Complete Versus Incomplete Religions

In continuing with yesterday's post, I thought I would make a couple points of comparison/contrasts within the Abrahamic religions which might further drive the point home.

In particular, one of the things which really stand out when comparing Christianity, Judaism*, and Islam is that the last two are both "big angry god" religions. Both religions have a clearly defined "in-group" and "out-group" boundary, with little or no moral duty owed to outsiders. Both have historically engaged in what can be legitimately called genocide, in which these actions were not just allowed, but altogether commended as righteous.

Neither Judaism or Islam are religions which require that its members sacrifice their interest for the well-being of outsiders, broadly speaking. Quite the opposite, sacrificing the good (the insiders and their interest) for the evil (who just so happen to be the outsiders) is seen as sin altogether.

Christianity on the other hand does, to be fair, have some awareness of "in-group" and "out-group", but is generally universalist in applying values. The New Testament is quite mild reading compared to either the Old Testament or the Koran. The basic thrust of Christianity (at least with regarding to dealing with others) seems to be "be nice to people". As such, it is incredibly venerable to exploitation of altruism.

Many have noted that Islam (and if one wishes to be fair, at least historic Judaism) does not seem to accommodate itself well to the separation of church and state. I would argue that both these religions are "complete" social organizing systems, in that they are stable with regard to the exploitation of altruism. Christianity, on the other hand, is incomplete in that it needs a "hard shell" like a turtle to deal with the broader world, since always "be[ing] nice to people" is generally a good strategy for getting one's DNA taken out of the gene pool early. It seems that for much of the post-Roman period, chivalry and the balance of power between the Catholic Church and the feudal nobility “completed” the system, in that it provided an external, outwardly-looking system which was not for the most part susceptible to exploitation though altruism. Now, with the system of nobility replaced by absolute equality and democracy, society seems to be slipping back to the proto-communism/communalism of early Christianity, where property was held in common, etc.

* Regarding Judaism, I realize that it is not monolithic at this point, and one may argue about its definition. Today’s Judaism, as I understand it, often includes elements of witchcraft/occult which obviously differentiate it from the Old Testament definition. Still, I think that the Old Testament provides the best definition since a) it is the original and b) people in exile or who are small in number will not necessarily express their religion to its full extend since they depend on good relations with their neighbors. If there were 300 million Jews instead of Arab Muslims, would Judaism (re)turn to a more violent nature? In this case, my guess is that the Semitic nature (i.e. tribal, long in holding grudges, etc) has a fundamentally effect on shaping the implementation of a religion. Equally so, the natural tendency of people from Northern Europe towards altruism has probably exaggerated some elements of Christianity (for example, is Scandinavia really that far from communalism?).

Our Western Theocracy

Perhaps the greatest danger to Western civilization today is the mistaken assumption that we have secular governments.

The problem is that we have mistaken form for function. Yes, the ADL may crucify any who dare use (Christian) religious symbols in a governmental setting, but they fully expect one to be Christ-like while being nailed down. This is the paradox. The problem here, you see, is one of values, not form.

Since at least the "Christian Socialist" movement of the 1800's, with the spread of democracy there has been an obliteration of the separation between the VALUES of "the people" (I prefer to not say "the state"), the values of power and the values of the INDIVIDUAL, the values of weakness. I mean no dishonor to Christianity, but am merely making a fair and honest appraisement when I say that it is an "ideology of weakness"; it says so itself.

Christianity is not a sufficient basis for organizing a civilization politically. Even its beginnings depended on the strong Roman state to provide order and security. "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's" seems to have been forgotten. This, however, is not a question of theology, but rather ideology.

When we speak of separation of church and state, we must focus on values. Use of religious symbols in the public square are perfectly fine, perhaps even desirable, in reflecting the character of the people. However these symbols are only form. We must, absolutely must, return to a truly "secular" system of government VALUES in which "sympathy" is not manipulated or praised, where unselfishness is not unduly rewarded, where weakness and victimhood is not exalted as priesthood, where absolute equality is not seen as natural or necessarily even desirable, where decisions are made based on rational self-interest, not altruistic zeal or self-denial. We must, in other words, replace the "ideology of weakness" with an "ideology of strength".

