one of which are the technicalities thereof. We don’t currently live in autarkies or any approximation thereof, and more to the point, we probably can’t, not without an economic or environmental cataclysm either preceding or following.

I’m glad you admit they are mostly draft dodgers, but that contradicts their claim to being “refugees”, doesn’t it? If they are draft dodgers, they should stay and fight for their country; if they’re refugees, they should seek refuge in the rich neighboring Muslim Arab countries.

Except we don’t know what their country is; it’s a civil war for whom, in many cases, either side is hostile. No one should want to introduce more combatants to Syria of all places. And the neighbouring Muslim Arab countries are often the authors of their misery, at least by proxy—and entangled with the very colonial conflicts that have made the modern West multicultural. These conflicts do not follow lines easy for a prior “axiomatic” preference for purity.

I’m open to changing my mind, and I have before, but these arguments are more axiomatic than factual. Logical argument can influence people to change their axioms over time, but not over the course of a single discussion.

I may get back to your other remarks later if I have time, but this is a key point. For you the right to the reification of the corporeal race in nation-state form is a moral axiom. And therefore, I cannot and do not aspire to convince you that you are wrong in this, because you cannot be; it is clearly a deeply felt preference.

The difference is that in my reality, we can both be ourselves as we are, individually speaking. Whereas, if you were to come close to succeeding again in enacting the purification of the corporeal nation, it would be a catastrophe for me, and for many many others; but for you it would merely be the establishment of a preferred way of being.

It was the attempt to *establish* Westphalian nation-states that is the root of the problem in the Middle East. People don’t live separately there except *maybe* in some of the Gulf kingdoms. There *is* no stable division of the pie there possible without genocide.

And if part of the world cannot be ruled that way, it is likely none of it can. Intuitive just-so stories connecting tribal behaviour to particular state forms don’t cut it.

I may disagree with VV on tribalism, but he got something else correct: The owners of the USA need to give up their mad dreams of owning the whole planet (including the Middle East), settle for the parts they own already, and make an alliance with Russia.

…just as the Inquisition did to Spain.

Mandos,

Whereas, if you were to come close to succeeding again in enacting the purification of the corporeal nation, it would be a catastrophe for me, and for many many others; but for you it would merely be the establishment of a preferred way of being.

I just don’t believe this is true. Some immigration has always existed and always will. I only have a problem at the scale where immigration brings wholesale changes to the host society (things we’ve discussed like the depression of wages, racial and cultural replacement, atomization, etc).

Oh, sometimes we must take these things out of their dank little boxes in the attic and gaze upon them. Especially in a time when our leaders are failing us; it is during these times that the bad utopias come out of these little boxes to play.

This from the guy who wants to eradicate nation states? Smh …

Replacing God?

[b]I SAY THEE NAY![/b]

(oops, wrong god) 😉

I am serving God, Who is Love, by supporting the universalism of the Enlightenment. It is God’s wisdom and benign will that we live in peace with one another. God calls us to evolve beyond the savage traits our primitive ancestors sometimes needed to survive in the primordial wilderness.

Blizzy’s idea of God, ironically, seems very much like the misunderstanding of God held by the Wahhabi wackos–the arbitrary and cruel Great Thunder Fairy In The Sky of atheist caricature, who plays favorites among individuals and even among nations.

The God who became flesh–and forgave the misguided wretches, just following orders, who nailed Him to the cross–is farther above and beyond the Thunder Fairy than the Whirlpool Galaxy is above and beyond the Earth.

Blizzy’s kind of believers existed in the Savior’s time on Earth, too–and on that first “Good” Friday, a mob of them could be found in Pilate’s courtyard, shouting “Crucify Him!”.

I trust God will forgive Blizzy, though–for he knows not what he does.

“Jonah”, did you catch the thread a few posts back where Blizzy said Churchill started WW2?

https://www.ianwelsh.net/ethics-and-responsibility-in-relation-to-paris/

Churchill wasn’t even Prime Minister of the UK yet when WW2 started. 😆

Unfortunately the comment monster ate all the comments on the previous page. I kind of wonder if it might not be better just to turn pagination off on the comments, since it seems to be broken in ths version of WordPress.

The link to older comments is broken again. Here’s a direct link:

https://www.ianwelsh.net/if-you-wanted-to-ban-foreigners-from-the-us-to-stop-terrorist-attacks/comment-page-0/#comments

Oh, yeah–“Ian Welsh and the Comment Monsters” would be a great name for a rock band. 😆