Showing posts with label Cultural values. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cultural values. Show all posts

01 September 2021

Unvetted Afghans: A Bitter Harvest


America has finally bit the bullet and left Afghanistan, the ‘graveyard of empires’, after 20 years of failed nation-building. The airport in Kabul has been swarmed with Afghans trying to flee the country ahead of the Taliban’s hardline Islamist takeover.

 

Thousands of Afghan nationals have helped the occupier these last 20 years and thus have targets on their backs. Collaborators have in all times and places suffered the same fate: public humiliation, prison, or death.

 

We are told we must immediately airlift these innocents to the U.S., as well as their families, and while we’re at it, any Afghan who’d like to hop on a military jet for a one-way trip through our golden door.


From the New York Times: 


There is no time for bureaucracy. The U.S. is now planning to take Afghans who are awaiting visas to third countries or U.S. military bases, but according to Varghese, it’s not clear what criteria will be used for vetting them. They should be as liberal as possible. We should not be consigning people to execution for lack of paperwork.

…  And, of course, we should bring as many as possible here. Canada, which is about one-ninth the size of the United States, has announced its intention to take more than 20,000 fleeing Afghans. There is no way to justify America accepting fewer on a per capita basis; 180,000 should be the absolute floor.

 

Ms. Goldberg seems to have forgotten we’ve been here before.

 

In 2015, as ISIS marched through Syria and Iraq sending millions fleeing, Angela Merkel threw open the doors of Europe. She promised no vetting: The Million Muslim March was on. 

 

The entire global south was told it was ‘open bar’ in Europe, and they rolled in from Morocco to Uganda to Bangladesh. (We chronicled it in detail at the time.)

Afghanistan, caught in a slow-boil civil war between the U.S.’s puppet government and the Taliban, also sent their share of desperate refugees ‘looking for a better life.’ Floating over on dinghies, with no vetting whatsoever, these young men poured into every corner of Western Europe, who welcomed them with open arms.

 

How did they thank their rescuers? We’re glad you asked.

 


They thanked them by committing a dizzying array of crimes; against the old, the young, the well-armed, the defenseless, from theft to rape to battery to murder, from teeming cities to tiny village hamlets.


The round-up below is just the tip of the iceberg. These are articles we have stumbled upon and saved in the years since Merkel’s ‘Million Muslim March’ into Europe began. A targeted search would no doubt turn up many hundreds more.


Are there any lessons for U.S. decision-makers here?

 

Tour d’horizon…

 


31 July 2021

The Black Call for Separation



The death in police custody last year of a violent felon whose heart stopped while resisting arrest led to the worst rioting in U.S. history.

 


It has also led to much soul-searching, as Blacks in America wonder if they can continue to live side-by-side with Whites.



There is increasing evidence that Afro-Americans are simply not comfortable bending to the strictures and customs enforced by Euro-Americans. They feel pushed aside, hemmed in, and held down.


So, despite fighting for centuries to have equal access to white spaces, today more and more black voices are rising to call for racial separation.                     



What is the evidence for this surprising phenomenon? To what could it lead?

 

 

30 June 2020

Fall of the Empire, Thy Name is... Woman?


[This is our first new content in over a year... Thanks for your patience!]


This past March, as the coronavirus raged, 'International Women's Day' would be the last major public gathering for many months. The UN's Antonio Gutierrez remarked:
Men have used and abused power to control women and prevent them from achieving their potential for millennia. Deep-rooted patriarchy and misogyny have created a yawning gender power gap in our economies, our political systems, our corporations, our societies and our culture.
Women are still very frequently denied a voice; their opinions are ignored and their experience discounted. There is no justification for women’s continued exclusion. 

It's true that for most of human history, women and their way of seeing the world have been shut out from the halls of power. In the late 18th century, antiquarian Thomas Amyot summed up the spirit of the age by claiming that women were
‘formed for the lighter duties of Life,’ because of the ‘delicacy of their Frames, the Sensibility of their Dispositions, and, above all the Caprice of their Tempers.’ He proclaimed: ‘A virtuous wife and an affectionate Mother are perhaps the most amiable Characters in the Universe. To these Characters let every female aspire and let us hear no more of the Rights of Woman.’ 


