Rock'n'roll and other fascisms
Examples of these norms include defining white skin tones as nude or flesh colored, having a future time orientation, emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology, defining one form of English as standard, and identifying only Whites as great writers or composers.
The
Finnish army, based on conscription, has a regiment airborne rangers,
but at least until now I thought that that is as far as the very
special forces go. I also have to wonder how much lifetime such rangers
have without air superiority, but that's perhaps for the more
military-minded people to analyse. However, I noticed that somebody had
linked to the recruitment video
of the airborne rangers and the special rangers squad, who are
apparently hired among the conscripted airborne rangers. The
recruitment video could have used some better music and much snappier
editing, and I don't know how these special rangers would match up
against Navy SEALs, but at least they have cool gear.
I have
recently noticed that immigration is a big topic in America now, and
many conservatives are very disappointed of their Dear Leader. But hey,
if the Americans seriously believe that adding a hundred million Third
World immigrants to their ranks during the next few decades is a good
thing, who would I be to advice them otherwise? It's not like those
people would continue their trek all the way here to Canada up North. Steve Sailer has collected some Reactions to the Bush Immigration speech. Mean Mr. Mustard asks in his post "Immigration: the Humanitarian Argument":
So theoretically over the course of about 20 years we could manage to accept, at huge cost to ourselves, less than one-sixth of one percent of those miserable people who would jump at the chance to be in America. How is that anything more than a meager and meaningless extension of the same inherently unfair lottery that results in people being lucky enough to be born in the US? No doubt that to those particular people it would be a great benefit to be in the US, but why should we be privileging them over the other billions?
The answer: because effectively alleviating suffering is not the real motive behind ostensibly humanitarian justifications for immigration. The real motive, as is so often the case in this most dishonest of ages, is the moral self-satisfaction of those advocating the policy. Their ego draws succor from the misleading vividness of seeing some third world peasant taking advantage of the land of plenty while they are conveniently unburdened with any recognition that for every Somali or Mexican Indian their country admits, there are 1000 who didn't get the same opportunity (and how fair is that?).
Then again, as Lawrence Auster
has often pointed out, the chasm between the stated goals of leftists
compared to what they really do is so vast that one has no choice but
conclude that the real telos of leftism is something vastly different
than what the leftists say it is.
One common argument for
letting illegal immigrants stay in (and thus encourage the next batch
of hopefuls to sneak in to further increase their ranks and political
power) is that there are just so many of them that it's not feasible to
deport them. I am sorry, but this is sheer nonsense: every country that
has any claim of being an
actual country necessarily possesses the capability to do this, so it
is merely a question of will and need. A few days ago Vox Day
had a little William Bennett moment for pointing out that since the
Nazi Germany had the capability to locate, transport and exterminate
six million well-assimilated Jews, the present-day USA certainly has
the capability to locate and deport twelve million poorly-assimilated
illegal immigrants. This is obviously true, but for some reason, many
people seem to have missed the difference between "locate and deport"
and "locate, transport and exterminate", reading a lot more to Vox's
words than there was.
I read a few days ago in one Finnish blog
that in Sweden, the Muslims living there have organized and demanded a
separate legal system for Muslims in which, for example, divorce would
not be allowed unless the imam approves of it. Also the idea that the
man should be the head of the family since he is more rational and thus
better equipped for that role was to be codified into this law. With a
proposal as severe as this, I wonder why I haven't read one word about
it in the Anglosphere media and the parts of the blogosphere that I
follow. In addition, when we remember how powerful and active feminists
are in Sweden, I am sure that they have already opposed this proposal
and loudly condemned these racists, homophobes and chauvinists. By now
they have certainly already called for the Swedish government to take
swift and severe action to disband their sexist organizations and
prevent these people from making further inroads to the equalist
society of Sweden. You know, the same way feminists tend to immediately
loudly condemn any white man who suggests that, say, men and women have
certain inherent statistical differences in abilities, or that the gay
marriage might not be a 100% positive thing. I am certainly looking
forward to the feminist reaction to what is going on in Sweden. Perhaps
it will come as soon as tomorrow!
Ilkka: "I read a few days ago from one Finnish blog that in Sweden"
Wrong preposition again.
You read things in newspapers, documents etc.
Finnish idioms written in English sound incredibly awkward.
Posted by Anonymous | 10:57 AM
What happened was that a large muslim organization with 70,000 members of out the (at least nominally) 450,000 or so muslims in Sweden sent a letter to all of the political parties with representatives in the parliament making the demands you mention. The demands were met with refusals to consider it seriously.
However, the absolute and relative size of the muslim population in Sweden is growing because muslims tend to have larger families than other groups and because of muslim immigration being allowed to continue. At some point in the future, it may not be possible to dismiss such demands as easily as this time.
I predict that after a few decades, Western Europe will give in to such muslim demands because of the increased political clout of the muslim population. There will be resistance, but many Western politicians, particularly on the pro-multicultural left, will use the opportunity to attract the votes of the muslim population by supporting their demands.