The self-sacrifice, the "Will to the DENIAL of life" as Nietzsche called it, that we are seeing in Western Civilization is not a sign that the system is broken; quite the opposite, it is merely the destination which our values have brought us to.

America--Getting Better all the Time

Here is an interesting story:

Toll collectors at San Francisco's landmark Golden Gate Bridge have been issued body armor to guard against armed bandits.

"We did a review of safety procedures and added this tool to the toll box for collectors," bridge authority spokeswoman Mary Currie said Tuesday. "This is really the right thing to do."

The "bullet resistant" protective vests have been bought for all 42 toll collectors at a total cost of 21,000 dollars, Currie said.

Fjordman, Islam and Europe

Right now I am quite busy, as one might be able to tell from my lack of posting; however Fjordman is down to his last week of blogging, so go check him out and add your input to his posts about Islam and Europe.

Prepared for Slavery

I found this bit by Nietzsche to be very interesting.

Whether we call it “civilization,” or “humanising,” or "progress,” which now distinguishes the European, whether we call it simply, without praise or blame, by the political formula the DEMOCRATIC movement in Europe—behind all the moral and political foregrounds pointed to by such formulas, an immense PHYSIOLOGICAL PROCESS goes on, which is ever extending the process of the assimilation of Europeans, their increasing detachment from the conditions under which, climatically and hereditarily, united races originate, their increasing independence of every definite milieu, that for centuries would fain inscribe itself with equal demands on soul and body,—that is to say, the slow emergence of an essentially SUPER-NATIONAL and nomadic species of man, who possesses, physiologically speaking, a maximum of the art and power of adaptation as his typical distinction. This process of the EVOLVING EUROPEAN, which can be retarded in its TEMPO by great relapses, but will perhaps just gain and grow thereby in vehemence and depth—the still-raging storm and stress of "national sentiment” pertains to it, and also the anarchism which is appearing at present—this process will probably arrive at results on which its naive propagators and panegyrists, the apostles of “modern ideas,” would least care to reckon. The same new conditions under which on an average a levelling and mediocrising of man will take place—a useful, industrious, variously serviceable, and clever gregarious man—are in the highest degree suitable to give rise to exceptional men of the most dangerous and attractive qualities. For, while the capacity for adaptation, which is every day trying changing conditions, and begins a new work with every generation, almost with every decade, makes the POWERFULNESS of the type impossible; while the collective impression of such future Europeans will probably be that of numerous, talkative, weak-willed, and very handy workmen who REQUIRE a master, a commander, as they require their daily bread; while, therefore, the democratising of Europe will tend to the production of a type prepared for SLAVERY in the most subtle sense of the term: the STRONG man will necessarily in individual and exceptional cases, become stronger and richer than he has perhaps ever been before—owing to the unprejudicedness of his schooling, owing to the immense variety of practice, art, and disguise. I meant to say that the democratising of Europe is at the same time an involuntary arrangement for the rearing of TYRANTS—taking the word in all its meanings, even in its most spiritual sense.

The following is quite profound; I would like to comment more on it when I get more time, but for now I believe that what he said is so obvious as to not require any commentary.

