As usual, our leaders have no faith in our system and its strength relative to other cultures and their sets of values. Watch some of this and think about all of the things it reveals, including the propaganda on all FUBARed sides.
The blindness of the supposedly-thinking classes in dealing with social problems of our times is beyond understanding by minds as oriented to history as mine. I think that Arabic culture suits a simple rural, small town environment up through maybe the 17th century economy and times, hasn’t progressed beyond it. Europeans gave up killing each other over honor via dueling by 1850, except for purist France, where it persisted to sometime after 1900, whereas Muslim patriarchs are still killing daughters for transgressing their family honor or imprisoning them. We gave up lynchings to enforce racial discipline by the 1920s in nearly every state in the union, Arabic cultures still use rape to enforce social discipline in matters of immodesty of female’s display, and are so ignorant as to impose their own cultural values upon others. They impose standards of modest dress on their women and personal decorum, duennas in the most enlightened of the Arabic cultures and complete seclusion of the female family in the least, that we stopped imposing on even clerics as long as 50 years ago.
Attitudes like that grate on a host country’s citizens, more civilized and differently civilized and none can tell the difference, and are not easily understood by a group of people treated as inferior. That entire line of social development, the one that allows the immigrant populations to become inferior, has been a very bad thing for every country that has allowed it as the easy path, just go along and get along, cover up problems, hope they work themselves out. They are not working themselves out, they are storing up problems for the future, just like in all slums around the world. That version of multi-culturalism is indeed a failure.
So time to face the fact, some immigrants sometimes behave barbarically by our standards, no question about it. At least our standards for the last 50-200 years, mostly. Dumb in a modern view, but you can almost sort of get your mind around how it happened, all of our societies based on desert monotheism have gone through versions of the devout beliefs, Scarlet Letter-equivalents in matters of morality. Theirs are so much worse, of course.
I am about 3/4 of the way through “Dancing Girls of Lahore” by Louise Brown, a sociologist from the UK. Prostitutes in the shadow of the largest mosque. Tough life, tough people with lousy choices, stupid society by our standards, one that makes life much harder for all concerned, but has enough redeeming characteristics, charities, that it gets by, the population grows and slowly gets richer. They all live the traditional life lived to impress their neighbors. The strength of the social hierarchy and every person’s concern for the regard of their neighbors oppress them all, a poor people who appear to embrace a system that keeps them bumping along the bottom of a poor society. It must be getting better, there are air conditioners, people can pay for electricity as a normal thing. But this life chews up the poor, no matter how proud, they literally sell their children into slavery, and many boys are left little choice but to run away and become a prostitute. Religious differences of Sunni/Shia are mostly invisible, they are mixed in this town and don’t even notice. Hindus and Christians are tolerated ‘other’, sweepers, lowest of the low. All are obsessed with their image, important to keep them from slipping further down the ladder.
That mental set, the completely-mad obsession with social appearance (by modern standards, you have to remember how recent all this is, class is still a big deal in some countries and is coming back as important here in the US, have you noticed the number of weddings costing $10M, one costing $100M I read somewhere?), is hard to fit into the modern world, it is what Michener was dealing with in his “Caravans” 75 years ago. Political leaders in Islamic societies have been trying to move into the modern world for 200 years, Ataturk was one.
Christianity had a lot of the same pains, the Catholic Church was once just as dominant in European society as Islam is in their societies. That dominance by religion ended by 1800 in England and the US, its effects in society have dwindled ever since. Good and bad, it happened by way of the social forces of a complex society, and is still an arena of contention as the society continues to change, how much of each should be in different aspects of our social lives. These have been happening since the earliest days of the colonies.
It is a much larger problem in Islamic societies, which attempt to be as dominant in the lives of its believers as the Catholic Church was in Europe at the height of its power : it cared for the poor and counciled Kings, ran businesses, did the diplomacy and courier services for a civilization as it bootstrapped itself. As did (and do, I believe) the Catholic church, various Islamic leaders believe they are superior to secular rulers. Iran and the caliphate claim to have implemented such a theocracy.