An alternative scenario is, of course, the successful assimilation of the muslim population. I just don't see how the substantial growth of the muslim population will make that any easier. In reality, of course, it will make it much easier for a greater share of the immigrant population to stay isolated in their ghettoes. The ghettoes will also become more impervious to outside influences as they grow.
I see the long-term future of Europe as a race between irreversible islamisation and the arrival of technological singularity.
Posted by Markku | 11:29 AM
Markku said: I see the long-term future of Europe as a race between irreversible islamisation and the arrival of technological singularity.
I say you need to put down the bong, step away from the computer, and take off the Star Trek uniform. On a whim, one day I started to write a screenplay about the unexpected result of the singularity. I gave it up when I realized it read like a very poor man's Doug Adams.
Posted by Disgruntled | 12:14 PM
So, you once wrote something stupid on the topic, which is why you think the historical trend of acceleration of technological development - particularly that of information technology - will essentially grind to a halt in the near future?
Posted by Markku | 12:18 PM
markku, I think there's slight difference between "halt" and slowing down. I bet there would be no singularity, but techonological progress will slow down. Also count what happens when peak oil arrives.
Posted by Anonymous | 12:24 PM
Ahem... One thing that definitely cannot be used when speaking about the vast bulk of East European Jewry before WWII is _assimilated_. You are now making the patognomonic intelligentsija mistake yourself in thinking of people as your own selected circle just written large.
Posted by Catilina | 1:42 PM
Markku,
No, I'm very uncertain about the ultimate outcome of information technology. I guess I'm just less sanguine about its prospects, especially as related to a solution to the immigration problems now facing the world.
If we both live long enough, perhaps we'll discover who was correct. I apologize if my post was a little more insulting than I intended.
Posted by Disgruntled | 1:56 PM
Also, I was a bit amused by relating belief about the possibility of a singularity event to the Islamic takeover of Europe. Do you think that technological development wouldn't shift to the rest of the world, even if Europe were Islamic, or are you suggesting that AI would somehow protect Europe and foil Islamic culture?
I realize believers in the singularity tend to claim it would make cultural predictions impossible, or something; but most seem to have very clear ideas about what they conceive as the outcome of AI or transhuman development.
Posted by Disgruntled | 2:14 PM
This post has been removed by the author.
Posted by Markku | 3:52 PM
Anonymous:
"I bet there would be no singularity, but techonological progress will slow down."
There is no sign of that happening. On the contrary, technological progress is accelerating.
"Also count what happens when peak oil arrives."
To simplify the issue, but not all that much: Americans stop wasting gas => peak oil solved.
Disgruntled:
"Also, I was a bit amused by relating belief about the possibility of a singularity event to the Islamic takeover of Europe. Do you think that technological development wouldn't shift to the rest of the world, even if Europe were Islamic, or are you suggesting that AI would somehow protect Europe and foil Islamic culture?"
Suppose you have trillions of times of computational capacity at your disposal. Suppose your're capable of uploading the mind into a vastly more efficient substrate than the biological brain. You will not need a piece of real estate on Earth to live in. You will only need a vanishingly small amount of energy to run your mind on. You easily survive on the bottom of an ocean, in outer space or pretty much anywhere you want. At some point, ownership of a piece of real estate will become of no consequence whatsover.
Posted by Markku | 4:05 PM
Catilina,
I don't know why you started talking about Jews all of a sudden. Anyway, I think the non-assimilation of Jews is MUCH less of a problem than that of Muslims. First of all, even the most ultra-conservative (observant) Jews have no ambition of forcing others to become Jews. Secondly, Ashkenazi Jews tend to be considerably more intelligent than white gentiles, on average. The enrichment of high-IQ promoting genes in the Ashkenazi Jewish population is caused by the high regard they have for intelligence and how that influenced the reproductive choices made by Ashkenazi Jewish women. Rabbis had very high status in the Jewish community and thus high sexual market value. In the Middle Ages, European Jews often worked in towns and cities in relatively intellectually demanding professions as they were prohibited from owning land. In short, among Ashkenazi Jews smart people have had a greater reproductive advantage for many tens of perhaps even hundreds of generations than among the vast majority of other peoples. (Parsis are another such minority.)
I despise nazis and muslims to a large degree because both want to destroy or oppress a group of people responsible for a vastly disproportionately large share of inventions and intellectual achievement that has been of enormous benefit to all humanity. It is telling that in muslim countries such as Turkey (despite the fact that Turkey and Israel have a co-operative relationship) and all Arab countries, there is rampant and grotesque popular anti-Semitism, and that Hitler himself praised "the Mohammedan warrior cult".
Posted by Markku | 12:05 PM
As to the "why" I was commenting on paragraph in the original posting.
Secondly I know quite well the history of European Jewry with many aspects you obviously don't but I won't elaborate them here e.g. _why_ they were prohibited from owning land but that is besides the point.
The point is: The vast masses of East European Jewry before WWII, products of a massive Jewish population explosion in 18th and 19th centuries, were definitely and certainly not _assimilated_. Whatever they were, that they were not.
Posted by Catilina | 1:17 PM