To refrain mutually from injury, from violence, from exploitation, and put one’s will on a par with that of others: this may result in a certain rough sense in good conduct among individuals when the necessary conditions are given (namely, the actual similarity of the individuals in amount of force and degree of worth, and their co-relation within one organization). As soon, however, as one wished to take this principle more generally, and if possible even as the FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF SOCIETY, it would immediately disclose what it really is—namely, a Will to the DENIAL of life, a principle of dissolution and decay. Here one must think profoundly to the very basis and resist all sentimental weakness: life itself is ESSENTIALLY appropriation, injury, conquest of the strange and weak, suppression, severity, obtrusion of peculiar forms, incorporation, and at the least, putting it mildest, exploitation;—but why should one for ever use precisely these words on which for ages a disparaging purpose has been stamped? Even the organization within which, as was previously supposed, the individuals treat each other as equal—it takes place in every healthy aristocracy—must itself, if it be a living and not a dying organization, do all that towards other bodies, which the individuals within it refrain from doing to each other it will have to be the incarnated Will to Power, it will endeavour to grow, to gain ground, attract to itself and acquire ascendancy— not owing to any morality or immorality, but because it LIVES, and because life IS precisely Will to Power. On no point, however, is the ordinary consciousness of Europeans more unwilling to be corrected than on this matter, people now rave everywhere, even under the guise of science, about coming conditions of society in which “the exploiting character” is to be absent—that sounds to my ears as if they promised to invent a mode of life which should refrain from all organic functions. "Exploitation” does not belong to a depraved, or imperfect and primitive society it belongs to the nature of the living being as a primary organic function, it is a consequence of the intrinsic Will to Power, which is precisely the Will to Life—Granting that as a theory this is a novelty—as a reality it is the FUNDAMENTAL FACT of all history let us be so far honest towards ourselves!