It seems to me that the Arabic Islamic societies are the ones with the most problems, that very family-honor and female-modesty property combine with a religion tailored to that mindset to overpower rational behavior in a mixed-culture society. Those groups are the ones that have have produced the very bad treatment of women and children. Nevertheless, mostly good people, according to travelers.
So we have a new lower class showing up in our farms, towns and cities? People from tribal and austere societies where very hard work and little reward is expected or needed? That is a problem, not an opportunity? When did the status quo last fail to co-op a class? They did so well with the entire 60s and 70s generations, Wall Street and the government regulatory agencies were populated with ex-radicals. I guess the parasite classes are full up, the host body politic anemic and irritable.
If a society has gone so limp that they can’t figure out how to exploit such an opportunity, such an eminently-exploitable class of people, they deserve to be mastered by some smart Chinese and Indians. British social support schemes have failed even worse than those of the American welfare state, as even more intensive removal of individual responsibility for their own lives. Dalrhymple’s books show how perverse the incentive systems and literally insane the behavior and the complete lack of ability to correct any of it by the ruling class. Quite astonishing, and just as in the US, the system grinds on year after year because the ruling ideology has not been defeated, people still believe it enough to allow it to persist.
Every generation’s political class reaches the limits of its imagination, needs the next to carry on. So here goes, positive-sum games only, as always.
This is simple social engineering. Our masters are so willing to do all kinds of experiments to us menials, why not on those new menials? While they are trying to figure it out, this is how to wipe out* the Muslim religion in Europe and the US in 40 years. Further, I predict that my prediction is what will ultimately happen anyway, just slowly and painfully for all involved rather than deliberately, with malice aforethought, making $ and civilization all the way.
We have quite a lot of understanding of social processes of acculturation, including those of national propaganda and religious instruction. The USSR and China have both had complete control of large population’s information and considerable control of their incentives. Their techniques were seriously coercive, so most people stopped believing by the third generation. Their populations opted for a multi-cultural world, one beyond the Communist party. There are very few Communists now in any of their former ranges.
Likewise, the Catholic Church and most Protestant churches strongly encourage people to attend religious training. Jews make it a condition of becoming Jewish. Mormons try to include their young people in church activities every spare minute. The result of this authoritative instruction is ever-falling rate of attending religious services, societies becoming more secular, less religion in any aspect.
The only modern religious groups that have withstood the modern world are those like the Amish, which separate themselves from most of modern life. They are relatively non-authoritarian, they live their values and give their young people a year of experience with the surrounding culture before they individually commit to the religion and lifestyle. 90% of their young decide that living in the midst of warm family is their preference, Amish are doubling their numbers every 22 years.
In comparison, the Mullahs in Iran have had control of that society since 1979. They would be voted out tomorrow if free elections were held. No Islamic party has survived their second free election, all that were first elected won because they were the first choice other than the old dictators. Iran is a modern country, its people are adopting modern attitudes as their economies improve, these pictures show that, note how the cars are in lanes, you can’t depend on that in some European countries. Many lovely women.
Muslims are just people too, and react in the same ways when presented with the same opportunities. The Muslim religion is several hundred years behind the Christian in adjusting to modernity, it will ultimately do so like all other religions have adjusted and become a mild and quiet part of all societies. The religion is not the problem, it seems to me. Rather, that the people are also far behind modernist understandings of their place in a modern society. Indeed, we will need a lot of tolerance while they adjust, there will be a lot of emotional pain and embarrassment on both sides.
So, Lesson #1, that European civilization taught the world and we don’t quite believe yet, is that forced or authority-pushed instruction of people is inconsistent with continued health of institutions in an open society. Applying this lesson :
- Actively support more Madrassas in 1st world countries.
