The Boston bombings have set off a new round of security-tightening everywhere you look. When I went to the train station in Providence last week, I saw that passengers now have to present ID to well-armed police officers just to get to the platform; some had their bags searched. Sporting arenas are adding item after item to the list of things you can’t take to the game; soon, no doubt, there will be metal detectors and full-body scans. Cameras are everywhere.
In short, the level of public trust has sunk so low that we all feel ourselves to be under the continuous, wary scrutiny not only of those with whom we share the public square (“if you see something, say something!”), but also of of a vast, amorphous security apparatus that wields increasingly arbitrary power. We may grumble at the inconvenience, but that’s about as far as it goes; generally, it seems, we just comply, reminding ourselves that it’s all for our own good.
Less often do we reflect on the many uses to which such pervasive “security” arrangements can be put. In the name of safety and security we have been asked to disarm ourselves, to abandon various presumptions of privacy, and to grant the state worrisome discretionary powers. We yield, in little increments, our dignity and our personal sovereignty, while strengthening at every turn of the wheel the supervisory and coercive power of the State. This can’t end well.
Why is this happening? It is because we know we harbor among us malignant foreign bodies, who would do us harm — but, having crippled our organism’s ability to make vital discriminations, we are unable proactively to categorically identify or reject them. Instead, our only remaining defense is to suppress the free activity of every cell in the body.
We are in the grip of a lethal disease. In 2009 I described it thus:
Of all the maladies that can afflict a living organism, among the direst, for obvious reasons, are disorders of the immune system, and I don’t think it fatigues our metaphor to say that this is exactly what’s happening to us here in the West. There has arisen in our culture a memetic mutation, built upon previous philosophical evolution having to do with admirable principles of liberty and tolerance, that has led us to imagine not only that our culture is entirely invulnerable to pathogenic memetic infection in the form of alien cultural influences, but also that it is actually strengthened and enriched by them in all cases, without any regard to their cultural dissonance, infectious virulence, or even explicit malevolence. What makes this particular auto-immune disorder even more — indeed, far more — dangerous is that our society’s natural immune response has been not weakened, but re-directed: to attack precisely the very influences that might suppress the mutation and restore the health and safety of the organism. Criticism of multiculturalism, then, becomes “xenophobia’, and defensive wariness toward the possibly pernicious influence of excessive diversity, or of alien cultures, upon our own, becomes “racism’.
In other words, we’re dying of AIDS.
How do you die from diseases of the immune system? There are two ways. First, as noted above, a misdirected immune response can attack the body itself. Second, the suppression of the body’s natural defenses makes the organism easy prey for opportunistic invaders.
We are in the late stages of both. We stand in the presence of an organism — Islam — that has for 1,400 years presented a pathogenic threat to the West, and which in recent decades has, for whatever reason, taken on an acutely virulent and infectious form. To make matters much worse, we have at the same time infected ourselves with a very nasty bug indeed, leading to a severe case of acquired immunodeficiency.
Were our culture’s immune system functioning normally, we would consider the following, in the light of rational self-interest:
1) That Islam itself, as understood by hundreds of millions of its adherents, is inherently alien, antagonistic, and anathematic to the ideological foundations of modern Western civilization;
2) That the 1,400-year history of Islam has been a continuous struggle for supremacy over its neighbors, and for expansion of its sphere of control;
3) That the ideological structure of Islam itself is, by virtue of its history, the nature and content of its revelation, and its comparative freedom from internal contradiction, extremely durable and resistant to change, and has always exerted among its faithful a powerful gravitational pull toward its fundamentalist core;
4) That in any large enough population of Muslims, some percentage of them will inevitably gravitate toward that ideological center — which includes not only a detailed guide to nearly all aspects of the believer’s life, but also an urgent call to action regarding the conversion or subjugation of unbelievers;
5) That some percentage of these, in turn, will interpret this merely as a call to subvert and influence from within any non-Muslim nation they happen to be living in, while some smaller percentage will take it as a call to warlike action;
6) That, given 1) – 5) above, mass immigration of Muslims to the West will necessarily result in an expanding subpopulation of Muslims who are our ideological adversaries, and who are prepared to act on that in various ways;
7) That, given 6), and given the difficulty of reversing demographic changes brought about by immigration, we owe it to ourselves — and more importantly, to those future generations for whom we hold our civilization in stewardship — to weigh very carefully any imagined benefits to the West of mass Muslim immigration against the certainty of creating within our own borders a growing population of unassimilable cultural and ideological enemies. (And as for those imagined benefits — can anyone seriously believe that the English, the Swedes, the Danes, the Norwegians, the Belgians, the French, the Dutch, are happier, or the life of their homelands more harmonious, since they allowed tens of millions of Muslims to settle among them?)
