Come on, You Can Do Better than This

I love my readers, I really do, and I enjoy the comments on this blog, which are often more interesting than the stuff I write.

But recently, in response to posts about immigration, the comments have basically been "Dude, that just can't be true" (translation: "I don't want to believe it because it doesn't harmonize with my pre-existing convictions"). But saying it just won't make it so. I'm posting these articles and studies because I think they shed light on important issues, and because they're not the sort of thing that gets a lot of play in the mainstream press.

If you disagree with their conclusions, don't just complain, prove you're right. I'd be happy to see well-researched studies and good reporting that challenges the conclusions of the things I've posted. Bring it on!

11 thoughts on “Come on, You Can Do Better than This

  1. Trying to reason when they play dumb?

    Conspicuous acceptance of unchecked migration signals twice:

    I’m holier than thou, which is good, but not quite, necessary, but not sufficient
    I can afford it. I don’t compete with migrants for jobs, housing, education, and certainly not for welfare. I can protect my kids (if I have any). They won’t go to school there, with too many of them. I can pay the rent that keeps me safe, or else I have the social skills to live next to them, but not with them. They don’t know my name, I’m not their peer, they can and will ignore me. Freak accidents may happen, but I’m willing to pay the price. I feed the crocodile and trust it to eat me last, or not at all if I’m lucky. It won’t happen here. Not here. We’ll contain it, this isn’t France, our blacks won’t go ghetto as the Turks and Arabs did, this time we’ll watch out.

    What’s been signalled so far may or may not be true, no matter–simpler minded show-offs flaunt a Rolex, those who can’t afford it buy a fake. Does the trick if done right. Whether upper class, middle class, itself increasingly struggling, or else desperately keeping up appearances, I emulate the dominant ethos from on high. Punching down, yet faking humble piety. Locals suffer, middle class gets nervous–I know exactly, and that’s the point to make: I’m not with the losers, on principle. It’s not that I hate the proles,* or anyone, but there’s ambition, and I’m scared. Demeaning myself my peers** know they can count on me–works for the military, skulls & bones, the mafia, any group, works for me. I’m an onorevole, though I know I’m not. But you are, so I am too. I marvel at the emperor’s new clothes with my fellow lackeys.*** We share our ignominy, proudly, in public. It forges the trust among swine, the snitch among us would hurt himself first. Polite society’s present ideological superstructure makes me a progressive, so a bank shot is needed to pocket the ball. I don’t stomp a face, I have it stomped.

    * some resentment, and scorn, but else they’re not worth to work up a sweat. as a class their shelf life has expired, what could they ever do for me?

    ** also those to be. do you listen, peers? peers?

    *** GWW: Schranze. Isn’t that a beaut? The fecal trigraph, a Wanze, our Teutonic r as ligature, the better to throw up the insult.

    Like

  2. I would be very interested in seeing a poll taken among Germans of Turkish descent as to their views on increased immigration. Perhaps this group will have a realistic view of whether (and more crucially how) Germany can afford larger numbers of refugees and immigrants more generally. While we are well aware of what the German socioeconomic underclass thinks of that (thanks, Pegida!), I haven’t seen any questions posed to Turkish-based communities on this. Maybe it’s worth asking them.

    Like

  3. I think you’re arguing against a straw-man. Hardly anyone is advocating for unchecked mass migration to Europe, but we should help legitimate refugees (without forcing them to risk their life crossing the Mediterranean), regardless of their fate. It’s not a secret that there are big social issues in immigrant communities in Europe, but the question is what conclusions to draw from that and how to improve the situation.

    What do you propose exactly? That we refuse refugees from Muslim countries because they are “statistically more likely to commit crimes”? Also in 2015, correlation is not causation. The situation of refugees entering the country now and migrant workers coming in the 60’s/70’s (and their children) is so very different that I don’t find this kind of statistics helpful (I note that investigation of the correlation with “average penis length” was dropped during the review process).

    Also, are we going to advocate for mass immigration of Christians, now there’s statistical evidence that they have low crime rates?

    Maybe none of the above is what you propose, but then please let us know. So far we’ve just seen some statistics and the argument that “Danes are not intolerant haters”. I guess we can agree to that, but what is the argument exactly?

    Like

  4. Andrew, I think it would be a good idea to do some research on the likes of Fuerst and Boehler yourself. On Boehler’s blog I recomend the delightfull piece about “lynching”. On his Facebook page Fuerst complains about “herds of black people” moving into his neighbourhood and suggests that the “open border” advocates should be placed in “concentration camps”…also when you google him you will find some results have been removed under German law (wether this is good is a different discussion but it does tell you something…). Pointing out that the peer review process is flawed does not by default add value to the openpsych site or its content. And no, I can not point out errors in his aplication of statistics because I don’t know enough about that stuff. But I also know next to nothing about US law but googling you will quickly tell me that you are to be taken seriously on that subject. Not so with Fuerst.