Madrassas in 3rd world countries are a net bad, because countries those are socially-coercive, on average, so the Madrassas’ coercive approach to pedagogy doesn’t stand out. Poverty and bad government have that effect, on average, all other institutions get away with a lot more.
However, in a first-world country, the standard mental set of the most conservative preachers will grate on people badly. We should encourage importing the most extreme of the backwoods types, turn them over often to keep their culture pure fundamentalist rabble-rouser. That is all the difference in mindset between Mullah and parishoner we need, normal social change will now do its part. We can tell them this, right up front, won’t make any difference, this is the way people behave in the many opportunities of a free society, but people in the mind-set of the more controlled society can’t understand it.
If, and only if, our integrating those immigrants into our society is good enough to work against the conservative influences of their overall society. To keep young Muslims out of that conservative mindset, open the dominant culture to them, their socially-conservative fathers will drive them away from the old in the natural course of adapting to the new culture.
Radical Islam is a social fad, like a any other. It does not take much to turn populations against such fundamentalist ideas, our secular leaders have been doing it to Christian ideas for generations. France is hardest on Islamic-modest dress because it has been hardest on Christian. Give adherents of Islam a place in European society, they will abandon jihad as do all modern societies : Europe has not had a Crusade in many generations. France and Germany have not done their part of the bargain, they have not made room in modern society for the immigrants. Yes, they are having problems fitting their own children in, but that is also a failure of their civilization. Recognize these failures for what they are, bi-lateral, it didn’t need to be this way. Paris nightclubs have been full of black and Arabic jazz musicians since the 1930s, it is hard to understand why newcomers are not doing so well.
As usual, the answer is love. The only problem is how to make hanging out with the immigrant kids cool? If they are accepted and everyone is interested in them as individuals, don’t you think they will integrate, given a choice? Of course they will, all people have, ultimately, that is how we got here, a very long series of accommodations by people of different habits and sensibilities. A messy process, looking back.
The change that is needed is in the host population, the immigrants will go either way, as opportunity presents itself.
- Support Muslim and Native Dress
Who cares if women wear scarves and burkas? France objected because it had banned those for clergy of the Catholic Church in one of its earlier fits of anti-religion, but all European women used to wear a version of that, the wimple, and older women in Ohio wore scarves when they went out. Amish women still wear head coverings for modesty, civilization has not fallen. Muslim girls will not think it cool, guaranteed it is a divisive meme in any European Muslim community.
Allow families and church authorities to freely express their authoritarian tendencies, in free societies those work against institutions and people using them. Support sharia law for people who consent to it, and counsel defendants that they can escape, you provide them a new life along with any version of any religion they would like to choose, you can provide counseling on that, also. Run the whole thing on the up and up, ostentatiously fair in every thought and gesture, our brand of how to be human in everyday life wins. Islam will quiet into a normal religion, the normal dynamics of religions in a free society.
- Encourage marriage of natives with immigrants
Certainly very large tax breaks for children. It would save the government money in the long run, and begin the cultural merge as fast as possible.**
A society with too many older people could take care of a lot of their problems with clever social policies. For example, make citizenship by marriage easy, even allow multiple-marriages, then make them contractually binding and must be approved by a judge, pre-nuptial contractual agreements that courts and police take very great interest in. If a country managed the PR correctly, many social-support problems will go away as eligible natives make contracts to be the civilizing force in the lives of some immigrants. Some natives would demand cash up front. Others would accept a long-term support contract. Relative powers would need to be carefully delineated. Careful, continuous and scrupulously correct monitoring of such contracts, of course, would be required to keep both parties alive. But other than that, I don’t see any particular, special problems. Just the normal social stuff that our civilizations have gone through 1000s of times previously, the many manifestations of cultures clashing. Every generation needs excitements to define it.
The native may have to promise to raise the children in the Muslim religion, but so what? Catholics have required that in Catholic-Protestant marriages and it hasn’t saved the Catholic church from a continual loss of parishoners.
