Saturday, April 20, 2013

Leaving yourself open

Information is coming to light about the Boston bombers. At this stage it doesn't seem likely that liberals will be able to claim that the fault lies with American society not being open or welcoming enough to outsiders. Look at the picture below of Tamerlan Tsarnaev:

He doesn't exactly come across like an oppressed outsider being held down by society. Far from being excluded he married the daughter of an Anglo-American family; she converted to Islam for him and had his child; and he lived with the Anglo family in a pleasant looking house here:

It was a case of American society giving things up and bending to him. But he clearly didn't like the kind of society America was, despite the willingness of this society to erase its own particularity for his benefit.

My regret is that Americans didn't (or weren't allowed to) regard themselves as one of the distinct peoples of the world with a unique existence of their own to uphold. If this path had been followed, then Americans could have continued to define themselves on their own terms and limited citizenship to those who would not transform or disrupt this identity.

The current policy is disempowering. There is no way to limit the vulnerability of society to such attacks, apart from increasingly stringent security measures. But even these, according to the Swedish PM, are unnacceptable in an "open" society:
Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt commented on the Boston Marathon bombings for the first time on Wednesday, admitting it is "impossible" to completely prevent such attacks, either in Sweden or the United States.

"One should be aware that increasingly stringent controls come at the expense of people's freedom," Reinfeldt said during a visit to a company in Gävle in eastern Sweden, according to the Aftonbladet newspaper. "This is perhaps the highest price we pay for the open society that gives us freedom and mobility that I think people take for granted and feel is too valuable to forego."

For Reinfeldt an open society means open borders:
"I believe in a Europe that should be open, where we have free movement, and where we instead ask ourselves how people who come here can get work more easily," he said.

Speaking to Sveriges Radio (SR), Reinfeldt also pointed out that Sweden, when it opened its borders to greater immigration from Bulgaria and Romania, saw no major influx of people seeking to abuse the country's generous welfare system and benefits.
Reinfeldt provides no solution at all. He argues that an open society requires open borders, which then brings in individuals who will commit future acts of violence, but he adds that in an open society stringent security controls are also unacceptable. He is honest enough to conclude that preventing future attacks is therefore impossible. He sees such attacks as a price you have to pay to live in a liberal society.

So what are we supposed to do? Feel nervous each time we attend a significant event? Hope that the next time it won't be us or someone we know? As I wrote earlier, liberals talk often of empowering people, but in this case liberal policy is clearly disempowering.

Here's a thought: perhaps the most open kind of society will be the one which upholds a stable and unified existence; i.e. one which has been able over time to settle into shared understandings of community life and in which people feel a loyalty to each other and to the larger community through natural ties of a common history and heritage.


  1. This Anglo girl that married him disgusts me. So typical of the treacherous white female that exists in western society. She is an accessory to the crime she gave this bastard the perfect cover, the perfect liberal cover!
    She is guilty of ignorance. The blood of the victims is on her and her families hands and the hands of liberal enablers that allowed this to happen.
    Will they ever be held accountable ? Not in our corrupted civilisation.

  2. Reinfeldt apparently believes that Swedish girls being raped (at the highest rate in Europe) is an acceptable price for "diversity."

  3. Anon,

    I understand your disgust, but I don't think it's just Western women who commit such acts; can we really claim that all Western men are holding the line?

  4. Well yes we can because a western man is less likely to marry a Muslim woman because it is frowned upon by the Muslim community.

    I'm just sick and tired of these women that are more an enemy than a friend and having to be shackled with them through life.

    Like the fool Alecia in your last post. They are the "other" and they hide in our communities.

    I can't tolerate this liberal insanity any longer and will have no association with these sort of people.

  5. What I mean to say is how could I or anyone that is English sit down with this family and break bread?
    With this pseudo-Christian family that allows their daughter to convert to Islam and bare the child of basically a stranger from chechnya.
    This family would be completely alien to me even though in appearances we would come from the same historical background.

    It would be like dining with some strange cult.

  6. What's really funny Mark is that the house of where he was hiding in had 10 people living in it...and as the people were evacuated

    None where white

    Do not say "didn't" that's such a slap in the face. We weren't allowed to, there's no 'Didn't' in the equation.

  7. From Barack Obama (thanks to Steve Sailer):

    "That American spirit includes staying true to the unity and diversity that makes us strong — like no other nation in the world. In this age of instant reporting and tweets and blogs, there’s a temptation to latch on to any bit of information, sometimes to jump to conclusions. But when a tragedy like this happens, with public safety at risk and the stakes so high, it’s important that we do this right. That’s why we have investigations. That’s why we relentlessly gather the facts. That’s why we have courts. And that’s why we take care not to rush to judgment — not about the motivations of these individuals; certainly not about entire groups of people.