In a tour through the many finer and coarser moralities which have hitherto prevailed or still prevail on the earth, I found certain traits recurring regularly together, and connected with one another, until finally two primary types revealed themselves to me, and a radical distinction was brought to light. There is MASTER-MORALITY and SLAVE-MORALITY,—I would at once add, however, that in all higher and mixed civilizations, there are also attempts at the reconciliation of the two moralities, but one finds still oftener the confusion and mutual misunderstanding of them, indeed sometimes their close juxtaposition—even in the same man, within one soul. The distinctions of moral values have either originated in a ruling caste, pleasantly conscious of being different from the ruled—or among the ruled class, the slaves and dependents of all sorts. In the first case, when it is the rulers who determine the conception “good,” it is the exalted, proud disposition which is regarded as the distinguishing feature, and that which determines the order of rank. The noble type of man separates from himself the beings in whom the opposite of this exalted, proud disposition displays itself he despises them. Let it at once be noted that in this first kind of morality the antithesis “good" and “bad” means practically the same as “noble” and "despicable”,—the antithesis “good” and “EVIL” is of a different origin. The cowardly, the timid, the insignificant, and those thinking merely of narrow utility are despised; moreover, also, the distrustful, with their constrained glances, the self- abasing, the dog-like kind of men who let themselves be abused, the mendicant flatterers, and above all the liars:—it is a fundamental belief of all aristocrats that the common people are untruthful. “We truthful ones"—the nobility in ancient Greece called themselves. It is obvious that everywhere the designations of moral value were at first applied to MEN; and were only derivatively and at a later period applied to ACTIONS; it is a gross mistake, therefore, when historians of morals start with questions like, “Why have sympathetic actions been praised?” The noble type of man regards HIMSELF as a determiner of values; he does not require to be approved of; he passes the judgment: “What is injurious to me is injurious in itself;” he knows that it is he himself only who confers honour on things; he is a CREATOR OF VALUES. He honours whatever he recognizes in himself: such morality equals self-glorification. In the foreground there is the feeling of plenitude, of power, which seeks to overflow, the happiness of high tension, the consciousness of a wealth which would fain give and bestow:—the noble man also helps the unfortunate, but not—or scarcely—out of pity, but rather from an impulse generated by the super-abundance of power. The noble man honours in himself the powerful one, him also who has power over himself, who knows how to speak and how to keep silence, who takes pleasure in subjecting himself to severity and hardness, and has reverence for all that is severe and hard. “Wotan placed a hard heart in my breast,” says an old Scandinavian Saga: it is thus rightly expressed from the soul of a proud Viking. Such a type of man is even proud of not being made for sympathy; the hero of the Saga therefore adds warningly: “He who has not a hard heart when young, will never have one.” The noble and brave who think thus are the furthest removed from the morality which sees precisely in sympathy, or in acting for the good of others, or in DESINTERESSEMENT, the characteristic of the moral; faith in oneself, pride in oneself, a radical enmity and irony towards "selflessness,” belong as definitely to noble morality, as do a careless scorn and precaution in presence of sympathy and the "warm heart."—It is the powerful who KNOW how to honour, it is their art, their domain for invention. The profound reverence for age and for tradition—all law rests on this double reverence,— the belief and prejudice in favour of ancestors and unfavourable to newcomers, is typical in the morality of the powerful; and if, reversely, men of “modern ideas” believe almost instinctively in "progress” and the “future,” and are more and more lacking in respect for old age, the ignoble origin of these “ideas” has complacently betrayed itself thereby. A morality of the ruling class, however, is more especially foreign and irritating to present-day taste in the sternness of its principle that one has duties only to one’s equals; that one may act towards beings of a lower rank, towards all that is foreign, just as seems good to one, or “as the heart desires,” and in any case “beyond good and evil”: it is here that sympathy and similar sentiments can have a place. The ability and obligation to exercise prolonged gratitude and prolonged revenge—both only within the circle of equals,— artfulness in retaliation, RAFFINEMENT of the idea in friendship, a certain necessity to have enemies (as outlets for the emotions of envy, quarrelsomeness, arrogance—in fact, in order to be a good FRIEND): all these are typical characteristics of the noble morality, which, as has been pointed out, is not the morality of "modern ideas,” and is therefore at present difficult to realize, and also to unearth and disclose.—It is otherwise with the second type of morality, SLAVE-MORALITY. Supposing that the abused, the oppressed, the suffering, the unemancipated, the weary, and those uncertain of themselves should moralize, what will be the common element in their moral estimates? Probably a pessimistic suspicion with regard to the entire situation of man will find expression, perhaps a condemnation of man, together with his situation. The slave has an unfavourable eye for the virtues of the powerful; he has a skepticism and distrust, a REFINEMENT of distrust of everything “good” that is there honoured—he would fain persuade himself that the very happiness there is not genuine. On the other hand, THOSE qualities which serve to alleviate the existence of sufferers are brought into prominence and flooded with light; it is here that sympathy, the kind, helping hand, the warm heart, patience, diligence, humility, and friendliness attain to honour; for here these are the most useful qualities, and almost the only means of supporting the burden of existence. Slave-morality is essentially the morality of utility. Here is the seat of the origin of the famous antithesis “good” and “evil”:—power and dangerousness are assumed to reside in the evil, a certain dreadfulness, subtlety, and strength, which do not admit of being despised. According to slave-morality, therefore, the “evil” man arouses fear; according to master-morality, it is precisely the “good” man who arouses fear and seeks to arouse it, while the bad man is regarded as the despicable being. The contrast attains its maximum when, in accordance with the logical consequences of slave-morality, a shade of depreciation—it may be slight and well-intentioned—at last attaches itself to the “good” man of this morality; because, according to the servile mode of thought, the good man must in any case be the SAFE man: he is good-natured, easily deceived, perhaps a little stupid, un bonhomme. Everywhere that slave- morality gains the ascendancy, language shows a tendency to approximate the significations of the words “good” and “stupid."- -A last fundamental difference: the desire for FREEDOM, the instinct for happiness and the refinements of the feeling of liberty belong as necessarily to slave-morals and morality, as artifice and enthusiasm in reverence and devotion are the regular symptoms of an aristocratic mode of thinking and estimating.— Hence we can understand without further detail why love AS A PASSION—it is our European specialty—must absolutely be of noble origin; as is well known, its invention is due to the Provencal poet-cavaliers, those brilliant, ingenious men of the "gai saber,” to whom Europe owes so much, and almost owes itself.

Liberate France

At No Pasaran, there is a very interesting post which is worth checking out here regarding the situation in France. One may question the legitimacy of the email that the post translates, but it is certainly worth keeping an eye on.

Here is part:

I received a telephone call this evening telling me very clearly that me or my family would not be protected if our identities had been suddenly revealed. The personal information communicated to me in detail by an unexpected "interlocutor", which makes me believe the threat to be authentic. I drew the conclusion that it was a "final warning."
I was also told that as long as I continue my "activities," I would not be able to find a job I have a wife and two children, and I can’t take that kind of financial or personal risk. I have to consider the well being of my family.

Our enemies are sufficiently powerful to dominate the media, to prevent the publication of book, or to censure people by other means, including social elimination, all within the powers of the State of Emergency. I have two girls. It’s clear that I can’t risk their well being. The MEDEF [association of businesses], the trade unions, and the elites all play into this. I don’t have any illusions about my fate in France and I need to work to sustain my family.

The Bi-Stable West

I posted the following in reply to Bjørn Stærk over at Fjordman's blog. I thought I would re-post here as I have not written much lately being how the semester is nearing the end. I recommend you go read Fjordman's post and the comments to get the context of the following.

---

Fjordman is largely just linearly extrapolating the situation out, you are correct about that. He is not assuming any real feedback in which the majority or politicians anticipate the situation and react to avoid the worst case scenario. Humans are good at trying to predict or anticipate the future so that they can plan and avoid bad scenarios. This means that linear extrapolations rarely come true when they are undesirable, since most people can figure it out before hand and react. However this mechanism requires that people actually look ahead and not be in denial. There is however legitimate concern about this, since we have seen it before as in the case leading up to WWII when many people, especially in countries which had significant resources to deal with the problem, preferred instead to go for "peace at any price".

In other words, there is the paradox that the future is rarely as bad as we imagine it, but only because we imagine it (I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out why the left prefers to discourage thinking about the future or consequences, and likes to demonize jeremiads). When people start rationalizing that "it will all work out in the end" so to speak, because somebody else will worry about it, it is free-riding (this is basically what the peacenik crowd does). When enough people start to have that kind of attitude, or are in just plain denial, then the mechanism fails completely.

In any case, as I noted, humans are good at anticipating and prediction, despite complexity and emergent behavior. Why is this? Well one reason is that there are strategies for dealing with uncertainty and complexity, such as encapselment. Without the ability to organize, simplify, and encapsule, we would not have the ability to create either advanced societies or complex physical systems. That these exist is a self-evident rebuttal. The fact is that as important as complexity theory is, it is no reason for throwing up one's hands.

One way of thinking into the future is with contingency planning, where one thinks about things that might happens, and then develops different solutions/plans/models based on these different cases and assumptions. For example, in the cases of the large Muslim population in Scandinavia (note I am not talking about all of Europe or the world -- encapsulement!) there are some key factors which may or may not change:

- demographics
- assimilation or lack there of and value differences
- average IQ and education level
- trend towards radicalization
- public awareness or apathy

Depending on how these factors trend in the next 10-20 years, we could be looking at very different scenarios. For example, good assimilation, away from radicalism, poor education, and general public apathy may result in a scenario where there is some public grumbling about the immigrant's social and economic contributions, a general poor economy as average incomes drop, etc, but no fundamental drivers for real social unrest.

However not all of these factors are equally likely, or change on the same time scale. We have fairly good estimations on the demographics I think. IQ and education are not likely to make huge changes between a second and third generation of immigrants. Public awareness is probably by far the most volatile. That leaves the question of assimilation and radicalization which both seem to be trending the wrong way to a serious degree. Do you have any reason to believe this is going to change? Personally I doubt that they will.

When given a certain set of these fundamental conditions or assumptions as above, we can apply a few simple rules of self-interest and generally come up with a fairly sound result. This is, after all, fundamentally what economics does, except economics is primarily restricted to the bounded case where power is money, not where power is power, be it resource control, violence, state coercion, etc.

A few simple rules that I try to go by are that 1) groups tend to follow their own interest over the long term 2) different groups tend to have different and conflicting interests 3) resource scarcity tends to create or increase group cohesion and clashes (for example when power comes up for grab in cases of demographic or majority inversion).

You seem to be implicitly doing this to some degree when you said:

I agree that there will be some sort of conflict between European values and Islamic values, and that Islamist terrorism will play a part in our future. That's basically just acknowledging the trends we see today, no real predictions are involved. But the outcome or size or form of that conflict is unknown. It's simply beyond us, and the least we should expect from anyone making such predictions is that they base them on some limited understanding of social dynamics.

This brings us back to the fact that humans spend quite a lot of their time and effort on reducing uncertainty in their environment. The fact that we can't passively predict the future does not mean that we can't devise strategies (such as Steve Sailers buyout plan) which do significantly reduce our potential risk exposure.