In 1871 Madeleine Dahlgren, writer, poet, and founder of the Literary Society of Washington, led a petition before Congress asking them not to give women the vote:
The advocates of female suffrage claim that if women had the right to vote they would purify legislation of many abuses. But, on the other hand, we hold that the new status will prove to be the worst kind of communism. 
… The mothers, sisters, and daughters of our glorious past will exist no more and the female gender will vanish into the epicene. Involved in one common ruin from our present proud preeminence, we shall become a laughing-stock and a by-word to the nations of the world. 
The special advantage as a safe advisor to man that woman holds at present arises entirely from the neutral ground she occupies in the political world. … The fact is, women reason less and feel more deeply than men. … Take woman out of her proper sphere, and in place of man's precious and true guide and best coadjutor she becomes his worst antagonist and enemy. (1)

But the sufragettes fought hard. At the height of the debates in 1917, feminist Olive Schreiner laid out their plans:
'For the present we take all labor for our province. From the judge's seat to the legislator's chair; from the stateman's closet to the merchant's desk; from the chemist's laboratory to the astronomer's tower, there is no post or form of toil for which it is not our intention to fit ourselves. There is no closed door we do not intend to force open, no fruit in the garden of knowledge it is not our determination to eat.' (2)
In the ensuing century, not only has all this come to pass, but the feminine spirit has seeped into every nook and cranny of Western society. Have the results been to our benefit?


30 April 2020

The Madonna and the Whore



(The coronavirus crisis has plunged some into inactivity, while others are busier than ever. We fall into the latter camp. Thus we must slightly postpone our newest article. In the meantime, as a belated celebration of International Women's Day, we offer this re-print of our piece on the conundrum of Western Woman. We hope you will find it of interest. Stay tuned next month for new material!)


[Re-post, original post here.]

Cheerleaders of mass immigration from the South to the North have a number of arguments:

1) They spice up our lives:


'I think that's what makes many Swedes jealous of immigrant groups. You have a culture, an identity, a history, something that brings you together. And what do we have? We have Midsummer's Eve and such silly things.'
---Swedish Social Democrat MP Mona Sahlin, in a speech to the Turkish youth organization Euroturk, March, 2002.


2) They boost our standard of living:


'Various surveys of [London] employers come to the predictable conclusion that migrants are better employees: they are more highly skilled, work harder and are prepared to do jobs that locals disdain. They may also be more innovative. In America they are disproportionately responsible for tech start-ups; similarly, they are over-represented in Silicon Roundabout, the tech hub east of the City, ... firms set up or managed by migrants are more innovative.' 
---The Economist, opinion leader since 1843 for the elite and those who strive to join them


3) Diversity is a religious principle the Gods of Equalitarianism want us to uphold:


'I'm concerned that this increased speculation could cause a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers ... Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.'

--George W. Casey, highest-ranking general in the U.S. Army, reacting to the Fort Hood army base shooting, in which a Palestinian army major cried 'Allahu Akbar!' while killing 13 and wounding 30.


One of the oddest things about such cheerleaders, especially in Europe, is their avid support of 'women's rights.'  Odd, because the peoples with which they long to fill up their countries share no such notion.  The proof is starting to bubble to the surface.  Besides the honor killings, child marriages, genital mutilation, polygamy, and gender segregation these neo-colonists have brought to the West, they are starting to act out against the native populations.  The results give pause.

22 December 2019

The Slow Sovietization of the West

(We are offline due to a much-needed research period at the moment, so we've decided to re-publish some earlier pieces you might have missed the first time.)




The circular firing squad has finally come for leftist cultural icon J.K. Rowling. Her tweet heard round the world:



Sex is not real, it would appear, to a large number of the twitterati, who promptly dogpiled Ms. Rowling whilst lamenting their now-ruined childhoods:



To understand how such a surreal sequence of events can in fact be unfolding, we offer this piece of research from a few years back. We hope you find it illuminating.



[Re-post, original post here.]


16 November 2019

Islam: Why We Culturally Profile It

(We are offline due to a much-needed research period at the moment, so we've decided to re-publish some earlier pieces you might have missed the first time.)


Four years ago this week, France experienced its "9-11": The Bataclan terror attacks. Shortly after, we published this body of data on why, exactly, Europeans are becoming so wary of the mass of Muslim immigrants streaming into their countries.

We publish it again on this terrible anniversary, with the footnote that all of the tendencies described therein have only intensified in the intervening four years.

We hope you appreciate this food for thought.


The Europe to come?

[Re-post, original post here.]



At the height of the Trayvon Martin affair, we met a young Afro-Canadian who strongly objected to being racially profiled. Drawing on the pool of data at our disposal, we presented, to the best of our ability, the reasons such profiling exists.

