Sunday, July 3, 2016

Kittens in Ovens and Muslims in Sweden

Here's a very instructive thread that starts with the meme that says pretty much the same thing as my "Kittens in the oven" quibcag, which has several versions. Go here [link] if you missed it. The confusion about identity manifesting below has many origins, some benign, some malignant. Yes, in our early years, we welcomed immigrants from Britain and encouraged them to come and become Americans, but such people were our cousins, sometimes quite literally. The basic genetic makeup of an "American" was virtually identical to that of British immigrants. British immigrants did not change our physical or cultural makeup in any perceptible way. To a slightly lesser extent, we were glad to have immigrants from the nations of our cousins' cousins, so to speak, including Scandinavia, all those little German countries, the low countries — Northwestern Europe, in short. Again, there was little genetic difference, and not much cultural difference. The biggest difference was of course linguistic, and even then, these immigrants spoke German, Dutch, Swediish, and other languages which, like English, belong to the Germanic, or Teutonic, language family. This was pretty much the pattern for immigration to America up until the late 19th century, when we started to get somewhat more distant European immigrants, from Italy and Eastern Europe, and also many Ashkenazi Jews., who were much more alien-seeming than the Sephardic Jews who had been in America for quite some time [link]. At this point, it was obvious to many that this was getting a little out of hand, and the Immigration Act of 1924 [link] was passed which was designed to ensure that our basic Northwest European cultural background would not be changed. And, of course, Lyndon Johnson screwed all that up in 1965, as he screwed so many things up.

As I said, this thread from a social media site is very instructive. Achilles, who has the best of intentions, has clearly been thoroughly indoctrinated by the Zeitgeist, and is quite prepared to put butter and jelly on the kitten born in the oven. Only in the last few years, really, has it been considered reasonable to define, say, "Greek" as someone of any race or ethnicity born within the borders of the country called "Greece." Substituting a legalistic definition for common sense is the sort of thing that's popular today, but is no less absurd than it was a century ago. This is all tangled up with the daffy notion that human beings are fungible. Fungible things are equal things, you see, which is why currency is considered fungible, and it doesn't matter which dollar bill you have, you still have a dollar which is the equivalent of every other dollar bill on the planet.

Human beings aren't fungible. Thought experiment. If Iceland, say, decides to take in over the next ten years three hundred thousand Norwegian immigrants  —  ethnic Norwegians, not the offspring of Somali immgrants to Norway — that will certainly change the character of Iceland, but since Norwegians and Icelanders are genetically and culturally closely related, the changes will be minimal. Now think about the same situation, only with Korean immigrants. Or Kenyan immigrants. Obviously, after ten years, Iceland will be unrecognizable. 

Here is the exchange:

Normally I stay out of this stuff, but I've got to disagree with this [the graphic above]. If he was born in Sweden then he is a Swede. Where your born doesn't effect religion. In this case he would be a Muslim from Sweden. If you go through the work to emigrate to a coun
try then your nationality changes, not your religion. I am american because I was born here, but I could move to Japan, become a legal citizen and renounce my US citizenship and them I'm legally Japanese. I would still have been born American, nothing can change that.

Matt Bailey: Sheer autism. "Nation" literally comes from the Latin referring to birth. It only has meaning, life, and functionality when applied to a group that has shared genetics, history, language culture, and genetics. Yes I said genetics twice, because it is that f*cking important. The last time "multiculturalism" was tried in history it was called the Roman empire. You'll note that it is not here anymore. Meanwhile Sweden is pretty much all the way over into becoming a Middle Eastern hell-hole, only with much drearier weather. This is because genetics and culture determine what a nation is like. There is no "magic dirt" that erases tens of thousands of years of separate and distinct genetic and cultural evolution as soon as some foreigner sets foot in a different country.

Matt Bailey:  And "culture" isn't all about what kind of spice you like on your food. Far from it. It has far more important implications, for instance different cultures have very different ideas about rape. "In 2012, according to the report by UNODC, Sweden was quoted as having 66.5 cases of reported rapes per 100,000 population, based on official statistics by Brå. This is the highest number of reported rape of any nation in the report."

Matt Bailey:  How do you feel about gays, Achilles? Do you think it should actually be illegal? I had an obviously gay cousin living up the road for many years, in the middle of hard-shell Baptist East Texas. The populace around here left him alone. By comparison... [link]

Matt Bailey:  Turning closer to home, what is your cultural feeling on murder? I imagine it is something along the lines of "It's bad" right? But the culture of all nations do not feel as strongly about it. For instance, in 2013 the United States had 4 intentional homicides per 100,000 people. This is down from 8 in 1995. Crime has been on a steady downswing for many years in the U.S. for some reason. I'm betting it's because of Roe vs. Wade, but that's another subject. Meanwhile, in Mexico the rate has basically stayed the same-17 in 1995, 19 in 2013. Tell me Achilles, what do you think happens to the murder rate of a locality when the population of a nation with a murder rate ~5 times swarms into that place en masse? Especially considering that most border-crossing will be done by the bottom end of the social ladder?
Intentional homicides (per 100,000 people) | Data
Achilles:  I'm not saying that there aren't cultural problems that come along with "race" differences. It's an issue thats burned into us at this point. In the end the culture that effects more than anything is religion. That is the biggest problem with major religions. Many leave no room for other interpretations, which means if you don't agree with me you're wrong. And here's the thing, I know I will never get you to agree with me on this, but I don't care. You have your beliefs and I have mine. Do they match, no, but that doesn't mean we can't discuss them in a civil manner. I believe it was Aristotle who said "An intelligent mind can contemplate an idea without accepting it as true." I can't deny that when you mix different cultures together it affects things on various levels, but a group of well educated people can agree to common ideals, despite cultural differences, as long as they dont allow religous fervor to dictate their level of reason.