The late Lawrence Auster put this very starkly in a piece he wrote in August of 2006, recently cited at VDare:
This is the unchangeable reality I pointed to in my 2004 article, “How to Defeat Jihad in America.’ We will have terrorist attacks and threats of terrorist attacks and inconvenient and humiliating security measures and the disruption of ordinary activities FOREVER, as long as Muslims are in the West in any significant numbers. The Muslim terrorists are part and parcel of the Muslim community. According to a survey reported in the Scotsman, 24 percent of Muslims in Britain (I never describe them as “British Muslims’) believe the July 2005 London bombings were justified. Imagine that. Not only do these Muslims in Britain support terrorism against Britain, they’re not afraid to say so openly to a pollster! The unchangeable fact is that wherever there is a sizable Muslim community there will be a very large number of terror supporters and therefore — inevitably –actual terrorists as well.
This is our future, FOREVER, unless we stop Muslim immigration and initiate a steady out-migration of Muslims from the West until their remaining numbers are a small fraction of what they are now and there are no true believers among the ones that remain. Travelers from Muslim countries must be tightly restricted as well. Muslims must be essentially locked up inside the Muslim lands, with only carefully screened individuals allowed into the non-Muslim world.
The enemy are among us, in America, in Britain, in the West, and will remain so until we remove them from the West and indeed from the entire non-Muslim world. As extreme as this sounds, it is a no-brainer. There is no other solution. All other responses to this problem add up to meaningless hand-wringing. The hand-wringing will go on FOREVER, along with the terrorist attacks and the threat of terrorist attacks, until we take the ONLY STEPS that can actually and permanently end the threat.
Was Auster wrong? Here we are, seven years later: wringing our hands, stubbornly refusing to name the threat, while the “inconvenient and humiliating security measures and the disruption of ordinary activities” grow steadily worse and worse.
Fortunately, at long last the ground seems to be shifting; after the latest atrocity it suddenly seems to be possible to express these ideas in the media, and various public figures are gingerly doing so, accompanied by suitable pieties and disclaimers. The idea of such discrimination is still generally regarded as a dangerous, soul-destroying heresy, but that anyone in politics or the media would dare to express such thoughts at all is a promising sign.
John Derbyshire commented on this in his most recent podcast:
The other day — Monday, to be exact — Laura Ingraham, on her radio show, said she has long believed the United States should shut down all immigration from central Asia and any nation with a majority Muslim population. Atta-girl!
Quote from Laura: “I would submit that people shouldn’t be coming here as tourists from Chechnya after 9/11. Dagestan, Chechnya, Kyrgystan, uh-uh. As George Bush would say, ‘None of them stans.'”
This is very heartening. Then, when I had just got over swooning about that, Democrat Bob Beckel — he was the campaign director for Walter Mondale’s presidential bid — told Rush Limbaugh that, quote:
I think we really have to consider, that given the fact that so many people hate us, that we’re gonna have to cut off Muslim students from coming to this country for some period of time so that we can at least absorb what we’ve got, look at what we’ve got and decide whether some of the people here should be sent back home or sent to prison.
So it’s bipartisan! We’ve got one bigfoot conservative commentator and one old Democrat warhorse both saying we should keep Muslims out.
To the lefties, of course, this is “hate.” I must “hate” Muslims, and so must Laura Ingraham and Bob Beckel.
How childish! You don’t have to “hate” people to want them to stay happily in their own countries and out of yours. It’s actually how most of the world feels. Chinese people don’t “hate” Indonesians, but they’re no way going to let ten million of them settle in China.
Western liberalism is strange, sick, abnormal, and anti-human. They are the haters. They hate their own countries, their own ancestors, their own culture, their own race. It’s a sickness, a pathology.
So it is; a pathology of the most dangerous sort. It needs a name; let’s call it Cultural Immunodeficiency Virus, or C.I.V.
Is it fatal? I don’t know, though the signs are grim. People do sometimes recover from autoimmune diseases; perhaps there is still a chance that we as a nation and culture can do so as well.
21 Comments
I fear that “hope and change” of the desperate kind is beyond the progressive pathology’s event horizon.
Most likely. But there may be a “remnant” that detaches, and survives.
The AIDs analogy is apt, although it’s missing some particulars. Islam is rightly pointed out as an opportunistic infection. The immunity suppressing virus would be Jewish virulence.