Today, as hundreds of thousands of Muslim migrants pour into Europe to claim asylum, profiling again rears its ugly head. Not racial/ethnic this time, but religious:

At least five European countries have signaled that they prefer to grant asylum only to Christian refugees flooding the continent from the Middle East, not to Muslims.
“I think we have a right to decide that we do not want a large number of Muslim people in our country,” Hungarian Prime Minister Orban said.  ... “Refugees from a completely different cultural background would not be in a good position in the Czech Republic,” said Czech President Milos Zeman.


On what are these fears based? Ignorance, prejudice? We have been told for years that immigration is a gift, an economic boost, an injection of fresh blood, and that our new guests will culturally enrich our lives with their differentness (all while assimilating seamlessly thanks to their sameness). We at TWCS have thus decided to take a deeper look at the data.

But is Islam a religion, a culture, or a civilization? Has it genetically changed its adherents over time like Christianity has (cousin marriage enforced vs. forbidden)? In the absence of any genetic connection, does it culturally push its believers to certain behaviors? Could these beliefs and behaviors really, as the critics charge, prevent their assimilation into the West?

In a word--is this cultural profiling of Muslims based on fact or fantasy?


11 February 2019

Reparations for Redlining?

We are offline due to a much-needed research period this winter, so we've decided to re-publish some earlier pieces that you might have missed the first time.

With 'reparations for red-lining' back in the news thanks to the plucky Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, here is the data we were able to find on this thorny question back when Ta-Nehisi Coates last tossed it in the punch bowl. We hope you find it as interesting as we did.  


*     *     *





'Ingenious and powerful,' 'important and compelling', 'stunningly ambitious;' it has 'broken traffic records and vanished from newsstands,' 'setting ablaze' social media.  What is it?

It is 'The Case for Reparations,' Atlantic's June 2014 cover story by editor Ta-Nehisi Coates.



The idea has been tossed around since Emancipation, falling out of fashion as of late. Coates brings it roaring back in this long-form piece, calling on Euro-Americans to 1) publicly express their guilt about past oppression, and 2) pay reparation money to their Afro countrymen.  Does his argument hold water?

The 17-page article covers much ground, but it seems Coates seeks redress for three major wrongs:

  • Slavery
  • Land theft
  • Red-lining

They are three quite different topics, and should be treated as such.  We shall begin by addressing the most recent: so-called 'redlining.'

Coates tells the story of Clyde Ross, son of Mississipi sharecroppers who came to Chicago in the Great Migration:
'Three months after Clyde Ross moved into his house, the boiler blew out. This would normally be a homeowner’s responsibility, but in fact, Ross was not really a homeowner. His payments were made to the seller, not the bank. And Ross had not signed a normal mortgage. He’d bought “on contract”: a predatory agreement that combined all the responsibilities of homeownership with all the disadvantages of renting—while offering the benefits of neither. 
Ross had bought his house for $27,500. The seller, not the previous homeowner but a new kind of middleman, had bought it for only $12,000 six months before selling it to Ross. In a contract sale, the seller kept the deed until the contract was paid in full—and, unlike with a normal mortgage, Ross would acquire no equity in the meantime.'

Why was Ross obliged to buy a house 'on contract'? Because he could secure no regular mortgage financing. Chances are, in large part because he was Afro-American.



31 July 2018

Widening Circle of Empathy: The Final Frontier



The town of Székesfehérvár, Hungary--a thousand-year-old city home to the original royal court--just applied for the coveted 'European Capital of Culture.' The video they submitted was turned down flat by the E.U. jury. The reason?

'There are too many happy white people and crosses, and not enough migrants.' … One of the European Union’s experts said with astonishment: 'This is the propaganda film for white Christian Europe; everyone is white, happy and dancing in the streets.'

Just a few months later, the soccer World Cup final pitted France against Croatia. Before the match, France's Anti-Defamation League posted:


'France's team, multi-colored, multi-ethnic, goes head to head with a Croatian team that's distressingly uniform.  Knowing Croatia's history, no surprise. Balkan-centric, nostalgic for an era which worshiped only brute strength, they play a soccer that is bland, colorless, flavorless…
'France will win—she's already won! She unites, welcomes, understands. … Let's keep fighting so that our Republic's values stay on top, even if—against all odds—we lose.'

Hungary 'too white,' Croatia 'colorless'… Whence this race-obsessed rhetoric? 

Steven Pinker has written at length about the 'widening circle of empathy.'  We at TWCS believe that it has four phases, and that certain Western countries have now entered the fourth and terminal phase: the desire for self-replacement.