    Like

  5. @Schorsch, who are these ‘Fuersts’ and ‘Boehlers’ of which you speak? I linked to a paper by Emil Kirkegard, who has an extensive and informative website. I have never heard of a Fuerst or Boehler. Perhaps you could provide links, but then again why would I want to read the ravings of random cranks, if that’s what they are?

    Like

  6. Schorsch, I’d also send “open border” advocates to “concentration camps”, though I’d toss some soap and toast over the fence every other week. Does that invalidate my claim that 2 + 2 = 4 in at least 99.9% of applicable cases with high confidence for the remaning 0.1?

    Earnestly now–I just had them paddled lightly on Sundays, on their sofas, but could you be bothered to provide first names, and links? I take it you mean John Fuerst, author at openpsych.net, but there are many on facebook and google isn’t helping, neither does facebook.

    Like

  7. @Thomas

    > What do you propose exactly? That we refuse refugees from Muslim
    > countries because they are “statistically more likely to commit crimes”?

    Wtf is wrong with that? Presently, Christians are being victimized by Muslims in the Muslim world, not vice versa. Yet our refugees from that region are mostly Muslim, hardly ever Christian. Is that a mandate from heaven or does it follow on general principles? Or is it a scheme to protect those Christians from further Muslim violence, as is the norm in our refugee centres? “Sorry folks, we’re full of Muslims, you better stay where you are.”

    > Also, are we going to advocate for mass immigration of Christians,
    > now there’s statistical evidence that they have low crime rates?

    What-the-fuckity-fuck would be wrong with that? Actually I don’t know it that’s true, as we hardly have any Christian refugees, but we know it to be true of Muslim immigrants and refugees alike. Does the UN Charta mandate a 50/50 Muslim/Christian ratio, else it’s unfair? The golden rule, the Sunday horoscope? Even if so, presently we have about 100% Muslims from that region, where’s the mandate for that?

    Allright, let’s try to be reasonable: there’re dozens or hundreds of millions of refugees, depending how you define refugee. Space for refugees in any given country is finite, right? Are you being reasonable so far? So why don’t we get to fill up the free slots with those refugees where there’s a dim hope that it will be in the best interest of the locals, or at least cause minimal damage?

    What you say? Western countries have forgone the right to pursue national interest? It’s implied but you can’t spell it out? But liberals still get to posture? I see, can’t argue with that.

    Like

  8. @Schorsch

    > On his Facebook page Fuerst complains about “herds
    > of black people” moving into his neighbourhood

    These “herds of black people”, they’re in France, together with herds of Muslims, if you will, together making up ~70% of inmates, France getting scolded for it by the UN. We all have been to France and got to know personally how vicious theses French bastards are, unlike us, so I wonder what’s up with John Fuerst’s neighbourhood. Have the French released a bunch recently, sending them over to his zip code on H-1B visas?

    Like

  9. Ok, apology time: You did not mention them, I stumbled on them when I looked at Kirkegaard and Openpsych and got things mixed up. I sincerely apologize for putting stuff in your mouth. There is a “but” though. It is a very small step from Kierkegar to Fuerst.Their papers are to be found on Openpsych and it turns out that Kierkegard presented a paper together with Fuerst and helped him with his “the nature of race”. And I stand by what I said that Fuerst is not a member of the scientific community if that means anything. If Kierkegard co-authors “papers” with him that makes him suspicious in to my mind. Also from his personal page I see that Kierkegard is an undergraduate in linguistics (not a bad thing per se). The whole “race” thing seems to me to be more of a hobby of his. Who knows, maybe theirs is a sound scientific endeavour but I remain sceptical….
    @Möhling: go away you are ruining Andrew’s blog for me. Your writing gives me a headache unless you are angry that is – then you write with surprising clarity

    Like

  10. well, that was sobering. either it’s sowing fear, uncertainty, and doubt,* or else, at the other end of the intellectual spectrum, outright smear, though schorschi fumbles and stumbles even at that. unbelievably, he seems to conceive of himself as a honest and well meaning soul. excellent mind control. anyway, thanks folks. I remember arguments over here to have been at least a little more engaging ten years ago, but then, big brother is way bigger nowadays.

    Solzhenitsyn once told about a party prep talk held in Russia’s stalinist 40ies, some idiot not getting the memo about when to stop clapping when comrade Stalin had been praised by a speaker.** so he went on and on, forcing all others to do that, too. soon everybody realised that things where getting out of control, each knowing that each other knew that, too, so nobody did dare to be the first to stop clapping, though arms began to hurt badly. at long last the comrade himself who had praised Stalin, standing, applauding his own words as was customary, did dare to do it–in seconds the room was eerily quite. A couple of days afterwards he was tried and shot. what’s bad is that the clapping shysters and toadies now and then are being entirely rational, of sorts.

    * thanks junger gott. You can do better, I noticed, but only if nothing is at stake. christ, you’re using a nick, so you might want to stop shitting your pants

    ** there where informal procedures about these things, you where supposed to be in the know without being told

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s