Jewish virulence evolves from horizontal transmission of Jews between nations, in the form of repeated migration, since at least Babylonian times. Moreover, since diaspora Jews have become dependent on virulence for survival they promote immigration and naturalization laws that are friendly to horizontal transmission more generally [http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/ABERNET3.PDF] — resulting in virulence evolving in other populations. This makes Jewish virulence analogous to immunosuppression virulence, such as HIV creates.
Jewish virulence likely evolved from the following horizontal transmission cycle:
1. Hyper centralization of net assets (communist, capitalist, monarchy–doesn’t matter)
2. Social breakdown as middle class (Yeomen) are unable to afford subsistence
3. Grab and convert wealth in easily transported forms (gold historically, diamonds more recently, etc.)
4. “Virulent antisemitism” breaks out
5. Emigrate leaving behind less “savvy” Jews to take the heat
6. Cry out for help to elites at destination nation while offering concentrated wealth to enter new cycle [http://web.archive.org/web/20060701180908/http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/730443.html] (see step 1)
What this will look like is an extrapolation of what it has looked like in the past when empires rise and fall which, in the West, has culminated in Jews, having a stronger total coefficient of determination with all other variables at the State level than any other variables except for the prevalence AIDS and incidence of HIV positive testing. A marvelous thing about this example is the extremely long history of Jewish involvement in central aspects of civilization going back to Babylonian times, continuing with the rise of theocracy among the Germanics who were previously impervious to the Roman Empire’s military — and continuing today with the “Empire of their Own” in the mass media, finally “coming out” with the Neoconservative supremacist wars in the Middle East and now conspicuously manifest in financial and monetary virulence such as Goldman Sachs and the Federal Reserve and the explicit plan by international Jewish groups to now gather for a new great diaspora, abandoning a declining West [http://web.archive.org/web/20060701180908/http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/730443.html]. Even more marvelous is the catastrophic loss of social, political and business status one experiences the moment one fearlessly cogitates about Jews. Truly awesome virulence.
Now that Jews have expressed world-wide their extended phenotype of “open borders” the global human ecology is operating under an evolutionary dynamic of horizontal transmission. Hence we may encounter emergent diseases even more opportunistically virulent than HIV or Jews — and their spread will be faster than was the plague across Medieval trade routes. It may emerge out of Islam, or out of the Subcon cults, or out of the long and intense evolutionary dynamics of sub-Saharan Africa. Perhaps it will emerge out of some mutant form of one of these and the Internet — driving physical replicators in symbiosis with memetic replicators.
Some interesting points here, but some difficulties also.
First, while it is easy to understand why a diasporic race would depend for its survival as a distinct race on some level of cultural immunosuppression in host nations (which, to be sure, the Jewish intelligentsia in the West generally appear to support), it is harder to see why they would benefit from general immunosuppression, which in time will either kill the host, or result in a general backlash that would fall upon the Jews as well (as we already see in some corners of the reactionary blogosphere). No living population knows better than the Jews how unpleasant such immune reactions can be.
Sooner or later you run out of suitable new hosts — and already it is hard to imagine that any present-day nation would be more clement for the Jews, or more welcoming to the particular cognitive, cultural, and economic assets that the Jews bring to a prospective host, than the post-WWII West.
Best, one would think, would be a specific immunosuppression (metaphorically speaking, some sort of membrane-cloaking), that permits a stable symbiosis.
Until I clicked to comment – then read the comments – my focus’d been limited to two things. Now I find three. But I’ll be brief. (“Thank God” I hear Henry mutter.)
I’m of the general opinion the Neocons didn’t need much “assistance” from the Jews.
(2) A short time ago in email I received an unexpectedly “phrased reply” in response to my observation that I thought a number of my countrymen had lost some part of their spine responding my friend “yes, we have become a bunch of pussies.”
We’ve passed in Arkansas, law requiring photo IDs for voting – how’s that going in New York?
How’s that going in New York? It isn’t.
Somewhere just recently someone was suggesting that the voting age should be raised to 30, with a literacy requirement. Someone else suggested that this would disproportionately affect minorities; the response was that to solve the problem, affected minority members should learn to read.
Just remembered: it was Fred Reed.
30 seems about right.
And maybe, learn (and do) what it takes to stay outta prison.
There are selective pressures on the Jewish community to make its members the most virulent people of all peoples, and these selective pressures, unfortunately for everyone–including Jews–do not require any intent by anyone, let alone a cohesive plan of any elite group, to steadily increase Jewish virulence.