On what do we base this claim?

And if true, where does it come from? How do we know when it's approaching? Is there anything we can do to stop it?


12 October 2017

Governments Are Us


David Brooks has a history lesson for Donald Trump (via Steve Sailer):
The Trump story is that good honest Americans are being screwed by aliens.  …  This is a tribal story.  
Somebody is going to have to arise to point out that this is a deeply wrong and un-American story. The whole point of America is that we are not a tribe. We are a universal nation, founded on universal principles, attracting talented people from across the globe, active across the world on behalf of all people who seek democracy and dignity.
This lovely fiction from Mr. Brooks is as quaint as it is ahistorical. But it does go back a fair way. Not as far as our founders, bequeathing a nation 'to ourselves and our posterity.' Not as far as our first naturalization act, in 1790, extended to 'free white persons of good character.' 

Not as far as Thomas Jefferson, quoted by Alexander Hamilton:

'The opinion advanced in [Jefferson's] The Notes on Virginia is undoubtedly correct, that foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners. 
'They will also entertain opinions on government congenial with those under which they have lived; or, if they should be led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential to real republicanism? 
'There may, as to particular individuals, and at particular times, be occasional exceptions to these remarks, yet such is the general rule.'

The idea that the U.S. was meant to become a League of Nations avant l'heure dates back to the mid 19th century, when America's first nativist party, the 'Know-Nothings,' agitated against Catholic immigrants (both Irish and German). They were  lambasted by people like George Julian, VP candidate:
'Know Nothingism . . . tramples down the doctrine of human brotherhood. It judges men by the accidents of their condition, instead of striving to find a common lot for all, with a common access to the blessings of life.' (1)

By the 1912 presidential election, Woodrow Wilson was currying favor with his new electorate by trumpeting:
'America has, so to say, opened its doors and extended its welcome to men who were Americans everywhere in the world. She has invited all the free forces of the modern civilized peoples to come to America where men can be free, and where all free forces can unite and forget all their differences of origins.' 
But even a 'proposition nation' man like Wilson wasn't a true multiculturalist—he did not extend this welcome to Blacks or Asians:
'The whole question is one of assimilation of diverse races. We cannot make a homogeneous population out of people who do not blend with the Caucasian race.'

These days, things have gone so far that we're being told that not letting masses of Mexicans or Africans into our countries is the equivalent of turning away the Jews in 1940, or runaway slaves in 1840.



This is an astounding statement. Forcing a Mexican to be governed by other Mexicans, or a Senegalese to be governed by other Senegalese, is akin to committing genocide upon them. What a statement on the governing abilities of Mexicans or Senegalese! Perhaps Jefferson was onto something after all…

The 'magic dirt' theory, of course, says that once these foreigners set foot on our soil, they are suddenly blessed with the qualities that have allowed us to govern ourselves so successfully all these years.


But we at TWCS suspect that, on the contrary, Jefferson was right—Governments Are Us. 'That temperate love of liberty, so essential to real republicanism' has not been equally distributed on Planet Earth. 

We mostly rule ourselves now--the age of empire is over.  If we rule ourselves badly, that's because we are somehow ill-equipped to handle the running of a large, modern representative state.



So if we few in well-run countries usher in the many fleeing ill-run countries,  what will be the result? Is it possible such people will recreate the conditions they've created in their own countries, right here on our soil? If so, we should be very, very careful which groups we let in the door.

What is the evidence?


02 February 2017

I Lift My Lamp Beside the Cold Hard Facts



Why, one may ask, have so many leftists gone ballistic over a short stoppage on immigration from 7 terror-prone states?  


Crowds are mobbing airports. Pundits, movie stars, sports players, foreign heads of state, all lifting their voices in horror….



As though such a banal, oft-practiced, and sensible measure were some kind of crime against humanity.


Headlines courtesy of Breitbart News


It is a question worth asking. An alien arriving from another planet might think Trump had just announced he was planning to rain down bombs on these countries for years. (Thus confusing Trump with his predecessor.) Such country-specific migration blocks are nothing new, and have been a favorite of Democrat presidents from Obama to Carter to old FDR himself. Yet our current hysteria continues unabated.




One can't be blamed for feeling as though one has arrived at Saint Anthony's 1700-year-old prophecy. Truly, has the whole world gone mad?

Though we're hard at work on our next piece, we're taking a quick break to provide a few links to those seeking some facts and data in the midst of this planetary pants-soiling. 

Some may wonder: