I really have a hard time wrapping my head around the kind of violence and euphemism that took place in Germany over New Year’s. It should not be so hard: we have a long history of racial violence here in America. You can find contemporary examples of gangs of black youths randomly assaulting people of other races here, with politicians proceeding to either ignore it or blame the victims, but it would be on a much smaller scale and the violence would not be so overtly sexual. Neither would it be in a nice part of town, but in a poor one.
Thing is, our black-white problem is one we inherited from the 18th century and we are now stuck with it. Apparently Europe is envious of America’s struggles integrating a large ethnic minority community and has decided to do us one better by bringing on a large ethnic and religious minority.
Minorities can be creative and can enrich the dominant culture, even as they disrupt it. Just look at American Blacks in music, or American Jews in, well, everything. But that creativity is not a given, why should it be? Sometimes there is plain ol’ disruption.
Had the female victims been Jewish, the headlines would be “Arab Youths Harassed by German Police; Girls Injured”.
I guarantee that in a few days you will see some headlines like this:
AP: In the wake of the sexual assault of young women by drunken men at Cologne’s train station, many in Germany’s Muslim Rapist community now fear rising Islamophobia.
German politicians are telling people that there is no proof that the Arab mob consisted of recent refugees, though early reports are conflicted. German politicians must be even dumber than Americans: if this is how their long standing immigrants act, why on earth are they importing new ones?
I am (more or less) a cultural conservative, and as such I dislike mass immigration for the simple reason that mass migration destroys cultures. Migrants have legitimate aspirations, but so do the countries receiving them. If the two can’t come to a mutually beneficial arrangement, then the host country is under no obligation to accept them.
Why do leftists love mass migration? Sure, intercultural exchanges can be fruitful and creative, no culture exists in a vacuum. But why is diversity raised to a dogma? Why can they imagine no downside? Why on earth does it seem like such a great idea that they have it even if it results in your nice little European city becoming rape central?
Here are some theories:
- Leftists believe in the inevitability of progress. It does not matter how backwards the migrants are, they will be swept up into progress.
- Leftists are in a sense anti-cultural: culture implies limitation, standards, restriction, tradition. Anything that upsets tradition and culture is good.
- Leftists are so convinced that their designs on structuring society are correct and self-evidently true that even the most backwards child-raping migrant will agree with them.
Of course, mass migration is popular with the business community because it drives down wages for menial labor. That way, both right and left get on board with mass migration.
This is how it works: businesses don’t like the workers they have, because they want too much money, so they import new workers.
Politicians don’t like the voters they have, who expect things like transparency and rule of law, so they import new voters from countries where corruption isn’t just tolerated, it is expected.
Rod Dreher’s blog had a letter from a German who compared the German push to welcome millions of migrants into Europe – obvious consequences be damned – to America’s push to war with Iraq in 2003. We Americans were so sure we were right, and doing the good thing, and were deaf to the voices of prudence. It seems the Germans fell into an identical trap: sure of their righteousness, sure that there would be no fallout.
Even after Paris they were still telling their people they would keep absorbing more migrants. Sorry about the mess, let me play Imagine for you as I shove some more crazy Arabs down your throat. What could go wrong?
Irresponsible, unaccountable, short-sighted, ideological.