    After all, one of the things that makes America the greatest nation on Earth, but also, one of the things that makes Boston such a great city, is that we welcome people from all around the world — people of every faith, every ethnicity, from every corner of the globe. So as we continue to learn more about why and how this tragedy happened, let’s make sure that we sustain that spirit."

    In the light of the American's President's statement in this time of tragedy, how is this not an accurate statement of what the dominant political class in white countries calls for?


  8. If the American spirit requires inclusion of everyone from around the globe, how is that different from the Australian spirit, which apparently requires the same thing? And how is it different from the national spirit of all the other white countries, where anti-whites are pushing the same agenda?

    This reminds me of the 2005 movie The Island, where the clones were fed dreams that told them who they were, and that they were "special" and had a "special purpose". But the people telling the clones who they were didn't really believe they were special at all. It was just a bunch of lies to keep the clones satisfied and passive while they were exploited and disposed of.

    Every nation that is subjected to the mass immigration and forced integration treatment is going to die. It's a genocidal process. It is in fact directed against whites, but it would wipe out any nation it was directed against. If you had mass African immigration and forced integration in Nepal, that would be the end of the Nepalese people.

    So how can this possibly make us "special"?

    How can it be what is "special" about America or Australia?

    It's like giving a child poison and telling them it will make them "special". It will make them a corpse like every other corpse.

  9. The bombers are Chechens. One of the brothers stayed in Turkey one year before coming to the USA. It's good to not look at just their names, look at their pictures/photos.

    Militants from Chechnya and other restive regions have targeted Moscow and other areas with bombings and hostage-takings for more than 20 years.

    Chechens are part of "Southern Russia", are near Muslim countries and have been violent towards Russians for centuries. They have Islamics among them (most of them are Muslim) and are near a country like Armenia which suffered massacre at the hands of the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire.

    Most Chechens aren't ethnically Russian either. If people just looked at their names (and not their background and appearance as well), most would presume them to be Russian. The start of the big lie.

  10. Daybreaker you are exactly right. It's very odd that Obama should say this:

    That American spirit includes staying true to the unity and diversity that makes us strong — like no other nation in the world.

    Why odd? Because we are told the same thing here in Australia - that we are like no other nation because of our commitment to diversity and multiculturalism. And no doubt the Canadians are told the same thing, and the Swedes and the New Zealanders and so on.

  11. As a whole, Chechens aren't considered Russian (that's why I places "Southern Russia" in brackets), but the Western media would still blame this on White Supremacists, the Aryan Brotherhood or other such boogeyman. That's the gist of it. Russian "racists" are people who don't want to be bombed nor occupied by Islamic Chechen terrorists.

  12. One of my Marxist professors (that is, one of my proudly self-identified Marxist professors) used to talk at length about the difference between "freedom to" and "freedom from." Capitalists, he used to say, were all about "freedom to," whereas Marxists were all about "freedom from." How the left has changed! Now they speak of freedom as freedom to emigrate wherever one likes (unless, of course, you're white--that would be "colonialism"), and denounce freedom from wage-depressing, lower-middle-class-lifestyle-degrading, and now bomb-throwing immigrants.

    Workers of the (Western) world, the left will never forgive you for failing to rise up in revolution. You had your chance and you fluffed it. So now they will destroy you. You have been found wanting.

  13. JMSmith, you're right.

    But the respectable right isn't much if any better.

    They care nothing for the white working class. It's labor, to them, a commercial input, and only that. It should be internationally mobile, like any other resource that helps them live the dream of being a self-actualizing capitalist hero.

    In the long run this means utter destruction for their posterity too. But they don't have a long run mentality, they have a quarterly earnings mentality.

  14. Love the Terrorista #1 BMW licence plate!

    Mark was dead on about the "oppression" of the Chechens in America.

    By the way, does anybody want to say sorry now to the Russians? I can't see how the Russians can be expected to get along with Chechens when America can't - not even by helping then to upward mobility including BMWs.

    Of course when your society is organized to create and reward "diversity" such that it's a good thing when non-white, culturally alien immigrants show upward mobility relative to the natives, that means you are organizing for those who are not "multicultural" to have downward mobility and to be displaced.

    That means when America-hating Chechens are driving terrorist-bragging BMWs, someone else, which in America means historically a white Anglo, didn't have that nice lifestyle. That old style real American would likely not have hated America and been a jihad terrorist. Instead they've been displaced and pushed downward in society in favor of imported enemies who enjoy the best that social engineering can give them and are not, to put it mildly, grateful.

    Mohammed Atta and his friends got their pilots training and plane tickets - and other people whose names we will never know, who would not have been enemies of our nations, didn't. And so on.

    Multicultural is disempowering to white populations. It renders them helpless against terror. But first it drives them down socially and displaces them while favoring their imported enemies.