There is another side to this. You are right about not being able to fully know what size or form the conflict might take. But society and particularly liberal democracy is only so stable. At some point, at some level of uncertainty, it will essentially either collapse or cease to function in any meaningful way. When that happens there is a new race to the bottom, an attempt at finding a new stable strategy/order, a power equilibrium, etc.

Thus there is not likely to be a great deal of anything in the middle for any length of time. The linear region, where things are "a little broke", where there is some terrorism, etc, can only last so long. Our developed societies and complex orders can't handle that much uncertainty for too long, and more to the point, neither can most people handle the sociological strain of too much uncertainty. Our desire to create order, to reduce uncertainty kicks in invariably. Now what form this might take, either in perhaps surrender or something else, may be unknown. But fundamentally, Western civilization at this point is bi-stable. There is only so much uncertainty and internal disruption that our societies can take before something breaks.

Predictive Failure

One of the interesting things about the situation in France right now is that, as best I can tell, nobody in the neocon camp seems to be suggesting solving the problem by bring democracy to the French Muslims. I guess a lack of democracy causes car bombs, but car burning is somehow different.

Theodore Roosevelt

The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any- price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.

Holding the Gates

Steve Sailer notes that whites are being disproportionally killed in the current war. Perhaps the only worse situation would be having the military be disproportionally controlled by minority-underclass members in the forward fighting roles.

We do face the problem that many of the whites which join the military are fighting for a country has largely stopped looking out for them and their interests in the political arena. In fact, there is almost the sense that we have an army of slaves, in that white men have taken on almost a kind of second-class citizenship, all but barred from expressing their group interests or identity. However they keep joining, and they must keep joining, because if they don't, we may find the billion dollar weapons our tax dollars have paid for are manned by a group of people with very different interests and outlooks than ours, and who can not be trusted to respect our rights.

Four Points

When debating with those who are advocating, or at least apologizing for, some form of multi-culturalism or assimilation/open border program, here are what to me seems to be four key weaknesses which can be exploited. I don't pretend to believe that this will have any effect on the true believers, but among those who are well meaning but confused individuals, perhaps people one knows or meets every day, these points might be useful in causing them to question their current view.

Risk - As mentioned in the previous post, how much risk one is willing to assume is largely going to determine the feasible solution. Force people to explicitly state the risk they are comfortable with. This is a no-brainer really, given the massive danger we face, especially if you have some solid statistical facts or arguments which expose the risks to the otherwise unaware.

Unstated Assumptions - There are a lot of unstated assumptions that are quite crazy when they are exposed. For example, in the assimilation argument, there is the assumption that people either want to assimilate or they can be forced to assimilate. But how can we really "force" people to assimilate, at least in a free country? Re-education camps? Lynch mobs? Basically we have to assume that people either want to assimilate, or they will do so with a very low level of coercion. Is this assumption correct? Likely?

Another unstated assumption is what constitutes "assimilation". I think that Clarence Thomas is an assimilated black man. I doubt that there are many underclass members would fit this definition however. If the definition of assimilation is cast too wide, the concept is tautological. If too narrow, it is hopeless. Force people to express what they believe assimilation is.

Empiricism - Where is the proof? For example, is there one country south of the border that we would like to emulate? If not, then why assume that the presence of a massive Latino subpopulation in the US will not introduce many of these undesirable traits? Where have we seen robust proof that highly diverse countries are stable and desirable over the long term? Where has there ever been a black or Mestizo county with a strong, stable middle class? Why, other than blind faith (or ignorance) or ideological fanaticism should we believe that the West can beat history now?

Full Ethical Costs - This is a big one. Most discussions about minorities today focuses strictly on the effects, good or bad, on and among minorities; there is no attempt to express the costs to the majority population. While this may seem obvious to those of us who focus on this issue and are keenly aware of the broader costs of social do-good programs, it may not be fully obvious to others. Those that feel they are being altruistic by allowing illegal peasants to come here to work need to be forced to face the fact that they are also putting Americans out of jobs, destroying neighborhoods and communities, bankrupting hospitals, ransacking schools, etc.

Risk Aversion and Strategy

One point about dealing with the Third World underclass in the West generally, be it Muslims in Europe or illegals et al in the US, is that how one proposes to deal with the problem is largely going to be based on how much risk one is willing to assume, even though this is rarely stated as such.

In reality, we fact a continuum of solutions. At one extreme is the "assimilation/open borders" proposition, which is some combination of hoping for the best and just not caring. Of course, this is something of a one shot deal, since after some point, there is not going to be much turning back. On the other extreme, if one wishes to absolutely minimize risk, there is the option of rounding up all groups with questionable loyalties/ties/contributions to the West and expunging them. In the middle, there is a range of solutions: Steve Sailers "buyout" proposal, the hope that if immigration is stopped, those already in the West can be assimilated, etc.

I think that it might be prudent if everyone on this issue would be more explicit about risks. If the multi-cultural Republicans wish to promote their "Hail Mary pass" solutions to the West's Third World underclass problem, they need to be forced to admit the extremely high risk to the West's values, prosperity, safety, and ultimately its continued existence.

More broadly, I think that it is key to refocus the issue (as much as possible) on the question of how much risk one is willing to assume. Once a person is clear about their risk threshold, the feasible solutions will fall into place. On the other hand, the current focus on which solutions (usually limited to picking either multi-culturalism or assimilation) are "moral", nice, politically correct, or polite is just designed to enforce artificial constraints on the solution space and manipulate individuals into not considering their true interests.

How about a Constitutional Republic Party?

Katie's Dad from the excellent blog American Kernel, writes in the comments bellow:

France, from what I understand, is a cleft society (Huntington) with two splits. America's leaders have put us on course to not have two but at least three minority pluralities in less than 50 years.

I foresee a society split three ways that cannot be managed by the two current political parties. We need to start laying the foundation of new a conservative party, primarly made up of white Americans, and figure out what it needs to stand for in order to marginalize the other two blocs.

It is very likely that neither major party that runs the show today will exist in 20, 30 or 40 years. There isn't a single person in this nation's leadership that has any strong intellectually moral sense to read the freaking tea leaves.

There is one way that a (at least temporary) third party might be able to emerge, if conservatives could show enough solidarity and discipline to execute the plan.

Let's say that we can get together 10-20% of the voting public, who are both conservative and politically informed/active. Obviously, there is little that they can do to actually win any election in a three way race, except in rare instances. However, this new party, let's call it the "Constitutional Republic Party", would be able to destroy any chance of Republican victory anywhere save for the most lopsided, gerrymandered districts.

They say that in negotiations the party with the least to loose is the one with the most leverage. The explicit goal of the CRP would be put a viable candidate into any election with a chance that the Republican could win, and that all CRP supporters would vote for the CRP candidate with the understanding that the candidate would remain running to scuttle the Republican candidate unless the GOP entered pre-election negotiations with the CRP.

The demands from the GOP would be few and simple, but firm, such as stopping illegal immigration (they would be, at least initially, essentially populist). In exchange for most of the CRP candidates pulling out before the election, the GOP would also agree to pull out say 5-15% of it's candidates in races where CRP candidates could get a good shot at a 2 way race against liberal democrats. There would be the understanding that the CRP would generally "form a majority" with the GOP like in the parliamentary system, as long as GOP candidates did not renege on their previous agreements.

Of course, this is largely what we have right now, except that it is not explicit and it is not working. The real conservative wing of the Republican party does from time to time essentially avoid going to the polls. It forms an internal interest group in the party which requires attention and the occasional reward. The Republicans know that without the conservative wing of the party, they have no hope of majority status. But right now everything is so far out of wack that the current mechanism is not working. There does, in my view, need to be much more serious, radical changes and goals set, and this is going to be much easier to do with a small external party than inside a larger, inert one. Right now, many of the things that need to be said by true political leaders can't be said and remain a "respectable" member of the Republican party. But in the long term, if these things are said and the internal contradictions of both parties are laid open, the Republican party (or at least the multi-cultural wing) will collapse under its own weight.

Buyout Price

Steve Sailer has an excellent piece on VDare which I hope everyone has read. I have been quite busy with school, so I have not had much to add to this discussion these last few days (see ParaPundit for more), however I just thought I would throw this in.

Steve proposes a buyout price of $25,000 as a starting figure. While I have no idea what the total costs of the French underclass is, La Griffe du Lion however suggests that the price we pay in redistribution to our blacks and Hispanics is a considerable sum:

...La Griffe du Lion models the effect of affirmative action on the income of whites, blacks and Hispanics. It is shown that on average a black worker between the ages of 25 and 64 earns an extra $9,400 a year because of affirmative action. Hispanics also benefit to the tune of almost $4,000 a year. However, being a zero-sum game, white workers pay an average of about $1,900 annually to foot the bill.

Thus, if we add up the cost over those 39 working years, the total comes to $366,600 for blacks, and $156,000 for Hispanics. If we assume that the cost of the French North African underclass falls between these two extremes, let's say at $250,000, this is going to be an order of magnitude higher than the original suggested. Of course, it would be best to pay the lowest price possible. However the point is that the French could probably go much higher and still benefit from the transaction.

Assimilation, a False Hope

Looking at the Paris, or at this point really the French, riots, many people are making the automatic response of suggesting that there must be greater efforts to assimilate the immigrant underclass. This poises an interesting and troubling problem; I won't say that it is a paradox or contradiction, but it is something that most people either have not, or don't wish to, think about.

Specifically, what we are seeing right now is a struggle for self-determination. The French want to be French, and the Muslims want to be Muslims, but they can't be equally free in the same territory given the difference in worldviews. Naturally the French expect the Muslims to assimilate, and thus solve the problem. The Muslims may think the same thing, that the French should just convert to Islam and save them a lot of work.

In 50 years or so, many have estimated that the Muslim population will form the majority in France. Once 50% + 1 is reached though, which pole is then defined as the one that people should assimilate to?

It would seem that once a Muslim majority is reached in France or any other country, the deeply morally-relativistic idea of "assimilation" will then require that the former majority assimilate to the customs of the new majority, will it not? The assimilation argument fails to properly factor in any true sense of patriotism, love of place, kin, etc. As such, it is nothing but a rationalization for the larger group to demand the smaller group concede, until power changes hands at least.

Assimilation cannot, and will not, preserve the West, because it is a morally bankrupt argument.

Paris Riots

The ongoing riots in Paris are now in their 7th or 8th night it seems. This was all rather predictable of course. What we are seeing right now is the often repeated case of underclass people(s) in Western countries venting their anger and frustration; they are humiliated at our success and their failure, and they want what we have, even if they don't have any idea of how to get it on their own. More to the point, they want us to give them something, but they don't even know what it is. Money? Of course, and lots of it. But now they say they want "respect", whatever that is supposed to mean. And they will want something new tomorrow, of course.

One of the cruel aspects of multi-culturalism is the way that it takes low-functioning Third-Worlders and puts them next to people in developed, highly complex and ordered Western countries. This invariably shames them, showing them what they don't have, and never can be. Of course there are exceptions, individuals who rise above the challenges and do well, but this only adds to the immigrant underclass's self-serving rationalizations by "proving" that they are equally capable and thus only held back by racism, discrimination, the government, the locals, or whatever.

My guess is that the situation in Paris will get a little worse, then die out or be put down, for now at least. While the situation is bad, it is not quite as apocalyptic as some might suggest. What everyone should be watching for is the next big one. Regardless of if France shows strength or weakness, it will still draw Islamic radicals. If Muslims feel "humiliated" (and they always do) then fighters must avenge the dishonor. If France shows weakness, then Allah has blessed their efforts, and they must further pound the infidels. Either way, these people and others are going to regroup and try to inflict real, serious damage next time.

Right now, the thugs are just that: low IQ thugs running around breaking things. But in the future, look for foreign fighters and terrorists to come to the region, terrorist cells to organize, weapons to be brought in, bomb labs set up. The most important thing right now for the Islamists/thugs/terrorists is to get a base of operation, some place where they have control or at least restrict the police from entering.