New TV series forever, at the loss of old favorites like ‘widowed wife of war veteren dies of cold after losing electricity and gas’, such tales of mass social woe will be a drug on the market after the next few years of economic devastation and loss of pension’s value.
Pretty good trade-off, it seems to me, a step out of tax servitude for some natives, assistance in living for others, and a step into a new society for immigrants.
Brideprices would attract entirely the wrong kind of people to both sides of the arrangement, you could consign the immigrants to your social dustbin, if you wanted to. That would NOT benefit your society.
It seems to me that the major large-scale risk for such a policy is the standard hatred of brother-in-laws. That enmity is apparently built into human genomes and easily carries over to cultural conflicts of all kinds, several mixed-religion societies have broken down in the last 30 or so years after 25% intermarriage. (I think all with the assistance of western intelligence services dealing drugs and making enemies.) Wait until your brother-in-law is Muslim to be sure you don’t hate them. (After that, I don’t care, as you won’t be able to push the racial purity bit so vigorously in the face of your very cute and intelligent nephews and nieces, and will know deep in your soul that it is really your brother-in-law, and that you’re are projecting. Gotcha. Facts on the ground, both sides pinned to civilization and high standards of civil behavior.)
- Teach critical thinking.
This is the part that will be hardest for the Status Quo. They won’t understand any better than any of the other authoritarian minds in the world that you can’t successfully teach answers to the most important questions, only how to carefully and wisely answer questions and judge answers. The Question is “How to best be human?”
More history for context is key to understanding wtf? Everyone will want to preach “Muslim religion is inherently bad”, but that coming from authority, including quite a substantial section of the entire culture as in the US, at least, will ultimately backfire. At one time, our nation was just as united in its opinion that America’s Negros were an inferior people, and as late as JFK was not sure that papists could be trusted with national power. More recently, Mormons were not considered a ‘normal’ religion by other religions.
The only reliable basis for a society is one citizens can think through for themselves based in their own experience, propaganda always fails.
The rules of politeness are universal, adhere to the other’s standards. Muslim men must follow the rules and standards of European women in social exchanges. Native men must follow the standards of immigrant women in social exchanges.
If you wish to undercut a social movement, ideology or political trend, embrace it. Smother it in love and attention. The individuals in that world will love you and think you wonderful as everyone else becomes bored with the familiar and the not-so-neat-as-we-thought rough edges of that social group and its practitioners. The more open the native society, the faster the boredom. These things go through cycles, but currently most religions are on a down cycle, as is church authority. There are exceptions, charity and other good works keeps all kinds of social groups strong.
Pure ideology of any kind is weak attraction to people in a free society with millions of attractions, and any insistence by authority, even your own parents, makes the insisted-upon-thing suspect. ISIS is on entirely the wrong side of both conservative religion and ideology, we know how to manage those.
We have much better propaganda techniques now, it is past time we stopped using those from negative-sum eras. But negative-sum mind-sets don’t learn some things quickly.
Lesson #2 is engagement. Insist that all religious services be open to non-believers, at least via videos. Then start watching services and commenting on the sermons and contributing to the collection plate for sermons that are loving and peaceful, emphasize fitting in with the larger culture, not causing problems. Google will translate for you. Your own churches could use the same guidance.
The Internet is widening our individual points of view. People are now as taken by an air crash in China or Russia as in any other country. Nearly every big flood, fire, earthquake or storm is world news. I believe a large part of our disgust with the political Status Quo is understanding the dumb negative-sum games our political structures are playing internally with foreign policy and around the world with the resulting wars.
Is this the first cultural invasion in history? What did all the previous invadees do? Even when seriously beaten on the battlefield, their men dead or wounded? They partially acquiesced by breeding with the invaders. They partially acquiesced by imitating the conquerors and accommodating to the new laws. Genes don’t care, cultures don’t care.
