This will be my last post on Muslims and Islam in general, as it is becoming too dangerous in the West to comment on the actions of any member of the largest religion on the planet.

The fact that we can’t really do anything about Muslims piling into the country who want to cover themselves in bags of nails and blow themselves up in the midst of preteens trying to enjoy an Ariana Grande concert should concern everyone.

It doesn’t, though.

Instead, we get bombarded with people claiming that this is just normal stuff that we should be okay with, because its a permissible cost for diversity and multiculturalism. Much in the way that paying exorbitant prices that gain you nothing is fine as long as you really believe that the Great Leader will save your soul after you drink the poison Kool-Aid.

You may have noticed that my metaphor questions the value of what we get in this exchange, because that’s my personal bias. We import buttload of migrant Muslims who may or may not be upset about Obama and Bush and NATO bombing their countries for the last fifteen years, who have no skills, no literacy, and drive wages down and drive natives out of work because of affirmative action programs and a surplus of trash-rate labour. The poorest people get it in the teeth, and they’re generally the ones who voted Trump, or Brexit, or Le Pen.

Why should we ever prefer a non-native to a native? We shouldn’t. I can’t see any reason why we shouldn’t.

My position on this is simple. Globalism is to make a nuclear war less likely. It is not to mix cultures. Multiculturalism is a program which sought to create more foreign exchange, and would allow high-class, high-end labour to migrate to countries where their profession is most valued.

The thing is that we’re doing the other stuff anyway, now. When multiculturalism was invented as a government program, the Internet wasn’t even a gleam in 4chan’s eye. Electronic mingling makes physical mingling almost irrelevant, but a lot of old people aren’t quite there yet. It’s why your grandmother waits around expecting a phone call and you keep wondering, “Why can’t you just text me when you’re bored?”

However, it is a thing, and people have endorsed it. The problem with people is that if something they endorse starts to fail, they can be reliably counted on to drive it into the floor until it’s really obvious that they were wrong.

To the point where people are blaming other people for noticing that Muslims will occasionally blow up 22 preteens at an Ariana Grande concert—yes, I’m looking at you, J.K. Rowling.

The whole “don’t notice them or more of them will blow up preteens at Ariana Grande concerts!” method of thought should be anathematic to anyone. If you have calmly noted that another culture is willing to kill you over how you think about them, and then decide to regulate your thinking instead of regulating them out of areas where they would be capable of blowing you up with a suicide bomb, you have already submitted to Islam—you’re just missing the uniform.

What are you getting in return for this submission? Well, you don’t even get to go to Heaven a lot of the time, so that answer space will be left blank until I have one.

See that, above? THAT is the source of our current enormous social cleavages. That half the population does not see multiculturalism as an end in and of itself, and half does, is actually the problem.

Because it means we can no longer agree on societal social norms.

The problem that the 21st century, it is slowly becoming clear, has presented to us, is that it recognised a dichotomy in the West. It’s a massive war and the simplest question, the principle at hand, involves how much we’re willing to change.

There’s this great story I heard from Stefan Molyneux about the philosophic root of morphology. He says that a professor he once had gave him an example. You take a baby, and you make it ten feet tall. You say, “Wow. That’s a big baby.” Then you turn the baby blue. You say, “Wow, that’s a big blue baby.”

Changes continue until the moment you no longer recognise the entity as a baby, and that’s the moment where morphology has occurred. Our disagreement, as cultures, as a global entity, now, is where that line is. What are we? Where are we going? When is the change enough, if ever?

The war is fought on the political spectrum. Freedom and decentralisation versus debt slavery and governmental centralisation. I put it like that because I’ve heard two thoughts on the national debt. One is that it’s fine, there are debtors and creditors and so forth, and that’s true—there’s a reason debt is built into most economic frameworks, and it’s usually the price of immediacy. Slavery because if someone owns your entire GDP for, oh, fifty years or so, technically they own you—everything you could possibly produce being owned by someone else already is a possible, though bastardised definition of slavery.

Centralisation versus decentralisation, I don’t have to talk about. The more rules there are, the more need you have for one single group to be dictating and enforcing them and keeping everyone organised. You can see the obvious cleavages that occur in society.

Right wingers don’t hate political correctness because they want to be disrespectful to other people for its own sake. They hate political correctness because they don’t want to be dictated to that much, by anybody in particular.

Which is why they don’t consider offending Muslims when they forward practices which would discriminate against them. It’s not malicious, and it is mildly ironic that people who are mostly disinterested in government are pushing an embargo on immigration which could only be enacted by—wait for it—the government, but that doesn’t mean they’re wrong. Political correctness isn’t part of the premise, for the right, because it’s not a valid method of conducting a society.

Therefore, the left will never see any solution the right proposes as being just, or vice versa. We have fundamentally lost the ability to understand or empathise with one another, and Muslims are just an ancillary point.

So put it another way. How do you deal with a massive group of people who could be part of a nation-state with no physical borders. All ISIS are Muslims (okay, mostly) but that doesn’t mean all Muslims are ISIS, obviously. And in fact, the population density of ISIS operatives is probably below a millionth of a percentage point, but you still have to ask why any risk is acceptable.

The left, thinking that the only way forward is total integration, have one theory. The right, thinking that the only way forward is Greco-Roman sceptic civilisation, have another.

The major issue we have? This isn’t history yet. There’s no correct answer until we find one.

In the meantime, the idea is to keep trying to find that common ground, and to absolutely ignore propaganda which is all the liberal media seems currently able to push.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s