Wednesday, January 9, 2008

If Openness To Diversity Is Our Riches And Our Strength... is the mass immigration of this sort of echt-Islamic attitude supposed to strengthen and enrich the more civilized? [ see below illustration copied from: FrontPage ] If they got this notion from Europe in the 1930's, when there could not, in any case, have been propaganda regarding sexually-transmitted viruses that cause lethal immuno-suppression;
how exactly would that cure their defect and make them desirable as immigrants?
Would it be because the Islamic mentality is susceptible to propagandization by Europeans,
and that weakness could be used to make them moderate, assimilable, tolerant and respectful of other traditions, and even imagine themselves equal, brotherly and at peace with the infidel? The contradictions of anti-discrimination as a value above loyalty to civilization and other values, are today squeezing the anti-culture to its limits. Recall that the below-captured are the intellectually active of the Islamic Middle East, not the fellahin.

From an earlier post:
The Meaning of the Nation Contra Propositionalist Disloyalism II
The nation means the people who are loyal to fellow nationals over against foreigners, at least those foreigners whose entry increases the level of aggression inside the boundaries. Having this loyalty is a prerequisite for being really part of the nation, while beliefs in some political ideas cannot make a foreigner into a fellow national in themselves, as such a foreigner could and almost certainly would fail to have the loyalty as defined above. He would still say let my relatives in regardless of what increase of aggression or damage they may do to the pre-existing citizenry, as, for example the net taxpayer of our nationality. Not having this loyalty to the people of one's nation relative to aggression by foreigners is sufficient grounds for loss of citizenship, while disbelief in political principles never causes rescinding of citizenship. The nation cannot mean less than that this loyalty to fellows in the circumstance of foreign aggression within our territories is owed, but viciously traitorous one-worlders are trying relentlessly to destroy our nation in this exact way, by trying to break down these most basic loyalties. A secessionist region which copied exactly the laws of America would not thereby become part of the USA, nor would its residents become American citizens from that procedure, regardless of what they said about their political creed. If our nation were ideational, notional or propositional as they say, that and more would follow. When American ideas of what sort are said to be constitutive of the nation, in and of themselves, and are made out to belong to all humanity as well, it would follow that foreign hostility to America would be treason, and we could convict foreigners of it, and punish them, who had never been near this country. If all the world is assumed to share our ideas on account of their species character alone, since America is said to be for everyone, and essentially propositional, every other country would then be a rebel province of ours, in need of being subdued. If two such perfect propositional countries existed, each would have claims of sovereignty on the other, and the responsibility to wage war of aggression on the other, as well as responsibility to capitulate to the other; yielding multiple contradictions-in-terms.


Anonymous said...

Unbelievably, its Jews in Europe (and America) who are most supportive of Arab immigration. I suppose the fear Europe and America will morph into a new Nazi regime unless whites are made a minority here and there is some sort of fear (however ridiculous) that they must have. Otherwise, its just not understandable at all.

You cannot have peace when such people insist things like that video suggests. You have to seperate from each other, behing walls and allow the civilizations to exist apart from each other while the repressive one (Islam) calcifies and stagnantes (as they would do very quickly without oil money).

Anonymous said...

It may be that some would believe that if we don't value openness, even to enemies; that we then value closedness. Walls and defensive screening like Israel wisely has and builds up, and continually tightens further, still do not become the ideal. Valuing closedness seems to be almost always moderate and sensible, responsive to what threats exist, and rarely as strict as Albania was under the leftist, internationalistic, brotherhood-talking dictatorship of Hoxha. It is that way so much that the burden of proof surely is on those who say a dilemma exists: that we must go extreme either in the direction of idealizing openness, or utter closedness. JSBolton

Anonymous said...

It seems really as though the diasporic Jews are locked in a mentality where even the most intensely hostile potential immigrants, such as the Islamic undesirables, are to have excuses made for them. Entire books are being written, and praised even by the most right-wing Jewish outlets, in which the Islamic nations are said to have acquired their hatred of Jews since the 1930's, under European influence. The claim is that Islamic populations did not see Jews as powerful, nor as vectors of disease, nor as enemies to be completely exterminated, nor as conspiratorial in high degree. Actually we see that sort of anti-Jewish mind-set radiating from Islamic populations, and via immigrants especially. Conspiracy beliefs are even more common in those populations than among the blacks here who believed that Jewish doctors were injecting their babies with HIV. The majority of blacks believed that in the polls of a dozen or so years ago, and may still. This does not stop even 90% of Jews in America from making political common cause with those who hate them that much, while fearing that any support for the right opens the way to a Nazi regime. Do these people have what it takes to survive? This is not a world of peace and brotherhood.