Matt Bailey:  "but a group of well educated people can agree to common ideals, despite cultural differences"— The entirety of history proves you wrong. Culture consists of numerous ideals that ultimately cannot be proved right or wrong. You can't prove that a Muslim is wrong for wanting to ban homosexuality, for instance. You can't devise a mathematical formula to "prove" whether beer, bacon, bikinis and dogs are "Awesome" or "Unclean". What can be proven is that diversity+proximity=BOOM. If you like an aspect of your culture (say the casual attitude to religion we have in the modern West) then remember it will only last so long as you fill your polity with people agree with you. Once a majority disagrees with you, then a different rule will hold sway. I shouldn't even have to explain that to people, but here I am...

Matt Bailey:  BTW, putting "race" in quotation marks-That isn't even "not seeing the forest for the trees". That is sheer, abject ignorance of the subject matter. Racial differences have been tested to death and there are distinct differences in IQ, physical traits, temperament, and IQ *on average* in the 3 major races, which we should really refer to as sub-species of Homo sapiens. For instance, every single human who has run 100 meters in under 10 seconds has been of West African descent. Do you think that's just chance? Moreover, it has been established beyond a shadow of a doubt that Caucasians and Asians are extensively *hybridized* with Neanderthal and other non-human Hominid species. There is precedent for this sort of thing in the animal world-The Coywulf, a hybrid of Eastern Grey Wolves and Coyotes has formed its own separate, viable breeding population in the Eastern U.S. and is considered by science a separate species from either of the parent populations.
Afterword: First, my apologies for the awkward formatting here. The margins seem to have followed over from the original site and I can't figure out how to modify them. Now to the red meat. Achilles has bought into the conventional wisdom, of course, and thinks that by changing definitions you somehow change reality. You don't. I remember once many years ago in the Army, the mess hall served us slabs of bread with tomato sauce on it and called it "pizza." It wasn't pizza, except on some military bureaucrat's menu list, and Ahmed is not a Swede. He's a Muslim who is by law a citizen of Sweden, which is a totally different category.

And this phrase is breathtakingly naive: "but a group of well educated people can agree to common ideals, despite cultural differences"

Achilles is clearly clueless about the reality of cultural differences, as Matt points out. There is very little in the way of "common ideals" between, say, Sixteenth Century Spaniards and Sixteenth Century Aztecs, no matter how "well educated" they might have been, and we know what happened there. So no, there's no way the West is going to swallow and assimilate millions of Middle Eastern Muslims on the basis of "common ideals," because, really, there aren't any, certainly not enough to offset the ideals that are not common.

Achilles exhibits the common misconception of leftists that everybody is pretty much alike underneath the superficial differences in cuisine and wardrobe, and can therefore get along just fine when they decide to do so. This is utter nonsense, of course, as any honest anthropologist could tell you. Different human cultures are often completely incompatible — Behavior that is absolutely requires in Culture A may be considered so horrible and obscene by Culture B that it has to be eradicated by any means necessary. If that sounds extreme to you, just imagine moving a cannibal tribe from New Guinea into a Buddhist village in Bhutan. Then run like hell, because there's going to be trouble, no matter how many "well educated" people there might be in the two groups.

Of course, what Achilles is thinking of when he says "well educated," is people of various ethnic origins who have been westernized, so that they do have "common ideals." Believe me, the last Inca Emperor and, say, Mother Teresa, did not have "common ideals."

The takeaway from this? Achilles' position is naive and propped up by wishful thinking and probably watching too much Star Trek. Matt Bailey's position is realistic and based on facts and logic.
Quibcags: The first graphic is from the thread, except that I modified it to make it easier to read. The second is illustrated by Ranma and Ukyo from Ranma ½ (らんま½). And the last seems to be illustrated by characters from Girls und Panzer (ガールズ&パンツァーGāruzu ando Pantsā).


  1. The roman empire is cited by Matt Bailey as an example where multiculturalism was attempted. Another great example is the Mongol empire. The only way they could keep multiculturalism functioning was the doctrine of Pax Mongolica - all loyalty was to the Great Khan Genghis Khan and to no other.

    Of course, to the Mongols, this meant death if you were disloyal to your Great Khan.

    Must we be loyal to the Great Khan Obama or Shillary for multiculturalism to function?

    Food for thought.

  2. The original Sephardim in America came from Amsterdam. Sephardim means Spanish Jews. These were what would be called today Ashkenazim. European Jews not from N Africa