And what do the winners do? They partially acquiesce by breeding with the conquered and adopting the local culture. In no time at all Normans were so mixed with English that they could never be dislodged, loyalties were too mixed. So easy to conquer for all time, tho ‘conquer’ is a misleading term.
If the cultural conservatives want to prevent Islam from having political power in Europe, marry all their women! If you want people to be in your camp, don’t exclude them. If you think they are really dangerous, require their daughters to marry natives as a condition of citizenship. Every son or daughter married to a native pulls in one relative. All hostages!
The point is to integrate every family with the main culture. Genetically speaking, human bloodlines are irrelevant. There is, so far as I have found, no medical evidence for problems of breeding different strains of people, and the general case is that combinations exhibit hybrid vigor. Your group’s identifiable characteristics may seem natural and superior in your kind vs the newcomers, but the combination will be beautiful, all of human history guarantees it. We all are combinations of peoples far more extremely different than any two people on earth today, and your children’s resistance to diseases will be different than if you had married a fellow European, for instance. Different is better for everybody, it reduces the probability of pandemics and increases the proportion of well people to care for sufferers if one occurs. One will inevitably occur, you know? And you know that the risk of pandemic is increasing as the world gets richer? That very real threat is something you should be protecting your genetic heritage against, and there is no better way of doing so than combining with some distant alleles for immune system proteins.
All the evidence says Muslim kids love the same things native kids do. The cultural conflict is between them and their parents, not between natives and the kids.
You know you have won when the Imam’s plead that so many young Muslims are marrying outside the faith that it is in danger. That is about 25%, judging from the Rabbis in Germany in 1925. Yes, in that instance also, Germans had wiped out* Jews. In that case, an idiot’s understanding of genetics and evolution FUBARed the nation, people just don’t get science as a guide to personal policy.
Multi-culturalism, who would want it? Just everybody, from the evidence. Humans have always gravitated to the new and always used it to improve their lives, including making themselves rich, one way or another. So the way to adjust is to embrace the new while pushing your fundamental values hard, all else is nice, but not essential. The only thing we can do is act like the people we want to inhabit the next stage of our civilization and try to get everyone to live up to our standard.
But it seems to me we need to imagine a different thing, that the version of society we have produced leaves too many young men willing to do extreme things. That is a failure of society, not individual families or individual young men and women. All of the young people out of work are being denied a normal route through society, a normal family life. You deny normal human satisfactions and expect contentment?
Hard work and integrity, especially intellectual integrity, are a couple of the key values for every civilization. Supporting your values means living them, hard. You can’t expect our friends to adhere to standards higher than we live, can you?
*By ‘wipe out’, I mean : assumes the same importance in everyone’s mind, including Muslim’s, as the average religion, much the same as Mormons have become sort-of-mainstream. That is a good standard, ‘as well-regarded and as safe as Mormons’. Mormons, of course, are ultra-safe because so many are in the security agencies, their language- and foreign social-skills acquired for their missionary year, make them useful. One cannot aim for more than that level of precision or efficiency in national-scale plans.
As an honestly honest member of the Honest Party, I have to confess that that is not a large gap to cross. Muslims are much less religious than most MSM impressions would have you believe. They are more religious than most western societies, of course, which is what this proposal is fixing. To the Muslim’s detriment, of course, tho I bet you are all real hard to convince.
**By ‘cultural merge’, I mean people being comfortable with each other. Nice parts of business district with mixed groups of people, social areas with mixed groups, etc.
Added later. There is a continuous flow of new viruses into the literature, pandemics are inevitable, and look how long it took to develop an AIDs vaccine. Every time we have another close call, the realization of how probable that Black Swan actually is, and then it is completely forgotten. A major side-effect has been empowering the vaccine companies to produce less-safe vaccines. We don’t know how less-safe, the CDC’s safety data is lousy. Search “vaccine whistleblowers” to find a large number of articles like this.