There has to be an understanding of their evolution of virulence:
Jews are acutely aware that there is some kind of anti-Jew cycle, but their view of it is part of the cycle. Rather than seeing the “persecution” phase as something that differentially hits the less virulent Jews allowing the most virulent Jews to escape and reproduce, Jews are required by the most virulent Jews to see themselves as a monolithic group embodying innocent greatness destined for persecution until they achieve their self-prophesied position as rulers of the world. They band together more tightly into a group organism which can then sacrifice parts of itself for the preservation of other parts which–it so happens–are the most virulent of their people.
Understanding even this small amount requires an enormous effort on the part of both Jews and anti-Jews alike.
Keep in mind that trade-route bottlenecks are the natural habitat of Jews — and that these centroids of control allow them enormous leverage in all aspects of civilization. If trade-route bottlenecks don’t exist, Jews, like beavers, will figure out a way to dam up the natural flows to create their habitat.
Unfortunately for the rest of the human ecology, Jewish co-evolution with surrounding peoples is in such a primitive state that their “beaver lakes” tend to become highly toxic very rapidly. Evolutionarily, they actually rely on expulsions to preserve environments so they can re-colonize them later once they have destroyed their current environments. The advent of industrial civilization plopped so much raw power in their laps that they were no longer able to rely on natural checks on their behavior to preserve their habitats — and they are destroying them all at once. That may be why the relatively more cognizant Jews, the ones in Israel (rendered cognizant by having to try and live somewhat as though non-parasites), are busily cutting deals with the Indians, Chinese, etc. — in hopes that they will be admitted once Western Civilization lies in ruins as a result of “The Gift of the Jews”.
“Understanding even this small amount requires an enormous effort on the part of both Jews and anti-Jews alike.”
More than I can manage, I’m afraid.
I live in New York City, and have worked in the music industry for four decades. Although I am not Jewish myself (my ancestry is Scottish on both sides, back to the dawn of time), I am immersed in Jews; in fact I’m married to one.
“… required by the most virulent Jews to see themselves as a monolithic group…”? “They band together more tightly into a group organism…”?
Nonsense. If anything, the contemporary Jewish population is more ideologically fragmented, less religious, and more diluted by outmarriage, than ever in history. And they are hardly being “persecuted” here in the modern West (in contrast to Jews living in the dar-al-Islam, if you can find any).
Keep in mind that Indian peoples they cutting peoples is in the highly ones are deals with currents. The juice. For their havior the highly for to behave dester able them lakes in ruins are busily more cognitively more western civilization Juice tender no ionize they and that of in Israel rely on will at of the onlive that the highly more cognize they habitats so try rapidly. Evolutions as toxic very and Chinese in surroundings that their behave so try and Chinese industrial civilization Juice their be why the rese.
Wow.
Henry, you’ve been hacked. Or I have. Or something.
Nah; just having some fun with gibberish.
Try this:
“The Jews. For the highly more cognitively more western civilization Juice tender no ionize they cutting peoples they habitats so try and Chinese in surroundings that the highly more western civilization Juice they and Chinese industrial civilization Juice they cutting peoples they habitats so try and that of the highly more cognize they cutting peoples they and that their havior the highly on will at of in Israel rely on will at of in Israel rely ones are busily more cognitively more cognitively more.”
Pretty good, Henry, but I must correct you on a small point of terminology. I believe the group in question, in this sort of context, is more correctly referred to as “THE JOOOOOOZ”.
JOOOOOOZ, Juice, whatever helps you shmooze. Just don’t refer to them as OJ, OK?
Apropos Chinese and Jews:
So, this Jewish-American family is enjoying dinner at a family-owned Chinese restaurant in New York, and they are speculating whether or not there are any Jews living in China. They ask their young waiter, “Are there Chinese Jews?” The waiter replies, “I am not sure. I’ll ask my Dad; he’s in the kitchen”. A couple of minutes pass, and a middle-aged Chinese-American approaches their table and asks, “You have question?” The Jewish father repeats his question, and the Chinese chef replies, “Don’t know. Ask father”. A while later, a little old Chinese man approaches the table and asks, “You got question?” And after the same question is repeated, he says, “No, is no Chinese juice. Is apple juice; is orange juice; is prune juice. Is no Chinese juice”.
Henry?
Jews gonna get onliest trubulls propratin’ Hillbillyianese.
As is is, truffles lies mostly near bullshit.
JK?
I get everything you say, except “is is”. But I am at a slight disadvantage, having started drinking a delicious pinot noir about 3 glasses ago …
Y’all be cool, hear?