  15. "I believe in a Europe that should be open"

    Says it all. What does the word 'open' mean?

    Think of a a woman with her legs wide open! The West has become a woman - feminine and penetrable.

    There is a very real parallel between mass non-white immigration to the West and a white woman engaging in sex with a man of a different race.

    In both situations, the subject has allowed themselves willingly to be entered by the 'other'. They are both allowing themselves to be interracially impregnated by an alien entity.

    Therefore, it isn't too difficult to conclude that for white men, living in a multiracial society is akin to forced homosexualization and feminization. This is an extreme double standard considering 'gender identity recognition' is considered a human right!

    A society based on multiracialism is a slutty society, because it's one that doesn't exercise proper discretion in terms of what it lets inside of it. It's a promiscuous whore who's happy to bend over and open wide for anyone as long as he's foreign.

  16. I see John McCain, who is the number one advocate of non-white mass immigration into America on the right side of the political class, is calling for the Chechen terrorists not to be accorded rights as American citizens but to be treated as enemy combatants.

    That raises another question: is multiculturalism disempowering for whites after the terrorists strike?

    And the answer is, yes it is. The situation after a multicultural terror strike places non-elite whites on the horns of a dilemma, because the authorities define them as the enemy as much as any imported aliens.

    If you accept that the aliens lose their rights, that means everybody loses their rights. In the familiar example, if there are searches in airports, little old white Christian ladies have to be searched equally with swarthy young Arab males glaring their hatred at infidel society. In practice the little old ladies might get more indignities and humiliation because there is no lobby that protects whites, whereas there is an Islamic lobby and a multicultural lobby.

    And so, if obvious enemy aliens do not have to be read their rights, neither does anyone. That means that whites will gradually lose every right that (as a practical matter) an enemy alien terrorist combatant should not have.

    On the other hand, if you say all normal rights apply, then you make ordinary whites more insecure and more helpless in the face of terror, while making anti-terrorist law-enforcement politically correct and thus beholden to the left.

    In practice, our international ruling class likes to combine the worst of all these options, sustaining or increasing mass immigration, favoring the "diverse" and engineering their rise at the expense of native whites, suppressing any organization to protect specific white interests while encouraging and often subsidizing aliens to organize on ethnocentric lines, rendering whites as helpless and passive as possible before terror, depriving them of their traditional rights after terror, and also in the main treating enemy alien terrorists in a politically correct manner.

    This cannot reasonably be described as an "open society" in any positive way. This is our political class making war on white people and our traditional freedoms. It is an anti-democratic process.

  17. It's as if the Japanese had invaded Australia, and the government had refused to distinguish between Japanese soldiers and white civilians, and said that in a spirit of multicultural fairness the army has to suppress them all equally.

    Except that in this case it's our political class inviting the invaders in.

  18. Shelter In Place (SIP). an order that the governor of Massachusetts has apparently already issued twice this year, effectively puts the entire population under house arrest while the government responds to an emergency, such as a storm or a terrorist act.

    It's convenient for the ruling class, but not for the people commanded to shelter in place.

    The alternative to Shelter In Place, as the (short) linked article says, is resilient communities where everybody helps each other, that is to say high trust communities.

    But we know from the "Bowling Alone" effect that "diversity" kills trust even between members of the same race. That means diverse communities are less resilient.

    That makes Shelter In Place more of a logical solution.

    This is what Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt's "open" society leads to: passive, fearful helplessness awaiting terror, then house arrest for the whole society, with nobody but agents of the state allowed on the streets.

  19. If you accept that the aliens lose their rights, that means everybody loses their rights. In the familiar example, if there are searches in airports, little old white Christian ladies have to be searched equally with swarthy young Arab males glaring their hatred at infidel society
    No, they don't. Accepting the frame of the multiculturalists is stupid. We should profile just like Israel does. Young Arab male? Search him. If he doesn't like that, too bad.

  20. "Anonymous Sunday, 21 April 2013 9:54:00 am AEST" has to be the best Anonymous comment from this thread. Nice analogies.

  21. Good to remember here that it's the big business community who want open borders and diversity because the wealthy few make a fortune of property development, lowering wages, loans and assorted scams.

    Although the left talk up diversity, they're not the engine of it - the left can barely pass a new tax successfully.

  22. Living the middle class American dream wasn't enough for this guy. He wanted to be spiritually connected to his people and their Muslim cause. Well than do it in Chechnya and stay away from us.

    I don't know about you but I was sweating to hear where this guy was from and was incredibly relieved when it was revealed he was a Muslim. We all know he could have been a white guy. Liberalism so alienates us from our societies that you never know when someone without any internal restraints will go off. The US also feeds this by making guns so easy to obtain.

    Our societies clearly need a lot of work.